Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #638126 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-06-28 20:25 -0700 |
| Last post | 2017-07-09 12:20 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 117 — 12 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Galaxy and Black Holes Relate "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-06-28 20:25 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-06-28 22:19 -0700
Galaxy and Black Holes Relate HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-06-29 05:44 -0700
Galaxy and Black Holes Relate Graveyard Vandal <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-06-29 06:08 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2017-06-29 15:24 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-06-30 02:31 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-06-30 02:37 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-30 11:36 +0000
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-06-30 05:15 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-30 17:50 +0000
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-06-30 15:12 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-01 04:14 +0000
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2017-07-01 01:46 -0400
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-07-03 06:10 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-03 11:19 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 15:35 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-03 11:27 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-03 19:13 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-07-04 03:33 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-04 07:39 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-07-04 10:23 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-04 11:07 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-05 02:01 +0000
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-05 01:58 +0000
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-04 20:38 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-05 03:54 +0000
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-04 22:40 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 02:34 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-05 13:05 +0000
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 06:32 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 07:00 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 07:20 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-05 15:09 +0000
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 12:30 -0500
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 16:05 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 08:03 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-05 17:27 +0000
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 12:32 -0500
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 12:29 -0500
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 12:02 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 12:13 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 14:36 -0500
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 16:17 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 14:24 -0500
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 12:27 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 15:58 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 09:34 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-07-05 13:06 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 12:20 -0500
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 11:15 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-05 18:31 +0000
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 13:38 -0500
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 14:36 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-07-05 15:21 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 16:14 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-06 09:59 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-06 20:33 +0000
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-07 20:35 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-08 07:17 +0000
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-08 06:16 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-09 01:49 +0000
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-08 18:52 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-09 04:18 +0000
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-09 05:20 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-09 12:56 +0000
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-09 06:32 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-09 17:19 +0000
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-09 10:27 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-07-10 09:57 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2017-07-08 20:14 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-08 20:22 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-07-09 07:06 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-09 07:19 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-09 07:27 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-09 17:21 +0000
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-09 10:37 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-10 02:06 +0000
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-07-09 08:03 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-10 18:15 -0400
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-09 04:15 +0000
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2017-07-09 12:58 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-07-09 18:26 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-10 01:53 +0000
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2017-07-09 19:34 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2017-07-12 13:45 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-07-10 09:53 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-07-08 06:18 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-08 12:04 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-08 18:49 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-09 01:58 +0000
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-08 19:12 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-08 19:38 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-09 04:04 +0000
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-07-10 09:49 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-07-07 08:27 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-07-07 10:33 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-07-07 10:47 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-07-10 07:47 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-10 08:01 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-07-10 10:15 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-10 11:48 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-07-11 14:30 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-11 18:18 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 15:48 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 15:47 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 15:46 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-06-30 06:34 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2017-07-05 15:09 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-07-06 15:11 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-07-06 15:22 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-07-09 10:33 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-07-09 10:46 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-07-09 11:14 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-07-09 13:33 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-07-09 11:37 -0700
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-10 18:19 -0400
Re: Galaxy and Black Holes Relate john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-09 12:20 -0700
Page 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 Next page →
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-09 12:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <oju1ls$2rd$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #639543 |
On 7/8/2017 9:15 PM, Michael Moroney wrote: > "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> writes: > >> Can't two galaxies merge together? Even if mostly empty, if their >> central black holes get too close, they can eventually merge together? > > Sure. They would transfer momentum to each other which slows them down > I believe. If slowed enough, they could make another pass slowing more > then they soon merge. Thank you. The other passed should get them deeper and deeper into the attractors, and they go into a sort of "locked" in fate state? Fwiw, here is a crappy little animation I made for two simulated "super-attracted" galaxies: https://youtu.be/poXeq5V0dso I used fractals and field lines to simulate this crude thing. The animation goes back and forth in time. Two galaxies get too close, and once that point happens, its too late. They will eventually start to orbit each over time. Before they finally merge, they might go into a sort of "orgasm" mode and emit hyper large shock waves that permeate space. New hyper large stars, are being born during this dance, providing food for smaller, starving black holes that were previously feeding off some of the dust lanes in the spiral arms. The small black holes get more food and speeds things up wrt orbits. Once the smaller black holes get bigger in the arms, the whole galaxy gets going faster. I hope I did not go too far into the land of possible moron ville! Sorry! ;^o
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-09 18:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e49f78be-f7ab-457f-a2f0-0221d20933da@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #639627 |
Chris M. Thomasson - hide quoted text - On 7/8/2017 9:15 PM, Michael Moroney wrote: > "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> writes: > >> Can't two galaxies merge together? Even if mostly empty, if their >> central black holes get too close, they can eventually merge together? > > Sure. They would transfer momentum to each other which slows them down > I believe. If slowed enough, they could make another pass slowing more > then they soon merge. Thank you. The other passed should get them deeper and deeper into the attractors, and they go into a sort of "locked" in fate state? Fwiw, here is a crappy little animation I made for two simulated "super-attracted" galaxies: https://youtu.be/poXeq5V0dso -------- John. His spinny things are way better than yours. No offense
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-10 01:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ojummj$tt$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #639627 |
"Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> writes: >On 7/8/2017 9:15 PM, Michael Moroney wrote: >> "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> writes: >> >>> Can't two galaxies merge together? Even if mostly empty, if their >>> central black holes get too close, they can eventually merge together? >> >> Sure. They would transfer momentum to each other which slows them down >> I believe. If slowed enough, they could make another pass slowing more >> then they soon merge. >Thank you. The other passed should get them deeper and deeper into the >attractors, and they go into a sort of "locked" in fate state? >Fwiw, here is a crappy little animation I made for two simulated >"super-attracted" galaxies: >https://youtu.be/poXeq5V0dso I don't really think that has much to do with galaxies, esp. the idea of galaxies reaching "orgasm" is...bizarre at best, but that is a cool fractal animation. I like fractals and good animations.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-09 19:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ojuos1$2dg$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #639682 |
On 7/9/2017 6:53 PM, Michael Moroney wrote: > "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> writes: > >> On 7/8/2017 9:15 PM, Michael Moroney wrote: >>> "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> writes: >>> >>>> Can't two galaxies merge together? Even if mostly empty, if their >>>> central black holes get too close, they can eventually merge together? >>> >>> Sure. They would transfer momentum to each other which slows them down >>> I believe. If slowed enough, they could make another pass slowing more >>> then they soon merge. > >> Thank you. The other passed should get them deeper and deeper into the >> attractors, and they go into a sort of "locked" in fate state? > >> Fwiw, here is a crappy little animation I made for two simulated >> "super-attracted" galaxies: > >> https://youtu.be/poXeq5V0dso > > I don't really think that has much to do with galaxies, esp. the idea of > galaxies reaching "orgasm" is...bizarre at best, but that is a cool > fractal animation. I like fractals and good animations. The reason I mentioned "orgasm" is when the dance of two merging black holes seem to create large shock waves right before they ultimately merge. I agree it is a bad/crude term. Sorry about that non-sense. Imvvvho, when the largest black holes in two galaxies passing through each other get too close to each other, they become attracted in a way that basically "seals their fate". These galaxies are most likely mated for life, in a sense. Perhaps, something along the lines of: https://youtu.be/agqLEbOFT2A Anyway, thank you for taking a look at my crude fractal animation Michael. :^)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-12 13:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ok61i8$em7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #639687 |
On 7/9/2017 7:34 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > On 7/9/2017 6:53 PM, Michael Moroney wrote: >> "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> writes: >> >>> On 7/8/2017 9:15 PM, Michael Moroney wrote: >>>> "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> writes: >>>> >>>>> Can't two galaxies merge together? Even if mostly empty, if their >>>>> central black holes get too close, they can eventually merge together? >>>> >>>> Sure. They would transfer momentum to each other which slows them down >>>> I believe. If slowed enough, they could make another pass slowing more >>>> then they soon merge. >> >>> Thank you. The other passed should get them deeper and deeper into the >>> attractors, and they go into a sort of "locked" in fate state? >> >>> Fwiw, here is a crappy little animation I made for two simulated >>> "super-attracted" galaxies: >> >>> https://youtu.be/poXeq5V0dso >> >> I don't really think that has much to do with galaxies, esp. the idea of >> galaxies reaching "orgasm" is...bizarre at best, but that is a cool >> fractal animation. I like fractals and good animations. [...] > Anyway, thank you for taking a look at my crude fractal animation Michael. Fwiw, check this one out: https://youtu.be/ffEXxcUNeOM zooming in on a Julia set fractal to simulate two attractors in a dance.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-10 09:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <301fd0d3-d907-451f-8c20-9a10a5ee5d7f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #639421 |
On Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 9:16:09 AM UTC-4, john wrote: > MM > He was talking about emr. > emr is a product of atoms. > > Electromagnetic fields around atoms would > be comparable to Cosmic Ray patterns around > galaxies. LOL. You have no clue what you are saying! I'm sorry, John. Every time I think I can help you learn something, you either deliberately refuse or fail to comprehend. Obviously I cannot help you. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-08 06:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5b118e44-7a57-46dd-b151-c72abed93440@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #639397 |
Poor John says There you go again, deliberately misunderstanding his answer. " No I didn't. His answer was that electromagnetic effects on galaxies and atoms is different, so they couldn't be fractals of each other. Galaxies and atoms are obviously at different size scales. Therefore his answer is dumb. ----------- John no offense but in the sub atomic world, quantum mechanics rules all other factors. To include EM and gravity
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-08 12:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <41fcf68a-c68b-4551-8145-ab86fcb7a30f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #639422 |
HVAC "John no offense but in the sub atomic world, quantum mechanics rules all other factors. To include EM and gravity " HVAC, no offense, but you are spouting gibberish propaganda.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-08 18:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2c00d89f-8ae4-4055-9696-fecbb345830c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #639455 |
There can be three reasons that one galaxy is red shifted versus another: 1. It is moving away 2. It is far away 3. It is intrinsically red shifted Halton Arp saw two galaxies of different red shifts connected by a star bridge that was itself red shifted at the red galaxy end. Comparing to atoms, this looks like positive ion versus negative ion; the one with an extra electron shares with its electron-poor fellow.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-09 01:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ojs2k1$vb7$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #639455 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >HVAC >"John no offense but in the sub atomic world, quantum mechanics rules all other factors. To include EM and gravity " >HVAC, no offense, but you are spouting gibberish >propaganda. There is no reason for you to spew such nonsense such as calling it "propaganda". The fact is that if you correlate wavelength with energy E=hc/lambda for an atom vs., say, a well-hit baseball, you'll find for the atom the wavelength lambda for typical energies are significant for the atom, but the well-hit baseball will have a "wavelength" so small that it's irrelevant. The baseball doesn't behave as a wave at all, but the atom it's different. And there are quantum effects such as electrons going into specific shells that have no corresponding macroscopic equivalent. And intrinsic spin of an electron, proton etc. has no macroscopic equivalent whatsoever.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-08 19:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2847a383-81db-41d3-9c34-8a2ffbf5348d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #639525 |
MM ..".the atom it's different..." Well, yes, from baseballs and from galaxies. Are there photos of galaxies colliding where their red shifts are different?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-08 19:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1b98643b-ddd8-40b2-8a0f-88624fe4e7d9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #639528 |
MM Here you are: From. https://arxiv.org/html/astro-ph/9908269/section9.html "Another very interesting statistical study with a narrow focus is Odewahn's (1994) study of 170 Magellanic spirals. These are very late-type (beyond Sc, Sd) spirals, that are typically gas-rich. Odewahn first applied an arm strength classification to each galaxy, and then noticed that virtually all of the 75 objects with "well classified asymmetric arms" had a companion within a few diameters. Moreover, the companion distances peaked at small separations, indicating that most are probably not chance alignments, but physical associations, and in most cases, interactions. Thus, a very large fraction of one particular type of galaxy exists in small collisional groups, and most of the members of this class have unbalanced spiral waves or bars." Just like atoms sharing electrons
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-09 04:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ojsa13$nor$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #639533 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >MM >Here you are: >From. > https://arxiv.org/html/astro-ph/9908269/section9.html Good job, John! You found a web page describing the results of colliding galaxies!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-10 09:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5b0af5b8-0b7d-4ad7-8297-b95587bd82aa@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #639397 |
On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 11:35:13 PM UTC-4, john wrote: > MM > " > > There you go again, deliberately misunderstanding his answer. " > > No I didn't. > His answer was that electromagnetic effects > on galaxies and atoms is different, so they > couldn't be fractals of each other. You are maybe getting close to understanding what I said. > Galaxies and atoms are obviously at different > size scales. Therefore his answer is dumb. And therefore your analogy that they act the same must be dumb, correct? ed ed ed :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-07 08:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <690131c5-ef99-4a19-a430-fa81e462ea4a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #639122 |
On Thursday, July 6, 2017 at 1:00:00 PM UTC-4, john wrote: > ed > "Because they are small, they interact by different properties. > In my other posts I tried to simplify it for you by only " > > Light as compared to atoms is different than > light as compared to galaxies. > That's your argument? > If they are fractals, then galaxies also have a form of light; possibly Quasars. > > We're talking about atoms which cycle at 10-16 seconds, > compared to galaxies, which cycle at 200 million years. > Coincidentally, atoms are 10^31 times smaller, > and cycle 10^31 times faster! > Not a coincidence. > > But, yes, OUR emr would have a different relationship > with each. So, what? It is the So what where everything significant happens. I gave you another chance to learn. You again passed it by. Too bad. ed --- If they knew, that we have got nothing to lose, No reason to hide from what's true.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-07 10:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <655dc700-cec9-4fd7-a1a6-906eb4c8081f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #639303 |
On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 8:27:06 AM UTC-7, Edward Prochak wrote: > On Thursday, July 6, 2017 at 1:00:00 PM UTC-4, john wrote: > > ed > > "Because they are small, they interact by different properties. > > In my other posts I tried to simplify it for you by only " > > > > Light as compared to atoms is different than > > light as compared to galaxies. > > That's your argument? > > If they are fractals, then galaxies also have a form of light; possibly Quasars. > > > > We're talking about atoms which cycle at 10-16 seconds, > > compared to galaxies, which cycle at 200 million years. > > Coincidentally, atoms are 10^31 times smaller, > > and cycle 10^31 times faster! > > Not a coincidence. > > > > But, yes, OUR emr would have a different relationship > > with each. So, what? > > It is the So what where everything significant happens. > I gave you another chance to learn. You again passed it by. > > Too bad. > ed > --- > If they knew, that we have got nothing to lose, > No reason to hide from what's true. You can't have one without the other.Reality is BHs are the missing gravity.Oooops .There goes another theory.They do come in every size . They control the space they behold,and all the way to infinity.Not bad thinking on the very hot Friday morning for an old man.Trebert
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-07 10:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ojoh8n$hh7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #639316 |
Only <http://tinyurl.com/Loudmouth-Glazier-8Feb2017> [1], <http://tinyurl.com/The-Chosen-Graveyard-Vandal> will say: "I, Glazier, love Anaheim" for Bert being dependent on its senior center, a public social worker & Govt. dole outs. > Glazier if you would not have lied, conned & stolen so much, when you were in FL & Mass, you would be now the Kingpin, and loudmouthing, in a plush, Jewish retirement community. "Go figure, Glazier, till you get the picture, you filthy Swine.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-10 07:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b4a38fce-6712-462b-a4a7-074bbba799cb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #639122 |
On Thursday, July 6, 2017 at 1:00:00 PM UTC-4, john wrote: > ed > "Because they are small, they interact by different properties. > In my other posts I tried to simplify it for you by only " > > Light as compared to atoms is different than > light as compared to galaxies. > That's your argument? One photon can move an atom, but even many photons do not move galaxies. > If they are fractals, then galaxies also have a form of light; possibly Quasars. What nonsense are you talking about?? > > We're talking about atoms which cycle at 10-16 seconds, > compared to galaxies, which cycle at 200 million years. > Coincidentally, atoms are 10^31 times smaller, > and cycle 10^31 times faster! > Not a coincidence. yes coincidence, IOW there is no relationship. > > But, yes, OUR emr would have a different relationship > with each. So, what? relationship with each what? You are very unclear in your presentation, let alone your thinking. ed ed ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-10 08:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <73519131-56f3-469d-9be0-97e8fa921da8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #639740 |
ed "elationship with each what? You are very unclear in your presentation, let alone your thinking. " Ed, atoms are galaxies. Galaxies are atoms. There are smaller forms of emr. There are larger forms of emr. Reject it if you want but don't say it is "unclear", or I will be forced to conclude that you are stupid.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-10 10:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4e2c6359-3723-4a27-9a92-975323771f32@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #639741 |
On Monday, July 10, 2017 at 11:01:18 AM UTC-4, john wrote: > ed > "relationship with each what? this ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ was unclear > You are very unclear in your presentation, let alone your thinking. " > > Ed, atoms are galaxies. > Galaxies are atoms. > There are smaller forms of emr. > There are larger forms of emr. > > Reject it if you want but don't say it > is "unclear", or I will be forced to conclude > that you are stupid. And you have yet to expound what that larger EMR is. There is nothing that moves galaxies the way EMR moves atoms. Your theory predicts larger EMR, but there is zero evidence. In this case you can reject it if you want, but that will just prove you are deliberately refusing to accept facts. (IOW you are just a troll.) ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web