Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #687870 > unrolled thread

Atoms are Galaxies

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Atoms are Galaxies john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 14:11 -0700
    Re: Atoms are Galaxies Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-31 01:38 +0000
      Re: Atoms are Galaxies john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 22:33 -0700
      Re: Atoms are Galaxies john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 22:39 -0700
        Re: Atoms are Galaxies john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 22:45 -0700
          Re: Atoms are Galaxies john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 23:16 -0700
        Re: Atoms are Galaxies moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-05-31 06:28 +0000
          Re: Atoms are Galaxies john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 23:42 -0700
            Re: Atoms are Galaxies moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-05-31 17:42 +0000
          Re: Atoms are Galaxies john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 23:59 -0700
            Re: Atoms are Galaxies poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-05-31 01:50 -0700
            Re: Atoms are Galaxies moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-05-31 17:45 +0000
        Re: Atoms are Galaxies Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-31 11:51 +0000
          Re: Atoms are Galaxies john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-05-31 05:08 -0700
            Re: Atoms are Galaxies Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-31 14:19 +0000
          Re: Atoms are Galaxies john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-05-31 05:10 -0700
            Re: Atoms are Galaxies john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-05-31 05:47 -0700
              Re: Atoms are Galaxies Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-31 14:20 +0000
                Re: Atoms are Galaxies benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-31 12:10 -0400
                  Re: Atoms are Galaxies Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-31 10:28 -0700
              Re: Atoms are Galaxies john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-05-31 07:28 -0700
                Re: Atoms are Galaxies Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-31 10:15 -0700
                Re: Atoms are Galaxies moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-05-31 17:52 +0000
              Re: Atoms are Galaxies moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-05-31 17:50 +0000
            Re: Atoms are Galaxies Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-31 14:20 +0000
              Re: Atoms are Galaxies poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-06-01 00:19 -0700
      Re: Atoms are Galaxies moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-05-31 06:17 +0000
        Re: Atoms are Galaxies john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 23:34 -0700
          Re: Atoms are Galaxies Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-31 14:19 +0000
          Re: Atoms are Galaxies moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-05-31 17:30 +0000
          Re: Atoms are Galaxies Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 15:43 -0500
    Re: Atoms are Galaxies Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-31 07:57 -0700
      Re: Atoms are Galaxies john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-05-31 08:23 -0700
        Re: Atoms are Galaxies john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-05-31 08:51 -0700
        Re: Atoms are Galaxies Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-31 17:08 +0000
        Re: Atoms are Galaxies Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-31 10:24 -0700
        Re: Atoms are Galaxies moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-05-31 17:55 +0000
          Re: Atoms are Galaxies Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-31 18:18 +0000
            Re: Atoms are Galaxies john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-05-31 16:36 -0700
              Re: Atoms are Galaxies john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-05-31 17:33 -0700
                Re: Atoms are Galaxies moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-06-01 03:01 +0000
              Re: Atoms are Galaxies moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-06-01 02:59 +0000

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#687946

Okay
We know that the galactic halo of old globular clusters is actually double-sheathed, with one layer going one way and the other, the other. CLUE
We know that all the gas in the spherical halo rotates with the main disc- just a little slower. CLUE
We know now that galactic satellites lie in a disk at right angles to the galaxy. CLUE
We know that all disks are warped out of the plane on opposite sides, with degree of warping greatest at the edges. CLUE
If the warping coincides with the plane of the satellites, , then all of these clues point to precession of galaxies.

And that doesn’t even take into account which way the jets are curving as they come out.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#687965

On Thursday, May 31, 2018 at 10:28:37 AM UTC-4, john wrote:
> Okay
> We know that the galactic halo of old globular clusters is
> actually double-sheathed, with one layer going one way and
> the other, the other. CLUE
> We know that all the gas in the spherical halo rotates with
> the main disc- just a little slower. CLUE

So about have of the clusters are going the opposite direction
of the gas in the halo? Where did you get this idea?

> We know now that galactic satellites lie in a disk at right
> angles to the galaxy. CLUE

Precisely 90 degrees? Really? For all galaxies?


> We know that all disks are warped out of the plane on opposite
> sides, with degree of warping greatest at the edges. CLUE

So you have checked EVERY galaxy?

> If the warping coincides with the plane of the satellites,
> , then all of these clues point to precession of galaxies.

No, those satellite galaxies appear to be the source of
the warping. Possibly along with dark matter.
> 
> And that doesn’t even take into account which way the
> jets are curving as they come out.

References, please?

Otherwise you haven't got a CLUE.
Ed

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#687977

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>Okay
>We know that the galactic halo of old globular clusters is actually double-
>sheathed, with one layer going one way and the other, the other. CLUE
>We know that all the gas in the spherical halo rotates with the main disc-
>just a little slower. CLUE
>We know now that galactic satellites lie in a disk at right angles to the
>galaxy. CLUE
>We know that all disks are warped out of the plane on opposite sides, with 
>degree of warping greatest at the edges. CLUE
>If the warping coincides with the plane of the satellites, , then all of
>these clues point to precession of galaxies.

CLUE. Something that you have yet to find.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#687976

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>Odd and MM
>“You and Porat are on the same side on this!”

>Atoms’ electrons are equivalent to galactic star arms and radiate just like stars.
>PD pressured me to find the radiation  that causes gravity and this is it.
>Thanks PD!
>You can come out of the closet, now
>
You took the entire bottle of stupid pills, didn't you.

Why don't you find out what a scientific model even is before claiming
that you even have one?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#687944

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
> Odd
> “
> You seem to never tire of claiming that you have a model and physicists 
> don’t. Except that yours is not a physical model and you can’t produce a 
> physical model. You just produce what you like and call it a model. ”
> 
> Don’t worry, Odd!!!
> You and Porat are on the same side on this!
> 

Then start calling Porat PD. 

-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#688071

On Thursday, May 31, 2018 at 5:20:04 PM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Odd
> > “
> > You seem to never tire of claiming that you have a model and physicists 
> > don’t. Except that yours is not a physical model and you can’t produce a 
> > physical model. You just produce what you like and call it a model. ”
> > 
> > Don’t worry, Odd!!!
> > You and Porat are on the same side on this!
> > 
> 
> Then start calling Porat PD. 
> 
> ========================
odd
me and John
are not exactly on the same side ...
even though I appreciate John s open mind
in contrast to your parroting blockhead 

he has to learn something
in order to be in my ''league ''' 
--====================
Y.P
================== 
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#687916

Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> writes:

>john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Okay, this is pretty clear.
>> So electrons are radiating stars.
>> So that'冱 what causes Gravity- those tiny radiations are LeSae's 
>> ultramundane particles.
>> 

>Zzzzzzboop...ticktick BING! 
>Rebooting......

>SYS> Boot disk error. Memory dump commencing 

Yes, you're right, Odd. The John Bot (an experiment in artificial 
stupidity gone out of control) crashed and rebooted yet again. The
standard boot message "Atoms are Galaxies" and once that happens, the
artificial stupidity builds exponentially, until the next crash.
But in the mean time, we get to see new frontiers in stupidity explored
before the next crash.

Too bad John just won't READ, he'd rather rant against things he seems
to know nothing about.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#687920

MM
“bad John just won't READ, he'd rather rant against things he seems ”
Hmm.
I READ recently that the Dark Matter theory is in trouble because of galactic satellites all being in the same plane around the galaxy. Do you think that’s in the same plane as the warps that are present in all disks?

How would a ‘spherical cloud of dark matter’ fit in?

Or- sorry- you and Odd don’t read NEW stuff, do you?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#687942

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
> MM
> “bad John just won't READ, he'd rather rant against things he seems ”
> Hmm.
> I READ recently that the Dark Matter theory is in trouble because of
> galactic satellites all being in the same plane around the galaxy. Do you
> think that’s in the same plane as the warps that are present in all disks?

I don’t recall that the article said the dark matter theory was in trouble.
I recall the article saying that it was unexpected to find galactic
satellites not being spherically distributed. 

> 
> How would a ‘spherical cloud of dark matter’ fit in?
> 
> Or- sorry- you and Odd don’t read NEW stuff, do you?

Yes I do. I think I just read it more carefully. 

> 



-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#687970

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>MM
>"bad John just won't READ, he'd rather rant against things he seems"
>Hmm.
>I READ recently that the Dark Matter theory is in trouble because of 
>galactic satellites all being in the same plane around the galaxy.

For what, two examples? Or was it three?

> Do you think that's in the same plane as the warps that are present in 
>all disks?

What about the majority of galaxies that don't even _have_ disks?

>How would a "spherical cloud of dark matter" fit in?

I'm sure with the correct amount and distribution it all works out.

>Or- sorry- you and Odd don't read NEW stuff, do you?

I do; your problem is that you don't read ANY stuff.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#688522

On Wed, 30 May 2018 23:34:31 -0700 (PDT), john wrote:

> I READ recently that the Dark Matter theory is in trouble because of
> galactic satellites all being in the same plane around the galaxy.

No, you didn't.

You read that the distribution of satellite galaxies and clusters was
less spherical, or more flattened, than expected, or that it was
marginally better organized than expected, depending on which article it
was that you saw.

Moreover, this topic has been "current" for ten, fifteen years, however
recently you might personally have discovered it.  But hey, let's
oversimplify it for you....

What you should infer from it is that net angular momentum of the huge
gas cloud out of which the galaxy and its surrounding clusters and dwarf
galaxies coalesced was greater than some theories might otherwise have
estimated it to be.

In other words, you have to look at a log bigger volume than just a
galaxy's worth of primordial gas before the net angular momenta of all
the turbulently swirling masses of gas within that big-assed gas cloud
becomes "random" enough overall to start to cancel.

It will be at *that* scale that the movement of the resulting objects
will cause them to appear to be moving about in about more of a ball
than a disc.

And you know something?  The organization of the movement of matter at
that scale is widely believed to be a function of the non-uniform
distribution of ((((dark matter)))) within our universe.

Yeah, that stuff.

So... astronomers measured something useful, something which allowed
them to tighten up the parameters of models of galaxy formation.

They're doing a good job.

Are you?

-- 
Goat

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#687948

On Wednesday, May 30, 2018 at 5:11:25 PM UTC-4, john wrote:
> Okay, this is pretty clear.
> So electrons are radiating stars.
> So that’s what causes Gravity- those tiny radiations
> are LeSage’s ultramundane particles.

Still posting your unsupported nonsense I see.
yes clear as tar.

ed
ed
ed

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#687950

ed
“ow quoted text -
Still posting your unsupported nonsense I see. 
yes clear as tar”
Disc warps are OBSERVED.
Galactic satellites in the plane at right angles to the disc is OBSERVED.
If these two coincide- and they will- PREDICTION- then precession is the ONLY explanation.

Supported by OBSERVATION.

Wait for James Webb

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#687952

I mean, how many CLUES do you guys need?

Quit believing that DM shit

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#687962

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
> then precession is the ONLY explanation

Bullshit

Precession CANNOT be an explanation. No source of torque. 

-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#687967

On Thursday, May 31, 2018 at 11:23:59 AM UTC-4, john wrote:
> ed
> “ow quoted text -
> Still posting your unsupported nonsense I see. 
> yes clear as tar”
> Disc warps are OBSERVED.
> Galactic satellites in the plane at right angles to the disc is OBSERVED.
> If these two coincide- and they will- PREDICTION- then precession is the ONLY explanation.
> 
> Supported by OBSERVATION.
> 
> Wait for James Webb

Precession is NOT the only explanation. In fact it may be
those satellite galaxies causing the warp. You are at best
jumping the gun.

 Ed

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#687978

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>ed
>Still posting your unsupported nonsense I see.
>yes clear as tar"
>Disc warps are OBSERVED.
>Galactic satellites in the plane at right angles to the disc is OBSERVED.
>If these two coincide- and they will- PREDICTION- then precession is the ONLY explanation.

>Supported by OBSERVATION.

>Wait for James Webb

No, you must have robbed a pharmacy and stole their entire stock of stupid 
pills.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#687983

Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> ed
>> Still posting your unsupported nonsense I see.
>> yes clear as tar"
>> Disc warps are OBSERVED.
>> Galactic satellites in the plane at right angles to the disc is OBSERVED.
>> If these two coincide- and they will- PREDICTION- then precession is the ONLY explanation.
> 
>> Supported by OBSERVATION.
> 
>> Wait for James Webb
> 
> No, you must have robbed a pharmacy and stole their entire stock of stupid 
> pills.
> 

Cheaper in Canada. 

-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#688030

Oh, also precession would cause the asymmetrical Galactic Rotation Curves 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#688044

So, yes, three galactic systems, now, are observed to have their satellites in the same plane- at right/angles to the disk: Milky Way, Andromeda, and now this newest one, Michael.
Only three.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web