Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #724806 > unrolled thread
| Started by | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2019-01-27 04:28 -0800 |
| Last post | 2019-01-30 13:24 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 96 — 10 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Black holes don’t merge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-01-27 04:28 -0800
Re: Black holes don’t merge "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2019-01-27 08:55 -0800
Re: Black holes don’t merge moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2019-01-27 17:33 +0000
Re: Black holes don’t merge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-01-27 09:46 -0800
Re: Black holes don’t merge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-27 19:09 +0000
Re: Black holes don’t merge moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2019-01-27 19:41 +0000
Re: Black holes don’t merge "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2019-01-27 12:10 -0800
Re: Black holes don’t merge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-27 20:20 +0000
Re: Black holes don’t merge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-01-27 20:50 -0800
Re: Black holes don’t merge pnalsing@gmail.com - 2019-01-27 21:06 -0800
Re: Black holes don’t merge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-01-27 23:17 -0800
Re: Black holes don’t merge Sergi o <invaliid@invalid.com> - 2019-01-28 11:36 -0600
Re: Black holes don’t merge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 14:50 +0000
Re: Black holes don’t merge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 07:00 -0800
Re: Black holes don’t merge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 15:43 +0000
Re: Black holes don’t merge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 10:41 -0800
Re: Black holes don’t merge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 19:36 +0000
Re: Black holes don’t merge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 11:56 -0800
Re: Black holes don’t merge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 20:26 +0000
Re: Black holes don’t merge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 12:37 -0800
Re: Black holes don’t merge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 20:47 +0000
Re: Black holes don’t merge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 13:12 -0800
Re: Black holes don’t merge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 21:53 +0000
Re: Black holes don’t merge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 15:04 -0800
Re: Black holes don’t merge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 23:28 +0000
Re: Black holes don’t merge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 15:32 -0800
Re: Black holes don’t merge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 23:35 +0000
Re: Black holes don’t merge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 15:52 -0800
Re: Black holes don’t merge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-29 00:19 +0000
Re: Black holes don’t merge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 17:02 -0800
Re: Black holes don’t merge pnalsing@gmail.com - 2019-01-28 17:25 -0800
Re: Black holes don’t merge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 17:57 -0800
Re: Black holes don’t merge pnalsing@gmail.com - 2019-01-28 19:10 -0800
Re: Black holes don’t merge "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 19:19 -0800
Re: Black holes don’t merge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-29 13:00 +0000
Re: Black holes don’t merge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-01-29 07:56 -0800
Re: Black holes don’t merge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-29 16:55 +0000
Re: Black holes don’t merge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-01-29 09:00 -0800
Re: Black holes don’t merge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-29 17:23 +0000
Re: Black holes don’t merge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-01-29 09:35 -0800
Re: Black holes don’t merge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-01-29 09:43 -0800
Re: Black holes don’t merge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-29 18:04 +0000
Re: Black holes don’t merge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-29 18:04 +0000
Re: Black holes don’t merge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-01-29 09:05 -0800
Re: Black holes don’t merge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-29 17:23 +0000
Re: Black holes don’t merge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-29 01:47 +0000
Re: Black holes don’t merge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 17:54 -0800
Re: Black holes don’t merge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-29 02:27 +0000
Re: Black holes don’t merge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 20:11 -0800
Re: Black holes don’t merge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-29 13:27 +0000
Re: Black holes don’t merge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-01-29 07:53 -0800
Re: Black holes don’t merge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-29 16:55 +0000
Re: Black holes don’t merge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-01-29 09:15 -0800
Re: Black holes don’t merge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-29 17:23 +0000
Re: Black holes don’t merge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-01-29 09:32 -0800
Re: Black holes don’t merge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-29 20:32 +0000
Re: Black holes don’t merge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-01-29 13:30 -0800
Re: Black holes don’t merge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-01-29 13:35 -0800
Re: Black holes don’t merge moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2019-01-29 21:46 +0000
Re: Black holes don’t merge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-29 21:46 +0000
Re: Black holes don’t merge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-01-29 14:05 -0800
Re: Black holes don’t merge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-29 22:58 +0000
Re: Black holes don’t merge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-01-29 21:30 -0800
Re: Black holes don’t merge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-30 14:30 +0000
Re: Black holes don’t merge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-01-30 08:22 -0800
Re: Black holes don’t merge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-30 17:19 +0000
Re: Black holes don’t merge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-01-30 09:31 -0800
Re: Black holes don’t merge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-30 17:50 +0000
Re: Black holes don’t merge pnalsing@gmail.com - 2019-01-30 15:36 -0800
Re: Black holes don’t merge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-01-30 16:46 -0800
Re: Black holes don’t merge pnalsing@gmail.com - 2019-01-30 20:35 -0800
Re: Black holes don’t merge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-01-31 02:27 -0800
Re: Re: Black holes don’t merge moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2019-01-31 16:52 +0000
Re: Black holes don’t merge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-31 13:10 +0000
Re: Black holes don’t merge moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2019-01-31 16:41 +0000
Re: Black holes don’t merge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-01-31 13:48 -0800
Re: Black holes don’t merge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-31 22:09 +0000
Re: Black holes don’t merge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-01-31 16:37 -0800
Re: Black holes don’t merge pnalsing@gmail.com - 2019-01-31 19:04 -0800
Re: Black holes don’t merge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-01-31 19:18 -0800
Re: Black holes don’t merge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-01 03:45 +0000
Re: Black holes don’t merge pnalsing@gmail.com - 2019-01-31 20:29 -0800
Re: Re: Black holes don’t merge moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2019-02-01 16:15 +0000
Re: Black holes don’t merge "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson_invalid@invalid.com> - 2019-01-31 21:37 -0800
Re: Black holes don’t merge moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2019-01-31 16:17 +0000
Re: Black holes don’t merge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-01-31 08:40 -0800
Re: Black holes don’t merge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-31 17:33 +0000
Re: Re: Black holes don’t merge moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2019-01-28 20:50 +0000
Re: Re: Black holes don’t merge moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2019-01-28 20:43 +0000
Re: Re: Black holes don’t merge moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2019-01-28 16:39 +0000
Re: Black holes don’t merge moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2019-01-28 16:32 +0000
Re: Black holes don’t merge Sergi o <invaliid@invalid.com> - 2019-01-27 22:58 -0600
Re: Black holes don’t merge mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2019-01-27 13:44 -0800
Re: Black holes don’t merge Sergi o <invaliid@invalid.com> - 2019-01-29 10:33 -0600
Re: Black holes don’t merge benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2019-01-29 13:51 -0500
Re: Black holes don’t merge "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson_invalid@invalid.com> - 2019-01-30 13:24 -0800
Page 1 of 5 [1] 2 3 4 5 Next page →
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-27 04:28 -0800 |
| Subject | Black holes don’t merge |
| Message-ID | <f9db7e5d-2d05-4622-afa8-0ae913d25e78@googlegroups.com> |
Protons have angular momentum of +1/2h. They are VERY difficult to make fuse together. They don’t just ‘bump into’ each other and merge. Similarly, ‘black holes’ have angular momentum of -1/2h. They, also, will not just ‘bump into’ each other and merge. Bodies with similar spin REPEL each other. LIGO is SO up its own ass
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-27 08:55 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b166a0bf-0a45-4114-906b-f0cf8b0112cb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #724806 |
On Sunday, January 27, 2019 at 4:28:50 AM UTC-8, john wrote: > Protons have angular momentum of +1/2h. > They are VERY difficult to make fuse together. > They don’t just ‘bump into’ each other and merge. > > Similarly, ‘black holes’ have angular momentum of -1/2h. They, also, will not just ‘bump into’ each other and merge. > Bodies with similar spin REPEL each other. > > LIGO is SO up its own ass Their mutual gravity gives best reason for them getting together me thinks Bert
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-27 17:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <q2kq1q$3r5$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #724806 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >Protons have angular momentum of +1/2h. Or -1/2. >They are VERY difficult to make fuse together. Because they have a positive electric charge and thus repel each other. >They don't just 'bump into' each other and merge. >Similarly, No, no similarity. > 'black holes' have angular momentum of -1/2h. And this is true because you say so? Black holes can have angular momentum of any value ranging from 0 to huge, like the ones supposedly rotating at half the speed of light. > They, also, will not just 'bump into' each other and merge. No, they gravitationally attract each other. >Bodies with similar spin REPEL each other. GR spin interaction is complex, but it doesn't matter too much, since the overall effect is for them to gravitationally attract each other, as LIGO has shown. >LIGO is SO up its own ass You're projecting again, John.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-27 09:46 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1f6325f0-9207-42d1-b971-67a2e42086be@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #724830 |
MM “No, they gravitationally attract each other. ” And you know this how? Every black hole, so far measured, has been spinning off the charts.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-27 19:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <q2kvkg$1mjv$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #724834 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > MM > “No, they gravitationally attract each other. > ” > And you know this how? > Every black hole, so far measured, has been spinning off the charts. > Gravitational waves from merging black holes. -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-27 19:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <q2l1i5$qvp$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #724834 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >MM >"No, they gravitationally attract each other." >And you know this how? Because so far, every single thing with mass attracts each other gravitationally, according to the inverse szquare law, or GR extensions, without exception. And black holes are, by definition, LOTS of mass. Now perhaps you may argue that nobody has ever seen that roundish stone behind your house drop, so, perhaps you may claim, it is somehow an exception and if dropped, will fly off into space instead. Since I have never seen it drop, "how will I know" that it will drop? Only that every single other time, things have, so there is no reason to expect anything different. Same with black holes, esp. when LIGO verifies GR predictions. >Every black hole, so far measured, has been spinning off the charts. How is that relevant?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-27 12:10 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1b75e98b-b0a6-4244-ad00-f1e9880aeb97@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #724838 |
On Sunday, January 27, 2019 at 11:42:00 AM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote: > john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: > > >MM > >"No, they gravitationally attract each other." > > >And you know this how? > > Because so far, every single thing with mass attracts each other gravitationally, > according to the inverse szquare law, or GR extensions, without exception. > And black holes are, by definition, LOTS of mass. > > Now perhaps you may argue that nobody has ever seen that roundish stone > behind your house drop, so, perhaps you may claim, it is somehow an > exception and if dropped, will fly off into space instead. Since I have > never seen it drop, "how will I know" that it will drop? Only that every > single other time, things have, so there is no reason to expect anything > different. Same with black holes, esp. when LIGO verifies GR predictions. > > >Every black hole, so far measured, has been spinning off the charts. > > How is that relevant? Black holes are totally deep then what the "singularity" is actually the "curvature of the space" "to" the singularity. This is singularity theory with the spiral space-filling curve and the asymptote as complements in the singularity theory (singularities, reflecting the curvature of the space).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-27 20:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <q2l3r6$a8f$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #724838 |
Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote: > john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: > >> MM >> "No, they gravitationally attract each other." > >> And you know this how? > > Because so far, every single thing with mass attracts each other gravitationally, > according to the inverse szquare law, or GR extensions, without exception. > And black holes are, by definition, LOTS of mass. I think John would claim that a hand grenade cannot possibly gravitate because stuff goes AWAY from an exploding grenade rather than falling into it. Or that the Sun cannot gravitate because the solar wind flies AWAY from the sun rather than falling into it. John I believe will argue that the second you see anything ejected away from a body, this is the flag that gravity has apparently and suddenly been turned off for that body. Right, John? I mean, it’s self-evident, right? > > Now perhaps you may argue that nobody has ever seen that roundish stone > behind your house drop, so, perhaps you may claim, it is somehow an > exception and if dropped, will fly off into space instead. Since I have > never seen it drop, "how will I know" that it will drop? Only that every > single other time, things have, so there is no reason to expect anything > different. Same with black holes, esp. when LIGO verifies GR predictions. > >> Every black hole, so far measured, has been spinning off the charts. > > How is that relevant? > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-27 20:50 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <80fc202c-354a-4d52-9bb7-cc4c981782c8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #724838 |
MM “Because so far, every single thing with mass attracts each other gravitationally, ” Electrons don’t.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-27 21:06 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <439665ce-eefa-4a89-87d5-890fb67b199a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #724917 |
On Sunday, January 27, 2019 at 8:50:47 PM UTC-8, john wrote: > MM > “Because so far, every single thing with mass attracts each other gravitationally, ” > Electrons don’t. Ultimately, John, given enough mass, gravity is the strongest of the 4 forces. After all, It, and it alone, can create a black hole. Isn't that amazing? When this was shown to me, back in the 1960's, I was blown away... along with my professor, who was a fresh Princeton Graduate in his first teaching position. What a day that was!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-27 23:17 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d08e8602-147b-4495-ab63-37e87aef17b1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #724922 |
pnal “After all, It, and it alone, can create a black hole. Isn't that amazing? ” No it can’t. And it doesn’t. Gravity is not a PULL of some kind- you still can’t say what or how- which is independently produced by a piece of matter without any change to the matter, itself, and STILL produced by it no matter how crushed or distorted it becomes. What mechanism do you say does this? What messenger is sent out that at the same time pulls in ? So called black holes at galactic centers are simply spinning spacetime- they contain no matter at all (of our gauge- Space is made from smaller gauge matter; that which makes subatomic particles.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergi o <invaliid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-28 11:36 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <q2nejb$nbj$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #724922 |
On 1/27/2019 11:06 PM, pnalsing@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, January 27, 2019 at 8:50:47 PM UTC-8, john wrote:
>> MM
>> “Because so far, every single thing with mass attracts each other gravitationally, ”
>> Electrons don’t.
>
> Ultimately, John, given enough mass, gravity is the strongest of the 4 forces. After all, It, and it alone, can create a black hole. Isn't that amazing?
>
> When this was shown to me, back in the 1960's, I was blown away... along with my professor, who was a fresh Princeton Graduate in his first teaching position. What a day that was!
>
agree, I was in a class in early 70's and met another there who was PHD
and had discovered more about black holes, published several papers on
it. Someday Ill look him up.
only mass is needed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-28 14:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <q2n4s8$19kj$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #724917 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > MM > “Because so far, every single thing with mass attracts each other gravitationally, ” > Electrons don’t. > Yes they do. If they were uncharged they would attract. Electrostatic repulsion doesn’t kill gravity. It’s just stronger than gravity. -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-28 07:00 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <cc1efd05-9d4a-4ec6-9d1b-3175aa3e6acb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #724936 |
Odd “Yes they do. If they were uncharged they would attract. Electrostatic repulsion doesn’t kill gravity. It’s just stronger than gravity. ” Odd “Yes they do. If they were uncharged they would attract. Electrostatic repulsion doesn’t kill gravity. It’s just stronger than gravity.” Which is exactly why BHs don’t merge. They are next-gauge up PROTONS, existing within galactic arm ELECTRON clouds. And the Milky Way is a Carbon atom- it has 4 arms and a bar. https://earthsky.org/space/new-map-confirms-four-milky-way-arms
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-28 15:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <q2n7v2$1o4h$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #724940 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > Odd > “Yes they do. > If they were uncharged they would attract. > > Electrostatic repulsion doesn’t kill gravity. It’s just stronger than > gravity. ” > Odd > “Yes they do. > If they were uncharged they would attract. > > Electrostatic repulsion doesn’t kill gravity. It’s just stronger than > gravity.” > > Which is exactly why BHs don’t merge. No. Pay attention. Electrons repel because they have like net charge. Black holes do not. Uncharged things do not have electrostatic repulsion. This is why metal doesn’t vaporize. It has no net charge. Electrons do have net charge. This is why there is a strong electrostatic interaction. Here’s a simple exercise. The electrostatic force between electrons is given by ke^2/r^2. The gravitational force between electrons is given by Gm^2/r^2. The ratio between these is ke^2/Gm^2. All of those variables are physical constants that are Googlable. (Eg, “electron charge”, “electron mass”) Doing the arithmetic will tell you a NUMBER that is how many times bigger the electrostatic force is compared to the gravitational force. That will be an impressive number. Now do the same arithmetic for black holes where now you have to put in numbers for the charge and mass of a black hole. This way, instead of just waving your hands, you will have quantitative insight as to whether “this is exactly why BHs don’t merge” makes any sense at all. Furthermore, you will have sim quantitative insight why it is that the gravitational waves from merging black holes have been seen several times in the last couple years. > > They are next-gauge up PROTONS, existing within galactic arm ELECTRON clouds. > And the Milky Way is a Carbon atom- it has 4 arms and a bar. > https://earthsky.org/space/new-map-confirms-four-milky-way-arms > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-28 10:41 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ce5d24a3-64b4-4eb5-9d15-9caaa7c5b52f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #724951 |
Odd “No. Pay attention. Electrons repel because they have like net charge. Black holes do not. ” No. You pay attention. Spin IS charge. Black holes all have the same spin, which is OPPOSITE to our matter. They repel each other, but attract our matter unless our matter is radiating -1/2h neutrinos, which keeps the stars away until they run out of energy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-28 19:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <q2nlkb$1okv$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #724967 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > Odd > “No. Pay attention. Electrons repel because they have like net charge. Black > holes do not. ” > No. > You pay attention. > Spin IS charge. No it is not. Neutrons have spin but no charge. Neutral atoms have no charge but they have spin. Same goes for neutrinos, neutral kaons and pions, and a slew of other examples. What’s the point of lofting pithy-sounding word salad like “spin IS charge” when anyone with any acquaintance with basic facts knows immediately that it’s wrong? Really. What’s the point? > Black holes all have the same spin, which is OPPOSITE to our matter. They > repel each other, but attract our matter unless our matter is radiating > -1/2h neutrinos, which keeps the stars away until they run out of energy. > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-28 11:56 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <fd104a73-dea2-4685-b7c3-ca6c1acb4aa7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #724971 |
Odd “Neutrons have spin but no charge. Neutral atoms have no charge but they have spin. ” I’d be interested how you balance your ‘distributed electrons with kinetic energy but no particular pathway ‘ with the concept of spinning atoms. Wouldn’t the electrons then be spinning also, and therefore HAVE a pathway? Just wondering. Neutral atoms have no electric field because their charges offset each other. Remove an electron, and the spinning excess charge creates a magnetic field which is PRECESSING to create an electric dipole. Surprise surprise. Of course, you can explain this with math but have no physical or conceptual model. Why not try to fit your math to my model? Neutrons are composed of a proton AND an electron which are also offsetting each other IN SPITE of their spin.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-28 20:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <q2noi4$6al$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #724972 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > Odd > “Neutrons have spin but no charge. Neutral atoms have no > charge but they have spin. ” > I’d be interested how you balance your ‘distributed electrons with > kinetic energy but no particular pathway ‘ with the concept of spinning > atoms. Wouldn’t the electrons then be spinning also, and therefore HAVE a pathway? No. For the 4000th time, quantum mechanical spin does not correspond to any pathway going around an axis. Yet every single time someone someone says spin, your brain snaps back to some pathway going around an axis and you ask about it. > Just wondering. > Neutral atoms have no electric field because their charges offset each > other. Remove an electron, and the spinning excess charge creates a > magnetic field which is PRECESSING to create an electric dipole. No. Furthermore, notice that uncharged atoms still have spin. Which belies your “spin IS charge” tossed off comment. > Surprise surprise. > Of course, you can explain this with math but have no physical or conceptual model. > Why not try to fit your math to my model? Why? Isn’t that your job, to come up with the math that supports your concept. Please note that a physics model MUST have mathematical support - every single physical model for the last 500 years has done so. So what you have is an idea, not a model. The current model works, though you don’t like it because it is described using math in part. > > Neutrons are composed of a proton AND an electron No they are not. Neutrons are composed of two down quarks and an up quark and a bunch of gluons. Why do you think otherwise? Note that atoms, neutrons, pions, kaons, neutrinos all belie your claim that spin is charge. Can’t let it go though, right? > which are also offsetting each other IN SPITE of their spin. > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-28 12:37 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <84ff40ca-c7d9-4db1-8f2e-14cce5492988@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #724974 |
Odd “th time, quantum mechanical spin does not correspond to any pathway going around an axis. ” So what DOES it correspond to? Monkey farts? Math alone is NOT a model. For the millionth time
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 5 [1] 2 3 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web