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 | 16 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 5 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-01 03:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <q30fd5$1jb2$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #725446 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > pnal > “Talk is cheap, John, but evidence can be very compelling. Got Evidence?” > Are observations evidence? Does it matter if others made them? Yes? No? > Okay, then: for the umpteenth time, the only explanation for asymmetrical > galactic rotation curves (if galaxies don’t precess) is dark matter. > However, it’s looking more and more like nobody can prove that dark matter exists. > Therefore, galaxies must precess. > Hahahahaha -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-31 20:29 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b6ca0047-13ca-4738-b7a9-1d7749e4b7fa@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #725446 |
On Thursday, January 31, 2019 at 7:18:25 PM UTC-8, john wrote: > pnal > “Talk is cheap, John, but evidence can be very compelling. Got Evidence?” > Are observations evidence? Does it matter if others made them? Yes? No? Sure, John, observations can be evidence. > Okay, then: for the umpteenth time, the only explanation for asymmetrical galactic rotation curves (if galaxies don’t precess) is dark matter. Ok, let's agree that perhaps this is true... > However, it’s looking more and more like nobody can prove that dark matter exists. While it is now the case, and has always been the case, that no one can *prove" that dark matter exists (just like no other theory can ever be "proven"), that does not mean that you can just out-of-hand declare that is it *not* true, unless, of course, you have evidence. Do you have observations for this statement of yours, too? Please provide references to support your claim. > Therefore, galaxies must precess. John, your powers of logical thinking are found wanting. Since there is no observation and/or experiment that shows that galaxies precess, then the observed asymmetrical rotation *proves* that dark matter exists... until such time that someone, somewhere comes along with actual observational and/or experiments to show otherwise. I don't suppose you have that evidence, am I right? As always, you don't get to make it up as you go along and declare it to be true. Neither do I. Neither does Odd or Michael. Neither did Einstein. Experiments and/or observations can only show that any theory tends to be correct, but can never actually prove it conclusively. it's called the Scientific Method (maybe you've heard of it) and it has been the backbone of science since the 17th century... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method Read this over and over until you know it backward and forward, this knowledge will serve you well in the future. Otherwise, you will continue to be ridiculed here, and you will deserve it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-01 16:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <q31rbn$ehu$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #725446 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >pnal >"Talk is cheap, John, but evidence can be very compelling. Got Evidence?" >Are observations evidence? Does it matter if others made them? Yes? No? >Okay, then: for the umpteenth time, the only explanation for asymmetrical >galactic rotation curves (if galaxies don't precess) is dark matter. > However, it's looking more and more like nobody can prove that dark matter >exists. >Therefore, galaxies must precess. That last sentence is so, so illogical, John. First, you only allow for two possibilities, dark matter and precession. With that kind of "logic", the following sentence must make perfect sense to you: "If scientists cannot prove the existence of gravitons, the only possible explanation for gravity is invisible pink fairies pushing all the planets around." So, do you believe in fairies since I know you disbelieve in gravitons? There are other explanations, ones MUCH better than precessing galaxies. Including invisible pink fairies. Second, you are so impatient. How many decades was it before the predicted neutrino was detected? How many decades before the p;redicted Higgs boson was discovered? Third, while an alternate to dark matter is that gravity behaves differently on very large scales, they have discovered galaxies that behave as if they have almost no dark matter (that is, no funny rotation curves), and others that act as if they were almost all dark matter. Strong support for dark matter. Fourth, you refuse to address all kinds of violations of laws of physics with your precessing spinny things. Torqueless precession for starters. Why not address these? Because you can't.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson_invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-31 21:37 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <q30lv4$e2q$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #725423 |
On 1/31/2019 4:37 PM, john wrote: > Odd > “. Waddya say, yah bunch of SHEEP? “ > Sheep #1 is talking to you guys, Penile and MMoron: > sheep’s # 2 and 3. What do you say? > Never mind- I know- baaa!! > Electric sheep? Ahh, they are in a different class.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-31 16:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <q2v72c$rl5$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #725150 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >Odd >"So again John: what serves the function of the >arm or the hose in the case of the electron to give it the spinor behavior? " >The double precession, you more-than-dolt. >http://users.accesscomm.ca/sefton/2electronorbital.GIF I just watched that part of the video. The coffee cup does not precess. In fact, one point of the trick is that you can do it with some coffee in the cup.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-31 08:40 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <9cb8c98c-122b-437d-84b0-a9fd25588b81@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #725346 |
Michael “I just watched that part of the video. The coffee cup does not precess. In fact, one point of the trick is that you can do it with some coffee in the cup. ” It’s an ‘analogy’ Michael. Look up the word.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-31 17:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <q2vbht$kpm$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #725352 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > Michael > “I just watched that part of the video. The coffee cup does not precess. > In fact, one point of the trick is that you can do it with some coffee in > the cup. ” > It’s an ‘analogy’ Michael. > Look up the word. > And an analogy is not an explanation. Notice that you saw the MOTION of the cup and saw that it had a resemblance to the MOTION of your Lissajous figure with orthogonal rotations and so you concluded that they were the same in essence. When in fact they were nothing of the kind, as I tried to point out and for which you seemed oblivious. -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-28 20:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <q2npu4$pt5$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #724972 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >Of course, you can explain this with math but have no physical or >conceptual model. The standard model is most certainly a physics model! >Why not try to fit your math to my model? You still don't even have a model. No equations. No predictions. No math. Can't be falsified (so not a model) without definite predictions, so what good is it? >Neutrons are composed of a proton AND an electron which are also offsetting > each other IN SPITE of their spin. No, John. A neutron is one up quark plus two down quarks.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-28 20:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <q2npi2$pt5$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #724967 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >No. >You pay attention. >Spin IS charge. No, John, they are very different properties. An electron has spin and charge. A charged pion has charge but no spin. A neutrino or neutron has spin but no charge. A neutral pion has neither spin nor charge. Why do you make up stupid crap that a quick Google check can tell you it is wrong? >Black holes all have the same spin, which is OPPOSITE to our matter. No, John. I saw another topic in which you responded how all the black holes have spin at least 50% c. A quick look shows a chart of the mass/spin of several black holes plotted, all with different spin. And what is the spin of regular matter? Playing with a gyroscope shows it can have a spin of any direction I want. > They repel each other, How could they, with their ENORMOUS masses? > but attract our matter unless our matter is radiating -1/2h neutrinos, >which keeps the stars away until they run out of energy. Babbling nonsense word salad.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-28 16:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <q2nb8h$cj4$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #724940 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >Electrostatic repulsion doesn't kill gravity. It's just stronger than >gravity. > Which is exactly why BHs don't merge. Does not follow. With their huge masses, they most definitely will merge. >They are next-gauge up PROTONS, existing within galactic arm ELECTRON clouds. No they are not. That is just Little Pharma talking. >And the Milky Way is a Carbon atom- it has 4 arms and a bar. No. More Little Pharma hallucinations. >https://earthsky.org/space/new-map-confirms-four-milky-way-arms Nothing in there about the Milky Way being carbon!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-28 16:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <q2nar8$cj4$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #724917 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >MM >"Because so far, every single thing with mass attracts each other gravitationally," >Electrons don't. They most certainly do, John. They are lightweight, about 1/1836 the mass of a proton, but that is not zero. Since hydrogen is an electron + a proton, the electrons are about 1/1837 the total mass of hydrogen. Heavier elements have neutrons, so electrons may be 1/3673 of carbon, or perhaps about 1/4000 the mass of heavier elements such as lead. Don't conflate the powerful electrostatic repulsion that electrons have with each other. While many orders of magnitude more powerful than gravity, when there are an equal number of electrons and protons (ordinary matter), then the comparatively weak gravitational force makes itself known.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergi o <invaliid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-27 22:58 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <q2m25m$bft$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #724834 |
On 1/27/2019 11:46 AM, john 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.
>
why does it spin ?
it is the addition of all angular momentum of each piece of matter that
has been gather up by the black hole.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mitchrae3323@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-27 13:44 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <8a42bc1a-6d03-4344-99d7-03cbfe9dc5be@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #724806 |
Black holes would have to be an accretion disc around more massive black holes... in unstable orbit... This fall in together orbit does not happen as it would be over with before the BH's themselves could form. God creates gravity. Eternally. Mitchell Raemsch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergi o <invaliid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-29 10:33 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <q2pv8k$1gm$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #724806 |
On 1/27/2019 6:28 AM, 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 > scale, john, scale. proton very very small obey different physics laws than Huge black holes. and black holes do not have an angular momentum of -1/2h, they are not particles. The proton’s spin (½ ħ) must be the sum of its constituents’ intrinsic spin and angular momentum from their movement inside the proton. Measuring the individual elements of the proton’s spin has been a challenge. Measurements show that the net spin of the quarks and antiquarks is only a fraction of the total. The angular momentum of the gluons is near zero, but it is poorly measured. The third element of the proton’s spin arises from the motion of the quarks inside the proton. The orbital motion may give rise to something know as the Boer-Mulders distribution. We can about learn the orbital motion through the angular distributions resulting from quark-antiquark annihilation in a process know as Drell-Yan scattering. In Drell-Yan scattering, the transverse motion of the quarks (produced by their orbital paths) will create an angular distribution proportional to cos2φ.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-29 13:51 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <q2q7bd$16lh$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #725068 |
On 1/29/2019 11:33 AM, Sergi o wrote: > On 1/27/2019 6:28 AM, john wrote: >> Protons have angular momentum of +1/2h. >> They are VERY difficult to make fuse together. >> They don’t just ‘bump into’ each other and merge. >> >> Similarly, ‘black holes’ have angular momentum of -1/2h. They, also, will not just ‘bump into’ each other and merge. >> Bodies with similar spin REPEL each other. >> >> LIGO is SO up its own ass >> > > > scale, john, scale. > > proton very very small obey different physics laws than Huge black holes. > > > and black holes do not have an angular momentum of -1/2h, they are not > particles. Come on, Sergio! EVERYTHING is a "particle" if you get far enough away from it! > The proton’s spin (½ ħ) must be the sum of its constituents’ intrinsic > spin and angular momentum from their movement inside the proton. > > Measuring the individual elements of the proton’s spin has been a > challenge. Measurements show that the net spin of the quarks and > antiquarks is only a fraction of the total. > > The angular momentum of the gluons is near zero, but it is poorly measured. > > The third element of the proton’s spin arises from the motion of the > quarks inside the proton. > > The orbital motion may give rise to something know as the Boer-Mulders > distribution. > > We can about learn the orbital motion through the angular distributions > resulting from quark-antiquark annihilation in a process know as > Drell-Yan scattering. > > In Drell-Yan scattering, the transverse motion of the quarks (produced > by their orbital paths) will create an angular distribution proportional > to cos2φ. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson_invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-30 13:24 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <q2t4m5$kmg$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #724806 |
On 1/27/2019 4:28 AM, 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 > https://youtu.be/xp-8HysWkxw?t=1313 Black holes can merge. If they just happen to get too close to each other: that's it. They are going to merge together and make a much larger black hole.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web