OT: Are protons really quantum black holes?

[Mark Martin]

How do stars follow Keplerian orbits when the galaxy
they are in is itself turning end-over-end? That was the
question.

What makes you think whole intact spiral galaxies are doing pancake
flips? That's a violation of the conservation of angular momentum.

Looking at their pathways after numerous flips and flops of the parent
galaxy, do you still think them to be following elipses?

I wouldn't accuse even planet Earth of traveling an absolutely
perfect ellipse. That's just one component of its motion. It also
wiggles back & forth, since Earth & the Moon both orbit a mutual
barycenter, and that barycenter shares another barycenter with the Sun.
Earth gets perturbed endlessly in small amounts as bits of meteoric
dust zip by. It even gets perturbed by the passage of neutrinos through
it. A body's instantaneous motion is a function of the sum of all the
forces acting upon it. A body's actual path over a period of time is a
function of all the variable forces acting upon it over time.

Hello? Is *anybody* home?

Yes, yes, of course. If anyone dares to think contrary to the Mighty
Sefton, then they are to be dismissed as absent and unaccounted for.

-Mark Martin

 

[David Brown]

Those of us who work in what was once called the 'natural sciences'
(chemistry, physics, biology, and their kin) define 'science' by
reference to the 'scientific method' - a technique of developing and
testing theories about the observable universe by actually *making
observations* in a repeatible, observer-independent manner.

<snip>

While all of what you wrote is correct, I think you missed two critical
points in Rich's post - the smileys.

 

[Happy Hippy]

Happy Hippy wrote:




That's not the same thing AT ALL, Dimwit.

-Mark Martin

The same thing as what, exactly?
(-:
John

 

[Mark Martin]

The same thing as what, exactly?

All that says is that the jets trace a cone-shaped surface. This has
nothing to do with conic-section orbits being attached to giant cones
in space.

-Mark Martin

 

[Rich Grise, Plainclothes Hippie]

The same thing as what, exactly?
(-:
John

I think he means that the cone-shaped jets driven by the radiation
pressure of the accretion disk isn't the same cone as the cone you
seem to have invoked for your conic section orbit deal.

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Rich Grise, Plainclothes Hippie]

All that says is that the jets trace a cone-shaped surface. This has
nothing to do with conic-section orbits being attached to giant cones
in space.

I think he was only saying that, conceptually, the cone on which any
orbit is inscribed is, itself, revolving (or maybe only rotating)
about some other axis. I don't think he thinks there are physical
cones in outer space with little planet tracks on them. ;-P

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Rich Grise, Plainclothes Hippie]

All that says is that the jets trace a cone-shaped surface. This has
nothing to do with conic-section orbits being attached to giant cones
in space.

Ever since I can remember talking, one of my Grandpa's favorite questions
was, "Can a wheel turn three ways at once?" And he'd start acting it out,
with this imaginary wheel in front of him, spinning, then precessing,
then, ... the game was afoot, so to speak.

The world needs more of that kind of inspiration.

Cheers!
RIch

 

[Rich Grise, Plainclothes Hippie]

Those of us who work in what was once called the 'natural sciences'
(chemistry, physics, biology, and their kin) define 'science' by
reference to the 'scientific method' - a technique of developing and
testing theories about the observable universe by actually *making
observations* in a repeatible, observer-independent manner.

Yeah, like I said, that's included withing the BIGTOE, Basic Independent
Grandiose Theory Of Everything.

Science is great, as far as it goes, but it isn't _everything_.

Many things on your list do not measure up to our standards for a
testable theory.

Of course not! That's why we need a new theory! Duh!

Your 'theory of everything,' whatever it may

eventually turn out to be, cannot therefore be classified as a 'theory'
in the empirical sciences, and thus cannot be a theory that includes
science.

Now, you're just being arrogant. Of course it includes science, but
merely as a subset. I see you haven't learned to see outside your box
yet.

So, don't like calling it a theory? OK, call it the grand twilliromp. ;-)

Your effort to be all-inclusive has pre-destined you to fail to include
empirical sciences.

Boy, aren't we the judgemental one.

One of the items in the grand twilliromp is that your own pre-judgement
determines the limitations of your own reality.

Good Luck!
Rich

 

[Happy Hippy]

Happy Hippy wrote:




What makes you think whole intact spiral galaxies are doing pancake
flips? That's a violation of the conservation of angular momentum.

Galaxies have been shown to be surrounded by a
spherical halo of stars?

John

 

[Mark Martin]

Galaxies have been shown to be surrounded by a
spherical halo of stars?

So? What do you think each indivdual star/star cluster is doing? You
think it's just sitting there? Hell no. It's orbiting with the mass
center of the galaxy. If you were to run a movie of the halo very fast
you'd see each such object wizzing along on its own geodesic.

-Mark Martin

 

[Happy Hippy]

Ever since I can remember talking, one of my Grandpa's favorite questions
was, "Can a wheel turn three ways at once?" And he'd start acting it out,
with this imaginary wheel in front of him, spinning, then precessing,
then, ... the game was afoot, so to speak.

The world needs more of that kind of inspiration.

Cheers!
RIch

http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~williebo/zzzgyrovideo.MPG
Was this what Mark was
saying was against the law?
In this brief clip, rotating the bike wheel
causes precession.
This is what I think galaxies are doing.
(Albeit very, *very*, slowly.
(-:
John

 

[Mark Martin]

http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~williebo/zzzgyrovideo.MPG
Was this what Mark was
saying was against the law?
In this brief clip, rotating the bike wheel
causes precession.
This is what I think galaxies are doing.
(Albeit very, *very*, slowly.

John, you're really making a major fool of yourself here. There's a
major difference between a bike wheel and a spiral galaxy. Can you tell
me what that difference is? I'll tell you what it is.

First, the bike wheel is a RIGID system. A galaxy is anything but.
Second, the bike wheel is hanging on the end of a tense chord with its
angular momentum vector at some angle to the vertical, within an
approximately uniform gravitational potential. A galaxy is anything
but.

As Mrs. Banks said, in Mary Poppins "Rather stooopid."

-Mark Martin

 

[PD]

http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~williebo/zzzgyrovideo.MPG
Was this what Mark was
saying was against the law?
In this brief clip, rotating the bike wheel
causes precession.
This is what I think galaxies are doing.
(Albeit very, *very*, slowly.
(-:
John

And classical physics explains this precession with the presence of an
external torque that is not along the axis of rotation. (It is in fact
perpendicular to both the axis of rotation and the axis of precession.)
This explanation is neatly confirmed by changing the direction or
magnitude of that torque and observing the appropriate change in the
precession rate. And so if you think that galaxies precess, then you
surely have an accounting of the external torque that is not along the
axis of rotation.

What you're doing, John, is extrapolating similar *behaviors* to
similar objects, without an understanding of the agent that is causing
the behavior or the rules that govern that behavior. Thus you imagine
that because galaxies and bicycle wheels both have rotation and moments
of inertia, then whatever the bicycle wheel does the galaxy should do
also.

Returning to the cats and dogs thing: Both are mammals, both are
carnivores with sharp canine teeth and sensitive hearing, both have
binocular vision, both walk on four feet and have claws, neither sweat
and must lose extra heat through panting, and both have fur and tails
that they use for balance in running. However, it would be a mistake to
then assume that because dogs in the wild hunt in packs, then cats in
the wild do the same.

You make the same mistake in a *profound* way in comparing galaxies to
atoms. You extrapolate the similarities without understanding anything
about the underlying causes that will also reveal their deep
differences.

PD

 

[Androcles]

And classical physics explains this precession with the presence of an
external torque that is not along the axis of rotation. (It is in fact
perpendicular to both the axis of rotation and the axis of precession.)
This explanation is neatly confirmed by changing the direction or
magnitude of that torque and observing the appropriate change in the
precession rate. And so if you think that galaxies precess, then you
surely have an accounting of the external torque that is not along the
axis of rotation.

What you're doing, John, is extrapolating similar *behaviors* to
similar objects, without an understanding of the agent that is causing
the behavior or the rules that govern that behavior. Thus you imagine
that because galaxies and bicycle wheels both have rotation and moments
of inertia, then whatever the bicycle wheel does the galaxy should do
also.

Returning to the cats and dogs thing: Both are mammals, both are
carnivores with sharp canine teeth and sensitive hearing, both have
binocular vision, both walk on four feet and have claws, neither sweat
and must lose extra heat through panting, and both have fur and tails
that they use for balance in running. However, it would be a mistake to
then assume that because dogs in the wild hunt in packs, then cats in
the wild do the same.

You make the same mistake in a *profound* way in comparing galaxies to
atoms. You extrapolate the similarities without understanding anything
about the underlying causes that will also reveal their deep
differences.

PD

Sure. It's recorded for posterity:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/TimeIsFreq2.html
which of course followed an earlier post, echoing what you once said on
your ill-fated website, also recorded for posterity:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/TimeIsFreq.html

I don't lie, Androcles. You do. Now go away.

PD

Let a clock emit a frequency of 1 Hz be moving relative to
an observer with velocity 0.866c

Comment:
Such a clock is supposed to tick at a lower rate as a result of it s
velocity.
The velocity chosen is such that gamma = 2.
Therefore the clock ticks 1 second for every 2 seconds of the "stationary"
reference clock.

Einstein's FUMBLE:
t-vx/c^2
t' = _______________
sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

ref (Electrodynamics, section 3)

Calculation:

= t * sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
= 1 * 0.5
= 0.5 seconds
= 1 tick per 2 seconds


Comment:
One second measured by the "moving" clock has duration two seconds
measured by the "stationary" clock. The "moving" clock is (supposedly)
running slow.

You lie, moortel lies.
0.5 seconds (measured by the "moving" clock)
is 0.5 Hz (measured by the "stationary" clock)
You are as stupid as they come, a totally ignorant phuckwit.
I will not go away, I will hound you for the imbecile you are.
Androcles.

 

[Happy Hippy]

Happy Hippy wrote:




John, you're really making a major fool of yourself here. There's a
major difference between a bike wheel and a spiral galaxy. Can you tell
me what that difference is? I'll tell you what it is.

First, the bike wheel is a RIGID system. A galaxy is anything but.
Second, the bike wheel is hanging on the end of a tense chord with its
angular momentum vector at some angle to the vertical, within an
approximately uniform gravitational potential. A galaxy is anything
but.

As Mrs. Banks said, in Mary Poppins "Rather stooopid."

-Mark Martin

A galaxy is not rigid.
I'll give you that.

But stars within galaxies do not and cannot follow Keplerian
orbitals. Why? Because spiral galaxies have *arms*.
Their arms remain discrete. They are separated from the
other arms by bands of dust.

If the stars followed Keplerian orbits the galaxies
could not possibly have arms. The inner stars would quickly lap
stars exterior to them. It was precisely *because* of this that
Dumb...I mean Dark...Matter was proposed; to pull all the
outer stars around faster!! (Who *was* the brainiac that
belched out that one?)

No, galaxies aren't rigid. But they aren't fluid, either.
They are definitely structured in a somewhat permanent way.
And for whatever reason- DM or the real reason- the stars
within DO NOT....and CAN NOT... follow Keplerian orbits.
Who was the brainiac that said that? Sam? Was that you?

John
)-:

 

[Don Bowey]

Let a clock emit a frequency of 1 Hz be moving relative to
an observer with velocity 0.866c

Comment:
Such a clock is supposed to tick at a lower rate as a result of it s
velocity.
The velocity chosen is such that gamma = 2.
Therefore the clock ticks 1 second for every 2 seconds of the "stationary"
reference clock.

Einstein's FUMBLE:
t-vx/c^2
t' = _______________
sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

ref (Electrodynamics, section 3)

Calculation:

= t * sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
= 1 * 0.5
= 0.5 seconds
= 1 tick per 2 seconds


Comment:
One second measured by the "moving" clock has duration two seconds
measured by the "stationary" clock. The "moving" clock is (supposedly)
running slow.

You lie, moortel lies.
0.5 seconds (measured by the "moving" clock)
is 0.5 Hz (measured by the "stationary" clock)
You are as stupid as they come, a totally ignorant phuckwit.
I will not go away, I will hound you for the imbecile you are.
Androcles.

As trolls go, you have a fun topic, but a poor presentation, You should
work on it and come back another day.

 

[Sam Wormley]

But stars within galaxies do not and cannot follow Keplerian
orbitals. Why? Because spiral galaxies have *arms*.
Their arms remain discrete. They are separated from the
other arms by bands of dust.

I think it is the Oct. 2005 issue of Scientific American
that provides some layman level education about galactic
spiral arms.... You, John, might benefit from reading about
the phenomenon of spiral arms and stellar orbits.

 

[Charlie Edmondson]

A galaxy is not rigid.
I'll give you that.

But stars within galaxies do not and cannot follow Keplerian
orbitals. Why? Because spiral galaxies have *arms*.
Their arms remain discrete. They are separated from the
other arms by bands of dust.

If the stars followed Keplerian orbits the galaxies
could not possibly have arms. The inner stars would quickly lap
stars exterior to them. It was precisely *because* of this that
Dumb...I mean Dark...Matter was proposed; to pull all the
outer stars around faster!! (Who *was* the brainiac that
belched out that one?)

No, galaxies aren't rigid. But they aren't fluid, either.
They are definitely structured in a somewhat permanent way.
And for whatever reason- DM or the real reason- the stars
within DO NOT....and CAN NOT... follow Keplerian orbits.
Who was the brainiac that said that? Sam? Was that you?

John
)-:

Hi John,
Sorry, but no banana. The 'arms' of a galaxy are not any type of
permanent relationship. There is nothing 'holding' them together except
for a tendency to gravitationally clump when a large number of separate
large objects are spinning around a common center of mass. Star go into
and out of the 'arms' constantly. It is more a 'chaos' effect than an
actual structure.

Charlie

 

[Mark Martin]

A galaxy is not rigid.
I'll give you that.

But stars within galaxies do not and cannot follow Keplerian
orbitals. Why? Because spiral galaxies have *arms*.
Their arms remain discrete. They are separated from the
other arms by bands of dust.

If, by "Keplerian", you mean a nice, clean, uncomplicated ellipse,
then I'll have to say "What ever gave you the idea that things in the
Universe are even asserted to follow such ideal paths?" I already told
you a few posts back that I already know that real things don't travel
in clean ellipses. An ideal elliptical orbit is followed only by
*pairs* of gravitating objects. In this big Cosmos, there are no pairs.
There are, in fact, g'zillions of things exerting forces upon each
other, and gravity is only one of those forces. Kepler discovered
elliptical orbits only by the grace of orbits which are sufficiently
close to ideal ellipses as to be amenable to analysis by means
available to him at that time. If they had been severely complicated,
for example by our being in a binary star system, then he probably
would not have had a chance.

If the stars followed Keplerian orbits the galaxies
could not possibly have arms. The inner stars would quickly lap
stars exterior to them. It was precisely *because* of this that
Dumb...I mean Dark...Matter was proposed; to pull all the
outer stars around faster!! (Who *was* the brainiac that
belched out that one?)

Something you don't seem to grasp is that the arms are not
equivalent to the individual stars within them. If I rig up a weak
light source to shine through a pinhole, producing an Airy pattern (an
interference pattern of concentric rings) on a screen, the image of the
rings will be quite stable on the large scale. But if I look closely
enough at the image I'll find that on the small scale it sparkles. Each
sparkle is a single photon event on the screen. The large Airy pattern
is not, from moment to moment, the same exact photons. The photons come
& go. The spiral arms of a galaxy are not necessarily made up of the
same exact individual stars from one eon to the next. The spiral
pattern is not a function only of Keplerian orbits. There's something
more complicated going on in spiral galaxies than *just" masses
gravitating towards each other.

And if you don't know by now, at this late time in your carreer as a
maverick physicist, why the anomalous periods of galactic stars
suggests Dark Matter (which should then be investigated as a plausible
hypothesis, *alongside* the hypothesis that gravity follows a law not
yet understood by us)), then what the hell are you doing bashing it?
You don't even know what it is that you're debunking.

No, galaxies aren't rigid. But they aren't fluid, either.
They are definitely structured in a somewhat permanent way.
And for whatever reason- DM or the real reason- the stars
within DO NOT....and CAN NOT... follow Keplerian orbits.
Who was the brainiac that said that? Sam? Was that you?

There's an old saying, that "Things should be described as simply as
possible, but no simpler." Your stuff is a perfect example of simpler.

-Mark Martin

 

[Rich Grise, Plainclothes Hippie]

Happy Hippy wrote: ....
Hi John,
Sorry, but no banana. The 'arms' of a galaxy are not any type of
permanent relationship. There is nothing 'holding' them together except
for a tendency to gravitationally clump when a large number of separate
large objects are spinning around a common center of mass. Star go into
and out of the 'arms' constantly. It is more a 'chaos' effect than an
actual structure.

I once saw a time-lapse artists' conception of how a spiral galaxy is
structured, and it seems that the leading edges of the arms consisted of
new, young stars and the trailing edges were old, burned-out stars, and
the dark spaces between the arms were full of supernova dust ("star
stuff") waiting to be conglomerated by the advancing gravity wave of the
approaching arm, and become the new stars in the leading edge. It was
kinda cool, actually.

Cheers!
Rich