OT: Are protons really quantum black holes?

No... I mean did you, John, think that electrons when around an atomic nucleus like stars in a spiral galaxy?

Of course there is some similarity between atoms and galaxies - and also solar systems in between. Any teenager with an imagination and some interest in physics notices this. Of course, after thinking about it for a short time, they note that the differences far outweigh the similarities, and forget about it.

I'd say, not to _transcend_, but to expand, or deepen, the mind/intuition alignment.

;-)

Cheers! Rich

hey

And the numbers support.............galaxy rotation profiles?

Only if we infer a totally new class of matter.

John

Here's some possibly interesting reading about reality and stuff:

Oh, and it turns out that God loves us, but he doesn't like nukes. :-D

Cheers! Rich

OK David. Name your 5 main differences that preclude the comparison. Please.

John

Let's say they do.

How do the stars in a spiral galaxy go around? Do you think they go around in circles which repeat in a sort of ecliptic plane? Or might that ecliptic plane itself be rotating around an axis within it? You do know that our planets do this, do you not? Are galaxies precessing? Might this not lead to confusion about star velocities (calculating pathways as 2D when they are really 3D)? What proof is there that they are? What proof that they are not?

John

Stars are in Keplerian orbits. Electrons are not and cannot even be described as having discrete boundaries.

"Radio sources with jets can possess another peculiar shape due to a combination of kinetic and geometrical effects. This occurs if the jets precess about a defined axis. The precession can result in the jet being curved as observed in the plane of the sky, although any fluid particle of the jet always follows a straight trajectory. This behaviour is manifested in the plane of the sky as inversion (or 180$ ^\circ$ rotation) symmetry. For example, a bend to the right in one jet becomes a bent to the left in the opposite jet. A typical example is the radio galaxy NGC 326 which is shown in fig.(I.5). It is very likely that this precession originates at the very base of the jet (see Begelman et al.,

1984, and references therein), close to the central engine.

Figure I.5: Inversion symmetry in the radio galaxies source associated with NGC 326. The radio image of the galaxy shows a bend in the top left jet implies a bend to the bottom right jet. This peculiar shape arise because the jets precess about a certain axis, resulting in a cone-like radio structure. The projection on the plane of the sky of this motion produces inversion symmetry." from Bending of jets in radio galaxies

"It is very likely that this precession originates at the very base of the jet" means the disc itself is precessing. The magnetic structure arising at right-angles to the Milky Way also curves.

John

Does a cloud have a discrete boundary? A galactic arm of stars can assume any shape. Look at some of the galactic interactions. Are these objects with fluid boundaries?

We have pictures of radio galaxies that are very obviously precessing because of the shape of their magnetic jets. Are those stars following Keplerian orbitals?

The arms in those discs must be accelerating around *two* axes at once!

John

The individual stars are following Keplerian orbits with one focus at the net gavitational center at every instant.

The most important differences are due to scale:

On the astronomic scale, gravity is by far the dominant effect. On the atomic scale, the electromagnetic force is dominant (and also weak and strong nuclear forces, when you get within the nucleus). These are very different types of forces, leading to very different patterns.

On the atomic scale, quantum mechanics rules - on the astronomic scale, relativity rules. One day, someone will figure out a successful and consistent big toe, but even then the two theories will be very good approximations in all but the most extreme cases. Among the differences caused by this, it is not hard to find out where a given star is (or at least, where it was), whereas it doesn't even make sense to ask where a particular orbital electron is.

Atoms interact with their environment in many ways, such as partnerships with neighbouring atoms, or electrons jumping between orbits. Galaxies, to a large extent, are independent - their relations to other galaxies are mostly minor due to the distances involved.

Atoms have a core that is totally different in character to the orbitals

- galaxies have no well-defined core, but simply a denser central region.

Atoms come in specific discrete sizes, all with the same spherical shape (when isolated). Galaxies come in a wide range of shapes and sizes.

Looking at the similarities between galaxies (or more commonly, solar systems) and atoms can be illustrative at a basic level, but the similarities end quickly. It's like comparing a bacteria to a person, and describing the nucleus as the "brain", and flagela as the "arms".

Conic sections they may be, but the cone is also orbitting.

John

[[[*Hey, John. I'm talking in a whisper so no one else can hear and you won't be made an even bigger fool in public than you've already made yourself... So here's the scoop: Keplerian orbits are conic sections 'cause -get this- 'cause those shapes can be made by slicing through a cone at various angles. But those shapes can also be made in other ways without -get this- without cones. John, please make a note of this... There's-no-gigantic-cone-out-in-space. There's no -get this- no cone orbiting anything. Hope this helps. I really do. I'm praying

-get this- praying for you John.*]]]

-Mark Martin

Well, I've got one, but nobody seems interested in hearing it, probably because, of necessity, it includes God/Goddess/All That Is, right inside the same metabox as science and religion and art and philosophy and meat and potatoes and pizza and sex and drugs and rock & roll. :-) Otherwise, it clearly wouldn't be a theory of _everything_. :-D

Cheers! Rich

for further information, please visit

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.

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

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

Physicists OTOH do not even pretend to be interested in developing theories about many of these things. A 'theory of everything' in physics means an *empirically testable* theory that applies to all

*independently observable* pheonomena - a much less ambitious and much more realizable goal than yours.

Happy philosophizing.

BTW, are you a sophomore? Most people I know outgrew the delusion that they could ever possibly know Everything late in their second year. By the time they started upper-division courses, they realized that they couldn't even expect to learn Everything about their major subject in a single lifetime.

Tom Davidson Richmond, VA

He is clearly from France...

(silly movie reference)

--
Regards,
  Bob Monsen

(A number)  submits to be taken away from a number greater than itself, but 
to take it away from a number less than itself is ridiculous.  Yet this is 
attempted by algebraists who talk of a number less than nothing; of 
multiplying a negative number into a negative number and thus producing a 
positive number; of a number being imaginary. ... This is all jargon, at 
which common sense recoils; but, from its having been once adopted, like 
many other figments, it finds the most strenuous supporters among those who
love to take things upon trust and hate the colour of serious thought.
- William Frend (father-in-law of Augustus De Morgan) in 1796

Lots of physicists are working on string theory (yet another theory of everything), which is considered little more than a religious cult by physicists like Glashow. Is string theory science, according to your definition?

--
Regards,
  Bob Monsen

(A number)  submits to be taken away from a number greater than itself, but 
to take it away from a number less than itself is ridiculous.  Yet this is 
attempted by algebraists who talk of a number less than nothing; of 
multiplying a negative number into a negative number and thus producing a 
positive number; of a number being imaginary. ... This is all jargon, at 
which common sense recoils; but, from its having been once adopted, like 
many other figments, it finds the most strenuous supporters among those who
love to take things upon trust and hate the colour of serious thought.
- William Frend (father-in-law of Augustus De Morgan) in 1796

On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 13:29:15 -0800, Bob Monsen wrote: ...

In this day and age, negative numbers are "almost intuitive" - when I was in about fifth or 6th grade, they were teaching us the number line. And the teacher asks, "So, what if you have three, but take away five?" and some kid says, "Well, then you'd be two in the hole." The teacher said "Exactly!!" and lit up like "Wow, one of them *GOT IT*!!" ;-)

Cheers! Rich