Dear john:

"john" wrote in message
...
On Apr 18, 10:26 am, dlzc wrote:
....
I expand More I see our Galexy with Millions /
Billions of stars revolving arround a Center.

[And] moving up and down above the ecliptic.
And grouping and ungrouping wavelike to provide
the illusion of "[spiral] arms".
....
You say the spiral arms of galaxies are illusions?

Yes, this is pretty well known. The motions of the stars do not
agree with the motions of the arms, but "conspire" to produce the
arms... just like water molecules and water waves.

Oh, yeah, if they aren't, then our theory of gravity
is invalidated- must be illusions.

Sorry no. Neither gravitation nor GR require "spiral arms".
They do permit them.

Must be a whole new class of matter, too, Dark
Matter- or else we're wrong.

And we're never wrong.

We are wrong. Have you not been paying attention? All we have
are theories with limited domain of applicability. That is what
sets Science apart from Religion. We don't have a "good book"
whose writings are never questioned, and must be memorized for
one to be acceptable to society.

What we have a writings from very clever and very lucky people
who got to see things before any of their counterparts, how our
coarser approximations can be refined into a finer approximation
with broader scope. In other words, they have travelled roads
that we have not, and may not be able to. Like Hillary, Norgay,
and Everest.

Of course, it is easy to snipe. Certainly easier than reading
and learning. We make theories, we evaluate them to see what
they predict in unknown (or overlooked) places, then we look in
those places. For now, Dark Matter is necessary to keep from
considering new unforeseen, unexpected (maybe unbelieveable)
terms in GR. Do you really think it will stay that way? I
don't.

David A. Smith

On Apr 18, 3:50*am, Sanny wrote:
When we look through lenses we see Cells.

And we further expand we see the Molecules.

Molecules are just a combination of Atoms. These Attoms form ionic or
covalent Bonds and form the basis of Molecules.

Nowe we futher go down we see Small Electrons revolving arround a
Nuclie again a Bond of Electric Field.

We further go down we see Nucleus where Protons & Nutrons are
revolving arround with Nuclear Bond.

The electron and proton have opposite charge and attract. But they
have to be forced together. This is an oxymoron.

Mitch Raemsch



Now I start looking Big things.

I see moon and earth. Moon & Earth revolve due to Gravitational
forces.

Just expand a Bit, I see Out Planets revolving arround the Sun in
fixrd Orbits.

I expand More I see our Galexy with Millions/Billions of stars
revolving arround a Center.

So Either we Expand and see Big Things Or see Small things I find same
thing happening.

There are a few particals revolving arround onother. And Morming a
Closed Circle.

We Just name them differenly.

If they are 1 nm Thick we call them Molecules.

If they are 1 Angstom Thick we Call them Atoms.

If they are 1/1000th of Angstom wide we call them nucleus.

Now Larger.

If they are Size of Moon We call them Sattelites.

When they are planets arround the Sun we call them Solar System

When they are lots of stars circling arround a center we call them
Galaxies.

Who knows if Our Solar System is a Water Molecule in the Galaxy???

Just like water in a Glass revolves due to Brownion motion. All these
motion as result of Brownian Motions.

Is this Analogy Correct?

Bye
Sanny

Extreme Discussions at:http://www.getclub.com/Discussion.php

On Apr 20, 2:44 am, wrote:
The electron and proton have opposite charge and attract. But they
have to be forced together. This is an oxymoron.

You mean contradiction. Which it would be if they
"had to be forced together". But they do not.

Electrons bind to protons to form hydrogen. It takes
energy to pull them apart.

- Randy