"Lloyd Parker" wrote:

[snip]

In a new paper, http://arxiv.org/pdf/nucl-th/0511051 ,


Uh, that's not a paper. A paper is in a scientific journal, not on a web
site.

Have you heard about e-journal or e-publishing? Primitive Parker.
You must be living in the Stone Age.

[snip]
"Additionally, neutron repulsion explains extremely high
energy events like quasars, which are associated with high-density
regions of space," Manuel says. "These were previously attributed to
black holes."

* * * * * * *

THE MECHANISM OF STAR FORMATION IN GALAXY.
(adapted from "Natural Science Founded on A New Atomic Model" by Hansik
Yoon)


So it's all a fraud.


Nobody won't be fooled by Lloyd Parker because his all postings are
fraud from the Stone Age.

"Lloyd Parker" wrote:


On the other hand, if spiral galaxies
are atoms and ellipticals are molecules

If 2 +2 = 7. Dumb and dumber.


Lloyd Parker is the dumbest.

In article .com,
"Ben Tawn" wrote:
"Lloyd Parker" wrote:

[snip]
Since inside of the neutron
mass must be a supercritical environment of ultra high temperature and
pressure, there can occur a variety of nuclear reaction.

Except all that's there are 3 quarks.

What you said is simply nonsense. Idiot Parker, learn more.

A neutron consists of 3 quarks. What part of that do you not understand?


[snip]


Dr. Yoon's physics defines that the force of binding protons by nuclear
electron ring in atomic nuclei is the nuclear strong force, and proton
↔ neutron with an enormous frequency.

Dr. Yoon's brain is full of mush.


The truth is that Lloyd Parker's brain is full of garbage like his
postings.

In article .com,
"Ben Tawn" wrote:

"Lloyd Parker" wrote:

[snip]

In a new paper, http://arxiv.org/pdf/nucl-th/0511051 ,


Uh, that's not a paper. A paper is in a scientific journal, not on a web
site.

Have you heard about e-journal or e-publishing? Primitive Parker.
You must be living in the Stone Age.

No, I insist on some peer review, not junk science like you and newedana.


[snip]
"Additionally, neutron repulsion explains extremely high
energy events like quasars, which are associated with high-density
regions of space," Manuel says. "These were previously attributed to
black holes."

* * * * * * *

THE MECHANISM OF STAR FORMATION IN GALAXY.
(adapted from "Natural Science Founded on A New Atomic Model" by Hansik
Yoon)


So it's all a fraud.


Nobody won't be fooled by Lloyd Parker because his all postings are
fraud from the Stone Age.

In article .com,
"Ben Tawn" wrote:
"Lloyd Parker" wrote:


On the other hand, if spiral galaxies
are atoms and ellipticals are molecules

If 2 +2 = 7. Dumb and dumber.


Lloyd Parker is the dumbest.

Hey, I'm not the one raving about galaxies being atoms.

In article ,
Happy Hippy wrote:
PD wrote:
Happy Hippy wrote:

PD wrote:

Happy Hippy wrote:


Lloyd Parker wrote:


In article ,
Happy Hippy wrote:



Sam Wormley wrote:



Happy Hippy wrote:




The only question is
'Whence the spin?'
The answer:
The Universe is spinning.


There is plenty of spinning going on *within* the universe, but the
universe as a whole....

Assuming the inflationary scenario is correct, one would expect any
universal rotation to be extremely small.

Some Papers involving "Rotation of the Universe"



http://www.google.com/search?q=%22ro...%22+site%3AarX
iv.org



Yes, there is lots of spinning in the Universe.
The Universe continues at larger and smaller scales infinitely.
But the scale we are concerned with
is the next up from Black Holes.

Consider the neutron star; collections of electrons
melded to protons fall back into the BH to be spun
back up into plasma, stuff of stars.

What is this Black Hole? It is itself a nucleus
composed of protons and neutrons. It is spin.


No. There are no protons and neutrons on a BH. It is a singularity.
Zero
volume, infinite density.


hahaha



Where did it get its spin?


From the spinning star that collapsed. Conservation of angular
momentum.

Which star was that?
Is there a *preferred* star that collapses and then
becomes the central BH of each galaxy?
After this preferred star collapses then no
more stars collapse to form BHs...ever? Why?


I don't know why you would think that. Just because a galaxy has a Big
Old Black Hole in the core does not mean that there are no other black
holes in the galaxy.


Why wouldn't there be?

So why are they only seeing one at
the center of spiral galaxies?


The one at the center of a galaxy did not come from the collapse of one
star necessarily. These typically have a mass of thousands to millions
of suns, which means that several black holes near each other coalesced
or that the black hole consumed a large number of stars (some of which
would have collapsed into a black hole and some of which would not
have) or both.


Stars are collapsing ALL the time.
Where are all these black holes?


In the arms of the spiral galaxy there are some that haven't been
sucked into the big one in the middle.


On the other hand, if spiral galaxies
are atoms and ellipticals are molecules
the former will have one at the center
and the latter more than one.


You'll note that the protons in atoms and the atoms in molecules do not
coalesce the way that black holes do. There goes that model!

You got it backwards again, PD.
Hint: we *see* that "the protons in atoms and the atoms in molecules do
not coalesce". OK so far.
Now.
"(T)he way that black holes do."
Hmm. Are you saying we have seen this?
Because if we have, then you're right.

You see, I'm saying that BHs do what atomic nuclei
do.

Nuclei have dimensionality; they are not a singularity.


However, you might have to watch carefully for
a fairly extended period to see BHs coalescing.

I've got an idea -- you go watch. Don't look away or you might miss it.


John
Galaxy Model for the Atom
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/

PD wrote:
Happy Hippy wrote:

PD wrote:

Happy Hippy wrote:


Lloyd Parker wrote:


In article ,
Happy Hippy wrote:



Sam Wormley wrote:



Happy Hippy wrote:




The only question is
'Whence the spin?'
The answer:
The Universe is spinning.


There is plenty of spinning going on *within* the universe, but the
universe as a whole....

Assuming the inflationary scenario is correct, one would expect any
universal rotation to be extremely small.

Some Papers involving "Rotation of the Universe"



http://www.google.com/search?q=%22ro...%3AarX iv.org



Yes, there is lots of spinning in the Universe.
The Universe continues at larger and smaller scales infinitely.
But the scale we are concerned with
is the next up from Black Holes.

Consider the neutron star; collections of electrons
melded to protons fall back into the BH to be spun
back up into plasma, stuff of stars.

What is this Black Hole? It is itself a nucleus
composed of protons and neutrons. It is spin.


No. There are no protons and neutrons on a BH. It is a singularity. Zero
volume, infinite density.


hahaha



Where did it get its spin?


From the spinning star that collapsed. Conservation of angular momentum.

Which star was that?
Is there a *preferred* star that collapses and then
becomes the central BH of each galaxy?
After this preferred star collapses then no
more stars collapse to form BHs...ever? Why?


I don't know why you would think that. Just because a galaxy has a Big
Old Black Hole in the core does not mean that there are no other black
holes in the galaxy.


Why wouldn't there be?

So why are they only seeing one at
the center of spiral galaxies?


The one at the center of a galaxy did not come from the collapse of one
star necessarily. These typically have a mass of thousands to millions
of suns, which means that several black holes near each other coalesced
or that the black hole consumed a large number of stars (some of which
would have collapsed into a black hole and some of which would not
have) or both.


Stars are collapsing ALL the time.
Where are all these black holes?


In the arms of the spiral galaxy there are some that haven't been
sucked into the big one in the middle.


On the other hand, if spiral galaxies
are atoms and ellipticals are molecules
the former will have one at the center
and the latter more than one.


You'll note that the protons in atoms and the atoms in molecules do not
coalesce the way that black holes do. There goes that model!

You got it backwards again, PD.
Hint: we *see* that "the protons in atoms and the atoms in molecules do
not coalesce". OK so far.
Now.
"(T)he way that black holes do."
Hmm. Are you saying we have seen this?
Because if we have, then you're right.

You see, I'm saying that BHs do what atomic nuclei
do.

However, you might have to watch carefully for
a fairly extended period to see BHs coalescing.

John
Galaxy Model for the Atom
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/

Lloyd Parker wrote:

In article ,
Happy Hippy wrote:

Lloyd Parker wrote:

In article ,
Happy Hippy wrote:


PD wrote:


Happy Hippy wrote:



Lloyd Parker wrote:



In article ,
Happy Hippy wrote:




Sam Wormley wrote:




Happy Hippy wrote:





The only question is
'Whence the spin?'
The answer:
The Universe is spinning.


There is plenty of spinning going on *within* the universe, but the
universe as a whole....

Assuming the inflationary scenario is correct, one would expect any
universal rotation to be extremely small.

Some Papers involving "Rotation of the Universe"



http://www.google.com/search?q=%22ro...%22+site%3AarX

iv

org


Yes, there is lots of spinning in the Universe.
The Universe continues at larger and smaller scales infinitely.
But the scale we are concerned with
is the next up from Black Holes.

Consider the neutron star; collections of electrons
melded to protons fall back into the BH to be spun
back up into plasma, stuff of stars.

What is this Black Hole? It is itself a nucleus
composed of protons and neutrons. It is spin.


No. There are no protons and neutrons on a BH. It is a singularity.

Zero


volume, infinite density.


hahaha




Where did it get its spin?


From the spinning star that collapsed. Conservation of angular

momentum.

Which star was that?
Is there a *preferred* star that collapses and then
becomes the central BH of each galaxy?
After this preferred star collapses then no
more stars collapse to form BHs...ever? Why?


I don't know why you would think that. Just because a galaxy has a Big
Old Black Hole in the core does not mean that there are no other black
holes in the galaxy.


Why wouldn't there be?


That is not a logical reply to the previous post. Is English your second
language?


My English is better than yours, I'll
wager. I'll also bet that I've read at
least twice the books you have.
If you haven't been 'keeping up' with recent
observations, you wouldn't know
that they specifically reported recently
that they *haven't* seen any
BHs *except* at centers of galaxies.
Which I go on to state below.



So why are they only seeing one at
the center of spiral galaxies?


Because they're hard to see?

Hard to see? Yes.
Hard to detect by their effects? No.


Stars are collapsing ALL the time.


But not to black holes; most become brown dwarfs or neutron stars.

So there should be an overwhelming majority
of neutron stars around.
Where are they all?


They're there, but heck, we can't even see all the active stars; what makes
you think we can see all the inactive ones?



Where are all these black holes?


How do you detect one?

You got me.

Exactly. We have to detect them indirectly; by seeing matter falling into one
(the X-rays or gamma rays it emits) or by seeing the perturbations in the
orbit of another star orbiting a black hole. Neither is easy to do from a
distance.




On the other hand, if spiral galaxies
are atoms and ellipticals are molecules


If 2 +2 = 7. Dumb and dumber.

These are the ideas I explore in my
page. I provide the link lots.


Link lots? Yeah, your English is sooooo good.

And yeah is good?
Hey, I'm just trying to use words you'll understand.


You click on the different-colored
letters. That should be of help to you.


No thanks; I read enough nonsense with the crap newedana posts.


So you haven't even read my page?
It's short.
It uses simple words you'll 'get'.
It has lots of pictures. (Maybe none
of them are of the girlie variety, but you
gotta branch out sometime.)
Try it, sweety, maybe you'll like it.
It's the one with the differently-colored letters.

the former will have one at the center
and the latter more than one.

John
Galaxy Model for the Atom
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/

Happy Hippy wrote:
PD wrote:
Happy Hippy wrote:

PD wrote:

Happy Hippy wrote:


Lloyd Parker wrote:


In article ,
Happy Hippy wrote:



Sam Wormley wrote:



Happy Hippy wrote:




The only question is
'Whence the spin?'
The answer:
The Universe is spinning.


There is plenty of spinning going on *within* the universe, but the
universe as a whole....

Assuming the inflationary scenario is correct, one would expect any
universal rotation to be extremely small.

Some Papers involving "Rotation of the Universe"



http://www.google.com/search?q=%22ro...%3AarX iv.org



Yes, there is lots of spinning in the Universe.
The Universe continues at larger and smaller scales infinitely.
But the scale we are concerned with
is the next up from Black Holes.

Consider the neutron star; collections of electrons
melded to protons fall back into the BH to be spun
back up into plasma, stuff of stars.

What is this Black Hole? It is itself a nucleus
composed of protons and neutrons. It is spin.


No. There are no protons and neutrons on a BH. It is a singularity. Zero
volume, infinite density.


hahaha



Where did it get its spin?


From the spinning star that collapsed. Conservation of angular momentum.

Which star was that?
Is there a *preferred* star that collapses and then
becomes the central BH of each galaxy?
After this preferred star collapses then no
more stars collapse to form BHs...ever? Why?


I don't know why you would think that. Just because a galaxy has a Big
Old Black Hole in the core does not mean that there are no other black
holes in the galaxy.


Why wouldn't there be?

So why are they only seeing one at
the center of spiral galaxies?


The one at the center of a galaxy did not come from the collapse of one
star necessarily. These typically have a mass of thousands to millions
of suns, which means that several black holes near each other coalesced
or that the black hole consumed a large number of stars (some of which
would have collapsed into a black hole and some of which would not
have) or both.


Stars are collapsing ALL the time.
Where are all these black holes?


In the arms of the spiral galaxy there are some that haven't been
sucked into the big one in the middle.


On the other hand, if spiral galaxies
are atoms and ellipticals are molecules
the former will have one at the center
and the latter more than one.


You'll note that the protons in atoms and the atoms in molecules do not
coalesce the way that black holes do. There goes that model!

You got it backwards again, PD.
Hint: we *see* that "the protons in atoms and the atoms in molecules do
not coalesce". OK so far.
Now.
"(T)he way that black holes do."
Hmm. Are you saying we have seen this?
Because if we have, then you're right.

Two comments:
a) It is strongly suspected that gamma ray bursts are precisely the
coalescence of black holes.
b) It is known the *single* highly massive object in the core of the
galaxy *cannot* be due to the collapse of a single object. There are no
observed precursors (stars with masses of tens of millions of solar
masses) that would collapse into a black hole.


You see, I'm saying that BHs do what atomic nuclei
do.

However, you might have to watch carefully for
a fairly extended period to see BHs coalescing.

John
Galaxy Model for the Atom
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/

If you compare Dr. Hansik Yoon's cosmology with the result of NASA's
Chandra X-ray Observatory about the formation of new stars from the
so-called black holes.

You will find how exactly Dr. Yoon's cosmology agrees with it, while
today's particle physics cannot explain it.

Based on "Natural Science Founded on A New Atomic Model" by Hansik
Yoon. ( http://www.yoonsatom.net and
http://yoonsphysics.blogspot.com/ )