Would magn. pole reversal actually mess up electronic equipment?
in [Design]
|
Prev: Integrated AGC 100kHz-10MHz
Next: Piezo Amplifier
From: The Great Attractor on 4 Jan 2010 19:58 On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 13:22:32 -0600, John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >Which leads to my favorite hypothesis; that there was no big bang, but >rather a big bubble which came about much like a bubble appears in a >cavitating medium. I think of it as a big cheese ball, and a black hole places matter "outside" the bubble. After all, where does all that matter go that they swallow up? Once enough of it ends up outside the bubble, it will collapse the bubble, in a time frame quick enough that we may not see it coming. "Entropy is a myth." I used to say that a lot.
From: Sylvia Else on 4 Jan 2010 20:16 John Fields wrote: > On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 21:36:18 +1100, Sylvia Else > <sylvia(a)not.at.this.address> wrote: > > >> Objects at different distances from the centre of the galaxy will have >> different orbital periods. The time the Earth takes to go around the >> galaxy will be different the time other objects take. There is no reason >> to deem that the Earth's orbital period is the period of rotation of the >> galaxy, and since different objects have different periods, the galaxy >> does not have a rotational speed. > > --- > Surprise!!! :-) > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_rotation_curve > > JF No - they still have differing orbital periods, even though they move at about the same velocity, because those further out have further to travel to make one orbit. Sylvia.
From: Archimedes' Lever on 4 Jan 2010 20:50 On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 12:16:48 +1100, Sylvia Else <sylvia(a)not.at.this.address> wrote: >John Fields wrote: >> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 21:36:18 +1100, Sylvia Else >> <sylvia(a)not.at.this.address> wrote: >> >> >>> Objects at different distances from the centre of the galaxy will have >>> different orbital periods. The time the Earth takes to go around the >>> galaxy will be different the time other objects take. There is no reason >>> to deem that the Earth's orbital period is the period of rotation of the >>> galaxy, and since different objects have different periods, the galaxy >>> does not have a rotational speed. >> >> --- >> Surprise!!! :-) >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_rotation_curve >> >> JF > >No - they still have differing orbital periods, even though they move at >about the same velocity, because those further out have further to >travel to make one orbit. > >Sylvia. Which means that you obviously did NOT read the page. What a dope you are.
From: Sylvia Else on 4 Jan 2010 23:30 Archimedes' Lever wrote: > On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 12:16:48 +1100, Sylvia Else > <sylvia(a)not.at.this.address> wrote: > >> John Fields wrote: >>> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 21:36:18 +1100, Sylvia Else >>> <sylvia(a)not.at.this.address> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Objects at different distances from the centre of the galaxy will have >>>> different orbital periods. The time the Earth takes to go around the >>>> galaxy will be different the time other objects take. There is no reason >>>> to deem that the Earth's orbital period is the period of rotation of the >>>> galaxy, and since different objects have different periods, the galaxy >>>> does not have a rotational speed. >>> --- >>> Surprise!!! :-) >>> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_rotation_curve >>> >>> JF >> No - they still have differing orbital periods, even though they move at >> about the same velocity, because those further out have further to >> travel to make one orbit. >> >> Sylvia. > > > Which means that you obviously did NOT read the page. > > What a dope you are. The graph appears to be correct, and is consistent with the page on the Milky Way. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milkyway The text is wrong in describing the graph as showing that the the velocity is a constant function of radius, since the graph clearly shows that the velocity is simply a constant. I have made the required correction. Sylvia.
From: Sylvia Else on 4 Jan 2010 23:48
John Fields wrote: > On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 07:31:18 -0800 (PST), MooseFET <kensmith(a)rahul.net> > wrote: > > . > . > . > >> You are correct that the motions are relative to other bodies and not >> relative to some >> mythical fixed frame of reference in space. We are part of a group at >> appears to be >> gathering together amidst the greater collection that is flying apart. > > --- > Which leads to my favorite hypothesis; that there was no big bang, but > rather a big bubble which came about much like a bubble appears in a > cavitating medium. > > If that were the case, then the medium surrounding our bubble would be > the Universe, while what was bounded by the walls of our bubble would be > our universe. > > Looking at it from the point of view that matter is accelerating away > from us as its distance from us increases makes no sense in a big bang > universe since, after the initial acceleration, nothing would be driving > the mass and one would expect that matter would either recede at a > constant velocity if the universe was open, stop if the universe was > static, or accrete if the universe was closed. > > Such is not the case however, and for matter to accelerate as it gets > farther way from us requires that some force be attracting it. I think you have the roles of reality and theory reversed. The universe behaves in some way. It is not constrained by theory. The role of theory is to model the behaviour of the universe. On reasonably local scales, theories involving force, mass and acceleration provide accurate predictions of the behaviour of matter. But that's as far as it goes. If the large scale Universe is found to be behaving in a way that is inconsistent with the theory, then the theory has to be modified. You can't argue that the Universe must take some form because the present theoretical model requires it. Sylvia. |