|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Universes and Galaxies Sameness ???
Well those that read my posts know I am always looking for "sameness"
Well both are formed by gravity. Both came to be(their birth) from Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and found their particular spacetime(area of space) because of a quantum fluctuation(tricky thinking) You could say both popped into existence. Both have black holes at their center. Both rotate. Galaxies are inside Universes. But it is like wheels within wheels Bert |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Universes and Galaxies Sameness ???
Bert wrote,
Both have black holes at their center. Both rotate. =A0 Galaxies are inside Universes. But it is like wheels within wheels =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 This is where 'intuitive extrapolation' comes in, Bert. A basic planform is seen throughout nature, at every level.. in this case, dual hemispheres and a common equator rotating on a polar axis. It's common to all rotating systems. Using Occams Razor, it's more logical to assume the macro-universe is also rotating and displays this same planform seen in all its 'little fractals', than not. That would make the macro-universe a bipolar toroid, with the hypermassive BH 'Engine' at its core (Primal Particle). The (ground state) hydrogen atom would display this same toroidal form, with its electron shell and central proton the exact microscale analog of the macro-universe.. making the bipolar toroid the most promal form in nature, from which all else 'fractalizes' and evolves. oc |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Universes and Galaxies Sameness ???
Ho oc Glad the post complements your thoughts. Got a email and it was
complementary regarding this post. Nature hides her secrets well,but I think if we think like nature we will find sameness(physics) in both macro,and micro objects. A galaxy can be just a small fleck of dust as compared to the universe,but its properties could be the same. Bert |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Universes and Galaxies Sameness ???
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Universes and Galaxies Sameness ???
"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote in message ... Well those that read my posts know I am always looking for "sameness" Well both are formed by gravity. Both came to be(their birth) from Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and found their particular spacetime(area of space) because of a quantum fluctuation(tricky thinking) You could say both popped into existence. Both have black holes at their center. Both rotate. Galaxies are inside Universes. But it is like wheels within wheels Bert Burt I don't understand your usage of the Uncertainty principle. Can you please explain? I am familiar with the UP, but I don't understand your usage. BV. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Universes and Galaxies Sameness ???
BV I'm using the Uncertainty Principle even though it is a principle of
QM. In the microscopic world it is uncertain where a particle may pop up. It is equally uncertain in the universe where a galaxy may form.(why not here than there?) It is a good question BV. I am uncertain if I should use the uncertainty principle in the macro realm,could be most probably wrong. Bert |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Universes and Galaxies Sameness ???
"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote in message ... BV I'm using the Uncertainty Principle even though it is a principle of QM. In the microscopic world it is uncertain where a particle may pop up. It is equally uncertain in the universe where a galaxy may form.(why not here than there?) It is a good question BV. I am uncertain if I should use the uncertainty principle in the macro realm,could be most probably wrong. Bert I think it is perfectly valid to use the UP in either the macro or the micro realm. As I understand it, the UP says (in laymen's terms) that we cannot measure both the velocity and the position of an object simultaneously as measuring one aspect will affect the other. BV. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"Odysseus" wrote...
in message ... BenignVanilla wrote: I think it is perfectly valid to use the UP in either the macro or the micro realm. As I understand it, the UP says (in laymen's terms) that we cannot measure both the velocity and the position of an object simultaneously as measuring one aspect will affect the other. According to some (e.g. proponents of the "Copenhagen interpretation") it goes deeper than that; they would say that a particle simply cannot have a position and a momentum that are both well defined. A major unresolved issue with the case as you put it is that it's still quite unclear what constitutes a "measurement" -- one might consider it the new version of the old tree-falling-in-a-forest-with-nobody-there-to-hear conundrum. But at any rate the uncertainty principle is pretty much irrelevant to macroscopic objects. From the formulation "delta-x times delta-p equals h divided by twice pi", considering how tiny h (Planck's constant) is, you should be able to see that for any macroscopic object the uncertainty is negligible. -- Odysseus And that's a GOOD thing... otherwise humans would occasionally beget ostriches! happy days and... starry starry nights! -- Sweet home, oh Precious Earth, The ONLY home we know, Tell us what you need of worth, And we can make it so. Do you want our hearts to beat And thrive within your air? Then teach us what we know we need So we can learn to care. Paine Ellsworth |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Glimpse at Early Universe Reveals Surprisingly Mature Galaxies (Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | Astronomy Misc | 0 | July 28th 04 01:45 AM |
Three Dusty Beauties: New Portraits of Spiral Galaxies NGC 613, NGC1792 and NGC 3627 (Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | Astronomy Misc | 4 | January 27th 04 10:40 PM |
Mining for cosmic treasures with GEMS (Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | Astronomy Misc | 0 | January 14th 04 01:09 AM |
Hypothetical astrophysics question | Matthew F Funke | Astronomy Misc | 39 | August 11th 03 03:21 AM |