Astronomers discover dizzying spin of the Milky Way galaxy's 'halo'

Astronomers discover dizzying spin of the Milky Way galaxy's 'halo'
Our Milky Way galaxy and its small companions are surrounded by a giant halo of million-degree gas (seen in blue in this artists' rendition) that is only visible to X-ray telescopes in space. University of Michigan astronomers discovered that this massive hot halo spins in the same direction as the Milky Way disk and at a comparable speed. Credit: NASA/CXC/M.Weiss/Ohio State/A Gupta et al

Astronomers at the University of Michigan's College of Literature, Science, and the Arts (LSA) discovered for the first time that the hot gas in the halo of the Milky Way galaxy is spinning in the same direction and at comparable speed as the galaxy's disk, which contains our stars, planets, gas, and dust. This new knowledge sheds light on how individual atoms have assembled into stars, planets, and galaxies like our own, and what the future holds for these galaxies.

"This flies in the face of expectations," says Edmund Hodges-Kluck, assistant research scientist. "People just assumed that the disk of the Milky Way spins while this enormous reservoir of hot gas is stationary - but that is wrong. This hot gas reservoir is rotating as well, just not quite as fast as the disk."

The new NASA-funded research using the archival data obtained by XMM-Newton, a European Space Agency telescope, was recently published in the Astrophysical Journal. The study focuses on our galaxy's hot gaseous , which is several times larger than the Milky Way disk and composed of ionized plasma.

Because motion produces a shift in the wavelength of light, the U-M researchers measured such shifts around the sky using lines of very hot oxygen. What they found was groundbreaking: The line shifts measured by the researchers show that the galaxy's halo spins in the same direction as the disk of the Milky Way and at a similar speed—about 400,000 mph for the halo versus 540,000 mph for the disk.

"The rotation of the hot halo is an incredible clue to how the Milky Way formed," said Hodges Kluck. "It tells us that this hot atmosphere is the original source of a lot of the matter in the disk."

Scientists have long puzzled over why almost all galaxies, including the Milky Way, seem to lack most of the matter that they otherwise would expect to find. Astronomers believe that about 80% of the matter in the universe is the mysterious "dark matter" that, so far, can only be detected by its gravitational pull. But even most of the remaining 20% of "normal" matter is missing from galaxy disks. More recently, some of the "missing" matter has been discovered in the halo. The U-M researchers say that learning about the direction and speed of the spinning halo can help us learn both how the material got there in the first place, and the rate at which we expect the to settle into the galaxy.

"Now that we know about the rotation, theorists will begin to use this to learn how our Milky Way galaxy formed - and its eventual destiny," says Joel Bregman, a U-M LSA professor of astronomy.

"We can use this discovery to learn so much more - the rotation of this hot halo will be a big topic of future X-ray spectrographs," Bregman says.


Explore further

Where is Earth in the Milky Way?

More information: Edmund J. Hodges-Kluck et al, THE ROTATION OF THE HOT GAS AROUND THE MILKY WAY, The Astrophysical Journal (2016). DOI: 10.3847/0004-637X/822/1/21
Journal information: Astrophysical Journal

Citation: Astronomers discover dizzying spin of the Milky Way galaxy's 'halo' (2016, July 25) retrieved 20 October 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2016-07-astronomers-dizzying-milky-galaxy-halo.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
1776 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Jul 25, 2016
This picture makes our galaxy look even More like an atom, complete with electron orbitals and all, speed of rotation could be transmitted by inner gasses acting upon the outer, or, the rotation could come from the rotation of the jets of gas, once they cool down and fall back upon their host galaxy as bubbles of hot gas, yet they tend to have star formation at their edges as the gas cools.

Jul 25, 2016
for the first time that the hot gas in the halo of the Milky Way galaxy is spinning in the same direction and at comparable speed as the galaxy's disk, which contains our stars, planets, gas, and dust.

The "halo" is the intergalactic Birkeland current which the galaxy is immersed, it is assumed these currents spin as shown by decades of lab research.

"This flies in the face of expectations," says Edmund Hodges-Kluck, assistant research scientist. "People just assumed that the disk of the Milky Way spins while this enormous reservoir of hot gas is stationary - but that is wrong. This hot gas reservoir is rotating as well, just not quite as fast as the disk."

It flies in the face of those who are unaware of plasma physics and Plasma Cosmology. Otherwise it is completely expected.
"We can use this discovery to learn so much more -

There have been many discoveries that should lead to such an outcome, but alas here we are in the dark ages of astrophysics.

Jul 25, 2016
The halo of gas is shown with a radius of about 300,000 light years, although it may extend significantly further. The mass of the halo is estimated to be comparable to the mass of all the stars in the Milky Way galaxy.

If the size and mass of this gas halo is confirmed, it could be the solution to the "missing-baryon" problem for the Galaxy.http://www.chandr...12/halo/


Jul 25, 2016
It sure is looking like there is a lot more to these Spiral Galaxies than what Zwicky was counting on. You gotta do your observations in a scientific manner.

When you invent a NARRATIVE, if you don't adjust to the facts established by OBSERVATION as applied to the NARRATIVE, then the NARRATIVE, as presently applied to Dark Matter, is in all likelihood doomed to failure. DM Enthusiasts, time to triple down after that blow last week in which it was so entertaining watching you double down.

How many body blows can this dead carcass take before you finally just throw it into a coffin, hammer in the last nail on the lid & simply be done with it.

Jul 25, 2016
It sure is looking like there is a lot more to these Spiral Galaxies than what Zwicky was counting on. You gotta do your observations in a scientific manner.

Zwicky's work was from 50 to 70 yrs ago. If he were alive, I'm sure he would have been more than willing to apply the same scientific manner to new data as he did to available info in his own time.
When you invent a NARRATIVE, if you don't adjust to the facts established by OBSERVATION as applied to the NARRATIVE, then the NARRATIVE, as presently applied to Dark Matter, is in all likelihood doomed to failure.

as there is more than just one narrative available, which one do you refer to?
DM Enthusiasts, time to triple down after that blow last week in which it was so entertaining watching you double down.

So? All the experiment did was to eliminate a few DM candidate particles. Plenty more to go.

Jul 25, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jul 25, 2016
as there is more than just one narrative available
.........well then, how about if you put up the list?

So? All the experiment did was to eliminate a few DM candidate particles. Plenty more to go
....more to go you say.......how do you know that?

Jul 25, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jul 25, 2016
I have a small problem with this story.
The level of surprise that halo is spinning is astounding to me. I assumed that everyone would expect it to be spinning just like the galaxy itself. To find that it was not spinning would be the surprise to me. To find that it is spinning should have been an expectation rather than a surprise.

Jul 25, 2016
This puts me in mind of the long ago explanations of how the universe was theoretically supposed to be expanding. ... back in the day a common description of the effect on the universe of the expansion was expressed as the surface of a balloon and that space itself was expanding that the big bang was not an explosion. Does anybody else remember that far back? My response was that if space is expanding then since we have more space the universe should be expanding faster over time i.e. accelerating outwards otherwise space itself is not expanding. It was many many years later before it was confirmed that space is indeed accelerating - so perhaps the description of an expanding space was correct after all yet the conclusion was obvious from the description and the expansion should not have been a surprise but instead should have been actively looked for.

Can anybody else remember that back in the day the big bang was NOT an explosion but that the universe was expanding instead?

Jul 25, 2016
... because there was no ionized medium thought to exist in these regions. They were working with what they thought was there


This is really an old story Chris, dates back to 2012......wonder why it took them so long to publish these OBSERVATIONS. Betcha a dollar for a donut they were waiting on the results of that DM Detector that last week showed up with a big fat zero in it. It's certainly a double then a triple whammy all within the space of one short week......I imagine Zwicky must be turning over in his grave about now as another of his precious theories bites the dust, first it was the Tired Light debacle, now this.

The screeching sounds of the DM Enthusiasts has become a rising crescendo here, more on the way you can be sure.


Jul 26, 2016
Hi Benni. :)

Please stop slagging off Fritz Zwicky. It was NOT HIM that proposed exotic DM; it was the mathematician-theorists, cosmologists and astrophysicists that started insisting it must be exotic because they can't see it via EM observations, only gravitational observations.

In fact, Zwicky only postulated ordinary matter that he knew the EM telescopes of the time were too feeble and tuned to the wrong frequencies to detect whatever unseen then but must be there if his motion observations were anywhere near correct.

So Benni, Zwicky actually predicted all the ordinary stuff we are finding now that was 'dark' then. He was spot on!

It was later deluded elitist arrogant dismissive fantasists (ie, "experts" all pretending they "knew better" etc) were the ones we have to blame for all this time wasted on their delusional wrong turns and distractions from reality interpretations and understanding of reality, not imaginary 'fairy stuff'.

So lay off Zwicky, mate! :)

Jul 26, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jul 26, 2016
Hi Uncle Ira. :)

I saw your post in the other thread. I haven't time to start discussions here or there. I just came in this thread to ask Benni nicely to lay off Fritz Zwicky and stop blaming him for what the later "experts" turned his Ordinary 'dark matter into such obviously stupid 'exotic DM' silliness.

While I'm here I will, in response to your post in that other thread, just say that only dunces would still need me to tell them again what I have been telling them all along for (more) than 10 years now. :)

Gotta leave again. Stay safe and start thinking about all that you may have ignored from me all this time. Cheers! :)

Jul 26, 2016
PS: Uncle Ira, Forum. :)

I see by my ratings page

https://sciencex....k/?v=act

that the troll brigade of dickheads and socks from the old physforums is alive and well here at PO skewing the metrics on this site too. There's no cure for 'industrial strength' stupidity and malice in such anti-science and anti-humanity trolls.

Anyhow, stay safe; and good luck with those nitwits and turds from old physforums, everyone!

Bye for now, Uncle Ira, everyone. :)

Jul 26, 2016
So lay off Zwicky, mate! :)


You don't really know much about zany Zwicky do you? The nutjob went to seminars of others with whom he disagreed & would stand up in the middle of the room & start screaming & shouting invectives at them, the same behavior that goes on here in the forms of the Rant Brigade composed of the usual suspects like Schneibo, Phys1, etc. He was an almost vile human being, so egocentric that he had no friends & no family life either.


Jul 26, 2016
"People just assumed that the disk of the Milky Way spins while this enormous reservoir of hot gas is stationary - but that is wrong."
And this is wrong, bad assumption.

"The effects of the rotation could be analyzed through the rotation of an object and total rotational effects of a smaller or larger system (Universe). .. Rotation can be analyzed in the broader way, too. Just like with the magnets, it is not only an object that rotates - but its gravitational forces rotate, too. "
http://www.svemir...Universe third article "Rotation of an object and its far-reaching effects"

Jul 26, 2016
Hi Benni. :)

Lucky thing I checked back!

Mate, I'm an objective independent scientist and researcher interested only in the science/ideas, not the persons or sources or their behavior irrelevant to the science/ideas I am interested in understanding irrespective of where they came from. Maybe he was like that because his 'peers' were just as crazy (or were ignorant and tried to blackball him so he gate-crashed etc to get heard). Anyway, he wasn't the only crazy coot or bad character or malicious or plain immoral etc scientist (just look at Newton's, Einstein's and other 'greats' personal life stories).

My point is Zwicky wasn't responsible for 'exotic' fairy stuff DM crap. He postulated 'Ordinary' stuff he knew couldn't be seen at the time by telescopes of then. Now we are finding all the Ordinary stuff he predicted. So as far as that scientific and logical legacy re Ordinary 'dark' Matter now being found, he was spot on!

That's all counts re this issue for me. Cheers. :)

Jul 26, 2016
PS: Benni.

Mate, I hope you didn't misunderstand my post to Uncle Ira. My reference to dunces (ie, anyone still needing to be told what I had been telling them so long now about all this DM debacle) was not including you. Only the metaphorical dunces who Uncle Ira effectively invoked with his smart aleck 'dig' at me in that other thread about "embedded stars" being found etc.

Anyhow have to log out again. Just came in again to check responses to my above posts. Cheers, Benni, and everyone. :)

Jul 26, 2016
@ Chris

Theories do not work like this. Theory-making is a historical process. The theories start in one place and progress -- very gradually -- towards observations.

In 1920, we thought that the universe was just the Milky Way....


True about theories, however, once made it must be self consistent. It is theorised that stars condense from clouds of gas in a Galaxy. Obviously the stars are orbiting the galactic center therefore the clouds of gas must most likely also be orbiting the galactic center. It would be strange to suspect that the cloud is standing still relative o the galactic center rather than being in a stable orbit.

Jul 26, 2016
as for self consistency - Theorise that the universe is expanding everywhere equally. Explosion not possible due to greater than light speed expansion. So we have theory for space being created everywhere equally. It is very small step to say the inevitable conclusion therefore must be an increase rate of expansion over time. As the amount of space that can expand is increasing over time. It must be an exponential function. That is a natural result from the first postulate of expanding space. At this stage no knowledge is known just that one step leads to another and they are tightly coupled. My contention was (back in the day) that to test the theory of expanding space one would have to look for an accelerating expansion.

It turns out that this was found but came as a "surprise". Which leads me to believe that the proponents of expanding space did not believe their own hype.

Jul 26, 2016
complete with electron orbitals and all,

Electron orbitals look completely different (most importantly they aren't in the same plane)
http://sciencecon...tals.png

Jul 26, 2016
And Anti.. those sweeps of gas, (even though this is an Artists Representation) forming triangles as would do with a P type orbital, are not in a single plane either, otherwise this globe of gas would just look more like an extended disc.

Since I regularly consider Spiral galaxies which just happen to look like d0 type orbitals, now see it embedded in a higher order orbital something closer to the fully realized f3. Very easy to see the f3 as an opposing pair of tetrahedrons that have been merged so that they have the same centerpoints.

But this whole article and the way progressions are going, with us finding ways to match the larger to the smaller, in ever greater ways, it will only be a mater of time before the acceptance of a continuous grade and infinite time Universe is the actual reality, more and more experiments keep pointing at it, with few, if any, pointing against

Jul 26, 2016
My point is Zwicky wasn't responsible for 'exotic' fairy stuff DM crap. He postulated 'Ordinary' stuff he knew couldn't be seen at the time by telescopes of then. Now we are finding all the Ordinary stuff he predicted. So as far as that scientific and logical legacy re Ordinary 'dark' Matter now being found, he was spot on!


Ok RC, you want to believe all that then I have only one suggestion for you.......go read his original thesis on DM, and while you're reading the worthless piece of trash take note of the fact he only addresses the existence of DM contained in Envelopes completely enshrouding ONLY Spiral galaxies. a small little detail the Rant Brigade composed of the Schneibos & Phys1s won't acknowledge.

You want to have a discussion about being scientifically objective? Then start with the historical backgrounds of the original thesis as Chris R suggests. RC, you're trying to figure out how to GET ALONG with the Schneibos & Phys 1s, I have no such interests.

Jul 26, 2016
Benni
You are slandering a long dead man of great merit,


Well then Mr 1st semester Physics guy, you can just do all the genuflecting you want at the Zwicky shrine. He was not the the pretty picture of a personality you did your best painting him out to be. In fact his aberrant behavior reminds me a lot of your own, filled with the postings of your track record of foul mouthedness & suggestions that I be caught in a "dark alley" & have common sense beat into me, and Schneibo gave you a 5 Star upvote for that post.


Jul 26, 2016
Since I regularly consider Spiral galaxies which just happen to look like d0 type orbitals,

Really? You must be looking at other d0 orbitals than the rest of the world. I have never seen spirals in there, aynwhere.

closer to the fully realized f3

Only one f3 looks like that 8and nothing in the galaxy looks like that).
Yes, sure, when you cherry pick data you will sometimes find something that looks sorta kinda like something else. But in the end you're just falling victim to pareidolia.

Jul 26, 2016
because there was no ionized medium thought to exist in these regions.


False.

http://adsabs.har...79...52W

he only addresses the existence of DM contained in Envelopes completely enshrouding ONLY Spiral galaxies


Find me the quote where Zwicky said this. In the real world Zwicky never made such a claim, he was only studying the Coma cluster as a whole when he coined the term.

http://adsabs.har...6/143864

Thankfully scientific history is well documented, false claims are plain to see.

Jul 26, 2016
Find me the quote where Zwicky said this. In the real world Zwicky never made such a claim,


Just go to a website that contains his original paper, I'm not functioning as YOUR personal search engine only to listen to you whine that I'm cherry picking a website pandering to the bias of what somebody else says about what the contents of a third party's thesis for which they create no link.


Jul 26, 2016
Just go to a website that contains his original paper


I did, I even gave you the link. He doesn't say it. It's not in the earlier German paper either if you'd prefer that.

http://adsabs.har....6..110Z

I asked you to defend your claims, but you clearly aren't interested because as we are both aware, you made it up. You said it was in his original theses on the topic, well here they are and your quote is nowhere to be seen.


Jul 26, 2016
So? All the experiment did was to eliminate a few DM candidate particles. Plenty more to go ....more to go you say.......how do you know that?

Just as a start for you -
http://web.mit.ed...de1.html

Jul 26, 2016
Find me the quote where Zwicky said this. In the real world Zwicky never made such a claim


If I remember right Sean Carroll says the same thing in this presentation.

https://www.youtu...LDGhSi1A

Jul 26, 2016
Hi Benni. :)
Then start with the historical backgrounds of the original thesis as Chris R suggests.
Lucky I checked back again! Mate, all I pointed out two things to stop confusions about who said what about ark matter:

- Zwicky made postulation of ORDINARY 'dark' EM-interacting (but at the time 'invisible' to their telescopes) matter.

- Others later then 'twisted' that postulated ORDINARY 'dark' matter into imaginary EXOTIC 'dark' NON-EM-interacting matter.

That's all I wanted to point out that was relevant to the DM 'nature' aspect. Ok? :)

RC, you're trying to figure out how to GET ALONG with the Schneibos & Phys 1s, I have no such interests.
Mate, if what you just said was true, I wouldn't be correcting and observing their errors as I have been doing. Realize: I am not here to compromise science and objectivity by "getting along with" anyone just for the sake of getting along; I just also urge polite, tolerant AND objective/honest interaction. Ok? :)

Jul 26, 2016
WG, you gotta be kidding me. We will never be able to develop (let alone afford) tests for all possible candidates you linked, and you're still hyping the DM/DE train? How many more billions need to be wasted in a search for something that isn't even remotely understood nor described by any math.

The simplest answer is usually correct. In this case the answer is relativity was designed for a single star system, so why would we expect it to work exactly when we expand our observations beyond our little box?

Jul 26, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
This solves the missing baryon problem, but not the Dark Matter problem.
Careful, mate. Don't go there. Realize first, that the baryon problem was a purely artificial "problem" rooted in incomplete information and flawed theoretical/hypothetical assumptions overlaid on observations. They just assumed Big Bang cosmology, expanding space etc etc, and just fudged the necessary baryonic content 'needed' to make their theory/hypotheses 'work'...and called that baryonic deficiency "the baryon problem" (as if it was real problem and not just 'manufactured', rooted in flawed theory/assumptions etc).

Forget 'missing baryons problem' crap; it was just as 'fanciful' as 'Extra-ordinary (NON-EM) dark matter' crap.

Anyway, this (previously 'dark') Ordinary Matter being found now is heading towards Many Times that of the fanciful 'missing baryons problem' quantities which was "small potatoes" compared to what is being found now. So don't try that as an 'out', mate! :)

Jul 26, 2016
WG, you gotta be kidding me. We will never be able to develop (let alone afford) tests for all possible candidates you linked, and you're still hyping the DM/DE train? How many more billions need to be wasted in a search for something that isn't even remotely understood nor described by any math.

Not hyping anything. Just made an observation. I don't even like "Dark Matter". Would prefer "unexplained gravitational effect".
The simplest answer is usually correct. In this case the answer is relativity was designed for a single star system, so why would we expect it to work exactly when we expand our observations beyond our little box?

Einstein didn't think in such a little box as a single star... We don't expect it to work EXACTLY. Just generally...:-) (at least, the really smart people see it that way...)

Jul 26, 2016
PS: Phys1 etc. :)

Recall what I said to Da Schneib et al? GR works just fine! IF applied properly! Recognizing the actual local mass quantities/distributions in expansive regions where orbitals/behavior may, even according to GR, be NON-Keplerian. That is what led to all these fanciful 'exotic' DM distractions. Early observers/theorists held naive expectations from GR when applying GR IN-correctly to galactic (and later galaxy cluster) regions where naive 'clean and sparse' region GR theory/dynamics dynamics (like in our solar system) need to be modified as to actual GR expectations given the large extent/mass conditions involved. The real problem was actually having telescopes which could give fuller info on local/extended mass contents/dynamics. Now e have better and better telescopes and wider frequencies for current and future observations, so GR can be better applied with greater confidence and former naive expectations no longer held. GR is SAFE if applied properly. :)

Jul 26, 2016
Hi Whyde. :)

Long time no 'speak', mate.

I see the same ratbag collection of old physforum ratings trolls that is giving you '5's is also giving me '1's after I said GR is SAFE when applied correctly!

Go figure; those trolls are brain-dead bot-voting 'socks' of that old physforum criminal spammer who ruined that site along with its corrupt and crazy 'sole moderator' before it closed down.

Anyhow, done reading through for the day. Gotta go again. Stay safe, mate. Cheers. :)


Jul 26, 2016
Hi Whyde. :)
Long time no 'speak', mate.
see the same ratbag collection of old physforum ratings trolls that is giving you '5's is also giving me '1's after I said GR is SAFE when applied correctly!
Go figure; those trolls are brain-dead bot-voting 'socks' of that old physforum criminal spammer who ruined that site along with its corrupt and crazy 'sole moderator' before it closed down.
Anyhow, done reading through for the day. Gotta go again. Stay safe, mate. Cheers. :)

I took a look at my vote page - Wow!
Think it boils down to what they say in comedy - "I guess it's all in the delivery..."

Jul 26, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)

Lucky I checked back to see what came of my caution to you about all these incorrect assumptions/myths 'built into' the 'narratives' from theorists/writers of articles who are way behind the actual state of play re how much 'stuff' has been found over last few years (and still being found).

Your link using way-obsolete assumptions/beliefs/estimates etc about what was supposd to be missing/what is being found where. They haven't mentioned the huge streams of Interstellar material, brown dwarf/other dark bodies within our galaxy, let alone all the stuff extending far FAR beyond the galaxy disc, containing not only vast halo of plasma but also previously undetected clusters/other still undetected brown dwarf and other low brightness features/concentrations; all adding up to many times the missing baryon estimates AND increasingly sufficient to 'replace' Exotic DM 'requirement' with this Ordinary DM being found.

GR safe IF applied correctly. Don't 'chop' it. :)

Jul 26, 2016
If I remember right Sean Carroll says the same thing in this presentation.


Thank you but I'm afraid I don't have the time to spare to watch an hour long presentation for a quote which may or may not exist but certainly isn't relevant. Benni claimed Zwicky said it, not Carroll.

Jul 26, 2016
you can just do all the genuflecting you want at the Zwicky shrine. He was not the the pretty picture of a personality you did your best painting him out to be.


filled with the postings of your track record of foul mouthedness & suggestions that I be caught in a "dark alley" & have common sense beat into me,


That is a false accusation. Proof from your post on June 5, 2016:
"a couple weeks ago when Shneibo denied he ever posted a 5 Star vote for chileastro's post threatening to perform bodily injury on me in a dark alley & challenged me to prove it, so I did."


You keep track of this stuff, how did you know to go looking for "chileastro"?.......right, you are chileastro. I expect he'll be along shortly to say he is not Phys1, then we'll run a timeline check to see when the last time was you posted anything under "chileastro" sockpuppet.

Jul 26, 2016
Hi PHys1. :)

*Sigh* Mate, for someone who is intelligent and astute, not obtuse, you really are hard work, sometimes. :)
GR safe IF applied correctly. Don't 'chop' it. :)
No IF.
I have used the term "When" in place of "If" in posts which have not needed o be culled of extra letters due to text limits. So please feel free to 'read' the word "When" in place of "If". Anyway the context should have been enough: As I had occasion to explain before, the earlier interpretations were forgetting that NON-Keplerian regime applies in galaxies etc, hence the unnecessary 'need' for such vast exotic DM. The Ordinary stuff we are finding is Enough (previously 'dark') matter if/when GR is applied knowing that the regimes are NON-Keplerian and the local/region matter (mass/energy)content is what it is.
The article is less than a year old. Way obsolete?
That article rehashes OLD myths/narratives. Get it?
They don't mention...
Why should they?
Are you serious!? :)

Jul 26, 2016
@ Really-Skippy. How you are Cher? I am good, thanks for asking.

I got the General Theory question for you if you got time to answer him.

As I had occasion to explain before, the earlier interpretations were forgetting that NON-Keplerian regime applies in galaxies etc, hence the unnecessary 'need' for such vast exotic DM


Where can I get a list of the NON-Keplerian regime numbers so I don't forget to apply them when I need them.

Oh yeah, I almost forget. Where in Einstein-Skippy's equations do you plug them in so the General Theory is used correctly IF/WHEN I use it? I looked on my own and can't find where they are supposed to go, unless maybe they are called something different when you aren't on the physorg fooling around with Schneib-Skippy.

Oh non, I almost forget the thing I was first going to say. Hooyeei, Skippy, yesterday you sure make a lot people mad with you, eh? What you do to all those peoples anyway?

Jul 26, 2016
WG
The term unexplained gravitational effect is good, straight to the point. It implies we have no real clue about how it really works. We just have equations that are accurate, with a general sense of how things kinda work.

BTW, I'm not saying Einstein was thinking in a box, but that all of his work was explaining how that box we observed worked. It was he who said "we cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them". We keep thinking GR is untouchable because it's the most accurate, but in reality some part of it is just straight wrong. It's really stupid

Jul 26, 2016
Now I ask you: given the way I've reacted to the narcissistic prior behavior of the currently capering trolls, is it likely that ongoing false claims will tempt me to pay more attention to them?

B o r i n g.

Do something different. This isn't working. I have much more interesting things to do than interact with azzholes.

Jul 26, 2016
WG
The term unexplained gravitational effect is good, straight to the point. . We just have equations that are accurate, with a general sense of how things kinda work.

BTW, I'm not saying Einstein was thinking in a box, but that all of his work was explaining how that box we observed worked. It was he who said "we cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them".

I always thought he was just being funny with that one...:-)
We keep thinking GR is untouchable because it's the most accurate, but in reality some part of it is just straight wrong. It's really stupid

Not wrong, exactly. GR is a framework. Variables can be plugged in. However, GR, can and does treat certain classes of variables - differently - for lack of a better term. That means, literally, that our list of variable characteristics is, again for lack of a better term, incomplete.
We don't have the whole cookbook to work with - yet:-)

Jul 26, 2016
Why does mainstream science continue to ignore the electrical cosmology argument?
@chrisR
evidence mostly, but the simple fact that you can't actually produce a viable predictable model that can be validated via secondary sources is another great reason

.

complete with electron orbitals and all
@SteelW
electron "orbits" are just a way to visualize & model to make it easier to teach/understand
the terminology that came with Bohr's atom, of "orbitals" and "spin," reinforces the image of electrons as tiny planets even though physicists have long since given up the literal imagery
Https://www.uwgb....Like.HTM

.

You are slandering a long dead man of great merit
@Phys1
Actually, it's considered Libel b/c it's written and published in a public format
consider the source - benji's trolling you and just trying to piss you off (and any literate educated person who is actually versed in science, unlike herself)

Jul 26, 2016
How many more billions need to be wasted
@Scroof
1- fundamental science isn't wasted money. ever. it is the foundation of what we build upon
2- this is narowing down the possibilities not just from any DM/DE standpoint, but others as well
The simplest answer is usually correct
not always. science isn't just about finding the simplest answer. it is also about finding the correct answer, otherwise we would have stopped with Newtonian mechanics and ignored GR/SR (even though we need it today for things like GPS etc)

also note:
math allows for accuracy & prediction

I don't even like "Dark Matter". Would prefer "unexplained gravitational effect".
@Whyde
@Scroof mostly
DM is far shorter and easier
analogy:
it's like saying you're gonna grill dogs for supper. we know you aint gonna grill up the local St. Bernard, but rather Hot Dogs

DM simply means the unexplained gravitational anomalies within [x] parameters who's source is unknown

Jul 26, 2016
@Cappy, @Steelwolf did use "orbital," and that's a lot better than orbit.
electron "orbits" are just a way to visualize & model to make it easier to teach/understand
Here's a great visualizer for orbitals: http://winter.gro.../AOs/1s/

Bearing in mind that electrons are quantum particles, imagine after you've seen these shapes the electrons appearing at random locations billions of times a second inside these shapes, with a bias toward classical orbital motion operating on them and creating magnetism. This is the modern picture of an atom.

Jul 26, 2016
Hi Uncle Ira. :)

I am very busy so can only snatch a few minutes here and there to answer people.
Where can I get a list of the NON-Keplerian regime numbers...
The same reference texts you get the explanation of GR application to INTERIORS of planets. It's all in the applicable mass configuration/distribution. I explained all that in previous discussions here and there with Da Shneib wherein I pointed out the NON-Keplerian orbital regimes in and around galaxies (as well notionally within a planet's mass), where naive GR 'expectations' re orbital behavior/acceleration strength/vectors etc must be properly modified to reflect the actual EXTENDED massive feature's energy/mass distributions.
Hooyeei, Skippy, yesterday you sure make a lot people mad with you, eh? What you do to all those peoples anyway?
Most of those aren't "peoples"; they are "socks" owned by the criminal spammer who used to crap in old physforums, now moved to spam/sabotage this site.

Take care. :)

Jul 26, 2016
GR safe IF applied correctly
all technology and science is safe if applied "correctly"
the theory has nothing to do with it's application, only the applicant does, and this is best demonstrated by the purpose of said application of any scientific theory

it is nonsensical to make a claim that a purpose is synonymous with it's underlying physical theory
example: phosphorous
Brand initially thought to make the P turn into gold, however we've found it useful in everything from making fire to staying alive (biologically speaking)
-we know Brand actually produced ammonium sodium hydrogen phosphate, (NH4)NaHPO4 -
neither gold nor the philosophers stone

so purpose and intent are not synonymous with a physical theory

.

It implies we have no real clue about how it really works
@Scroof
DM is shorter and easier to say, and it constrains the anomalies to a specific type/set of gravitational unknowns, not just a random set of unknowns

Jul 26, 2016
@Steelwolf did use "orbital," and that's a lot better than orbit.
@DaSchneib
1- thanks for that link... always looking for good visuals and teaching links!

2- yeah... noticed that, but the terminology seemed to be concentrating on the orbit part, and not the electron cloud... or as you stated: "with a bias toward classical orbital motion operating on them"

but then again, i could be wrong in my assessment, and offer Steel apologies if i read it wrong

.

@SteelW

feel free to correct me on that one @Steel, and enjoy the link as it is a good one for a starter/learner

if you want more, there is plenty of better stuff here: http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm

Jul 26, 2016
2- yeah... noticed that, but the terminology seemed to be concentrating on the orbit part, and not the electron cloud... or as you stated: "with a bias toward classical orbital motion operating on them"
Intuitively we observe objects to occupy a definite location, and exclude other objects from the same location. We bring this bias to consideration of quantum phenomena where it does not operate.

Another common bias is that we can see the objects around us; they are bathed in light, and we have eyes that can see it. In the quantum world, there is no illumination. It's a game of baseball played by throwing baseballs at other baseballs to find out where they are, in the dark.

Personally I think it's amazing we know as much as we do.

Jul 26, 2016
@ Really-Skippy. You use a whole of words to tell you can't tell where to find about the NON-Kepler orbits. This is not some more of that stuffs you make up and twist around to play like you are onto something is it? I asked a serious question and you come back with some double-gobbledygook-speak.

Maybe you can help me with an easy one. What is the NON-Kepler orbit? And don't say you don't have time or the letter spaces here to tell it. We both know you spend hours and hour torturing English and can post-up dozens of postums about things.


Jul 26, 2016
@ Really-Skippy. You use a whole of words to tell you can't tell where to find about the NON-Kepler orbits. This is not some more of that stuffs you make up and twist around to play like you are onto something is it? I asked a serious question and you come back with some double-gobbledygook-speak.

Maybe you can help me with an easy one. What is the NON-Kepler orbit? And don't say you don't have time or the letter spaces here to tell it. We both know you spend hours and hour torturing English and can post-up dozens of postums about things.


Just google "Non-Keplerian orbits". Lots of some pretty, heady stuff to choose from...

Jul 27, 2016
@Whyde, non-Keplerian orbits are non-gravitational orbits. In other words some force besides gravity is acting on a body and modifying its orbit from what it would be gravitationally.

For example rocket engines.

Now, let's consider how many stars out of the billions in the Milky Way are following non-gravitational orbits.

Not many.

That's because there aren't any forces out there that build up over distance like gravity does. And the reason for that is because there isn't any mass that has negative gravity.

There are only four forces: gravity, EM, weak nuclear, and color. And of them all, only gravity has no negative.

Jul 27, 2016
@Whyde, non-Keplerian orbits are non-gravitational orbits. In other words some force besides gravity is acting on a body and modifying its orbit from what it would be gravitationally.

Would gravitational influence from another body count?

Now, let's consider how many stars out of the billions in the Milky Way are following non-gravitational orbits.

Not many.

Agreed

That's because there aren't any forces out there that build up over distance like gravity does. And the reason for that is because there isn't any mass that has negative gravity.

There are only four forces: gravity, EM, weak nuclear, and color. And of them all, only gravity has no negative.

That we have found so far...:-)

Jul 27, 2016
Stumpy, and Dr Shneib, thank you for at least Reading my posts even if you disagree with them. I have noticed the similarities in simple orbitals, aside from the first pair, which seem to always be in a Circular, direct opposite 'orbits', from then on out we tend to see sweeps that look similar to tetrahedrons with bulbs on the corners, other orbitals show themselves in different ways. I have paid particular attention to how galaxies combine, in a form of Fusion, which tends to disrupt the accretion discs of both central BH's and often cause them to go Quasar or otherwise show an very Active Galactic Nucleus with jets (usually in pairs, much like photons) and I can fairly well chart the galaxy size to the element and what Valence it would have because of that. THAT is where you get a force that is actually similar to gravity since a particle or galaxy can be Pushed AND Pulled at the same time to a new place, whether it fuses or joins it in orbit, sharing globular clusters. (ctd)

Jul 27, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jul 27, 2016
(ctd) Other articles have pointed to the idea, so far observed, that electrons 'smear' through their orbitals, and it is in these smear configurations where it can capture photons as long as they are in alignment with a particular orbital when the electron slides thru, luck in timing and placement allows the photon to add it's energy to the electron, boosting it a bit. If the electron gains Enough energy it can be enough for it to smear to a different orbital configuration that 'wobbles' in just a way so as to throw off a photon of just enough energy for the electron to drop back to it's Old spot. We see all sorts of galaxies, and they chart a growth pattern up to iron easily, then it becomes galactic clusters, at least at the apparent age of the Higher order Universe, the apparent age in the extreme low end of the Universe, where we watch quantum effects with wonder, should compare Fermi Arcs with new star and AGN Jets and their Herbig-Haro objects created, fun stuff.

Jul 27, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jul 27, 2016
You keep track of this stuff, how did you know to go looking for "chileastro"?.

I did not
.......right, you are chileastro.


That would suit you, but no.
Apologise, you lying paranoid fraud.


Awww, 1st semester physics guy.........there's no way you could have known to go looking for the obscure "chileastro" "dark alley" threat against me if you had no clue as to who posted it. You'll never convince anyone that your memory is so good that you knew not only the name of who posted it, but also the associated dates with regard to that post.

So chile out you foul mouthed troll & if you ever repeat 1st semester physics, at least try to get a passing grade next time.

Jul 27, 2016
We don't have the whole cookbook to work with - yet:-)

What if we do, and we just aren't using the right ingredients? Honestly, we can't be that far off given that GR is so successful.

1- fundamental science isn't wasted money. ever. it is the foundation of what we build upon

What tangible benefits has humanity received in the multi-billion dollar cataloging of the standard model? We have been able to utilize the properties of the 3 fundamental particles (E,P,N) since way before the SM, but going any deeper than that is wasted effort. In all of the years of the standard model, we only really know more, we don't really understand more.

Jul 27, 2016
If people could be their actions you would be called a swallower.

And you, lbl, would be a tiny penis (that nobody wants pointed in their direction...)

BTW. Your "Life Based Logic" is logically invalid.
It's not life unless it's actually being lived. That requires energy.
Therefore, ENERGY is the most important thing in and to life...

Jul 27, 2016
We don't have the whole cookbook to work with - yet:-)

What if we do, and we just aren't using the right ingredients? Honestly, we can't be that far off given that GR is so successful.

We have the basic book. Now, it;s just a matter of plugging in the right ingredients, along with proportions...

1- fundamental science isn't wasted money. ever. it is the foundation of what we build upon

What tangible benefits has humanity received in the multi-billion dollar cataloging of the standard model? We have been able to utilize the properties of the 3 fundamental particles (E,P,N) since way before the SM, but going any deeper than that is wasted effort. In all of the years of the standard model, we only really know more, we don't really understand more.

As you may know by now, E, P, N are NOT the basic fundamental particles. That's data.
The more you have and can collate the closer you are to understanding...

Jul 27, 2016
E, P, N are NOT the basic fundamental particles

Why do you say that? Do they not make up all of the elements in the universe?

Jul 27, 2016
E, P, N are NOT the basic fundamental particles


Why do you say that? Do they not make up all of the elements in the universe?


........he's probably referring to DM about which he has proof for having a completely different atomic structure as compared to EPN. He knows this to be the case because he's already dissected/fused/fissioned a bottle full of DM that he retrieved in his last trip out to the Coma Cluster aboard Starship Enterprise...... man, just let him explain to you how the Warp Dr on that thing is just so incredible that he was able to do the trip overnight, get it examined at the Hadron Collider......and VOILA, he's got the data here for us in less than 24 hours.

Now, if we can just get Schneibo to break loose of those pics he claims he's seen of Black Holes, there would be no more mysteries of the universe left for us to ponder, then we will all die of boredom.

Jul 27, 2016
Guys! Guys! Cool it, will ya!

Isn't there enough hate and madness already in the world, both on and off line, that you still feel the need to bring even more of those things into a science discussion site? When are you going to stop gratuitously insulting each other, and just disagree without all the hate and personal animosities? These 'feuds' have been going on long enough now that they could fill several books. Time to start listening to each other instead of just arguing from personal likes and dislikes of one another. Ok?

Benni, Phys, Da Schneib, just go "get a private room" somewhere, guys, if you really want to keep your "love-hate threesome" relationship going; don't keep cluttering up the discussion with your 'stormy personal affair'. Ok?

Chill; and start discussing honestly and politely; and disagree without personal malice having to always get the better of your humanity and intellect. :)

Jul 27, 2016
Hi Whyde. :)

Those earlier interpreters of galaxy rotation profiles could have done with your understanding of what may be involved when energy-mass distributions are extensive and persistent in their mutual gravitational dynamics. Then they wouldn't have been so naive as to expect to see the solar system 'sparsely distributed' planetary orbital profiles (Keplerian) in the densely distributed' stellar bodies, gas/plasma and dust energy-mass galactic disc orbital profiles.

The same naive understanding is being shown by Da Schneib, despite my having explained that orbital 'boosting' in galactic disc comes from locally dominant gravitational environment (ie effects of surrounding orbiting energy-mass content which is much closer than the galaxy's central BH/Nucleus energy-mass).

And this 'boosting' *is* persistent, since disc energy-mass is great and always there. Whence the 'powered' profiles.

You understood my explanation re Non-Keplerian disc region profiles. Cheers! :)

Jul 27, 2016
Well what about "dark alley my2cts", you idiot?
Apologise you piece of lying, slaundering fraud


The more mad you become, the worse your spelling gets.

Jul 27, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)

Can't stay, just came in to tie up loose ends. This is one of them. :)
@RC
I can only convince by a solid story based on evidence. That is hard work, called science. You have no science against the validity of GRT. No "IF"s, "WHEN"s, "BUT"s.
About the SciAm article, you make a lot of statements but again there is no substance to convince me that that paper is "way obsolete".
I alrady made clear that GR is OK.

Clear?

Now to the other point. I merely observed that the application/interpretation/expectation of/from same when not properly used (such as in early galaxy/cluster observation interpretations) created "problems and requirements" for fudges and fixes which were never real/necessary (if GR had been properly applied with regard to inputing the correct, not fanciful, energy-mass content/distribution/interactions.

It was earlier naive/incorrect interpretation/application that 'created' the 'missing' Baryons and 'exotic DM' "problems".

Bye. :)


Jul 27, 2016
PS: Phys1 et al. :)

All 'mainstream' science discussion and exploration proponents should set the good example, not become even worse than those they insult and who insult in return. Break the cycle, guys. Be better than those you call trolls and cranks etc. Good luck and good thinking in science and humanity; for science and humanity's sake, if not for your own sakes, everyone! Cheers. :)

Jul 27, 2016
E, P, N are NOT the basic fundamental particles

Why do you say that? Do they not make up all of the elements in the universe?

Quarks. And more than likely, more basic than that...

Jul 27, 2016
Apologise you piece of lying, slaundering fraud.
@Phys1
it's not slander, it is "Libel"
Slander involves the oral "publication" of a defamatory remark that is heard by another, which injures the subject's reputation or character...

Libel, on the other hand, is the written "publication" of a defamatory remark that has the tendency to injure another's reputation or character
http://defamation...-slander

Libel is harder to refute considering the public nature of the post and the internet

See also: http://defamation...om/libel

.

.

... thank you for at least Reading my posts even if you disagree with them
@Steel
you're welcome
i've both up- and down-rated you in the past
I have paid particular attention to how galaxies combine
have you tried to publish the results you found in a journal?

or discussed your results with an astrophysicist?

Jul 27, 2016
Why you say that? Do they not make up all of the elements in the universe?


........he's probably referring to DM about which he has proof for having a completely different atomic structure as compared to EPN. He knows this to be the case because he's already dissected/fused/fissioned a bottle full of DM that he retrieved in his last trip out to the Coma Cluster aboard Starship Enterprise...... man, just let him explain to you how the Warp Dr on that thing is just so incredible that he was able to do the trip overnight, get it examined at the Hadron Collider......and VOILA, he's got the data here for us in less than 24 hours.

Now, if we can just get Schneibo to break loose of those pics he claims he's seen of Black Holes, there would be no more mysteries of the universe left for us to ponder, then we will all die of boredom.

Benni must live in CO and partaking of more than his fair share of the recreational drugs available out there...

Jul 27, 2016
@ Whydening-Skippy. How you been and how you are? I am good.

Just google "Non-Keplerian orbits". Lots of some pretty, heady stuff to choose from...


Thanks Whydening-Skippy. Already did that me. I would have thanked you sooner except I was wanting to see what Really-Skippy would have to say about them. I think if you got non-keplerian orbits in your galaxies you are breaking the conservation of energy rules. And the conservation of momentum rules. And some other rules too.

@ Really-Skippy. How you are Cher? I am fine, busy but doing real good.

I still would like you to explain how you can get a galaxy to do the NON-Keplerian orbits. Without breaking a lot of physics rules. Do they have strategically placed rockets or such to get them going? And to keep them going to suit the NON-Einsteinian GR

Jul 27, 2016
@ Lively-Logic-Skippy. (I sure wish you would go back to being David-Skippy. But I'll get used to it.)

How you are Cher? I am fine and dandy because I just finished two GREAT BIG hamburgers, thanks for asking.

In all your years of fooling around on the interweb, have you even made even one single convert? Is the physorg the only place that let's you hang out all disheveled with your tattered up sign? The reason I ask is because I miss seeing around all the other places where you tried to spread you Lively-Logics stuffs.

Jul 27, 2016
Quarks. And more than likely, more basic than that...

But they aren't useful for the practical purpose of understanding gravity, which is why they are not "basic". I really don't know what they're useful for, can't think of anything that a quark has given society. The basic particles are the ones that exist in the universe that don't require further energy to make them, EPN.

It's illogical to keep searching for energy signatures for an answer when the question doesn't require it. Nobody said we had to find a particle to explain it, that's just been the general assumption for the last 100 years.

The logical thing at this point would be to go back to the mindset pre QM to understand gravity. It's foolish to continue to think that we need a link between QM and gravitation, they obviously don't do much to explain each other.

Jul 28, 2016
@Whyde, non-Keplerian orbits are non-gravitational orbits. In other words some force besides gravity is acting on a body and modifying its orbit from what it would be gravitationally.
Would gravitational influence from another body count?
Technically, no; it's a two-body problem. As you may know, a two-body problem is exactly solvable; a three-or-more-body problem does not have an exact solution. However, it is possible to treat the influence(s) of more bodies as perturbations, and that's exactly how they make ephemerides of the Solar System. This technique has its limitations; for example, we can only tell exactly where the Earth will be for about 80,000 years within the width of the Earth (last time I checked). That's about 13 arc seconds, or 0.0232 radians.
[contd]

Jul 28, 2016
[contd]
But every one of those perturbations yields so small an amount of error that it takes 80,000 years for the error to amount to 13.3 arc seconds. To give you an idea how small that is, the Moon averages about 30 arc minutes; that's 900 arc seconds, about seventy times the width of the uncertainty in the Earth's position over 80,000 years. Stars are much farther apart than planets, and much more massive. Both of these effects reduce the amount of perturbation by many orders of magnitude each.

As a result it's quite accurate to state that the Milky Way Galaxy has a fairly uniform gravity field at any given radius from its center; and the perturbations from that are negligible over millions of years.

In other words, they follow orbits that are so near to Keplerian that we can't tell the difference for millions of years.

So when someone says their orbits are "non-Keplerian," they're actually only right by a hair's width.
[contd]

Jul 28, 2016
[contd]
There are only four forces: gravity, EM, weak nuclear, and color. And of them all, only gravity has no negative.
That we have found so far...:-)
We'll see. The evidence still leans strongly toward a dark matter explanation in the particle sector. I'm patient and willing to wait until there's more evidence before I start taking a stance. But certainly dismissing particle dark matter at this point is going against the preponderance of the evidence.

Jul 28, 2016
@Steelwolf
Stumpy, and Dr Shneib, thank you for at least Reading my posts even if you disagree with them.
Sure. For this you get off ignore if you'll behave yourself. I'll have a conversation with anybody reasonable.

I have paid particular attention to how galaxies combine, in a form of Fusion, which tends to disrupt the accretion discs of both central BH's and often cause them to go Quasar or otherwise show an very Active Galactic Nucleus with jets (usually in pairs, much like photons) and I can fairly well chart the galaxy size to the element and what Valence it would have because of that.
We were good until you got to valence. It doesn't help an understanding of what sort of thing you have in mind because it's about unfilled orbitals. I can't think of a phenomenon in galactic collisions and combinations that works like valence. Perhaps you could explain it more.

[contd]

Jul 28, 2016
[contd]
THAT is where you get a force that is actually similar to gravity since a particle or galaxy can be Pushed AND Pulled at the same time to a new place, whether it fuses or joins it in orbit, sharing globular clusters.
This I don't get at all. A galaxy is more like a gas than it is like an atom. The stars in it are far apart like the atoms in a gas, but they're not sparse like electrons in an atom. The only force I see acting there is gravity.

Other articles have pointed to the idea, so far observed, that electrons 'smear' through their orbitals, and it is in these smear configurations where it can capture photons as long as they are in alignment with a particular orbital when the electron slides thru, luck in timing and placement allows the photon to add it's energy to the electron, boosting it a bit.
Mmmm, you've got some right ideas and some wrong ideas. I'll tell you the wrong ones, but that's because I want to show you, not dis you.
[contd]

Jul 28, 2016
[contd]
And I'll tell you some things you have right, too. Because you need to know both.

Electrons *do* "smear" some. It's called Heisenberg uncertainty, and it's a fundamental principle of quantum mechanics. Photons smear too, in the same way, for the same reason. All quantum particles do, and even composite particles made from multiple fundamental quantum particles if they're small enough. But when a photon and an electron interact, they are in the same place at the same time. They don't necessarily have an exact momentum or energy, but position and time are not a Heisenberg uncertain pair of measurements. (Measurements that are uncertain in this manner are often called "complementary.")

What determines whether the photon can be absorbed is simply whether it happens to be in exactly the same place as the electron at exactly the same time, and this is a matter of random chance.

[contd]

Jul 28, 2016
[contd]
You're right, then, when you say luck in timing and placement allows the photon to add its energy to the electron; you should qualify it though by saying it adds to the electron's orbital momentum and therefore to its energy. Remember that there is another factor as well: the photon must be of exactly the right energy to boost the electron by a certain exact amount. The electron can't absorb just any photon; it has to be a photon of exactly the right energy. That's why we can use spectrograms to find out the types of atoms that light has encountered.

So when you say "boosting it a bit," it's a very exact amount, different for every orbital of every atom.

[contd]

Jul 28, 2016
[contd]
If the electron gains Enough energy it can be enough for it to smear to a different orbital configuration that 'wobbles' in just a way so as to throw off a photon of just enough energy for the electron to drop back to it's Old spot.
Actually it jumps to a different orbital configuration, and if the energy isn't enough, then none of it is absorbed at all. The photon must be exactly right, not to big, not too small, and must also be in exactly the right place at exactly the right time. Because there are so many photons this happens a lot, so we can see which frequencies are absorbed and figure out exactly what atoms did the absorbing.

If the atoms are very hot, then they give off photons spontaneously, and those photons have exactly the same possible energies as the photons the atom can absorb. There are both emission and absorption spectra.

[contd]

Jul 28, 2016
[contd]
If the electron gains Enough energy it can be enough for it to smear to a different orbital configuration that 'wobbles' in just a way so as to throw off a photon of just enough energy for the electron to drop back to it's Old spot.
Actually it jumps to a different orbital configuration, and if the energy isn't enough, then none of it is absorbed at all. The photon must be exactly right, not to big, not too small, and must also be in exactly the right place at exactly the right time. Because there are so many photons this happens a lot, so we can see which frequencies are absorbed and figure out exactly what atoms did the absorbing.

If the atoms are very hot, then they give off photons spontaneously, and those photons have exactly the same possible energies as the photons the atom can absorb. There are both emission and absorption spectra.

[contd]

Jul 28, 2016
[contd]
We see all sorts of galaxies, and they chart a growth pattern up to iron easily, then it becomes galactic clusters, at least at the apparent age of the Higher order Universe, the apparent age in the extreme low end of the Universe, where we watch quantum effects with wonder, should compare Fermi Arcs with new star and AGN Jets and their Herbig-Haro objects created, fun stuff.
No, I can't see it having anything to do with fusion, or iron, or valence (and BTW valence has nothing to do with packing fraction, which is what iron has to do with).

You have, however, spotted a widespread astrophysical phenomenon that is associated with accretion disks: jets. But the explanation is very long and it's very late. Maybe I'll explain it tomorrow if I get time.

Hopefully that will get you thinking along more informed lines. I intended it that way. We'll see how this comes out.


Jul 28, 2016
As you may know by now, E, P, N are NOT the basic fundamental particles.
Well, electrons are, but protons and neutrons aren't. They're made of downs and ups.

You made it clear in a later post you were talking about protons and neutrons. Just making sure the lurkerz are clear on it too.

Jul 28, 2016
Hopefully that will get you thinking along more informed lines. I intended it that way. We'll see how this comes out.


Well then, you imagine you are the guy who keeps everybody so "informed" around here........inform us where we can go to see the pictures of those Black Holes you claimed to have seen. By the way, place a picture of the telescope alongside it, those of us in the Non-Rant Brigade would like to see what you have seen that you seem so unwilling to share with us. You should send pics to Hawking as well, Phys 1 could be your personal emissary to make the delivery.

Jul 28, 2016
Actually it jumps to a different orbital configuration

Probably the main point against the galaxy/atom analogy. All orbitals in atoms are quantized (and also 3D). Positions in a galaxy aren't.

There are some similarities beecause there are forces at work that have an effect that goes with 1/r^2. But for atoms you also have spin and resulting magentic moments - this is something that isn't part of gravity (well...it is in the form of frame dragging effects, but those are tiny)

Jul 28, 2016
Well, electrons are, but protons and neutrons aren't. They're made of downs and ups.

How many times have "downs and ups" ever been observed in free space?

Jul 28, 2016
Well, electrons are, but protons and neutrons aren't. They're made of downs and ups.

How many times have "downs and ups" ever been observed in free space?
@scroof
not sure i understand why you posted that one...
how many neutrons have ever been observed in free space?

...

where you are going with that?

Jul 28, 2016
how many neutrons have ever been observed in free space?

How many do you think are in the solar wind of a neutron star?

I'm going where sane men have gone before, to the time before QM, when the greatest discoveries were actually made.

Jul 28, 2016
How many do you think are in the solar wind of a neutron star?
@scroof
1- how many do i "think"? shouldn't you be providing evidence?

2- https://three.jsc...ment.pdf

3- if you want to talk neutrons, start with what is known, not with what you speculate
http://www.space....ars.html

http://www.osti.g...ns-space

I'm going where sane men have gone before, to the time before QM, when the greatest discoveries were actually made
then you will fail because all of modern science is built upon the successes and validations of the past while removing the failures or non-factual arguments

this is why pseudoscience etc is dangerous:
just because something was considered valid a hundred + yrs ago doesn't mean it is still valid
(See: eugenics, electric shock therapy & x-rays boosting fertility, "pyramiding" for pneumonia, butter on burns, etc)

Jul 28, 2016
Thanks for linking a paper supporting my argument. That was kind of you.

How will I fail any worse than QM? What has the study of these particles done to truly enlighten our understanding of how the cosmos works?

Is GR any less valid now than 100 years ago?

Jul 28, 2016
Thanks for linking a paper supporting my argument. That was kind of you
@scroof
you ASSume this: please provide the evidence
How will I fail any worse than QM?
this is the single stupidest claim anyone has ever made on PO

QM is the most successful theory ever used by humans: it is the foundation that allows you to use computers, the internet as well as much much more... and you say it's a fail?

wow...

care to elucidate?
Is GR any less valid now than 100 years ago?
is Newtonian mechanics any less valid?
it's still used for launches, solar system space exploration as well as most Earth physics, from investigations to forensics... yet it is replaced by something more accurate

so what is your point?

because this proved my point re: building upon validated known science, etc

are you also gonna resurrect pyramiding in hospitals? because fire around O2 is bad... this is something we know for sure

Jul 28, 2016
Evidence:
"If there are essentially no neutrons in the primary radiation environment in space, why do
neutron monitors on the ISS and spacecraft indicate a significant number of neutrons inside
those environments? Those neutrons are created by nuclear interactions between the primary
GCR and any material it comes in contact with, including the spacecraft hull, other structural
materials, and humans. As the amount of material increases, the number of generated
neutrons also increases."
QM is the most successful theory ever

At what? BTW, pretty sure that the transistor is the foundation of our technology. How many quantum phones do we have these days?

Again, my point is that QM plays no role in gravitation. Nothing that QM has given us has done anything to improve the accuracy of GR. Therefore, why continue to fit a square peg in a round hole.

Jul 28, 2016
Evidence
@scroof
let me add to that
A free neutron has a half life of approximately 15 minutes (the neutron decays via beta decay to a proton and an antineutrino). What this effectively means is that there are no neutrons in the primary Galactic Cosmic Ray (GCR) environment. By the time GCR enters our solar system, any neutron created at the source of the GCR has decayed away.
perhaps you shouldn't cherry pick your data?
more to the point: it specifically said the NEU were created by impact/interaction with the ISS, etc... it even said that in your own quote
now add 15 minutes
At what?
really?
are you being intentionally stupid and/or illiterate, or are you being serious?
because i actually did post some info on that above, you know...
Nothing that QM has given us has done anything to improve the accuracy of GR
were you being sarcastic?
or attempting hyperbole?

please give the evidence of GR at atomic scales first, thanks!

Jul 28, 2016
Just to add, I know QM made the transistor better, but QM didn't "discover" the transistor.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking the successes of QM, just pointing out that none of them involve gravity.

Jul 28, 2016
perhaps you shouldn't cherry pick your data?

It has a short half life, so what? How does that change the fact they are formed naturally in nature?

please give the evidence of GR at atomic scales first

That's what I'm saying, there is none, so why are we looking for all of these atomic scale particles to describe something we haven't observed?

Jul 28, 2016
@scroof cont'd
Again, my point is that QM plays no role in gravitation
and GR plays no role in QM at atomic scales...especially when dealing with uncertainty

i don't see a lot of uncertainty in the macro scale WRT gravity
QM and GR are different - so you can't use GR to make computers as most of computer tech derives straight out of QM

GCMS, comes to mind as another perfect example of QM being successful

it is the backbone of forensics and has a huge impact on everything from astrophysics to zoology, and directly uses QM and it's understanding of the atom, etc

it allows us to know the properties of material which then points to QM which demonstrates known things, like chemistry, and so much more etc

it also means we know sh*t like: "hydrino's" can't be real

of course, that is just one sample (but very relevant)

where is your evidence that QM is a failure?

Jul 28, 2016
where is your evidence that QM is a failure?

Man you're missing the point. It's only a failure with regards to gravity, no new particles discovered have helped us understand it with any more clarity. Even the higgs was right in the middle of the road for pointing us in the direction of the multiverse or supersymmetry.

Jul 28, 2016
I'm not knocking the successes of QM, just pointing out that none of them involve gravity.
@Scroof
uhm... yes, you were. at least, that is how it reads
QM didn't "discover" the transistor.
didn't say it did... so let me point out to you this:
Newton didn't discover gravity... we already knew it worked, and sh*t didn't fall "up"
it just allowed us to understand what was happening
you know, like QM did at Micro scales
so what?
so, the NEU is not coming from the GCR: that's what
How does that change the fact they are formed naturally in nature?
wasn't the point, was it?
the point was how long they stick around and why you find them at all

and the cherry picking data to support your bias... that was a point i made too, if you need a reminder
so why are we looking for all of these atomic scale particles
because we know something about how particles are formed and how long they stick around - see NEU papers above

Jul 28, 2016
@scroof cont'd
It's only a failure with regards to gravity
as of right now... yes. but don't use the god of the gaps argument to state it will always be a failure because you and i both know we don't have all the information in yet

this is like saying Newtonian gravity is a failure because of GR/SR
no new particles discovered have helped us understand it with any more clarity
it's not always about "new" so much as "how"

please remember that you can't always know where the fundamental research is going to point, nor how it will extrapolate in the future (especially WRT tech or knowledge)

this is a very important fact of fundamental research of all kinds that most people like zeph forget about simply because they don't like spending the money and they can't comprehend how the Higgs relates to reality, etc


Jul 28, 2016
it just allowed us to understand what was happening

Just semantics but it allowed us to know, not understand exactly.

the point was how long they stick around and why you find them at all

That was your point, not mine.

and the cherry picking data to support your bias

How did I cherry pick again? I simply found where they said that they are naturally formed.

Jul 28, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jul 28, 2016
but don't use the god of the gaps argument to state it will always be a failure because you and i both know we don't have all the information in yet

I'm not, just saying that it's leading down a path that has been fruitless for 100+ years. At this point if you think the study of the micro will help us understand the macro then you need to rethink your logic.


Jul 28, 2016
Hi Scroof, CapS. :)

Reading through again. An observation prompted by your exchange:

If Caps et al consider the Neutron to NOT be an Elementary Particle because a 'free' Neutron decays in a few seconds, then how can the Standard Model treat the Higgs Particle as an Elementary Particle if the Higgs Particle decays in MANY MANY Orders of Magnitude LESS time than the 'free' Neutron Particle?

Is there some double standard being applied to argue 'both ways' in order to avoid facing the fact that some Transient 'Particles' (like the Higgs and others decaying almost immediately) are not actually 'particles' at all, but merely transitional resonance features' temporarily concentrating/localizing some certain amount of energy-space quanta transitioning between one state of the local fields into the next state (which 'next state' may persist as Elementary particles state or again be just another transient 'transition state 'particles')?

Can't stay to discuss; just observing. :)

Jul 28, 2016
Just semantics
@scroof
no, it isn't
it allowed us to know, not understand exactly
you mean just like any other scientific theory, ever? - like GR? Anaphylaxis?
IOW- it allowed us an ability to model, predict and become far more accurate about our understanding, which is science in a nutshell
That was your point, not mine
One problem i've always had with your posts is that you tend to accept just about any pseudoscience concoction without evidence because it sounds good to you but tend to be insanely critical of known science stuff (like your geology hatred)... perhaps this will help you in your quest for answers: http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm

How
you assume without evidence that just because something says [a] is found in [x] regardless of conditions, then your assumption of being present in [y] must also be true

more to the point: it doesn't validate your claims about neutrons, especially in light of the points i made wi/ links

Jul 28, 2016
Hi Scroof, CapS.
@rc
1- you are making wrong assumptions that are not specifically stated

2- TL;DR

3- FOAD
Can't stay to discuss; just observing
then you should consider:
4- either bring evidence or STFU because you are not part of the conversation, nor are you helping with the conversation, nor are you able to provide evidence to support any claim you make (to date), therefore you should FOAD, STFU and stick to posting your pseudoscience on your earthling pseudoscience page - http://proxy2974....lub.com/

NOTE to readers:
the above link uses a proxy to insure your safety from PHISHING by the idiot rc, releasing private information about your location, identity etc to the site run/owned/managed by rc

be cautious of any non-source material (like links from the eu, jvk, etc) as it will allow them access to your info. use proxies (google "free proxy") or other means to protect yourself from phishing

Jul 28, 2016
As you may know by now, E, P, N are NOT the basic fundamental particles.
Well, electrons are, but protons and neutrons aren't. They're made of downs and ups.

You made it clear in a later post you were talking about protons and neutrons. Just making sure the lurkerz are clear on it too.

Thanks...:-)

Jul 28, 2016
how many neutrons have ever been observed in free space?

How many do you think are in the solar wind of a neutron star?

A lot - for the first 15 minutes or so...

I'm going where sane men have gone before, to the time before QM, when the greatest discoveries were actually made.

And it drove them insane...

Jul 28, 2016
You only say this because you do not understand the last 100+ years of physics development

What makes you think that? You're missing the point too, let me restate.

QM is an extremely important theory, as Stump said it is one of the most successful. It doesn't do anything to further our understanding gravitation. None of the particles that have been found have been of any use, yet. We need to separate QM from the macro world completely. Think of it as science's "separation of church and state" moment.
which is science in a nutshell

Duh, but there is a difference between knowing and understanding. Newton knew how the planets rotate around the Sun, but as he said he didn't understand it.
tend to accept just about any pseudoscience

Ya I like to take it all in, let it simmer for a bit. The science is rarely settled so why not, where's the harm in it?

And you lay off the hydroplate theory:
http://phys.org/n...ics.html

Jul 28, 2016
A lot - for the first 15 minutes or so...

Haha exactly. They are still there though.

And it drove them insane...

Dude we're all crazy, but I'd rather go insane trying to solve it my way than to just keep doing it the same way over and over.

You do remember what Einstein said about insanity?

Jul 28, 2016
"therefore you should FOAD, STFU "
-----------------------------------

Oh, grow the hell up. Your nastiness is sickening. You are not the cop or arbiter or anyone else here but another anonymous sniper.

Your crude verbiage and adolescent manner are for high-school Twitter, not a science site.

Jul 28, 2016
Your crude verbiage and adolescent manner are for high-school Twitter, not a science site.


He comes to a science site because he imagines that's what lifts him above the level of "high school Twitter" to adulthood. He doesn't care that the subject matter is over his head, & will forever remain so. He's jealous of those who have the intellectual capacity for science & math which is why he gets so nasty when he's confronted by them.

Jul 28, 2016
A lot - for the first 15 minutes or so...

Haha exactly. They are still there though.

You realize what happens when they decay, right?
And it drove them insane...

Dude we're all crazy, but I'd rather go insane trying to solve it my way than to just keep doing it the same way over and over.
You do remember what Einstein said about insanity?

No. But knowing Albert, I'd figure it was something like - "Insanity is halfway to understanding..."

Jul 28, 2016
Hi CapS. :) Reading through again. Can't stay to discuss. But wow, lucky I checked in!

Hey!...Hey!...CapS!...simmer down, mate!

FIRSTLY: I am NOT making ANY "assumptions". It's all there in the replies to Scroof.

SECONDLY: What "evidence" you wanting that isn't already alluded to in my earlier observation?

Eg, Wiki can tell you all about the Higgs being considered an Elementary Particle in Standard Model. And I haven't pointed out anything not already claimed by you and others (that quick decay of free Neutron makes it NOT "Elementary").

And since the Higgs Particle decay occurs many many times QUICKER, then your logic will have the Higgs NOT be an "Elementary Particle"...which will go against the Standard Model claim!

NO assumptions on my part; and the "evidence" is understood already.

THIRDLY: Please don't spread lies about me/my site, CapS. That's not nice. Phys1 et al want apologies from others who have lied about them; so they'll tell you it's not nice. :)

Jul 28, 2016
My bad WG, I thought you'd know Einstein's definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Essentially the last 100 years

Jul 28, 2016
They've never heard of Slater, @Phys1.

Jul 28, 2016
@ Da Schneib-Skippy. How you are? I am good, but embarrassed because I give you the one vote when I as trying to give the five about the Slater-Skippy. Sorry about that, sometimes it takes the page too long to settle down from loading and he hopped just as I was poking the button.

@ Really-Skippy. How you are too Cher? I am good, thanks for asking. So I take you are not going to tell me about the NON-Keplerian orbiting is, right?

Jul 28, 2016
LOL, that's OK @Ira.

Back on Slater, this is the guy who explained why solid matter of various types behaves the way it does; some is soft, some is hard; some is brittle, some is strong; some is opaque, some is transparent; etc. etc. It's all about the electron shells and their bandgaps and how the shells of the atoms in the solid interact with each other and with the environment. It sounds very esoteric when you talk about "bandgaps" and stuff, but it's really the most concrete thing imaginable. It's a shame most non-scientists have never heard of him. His work was incredibly important.

Jul 28, 2016
My bad WG, I thought you'd know Einstein's definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.


Oh... That one...
I would have thought it was "doing the same thing over and over again and never getting the expected result."
THAT would drive me over an even different edge than I already am over...
Actually, science works incrementally...

Jul 28, 2016
Whyd, I get that, but the big jumps happen quick someone. Many people are working at it one way, so I'll try the other

Jul 28, 2016
Whyd, I get that, but the big jumps happen quick someone. Many people are working at it one way, so I'll try the other

Unfortunately, Scroof, those big jumps go to the obsessively dedicated and focused. Brilliance plays a part, but unless you strongly the possess the first 2 attributes, you're better off working WITH others.
Take me, for example - Brilliant, but with a "squirrel!" attention span...:-)

Jul 28, 2016
LOL, that's OK @Ira.

Back on Slater, this is the guy who explained why solid matter of various types behaves the way it does; some is soft, some is hard; some is brittle, some is strong; some is opaque, some is transparent; etc. etc.


Thanks for not being mad with about that one vote mistake. Yeah, I knew who Slater-Skippy was and what he did. I learned it in passing awhile back (Captain-Skippy might explain that if you talk to him off the physorg). I don't know that stuffs the way you and Phys1-Skippy do,,, you know, use it or lose it, eh?

If I say much more about that some certain somebody's head will explode and we will never hear the end of him. Not that I have any sort of idea that we will ever hear the end of him, he's not slowed down yet for even a day.

Anyhoo, thanks again for not getting hot about the mistake, I been really busy lately and now I am still busy. Work stuffs.

Jul 28, 2016
Ya I hear you're an artist, painting has to help with focusing that attention a bit. Got any work online?

Can't say I really have any of those 3 qualities, just some ideas that I send off to smart people.

One of which is the idea that spacetime doesn't just bend, it rotates too. Evidence like this article would support that idea. Fluid dynamics seem a bit more analogous when looked at this way, so I have been trying to use the vorticity transport equation as gravity is a conservative force. Problem is I didn't take a fluid dynamics course in college as an ee so I'm a bit behind, but I'm I quick study when I want to be.

Always looking for help tho

Jul 29, 2016
but as he said he didn't understand it
@scroof
but he did understand what he wrote

this is what science is about: understand what you can and let the future build upon the success of the validated things to finish what you couldn't complete

(this is also why the god of the gaps argument will always fail)
where's the harm in it?
if you're not responsible for anything? no harm

when you're presenting it as factual? there is a lot of harm that is done by it, including influencing others perspective. it's how pseudoscience spreads

this is a good video why it should be stopped
https://www.youtu...EwjBXlZE

And you lay off
i don't accept singular theories of anything, even interesting science stuff

a singular piece of evidence for anything is interesting, and far greater evidence than none or speculation (or opinion, or anecdote, etc), but it isn't worth accepting unless it's validated

from theories to statements

Jul 29, 2016
My bad WG, I thought you'd know Einstein's definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Essentially the last 100 years
@Scroof
but we're *not* doing the same thing over and over expecting different results...
and by "we" i mean "Science"

just because you don't understand something doesn't mean no one does
I'll try the other
so long as you can bring evidence that points to a potential logical conclusion, that is admirable

however, if you're pulling a zeph/rc and making a claim sans evidence, then it's a bit looney, don't-cha think?
it's not like there aren't reasons some paths aren't taken to investigate an issue...

.

.

Hi CapS. :)
@RC
in case you didn't get the hint above, let me spell it out and be very clear:
1- TL;DR, don't care

2- i am not bothering to read your posts because you have yet to provide empirical evidence or at least references to evidence for any claims you make


Jul 29, 2016
@Scroof cont'd
Problem is I didn't take a fluid dynamics course in college as an ee so I'm a bit behind, but I'm I quick study when I want to be.

Always looking for help tho
more: http://ocw.mit.ed...ng-2010/

also note: the site is http://ocw.mit.ed...y-topic/

look around for all the supplemental material in the course as well... sometimes the material used in the course is an invaluable tool

and of course there is topical stuff that may be related that you would want to know, like thermodynamics, condensed matter physics, nuclear physics, particle physics, materials science and more...


Jul 29, 2016
I thought you'd know Einstein's definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.


You're looking at it backwards.

Yes: we are getting the same results (failing to reconcile quantum physicst with relativity), but this does mean that therefore scientists are always trying the same things.
You can fail at one thing by doing many different things. While this is vexing it isn't useless, because you can eliminate (some times large swathes of) approaches with each time you fail.
A negative result *has* value because it is still a result.

Science isn't some magical method by which we always do only the right things. That's only how it's portrayed in the movies.
For every paper that shows a positive result you can bet your behind that the researchers went at least through a dozen approaches that didn't.

Jul 29, 2016
Capn, thanks for the links! I always forget MIT does those online courses.
but he did understand what he wrote

He understood the math, but not the mechanism behind the mechanics.
but we're *not* doing the same thing over and over expecting different results

Right we're not trying the same experiment or the same theory because that would be a lie. What I'm saying is that mainstream has only been focused on the same base, the quantum base, for 100 years with no breakthrough.
Are you claiming that it is insane to try to build a QM theory of gravity?

Ya that's pretty much the idea.
For every paper that shows a positive result you can bet your behind that the researchers went at least through a dozen approaches that didn't.

This is understood, but that doesn't mean that any of the approaches were in the right direction. I hope they can somehow find the QM/GR link but I'm not confident they will, so I pursue a different direction. Simple as that.

Jul 29, 2016
For every paper that shows a positive result you can bet your behind that the researchers went at least through a dozen approaches that didn't.
In some cases thousands.

Jul 29, 2016
Capn, thanks for the links! I always forget
@Scroof
you're welcome: glad to help
i actually forget a lot too (about all the rest of them) since i've stuck with psych & physics
He understood the math, but not the mechanism behind the mechanics
kinda like some current theories
What I'm saying is that mainstream has only been focused on the same base, the quantum base, for 100 years with no breakthrough
only WRT gravity, and we really aint been "looking" as much as designing a way to look: we've found a sh*t load of breakthroughs in other areas

the one thing we haven't had was the tech to actually perform some of the tasks for research (LIGO comes to mind - and look how old that is and how much effort has gone through to making it more and more sensitive to actually accomplish the task at hand)

of course, it's our concentration on the effective QM that gave the tech to find answers

2Bcont'd

Jul 29, 2016
@Scroof cont'd
more to the point: we *know* that QM is a fantastically accurate theory
AND
we *know* GR/SR is fantastically accurate
BUT
we can't reconcile them... this is the reason they've concentrated on QM over, say... eu [jk]

considering the implications: if we know the two are fantastically accurate, why don't they meet easily?
it's because one or the other is incomplete, hence the scrutiny of both still to this day
logic, not insanity
but that doesn't mean that any of the approaches were in the right direction
this is inevitable
only hindsight is 20/20
I hope they can somehow find the QM/GR link but I'm not confident
here's the thing: there has to be something related to both that is the key
Why?
because both are so insanely accurate and effective, therefore there must be something missed relating to BOTH, otherwise QM & GR wouldn't be as accurate as they are

as pointed out above, that is the reason for the scrutiny


Jul 29, 2016
one last question for you to ponder, if you will @scroof... specifically regarding this comment:
so I pursue a different direction. Simple as that.
-are you pursuing a different direction that is based upon evidence and is said evidence valid?

this is important: we know that certain evidence invalidates certain hypothesis (for example: some observations clearly favor ΛCDM while others clearly favor MOND)

so be careful what evidence you use and make sure the path you take isn't already falsified by current evidence

also: stick to the evidence and validated stuff... skip the fringe lunacy (like zeph, cantdrive, rc, etc... i mean, until very, very recently, this year, in fact, rc claimed his earthling TOE was math free. that's religion or philosophy, not science)

just a friendly suggestion

Jul 29, 2016
This is understood, but that doesn't mean that any of the approaches were in the right direction.

Since the 'right' answer isn't known - how can you tell if any of the approaches were in the right direction? You can't. You can just say that they didn't hit (sometimes you can say that they didn't hit by a long shot).

Knowing whether any of the approaches were already on somewhat of a right track only comes after a good theory is found...and by that time such knowledge is only of a historical interest.

It's hit and miss. This doesn't mean it's random. There are such things as making educated guesses (e.g. limiting oneself to guesses that don't immediately clash with observed phenomena)...and also trying those things which can be checked more easily, firts.

Jul 29, 2016
we've found a sh*t load of breakthroughs in other areas

Ya QM is successful, just not in the realm of the macro.
if we know the two are fantastically accurate, why don't they meet easily?

Well that's my line of logic. If we are extremely accurate at both areas, yet we fail to find a link in a century, perhaps they don't go together. That's why I think it's insane to keep thinking they go together.
because both are so insanely accurate and effective, therefore there must be something missed relating to BOTH, otherwise QM & GR wouldn't be as accurate as they are

That's massively flawed logic. What evidence is there that there's actually a link? I fail to see the intersection at which the two theories cross.
are you pursuing a different direction that is based upon evidence and is said evidence valid?

Evidence and hypothesis. Articles like this one are satisfying because I can describe what is happening, just without the math yet to prove it.

Jul 29, 2016
Since the 'right' answer isn't known - how can you tell if any of the approaches were in the right direction? You can't

Exactly, only evidence can validate the direction, and sometimes that's not even enough. Because so many people are trying one direction, I'll try another.

It's hit and miss. This doesn't mean it's random.

Never said it was random, don't know where you got that idea. I'm making educated guesses based on what people haven't guessed (or don't want to guess), just on the off chance that I hit.

Just working on the backup plan dude

Jul 29, 2016
just not in the realm of the macro
@Scroof
this is kinda my point:
*if* it's successful in the MICRO
*and if* GR is successful in the MACRO
*then* there must be a relation we need to find that reconciles both, or there is something missing from both
yet we fail to find a link in a century
time is irrelevant: see comment about LIGO and God of the gaps argument
it has been a long time because we don't have the tech or sensitivity to actually perform the requisite testing
That's why I think it's insane to keep thinking they go together
this doesn't make sense in the light of my comment: if both are so accurate for their perspective areas, there *must* be a link or relevant information that ties them together

See also: Newton vrs GR
more to the point: we still use Newtonian gravity for most everything, so it's not like it was irrelevant or wrong, just not as accurate as we needed for certain things

Jul 29, 2016
@scroof cont'd
That's massively flawed logic
how so?
If you know that rapidly burning material like gunpowder can launch heavy objects
and you know that ballistics is how said object flies
then it stands to reason that there is a relation to them both that will allow you to reconcile launching the object with ballistics to gain an accurate picture of where it will likely land

same with GR/QM... what we don't know is either the link or the information we are missing, hance the search for the logical connection

considering we only *just* logged results with LIGO, i think it may be a while before they will be reconciled, IMHO... time and evidence is the friend of science
What evidence is there that there's actually a link?
the fact that both are extremely accurate to their respective scales

2Bcont'd

Jul 29, 2016
cont'd
this may well be an issue of lack of resources or ability on our part
even supercomputers have their limits, even with us pushing said limits to the edge on a regular basis, it may well be that we can't know the relation or information we seek for another millennium

Time and evidence are the friend of science
I'll try another.
better keep close tabs on what is published to insure what you're working on isn't falsified by current research and findings
I'm making educated guesses based on what people haven't guessed (or don't want to guess)
sorry, but this is conspiracist ideation a-la-Zeph

just because it aint reported on PO doesn't mean it aint being worked on... not all science or subjects are reported with the same fervent attention to getting the word out

just sayin'

Jul 29, 2016
Hi Forum. :)

Reading. Can't stay to discuss. So, briefly:

One poster is 'famous' for "demanding evidence"; but then immediately ignores posted evidence/allusions to same; using the excuse: "too long; didn't read it". What an 'interesting take' on the concept/principles/process of "objective, dispassionate investigation and research". :)

Another poster allows that mainstream may pursue many wrong ideas until they hit the right one; but he doesn't realize that all sorts of non-mainstreamers are also allowed to have wrong ideas also until they may hit the right one; sometimes hitting the right one before the mainstreamers get round to it (either because they had been ignoring it or didn't think of it themselves before the non-mainstreamer(s) did). It has happened before; and can happen again; so it pays for mainstreamers to keep an eye on what non-mainstreaners have to say (even if most of it may be wrong....until some 'right' idea emerges). :)

Good luck all. :)

Jul 29, 2016
if both are so accurate for their perspective areas, there *must* be a link or relevant information that ties them together

There doesn't *have* to be anything. That's just the current mainstream thinking. Apples and pineapples are fruit but both grow in completely different ways.
the fact that both are extremely accurate to their respective scales

That's all it is though, accurate at their respective scales. Doesn't mean there's a correlation.
sorry, but this is conspiracist ideation

Not at all, I'm not saying there is a "mainstream agenda" trying to keep new ideas down. I'm just saying they aren't supported since they don't fit in with the current reasoning, so someone has to look into them.

Jul 29, 2016
It has happened before; and can happen again

Well said RC. Although I think our words are falling on deft ears. It's pretty clear the mainstream crew here just doesn't even want to think about real alternatives.

Jul 29, 2016
Ya I hear you're an artist, painting has to help with focusing that attention a bit. Got any work online?

I find it humorous that others automatically assume paint.
My work is 3d, metalwork from silverware. Simple, straightforward stuff. Replicable and inexpensive for the masses (cuz I like a steadier revenue stream).
More of a trinket maker, really...
Google Silverware Artistry. I'm on the first page - somewhere right after the paid ones.
Can't say I really have any of those 3 qualities, just some ideas that I send off to smart people.

Don't diss yerself. But don't brag, either...:-)
One of which is the idea that spacetime doesn't just bend, it rotates too.

We don't really have evidence showing that, cept for CMB and expansion, everything is in motion. And - think toroidally...
Always looking for help tho

Realizing that you sometimes need it is an attribute...:-)

Jul 29, 2016
Edit
We don't really have evidence showing that, cept for CMB and expansion {that indicate} everything is in motion.

Jul 29, 2016
automatically assume paint

That is the classical view of an artist, my bad :)
We don't really have evidence showing that, cept for CMB and expansion, everything is in motion.

Everything is also spinning, so why wouldn't spacetime?
And - think toroidally

In my mind a toroidal gravitational field (rather than spherical) is the best explanation for galaxy's rotational curves, especially spirals. One would then have to reason that the powerhouse of the galaxy then couldn't be spherical.

Which leads me to another idea I have: that black holes are actually just 2d discs. The theory goes that the Schwarzschild radius really shows the point at which atoms can no longer exist due to immense gravity, and they breakdown into subatomic particles. The centrifugal force of the BH rotation is so great that the particles create a disc. Obviously the gravitational field would be different than that of a sphere, toroidal more specifically ;)

Jul 29, 2016
More of a trinket maker, really...

Don't short change yourself, you're still creating things :)

More than I can say I'm doing with my profession.

Jul 29, 2016
Everything is also spinning, so why wouldn't spacetime?

I actually figure a spinning spacetime is what imparts it to everything else...
And - think toroidally.
In my mind a toroidal gravitational field (rather than spherical) is the best explanation for galaxy's rotational curves, especially spirals. One would then have to reason that the powerhouse of the galaxy then couldn't be spherical.

I'm not talking about a tire shaped toroid, tho (a spinning sphere could technically be considered a toroid, the axis being the center). It's the spin that imparts the spiral characteristic. That part is kinetic and still follows all the standard gravitational rules.


Jul 29, 2016
The theory goes that the Schwarzschild radius really shows the point at which atoms can no longer exist due to immense gravity, and they breakdown into subatomic particles.

Possible that a BH is at quark gluon state, but I kinda doubt it.. That's not what the Schwarzechild radius is. It's just assumption you have made about BH conditions.
The centrifugal force of the BH rotation is so great that the particles create a disc. Obviously the gravitational field would be different than that of a sphere, toroidal more specifically ;)

Are there oblate GF's? I don't know (something to look into).
But, what if the BH is NOT rotating (or really. really slowly)...? Evidence of that has been discovered, too, I believe...
The gravitational field would make anything within it's range arrange more "spherically", then.


Jul 29, 2016
Reality Check..... for someone who always has to go, and can't stay to discuss, you sure seem to hang around........

Jul 29, 2016
Everything is also spinning, so why wouldn't spacetime?
I actually figure a spinning spacetime is what imparts it to everything else...
Rotation imparts centrifugal pseudoforces. If spacetime were rotating we'd be able to tell from this. See Newton's Bucket. Also the Mach Principle.

Jul 29, 2016
The theory goes that the Schwarzschild radius really shows the point at which atoms can no longer exist due to immense gravity, and they breakdown into subatomic particles.
Possible that a BH is at quark gluon state, but I kinda doubt it.. That's not what the Schwarzechild radius is. It's just assumption you have made about BH conditions.
Gravity is not strong enough even at the Schwarzchild radius to form a quark-gluon plasma, but inside it, there must be a radius where it is strong enough. If you want my guess about what's inside the event horizon of a black hole, it's a quark-gluon plasma inside the radius where gravity is strong enough to compress matter to that point. But what exists between the event horizon and that radius, that's beyond any physics we've got the accelerators to investigate.

Jul 30, 2016
One poster is 'famous' for "demanding evidence"; but then immediately ignores posted evidence/allusions to same
@RC-Trolling f*cking idiot
you didn't actually prove anything: not one link/reference in your posts
i just checked
therefore, you're lying again
reported

.

There doesn't *have* to be anything
@Scroof
yes, there does
this is similar to my GR/Newtonian point: they're related, it's just that one is far superior to the other
Apples and pineapples are fruit but both grow in completely different ways
and yet they're still cultivated in much the same way, require similar nutrients, are both carbon based... you get my point yet?
Doesn't mean there's a correlation
yes, it does: see point re: Newton/GR

Newtonian gravity is still related to GR
so someone has to look into them
and again: how do you know someone ISN'T looking into them?
if it aint falsified, it's still on the table

Jul 30, 2016
@Scroof cont'd
Well said RC
no, it isn't. and there is no evidence it was relevant or factual, either
Although I think our words are falling on deft ears
no, the lack of evidence is just not compelling for most
and
if it's falling on deaf ears, why am i discussing the issues with you?
It's pretty clear the mainstream crew here just doesn't even want to think about real alternatives
and this is where you are absolutely wrong

it's not that we're not thinking about alternatives... it's that you've not been able to actually bring evidence supporting anything

for something to be able to replace, say: GR, it would have to do what GR did for Newtonian gravity: it would have to be better, more accurate and offer more predictable options that were more effective than it's predecessor

what you're offering is:
speculation that something might be more accurate

2Bcon'd

Jul 30, 2016
@scroof cont'd

speculation is great, but you've not made a compelling argument for anything other than ignorance, IMHO

what you've offered is the whole reason the scientific method exists

we see inconsistencies in something - WHY? (research it and find answers)
so now we see inconsistencies in this thing

... it's circular. it is how science works - it's why science always improves knowledge
the method is there for a reason

but you're not proposing anything superior to the mainstream knowledge ... and your speculations are too vague and ignorant of a lot of stuff

but mostly, and this is important, you're using the god-of-the-gaps argument
AND
that because you don't know or see research that is happening, you speculate it isn't being done

that last is the killer, IMHO


Jul 30, 2016
Hi Zzzzzzzz. :)
Reality Check..... for someone who always has to go, and can't stay to discuss, you sure seem to hang around........
I used to spend solid hours here reading widely all the topics and discussing at length in many threads. As I got busier with my off line works (lately including Reality-based Axiomatic reworking of the maths for my ToE) I had to reduce my reading to select topics and discussing briefly. Now I'm so busy that I only come in on the occasional break from my work to read (but not enter long discussions); only making occasional reminder/comment as I see fit. Hence my current sporadic posting (you'll see my post count is much reduced from earlier times).

Still reading through as I find time; it is always interesting/informative reading here at PO; not only the specific articles I read, but also the ensuing discussions between others (pity they are sometimes marred by animosity/pettiness-driven trolling by some I won't name).

Good luck. :)

Jul 30, 2016
Hi CapS. :)
One poster is 'famous' for "demanding evidence"; but then immediately ignores posted evidence/allusions to same
@RC-Trolling f*cking idiot
you didn't actually prove anything: not one link/reference in your posts
i just checked...
Mate, were you born/inculcated with your nasty character, or were you a self-made-man in that respect?

Why must you inject poisonous attitudes and insults in your dealings with others?

As for the "evidence" you demand: I already told you that reading the relevant Wiki would tell you that the Higgs was considered "Elementary Particle" by the Standard Model. Why didn't you read the relevant Wiki instead of posting your poisonous denial tactics and insults again?

Can you ever be man enough to put aside childish things like juvenile antics and grown-up bile? Stop being a disgrace to 'mainstreamers'?

Only failed wannabe's keep injecting their personal frustrations/poisonous tactics into science.

Try tolerance and science. :)

Jul 30, 2016
@RC-Trolling f*cking idiot
you didn't actually prove anything: not one link/reference in your posts
i just checked
therefore, you're lying again
reported


......and Stumpo, the only thing you have ever proven about yourself is that you are about the most foulmouthed, uneducated & miseducated piece of human debris that has ever shown up in the Commentary section of this site.

Jul 30, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jul 30, 2016
Hi CapS
@rcTROLL
TL;DR

Butt out and work on your ToE or saving the world from climate change as you claimed you would

because as far as science conversation goes: you got no facts, no links, no references

.

.

uneducated & miseducated
[sic]
@benjiTROLL
1- why are you posting to me? you need attention? where is your evidence, links or references? https://www.psych...ttle-ego

2- this "uneducated & miseducated"[sic] person proved you to be a liar
&
incapable of doing a basic search on the internet
&
that you weren't an engineer
&
that you can't do math
&
you're incompetent WRT engineering, nuclear physics and astrophysics/astronomy and computers

and i used your own words - so what does that make you?

Jul 30, 2016
De Shneib, I already well understand all of those normal stuff from the basic text that could have come a basic refresher course, but you do not seem to understand the connections on the fractal iterations, the implied very young and very close to it's Big Bang thus hot, under high pressure, fusing and expanding into further space, particles that would not be normally seen are operating in that momentary few seconds where that bit Heisenberg's principle that can be interpreted to say that if anything is going to happen, it all as to happen, which is the uncertainty portion made certain, the only difference then is the scale, position and energies involved, and yes, it is in repeating patterns, so we should be looking at ALL the iterations of the whole fractal set to gain greater understandings of what is going on at Both ends of the scale size wise. What look like currents in H2 gas around the galaxy could well be the same as what we observe with atomic orbital shells around Barium.

Jul 30, 2016
because as far as science conversation goes: you got no facts, no links, no references
.......you must be especially referring to yourself........it wouldn't matter what kind of a mathematical expression that was plunked down in front of your face, you wouldn't be able to identify it & give it a Proper Name.

"Science conversation" you say? The closest you've ever gotten to that are Copy & Paste paraphrasing directly from Wiki because you can't hold a "conversation" with anyone about "science".

Jul 30, 2016
Hi again CapS. :)

Can't stay and 'play', so briefly...
@rcTROLL
TL;DR
...
I'll take that response from you to mean that you have now (at last) read that relevant Wiki which tells you that the Higgs is considered an "Elementary particle" in the Standard Model; and that the Higgs decays in much much less time than the 'free' Neutron.

So from that, the forum may reasonable take it that you finally see the non sequitur inherent in your/others asserting that the 'free' Neutron is "not elementary particle because it decays quickly" but at the same time you/others agreeing with the Standard Model that asserts the Higgs *is* an Elementary Particle *despite* it decaying in much much less time than the 'free' Neutron.

Maybe more discussion between you/others and Scroofinator can resolve that non sequitur?

So, be nice in future, mate; especially if you have nothing to say that does not bring personal insults and/or logical/scientific non sequiturs into the discussion. :)

Jul 30, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jul 30, 2016
the connections on the fractal iterations
Without some sort of actual data that shows this supposed fractal connection, there isn't anything worth discussing here. Everything that follows this is more use of a mashup of concepts you haven't connected together with any data. Pure speculation.

And speculation is fine; as long as it's identified as such. I'll also point out, as long as it doesn't conflict with known data. And I don't think you're quite up to date on that.

Jul 31, 2016
@RC,CapS
The notion of elementary particle
@Phys1
No offense, but you shouldn't have included me in that

in fact, i am not even paying attention to what rc says because there is no evidence, references etc, so, like any other rc post, it is entirely an attempt to get attention and "feels"

if rc can't actually provide empirical evidence or at least references for her claims (any claim) then why is she posting?
take a good look at the content: it's to specifically elicit (or bait) someone into a conversation

my posts have been predominantly to Scroof ... so why would rc want to bait into a conversation?

because she is being ignored or left out and she requires regular feedback for her mental conditions, including her martyr/victim complex

Jul 31, 2016
Hi CapS, Phys1. :)
@Phys1
No offense, but you shouldn't have included me in that
CapS, you do that all the time, so why can't Phys1 do it too?

i am not even paying attention to what rc says...it is entirely an attempt to get attention and "feels"....it's to specifically elicit (or bait) someone into a conversation
So you don't read, but "feel" like complaining anyway. And I wish to avoid undue attention/discussion, as my "Can't stay to discuss anymore" riders to my brief passing reminders/observations should have told you; but you persist in "giving attention".
my posts have been predominantly to Scroof ... so why would rc want to bait into a conversation?
This!? From the most gratuitously intrusive, baiting, 'dragging-in' poster in PO history!? (The Irony is strong with this one, hey, Phys1?)

because she is being ignored or left out and she requires regular feedback for her mental conditions,
A perfect self-diagnosis! (Irony is off the scale!). :)

Jul 31, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)

Good Morning, mate.
@RC,CapS
The notion of elementary particle is not precise enough to decide your argument.
The Higgs boson is however definitely an elementary particle, since it cannot be thought of at this point in time as consisting of smaller constituents and the same is true for leptons. For hadrons and mesons you can argue, but do not argue about taste. De gustibus etc.
I only observed, for the sake of discussion rationality, that the argument of "quick decay time" doesn't necessarily make something 'not elementary'; as my Higgs example, with its fantastically "much quicker decay" time, demonstrates; and as the Wiki says: the Standard Model treats Higgs as Elementary despite its very very quick decay (much faster than 'free' Neutron...ie, the bone of contention between Scroof et al).

It was only the 'decay time' aspect I pointed to as being non-sequitur for arguing whether 'free' Neutron can be thought of as Elementary or not. Cheers, Phys1. :)

Jul 31, 2016
Worth noting at this point that the reason a neutron isn't an elementary particle is because it's composed of quarks. Which *are* elementary particles.

Carry on.

Jul 31, 2016
Worth noting at this point that the reason a neutron isn't an elementary particle is because it's composed of quarks -

Worth noting also - Same holds for protons.
- Which *are* elementary particles.

Also worth noting - Until we figure out what THEY are made of...:-)

Carry on.

Aye,aye, Captain...

Aug 01, 2016
Worth noting at this point that the reason a neutron isn't an elementary particle is because it's composed of quarks. Which *are* elementary particles.

Carry on.
@DaSchneib
Thank you

Also worth noting - Until we figure out what THEY are made of...:-)
@Whyde
very "artist" of you... thanks for making my head ache in a very twisted Escher way

.

.

something for DaSchneib, furlong, axemaster and the like to chew on:

will we ever really be able to measure and track something smaller than a quark?

can you speculate on how?

there is a theoretical limit to how far down the whole mess goes (size wise), but is that really the limit?

what is the average velocity of an unladen swallow?

Aug 01, 2016
That's not what the Schwarzechild radius is. It's just assumption you have made about BH conditions.

Well, everything is an assumption with regards to the Schwartzchild radius, it's kinda the point where physics as we know it breaks down.
If spacetime were rotating we'd be able to tell from this. See Newton's Bucket. Also the Mach Principle.

I don't think these examples really apply to a rotating spacetime, since they are trying to establish the reference frame of rotation to either the nearest large gravitational source or to the cosmos as a whole. It's asking a completely different question, but please elaborate if you understood it differently than I have.

The mach principle also suggests "frame dragging", which the Michelson Morley experiment invalidated. Thus my assertion that spacetime is like a frictionless superfluid, in which drag cannot be applied, is still a logical possibility.

Aug 01, 2016
Well, everything is an assumption with regards to the Schwartzchild radius, it's kinda the point where physics as we know it breaks down.

Physics doesn't break down at the Schwartzschild radius (it's only much further in that stuff runs into infinities). For a large enough black hole you can even survive crossing the Schwartschild radius without noticing anything much as the gravity gradient for such a black hole is pretty weak at that distance.

Rotating spacetime doesn't work because we'd be seeing this as a net red/blueshift differential looking in opposite directions. No such differential is observed. (It only would be unobservable if the Earth were at the center of the cosmos).
With a rotation you also get into the issue of it having a center - which also doesn't work with a big bang scenario. (you also would very quickly run into superluminal regions, which also doesn't work.)

Aug 01, 2016
For a large enough black hole you can even survive crossing the Schwartschild radius

Yet you would never leave, as it is the threshold for which light no longer can escape. Ultimately we don't know what happens beyond the Schwarzschild radius, it's all just theory.
Rotating spacetime doesn't work because we'd be seeing this as a net red/blueshift differential looking in opposite directions.

There are anomalies such as the Fingers-of-God effect that could be understood this way:
http://w.astro.berkeley.edu/~louis/astro228/redshift.html
"The Fingers-of-God effect is attributed to random velocity dispersions in galaxy clusters that deviate a galaxy's velocity from pure Hubble flow, stretching out a cluster in redshift space. Since this affects only redshift and not position on the sky, the stretching occurs only radially (hence why fingers point back to observer)"

Aug 01, 2016
With a rotation you also get into the issue of it having a center

A center of what? Where is the center of rotation in the oceans?

The planets are all within the Sun's rotation, but at the location where the planets are they have their own field rotations that are stronger than the Sun's so they would create their own "bubble". No center is really required since you really only worry about what the dominant gravitational sources are close by.

Aug 01, 2016
Rotating spacetime doesn't work because we'd be seeing this as a net red/blueshift differential looking in opposite directions. No such differential is observed. (It only would be unobservable if the Earth were at the center of the cosmos).

That was philosophically humorous for some reason...:-)

Aug 01, 2016
I mean, we are in the center of our cosmos :)

Aug 01, 2016
I mean, we are in the center of our cosmos :)

Cut it out - you'll sound like my wife n kids...:-)

Aug 01, 2016
Lol, I thought space was all about frames of reference?

Aug 01, 2016
With a rotation you also get into the issue of it having a center

A center of what? Where is the center of rotation in the oceans?

The center of Earth?

The planets are all within the Sun's {gravitational domain}, but at the location where the planets are they have their own field rotations that are stronger than the Sun's so they would create their own "bubble".

If that was the case, the planets would be shooting off into the cosmos.
No center is really required since you really only worry about what the dominant gravitational sources are close by.

Which are being dominated by even larger domains...

Aug 01, 2016
The center of Earth?

I thought with your name you would understand the rhetorical question. There is no real center of rotation, just a bunch of moving gyres i.e. localized large rotations.

If that was the case, the planets would be shooting off into the cosmos.

Well you have to consider that the major gravitational force that the Earth exhibits, for instance, only extends so far. I know it's not precisely the langrage points but around the distance of L1/L2 the Sun's influence becomes greater so while the local field is stronger due to the Sun, we still follow along in the Sun's path. Just one bubble in a much bigger bubble, without the escape velocity to leave.

The contour plot in this link is kinda representative:
http://map.gsfc.n..._l2.html

Aug 01, 2016
Lol, I thought space was all about frames of reference?

Exactly.
Theirs.

Aug 01, 2016
something for DaSchneib, furlong, axemaster and the like to chew on:
Sure.

will we ever really be able to measure and track something smaller than a quark?
What's "smaller" mean in this context? Do you mean less massive? If so, we track neutrinos which are a great deal less massive than the lightest quark, the up quark. Neutrinos are somewhere around a couple million times less massive than an up quark. In fact, there are also electrons which are 1/4500 the mass of an up quark.

Now, as for diameter or some other measure of physical size, we don't know that, and in fact it would be very difficult to even define it, mostly because of Heisenberg uncertainty.

can you speculate on how?
The mechanics of detecting neutrinos are complicated. I can make a long post for you, perhaps this evening. As for something smaller than a neutrino, check out the experiments looking for dark matter particles.

[contd]

Aug 01, 2016
[contd]
there is a theoretical limit to how far down the whole mess goes (size wise), but is that really the limit?
If we're still talking about mass, then there isn't any lower limit we know of. If it's length, however, most physicists expect the smallest length is the Planck length, 1.616 199(97) × 10⁻³⁵ m but this doesn't really have anything to do with the sizes of particles, if we're talking about their physical size.

what is the average velocity of an unladen swallow?

Aug 01, 2016
You can definitely say that quarks are elementary particles. On the other hand you can argue that they are not particles on account of quark confinement.
Also on the basis they don't have unit electric charge.

Also the d quark can decay into e, nu and u. Brainstormingly, that indicates that it is a metastable state of constituent particles. Other quarks also decay.
All except the up quark. That's why protons are stable.

Aug 01, 2016
I mean, we are in the center of our cosmos :)
Actually, the center of the Sun is moving at about 630 km/s toward the constellation Virgo relative to the local CMB rest frame. This is an argument against us being in the center of our own cosmos; if we were, the Sun wouldn't be moving relative to the CMB.

Aug 01, 2016
Schneib, philosophical sarcasm dude, don't be so robotic about it

Aug 01, 2016
Exactly.
Thiers.

Haha spoken like a true family man. Or did you mean relativists? Now I'm potentially confused...

Aug 01, 2016
The best sarcasm is unobserved by its target and obvious to everyone else.

Aug 01, 2016
Many post here seem sarcastic until you find that they are intended to be serious

Well let's hope we aren't in one of those serious discussions then. I thought I was just trying to explain my layman's view of gravity. That's the great thing about the whole topic, since nothing is sacred as long as you know what not to say you're at least not immediately wrong. Who knows where it goes from there...

Aug 01, 2016
Oh, and I missed one:

what is the average velocity of an unladen swallow?
Actually, it's the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow and this is not the Bridge of Death, but what is your favorite color?

Aug 01, 2016
Haha how many questions is that? I thought it was 5 in total

Aug 01, 2016
The center of Earth?

I thought with your name you would understand the rhetorical question. There is no real center of rotation, just a bunch of moving gyres i.e. localized large rotations.

That would more be an AXIS of rotation...
I can play the gyre game...:-)

If that was the case, the planets would be shooting off into the cosmos.

Well you have to consider that the major gravitational force that the Earth exhibits, for instance, only extends so far. I know it's not precisely the langrage points but around the distance of L1/L2 the Sun's influence becomes greater so while the local field is stronger due to the Sun, we still follow along in the Sun's path. Just one bubble in a much bigger bubble, without the escape velocity to leave.

quasi-sphericality...


Aug 02, 2016
Actually the gravity of the Earth and the gravity of the Sun must be combined; very near the Earth, the Sun's gravity is minuscule, but not nonexistent. The Sun has an effect on the tides; that's what makes neap and spring tides.

Aug 02, 2016
Even for local 'gyres' you'd see red and blue shifts along their edges (as seen from our POV). That's not observed.

I think there's a common minsunderstanding on these comment sections what a theory is: A theory is an idea that explains observables from which hypotheses can be derived that make prediction which can be tested.
Just stating "I think X is such and such" is not a theory. That's just a brainfart.

It's explained here:
https://www.youtu...apE-3FRw
...just doin the 'guess' part does not make anything a theory.


Aug 02, 2016
very near the Earth, the Sun's gravity is minuscule, but not nonexistent

Right, up unto the lagrange points Earth's gravity is stronger than the Sun's, beyond that the Sun is stronger. Each planet is the major influence in it's "neighborhood", which is why Pluto is no longer a planet.

Even for local 'gyres' you'd see red and blue shifts along their edges (as seen from our POV). That's not observed.

I disagree. The galaxy would move closer/further away way much faster than the actual rotation. So you wouldn't expect to see red/blue shifts anywhere other then at the center where the rotation and concentration of mass is the most, and even still it wouldn't be very pronounced.

Aug 02, 2016
Oh, and I missed one:

what is the average velocity of an unladen swallow?
Actually, it's the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow and this is not the Bridge of Death, but what is your favorite color?

Uh-oh...
you startin' those flashbacks they promised us...?

Aug 02, 2016
Quick question: why is this article no longer on the recently commented section?

Aug 02, 2016
It double copied, sorry But what is the airspeed of a swallow carrying a coconut?

Aug 02, 2016
WG, , with the flashbacks, are ye talking about too much LSD in the '60s or too much LDS, the ones that did too much LDS seem the be the more messed up ones, frankly. But on our eternal argument here, there in a newer article pointing out the density and distribution of gluon fluctuation http://phys.org/n...ups.html and even at those levels they certainly look like different galaxies in collision. Gluon fluctuation may be nothing more than the growth, aging and collapsing of globular clusters or galax, but they keep coming back from their own dust or 'dust' they have picked up along the way, which also tends to point to a Steady State Universe, especially on the longer timeframes, heck, we, ourselves may just be 'exotic particles' within some super huge galactic cluster collider which is why things look like there has been a Big Bang (major collisions) and why we are expanding into open space, already there and just drawn to vacuus

Aug 03, 2016
It double copied, sorry But what is the airspeed of a swallow carrying a coconut?

Yeah, but... What about an albatross that has SWALLOWED a coconut?

Aug 03, 2016
WG, , with the flashbacks, are ye talking about too much LSD in the '60s or too much LDS, the ones that did too much LDS seem the be the more messed up ones, frankly.

What's LDS?

Aug 03, 2016
But on our eternal argument here, there in a newer article pointing out the density and distribution of gluon fluctuation http://phys.org/n...ups.html and even at those levels they certainly look like different galaxies in collision.

You're looking at pictures. Our brains automatically look for similar patterns to correlate. ie;fractally matching patterns. So, guess what happens? It's what we have conditioned ourselves to see.
Interestingly enough, tho, that's the way the Universe does things.. Same thing (generally) on different scales.
That way, we get to figure out how they are different...
Convoluted, but kinda fun...:-)

Aug 03, 2016
LDS, Church of the Latter Day Saints, or JW's

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more