Earth's orbital changes have influenced climate, life forms for at least 215 million years

May 7, 2018, Columbia University
Within ancient rocks in Arizona's Petrified Forest National Park, scientists have identified signs of a regular variation in Earth's orbit that influences climate. Here, one of the authors near the research site. Credit: Kevin Krajick/Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory

Scientists drilling deep into ancient rocks in the Arizona desert say they have documented a gradual shift in Earth's orbit that repeats regularly every 405,000 years, playing a role in natural climate swings. Astrophysicists have long hypothesized that the cycle exists based on calculations of celestial mechanics, but the authors of the new research have found the first verifiable physical evidence. They showed that the cycle has been stable for hundreds of millions of years, from before the rise of dinosaurs, and is still active today. The research may have implications not only for climate studies, but our understanding of the evolution of life on Earth, and the evolution of the Solar System. It appears this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Scientists have for decades posited that Earth's orbit around the sun goes from nearly circular to about 5 percent elliptical, and back again every 405,000 years. The shift is believed to result from a complex interplay with the gravitational influences of Venus and Jupiter, along with other bodies in the Solar System as they all whirl around the Sun like a set of gyrating hula-hoops, sometimes closer to one another, sometimes further. Astrophysicists believe the mathematical calculation of the is reliable back to around 50 million years, but after that, the problem gets too complex, because too many shifting motions are at play.

"There are other, shorter, orbital cycles, but when you look into the past, it's very difficult to know which one you're dealing with at any one time, because they change over time," said lead author Dennis Kent, an expert in paleomagnetism at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory and Rutgers University. "The beauty of this one is that it stands alone. It doesn't change. All the other ones move over it."

The new evidence lies within 1,500-foot-long cores of rock that Kent and his coauthors drilled from a butte in Arizona's Petrified Forest National Park in 2013, plus earlier deep cores from suburban New York and New Jersey. The Arizona rocks in the study formed during the late Triassic, between 209 million and 215 million years ago, when the area was covered with meandering rivers that laid down sediments. Around this time, early dinosaurs started evolving.

Coauthor John Geissman of the University of Texas, Dallas, pulls a drilled-out core of rock used in the study. The drilling penetrated more than 1,500 feet, going back some 250 million years. Credit: Kevin Krajick/Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory

The scientists nailed down the Arizona rocks' ages by analyzing interspersed volcanic ash layers containing radioisotopes that decay at a predictable rate. Within the sediments, they also detected repeated reversals in the polarity of the planet's magnetic field. The team then compared these findings to the New York-New Jersey cores, which penetrated old lakebeds and soils that hold exquisitely preserved signs of alternating wet and dry periods during what was believed to be the same time.

Kent and Olsen have long argued that the climate changes displayed in the New York-New Jersey rocks were controlled by the 405,000-year cycle. However, there are no volcanic ash layers there to provide precise dates. But those cores do contain polarity reversals similar to those spotted in Arizona. By combining the two sets of data, the team showed that both sites developed at the same time, and that the 405,000-year interval indeed exerts a kind of master control over climate swings. Paleontologist Paul Olsen, a coauthor of the study, said that the cycle does not directly change climate; rather it intensifies or dampens the effects of shorter-term cycles, which act more directly.

The planetary motions that spur climate swings are known as Milankovitch cycles, named for the Serbian mathematician who worked them out in the 1920s. Boiled down to simplest terms, they consist of a 100,000-year cycle in the eccentricity of Earth's orbit, similar to the big 405,000-year swing; a 41,000-year cycle in the tilt of Earth's axis relative to its orbit around the Sun; and a 21,000-year cycle caused by a wobble of the planet's axis. Together, these shifts change the proportions of solar energy reaching the Northern Hemisphere, where most of the planet's land is located, during different parts of the year. This in turn influences climate.

In the 1970s, scientists showed that that Milankovitch cycles have driven repeated warming and cooling of the planet, and thus the waxing and waning of ice ages over the last few million years. But they are still arguing over inconsistencies in data over that period, and the cycles' relationships to rising and falling levels of carbon dioxide, the other apparent master climate control. Understanding how this all worked in the more distant past is even harder. For one, the frequencies of the shorter cycles have almost certainly changed over time, but no one can say exactly by how much. For another, the cycles are all constantly proceeding against each other. Sometimes some are out of phase with others, and they tend to cancel each other out; at others, several may line up with each other to initiate sudden, drastic changes. Making the calculation of how they all might fit together gets harder the further back you go.

Sediments laid down in what is now Arizona more than 200 million years ago, before the rise of dinosaurs, were matched with similar earlier cores taken in New York and New Jersey. Here, a freshly pulled core. Credit: Kevin Krajick/Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory

Kent and Olsen say that every 405,000 years, when orbital eccentricity is at its peak, seasonal differences caused by shorter cycles will become more intense; summers are hotter and winters colder; dry times drier, wet times wetter. The opposite will be true 202,500 years later, when the orbit is at its most circular. During the late Triassic, for poorly understood reasons, the Earth was much warmer than it is now through many cycles, and there was little to no glaciation. Then, the 405,000-year cycle showed up in strongly alternating wet and dry periods. Precipitation peaked when the orbit was at its most eccentric, producing deep lakes that left layers of black shale in eastern North America. When the orbit was most circular, things dried up, leaving lighter layers of soil exposed to the air.

Jupiter and Venus exert such strong influences because of size and proximity. Venus is the nearest planet to us—at its farthest, only about 162 million miles—and roughly similar in mass. Jupiter is much farther away, but is the Solar System's largest planet, 2.5 times bigger than all others combined.

Linda Hinnov, a professor at George Mason University who studies the deep past, said the new study lends support to previous studies by others that claim to have observed signs of the 405,000-year cycle even further back, before 250 million years ago. Among other things, she said, it "could lead to new insights into early dinosaur evolution." She called the findings "a significant new contribution to geology, and to astronomy."

Kent and Olsen say that because of all the competing factors at work, there is still much to learn. "This is truly complicated stuff," said Olsen. "We are using basically the same kinds of math to send spaceships to Mars, and sure, that works. But once you start extending interplanetary motions back in time and tie that to cause and effect in climate, we can't claim that we understand how it all works." The metronomic beat of the 405,000-year cycle may eventually help researchers disentangle some of this, he said.

If you were wondering, the Earth is currently in the nearly circular part of the 405,000-year period. What does that mean for us? "Probably not anything very perceptible," says Kent. "It's pretty far down on the list of so many other things that can affect climate on times scales that matter to us." Kent points out that according to the Milankovitch theory, we should be at the peak of a 20,000-some year warming trend that ended the last glacial period; the Earth may eventually start cooling again over thousands of years, and possibly head for another glaciation. "Could happen. Guess we could wait around and see," said Kent. "On the other hand, all the CO2 we're pouring into the air right now is the obvious big enchilada. That's having an effect we can measure right now. The planetary cycle is a little more subtle."

Explore further: Earth's orbital variations and sea ice synch glacial periods

More information: Dennis V. Kent el al., "Empirical evidence for stability of the 405-kiloyear Jupiter–Venus eccentricity cycle over hundreds of millions of years," PNAS (2018). www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1800891115

Related Stories

Recommended for you

Greenhouse gasses triggering more changes than we can handle

November 19, 2018

A new study published in Nature Climate Change provides one of the most comprehensive assessments yet of how humanity is being impacted by the simultaneous occurrence of multiple climate hazards strengthened by increasing ...

Local drivers of amplified Arctic warming

November 19, 2018

Long-term observations of surface temperatures show an intensified surface warming in Canada, Siberia, Alaska and in the Arctic Ocean relative to global mean temperature rise. This warming pattern, commonly referred to as ...

188 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Benni
1.8 / 5 (5) May 07, 2018
Can't wait.........
Thorium Boy
1.4 / 5 (10) May 07, 2018
Don't tell the global warming propagandists that anything but man influences climate.
marcush
5 / 5 (13) May 07, 2018
Don't tell the AGW denialists that science can actually explain past climatic changes. This would mean we can actually figure out what influences climate, supporting AGW!
Dug
5 / 5 (4) May 07, 2018
As long as we have a 7.6 billion+ global population +heading toward 12+ billion - it is what is.
Da Schneib
4.5 / 5 (8) May 08, 2018
This is actually a pretty important finding. There are still some debates over which orbital parameters have strong climate influences, and this solves some of them. Also, by knowing that the 405 ky orbital eccentricity had effects that long ago, we can eliminate a lot of speculations about events that might have disturbed these cycles. Obviously nothing really major has happened for a quarter of a billion years, in terms of planetary orbits changing.
Gigel
4.2 / 5 (5) May 08, 2018
As long as we have a 7.6 billion+ global population +heading toward 12+ billion - it is what is.

The problem is not the population, it's the current technologies. But since those are improving, on a long term they won't be a problem either.

I once computed the Earth's carrying capacity based solely on solar energy. If all the Sun's energy reaching Earth were converted into calories, it would be enough to feed roughly 1 million billion (10^15) people.

Agriculture is extremely ineffective; important crop plants have an efficiency of conversion of light into stored edible products of around 0.3%. On a short term, maybe we should think about growing food into bioreactors, as bacteria feeding on methane and especially hydrogen. Once we'll be able to produce hydrogen easily we'll have larger quantities of food than now, with less work. The same if we can produce methane with solar energy.
granville583762
4.5 / 5 (8) May 08, 2018
Donald is going to have a field day with this science fact, pity he will never know - he's sacked all his science advisors.
humy
4.7 / 5 (12) May 08, 2018
Don't tell the global warming propagandists that anything but man influences climate.

Don't tell the dumb climate science deniers that there are no such 'global warming propagandists' and everyone who understands climate science already knows that modern climate is influenced by natural causes as well as man thus climate science deniers are just using a completely stupid straw man that convinces nobody but rather just exposes them as the morons they are.
antialias_physorg
3.9 / 5 (11) May 08, 2018
Don't tell the global warming propagandists that anything but man influences climate.

No one ever denied that there are long-term influences by other stuff. The big difference is the timeline over which such changes happen due to external factors and due to humans.

For the simple-minded I'll try to build an analogy with roughly the right orders of magnitude:

Climate change due to things like solar variability or shifts in the Earth's axis are like driving into a wall at 5mph*
While this isn't a comfortable situation it's something you can adjust to by bracing yourself and you won't get too badly hurt (Read: life can adjust to slow change without too much trouble).

Human caused climate change, by comparison, is like driving into a wall at 5000mph
It happens so fast that you better step on the brakes before you reach the wall.

(mph instead of the usual km/h...because this denial thing seems to be an American idiosyncrasy)
Elmo_McGillicutty
1 / 5 (7) May 08, 2018
The orbital(and therefore gravitational) equations are derived from observation. This is why the article's premise is wrong. If only planets had a tail.

A planet's orbit is a perpendicular one turn helix, not an ellipse.

humy
4.3 / 5 (6) May 08, 2018
The orbital(and therefore gravitational) equations are derived from observation. This is why the article's premise is wrong.

Don't know what you mean; How must it be wrong if it is derived from observation?
Are you saying if the orbits are observed to be elliptical then that means they aren't?
Actually, because of gravitational interactions between the planets as well as general relativity, the orbits are not assumed to be exactly elliptical. And the equations for gravity used in this case are not directly derived from observations but rather derived from the known law of gravity and the current known relative positions and mass of the planets moons and sun. The equations for the known law of gravity was indirectly obtained via observations.
Elmo_McGillicutty
1 / 5 (7) May 08, 2018
The interpretation of observation and measurement with out of context math, has led us down a rabbit hole. Several in fact. One is gravity and one is the standard model. The reason that planetary orbits are stable and can balance periodic external influences.....is because the orbit is under two accelerations causing two rotations. One rotation within another. The first rotation is perpendicular to the earth's revolution about sun. This radius, R1, is about ~1.5 million miles. The revolution radius, R2(and perpendicular to R1) is about ~93 million miles. Rotation ratio....one to one. This is the structure of conservation of momentum. A spiral curve can save momentum....a linear curve can not.

Structure is the entity that determines all physical properties and patterns.

milnik
1 / 5 (3) May 08, 2018
Finally, a slow understanding of natural laws and the convergence of the understanding of the phenomenon in the universe began. My countryman Milanković had a good insight into the movement of the planet and therefore found the time scale of the phenomenon on our planet.
It is true that today's science is gentle to the true path of the planet, nor does it know the laws of motion. Kepler's law needs to be corrected. But we must know that everything in the universe is formed from the substance Aether that fills the infinite universe. The Aether substance retained "family relations" in the phenomena of gravity and magnetism. Here, the main role is played by magnetism, if it's about climate change on planets. When you recall scientific institutions and accept that they publish scientific truths, but without paying for publications, I will give evidence that 4 planets, by their relationship with the sun, cause cycles of sunspots and climate change for all time.
Benni
1.7 / 5 (6) May 08, 2018
Don't tell the global warming propagandists that anything but man influences climate.
Don't tell the dumb climate science deniers that there are no such 'global warming propagandists' and everyone who understands climate science already knows that modern climate is influenced by natural causes as well as man thus climate science deniers are just using a completely stupid straw man that convinces nobody but rather just exposes them as the morons they are.
.......told you I couldn't wait.
Elmo_McGillicutty
1 / 5 (8) May 08, 2018
I don't know about the rest of you, but as long as I have lived, the climate has continuously changed.

Only the ignorant need fear. Increased CO2 and warming is a blessing for the planet. And us.

We will adapt it to our advantage. Smoke 'em if you got 'em.

Gigel
not rated yet May 08, 2018
The reason that planetary orbits are stable and can balance periodic external influences.....is because the orbit is under two accelerations causing two rotations. One rotation within another. The first rotation is perpendicular to the earth's revolution about sun. This radius, R1, is about ~1.5 million miles. The revolution radius, R2(and perpendicular to R1) is about ~93 million miles. Rotation ratio....one to one. This is the structure of conservation of momentum. A spiral curve can save momentum....a linear curve can not.

I think you described a tumbling Earth, which does not conserve Earth's angular momentum - which should not be conserved anyway since the Earth is under the influence of other planets too, not just the Sun. Or are you saying something else?

A helix would be rotation+translation, but the last one is relative to the reference point.
Gigel
4 / 5 (4) May 08, 2018
I don't know about the rest of you, but as long as I have lived, the climate has continuously changed.

Only the ignorant need fear. Increased CO2 and warming is a blessing for the planet. And us.

We will adapt it to our advantage. Smoke 'em if you got 'em.

Depends what you mean by "change".

For me, the 80s were pretty stable in terms of climate. The 2000s and especially the period after 2010 (roughly speaking) meant wildly varying weather patterns, mostly hot summers and a lot of violent changes. There've been winds making me worry about the integrity of windows where I live. Winters are way warmer than in the 80s (there was a lot of snow then, all winter long, now there is little snow or none at all for most winter) and this spring was warm with very little rain, which dried up the land, quite unusual 30-40 years ago. So I'd say the weather changed a lot since then.
antialias_physorg
4.1 / 5 (9) May 08, 2018
A helix would be rotation+translation, but the last one is relative to the reference point.

It's a helix if you take use galactic center as your point of reference, in which case the sun is not a still point but moving along its orbit around same and the Earth is moving along with it and in a circular orbit which adds up to a (bent) helix). But that's just a transformation in reference frame and doesn't change anything about the physics.

I don't know about the rest of you, but as long as I have lived, the climate has continuously changed.

Since you don't seem to understand the difference between weather and climate - just go away (come back when you got some of this newfangled e-duh-ca-shun stuff)
milnik
1 / 5 (6) May 08, 2018
What I'm going to say is valid for all of you and all participants in the science today:
You see that you have no idea how and why celestial bodies move in general. Kepler's laws do not explain the exact curves of the planet's motion.
If you want to find out something about this, find some honest, non-scientific scientific institution, anywhere on the planet, and I will publish my report there, but on condition that I do not pay the publication of this work, because it is more valuable than all the papers of all the world's institutions those areas. I know you'll say I'm not normal. It is true that I am not, but for those who do not want to change their ignorance in any way. They are proud of this ignorance.
humy
4.4 / 5 (7) May 08, 2018
You see that you have no idea how and why celestial bodies move in general.

Simply false. Of course we have an idea how celestial bodies move! We make predictions of how they move that are then observed to be correct entirely within the calculated error of measurements.
Kepler's laws do not explain the exact curves of the planet's motion.

Have you heard of general relativity? As confirmed by observation, that does explain the exact curves of the planet's motion.
Gigel
5 / 5 (1) May 08, 2018
A helix would be rotation+translation, but the last one is relative to the reference point.

It's a helix if you take use galactic center as your point of reference, in which case the sun is not a still point but moving along its orbit around same and the Earth is moving along with it and in a circular orbit which adds up to a (bent) helix).

I agree with that, but the centripetal acceleration around the center of galaxy is so small, we may ask whether Newtonian mechanics has been tested for that (as per the MOND hypothesis). Or whether the Sun's orbit is really a circle or a significantly elongated ellipse; or whether gravitational noise on said orbit is significant or not. And so on. At that scale of space and time I don't think galactic movement of the Sun has any relevance on Milankovic cycles.

OK, I'm ready to admit that the galactic or some dark matter disc may have an influence as the Sun would wobble up and down about it. But even that may not be important.
Gigel
not rated yet May 08, 2018
the passage of Earth across dark matter disk at the galactic plane could be responsible for current period of global warming too.

Have we gone that fast through the galactic plane that you can see a change in 100 years? What will the future look like then if we kept moving inside the galactic plane? A dark matter blob may explain that better.

Nevertheless, this requires some direct testing. I'm thinking about comparing luminosities of stars having the same masses, but being more or less close to the galactic plane. Double stars would do well for finding their masses; but then one would have to subtract their mutual tidal influences.
Gigel
5 / 5 (2) May 08, 2018
@milnik: if you want to make your report public, you can find ways to do it for free. Arxiv is one of them. But be prepared to be challenged on your theories, that is how science works.
milnik
1 / 5 (2) May 08, 2018
@humy,
on what basis do you claim my statement is false?
I am asking all of you and the entire science of the world, I am simply asking, for several years now, and nobody will know how to answer. Why does our Moon always have one and the same side facing the Earth? Come on humy, on this example, show me that I'm lying. When one sees and proves this phenomenon, everything will be clearly related to the actual paths of heavenly bodies. This will be rejected by Einstein's proof of the uneven movement of Mercury (and other planets.
Humble, you can also prove that I'm lying.
milnik
not rated yet May 08, 2018
@Gigel,
I tried it, but without success, because I am an unknown person for science.
I will try to do this in the eastern countries, because science is not a tycoon in the west!! But I have a problem, because it is necessary to have a powerful program to draw a curve, which are a kind of sinusoid wrapped around the elliptical path.
humy
4.4 / 5 (7) May 09, 2018
@humy,
on what basis do you claim my statement is false?
.

Known SCIENCE. More specifically in this case, the observation that within the known errors of measurement, observation proves general relativity predicts the orbits of planets exactly correctly. That means general relativity already explains the orbits just fine. I guess your problem is you think you got a theory to explain a mysterious deviation from those predicted orbits when no such mysterious deviation is observed to exist; it does no good solving a mystery that doesn't exist!
Before you can contribute anything to science, it realty would help if you first studied the science that already exists so you actually know something about it!
humy
4.5 / 5 (8) May 09, 2018
milnik

If you haven't first studied general relativity and fully and correctly understood it including all its equations and all the evidence in its support, any 'alternative theory' you make for planetary motion would be a nonstarter because it would be based on ignorance of the most relevant facts.
milnik
1 / 5 (3) May 09, 2018
@humy,
From your conviction that theories of relativity are true, it is a proof that the whole science, which stands above your understanding, is on the wrong path, and it is very difficult to "overthrow the power dictators" who forbid the emergence of the truth. Use this theory and explain what I'm asking: why is our moon always having its own side facing the Earth? When my evidence comes out of the day, all who deny it, you are ashamed of a false belief in stupid theory. Neither do you know that Kepler's laws do not determine the exact path of the planet.
Do you know why each particle of matter, even the celestial bodies, is rotating around its axis (spin)? It's not even that, and you want to downplay those who know it well.
Benni
1.7 / 5 (6) May 09, 2018
https://chicagotonight.wttw.com/2018/05/08/harvard-scientist-climate-change-may-be-worse-we-think, despite all efforts of renewables - what's going wrong?


........damn the patterns of those orbital fluctuations, if we don't do something in a hurry to put an end to these fluctuations that cause rising co2 we're gonna end up in another ice age. The problem is that darn star we call our Sun, if it were not so barycentered screwed up like the galactic core this problem wouldn't exist.

We have all kinds of experts living right here in the Comments section who know all about how to fix this co2 problem, but do you think they'll change anything about their lifestyles to change it? Noooo, Schneibo, RNP, jonesy, etc are still driving cars to their retirement dinners with absolutely no thought for what their co2 is doing to the future of my kids, and by extension everybody else's. Selfish old men living here who think their foul mouthed name calling rants can fix problems.
humy
5 / 5 (7) May 09, 2018
@humy,
From your conviction that theories of relativity are true, ....

My personal 'conviction' has nothing to do with it.
Scientific proof has everything to do with it.
There is good EVIDENCE (proof, in fact) for relativity.
If relativity was false then nuclear power stations wouldn't work and particle accelerators would have been reported to routinely managed to accelerated electrons over c; how do you explain that if relativity is false?
And it is no good saying it is wrong if you don't even provide a plausible alternative along with actual equations and backed up by similar powerful evidence.
But here is the other evidence (scientific proof, in fact) that relativity, at least in the main, must be correct;

https://en.wikipe...lativity

-you should at the very least bother to study this above BEFORE trying to rubbish relativity!
As you would learn from the above link, relativity has been tested and passed each test.

milnik
not rated yet May 09, 2018
@humy,
I looked at this vycipede, and everything is clear to me, it's just not clear: it is possible to draw conclusions and theories about the characteristics of the universe, body movements, gravity, and science generally identifies what matter is and how it arises and how it disappears. Einstein's fiction about the network space time, Lorenz's transformation, the Hubble expansion of the universe, are evidence that they have no knowledge of the structure of the universe. Einstein had his formula for the p of Merkur's perimeter, sticking out for 10 years to match some of the results. The first inaccuracy is that gravity attracts light and the light. Light is not mass and has nothing to do with gravity. It's a magnetization. And such are all other misconceptions.
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (7) May 09, 2018
Lusers always try the "science is a religion" bullshit.

Science is not a religion. It does not require faith.
humy
5 / 5 (6) May 09, 2018
Einstein's fiction about the network space time

milnik

Einstein said nothing about space time being a "network". So apparently you have no idea of what Einstein said that you call "fiction".
Light is not mass

Einstein and relativity doesn't say light is mass. Mass can be converted to energy including light via nuclear reactions but that doesn't imply light IS mass. Light has no mass.
Again, before trying to rubbish relativity, at the very least you should first make sure you understand what it is you are trying to rubbish; you clearly haven't.
milnik
1 / 5 (1) May 09, 2018
humy,

I say that light has no mass and therefore gravity can not work in the light and that it flattens and turns. This Einstein claims, and Einstein and science do not even know who this is who can influence the light. It's magnetism and not gravity. And you learn it.
Who invented network curvature time space? It is Einstein's strongest contaminating pill for the true causes of the occurrence. According to Einstein, without this network there is no gravity. If you so respect Einstein's fatamorgan, use Lorenz's transformation and send a message to Einstein and Lorenzo to explain it to us now, only to me this Fatamorgana-explanation is not necessary or valid.
Gigel
not rated yet May 09, 2018
Science is not a religion. It does not require faith.

A bit off-topic: science requires the faith that what is perceived is real.

Essentially, science studies human perceptions and their representations; exact sciences study measurable perceptions. There is no proof in science that perceptions, even regular ones, are based on an external reality. Reality is not clearly proven based on perceptions/measurements, it is only hinted. That perceptions and measurements are based on hard reality is a matter of faith. It is a very reasonable conclusion and faith is well applied for it.

Also, faith does not make religion. Religion uses faith, but is not defined by it alone.
Gigel
4.5 / 5 (2) May 09, 2018
Einstein and science do not even know who this is who can influence the light. It's magnetism and not gravity.


How does magnetism bend the path of light? If you apply a magnet to a laser beam, does it go around the corner?
Gigel
5 / 5 (1) May 09, 2018
only to me this Fatamorgana-explanation is not necessary or valid.


General relativity is a theory that essentially models gravitational interactions at a large scale. Maybe it is not the best theory out there, maybe it will be changed with time, but right now it has lots of predictions that have been tested and the theory has been found accurate by those tests. So at least for the regimes where it has been tested it is a good theory, far better than Newton's gravity.

If you have a different theory, it is OK as long as it passes the same tests and then it makes some different predictions which are then tested to be true, in order to make it different from Einstein's theory. But be aware that your theory should clearly predict numerical results for those tests very close to the experimental results already obtained by the tests.
Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) May 09, 2018
Lusers always try the "science is a religion" bullshit.

Science is not a religion. It does not require faith.


We know this about SCIENCE, it's the unseeable depths of COSMOLOGY masquerading as science that's the biggest problem, yeah, barely one rung above the ladder on which ASTROLOGY is the bottom rung.

Schneibo, I read something somewhere once about faith being a belief in things that are unseen, you know, things like black holes, dark matter, dark energy, degenerate neutrons, neutron stars, the usual slop & swill pseudo-science of Cosmology........it seems schneibo YOU have lots of FAITH.
Benni
1 / 5 (6) May 09, 2018
Lusers always try the "science is a religion" bullshit.

Science is not a religion. It does not require faith.


......so if you pop-cosmos "lusers" really believe 95% of the Universe is missing, I dare you to turn sideways looking into a full length mirror & say that, then you'd have to ask yourself: If it's this bad, I'm glad I can't see the other 95%.
leetennant
4.6 / 5 (10) May 09, 2018
Don't tell the global warming propagandists that anything but man influences climate.


I came to this article and thought "how long before somebody in the comments section brings up this stupid strawman"? Hey, it's comment two.

Again, for the billionth time, this is like saying that smoking can't cause cancer because other things do as well. It's dumb. It was dumb 10 years ago. It's dumb now. Just STFU now please.
Gigel
5 / 5 (1) May 10, 2018
Schneibo, I read something somewhere once about faith being a belief in things that are unseen, you know, things like black holes, dark matter, dark energy, degenerate neutrons, neutron stars, the usual slop & swill pseudo-science of Cosmology........it seems schneibo YOU have lots of FAITH.

Some of those things are still hypotheses waiting for a direct experimental check. They are not taken for real 100% and scientists still propose alternative models for BHs etc. (e.g. axion blobs replacing supermassive BHs). But in the end it all comes down to evidence. Without that nothing is proven. The same goes for those things not existing. Evidence. Observational proof.
humy
4.3 / 5 (6) May 10, 2018

I say that light has no mass and therefore gravity can not work in the light and that it flattens and turns.

milnik

Honestly don't know what you are saying here.
But if you are saying there isn't such thing as gravitational lensing, you can find the various pointers to the observational proof here (that cannot be explained by what you say is 'magnetism' which doesn't make a whole lot of sense);

https://en.wikipe...nal_lens

There is so doubt that this light-effect is real and scientific fact.
If you are trying to convince us it is not, you really need to explain that one to us.
humy
3.7 / 5 (3) May 10, 2018
Essentially, science studies human perceptions and their representations; exact sciences study measurable perceptions. There is no proof in science that perceptions, even regular ones, are based on an external reality. Reality is not clearly proven based on perceptions/measurements, it is only hinted.

Gigel

Yes, I agree. And that is very similar to the Problem Of Induction (POI) and, just like the POI, it has no real solution BUT it does have a resolution that consists of explaining how it is not being a real 'problem' for science.

-continued-
humy
3.7 / 5 (3) May 10, 2018
-continued-
That perceptions and measurements are based on hard reality is a matter of faith

No, and this is where I disagree with you. I assert that, by any reasonable definition of the word 'faith', observations and conclusions bases on the assumption that those observations correspond to reality is not 'faith' but 'rational'. There simply is no other way to reasonably define 'rational' as opposed to 'faith'. Science is (and can be argued to be by definition) about rationally (by definition of 'rational') assuming (usually implicity) that observations correspond to reality so the fact that that is an assumption isn't a problem for the validity of science.
Religion, in contrast, is based on blind faith no matter how you look at it.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (2) May 10, 2018
Amazingly, people who get punched in the nose seem to have little trouble distinguishing what reality is.
Benni
1.8 / 5 (5) May 10, 2018
Religion, in contrast, is based on blind faith no matter how you look at it.


......and you don't think it is "blind faith" to believe that INFINITE GRAVITY & INFINITE DENSITY can exist within a FINITE STELLAR MASS cosmologists call BLACK HOLES? To engage in such beliefs of slop & swill pseudo-science is nothing less than engaging in the ultimate depravity of human thinking, that of "faith" which can lead anyone into fantasies can be made real simply because they are YOUR FANTASIES.

Nowhere has SCIENCE produced OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE for: Black Holes, Dark Matter. Dark Energy, Neutron Degeneracy, Neutron Stars, Gravitational Collapse & on goes the list.

You COSMOLOGY dreamers are the greatest advocates of "faith" of anyone who show up here, you're also the most foul mouthed of the name calling rants that goes on here, why is that? If you think YOUR SCIENCE is so impeccably REAL, why are ALL of you such a bunch of foul mouthed slobs?

434a
5 / 5 (6) May 10, 2018


Nowhere has SCIENCE produced OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE for: Black Holes, Dark Matter. Dark Energy, Neutron Degeneracy, Neutron Stars, Gravitational Collapse & on goes the list.


http://hubblesite...on-stars

Astronomers using NASA's Hubble Space Telescope have taken their first direct look, in visible light, at a lone neutron star.


Benni has the internets to look up facts before he posts to make sure his facts are accurate.

So that must mean....Benni...lied *sharp intake of breath*

I think Benni must lie a lot to be so brazen about it.
I suppose we'll never, ever, ever, be able to believe a word that comes out of his keyboard ever again. Bad liar Benni.
milnik
1 / 5 (1) May 10, 2018
@Gigel and humy,
It is clear to everyone that light is an electromagnetic wave. So, the photon does not have mass (matter). How, in this case, can gravity affect the movement of light? It is much more logical that magnetism affects the light. Light and movement can only affect celestial bodies with strong magnetic fields. This can not be seen and demonstrated by the magnetism that is artificially formed (laboratories). What you say is that there should be evidence, and that this should be explained in these discussions, it is not logical here, nor is it a place to seek evidence, because if the evidence is valid, it would change almost the whole field of science dealing with this problem. I am constantly saying: science still does not know what the matter is, how it forms and what it forms. The particular problem is that no one knows who causes magnetism or gravity.
Benni
1.7 / 5 (6) May 10, 2018
Astronomers using NASA's Hubble Space Telescope have taken their first direct look, in visible light, at a lone neutron star.


No they haven't, there is NO IMAGE of a two mile diameter star in that pic, the reason being that there are no telescopes in existence that can image a stellar mass two miles in diameter, just another faith fantasy brought to you by the local community of funny farm pseudo-scientists.
434a
4.4 / 5 (7) May 10, 2018
Astronomers using NASA's Hubble Space Telescope have taken their first direct look, in visible light, at a lone neutron star.


No they haven't, there is NO IMAGE of a two mile diameter star in that pic, the reason being that there are no telescopes in existence that can image a stellar mass two miles in diameter, just another faith fantasy brought to you by the local community of funny farm pseudo-scientists.


Liar.

How do I know Benni lied?

Because the link was deliberately broken.
He didn't even look. It even says how big it is and it isn't 2 miles.

He's that much of liar I knew he'd lie before he lied. Bad Liar Benni.

For all of you normal people who don't feel the need to lie all the time take a read for yourself

http://hubblesite...on-stars

Bad Benni. Bad gender unidentified avatar.

Benni
2 / 5 (4) May 10, 2018
Astronomers using NASA's Hubble Space Telescope have taken their first direct look, in visible light, at a lone neutron star.


No they haven't, there is NO IMAGE of a two mile diameter star in that pic, the reason being that there are no telescopes in existence that can image a stellar mass two miles in diameter, just another faith fantasy brought to you by the local community of funny farm pseudo-scientists.


How do I know Benni lied?

Because the link was deliberately broken.
He didn't even look. It even says how big it is and it isn't 2 miles.

He's that much of liar I knew he'd lie before he lied.

Of course I didn't bother looking at the link, because I already knew there exists no telescope in existence that can image ANYTHING 2 miles in diameter which is the usual claim for the size of a NS. You don't even know what your own peers teach about your funny farm science.
434a
4.3 / 5 (8) May 10, 2018
Let me explain how much Benni lies.

Benni claims to be able to do some maths - pretty basic maths but maths none-the-less.
No one who can do maths believes Benni as he can't answer even the really easy questions they ask him.

Benni also likes to use a paper by Einstein on blackholes as proof that blackholes don't exist.

http://www.jstor....contents

Benni claims to understand the paper..but he doesn't, he's a liar who can't do maths.

So I asked Liar Benni to explain where in the paper Einstein constrains General Relativity to prevent the formation of a black hole.

Bad Liar Benni couldn't answer the question because Bad Liar Benni doesn't understand the maths he claims he does. Read his lies here.

https://phys.org/...big.html

Benni has a despicable, rancid history of lying but I pity him.
Compulsive lying is a nasty illness that makes people reject him, he should get treatment.
Benni
2 / 5 (4) May 10, 2018
You COSMOLOGY dreamers are the greatest advocates of "faith" of anyone who show up here, you're also the most foul mouthed of the name calling rants that goes on here, why is that? If you think YOUR SCIENCE is so impeccably REAL, why are ALL of you such a bunch of foul mouthed slobs?
......and off you go as was so easily predictable by me:

Let me explain how much Benni lies.

Benni has a despicable, rancid history of lying but I pity him.
Compulsive lying is a nasty illness that makes people reject him, he should get treatment.


Why is it when your cosmology faith is challenged to produce OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE that all you can do is fall back on yet another one of your name calling rants? Every Astronomer knows that the Hubble telescope cannot IMAGE a stellar object that is only a few miles in diameter, and when I point that out you simply go hyperbolic into yet another one of your name calling rants, sad.

434a
4.1 / 5 (8) May 10, 2018
I point that out you simply go hyperbolic into yet another one of your name calling rants, sad.


Oh Benni sugar, if the hat fits....

You treat everyone here with utter contempt and all for your own personal amusement, which is vile. It's also delusional.

Normally trolls have a modicum more intelligence than the people they troll.

You, well, you don't hunny bun.

Your behaviour is like a toddler showing everyone a full diaper and waiting for the shocked reaction so you can laugh with innocent glee.

Just like your mom, we look at you and think "oh dear another turd coated child I have to deal with."

And just like a child you have no clue how people really perceive you.

We are all waiting for you to grow up but in the meantime we'll put up with your bad smell as you make us laugh.
Benni
1.8 / 5 (5) May 10, 2018
You treat everyone here with utter contempt and all for your own personal amusement, which is vile. It's also delusional.
......I treat YOU like this because YOU never get off your name calling rants as exemplified by yet another of your rants here:
Just like your mom, we look at you and think "oh dear another turd coated child I have to deal with


......you see, what I mean?

Hey, ever seen a Differential Equation you could solve? I guess the name calling rants just so much easier is that it?

humy
4.5 / 5 (8) May 10, 2018
Religion, in contrast, is based on blind faith no matter how you look at it.


......and you don't think it is "blind faith" to believe that INFINITE GRAVITY & INFINITE DENSITY can exist within a FINITE STELLAR MASS cosmologists call BLACK HOLES?

Benni

No, I don't.
Why would you think I would when science has not yet told us whether black hole singularities have infinite density?
According to some theories, they don't.
I currently have no personal opinion whether singularities are truly infinitely dense.

But I have no reasonable doubt that black holes exist as we have scientific proof that they do in the form of observed gravitational lensing and those observations are such that they cannot be reasonably explained in any other way.

434a
4.1 / 5 (9) May 10, 2018
I treat YOU like this because YOU never get off your name calling rants as exemplified by yet another of your rants here:
Just like your mom, we look at you and think "oh dear another turd coated child I have to deal with


......you see, what I mean?

Hey, ever seen a Differential Equation you could solve? I guess the name calling rants just so much easier is that it?



As I said, a liar who treats people with contempt and doesn't understand his part in the interplay of lie and consequence.

Stop lying and people will stop calling you a liar....so simple....yet so unobtainable.
Stop treating people with contempt and they may begin to talk to you as an equal rather than a petulant child.
Go to school, learn some math, there really is no amount of behavioural modification that is going to fix that problem for you nor any amount of lying that will convince anyone you know anything.

Bye bye babe ;)
humy
4.4 / 5 (7) May 10, 2018
@Gigel and humy,
It is clear to everyone that light is an electromagnetic wave. So, the photon does not have mass (matter). How, in this case, can gravity affect the movement of light?

milnik

Here you misunderstand what relatively says;
Gravity bends spacetime.
The path that the photon takes is then, from the perspective of a distant outside observer, appears to have been 'bend'.
But, from the perspective of the photon or an observer chasing it and being arbitrarily 'close' to it, its path hasn't 'bent' at all but it has traveled in a perfect straight line!
So, you might ask, has the path taken by the photon been bent or not?
Well, from the perspective of a distant outside observer, yes, it really has.
But, from the perspective of the photon itself, no, it really has not!
And there is no contradiction between the two because relatively implies whether it is bent or not depends on your arbitrary frame of reference and so depends on where you observe it from.

Gigel
not rated yet May 10, 2018
Has anyone bent light with magnetic fields? Do we have at least a highly probable theory saying you can do that?
Gigel
not rated yet May 10, 2018
If you have a very strong magnetic field in a finite region and 0 outside, then I suppose the magnetic field will act as having a mass derived from its energy, thus it will bend the space and also light paths. But could you do that with a constant magnetic field everywhere, without inserting other particles the light may interact with? If you used a charged particle instead of light, that would be easy. But what about photons?
humy
5 / 5 (4) May 10, 2018
Has anyone bent light with magnetic fields? Do we have at least a highly probable theory saying you can do that?

As far as I am aware, no.
And I cannot think of a reason why it would be probably possible.
Benni
1 / 5 (1) May 10, 2018
As I said, a liar who treats people with contempt and doesn't understand his part in the interplay of lie and consequence.
.........of course I treat you with contempt, just as I do anyone whose most prolific voice of criticism is their profanity laced name calling routines, YOU, schneibo, jonesy, stumpo, all the usual suspects, look at YOU for example just in the one sentence I copied & pasted of yours, twice you name called me a liar..........so again I ask YOU, have you ever seen a Differential Equation YOU could solve? Let me guess, Noooo!!!!

What you & the rest of the foul mouthed name calling brigade never seem to get is that IT AIN'T BRAGGING IF YOU CAN DO IT, I can & it gets you all bent out of shape because YOU can't, right Schneibo?

434a
4.3 / 5 (6) May 10, 2018


What you & the rest of the foul mouthed name calling brigade never seem to get is that IT AIN'T BRAGGING IF YOU CAN DO IT, I can & it gets you all bent out of shape because YOU can't, right Schneibo?



Benni, Benni, Benni you just can't help yourself can you. You are born to lie it would seem. You can't tell the truth. You can't do the math. It would be so easy to prove it but you can't and we all know it. Just tell everyone what Einstein added to GR to prevent black holes from forming...so easy.
You can't even accuse someone of being someone else and get it right.
I'm not even the same gender you sad little man-child. Your patheticism follows you around like a stench, I pity your very existence. Nighty night.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) May 10, 2018
With a hint like that one has to conclude that @Lenni is dysmathic.
Benni
2.3 / 5 (3) May 10, 2018
Just tell everyone what Einstein added to GR to prevent black holes from forming...so easy.


Albert Einstein- Oct 1939
On a Stationary System With Spherical Symmetry Consisting of Many Gravitating Masses

"The essential result of this investigation is a clear understanding as to why the "Schwarzschild singularities" do not exist in physical reality. The "Schwarzschild singularity" does not appear for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. And this is due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light.

This investigation arose out of discussions on the mathematical and physical significance of the Schwarzschild singularity. The problem quite naturally leads to the question, answered by this paper in the negative, as to whether physical models are capable of exhibiting such a singularity."

http://www.cscamm...hild.pdf

.....yep, "so easy".

Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) May 10, 2018
And @Lenni misses once again that everybody agrees with Einstein: there aren't any physical singularities. This merely means that we haven't figured out quantum gravity yet, which everyone pretty much agrees with.

@Lenni finds itself agreeing with mainstream physics while claiming not to. Stupid or lying? You choose.
Benni
2 / 5 (4) May 10, 2018
And @Lenni misses once again that everybody agrees with Einstein: there aren't any physical singularities. This merely means that we haven't figured out quantum gravity yet, which everyone pretty much agrees with.

@Lenni finds itself agreeing with mainstream physics while claiming not to. Stupid or lying? You choose.


Schneibo, you don't know even know what you meant by what you just wrote talking about quantum gravity.

Einstein was so vehemently opposed the BH concept that he wrote "On a Stationary System With Spherical Symmetry Consisting of Many Gravitating Masses" for the express purpose of trashing Schwarzschild's silly black hole math...... then of course you embark on another one of your name calling rants because you don't know how to FALSIFY his paper.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) May 10, 2018
@Lenni, prove you're not dysmathic and show what Einstein added to relativity and claimed disproved black holes in the 1939 paper.

Or tacitly confess you are in fact dysmathic and in fact innumerate.
Benni
1.8 / 5 (5) May 10, 2018
@Lenni, prove you're not dysmathic and show what Einstein added to relativity and claimed disproved black holes in the 1939 paper.

Or tacitly confess you are in fact dysmathic and in fact innumerate.


Well then just how about if YOU be the one to FALSIFY "On a Stationary System With Spherical Symmetry Consisting of Many Gravitating Masses", then you'll have it, won't you?
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) May 10, 2018
I don't have to falsify anything, @Lenni. You claim it you prove it. Show us what was in the 1939 paper you keep posting links to.

Or you're lying.

Again.
Benni
2.3 / 5 (3) May 10, 2018
I don't have to falsify anything, @Lenni. You claim it you prove it. Show us what was in the 1939 paper you keep posting links to. Or you're lying.

Again.


If you want to find out what's in the 1939 paper just go back up & click on the link, and don't try your usual excuse that it's broken, all 15 pages, clear concise & filled with my favorite friends, Differential Equations.

Of course you wouldn't try to FALSIFY the paper, you've never seen a Differential Equation you could solve & you'd be head over heels totally lost going after all those DEs.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (8) May 10, 2018
Of course you wouldn't try to FALSIFY the paper, you've never seen a Differential Equation you could solve & you'd be head over heels totally lost going after all those DEs.


And so would you, dumbass. You can't even do simple equations. Get back to that mop, Dunning-Kruger boy.

Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) May 10, 2018
Hell, @Lenni, we can't even tell what you're claiming because you're so inept at math.
milnik
not rated yet May 11, 2018
@Gigel and humy,
gigel, you are enthusiastic about the fatamorgan that space and time are caught and so they make a curved network. It's an opinion for you, because neither space nor time has any physical characteristics. We, people, have defined the unit of time. Time is only a measure of the movement of matter in space according to natural laws, and space is only a place for the accommodation and movement of matter, again according to natural laws.
It does not seem that you even know how the matter arises, what is gravity and magnetism, and who causes them?
milnik
not rated yet May 11, 2018
Yes, in a very simple way, using a magnet can get light or run a small fan, without a battery or any electrical source. It is not clear to you that magnetism causes the appearance of the motion of an electron, but this can not be achieved without the substance Aether, from which matter is formed. The fact that you are talking about the connection between gravity and the network space time is a ghostly story that ignores the omnipotence of the Spiritual Entity of the universe, which has rewarded you with the opportunities to understand the truth, of course, if someone has not contaminated you stupid theories before.
humy
5 / 5 (3) May 11, 2018
@Gigel and humy,
gigel, you are enthusiastic about the fatamorgan that space and time are caught and so they make a curved network.

milnik
No, I don't believe space and time is a "network", whatever the hell that is supposed to mean. Please don't make nonsense straw man beliefs up.
It does not seem that you even know how the matter arises

Shortly after the start of the big bang, matter was generated from energy as energy was converged to matter. So what?
, what is gravity and magnetism,

Physicists have a far better idea of what they are than you.
and who causes them?

How do you know specifically a 'who' rather than merely a 'what' caused them?
Occam's razor works against your implied belief of that "who" as that belief assumes more without evidence.
And how do you now they aren't causeless? (I have no personal belief whether something physical can be truly causeless but nor can I rationally dismiss the possibility)

milnik
not rated yet May 11, 2018
@Gigel and humy,
humy, If you believe in Einstein, you must believe in the "existence of the curvature network" space time. It is your belief in BB, and that energy is created by matter, it is the unconscious understanding of the structure of the universe. What was the energy in that BB?
Listen and understand yourself:
The universe is a sphere of infinite diameter, filled with the substance Aether (which you do not understand, nor will you understand if you believe in BB), and matter is formed from matter, and from matter of energy of all kinds. The Aether substance has a continuous "family relationship" that causes both magnetism and gravity. The only problem is that you do not want to accept it, but you'll have to figure it out one day and see how stupid Einstein's theory and Lorenz's transformation.
humy
5 / 5 (4) May 11, 2018
@Gigel and humy,
humy, If you believe in Einstein, you must believe in the "existence of the curvature network"

milnik

False. That wasn't one of his beliefs nor anyone else's that I am aware of.
Einstein said and implied nothing about "existence of the curvature network", whatever the hell that is supposed to mean. What has "network" got to do with it? What kind of "network"? Please have the minimum decency to actually bother to note what he actually said before trying to rubbish his ingenious ideas.
The universe is a sphere of infinite diameter,

That is a self-contradiction. If a sphere expanded to infinite size then it would cease to be a sphere because its outer boundary would cease to have any curvature to indicate it might be a sphere and it would also cease to have any definable center point and all spheres have a center.
Such a self-contradiction is not part of any scientific theory.
Benni
3 / 5 (2) May 11, 2018
Hell, @Lenni, we can't even tell what you're claiming because you're so inept at math.


And so would you, dumbass. You can't even do simple equations. Get back to that mop, Dunning-Kruger boy.


Hey, schneibo, jonesy, your name calling rants do not fall into the realm of SCIENCE, however the Differential Equations in "On a Stationary System With Spherical Symmetry Consisting of Many Gravitating Masses" do fall into that category.

Still looking for FALSICATION from the two of you little old round men.
humy
5 / 5 (2) May 11, 2018
but you'll have to figure it out one day and see how stupid Einstein's theory..

milnik

this would be the same "stupid" theory (according to you) that if wrong then nuclear power stations won't work. How do you explain that?
Einstein's theory was a stroke of genius and has been proven at least in the main basically correct by many different independent experiments tests and observations.
Gigel
not rated yet May 11, 2018
That curvature network probably refers to the classical way of representing the curvature of space as a grid that has been deformed by a central body, akin to a metal ball sitting on an elastic membrane. Well, that is just a (simplified) representation, the grid is not taken as a real object.

@milnik:
Yes, in a very simple way, using a magnet can get light or run a small fan, without a battery or any electrical source.

Can you explain how you bend light with a magnet? Has anyone achieved this experimentally? Has anyone seen a laser light being bent as it passes near a magnet, or between 2 magnets?

The part with the fan is not clear at all, but not important right now. Let's stick with the magnet.
Benni
3 / 5 (2) May 11, 2018
Einstein's theory was a stroke of genius has been proven at least in the main basically correct by many independent experiments tests and observations.


Albert Einstein- Oct 1939
On a Stationary System With Spherical Symmetry Consisting of Many Gravitating Masses

The essential result of this investigation is a clear understanding as to why the "Schwarzschild singularities" do not exist in physical reality. The "Schwarzschild singularity" does not appear for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. And this is due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light.

This investigation arose out of discussions on the mathematical and physical significance of the Schwarzschild singularity. The problem quite naturally leads to the question, answered by this paper in the negative, as to whether physical models are capable of exhibiting such a singularity."

http://www.cscamm...s_files/
Benni
1 / 5 (1) May 11, 2018
......hey there humy, after you've read Einstein's paper "On a Stationary System With Spherical Symmetry Consisting of Many Gravitating Masses". do you still think so, that
Einstein's theory was a stroke of genius has been proven at least in the main basically correct by many independent experiments tests and observations.
....... or are you just gonna fall into the same fallacy of imagining you're smarter than Einstein with his 1939 paper in which he totally trashed your favorite cosmologist & his unscientific theories about DENSITY DEPENDENT GRAVITY as opposed to MASS DEPENDENT GRAVITY?

Hey, got any pics of black holes you'd like to show us? Let's see if you can come back with anything other than a name calling rant.

humy
4 / 5 (4) May 11, 2018
....... or are you just gonna fall into the same fallacy of imagining you're smarter than Einstein

Benni

Neither you or I am smarter than Einstein and I never said anything to imply I was.
If you claim the contrary, please quote to me exactly what I said that gave you THAT idea.
with his 1939 paper in which he totally trashed your favorite cosmologist & his unscientific theories about DENSITY DEPENDENT GRAVITY as opposed to MASS DEPENDENT GRAVITY?

I have no idea what you are talking about. I tried googling that said above 'theory' and got nothing. I have no "favorite cosmologist" theory but rather have no opinion on which out of the current opposing scientific cosmological theories is correct (I am not a cosmologist) and I don't believe "DENSITY DEPENDENT GRAVITY" in particular, whatever that is, because I have never even heard of any such theory called that and have absolutely NO IDEA what that might possibly mean.
434a
4 / 5 (4) May 11, 2018
Here's a working link to Benni's oft quoted and always misrepresented paper from Einstein.

http://www.cscamm...hild.pdf

I'd take a look at page 5 of the pdf (925 as printed).

Then laugh as much as you like at Benni whilst reading

We know further that the matter-energy tensor
depends also on the particle density and on the gravitational potentials, but
not on the derivatives of the latter. It is, therefore, possible to determine this
tensor by a straightforward calculation


Depends on the particle density
..but Benni said
unscientific theories about DENSITY DEPENDENT GRAVITY
...in caps..

ha ha ha ha...my sides..please stop.. ha ha ha ha ha

Cont..
434a
4 / 5 (4) May 11, 2018
Benni can't even read the English in the paper let alone understand what a tensor is...Straightforward calculation ha ha ha ha ha

It's as if Einstein was taking the piss out of you Benni, but please don't stop, you're priceless.

https://en.wikipe...y_tensor

Identifying the components of the tensor

The time–time component is the density of relativistic mass, i.e. the energy density divided by the speed of light squared.[2]
Its components have a direct physical interpretation. In the case of a perfect fluid this component is
T^{00}=rho
where rho is the relativistic mass per unit volume


Mass per volume = density ha ha ha ha ha wikipedia thinks you are incompetent as well.

Benni, how do you even survive life?
milnik
not rated yet May 11, 2018
It's not about the magnets you have in your hand, it's about magnetic fields of strength and a few million Tesla. These are neutron stars, magnets and stars like our sun and the larger ones. Do you have an idea: in order for you to see a photon turning at 3.10 ^ 5 km / sec and go past your magnet in your hand. Be serious, if you are discussing something where science has no concepts.
Benni
3 / 5 (2) May 11, 2018
It's as if Einstein was taking the piss out of you Benni, but please don't stop, you're priceless.


....twist & convolute it anyway you want. but it still stands from "On a Stationary System With Spherical Symmetry Consisting of Many Gravitating Masses", that Einstein was making it clear his sole intention of the paper was to totally trash Schwarzschild's silly black hole math resulting in the formation of a mass with the properties of INFINITE GRAVITY resulting from INFINITE DENSITY.
434a
4 / 5 (4) May 11, 2018
and I don't believe "DENSITY DEPENDENT GRAVITY" in particular, whatever that is, because I have never even heard of any such theory called that and have absolutely NO IDEA what that might possibly mean.


Hi Humy,

A simple visualisation using the lovely rubber sheet analogy of space-time.

Take 1Kg of gold and make a solid sphere out of it.
By my calculations you would end up with a sphere of radius 2.31cm
Place that on a rubber sheet.

Take the exact same mass of gold and beat the gold out into a 0.1mm sheet - I calculate that would be 5184 cm2.
Now make a hollow sphere out of it. Again my math says that could make a sphere with a radius of 20.31 cm

Density = Mass/volume (Volume of a sphere =4/3 Pi r^3)

1st sphere = 1kg /51.63cm3 = 19.368584 g/cm3
2nd sphere = 1kg /35092.83cm3 = 0.028496 g/cm3

Cont
Benni
2 / 5 (4) May 11, 2018
These are neutron stars
......and just how can you prove a subatomic particle with a 15 minute decay rate can ever form into a star that can exist for millions of years beyond the WELL KNOWN DECAY RATE of 15 MINUTES? The fact is you can't, you gotta make up a bunch of convoluted cosmology pseudo-science in defiance of the well established OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE of Nuclear Physics.

There is no data that can establish a decay rate of a neutron beyond 15 minutes & I challenge you to put it up if you have OBSERVATIONAL DATA to the contrary.
434a
4.2 / 5 (5) May 11, 2018
Cont.
The mass is the same but the density of the two spheres differs, yes.
I am sure you can easily visualise the difference in the shape of the displacements created by the two spheres in the sheet.

At significant distance from the spheres the displaced volume is equivalent.
Close in the shape of the displacement (gravity well) is starkly different and that affects how it is experienced by anything approaching closely to the spheres or trying to leave them.

The shape of space-time is what we experience as the force of gravity but it is clearly not a force at all, it's a path taken by the object following the curvature of space time, its geodesic.

Even though this is really as simple as it gets and has been explained to Benni many times he still seems to get bent out of shape.
Benni
2.3 / 5 (3) May 11, 2018
Even though this is really as simple as it gets and has been explained to Benni many times he still seems to get bent out of shape.


......and all you're accomplishing is continuance of living in a world of fantasy where you're trying to negate the fact that a CONSTANT MASS creates CONSTANT GRAVITY in accordance with the INVERSE SQUARE LAW.

In addition you make it clear that you also don't know that the force of gravity at the center of a mass is ZERO, also in accordance with application of the INVERSE SQUARE LAW.

Really, you need to find something better to do with your retirement career rather than coming to a science site to promote a bunch of silly funny farm fantasies about your weirded out geometrical shaping mechanics.
Gigel
5 / 5 (3) May 11, 2018
@milnik:
It's not about the magnets you have in your hand, it's about magnetic fields of strength and a few million Tesla. These are neutron stars, magnets and stars like our sun and the larger ones. Do you have an idea: in order for you to see a photon turning at 3.10 ^ 5 km / sec and go past your magnet in your hand. Be serious, if you are discussing something where science has no concepts.

Do you have any link to a theory (or its name) that says you can bend light with that magnetic field?

1 million Tesla is not a huge energy when converted into mass; it amounts to a mass density of some 10 kg/m^3, i.e. 100 times less than water. So it can`t be the gravitational field of the equivalent mass of the magnetic field that bends light.

How does that magnetic field bend the path of light?

What is the formula linking magnetic field to light deflection?
milnik
1 / 5 (2) May 11, 2018
@Gigel,
I see that you do not know what magnetism is like. You think that energy can turn into a mass. And it's a fatamorgana. All those who claim to be transforming energy into mass, they do not even know what the mass is.
Aether substance is formed, and Aether (black holes) is added from the mass.
We have nothing in common in understanding the structure of the universe and knowing how the formation of matter, energy, gravity, and magnetism develop. Instead of trying to understand natural laws, you just know how to repeat someone else's thoughts and stuttering theories. When you understand and find out what and how matter is formed and why gravity and magnetism occur, then you can do something about the phenomenon of the universe.
barakn
4.2 / 5 (5) May 11, 2018
......and just how can you prove a subatomic particle with a 15 minute decay rate can ever form into an atomic nucleus that can exist for millions of years beyond the WELL KNOWN DECAY RATE of 15 MINUTES? The fact is you can't, you gotta make up a bunch of convoluted cosmology pseudo-science in defiance of the well established OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE of Nuclear Physics.

And that's why each and every single one of us is less than 15 minutes old, with false memory of a previous existence implanted in our brains, and we're all about to explode, along with the planet and the Sun (unless it already has, the light from it is already 8 minutes old). Thanks to Benni and the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Benni
2 / 5 (4) May 11, 2018
Thanks to Benni and the Dunning-Kruger effect.
.......you're welcome, at least there's one person (me) around here who knows basic Nuclear Physics.

In the meantime you're still living on the plantation of funny farm pseudo-science with all those other neutrons that you claim have existed in the free state for millions of years, hey, how about you showing us JUST ONE?
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) May 11, 2018
Still waiting for you to tell us why there are stable nuclei with neutrons in them if they all decay in 15 minutes, @Lenni. I asked you that about two or three threads back and you ran away and hid.

And I told you months ago that density controls the shape of space, but mass controls the total size of the field.

Looks like everyone else knows those things too, @Lenni.

Everyone but you.
Benni
3 / 5 (2) May 11, 2018
Still waiting for you to tell us why there are stable nuclei with neutrons in them if they all decay in 15 minutes
....... all the discussion I created about the 15 minute decay rate of a neutron has ALWAYS been about unbound free neutrons.

You see schneibo, you & the rest of the pop-cosmology crowd living here in the Comments section, never knew anything about the 15 decay rate of a free neutron until I started the discussion about three months ago.

The proof YOU never knew about the 15 minute decay rate is because when I challenged the whole bunch of you in the RANT BRIGADE to provide evidence by pulling up & linking to a past Comment any of you had ever made here in the past, none of you did & still haven't done so to date, all you've provided are your name calling rants because you were again caught at your ineptness in nuclear physics, sad.

So schneibo, where's your past posting Comment? Isn't nice you've been learning so much from me?
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) May 11, 2018
all the discussion I created about the 15 minute decay rate of a neutron has ALWAYS been about unbound free neutrons.
OK, then why are you using it to talk about neutron stars? They aren't made of free and unbound neutrons.

You're lying again, @LenniTheLiar.
Benni
2 / 5 (4) May 11, 2018
all the discussion I created about the 15 minute decay rate of a neutron has ALWAYS been about unbound free neutrons.
OK, then why are you using it to talk about neutron stars? They aren't made of free and unbound neutrons.You're lying again,


schneibo, YOU sure like using very loosely that LIE word, but that's what lazy people like you do, just lie around waiting for someone else to do the footwork, so here it is:

https://en.wikipe...ron_star

"Most of the basic models for these objects imply that neutron stars are composed almost entirely of neutrons (subatomic particles with no net electrical charge and with slightly larger mass than protons); the electrons and protons present in normal matter combine to produce neutrons at the conditions in a neutron star."

Capiche? As usual, probably not.........hey, yet located anytime in the past you can link to to show us you knew the decay rate for a free neutron is 15 minutes? No?
Gigel
5 / 5 (4) May 12, 2018
@milnik:
I repeat my questions:

Do you have any link to a theory (or its name) that says you can bend light with that magnetic field?

How does that magnetic field bend the path of light?

What is the formula linking magnetic field to light deflection?

After you provide answers to them, you could also specify what is the nature of the aether substance and how it is determined experimentally.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) May 12, 2018
Capiche? As usual, probably not.........hey, yet located anytime in the past you can link to to show us you knew the decay rate for a free neutron is 15 minutes? No?


Hey, dumbass - any chance you have learned what the Pauli Exclusion Principle is yet? Thought not. That is why some people do science, and you mop floors.

jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) May 12, 2018
You see schneibo, you & the rest of the pop-cosmology crowd living here in the Comments section, never knew anything about the 15 decay rate of a free neutron until I started the discussion about three months ago.


Ye Gods. How sad is this Dunning-Kruger affected loon? Any idiot that has ever studied stellar evolution, and a number of other subjects, will know that FREE neutrons decay in short order. That is why you learn about the Pauli Exclusion Principle, loser. As you would know, if you'd ever studied beyond high school. Because 17 year old Jane or Johnny is going to say, "But, Sir, you told us neutrons decayed to electrons and protons. Why aren't they doing it here?"
The fact that Benni thinks he has discovered some great truth here, just shows how ignorant of the subject the saddo actually is. Clue, Benni- any first year undergrad in physics would know this. It is not news.

milnik
1 / 5 (2) May 12, 2018
@Gigel,
You ask me to give you information about something, as if I found it somewhere as a link or formula and a proof experiment, someone made it.
Understand, what I am saying, there is nowhere in scientific literature because it will be my Copyright. There is no link, there is no formula, there is no evidence that the light is bending, because I do not deal with it. I have my attitude and knowledge: what is matter, energy, gravity, and magnetism, and how and why they arise. It does not agree with anything in today's science. I know that I can cause the movement of electrons in a changeable magnetic field (or the intersection of magnetic forces with a conductor), but this is done using Aether, in which neither do you believe in science.
milnik
1 / 5 (1) May 12, 2018
To prove this, a lot of work, techniques, and many theories must be rejected. But the problem is that most scientists are busy and well-paid to try to confirm anything on false and unnatural laws. Something is guessed like a bitter grain of grain. To have Aether substance, it can simply be determined by magnet and conductor. But you need to know in your area of ​​awareness of how it works. I do not possess instruments and techniques to prove you, but if science has an interest in knowing it, I can arrange for this to be examined. The same applies to determining the right paths of the celestial bodies, the knowledge of the structure of the universe, the cause of climate change, the way of origin and the disappearance of matter, and its transformation into energy and the appearance of gravity and magnetism.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (4) May 12, 2018
Understand, what I am saying, there is nowhere in scientific literature because it will be my Copyright.


Hahahahahahaha. Dunning-Kruger syndrome is becoming highly infectious on this site, I see! Copyright! Lol. Translation: "my woo depends entirely on word salad. I cannot provide any science. Stop asking, and let me carry on with my word salad."

milnik
not rated yet May 12, 2018
What do you think, would this change the basis of today's science?
Today, millions of scientists in several tens of thousands of institutes run experiments and have not yet found the basis of the universe, and you are asking me to confirm it by experiments, formulas or some models.
milnik
1 / 5 (1) May 12, 2018
If you want to know how and when a neutron breaks into proton and electron, you need to know how to form a neutron.
Here, learn something: when matter is formed from substance Aether, particles of 3KG (3 quarks and 3 gluon bonds) are formed first, and behind them free gluons. This forms a quark gluon plasma (a very high magnetism level). On the magnetism surface, the magnetism strength decreases, the free gluons decay, the free particles enter into the 3kg particle and neutrons are formed (neutron stars). When the neutron star (supernova) explosion occurs, neutrons break down, when electrons emerge and circle around the rest ( proton) to form an atom of helium. Think about why the neutrons decay when you capture them with lasers and magnify magnetic fields!
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) May 12, 2018
When the neutron star (supernova) explosion occurs, neutrons break down......


Wrong. Supernova first, neutron star second. Neutron stars are either stable, or they collapse further into a black hole.
granville583762
4 / 5 (4) May 12, 2018
Meta physical science and dealing with its critical mass
milnik> When the neutron star (supernova) explosion occurs, neutrons break down......

jonesdave> Wrong. Supernova first, neutron star second. Neutron stars are either stable, or they collapse further into a black hole.

This is exactly what I have been telling you jonesdave, critical mass has been allowed to develop, it's like dealing with an outbreak of fruit flies, they lay 17eggs a day hatching in week laying their first 17eggs where each fruit fly lays 500eggs a month, their life span.
If you experienced an outbreak jonesdave, you cannot take eyes of the fruit because in the time it takes to have a cup you have 17more fruit flies 0.25mm diameter, there impossible to see and they start multiplying before you choke on tea leaves!
milnik
1 / 5 (1) May 12, 2018
This is wrong for those who do not know the order of the process of forming and disbanding celestial bodies. Who explodes, does the supernova or neutron star? The black hole can not originate from the celestial bodies that are formed to form star systems. She did not understand this science, and you listen to the wrong conclusions and give such ratings for what I am saying. The black hole "eats" the stars that originated from clouds of gases that emerged after the supernova explosion. It seems that science has caught you in the Einstein's network of space time, which has ruined all realistic perceptions of the structure of the universe.
Benni
2 / 5 (4) May 12, 2018
Any idiot that has ever studied stellar evolution, and a number of other subjects, will know that FREE neutrons decay in short order
.......and you can't prove by any Comment you have ever made prior to MY bringing up the subject of 15 MINUTE NEUTRON DECAY that you ever knew such a decay rate for free neutrons even existed. YOU only leaned about it from reading my Comments starting about 3 months ago when I brought it up.

Hey, little old round man, how about you quoting the link to your Comment whereby you posted your first claim to your knowledge of free neutron decay rate? You can't predate my Comments to such neutron decay rate, or if you think you can then do it?

You are another one of those who need to find a different retirement career rather than to come on to a science site & embark on name calling rants about subject material so far over your head that all you end up doing is drowning yourself in self-contempt.

granville583762
4 / 5 (4) May 12, 2018
Neither event comes first! the two events occur simultaneously!
When the neutron star (supernova) explosion occurs, neutrons break down......

jonesdave> Wrong. Supernova first, neutron star second. Neutron stars are either stable, or they collapse further into a black hole.

Is this "true Supernova first, neutron star second" - Because the supernova is caused by the explosive collapse of the star where its collapse is only making a neutron star, it cannot make a neutron star without physically shrinking and at time as shrinks it is ejecting mass of the supernova. The two events occur simultaneously ejecting and shrinking. If we are in a state of affairs where we are splitting hairs in the femto-world on the atom, I would say the two events occur simultaneous. Neither event comes first!
Benni
2.3 / 5 (3) May 12, 2018
Because the supernova is caused by the explosive collapse of the star where its collapse is only making a neutron star, it cannot make a neutron star without physically shrinking and at time as shrinks it is ejecting mass of the supernova.


And for anyone who believes gravitational collapse can magically prevent a free neutron from decaying within 15 minutes, I'd suggest you go to this well established gravitational free fall calculator & get up to speed for the time required for complete collapse to occur:

http://hyperphysi...rff.html

........and using this calculator just to calculate gravitational collapse of a small mass the mass & radius of our Sun would require 27 minutes, almost double the decay time of a free neutron, so the silly argument that gravitational collapse creates degenerate neutrons that can withstand decay for millions of years is not borne out by the math.
Benni
2.3 / 5 (3) May 12, 2018
just shows how ignorant of the subject the saddo actually is. Clue, - any first year undergrad in physics would know this.


Pretty good description of yourself jonesy
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) May 12, 2018
just shows how ignorant of the subject the saddo actually is. Clue, - any first year undergrad in physics would know this.


Pretty good description of yourself jonesy


Sorry, you are just too thick to understand this Benni. We are not talking about free neutrons, so your link is irrelevant. However, you will never understand this as long as you can't understand the Pauli exclusion principle and degenerate matter. Just because this is beyond your limited knowledge has no relevance to anything. Nobody is interested in your misunderstandings and lack of education.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (4) May 12, 2018
...
and you can't prove by any Comment you have ever made prior to MY bringing up the subject of 15 MINUTE NEUTRON DECAY that you ever knew such a decay rate for free neutrons even existed. YOU only leaned about it from reading my Comments starting about 3 months ago when I brought it up.


Hahahahaha! What a tosser. This is basic stuff known to anyone who studies physics, you knob. We don't need frigging janitors to Google stuff, and think that they have stumbled upon some great truth! It may have been amazing news to you, you sad muppet, but you appear never to have attended school, so that is not surprising. And why would anybody comment on it unless it was relevant to a particular article? The only reason it got commented on, is because you are thick, and thought this had some relevance. It then had to be explained to your idiot self that it doesn't apply under the conditions in neutron stars. Pauli, idiot. Do some study.
Benni
1 / 5 (2) May 12, 2018
We are not talking about free neutrons
......then you can't have a neutron star, because the definition of a neutron star as is described: https://en.wikipe...ron_star

"Most of the basic models for these objects imply that neutron stars are composed almost entirely of neutrons (subatomic particles with no net electrical charge and with slightly larger mass than protons); the electrons and protons present in normal matter combine to produce neutrons at the conditions in a neutron star."
........it appears we should assume you don't know what "free neutrons" are, & don't know the model of neutron stars are described by your favorite pop-cosmology source as being "composed almost entirely of neutrons".

Maybe in the swoons of one of your fantasies you can explain how a free neutron can become degenerate during gravitational collapse when it is factually known such collapse requires far more time than the 15 minute decay rate of a free neutron?

Gigel
5 / 5 (2) May 12, 2018
@milnik:

If you have a theory of yours and you want to keep it to you, it is fine. But you can't make claims and expect others to take it for granted without evidence.

If you say it's magnetism, and not gravity that bends light then you must come with evidence for that; otherwise anyone can say the opposite instead and we would be in the same place.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) May 12, 2018
@Lenni discovered the neuter.
milnik
not rated yet May 13, 2018
@Gigel,
I have evidence, but today's Tycoon of Science asks me to pay them what I need to publish. Second, what theories have been proven? Could anyone prove that a big bang happened, who proved that space and time had made a "marriage" and that they made a curved network without any gravity, who proved that it was possible to extend and shorten space and time. et cetera ? All of your evidence is based on fictitious and erroneous assumptions that have no bearing on natural laws. Curious scientists have complicated many forms of phenomena in nature and that's why you see many phenomena in the way that these fatamagers educated you. Who and how have it shown that gravity bends light, when science knows neither what gravity is, nor what light is and how it arises.
Benni
5 / 5 (1) May 13, 2018
@Lenni discovered the neuter.


The what?

5 Stars for that........
Benni
1 / 5 (3) May 13, 2018
Hey, schneibo, jonesy, anybody else in the Rant Brigade living here........tried that Free Fall Gravitational Collapse Calculator yet at http://hyperphysi...rff.html to figure out what kind of time limitation gravitational collapse imposes on creating DEGENERATE NEUTRONS?

Don't forget when entering data that the minimum solar mass you must enter is 8 (do you know why?). Next you'll need to go to an HR Diagram to figure out what radius to enter, you can't just make up any radius you want just to achieve a result that comes in under 15 minutes, you need to be scientific with your math data here.

Anybody come up with anything in the calculator that is less than the 15 minute decay time of an unbound free neutron? Of course you know what it means if you can't, it means NEUTRON STARS don't exist.
mbee1
1 / 5 (4) May 14, 2018
If you use MODTRAN to figure out how much the increase in CO2 has warmed the planet since 1600 to 2017, one comes up with 1/3 of a degree Fahrenheit which is far less than warming from changed solar output and changes in earths tilt and orbit. NASA modeling shows warming from the latter is about 5 to 6 percent since the little ice age which is around 3.6 degrees give or take. Increased solar output , not the changes in the solar cycle, have also lead to increased warming in the last 100 years. If you are someone wanting a promotion, money, and power telling the world it is all outside of our control gets you nothing, saying it is all mans fault and throwing in voodoo science to make a fake graft like the hockey stick, works wonders.
mbee1
3 / 5 (2) May 14, 2018
Benni, The neutrons are bound and unbound in the nuclear reactions of the star. While they do decay if unbound neutron stars are formed when the gravity is high enough along with the photon pressure of a super nova to force electrons and protons together to form the neutron star which is formed from those particles not from the neutrons which are unbound though they and the bound neutron join the party. In the neutron star they stay together as they wind up bound to each other, see quark theory for an explanation.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) May 14, 2018
@Lenni, I implied you looked down and discovered you have no sex organs. Thanks for the stars.

Just a note, it seems you've confused the collapse at the beginning of a star's life cycle with collapse during supernova at the end. It's like confusing an old man lying in a bed with a kid coming out of you-know-where. Which would be just about your speed. Now go sweep some toilets and mutter imprecations about how you're being oppressed by the ginormous cunspirasy of sciensetis.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) May 14, 2018
@Lenni maybe you can get the Trumpster Fire to cancel all the space missions to keep everyone from finding out how stupid crazy you are.
Benni
1.8 / 5 (5) May 14, 2018
.....unbound neutron stars are formed when the gravity is high enough along with the photon pressure of a super nova to force electrons and protons together to form the neutron star which is formed from those particles


Ah, but you forgot something, the anti-neutrino, without which there is no catalyst to generate nuclear binding forces between an electron & a proton. When gravitational collapse theoretically tears apart an atom & the neutron decays, the neutrino that is ejected almost at the speed of light is gravitationally unrecoverable within seconds of ejection when a neutron decays.

see quark theory for an explanation.
I know about quark theory, it's just that. If you think quark theory can add some modicum to the far fetched theory of NEUTRON DEGENERACY, then why is it not produced in the LHC? Maybe if you follow Schneibo's example & go on a name calling rant, you'll come up with some REAL NUCLEAR SCIENCE to explain it?
Gigel
4 / 5 (4) May 14, 2018
@Benni: You are making wrong things up with full intent, are you? You are not simply wrong, you do it on purpose, is it so? Instead of taking in an antineutrino, it could emit a neutrino.

And you the other guys, you know you feed a troll, don't you? Why don't you put him on your ignore mode?

Benni
2.3 / 5 (6) May 14, 2018
@Benni: You are making wrong things up with full intent, are you? You are not simply wrong, you do it on purpose, is it so? Instead of taking in an antineutrino, it could emit a neutrino.


.......making it clear just how little you know about Nuclear Physics & what must occur if the process is reversed.

If in YOUR gravitational collapse theory in which you are imagining new neutrons are being formed then where is the neutrino coming from? Or is it an anti-neutrino? You don't know do you?

Next explain how gravity captures a (anti)neutrino traveling almost at the speed of light, a particle that can travel through the mass of a star virtually unimpeded. Maybe you imagine that neutrinos are also created in gravitational collapse conditions, but by some stroke of magic get captured by a proton/electron cloud to form a neutrino?

Hey, Gig, use the Calculator yet? Destroys all the slop & swill pseudo-science of degenerate neutron formation doesn't it?

granville583762
3.3 / 5 (7) May 14, 2018
Interesting! More SCIENTIFIC Obfuscation, this time in the standard model of Neutron degeneracy
@Benni: You are making wrong things up with full intent, are you? You are not simply wrong, you do it on purpose, is it so? Instead of taking in an antineutrino, it could emit a neutrino.

Benni> .......making it clear just how little you know about Nuclear Physics & what must occur if the process is reversed.

Obfuscation is becoming a wide spread philosophy in crafting theory's, quasi neutral plasma is one, now neutron degeneracy. You appear to have a valid point here Benni
Proof of your valid point is the resistance you're getting to the question you're raising, the name calling, well that's another matter – it could be jealousy!
Benni
1.8 / 5 (5) May 14, 2018
@Benni: You are making wrong things up with full intent, are you? You are not simply wrong, you do it on purpose, is it so? Instead of taking in an antineutrino, it could emit a neutrino.


Benni>...making it clear just how little you know about Nuclear Physics & what must occur if the process is reversed


Obfuscation is becoming a wide spread philosophy in crafting theory's, quasi neutral plasma is one, now neutron degeneracy. You appear to have a valid point here Benni
Proof of your valid point is the resistance you're getting to the question you're raising, the name calling, well that's another matter – it could be jealousy!


You bet, that CALCULATOR has driven a whole bunch of neophytes into absolute apoplexy, just like when I started putting http://ircamera.a...nter.htm & challenged them to show us a super-massive BH at the center of our galaxy & they couldn't, they're still seething & fuming over that.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (4) May 14, 2018
^^^^^Oh dear, the scientifically illiterate loon has obviously been relieved from its mopping duties, and has time on its hands to talk crap. Again.
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (3) May 14, 2018
You bet, that CALCULATOR has driven a whole bunch of neophytes into absolute apoplexy........


Which calculator? The one you used to f*** up the Schwarzscild radius calculation? Lol. Mathematically illiterate troll has terminal Dunning-Kruger syndrome. There is no hope for it. It needs putting down.
jonesdave
2 / 5 (4) May 14, 2018
https://thinkprogress.org/bloomberg-rice-speech-climate-063a06809443/ The consensus doesn't imply science - but a groupthink, once the research of all indicia violating mainstream model and alternative theories of global warming gets ignored if not suppressed. In similar consensus the research of cold fusion has been dismissed.


If politicians had sufficient intelligence to understand science, they wouldn't be politicians.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (4) May 14, 2018
Interesting! More SCIENTIFIC Obfuscation, this time in the standard model of Neutron degeneracy
@Benni: You are making wrong things up with full intent, are you? You are not simply wrong, you do it on purpose, is it so? Instead of taking in an antineutrino, it could emit a neutrino.

Benni> .......making it clear just how little you know about Nuclear Physics & what must occur if the process is reversed.

Obfuscation is becoming a wide spread philosophy in crafting theory's, quasi neutral plasma is one, now neutron degeneracy. You appear to have a valid point here Benni
Proof of your valid point is the resistance you're getting to the question you're raising, the name calling, well that's another matter – it could be jealousy!


Christ! The blind leading the blind! Deary me.
granville583762
4 / 5 (4) May 14, 2018
jonesdave> Christ! The blind leading the blind! Deary me

Religion and science appear to be the new Science, now you've taken to Christ! Looks like you will be too busy carrying out the Lords work! A very commendable activity.
Benni
1.8 / 5 (5) May 14, 2018
You bet, that CALCULATOR has driven a whole bunch of neophytes into absolute apoplexy........


.... troll has terminal Dunning-Kruger syndrome. There is no hope for it. It needs putting down.


Hey, jonesy, Dunning-Kruger syndrome is not one of the things anyone has accused you of, a point of reference is needed to start with in the first place, I have that, you don't, it's called Nuclear/Electrical Engineering in my case. Don't worry, I won't accuse you of having a higher opinion of yourself than you deserve, your name calling rants speak for themselves.

Oh, yeah, the CALCULATOR, the one for Free Fall during GRAVITATIONAL COLLAPSE, it's a few posts above. Puts the coup-de-grace on degenerate neutron creation during gravitational collapse, not enough time no matter what Mass/Radius stellar object is used. It's really a lot of fun playing with changing time spans when entering various values for MASS vs RADIUS, none under 15 minutes.
granville583762
3.4 / 5 (5) May 14, 2018
Sitting like a spider in their web waiting to pounce
It is a sad state of affairs when a chap makes a comment on another's comment and receives a tirade of abuse from an unrelated commenter, as though they are sitting like a spider in their web waiting to pounce, indicated by the fact their last comment was two days ago.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (4) May 14, 2018
....it's called Nuclear/Electrical Engineering in my case...


Bollocks. You mop floors. You don't understand nuclear physics. As has been shown.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (4) May 14, 2018
Oh, yeah, the CALCULATOR, .....


Which calculator? The one you used to f*** up the Schwarzschild radius calculation?

jonesdave
3 / 5 (4) May 14, 2018
Next explain how gravity captures a (anti)neutrino traveling almost at the speed of light, a particle that can travel through the mass of a star virtually unimpeded. Maybe you imagine that neutrinos are also created in gravitational collapse conditions, but by some stroke of magic get captured by a proton/electron cloud to form a neutrino?


WTF is this crap? Seriously? This loon pretends to understand nuclear physics? What a wazzock! What the hell is supposed to be capturing a frigging neutrino? Jesus wept.

jonesdave
3 / 5 (4) May 14, 2018
Hey, schneibo, jonesy, anybody else in the Rant Brigade living here........tried that Free Fall Gravitational Collapse Calculator yet at http://hyperphysi...rff.html to figure out what kind of time limitation gravitational collapse imposes on creating DEGENERATE NEUTRONS?

Don't forget when entering data that the minimum solar mass you must enter is 8 (do you know why?). Next you'll need to go to an HR Diagram to figure out what radius to enter, you can't just make up any radius you want just to achieve a result that comes in under 15 minutes, you need to be scientific with your math data here.

Anybody come up with anything in the calculator that is less than the 15 minute decay time of an unbound free neutron? Of course you know what it means if you can't, it means NEUTRON STARS don't exist.


Lol!
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (6) May 14, 2018
Now we've seen it all, a rating system purported to demonstrate excellence! On the rise on the expletives of tirades of abuse, the exact opposite for what it was designed for!
jonesdave
4 / 5 (4) May 14, 2018
Now we've seen it all, a rating system purported to demonstrate excellence! On the rise on the expletives of tirades of abuse, the exact opposite for what it was designed for!


What are you prattling on about? Benni is an idiot. I was merely pointing that out. It is obvious to anyone reasonably scientifically literate. If you are agreeing with the loon, then that simply points to your own deficiencies in that area.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (4) May 14, 2018
For the hard of thinking, let's do the idiot's guide again. For the umpteenth time.

We have a white dwarf. It is held up by electron degeneracy pressure. When the gravitational pressure is high enough to overcome that electron degeneracy pressure, the star collapses further. Stuff happens, and we have a supernova. Conservation of angular momentum means it has to spin faster. The matter becomes so dense, that electrons are forced to combine with protons. This forms a neutron, with the emission of a neutrino, which escapes. Now, even the idiots may have noticed that the electrons were already degenerate. So, how can our neutron then decay? Neutron decay, for the aforementioned idiots, produces an electron and an electron antineutrino. However, due to the Pauli exclusion principle, an electron cannot be produced. All electron states are already filled. This ***t really isn't rocket science. Go read up on it.
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (6) May 14, 2018
Jonesdae> It is your honourable self that is issuing the tirades of abuse, for reasons known only to yourself on the sixth, an all encompassing tired of abuse issued forth; and what exactly are you doing at this precise moment jonesdave, you issuing tirades of abuse to numerous people and to whom you are speaking. Just out of curiosity go and look at your recent comments, are they genuine comments or are they expletive of abuse comments! There should be only genuine comments tempered with humour.
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (3) May 14, 2018
Jonesdae> It is your honourable self that is issuing the tirades of abuse, for reasons known only to yourself on the sixth, an all encompassing tired of abuse issued forth; and what exactly are you doing at this precise moment jonesdave, you issuing tirades of abuse to numerous people and to whom you are speaking. Just out of curiosity go and look at your recent comments, are they genuine comments or are they expletive of abuse comments! There should be only genuine comments tempered with humour.


Take a hike. I, and others, have gone beyond the call of duty in explaining some fairly basic science to the idiot Benni, over some years. He is scientifically illiterate, and yet doesn't let that stop him proclaiming that he understands physics. After a while, calling the idiot an idiot is all that is left. I have explained the science above. Want to have a go at dealing with it yourself? That should be fun.
granville583762
4 / 5 (4) May 14, 2018
You have to be able to comment on Bennies comments without receiving a tirade of abuse!
jonesdave> I, and others, have gone beyond the call of duty in explaining some fairly basic science to Benni

I have no interest in Bennies theories, but you have to be able to comment on Bennies comments without receiving a tirade of abuse from other commentators no matter how much Benni gets in your claw, because if this the case jonesdave, you have to ignore him especially if someone else is commenting on his comments!
jonesdave
1 / 5 (1) May 14, 2018
You have to be able to comment on Bennies comments without receiving a tirade of abuse!
jonesdave> I, and others, have gone beyond the call of duty in explaining some fairly basic science to Benni

I have no interest in Bennies theories, but you have to be able to comment on Bennies comments without receiving a tirade of abuse from other commentators no matter how much Benni gets in your claw, because if this the case jonesdave, you have to ignore him especially if someone else is commenting on his comments!


Sorry? Who posted this:
Obfuscation is becoming a wide spread philosophy in crafting theory's, quasi neutral plasma is one, now neutron degeneracy. You appear to have a valid point here Benni
Proof of your valid point is the resistance you're getting to the question you're raising, the name calling, well that's another matter – it could be jealousy!


Want to back that up? Or do you not understand the science either?
granville583762
4 / 5 (4) May 14, 2018
You have just proved the point (Just out of curiosity go and look at your recent comments, are they genuine comments or are they expletive of abuse comments!) You just do not seem to be able to make a comment without abuse in some form or other.
jonesdave> Want to back that up? Or do you not understand the science either?

Inherent in your statement is abuse "Or do you not understand the science either" which you will elaborate on which is your way of commenting, being critical does involve abuse or guiled abuse, the above is guiled abuse and on a side note your early comments from 2015 were a lot more palatable.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (2) May 14, 2018
You have just proved the point (Just out of curiosity go and look at your recent comments, are they genuine comments or are they expletive of abuse comments!) You just do not seem to be able to make a comment without abuse in some form or other.
jonesdave> Want to back that up? Or do you not understand the science either?

Inherent in your statement is abuse "Or do you not understand the science either" which you will elaborate on which is your way of commenting, being critical does involve abuse or guild abuse, the above is guild abuse and on a side note your early comments from 2015 were a lot more palatable.


Listen, Mother Theresa - the idiot Benni made some idiotic comments based on his total inability to understand science. You agreed with him! I explained the science. As I have done many times. So back it up, or go away, because you are contributing nothing, and appear to be as scientifically illiterate as Benni.
granville583762
4 / 5 (4) May 14, 2018
jonesdave> Listen, Mother Theresa - the idiot Benni made some idiotic comments based on his total inability to understand science. You agreed with him! I explained the science. As I have done many times. So back it up, or go away, because you are contributing nothing, and appear to be as scientifically illiterate as Benni.

You just do seem to understand, you have to ignore him - he cannot speak to a brick wall. He will go away because he is winding you up, he is playing you like a harp he's has got you hook line and sinker and when he's bored he gets you out and plays his tune on you!
jonesdave
3 / 5 (2) May 14, 2018
jonesdave> Listen, Mother Theresa - the idiot Benni made some idiotic comments based on his total inability to understand science. You agreed with him! I explained the science. As I have done many times. So back it up, or go away, because you are contributing nothing, and appear to be as scientifically illiterate as Benni.

You just do seem to understand, you have to ignore him - he cannot speak to a brick wall. He will go away because he is winding you up, he is playing you like a harp he's has got you hook line and sinker and when he's bored he gets you out and plays his tune on you!


So why did you agree with him? Answer the bloody question or shut up. My take on it? You have no more understanding of science than he does. If you have a problem with quasi-neutrality and neutron degeneracy (as you said) then spell out your objections. Scientifically.
granville583762
3.4 / 5 (5) May 14, 2018
For this very reason, I thought it was self evident!
jonesdave
3 / 5 (2) May 14, 2018
For this very reason, I thought it was self evident!


What reason? You wanted to make yourself look like an idiot? Well done, you succeeded.
granville583762
4 / 5 (4) May 14, 2018
For this very reason ( he is winding you up, he is playing you like a harp he's has got you hook line and sinker and when he's bored he gets you out and plays his tune on you!) I thought it was self evident!
jonesdave
3 / 5 (2) May 14, 2018
For this very reason ( he is winding you up, he is playing you like a harp he's has got you hook line and sinker and when he's bored he gets you out and plays his tune on you!) I thought it was self evident!


What is self evident? Spell it out. Your way of ignoring the loon (which you're telling me to do) is to reply to his comments, saying you agree with him? Brilliant. Personally, I think you haven't got a clue what you're on about. I doubt I'm the only one that thinks that either.
granville583762
3.4 / 5 (5) May 14, 2018
I sorry jonesdave, but this is an intellectual scientific site, the school kids at St John's college when they talk to each other let the conversation flow, because they are from the same intellectual background and consequently they follow each other's meaning and jonesdave without using explitives you have just elicited the worst insult on yourself that you have not on anyone else.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (2) May 14, 2018
I sorry jonesdave, but this is an intellectual scientific site, the school kids at St John's college when they talk to each other let the conversation flow, because they are from the same intellectual background and consequently they follow each other's meaning and jonesdave without using explitives you have just elicited the worst insult on yourself that you have not on anyone else.


Bollocks! You agreed with the idiot. You have been asked to explain why, and won't. You tell me to ignore him, yet you reply to him! And agree! Sorry, you are obviously a couple of cans short of a six pack. Want quasi-neutrality explained? Neutron degeneracy? Just ask. It isn't difficult.
granville583762
3.4 / 5 (5) May 14, 2018
I'm sorry jonesdave ,if you want to be Bennies poodle that's your affair, if you carefully read my initial comment to Bennie you will find it is like my theories, I do not have theories as theories are all in the mind, they come back and bite you when your theories fall flat, You must at least be able to see full commitment to someone else's theories, you know I am sceptical of all the latest trendy darkmatter, time slowing down and gravity being warped vacuum of space and I am certainly sceptical of anything Bennie conjures out of thin air, there's more truth in the quantum fluctuations and you know what I think of those!
jonesdave
3 / 5 (2) May 14, 2018
........and I am certainly sceptical of anything Bennie conjures out of thin air,......


Right, so that's why you replied to his stupid post and agreed with it? Who's the poodle? And you don't have any 'theories'. Look up the scientific meaning of the term. It doesn't say "Bollocks dreamed up by unqualified people on science news comment sections."
granville583762
4 / 5 (4) May 14, 2018
In conclusion I will never be exchanging expletives with Bennie as I do not with yourself and I have no inclination to seek Bennie out as I have no inclination to seek yourself out. Someone might make an substantial offer for this site and it could be a commentless science site which by the way is highly likely, so there is no point in getting any attachment to it!
jonesdave
3 / 5 (2) May 14, 2018
......and I have no inclination to seek Bennie out....


So that's why you replied to him and agreed with his post? Hypocrite. Quit lying.
granville583762
3.4 / 5 (5) May 14, 2018
So that's why you replied to him and agreed with his post? Hypocrite. Quit lying

You fell for it, it had to have the right amount of realism, infact you both fell for it because I knew what you do, If you continue to exchange expletives with every one thats between you, the bed post and phys.org!
Benni
2.3 / 5 (3) May 14, 2018
he is playing you like a harp he's has got you hook line and sinker and when he's bored he gets you out and plays his tune on you!


........I play guitar, finger picking is my favorite style, but yeah, you're right, he's fun to get wound up & then to watch the crash when he's on another of his foul mouthed name calling tirades.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (2) May 14, 2018
he is playing you like a harp he's has got you hook line and sinker and when he's bored he gets you out and plays his tune on you!


........I play guitar, finger picking is my favorite style, but yeah, you're right, he's fun to get wound up & then to watch the crash when he's on another of his foul mouthed name calling tirades.


Come on idiot, explain which neutrinos are being captured and why! Lol. Stick to mopping floors, science really isn't your thing.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (2) May 14, 2018
You fell for it, it had to have the right amount of realism,................


Hahahahaha. Decided Benni is a loon, and now is making out that his post was sarcasm! Chump.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (3) May 14, 2018
Jesus, some idiot wrote this:

Ah, but you forgot something, the anti-neutrino, without which there is no catalyst to generate nuclear binding forces between an electron & a proton.


Nuclear engineer my arse!

jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (3) May 14, 2018
Ah, but you forgot something, the anti-neutrino, without which there is no catalyst to generate nuclear binding forces between an electron & a proton.


An antineutrino is produced when a neutron decays to a proton and electron. This is due to conservation of lepton number. We have a + lepton produced (an electron), so we need a - lepton to balance it (the antineutrino). When an electron and proton join to form a neutron, a + lepton has disappeared (the electron), so we need another + lepton to replace it (the neutrino). These have nothing to do with binding anything together.

Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) May 15, 2018
The thing to realize here is that what actually happens in neutron decay is a weak interaction in which a down quark is changed to an up quark. This can happen spontaneously because the up quark has less mass. That's why the neutron is unstable when free (not in a nucleus). But the mass difference is quite small, so the half-life of the neutron is long; ten minutes or so, giving a mean lifetime of about 15 minutes.

Here is a color force view of neutron decay, and neutron stability in the nucleus: The reason the neutron is stable in the nucleus is because it's constantly exchanging gluons and quarks with other nucleons, meaning it oscillates between being a neutron and being a proton. The neutrons never decay because they never stay a neutron long enough. And all that's necessary is that the nucleus be packed together; just like in a neutron star. From this viewpoint, one can characterize a neutron star as a giant nucleus.

@jones' view of electron degeneracy is equally valid.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) May 15, 2018
Oh, and of course I kinda brushed the W- particle created in the weak decay of the down quark. This particle travels a very short distance because it's quite massive. It decays very fast into an electron and an electron antineutrino. So what appears at first glance to be a single nuclear interaction actually turns out to be two: The neutron turns into a proton because of the quark decay, and the quark decay makes a W- particle which then decays into an electron and an electron antineutrino.

It's the comparatively tiny mass difference between the up and down quarks combined with the large mass of the W- particle that makes the neutron decay so unlikely that it takes 15 minutes. It's still spontaneous, but it's the longest average lifetime of any spontaneous single-particle decay. And not by a little bit; it's longer by a factor of ten thousand.
Gigel
not rated yet May 15, 2018
There are trolls around here, and there are people playing with trolls here, too. Now one has to ask himself the question, esp. when participating in "discussions" here: what is the difference between a troll and a troll-playing person? When does one stop being a troll-playing person and becomes a full-fledged (furred) troll?

Really guys, try to be careful who you are playing with.
granville583762
3.4 / 5 (5) May 15, 2018
Bennie> ........I play guitar, finger picking is my favorite style, but yeah, you're right, he's fun to get wound up & then to watch the crash when he's on another of his foul mouthed name calling tirades

Bennie:- Just one little comment on your comment unleashed a tirade of abuse Beelzebub would be proud of, I sensed you felt my detachment to your theories; I was just curious as to why it was causing so much commotion and it interested me. It was not meant to be the competition for crown of the evil troll king. By the way Bennie his tirades have yet to be matched so he holds the crown for the evil troll king, an honour he holds with pride as the most foulmouthed yet to grace this site.
granville583762
3.4 / 5 (5) May 15, 2018
The sad state of physics
It is a sad state of affairs when you make comment on fellow's comment it has to be worded to anticipate foulmouthed tirades of abuse from a certain individual; you should not have to be watching your back to anticipate reacting against abusive foulmouthed remarks.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (2) May 15, 2018
I was just curious as to why it was causing so much commotion and it interested me.......


Because it is scientifically illiterate, like everything else Benni comes out with. That much should be obvious to anyone with even a slight knowledge of the relevant area. The reason the idiot gets so much abuse is due to being terminally thick, unable to grasp pretty simple concepts, and thinking that he has uncovered great truths that show that far more capable people than him are wrong. And I'm not just talking about the posters here. Were you here for his pathetic dismissal of the LIGO results? Essentially accusing hundreds of scientists of being either stupid or frauds. I could go on.
The bloke is a waste of space, and knows little to nothing about science or maths. As has been shown.
If he was merely asking questions, such as, "what is the Pauli exclusion principle, I'm a bit vague on that?", then he would get a respectful answer. As it is, he can do one.
granville583762
3.4 / 5 (5) May 15, 2018
Protecting the baby dragon egg from the evil troll king

Granted these are by comparison angelic comments jonesdave, but you have come out with more expletives: - idiot, thick, pathetic, waste of space, no doubt he deserves criticism but as you can only see his inkly typed comments, your both in same the boat neither know who is looking it up on the internet, as this was not possible, as attending university was the only option before the internet. You can inkly type very good comments, it is a shame they are spoilt by delving in the world of the troll king, that by the way jonesdave came from Alvin and the Chipmunks when they were hatching dragon eggs while protecting the baby dragon egg from the Evil Troll King.
jonesdave
1 / 5 (1) May 15, 2018
^^^^^^^^Try that in English.
jonesdave
1 / 5 (1) May 15, 2018
but you have come out with more expletives: - idiot, thick, pathetic, waste of space,....


FYI, those are not expletives.
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (3) May 15, 2018
^^^^^^^^Try that in English.

Being born and bred in yorkshire used to those distant moors round harrogate, skipton, windermere and the like this is what being English is like, I would not swap it for what I see on this science site.
jonesdave
1 / 5 (1) May 15, 2018
Being born and bred in yorkshire.....


That explains a lot! Wrong side of the Pennines. Still speak Old Norse over there, don't they? And 'Yorkshire' should have a capital 'Y' :)
granville583762
4 / 5 (4) May 15, 2018

Concerning roots - If what you're indicating is true, deciphering the comment mixed with Alvin and the Chipmunks analogy is our Celtic ancestry. This is harmless, down to earth, clean and good fun mixed with non religious science just as you like it.
Benni
3 / 5 (2) May 15, 2018
Bennie> ........I play guitar, finger picking is my favorite style, but yeah, you're right, he's fun to get wound up & then to watch the crash when he's on another of his foul mouthed name calling tirades

Bennie:- Just one little comment on your comment unleashed a tirade of abuse Beelzebub would be proud of, I sensed you felt my detachment to your theories; I was just curious as to why it was causing so much commotion and it interested me. It was not meant to be the competition for crown of the evil troll king. By the way Bennie his tirades have yet to be matched so he holds the crown for the evil troll king, an honour he holds with pride as the most foulmouthed yet to grace this site.


Not quite, one other person has out-trolled him, Stumpy. Stumpy threatened to do everything in his power to find out who I am & told me he would plan to show up at the doorstep to my home & physically confront me, that was just about 3 yrs ago.
Benni
2 / 5 (4) May 15, 2018
There are trolls around here, and there are people playing with trolls here, too. Now one has to ask himself the question, esp. when participating in "discussions" here: what is the difference between a troll and a troll-playing person? When does one stop being a troll-playing person and becomes a full-fledged (furred) troll?

Really guys, try to be careful who you are playing with.


From anything you've ever written so far, you think anyone is a troll if they disagree with your views of pop-cosmology. You don't think it's irrational to believe that on a FINITE STELLAR MASS that conditions of INFINITE GRAVITY & DENSITY can exist.
jonesdave
4 / 5 (4) May 15, 2018
You don't think it's irrational to believe that on a FINITE STELLAR MASS that conditions of INFINITE GRAVITY & DENSITY can exist.


It doesn't exist. Whatever gave you that idea? As has been mentioned umpteen hundred times - that is where Einstein's maths leads if you take it to its logical conclusion. However, nobody I have heard of who studies BHs actually believes that those conditions exist. Merely that it is at that point that current theory breaks down, and needs replacing. Or fine tuning, to be more precise. Some expect that to be quantum gravity.
However, it is understandable that you might believe such a thing, if all your science 'knowledge' was garnered from wikipedia and places like this, rather than an academic institution.
milnik
1 / 5 (1) May 15, 2018
Why are you all so persistent that you are discussing phenomena for which you do not know how to form, nor do you know what it is and from what it forms. Your misconceptions are both black holes and gravity and magnetism and matter, and therefore, everything that is related to these phenomena is wrong, if you go through your way of understanding these phenomena.
Since you do not know the causes of these phenomena, you spend time just on quarrels and insults. Is this an introduction to some new science?
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (3) May 15, 2018
Your misconceptions are both black holes and gravity and magnetism and matter, and therefore, everything that is related to these phenomena is wrong,


No it isn't. According to whom is this wrong? And where is this paradigm changing, Nobel worthy hypothesis? Oh, yeah, I forgot - it's copyrighted! Lol.
granville583762
4 / 5 (4) May 16, 2018
A neutron theoretically does not exist as it is a proton
Da Schneib> The neutron turns into a proton because of the quark decay, and the quark decay makes a W- particle which then decays into an electron and an electron antineutrino

Looking at the proton in its process of alternating positive and negative quarks, a proton is so described when its quarks are a positive charge and called a neutron when is quarks are a neutral charge. It is still a proton!
Helium with is four nucleons two positive and two neutral, when the neutrons quarks decay as they are the same quarks as in the proton, if the quarks are decaying in the neutron they are equally decaying in the proton because the proton and the neutron are one and the same.

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

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.