Astronomers reveal new details about 'monster' star-forming galaxies

August 29, 2018, University of Massachusetts Amherst
Artist's impression of the monster galaxy COSMOS-AzTEC-1. This galaxy is located 12.4 billion light-years away and is forming stars 1,000 times more rapidly than our Milky Way galaxy. ALMA observations revealed dense gas concentrations in the disk, and intense star formation in those concentrations. Credit: National Astronomical Observatory of Japan

An international team of astronomers from Japan, Mexico and the University of Massachusetts Amherst studying a "monster galaxy" 12.4 billion light years away today report that their instruments have achieved a 10 times higher angular resolution than ever before, revealing galaxy structural details previously completely unknown. They also were able to analyze dynamic properties that could not be probed before. Details appear in Nature

So-called "monster galaxies" or extreme starburst galaxies are thought to be ancestors of like the Milky Way in today's universe, so these findings about the galaxy known as COSMOS-AzTEC-1 pave the way to understanding their formation and evolution, the researchers say.

Co-author Min Yun, professor of astronomy at UMass Amherst and a member of the team that discovered this galaxy using a UMass-built instrument named AzTEC in Chile in 2007, adds, "A real surprise is that this galaxy seen almost 13 billion years ago has a massive, ordered gas disk that is in regular rotation instead of what we had expected, which would have been some kind of a disordered train wreck that most theoretical studies had predicted." 

That said, he adds, they did observe that this gas disk is dynamically unstable now, which means the entire gas disk that makes up this galaxy is fragmenting and undergoing a gigantic episode of starburst, which helps to explain its enormous star formation rate, more than 1,000 times that of the Milky Way galaxy. 

These most recent observational discoveries of COSMOS-AzTEC-1were made possible by the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA), a telescope and facility operated by an international partnership in Chile. Ken-ichi Tadaki is lead author of this week's paper and a postdoctoral researcher at the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science and the nation's National Astronomical Observatory. He says, "One of the best parts of ALMA observations is to see such far-away galaxies with unprecedented resolution."

Astronomers have long wondered why monster galaxies can form stars at such a startling pace. To begin to understand, they needed to characterize the environment around stellar nurseries. Drawing detailed maps of molecular clouds is an important step, they say.

Tadaki and the team found that COSMOS-AzTEC-1 is rich in the ingredients of stars, but it was still difficult to figure out the nature of the cosmic gas in the galaxy. They used ALMA's high resolution and high sensitivity to observe the galaxy and obtain a detailed map of the distribution and the motion of the gas to make the highest resolution molecular gas map of a distant monster galaxy ever made.

"We found that there are two distinct large clouds several thousand light-years away from the center," explains Tadaki. "In most distant starburst galaxies, stars are actively formed in the center. So it is surprising to find off-center clouds."

Yun adds, "How these galaxies have been able to amass such a large quantity of gas in the first place and then essentially turn the entire gas reserve into stars in the blink of an eye, cosmologically speaking, was a completely unknown question about which we could only speculate. We have the first answers now."

ALMA revealed the distribution of molecular gas (left) and dust particles (right). In addition to the dense cloud in the center, the research team found two dense clouds several thousand light-years away from the center. These dense clouds are dynamically unstable and thought to be the sites of intense star formation. Credit: ALMA (ESO/NAOJ/NRAO), Tadaki et al.

He says, "Until this result came in from ALMA, nobody knew how Nature created massive, young galaxies formed only 1 billion years after the Big Bang. Finding them first using AzTEC instrument 10 years ago was a real discovery, but it defied explanation."

With the new observations, team members now believe that the monster galaxy is powered by "an extremely gas-heavy disk that is somehow kept stable until enough gas is amassed. We still don't know yet how so much gas is collected so quickly and what kept this enormous gas reserve from igniting and turning into stars, as gas is known to do in the local universe," Yun adds.

The astronomers found that the gas clouds in COSMOS-AzTEC-1 are very unstable, which is unusual. In a normal situation, they point out, the inward gravity and outward pressure are balanced. Once gravity overcomes pressure, the gas cloud collapses and forms stars at a rapid pace. Then, and supernova explosions at the end of the stellar life cycle blast out gases, which increase the outward pressure. As a result, the gravity and pressure reach a balanced state and star formation continues at a moderate pace. In this way star formation in galaxies is self-regulating.

But in COSMOS-AzTEC-1, the pressure is far weaker than gravity and hard to balance. Therefore this galaxy shows runaway star formation and has morphed into an unstoppable monster galaxy. Tadaki, Yun and colleagues estimate that the gas in COSMOS-AzTEC-1 will be completely consumed in 100 million years, which is 10 times faster than in other star forming galaxies.

Why the gas in COSMOS-AzTEC-1 is so unstable is not clear yet, but a phenomenon called "galaxy merger" is a possible cause. Galaxy collision may have efficiently transported the gas into a small area and ignited intense . Tadaki says, "At this moment, we have no evidence of merger in this galaxy. But by observing other similar galaxies with ALMA, we want to unveil the relation between galaxy mergers and monster ."

Explore further: Explosive birth of stars swells galactic cores

More information: A gravitationally unstable gas disk of a starburst galaxy 12 billion years ago, Nature (2018). DOI: 10.1038/s41586-018-0443-1 , https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0443-1

Related Stories

Explosive birth of stars swells galactic cores

September 10, 2017

Astronomers found that active star formation upswells galaxies, like yeast helps bread rise. Using three powerful telescopes on the ground and in orbit, they observed galaxies from 11 billion years ago and found explosive ...

The Milky Way's long-lost sibling finally found

July 23, 2018

Scientists at the University of Michigan have deduced that the Andromeda galaxy, our closest large galactic neighbor, shredded and cannibalized a massive galaxy two billion years ago.

How disc galaxies work

July 23, 2018

Disc galaxies like our own Milky Way, characterized by a flattened disc of stars and gas (often with a central bulge of material as well) have a wide range of masses, spatial extents, and stellar content. Nonetheless all ...

Recommended for you

The epoch of planet formation, times twenty

December 12, 2018

Astronomers have cataloged nearly 4,000 exoplanets in orbit around distant stars. Though the discovery of these newfound worlds has taught us much, there is still a great deal we do not know about the birth of planets and ...

Periodic radio signal detected from the blazar J1043+2408

December 12, 2018

Using Owens Valley Radio Observatory (OVRO), astronomers have detected a periodic signal in the radio light curve of the blazar J1043+2408, which could be helpful in improving our understanding about the nature of blazars ...

Rosetta witnesses birth of baby bow shock around comet

December 12, 2018

A new study reveals that, contrary to first impressions, Rosetta did detect signs of an infant bow shock at the comet it explored for two years – the first ever seen forming anywhere in the solar system.

Juno mission halfway to Jupiter science

December 12, 2018

On Dec. 21, at 8:49:48 a.m. PST (11:49:48 a.m. EST) NASA's Juno spacecraft will be 3,140 miles (5,053 kilometers) above Jupiter's cloud tops and hurtling by at a healthy clip of 128,802 mph (207,287 kilometers per hour). ...

297 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Benni
2.5 / 5 (11) Aug 29, 2018
"A real surprise is that this galaxy seen almost 13 billion years ago has a massive, ordered gas disk that is in regular rotation instead of what we had expected, which would have been some kind of a disordered train wreck that most theoretical studies had predicted."

Meaning the Universe is a lot more than 13 billion years old & at 12,4 billion light years distance is on the cusp of the Primordial Gas Cloud (so called).
RNP
3.2 / 5 (11) Aug 29, 2018
@Benni

A real surprise is that this galaxy seen almost 13 billion years ago has a massive,
ordered gas disk that is in regular rotation instead of what we had expected, which would
have been some kind of a disordered train wreck that most theoretical studies had predicted


Meaning the Universe is a lot more than 13 billion years old.....

LOL.
What on Earth makes you think this true? You clearly have not understood the physics behind this subject or the conclusions of the paper behind this article. Have you read it? I suspect not.

.. at 12,4 billion light years distance is on the cusp of the Primordial Gas Cloud (so called).


This "primodial gas cloud (so called)" is another of your ridiculous inventions. What on Earth is it supposed to mean?

Give me a single reference related to such a thing, I dare you.
Benni
2.2 / 5 (10) Aug 29, 2018
You clearly have not understood the physics behind this subject


The word "physics" should be rewritten Pop-Cosmology, therefore:

You clearly have not understood the Pop-Cosmology behind this subject


I'm surprised that you being the freelance journalist you've laid claim to being, that you are unable to assign proper terminology to the subject material under discussion, but I guess mistakes like this easily happen when your background in real science is so weak.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (6) Aug 29, 2018
Obviously, all galaxies go through a recycling period wherein the gases from spent stars accumulate until there is enough volume to start another period of Star-making.

Gas is Matter, and that Matter is subject to gravity/compression and, depending on the type of volatile Matter that is available in enough volume, such as Hydrogen for Fusion and Uranium (for example) for Fission to start up the process after gravity/compression has done the start of the first process in the gas.
As they haven't found evidence of galaxy-collision, it is more likely that the gas that is spread around in groups is lying dormant for a time until the right conditions.

"With the new observations, team members now believe that the monster galaxy is powered by "an extremely gas-heavy disk that is somehow kept stable until enough gas is amassed. We still don't know yet how so much gas is collected so quickly and what kept this enormous gas reserve from igniting and turning into stars,..."
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.8 / 5 (6) Aug 29, 2018
-CONTINUED-
Hydrogen GAS will not ignite unless there is an igniter present - following the requisite process of collapse and compression - the igniter is the chain reaction within fissionable materials in the gas that will provide the high enough temperatures that will then ignite the Hydrogen, which will then heat to even hotter temperatures to start the Fusion process.
Thus, the Star-making begins. No need for galactic collisions unless such collisions bring even more Hydrogen gas and fissionable materiel.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (6) Aug 29, 2018
@RNP
You seem to be scoffing at the idea that the Universe may be older than 13.8 billion years old.
But then how do you know it isn't? Scientists have calculated and scrunched the numbers to come up with the 13.8 figure, but even they are only hypothesising the true age without consideration for many other factors that may increase the age billions more.

Uh there had to be a Primordial Gas Cloud, as Benni says, otherwise there would not have been any ignition of the gases in that cloud, which would have resulted in NO Big Bang or concussion of some sort that created the outward bound movement of Hydrogen and all other volatile gases out into Space - IF there had been no primordial gas cloud.
IanC1811
5 / 5 (6) Aug 29, 2018
@Surveillance...
I suspect you have misunderstood the nature of the Big Bang. No-one seriously thinks of it as
" the outward bound movement of Hydrogen and all other volatile gases out into Space ". It was not a sudden expansion of matter THROUGH space, but a sudden expansion OF space. The matter is carried away by the expansion of space, not by flying apart through space.
I suspect you have also confused the process of creating hydrogen fusion in a H-Bomb with that of hydrogen fusion in the hot dense early universe and also with that of hydrogen fusion in the core of stars. Neither of these two latter processes require ignition from fission of heavy elements such as uranium.
RealityCheck
2.6 / 5 (10) Aug 29, 2018
@RNP and @Benni.
[From @Benni]: Meaning the Universe is a lot more than 13 billion years old..
[From @RNP to @Benni]: LOL. What on Earth makes you think this true?
These are all hypothesized estimates, not actual definitively confirmed measurements of actual universal extent in reality. So until actual definitive/indisputable measurements say that the universe has ANY LIMIT to its extent in reality, then such LIMIT age/extent figures are 'fallout estimates' of theoretical calculations from interpretations of observatinal data by the hypotheses which give rise to them. Occam's Razor says: infinite age/extent.
[From @Benni]: ...at 12,4 billion light years distance is on the cusp of the Primordial Gas Cloud (so called).
[From @RNP to @Benni]: This "primodial gas cloud (so called)" is another of your ridiculous inventions. What on Earth is it supposed to mean?
Why the semantics? The Big Bang (Hypothesis) claimed 'primeval' diffuse matter contents/clouds.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (10) Aug 29, 2018
^^^Jesus H. Christ! Talk about word salad. Link us to something that isn't complete sh*te, just for a change. Yes?
Benni
2.7 / 5 (7) Aug 29, 2018
Hydrogen GAS will not ignite unless there is an igniter present
......you mean FUSION, right? Hydrogen gas on Earth "ignites" just fine with a match, but it won't FUSION at that temp.
Tuxford
2.1 / 5 (11) Aug 29, 2018
LOL. The Huge Bang Fantasy suffers yet another devastating blow. Strike 55...

"We found that there are two distinct large clouds several thousand light-years away from the center," explains Tadaki. "In most distant starburst galaxies, stars are actively formed in the center. So it is surprising to find off-center clouds."

OK, let's see what this really means. This monster galaxy has grown so active ejecting new matter from the huge core, that it has spawned two new supermassive cores that are now diverging from the center while ejecting new gas therefrom along the way. And so, the two clouds surround the divergent cores. This is how galactic clusters eventually form, from a monster in the center. But that is too logical for the merger maniac dreaming of fantasy! See my comments under:

https://phys.org/...tml#nRlv

https://phys.org/...ing.html
Tuxford
1.7 / 5 (11) Aug 30, 2018
Anonym262722
1 / 5 (4) Aug 30, 2018
This ALMA observation supports the unified GR/QM expansion of Suntola Dynamic Universe (DU) bouncing replacement of Big Bang (BB) for balancing the motion and gravitational energies of the total mass M in universe beyond the instantaneous balance at BB as speculated by Feynman. Take sqrt of the ratio 1.4 /13.8 B ly distances from BB to get the expansion dC4/C4 rate for the true value of variable speed of light C=3 in units of C_today=1. Multiply present age 9.2 B yrs of universe by 3rd power of dC4/C to get the absolute Newtonian age T4=0.3 B yrs since BB in time units of today. Between T4= 0 and 0.3 B yrs from BB the decelerating (vs inflationary) expansion speed slowed from infinity to about 3 C_today to allow the observed flat or Euklidean expansion pattern along the 3-D space direction orthogonal to R4 radius of Riemann sphere, starting point of Einstein GR with the mistaken spacetime assumption of constant C=C4 and age T4=13.8 yrs.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 30, 2018
Hydrogen GAS will not ignite unless there is an igniter present
......you mean FUSION, right? Hydrogen gas on Earth "ignites" just fine with a match, but it won't FUSION at that temp.

says Benni

Yes, Hydrogen GAS (in the Star-making process) can only be ignited by fissionable materiel such as Uranium in a chain reaction. But first there must be enough volume of Hydrogen gas and dust to collapse and compress enough to heat the igniter (Uranium, for example) so that the chain reaction is started. Only then can the chain reaction of fissionable material provide the high enough temps to start the Fusion part going in the Hydrogen gas which requires 1Million C to fuse He atoms in Star-making.

Important thin is that in the coldness of outer space, Hydrogen will not start the process of Fusion without fissionable material to heat it up sufficiently. The collapse and compression won't do it, so i.e., it takes the power of an atomic bomb to provide the high temps.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 30, 2018
Additionally, I don't think that there actually was a Big Bang. The BB rests on the premise that ALL Matter/Energy started as a pinpoint about the size of an atom - which is nonsense.
Also, IN THE BEGINNING Space was not a tiny speck that suddenly began to expand with the BB as though it were a balloon. IMO, Space was of a size that was quite the same as it is now, so that when the chain reaction began that ignited the Hydrogen in that Primordial Cloud, the force of the "blast" sent the contents of the cloud outward into the Space.

It was almost the very same process as in the later Star-making - before there were any Stars.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (4) Aug 30, 2018
@Surveillance...
I suspect you have misunderstood the nature of the Big Bang. No-one seriously thinks of it as
" the outward bound movement of Hydrogen and all other volatile gases out into Space ". It was not a sudden expansion of matter THROUGH space, but a sudden expansion OF space. The matter is carried away by the expansion of space, not by flying apart through space.
I suspect you have also confused the process of creating hydrogen fusion in a H-Bomb with that of hydrogen fusion in the hot dense early universe and also with that of hydrogen fusion in the core of stars. Neither of these two latter processes require ignition from fission of heavy elements such as uranium.
says IanC1811

No. Matter/Energy is carried away by a Force, not because of an expansion of Space. If it had been due to, as you say, a sudden expansion OF space, the contents of the Primordial Cloud would not have moved, or very little even if there had been a BB.
-CONTINUED-
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Aug 30, 2018
-CONTINUED-
The BB supposedly proceeded from a pinpoint; which as I said earlier - is silly science.
Secondly - The process of creating hydrogen Fusion is not accomplished IN an H-bomb, but because of the chain reaction of Fissionable materials that, when the Fissionable materials heated to a high enough temp, that high temperature THEN starts the process of heating the Hydrogen Fusionable material to even HIGHER TEMPS. The FORCE of it created the movement of Energy/Matter into Space (which was always there). Even now, you can see that Space is so much bigger than the Matter/Energy within it.

Your hot, dense Universe did not remain hot very long - out in the coldness of Space.

As I've said (ISMW) Star-making cannot/will not happen without the first 3 steps, to wit:
1. Collapse/compression of gas/dust = temperature
2. Fissionable material heated by collapse to high temps
3. Hydrogen heated to higher temps by Fission that starts chain reaction that results in Fusion of H.

Cusco
4.1 / 5 (13) Aug 30, 2018
Hydrogen GAS (in the Star-making process) can only be ignited by fissionable materiel such as Uranium in a chain reaction.


What gives you such an absurd idea? Gravity and compression can most certainly supply enough heat to start fusion.

Even now, you can see that Space is so much bigger than the Matter/Energy within it.


No, you can't. We don't have anything that can detect "space" without anything in it, first off. Secondly, at the very furthest resolution of our instruments there is still matter and energy, in order to detect your empty space we'd have to go further than that. We're still a long way from reaching any limit of the detectable mass and energy of the universe.
thingumbobesquire
5 / 5 (1) Aug 30, 2018
It is remarkable that when speaking of events billions of years in the past, the use of verbal tenses here is so very muddled. This galaxy obviously no longer exists as such. We are imagining a steady state of galactic evolution for no apparent reason. Take heed of the words of Heraclitus some three millennia ago on this subject. How has the lawful evolution of star formation changed and why?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (6) Aug 30, 2018
Hydrogen GAS (in the Star-making process) can only be ignited by fissionable materiel such as Uranium in a chain reaction.


What gives you such an absurd idea? Gravity and compression can most certainly supply enough heat to start fusion.
say Cusco

Nothing absurd about it. As Benni has said, Hydrogen gas (on Earth) can be readily ignite - but NOT to the temperatures required to attain Fusion.

Gravity and compression are only able to bring the Hydrogen gas temperature up to a smaller high, which would be high enough to begin the Fission process, as long as there is adequate Fissionable material close or within the Hydrogen gas. That Fissionable material then gets hot enough to ignite the Hydrogen gas to burn at 1 million C. which starts the process of FUSION.

Compression and gravity can't attain a high enough temperature to begin the FUSION process of Hydrogen. It's not possible. Temperature, Cusco.

jonesdave
2.7 / 5 (7) Aug 30, 2018
Compression and gravity can't attain a high enough temperature to begin the FUSION process of Hydrogen. It's not possible. Temperature, Cusco.


Total nonsense.

Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 30, 2018
Even now, you can see that Space is so much bigger than the Matter/Energy within it.


No, you can't. We don't have anything that can detect "space" without anything in it, first off. Secondly, at the very furthest resolution of our instruments there is still matter and energy, in order to detect your empty space we'd have to go further than that. We're still a long way from reaching any limit of the detectable mass and energy of the universe. says Cusco

I never said, "space without anything in it". Space is only expanding now, due to the motions/momentums of Matter/Energy in the form of Stars, planets, galaxies as they move outward. Some galaxies are behind ours; some in front. But all are moving outward, not in a circle. Space always existed large and did not start out like a tiny room that expanded when the walls began moving away from each other.
Of course there is still Matter/Energy. The empty Space existed BEFORE the alleged Big Bang. Thanks for agreeing
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 30, 2018
Compression and gravity can't attain a high enough temperature to begin the FUSION process of Hydrogen. It's not possible. Temperature, Cusco.


Total nonsense.

says jonesy

OK...so please explain why it is nonsense.

Compression and gravity can't attain a high enough temperature to begin the FUSION process of Hydrogen. It's not possible. Temperature, Cusco.


Total nonsense.


jonesdave
2.7 / 5 (7) Aug 30, 2018
^^^^Because fusion is dependent not only on temperature, but on pressure, and therefore density. At ~ 15 000 000 K, 300+ billion atmospheres, and a density of 160 g/cm^3, fusion is certainly possible. In fact, it is inevitable. Hence why we detect the neutrinos from the fusion, but no anti-neutrinos from fission.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 30, 2018
According to the only thing I could find wrt Thermonuclear Fusion was this:
"If matter is sufficiently heated (hence being plasma), fusion reactions may occur due to collisions with extreme thermal kinetic energies of the particles."

I left out the part about Thermonuclear Weapons.

Certainly, there must be pressure and gravity, thus creating density. But the temperature of such cannot be high enough temps that would ignite the FUSION process in the Hydrogen, otherwise Jupiter and Saturn would have already become Stars since their atmospheres are largely Hydrogen and their density far exceeds that of the Earth AFAIK.
There is the "middle-man" (FISSION) that precedes the Fusion process, and which brings the temps that pressure/gravity/density had attained to far greater temps than only pressure/gravity/density could possibly achieve in order to ignite Hydrogen = Fusion.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (6) Aug 30, 2018
^^^^ Wrong. If Jupiter were capable of fusion, it would be a star. It isn't. Ditto brown dwarves. You really need to take some basic science courses.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 30, 2018
Perhaps you didn't read the theory of Fission being required to produce high enough temps in Hydrogen to begin the Fusion process of Star-making.

Here is the name of the name of the physicist who came up with the theory, but has yet for it to be recognised as valid by other physicists. It makes perfect sense - logical and reasonable.

James Marvin Herndon
jonesdave
3 / 5 (8) Aug 30, 2018
Perhaps you didn't read the theory of Fission being required to produce high enough temps in Hydrogen to begin the Fusion process of Star-making.

Here is the name of the name of the physicist who came up with the theory, but has yet for it to be recognised as valid by other physicists. It makes perfect sense - logical and reasonable.

James Marvin Herndon


Nope, it makes no sense whatsoever. And the bloke sounds like a crank. Chemtrails, and all that bollocks.
https://en.wikipe..._Herndon
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (6) Aug 30, 2018
^^^^ Wrong. If Jupiter were capable of fusion, it would be a star. It isn't. Ditto brown dwarves. You really need to take some basic science courses.


Obviously, Jupiter and Saturn haven't become Stars, due to the lack of enough Fissionable materials at their cores to start the Fission process, and thence on to igniting the Hydrogen in their atmospheres to start the Fusion process.

It is a step-by-step procedure. The theory is relatively new and hasn't been accepted by mainstream scientists, who are clinging to outdated physics books/learning. It will take some time before Dr. Herndon is vindicated.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 30, 2018
Yes, I read the Wiki on him. And by the way, I see Chemtrails over my property every so often that are unlike airplane contrails that disappear quickly. There are many theories about the Chemtrails. No one seems to know what their purpose it.

But Dr. Herndon's theory is sound.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 30, 2018
Well, you have your ideas and I have mine. But you should seriously consider Dr. Herndon's theory since it makes great sense re Star-making. The Primordial gas cloud also makes perfect sense.

Have to run. Bye
jonesdave
3 / 5 (8) Aug 30, 2018
Yes, I read the Wiki on him. And by the way, I see Chemtrails over my property every so often that are unlike airplane contrails that disappear quickly. There are many theories about the Chemtrails. No one seems to know what their purpose it.

But Dr. Herndon's theory is sound.


Well, the totality of solar physicists would disagree with him. There are always cranks tilting at windows. No reason to take this guy seriously.
And nothing is getting ignited. It is fusing. Look up p-p chain.
Benni
2.5 / 5 (8) Aug 30, 2018
^^^^Because fusion is dependent not only on temperature, but on pressure, and therefore density.


When we set off hydrogen bombs via fission bombs & there has never been a need to generate "pressure" under the conditions:
300+ billion atmospheres, and a density of 160 g/cm^3
...... is such total funny farm fiction about fusion as I've ever seen written by anyone. A hydrogen bomb has never required the use of ANY pressure chamber to create the conditions for the fusion process. Extreme pressure conditions may be obtained SUBSEQUENT to fusion, but NEVER required for attaining fusion.

Your silly psycho-babble is just such great entertainment, a great lesson in why followers of Pop-Cosmology should not be explaining nuclear physics.
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) Aug 30, 2018
Extreme pressure conditions may be obtained SUBSEQUENT to fusion, but NEVER required for attaining fusion.


Why don't you read what I wrote, you idiot? Or go to any text book on solar nuclear fusion? Christ you're stupid. They are not required for fusion on Earth you idiot, because we cannot attain the ****ing pressure at the solar core, you moron. As we can't attain that pressure, we cannot instigate fusion at 15 000 000 K. However, dipsh*t, at the pressure and density at the solar core, the protons are a damn sight closer together. That's what density means, you fruit loop. Ergo, the temperature required to instigate fusion is lower, because they do not need to move the protons as far as in lower pressure, and once they are close enough, the strong nuclear force takes over.
Is there any subject on which you are not totally clueless?

Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (6) Aug 31, 2018
Yes, I read the Wiki on him. And by the way, I see Chemtrails over my property every so often that are unlike airplane contrails that disappear quickly. There are many theories about the Chemtrails. No one seems to know what their purpose it.

But Dr. Herndon's theory is sound.


Well, the totality of solar physicists would disagree with him. There are always cranks tilting at windows. No reason to take this guy seriously.
And nothing is getting ignited. It is fusing. Look up p-p chain.
says jonesy

For NOW they disagree with him. But it is obvious that physicists, in particular, are very slow like molasses in winter to take the work/theory of their competitor as seriously as it should be taken.
Why, they might actually have to throw out some outdated formulations/maths and come up with some new ones, unless they are incapable of understanding that a new science has evolved to take the place of the old.
The competition amongst scientists is fierce, after all.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (6) Aug 31, 2018
Cranks tilting at windows, jonesy? Which version of Windows is that?

No, jonesy - the Fusion doesn't begin in Star-making UNTIL the temperature is high enough to start Hydrogen gas becoming PLASMA. And the H gas cannot even get close to becoming Plasma if the only processes heating the H gas is compression/gravity/density. Out in the coldness of outer space, if the Hydrogen gas has only those three to depend on to start the Fusion process, the Hydrogen will go pffft and not do anything.
In addition to the collapse/gravity/density factor, the heat from it will ignite the FISSION process of fissionable material such as Uranium dust, and when THAT goes bloooey, the blast/temperature will trigger the Hydrogen gas to burn hot enough to become PLASMA - which is fusible/fusionable material.
IOW, the blast from the fissionable material chain-reaction then ignites the Hydrogen gas.
Got it?
It's really quite easy-peasy. Even a 5th grader could understand it.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (6) Aug 31, 2018
Extreme pressure conditions may be obtained SUBSEQUENT to fusion, but NEVER required for attaining fusion.


Why don't you read what I wrote? Or go to any text book on solar nuclear fusion? They are not required for fusion on Earth because we cannot attain the pressure at the solar core. As we can't attain that pressure, we cannot instigate fusion at 15 000 000 K. However, at the pressure and density at the solar core, the protons are a damn sight closer together. That's what density means. Ergo, the temperature required to instigate fusion is lower, because they do not need to move the protons as far as in lower pressure, and once they are close enough, the strong nuclear force takes over.
says jonesy

Had to clean up your rant for the kiddies who might read it. Oh no...too late, isn't it.

When you said "pressure and density at the solar core" are you talking about a working Star, or a proto-Star? Or do you mean Fusion on Earth? To me, "solar" = sun or star.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (6) Aug 31, 2018
@ jonesy

OK I see that you both were referring to Fusion on Earth.

Benni said "When we set off hydrogen bombs via fission bombs & there has never been a need to generate "pressure" under the conditions:"

That is correct. On Earth it is the effects from the CONCUSSION AND HEAT generated from the Fission bomb that is transferred to the Hydrogen bomb, turning the Hydrogen into Plasma.
Again - It is the FISSION bomb process itself that produces the Pressure/Concussion and temps that then ignite the Hydrogen in the H-bomb that turns it into Plasma. There is no need for a separate source of pressure/density.

Benni also said "Extreme pressure conditions may be obtained SUBSEQUENT to fusion, but NEVER required for attaining fusion."

Also correct. Pressure/compression is the Concussion that is produced by the Fission bomb just prior to the transference of high temperature to the Hydrogen in the H-bomb where H turns into Plasma. It is only Fission that aids the Fusion process.
granville583762
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 31, 2018
Monster galaxies in the mist 12.4 billion light years away

13 billion years ago has a massive, ordered gas disk that is in regular rotation its gas disk is dynamically unstable now its galaxy is fragmenting and undergoing episode of starburst explains enormous star formation a 1,000 times that of our Milky Way galaxy.
Astronomers wondered why monster galaxies form stars at such startling pace how nature created massive, young galaxies formed only 1 billion years after the Big Bang.
Reality always is outstanding in observation to what the imaginative mind construes now were just of cusp in astronomical observation being endowed the latest's of telescopes of marvel that that ordained priests of angelic substantiation of Georges Lemaitre would given away all his worldly possession to have just one glimpse of what his maker has purported according to his heavenly beliefs beheld his eternal soul as what he could now see he would never have put before his lord that Cosmic Egg!
antialias_physorg
3.5 / 5 (8) Aug 31, 2018
due to the lack of enough Fissionable materials at their cores to start the Fission process, and thence on to igniting the Hydrogen in their atmospheres to start the Fusion process.

Erm..that's not how fission (or fusion) works. Don't they teach physics in school where you live?

A hydrogen bomb has never required the use of ANY pressure chamber to create the conditions for the fusion process.

Hydrogen bombs use inertial confinement to create the necessary pressure/temperature point (by means of a shockwave initiated by a fission reaction)

https://en.wikipe...riterion

humy
3.5 / 5 (8) Aug 31, 2018
"A real surprise is that this galaxy seen almost 13 billion years ago has a massive, ordered gas disk that is in regular rotation instead of what we had expected, which would have been some kind of a disordered train wreck that most theoretical studies had predicted."

Meaning the Universe is a lot more than 13 billion years old .
Benni

Not only have you repeatedly revealed your complete ignorance of basic physics but you have repeatedly revealed your complete idiotic lack of understanding of what is being said and your above assertion is an example of that.

You cannot quote whatever is being said and just then say "Meaning ...." or "Therefore..." followed by some assertion that CLEARLY doesn't logically follow from your quote you just said.
Apparently you have shown you don't understand the meaning of the words "meaning" and "therefore".
Do you understand the concept of inference?

granville583762
3.5 / 5 (8) Aug 31, 2018
The device is colloquially referred to as a hydrogen bomb or, an H-bomb, because it employs the fusion of isotopes of hydrogen requires a shockwave to initiate the fusion process
What is this shockwave construed in starry fusionable material of hydrogen construction?
Benni
3 / 5 (6) Aug 31, 2018
It's really quite easy-peasy. Even a 5th grader could understand it.
........you're over rating him.

Ever notice how everytime he gets caught in another one of the conundrums he sets himself up for, how he goes off on another one of his foul mouthed name calling rants? Such rants are the sure evidence he knows he's been caught with no way out.
jonesdave
2.5 / 5 (8) Aug 31, 2018
It's really quite easy-peasy. Even a 5th grader could understand it.
........you're over rating him.

Ever notice how everytime he gets caught in another one of the conundrums he sets himself up for, how he goes off on another one of his foul mouthed name calling rants? Such rants are the sure evidence he knows he's been caught with no way out.


I explained it to you, idiot. Nuclear fusion is controlled via temperature and pressure. The higher the pressure, the lower the temperature needed to attain it. Moron. Go look it up in a relevant textbook. Fool.
Benni
3 / 5 (6) Aug 31, 2018
In addition to the collapse/gravity/density factor, the heat from it will ignite the FISSION process of fissionable material


> SEU..........I'd like to suggest that you change the word "ignite" to TRIGGER, that:

"the heat from it will trigger the fission process"

I understand what YOU mean by "ignite", but others don't & will attempt to misconstrue it like jonesy has been doing, and once someone like jonesy gets caught up in semantics he never lets go, like "neutron half-life".
Benni
4 / 5 (4) Aug 31, 2018
I explained it to you, idiot. Nuclear fusion is controlled via temperature and pressure.


......no you didn't. According to what you've been writing is that pressure & density comes first, then if those conditions are somehow just perfect they become the catalyst by which upon subsequent addition of higher temperature complete the process. What you & the neophytes on WikiPedia are unable to comprehend is that it's the temperature that leads up to pressure & density properties, not the other way around.
antialias_physorg
3.3 / 5 (7) Aug 31, 2018
What is this shockwave construed in starry fusionable material of hydrogen construction?

Erm..whut?

And no, you do not absolutely require a shockwave to initiate fusion. That is just one way to do it. You just need to somehow get over a pressure/temperature threshold (see the link to Lawson criterion in my previous post). If you can get high temperatures you need lower pressures and vice versa.
Stars do not need a shockwave because they have enough pressure (through gravity) to fulfill the Lawson criterion. (though they have the temperature, too, once fusion gets going)

Machines like ITER do not need shockwaves because they are designed for continuous operation using high temperatures. Fusion research labs like NIF use shockwaves (lasers focussed on a pellet which evaporates the outer layer and causes a shockwave to travel inwards) to fuse deuterium at relatively low temperatures.
https://en.wikipe...t_fusion
Benni
3 / 5 (6) Aug 31, 2018
You cannot quote whatever is being said and just then say "Meaning ...." or "Therefore..." followed by some assertion that CLEARLY doesn't logically follow from your quote you just said.
Apparently you have shown you don't understand the meaning of the words "meaning" and "therefore".
Do you understand the concept of inference?


> humbo........after you write your "book" on the concept that the momentum trajectories of orbiting bodies is PERPETUAL, that best place you'll find accreditation for your book may be at Comedy Central. Be sure to include the above paragraph of psycho-babble in your book.
rrwillsj
1 / 5 (1) Aug 31, 2018
Dhem-trails? Siriusly?

Based upon what verified evidence? Besides your need to visit an ophthalmologist? It will also be helpful if you stop repeating gibberish from the National Enquirer and Faux News.

Amazing eye-sight you guys have! Capable of doing chemical analysis from miles away? With such super-powers why do you allow your local schools waste taxpayer funding on useless equipment? When anyone of you could selflessly volunteer to fill-in for the machinery!

Besides, everyone with two brain cells to rub together? Knows that the chem-trails are actually BEM-LGMs pissing out the portals of their flying saucers. Right on the faces of the slack-jawed yokels, drunkenly gaping up at them!

Hecks & Shucks! All trumpenella's toadies look forward to these "Golden Showers".

Huh... Maybe those are not LGM but actually Russian flying saucers? Moscow whores 'rushin' here and 'rushin' there to meet the demand from the GOP and NRA groveling consumers.

granville583762
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 31, 2018
The cart before the horse
SEU> Fusion doesn't begin in Star-making till the temperature is high enough to start Hydrogen gas becoming PLASMA. the H gas cannot even get close to becoming Plasma if the only processes heating the H gas is compression/gravity/density. Out in the coldness of outer space, if the Hydrogen gas has only those three to depend on to start the Fusion process, the Hydrogen will go pffft and not do anything. In addition to the collapse/gravity/density factor, the heat from it will ignite the FISSION process of fissionable material such as Uranium dust, and when THAT goes bloooey, the blast/temperature will trigger the Hydrogen gas to burn hot enough to become PLASMA - which is fusible/fusionable material.IOW, the blast from the fissionable material chain-reaction then ignites the Hydrogen gas.

SEU, where is the uranium manufactured if stars cannot ignite without it, are uranium atoms constructed from the clouds of tenuous hydrogen in the vacuum?
granville583762
3.5 / 5 (8) Aug 31, 2018
The cart before the horse - those pesky pristine protons -
SEU, is not uranium formed in quasars - in other word SEU, it is formed in the various stages of the life cycle of stars which require uranium to initiate fusion; as where did the first stars form from the clouds of pristine protons in the vacuum?
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 31, 2018
.......it's the temperature that leads up to pressure & density properties, not the other way around.


Nope. Dear god, this loon is tiresome! Why do you think fusion occurs in the Sun? It is a combination of temperature and pressure. Due to the Sun's enormous gravity, things get a little hot and compressed at the core. What happens when you compress a gas? Ever used a bicycle pump? It gets hot. Burrrrrny! And what happens to the particles in that gas? They get closer together. Nice. And, because they are hotter, they are moving more quickly, and, being less distance apart, their mean free path is shorter. Hence, more likely to encounter another proton, and overcome the Coulomb repulsion, and hey presto, the p-p chain begins!

However, this is nuclear physics, and we all realise that you do not understand it.
Benni
2.7 / 5 (7) Aug 31, 2018
Stars do not need a shockwave because they have enough pressure (through gravity) to fulfill the Lawson criterion.


A totally debunked hyberbole soon after the first hydrogen bomb was built that gravity via gravitational collapse had enough energy to create temperatures needed for fusion.

The theory for it was already suspect in the 1930's when it was first proposed as the means for creating fusion temps in stars, then 100% debunked & became an abandoned theory after the first fission bomb was detonated & the temperatures were recorded.

Of course I see above where jonesy also screwed it up with the gravity theory.

jonesdave
2.1 / 5 (7) Aug 31, 2018
A totally debunked hyberbole soon after the first hydrogen bomb was built that gravity via gravitational collapse had enough energy to create temperatures needed for fusion.


Complete and utter shite. My god you are thick! Where was this debunked, you fraud? Stop lying. Idiot.

Benni
3 / 5 (6) Aug 31, 2018
A totally debunked hyberbole soon after the first hydrogen bomb was built that gravity via gravitational collapse had enough energy to create temperatures needed for fusion.


Complete and utter shite. My god you are thick! Where was this debunked, you fraud? Stop lying. Idiot.



OK, prove I'm wrong!
jonesdave
2.1 / 5 (7) Aug 31, 2018
A totally debunked hyberbole soon after the first hydrogen bomb was built that gravity via gravitational collapse had enough energy to create temperatures needed for fusion.


Complete and utter shite. My god you are thick! Where was this debunked, you fraud? Stop lying. Idiot.



OK, prove I'm wrong!


I don't need to prove you wrong, you ****wit, it is accepted science, and has been since Bethe in ~ 1930. You know crap about nuclear physics, and do not even know what p-p fusion is. Hint; it has nothing to do with ****ing hydrogen bombs! Idiot.
Benni
3 / 5 (6) Aug 31, 2018
it is accepted science, and has been since Bethe in ~ 1930.
......sure I already told you this.

It was "accepted science" until the first A - Bomb was detonated. Since then serious nuclear physicists have realized there is almost no gravitational collapse occurring on the Sun that can function as a heating trigger for fusion.

Pop-Cosmology however has never moved on, choosing instead to ignore the variety of fission processes that are consistently recorded occurring in the Sun resulting in fusion.

Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 31, 2018
In addition to the collapse/gravity/density factor, the heat from it will ignite the FISSION process of fissionable material


> SEU..........I'd like to suggest that you change the word "ignite" to TRIGGER, that:

"the heat from it will trigger the fission process"

I understand what YOU mean by "ignite", but others don't & will attempt to misconstrue it like jonesy has been doing, and once someone like jonesy gets caught up in semantics he never lets go, like "neutron half-life".
says Benni

Thanks for the suggestion, Benni. I shall avoid using "ignite".
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 31, 2018
A totally debunked hyberbole soon after the first hydrogen bomb was built that gravity via gravitational collapse had enough energy to create temperatures needed for fusion.


Complete and utter shite. My god you are thick! Where was this debunked, you fraud? Stop lying. Idiot.



OK, prove I'm wrong!


I don't need to prove you wrong, you ****wit, it is accepted science, and has been since Bethe in ~ 1930. You know crap about nuclear physics, and do not even know what p-p fusion is. Hint; it has nothing to do with ****ing hydrogen bombs! Idiot.
says jonesy
.
Don't get your bowels in an uproar, jonesy.
I found your Pp fusion (proton to proton fusion) in Wiki.

-CONTINUED-
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
4 / 5 (4) Aug 31, 2018
-CONTINUED-
To wit: "The proton–proton chain reaction is one of two known sets of nuclear fusion reactions by which stars convert hydrogen to helium. It dominates in stars with masses less than or equal to that of the Sun's,[1] whereas the CNO cycle, the other known reaction, is suggested by theoretical models to dominate in stars with masses greater than about 1.3 times that of the Sun's.[2]
In general, proton–proton fusion can occur only if the kinetic energy (i.e. temperature) of the protons is high enough to overcome their mutual electrostatic or Coulomb repulsion.[3]
In the Sun, deuterium-producing events are rare. Diprotons are the much more common result of proton–proton reactions within the star, and diprotons almost immediately decay back into two protons. Since the conversion of hydrogen to helium is slow, the complete conversion of the hydrogen in the core of the Sun is calculated to take more than ten billion years.[4]

But this doesn't mention the preliminaries
granville583762
3.5 / 5 (8) Aug 31, 2018
Having your cake and eating it
A totally debunked hyberbole soon after the first hydrogen bomb was built that gravity via gravitational collapse had enough energy to create temperatures needed for fusion.

Complete and utter shite. My god you are thick! Where was this debunked, you fraud? Stop lying. Idiot.

OK, prove I'm wrong!

I don't need to prove you wrong, you ****wit, it is accepted science, and has been since Bethe in ~ 1930. You know crap about nuclear physics, and do not even know what p-p fusion is. Hint; it has nothing to do with ****ing hydrogen bombs! Idiot.

I see Benni, you have to prove your gibberish, but oh no, saintly ordained priest that he is, JD, he does not have to prove anything.
jonesdave> I don't need to prove you wrong, you "expletive"

He has saintly gibberish on his side, he is never wrong as its blasphemous to contradict the word of saint JD
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 31, 2018
Science is moving on, jonesy. It will not remain steady and rock-solid so that you and others who prefer the old science and old textbooks can continue to fight progress and the newest theories.

Benni is correct again. He knows what he is talking about, I assure you.
"A totally debunked hyberbole soon after the first hydrogen bomb was built that gravity via gravitational collapse had enough energy to create temperatures needed for fusion.

The theory for it was already suspect in the 1930's when it was first proposed as the means for creating fusion temps in stars, then 100% debunked & became an abandoned theory after the first fission bomb was detonated & the temperatures were recorded."
Benni
3 / 5 (6) Aug 31, 2018
But this doesn't mention the preliminaries
......Exactly right. The only thing you find are vague references that compression forces caused by gravity as the "heat trigger". It's all 1930's Pop-Cosmology bohunk.

The biggest problem with the gravity theory is the Inverse Square Law. Gravity at the center of the Sun is zero, it is maximum at the surface. At the center only COMPRESSIVE forces from above exist, but it cannot be measured what heat those forces can create as a fusion TRIGGER, if any. However free neutrons are always available & buzzing around crashing into things heavier than helium, that will generate a lot of heat upon splitting an atoms of MANY different elements.
granville583762
3.5 / 5 (8) Aug 31, 2018
Diminishing theories due to Sir Isaac Newton's law of gravity that gravity is zero at the centre of mass

Thank you SEU, for pointing out a deficiency in the theory of gravitational collapsing compression heating and Sir Isaac Newton's law of gravity that gravity is zero at the centre of mass which works wonders with compressive fusion heating and coupled with all the above - the cart before the horse so to speak, with all those pristine protons should be enough to give even Benni with his iron clad constitution a headache that not even saint JD has even managed to inflict and all within the infamous half a neutron.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 31, 2018
@ granville
There appears to be someone here on physorg who has been imitating your colloquial speech patterns, but with a different user name than your granville583762. Even RealityCheck was puzzled and asked who he was and what had he done with granville.
We were all quite worried as you are one of a kind.
Was that other person you under an alias? He did "talk" similarly to you.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
4 / 5 (4) Aug 31, 2018
Of course, if you wish to retain anonymity, that is fine. As long as the other fellow doesn't start mentioning the dreaded "Aether Wave".
Benni
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 31, 2018
Thank you SEU, for pointing out a deficiency in the theory of gravitational collapsing compression heating and Sir Isaac Newton's law of gravity that gravity is zero at the centre of mass which works wonders with compressive fusion heating and coupled with all the above


.....yer welcome granDy
granville583762
3.5 / 5 (8) Sep 01, 2018
Demons in the mist
@ granville
..Even RealityCheck was puzzled ...
We were all quite worried as you are one of a kind.
...

SEU, the unspoken realities as RealityCheck is doing an excellent thankless task, and now JD has had to resort to religion to keep his sanity above water and all our relative's have to come with the constitution of a Benni in hot pursuit, then battling with every ones demons are positioned to the ethereal distant corners this equivalent vacuum, fore ever to eternally haunt to the quantum fluctuations, we can only hope one day the light will dawn on JD, he's had enough of the demons that exist, so apart from are persistent puns he has to make that break he so desperately wish's as resorting to religion - he like everyone else are forever on their own to battle their demons in the mist.
granville583762
3.5 / 5 (8) Sep 01, 2018
Compression Forces on a proton under compression of 800,000miles diameter

Water at 1 ton cubic metre at 7 miles down on the Marianas Trench or 11,263,000kg/m* the proton in its femto-world on the Marianas Trench is experiencing 1.13x10-23kg, when you consider the proton is capable of withstanding 10x the force of the infamous neutron 1 ton cubic metre at 4000 miles to the core correlates to 6.44x10-21kg – in approximate terms the proton experiences 6.4x10-20N at the earth's core.
Where as in the Sun at 400,000miles to its core the proton would experience 6.4x10-17N of force

Considering the electric field of the proton compressed to 1 femto metre to the adjoining proton gives a force of - 230Newtons -
What is this gravitational collapsing compressive force that is greater than the electric field at 1 femto metre?

P.S. Further diminishing forces on these protons due to Sir Isaac Newton's law of gravity that gravity is zero at the centre of mass has yet to be considered
granville583762
3.5 / 5 (8) Sep 01, 2018
Protons are weightless at the solar core

No matter how close-packed proton to proton experience under compression in stars as they go through their life-cycles, as even in a neutron stage the atoms are still freely moving within their femto-world.

When this important point is considered; the protons at the solar core, as they freely speed around their plasma, because of Sir Isaac Newton's law of gravity that gravity is zero at the centre of mass, means as these high velocity protons continue in motion, they continue in motion in a gravitational zero environment at the solar core. – They are Weightless at the solar core!
granville583762
3.5 / 5 (8) Sep 01, 2018
Demons in the mist and their Priestly Ordinations
Protons are weightless at the solar core
No matter how close-packed proton to proton experience under compression in stars as they go through their life-cycles even in their later stages, the atoms are still freely moving within their femto-world.

SEU it is possible for you to make a predictive of the demons in the mist that exist in these Isaac Newton's gravitational observations with the reliability of the eternal life time of the 66,000 yottayears of the electron as physics world explains 66,000 yottayears https://physicswo...tayears/
As you only have to wait SEU for the predictable reaction to the inter reactive of the electric fields of these apposing protons preventing to close adjoining interaction, the demons in the mist will emerge in the now familiar pattern of those who having taken their Priestly Ordinations that will result in making Georges Lemaitre blush
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
4 / 5 (4) Sep 02, 2018
@granville
Perhaps a few demons have settled in the mist, but there are quite a few out in the clearing where they are best detected. And they are, indeed, able to exist and observe electrons, protons, and all other atomic structures - far more so than human eyes, no matter how capable and observant.
They do, however, relate best to the atomic structures of the human mind, where they are known to manipulate such a mind to accept demonic suggestions, however subtle and seemingly benevolent. They gravitate toward those whose interests in science compel them toward science websites where scientific discourses are most assuredly occurring, and in which the several demons reach out electronically in order to manipulate others so as to enlarge the membership of the demonic Five Star Clubs that have begun to sprout into many other science websites. Where else but a science site should demons attempt to contact and manipulate the minds of the formerly innocent, all things considered.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
4 / 5 (4) Sep 02, 2018
Seriously, Georges Lemaitre was a genius who it appears that he gave all or much of the credit to Hubble for the Expanding Universe theory. But he also erred with his "Cosmic Egg" hypothesis as the beginning of the Universe or Big Bang from a tiny atomic pinpoint. Such an hypothesis is an absurdity of the worst kind. And it has continued to be repeated over and over and being taught to the unwary as to the ridiculous aspects of such a small atomic dot with everything crammed into it. Size does matter, after all.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
4 / 5 (4) Sep 02, 2018
And yes, I completely agree that jonesdave has been resorting to religion - the religion of the nonsensical Big Bang - that unimaginably small bag of tricks that supposedly held all Matter/Energy at bay until such time was ripe that,
(without due explanation for its explosion,
which sent Matter/Energy in motion,
purportedly causing Space to expand)
that started the whole shebang with the Big Bang.

It must be enervating to believe so wholeheartedly in such religious nonsense. Mired deeply into it, JD, et al, froth and foam while making vituperative invectives at those opposing forces who avoid such religious dogma. Perhaps it is also a Culture, as well as a religion. The Culture of the Big Bang.
granville583762
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 02, 2018
Demons in the Mists and Referential Thinking
SEU> And yes, I completely agree that jonesdave has been resorting to religion - the religion of the nonsensical Big Bang - that unimaginably small bag of tricks that supposedly held all Matter/Energy at bay until such time was ripe that,
(without due explanation for its explosion,
which sent Matter/Energy in motion,
purportedly causing Space to expand)
that started the whole shebang with the Big Bang.
It must be enervating to believe so wholeheartedly in such religious nonsense.

SEU:- if you have noticed on your magic carpet fly by's, jonesdave does not leave any comments of his own as he does not inkly type what's on his mind, instead he expletively criticises other commenter's comments – But if you search his comments on first arrival, he has left comments of his own as the Demons in the Mists have led him a stray with the plethora of others.
granville583762
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 02, 2018
Rats in the sack in less time than it takes a muon to reach the ground
SEU:- now with the help of Hyperfuzzy, these demonic misty demons are well and truly ousted in their demonic possession, although they will still linger, as now with the help of RealityCheck who has ousted his demons, now many more are ousting their demonic demons.
The magic is SEU, as you have probably noticed, there so easy to deal with as there only a few of the stoutest hardest nuts to crack left, as king of demonic possession actually politely opened those five-star starry gates SEU, can you just imagine it SEU, a granville being ordained in the five star club, it would be the rats in the sack in less time than it takes a muon to reach the ground.
Benni
3 / 5 (6) Sep 02, 2018
jonesdave does not leave any comments of his own as he does not inkly type what's on his mind, instead he expletively criticises other commenter's comments


You bet. I've repeatedly tried to get him & others in that ranting brigade to explain how a free neutron can exist in a state whereby it's 14.7 minute beta decay rate can supposedly extend into billions of years so they can have their NEUTRON STARS, but only expletives follow.

Once in awhile one of the ranting brigade will cough up a vague reference to something called a DEGENERATE NEUTRON but don't explain it, that is other than to make an incoherent blurb about Pauli Exclusion which even they have no comprehension of what that is & why it cannot prevent a free neutron from decaying within 14,7 minutes.
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (6) Sep 02, 2018
You bet. I've repeatedly tried to get him & others in that ranting brigade to explain how a free neutron can exist in a state whereby it's 14.7 minute beta decay rate can supposedly extend into billions of years so they can have their NEUTRON STARS, but only expletives follow.


And it has been explained to you, you moron. You just fail to understand it. Why not grow a pair and ask the question on a physics forum, if you don't believe the literature I've linked to? Because, as we all know, you are a scientifically illiterate loon with a terminal case of D-K syndrome. Neutron stars are observed. Fact. Get over it, woo boy.

granville583762
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 02, 2018
The Pauli Exclusion Principle

The Pauli Exclusion Principle is the quantum mechanical principle which states that two or more identical fermions (particles with half-integer spin) cannot occupy the same quantum state within a quantum system
Disregarding JDs ranting, this implies as atoms are empty vacuum in the femto world, are free to move under 10x the pressure of a neutron star, strewth, this implies as two or more identical fermions cannot occupy the same quantum state in a quantum system – the freely moving neutrons simply by virtue of their motion are not occupying the same quantum state at the same moment in time
Two neutron do not interact with one another and The Pauli Exclusion Principle states they have to keep their distance
Which comes to the beta-decay, we have established neutrons are freely moving and must keep freely moving according to The Pauli Exclusion Principle, therefore the neutron in its femto-world, is freely moving, and free to decay in 14.7minutes
Benni
3 / 5 (6) Sep 02, 2018
You bet. I've repeatedly tried to get him & others in that ranting brigade to explain how a free neutron can exist in a state whereby it's 14.7 minute beta decay rate can supposedly extend into billions of years so they can have their NEUTRON STARS, but only expletives follow.


And it has been explained to you, you moron. You just fail to understand it. Why not grow a pair and ask the question on a physics forum, if you don't believe the literature I've linked to? Because, as we all know, you are a scientifically illiterate loon with a terminal case of D-K syndrome. Neutron stars are observed. Fact. Get over it, woo boy


See what I mean? Can't explain DEGENERATE NEUTRON, so he goes on another of his usual name calling rants, and here's the best part:
Neutron stars are observed. Fact.
Hey jonesy, "observed" also carries the connotation that PICTURES can be made, so tell us where to find pictures of objects that are only two miles in diameter at 500 lyrs.

jonesdave
2.1 / 5 (7) Sep 02, 2018
I don't need to explain neutron degeneracy, you cretin. There is a whole load of stuff in the scientific literature. It is accepted science. Go read it.

https://www.eurek...3215.php
Benni
2.7 / 5 (7) Sep 02, 2018
I don't need to explain neutron degeneracy, you cretin. There is a whole load of stuff in the scientific literature. It is accepted science. Go read it.

https://www.eurek...3215.php


No thanks, just more DEGENERATE Pop-Cosmology
jonesdave
2.1 / 5 (7) Sep 02, 2018
I don't need to explain neutron degeneracy, you cretin. There is a whole load of stuff in the scientific literature. It is accepted science. Go read it.

https://www.eurek...3215.php


No thanks, just more DEGENERATE Pop-Cosmology


And tell us, oh stupid one; who, other than your idiot self, is proposing that degenerate matter doesn't exist? As far as I can see, it is only you. Given that you are demonstrably a moron, then why should anyone take seriously anything that comes from your Dunning-Kruger addled mind?
granville583762
3.3 / 5 (7) Sep 02, 2018
A quantum system
A portion of the whole Universe (environment or physical world) which is taken under consideration to make analysis or to study for quantum mechanics pertaining to the wave-particle duality in that system. Everything outside this system (i.e. environment) is studied only to observe its effects on the system. A quantum system involves the wave function and its constituents, such as the momentum and wavelength of the wave for which wave function is being defined

This definition of a quantum system is a physical dimension of the vacuum, where it is called a quantum system. In this quantum system the wave function (a wave function is a mathematical entity so does not exist) and its constituents, such as the momentum and wavelength (momentum is a mathematical calculation and wave length is a dimension so are not physical realities so do not exist)
A quantum system is simply parameters.
granville583762
3.3 / 5 (7) Sep 02, 2018
A quantum state
Is the state of an isolated quantum system. A quantum state provides a probability distribution for the value of each observable, i.e. for the outcome of each possible measurement on the system. Knowledge of the quantum state together with the rules for the system's evolution in time exhausts all that can be predicted about the system's behaviour
So just like a quantum system, a quantum state has no bearing on The Pauli Exclusion Principle that two or more identical fermions (particles with half-integer spin) cannot occupy the same quantum state within a quantum system
All two or more identical fermions (particles with half-integer spin) cannot occupy the same quantum state within a quantum system is saying is two neutron cannot occupy the same spatial dimension at the same time so therefore the neutron in its femto-world, is freely moving, and free to decay in 14.7minutes
Benni
3 / 5 (6) Sep 02, 2018
And tell us, who, other than yourself, is proposing that degenerate matter doesn't exist?
....any nuclear physicist who has seriously studied neutron/electron capture.

why should anyone take seriously anything that comes from your Dunning-Kruger addled mind?


"why" you ask?

And you "ask" it inside the context of D-K because you aspire to be like someone you never can, this because your limited skills prevents you from attaining that which is innate for me.

"why" is also because your studies in Anthropology at the Uni in Auckland was your highest achievement in life, and only for a year at that. What happened after only a year at Uni in Anthropology? You failed it? You wished you could but can't, solve Differential Equations, you can only aspire to that capability, in the meantime your realtime fallback positions are your foul mouthed name calling rants & acceding to authorities of deity to fulfill your wish list in life.
granville583762
3.2 / 5 (9) Sep 02, 2018
The electric fields repulsion force is 230N

The pressure on a femto-diameter neutron in this theoretical neutron star
10km radius x 1.4 solar mass
Taking a popular view, They are so dense that a single teaspoon would weigh a billion tons, a tea spoon is 4cmx4cm which equal a force on the neutron of 6.3x10-15N where proton to proton femto metre repulsion of the electric field is 230N

The neutron in the theoretical neutron star is hardly under pressure at 6.3x10-15N
When the electric fields repulsion force is 230N
granville583762
3.2 / 5 (9) Sep 02, 2018
Trip to Mars in Total Recall

Then the neutron in the theoretical neutron star is hardly under pressure at 6.3x10-15N
When the electric fields repulsion force is 230N
When taking these two relevant forces and taking into account and The Pauli Exclusion Principle, and the fact in the femto-world the neutron is mainly empty space in other words vacuum where neutrons move over each other as though they are in a weightless vacuum because in reality they are, as gravity is zero at the centre of mass where these neutrons are moving weightless

Bennies assertion neutron decay in 14.7 minutes has more merit than a JD experiencing a delusion episode in his trip to mars in Total Recall..
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (6) Sep 02, 2018
^^^^^^Give up thicko. Benni knows crap about anything. Neutron stars exist. As does the PEP. You won't find any scientist in the relevant area to disagree. Why should we care what a pair of scientifically illiterate dolts on a comments section think?
jonesdave
3 / 5 (8) Sep 02, 2018
And tell us, who, other than yourself, is proposing that degenerate matter doesn't exist?
....any nuclear physicist who has seriously studied neutron/electron capture.


Jesus, what a f***wit. So link us to their work, dumbass. Otherwise I'm calling BS. Show me their disproof of Pauli, you ignorant burke. There is nobody questioning degeneracy in the scientific literature. Only some brain damaged loon on a comments section. And you know what that is worth, dumbo? **** all.
granville583762
3.3 / 5 (8) Sep 02, 2018
jonesdave:- Benni is not saying a neutron star does not exist, he is saying neutrons decay in 14.7 minutes in neutron stars
jonesdave
3.1 / 5 (8) Sep 02, 2018
jonesdave:- Benni is not saying a neutron star does not exist, he is saying neutrons decay in 14.7 minutes in neutron stars


Yes he is, and no they don't. See Pauli. And quit commenting on stuff that is beyond either of you.
granville583762
3.5 / 5 (8) Sep 02, 2018
Can you not see JD
jonesdave:- Benni is not saying a neutron star does not exist, he is saying neutrons decay in 14.7 minutes in neutron stars

Yes he is, and no they don't. See Pauli. And quit commenting on stuff that is beyond either of you.

For me, this is just a passing fad, but not for this theory of neutron decay in 14.7 minutes in neutrons leading to a neutron star being not a neutron star, neither want this to end and everyone else wants the expletives to stop.
Therein lies the solution to your problem JD, this is your style of discussion, but it has to be without expletives, you used to carry on these discussions without expletives when everybody were thicko's and you can carry on these discussions today and tomorrow without expletives when everybody are still thicko's.
Can you not see JD, that this is what this all about and not the specifically the neutron.
Benni
3 / 5 (6) Sep 02, 2018
Can you not see JD, that this is what this all about and not the specifically the neutron.
.........ohhhhh, but it is specifically about the neutron.

Unless it can be proven that a free neutron has anything other than a 14.7 lifetime decay rate, the theory of ELECTRON CAPTURE by a proton is a mindless & vacuous wasteland.

I know far better than you how Pop-Cosmology is the residence of theories that end in mind boggling swamps of Perpetual Motion, which is why you find Pop-Cosmology such a friend to yourself.

You went to Uni In Auckland to major in Anthropology, took your first field trip to a nearby swamp & still haven't returned, but you found a friend out there in that swamp, Pop-Cosmology, and you quickly recognized the affinity these two swamps have for one another.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 02, 2018
OK I see what the problem is. FREE Neutron Decay as opposed to Neutron Decay.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (4) Sep 02, 2018
For FREE NEUTRON DECAY, Wiki says:

"Free neutron decay
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Feynman diagram for beta decay of the neutron

A schematic of the nucleus of an atom indicating
β−
radiation, the emission of a fast electron from the nucleus (the accompanying antineutrino is omitted). In the Rutherford model for the nucleus, red spheres were protons with positive charge and blue spheres were protons tightly bound to an electron with no net charge.
The inset shows beta decay of a free neutron as it is understood today; an electron and antineutrino are created in this process.
++Outside the nucleus, free neutrons are unstable and have a mean lifetime of 881.5±1.5 s (about 14 minutes, 42 seconds). Therefore, the half-life for this process (which differs from the mean lifetime by a factor of ln(2) ≈ 0.693) is 611±1 s (about 10 minutes, 11 seconds).[1] The beta decay of the neutron, described above, can be denoted as follows:[2]++
Benni
3 / 5 (6) Sep 02, 2018
OK I see what the problem is. FREE Neutron Decay as opposed to Neutron Decay.


yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes yes, yes, and again YES

There has never been an occasion in the history of the Universe that it has been proven that a neutron UNBOUND. FREE & totally separated from an atomic nucleus can exist for more than about 14.7 minutes.

If 100 neutrons are observed come into existence at the same instant in time, all 100 of those neutrons will no longer exist after about 14.7 minutes, they will all wink out of existence at exactly the same instant in time, decaying into a proton, electron & neutrino.
Benni
3 / 5 (6) Sep 02, 2018
Outside the nucleus, free neutrons are unstable and have a mean lifetime of 881.5±1.5 s (about 14 minutes, 42 seconds).
....this part is right

the half-life for this process (which differs from the mean lifetime by a factor of ln(2) ≈ 0.693) is 611±1 s (about 10 minutes, 11 seconds).
........this part is dead wrong, it is based in Quark Theory that there are opposite spins & flavors of a particle that has never been proven to exist,

Quarks are VIRTUAL PARTICLES, essentially a PLACEHOLDER that sometimes fits to explain the behavior of particles as a BEST FIT THEORY, but doesn't FIT well at all for the behavior of other kinds subatomic particles. It's a smorgasbord of best fit theories.

Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (4) Sep 02, 2018
"There are six types, known as flavors, of quarks: up, down, strange, charm, bottom, and top.[4] Up and down quarks have the lowest masses of all quarks. The heavier quarks rapidly change into up and down quarks through a process of particle decay: the transformation from a higher mass state to a lower mass state. Because of this, up and down quarks are generally stable and the most common in the universe, whereas strange, charm, bottom, and top quarks can only be produced in high energy collisions (such as those involving cosmic rays and in particle accelerators). For every quark flavor there is a corresponding type of antiparticle, known as an antiquark, that differs from the quark only in that some of its properties have equal magnitude but opposite sign.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (4) Sep 02, 2018
-continued-

"The quark model was independently proposed by physicists Murray Gell-Mann and George Zweig in 1964.[5] Quarks were introduced as parts of an ordering scheme for hadrons, and there was little evidence for their physical existence until deep inelastic scattering experiments at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center in 1968.[6][7] Accelerator experiments have provided evidence for all six flavors. The top quark, first observed at Fermilab in 1995, was the last to be discovered.[5]"

Did they "observe" these quarks directly? Or indirectly? Sounds more like woo physics to me.
Benni
3 / 5 (6) Sep 02, 2018
.........ohhhhh, but it is specifically about the neutron.

Unless it can be proven that a free neutron has anything other than a 14.7 lifetime decay rate, the theory of ELECTRON CAPTURE by a proton is a mindless & vacuous wasteland.


I should have been more succinct about this.

It is a Pop-Cosmology theory that there exists a minute probability that an proton can by ELECTRON CAPTURE absorb an electron, whereupon such absorption results in the creation of a neutron. They invoke Pauli Exclusion Principle as the means by which this capture occurs.

This Pop-Cosmology Theory of ELECTRON CAPTURE by protons invoking the PEP are far out of whack regarding how orbital electrons shells actually function according to PEP. But Pop-Cosmology doesn't care about certain immutable facts, they have their fantasies & their fantasies ARE THEIR RULES.
Benni
3 / 5 (6) Sep 02, 2018
Did they "observe" these quarks directly? Or indirectly? Sounds more like woo physics to me.


No, they did not isolate a particle dubbed a QUARK. They observed EFFECTS among other particles that when are smacked hard by protons in places like the LHC where these EFFECTS can be recorded. So they diddle around & come up with this stuff about flavors & spin, it seems to work in some cases others not so good.

At least they try to keep in mind the usefulness of the Pauli Exclusion Principle as it relates to the atomic electron shell, but it's TOTAL guesswork. The most important issue you need to keep in mind about QUARKS, they've NEVER been isolated to prove they ACTUALLY exist.........remind you of anything else like this?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 02, 2018
Uh...does it began with the word, "Dark"?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 02, 2018
jonesy? JONESY? Mission Control calling jonesy. You have a problem here!
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 03, 2018
Just been thinking again about that Primordial Gas Cloud that you brought up, Benni. The cloud seems to have either been there in that location all the time, or it had seeped in from, perhaps the Quantum Universe, bubbling up into our Space before what we call our Universe, existed. I can think of no other reason for it to have appeared in the location from whence the cloud was ignited, which resulted in Matter/Energy overcoming Entropy, so that the blast was the beginning of our Universe.
And, for that cloud to have ignited, it was necessary to have fissionable materials in it already, plus the ubiquitous Hydrogen and Oxygen. Pressure and gravity could not have been enough for the cloud to combust so violently. So that if the cloud already had consisted of fissionable AND fusionable materials, all of it had to come from SOMEWHERE before it collected in that particular location.
-CONTINUED-
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3.2 / 5 (5) Sep 03, 2018
-CONTINUED-
Therefore, it may be possible that the chemistry at the quantum level had a way of flowing/bubbling up into the Space where it then accumulated to enough volume before it could activate exponentially to create a Universe of Matter/Energy.
We know already that Matter/Energy does not/cannot create/manufacture itself out of Nothing, so it had to have either come from somewhere else, OR it was created from Energy, then transmuted into Matter/Energy.
If it had bubbled up from the Quantum or a SubSet Universe that is below Quantum, that would mean that those universes, as little as they are, have somehow been availed of the various types of Matter/Energy that the early Universe had none of. I think that this is likely to have happened at the Beginning.
The other alternative is that God created the Matter/Energy for the purpose of then creating the Universe and all that is in it. That is also Logical, and man is still unable to turn Energy into Matter.
granville583762
3.5 / 5 (8) Sep 03, 2018
PSYCHOBABBLE, cannot occupy the same quantum state within a quantum system simultaneously!

WHAT EXACTLY DOES – Pauli's exclusion principle is the quantum mechanical principle which states that two or more identical fermions (particles with half-integer spin) cannot occupy the same quantum state within a quantum system simultaneously. - ACTUALY MEAN

Separating; quantum state and quantum system from two or more identical fermions, particles with half-integer spin, quantum state and quantum system are two interlinked entities that are basically one of the same describing wave length, momentum and wave function which are all mathematical functions of calculations and therefore not physical realities are describing mathematical entities in a spatial region of the vacuum!

Particles with half-integer spin cannot simultaneously occupy the same spatial region of the vacuum
granville583762
3.5 / 5 (8) Sep 03, 2018
In your own region of vacuum

Two free neutrons do not interact, as protons and neutrons in atoms are not in the same spatial region of the vacuum, they are two separate particles – two free neutrons moving past each other in their femto-world are not in the same spatial region of the vacuum and as free neutrons, decay in 14.7 minutes
granville583762
3.5 / 5 (8) Sep 03, 2018
Descriptive of your own spatial region of vacuum

For a proton and neutron to exist as two separate particles in the atom they are in their own region of vacuum
When a neutron decays (yes, unbelievably, it does actually decay) the proton, electron and neutrino emerge from the same spatial region of space the decayed neutron previously occupied – this is what Wolfgang Ernst Pauli is actually saying "cannot occupy the same quantum state within a quantum system simultaneously"

Wolfgang Ernst Pauli - German: 25 April 1900 – 15 December 1958) was Austrian-born Swiss and American theoretical quantum physicist In 1945, after having been nominated by Albert Einstein, Pauli received the Nobel Prize in Physics for his discovery, the exclusion principle involving spin theory, which is the basis of the structure of matter
granville583762
3.5 / 5 (8) Sep 03, 2018

The proton and neutron have opposite isospin, so even though they do not occupy the same identical spatial region of vacuum as each other, as particles of opposite spin can coexist as two separate particles enabling the neutron to remain stable until it is ejected from the atom as a free neutron in its own spatial vacuum and must decay in 14.7minutes!
granville583762
3.5 / 5 (8) Sep 03, 2018
The wood from the trees!
ISOSPIN - Its meaning and further Obfuscation of Multiplicity of terms as to their Misty Mists of Confusion

In nuclear physics and particle physics, isospin is a quantum number related to the strong interaction. More specifically, isospin symmetry is a subset of the flavour symmetry seen more broadly in the interactions of baryons and mesons – So just like spin is not actually spin, isospin is not actual spin, but two definitions of spin and isospin, defining mathematical entities of the differences in protons and neutrons, enabling the proton with identical spin to the neutron to coexist nearby side by side in their own region of spatial vacuum until the neutron is ejected where it must and does decay in 14.7 minutes

Isospin is just yet another term in the MULTIPLICITY OF TERMS that make it impossible to see the wood from the trees!
granville583762
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 03, 2018
Obfuscation of language
Defining Pauli's exclusion principle in its own spatial vacuum, yet another term of obfuscation of language – Isospin; a symmetry is a subset of the flavour symmetry seen more broadly in the interactions of baryons and mesons!
WHAT DOES - symmetry is a subset of the flavour symmetry - ACTUALY MEAN
granville583762
3.5 / 5 (8) Sep 03, 2018
Sciencey Sounding Definitions

Quantum state, quantum, spin, isospin, exclusion principle, identical fermions, half-integer spin, quantum mechanical principle in the English language of jargon, have the scientific jargon about their construction.

Unless you have the memory and recall and absolute complete understanding of all these terms simultaneously, and there are a lot more in the woodwork you cannot have any proper understanding of Pauli's exclusion principle, as even Wolfgang, Albert and other eminent scientist have noted that over time in their twilight of their calling, they have difficulty in understanding their own Nobel prize winning work!
granville583762
3.3 / 5 (7) Sep 03, 2018
Free neutrons in the vacuum decay in 14.7 minutes

In this epic battle of the neutron decay - there are no free neutrons that we breathe in from the atmosphere, the residents of the space station are not breathing in and bombarded from neutrons occupying the vacuum.

How can this be stated clearier, there are no free neutron in the vacuum we inhabit.
Because they have decayed in 14.7 minutes from the moment they became the few lucky neutrons who became free-neutron in the vacuum.
granville583762
3.5 / 5 (8) Sep 03, 2018
Further clarification
All particles in habit their own spatial dimension of vacuum, the neutron in the nucleus and as a free neutron also inhabits its own spatial dimension of vacuum, according to Pauli's exclusion principle as a free neutron must and does decay in 14.7 minutes!
granville583762
3.3 / 5 (7) Sep 03, 2018
According to Pauli's exclusion principle free neutrons decay in 14.7 minutes

Pauli's exclusion principle states by implication two free neutrons occupying their own spatial vacuum as having identical spin and isospin remain separate and as electrically neutral, do remain separate no matter how dimensionally close two neutrons approach each other as there is no interaction between them, consequently according to Pauli's exclusion principle decay in 14.7 minutes!
Benni
3 / 5 (6) Sep 03, 2018
Uh...does it began with the word, "Dark"?


Unusual that it doesn't, what else is there to say?
Benni
3 / 5 (6) Sep 03, 2018
Unless you have the memory and recall and absolute complete understanding of all these terms simultaneously, and there are a lot more in the woodwork you cannot have any proper understanding of Pauli's exclusion principle


..........at least you cannot have the best memory recall for how to apply the Pauli Exclusion Principle to anything other than atomic electron shell structure as it applies to pairs of orbital electrons, that two electrons of the same spin cannot occupy the same orbital position within the shell of ANY atom.

What has happened since the 1940's is that nuclear physicists are trying to apply Pauli's description of the spin of orbital electrons to sub-atomic particles. There are cases it fits well, in others not so well. As I suggested previously, it's a smorgasbord of BEST FIT as to how PEP applies to anything OTHER than atomic electron shell structure for which the FIT seems to be PRECISE, but less precise at the sub-atomic level.
Benni
3 / 5 (6) Sep 03, 2018
Free neutrons in the vacuum decay in 14.7 minutes

In this epic battle of the neutron decay - there are no free neutrons that we breathe in from the atmosphere, the residents of the space station are not breathing in and bombarded from neutrons


Slow down granDy, there are always a few free neutrons floating around in the air we breath, they are what we use for bullets to create fission in nuclear reactors.

It is certainly true there is not a great quantity of them whizzing around our heads, luckily for us. I say luckily for us because it is suspected in the beta decay of a free neutron that there is also a gamma ray emission, that if it hits anywhere on your body it will destroy the DNA of the body cell it hits, think cancer here.
jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (9) Sep 03, 2018
jonesy? JONESY? Mission Control calling jonesy. You have a problem here!


No, I don't. Everything I said is backed up by science. Including the existence of neutron stars. You have a problem, insofar as you do not understand that science. Not my problem. Show me where a scientist is contradicting what I'm saying, as opposed to a bunch of semi-educated loons on a comments section. Can't do it, can you? In which case, STFU.
granville583762
3.3 / 5 (7) Sep 03, 2018
Do free neutrons interact with other free neutrons?
Benni> It is certainly true there is not a great quantity of them whizzing around our heads, luckily for us. I say luckily for us because it is suspected in the beta decay of a free neutron that there is also a gamma ray emission, that if it hits anywhere on your body it will destroy the DNA of the body cell it hits, think cancer here.

A good point that by my efforts of practically diminishing free neutrons to zero, if there were no free neutrons in the atmosphere there would be no free neutrons to decay in the first place!
As you point out if they did not decay or join in nuclear reactions in the atmospheric molecules a large majority of atomic reactions would not occur, but the point is that while they wiz through the atmosphere they are free neutrons till they interact.
The question is Benni, as free neutrons in the atmosphere or the vacuum; do they interact with other free neutrons?
granville583762
3.2 / 5 (9) Sep 03, 2018
This not what is normally alluded to!
Benni, If they do not interact - free neutron to free neutron, they can be close packed in billions in stars consisting solely of neutrons, because they are separate from one another and can move freely because the electric field in the femto-world is 230N, is greater than the gravitational force on individual neutrons, and they are free to decay in 14.7 minutes, but being close packed you then have billions of neutron converting to protons, electrons, neutrinos and gamma rays with leads to proton- neutron nuclear reactions. This eventually will lead to a star consisting solely of neutron not consisting solely of neutrons because 230N is greater than the gravitation force on the nucleons, the production of protons repel protons at 230N a femto metre squared or 2.3x10+32Nm*.
jonesdave
2.1 / 5 (7) Sep 03, 2018
I suggest that some of the unqualified dolts posting in this thread should get an education. Start here:

https://scholar.g...mp;btnG=
Benni
3 / 5 (6) Sep 03, 2018
jonesy? JONESY? Mission Control calling jonesy. You have a problem here!


No, I don't. Everything I said is backed up by science.
.........NO? What you ought to be saying is that "everything" you say is "backed up by" the swamp of Pop-Cosmology.

Including the existence of neutron stars.
......however totally ignoring the immutable 14.7 minute beta decay rate of a free neutron, more Pop-Cosmolgy.

You have a problem, insofar as you do not understand that science.
Pop-Cosmology is not a "science", Science does not ignore the immutability of the 14.7 minute decay rate of a free neutron, you do as you try to make it out to be some kind of hair brained HALF LIFE that doesn't exist.

Show me where a scientist is contradicting what I'm saying
Should read, "show me where a Pop-Cosmologist is contradicting what I'm saying"...........OK, I'll answer it for you, NOT A SINGLE ONE, all of you share your fantasies alike.

granville583762
3.3 / 5 (7) Sep 03, 2018
The production of protons repel protons at 230N a femto metre squared or 2.3x10+32Nm*, until its written down these atomic forces are difficult to comprehend!
jonesdave
2.5 / 5 (8) Sep 03, 2018
^^^^In other words, Mr. D-K has no science to offer. As usual. Bore off Benni, you are a waste of space, and are scientifically illiterate.
jonesdave
2.1 / 5 (7) Sep 03, 2018
Should read, "show me where a Pop-Cosmologist is contradicting what I'm saying"...........OK, I'll answer it for you, NOT A SINGLE ONE, all of you share your fantasies alike.


Lol. Everybody except the idiot Benni is wrong! You need to check in to an asylum. Pronto.
What about Oppenheimer, by the way? Is he a nutjob as well?

Benni
2.7 / 5 (7) Sep 03, 2018
The question is Benni, as free neutrons in the atmosphere or the vacuum; do they interact with other free neutrons?
It's never been observed because neutron-neutron combinations only form via the strong & weak nuclear forces which are not present in the absence of electrons,neutrinos & protons.

the electric field in the femto-world is 230N, is greater than the gravitational force on individual neutrons, and they are free to decay in 14.7 minutes, but being close packed you then have billions of neutron converting to protons, electrons, neutrinos and gamma rays with leads to proton- neutron nuclear reactions


This is basically the Electron Capture Theory. It can't be duplicated in the LHC, but they keep looking for it. It doesn't work like you suggest above because of the velocity rate of neutrinos which would escape the beta decay almost at the speed of light & never be gravitationally recoverable to the system to create new neutrons.
granville583762
3.5 / 5 (8) Sep 03, 2018
So why is the Pauli Exclusion Principle relevant to the humble neutron?
Benni>..........at least you cannot have the best memory recall for how to apply the Pauli Exclusion Principle to anything other than atomic electron shell structure as it applies to pairs of orbital electrons, that two electrons of the same spin cannot occupy the same orbital position within the shell of ANY atom.

BUT Benni, a neutron free or otherwise is electrically neutral and as far as I'm aware does not have an electron shell structure, when Wolfgang is applying his principal, to two electrons of the same spin.
granville583762
3.3 / 5 (7) Sep 03, 2018
The more you dig this half a hole
Benni> This is basically the Electron Capture Theory. It can't be duplicated in the LHC, but they keep looking for it. It doesn't work like you suggest above because of the velocity rate of neutrinos which would escape the beta decay almost at the speed of light & never be gravitationally recoverable to the system to create new neutrons.

The LHC is completely out its depth, at its limits, it gives an idea of the process's involved in only millionths and billionths of a second, where as these occur continuously in stars over billions of years - the ionic repulsion of 2.3x10+32Nm* in the solar plasma is starting to give an idea of the velocity and force involved that the neutron and proton can withstand, which is far greater than a neutron star.
What is the velocity of the proton when the free neutron decays, the proton has its rest mass, its inertial mass, its energy/C* but it all so has actual velocity, has this velocity been measured?
Benni
3 / 5 (6) Sep 03, 2018
BUT Benni, a neutron free or otherwise is electrically neutral and as far as I'm aware does not have an electron shell structure, when Wolfgang is applying his principal, to two electrons of the same spin.


Right you are, tell that to Pop-Cosmologists and their aficionados who are looking for structure inside the neutron.

Electron orbitals with the same energy levels are called degenerate orbitals, for example, p orbitals consist of three degenerate orbitals all which have exactly the same energy level within that part of the electron shell....... now carry this over to a neutron of similar structure to create a so-called DEGENERATE NEUTRON that mimics the electron shell of an atom, this is the holy grail theory of a free neutrons with an almost infinite decay rate instead of 14.7 minutes.

It's never been clear to me what has been proposed for orbitals of a so-called degenerate neutron, maybe dark quarks or something just as fictional.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 03, 2018
^^^^In other words, Mr. D-K has no science to offer. As usual. Bore off Benni, you are a waste of space, and are scientifically illiterate.
says jonesy

Why jonesy - who would have thought that you would be unable to recognise the scientific facts that Benni has been favouring us with all along here on physorg. I have been regarding Benni as my instructor/educator, while as long as I have been coming to this site to learn and observe with great interest, all I have found in your posts are meanness, nasty verbiage, behaviour unbecoming a gentleman, and a reluctance to explain your stance(s) as though you will be found out. Tell us, jonesy. Are you jealous of Benni?
granville583762
3.3 / 5 (7) Sep 03, 2018
Electron degeneracy pressure
Benni> Electron orbitals with the same energy levels are called degenerate orbitals.

Pauli Exclusion Principle disallows two identical half-integer spin particles (electrons and all other fermions) from simultaneously occupying the same quantum state. The result is an emergent pressure against compression of matter into smaller volumes of space. Electron degeneracy pressure results from the same underlying mechanism that defines the electron orbital structure of elemental matter. For bulk matter with no net electric charge, the attraction between electrons and nuclei exceeds (at any scale) the mutual repulsion of electrons plus the mutual repulsion of nuclei; so absent electron degeneracy pressure, the matter would collapse into a single nucleus. In 1967, Freeman Dyson showed that solid matter is stabilized by quantum degeneracy pressure rather than electrostatic repulsion https://en.wikipe...pressure
jonesdave
2.5 / 5 (8) Sep 03, 2018
^^^^In other words, Mr. D-K has no science to offer. As usual. Bore off Benni, you are a waste of space, and are scientifically illiterate.
says jonesy

Why jonesy - who would have thought that you would be unable to recognise the scientific facts that Benni has been favouring us with all along here on physorg. I have been regarding Benni as my instructor/educator, while as long as I have been coming to this site to learn and observe with great interest, all I have found in your posts are meanness, nasty verbiage, behaviour unbecoming a gentleman, and a reluctance to explain your stance(s) as though you will be found out. Tell us, jonesy. Are you jealous of Benni?


Lol. Seriously? Benni is scientifically illiterate, and is wrong about pretty much everything he's ever posted! Why would I be jealous of a moron?
Benni
2.7 / 5 (7) Sep 03, 2018
Pauli Exclusion Principle disallows two identical half-integer spin particles (electrons and all other fermions) from simultaneously occupying the same quantum state.


When Pauli came up with this, his ONLY application for it was the electron shell structure of atoms. Since the 1960's or thereabouts, this principle has been ADAPTED & ADOPTED for things not envisioned by Pauli. The principle has good fit cases & bad fit cases, it's a matter of how whimsical some nuclear physicists want to be with their hypotheses.

The DEGENERATE NEUTRON hypothesis is about the most weirded out hypothetical that's ever been concocted & actually functions to subvert QUARK THEORY for the formation of a neutron. But what does Pop-Cosmology do? They adapt & adopt both hypothetical theories thinking they can fool most people into believing there's no contradiction, I guess they have.
jonesdave
2.5 / 5 (8) Sep 03, 2018
When Pauli came up with this, his ONLY application for it was the electron shell structure of atoms. Since the 1960's or thereabouts, this principle has been ADAPTED & ADOPTED for things not envisioned by Pauli. The principle has good fit cases & bad fit cases, it's a matter of how whimsical some nuclear physicists want to be with their hypotheses.

The DEGENERATE NEUTRON hypothesis is about the most weirded out hypothetical that's ever been concocted & actually functions to subvert QUARK THEORY for the formation of a neutron. But what does Pop-Cosmology do? They adapt & adopt both hypothetical theories thinking they can fool most people into believing there's no contradiction, I guess they have.


Given that you seem to be the only person on the planet questioning this, and are demonstrably scientifically illiterate, then your objections are worthless drivel, born of a diseased mind.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (6) Sep 03, 2018
And there you go again, jonesy. Out with the meanness, nasty verbiage, etc. This IS a science site, after all. Or are you competing with thegrossofotto1923 to see who is the most and worst user of flagrant violations of the physorg terms of service?

IF, as you insist, that Benni has somehow erred, then why don't you just explain what that error was, so that we can all look it up to find what, where, and how the mistake happened. It is not so hard to do if you set your mind to it. I have found no errors in Benni's comments wrt Free Neutron Decay. So why don't you give it a try, OK?
There's a good lad.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (8) Sep 03, 2018
IF, as you insist, that Benni has somehow erred, then why don't you just explain what that error was, so that we can all look it up to find what, where, and how the mistake happened. It is not so hard to do if you set your mind to it. I have found no errors in Benni's comments wrt Free Neutron Decay. So why don't you give it a try, OK?
There's a good lad.


What the hell are you on? It has been explained to him countless times. With links. He is too stupid to understand them.

Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.7 / 5 (7) Sep 03, 2018
@jonesy
Perhaps it is your delivery tactics that may be likened to a snarling gorilla that is so off-putting as characterised in the vast majority of your posts. It would be much more pleasant for the likes of myself, as well as others who read your comments to not read the nastiness of a spoilt child who didn't get his own way.
Try to relax more and throw out the nastiness with the bath water.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.7 / 5 (7) Sep 03, 2018
Science is supposed to be enjoyed while being learned. When you make science sound more like a chore like mopping the floor all because your verbiage is smattered with invectives to be read by all - the science becomes less enchanting.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (8) Sep 03, 2018
@jonesy
Perhaps it is your delivery tactics that may be likened to a snarling gorilla that is so off-putting as characterised in the vast majority of your posts. It would be much more pleasant for the likes of myself, as well as others who read your comments to not read the nastiness of a spoilt child who didn't get his own way.
Try to relax more and throw out the nastiness with the bath water.


It is the only way to deal with idiots like Benni. After taking the time and effort to refute his untutored rubbish, there seems little point in continually linking to it, when the loon is incapable of understanding it, and continually derides the real scientists doing real science. In my book, the idiot deserves everything he gets. At least I deride him to his face - he lacks the cojones to address these scientists in their own medium - the scientific literature. He can't even drag up the courage to debate his garbage on physics forums, where he will likely run into real scientists.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (8) Sep 03, 2018
Science is supposed to be enjoyed while being learned. When you make science sound more like a chore like mopping the floor all because your verbiage is smattered with invectives to be read by all - the science becomes less enchanting.


Yes, and plenty of us did enjoy learning it. Only to be told that everything we learned is wrong, by an idiot who is scientifically illiterate, as demonstrated numerous times.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (6) Sep 04, 2018
I don't need to explain neutron degeneracy, you cretin. There is a whole load of stuff in the scientific literature. It is accepted science. Go read it.

https://www.eurek...3215.php
says jonesy to Benni

From your link, I viewed the last of the 3 photos of the "neutron merger" of 2 neutron stars. Upon enlarging the photo on my computer screen I noticed that the second comparison photo on the right was the exact same as the one on the left; but for the neutron star that supposedly had merged with the larger one, it had not merged at all. But instead, the smaller neutron star on the right comparison photo appears to have been smudged and its colour darkened slightly brownish to pretend that it was no longer there.
The timeframe was from 8/17/2017 to 8/21/2017
There is another star on the right side of the same large star, and that too had been smudged and darkened, in the exact same spot as it had been before also.
SSS17a appears to be a hoax.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (8) Sep 04, 2018
There is another star on the right side of the same large star, and that too had been smudged and darkened, in the exact same spot as it had been before also.
SSS17a appears to be a hoax.


Lol. Thousands of scientists getting together in a photoshop hoax! Dear god we have some loons on here.
Go reply to their papers. Here is one of them;

THE ELECTROMAGNETIC COUNTERPART OF THE BINARY NEUTRON STAR MERGER LIGO/VIRGO GW170817. III. OPTICAL AND UV SPECTRA OF A BLUE KILONOVA FROM FAST POLAR EJECTA
Nicholl, M. et al.
https://arxiv.org...5456.pdf
jonesdave
2.7 / 5 (7) Sep 04, 2018
Actually, this paper is probably a better reference:

Multi-messenger Observations of a Binary Neutron Star Merger
https://arxiv.org...5833.pdf
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.7 / 5 (7) Sep 04, 2018
@ jonesy
The photos (enlarged) don't lie. Look at it yourself. The stars on the right comparison photo are smudged. Enlarge the comparison photo. They are the same but with smudges. The bluish colour has been changed to brownish. Perhaps those other scientists did not bother to take a bit of time to examine it more thoroughly and just accepted it. It happens.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.7 / 5 (7) Sep 04, 2018
I would suggest that it is YOU who should make them answer to such a grievous bit of pretense since it was your link in the first place. I am only an interested observer and scholar, remember?
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) Sep 04, 2018
@ jonesy
The photos (enlarged) don't lie. Look at it yourself. The stars on the right comparison photo are smudged. Enlarge the comparison photo. They are the same but with smudges. The bluish colour has been changed to brownish. Perhaps those other scientists did not bother to take a bit of time to examine it more thoroughly and just accepted it. It happens.


Don't talk crap. You think this whole detection was about one image? Jesus. Read the bloody papers.
They detected it at 3 different sites from the gravitational waves. They detected the associated gamma ray burst. They detected it optically. They detected it in UV. And in IR. And in x-ray. And radio. They detected the predicted r-process nucleosynthesis.
Quit commenting on stuff that is beyond your understanding.
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) Sep 04, 2018
I would suggest that it is YOU who should make them answer to such a grievous bit of pretense since it was your link in the first place. I am only an interested observer and scholar, remember?


And somebody who knows sod all about the relevant science, and can't understand a paper when he's linked to it. Give up.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.7 / 5 (7) Sep 04, 2018
Slipshod handiwork in science is unacceptable - or should be. Acceptance of that which is destined to be added to the textbooks from which students learn is a source of future misery when there is a problem that cannot agree with the references.

jonesy, sorry to say but there are those of ill repute in all walks of life. You just have to know how to weed them out. And one of the ways is to be more diligent and not accept everything on face value.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.7 / 5 (7) Sep 04, 2018
FROM THE GRAVITATIONAL WAVES!! But not from any other optical sources.
ahaaa so it is the gravity waves that prove without a doubt that phony baloney plastic banana science can't possibly be in error. WOW all those sources of proof that cannot be questioned.

Suit yourself. You have proven that you will fall for anything.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (8) Sep 04, 2018
Slipshod handiwork in science is unacceptable - or should be. Acceptance of that which is destined to be added to the textbooks from which students learn is a source of future misery when there is a problem that cannot agree with the references.

jonesy, sorry to say but there are those of ill repute in all walks of life. You just have to know how to weed them out. And one of the ways is to be more diligent and not accept everything on face value.


Stop talking crap, you idiot. You don't even understand the science. You're as thick as Benni.
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) Sep 04, 2018
FROM THE GRAVITATIONAL WAVES!! But not from any other optical sources


Christ what a moron. Read the paper you dickhead. There were dozens of optical detections from numerous telescopes.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.7 / 5 (7) Sep 04, 2018
Where are your links to those other "optical detections from numerous telescopes"? Did you post them here other than just the one? I would like to compare the photos.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (10) Sep 04, 2018
Where are your links to those other "optical detections from numerous telescopes"? Did you post them here other than just the one? I would like to compare the photos.


Read the f***ing paper, you idiot. Table 6 might be a start. And what the f*** would you know about assessing images in optical, IR, UV, etc? Qualified, are we? No. Just another bloody loon posting on a comments section.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (6) Sep 04, 2018
The optical spectra in the .pdf is interesting. But it isn't an actual photo like your other link that show the smudges.
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) Sep 04, 2018
The optical spectra in the .pdf is interesting. But it isn't an actual photo like your other link that show the smudges.


The original image is two images from two different telescopes, taken 4 days apart! Or did you think the SWOPE and Magellan telescopes were the same thing? Like I said, you are better off not commenting on things that are beyond your level of understanding. You'll just end up looking stupid, like Benni.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (8) Sep 04, 2018
Right, I'll do this again;

Multi-messenger Observations of a Binary Neutron Star Merger
https://arxiv.org...5833.pdf

Scroll down to table 6. Look at column 1. That is the telescope. Look at column 4. That is the observation wavelength. Look for 'optical'. Look at column 5. That is the reference to where the work was written up. Go check all those papers, and see if they have included pretty pictures for you to misinterpret. The first one I checked did:

THE ELECTROMAGNETIC COUNTERPART OF THE BINARY NEUTRON STAR MERGER LIGO/VIRGO GW170817. I. DISCOVERY OF THE OPTICAL COUNTERPART USING THE DARK ENERGY CAMERA
Soares-Santos, M. et al.
https://arxiv.org...5459.pdf
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.7 / 5 (7) Sep 04, 2018
Your second Arxiv link has 8 b&w photos that supposedly show the neutron star merger - but does not. And they are too small to enlarge enough to actually see a merger. Courtesy of 8 optical telescopes, I gather.
But your first link offered a large degree of proof that the neutron merger did not really take place within those 4 days that they were observed. The other instruments - IR, UV, X-ray, etc. may have detected something, but from what I have seen in that comparison photo, there was no neutron star merger. The other instruments may have picked up something else.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (8) Sep 04, 2018
Your second Arxiv link has 8 b&w photos that supposedly show the neutron star merger - but does not. And they are too small to enlarge enough to actually see a merger. Courtesy of 8 optical telescopes, I gather.
But your first link offered a large degree of proof that the neutron merger did not really take place within those 4 days that they were observed. The other instruments - IR, UV, X-ray, etc. may have detected something, but from what I have seen in that comparison photo, there was no neutron star merger. The other instruments may have picked up something else.


And you haven't got a f***ing clue what you are talking about, you idiot. You are not qualified to understand the subject matter. If you think you are, you loon, write up your crap and get it published, you fraud. Christ, the number of Dunning-Kruger affected idiots on this site!
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) Sep 04, 2018
Your second Arxiv link has 8 b&w photos that supposedly show the neutron star merger - but does not.


Then you need to get your eyesight tested, woo boy. Anybody else seeing Fig. 1 as B & W?
Bloody idiot.

https://arxiv.org...5459.pdf

Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.7 / 5 (7) Sep 04, 2018
The optical spectra in the .pdf is interesting. But it isn't an actual photo like your other link that show the smudges.


The original image is two images from two different telescopes, taken 4 days apart! Or did you think the SWOPE and Magellan telescopes were the same thing? Like I said, you are better off not commenting on things that are beyond your level of understanding. You'll just end up looking stupid, like Benni.


I am fully aware of the sources of that comparison photo. They had photographed the same exact size, angle, colour, depth - everything was the same except for the time difference.
Nevertheless, the neutron star still remained in the photo that was taken 4 days later. It had not merged, otherwise the "ghost" image would not have been retained, even as a smudge. But the smudge is real for anyone to see after enlargement.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.7 / 5 (7) Sep 04, 2018
Your second Arxiv link has 8 b&w photos that supposedly show the neutron star merger - but does not.


Then you need to get your eyesight tested, woo boy. Anybody else seeing Fig. 1 as B & W?
Bloody idiot.

https://arxiv.org...5459.pdf



This is not the same photo that you linked to earlier. That one had 8 b&w shots.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (10) Sep 04, 2018
And looking at the aforementioned Table 6, I see ~80 optical observations, from ~80 different telescopes. You can't even navigate a scientific paper, let alone understand it!
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (10) Sep 04, 2018
This is not the same photo that you linked to earlier. That one had 8 b&w shots.


Hey, thicko, did you miss this?

Right, I'll do this again;

Multi-messenger Observations of a Binary Neutron Star Merger
https://arxiv.org...5833.pdf

Scroll down to table 6. Look at column 1. That is the telescope. Look at column 4. That is the observation wavelength. Look for 'optical'. Look at column 5. That is the reference to where the work was written up. Go check all those papers, and see if they have included pretty pictures for you to misinterpret. The first one I checked did:

THE ELECTROMAGNETIC COUNTERPART OF THE BINARY NEUTRON STAR MERGER LIGO/VIRGO GW170817. I. DISCOVERY OF THE OPTICAL COUNTERPART USING THE DARK ENERGY CAMERA
Soares-Santos, M. et al.
https://arxiv.org...5459.pdf


Comprehension isn't your strong point, is it?

Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.7 / 5 (7) Sep 04, 2018
There is a whole load of stuff in the scientific literature. It is accepted science. Go read it.

https://www.eurek...3215.php
says jonesy to Benni

From your link, I viewed the last of the 3 photos of the "neutron merger" of 2 neutron stars. Upon enlarging the photo on my computer screen I noticed that the second comparison photo on the right was the exact same as the one on the left; but for the neutron star that supposedly had merged with the larger one, it had not merged at all. But instead, the smaller neutron star on the right comparison photo appears to have been smudged and its colour darkened slightly brownish to pretend that it was no longer there.
The timeframe was from 8/17/2017 to 8/21/2017
There is another star on the right side of the same large star, and that too had been smudged and darkened, in the exact same spot as it had been before also.
SSS17a appears to be a hoax.


Like I said -
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) Sep 04, 2018


I am fully aware of the sources of that comparison photo. They had photographed the same exact size, angle, colour, depth - everything was the same except for the time difference.
Nevertheless, the neutron star still remained in the photo that was taken 4 days later. It had not merged, otherwise the "ghost" image would not have been retained, even as a smudge. But the smudge is real for anyone to see after enlargement.


You are aware of nothing, you prat. You can only see the f***ing thing because it has merged! Jesus. First there was nothing to see in that part of the sky. Then the merger was detected through the GWs. So they turned their telescopes to that area of the sky, and saw the EM from the merger. 4days later it was fading. Some time later it was no longer visible in optical.
Stop commenting on stuff that you don't understand.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (8) Sep 04, 2018
Like I said -


You said nothing that made any sense, because you are too stupid to understand the science, but still feel compelled to comment on it. Dunning-Kruger syndrome. Look it up. Ask Benni - he has a terminal case of it.
granville583762
3.2 / 5 (9) Sep 04, 2018
Joan of Arc

When a school yard bully goes about his tactics, usually with backing from his reluctant followers showers his abuse on those he thinks he can.

Till the day arrives, when his reluctant followers having left, he is the one on the receiving end.
It is not pleasant is it not Saint Jone

No comparison of Joan of Arc from days of old, who is considered a heroine of France for her role during the Lancastrian phase of the Hundred Years' War, and was canonized as a Roman Catholic saint https://en.wikipe...n_of_Arc
granville583762
3.2 / 5 (9) Sep 04, 2018
Degenerate – take your pick

Noun: a degenerate person
Physics: a. (of the constituents of a system) having the same energy but different wave functions
b. (of a semiconductor) containing a similar number of electrons in the conduction band to the number of electrons in the conduction band of metals
c. (of a resonant device) having two or more modes of equal frequency

A degenerate person, how appropriately named, now who could that be!
granville583762
3.2 / 5 (9) Sep 04, 2018
Electron degeneracy pressure

Pauli Exclusion Principle disallows two identical half-integer spin particles (electrons and all other fermions) from simultaneously occupying the same quantum state. The result is an emergent pressure against compression of matter into smaller volumes of space. Electron degeneracy pressure results from the same underlying mechanism that defines the electron orbital structure of elemental matter

Physics: a. (of the constituents of a system) having the same energy but different wave functions

When Pauli came up with this, his ONLY application for it was the electron shell structure of atoms. Since the 1960's or thereabouts, this principle has been ADAPTED & ADOPTED for things not envisioned by Pauli.

The road to defining, Electron degeneracy pressure, which is what Pauli Exclusion Principle is, which Wolfgang actually intended in its application
granville583762
3.2 / 5 (9) Sep 04, 2018
Albert recommended Wolfgang
The key point here in Pauli's Exclusion Principle is what Wolfgang Ernst Pauli actually intended in its application - It is not our theory it is Wolfgang Ernst Pauli's theory and no one else's, and in Wolfgang Ernst Pauli's purest form as he intended, it is not be muddied in the mire of lesser mortals, Albert recommended Wolfgang to present his theory for accolade, and its application in the science for which Wolfgang intended.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (4) Sep 04, 2018
Joan of Arc

When a school yard bully goes about his tactics, usually with backing from his reluctant followers showers his abuse on those he thinks he can.

Till the day arrives, when his reluctant followers having left, he is the one on the receiving end.
It is not pleasant is it not Saint Jone

No comparison of Joan of Arc from days of old, who is considered a heroine of France for her role during the Lancastrian phase of the Hundred Years' War, and was canonized as a Roman Catholic saint https://en.wikipe...n_of_Arc
says granville

I have forgotten. Was St. Joan of Arc martyred by the English or her own countrymen the French?
Quite a remarkable woman she was - long before feminism.
granville583762
3.2 / 5 (9) Sep 04, 2018
Fermions

In particle physics, a Fermion is a particle that follows Fermi–Dirac statistics. These particles obey the Pauli Exclusion Principle. Fermions include all quarks and leptons, as well as all composite particles made of an odd number of these, such as all baryons and many atoms and nuclei. Fermions can be an elementary particle, such as the electron, or it can be a composite particle, such as the proton.

Obfuscation in its application - according to the spin-statistics theorem in any reasonable relativistic quantum field theory, particles with integer spin are bosons, while particles with half-integer spin are fermions.
Particles that obey the Pauli Exclusion Principle - so what is Fermi–Dirac statistics, the plot thickens in its Obfuscation?

The question was, what is a Fermion?
granville583762
3.2 / 5 (9) Sep 04, 2018
The question was, what is a Fermion?
SO WHAT IS A FERMION – a Fermion could be Fermi–Dirac statistics, particles obeying the Pauli Exclusion Principle, a quark, a lepton, composite particles made of an odd number, an elementary particle, an a electron, a proton, particles with integer spin, particles with half-integer, a bosen... - AND ON IT GOES
And the original question was Electron Degeneracy Pressure?
Is it any wonder Pauli's Exclusion Principle is led astray!
granville583762
3 / 5 (8) Sep 04, 2018
Typically despicably behaviour – she should have been sentenced to remain and live her life under allegiance to the crown, as she was only 19 years of age!

On 23 May 1430, she was captured at Compiègne by the Burgundian faction, a group of French nobles allied with the English. She was later handed over to the English and put on trial by the pro-English bishop Pierre Cauchon on a variety of charges. After Cauchon declared her guilty she was burned at the stake on 30 May 1431, dying at about nineteen years of age
And then there would not have been a martyr
granville583762
3.2 / 5 (9) Sep 04, 2018
Unravelling Pauli's Exclusion Principle having shuffled off this mortal coil
jonesdave > You said nothing that made any sense, because you are too stupid to understand the science, but still feel compelled to comment on it. Dunning-Kruger syndrome. Look it up. Ask Benni - he has a terminal case of it.

Wolfgang Ernst Pauli having shuffled off this mortal coil, is missing out on the intellectual cut and thrust of jonesdave intellectual force of argument. https://en.wikipe...tal_coil
granville583762
3.2 / 5 (9) Sep 04, 2018
Fermi–Dirac statistics

In quantum statistics, a branch of physics, Fermi–Dirac statistics describe a distribution of particles over energy states in systems consisting of many identical particles that obey the Pauli Exclusion Principle. It is named after Enrico Fermi and Paul Dirac, each of whom discovered the method independently (although Fermi defined the statistics earlier than Dirac)

Arriving at the meaning of Pauli Exclusion Principle as Wolfgang originally intended.
Oh the tangled web we weave to our derivation of Wolfgang Ernst Pauli's Exclusion Principle!
granville583762
3.5 / 5 (8) Sep 04, 2018
This maginative quantum world
Is there no end to this tangled web we weave to our derivation of Wolfgang Ernst Pauli's Exclusion Principle, is Wolfgang for ever lost in those misty mist of the quantum fluctuations to remain fluctuating to what whims are the latest scientific imagination the human mind can conjure from its quantum worldly world of dreams in its escape from the realities of what it has to face every day when its wakened from its dreamily world to face this daily nonsensicality imagination of our imaginative quantum world being were lost in dreams
Benni
2.5 / 5 (8) Sep 04, 2018
IF, as you insist, that Benni has somehow erred, then why don't you just explain what that error was, so that we can all look it up to find what, where, and how the mistake happened. It is not so hard to do if you set your mind to it. I have found no errors in Benni's comments wrt Free Neutron Decay. So why don't you give it a try, OK?
There's a good lad.


What the hell are you on? It has been explained to him countless times. With links. He is too stupid to understand them.


Explained to me jonesy? Hell's bells little man, you have been totally inept at comprehending the basic difference between 1/2 Life Radioactive Decay & Beta Decay Rate, you along with your selective nuanced Pop-Cosmology sites such as Wiki where you get your Pop-Cosmology fantasies about fictional things like degenerate neutron shell structure & quark theory,
jonesdave
3 / 5 (10) Sep 04, 2018
Explained to me jonesy? Hell's bells little man, you have been totally inept at comprehending the basic difference between 1/2 Life Radioactive Decay & Beta Decay Rate, you along with your selective nuanced Pop-Cosmology sites such as Wiki where you get your Pop-Cosmology fantasies about fictional things like degenerate neutron shell structure & quark theory,


Yes, explained to you, you moron. And linked to in the scientific literature. You simply do not understand nuclear physics. Not our fault. Go read Oppenheimer. Heard of him? And then show me where neutron degeneracy has been questioned in the same literature. Doesn't exist. It is just little old D-K Benji, in his world of Walter Mittyism who thinks such things. And you have repeatedly been shown to be scientifically illiterate. So who gives a damn about your addled beliefs?

http://www.phys.h...koff.pdf
jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (9) Sep 04, 2018
Hell's bells little man, you have been totally inept at comprehending the basic difference between 1/2 Life Radioactive Decay & Beta Decay Rate,


Lol. I think you'll find that it is your idiot self that doesn't understand the concept. Again this has been linked to in the scientific literature,. Any idiot that thinks half-life means that half the mass of an atom is going to disappear, quite obviously never finished high school. Or possibly even started it.

Benni
2.5 / 5 (8) Sep 04, 2018
And linked to in the scientific literature.
......Pop-Cosmology is NOT "scientific literature", simply the fantasy of the author.
jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (9) Sep 04, 2018
Unravelling Pauli's Exclusion Principle having shuffled off this mortal coil
jonesdave > You said nothing that made any sense, because you are too stupid to understand the science, but still feel compelled to comment on it. Dunning-Kruger syndrome. Look it up. Ask Benni - he has a terminal case of it.

Wolfgang Ernst Pauli having shuffled off this mortal coil, is missing out on the intellectual cut and thrust of jonesdave intellectual force of argument. https://en.wikipe...tal_coil


No, idiot, he is missing out on seeing the discovery and confirmation of the existence of neutron stars. Which can only exist because of neutron degeneracy pressure. Understand? Thought not. Another one who needs to stop commenting on stuff he has no grasp of.
jonesdave
2.7 / 5 (9) Sep 04, 2018
And linked to in the scientific literature.
......Pop-Cosmology is NOT "scientific literature", simply the fantasy of the author.


Oh really, thicko? So Oppenheimer was a fantasist, yes? And hundreds of other scientists? Such as Pauli and Fermi? And who is saying they are wrong? A complete f***wit on a comments section! Lol. Go away, Benni, it must be time for your medication. Fruitloop.
Benni
2.7 / 5 (7) Sep 04, 2018
the existence of neutron stars. Which can only exist because of neutron degeneracy pressure.
.......and until there is the discovery of a DEGENERATE NEUTRON the hypothesis for such a sub-atomic particle will forever remain a fantasy inside the whimsical fantasy world of Pop-Cosmology.

Now jonesy, get your wits about yourself & use your best Anthropology skills to isolate this vaunted DEGENERATE NEUTRON.

While your thinking about it, perhaps you could write up a short paragraph describing the orbital pairs of particles that create the shell structure of this whimsical structure called a DEGENERATE NEUTRON. I'll give you a hint here where NOT TO START the description of this SHELL, the shell of orbiting pairs is not electron pairs of opposite spins, but you probably don't know why do you?
jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (9) Sep 04, 2018
Now jonesy, get your wits about yourself & use your best Anthropology skills to isolate this vaunted DEGENERATE NEUTRON.


I qualified in astronomy, f***wit. You have zero qualifications, as is obvious.
Go find me an electron, otherwise I'm calling BS on electrons. I want a piccy. Not an inference. An actual picture of an electron.
Neutron stars exist, and are proven beyond any reasonable doubt. Get over it. Or explain their detections as something else, write it up, and publish it. Otherwise, STFU you ignorant moron.

granville583762
3 / 5 (10) Sep 04, 2018
Piccy's
Benni you're the one who's supposed to ask for these piccy's, what has happened all of sudden, or are my eye's deceiving me or is that st jones asking for a piccy!
He's claiming he's qualified in astronomy but does that include piccy's!

jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (9) Sep 04, 2018
Piccy's
Benni you're the one who's supposed to ask for these piccy's, what has happened all of sudden, or are my eye's deceiving me or is that st jones asking for a piccy!
He's claiming he's qualified in astronomy but does that include piccy's!



It was irony, you prawn! Nobody has ever seen an electron. Do they exist? Yes, they must do from observation. Does neutron degeneracy exist? Yes, it has to from observation. Not to mention theory.
434a
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 04, 2018
Picture of a neutron star

http://hubblesite...on-stars

Stony Brook astronomers Walter and L.D. Matthews reported the optical identification of the star using the Hubble telescope.


granville583762
3 / 5 (8) Sep 04, 2018
Nobody has ever seen an electron but we believe in fairies!
It was irony, you prawn! Nobody has ever seen an electron. Do they exist? Yes, they must do from observation. Does neutron degeneracy exist? Yes, it has to from observation. Not to mention theory.

Nobody has seen an electron but they must exist, Does neutron degeneracy exist it has to from observation, Interesting choice of words.
Why do we believe in electrons, but not in fairies? https://web.eecs....ies.html
Nice to get are definitions back on a proper footing again in the world of the Cottingley world of fairies
granville583762
3.2 / 5 (9) Sep 04, 2018
See what I mean about clear cut definitions, an unobserved electron was not part of a clear cut definition neither was - it must exist, yes it has to - as that is discussing my maybe's

After all that has been said were only discussing maybe's
Benni
2.7 / 5 (7) Sep 04, 2018
Does neutron degeneracy exist?


Yes, it has to from observation.
......now you're telling us there is "observation" evidence? OK, what is the "observation" evidence of a degenerate neutron?

Not to mention theory.
.......oh, well tell us about that as well. I asked you above, but you failed a presentation of the "theory", so here's another request, describe in your own words what the shell structure of a degenerate neutron is in about as many words as I described above the electron shell structure of an atom. Here's your big chance to show the readers how much smarter you are than I am with my D-K, go for it:
granville583762
3 / 5 (8) Sep 04, 2018
Once again the truth is not what it seems

Wavelength is related to the amount of energy a particle has. For photons, velocity is same for all wavelengths, photons based on their energy/wavelength as either gamma, x-ray, visible or radio wave etc.
Electrons wavelength is related to velocity. Slow moving electrons will have longer wavelengths. Accelerate those same electrons and their wavelength will decrease. As an example, if you accelerate an electron with ~30k Volts, it will have a wavelength shorter than visible light

Once again the truth is not what it seems
A high energy electron has by virtue of it short wavelength has the ability to image a low energy electron, because there comes a point when the energy producing a short wave length is smaller than the size of the low energy electron
Benni
2.5 / 5 (8) Sep 04, 2018
> 434 "Walter and S.J. Wolk (Stony Brook) and R. Neuhaeuser (Max-Plack-Institut fuer Extraterrestrische Physik) surmised that it was likely to be a neutron star, a hot, dense stellar corpse with a six-mile radius."

"surmised that it was likely": Weasel words if ever such an explanation could be put to ink.........Hey, he's screaming it in your face, WE"RE TAKING A WILD-ASS GUESS HERE. How about more than just a faint dot proving this is simply not a common white dwarf much larger in size than the 6 mile radius they clicked from off the prescribed size radii for neutron stars, 2 miles.

How do they know it's not 1000 miles in diameter? 2000? Maybe they should prove what the size is before simply declaring it with no evidence for it's size, they did this because they simply WANT this to be a neutron star.

Pop-Cosmology........weasel words in action.
granville583762
2.8 / 5 (9) Sep 04, 2018
RX J1856.5-3754 is thought to have formed in a supernova explosion of its companion star about one million years ago and is moving at 108 km/s across the sky. It was discovered in 1992, and observations in 1996 confirmed that it is a neutron star, the closest to Earth discovered.
It was originally thought to be about 150–200 light-years away, further observations using the Chandra X-ray Observatory in 2002 indicate that its distance is greater—about 400 light-years.
RX J1856 is one of the Magnificent Seven, a group of young neutron stars at distances between 652 and 1630 light years of Earth https://en.wikipe...6.5-3754

At 1500Lyr what it smallest angular resolution possible, is it 6miles in diameter at 1500Lyr
Benni
2.7 / 5 (7) Sep 04, 2018
Electrons wavelength is related to velocity. Slow moving electrons will have longer wavelengths. Accelerate those same electrons and their wavelength will decrease. As an example, if you accelerate an electron with ~30k Volts, it will have a wavelength shorter than visible light


> granDy: Maybe the particle that makes up jonesy's shell structure of a degenerate neutron has a velocity SO HIGH that wavelength is so short it can NEVER be detected? Maybe we shouldn't put ideas like this into his head, he's just as likely to come back & glom onto the suggestion & take it seriously.

First let's see if he ever gets back to us describing what the degenerate neutron shell structure is. After he makes a stab at that, I'll really rock his fantasy world with a logical followup question that I want to keep secret until he's committed himself to the first part of the trap & fallen into it.
granville583762
3.2 / 5 (9) Sep 04, 2018
There's more than enough to keep Freud occupied, while I study Dr. Seuss's - The cat in the hat and his invisible cat!
434a
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 04, 2018
Benni. The data you need is in the article. I'm not sure how to help you with your struggle with basic reading comprehension and remedial maths, you seem incapable of even the most basic learning tasks. Is it because your life is so filled with bile, hate and spitefulness towards those of us who have achieved something with our lives? Is there no room left for anything new in that closed off thing you still call a mind? As always Benni, you have my heartfelt pity for the ruin that is your life. Goodnight.
Benni
2.5 / 5 (8) Sep 04, 2018
Benni. The data you need is in the article.
No it isn't, there's ZERO data in the article determining how they came to the conclusion this is simply not a white dwarf. If you think there is, then Copy & Paste it here here for me to read, but you won't.

Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 04, 2018
Typically despicably behaviour – she should have been sentenced to remain and live her life under allegiance to the crown, as she was only 19 years of age!

On 23 May 1430, she was captured at Compiègne by the Burgundian faction, a group of French nobles allied with the English. She was later handed over to the English and put on trial by the pro-English bishop Pierre Cauchon on a variety of charges. After Cauchon declared her guilty she was burned at the stake on 30 May 1431, dying at about nineteen years of age
And then there would not have been a martyr


Thanks granville
So there WAS collusion between the English and at least one faction of the treasonous French. It is sad that they had put to death such a young woman who had, indeed, been a patriot.
434a
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 04, 2018
Benni. Sad, so very sad, it's there, you just can't comprehend it. As I said bile, hate and spitefulness. It's rotted your mind and left you screaming your invective on here for a decade now? For what? Your life is so appallingly without hope or joy or love that this is what you have filled it with? Every score of one you and your sock puppets give me simply confirms what we know to be the truth you and I. You are dead inside.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (6) Sep 04, 2018
Picture of a neutron star

http://hubblesite...on-stars

Stony Brook astronomers Walter and L.D. Matthews reported the optical identification of the star using the Hubble telescope.




The Hubble site article is from 09 Nov. 2000. The only photo on the page shows a line of trajectory with 3 blobs representing the "neutron star" as it moves across interstellar space. There is no optical photo in that article to represent the star as it supposedly appears, therefore, the article doesn't contain enough information.
Perhaps a more current article/photo is available from the Hubble site?
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 04, 2018
So many trolls and so little time.

Inertial confinement is a fact. Hirsch-Farnsworth fusors are used as neutron sources in hundreds if not thousands of labs across the world.

Gravity makes for a nice inertial confinement. It's, you know, kinda obvious. And stuff.

We done here?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (6) Sep 04, 2018
@ Benni

It appears that 434a (aka thegrossofotto1923) is drawing on my use of the term, "invective" to harass you with a bit of pseudo-psychology to make you atone for your remaining firm wrt scientific knowledge.

On another note, I find the term, "Degenerate Neutron Star" amusing, almost like describing a Degenerate Hollywood Star, of which there are many. If they had considered the naming of it with a bit more thought/finesse, they might have chosen "Degenerative" instead.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (6) Sep 04, 2018
@Lenni's got a sock puppet.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 04, 2018
@Lenni's got a sock puppet.
says Da

Really now. And how would you know this? And who is this Lenni person?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 04, 2018
From what I have read of your past posts, you attempt to remove commenters that you disagree with by writing Code in the form of song lyrics. Isn't that right?

LOL I love reading old physorg articles and the old comments - it is clearly informative.
Benni
2.7 / 5 (7) Sep 04, 2018
Sez 434:

Benni. Sad, so very sad, it's there, you just can't comprehend it. As I said bile, hate and spitefulness. It's rotted your mind and left you screaming your invective on here for a decade now?


Sez jonesdave:

f***wit. You have zero qualifications
Otherwise, STFU you ignorant moron.

A complete f***wit on a comments section! Lol. Go away, Benni, it must be time for your medication. Fruitloop.

Oh really, thicko?

You are aware of nothing, you prat. You can only see the f***ing thing because it has merged! Jesus


I guess 434 thinks the above is NOT "bile". "hate" & "spitefulness".

Sez Benni:

describe in your own words what the shell structure of a degenerate neutron is in about as many words as I described above the electron shell structure of an atom. Here's your big chance to show the readers how much smarter you are than I am.
......and 434 considers THIS "bile". "hate" & "spitefulness".

Benni
2.7 / 5 (7) Sep 04, 2018
@Lenni's got a sock puppet.
says Da

Really now. And how would you know this? And who is this Lenni person?


He once thought he knew who I was back in his days prior to using Da Schneib. He was wrong of course.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (6) Sep 04, 2018
I don't know why anyone bothers with anyone who doesn't know inertial confinement hydrogen fusion physics on the science site.

The evidence spends half its time overhead every 24 hours.
434a
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 04, 2018
SEU what do you think a picture of a neutron star should look like? There's lots of pictures on the web, Google is a useful service I'm given to understand. Pulsars produce spectacular images in xrays. Try a search for the Velar pulsar. To a scientist the EM spectrum is a continuum. There's nothing particularly special about the visible portion. In fact it's not even that useful in a wide portion of astronomy. You can tell someone is being disingenuous on here when they keep insisting on pics in the visible portion of the EM spectrum. No real scientist would think it mattered for a second what wavelengths were used as long as the wavelengths chosen made the most technical sense for the problem being investigated.
434a
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 04, 2018
Benni. I've found some help for you.

https://www.goodt...n-i-stop

The poor mite sounds just like you; lost and confused in a spiral of outward venom and inner self loathing.

It doesn't have to be like this Benni, you could be free of this nasty, harmful addiction. Just reach out for the help that's out there waiting for you. You can fix the train wreck that is your life and stop being the pariah you have become. Reach Benni! Reach!
Benni
2.5 / 5 (8) Sep 04, 2018
You can tell someone is being disingenuous on here when they keep insisting on pics in the visible portion of the EM spectrum. No real scientist would think it mattered for a second what wavelengths were used as long as the wavelengths chosen made the most technical sense for the problem being investigated


Admitting you are not a "real scientist" by making this statement. Fifty percent of my job description is management of a gamma/x-ray spectroscopy lab. We don't care one whit about the visible light portion of the EM Spectrum, as a result we must be careful about identifying the ACTUAL SOURCES of anomalous wavelengths that are not visible.

A lot of different sources can generate high frequency EM. It isn't just stuff falling into so-called black holes that create gamma rays, it's can be MYRIADS of other things that you simply WISH ad hoc to be interpreted as the results of losing energy & falling into Pop-Cosmology's biggest fantasy.

Now do your best jonesy.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Sep 04, 2018
ROFLOL
:) Like I said - pseudo-psychology to atone for having the knowledge to refute pseudo-science.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Sep 04, 2018
LOL I have never, ever, ever said that I'm a scientist. Where have you gotten such a stupid idea?
I am in physorg to learn and observe. What I learn, I use in order to confirm it is correct.
Benni
2.5 / 5 (8) Sep 04, 2018
Benni. I've found some help for you.

https://www.goodt...n-i-stop

The poor mite sounds just like you; lost and confused in a spiral of outward venom and inner self loathing.

It doesn't have to be like this Benni, you could be free of this nasty, harmful addiction. Just reach out for the help that's out there waiting for you. You can fix the train wreck that is your life and stop being the pariah you have become. Reach Benni! Reach!


.....and this is your best jonesy? C'mon, you can do a better jonesy than this? No? Yes.......waiting:
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 04, 2018
@Benni
I wouldn't click that link. Someone may be writing code to throw you off this site. Careful now.
Da knows how.
Benni
2.5 / 5 (8) Sep 04, 2018
@Benni
I wouldn't click that link. Someone may be writing code to throw you off this site. Careful now.
Da knows how.


I already know this. What schneibo & 434 can't figure is how I have had just such a technique firewalled for a long time. I have been the author/creator of many websites in the past, I won't admit to being such presently, I want schneibo's ilk to keep guessing at that, it's the reason he keeps up with the "Lenni", he still thinks he identified me at one time in the past, he didn't.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (6) Sep 04, 2018
Good to know such things. But where is granville? He seems to be missing for awhile now.
Benni
2.7 / 5 (7) Sep 04, 2018
Good to know such things. But where is granville? He seems to be missing for awhile now.


Vacationing in the shires?
granville583762
3 / 5 (10) Sep 05, 2018
No bigbang required; the energy is in the proton and neutron
it appears as neutrons decay into a protons, electrons, neutrinos they did not exist prior to decaying as the muon did not exist prior to the pion decaying - the proton, electron, neutrino, muon were created during the decay process, because firstly the difference between neutrons and protons is the electric field, as the proton cannot contain internal electrons while simultaneous sustaining orbital electrons. As a neutron is a neutral proton, as a muon is heavier electron neither of these particles contain the other, they contain the energy to create the other.
As they contain the energy to create the other how does the neutron as proton equivalent containing no electrons decay when apparently it goes through beta-decay or is this too much studying Dr. Seuss's - The cat in the hat and his invisible cat! Because now the electron apparently has never been seen, except of course by the Cat in the hats invisible cat!
granville583762
3 / 5 (10) Sep 05, 2018
The neutron decays into a pristine-proton - no bigbang required
The electron does not decay, it transforms its energy to photons where as photons can eject electrons from their orbital's. Energy creates electrons as in neutron decay, the electron cannot actually decay once formed having 66,000 Yotta life time
The neutron does not go through beta-decay as it ejects an electron, it could as easily be said the neutron goes through proton-decay as it ejects a proton or goes through neutrino-decay as it ejects a neutrino
The neutron decays and the process eject a proton, electron, and neutrino.
Which concededly, the proton is a pristine-proton as is the electron is a pristine-electron
The neutron has by decaying created what George's Lemaitre struggled and failed to see right in front of his eyes that in his rush to please his maker he failed to see the pristine-protons, pristine-electrons and pristine-neutrino's before his very eyes!
granville583762
3.2 / 5 (9) Sep 05, 2018
The cat in the hat and his invisible cat!
Good to know such things. But where is granville? He seems to be missing for awhile now.

Vacationing in the shires?

There's more than enough to keep Freud occupied, while I study Dr. Seuss's - The cat in the hat and his invisible cat!

This cat in the hat and his invisible cat, is amazingly stuffed, as it should be required, by cosmologists-pop, to read in their bath!
jonesdave
2.5 / 5 (8) Sep 05, 2018


A lot of different sources can generate high frequency EM. It isn't just stuff falling into so-called black holes that create gamma rays, it's can be MYRIADS of other things that you simply WISH ad hoc to be interpreted as the results of losing energy & falling into Pop-Cosmology's biggest fantasy.

Now do your best jonesy.


You don't understand the first thing about the EM spectrum, you thick b***ard! You tried to tell everyone that visible light doesn't cause heat! You are a complete moron, who knows nothing about any area of science, as multiply demonstrated! You are a janitor, or some such, who has a terminal case of D-K syndrome. As anybody with half a brain reading your incessant misunderstandings can see. There is no science to back you up, otherwise you'd have long since linked it. It is all the product of your diseased mind.
granville583762
3 / 5 (10) Sep 05, 2018
That invisible cat
How long these cosmologists-pop, as not being round, been in Benni grasp, unable to scape, but non as much due to this invisible cat, did not in this neutron see in its decay, in light of this fact, is its proton-pristine neutron-decay, as was invisible to all due to this invisible cat of the cat in the hat and the invisible cat!
Benni when of days of yore, when moles to be whacked, this invisible cat attention attract, was to visible to ignore its blinding of light, even though it was within the cat in the hat of the cat in the hat it being so small it couldn't be seen, but now it be seen there's no going back because there's no way this cat that invisible once is not going back in that hat of the cats invisible hat!

Benni, In short of this cat , you have graduated and there's no going back to those familiar fields, where free moles roam in the wild, to whacked at the whim of cosmologists-pop!
jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (9) Sep 05, 2018
"surmised that it was likely": Weasel words if ever such an explanation could be put to ink.........Hey, he's screaming it in your face, WE"RE TAKING A WILD-ASS GUESS HERE. How about more than just a faint dot proving this is simply not a common white dwarf much larger in size than the 6 mile radius they clicked from off the prescribed size radii for neutron stars, 2 miles.


Useless prat. We have already observed a neutron star merger, you ignorant oaf. Show me any science, from a scientist, that says neutron stars cannot exist. Show me how you are getting r-process nucleosynthesis from anything other than what was a neutron star merger.
You need to quit commenting on sh*t you don't understand, thicko. Nobody gives a toss what is going on in what counts for your brain, you waster. Show us the scientist who agrees with you. If you can't, then you are doing a cantthink, and making sh*t up. Yes?

granville583762
3 / 5 (10) Sep 05, 2018
This game of the hat and its invisible cat is out of its hat and is not going back!

Benni as JD surmised, in a rare moment of light, before this invisible cat immerged from his invisible hat, JD blurted out this is simply a game that is played out in time for this invisible cat, that now that this cat is out of its hat, as out of its invisible hat, is not going, back into its invisible hat!
granville583762
3.2 / 5 (9) Sep 05, 2018
"surmised that it was likely": Weasel words if ever such an explanation could be put to ink.........Hey, he's screaming it in your face, WE"RE TAKING A WILD-ASS GUESS HERE. How about more than just a faint dot proving this is simply not a common white dwarf much larger in size than the 6 mile radius they clicked from off the prescribed size radii for neutron stars, 2 miles.


Useless prat. We have already observed a neutron star merger, you ignorant oaf. Show me any science, from a scientist, that says neutron stars cannot exist. Show me how you are getting r-process nucleosynthesis from anything other than what was a neutron star merger.
You need to quit commenting on sh*t you don't understand, thicko. Nobody gives a toss what is going on in what counts for your brain, you waster. Show us the scientist who agrees with you. If you can't, then you are doing a cantthink, and making sh*t up. Yes?

jonesdave, you have become the mole in whack a mole
jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (9) Sep 05, 2018
This game of the hat and its invisible cat is out of its hat and is not going back!

Benni as JD surmised, in a rare moment of light, before this invisible cat immerged from his invisible hat, JD blurted out this is simply a game that is played out in time for this invisible cat, that now that this cat is out of its hat, as out of its invisible hat, is not going, back into its invisible hat!


Have you got anything to say that isn't complete gibberish? Give up and head to a forum that is more suited to your abilities.

http://skyscript....ndex.php
jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (9) Sep 05, 2018

jonesdave, you have become the mole in whack a mole


What are you talking about. loony tunes? Spell it out, thicko, because I am saying nothing that isn't accepted science. So you are challenging the whole of established science. Based on what? Some f***wit's mentally deranged rantings on a comments section? Backed up by equally deranged f***wits? Give me a break, saddo, and show me the science. In the scientific literature. Written by people who actually understand science. Otherwise, STFU and give us all a break, yes? Loon.
Benni
2.7 / 5 (7) Sep 05, 2018
The neutron has by decaying created what George's Lemaitre struggled and failed to see right in front of his eyes that in his rush to please his maker he failed to see the pristine-protons, pristine-electrons and pristine-neutrino's before his very eyes!


I've only thought about this 14.7 minute beta decay rate as a neutron that has FOREVER vanished, never to be seen again for the remainder of the existence of the Universe, but never pondered what that decay creates, SOMETHING PRISTINE, other things that heretofore in time never existed.

That vacation day in the Shires did you some good granDy, you're making up for it & you had the egg guy worried.
Benni
2.7 / 5 (7) Sep 05, 2018
So you are challenging the whole of established science


.....in the meantime I await for you to establish the structure of a DEGENERATE NEUTRON. The particle with it's shell of degenerate orbitals that mimics the electron shell of an atom, but you still haven't proffered it, only more of your foul mouthed name calling rants, doin' you best jonesy.
434a
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 05, 2018


Admitting you are not a "real scientist" by making this statement. Fifty percent of my job description is management of a gamma/x-ray spectroscopy lab. We don't care one whit about the visible light portion of the EM Spectrum, as a result we must be careful about identifying the ACTUAL SOURCES of anomalous wavelengths that are not visible.


Oh dear Benni more bile followed by a dash of gibberish. Your hatred is getting in the way of your reading comprehension again. I was pointing out how people like you are always demanding pictures of everything yet never accept them when they are offered or make pathetic attempts with weasel words to escape what they have been shown. You clearly are in desperate need of the therapy I found for you sweetie. I mean look at all the sock puppets you've had to create to have someone say nice things to you. It's so desperately sad that the rest of humanity has rejected you for being so bitter. I'm still here for you though. For ever.
Benni
2.5 / 5 (8) Sep 05, 2018
@Benni
I wouldn't click that link. Someone may be writing code to throw you off this site. Careful now.
Da knows how.


I should have told you that I have already caught REDIRECTS in links that have been put up on this website in the Comments section. I know they were redirects because I had a forensic algo scrutinize them. What I came up with was the creation of a website that had been created just hours before the link was put up in a response post to Benni, one of mimicking that of a major university in the USA.

The person who put up that REDIRECT has used several different posting handles here, but I'm not going to identify who the person is, the only traffic that went there was other than my own. I did see where there were a few hits on that site over a short span of time, but none from me.

It takes more than just knowing Code though, but I do know a lot of it.
Benni
2.5 / 5 (8) Sep 05, 2018
Oh dear Benni more bile followed by a dash of gibberish. Your hatred is getting in the way of your reading comprehension again. I was pointing out how people like you are always demanding pictures of everything yet never accept them when they are offered or make pathetic attempts with weasel words to escape what they have been shown. You clearly are in desperate need of the therapy I found for you sweetie. I mean look at all the sock puppets you've had to create to have someone say nice things to you. It's so desperately sad that the rest of humanity has rejected you for being so bitter. I'm still here for you though. For ever.


Well then, great, "For ever" huh? That can only mean you'll have lots of time to explain the shell structure of a degenerate neutron, jonesy won't do it, perhaps because he's mortal & short on time, but you are not. Okay GOD, go for it & watch this mere mortal just opine for the sorrow I'm gonna feel for this new precious & dear lord.
434a
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 05, 2018
LOL I have never, ever, ever said that I'm a scientist.


Well now we've got the obvious out of the way.

I am in physorg to learn and observe. What I learn, I use in order to confirm it is correct.


Strange, I replied to your question with a perfectly reasonable response containing some lovely science and you scored it a 1. How does that work when you're not a scientist? It can't be because your qualified because you said your not.

Or is it because that your already hurting.....and lashing out...with bile and hatred....oh dear it looks like another case of the Benni's disease...what horror....I mean how many Benni's can there be?

But we all know why you don't see it that way don't we. You love God and God loves you. Isn't that it? Everything you do is fine and dandy because you could never be spiteful and abusive, could you sweetie? Not you. Not God's special little angel.... it's not possible for you to be a religious hypocrite..is it? Unheard of...
granville583762
3 / 5 (10) Sep 05, 2018
Something pristine this way comes

All these neutrons going about their decay process, creating pristine-protons and pristine-electrons and pristine-neutrinos are able to go on and form pristine-hydrogen and not one pop-cosmologist bigbang in sight, where ever the conditions at right for neutron decay because there is one certain fact cosmologist agree is that neutrons decay! The contentious point is given a few seconds either way of 14.7minutes is the actual second that pristine-proton appears!
Benni
2.3 / 5 (9) Sep 05, 2018
it's not possible for you to be a religious hypocrite..is it? Unheard of


Nice, the "For ever" guy identifying who the mortal hypocrites are.

Okay mister "For ever", put up the orbital shell structure of the DEGENERATE NEUTRON, then watch this mere mortal in all his hypocrisy takes it apart for the Pop-Cosmology psycho-babble that it's sure to be.
434a
4.4 / 5 (7) Sep 05, 2018

Well then, great, "For ever" huh? That can only mean you'll have lots of time to explain the shell structure of a degenerate neutron, jonesy won't do it, perhaps because he's mortal & short on time, but you are not. Okay GOD, go for it & watch this mere mortal just opine for the sorrow I'm gonna feel for this new precious & dear lord.


An idiom's not your thing, hey baby?

Life can be so literal though, can't it? Someone calls you a moron and you get all bent out of shape - sorry, sorry, but English is just so beautifully figurative isn't it, why chain it up? - because you've been called that so many times before, and it just hurts you to the quick. I understand sweetie. I've seen guys like you always wondering why they were behind the door when the talents were handed out. And it just eats you up and makes you want to lash out at everyone, doesn't it? You want to show them you know stuff, you can use the big words too, hey? We'll get there in the end don't worry ;)
granville583762
2.8 / 5 (9) Sep 05, 2018
Something pristine this way comes
And this is where the neutron interjected on the last day of August 2018 as being new to this site!
The cart before the horse - those pesky pristine protons -
SEU, is not uranium formed in quasars - in other word SEU, it is formed in the various stages of the life cycle of stars which require uranium to initiate fusion; as where did the first stars form from the clouds of pristine protons in the vacuum?

As where did the first stars form from the clouds of pristine protons in the vacuum, each neutron contains the energy to decay into pristine-protons and when conditions are right protons combine to repeat the cycle where neutrons are capable of initiation radio-active decay because there is no gravitational compression compared to 230N or 2.3x10+32Nm* of electric femto-metre force!
Benni
2.5 / 5 (8) Sep 05, 2018
You want to show them you know stuff, you can use the big words too, hey? We'll get there in the end don't worry


Huh? Me "worry"? Trust me that I'm not gonna be the one to worry that you can't put up or describe a cogent response for a degenerate neutron shell structure. Instead of taking up the challenge, you just do another mimic of jonesy.
434a
4.4 / 5 (7) Sep 05, 2018
it's not possible for you to be a religious hypocrite..is it? Unheard of


Nice, the "For ever" guy identifying who the mortal hypocrites are.

Okay mister "For ever", put up the orbital shell structure of the DEGENERATE NEUTRON, then watch this mere mortal in all his hypocrisy takes it apart for the Pop-Cosmology psycho-babble that it's sure to be.


Why Benni, don't be so upset, everyone would think I'd replied to you babe.

Now that's really strange, when I come to ponder it. Benni and SEU hmmm..but no, surely not...SEU said he wasn't a scientist and Benni's always saying he knows science..no..I mean Benni's science gibberish is quality gibberish, if you didn't know science it would almost sound believable...almost...but SEU, his gibberish is the real deal, pure in all its godly form..no science at all in that..but they do love scoring the same scores at the same time...hmmm...but what if..Benni wasn't a scientist..and needed to admit his guilty secret?
granville583762
2.8 / 5 (9) Sep 05, 2018
No worries Benni
The neutron has by decaying created what George's Lemaitre struggled and failed to see right in front of his eyes that in his rush to please his maker he failed to see the pristine-protons, pristine-electrons and pristine-neutrino's before his very eyes!

I've only thought about this 14.7 minute beta decay rate as a neutron that has FOREVER vanished, never to be seen again for the remainder of the existence of the Universe, but never pondered what that decay creates, SOMETHING PRISTINE, other things that heretofore in time never existed.
That vacation day in the Shires did you some good granDy, you're making up for it & you had the egg guy worried.

The egg guy needn't worry; he can save it for that pristine-whack a mole
Benni
2.3 / 5 (9) Sep 05, 2018
it's not possible for you to be a religious hypocrite..is it? Unheard of


Nice, the "For ever" guy identifying who the mortal hypocrites are.

Okay mister "For ever", put up the orbital shell structure of the DEGENERATE NEUTRON, then watch this mere mortal in all his hypocrisy takes it apart for the Pop-Cosmology psycho-babble that it's sure to be.


Why Benni, don't be so upset, everyone would think I'd replied to you babe............but what if..Benni wasn't a scientist..and needed to admit his guilty secret?
......I leave it no "secret" that I'm mortal, I'm just puzzled why a "For ever" like you is so easily tripped up by a mere mortal such as myself.

Oh, I get it 434, you just didn't bring certain powers with you today? You purposely emptied yourself of them. Great, just more name calling rants instead of SCIENCE & PEACE.

434a
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 05, 2018

@Benni

Well here's a turn up, I showed this thread to a very good friend of mine who's a therapist in NYC she's worked with all kinds of internet weirdos.
And you'll never guess what she said.
She said I was enabling you and I should stop because "Someone with your levels of rage could go on a spree."
I said "Shopping?"
She said "No, think more postal."
"Amazon's fine for tech" I said "But I prefer Prada for clothes."
She got a bit stressy after that and said "I should think about your colleagues."
I said "You worry too much, Benni doesn't have a job! He lives in a shack up a mountain somewhere and eats squirrels."
"How does he kill the squirrels" she said.
"ohhh" I said. "No not Benni, he's a sweetie just a bit sad and lonely in his shack, he'll come round."
"That's what I'm worried about" she said....
Benni
2.3 / 5 (9) Sep 05, 2018
Well here's a turn up, I showed this thread to a very good friend of mine who's a therapist


Did she explain DEGENERATE NEUTRON SHELL STRUCTURE to you? Or you just didn't think to ask her?
434a
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 05, 2018
Well here's a turn up, I showed this thread to a very good friend of mine who's a therapist


Did she explain DEGENERATE NEUTRON SHELL STRUCTURE to you? Or you just didn't think to ask her?


Oh Benni you're such a sweetheart worrying about that for me.
She was in a bit of flap, what with making plans for me to relocate to ..best not say...no offense intended.

I said he's not talking about that kind of degeneracy and had to explain the whole thing to her, which she said "Everyone already knows what that is."
I said "Benni doesn't, he keeps asking me!"
She then started laying the Bandura on me...shudder.
I tried to convince her you were one of the nice internet weirdos - apparently we're not supposed to call you that, but you don't mind do you? If it's just between us? - but to no avail.
So, I've got to fly back from my holiday to hide at her place for the week...I'm sure she's got that wrong, oh well it will be great to catch up. hugs xx
jonesdave
2.5 / 5 (8) Sep 05, 2018
So you are challenging the whole of established science


.....in the meantime I await for you to establish the structure of a DEGENERATE NEUTRON. The particle with it's shell of degenerate orbitals that mimics the electron shell of an atom, but you still haven't proffered it, only more of your foul mouthed name calling rants, doin' you best jonesy.


Read what I wrote, dumbo. I don't need to do anything you wazzock. Everything I am saying is accepted science, and nobody is questioning that science. End of story. Obviously, fruitloops on comments sections do not count. They are not scientists, and they are not presenting their laughably bad nonsense in the scientific literature.
granville583762
3.1 / 5 (9) Sep 05, 2018
Nuclear and Electric join forces

Because there is no gravitational compression compared to 230N or 2.3x10+32Nm* of electric femto-metre force!

Part of this little point is the nuclear force operating between 0.7 and 3.0 femto-metres, whereas at 2.5 femto-metres, it has because in its short range it is quasi-neutral, as at 0.7 femto-metres it reverse to yet again join the electric field opposing in polarity adjoining protons effectively as the nuclear force is 137x greater than the electric field once the proton reach's 0.7femto-metres 230N or 2.3x10+32Nm* becomes 31510N or 3.151x10+34Nm* of repulsive force separating proton from proton!
granville583762
3.2 / 5 (9) Sep 05, 2018
The gravitational compressive force does not even remotely in any conceivable way have any effect on the repulsive force of the electric and nuclear force which operate at below 1.0 femto-metres keeping the protons and neutrons apart at 3.15x10+34Nm*!
jonesdave
3 / 5 (8) Sep 05, 2018
The gravitational compressive force does not even remotely in any conceivable way have any effect on the repulsive force of the electric and nuclear force which operate at below 1.0 femto-metres keeping the protons and neutrons apart at 3.15x10+34Nm*!


And what is the force between two protons? Can they not fuse? Better tell that big yellow thing in the sky that it is a fraud!
granville583762
2.8 / 5 (9) Sep 05, 2018
The compressive force of gravity does not remotely register in the scheme of things
The force is quasi-neutral at 2.5femto-metres rising to 31500N at 0.7femto-metres
The proton decelerates to zero over 1.8femto-metres with a resistive force 0 to 31500N
Or 2femto-metres averaging 16,000N of accelerating force on the proton at 1.7x10-27kg that has to be neutralised so the proton can by its momentum makes contact proton to proton
16,000N/1.7x10-27kg equates to an average force of acceleration 9.4x10+30m/s* accelerating the two protons apart where as at closest approach this repelling acceleration doubles to 19x10+30m/s*
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) Sep 05, 2018
The compressive force of gravity does not remotely register in the scheme of things
The force is quasi-neutral at 2.5femto-metres rising to 31500N at 0.7femto-metres
The proton decelerates to zero over 1.8femto-metres with a resistive force 0 to 31500N
Or 2femto-metres averaging 16,000N of accelerating force on the proton at 1.7x10-27kg that has to be neutralised so the proton can by its momentum makes contact proton to proton
16,000N/1.7x10-27kg equates to an average force of acceleration 9.4x10+30m/s* accelerating the two protons apart where as at closest approach this repelling acceleration doubles to 19x10+30m/s*


Word salad. What causes the Sun to shine?
Benni
2.7 / 5 (7) Sep 05, 2018
Nuclear and Electric join forces

Because there is no gravitational compression compared to 230N or 2.3x10+32Nm* of electric femto-metre force!

Part of this little point is the nuclear force operating between 0.7 and 3.0 femto-metres, whereas at 2.5 femto-metres, it has because in its short range it is quasi-neutral, as at 0.7 femto-metres it reverse to yet again join the electric field opposing in polarity adjoining protons effectively as the nuclear force is 137x greater than the electric field once the proton reach's 0.7femto-metres 230N or 2.3x10+32Nm* becomes 31510N or 3.151x10+34Nm* of repulsive force separating proton from proton!


One of these times I'm gonna have to figure out how much more speed I need to catch up to you!!!!
Benni
2.7 / 5 (7) Sep 05, 2018
The compressive force of gravity does not remotely register in the scheme of things
True

The force is quasi-neutral at 2.5femto-metres rising to 31500N at 0.7femto-metres
of what?Gravity?

The proton decelerates to zero over 1.8femto-metres with a resistive force 0 to 31500N
What do you mean by "resistive force"? The force needed to overcome & create p-p fusion? Of what? Just H1?

Or 2femto-metres averaging 16,000N of accelerating force on the proton at 1.7x10-27kg that has to be neutralised so the proton can by its momentum makes contact proton to proton16,000N/1.7x10-27kg equates to an average force of acceleration 9.4x10+30m/s* accelerating the two protons apart where as at closest approach this repelling acceleration doubles to 19x10+30m/s*
Explain what "accelerating two protons apart" accomplishes?
granville583762
3.5 / 5 (8) Sep 05, 2018
This is musing over some little calculations based on the protons electric field at 1 femto-metre radius from the proton, is 230N pushing 2 protons apart

The nuclear force repels 2 protons apart at 0.7femto-metres 137x greater than230N of the electric field.
2 protons are repelled at 31500N or 19x10+30m/s*
Someone said the gravitational field is not powerful enough to compress galactic clouds of dust to ignite
This 31500N per proton is far greater than the gravitational field given the mass of a neutron star as gravity is only exerting a force in the order of 1x10-15N per proton!
This is demonstrating gravity is irrelevant compared to the nuclear force in a typically accepted neutron star
Benni
2.7 / 5 (7) Sep 05, 2018
This is demonstrating gravity is irrelevant compared to the nuclear force in a typically accepted neutron star
........that's what I thought you were doing, just clarifying is all.
granville583762
3.5 / 5 (8) Sep 05, 2018
In the solar furnace
The compressive force of gravity does not remotely register in the scheme of things
The force is quasi-neutral at 2.5femto-metres rising to 31500N at 0.7femto-metres
The proton decelerates to zero over 1.8femto-metres with a resistive force 0 to 31500N
Or 2femto-metres averaging 16,000N of accelerating force on the proton at 1.7x10-27kg that has to be neutralised so the proton can by its momentum makes contact proton to proton
16,000N/1.7x10-27kg equates to an average force of acceleration 9.4x10+30m/s* accelerating the two protons apart where as at closest approach this repelling acceleration doubles to 19x10+30m/s*

Benni, this is another musing in what is required for protons momentum to overcome 31,500N in the solar furnace of protonic collisions where the nuclear force is keeping protons apart because they have to get within 1 femto-metre where the nuclear force repels as also does the electric force!
Benni
3 / 5 (6) Sep 05, 2018
Benni, this is another musing in what is required for protons momentum to overcome 31,500N in the solar furnace of protonic collisions where the nuclear force is keeping protons apart
.....the nuclear force keeping them apart? I think you mean the +Charge force?

because they have to get within 1 femto-metre where the nuclear force repels as also does the electric force
Well, then back up to my question above, I get it the +electric charge, still not getting the repelling by nuclear forces leading up to the H1 p-p chain.

granville583762
3.5 / 5 (8) Sep 05, 2018
A femto-metre window of opportunity of fusion

There is a little idea Benni, that is going round, that there is a little window, where from 3femto-metres to 0.7femtometre where the electric field equals the nuclear field at 2.5femto-metre so the force is zero where it attracts up to 1femto-metres then repels at 0.7femto-metres, getting the proton inside this window between 2.5 to 1femto-metre there is almost zero resistance on the proton as it will readily fuse, but not if is moving through this window at high speed!
Benni
3 / 5 (6) Sep 05, 2018
Well, then back up to my question above, I get it the +electric charge, still not getting the repelling by nuclear forces leading up to the H1 p-p chain.


I should have been more clear above........it is temperature that overcomes the + Electric Repulsion of the protons to one another allowing them to get close enough for attractive nuclear strong force to fuse them. So you're on the right track with femto-distances because reducing the distance between protons is what is required to make make them fuse so that the short range binding energy of ATTRACTIVE NUCLEAR Force can fuse them.
Benni
3 / 5 (6) Sep 05, 2018
where from 3femto-metres to 0.7femtometre where the electric field equals the nuclear field at 2.5femto-metre so the force is zero
......OK, i see what you mean & agree with you, I've just never seen hard numbers for that distance. I guess it's a good thing I am still mortal & can learn something new everyday, I feel sorry for 434 the "For ever" guy, he can't learn anything new because he already knows it because he has existed "For ever".

Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 05, 2018


A lot of different sources can generate high frequency EM. It isn't just stuff falling into so-called black holes that create gamma rays, it's can be MYRIADS of other things that you simply WISH ad hoc to be interpreted as the results of losing energy & falling into Pop-Cosmology's biggest fantasy.

Now do your best jonesy.


You don't understand the first thing about the EM spectrum, you thick b***ard! You tried to tell everyone that visible light doesn't cause heat! You are a complete moron, who knows nothing about any area of science, as multiply demonstrated! You are a janitor, or some such, who has a terminal case of D-K syndrome. As anybody with half a brain reading your incessant misunderstandings can see. There is no science to back you up, otherwise you'd have long since linked it. It is all the product of your diseased mind.


Do photons emit heat?
5 Answers
Kenneth D. Oglesby
Kenneth D. Oglesby, Engineer, Scientist, Founder www.mcphysics.org
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 05, 2018
-CONTINUED-

Do photons emit heat?
5 Answers
Kenneth D. Oglesby
Kenneth D. Oglesby, Engineer, Scientist, Founder www.mcphysics.org
Answered Mar 10 2017 · Author has 2.7k answers and 391.6k answer views
Not at all. The term 'heat' really means the level of vibration of matter, mostly atoms and molecules. That vibration level increases when that atom absorbs photons, electrons, other matter with kinetic energy. That same atom can lose vibration when it emits a particle while giving it kinetic energy. Thus photons do not 'emit' anything, but they do carry or possess kinetic energy, which allows photons to give and take away vibration or 'heat'.
Anonym262722
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 05, 2018
gran, Benni, et al. It may help to know the dynamic DU law where temperature (at 'cool' vs. hot Big Bounce event) need not be very high. The ticking rate of ALL (including neutron etc decay rate) atomic processes 9.2B Newtonian DU vs GRT based 13.8 B yrs ago is related to the 'aging factor' of the third power dC4=dC. Today's 14 min neutron decay rate at BB time T4 reduces to less than 1 sec or by a factor of 1,000 or more to explain 'monster star forming' of the discussion topic. See Suntola DU books and papers since 1995 supported by the math of surveying sciences, such as photogrammetry since ancient times of parallax bar and image mapping & GPS technologies of modern computer sciences in array calculus and general Theory Of Estimation (TOE). My 1-star anomym rating class may confuse it as spam of 'uneducated trolls and loon thickos' who dare to challenge the physics educated 5-star elite defending eg 'Nobel proven' DE, GW and 5-10 other mistaken GRT/QM based postulates.
granville583762
3.5 / 5 (8) Sep 06, 2018
The strong nuclear force is one of the fundamental forces of nature
Attracts Neutrons and protons, protons at short range the attractive nuclear force is strong enough to overcome the electromagnetic force.
The nuclear force is attractive between nucleons at 1 femto-metre but it rapidly decreases to insignificance at distances beyond about 2.5 fm. At distances less than 0.7 fm, the nuclear force is responsible for the physical size of nucleons distances larger 0.7 fm the force becomes attractive between spin-aligned nucleons, becoming maximal at a center–center distance of 1 fm. Beyond this distance the force drops exponentially, until beyond about 2.0 fm separation, the force is negligible. Nucleons radius of 0.8 fm
Less than 1.7 fm the attractive nuclear force is stronger than the repulsive Coulomb force
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 06, 2018
The 13.8 billion years figure for the age of the Universe is arbitrary as well as merely a hypothesis. It could be far older, insofar that the Primordial Gas Cloud could not have accumulated overnight, or even a billion years worth of accumulating enough particles of Matter/Energy that would, under great pressure and temperature, trigger/ignite/detonate the fissionable particles within the Mass to produce enough Energy/heat/temperature to then produce sufficient momentum to prevent the Matter from falling back from whence it came through gravitational attraction effects on Mass.
At that juncture, I don't believe that the Fusion processes of Hydrogen gas was a necessary component subsequent to the "detonation" of fissionable material, and Stars were not formed until sometime after the detonation and its momentum of Matter/Energy was completed.

I think that you meant to say, "FREE Neutron Decay" within 14.42 minutes/seconds outside of a nucleus.
granville583762
3.5 / 5 (8) Sep 06, 2018
Positive protons induces a negative field on the neutron
The neutron is simply attracted directly to 1fm radius – this implies a neutron and proton attract each other
The positive proton field induces a negative field on the neutron attracting the neutron and proton together to 2.5fm where the nuclear force attracts the neutron and proton to 1fm binding them together
Why sweat our little hearts out when protons and neutrons have been binding in the vacuum for billions of years and no steely fusion reactor in sight - another proton and neutron achieve with a couple of electrons thrown in for good measure form the helium desired and these little nucleons in their own world continue their life cycle without our help, as they refuse to accept our sledge hammer to crack a nut approach!
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 06, 2018
Since opposites attract - it could easily be said that protons are male and neutrons are female. Or is that too much of a stretch?
:)
granville583762
3.3 / 5 (7) Sep 06, 2018
Bennies Hot Lucious Juicy Neutron
Since opposites attract - it could easily be said that protons are male and neutrons are female. Or is that too much of a stretch?
:)

Benni is my inspiration in this insight into the life cycle of protons and neutrons when protons marry a hot lucious juicy neutron, this is a far cry from this neutron discussion that fortunately Benni kept alive so when I arrived, his neutron was ready and waiting for my little insights.
Did you think in your wildest dreams SEU, as over the years you have watched Benni struggle over this Hot Neutron that it could turn into this magical world!
Benni
3 / 5 (6) Sep 06, 2018
Less than 1.7 fm the attractive nuclear force is stronger than the repulsive Coulomb force


........here we go granDy, but the caveat here for creating p-p fusion of H1 is temperature. Even if the distance between two protons is less than 1.7 fm, caused by compression forces over the Sun's core, they still won't fuse unless the minimum temperature conditions are met, several million kelvin, I forget the number.

The minimum temperature is what is needed to overcome the repulsive + electric charge of protons which heretofore prevents them from getting inside that 1.7 fm so that attractive nuclear forces between the protons can take over & cause fusion to helium.

So now we come back to that trigger mechanism of what the source of the heat is that causes nuclear force binding. Fission is again the likely culprit.
granville583762
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 06, 2018
The Neutron is not just a pretty face
The neutron is effectively neutralising the protons electric field allowing protons and neutrons combined to bring pairs of proton-neutrons to approach to 2.5fm, where the nuclear force works its magic forming helium, lithium and more – but of course if everyone insists on forcing two protons together their electric field will resist most strongly with 230N between two protons.
The neutron is not just a pretty face, it produce's pristine protons, electrons and neutrinos in its decay and with very little energy and momentum allows atomic nucleons to combine in the vacuum of space into their elemental elements!
Benni
3 / 5 (6) Sep 06, 2018
Positive protons induces a negative field on the neutron
The neutron is simply attracted directly to 1fm radius – this implies a neutron and proton attract each other
The positive proton field induces a negative field on the neutron attracting the neutron and proton together to 2.5fm where the nuclear force attracts the neutron and proton to 1fm binding them together
Why sweat our little hearts out when protons and neutrons have been binding in the vacuum for billions of years and no steely fusion reactor in sight - another proton and neutron achieve with a couple of electrons thrown in for good measure form the helium desired and these little nucleons in their own world continue their life cycle without our help, as they refuse to accept our sledge hammer to crack a nut approach!


>granDy.......a soliloquy ?

Hope 434 "For ever" guy, or jonesy doesn't see this, they'll never comprehend it.
granville583762
3.5 / 5 (8) Sep 06, 2018
When a proton binds with a neutron energy is released to power their nucleon nuclear reactions
If you force 2 protons together they will resist, the neutron is the catalyst to reduce the energy for fusion to occur, gravity in the solar core is irrelevant and gravity is zero in the solar core, the protons are weightless in the solar core - as physics-world professors have constantly inferred there is more than simply brute force taking place in the solar core.
granville583762
3.5 / 5 (8) Sep 06, 2018
The sledge hammers to crack a nut approach
>granDy.......a soliloquy ?
Hope 434 "For ever" guy, or jonesy doesn't see this, they'll never comprehend it.

They could not realise they have comprehend it, even if they had - they will go ballistic with enough force to fuse 2 protons; were just waiting for the fallout, beware it might be radio-active!
granville583762
3.5 / 5 (8) Sep 06, 2018
Why is this so?
Even if the distance between two protons less than 1.7 fm, caused by compression forces over the Sun's core, they won't fuse unless the minimum temperature conditions are met millions kelvin, I forget the number. The minimum temperature is what is needed to overcome the repulsive + electric charge of protons which prevents them from getting inside that 1.7 fm so that attractive nuclear forces between the protons can take over fusion to helium.

Kinetic-energy is massless without temperature, only heat on impact, atoms build up kinetic energy through the De Broglie Frequency and reduce the velocity of protons releasing the kinetic-energy of protons without increasing temperature of protons travelling occupying the vacuum.
The velocity of the proton does not require heat just as the pion decays into a muon, temperature has no effect on the muon velocity rate through the atmosphere as the kinetic-energy of the muon is exactly the same unaffected by heat!
granville583762
3.5 / 5 (8) Sep 06, 2018
All atoms oscillate - the De Broglie Frequency -

In the atomic world heat does not correlate into protonic velocity
All energy is vibration, frequency/the speed of light - the De Broglie Frequency - all atomic particles oscillate with frequency and wave which is their kinetic-energy, as they accelerate their KE is stored in the De Broglie Frequency, being is released through the De Broglie Frequency on deceleration - no heat is involved in the way protons, electrons and neutrinos transfer their KE from a proton to neutron to electron and neutrino.
An example:- Gravity accelerates a proton, the KE is stored in the De Broglie Frequency in the proton, where on deceleration the energy is returned to the gravitational source through the De Broglie Frequency

All Energy is Frequency, no heat involved!
granville583762
3.4 / 5 (8) Sep 06, 2018
The energy of fusion
It is the energy of fusion, not the temperature of fusion, which is the cause of nucleon fusion reactions
Atoms do not, in their femto-world, left to their own devices, require the immense temperatures to start the fusion in stars, to release the immense heat once fusion has started.
Because the gravitational compressive force is in the order of 1x10-15N per nucleon where as the electric force is 230N per nucleon and gravity is zero at the centre of mass and nucleons are weightless at the solar core!
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (6) Sep 06, 2018
Bennies Hot Lucious Juicy Neutron
Since opposites attract - it could easily be said that protons are male and neutrons are female. Or is that too much of a stretch?
:)

Benni is my inspiration in this insight into the life cycle of protons and neutrons when protons marry a hot lucious juicy neutron, this is a far cry from this neutron discussion that fortunately Benni kept alive so when I arrived, his neutron was ready and waiting for my little insights.
Did you think in your wildest dreams SEU, as over the years you have watched Benni struggle over this Hot Neutron that it could turn into this magical world!
say granV

After having read (and still reading) hundreds of old p.o. articles and forums, I understood that Benni had great potential of discovering new science and their applications that may determine whether or not the Logic of the existing science in the fields of Physics are inviolable. His detractors are clearly unable to accept new Physics ideas
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 06, 2018
-CONTINUED-
@ granville
YOUR insights wrt the fm methodology has added to the Logic equation and has greatly assisted in Benni's coming to the correct conclusions wrt the marriage of Mr. Proton and Miss Neutron.
However, there is an end to all good things, and when the former Miss Neutron leaves her happy domain within the nucleus, she is accosted by old age and other forces to reveal, in her crumbling nakedness, her children who had dwelt inside her.
granville583762
3.5 / 5 (8) Sep 06, 2018
These old idea's sound interesting SEU, there is a more settled air it would be interesting to discover them again
After having read (and still reading) hundreds of old p.o. articles and forums, I understood that Benni had great potential of discovering new science and their applications that may determine whether or not the Logic of the existing science in the fields of Physics are inviolable. His detractors are clearly unable to accept new Physics ideas


Benni
3 / 5 (6) Sep 06, 2018
-CONTINUED-
@ granville
YOUR insights wrt the fm methodology has added to the Logic equation and has greatly assisted in Benni's coming to the correct conclusions wrt the marriage of Mr. Proton and Miss Neutron.
However, there is an end to all good things, and when the former Miss Neutron leaves her happy domain within the nucleus, she is accosted by old age and other forces to reveal, in her crumbling nakedness, her children who had dwelt inside her.


He keeps a smile on my face........granDy
Benni
3 / 5 (6) Sep 06, 2018
say granV

After having read (and still reading) hundreds of old p.o. articles and forums, I understood that Benni had great potential of discovering new science and their applications that may determine whether or not the Logic of the existing science in the fields of Physics are inviolable. His detractors are clearly unable to accept new Physics ideas


I can't even imagine how weary your eyeballs have become.

The last person who admitted he had actually read every Comment I ever put up did it because he was so mad at me because I went hard after Fritz Zwicky & his dark matter hypotheses. This guy even put up the exact number of my Comments of which he claimed to have read every one of them.........I had to wonder if the guy wasn't just simply a glutton for punishment.

By a manner of forensic data mining I found out the guy was a relative of Fritz Zwicky, a grandson I believe. I once hinted to him that I knew who he was.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (4) Sep 06, 2018
@Benni
As I read old p.o. articles and comments, I take great notice of those who are genuinely interested in the study of Physics (and other sciences) on the one hand, and also those who are here just to fill up space and say things that have nothing to do with the topic. Those who need to express their anger at religions, at mankind, at Trump, and at those who don't bend to their sense of self-importance (such as Captain Stinky and a few others) are all in p.o. so that they may take out their frustrations and vent their anger at some of those who are here to learn science, and most of all, QUESTION.
The science will never be completely settled, except for Laws of Thermo, for instance. But those who refuse to even consider that there is so much more, will never come to realise the rut they are in.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (4) Sep 06, 2018
The energy of fusion
It is the energy of fusion, not the temperature of fusion, which is the cause of nucleon fusion reactions
Atoms do not, in their femto-world, left to their own devices, require the immense temperatures to start the fusion in stars, to release the immense heat once fusion has started.
Because the gravitational compressive force is in the order of 1x10-15N per nucleon where as the electric force is 230N per nucleon and gravity is zero at the centre of mass and nucleons are weightless at the solar core!
says granville

I think what you are saying is that the temperature has already triggered the process for Hydrogen to turn into a Plasma, so that at that point the Plasma begins the Fusion process and the temperature is sustained without any further need for temperature gain. Is that correct?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 07, 2018

https://phys.org/...its.html

The above article got me to thinking of what is wrong with America and how it came to be so bad, in spite of the US being the greatest nation on Earth. The article itself has to do with the latest attack on the American education process in the teaching of STEM subjects in grades K - 12.
There is a cancer growing within the community of educators and administrators that, quite remarkably, seems to be indicative of the Left's racist attitudes toward American Black children and how these children are allegedly not well equipped to learn STEM subjects because they are held back due to their culture and language used at home and elsewhere, including in school.

Clearly, it is a racist and bigoted attitude in the Leftist handling of educating minority children.
I submitted a YouTube video of Ben Shapiro giving a talk/lecture that is relative to the article.
granville583762
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 07, 2018
The energy of fusion
It is the energy of fusion, not the temperature of fusion, which is the cause of nucleon fusion reactions
Atoms do not, in their femto-world, left to their own devices, require the immense temperatures to start the fusion in stars, to release the immense heat once fusion has started.
the gravitational compressive force is in the order of 1x10-15N per nucleon where as the electric force is 230N per nucleon and gravity is zero at the centre of mass and nucleons are weightless at the solar core!
says granville
I think what you are saying is that the temperature has already triggered the process for Hydrogen to turn into a Plasma, so that at that point the Plasma begins the Fusion process and the temperature is sustained without any further need for temperature gain. Is that correct?

Almost, the proton+neutron initiate fusion at a much lower temperature, once started there's a dramatic increase in temperature which we are measuring
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 07, 2018
@ granville
OK I think I've got it now, thanks. The lower temperature is due to the chain reaction of Fissionable material, and from there the higher temps take over when the process of Fusion is engaged? My wording may be imprecise, but I believe that I have gotten the gist of it.

Just like a chunk of Wensleydale cheese with apricots made in the Shires. :)
Anonym262722
3 / 5 (2) Sep 08, 2018
Keep going gran & Benni, in my understanding of DU at the nested level of particle physics by Prof Lehto of PFS group your neutron decay explanation makes sense - a step forward from the cosmological SNa1 and GW blunders such as the Nobel awarded 'DE discovery using SN1a data and assumed GW confirmation of NS merger', explained in my past posts. They are based on my loop inverse estimation theory since 1970 and Suntola's DU work since 1995. Lehto's work in period doubling and simulation of the periodic table using $ 1K PC (vs LHC or futuristic colliders) may potentially explain the 'atomic epicycles' of quarks and strings in a similar fashion to DE/DM, BB, GW and 5-10 other mistaken postulates of GR/QM. The general TOE of array algebra and calculus was developed in photogrammetry and geodesy of my early 1968-1975 research in Finland, Sweden and USA with applications in space mapping industry, starting from calibration of the close-range 'moon camera'.
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 08, 2018
After the Parties Over Fusion begins
Force a square Femto-metre, and that chunk of Wensleydale cheese
@ Granville OK I think I've got it now, thanks. The lower temperature is due to the chain reaction of Fissionable material, and from there the higher temps take over when the process of Fusion is engaged? My wording may be imprecise, but I believe that I have gotten the gist of it.
Just like a chunk of Wensleydale cheese with apricots made in the Shires. :)

Everyone accepts gravity is weaker than the electric field at femto-dimensions; it is not until you get the calculator out, it's obvious by how much.
Protons and Neutrons exist inside femto-metre dimensions that the solar mass piles up like the water on the Marianas Trench, only it is not 7miles deep but 400,000miles deep, where it is the pressure on that column is on one square femto-metre equals 10-15N per proton and neutron, where gravity is zero and protons and neutrons are weightless at the solar core.
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 08, 2018
After the Parties Over Fusion begins

SEU:- As these tenuous clouds of galactic dust conglomerate in the vacuum SEU, if you floated to its core the gravitational force on yourself decreases to zero at this proto-star dust cloud core, fusion start before the cloud reach's solar mass densities SEU, and as gravity demonstrates on a femto-metre square, it is less than 10-15N a proton where the proton is resisting 10-15N with 230N of positive force - There is not sufficient gravitational compression to initiation fusion, the atoms have other methods which involve neutrons and radio-active decay.

The neutron is the only nucleon capable of reaching the 1fm barrier and it helps neutralise the protons positive field.
As the saying goes SEU, After the parties over, fusion begins!
granville583762
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 08, 2018
Equalisation of forces
granville583762> and as gravity demonstrates on a femto-metre square, it is less than 10-15N a proton where the proton is resisting 10-15N with 230N of positive force.

SEU:- The 230N will expand pushing back the 10-15N till a balance of forces is met, which will increase the space between protons resulting as the mathematics bear out, resulting in the protons under even less pressure as in their femto-metre world the density will drop
In the solar furnace we are observing solar fusion after the party is over, not before!
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 08, 2018
And a good party it was. S0 many things had gone on before and during, and all the guests that were invited came in bearing gifts. One brought some Uranium; another brought plenty of gravity; and another brought a whole keg of Hydrogen gas. There were so many gifts that it was hard to contain all of it. We knew after awhile, didn't we, that it was going to get very hot, with no way to cool it down. But that's what makes it so great. We knew that there would be fireworks, as every good party should have. And we were not disappointed.
:)
Anonym262722
3 / 5 (2) Sep 09, 2018
One of the best physorg parties/discussions (with civil & uncivil talk) to awaken the physics community to see its past mistakes and to celebrate understanding/adoption/adaption of new reality already discovered in related fields of mathematical surveying sciences with a new physics connection to DU pioneers Tuomo Suntola, Ari Lehto & Co of PFS in Finland, Kippis/Cheers/Skal, see you in Stockholm or Helsinki Mecca of new physics!
Anonym262722
1 / 5 (1) Sep 12, 2018
Whew, the two physics foundations stones of GRT and QM in past 100 years are bared as mistakes (constancy of speed of light C and Planck energy constant) in the real (vs. Nobel confirmed assumed SN1a and GW BH/NS mergers) proofs, The present discussion targeted other 5-10 mistakes revealed by Suntola DU and Lehto period doubling in terms of TOE explanation of the 400 yr starting point of 'epicycle mistakes'. Granville, Benni and SEU targeted an explanation of the 'other' standard physics theory of particle physics for rethinking in terms of DU and Lehto's past work. Benni's comment of quarks (in addition to string/brane postulates) as observable LHC EFFECT of a physical math model equals my 1970 starting point of loop inverses in general TOE. Take over this Planck scale part of DU and TOE as my help is needed in details of 4/5 photogrammetric & GPS mapping of universe. Thanks physorg for not eating me alive as 1-star troll/woo/loon whacko.
Anonym262722
1 / 5 (1) Oct 01, 2018
A summary of the advanced estimation theory of array calculus and its applications in mathematical surveying sciences of photogrammetry and geodesy can be found at

https://www.degru...0032.pdf

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.