Large-scale simulations could shed light on the 'dark' elements that make up most of our cosmos

August 23, 2018 by Daniel Rosplock, Virginia Tech
Large-scale structure of the universe resulting from a supercomputer simulation of the evolution of the universe. Credit: Habib et al./Argonne National Lab

If you only account for the matter we can see, our entire galaxy shouldn't exist. The combined gravitational pull of every known moon, planet, and star should not have been strong enough to produce a system as dense and complex as the Milky Way.

So what's held it all together?

Scientists believe there is a large amount of additional matter in the universe that we can't observe directly – so-called "." While it is not known what dark matter is made of, its effects on light and gravity are apparent in the very structure of our galaxy. This, combined with the even more mysterious "" thought to be speeding up the universe's expansion, could make up as much as 96 percent of the entire cosmos.

In an ambitious effort directed by Argonne National Laboratory, researchers at the Biocomplexity Institute of Virginia Tech are now attempting to estimate key features of the universe, including its relative distributions of dark matter and dark energy. The U.S. Department of Energy has approved nearly $1 million in funding for the research team, which has been tasked with leveraging large-scale computer simulations and developing new statistical methods to help us better understand these fundamental forces.

To capture the impact of dark matter and dark energy on current and future scientific observations, the research team plans to build on some of the powerful predictive technologies that have been employed by the Biocomplexity Institute to forecast the global spread of diseases like Zika and Ebola. Using observational data from sources like the Dark Energy Survey, scientists will attempt to better understand how these "dark" elements have influenced the evolution of the universe.

"It sounds somewhat incredible, but we've done similar things in the past by combining statistical methods with supercomputer simulations, looking at epidemics," said Dave Higdon, a professor in the Biocomplexity Institute's Social and Decision Analytics Laboratory and a faculty member in the Department of Statistics, part of the Virginia Tech College of Science.

"Using to combine input data on population, movement patterns, and the surrounding terrain with detailed simulations can forecast how health conditions in an area will evolve quite reliably—it will be an interesting test to see how well these same principles perform on a cosmic scale."

If this effort is successful, results will benefit upcoming cosmological surveys and may shed light on a number of mysteries regarding the makeup and evolution of dark matter and dark energy. What's more, by reverse engineering the evolution of these elements, they could provide unique insights into more than 14 billion years of cosmic history.

Explore further: New insights on dark energy

Related Stories

New insights on dark energy

October 2, 2017

The universe is not only expanding - it is accelerating outward, driven by what is commonly referred to as "dark energy." The term is a poetic analogy to label for dark matter, the mysterious material that dominates the matter ...

Mapping dark matter

July 24, 2017

About eighty-five percent of the matter in the universe is in the form of dark matter, whose nature remains a mystery. The rest of the matter in the universe is of the kind found in atoms. Astronomers studying the evolution ...

Team puts dark matter on the map

March 1, 2017

A Yale-led team has produced one of the highest-resolution maps of dark matter ever created, offering a detailed case for the existence of cold dark matter—sluggish particles that comprise the bulk of matter in the universe.

New evidence for dark matter makes it even more exotic

October 26, 2017

Galaxy clusters are the largest known structures in the Universe, containing thousands of galaxies and hot gas. But more importantly, they contain the mysterious dark matter, which accounts for 27 percent of all matter and ...

Recommended for you

In colliding galaxies, a pipsqueak shines bright

February 20, 2019

In the nearby Whirlpool galaxy and its companion galaxy, M51b, two supermassive black holes heat up and devour surrounding material. These two monsters should be the most luminous X-ray sources in sight, but a new study using ...

When does one of the central ideas in economics work?

February 20, 2019

The concept of equilibrium is one of the most central ideas in economics. It is one of the core assumptions in the vast majority of economic models, including models used by policymakers on issues ranging from monetary policy ...

Research reveals why the zebra got its stripes

February 20, 2019

Why do zebras have stripes? A study published in PLOS ONE today takes us another step closer to answering this puzzling question and to understanding how stripes actually work.

Correlated nucleons may solve 35-year-old mystery

February 20, 2019

A careful re-analysis of data taken at the Department of Energy's Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility has revealed a possible link between correlated protons and neutrons in the nucleus and a 35-year-old mystery. ...

144 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

tomwestboro
1.4 / 5 (11) Aug 23, 2018
Dark matter is a supersolid that fills 'empty' space, strongly interacts with ordinary matter and is displaced by ordinary matter. What is referred to geometrically as curved spacetime physically exists in nature as the state of displacement of the supersolid dark matter. The state of displacement of the supersolid dark matter is gravity.

The supersolid dark matter displaced by a galaxy pushes back, causing the stars in the outer arms of the galaxy to orbit the galactic center at the rate in which they do.
Captain Skip
1.9 / 5 (13) Aug 24, 2018
Once again we are reminded of the complete lack of common sense of anyone with a PhD.

Dark matter was invented because they could not explain the expansion of the universe.
the whole premise violates the classical observations of gravity.

Draw me a photon and i will maybe sit up and listen until then ....

cantdrive85
2.3 / 5 (12) Aug 24, 2018
A million dollar grant for a grand exercise in the art of GIGO. I want my taxes refunded to me. These leeches should have to produce real science if they're going to use gov't funding, instead we get computer games based on pseudoscientific faerie tales. Pathetic!
zz5555
4.6 / 5 (10) Aug 24, 2018
Once again we are reminded of the complete lack of common sense of anyone with a PhD.

Dark matter was invented because they could not explain the expansion of the universe.
the whole premise violates the classical observations of gravity.

Umm, I think you're confusing dark matter with dark energy. Dark energy provides the force for expansion. It says that right in the article - you should have read it before commenting. Newtonian physics can't explain galactic rotations either - that's why they've come up with MOND to replace dark matter. But MOND has problems, so it's likely that dark matter is really some kind of matter. Not regular matter, but some kind of matter nonetheless.
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (12) Aug 26, 2018
To further demonstrate this is an utter waste of resources it has already been shown in the data the Universe is not expanding.

https://lppfusion...journal/

https://academic....05b84a9a

But hey, who cares about wasting resources when it's public funding.
Benni
2.5 / 5 (13) Aug 26, 2018
"If you only account for the matter we can see, our entire galaxy shouldn't exist. The combined gravitational pull of every known moon, planet, and star should not have been strong enough to produce a system as dense and complex as the Milky Way."

Maybe if this Daniel Rosplock, Virginia Tech had actually studied the Photon Deflection section of Einstein's General relativity then maybe he'd be able to figure out on his own why his above quoted statement is totally out of whack.

When Einstein calculated Photon Deflection in GR, he based it purely on the visible mass of the Sun. In 1916 there was no talk about MISSING MATTER, so at least Einstein wasn't hamstrung with trying to work MISSING MASS into his Field Equations. He calculated the gravitational lensing of a photon just grazing & passing the peripheral disc of the Sun & calculated that gravitational effect at 1.75 arcsecs at 0.02% of error.

The gravitational attraction of any mass is readily done by it's visible mass.

Benni
2.5 / 5 (13) Aug 26, 2018
"If you only account for the matter we can see, our entire galaxy shouldn't exist. The combined gravitational pull of every known moon, planet, and star should not have been strong enough to produce a system as dense and complex as the Milky Way."

The gravitational attraction of any mass is readily done by it's visible mass.


What would be interesting to know is whether this wizard of Pop-Cosmology actually sat down & counted all the bodies of mass presently in existence in the galaxy, then did a calculation like Einstein did to calculate the gravity of the Sun based on it's visible mass. You know he couldn't have because we still don't how many stars have planets we presently can't detect, or the quantity of interstellar dust & free clouds of hydrogen known to exist between stars, this stuff cannot be simulated because we have no idea how much exists except to know there's a lot more of it than we knew about even as recently as a few years ago.
Benni
2.8 / 5 (11) Aug 26, 2018
"There's a "hydrogen wall" at the edge of our solar system, and NASA scientists think their New Horizons spacecraft can see it."

" On one side are the last vestiges of solar wind. And on the other side, in the direction of the Sun's movement through the galaxy, there's a buildup of interstellar matter, including hydrogen."

https://www.lives...ace.html
flueninsky
2.8 / 5 (11) Aug 26, 2018
The belief of science - Scientists believe
@phys.org If you only account for the matter we can see, our entire galaxy shouldn't exist.
Scientists believe there is a large amount of additional matter in the universe that we can't observe

At least in some strange way their being honest, their admitting that if they could see it, it would add to the matter presently observed, then it would not be dark!

cantdrive85
2.5 / 5 (11) Aug 26, 2018
"There's a "hydrogen wall" at the edge of our solar system, and NASA scientists think their New Horizons spacecraft can see it."

The solar magnetosphere has sheath around it, this shouldn't be a surprise but it is...
Benni
2.5 / 5 (13) Aug 26, 2018
"There's a "hydrogen wall" at the edge of our solar system, and NASA scientists think their New Horizons spacecraft can see it."

" On one side are the last vestiges of solar wind. And on the other side, in the direction of the Sun's movement through the galaxy, there's a buildup of interstellar matter, including hydrogen."

https://www.lives...ace.html


The point here being, that if there is now known to be so much more atomic hydrogen & agglomerated, nano-meter & micron sized particles immediately beyond the helio-sphere, what does this ACTUALLY portend for the total VISIBLE mass of the galaxy? And this of course must be added to the TOTAL GRAVITY of the galaxy.

A reasonable calculation could be made resulting in enough interstellar material between our Sun & Alpha Centauri that would equal another star the mass of our Sun, and if that inter-star quantity was equal throughout the galaxy, gravity doubles.
Benni
2.5 / 5 (13) Aug 26, 2018
A reasonable calculation could be made resulting in enough interstellar material between our Sun & Alpha Centauri that would equal another star the mass of our Sun, and if that inter-star quantity was equal throughout the galaxy, gravity doubles.


.....and here is the succinct point to make about this:

If there exists enough mass between every star in the galaxy to create another star, that quantity of mass effectively doubles the number of stars that could be in existence as opposed to the number we can actually see, and this is the problem Dan R at Vir Tech isn't up to speed on when trying to plug data into his large-scale simulations.
SkyLight
3.2 / 5 (18) Aug 27, 2018
@Benni, it's most amusing to see you quote yourself, as if you were some kind of authority in these matters:
A reasonable calculation could be made resulting in enough interstellar material between our Sun & Alpha Centauri that would equal another star the mass of our Sun
Oh really? Did you make such a "reasonable" calculation? Did you use that profound mathematical ability you always claim to have (all those PDE's you can do!) to come up with this astounding result? Or did you guess the numbers while sat on the toilet?

Let's take a look at some numbers. First case: if we take the volume of space between the Sun and Alpha Centauri as the cylinder with a radius of 200AU (~radius of the solar heliosphere), and length 1.34 parsecs, and fill that space with a tenuous gas or plasma with particle density 0.3 per cm^3 (equivalent to the warm ISM in the solar vicinity), then the material contained in the cylinder will have a mass of ~3e-8 solar masses.

(TBC)
SkyLight
3.2 / 5 (18) Aug 27, 2018
(...continued...) That's a few hundred-millionths of a solar mass.

Second case: we now take the volume of space between the Sun and Alpha Centauri to be the sphere with diameter equal to the distance (1.34 parsecs) between them. Again, we fill that space with the tenuous gas or plasma with particle density 0.3 per cm^3 (equivalent to the warm ISM in the solar vicinity), then the material contained in the sphere will have a mass of ~9e-3 solar masses. Which is about one hundredth of a solar mass.

So your toilet-paper scribblings are off by at least two orders of magnitude, depending on how one defines the space "between our Sun & Alpha Centauri". So much for your pathetic, bullshit attempt to blind us with your startling genius, Benni-Boy.

Shame they didn't teach you any actual science at that college you claim to have been edjicated at. Nuclear Electrical Engineer my ass! Nuclear garbage-disposal technician, more like.
Benni
2.5 / 5 (13) Aug 27, 2018
So your toilet-paper scribblings are off by at least two orders of magnitude, depending on how one defines the space "between our Sun & Alpha Centauri;


You be Skyhigh on what? I made no "scribblings" or calculations, you're confusing your inept reading skills with what I actually wrote because you were so anxious to start a foul mouthed name calling rant. It was the link to https://www.lives...ace.html with the new found data that outdates your rambling nonsense:
particle density 0.3 per cm^3 (equivalent to the warm ISM in the solar vicinity), then the material contained in the sphere will have a mass of ~9e-3 solar masses


Your "particle density" is as out of whack as your foul mouth, but that's was never been new with anyone in the Pop-Cosmology crowd living here.

SkyLight
3.2 / 5 (18) Aug 27, 2018
A reasonable calculation could be made resulting in enough interstellar material between our Sun & Alpha Centauri that would equal another star the mass of our Sun
So show us your "reasonable" calculation. Put it in black and white. And do please tell us what the particle density of the ISM is in the solar vicinity, to put us all in the picture.

And as far as your quote from the livescience website goes, as a bite-sized piece of scientific journalism, it's not bad, and just about at your level of comprehension, but it's not as good as the real thing. I read the paper behind that article, did you, Benni? Here's a link to it, in case you get lost while trying to Google with those big fat thumbs of yours: https://arxiv.org...0400.pdf
Benni
2.5 / 5 (13) Aug 27, 2018
So show us your "reasonable" calculation. Put it in black and white. And do please tell us what the particle density of the ISM is in the solar vicinity, to put us all in the picture.


For starters we know
particle density 0.3 per cm^3 (equivalent to the warm ISM in the solar vicinity), then the material contained in the sphere will have a mass of ~9e-3 solar masses
is wrong because there exists new instrumentation measuring data rebutting it. So what is YOUR revised reasonable calculation to compare to my so-called "reasonable calculation" that I never made.

Pop-Cosmology the never ending pursuit to INFER why psycho-babble can be reality.

SkyLight
3.3 / 5 (18) Aug 27, 2018
there exists new instrumentation measuring data rebutting
Don't beat about the bush, Benni, what is the particle density of the ISM in the vicinity of the Sun? Give us the numbers, the data...

My figure comes from "The Interstellar Medium Surrounding the Sun" by Frisch, Redfield, Slavin in Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 2011. 49:237–79, page 274: "The ISM flowing past the Sun is warm, 2,000–12,000 K, with low mean densities, ~0.1–0.3 cm-3". ( https://www.wesle...isch.pdf )

This agrees well with the figure given in the Wiki, https://en.wikipe..._matter, for Warm Neutral Medium => 0.2 to 0.5 particles per cm^3.

The same range of densities is quoted in other sources - I leave it up to you to do the research.
SkyLight
3.3 / 5 (14) Aug 27, 2018
my so-called "reasonable calculation" that I never made
This could turn out to be a defining "internet meme", just for you, Benni.
Benni
2.5 / 5 (11) Aug 27, 2018
there exists new instrumentation measuring data rebutting
Don't beat about the bush, Benni, what is the particle density of the ISM in the vicinity of the Sun? Give us the numbers


My figure comes from "The Interstellar Medium Surrounding the Sun" by Frisch, Redfield, Slavin in Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 2011. 49:237–79, page 274: "The ISM flowing past the Sun is warm, 2,000–12,000 K, with low mean densities, ~0.1–0.3 cm-3". (https://www.wesle...isch.pdf ? You've got the paper behind the paper, therefore you know how to make the case there still is not enough interstellar matter between any star that can equal the mass of another star.
SkyLight
3.4 / 5 (15) Aug 27, 2018
So, in other words, Benni, your "reasonable calculation" idea falls flat on its' face, for two reasons.

The first reason is that an actual calculation shows that there is far too little material between stars like the Sun and Alpha Centauri to "equal another star the mass of our Sun", and therefore your hand-waving idea that "if that inter-star quantity was equal throughout the galaxy, gravity doubles" is incorrect by a big margin.

Secondly, and this appears to have gone right over your head, this material - the ISM - as well as the dust and molecular clouds and all the other cold stuff which doesn't directly shine in the optical frequencies like the stars do, HAS ALREADY BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR when calculating galactic rotation curves (GRC's).

So, we're still left with the problem of how to account for observed GRC's, as well as velocity dispersion estimates of elliptical galaxies, "missing matter" in galaxy clusters, and the degree of gravitational lensing by galaxy clusters.
cantdrive85
2.4 / 5 (14) Aug 27, 2018
The additional mass is not needed, large scale electric fields explain all that which DM was invented to describe.
SkyLight
3.3 / 5 (16) Aug 28, 2018
large scale electric fields explain all that which DM was invented to describe
With no numbers or math in the EU Tall Tales you laughably call "theories", how can you possibly know this? How can you even define the word "large" in a so-called science with no mathematical basis?

Is "large" here to be taken to be the size of your lack of understanding of things scientific [not very big], or the size of the Velikovskian Woo Field which pervades the collective minds of the EU rabble [fairly big], or perhaps the size of Wal Thornhill's ego which, by all accounts, stretches at least as far as the orbit of Saturn [now that's pretty big] ?

Science - the mainstream if you will - IS based on math, and has the scientific method to enable it to make quantitative predictions. Which has stood it in good stead for a few hundred years, and is the reason why mainstream scientists get awarded million dollar grants, while you bozos are left outside in the cold with your dicks in your hands.
Benni
2.2 / 5 (13) Aug 28, 2018
The first reason is that an actual calculation shows that there is far too little material between stars like the Sun and Alpha Centauri to "equal another star the mass of our Sun",


Hey, Pop-Cosmology neophyte, what you claim to be "an actual calculation" has already been proven to be WRONG!!!!

When will you finally GET IT, the phony numbers you came up with were just that, PHONY, just as phony as your reading skills, but you as a Pop-Cosmology aficionado like those numbers that New Horizons have PROVEN to phony, you like them simply because you have become a captive bitter clinger to all that UNEXPLAINED inferred gravity as an excuse to have a means of keeping the PHONY dark matter narrative alive & well.

Science - the mainstream if you will - IS based on math
.....not when the "math" is wrong it isn't.

Hey, SkyHigh, when's the last time you sat down & solved a Differential Equation? Tell schneibo I said HELLO.

SkyLight
3.3 / 5 (16) Aug 28, 2018
@Benni
captive bitter clinger
Pot, kettle. Dumbo whiner.
SkyLight
3.4 / 5 (17) Aug 28, 2018
@Benni
New Horizons have PROVEN to [BE - don't forget the verb!] phony
No, Benni, New Horizons is a spacecraft, it didn't prove anything. It measured interplanetary medium (IPM) atomic hydrogen Lyman-a (Lya) emissions (UV light) in the outer solar system.

These emissions arise when solar Lya photons are scattered by neutral interstellar hydrogen atoms as they travel through the solar system. The paper's authors state that
In particular, the falloff of IPM Lya brightness in the upstream-looking direction as a function of spacecraft distance from the Sun is well-matched by an expected 1/r dependence, but with an added constant brightness of ~40 Rayleighs.
This additional brightness is a possible signature of the hydrogen wall at the heliopause, or of a more distant background However, as the livescience article states
the researchers cautioned, that signal isn't a sure sign that New Horizons has seen the hydrogen wall, or that Voyager did
cantdrive85
2.5 / 5 (11) Aug 28, 2018
Science - the mainstream if you will - IS based on math,

Oh, I am well aware of the imaginary conjecture of your mainstream maths faerie tales. It's why you're missing 96% of your Universe. The EU on the other hand is largely experimentally based which is far too real for the plasma ignoramuses.
"We have to learn again that science without contact with experiments is an enterprise which is likely to go completely astray into imaginary conjecture." Hannes Alfvén
SkyLight
3.3 / 5 (16) Aug 28, 2018
But, @Benni, your fits of Trumpian anger at being proven wrong in your assumptions re "missing matter" don't cut any ice here. Shouting WRONG, PHONY, UNEXPLAINED when you can't even be bothered to do a few calculations to see whether you're talking BS or not: that's sheer ignorance. Ignorant is also the best word to describe a person who is truly incapable of understanding even the simplest kind of subtlety contained in a pop-science article on the web.

NOWHERE does it state that anything has been PROVEN by the NH measurements; only that they MIGHT come from some kind of "hydrogen wall" (still a very tenuous medium, thinner than the best vacuums which we can make with equipment on Earth), OR from somewhere else beyond the heliosphere.

This is the same kind of igorance and sheer stupidity you showed earlier in the year when you completely failed to understand captions to images of the galactic center. What the hell do you actually DO with those PDE's, Benni - open cans of soda?
SkyLight
3.4 / 5 (17) Aug 28, 2018
The EU ... is largely experimentally based
Experimentation without math, without numbers, without quantitative data, and therefore without any hope of proving or disproving hypotheses, is like surgery with no clue as to where to start, or what to cut out.

Which is why the EU has not a snowball's chance in hell of ever being accepted as a science, except by its' hoodwinked adherents. How does it feel @cd to melt and drip, ever so slowly, into a puddle of EU inconsequence on the ground?
Benni
2.5 / 5 (13) Aug 28, 2018
So your toilet-paper scribblings are off by at least two orders of magnitude, depending on how one defines the space "between our Sun & Alpha Centauri".


you can't even be bothered to do a few calculations to see whether you're talking BS or not


Jeepers SkyHigh on something, make up your mind, at first you accuse me of making "calculations", then then go on a rampage accusing me of not making"calculations". I know math is tough for you Pop-Cosmologists, but your reading & reasoning skills are just as bad.
RNP
3 / 5 (14) Aug 28, 2018
@Benni
Jeepers SkyHigh on something, make up your mind, at first you accuse me of making "calculations", then then go on a rampage accusing me of not making"calculations". I know math is tough for you Pop-Cosmologists, but your reading & reasoning skills are just as bad.


OK. So show us your calculations or admit that you simply invented a "fact" in an effort to prove your false claim (as SkyLight has clearly shown).
Benni
2.5 / 5 (13) Aug 28, 2018

Jeepers SkyHigh on something, make up your mind, at first you accuse me of making "calculations", then then go on a rampage accusing me of not making"calculations". I know math is tough for you Pop-Cosmologists, but your reading & reasoning skills are just as bad.


OK. So show us your calculations or admit that you simply invented a "fact" in an effort to prove your false claim (as SkyLight has clearly shown).


No mister freelance journalist, I didn't invent the New Horizons spacecraft, you'll need to go to NASA to get calculations, all I did was provide a link, I also did not "invent" the link that creating the strong doubt that SkyHigh's calculations are without merit, and this is what you two are getting all bent out of shape about.

RNP
2.8 / 5 (13) Aug 28, 2018
@Benni
You are obfuscating like crazy again, aren't you? You have realised you are wrong again haven't you? The link you provided says no such thing. You said;
A reasonable calculation could be made resulting in enough interstellar material between our Sun & Alpha Centauri that would equal another star the mass of our Sun, and if that inter-star quantity was equal throughout the galaxy, gravity doubles.


This is not mentioned in ANY of the New Horizons literature OR the link you provided. So where is your "reasonable calculation".
SkyLight
3.3 / 5 (14) Aug 28, 2018
OK, Benni, just for you, I'll spell it out in detail, since once again, you prove yourself incapable of joining the dots on your own.

You said on Aug 26 that
A reasonable calculation could be made resulting in enough interstellar material between our Sun & Alpha Centauri that would equal another star the mass of our Sun, and if that inter-star quantity was equal throughout the galaxy, gravity doubles
So, yes, it's obvious to anyone reading your post, that you probably did not make the calculation, but just made a statement that such a calculation COULD be made.

The problem here is that, if you are to make such a statement, it would be wise and prudent to actually make such a calculation yourself BEFORE you post such a claim, in order to defend yourself against any accusations of making untenable claims. So, you didn't make the calculation, but somebody else did, using freely-available data on distances, ISM densities, and using some simple math of volumes.

(TBC)
SkyLight
3.5 / 5 (13) Aug 28, 2018
(...continued...)

That calculation clearly shows that your claim that sufficient material exists in the ISM between these stars is patently false, and to be in error by at least two orders of magnitude. Worse, it shows you up to be too lazy, or too incompetent, to actually spend the time researching the problem, and to make the calculation for yourself. Instead, you make an empty claim which is very easily proven wrong, and you end up looking like a fool.

So, the question now is this: why couldn't you see this coming? How is it that a person claiming to be a top-notch PDE solver seems unable to see that such a claim might not actually pass such an easy test? How could you be so stupid?

The answer, as most everyone here knows from reading your ridiculous and famously, fatuously, ignorant posts over the years, is that you. Don't. Have. A. Clue.

Give it up, Benni, you're fooling nobody.
Benni
2.5 / 5 (13) Aug 28, 2018
@Benni
You are obfuscating like crazy again, aren't you? You have realised you are wrong again haven't you? The link you provided says no such thing. You said;

A reasonable calculation could be made resulting in enough interstellar material between our Sun & Alpha Centauri that would equal another star the mass of our Sun, and if that inter-star quantity was equal throughout the galaxy, gravity doubles.

This is not mentioned in ANY of the New Horizons literature OR the link you provided. So where is your "reasonable calculation".


NOW, you have something against INFERRING is that it? Never mind the fact that ALL of the Dark Matter narratives are 100% about INFERRING gravity, the source of which you claim to be the DM Cosmic Fairy Dust you can't isolate, so you need to INFER.

All I'm doing is taking a page out of your playbook & you simply go on a rampage crying foul, that it's not fair for me to play by rules you set up for yourselves.
RNP
2.8 / 5 (13) Aug 28, 2018
@Benni
So, more obfuscation. No actual calculations. Every time you post you make yourself look sillier.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (12) Aug 28, 2018
The additional mass is not needed, large scale electric fields explain all that which DM was invented to describe.


Really? Please link us to this explanation. I'd like to look at how they have quantified it. Sounds Nobel-worthy to me. Strange that none of the journals I read seem to have published it.
SkyLight
3 / 5 (14) Aug 28, 2018
All I'm doing is taking a page out of your playbook
The trouble is, Benni, you don't understand the playbook.

As any reasonably intelligent person could do, one has only to do a little research to discover that the ideas of DM, dark energy, BB, inflation, etc. are posited as possibilities only, as extensions of science which are admittedly shaky, but which might yet lead us in the future to deeper insights into the nature of reality. Or which might simply lead us into dead-ends, or to us painting ourselves into the corner.

Know what? That's just how science progresses, following leads which might actually lead nowhere, or to somewhere.

But the subtletíes of "possibly", "might" in this scenario are just too indistinct, too grey for your black-or-white, on-or-off, mentality to cope with. That's a problem that you have, but it also impinges on readers of this forum since, when dealing with you, they are dealing with a color-blind fool who makes insubstantiated claims.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (15) Aug 28, 2018
@Benni
So, more obfuscation. No actual calculations. Every time you post you make yourself look sillier.


I'm not altogether sure that is possible!
RNP
3 / 5 (14) Aug 28, 2018
@jonesdave
Point taken.

But what else can you say when you think he has reached rock bottom but his next post proves he is still digging?
SkyLight
3 / 5 (14) Aug 28, 2018
@Benni, let's try this again: DM, dark energy, BB, etc. - these are all very difficult problems to solve, which is why we're fifty years in and nobody has yet been able to crack them.

Your little Sun/Alpha Centauri problem: five minute calculation on the back of the proverbial envelope, and which blows your claim out of the water. No need for a bulldozer there, Benni. Just a pencil and some brains. And, Benni - you can buy a pencil at the local store.
flueninsky
2.1 / 5 (7) Aug 28, 2018
Jeeper's creepers, science by numbers
@Benni
Jeepers SkyHigh on something, make up your mind, at first you accuse me of making "calculations", then then go on a rampage accusing me of not making"calculations". I know math is tough for you Pop-Cosmologists, but your reading & reasoning skills are just as bad.


OK. So show us your calculations or admit that you simply invented a "fact" in an effort to prove your false claim (as SkyLight has clearly shown).

What is it with these numbers, cannot science exist without numbers, I suppose Benni that is probably the problem, its science by numbers.
Well its back to kindergarten Benni, you're going to have to spoon feed them one by one teaching them their numerals and alphabet Benni, make sure you have a good supply of dummies and diapers Benni, their a messy lot.
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (13) Aug 28, 2018
What is it with these numbers, cannot science exist without numbers


Are you serious? Practically no science can exist without maths. Certainly not physics. Make a claim, do some BOTE maths, see if the claim is worth pursuing.
flueninsky
2.2 / 5 (10) Aug 28, 2018
Science and numerals coexist, but mathematics are not there as tool of calculation on how to whack a mole,
Mathematics are not there to prove how to score a point.
There is an art to getting Benni to explain his point of view and proving it mathematically, but you have to enter his world JD, unfortunately that means no mole whacking
flueninsky
2.2 / 5 (10) Aug 28, 2018
Benni is no mole whacking material JD, he is very down to earth with both feet firmly planted on the ground JD, he is very perceptive, amusing and esoteric, which he has had a lot of amusing times using it JD, a kind of reverse mole whacking. Gives you an idea who the moles receiving their whacking truly are JD.
Benni
2.4 / 5 (11) Aug 28, 2018
@Benni
So, more obfuscation. No actual calculations. Every time you post you make yourself look sillier.


.....and I presume your "calculations" match those of SkyHigh:
particle density 0.3 per cm^3 (equivalent to the warm ISM in the solar vicinity), then the material contained in the sphere will have a mass of ~9e-3 solar masses
......for which actual MEASUREMENTS will be accumulated now that the New Horizons has provided insight as to what we are looking for with indicators that the MEASURED numbers will come in much higher.

Your "calculation" was never made based on actual data from MEASUREMENTS, you pulled the numbers out of a Pop-Cosmology WikiPedia site where Pin The Tail On The Donkey is the sloppiest of the artforms on the internet, now you're back to the drawing boards with your donkey tails tucked tight between your legs, in fact so tight it's causing pain, not only there but at the other end too.
Benni
2.4 / 5 (11) Aug 28, 2018
Your little Sun/Alpha Centauri problem: five minute calculation
.......here you are doing the calculation & giving me the CREDITS for this:

we fill that space with the tenuous gas or plasma with particle density 0.3 per cm^3 (equivalent to the warm ISM in the solar vicinity), then the material contained in the sphere will have a mass of ~9e-3 solar masses. Which is about one hundredth of a solar mass.
.......just how do you do a "calculation" and assign someone else the credit for it when that person is already telling you it's dead WRONG? What are you SkyHigh on?

RealityCheck
2.5 / 5 (8) Aug 28, 2018
@SkyLight, @RNP, @jonesdave and everyone.

I would greatly appreciate your objective, scientifically based, comments re the paper @cantdrive85 linked a couple days ago regarding analysis of observational evidence that goes against 'expanding-universe' claims; ie:

https://academic....05b84a9a

Thanks. :)
SkyLight
3 / 5 (10) Aug 29, 2018
@Benni
Your "calculation" was never made based on actual data from MEASUREMENTS, you pulled the numbers out of a Pop-Cosmology WikiPedia
This is proof positive of your utter inability to comprehend the written word.

Look again at my post above, where I stated very clearly that
My figure comes from "The Interstellar Medium Surrounding the Sun" by Frisch, Redfield, Slavin in Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 2011. 49:237–79, page 274: "The ISM flowing past the Sun is warm, 2,000–12,000 K, with low mean densities, ~0.1–0.3 cm-3". ( https://www.wesle...isch.pdf )
That's the source for my ISM particle density.

Only after saying that's where I got this value from, did I state that the Wiki also has a similar figure. It's seems clear enough that you completely ignored the first reference, because it's just too complicated for you, and latched on to the easier Wiki reference, and now accuse me of ONLY using the Wiki as source.

WRONG! Dumb, or what?
SkyLight
3.1 / 5 (10) Aug 29, 2018
@RC - I skimmed through the paper, which attempts to show
that the predictions that have been made on the basis of the expanding universe hypothesis are incompatible with the data for galaxy size for a given luminosity
The author then goes on to state that, in "mainstream" cosmology, it has been the case that
even a long series of failed predictions has not generally led to the rejection of theories, but rather to their unlimited modification with ad hoc hypotheses, such as inflation, non-baryonic matter, and dark energy.
Which may or may not be true, depending on one's own particular viewpoint.

He then states that
multibillion-dollar public investments in astronomical instruments are in fact based on the predictions of cosmological theory
which is obviously only partly true: his "in fact" is pure politics. New astronomical instruments, which are indeed very costly, are often built to open up new frequency-ranges to study.

[TBC]
SkyLight
3.1 / 5 (10) Aug 29, 2018
(...continued...)
The paper argues the case for a Static Euclidean Universe and, as such, stands beside many, many other papers down through the years arguing for similar static, Steady-State, universe models.

The author concludes that
broad hypotheses such as that of an expanding universe, the much more detailed concordance cosmology model, or an alternative such as the SEU hypothesis need to have their predictions tested against all available sets of data ... This paper covers only one such set of data – that for galaxy size ... The ultimate acceptance or rejection of such broad hypotheses rests on the compatibility of their predictions with all of these data sets
Which is a fair enough statement; science progresses in fits and starts, nothing new there.
SkyLight
3 / 5 (10) Aug 29, 2018
As far as costs of new astronomical instruments or observatories go, it's instructive to compare them with other programs funded by taxpayers. Here's a couple of examples of new observatories, either operational or being built:

Square Kilometer Array (SKA) UHF through SHF telescope array being built in Australia and South Africa: projected cost: $2 billion, carried by 11 SKA member countries.

Atacama Large Array (ALMA) millimeter and sub-mm telescope array built and operating in Chile: cost: $1.4 billion, carried by 6 ALMA member countries.

Extremely Large Telescope (ELT), optical/near-IR telescope, being built in Chile: estimated cost: €1.15 billion, carried by the 15 ESO member countries.

Compare those costs to the estimated cost - to the US taxpayer alone - of the new F-35 Lightning II fighter plane: $1.5 trillion. That's $4,600 for every person in the US, and enough to pay for something in the region of a THOUSAND observatories similar to those listed above.
SkyLight
3 / 5 (10) Aug 29, 2018
@Benni - just read this bit (I don't read everything you write since it's so inane)
you pulled the numbers out of a Pop-Cosmology WikiPedia site where Pin The Tail On The Donkey is the sloppiest of the artforms on the internet
As I pointed out above, no I diddunt, duh! Wrong! I got the figures from a peer-reviewed scholarly paper, dumbass!

Looks like you pinned the donkey's tail to your own butt, Benni!

Hee-haw Benni.
Ojorf
3.4 / 5 (11) Aug 29, 2018
Benni's track record stays intact!
SkyLight
3 / 5 (10) Aug 29, 2018
@fs, you claim that
Benni ... is very down to earth with both feet firmly planted on the ground JD, he is very perceptive, amusing and esoteric
This is the guy who seems to be incapable of calculating for himself how much material is to be found in a volume between the Sun and Alpha Centauri.

It's also the guy who shows himself to be incapable of comprehending really simple material expressed in words. He just can't get his head around the simplest of concepts. This isn't us, or me, making stuff up - it's he himself, proving with practically every utterance he makes here, that he just can't understand even basic science.

And yet this is the same guy who yells at everybody just how good he is at Partial Differential Equations (PDEs), and how stupid they all are since they don't have a clue about PDEs.

Esoteric? Perceptive? He's a moron!
Benni
2.4 / 5 (10) Aug 29, 2018
That's the source for my ISM particle density.

Only after saying that's where I got this value from, did I state that the Wiki also has a similar figure. It's seems clear enough that you completely ignored the first reference, because it's just too complicated for you, and latched on to the easier Wiki reference, and now accuse me of ONLY using the Wiki as source.


......and schneibo, you still don't get it, ALL the numbers you are using PREDATES the New Horizons discovery, and you aspire to being on the cutting edge of science? Your insistence for using old outdated numbers is only evidence for how little your background in science & technology instrumentation really is.

...........ohhhh, the fun & entertainment from the Pop-Cosmology crowd living here just continues.

Oh, and hey, I've been meaning to ask, why have you changed your moniker? Wasn't Da Schneib quite the eye catcher anymore, it just got old & you felt the need for a facelift?
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 29, 2018
Heliospheric unseen particles in the vacuum
@Benni Galactic hydrogen wall at the edge of our solar system NASA New Horizons spacecraft can see it

The heliosphere dominated by the Sun, extending past Pluto solar wind plasma creates and maintains this bubble against outside pressure of hydrogen and helium gas permeating the Milky Way flows outward from the Sun encountering the termination shock, slowing abruptly
https://www.nasa....lar-wind
Two competing forces, galactic wind particles at the suns heliospheric boundary with the magnetic field to the heliospheric boundary
Heliospheric current sheet https://en.wikipe...nt_sheet The heliospheric current sheet where the polarity of the Sun's magnetic field changes from north to south extending heliosphere
The shape of the current sheet is due to the Sun's rotating magnetic field on the plasma in the interplanetary medium

Benni
2.4 / 5 (10) Aug 29, 2018
The shape of the current sheet is due to the Sun's rotating magnetic field on the plasma in the interplanetary medium


granDy, just hope the EU brigade doesn't see this Wiki link you put up, they might start claiming they now have a credible source for their hypotheses, and wouldn't that be a fun debate to watch in this chatroom?
granville583762
4 / 5 (8) Aug 29, 2018
At the heliospheric radius
granDy, just hope the EU brigade doesn't see this Wiki link you put up, they might start claiming they now have a credible source for their hypotheses, and wouldn't that be a fun debate to watch in this chatroom?

These boards need a spark of magnetism, they need electrifying with the magnetic fields extending to the Suns solar magnetic field to where it creates spherical honeycomb bubbles at its heliospheric radius
Well Benni, we've got the anti-EU brigade to spur them on! Two competing forces at the heliospheric radius – all with identical credible sources for their competing hypotheses
granville583762
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 29, 2018
From darkmatter to matter - A typical example of unseen mass becomes visible
Just one of the billions of examples of as yet unseen atoms in the vacuum, in this case the galactic vacuum at the edge of the heliosphere, now these atoms are just within observable reach and we must not forget we're only observing past Planet Pluto (or is Pluto designated to a ball of ice) we are not even talking one billionth the possibilities of avenues where our galaxies are concealing their mass and come to that our own solar system.

jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (9) Aug 29, 2018
The shape of the current sheet is due to the Sun's rotating magnetic field on the plasma in the interplanetary medium


granDy, just hope the EU brigade doesn't see this Wiki link you put up, they might start claiming they now have a credible source for their hypotheses, and wouldn't that be a fun debate to watch in this chatroom?


They probably would, but only as they are too stupid to do maths, and also realise that the current gives no net charge, as what comes in at the equator leaves through the poles.
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (9) Aug 29, 2018
The Heliosheath, its magnetic reconnection honeycomb bubbles
The heliosheath is the region of the heliosphere beyond the termination shock. Here the wind is slowed, compressed and made turbulent by its interaction with the interstellar medium. Its distance from the Sun is approximately 80 to 100 AU at its closest point
The heliosheath is not smooth is filled with 100 million-mile-wide bubbles created by the impact of the solar wind and the interstellar medium https://en.wikipe...iosphere
A spherical shell of honeycomb structures 100 million diameters where Voyager 1 and 2 began detecting evidence for the bubbles in 2007 and 2008 formed by magnetic reconnection between oppositely oriented sectors of the solar magnetic field as the solar wind slows down right up to the heliopause the boundary of the Sun's solar wind stopped by the interstellar medium
granville583762
3 / 5 (10) Aug 29, 2018
Quasi - neutral
They probably would, but only as they are too stupid to do maths, and also realise that the current gives no net charge, as what comes in at the equator leaves through the poles.

The heliospheric boundary of the quasi-neutral solar magnetic wind, the ultimate sledge hammer to crack these Nuts!
SkyLight
3 / 5 (12) Aug 29, 2018
@Benni
and schneibo, you still don't get it, ALL the numbers you are using PREDATES the New Horizons discovery,
Benni. You are a total fucking fool. An idiot of the first water. A person utterly incapable of understanding that the New Horizons data have ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with the ISM particle density in the region between the Sun and the nearest stars, which doesn't change over long periods of time.

That particle density is derived from transmission and absorption lines seen in line-of-sight spectra between the Earth and surrounding stars - lots of them. Just because NH "sees" a UV surplus in one direction of the sky, has no effect on the validity of measurements taken over decades of those spectra.

Jesus H. Christ on a bicycle: if I hadn't seen it with my own eyes - here, and often - I would not have believed that anybody could be as dense and bone-headed as you very evidently are.
granville583762
3.4 / 5 (10) Aug 29, 2018
Competing velocities of forces in the atoms that occupy the vacuum
The galactic wind is theorised to be piling atoms spherically round the heliosphere, like wise it could be said the sun also is pilling up solar wind atoms on the interior of the heliosphere.
Now that is a 4.5 billion calculation of epic proportions, how much of this unseen as yet to be officially theorised solar and galactic matter that has and is building up at either side of the heliosphere?
cantdrive85
2.8 / 5 (9) Aug 29, 2018
They probably would, but only as they are too stupid to do maths, and also realise that the current gives no net charge, as what comes in at the equator leaves through the poles.

I call him jonesdumb for an obvious reason.
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (9) Aug 29, 2018
Galaxies and their galactic wind in the Interstellar medium
@SkyLight the ISM particle density in the region between the Sun and the nearest stars, which doesn't change over long periods of time.

As we have just shown SkyLight, the solar wind and galactic wind are piling up particles either side of the heliospheric radius - it follows that the same galactic wind extends beyond the galaxy just as the suns solar wind extends past its planets, this implies there is galactic wind particles increasing the density of the the vacuum between the galaxies.
jonesdave
2 / 5 (8) Aug 29, 2018
They probably would, but only as they are too stupid to do maths, and also realise that the current gives no net charge, as what comes in at the equator leaves through the poles.

I call him jonesdumb for an obvious reason.


So spell it out, thicko. What is the charge on the Sun?
SkyLight
3.2 / 5 (13) Aug 29, 2018
@gv
As we have just shown SkyLight, the solar wind and galactic wind are piling up particles either side of the heliospheric radius - it follows that the same galactic wind extends beyond the galaxy just as the suns solar wind extends past its planets, this implies there is galactic wind particles increasing the density of the the vacuum between the galaxies.
Meaningless drivel, as usual from granville. You mention billions of this and millions of that, with no understanding of what the hell you're babbling about. and then you have the ignorance and gall to say
As we have just shown
Wrong! - that should read
as we have drivelled inanely with no sources, and no understanding of the real magnitudes of the densities and pressures involved in the physics of the heliosheath
You're just as batshit crazy, and as incapable of scientific comprehension, as the Uber-Loon Benni!
SkyLight
2.8 / 5 (11) Aug 29, 2018
@jd
What is the charge on the Sun?
Jonesy, it'll be "large" - they seem to like the word:
large scale electric fields explain all that which DM was invented to describe
but, since they have no numbers in their Play-Dough science, some big- or small-sounding words will have to suffice. Surprised they haven't tried to patent words like "humungous" or "incey-wincey".

granville583762
3.2 / 5 (11) Aug 29, 2018
Skylight on his derivation of solar and galactic molecular flow in the vacuum
Skylight's meaningless drivel -

What the hell you're babbling about
You have the ignorance and gall
We have drivelled inanely with no sources
No understanding of the real magnitudes of the densities and pressures
Just as batshit crazy
As incapable of scientific comprehension.
As the Uber-Loon

Skylight listing his astronomical terms describing with his comprehensive list of sciency sounding terms describing the intricacies of the solar and galactic wind building up either side of the heliosphere
Skylight's descriptive of his crazy bats couldn't be more self descriptive, a slur on those intelligent bats as the can find their way out of a room without doors in the dark blind folded, SkyLight can't understand "exit this way" as its not one of his sciency terms as it does not contain any of the words, loony, crazy, drivel, babbling… !
Benni
2.4 / 5 (11) Aug 29, 2018
They probably would, but only as they are too stupid to do maths
.........you bet, just like you attempting to calculate 1/2 Life Decay rate for something to which 1/2 Life Decay rate is totally inapplicable, your "half a neutron" going through Beta Decay.......remember?
granville583762
3.2 / 5 (10) Aug 29, 2018
Einstein once speculated - gravity repels matter when far enough apart

the universe is not only expanding - it is accelerating outward, driven by "dark energy." dark matter, the mysterious material that dominates the matter in the universe and that really is dark because it does not radiate light (it reveals itself via its gravitational influence on galaxies)
Einstein speculated gravity causes objects to repel one another when they are far enough apart (he added this "cosmological constant" term to his equations https://phys.org/...rgy.html

The key point is Albert is discussing matter, not darkmatter or any of its variants.
As Albert is discussing matter and matter at a distance in other words expansion of galaxies by matter at 15 billion Lys, Albert's is discussing matter expanding the universe, no darkmatter is involved
granville583762
3.2 / 5 (10) Aug 29, 2018
Albert's speculation on speculation that even darkmatter has not reached a speculative existence

Einstein once speculated - gravity repels matter when far enough apart
the key point here is Albert is speculating, he is not saying matter is repelled at a distance, he is speculating matter is repelled at distance and as there is no darkmatter speculated, darkmatter is not even speculated in Albert's speculation
Benni
2.6 / 5 (10) Aug 29, 2018
Einstein once speculated - gravity repels matter when far enough apart


There are two forces at work in the Universe keeping it in motion: Gravity & Entropy, they work oppositely BUT in balance to one another, if they don't Entropy of the Universe drops to zero or goes to one (UNITY).

If the Universe is an unbounded stellar island, entropy will quickly fall to zero because energy can't be utilized to perform WORK (Kinetic Energy), without WORK motion ceases, gravity will take over imploding all outlying mass and that's the end because now there is no longer a temperature to the motionless mass.
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (9) Aug 29, 2018
They probably would, but only as they are too stupid to do maths
.........you bet, just like you attempting to calculate 1/2 Life Decay rate for something to which 1/2 Life Decay rate is totally inapplicable, your "half a neutron" going through Beta Decay.......remember?


Hey, thicko. How are you? Never figured that out, did you, dickhead? Want it explained again, for people with the IQ of a brain damaged wombat? Say the word, andf I'll do my best, thicko.
jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (11) Aug 29, 2018
They probably would, but only as they are too stupid to do maths
.........you bet, just like you attempting to calculate 1/2 Life Decay rate for something to which 1/2 Life Decay rate is totally inapplicable, your "half a neutron" going through Beta Decay.......remember?


Ahh jeez,: you have to laugh at this f***wit! Science really isn't your thing, is it knobhead? Lol. Back to grade school, thicko! Assuming you ever left it. Mate, you are thick as pigs*it. Just stop showing yourself up on here. Yes? It's no skin off my nose, but you really do make yourself look like a complete tit. Yes? Stop digging, you wazzock.
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (9) Aug 29, 2018
They probably would, but only as they are too stupid to do maths
.........you bet, just like you attempting to calculate 1/2 Life Decay rate for something to which 1/2 Life Decay rate is totally inapplicable, your "half a neutron" going through Beta Decay.......remember?


Oh dear, you have to laugh. I swear this idiot is only 12! Tops.
RealityCheck
3 / 5 (8) Aug 29, 2018
@SkyLight.
Here's a couple of examples of new observatories,..:
Thanks for that info/comparison. I agree; it's paltry cost compared to other more wasteful/destructive 'investments' by nations/politicians/militaries of the world! I too prefer more science/observatories than more military/political 'wars' started/fanned by those corrupt political-military-industrial-banker-complexes in many nations that create the wars for 'profit' from arms sales, power etc gaining.
I skimmed through the paper,...

https://academic....05b84a9a

which attempts to show
that the predictions that have been made on the basis of the expanding universe hypothesis are incompatible with the data for galaxy size for a given luminosity
Which may or may not be true, depending on one's own particular viewpoint.
It's the viewpoint of that scientific paper/analysis that I'd like your scientific views on. :)

TBC
RealityCheck
2.7 / 5 (7) Aug 29, 2018
...continued...@SkyLight.
He then states that
multibillion-dollar public investments in astronomical instruments are in fact based on the predictions of cosmological theory

which is obviously only partly true: his "in fact" is pure politics. New astronomical instruments, which are indeed very costly, are often built to open up new frequency-ranges to study.
I suspect that author is referring to 'the process' for selecting which project etc will g ahead while others will wait for further funding in the future, maybe. That process involves arguments by particular theory/hypotheses proponents to 'justify' their project being funded above competitors. The underlying theory/hypotheses have been more readily funded if they mention Big Bang, Inflation/Expansion, 'exotic' Dark Matter, Dark Energy and all sorts of mainstream 'themes'. But in the end it doesn't matter really, because more observations/projects for falsifying/confirming ANY hypothesis is OK in my book.

TBC
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (9) Aug 29, 2018
TBC


Don't bother. I'm bored already.
RealityCheck
2.8 / 5 (6) Aug 29, 2018
...again continued...@SkyLight.
The paper argues the case for a Static Euclidean Universe and, as such, stands beside many, many other papers down through the years arguing for similar static, Steady-State, universe models. The author concludes that
broad hypotheses such as that of an expanding universe, the much more detailed concordance cosmology model, or an alternative such as the SEU hypothesis need to have their predictions tested against all available sets of data ... This paper covers only one such set of data – that for galaxy size ... The ultimate acceptance or rejection of such broad hypotheses rests on the compatibility of their predictions with all of these data sets
Which is a fair enough statement; science progresses in fits and starts, nothing new there.
Yes, and I take it that paper's more detailed/concordant cosmology model/analysis/result is ahead of the broader BB etc 'expansion' interpretations of the data that paper's analysis challenges?
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (9) Aug 29, 2018
@jd
What is the charge on the Sun?
Jonesy, it'll be "large" - they seem to like the word:
large scale electric fields explain all that which DM was invented to describe
but, since they have no numbers in their Play-Dough science, some big- or small-sounding words will have to suffice. Surprised they haven't tried to patent words like "humungous" or "incey-wincey".



About 77 Coulombs, iirc. Have to chase up the reference, but these idiots are incapable of doing the maths, or the science. They just make stuff up! And if the loon Uncle Wal says it is true, then by God, it has to be! Lol.
RealityCheck
2.7 / 5 (7) Aug 29, 2018
@jonesdave.
TBC


Don't bother. I'm bored already.
What's your problem, mate? Are you somehow 'miffed' by SkyLight and me having a civilized scientific conversation on this science site and that subject matter in the linked paper? Anyhow, did you see/read that paper @cantdrive linked, and which I alluded to in my earlier invitation for comment thereon by @SkyLight and everyone? Any scientific observations/comments to offer on the analysis in that paper? If so, please share. If not, please desist from trolling those who wish to discuss same. Thanks.
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (10) Aug 29, 2018
@jonesdave.
TBC


Don't bother. I'm bored already.
What's your problem, mate? Are you somehow 'miffed' by SkyLight and me having a civilized scientific conversation on this science site and that subject matter in the linked paper? Anyhow, did you see/read that paper @cantdrive linked, and which I alluded to in my earlier invitation for comment thereon by @SkyLight and everyone? Any scientific observations/comments to offer on the analysis in that paper? If so, please share. If not, please desist from trolling those who wish to discuss same. Thanks.


I don't see SkyLight taking part in this 'conversation'. If he does, I suspect it will only be to tell you that you are talking crap. As usual. And what frigging paper are you talking about that cantthink linked?
RealityCheck
3 / 5 (6) Aug 29, 2018
@jonesdave.
I don't see SkyLight taking part in this 'conversation'.
He addressed me by name, in his polite response to my request for any scientific comments re that paper @cantdrive85 linked on August 26 above (5th post down from start of comments).
If he does, I suspect it will only be to tell you that you are talking crap. As usual.
Again, I was responding to the (polite) series of posts @SkyLight made to me re that linked paper alluded to in my invitation for his/others' comments re same.
And what frigging paper are you talking about that cantthink linked?
In @cantdrive's second post in this thread, he linked to this...

https://academic....05b84a9a

Any (calm and polite) scientific comments on its analysis etc, jd? Thanks. :)
SkyLight
2.8 / 5 (11) Aug 30, 2018
@RC
The underlying theory/hypotheses have been more readily funded if they mention Big Bang, Inflation/Expansion, 'exotic' Dark Matter, Dark Energy and all sorts of mainstream 'themes'.
And you have documentary evidence supporting this statement, do you? Or is it you playing the make-up-magic game that so many others here engage in?

It's becoming more and more evident that scientific objectivity these days is almost as rare as hen's teeth. Thank Heaven for voices like those of @jd, @RNP, @DS, @Torbjorn and others whose names I can't remember - oases of reason and scientific objectivity in a desert of unreason. Even if @jd does allow himself to rage a little - I DO understand, @jd, I truly do...
granville583762
3 / 5 (10) Aug 30, 2018
Atoms and The Vacuum

Discounting all variants of darkmatter, only considering all matter observed and observable as matter
Atoms Occupy the Vacuum,
Atoms Occupy the Vacuum, a vacuum is a self explanatory description (the vacuous vacuum of unlimited dimension) and the matter that occupies the vacuum - these two descriptions exist in as much as it is possible to say a definition of absolute nothing can be said to exist!
Matter allows atoms to exist in the vacuum.
These two contradictory statements, 15billion years ago matter ceased to exist in the vacuum and then it existed in the vacuum - for matter to cease and exist at the same moment in the vacuum, matter is created in the vacuum.
By definition "for matter to cease and exist at the same moment in the vacuum" matter is created everywhere in the vacuum continuously!
SkyLight
3 / 5 (12) Aug 30, 2018
@jd
I don't see SkyLight taking part in this 'conversation'. If he does, I suspect it will only be to tell you that you are talking crap. As usual. And what frigging paper are you talking about that cantthink linked?
Actually Jonesy, I had read the paper @cd had linked to, and when @RC invited us to share our ideas on the paper, I thought: why not? So I did...

It turns out - no surprises there at all - that the paper in no way proves or disproves whatever it might have been that @cd wanted it to prove. It just studies some aspects of galaxy morphology and makes a tentative claim that maybe the mainstream just might have got it wrong about the Universe expanding and so on. Maybe. But, the author says that more data is needed...
granville583762
3.4 / 5 (10) Aug 30, 2018
Skylight appears to be saying there is not sufficient mass in the vacuum to create even a single star!
Does Skylight not know that the gravitationally condensed clouds of matter that are created in the vacuum are the matter that constructs the billions of stars in the galaxies in the vacuum
Does Skylight also not know it is as yet technically difficult to count all the protons presently occupying the vacuum?
The amount of protons which make up inter galactic stellar dust is adequate to create clouds of gravitationally condensed clouds to construct even more galaxies containing not one star, not two stars but billions of stars!
And that is not counting all the galactic wind particles the galaxies are expelling with their galactic magnetic fields piling up galactic particles in the inter galactic vacuum!
granville583762
3 / 5 (10) Aug 30, 2018
Einstein once speculated - gravity repels matter when far enough apart
@granville583762 Albert's speculation on speculation that even darkmatter has not reached a speculative existence
the key point here is Albert is speculating, he is not saying matter is repelled at a distance, he is speculating matter is repelled at distance and as there is no darkmatter speculated, darkmatter is not even speculated in Albert's speculation.

How is it possible to construct an experiment of two stars 10 billion light years apart in isolation from other gravitational fields as they progressively move from five light years to 10 billion light years where the gravitational attraction emanating on the inverse square law, that some where there is an intermediate point where gravity changes from attraction to repulsion?
SkyLight
2.8 / 5 (11) Aug 30, 2018
@granville - there's not a shred of sense in anything you've written. I will give you this, though - you have a vivid imagination. Just don't forget to take your meds...
Benni
3.3 / 5 (7) Aug 30, 2018
>SkyHigh on something:
Or is it you playing the make-up-magic game that so many others here engage in?
.......you mean like NEUTRON HALF- LIFE?
RNP
2.8 / 5 (11) Aug 30, 2018
@Benni
So for the entertainment of everybody here...... Why do you think neutrons do not, or can not, have a half-life, despite all the evidence that has been presented to you?
SkyLight
2.6 / 5 (10) Aug 30, 2018
@Benni, up to your usual know-nothing, dumb as a bag of stones, shout loud inanities again.

Hey, you keep telling us you're a Nookular Enjineer, take a look at this page (which I Googled in one second BTW), in the nuclear-power.net website: https://www.nucle...neutron/ which states very clearly that
A free neutron is a neutron that is not bounded in a nucleus. The free neutron is, unlike a bounded neutron, subject to radioactive beta decay
and that
A free neutron will decay with a half-life of about 611 seconds (10.3 minutes)
Note that very important distinction, Benni: a FREE neutron. A Neutron bound into an atomic nucleus will NOT decay, but a FREE neutron will. Not only that, but a free neutron will always decay.

No magic here, Benni, just physics. Remember when they tried, and failed, to teach you that at high-school and then at that college you say you attended?
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (9) Aug 30, 2018

sky-high SkyLight
@granville - there's not a shred of sense in anything you've written. I will give you this, though - you have a vivid imagination. Just don't forget to take your meds...

Which meds might they be SkyLight, I didn't know there were meds for a vivid imagination.
granville583762
3.5 / 5 (8) Aug 30, 2018
The rules are the same but with a twist
Einstein once speculated - gravity repels matter when far enough apart

There are two forces at work in the Universe keeping it in motion: Gravity & Entropy, they work oppositely BUT in balance to one another, if they don't Entropy of the Universe drops to zero or goes to one (UNITY).
If the Universe is an unbounded stellar island, entropy will quickly fall to zero because energy can't be utilized to perform WORK (Kinetic Energy), without WORK motion ceases, gravity will take over imploding all outlying mass and that's the end because now there is no longer a temperature to the motionless mass.

There are different rules at play in the quantum world of atoms, as they have kinetic energy and momentum - it is the femto-distance of acceleration
Benni
3 / 5 (6) Aug 30, 2018
@Benni
So for the entertainment of everybody here...... Why do you think neutrons do not, or can not, have a half-life, despite all the evidence that has been presented to you?


Simple, there's no OBSERVABLE EVIDENCE for it, I know this is a hard concept for Pop-Cosmology's followers to get their brains wrapped around, but when I have to consider guys like you have never cracked the covers on a physics book in a college classroom, then it only becomes all too clear why your level of comprehension in nuclear physics is so deplorable.
Benni
2.7 / 5 (7) Aug 30, 2018
A free neutron will decay with a half-life of about 611 seconds (10.3 minutes)


You don't even know what the decay rate of a free neutron in beta decay is do you? It's 15 minutes.

If a free neutron ACTUALLY had a half-life decay rate it would be exactly HALF of 15 minutes, 7.5 and half it's mass would be gone, but that never happens because free neutrons do not have a half-life decay rate.

That there is a half-life decay rate associated with free neutrons comes from "QUARK THEORY", a nonexistent virtual particle that has never been isolated for EVIDENCE that it actually exists.

First you better get the funny farm theory about quarks straightened around before you try again to take me on about beta decay rates having ANYTHING to do with 1/2 Life Radioactive Decay issues, something which you clearly do not comprehend, nor WikiPedia.
RealityCheck
3 / 5 (4) Aug 30, 2018
@SkyLight.
@RC
The underlying theory/hypotheses have been more readily funded if they mention Big Bang, Inflation/Expansion, 'exotic' Dark Matter, Dark Energy and all sorts of mainstream 'themes'.
And you have documentary evidence supporting this statement, do you? Or is it you playing the make-up-magic game that so many others here engage in?
My bad, mate! I should have made it clearer (damn this site's 1000 character limit!) that I was 'inferring' what that paper's author might be 'intimating' in that bit of his you quoted. I myself have no comment on the observatories/projects funding applications/selection 'process'. Now that you raised the matter of 'evidence' for/against that author's 'implied' selection/funding 'situation', I too would be very interested to know the stats re such matters (eg, how many anti-BB etc researchers' project proposals are even considered/selected compared to pro-BB etc based project proposals).

Anyhow, thanks for your comments. :)
jonesdave
3 / 5 (8) Aug 30, 2018
A free neutron will decay with a half-life of about 611 seconds (10.3 minutes)


You don't even know what the decay rate of a free neutron in beta decay is do you? It's 15 minutes.

If a free neutron ACTUALLY had a half-life decay rate it would be exactly HALF of 15 minutes, 7.5 and half it's mass would be gone, but that never happens because free neutrons do not have a half-life decay rate.

That there is a half-life decay rate associated with free neutrons comes from "QUARK THEORY", a nonexistent virtual particle that has never been isolated for EVIDENCE that it actually exists.

First you better get the funny farm theory about quarks straightened around before you try again to take me on about beta decay rates having ANYTHING to do with 1/2 Life Radioactive Decay issues, something which you clearly do not comprehend, nor WikiPedia.


Lol! And this idiot claims to be a nuclear engineer! How much wrong is it possible to get in less than 1000 characters!
Benni
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 30, 2018
How much wrong is it possible to get in less than 1000 characters!


......all you need to do is take measure of your own proficiency at it & you'll have the most accurate example it's possible to have, 100% proficiency.
RealityCheck
3 / 5 (4) Aug 30, 2018
@SkyLight.
[the paper linked by cantdrive]...studies some aspects of galaxy morphology and makes a tentative claim that maybe the mainstream just might have got it wrong about the Universe expanding and so on. Maybe. But, the author says that more data is needed...
From that paper's abstract:
An overall comparison of cosmological models requires examining all available data sets, but for this data set there is a clear contradiction of predictions based on an expanding universe hypothesis.
They clearly state that their analysis of the relevant data set clearly contradicts 'expanding universe' hypotheses. And I agree with that author's statement...:
These conclusions of course refer only to the size-redshift data sets. It is important to note that any overall comparisons of cosmological models must be based on all available data-sets.
Given his other comments, I imagine that author is wondering: "Why haven't more such studies been done much earlier?"

Thanks. :)
SkyLight
3.4 / 5 (10) Aug 30, 2018
Oh boy, there's none so blind as those who WILL NOT see!

@Benni, never mind whether quarks exist or not, never mind by what mechanism free neutrons decay - free neutrons DO decay, with a measured half-life of ~882 seconds (14.7 minutes), and there's plenty of experimental evidence for that: https://www.osti..../1286717 , see Fig.2.

See also https://www.physi...rne.pdf, although I suspect it'll be too advanced for you: you know, math, hard sums and all that?
You don't even know what the decay rate of a free neutron in beta decay is do you? It's 15 minutes ... If a free neutron ACTUALLY had a half-life decay rate it would be exactly HALF of 15 minutes, 7.5 and half it's mass would be gone, but that never happens because free neutrons do not have a half-life decay rate.
So, which is it, Benni? 15 or 7.5 minutes? And just exactly how would half the mass disappear?

And, again: yes, free neutrons are seen to decay...
jonesdave
3 / 5 (10) Aug 31, 2018
You don't even know what the decay rate of a free neutron in beta decay is do you? It's 15 minutes ... If a free neutron ACTUALLY had a half-life decay rate it would be exactly HALF of 15 minutes, 7.5 and half it's mass would be gone, but that never happens because free neutrons do not have a half-life decay rate.


It is hard to believe that the person who wrote that pile of fail claims to understand nuclear physics! Deary me.

granville583762
3.5 / 5 (8) Aug 31, 2018
That free isolated neutron in the infinite dimensions of the vacuum

And on it goes in perpetuity, that neutron in its quasi neutral state of half-life decay of exponential decay of infinite possibility of decay in the infinite dimensions of the vacuum, but not one single neutron abounds in isolation.
This argument of perpetuity of exponential decay of minutes 10, to logarithmic possibility of minutes 15, no difference does it make, no consensus of possibility can be reached as decay gives infinite possibility of eternal life in the eternity of the eternal vacuum, that in the life time of a mere Gnat, there is not one single isolated Neutron of free wing that can even enter those heavenly gates, Gnat and free Neutron arm in arm to pay allegiance together.

For it is so, no free isolated neutrons abound outside those gates, in the infinite dimensions of the vacuum!
SkyLight
3.3 / 5 (7) Aug 31, 2018
@granville - looks like you took the wrong pill there...
granville583762
3.3 / 5 (7) Aug 31, 2018
sky-high Skylight's Magic Potions
@granville - looks like you took the wrong pill there...

One of these days SkyLight, reveal your secret stash of meds that gets you through the day so we all share their magic of their potions
Thanks Skylight, I knew you knew I did not need assistance of your magic medicative Potions.
Benni
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 31, 2018
never mind whether quarks exist or not, never mind by what mechanism free neutrons decay - free neutrons DO decay, with a measured half-life of ~882 seconds (14.7 minutes), and there's plenty of experimental evidence for that


What? Never mind about quarks? They are the non-existent virtual particles upon which your vaunted claim of neutron half-life rests, and by the way, those same theorists do not use the number of 14.7 minutes you used below:

And free neutrons DO decay, with a measured half-life of ~882 seconds (14.7 minutes)
No wonder you're unable to comprehend your own Pop-Cosmology Theorists. You simply quoted the well established 14.7 minute beta decay rate of a free neutron, not the phony 1/2 Life Decay Rate based in mythical quark theory.
SkyLight
2 / 5 (4) Aug 31, 2018
@Benni
You simply quoted the well established 14.7 minute beta decay rate of a free neutron
You're getting there, slowly...
jonesdave
2.1 / 5 (7) Aug 31, 2018
No wonder you're unable to comprehend your own Pop-Cosmology Theorists. You simply quoted the well established 14.7 minute beta decay rate of a free neutron, not the phony 1/2 Life Decay Rate based in mythical quark theory.


And this is why we know you are a liar and a fraud when you claim to understand nuclear physics.

The mean lifetime of a free neutron is ~ 14m. The half-life is ln (2) x ~14m = ~ 10m. High School stuff.
So, what is the mean lifetime? The time, on average (hence 'mean') that a free neutron will decay in.
What is the half-life? The time taken for 50% of a collection of free neutrons to decay.
What happens when we are left with one neutron? There is a 50:50 chance that it will decay in ~ 14m.
And nothing is losing half of its mass, you dolt. It decays into a proton, electron and electron antineutrino.

Free-Neutron Beta-Decay Half-Life
Christensen, C. J. et al.
https://journals....D.5.1628

granville583762
3.5 / 5 (8) Aug 31, 2018
But still no actual time of existence!
No wonder you're unable to comprehend your own Pop-Cosmology Theorists.

The mean lifetime of a free neutron is ~ 14m. The half-life is ln (2) x ~14m = ~ 10m. High School stuff.
Free-Neutron Beta-Decay Half-Life
Christensen, C. J. et al.
https://journals....D.5.1628

As this link leads to nowhere, were standing still, as still no actual time of existence, as hours pass by into days and into the eternity on Bennies partial neutron of no existence in the vacuum. not even one sliver of actual time have I seen written the actual time elapsed when this decaying neutron shuffles of its mortal coil to join the shadows of all those partial neutrons of no existence in the vacuum
Where is it written outside a pay wall to the time of termination does the proton have to wait for its emergence into existence from the neutron!
granville583762
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 31, 2018
Do not slavishly quote the now memorable decay rate

Where is it written outside a pay wall to the time of termination does the proton have to wait for its emergence into existence from the neutron!
The time is well due to quote the actual time this neutron has on this earth before becoming part of the vacuum ceasing to exist, just as a muon ceases to exist in 2.2micro-seconds!

granville583762
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 31, 2018
Or is Albert Einstein wrong in his assertion of length contraction the muon ceases to exist in 2.2micro-seconds! Because any longer than 2.2micro-seconds and there is no need for Albert Einstein's length contraction!
jonesdave
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 31, 2018
As this link leads to nowhere....


It leads to a paper that measures the half-life of free neutrons. Idiot!
granville583762
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 31, 2018
Do not slavishly quote the now memorable decay rate

As this link leads to nowhere....


It leads to a paper that measures the half-life of free neutrons. Idiot!

Am I physic -
granville583762> Do not slavishly quote the now memorable decay rate
granville583762
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 31, 2018
Still no time to termination
Or is Albert Einstein wrong in his assertion of length contraction the muon ceases to exist in 2.2micro-seconds! Because any longer than 2.2micro-seconds and there is no need for Albert Einstein's length contraction!

jonesdave you are saying Albert Einstein is wrong in his assertion of length contraction, because any longer than 2.2micro-seconds and there is no need for Albert Einstein's length contraction!

jonesdave
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 31, 2018
Still no time to termination
Or is Albert Einstein wrong in his assertion of length contraction the muon ceases to exist in 2.2micro-seconds! Because any longer than 2.2micro-seconds and there is no need for Albert Einstein's length contraction!

jonesdave you are saying Albert Einstein is wrong in his assertion of length contraction, because any longer than 2.2micro-seconds and there is no need for Albert Einstein's length contraction!



WTF are you on about? It is not me saying it, idiot. It is actual scientists. The only people disagreeing are untutored loons like you and the idiot Benni. There is nothing to see here, other than your gross ignorance of all things scientific.
granville583762
3.3 / 5 (7) Aug 31, 2018
If it not yourself saying this jonesdave, then there is no harm in your own view on this, unless you believe a muon only has a 50/50 chance of 2.2micro-seconds then Albert Einstein is wrong in his assertion of length contraction concerning termination of the muon because as we speak the 2.2micro-seconds has passed and the muon still lives!
jonesdave
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 31, 2018
If it not yourself saying this jonesdave, then there is no harm in your own view on this, unless you believe a muon only has a 50/50 chance of 2.2micro-seconds then Albert Einstein is wrong in his assertion of length contraction concerning termination of the muon because as we speak the 2.2micro-seconds has passed and the muon still lives!


Totally gobbledegook. Has nothing whatever to do with the half-life of a free neutron.
granville583762
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 31, 2018
Comprehension and connectivity
If it not yourself saying this jonesdave, then there is no harm in your own view on this, unless you believe a muon only has a 50/50 chance of 2.2micro-seconds then Albert Einstein is wrong in his assertion of length contraction concerning termination of the muon because as we speak the 2.2micro-seconds has passed and the muon still lives!

Totally gobbledegook. Has nothing whatever to do with the half-life of a free neutron.

As both muons and neutrons contain the theoretical as yet unobserved quarks, they both have half-life decay, both have a a 50/50 chance of decay, if you cannot see the connection…?
SkyLight
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 31, 2018
@granville
As both muons and neutrons contain the theoretical as yet unobserved quarks
Wrong. The muon is an elementary particle, and hence is not thought to be composed of any simpler particles. Neutrons are composed of quarks. Plus a little salt and pepper.
mynoob
5 / 5 (2) Aug 31, 2018
This may sound stupid but as the stars like our Sun age don't their mass change? Because an active star constantly performs certain amount of work constantly producing heavier elements. Wouldn't this "work" add up over billenias?
jonesdave
2.1 / 5 (7) Aug 31, 2018
This may sound stupid but as the stars like our Sun age don't their mass change? Because an active star constantly performs certain amount of work constantly producing heavier elements. Wouldn't this "work" add up over billenias?


Interesting question, and a nice diversion from the loony musings of some people in this thread!
I don't think so, without checking, because those heavier elements are made from pre-existing lighter elements. However, having said that, the mass is not exact, and other particles, which escape the Sun, are produced. i.e. neutrinos. So maybe it gets a teeny bit lighter? I will now go and check, and see if I've made a tit of myself!
Benni
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 31, 2018
@Benni
You simply quoted the well established 14.7 minute beta decay rate of a free neutron
You're getting there, slowly...


SkyHigh>
free neutrons DO decay, with a measured half-life of ~882 seconds (14.7 minutes)
......make up your mind. Is the 14.7 minutes the half-life or the beta decay rate? You can't have both at the same time, or maybe you're one of those kinds who when you come to a fork in the road & you don't know which road to take, so you take the fork.
jonesdave
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 31, 2018
......make up your mind. Is the 14.7 minutes the half-life or the beta decay rate? You can't have both at the same time, or maybe you're one of those kinds who when you come to a fork in the road & you don't know which road to take, so you take the fork.


SkyHigh made a slight typo there, which is unsurprising, given the idiocy coming his way on this thread. 14.7 mins is the mean lifetime. ~10 mins is the half-life. Mean lifetime x ln(2) = half-life. As measured.

Benni
3 / 5 (6) Aug 31, 2018
......make up your mind. Is the 14.7 minutes the half-life or the beta decay rate? You can't have both at the same time, or maybe you're one of those kinds who when you come to a fork in the road & you don't know which road to take, so you take the fork.


SkyHigh made a slight typo there, which is unsurprising, given the idiocy coming his way on this thread. 14.7 mins is the mean lifetime. ~10 mins is the half-life. Mean lifetime x ln(2) = half-life. As measured.


.....and you're as bad as "SkyHigh on something". The 14.7 minutes is not the mean lifetime (half above, half below) of a free neutron, it is the beta decay rate & does not change with half decaying above that rate & half decaying below that rate.
jonesdave
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 31, 2018
......make up your mind. Is the 14.7 minutes the half-life or the beta decay rate? You can't have both at the same time, or maybe you're one of those kinds who when you come to a fork in the road & you don't know which road to take, so you take the fork.


SkyHigh made a slight typo there, which is unsurprising, given the idiocy coming his way on this thread. 14.7 mins is the mean lifetime. ~10 mins is the half-life. Mean lifetime x ln(2) = half-life. As measured.


.....and you're as bad as "SkyHigh on something". The 14.7 minutes is not the mean lifetime (half above, half below) of a free neutron, it is the beta decay rate & does not change with half decaying above that rate & half decaying below that rate.


Whaaat? How thick are you? How many times does it need to be explained, you fraud? You have the IQ of a decomposing badger! Look up the terms 'half-life' and 'mean lifetime' you idiot. Christ.
granville583762
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 31, 2018
There you are Benni, your a complete baffoon where as with SkyLight, its only a slight typo error!
Benni
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 31, 2018
Look up the terms 'half-life' and 'mean lifetime' you idiot. Christ.


I see you're turning to religion as the last resort for skyhigh theories.

Anybody who needs religious mysticism to support hyperbole in science is someone beyond usefulness as a source of scientific endeavor.

There you are Benni, your a complete baffoon where as with SkyLight, its only a slight typo error!


> yeah granDy, you got that right. When they screw up royally they nevr admit or finf some way around never fully retracting it. Hey, notice how jonesy has been turning to religion lately?
jonesdave
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 31, 2018
^^^^^Translation: 'it is way beyond me, despite being High School science, 1st year undergrad at most. I cannot understand the concepts. I am only a sh*thouse cleaner. Cut me some slack.'
granville583762
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 31, 2018
Benni, the language these ordained priests come out with now a day's, Georges Lemaitre must be spinning like a top with embarrassment.
jonesdave
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 31, 2018
@granville
As both muons and neutrons contain the theoretical as yet unobserved quarks
Wrong. The muon is an elementary particle, and hence is not thought to be composed of any simpler particles. Neutrons are composed of quarks. Plus a little salt and pepper.


You are wasting your time, SkyHigh; Granville + Benni = idiocy squared.
jonesdave
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 31, 2018
Benni, the language these ordained priests come out with now a day's, Georges Lemaitre must be spinning like a top with embarrassment.


Which GCSEs did you get Granny? None, I'm guessing. Yes? Bit of a chip on the old shoulder? Constantly being told by teachers and other students that you didn't have a clue?
I can see how that might affect one. Quite how it affects one to the degree that they can no longer converse in their native language is beyond me, however. Would make an interesting study.
granville583762
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 31, 2018
The unknown muon
The muon is an elementary particle, and hence is not thought to be composed of any simpler particles. Neutrons are composed of quarks. Plus a little salt and pepper.

The relevant point "hence is not thought to be composed of any simpler particles!
"not thought" means it is not known what a muon is composed of, where does the muon get its charge which is the same as the proton because the theory suggests the proton get it charge from the quarks which implies the muon also gets its charge from the quarks, atoms by nature are consistent in their construction and their forces.
granville583762
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 31, 2018
Electric charge in the proton and the muon

If you believe in quark construction, -1/3 and +2/3 charge polarity is why the neutron has a small negative charge because of orbital quarks where as it could be said the proton only having -1/3 and 2x +2/3 quarks could have an even minutely smaller negative charge, which all this implies any particle of charge obtains it from these theoretical unobserved in isolation quarks - unless of course the quark does not retain the electric charge and it emanates from some other particle within the proton!
granville583762
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 31, 2018
Only a slight typo error
And for the perfectionists " If you believe in quark construction, -1/3 and +2/3 charge polarity is why the neutron" - should read "If you believe in quark construction, 2x -1/3 and +2/3 charge polarity is why the neutron" as JD once said with Skylight, its only a slight typo error!
Benni
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 31, 2018
Benni, the language these ordained priests come out with now a day's, Georges Lemaitre must be spinning like a top with embarrassment.


Yeah, jonesy has religion now. Couldn't see any other pathway out of all the conundrums he has set himself up for, so he turns himself in & hits the sawdust trail til it ends at.........
Christ.
SkyLight
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 01, 2018
Everybody - oops! - yes I did make that mistake didn't I?

Lashings of apologies all round.
Benni
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 01, 2018
Everybody - oops! - yes I did make that mistake didn't I?

Lashings of apologies all round.


SkyHigh>
free neutrons DO decay, with a measured half-life of ~882 seconds (14.7 minutes)


Admittedly, not much into nuclear physics are you? Seems like you're more into foul mouthed name calling rants than immutable laws of nuclear physics. You should hit the sawdust trail like jonesy has done, show your repentence is sincere by...............?
SkyLight
2 / 5 (4) Sep 01, 2018
Benni, you're such a silly, obsessive man!
granville583762
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 01, 2018
Comprehension and connectivity
If it not yourself saying this jonesdave, then there is no harm in your own view on this, unless you believe a muon only has a 50/50 chance of 2.2micro-seconds then Albert Einstein is wrong in his assertion of length contraction concerning termination of the muon because as we speak the 2.2micro-seconds has passed and the muon still lives!

Totally gobbledegook. Has nothing whatever to do with the half-life of a free neutron.

As both muons and neutrons contain the theoretical as yet unobserved quarks, they both have half-life decay, both have a a 50/50 chance of decay, if you cannot see the connection…?

When the questions appear difficult when all beta-decay is the same why not focus on typo-errors as a diversionary tactic instead, as 2.2micro-seconds are passing 454,545 every second which beta-decay allowing would allow muon to travel 186,282miles

By the way JD, you've another customer, just arrived today!
SkyLight
3 / 5 (4) Sep 02, 2018
@Benni
Admittedly, not much into nuclear physics are you?
That's rich coming from the guy who rejects the quark model, first proposed in 1964, first confirmed in 1968 - 50 years ago, that's a half-century - and part of the Standard model since then. Which means quarks are an indispensable part of nuclear physics today.

I suspect your problem is that you were taught some physics years ago, and quarks were never mentioned - probably to keep it simple for you - and that you internalized what you had been taught, and that you now are incapable (since you are an inflexible, rigid obsessive who talks of "immutable laws of nuclear physics") of taking on anything new, like the quark model for instance. And then you use this forum to express your indignation at anybody challenging your inflexible views.

Some others here are not so inflexible, are not at all fazed at admitting error, and have the ability to learn, to widen their horizons, and become more fully-rounded human beings.

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.