The faint glow of cosmic hydrogen

October 3, 2018, Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias
Deep observations made with the MUSE spectrograph on ESO's Very Large Telescope have uncovered vast cosmic reservoirs of atomic hydrogen surrounding distant galaxies. The exquisite sensitivity of MUSE allowed for direct observations of dim clouds of hydrogen glowing with Lyman-alpha emission in the early Universe?--?revealing that almost the whole night sky is invisibly aglow. Credit: ESA/Hubble & NASA, ESO/ Lutz Wisotzki et al.

A study published recently in Nature has revealed the presence of a hitherto undetected component of the universe—large masses of gas surrounding distant galaxies. An international team from some 10 scientific institutions has shown that almost the whole of the early universe shows a faint glow in the Lyman-alpha line. This line is one of the key "fingerprints" of hydrogen. This detection reveals the existence of extensive masses of gas around primitive galaxies. The results of this study are based on observations made with the MUSE spectrograph on the Very Large Telescope (VLT) of the European Southern Observatory, Cerro Paranal, Chile.

The principal investigator of the research, Lutz Wisotzki, of the Leibniz Institute of Astrophysics in Potsdam, Germany, recalls that when he presented this image for the first time at a conference a year ago, a colleague exclaimed, "Twenty years ago there was no Lyman-alpha anywhere, but now it's everywhere!" The high sensitivity of MUSE has revealed that Lyman-alpha emission covers the whole sky, including the apparently empty spaces between the galaxies.

The article published in Nature provides a link between several lines of astrophysical research. Its unprecedented sensitivity offers new knowledge about the gas in the environments of the galaxies, particularly during their infancy. It also offers a basis for speculation about the sources of energy for all the Lyman-alpha emissions; the results will be of use for the next generation of theoretical models for the formation of galaxies.

Astronomical research is concerned with obtaining the most complete possible picture of the universe and its components. The results of this work have supplied new information about physical processes in the universe that had not been visible until now. This phenomenon is not associated with a single interesting object, instead offering a new view of the entire cosmos through a representative window. It shows that the sky looks quite different depending on what type of instruments researchers use to observe it, just as the sky at radio or X-ray wavelengths looks quite different from the visible sky.

"While the Hubble Space Telescope shows us light only where there are galaxies, and between them we do not see anything, only empty sky, MUSE in Lyman-alpha shows light wherever we look," explains Ana Monreal-Ibero, an IAC researcher and a co-author of the publication. This instrument has also allowed researchers to obtain information about some of the faintest known, too faint to be observed with the Hubble.

"In the future, we plan to make even more sensitive measurements," concludes Lutz Wisotzki. "We want to know the details about how these immense cosmic reservoirs of atomic hydrogen are distributed in space."

Explore further: MUSE spectrograph reveals that nearly the entire sky in the early Universe is glowing with Lyman-alpha emission

More information: L. Wisotzki et al, Nearly all the sky is covered by Lyman-α emission around high-redshift galaxies, Nature (2018). DOI: 10.1038/s41586-018-0564-6

Related Stories

First images of mist dispersing around young galaxy

September 18, 2018

Galaxies in the early universe are shrouded in a kind of mist: a cloud of hydrogen. With galaxies in the later universe this mist has disappeared. Astronomer Jorryt Matthee has made the first images of this dissipating mist. ...

MUSE probes uncharted depths of Hubble Ultra Deep Field

November 29, 2017

Astronomers using the MUSE instrument on ESO's Very Large Telescope in Chile have conducted the deepest spectroscopic survey ever. They focused on the Hubble Ultra Deep Field, measuring distances and properties of 1600 very ...

Lightening up dark galaxies

May 23, 2018

Despite substantial progress over the past half-century in understanding how galaxies form, important open questions remain regarding how precisely the diffuse gas of the intergalactic medium is converted into stars. One ...

Galactic fireworks illuminate monster hydrogen blob

September 21, 2016

An international team of researchers using the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA) and other telescopes has discovered the power source illuminating a so-called Lyman-alpha Blob – a rare, brightly glowing, ...

Recommended for you

Scientist explores a better way to predict space weather

October 22, 2018

Findings recently published by a Southwest Research Institute (SwRI) space scientist shed new light on predicting the thermodynamics of solar flares and other "space weather" events involving hot, fast-moving plasmas.

'Oumuamua one year later

October 22, 2018

One year ago this week astronomers discovered an unusual object moving through space not too far from the Earth's orbit. In just a few days they realized it could not be a normal asteroid or comet – its path showed that ...

Gravitational waves could shed light on dark matter

October 22, 2018

The forthcoming Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA) will be a huge instrument allowing astronomers to study phenomena including black holes colliding and gravitational waves moving through space-time. Researchers from ...

Astronomers propose a new method for detecting black holes

October 22, 2018

A stellar mass black hole is a compact object with a mass greater than three solar masses. It is so dense and has such a powerful force of attraction that not even light can escape from it. They cannot be observed directly, ...

133 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Benni
1.8 / 5 (15) Oct 03, 2018
"It shows that the sky looks quite different depending on what type of instruments researchers use to observe it,"

This is getting to be just so much fun watching dark matter hypotheses taking it in the gut by so much REAL SCIENCE.

Walls of hydrogen everywhere NEW INSTRUMENTATION is pointed.

Can't wait to start reading rebuttals by DM Enthusiasts, that these new discoveries of visible baryonic mass was always known to exist having already been calculated & included in past computer MODELS of the Standard Model of the Universe, which thereby has no effect for displacing the 80% missing mass of dark matter cosmic fairy dust. In the meantime they're still looking for DM.
Tuxford
1.6 / 5 (11) Oct 03, 2018
"Twenty years ago there was no Lyman-alpha anywhere, but now it's everywhere!"

Indeed, as I have been saying for years, LaViolette's SQK model predicts even intergalactic gas clouds, having formed quite slowly but spontaneously over billions of years. Surrounding galaxies however, the conditions for forming new matter seemingly from nothing are a bit more fertile — being in closer proximity to the matter of the galaxy. Hence one would expect the cloud density to increase surrounding larger galaxies.

Furthermore, since the underlying conditions of seemingly empty space surrounding galaxies also produce slight refraction of light, these conditions are then misinterpreted as being due to dark matter. Yes, the matter is dark. It is not yet matter. It is the underlying medium of empty space.
rrwillsj
2.7 / 5 (7) Oct 03, 2018
Sorry fellows but all you think you know has been rendered irrelevant and obsolete by the word "majoron". Better luck in your next incarnation.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (16) Oct 03, 2018
"It shows that the sky looks quite different depending on what type of instruments researchers use to observe it,"

This is getting to be just so much fun watching dark matter hypotheses taking it in the gut by so much REAL SCIENCE.

Walls of hydrogen everywhere NEW INSTRUMENTATION is pointed.

Can't wait to start reading rebuttals by DM Enthusiasts, that these new discoveries of visible baryonic mass was always known to exist having already been calculated & included in past computer MODELS of the Standard Model of the Universe, which thereby has no effect for displacing the 80% missing mass of dark matter cosmic fairy dust. In the meantime they're still looking for DM.


Idiot. How can H around galaxies that were being formed ~13 Ga ago, have any relevance to rotation curves in current galaxies, such as our own? Think before typing. Or get an education. Whichever works best.
cantdrive85
2.3 / 5 (16) Oct 03, 2018
The observed hydrogen is revealing electric currents flowing through the plasma now, not billions of years ago like the plasma ignoramuses are guessing about. And the electric currents associated with the H are the reason there is no need for faerie dust to patch all the failures of the standard guesswork.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (16) Oct 03, 2018
The observed hydrogen is revealing electric currents flowing through the plasma now, not billions of years ago like the plasma ignoramuses are guessing about. And the electric currents associated with the H are the reason there is no need for faerie dust to patch all the failures of the standard guesswork.


Total sh!t! Not even any need to explain why it is sh!t, given who posted the above moronic, unevidenced tripe.
rossim22
4.1 / 5 (14) Oct 03, 2018
The observed hydrogen is revealing electric currents flowing through the plasma now, not billions of years ago like the plasma ignoramuses are guessing about. And the electric currents associated with the H are the reason there is no need for faerie dust to patch all the failures of the standard guesswork.


Even I know this is nonsense.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (14) Oct 03, 2018
The observed hydrogen is revealing electric currents flowing through the plasma now, not billions of years ago like the plasma ignoramuses are guessing about. And the electric currents associated with the H are the reason there is no need for faerie dust to patch all the failures of the standard guesswork.


Even I know this is nonsense.


In which case there is hope for you, Padawan.

p.s. I gave Rossim a 5! That ain't going to happen too often, I venture!
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.2 / 5 (13) Oct 03, 2018
So Dark Matter has been now committed to the garbage heap of science, along with faerie dust and spooky ortho and JD aka juvenile delinquent.

The 80% missing Matter has now been proved to be Hydrogen gas.
Hydrogen IS MATTER in gaseous form.
Benni
2 / 5 (16) Oct 03, 2018
So Dark Matter has been now committed to the garbage heap of science, along with faerie dust and spooky ortho and JD aka juvenile delinquent.

The 80% missing Matter has now been proved to be Hydrogen gas.
Hydrogen IS MATTER in gaseous form.


OK, let's work some logic into this MISSING stuff.

Pop-Cosmology has been saying that Spiral Galaxies need to be enveloped by gravitating materiel to keep them together. So now we're finding all manner of baryonic halo materiel exactly where they've told us to look for the source of the gravity they claim keeps Spiral Galaxies together & explains their associated Rotation Curves.

How does all this hydrogen manage to mix with DM so that there not be the obvious distortions in the density of all this hydrogen?

cantdrive85
1.9 / 5 (15) Oct 03, 2018
Total sh!t! Not even any need to explain why it is sh!t, given who posted the above moronic, unevidenced tripe.

jonesdumb gets all sciencey on us and shows us all what he really thinks (not to mention his character). Here is a simple explanation of how the process actually works from a scientific paper;

"Lyman-alpha light produced by the Sun's energetic hydrogen will strike other hydrogen atoms in some parcel of gas, raising the electrons in the gas from a quantum state n = 1 to n = 2. The electron will then move back to n = 1 and emit the photon in a random direction. If there are more hydrogen atoms in that parcel of gas, those atoms will absorb and re-emit more photons, some of which will be pointed toward an observer that can measure the brightness of the Lyman-alpha emission."

So simply, flowing energetic charged particles (electric current) impacting H initiates the process.

Like I said, Lyman-a is evidence of electric currents.
cantdrive85
1.9 / 5 (15) Oct 03, 2018
The observed hydrogen is revealing electric currents flowing through the plasma now, not billions of years ago like the plasma ignoramuses are guessing about. And the electric currents associated with the H are the reason there is no need for faerie dust to patch all the failures of the standard guesswork.


Even I know this is nonsense.

Which part? Where is the nonsense?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.2 / 5 (13) Oct 04, 2018
So Dark Matter has been now committed to the garbage heap of science, along with faerie dust and spooky ortho and JD aka juvenile delinquent.

The 80% missing Matter has now been proved to be Hydrogen gas.
Hydrogen IS MATTER in gaseous form.


OK, let's work some logic into this MISSING stuff.

Pop-Cosmology has been saying that Spiral Galaxies need to be enveloped by gravitating materiel to keep them together. So now we're finding all manner of baryonic halo materiel exactly where they've told us to look for the source of the gravity they claim keeps Spiral Galaxies together & explains their associated Rotation Curves.

How does all this hydrogen manage to mix with DM so that there not be the obvious distortions in the density of all this hydrogen?



It is time to bury the dearly departed Dark Matter and start anew with some nice pristine particles from our Quantum Universe and Electromagnetism to liberally dab some EM "glue" on Spiral arms.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (12) Oct 04, 2018
@Benni
It is too soon to locate articles and papers wrt the topic of this article - Hydrogen gas filling the early Universe. The three articles below include Dark Matter, which can be pretty well ignored now.

https://socratic....galaxies

https://uanews.ar...erywhere

https://dailygala...he-clue/
Benni
2 / 5 (16) Oct 04, 2018
@Benni
It is too soon to locate articles and papers wrt the topic of this article - Hydrogen gas filling the early Universe. The three articles below include Dark Matter, which can be pretty well ignored now.

https://socratic....galaxies


Those who are TRULY interested in REAL SCIENCE know how to cope with advancing to new knowledge. It is those, as personified by the foul mouthed name calling Pop-Cosmology ranters, who will always settle for existence in the tier of being part of the lowest common denominator, jonesy is simply the most stark & concurrent example in this chatroom.

Pop-Cosmology is exemplified by making the most preposterous claims it is possible to utter, then arrogantly sits back on it's deadass duff & demand you falsify their preposterous hypotheses, take for example the concept that INFINITE DENSITY exists at the center of a BH.

............cont'd

Benni
2 / 5 (16) Oct 04, 2018
.........cont'd

I have yet to elicit from a Cosmologist the definition of the phrase INFINITE DENSITY, and when you try pinning them down on it, they always resort to talking around the edges of definitions. At this point they start making vague references to GRAVITATIONAL COLLAPSE which even they cannot explain, at which point when you invoke the immutability of the INVERSE SQUARE LAW they start going off on how you simply are unable to comprehend the PROGRESSIVE nature of science.

So here we are with all these new walls of hydrogen & all we're gonna hear from Pop-Cosmology is why, according to their concept of REAL SCIENCE, it is meaningless in the grand scheme of the standard model of the Universe. Present day Pop-Cosmology is the grand scheme, not the REAL SCIENCE exposing it for the frauds & hucksters promoting it, they are constantly pushing PERPETUAL MOTION schemes & can be immediately identified the instant you see the word INFINITE in anything they write.

Benni
2 / 5 (16) Oct 04, 2018
Present day Pop-Cosmology is the grand scheme, not the REAL SCIENCE exposing it for the frauds & hucksters promoting it, they are constantly pushing PERPETUAL MOTION schemes & can be immediately identified the instant you see the word INFINITE in anything they write.
.......as for example how fast two of the most prolific hucksters here cast their 1s:

".........cont'dI have yet to elicit from a Cosmologist the definition of the phrase INFINITE DENSITY, and when you try pinning them down on ...
rated by IMP-9 RNP
1.0"

........what's the matter guys, REAL SCIENCE turns you off? All you want to read about are Pop-Cosmology's schemes in promoting PERPETUAL MOTION, right? Okay, the two of you get busy & prove the INVERSE SQUARE LAW is not IMMUTABLE.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (14) Oct 04, 2018
^^^^^^This bloke is a complete idiot, who has no grasp of neither science nor maths. As proven. Ignore him.
Benni
2 / 5 (16) Oct 04, 2018
^^^^^^This bloke is a complete idiot, who has no grasp of neither science nor maths. As proven. Ignore him.

jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (14) Oct 04, 2018
"Lyman-alpha light produced by the Sun's energetic hydrogen will strike other hydrogen atoms in some parcel of gas, raising the electrons in the gas from a quantum state n = 1 to n = 2. The electron will then move back to n = 1 and emit the photon in a random direction. If there are more hydrogen atoms in that parcel of gas, those atoms will absorb and re-emit more photons, some of which will be pointed toward an observer that can measure the brightness of the Lyman-alpha emission."

So simply, flowing energetic charged particles (electric current) impacting H initiates the process.

Like I said, Lyman-a is evidence of electric currents.


No, it isn't, you idiot. This is neutral hydrogen. The excitation is caused by stellar radiation.
cantdrive85
2.1 / 5 (15) Oct 04, 2018
It's neutral, it's neutral! It's clearly a moron.
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (13) Oct 04, 2018
^^^^^^This bloke is a complete idiot, who has no grasp of neither science nor maths. As proven. Ignore him.



Really? What is a half-life, again? How come I can understand this high school level physics, and you managed to believe that an atom was losing half of its mass (lol)? You are a proven idiot, who is not even up to the level of high school physics, much less anything else.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (12) Oct 04, 2018
It's neutral, it's neutral! It's clearly a moron.


It is neutral, loser. How the hell can an electron do anything in ionised H? It hasn't got an electron by definition, you imbecile.
RNP
3.2 / 5 (9) Oct 04, 2018
@Benni
Okay, the two of you get busy & prove the INVERSE SQUARE LAW is not IMMUTABLE.

We don't need to prove it. It has already been proved. BY EINSTEIN HIMSELF!

As proof of his theory, Einstein used the predictions of General Relativity to resolve something famously known as the "Anomalous perihelion precession of Mercury". This was the fact that Mercury's changing orbit was NOT consistent with the inverse square law, but GR explained it.

To quote Frank Heile of Stanford University and DARPA;

"Newtonian gravitation agrees with General Relativity (GR) only in the weak field limit.
In strong fields General Relativity is not an inverse square law. For example, even for
the gravity of Sun and Mercury, GR predicted the precession of the perihelion of Mercury
that Newtonian gravitation could not predict. This precession can be interpreted as a
non-inverse square law effect."
Benni
1.9 / 5 (13) Oct 04, 2018
This precession can be interpreted as a
non-inverse square law effect."


......standard Pop-Cosmology choice of words.........let's create an "interpretation" so we can set our hypotheses apart from REAL SCIENCE., then follow that up with a fake claim that Einstein proved it.

All you Pop-Cosmology acolytes know how to do is take other scientists words & convolute them into theories of things like the existence of INFINITE DENSITY in the centers of stellar bodies of FINITE MASS, and then proclaim such fake stuff as being REAL SCIENCE that is found in Einstein's GR.
RNP
3.8 / 5 (13) Oct 04, 2018
@Benni
.standard Pop-Cosmology choice of words.........let's create an "interpretation" so we can set our hypotheses apart from REAL SCIENCE.


You are just obfuscating and dodging the fact that Mercury's orbit does NOT follow the inverse square law, as Einstein proved.

How can you maintain the claim that the inverse square law is "immutable" when Mercury's orbit violates it?
hat1208
3.8 / 5 (10) Oct 04, 2018
@RNP

Thanks
IwinUlose
3 / 5 (6) Oct 04, 2018
I couldn't find any stars in my char map, so please, take these as five isn't enough: **************
rrwillsj
3.3 / 5 (12) Oct 04, 2018
benni, tuxford,
cantdrive, s_e_g...

a difficult choice to figure which of them are the most ignorant.

enie-meanie
mini-moes
catch a cultist
by his prehensile toes
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (10) Oct 04, 2018
benni, tuxford,
cantdrive, s_e_g...

a difficult choice to figure which of them are the most ignorant.

enie-meanie
mini-moes
catch a cultist
by his prehensile toes
says rrwilbiejoe

Well well well - if it isn't our old old and getting older - escapee from the funny farm who headed directly for physorg to make the big name for herself. Still practicing to be a comedian on SNL, eh?
Hey williejoe, whatcha know. When are you and SpookyOtto gonna tie the knot, hey keed?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.8 / 5 (9) Oct 04, 2018
I couldn't find any stars in my char map, so please, take these as five isn't enough: **************
says IloseUwin

Why, thank you - you sweet child. That is so kind of you - and thoughtful too.
Now make sure to do your homework and brush your teeth before beddybye.
And don't let the bedbugs bite.
Benni
2 / 5 (12) Oct 04, 2018
standard Pop-Cosmology choice of words...let's create an "interpretation" so we can set our hypotheses apart from REAL SCIENCE


Mercury's orbit does NOT follow the inverse square law, as Einstein proved.

How can you maintain the claim that the inverse square law is "immutable" when Mercury's orbit violates it?
Mercury's orbit? You mean PRECESSION, right off the bat you can't even get that right.

Newtonian gravity falls short in cases where high gravitational acceleration is strong enough to result in relativistic speeds when the velocity of a body in motion becomes comparable to the speed of light. This only slightly changes the gravitational potential of escape velocity at the surface of a body affecting Mercury's perihelion. This has nothing to do with applying the Inverse Square Law from the surface of a stellar body to it's center where gravity is ZERO, there exists no relativistic changing speeds within the body for such ludicrous a comparison.
jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (11) Oct 04, 2018
Mercury's orbit? You mean PRECESSION, right off the bat you can't even get that right.

Newtonian gravity falls short in cases where high gravitational acceleration is strong enough to result in relativistic speeds when the velocity of a body in motion becomes comparable to the speed of light.


Complete and utter fail! You need to stay away from science. You are very bad at it! Lol. It has nothing to do with relativistic velocities. The inverse square law of Newton fails in strong gravitational fields. i.e. Mercury's orbit around the Sun. As pointed out to you. You will find that Mercury is not orbiting the Sun at any significant fraction of the speed of light. Look it up.

IwinUlose
3.7 / 5 (9) Oct 04, 2018
I count 3 instances of PRECESSION in the RNP comment preceding the last. Right off the bat, you couldn't even get that right.

Benni says,
.......what's the matter guys, REAL SCIENCE turns you off? All you want to read about are Pop-Cosmology's schemes in promoting PERPETUAL MOTION, right? Okay, the two of you get busy & prove the INVERSE SQUARE LAW is not IMMUTABLE.

So RNP says,
"Anomalous perihelion precession of Mercury". This was the fact that Mercury's changing orbit was NOT consistent with the inverse square law, but GR explained it.

So Benni says,
This has nothing to do with applying the Inverse Square Law from the surface of a stellar body to it's center where gravity is ZERO

Just moved the goal posts to the center of Mercury traveling at relativistic speeds. Impressive.
Benni
2 / 5 (12) Oct 04, 2018
> UloseAgain

Anomalous perihelion precession of Mercury". This was the fact that Mercury's changing orbit was NOT consistent with the inverse square law, but GR explained it.


Of course GR explains it, because as the orbital velocity of Mercury (all planets for that matter) increases as the orbit approaches perihelion. This velocity increase results in INCREASING MASS, thus changing it's Escape Velocity & thus it's gravitational field from when the orbit was at APHELION, it's furthest distance from the Sun, at which point there is less mass present because the orbital velocity of the planet is the least at that point.

Newtonian gravity simply did not account for relativistic changing mass based on velocity. Now we know what relativistic change is, and that the Inverse Square Law is not static for a given body because planets change velocity based on it's position between perihelion/aphelion, thus also changing Escape Velocity calculations based on the ISL.

jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (10) Oct 04, 2018
This velocity increase results in INCREASING MASS, thus changing it's Escape Velocity & thus it's gravitational field from when the orbit was at APHELION, it's furthest distance from the Sun, at which point there is less mass present because the orbital velocity of the planet is the least at that point.


What a load of uneducated sh!t! Where did you get that from you idiot?

Benni
2 / 5 (12) Oct 04, 2018
This velocity increase results in INCREASING MASS, thus changing it's Escape Velocity & thus it's gravitational field from when the orbit was at APHELION, it's furthest distance from the Sun, at which point there is less mass present because the orbital velocity of the planet is the least at that point.


What a load of uneducated sh!t! Where did you get that from you idiot?
.......from Einstein's GeneralRelativity, you should try reading it sometime.
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (10) Oct 04, 2018
This velocity increase results in INCREASING MASS, thus changing it's Escape Velocity & thus it's gravitational field from when the orbit was at APHELION, it's furthest distance from the Sun, at which point there is less mass present because the orbital velocity of the planet is the least at that point.


What a load of uneducated sh!t! Where did you get that from you idiot?
.......from Einstein's GeneralRelativity, you should try reading it sometime.


Complete bollocks. The equation for calculating the precession of Mercury disregards its mass, you plank! It only takes into account the mass of the Sun. As I said, you should stay away from science, as it really isn't your thing.

http://farside.ph...116.html
Benni
2.2 / 5 (13) Oct 04, 2018
This velocity increase results in INCREASING MASS, thus changing it's Escape Velocity & thus it's gravitational field from when the orbit was at APHELION, it's furthest distance from the Sun, at which point there is less mass present because the orbital velocity of the planet is the least at that point.


What a load of uneducated sh!t! Where did you get that from you idiot?
.......from Einstein's
GeneralRelativity, you should try reading it sometime.


The equation for calculating the precession of Mercury disregards its mass, you plank! It only takes into account the mass of the Sun.
.........you should reread what I wrote, neither did I because i wasn't writing about precession in THAT paragraph, just orbital velocity. at perihelion/aphelion.

jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (11) Oct 04, 2018
.........you should reread what I wrote, neither did I because i wasn't writing about precession in THAT paragraph, just orbital velocity. at perihelion/aphelion.


Liar. Trying to avoid another pratfall?

RNP:
"Anomalous perihelion precession of Mercury". This was the fact that Mercury's changing orbit was NOT consistent with the inverse square law, but GR explained it.


The idiot Benni:
Of course GR explains it, because as the orbital velocity of Mercury (all planets for that matter) increases as the orbit approaches perihelion. This velocity increase results in INCREASING MASS, thus changing it's Escape Velocity & thus it's gravitational field from when the orbit was at APHELION, it's furthest distance from the Sun, at which point there is less mass present because the orbital velocity of the planet is the least at that point.


So, caught lying again. And showing that he also hasn't a clue about the relevant science. Who is surprised?

RealityCheck
3.1 / 5 (13) Oct 04, 2018
@cantdrive85.
"Lyman-alpha light produced by the Sun's energetic hydrogen will strike other hydrogen atoms in some parcel of gas, raising the electrons in the gas from a quantum state n = 1 to n = 2. The electron will then move back to n = 1 and emit the photon in a random direction. If there are more hydrogen atoms in that parcel of gas, those atoms will absorb and re-emit more photons, some of which will be pointed toward an observer that can measure the brightness of the Lyman-alpha emission."

So simply, flowing energetic charged particles (electric current) impacting H initiates the process. Like I said, Lyman-a is evidence of electric currents.
No, mate. In the above statement it's the photons (emitted by the initially photo-energized electrons) that propagates along neighboring hydrogen atoms in a cloud, energizing their electrons in turn, etc. Not 'electric current'; only photonic 'serial stimulated emissions chain' ending when photon escapes the cloud. Ok? :)
Benni
2.2 / 5 (13) Oct 04, 2018
he also hasn't a clue about the relevant science. Who is surprised?
......certainly not surprised you don't comprehend the GR concept that increasing velocity results in increasing mass & vice versa.
jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (11) Oct 04, 2018
he also hasn't a clue about the relevant science. Who is surprised?
......certainly not surprised you don't comprehend the GR concept that increasing velocity results in increasing mass & vice versa.


There is relativistic mass. I read a decent sci-fi story based on it decades ago - Tau Zero, by Poul Anderson, for anyone interested. However, it has the square root of sod all to do with the precession of Mercury. Stop digging. RNP was right, you are wrong. As usual.
Benni
2.2 / 5 (13) Oct 04, 2018
he also hasn't a clue about the relevant science. Who is surprised?
......certainly not surprised you don't comprehend the GR concept that increasing velocity results in increasing mass & vice versa.


There is relativistic mass. I read a decent sci-fi story based on it decades ago - Tau Zero, by Poul Anderson, for anyone interested. you are wrong. As usual.


What you don't understand about MASS is that ALL of it is Relativistic, if it's moving (and all of it is) it's RELATIVISTIC. The concept that there exists REST MASS is inaccurate, because NOTHING exists that is completely at REST.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (12) Oct 04, 2018
What you don't understand about MASS is that ALL of it is Relativistic, if it's moving (and all of it is) it's RELATIVISTIC. The concept that there exists REST MASS is inaccurate, because NOTHING exists that is completely at REST.


WTF are you talking about now? You were wrong, as proven. At the velocity we are talking about, the effect is negligible. Neither the planetary mass, nor its velocity, are included in the calculation of precession. Now shut up and bugger off, you uneducated loon.

http://www.1728.o...ivty.htm
granville583762
3 / 5 (10) Oct 04, 2018
Rest mass versus Mass in motion as all mass is mass in motion
he also hasn't a clue about the relevant science. Who is surprised?
......certainly not surprised you don't comprehend the GR concept that increasing velocity results in increasing mass & vice versa

There is relativistic mass. I read a decent sci-fi story based on it decades ago - Tau Zero, by Poul Anderson, for anyone interested. you are wrong. As usual

Benni> What you don't understand about MASS is that ALL of it is Relativistic, if it's moving (and all of it is) it's RELATIVISTIC. The concept that there exists REST MASS is inaccurate, because NOTHING exists that is completely at REST.

All mass is in motion, as any oscillation a billionth of a degree above absolute zero K, is motion,
The theoretical absolute zero velocity relative to the absolute velocity, the speed of light is in practice unobtainable
There is no such entity as rest mass even at one billionth of a degree K
jonesdave
3 / 5 (12) Oct 04, 2018
There is no such entity as rest mass even at one billionth of a degree K


Complete crap.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.5 / 5 (11) Oct 04, 2018
Rest mass versus Mass in motion as all mass is mass in motion
he also hasn't a clue about the relevant science. Who is surprised?
......certainly not surprised you don't comprehend the GR concept that increasing velocity results in increasing mass & vice versa

There is relativistic mass.

Benni> What you don't understand about MASS is that ALL of it is Relativistic, if it's moving (and all of it is) it's RELATIVISTIC. The concept that there exists REST MASS is inaccurate, because NOTHING exists that is completely at REST.

All mass is in motion, as any oscillation a billionth of a degree above absolute zero K, is motion,
The theoretical absolute zero velocity relative to the absolute velocity, the speed of light is in practice unobtainable
There is no such entity as rest mass even at one billionth of a degree K
says granV

Thanks for clarifying that. jones will now ignore it.
Any Mass at rest deserves a nice funeral.
Benni
2.3 / 5 (12) Oct 04, 2018
Any Mass at rest deserves a nice funeral.
.........I almost fell off my chair with laughter as I read this. Yeah........rest....motionless,.....dead......probably a few more adjectives we could throw in there, but they all amount to something we have funerals for, dead bodies, apt descriptor for anything at rest.
cantdrive85
2.1 / 5 (13) Oct 04, 2018
It is neutral, loser. How the hell can an electron do anything in ionised H? It hasn't got an electron by definition, you imbecile.

Yep, impossible for any ions or electrons throughout the Universe. There is neutral hydrogen present, in fact recombination is a predictable consequence of Birkeland currents. A neutral H region is nothing like what you believe, it is still ionized.

"Today it is recognized that 99.999% of all observable matter in the universe is in the plasma state and the importance of electromagnetic forces on cosmic plasma cannot be overstated; even in neutral hydrogen regions (∼10^−4 parts ionized), the electromagnetic force to gravitational force ratio is 10^7."
https://link.spri...00642283

Given the pervasiveness of cosmic magnetic fields it should be of no surprise of the pervasiveness of this cosmic hydrogen.
MrBojangles
5 / 5 (8) Oct 05, 2018
You can really tell how LITTLE someone knows about a TOPIC by how often they randomly CAPITALIZE words.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.5 / 5 (8) Oct 05, 2018
You can really tell how LITTLE someone knows about a TOPIC by how often they randomly CAPITALIZE words.
says MrBo

MrBo, are you fully awake?
granville583762
3 / 5 (10) Oct 05, 2018
Einstein's theory of special relativity predicts that massive particles have energy
E=γmc*
Where m is the particle's mass, c is the speed of light,
And γ is the Lorentz factor, is a real number, has no units, is determined by a function of the particle's velocity. The Lorentz factor accounts for the fact that massive particles that move at a relative velocity to your reference frame have more energy. This extra energy is their kinetic energy.
A particle is at rest relative to your frame, the Lorentz factor is 1, and the particle's energy is given by the more recognized equation
E=mc*
As rest mass is unobtainable, E=mc* defines the funeral of Einstein's theory of special relativity
May Einstein's theory of special relativity Einstein's rest in peace!
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.2 / 5 (10) Oct 06, 2018
And for that, granville, here is something for you to relax with. And a pot of tea is in the offing, I daresay.

https://www.youtu...LKR0BKno

:)
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (11) Oct 06, 2018
And another for you, gran. No rest Mass in this one either.

https://www.youtu...PtwM8avs

Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.2 / 5 (10) Oct 06, 2018
And another for you, gran. No rest Mass in this one either.

https://www.youtu...PtwM8avs

Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (9) Oct 06, 2018
And another for you, gran. No rest Mass in this one either.

https://www.youtu...PtwM8avs



Double post - sorry
granville583762
3 / 5 (10) Oct 06, 2018
Every study to date confirms gravities inverse square law in the vacuum

Einstein's 1915 anomalous precession of the perihelion of Mercury
Stafford University – relativistic mass is not gravitational inertial mass, it is kinetic energy.
Mass in motion does not gain mass, it gains kinetic energy
Precession is a change in the orientation of the rotational axis of a rotating body – it is gyroscopic motion of the planet about is spin-axis

A planet in orbit approximates an imperfect eclipse depending on planetary interaction and is effected by the planets procession
Mercury's mass does not change as its velocity changes in orbit, only its kinetic energy changes between perihelion and aphelion, Mercury's and the Suns gravitational field remains constant there is only the precession of Mercury's wobble that can have any physical gyroscopic orbital effect as there is no change in inertial mass or gravity

Einstein's theory of special relativity still rests in peace!
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) Oct 06, 2018


Einstein's theory of special relativity still rests in peace!


The precession of Mercury is nothing to do with special relativity. It was a prediction from general relativity. Sigh.
granville583762
3 / 5 (8) Oct 06, 2018


Einstein's theory of special relativity still rests in peace!


The precession of Mercury is nothing to do with special relativity. It was a prediction from general relativity. Sigh.

Thanks JD,
granville583762
3.2 / 5 (9) Oct 06, 2018
This raises some interesting possibilities
The precession of Mercury is nothing to do with special relativity. It was a prediction from general relativity. Sigh

"The precession of Mercury is nothing to do with special relativity. It was a prediction"
The Gyroscopic precession a prediction of theory – precession of planetary spin is due to its angular momentum and the force of the Suns gravity on the planets equatorial mass as a lever the planet precesses at right angle to counteract the Suns gravitational force

"Wikipedia > Torque-induced precession in which the axis of a spinning object describes a cone in space when an external torque is applied to it. All rotating objects undergo precession. If the speed of the rotation and the magnitude of the external torque are constant, the spin axis will move at right angles to the direction https://en.wikipe...ecession "

This Wikipedia derivation implies Special and General Relativity can rest in peace!
granville583762
3.4 / 5 (10) Oct 06, 2018
Gravitationally induced precession

The precession of Mercury is a gravitationally induced precession on the equatorial mass as this is the only handle gravity has to exert a leverage force on a hemispherical planet
A perfectly hemispherical planet with uniform density cannot have a torque induced gravitationally by the sun and as such cannot precess
The very fact mercury is processing shows it does not have uniform density

And what is good for the goose is also good for the gander as the earth also precesses every 26,000 years which effects its orbital
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.7 / 5 (7) Oct 06, 2018
As jones would say, "Hubba Hubba"

as he would make the sounds of approval in imitation of his primate ancestors
granville583762
3 / 5 (9) Oct 07, 2018
Gravity's torque on mercury's gyroscopic processional motion is the force for the gyroscopic mathematical formula applied to Keplerian orbital motion
Is Albert incorporating the gyroscopic mathematical formula by applying the GR modified gravitational attraction to produce the gravitationally torque induced precession?

Gravity is the torque of force with 6 Variables to consider
Newtonian's gravity
Einstein's gravity
The gyroscopic mathematical formula
Keplerian orbital motion
Mercury's spin induced equatorial diameter
Mercury's orbital period

A gyroscopes orbital motion is its precession, when gravity induces a torque on mercury it process's by orbiting, as mercury is also under gravitational orbit this also induces a torque on mercury at right angles which counteracts the gravitationally induced torque on mercury's equatorial diameter
Gyroscopic motion of mercury's orbit directly affects the processional orbit of mercury.

SR and GR still rest in peace!
Benni
2.5 / 5 (8) Oct 07, 2018
This Wikipedia derivation implies Special and General Relativity can rest in peace!


No granDy, "Live in Peace", not "rest".
jonesdave
2 / 5 (8) Oct 07, 2018
As jones would say, "Hubba Hubba"

as he would make the sounds of approval in imitation of his primate ancestors


According to you, your ancestors were made from grotty clay, intermingled with chimpanzee sh!t! Think I know what I prefer!
RNP
3 / 5 (6) Oct 07, 2018
@granville583762
The precession of Mercury is a gravitationally induced precession on the equatorial mass as this is the only handle gravity has to exert a leverage force on a hemispherical planet


Please tell me more about hemispherical planets. I did not know such things could exist! Indeed, I am pretty sure they can't. Have you misunderstood the word hemispherical?

A gyroscopes orbital motion is its precession, when gravity induces a torque on mercury it process's by orbiting,


Um.....That makes no sense. Would you like to try it again?
RNP
3 / 5 (6) Oct 07, 2018
@granville583762
The very fact mercury is processing [sic] shows it does not have uniform density


Not true. What do you base this on?

And what is good for the goose is also good for the gander as the earth also precesses every 26,000 years which effects its orbital


This and all your other posts above show that you do not understand the physics and have confused the precession of a solid body such as the Earth (Mercury shows almost none) and the precession of the body's orbit (Mercury shows an deviation from that expected form simple Newtonian physice - I.e. the inverse square law - that Einstein explained).
granville583762
3 / 5 (8) Oct 07, 2018

RNP> Please tell me more about hemispherical planets. I did not know such things could exist! Indeed, I am pretty sure they can't. Have you misunderstood the word hemispherical?

Thanks for pointing out the grammatical error, a spherical planet cannot be hemispherical.
cantdrive85
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 07, 2018
And conveniently jonesdumb avoid comment on the fact that even neutral hydrogen regions are electrified plasma and even there "the electromagnetic force to gravitational force ratio is 10^7."

"Gravitational systems are the 'ashes' of prior electrical systems." Hannes Alfven

RNP
3 / 5 (6) Oct 07, 2018
@granville583762

.....Have you misunderstood the word hemispherical?

Thanks for pointing out the grammatical error, a spherical planet cannot be hemispherical.


I am glad you realise this. But, you have not answered my questions. So, let me try again....

1) What did you really by hemispherical? And how is it relevant to a body's precession?

2) Do you now understand the difference between the precession of a body and the precession of its orbit and won't you accept it makes almost everything you have posted irrelevant? Recall, we were talking about the anomalous perihelion precession of Mercury, i.e. its orbital precession (or do you not understand the word preihelion?).

3) How do explain the fact that Einstein used the fact that his his theory made better predictions than Newton's simple inverse-square law to prove his theory?
granville583762
3 / 5 (8) Oct 07, 2018
The point of the exercise is showing the gyroscopic precession is orbital motion by gravities force on the equatorial diameter and Mercury orbital motion counteracts that torque, relativity was in there but as an irrelevance!
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (9) Oct 07, 2018
And conveniently jonesdumb avoid comment on the fact that even neutral hydrogen regions are electrified plasma and even there "the electromagnetic force to gravitational force ratio is 10^7."

"Gravitational systems are the 'ashes' of prior electrical systems." Hannes Alfven



And what relevance is that? Still stuck in the 60's? Quit the deification, and actually do some science. That applies to all EUists. Sorry, I forgot - you have nobody qualified, have you?
RNP
3 / 5 (6) Oct 07, 2018
@granville583762
The point of the exercise is showing the gyroscopic precession is orbital motion by gravities force on the equatorial diameter and Mercury orbital motion counteracts that torque, relativity was in there but as an irrelevance!


So, all you have is a scientific word salad?

You make no attempt to answer my questions?

Is it any wonder you are considered a troll?
granville583762
3 / 5 (8) Oct 07, 2018
Which is the question that was put RNP, if Albert did not include gyroscopic orbital precession, were back to square one
granville583762
3 / 5 (8) Oct 07, 2018
If you read again RNP,
granville583762> Is Albert incorporating the gyroscopic mathematical formula by applying the GR modified gravitational attraction to produce the gravitationally torque induced precession?

I put that question some while back,,,
RNP
3 / 5 (6) Oct 07, 2018
@granville583762

Which is the question that was put RNP, if Albert did not include gyroscopic orbital precession, were back to square one


Hello.....
Hello...
Earth to granville....
Earth to granville....
Are you there granville...
Oh my god, I think we've lost him.....

Can you see the three questions I asked you above.......?

Have you lost visuals, or it it computational ability?

Let us know at ground control and perhaps we can fix it.
granville583762
3 / 5 (8) Oct 07, 2018
This was not so much proving a theory of relativity or Newton, as getting to grips with the gravitational equatorial force including gyroscopic motion RNP.
granville583762
2.8 / 5 (9) Oct 07, 2018
If gyroscopic motion is not included in these calculation RNP, to use a pun, were going round in circles
granville583762
3 / 5 (8) Oct 07, 2018
This was not so much proving a theory of Albert's or Isaac's, as getting to grips with the gravitational equatorial force including gyroscopic motion RNP.
By not including gyroscopic motion does not give the full picture of the mechanics in motion
If gyroscopic motion is not included in these calculation RNP, to use a pun, were going round in circles

RNP, you appear to be saying that Albert did not include gyroscopic motion in these orbital calculations of a gyroscopically spinning body orbiting about its parent star –
As I said RNP, this is not to prove or disprove a theory, but an interest in what isn't and what is included in these orbital's
RNP
3.3 / 5 (7) Oct 07, 2018
@granville583762


This was not so much proving a theory of relativity or Newton, as getting to grips with the gravitational
equatorial force including gyroscopic motion RNP.

If gyroscopic motion is not included in these calculation RNP, to use a pun, were going round in circles


What on Earth makes you think the "gyroscopic motion (LOL)" is not included in general relativity?

It is called a "general" theory because is covers all such situations (that is what proved it superior to Newton's more limiited theory).

P.S. I have just seen your most recent nonsense and I have no desire to spend time on such as you.

So, goodbye.
granville583762
3.3 / 5 (7) Oct 07, 2018
RNP, how do you answer your question?
"3) How do explain the fact that Einstein used the fact that his his theory made better predictions than Newton's simple inverse-square law to prove his theory?"

Where your implied implication is that Albert did not include
"Gyroscopic motion in these orbital calculations of a gyroscopically spinning body orbiting about its parent star"
granville583762
3 / 5 (8) Oct 07, 2018
And therein lies the answer
RNP> What on Earth makes you think the "gyroscopic motion (LOL)" is not included in general relativity?

Your implication is Albert did not include gyroscopic motion in these orbital calculations
Thank you RNP, for being so blunt and forthright.
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (10) Oct 07, 2018
If gyroscopic motion is not included in these calculation RNP, to use a pun, were going round in circles


No, you are going round in circles, due to not understanding the science, but continuing to post on it nevertheless. GR is possibly the most tested theory of all time, and it has passed with flying colours. It isn't the final answer, but it is extremely accurate, as continually proven.
granville583762
2.8 / 5 (9) Oct 07, 2018
The gyroscopic question
If gyroscopic motion is not included in these calculation RNP, to use a pun, were going round in circles

No, you are going round in circles, due to not understanding the science, but continuing to post on it nevertheless. GR is possibly the most tested theory of all time, and it has passed with flying colours. It isn't the final answer, but it is extremely accurate, as continually proven.

JD, the gyroscopic question is disappearing into the mists of texts, 7 hours ago in fact, without its inclusion it nullifies the premise Albert was attempting to prove
cantdrive85
2.3 / 5 (9) Oct 07, 2018
And what relevance is that?

That the EM force is far more significant on all scales in a Plasma Universe.

Still stuck in the 60's?

Oh the irony, from a guy who believes in guesses contrived in the Gaslight Era. LOL!
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (10) Oct 07, 2018
And what relevance is that?

That the EM force is far more significant on all scales in a Plasma Universe.


No, it isn't. A least in the real universe. PU is cobblers, and nobody bothers with it any more. Even Alfven knew that gravitational effects creates stars.

Still stuck in the 60's?
Oh the irony, from a guy who believes in guesses contrived in the Gaslight Era. LOL!


Nope, on the latest data, that Alfven et al, were never privy to.
granville583762
3 / 5 (10) Oct 07, 2018
The subtle art to asking and answering questions
RNP> What on Earth makes you think the "gyroscopic motion (LOL)" is not included in general relativity?

Is an example of a tongue in cheek approach, as we all do not like answering questions we have no control over, as in this case it appears the only person who truly knows whether gyroscopic motion was included is Albert, but like everything now a days, he also rests in peace!
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.5 / 5 (8) Oct 07, 2018
Whoops
says RNP

Sat on a Whoopie cushion, did you?
Benni
2.2 / 5 (10) Oct 07, 2018
Gravitationally induced precession

The precession of Mercury is a gravitationally induced precession on the equatorial mass as this is the only handle gravity has to exert a leverage force on a hemispherical planet
A perfectly hemispherical planet with uniform density cannot have a torque induced gravitationally by the sun and as such cannot precess
The very fact mercury is processing shows it does not have uniform density


Precession of the orbital plane of a planet around the rotational axis of the Sun causes Mercury's equatorial bulge creating a gravitational effect that causes the orbit to precess around the rotational axis of the Sun. The equatorial bulge is less dense than the northern or southern hemispheres, not much but a measurable amount.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (10) Oct 07, 2018
As jones would say, "Hubba Hubba"

as he would make the sounds of approval in imitation of his primate ancestors


According to you, your ancestors were made from grotty clay, intermingled with chimpanzee sh!t! Think I know what I prefer!
says jones

Actually, in fact, the clay had come from a pristine riverbed where only skin and hair cells full of animal DNA had dropped into or been infused therein.

And it has now been shown that it is less likely that the cells with its DNA had come from monkey poop, otherwise, you also would have descended from the cells within monkey poop. And there is no denying that the Earth had already been home to multiple animals and plants before man, as homo sapiens, came onto the scene.

Any human who prefers having descended from multi-celled creatures whose genesis was from slime should have no problem wading into slimy cesspools where they should feel perfectly at home.
granville583762
3.2 / 5 (9) Oct 07, 2018
A more mundane point
Benni> Precession of the orbital plane of a planet around the rotational axis of the Sun causes Mercury's equatorial bulge creating a gravitational effect that causes the orbit to precess around the rotational axis of the Sun. The equatorial bulge is less dense than the northern or southern hemispheres, not much but a measurable amount.

Benni, RNP could not even confirm whether Albert included gyroscopic motion in the precession of Mercury
Never mind be capable of given an explanation of gravities leverage on mercury
If Albert did not include the mathematics of gyroscopic motion in his calculation it nullifies his theories, and you have raised another more mundane point, did Albert know the actual physical nature of mercury to allow him to carry out his calculations, if indeed he did include gyroscopic motion in his mathematical model, which I've yet to convinced he included them!
Benni
2.2 / 5 (10) Oct 07, 2018
Benni, RNP could not even confirm whether Albert included gyroscopic motion in the precession of Mercury
.......and I'll just bet this surprises the hell out of you, doesn't it?

This link supplies you with all the answers, RNP will say that NO IT DOESN'T simply because it makes him look like the freelance journalist he has in the past admitted to being & since has been trying to walk back.

Planetary orbit precession remains as the sole experimental
basis for Einstein's theory. Schiff does a good job here,

https://einstein....1960.pdf
granville583762
3.4 / 5 (8) Oct 07, 2018
Obfuscation in orbital's
Benni, RNP could not even confirm whether Albert included gyroscopic motion in the precession of Mercury
and I'll just bet this surprises the hell out of you, doesn't it?
This link supplies you with all the answers, RNP will say that NO IT DOESN'T simply because it makes him look like the freelance journalist he has in the past admitted to being & since has been trying to walk back.
Planetary orbit precession remains as the sole experimental basis for Einstein's theory. Schiff does a good job here,
https://einstein....1960.pdf

The basis of the gyroscopic question no relativity need be included to arrive at the correct conclusion just plain old Newtonian orbital mechanics with gyroscopic mechanics, that is the impression I am getting or to put it another way Albert is using Obfuscation in orbital's to prove one's own theory which in academia, is not the done thing old boy, as they say
granville583762
3 / 5 (10) Oct 08, 2018
Albert catch 22 in orbital's – proving ones theory

Firstly:- by Albert not including gyroscopic's in his theory disproves his theory two fold as 1, it won't work and 2, it nullifies the premise which is precession

Secondly:- by Albert including gyroscopic's in his theory does not prove his theory because it's not his theory that is proving precession, as his theory is not needed

So in comes Obfuscation, simply hide plain old Newtonian orbital mechanics with gyroscopic mechanics in the fog of mathematics, so it looks as though one is proving ones theory
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.5 / 5 (8) Oct 08, 2018
@granville

Speaking of Obfuscation, have you read this link yet? This would be somewhat related to what you have noticed -

https://phys.org/...als.html
jonesdave
2 / 5 (8) Oct 08, 2018
@granville

Speaking of Obfuscation, have you read this link yet? This would be somewhat related to what you have noticed -

https://phys.org/...als.html


And WTF has the extremely well verified theory of GR got to do with fake papers in bloody sociology journals?
granville583762
3.3 / 5 (9) Oct 08, 2018
Albert's problematical mathematics
"There is a myth that Einstein was a lonely genius who followed beautiful mathematics to discover his great theory – genius inspired by aesthetics; mathematics as a tool of prophecy. But, in fact, Einstein was neither very well educated in mathematics, nor very good at it. Nor did he work without collaborators. He depended on friends such as Marcel Grossmann to explain to him the mathematics on which general relativity is based, and he depended on other friends, such as Michele Besso, to find the correct interpretation of the mathematics"
https://insidethe...yteller/

When we get the impression the subject of interest is not wholly Albert's sole work, now we know why from this link kindly supplied by JD
granville583762
3.3 / 5 (9) Oct 08, 2018
It appears JD, the link you supplied gives a down to earth real true life of a day in the life of Albert.
The theories coming out on these boards clearly indicate some one else's hand at play concerning Albert's signature work, you cannot copy someone else's work JD, it's like trying to copy the Mona Lisa, and now we know why, as the physics lecturer at Canterbury East Kent University said physics is mathematics, just as the photo-electric effect is mathematics which is where Albert's mathematical wife helped him when his skills were failing him JD.
jonesdave
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 08, 2018
It appears JD, the link you supplied gives a down to earth real true life of a day in the life of Albert.
The theories coming out on these boards clearly indicate some one else's hand at play concerning Albert's signature work, you cannot copy someone else's work JD, it's like trying to copy the Mona Lisa, and now we know why, as the physics lecturer at Canterbury East Kent University said physics is mathematics, just as the photo-electric effect is mathematics which is where Albert's mathematical wife helped him when his skills were failing him JD.


WTF are you prattling about? Just give up, yes?
granville583762
2.9 / 5 (11) Oct 08, 2018
Your question RNP
RNP> 3) How do explain the fact that Einstein used the fact that his theory made better predictions than Newton's simple inverse-square law to prove his theory?

Well RNP, the truth appears to be he depended on friends such as Marcel Grossmann to explain to him the mathematics on which general relativity is based, and he depended on other friends, such as Michele Besso, to find the correct interpretation of the mathematics
Where RNP, his mathematical friends appear to have played a mathematical sleight of hand old chap, by simply combining Newtonian orbital mechanics and gyroscopic orbital processional mechanics and sold it as Albert's general relativity theory
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (9) Oct 08, 2018
Your question RNP
RNP> 3) How do explain the fact that Einstein used the fact that his theory made better predictions than Newton's simple inverse-square law to prove his theory?

Well RNP, the truth appears to be he depended on friends such as Marcel Grossmann to explain to him the mathematics on which general relativity is based, and he depended on other friends, such as Michele Besso, to find the correct interpretation of the mathematics
Where RNP, his mathematical friends appear to have played a mathematical sleight of hand old chap, by simply combining Newtonian orbital mechanics and gyroscopic orbital processional mechanics and sold it as Albert's general relativity theory


What a complete load of fabricated, uneducated crap. Give up you troll.
granville583762
3.4 / 5 (10) Oct 08, 2018
Its your own link JD
jonesdave
2 / 5 (8) Oct 08, 2018
Its your own link JD


I linked to nothing that mentions the idiotic crap your are spewing out, you idiot. Bugger off, you uneducated burke.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.8 / 5 (9) Oct 08, 2018
Its your own link JD


ROFLOL
jones was asleep at the wheel when he offered his link and didn't even know what was in it.
Yoww
jonesdave
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 08, 2018
Its your own link JD


ROFLOL
jones was asleep at the wheel when he offered his link and didn't even know what was in it.
Yoww


Which link, you thick bastard?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.8 / 5 (9) Oct 08, 2018
jones
Are you denying that you submitted a link?
jonesdave
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 08, 2018
jones
Are you denying that you submitted a link?


Just post the f***ing link that relates to Granville's crap, yes? Otherwise you are making sh!t up, and lying again, aren't you, dickhead?
jonesdave
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 08, 2018
Its your own link JD


ROFLOL
jones was asleep at the wheel when he offered his link and didn't even know what was in it.
Yoww


So come on thicko. You've obviously clicked on whatever link you are talking about, and know what is in it. Care to enlighten the rest of us? Or were you lying?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.5 / 5 (8) Oct 08, 2018
jones
As I'm not the one who submitted the link, it's not my job to find it and resubmit it. If you didn't submit it yourself, then who did? Benni submitted a link but it was full of maths and not much else.
So I have no idea where it is. And your belligerence is downright stupid. Which is no surprise.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.5 / 5 (8) Oct 08, 2018
OK I found it - the link, that is. Completely forgot that I submitted it here and gran read it.

https://insidethe...yteller/
Benni
2.6 / 5 (10) Oct 08, 2018
jones
As I'm not the one who submitted the link, it's not my job to find it and resubmit it. If you didn't submit it yourself, then who did? Benni submitted a link but it was full of maths and not much else.
So I have no idea where it is. And your belligerence is downright stupid. Which is no surprise.


Next, jonesy will demand you find his Astronomy Based degree he he claims he received from U of A that has never offered such a course. Then he'll demand you produce the courses he took in pursuit of that degree because he can't remember all the way back to 1979-81. His memory has been best suited for words he uses in all his foul mouthed rantings.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.5 / 5 (8) Oct 08, 2018
Benni
Look at your comment above. There is twinning there. I have seen it in many other posts from others, not just yours and granville's. Even jones has done it.

Yes, I daresay that jones' mum evidently never washed his mouth out with soap, else he would not be so quick to deal dirty words out of it or on his keyboard. And you know that whatever he brays on physorg, stays on physorg.
It's also strange that jones never says that he majored in Physics, which is not an Elective as Astronomy is.
jonesdave
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 09, 2018
Benni
Look at your comment above. There is twinning there. I have seen it in many other posts from others, not just yours and granville's. Even jones has done it.

Yes, I daresay that jones' mum evidently never washed his mouth out with soap, else he would not be so quick to deal dirty words out of it or on his keyboard. And you know that whatever he brays on physorg, stays on physorg.
It's also strange that jones never says that he majored in Physics, which is not an Elective as Astronomy is.


Which part of "astronomy based" are you having trouble with, you thick prick?
granville583762
3.3 / 5 (7) Oct 09, 2018
TO JD, SEU, Benni and anyone with a scientific social interest

From - Remarkable flares from the galactic center
A quote from JD:- For anybody interested in the real science of BHs, rather than Benni's uneducated ramblings, then there was a lecture yesterday from the Perimeter Institute, regarding the Event Horizon Telescope, and its search for the EH of the SMBH at the galactic centre. Sounds like it'll be early 2019 before all the cranks have to eat humble pie. Or, more likely, make up more uneducated rubbish, as they always do when observation contradicts their dogma;
https://insidethe...=twitter .
Your link JD is below the Video on the EHT, PI insidetheperimeter web page, very interesting JD.
jonesdave
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 09, 2018
jones
As I'm not the one who submitted the link, it's not my job to find it and resubmit it. If you didn't submit it yourself, then who did? Benni submitted a link but it was full of maths and not much else.
So I have no idea where it is. And your belligerence is downright stupid. Which is no surprise.


Next, jonesy will demand you find his Astronomy Based degree he he claims he received from U of A that has never offered such a course. Then he'll demand you produce the courses he took in pursuit of that degree because he can't remember all the way back to 1979-81. His memory has been best suited for words he uses in all his foul mouthed rantings.


At least I've got a couple of degrees, which is a couple more than you have, isn't it? What is a half-life, again, Mr. nuclear engineer? Lol. Now, there is a lie if ever there was one. You were crap at science at school, I suggest. You therefore have a huge chip on your shoulder about it.
jonesdave
2.5 / 5 (8) Oct 09, 2018
Your link JD is below the Video on the EHT insidetheperimeter web page, very interesting JD.


Very f***ing stupid, bozo. That is not what I linked to, idiot. I linked to the video of the lecture.. So, you admit that you lied?
jonesdave
2.5 / 5 (8) Oct 09, 2018
OK I found it - the link, that is. Completely forgot that I submitted it here and gran read it.

https://insidethe...yteller/


Which is a link that I never submitted. Correct? So WTF were you on about, saying that I submitted it? Just lying, as usual, yes?
granville583762
2.9 / 5 (10) Oct 09, 2018
Oh this tangled web we weave!

How the intricate social web we weave on the ethereal web of electrons flowing the circuitry of minds between continents do we weave JD,
This be the internet JD, of links and counter links and related links JD, take care what you link to JD, you never know what content your link is hosting and leading to in the Aether of this tangled web we weave!
jonesdave
2.5 / 5 (8) Oct 09, 2018
Oh this tangled web we weave!


Listen, you thick piece of sh!t, I did not link to that f***ing story, you uneducated oaf.
Here is part of my link in full;

****event-horizon-telescope-public-lecture****/?utm_content=77992297&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter


Which part of that are you failing to understand, bozo? Whatever else you found on that page is your link, thicko. So, quit with the lying, you piece of crap.
And your link is nothing to do with the crap you were spewing. How many times do you think GR has been verified, badger brain? It doesn't matter who checked the maths, you fool; it has been verified, time and time again. Unless you want to point out where the error is? Thought not. Why don't you p!ss off? You are a complete waste of pixels, as you are clearly clueless about science.
granville583762
3.2 / 5 (9) Oct 09, 2018
The reason why the Albert's social side of life is on your link JD, is because your link is on his specialist subject old boy, blackholes and orbital mechanics another favourite topic of Albert's JD
PI insidetheperimeter respectfully provided Albert's social history because The EVH Telescope was specifically about dear old Albert's scientific research JD.

As an aside old boy, I would ask you to respectfully ask you to modify your language if only for Alberts sake.
jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (9) Oct 09, 2018
The reason why the Albert's social side of life is on your link JD, is because your link is on his specialist subject old boy, blackholes and orbital mechanics another favourite topic of Albert's JD
PI insidetheperimeter respectfully provided Albert's social history because The EVH Telescope was specifically about dear old Albert's scientific research JD.

As an aside old boy, I would ask you to respectfully ask you to modify your language if only for Alberts sake.


Stop talking crap, you mug. I linked to a specific story. You found another, completely misrepresented it (i.e. lied), and then lied again by saying it was my link. What does that make you, badger brain? A compulsive liar. Correct?
Ojorf
3 / 5 (10) Oct 09, 2018
Perfect example of how a discussion deteriorates when Benni, Surveillance_Egg_Unit and granville58376 get involved. Thank the FSM for JD.

The trolls swamp the comments with swill. They have no thirst for knowledge, just an insatiable taste for the shit which the spew all over this site.
Your parents must be proud of you.
granville583762
3.2 / 5 (11) Oct 09, 2018
Ties the internet old boy
jonesdave> Stop talking crap, you mug. I linked to a specific story. You found another, completely misrepresented it (i.e. lied), and then lied again by saying it was my link. What does that make you, badger brain? A compulsive liar. Correct?

Be careful what you link to, if you do not want any obfuscation of your links JD
Now there's an interesting reversal of Obfuscation JD, you have obfuscated your own obfuscations, you're getting quite sophisticated in obfuscation in its obfuscation
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (10) Oct 09, 2018

Be careful what you link to, if you do not want any obfuscation of your links JD
Now there's an interesting reversal of Obfuscation JD, you have obfuscated your own obfuscations, you're getting quite sophisticated in obfuscation in its obfuscation


No, you thick prick; I linked to a specific piece. It is plain as day in the link title, blind boy. You then find another story on the page, and claim that I linked to it, you lying piece of garbage. If I link to a story in the Times, is it my link if you then click on a different story that they are promoting? No, it isn't, liar. And apart from anything else, you then made up a bunch of stuff based on the story in your link. In short, you are a liar, as well as being scientifically illiterate. Correct?
Benni
2.8 / 5 (9) Oct 09, 2018
>Ojo..........good post:

Perfect example of how a discussion deteriorates The trolls swamp the comments with swill. They have no thirst for knowledge, just an insatiable taste for the shit which the spew all over this site

For example:

No, you thick prick;


Stop talking crap, you mug. A compulsive liar.


Why don't you p!ss off?


So WTF were you on about


Listen, you thick piece of sh!t,


Very f***ing stupid, bozo.


..........and on & on it goes, seemingly without end, like the nether regions of a black hole in which there is no bottom.





RNP
3 / 5 (10) Oct 09, 2018
@Benni
..........and on & on it goes, seemingly without end, like the nether regions of a black hole in which there is no bottom.


As are YOUR unending posts demonstrating absolutely no understanding of science.

Your posts also regularly attempt to denegrate others.

So, Pot, Kettle, Black?

jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (9) Oct 09, 2018
..........and on & on it goes, seemingly without end, like the nether regions of a black hole in which there is no bottom.


And if people want to keep lying and talking out of their arses, then I will call them on it. Rational, scientific discussion has been shown not to work with you loons.
cantdrive85
2.8 / 5 (9) Oct 09, 2018
Rational, scientific discussion has been shown not to work with you loons.

Do you mean the actual definition of rational, or the jonesdumb version of 'rational'?
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (9) Oct 09, 2018
Rational, scientific discussion has been shown not to work with you loons.

Do you mean the actual definition of rational, or the jonesdumb version of 'rational'?


No, the one that actually involves valid science, backed by observation and measurement. As opposed to making sh!t up, a la Thornhill & Talbott, and a bunch of cranks on here.
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (8) Oct 09, 2018
@RNP.
@Benni
..........and on & on it goes, seemingly without end, like the nether regions of a black hole in which there is no bottom.


As are YOUR unending posts demonstrating absolutely no understanding of science.

Your posts also regularly attempt to denegrate others.

So, Pot, Kettle, Black?

For me, your above riposte to @Benni would have been even more telling if it wasn't for the fact that the very ones who are now beset by and loudly berating trolls/ignoramuses are mostly the very same ones who for years approved of, encouraged, applauded, and enabled bot-voting trolls/ignoramuses campaigns against ME, despite my being on-science and correct. Like the saying goes: What goes around, comes around.

ps: RNP, while I DO sympathize with you, @jonesdave et al now, I cannot help but feel that the 'sense of irony and just deserts' in all this is almost palpable and somewhat amusing to observe lately. Good luck, guys! :)
jonesdave
2.7 / 5 (7) Oct 10, 2018
....... despite my being on-science and correct.


When did that happen?
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 10, 2018
@jonesdave.
....... despite my being on-science and correct.


When did that happen?
Too many times over too many years for you to play that silly game now and still think you can get away with it, mate. :)

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.