Gravitational waves could soon provide measure of universe's expansion

October 22, 2018 by Louise Lerner, University of Chicago
UChicago scientists estimate, based on LIGO's quick first detection of a first neutron star collision, that they could have an extremely precise measurement of the universe's rate of expansion within five to ten years. Credit: Robin Dienel/The Carnegie Institution for Science

Twenty years ago, scientists were shocked to realize that our universe is not only expanding, but that it's expanding fasterover time.

Pinning down the exact rate of expansion, called the Hubble constant after famed astronomer and UChicago alumnus Edwin Hubble, has been surprisingly difficult. Since then scientists have used two methods to calculate the value, and they spit out distressingly different results. But last year's surprising capture of radiating from a neutron star collision offered a third way to calculate the Hubble constant.

That was only a single data point from one collision, but in a new paper published Oct. 17 in Nature, three University of Chicago scientists estimate that given how quickly researchers saw the first neutron star collision, they could have a very accurate measurement of the Hubble constant within five to ten years.

"The Hubble constant tells you the size and the age of the universe; it's been a holy grail since the birth of cosmology. Calculating this with gravitational waves could give us an entirely new perspective on the universe," said study author Daniel Holz, a UChicago professor in physics who co-authored the first such calculation from the 2017 discovery. "The question is: When does it become game-changing for cosmology?"

In 1929, Edwin Hubble announced that based on his observations of galaxies beyond the Milky Way, they seemed to be moving away from us—and the farther away the galaxy, the faster it was receding. This is a cornerstone of the Big Bang theory, and it kicked off a nearly century-long search for the exact rate at which this is occurring.

To calculate the rate at which the universe is expanding, scientists need two numbers. One is the distance to a faraway object; the other is how fast the object is moving away from us because of the expansion of the universe. If you can see it with a telescope, the second quantity is relatively easy to determine, because the light you see when you look at a distant star gets shifted into the red as it recedes. Astronomers have been using that trick to see how fast an object is moving for more than a century—it's like the Doppler effect, in which a siren changes pitch as an ambulance passes.

'Major questions in calculations'

But getting an exact measure of the distance is much harder. Traditionally, astrophysicists have used a technique called the cosmic distance ladder, in which the brightness of certain variable stars and supernovae can be used to build a series of comparisons that reach out to the object in question. "The problem is, if you scratch beneath the surface, there are a lot of steps with a lot of assumptions along the way," Holz said.

Perhaps the supernovae used as markers aren't as consistent as thought. Maybe we're mistaking some kinds of supernovae for others, or there's some unknown error in our measurement of distances to nearby stars. "There's a lot of complicated astrophysics there that could throw off readings in a number of ways," he said.

The other major way to calculate the Hubble constant is to look at the cosmic microwave background—the pulse of light created at the very beginning of the universe, which is still faintly detectable. While also useful, this method also relies on assumptions about how the universe works.

Prof. Daniel Holz discusses UChicago scientists’ role in LIGO’s historic detection of gravitational waves from two colliding neutron stars.

The surprising thing is that even though scientists doing each calculation are confident about their results, they don't match. One says the universe is expanding almost 10 percent faster than the other. "This is a major question in cosmology right now," said the study's first author, Hsin-Yu Chen, then a graduate student at UChicago and now a fellow with Harvard University's Black Hole Initiative.

Then the LIGO detectors picked up their first ripple in the fabric of space-time from the collision of two stars last year. This not only shook the observatory, but the field of astronomy itself: Being able to both feel the gravitational wave and see the light of the collision's aftermath with a telescope gave scientists a powerful new tool. "It was kind of an embarrassment of riches," Holz said.

Gravitational waves offer a completely different way to calculate the Hubble constant. When two massive stars crash into each other, they send out ripples in the fabric of space-time that can be detected on Earth. By measuring that signal, scientists can get a signature of the mass and energy of the colliding stars. When they compare this reading with the strength of the gravitational waves, they can infer how far away it is.

This measurement is cleaner and holds fewer assumptions about the universe, which should make it more precise, Holz said. Along with Scott Hughes at MIT, he suggested the idea of making this measurement with gravitational waves paired with telescope readings in 2005. The only question is how often scientists could catch these events, and how good the data from them would be.

'It's only going to get more interesting'

The paper predicts that once scientists have detected 25 readings from neutron star collisions, they'll measure the expansion of the universe within an accuracy of 3 percent. With 200 readings, that number narrows to 1 percent.

"It was quite a surprise for me when we got into the simulations," Chen said. "It was clear we could reach precision, and we could reach it fast."

A precise new number for the Hubble constant would be fascinating no matter the answer, the scientists said. For example, one possible reason for the mismatch in the other two methods is that the nature of gravity itself might have changed over time. The reading also might shed light on dark energy, a mysterious force responsible for the expansion of the .

"With the collision we saw last year, we got lucky—it was close to us, so it was relatively easy to find and analyze," said Maya Fishbach, a UChicago and the other author on the paper. "Future detections will be much farther away, but once we get the next generation of telescopes, we should be able to find counterparts for these distant detections as well."

The LIGO detectors are planned to begin a new observing run in February 2019, joined by their Italian counterparts at VIRGO. Thanks to an upgrade, the detectors' sensitivities will be much higher—expanding the number and distance of astronomical events they can pick up.

"It's only going to get more interesting from here," Holz said.

Explore further: Gravitational waves provide dose of reality about extra dimensions

More information: Hsin-Yu Chen et al, A two per cent Hubble constant measurement from standard sirens within five years, Nature (2018). DOI: 10.1038/s41586-018-0606-0

Related Stories

Recommended for you

Giant flare detected on a pre-main sequence M star

November 13, 2018

Using the Next Generation Transit Survey (NGTS), astronomers have identified an energetic flare displaying quasi-periodic pulsations on the pre-main sequence M star NGTS J121939.5-355557. The newly detected flare is one of ...

Galaxies like Russian dolls

November 13, 2018

Jairo Méndez Abreu and Adriana de Lorenzo-Cáceres, researchers at the Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias (IAC), have discovered a peanut-shaped structure in the inner bar of a double-barred galaxy close to the Milky ...

Scientists capture the sound of sunrise on Mars

November 9, 2018

Scientists have created the soundtrack of the 5,000th Mars sunrise captured by the robotic exploration rover, Opportunity, using data sonification techniques to create a two-minute piece of music.

562 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Doug_Nightmare
4.7 / 5 (12) Oct 22, 2018
The preprint is at arXiv. https://arxiv.org...12.06531
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (11) Oct 22, 2018
One thing I'm not clear on is how there can be a single "Hubble constant" for the universe after dark energy has been discovered. Dark energy makes the Hubble constant change over time. So measuring it from the CMBR has to give a different result than measuring it from SN1A results from galaxies that are closer than the surface of last scattering.
rossim22
3.7 / 5 (15) Oct 22, 2018
"The problem is, if you scratch beneath the surface, there are a lot of steps with a lot of assumptions along the way," Holz said.

Perhaps the supernovae used as markers aren't as consistent as thought. Maybe we're mistaking some kinds of supernovae for others, or there's some unknown error in our measurement of distances to nearby stars. "There's a lot of complicated astrophysics there that could throw off readings in a number of ways."


Proper skepticism is so refreshing.
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (19) Oct 22, 2018
@rossim22.
"The problem is, if you scratch beneath the surface, there are a lot of steps with a lot of assumptions along the way," Holz said. Perhaps the supernovae used as markers aren't as consistent as thought. Maybe we're mistaking some kinds of supernovae for others, or there's some unknown error in our measurement of distances to nearby stars. "There's a lot of complicated astrophysics there that could throw off readings in a number of ways."
Proper skepticism is so refreshing.
Yes, isn't it! For YEARS I pointed this out for @IMP-9 etc. It's good to (finally) see mainstream researchers admit openly the assumptive flaws, observational limitations, analytical inadequacies/artifacts/interpretations etc which 'infect' all current Distance Ladder/CMB based exercises/claims allegedly 'supporting' big bang, Inflation etc hypotheses; which in fact have NO ACTUAL TENABLE 'evidence' except flawed claims based on flawed methodologies/assumptions/interpretations etc. :)
jonesdave
3.8 / 5 (29) Oct 22, 2018
NO ACTUAL TENABLE 'evidence' except flawed claims based on flawed methodologies/assumptions/interpretations etc. :)


Complete and utter bullsh!t! All he is talking about is the error bars coming closer together. Do not expect a result that is wildly different from current values.

Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (21) Oct 22, 2018
And it's about time too. jonesy should be along soon to proclaim this article to be false and the scientists don't know what they're talking about.
False impressions never die; and they don't just fade away.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (24) Oct 22, 2018
And it's about time too. jonesy should be along soon to proclaim this article to be false and the scientists don't know what they're talking about.
False impressions never die; and they don't just fade away.


WTF are you talking about, thicko?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.8 / 5 (20) Oct 22, 2018
LOL As I predicted and submitted too late - and here he is - all full of pee and vinegar.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (15) Oct 22, 2018
How to identify a political troll:

A 1 rating with no response.
jonesdave
3.8 / 5 (26) Oct 22, 2018
Just for the hard of thinking, and/ or those with non-existent research skills, here is the first determination of the Hubble constant from GWs;

A GRAVITATIONAL-WAVE STANDARD SIREN MEASUREMENT OF THE HUBBLE CONSTANT
https://arxiv.org...5835.pdf

We determine the Hubble constant to be 70.0 (+12.0 − 8.0) km s^−1 Mpc^−1 (maximum a posteriori and 68% credible interval). This is consistent with existing measurements (Planck
Collaboration et al. 2016; Riess et al. 2016), while being completely independent of them.


Like I said; do not expect wildly different values.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (23) Oct 22, 2018
LOL As I predicted and submitted too late - and here he is - all full of pee and vinegar.


Again, you uneducated burke - WTF are you talking about, you idiot? Science is a bit beyond you isn't it, loony tunes? Why don't you stop commenting on it?
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (16) Oct 22, 2018
@jonesdave.
NO ACTUAL TENABLE 'evidence' except flawed claims based on flawed methodologies/assumptions/interpretations etc. :)
Complete and utter bullsh!t! All he is talking about is the error bars coming closer together. Do not expect a result that is wildly different from current values.
Your (again) emotional/kneejerked response leads you into beside-the-point assumptions/assertions, mate. If you can calm down and read IN CONTEXT what I posted to @rossim22, you'll see I was referring to the ADMITTED shortcomings which the author pointed out re Supernovae etc data 'interpretations' being misled by SN type variability and large scope for mistaken identification etc. I have long been pointing out that (and more) for @IMP-9 etc. I have ALSO long been pointing out that CMB-dependent 'modeling' is UNRELIABLE, since there are CMB microwave frequency range sources/signals more recent than (any alleged) BB-attributed CMB sources/signals. Calmly read/reconsider. :)
jonesdave
3 / 5 (22) Oct 22, 2018
^^^^Sod off. Who gives a toss what you have been saying? The estimates are well in line with big bang cosmology, whichever method you use. So, why not just give it a rest eh? You are not a scientist, and nobody is much bothered about what you post on a comments section. It is an irrelevance.
RealityCheck
2.2 / 5 (17) Oct 22, 2018
@jonesdave.
Sod off. Who gives a toss what you have been saying? The estimates are well in line with big bang cosmology, whichever method you use. So, why not just give it a rest eh? You are not a scientist, and nobody is much bothered about what you post on a comments section. It is an irrelevance.
See, this behavior is why you bring disrepute to true objective science/scientists, jonesy.

Can you please STOP emotionally kneejerking and LISTEN, THINK about IMPLICATIONS of WRONG INTERPRETATIONS of BOTH Supernova data AND CMB data.

BOTH are unreliable; and being increasingly ADMITTED so by mainstream researchers (eg, above).

Try to 'get it', mate.

IT DOESN'T MATTER when YOU [jd] say:

"The estimates are well in line with big bang cosmology, whichever method you use."

Because BOTH METHODS ARE UNRELIABLE.

Get it?

What value in TWO WRONG ESTIMATES from TWO WRONG METHODOLOGIES/MODELS?

Less than NONE!

Because they're BOTH misleading the work/modeling. Ok?
Whydening Gyre
4.5 / 5 (22) Oct 22, 2018
RC,
They're not WRONG.
They're just not as accurate as we would like...
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (16) Oct 22, 2018
@Whyde.
RC,
They're not WRONG.
They're just not as accurate as we would like...
Is your own bias so strong that even you miss the point, mate?

Try to get it: If both methodologies are seriously flawed like I (and increasingly others now) point out, then NEITHER of the estimates is of any use; even of less use is a comparison between TWO equally flawed-modeling/interpreting-methodologies-based 'estimates'.

See? It is neither here nor there whether the two flawed estimates are 'close', since they are both wrong and so immaterial to the real situation being studied.

Comprende?

Each such flawed estimate is as bad as the other; so naively using the flawed 'claim' of either to 'reinforce' the 'claim' of the other will give nothing but misleading 'gigo'.

See? It's a nonsense exercise unless at least ONE 'methodology' can be shown to BE reliable. BUT NEITHER 'methodology' is reliable; as I (and now others point out).

Get the point now, Whyde? :)

Mimath224
4.4 / 5 (16) Oct 22, 2018
Well, for me a layman who just gets a peak through a door that's ajar, it's just another example of science moving on. I hope gravitational waves prove to be worthy of the promise they offer at present. I only get to hear about the results not about the painstaking research and effort it demands. Some may argue against GR but I bet if Prof. Einstein were alive today he'd be smiling.
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (13) Oct 22, 2018
This result has been reported here before. What's interesting about it is it seems to split the difference between the SN1A results and the CMBR results.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.2 / 5 (20) Oct 23, 2018
RC,
They're not WRONG.
They're just not as accurate as we would like...
says Whyde

You're kidding, right? There's an old saying in the US, Whyde. that 99 pennies do not a dollar make. So it is with science. When errors are made, they must find where the errors occurred and rectify it before proceeding. Anything less, and these scientists will only be compounding the problem.

But at least they had the sense to admit that they were wrong, and then work towards the solution. If only politics were like that.
theredpill
2.9 / 5 (15) Oct 23, 2018
"When errors are made, they must find where the errors occurred and rectify it before proceeding. Anything less, and these scientists will only be compounding the problem."

I don't know what scientifically illiterate fools rated this comment a "1". This is spot on and has been observed to have taken place in so many avenues of science that to write them down would produce a work the size of the bible. Good observation.
Benni
1.8 / 5 (16) Oct 23, 2018
RC,
They're not WRONG.
They're just not as accurate as we would like...


Explain the difference? Or you'd rather not for fear of losing some stars?
Benni
2.1 / 5 (19) Oct 23, 2018
"When errors are made, they must find where the errors occurred and rectify it before proceeding. Anything less, and these scientists will only be compounding the problem."

I don't know what scientifically illiterate fools rated this comment a "1". This is spot on and has been observed to have taken place in so many avenues of science that to write them down would produce a work the size of the bible. Good observation.


You mean like: Infinite Density at the centers of stellar mass where zero gravity exists? How about some explanation for this conundrum of pseudo-science? Maybe follow Schneibo back in time to 19th century cosmology when it was taught that velocity of electro-magnetic waves was presumed to be determined by the gravity fields they passed through?
theredpill
2.4 / 5 (19) Oct 23, 2018
"You mean like: Infinite Density at the centers of stellar mass where zero gravity exists?"

LOL, that would be one, yes.

What seems to be missing as a measuring stick in science today was touched upon very well by the egg, incomplete data being taken as complete. You see, and I am betting you understand this better than the wanna be's here...the only way data is complete is if you can reach only one conclusion after you process all of it. If two people can view the same data and reach different conclusions which "appear" to be valid...the data must be incomplete, therefore proceeding down a scientific avenue as if one of the conclusions is correct has tremendous potential of compounding the error in the event the conclusion is the wrong one. The mainstream devout cannot even acknowledge this because they are at the point where there entire theory is built upon inference, and the three cornerstones of it defy mathematical expression, funny considering it is a requirement eh?
barakn
3.9 / 5 (20) Oct 23, 2018
I can tell you why the commented was rated a 1. S_E_U has completely misunderstood what error is from a scientific point of view and instead has applied an inapt colloquial definition of error. Errors in this context are not equivalent to mistakes. No scientific instruments are perfect. There is always noise, there is always a maximum level of achievable precision, there are always unmeasurable minor contributors, certain simplifying assumptions have to be made... Error analysis is a way of quantifying the total effect of these inevitable deviations to the final results. Any paper that doesn't mention and quantify sources of error is immediately viewed with suspicion by peer reviewers. To request that all errors be "rectif[ied] before proceeding" is a request for the impossible. If scientists tried to do that, no science would ever get done.
Benni
1.8 / 5 (16) Oct 23, 2018
I can tell you why the commented was rated a 1. S_E_U has completely misunderstood what error is from a scientific point of view and instead has applied an inapt colloquial definition of error


......coming from another one of those here in this chatroom who has a fantasy that there exists an immutable law of Pop-Cosmology that infinite density exists at the center of a stellar mass labeled a black hole the exact point at which the Inverse Square Law defies such a parameter of mass can exist.

theredpill
2.3 / 5 (15) Oct 23, 2018
"To request that all errors be "rectif[ied] before proceeding" is a request for the impossible. If scientists tried to do that, no science would ever get done."

I'll email this to your surgeon before the operation if you ever need any surgery. It'll give him peace if things go wrong. Also, if you are going to proceed down a path knowing it may be the wrong way (as in admitted potential errors may exist in the data that spawned your conclusion), you have to recognize that when evidence shows you are going the wrong way, people will question your credibility if you just keep going that way. As mentioned above, one of the requirements for physics is mathematical derivation of a theory. So you have a Mathematical theory of how the universe works which relies upon the existence of three main tenets...none of which can be described mathematically yet we constantly hear "the math works" in these comments sections while being chastised belligerently for our skepticism.
Benni
1.8 / 5 (15) Oct 23, 2018
one of the requirements for physics is mathematical derivation of a theory. So you have a Mathematical theory of how the universe works
........you mean like the Inverse Square Law which denies any concept of infinite density at the center of a stellar mass due to gravitational collapse?

which relies upon the existence of three main tenets...none of which can be described mathematically yet we constantly hear "the math works" in these comments sections while being chastised belligerently for our skepticism.
........yeah, like schneibo backtracking to 19th century math applying kinetic energy math to the formation of black holes. Yeah, the math works alright, depending on the century you want to pull your math from, right Schneibo?

MrBojangles
4.1 / 5 (22) Oct 23, 2018
Oh Lord, it's the same three or four fools at it again. Every single thread of this wonderful website is corrupted with your drivel.

Firstly - Nobody cares that you've been claiming for years to understand the workings of the universe, Reality Check. Quit stroking your own ego (especially since you're incorrect.) You've not done any of the math, so you don't get the luxury of claiming how flawed both models are, doubly so since none of us yet know how far off they are, only that they disagree.

A model by its very definition is flawed. Why is this so hard to understand? Until we have a perfect and complete understanding of the universe (spoiler alert: not likely to ever happen) then our models will continue to improve or change altogether. To discount the science leading up to these changes as worthless is incredibly myopic.

To the other weirdos like redpill - I don't know any scientists that claim these theories as perfected, so what are y'all babbling on about?
theredpill
2.3 / 5 (15) Oct 23, 2018
"I don't know any scientists that claim these theories as perfected"

Neither do I, however if we want to review the posts from their followers here, the followers believe the theories are solid...I never said or implied anybody claimed anything to be perfect...but I suppose you would have to set that strawman up yourself so you would have something knock down.

"You've not done any of the math, so you don't get the luxury of claiming how flawed both models are"

Yes all of you who claim to understand physical relationships, go learn the equations that center around three mathematically indescribable variables and once you can speak in the language of mathematical inference, you are qualified in MR. Bojangles books to comment about physics. And when you grow an arm out of your forehead you will be qualified to juggle five bowling pins...if you can do both you are qualified to rule the world.
barakn
3.8 / 5 (16) Oct 23, 2018
I can tell you why the commented was rated a 1. S_E_U has completely misunderstood what error is from a scientific point of view and instead has applied an inapt colloquial definition of error


......coming from another one of those here in this chatroom who has a fantasy that there exists an immutable law of Pop-Cosmology that infinite density exists at the center of a stellar mass labeled a black hole the exact point at which the Inverse Square Law defies such a parameter of mass can exist. -Benni

Yeah, go ahead and lie about me. Or if you honestly believe I've said anything of the sort, go ahead and post a link to my alleged comment here.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (17) Oct 23, 2018
Yeah, go ahead and lie about me. Or if you honestly believe I've said anything of the sort, go ahead and post a link to my alleged comment here.


Get used to it Barakn - all the idiot has got is lies and a p!ss poor understanding of science. Might as well be discussing quantum with a badger. Actually that might be unfair on badgers.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (17) Oct 23, 2018
Try to get it: If both methodologies are seriously flawed like I (and increasingly others now) point out, then NEITHER of the estimates is of any use;


Quit lying, woo boy. Nobody is saying they are seriously flawed. What is it with you cranks that makes you lie about anything and everything? Mental illness? They may not be as accurate a measure as GWs. That is all. Notice how the first measurement from GWs is close to the previously measured values? Caught a break there, didn't they, given that some loon is claiming that the previous methods were 'seriously' flawed? Put a sock in it, you poser.

jonesdave
3.6 / 5 (17) Oct 23, 2018
Because they're BOTH misleading the work/modeling. Ok?


Nope, you are just making sh!t up that was never said. Looking at Cepheid variables and type 1a SN, will get us well within the ballpark. Hence why those estimates are consistent with the first measurement from GWs. Get it, loony tunes? Had the GW measurement been seriously at odds with those estimates, then you might have a point. As it stands you don't, and are just blowing smoke out of your arse. As usual.
MrBojangles
4.1 / 5 (17) Oct 23, 2018
"I don't know any scientists that claim these theories as perfected"

Neither do I...I never said or implied anybody claimed anything to be perfect...but I suppose you would have to set that strawman...


Also you: ""To request that all errors be "rectif[ied] before proceeding" is a request for the impossible. If scientists tried to do that, no science would ever get done."

I'll email this to your surgeon before the operation if you ever need any surgery..."

Does the surgeon calibrate every instrument before operation? Furthermore, if he or she does calibrate every instrument, there's still an inherent margin of error associated with taking measurements, which is the point they were trying to make. I've no need to set up a strawman, it's easy enough to attack statements like that on their own.
barakn
4.1 / 5 (17) Oct 23, 2018
if you are going to proceed down a path knowing it may be the wrong way (as in admitted potential errors may exist in the data that spawned your conclusion), you have to recognize that when evidence shows you are going the wrong way, people will question your credibility if you just keep going that way. -TheRedPill
What a surprise, someone else who doesn't understand error in science. Here's a simple task for you - go to the nearest thermometer and read the temperature. We'll assume it's been accurately calibrated. If you're lucky it's digital and will give you a number to a tenth of a degree. If it reads 20.3 degrees and you tell me the temperature is exactly 20.3 degrees, I will know you are wrong. The actual temperature is (very probably) somewhere between 20.25000 and 20.3499999.... The error associated with this measurement is 0.1 degrees, and just because there's an error doesn't mean you've done something wrong... as long as you include the error with the temp.
theredpill
2.4 / 5 (14) Oct 23, 2018
"Or if you honestly believe I've said anything of the sort, go ahead and post a link to my alleged comment here."

I recall one post about angular momentum in an article, it was responding to a question about BH spin which sort of insinuates you believe they exist as theorized...but truthfully that is the only one I have seen in my time here....and it was so long ago I don't remember the article.

No, you appear to be a math guy which is why I guess you feel compelled to downvote logical posts that bash math/theories you believe are correct. You do realize that contrary to Mr. bogangles assertion, it is possible to understand and discuss physics without involving math at all right? I mean, yes, math is the most precise language in which to describe a physical interaction or mechanical function...but it is not a necessity at the level we are at here. And clearly mathematical precision is not what GR is about any longer given how many variables need a "?" to indicate a guess.

theredpill
2.2 / 5 (13) Oct 23, 2018
Guys, great work on defending the error bar....when observations show that a calculation is off by an 80% differential if the theory is valid ( universal mass content ) while another variable in the equation provides infinity as an answer...defend the math all you want, I am sure it is done to the finest precision it can be to show these anomalies...but if the math leads to these and it never enters your mind you may be on the wrong path, or you refuse to accept you may be on the wrong path, all the math in the world cannot help you understand physics. Especially when an equation with a variable such as the mass of the universe is so far off that that variable needs to be multiplied by five so the equation matches the observation. Now I am no mathematician...but when you have to "tweak" a variable that much in an equation you thought was good until observation shows it isn't...please don't claim that math "proves" anything.
jonesdave
3.8 / 5 (17) Oct 23, 2018
Guys, great work on defending the error bar.


Nope, just defining it for people who obviously haven't even done high school science. Who are not the people to be criticising science, given their total lack of understanding in the subject area. Too many idiots listening to other uneducated idiots like Thornhill and his Velikovskian woo.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (19) Oct 23, 2018
Now I am no mathematician..


Which is an admission that you know sh!t about physics, full stop. You cannot do physics without maths. Which, I guess, is why you people are attracted to the science and maths-free zone that is EU. Correct?
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (14) Oct 23, 2018
Error bars are inherent in instruments.

Anyone who doesn't get this hasn't gone to college to study any STEM degree.
MrBojangles
3.8 / 5 (17) Oct 23, 2018
...defend the math all you want...but if the math leads to these and it never enters your mind you may be on the wrong path, or you refuse to accept you may be on the wrong path, all the math in the world cannot help you understand physics...


I think the crux of the issue is that nobody needs your help understanding physics, that would be what they colloquially refer to as the blind leading the blind. Again, you're saying "the equations don't match observation, so toss out the model." If the model is generally good job at describing things, but it still needs to be refined, that's OK, There's nothing wrong with that. Until a better model comes about, we accept the one with the best fit. It might be completely revised when we have a better understanding of the underpinnings, e.g. when new particles are discovered, but to opine betwixt now and then that people are "wrong" without a more accurate model to describe the observation (with math to back it up) is a fruitless labor.
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.3 / 5 (16) Oct 23, 2018
The whole thread would have been avoided if the trolls had read the reference that several comments already pointed out, that the new and less constraint using (so less likely to be wrong) measurement agree within 3 sigma with the others. In fact, it came - with very wide error bars due to the imprecision the article describes - in the middle.

Now, at the time that result came out, the two earlier measurement methods did not disagree with three sigma, so they were in tension but it was possible - even likely - all three methods were correct. Since then more data on the supernova method has pushed its tension with the CMB method to over two sigma. That means it is likely one method is wrong, if you go by 3 sigma uncertainty quality, but no more than a few %. Also, the supernova method, which integrates less data, is local and we have also observed that Milky Way is in the center of a vast under density (not a void), explaining some of the supernova method deviance.
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.2 / 5 (15) Oct 23, 2018
[ctd] Also, the CMB method has been integrated with a new type of data, and its Hubble constant did not move much.

Me: "over two sigma" - over 3.

Up thread there was a question why it is called a constant when it is a function over time, as cosmology 101 show you. It is for historical reasons, and the "constant" is taken as the modern value (and scaled in the science that is so criticized by trolls here).

Speaking of the trolls, it is obvious that many of those that pester this site are what is classified as incompetents, they do not know how incompetent they are to judge their own incompetency. Also referred to as Denning-Kruger syndrome victims. They usual advice is for them to step back from their keyboards and learn to do something practical, which in turn shows how children and other adults learn to understand the world by test-and-failure-or-success. The typical practice is to learn how to cook. When they can do that, they can start trying education et cetera.
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (11) Oct 23, 2018
@torbjorn
They usual advice is for them to step back from their keyboards and learn to do something practical
true, however, the *reason* those same D-K posters are here differs

Some visit because they're paid to (antigorical, scroof types)

some visit to lend authenticity to their own beliefs, as though posting here gives legitimacy by proxy (cd, rc, zeph, etc)

Some people just want attention because they're inadequate in life (benni, egg, etc)

then there is the middle-ground crowd who wants to belong to something but can't take the time to actually learn what is needed to comprehend the discourse and end up choosing a side depending on arbitrary beliefs or feedback (wolf, etc)

in order to appeal to the reader you have to know which camp they belong to, and some switch it up regularly
RealityCheck
1.9 / 5 (14) Oct 23, 2018
@jonesdave
@barakn
@torbjorn_b_g_larsson
@MrBojangles

From article:
... distance is much harder. Traditionally, astrophysicists have used a technique called the cosmic distance ladder,..... "The problem is, if you scratch beneath the surface, there are a lot of steps with a lot of assumptions along the way," Holz said.
So 'error bars in analysis' or 'precision in data acquisition' is NOT THE ISSUE I pointed out to @IMP-9 et al for years now; the REAL PROBLEM is, as the authors themselves ADMIT: the cosmic distance ladder METHODOLOGY ITSELF involves a LOT of STEPS with a:
LOT OF ASSUMPTIONS ALONG THE WAY
OBVIOUSLY, THE ONLY WAY TO GET THROUGH YOUR BIASED READING/KNEEJERKING is to CAPITALIZE SUBTLE, but IMPORTANT, DISTINCTIONS/ASPECTS!

Get it now? MY POINT WAS NOT about 'error bars' OR 'precision in instruments'!

THE PROBLEM IS THE UNRELIABLE ASSUMPTIONS and BIASES BUILT INTO THE MODELS, INTERPRETATIONS and ANALYSIS CONSTRUCTS.

See? GIGO from the get-go. :)
Old_C_Code
3 / 5 (7) Oct 23, 2018
...you mean like the Inverse Square Law which denies any concept of infinite density at the center of a stellar mass due to gravitational collapse?


Newton's law breaks down everywhere at the quantum level. No black holes required.
Whydening Gyre
4.3 / 5 (12) Oct 23, 2018
@Whyde.
RC,
They're not WRONG.
They're just not as accurate as we would like...
Is your own bias so strong that even you miss the point, mate?


Psst... Your own bias is showing...
Try to get it: If both methodologies are seriously flawed like I (and increasingly others now) point out, ...
Each such flawed estimate is as bad as the other; so naively using the flawed 'claim' of either to 'reinforce' the 'claim' of the other will give nothing but misleading 'gigo'.
See? It's a nonsense exercise unless at least ONE 'methodology' can be shown to BE reliable. BUT NEITHER 'methodology' is reliable; as I (and now others point out).

Don't conflate "not precisely accurate" with "wrong".

Get the point now, Whyde? :)

You mean YOUR (overtly patronizing) point (which jumps to the conclusion that the phrase "not precise" means wrong)?

Whydening Gyre
4.1 / 5 (14) Oct 23, 2018
one of the requirements for physics is mathematical derivation of a theory. So you have a Mathematical theory of how the universe works
........you mean like the Inverse Square Law which denies any concept of infinite density at the center of a stellar mass due to gravitational collapse?

ISL doesn't DENY it, Benni.
It just stops working at that point...
ISL is math.Mathematically, the center is zero, so there is nothing to work with.
You've been told MORE than a number times that no one believes in an infinite mass at the center of a collapsed star.
Well, except maybe you...
Benni
1.9 / 5 (13) Oct 23, 2018
no one believes in an infinite mass at the center of a collapsed star.


In trying to be a clever torch bearer, you "conflate" MASS with DENSITY. Of course that's what could happen when you hold that torch in one spot for too long, right WhyGuy?
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (8) Oct 23, 2018
Sorry, duplicated on edit. Please see my next post. Thanks.
Whydening Gyre
4.1 / 5 (14) Oct 23, 2018
no one believes in an infinite mass at the center of a collapsed star.


In trying to be a clever torch bearer, you "conflate" MASS with DENSITY. Of course that's what could happen when you hold that torch in one spot for too long, right WhyGuy?

No conflation necessary.
It's density of mass...
Oh, and of course, the density of someone trying to be cleverer than they actually are...
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (12) Oct 23, 2018
@Whyde.
You mean YOUR (overtly patronizing) point (which jumps to the conclusion that the phrase "not precise" means wrong)?
No, no,no,mate. Please read my post just above yours today, addressed to:

@jonesdave
@barakn
@torbjorn_b_g_larsson
@MrBojangles

I was speaking of assumptions, models, interpretations etc being wrong; thus giving outputs wrong in principle, regardless of however 'accurate' or 'precise' the 'analysis' or 'outputs' may be re the maths. As author admits, distance ladder methodology involves many assumptive steps that compound initial naive errors in interpretations/inputs. I point out that any claimed 'precision/accuracy' of 'estimates' from 'exercises' using SN1A data and CMB data are MOOT; fraught with error potential because SN and CMB data NOT as reliable as was assumed in models, analysis etc; due to previously underestimated variability of SNs; and ignoring that CMB data is from sources/processes NOW, and NOT any alleged BB 'signal'.

Ok? :)
Whydening Gyre
4.3 / 5 (12) Oct 23, 2018
I was speaking of assumptions, models, interpretations etc being wrong; thus giving outputs wrong in principle, regardless of however 'accurate' or 'precise' the 'analysis' or 'outputs' may be re the maths. As author admits, distance ladder methodology involves many assumptive steps that compound initial naive errors in interpretations/inputs. I point out that any claimed 'precision/accuracy' of 'estimates' from 'exercises' using SN1A data and CMB data are MOOT; fraught with error potential because SN and CMB data NOT as reliable as was assumed in models, analysis etc; due to previously underestimated variability of SNs; and ignoring that CMB data is from sources/processes NOW, and NOT any alleged BB 'signal'.

Ok? :)

"Potential error" and "error" are NOT the same.
The difference tween the 2 methods is only 10%.
I think much of the confusion generated on this subject is due to interpretive license engaged in by Ms. Lerner of UC...
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (12) Oct 23, 2018
@Whyde.
"Potential error" and "error" are NOT the same. I think much of the confusion generated on this subject is due to interpretive license engaged in by Ms. Lerner of UC..
I didn't mention Lerner/EU etc in my observations. I spoke only on admitted (in above article) problems with the train of assumptions which cosmic distance ladder 'methodology' has in fact. I also point out the previously underestimated variability of SN; and previous ignoring that CMB data is NOT from a (as previously alleged) BB 'signal'. Hence flawed assumptions/interpretations 'inputs' to SN-based and CMB-based 'exercises', makes any 'estimates' outputted by 'analysis constructs' dependent on those flawed inputs erroneous in principle, irrespective of maths accuracy of the gigo inputs/outputs. In short: Logically unsound inputs into the maths/analysis will give logically unsound outputs irrespective of the maths precision. Gigo built into it from the get-go is no way to do real science. :)
Benni
1.9 / 5 (13) Oct 23, 2018
irrespective of maths accuracy of the gigo inputs/outputs. In short: Logically unsound inputs into the maths/analysis will give logically unsound outputs irrespective of the maths precision. Gigo built into it from the get-go is no way to do real science.


You never do get it do you RC? These people are not into doing "real science", it's ALL about their Pop-Cosmology land of fantasy. Fantasies so unreal that WhyGuy himself gave it away when he stated:
no one believes in an infinite mass at the center of a collapsed star.
........now why would he insert "mass" when he should have known the operative term here should have been "density"? A stark example as any that exists of how out of touch with real science is the Pop-Cosmology crowd living here. Right, Schneibo?
Whydening Gyre
4.1 / 5 (14) Oct 24, 2018
no one believes in an infinite mass at the center of a collapsed star.
........now why would he insert "mass" when he should have known the operative term here should have been "density"? A stark example as any that exists of how out of touch with real science is the Pop-Cosmology crowd living here. Right, Schneibo?

If you will read back in the comments, YOU are the one who said infinite mass, and in a subsequent post I said density(of mass).
You co-opt my comment as if YOU were saying it....
What a dense schlock....

Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (10) Oct 24, 2018
@Whyde, this is why I don't talk to @Lenni_The_Liar much. It lies, with no shame. And doesn't understand density.
Mimath224
4.5 / 5 (8) Oct 24, 2018
@Whydening Gyre I think I mentioned way back when that's it's basically futile to waste time on the Benni types. Chat with those you know/see who have something interesting/learned to say. No doubt Benni types will post some adverse comment about me suggesting this but they'll be wasting their time because I'll ignore it.
Ojorf
3.7 / 5 (15) Oct 24, 2018
@Whyde, this is why I don't talk to @Lenni_The_Liar much. It lies, with no shame. And doesn't understand density.


How can someone with so much first hand personal experience in being dense not understand density?

Oh...
Of course, that explains it.

He is always on about
........you mean like the Inverse Square Law which denies any concept of infinite density at the center of a stellar mass due to gravitational collapse?


It has been explained to him or at least been attempted. Unsuccessfully, no surprises.
Really, these thing are not that difficult to understand.
MrBojangles
3.9 / 5 (15) Oct 24, 2018
I just want to know what got Benni into pop-cosmology, and what's wrong with Reality Check's shift key.
antialias_physorg
4.4 / 5 (14) Oct 24, 2018
I just want to know what got Benni into pop-cosmology, and what's wrong with Reality Check's shift key.

Masochism and technological ineptitude. Your guess as to which applies to which of the two is as good as anybody's
hat1208
4.1 / 5 (13) Oct 24, 2018
@MrBojangles @antialias_physorg @Da Schneib @Mimath224 @Ojorf @Captain Stumpy @torbjorn_b_j_larsson @jonesdave

Thanks to all of you who try. I love reading the response to all and learning things along the way trying to wrap my head around some of the stuff that without the required math is very difficult but I do follow the links and continue to try. So again thanks again.

ps @MrBojangles what's wrong with his shift key, priceless
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (8) Oct 24, 2018
@MrBojangles (and @hat1208).
I just want to know...what's wrong with Reality Check's shift key.
Looks like you missed this explanation included in my post addressed to you and the others, @MrB...
OBVIOUSLY, THE ONLY WAY TO GET THROUGH YOUR BIASED READING/KNEEJERKING is to CAPITALIZE SUBTLE, but IMPORTANT, DISTINCTIONS/ASPECTS!

Get it now? MY POINT WAS NOT about 'error bars' OR 'precision in instruments'!

THE PROBLEM IS THE UNRELIABLE ASSUMPTIONS and BIASES BUILT INTO THE MODELS, INTERPRETATIONS and ANALYSIS CONSTRUCTS.

See? GIGO from the get-go. :)
My 'caps lock' key automatically engages when it detects interlocutors who are OBVIOUSLY NOT READING OR UNDERSTANDING PROPERLY and so kneejerk from their self-induced ignorance and biases. :)

PS: @Forum notes that you still AVOID addressing the ACTUAL point made by me and above article regarding assumptive steps, unreliable methodologies in/of 'cosmic distance ladder' used for modeling/interpreting SN/CMB data. Bad.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.8 / 5 (9) Oct 24, 2018
RC,
They're not WRONG.
They're just not as accurate as we would like...
says Whyde

You're kidding, right? There's an old saying in the US, Whyde. that 99 pennies do not a dollar make. So it is with science. When errors are made, they must find where the errors occurred and rectify it before proceeding. Anything less, and these scientists will only be compounding the problem.

But at least they had the sense to admit that they were wrong, and then work towards the solution. If only politics were like that.
says I

In answer to Whyde's comment about inaccuracies in the scientific method, I had attempted to get Whyde to understand that errors/inaccuracies are the same thing as WRONG, which he was trying to change its definition thereof.

inaccurate
adjective
inaccurate reports: inexact, imprecise, incorrect, wrong, erroneous, careless, faulty, imperfect, flawed, defective, unsound, unreliable; fallacious, false, mistaken, untrue; informal wide of the mark.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.5 / 5 (8) Oct 24, 2018
-contd-
inaccurate = wrong

No matter how you slice and dice it, the two results that did not match were both wrong/inaccurate. When a defect occurs in science and is not rectified immediately, if not sooner - it could result in possible damage - if not mechanical, then damage to the theory/hypothesis, with the further result that an improbable and impaired solution could be decided upon - with equally wrong results. It would then require returning to square one, where the whole process would need to be gone over to find where the problem had occurred - at great expense of time and money.

Such inaccuracies in the space age could have proven to be fatal in the transporting of satellites to LEO - as well as leading to the deaths of astronauts being launched into Space.
In the scientific method where scientists depend on the greatest accuracy for their theories to work, it is imperative that they make NO ERRORS whatsoever. Lives depend on their being right.
RealityCheck
2.5 / 5 (8) Oct 24, 2018
@Surveillance_Egg_Unit.
In answer to Whyde's comment about inaccuracies in the scientific method, I had attempted to get Whyde to understand that errors/inaccuracies are the same thing as WRONG
I appreciate your comment to @Whyde was well meant in the spirit of the (unfortunately misconstrued) context you/others 'took' from my comment, mate. But unfortunately your response to him distracted further from the ACTUAL point raised by me, and in above article.

ie, my 'overarching' WRONG 'label' was for the 'cosmic distance ladder' ITSELF; because it contains a LOT of assumptive steps, as admitted by article author. That wrongness is due to inbuilt biases therein, and further compounded by variability of SNs used as 'standard candle' input data; and even further compounded by ignoring the fact that CMB is NOT from any alleged BB (but is in fact being produced all over in the present universe NOW, as previously explained in many earlier posts).

Thanks anyway, though, mate. :)
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.5 / 5 (8) Oct 24, 2018
@Benni

I searched for your post and found that you first said this in answer to theredpill

"When errors are made, they must find where the errors occurred and rectify it before proceeding. Anything less, and these scientists will only be compounding the problem."

I don't know what scientifically illiterate fools rated this comment a "1". This is spot on and has been observed to have taken place in so many avenues of science that to write them down would produce a work the size of the bible. Good observation.


You mean like: Infinite Density at the centers of stellar mass where zero gravity exists? How about some explanation for this conundrum of pseudo-science? Maybe follow Schneibo back in time to 19th century cosmology when it was taught that velocity of electro-magnetic waves was presumed to be determined by the gravity fields they passed through?
says Benni

I did not see any post of yours where you claimed "Infinite Mass",

Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.5 / 5 (8) Oct 24, 2018
-contd-
However, in this forum, it was Whyde who said this:

"ISL doesn't DENY it, Benni.
It just stops working at that point...
ISL is math.Mathematically, the center is zero, so there is nothing to work with.
You've been told MORE than a number times that no one believes in an infinite mass at the center of a collapsed star.
Well, except maybe you..."

"Infinite Mass at the centre of a collapsed star", says he. Perhaps Whyde was mixed up somehow and thought that you had said "infinite Mass", which you did not. But he was awarded several 5s for his own faux pas from ~16 others.
Interesting.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.5 / 5 (8) Oct 24, 2018
@Surveillance_Egg_Unit.
In answer to Whyde's comment about inaccuracies in the scientific method, I had attempted to get Whyde to understand that errors/inaccuracies are the same thing as WRONG
I appreciate your comment to @Whyde was well meant in the spirit of..

ie, my 'overarching' WRONG 'label' was for the 'cosmic distance ladder' ITSELF; because it contains a LOT of assumptive steps, as admitted by article author. That wrongness is due to inbuilt biases therein, and further compounded by variability of SNs used as 'standard candle' input data; and even further compounded by ignoring the fact that CMB is NOT from any alleged BB (but is in fact being produced all over in the present universe NOW, as previously explained in many earlier posts).

says RC

RC I had read your comments, but I was not referring to your cosmic distance ladder at all. I was ONLY referring to the difference/similarities between the words WRONG and INACCURATE, which are synonymous.
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (8) Oct 24, 2018
@S_E_U.
In answer to Whyde's comment about inaccuracies in the scientific method, I had attempted to get Whyde to understand that errors/inaccuracies are the same thing as WRONG
I appreciate your comment to @Whyde was well meant in the spirit of..

ie, my 'overarching' WRONG 'label' was for the 'cosmic distance ladder' ITSELF; because it contains a LOT of assumptive steps, as admitted by article author. That wrongness is due to inbuilt biases therein, and further compounded by variability of SNs used as 'standard candle' input data; and even further compounded by ignoring the fact that CMB is NOT from any alleged BB (but is in fact being produced all over in the present universe NOW, as previously explained in many earlier posts).
says RC

RC I had read your comments, but I was not referring to your cosmic distance ladder at all. I was ONLY referring to the difference/similarities between the words WRONG and INACCURATE, which are synonymous.
Understood. :)
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (9) Oct 24, 2018
I was also referring to the fact that the scientists had gotten 2 differing results, for which I commented above, as I felt that neither result was accurate, even if one of them was. And, as it is of paramount importance for science to be 120% accurate, I thought that their admission to having made some errors in their calculations, etc. was a very good thing - which should always be a prime part of the scientific method - which is to admit when you are wrong.
Benni
2.2 / 5 (10) Oct 24, 2018
> WhyGuy

f you will read back in the comments, YOU are the one who said infinite mass, and in a subsequent post I said density(of mass).
You co-opt my comment as if YOU were saying it.... What a dense schlock....
........and so I did read back & copied my comments for you to read below:

You mean like: Infinite Density at the centers of stellar mass where zero gravity exists? How about some explanation for this conundrum of pseudo-science?


......coming from another one of those here in this chatroom who has a fantasy that there exists an immutable law of Pop-Cosmology that infinite density exists at the center of a stellar mass labeled a black hole


.....you mean like the Inverse Square Law which denies any concept of infinite density at the center of a stellar mass due to gravitational collapse?
Not one word from me about "infinite mass" is there? I don't suppose schneibo or jonesy would accuse YOU of lying would they?

What a dense schlock
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (9) Oct 24, 2018
What amuses me, @Ojorf, is that @Lenni_The_Liar doesn't get that infinite density isn't required to form an event horizon. It appears unable even to do the simple algebra needed to define that mass and its Schwarzchild radius.
Benni
2 / 5 (11) Oct 24, 2018
@Whyde, this is why I don't talk to @Lenni_The_Liar much. It lies, with no shame. And doesn't understand density.


But YOU wouldn't accuse him of lying for making up things I never stated about "infinite mass" would YOU?

It really comes down to this with you schneibo, I know the science of the Inverse Square Law & you only know the teachings of 19th century black hole math subjecting an electro-magnetic wave to Laws of Kinetic Energy.

And you wonder why I ask you if you have ever seen a Differential Equation you could solve.
Benni
2 / 5 (11) Oct 24, 2018

What amuses me, @Ojorf, is that @Lenni_The_Liar doesn't get that infinite density isn't required to form an event horizon.


.......and if you think so, read for yourself as I Copied & Pasted it from your favorite source:

"Singularity

Main article: Gravitational singularity

At the center of a black hole, as described by general relativity, lies a gravitational singularity, a region where the spacetime curvature (gravity) becomes infinite. For a non-rotating black hole, this region takes the shape of a single point and for a rotating black hole, it is smeared out to form a ring singularity that lies in the plane of rotation.In both cases, the singular region has zero volume. It can also be shown that the singular region contains all the mass of the black hole solution.The singular region can thus be thought of as having infinite density."

https://en.wikipe...ain_Page

Bad source schneibo?
Benni
2.2 / 5 (9) Oct 24, 2018
>schneibo:

For your own credibility, would you please repost your 19th Century black hole math solution? It would make for some great entertainment for those here who may never have seen it.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.5 / 5 (8) Oct 24, 2018
I would like to see it too.
Whydening Gyre
4.3 / 5 (8) Oct 24, 2018
You mean like: Infinite Density at the centers of stellar mass where zero gravity exists?

You are correct, Benni.
I misread;
"... infinite density exists at the center of a stellar mass labeled a black hole the exact point at which the Inverse Square Law defies such a parameter of mass can exist."
from an earlier post of yours.

Apologies for saying you said it.
That said, no one believes in "infinite density" as an existing condition, only as a mathematical marker with which to calculate a maximum density.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (9) Oct 25, 2018
@Lenni_The_Liar has a sockpuppet.

How cute. Did you draw a little face on it?
RNP
4.5 / 5 (10) Oct 25, 2018
@Benni, SEU
If you are really interested in the first discussions of the concept of black holes in the late 18th century, you can read this; http://adsabs.har...12...90M
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (11) Oct 25, 2018
And you wonder why I ask you if you have ever seen a Differential Equation you could solve.


Why would you ask that? You sure as hell can't! Can't even do basic maths. As proven. Shall I link it again?
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (12) Oct 25, 2018
What amuses me, @Ojorf, is that @Lenni_The_Liar doesn't get that infinite density isn't required to form an event horizon. It appears unable even to do the simple algebra needed to define that mass and its Schwarzchild radius.


Indeed. For which I have proof, and am happy to post it, should the uneducated pillock carry on posing/ posting.
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (11) Oct 25, 2018
I was also referring to the fact that the scientists had gotten 2 differing results, for which I commented above, as I felt that neither result was accurate, even if one of them was. And, as it is of paramount importance for science to be 120% accurate, I thought that their admission to having made some errors in their calculations, etc. was a very good thing - which should always be a prime part of the scientific method - which is to admit when you are wrong.


Which is not what they said, you thick b*stard. Jesus, why do these uneducated burkes feel the need to comment on subjects which are obviously well beyond their pay grade? Mental illness?
ShotmanMaslo
4.1 / 5 (9) Oct 25, 2018
Benni

At the center of a black hole, as described by general relativity, lies a gravitational singularity, a region where the spacetime curvature (gravity) becomes infinite.


Notice the "as described by GR" in there? Most physicists think GR cannot describe the singularity and different, more general theory is required, one where the density or curvature may not be infinite. So claiming that black holes must have infinite density, mass or curvature is just another of your lies.
Benni
1.9 / 5 (9) Oct 25, 2018
Benni

At the center of a black hole, as described by general relativity, lies a gravitational singularity, a region where the spacetime curvature (gravity) becomes infinite.


So claiming that black holes must have infinite density, mass or curvature is just another of your lies.


Hey, it was a quote from your favorite source, WikiPedia. I nowhere suggested I agreed with it, but in fact disagreed with it based on the immutability of the Inverse Square Law which you & the rest of the rant brigade here keep having so many problems with.

You need to get on the same page as RNP, Schneibo, Ojo, etc & get back to the 19th aether century for consistency of your black hole pseudo-science, this so all of you can be on the same pages of fantasy along with the aether theories, both of which came from the same source.

If you think the Inverse Square Law is NOT immutable whereby zero gravity exists at the center of a stellar mass, then prove it! Falsify it!

Benni
1.9 / 5 (9) Oct 25, 2018
If you think the Inverse Square Law is NOT immutable whereby zero gravity exists at the center of a stellar mass, then prove it! Falsify it!


>Shot Missed........and the reason Pop-Cosmology is all for the Wikipedia criteria for infinite density at the center of a stellar mass is so it can continue peddling it's theories about GRAVITATIONAL COLLAPSE.

Pop-Cosmology teaches that it is gravitational collapse that stokes thermonuclear processes within the cores of all stellar mass, yet these same Pop-Cosmologists fail to explain that if this be the case how then can fusion occur at the core nucleus of a stellar mass where GRAVITY is at or near zero, duhhhh!?
jonesdave
3 / 5 (10) Oct 25, 2018
Pop-Cosmology teaches that it is gravitational collapse that stokes thermonuclear processes within the cores of all stellar mass, yet these same Pop-Cosmologists fail to explain that if this be the case how then can fusion occur at the core nucleus of a stellar mass where GRAVITY is at or near zero, duhhhh!?


Jesus, what a thick oaf! And this cretin claims to have studied nuclear physics! Lol.

Benni
1.9 / 5 (9) Oct 25, 2018
Pop-Cosmology teaches that it is gravitational collapse that stokes thermonuclear processes within the cores of all stellar mass, yet these same Pop-Cosmologists fail to explain that if this be the case how then can fusion occur at the core nucleus of a stellar mass where GRAVITY is at or near zero, duhhhh!?


Jesus, what a thick oaf! And this cretin claims to have studied nuclear physics! Lol.

........then you tell us.
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (11) Oct 25, 2018
........then you tell us.


Temperature and density are the two parameters involved in nuclear fusion. The Sun is rather hot in its interior, and jolly dense, too. Hence fusion.
What is the density of atoms in the centre of a bowling ball on Earth? What is the density of atoms in the centre of a bowling ball on the Moon? Or in zero g?
Getting the idea, now? Thought not. Nuclear physics really isn't your bag, is it?
Ojorf
3.5 / 5 (11) Oct 25, 2018
Benni, you are unique in misunderstanding both real Cosmology and Pop-Cosmology, real science and pop-science.

Why don't you start a thread in the forums so people can explain it to you?

Still so terrified of forums? They give you nightmares?
jonesdave
3 / 5 (10) Oct 25, 2018
Benni, you are unique in misunderstanding both real Cosmology and Pop-Cosmology, real science and pop-science.

Why don't you start a thread in the forums so people can explain it to you?

Still so terrified of forums? They give you nightmares?


Indeed. https://forum.cos...-Answers
Benni
1.9 / 5 (9) Oct 25, 2018
Temperature and density are the two parameters involved in nuclear fusion


Density has nothing to do with it, only temperature, but Pop-Cosmology likes to add gravitational collapse which provides such meager rise in temperature to reach that required for fusion that it falls far short for providing it.

You probably think there is a density & temperature requirement for thermonuclear fission processes as well, which there isn't, but what would you have learned from claiming to having an astronomy based degree from the University of Auckland, NZ that offers no such degree. Cretin
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (12) Oct 25, 2018
Density has nothing to do with it, only temperature, but Pop-Cosmology likes to add gravitational collapse which provides such meager rise in temperature to reach that required for fusion that it falls far short for providing it.


Jesus, what an imbecile! Tell me, you thick pillock, where are you getting this crap from? Just making it up yes? Gravitation collapse = higher densities in the core = higher pressures = higher temperatures = fusion. And not a single nuclear physicist will disagree with that. You might, but you are retarded, and are not a nuclear physicist.

jonesdave
3 / 5 (10) Oct 25, 2018
Another nuclear physics lesson for the Dunning-Kruger sufferers out there;

Equation 1.11 shows a very important feature for fusion energy research: the volumetric reaction rate is ***proportional to the square of the density of the mixture***.


And;

We also immediately see that the specific reaction rate, that is, the reaction rate per unit mass, is proportional to the mass density, again ***indicating the role of the density of the fuel in achieving efficient release of fusion energy***.


The Physics of Inertial Fusion
Atzeni, S. et al.
http://www.fisica...64-0.pdf

Also see Section 1.5.
RNP
4.2 / 5 (10) Oct 25, 2018
@Benni
Density has nothing to do with it, only temperature,....


As everyone is telling you, this is completely wrong. And the reason has nothing to do with cosmology (Pop- or otherwise).

So to add my voice to the chorus of people that understand this better than you, let me point out that you only have to look at what the nuclear physicists say.

For instance, the web site of the official body that co-ordinates European fusion research states very clearly that both temperature AND pressure control the rate of fusion.

See https://www.euro-...ditions/ (and links therein) if you actually want to finally learn something about nuclear physics.
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (11) Oct 25, 2018
In fact the Nobel Prize winner Hans Bethe sorted all this out back in 1938;

http://sci-hub.tw...v.54.248

If anybody doubts that density has nothing to do with the p-p chain, then scroll down, and read from Eq. 27 onwards.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (13) Oct 25, 2018
And, as Bethe tells us;

For a quantitative comparison it must be remembered that both the temperature and the density of the sun decrease fairly rapidly from the center outwards, and that ****the rate of reaction decreases with both of these quantities****.


Now, who do we believe? The Nobel winning scientist who figured out how the p-p chain was powering the Sun, or a D-K affected, scientifically illiterate numpty on a comments section?
I know where my money is going.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (10) Oct 25, 2018
........then you tell us.


We did. And you've gone very quiet. Surprise, surprise! Nuclear physics really isn't your thing, is it? It's OK - it is a complicated subject for the amateur poseur, and not everyone can be expected to understand it.
Whydening Gyre
4 / 5 (8) Oct 25, 2018
Temperature and density are the two parameters involved in nuclear fusion


Density has nothing to do with it, only temperature, but Pop-Cosmology likes to add gravitational collapse which provides such meager rise in temperature to reach that required for fusion that it falls far short for providing it.

You probably think there is a density & temperature requirement for thermonuclear fission processes as well, which there isn't,

Then why the need for implosion devices to kick start nuclear weapon reaction?
Increasing density(compression, if you will) is what generates the heat...
Benni
1.8 / 5 (10) Oct 25, 2018
Then why the need for implosion devices to kick start nuclear weapon reaction?
Increasing density(compression, if you will) is what generates the heat...


Just look at all the psycho-babble that gets kicked up because guys like you do not understand the need for a fission device needed to create the TEMPERATURE needed to create fusion.

All the pressure & density characteristics needed to set up a fusion process is SUBSEQUENT to reaching minimum fusion temperature. It is not dependent on first creating a density or pressure ambient, it is the RESULT of FIRST reaching fusion temperature, which if it doesn't no fusion will ever result no matter what the density or pressure of the ambient environment.

In case you don't know it WhyGuy, H-bombs are not triggered inside high pressure chambers, but no, I guess you don't know that, right jonesy, RNP, etc?
RNP
4 / 5 (8) Oct 25, 2018
@Benni
Then why the need for implosion devices to kick start nuclear weapon reaction?
Increasing density(compression, if you will) is what generates the heat...


Just look at all the psycho-babble that gets kicked up because guys like you do not understand the need for a fission device needed to create the TEMPERATURE needed to create fusion.

All the pressure & density characteristics needed to set up a fusion process is SUBSEQUENT to reaching minimum fusion temperature. It is not dependent on first creating a density or pressure ambient, it is the RESULT of FIRST reaching fusion temperature, which if it doesn't no fusion will ever result no matter what the density or pressure of the ambient environment.

.......H-bombs are not triggered inside high pressure chambers......


Your lack of understanding of the physics involved in fusion in stars is truly astounding. Nothing you say above is in any way relevant.

Fission needed to create fusion???? LOL.
hat1208
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 25, 2018
@RNP

I don't think Lenni has read anything since 1904 you know before you know who. I'll give you a hint his initials are, "Albert" "Einstein".
jonesdave
3 / 5 (10) Oct 25, 2018
In case you don't know it WhyGuy, H-bombs are not triggered inside high pressure chambers, but no, I guess you don't know that, right jonesy, RNP, etc?


Benni, you are a tosser, and have just been shown to be wrong. Why don't you STFU, instead of adding further to your incredibly long list of subjects that you don't understand?
Benni
1.8 / 5 (10) Oct 25, 2018
@Benni
Then why the need for implosion devices to kick start nuclear weapon reaction?
Increasing density(compression, if you will) is what generates the heat


Just look at all the psycho-babble that gets kicked up because guys like you do not understand the need for a fission device needed to create the TEMPERATURE needed to create fusion.


All the pressure & density characteristics needed to set up a fusion process is SUBSEQUENT to reaching minimum fusion temperature. It is not dependent on first creating a density or pressure ambient, it is the RESULT of FIRST reaching fusion temperature, which if it doesn't no fusion will ever result no matter what the density or pressure of the ambient environment.

H-bombs are not triggered inside high pressure chambers

Your lack of understanding of the physics involved in fusion in stars is truly astounding.

Fission needed to create fusion???? LOL. Yep, standard H-bomb detonation procedure, look it up.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (10) Oct 25, 2018


Your lack of understanding of the physics involved in fusion in stars is truly astounding.


Thick b*stard. What is Bethe telling you, sh!tforbrains? What would Oppenheimer tell you? Where are you getting this crap from, mop boy?
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (12) Oct 25, 2018
@Forum (to quote RC),

Trivia time! Yippee. Who said this:

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.


No prizes for guessing. A mere 5 internetz on offer. Now, should we be taking anything seriously uttered by a pillock who writes such execrable nonsense? Errrrr, no, is the answer to that.
MrBojangles
3.8 / 5 (10) Oct 25, 2018
@Benni
Fission is not a requirement of fusion, fusion happens on its own in the sun's core. We use fission to kick off the fusion process because our technology does not yet allow us to cut out that middle man. Furthermore, fusion can and does occur in pressure chambers, e.g. inertial confinement fusion of deuterium and tritium.

This pressure<-> temperature conversation makes my head hurt...

From what process is temperature increased within the sun? There's no external heat source keeping the sun at the right temperature for fusion. It's the immense pressure generated from gravity that *causes* the increase in temperature necessary for fusion (as Gyre correctly pointed out.) Good golly.
MrBojangles
3.8 / 5 (10) Oct 25, 2018
Here's a website designed for educating children that helps lay this out:

http://www.planet...hot.html
Benni
1.9 / 5 (9) Oct 25, 2018
Fission is not a requirement of fusion
.......and neither is PRESSURE.

I've NEVER suggested that fission is a pre-requisite requirement, that without fission fusion cannot occur, you're the one suggesting that's what I stated & I never did. WHAT I have been stating is that fission is the only way we presently know to generate the temperature needed to reach proton-proton fusion. Capiche?

Furthermore, fusion can and does occur in pressure chambers, e.g. inertial confinement fusion of deuterium and tritium.
......of course it occurs inside of containment chambers, but such chambers are not PRESSURIZED as a means for creating or assisting fusion, they are for the purpose of containing pressures that are generated SUBSEQUENT to fusion, a big difference you fail to comprehend because you don't have my educational background in nuclear sciences. Capiche?

Benni
1.9 / 5 (9) Oct 25, 2018
From what process is temperature increased within the sun?
..... the only ones we know about for sure are self sustaining fission & self sustaining fusion thermonuclear processes.

I'm well onto the gravitational collapse theory whereby supposed forces of gravity cause friction between particles creating heat which in turn create thermonuclear fusion temps. It's phony slop & swill guesswork of the rankest order. We know this does not occur on the Sun or we could plainly OBSERVE it, gravitational collapse on the Sun has NEVER been observed.....get it? No, probably you don't.

You probably don't get because you don't understand that the closer you approach the Sun's core the lesser the Sun's field of gravity becomes until it becomes zero at the center, it's called the Inverse Square Law, something you never knew about before did you?

So, as gravity approaches zero within the core, there can be no gravitational collapse where there is little or NO gravity. Capiche?
granville583762
3.5 / 5 (8) Oct 25, 2018
Fusion temperature
Benni> pressure & density characteristics needed to set up fusion is SUBSEQUENT to reaching minimum fusion temperature. It is not dependent on creating a density or pressure ambient, the RESULT of FIRST reaching fusion temperature, which if it doesn't no fusion will ever result no matter what the density or pressure of the ambient environment.

Saturn0.7kg/m Jupiter1.3g/m Sun1.4kg/m Earth5.5kg/m Pluto1.9kg/m
Density has no relevance in starry plasmatic fusion as there are other forces at play
Artificial nuclear detonation requires fusion temperature
Pressure in atomic fusion is not Boyle's law
The pressure is inversely proportional to its volume at a constant temperature
Putting a proton under electric field pressure has no relation to Boyle's law
Boyle's law is the space between molecules
Whereas two apposing protons is exerting actual pressure on each individual protons irrespective of volume
Electric field pressure is not temperature
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.5 / 5 (8) Oct 25, 2018
I was also referring to the fact that the scientists had gotten 2 differing results, for which I commented above, as I felt that neither result was accurate, even if one of them was. And, as it is of paramount importance for science to be 120% accurate, I thought that their admission to having made some errors in their calculations, etc. was a very good thing - which should always be a prime part of the scientific method - which is to admit when you are wrong.


Which is not what they said, you thick b*stard. Jesus, why do these uneducated burkes feel the need to comment on subjects which are obviously well beyond their pay grade? Mental illness?
says joneshitforbrains

And herewith is what they said: "The surprising thing is that even though scientists doing each calculation are confident about their results, they don't match. One says the universe is expanding almost 10 percent faster than the other. "

What part of it are you incapable of comprehending?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 25, 2018
@Benni
@granville
All nuclear weapons use fission to generate an explosion. "Little Boy"—the first nuclear weapon ever used during wartime—worked by shooting a hollow uranium-235 cylinder at a target "plug" of the same material.
Nuclear fuel
Only certain isotopes of certain elements can undergo fission (an isotope is a variation of the same element with different numbers of neutrons in the nucleus). Plutonium-239 and uranium-235 are the most common isotopes used in nuclear weapons.
Each piece by itself was not enough to constitute a critical mass (the minimum amount of nuclear material needed to maintain fission)—but by colliding the pieces, critical mass was reached and a fission chain reaction occurred.

-contd-
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 25, 2018
-contd-
Modern nuclear weapons work slightly differently. Critical mass depends on the density of the material: as the density increases, the critical mass decreases. Instead of colliding two sub-critical pieces of nuclear fuel, modern weapons detonate chemical explosives around a sub-critical sphere (or "pit") of uranium-235 or plutonium-239 metal. The force from the blast is directed inward, compressing the pit and bringing its atoms closer together. Once dense enough to reach the critical mass, neutrons are injected, initiating a fission chain reaction and producing an atomic explosion.

>>**In fusion weapons (also called "thermonuclear" or "hydrogen" weapons), the energy from an initial fission explosion is used to "fuse" hydrogen isotopes together. The energy released by the weapon creates a fireball that reaches several tens of million degrees—temperatures in the same range as the center of the sun (which also runs on fusion). **<<
MrBojangles
3.7 / 5 (9) Oct 25, 2018
the only ones we know about for sure are self sustaining fission & self sustaining fusion thermonuclear processes.
So, as gravity approaches zero within the core, there can be no gravitational collapse where there is little or NO gravity


I can't tell if you're incredibly stupid, a professional troll, or an average guy that's done too much acid.

I shouldn't have asked how it's sustained, but rather how it is started. Obviously thermonuclear fusion is self-sustaining as long as there is fuel, we all know that, but you're saying pressure is a non-factor and that temperature gives rise to fusion. How did the temperature initially reach fusion levels?

Do you know what atmospheric pressure is on Earth? Do you understand the mechanisms?
The inverse square law is entirely irrelevant to the conversation at hand.
I'm sorry buddy, but overhearing lectures while you mop the floors at a university does not count as an educational background in nuclear science. Capiche?
MrBojangles
3.5 / 5 (8) Oct 25, 2018
Inertial confinement fusion (ICF) is a type of fusion energy research that attempts to initiate nuclear fusion reactions by heating and compressing a fuel target, typically in the form of a pellet that most often contains a mixture of deuterium and tritium.

Compression: the reduction in volume (causing an increase in pressure) of the fuel mixture in an internal combustion engine before ignition.

You're just dead wrong on pretty much everything you state. Either that or you know secrets contrary to what all other physicists know.

Edit: I figured it out - you subscribe to that wacky pop-cosmology that disregards conventional physics.
granville583762
3.5 / 5 (8) Oct 25, 2018
Natural fusion
Artificial fusion
Do plasmatic clouds containing pristine hydrogen also contain uranium-235
Or is uranium-235 created somewhere down a long series of events after plasmatic fusion
Because natural fusion bears no relation to artificially created fusion whether in explosives or torus fusion
This is akin to photosynthesis in leaves versus artificial solar panels
Nature is using a natural process in plasma leading to starry plasmatic fusion that ignites hydrogen fusion before the temperature of fusion are reached that we see in the sun
The sun is after the event like lighting a coal fire, the hot glowing coals are after the event, it started cold by slowly smouldering with no pressure
Nature is consistent in its principals from ordinary events to plasmatic fusion as the same proton exists in every particle
Plasmatic fusion by implication ignites with a wimper!
Whydening Gyre
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 25, 2018
...
All the pressure & density characteristics needed to set up a fusion process is SUBSEQUENT to reaching minimum fusion temperature. It is not dependent on first creating a density or pressure ambient, it is the RESULT of FIRST reaching fusion temperature, which if it doesn't no fusion will ever result no matter what the density or pressure of the ambient environment.

In case you don't know it WhyGuy, H-bombs are not triggered inside high pressure chambers, but no, I guess you don't know that, right jonesy, RNP, etc?

You apparently misread that I did not ask about thermonuclear, only nuclear.
Benni
2 / 5 (8) Oct 25, 2018
I shouldn't have asked how it's sustained, but rather how it is started.
......well then why weren't you knowledgeable enough to ask the right question? I can't read your mind, nor would I want to.

you're saying pressure is a non-factor and that temperature gives rise to fusion. How did the temperature initially reach fusion levels?
.....via the only process we know which can create that temperature, FISSION. Fission is PRESENTLY OBSERVED on the Sun, gravitational collapse is NOT, capiche?

We create nuclear fission on planet Earth using various critical mass fissile products as Egg pointed out above, the end result being temperatures that can reach the only presently known way to reach a temperature to start a fusion process. You know another way mister "incredibly stupid, a professional troll, or an average guy that's done too much acid", then just you tell us about it instead of going off on name calling rants.
Benni
2 / 5 (8) Oct 25, 2018
Inertial confinement fusion (ICF) is a type of fusion energy research that attempts to initiate nuclear fusion reactions by heating and compressing a fuel target, typically in the form of a pellet that most often contains a mixture of deuterium and tritium.


Yes, it's the heat that generates the compression process, not the other way around. You simply have no comprehension of the context about which you're reading regarding the steps of the process.

You're just dead wrong on pretty much everything you state
.....and what did you do but get the steps of the ICF process in reverse order of occurance, but you don't think that makes you "dead wrong" do you?

Mr Bojangles, go find a different dance floor, you can't even do a simple waltz on this one.

Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 25, 2018
From what process is temperature increased within the sun?
..... the only ones we know about for sure are self sustaining fission & self sustaining fusion thermonuclear processes.

I'm well onto the gravitational collapse theory whereby supposed forces of gravity cause friction between particles creating heat which in turn create thermonuclear fusion temps. It's phony slop & swill guesswork of the rankest order. We know this does not occur on the Sun or we could plainly OBSERVE it, gravitational collapse on the Sun has NEVER been observed.....get it? No, probably you don't.
says Benni

Fusion IN THE SUN'S CORE is a continuous process, which is the 'end product' of H transforming into He within an existing Star. Before Fusion takes place in Star making, there is the collapse and compression of gas and dust (initial process) due to gravity within the disk. As the dust and gas collapses and compresses, it produces heat.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 25, 2018
-contd-
IF there happens to be a good amount of a radioactive material such as Uranium present in the dust that has been heated to a certain temperature, that radioactive material (Uranium or deuterium) will become hot enough that it will ignite, causing the Fission process, and that Fission will, in turn, cause the Hydrogen gas to also ignite to a very high temperature - thus starting the Fusion process. There are 3 steps in Star-making:
1. collapse and compressing of gas and dust in the disk to as high a temperature as is possible
2. the high temp from the collapse ignites the radioactive material in the dust to higher temps
3. the higher temps from the ignition of the radioactive material then triggers the Hydrogen gas to highest temps that begins the chain reaction for Fusion to begin.

Star-making requires all 3 processes before the Hydrogen can burn as a Star. The 2nd step has yet to be fully accepted by mainstream science, but it makes better sense than the other
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 25, 2018
There are two chain reactions; one for Fission, and one for the following chain reaction of the Fusion process.
If there is no radioactive, fissionable material in the dust and gas, then there will not be any Star-making even if the disk is filled with Hydrogen. And a collapse/compression of dust cannot become hot enough to trigger the burning of Hydrogen gas to millions of degrees.
granville583762
3.3 / 5 (7) Oct 25, 2018
FUSION start with a WIMPER in the VACUUM in tenuous plasma

The view is starting to take place that in this slowing collapsing cloud, fusion is igniting with a whimper without the pressure of gravity because the gravitational force per femto-metre* is extremly small, 10-15Newtons on every proton
Far too small to initiate fusion and the force is zero at the centre of mass on every proton in this slowly collapsing cloud
The trigger for fusion is not in gravity or pressure as it is more mundane than that
It's like the demise of the BH, it's an anti-climax
If nature needed millions of degrees and neutron star like pressure we would not be here
Because in the vacuum, these tenuous filamentary plasma our technically millions of degrees, while at absolute zero temperature, with no pressure to speak of, forming stars!
Benni
1.9 / 5 (9) Oct 25, 2018
Before Fusion takes place in Star making, there is the collapse and compression of gas and dust (initial process) due to gravity within the disk. As the dust and gas collapses and compresses, it produces heat.


Yes, anytime you get a collapsing bubble of gas it MAY compress to a higher density & possibly higher temps if it doesn't first disperse & is absorbed into the medium surrounding it (the more likely scenario), but the question is what exactly can cause that inside of stars & how much heat it can generate? I don't know, but the Inverse Square Law dictates it must become less of a gravity driven process the closer you get to the center of the Sun's core.

How far above the center of the core can a gravity driven process be completely shut down? And how far above the center can compressive forces from above generate heat at the center? Anybody who can give you answers to those two questions is someone who's been there.

Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 25, 2018
Inertial confinement fusion (ICF) is a type of fusion energy research that attempts to initiate nuclear fusion reactions by heating and compressing a fuel target, typically in the form of a pellet that most often contains a mixture of deuterium and tritium.


Yes, it's the heat that generates the compression process, not the other way around. You simply have no comprehension of the context about which you're reading regarding the steps of the process.

You're just dead wrong on pretty much everything you state
.....and what did you do...

says Benni

I respectfully request that you review your statement wrt "the heat that generates the compression process. It IS the other way around. The compression and collapse of the dust and gas precedes the heat emitted from the collapse/compression. The heat that is produced THEN starts the chain reaction in the fissile material, on up to the third step where Fusion begins.
Compression comes first, then heat
MrBojangles
3.5 / 5 (8) Oct 25, 2018
How far above the center of the core can a gravity driven process be completely shut down? And how far above the center can compressive forces from above generate heat at the center? Anybody who can give you answers to those two questions is someone who's been there.


Again, you need to contemplate what I said about atmospheric pressure on Earth. How is it that pressure is higher closer to the surface where, presumably (according to inverse square law), gravity is weaker? Well, gravity is also pulling on all of the air molecules above the ones on the surface, and above those ones as well. The same thing happens in the Sun. Regardless of the effects of gravity on particles nearest the core, it's the pressure of all of the particles "above" that which creates temperature. Remember, as pressure increases within a given volume, so does temperature. Imagine a cube with a hose attached which pumps air into the cube and it cannot escape. As the pressure within the cube increases
MrBojangles
3.5 / 5 (8) Oct 25, 2018
so does the temperature, and the inverse is true as well, It's Gay-Lussac's Law. Thinking about the consequences of this, for a star to be born, it makes much more sense that the collective mass of the Protostar, and the pressure gathered therein causes atoms to heat up enough for fusion. Even though an increase in temperature will necessitate an increase in pressure, that is only within a fixed volume, and in space nothing is there to contain the matter of the Protostar. Therefore, pressure giving rise to temperature does a much better job of explaining how the core got hot enough for thermonuclear fusion.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 25, 2018
Perhaps, Benni, you meant to say that, "it's the heat that is generated by the compression process"?
Benni
1.9 / 5 (9) Oct 25, 2018
How is it that pressure is higher closer to the surface where, presumably (according to inverse square law), gravity is weaker?


.....and what do you do but right out of the starting gate you get the premise of the Inverse Square Law exactly reversed. Gravity is MAXIMUM at the surface & ZERO at the center.

Come back after you've spent some time studying the Inverse Square Law for gravity, you absolutely do not comprehend it.
granville583762
3.5 / 5 (8) Oct 25, 2018
Nature has the duplicitous human nature in its construction
Because in the vacuum, these tenuous filamentary plasma our technically millions of degrees, while at absolute zero temperature, with no pressure to speak of, forming stars!

There is a reaction taking place akin to the photo-electric effect
That reactions in the glowing filamentary plasma is technically glowing at millions of degrees
The reactions are infinitesimally small per grain of plasmatic dust, but duplicated by the trillion upon trillion of dust grains forms the glowing plasma that collectively forms technically millions of degrees with no pressure
Nature is not science; nature has the duplicitous human nature in its construction
It use's numbers to achieve its aims and it is not short of numbers!
MrBojangles
3.5 / 5 (8) Oct 25, 2018
How is it that pressure is higher closer to the surface where, presumably (according to inverse square law), gravity is weaker?


.....and what do you do but right out of the starting gate you get the premise of the Inverse Square Law exactly reversed. Gravity is MAXIMUM at the surface & ZERO at the center.

Come back after you've spent some time studying the Inverse Square Law for gravity, you absolutely do not comprehend it.


Closer to the surface than to the outer atmosphere (where pressure is less. And also further from the center where gravity is supposedly greatest.) Again, you're either incredibly unintelligent, or you're an internet troll. "Worked in nuclear science uh-hyuh uh-hyuh."

Your comments are in ignore status henceforth.
Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 25, 2018
I respectfully request that you review your statement wrt "the heat that generates the compression process. It IS the other way around. The compression and collapse of the dust and gas precedes the heat emitted from the collapse/compression. The heat that is produced THEN starts the chain reaction in the fissile material, on up to the third step where Fusion begins.
Compression comes first, then heat


No, it's neither of the two. It is free unbound neutrons doing the fission process of splitting atoms, they initialize it at room temperature, STP if you please, we do it it in nuclear reactors everyday all over the world, everything else is a subsequent after effect of that process, for which we need containment vessels to confine the process for utilization of kinetic energy as the process generates heat.

Maybe I'm mis-understanding your question?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 25, 2018
Before Fusion takes place in Star making, there is the collapse and compression of gas and dust (initial process) due to gravity within the disk. As the dust and gas collapses and compresses, it produces heat.


Yes, anytime you get a collapsing bubble of gas it MAY compress to a higher density & possibly higher temps if it doesn't first disperse & is absorbed into the medium surrounding it (the more likely scenario), but the question is what exactly can cause that inside of stars & how much heat it can generate? I don't know, but the Inverse Square Law dictates it must become less of a gravity driven process the closer you get to the center of the Sun's core.


Once the process of Star-making is complete, there should no longer be any further collapse nor any repulsion of Star material outward or inward. It becomes neutral. The Star continuously burns its fuel. Solar flares often escape the Star's gravity but most are pulled back in.
The mechanics is amazing
jimmybobber
3.3 / 5 (7) Oct 25, 2018
@Benni I'm guessing you believe the biblical "let there be light" so your obsessed with the EM field to describe reality as a whole. You try to mask your religious beliefs as scientific but the truth shines through.
Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 25, 2018
>Bo

Therefore, pressure giving rise to temperature does a much better job of explaining how the core got hot enough for thermonuclear fusion.


Same answer I gave to Egg: It is free unbound neutrons doing the fission process of splitting atoms, they initialize it at room temperature, STP if you please, we do it it in nuclear reactors everyday all over the world, everything else is a subsequent after effect of that process. If we let the process go into runaway the temperatures needed to create fusion will be reached very easily at sea level atmospheric pressure, temperature is the trigger.

Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 25, 2018
>Bo

Therefore, pressure giving rise to temperature does a much better job of explaining how the core got hot enough for thermonuclear fusion.


Same answer I gave to Egg: It is free unbound neutrons doing the fission process of splitting atoms, they initialize it at room temperature, STP if you please, we do it it in nuclear reactors everyday all over the world, everything else is a subsequent after effect of that process. If we let the process go into runaway the temperatures needed to create fusion will be reached very easily at sea level atmospheric pressure, temperature is the trigger, pressures generated thereafter could have no effect for the initialization of the process because those pressures did not exist at that time, they came into existence thereafter.

Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 25, 2018
How is it that pressure is higher closer to the surface where, presumably (according to inverse square law), gravity is weaker?


.....and what do you do but right out of the starting gate you get the premise of the Inverse Square Law exactly reversed. Gravity is MAXIMUM at the surface & ZERO at the center.

Come back after you've spent some time studying the Inverse Square Law for gravity...


Closer to the surface than to the outer atmosphere (where pressure is less. And also further from the center where gravity is supposedly greatest.)
says MrB

Where did you get that from, where you have said, "and also further from the centre where gravity is supposedly greatest"?
Gravity at the centre is practically nonexistent, whether in the centre of Earth or the centre of a Star. Inside Earth, about halfway to the core, the gravity begins to diminish until at the centre, gravity is at zero, as Benni said. Above halfway, gravity/pressure increases
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 25, 2018
@Benni I'm guessing you believe the biblical "let there be light" so your obsessed with the EM field to describe reality as a whole. You try to mask your religious beliefs as scientific but the truth shines through.
says jimmybobber

LOL That's MY domain - Genesis. If Benni is religious, that is his business, don't you think?
Religions are not scientific - but Creationism is.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 25, 2018
I respectfully request that you review your statement wrt "the heat that generates the compression process. It IS the other way around. The compression and collapse of the dust and gas precedes the heat emitted from the collapse/compression. The heat that is produced THEN starts the chain reaction in the fissile material, on up to the third step where Fusion begins.
Compress


No, it's neither of the two. It is free unbound neutrons doing the fission process of splitting atoms, they initialize it at room temperature, STP if you please, we do it it in nuclear reactors everyday all over the world, everything else is a subsequent after effect of that process, for which we need containment vessels to confine the process for utilization of kinetic energy as the process generates heat.

Maybe I'm mis-understanding your question?
says Benni

OK I was referencing the Star-making process - not Fusion inside tokamaks
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 25, 2018
Nature has the duplicitous human nature in its construction
Because in the vacuum, these tenuous filamentary plasma our technically millions of degrees, while at absolute zero temperature, with no pressure to speak of, forming stars!

There is a reaction taking place akin to the photo-electric effect
That reactions in the glowing filamentary plasma is technically glowing at millions of degrees
The reactions are infinitesimally small per grain of plasmatic dust, but duplicated by the trillion upon trillion of dust grains forms the glowing plasma that collectively forms technically millions of degrees with no pressure
Nature is not science; nature has the duplicitous human nature in its construction
It use's numbers to achieve its aims and it is not short of numbers!
says granville

Hydrogen becomes a plasma upon Fusion taking effect. What photo-electric effect?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 25, 2018
I respectfully request that you review your statement wrt "the heat that generates the compression process. It IS the other way around. The compression and collapse of the dust and gas precedes the heat emitted from the collapse/compression. The heat that is produced THEN starts the chain reaction in the fissile material, on up to the third step where Fusion begins.
Compress


No, it's neither of the two. It is free unbound neutrons doing the fission process of splitting atoms, they initialize it at room temperature, STP if you please, we do it it in nuclear reactors everyday all over the world, everything else is a subsequent after effect of that process, for which we need containment vessels to confine the process for utilization of kinetic energy as the process generates heat.

Maybe I'm mis-understanding your question?
says Benni

OK I was referencing the Star-making process - not Fusion inside tokamaks


EDITED: FISSION meant, not Fusion
Whydening Gyre
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 25, 2018
.....and what do you do but right out of the starting gate you get the premise of the Inverse Square Law exactly reversed. Gravity is MAXIMUM at the surface & ZERO at the center.

Come back after you've spent some time studying the Inverse Square Law for gravity, you absolutely do not comprehend it.

Benni. ISL is only valid from the surface of a mass inasmuch as it is representational of a total mass. Gravity at the center is equal to gravity at the surface due to the radiative (via ISL) effect of each and every molecule in the total mass.. To believe otherwise indicates you are slave to the mathematical construct of "singularity".
Whydening Gyre
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 25, 2018
Hydrogen becomes a plasma upon Fusion taking effect.

SEU,
Fissionable material is only available after numerous, sub-sequential fusion (not even to mention compression) events.
That aside, you require a critical mass of fissionable material within reactionable proximity, under containment (to provide sufficient time), for the fission chain reaction to begin...
Yes?
Whydening Gyre
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 26, 2018
No, it's neither of the two. It is free unbound neutrons doing the fission process of splitting atoms, they initialize it at room temperature, STP if you please, we do it it in nuclear reactors everyday all over the world, everything else is a subsequent after effect of that process, for which we need containment vessels to confine the process for utilization of kinetic energy as the process generates heat.
I think SEU is talking bout the containment of the nuclear process, not the water pressure which drives the turbine...
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 26, 2018
Benni. ISL is only valid from the surface of a mass inasmuch as it is representational of a total mass. Gravity at the center is equal to gravity at the surface due to the radiative (via ISL) effect of each and every molecule in the total mass.. To believe otherwise indicates you are slave to the mathematical construct of "singularity".
Hmmmm, you got this half right.

Yes, the ISL is only valid down to the surface; after that you have to do vectors and calculus to find the mass above you, to the sides of you, and below you to figure out how much gravity you have. But the gravity at the center is zero; there's no mass below you and the mass on all sides is equal. What doesn't stop there is the pressure, which is determined by the density of all the mass around you and by the total mass and size of the object you're at the center of. To find that you have to do some more calculus, after which you find out that there's some nice easy algebra that approximates it.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 26, 2018
BTW the fact that the gravity is zero at the center is called the "shell theorem" and was discovered by Newton in the 17th century. You should look it up on Wikipedia; the result I gave is a corollary of the original result Newton found.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 26, 2018
Hydrogen becomes a plasma upon Fusion taking effect.

SEU,
Fissionable material is only available after numerous, sub-sequential fusion (not even to mention compression) events.
That aside, you require a critical mass of fissionable material within reactionable proximity, under containment (to provide sufficient time), for the fission chain reaction to begin...
Yes?
says Whyde

No! Unless I have misunderstood your meaning.
I have been, all along, referring to Star-making - the 3 steps to making a Star, ergo, the Fusion of Hydrogen to create a Star. Under containment requires a Tokamak; Fission, to which Benni had been referring, I believe. It seems that we were talking at cross purposes - at different areas of the same topic - nuclear energy
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 26, 2018
/me watches the train wreck
granville583762
3.9 / 5 (8) Oct 26, 2018
Filamentary ions in plasmatic fusion
Infinitesimally reactions in grain duplicated trillion upon trillion forms the glowing tenuous filamentary plasma that collectively forms technically millions of degrees with no pressure

SEU> Hydrogen becomes a plasma upon Fusion taking effect. What photo-electric effect?

Free electrons in plasma, electrically conductive in tenuous plasmatic clouds
Charged particles as current in electric field in motion has an electric field encircling the electric field Perpendicular to the particles motion
First rule of a currant carrying conductor encircled by magnetic fields
Where charged particles spiral around these magnetic fields at relativistic velocities emitting synchrotron radiation x-rays, gamma rays
Goran Marklund's electric field convection in plasmatic elemental chemical separation
Biermann's battery effect adds to the increasing electric field gradient
Where magnetic compression enhances filamentary compression
granville583762
4 / 5 (8) Oct 26, 2018
The Magic of the Shires

SEU, you are living the wrong side of the pond
Apparently magic exits in the shires
Where the spirit
Of Stephen Hawkins
For ever walks Kings Parade
In those hallowed Colleges
Amongst the giants
Of science
That only exists in the shires
In Cambridgeshire
granville583762
4 / 5 (8) Oct 26, 2018
A natural process

SEU, pristine protons and pristine electrons form starry fusion in filamentary plasma emitting synchrotron radiation in x-rays and gamma rays

Now we know where the energy is coming from SEU, gamma rays in synchrotron radiation
This why these plasmatic clouds are glowing in millions of degrees

Gamma rays also exist in the electric fields in synchrotron radiation in thunder storm
Are the charged particles encircling the thunder storms magnetic fields
granville583762
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 26, 2018
Filamentary ionic Synchrotron radiation

Nature at its purest
Is simplicity beyond belief
To think so simple
In the wires that charge our mobiles
Nature utilises its magnetic fields of charge in motion
Spirally encircling these magnetic fields
With charged particles in motion
There by producing
Synchrotron radiation
In gamma-radiation
Providing the energy
In millions of degrees
In plasmatic fusion
To ignite pristine protons
In the collapsing plasmatic clouds
Of starry plasmatic fusion
As synchrotron in earthly thunder
Nature once again shows
There is simplicity in ionic numbers
In their trillions
In plasmatic starry fusion
granville583762
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 26, 2018
Nature once again proves its simplicity in motion

It is breath taking how simplistic nature's secret is
That has enabled nature to hide its secret in full of sight
That this secret is charged particles spirally encircling magnetic fields
There by producing Synchrotron radiation
Producing the gamma-rays of energy to ignite the proton
That powers the fusion in stars
granville583762
4 / 5 (8) Oct 26, 2018
Gamma-rays

The first gamma ray source to be discovered was the radioactive decay process called gamma decay, this type of decay, an excited nucleus emits a gamma ray almost immediately upon formation
Gamma rays are produced during gamma decay
Thunderstorms can produce a brief pulse of gamma radiation
Photoelectric effect where a gamma photon interacts with and transfers its energy to an atomic electron, causing the ejection of that electron from the atom. The kinetic energy of the resulting photoelectron is equal to the energy of the incident gamma photon minus the energy that originally bound the electron to the atom https://en.wikipe...amma_ray
jonesdave
2.5 / 5 (8) Oct 26, 2018
I'm well onto the gravitational collapse theory whereby supposed forces of gravity cause friction between particles creating heat which in turn create thermonuclear fusion temps. It's phony slop & swill guesswork of the rankest order. We know this does not occur on the Sun or we could plainly OBSERVE it, gravitational collapse on the Sun has NEVER been observed.....get it?


I see that the thick fraud is still posting on subjects that are beyond his comprehension. What is it with these loons?

jonesdave
2.5 / 5 (8) Oct 26, 2018
All the pressure & density characteristics needed to set up a fusion process is SUBSEQUENT to reaching minimum fusion temperature. It is not dependent on first creating a density or pressure ambient,


Oh dear. Lol, what an idiot!

Benni
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 26, 2018
/me watches the train wreck
No, you're just finally beginning to comprehend the Inverse Square Law for the first time in your life,

gravity is zero at the center is called the "shell theorem" and was discovered by Newton in the 17th century.


they just didn't teach this stuff in your computer science courses you claim that you studied.
jonesdave
2.5 / 5 (8) Oct 26, 2018
^^^^You are thick, Benni, and do not understand anything to do with physics. You are a Dunning-Kruger suffering fraud. Go away, you idiot.
Benni
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 26, 2018
^^^^You are thick, Benni, and do not understand anything to do with physics. You are a Dunning-Kruger suffering fraud. Go away, you idiot.


jonesy, quite the FOLLOWER you are. I can just imagine all the new material you've been learning about real science since you became such a faithful FOLLOWER. Just keep faithfully FOLLOWING, you will continiue to learn as you have been doing but won't admit to, just like Schneibo in whose brain the Inverse Square Law may be in the process of taking root, but even he has a long way to go because he still shows no signs of relenting on 19th Century Black Hole math & aether cosmology from that long ago period.
jonesdave
2.5 / 5 (8) Oct 26, 2018
^^^^You are thick, Benni, and do not understand anything to do with physics. You are a Dunning-Kruger suffering fraud. Go away, you idiot.


jonesy, quite the FOLLOWER you are. I can just imagine all the new material you've been learning about real science since you became such a faithful FOLLOWER. Just keep faithfully FOLLOWING, you will continiue to learn as you have been doing but won't admit to, just like Schneibo in whose brain the Inverse Square Law may be in the process of taking root, but even he has a long way to go because he still shows no signs of relenting on 19th Century Black Hole math & aether cosmology from that long ago period.


Like I said - you are thick, and a fraud. Every physics textbook, and every physicist will tell you that you are wrong. We do not need your uneducated opinions. If you think you are backed up by science then link to it. Otherwise, STFU, you idiot.
Benni
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 26, 2018
You are thick, Benni, and do not understand anything to do with physics. You are a Dunning-Kruger suffering fraud.


jonesy, quite the FOLLOWER you are. I can just imagine all the new material you've been learning about real science since you became such a faithful FOLLOWER. Just keep faithfully FOLLOWING, you will continue to learn as you have been doing but won't admit to, just like Schneibo in whose brain the Inverse Square Law may be in the process of taking root, but even he has a long way to go because he still shows no signs of relenting on 19th Century Black Hole math & aether cosmology from that long ago period.

Like I said- you are thick, and a fraud. Every physics textbook, and every physicist will tell you that you are wrong. We do not need your uneducated opinions. If you think you are backed up by science then link to it. Otherwise, STFU, you idiot.
....as you continue to JUST being a FOLLOWER, about all you've ever done your entire life.
jonesdave
2.5 / 5 (8) Oct 26, 2018
....as you continue to JUST being a FOLLOWER, about all you've ever done your entire life.


Yes, I follow real science, not puffed up f***wits like you. Call me sane.
granville583762
4 / 5 (8) Oct 26, 2018
Synchrotron radiation in angular acceleration of momentum of charged particles

Because of your rants JD, the solution to starry plasmatic fusion became obvious and you were feeding me the relevant facts JD

The problem was JD
How to ignite pristine protons
Without the immense pressure
The solution was in the clouds
Dark and thundery
In the magnetic fields
encircling currents nice and juicy
With lashings of butter of the shires
It does not require immense force
For charges to spirally encircle magnetic fields
Why do you think JD
I've been going on about magnetic fields for some time JD
As that is where natures secret lies
In spiralling particles in Synchrotron radiation
Remember infinite angular velocity old bean
Requires no force to increase its angular velocity
As natures secret is in spiralling angular acceleration JD
As you well know JD, is Synchrotron radiation
jonesdave
3 / 5 (10) Oct 26, 2018
^^^^^^^^No idea what you are talking about this time Granville. Not interested in lying posers. I finally had the good sense to stick you on ignore.
granville583762
3 / 5 (10) Oct 26, 2018
Synchrotron radiation in angular acceleration

JD, are you saying good bye
jonesdave
3 / 5 (8) Oct 26, 2018
What did you say, Granny?

Comment posted by a person you have ignored ... show comment
Ojorf
3.2 / 5 (11) Oct 26, 2018
Granville, did you write "Harry Potter and the Portrait of What Looked Like a Large Pile of Ash"?

Can you prove you are not an AI bot?
granville583762
3.5 / 5 (8) Oct 26, 2018
A Chicken in wolfs clothing

Looks like you will not be able to swear, curse, rant on subjects you cannot understand any more JD
What are you going to do when you cannot swear any more?
It's been going on for years and years, its second nature to you, as apparently it in past years, has been really bad
As bad habits are hard to break JD
This is going to be interesting JD
How long is this rant swear free period going to last
An hour
A whole day
Heavens above, a whole week JD
Do you want to bet your shoe laces?
You can go a whole month JD
Without a single rant and swear word for a whole month
Tiddles and oh crumbs JD, are not counted as that is the standard required
Clear Queens English till November the 26th JD
Are you up to the challenge JD
Or are you a Chicken in wolfs clothing JD
MrBojangles
3.5 / 5 (11) Oct 26, 2018
Do yourselves a favor as I've done myself; ignore people like Benni and granville. That way you can enjoy the articles, and even the comments section, without suffering obvious and intentional trollery.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 26, 2018
Ahhhh so MrBojangles is just another one of DaSchniebo's sox. DaShriek is soooo transparent.
ROFLMYAO
MrBojangles
3.5 / 5 (8) Oct 26, 2018
I don't know who DaSchniebo is, nor do I particularly care. You're officially on the ignore list too, as you're apparently a troll as well. Big surprise with a name like Surveillance Egg Unit.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 26, 2018
^^^^You are thick, Benni, and do not understand anything to do with physics. You are a Dunning-Kruger suffering fraud. Go away, you idiot.
says jonesybonesy

You seem to have acquired a strange obsession with the Dunning-Kruger effect that is an effect of which SpookyOtto and CaptainStumptydumpty have been suffering for many years, according to every one of the past physorg articles that I have read that contain their names and comments. I have learned so much about them and their thoughts/personalities/demons just through their comments and their own Dunning-Kruger characteristics.

You seem as though you were once a bright fellow, sans the foul language that you freely spew. So I am interested in why you have taken on the mantle of hate and mental instabilities of the two mentioned above as though it were your own. There are two possibilities for your behaviour:
1. is that you have always been this way - combative, and
2. SpookyOtto has imparted a demon into your mind
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 26, 2018
I don't know who DaSchniebo is, nor do I particularly care. You're officially on the ignore list too, as you're apparently a troll as well. Big surprise with a name like Surveillance Egg Unit.

says MrBojangles

As if you didn't know that Da is Da Schneibo. LOL
You have joined the physorg 5 Star Club for which you are a duly appointed member to receive 5 Stars for any and all of your comments. Congratulations!
Phony 5 Star Club members always reveal their true identity eventually, if not sooner.
:D
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 26, 2018
I don't know who DaSchniebo is, nor do I particularly care. You're officially on the ignore list too, as you're apparently a troll as well. Big surprise with a name like Surveillance Egg Unit.

says MrBojangles

Nope. I am a mere scholar and an interested observer with the supreme goal of learning all the real science that is available. I also comment in the forums, hoping to glean some insight that may not be present in the articles or in the papers that are not paywalled.
If you wish to place my comments on Ignore, then please do so, since you are a sock.
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (9) Oct 26, 2018
Strange how everyone is on every else's ignore list while still not on their ignore list
At least a sense of normalcy has descended since the challenge of Queens English in earthly shoe laces
As we get back to disseminating theories and creating new ones in this new era of Glasnost
What sayeth you SEU, to these new theories?
Oh and by the way, welcome back JD.
Benni
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 26, 2018
..as you continue to JUST being a FOLLOWER, about all you've ever done your entire life.


Yes, I follow real science, not puffed up f***wits like you. Call me sane.


Why do you so frequently refer to yourself as "sane" & those who disagree with you as insane? It carries the tone that there's something betwixt those two words of a personal nature for which you need emotional support. Maybe it has a lot to do with your past braggadocio about having an Astronomy degree from the Uni of Auckland, NZ, then you had to change that to Astronomy based degree, then others of us in the chatroom checked U of A curriculum & discovered it offers no such degrees.

Lying about stuff like this that is so easily discoverable can only come back with a question beggaring the biggest question, why are you lying about having degrees when you should have been able to figure out it would be uncovered? Does it have something to do with sanity versus insanity on your part?
RealityCheck
2.5 / 5 (8) Oct 26, 2018
@Benni and @S_E_U.

Please recall what I pointed out before...

1) while the gravity effect is balanced at center of star/planet, the COMPRESSION HEATING and CONTAINMENT EFFECT is STRONG enough to create HOT INTERIOR of planet/star; thus making stellar core HOT DENSE 'fusing' PLASMA; and also thus making planet core HOT SOLID under the PRESSURE from 'overburden' WEIGHT due to overall gravity between MATERIAL 'cumulative mass' from center/core to surface.

2) FISSIONABLE materials (heavier elements) are PRODUCED by stars/supernovas etc, so NO such materials can be present in INITIAL star-formation from HYDROGEN gas/plasma; so NO 'fission heating' is 'needed' to 'initiate' stellar fusion processes, ONLY HEATING due to massive gravitational compression/containment effects.

3) Stars convection/flows create transient plasmoid 'fusion events' throughout the sun, and NOT ONLY in the center.

SO PLEASE can you both update your respective understandings/arguments accordingly. Thanks
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (10) Oct 26, 2018
Maybe it has a lot to do with your past braggadocio about having an Astronomy degree from the Uni of Auckland, NZ, then you had to change that to Astronomy based degree


Nope, you are lying again, f***wit. Can't deal with science, so your last resort is to try to attack me. Not going to work. I'm not the one who claims to have studied nuclear physics, and been shown to not have a clue about it. Such as this little beauty;


.......Oh, you mean like Jonesy's & Ojo's concept of NEUTRON HALF-LIFE & how one whole neutron can morph into half-a-neutron, and then decay into one-quarter of a neutron, then an eighth...... ad infinitum ?


https://phys.org/...html#jCp

Attacking me is not going to alter the fact that you have been shown, beyond any doubt, to be scientifically illiterate. Idiot.

granville583762
3.7 / 5 (9) Oct 26, 2018
Beyond Comprehension
FUSION start with a WIMPER in the VACUUM in tenuous plasma
The view is starting to take place that in this slowing collapsing cloud, fusion is igniting with a whimper without the pressure of gravity because the gravitational force per femto-metre* is extremly small, 10-15Newtons on every proton
These tenuous filamentary plasma our technically millions of degrees, while at absolute zero temperature, with no pressure to speak of, forming stars!

Going back on what it was that was beyond comprehension
How it arrived at spiralling particles in Synchrotron radiation exhibiting gamma-rays
It would be interesting to all those on ignore, what they cannot comprehend, as of Synchrotron radiation in plasmatic magnetic fields
Because earthly thunder storms also exhibit gamma-rays in Synchrotron radiation!
Whydening Gyre
4.3 / 5 (8) Oct 26, 2018
@Benni and @S_E_U.

Please recall what I pointed out before...

1) while the gravity effect is balanced at center of star/planet, the COMPRESSION HEATING and CONTAINMENT EFFECT is STRONG enough to create HOT INTERIOR of planet/star; thus making stellar core HOT DENSE 'fusing' PLASMA; and also thus making planet core HOT SOLID under the PRESSURE from 'overburden' WEIGHT due to overall gravity between MATERIAL 'cumulative mass' from center/core to surface.

2) FISSIONABLE materials (heavier elements) are PRODUCED...c, so NO such materials can be present i...; so NO 'fission heating' is 'needed' to 'initiate' stellar fusion processes, ONLY HEATING due to massive gravitational compression/containment effects.

3) Stars convection/flows create transient plasmoid 'fusion events' throughout the sun, and NOT ONLY in the center...

You forgot to mention... the entire stellar mass of hydrogen is moving at differing speeds in AT LEAST 2 separate vectors...
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (9) Oct 26, 2018
What is this difficulty in comprehension?

The lightning strikes are electric fields in plasma, exhibiting perpendicular circular magnetic fields, Where charged ice particles in the thunder clouds spirally encircle these magnetic fields of lightning plasma
Leading to gamma-rays in Synchrotron radiation!
Lightning plasma is the same as plasmatic galactic plasma
So what is this comprehension problem
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (9) Oct 26, 2018
We have a growing list of names who cannot comprehend
Who define their inability to comprehend by a numeracy of one
And guess whose name is top of the list
Who so ever, but simply, stumps.
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 26, 2018
@Whyde.
@Benni and @S_E_U.
1) while the gravity effect is balanced at center of star/planet, the COMPRESSION HEATING and CONTAINMENT EFFECT is STRONG enough to create HOT INTERIOR of planet/star; thus making stellar core HOT DENSE 'fusing' PLASMA; and also thus making planet core HOT SOLID under the PRESSURE from 'overburden' WEIGHT due to overall gravity between MATERIAL 'cumulative mass' from center/core to surface.

2) FISSIONABLE materials (heavier elements) are PRODUCED...c, so NO such materials can be present i...; so NO 'fission heating' is 'needed' to 'initiate' stellar fusion processes, ONLY HEATING due to massive gravitational compression/containment effects.

3) Stars convection/flows create transient plasmoid 'fusion events' throughout the sun, and NOT ONLY in the center...
You forgot to mention... the entire stellar mass of hydrogen is moving at differing speeds in AT LEAST 2 separate vectors...
Covered by item 3) "Stars convection/flows".

Cheers. :)
Benni
2.3 / 5 (9) Oct 26, 2018
Attacking me is not going to alter the fact that you have been shown, beyond any doubt, to be scientifically illiterate. Idiot.


But when you do these things to me:

You are thick, Benni, and do not understand anything to do with physics. You are a Dunning-Kruger suffering fraud. Go away, you idiot.
......this is not you "attacking" me, right?

Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 26, 2018
@Benni and @S_E_U.

Please recall what I pointed out before...

1) while the gravity effect is balanced at center of star/planet, the COMPRESSION HEATING and CONTAINMENT EFFECT is STRONG enough to create HOT INTERIOR of planet/star; thus making stellar core HOT DENSE 'fusing' PLASMA; and also thus making planet core HOT SOLID under the PRESSURE from 'overburden' WEIGHT due to overall gravity between MATERIAL 'cumulative mass' from center/core to surface.


Science is still ambivalent wrt the Earth's core being either solid or liquid or a slurry - but it is HOT, which accounts for magma flows at the surface

2) FISSIONABLE materials (heavier elements) are PRODUCED by stars/supernovas etc, so NO such materials can be present in INITIAL star-formation from HYDROGEN gas/plasma; so NO 'fission heating' is 'needed' to 'initiate' stellar fusion processes, ONLY HEATING due to massive gravitational compression/containment effects.


I never said that...

-contd-

jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) Oct 26, 2018
Attacking me is not going to alter the fact that you have been shown, beyond any doubt, to be scientifically illiterate. Idiot.


But when you do these things to me:

You are thick, Benni, and do not understand anything to do with physics. You are a Dunning-Kruger suffering fraud. Go away, you idiot.
......this is not you "attacking" me, right?



You deserve it. You are the idiot that thinks he understands these subjects better than actual scientists, and comes on here criticising said scientists. And in trying to do it, you keep putting your foot in your mouth by getting some very basic science, very, very wrong.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 26, 2018
-contd-
I never said that Fissionable materials that are used in the 2nd step are coming from Hydrogen GAS. I said that radioactive, fissionable materials such as Uranium, Deuterium could be present IN the DUST and gas, and that if such material is present, it will begin to burn as a result from the HEAT of the collapse/compression of the dust that has accumulated beforehand. After the compression produces a hot temp, it will cause the fissile material to begin a chain reaction resulting in an explosion. When that explosion occurs, the heat will, in turn, cause the Hydrogen gas to begin heating also - until the gas reaches a temp of over a million degrees whereupon the chain reaction begins in the Hydrogen gas, and it transforms into Plasma beginning the FUSION process.
Perhaps I should explain that the second step, which is Fission, has not been accepted as yet by mainstream scientists. They are still looking at Collaps/compress - then Fusion - which is incomplete in Stars
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (9) Oct 26, 2018
The third rule
Attacking me is not going to alter the fact that you have been shown, beyond any doubt, to be scientifically illiterate. Idiot.

But when you do these things to me:
You are thick, Benni, and do not understand anything to do with physics. You are a Dunning-Kruger suffering fraud. Go away, you idiot.
......this is not you "attacking" me, right?

You forgot the third rule, Benni.
It only applies to everyone else!
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (9) Oct 26, 2018
SEU, gamma-rays in Synchrotron radiation leads to radio-active decay and ionizing radiation!
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (7) Oct 26, 2018
-contd-
@RC
The second step of Fission produces the extremely hot temperatures that have also been produced in atomic bombs plus the concussion, to bring the Hydrogen gas to such enormous temperature that the gas turns into a Plasma. Without the process of Fission in between compression/collapse of Matter/dust and the process of Fusion as the final result, there will not BE a hot enough temperature.
The Earth's surface produces gravitation/compression of the Matter within the upper and lower mantles, and also the upper core upon the core itself. Therefore, with all that compression, WHY hasn't FUSION begun in the Earth's core? Doesn't the Earth's core contain any material that is capable of Nuclear Fusion?

As I said, the 3 steps to Fusion in Star-making is new science - only one scientist came up with that theory, and has still not gained wide acceptance, as yet.
But his theory is correct and very Logical.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 26, 2018
PS to RC - granville and Benni are aware of the theory, and I believe that they are in complete agreement with it.
granville583762
3.8 / 5 (10) Oct 26, 2018
Fusion with a whimper

A point was raised in pristine protons marrying a lonely scrumptious electron
Where does the proton get it radio-active decay and ionizing radiation?
The proton simply gets it in electrons spiralling the magnetic fields of charge in motion
Producing gamma-ray synchrotron radiation
Producing radio-active decay and ionizing radiation
No pressure involved
Fusion with a whimper in plasmatic starry fusion
An anti-climax
Benni
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 26, 2018
The third rule
Attacking me is not going to alter the fact that you have been shown, beyond any doubt, to be scientifically illiterate. Idiot.

But when you do these things to me:
You are thick, Benni, and do not understand anything to do with physics. You are a Dunning-Kruger suffering fraud. Go away, you idiot.
......this is not you "attacking" me, right?

You forgot the third rule, Benni.
It only applies to everyone else!


"only....."everyone": Is this what'ca call a conundrum? Maybe jonesy knows?
jonesdave
3 / 5 (8) Oct 26, 2018
PS to RC - granville and Benni are aware of the theory, and I believe that they are in complete agreement with it.


There is no such 'theory'.
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (9) Oct 26, 2018
Applying the third rule
PS to RC - granville and Benni are aware of the theory, and I believe that they are in complete agreement with it.

There is no such 'theory'.

The third rule
Attacking me is not going to alter the fact that you have been shown, beyond any doubt, to be scientifically illiterate. Idiot.

But when you do these things to me:
You are thick, Benni, and do not understand anything to do with physics. You are a Dunning-Kruger suffering fraud. Go away, you idiot.
......this is not you "attacking" me, right?

You forgot the third rule, Benni.
It only applies to everyone else!

"only....."everyone": Is this what'ca call a conundrum? Maybe jonesy knows?

Well Benni, JD is also applying the third rule, as he cannot break the chain that binds him, for someone supposedly on ignore, he cannot break the bond of the Shire's
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.7 / 5 (7) Oct 26, 2018
PS to RC - granville and Benni are aware of the theory, and I believe that they are in complete agreement with it.


There is no such 'theory'.
says jones

Liar. You were in that forum when I was discussing that theory with Benni and Granville. If YOU did not read about it, then you must have been asleep, since it was a lengthy detailed conversation and I had given them the name of the scientist whose theory it is.
Or you were too busy being full of yourself to pay attention.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Oct 26, 2018
I had given them the name of the scientist whose theory it is.


Then give it again.
Benni
1.9 / 5 (9) Oct 26, 2018
2) FISSIONABLE materials (heavier elements) are PRODUCED by stars/supernovas etc, so NO such materials can be present in INITIAL star-formation from HYDROGEN gas/plasma; so NO 'fission heating' is 'needed' to 'initiate' stellar fusion processes, ONLY HEATING due to massive gravitational compression/containment effects.


No, RC, again No. You imply here that FISSIONABLE materials (heavier elements) are ONLY elements like uranium, or something near that range of elements from which we make fission bombs. Any atomic element can be split (fissioned), it's only a matter of the kinetic energy that is applied to the bullet.

Apply enough kinetic energy to a proton bullet & we can bust apart (fission) anything. It is done in the LHC, the hottest place in the Universe. In this case it isn't called a fission reaction because it is not self-sustaining, but the frontend of the process is the same concept of breaking things apart & releasing what is inside.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 26, 2018
(partial text)

"Ours is a time of unparalleled richness in astronomical observations, but understanding seems to be absent throughout broad areas of astrophysics. Among some groups of astrophysicists there appears to be measured degrees of consensus, as indicated by the prevalence of so-called "standard models", but in science consensus is nonsense; science is a logical process, not a democratic process, and logical connections in many instances seem to be lacking. So the question astrophysicists should ask is this: "What's wrong with astrophysics?" Finding out what's wrong is not only the necessary precursor to righting what's wrong, but will open the way to new advances in astrophysics.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 26, 2018
-contd-
Toward that end, one may question the basic assumptions upon which astrophysics is founded, as well as question the approaches astrophysicists currently employ. Here I describe one methodology and provide specific examples, the details of which are set forth elsewhere" -- J. Marvin Herndon
granville583762
4 / 5 (8) Oct 26, 2018
Synchrotron starry fusion in the vacuum

As the first pristine proton
In the vacuum
Goes out in to the vacuum
Devoid of fusion energy
In the darkness of the vacuum
Spies a lonely scrumptious electron
And after that trip to Gretna Green
Emerge happily married in the vacuum
Where trillions untold flock together
And in their plasmatic clouds
Producing electric fields in motion
With perpendicular encircling magnetic fields
Of plasmatic currents
With there electrons encircling these magnetic fields
Producing synchrotron radiation
Producing gamma-ray radio-active ionising radiation
Producing clouds of glowing filamentary starry fusion
At millions of degrees of filamentary plasma
Igniting protons releasing energy
In the collapsing plasmatic starry fusion
Till this ball of plasmatic starry fusion
Is one almighty glowing ball in the vacuum?
Of 800,000ml of solar fusion
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 26, 2018
Don't worry about Dr. Herndon's concerns wrt chemtrails aka contrails. That is not the issue.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (8) Oct 26, 2018
(partial text)

"Ours is a time of unparalleled richness in astronomical observations, but understanding seems to be absent throughout broad areas of astrophysics. Among some groups of astrophysicists there appears to be measured degrees of consensus, as indicated by the prevalence of so-called "standard models", but in science consensus is nonsense; science is a logical process, not a democratic process, and logical connections in many instances seem to be lacking. So the question astrophysicists should ask is this: "What's wrong with astrophysics?" Finding out what's wrong is not only the necessary precursor to righting what's wrong, but will open the way to new advances in astrophysics.


Non-peer reviewed, uncited nonsense from a chemtrail crank.

https://en.wikipe..._Herndon
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.7 / 5 (7) Oct 26, 2018
@granville
Have you ALWAYS been such a romantic in your approach to explaining love in the Quantum Universe? You have given Life to the tiniest of the tiny, and they do appreciate your telling of their story, as they laugh and stroll merrily throughout the gravity wells full of joyfulness.

:)
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 26, 2018
(partial text)

"Ours is a time of unparalleled richness in astronomical observations, but understanding seems to be absent throughout broad areas of astrophysics. Among some groups of astrophysicists there appears to be measured degrees of consensus, as indicated by the prevalence of so-called "standard models", but in science consensus is nonsense; science is a logical process, not a democratic process, and logical connections in many instances seem to be lacking. So the question astrophysicists should ask is this: "What's wrong with astrophysics?" Finding out what's wrong is not only the necessary precursor to righting what's wrong, but will open the way to new advances in astrophysics.


Non-peer reviewed, uncited nonsense from a chemtrail crank.

https://en.wikipe..._Herndon
says jones

Chemtrails are real as anyone can attest just by looking at the sky when certain jets fly - leaving trails that don't vanish for a very long time.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 26, 2018
Non peer-reviewed ? Dr. Herndon has given the particulars in the text that I submitted above - wrt consensus and the reluctance by mainstream scientists to refute any of the standard model which they had learnt at University.
It is a human failing, which is to reject outright any new science that they don't wish to deal with if it contains evidence that there is something that they failed to investigate, either before OR after the theories were submitted to them.

In this case, they are reluctant to address the evidence that compression/collapse of Matter never assumes a hot enough temperature to trigger the Fusion process in Hydrogen gas. All due to consensus.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (8) Oct 26, 2018


In this case, they are reluctant to address the evidence that compression/collapse of Matter never assumes a hot enough temperature to trigger the Fusion process in Hydrogen gas. All due to consensus.


Nope, all to do with science and maths and the laws of physics. The guy is a bit of a nutter.
Here's a review of some of his other nonsense;

https://www.downl...ery.html
Benni
2.6 / 5 (7) Oct 26, 2018
Chemtrails are real as anyone can attest just by looking at the sky when certain jets fly - leaving trails that don't vanish for a very long time.
.....I'm suspicious about stuff like this. My first couple of years out of college i worked for a mid-west electric power company as a meter engineer & we burned lots of coal, and yes our coal dust followed a general pathway west to east, but particulates coming from jet plane engines would ruin them in a hurry.

Benni
2.2 / 5 (6) Oct 26, 2018
Chemtrails are real as anyone can attest just by looking at the sky when certain jets fly - leaving trails that don't vanish for a very long time.
.....I'm suspicious about stuff like this. My first couple of years out of college i worked for a mid-west electric power company as a meter engineer & we burned lots of coal, and yes our coal dust followed a general pathway west to east, but particulates coming from jet plane engines would ruin them in a hurry.

howhot3
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 26, 2018
Everyone knows that Chemtrails are just the government spraying vitamins to help us be smarter. So we can all be smart.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (6) Oct 26, 2018
@jones
I read the review of the book, "Indivisible Earth" by Herndon from the link you submitted.
The review is almost exclusively regarding that book, but has absolutely NOTHING regarding Herndon's later theory on the three steps in Star-Making.
Although I DO agree that everything in his book appears to be nonsensical, It is possible that the book was a very early work of his which did not gain any traction - and rightly so.
However, I have a copy of his later work concerning the 3 steps to Star-making which I partly submitted here, and there is nothing in it that appears to be unscientific or illogical at all. In fact, his theory in this respect is far better than what is presumed by mainstream scientists.
I suggest that you read Herndon's theory wrt the 3 steps (he doesn't call it that) that he proposes as the methods by which Stars are created. You do need some enlightening, after all.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (10) Oct 26, 2018
You do need some enlightening, after all.


Nope, way too many cranks around, with nutty ideas. And that book was 2012. His solar nonsense was 1994. And you can see our very own Torbjörn Larsson in the comments section!
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.4 / 5 (5) Oct 26, 2018
Chemtrails are real as anyone can attest just by looking at the sky when certain jets fly - leaving trails that don't vanish for a very long time.
.....I'm suspicious about stuff like this. My first couple of years out of college i worked for a mid-west electric power company as a meter engineer & we burned lots of coal, and yes our coal dust followed a general pathway west to east, but particulates coming from jet plane engines would ruin them in a hurry.

says Benni

Coal dust doesn't rise up to ~35k to 40k feet in the atmosphere. I don't think that even ash from a volcanic eruption can go that high.
But I have stood in my garden looking up at the sky, and I have seen jet planes at ~40k feet leaving a chemtrail that did not disperse/dissipate for over an hour. The chemtrails tend to remain where they were left by the jets in a long, long trail of white.
However, every time that passenger planes flew over head, their contrails dissipated quickly.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.7 / 5 (7) Oct 26, 2018
Everyone knows that Chemtrails are just the government spraying vitamins to help us be smarter. So we can all be smart.
says how hot

Unfortunately, jones doesn't seem to have breathed those vitamins in and missed out on his share.

:)
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 26, 2018
You do need some enlightening, after all.


Nope, way too many cranks around, with nutty ideas. And that book was 2012. His solar nonsense was 1994. And you can see our very own Torbjörn Larsson in the comments section!
says jones

As I said, his early works. But his 3 steps theory is reasonable and logical, and there is nothing crank about it. I don't know of any book or the title of it regarding his 3 step process. Do you have the title?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (4) Oct 26, 2018
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 26, 2018
@Benni.
No, RC, again No. You imply here that FISSIONABLE materials (heavier elements) are ONLY elements like uranium, or something near that range of elements from which we make fission bombs. Any atomic element can be split (fissioned), it's only a matter of the kinetic energy that is applied to the bullet. Apply enough kinetic energy to a proton bullet & we can bust apart (fission) anything. It is done in the LHC, the hottest place in the Universe. In this case it isn't called a fission reaction because it is not self-sustaining, but the frontend of the process is the same concept of breaking things apart & releasing what is inside.
Any 'composite' atom can be split (fissioned); BUT ONLY certain atoms can be split and GIVE OUT NET ENERGY (more than was used to split it). Again, only certain pre-fused (fusioned) atoms (like Uranium etc) have UNSTABLE energy states created during violent fusions IN STARS and supernova explosions etc., and give NET 'fission' energy. :)
Whydening Gyre
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 26, 2018
No, RC, again No. You imply here that FISSIONABLE materials (heavier elements) are ONLY elements like uranium, or something near that range of elements from which we make fission bombs.
...

Hydrogen, too?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 26, 2018
From the link above -

"The purpose of science is to determine the true nature of the Universe and its components, which may be entirely different from making models that do not have to be true. In the past, the varied morphologies observed among galaxies have been explained on the basis astrophysical models which are based upon assumptions. Beneath the assumptions explicitly set forth for the particular models, there are underlying implicit assumptions, which some may not even recognize as assumptions. One of the most fundamental implicit assumptions underlying much of astrophysics pertains to the ignition of stars, specifically the assumption that stellar thermonuclear fusion reactions ignite automatically as a consequence of the heat generated by the gravitational collapse of dust and gas during star formation. I question the validity of that assumption."
-contd-
Whydening Gyre
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 26, 2018
You forgot to mention... the entire stellar mass of hydrogen is moving at differing speeds in AT LEAST 2 separate vectors...
Covered by item 3) "Stars convection/flows".

Cheers. :)

I'm referring to their motion thru space.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 26, 2018
By mid-1938, the thermonuclear reactions thought to power stars were reasonably well understood [4]. Those reactions are called "thermonuclear" because temperatures on the order of a million degrees Celsius are required for ignition. At the time it was assumed that million- degree temperatures would be attained as a consequence of the gravitational collapse of dust and gas during star formation; in mid-1938, no other energy source for that purpose was known. That
concept of stellar ignition has persisted to the present although clearly there were indications of a problem. In 1965, Hayashi and Nakano from their calculations realized that thermonuclear ignition temperatures of a million degrees Celsius would not be attained during stellar formation [5]. The reason for the difficulty of attaining million-degree temperatures is that heating produced by the in-fall of dust and gas is off-set by radiation from the surface, which is a function of the fourth power of temperature.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Oct 27, 2018
@S_E_U.
The Earth's surface produces gravitation/compression of the Matter within the upper and lower mantles, and also the upper core upon the core itself. Therefore, with all that compression, WHY hasn't FUSION begun in the Earth's core? Doesn't the Earth's core contain any material that is capable of Nuclear Fusion?
Earth's center contains materials that can also fission, but very little freely-moving hydrogen sufficiently speedy/hot for fusion into helium like in the sun's hot/speedy dense hydrogen plasma environment. Hence why fusion in sun; but no significant fusion at Earth's core. :)
As I said, the 3 steps to Fusion in Star-making is new science
Depends on which 'generation' of star 'type' one is being considered. First generatin stars having only hydrogen and helium can only fuse hydrogen into Carbon/Oxygen/Nitrogen etc. When it novas/supernovas, producing heavier 'fusion' elements still, which are then entrained into later 'generation' star types. Ok? :)
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 27, 2018
Rather than questioning the underlying astrophysical assumptions, for more than four decades astrophysicists just tweaked their modeling parameters, such as opacity and formation rate or added additional ad hoc hypotheses, such as a shock-wave induced sudden flare-up [6, 7].
The over-riding reason for questioning science in general and astrophysics in particular is that the circumstances and knowledge at the time certain concepts were formulated may have changed with subsequent discoveries. In the case of stellar ignition, in December 1938 nuclear fission was discovered. Then, nuclear fission chain reactions were discovered, and proven capable of powering atomic bombs (A-bombs) and proven capable of igniting hydrogen bombs (H-bombs), thermonuclear fusion bombs. Every thermonuclear fusion H-bomb is ignited by its own nuclear fission A-bomb, and every H-bomb detonation is an experimental verification that nuclear fission chain reactions can ignite thermonuclear fusion reactions
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 27, 2018
In a paper published in 1994 in the Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, I suggested that stars, like H-bombs, are ignited by nuclear fission chain reactions [8].
-- J. Marvin Herndon

https://pdfs.sema...40611438
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Oct 27, 2018
@Whyde.
You forgot to mention... the entire stellar mass of hydrogen is moving at differing speeds in AT LEAST 2 separate vectors...
Covered by item 3) "Stars convection/flows".

Cheers. :)

I'm referring to their motion thru space.
Oh, I see. Can you elucidate how those whole-star motions apply in the context of internal gravity/compression heating/fusing etc which were the points I re-iterated in my relevant post to @Benni and @S_E_U which you quoted me from? Thanks. :)
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 27, 2018
@RC

I am far less interested in the activities going on in the Earth's centre than I am of the Star-making process wrt to the '3 steps' that Dr. Herndon has proposed, namely:
1.collapse and compression
2.Thermonuclear Fission
3.Hydrogen gas into plasma = Fusion

I call it as I see it - and his theory makes perfect sense. All his other theories are of no great consequence, but it is important to know/understand how our Sun and other Stars went through the stages/processes to become what they are - as well as all the implications. Our Solar System is one out of billions, and we must understand why and how these events happen - possibly happening in our own backyard just beyond our SS.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Oct 27, 2018
In 1965, Hayashi and Nakano from their calculations realized that thermonuclear ignition temperatures of a million degrees Celsius would not be attained during stellar formation [5]


Hayashi and Nakano said nothing of the kind. Quite the opposite, if you understand the paper, which the author clearly doesn't.

https://academic..../1857190

Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 27, 2018
No, RC, again No. You imply here that FISSIONABLE materials (heavier elements) are ONLY elements like uranium, or something near that range of elements from which we make fission bombs.
...

Hydrogen, too?
says Whyde

Hydrogen gas relates to Fusion after having converted to a Plasma. Beautiful process.
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) Oct 27, 2018
I call it as I see it - and his theory makes perfect sense.


No, it makes no sense whatsoever, and seems to be based on his misunderstanding of the Hayashi paper. If the idiot had looked at Fig. 4, and extrapolated the E-F line to intercept with the core density of ~ 10^2.2 g/cm^3, then he would see that it is more than hot enough for fusion. There is a slight clue in the abstract, as well;

The subsequent evolution is a quasi-static contraction ***toward the main sequence***.


How the hell is it evolving toward the MS if, as Herndon claims, the authors had claimed that fusion couldn't occur? Sorry, this looks very much like he's making things up, or he simply didn't understand the paper. Probably both. So, his hypothesis is pointless, being based on an inability to understand the Hayashi paper. Next.
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 27, 2018
@S_E_U.
'3 steps' that Dr. Herndon has proposed, namely:
1.collapse and compression
2.Thermonuclear Fission
3.Hydrogen gas into plasma = Fusion
Until a critical mass (a concentration of fissionable atoms sufficient to ensure 'neutron capture' that actually triggers 'chain reaction' atom-splitting), any fissionable atoms in a 'cloud' of aggregating/concentrating dust/hydrogen/helium may be too 'diffuse' to actually sustain fission 'chain-reaction' (until it is expelled and is concentrated as part of a planets body/rocks; but even in the Earth's rocks, the uranium etc is diffuse; unless concentrated by deliberate human action....OR by natural processes like in Oklo 'natural reactor').

In a star's/protostar's hot/violent plasma environment, any fissionable material content is spread out, diluted throughout overwhelming proportion of hydrogen/helium content. So even in later-generation stars, fissioning may be just normal decay rates, and NOT HOT 'chain reaction' rates. :)
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 27, 2018
@Benni.
No, RC, again No.....(**)Any 'composite' atom can be split (fissioned); BUT ONLY certain atoms can be split and GIVE OUT NET ENERGY (more than was used to split it). Again, only certain pre-fused (fusioned) atoms (like Uranium etc) have UNSTABLE energy states created during violent fusions IN STARS and supernova explosions etc., and give NET 'fission' energy. :)
says RC

Radioactive Uranium and other heavy radioactive elements are created within Stars and SN, BUT they are spewed out of those Stars into the surrounding disk where they cool and join the clumps of dust and gas. And there they remain until the aggregation of dust, gas, and radioactive elements form a planet or moon, where the dust becomes compressed and the radioactive material becomes part of the body.
But radioactive material also become a part of the disk, where if no Star is present in the disk, the 3 steps are likely to occur as the dust draws together and collapses/compresses.
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 27, 2018
@S_E_U.
Radioactive Uranium and other heavy radioactive elements are created within Stars and SN, BUT they are spewed out of those Stars into the surrounding disk where they cool and join the clumps of dust and gas. And there they remain until the aggregation of dust, gas, and radioactive elements form a planet or moon, where the dust becomes compressed and the radioactive material becomes part of the body.
But radioactive material also become a part of the disk, where if no Star is present in the disk, the 3 steps are likely to occur as the dust draws together and collapses/compresses.
PLease read my post above yours (posted about 15 minutes before yours). Especially note what I pointed out in the closing paragraph; and also add that in later generation stars/aggregations, apart from humongous proportions of hydrogen/helium, there is ALSO INERT material (eg, Silicon etc) present in proportions much greater than Uranium etc; which effectively 'dilute' uranium etc. :)
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 27, 2018
In 1965, Hayashi and Nakano from their calculations realized that thermonuclear ignition temperatures of a million degrees Celsius would not be attained during stellar formation [5]


Hayashi and Nakano said nothing of the kind. Quite the opposite, if you understand the paper, which the author clearly doesn't.

https://academic..../1857190

says jones

I copied part of it. I don't see anything in it that explains the full processes by which the cloud becomes a Star simply by contraction.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 27, 2018
From jones' link

"The thermal and dynamical evolution of a protostar of one solar mass has been investigated from the stage transparent to radiation to the stage of the beginning of quasi-hydrostatic equilibrium. The evolution in the transparent stage has been studied in the ρ-T diagram by comparing the time-scale of cooling or heating with the time-scale of free contraction or free expansion. We have taken into account the emission of radiation by H2 molecules, grains and ions (C+, Si+ and Fe+) as cooling processes, and interstellar star-light and cosmic ray particles as heating sources. It has been shown that when ρ≲×10−18 g/cm3 the gas cloud of one solar mass expands and returns to the interstellar gas, while the cloud of ρ≳×10−18 g/cm3 contracts to become a star."

This seems to postulate the presence of 2 gas clouds - one of which becomes a Star, while the other returns to, presumably its origins.
A simulation, of course.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) Oct 27, 2018
I copied part of it. I don't see anything in it that explains the full processes by which the cloud becomes a Star simply by contraction.


It is blindingly obvious in the H & N paper where they say this will happen;

The subsequent evolution is the contraction toward the main sequence through a series of
quasi-static equilibria (along the line EF in Fig. 4).


The x-axis of fig. 4 only goes to 10^-2 g/cm^3. Point E is when the protostar still has a radius of 50 solar radii. It will then evolve along that line, and beyond the confines of the graph, as it contracts further. If you extrapolate the line EF, and extend the x-axis to ~ 10^2.2 g/cm^3, you will see that the temperature will be ~ 10^7 K. Hot enough for fusion. However, H & N aren't interested in that, as they are modelling a protostar, prior to it reaching the main sequence. Herndon is either extremely dim, or he is being dishonest in his claims about this paper.

jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) Oct 27, 2018
This seems to postulate the presence of 2 gas clouds - one of which becomes a Star, while the other returns to, presumably its origins.


Sigh. No, it doesn't. They are saying that the formation of a solar mass star requires the density of the cloud to be equal to or greater than 10^-18 g/cm^3. There are not two clouds!

Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.7 / 5 (7) Oct 27, 2018
I call it


No, it makes no sense whatsoever, and seems to be based on his misunderstanding of the Hayashi paper. If the idiot had looked at Fig. 4, and extrapolated the E-F line to intercept with the core density of ~ 10^2.2 g/cm^3, then he would see that it is more than hot enough for fusion. There is a slight clue in the abstract, as well;

The subsequent evolution is a quasi-static contraction ***toward the main sequence***.


How the hell is it evolving toward the MS if, as Herndon claims, the authors had claimed that fusion couldn't occur? Sorry, this looks very much like he's making things up, or he simply didn't understand the paper. Probably both. So, his hypothesis is pointless, being based on an inability to understand the Hayashi paper. Next.


OR, it could be that the Hayashi paper is wrong.
1million degrees Celsius. Neither Starlight nor Cosmic radiation can heat Hydrogen gas to those temps without an intermediary like Fission
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) Oct 27, 2018
OR, it could be that the Hayashi paper is wrong.
1million degrees Celsius. Neither Starlight nor Cosmic radiation can heat Hydrogen gas to those temps without an intermediary like Fission


Yes it bloody well can, and nobody is saying it can't, other than this Herndon clown. He is referencing the H & N paper as supporting his claims, when it does the exact opposite. He is obviously a fool.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.2 / 5 (5) Oct 27, 2018
@S_E_U.
'3 steps'
Until a critical mass (a concentration of fissionable atoms sufficient to ensure 'neutron capture' that actually triggers 'chain reaction' atom-splitting), any fissionable atoms in a 'cloud' of aggregating/concentrating dust/hydrogen/helium may be too 'diffuse' to actually sustain fission 'chain-reaction' (until it is expelled and is concentrated...

In a star's/protostar's hot/violent plasma environment, any fissionable material content is spread out, diluted throughout overwhelming proportion of hydrogen/helium content. So even in later-generation stars, fissioning may be just normal decay rates, and NOT HOT 'chain reaction' rates. :)


Uranium within a working Star retains radioactivity even if diffuse. It's a basic element. It doesn't decay at that stage until it is spewed out. If it becomes part of an aggregation and hasn't lost all of its RA, it will still be capable as fissile material to trigger Fusion in H gas under the right condition
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.8 / 5 (6) Oct 27, 2018
This seems to postulate the presence of 2 gas clouds - one of which becomes a Star, while the other returns to, presumably its origins.


Sigh. No, it doesn't. They are saying that the formation of a solar mass star requires the density of the cloud to be equal to or greater than 10^-18 g/cm^3. There are not two clouds!



"It has been shown that when ρ≲×10−18 g/cm3 the gas cloud of one solar mass expands and returns to the interstellar gas, while the cloud of ρ≳×10−18 g/cm3 contracts to become a star."

Perhaps Hayashi et al speak poor English. But this sentence clearly indicates TWO gas clouds. The one of 1 solar mass expands, while the other gas cloud contracts to become a Star, although the math looks the same.
They also may be comparing the same cloud as differing during either contraction or expansion. But they should have made it more clear. Density is not mentioned, although it may be inferred as contraction.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 27, 2018
Time to walk the dog. Have a good one.
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) Oct 27, 2018
Perhaps Hayashi et al speak poor English. But this sentence clearly indicates TWO gas clouds. The one of 1 solar mass expands, while the other gas cloud contracts to become a Star, although the math looks the same.
They also may be comparing the same cloud as differing during either contraction or expansion. But they should have made it more clear. Density is not mentioned, although it may be inferred as contraction.


Wrong. There is one cloud. And density is mentioned. What do you think rho = 2 x 10^-18 g/cm^3 is a measure of? Velocity? Below that density a star doesn't form. Above that density it will. I understood them perfectly.
granville583762
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 27, 2018
Synchrotron to H-4

Collapsing radiating to 8% plasmatic hydrogen to critical threshold 8% Sun's mass fusion ignites the starry seeds
That's neither the greatest number nor greatest energy release
Nuclear fusion powers stars it's not the fusion of hydrogen into helium
Dwarfs to Giants achieve corely fusion by 4,000,000 K hydrogen through series of reactions, producing, large amounts of helium-4
Proton-proton to deuterium 40% of the reactions releasing 1.44MeV of energy 10.4% of the Sun's total energy
Deuterium proton to helium-3 40% of the reactions releasing 5.49 MeV: 39.5% of the Sun's total energy
Helium-3 helium-3 fusion into helium-4 17% of the reactions 12.86 MeV of energy 39.3% of the Sun's total energy.
Helium-3 helium-4 fusion into two helium-4 3% of the reactions 19.99 MeV of energy 10.8% of the Sun's total energy
https://www.forbe...790f70f9
granville583762
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 27, 2018
2million trillion trillion kg of plasma

A single frozen proton and electron at 0.001K in the vacuum
Requires radioactive ionising radiation from frozen protons and electrons in their lowest energy state
Gravitational force of the proton and electron and electric attractive fields starts the momentum of velocity in electric currents and magnetic fields attracting +protons and -electrons in the vacuum
The initial spark of energy initiated by these electric current and magnetic fields
In spiralling electrons round magnetic field in Synchrotron radiation providing initial radioactive ionising radiation providing 4million K the temperature velocity of collision
BECAUSE
This plasmatic cloud is tenuous it only reach's the density of water
THE SUN is only the DENSITY of WATER
Solar fusion does not require gravitational pressure as proved by solar density of water
AND further PROOF
Collapsing plasmatic clouds require critical threshold of 8% the Sun's mass igniting fusion
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (6) Oct 27, 2018
And yet another trainwreck thread in progress due to the thumpers of the Babble about the super magic sky daddy by the drunken stone age sheep herders. Otherwise known as EUdiots.
granville583762
4 / 5 (8) Oct 27, 2018
Pulling One's Self Up By One's Own Shoe Laces

The proton overcomes its own electric field by utilising its own electric field
The proton simply solves this temperature conundrum
By utilising its own electric field in motion producing the magnetic field
Where its electron simply spirals this magnetic field
Whereby in its acceleration of angular momentum
In Synchrotron radiation
Provide the energy to raise the protons temperature
To the temperature required to reach the velocity
Required to overcome the Coulomb force
The very field that provides the electric currents
That provides the magnetic fields
That the electrons spiral providing the radio-active ionising-energy
The proton needs to overcome its own electric field
In short, the proton overcomes its very own electric field
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 27, 2018
Can we talk about science now?

And not in poetry.
granville583762
4 / 5 (8) Oct 27, 2018
By One's Own Shoe Laces

Some train, some wreck
And yet another trainwreck thread in progress due to the thumpers of the Babble about the super magic sky daddy by the drunken stone age sheep herders. Otherwise known as EUdiots.

So you are saying the protons electric field is "EUdiots!" Da Schneib
Please elaborate Da Schneib
Are ears are all agog
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) Oct 27, 2018
I would suggest that anyone claiming that fusion cannot happen in stars due to lthe temperature being too low, read here;

http://www.jgiese...ture.htm

A pretty straightforward equation.

As for how this fusion occurs, then why not go straight to the chap who won the Nobel Prize for his work in this area, Hans Bethe?

Energy Production in Stars
Bethe, H. A.
https://journals....v.55.434

So, anybody saying that a star cannot get hot enough for nuclear fusion to occur is talking out of their arse. And that is the case with Herndon, who appears to be clueless.

tl;dr? Do the maths.
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) Oct 27, 2018
So, having figured out that stars will initiate fusion from gravitational collapse, let's return to Hayashi & Nakano, and their Fig. 4;

They tell us that point E is when the protostar has a radius of 50 solar radii. We can then look at the equation in the link here;

http://www.jgiese...ture.htm

The only parameter we need to change, for a ballpark figure, is R (radius). As R is the denominator, then we end up with a figure that is ~ 50 x less than than 23 million K, = ~ 400 000 K. Looking at H & N's Fig. 4, we see this is well within an order of magnitude of their temperature for point E.
Herndon must be blind if he couldn't see that H & N were modelling a protostar. I was astonished that his paper has 46 citations in 24 years. However, all but 9 are by himself! The rest seem to bear little relation to what he is prattling on about regarding stellar fusion.

Benni
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 27, 2018
No, RC, again No. You imply here that FISSIONABLE materials (heavier elements) are ONLY elements like uranium, or something near that range of elements from which we make fission bombs.


Hydrogen, too?
.......of course, in fact p-p (diproton) fissioning is the most common form of thermonuclear reaction that exists in the Universe.

Di-proton fusing that doesn't make it to the next step of the fusion chain to form hydrogen decays (fissions) within fractions of a second back to the pre-fusion state of two protons, and in each step energy is released.

The reversion is the result of the di-proton state failing to bond with a neutron to form hydrogen, which if it doesn't becomes unstable because the two positively charged protons will repel one another, a self-fissioning process if you please.

How many of EVERYBODY who has posted above this Comment have ever known what I just described above? None of you have ever brought it up, so I presume none. Hey, RC?
Benni
2.4 / 5 (7) Oct 27, 2018
Earth's center contains materials that can also fission, but very little freely-moving hydrogen sufficiently speedy/hot for fusion into helium like in the sun's hot/speedy dense hydrogen plasma environment. Hence why fusion in sun; but no significant fusion at Earth's core.


Wrong RC, the most common form of fusion is not hydrogen to helium , it is proton to proton (di-proton), it is 50% of all fusion chains inside any star anywhere in the Universe. Read what I just posted above this.
Benni
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 27, 2018
@RC

I am far less interested in the activities going on in the Earth's centre than I am of the Star-making process wrt to the '3 steps' that Dr. Herndon has proposed, namely:
1.collapse and compression
2.Thermonuclear Fission
3.Hydrogen gas into plasma = Fusion

I call it as I see it - and his theory makes perfect sense. All his other theories are of no great consequence, but it is important to know/understand how our Sun and other Stars went through the stages/processes to become what they are - as well as all the implications. Our Solar System is one out of billions, and we must understand why and how these events happen - possibly happening in our own backyard just beyond our SS.


Too bad he didn't go further explaining the state of di-proton thermo-nuclear reactions, as I did above to RC who understands almost zero about thermo-nuclear processes. I mean, if you don't know the dominant fissioning /fusing process, how can you possibly explain the sub-dominant ones?
Benni
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 27, 2018
In a star's/protostar's hot/violent plasma environment, any fissionable material content is spread out, diluted throughout overwhelming proportion of hydrogen/helium content. So even in later-generation stars, fissioning may be just normal decay rates, and NOT HOT 'chain reaction' rates


RC-you just can't stop yourself can you? You are so hung up on H-He that the cloud has made you blind. You, like EVERYONE else Commenting above this post of mine, do not know what percentages of thermo-nuclear reactions are involved in each step.

The conversion of H-He is the smallest fraction of fusion that occurs in stars, about10%. I'd just be willing to bet you thought it was the MOST common reaction didn't you? It's actually the least.
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) Oct 27, 2018
I mean, if you don't know the dominant fissioning /fusing process, how can you possibly explain the sub-dominant ones?


And if you can't even understand what a half-life is, you do not understand nuclear physics. So, why are you still posting? Can't help yourself, eh?

Benni
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 27, 2018
I mean, if you don't know the dominant fissioning /fusing process, how can you possibly explain the sub-dominant ones?


And if you can't even understand what a half-life is, you do not understand nuclear physics. So, why are you still posting? Can't help yourself, eh?
.......coming from the one who just learned from Benni what are the most common & least common forms of fusion in stars. C'mon, followup & tell us: "I always knew that".

jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) Oct 27, 2018
I mean, if you don't know the dominant fissioning /fusing process, how can you possibly explain the sub-dominant ones?


And if you can't even understand what a half-life is, you do not understand nuclear physics. So, why are you still posting? Can't help yourself, eh?
.......coming from the one who just learned from Benni what are the most common & least common forms of fusion in stars. C'mon, followup & tell us: "I always knew that".



Of course I f***ing knew that you prawn! Stellar physics 101. p-p chain, etc. If every bloody 2He formed by p + p decayed into deuterium, we'd have long since used up all the bloody hydrogen in the Sun, you idiot!
Benni
2.7 / 5 (7) Oct 27, 2018
I mean, if you don't know the dominant fissioning /fusing process, how can you possibly explain the sub-dominant ones?


And if you can't even understand what a half-life is, you do not understand nuclear physics. So, why are you still posting? Can't help yourself, eh?
.......coming from the one who just learned from Benni what are the most common & least common forms of fusion in stars. C'mon, followup & tell us: "I always knew that".


Of course I f***ing knew that you prawn!
.....the most common comeback response we ever see by someone who has caught by surprise: "I always knew that".

You novices who "always knew" this stuff are always so reticent about it. Why is this? Why do I so frequently need to be the FIRST to bring up so many of the issues for which you, schneibo, stumpo, WhyGuy, etc, have absolutely no posting history? Yeah, just gotta find some a wiggle room excuse to extricate yourselves from you gross lack of classroom education
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) Oct 27, 2018
.....the most common comeback response we ever see by someone who has caught by surprise: "I always knew that".


Because, you thick bastard, it is well known to anyone that has studied the Sun and stellar evolution. Just because you have only just seen it in Ethan Siegel's blog (which I have had in my bookmarks for years!), does not mean everyone else is as uneducated in physics as you are, you braindead blowhard. What is a half-life again, sh!tforbrains? Maybe you should have Googled that, before shouting off your uneducated mouth, you useless poser. Yes?
jonesdave
3 / 5 (8) Oct 27, 2018
@Benni,

Come on f***wit, who said this;

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


Lol. Or this;

The decay rates of 100 free unbound neutrons created at the same moment in time, all 100 of them will decay at exactly the same precise instant, about 14.7 minutes later. You don't like this immutable law of physics because it kicks the legs out from under the formation of neutron stars.


Lol. Or this, perhaps?

.......Oh, you mean like Jonesy's & Ojo's concept of NEUTRON HALF-LIFE & how one whole neutron can morph into half-a-neutron, and then decay into one-quarter of a neutron, then an eighth...... ad infinitum ?


Oh dear! Stop pretending, you poser. You are thick.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (6) Oct 27, 2018
By One's Own Shoe Laces

Some train, some wreck
And yet another trainwreck thread in progress due to the thumpers of the Babble about the super magic sky daddy by the drunken stone age sheep herders. Otherwise known as EUdiots.

So you are saying the protons electric field is "EUdiots!" Da Schneib
Please elaborate Da Schneib
Are ears are all agog
says granville
Da Shriek IS the train wreck, repeating the same mantra in every forum in which it lurks, spewing things about:
1.Babble
2.super magic sky daddy
3.drunken stone age sheep herders, and
4.EU
This isn't normal behaviour & doesn't add anything of value to the conversation.
Perhaps Schniebo wants in on the conversation to get his ideas across wrt its 4 main concerns as listed above. If it elaborates on these 4 listed items, it will certainly take up the rest of the conversation here.
Shriek will follow us into a subsequent forum to post his main concerns again and again - while shrieking !!SCIENCE!!
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.7 / 5 (7) Oct 27, 2018
I would suggest that anyone claiming that fusion cannot happen in stars due to lthe temperature being too low, read here;

http://www.jgiese...ture.htm

So, anybody saying that a star cannot get hot enough for nuclear fusion to occur is talking out of their arse. And that is the case with Herndon, who appears to be clueless.

tl;dr? Do the maths.


Core temp of the Sun is accurate. While "Energy Production in Stars" (1938) is referring to protostars that have become Stars already, which has nothing to do with the first step of collapse/compression/density of Matter in the disk that allegedly produces heat that is hot enough to begin the process of heating Hydrogen gas to 1 million degrees Celsius to trigger the chain reaction in H gas that leads to Fusion.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 27, 2018
-contd-
In the link provided by jones for "Energy Production in Stars" by Bethe (1938) he (H.A.Bethe)
says this:

"The first main result is that, under present conditions, no elements heavier than helium can be built up to any appreciable extent. Therefore we must assume that the heavier elements were built up before the stars reached their present state of temperature and density. No attempt will be made at speculations about this previous state of stellar matter."

IF, as Bethe says, that "heavier elements were built up before the stars reached their present state of temperature and density.", then due to the belief (in 1938 as now) that only 2 steps were required to form a Star, those heavier elements he refers to would have had to be built up at some point WITHIN the aggregation of Matter in the disk that collapsed/compressed/densified and produced heat.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.7 / 5 (7) Oct 27, 2018
-contd-
Even IF, in the interim while Hydrogen gas was on its way to a temp of 1mC, the heavier elements were produced in the heated Hydrogen gas, the heavier elements that require a temp of 1milliondegrees Celsius could not have formed within the Hydrogen gas until it attained and sustained that temperature.

The point is that it does NOT become a Star until FUSION temp is attained and sustained.
1000 degrees Celsius - too cold
5000 degrees Celsius - still too cold
500k Celsius - still too cold
Benni
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 27, 2018
> jonesy -Ethan Siegel's blog......never heard of him so I went looking. All the guy does is repost stuff from NASA & the like websites. What kind of genius is that? Of course in your world it's normal, normal to discuss topics in high school physics. About your speed with only having a degree in Anthropology from the University of Auckland, NZ.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (4) Oct 27, 2018
So have they figured out there's no fission in stars yet?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 27, 2018
So have they figured out there's no fission in stars yet?
Shriek

No one ever said there was. That means that you are evidently confused.
ESTABLISHED STARS don't and can't use the process of Fission - only Fusion.

granville583762
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 27, 2018
Accelerating protons in pair production in Synchrotron radiation

Photoelectric effect: gamma photon transfers its energy to an atomic electron, causing the ejection of that electron from the atom. The KE of the resulting photoelectron is equal to the energy of the gamma photon minus the energy that originally bound the electron to the atom (binding energy)

Compton scattering: a gamma photon loses enough energy to an atomic electron to cause its ejection, with the remainder energy emitted as a new, lower energy gamma photon emitted in a different direction, hence scattering

Pair production: interaction with the nucleus electric field, the energy converted into the mass of an electron-positron pair. Any gamma energy appears as the kinetic energy of the pair and in the recoil of the emitting nucleus. At the end of the positron's range, it combines with a free electron, and the two annihilate, and the entire mass of these two is then converted into two gamma photons.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (8) Oct 27, 2018
> jonesy -Ethan Siegel's blog......never heard of him so I went looking. All the guy does is repost stuff from NASA & the like websites. What kind of genius is that? Of course in your world it's normal, normal to discuss topics in high school physics. About your speed with only having a degree in Anthropology from the University of Auckland, NZ.


Still here thicko? Go away, and figure out what a half-life is loser. Lol.
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) Oct 27, 2018
Core temp of the Sun is accurate. While "Energy Production in Stars" (1938) is referring to protostars that have become Stars already, which has nothing to do with the first step of collapse/compression/density of Matter in the disk that allegedly produces heat that is hot enough to begin the process of heating Hydrogen gas to 1 million degrees Celsius to trigger the chain reaction in H gas that leads to Fusion


Thick swine. Look at Fig. 4 in H & N, you mathematically illiterate moron, and then do the maths as the density increases, and the radius decreases. Jesus, what is wrong with these idiots?

granville583762
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 27, 2018
SEU> In the link provided by jones for "Energy Production in Stars" by Bethe (1938) he (H.A.Bethe)

The relevance in 1938, 80 years ago, is not the same relevance in 2018 SEU
jonesdave
3 / 5 (8) Oct 27, 2018
IF, as Bethe says, that "heavier elements were built up before the stars reached their present state of temperature and density.", then due to the belief (in 1938 as now) that only 2 steps were required to form a Star, those heavier elements he refers to would have had to be built up at some point WITHIN the aggregation of Matter in the disk that collapsed/compressed/densified and produced heat.


No, you pillock, they would have to have been formed in much more massive stars, which then explode as supernovae, and seed the local galaxy with heavy elements. The hell is the matter with you? Does every single obvious point need to be spelled out for you?
granville583762
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 27, 2018
Or does science stop the date the report was written?
jonesdave
3 / 5 (8) Oct 27, 2018
-contd-
Even IF, in the interim while Hydrogen gas was on its way to a temp of 1mC, the heavier elements were produced in the heated Hydrogen gas, the heavier elements that require a temp of 1milliondegrees Celsius could not have formed within the Hydrogen gas until it attained and sustained that temperature.

The point is that it does NOT become a Star until FUSION temp is attained and sustained.
1000 degrees Celsius - too cold
5000 degrees Celsius - still too cold
500k Celsius - still too cold


Again, you idiot, look at Fig. 4 in H & N. This is schoolboy stuff, with schoolboy maths. What the hell is wrong with you? Do you need me to extrapolate that Figure, just so the hard of thinking can understand it? Print it out. Get a ruler. Continue line E-F until you reach higher densities. Read what they bloody wrote. The star then evolves toward the main sequence via contraction. As R becomes less, T becomes higher. Understand?
Da Schneib
3.6 / 5 (7) Oct 27, 2018
ESTABLISHED STARS
First stop shouting. I can see you fine.

Second, there's no fission in protostars either. It's not needed. You get plenty of heat from the pressure. The ideal gas law, pV=nRT, is the one you want. Note carefully that pressure and volume are on the left side, and temperature on the right.

Third, if you were going to bloviate about this stuff you should have already known the ideal gas law. Next time get edumacated before you post on the physics forum where people are likely to notice you don't know your azz from a hole in the ground.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (9) Oct 27, 2018
So have they figured out there's no fission in stars yet?
Shriek

No one ever said there was. That means that you are evidently confused.
ESTABLISHED STARS don't and can't use the process of Fission - only Fusion.



And there is no need for fission full stop. It is a non-hypothesis, that nobody takes seriously. It is dumb.
Benni
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 27, 2018
So have they figured out there's no fission in stars yet?


"Di-proton fusing that doesn't make it to the next step of the fusion chain to form hydrogen decays (fissions) within fractions of a second back to the pre-fusion state of two protons, and in each step energy is released.

The reversion is the result of the di-proton state failing to bond with a neutron to form hydrogen, which if it doesn't becomes unstable because the two positively charged protons will repel one another, a self-fissioning process if you please. " ( quoting myself)

granville583762
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 27, 2018
Starry fusion with a whimper
Benni, I knew there is a mechanism accelerating protons in synchrotron radiation and apparently there is
Synchrotron radiation gamma radiation interacting with the protons magnetic field
Any gamma energy appears as the kinetic energy of the pair and in the recoil of the emitting nucleus
https://en.wikipe...amma_ray
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 27, 2018
@Lenni_The_Liar is denying the ideal gas law. I don't even have to read its post to know that, and I haven't bothered.

@Lenni_The_Liar isn't smart enough to figure how easily the ideal gas law can be tested in the laboratory, nor how likely it is that every physicist with a degree has done it or seen it done. That's because it's a janitor.
granville583762
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 27, 2018
The key to fusion
Accelerating protons in plasma the density of water where Gravity is zero at the centre of mass
Does not give much scope for immense gravitational pressure, now does, be honest, with gravity at zero in the centre of this plasmatic cloud.
Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (7) Oct 27, 2018
@granny, you forgot the ideal gas law.

See, if I was a teacher, I could give detention to idiots like this and make them write the ideal gas law a thousand times to make sure they didn't forget it.
Benni
2.5 / 5 (8) Oct 27, 2018
Second, there's no fission in protostars either. It's not needed. You get plenty of heat from the pressure. The ideal gas law, pV=nRT is the one you want. Note carefully that pressure and volume are on the left side, and temperature on the right.


.....suddenly you believe in a closed boundary system of Entropy. The V of the closed space is a constant that must be defined, as well as the contents along with the kinetic theory of gases describing a gas as large numbers of particles which are in constant, rapid, random motion. The randomness of entropy comes from the many collisions the gases have with each other and with the walls of the container. Ok schneibo, transfer this to what we observe on the Sun.

if you were going to bloviate about this stuff you should have already known the ideal gas law. Next time get edumacated before you post on the physics forum where people are likely to notice you don't know your azz from a hole in the ground.
...you too.
granville583762
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 27, 2018
The reason this plasmatic cloud is only at the density of water demonstrates how feeble gravity is
It is not heating protons up to 4million K and high velocities with immense pressure
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (10) Oct 27, 2018
So have they figured out there's no fission in stars yet?


"Di-proton fusing that doesn't make it to the next step of the fusion chain to form hydrogen decays (fissions) within fractions of a second back to the pre-fusion state of two protons, and in each step energy is released.

The reversion is the result of the di-proton state failing to bond with a neutron to form hydrogen, which if it doesn't becomes unstable because the two positively charged protons will repel one another, a self-fissioning process if you please. " ( quoting myself)



And................? What is the net energy gain of p + p -> 2He -> p + p? What is your point? The only reaction we are interested in is when p + p -> 2He -> 2H + e+ + ve + 0.42 MeV.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 27, 2018
@Lenni_The_Liar is denying the ideal gas law again. And again I'm not even going to bother to read it. I'll maybe check up about April or May of next year. It will be misusing the ideal gas law by then, and it will probably be funny again.
granville583762
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 27, 2018
This plasmatic cloud occupying the vacuum is a frigid 0.001K
@granny, you forgot the ideal gas law.
See, if I was a teacher, I could give detention to idiots like this and make them write the ideal gas law a thousand times to make sure they didn't forget it.

This plasmatic cloud is a frigid 0.001K
This cloud only rises above 0.001K after fusion starts
And fusion has not started yet
granville583762
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 27, 2018
This cloud is the density of water and the equivalent of the frigid ice particle conditions of the Ort cloud
I don't see any fusion like temperatures in the Ort cloud, or Pluto for that matter
granville583762
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 27, 2018
When this cloud is described as the density of water this is the final end product, as there are only ice particles within this cloud that are the density of water, with empty spaces between ice particles
This cloud is still like the Ort cloud – Frozen solid at 0.001 K.
RealityCheck
2.2 / 5 (6) Oct 27, 2018
@S_E_U.
Uranium within a working Star retains radioactivity even if diffuse. It's a basic element. It doesn't decay at that stage until it is spewed out. If it becomes part of an aggregation and hasn't lost all of its RA, it will still be capable as fissile material...
Here in OZ we produce a concentrated form of Uranium ore called 'Yellowcake". I can hold a lump of it in my hand and NOT feel 'high temps'. It's only when its further refined and concentrated further into a lump of 'critical mass' metal, does ENERGETIC 'chain reaction' decay starts, and produces neutrons/radiation/heat enough to produce high temps. So, EVEN IN LATER GENERATION STARS containing some uranium etc, the 'dilute' Uranium etc cannot produce any high temps, only occasional neutron/radiation/heat per unit volume spread thin within vastly greater proportions of hydrogen, helium, iron, silicon, sulphur,oxygen, nitrogen, carbon etc. Only gravitational compression/hydrogen fusion will do it. Ok? :)
Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (6) Oct 27, 2018
Here's a hint about how the ideal gas law works: temperature, pressure, and volume are state variables. It's not simple algebra kids.
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 27, 2018
@Benni.
The conversion of H-He is the smallest fraction of fusion that occurs in stars, about10%. I'd just be willing to bet you thought it was the MOST common reaction didn't you? It's actually the least.
In this instance both @jonedave and @Da Schneib are correct and you incorrect, Benni. :)

Consider:

- hydrogen-to-helium fusion releases the most energy per reactant inputs.

- its a fusion CHAIN process that 'seesaws' between formation/destruction RATES which overall leans towards a NET formation rate greater than destruction rate.

- a gravitationally collapsing stellar mass creates its own containment system for heat/radiation, so your 'entropy' etc counter-arguments don't help; since HEAT/ENERGY LOSS is LAGGED; to give a star's Gravityl/E-M BALANCED system 'equilibrium' state.

- if no gravitational compression/containment assisted fusion was possible, there never would have been stars at all; and your/SEU's heavier 'fissile' materials argument would be moot. :)
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 27, 2018
Here's a hint about how the ideal gas law works: temperature, pressure, and volume are state variables. It's not simple algebra kids.

Well the temperature is 0.001K, The pressure - there is no pressure as this cloud is identical to the Ort cloud
Where the volume - this tenuous frozen solid cloud is measured in light years
Plug these variables into the ideal gas law, it's only going to add a few tenths of a percentage on to the already frigid 0.001K multiplied by 0.1% say an increase from 0.001K to 0.001001K, its hardly going to break the bank.
I won't lose any sleep over any theoretical increase to a blistering 0.001001K, when the temperatures required are 4,000,000K
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 27, 2018
Or does science stop the date the report was written?


Only within the mind of jones. jonesybonesy is firmly affixed to old, outdated stuff, and if anyone dares to mention any new discoveries in his presence -- off with his head.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 27, 2018
You can't just plug them in. You can't change their relationship without adding or subtracting energy. That's what being state variables means. That's why it's not simple algebra.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) Oct 27, 2018
Or does science stop the date the report was written?


Only within the mind of jones. jonesybonesy is firmly affixed to old, outdated stuff, and if anyone dares to mention any new discoveries in his presence -- off with his head.


What new discoveries? All you people ever do is come out with scientifically illiterate nonsense. You don't understand the subjects you comment upon.
Benni
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 27, 2018
So have they figured out there's no fission in stars yet?


"Di-proton fusing that doesn't make it to the next step of the fusion chain to form hydrogen decays (fissions) within fractions of a second back to the pre-fusion state of two protons, and in each step energy is released.

The reversion is the result of the di-proton state failing to bond with a neutron to form hydrogen, which if it doesn't becomes unstable because the two positively charged protons will repel one another, a self-fissioning process if you please. " ( quoting myself)


The only reaction we are interested in is when p + p -> 2He -> 2H + e+ + ve + 0.42 MeV.

......of course it's the "only reaction" YOU are interested in, and it's ONLY because you are oblivious to many other thermo-nuclear processes that occur inside stars. Until I pointed it out, you never knew that most proton to proton fusion forming a diproton results in diproton self-fission, no bullet needed.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 27, 2018
ESTABLISHED STARS
First stop shouting. I can see you fine.

Second, there's no fission in protostars either. It's not needed. You get plenty of heat from the pressure. The ideal gas law, pV=nRT, is the one you want. Note carefully that pressure and volume are on the left side, and temperature on the right.

Third, if you were going to bloviate about this stuff you should have already known the ideal gas law. Next time get edumacated before you post on the physics forum where people are likely to notice you don't know your azz from a hole in the ground.


Educamacated -- hmmm after reading through so many of SpookyOtto's past comments, I noticed that one of his favorite bombs to throw at the unwary was 'edumacated'.
hmm hmmm - could it be that DaSchnieb is also one of SpookyOtto's hundred or so socks?
Or is Da Shriek only a copycat using words that others have used in order to sound more relevant??
I do recall using the word 'bloviate' once in physorg -
granville583762
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 27, 2018
Gravity is not the original cause of fusion

There is no pressure in this plasmatic cloud and there never will be, where gravity is zero at the centre of mass
This means tenuous plasma with a couple of dozen protons every cubic metre floating virtually weightless in the vacuum where what nonexistent gravitational force exists, is zero at the centre of this tenuous cloud
This is the point of discussion
As this frozen 0.001K cloud is glowing in synchrotron radiation which theoretically is measured in millions of degrees, which is the point of discussion – it's coming from synchrotron radiation gamma-rays in radio-active and ionising-radiation as gravity has yet to get a look in
Fusion starts before the collapse, and fusion counteract any gravitational force slowing down the already minisculely slow contraction
Gravity is not the cause of fusion, gravity only serves to hold this fusion ball together once fusion commences
jonesdave
3 / 5 (8) Oct 27, 2018
......of course it's the "only reaction" YOU are interested in, and it's ONLY because you are oblivious to many other thermo-nuclear processes that occur inside stars. Until I pointed it out, you never knew that most proton to proton fusion forming a diproton results in diproton self-fission, no bullet needed.


No, believe it or not you thick bastard, anybody that knows anything about the p-p chain knows that. WTF is the matter with you, child? Dunning-kruger playing up again? Some of us have actually studied these things, as opposed to ignorant posers like you who have just discovered something on a blog, and think you have unearthed some great, unknown fact! It is in Wikipedia, you f***ing ignorant clown. Why do you think our star will last as long as it will? Because p-p fusion is veeerrry inefficient. Did you not attend undergrad physics? Too busy flipping burgers, eh? Idiot.

Whydening Gyre
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 27, 2018
@Lenni_The_Liar is denying the ideal gas law again. And again I'm not even going to bother to read it. I'll maybe check up about April or May of next year. It will be misusing the ideal gas law by then, and it will probably be funny again.

Just as he misuses the ISL...
Benni
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 27, 2018
Here's a hint about how the ideal gas law works: temperature, pressure, and volume are state variables. It's not simple algebra kids.
......you don't even know what is meant by "state variables". You're just hoping it means one thing when it actually means something far different than the context you are trying to concoct.

jonesdave
3 / 5 (8) Oct 27, 2018
......of course it's the "only reaction" YOU are interested in, and it's ONLY because you are oblivious to many other thermo-nuclear processes that occur inside stars. Until I pointed it out, you never knew that most proton to proton fusion forming a diproton results in diproton self-fission, no bullet needed.


And this is the cretin who doesn't even understand what a half-life is! Lol, you have to laugh at the sad creature.
Benni
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 27, 2018
Gravity is not the original cause of fusion

There is no pressure in this plasmatic cloud and there never will be, where gravity is zero at the centre of mass
.....must be true, we do it right here on planet Earth in the presence of Earth gravity.......hmmm, we must be breaking some of those Immutable Laws of Pop-Cosmology fantasy.....right WhyGuy?

Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 27, 2018
So have they figured out there's no fission in stars yet?
Shriek

No one ever said there was. That means that you are evidently confused.
ESTABLISHED STARS don't and can't use the process of Fission - only Fusion.

And there is no need for fission full stop. It is a non-hypothesis, that nobody takes seriously. It is dumb.
says jones

Full stop, eh? Borrowed that one from Captain Chickenshit, did you? Oh, of course you did.

Your opinion of the process of fission as an intermediary bomb to trigger Fusion in Hydrogen will turn out to be incorrect, I am certain. So we shall see if Dr. Herndon and his theory will be properly vindicated in the near future.
You believe that all it takes for Hydrogen to fuse into Helium is pressure/density/collapse of Matter in the disk, and that the temperature could possibly get to over 1 million Celsius? ROFLOL Out in the coldness of Space where heat dissipates? LOL
That Hydrogen is not inside a Tokamak, you know.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (8) Oct 27, 2018
Gravity is not the original cause of fusion

There is no pressure in this plasmatic cloud and there never will be, where gravity is zero at the centre of mass
.....must be true, we do it right here on planet Earth in the presence of Earth gravity.......hmmm, we must be breaking some of those Immutable Laws of Pop-Cosmology fantasy.....right WhyGuy?



Why don't you STFU about subjects that you are clearly clueless about, you posing tosser?
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) Oct 27, 2018
You believe that all it takes for Hydrogen to fuse into Helium is pressure/density/collapse of Matter in the disk, and that the temperature could possibly get to over 1 million Celsius? ROFLOL Out in the coldness of Space where heat dissipates? LOL


Do the maths, you thick prick. It is not what I believe, it is what every single scientist qualified in the subject will tell you, you ignorant prat. And Herndon is clearly a f***wit. As are you, you scientifically illiterate oaf.

granville583762
4 / 5 (8) Oct 27, 2018
What energy at 0.001K
You can't just plug them in. You can't change their relationship without adding or subtracting energy. That's what being state variables means. That's why it's not simple algebra.

subtracting and adding energy, what energy at 0.001K
These frozen pristine protons, frozen dust grains
The only energy comes when protons as charge in motion with electrons spiralling the magnetic fields producing gamma rays, the proton is frozen solid as it has to extract energy from its electric field and only the electron is capable of that in gamma rays.
There is no energy in this vacuum except, what exists in the protons and electrons electric field
This is not the same as ideal gas law!
These protons are existing at absolute zero temperature and at absolute zero energy in the vacuum where these protons have to find energy, or fusion will not happen
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) Oct 27, 2018
Out in the coldness of Space where heat dissipates? LOL


Do you know what opacity means in this context, you ignorant tosspot? No, you don't because you are clueless about the subject, and science in general, aren't you? Always have been. Crap at maths as well, no doubt. Just like the idiot Benni. Got a chip on your shoulder about it, eh? Jealous of all the other kids who were waaaaaay smarter than you? It has caused serious mental issues, and you try to make yourself feel better by coming on here, talking sh!t, and pretending that you understand things that you don't. Failing to realise that you are continually making a complete tit of yourself. Correct?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.7 / 5 (7) Oct 27, 2018
You believe that all it takes for Hydrogen to fuse into Helium is pressure/density/collapse of Matter in the disk, and that the temperature could possibly get to over 1 million Celsius? ROFLOL Out in the coldness of Space where heat dissipates? LOL


Do the maths, you thick prick. It is not what I believe, it is what every single scientist qualified in the subject will tell you, you ignorant prat. And Herndon is clearly a f***wit. As are you, you scientifically illiterate oaf.



And every scientist who believes in such stupidity that the collapse/compression/densifying of Matter will result in over 1 million degrees Celsius out in the coldness of Space has to have a screw loose - an YOU along with them.
If that were the case, then anywhere in the MW there will be Stars popping up as long as there is Matter aggregating under those conditions.
Such things have never been observed - thus, no evidence for it.
granville583762
3.9 / 5 (8) Oct 27, 2018
If you gravitationally compress absolute zero temperature and at absolute zero energy into a smaller space in the vacuum what have you got?
You have got what you started with - absolute zero temperature and at absolute zero energy into a smaller space!
The ideal gas law cannot work in these conditions in the vacuum!
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (6) Oct 27, 2018
The vacuum is correct. Space is too cold for a spontaneous combustion that will get up to such a temperature to begin the process of Fusion in Hydrogen gas. That Matter is not enclosed that the heat will remain and not be sucked out into Space. It needs a bomb to get it to such a temperature that Hydrogen gas "feels" the effects from it.
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) Oct 27, 2018

And every scientist who believes in such stupidity that the collapse/compression/densifying of Matter will result in over 1 million degrees Celsius out in the coldness of Space has to have a screw loose - an YOU along with them.
If that were the case, then anywhere in the MW there will be Stars popping up as long as there is Matter aggregating under those conditions.
Such things have never been observed - thus, no evidence for it.


F*** me you are thick! Yes, all scientists are wrong, an an uneducated tosser like you is right. Got it. Now f*** off you useless piece of crap.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) Oct 27, 2018
I would like all these fission dickheads to explain what material they are using for fission, and where the tosspots are getting it from? Yes? Come along children, let's have the fairy story. Idiots.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (6) Oct 27, 2018
Scientists can be wrong, yes? If they were correct 100% of the time, there would not longer a need to fund them. They could just hand in their papers and be accepted automatically.
But they are wrong in this regard. They are just way too thick and unaccepting of an alternative truth, that is far more logical than what they have posited all these years.
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) Oct 27, 2018
The vacuum is correct. Space is too cold for a spontaneous combustion that will get up to such a temperature to begin the process of Fusion in Hydrogen gas. That Matter is not enclosed that the heat will remain and not be sucked out into Space. It needs a bomb to get it to such a temperature that Hydrogen gas "feels" the effects from it.


Jesus, what an uneducated twat! Why do you comment on these stories? It is obviously waaaaaaaaaaay beyond your understanding? Mental illness, I'm guessing.
I already asked you - what does opacity mean in this context, thicko? Read the Hayashi paper. I realise it isn't written in crayon, but give it a try, you cretin.
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) Oct 27, 2018
But they are wrong in this regard. They are just way too thick and unaccepting of an alternative truth, that is far more logical than what they have posited all these years.


Yes, all these PhDs are thicker than you! And there is no alternate truth, you f***wit. Where is your fissionable material? Where did it come from, you ignorant tosser? Any answers, or just more uneducated word salad?

Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (6) Oct 27, 2018
jones doesn't seem to understand that Fissionable material such as 235Uranium is in the form of dust aggregating within the dust clouds. jones seems to think that Uranium, for example, is a rare commodity that can't possibly be hanging around in Matter within the disk. Why, it must have gone underground to hide from the heat from the combustive material that is about to set Hydrogen on fire....out in the coldness of the Vacuum of Space. Brrrrrr
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) Oct 27, 2018
jones doesn't seem to understand that Fissionable material such as 235Uranium is in the form of dust aggregating within the dust clouds. jones seems to think that Uranium, for example, is a rare commodity that can't possibly be hanging around in Matter within the disk. Why, it must have gone underground to hide from the heat from the combustive material that is about to set Hydrogen on fire....out in the coldness of the Vacuum of Space. Brrrrrr


Where did it come from, you idiot?
granville583762
4 / 5 (8) Oct 27, 2018
Protons in smaller and smaller spaces and still frigid
SEU> The vacuum is correct. Space is too cold for a spontaneous combustion that will get up to such a temperature to begin the process of Fusion in Hydrogen gas. That Matter is not enclosed that the heat will remain and not be sucked out into Space. It needs a bomb to get it to such a temperature that Hydrogen gas "feels" the effects from it.

SEU, Are you starting to see what this vacuous vacuum of space at absolute zero temperature and at absolute zero energy in all reality means
Compress protons into smaller spaces under these conditions are not applicable to ideal gas laws, as you have just got what you started with, protons in smaller spaces
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.7 / 5 (7) Oct 27, 2018
jones' "opacity" = the condition of lacking transparency. And what has opacity to do with your automatic combustion of ice cold Matter to burn Hydrogen in the coldness of Space? Which is transparent? Matter? Hydrogen gas is, but that goes without saying.
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) Oct 27, 2018
out in the coldness of the Vacuum of Space. Brrrrrr


Opacity, you ignorant f***wit. Read the Hayashi paper, badger brain.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 27, 2018
Protons in smaller and smaller spaces and still frigid
SEU> The vacuum is correct. Space is too cold for a spontaneous combustion that will get up to such a temperature to begin the process of Fusion in Hydrogen gas. That Matter is not enclosed that the heat will remain and not be sucked out into Space. It needs a bomb to get it to such a temperature that Hydrogen gas "feels" the effects from it.

SEU, Are you starting to see what this vacuous vacuum of space at absolute zero temperature and at absolute zero energy in all reality means
Compress protons into smaller spaces under these conditions are not applicable to ideal gas laws, as you have just got what you started with, protons in smaller spaces
granville

Understood. And I agree, granville.
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) Oct 27, 2018
jones' "opacity" = the condition of lacking transparency. And what has opacity to do with your automatic combustion of ice cold Matter to burn Hydrogen in the coldness of Space? Which is transparent? Matter? Hydrogen gas is, but that goes without saying.


Christ you are thick! Did you even get through high school? I seriously doubt it.
Once the protostar gets a dense enough core, it becomes opaque. The photons that were previously escaping are trapped. It heats up. Comprende? Probably not.

http://www.astron...L14.html
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) Oct 27, 2018
Christ, all these uneducated tossers, with their arguments from incredulity and plain ignorance! No maths, no science, just ignorance and incredulity. Sad muppets.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 27, 2018
jones doesn't seem to understand that Fissionable material such as 235Uranium is in the form of dust aggregating within the dust clouds. jones seems to think that Uranium, for example, is a rare commodity that can't possibly be hanging around in Matter within the disk. Why, it must have gone underground to hide from the heat from the combustive material that is about to set Hydrogen on fire....out in the coldness of the Vacuum of Space. Brrrrrr


Where did it come from, you idiot?
says jones

Uranium and other fissionable material is created in Stars and supernovae, obviously. They get tossed out into the blackness of Space during a SN, and there they float - looking for a way to get back into a Star or as part of a planet.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.8 / 5 (6) Oct 27, 2018
jones doesn't seem to understand that Fissionable material such as 235Uranium is in the form of dust aggregating within the dust clouds. jones seems to think that Uranium, for example, is a rare commodity that can't possibly be hanging around in Matter within the disk. Why, it must have gone underground to hide from the heat from the combustive material that is about to set Hydrogen on fire....out in the coldness of the Vacuum of Space. Brrrrrr


Where did it come from, you idiot?
says jones

Uranium and other fissionable material is created in Stars and supernovae, obviously. They get tossed out into the blackness of Space during a SN, and there they float - looking for a way to get back into a Star or as part of a planet.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.8 / 5 (6) Oct 27, 2018
jones doesn't seem to understand that Fissionable material such as 235Uranium is in the form of dust aggregating within the dust clouds. jones seems to think that Uranium, for example, is a rare commodity that can't possibly be hanging around in Matter within the disk. Why, it must have gone underground to hide from the heat from the combustive material that is about to set Hydrogen on fire....out in the coldness of the Vacuum of Space. Brrrrrr


Where did it come from, you idiot?
says jones

Uranium and other fissionable material is created in Stars and supernovae, obviously. They get tossed out into the blackness of Space during a SN, and there they float - looking for a way to get back into a Star or as part of a planet.
granville583762
4 / 5 (8) Oct 27, 2018
SEU> Fissionable material such as 235Uranium is in the form of dust aggregating within the dust clouds

Is not Uranium235, a naturally occurring material found on earth, so it exist in the dust clouds aggregating into stars and planets which is where earth came from
I sense a circular argument in the making here SEU…
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) Oct 27, 2018
jones doesn't seem to understand that Fissionable material such as 235Uranium is in the form of dust aggregating within the dust clouds. jones seems to think that Uranium, for example, is a rare commodity that can't possibly be hanging around in Matter within the disk. Why, it must have gone underground to hide from the heat from the combustive material that is about to set Hydrogen on fire....out in the coldness of the Vacuum of Space. Brrrrrr


Where did it come from, you idiot?
says jones

Uranium and other fissionable material is created in Stars and supernovae, obviously. They get tossed out into the blackness of Space during a SN, and there they float - looking for a way to get back into a Star or as part of a planet.


And how can those stars which produced the U-235 have become stars? After all, in the beginning, there were only light elements, you numpty. Where did the first U-235 come from?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (4) Oct 27, 2018
sorry for the extra posts
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) Oct 27, 2018
....looking for a way to get back into a Star or as part of a planet.


WTF? Are we ascribing intelligence to these materials now?
Benni
2.5 / 5 (8) Oct 27, 2018
jones doesn't seem to understand that Fissionable material such as 235Uranium is in the form of dust aggregating within the dust clouds. jones seems to think that Uranium, for example, is a rare commodity that can't possibly be hanging around in Matter within the disk. Why, it must have gone underground to hide from the heat from the combustive material that is about to set Hydrogen on fire....out in the coldness of the Vacuum of Space. Brrrrrr


On the money, the dust was there before the star & interstellar dust is not a monolithic substance, it's everything on the periodic table.

Egg, I never heard of this guy before you brought him up. What I can tell you, it's an open secret among many renown scientists working in nuclear physics that gravitational collapse can never cause fusion. The day will come when somebody BIG lays down their cards & bows out of the game, then it may snowball after that, until then it will be the pain of the slow drip.
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) Oct 27, 2018
What I can tell you, it's an open secret among many renown scientists working in nuclear physics that gravitational collapse can never cause fusion.


Haha. Do you ever stop lying, you thick tosser? How would you know? Hmmm? You are a janitor, or some such.

Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 27, 2018
jones' "opacity" = the condition of lacking transparency. And what has opacity to do with your automatic combustion of ice cold Matter to burn Hydrogen in the coldness of Space? Which is transparent? Matter? Hydrogen gas is, but that goes without saying.


Christ you are thick! Did you even get through high school? I seriously doubt it.
Once the protostar gets a dense enough core, it becomes opaque. The photons that were previously escaping are trapped. It heats up. Comprende? Probably not.

http://www.astron...L14.html
says jones

You are getting way ahead of the situation. Do try to get with the program, yes?
The protostar doesn't exist yet. We are still at the stage just before Hydrogen gas is ignited. Now what is it that ignited the gas before it begins to burn hot enough to attain Fusion, eh? Is it the spontaneous combustion of collected Matter that has collapsed, etc.? What did the deed?
Benni
2.2 / 5 (9) Oct 27, 2018
jones doesn't seem to understand that Fissionable material such as 235Uranium is in the form of dust aggregating within the dust clouds. jones seems to think that Uranium,


Where did it come from, you idiot?
says jones

Uranium and other fissionable material is created in Stars and supernovae, obviously. They get tossed out into the blackness of Space during a SN, and there they float - looking for a way to get back into a Star or as part of a planet.


And how can those stars which produced the U-235 have become stars? After all, in the beginning, there were only light elements, you numpty. Where did the first U-235 come from?


......."in the beginning", you need to be more cognizant of the kinds of books you're reading, obviously you are a recovering fundie who still can't let go of certain catch phrases unique to their source of knowledge.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) Oct 27, 2018
The protostar doesn't exist yet. We are still at the stage just before Hydrogen gas is ignited.


WTF are you talking about you clueless idiot. There is no fusion in a protostar! The protostar is not fusing anything. Read the Hayashi paper, you illiterate freak. The cloud collapses. Density increases, as does temperature. The core becomes opaque. It heats up. Still no fusion, you thick pillock. As it collapses further, and becomes denser still, the temperature keeps rising. Then fusion occurs, and the protostar is no longer a protostar, you buffoon, it is on the main sequence.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.7 / 5 (7) Oct 27, 2018
SEU> Fissionable material such as 235Uranium is in the form of dust aggregating within the dust clouds

Is not Uranium235, a naturally occurring material found on earth, so it exist in the dust clouds aggregating into stars and planets which is where earth came from
I sense a circular argument in the making here SEU…
says granville

LOL Absolutely. And jones is running around in circles - chasing his tail and barking like a flea-bitten hound.
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) Oct 27, 2018
"in the beginning", you need to be more cognizant of the kinds of books you're reading, obviously you are a recovering fundie who still can't let go of certain catch phrases unique to their source of knowledge.


F*** off you ignorant tosspot. I have never been religious. And what are you still doing here you ignorant piece of sh!t? Figured out what a half-life is yet, bozo? Lol.

Benni
2.3 / 5 (9) Oct 27, 2018
What I can tell you, it's an open secret among many renown scientists working in nuclear physics that gravitational collapse can never cause fusion.


Haha. Do you ever stop lying, you thick tosser? How would you know? Hmmm? You are a janitor, or some such.


What I know is that YOU never having professionally been employed in ANY discipline of science, could never know this because none of them are about to waste even a minute of time with someone who has only a degree in Anthropology.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.7 / 5 (7) Oct 27, 2018
jones doesn't seem to understand that Fissionable material such as 235Uranium is in the form of dust aggregating within the dust clouds. jones seems to think that Uranium, for example, is a rare commodity that can't possibly be hanging around in Matter within the disk. Why, it must have gone underground to hide from the heat from the combustive material that is about


Where did it come from, you idiot?
says jones

Uranium and other fissionable material is created in Stars and supernovae, obviously. They get tossed out into the blackness of Space during a SN, and there they float - looking for a way to get back into a Star or as part of a planet.


And how can those stars which produced the U-235 have become stars? After all, in the beginning, there were only light elements, you numpty. Where did the first U-235 come from?


According to your scientists, there was a Big Bang - or was it a small whimper?
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) Oct 27, 2018
LOL Absolutely. And jones is running around in circles - chasing his tail and barking like a flea-bitten hound.


How did the Uranium form, you thick twat? Just got magicked into existence, did it? If it needs supernovae, then where was the U-235 to create the first star that went supernova to create the Uranium, you f***ing clown. Christ you people are thick.

jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) Oct 27, 2018
According to your scientists, there was a Big Bang - or was it a small whimper?


You are so f***ing thick, you tosser! No U-235 was created in the BB, you moron. What is it with you imbeciles? Do you really think you understand science? Seriously? You are cretins, without a clue. Why do you come here? Do you enjoy making yourselves look like the gormless idiots that you obviously are? Uranium from the BB! f*** me! Lol.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.7 / 5 (7) Oct 27, 2018
jones doesn't seem to understand that Fissionable material such as 235Uranium is in the form of dust aggregating within the dust clouds. jones seems to think that Uranium, for example, is a rare commodity that can't possibly be hanging around in Matter within the disk. Why, it must have gone underground to hide from the heat from the combustive material that is about to set Hydrogen on fire


On the money, the dust was there before the star & interstellar dust is not a monolithic substance, it's everything on the periodic table.

Egg, I never heard of this guy before you brought him up. What I can tell you, it's an open secret among many renown scientists working in nuclear physics that gravitational collapse can never cause fusion. The day will come when somebody BIG lays down their cards & bows out of the game, then it may snowball after that, until then it will be the pain of the slow drip.


LOL We can afford to wait, Benni. It will set science on its ear.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.7 / 5 (7) Oct 27, 2018
....looking for a way to get back into a Star or as part of a planet.


WTF? Are we ascribing intelligence to these materials now?
says jones

ROFLOL Toooo funny you are, jonesybonesy
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) Oct 27, 2018
LOL We can afford to wait, Benni. It will set science on its ear.


Not going to happen, sh!tforbrains. Benni is lying. As usual. This is pretty much settled science, which is why you won't find people questioning it. At least, nobody sane. Laws of physics, don't you know?.
granville583762
4 / 5 (8) Oct 27, 2018
Open secrets
BenniWhat I can tell you, it's an open secret among many renown scientists working in nuclear physics that gravitational collapse can never cause fusion


Secrets of the mind
These open secrets must be unconsciously invasive
But only to those who know the secrets of the vacuous vacuum
When a critical mass around the world
Speak as one
Then everyone thinks the same
As all the theories conglomerate
As the thoughts travel the earthly Aethers
Then everyone thinks the same
As the ghosts return to ground
Then all the house be still
Till Granville in his wisdom
Concocts another theory
Then the rampage
Starts anew
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) Oct 27, 2018
What I can tell you, it's an open secret among many renown scientists working in nuclear physics that gravitational collapse can never cause fusion.


Haha. Do you ever stop lying, you thick tosser? How would you know? Hmmm? You are a janitor, or some such.


What I know is that YOU never having professionally been employed in ANY discipline of science, could never know this because none of them are about to waste even a minute of time with someone who has only a degree in Anthropology.


So how come I know far more about physics than you, you lying piece of sh!t? Because you have never studied any science, and are a janitor. Correct, D-K boy? What is a half-life, imbecile? Lol.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (8) Oct 27, 2018
LOL Absolutely. And jones is running around in circles - chasing his tail and barking like a flea-bitten hound.


How did the Uranium form, you thick twat? Just got magicked into existence, did it? If it needs supernovae, then where was the U-235 to create the first star that went supernova to create the Uranium, you f***ing clown. Christ you people are thick.

says jones

In The Beginning, G-d said, "Let there be Light". And there was Light.
Benni
2.2 / 5 (9) Oct 27, 2018
The cloud collapses. Density increases, as does temperature. The core becomes opaque. It heats up. Still no fusion. As it collapses further, and becomes denser still, the temperature keeps rising. Then fusion occurs


You were doing just fine until you got to the word "fusion". As the cloud agglomerates the particles that were once more distant are now closer. In the meantime it is still granDyville out there. But as particles continue agglomeration, probabilities of interaction between them rises.

At the point of protostars a lot of things can begin because a lot of material is available, neutrons & protons are whizzing around all over the place. Already these bullets are finding targets & hitting agglomerated particles. Some targets more readily absorb these bullets than others, speaking in this instance of elements heavier than helium. Hit with high enough kinetic energy these targets will fission at sub-zero temps & release more bullets to find more targets.
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) Oct 27, 2018
LOL Absolutely. And jones is running around in circles - chasing his tail and barking like a flea-bitten hound.


How did the Uranium form, you thick twat? Just got magicked into existence, did it? If it needs supernovae, then where was the U-235 to create the first star that went supernova to create the Uranium, you f***ing clown. Christ you people are thick.

says jones

In The Beginning, G-d said, "Let there be Light". And there was Light.


I'll take that as meaning that you have no f***ing idea, and are admitting to being a scientifically illiterate gobshite. Yes? Thought so.
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) Oct 27, 2018
At the point of protostars a lot of things can begin because a lot of material is available, neutrons & protons are whizzing around all over the place. Already these bullets are finding targets & hitting agglomerated particles. Some targets more readily absorb these bullets than others, speaking in this instance of elements heavier than helium. Hit with high enough kinetic energy these targets will fission at sub-zero temps & release more bullets to find more targets.


Complete and utter crap from a scientifically illiterate moron.

Benni
2.4 / 5 (8) Oct 27, 2018
Correct, D-K boy?
......at least I've been here demonstrating the wherewithal for the accusation, I think we've noticed no one COULD accuse you of the same thing. Nice to have someone to aspire to, right jonesy?

In The Beginning, the Big Bang god said, "Let there be Light". And there was Light.
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) Oct 27, 2018
......at least I've been here demonstrating the wherewithal for the accusation, I think we've noticed no one COULD accuse you of the same thing. Nice to have someone to aspire to, right jonesy?


What, sh!tforbrains? You are thick as pigshit, as proven. What is a half-life, dickhead? Lol.

Whydening Gyre
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 27, 2018
Gravity is not the original cause of fusion

There is no pressure in this plasmatic cloud and there never will be, where gravity is zero at the centre of mass
.....must be true, we do it right here on planet Earth in the presence of Earth gravity.......hmmm, we must be breaking some of those Immutable Laws of Pop-Cosmology fantasy.....right WhyGuy?

When you stop misusing the ISL, you'll begin to see the light...
Whydening Gyre
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 27, 2018
At the point of protostars a lot of things can begin because a lot of material is available, neutrons & protons are whizzing around all over the place. Already these bullets are finding targets & hitting agglomerated particles. Some targets more readily absorb these bullets than others, speaking in this instance of elements heavier than helium. Hit with high enough kinetic energy these targets will fission at sub-zero temps & release more bullets to find more targets.

Except when there is insufficient number elements heavier than He to fission...
Those elements have to come from a supernova somewhere else. Ergo, it will go back to what provided those elements to the first supernova...
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.7 / 5 (7) Oct 27, 2018
LOL Absolutely. And jones is running around in circles - chasing his tail and barking like a flea-bitten hound.


How did the Uranium form, you thick twat? Just got magicked into existence, did it? If it needs supernovae, then where was the U-235 to create the first star that went supernova to create the Uranium, you f***ing clown. Christ you people are thick.

says jones

In The Beginning, G-d said, "Let there be Light". And there was Light.


I'll take that as meaning that you have no f***ing idea, and are admitting to being a scientifically illiterate gobshite. Yes? Thought so.
says jones

You are always guilty of assuming way too much, jones my boy.
Uranium has always existed. It is one of the basic elements in the Universe, such as Carbon. The fact that these elements are found in Stars only means that they have been absorbed/collected/swallowed into Stars where they undergo certain processes while within the Star's core.
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) Oct 27, 2018
You are always guilty of assuming way too much, jones my boy.
Uranium has always existed. It is one of the basic elements in the Universe, such as Carbon. The fact that these elements are found in Stars only means that they have been absorbed/collected/swallowed into Stars where they undergo certain processes while within the Star's core.


Hahahahahahahaha. Stick to your day job, whatever that is, you imbecile.

Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.5 / 5 (8) Oct 27, 2018
-contd-
They are also found in the Matter within the disk. In some areas they are plentiful, and in other areas of the disk they are less so. The heavy elements were all there in the Beginning; they cannot be destroyed, only change form as all Matter/Energy is capable of doing. That blob of cells that you call your body contains those elements that have always existed, jonesy. Which means that the elements that you are made of have always existed. Of course, you wouldn't understand that the trillions of cells, molecules, elements that created you had been programmed at the moment that you were conceived. It should have been someone else, in my opinion. But I was not in charge of that.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.8 / 5 (6) Oct 27, 2018
At the point of protostars a lot of things can begin because a lot of material is available, neutrons & protons are whizzing around all over the place. Already these bullets are finding targets & hitting agglomerated particles. Some targets more readily absorb these bullets than others, speaking in this instance of elements heavier than helium. Hit with high enough kinetic energy these targets will fission at sub-zero temps & release more bullets to find more targets.

Except when there is insufficient number elements heavier than He to fission...
Those elements have to come from a supernova somewhere else. Ergo, it will go back to what provided those elements to the first supernova...
says Whyde

Ahhh the very first SN. I do wish that I could have been there to witness it in the blackness of Space. Space was not quite as big at the Time, but as Matter/Energy were created, Space expanded to accommodate all of it.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (8) Oct 27, 2018
-contd-
They are also found in the Matter within the disk. In some areas they are plentiful, and in other areas of the disk they are less so. The heavy elements were all there in the Beginning; they cannot be destroyed, only change form as all Matter/Energy is capable of doing. That blob of cells that you call your body contains those elements that have always existed, jonesy. Which means that the elements that you are made of have always existed. Of course, you wouldn't understand that the trillions of cells, molecules, elements that created you had been programmed at the moment that you were conceived. It should have been someone else, in my opinion. But I was not in charge of that.


Lol.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.7 / 5 (6) Oct 27, 2018
Oh my my - I do apologise. I completely forgot that jones et al believe that their cells, molecules and elements of which they are made, had come from the big fat Nothing.

I am so embarrassed.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (8) Oct 27, 2018
Oh my my - I do apologise. I completely forgot that jones et al believe that their cells, molecules and elements of which they are made, had come from the big fat Nothing.

I am so embarrassed.


Much better than clay and chimpanzee shit!
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.7 / 5 (7) Oct 27, 2018
LOL that must be an amazing feat of miraculous wonder - to have come from Nothing - and then go back to Nothing. Somehow, it seems all for naught.
Benni
2.5 / 5 (8) Oct 27, 2018
Much better than clay and chimpanzee shit!
.....also made from the same stuff you are.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.7 / 5 (7) Oct 27, 2018
Oh my my - I do apologise. I completely forgot that jones et al believe that their cells, molecules and elements of which they are made, had come from the big fat Nothing.

I am so embarrassed.


Much better than clay and chimpanzee shit!
says jones

Well, of course you would think that, jonesy - not realising that chimpanzees are known to play with their shit and to throw it at each other.
However, like it or not, you humans only share their DNA but were not generated from those animals.
But in spite of having been created from pristine clay, you choose to be a chimpanzee or gorilla, even though they have something that man is lacking - physically. Even monkeys display it proudly.
LOL
jonesdave
3 / 5 (8) Oct 27, 2018
Oh my my - I do apologise. I completely forgot that jones et al believe that their cells, molecules and elements of which they are made, had come from the big fat Nothing.

I am so embarrassed.


Much better than clay and chimpanzee shit!
says jones

Well, of course you would think that, jonesy - not realising that chimpanzees are known to play with their shit and to throw it at each other.
However, like it or not, you humans only share their DNA but were not generated from those animals.
But in spite of having been created from pristine clay, you choose to be a chimpanzee or gorilla, even though they have something that man is lacking - physically. Even monkeys display it proudly.
LOL


Strewth, what a mixed up cretin!
Whydening Gyre
3.4 / 5 (7) Oct 27, 2018
You are always guilty of assuming way too much, jones my boy.
Uranium has always existed.

An assumption, not a scientifically proven fact.
It is one of the basic elements in the Universe, such as Carbon. The fact that these elements are found in Stars only means that they have been absorbed/collected/swallowed into Stars where they undergo certain processes while within the Star's core.

Again, an assumption.
It can also mean they were generated within the star, via hierarchical fusion processes.
(WHICH, btw, is the observational "gorilla in the room".)
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.7 / 5 (7) Oct 27, 2018

Strewth, what a mixed up cretin!
says jones

Wow - what an intelligent retort, jonesy. It must have taken you hours to think that one up.
Oh wait. That is just one of your famous rejoinders that you learnt at your mum's knee, yes?
ROFLOL
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (7) Oct 27, 2018
You are always guilty of assuming way too much, jones my boy.
Uranium has always existed.

An assumption, not a scientifically proven fact.
It is one of the basic elements in the Universe, such as Carbon. The fact that these elements are found in Stars only means that they have been absorbed/collected/swallowed into Stars where they undergo certain processes while within the Star's core.

Again, an assumption.
It can also mean they were generated within the star, via hierarchical fusion processes.
(WHICH, btw, is the observational "gorilla in the room".)
says Why'd

Not an assumption, but fact. Whether generated within a Star or floating in Space or settled into a disk - these elements had already been formed, and only transmuted from Energy into Matter, or Matter into Energy. Changing form doesn't mean destruction of that form. Neither does its dispersal.
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) Oct 27, 2018
You are always guilty of assuming way too much, jones my boy.
Uranium has always existed.

An assumption, not a scientifically proven fact.
It is one of the basic elements in the Universe, such as Carbon. The fact that these elements are found in Stars only means that they have been absorbed/collected/swallowed into Stars where they undergo certain processes while within the Star's core.

Again, an assumption.
It can also mean they were generated within the star, via hierarchical fusion processes.
(WHICH, btw, is the observational "gorilla in the room".)
says Why'd

Not an assumption, but fact. Whether generated within a Star or floating in Space or settled into a disk - these elements had already been formed, and only transmuted from Energy into Matter, or Matter into Energy. Changing form doesn't mean destruction of that form. Neither does its dispersal.


Total crap.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (6) Oct 27, 2018
You are always guilty of assuming way too much, jones my boy.
Uranium has always existed.

An
It is one of the basic elements in the Universe, such as Carbon. The fact that these elements are found in Stars only means that they have been absorbed/collected/swallowed into Stars where they undergo certain processes while within the Star's core.


It can also mean they were generated within the star, via hier
(WHICH, btw, is the observational "gorilla in the room".)
says Why'd

Not an assumption, but fact. Whether generated within a Star or floating in Space or settled into a disk - these elements had already been formed, and only transmuted from Energy into Matter, or Matter into Energy. Changing form doesn't mean destruction of that form. Neither does its dispersal.


Total crap.
says jones

Then argue with scientists, jones

https://www.lives...ter.html
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (10) Oct 27, 2018
Then argue with scientists, jones


And what the hell has that got to do with uranium not existing until after the first supernovae?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.7 / 5 (7) Oct 27, 2018
Then argue with scientists, jones


And what the hell has that got to do with uranium not existing until after the first supernovae?


Of course it had already existed, jones. Do you think that some kind of magick somehow placed Uranium into a Star and then proceeded to blow it up to see what would happen? Elements are everywhere - even in YOU, jonesybonesy.
Elements, like Uranium, were CREATED, but not created out of nothing. The first Uranium in the first Star got there by being a part of the Matter of which that Star was made. It was in there all the time - hidden - until the first Star exploded and threw that and other elements into Space.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (6) Oct 27, 2018
Time to take doggie for a much needed walk. Bye
Curse this 3 minute wait. LOL
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (11) Oct 27, 2018
Then argue with scientists, jones


And what the hell has that got to do with uranium not existing until after the first supernovae?


Of course it had already existed, jones. Do you think that some kind of magick somehow placed Uranium into a Star and then proceeded to blow it up to see what would happen? Elements are everywhere - even in YOU, jonesybonesy.
Elements, like Uranium, were CREATED, but not created out of nothing. The first Uranium in the first Star got there by being a part of the Matter of which that Star was made. It was in there all the time - hidden - until the first Star exploded and threw that and other elements into Space.


Idiot. Only the light elements were formed in the big bang. It wasn't until the first generation of stars had gone through their lifecycles that we got heavier elements. Which is all pointless anyway, as we know stars are hot enough for fusion to occur, and nobody is dumb enough to believe fission is involved.
Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (8) Oct 27, 2018
You can try explaining the packing fraction curve to them.
Da Schneib
3.6 / 5 (8) Oct 28, 2018
Well, there may be lurkerz so I'l go ahead with it.

The packing fraction is the amount of energy deficit between the mass of the nucleons (protons and neutrons) and the mass of a nucleus made from them. It is this deficit that keeps nuclei together; there is no way to break the nucleus up without adding energy. So, for example, a helium nucleus requires energy to be added to it in order to dissolve into two protons and two neutrons, and thus it stays together unless it gets that energy. This is why hydrogen nuclei (which are just protons) can be fused into helium and energy is released; the packing fraction is lower for helium than for hydrogen. When the fusion occurs, this energy is liberated.

The amount of energy decreases starting from hydrogen to helium to lithium, and by the time iron is reached, the packing fraction is at its lowest. Therefore, energy-releasing fusion of heavier and heavier elements becomes less and less.

[contd]
Da Schneib
3.6 / 5 (8) Oct 28, 2018
[contd]Once you reach iron, however, the packing fraction starts to rise again. And it keeps going up the heavier the nuclei get. By the time uranium and plutonium are reached, the packing fraction has risen again, but this time this means that by breaking the nucleus, energy can be gained. And so it is: uranium and plutonium fission yield energy, but not by being fused as is the case with the light elements. Instead, these heavy elements dissociate into lighter ones (but again, no lighter than iron) and energy is released.

Obviously, however, fusing lighter elements than iron into iron or heavier elements than iron requires energy. And this is why it is ludicrous to think that uranium is produced in normal stars or in the Big Bang. The amount of energy required would quickly quench any possible spontaneous reaction from, say, carbon to uranium. Only in the most violent events is there enough free energy around to make these transformations.

[contd]
Da Schneib
3.6 / 5 (8) Oct 28, 2018
[contd]
These events appear to be, supernovae core collapses, and neutron star mergers. These are where the heavy elements in the universe are made. Astrophysicists are still working to determine exactly how this occurs, but recent results from the LIGO observation of a neutron star merger combined with optical and other EM observations seem to indicate that these mergers are credibly responsible for the production of much of the heavy element production that has occurred during the life of the universe.

So uranium and plutonium weren't produced by the Big Bang, nor have they existed forever; instead, they are produced in core collapse supernovae and in neutron star mergers. And not in any great quantity, far less in the high concentrations that would allow fission in T Tauri-type protostellar nebulae. So stop confusing fission and fusion, and stop trying to claim that fission has anything to do with the formation of stars. It's ridiculous.
Da Schneib
3.6 / 5 (8) Oct 28, 2018
Incidentally, the packing fraction is usually called the "mass defect" these days. Wikipedia doesn't have an article on it, but there is a section of an article that discusses some of the ins and outs which you will find by searching on "mass defect" there. For a better treatment, the history is discussed in Isaac Asimov's History of Physics, where the developer of the packing fraction curve, Aston, is named, and @Jonesy can probably give better references than I can to astrophysical sources that discuss supernova processes and neutron star merger processes.

If we can get one of the really knowledgeable astrophysicists that hang out here to comment, they can probably give more details, but they're unlikely to show up on this trainwreck of a thread to be badgered by a bunch of creationists who don't know fission from fusion from a ripe banana.
granville583762
4 / 5 (8) Oct 28, 2018
When the first proton and scrumptious electron
Proton electron in the vacuum together
In these electron proton electric fields of gamma-rays in synchrotron radiation
Where the electrons gamma-rays interacting in proton pair production
Give protonic KE of momentum in KE of electron-positron momentum
Annihilation into two gamma-ray photons all within the inky vacuous vacuum
As a proton arm in arm all alone together in the vacuum
With no assistance from gravitational or any other forces in the vacuum
And in this vacuous marriage together they create the energy out their mortal coils
For to create the energy and momentum together to raise the proton to its energy requirements
All alone in the vacuum to the point of creating fusion on impact of velocity of collision
As the gamma-rays interact protonicly in transformation in electric field
Into neutron singular and so the families complete
All alone in the vacuum neutron proton electron
Thanks to synchrotron gamma-radiation
granville583762
4 / 5 (8) Oct 28, 2018
In Honour of Bennies Half a Neutron

Creating the neutron all alone in the inky vacuous vacuum
Into neutron singular and so the families complete

As the energy of the gamma-rays interacting
In the protons electric field
Raising the energy of the proton
To the point of neutronic transformation in the inky blackness
In protonic electron capture in the inky vacuous vacuum
Absorbs an electron changing its protonic state
Into a neutron
Where this neutron joins another proton and electron in the vacuum
Forming the first true hydrogen atom
Emitting into the inky vacuum
The very first anti-neutrino to joint the growing atomic family
The proton needs as it is raised to lofty energetic heights
When it reaches that energy requirement
Off protonic collision of fusion
All alone in the inky blackness of the vacuous vacuum
granville583762
4 / 5 (8) Oct 28, 2018
To all advocates of starry collision of fusion
What in all reality does fusion in all actuality mean
Fusion of neutron, proton and electron as one
One atomic elemental atom singular
For this is in all reality
The fusion of a neutron and proton and electron
Into an atom of Hydrogen
Because as this proton acquires more neutrons
Into Isotopes of hydrogen
Protium deuterium
To instability radio-active decay all alone in the vacuum
From a single proton and electron
Have created atomic hydrogen its isotopes of radio-active fusion
Without atomic collision of fusion
Without gravitational assistance
The humble proton and is side-kick the scrumptious electron
Together with absolutely no earthly assistance in the vacuum
Created fusion all alone in the vacuum
So as they work on their creation of isotope of hydrogen of fusion
They devise there method of increasing their hydrogen creation
Atomic protonic number Z to two protons
Without protonic collision of fusion
granville583762
4 / 5 (8) Oct 28, 2018
Without collision of fusion
They devise there method of increasing their hydrogen creation
Atomic protonic number Z to two protons

As these cunning protons and electrons know
They cannot get two protons together
Due to their positive electric fields doth repel most strongly
They enact their devious cunning plan
In the simplicity of their masterly plan they utilise
Hydrogen its isotopes of radio-active fusion
They gather there force on their neutron creation
Because it does not experience electric field resistance
In fusion with its creator the humble proton
The Neutron simply decays back to it protonic state releasing a neutrino
As the neutron simply passed the coulomb barrier without resistance to the nuclear field
The neutron is in all reality a neutral proton
The proton was there all the time
As his why atoms change their protons into neutrons
To get the proton past the coulomb barrier
Create their first helium atom
Without collision of fusion
granville583762
4 / 5 (8) Oct 28, 2018
Even as it is devastating in its simplicity
The proton simply become a neutral proton
Becoming a neutron

Because these atoms are femto sizes in the vacuum
Are eyes and microscopes have no earthly wavelength
Small enough to see these protons electrons and neutrons
And so their secret is safe from earthly eyes
But they let us know their secret in other ways
As this is why the proton and electron
Allow us to exist in their world
As without their final creation
The neutron
The atomic elemental family would simply cease to exist
And now as peace descends on this atomic world
All the house be still
And peace has come to Canterville
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (11) Oct 28, 2018
If we can get one of the really knowledgeable astrophysicists that hang out here to comment, they can probably give more details, but they're unlikely to show up on this trainwreck of a thread to be badgered by a bunch of creationists who don't know fission from fusion from a ripe banana.


Actually, it is really not all that difficult to show whether or not a given cloud will collapse, based on the Jeans mass. Just some fairly basic mathematical abilities, which obviously rules out the cranks on this thread. We know the mass of the Sun, for instance, and could look up expected sizes of protosolar disks.
Having decided that such a cloud will collapse, then the laws of physics say that it must increase in temperature, and we can use the equation I linked here;
http://www.jgiese...ture.htm
to determine the temperature to which it increases.
This would be the equivalent of teaching QM to hamsters for all the good it will do for the likes of Gran, SEU, Benni.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (10) Oct 28, 2018
If we can get one of the really knowledgeable astrophysicists that hang out here to comment, they can probably give more details,....


On the other hand, the scientifically illiterate cranks could confront said astrophysicists/ physicists, by posting their errant nonsense on a physics forum. There is one attached to this site. We all know that that won't happen, and we all know why. They are only posers, and have no wish to test their nonsense scientifically.
granville583762
4 / 5 (8) Oct 28, 2018
JDs definition of scientific nonsense in hamsters
jonesdave> This would be the equivalent of teaching QM to hamsters for all the good it will do for the likes of Gran, SEU, Benni.

Isotopes of hydrogen
Protium, deuterium
Gamma-rays interacting in the protons electric field
Protonic electron capture electrons gamma-rays interacting in proton pair production
Protonic KE of momentum in KE of electron-positron momentum
Fusion of a neutron and proton and electron into an atom of Hydrogen

And mind experiments
Gravitationally compress absolute zero temperature and at absolute zero energy into a smaller space
What have you got?
You have got exactly what you started with!

As JD cannot see any of these scientisms makes his observation all the surprising, but nevertheless, an interesting insight into JDs psyche!
Whydening Gyre
4.1 / 5 (8) Oct 28, 2018

Again, an assumption.
It can also mean they were generated within the star, via hierarchical fusion processes.
(WHICH, btw, is the observational "gorilla in the room".)
says Why'd

Not an assumption, but fact. Whether generated within a Star or floating in Space or settled into a disk - these elements had already been formed, and only transmuted from Energy into Matter, or Matter into Energy. Changing form doesn't mean destruction of that form. Neither does its dispersal.

What is your source that all elements have always been here?
And, if so, where did they come from?
granville583762
4 / 5 (8) Oct 28, 2018
Hydrogen should not be here either
Whydening Gyre> What is your source that all elements have always been here?
And, if so, where did they come from?

It sounds as if you're sure any more
The element hydrogen has been always here, so why not helium, lithium,

As on the basis of your questioning theme, where did the element hydrogen come from!
Hydrogen should not be here either
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (6) Oct 28, 2018

Again, an assumption.
"gorilla in the room".)
says Why'd

Not an assumption, but fact. Whether generated within a Star or floating in Space or settled into a disk - these elements had already been formed, and only transmuted from Energy into Matter, or Matter into Energy. Changing form doesn't mean destruction of that form. Neither does its dispersal.

What is your source that all elements have always been here?
And, if so, where did they come from?
says Whyde

Lovely queries, that. I am glad that you have inquired with rare civility, so I will respond in kind.
Before all of the light and heavy elements came into existence, there was the Quantum Particle - scrumptious electrons, pristine protons, (borrowing from granville), neutrons, and all of the other tiny "workhorses" who do all the heavy lifting, which, when they get together as light and heavy elements, the elements get all the praise.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (6) Oct 28, 2018
-contd-
@Whyde
As you know, particles can align themselves into all sorts of configurations and alliances. Balancing acts, merging with each other, changing partners, full lives, half lives, and many other performances. These little guys, when they do their dance of configurations, they have the capability of changing costume first. When they change costume and change partners, they can become all sorts of elements - light and heavy - and everything in between. The Periodic Table names most of those light and heavy elements as well as the Particles that go into creating those elements.
So what you see as elements of all sorts - have always existed in their most basic forms - Particles. When Particles change partners - Hydrogen turns into Helium in the presence of temperature. Elements turn into some other known element - with temperature.
So the potentialities have always existed and particles were created that way so that they could change configuration when the need arises.
granville583762
4 / 5 (8) Oct 28, 2018
The neutron SEU, as has been mentioned over the years is an enabler, to cross the protons coulomb barrier

As the neutron is a proton in neutron clothing, by simply rearranging the quarks to a neutral electric field enabling the proton in wolfs clothing to sneak past the protons own electric field

Then once past rearranges is quarks to a positive field as it is held in place by the nuclear strong force
And in doing so transforms tritium by transforming one neutron into a proton into helium
As then helium is able to accept more neutrons to helium-4

All without protonic collisions
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (6) Oct 28, 2018
@Whyde
I do hope that your queries have been answered to your full satisfaction. Light elements may have been formed first - such as Hydrogen gas - otherwise the first Star would not have ignited. But the first Star could not have ignited without the right conditions. It has been said that a big bang caused temperatures so hot that elements were formed. That BB may account for the light element we call Hydrogen. With the creation of Hydrogen gas that has transformed into Helium, we get Stars full of all kinds of Particles that wandered into those Stars. And from that, we get heavy elements.

But Quantum Particles have ALWAYS existed, and therefore the potential for all elements have always existed also. Existence in one form or another - Matter into Energy - Energy into Matter.
Scientists are still attempting to turn Energy into Matter, but that secret recipe belongs only to the Creator.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (10) Oct 28, 2018
As Schneibo has commented, this thread is a train wreck! A total sh!tfest of uneducated word salad. Thank **** for peer review! Lol.
Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (8) Oct 28, 2018
Obviously doesn't get the implications of free neutron half-life and the packing fraction curve.
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 28, 2018
@JonesD
As Schneibo has commented, this thread is a train wreck!
truly an understatement if I ever heard one, regardless

jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (10) Oct 28, 2018
Obviously doesn't get the implications of free neutron half-life and the packing fraction curve.


Oh FFS! Don't start with half-lives again! :)
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 28, 2018
@granville
Your posts above are excellent as usual, as well as informatively enjoyable, and I also enjoyed the good humour that you bring to the site as always. That offsets the dour and revolting maroonic know-it-alls who actually don't know as much as they think they know but will be the first to make it known that they know more than anybody else could possibly know. And they know that we know it.

:))>
Da Schneib
3.2 / 5 (6) Oct 28, 2018
:D Good one, @Jones. I guess the fact that after the Big Bang half the neutrons were gone in 10 minutes and this has consequences for helium and lithium amounts was a bit more than they can deal with.

BTW, if you're not happy with being called "Jonesy," sorry, I meant nothing by it- I have a friend named Jones and we always call him Jonesy. Please don't call me "Schneibo." "Schneib" is OK, or my full handle.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (6) Oct 28, 2018
I see that at least one of the lurking gangraters has arrived. Others may follow. I can't hardly wait.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (6) Oct 28, 2018
@SEU, let us know where all the heavy nuclei came from if the free neutrons were essentially gone after a couple of hours. Maybe you don't know enough to be aware that heavy nuclei require a higher and higher percentage of neutrons to exist the heavier they are. Where's the neutrons? This is an obvious question if you understand what half-life means.

I am serious and I deliberately avoided taunting you. If you think showing you must be and are wrong is somehow "impolite" I don't understand how you expect to post conjectures on a physics site.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (6) Oct 28, 2018
Uhh Why don't you ask jones. He thinks he knows everything.

And my posts above were not conjectures.
Da Schneib
3.2 / 5 (6) Oct 28, 2018
Nice deflection. I take this as meaning you know that your wild conjectures will not stand scrutiny and you're afraid to post them, and you have no answer to where the neutrons for all these heavy nuclei you claim "always existed" could come from if half of them were gone in twenty minutes, three quarters in forty minutes, and seven eighths in an hour.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (6) Oct 28, 2018
Like I had said, ask jonesybonesy. He knows everything.
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (8) Oct 28, 2018
@S_E_U.

Your 'answers' to @Whyde are rooted in illogicality/metaphysics, effectively reflecting a MIXTURE of 'supernatural' (god did it/creationism) stories/beliefs AND pseudo-scientific (hot big bang/inflation) stories/hypotheses, none of which 'mixture' actually represents the scientifically observed/logically deduced Infinite Universal Natural Physical reality.

Consider: infinite universal Spatial TOTALITY is ITSELF THE source (pre-existing arena of physical potentials) AND substance (energy quanta of active physical effectiveness) of everything that evolves/devolves within it, unceasingly up/down the full range of reality-effective, physical 'eternally recycled', energy-space matter/mass/force states/forms/structures.

In short: NEITHER 'god did it'....NOR 'hot big bang did it'....is logically/scientifically 'required' to produce the full range of physical states/phenomena observed.

Hence your god/bb-based 'answers' to @Whyde are not answers, only 'beliefs'. Ok? :)
Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (7) Oct 28, 2018
Like I had said, ask jonesybonesy. He knows everything.
Pitiful. This is why you get abused. If you can't answer questions about your wild conjectures then you are either trolling or lying. And I really don't care which; my conclusion was you're lying, and I'm sure most of the lurkerz will conclude the same after you avoided answers twice.

The concentrations of helium and lithium make your claims a joke. If you have evidence to present then:

Bring it, troll. I own you hair to toenails.

Honestly, @RC is dissing you. You are obviously a troll.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (6) Oct 28, 2018
@RC
Regarding the BigBang - I mentioned that "it is said", which doesn't mean that I believe that the BB occurred, just that it has been said - and I never posited such an allegation - ever. But some do believe it.
With regard to my belief in the Creator of the Universe, there are many scientists who believe in the existence of the Creator, as nothing comes from nothing.
There are some who believe that this reality of which we are aware - is only a dream, and that nothing is real. Which means that there are many beliefs - where mine is only one.

Being that I was not witness to the Creation or the advent of the first Star, or any of those firsts, I cannot provide the evidence unless I were able to go back in time.
I doubt that you have that ability - do you?
Dark Matter and Black Holes are considered 'settled science' by many now. Or is it really? Dark Matter is a 'no-show' as far as I'm concerned. And yet, scientists would bet their life on it.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (6) Oct 28, 2018
@SEU troll tries to deflect to dark matter and black holes, and then leaves the black holes out.

Oops. I told you, @SEU troll, I own you.

Bring it. Or admit tacitly that you are a troll.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (6) Oct 28, 2018
@RC
I have said in my past posts in other forums that EVERYTHING gets recycled. Perhaps you missed it. I even mentioned that IF Black Holes exist, they just MIGHT BE the trash cans of the Universe - recycling spent Stars and other Matter. Not that I believe that they exist - but if they did, that is all they would be. And such a concept would go well with the Universe having been created/programmed.
There are many who seem afraid of its possibility, but I would welcome it. But be aware that I am not a Religionist, which is manmade.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (6) Oct 28, 2018
@SEU, but the recycling takes a lot more than 2 hours.

Like I've said, I own you hair to toenails. If you think different bring facts instead of conjectures.

You can run but you can't hide.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (6) Oct 28, 2018
@SEU, but the recycling takes a lot more than 2 hours.

Like I've said, I own you hair to toenails. If you think different bring facts instead of conjectures.

You can run but you can't hide.
says shnirk

ROFLMYAO
Da Schneib
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 28, 2018
Politics won't work here, @SEU. Either you got science or you don't.

You don't.

Bring it, troll. I own you hair to toenails.
Benni
2.7 / 5 (7) Oct 28, 2018
:D Good one, @Jones. I guess the fact that after the Big Bang half the neutrons were gone in 10 minutes and this has consequences for helium and lithium amounts was a bit more than they can deal with.

BTW, if you're not happy with being called "Jonesy," sorry, I meant nothing by it- I have a friend named Jones and we always call him Jonesy. Please don't call me "Schneibo." "Schneib" is OK, or my full handle.


OK Schneibo
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 28, 2018
@RC
Your atheist views are noted and respected. Atheists gravitate to science sites like this, thinking that every one of those who read the articles and make their comments think the same way - as atheists.
As I have earlier posted - many scientists are Creationists, while loving the Search and Discovery aspects of whichever science field they're in. The two may be conflated as one is part of the other. That is not the same as taking part in a religion.

Whyde asked me, and I answered. Nothing from nothing produces nothing, and something from nothing also produces nothing - no matter how hard you wish it to be different.
Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (7) Oct 28, 2018
@SEU deflects again.

This is not science, it's politics.

If you got the science, @SEU, bring it.

Otherwise you're just another jebus troll lying for your religion.

Lying to try to squirm out of being pwnt hair to toenails by science.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.7 / 5 (7) Oct 28, 2018
Benni, thanks. That was very good.
LOL

Oh my stomach hurts from LOL
Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (7) Oct 28, 2018
Like I said, politics, not science.

If you got it, bring it @SEU troll.

The more posts you make without any science, the more obvious you are.

You could try responding to me if you're not afraid.
RealityCheck
1.3 / 5 (6) Oct 28, 2018
@S_E_U.
Regarding the BigBang - I mentioned that "it is said", which doesn't mean that I believe that the BB occurred, just that it has been said - and I never posited such an allegation - ever. But some do believe it.
If you admit it's just a 'belief', then I suggest that you in future NOT base your answers to @Whyde's (or anyone else's for that matter) logical/scientific questions re YOUR assertions. :)
Being that I was not witness to the Creation or the advent of the first Star, or any of those firsts, I cannot provide the evidence unless I were able to go back in time. I doubt that you have that ability - do you?
I apply objective, natural, Occam's Razor Logics and Scientific Method Principles to all observations/cogitations on the reality phenomena around us; since age 9, when I became rational atheist; and it looks like that, all along and to date, I may have been more calm, objective, logical, scientific, rational and polite, than most. :)

continued...
Uncle Ira
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 28, 2018
@ Forum. There you go folks for everybody to see,,,,,,

continued...


He lied,,,,,, it is not so much the continued,,,, more like something he repeated over and over and a couple of more overs is coming up soon.

I volunteer my time to serve the humans and scientists so they don't have to be bothered with the Really-Skippy's stuffs, that Steinhardt-Skippy said was mostly demented gobbledygook. All you have to do to take advantage of my volunteer works is set your comment slider to about 3 and then you won't have to see all the Really-Skippy saying the same thing over and over and a few more overs.

Oh yeah, I almost forget. It doesn't work when somebody puts the Really-Skippy stuffs into quotem,,,, for that to work, people got to quite quoting him and just us the "BLAH/BLAH/BLAH" code and we will all know what you are talking about.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (6) Oct 28, 2018
@RC
IF you believe that "the science is settled" as jonesy and others believe, then I have a bridge in London to sell you. IF the science was already settled, then nothing more needs be done and all the scientists can write their autobiographies and age gracefully.
But science is FAR from settled, and everything is now guesswork, at least until more powerful telescopic instruments are manufactured. But even then, if you can't get up close and personal, then you can always miss something.
Whyde may differ with me, but Whyde has never given me HIS OWN version. Perhaps he has none, I don't know.
Benni
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 28, 2018
Like I said, politics, not science.

If you got it, bring it @SEU troll.

The more posts you make without any science, the more obvious you are.

You could try responding to me if you're not afraid.


OK Schneibo
Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (7) Oct 28, 2018
@SEU is a coward.

Run away, little pathetic @SEU troll.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (6) Oct 28, 2018
Auntie Irene, good to see you, fella. How you be, mon? Go fishing lately? Me too. How da wife and kids, Good to hear dat. Now you take care and watch out for dem gators. mon, day eat you alive. LOL
Benni
2.7 / 5 (7) Oct 28, 2018
@RC
IF you believe that "the science is settled" as jonesy and others believe, then I have a bridge in London to sell you. IF the science was already settled, then nothing more needs be done and all the scientists can write their autobiographies and age gracefully.
But science is FAR from settled, and everything is now guesswork, at least until more powerful telescopic instruments are manufactured. But even then, if you can't get up close and personal, then you can always miss something.
Whyde may differ with me, but Whyde has never given me HIS OWN version. Perhaps he has none, I don't know.


Hey, Egg.........Schneibo has this 19th Century Black Hole Math theory that he keeps pushing here. Basically the theory subjects an electro-magnetic wave to the laws of kinetic energy for that time period, then Einstein came along in 1905 with Special Relativity & spoiled the "settled science" party.

I've wondered if this may not be indicative of Schneibo's age?

RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 28, 2018
...cont @S_E_U.
Dark Matter and Black Holes are considered 'settled science' by many now. Or is it really? Dark Matter is a 'no-show' as far as I'm concerned.
If you have been reading my posts re BHs, you should have by now realized that BHs are most likely massive and extended energy-space objects; its gravitational effects on surrounding space effectively causing an event horizon, but prevented from its (quark-gluon plasma?) energy-mass content going into an 'infinite gravitational collapse to dimensionless point/ring singularity', due to extreme degenerative pressure of Q-G plasma itself (note the Q-G plasma 'exploding' after collisions in LHC).
Your atheist views are noted and respected. Atheists gravitate to science sites like this,..
Thanks, mate; your fairness is much appreciated. :) ANYONE can discuss natural sciences politely, logically; no 'pre-agreement' demanded by me (or by scientific method)...quite the opposite! :)

again cont...
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (6) Oct 28, 2018
@Benni
I agree. Schnirk does seem to be some old fart looking for attention to seem relevant in his old mind. Some oldsters are like that.
And Auntie Irene has showed up himself to haunt RCs arse and try to give him grief for a wee bit.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (6) Oct 28, 2018
Cheaters never prosper.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (6) Oct 28, 2018
@RC
Quite frankly, I am much more in favor of the Plasma Bubble that was articled in few days ago. Perhaps you remember it? There was a "wall" that surrounded the Plasma Bubble that contains Stars, and the "wall" consisted of gigantic hair-like Filaments. The location was at Sgr A* and it was most interesting. I found it to be more agreeable, rather than a wicked-looking BH tearing Stars apart and consuming Matter/Energy.
Which would YOU much prefer, RC?
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (6) Oct 28, 2018
Liars never change.
RealityCheck
2.4 / 5 (8) Oct 28, 2018
@S_E_U.
Nothing from nothing produces nothing - no matter how hard you wish it to be different.
I bring no "wishes" to the scientific pursuit of understanding of extant objective reality. Probably why bot-voting troll gangs try to skew the ratings against me here. Never mind, it's more reason to remain dispassionate and objective; while the troll gangs go into absurd sabotage/skewing campaigns in their 'wish' to prevent readers reading my posts. But thanks to a variation of "Streisand Effect", troll gangs have unwittingly ensured that readers are actually looking for my posts, reading me more than ever...else those trolls wouldn't STILL be trying to 'hide' my posting record using their '1' bot-votes....all to no avail!

Anyhow, S_E_U, there NEVER was "nothing". Look around; wave your arms in all 'directions'. That 'passive directional' POTENTIAL always existed; and unceasingly chaotically manifests an 'active directional' space/energy dynamics across that infinity. :)
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (6) Oct 28, 2018
DaShnirk should be getting ready to wow everyone with the old lists of links in which RC made comments which DaShnirk found disagreeable. How many were there the last time? 100 or so?
DaShnirk was terribly sciency showing all those links, trying to get RC upset - but failing again.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (6) Oct 28, 2018
Cowards never finish.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (6) Oct 28, 2018
@S_E_U.
Nothing from nothing produces nothing - no matter how hard you wish it to be different.
I bring no "wishes" to the scientific pursuit of understanding of extant objective reality. Probably why bot-voting troll gangs try to skew the ratings against me here. Never mind, it's more reason to remain dispassionate and objective;(**)

Anyhow, S_E_U, there NEVER was "nothing". Look around; wave your arms in all 'directions'. That 'passive directional' POTENTIAL always existed; and unceasingly chaotically manifests an 'active directional' space/energy dynamics across that infinity. :)
says RC

That is what I said also, RC - in my own words. I mentioned "potential" which was always available, which is why Particles ALWAYS EXISTED. And Particles always had the potentiality to configure and reconfigure with other Particles in many ways so that elements would result from those config and reconfigurations of Particle. Neutrons, protons, electrons, et al are all there.
Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (8) Oct 28, 2018
Still waiting for an explanation of helium and lithium abundance.

WIthout handwaving.

I have one.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (6) Oct 28, 2018
-contd-
@RC
We all learn that Matter and Energy can be neither created nor destroyed. And the reason for that is that Quantum Particles can never be destroyed, but only take on a different form (reconfigure), or merge, or an atom can open up and allow an electron, a proton, and a neutrino to pop out. The neutron has not died or been destroyed, but only reconfigures to emerge as something different.
And that is what I meant when I said the elements have existed forever - in different forms according to how the particles are configured. When the particles reconfigure, a different result occurs - Hydrogen changes into Helium e.g.
RealityCheck
2.5 / 5 (8) Oct 28, 2018
@S_E_U.
Dark Matter is a 'no-show' as far as I'm concerned. And yet, scientists would bet their life on it.
In my many previous reminders (to all 'sides' here), Zwicky ONLY EVER postulated ORDINARY stuff which was 'too dark to 'see' using the telescopes way back then. Not long after that, the BB etc mathematical theorists (mathturbatory fantasists) came up with 'exotic' DM because they STILL couldn't see that ordinary stuff which effected orbits/motions/grav-lensings observed. It wasn't until RECENT astro/cosmo discovery/reviews using MORE CAPABLE telescopes/analysis, that ORDINARY stuff postulated by Zwicky is being increasingly FOUND IN VAST QUANTITIES all over the universe, near and far, within and between galaxies/galaxy clusters.

So, S_E_U, take note: @Benni's derision of Zwicky is not fair! HE postulated ORDINARY (BOTH e-m AND grav interacting) DM; and NOT 'exotic' (grav-only-interacting) DM fairy-dust, as conjured up by UNscientific mathematicians. :)
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 28, 2018
Where's the neutrons, @SEU troll?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (6) Oct 28, 2018
@RC
It is easy to lambast the original author of the Dark Matter hypothesis, since Zwicky is better known than subsequent authors/scientists who have found that all is normal Matter. How do you forget Zwicky - it would be tantamount to forgetting Albert as the author of GR/SR. The rich and famous get the kudos, not the struggling latecomers.
So the maths were wrong after all. That only goes to show that scientists need to be much more diligent/watchful for what they put out as science fact. Because the public will gobble it up - even if wrong.
Do you want to know my opinion of it? Dark Matter is a shadow of normal Matter. Try that on for size, RC. Shadows can follow whole galaxies, where the galaxy itself may cast a shadow.
You too, Benni and granville. Your opinions, please.
Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (8) Oct 28, 2018
Still waiting for the neutrons, @SEU troll coward liar cheater.
RealityCheck
2.5 / 5 (8) Oct 28, 2018
@S_E_U.
I mentioned "potential"..why Particles ALWAYS EXISTED..
What always existed was the potential for directional energy-space dynamics physically effective, whether stable or unstable, possibilities along the unceasing energy-space's infinitesimal-quanta-to-higher-complexity-quanta-addition/subtraction (evolution/de-evolution cascade) processes which form the fundamental and higher level structures/phenomena. And NO hot big bang (or god) needed. It's more like a gradual 'condensation' of fundamental (quark-gluon) energy-space mass/matter 'particles', from the background energy-space 'potential reservoir'. Think of the vapor in the sky; minuscule droplets form initially; then grow/add to bigger/more complex forms (large raindrops, ice crystals, hailstones). Those did NOT 'always exist', they ARISE from background vapor-state, and RETURN to same when evaporating from land/sea. In loose analogy, 'particles' like Protons/Neutrons/Electrons etc did NOT 'always exist'. :)
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 28, 2018
@RC
They have ALWAYS existed, but in different forms. H2O molecules reconfigure into rain, snow, ice, mist, etc. according to temperature and other conditions of atmosphere. The Particles that form those molecules are not lost. They EVOLVE, RC into different forms and then change according to other parameters. Particles have always existed, which is why elements, light and heavy are the results of Particles and their work/configurations.

Oh, and here is a link for DaShnirk. Clearly, Shnirk needs a baby pacifier.

https://www.scien...physics/
Benni
2.5 / 5 (8) Oct 28, 2018
Liars never change.

.....and it's never been lost on ALL of us how little you've changed. Probably you are perplexed about the word "ALL".

Cowards never finish.
.....and so you haven't.
TechnoCreed
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 28, 2018
Do you want to know my opinion of it? Dark Matter is a shadow of normal Matter.

SEU on the scale this morning "Gee 400 pounds !... (sign) my shadow is so heavy."
Benni
2.5 / 5 (8) Oct 28, 2018
Do you want to know my opinion of it? Dark Matter is a shadow of normal Matter. Try that on for size, RC. Shadows can follow whole galaxies, where the galaxy itself may cast a shadow.
You too, Benni and granville. Your opinions, please.


Looking at your own shadow, how much does it weigh? Therefore it can't add mass or gravity to it's surroundings.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 28, 2018
TechnoC
How are you? I have read many of your past comments and thought that you are quite the lucid and knowledgable fellow.
It is best to shed those extra pounds, TC, else something dire may happen to your molecules.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (6) Oct 28, 2018
Do you want to know my opinion of it? Dark Matter is a shadow of normal Matter. Try that on for size, RC. Shadows can follow whole galaxies, where the galaxy itself may cast a shadow.
You too, Benni and granville. Your opinions, please.


Looking at your own shadow, how much does it weigh? Therefore it can't add mass or gravity to it's surroundings.
says Benni

Precisely. And everything that science has said about Dark Matter should remind us of that shadow on the wall that bears no weight. It's just there doing nothing but following the galaxy around and the Stars in the galaxy provide the lighting for the shadow to be cast.

Thanks Benni. Please take it from there. Doggie needs to go for a walk now.
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 28, 2018
@S_E_U.
They have ALWAYS existed, but in different forms. H2O molecules reconfigure into rain, snow, ice, mist, etc. according to temperature and other conditions of atmosphere. The Particles that form those molecules are not lost. They EVOLVE, RC into different forms and then change according to other parameters. Particles have always existed, which is why elements...
You may have missed the point I was making using that analogy, mate. I used that analogy to convey the sense of an undifferentiated 'fundamental background' energy-space state from which all subsequent forms/dynamics arise and subsides back to, in unceasing 'recycling', in the truest 'chaotic system' mode dynamics/phenomena arising, evolving and devolving back to 'background' state. That was all.

In short: ONLY universal directional potential energy-space 'background state' ALWAYS EXISTED; ALL ELSE (quantum/complex 'particles', 'bodies' etc) merely arising-from/subsiding-within that 'background'. :)
TechnoCreed
4 / 5 (6) Oct 28, 2018
I hope that you don't mind some derision... You left a door wide open, on these occasion I just can't help myself.

Don't be surprise if people here start to call you heavy shadow man. Cheers :D
Benni
2.3 / 5 (9) Oct 28, 2018
Do you want to know my opinion of it? Dark Matter is a shadow of normal Matter. Try that on for size, RC. Shadows can follow whole galaxies, where the galaxy itself may cast a shadow.
You too, Benni and granville. Your opinions, please.


Looking at your own shadow, how much does it weigh? Therefore it can't add mass or gravity to it's surroundings.
says Benni

Precisely. And everything that science has said about Dark Matter should remind us of that shadow on the wall that bears no weight. It's just there doing nothing but following the galaxy around and the Stars in the galaxy provide the lighting for the shadow to be cast.

Thanks Benni. Please take it from there. Doggie needs to go for a walk now.


Then I should add, that Event Horizon telescope has accumulated a lot of data via which they expect to find the SHADOW of a BH. You'd think direct observation of the real image would be easier to focus on, but these Pop-Cosmologists prefer shadow boxing.
Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (8) Oct 28, 2018
Heh, this is the problem with posting about physics you don't understand.

@SEU, 9 seconds out of 880 isn't going to break He and Li abundances very badly, but it's going to raise a little bit of uncertainty in them. But you wouldn't know that since you don't know any physics.

Maybe you can get someone to help you.
Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (8) Oct 28, 2018
BTW, the discrepancy still exists. This article from this year: https://www.quant...0180213/

No one has suggested checking against the cosmic abundances but it's sure to come soon. I'm guessing the current abundance measurements' error bars extend over both 878 and 887 seconds. But I don't know that, I just suspect it because it's such an obvious thing to check.
Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (7) Oct 28, 2018
Oh, and one more thing, quite revealing: it's standard Creationist tactics to seize upon a minor discrepancy between two different measuring techniques for the same thing and pretend this means both are "wrong." Or that "scientists don't know what they're doing."

They usually put this in the middle of a Gish Gallop. This time you get to see it naked. Note well the intellectual paucity and logical errors indicated by these tactics, and the dishonesty it takes to use them. Watch @SEU closely. It is a Young Earth Creationist, also known as a YEC, and it's lying for jebus.
Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (7) Oct 28, 2018
It must burn to be so thoroughly pwnt that you have no reply but 1 votes. Lying coward.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.7 / 5 (7) Oct 28, 2018
Where did you figure that 4.3 billion years is a young Earth"? Who is jebus? I know of no such person.
You are obviously insane and an internet troll lunatic looking for attention, and quite possibly demonically possessed like some others here on physorg. Get lost.
Whydening Gyre
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 28, 2018
Whyde asked me, and I answered. Nothing from nothing produces nothing, and something from nothing also produces nothing - no matter how hard you wish it to be different.

So, the simple answer is - there has always been SOMEthing...
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (6) Oct 28, 2018
@SEU: Then why are you using YEC tactics? And the universe is 13.7 billion years old. Maybe you forgot.

As far as being a troll, actually I troll trolls. Like you, for example. They're easily discerned: they have no physics, and they use politics a lot. Like downvoting that which they are incapable of understanding.

There are real physicists who post here but the more trolls like you make trainwreck threads like this one the less they care to post here. Still, when they do, they get my respect. You get none because you are ignorant, stupid, and obvious.

Anybody who knows any physics can look at my posts and prove me wrong anytime. Curiously none do, including you. And I gave you a chance above, and you haven't done a thing about it but behave like a lying coward so far.

Including this latest post, which is all politics no physics, as usual from you.
Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (7) Oct 28, 2018
It's nice and easy, @SEU: either post real physics that actually proves your points, or continue to be marked as a trolling lying coward.

You do have one other option: you might be unnknowledgable enough to not actually know the physics and be trying to discern reality without learning them. If you would like to admit this and learn just say so. *That* I will not ridicule, unless you try later to use it against me as @RC has. Then you will find me your implacable enemy. You get to do this once and once only and you will be watched.

One thing I will never do is lie to you. I might be wrong, I might make a mistake, but I will never intentionally tell a lie about physics, which as far as I can tell is what you have been doing.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.7 / 5 (7) Oct 28, 2018
Whyde asked me, and I answered. Nothing from nothing produces nothing, and something from nothing also produces nothing - no matter how hard you wish it to be different.

So, the simple answer is - there has always been SOMEthing...
says Whyde

That is correct. You catch on quickly. It is also Logical and reasonable that Particles always existed, and it is those Particles that give rise to the raw elements of Nature. Remember the argument on Caesium in atomic clocks? It is the electrons in Caesium (an element) that keeps the clock fairly accurate within one second each 300k Earth years.
Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (7) Oct 28, 2018
Whyde asked me, and I answered. Nothing from nothing produces nothing, and something from nothing also produces nothing - no matter how hard you wish it to be different.

So, the simple answer is - there has always been SOMEthing...
Yeah, but if the ekpyrotic or the quantum fluctuation hypothesis turns out to be correct, then that "SOMEthing" didn't look anything like our universe, and in fact we can't tell much of anything about what was before the universe became.
Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (8) Oct 28, 2018
Lying coward @SEU lies and flees again.

Like I said, bring it. You got nothing, and you're a lying trolling coward, @Surveillance_Egg_Unit. I own you. There is nowhere to hide. You don't have the physics to even argue with me. You can't lie about physics on a physics site and expect to get away with it. Not even if you're lying for jebus.

You are a YEC and you are avoiding admitting it. Stop lying.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.8 / 5 (9) Oct 28, 2018
I hope that you don't mind some derision... You left a door wide open, on these occasion I just can't help myself.

Don't be surprise if people here start to call you heavy shadow man. Cheers :D

says Techno Creed

I don't see any derision in your post at all.
Heavy shadow man? No problem. However I am tall but not heavy. But your assumption is amusing. Thanks. I've gotten a lot of laughs out of this forum. In a world that is going nuts, we need to laugh more, yes?
Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (8) Oct 28, 2018
And stop hiding, @Surveillance_Egg_Unit. Come out and show your physics or admit you have none.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (9) Oct 29, 2018
Do you want to know my opinion of it? Dark Matter is a shadow of normal Matter. Try that on for size, RC. Shadows can follow whole galaxies, where the galaxy itself may cast a shadow.


Looking at your own shadow, how much does it weigh? Therefore it can't add mass or gravity to it's surroundings.
says Benni

Precisely. And everything that science has said about Dark Matter should remind us of that shadow on the wall that bears no weight. It's just there doing nothing but following the galaxy around and the Stars in the galaxy provide the lighting for the shadow to be cast.

Thanks Benni.


Then I should add, that Event Horizon telescope has accumulated a lot of data via which they expect to find the SHADOW of a BH. You'd think direct observation of the real image would be easier to focus on, but these Pop-Cosmologists prefer shadow boxing.
says Benni

Shadow of a BH should mean that starlight is causing a BH's shadow to form. But you're right
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (9) Oct 29, 2018
Here's an example, @Surveillance_Egg_Unit:
It is also Logical and reasonable that Particles always existed
No, it's not. The underlying physics of some multiverse space within which (whatever "within" means) the branes of ekpyrosis or the quantum fluctuation that led to our universe need have neither particles nor even anything like the laws of physics we know. In fact it's not even clear such a preexisting background has time, much less space. "Particle" is a meaningless concept in the absence of time and space.

If you're going to talk about physics you need to actually know some. And it's obvious from the drivel you post that you don't.
Whydening Gyre
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 29, 2018
So, the simple answer is - there has always been SOMEthing...
Yeah, but if the ekpyrotic or the quantum fluctuation hypothesis turns out to be correct, then that "SOMEthing" didn't look anything like our universe, and in fact we can't tell much of anything about what was before the universe became.

I said it was the simplest answer, not necessarily the correct one...:-)
But a simple answer (such as a creator) serves only as an indicator of one's capacity to imagine and quantify this reality we're all a part of...
To say any elemental collection of protons are eternal? Wrong.
Quarks are the basic element that we know of at this time...

Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (7) Oct 29, 2018
To say any elemental collection of protons are eternal? Wrong.
Quarks are the basic element that we know of at this time...
But quarks cannot exist in isolation. The simplest possibility is to be a meson, which is a quark and an antiquark, and the next simplest (which cannot decay from three quarks to two) is a proton, which is two ups and a down. Those are the laws of physics in our universe.

Of course we might see proton decay, but it's been pushed out to such a large half-life that nobody's buying that until they see it these days.

Which of course means it's not at all wrong to say that a collection of protons is eternal.
Whydening Gyre
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 29, 2018
To say any elemental collection of protons are eternal? Wrong.
Quarks are the basic element that we know of at this time...
But quarks cannot exist in isolation. The simplest possibility is to be a meson, which is a quark and an antiquark, and the next simplest (which cannot decay from three quarks to two) is a proton, which is two ups and a down. Those are the laws of physics in our universe.

Of course we might see proton decay, but it's been pushed out to such a large half-life that nobody's buying that until they see it these days.

Which of course means it's not at all wrong to say that a collection of protons is eternal.

Lemme clarify - a "collection of" protons (and neutrons are just protons on steriods) are not eternal...
Now, not so sure about electrons (another basic unit)...
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (9) Oct 29, 2018
You wanna be careful with neutrons. They're two downs and an up, and one of the downs can change by the weak interaction into an up because there's a mass advantage.

But no one has seen proton decay, so as far as we know right now protons are eternal.

We were just discussing whether there is a chance electrons are composite on another thread very recently, and because their magnetic moment is spherical, they can't be composite. No one has ever suggested much less observed electron decay, and we know far more about electrons than about quarks and gluons.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (9) Oct 29, 2018
And one more thing: the absence of detection of proton decay also means that neutrons in a stable nuclide do not decay either, so they also are eternal. So keep that in mind too.
granville583762
4 / 5 (8) Oct 29, 2018
Bilbo Baggins There and back again

Quasi neutrality in proton-neutron transformation, there and back again
When a proton is transformed into a neutron how much energy is required
Conversely, when the neutron transforms back to a proton how much energy is released

Because in deuterium when a neutron transforms into a proton, instantly changing hydrogen into helium
The total energy requirement creating helium in vacuum
Is quasi neutral, as the proton and electron create a neutron out of a proton, to get the proton past the coulomb barrier, where once past the coulomb barrier, transforms back again to a proton!

In essence, Bilbo Baggins, There and back again
granville583762
4 / 5 (8) Oct 29, 2018
Bilbo Baggins There and back again is Quasi neutral

Conservation of energy in fusion
In essence the proton and electron create any element they wish up to the instability of elements
All alone in the vacuum
With no gravitational assistance
Just using the energy of their mortal coils
In the inky blackness
Where there total energy requirements
According to conservation of energy
Is quasi neutral in fusion
And so
As Bilbo left on his journey
Retraced his steps
To where hobbits live
Arrived back where he started
Bilbo Baggins
The scientist
In There and back again
Is quasi neutral
Benni
2.1 / 5 (11) Oct 29, 2018
You wanna be careful with neutrons. They're two downs and an up,
......quarks? Shows how much YOU know about nuclear physics. Quarks are only a Pop-Cosmology fantasy, never been ISOLATED, kind of like BHs & DM, never been isolated but boy do we can have lots of fantasy fun trolling around on the internet embarking on foul mouthed name calling rants against those who refuse to believe in our fanstasyland of Pop-Cosmology.

Hey, Schneibo, drag out that 19th Black Hole Math stuff again just so those of us who have studied 21st century nuclear physics can have some more laughs.
granville583762
4 / 5 (8) Oct 29, 2018
Through the looking glass

Through the coulomb barrier
Benni, the use of quarks are just a means to explain the changing electric field, as yet it is still unknown how the proton and electron neutralises the protons positive field to get past the coulomb barrier
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (10) Oct 29, 2018
......so those of us who have studied 21st century nuclear physics can have some more laughs.


And another lie! You have never studied any kind of physics, you pillock. What is a half-life again? Lol.
granville583762
4 / 5 (8) Oct 29, 2018
Here we go again JD, commenting on comments you cannot see
You must have x-ray vision
Or may be a bit too much of the amber nectar
Or both
Take your choice
JD
hat1208
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 29, 2018
@Da Schneib

Watch @SEU closely. It is a Young Earth Creationist, also known as a YEC, and it's lying for jebus.

As a side note "SEU" is also a reference to the biblical as, "Supreme Entity Unit" another way of saying god.

If you happen to read this you mentioned the gluon and meson, so where is the boson in this hierarchy?
Whydening Gyre
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 29, 2018
......quarks? Shows how much YOU know about nuclear physics. Quarks are only a Pop-Cosmology fantasy, never been ISOLATED, kind of like BHs & DM, never been isolated but boy do we can have lots of fantasy fun trolling around on the internet embarking on foul mouthed name calling rants against those who refuse to believe in our fanstasyland of Pop-Cosmology.

So... You WEREN'T classically trained in nuclear physics...
granville583762
4 / 5 (8) Oct 29, 2018
ARISTOTLE

Classically trained in 347 BC applies for eternity
ARISTOTLE, a classily trained scientist and scholar
Aristotle was a child, and he was brought up by a guardian. At seventeen or eighteen years of age, he joined Plato's Academy in Athens and remained there until the age of thirty-seven (c. 347 BC).[4] His writings cover many subjects – including physics, biology, zoology, metaphysics, logic, ethics, aesthetics, poetry, theatre, music, rhetoric, psychology, linguistics, economics, politics and government

Classically trained in 347 BC aplies for eternity as science never advances
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 29, 2018
The mesons and the baryons are the two main families of the hadrons, the particles that are made from quarks held together by gluons. Mesons have two quarks, and baryons have three. Physicists think there might be viable but very short-lived combinations of higher numbers of quarks but none have been formally discovered AFAIK.

The leptons are single particles, not made from other particles; they are the electron, the muon, and the tauon, and their respective neutrinos. Quarks can decay by the weak force and generally emit leptons as decay products when they do. The numbers of leptons and also of quarks are conserved; this means that however many of them you started with that's the number you must end with. When leptons are emitted in this manner, they must be accompanied by an equal number of antileptons in order to obey this conservation law.
[contd]
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 29, 2018
Bosons and fermions are different spin states; there are two available states, integer spin and half-integer spin. Bosons are integer spin, and are identified with force or radiation; gluons, photons, W and Z particles, and gravitons are all bosons. They mediate, respectively, the color or strong force, the EM force, the weak nuclear force, and gravity. Fermions are half-integer spin, and are identified with matter; quarks, all the hadrons, and all the leptons are fermions.

That seems to cover what you were asking about, @hat. Let me know if you need more, and where.
Benni
1.8 / 5 (10) Oct 29, 2018
Quarks can decay by the weak force and generally emit leptons as decay products when they do.


Hey, Schneibo.......how do you know quarks decay? You've seen one do it? You measured it? Then you'd be the first because nuclear physicists have yet to isolate one to view lifespan decay habits. OK, what's the decay rate for a quark?

Thus unlike a free neutron which we can measure ~15 minutes, something you didn't know till I brought to the attention of EVERYBODY in this chatroom on that fateful day, spelling out why it was such bad news for the existence of neutron stars.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (9) Oct 29, 2018
@Lenni is capering again. Now it says it doesn't "believe in" quarks. This isn't even crankery any more; it's just silliness.
granville583762
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 29, 2018
Text book in Wikipedia
That seems to cover what you were asking about, @hat. Let me know if you need more, and where

As anyone who has internet access
Peruses Wikipedia
When we emerge from the world of ARISTOTLE in 347 BC
We will be able to sign up for BT-Infinity
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (8) Oct 29, 2018
The experiments confirming the existence of quarks inside protons were performed at SLAC in deep inelastic scattering experiments beginning in 1967 and continuing through the 1970s. Once all the data crunching was done, it was clear that there were multiple components inside the proton causing scattering of the electrons in directions that could not be accounted for by a simple, homogenous proton. This is approximately the same as Rutherford's discovery of alpha particles being scattered back by gold nuclei, which finally showed that the atom is composed of a small nucleus with most of the mass surrounded by electrons in orbitals, rather than the previously popular "plum pudding" model with the electrons attached to the nucleus. Modern atomic theory depends upon the latter; and modern QCD depends upon the former.

Quarks have been known to exist for over 50 years. No serious question has been raised by any experiment since.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.5 / 5 (8) Oct 29, 2018
@Benni
First, DaSchnirk tells us this:

No, it's not. The underlying physics of some multiverse space within which (whatever "within" means) the branes of ekpyrosis or the quantum fluctuation that led to our universe need have neither particles nor even anything like the laws of physics we know. In fact it's not even clear such a preexisting background has time, much less space. "Particle" is a meaningless concept in the absence of time and space.


And then DaSchnirk says this, thereby contradicting himself:

And one more thing: the absence of detection of proton decay also means that neutrons in a stable nuclide do not decay either, so they also are eternal. So keep that in mind too.


The fool insists that I'm a "young Earth Creationist". In reality, I am a Creationist who acknowledges the true age of the Universe as over 13 billion Cosmic years, and the Earth is over 4 billion Earth years.
DaShnirk lies and lies and lies some more. Gish gallop technique.
Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (8) Oct 29, 2018
You are fully sussed, @SEU. You've been lying for jebus.

As for your supposed "contradiction," you need to show it instead of just claiming it. And you can't because you don't know enough physics. I might play with you today if there's nothing better to do; if something comes up, I'll move on.

You are a lying trolling coward and nothing but. All claims, no evidence. All hat, no cattle.
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (9) Oct 29, 2018
Still in 347 BC

You have not always to quote textbook science
One has to have that spark of genius
That idea that advances science
That puts the mundane textbook science into the realms of
Newton, Einstein, where to get a complete list Wikipedia will suffice
If everyone quoted textbook science, we would be still in 347 BC
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (8) Oct 29, 2018
This is dynamiting fish in a barrel. These individuals are so inept at physics they can't even get out of their own way.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.5 / 5 (8) Oct 29, 2018
......quarks? Shows how much YOU know about nuclear physics. Quarks are only a Pop-Cosmology fantasy, never been ISOLATED, kind of like BHs & DM, never been isolated but boy do we can have lots of fantasy fun trolling around on the internet embarking on foul mouthed name calling rants against those who refuse to believe in our fanstasyland of Pop-Cosmology.

So... You WEREN'T classically trained in nuclear physics...
says Whyde

Quark is just a name given to an, as yet, imaginary particle allegedly discovered in the process of colliding particles. Electrons, protons, neutrons, etc. are known and tested as real particles with given functionality that can be proven.

Da Jerk has mentioned ekpariotic universe, most likely a New Age belief.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (6) Oct 29, 2018
Where's the neutrons, @SEU? Where's the "contradiction," @SEU? Why do you keep lying for jebus when you're getting pwnt so bad? Do you think you're a martyr? You're just a lying trolling cowardly "Christian" POS who wouldn't know a physics if it jumped up and bit you on the azz. I have more respect for Jesus Christ in my little toe than you have in your whole life. He didn't hesitate to toss the money changers off the temple steps; you worship them. I've probably read more of the Bible than you ever will.
granville583762
4 / 5 (8) Oct 29, 2018
Quarks in 2018 going on 2019
The experiments confirming the existence of quarks inside protons were performed at SLAC in deep inelastic scattering experiments beginning in 1967

Really, experiments in 1967, 50 years ago
This is the heart of the proton, any relevant experiments quoted on the mechanics quoted has to be 2018 not 50years ago
They did not have the equipment 50years ago
The equipment to view the existence of quarks exists today not in 1967!
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) Oct 29, 2018
Thus unlike a free neutron which we can measure ~15 minutes, something you didn't know till I brought to the attention of EVERYBODY in this chatroom on that fateful day, spelling out why it was such bad news for the existence of neutron stars.


Hahahahaha. Dunning-Kruger kid strikes again! Lol. Nobody had ever heard a the free neutron half-life until the genius Benni pointed it out! What a twat! And then said this:

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.


Jesus, what a cretin!

Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (7) Oct 29, 2018
Incidentally if you want to know why I despise these fake "Christians," it's not because I'm a believer. The Gospels may have been written by a committee, and an actual person who was Jesus Christ may never have existed. Whoever it was, it's a moral philosophy that has stood for two thousand years, and that is worth respect. I give worship to no one and nothing.

Pitiful; I have more respect for the actual lessons contained in the Gospels than these self-named "Christians," and I'm not even a believer. I'm an atheist.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 29, 2018
@Whyde

Ekpyrotic universe - from Wiki
The ekpyrotic universe (/ˌɛkpaɪˈrɒtɪk/)[1] is a cosmological model of the early universe that explains the origin of the large-scale structure of the cosmos. The model has also been incorporated in the cyclic universe theory (or ekpyrotic cyclic universe theory), which proposes a complete cosmological history, both the past and future. The original ekpyrotic model was introduced by Justin Khoury, Burt Ovrut, Paul Steinhardt and Neil Turok in 2001. Steinhardt created the name based on the early word ekpyrosis (Ancient Greek: ἐκπύρωσις, ekpyrōsis, "conflagration"); it refers to an ancient Stoic cosmological model in which the universe is caught in an eternal cycle of fiery birth, cooling and rebirth.[2]

The theory addresses the fundamental question that remains unanswered by the big bang inflationary model: what happened before the big bang? ....
Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (7) Oct 29, 2018
Again, pitiful. @SEU can't even make a readable post. It's not only incompetent in physics; it's incompetent and incontinent in cut-n-paste.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 29, 2018
-contd-

The theory addresses the fundamental question that remains unanswered by the big bang inflationary model: what happened before the big bang? The explanation, according to the ekpyrotic theory, is that the big bang was actually a big bounce, a transition from a previous epoch of contraction to the present epoch of expansion. The key events that shaped our universe occurred before the bounce, and, in a cyclic version, the universe bounces at regular intervals.[3]

The original ekpyrotic models relied on string theory, branes and extra dimensions, but most contemporary ekpyrotic and cyclic models use the same physical ingredients as inflationary models (quantum fields evolving in ordinary space-time). The theory has accurately described what is known so far about our universe. It predicts a uniform, flat universe with patterns of hot spots and cold spots now visible in the cosmic microwave background (CMB), and has been confirmed by the WMAP and Planck satellite...
Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (7) Oct 29, 2018
quantum fields evolving in ordinary space-time
Lying again, and if @SEU is as incontinent as these last two posts show, peeing in its britches.

Not only are you incontinent in physics, you are incontinent in Christianity. I challenge you on your supposed home ground and pwn you there as easily as in physics. You have no response. You are a coward, a liar, a troll, and a buffoon.

Bring it, lying trolling coward @SEU.
Benni
2.5 / 5 (8) Oct 29, 2018
I have more respect for Jesus Christ in my little toe than you have in your whole life. He didn't hesitate to toss the money changers off the temple steps; you worship them. I've probably read more of the Bible than you ever will.


..........and all these years you've been trying to make us believe you were some kind of REAL SCIENTIST.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 29, 2018
Where's the neutrons, @SEU? Where's the "contradiction," @SEU? Why do you keep lying for jebus when you're getting pwnt so bad? Do you think you're a martyr? You're just a lying trolling cowardly "Christian" POS who wouldn't know a physics if it jumped up and bit you on the azz. I have more respect for Jesus Christ in my little toe than you have in your whole life. He didn't hesitate to toss the money changers off the temple steps; you worship them. I've probably read more of the Bible than you ever will.
says DaJerk

ROFLMYAO

According to SpookyOtto, Jesus Christ never existed - and neither did Kings David and Solomon. SpookyOtto denies that almost all of the characters in the Bible ever existed. It appears that DaJerk is contradicting SpookyOtto's (aka theghostofotto1923) beliefs and calling him a Liar.

Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 29, 2018
and all these years you've been trying to make us believe you were some kind of REAL SCIENTIST.
So "real scientists" according to you can't study moral philosophy, @Lenni_The_Liar?

Uh huh.

It appears that DaJerk is contradicting SpookyOtto's (aka theghostofotto1923) beliefs and calling him a Liar.


I don't really care whether Jesus existed or not, but I know your jebus never did. Jebus is the idol you worship, not the real teachings of the Gospels.

And I don't give a schitt about Otto. It's another idiot just like you, only with different weird prejudices.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 29, 2018
Still dynamiting fish in a barrel. Not only do the supposed "Christians" not know any physics, they haven't read the Gospels.
Benni
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 29, 2018
And I don't give a schitt about Otto. It's another idiot, only with different weird prejudices.


.....and you just summed up all of Pop-Cosmology, of which you are a most loyal adherent.
Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (8) Oct 29, 2018
SLAC doesn't do pop cosmology, @Lenni_The_Liar. In fact, SLAC doesn't do cosmology at all. It does physics. You're lying again.
Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (8) Oct 29, 2018
Not only does @Lenni_The_Liar not know the difference between fission and fusion, it also doesn't know the difference between particle physics and cosmology. Not to mention not knowing what half-life is or the difference between half-life and average lifetime.

Like I said, dynamiting fish in a barrel.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.7 / 5 (7) Oct 29, 2018
@Benni

And, in addition to all that, DaJerk takes this out of context, which I copied from Wiki re: Ekpyrotic

quantum fields evolving in ordinary space-time


and then tells me this, regarding that piece from Wikipedia:

Lying again, and if @SEU is as incontinent as these last two posts show, peeing in its britches.


New Age ekpyrosis is a Yo-Yo Universe where, according to DaJerk, particles, time and space don't exist in the "bounce".

Da Schneib
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 29, 2018
@SEU still telling weak lies.

And can't answer my criticism of the money changers at the temple. This is the one the the YECs always try to hide from.

Stuff your money up where the Sun don't shine, Christianoid. Definition of Christianoid: an object that tries to pretend to be Christian.

N.B.: it also is a physicistoid.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (8) Oct 29, 2018
.....and you just summed up all of Pop-Cosmology, of which you are a most loyal adherent.


No, you thick sh!t, this is real science. Not the crap you, and you alone, believe. You are an untutored f***wit, with absolutely zero scientific knowledge. Nobody gives a toss about your uneducated views on scientific subjects of which you have no grasp. You are an irrelevance. A total prat, on a comments section. You cannot find a single scientist to agree with you and, as you yourself are scientifically illiterate, as proven, your comments are of no consequence whatsoever.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 29, 2018
and all these years you've been trying to make us believe you were some kind of REAL SCIENTIST.
So "real scientists" according to you can't study moral philosophy, @Lenni_The_Liar?

Uh huh.

It appears that DaJerk is contradicting SpookyOtto's (aka theghostofotto1923) beliefs and calling him a Liar.


I don't really care whether Jesus existed or not, but I know your jebus never did. Jebus is the idol you worship, not the real teachings of the Gospels.

And I don't give a schitt about Otto. It's another idiot just like you, only with different weird prejudices.
says DaSchniebo

Uh Oh..........
Da Schneib
2 / 5 (4) Oct 29, 2018
Then bring something to show it's wrong, lying scheming trolling christianoid physicistoid idiot coward @SEU. Something other than more lying claims.

Been waiting for a couple hundred posts. Nothing yet. All claims no evidence. All hat no cattle.

I believe that's another ace. Maybe you can hit the next one back.
Da Schneib
2 / 5 (4) Oct 29, 2018
This is what you get playing politics with Da Schneib.

Are you enjoying being made to look like an idiot in both physics and religion? I'll be glad to pwn you some more. Until I get bored. It is, after all, very much like burning ants with a magnifying glass.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (6) Oct 29, 2018
Quarks in 2018 going on 2019
The experiments confirming the existence of quarks inside protons were performed at SLAC in deep inelastic scattering experiments beginning in 1967

Really, experiments in 1967, 50 years ago
This is the heart of the proton, any relevant experiments quoted on the mechanics quoted has to be 2018 not 50years ago
They did not have the equipment 50years ago
The equipment to view the existence of quarks exists today not in 1967!
says granville

Come to think of it - you are so right on the money. DaShnirk the Physicist wannabe has a problem with telling the Truth, and because of his mental illness, has resolved to pass his malady on to other folks - calling THEM liars.
But now that we understand what DaSheibo is all about - from reading all of his excitations that are clearly an exhibition of his need to flood the forum with his *copy and paste* Physics that he has gathered from Wiki and other sources. Birds of a feather, they are.
Da Schneib
2 / 5 (4) Oct 29, 2018
https://www.slac....5724.pdf

You're lying again, christianoid physicistoid lying cheating scheming trolling idiot coward @SEU. It's not gonna work.

And you're still afraid of the parable of the money changers.
Da Schneib
2 / 5 (4) Oct 29, 2018
Playing politics on the physics site isn't working out well for christianoid physicistoid lying cheating scheming trolling idiot coward @SEU. Wonder how long until it burns bad enough it stops? An interesting question in anthropoid psychology. And someone writes a paper based on your misbehavior.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 29, 2018
Politics playing christianoid physicistoid lying cheating scheming trolling idiot coward YEC @SEU downvotes the 20-years downstream link to the SLAC results that proved the existence of quarks.

Let me post the link again: https://www.slac....5724.pdf

Shortly I'll have it only posting insults.

Oh, wait...
granville583762
4 / 5 (8) Oct 29, 2018
The Third Way
Da Schneib> And can't answer my criticism of the money changers at the temple

Fission is either a nuclear reaction or a radioactive decay process in which the nucleus of an atom splits into smaller parts

Fusion, is the process of combining two or more distinct entities into a new whole

Then the third way
Crossing the coulomb barrier
Two protons transforms to neutrons to cross the coulomb barrier, forming tritium then one neutron transforms back to a proton forming helium
Where this transforming is radio-active decay is fission

We welcome your transformation in to theocracy Da Schneib
As this is the third way
granville583762
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 29, 2018
Da Schneib, in priestly form

We welcome your transformation in to theocracy Da Schneib
We look forward to your priestly scientific sermons, Da Schneib
As this is the third way

Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 29, 2018
Nawww, @Granny, I don't do theocracy. I have read the Bible cover to cover. I have read the Mahabharata. I have studied Mahayana. I have read much of the Vedas. I have studied with a Zen master, though I do not claim enlightenment.

The only ones that gave me any serious thoughts were the Vedas, and Zen. The rest all sounded like propaganda.
Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 29, 2018
I should be more specific than the Vedas; I should say I have studied the Upanishads with the greatest interest.
granville583762
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 29, 2018
As on All Hallows Eve

A strange transformation this night
When witch's fly
In beams full moon
The nightly broomsticking abounds
In silhouette against the moon
And wolves a howling
Even stranger magic in undertaking
As anointment of most unexpectancy
Of transformation taketh place
As amongst the magic
Of witches broomsicking
Da Schneib appeared
In pure white of gown
In priestly form
As wonders never cease
Priestly lecture do abound
From most unexpected form
Silhouetted against the full moon
Da Schneib appeared
In full brilliance of sermon
Are faults Da Schneib laid bare
So as we kneel in shame
Before Da Schneib the priest
As priestly Da Schneib
Has found his calling
Has also found the third way
Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 29, 2018
@Granny you're making a serious mistake if you confuse science with religion.
Whydening Gyre
4.3 / 5 (3) Oct 29, 2018
ARISTOTLE

Classically trained in 347 BC applies for eternity
ARISTOTLE, a classily trained scientist and scholar
Aristotle was a child, and he was brought up by a guardian. At seventeen or eighteen years of age, he joined Plato's Academy in Athens and remained there until the age of thirty-seven (c. 347 BC).[4] His writings cover many subjects – including physics, biology, zoology, metaphysics, logic, ethics, aesthetics, poetry, theatre, music, rhetoric, psychology, linguistics, economics, politics and government

Classically trained in 347 BC aplies for eternity as science never advances

A career student, then...
Benni
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 29, 2018
The Third Way

Da Schneib> And can't answer my criticism of the money changers at the temple


Fission is either a nuclear reaction or a radioactive decay process in which the nucleus of an atom splits into smaller parts
...and it can be done in subzero temps & generate millions of degree temps as well as neutrons & protons that can hit other mass of He & move right up the Periodic Table & fission more stuff inside all those cold dust clouds & begin to light them up.

Fusion, is the process of combining two or more distinct entities into a new whole

Then the third way
Crossing the coulomb barrier
Two protons transforms to neutrons to cross the coulomb barrier, forming tritium then one neutron transforms back to a proton forming helium
Where this transforming is radio-active decay is fission

We welcome your transformation in to theocracy Da Schneib
As this is the third way
but methinks the sawdust from the trail will make hard seeing the way.
Whydening Gyre
4 / 5 (4) Oct 29, 2018
......quarks? Shows how much YOU know about nuclear physics. Quarks are only a Pop-Cosmology fantasy, never been ISOLATED, kind of like BHs & DM, never been isolated but boy do we can have lots of fantasy fun trolling around on the internet embarking on foul mouthed name calling rants against those who refuse to believe in our fanstasyland of Pop-Cosmology.

So... You WEREN'T classically trained in nuclear physics...
says Whyde

Quark is just a name given to an, as yet, imaginary particle allegedly discovered in the process of colliding particles. Electrons, protons, neutrons, etc. are known and tested as real particles with given functionality that can be proven.

Da Jerk has mentioned ekpariotic universe, most likely a New Age belief.

If you would have looked it up you would realize it is a word to describe a steady state Universe.
granville583762
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 29, 2018
Before Da Schneib the priest
Da Schneib> @Granny you're making a serious mistake if you confuse science with religion.

Da Schneib, Indeed priestly lecture in your new found calling of confuse science with religion
As you as you take your priestly calling
You have a challenge most dire
As will test your obedience to your calling
As you cannot convert me to your priestly calling
As sure as Georges Lemaitre fore told the godly creation, as is your belief Da Schneib!
I do not believe in priestly creations.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (4) Oct 29, 2018
Meh, Whyde, steady state isn't compatible with ekpyrotic. Ekpyrotic is either one-shot or cyclical depending on the interpretation you like.
Whydening Gyre
4 / 5 (4) Oct 29, 2018
Meh, Whyde, steady state isn't compatible with ekpyrotic. Ekpyrotic is either one-shot or cyclical depending on the interpretation you like.

"Steinhardt created the name based on the early word ekpyrosis (Ancient Greek: ἐκπύρωσις, ekpyrōsis, "conflagration"); it refers to an ancient Stoic cosmological model in which the universe is caught in an eternal cycle of fiery birth, cooling and rebirth."

I'm goin' with cyclical... :-)
Whydening Gyre
4 / 5 (4) Oct 29, 2018
The Third Way
Fission is either a nuclear reaction or a radioactive decay process in which the nucleus of an atom splits into smaller parts

Fusion, is the process of combining two or more distinct entities into a new whole

Then the third way
Crossing the coulomb barrier
Two protons transforms to neutrons to cross the coulomb barrier, forming tritium then one neutron transforms back to a proton forming helium
Where this transforming is radio-active decay is fission

Except that neutrons are not an attracted charge to proton's.
They're NEUTRONs (meaning neutral). They HAVE NO CHARGE to attract (or repulse)...
This would then require an extremely dense mass in order to bring one physically close enuff to a proton to bond. And would still require an electron (or more, depending on the element) to maintain that bond.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (4) Oct 29, 2018
They got a name for that, @Whyde. It's called a neutron star. Basically a giant nucleus with a thin crust of normal matter on the outside.
Whydening Gyre
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 29, 2018
...
Then the third way
Crossing the coulomb barrier
Two protons transforms to neutrons to cross the coulomb barrier, forming tritium then one neutron transforms back to a proton forming helium
Where this transforming is radio-active decay is fission


And a decaying neutron is NOT fission...
It's decay.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 29, 2018
......quarks? Shows how much YOU know about nuclear physics. Quarks are only a Pop-Cosmology fantasy, never been ISOLATED, kind of like BHs & DM, never been isolated but boy do we can have lots of fantasy fun trolling around on the internet embarking on foul mouthed name calling rants against those who refuse to believe in our fanstasyland of Pop-Cosmology.

So... You WEREN'T classically trained in nuclear physics...
says Whyde

Quark is just a name given to an, as yet, imaginary particle allegedly discovered in the process of colliding particles. Electrons, protons, neutrons, etc. are known and tested as real particles with given functionality that can be proven.

Da Jerk has mentioned ekpariotic universe, most likely a New Age belief.

If you would have looked it up you would realize it is a word to describe a steady state Universe.
says Whyde

ekpariotic universe should have been spelt EKPYROTIC universe.
Wiki said no such thing.
Whydening Gyre
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 29, 2018
Quark is just a name given to an, as yet, imaginary particle allegedly discovered in the process of colliding particles. Electrons, protons, neutrons, etc. are known and tested as real particles with given functionality that can be proven.

Da Jerk has mentioned ekpariotic universe, most likely a New Age belief.

If you would have looked it up you would realize it is a word to describe a steady state Universe.
says Whyde

ekpariotic universe should have been spelt EKPYROTIC universe.

If you look closely, I did not spell it that way. You will know that because I do refer to Da Schneib as Da Jerk. I believe you do....
Wiki said no such thing.

You are correct, it says cyclical. Repetitive cycling is a mode of steady in my book...
Whydening Gyre
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 29, 2018
ekpariotic universe should have been spelt EKPYROTIC universe.

If you look closely, I did not spell it that way. You will know that because I do
NOT
refer to Da Schneib as Da Jerk. I believe you do....


As a matter of fact, I name call NO one.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 29, 2018
Quark is just a name given to an, as yet, imaginary particle allegedly discovered in the process of colliding particles. Electrons, protons, neutrons, etc. are known and tested as real particles with given functionality that can be proven.

Da Jerk has mentioned ekpariotic universe, most likely a New Age belief.

If you would have looked it up you would realize it is a word to describe a steady state Universe.
says Whyde

ekpariotic universe should have been spelt EKPYROTIC universe.

If you look closely, I did not spell it that way. You will know that because I do refer to Da Schneib as Da Jerk. I believe you do....
Wiki said no such thing.

You are correct, it says cyclical. Repetitive cycling is a mode of steady in my book...
says Whyde

You say tomahto; I say tomayto. The Wiki also refers to a "bounce", which might be rather similar to a ball bouncing; but I prefer the YoYo effect to describe the pattern.

Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 30, 2018
It even lies about its own posts. All for jebus no doubt.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 30, 2018

If you look closely, I did not spell it that way. You will know that because I do refer to Da Schneib as Da Jerk. I believe you do


If you look closely, I did not spell it that way. You will know that because I do
NOT
refer to Da Schneib as Da Jerk. I believe you do....
says Whyde

Well, I claim the right to call DaJerk DaJerk. When a Jerk behaves as a Jerk, it is perfectly permissible to call that Jerk - DaJerk.

Anything less would be dishonest.

Whydening Gyre
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 30, 2018
It even lies about its own posts. All for jebus no doubt.

Wasn't he one of the "Beverly Hillbillies"?
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (4) Oct 30, 2018
No doubt.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 30, 2018
It even lies about its own posts. All for jebus no doubt.

Wasn't he one of the "Beverly Hillbillies"?
says Whyde

Jebus is a hillbilly? Who knew?
Whydening Gyre
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 30, 2018

You say tomahto; I say tomayto. The Wiki also refers to a "bounce", which might be rather similar to a ball bouncing; but I prefer the YoYo effect to describe the pattern.

I prefer Ouroboros...
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 30, 2018

You say tomahto; I say tomayto. The Wiki also refers to a "bounce", which might be rather similar to a ball bouncing; but I prefer the YoYo effect to describe the pattern.

I prefer Ouroboros...
says Whyde

That would describe DaJerk perfectly - eating his own tail.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 30, 2018
Well, time to take the doggie for a walk. Take care, Whyde
Watch out for DaJerk. Almost Hallowe'en, you know. He will 'trick or treat' you.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (4) Oct 30, 2018
Besides, @SEU, you don't have any physics to post on the physics site. And you claim to be a "Christian" (whatever you think that means) but can't even deal with the parable of the money changers.

Sorrier than a broke diick dog.
savvys84
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 30, 2018
sigh hubble constant. Next
when will they learn time flows differently out there
granville583762
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 30, 2018
In Honour of Da Schneib, the Priest

Bilbo Baggins, the scholar
In there and back again before he left
As Bilbo Baggins on his journey
Pondered on its beginning
Pondered in mind
That as he pondered its beginning
He had planned its beginning
And so the thought occurred to Bilbo Baggins
That this beginning
That had a start
And had a journey
And as he sat in his cosy cottage
Pondering the end of his beginning
The thought that this beginning
Had a before the begging
As in the conception planning
He was planning before the beginning
So as Bilbo Baggins in spark of genius
In realisation of this thought
Realised he had one up on Georges Lemaitre
As Georges Lemaitre had only realised the beginning
As Bilbo Baggins had realised before the beginning
And so the universe owes Bilbo Baggins
A debt of honour
As Bilbo Baggins has in his wisdom
In there and back again
Fore told
Before the beginning and back again
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (4) Oct 30, 2018
@granville

And so the Universe owes Bilbo Baggins
A debt of honour


It is the least we can do - is to give honour, deep respect, glorify his Wisdom and Strength.
For it is such as He who knew what was to come long before it was
And He knew the ending, as well as the Beginning
For He had written of the powers of the electron, the proton, and Grandmother Neutron
At the time of the Beginning
And it was In The Beginning where He ascribed all natural wisdom to those wise Particles
Who tumbled and jumbled and made merry in their moments of Glory
When Old Bilbo instructed them to do His bidding
Thereby creating a very good Beginning for all In The Shires

:)
Da Schneib
1 / 5 (1) Oct 30, 2018
Bring some physics to the physics site, @SEU. Otherwise you're just another christianoid physicistoid lying squirming whining cheating scheming YEC troll coward.

Oh and since you claim to be a "Christian" tell us why your "religion" doesn't have an answer for the parable of the money changers in the temple.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 30, 2018
sigh hubble constant. Next
when will they learn time flows differently out there
says savvys84

They will always refuse to learn and acknowledge these Truths.

Time is consistent EVERYWHERE in the Universe outside of a planet called Earth, as well as on other planets of any Star system.
Earth-Time is a manmade, Mind-compelled structure whose sole purpose is to explain the measurements of the duration of an event(s) and the measurement of distance(s) that explains how long it takes to cross any distance.
Animals and plants have no sense of Time, except to understand daylight and darkness, and the seasons - without requiring a reason for it.
Man is burdened with that requirement, where he is lost without it.
Time is not a dimension but is only a movable forward action without form or reason. It is pure Logic without thought or agenda or goal.
Time can't disappear, as it has never appeared as has Space In The Beginning.
Time is both measurable and Immeasurable.
Da Schneib
1 / 5 (1) Oct 30, 2018
Now @SEU is making up stories about time. That's where christianoid physicistoid lying squirming whining cheating scheming YEC troll cowards always go.

Bring real physics, not speculations about time, @SEU.
granville583762
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 30, 2018
Ekpyrotic universe before the beginning
Da Schneib> steady state isn't compatible with ekpyrotic. Ekpyrotic is either one-shot or cyclical depending on the interpretation you like.

The theory addresses the fundamental question that remains unanswered by the big bang inflationary model: what happened before the big bang

The bigbang however, you look at, is a godly creation
As science is not godly
Da Schneib, a cyclic beginning
Is a godly beginning
And so out of nothing
Was the beginning
Leads to what is before the beginning
A consequence of a godly beginning
Therefore a godly creation
A circular argument in beginnings
So Da Schneib
Any priestly connections
In beginnings
Are godly creations
Are priestly beginnings
Therefore priestly beginnings, Da Schneib
Not science.
savvys84
3 / 5 (2) Oct 31, 2018
sigh hubble constant. Next
when will they learn time flows differently out there
says savvys84

They will always refuse to learn and acknowledge these Truths.

Time is consistent EVERYWHERE in the Universe outside of a planet called Earth, as well as on other planets of any Star system.
Earth-Time is a manmade, Mind-compelled structure whose sole purpose is to explain the measurements of the duration of an event(s) and the measurement of distance(s) that explains how long it takes to cross any distance.
.

I am a Christian too. Praise the Lord
tho time is very physical much the same way matter is physical. yes time domain is real and time flow depends on gravity at that point. higher the gravity, higher is the time flow rate, which is opp to what GR states
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (2) Oct 31, 2018
sigh hubble constant. Next
when will they learn time flows differently out there
says savvys84

They will always refuse to learn and acknowledge these Truths.

Time is consistent EVERYWHERE in the Universe outside of a planet called Earth, as well as on other planets of any Star system.
Earth-Time is a manmade, Mind-compelled structure whose sole purpose is to explain the measurements of the duration of an event(s) and the measurement of distance(s) that explains how long it takes to cross any distance.
.

I am a Christian too. Praise the Lord
tho time is very physical much the same way matter is physical. yes time domain is real and time flow depends on gravity at that point. higher the gravity, higher is the time flow rate, which is opp to what GR states
says savvys84

While I'm not a Christian, I do respect Christian denominations and all other religions. I am not offended by religions as some haters of religions seem to be.
-contd-
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (2) Oct 31, 2018
-contd-
@savvys
Where have you gotten your idea that Time is physical? Can you detect Time with any of your senses or with a scope of any kind? Time flow depending on gravity? No. What you are referring to as Time flow being affected by gravity is actually a Caesium clock at altitude being affected by gravity - depending on altitude, velocity, and direction of the clock. It runs slower at higher altitude and faster at the surface of the Earth. There was a discussion about that in another forum some time ago. The Caesium clock is accurate only within 1 second up to 300,000 years. So it isn't the concept of Time that is affected; but only the mechanism of the Caesium clock and the electrons of the element Caesium within the clock. If you look at the face of the clock, you can see the hands moving, which means that Time is moving onward. But it's only the MECHANISM that is doing the moving.
granville583762
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 31, 2018
A sad reflection on life, that time does not exist

SEU, any clock that measure time is a physical reality
And therefore posses inertial mass
Effected by gravity, acceleration, and electromagnetic radiation
As just as a pendulum on the moon
The measure of time is not in mechanical entities
Time is a measure of dawn to dusk in the windmills of our minds
It is ethereal in its existent, and so does not exist
A sad reflection on life, that time does not exist
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (2) Nov 01, 2018
Chronos (/ˈkroʊnɒs/; Greek: Χρόνος, "time", pronounced [kʰrónos], also transliterated as Khronos or Latinised as Chronus) is the personification of time in pre-Socratic philosophy and later literature. Chronos governed linear, chronological time, contrasted with the other Greek word for time, kairos, meaning the indeterminate moment that is right for something to occur.[1]

Chronos already was confused with, or perhaps consciously identified with, the Titan Cronus in antiquity due to the similarity in names.[2] The identification became more widespread during the Renaissance, giving rise to the allegory of "Father Time" wielding the harvesting scythe.

savvys84
not rated yet Nov 01, 2018
@SEU
/its physical because, if you start to remove time entity from a piece of say a metal, its physical, chemical and nuclear properties change. It tends to move towards being a BEC. I have ingested time altered water and it changes your DNA
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (2) Nov 01, 2018
@SEU
/its physical because, if you start to remove time entity from a piece of say a metal, its physical, chemical and nuclear properties change. It tends to move towards being a BEC. I have ingested time altered water and it changes your DNA
says savvys

This is the last answer I will give to you on your topic. Your next answer should come from a bonafide scientist who most likely will give you the same answers as I have.
Time is NOT an entity and has never been. Time does NOT change chemical properties - it is the chemistry ITSELF that changes due to whatever conditions it is undergoing. It's the same with nuclear properties. There are changes that occur in the properties/actions of nuclear PARTICLES and it is those particles that change or cause changes.
A glass of milk will curdle and go sour if you leave fresh milk out with no refrigeration for days. That is the molecules in the milk undergoing their own changes. Time has nothing to do with those changes stated.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (2) Nov 01, 2018
-contd-
The only reason that you THINK that Time has anything to do with, or cause those chemical changes is - because YOU are aware of daylight and darkness that is caused by the Star that you see each day. Changes in chemistry and in mechanisms may be caused by gravity, altitude, velocity, directional, and conditional processes. The Eiffel tower will rust away through chemical changes, not because of Time. The rusting has to go through certain stages as the metal undergoes attacks from weathering to its molecules. Again, not because of Time.

If you really believe that what you drank caused your DNA to change, I assure you that IT WAS NOT TIME that did it. Time does not cause DNA to change. CHEMISTRY causes DNA to change, and it would have begun with one of more of your ancestors and passed down to you.
Such DNA wouldn't happen only to YOU, but most likely to one or more of your siblings, aunts, uncles, cousin, etc.

Time is really ONLY a figment of man's imagination.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (2) Nov 01, 2018
-contd-
DNA and RNA and all the nice little motions/activities in each cell of your body undergo changes due to "self-imposed chemical changes" due to outside influences such as, climatic and environmental conditions - and sometimes even emotional stress and other maladies MAY CAUSE slight changes to your cellular programming. It is said that such changes to your chemistry could be passed on to your offspring.
You and everyone else - humans, animals, plants were ALL PREPROGRAMMED before birth while undergoing conception and then gestation in the womb for humans and animals. And that is a good thing.
You might want to copy what I've said in these 3 posts, savvys84, and take it to a real scientist to have it confirmed or denied. That should set your mind at ease.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (2) Nov 01, 2018
-contd-
@savvys84
One last thing to be understood. The concept of "SPACE-TIME" in math equations was, in reality, a speculative bit of reasoning by Albert Einstein and others when, at the time, they thought that Time itself was companion to Space and that the two were inseparable. The "scientific method" is still a belief in that misconception and scientists will not, or just cannot, let go of it. Therefore, they still write their math equations with Spacetime, rather than just Space along with the measurements of distance or duration, as well as the intermediary link between sundown to the next sundown (or sunup to sunup of 24 Earth hours).
The scientific method is NOT infallible, which is why things such as Black Holes and Dark Matter must be scrutinised endlessly.
Thus, the concept of Time is still taught as though it were an entity.
savvys84
not rated yet Nov 02, 2018
@SEU
I am a bonafied scientist.. As i am talking to you of highly taboo subject, i didnt really expect you to get the gist if what i am on about. Lot of untoward things have happened to me as a result of researching taboo sciences.
nonetheless thanks for your replies, best to play safe on your part