Gravitational waves could soon provide measure of universe's expansion

In five -10 years, gravitational waves could accurately measure universe's expansion
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
Journal information: Nature

Citation: Gravitational waves could soon provide measure of universe's expansion (2018, October 22) retrieved 15 September 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2018-10-gravitational-universe-expansion.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
1381 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Oct 22, 2018
The preprint is at arXiv. https://arxiv.org...12.06531

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.

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.

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. :)

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.


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.

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?

Oct 22, 2018
LOL As I predicted and submitted too late - and here he is - all full of pee and vinegar.

Oct 22, 2018
How to identify a political troll:

A 1 rating with no response.

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.

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?

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. :)

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.

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?

Oct 22, 2018
RC,
They're not WRONG.
They're just not as accurate as we would like...

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? :)


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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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?

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.

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.


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.

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?


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?

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.

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.

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.

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.


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.

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.

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.

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.


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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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. :)

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.

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)?


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...

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?

Oct 23, 2018
Sorry, duplicated on edit. Please see my next post. Thanks.

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...

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? :)

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...

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. :)

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?

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....


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.

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.

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.

Oct 24, 2018
I just want to know what got Benni into pop-cosmology, and what's wrong with Reality Check's shift key.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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. :)

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",


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.

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.

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. :)

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

Oct 24, 2018
I would like to see it too.

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.

Oct 25, 2018
@Lenni_The_Liar has a sockpuppet.

How cute. Did you draw a little face on it?

RNP
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

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?

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.

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?

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.

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!


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!?

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.


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.

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?

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?

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

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

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.


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
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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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
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.

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".

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

Oct 25, 2018
Here's a website designed for educating children that helps lay this out:

http://www.planet...hot.html

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?


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?

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

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?

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-

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). **<<

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?

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.


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.

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

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.

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!

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.


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

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

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.

Oct 25, 2018
Perhaps, Benni, you meant to say that, "it's the heat that is generated by the compression process"?

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.

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!

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.

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?

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

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.

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.


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.


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

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.

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

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?

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

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".

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?

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...

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.

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.

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

Oct 26, 2018
/me watches the train wreck

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?


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!


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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Oct 26, 2018
Synchrotron radiation in angular acceleration

JD, are you saying good bye

Oct 26, 2018
What did you say, Granny?

Comment posted by a person you have ignored ... show comment

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?

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

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.

Oct 26, 2018
Ahhhh so MrBojangles is just another one of DaSchniebo's sox. DaShriek is soooo transparent.
ROFLMYAO

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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?

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

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.


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!

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...

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

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.

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. :)

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?


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-


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.

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

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!

Oct 26, 2018
SEU, gamma-rays in Synchrotron radiation leads to radio-active decay and ionizing radiation!

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.

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.

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

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?

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'.

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

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.

Oct 26, 2018
I had given them the name of the scientist whose theory it is.


Then give it again.

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.

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.

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

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

Oct 26, 2018
Don't worry about Dr. Herndon's concerns wrt chemtrails aka contrails. That is not the issue.

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

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.

:)

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.

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.

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

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.