Our universe: An expanding bubble in an extra dimension

December 28, 2018, Uppsala University
Our universe: an expanding bubble in an extra dimension
In their article, the scientists propose a new model with dark energy and our universe riding on an expanding bubble in an extra dimension. Credit: Suvendu Giri

Uppsala University researchers have devised a new model for the universe – one that may solve the enigma of dark energy. Their new article, published in Physical Review Letters, proposes a new structural concept, including dark energy, for a universe that rides on an expanding bubble in an additional dimension.

We have known for the past 20 years that the is expanding at an ever accelerating rate. The explanation is the "dark energy" that permeates it throughout, pushing it to expand. Understanding the nature of this dark energy is one of the paramount enigmas of fundamental physics.

It has long been hoped that string theory will provide the answer. According to string theory, all matter consists of tiny, vibrating "stringlike" entities. The theory also requires there to be more than the three that are already part of everyday knowledge. For 15 years, there have been models in string theory that have been thought to give rise to dark energy. However, these have come in for increasingly harsh criticism, and several researchers are now asserting that none of the models proposed to date are workable.

In their article, the scientists propose a with and our universe riding on an expanding bubble in an extra dimension. The whole universe is accommodated on the edge of this expanding bubble. All existing matter in the universe corresponds to the ends of strings that extend out into the extra dimension. The researchers also show that expanding bubbles of this kind can come into existence within the framework of string theory. It is conceivable that there are more bubbles than ours, corresponding to other universes.

The Uppsala scientists' model provides a new, different picture of the creation and future fate of the universe, while it may also pave the way for methods of testing .

Explore further: Is dark energy even allowed in string theory?

More information: Souvik Banerjee et al. Emergent de Sitter Cosmology from Decaying Anti–de Sitter Space, Physical Review Letters (2018). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.261301

Related Stories

Is dark energy even allowed in string theory?

October 8, 2018

A new conjecture is the cause of excitement in the string theory community. Timm Wrase of the Vienna University of Technology has now published his much-discussed results on recent new developments.

The dark side of cosmology

March 6, 2015

It's a beautiful theory: the standard model of cosmology describes the universe using just six parameters. But it is also strange. The model predicts that dark matter and dark energy – two mysterious entities that have ...

New theory on the origin of dark matter

August 8, 2017

Only a small part of the universe consists of visible matter. By far the largest part is invisible and consists of dark matter and dark energy. Very little is known about dark energy, but there are many theories and experiments ...

Cosmology: Lore of lonely regions

August 16, 2016

A research group led by Ludwig-Maximilians-Unversitaet (LMU) in Munich physicist Nico Hamaus is calculating the dynamics of cosmic voids and deriving new insights into our entire universe.

Recommended for you

Physicists discover new class of pentaquarks

March 26, 2019

Tomasz Skwarnicki, professor of physics in the College of Arts and Sciences at Syracuse University, has uncovered new information about a class of particles called pentaquarks. His findings could lead to a new understanding ...

Coffee-based colloids for direct solar absorption

March 22, 2019

Solar energy is one of the most promising resources to help reduce fossil fuel consumption and mitigate greenhouse gas emissions to power a sustainable future. Devices presently in use to convert solar energy into thermal ...

Physicists reveal why matter dominates universe

March 21, 2019

Physicists in the College of Arts and Sciences at Syracuse University have confirmed that matter and antimatter decay differently for elementary particles containing charmed quarks.

503 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Doug_Nightmare
2.6 / 5 (18) Dec 28, 2018
If it ain't Popper falsifiable then it ain't science.
Anonym518498
Dec 28, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
tblakely1357
2.9 / 5 (15) Dec 28, 2018
I watched a science documentary many years ago that had a leading scientist (a real scientist, not a media scientist) who denounced string theory for wasting the creative years of many, many talented young cosmologists and mathematicians. Apparently, string theory is like mathematic 'crack'.
rrwillsj
3.8 / 5 (20) Dec 28, 2018
the preceding comments are proof that when monkeys are given keyboards to play with? All they manage to accomplish is amuse their audience.

That they do not understand the science is not an indictment of the sciences. But rather a revelation of their limited capacity to reason & learn.
Spaced out Engineer
2.1 / 5 (7) Dec 28, 2018
Determinism is useful. String theory's power is its ability to keep classical systems serendipitous. It does not come without its problems, but it can explain a complete theory accessible using variant dimensiality. If classical and quantum theory continue to possess auxiliaries, with interpretation as only a human frustration, it should continue to be used. Throwing out orthnomaility is still not Nature, she does not give a MUX, but permits us to make one.
I ponder Decaying Anti–de Sitter, as isotropy to bundles breaking from some sort of blueshift. Created and destroyed of nondeterminism is a balance for conservation. Unitarity is a necessary component to being able to return to free parameterization. A mechanism of deloading to entanglement or dualities? I do agree tangent bundles complete by definition quite the quandary, and relational faith. Cotangent catching closed strings of other substrates for an absolute domain, insanity, but perhaps the only anthropic one
Osiris1
1 / 5 (2) Dec 28, 2018
Spacey, if you mean the implications of a MUX as quantum transdimensionsl 'FTL' and 'Stargates'...in which the extra dimension leads to a 'hyper or superspace'?
V4Vendicar
3.5 / 5 (8) Dec 28, 2018
The author phoned this one in, and composed it while in his/her shower.
Da Schneib
3.2 / 5 (9) Dec 28, 2018
Here's the arXiv pre-print copy of the paper: https://arxiv.org...07.01570
Da Schneib
3.2 / 5 (9) Dec 28, 2018
This is a novel approach, going back to a line of research that was abandoned earlier. It also, to my mind, has a connection with the AdS/CFT correspondence. But the math is going to be the sticking point.
Spaced out Engineer
1 / 5 (2) Dec 28, 2018
Spacey, if you mean the implications of a MUX as quantum transdimensionsl 'FTL' and 'Stargates'... 'hyper or superspace'?

MUX as in the CNOT gate, no physical wholism has this. But XOR is inseparable from the finite gates that make deep belief possible. That bridge a collectively exhaustive discrete theory and GOFAI.
Counterfactual completeness, might be a means of seeing the transition between the objects you mentioned, as the narrator's problem with attachments to the pinhole, if consistency seems lacking. Pushing and popping is a difficult inquiry. What once was smooth and embedded can quite quickly become ungeneralizable. It seems there is the naked bootstrapped Weyl and the vanishing Weyl conjecture.
FTL is not the problem. Distinguishing a tractable form that still has permits a universe with telios is. Even if we were done, the modality of elimitivism is a human one. There is heaven and those who do not like it. ∃ a translation?
valeriy_polulyakh
1.3 / 5 (3) Dec 28, 2018
If we believe that our World has started sometimes ago we are still in the position to decide which hypothesis, Lemaître's or Gamow's was closer to reality. There is an opinion that the problems in the standard cosmology could be solved by adjusting of details. Our suggestion is that we have to go back to the conceptions and use the observations accumulated since.
https://www.acade...osmology
https://www.acade...he_World
Anonym642864
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 28, 2018
Its true that Universe is a bubble. But to my mind it is a balloon i.e bubble which has mass and energy. The expansion is the attraction of Antimatter. In Hindu philosophy it is called ego.
rogerdallas
5 / 5 (5) Dec 28, 2018
After reading the paper, with great difficulty, it does make a prediction, and that is that physics as we know it should vanish in the very distant future. So we don't have a scenario in which the universe undergoes an accelerating expansion forever. What replaces it is not clear. It isn't clear where or how an early inflationary period fits, although they have an explanation for what we see today. It isn't clear that the processes they describe are necessarily uniform at any scale, so it seems there must still be some mechanism to produce the CMB as we see it. But the ideas are very interesting. An interesting approach. And very hard to understand! I probably didn't.
cantdrive85
2.8 / 5 (11) Dec 28, 2018
More imaginary conjecture from the plasma ignoramuses. This tripe isn't even worthy to be published in a scifi comic book, yet there it is in Phys Rev. Says much about the relevance of this trash journal.
Eikka
3.6 / 5 (7) Dec 28, 2018
I watched a science documentary many years ago that had a leading scientist (a real scientist, not a media scientist) who denounced string theory for wasting the creative years of many, many talented young cosmologists and mathematicians. Apparently, string theory is like mathematic 'crack'.


The issue with string theory is that it's a mathematical framework that covers too much - it's a set of tools that allows one to approach the problem rather than narrow down to specific answers. In that sense, it's like giving the prospective cosmologist a chisel and telling them to chisel out Michaelangelo's David out of marble - of course it is possible, but almost infinitely unlikely.

But that's the allure. You are handed this tool, and the solution to the question which is the observable universe, and the answer seems obvious: just chip off anything that doesn't look like it. It's so simple - yet the devil is in the details.
Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (9) Dec 28, 2018
@Eikka, then explain the correct predictions of the AdS/CFT correspondence.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Dec 28, 2018
More imaginary conjecture from the plasma ignoramuses. This tripe isn't even worthy to be published in a scifi comic book, yet there it is in Phys Rev. Says much about the relevance of this trash journal.
says CD85

J.K.Rowling was one of the coauthors and contributed greatly to the hyperscience element of the Universe expanding in a bubble that is expanding into another bubble that is expanding into another bubble - ad infinitum - all with the wave of a wand.
DonGateley
2.8 / 5 (4) Dec 28, 2018
@Da Schneib, first list some correct predictions of the AdS/CFT correspondence.
Da Schneib
3.2 / 5 (9) Dec 28, 2018
By applying the AdS/CFT correspondence, Sơn and his collaborators were able to describe the quark gluon plasma in terms of black holes in five-dimensional spacetime. The calculation showed that the ratio of two quantities associated with the quark–gluon plasma, the shear viscosity {\displaystyle \eta } \eta and volume density of entropy {\displaystyle s} s, should be approximately equal to a certain universal constant....

In 2008, the predicted value of this ratio for the quark–gluon plasma was confirmed at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider at Brookhaven National Laboratory.
Now it's your turn.
Da Schneib
3.1 / 5 (10) Dec 28, 2018
Oh, and Susskind won the bet with Hawking. Maybe you didn't hear about that.

And Maldacena's founding paper on AdS/CFT correspondence is one of the most cited papers in nuclear physics ever, with over 10,000 citations.

Now, are we done here?
Benni
2.5 / 5 (11) Dec 28, 2018
Now, are we done here?
......you'e one of the Moderators on this website, and you don't know?
Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (12) Dec 28, 2018
LOL

@LenniTheLiarAndButthurtPlagiarist thinks I'm a moderator.

Take your meds and go sweep some toilets, @LenniTheLiarAndButthurtPlagiarist.

I'm not a mind-reading lizard alien or a rape machine either. Get over it.
evropej
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 28, 2018
Here is a down to earth explanation
https://www.youtu...D4T6Xgdk
Da Schneib
2.9 / 5 (9) Dec 28, 2018
If it was that easy we'd already know.
evropej
4 / 5 (4) Dec 28, 2018
What is wrong with the premise? I would like to know if that is not the case.
Da Schneib
Dec 28, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
evropej
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 28, 2018
Ok here is the idea: consolidation of matter caused by gravity is dilating space time which then transforms into red shift of electro-magnetic waves traversing the dynamic space time. Think of it dynamically as a photon traverses dilating regions. I think a lot of astronomers talk about static models.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.2 / 5 (10) Dec 28, 2018
LOL

@LenniTheLiarAndButthurtPlagiarist thinks I'm a moderator.

Take your meds and go sweep some toilets, @LenniTheLiarAndButthurtPlagiarist.

I'm not a mind-reading lizard alien or a rape machine either. Get over it.


Once again, Da Scheide projects his own mental aberrations onto innocent bystanders such as this person Lenni and others. Mind-reading alien LIZARDS seems to be weighing on Da Scheide's fevered brain of late, and Da Scheide has probably seen those lizards that have been a big source of worry for him since he first mentioned alien lizards in other physorg forums/threads.
As Da Scheide continues referring to alien mind reading lizards that he seems to fear are coming after him - there is a chance that he may also imagine himself to be a "rape machine", since Da Scheide has been seen talking of such things elsewhere - and now here.

Physorg really does attract some loony bugs such as Da Scheide.
Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (10) Dec 29, 2018
Sorry, I can't make anything out of "matter caused by gravity is dilating space time which then transforms into red shift of electro-magnetic waves"

You might be saying something that makes sense but from this I can't tell.

Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (11) Dec 29, 2018
Notice how Da Scheide has left out the word "consolidation" of matter that was offered by evropej's comment above? This is to make the comment made by evropej seem to be unfathomable nonsense that Da Scheide can't make out. But by omitting even ONE word, Da Scheide has changed what evropej had been trying to say.
This is a deliberate attempt to make Da Scheide feel superior over all others - except for his master, Captain Beelzebub, that is.
evropej
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 29, 2018
Sorry, I can't make anything out of "matter caused by gravity is dilating space time which then transforms into red shift of electro-magnetic waves"

You might be saying something that makes sense but from this I can't tell.



You have a fabric stretched evenly as they do to illustrate gravity bending space -with no matter on it. Its flat and the distance across say is 1 meter. Now place a 1Kg mass on it. What will be the distance between the same two points? It will be more than 1 meter. If a wave was traversing the fabric and you placed the mass on it, the wave would be distorted or dilated by the stretching fabric. The universe is getting bigger because space time is being stretched by gravity. If that makes sense.
Da Schneib
3.2 / 5 (10) Dec 29, 2018
But I don't see how that "causes matter."
evropej
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 29, 2018
The simplest way I can put it is like this: matter combining into local groups causes those local groups to be farther apart from other groups because of space being dilated or stretched between them.
Da Schneib
2.8 / 5 (8) Dec 29, 2018
But where does the matter come from?
Old_C_Code
2.1 / 5 (7) Dec 29, 2018
Position is three coordinates, that's all, three. Any suggestion of more dimensions in position is not reality.
V4Vendicar
4.7 / 5 (7) Dec 29, 2018
Its true that Universe is a bubble. But to my mind it is a balloon i.e bubble which has mass and energy. The expansion is the attraction of Antimatter. In Hindu philosophy it is called ego.


Perhaps the Hindu philosophy, like all philosophy has been such a spectacular failure.
V4Vendicar
3.4 / 5 (9) Dec 29, 2018
Your faith in your own ignorance makes me laugh.

Position is three coordinates, that's all, three. Any suggestion of more dimensions in position is not reality.


Can you prove that?

Nope!

V4Vendicar
2.4 / 5 (7) Dec 29, 2018
But where does the matter come from?


From the negative energy of the vacuum.
V4Vendicar
3 / 5 (8) Dec 29, 2018
But I don't see how that "causes matter."


If you create space then you create potential to fall through that space, and hence you create potential energy which is negative. In order for the energy of the universe to remain static, an amount of matter equal to the negative of this energy, through mass energy equivalence, must be created at the same time.
V4Vendicar
4 / 5 (7) Dec 29, 2018
The universe is getting bigger because space time is being stretched by gravity. If that makes sense.


Sorry that makes no sense. the stretch isn't dynamic. space doesn't continue to deform for a static mass.

If you wish to create more space, then you have to create more matter to "stretch" it.

Space doesn't stretch by the way. Curvature in space, or the compaction of space most probably results from the modification of vacuum energy. These vacuum fields constitute space.
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
3.7 / 5 (12) Dec 29, 2018
This is my alma mater, and I have had the opportunity to listen to Ulf Danielsson - he is an engaging speaker.

Else this is some progress for the intended application of string theory as basic physics since it has forced its cosmological models into a more constrained set (with a nice time symmetry). But not of any interest for applied cosmology.

more academic blather bloat and fluff, disgusting


Ironic: more disgusting witless bloat-and-fluff trolling.
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
3.9 / 5 (7) Dec 29, 2018
Now it's your turn.


Well, not really in this case. String theory as physics math can usefully simplify some extreme systems that has nothing to do with cosmology as such.

I believe that the question was if its cosmological use is worthwhile, and I have not seen much of anything string published by theoretical physicists that has use at the current state of knowledge. Already deSitter and anti deSitter spaces are approximations to cosmological FRLW spaces (especially for their deSitter like inflationary and dark energy dominated eras), so we are talking toy models as is. And even so they are still, as other comments say, chopping off *theoretical* bits of possibilities.
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 29, 2018
In order for the energy of the universe to remain static, an amount of matter equal to the negative of this energy, through mass energy equivalence, must be created at the same time. ... vacuum fields constitute space.


Sounds like a recast of Hoyle's cosmology. You are not wrong that vacuum fields *permeate* space and gives it vacuum "dark energy" or that the potential energy from the inflation field *gave* the local universe matter [perhaps best explained in Susskind's cosmology lectures on Stanford edu site]. But famously there is no global energy condition on general relativity which is what describes space and its scale (contraction or expansion), so we don't expect and we don't see matter creation caused by it.

To add hurt to harm on your recast idea, our inflationary universe is flat space with average zero energy density, the positive and negative energy contributions perfectly canceling. So even if there was such a generic mechanism it could not operate here.
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.1 / 5 (13) Dec 29, 2018
So this day of trolling is going to be anti-string theory and pro-nut word-salad-instead-of-science anti-science? Okay, my before-coffee responses:

a leading scientist (a real scientist, not a media scientist) who denounced string theory


Anti-string theory. Anecdote, and since Ulf is a real scientist he supplies the contrary example.

an absolute domain, insanity

Pro-nut word-salad-instead-of-science anti-science. You seem to display some self reflection. Use the insight into your other trait wisely.

the plasma ignoramuses


EU pro-nut word-salad-instead-of-science anti-science.

J.K.Rowling


Religious pro-nut word-salad-instead-of-science anti-science. (We all know they hate that Harry Potter is a - more successful - analog to their own magical ideas.)

Here is a down to earth explanation


Not a reference on the paper. Looks like pro-nut word-salad-instead-of-science anti-science and that may be confirmed in later comments.
Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (8) Dec 29, 2018
Now it's your turn.


Well, not really in this case. String theory as physics math can usefully simplify some extreme systems that has nothing to do with cosmology as such.
I wasn't asked about cosmology. I was asked for a prediction AdS/CFT correspondence had made and I gave one.

I could go into the black hole information paradox, but it's not really necessary to prove the point. String physics isn't only cosmology; it's also nuclear physics which is where this prediction emerged.
Steelwolf
4.2 / 5 (6) Dec 29, 2018
Considering that the Hindu religion has outlived the culture that initiated it, going so far back into pre-history, and is still alive, active and doing well today means that the Hindu religion, as it is, is not at all a failed philosophy: if it was, it would have no adherents and would not have lasted this long, so it Must have a logical, solid core to it somewhere.

I am not Hindi, so I could not tell you what that is, but they do have the basic idea through their lives that all of this has happened before; that they have seen flying machines before, wrote about them, described nuclear war in their writings.

And their civilization fell, but they kept the base culture alive in word, at least.

Doing better than Christianity with it's thousands of factions that do not agree on much that has only been around for less than 2k yrs, or Islam at 1200 yrs.

Remember, we came up from wood and steel tech to today's tech in less than 200 years.
Old_C_Code
2.4 / 5 (8) Dec 29, 2018
Position is three coordinates, x,y,z, ... the proof is simple logic. To PRETEND there's more because math has higher dimensions is INSANE.
Benni
2 / 5 (12) Dec 29, 2018
I'm not a mind-reading lizard alien or a rape machine either. Get over it.
,,,,,,what you are is Physorg's trolling Moderator who has frequently seen fit to to edit Comments of others, as well as those of your own just to suit your self serving ego. This because you can't otherwise compete in the arena of ideas in one on one confrontations when your Pop-Cosmology fantasies are bounced off the IMMUTABLE LAWS OF PHYSICS.

Hey, old man schneibo, maybe you can find an Immutable Law of Physics that explains how a finite stellar mass can have a force of infinite gravity at it's surface, or it's center? How about you proving your claims that gravity is not mass dependent?

I could go into the black hole information paradox, but it's not really necessary to prove the point. String physics isn't only cosmology; it's also nuclear physics which is where this prediction emerged.
It's ONLY Pop-Cosmology, it has nothing to do with nuclear physics.

jimmybobber
3.3 / 5 (14) Dec 29, 2018
@Benni Nobody edited your comments. You are just embarrassed by your comments and are trying to distance yourself from them. The stupid is there and unmodified for the world to see.

I would normally feel bad for someone like you. It's OK to not understand things. There is no shame in not understanding something.

What is not OK is to come into this forum and pollute it with nonsense and instead of admitting you are wrong you accuse others of changing your posts and flat out lie about what others have posted.
Protoplasmix
4.5 / 5 (8) Dec 29, 2018
Position is three coordinates, x,y,z, ... the proof is simple logic. To PRETEND there's more because math has higher dimensions is INSANE.
How do you describe the motion of even a single particle without using a fourth t coordinate, x,y,z,t, mr. normal 4 real dude?
Benni
2 / 5 (8) Dec 29, 2018
@Benni Nobody edited your comments. You are just embarrassed by your comments and are trying to distance yourself from them. The stupid is there and unmodified for the world to see.

I would normally feel bad for someone like you. It's OK to not understand things. There is no shame in not understanding something.

What is not OK is to come into this forum and pollute it with nonsense and instead of admitting you are wrong you accuse others of changing your posts and flat out lie about what others have posted.


The stupid is there and unmodified for the world to see.
......right, you're now talking about your inability to write equations. Maybe you'd like to impress us with another sampling of that kind of gibberish again?

Beethoven
4.6 / 5 (10) Dec 29, 2018
why must you guys always feed the trolls and loons on these discussions? just ignore the religionists and pseudoscientists. the more you respond the more multiple accounts they create and pollute these pages.
Benni
2.2 / 5 (10) Dec 29, 2018
why must you guys always feed the trolls and loons on these discussions? just ignore the religionists and pseudoscientists. the more you respond the more multiple accounts they create and pollute these pages.


OK, then YOU identify for us the trolls & tell the chatroom why they are trolls using other than generic terms such as, " religionists and pseudoscientists".
jimmybobber
3.2 / 5 (13) Dec 29, 2018
@Benni It's clear you are the troll and I am the one enabling you because I keep responding to you.
evropej
5 / 5 (3) Dec 29, 2018
But where does the matter come from?


The assumption is that the matter is already there.
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (4) Dec 29, 2018
@Beethoven
why must you guys always feed the trolls and loons on these discussions?
Actually, that can be answered with this video
https://www.youtu...EwjBXlZE

Some people come here to learn their science. When they read the comments, they get misdirected into a religious or pseudoscience rabbit hole that appeals to their belief

Children and schools glean data from these type news aggregates, but they've not always learned how to differentiate between fact and bullsh*t

also note: there are studies into the trolls in various forms as well in the comments
Benni
2.3 / 5 (9) Dec 29, 2018
@Benni It's clear you are the troll and I am the one enabling you because I keep responding to you.


.....and that is why you're just so much entertainment for all of us. You stumble & mumble through the simplest of gravity equations, go so far as to say:

@Benni Single body gravitational equation! You do realize by the very definition of gravity its between multiple bodies you idiot. If it were a single body there would be no gravity.


Read more at: https://phys.org/...html#jCp

......and you expect to be taken seriously? You're under serious delusions.
rrwillsj
3 / 5 (8) Dec 29, 2018
To amplify the question "Why enable & encourage the trolls & woobots such as benni & his clown posse of crazies?

To provide thesis material for the Mental Health & Social Sciences students monitoring these commentaries.

Why do I participate? I'm a sadist & take great pleasure flogging the masochist submissives who infest phys.org.

An additional rational for permitting the looms this stage to prance upon?
It keeps the creatures off the vReal Science forums, where they would interrupt researchers with a constant cacophony of raving nonsense.

Perhaps phys.org should be renamed bedlam.disorg?

SNAP!
WHACK!
SCREETCH!

Oh, Yeah! Was it as good for you nemni? As it was for me?

& I'm just getting warmed up! My stable of woobois get restive when I am slow to apply the discipline.
Whydening Gyre
4 / 5 (4) Dec 29, 2018
Position is three coordinates, x,y,z, ... the proof is simple logic.


Except that their intersection point is ALSO a coordinate embedded in a larger 3 coordinate vector system...
To PRETEND there's more because math has higher dimensions is INSANE.

The "math" just a way of showing that....
Old_C_Code
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 29, 2018
"Except that their intersection point is ALSO a coordinate embedded "


Not sanity... sorry. The embedded "thing" still has an x,y,z, position.
Whydening Gyre
4 / 5 (4) Dec 29, 2018
"Except that their intersection point is ALSO a coordinate embedded "


Not sanity... sorry. The embedded "thing" still has an x,y,z, position.

NOt actually arguing that...
By putting that "thing" in another vector array, you cube their "position" availability...
That's the thing with "gyres"... :-)
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Dec 29, 2018
If it ain't Popper falsifiable then it ain't science
'God is dead' - popper

-But he can't prove it because uh hes also dead.
Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (6) Dec 29, 2018
But where does the matter come from?


The assumption is that the matter is already there.
Ah. Somehow we got our wires crossed.
Maybe it was my fault.

OK, here's the problem with it: gravity blue-shifts. It doesn't red-shift. A photon falling down a gravity well appears to observers inside the gravity well to be blue-shifted.

However, your idea is indeed being investigated; there are several astrophysicists looking into ideas at least superficially like yours, but much more complex. I'll try to come up with some examples for you to review so you can say whether any of them fits yours.
Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (7) Dec 29, 2018
@Old_C, physics is supposed to answer a simple question: where is what when?

Without time there is no "when" and nothing could happen.

There's some logic for ya.

To get a little more complicated, velocity is the first derivative of position with respect to time, and acceleration is the second derivative. So when you say

F = ma

you actually are making a statement about time twice. Pretending there's no time in that equation is ridiculous; it's there twice.
Bongstar420
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 29, 2018
These guys need to do more lab work. Speculating on math is fantasy. No one discovered something after they understood how it worked. It goes the other way. You discover it, then understanding follows.
Da Schneib
2.6 / 5 (5) Dec 29, 2018
Snicker. Lab experiments have been done on F = ma for centuries.

Go take another bong hit.
RealityCheck
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 29, 2018
@Protoplasmix.

From @Old_C_Code:
Position is three coordinates, x,y,z, ..
Reply from @Protoplasmix:
How do you describe the motion of even a single particle without using a fourth t coordinate, x,y,z,t,..
Careful @Protoplasmix; you are 'mixing' real AND UN-real dimensions.

The only REAL dimensions are SPATIAL (ie, universal phenomena/processes occur IN space as they happen. That's all the universe is about...events AS THEY HAPPEN....irrespective of 'when' or whether someone is looking/describing/analyzing them or not.

The 'further dimensions' used by/for HUMAN mathematical analysis/descriptions/predictions etc, are just UNREAL ABSTRACT ANALYTICAL 'overlays' by us humans on the observed REAL 'SPATIALLY CONTEXTUAL' phenomena in REAL dimensions.

Ie, 'time' is just humans NOTING COMPARATIVE POSITIONS/MOTIONS of observed events IN SPACE, occurring irrespective of any ABSTRACT/GRAPHICAL TIMING-COMPARATOR 'dimension' used to analyze serial/multiple events/motions. :)
Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (6) Dec 29, 2018
@105LiarRC tries to swing its arrogant diick again.

Now it wants us to believe that time is imaginary when nothing can happen without time. If there is no time then why do things change over time?

More silliness from this idiot, in support of its arrogance.

Maybe you should have another bong hit too, @105LiarRC.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Dec 29, 2018
Stupid is defined as statements w/o logic; pretty sure, a collection of such is called nonsense. Juz a rule, description, premise, dunno,

I see the "conversatio-nal" set of nonsense filtering into fuzzy sets which eventually yields Formal Logic when reduced to .. and I defining a circular logic? No I'm defining what may best be dismissed at the moment. These we use to determine the size of the straight jacket.
RealityCheck
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 29, 2018
@Da Schneib.
@105LiarRealityCheck tries to swing its arrogant diick again.

Now it wants us to believe that time is imaginary when nothing can happen without time. If there is no time then why do things change over time?

More silliness from this idiot, in support of its arrogance.
Were you born an insensible asshole, DS; or are you a 'self made ass'. Can't you be polite and arguing your case rather than just insulting and then baldly asserting things about 'time' which I just pointed out are Un-real/abstract for the reasons stated?

Anyhow, you have the horse before the cart, DS. It's because things DO CHANGE, that COMPARATIVE 'time'/'timing' analytical measures/quantities/parameters etc CAN be used to predict etc.

Get the point I just finished stressing: TIME is NOT NEEDED for events to HAPPEN per se.

It's only US 'timing' things that DO HAPPEN whether we're 'timing', 'comparing', 'analyzing' CHANGE events or not.

DS, try to read and understand in context. :)
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (6) Dec 29, 2018
These guys need to do more lab work. Speculating on math is fantasy. No one discovered something after they understood how it worked. It goes the other way. You discover it, then understanding follows.
says Bongstar

Math equations are mere "projections" of an idea/concept that may be presented for discussion and experimentation IF found to have merit. If not, then it's "back to the drawing board". But math equations, of itself, is a fundamentalist assumption that wants to be taken into serious consideration, where the formulator of the equation will find that his/her formula MUST "hold water" so to speak, otherwise, the formula/equation falls flat.
The "Reality" should be followed by a proper math equation that gives Reality a stepped up expression. But instead and most often, it is the math equation that is formulated first to prove the Reality, and when it doesn't, the equations are changed to whatever fits best to prove that it conforms best to the Reality itself.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (6) Dec 29, 2018
@RealityCheck
Your assertion that Time itself (whatever Time is) is not needed in equations other than the measurement of the Duration of one or more Events from the standpoint of a timepiece, such as the measurement of the Duration of how much Time it takes to travel; to run; to walk; to eat supper, etc.; or the timing of walking a Distance from one point to another - is quite correct.
TIME had been improperly included into Einstein's equations when only Space would have been sufficient - since it is Space that is reactive with all Mass, gravity, and EM. Space has abilities that transcends distance and duration.
Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (6) Dec 29, 2018
I tried being polite with you, @105LiarRC.

It didn't work out well and I told you at the time that was a mistake.

Do you believe me now? Or do I have to press the point home further?

That number could get a lot larger than 105.
Da Schneib
2.7 / 5 (7) Dec 29, 2018
Gravity can't act if there's no time. For that matter neither can any force.

Maybe you forgot.

Velocity is the first derivative of position with respect to time. This is fact. It's not a "mathumetical ecuation thery by teh siensetis." Proven in labs for a couple hundred years. So much for the latest from the psychotic who thinks there's telepathic alien lizards in the guvmint and robot rape machines in the bushes.
arcmetal
3 / 5 (6) Dec 29, 2018


Get the point I just finished stressing: TIME is NOT NEEDED for events to HAPPEN per se.

It's only US 'timing' things that DO HAPPEN whether we're 'timing', 'comparing', 'analyzing' CHANGE events or not.


I have also begun to notice that the passage of "time" is just an illusion our brain creates for us. Instead of time passing it could be that all things are happening in one all present "now", and rather, what we are measuring is just changes in entropy of things.

Consider a mechanical spring loaded clock. What changes the positions of the hands is a change in energy from the spring to the gear movements, all within a change in entropy of the whole clock. A passage of "time" is not required to change the hands of the clock. Consider what happens in a greater gravity field.

It can be difficult to describe these things without talking about the passage of time since our brains are configured to display it that way to us.
Da Schneib
2.7 / 5 (7) Dec 30, 2018
Bwahaha, @arc doesn't think time is required for entropy.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (6) Dec 30, 2018
@arcmetal
CORRECT!! The passage of time is but a concept instilled into our brains when the only way to observe that passage was by the Sun and Moon's movements as daylight to nightfall when we would then go to sleep and wake at the new day. It's a great method. But then, as humans became mathematically inclined, there was an influence to give that passage of Time a place in equations as "Spacetime" to try to EXPLAIN that which was unexplainable for so long.
The problem was that the passage of Time itself is really UNQUANTIFIABLE when it is no longer defined by the movements of the Sun and Moon as to the human sleep-wake duration cycle as a conventional standard, or to the duration between the seasons and other measurements.
When scientists use Time in an equation as a part of Space, the math equation is relating to an unquantified, undefinable and incomprehensible "thing" that is not even an object, but STILL only a concept which really is meaningless, except as "flow".
Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (7) Dec 30, 2018
Describe the 2LOT without time. For that matter try the 1LOT.

Good luck. This is lunacy.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (6) Dec 30, 2018
-contd-
@arcmetal
The "flow" of Time itself has still yet to be defined and quantified - but such a true definition of it escapes us every time that a figure or number or even an image of what Time really is has been proposed. We know that the Flow of Time is continuous going forward. There are some who have proposed that Time could be made to reverse or stop, not realising that if such a thing were possible, then EVERYTHING would reverse - not just the few - as well as EVERYTHING would stop, if the flow of Time was made to stop. There would be repercussions that are unimaginable if such a thing were possible.
So Spacetime is actually just plain old SPACE - nothing more, no matter how much scientists would like Time to be subjective.
Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (6) Dec 30, 2018
The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy of an isolated system can never decrease over time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics

Oops.
Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (6) Dec 30, 2018
Looks like your college edumacation included Advanced Underwater Basket Weaving, Meating Management 404 (inciting confusion to cover your azz), Master Bation of Bidness (milking it for all it's worth), and Advanced Addition.

My wife is still chuckling over you trying to formulate thermodynamics without time, and she's a molecular biology major.
Old_C_Code
5 / 5 (2) Dec 30, 2018
How do you describe the motion of even a single particle without using a fourth t coordinate, x,y,z,t,..


Time is the parametric dependent variable.
Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (6) Dec 30, 2018
That's meaningless. a in F = ma means acceleration, which is the second derivative of position with respect to time. In fact, acceleration is dependent upon time, not the other way around.

This is why programmers with no formal education should stay out of physics. Nothing they do is based on reality.

You got a bug... errr, code... generator you wanna show me?

This stuff is hilarious. Totally classic. A coder who doesn't know any computer science and a business administration candidate from Trump University who thinks telepathic alien lizards are running the gummint. You can't make this stuff up.
Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (6) Dec 30, 2018
What's next, we gonna get a sociologist or a political science major up in here to talk about physics? Maybe a lawyer. Or a barber. After all, we already got a janitor.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.7 / 5 (6) Dec 30, 2018
What's next, we gonna get a sociologist or a political science major up in here to talk about physics? Maybe a lawyer. Or a barber. After all, we already got a janitor.
says Da pussy

So Da pussy has a wife. Hmmm - 2 lesbians got together - one being a janitor. The question now is: who is the janitor - DaScheide or her wife?
Da Schneib
2.7 / 5 (7) Dec 30, 2018
Snicker. The risks of being a n00b.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.7 / 5 (6) Dec 30, 2018
What's next, we gonna get a sociologist or a political science major up in here to talk about physics? Maybe a lawyer. Or a barber. After all, we already got a janitor.
says Da pussy

So Da pussy has a wife. Hmmm - 2 lesbians got together - one being a janitor. The question now is: who is the janitor - DaScheide or her wife?


Hmmmm this gets better. So there's Da Scheide and her wife, Da Scheiss. Da Pussy1 and Da Pussy2
Excellent lesbian couple here in physorg. Not that there's anything wrong with lesbians like Da Scheide and Da Scheiss
Da Schneib
2.5 / 5 (8) Dec 30, 2018
So, how come you have all these fantasies about gay people?

How's that work out with the whole alien telepathic lizard thing?

Not to mention the rape machines.

Just askin'.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (6) Dec 30, 2018
So, how come you have all these fantasies about gay people?

Just askin'.


No fantasy there. You are a self-admitted lesbian married to a lesbian. Are you gay also besides being lesbian?
Now which one is the janitor - you or the other lesbian?
Da Schneib
2.1 / 5 (7) Dec 30, 2018
Looks like a fantasy to me. Looks like you're making stuff up. That make you hard?

Especially since you're a n00b and don't know who the janitor is.

How's that class in Advanced Addition working out for you?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (6) Dec 30, 2018
So, how come you have all these fantasies about gay people?

How's that work out with the whole alien telepathic lizard thing?

Not to mention the rape machines.

Just askin'.


How many alien lizards are you seeing? You've been talking with them?

Just askin'
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.7 / 5 (6) Dec 30, 2018
ROFLOL
So Da Scheide aka Da Pussy and her wife, Da Scheiss have been seeing and talking to alien lizards. You can't make this stuff up. Your wife is a rape machine? wow
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (8) Dec 30, 2018
Me? I don't see any alien lizards. You're the one with the alien lizards. I just keep bringing it up at inconvenient times and you keep lying about your own words.

Do you repudiate your words?

https://phys.org/...ins.html

-If you talk to aliens telepathically then ...THEY ARE TELEPATHS


We done here?

Best get used to seeing that link and quote a lot.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (6) Dec 30, 2018
AND you're a physorg Moderator too? Well, why not?
Is your lesbian wife here in physorg too? Just one big happy family, eh? Time off from her job as a janitor? Does she get to clean toilets like you do?
Da Schneib
2.5 / 5 (8) Dec 30, 2018
https://phys.org/...ins.html

-If you talk to aliens telepathically then ...THEY ARE TELEPATHS


I ask again, we done here?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (6) Dec 30, 2018
Nope. Not me. I've never seen alien lizards or machines that rape. Those are YOUR fantasies. not mine.
I have never said anything about LIZARDS. Them's YOUR words.
Da Schneib
2.5 / 5 (8) Dec 30, 2018
-If you talk to aliens telepathically then ...THEY ARE TELEPATHS


https://phys.org/...ins.html

You said it. Now you're lying about it and won't face up to what you said.

Simple as that.

Next come the nice large men in white suits when you get violent.

What's your "Unit?" The violent ward?

Do the doctors know you're posting here?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (6) Dec 30, 2018
Nothing about lizards in your link either. Ok you're done here. Now git.
Da Schneib
2.7 / 5 (7) Dec 30, 2018
Incidentally, since I took such a strong moral stance earlier, I have observed this troll and decided it's only trolling to try and cause confusion, it's not actually insane. It merely apes the insane for tactical trolling advantage.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (6) Dec 30, 2018
Still nothing about lizards in your link - obviously you (and maybe your lesbian wife) are suffering from Cognitive Dissonance, which prevents you from comprehending what I said the first time. So I'll say it again.
There is no talk of lizards in that link
Da Schneib
2.5 / 5 (8) Dec 30, 2018
I think telepathic aliens is enough to go on with.

Next?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (6) Dec 30, 2018
ROFLOL You should get ready for your janitor job. Or is it your lesbian wife that has a job as janitor? Where does she work - at a correction facility probably. Pussy1 and Pussy2 sitting in a tree k-i-s-s-i-n-g
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (6) Dec 30, 2018
I think telepathic aliens is enough to go on with.

Next?


So you've been talking with telepathic aliens now? Where did you see them? Does NASA know? But where are your alien lizards that you keep talking about? Oh I see, you are backing off that one, eh? ROFLOL
Da Schneib
2.7 / 5 (7) Dec 30, 2018
Still worming and squirming. I'm thinking I was wrong: it's a Scientologist.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3.7 / 5 (6) Dec 30, 2018
Still worming and squirming. I'm thinking I was wrong: it's a Scientologist.


Why are you still worming and squirming? Perhaps you are still seeing alien lizards before your eyes? Shouldn't you get your eyes checked? There might be some kind of growth in there.
Who's a scientologist? So now you're seeing Tom Cruise? Lady, you're about ready for the mental ward in your favorite institution.
Now git.
Da Schneib
2.7 / 5 (7) Dec 30, 2018
Standard troll behavior: avoid an unpleasant truth and accuse the other side of the same thing.

Just like the Republican'ts always do, and the other destroyatives and confusionists.

Now, who does that sound like?

You gonna deny Elron and all that stuff? Or just try to bury it in the catbox?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 30, 2018
Standard troll behavior: avoid an unpleasant truth and accuse the other side of the same thing.

Just like the Republican'ts always do, and the other destroyatives and confusionists.

Now, who does that sound like?

You gonna deny Elron and all that stuff? Or just try to bury it in the catbox?
says Da Pussy1

ROFLOL
So where's your alien lizards that you keep seeing, Pussytard?
Da Schneib
2.5 / 5 (8) Dec 30, 2018
You said it:

-If you talk to aliens telepathically then ...THEY ARE TELEPATHS


https://phys.org/...ins.html

I'm going with you talking about telepathic aliens as if they're real.

Now what were you arguing about again? Whining about being trolled? After David Icke anyone talking about telepathic aliens is either a total nutjob or a Scientologist. Which are you?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (6) Dec 30, 2018
You said it:

-If you talk to aliens telepathically then ...THEY ARE TELEPATHS


https://phys.org/...ins.html

I'm going with you talking about telepathic aliens as if they're real.

Now what were you arguing about again? Whining about being trolled? After David Icke anyone talking about telepathic aliens is either a total nutjob or a Scientologist. Which are you?


Yessah, dems aliens be talking in dat telepathic talkings like you done been sayin'.
So when did you start talking telepathically to aliens. Did they come across the border with Mexico? I KNEW we should Build that Wall.
Trolled? Dat be you, eh? I knew it. I KNEW IT. Da Pussytard be trolling, worming and squirming all nighty long.
Da Schneib
2.7 / 5 (7) Dec 30, 2018
They're your words.

Do you deny them?
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (6) Dec 30, 2018
How do you describe the motion of even a single particle without using a fourth t coordinate, x,y,z,t,..
Time is the parametric dependent variable.
No, the location of the particle at some time t is what's being measured so its position is the dependent variable. You're free to parameterize n-dimensional motion as n one-dimensional algebraic equations if you like, but Einstein and many others since have had much success describing reality using four dimensions rather than three. In physics "dimension" can mean any physical measurement like length, position, time, mass, etc. Can't help wondering what your simple 3-d logic says about the success physicists have using imaginary (complex) numbers in quantum mechanics...
Reg Mundy
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 30, 2018
@RC


The 'further dimensions' used by/for HUMAN mathematical analysis/descriptions/predictions etc, are just UNREAL ABSTRACT ANALYTICAL 'overlays' by us humans on the observed REAL 'SPATIALLY CONTEXTUAL' phenomena in REAL dimensions.

Ie, 'time' is just humans NOTING COMPARATIVE POSITIONS/MOTIONS of observed events IN SPACE, occurring irrespective of any ABSTRACT/GRAPHICAL TIMING-COMPARATOR 'dimension' used to analyze serial/multiple events/motions. :)

I never thought you would agree with me on the nature of TIME. The obvious conclusion is that TIME is merely the expansion of matter, as per expansion theory (see The Situation of Gravity). All matter (including us) is expanding, and that expansion is TIME.
Whydening Gyre
4.3 / 5 (9) Dec 30, 2018
The only REAL dimensions are SPATIAL (ie, universal phenomena/processes occur IN space as they happen. That's all the universe is about...events AS THEY HAPPEN....irrespective of 'when' or whether someone is looking/describing/analyzing them or not.
...
Ie, 'time' is just humans NOTING COMPARATIVE POSITIONS/MOTIONS of observed events IN SPACE, occurring irrespective of any ABSTRACT/GRAPHICAL TIMING-COMPARATOR 'dimension' used to analyze serial/multiple events/motions. :)

Actually... "Time" is a name we've give to the Universes property that ALLOWS that change to occur in the first place...
Which is essentially, the three physical dimensions -
In a space that allows them to exist.
Benni
3 / 5 (6) Dec 30, 2018
The obvious conclusion is that TIME is merely the expansion of matter, as per expansion theory (see The Situation of Gravity). All matter (including us) is expanding, and that expansion is TIME.


......or that things are MOVING, they can be expanding or contracting it doesn't matter.
rrrander
5 / 5 (2) Dec 30, 2018
I watched a science documentary many years ago that had a leading scientist (a real scientist, not a media scientist) who denounced string theory for wasting the creative years of many, many talented young cosmologists and mathematicians. Apparently, string theory is like mathematic 'crack'.


The issue with string theory is that it's a mathematical framework that covers too much - it's a set of tools that allows one to approach the problem rather than narrow down to specific answers. In that sense, it's like giving the prospective cosmologist a chisel and telling them to chisel out Michaelangelo's David out of marble - of course it is possible, but almost infinitely unlikely.


It's a lot more possible than singularities.
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (6) Dec 30, 2018
Careful @Protoplasmix; you are 'mixing' real AND UN-real dimensions.
I'll dare to do whatever the math allows, thank you RC, and an example of 'mixing' would be plugging the equations for Fermi-Dirac statistics and Bose-Einstein statistics into Newton's equation for the force of gravity to produce a curve the looks just like the strong force...
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (4) Dec 30, 2018
"the looks" --> "that looks"

It's getting harder to tell if tablet software still has too many features or not quite enough yet...
Benni
3 / 5 (6) Dec 30, 2018
'time' is just humans NOTING COMPARATIVE POSITIONS/MOTIONS of observed events IN SPACE


"Time" is a name we've give to the Universes property that ALLOWS that change to occur


......peripheral observations that are apt descriptions of what happens within the properties of KINETIC ENERGY.

TIME is all about the RATE at which KINETIC ENERGY creates ALL the MOTION we observe.

Mechanical clocks ONLY run based on the expenditure of kinetic energy to create WORK. Electronic clocks the same thing, it's the movement of electrons that makes them run, movement of electrons is kinetic energy. Atomic "clocks"are no different, as they too require movement of electrons into new & subsequent return to previous orbital positions within the electron shell of an atom.

TIME therefore simply being a rate of expenditure of kinetic energy cannot be a separate parameter, it is 100% dependent on expenditure of kinetic energy or TIME does not exist.
Hyperfuzzy
3 / 5 (2) Dec 30, 2018
If it ain't Popper falsifiable then it ain't science.

I agree; however, instead of sayinging falsifiable; say provable True or False via the use of the defined Modus Ponens; In this case the Formal Logic, i.e. You Universe of "Discourse", IE. THE $HIT YA SAY!

Try Charge Exist! make it an Axiom, ...
Hyperfuzzy
3 / 5 (2) Dec 30, 2018
Stupid is defined as statements w/o logic; pretty sure, a collection of such is called nonsense. Juz a rule, description, premise, dunno,

I see the "conversatio-nal" set of nonsense filtering into fuzzy sets which eventually yields Formal Logic when reduced to .. and I defining a circular logic? No I'm defining what may best be dismissed at the moment. These we use to determine the size of the straight jacket.

In other words, we are stupid!
holoman
1 / 5 (1) Dec 30, 2018
Hot topic ! Who's qualified to make a judgment ? Alot of interesting thoughts, going to have to read all.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (4) Dec 30, 2018
Nope. Not me. I've never seen alien lizards or machines that rape
You've never seen Barbarella then. Or Saturn 3.

Haha pussytard calls da scheide 'da pussy'. Falsify THAT haha
RealityCheck
3 / 5 (6) Dec 30, 2018
@Da Schneib.
I tried being polite with you, @105LiarRC.

It didn't work out well and I told you at the time that was a mistake.
And you immediately reverted to your insulting-nincompoop self when proven wrong, DS. :)

You are an insensible, unheeding, ego-driven asshole, DS; that much is clear to any intelligent reader of your litany of faux pas and insults while wrong.

Here's three New Year Resolutions for you, DS:

(1) stop being a self-made insulting asshole;

(2) start reading and understanding properly in context.

(3) learn from your all too many faux pas.:)
Do you believe me now?
DS, think what I tried to point out for you when I said you were "putting the cart before the horse".

Let's try again, DS:

Only motions/changes are real EFFECTIVE dynamical entities/factors; while 'timing' is a maths DERIVATIVE in abstract ANALYSIS by humans trying to describe/predict etc said real EFFECTIVE motions/changes.

Said 'timing' is NOT a cause/facilitator. :)
RealityCheck
3 / 5 (6) Dec 30, 2018
@Da Scchneib.
Bwahaha, @arcmetal doesn't think time is required for entropy.
DS, seriously, before again laughing at @arcmetal, you should try to properly read/understand what is being said to you. :)

Eg, in my above post I explained to you how 'timing' is an abstract analytical 'output'; and NOT any sort of real effective 'a-priori' causal/facilitating factor.

Try to 'get' that before you again go into kneejerking/insulting mode. :)
RealityCheck
3 / 5 (6) Dec 30, 2018
@Reg Mundy.
@RC
...'time' is just humans NOTING COMPARATIVE POSITIONS/MOTIONS of observed events IN SPACE, occurring irrespective of any ABSTRACT/GRAPHICAL TIMING-COMPARATOR 'dimension' used to analyze serial/multiple events/motions. :)
I never thought you would agree with me on the nature of TIME. The obvious conclusion is that TIME is merely the expansion of matter, as per expansion theory (see The Situation of Gravity). All matter (including us) is expanding, and that expansion is TIME.
Hi Reg! Long time no 'see'. All the best for the New Year, mate. :)

Re the 'time'/'timing' aspect, it doesn't matter what kind of change/motion is involved as 'a priori' in the universal cause-effect system/dynamics, it remains that 'time'/'timing' is a derivative in abstract maths analysis of whatever motions/changes is under 'comparative study'.

BTW, mate; I never asked: what is your 'expanding matter' expanding 'into'. Is it anything like (now falsified) BB 'expansion'?
RealityCheck
3 / 5 (6) Dec 30, 2018
@Whydening Gyre.
Actually... "Time" is a name we've give to the Universes property that ALLOWS that change to occur in the first place...
Which is essentially, the three physical dimensions -
In a space that allows them to exist.
Your getting closer, mate! But you need to define what "allows" means in real, effective, universal entities/dynamics terms, otherwise it's just a metaphysical notion having no causal/facilitative effectiveness in real physical energy-space context per se.

What should be remembered at all times is, energy-space IS the ONLY REAL PHYSICALLY EFFECTIVE 'a-priori' source, substance and motive (cause-effect) of the universal dynamics/entities. The universal motions/changes occur (ie, as in "shit happens") whether or not we humans exist to use maths for analyzing/describing/predicting etc whatever we do observe.

In short: 'time'/'timing' is INFORMATION 'dimension' derivation in analysis of comparative motions/changes/positions under study. :)

RealityCheck
3 / 5 (6) Dec 30, 2018
@Protoplasmix.
Careful @Protoplasmix; you are 'mixing' real AND UN-real dimensions.
I'll dare to do whatever the math allows, thank you RC,.....
No problem, mate. However, if while doing so one/many may be misled into unwittingly reifying an abstract mathematical thing into a real physical thing, then that is when my caution as above is a 'timely' necessity now and then. Perhaps then we would not get all these 'publish-or-perish' hacks writing papers that clutter up the scientific literature with GIGO-dependent fantasy 'dimensions' like the above (and like all those which BB-hacks have been perpetrating for too many decades now).

Anyhow, mate, best wishes for the New Year! Stay safe; stay well. :)
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (4) Dec 30, 2018
How do you describe the motion of even a single particle without using a fourth t coordinate, x,y,z,t,..
Time is the parametric dependent variable.
No, the location of the particle at some time t is what's being measured so its position is the dependent variable. You're free to parameterize n-dimensional motion as n one-dimensional algebraic equations if you like, but Einstein and many others since have had much success describing reality using four dimensions rather than three. In physics "dimension" can mean any physical measurement like length, position, time, mass, etc. Can't help wondering what your simple 3-d logic says about the success physicists have using imaginary (complex) numbers in quantum mechanics...

says protoplasmx

Time is not, and should not be a part of Spatially-derived equations such as x,y,z. It is a common mistake in science to add a NON-PHYSICAL "ENTITY" to equations unless it signifies duration and distance.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (4) Dec 30, 2018
-contd-
Time is NOT a location, nor is Time a Dimension as are the 3 dimensions of height, width and length. When you add Time into the equation, you have added nothing, and when you add Spacetime, all you have added is Space - whether or not you have factored in Duration and Distance.
Scientists could go so much further and be more productive if they understood the fallacy that they have attached to their maths by included Time as a factor.
Time is not even an entity, in Truth. Only a measurement of Duration and Distance with the use of clock mechanisms.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (4) Dec 30, 2018
Nope. Not me. I've never seen alien lizards or machines that rape
You've never seen Barbarella then. Or Saturn 3.

Haha pussytard calls da scheide 'da pussy'. Falsify THAT haha
says PussyOtto

Nope. Never saw your Barbarella. Must have been before my time.
Never saw any alien lizards either - especially telepathic ones that talk to Da Scheidebo telepathically.
Nothing to falsify, PussyOtto - I have seen and talked with Extraterrestrials who live and work on this planet. There is nothing wrong with getting to know and understand them. They have changed their appearance to look more human. Nothing wrong with that either.
So what is your complaint, Pussyturd? Did one of Da Scheide's alien lizards crawl up your arse?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (4) Dec 30, 2018
@RC


The 'further dimensions' used by/for HUMAN mathematical analysis/descriptions/predictions etc, are just UNREAL ABSTRACT ANALYTICAL 'overlays' by us humans on the observed REAL 'SPATIALLY CONTEXTUAL' phenomena in REAL dimensions.

Ie, 'time' is just humans NOTING COMPARATIVE POSITIONS/MOTIONS of observed events IN SPACE, occurring irrespective of any ABSTRACT/GRAPHICAL TIMING-COMPARATOR 'dimension' used to analyze serial/multiple events/motions. :)

I never thought you would agree with me on the nature of TIME. The obvious conclusion is that TIME is merely the expansion of matter, as per expansion theory (see The Situation of Gravity). All matter (including us) is expanding, and that expansion is TIME.
says Reg Mundy

No. Mass/Matter and Space have the capability of expanding. TIME, not being a physical form (such as Matter and Space or such forms of Energy as Motion, Gravity, EM, etc.) has NO CAPABILITY to expand, contract, reverse, stop or slow down.
Kron
5 / 5 (2) Dec 30, 2018
Whether or not time is a physical dimension such as the x, y, z coordinates or whether time is just a measure of change is currently unknown.

We can traverse physical dimensions, like travel forward and back along the x axis. It is currently unknown whether time can be traversed in a similar manner, but should it be found one day that time can be traveled forward as well as backwards it would be proven that time is a real physical dimension just as the 3 spatial dimensions.

This is absolutely unimportant when it comes to the study of physical systems. Mathematically I can calculate the Earth's motion through space as well as calculate the inverse (time reversed motion). When it comes to the study of physical systems time is a useful dimension to work with regardless of whether time turns out to be a real world dimension or not.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 30, 2018
-contd-
@RegMundy
The CONCEPT of TIME ITSELF has no bearing on the physical properties of Mass/Energies and Space except in the use of physical tools ONLY for measurement of Distance and Duration.

Time is ONLY a CONCEPT that was dreamed up by humans to understand better their place in the realities of their existence and why/how things work. It is most certainly NOT a Dimension, physical or otherwise. I cannot stress this enough.

Considering Time as a Dimension in addition to the 3 already known is ridiculous and shows that mankind is still liable to fall for the imaginings of Philosophers who give names and abilities to the Undefinable properties of Time.
arcmetal
4 / 5 (4) Dec 30, 2018


TIME is all about the RATE at which KINETIC ENERGY creates ALL the MOTION we observe.

Mechanical clocks ONLY run based on the expenditure of kinetic energy to create WORK. Electronic clocks the same thing, it's the movement of electrons that makes them run...
...


This is close to what I was imagining. What seems more fundamental is the shift in energy from one form to another, or a change in entropy of a system. Time is irrelevant.

Imagine a simple desktop experiment where we wish to measure a change in its temp, or entropy, or whatever. We can use a spring loaded clock to measure the rates of changes in the experiment.

But notice, we are using a spring loaded with energy to move the clock hands, which then shifts the energy from the spring to the gears. That is, we are using a change in entropy in one device to measure another change in entropy in the experiment's mechanism.

What if instead we used a similar clock that was near a black hole?
arcmetal
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 30, 2018
@Surveillance_Egg_Unit
-contd-
@RegMundy
The CONCEPT of TIME ITSELF has no bearing on the physical properties of Mass/Energies and Space except in the use of physical tools ONLY for measurement of Distance and Duration.

Time is ONLY a CONCEPT that was dreamed up by humans to understand better their place in the realities of their existence and why/how things work. ...

Very well said. :)

It goes along with what I just described.

The passage of time seems to be an illusion our brain has created for us. Just like how we see mostly in black and white, but it only looks like our complete field of view is color. We only have a tiny sliver of color detectors in our eyes, the brain fills in the rest of the color we only think we see.

Our brains are always creating illusions for us to make life easier to navigate.
Hyperfuzzy
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 30, 2018
@Surveillance_Egg_Unit
-contd-
@RegMundy
The CONCEPT of TIME ITSELF has no bearing on the physical properties of Mass/Energies and Space except in the use of physical tools ONLY for measurement of Distance and Duration.

Time is ONLY a CONCEPT that was dreamed up by humans to understand better their place in the realities of their existence and why/how things work. ...

Very well said. :)

It goes along with what I just described.

The passage of time seems to be an illusion our brain has created for us. Just like how we see mostly in black and white, but it only looks like our complete field of view is color. We only have a tiny sliver of color detectors in our eyes, the brain fills in the rest of the color we only think we see.

Our brains are always creating illusions for us to make life easier to navigate.

Received light has directional vector Pointing to center of the last fie
Hyperfuzzy
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 30, 2018
It also may have a direction in Time, i.e. space and time are conceptual; however, given the curvature, measurable, look at the direction of your input signal, i.e. +/- Normal to the lens is the signal then ... physics!
arcmetal
3.5 / 5 (6) Dec 30, 2018
...

This is absolutely unimportant when it comes to the study of physical systems. Mathematically I can calculate the Earth's motion through space as well as calculate the inverse (time reversed motion). When it comes to the study of physical systems time is a useful dimension to work with regardless of whether time turns out to be a real world dimension or not.

Using time in the equations sure does make a lot of things easier to calculate, but like you say, it is difficult to say if its a real thing or not.

Its similar to what I've noticed when trying to describe electromagnetic fields. Using only 3 spacial coordinates: x, y, z, it is very complicated to describe the fields, but using 4 spacial coordinates like: x, y, z, w, the fields become much easier to describe.

Even though, no one has been able to point me in the direction of "w".
Reg Mundy
3.2 / 5 (5) Dec 30, 2018
@SEU

The CONCEPT of TIME ITSELF has no bearing on the physical properties of Mass/Energies and Space except in the use of physical tools ONLY for measurement of Distance and Duration.
Time is ONLY a CONCEPT that was dreamed up by humans to understand better their place in the realities of their existence and why/how things work. It is most certainly NOT a Dimension, physical or otherwise. I cannot stress this enough.
Considering Time as a Dimension in addition to the 3 already known is ridiculous and shows that mankind is still liable to fall for the imaginings of Philosophers who give names and abilities to the Undefinable properties of Time.

Seems you totally misunderstand me. I never said time is a dimension or anything like that. I said that what we subjectively perceive as TIME is actually the expansion of matter which is a product of our following the "laws" of physics to guide our path thru the primordial particle chaos. TIME is thus quantum and non-repeating.
Hyperfuzzy
3 / 5 (2) Dec 30, 2018
Set c=1; T=Lambda; use logic it's an isomorphic sampling space onto reality! You can define anything within the universe; w/ logic and recursion; all elements; combinations; ...

Go ahead be God, Space and time are equal in magnitude; every point has a defined set of attributes; better it's Object Memory:

You define the clock
Benni
3 / 5 (6) Dec 30, 2018
It is most certainly NOT a Dimension, physical or otherwise. I cannot stress this enough.
.......right, because it is always coincident to an event of kinetic energy, therefore inseparable from the event itself & any repeat occurrence of that event.

Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 30, 2018
@SEU

The CONCEPT of TIME ITSELF has no bearing on the physical properties of Mass/Energies and Space except in the use of physical tools ONLY for measurement of Distance and Duration.
Time is ONLY a CONCEPT....

Seems you totally misunderstand me. I never said time is a dimension or anything like that. I said that what we subjectively perceive as TIME is actually the expansion of matter which is a product of our following the "laws" of physics to guide our path thru the primordial particle chaos. TIME is thus quantum and non-repeating.
says RegM

I wasn't implying that you were considering Time to be a Dimension. Up on my platform, I was just clarifying my OWN stance on the reality of "STAND ALONE" Time. I understood you perfectly, Reg, but I really just wanted to clear up any possibility of others reading my post having a misconception of my own beliefs. I try to put my ideas across clearly and concisely.
-contd-
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 30, 2018
-contd-
@RegM
I agree that Time can be used "in lieu" of a better name for the expansion of Matter. Hopefully, a more fitting name will be forthcoming for the misconception of Time as a physical "thing".
I don't know that there ever was a "primordial particle chaos", since if there was such a chaos, then why is that chaos no longer evident "out there". Everything seems to be flowing smoothly in a Natural Order with very few chaotic events - unless you want to consider that the merging of galaxies is a form of Chaos. As I had mentioned to JaxPavan in my monologue, the galaxies out in front moving away from the spaceman and his spacecraft may seem like redshift, and the galaxies behind him may seem like blueshift, but there is neither red or blueshift due to ALL of the galaxies/traffic flowing in only ONE direction - forward. So that the red/blueshift theory should be scrapped. If the flow/traffic were chaotic, all the galaxies would be flying helter-skelter w/o any order.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (4) Dec 30, 2018
In other words, it all depends on which direction you are looking - forward or backward - when attempting to understand/discover the ebb and flow of material bodies such as galaxies/clusters and Stars
I reject Chaos in the Universe, and so does that in which I believe.
Benni
2.6 / 5 (5) Dec 30, 2018
I reject Chaos in the Universe
......and lack of "chaos" is the resultant outcome of an ENTROPIC UNIVERSE in which the random distribution of energy results in the monolithic environment we see any direction we point our telescopes. Galaxy clusters in perfect barycenters of motion within their local groupings never requiring something even bigger to explain their movements through the cosmos.
Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (7) Dec 30, 2018
Oh, look, a titch of brolls.
jimmybobber
3.3 / 5 (12) Dec 30, 2018
Dare I say that time exists and is a dimension per Einstein.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 30, 2018
I reject Chaos
......and lack of "chaos" is the resultant outcome of an ENTROPIC UNIVERSE in which the random distribution of energy results in the monolithic environment we see any direction we point our telescopes. Galaxy clusters in perfect barycenters of motion within their local groupings never requiring something even bigger to explain their movements through the cosmos.
says Benni

Benni, are you certain that entropy applies?

entropy | ˈentrəpē |
noun
1 Physics a thermodynamic quantity representing the unavailability of a system's thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work, often interpreted as the degree of disorder or randomness in the system. (Symbol: S)
2 lack of order or predictability; gradual decline into

I will need to think this definition over a tad bit. Will get back to you.
"2 lack of order or predictability; gradual decline into" For some reason, that is bothering me. A lack of chaos should not be defined as "a lack of order".
jimmybobber
3.2 / 5 (9) Dec 30, 2018
Ok Benni this is your quote. Nobody has changed it.
"Galaxy clusters in perfect barycenters of motion within their local groupings never requiring something even bigger to explain their movements through the cosmos"
Your words. Discuss.
Zzzzzzzz
4 / 5 (4) Dec 30, 2018
If the other dimensions that is hypothesized within string theory is effectively compressed by gravity but in a much more aggravated way then the known three spacial dimensions that we live in then as space expands due to the expanding force of the big bang when pockets between galaxies begins to appear where there is very little mass, effect of gravity becomes negligible as well in which the other dimensions hypothesized in string theory that was hiding may unfold resulting to a larger expansion force that we now observe known as dark energy.
It also solves various other questions involving dark energy like why it does not grow weaker as space expands and so on.
This has been my pet theory concerning dark energy for the last ten years or so.


You simply cannot call that a theory, unless of course you have no idea what the word means.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (5) Dec 31, 2018
@Benni
I have copied over 100 Q & A regarding Laws of Thermodynamics to study further at my leisure. Some are from Quora. All very interesting.
I have read that "they" in your field of interest have moved away from "order" and "disorder" - now defining it as "Energy Dispersion". . I really must purchase that book at the University store on Laws of Thermodynamics. Getting highly motivated.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (5) Dec 31, 2018
Ok Benni this is your quote. Nobody has changed it.
"Galaxy clusters in perfect barycenters of motion within their local groupings never requiring something even bigger to explain their movements through the cosmos"
Your words. Discuss.
says jimmy bobber

I see nothing wrong with Benni's quote. The galaxy clusters are either leading in front of, or following behind other galaxies - whether clustered or single. Their motion is set by the galaxies out in front, which are pulling (gravitationally, I think), and the ones behind are "pushing" the ones in front. It isn't size that is causing the motion/movement through the Cosmos. The pushing/pulling effect may be caused by "due to ALL of the galaxies/traffic flowing in only ONE direction - forward." This has been discussed before in at least one physorg article.
Similar to a parade of Mass that, depending on which direction the observer is looking - one cluster may seem to be going away from him while the other is coming
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (6) Dec 31, 2018
Dare I say that time exists and is a dimension per Einstein.
says jimmy bobber

LOL You can say it, but that doesn't make it true. In your own words, what does this "time as dimension" look like to you? Does it have height, weight, depth, length, a big nose? Does it absorb, emit, repulse, spin, attract, liquefy, harden, coagulate? Can you see it, feel it, play with it, step through it, take a photo of it? Can you make geometric patterns with it? Fractals?
Please explain.
Whydening Gyre
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 31, 2018
Dare I say that time exists and is a dimension per Einstein.
says jimmy bobber

LOL You can say it, but that doesn't make it true. In your own words, what does this "time as dimension" look like to you? Does it have height, weight, depth, length, a big nose? Does it absorb, emit, repulse, spin, attract, liquefy, harden, coagulate? Can you see it, feel it, play with it, step through it, take a photo of it? Can you make geometric patterns with it? Fractals?
Please explain.

Without the concept of "time", you couldn't do any of those things.
You could say it is a collection of the 1st 3 plus the space to function in.
Ergo - timespace.
And it is not "manmade", inasmuch as body rotations and orbits throughout the universe are all cyclic "clocks" that were ticking way before we got here.
Those were the "clocks" that ancient man used long before we had anything resembling cuckoo clocks.
Hell, man. You even have a body clock which is tied into those I just mentioned.
beeds
3.8 / 5 (5) Dec 31, 2018
Things only ever happen in the universal NOW frame. 'Time' is used by humans because of the way we function to record past events of NOW sequences (Memories) and use that history of sequential NOW moments to predict future NOW event sequences. The only thing that actually exists is the current physical configuration of NOW and the ability for energy to move to the next configuration of NOW in space.
?
arcmetal
4.5 / 5 (2) Dec 31, 2018
@Surveillance_Egg_Unit, @beeds

I am liking you guys last comments. To add to it, since I've noticed that time is simply an illusion created by our brains, that instead what matters is the change in entropy of the system, and so therefore there is only this one instant of "now", it would mean there will never be time travel. The only pseudo time travel that would exist, is travel into the future. This would consist of freezing myself and waiting for a 1,000 years before waking.

But notice what I was forced to describe: I'd be stopping my entropy, but letting all other objects around me continue with the progress of their entropy.
Benni
2.6 / 5 (5) Dec 31, 2018
Oh, look, a titch of brolls.


......and one of them is the Physorg Moderator schneibo Da Schneib.
Benni
3 / 5 (6) Dec 31, 2018
Dare I say that time exists and is a dimension per Einstein.
.......wrong, Minkowski came up with Space & Time Continuum.

what does this "time as dimension" look like to you? Does it have height, weight, depth, length, a big nose? Does it absorb, emit, repulse, spin, attract, liquefy, harden, coagulate? Can you see it, feel it, play with it, step through it, take a photo of it? Can you make geometric patterns with it? Fractals?


Point well taken, TIME initiates nothing. Time cannot be input to a system resulting in system motion. It was a coordinate system that Minkowski overlapped to flat Euclidean geometry for the purpose of creating time dilating GRAVITY WELLS, a coordinate system that CURVED rather than remaining flat.

Benni
3 / 5 (6) Dec 31, 2018
@Benni
I have copied over 100 Q & A regarding Laws of Thermodynamics to study further at my leisure. Some are from Quora. All very interesting.
I have read that "they" in your field of interest have moved away from "order" and "disorder" - now defining it as "Energy Dispersion". . I really must purchase that book at the University store on Laws of Thermodynamics. Getting highly motivated.


The point you make about Energy Dispersion" is exactly the same as the point I make that "entropy is the random distribution of energy".

Energy Dispersion => Energy Distribution..........ENTROPY.

I simply think of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics as The Distribution of Energy. Substituting "dispersion" for "distribution" is just fine, it is the same end result, that end result being random orderly motion within a closed boundary system, it's why the Universe looks like it does, even distribution of galactic mass in any direction we point a telescope.

granville583762
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 31, 2018
Time is a Perception

You have one planet completing one solar orbit
and
you have a second planet completing two orbits
both passing the completion line together

this is exactly what time is
it is not an entity
it is not substance
it does not exist

so
this completion line
where both planets pass
one in a single orbit
and
a second in two orbits
the x factor
we call time
then becomes a measure of distace/time L/T and 2L/T
The distance L the planets crossed is the vacuum
so
the vacuum is the spatial dimension
being
a vacuum
a vacuum is of no physical substance
so
not only does time not exist
the planets mass is moving from this spatial vacuum
to another spatial vacuum
a vacuum that is indistinguishable from one another
the only thing that actually exists
are the protons and their scrumptious electrons in the planets
Space and time do not exist
Protoplasmix
4 / 5 (4) Dec 31, 2018
Things only ever happen in the universal NOW frame. 'Time' is used by humans because of the way we function to record past events of NOW sequence...
No, it can be demonstrated in a variety of ways that if you and I are moving in different directions then your "now" will be different from my "now" -- this is a good Wiki article, and a perfect example of using t as a coordinate and why it's helpful to have a t-axis for understanding the world (and universe) around you: Relativity of simultaneity...
Protoplasmix
4 / 5 (4) Dec 31, 2018
Even though, no one has been able to point me in the direction of "w".
Just keep in mind that it's orthogonal to all the other axes, and to help visualize things (on a 2-d screen anyway) you can omit one of the spatial axes and think of (x,y,w) or (y,z,w). Best example I've seen for cramming the entire universe past present and future onto a 2-d sheet is a Penrose diagram.
Benni
2.6 / 5 (5) Dec 31, 2018
and a perfect example of using t as a coordinate and why it's helpful to have a t-axis for understanding the world (and universe) around you: Relativity of simultaneity


What is happening on the t-axis when it goes negative? Or is that what you're talking about?
that if you and I are moving in different directions then your "now" will be different from my "now"


Spaced out Engineer
not rated yet Dec 31, 2018
You said it:
-If you talk to aliens ...THEY ARE TELEPATHS

https://phys.org/...ins.html
I'm going with you talking about telepathic aliens as if they're real.
Now what were you arguing about again? Whining about being trolled? After David Icke anyone talking about telepathic aliens is either a total nutjob or a Scientologist. Which are you?

I will say it, who needs telepathy with the best things are derived by zero locally? :)
Locally displace self-energy works for a non-pertubative account. The problem is the lack of distinguishability. The isotropy does not prejudice forwards or backwards. General relativity is a timeless artifice, so what kind of holism leaves a degree of freedom, rather than making a duality to further the relation? A looper, that's who.
Also you the guys saying relativity makes time and space and illusion are right. A problem with both LQG and string theory. Space as ground or determinism.
Spaced out Engineer
not rated yet Dec 31, 2018
*when the best things

*space an illusion are right.
Spaced out Engineer
not rated yet Dec 31, 2018
GR, could argue as thermal time. The point is the thesis is singular. It makes divergent world lines an impossibility. Or rather highly improbable and operationally reversible.

There is a set of interpretations that elicit the problems of human understanding.

A string theory would curl fatalistically from gauge theory classically. A quantum gravity would have erasure. The utilization of configuration space is different. The operation is the same. A total mind bend.

Psychologically it is best to leave it as intrinsic awareness. Slightly new. Healthy model based realism between the primordial dualities of schizophrenia and depression. The new age higher cognitive functions are gratitude for both storytelling and meaning. The primitives remain and approximation or inscrutable for their local and structure, there is still much rigor to aggregating the incommensurable.
granville583762
5 / 5 (5) Dec 31, 2018
Times flows at it normal rate at absolute zero velocity
so
at C/2
Time flows at T = T(1/2)
Two bodies moving relative to each other
where their velocities relative to the zero velocity of the vacuum
they both cannot have time flowing slower relative to each other
as A is 149896229m/s
and B 149896228m/s
only A has its time running slow relative to B
as B has its time running faster relative to A
because
time runs slower
the faster the body moves
relative
to the stationary vacuum
till that body reach's 29979248m/s
where time ceases to flow
as
I would
like the flow of time
to
be properly stated
as time flows normally at zero velocity
where as
Time stops at 299792458m/s
granville583762
5 / 5 (5) Dec 31, 2018
Relativistic Time Thought Experiments

As this nonsense has gone on far too long
I do not believe in thought experiments
even
though I am quite adept at creating thought experiments from the quantum fluctuations
the reason I am adept is because I don't believe in thought experiments
so to the facts
Facts
Time is relative to absolute zero velocity of the vacuum
Time flows normally at absolute zero velocity
Time ceases to flow at the speed of light

So
What is this nonsense of time being relative to two bodies in motion
as it is nothing of the sort
it can be clearly seen to be absolute nonsense
as it clearly causes confusion and our favourite scientism
Obfuscation

As the facts speak for themselves

Fact:
Time is relative to absolute zero velocity of the vacuum:
Time flows normally at absolute zero velocity:
Time ceases to flow at the speed of light:
granville583762
5 / 5 (4) Dec 31, 2018
Gravity versus Velocity

For those who say gravity
velocity is L/T
where as
gravity g is acceleration is velocity/time L/T²
effectively gravity is varying velocity
as varying velocity is acceleration
velocity and gravity are the same beasts
because
in the infinite vacuous vacuum of space
there is no such entity as continuous motion
all motion is varying
as
it can be clearly seen there is no distinction
between
Velocity and acceleration
rrwillsj
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 31, 2018
Thamks Proto, for the wiki article.

It was "a drink of cool water" after all the blathering superstitions of the woomongers!
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 31, 2018
Never saw any alien lizards either - especially telepathic ones that talk to Da Scheidebo telepathically.
Nothing to falsify, PussyOtto - I have seen and talked with Extraterrestrials
Here is a repeat (always good for a laugh) of you posting as pirouette about martians in NASA pics, from 2013

"pictures providing proof of large life forms that are semi-transparent. Those are NOT geology and are not a trick of light and shadow. Mars has life... semi-transparent, not translucent. We also have independent, PROFESSIONAL verification as to the existence of the humanoids in the Mars pictures. You and your "people" need to either get your eyes checked out and possibly purchase reading glasses... Have a magnifying glass available, please. The humanoid life forms are semi-transparent and they are huge, with human-like faces. It is possible that they live underground which is why they are not readily seen by the HiRise cameras Same fruit, different cake.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 31, 2018
-And someone pointed out at one point that, because of the scale and the angle of the photos, these martians would have been at least 900ft tall and lying down.

You're like dr who only each iteration is stupider.
Benni
2.6 / 5 (5) Dec 31, 2018
"Fact:
Time is relative to absolute zero velocity of the vacuum:
Time flows normally at absolute zero velocity:
Time ceases to flow at the speed of light:"

.......thus marking the end of Comments for this thread. This thread is now closed for Comments, granDy.
RealityCheck
2.6 / 5 (5) Dec 31, 2018
@Protoplasmix.
@beeds.
Things only ever happen in the universal NOW frame. 'Time' is used by humans because of the way we function to record past events of NOW sequence
No, it can be demonstrated in a variety of ways that if you and I are moving in different directions then your "now" will be different from my "now" --this is a good Wiki article, and a perfect example of using t as a coordinate and why it's helpful to have a t-axis for understanding the world (and universe) around you: https://en.m.wiki...ltaneity
Again, timely caution is necessary to stop misleading 'mixing' of effectively separate concepts/things; namely:

- SIMULTANEITY is LOCAL 'events analysis' issue;

- UNIVERSAL 'NOW' is GLOBAL concept, recognizing that 'events' DO occur 'simultaneously' all over the universal extent REGARDLESS of WHICH observer/frame is 'analyzing' REMOTELY RECEIVED INFORMATION (via light/gravity/sound) from any 'event of interest'.

Cheers.

RealityCheck
2.6 / 5 (5) Dec 31, 2018
@Protoplasmix.
@arcmetal.
Even though, no one has been able to point me in the direction of "w".
Just keep in mind that it's orthogonal to all the other axes, and to help visualize things (on a 2-d screen anyway) you can omit one of the spatial axes and think of (x,y,w) or (y,z,w). Best example I've seen for cramming the entire universe past present and future onto a 2-d sheet is a https://en.m.wiki...diagram.
That's just 'maths mapping techniques' for 'representing' the REAL 'territory' in LIMITED-INFO 'formats' which leave out a LOT of the REALITY attaching to that real territory.

While limited info 'maps' are useful for certain type/depth of 'analyzing', 'visualizing' etc, they should NOT be used to 'justify' FULL REALITY claims (due to limited-info-map 'perspective').

Ie: a REAL map should treat ALL REAL dimensions/properties FIRST; only THEN do timing/location/quantity etc INFORMATION/ANALYTICAL 'overlays' make COMPLETE sense.

Cheers.
RealityCheck
3 / 5 (6) Dec 31, 2018
@rrwillsj.
Thanks Proto, for the wiki article.
Before accepting everything 'at face value' like that, mate, you would be well advised to read both 'caution'/'reminder' posts I made to @Proto just above; as it may help you avoid the usual 'mixing up' of different things/concepts/understandings which many are still suffering from at all levels.

Good luck and good thinking to you and yours for the New Year, @rrwillsj/everyone! :)
Eikka
3 / 5 (2) Dec 31, 2018
I was asked for a prediction AdS/CFT correspondence had made and I gave one.


That's great, but the correspondence amounts to the equivalent of "Michaelangelo's David is about yee high" so you can cut the block approximately the right size.

Still got to chisel out the shape though. The string theory and M-theory have narrowed the universe down to 10 or 11 dimensions but it still hasn't gone any further in describing how the universe actually works to the point of creating predictions that go beyond Einstein. There's still the gap between the quantum effects on the small scale, and the large scale universe.

Eikka
3 / 5 (2) Dec 31, 2018
https://en.wikipe...riticism

With many physicists turning towards string-based methods to attack problems in nuclear and condensed matter physics, some theorists working in these areas have expressed doubts about whether the AdS/CFT correspondence can provide the tools needed to realistically model real-world systems.


I have no competence in saying whether the criticism further in the article is warranted, so I can merely take their word for it. However, it seems like the correspondence has a caveat of assuming certain properties for matter and space which are in contradiction with Einstein's relativity:

Condensed-matter problems are, in general, neither relativistic nor conformal. Near a quantum critical point, both time and space may be scaling, but even there we still have a preferred coordinate system and, usually, a lattice.


In other words, it's the old problem of requiring a fixed "background" of space.
Eikka
3 / 5 (2) Dec 31, 2018
The issue is, string theory allows for a myriad of different formulations which cover different contradictory versions of the universe. There are so many of these variants possible within the mathematical framework that if you pick any one at random, it will almost surely be false (like the Monty Hall problem).

The difficulty is that with such a huge number of possibilities comes a great number of alternate formulations that give correct predictions for some things, but wrong predictions for other things (like opening one of the empty boxes in the Monty Hall problem).

If I recall correctly, string theory can describe 10 to the power of 500 different universes. Your task is to pick the right one.
Da Schneib
2.6 / 5 (5) Dec 31, 2018
@Eikka, so your arguments amount to "not yet." They're about as good as the sailors on Columbus' ships claiming the world is flat.

Particularly when you avoid addressing the detection of the prediction of AdS/CFT correspondence; that makes it a theory, not a conjecture or hypothesis which you're trying desperately to pretend it is in the face of hard evidence.

You should just admit that and move on.
Eikka
3.5 / 5 (4) Dec 31, 2018
@Eikka, so your arguments amount to "not yet."


Yes.

that makes it a theory, not a conjecture or hypothesis


Depends on what in particular you are calling a theory. String theory itself is still more of a mathematical framework - I believe it is too general to be called a theory, while you may call it what you wish. That doesn't change its predictive powers; there are theories that predict less, and theories that predict more. For example, for a theory of gravity, it suffices to say "Things fall down".
Da Schneib
2.6 / 5 (5) Dec 31, 2018
Let me repeat the evidence:

By applying the AdS/CFT correspondence, Sơn and his collaborators were able to describe the quark gluon plasma in terms of black holes in five-dimensional spacetime. The calculation showed that the ratio of two quantities associated with the quark–gluon plasma, the shear viscosity {\displaystyle \eta } \eta and volume density of entropy {\displaystyle s} s, should be approximately equal to a certain universal constant....

In 2008, the predicted value of this ratio for the quark–gluon plasma was confirmed at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider at Brookhaven National Laboratory.
What I didn't also point out was that the heavy ion run at the LHC repeated the results. That's a confirmed prediction, which makes AdS/CFT correspondence a theory.

You really should have admitted it and moved on.
Eikka
3 / 5 (2) Dec 31, 2018
They're about as good as the sailors on Columbus' ships claiming the world is flat.


On the philosophy of science point of view, it's more like the geocentric vs. heliocentric world views in Galileo's time. Galileo claimed heliocentricism, but backed it up with a false theory that got some predictions right and some predictions wrong (he used the tides for an argument). According to the observable facts, the particular claims that Galileo made were wrong, so by reason his argument should have been rejected.

That does not disprove the point, but the particular arguments being made, and that is the case with string theory as well, and the point that I am making: it may be possible to formulate a theory through string theory that correctly describes the universe, yet any particular formulation is likely to be bullcrap just like Galileo's version of heliocentricism.

(Mind you; heliocentricism wasn't strictly correct either because the sun isn't the center of the universe)
Da Schneib
2.6 / 5 (5) Dec 31, 2018
And what precise predictions of AdS/CFT correspondence are you claiming are "bullcrap?"
Eikka
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 31, 2018
What I didn't also point out was that the heavy ion run at the LHC repeated the results. That's a confirmed prediction, which makes AdS/CFT correspondence a theory.

You really should have admitted it and moved on.


Do not overlook the fact: proving this correspondence does not "prove" string theory in general because string theory encompasses multiple different and contradictory variants.

You're simply being eristic.

And what precise predictions of AdS/CFT correspondence are you claiming are "bullcrap?"


None. I'm talking about string theory.
arcmetal
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 31, 2018
@Protoplasmix.
@arcmetal.
Even though, no one has been able to point me in the direction of "w".
Just keep in mind that it's orthogonal to all the other axes, and to help visualize things (on a 2-d screen anyway) you can omit one of the spatial axes and think of (x,y,w) or (y,z,w). ...

What you've described is interesting but academic. The fourth spacial w direction is orthogonal to the other 3 directions x, y, z like in a hyper cube. Instead, the point I was trying others to see is that our brains cannot tell where that "w" direction is in reality. We have no sense of its direction, just like a 2d being would have no sense of a 3rd dimension. We have not needed to evolve any sense of it. On the inverse, our brains have evolved a sense of a flow of time to help us make sense of the world even if the flow of time may not exist.

Da Schneib
2.6 / 5 (5) Dec 31, 2018
None. I'm talking about string theory.
So you screwed up.

And don't have the balls to admit it.
Da Schneib
2.6 / 5 (5) Dec 31, 2018
What you've described is interesting but academic. The fourth spacial w direction is orthogonal to the other 3 directions x, y, z like in a hyper cube. Instead, the point I was trying others to see is that our brains cannot tell where that "w" direction is in reality. We have no sense of its direction, just like a 2d being would have no sense of a 3rd dimension.
We can measure it. We have. The first time was the halflife extension of the muon, and that was, you know, back in like the 1960s or so.

Maybe you forgot: human senses are not our only means of collecting information.
Eikka
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 31, 2018
None. I'm talking about string theory.
So you screwed up.

And don't have the balls to admit it.


The case here is that you're confusing string theory in general with the particular correspondence. It's rather a case of you don't know what you're talking about.
arcmetal
4 / 5 (4) Dec 31, 2018
@Eikka


You're simply being eristic.
...

Thank you for that new word. It does seem to describe some people I have had the displeasure of meeting lately.

I like Plato's thoughts on that:

"Plato believed that the eristic style, did not constitute a method of argument, believing that to argue eristically is to consciously use fallacious arguments therefore weakening one's position."
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (6) Dec 31, 2018
You're just trolling again, @Eikka. Complete waste of time. If you don't know enough about AdS/CFT correspondence to admit you're wrong, you're not worth talking to. If you want to talk serious physics, lose the 'tude, dude.

Nothing here any different than you constantly claiming wind and solar power won't work, and denigrating battery technology. You never change.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (6) Dec 31, 2018
@arc, noticed you didn't have anything to say about measurement, or about muons.

Avoid avoid avoid deny deny deny. Standard troll tactics.
Eikka
2 / 5 (4) Dec 31, 2018
In theoretical physics, the anti-de Sitter/conformal field theory correspondence, sometimes called Maldacena duality or gauge/gravity duality, is a conjectured relationship between two kinds of physical theories. On one side are anti-de Sitter spaces (AdS) which are used in theories of quantum gravity, formulated in terms of string theory or M-theory.


In physics, string theory is a theoretical framework in which the point-like particles of particle physics are replaced by one-dimensional objects called strings.


My original comment was about string theory. The rest of this debate is simply about trying to (not) equate string theory with this particular derivation of it. String theory itself is conceptually different, and thus cannot be proven in the same sense. What you are trying to do Da Schneib, is like trying to prove calculus by showing an example of a successful application.

Point being, the framework can be used to create models which are incorrect.
Eikka
2.6 / 5 (5) Dec 31, 2018
You're just trolling again, @Eikka. Complete waste of time.


Not trolling. You're just trying to sound smart, so I wanted to put you down a notch. I'm no expert on QM or string theory, but I can smell buzzwords like bullshit.

Nothing here any different than you constantly claiming wind and solar power won't work, and denigrating battery technology. You never change.


Completely irrelevant.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (6) Dec 31, 2018
Sure; you can create models from the framework of relativity that are incorrect too. What you have to do is constrain them by observation. This is standard stuff. Like I said, you're just trolling.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (6) Dec 31, 2018
Y'know what really pisses me off?

You guys whine and cavil and bitch and moan that "string theory doesn't make any predictions." So someone comes up with predictions and you claim it's "not string theory." Speaking of eristic.

This is bullshit, and you're a troll. Now go away.
arcmetal
4 / 5 (5) Dec 31, 2018
@Da Schneib
@arc, noticed you didn't have anything to say about measurement, or about muons.

Avoid avoid avoid deny deny deny. Standard troll tactics.

Your comment is a bit confusing, since all of my comments in this thread have been about the existence, or non of time. Maybe it was meant for someone else?

Although, I am building a small muon detector during these holidays for fun. But I don't think that's what you meant.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (6) Dec 31, 2018
Dare I say that time exists and is a dimension per Einstein.
says jimmy bobber

LOL You can say it, but that doesn't make it true. In your own words, what does this "time as dimension" look like to you? Does it have height, weight, depth, length, a big nose? Does it absorb, emit, repulse, spin, attract, liquefy, harden, coagulate? Can you see it, feel it, play with it, step through it, take a photo of it? Can you make geometric patterns with it? Fractals?
Please explain.

Without the concept of "time", you couldn't do any of those things.
You could say it is a collection of the 1st 3 plus the space to function in.
Ergo - timespace.
says Whyde

Was hoping for an answer from jimmyb also.
Whyde, are you saying that if humans had never made up the concept of "TIME", that the Universe and everything would have disappeared?
Time is STRICTLY ONLY A CONCEPT - it is Philosophy that was related ONLY to the DURATION of the Sun's path in the heavens.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (5) Dec 31, 2018
-contd-
@Whyde
What we call TIME is ONLY a means to MEASURE the duration of an event, such as how much Time it takes for you to drive the distance to the market and back. A TV show is approx. 20 minutes long, plus commercials. And it's not Timespace - it is Spacetime.
The 3 dimensional Universe is sufficient for events to take place, such as the events that I asked of jimmybobber if Time could do any of it.
What we call TIME is not even a mere shadow - not even a "thing" or "object". Einstein dropped the ball on that one, Whyde. HOW CAN YOU SEE A CONCEPT - AN IDEA - A THOUGHT - A PHILOSOPHICAL NOTION? You can see the Sunrise and Sunset. And we measure those 2 EVENTS by the timepieces that humans have conceived and built.
It is like the LAW, Whyde. It looks good on paper - but it is only when it is put INTO ACTION, that the Law has "teeth", Whyde.

If you are able to SEE Time, please let me know.
Benni
2.1 / 5 (7) Dec 31, 2018
Sure; you can create models from the framework of relativity that are incorrect too.


Once in a great while you accidentally make a TRUE statement. The biggest blunder Pop-Cosmology has ever made was detested by Einstein so vehemently that in 1939 he had to write:

"On Stationary Systems with Spherical Symmetry consisting of many Gravitating Masses"

http://www.cscamm...hild.pdf

What you have to do is constrain them by observation. This is standard stuff.


Ha, "standard stuff" you say mister Physorg Moderator.........then why after all these decades you stalwarts living in the fantasyland of Pop-Cosmology never produced observational evidence of a black hole, you know, pictures?

Benni
2.5 / 5 (8) Dec 31, 2018
Was hoping for an answer from jimmyb also.
......me too Egg. I guess he discovered he first needs to learn who it was that come up with Space & Time Continuum after I corrected jimbo's assertion that it was not Einstein, but was Minkowski. Next he needs to learn how to write equations & that'll be the hardest part for him, he's taking so long to get back because he's probably been away practicing.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (5) Dec 31, 2018
-contd-
@Whyde
And it is not "manmade", inasmuch as body rotations and orbits throughout the universe are all cyclic "clocks" that were ticking way before we got here.
Those were the "clocks" that ancient man used long before we had anything resembling cuckoo clocks.
Hell, man. You even have a body clock which is tied into those I just mentioned.

says Whyde

Yes, there are cycles for almost all Mass - without clocks. Those are NATURAL cycles that are a part of the NATURAL ORDER. Without those natural cycles, there would be Chaos and uncertainty - amongst other disrupting forces.
Clocks/timepieces are manmade - Concepts are manmade that occur in the human brain - Philosophy is manmade - which humans have depended on to PRODUCE Concepts such as Time and the 4 Seasons.
Yes, natural cycles were what ancient man observed to tell them when it was time to plant/sow, to reap/harvest, and to watch for the Sun and Moon to tell WHEN to do those things.
jimmybobber
2.8 / 5 (9) Dec 31, 2018
@Benni
"In mathematical physics, Minkowski space (or Minkowski spacetime) is a combination of three-dimensional Euclidean space and time into a four-dimensional manifold where the spacetime interval between any two events is independent of the inertial frame of reference in which they are recorded. Although initially developed by mathematician Hermann Minkowski for Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism, the mathematical structure of Minkowski spacetime was shown to be an immediate consequence of the postulates of special relativity.[1]"
https://en.wikipe...ki_space

I don't see the problem here.

Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (6) Dec 31, 2018
"the vacuum is the spatial dimension
being
a vacuum
a vacuum is of no physical substance
so
not only does time not exist
the planets mass is moving from this spatial vacuum
to another spatial vacuum
a vacuum that is indistinguishable from one another
the only thing that actually exists
are the protons and their scrumptious electrons in the planets
Space and time do not exist"
says granville

Happy New Year to you, granville
Time is only a concept - a product of the human brain that is dependent on events, distance and their recording of - nothing more. Cycles are repeating EVENTS.
Space is only the distance between one Mass/Energy and another Mass/Energy, in whichever proximity, such as the Gravity Well in which Mass has found a place.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (5) Dec 31, 2018
-contd-
@granville, Benni et al

Space/vacuum is the Medium that separates Mass/Energy from others like or similar to it. The concept of Time is not a product of that Medium - IOW, Space/vacuum is not a creator of Time, nor is it a creator of Mass/Energy. That Medium exists only as a "humble servant" to support and enable Mass/Energy. But the 3 Dimensions of Mass/Energy are able to operate within the Medium of Space/vacuum - and those 3 Dimensions of height, length, and depth are what gives us REALITY.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (6) Dec 31, 2018
@Benni
"In mathematical physics, Minkowski space (or Minkowski spacetime) is a combination of three-dimensional Euclidean space and time into a four-dimensional manifold where the spacetime interval between any two events is independent of the inertial frame of reference in which they are recorded. Although initially developed by mathematician Hermann Minkowski for Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism, the mathematical structure of Minkowski spacetime was shown to be an immediate consequence of the postulates of special relativity.[1]"
https://en.wikipe...ki_space

I don't see the problem here.

says jimmybobber

TRY to understand that the official books and the Wiki definitions are WRONG with regard to the conception of "Spacetime", Space/vacuum exists. Time is ONLY a conceptual TOOL that was decided on to include in those math equations to pretend that Time, other than a measurement of Duration and Distance, had some kind of bearing on SR/GR.
jimmybobber
2.5 / 5 (8) Dec 31, 2018
@SEU Not going to argue with you.
You think the "Official books and the Wiki definitions are WRONG."

It's impossible to argue with someone who thinks time doesn't exist.
I assume you will respond to me in my future, not yours because you don't experience time.

Benni
2.7 / 5 (7) Dec 31, 2018
@Benni
"In mathematical physics, Minkowski space (or Minkowski spacetime) is a combination of three-dimensional Euclidean space and time into a four-dimensional manifold where the spacetime interval between any two events is independent of the inertial frame of reference in which they are recorded. Although initially developed by mathematician Hermann Minkowski for Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism, the mathematical structure of Minkowski spacetime was shown to be an immediate consequence of the postulates of special relativity.[1]"
https://en.wikipe...ki_space

I don't see the problem here.


But of course you don't see the problem. You also don't think your concept of writing equations is so ridiculous that those too are as laughable as a lot of stuff written in those WkiPedia articles. I learned my nuclear physics from spending a lot of time studying this material in a college classroom, but all you can do is quote WikiPedia.
jimmybobber
2.5 / 5 (8) Dec 31, 2018
@Benni you never pointed out what was wrong with my equations. Please do.
Benni
2.1 / 5 (7) Dec 31, 2018
@Benni you never pointed out what was wrong with my equations. Please do.


Jimbo, make a new years resolution......learn to write readable equations.
jimmybobber
2.5 / 5 (8) Dec 31, 2018
@Benni So you can't point out anything wrong with my equations but that you can't read them. That kind of sounds like your problem guy man dude.
jimmybobber
2.5 / 5 (8) Dec 31, 2018
@Benni I assume you have a problem with me using the Caret to represent an exponent.
https://www.compu...aret.htm
If you can't understand that it's your issue not mine.
Benni
2.3 / 5 (6) Dec 31, 2018
@Benni I assume you have a problem with me using the Caret to represent an exponent.
https://www.compu...aret.htm
If you can't understand that it's your issue not mine.


.....among other expressions as well. Again, in short, get to work on that new year's resolution I suggested & learn to get rid of the chicken scratching.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (5) Dec 31, 2018
@SEU Not going to argue with you.
You think the "Official books and the Wiki definitions are WRONG."

It's impossible to argue with someone who thinks time doesn't exist.
I assume you will respond to me in my future, not yours because you don't experience time.

says jimmybobber

You have no clearcut argument to refute what I have said in my comments above. IF you truly THINK that Time itself exists other than as a Conceptual product of the human mind, and other than merely as a measurement of Distance and Duration of Events as I have already presented - then please present your evidence herewith. Math equations of the past and present that include Time as Spacetime will require that you provide Time as a PRODUCT that is equal to the other 3 Dimensions, rather than as a concept which I have already related.
jimmybobber
2.8 / 5 (9) Dec 31, 2018
@Benni show me one example of an incorrect equation I wrote. If it is incorrect I will admit to it.
I have no problem admitting to my mistakes. I actually like admitting my mistakes. It reminds me I am human.
jimmybobber
2.5 / 5 (8) Dec 31, 2018
@SEU As I predicted you have responded to me in my future. About 45 minutes after my response to you. Thank you for proving time exists.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (6) Dec 31, 2018
@Benni show me one example of an incorrect equation I wrote. If it is incorrect I will admit to it.
I have no problem admitting to my mistakes. I actually like admitting my mistakes. It reminds me I am human.
And one always learns something new. ;)
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (5) Dec 31, 2018
@SEU As I predicted you have responded to me in my future. About 45 minutes after my response to you. Thank you for proving time exists.
says jimmybobber

EVENTS exist. I was having a bit of tea and cookies with my friends and housemates. That was an EVENT for me. For YOU, it was also an EVENT of waiting for me to respond to your post.
So where is your evidence that Time exists as a Product?
jimmybobber
2.7 / 5 (7) Dec 31, 2018
@SEU How do you define an "Event?" Probably something that happens at a spatial coordinate x,y,z and at a specific time.
As for evidence that "Time exists as a Product" I have no idea what your going on about.
Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (7) Dec 31, 2018
OK, what separates events at the same x,y,z locations but now and an hour ago, or an hour from now?
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (6) Dec 31, 2018
And just for grins, because it's New Year's Eve,

Time, from Dark Side of the Moon by the Pink Floyd: https://www.youtu...X52BP2Sk

Remastered; bring your good equipment.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (4) Dec 31, 2018
@SEU How do you define an "Event?" Probably something that happens at a spacial coordinate x,y,z and at a specific time.
As for evidence that "Time exists as a Product" I have no idea what your going on about.
says jimmybobber

You don't know how to define an event? A "specific" time would be the DURATION between 2 or more events - beginning at and ending at - that is measured according to a timepiece. Without the timepiece, how can you tell if it is 2 o'clock, 4 o'clock, etc?
OF COURSE, events happen within those 3 coordinates, assuming that you mean height, width, and depth - which are constituents of REALITY.

IF you don't regard TIME as a Product, then what is TIME to you? A math equation? LOL
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (6) Dec 31, 2018
I'm on a science site watching a bunch of trolls claim it will never be midnight on New Year's Eve. On New Year's Eve.

Totally surreal. Fellini couldn't touch this.

Noticed I didn't get any answer on what separates events at the same location and different times.

You must be suffering cognitive dissonance.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (4) Dec 31, 2018
@jimmybobber
I have already asked you if you can SEE Time, feel, drink, step through, talk to it, etc.
WHAT IS TIME to you? If you say that Time is Spacetime, then that also does not apply, since the concept of Spacetime is a HUMAN concept that was produced out of a human mind/imagination, not an actual "thing" that can be seen, heard, etc.
jimmybobber
2.5 / 5 (8) Dec 31, 2018
@SEU OK so you admit there are durations between events and you need a timepiece to measure them. We are making progress.
Please tell us what a duration is and what a timepiece is.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (4) Dec 31, 2018
@SEU OK so you admit there are durations between events and you need a timepiece to measure them. We are making progress.
Please tell us what a duration is and what a timepiece is.
says jimmybobber

I have been saying that all day, which you did not seem to understand. But now you seem to be getting it. Go back to all of my previous comments and read them carefully if you want to know what duration and a timepiece are.
jimmybobber
2.5 / 5 (8) Dec 31, 2018
@SEU "saying that all day!" How much time is that you've been saying that!
Da Schneib
2.6 / 5 (5) Dec 31, 2018
Spatial movement translates into temporal movement. Distance turns into time. This is confirmed, starting with observations of muons showered from cosmic rays striking atoms in the upper atmosphere in the Rossi-Hall experiment in 1941 (I was incorrect earlier in assigning it to the 1960s). Since then numerous experiments have tested SRT and every one has confirmed it.

How can space translate into time if they are not essentially the same thing?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (4) Dec 31, 2018
@jimmybobber
Look at your wrist. That Mickey Mouse watch on your wrist is a timepiece. That human-made timepiece on your wrist can tell you the duration between the time you went to bed and the time you woke up. Got it? Duration is the INTERVAL BETWEEN 2 OR MORE EVENTS. Jot that down so that you won't forget. There's a good lad.
Da Schneib
2.6 / 5 (5) Dec 31, 2018
If you really want to get technical, then there is a term you should know: rapidity. It's the measure of the angle that something makes between its spatial direction and its time direction, just as foreshortening when you rotate something in 3-space changes its angular dimension.

You can do this with the Lorenz-Fitzgerald algebra. But if you do it with rapidity, it's much more direct and convincing. The equations look just like the ones used by Renaissance painters.

Hold an object up crosswise before your face. Turn it. Note it gets shorter. Nothing is different when you see an object that's moving past you, except it turns in time which you can't see.
jimmybobber
2.5 / 5 (8) Dec 31, 2018
@SEU Yet your saying time only exists a a conceptual construct of the human mind.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 31, 2018
@SEU "saying that all day!" How much time is that you've been saying that!
says jm

Uh let's see now - I recall that I started out discussing Time with others who seemed to agree with my impression of Time. And then you started your silly nonsense. That would be ~6 or 7 hours by my timepiece.
Da Schneib
2.6 / 5 (5) Dec 31, 2018
The only problem being that you were being cossetted by a titch of brolls.

Lesson: if you cannot refute logic except by trolling, you are

WRONG

Now get over it.

Like I said, surreal.
jimmybobber
2.5 / 5 (8) Dec 31, 2018
@SEU I assume you are not celebrating the new year as it's only a conceptual construct of the human mind. No new years resolutions for you I guess.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 31, 2018
@SEU Yet your saying time only exists a a conceptual construct of the human mind.


Time IS a conceptual product of the human mind - both as an additive to math equations, and as a measurement of whatever you want to measure as distance and duration.
Uhhh you must be Da Scheide's nephew or niece, right? Perhaps one of Da Scheide's sox?
Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (6) Dec 31, 2018
And you know because you're a moderator, right?

Right?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 31, 2018
@SEU Yet your saying time only exists a a conceptual construct of the human mind.


You're catching on. Congratulations
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 31, 2018
@SEU I assume you are not celebrating the new year as it's only a conceptual construct of the human mind. No new years resolutions for you I guess.
says jb

Ever hear of a calendar? It's also a timepiece on paper. A human concept too
jimmybobber
3 / 5 (9) Jan 01, 2019
@SEU happy no year.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
4 / 5 (4) Jan 01, 2019
@SEU happy no year.


Same to you, jimmybobber. I celebrated already, about 6 hours ago.
Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 01, 2019
Noticed I didn't get a response on the "moderator" comment.

After all your denials, you won't deny that one?

Obvious YEC troll lying for jebus.
Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 01, 2019
OK, here's the key to trolls: tell the same disgusting lies about them they tell about you.

They run away and hide.

@SEU is a child molester freak who murders its victims by torture and thinks telepathic lizard aliens run the government and there are telepathic robot rape machines in the bushes.

See how that works?
RealityCheck
3 / 5 (6) Jan 01, 2019
@jimmybobber.
@SEU I assume you are not celebrating the new year as it's only a conceptual construct of the human mind.
Careful. Consider what motion/change IS; and how 'time'/'timing' is DERIVED from comparison of two/more different motions/changes across space.

When one talks about TWO EVENTS 'taking place' in the SAME space but at TWO DIFFERENT 'times', remember that there is NO ABSOLUTE REST and NO ABSOLUTE POSITION....ie, there is ONLY INCESSANT change/motion at all scales; and the UNCERTAINTY principle applies at the most fundamental levels of UNIVERSAL ENERGY-SPACE extent/dynamics.

So, since TWO EVENTS can NEVER occur in the SAME SPACE, the notion of 'time'/'timing' between events is purely a LOCAL variable INPUT to some 'chosen co-ordinate analysis' maths VIA COMPARING events under study with motions/changes of OTHER 'standard events' (clock-like cycles/oscillations) ELSEWHERE.

ps: The 'same' New Year 'occurs' as 'different events' for different latitudes. :)
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (6) Jan 01, 2019
More lies from Da ScheidePussyman the weirdo in a different forum

Da Schneib1 /5 (1) just added
So the psychotic child molester @SEU still has the balls to post here?

What a sick puppy. Tell us some more about how the telepathic aliens are running NASA.

https://phys.org/...html#jCp
RealityCheck
3 / 5 (6) Jan 01, 2019
ERRATA:

The "latitudes" at the end of the ps: in my above post should have been "longitudes".

Thanks.

Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 01, 2019
I don't really know what to say to a psychotic torturer murder of victims of its child molestation who thinks telepathic aliens run the government and there are telepathic rape machines in the bushes.

That's just too much crazy.
Da Schneib
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 01, 2019
Maybe you shouldn't have lied about me. Maybe you should apologize and not do it again.

If you haven't figured that out you will. If the moderators won't do anything about it, that's fine. I'll fix it. You won't like that. You will find that I am extremely persistent. And nastier than you.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 01, 2019
@RealityCheck
Yes, it is basically the same New Year, but actually celebrated at different Time intervals due to the 24 hour clock that encompasses the whole of the Earth, where each region of the Earth was allotted 1 hour in comparison to its neighbors to the East of it and to the West. Thus, Los Angeles is 3 hours behind New York, and London is 6 hours ahead of New York. All conceived by humans.

...occurs as "different events" for "different LONGITUDES", RC.
Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (7) Jan 01, 2019
You have libeled me, @SEU. I won't forget.

I say you are a torture murderer of children you have molested to prevent them testifying against you. And a believer in telepathic alien lizards taking over the government.

Prove I'm wrong. Good luck.
RealityCheck
3 / 5 (6) Jan 01, 2019
@Da Schneib.
If you really want to get technical, then there is a term you should know: rapidity. It's the measure of the angle that something makes between its spatial direction and its time direction, just as foreshortening when you rotate something in 3-space changes its angular dimension.

You can do this with the Lorenz-Fitzgerald algebra. But if you do it with rapidity, it's much more direct and convincing. The equations look just like the ones used by Renaissance painters.

Hold an object up crosswise before your face. Turn it. Note it gets shorter. Nothing is different when you see an object that's moving past you, except it turns in time which you can't see.
That is well known 'perspective views' depending on the information reaching YOU at whatever position you happen to be relative to the object being viewed. The 'view' reaching you is NOT the OBJECT ITSELF, but light/other emanations conveying ABSTRACT information which can be 'interpreted' accordingly.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 01, 2019
@RC
Thanks for fixing that. I was a bit late. LOL
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 01, 2019
@RC
Is it still hot down under in Sydney? Should be a bit cooled down by now, eh? i'm hoping to fly to Canberra one day.
RealityCheck
3 / 5 (6) Jan 01, 2019
@S_E_U.
@RealityCheck
Yes, it is basically the same New Year, but actually celebrated at different Time intervals due to the 24 hour clock that encompasses the whole of the Earth, where each region of the Earth was allotted 1 hour in comparison to its neighbors to the East of it and to the West. Thus, Los Angeles is 3 hours behind New York, and London is 6 hours ahead of New York. All conceived by humans.
Yes. :)
...occurs as "different events" for "different LONGITUDES", RC.

Please Note: I was already making my ERRATA post (correcting the typo from "latitudes" to "longitudes") while you were posting that post immediately after that relevant post of mine. Cheers.
Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 01, 2019
@SEU torture murder child molester telepathic alien believer YEC troll lying for jebus, what is your purpose here?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 01, 2019
@RC
LOL I had just come back from that other article/forum with Pussyman's ridiculous comment to paste here - when I noticed your "latitude" instead of "longitude". I know that it was by accident and probably not intended. As a world traveler, I am sensitive to such things. Hope you weren't put out by my mentioning it.
:)
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (6) Jan 01, 2019
Why should anyone listen to a torturer murderer child molester YEC troll lying for jebus?

What is your purpose here? Who's paying you?
RealityCheck
3 / 5 (6) Jan 01, 2019
@S_E_U.
@RC
Thanks for fixing that. I was a bit late. LOL
No problem, mate! As long as the correction happened in a 'timely' fashion, hey? :)
@RC
Is it still hot down under in Sydney? Should be a bit cooled down by now, eh? i'm hoping to fly to Canberra one day.
Still hot! A weak cool change is coming soon up the east cast of NSW over the next few days, so it will be more comfortable there for a little while afterwards; but INLAND it's continuing HOT as blazes. Oz seems to be performing a similar function to that of the 'canary in the coal mine', insofar as the extremes trending is very OBVIOUS and very REAL here. The problems are not only the 'warming' itself; but ALSO all the attendant problems of weather/climate VARIABILITY and EXTREMES (hailstones BIGGER; precipitations bursts are becoming ENORMOUS and EXTENSIVE. Also the heat-loving diseases/pests etc extending further south and decimating agriculture/infrastructure like never before. We're 'in for it' now!
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 01, 2019
OK it's party time here. Have a great new year, RC
Da Schneib
2.7 / 5 (7) Jan 01, 2019
Hey, @SEU torturer murderer child molester YEC troll lying for jebus, guess your butthurt still persists. Next time don't troll, you may have to pay for it. Just like this time.

I don't like libel. It's chickenshit.
RealityCheck
3 / 5 (6) Jan 01, 2019
@S_E_U.
@RC
LOL I had just come back from that other article/forum with Pussyman's ridiculous comment to paste here - when I noticed your "latitude" instead of "longitude". I know that it was by accident and probably not intended. As a world traveler, I am sensitive to such things. Hope you weren't put out by my mentioning it.
:)
Did I sound "put out", mate? Not a bit of it! :)

Any well-intentioned, polite correction (which yours was) is GOOD; and much appreciated in my book. And thanks anyway for taking the trouble to alert me, even if I had already corrected before your well-intentioned alert, S_E_U. :)
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 01, 2019
Did I sound like I "put out", mate? :)

LOL not at all, RC. Careful now, Pussyman might want a piece of the action if you keep saying that. ROFLOL I think you meant to say: "Did I sound like I WAS "put out"?
RealityCheck
3 / 5 (6) Jan 01, 2019
@S_E_U.
OK it's party time here. Have a great new year, RC
Same to you and yours, mate! Stay safe; stay well. :)

Did I sound like I "put out", mate? :)

LOL not at all, RC. Careful now, Pussyman might want a piece of the action if you keep saying that. ROFLOL I think you meant to say: "Did I sound like I WAS "put out"?
Funny! It happened again: I corrected it to "Did I sound put out" just before you submitted your observation of the 'double entendre' possibilities of the previous 'construction'. Thanks again. Cheers.
Da Schneib
2.7 / 5 (7) Jan 01, 2019
LOL

105LiarRC trolls @SEU. "I already knew it," @105LiarRC's standard troll.

Classic.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 01, 2019
Oh darn - you caught it and changed it, RC
LOL
And I was having some fun with it.
Here in the States, "putting out" means something that Pussyman might do.
LOL

You too, RC
Take care, mate.
Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 01, 2019
ROFL, and @SEU bends over for it.

Totally classic. Can't make this stuff up.
RealityCheck
3 / 5 (6) Jan 01, 2019
@Da Schneib.
...Can't make this stuff up.
But...you just did, DS. Stop being such a misery, mate. Lighten up for the New Year and stop trolling/insulting and making sh!t up like that. Good luck and good thinking, DS. :)
Whydening Gyre
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 01, 2019
...
What we call TIME is not even a mere shadow - not even a "thing" or "object". Einstein dropped the ball on that one, Whyde. HOW CAN YOU SEE A CONCEPT - AN IDEA - A THOUGHT - A PHILOSOPHICAL NOTION? You can see the Sunrise and Sunset. And we measure those 2 EVENTS by the timepieces that humans have conceived and built.
It is like the LAW, Whyde. It looks good on paper - but it is only when it is put INTO ACTION, that the Law has "teeth", Whyde.

If you are able to SEE Time, please let me know.

You are pulling a Benni.
You don't see time, you experience it.
I watch the sunrise, I see the Sun move across the sky, I watch it set.
You don't see that your friends and wife and kids love you, you experience it through their actions and words. Some things you can watch (which takes "time", btw), some you "experience"..
All of existence is like that.
Happy "another trip around the sun" to you.
BTW... Technically, every day is New Year. Live it and enjoy. :-)
Protoplasmix
4 / 5 (4) Jan 01, 2019
What is happening on the t-axis when it goes negative? Or is that what you're talking about?
c'mon Benni, you're the capitalized Differential Equation math whiz, what happens on the t for temperature axis when it goes negative? Oh wait it doesn't. Did you look at all the 'chicken scratches' on the follow-up post for Penrose diagrams? If you had, you'd have noted they're useful for visualizing and examining various t for time symmetries regarding the many gravitational anomalies we've observed (indirectly from electromagnetic radiation and directly observed from gravitational waves) that are commonly referred to as black holes. Way too many chicken scratches for the royal mind, eh Benni?
granville583762
5 / 5 (6) Jan 01, 2019
Muons showered from cosmic rays
Da Schneib> Spatial movement translates into temporal movement. Distance turns into time. This is confirmed, starting with observations of muons showered from cosmic rays striking atoms in the upper atmosphere in the Rossi-Hall experiment in 1941

We forgot the Muons
Travelling practically at 299792458m/s
Where Muons imbed themselves in the nearest rocks and promptly decay in 2.2microseconds
This proves the rule
Fact:
Time is relative to absolute zero velocity of the vacuum:
Time flows normally at absolute zero velocity:
Time ceases to flow at the speed of light:

Time ceases to flow for Muons in flight, where the Muons at rest promptly decay in 2.2microseconds

As peoples on the equator live longer than in the Arctic Circle this 2019
………………………………..Happy New Year……………………………
Protoplasmix
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 01, 2019
What you've described is interesting but academic. The fourth spacial w direction is orthogonal to the other 3 directions x, y, z like in a hyper cube. Instead, the point I was trying others to see is that our brains cannot tell where that "w" direction is in reality.
Our brains speak pretty well for themselves. You know about hypercubes, but what about sphere packing in higher dimensions? How do you expect people to see any w direction if you stomp their buzz by telling them their brain can't see it? Other brains can see n directions for n dimensions, so there must be something wrong with a brain that can't, especially with one that doesn't even try knowing full well it's possible. You know about hypercubes, but what do you know about the normed division algebras?
granville583762
5 / 5 (5) Jan 01, 2019
How convenient – The formula
t = T( _ ⁄ ¯1-V²/C² )
Is carefully constructed
so no clear conclusion
be reached
till 299792458m/s within a couple of m/s is reached
but
with regards the muon
it makes no never mind
because
give or take a couple of m/s
The muon travels at the speed of light, as time stops at the speed of light
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (4) Jan 01, 2019
So, since TWO EVENTS can NEVER occur in the SAME SPACE
What's with the all-caps RealityCheck, yer gonna wake the baby. And are you by any chance familiar with the term "superposition"? "Bose-Einstein condensate"? "quantum mechanics"?

Late edit for last post: I'm trying to find the complex plane, anyone know what direction that's in?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 01, 2019
...
What we call TIME is not even a mere shadow - not even a "thing" or "object"...HOW CAN YOU SEE A CONCEPT - AN IDEA - A THOUGHT - A PHILOSOPHICAL NOTION? You can see the Sunrise and Sunset. And we measure those 2 EVENTS by the timepieces that humans have conceived and built.

You are pulling a Benni.
You don't see time, you experience it.
I watch the sunrise, I see the Sun move across the sky, I watch it set.
You don't see that your friends and wife and kids love you, you experience it through their actions and words. Some things you can watch (which takes "time", btw), some you "experience"..
All of existence is like that.
Happy "another trip around the sun" to you.
BTW... Technically, every day is New Year. Live it and enjoy. :-)
says Whyde

What you have described above is not Time - you've described EMOTION through physical experiences
Watch sun rise & set = Event
Sun moving = Event
Love = Emotion
All Concepts - including your concept of Time
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 01, 2019
--contd-
@Whyde
The Time in Spacetime in math equations is supposedly an "object" that is akin to Space and somehow related to the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Dimensions of height, width and Depth. But Time is unverifiable as an object, place, motion, or of anything of a physical nature that could have any physical relation to the first 3 Dimensions. IOW, the Concept of Time has no effect whatsoever on the other 3 Dimensions other than to be used as a measurement of Duration or Distance. But math equations never specify such a specific use of Time - instead it seems to be used as a "buffer" or "wing man" to support the verifiable Space part of Spacetime as though Time was a real, tangible thing.
Space is everywhere in the Universe; we can SEE its effects and we know that Space/vacuum is not 100% empty in the absence of Mass. But we cannot SEE Time OR its effects. Decay is a physical effect on Mass/Matter - not due to Time except by keeping track of the Duration of decay by using clocks
granville583762
4.4 / 5 (7) Jan 01, 2019
Concerning muons

Muons penetrate 600metres of rock after passing through the atmosphere
muons travel at the speed of light
660m in 2.2microsecnds is the speed of light
muons penetrate 600m of rock
are obviously travelling considerably slower than the speed of light
as the formula t = T( _ ⁄ ¯1-V²/C² ) is only effective at the speed of light, give or take a few metres a second
Moving way below the effective velocity, penetrates 600metres of rock in 2.2microseconds
which shows below the thresh hold velocity when time stops
which is only percentage points below the speed of light
the muon at 90% and below the speed of light is in the same position as a stationary muon
the time curve is almost level till 90% the speed of light
as the muon is not going faster than 90% the speed of light through 600m of rock
shows the muon decaying in the same time as a stationary muon
When it penetrates the rock
Benni
2.5 / 5 (8) Jan 01, 2019
@Benni show me one example of an incorrect equation I wrote. If it is incorrect I will admit to it.
I have no problem admitting to my mistakes. I actually like admitting my mistakes. It reminds me I am human.


Put some up & I'll show you, unless of course you're doing Copy & Paste.

As you have already discovered, there is a limit to putting up equations via the Copy & Paste method that you've already tried.
Benni
2.5 / 5 (8) Jan 01, 2019
What is happening on the t-axis when it goes negative? Or is that what you're talking about?


c'mon Benni, you're the capitalized Differential Equation math whiz, what happens on the t for temperature axis when it goes negative? Oh wait it doesn't. Did you look at all the 'chicken scratches' on the follow-up post for Penrose diagrams? If you had, you'd have noted they're useful for visualizing and examining various t for time symmetries regarding the many gravitational anomalies we've observed (indirectly from electromagnetic radiation and directly observed from gravitational waves) that are commonly referred to as black holes. Way too many chicken scratches for the royal mind, eh Benni?


It was your idea, all I did was ask you to explain the co-ordinates & you end up discussing yet another Pop-Cosmolgy fantasy for which like TIME there is no OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE, black holes.
Benni
2.5 / 5 (8) Jan 01, 2019
Hey there schneibo, Physorg Moderator...........I've sent you a bunch of Reports this morning, Da Schneib stuff, trust you've been enjoying sorting through them.
Protoplasmix
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 01, 2019
Same fruit, different cake.
You're like dr who only each iteration is stupider.
Good one. Meanwhile who displaced the technological singularity script with one that features a silly orange patsy with tiny hands on a nuclear holocaust button who wants to, among other things, build a wall around liberty and justice for all, and somehow got the entire mainstream media to go with that script instead? If you say truth is stranger than fiction imma call you a philo. :)
Benni
2.5 / 5 (8) Jan 01, 2019
Same fruit, different cake.
You're like dr who only each iteration is stupider.
Good one. Meanwhile who displaced the technological singularity script with one that features a silly orange patsy with tiny hands on a nuclear holocaust button who wants to, among other things, build a wall around liberty and justice for all, and somehow got the entire mainstream media to go with that script instead? If you say truth is stranger than fiction imma call you a philo. :)


How primitive.
granville583762
4.4 / 5 (7) Jan 01, 2019
The muon and the time curve

When the muon
is stationary
or
travelling below C
up to 90% C
the time curve is flat
there is hardly any slowing down of time
a muon travelling at 90%C
travels in the same time
as when it is stationary imbedded in its rock
a muon
in its 2.2micro seconds
travelling at 90% C or 594m
travels 600m
through rock
but
when this muon is free
when it travels just below
at 299792456m/s
the flow of time stops
as time stands still
and so does the 2.2micro seconds
that
even if this muon has to cross the universe
as long as it its velocity
keeps between 299792458m/s and 299792456m/s
the muon ceases to decay
until it strikes its proverbial rock
where
its velocity drops below 90% the speed of light
then the muon will decay
in 2.2microseconds
only able to travel 600m
as its time curve is flat
both stationary and sub light speed muon
decay together in 2.2micro seconds
as at the speed of light
The muon ceases to decay in flight
Whydening Gyre
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 01, 2019
...
but
when this muon is free
when it travels just below
at 299792456m/s
the flow of time stops
as time stands still
and so does the 2.2micro seconds
...

Only from YOUR (our) perspective...

What time is the muon experiencing?
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Jan 01, 2019
--contd-
@Whyde
The Time in Spacetime in math equations is supposedly an "object" that is akin to Space
...
Space is everywhere in the Universe; we can SEE its effects and we know that Space/vacuum is not 100% empty in the absence of Mass. But we cannot SEE Time OR its effects. Decay is a physical effect on Mass/Matter - not due to Time except by keeping track of the Duration of decay by using clocks

So... we can "SEE" duration... Does that not qualify as a tangible "thing" or "effect"?

Isn't "decay" an artifact of Time?
Benni
2.7 / 5 (7) Jan 01, 2019
@Whyde
The Time in Spacetime in math equations is supposedly an "object" that is akin to Space
...
Space is everywhere in the Universe; we can SEE its effects and we know that Space/vacuum is not 100% empty in the absence of Mass. But we cannot SEE Time OR its effects. Decay is a physical effect on Mass/Matter - not due to Time except by keeping track of the Duration of decay by using clocks


So... we can "SEE" duration... Does that not qualify as a tangible "thing" or "effect"?


Isn't "decay" an artifact of Time?
.........You mean like the 14.7 minute beta decay rate of a free unbound neutron?
.......
granville583762
4.4 / 5 (7) Jan 01, 2019
Can you not see, Whydening Gyre
...
but
when this muon is free
when it travels just below
at 299792456m/s
the flow of time stops
as time stands still
and so does the 2.2micro seconds...

Whydening Gyre> Only from YOUR (our) perspective...
What time is the muon experiencing?

Whydening Gyre
Can you not see it is not time slowing down
It is the rate of decay of the muon is dependent on velocity
The rate of decay ceases at the speed of light
granville583762
3.9 / 5 (7) Jan 01, 2019
Decay rate and velocity

Whydening Gyre:- The rate of decay of atomic particles dictates their life time
where the rate of decay is dependent on velocity
when decay ceases at the speed of light
because
time has not changed
The life time of particles is related to their decay

It is not the flow of time that has changed
it is just that
it is common parlance
to describe the phenomena
of life time which is related to decay
As time slowing down
rrwillsj
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 01, 2019
I'm still waiting for any of these woocultists to display for hands-on, public inspection, any working device, developed out of their woogoo.

Anything?
Anyone?
Anytime now?

Just one single patented working invention?

All I 'm hearing is the woocrickets chirping.
Hoping the noise they make will coverup centuries of failure to accomplish even one new technology.

Are they even self-aware enough to comprehend the ironic depth of their hypocrisy?
Using the collected data from the technology based on the Scientific Principles they reject?
granville583762
4.4 / 5 (7) Jan 01, 2019
Chinese are using 1000year old rocketry to reach the dark side
rrwillsj> I'm still waiting for any of these woocultists to display for hands-on, public inspection, any working device, developed out of their woogoo.
Anything?
Anyone?
Anytime now?
Just one single patented working invention?
All I 'm hearing is the woocrickets chirping.
Hoping the noise they make will coverup centuries of failure to accomplish even one new technology.
Are they even self-aware enough to comprehend the ironic depth of their hypocrisy?
Using the collected data from the technology based on the Scientific Principles they reject?

Rrwillsj, the idea, Newton's angular inertia acceleration was put before everybody some months back
for an input of expertise
No one needs reminding that Isaac went into hiding till the dust settled
with the end result
were still sending rockets and we have not even reached the far side
The Chinese are using 1000year old rocketry to reach the dark side
Benni
2.5 / 5 (8) Jan 01, 2019
Just one single patented working invention?
.......would a black hole be a reasonable enough invention for you?

I have holes in the pockets of my jeans. Anytime I put money in them and take them off, the next time I put them on the money is always gone. Would this be a reasonable enough criteria to patent the holes in my jeans? Or is it just that the kids have something figured out that I have yet to wise up to?

I know, how how creating a patent on holes, you know, like doughnut holes? Just think of all the holes I could receive royalties on just from the numbers of doughnuts that are sold.
Old_C_Code
5 / 5 (2) Jan 01, 2019
This is why programmers with no formal education should stay out of physics. Nothing they do is based on reality.


Programmers program reality you fool.

Whydening Gyre
4 / 5 (4) Jan 01, 2019
So... we can "SEE" duration... Does that not qualify as a tangible "thing" or "effect"?


Isn't "decay" an artifact of Time?
.........You mean like the 14.7 minute beta decay rate of a free unbound neutron?
.......

Exactly like that.
And, to satisfy SEU's particular definition, I should have said "duration"
Whydening Gyre
4 / 5 (4) Jan 01, 2019
Can you not see, Whydening Gyre
...
but
when this muon is free
when it travels just below
at 299792456m/s
the flow of time stops
as time stands still
and so does the 2.2micro seconds...

Whydening Gyre> Only from YOUR (our) perspective...
What time is the muon experiencing?

Whydening Gyre
Can you not see it is not time slowing down
It is the rate of decay of the muon is dependent on velocity
The rate of decay ceases at the speed of light

OF course I see it.
But, to satisfy relativity, I feel compelled to bring up the muon's POV...
Whydening Gyre
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 01, 2019
So... we can "SEE" duration... Does that not qualify as a tangible "thing" or "effect"?

.......You mean like the 14.7 minute beta decay rate of a free unbound neutron?

Now, then. You need to talk to granvile about it's decay rate at (almost) the speed of C...
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (4) Jan 01, 2019
@Protoplasmix.
So, since TWO EVENTS can NEVER occur in the SAME SPACE
What's with the all-caps RealityCheck, yer gonna wake the baby.
It's not personal, mate; and it's not 'shouting, merely EMPHASIS (there is no 'bold text' option here). Anyhow, I long ago explained the 'capitalization' proved necessary to get through the reading biases/inadequacies of certain readers/trolls who have demonstrated all too often that they either can't or won't read and understand properly in context before going off on their 'pre-programmed' trolling/insulting rants based on their own self-inflicted ignorance/malice, all of which baseless nastiness against me is now coming back to bite them and making them eat their own "pointy hats" whenever I link to a PO article confirming me correct all along. Just read my posts as if the relevant 'capitalized' words/phrases were in 'bold text' and you'll be fine, mate. :)

cont...
granville583762
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 01, 2019
Not only have we protons and scrumptious electrons
Whydening Gyre> But, to satisfy relativity, I feel compelled to bring up the muon's POV

WG:- We have to consider the muons point of view
as all atomic particles decay
even the scrumptious electron
as she goes about her daily chores
decays in 60,000Yotta years
as she travels practically at the speed of light
in our human bodies
she lives for ever
do we notice any time dilation
as she orbits in her femto-world
and does she notice any increase in her 60,000Yotta life
as she does the light fantastic in a world we cannot possibly see
atomic particles do not resist decay simply by moving from A to B
it can be circular as the electron is electric and magnetic waves of frequency dependant on the speed of light
the electron by its very nature is resisting decay as it is oscillating at the speed of light
so it is with the muon
As even what we describe as rest mass it is moving at 600km/s
granville583762
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 01, 2019
As if you are unsure
As even what we describe as rest mass it is moving at 600km/s
600km/s
Our Milkyway is moving through the stationary vacuum at 600km/s
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (4) Jan 01, 2019
...cont @Proto.
...familiar with the term "superposition"? "Bose-Einstein condensate"? "quantum mechanics"?
Yes to all those. But do YOU actually understand what 'superposition' actually implies, specifically; in terms of universal energy-space quanta forms/processes which manifest those states/entities you allude to in context of superposition/condensates? I ask because the 'understandings' and 'assumptions' by many (even 'professional' physicists) are still 'nebulous' regarding quantum mechanics 'entities/processes' at the most fundamental universal 'energy-space' level. I used 'nebulous' (ie, cloud-like) ADVISEDLY, as a 'play' on what is ACTUALLY involved in 'superpositions'/'condensates'. Namely: TWO/MORE 'sub-clouds' of energy-space quanta/particle 'constituents' which INTERWEAVE with each other in a superposed 'ONE-CLOUD' state UNTIL they diverge again into two/more distinct sub-clouds having their own separate identity/process/motions. Think about it, mate. :)
Benni
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 01, 2019
So... we can "SEE" duration... Does that not qualify as a tangible "thing" or "effect"?


Isn't "decay" an artifact of Time?
.
........You mean like the 14.7 minute beta decay rate of a free unbound neutron?
.......

Exactly like that.
And, to satisfy SEU's particular definition, I should have said "duration"
......but Whyguy, they're all different......does that mean there are different realities all dependent on where xyz positions are located on the t-axis? I mean if we meet at xyz our t must be the same, right?
Benni
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 01, 2019
But do YOU actually understand what 'superposition' actually implies, specifically; in terms of universal energy-space quanta forms/processes which manifest those states/entities you allude to in context of superposition/condensates?


It's when the xyz position of Benni & Whyguy occupy the same point on t.
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (4) Jan 01, 2019
@Whydening Gyre (& everyone).

In an attempt to help you/all discern between the REAL and the 'derived', I remind you/all that PROCESS is what exists and 'happens' regardless of being 'observed' or 'timed' or not by/from any remote observer/frame.

in short: PROCESS is what 'time' is BASED ON. Without process there is NO sense of time.

For example, even (now falsified) Big Bang promulgators claimed that "Time" and "Space" DID NOT EXIST until (alleged) BB 'CREATED' them."

See? Even THEY were cognizant that without energy-space PROCESS there is NO 'time', either effectively OR conceptually!

A specific example for you @Whyde: If you watch sunrise while your family beside you is in CRYOGENICALLY 'suspended' PROCESS ('suspended' ANIMATION), then the ONLY difference between you and they is that your body/mind reactions are 'in process' while theirs effectively not.

See? Whether or not we 'call' that 'difference' in PROCESS state 'time' or not, is IMMATERIAL to reality. :)
granville583762
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 01, 2019
This poisoned chalice!

WG:- As the guardian of the free neutron is shirking his duties of late
Due to JDs recovery time in his sanitarian
It looks like you have offered to take in hand this poisoned chalice, WG
It is not like in days of old where the vigour of youth was on hand
Benni has seen all the guardians of the neutrons half-life to early retirement in their sanatoriums
But WG, if you are looking forward to some peace and quiet in early sanatorium retirement
Just pick up this poisoned chalice
You will look jealously at those suffering fin rot wishing you were beside them sharing fin rot symptoms!
granville583762
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 01, 2019
Time and space promulgators

Promulgating vacuum
RealityCheck:- before promulgating time, movement does not need time
the concept of counting began way before man appeared on earth
as now having defined a second as a frequency we are looking at time as an existential entity
it still has no actual existence
because even the electrons in the caesium atom transitioning are moving through the stationary vacuum

Vacuum cannot move, our vacuum in the Milkyway is exactly the same vacuum in Andromeda
we cannot stretch or compress it RC
and as a proton cross's the 2million Lys, the vacuum it cross's is divided by a frequency of 9billion oscillations equals one second
so
RC, what you call velocity is actually vacuum/frequency
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (4) Jan 01, 2019
--contd-
@Whyde
The Time in Spacetime in math equations is supposedly an "object" that is akin to Space
...
Space is everywhere in the Universe; we can SEE its effects and we know that Space/vacuum is not 100% empty in the absence of Mass. But we cannot SEE Time OR its effects. Decay is a physical effect on Mass/Matter - not due to Time except by keeping track of the Duration of decay by using clocks

So... we can "SEE" duration... Does that not qualify as a tangible "thing" or "effect"?

Isn't "decay" an artifact of Time?
says Whyde

Duration is an INTERVAL of an EVENT that is being measured by a timepiece. From point A to point B is an EVENT. But BETWEEN point A and point B is an INTERVAL whose DURATION is being MEASURED BY A TIMEPIECE.
The ONLY WAY to OBSERVE a Duration is to observe the TIMEPIECE whose ticking gives you the measurement of the Interval(s) between Point A and Point B.
The process of DECAY is factored into Mass/Matter as a PHYSICAL process
granville583762
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 01, 2019
The point being made RealityCheck

Is once you can look at time as a nonexistent entity
once you can look at distance as two galaxies separated in the vacuum
then time is just any regular reliable consistent oscillatory movement where a set number equals one second
you have defined a unit of a non existent entity which we call time
but
when that day arrives
when we start looking at this non entity as though it exists
we are lost
in time warps
back to the future
black hole
singularities

I think you get the picture RC
there is a whole science fictional world out there
that does not exist under bridges
where one only has to worry about fin rot
Where time is measured by the periodicity of the rising and setting sun
JaxPavan
2 / 5 (4) Jan 01, 2019
Judging purely by the average number of comments per article, the physics underpinning BBT and anthropogenic global warming are the two most political and unsettled scientific theories in any field or discipline.
JaxPavan
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 01, 2019
Res ipsa loquitur
Whydening Gyre
3 / 5 (2) Jan 01, 2019
Not only have we protons and scrumptious electrons
...
as all atomic particles decay
even the scrumptious electron
as she goes about her daily chores
decays in 60,000Yotta years

No experimental proof of proton decay and none with electrons, either. Altho, electron decay has been calculated by some at 6.6x10^28 years...
as she travels practically at the speed of light

Electric signals travels at anywhere from 50 to 99% of C
Electron motion is considerably slower.
in our human bodies
she lives for ever
do we notice any time dilation
as she orbits in her femto-world


all aboard for the American tour,
80 years or so,
or even less...
(Thanks, Ringo)
Benni
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 01, 2019
The process of DECAY is factored into Mass/Matter as a PHYSICAL process
.......it is kinetic energy.

How a free neutron figures out the span of it's beta decay is completely unknown, but it is known every free neutron will self-destruct at EXACTLY the same beta decay rate every single time, 14.7 minutes. Is that a clock? Or is that time? Or is that........?

Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 01, 2019
Judging purely by the average number of comments per article, the physics underpinning BBT and anthropogenic global warming are the two most political and unsettled scientific theories in any field or discipline.
says JaxP

You can also add "TIME" in Spacetime to that list - I'd say, perhaps, in third place.
But this website is certainly the place to discuss the pros & cons of those topics, so that those truly interested may try to thresh out what is true/real and what is not.
Luckily, physorg isn't Facebook, where you and your account could be summarily dismissed/banned for stating/expressing your own VIEWS/OPINIONS if those don't conform to the preferred and biased views of Mark Zuckerburg and company.
It appears that "Freedom of Expression" reigns supreme here on physorg. Otherwise, those like the dump truck Captain and his bullyboy Da Scheide, along with SpookyOtto would have been gone lickety-split long ago with their nasty/haughty treatment of other commenters
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Jan 01, 2019
Exactly like that.
And, to satisfy SEU's particular definition, I should have said "duration"
......but Whyguy, they're all different......does that mean there are different realities all dependent on where xyz positions are located on the t-axis? I mean if we meet at xyz our t must be the same, right?

For that moment, if we stop and converse, yes.
But resuming our different trajectories at different velocities and mass (you might weigh 245 to my 145) , they will diverge...
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jan 01, 2019
The ONLY WAY to OBSERVE a Duration is to observe the TIMEPIECE whose ticking
But you dont need a TIMEPIECE to OBSERVE time pussytard. You can observe your 900ft martians falling over in the dust and smashing their glassy heads. That's only one very loud tick to accompany the time it takes for them to finish that last molson and the time the dust begins to rise.

Do martians have watches? Have you asked them? What about watches that dont tick pussytard? Are they measuring stasis?

This reminds me of the time you tried to explain pop growth

"in order to have absolute zero growth, NO babies are to be live births...If all the adults live to be 100 years, then it will mean that no new babies will be allowed to be born UNTIL ALL those adults have died first."

-leaving it up to you and all those pods in your basement to repopulate the earth.

I'm just wondering if you are really scott nudds. Seems that you show up same time vendicar does. That you scott?
Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 01, 2019
Judging purely by the average number of comments per article, the physics underpinning BBT and anthropogenic global warming are the two most political and unsettled scientific theories in any field or discipline.
Neither is particularly unsettled in science. But a surprising number of people who have no expertise in either field seem to be fighting about the politics. And the religion.

Like you for example.

Res ipsa loquitur
Yes, the attempt to oppose science with religion and politics does indeed speak for itself, it makes it obvious that there is no science in the counter-arguments.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Jan 01, 2019
...
I think you get the picture RC
there is a whole science fictional world out there
that does not exist under bridges
where one only has to worry about fin rot
Where time is measured by the periodicity of the rising and setting sun

Ahhh… maybe periodicity is a better descriptor.
It's still a clock.
Not manmade...
Einstein said had he known the folly of some of his discoveries, he would have become a watchmaker....
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 01, 2019
@RealityCheck
I was going to rate you a "FIVE" until I read this in your post:

In an attempt to help you/all discern between the REAL and the 'derived', I remind you/all that PROCESS is what exists and 'happens' regardless of being 'observed' or 'timed' or not by/from any remote observer/frame.

in short: PROCESS is what 'time' is BASED ON. Without process there is NO sense of time.


PROCESS - The "act" of doing something; an action often resulting in change; a happening involving something or someone.

I would not have used the term "Process" as relating to the concept of Time. You PERCEIVE the passage of Time due to your AWARENESS/REASONING, and relate that passage of Time to an action whose duration is measurable with a timepiece.
"In the Process of" is an action taken in the perceived present or now - which may or may not have the passage of measured Time taken into consideration.

Just sayin'
:)
JaxPavan
1 / 5 (1) Jan 01, 2019
@Schneib

At least we agree that BBT and global warming are scientifically on par. lol.

Reminds me of other politically driven pseudo-sciences from bygone days. Remember Sagan's "nuclear winter"? A well-intentioned was to make WWIII unthinkable but as unscientifically sound as the dust from 1/10 of the Mt. St. Helen's eruption.

Anyway, why do you comment here so much? Every thread with comments, you seem to feel you need to reply to nearly every commentator who does not support the article. You do know these comments are individual opinions? And, folks are entitled to their own. If this was a discussion board there would be a "reply" button. . .
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Jan 01, 2019
Exactly like that.
And, to satisfy SEU's particular definition, I should have said "duration"
......but Whyguy, they're all different......does that mean there are different realities all dependent on where xyz positions are located on the t-axis? I mean if we meet at xyz our t must be the same, right?

For that moment, if we stop and converse, yes.
But resuming our different trajectories at different velocities and mass (you might weigh 245 to my 145) , they will diverge...

However, should we just pass eachother in the airport, you on your way to your ski trails and me on my way to an art show, it would not be the same "t".
Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 01, 2019
@Schneib

At least we agree that BBT and global warming are scientifically on par. lol.

Reminds me of other politically driven pseudo-sciences from bygone days. Remember Sagan's "nuclear winter"? A well-intentioned was to make WWIII unthinkable but as unscientifically sound as the dust from 1/10 of the Mt. St. Helen's eruption.

Anyway, why do you comment here so much? Every thread with comments, you seem to feel you need to reply to nearly every commentator who does not support the article. You do know these comments are individual opinions? And, folks are entitled to their own. If this was a discussion board there would be a "reply" button. . .
Because I love science. Not politics or religion like you.

If you deny it bring some science, which you seem to have little of.
Benni
2 / 5 (4) Jan 01, 2019
Res ipsa loquitur


Yes, the attempt to oppose science with religion and politics does indeed speak for itself, it makes it obvious that there is no science in the counter-arguments.
.....and opposing science using the psycho-babble arguments of Pop-Cosmology is no different. It's only different to YOU because you're the one doing it, you know, like Pop-Cosmology holy grails such as the existence of infinite gravity presence on the surface of a finite mass called a black hole.

Let's see here schneibo, past usage of the word INFINITY in it's proper context has always been about religion. These days what do we read so much about here? More & more BHs, to the tune of millions of them right here in our own galaxy, all with the properties of INFINITY. Therefore to the nonreligious, maybe you can somewhat fathom why I find you a self inflicted tragedy?

You deny INFINITY out of one side of your mouth, and embrace it out of the other.

Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 01, 2019
@Benni
The process of DECAY is factored into Mass/Matter as a PHYSICAL process
.......it is kinetic energy.

How a free neutron figures out the span of it's beta decay is completely unknown, but it is known every free neutron will self-destruct at EXACTLY the same beta decay rate every single time, 14.7 minutes. Is that a clock? Or is that time? Or is that........?



Planned Obsolescence?

:)

Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 01, 2019
Here we are on the science thread about a novel hypothesis about the universe existing on a 4-brane of a 5-dimensional space, and all you can find to talk about is me.

After you lied about my qualifications.

See, that's the thing I won't tolerate: you aren't even knowledgeable enough to say whether what I say is right or wrong. Yet you usurp to do so.

You are a troll. I still think you're a YEC troll lying for jebus. We seem to have gotten a lot of them lately. Did someone on the YEC troll sites decide to start a pogrom? Or is it more subtle, some machination in global politics? I am watching.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Jan 01, 2019
This poisoned chalice!

WG:- As the guardian of the free neutron is shirking his duties of late
Due to JDs recovery time in his sanitarian
It looks like you have offered to take in hand this poisoned chalice, WG
It is not like in days of old where the vigour of youth was on hand
Benni has seen all the guardians of the neutrons half-life to early retirement in their sanatoriums
But WG, if you are looking forward to some peace and quiet in early sanatorium retirement
Just pick up this poisoned chalice
You will look jealously at those suffering fin rot wishing you were beside them sharing fin rot symptoms!

If you'll notice, I did not say that neutron decay rate changed with velocity of C. I know of no experiments that prove or disprove this.
I only said to discuss it with you.
Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 01, 2019
@SEU YEC troll lying for jebus child molester torture murderer believer in telepathic alien lizards taking over governments is still here?

Who do you work for? How much do they pay you? A bottle of vodka and a couple crusts of black bread a day?
granville583762
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 01, 2019
Whydening Gyre
The electro chemical signals in the human body
are universes apart from the actual existence of a single scrumptious electron
The electron in its femto-world
is not the world of electricity flowing down the wires behind the wainscoting
The electron is in a world of magnetic and electric fields oscillating at the speed of light
the classical electron structure of atoms
does not even begin to describe the world the electron lives in
one thing is certain WG, it is world that is oscillating at the speed of light
why atomic particles decay is altered by the particle oscillating at the speed of light
is one of those unanswered questions
the structure and material existence of the electrons electric and magnetic fields is another of those unanswered questions
these questions are unanswered firstly due to the dimensions of the femto-world and smaller
They are also unanswered because no one is seriously looking, as it is mathematically explained
Benni
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 01, 2019
@Benni
The process of DECAY is factored into Mass/Matter as a PHYSICAL process
.......it is kinetic energy.

How a free neutron figures out the span of it's beta decay is completely unknown, but it is known every free neutron will self-destruct at EXACTLY the same beta decay rate every single time, 14.7 minutes. Is that a clock? Or is that time? Or is that........?


Planned Obsolescence?:)


Good fill in. I was trying to find an appropriate description & thought I'd throw it out wondering if someone could do better......you nailed it, "Planned Obsolescence", another feature of kinetic energy.

Da Schneib
2 / 5 (4) Jan 01, 2019
This poisoned chalice!

WG:- As the guardian of the free neutron is shirking his duties of late
Due to JDs recovery time in his sanitarian
It looks like you have offered to take in hand this poisoned chalice, WG
It is not like in days of old where the vigour of youth was on hand
Benni has seen all the guardians of the neutrons half-life to early retirement in their sanatoriums
But WG, if you are looking forward to some peace and quiet in early sanatorium retirement
Just pick up this poisoned chalice
You will look jealously at those suffering fin rot wishing you were beside them sharing fin rot symptoms!

If you'll notice, I did not say that neutron decay rate changed with velocity of C. I know of no experiments that prove or disprove this.
I only said to discuss it with you.
In fact, collisions in a particle accelerator are not sufficient to show time dilation for neutron decay since it is many orders of magnitude greater than particle decays.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (4) Jan 01, 2019
The ONLY WAY to OBSERVE a Duration is to observe the TIMEPIECE whose ticking
But you dont need a TIMEPIECE to OBSERVE time pussytard. You can observe your 900ft martians falling over in the dust and smashing their glassy heads. That's only one very loud tick to accompany the time it takes for them to finish that last molson and the time the dust begins to rise.

Do martians have watches? Have you asked them? What about watches that dont tick pussytard? Are they measuring stasis?

This reminds me...

"in order to have absolute zero growth, NO babies are to be live births...If all the adults live to be 100 years, then it will mean that no new babies will be allowed to be born UNTIL ALL those adults have died first."

I'm just wondering if you are really scott nudds. Seems that you show up same time vendicar does. That you scott?
says SpookyPussyturdOtto

Nope. Not me. Do you have MY NAME on those? Show me your proof, Ratboy
Da Schneib
2 / 5 (4) Jan 01, 2019
Or maybe they told you you could have eternal life. And you bent over, just like you did for @105LIiarRC.

For politics and religion. Because you certainly have demonstrated you wouldn't know a science if it jumped up and bit you on the azz.
Benni
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 01, 2019
In fact, collisions in a particle accelerator are not sufficient to show time dilation for neutron decay since it is many orders of magnitude greater than particle decays.


......so you don't think a neutron is a "particle"? This being so because it "is many orders of magnitude greater than particle decays".

Physorg should choose Moderators who know at least a smidgen about nuclear physics, instead the Administration gets desperate & ends up with computer programmers like you.

Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Jan 01, 2019
@Benni
The process of DECAY is factored into Mass/Matter as a PHYSICAL process
.......it is kinetic energy.

Which is a property of mass under acceleration/momentum.
Whydening Gyre
3 / 5 (2) Jan 01, 2019
In fact, collisions in a particle accelerator are not sufficient to show time dilation for neutron decay since it is many orders of magnitude greater than particle decays.


......so you don't think a neutron is a "particle"? This being so because it "is many orders of magnitude greater than particle decays".

Okay, so he should have said "natural" particle decays.
Regardless, Benni. Do you know if neutrons decay slower as they approach the speed of light?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (4) Jan 01, 2019
...
I think you get the picture RC
there is a whole science fictional world out there
that does not exist under bridges
where one only has to worry about fin rot
Where time is measured by the periodicity of the rising and setting sun

Ahhh… maybe periodicity is a better descriptor.
It's still a clock.
Not manmade...
Einstein said had he known the folly of some of his discoveries, he would have become a watchmaker....
says Whyde

There are CLOCKS, and there are clocks - and then there is that clock that we call the Sun that has kept perfect Time - so far. But it is the Earth's orbit, tilt and rotation that may be subject to change, so that what we call Time now, may be upturned in some (hopefully) distant future so that the 24 hour day could evolve to more or less hours in a day. Thus we would find that our body-clocks could be led astray by our own planet's folly. Done in by Nature.
Reg Mundy
4 / 5 (4) Jan 01, 2019
As if you are unsure
As even what we describe as rest mass it is moving at 600km/s
600km/s
Our Milkyway is moving through the stationary vacuum at 600km/s

Amazing! You have just invented the concept of a stationary vacuum!
granville583762
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 01, 2019
Collisions are not the speed of light
it has to be pure acceleration of neutrons in motion
DS> In fact, collisions in a particle accelerator are not sufficient to show time dilation for neutron decay since it is many orders of magnitude greater than particle decays

To show velocity retarded decay
a neutron has to get within a few m/s of the speed of light
The relevant question
can the LHC accelerate a single neutron to 299792456m/s
because
if it cannot
it is as useless as particles in collision
Benni
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 01, 2019
In fact, collisions in a particle accelerator are not sufficient to show time dilation for neutron decay since it is many orders of magnitude greater than particle decays.


......so you don't think a neutron is a "particle"? This being so because it "is many orders of magnitude greater than particle decays".


Okay, so he should have said "natural" particle decays.
Regardless, Benni. Do you know if neutrons decay slower as they approach the speed of light?


The fastest neutron travels no more than 1% of the speed of light, most far less. Take a look at a dilation curve & see what that turns into, el zippo. There, I explained better than DS could ever do as I always can.
granville583762
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 01, 2019
Vacuum in status
As if you are unsure
As even what we describe as rest mass it is moving at 600km/s
600km/s
Our Milkyway is moving through the stationary vacuum at 600km/s

Reg Mundy> Amazing! You have just invented the concept of a stationary vacuum!

You saw it first on phys.org, Reg Mundy
It is our secret this new year's evening
Even though there is enough vacuum to go round
Keep it hush, hush or everybody will want some
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (4) Jan 01, 2019
ROFLOL
It seems that Da Scheide (Da Pussyman) was terribly lonely and was desperate to get into the conversation/discussion. So while Benni, Whyde and granville accommodate His Royal Loneliness and include Da Pussyman's "ideations" in the discussion, I will be the scholar and interested observer, observing Da Scheide, in his equally desperate need to appear intelligent, although consistently failing while playing the fool.
granville583762
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 01, 2019
How big is the LHC

How many revolutions
Does a neutron complete in 14.7minutes
When time stops within a few m/s of C
To detect if the neutron decay has slowed to halt
The neutron has to be kept circulating round the LHC
Till it has circulated without decaying longer than 14.7minutes
Considerably longer than 14.7minutes
Hours longer
Days longer
Till the neutron decays in despair
Or the LHC burns out with continuous use
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (4) Jan 01, 2019
As if you are unsure
As even what we describe as rest mass it is moving at 600km/s
600km/s
Our Milkyway is moving through the stationary vacuum at 600km/s

Amazing! You have just invented the concept of a stationary vacuum!
says RegMundy

And he didn't mean a Roomba that needs recharging. LOL

Space/vacuum is stationary in comparison to the movements of Mass through the vacuum of Space. Mass itself causes Space to dilate and conform to the geometry of Mass, no matter the shape of the Mass. If Space were the thickness of egg white, eg, it would be wrapped around each particle and piece rather tightly, but also loose enough to allow free movement of Mass through the Cosmos. It is Dilation of Space/vacuum that enables Mass such as galaxies to gain orderly momentum to follow those ahead, as well as the galaxies to the rear to follow those in front. You could call the Space/vacuum the Conservative of the Cosmos, and Mass as the Anarchists.
:)
granville583762
4.4 / 5 (7) Jan 01, 2019
Speed is of the essence

The ultimate question
"Benni, The fastest neutron travels no more than 1% of the speed of light"
If we can't get a neutron to 299792456m/s
Does not mean that the neutron does not decay at the speed of light
It means we are not equipped to accelerate neutrons to the speed of light



Da Schneib
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 01, 2019
Watching a titch of brolls try to lawyer their way out of science is amusing. I suppose they'd try to lawyer their way out of a hole in the ground, too.

Dance, trolls.
Whydening Gyre
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 01, 2019
The fastest neutron travels no more than 1% of the speed of light, most far less. Take a look at a dilation curve & see what that turns into, el zippo. There, I explained better than DS could ever do as I always can.

You did not answer my question.
Would the decay rate of neutron slow as it approaches the speed of light?
Benni
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 01, 2019
How big is the LHC

How many revolutions
Does a neutron complete in 14.7minutes
When time stops within a few m/s of C
To detect if the neutron decay has slowed to halt
The neutron has to be kept circulating round the LHC
Till it has circulated without decaying longer than 14.7minutes
Considerably longer than 14.7minutes
Hours longer
Days longer
Till the neutron decays in despair
Or the LHC burns out with continuous use


> granDy........you're setting me up for entrapment here aren't you?

I make Da Schneibo look the the "splainer dunce" that he is when it comes to esplaining nuclear physics issues, and what do you do? You try to pull a Benni and the twist of it is you tried to pull it on Benni !!!!

Did you really imagine for a moment I was gonna bite on that "neutron" thing in the LHC? C'mon here guy, admit it, you were just testing me for the New Year just to see if I will be as smart for 2019 as I was for 2018, right?

Benni
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 01, 2019
The fastest neutron travels no more than 1% of the speed of light, most far less. Take a look at a dilation curve & see what that turns into, el zippo. There, I explained better than DS could ever do as I always can.

You did not answer my question.
Would the decay rate of neutron slow as it approaches the speed of light?


Repeat for you Whyguy: "el zippo", this because "neutrons never travel more than 1% of the speed of light", capiche? Probably you don't.

Whydening Gyre
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 01, 2019
And he didn't mean a Roomba that needs recharging. LOL

If you had a whole house vacuum system, technically it would be "stationary".
But that was kinda funny...
Space/vacuum is stationary in comparison to the movements of Mass through the vacuum of Space.

I would have chosen "relative to"...
Mass itself causes Space to dilate and conform to the geometry of Mass, no matter the shape of the Mass. :)

Personally? I think all of space is in motion (in numerous vector directions)... mass being created as a result of the minute energy interactions of minute blocks of space in differing directions and speeds...
I mean, just look at how many different directions we are moving on just this planet in it's galaxy...
As perceived below, so above.
And vice versa...
Whydening Gyre
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 01, 2019
The fastest neutron travels no more than 1% of the speed of light, most far less. Take a look at a dilation curve & see what that turns into, el zippo. There, I explained better than DS could ever do as I always can.

You did not answer my question.
Would the decay rate of neutron slow as it approaches the speed of light?


Repeat for you Whyguy: "el zippo", this because "neutrons never travel more than 1% of the speed of light", capiche? Probably you don't.

I like Granville's answer better...
But...
IF it could be made to travel at even 20% of C, would the decay rate change?
Benni
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 01, 2019
Personally? I think all of space is in motion (in numerous vector directions)... mass being created as a result of the minute energy interactions of minute blocks of space in differing directions and speeds...
I mean, just look at how many different directions we are moving on just this planet in it's galaxy...
As perceived below, so above.
And vice versa...
......hitting the sawdust trail of Pop-Cosmology I see.
.....

Da Schneib
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 01, 2019
"Neutrons never travel more than 1% of the speed of light."

mmmmmmmmmmmmBWAHAHAHAHA

http://adsabs.har...41L..33S
https://agupubs.o...GL021492
granville583762
3.9 / 5 (7) Jan 01, 2019
A Question put before
How many revolutions
Does a neutron complete in 14.7minutes
...Till the neutron decays in despair

> granDy........you're setting me up for entrapment here aren't you?
I make Da Schneibo look the the "splainer dunce" that he is when it comes to explaining nuclear physics issues, and what do you do? You try to pull a Benni and the twist of it is you tried to pull it on Benni !!!!

Did you really imagine for a moment I was going to bite on that "neutron" thing in the LHC? C'mon here guy, admit it, you were just testing me for the New Year just to see if I will be as smart for 2019 as I was for 2018, right?

It's a new year and a new angle
I'm keeping everyone on their toes
it is this time in motion theme
that sprang out of the Aether
that anything that decays gets sucked into this vacuum
I was not thinking of a sting operation in progress
the LHC doesn't work
And I suspect not even at C
Whydening Gyre
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 01, 2019
Personally? I think all of space is in motion (in numerous vector directions)... mass being created as a result of the minute energy interactions of minute blocks of space in differing directions and speeds...
I mean, just look at how many different directions we are moving on just this planet in it's galaxy...
As perceived below, so above.
And vice versa...
......hitting the sawdust trail of Pop-Cosmology I see.
.....

Just speculatin'...
A Question put before
How many revolutions
Does a neutron complete in 14.7minutes
...Till the neutron decays in despair

I think he meant of the LHC circular accelerator...

Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (4) Jan 01, 2019
The fastest neutron travels no more than 1% of the speed of light, most far less. Take a look at a dilation curve & see what that turns into, el zippo. There, I explained better than DS could ever do as I always can.

You did not answer my question.
Would the decay rate of neutron slow as it approaches the speed of light?


Repeat for you Whyguy: "el zippo", this because "neutrons never travel more than 1% of the speed of light", capiche? Probably you don't.


IF it could be made to travel at even 20% of C, would the decay rate change?
says Whyde

OK my turn.
Only guessing - after all, I am a only a mere scholar. But MY guess is that the speed of travel of a Neutron has no bearing on its rate of decay, whether or not it is at, below or exceeds C - a Neutron has a set schedule of decay that cannot be overcome - that is, as I told Benni - Planned Obsolescence. A group of Neutrons may not decay together due to varying individual rates
granville583762
4.5 / 5 (8) Jan 01, 2019
If only to prove dear Albert right yet again

Accelerating decaying nucleons
to the speed of light
if only to prove dear Albert
is always of right
as Albert is always of right
although he never suffered fin rot
of all the experiments
to prove Albert right yet one more time
as far as I know
no one has used the LHC to show a nucleon
its decay rate
in motion
at 99% C
in continuous motion
in continuous circulation
till
the accelerator
is brought to a halt
where
by the particle
Promptly decays in its natural rest time

Albert must be a very vain fellow
To always be of right
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Jan 01, 2019
IF it could be made to travel at even 20% of C, would the decay rate change?
says Whyde
OK my turn.
Only guessing - after all, I am a only a mere scholar. But MY guess is that the speed of travel of a Neutron has no bearing on its rate of decay, whether or not it is at, below or exceeds C - a Neutron has a set schedule of decay that cannot be overcome -

Per Granville, so do muons - until they reach a certain velocity relative to C (90% I think he said?)
that is, as I told Benni - Planned Obsolescence.

A human capitalist contrivance.
A group of Neutrons may not decay together due to varying individual rates

So.. does the decay rate slow, speed up, or remain the same in that circumstance?
granville583762
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 01, 2019
If the LHC
Cannot
Keep in continuous circulation
Decaying particles
I feel sorry for this collider, considering the billions of currency
Spent on this expensive apparatus
There is more than simply colliding particles
In this femto-world
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 01, 2019
-contd-
Planned Obsolescence appears to encompass/have bearing also on Benni's Entropy, as well as the rates of Decay of Neutrons and other Particles - where they will be replaced anon with baby Particles that are Created from the remains of the fallen. Such a nursery full of baby Particles will keep and preserve the Universe's health. No need for a Pædiatrician.
granville583762
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 01, 2019
I suddenly feel like a large chasm has opened under our feet
as if all we can achieve
is colliding particles
if we cannot keep
decaying particles in continuous motion
at 299792456m/s
it opens up a blackhole
In our knowledge of decaying particles at light speed
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 01, 2019
IF it could be made to travel at even 20% of C, would the decay rate change?
says Whyde
OK
Only guessing - after all, I am a only a mere scholar. But MY guess is that the speed of travel of a Neutron has no bearing on its rate of decay, whether or not it is at, below or exceeds C - a Neutron has a set schedule of decay that cannot be overcome -

Per Granville, so do muons - until they reach a certain velocity relative to C (90% I think he said?)
that is, as I told Benni - Planned Obsolescence.

A human capitalist contrivance.
A group of Neutrons may not decay together due to varying individual rates

So.. does the decay rate slow, speed up, or remain the same in that circumstance?
says Whyde

I would imagine that the decay rate would remain the same with no changes other than velocity rate or no velocity. You can speed it up; slow it down; turn it round and round LOL
It's not going to change its spots - er, I mean, uh yup
Benni
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 01, 2019

But...
IF it could be made to travel at even 20% of C, would the decay rate change?


What don't you comprehend about: "el zippo", this because "neutrons never travel more than 1% of the speed of light",

I told you just above, if you want to see how dilation affects mass, go to a dilation graph & study the curve. Hell's bells man, I'm not your babysitter, besides you're probably old enough that you could have once been mine.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1 / 5 (2) Jan 01, 2019
You see, Whyde - the decay rate of a Neutron could be compared to a group of elderly humans who have caught a cold. They each have an immune system, but their individual colds progress at different rates, no matter if some are in hospital or at home, or have gone shopping. Some get well faster while others take a long time to recover, if at all. It's the same with Neutrons - their Planned Obsolescence is the rate/speed at which each will succumb to the decay process that they cannot change or stop. It is inevitable. But each one will be replaced.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 01, 2019
OK I admit that was a bad example. Sorry
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (3) Jan 01, 2019
This is why programmers with no formal education should stay out of physics. Nothing they do is based on reality.
Programmers program reality you fool.
Are you aware of who wrote a program to play "Go" well enough to beat the best human player hands down? Bit of a trick question since Alpha Go Zero wrote its own program for how to play. Certainly something for all of us to keep in mind as we work to instantiate a much needed UBI...
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 01, 2019
I suddenly feel like a large chasm has opened under our feet
as if all we can achieve
is colliding particles
if we cannot keep
decaying particles in continuous motion
at 299792456m/s
it opens up a blackhole
In our knowledge of decaying particles at light speed
says granville

The LHC is a money pit. It is too big and too expensive to stop now. They may find more new particles, and they may not. But the work, research, and money pouring in will not stop. My fear (hopefully unfounded) is that they will produce a mini Black Hole from one or more of those collisions, and that BH will feed upon the LHC and CERN structures and whatever else lies in its path. They will not give us warning, else the public will blame it on scientists, and they won't want that. As we are all made of Matter, we can all kiss our collective arse goodbye
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Jan 01, 2019

I told you just above, if you want to see how dilation affects mass, go to a dilation graph & study the curve. Hell's bells man, I'm not your babysitter, besides you're probably old enough that you could have once been mine.

per dilation curve graph of mass, it says yes, the decay will lengthen (to our observing reference).

However, free neutrons might be a special case in this regard, so I figure a Nuclear Engineer might be forthcoming with a more specific answer than that...
So, what you're really saying is, is that you don't know any more than me...
hmmm.
Benni
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 01, 2019
So.. does the decay rate slow, speed up, or remain the same in that circumstance?
says Whyde

I would imagine that the decay rate would remain the same with no changes other than velocity rate or no velocity. You can speed it up; slow it down; turn it round and round LOL
It's not going to change its spots .....certainly not at the slow rate of velocity free electrons exist outside of a manmade magnetic chambers. Velocities can be sped to 50,000 km/s for short duration of fractions of a second, but even that speed is not enough to relativistically affect it's beta decay rate inside a 14.7 minute decay rate, at least it's never been measured to be the case.

per dilation curve graph of mass, it says yes, the decay will lengthen (to our observing reference).


.....but there's no way to make a neutron to reach the necessary velocity you are reading on the curve !!!
Whydening Gyre
4.5 / 5 (4) Jan 01, 2019
So.. does the decay rate slow, speed up, or remain the same in that circumstance?
says Whyde

I would imagine that the decay rate would remain the same with no changes other than velocity rate or no velocity. You can speed it up; slow it down; turn it round and round LOL
It's not going to change its spots
.....certainly not at the slow rate of velocity free electrons exist outside of a manmade magnetic chambers. Velocities can be sped to 50,000 km/s for short duration of fractions of a second, but even that speed is not enough to relativistically affect it's beta decay rate inside a 14.7 minute decay rate, at least it's never been measured to be the case.

per dilation curve graph of mass, it says yes, the decay will lengthen (to our observing reference).


.....but there's no way to make a neutron to reach the necessary velocity you are reading on the curve !!!

Thank you. That was more forthcoming.
Whydening Gyre
4.3 / 5 (4) Jan 01, 2019
So.. does the decay rate slow, speed up, or remain the same in that circumstance?
says Whyde

The circumstance I was referring to was SEU's mention of decay rates differing when grouped...
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (4) Jan 02, 2019
So.. does the decay rate slow, speed up, or remain the same in that circumstance?
says Whyde

The circumstance I was referring to was SEU's mention of decay rates differing when grouped...
says Whyde

You have got to take into consideration that neither Neutrons or any other Particle are created all at once, en masse. Yes, they are Created. Like babies in hospital who were not born all at the same time - Neutrons arise individually and decay individually at different times according to when each one came into being/existence, no matter how fast they are traveling. We know that Particles are always in motion - they have to be. Motion/momentum is the heart & Soul of the Universe, and of all Particles - where there is no such thing as "true rest Mass".
Whydening Gyre
4 / 5 (4) Jan 02, 2019
So.. does the decay rate slow, speed up, or remain the same in that circumstance?
says Whyde

The circumstance I was referring to was SEU's mention of decay rates differing when grouped...
says Whyde

You have got to take into consideration that neither Neutrons or any other Particle are created all at once, en masse. Yes, they are Created. Like babies in hospital who were not born all at the same time - Neutrons arise individually and decay individually at different times according to when each one came into being/existence, no matter how fast they are traveling. We know that Particles are always in motion - they have to be. Motion/momentum is the heart & Soul of the Universe, and of all Particles - where there is no such thing as "true rest Mass".

Too existential....
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (4) Jan 02, 2019
I prefer Realism, but that is another story. Perhaps you can't relate to such rugged individualism in one so small?
granville583762
4.3 / 5 (7) Jan 02, 2019
Neutrons on the hop at 17.3%C

Apparently
in our other expensive toy, our fusion reactor
there are
14.1MeV neutrons capable of travelling 17.3% the speed of light
as
surfing this web
20MeV neutrons are mentioned
certainly
the stars
occupying the vacuum
can give neutrons even more energy than 20MeV
given 14.7minutes decay time
given 17.3%C
that is 51864095m/s
or 45744131996m in 14.7 minutes
as
at 17.3%C
this neutron is going to have a longer decay time than 14.7minutes

Longer than 164million miles
so if you want to measure decay time of particles in motion
it has to be a circular accelerator
and one that can confine the neutron
as it has a small electric and magnetic field
the question is how
because
dear Albert is always of right
we have proved dear albert in every aspect of satellites in orbit
now is Albert's final challenge
Neutrons decay time extending in motion
If we can achieve this miracle

JD will come out of his sanatorium in elation
granville583762
4.3 / 5 (7) Jan 02, 2019
The JD dilemma

I told you just above, if you want to see how dilation affects mass, go to a dilation graph & study the curve. Hell's bells man, I'm not your babysitter, besides you're probably old enough that you could have once been mine.

Whydening Gyre> per dilation curve graph of mass, it says yes, the decay will lengthen (to our observing reference).

However, free neutrons might be a special case in this regard, so I figure a Nuclear Engineer might be forthcoming with a more specific answer than that...
So, what you're really saying is, is that you don't know any more than me...
hmmm.

I am in no way taking sides here
as
I have not spent years in mortal combat
with JD and his Munchkins
but
this quotation
if we did not know where it came from
"Hell's bells man, I'm not your babysitter"
could have come straight out of JDs strategies
all it needs is that final melodic expletive touch
only JD can give
nrauhauser
5 / 5 (2) Jan 02, 2019
This is the most utterly crazy Phys.org thread ever.

What got into you guys?
Reg Mundy
4 / 5 (4) Jan 02, 2019
This is the most utterly crazy Phys.org thread ever.

What got into you guys?

No, its not even in the top ten......
Great fun!
The greatest intellects of our age (they think!) locked in mortal combat !
Well, keeps them off the street, I suppose...
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 02, 2019
If Space were the thickness of egg white, eg, it would be wrapped around each particle and piece rather tightly, but also loose enough to allow free movement of Mass through the Cosmos. It is Dilation of Space/vacuum that enables Mass such as galaxies to gain orderly momentum to follow those ahead
-The person who posted this is obviously the one who posted this crap as obamasocks on 111912:

"Time is only conceptualized by the mind as a necessary tool for measuring in increments of equal proportions. The increments are also conceptualized by the mind, as it doesn't naturally occur in nature"

-Yes? More inanity from this wetbrain in ages and socks past:

"Photons do not experience gravitational pull in general...A photon is affected by gravitational forces only if those forces are strong enough to have any effect on the photon"

"Splitting of the subatomic components (electrons)"

"The solar system was big enough to accommodate all planets and other bodies..."
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 02, 2019
This is the most utterly crazy Phys.org thread ever.

What got into you guys?
This always happens when the freak SEU/obamasocks/pirouette/racistblackguy/russkiye/ et al shows up, and someone chooses to indulge her.

Like I say, here is a pretty much identical thread about time with the suckpuppet moron obama_socks
https://phys.org/...try.html

-who is now obviously posting as SEU.

People this inane would not exist if pregnant women were somehow prevented from drinking wood alcohol.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (4) Jan 02, 2019
Also note that scott nudds is posting in that thread as well, as vendicarD, furthering the suspicion that he is all of them.

From the narkive site:

"Just to let everyone know... V-for-Vendicar is a long time troll
that for years now has been trolling groups to see how many people's
buttons he can push.

"He will argue, insult, and mud sling 'till he gets people to blow
up in anger.... and retaliate with name calling and mud slinging...."

-That post is 11 YEARS old.
Benni
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 02, 2019
certainly
the stars
occupying the vacuum
can give neutrons even more energy than 20MeV


GranDy, I'm not aware that this has ever been measured. I'm only aware that a free neutron has been measured at velocities of 50,000 km/s inside manmade magnetic chambers that apparently cannot be duplicated on a stellar mass because stars cannot produce such intense magnetic fields.

As I pointed out to Whyguy ( because he's always asking questions), 50k compared to 300k velocity is not high enough on the Dilation Curve that there can be an increased relativistic mass effect possibly changing the 14.7 beta decay rate.

The average velocity of a free neutron is only 2-3 km/s, getting it to 50,000 km/s require extraordinary input of energy that does not exist anywhere in the Universe but inside manmade magnetic fields lasting for duration of mere fractions of a second.
Benni
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 02, 2019
This is the most utterly crazy Phys.org thread ever.

What got into you guys?


........a discussion of REAL SCIENCE for a change, not accustomed to it are you? Maybe you'd prefer jonesy here slinging his foul mouthed filth all over the place?
granville583762
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 02, 2019
certainly
the stars
occupying the vacuum
can give neutrons even more energy than 20MeV

GranDy I'm not aware that this has ever been measured I'm only aware that a free neutron has been measured at velocities of 50,000 km/s inside manmade magnetic chambers that apparently cannot be duplicated on a stellar mass because stars cannot produce such intense magnetic fields.
The average velocity of a free neutron is only 2-3 km/s, getting it to 50,000 km/s require extraordinary input of energy that does not exist anywhere in the Universe but inside manmade magnetic fields lasting for duration of mere fractions of a second

Coming to my latest comments
the abundance of free neutrons that occupy the vacuum that keep clogging up the vacuum
there obvious by their absence
even at 20%C it only going to add second to 14.7minutes beta decay
nobody is going to know the difference
My conclusion is the muon that started this also cannot be verified
granville583762
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 02, 2019
The muon in there and back again

This theory of Albert's
has to be proved
of decay
of beta decay
in atomic particles that decay
in a measurable time period
in our nano world
the muon
with its 2.2micro second delay
when in flight
extends that 2.2micro second delay indefinitely
so a muon in fight
in circulation
this 2.2micro second delay
at amost the speed of light
extended
till the accelerator is brought to a halt
because
if this muon
is decelerated then accelerated back to C
within the 2.2micro second delay
Does this muon go on to live indefinitely again
granville583762
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 02, 2019
The proverbial half a neutron

In your dogged persistence
in neutrons and half-lives
in velocity half-life induced decay
If you ask me, Benni
I think you have stumbled on a rare event
this philosopher stone
all physicists
in their earthly careers
dream
that one day they will stumble
on that elusive secret
that will make the careers
that dear Albert
in all his theories of time and space
Seems to have over looked
granville583762
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 02, 2019
Interesting, nothing has changed
TheGhostofOtto1923, thank you
Notwithstanding, it makes no never mind
You have made the reason why, abundantly clear
Benni
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 02, 2019
i
n your dogged persistence
in neutrons and half-lives


The "dogged persistence" being that no one using the term, "10 minute free neutron half life" will ever engage in a followup description of how that happens through the beta decay process.

You would think if they had any math smarts that they would quickly figure out that 10 minutes is not half of the free neutron beta decay of 14.7 minutes, but for some reason they never make the connection. It's like a writer sees somebody else's quote of 10 minutes, & to create the appearance of credibility for their sad little dissertation they ignorantly toss in the 10 minute number not realizing how foolish it looks to educated scientists.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Jan 02, 2019
...
As I pointed out to Whyguy ( because he's always asking questions),
...

It started when I was 2 and still asking why at 64 - go figure....
Benni
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 02, 2019
...
As I pointed out to Whyguy ( because he's always asking questions),
...

It started when I was 2 and still asking why at 64 - go figure....
......and I remember several years ago you stated you were 64, but maybe Moderator Schneibo has deleted that Comment?
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Jan 02, 2019
...
As I pointed out to Whyguy ( because he's always asking questions),
...

It started when I was 2 and still asking why at 64 - go figure....
......and I remember several years ago you stated you were 64, but maybe Moderator Schneibo has deleted that Comment?

Wouldn't have stated it until I became it... (4 months ago)
granville583762
4.4 / 5 (7) Jan 02, 2019
This half-life decay

It is constantly being stated
That if you have two Schrödinger boxes
One containing a 1000neutrons
Another containing 2000neutrons
That immediately at 14.7minutes
That whichever box you look in
Neither contains a single neutron
Whereas
With a 14.7minute half life
1000 and 500 are left after 14.7minutes
Whatever the mathematical niceties
Of the correct terminology concerning half-lives
A time dependant instant decay is not half-life
because if you have a billion neutrons
Each time 14.7minutes passes
500million neutrons do not decay
Then 250million neutrons do not decay
This mean at the very last neutron if this division
Has continued a 1000 times
The remaining neutron has a half-life of 14,700minutes
It is hardly going to decay in the next 14.7minutes
So what is it to be
Instant decay in 14.7minutes
Or
Probability with survival of the fittest not decaying
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Jan 02, 2019
...
Instant decay in 14.7minutes
Or
Probability with survival of the fittest not decaying

14.7 is the lifetime, not half-life (10.1 mins. approx.)
How many decayed neutrons (protons) will bind with a neutron before it decays in that 14.7 mins?
Benni
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 02, 2019

How many decayed neutrons
....what do you mean by "decayed neutrons"? After 14.7 minute beta decay expires & it no longer exists.

(protons) will bind with a neutron before it decays in that 14.7 mins?
What's the "protons" thing about?

granville583762
3.9 / 5 (7) Jan 02, 2019
The reason why half-life exists

Usually a solid material of rock
is going through its decay process

As far as I know
Neutrons do not bind in to a lump of radioactive neutronium
that if neutronium existed it would decay natually by its half-life

Free neutrons
must exist in the same state as a gas
in other words
free oxygen atoms
decaying in the atmosphere
moving at 2-3 km/s
decaying
in 14.7minutes can be looked as decaying neutrons
so
looking at neutrons
in this light
does an oxygen atom if it were a neutron atom
decay instantly
In 14.7minutes
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (4) Jan 02, 2019
If Space were the thickness of egg white, eg, it would be wrapped around each particle and piece rather tightly, but also loose enough to allow free movement of Mass through the Cosmos. It is Dilation of Space/vacuum that enables Mass such as galaxies to gain orderly momentum to follow those ahead
-The person who posted this is obviously the one who posted this crap as obamasocks on 111912:

ROFLOL
"It is Dilation of Space/vacuum that enables Mass such as galaxies to gain orderly momentum to follow those ahead" would be correct, except that OttoPussy deliberately omitted the end of it.
It should be "It is Dilation of Space/vacuum that enables Mass such as galaxies to gain orderly momentum to follow those ahead, as well as the galaxies to the rear to follow those in front."

This obamasock person must have pissed PussyOtto so badly that PussyOtto has delusions that his boyfriend obamasock has returned.
PussyOtto REALLY needs to get some psychiatric help - pronto.
granville583762
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 02, 2019
Cambridge.org
The "dogged persistence" being that no one using the term

Very determined to do something, even if it is very difficult:
Her ambition and dogged determination ensured that she rose to the top of her profession.
Persistent
Tenacious – may be not vocally, texturally well that's a different matter
as in these Shires, we live in a different world where these canine creatures are sleak bushy tailed bright eyed creatures that inhabit these exclusive thatched cottage villages are miles apart from the industrious towns, words have retained their innocence in the Shires, so Benni if that is your meaning it is all innocence in these Shires
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (4) Jan 02, 2019
"Time is only conceptualized by the mind as a necessary tool for measuring in increments of equal proportions. The increments are also conceptualized by the mind, as it doesn't naturally occur in nature"

-Yes? More inanity from this wetbrain in ages and socks past:
says theghostofotto1923 aka SpookyOtto aka OttoPussy

OttoPussyTurd is evidently upset because his friend, obamasock had similar ideas wrt Time as I do. But I would not have said the word, "increments" - only INTERVALS. But I do agree with obamasock that Time is "conceptualised" by the mind - due to the mind doing the conceiving/perceiving of ideas, hypotheses, theories, and all other thoughts and even imaginings.

Thanks for pointing this out to me, OttoPussyTard - and don't forget to wear your PussyHat on the 19th when you join the Women's March.
I will look up this obamasock and see what else s/he has said about science. Interesting.
granville583762
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 02, 2019
The Question?

So
Looking at neutrons
In this light
Does an oxygen atom if it were a neutron atom
Decay instantly?

As to the answer.....!
Da Schneib
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 02, 2019
Aaaaaand....

another trainwreck thread brought to you by the titch of brolls.

Yay.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (4) Jan 02, 2019
Question: WHY in the world would ANYONE call themself "obamasock"? S/he must have been a big supporter of Barack Obama and his administration and policies. Probably voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012. LOL
I am also curious about OttoPussy's motivation for actually SAVING old posts from obamasock and those other user names he likes to mention.
Oh, I get it now. OttoPussyturd has been trying to ingratiate himself to Captain Beelzebub and Da Scheide to get back into their good graces. Or possibly to convince them to rate him FIVES again, which they seem to have not been doing for awhile now.
Perhaps it was OttoPussy's incessant accusations that I was a 900 foot tall reclining Martian that threw them off kilter. And they sort of left Otto out in the cold. Waaaaah
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (4) Jan 02, 2019
@Benni, granville, Whyde
I can't be absolutely positutely certain, of course, being that I am just a mere scholar and interested observer - but the 14.7 m overall decay rate of the Neutron may fit - but somehow, until given better and more complete future data - I don't think that the half-life rate (overall) of 10.1 min is truly accurate wrt every one of their captive Neutrons, even by measuring the rates with a cæsium timepiece. Could it be possible that they have adopted the 10.1 min window as an "average", rather than measuring the rate of each Neutron?

Uh Oh - I noice Da Pussyman is hovering over us like a Dracula.
Da Schneib
2 / 5 (4) Jan 02, 2019
Thanks for dancing for me, @SEU.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.5 / 5 (4) Jan 02, 2019
...
As I pointed out to Whyguy ( because he's always asking questions),
...

It started when I was 2 and still asking why at 64 - go figure....
says Whyde

Happy belated birthday to you - 64 is a good number. Were you able to get 64 candles on the cake? LOL
Protoplasmix
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 02, 2019
As far as I know
Neutrons do not bind in to a lump of radioactive neutronium
that if neutronium existed it would decay natually by its half-life
It's actually possible to make a stable lump of neutronium that's about 10 km in diameter, all you need is a bunch of protons -- like about at least 12.04 x 10^57 protons. And gravity. But I don't think it's radioactive since neutron stars don't decay.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Jan 02, 2019

How many decayed neutrons
....what do you mean by "decayed neutrons"? After 14.7 minute beta decay expires & it no longer exists.

Gville has put a bunch of neutrons in a suitcase. Even as a gas they will still be close enough together to experience higher energy interaction in that environment. Some will decay faster and some slower. The end product of beta decay is a proton. with all those free electrons and protons floating around and neutrinos flying around, something is bound to happen...

(protons) will bind with a neutron before it decays in that 14.7 mins?
What's the "protons" thing about?


Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Jan 02, 2019
...
As I pointed out to Whyguy ( because he's always asking questions),
...

It started when I was 2 and still asking why at 64 - go figure....
says Whyde

Happy belated birthday to you - 64 is a good number. Were you able to get 64 candles on the cake? LOL

It was a big cake...?
In base 60, it was one big candle and 4 small ones....
(I'm a re-incarnated Sumerian)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Jan 02, 2019
As far as I know
Neutrons do not bind in to a lump of radioactive neutronium
that if neutronium existed it would decay natually by its half-life
It's actually possible to make a stable lump of neutronium that's about 10 km in diameter, all you need is a bunch of protons -- like about at least 12.04 x 10^57 protons. And gravity. But I don't think it's radioactive since neutron stars don't decay.

They'd need some serious electrons in the mix to + decay....
Da Schneib
2 / 5 (4) Jan 02, 2019
The cranks all think that it's like Star Trek and neutronium should be stable by itself.

Star Trek doesn't explain the color force. In fact, we're still working out the action of the color force; and the main hints we have are the action of the residual strong nuclear force, which is to the color force as Van Der Waals forces are to the EM force.

So much for the titch of brolls.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 02, 2019
...
As I pointed out to Whyguy ( because he's always asking questions),
...

It started when I was 2 and still asking why at 64 - go figure....
says Whyde

Happy belated birthday to you - 64 is a good number. Were you able to get 64 candles on the cake? LOL

It was a big cake...?
In base 60, it was one big candle and 4 small ones....
(I'm a re-incarnated Sumerian)
says Whyde

LOL my human host is also reincarnated - pre-Noahic times. He is very cooperative and allows me to use his fingers to type my comments.
Da Schneib
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 02, 2019
Keep dancing, @SEU. You dance to my tune. I pull your strings, you caper. It's nice you acknowledge your superiors.
Protoplasmix
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 02, 2019
Late edit: in addition to protons and gravity to make a neutron star you'll also need some of that human construct [/sarc] "time," like at least about 5 million years...
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (6) Jan 02, 2019
@Proto, you'll get neutrons too. A neutron star's gravity is strong enough to break down the Pauli exclusion for nucleons. Look up Chandrasekhar's Limit.
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (5) Jan 02, 2019
They'd need some serious electrons in the mix to + decay...
Yup, you're right Whyd, I should've said hydrogen atoms.
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (3) Jan 02, 2019
@Proto, you'll get neutrons too. A neutron star's gravity is strong enough to break down the Pauli exclusion for nucleons. Look up Chandrasekhar's Limit.
Yeah, I guess the closer to the core the more it becomes like "nuclear pasta".
granville583762
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 02, 2019
To Decay or not Decay
granville583762> The Question?
So
Looking at neutrons
In this light
Does an oxygen atom if it were a neutron atom
Decay instantly?
As to the answer.....!

The Answer
is
free from interaction
free from radio interaction in atoms in the atmosphere
free from finding a juicy ripe proton to marry
before the relationship falls apart in radioactive decay
because
if you let
radioactive decaying neutrons
out of Schrödinger box
you are going to get all sorts of reactions
the question is simple
is basic
in isolation in the vacuum
let a neutron out its box
and leave it floating in isolation in the vacuum
for 14.7minutes
what have you got
as and when this question happens
you had a neutrino that simply disappears at the speed of light
you have a proton
and finally you have a scrumptious electron
where the proton marries this scrumptious electron
and Hey presto hydrogen
so to the question
What happens in 14.7 minutes?
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Jan 02, 2019
@Proto, you'll get neutrons too. A neutron star's gravity is strong enough to break down the Pauli exclusion for nucleons. Look up Chandrasekhar's Limit.
Yeah, I guess the closer to the core the more it becomes like "nuclear pasta".

I like goulash...
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Jan 02, 2019
To Decay or not Decay

The Answer
is
free from interaction
free from radio interaction in atoms in the atmosphere
free from finding a juicy ripe proton to marry
before the relationship falls apart in radioactive decay
because
if you let
radioactive decaying neutrons
out of Schrödinger box
you are going to get all sorts of reactions
the question is simple
is basic
in isolation in the vacuum
let a neutron out its box
and leave it floating in isolation in the vacuum
for 14.7minutes
what have you got
as and when this question happens
you had a neutrino that simply disappears at the speed of light
you have a proton
and finally you have a scrumptious electron
where the proton marries this scrumptious electron
and Hey presto hydrogen
so to the question
What happens in 14.7 minutes?

Wouldn't that be the Final Question?
(Thanks, Isaac A.)
Benni
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 02, 2019
I don't think that the half-life rate (overall) of 10.1 min is truly accurate wrt every one of their captive Neutrons,


A neutron does not have a radioactive half-life decay rate, it has beta decay rate, HUGE DIFFERENCE.

Get past reading the slop & swill contrivances on Wkii & other places about neutron 10.1 minute half life. Those who publish such slop only live in the fantasy world of Pop-Cosmology & have no comprehension of what BETA DECAY is & why it is different than the radioactive decay half life of ATOMS, not NEUTRONS.

Could it be possible that they have adopted the 10.1 min window as an "average"
They arrive at 10.1 in the screwiest contrivance of math that is possible. They randomly measure a cloud of free neutrons & find that within 10.1 minutes half of them have decayed via the 14.7 minute beta decay rate. In other words, by the time the measurement of the population begins,half the population is already 10,1 minutes into beta decay.
granville583762
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 02, 2019
This Distinguished Unequalled Record

I have the highest rating of anyone on this site
as Calc98 has been working over time
since Otto deicided to bring obama and his socks for a historical airing
and boy did those socks need airing
as Calc98 has been working on daily averages
as from a brief but memorable count of the regulars at the bar of commentary
even those of 2007 do not come close
this even surprised me
as only appearing recently on months of two hands
so to this question
As having this distinguished unequalled record

What Happens After 14.7 Minutes?
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (6) Jan 02, 2019
nobody is going to know the difference
My conclusion is the muon that started this also cannot be verified
csi:lhc

Physicist: Hi, do you know why I pulled you over today?
muon: Yeah, because I let you.
Physicist: You were going .9c, I'm gonna need you to step out of the CMS and show me your ID please.
muon: Pfft *decays*
knowphiself
5 / 5 (1) Jan 02, 2019
i still like the symmetry of the universe as klein bottle , with black holes operating as if in a "china syndrome" . however not tunnelling through mass but tunnelling (back) through time , emerging at the out put known as the big bang (a "white hole" exit)
granville583762
4.3 / 5 (7) Jan 02, 2019
nobody is going to know the difference
My conclusion is the muon that started this also cannot be verified
csi:lhc

Physicist: Hi, do you know why I pulled you over today?
muon: Yeah, because I let you.
Physicist: You were going .9c, I'm gonna need you to step out of the CMS and show me your ID please.
muon: Pfft *decays*

Cute!
Benni
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 02, 2019
As far as I know
Neutrons do not bind in to a lump of radioactive neutronium
that if neutronium existed it would decay natually by its half-life
A neutron does not decay via radioactive half life, they decay via beta decay, 14.7 minutes.

It's actually possible to make a stable lump of neutronium that's about 10 km in diameter, all you need is a bunch of protons -- like about at least 12.04 x 10^57 protons. .
You forgot the electron & neutrino if you want the constituent particles that make up a neutron.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (4) Jan 02, 2019
Keep dancing, @SEU. You dance to my tune. I pull your strings, you caper. It's nice you acknowledge your superiors.
says Da Pussy

You are so wucking feird. Did your mum raise you to proposition men like you do here in physorg? Are you gay?
Oh wait - I think that has already been established that you're gay, by RC.
granville583762
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 02, 2019
Beta-decay and the coulomb barrier
beta decay of a neutron transforms it into a proton by the emission of an electron, or conversely a proton is converted into a neutron by the emission of a positron (positron emission), thus changing the nuclide type

The more you look the more you see
Beta-decay is to get the proton past the coulomb barrier
And changing nuclide types
Where in the nucleus is a lengthy process
As the nucleus slows decay of the neutron allowing the neutron to exist in the nucleus
But outside the nucleus
Free
The inescapable beta-decay is unstoppable
The unsubstantiated
14.7minute
Is like beta decay its self
Remains lingering
Tantalising
Just within reach
But not quite
Protoplasmix
4 / 5 (4) Jan 02, 2019
You forgot the electron & neutrino if you want the constituent particles that make up a neutron.
Interesting Benni, neutrinos fly right through everything, what makes you think they fly around somehow in nuclei rather than just being created during a decay or in a particle collision, or during various astronomical events?
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (6) Jan 02, 2019
Like I said, you can lead a person to knowledge but you can't make it think.

The constituents of protons and neutrons are up and down quarks. Quarks turn into one another by the weak nuclear force. Imagining there's "protonies" inside "neutronies" is like imagining there's "horsies" inside "unicornies."
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (4) Jan 02, 2019
@Proto
Just wondering: If neutrinos fly through everything, what happens to the electrons?
A mere scholar here.
Da Schneib
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 02, 2019
Now @SEU wants to understand proton and neutron interactions without understanding the color and weak forces.

Pitiful.
Protoplasmix
4 / 5 (4) Jan 02, 2019
Late edit: This is a great question for a nuclear engineer, Benni - during the process of electron capture when a proton in the nucleus absorbs an atomic electron and turns into a neutron, are you saying it also has to absorb a neutrino?
Benni
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 02, 2019
You forgot the electron & neutrino if you want the constituent particles that make up a neutron.


Interesting Benni, neutrinos fly right through everything, what makes you think they fly around somehow in nuclei rather than just being created during a decay or in a particle collision, or during various astronomical events?


Well then primitive thinker that you are, how are you gonna put together that neutron star using all that 12.04 x 10^57 mass of protons if all those neutrinos are gonna escape your grasp so easily? Don't suggest gravity because you have already stated they just "fly right through everything".

Being unable to bag up all the neutrinos you need to match every proton, another thing you are left with is bagging up an equal number of electrons via whatever force you plan to do that, and you're probably gonna suggest gravity. Let's assume electrons are somehow less resistant to capture by a proton than neutrinos, you get hydrogen, not a neutron.

Da Schneib
3 / 5 (6) Jan 02, 2019
@Proto, I was gonna bring up K-capture but you did it very well.

So if there's protonies inside of neutronies, and neutronies inside of protonies, how's that work exactly?

Not to mention how electricity does it all.
Benni
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 02, 2019
Like I said, you can lead a person to knowledge but you can't make it think.

The constituents of protons and neutrons are up and down quarks. Quarks turn into one another by the weak nuclear force. Imagining there's "protonies" inside "neutronies" is like imagining there's "horsies" inside "unicornies."


Standard Pop-Cosmology psycho-babble from one of Physorg's own embedded Moderators.
Da Schneib
2 / 5 (4) Jan 02, 2019
You still haven't told us how there can be protons inside of neutrons, and neutrons inside of protons, @LenniTheLiarAndButthurtPlagiarist. They turn into one another. Maybe you forgot. Guess K-capture makes you look like the idiot you are. Now you're trying to troll your way out of it.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (4) Jan 02, 2019
Now @SEU wants to understand proton and neutron interactions without understanding the color and weak forces.

Pitiful.
says Da ScheidePussyman

Funny how I asked Protoplasmix a question, but Da Pussyman answers without providing the answers.
Still propositioning men, I'll wager. Da Scheide must be gay.
Whydening Gyre
4 / 5 (4) Jan 02, 2019
@Proto, I was gonna bring up K-capture but you did it very well.

So if there's protonies inside of neutronies, and neutronies inside of protonies, how's that work exactly?

Not to mention how electricity does it all.


Wiki's article on this process is pretty interesting... gonna have to read it couple o times, tho….
Da Schneib
2 / 5 (4) Jan 02, 2019
Got your color and weak forces right here, @SEU. But you're incapable of understanding them and have engaged in lies, so I see no reason to provide you any more information you can use for further lies.
Whydening Gyre
4 / 5 (4) Jan 02, 2019
Now @SEU wants to understand proton and neutron interactions without understanding the color and weak forces.

Pitiful.
says Da ScheidePussyman

Funny how I asked Protoplasmix a question, but Da Pussyman answers without providing the answers.
Still propositioning men, I'll wager. Da Scheide must be gay.

Since he is a Scheide, per yer German translation, he'd only be gay if he propositioned women....
You can't have it both ways unless you are BI or PAN.
(Which would double your chances of action on a Saturday night...)
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (4) Jan 02, 2019
I don't think that the half-life rate (overall) of 10.1 min is truly accurate wrt every one of their captive Neutrons,


A neutron does not have a radioactive half-life decay rate, it has beta decay rate, HUGE DIFFERENCE.

Could it be possible that they have adopted the 10.1 min window as an "average"
They arrive at 10.1 in the screwiest contrivance of math that is possible. They randomly measure a cloud of free neutrons & find that within 10.1 minutes half of them have decayed via the 14.7 minute beta decay rate. In other words, by the time the measurement of the population begins,half the population is already 10,1 minutes into beta decay.
says Benni

That 10.1 half-life idea MAY have been arrived at by taking a count of the total Neutrons at the beginning (14.7m to decay)and then halving that number (7.350m), then adding 2.651m to bring it up to 10.1m. But it doesn't make sense. Is my math wrong? Was the calculated half-life not precisely half?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 02, 2019
Now @SEU wants to understand proton and neutron interactions without understanding the color and weak forces.

Pitiful.
says Da ScheidePussyman

Funny how I asked Protoplasmix a question, but Da Pussyman answers without providing the answers.
Still propositioning men, I'll wager. Da Scheide must be gay.

Since he is a Scheide, per yer German translation, he'd only be gay if he propositioned women....
You can't have it both ways unless you are BI or PAN.
(Which would double your chances of action on a Saturday night...)
says Whyde

I don't know, Whyde. Da Pussyman now expects that I (a young guy) will go to him for information on colors after he had been propositioning me just before.
Actually, it was PussyOtto who originated the name Da Scheide. But Da Schhhh mentioned once that he has a wife. So he could be a bisexual, like you say.
I guess it takes all kinds, as they say. And physorg may be loaded with that kind.
ROFLOL
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Jan 02, 2019
Since he is a Scheide, per yer German translation, he'd only be gay if he propositioned women....
You can't have it both ways unless you are BI or PAN.
(Which would double your chances of action on a Saturday night...)
says Whyde

I don't know, Whyde. Da Pussyman now expects that I (a young guy) will go to him for information on colors after he had been propositioning me just before.

If a scheide propositioned you, would you say no?
Protoplasmix
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 02, 2019
@Proto
Just wondering: If neutrinos fly through everything, what happens to the electrons?
A mere scholar here
Quite, I know your not keen with the time aspect, but what happens to what electrons _when_? There's a sea of them; they're leptons...
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 02, 2019
@Whyde
Keep dancing, @SEU. You dance to my tune. I pull your strings, you caper. It's nice you acknowledge your superiors.
says Da Scheide (Pussyman)

There it is again, Whyde. Da Scheide wanted me to dance for him - to his TUNE. He wants to pull my strings, then calls me a 'caper'. He then refers to my "superiours", whoever he thinks they may be, since I own my own business. He sounds like a damn Nazi, if you ask me.
Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (7) Jan 02, 2019
LOL

@SEU thinks the color force is "colors."

What a nutjob.

Like I said, wouldn't know a physics if it bit it on the ass.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 02, 2019
Since he is a Scheide, per yer German translation, he'd only be gay if he propositioned women....
You can't have it both ways unless you are BI or PAN.
(Which would double your chances of action on a Saturday night...)
says Whyde

I don't know, Whyde. Da Pussyman now expects that I (a young guy) will go to him for information on colors after he had been propositioning me just before.

If a scheide propositioned you, would you say no?
says Whyde

No. Would you?
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (6) Jan 02, 2019
Tell us about the color force, @SEU.

At least give us some hint you have the slightest idea what I'm talking about. Or why it's called that.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (4) Jan 02, 2019
@Whyde
Benni and granville can tell you with complete confidence that I am here at physorg as a mere scholar and interested observer to learn science topics of all kinds. My human host graciously allows me to use his fingers so that I may type my comments in this site for academic purposes. In this site, I certainly don't expect to be propositioned by Da Scheide who doesn't seem to have a vagina, but seems to be gay or bi - and for some strange reason, he wants me to dance for him.
In the vernacular of my American friends - is this nuts, or what?
Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (7) Jan 02, 2019
It never will, because it doesn't understand physics.

The color force, which is the underlying force of the strong nuclear force which is a residual of the color force just as the Van der Waals force is a residual of the EM force, is the force of the colored gluons on quarks. It's commonly misnamed the "strong force."

The color force is the SU(3) force. It mediates the interactions between quarks.

If you knew any physics you'd know that and recognize it on sight. You can't. You don't know any physics.

Why are you here? Who's paying you?
Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (8) Jan 02, 2019
And then there's the flavor force. Any idea what that is?
Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (8) Jan 03, 2019
Dudebro wants to talk about physics but doesn't know any math, can't even figure out the action of gravity or EM, and hasn't even heard of the strong and weak interactions

Why is this account posting on this site?
Ojorf
3 / 5 (8) Jan 03, 2019
SEU:
Benni and granville can tell you with complete confidence that I am here at physorg as a mere scholar and interested observer to learn science topics of all kinds. My human host graciously allows me to use his fingers so that I may type my comments in this site for academic purposes. In this site, I certainly don't expect to be propositioned by Da Scheide who doesn't seem to have a vagina, but seems to be gay or bi - and for some strange reason, he wants me to dance for him.
In the vernacular of my American friends - is this nuts, or what?


You and Benni need to be in the loony bin. None of your comments have any science in them.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) Jan 03, 2019
@Whyde
Benni and granville can tell you with complete confidence that I am here at physorg as a mere scholar and interested observer to learn science topics of all kinds. My human host graciously allows me to use his fingers so that I may type my comments in this site for academic purposes. In this site, I certainly don't expect to be propositioned by Da Scheide who doesn't seem to have a vagina, but seems to be gay or bi - and for some strange reason, he wants me to dance for him.
In the vernacular of my American friends - is this nuts, or what?

So... what are you a "scholar" of?
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) Jan 03, 2019
Since he is a Scheide, per yer German translation, he'd only be gay if he propositioned women....
You can't have it both ways unless you are BI or PAN.
(Which would double your chances of action on a Saturday night...)
says Whyde

I don't know, Whyde. Da Pussyman now expects that I (a young guy) will go to him for information on colors after he had been propositioning me just before.

If a scheide propositioned you, would you say no?
says Whyde

No. Would you?

A vagina? sure.
DA SCHNEIB is not a vagina....It is a descriptor to have or not have guts.... This Schneib seems to have some....
Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (8) Jan 03, 2019
You say you wanna learn. Here's some skooling:

The color force (incorrectly, IMNVHO, called the strong force by some) operates between the quarks, which have color charge, and is mediated by the colored gluons. Three quarks, of each different color charge (there are three) are held together to form each baryon. The two lightest baryons are the neutron and the proton. There are six types of quark; of those, only the two lightest are in the neutron and proton, called up and down quarks. The proton, the lightest baryon, is made of two ups and a down; the neutron, it's slightly more massive partner, is two downs and an up. This mass difference is the reason neutrons spontaneously decay; the neutron can have one down turn into an up, and the energy flies away.

How do quarks turn into one another? This is the flavor interaction, also known as the weak interaction. But because the mass difference is so small, it takes a long time to happen.
[contd]
Da Schneib
3.1 / 5 (7) Jan 03, 2019
[contd]
After the enormous time (on nuclear scales) of some 900 seconds, half of the neutrons in a sample will have decayed by this pathway. One of their downs turns into an up. The neutron thus becomes a proton.

Now, this means a charge was created, and charge is conserved. So this means an electron must be emitted, but that breaks another conservation law: lepton conservation. So when it happens, an electron antineutrino is also emitted, so the original electric charge (0, for a neutron) is conserved with a proton (+1) and an electron (-1) which comes out to 0, and the lepton number is conserved with an electron (+1) and an antineutrino (-1), which also comes out to zero.

The color charges are not changed by this interaction. But their strengths are; thus, the mass difference between the proton and neutron is greater than the mass of the electron plus the electron antineutrino.

Some Nobel Prize Winners in Physics figured all of this out several decades ago.
Da Schneib
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 03, 2019
You can read all of this from many sources and they all say the same thing I am telling you.

If you actually want to learn and have any gumption. But I estimate you don't, and don't.
granville583762
5 / 5 (5) Jan 03, 2019
(((( But It Still Does Not Say ))))

Neutron lifetime puzzle
"Wikipedia> While the neutron lifetime has been studied for decades, there currently exists a lack of consilience on its exact value, due to different results from two experimental methods ("bottle" versus "beam")
While the error margin was once overlapping, increasing refinement in technique which should have resolved the issue has failed to demonstrate convergence to a single value The difference in mean lifetime values obtained as of 2014 was approximately 9 seconds Further, a prediction of the value based on quantum chromodynamics as of 2018 is still not sufficiently precise to support one over the other."

Haggling over the odd 9seconds here or there
is neither here nor there
the key point give or take 9seconds
what happens
to a free neutron
all alone in the vacuum
In 14.7minutes
beeds
4 / 5 (1) Jan 03, 2019
"The color force (incorrectly, IMNVHO, called the strong force by some) operates between the quarks, which have color charge, and is mediated by the colored gluons."
So on the quark scale, quarks are the mass and gluons represent a field that can cause interactions between quarks?
If yes what type of field do they represent? do different colors of gluons represent different field frequencies?

Once the quarks become bound on the quark scale does the color force of the quarks merge to a field or something on the particles scale?

Is the barycenter of the quarks on the quark scale the center of gravity of the particle on the particle scale?
Benni
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 03, 2019
You still haven't told us how there can be protons inside of neutrons, and neutrons inside of protons, They turn into one another. Maybe you forgot. Guess K-capture makes you look like the idiot you are. Now you're trying to troll your way out of it.


Electron K-capture is the decay mode of unstable isotopes caused by too many protons in the nucleus. An an electron from the K shell is pulled into an atomic nucleus creating a neutron thereby reducing the number of protons by 1, however atomic mass stays the same.

The limitation to K-capture is that K shell electrons are very distant from the relatively small volume of the nucleus where nuclear weak forces are responsible for a K- capture event, thus explaining why electron K-capture is a rare event and only occurs in elements much higher in the Periodic Table than hydrogen, or for a lone proton K-Capture event where there is no structured atomic nucleus or electron shell.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 03, 2019
@eggytarded religious troll socks
I am here at physorg as a mere scholar
bullsh*t
you're a religious fanatic, and that is proven
My human host graciously allows me to use his fingers so that I may type my comments in this site for academic purposes
another lie compounded with delusion and alien conspiracist ideation
propositioned by Da Scheide who doesn't seem to have a vagina, but seems to be gay or bi
he most certainly isn't gay

you, however, have a fascination with certain body parts
likely because you're attempting yet another sock-puppet derailment of the site as you have so many times in the past
In the vernacular of my American friends
and in the Glesca vernacular: yur a babby bachle bahookie fandan

granville583762
5 / 5 (5) Jan 03, 2019
Da Schneib and half a Neutron

And so back to skool
To learn us about neutron spontaneity of beta decay

You say you wanna learn, here's some Da Schneib skooling
Da Schneib> There are six types of quark; of those, only the two lightest are in the neutron and proton, called up and down quarks. The proton, the lightest baryon, is made of two ups and a down; the neutron, it's slightly more massive partner, is two downs and an up. This mass difference is the reason neutrons spontaneously decay

…………………………………….This 14.7minute beta-decay……….
< The proton, the lightest baryon, is made of two ups and a down>
< The neutron, it's slightly more massive partner, is two downs and an up >

< The proton being lighter than the neutron is the reason neutrons spontaneously decay >

now we know
why
The neutron spontaneously decay in 14.7minutes
Benni
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 03, 2019
The color force (incorrectly, IMNVHO, called the strong force by some) operates between the quarks, which have color charge, and is mediated by the colored gluons. Three quarks, of each different color charge (there are three) are held together to form each baryon. The two lightest baryons are the neutron and the proton. There are six types of quark; of those, only the two lightest are in the neutron and proton, called up and down quarks. The proton, the lightest baryon, is made of two ups and a down; the neutron, it's slightly more massive partner, is two downs and an up. This mass difference is the reason neutrons spontaneously decay; the neutron can have one down turn into an up, and the energy flies away.


........this sure is a lot to know about something (quarks) that has never yet been isolated to prove it even exists. You probably didn't know that did you schneibo?

Up and down
Pink and Brown
Plus and Minus
Next comes granDyvillitus
granville583762
5 / 5 (5) Jan 03, 2019
And so to skool

Pink and Brown
Plus and Minus
Next comes granDyvillitus

It was irresistible
This lecture by Professor Da Schneib
Defining the inscrutable, indefinable, unobservable, yet to be isolated
granville583762
5 / 5 (5) Jan 03, 2019
But still, Professor Da Schneib does not say, what happens after 14.7minutes
And so to skool

Pink and Brown
Plus and Minus
Next comes granDyvillitus

It was irresistible
This lecture by Professor Da Schneib
Defining the inscrutable, indefinable, unobservable, yet to be isolated

But what ever the actual truth
even though
Professor Da Schneib
has stated
the reason why
neutrons spontaneously decay

It still does not actually officially say
the
state of affairs
After 14.7minutes
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Jan 03, 2019
You still haven't told us how there can be protons inside of neutrons, and neutrons inside of protons, They turn into one another. Maybe you forgot. Guess K-capture makes you look like the idiot you are. Now you're trying to troll your way out of it.


Electron K-capture is the decay mode of unstable isotopes caused by too many protons in the nucleus. An an electron from the K shell is pulled into an atomic nucleus creating a neutron thereby reducing the number of protons by 1, however atomic mass stays the same.
...

Well, now I wanna know is what happens when you have a neutron rich atomic environment...
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (6) Jan 03, 2019
So on the quark scale, quarks are the mass and gluons represent a field that can cause interactions between quarks?
It's probably better to use an electric charge analogy. But yes, more or less.

If yes what type of field do they represent?do different colors of gluons represent different field frequencies?
No. That wouldn't be a good analogy. It's a fundamentally different thing than frequency, and frequency doesn't well represent either the electric or gravitational fields, either.

Once the quarks become bound on the quark scale does the color force of the quarks merge to a field or something on the particles scale?
No, there's no merging. And the quarks are never unbound. We never see quarks flying around unbound, even in the most powerful particle accelerators. But we have been able to bounce particles off the quarks inside baryons.
[contd]
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (6) Jan 03, 2019
[contd]
Is the barycenter of the quarks on the quark scale the center of gravity of the particle on the particle scale?
No one knows that because we don't have a quantum gravity theory. I suspect you're still using the gravity analogy, and color physics doesn't work like gravity physics.
Benni
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 03, 2019
Electron K-capture is the decay mode of unstable isotopes caused by too many protons in the nucleus. An an electron from the K shell is pulled into an atomic nucleus creating a neutron thereby reducing the number of protons by 1, however atomic mass stays the same.
.......and I guess maybe I should have pointed out for you Whyguy, that this new neutron that is created in the nucleus as a result of a K-Capture event is NOT a free unbound neutron that is subject to beta decay of 14.7 minutes, because it is a BOUND NEUTRON.

Well, now I wanna know is what happens when you have a neutron rich atomic environment...
.......14.7 minutes after every new unbound neutron comes into existence every one of them will decay into one proton, one electron, one neutrino, and one photon (so say some researchers).

What are you calling "a neutron rich atomic environment"? To start with a neutron is not "atomic", it is an atomic sub-particle......OK, now answer my question.

Benni
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 03, 2019
color physics doesn't work like gravity physics.
........quark theory is now all about PARTICLES OF COLOR.

You're a great Physorg Moderator schneibo, talk about someone who can spin a tale after telling us all about how these little cuties of color are so bound inside their hosts that they can't be seen, yet YOU know what their colors are.
granville583762
5 / 5 (5) Jan 03, 2019
A random example
So on the quark scale, quarks are the mass and gluons represent a field that can cause interactions between quarks?
It's probably better to use an electric charge analogy. But yes, more or less.

If yes what type of field do they represent?do different colors of gluons represent different field frequencies?
No. That wouldn't be a good analogy. It's a fundamentally different thing than frequency, and frequency doesn't well represent either the electric or gravitational fields, either.

Once the quarks become bound on the quark scale does the color force of the quarks merge to a field or something on the particles scale?
No, there's no merging. And the quarks are never unbound. We never see quarks flying around unbound, even in the most powerful particle accelerators. But we have been able to bounce particles off the quarks inside baryons.
[contd]

Still does not say after 882s of mean life
RealityCheck
3 / 5 (4) Jan 03, 2019
@S_E_U.
PROCESS - The "act" of doing something; an action often resulting in change; a happening involving something or someone.

I would not have used the term "Process" as relating to the concept of Time....
The context was natural/universal physical "processes" (plural), irrespective of human observers/participants. :)

I used the (singular) "process" advisedly, to stress the connection between any natural universal process and 'time' concept' and 'derivation'. That connection is especially evident when humans use some suitably 'periodic' physical process as a 'standard' for 'timing' some OTHER motion/change/process under study.

Basically, I used it in the same context in which you yourself, S_E_U, used it, when you wrote in your post addressed to @Whyde:
The process of DECAY is factored into Mass/Matter as a PHYSICAL process
I trust you now see the validity of my usage of "process" in that context which you also used it in, S_E_U? :)
granville583762
5 / 5 (5) Jan 03, 2019
Apparently mean life is the average time a decaying particle has left on this earth
as
Professor Da Schneib
has stated
the reason why
neutrons spontaneously decay
so
obviously
mean life is the life that spontaneously decays
that
Professor Da Schneib is discussing

As Professor Da Schneib
having defined spontaneous neutron beta-decay
and
the official mean life is 882s
we
could interoperate this as the instant 882s elapses
the neutron having spontaneously decayed
no longer exists
but
although this can be experimentally proved
mainly by the absence of the neutrons
I have yet to
observe any mention of these absent neutrons officially
Just as Professor Da Schneib
is all so adept
at carefully
avoiding all mention of what actual occurs
After 14.7minutes
RealityCheck
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 03, 2019
@S_E_U.
Keep dancing, @SEU. You dance to my tune. I pull your strings, you caper. It's nice you acknowledge your superiors.
says Da Pussy You are so wucking feird. Did your mum raise you to proposition men like you do here in physorg? Are you gay? Oh wait - I think that has already been established that you're gay, by RC.
I don't recall 'establishing' that Da Schneib is gay, S_E_U. Have you confused me with @Benni or some other person trading such sexist barbs with DS? Please clarify either way. Thanks.

ps: As your atheist friend (I hope) in science/humanity, S_E_U, I advise you not to curse/wish ill on anyone, regardless of perceived transgressions. I advise this based on (now) 69 years of experience/reflection of/on 'the human condition' which we are ALL in, regardless of beliefs and motivations. Things have a way of coming back to bite; hence the term: "What goes round, comes round". Politeness, well meaning, forgiveness is the best way to 'start a round'.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3.3 / 5 (3) Jan 03, 2019
@RC
LOL As I recall, Da Sscheide kept stalking you (what else is new?) while accusing YOU of saying to Da Pussyman, "Are you gay?"
I thought that was hilarious when Da Pussyman produced a link where you had supposedly said it. You denied the whole affair, but he kept after you (what else is new?).
An amusing hour or so, it was.
On second though, you are correct RC. That was Benni. But it was still funny.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 03, 2019
SEU:
Benni and granville can tell you with complete confidence that I am here at physorg as a mere scholar and interested observer to learn science topics of all kinds. My human host graciously allows me to use his fingers so that I may type my comments in this site for academic purposes. In this site, I certainly don't expect to be propositioned by Da Scheide who doesn't seem to have a vagina, but seems to be gay or bi - and for some strange reason, he wants me to dance for him.
In the vernacular of my American friends - is this nuts, or what?


You and Benni need to be in the loony bin. None of your comments have any science in them.

says ojorf

Neither have yours, Tardo
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 03, 2019
@S_E_U.
Keep dancing, @SEU. You dance to my tune. I pull your strings, you caper. It's nice you acknowledge your superiors.
says Da Pussy You are so wucking feird. Did your mum raise you to proposition men like you do here in physorg? Are you gay?

ps: As your atheist friend (I hope) in science/humanity, S_E_U, I advise you not to curse/wish ill on anyone, regardless of perceived transgressions. I advise this based on (now) 69 years of experience/reflection of/on 'the human condition' which we are ALL in, regardless of beliefs and motivations. Things have a way of coming back to bite; hence the term: "What goes round, comes round". Politeness, well meaning, forgiveness is the best way to 'start a round'.
says RC

RC, I can tell you are doubtless a good person - as are Benni, granville, Steelwolf, arc metal and, occasionally Whyde also - when he has not come into the influence of the dastardly unholy ones in these forums - who seek to corrupt.
-contd-
Benni
3 / 5 (4) Jan 03, 2019
Benni and granville can tell you with complete confidence that I am here at physorg as a mere scholar and interested observer to learn science topics of all kinds. My human host graciously allows me to use his fingers so that I may type my comments in this site for academic purposes. In this site, I certainly don't expect to be propositioned by Da Scheide who doesn't seem to have a vagina, but seems to be gay or bi - and for some strange reason, he wants me to dance for him.
In the vernacular of my American friends - is this nuts, or what?


You and Benni need to be in the loony bin. None of your comments have any science in them.


So when's the last time you put up a Comment with "any science content in them"? None in this one either. Why don't you back up, locate your last Comment that had "science" in it & repost it. I'm certainly not about to waste my time sorting through your history because I'd probably need to go back several years to find something.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 03, 2019
-contd-
@RC
As to the Curses that I have had cause to wish upon Da Pussyman and his foul master, Captain Beelzebub - it is too late to change those curses. And no - they will not return to me as they are crafted in a particular way that are unchangeable at this late date. Both fiends have brought it all on themselves and will continue in their unholy works to influence and corrupt humans. This is what they do whether you believe it or not.
Those who are truly science-minded and interested in advancing science knowledge, research, and discovery are certainly NOT interested in whether or not a commenter has faith or beliefs in religion, Creationism, or any other humanism - but these 2 are highly motivated to rid this website of anyone who believe in the Creation. This behaviour smacks of Tyranny and Oppression. Personally, I don't like either one.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 03, 2019
@Whyde
Benni and granville can tell you with complete confidence that I am here at physorg as a mere scholar and interested observer to learn science topics of all kinds. My human host graciously allows me to use his fingers so that I may type my comments in this site for academic purposes. In this site, I certainly don't expect to be propositioned by Da Scheide who doesn't seem to have a vagina, but seems to be gay or bi - and for some strange reason, he wants me to dance for him.
In the vernacular of my American friends - is this nuts, or what?

So... what are you a "scholar" of?
says Whyde

What is ANYONE a scholar of? Personally, I am a scholar of the Universe - meaning, of course, A Scholar of EVERYTHING. There were those who had been created ahead of me and many others. We all have our missions to accomplish - but each of us are also required to learn about homo sapiens and why they are.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 03, 2019
Since he is a Scheide, per yer German translation, he'd only be gay if he propositioned women....
You can't have it both ways unless you are BI or PAN.
(Which would double your chances of action on a Saturday night...)
says Whyde

I don't know, Whyde. Da Pussyman now expects that I (a young guy) will go to him for information on colors after he had been propositioning me just before.

If a scheide propositioned you, would you say no?
says Whyde

No. Would you?

A vagina? sure.
DA SCHNEIB is not a vagina....It is a descriptor to have or not have guts.... This Schneib seems to have some....
says Whyde

I don't know about that, Whyde. SpookyOtto started his new tradition of referring to Schneibo as Da Scheide - meaning vagina, or pussy in the vernacular that SpookyOtto has become used to saying. It was easy to pick up and apply the same equal characterisation onto Da Pussyman/Scheide. Somehow, it just fit well.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 03, 2019
Da Schneib and half a Neutron

And so back to skool
To learn us about neutron spontaneity of beta decay

You say you wanna learn, here's some Da Schneib skooling
Da Schneib> There are six types of quark; of those, only the two lightest are in the neutron and proton, called up and down quarks. The proton, the lightest baryon, is made of two ups and a down; the neutron, it's slightly more massive partner, is two downs and an up. This mass difference is the reason neutrons spontaneously decay

This 14.7minute beta-decay……….
< The proton, the lightest baryon, is made of two ups and a down>
< The neutron, it's slightly more massive partner, is two downs and an up >

< The proton being lighter than the neutron is the reason neutrons spontaneously decay >

now we know
why
The neutron spontaneously decay in 14.7minutes
says granville

ROFLOL That's no explanation. All Da Scheide did was to take up a lot of space in the forum for nothing.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 03, 2019
And so to skool

Pink and Brown
Plus and Minus
Next comes granDyvillitus

It was irresistible
This lecture by Professor Da Schneib
Defining the inscrutable, indefinable, unobservable, yet to be isolated
says granville

A Black Hole has more of a possibility of existing, as well as Da Scheide's possibility of having a vagina.
QUARK QUARK!!
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Jan 03, 2019
@egg-tarded TROLL
As to the Curses that I have had cause to wish upon Da Pussyman and his foul master, Captain Beelzebub - it is too late to change those curses. And no - they will not return to me as they are crafted in a particular way that are unchangeable at this late date
the fact that you had to write this screams that you fear the delusional nonexistent potential of your own curse coming back to haunt you

problem is: it cannot hurt anyone *but* you, as no one else believes in it
enjoy your self-created hell! LMFAO
blah blah are certainly NOT interested in whether or not a commenter has faith or beliefs in religion, Creationism, or any other humanism
I don't care what you believe
but these 2 are highly motivated to rid this website
no

your ideology and delusional beliefs have no place in *any* science discussion requiring evidence, and yet you continually interject them

that is trolling and baiting

just keep it to yourself, you idiot
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Jan 04, 2019
What are you calling "a neutron rich atomic environment"? To start with a neutron is not "atomic", it is an atomic sub-particle......OK, now answer my question.

Many Isotopes have more neutrons than protons...
Explain what happens as far as decay goes in that situation....
granville583762
5 / 5 (4) Jan 04, 2019
And so to skool
SEU
And so to skool
Pink and Brown
Plus and Minus
Next comes granDyvillitus
It was irresistible
This lecture by Professor Da Schneib
Defining the inscrutable, indefinable, unobservable, yet to be isolated
says granville
A Black Hole has more of a possibility of existing, as well as Da Scheide's possibility of having a *******.
QUARK QUARK!!

All this learned information on neutron beta decay transformation
is sourced
from Wikipedia
kindly donated
by
Learned skolars who have been to skool
this proven fact
is proved
by the fact
there is no mention
of what happens after 14.7minutes
So now we know, why no one knows
what happens after 14.7 minutes
because
we are being skooled by professors
Who also do not know
Benni
3 / 5 (4) Jan 04, 2019
What are you calling "a neutron rich atomic environment"?


To start with a neutron is not "atomic", it is an atomic sub-particle


Many Isotopes have more neutrons than protons...
Explain what happens as far as decay goes in that situation....


In the case where neutrons outnumber protons in the nucleus the isotope is "neutron rich" & therefore unstable & must shed excess neutrons to become stable via beta particle emission, beta decay if you please.

In the case where neutrons are in excess the atom eventually undergoes beta particle emission to reduce the number of neutrons that will cause the atom to become stable (non-radioactive) when the number of neutrons equal the number of protons. But keep in mind, that the beta decay process does not necessarily start the instant there is an imbalance of neutrons to protons, so don't start thinking that a 14.7 minute decay rate must start at the instant there is one more neutron than protons in the nucleus.

Protoplasmix
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 04, 2019
Many Isotopes have more neutrons than protons...
Explain what happens as far as decay goes in that situation.
One interesting likely possibility is that you'll get nuclear fission and useful energy. I'd encourage you Whyd, and everyone to look up what happens to a thorium atom when its nucleus absorbs a single neutron. Start with the Molten Salt Reactor Experiment, and in addition to some cool nuclear physics and chemistry you'll also learn (hopefully) how badly humanity got screwed out of safe plentiful energy by being forced to instead use a pathway that produces weapons-grade plutonium, dirty bomb-like meltdowns, uses only 3% available energy, and produces so much waste we still don't where to put it...
hat1208
5 / 5 (3) Jan 04, 2019
@Protoplasmix

Start with the Molten Salt Reactor Experiment,

Thanks, very interesting reading.
Whydening Gyre
4 / 5 (4) Jan 04, 2019
To start with a neutron is not "atomic", it is an atomic sub-particle

I know this, but it is IN an atom. Ergo...
In the case where neutrons outnumber protons in the nucleus the isotope is "neutron rich" & therefore unstable & must shed excess neutrons to become stable via beta particle emission, beta decay if you please.

Actually ejected?
In the case where neutrons are in excess the atom {will undergo} beta particle emission to reduce the number of neutrons that will cause the atom to become stable (non-radioactive) when the number of neutrons equal the number of protons.

This is where half-lives are applicable.
.. keep in mind, that the beta decay process does not start the instant there is an imbalance of neutrons to protons, so don't start thinking that a 14.7 minute decay rate must start at the instant there is one more neutron than protons in the nucleus.

I don't. I wanna know why the beta decay now takes longer.

Benni
3 / 5 (4) Jan 04, 2019
In the case where neutrons outnumber protons in the nucleus the isotope is "neutron rich" & therefore unstable & must shed excess neutrons to become stable via beta particle emission, beta decay if you please.


Actually ejected?
.......of course it's ejected from the nucleus, it must become unbound from the nuclear binding forces of the nucleus or it cannot undergo particle beta decay.

In the case where neutrons are in excess the atom eventually undergoes beta particle emission to reduce the number of neutrons that will cause the atom to become stable (non-radioactive) when the number of neutrons equal the number of protons


This is where half-lives are applicable.
.......No, half life radioactive decay is not associated with PARTICLE EMIISSION, it is associated ONLY with GAMMA RADIATION EMISSION. two completely different processes.

I don't. I wanna know why the beta decay now takes longer.
......"longer"? Longer than what?
Da Schneib
2 / 5 (4) Jan 04, 2019
Keep asking those good questions, @Whyde, you're causing this troll to reveal its lies.
Benni
3 / 5 (4) Jan 04, 2019
Keep asking those good questions, @Whyde, you're causing this troll to reveal its lies.


So sez Physorg's embedded idiot Moderator.
granville583762
5 / 5 (4) Jan 04, 2019
So What Is Half-life?

Half-life
The time taken for radioactivity of an isotope to fall to half its original value
Now to the nitty-gritty

a: With gamma decay, the amount of radioactivity in radioactive materials is reduced to half
The physical mass stays the same.

b: With alpha decay, two protons and two neutrons are lost four units of mass are lost.

c: Beta emission results in one neutron lost by being converted to a proton and an electron
with the electron being emitted it becomes a different element

So
Gamma-radiation is half-life, the radiation is lost
Beta radiation is half-life, an electron is lost
Alpha radiation is half-life as 4, particles are lost

As all these three, over time, their radiation reduces by half, till eventually the transformation is complete
Unless, half-life is also defined, as particles versus electromagnetic radiation?
Benni
3 / 5 (4) Jan 04, 2019
So What Is Half-life?

Half-life
The time taken for radioactivity of an isotope to fall to half its original value
Now to the nitty-gritty

a: With gamma decay, the amount of radioactivity in radioactive materials is reduced to half
The physical mass stays the same.

b: With alpha decay, two protons and two neutrons are lost four units of mass are lost.

c: Beta emission results in one neutron lost by being converted to a proton and an electron
with the electron being emitted it becomes a different element

So
Gamma-radiation is half-life, the radiation is lost
Beta radiation is half-life, an electron is lost
Alpha radiation is half-life as 4, particles are lost

As all these three, over time, their radiation reduces by half, till eventually the transformation is complete
Unless, half-life is also defined, as particles versus electromagnetic radiation?


granDy...........you lost me on this one >no stars :-)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Jan 04, 2019
Gamma-radiation is half-life, the radiation is lost
Beta radiation is half-life, an electron is lost
Alpha radiation is half-life as 4, particles are lost

As all these three, over time, their radiation reduces by half, till eventually the transformation is complete
Unless, half-life is also defined, as particles versus electromagnetic radiation?

So, now I'm just curious as to the mechanic that causes neutrons and protons to be ejected...
granville583762
5 / 5 (4) Jan 05, 2019
Distinctions in half-life
granDy...........you lost me on this one >no stars :-)

Without emission
there is no half-life
just as cosmic rays
strike the upper atmosphere
creating neutrons
where these neutrons then strike nitrogen
creating carbon14
carbon14 radiating beta-radiation
transforming carbon14 to its stable isotope
In its 5700year half-life
<>
This is little old me being curious
Without emission
there is no half-life

"half life radioactive decay is not associated with PARTICLE EMIISSION
it is associated ONLY with GAMMA RADIATION EMISSION"
<>
Because
there are copious amounts of confusion of half-life, mean life, probability of decay
and
now beta-decay
In carbon14, is particle emission, is half-life decay!
granville583762
5 / 5 (5) Jan 05, 2019
Refining distinctions in half-life

"half life radioactive decay is not associated with PARTICLE EMIISSION"
or
half-life radioactive decay
as
in radioactive decay
granville583762> Unless, half-life is also defined, as particles versus electromagnetic radiation?

This secondary half-life distinction
concerning radioactive decay
beta radiation versus gamma radiation
as in electron-emission versus electromagnetic-emission
As far as I know
Electron-emission affects the human body
where as
Gamma-radiation effects the human body
because
Without emission
there is no half-life

So what is this Distinction?
granville583762
5 / 5 (5) Jan 05, 2019
Transformation in radioactive decay

An atom of carbon14 versus a single neutron
carbon14 with 6 protons and 8 neutrons
equalises its nucleon to stability in the atom
where as
a free neutron
unbound from the nuclear binding forces of an atom of carbon14
although internally
a neutron has in its femto-metre nuclear force
there is a distinction
carbon14 has 14 nucleons
a neutron has 1 nucleon
so although
a neutron radiates beta-radiation stabilising this single nucleon
in exactly the same process as carbon14 achieves stability
distinction is in numbers of nucleons only
because
in particle emission
involving neutrons emitting electrons in beta-decay
in carbon14 there is not an immediate urgency to decay
as there are 14 nucleons of binding force preventing an individual neutron from decaying
where as
a free neutron only has its own single binding force preventing decay
A free neutron is going to decay in 14.7minutes
Benni
3 / 5 (4) Jan 05, 2019
So, now I'm just curious as to the mechanic that causes neutrons and protons to be ejected


Actually ejected?
> Whyguy, here, I reapeat
of course it's ejected from the nucleus, it must become unbound from the nuclear binding forces of the nucleus or it cannot undergo particle beta decay.


The mechanics a neutron overcomes to become unbound from the nucleus is because there are so many neutrons within the nucleus that the shared energy of the nuclear binding forces is spread so thinly across a large mass of neutrons.

Every neutron bound within the nucleus requires a minimum quantity of binding energy to KEEP it bound to the nucleus. There is a maximum quantity of nuclear force binding energy available inside every atomic nucleus that must be shared by all the subatomic particles to keep the nucleus together. Adding a neutron to a nucleus causes the shared binding energy available to all the other particles to become weaker creating ejection potential
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Jan 05, 2019
The mechanics a neutron overcomes to become unbound from the nucleus is because there are so many neutrons within the nucleus that the shared energy of the nuclear binding forces is spread so thinly across a large mass of neutrons.

Every neutron bound within the nucleus requires a minimum quantity of binding energy to KEEP it bound to the nucleus. There is a maximum quantity of nuclear force binding energy available inside every atomic nucleus that must be shared by all the subatomic particles to keep the nucleus together. Adding a neutron to a nucleus causes the shared binding energy available to all the other particles to become weaker creating ejection potential

This the kind of answer I was looking for. Keep up the good work.
Benni
3 / 5 (4) Jan 05, 2019
The mechanics a neutron overcomes to become unbound from the nucleus is because there are so many neutrons within the nucleus that the shared energy of the nuclear binding forces is spread so thinly across a large mass of neutrons.

Every neutron bound within the nucleus requires a minimum quantity of binding energy to KEEP it bound to the nucleus. There is a maximum quantity of nuclear force binding energy available inside every atomic nucleus that must be shared by all the subatomic particles to keep the nucleus together. Adding a neutron to a nucleus causes the shared binding energy available to all the other particles to become weaker creating ejection potential

This the kind of answer I was looking for. Keep up the good work.


Yer welcome.

granville583762
5 / 5 (6) Jan 05, 2019
Nuclear binding force
There is a maximum quantity of nuclear force binding energy available inside every atomic nucleus that must be shared by all the subatomic particles to keep the nucleus together

Is the sum total of all the nucleons
as each nucleon has a nuclear binding force
where the total nuclear binding force has a quantity of energy depending on the mass defect
but
Protons require more force to hold their selves together because of positive repulsion
where as
Neutrons being electrically neutral are not repelling each other requiring little force holding their selves together
being that the energy is shared amongst all the nucleons
A proton is more likely to be ejected than a neutron?
granville583762
5 / 5 (5) Jan 05, 2019
Or is this the coiled spring analogy

Each nucleon has the same nuclear binding force
where this force
is the same for each nucleon
the protons being held together against the coulomb force
are
more likely to be ejected
than neutrons, that by being neutral are held together more strongly
and
because
the neutron is more massive than the proton
having more mass defect energy than the proton
the neutron has more energy available to hold neutrons together
Preventing them from being ejected
Benni
3 / 5 (4) Jan 05, 2019
Or is this the coiled spring analogy

Each nucleon has the same nuclear binding force
where this force
is the same for each nucleon
the protons being held together against the coulomb force
are
more likely to be ejected
than neutrons, that by being neutral are held together more strongly
and
because
the neutron is more massive than the proton
having more mass defect energy than the proton
the neutron has more energy available to hold neutrons together
Preventing them from being ejected


For so long as the nuclear binding forces of the nucleus are stronger than the forces that would tear a neutron apart via beta decay, the neutron will not become unbound to the nucleus, it's a tug of war issue between the forces in the neutron that cause beta decay & the nuclear binding force of the nucleus neutralizing those beta decay forces via overwhelming strength. When the strength of the nuclear binding force is weakened so will it's hold on a neutron.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (2) Jan 05, 2019
Or is this the coiled spring analogy

Each nucleon has the same nuclear binding force
where this force
is the same for each nucleon
the protons being held together against the coulomb force
are
more likely to be ejected
than neutrons, that by being neutral are held together more strongly
and
because
the neutron is more massive than the proton
having more mass defect energy than the proton
the neutron has more energy available to hold neutrons together
Preventing them from being ejected
says granville

Aaah I am learning so much already from you and Benni - even some from Whyde. It is such a pleasure to read the comments from the two of you who express so much more knowledge than the pretenders like Da Scheide who only comes in to toot his horn and to troll the unwary.

Keep on, guys. Eventually, you will happen upon the Science of Everything - or before Armageddon - whichever comes first.
:)
granville583762
5 / 5 (5) Jan 06, 2019
In honour of Bennie infamous half a neutron

This Breath of Fresh Air, thank you SEU
A refreshing air of late is blowing over this world
this femto-world
that this Christmas eve
this New years eve
this 2019
that in all the time
that phys.orgs
quantum fluctuation
this spirit
this spirit of granDy
materialised
from time
from space
into ethereal existence
into consciousness
that
Bennies
half a neutron
is now evolving
as the quantum fluctuations
encompass
all the finrot
all the obfuscations
under their bridges
hope fully
out of sight
out of mind
as
phys.org
is reborn
This 2019
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Jan 06, 2019
Nuclear binding force
There is a maximum quantity of nuclear force binding energy available inside every atomic nucleus that must be shared by all the subatomic particles to keep the nucleus together

Is the sum total of all the nucleons
as each nucleon has a nuclear binding force
where the total nuclear binding force has a quantity of energy depending on the mass defect
but
Protons require more force to hold their selves together because of positive repulsion

Electron containment in addition to strong n weak force?
where as
Neutrons being electrically neutral are not repelling each other requiring little force holding their selves together
being that the energy is shared amongst all the nucleons
A proton is more likely to be ejected than a neutron?

a perplexing poser...
savvys84
5 / 5 (1) Jan 07, 2019
Lol string theory? Let the funding keep rolling

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.