Researchers discover black hole in our galaxy spinning rapidly around itself

January 16, 2019, University of Southampton
Researchers discover black hole in our galaxy spinning rapidly around itself
The Chandra images show pairs of huge bubbles, or cavities, in the hot gaseous atmospheres of the galaxies, created in each case by jets produced by a central supermassive black hole. Credit: X-ray: NASA/CXC Illustration: CXC/M. Weiss.

A University of Southampton-led project has shown a black hole spinning near its maximum possible rate around its axis.

The study, funded by the Royal Society and published in the Astrophysical Journal, comprised an international team of astronomers led by the University and sheds more light on the characteristics of black holes and the environment surrounding them.

Using observations from state-of-the-art technology, the team of researchers found evidence that a stellar-mass black hole in our galaxy (known as 4U 1630-472) is rotating rapidly (at a speed of 92-95 per cent of the theoretically-allowed rotational speed) around its axis while sucking in falling material. It is subject to gravitational stresses and temperatures so high that it begins to shine brightly in X-rays, which were seen by astronomers using telescopes.

According to Einstein's General Theory of Relativity (GR), if a black hole is rotating rapidly, then it will modify the space and time around it in a way which is different than that for a black hole which is not rotating.

Such modifications from high spin rates leave an impression on the shape of the radiation from the material rotating very close to the black hole before disappearing. Therefore, if the change in shape of the emitting spectra can be determined somehow, then the GR can be used to measure the black hole spin.

The findings from this study are significant as previously high spin rates of approximately five black holes have been quantified accurately.

Dr. Mayukh Pahari, from the University of Southampton and lead author, said: "Detecting signatures that allow us to measure spin is extremely difficult. The signature is embedded in the spectral information which is very specific to the rate at which matter falls into the black hole. The spectra, however, are often very complex mostly due to the radiation from the environment around the black hole.

"During our observations we were lucky enough to obtain a spectrum directly from the radiation of the matter falling into the black hole and simple enough to measure the distortion caused by the rotating black hole."

A black hole is created when a massive star dies and the matter gets squeezed into a tiny space under a heavy force of gravity, trapping in the light. The is so strong that the entire mass of the stellar core is crushed into a theoretical point. This point, however, cannot be directly seen, because nothing, not even light, can escape from a region around it, thus justifying the name of the object.

Astronomical can be fully characterised by only two properties: mass and spin rate. Therefore, measurements of these two properties are uniquely important to probe some extreme aspects of the universe and the fundamental physics related to them.

Explore further: Image: Black hole bounty captured in the center of the Milky Way

More information: Mayukh Pahari et al. AstroSat and Chandra View of the High Soft State of 4U 1630–47 (4U 1630–472): Evidence of the Disk Wind and a Rapidly Spinning Black Hole, The Astrophysical Journal (2018). DOI: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae53b

Related Stories

Black hole spin cranks-up radio volume

January 12, 2018

Statistical analysis of supermassive black holes suggests that the spin of the black hole may play a role in the generation of powerful high-speed jets blasting radio waves and other radiation across the universe.

The aligned spin of a black hole

August 1, 2016

A black hole in traditional theory is characterized by having "no hair," that is, it is so simple that it can be completely described by just three parameters, its mass, its spin, and its electric charge. Even though it may ...

Recommended for you

Observation of quantized heating in quantum matter

February 19, 2019

Shaking a physical system typically heats it up, in the sense that the system continuously absorbs energy. When considering a circular shaking pattern, the amount of energy that is absorbed can potentially depend on the orientation ...

Sound waves let quantum systems 'talk' to one another

February 18, 2019

Researchers at the University of Chicago and Argonne National Laboratory have invented an innovative way for different types of quantum technology to "talk" to each other using sound. The study, published Feb. 11 in Nature ...

445 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Benni
1.7 / 5 (22) Jan 16, 2019
"According to Einstein's General Theory of Relativity (GR), if a black hole is rotating rapidly, then it will modify the space and time around it in a way which is different than that for a black hole which is not rotating."

There is no such reference to "a black hole" in Einstein's GR.
Nik_2213
4.2 / 5 (26) Jan 16, 2019
@Benni, 'Strawman Argument'. There's no reference to cell-phones in Maxwell's equations but, as you may have noticed, they still work...
joel in oakland
4.4 / 5 (20) Jan 16, 2019
@ Benni - What's a "reference" in a series of math equations?

As I think we all know, GR fails at some point inside the event horizon, but it certainly predicts/incorporates the possibility of black holes.
cantdrive85
2.3 / 5 (21) Jan 16, 2019
It is subject to gravitational stresses and temperatures so high that it begins to shine brightly in X-rays, which were seen by astronomers using telescopes.


So in essence, no BH detected, only X-rays. Everything else conjectured is pure speculation based on that one observation. The X-rays could very well be evidence of a plasma discharge, no BH needed.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (23) Jan 16, 2019
It is subject to gravitational stresses and temperatures so high that it begins to shine brightly in X-rays, which were seen by astronomers using telescopes.


So in essence, no BH detected, only X-rays. Everything else conjectured is pure speculation based on that one observation. The X-rays could very well be evidence of a plasma discharge, no BH needed.


Lol.
MrBojangles
3.5 / 5 (19) Jan 16, 2019
So in essence, no BH detected, only X-rays. Everything else conjectured is pure speculation based on that one observation. The X-rays could very well be evidence of a plasma discharge, no BH needed.


There's evidence for black holes between your ears.
Honestly though, why not just hang out at the Thunderbolts forums where you might actually be taken seriously?
cantdrive85
2.1 / 5 (14) Jan 16, 2019
I prefer to mock morons who believe in unicorns and faerie dust.
Old_C_Code
2.5 / 5 (8) Jan 16, 2019
No mention of it's distance from us, what a lousy article.
Osiris1
3.9 / 5 (11) Jan 16, 2019
Methinks '@Benni....has some 'fiends....naww 'friends' (sorry ..typo) here of the dubious duplicate doppelganger signins type. Put out some drivel and then two with different names parrot the post and slavishly agree with him/her. Heyyy @Benni...how many of 'you' are out there at this time, not having been put back into your dark closet yet.
Benni
1.7 / 5 (16) Jan 16, 2019
It is subject to gravitational stresses and temperatures so high that it begins to shine brightly in X-rays, which were seen by astronomers using telescopes.


So in essence, no BH detected, only X-rays. Everything else conjectured is pure speculation based on that one observation. The X-rays could very well be evidence of a plasma discharge, no BH needed.


Or it could be aliens operating xray hospital equipment, or maybe a nuclear power plant on some planet deep inside the galaxy that has melted down.
hat1208
3.9 / 5 (14) Jan 16, 2019
@Osiris1

There are many many derivatives of Benni the butt hurt plagiarist.
RealityCheck
3.3 / 5 (15) Jan 16, 2019
@Forum.

The 'feuding trolls exchange' above reminds me of the old speculative 'supersymmetry' concept.

You know, wherein: Every 'standard model particle' allegedly had its supersymmetric 's' counterpart....as in Electron and 'sElectron'; Muon and 'sMuon' etc.

Only here it's: Every 'standard feuding troll' has its supersymmetric counterpart....as in Troll and 'sTroll'. :)

Trolls and sTrolls happy rolling around mudslinging together in their respective versions of Bliss and 'sBliss'.

What symmetry! Almost beautiful, in a way. A perpetual feuding exercise in Futility and 'sFutility'. :)

MrBojangles
3.5 / 5 (16) Jan 16, 2019
unicorns and faerie dust.


Are those codenames for Velikovsky?
JaxPavan
4 / 5 (12) Jan 16, 2019
@Benni,

I'm sure the reporter meant to write Einstein's SPECIAL theory of relativity, not the general one.

It's not the only mistake:

The reporter also writes: "Astronomical black holes can be fully characterised by only two properties: mass and spin rate. "

If I remember correctly there is a third: charge.

It's still a cool discovery though.
Osiris1
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 16, 2019
There exist in our galaxy, and astronomers have found and cataloged them, neutron stars, and recently quark stars. The next step after these is posited the black holes. Once, before quark stars were discovered, the same was said as the next step after neutron stars.

In physics discussions among the 'pro's in the past couple of decades or so, the subject of next levels of smallness was posited and proposed to be 'preons' with even more fractional charges and less masses. Just like the quarks were dreamt of before that. We proved the quarks and then found the stars made of them.

I think the same will be attendant to proving 'preons'...and then better telescopes like China's FAST will find the preons if they have not already in classified research. First finding of these will certainly be classified as they may lead to military uses. This family of particles may just include gravitons!! And others that have capacities for mass western mayhem. We BETTER get busy!!
Whydening Gyre
3.8 / 5 (11) Jan 16, 2019
@Benni,

I'm sure the reporter meant to write Einstein's SPECIAL theory of relativity, not the general one.

It's not the only mistake:

The reporter also writes: "Astronomical black holes can be fully characterised by only two properties: mass and spin rate. "

If I remember correctly there is a third: charge.

It's still a cool discovery though.

I thought I read something bout magnetic fields, as well...
Benni
1.8 / 5 (14) Jan 16, 2019
I'm sure the reporter meant to write Einstein's SPECIAL theory of relativity, not the general one.


Maybe he's confusing the two, I don't actually know because it's hard to get inside the brain of a person who imagines infinite gravity can exist at the surface & center of a finite stellar mass.

The biggest obstacle he's dealing with is his bias of the Pop Cosmology War against Science in which well known immutable laws of physics just because a bunch of overage Trekkies can't give up an old television series.

Benni
1.6 / 5 (13) Jan 16, 2019
There exist in our galaxy, and astronomers have found and cataloged them, neutron stars
.....no they haven't........got a pic? Do you even know that the hypothetically largest N-star is? 2-5 miles in case you didn't. We don't have optics with resolution to observe the closest so-called Nstar 500 light years away.

and recently quark stars.
A quark has never been isolated to prove it even exists, How do you know something exists for which there is no evidence it can be REAL, more Pop-Cosmology fantasy, like dark matter.
granville583762
3 / 5 (10) Jan 16, 2019
Magnetars, Pulsars and BHs

According to Einstein's General Theory of Relativity (GR), if a black hole is rotating rapidly, then it will modify the space and time around it in a way which is different than that for a black hole which is not rotating.

A BH is an ex-pulsar
as yet no non spinning pulsar star has been detected
untill a non spinning pulsar is detected
as BHs are pulsar stars
the probabilities of a non spinning ex-pulsar blackhole
existing in this vacuum are 100% zero
as with 100% certainty
all blackholes spin
and by virtue of their reduced diameter
spin more rapidly than when they existed as pulsar stars

All blackholes spin faster than their pulsar stars
Osiris1
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 16, 2019
There yet may be more to be learnt about black holes. Like classes of them for all are not perfectly black, as the late Steven Hawking posited. Some new particle discoveries may have their associated stars be appear as black holes, as escape from any body that forces speeds in excess of 'c' must needs be called 'black' Decreasing size leads to greater matter density in the associated star, and increasing activation energy needed to prove their partical's existence...orders of magnitude greater. This puts limits on discovery pending enabling technologies to provide the activation energy for their proofs of existence.

The gaining of these enabling technologies will unlock technologies associated with each level we gain....like a video game run by the mad Red Queen in a Lewis Carroll book. I would really like to see some of these. However, much of the new tech will require hot labs in space on the other side of the sun or beyond neptune. Unbound energies close by quite deadly
CAMason
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 16, 2019
So how fast is it spinning?
granville583762
3.2 / 5 (11) Jan 16, 2019
RealityCheck's joyous Trollians

< Trolls and sTrolls happy rolling together >

Dancing a spiral we sing unaware
On fairy night wings our songs fill the air
Making a circle of magic and light
Watched silently by the Fey of the night

The songs in the night
As we dance round the flame
The Fairy Nightsongs are never the same
The words from our lips as we sing for the night
Impart to the Fey our hearts truest sight

The feuding troll's exchange
Only here
it's
every standard feuding troll has its super symmetric counterpart
as in Troll and sTroll
Trolls and sTrolls happy rolling around mudslinging together
in their respective versions of Bliss and sBliss
What symmetry!
Almost beautiful, in a way
A perpetual feuding exercise
in Futility and sFutility

In memory of TrollianRealityCheck
whose ghost haunts
The real trollians under their bridges contemplating fin rot
Da Schneib
4.1 / 5 (13) Jan 16, 2019
The cranks are kinda fuzzy on how the whole spectroscope thing works.

Found the paper on arXiv: https://arxiv.org...10.01275

I'll look it over for you, @CAMason, and see if I can get enough information to figure it out. For starters, it's 92-95% of the maximum speed allowed for a Kerr black hole; since the Kerr equations are general relativity, it probably depends on the mass of the hole and the size of its event horizon, which, I will warn you, I am far too lazy to work out.
Whydening Gyre
4.2 / 5 (10) Jan 16, 2019
There exist in our galaxy, and astronomers have found and cataloged them, neutron stars
.....no they haven't........got a pic? Do you even know that the hypothetically largest N-star is? 2-5 miles in case you didn't. We don't have optics with resolution to observe the closest so-called Nstar 500 light years away.

Not to nit pick, but...
the typical N-star runs at about 12m in diameter...
prob'ly better to use mass limits to be more exact....
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (12) Jan 16, 2019
Bad news, @CAMason. I was right; it depends upon the mass of the hole and the size of the event horizon, and although they can see spectral features that give them the spin rate in those terms, this particular hole is in the galactic disk and is obscured by its gas and dust. Those are the best figures you're gonna get. The best answer to your question is, 92-95% of the maximum possible for a black hole of its mass. The mass is unknown, though it's known to be stellar mass, that is, less than 500% of the mass of our Sun.
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (14) Jan 16, 2019
There exist in our galaxy, and astronomers have found and cataloged them, neutron stars
.....no they haven't........got a pic? Do you even know that the hypothetically largest N-star is? 2-5 miles in case you didn't. We don't have optics with resolution to observe the closest so-called Nstar 500 light years away.

Not to nit pick, but...
the typical N-star runs at about 12m in diameter...
prob'ly better to use mass limits to be more exact....
The correct answer is "yes, we have spectrograms."

Spectrograms are pictures.
Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (10) Jan 16, 2019
Bad news, @CAMason. I was right; it depends upon the mass of the hole and the size of the event horizon, and although they can see spectral features that give them the spin rate in those terms, this particular hole is in the galactic disk and is obscured by its gas and dust. Those are the best figures you're gonna get. The best answer to your question is, 92-95% of the maximum possible for a black hole of its mass. The mass is unknown, though it's known to be stellar mass, that is, less than 500% of the mass of our Sun.

In addition, I found a reasonable explanation and methodology here;
https://astronomy...ack-hole
Benni
1.7 / 5 (12) Jan 16, 2019
There exist in our galaxy, and astronomers have found and cataloged them, neutron stars
.....no they haven't........got a pic? Do you even know that the hypothetically largest N-star is? 2-5 miles in case you didn't. We don't have optics with resolution to observe the closest so-called Nstar 500 light years away.

Not to nit pick, but...
the typical N-star runs at about 12m in diameter...
prob'ly better to use mass limits to be more exact....


OK, so if YOU want to nit pik like you say you don't want to do, I can give you an exact dimension, 0 miles. In other words they don't exist if you find you too are unable, like schneibo, to decipher what zero means.

Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 16, 2019
@Osiris1

There are many many derivatives of Benni the butt hurt plagiarist.
says hat1208

Prove it or STFU
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (12) Jan 16, 2019
I can't imagine the arrogance and foolishness it takes to fail to understand radioactive decay, in front of a bunch of people who do understand it, while claiming to be a nuclear physicist.

As for nutjobs who claim to be telepathic aliens, that isn't even foolishness, it's psychosis.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.2 / 5 (10) Jan 16, 2019
@Forum.

The 'feuding trolls exchange' above reminds me of the old speculative 'supersymmetry' concept.

You know, wherein: Every 'standard model particle' allegedly had its supersymmetric 's' counterpart....as in Electron and 'sElectron'; Muon and 'sMuon' etc.

Only here it's: Every 'standard feuding troll' has its supersymmetric counterpart....as in Troll and 'sTroll'. :)

Trolls and sTrolls happy rolling around mudslinging together in their respective versions of Bliss and 'sBliss'.

What symmetry! Almost beautiful, in a way. A perpetual feuding exercise in Futility and 'sFutility'. :)

says RealityCheck

Yes. I've noticed since I've been posting that certain regular posters in physorg phorums just positively HATE IT when someone comes along with new ideas that seem highly probabilistic AND scientific - so that these persons just HAVE TO shoot down not only what was said, but also denigrate, insult and vilify the person himself in their fit of jealousy & worry
Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (11) Jan 16, 2019
There seems to be a titch of brolls on this site who don't like science and are incapable of understanding it. Some of them are literally insane, while others are just trollish, looking for some kind of acknowledgement without really understanding what's required to get anything but mockery.

The common characteristics are arrogance and lack of scientific knowledge, and most of this appears to be motivated by jealousy and envy because they're not smart enough to figure it out even when it's explained to them in terms adapted to the smallest mentality. One has to wonder whether they're really this stupid or simply so desperate to be acknowledged that they cannot stop themselves.

It's quite pitiful, actually. But do we really need to continue to interact with these individuals? Just put them on ignore and they can troll each other. Nobody really cares what they say, nor should they.

A simple statement of this on every thread where they appear should be sufficient.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (8) Jan 17, 2019
The correct answer is "yes, we have spectrograms."

Spectrograms are pictures.
says Da Pussyman

Pictures? Well, according to Wikipaedia:

"A spectrogram is a visual representation of the spectrum of frequencies of sound or other signal as they vary with time. Spectrograms are sometimes called sonographs, voiceprints, or voicegrams. When the data is represented in a 3D plot they may be called waterfalls.

Spectrograms are used extensively in the fields of music, sonar, radar, and speech processing,[1] seismology, and others. Spectrograms of audio can be used to identify spoken words phonetically, and to analyse the various calls of animals."

IOW it's a Graph - NOT a picture.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (8) Jan 17, 2019
-contd-
Whereas, a SpectroGRAPH is, according to Wiki:

"Not to be confused with Spectrogram.
A spectrograph is an instrument that separates light by its wavelengths and records this data.[2] A spectrograph typically has a multi-channel detector system or camera that detects and records the spectrum of light.[2][3]
The term was first used in 1876 by Dr. Henry Draper when he invented the earliest version of this device, and which he used to take several photographs of the spectrum of Vega. This earliest version of the spectrograph was cumbersome to use and difficult to manage.[4]"

This instrument is also not producing a "picture" per se, but still only a Graph.
Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (11) Jan 17, 2019
It's just a picture rendered in terms your eyes are not fully adapted to.

We see color; that's frequency. Red is low, green is middle, blue is high. Those are the receptors you have in your eyes; you can't see anything else, for example, radio, microwave, terahertz, infrared, ultraviolet, X-ray, or gamma rays.

But instruments can detect them, and they do. And they are presented in pictures comprised of their detection portrayed in various colors so your limited eyes can see them.

That this was not obvious indicates your ignorance, and if you refuse to learn it, your stupidity. Your limitations are not the limitations of the universe. Get over it.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (9) Jan 17, 2019
"Jealousy and envy" says Da Pussyman who describes himself very accurately and, as I said to RealityCheck - that certain regular posters in physorg phorums just positively HATE IT when someone comes along with new ideas that seem highly probabilistic AND scientific - so that these persons (like Da Pussyman Schneibo) just HAVE TO shoot down not only what was said, but also denigrate, insult and vilify the person himself in his/their fit of jealousy & worry about keeping his/their place as "top dog" in the physorg echelons of posting pecking order.
Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (11) Jan 17, 2019
And on the other hand, spectrographs are able to separate light to a degree human eyes cannot; spectral lines are visible in the crudest spectrogram, that are invisible to the human eye unless they are so revealed. The frequency discriminating retinae are not capable of this fine discrimination.

And BTW I used the terms correctly; you're simply incapable of understanding what I said (or unwilling to acknowledge it) because of your fantasy-driven psychotic delusions. For example this one: https://pbs.twimg...pg:large

I am totally serious, @SEU: go to a mental health professional, tell them this stuff you believe about being an alien and there being aliens controlling the government or populace, and take the medicine they give you. It will make you feel better.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 17, 2019
It's just a picture rendered in terms your eyes are not fully adapted to.

We see color; that's frequency. Red is low, green is middle, blue is high. Those are the receptors you have in your eyes; you can't see anything else, for example, radio, microwave, terahertz, infrared, ultraviolet, X-ray, or gamma rays.

But instruments can detect them, and they do. And they are presented in pictures comprised of their detection portrayed in various colors so your limited eyes can see them.

That this was not obvious indicates your ignorance, and if you refuse to learn it, your stupidity. Your limitations are not the limitations of the universe.
says DaPussyman Schneibo

Colourised graphs is all they are - with descriptions of what each colour represents. They are not pictures of Black Holes or Neutron Stars. These graphs are easily read and the descriptions well understood - but they are still not pictures of actual images such as Black Holes and Neutron Stars.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (12) Jan 17, 2019
No, "colorized graphs" is not all they are. This was discovered by William Hyde Wollaston and Joseph Frauhofer, when they used lenses to focus the light through a prism to a screen. At the highest resolution they could achieve with nineteenth century lenscraft, Fraunhofer was able to detect over 600 spectral lines in light from the Sun, lines no human eye could see. That's a picture.

You really ought to study this stuff if you're going to bloviate on the science site. It's been known for two and a half centuries. And it is taught in every basic textbook and class.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.2 / 5 (10) Jan 17, 2019
I am totally serious, @SEU: go to a mental health professional, tell them this stuff you believe about being an alien and there being aliens controlling the government or populace, and take the medicine they give you. It will make you feel better.
says Pussyman Schneibo

Provide the link to where I ever said that I'm and "alien" or that I ever said that "aliens" are CONTROLLING the government or populace - and I will believe you. Until you can produce the evidence without changing the wording - YOU ARE A DAMNED LIAR.
LOL You always repeat yourself in almost every physorg phorum - word for word - which is a clear indication that it is YOU that requires psychiatric care and drugs.
Why are you commenting in physorg when you clearly have severe mental issues, as well as happily copying the words/ideas of others like myself?
You should find another science website where they will treat you far better than you are treated here. Now get lost, loser.
ROFLMAO
Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (13) Jan 17, 2019
The links have been provided by me and others.

Like all trolls, you deny what you said.

And I keep repeating it because you keep denying it. I simply don't care enough to bother with you.

Noted you have no response to real assertions about spectrographs, and spectrograms, that you obviously either don't understand or are lying about in order to troll for your imaginary super magic sky daddy:https://pbs.twimg...pg:large
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.8 / 5 (10) Jan 17, 2019
No, "colorized graphs" is not all they are. This was discovered by William Hyde Wollaston and Joseph Frauhofer, when they used lenses to focus the light through a prism to a screen. At the highest resolution they could achieve with nineteenth century lenscraft, Fraunhofer was able to detect over 600 spectral lines in light from the Sun, lines no human eye could see. That's a picture.

You really ought to study this stuff if you're going to bloviate on the science site. It's been known for two and a half centuries. And it is taught in every basic textbook and class.

says the bloviating Pussyman Schneibo

Nope. Still not a picture/image of a Black Hole or Neutron Star. Spectral lines are spectral LINES. The only instrument that RECORDS those lines is a camera. But that doesn't make it a PICTURE.
Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (12) Jan 17, 2019
LOL

"Cameras don't make pictures"

We done here?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.8 / 5 (10) Jan 17, 2019
The links have been provided by me and others.

Like all trolls, you deny what you said.

And I keep repeating it because you keep denying it. I simply don't care enough to bother with you.

Noted you have no response to real assertions about spectrographs, and spectrograms, that you obviously either don't understand or are lying about.
says Pussyman Schneibo

So where is your proof? If there is PROOF, I would not be able to deny it.
Show me/us or STFU, loser

I see that you are probably working on 2 computers, since you are posting in less than the 3 minute waiting period for each post.
Da Schneib
3.2 / 5 (11) Jan 17, 2019
LOL

You said, "Cameras don't make pictures."

If that's not trolling what is it? You're either psychotic and experiencing delusions, or trolling.

What further point is there in this conversation?

Now go try to cover it up with fifteen irrelevant posts.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.8 / 5 (10) Jan 17, 2019
LOL

You said, "Cameras don't make pictures."

If that's not trolling what is it? You're either psychotic and experiencing delusions, or trolling.

What further point is there in this conversation?

Now go try to cover it up with fifteen irrelevant posts.
says Pussyman Schneibo

LIAR. HOW did you manage to think that "The only instrument that RECORDS those lines is a camera. But that doesn't make it a PICTURE." translates into "cameras don't make pictures"?
You should lay off all that booze, loser. Your brain is shrinking.
Da Schneib
3.2 / 5 (11) Jan 17, 2019
LOL

You know nothing of astronomy not to mention astrophysics.

I have held in my hands plates made at the largest telescopes in the world, made by a man who made a hypothesis about T-Tauri stars and turned it into a theory with his data at the AAS meeting in a year I will not specify to avoid you trolling him too. They show both stars and offset spectrograms for those stars on the same emulsion. I have examined these with a microscope.

You have absolutely not the slightest idea what you are talking about.
Steelwolf
2.5 / 5 (8) Jan 17, 2019
A spectrogram is a data set concerning a single or small set of pixels based on refraction and impact of the light from those small areas in a spectrograpic comb sorting by photon energy and showing the constituent levels of light (and breaks) from each frequency across the spectrum. It is not a picture per se, but a data reading about a subset of the picture. Taking several spectrographic shots at different areas of the same target object can give various readings allowing one to build up a representative graph of corresponding brightness and materials as well as relative proportions of materials, but it is still not a 'picture' but a representative graph that would require artist assist.

You can have a picture of a spectrogram, as we get here on Physorg, we see data from spectrographs in articles a lot of times so there should be little question about this.

DS, your knee is jerking again over petty definitions, proving yer trollsomeness, yet again.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (10) Jan 17, 2019
Ummm, apparently @Steel doesn't know anything about astronomy or astrophysics before the invention of CCDs.

Sorry you're ignorant.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 17, 2019
LOL

You know nothing of astronomy not to mention astrophysics.

I have held in my hands plates made at the largest telescopes in the world, made by a man who made a hypothesis about T-Tauri stars and turned it into a theory with his data at the AAS meeting in a year I will not specify to avoid you trolling him too. They show both stars and offset spectrograms for those stars on the same emulsion. I have examined these with a microscope.

You have absolutely not the slightest idea what you are talking about.
says Da Pussyman

You have held in your hands dirty dishes that needed washing, you mean. What emulsion? So, he used film-based photography that required developing the images onto photographic paper, eh? So what? You had to use a microscope to see stars? You don't need a microscope to see stars. You only need to enlarge the image on the photographic paper to see any stars. Who do you think you're fooling anyway?
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (10) Jan 17, 2019
Another one who doesn't know anything about astronomy or astrophysics, in this case either before or after the invention of CCDs, or at any other time either. No paper, no film. Plates. Photographic plates. Google it.

You know, from back in the day.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 17, 2019
Now tell the truth for once, Schnieb. How did a humongous turd like YOU get to pretend to this hypothesist/theorist that you were capable of interpreting what was on the "plates" or the spectrograph that was on photographic paper? Did you slip him a fiver? Or did you tell him a story that you had to get your hands on plates so that you could go back to physorg and brag that you "held in my hands" plates made at the largest telescopes in the world?
You DO love to tell lies and you DO a lot of bragging in physorg phorums for someone who spends so much time on physorg phorums trying to get a lot of praise and accolades from those whom you want most to impress. And they know who they are.
SkyLight
3.5 / 5 (8) Jan 17, 2019
Using observations from state-of-the-art technology, the team of researchers found evidence that a stellar-mass black hole in our galaxy (known as 4U 1630-472) is rotating rapidly
So, "observations" and "evidence". If you want the evidence to come in the form of a nice picture of this BH, you're definitely in the wrong place. This the "Astronomy & Space" section of phys.org, a site dedicated to presenting news of physics.

To an astronomer, a picture - an image caught by a camera - which shows details of the morphology of an object, is just as useful as a spectrum showing details of continuum emission and line-emission and -absorption features of an object, or part of an extended object. Just as useful, but for different reasons

The paper states that "X-ray spectral and timing analysis" of a transient black hole X-ray binary observed with the AstroSat, Chandra and MAXI space missions during its soft X-ray outburst in
2016.

[TBC]
SkyLight
3.5 / 5 (8) Jan 17, 2019
[continued]

The paper states that
Separate spectral fits of Chandra/HEG, AstroSat/SXT+LAXPC and Chandra/HEG+AstroSat/SXT+LAXPC data show that the broadband continuum can be well described with a relativistic disk-blackbody model
and that
Our conclusion of a rapidly-spinning black hole in 4U 1630–47 using the continuum spectrum method is in agreement with a previous finding applying the reflection spectral fitting method.
which is just a way of saying that the data and analysis of the data are in agreement with previous findings. Nothing more than that: they're claiming no earth-shattering great discovery. Just data acquisition, data analysis and conclusion; all clearly laid out for anybody to read or to re-analyze if they so wished.

This is how science progresses: mostly in small, careful steps into the unknown. The sum total of all such steps is known as scientific progress. If you want nice color pictures to gaze and drool at, try elsewhere!
Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (11) Jan 17, 2019
BTW, there are excellent reasons why plates continued to be used by astronomers prior to the invention of CCDs. Primary among them, film can crinkle or deform in the camera; a plate cannot. It's a solid piece of glass, in astronomy use generally quartz because of its low thermal coefficient. The glass is covered with emulsion, placed in the holder in the telescope, and exposed, generally for hours. Once CCDs came along, of course, all this went away for lots of obvious reasons. But there are archives full of plates still around.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 17, 2019
The "transient Black Hole" is still only a hypothesis. The same with the alleged Dark Matter. Until they can produce an image/picture that has a visible Black Hole in it - it is not a fact. Since the Black Hole is allegedly at the centre of the Milky Way galaxy, it should be readily seen, for in comparison, there are galaxies much farther away whose Stars, even some planets, are seen quite well. Why the big discrepancy when Sgr A is in our own backyard?
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (10) Jan 17, 2019
So, no more smartass remarks about plates?

Thought not.
SkyLight
3.9 / 5 (11) Jan 17, 2019
@SEU - why do you bother? Your every statement in this forum - by virtue of the woolly thinking you display and your habit of haphazardly stringing together of scientific terms - mark you out as a person who has received no formal scientific training.

You appear to have collected a poor notion of science, and of how science is conducted, from popularized accounts of science where the authors are careful not to tax their readers with any details of the math or methodologies which underpin all scientific enquiry.

Then, armed with a hazy recollection of what you have gleaned from such text-based accounts of science, you arrive at a place like this forum, where you imagine that all the others here have likewise gained their scientific knowledge in a similar fashion.

Imagine your surprise and consternation then, when you discover that some of the people here have spent years earning degrees in science subjects, and who can very easily spot ill-informed frauds like you.
Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (11) Jan 17, 2019
It's probably best not to argue about astrophotography with an astrophotographer.

I own a Nikon F3 which I bought specifically to do low-stop astrophotography. I tried it a couple times on my SCT but the focus is too critical at F10; lowering the focal ratio to under 5 seemed to be good enough, though.
SkyLight
3.8 / 5 (10) Jan 17, 2019
there are excellent reasons why plates continued to be used by astronomers prior to the invention of CCDs
True, but plates could also have their problems.

I well remember the so-called "gold spot" problem where many plate-exposures taken at the UK Schmidt Telescope in the 1980's displayed small spots of a golden color at random positions in the plates. The solution was arrived at by trial and error - one idea was to flush the plates before exposure in a liquid gas (I don't remember which!), and finally by rapid fix and selenium toning.

This was just before the advent of the first CCDs, which went on to revolutionize optical astronomy.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (12) Jan 17, 2019
Man, I'd forgotten about that for decades! I didn't deal with any of them, so I have no idea about it, nor about what procedures were eventually used to deal with it.
SkyLight
3.8 / 5 (13) Jan 17, 2019
@SEU
Until they can produce an image/picture that has a visible Black Hole in it - it is not a fact.
Just try that kind of argument with a geologist/seismologist and try to convince him/her that, since their seismograms don't actually display an image or picture of the Earth's inner core, then it does not exist. Same for the outer core and asthenosphere and mantle. Try telling him/her that the Moho doesn't exist!

See how far your childish attempts to teach the grown-ups their jobs gets you. A sound boxing of the ears would be appropriate IMHO.

It's a truism that stupid people will remain stupid no matter what is done to try to educate them, enlighten them, or to show them the errors of their ways. And you @SEU, for all your shouting and posing, by virtue of your holding fast to pseudoscientific theories and the latest internet memes, you prove yourself to be a stupid person. Same goes for the likes of Benni and @cd, ...
kl31415
4.6 / 5 (11) Jan 17, 2019

There is no such reference to "a black hole" in Einstein's GR.


As you would have to be able to read with understanding, but no worries mate, I'll help you out. :)

Oh, I thought you understood differential equations, as GR predicts BH through these equations...

In 1915, Albert Einstein developed his theory of general relativity, having earlier shown that gravity does influence light's motion. Only a few months later, Karl Schwarzschild found a solution to the Einstein field equations, which describes the gravitational field of a point mass and a spherical mass.[16] A few months after Schwarzschild, Johannes Droste, a student of Hendrik Lorentz, independently gave the same solution for the point mass and wrote more extensively about its properties.

So GR, indeed, did predict black holes, but I doubt Einstein had references to a term that was coined in 1967 by American astronomer John Wheeler.

It seems I got in late here,hehe.
kl31415
4.6 / 5 (11) Jan 17, 2019
says RealityCheck

Yes. I've noticed since I've been posting that certain regular posters in physorg phorums just positively HATE IT when someone comes along with new ideas that seem highly probabilistic AND scientific - so that these persons just HAVE TO shoot down not only what was said, but also denigrate, insult and vilify the person himself in their fit of jealousy & worry


This is the DK effect in a closed loop reinforcement.

I've seen the same type of arguments coming from anti-vaxxers and flat-earthers, haha.

New ideas that seem scientific ! Muahahahaha - SEEM -

You are correct in that they 'seem to be' what you claim them to be, if only there weren't all these crazy scientists pushing their 'agenda' of false physics and also proving the crazy science with math and experiments that are reproducible and repeatable...
kl31415
4.6 / 5 (11) Jan 17, 2019
The "transient Black Hole" is still only a hypothesis. The same with the alleged Dark Matter. Until they can produce an image/picture that has a visible Black Hole in it - it is not a fact. Since the Black Hole is allegedly at the centre of the Milky Way galaxy, it should be readily seen, for in comparison, there are galaxies much farther away whose Stars, even some planets, are seen quite well. Why the big discrepancy when Sgr A is in our own backyard?


So you are saying that protons, neutrons and electrons don't exist because we have not produced a 'classic' photo(photograph in the visible spectrum) of the mentioned particles ?

The logic is sound. :)
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (11) Jan 17, 2019
unicorns and faerie dust.


Are those codenames for Velikovsky?

Unicorns = BH's
Faerie dust = DM
Faerie Tales = nearly the whole of the standard guesswork and BB nonsense that involves the previously mentioned fictional characters.

Morons = you and all the others who believe these fictional characters are real.
jonesdave
3.8 / 5 (16) Jan 17, 2019
Morons = you and all the others who believe these fictional characters are real.


Nope. Morons are those who believe Earth used to orbit Saturn, and Venus came hurtling out of Jupiter, and then started doing physics defying handbrake turns around the solar system. Among a bunch of other impossible woo.
kl31415
4.4 / 5 (14) Jan 17, 2019
unicorns and faerie dust.


Are those codenames for Velikovsky?

Unicorns = BH's
Faerie dust = DM
Faerie Tales = nearly the whole of the standard guesswork and BB nonsense that involves the previously mentioned fictional characters.

Morons = you and all the others who believe these fictional characters are real.


Can you provide any scientific research that would support your views please ?

hat1208
4.4 / 5 (13) Jan 17, 2019
@kl31415

I think they would like it everyone took it on faith as they have.
Benni
1.6 / 5 (13) Jan 17, 2019
I can't imagine the arrogance and foolishness it takes to fail to understand radioactive decay, in front of a bunch of people who do understand it, while claiming to be a nuclear physicist.

As for nutjobs who claim to be telepathic aliens, that isn't even foolishness, it's psychosis.


.......especially when it's the complaining & guilty party making the charge.
Benni
1.6 / 5 (14) Jan 17, 2019
@SEU - why do you bother? Your every statement in this forum - by virtue of the woolly thinking you display and your habit of haphazardly stringing together of scientific terms - mark you out as a person who has received no formal scientific training.


.....and so on & on goes your claim he's "haphazardly stringing together of scientific terms", but that's far better than what you or schneibo have been doing, you've been constantly stringing together terms of Pop-Cosmology psycho-babble that are NOT scientific terms, like BLACK HOLE, NEUTRON STAR, others too numerous to list.

You imagine you're such a SCIENTIFIC moniker, so explain for us the IMMUTABLE LAW of Physics that allows for the existence of INFINITE gravity at the surface of a FINITE stellar mass? Can't do, but you do have IMMUTABLE FANTASIES of the Pop-Cosmology culture that you substitute & try to pass off as "scientific terms". Maybe you have a bottle full of "eternal neutrons" ?
MrBojangles
4 / 5 (12) Jan 17, 2019
.....and so on & on goes your claim he's "haphazardly stringing together of scientific terms", but that's far better than what you or schneibo have been doing, you've been constantly stringing together terms of Pop-Cosmology psycho-babble that are NOT scientific terms, like BLACK HOLE, NEUTRON STAR, others too numerous to list.

You imagine you're such a SCIENTIFIC moniker, so explain for us the IMMUTABLE LAW of Physics that allows for the existence of INFINITE gravity at the surface of a FINITE stellar mass? Can't do, but you do have IMMUTABLE FANTASIES of the Pop-Cosmology culture that you substitute & try to pass off as "scientific terms". Maybe you have a bottle full of "eternal neutrons" ?


Who hurt you, little man? Again, I ask why is it that only the cranks on here cannot communicate a point without randomly capitalizing words? You keep repeating the same lines, and nobody cares any more this time than before. Your new name is Charlie Gordon.
Phyllis Harmonic
4.1 / 5 (13) Jan 17, 2019
You imagine you're such a SCIENTIFIC moniker


People are not "monikers"; people (and other things) *have* monikers. For instance, in your case, your moniker is "cosmology-ignorant troll."
MrBojangles
3.9 / 5 (14) Jan 17, 2019
People are not "monikers"; people (and other things) *have* monikers. For instance, in your case, your moniker is "cosmology-ignorant troll."


His vocabulary mostly consists of the words immutable, infinite, pop, finite, cosmology, square, and inverse. It'll take some practice to bring in some new ones like moniker, just be patient.
Phyllis Harmonic
3.9 / 5 (11) Jan 17, 2019
It is not a picture per se, but a data reading about a subset of the picture.


Oh really? So, what's this:
http://quarknet.f...tra.html

or this:
https://history.n...p12a.htm

?
hat1208
4.3 / 5 (11) Jan 17, 2019
@Phyllis Harmonic

The quarknet is very interesting reading. Thanks for the link.
Phyllis Harmonic
3.8 / 5 (10) Jan 17, 2019
@Phyllis Harmonic

The quarknet is very interesting reading. Thanks for the link.

You bet!

For those interested in stellar spectra, it's a great bit of out-reach by Fermilab and U-Chicago.
granville583762
3.2 / 5 (9) Jan 17, 2019
SEU> The "transient Black Hole" is still only a hypothesis. The same with the alleged Dark Matter. Until they can produce an image/picture that has a visible Black Hole in it - it is not a fact.
Since the Black Hole is allegedly at the centre of the Milky Way galaxy, it should be readily seen, Why the big discrepancy when Sgr A is in our own backyard?

The reason there are no photographs
Is, although theoretically a BH is conveniently invisible
its spin-axis and accompanying accretion disk is highly visible
transient activty is highly active
therefore as it lunches on a fresh supply of stars
it is highly visible
just as our Sagittarius A* is highly visible, especially being 26,000Lyr present
the fact Sagittarius A* is highly invisible speaks volumes for highly visible accretion disk activity
as 1000 of stars fall into this billion solar mass BH
as a typical accretion disk, spin-axis gamma-ray emitting blackhole
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 17, 2019
Morons = you and all the others who believe these fictional characters are real.


Nope. Morons are those who believe Earth used to orbit Saturn, and Venus came hurtling out of Jupiter, and then started doing physics defying handbrake turns around the solar system. Among a bunch of other impossible woo.
says jonesybonesy

There was only ONE person who suggested those things, and AFAIK, he is not very popular in EU circles after spouting such (to us) nonsense.
But OTOH, jonesy - there are many many things that happened during the early formation of the Solar System that neither you nor I (nor anyone else who pretends to know) could honestly justify either a Yes or No in regard to the situations present in that early time.
Think of it, jonesy. It is heresy to say that Earth used to orbit Saturn or Jupiter - and it is heresy to say that it did not. Simply because there is NO EVIDENCE for it or against it.
Gravitational attraction is a funny thing at times.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (10) Jan 17, 2019
he is not very popular in EU circles after spouting such (to us) nonsense
@SEU claims allegiance with the EU trolls.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.8 / 5 (10) Jan 17, 2019
Startrek says:
Until they can produce an image/picture that has a visible Black Hole in it - it is not a fact.

says I - Lines in or on a spectrograph are still just lines, just like the HockeyStick graphs that are supposed to represent Climate Change are just lines.
Just try that kind of argument with a geologist/seismologist and try to convince him/her that, since their seismograms don't actually display an image or picture of the Earth's inner core, then it does not exist.
- whether it truly exists or not, it is the evidence that does not exist. Lines are not clearcut evidence.
Same for the outer core and asthenosphere and mantle. Try telling him/her that the Moho doesn't exist!
- straw man argument. Earth is highly visible and evidence is readily available for its existence. Even the blind know that.
See how far your childish attempts to teach the grown-ups their jobs gets you. A sound boxing of the ears would be appropriate IMHO.
- ROFLOL
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.8 / 5 (10) Jan 17, 2019
he is not very popular in EU circles after spouting such (to us) nonsense
@SEU claims allegiance with the EU trolls.
says Da Scheide

Still hard of reading, are you? And still telling lies to win popular support from idiots like yourself, I see. Go back and reread what I had said, and do try to comprehend my words this time, yes? I refrain from using difficult-to-understand verbiage in my posts so that there is no chance of your having such a mental meltdown that you have to quickly reference your dictionary.
jimmybobber
3.3 / 5 (14) Jan 17, 2019
cantdrive85 said:

"Unicorns = BH's
Faerie dust = DM"

@cantdrive85
Since Black Holes and Dark Matter do exist are you saying you believe in Unicorns and Fairy dust?
Benni
1.6 / 5 (13) Jan 17, 2019
Since Black Holes and Dark Matter do exist are you saying you believe in Unicorns and Fairy dust?
There are no pics of such...............you maybe got equations for this? Here, let me introduce you to some equations that Einstein wrote about BHs:

Albert Einstein- Oct 1939

On a Stationary System With Spherical Symmetry Consisting of Many Gravitating Masses

Author(s): Albert Einstein Reviewed work(s): Source: The Annals of Mathematics, Second Series, Vol. 40, No. 4 (Oct., 1939), pp. 922-936 Published by: Annals of Mathematics Stable URL:.
http://www.cscamm...hild.pdf

The problem quite naturally leads to the question, answered by this paper in the negative, as to whether physical models are capable of exhibiting such a singularity.

This is for the hard of knowing how to write equations.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 17, 2019
The "transient Black Hole" is still only a hypothesis. The same with the alleged Dark Matter. Until they can produce an image/picture that has a visible Black Hole in it - it is not a fact. Since the Black Hole is allegedly at the centre of the Milky Way galaxy, it should be readily seen, for in comparison, there are galaxies much farther away whose Stars, even some planets, are seen quite well. Why the big discrepancy when Sgr A is in our own backyard?


So you are saying that protons, neutrons and electrons don't exist because we have not produced a 'classic' photo(photograph in the visible spectrum) of the mentioned particles ?

The logic is sound. :)
says k131415

No, I was not saying in reference to protons, neutrons and electrons. It is already known that such particles reside in atoms, and molecules are made up of atoms, etc etc. Why you included atomic particles in your argument? Caesium clocks run on the element Caesium with nothing to do with Black Holes
SkyLight
3.8 / 5 (10) Jan 17, 2019
Gravitational attraction is a funny thing at times
Yeah, hilarious!
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 17, 2019
cantdrive85 said:

"Unicorns = BH's
Faerie dust = DM"

@cantdrive85
Since Black Holes and Dark Matter do exist are you saying you believe in Unicorns and Fairy dust?
says jimmybobberino

Dear James
When you were a baby, didn't your Mum teach you not to tell lies in the future about the recently hypothesised Black Holes and the even more recently hypothesised Dark Matter's existence until there was proof positive with clearcut visible evidence of their existence? Without such clearcut and unequivocal evidence of the existence of BHs and DMs, it would be far easier to believe in Faerie dust and Unicorns than it is to believe in spooky unseen objects that swallow whole Stars and an unseeable "curtain of an unknowable spreading substance that supposedly drapes around each galaxy and also intermingles with planetary bodies and other material objects still without detection.
Would you trust your life to an airplane pilot who was blind and couldn't see the runway to land?
SkyLight
3.9 / 5 (11) Jan 18, 2019
it would be far easier to believe in Faerie dust and Unicorns than it is to believe in spooky unseen objects
...like your omnipotent Sky Wizard, for instance, which features so heavily in the book of fiction called the bible, and which has never been seen anywhere by anybody, let alone having his picture taken.

Or like the gigantic flows of electrons which your EU overlords state without any hint of evidence are supposed to power the Sun and of which there are also precisely zero pictures.

Spooky indeed.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.8 / 5 (10) Jan 18, 2019
LOL You have your wires crossed. I am NOT a proponent of the EU Theory. I have no problem with it since in the event that, at least SOME of it is verified and validated as true, then at least I will know that I did not reject it outright as YOU have.
I don't know of any SKY WIZARD. As a Creationist, I believe that there is a Deity who created the Universe - including mankind, animals, plants, the Earth and other planets, and the Stars/galaxies. There are no coincidences in the Creation process.
You are free to make your own choices - and I grant that you have done just that - as many ungodly humans have also. But that is fine. We are not allowed to interfere in the choices of humans. We are only here to observe, learn and record.
Dark Matter doesn't exist. Perhaps the Black Hole does to some extent. But if it does - then it is the BH that will consume you and all living things - eventually.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.4 / 5 (9) Jan 18, 2019
Uhhh one more thing before I leave - the Creator God is not of flesh, blood and bone as you are. And your eyes are not configured to SEE Him. But He sees YOU. And WE see you.
Believe or don't believe - it is none of my concern. Didn't you ever wonder why it is that you are unable to see radio waves, X-rays, and all the others without instruments? Your vision is poor even if it is 20-20
Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (11) Jan 18, 2019
Looks to me like @SkyLight has you nailed, @SEU. Sorry, your jebus and super magic sky daddy had nothing to do with "creating the universe," which you obviously think is about 10 billion km wide. No, the "Stars/galaxies" aren't funny stuff painted on the cellophane covering the Solar System.
granville583762
2.8 / 5 (11) Jan 18, 2019
This invisible BH, You were seen

4U 1630-472 is rotating rapidly
At a speed
of
93 per cent of the theoretically-allowed rotational speed
around its axis
while sucking in falling material.
It is subject to gravitational stresses
and temperatures
so high
it shines brightly in X-rays, which were seen by astronomers using telescopes.
WHY
why is this BH accelerating
as this mass is gravitationally accelerated
orbitaly
its angular momentum angularly imparts accelerating angular momentum
on this BH
This means this BH is not a singularity, as the mass is falling on the surface of this BH
Where its surface radius R = 2M/C²
which comes to this blackhole remaining credibility
its invisibility
its seen in x-rays
an invisible blackhole visible in x-rays
as we mend are invisible broken bones
visible in x-rays
this blackhole is visible in x-rays
how coincidental
This invisible BH, You were seen!
granville583762
2.8 / 5 (11) Jan 18, 2019
This invisible 3minute rule means R = 2GM/C² became R = 2M/C² as its a BH, its only visible in x-rays
Benni
1.3 / 5 (12) Jan 18, 2019
Or like the gigantic flows of electrons which your EU overlords state without any hint of evidence are supposed to power the Sun and of which there are also precisely zero pictures.

Spooky indeed.


Actually what is spooky is the Event Horizon Telescope that was supposed to provide us with pictures of a BH in 2017 by which time it had been declared all the data was in to present the "picture". We're still waiting almost two years later for that "picture", spooky indeed we still don't have it.

Then in a spooky press release a couple months ago, it was announced by one of those European investigation team members that it would be necessary to double the size of the current radio telescope to gain the capability of producing the picture that Event Horizon was supposed to produce almost two years before...........guess what Pop-Cosmology aficionados living here, the Event Horizon Telescope FAILED & the excuse is that it wasn't BIG ENOUGH.
jimmybobber
3.2 / 5 (13) Jan 18, 2019
@Benni "spooky"
Really?
Look up the definition of spooky. Without using spooky re-write your last post using that definition.
Then you will see how ridiculous you sound.
jimmybobber
3.4 / 5 (15) Jan 18, 2019
@Benni And while you are doing that try this as well.

Here is a half life calculator
https://www.omnic...alf-life

Use these values:
Initial quantity: 40000 (neutrons)
Half Life time: 10.2 minutes
Total time: 14.7 minutes

Note the results:
Remaining Quantity: 14730.67 (neutrons)
Decay Constant: 0.0679556/minute
Mean Lifetime: 14.7155 minutes)

So you see there are still 14730.67 neutrons at 14.7 minutes!!!

Read more at: https://phys.org/...html#jCp
Benni
1.6 / 5 (14) Jan 18, 2019
Note the results:
Remaining Quantity: 14730.67 (neutrons)
Decay Constant: 0.0679556/minute
Mean Lifetime: 14.7155 minutes)

So you see there are still 14730.67 neutrons at 14.7 minutes


Spooky math presented by the chicken scratcher who has never learned how to write an equation.

granville583762
2.8 / 5 (11) Jan 18, 2019
Why this BH is visible

4U 1630-472 i
Albert Einstein's absolute velocity, the speed of light
gravity travels at the speed of light
this BH radius is defined by R = 2GM/C²
a BH requires 2x10+30kg
its minimum radius 3km
as it increases its angular momentum
its mass increases
accordingly R = 2GM/C², its radius increases
its escape velocity match's the velocity gravity travels in this vacuum, the speed of light
according to the formula R = 2GM/C², this BH, no matter how, massive cannot exceed the speed of light
on the surface of this BH, gravity = C
where gravity falls to zero towards this BHs centre of mass
mm above the surface radii of this BH, gravity is below the velocity of light
In falling mass giving of electromagnetic radiation
allows radiation to escapes this BH, within a mm of this BHs surface radii
because
gravities acceleration falls below gravities velocity the speed of light
above the surface of this BH
Is why this BH is visible
jimmybobber
3.5 / 5 (16) Jan 18, 2019
@Benni
"In mathematics, the caret represents an exponent, such as a square, cube, or another exponential power. For example, 6^3, which may also be represented as 6³ or 6 * 6 * 6."
https://www.compu...aret.htm

You moron.
You've been saying I can't write equations for a while now because I use the caret symbol for exponents.

I could easily use the alt codes as well. Everyone else on this site knows exactly what I mean when I type something like x^2. Here you go x² so you can read it.
SkyLight
4 / 5 (12) Jan 18, 2019
Actually what is spooky is the Event Horizon Telescope that was supposed to provide us with pictures of a BH in 2017 by which time it had been declared all the data was in to present the "picture". We're still waiting almost two years later for that "picture"
Well, if you bothered to look at the EHT website, you'd be able to read that
while the EHT has had data for many months from most of the dishes we used in 2017, disks from the South Pole arrived only in mid December 2017, and have since been properly combined with data from other telescopes. So there has been a long and unavoidable wait to assemble the full data set for one of our primary supermassive black hole targets
Then, they've had to calibrate the system and use the calibrations to refine techniques for processing the combined data into images.

This isn't like pointing your Instamatic up at the sky and getting a snapshot, Benni. It takes time and patience... So STFU and stop throwing your toys around.
Benni
1.7 / 5 (12) Jan 18, 2019
Then, they've had to calibrate the system and use the calibrations to refine techniques for processing the combined data into images.

This isn't like pointing your Instamatic up at the sky and getting a snapshot, Benni. It takes time and patience... So STFU and stop throwing your toys around.


........excuses, excuses, excuses, that's all we ever get.

Look, I can calibrate our Gamma Radiation Spectroscopy lab within half an hour, but it takes over two years to calibrate a RADIO?

Skyhigh on something, you don't even know the procedure for doing calibration on anything, I have serious doubts you even know how to read a multi-meter much less use one.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (15) Jan 18, 2019
........excuses, excuses, excuses, that's all we ever get.

Look, I can calibrate our Gamma Radiation Spectroscopy lab within half an hour, but it takes over two years to calibrate a RADIO?

Skyhigh on something, you don't even know the procedure for doing calibration on anything, I have serious doubts you even know how to read a multi-meter much less use one.


Clueless cretin. This will be one of the biggest scientific announcements for years. They need to get it right. The raw data has been given to two separate teams, who will have no contact with each other, and then we can see if what they are seeing is indeed the EH.
It was said a while back that the results will likely be announced early this year.
SkyLight
4.1 / 5 (13) Jan 18, 2019
Benni, you couldn't even calibrate a six-inch ruler. Fact!
SkyLight
4 / 5 (12) Jan 18, 2019
I hear the guys where Benni works played a trick on him when he got the job of janitor. They pointed out a mysterious hunk of equipment with levers and lights and all in the corner which they called a "Gamma Radiation Spectroscopy Lab" and asked him to calibrate it: they even gave him a shiny new quarter dollar to do the job with.

It took him a solid hour to find the coin slot in the machine and a further half-day to figure out how to make the machine "work". Boy, did the guys do a number on poor old Benni!

He's still convinced that this Coca-Cola drinks dispenser - for that's what it is - is the fabled Speck Tro Scopee Lab, and that he calibrates it with his coin: he's got the whole process down to a half-hour now.

So he goes home every evening with a big grin on his idiotic drooling face and tells his long-suffering Mom he's a Lab Cally-Brator as she shovels grits and gravy on his plate.
MrBojangles
3.9 / 5 (14) Jan 18, 2019
Show me pictures or it doesn't exist


Followed by

the Creator God is not of flesh, blood and bone as you are. And your eyes are not configured to SEE Him.


Right. Move along, nothing to see here.
MrBojangles
3.8 / 5 (13) Jan 18, 2019
I hear the guys where Benni works played a trick on him when he got the job of janitor. They pointed out a mysterious hunk of equipment with levers and lights and all in the corner which they called a "Gamma Radiation Spectroscopy Lab" and asked him to calibrate it: they even gave him a shiny new quarter dollar to do the job with.

So he goes home every evening with a big grin on his idiotic drooling face and tells his long-suffering Mom he's a Lab Cally-Brator as she shovels grits and gravy on his plate.


I prefer the Flowers for Algernon theory. I think Benni, at one point, had some semblance of intelligence. He may even have attended some of the college courses that he claims to have attended. Somewhere along the way, however, he suffered some cognitive degeneracy disease, or the "smart drugs" wore off, and now he's a shadow of his former self grasping at things he once understood.
SkyLight
3.8 / 5 (10) Jan 18, 2019
Yeah, the Flowers for Algernon theory has been floated a couple of times now in connection with Benni. It's a nice idea, but my favorite theory is that he joined the Navy, which tried to educate him but just had to give up since nothing but the simplest of ideas could get through the inch-and-a-half of solid bone surrounding his undeveloped brain. So he was handed a mop and told to swab - errmmm "calibrate"- the decks.
granville583762
3 / 5 (10) Jan 18, 2019
Theoretically allowed rotational speed

This blackhole
this ex-pulsar
spins
and in orbitaly accretion angular momentum is in acceleration of spin
up to the speed of light
the question
the maximum angular velocity in terms of C = 299792458m/s
The velocity of this vacuum relative to this stationary vacuum
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (11) Jan 18, 2019
I prefer the Flowers for Algernon theory
It's a nice idea, but my favorite theory is that he joined the Navy, which tried to educate him but just had to give up
@MrBojangles
@SkyLight
It's likely a combination of both.

we know he was never actually a nuclear engineer (based on observation, his own posts, lack of mathematical ability and the lack of a license) so if we consider that the Navy attempted to educate him using college curriculum and military schools and that education is now being degraded by a neurodegenerative disorder or similar cognitive degeneracy disease, then we are likely closer to the truth than just one or the other hypothesis.

of course, we also can't rule out mental afflictions or physical injury, be it traumatic impact or stroke
granville583762
3.2 / 5 (11) Jan 18, 2019
How fast do black holes spin

Astronomers have actually detected supermassive black holes spinning at the limits predicted by these theories. One black hole, at the heart of galaxy NGC 1365 is turning at 84% the speed of light. It has reached the cosmic speed limit, and can't spin any faster without revealing its singularity.14 Feb 2014

A start in the right direction
as the mass falling on this BH
is obviously moving faster than 84%C
velocity is proportional to the energy in the in falling mass
the mass falling onto this BH
is considerally less than this BH
as this BH cannot spin faster than the matter falling on this BHs surface
but
This all by the way
because
In galaxy NGC 1365
Is there sufficient energy in the in falling matter to accelerate this total BHs mass to 84%C
Phyllis Harmonic
3.9 / 5 (11) Jan 18, 2019
We are not allowed to interfere in the choices of humans. We are only here to observe, learn and record.. . . But He sees YOU. And WE see you.


Anyone who really thinks they aren't human is clearly disturbed. Temporal lobe epilepsy can induce these kinds of delusions, and often induce feelings of divine agency as they seem to be here in SEU. It's hard to imagine what it must be like to live with or close to someone suffering this sort of debilitation.
granville583762
3 / 5 (10) Jan 18, 2019
BHs in 84% C

NGC 1365, located about 56 million light-years from Earth in the constellation Fornax, several million suns. blasting out enormous quantities of energy as it gobbles up gas and other nearby matter
As the facts in their spin
a million mass BH
its radius is now know
as its angular spin is now known
as its radius = 3,000,000,000m
its rotates 3169 rpm = 84% C

< In memorable figures >
A million mass BH
3million km radius
3000 rpm
Equals 84% C
Whydening Gyre
4.4 / 5 (13) Jan 18, 2019
@Phyllis Harmonic

The quarknet is very interesting reading. Thanks for the link.

You bet!

For those interested in stellar spectra, it's a great bit of out-reach by Fermilab and U-Chicago.

Any one else find it funny that Benni says he uses Spectography in his line of work, but refuses to accept it as valid when applied to Cosmology?
Phyllis Harmonic
3.8 / 5 (10) Jan 18, 2019
@Phyllis Harmonic

The quarknet is very interesting reading. Thanks for the link.

You bet!

For those interested in stellar spectra, it's a great bit of out-reach by Fermilab and U-Chicago.

Any one else find it funny that Benni says he uses Spectography in his line of work, but refuses to accept it as valid when applied to Cosmology?


Indeed! He's really quite the intellectual clown!
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (12) Jan 18, 2019


Indeed! He's really quite the UNintellectual clown!


FTFY.
Benni
1.6 / 5 (13) Jan 18, 2019
Any one else find it funny that Benni says he uses Spectography


......the spelling is: "spectroscopy".
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (12) Jan 18, 2019
@jimmybobber and @cantdrive85.

@cantdrive85
Since Black Holes and Dark Matter do exist are you saying you believe in Unicorns and Fairy dust?
According to recent scientific advances we NOW know:

- Black Holes are extreme mass/density Gravitational 'astronomical features' WITHOUT Point/Ring-singularity; and their internal energy-mass content is in a dense but extended-distribution degenerate energy-matter feature within an Event Horizon' effect created by its 'steep' Gravitational 'gradient' effect on the immediately surrounding energy-space; and

- DM is being increasingly found by newer scopes etc; so DM is and always has been NOT 'EXOTIC' but ORDINARY MATTER (ie, BOTH e-m interacting AND gravitationally interacting) which PREVIOUSLY was too far/faint to 'see' (hence "DARK" label) but NOW increasingly detected everywhere we look, near and far, with better scopes etc.

So you can all STOP FEUDING over SEMANTICS. Thanks. :)

jonesdave
3.6 / 5 (14) Jan 18, 2019
DM is being increasingly found by newer scopes etc; so DM is and always has been NOT 'EXOTIC' but ORDINARY MATTER


Wrong. And there is zero scientific support for that lie. Sorry, statement.

RealityCheck
2 / 5 (12) Jan 18, 2019
@jonesdave.
DM is being increasingly found by newer scopes etc; so DM is and always has been NOT 'EXOTIC' but ORDINARY MATTER


Wrong. And there is zero scientific support for that lie. Sorry, statement.

Your opinion based in denial and self-imposed ignorance and/or misreading/non-comprehension of all that is being more recently discovered/reviewed by mainstream itself as we speak, jd. Not good, mate.
jonesdave
3.6 / 5 (14) Jan 18, 2019
@jonesdave.
DM is being increasingly found by newer scopes etc; so DM is and always has been NOT 'EXOTIC' but ORDINARY MATTER


Wrong. And there is zero scientific support for that lie. Sorry, statement.

Your opinion based in denial and self-imposed ignorance and/or misreading/non-comprehension of all that is being more recently discovered/reviewed by mainstream itself as we speak, jd. Not good, mate.


So link the papers, you loon. They have managed to find the predicted, but missing, baryonic matter. As shown. You are just too bloody stupid to understand that.
RealityCheck
1.9 / 5 (13) Jan 18, 2019
@jonesdave.
DM is being increasingly found by newer scopes etc; so DM is and always has been NOT 'EXOTIC' but ORDINARY MATTER
Wrong. And there is zero scientific support for that lie. Sorry, statement.
Your opinion based in denial and self-imposed ignorance and/or misreading/non-comprehension of all that is being more recently discovered/reviewed by mainstream itself as we speak, jd. Not good, mate.
So link the papers, you loon. They have managed to find the predicted, but missing, baryonic matter....
It's gone far far beyond the 'missing baryons quotient' normal matter finds, jd. Get up to speed, mate. Go back and actually read all the past few years relevant reports without blinkers; then try to keep up by 'connecting all the old/new dots' for yourself; instead of waiting like a hapless child for fully-reworked mainstream model (which will be a long time coming due to mainstream latency in publishing overarching implications/paradigm shifts). :)
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (15) Jan 18, 2019
It's gone far far beyond the 'missing baryons quotient' normal matter finds, jd. Get up to speed, mate. Go back and actually read all the past few years relevant reports without blinkers;


What reports, you liar? Link to these papers. For the 2nd time. Stop lying.

RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (10) Jan 18, 2019
@jonesdave.
It's gone far far beyond the 'missing baryons quotient' normal matter finds, jd. Get up to speed, mate. Go back and actually read all the past few years relevant reports without blinkers;
What reports, you liar? Link to these papers. For the 2nd time. Stop lying.
I have neither the time nor the inclination to pander to laziness, bias, denial and just plain blinkered/ignorant repetitions of insults while ignoring all the past few years of mainstream reports which when combined and extrapolated from would give any genuine objective scientific researcher the fuller picture which you are apparently incapable of working out for yourself, jd. You have only yourself to blame for being more quick to deny, troll, insult and feud rather than quietly keeping up and thinking through all the various data/implications for yourself. I'm not here to do all the work for you, mate. I've given you plenty of pointers and heads ups. Time to do your own due diligence, jd.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (12) Jan 18, 2019
No links no truth.
Whydening Gyre
4.2 / 5 (10) Jan 18, 2019
Any one else find it funny that Benni says he uses Spectography


......the spelling is: "spectroscopy".

oops...
Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (11) Jan 18, 2019
Actually, @Whyde, you weren't wrong. "Spectrograpy" [spelling corrected] is the creation of spectrographs, and the study of them; "Spectroscopy" is the use of a spectroscope to create spectrographs [AKA spectrograms]. It's like making a big deal out of the difference between fly fishing and tying flies.
jimmybobber
3 / 5 (12) Jan 18, 2019
@RealityCheck I honestly wish you would take the time to link some papers.

"A problem with alternative hypotheses is that the observational evidence for dark matter comes from so many independent approaches (see the "observational evidence" section above). Explaining any individual observation is possible but explaining all of them is very difficult. Nonetheless, there have been some scattered successes for alternative hypotheses, such as a 2016 test of gravitational lensing in entropic gravity.[154][155][156]

The prevailing opinion among most astrophysicists is that while modifications to general relativity can conceivably explain part of the observational evidence, there is probably enough data to conclude there must be some form of dark matter.[157] "
https://en.wikipe...potheses

I must admit Entropic Gravity is intriguing but it still can't explain all observations.
Benni
1.7 / 5 (12) Jan 18, 2019
Actually, @Whyde, you weren't wrong. "Spectrograpy" [spelling corrected] is the creation of spectrographs, and the study of them; "Spectroscopy" is the use of a spectroscope to create spectrographs [AKA spectrograms].


As is frequently the case mister embedded Physorg Moderator Da Schneibo, you are wrong. Our gamma radiation spectroscopy is done in our SPECTROSCOPY lab, there is no such thing as a "spectrograpy" lab, or for that matter "spectrography lab".

I guess I better see why you think the definition of the term AVERAGE, or MEAN, is that of "half-life".

Obviously anything dealing with nuclear physics is not something about which you know much.

SkyLight
3.8 / 5 (10) Jan 19, 2019
excuses ... that's all we ever get ... it takes over two years to calibrate a RADIO?
Benni seems to imagine that the Event Horizon Telescope is nothing more than a big radio, and that the scientists behind the project are just dragging their heels while living the life of Riley on all that moolah they've been given to build the thing.

Well Benni, the EHT is a PHENOMENALLY complex endeavor and they're attempting to do something nobody has ever done before. The delay is down to many factors, among which are data collection from single dishes or arrays of dishes of different sizes and designs around the world, where the demands of this particular project imposes tighter constraints on their performance than usual.

Then there's the problem of time-stamping the data, collecting the data on physical disks and shipping them to data centers where custom-built correlators and data reduction supercomputers have to be programmed to try to make sense of the data.

[TBC]
SkyLight
3.8 / 5 (10) Jan 19, 2019
[continued]

Then, hopefully, images will be created from the data. But, as @jd has pointed out, there won't just be one set of results: two separate teams working independently from each other will take the data and run their own set of data-reduction schemes and their own programs to produce images.

Once the images and other data products have been created, the results from both teams' work will be compared. If they agree to a substantial degree, the results will be published; otherwise, the teams will each have to try to see where they could improve their data reduction and analysis schemes.

This all takes time and the work of dozens, hundreds of scientists and technicians to try to achieve something groundbreaking and frankly breathtaking: it ain't like switching on a radio, or taking the odd half-hour to calibrate your "lab", Benni !
SkyLight
3.8 / 5 (10) Jan 19, 2019
anything dealing with nuclear physics is not something about which you know much
That's rich coming from a guy who has gone down on record as stating that quarks, which make up the nucleons in an atomic nucleus, do not exist. Countless millions of experiments using high-energy colliders have shown unequivocally that quarks do exist: even if ya can't take a holiday snap of 'em on the beach, Benni!

You're wilfully blind to anything which contradicts the dumbed-down stuff you tried to learn decades ago and which gets inside your really small comfort zone. Your knowledge of nuclear physics is sketchy, to say the least; you should stick to playing with your multi-meter, and leave the physics to those qualified to do it.
granville583762
3.2 / 5 (9) Jan 19, 2019
The HEAT is on in 2018

The Event Horizon Telescope Array (HEAT)
with up to 20 telescopes round the globe
This HIGHLY visible BH
will
be
as
early
as
2018 produce its very first picci
Bennies little cupeth of joyeth will over floweth with joyeth
just think
as early as 2018
we will see our first picci of Sagittarius A*
we
can hardly wait
Roll on, 2018
kl31415
4.4 / 5 (13) Jan 19, 2019


So you are saying that protons, neutrons and electrons don't exist because we have not produced a 'classic' photo(photograph in the visible spectrum) of the mentioned particles ?

The logic is sound. :)
says k131415

No, I was not saying in reference to protons, neutrons and electrons. It is already known that such particles reside in atoms, and molecules are made up of atoms, etc etc. Why you included atomic particles in your argument? Caesium clocks run on the element Caesium with nothing to do with Black Hole


Ugh... such genius

You said, no photo no evidence.

Why do you need a photo of a BH as evidence then ?

Why do you believe protons and neutrons and electrons exist then, but quarks don't ?

Where is the photo of these particles, you parasitic fungal infection ?

jimmybobber
3.2 / 5 (13) Jan 19, 2019
@RealityCheck

You really only have one link don't you?

https://www.thund...p/about/

SkyLight
3.8 / 5 (10) Jan 19, 2019
Well, we are all aware that @granville is a total basket-case, but this little sentence of his is a real gem:
Bennies little cupeth of joyeth will over floweth with joyeth
which has me ROTFLMAO.

Just goes to show that, if the brain-cell soup in his head can come up with this, then it gives us hope that an infinite number of monkeys might just conceivably, given enough time, be able to type out the works of Shakespeare.

Sadly, however, even given an infinite amount of time, poor Benni would not be able to show any sign of scientific literacy, typewriter or not.
SkyLight
4.1 / 5 (9) Jan 19, 2019
@klpi
Where is the photo of these particles, you parasitic fungal infection ?
Now, that's the worst slur on parasitic fungal infections I've read today. ;-)
kl31415
4.3 / 5 (11) Jan 19, 2019

As is frequently the case mister embedded Physorg Moderator Da Schneibo, you are wrong. Our gamma radiation spectroscopy is done in our SPECTROSCOPY lab, there is no such thing as a "spectrograpy" lab, or for that matter "spectrography lab".

I guess I better see why you think the definition of the term AVERAGE, or MEAN, is that of "half-life".

Obviously anything dealing with nuclear physics is not something about which you know much.



Benni, mate, you really should know this by now.

Mean life or lifetime

Half-life

https://www.brita...ean-life
http://hyperphysi...lif.html
https://en.wikipe...lifetime

SkyLight
3.8 / 5 (10) Jan 19, 2019
@jimmyb
You really only have one link don't you?
Well, actually, there is this also the following link to a website @RC put together with duct-tape, and which sets out his earlier attempt to derive a Theory Of Everything ("the only real, complete and non-mathematical perspective on the Universe's nature, origin, structure and mechanics.") from scraps of verbal garbage gleaned from the chaotic jumble of voices in his head: http://earthlingclub.com/.

He calls it a "club", but is terrified of admitting anybody else, such is his fear and disgust of the hoi-polloi, so it's a club consisting of one very disturbed narcissist trying to convince anybody who comes within earshot that he, and he alone, can see the truth. Reminds me in a way of the words of Ozymandias, "whose frown, and wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command" said volumes about his haughty self-importance : "Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!'".

An idea: we could call him Ozzy-Mandias to really piss him off!
Benni
1.7 / 5 (11) Jan 19, 2019
Then there's the problem of time-stamping the data, collecting the data on physical disks and shipping them to data centers where custom-built correlators and data reduction supercomputers have to be programmed to try to make sense of the data.


All the input of DATA was 100% completed in Dec 2017. The delay in presenting the results is the lack of collected data to present the picture. In October 2018 the announcement was made that the Event Horizon project may join in collaboration with a separate European project that was already in progress when the Event Horizon data came in & nothing was coming from it to resolve a BH at SgrA*, the announcement was made that a radio telescope of twice the present size as Event Horizon will be required.

Poor Pop-Cosmology, still in the hunt for it's first black hole is as far away as it's ever been.

SkyLight
3.9 / 5 (11) Jan 19, 2019
Benni, no surprises at all in what you have said, at this time or any other time. You have no understanding of these matters, a complete lack of depth in your appreciation of the complexities in this or other scientific endeavors, an almost personal outrage that the people involved in this scientific inquiry seem to be going back on their word and moving the goalposts in order to get the job done.

Do you think their original words were promises aimed personally at you? And that they're all cheats and liars when they say they need more time and maybe more instruments??

Astronomer Heino Falcke, chair of the Scientific council of EHT, said in an article dated April 3, 2017:
If everything works as expected and the weather is fair on all telescope locations we might have a chance to get a first glimpse of the event horizon. However, I think we need more observation campaigns and eventually more telescopes in the network to make a really good image.
April 2017, Benni !
jimmybobber
3.3 / 5 (14) Jan 19, 2019
@Benni
"The images will become available once the EHT collaboration is confident that the data is fully calibrated and that all procedures have been robustly tested. With the data collected in April 2017, the exciting task of processing and analyzing these data is underway within a number of focused working groups. EHT members are actively working on understanding instrumental effects and formatting the output for imaging and science analyses that will look for the black hole "silhouette". Each of these working groups is vitally important for ultimately reaching the EHT science goals. Before the results are publicly announced, they will be reviewed and further vetted by scientists who are not members of the EHT collaboration, as a part of the standard process of peer-review required for any scientific publication. "
https://eventhori...vailable
SkyLight
3.8 / 5 (10) Jan 19, 2019
...and Benni, in a childish fit of pique, votes me down within minutes of me posting the above.

Way to go, Benni! Keep chucking your toys and comforter out of the perambulator - we're all going to be deeply impressed by your Trumpian temper tantrums.
Benni
1.7 / 5 (12) Jan 19, 2019
Benni, no surprises at all in what you have said, at this time or any other time. You have no understanding of these matters


I know how to calibrate a Gamma Radiation Lab. What can you calibrate as complex as such a facility?

a complete lack of depth in your appreciation of the complexities in this or other scientific endeavors


It is no more complex than calibrating a Gamma Radiation Lab, the problem is not the calibration of their data collection facility, it's the fact they DON"T HAVE THE DATA !!!!!!!!!

the people involved in this scientific inquiry seem to be going back on their word and moving the goalposts in order to get the job done.
.......no, the problem is worse than that, they never knew what they were doing in the first place which is why they have NO DATA !!!!

And that they're all cheats and liars when they say they need more time and maybe more instruments?
.......no kidding, they've already made this clear.

Benni
1.7 / 5 (12) Jan 19, 2019
...and Benni, in a childish fit of pique, votes me down within minutes of me posting the above.

Way to go, Benni! Keep chucking your toys and comforter out of the perambulator - we're all going to be deeply impressed by your Trumpian temper tantrums.


You bet mister novice Pop-Cosmology aficionado. Always coming up with excuses why the holiest grail of your fantasies can't be proven through scientific studies, so you go on yet another name calling rant.

Unlike jimbo & jonesy/k131415, schneibo, Whyguy, etc.........do you know the difference between Beta Particle Decay & Gamma Radiation Decay, or do I just add you to the list of these who don't?

Tell me, what is the most complex feature of instrumentation used in nuclear physics research that you have ever calibrated?
SkyLight
3.9 / 5 (12) Jan 19, 2019
it's the fact they DON"T HAVE THE DATA! ... they never knew what they were doing in the first place which is why they have NO DATA!
Benni's arrogance and boneheaded stupidity literally knows no bounds.

Coming from a guy who thinks proficiency in the use of a multi-meter is something to brag about, this latest set of idiotic burblings is a real peach.

So, all these highly-educated scientists are not only lying to us all, they actually "have no data at all" ... and are just hoping everybody will go way so they can slink off home and hope nobody notices.

No, Benni, that's what you do when you clock out in the evening from your janitor's job and hope nobody notices you haven't mopped out the restrooms. Bad Boy Benni !
SkyLight
3.9 / 5 (11) Jan 19, 2019
Unlike jimbo & jonesy/k131415, schneibo, Whyguy, etc.........do you know the difference between Beta Particle Decay & Gamma Radiation Decay, or do I just add you to the list of these who don't?
Hey, good news guys: Benni now knows you DO have knowledge of these matters!

Way to go, Benni !
Benni
1.7 / 5 (12) Jan 19, 2019
Unlike jimbo & jonesy/k131415, schneibo, Whyguy, etc.........do you know the difference between Beta Particle Decay & Gamma Radiation Decay, or do I just add you to the list of these who don't?
Hey, good news guys: Benni now knows you DO have knowledge of these matters!

!

Well then, if you can't be "unlike" them then I guess you are LIKE them & you don't know the difference between Beta Particle Decay & Gamma Radiation Decay
SkyLight
3.9 / 5 (11) Jan 19, 2019
you don't know the difference between Beta Particle Decay & Gamma Radiation Decay
Benni, I was fully aware of the difference between those two decay schemes four decades ago. Try harder...
Benni
1.7 / 5 (12) Jan 19, 2019
you don't know the difference between Beta Particle Decay & Gamma Radiation Decay
Benni, I was fully aware of the difference between those two decay schemes four decades ago. Try harder... ........so far you haven't shown evidence of it when you have yet to get above rants like this:
No, Benni, that's what you do when you clock out in the evening from your janitor's job and hope nobody notices you haven't mopped out the restrooms. Bad Boy Benni !


So tell us, what was the last type of nuclear data collection instrumentation you've calibrated during the past "four decades"?
jimmybobber
3.3 / 5 (14) Jan 19, 2019
@Benni Are you bragging about calibrating instruments?
Benni
1.7 / 5 (11) Jan 19, 2019
@Benni Are you bragging about calibrating instruments?


If you can do it like I can, it ain't braggin', it's kind of like knowing how to solve Differential Equations. You only think it's bragging on my part because you can't do it.

I also know how to play acoustic guitar, how about you?

I built the almost 4000 ft² house I live in, how about you?

Still think it's "bragging" on my part don't you?
SkyLight
3.9 / 5 (11) Jan 19, 2019
@Benni Are you bragging about calibrating instruments?
Well ... why not? The poor guy doesn't have anything else to brag about, unless it's the size of his mop.
kl31415
3.8 / 5 (13) Jan 19, 2019
@Benni Are you bragging about calibrating instruments?


If you can do it like I can, it ain't braggin', it's kind of like knowing how to solve Differential Equations. You only think it's bragging on my part because you can't do it.

I also know how to play acoustic guitar, how about you?

I built the almost 4000 ft² house I live in, how about you?

Still think it's "bragging" on my part don't you?


Hahahahaha..facepalm...

Guys, have you met Benni ? https://www.urban...rm=Benni
His ego is bigger than Sagittarius A* ! LOL

Yes, it is bragging, no one asked about your ability to build houses or to play musical instruments.

I doubt anything you write is true, as being a nuclear engineer who doesn't understand the meaning of radioactive decay, 'mean life' and 'half-life'...

jimmybobber
3.3 / 5 (14) Jan 19, 2019
@Benni

Yes I play acoustic guitar.
I'm a Software Engineer. Over twenty (20) years.
I have a BS in Physics.

And I never brag about any of those things because I am modest.
cantdrive85
2.5 / 5 (8) Jan 19, 2019
"The images will become available once the EHT collaboration is confident that the data is fully calibrated and that all procedures have been robustly tested..."

IOW, apply whatever maths/data gymnastics are needed to fit "predictions".
Benni
1.7 / 5 (12) Jan 19, 2019
@Benni Are you bragging about calibrating instruments?
Well ... why not? The poor guy doesn't have anything else to brag about, unless it's the size of his mop.

Then brag & you or Skyhigh answer the question:
So tell us, what was the last type of nuclear data collection instrumentation you've calibrated during the past "four decades"?


jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (15) Jan 19, 2019
"The images will become available once the EHT collaboration is confident that the data is fully calibrated and that all procedures have been robustly tested..."

IOW, apply whatever maths/data gymnastics are needed to fit "predictions".


Lol. What a prat.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (15) Jan 19, 2019
So tell us, what was the last type of nuclear data collection instrumentation you've calibrated during the past "four decades"?


What the hell has that got to do with the demonstrated fact that you know Jack about nuclear physics?

Benni
1.7 / 5 (11) Jan 19, 2019
@BenniYes I play acoustic guitar.
I'm a Software Engineer. Over twenty (20) years.
I have a BS in Physics.And I never brag about any of those things because I am modest.


"Software"?.

Then I see the gravity of your problem comprehending instrumentation used in Beta Particle Decay & all those leftover neutrons those less smarter than you nuclear physicists threw away at the conclusion of a neutron decay measurement run.

So you play acoustic guitar as well?

What are some of the selections of music styles you most enjoy doing?

I grew up cutting my skills on John Denver music, I consider "Rocky Mountain High" the holy grail of John Denver's unique style of guitar composition, I can pick right through it so fluently that you couldn't tell if it was me or John Denver doing the guitar work. Unfortunately I need to demonstrate a unique moment of humility here, unlike JD my tenor range cannot be used for tuning 77 of the 88 keys of my wife's piano, but I'm close.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (15) Jan 19, 2019
Then I see the gravity of your problem comprehending instrumentation used in Beta Particle Decay & all those leftover neutrons those less smarter than you nuclear physicists threw away at the conclusion of a neutron decay measurement run.


Idiot. You haven't got a clue, have you? You were wrong, you thick swine. Stop digging. 'Lose half its mass'! Lol. What a tosser!
jimmybobber
3.4 / 5 (15) Jan 19, 2019
@Benni
Yes I'm a Software Engineer. Do you have a problem with that?
You do realize Software Engineers work with hardware as well don't you?
Captain Stumpy
4.7 / 5 (12) Jan 19, 2019
@Benni
Yes I'm a Software Engineer. Do you have a problem with that?
You do realize Software Engineers work with hardware as well don't you?
@Jimmybobber

No, he doesn't
he's a delusional neurodegenerative-afflicted geriatric with the internet competence of a comatose frog...

edit:correction
he's a delusional neurodegenerative-afflicted geriatric with the internet, computer, engineering, mathematical and nuclear competence of a comatose frog...
granville583762
3.2 / 5 (9) Jan 19, 2019
This HIGHLY visible BH

There never has been a picci ever!
because
the first image
of Sagittarius A*
was expected to be produced in April 2017
owing to the South Pole Telescope being closed during winter (April to October)
the data shipment delayed the processing to December 2017
when the shipment arrived
a date for the release of the image has not yet been announced
Well what an admission to make!
as EHTA admits
Its simulation algorithms
producing a simulated algorithm
that when sufficient simulation of simulated tweaking has been simulated
as yet no simulated date has been simulated
to produce this simulated picci
So That
Bennies little cupeth of joyeth will over floweth with joyeth
AS WE MARVEL AT BENNIES PRIDE AND JOY
A PICCI, OF SAGITTARIUS A*, IN SIMULATION
jimmybobber
3.3 / 5 (14) Jan 19, 2019
I should have said I'm humble. I actually have a low view of my own abilities.

I do know I'm competent however. My peer reviewed software is always accepted, works, and is finished in a reasonable amount of time. Also I typically get offers to go direct at the end of contract periods.

I am thankful everyday that I don't suffer from the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

kl31415
4.3 / 5 (12) Jan 19, 2019
This HIGHLY visible BH

There never has been a picci ever!
because
the first image
of Sagittarius A*
was expected to be produced in April 2017
owing to the South Pole Telescope being closed during winter (April to October)
the data shipment delayed the processing to December 2017
when the shipment arrived
a date for the release of the image has not yet been announced
Well what an admission to make!
as EHTA admits
Its simulation algorithms
producing a simulated algorithm
that when sufficient simulation of simulated tweaking has been simulated
as yet no simulated date has been simulated
to produce this simulated picci
So That
Bennies little cupeth of joyeth will over floweth with joyeth
AS WE MARVEL AT BENNIES PRIDE AND JOY
A PICCI, OF SAGITTARIUS A*, IN SIMULATION


Oh boy ! :)

granville583762
3.2 / 5 (9) Jan 19, 2019
This HIGHLY visible BH

There never has been a picci ever!
because
the first image
of Sagittarius A*
was expected to be produced in April 2017
owing to the South Pole Telescope being closed during winter (April to October)
the data shipment delayed the processing to December 2017
when the shipment arrived
a date for the release of the image has not yet been announced
Well what an admission to make!
as EHTA admits
Its simulation algorithms
producing a simulated algorithm
that when sufficient simulation of simulated tweaking has been simulated
as yet no simulated date has been simulated
to produce this simulated picci
So That
Bennies little cupeth of joyeth will over floweth with joyeth
AS WE MARVEL AT BENNIES PRIDE AND JOY
A PICCI, OF SAGITTARIUS A*, IN SIMULATION


Oh boy ! :)

Oh boy !
granville583762
3.2 / 5 (9) Jan 19, 2019
This overhyped HIGHLY visible BH

There never has been a picci ever!
as yet no simulated date has been simulated
to produce this simulated picci
So That
Bennies little cupeth of joyeth will over floweth with joyeth
AS WE MARVEL AT BENNIES PRIDE AND JOY
A PICCI, OF SAGITTARIUS A*, IN SIMULATION


Oh boy ! :)

Oh boy !

Oh boy !, after all the hype
Is spot on, in triplicate does not do it sufficient favours
granville583762
3.2 / 5 (9) Jan 19, 2019
When this Sagittarius A* picci finally arrives

There has in its production
so much computer time
infinite calculation
untold erroneous interference removal
programming tweaking
to produce
a life like image
that has been
hard wired
in to our subconscious
that the division between reality
the division between simulation
the division between how artists have convinced us, how BHs are perceived
there is no other way possible
but
that Bennies pride and joy
is non other
Than a simulation
granville583762
3.5 / 5 (8) Jan 19, 2019
This erroneous perception

How artists have convinced us, how BHs are perceived
as we only have artists graphic artwork
on how a BH would look in the flesh
these computer programmers
are tweaking an infinite maze of lines of code
to produce
what we can immediately recognise
as what we have been led to believe is a BH
Through no fault of their own
they have to produce an image of a BH
so
they are in the position of the present artists
they have to produce a convincing image
of
a billion mass BH
if they produce a mundane star like image
while telling everyone, this is a billion mass BH with an accretion disk stretching light years
with all this BH hype, no one will believe them
so
as they are between a rock and a hard place
WE WILL RECIEVE THE SIMULATION WE CRAVE
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (15) Jan 19, 2019
WE WILL RECIEVE THE SIMULATION WE CRAVE


WTF are you talking about, you clueless cretin? These are observations. Just have a bit of patience, you bloody clown. It could be undergoing peer review as we speak. Stop commenting on things you don't understand.
granville583762
3.2 / 5 (9) Jan 19, 2019
Jonesdave, we do not have the foggiest idea

What a blackhole looks like in the flesh

The only images we are used to seeing

Are artists impressions

Artist graphic simulation

Just as The Blue Boy, by Thomas Gainsborough

He could be green with pink spots

Only Thomas Gainsborough knows
https://upload.wi..._Boy.jpg
jonesdave
3.6 / 5 (14) Jan 19, 2019
Jonesdave, we do not have the foggiest idea What a blackhole looks like in the flesh


Yes we do. By definition, they are bloody black, you clown. We can never 'see' a BH. However, theory predicts the existence of an event horizon. That we can just about see. And possibly already have done. Be patient. Maybe March?
https://eventhori...ack-hole
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (10) Jan 19, 2019
@jimmybobber.
I honestly wish you would take the time to link some papers.
Been there. Done that. Futile. No more time to waste doing that for links stretching back years just to pander to trolls/hacks who won't/can't read/think for themselves while parroting mindlessly the old/naive/simplistic conclusions based on hack assumptions/interpretations which mainstream itself is slowly (finally) correcting/reviewing bit bit bit, thereby effectively confirming bit by bit the correctness of what I have been pointing out.

eg, that mainstream itself is finally becoming increasingly cognizant that the near-black-body radiations from ubiquitous sources/processes include the MICROWAVE spectrum which forms the CMB; hence NO BB/Inflation/Expansion interpretation/explanation necessary for CMB observed!

ps: I haven't time for 'links game' now, as I'm spending more time on completing my reality-based ToE maths/physics work for publication in full as soon as I finish it all.

cont.

jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (15) Jan 19, 2019
Been there. Done that.


Wrong.
Benni
1.7 / 5 (12) Jan 19, 2019
@Benni
Yes I'm a Software Engineer. Do you have a problem with that?
You do realize Software Engineers work with hardware as well don't you?
......and did you know hardware engineers work with software? You & schneibo being software guys never did think about that before you started shooting off your claptraps did you?

You have no idea what manner of software is involved calibrating & operating our lab equipment. That seemed so obvious when you were totally befuddled by all the unused/uncounted neutrons at the conclusion of that Beta Particle Decay measurement run over there on the Magnetar thing.

The last time I asked one of our software engineers to design a hardware package me, I had to be the one to patch up his mistakes. I did cut him some slack when I went back to him to explain why the hardware couldn't accept the software & showed him the software corrections he needed to make.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (15) Jan 19, 2019
^^^^^^^^^Lol. From a cretin who doesn't even understand mean lifetimes and half-lives! Joke.
jonesdave
3.6 / 5 (14) Jan 19, 2019
......and did you know hardware engineers work with software?


Really? What software controls Henry the vacuum cleaner that you push around all day?
Benni
1.7 / 5 (11) Jan 19, 2019
The last time I asked one of our software engineers to design a hardware package me


Ooops jimbo, made a mistake in this sentence: "hardware" should read "software package for me"

A rare dose of humility I'll need to suffer with I guess.
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (11) Jan 19, 2019
cont @jimmybobber.
@RealityCheck

You really only have one link don't you?

https://www.thund...p/about/
You have me mixed up with somebody else, mate; I have my own reality-based ToE work/insights, and have nothing to do with PU/EU groups (or any other alternative OR mainstream group of failed cosmology theorists)!

Please try to read and understand and better discern between your interlocutors in future, @jimmybobber. Thanks. :)

ps: re the DM issue. Please try to 'get it' that I am the one who acknowledges the increasing mainstream finds of ORDINARY (NOT 'exotic') DM. So I am NOT a DM 'denier', but a DM 'clarifier'.....ie, it's ordinary stuff; and when treated properly with the GR equations allowing for the NON-Keplerian distributions/motions of same, it will explain all the galactic motions/lensings etc. NO 'exotic' mysterious unreal DM needed! Cheers. :)
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (11) Jan 19, 2019
@jonesdave.
Been there. Done that.


Wrong.
Denial from self-imposed ignorance. Not good, jd.

ps: mate, why don't you do your intellect/character a great favor and just stop your denial-in-ignorance kneejerking for moment to think about the ubiquitous sources/processes all over the universe which produce near-black-body E-M radiations....which include Radiowave spectrum...which in turn INCLUDES ALL the MICROWAVE spectrum going to make up the CMB (implication being that NO BB/Inflation/Expansion 'needed' for CMB observed). Can you at least comprehend that, jd?
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (15) Jan 19, 2019
Please try to 'get it' that I am the one who acknowledges the increasing mainstream finds of ORDINARY (NOT 'exotic')


And not a single scientist is claiming that those discoveries are anything other than the ***predicted*** missing baryonic matter that was previously undetected. Nobody is claiming that this has anything to do with DM. Stop lying.

Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (10) Jan 19, 2019
D-K at it's most delusional
Been there. Done that. Futile
translation: rc's been proven wrong so many times by the evidence, he refuses to keep proving he's the idiot and a chronic liar
just to pander to...won't/can't read/think for themselves
you mean like when you once claimed
I am trying to get my solutions into 'presentation' shape in time for the next major International Climate Change Conference ... this GW solutions project has now become too urgent for me to leave it on the backburner any longer in all good conscience. Hang in there, guys! In both cases. The Reality-cavalry is coming to the rescue
http://phys.org/n...fic.html

yet, there was no mention of ol' sam in *any* "major International Climate Change Conference"

sam is a chronic liar

that is proven with "evidence" and anyone can validate it

PS - that is now 8,513 posts and still no evidence from you, rc
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (12) Jan 19, 2019
@Forum.

Yet again the Cap proves he doesn't read. It was explained to him many times before now that political/technical developments overtook the plans I had to go to that climate conference with my solutions. That Cap still dredges that up displays clearly to the intelligent reader that Cap is only interested in trolling his personal nastiness; since he got egg all over his face when falling for the bicep2 crap claims despite me cautioning him/others that it was an obviously fatally flawed 'exercise'. He/others didn't heed my caution to check the bicep2 'work' and 'claims' for themselves BEFORE continuing 'bashing cranks' with it, so they got egg on their face and have been personally hating/trolling me ever since, even when I have been obviously correct all along. Sad.
jimmybobber
3.4 / 5 (15) Jan 19, 2019
Free Neutron Decay is a quantum phenomenon.
At the quantum level everything is probabilistic.
There is no definite time a free neutron will decay.
Only probable times.

Saying you know exactly when a free neutron will decay is like saying you know exactly when an electron will tunnel or when an electron will jump to a lower energy level in an atom.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (15) Jan 19, 2019
even when I have been obviously correct all along.


Nope. Never happened. Lol.
jimmybobber
3.2 / 5 (13) Jan 19, 2019
@Benni
"Quantum indeterminacy can be quantitatively characterized by a probability distribution on the set of outcomes of measurements of an observable. The distribution is uniquely determined by the system state, and moreover quantum mechanics provides a recipe for calculating this probability distribution."
https://en.wikipe...erminacy
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Jan 19, 2019
@illiterate chronic liar, fraud, delusional D-K idiot and criminal rc
It was explained to him many times before now that political/technical developments overtook the plans I had to go to that climate conference with my solutions
is that what happened to your ToE too?

so why were you never listed as any guest speaker, presenter, demonstration, or in any way mentioned in any "major International Climate Change Conference" anywhere?

the reason you keep saying you were thwarted, for whatever reason, be it on your ToE, the "major International Climate Change Conference", BICEP2 or anything else is simple:

you're a chronic liar

that is now 8,514 posts and still no evidence from you

reported for being a fraud, liar and chronic baiting troll

you will now reply with some sob story, explanation, appeal to the forum and various other bullsh*t tactics to distract from the fact that you've never been able to provide evidence

I'll just report it and move on
jimmybobber
2.8 / 5 (11) Jan 19, 2019
@RealityCheck
I would actually like to hear about your Theory of Everything.
Where can I read about it besides sporadic posts on Physorg?
RealityCheck
2.5 / 5 (8) Jan 19, 2019
@jonesdave.
even when I have been obviously correct all along.


Nope. Never happened. Lol.
Denial from self-imposed ignorance. Not good, jd.

Please try to 'get it' that I am the one who acknowledges the increasing mainstream finds of ORDINARY (NOT 'exotic')


And not a single scientist is claiming that those discoveries are anything other than the ***predicted*** missing baryonic matter that was previously undetected. Nobody is claiming that this has anything to do with DM. Stop lying.

How brave do you think impecunious 'hacks' are, mate, when coming out with that claim will ostracize them and end their careers (such as they are now)?

Or how stupid do you think the 'cosmology experts' (whose flawed work/claims are being increasingly falsified) are, if making such admissions will make them lose face and 'past honors' (they are hoping they will be dead before the new mainstream paradigm is finally brought together).

Get real, jd! :)
granville583762
3.9 / 5 (7) Jan 19, 2019
In honour of jonesdave

More on blackholes
We can never see a BH, we can just about see

We do not have the foggiest idea
Yes we do
they are bloody black
We can never see a BH
However
Theory predicts the existence of an event horizon
That we can just about see, maybe March?

A blackholes remaining credibility, its invisibility, just a simulation
An event horizon, just about seen
jimmybobber
3 / 5 (12) Jan 19, 2019
@RealityCheck
Here is an article about scientists finding the expecting missing baryonic matter in the universe.

https://www.wired...-matter/

"They had a pretty good idea of how much should be out there, based on theoretical studies of how matter was created during the Big Bang."

"Now, in a series of three recent papers, astronomers have identified the final chunks of all the ordinary matter in the universe. (They are still deeply perplexed as to what makes up dark matter.)"
RealityCheck
2.2 / 5 (10) Jan 19, 2019
@Forum.

And the Cap continues to debase himself before the internet/posterity, with his nastiness campaign just because he got egg all over his face when he fell hook-line-and-sinker for that bicep2 crap despite my cautions against believing it all instead of checking it all for himself.

ps: Any and all intelligent readers are welcome to go through @Captain Stumpy's posting history/ratings page; and note that he is entirely bereft of any scientific contributions of even the most modest originality that will in any way advance the objective cosmology science discourse. However, you may find Cap's posting history to be replete with personal trolling malice and ignorance of subtle but important science ideas/develpments being discussed by me and others. Sad.
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Jan 19, 2019
@jimmybobber
@RealityCheck
I would actually like to hear about your Theory of Everything.
Where can I read about it besides sporadic posts on Physorg?
start here, where he forgot he posted his personal information that allows you to not only see where he lives but also track his movements because in Oz, the gov't loves paperwork, and especially when you attempt to elicit funds for delusional and dangerous texts that can lead to physical injury while claiming it's revolutionary science (called fraud in Aus)
http://earthlingclub.com/

use protection dealing with his personal site - you know the drill

good luck deciphering the idiocy though - I hear dropping acid makes it all sensible, but only while under the influence

jimmybobber
3.3 / 5 (12) Jan 19, 2019
@RealityCheck
I'd rather not go through your whole posting history to search for things you linked. Can you please give me some links to your theory or links to papers or articles suggesting that all dark matter is baryonic matter?
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (12) Jan 19, 2019
Get real, jd! :)


Get some science and evidence, woo boy.
jimmybobber
3.2 / 5 (11) Jan 19, 2019
@RealityCheck

I found an article on The Thunderbolts Project site!

"2016 may be remembered as the year that the hypothesis of dark matter was finally, officially falsified. Two recent scientific studies report findings that may raise fatal objections to dark matter's existence."

https://www.thund...ce-news/
granville583762
3.9 / 5 (7) Jan 19, 2019
Nobody saw that coming

That jonesdave
would be nailing the last nail in this blackholes coffin
no self respecting blackhole can ever show its face in public ever again
its only remaining credibility blown out the water
its event horizon
the only claim to fame
the only reason this blackhole is invisible
the only reason this blackhole got its name
An event horizon, just about seen
Oh! the shame
the humiliation
it makes any self respecting blackhole
Crawl under its bridge and contemplate fin rot
jimmybobber
3 / 5 (12) Jan 19, 2019
@Captain Stumpy
Thank You. You posted that before and I visited the site but couldn't get past

"<1> 'Scalar' Direction
Direction as such is the a priori Source and Substance of the Universe, since undifferentiated direction is the one, sole, natural attribute that is absolutely independent of any and all other entities, concepts and considerations. "
RealityCheck
2.2 / 5 (10) Jan 19, 2019
@jimmybobber.

Note this from @Captain Stumpy.
@jimmybobber, start here, where he forgot he posted his personal information that allows you to not only see where he lives but also track his movements because in Oz, the gov't loves paperwork, and especially when you attempt to elicit funds for delusional and dangerous texts that can lead to physical injury while claiming it's revolutionary science (called fraud in Aus)
http://earthlingclub.com/

use protection dealing with his personal site - you know the drill

good luck deciphering the idiocy though - I hear dropping acid makes it all sensible, but only while under the influence

Note Cap's calculated LIES:
...attempt to elicit funds for delusional and dangerous texts that can lead to physical injury while claiming it's revolutionary science (called fraud in Aus)
The Caps doesn't specify exactly what "dangerous texts" etc "can lead to injury" etc or what "fraud" etc...because there is none except in Cap's LIES.
jimmybobber
3 / 5 (12) Jan 19, 2019
@RealityCheck
I think this is pretty dangerous. This actually injured my brain a little. Hopefully one day I'll get those neurons back.

""<1> 'Scalar' Direction
Direction as such is the a priori Source and Substance of the Universe, since undifferentiated direction is the one, sole, natural attribute that is absolutely independent of any and all other entities, concepts and considerations. "
RealityCheck
2.2 / 5 (10) Jan 19, 2019
ps: @jimmybobber.

My initial book/papers were 'in house' Earthling Club publication as 'a progress report' to members re my ToE work. Please note that only my detractors push that link when they are trolling me; as I have not pushed that link for years because I will be publishing the full complete work, including the reality-based axiomatic maths for modeling the reality-based physics ToE already completed.
...I visited the site but couldn't get past

"<1> 'Scalar' Direction
Direction as such is the a priori Source and Substance of the Universe, since undifferentiated direction is the one, sole, natural attribute that is absolutely independent of any and all other entities, concepts and considerations. "
Compare that to all the other mainstream/alternative 'starting points' for THEIR respective theorizing/claims, mate! You'll find all other attempts at 'starting' entities/contexts' unreal/missing altogether; eg, String/Brane Theory, Big Bang etc! Read all of it.
granville583762
3.9 / 5 (7) Jan 19, 2019
Realy, all dark matter is baryonic matter, after all these neutron lectures concerning beta-decay

Baryonic Matter.
By definition, baryonic matter should only include matter composed of baryons
Include protons, neutrons and all the objects composed of them
but exclude electrons and neutrinos which are leptons
In this darkmatter world
Neutrons do not transform into electrons and neutrinos
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (10) Jan 19, 2019
@jimmy, @RC doesn't know the difference between a scalar and a vector. Never mind a tensor.
jimmybobber
2.8 / 5 (13) Jan 19, 2019
@RealityCheck
You lost me on Scalar Direction.
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (9) Jan 19, 2019
@jimmybobber.
I think this is pretty dangerous. This actually injured my brain a little. Hopefully one day I'll get those neurons back.

""<1> 'Scalar' Direction
Direction as such is the a priori Source and Substance of the Universe, since undifferentiated direction is the one, sole, natural attribute that is absolutely independent of any and all other entities, concepts and considerations. "
Now you're just trolling your biases and prejudices, mate. If you started like that with String Theory or Big Bang, and didn't read the rest of those theories/hypotheses, then how much more "damged" would your brain be, hey?

Let's face it, you're just another time-wasting nincompoop with biased inculcated crap which is even worse for your brain that what you say mine was. You don't want to read properly in context, opine from self-imposed ignrance; just like the trolls who 'just believed' in bicep2 and attacked my correct cautions against such uncritial belief. Your problem. :)
jimmybobber
3.2 / 5 (13) Jan 19, 2019
@Reality
Call me crazy but I prefer this definition of a scalar.

"A scalar or scalar quantity in physics is a physical quantity that can be described by a single element of a number field such as a real number, often accompanied by units of measurement. A scalar is usually said to be a physical quantity that only has magnitude and no other characteristics. This is in contrast to vectors, tensors, etc. which are described by several numbers that characterize their magnitude, direction, and so on."
https://en.wikipe...physics)
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (10) Jan 19, 2019
No, @RC, @jimmy is working from the definitions of scalar and vector.

Scalars don't have any direction.
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (8) Jan 19, 2019
@Da Schneib.
No, @RC, @jimmy is working from the definitions of scalar and vector.

Scalars don't have any direction.
Hence the further explication down the page, DS. One would expect an intelligent reader to proceed in context and follow the FULL argument as laid out; and not to just kneejerk from semantical aspects which are explained further as to 'new' usage in context given. But if you don't read and understand properly in context, you won't know about such things, will you mate? :)
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (10) Jan 19, 2019
There isn't any further "explication" that turns a scalar into a vector.

Here, let's explain scalars and vectors:

If you take the temperature (or kinetic energy) of molecules all over a gas, you get scalars from each molecule.

If you take the wind direction of molecules all over a gas, you get not only magnitude but direction for each molecule.

Most cranks don't understand the difference.
Da Schneib
3.2 / 5 (9) Jan 19, 2019
Let's understand this another way:

Once you add direction, then you add the cosine law. If something is moving northeast to southwest, it's moving in both north-south and east-west. You apply the cosine law to find out how much movement there is in each of the north-south and east-west directions. This is a vector.

If there is no direction, then you don't have to use this math. This is a scalar.
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 19, 2019
@jimmybobber.

Call me crazy but I prefer this definition of a scalar.
I take it you are unfamiliar with the concept of UNDIFFERENTIATED UNIVERSAL POTENTIAL; from which all VECTOR POTENTIALS arise once 'differentiation dualities' manifest from such. If you want an idea of what that is all about, consider the mainstream GUT (Grand Unified Theory) concept where all forces are unified into an amorphous/undirected (ie, 'scalar') context/entity from which the individual forces 'separated' due to 'symmetry breaking' etc differentiation of that 'starting' GUT condition. So, when reading my 'scalar direction' comment you need to bear in mind that it is a 'starting' UNDIFFERENTIATED context from which VECTOR direction/forces/dualities manifest due to such 'symmetry breaking' physical activity in the underlying universal context. Ok? :)
Da Schneib
3.2 / 5 (9) Jan 19, 2019
More bullshit trying to cover up a major screwup, @105LiarRC.
jimmybobber
3 / 5 (12) Jan 19, 2019
@RealityCheck

I actually tried to re-word your definition of "Scalar" Direction so I could try to understand it here:

"Direction, as in the exact sense of the word, is the reasoned source and substance of the universe, since direction, of which cannot be divided, is the one, the only one, natural quality that is independent of any and all other things with independent existence, abstract ideas, and facts or motives taken into account in deciding or judging something."

I cannot understand it.
I'm actually not trolling or making fun of you.

RealityCheck
2 / 5 (8) Jan 19, 2019
@Da Schneib.
Let's understand this another way: Once you add direction, then you add the cosine law. If something is moving northeast to southwest, it's moving in both north-south and east-west. You apply the cosine law to find out how much movement there is in each of the north-south and east-west directions. This is a vector. If there is no direction, then you don't have to use this math. This is a scalar.
You keep missing the NEW CONTEXTUAL USAGE of that term, mate. Think of "THE BULK" concept in String/Brane theory. That is an undifferentiated 'bulk' THING context from/in which arise all other 'differentiated things' like strings/motions etc. Get it now? My usage is NOT in the ordinary context you are alluding to; but in the STARTING CONCEPT context as in The Bulk and other undifferentiated contexts underlying mainstream theories/hypotheses. Unless you READ the full page in context then kneejerking to other contexts is misleading you as to what is being said. Ok?
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (10) Jan 19, 2019
There isn't any "NEW CONTEXTUAL USAGE{sic]" for the definitions of scalar and vector.

You're lying again, @105LiarRC. Shall I start posting your lies again?
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 19, 2019
@jimmybobber.

Where did you get THAT from, mate? It's a garbled version by someone else (you?).

Anyhow...THIS is what the relavant page starts out with:
<1> 'Scalar' Direction
Direction as such is the a priori Source and Substance of the Universe, since undifferentiated direction is the one, sole, natural attribute that is absolutely independent of any and all other entities, concepts and considerations.

<2> 'Vector' Direction
Scalar Direction self-differentiates into infinitesimally thin, infinitely long, duality filaments of Directional Impetus (Energy) whose open lines of action intersect everywhere to generate the coincidence-matrix of omni-directional absolute points. These omnipolar points form the fabric of the primary (ground state) vacuum substrate. This substrate is the True Void or Eternal Singularity; and is perceived by us as infinite volume or Space. I therefore refer to it as the Void Singularity matrix (VSmatrix) Space context.
Understand? :)
Da Schneib
3.2 / 5 (9) Jan 19, 2019
As soon as you said "scalar direction" you were wrong.
Uncle Ira
4.5 / 5 (8) Jan 19, 2019
@ Jimmy-Skippy. How you are Cher? I am doing just as good as I can do, thanks for asking.

I'm actually not trolling or making fun of you.
I got to call you on that one Cher,,,,, anybody who is normal and smart who is trying to have a normal conversation with the Really-Skippy is making the fun with him. The two things can just not be separated. (And Really-Skippy carries the troll with him every where he goes,,, some times they even get there before he gets there.)
jimmybobber
3 / 5 (12) Jan 19, 2019
@RealityCheck
I re-worded your definition of "Scalar" direction to make it more clear using the definitions of words you actually used.

a priori: relating to or derived by reasoning from self-evident propositions

undifferentiated: not divided or able to be divided into different elements, types, etc.

attribute: a quality or feature regarded as a characteristic or inherent part of someone or something.

entity: a thing with distinct and independent existence.

concept: an abstract idea; a general notion.

consideration: a matter weighed or taken into account when formulating an opinion or plan
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (9) Jan 19, 2019
@DS.
As soon as you said "scalar direction" you were wrong. ...

There isn't any "NEW CONTEXTUAL USAGE{sic]" for the definitions of scalar and vector.

You're lying again, @105LiarRC. Shall I start posting your lies again?
You're in kneejerking-in-ignorance mode again, DS. Stop it before you (yet again) embarrass yourself (like you have dne too many times before, remember?

READ THE NEW CONTEXT in the post I just provided to @jimmybobber, mate; BEFORE again claiming that "there is no new contextual usage". Ok?
Uncle Ira
4.6 / 5 (9) Jan 19, 2019
As soon as you said "scalar direction" you were wrong.

And he goes on from there to get in the "energy" vectors too. (I bet he was trying to get out some thing like the momentum or force)
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (10) Jan 19, 2019
No, I'm telling you the difference between a scalar and a vector.

Given there are different terms for them, you agree they're different, right?
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 19, 2019
@Da Schneib.
No, I'm telling you the difference between a scalar and a vector.

Given there are different terms for them, you agree they're different, right?
Why do you think I just posted the actual differentiation in context to @jimmybobber, DS? READ that post and SEE that I well knew scalar vs vector terminology. As for the 'scalar direction' usage, I already explained that in the cosmology 'starting concept' usage its much like the undifferentiated THE BULK dimensional concept used as a 'starting concept' in String theory etc. Get it?
Da Schneib
3.2 / 5 (9) Jan 19, 2019
What "actual differentiation?" I didn't see any equations.
Uncle Ira
4.6 / 5 (9) Jan 19, 2019
@ Really-Skippy. How you are tonignt Cher? Fine and dandy here, thanks for asking.

You keep missing the NEW CONTEXTUAL USAGE of that term, mate.
Does "NEW CONTEXTUAL" mean

"I was not smart enough to invent a new six letter word for my gobbledygook so I stole one from the scientists and make it mean the exact opposite of how everybody else in the whole wide world means it."?

[q[My usage is NOT in the ordinary context you are alluding to; Cher it is not his fault if your usage is only used by one single bat-poo-crazy person in all the world. You are the only person any where who uses your usage so maybe you should use some other word because that one is already used for the opposite of your usage.

Uncle Ira
4.4 / 5 (7) Jan 19, 2019
What "actual differentiation?" I didn't see any equations.

He'll probably step in that one thinking it might keep everybody from noticing him not knowing what the scalar is,,,, I hope it is as much fun when he does that.
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (8) Jan 19, 2019
@DS.
What "actual differentiation?" I didn't see any equations.
First you need to understand the concepts, then the maths follows. Even the Big Bang hypothesis claims to have arisen from a 'Grand Unified' UNIVERSAL SCALAR FIELD which THEN allegedly 'differentiated physically' via SYMMETRY BREAKING. The maths came later; the concept came first. Ok?

That's exactly the same procedure I am using; only the terms I used are contextually used/explained to imply/label the actual real starting concept from which everything 'differentiated', including vector dynamics/quantities etc.

In short: I am doing nothing extraordinary by re-using terms in different contexts; which has been done in maths and science for centuries, with not a peep of complaint from you/others; so why all the aggro now with my doing likewise! :)
jimmybobber
3.2 / 5 (13) Jan 19, 2019
@RealityCheck
A Scalar field does not re-define what a scalar is. It does not give scalars direction.
jimmybobber
3.2 / 5 (13) Jan 19, 2019
@RealityCheck
Once you re-define scalar. Nobody can communicate with you anymore with mathematics and physics.
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (8) Jan 19, 2019
@jimmybobber.
@RealityCheck
A Scalar field does not re-define what a scalar is. It does not give scalars direction.
Please read my post to DS just above yours; and get the gist about re-using/re-coining concepts/terms in new contexts/explanations.

That sort of thing has been done for yonks in science and maths; there's nothing shocking/wrong about it.....IF you take the time to read and understand in new context. Otherwise you are arguing/misunderstanding/misapprehending etc based on other usages NOT applicable in the newly explained context.

A perfect example of this problem is your earlier 're-phrasing/re-interpreting' what I ACTUALLY wrote, and getting all confused because it was NOT what was meant in the full new CONTEXT it all appears in. If you don't read in context then why bother at all?

ps: I can just imagine what you would have made of Einstein's many re-usages/new-coinings of concepts/terms for his new context/theories! Relax; read in context. :)
Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (11) Jan 19, 2019
I understand differentiation just fine, thanks. Learned it about 30 years ago in school.

I understand scalar too, and there is no direction in it.

Maybe you should understand these terms too before you start using words you don't understand the meaning of.
RealityCheck
2.5 / 5 (8) Jan 19, 2019
@jimmybobber.
@RealityCheck
Once you re-define scalar. Nobody can communicate with you anymore with mathematics and physics.
Please note well: I am NOT redefining 'scalar'; that has the same meaning as always (ie, undifferentiated in directional sense). Ok?

What I did was point out an UNDIFFERENTIATED DIRECTION POTENTIAL STARTING CONCEPT for the universal cntext. I LABELED that undifferentiated starting concept "SCALAR DIRECTION"...in the time honored tradition in maths and physics of re-using/re-coining terms for NEW CONTEXTUAL usages...as mine definitely is.

In short: If you have no qualms about the mainstream usage/contexts like for GUT and The Bulk etc, then you can have no qualms about my own usage in my context as explained fully. Ok? :)
Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (11) Jan 19, 2019
@105LiarRC, scalar has no direction. Not even an "undifferentiated" one (no one has any idea what you think that means, since you don't seem to know what "differentiated" means).
Da Schneib
3.8 / 5 (10) Jan 19, 2019
@105LiarRC, scalar has no direction. Not even an "undifferentiated" one (no one has any idea what you think that means, since you don't seem to know what "differentiated" means).
RealityCheck
2.5 / 5 (8) Jan 19, 2019
@DS.
I understand differentiation just fine, thanks. Learned it about 30 years ago in school.

I understand scalar too, and there is no direction in it.

Maybe you should understand these terms too before you start using words you don't understand the meaning of.
I just pointed out to @jimmybobber that I was NOT redefining 'scalar'; I was LABELING (coining a new term) for UNDIFFERENTIATED DIRECTION concept of the underlying 'starting context' for universe theory/hypothesis (much as mainstream have been using GUT and BULK concepts as 'starting context' for THEIR cosmological theories/hypotheses). Please read that post before proceeding with your ill advised kneejerking. Thanks.
Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (11) Jan 19, 2019
Worth noting that cranks often try to use terminology they do not understand to appear knowledgeable. No one should be fooled by this.

Scalars have no direction, differentiated or not.

Period. Full stop.
Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (11) Jan 19, 2019
A "directional scalar" is semantically equivalent to an "underwater dry spell."
RealityCheck
2.5 / 5 (8) Jan 19, 2019
@DS.
Worth noting that cranks often try to use terminology they do not understand to appear knowledgeable. No one should be fooled by this.
So far, regarding our mutual exchanges so far, DS, it appears that those who fail to read and understand properly in the new context provided/explained are the ones who "don't understand"....because they are too easily ego-blinded and won't/can't read and understand in context; and instead kneejerk from their own personal prejudices/malice which makes them miss everything important that is happening right under their nose. Not good, DS.

A "directional scalar" is semantically equivalent to an "underwater dry spell."
NO, mate; it's SCALAR DIRECTION CONCEPT before it gets differentiated by symmetry breaking into VECTOR DIRECTION dimensional quantities/effects. Get it straight before going on silly like that, mate. :)
Da Schneib
3.2 / 5 (9) Jan 19, 2019
There isn't any "understand properly" on my part.

I understand scalars.

I understand differentiation.

You don't.
jimmybobber
3.2 / 5 (13) Jan 19, 2019
I think RC is saying direction cannot be divided.
But with big words like "UNDIFFERENTIATED DIRECTION concept of the underlying 'starting context' for universe theory/hypothesis..."

That's my best guess.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (10) Jan 19, 2019
@105LiarRC sticks technical terminology together in meaningless juxtapositions.

For example, "directional scalars."
Benni
2 / 5 (8) Jan 19, 2019
Free Neutron Decay is a quantum phenomenon.
At the quantum level everything is probabilistic.
There is no definite time a free neutron will decay.
Only probable times.

Saying you know exactly when a free neutron will decay is like saying you know exactly when an electron will tunnel or when an electron will jump to a lower energy level in an atom.


You learned absolutely zero after I put you through a cursory review of the the 3 lifetime measurement device types in which neutron generators PREDICTABLY generated free unbound neutrons. It is well known how neutrons are emitted from unstable isotopes & will beta decay in 14.7 minutes or the neutron generators in those three device types could not have been fabricated for the intended use.

RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 19, 2019
@DS.
There isn't any "understand properly" on my part.

I understand scalars.

I understand differentiation.

You don't.
You're still the UNHEEDING kneejerk king, DS. You have not learned from your (all too many) past faux pas due to like unheeding kneejerking ego-silliness tactics. Stop that and learn, mate. :)

Yet another of your faux pas, DS:
@105LiarRC sticks technical terminology together in meaningless juxtapositions. For example, "directional scalars."
It's SCALAR DIRECTION I used as a label. I never used "directional scalsrs' like you just claimed, DS. How can you function in your daily life if your reading/comprehension levels are so blatantly low and twisted as that latest example demonstrates, mate? Not good, DS.
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 19, 2019
@jimmybobber.
I think RC is saying direction cannot be divided.
But with big words like "UNDIFFERENTIATED DIRECTION concept of the underlying 'starting context' for universe theory/hypothesis..."

That's my best guess.
No, mate. I said what I said and clarified thereafter, as per the relevant quoted paragraphs in my earlier post to you.

Here, just try this: spread out your arms, turn around, look in 'all directions'...

...THAT is your immediate, unmistakable physical sensing/demonstration of THE UNDIFFERENTIATED DIRECTION POTENTIAL 'itself'...before any individual VECTOR directional dimensions are considered.

See?

It's merely acknowledging THE ONLY REAL PRIMARY physical STARTING POTENTIAL that your mind/hypothesizing can IDENTIFY/ACCESS....BEFORE any other considerations arise, due to symmetry breaking or any other SECONDARY physical processes/considerations.

Then read from there and understand in context whatever else you come across that I wrote. Cheers. :)
Uncle Ira
4.5 / 5 (8) Jan 19, 2019
No, mate. I said what I said and clarified thereafter, as per the relevant quoted paragraphs in my earlier post to you.

Here, just try this: spread out your arms, turn around, look in 'all directions'...

...THAT is your immediate, unmistakable physical sensing/demonstration of THE UNDIFFERENTIATED DIRECTION POTENTIAL 'itself'...before any individual VECTOR directional dimensions are considered.

See?

It's merely acknowledging THE ONLY REAL PRIMARY physical STARTING POTENTIAL that your mind/hypothesizing can IDENTIFY/ACCESS....BEFORE any other considerations arise, due to symmetry breaking or any other SECONDARY physical processes/considerations.

Then read from there and understand in context whatever else you come across that I wrote. Cheers. :)
I think Professor-Steinhardt-Skippy was correct all along,,,, you are demented Cher.
RealityCheck
2.5 / 5 (8) Jan 19, 2019
@Uncle Ira.
No, mate. I said what I said and clarified thereafter, as per the relevant quoted paragraphs in my earlier post to you.

Here, just try this: spread out your arms, turn around, look in 'all directions'...

...THAT is your immediate, unmistakable physical sensing/demonstration of THE UNDIFFERENTIATED DIRECTION POTENTIAL 'itself'...before any individual VECTOR directional dimensions are considered.

See?

It's merely acknowledging THE ONLY REAL PRIMARY physical STARTING POTENTIAL that your mind/hypothesizing can IDENTIFY/ACCESS....BEFORE any other considerations arise, due to symmetry breaking or any other SECONDARY physical processes/considerations.

Then read from there and understand in context whatever else you come across that I wrote. Cheers. :)
I think Professor-Steinhardt-Skippy was correct all along,,,, you are demented Cher.
You can't spread out your arms etc and check/think for yourself, Ira? To be expected from bot-voting nincompoops. :)
Benni
2 / 5 (8) Jan 19, 2019
@105LiarRC sticks technical terminology together in meaningless juxtapositions.

For example, "directional scalars."


schneibo...............the world needs fewer people like you. What with your filthy foul mouth & provocative demeanor I can't imagine what it is that YOU thinks makes you so irresistable to those around you anyplace you go.
RealityCheck
2.5 / 5 (8) Jan 19, 2019
ps @Uncle Ira.

Compared to the crazy BB/Inflation etc nonsense metaphysics and just plain fantasy stuff that Prof Steinhardt and Prof Penrose recently has reason (and bravery) to finally deny as "scientifically untenable" now, my own ToE work is miles ahead on reality/tenability score, mate.

Man, they really did know what "demented" meant!...when they came up with all their now falsified BB etc unreality crap. Thank goodness mainstream is slowly but surely self-correcting, at last!

Never mind, Ira, you probably missed the last time I linked to a PO mainstream report confirming me correct all along. Else you've been ignoring same; so that your demented "Uncle Ira persona" is not too damaged by the 'cognitive dissonance' you/it must be suffering terribly from after all your years of bot-voting, trolling and just plain 'demented Cajun schtik').

All that banter between friends aside, mate, I trust you and yours are well and will remain so this New Year. Good luck. :)
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Jan 19, 2019
@idiot fraud rc
I said what I said and clarified thereafter
there isn't one f*cking thing on that entire webpage that "clarified" anything, anywhere, in any context
The Caps doesn't specify
I didn't need to because he understood

the dangerous text is your misappropriation of known terminology and reuse in obviously contrary ways in order to obfuscate in an attempt to create the illusion that the pseudoscience you regurgitate is factual or accurate

the fact that you sold this as scientific text constitutes fraud, proven on your page with
Price:
Australian Dollars---$20:00
if anyone attempted to use your idiotic ToE to explain reality they would get physically injured

the fact that you're selling this over the internet constitutes international fraud as well

now if we can only get you to be as verbose about the BICEP2 fatal flaws, which you lied about 8,533 posts ago and still can't prove you provided in any post, anywhere on the net

reported
RealityCheck
2.5 / 5 (8) Jan 19, 2019
...and on cue comes the Cap's ranting malice and less than useless 'troll contributions' to anything at all.

@Forum, is there no end to this @Captain Stumpy tragedy on the net? Will he die as willfully ignorant and malignant as he lived, as he has sadly self-demonstrated for years now? Only time will tell. Sad epitaph for the Cap: he invented the infamous CS-"TL;DR Research Method" which misses all salient info and just goes straight to pre-concluded trolling/lying rewriting of history/record. Not good for Cap; or anyone else. Pity.

ps: By the Cap's own criteria, all the blatantly 'publish -or-perish' crap sold in books by the BB etc 'scientific' publishers/sellers were committing fraud! Cap's next campaign will be to troll all those BB fraudters. What a malignant selective 'maroon' is the Caps, hey folks? Sad.
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (9) Jan 19, 2019
pps: So again, the Caps who does not read and has boasted about not doing so before trolling his ignorance, is attempting to claim things which he has no real clue about. True to form for the Cap, at least; even if just a plain worse than useless troll on the net. Poor Cap.
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Jan 19, 2019
ROTFLMFAO
@illiterate fraud and criminal sam fodera
is attempting to claim things which he has no real clue about
here is the thing: Anything I claimed about you is a matter of public record and can be found using a cursory internet search with any engine

moreover, not one single person, anywhere, on any site on the internet, has ever once been able to get you to post the 4 fatal flaws of BICEP2, let alone all 8 of your delusional "spotted flaws"

that makes you *demonstrably* a liar as well as stupid

all that it will take to prove me wrong is a link to *at least* the 4 fatal flaws here on PO, per your claim

now, I know this is hard for you to understand, but: every post of yours is catalogued and archived
that is how I know you're lying and you've never once posted the 4 fatal flaws
it's how I know you can't link it here

feel free to continue lying - I'll let you (until I get bored)

you'll only continue to prove me correct

8,535 posts and climbing, BTW
jimmybobber
2.8 / 5 (13) Jan 20, 2019
@Benni

Can you please describe what happens inside a free neutron causing it to decay?.
SkyLight
3.5 / 5 (11) Jan 20, 2019
The maths came later; the concept came first ... That's exactly the same procedure I am using
Bingo! @RC admits here that he has committed the fundamental error made by all authors of text-based "physical theories."

These people all have three things in common:

- they are math illiterates, having failed to comprehend math at school;
- they have all read popularized books, magazines and websites on science, and imagine that what they read IS the science: they come to believe that theories of science are in their most basic form expressed in text, and that the math which scientists use is just a filler - something added on afterward to help them calculate stuff;
- they all suffer from some kind of delusional and narcissistic thinking, and come to imagine that they can explain the world around them better than the scientists have done; they also often subscribe to the latest memes which heap scorn on "mainstream" theories.

[TBC]
SkyLight
3.5 / 5 (11) Jan 20, 2019
[continued]

Then they spend years in building what they imagine to be a complete picture of the world, the Universe as they see it - i.e. their own take on science and cosmology - just using words cleverly combined to paint the picture they see in their heads. Only then, once the "science" is complete in written form, do they say that the math can now be added to the theory, imagining math to be some kind of infinitely-plastic or -adaptable structure which can be shaped around their theory to give it some calculating ability. Some of these people actually call on other, lesser, beings to do this tedious fiddly bit after they've done the actual hard work of writing down their theories in text form.

Those brave (or foolhardy) enough to present their magnum opus to the world are then horrified and dismayed at the ridicule that is heaped upon their ideas by real-life scientists, and others who actually HAVE learned science and math the hard way.

[TBC]
SkyLight
3.5 / 5 (11) Jan 20, 2019
[continued]

Science and scientific theories are actually constructed in a completely different manner to that imagined by the text-based "theorists", in that the basic ideas of science are actually FIRST expressed in hypotheses in mathematical form, taking care to use the math which is most appropriate to any particular problem. This requires a deep understanding of the mathematical constructs, methods and proofs built up over centuries by multitudes of mathematicians and scientists: an understanding which takes budding scientists years of study to hone and perfect.

Once these hypotheses have been tested and confirmed, they become part of the body of scientific knowledge. And only THEN does somebody pick up a pen and attempt to express in words understandable to the average man in the street what has originally been expressed in the true language of science: namely mathematics.

Starting with text and bolting on math afterwards is attempting to put the cart before the horse.
SkyLight
3.8 / 5 (10) Jan 20, 2019
@Benni
It is well known how neutrons are emitted from unstable isotopes & will beta decay in 14.7 minutes
Do you mean to say that you think ALL of the neutrons emitted will decay 14.7 minutes after they have been emitted?
Steelwolf
4.2 / 5 (6) Jan 20, 2019
I seem to remember that Newton was hit by said apple, and it was Afterwards, once he had figured What to measure, and how to do it, and THEN he was able to get something that you can take numbers From in order to do Math WITH.

Subject first, with description for simplified view, backed up with a more rigorous set of Mathematics to explain and prove out the theory is the basic way Science Works.

Kepler had to have seen the orbits and plotted them out before being able to apply measurements of distance, time and space, so, again the system and a description of it has to come first, and then the math section is what holds the rigorous truths.

Imagine someone telling Einstein that he could not use the term 'General Relativity' as that would upset some military families; the strawman arguments I have seen here look a lot like that, and certainly not scientific, more like petty attempts to smear and demean something beyond your present comprehension.
SkyLight
3.8 / 5 (10) Jan 20, 2019
petty attempts to smear and demean something beyond your present comprehension.
I have gone through the years-long process of learning science from the ground up, and possess a University degree in a subject very close to the subject in this article. So, this "something" is by no means "beyond my comprehension".

Both Newton and Kepler were first-rate mathematicians whose extensive mathematical knowledge and intuition led them to formulate their laws in mathematical terms. You can quibble all you like about their thought-processes but, without their intimate knowledge of math, they would not have been able to do what history records them as having done.

And Kepler used observational data of the changing positions of planets over time from Tycho Brahe, and used mathematical methods of analysis to show that the planets moved not in circles around the sun, but ellipses with one focus at the Sun.
jimmybobber
3.2 / 5 (13) Jan 20, 2019
@Skylight here are Benni's words from another thread

"It'll be zero free neutrons decay at 30 minutes because all of them winked out of existence at 14.7 minutes. The lifetime of a free neutron CANNOT extend beyond 14.7 minutes, such has never been observed in any of the 3 detection methods used."

"The count time begins the instant a neutron is unbound from a nucleus. Do you get that? The clock starts counting down to 14.7 at exactly the instant it becomes FREE, nothing can DELAY that count time from commencing, or concluding."

Read more at: https://phys.org/...html#jCp
granville583762
3.9 / 5 (7) Jan 20, 2019
This Blackhole

This mystique is broken
it light radius
its event horizon
an event horizon, just about seen
its singularity, is broken
in angularity of spin
in orbital angularity of spin
in increasing angularity of momentum
on its surface radius accelerating angularity of spin
its equatorial surface radius
its equatorial mass
its surface blackhole soil
its radius determined by R = 2GM/C²
which coicidently
is also its surface radius
where its radius the speed of light
where at its centre of mass is zero gravity
as its image has always been hidden from sight
but no more
as this blackhole just a mm above its equatorial equator falls below the speed of light
so this blackhole almost seen
within a mm of its equatorial surface
this
Event Horizon Telescope Array
has been observing
Sagittarius A*
this highly visible blackhole
amost visible that
in the year of our Lord
this 2000 and 19
that in all probability
this March
This blackhole will be seen
SkyLight
3.8 / 5 (10) Jan 20, 2019
@jimmy, I just cast a quick look over that discussion. Wow, just wow. What an idiot! Benni actually does believe that the results from those three detectors show that all the neutrons suddenly decay at 14.7 minutes after emission, and shows he is utterly unaware of what a half-life actually MEANS.

He states unequivocally that
individual neutron beta decay is NOT random, that decay commences the INSTANT a neutron becomes unbound from an atomic nucleus & within 14.7 minutes will decay out of existence.
which contradicts EVERY scientific finding made since radioactive decay, and later free-neutron decay, were first observed.

Benni: half-life means that, after a period equal to the half-life of a particular atom or particle, exactly 50% of the original number of atoms or particles are left. After two half-lives, exactly 25% are left; after 3 half-lives, 12.5% will be left, and so on.

So, there's a certain PROBABILITY that any free neutron will decay in any period.

granville583762
3.9 / 5 (7) Jan 20, 2019
Ln.mean-life half-life does not apply to beta-decay
granville583762
3.9 / 5 (7) Jan 20, 2019
A free neutron is transforming into
an electron which does not decay
a neutrino which does not decay
a proton which does not decay
so
Technically, this is not decay
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (7) Jan 20, 2019
As this technically is not decay
Ln.mean-life half-life does not apply
SkyLight
3.7 / 5 (9) Jan 20, 2019
@granville: free neutrons decay via beta-decay. Free neutrons have an associated half-life. Do feel free to burble incoherently in response...
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (9) Jan 20, 2019
Based on comments on this thread, @Benni now believes that neutrons are ejected from nuclei and decay after exactly 14.7 minutes and that's where radioactivity comes from. SMH
SkyLight
3.8 / 5 (10) Jan 20, 2019
@Benni now believes that neutrons are ejected from nuclei and decay after exactly 14.7 minutes and that's where radioactivity comes from
Well, that's what six whole years of engineering school and subsequent extra educational credits can provide: a complete lack of understanding of even the basics.

Benni has every right to be proud of such a noteworthy achievement !
granville583762
3.9 / 5 (7) Jan 20, 2019
The Ln.mean-life half-life
In 10.2minutes, half the free neutrons have transformed
In the 14.7minutes, all the remaining free neutrons have transformed
as there are no free neutrons left in 14.7minutes
Ln.mean-life half-life does not apply
granville583762
3.9 / 5 (7) Jan 20, 2019
So now we know

This Obfuscation
that in the first few minutes
of free neutrons in vacuum
that in Ln.14.7minutes half the free neutrons transform
then
in the total 14.7minutes
all the remaining neutrons transform

This obfuscation
is within the 14.7 minutes
where all this anguish lies
as
this
is
True Obfuscation
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (11) Jan 20, 2019


You learned absolutely zero after I put you through a cursory review of the the 3 lifetime measurement device types in which neutron generators PREDICTABLY generated free unbound neutrons. It is well known how neutrons are emitted from unstable isotopes & will beta decay in 14.7 minutes or the neutron generators in those three device types could not have been fabricated for the intended use.



Idiot. Those experiments clearly show neutron decay on an exponential decay curve, and are detecting them long after 14.7 minutes, you clueless cretin. Get an education, thicko.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (12) Jan 20, 2019
as there are no free neutrons left in 14.7minutes


Which is totally contradicted by the papers I linked in the other thread. Stop talking crap, and stop commenting on subjects that you don't understand.
granville583762
3.9 / 5 (7) Jan 20, 2019
Nowhere does it officially say

Catogorittacally
without
contradiction
what happens at the 14.7minute rule
it is said neutrons live for 14.7minutes

Which on reading the article
clearly
by
implication
implies
that after 14.7minutes, this free neutron is no more
because
it is describing a specific time line
this neutron has
to complete its task
of joining in the atomic lattice, it is flying through this vacuum to imbed its self in
it clearly, by implication
is stating a fact
time is running out for this free neutrons marriage
because
in
14.7minutes it is no more
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (12) Jan 20, 2019
Which on reading the article
clearly
by
implication
implies
that after 14.7minutes this free neutron is no more


Idiot. Look at graph of the detections, you feeble minded burke. They are detecting neutrons all the way to 3000 s. Christ, some people are dumb.

granville583762
3.9 / 5 (7) Jan 20, 2019
At the 50minite rule

"JD, they are detecting neutrons all the way to 3000 s. Christ, some people are dumb"
What happens to the free neutron after 50minutes
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (11) Jan 20, 2019
At the 50minite rule

"JD, they are detecting neutrons all the way to 3000 s. Christ, some people are dumb"
What happens to the free neutron after 50minutes


WTF are you talking about now? There is no 50 minute rule, you clown. That is how long their longest experiment was run for. And they are still detecting neutrons. Stop being thick.

Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (10) Jan 20, 2019
Cranks don't understand complicated mathematical concepts like "average."
Benni
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 20, 2019
@Benni

Can you please describe what happens inside a free neutron causing it to decay?


jimbo.....it became unbound from an atomic nucleus, the INSTANT that occurred irreversible 14.7 minute Beta Particle Decay countdown begins inside the neutron.

jimmybobber
3 / 5 (12) Jan 20, 2019
@Benni
What is happening in the neutron as you understand it?
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (11) Jan 20, 2019
@Benni

Can you please describe what happens inside a free neutron causing it to decay?


jimbo.....it became unbound from an atomic nucleus, the INSTANT that occurred irreversible 14.7 minute Beta Particle Decay countdown begins inside the neutron.



WTF is that? Lol. Soooo thick.
granville583762
3.9 / 5 (7) Jan 20, 2019
It keeps coming back to 14.7 minutes
it is written in numerous articles
This 14.7minute is written as the life time of this neutron

When radio-active decay of any other element is discussed
it simply discussed in its half-life
in seconds
minutes
hours
years
Life time is not discussed
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (12) Jan 20, 2019
It keeps coming back to 14.7 minutes
it is written in numerous articles
This 14.7minute is written as the life time of this neutron


No, it keeps coming back to you being as thick as pigshit. Look at the figures, you cretin. They measure decay before and after 14.7 minutes. How bloody hard can it be? Jesus. That is the mean lifetime, idiot. And on an exponential decay curve, you get the half-life from mean lifetime x ln2. This is not rocket science.

granville583762
3.9 / 5 (7) Jan 20, 2019
As when this neutron flees this fusion reactor
It has 14.7 minutes on this earth
Written into numerous Physics World articles
Benni
1.8 / 5 (10) Jan 20, 2019
@granville: free neutrons decay via beta-decay. Free neutrons have an associated half-life. Do feel free to burble incoherently in response...


Ok, you think so? Then go back over to any of those three measurement techniques & show us where ANY MEASUREMENT of neutron half-life was included with ANY of the data? Can't do it can you? But you falsely imagine you're smarter than the nuclear physicists who did the measurement run & concluded the data run establishing the END of it in 14.7 minutes.

Do feel free to burble incoherently in response as you try to make believe you are smarter than the nuclear physicists who threw away your cherry picked 3000 sec anomalous burst of Beta Decay that had nothing to do with the input of the initial neutrons generated by the neutron generator.
granville583762
3.9 / 5 (7) Jan 20, 2019
When this was discussed on PW, it was wondered why a radioactive particle was being used to extract the heat of fusion
In a fusion reactor
because
Also discussed, the damage this neutron was inflicting on the reactor containment walls
Where its 14.7minute life time kept emerging time and time again
jimmybobber
3 / 5 (12) Jan 20, 2019
@Benni
Describe the mechanism inside the neutron that causes the decay.
Benni
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 20, 2019
As when this neutron flees this fusion reactor
It has 14.7 minutes on this earth
Written into numerous Physics World articles


> granDy...and my friend what is so curious about these responses we keep generating from the advocates pushing fiction that Neutron Beta Decay is measured in sequences of half-life is the fact not a single one of them knew about the 14.7 minute lifetime decay rate until Benni brought it up.

They refuse to pack up their eternal neutron fantasies & succumb to the immutable Law of Nuclear Physics that a free unbound neutron will ALWAYS decay in 14.7 minutes & they can't prove that in the negative.

Their entire theory of MEAN & AVERAGE is based on the psycho-babble semantics of THEIR made up definitions. It is easy to calculate: add up numbers, then divide by how many numbers there are, it is the sum divided by the count & there is nothing in the definition/calculation that alludes to half-life.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (13) Jan 20, 2019
the nuclear physicists who did the measurement run & concluded the data run establishing the END of it in 14.7 minutes


Stupid, lying idiot. They were detecting neutrons at 3000 s you cretin. On an exponential decay curve. They were decaying before and after 14.7 minutes, you clown. Learn the science, you clueless pillock.

jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (12) Jan 20, 2019
As when this neutron flees this fusion reactor
It has 14.7 minutes on this earth
Written into numerous Physics World articles


Christ you are thick. It isn't fleeing anything you feeble minded tosser. They feed neutrons into an evacuated storage tank. They can't go anywhere, dummy. They keep doing this for experiments of differing times. At 3000 s they are still detecting neutrons that have not decayed, you brainless piece of crap.

Benni
1.8 / 5 (10) Jan 20, 2019
@Benni
Describe the mechanism inside the neutron that causes the decay.


kinetic energy.....KE=1/2mv²
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (12) Jan 20, 2019
@Benni
Describe the mechanism inside the neutron that causes the decay.


kinetic energy.....KE=1/2mv²


Hahahaha. What a burke.
Benni
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 20, 2019
the nuclear physicists who did the measurement run & concluded the data run establishing the END of it in 14.7 minutes


They were detecting neutrons at 3000 s . On an exponential decay curve. They were decaying before and after 14.7 minutes, you clown.
.......then you should get in touch with those nuclear physicists who did the measurement run & explain to them why they were so stupid for their omission of that 3000 second neutron decay burst as part of their data. Explain to them that you are an Anthropologist presently doing Physical Therapy work & as such you are an expert in all matters of Beta Particle Decay.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (13) Jan 20, 2019
the nuclear physicists who did the measurement run & concluded the data run establishing the END of it in 14.7 minutes


They were detecting neutrons at 3000 s . On an exponential decay curve. They were decaying before and after 14.7 minutes, you clown.
.......then you should get in touch with those nuclear physicists who did the measurement run & explain to them why they were so stupid for their omission of that 3000 second neutron decay burst as part of their data. Explain to them that you are an Anthropologist presently doing Physical Therapy work & as such you are an expert in all matters of Beta Particle Decay.


WTF are you talking about, thicko? The results are as plain as day, you cretin. You were wrong, get over it.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (13) Jan 20, 2019
why they were so stupid for their omission of that 3000 second neutron decay burst as part of their data


They didn't omit it, you lying POS. And it wasn't a burst, you thick swine. It decays along an exponential decay curve. Try to learn the relevant science, you posing idiot.
Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (11) Jan 20, 2019
Nuclear mythology. By someone who doesn't know what "average" means. And claims to be a nuclear engineer.
SkyLight
3.8 / 5 (10) Jan 20, 2019
@Benni
go back over to any of those three measurement techniques & show us where ANY MEASUREMENT of neutron half-life was included with ANY of the data
Those measurements were of the free neutron mean lifetime. Half-life and mean lifetime are related one to the other by a simple factor of Ln(2).

From the Wiki:
Outside the nucleus, free neutrons are unstable and have a mean lifetime of 881.5±1.5 s (about 14 minutes, 42 seconds). Therefore, the half-life for this process (which differs from the mean lifetime by a factor of ln(2) ≈ 0.693) is 611±1 s (about 10 minutes, 11 seconds).
So, VERY strictly speaking, no: those were not measurements of the half-life of free neutrons. But the half-life values can be easily calculated by anybody familiar with MULTIPLICATION of one number by another.

In other words, to anybody NOT totally obsessed with whether mean lifetime or half-life was written, there's no practical difference since the one implies the other.

Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (11) Jan 20, 2019
How can anyone explain either half-life or mean lifetime in nuclear physics to someone who doesn't understand what an average is?
humy
5 / 5 (8) Jan 20, 2019
So in essence, no BH detected, only X-rays. Everything else conjectured is pure speculation based on that one observation.

cantdrive85

Evidence of a predicted effect of X is evidence of the existence of X even if X cannot be observed directly.
There are these things called 'indirect observation' and 'indirect evidence' that is every bit as valid in science as direct observation and direct evidence.
No person can directly see an atom but rather can only indirectly observe it via indirect evidence and/or imaging systems; so atoms don't exist?
The X-rays could very well be evidence of a plasma discharge, no BH needed.

So you want to replace a scientific theory with good evidence supporting it with your own special crackpot theory with no evidence supporting it? -Sorry, nobody here will buy it.
SkyLight
3.8 / 5 (10) Jan 20, 2019
the fact not a single one of them knew about the 14.7 minute lifetime decay rate until Benni brought it up.

They refuse to pack up their eternal neutron fantasies & succumb to the immutable Law of Nuclear Physics that a free unbound neutron will ALWAYS decay in 14.7 minutes & they can't prove that in the negative.

Their entire theory of MEAN & AVERAGE is based on the psycho-babble semantics of THEIR made up definitions. It is easy to calculate: add up numbers, then divide by how many numbers there are, it is the sum divided by the count & there is nothing in the definition/calculation that alludes to half-life.
Benni. None of this is true. You refuse to go and read and understand what the rest of the ENTIRE scientific world has to say about this and other subjects. But you do like to engage with any crazy like@gran to cheer yourself up.

You are a lazy, bone-headed, chin-dragging moron. And that's an incontrovertible, and rather sad, fact. Got that, Algernon?
SkyLight
3.8 / 5 (10) Jan 20, 2019
@jimmy
Describe the mechanism inside the neutron that causes the decay.
Forget it - he can't even describe to you how his ham sandwich decays when he leaves it on the radiator over the weekend.
jimmybobber
1.7 / 5 (7) Jan 20, 2019
@Benni
Describe the mechanism inside the neutron that causes the decay.


kinetic energy.....KE=1/2mv²

SkyLight
3.8 / 5 (10) Jan 20, 2019
So guys, here's a rundown of a couple of the twitching zombies here:

@RC - a psychotic narcissist with delusions of grandeur;

@Benni - a guy whose IQ is so obviously low (80?) as not to be able to understand anything more complex than a spanner;

@granville - a basket case, constantly hallucinating - probably suffering from schizophrenia;

@cantthink - a guy totally under the sway of the EU; brainwashed and unable to function in any scientifically meaningful way. I personally feel that he might once have had the potential to be a scientist, but that it's too late now.

Anybody like to continue with this theme? Wasn't there once a spreadsheet online which listed the PO loons in some detail?
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) Jan 20, 2019
@SkyLight
@cantthink - a guy totally under the sway of the EU... I personally feel that he might once have had the potential to be a scientist
I disagree with the last part: he's a serious adherent to conspiracy theories!
Secret mind control programs such as MK-ULTRA fostered by "intelligence agencies"or the use of patsies by those same agencies to provoke societal and political changes for our elitist masters. The false flag is a favorite tactic of the current control paradigm. From controlled economic turmoil to wars fomented for profit, very little "just happens"
https://phys.org/...ris.html

he's also anti-vaccine
SkyLight
3.8 / 5 (10) Jan 20, 2019
@Cap
he's a serious adherent to conspiracy theories!
Yikes! - I take it back: he's a looney.
granville583762
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 20, 2019
Physicsworld
When isolated, neutrons decay in around 15 min. They do so via beta decay, which involves a neutron transforming into a proton, an electron and an electron antineutrino. Conservation of energy, charge, angular momentum and other quantum numbers dictates that this is the only way that neutrons can decay within the Standard Model of particle physics.

When isolated, neutrons decay in around 15 min, implication means this neutron is no more
https://physicswo...-matter/
jimmybobber
2.6 / 5 (10) Jan 20, 2019
@Granville

What is a neutron made of?
How does the neutron transform into those particles?
granville583762
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 20, 2019
Physicsworld
While neutrons in stable nuclei can exist for an eternity, a free neutron hangs around for about 15 min before it decays via the weak interaction to a proton, an electron and an antineutrino.

When isolated, neutrons decay in around 15 min, implication means this neutron is no more
https://physicswo...deepens/
granville583762
4.2 / 5 (6) Jan 20, 2019
Neutrons Protons Electrons Neutrinos in Construction
jimmybobber> @Granville
What is a neutron made of?
How does the neutron transform into those particles?

A neutron
is constructed from the same material as a proton
before this free neutron transforms
the electron does not exist
the neutrino does not exist
the proton does not exist

Jimmybobber
no quark has been observed in isolation
but
a neutron and a proton have been observed in isolation
no one has ever put a quark in magnetic confinement to take measurements
a quark is theoretical
a proton is fact
as the neutron transforms into a proton
What is a proton constructed of, jimmybobber, as this will answer your question
because
Jimmybobber, these nucleons by their interchangeability have inherent characteristics
jimmybobber
2.6 / 5 (10) Jan 20, 2019
@Granville
So how does the neutron transform into those particles then?
Is there a "timer" inside that goes off at approximately 15 minutes?
What is the nature of this "timer"?
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (11) Jan 20, 2019
When isolated, neutrons decay in around 15 min, implication means this neutron is no more


No they don't. How many times do you need telling? I linked to 3 scientific papers, with associated images, that even a 10 year old could understand. And you still don't get it! Read this very carefully; neutrons decay with a mean lifetime of ~ 15 minutes. That means that in a large sample there will be a half-life of ~ 10 minutes. Some neutrons will decay in 1 second. Some are still hanging around after 3000s. Half of them will have disappeared at ~ 10 minutes. Getting it yet? There will be 10 year olds reading this who will get it.
jimmybobber
2.8 / 5 (11) Jan 20, 2019
Granville and Benni don't accept quarks exist so they have no explanation as to why a neutron would decay in the first place. I keep asking them to describe how this happens but I get silence.

I think they assume it's a constant of nature.
granville583762
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 20, 2019
Beta decay egg timer

jimmybobber> @Granville
So how does the neutron transform into those particles then?
Is there a "timer" inside that goes off at approximately 15 minutes?
What is the nature of this "timer"?

This internal neutron beta decay clock
in essence, an equivalent egg timer
as no one has inquired concerning this neutrons egg timer
phys.org and physics world are in the process of being searched
for this free neutrons egg timer
the difficulty is
these scientific search engines
have never in their existence
been asked such a deep searching question
concerning
Neutron beta decay egg timer
jonesdave
3 / 5 (10) Jan 20, 2019
the difficulty is
these scientific search engines
have never in their existence
been asked such a stupid f***ing question


FTFY.

granville583762
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 20, 2019
Quarks, quark gluons still theoretical
jimmybobber> Granville and Benni don't accept quarks exist so they have no explanation as to why a neutron would decay in the first place. I keep asking them to describe how this happens but I get silence.
I think they assume it's a constant of nature.

It was not myself, jimmybobber
It was a nuclear scientist working at Institute Laue-Langevin, Grenoble, France
Who stated quarks and quark gluons are still theoretical
jimmybobber
2.8 / 5 (11) Jan 20, 2019
@granville

Do you have a better theory you idiot?

You don't have any theory.

You'd rather believe in an egg timer.
granville583762
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 20, 2019
Institut Laue- Langevin (ILL)

The ILL is an international centre for research where neutrons are used to probe the structure and dynamics of a broad range of materials.
As the world's flagship neutron centre, the ILL provides scientists with the most intense neutron source in the world. Its 58 MW research reactor is specially
https://neutronso...ill.html
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (11) Jan 20, 2019
It was not myself, jimmybobber
It was a nuclear scientist working at Institute Laue-Langevin, Grenoble, France
Who stated quarks and quark gluons are still theoretical


Yes, but their existence will predict the existence of other particles. And this has been confirmed. See this list, and start at 1969;

https://en.wikipe...coveries

granville583762
4.4 / 5 (7) Jan 20, 2019
This is why I backtrack when theories fall flat
try it, jimmybobber it is refreshing!
@granville
Do you have a better theory you idiot?
You don't have any theory.
You'd rather believe in an egg timer.

Jimmybobber, you know full well I do not have theories
Because, they come back and bite you when your theories fall flat
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (11) Jan 20, 2019
Jimmybobber, you know full well I do not have theories
Because, they come back and bite you when your theories fall flat


Well, quark theory hasn't fallen flat, has it? So what are you prattling on about? You allowed yourself to be convinced by the idiot Benni, and you have now painted yourself into a corner. That'll teach you not to listen to idiots.

granville583762
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 20, 2019
But, their existence will predict
It was not myself, jimmybobber
It was a nuclear scientist working at Institute Laue-Langevin, Grenoble, France
Who stated quarks and quark gluons are still theoretical

Yes, but their existence will predict the existence of other particles. And this has been confirmed. See this list, and start at 1969;
https://en.wikipe...coveries

Thank you, JD
Yes, but their existence will predict the existence of other particles
Glad you agree, no one is saying they do not exist
they are still in the theoretical stage, yet to be observed in isolation
so just as the infamous picci due in March
which by the way is only a month away
we are waiting on this quarks picci
As I am getting vibes, the LHC is on its way out, for something more substantial
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (11) Jan 20, 2019
Observation of Top Quark Production in ̄pp Collisions
The CDF collaboration
https://arxiv.org...3002.pdf
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 20, 2019


So you are saying that protons, neutrons and electrons don't exist because we have not produced a 'classic' photo(photograph in the visible spectrum) of the mentioned particles ?

The logic is sound. :)
says k131415

No, I was not saying in reference to protons, neutrons and electrons. It is already known that such particles reside in atoms, and molecules are made up of atoms, etc etc. Why you included atomic particles in your argument? Caesium clocks run on the element Caesium with nothing to do with Black Hole


Ugh... such genius

You said, no photo no evidence.
Why do you need a photo of a BH as evidence then ?
Why do you believe protons and neutrons and electrons exist then, but quarks don't ?
Where is the photo of these particles, you parasitic fungal infection ?
says k131415

Particles, including quarks have been theorised to exist as the PRIMARY BASIS from which each HIGHER LEVEL of Matter stems - from the smallest to the largest
RealityCheck
2.5 / 5 (8) Jan 20, 2019
@SkyLight.
The maths came later; the concept came first ..That's exactly the same procedure I am using
@RC admits here that he has committed the fundamental error made by all authors of text-based "physical theories."
When you've quite finished kneejerking from your preconceived personal malice and prejudices, SL, take a look at the CONTEXT in which that statement was made. :)

That CONTEXT was: ORIGINAL MINDS/IDEAS that revolutionize paradigms that contemporaries were UN-able to advance because they could NOT think of the 'new idea' which could connect all the dots and come up with the new perspective, let alone new maths/terms to model that new perspective.

eg: Einstein. :)

He HIMSELF stressed that HE FIRST had 'thought experiments' (imagining this or that NEW way of looking at existing observations/data/situations etc); THEN getting the 'a-ha!' of CONCEPTUAL INNOVATION; and THEN came NEW terms/maths to model/convey it.

Less insults, more comprehension, SL. :)
Benni
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 20, 2019
Granville and Benni don't accept quarks exist so they have no explanation as to why a neutron would decay in the first place. I keep asking them to describe how this happens but I get silence.
......I keep giving you the same explanation over & over & over again, if you weren't so hard of reading you'd get my explanation, here try itagain:

It's because it is an Immutable Law of Nuclear Physics that a neutron unbound from an atomic nucleus will undergo 14.7 minute Beta decay, no exceptions.

I think they assume it's a constant of nature.
..........actually it kind of is, Immutable Law of Nuclear Physics is a bit more succinct term.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (8) Jan 20, 2019
@Benni, you do know that a mean is a type of average, right? Can you define an arithmetic mean?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 20, 2019
-contd-
@k131415

You said, no photo no evidence.

That is correct. Even a slight hazy photographic image would be sufficient to prove its existence. The alleged Black Hole, whether spinning or not, should emit enough radiative backflow from visible Matter that has been deposited onto its surface by Gravity. Although weak, the backflow, if available, should provide a slight, weak image of the Black Hole which may prove that SOME photons are escaping back out from the BH.
Why do you need a photo of a BH as evidence then ?
Why not? A photo of a Black Hole rather than just lines in a spectrograph gives ample evidence that it exists.
Why do you believe protons and neutrons and electrons exist then, but quarks don't ?
Apparently you didn't read and comprehend what I had said. I did not mention quarks - YOU did. Quarks, muons, gluons, and all particles are theoretical, although it is logical and reasonable to ASSUME that they DO exist as the Building Blocks
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 20, 2019
-contd-
@k131415
...they DO exist as the Building Blocks of the Universe - including humans, animals, plants, etc
Where is the photo of these particles, you parasitic fungal infection ?
I can see that you have mistakenly assumed that photos of particles exist. As far as I can tell - there aren't any actual photos of Quantum Particles of any type. Every aspect of it/them is still only theory.
Do try harder to perfect your comprehension of what is said in these physorg phorums, yes. You are beginning to appear as an acolyte to the "know-it-all brigade" who never question the "scientific delusions" in the articles/papers and, instead, swallow any horseshit that is presented to them - without question.
As to a "parasitic fungal infection" - you seem quite familiar with the concept. Are you suffering from it or someone in your family or circle of friends? Do have it looked at before it spreads throughout your whole body and kills you.
:)
Da Schneib
3.2 / 5 (9) Jan 20, 2019
Just FYI, averages (and there are three kinds) were standard curriculum in 3rd grade (8 years old) where I went to school. They're not any kind of complicated math; they're arithmetic, the simplest math.

Did you not take these classes in school? Did you fail?
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 20, 2019
@jonesdave.

Mate, why do you keep letting @Benni and @Granville 'yank your chain' re Neutron Decay for so long? You can bring it all to an end by just doing two things; namely:

(1) Explain for @Benni exactly what was the physical nature of, and effects on the free Neutrons of, the 'containment structure/forces' used for the collection of 'free' Neutrons whose decay rate/times were studied; and...

(2) Give the mainstream answer to the following question posted to @Benni by @jimmybobber:
Can you please describe what happens inside a free neutron causing it to decay?
Once you do that, then the 'chain yanking' will be a thing of the past (at least as far as 'free' Neutron Decay issue is concerned). :)

jimmybobber
3 / 5 (12) Jan 20, 2019
@RealityCheck

We've already described it.
Benni and Granville will not accept it.

Why don't you explain it to them. You seem reluctant to. I'm not sure why.
Perhaps they will listen to you.
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 20, 2019
@jimmybobber.
@RealityCheck

We've already described it.
Benni and Granville will not accept it.
I must have missed it in all the clutter, mate; can you please point me to where those two things were explained/answered to/for @Benni in the exact manner that I suggested above should be done in order to end the 'chain yanking'? Thanks. :)

Why don't you explain it to them. You seem reluctant to. I'm not sure why.
Perhaps they will listen to you.
As I indicated earlier (here/elsewhere?), these matters are items which will be part of my own complete reality-based ToE publication; so I am not at liberty at present to divulge too much of the novel perspectives involved until I publish complete; ie, explaining it all to @Benni now would necessarily risk divulging too much before I am ready to publish it all complete and consistent; sorry! :)
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 20, 2019
@RC and Benni
Although I am not familiar with 'free Neutrons" and why they decay, I will just take a crack at it here and see what comes of it, yes?
Once a Neutron leaves the nucleus, it becomes unstable, possibly brittle, as there is nothing to hold it together. As such, its instability causes it to weaken further to the point of decay. Does it crumble like a sand castle? Does it liquefy or turn into something else? What happened to its remains? The timing of the decaying process for an INDIVIDUAL Neutron depends on____?
As a mere humble scholar and interested observer - I believe that it is these little things that I am required to learn. Your kind assistance will be gratefully acknowledged.
jimmybobber
2.8 / 5 (11) Jan 20, 2019
@RealityCheck

Do you think quarks exist? If not then what is your explanation for free neutron decay?
jimmybobber
3.2 / 5 (11) Jan 20, 2019
@RealityCheck

"This decay, like any flavor-changing process, occurs through operation of the weak force. It involves the emission of a W− boson from one of the down quarks within the neutron, thereby converting the down quark into an up quark and the neutron into a proton; the W− then decays into the electron and the antineutrino."
https://en.wikipe...on_decay

This has been explained over and over and over again.
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 20, 2019
@jimmybobber.
@RealityCheck

Do you think quarks exist? If not then what is your explanation for free neutron decay?
When scientists label/model 'things', they don't necessarily imply they know the actual 'form' or 'dynamics' of the underlying energy-space structure/content 'reality' making up that labeled/modeled 'thing'. That is the case with most current labels/models of 'things'; and that is why we are still stuck without a mainstream grand unified theory of what actually underlies the universal energy-space entities/forces etc. It is to address/break that very 'impasse' that I have been working out my reality-based physical ToE and maths. Hence I cannot at present go into deeper detail here of the novel 'reality based' perspectives involved that will break through the present mainstream impasse regarding many of the fundamental questions still unanswered by incomplete/piecemeal mainstream theories/models to date. Sorry. :)
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 20, 2019
@RealityCheck

Do you think quarks exist? If not then what is your explanation for free neutron decay?
says jimmybobs

Does the term "theoretical" mean anything to you? Quarks and all other Quantum particles have never been seen by human eyes and whose terminology/concepts are only used as probabilities as an explanation for what is smaller than molecules and atoms. Even the decay, Beta or otherwise, of a free Neutron is STILL theoretical at this point and for the foreseeable future.
There are SOME things that are not meant to be seen, james, no matter how hard you look.
jimmybobber
3.2 / 5 (11) Jan 20, 2019
@RealityCheck

I'm assuming you can't go into your ToE because you are going to charge 15 US dollars for it.

RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 20, 2019
@jimmybobber.
"This decay, like any flavor-changing process, occurs through operation of the weak force. It involves the emission of a W− boson from one of the down quarks within the neutron, thereby converting the down quark into an up quark and the neutron into a proton; the W− then decays into the electron and the antineutrino."
https://en.wikipe...on_decay
Thanks for that, mate. Note though, that it doesn't explain HOW a quark entity 'converts'; nor what is the cause/timing determinant for that 'conversion', either when the Neutron is formed or when the Neutron decays. It is THAT aspect that needs fuller explanation to convince @Benni that (a ) quarks are a reasonable 'modeling entity until further notice'; and (b ) to explain how the processes proceed BTH ways (when forming and when decaying). I can't say more at present, mate; so I'll just wish you good luck and hope you enjoy your science discussions. Cheers. :)
jimmybobber
3 / 5 (12) Jan 20, 2019
@SEU

Have your eyes seen an electron, proton, or or neutron?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (4) Jan 20, 2019
Intellectual Property is worth money, and even power in certain instances, james - which is why China has been in the business of stealing America's scientific intellectual property for decades.
RealityCheck
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 20, 2019
@jimmybobber.
@RealityCheck

I'm assuming you can't go into your ToE because you are going to charge 15 US dollars for it.

No, mate. I have long said that it will be FREE available ON LINE for anyone to read. Only special edition books will be charged for to cover hard-copy publishing/mailing costs. I shall not seek to profit financially by my work, since it is science not a 'goods and services product' per se. Cheers. :)
jimmybobber
2.6 / 5 (10) Jan 20, 2019
Benni
2.3 / 5 (9) Jan 20, 2019

"This decay, like any flavor-changing process, occurs through operation of the weak force. It involves the emission of a W− boson from one of the down quarks within the neutron, thereby converting the down quark into an up quark and the neutron into a proton; the W− then decays into the electron and the antineutrino."
https://en.wikipe...on_decay

This has been explained over and over and over again.
......how does your favorite textbook know any of these up & down particles exist? If you'll just read on, your ONLY textbook will also inform you quarks have never been isolated......and by the way, so what?

I'll bet you're trying to concoct a sort SPECIAL NEUTRON decay rate aren't you? One where hypothetical quarks do some kind of dance inside a neutron aside from a 14.7 minute decay rate, a dance that can hypothetically stretch beta decay to an hour, a day, week, or a year, etc, right? Then to a billion years, then bingo DEGENERACY.

Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 20, 2019
@SEU

Have your eyes seen an electron, proton, or or neutron?
says jimmybobs

As I said, "There are SOME things that are not meant to be seen, james, no matter how hard you look."
I doubt that any scientist or group of scientists will EVER be able to build such an instrument that will have the capability of imaging the smallest objects in the Universe. It is like a V shaped form where the Quantum objects are at the bottom, and at the top are the elements that are the constituents of all Matter.
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 20, 2019
@jimmybobber.
@RealityCheck

https://ws680.nis...d=903836
My (customized) browser advises it is currently unable to establish a secure connection to that site, mate. Can you do me a favor and please post a brief indicative precis of the gist/point you wanted to make by posting that link without comment? Thanks.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 20, 2019
I cannot access the link either, but I will also await jimmy bobber's commentary.
jimmybobber
3 / 5 (10) Jan 20, 2019
@RealityCheck Sure it was in response to you

"Thanks for that, mate. Note though, that it doesn't explain HOW a quark entity 'converts'; nor what is the cause/timing determinant for that 'conversion', either when the Neutron is formed or when the Neutron decays. It is THAT aspect that needs fuller explanation to convince @Benni that (a ) quarks are a reasonable 'modeling entity until further notice'; and (b ) to explain how the processes proceed BTH ways (when forming and when decaying). I can't say more at present, mate; so I'll just wish you good luck and hope you enjoy your science discussions. Cheers. :)"
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 20, 2019
@jimmybobber.
@RealityCheck Sure it was in response to you

"Thanks for that, mate. Note though, that it doesn't explain HOW a quark entity 'converts'; nor what is the cause/timing determinant for that 'conversion', either when the Neutron is formed or when the Neutron decays. It is THAT aspect that needs fuller explanation to convince @Benni that (a ) quarks are a reasonable 'modeling entity until further notice'; and (b ) to explain how the processes proceed BTH ways (when forming and when decaying). I can't say more at present, mate; so I'll just wish you good luck and hope you enjoy your science discussions. Cheers. :)"
Yes, that much is assumed. But I require more info as to what that link says that you think is in response to what I posted to you. Since I can't access that link at present, can you please elaborate at all on the salient gist/point you wanted to make via that link in response to my post? Thanks.
Whydening Gyre
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 20, 2019
Intellectual Property is worth money, and even power in certain instances, james - which is why China has been in the business of stealing America's scientific intellectual property for decades.

A lot of "Americans" are SELLING it...
If the price is right...
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (10) Jan 20, 2019
The decay of neutrons appears to be driven by the mass difference between the neutron and the proton. As is the case with radionuclides, the decay appears to be driven by the fact that higher-mass particles with a path to a lower mass spontaneously decay into the lower-mass particles by the weak interaction. This is also consistent with the fates of leptons, which spontaneously decay from massive tauons to muons with lesser mass, and from there to electrons with the least mass of any lepton, other than neutrinos. Various conservation laws appear to constrain these decays.

In the case of the neutron, it is formed from three quarks, two downs and an up. One of the downs can decay into an up, which loses mass and also reduces the energy of the gluons required to hold them together, and converts a neutron to a proton in the process, since a proton is two ups and a down.
[contd]
Da Schneib
3.2 / 5 (9) Jan 20, 2019
[contd]
In the process, a W- particle is released by the neutron; the neutron becomes a proton, two ups and a down, and the W- particle decays into an electron and an electron antineutrino. This is the same decay that radionuclides undergo during beta decay; the beta particle is an electron. In this case the nuclide's atomic number increases by one and its mass number decreases by a small fraction corresponding to the mass defect difference between the original nuclide and the new one.

Eventually all the radionuclides will decay into stable nuclei, all the free neutrons will be converted to protons, and the universe will be stable. This will not happen for periods of time orders of magnitude greater than the age of the universe, which considering human lifetimes will be so far in the future as to be unimaginable.
Da Schneib
3.2 / 5 (9) Jan 20, 2019
And all of it driven by averages, because the time for a massive particle to decay is not a set lifetime, but an average lifetime. This is why physicists say that quantum processes are random, actually stochastic, not absolute.

@Benni has failed to understand the nature of quantum processes because it cannot understand "average." This is a serious failure of arithmetic reasoning which shows that @Benni cannot be any kind of engineer, all of whom had to learn about averages in their fourth year in school, not the fifteenth year @Benni claims to have completed.

I am strongly inclined to the "janitor" theory since I cannot account for someone who does not understand material taught in fourth-year schooling in any other way.
SkyLight
3.7 / 5 (9) Jan 20, 2019
I am strongly inclined to the "janitor" theory since I cannot account for someone who does not understand material taught in fourth-year schooling in any other way.
Benni strikes me as a person who has a very limited depth and breadth of perception and understanding, and has been like that his entire life. He will have been bullied at school and afterward, having been the group dummy, and has learned to defend his corner with his fists if necessary. Like all persons of limited ability, he simply cannot understand how his view of "reality" can be any lesser in extent than that of others. So, they're all liars, as far as he's concerned.

Anyway, to this decay thing: he "learned" years ago that mean lifetime/half-life, whatever, meant that the decaying atom/particle actually decayed at exactly the period given, and once stored in his mind, cannot be overwritten. I'm wondering also whether his idea of "mean" might actually be the mean of the experimental results he has quoted?
Da Schneib
3.2 / 5 (9) Jan 20, 2019
See, back in the 1950s and '60s, there was this problem called the "particle zoo." There were neutrons and protons, but after we got started with nuclear accelerators, all these other particles showed up. We couldn't tell what they were; every month someone was announcing a new particle.

At least they were consistent; and far enough apart we could tell they were different.

In 1961, Murray Gell-Mann introduced his quark-gluon theory. This incorporated the theory of quantum chromodynamics, so-called because in order to keep track of the color charges conceptually, physicists used the RGB theory of colors to delineate the three charges. One must not confuse the color charges with real visible colors; it is a metaphor for the action of the color charges.

Gell-Mann won a Nobel Prize in Physics for his accomplishments in 1969.
SkyLight
3.5 / 5 (8) Jan 21, 2019
QCD - you beat me to it !
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 21, 2019
Intellectual Property is worth money, and even power in certain instances, james - which is why China has been in the business of stealing America's scientific intellectual property for decades.

A lot of "Americans" are SELLING it...
If the price is right...
says Whyde

There is a huge difference between China STEALING scientific intellectual property and an individual or group SELLING their own intellectual property to the highest bidder. In the case of the theft of such property by China - there could be consequences if that property were of military use or of prime importance to "national security" issues.
Most privately-owned intellectual property - such as RealityCheck's forthcoming ToE may have nothing to do with military OR national security, so that he is free to dispose of it as he wishes.
Since there have been spies within the scientific communities in the US, it behoves US authorities to rid those communities of those committing theft of i.P.
Phyllis Harmonic
3.7 / 5 (9) Jan 21, 2019
@SkyLight
Anybody like to continue with this theme? Wasn't there once a spreadsheet online which listed the PO loons in some detail?


SEU: Claims he's inhabiting a human "host" and can SEE YOU. He's also a misogynist and a nasty creep.
Benni
2 / 5 (8) Jan 21, 2019
Anyway, to this decay thing: he "learned" years ago that mean lifetime/half-life, whatever, meant that the decaying atom/particle actually decayed at exactly the period given, and once stored in his mind, cannot be overwritten. I'm wondering also whether his idea of "mean" might actually be the mean of the experimental results he has quoted?


I learned "this decay thing" years ago sitting in classrooms for six years studying Nuclear/Electrical Engineering. You've been learning it from your favorite Pop-Cosmology text online at WikiPedia, your dreamland of last resort that will pander to every fantasy that can be conjured up in anybody's imagination.

If quarks don't function EXACTLY according to computer simulation hypotheses, guess what happens? What happens is that the entire concept of DEGENERATE NEUTRON THEORY falls faster than a house of cards & along with that goes the NEUTRON STAR theories & subsequently BLACK HOLES, the Holy Grail of Pop-Cosmology.

SkyLight
3.7 / 5 (9) Jan 21, 2019
I learned "this decay thing" years ago sitting in classrooms for six years studying Nuclear/Electrical Engineering
You may have spent six years sat on your fat ass in some kind of college, where the lecturers tried in vain to get you to learn something, but you failed utterly to actually learn anything!

What the people on this forum have repeatedly been trying to give you is some insight into this, and have been posting links to articles and papers where the facts of neutron decay as observed by EVERY scientific study to date are laid out in plain text, in an effort to get you to READ them and UNDERSTAND them. They're not difficult to understand, Benni.

But you: you utterly refuse to read the results of decades of research where it is plainly set out that, when a bunch of free neutrons are created, after one half-life 50% are left, after 2 half-lives 25% are left and so on. The WHOLE WORLD understands this, Benni. You, on the other hand, refuse to accept this !!!
jonesdave
3 / 5 (10) Jan 21, 2019
If quarks don't function EXACTLY according to computer simulation hypotheses, guess what happens? What happens is that the entire concept of DEGENERATE NEUTRON THEORY falls faster than a house of cards & along with that goes the NEUTRON STAR theories & subsequently BLACK HOLES, the Holy Grail of Pop-Cosmology.


Shut up you uneducated fool. You haven't got a clue what you're talking about, you dumb poser.

MrBojangles
3.7 / 5 (9) Jan 21, 2019
Granville and Benni don't accept quarks exist so they have no explanation as to why a neutron would decay in the first place. I keep asking them to describe how this happens but I get silence.


It's because it is an Immutable Law of Nuclear Physics that a neutron unbound from an atomic nucleus will undergo 14.7 minute Beta decay, no exceptions.


"Benni, how does it work?"
"It's an IMMUTABLE LAW."
"Right, but how does it work? What's the mechanism?
"It's an IMMUTABLE LAW."

What a fun Sh!t show this has been to observe.
Benni
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 21, 2019
But you: you utterly refuse to read the results of decades of research where it is plainly set out that, when a bunch of free neutrons are created, after one half-life 50% are left, after 2 half-lives 25% are left and so on. The WHOLE WORLD understands this
.........utter bullshit, that's not the way BETA PARTICLE DECAY works, you're confusing it with GAMMA RADIATION DECAY a completely different immutable law of nuclear physics dealing with unstable atomic isotopes which neutrons are not. Try this dance with someone else.

jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) Jan 21, 2019
........utter bullshit, that's not the way BETA PARTICLE DECAY works, you're confusing it with GAMMA RADIATION DECAY a completely different immutable law of nuclear physics dealing with unstable atomic isotopes which neutrons are not. Try this dance with someone else.


What a complete tosser. You know Jack sh!t about nuclear physics, you idiot. A neutron has a mean lifetime and a half-life. As any nuclear physicist would tell you. You are too thick for words. Total prat.

SkyLight
4 / 5 (8) Jan 21, 2019
Benni, it's very simple. You are a dumbass, rednecked, loud-mouthed, ignorant, know-nothing, stoopid bone-headed turkey-brained mop-pushing utter fall-flat-joke and my pet goldfish knows more than you about physics. Hell, my goldfish's farts know more about physics than you will ever know.

You're a complete waste of time and a waste of oxygen and living space. Somebody ought to throw you head-first down the shit-pipe and flush you out into the ocean to be consumed by crabs, molluscs and worms: you'd finally be in good company there.

Immutable! - you're a fucking moron.
granville583762
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 21, 2019
Good old Wiki

Even in every one's godsend, good old wiki
it mentions
blackholes were only discarded theory
till Mary Bell came along
with her pulsar
as it was theorised
neutron stars are pulsar stars
as then blackholes became
ex-pulsars
though
everyone did not tell the advocates of blackholes
pulsars spin
as blackholes being singularities don't spin
so
For what we are about to receive
may the Lord make us truly thankful
as
God only knows
maybe in March
what we are about to receive
when EHTA
Receives its picci
hat1208
4.4 / 5 (7) Jan 21, 2019
@Skylight has seen the BenniLight
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (11) Jan 21, 2019
Mary Bell came along with her pulsar


Are you referring to Jocelyn Bell-Burnell? Try to get it right.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (12) Jan 21, 2019
Oh dear! Here are the complete idiots at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, telling us that the neutron has a half-life of 10.2 minutes. Still, what would they know about nuclear physics?

https://www.lanl....sure.pdf

jimmybobber
3.2 / 5 (11) Jan 21, 2019
Great article jonesdave.
I love the grave marker.
jimmybobber
3 / 5 (12) Jan 21, 2019
Oh dear! Here are the complete idiots at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, telling us that the neutron has a half-life of 10.2 minutes. Still, what would they know about nuclear physics?

https://www.lanl....sure.pdf


From that article
"Radioactive decay, such as the one that enacts the death of a neutron, happens as a function of chance, making it impossible to know how long any particular neutron will live. However, scientists can characterize the half-life for a population of neutrons—how long it takes for half the neutrons to decay—and, in principle, do so with great precision."
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (11) Jan 21, 2019
Oh dear! Here are the complete idiots at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, telling us that the neutron has a half-life of 10.2 minutes. Still, what would they know about nuclear physics?

https://www.lanl....sure.pdf


From that article
"Radioactive decay, such as the one that enacts the death of a neutron, happens as a function of chance, making it impossible to know how long any particular neutron will live. However, scientists can characterize the half-life for a population of neutrons—how long it takes for half the neutrons to decay—and, in principle, do so with great precision."


Like I said - what the hell would they know? :)
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (11) Jan 21, 2019
Great article jonesdave.
I love the grave marker.


That article was 2016. Here is a paper reporting results from 2017 using this equipment;

Measurement of the neutron lifetime using an asymmetric magneto-gravitational trap and in situ detection
Pattie, R. W. et al.
https://arxiv.org...1817.pdf
Phyllis Harmonic
3.5 / 5 (8) Jan 21, 2019
"Outside the nucleus, free neutrons are unstable and have a mean lifetime of 881.5±1.5 s (about 14 minutes, 42 seconds). Therefore, the half-life for this process (which differs from the mean lifetime by a factor of ln(2) ≈ 0.693) is 611±1 s (about 10 minutes, 11 seconds). " - http://pdg.lbl.go...yons.pdf

I don't expect Benni to be able to comprehend that data provided in the PDF- it has way too many parameters, and numbers with more than five digits.
granville583762
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 21, 2019
Correction in honour of Jocelyn Bell-Burnell
Mary Bell came along with her pulsar


jonesdave> Are you referring to Jocelyn Bell-Burnell? Try to get it right.

Quite right
Well spotted, JD

< Correction to Jocelyn Bell-Burnell >

Good old Wiki
Even in every one's godsend, good old wiki
it mentions
blackholes were only discarded theory
till Jocelyn Bell-Burnell came along
with her pulsar
JaxPavan
3 / 5 (4) Jan 21, 2019
If these rather bookish commentators arguing and insulting each other is any indication of what it would be like if the meek really did inherit the earth, then god help us.
jimmybobber
3 / 5 (10) Jan 21, 2019
What say you Benni?

Directly from jonesdave's link. Right from Los Alamos National Laboratory.

https://www.lanl....sure.pdf

"Radioactive decay, such as the one that enacts the death of a neutron, happens as a function of chance, making it impossible to know how long any particular neutron will live. However, scientists can characterize the half-life for a population of neutrons—how long it takes for half the neutrons to decay—and, in principle, do so with great precision."

Are they wrong?
Benni
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 21, 2019
"Outside the nucleus, free neutrons are unstable and have a mean lifetime of 881.5±1.5 s (about 14 minutes, 42 seconds). Therefore, the half-life for this process (which differs from the mean lifetime by a factor of ln(2) ≈ 0.693) is 611±1 s (about 10 minutes, 11 seconds). " - http://pdg.lbl.go...yons.pdf

I don't expect Benni to be able to comprehend that data provided in the PDF- it has way too many parameters, and numbers with more than five digits.


I comprehend what it means to you, that you think this is the pathway to the "eternal neutron" you need for the vaunted neutron star you need as the seed for your silly black hole theories.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (8) Jan 21, 2019
@Benni puts the cart before the horse.

Decay is not an astrophysical discovery. We can see and measure it right here on Earth. We have for decades.
Benni
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 21, 2019
@Benni puts the cart before the horse.

Decay is not an astrophysical discovery. We can see and measure it right here on Earth. We have for decades.


The Beta Particle Decay of a neutron will never be a pathway to a neutron star, you Pop-Cosmology aficionados still haven't figured that out yet because you have yet to comprehend the difference it has with Gamma Radiation Decay.
Da Schneib
3.2 / 5 (9) Jan 21, 2019
Nobody said beta decay is a path to neutron stars.

And none of this has anything to do with the emission of gamma rays by radionuclides. Gamma rays are not charged and cannot account for transmutation. Only alpha and beta decay can do that.

@Benni is lying again.
Phyllis Harmonic
3.7 / 5 (9) Jan 21, 2019
I love the grave marker.


It died young but it lived free. :' )
Phyllis Harmonic
3.8 / 5 (10) Jan 21, 2019
I comprehend what it means to you, that you think this is the pathway to the "eternal neutron" you need for the vaunted neutron star you need as the seed for your silly black hole theories.


WTF?! Dude, you are bat-shit crazy. You keep insisting people say things they haven't, insisting on nuclear processes that don't exist, and insisting that you know more than anyone else. The reality is that you're just a little loser in a huge sea of science. I will grant you that you know beta decay . . . you're the beta and you're decaying at an exponential rate.
jimmybobber
3.2 / 5 (11) Jan 21, 2019
What say you Benni?

Directly from jonesdave's link. Right from Los Alamos National Laboratory.

https://www.lanl....sure.pdf

"Radioactive decay, such as the one that enacts the death of a neutron, happens as a function of chance, making it impossible to know how long any particular neutron will live. However, scientists can characterize the half-life for a population of neutrons—how long it takes for half the neutrons to decay—and, in principle, do so with great precision."

Are they wrong?

Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 21, 2019
Good old Wiki

Even in every one's godsend, good old wiki
it mentions
blackholes were only discarded theory
till Mary Bell came along
with her pulsar
as it was theorised
neutron stars are pulsar stars
as then blackholes became
ex-pulsars
though
everyone did not tell the advocates of blackholes
pulsars spin
as blackholes being singularities don't spin
so
For what we are about to receive
may the Lord make us truly thankful
as
God only knows
maybe in March
what we are about to receive
when EHTA
Receives its picci
says granville

As they say - AMEN TO THAT!!
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (10) Jan 21, 2019
Sorry, @SEU, your super magic jebus sky daddy will not determine what we see from the EHT.

These warriors for jebus are psychotic nutjobs, as illustrated by their fantasies: https://pbs.twimg...pg:large
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 21, 2019
Ahhhh Da Pussyman shitteth:

Sorry, @SEU, your super magic jebus sky daddy will not determine what we see from the EHT.

These warriors for jebus are psychotic nutjobs, as illustrated by their fantasies: https://pbs.twimg...pg:large


jebus? Who is jebus? You are still shitting riddles, Da Pussyman. When are you going to explain to the physorg phorums wherein you continue to spout such unintelligible nonsense as a jebus that is part and parcel of your psychobabble? Does your jebus come to you at night? What does it do to you that you're so all-fired up about it?
Is your jebus one of your boyfriends? It must be cuz you're always talking about him/her/it.
Da Schneib
3.2 / 5 (9) Jan 21, 2019
Jebus is your psychotic rendering of the person who supposedly created Christian religion.

You are a psychotic, as demonstrated by your claims to be able to see people who are posting to @Phyllis, and your claims to be an alien to all of us. Nothing you have to say will have any weight here; you've outed yourself as a delusional psychotic by your own statements on this forum.

You're a nutjob. It's just as simple as that, and proven by your own statements.

Got anything to say about neutron decay, radioactive decay, neutron stars or black holes?

Didn't think so. Haven't seen anything so far. Just a titch of brolling, and lies, and typical trolling. It's not gonna work, and you should leave before you're outed as a delusional psychotic some more.
Benni
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 21, 2019
Nobody said beta decay is a path to neutron stars. And none of this has anything to do with the emission of gamma rays by radionuclides. Gamma rays are not charged and cannot account for transmutation. Only alpha and beta decay can do that.


Then why do you care so much about this by PH:

1. Outside the nucleus, free neutrons are unstable and have a mean lifetime of 881.5±1.5 s (about 14 minutes, 42 seconds). 2. Therefore, the half-life for this process (which differs from the mean lifetime by a factor of ln(2) ≈ 0.693) is 611±1 s (about 10 minutes, 11 seconds)


The first sentence of PH's quote negates the second sentence, or you don't notice that? Or, you don't want to admit how many neutrons are left in the given aggregate after 10 more minutes? You don't know how to calculate it ?

OK, let me help you with the math: In a given aggregate 1000 neutrons were counted, in a count 10 minutes later 500 remained, how many will will in ten more minutes?

Phyllis Harmonic
3.5 / 5 (8) Jan 21, 2019
The first sentence of PH's quote negates the second sentence, or you don't notice that?


Here again, you are not understanding the difference between mean lifetime and half-life. The difference between the two are clearly presented. As for the 1000 free neutrons, given their half-life of 10:11secs, after 10:11, there will be 500. And 10:11 later, 250 and another half-life later, 125, and so on. Notice that after a good 30 minutes later, there are still 125 neutrons left. Yet you have been insisting that ALL of the neutrons are gone after only 14:42! If you can't understand this and have to make up your own BS to rectify your ridiculous idea of nuclear physics, there is nothing any of us can do except toss you into the waste-bin of pathos.
Phyllis Harmonic
3.5 / 5 (8) Jan 21, 2019
Gee, why the downvote, Benni? Too much a coward to admit you've been wrong all along? No surprise there- it takes courage to admit one's errors, and well, you don't seem the courageous type. More the sore-loser kind of man-child.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 22, 2019
Da Pussyman says:
Jebus is your psychotic rendering of the person who supposedly created Christian religion.

- I don't know of any jebus, and I have repeatedly told you so over and over again - and yet you still cannot comprehend what you have been told so many times. Is this jebus your sex doll? YOU certainly do have a big imagination. MEN created the Christian religion. ALL religions are manmade.
You are a psychotic, as demonstrated by your claims to be able to see people who are posting to @Phyllis, and your claims to be an alien to all of us.
- sounds more like it is YOU that is psychotic and you keep referring to "Aliens". I/we saw that movie. Perhaps it is the movie "Alien" that is eating at your brain.
The man that was referred to as "Jesus" or Iesus by the Greeks and was crucified on a wooden cross during the Roman occupation of Jerusalem is not the one who started the Christian religion. Perhaps you are just a bigot against Jews, yes?
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (10) Jan 22, 2019
Here's your jebus: https://pbs.twimg...pg:large

Here's another one: https://jimll.co....45156423

This seems to be a recurring theme with you psychotics.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 22, 2019
says Da Pussyman
Nothing you have to say will have any weight here; you've outed yourself as a delusional psychotic by your own statements on this forum.
- Really? So you are STILL pretending to be the king of physorg who decides who has the right to comment in the phorums, eh?
Oh wait - it is Captain Beelzebub who believes itself to be the "king". Or is it King Kong?
You're a nutjob. It's just as simple as that, and proven by your own statements.
- For someone like you who continually talks about seeing alien lizards, it is apparent that YOU are the nutjob. Does your wife/boyfriend know that she is married to a potentially dangerous nutjob who talks about alien lizards?
Got anything to say about neutron decay, radioactive decay, neutron stars or black holes?

- Yep, neutron stars and Black Holes are still theoretical and have yet to be proven to exist. Talking about them is still based on theory. Case closed.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (10) Jan 22, 2019
Don't get me started on the images your butt-buddies have made of jebus with guns.

It's heinous.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 22, 2019
Here's your jebus: https://pbs.twimg...pg:large

This seems to be a recurring theme with you psychotics.
says Da Pussyman

Obviously, that is YOUR jebus. What language is that from, btw? Oh, of course, YOU MADE IT UP. And your psychosis is getting worse as time goes by.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (10) Jan 22, 2019
LOL

psychotic @SEU still won't admit to claiming to be an alien mindreading lizard, and still doesn't know what "theory" means.

Here's a few of the psychotic ramblings your butt-buddies have posted:

https://freedomsh...esus.jpg
https://memeworld...d3ea.jpg
http://tamedcynic...le11.jpg
https://cdn0.thet...esy-.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_e1EHc-YzkCQ/Sb17Ag9buvI/AAAAAAAAAJQ/kvldLHYvUtk/s400/jesuswithagun.jpg
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_e1EHc-YzkCQ/Sb3sYlABwhI/AAAAAAAAAJ8/PQci_Cc-Hwc/s400/extremejesus.jpg
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_e1EHc-YzkCQ/Sb17ARp12-I/AAAAAAAAAJI/UNCfY-Ctq8E/s400/knock-knock.jpg
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 22, 2019
Da Pussyman further says:
Didn't think so.
- And that's your problem, Da Pussyman. You NEVER THINK - but you DO STINK.
Haven't seen anything so far. Just a titch of brolling, and lies, and typical trolling.
- So WHY do you DO those things, Da Pussyman? You must lead a very very unhappy life that causes you to be so delusional about other people. Isn't your family aware by now that you are a NUTJOB?
It's not gonna work, and you should leave before you're outed as a delusional psychotic some more.
- Well, it was evident from the beginning when you began commenting in physorg phorums that you were delusional and "OUT TO GET" those who didn't agree with YOUR opinions and your silly shit. Perhaps it is YOU who should leave, since it is YOU that is stinking up these physorg phorums with your idiotic talk and pretense to be "king of the hill".
Da Schneib
3.2 / 5 (9) Jan 22, 2019
Own it, fake Christian. You been sussed. And now all you got left is attempted trolling.

There are plenty more where those came from.

Like this one: https://i.etsystatic.com/14392680/r/il/79803f/1367159137/il_570xN.1367159137_8xbv.jpg
Da Schneib
3.2 / 5 (9) Jan 22, 2019
1-votes are more attempted trolling, and are pathetic. I don't even bother to 1-vote you, psychotic troll.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 22, 2019
To anyone who is tempted to check out Da Pissyman's links:
Those links just might redirect your computer to a dangerous website that will steal your information.
Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (9) Jan 22, 2019
LOL

The psychotic "christian" troll attempts to prevent anyone from seeing its psychotic delusions.

Nice try psychotic troll. Everyone can see what you are. Own it or leave and take your ammosexual psychotic delusions with you.

Some of us have anti-viral software installed. Maybe you forgot.

Revealed for what you are. It's nothing to do with anything "christian."
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 22, 2019
As I have said in many other physorg phorums when accused of being a Christian or an alien lizard by Da Pussyman - I don't adhere to any manmade religions or those religions such as Satanism, Baphomet worship, witchcraft, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. etc. etc.
Da Schneib
3.2 / 5 (9) Jan 22, 2019
You're a nutjob, plain and simple. If you weren't you would denounce those images, as anyone who's really Christian would. This is blasphemy, and it's not anything I made up. I just went and found where your BS lives and posted it.

Sorry you're all butthurt and stuff. Maybe you should leave now so we don't get any more chance to make you look like the idiot you are, rightwingnut "christinist" psychotic troll.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 22, 2019
And as usual - Da Pussyman makes every physorg phorum all about himself - instead of about the article. What a sad existence this "person" must have. Comes into physorg every day - plops himself into a phorum and proceeds to make accusations of someone being an alien lizard that is trolling the site. Really pathetic, it is.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (8) Jan 22, 2019
It might help if you hadn't claimed to be an alien mindreading lizard that can "see" people who post here.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 22, 2019
Notice how often Da Pussy likes to say something like: "Maybe you should leave now"; and now it is calling me a "rightwingnut" "christinist" "psychotic troll". ROFLMAO
And what on Earth is a "butthurt"? Sounds like Da Pussyman is gay.
Da Schneib
3.2 / 5 (9) Jan 22, 2019
LOL

The standard troll response, "yur teh geigh." Third grade playground taunt. Easily spotted by anyone who has kids.

Yur teh funny.
Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (8) Jan 22, 2019
And the 1-vote indicating the troll has no other response.

Thanks for confirming I'm right.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (8) Jan 22, 2019
See, if you torment the trolls, eventually they'll call you all "gay." They can't control themselves, and don't realize they've revealed their true nature until after they've posted it. It's the surest indication of a troll.

So far on this forum I pwn @SEU and @Benni.
Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (11) Jan 22, 2019
In case anyone doubts it:

https://phys.org/...ole.html
...........you're gay.

https://phys.org/...dly.html
Sounds like Da Pussyman is gay.


Next?
SkyLight
3.8 / 5 (10) Jan 22, 2019
Oh, @DS - you da man!
SkyLight
3.8 / 5 (10) Jan 22, 2019
@jd
Oh dear! Here are the complete idiots at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, telling us that the neutron has a half-life of 10.2 minutes. Still, what would they know about nuclear physics?
Nice article jonesy, thanks!
SkyLight
3.8 / 5 (10) Jan 22, 2019
@SEU - you're fooling nobody.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (12) Jan 22, 2019
OK, let me help you with the math: In a given aggregate 1000 neutrons were counted, in a count 10 minutes later 500 remained, how many will will in ten more minutes?


250. Hence why we see the authors of those scientific papers I linked plotting the counts on an exponential decay curve. And why they are still detecting neutrons at 1000s, 1300s, 2000s & 3000s. You'd have to be thick not to understand that.

SkyLight
3.7 / 5 (9) Jan 22, 2019
So, Idiot Boy Benni is busying himself while at the breakfast table spooning the mush his Momma serves into his vacant drooling mouth, and doing a downvote of multiple posts here. No-knowledge, no-understanding, deeply stupid Benni is having a ball... Way to go, Idiot Boy.
Benni
1.7 / 5 (11) Jan 22, 2019
The first sentence of PH's quote negates the second sentence, or you don't notice that?


Here again, you are not understanding the difference between mean lifetime and half-life.The difference between the two are clearly presented. As for the 1000 free neutrons, given their half-life of 10:11secs, after 10:11, there will be 500. And 10:11 later, 250 and another half-life later, 125, and so on. Notice that after a good 30 minutes later, there are still 125 neutrons left.


This is precisely what your math problem is, you keep applying GAMMA RADIATION DECAY to BETA PARTICLE DECAY, the two have no relevancy to one another in terms of radioactive half life measurements because the 14.7 minute decay rate of a neutron is NOT MEASURED in half life.

it's a Pop-Cosmology fantasy that after two sequences of 10 minute measurements that there can exist a single neutron remaining from within the original given aggregate for which a count time began 20 minutes prior.

Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (12) Jan 22, 2019
As usual @Benni lies again.

Exponential decay implies that after two sequences of 10 minutes one quarter of the neutrons remain. You've now been told this over ten times on this thread with links and quotes but you're still denying.

Cranks can't count.
jonesdave
3.6 / 5 (14) Jan 22, 2019
This is precisely what your math problem is, you keep applying GAMMA RADIATION DECAY to BETA PARTICLE DECAY, the two have no relevancy to one another in terms of radioactive half life measurements because the 14.7 minute decay rate of a neutron is NOT MEASURED in half life.

it's a Pop-Cosmology fantasy that after two sequences of 10 minute measurements that there can exist a single neutron remaining from within the original given aggregate for which a count time began 20 minutes prior.


Jesus, what a thicko. I showed you papers where the half-life is measured, you cretin. I showed you papers where neutrons survive well beyond 15 minutes, you idiot. You are an ignorant, uneducated tosspot.
SkyLight
3.8 / 5 (10) Jan 22, 2019
Dumbass Benni can't read the simplest things

Dumbass Benni can't understand the simplest things

Dumbass Benni is a dumbass.
Benni
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 22, 2019
As usual @Benni lies again.

Exponential decay implies that after two sequences of 10 minutes one quarter of the neutrons remain. You've now been told this over ten times on this thread with links and quotes but you're still denying.

Cranks can't count.


Exponential decay is meaningless in the manner Pop-Cosmology fantasy applies it to 14.7 minute Neutron Beta Decay.

Hell's bells schneibo, this time last year you didn't even know a 14.7 minute Neutron Beta Decay existed, remember how apoplectic you got when in the first in the history of this chatroom that it was brought up by Benni?

Self delusion must be fun, you get anything you want for free so long as you never wake up from swooning on the dreamland express.
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (11) Jan 22, 2019
Exponential decay is meaningless in the manner Pop-Cosmology fantasy applies it to 14.7 minute Neutron Beta Decay.


Thick bastard! Why are neutrons detected well after 15 minutes? Why does the rate of decay fall on an exponential decay curve? You are so thick, and simply don't understand the subject matter, you cretin.

Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (11) Jan 22, 2019
@Benni is still lying.

Sorry, I've known about half-life for going on 50 years.

You just make stuff up.

For example, if neutrons only last 15 minutes, why is Uranium-238's half-life over 4 billion years?
Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (11) Jan 22, 2019
Oh, and then there's the part about linking it and quoting it.

Like I did with you calling me gay, @Benni.

Just a reminder:
https://phys.org/...ole.html
...........you're gay.
Benni
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 22, 2019
if neutrons only last 15 minutes
....the Beta Particle decay rate of a neutron at 14.7 minutes is an immutable law of nuclear physics. You can keep trying to reinvent the 14.7 minutes with all the exponential decay logarithms you want, it still NEVER changes the 14.7 Beta Particle Decay rate of a neutron.

why is Uranium-238's half-life over 4 billion years?
.......because this is Gamma Radiation Decay of an unstable atomic mass, U-238 is not a SUB-ATOMIC particle, a neutron is a sub-atomic particle & there not subject to Gamma Radiation 1/2 life Decay.

Still on that dreamland express & don't know how to get off do you schneibo? The rate of speed is more than you can handle as an embedded Physorg Moderator.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (12) Jan 22, 2019
....the Beta Particle decay rate of a neutron at 14.7 minutes is an immutable law of nuclear physics. You can keep trying to reinvent the 14.7 minutes with all the exponential decay logarithms you want, it still NEVER changes the 14.7 Beta Particle Decay rate of a neutron.


Stop talking shit, you uneducated cretin. All the scientific papers say you are wrong. LANL say you are wrong. Nobody is listening to your idiotic beliefs. You are wrong, you clueless tosser.

https://www.lanl....sure.pdf

jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (12) Jan 22, 2019
.......because this is Gamma Radiation Decay of an unstable atomic mass, U-238


Clueless bloody oaf. It is alpha decay, you idiot.
MrBojangles
4.1 / 5 (12) Jan 22, 2019
the Beta Particle decay rate of a neutron at 14.7 minutes is an immutable law of nuclear physics.


But you're not taking into consideration the inverse square law, and infinite density on a finite stellar mass.
Da Schneib
3.8 / 5 (10) Jan 22, 2019
I know what the problem is. It's "half-life" and @Benni doesn't get fractions.
Phyllis Harmonic
4.2 / 5 (10) Jan 22, 2019
This is precisely what your math problem is, you keep applying GAMMA RADIATION DECAY to BETA PARTICLE DECAY, the two have no relevancy to one another in terms of radioactive half life measurements because the 14.7 minute decay rate of a neutron is NOT MEASURED in half life.


Another swing and complete miss. Beta decay is precisely what me and the other rational people here are talking about! Only beta-stable nuclides don't have half-lives. But as you have admitted elsewhere, the neutron is not beta-stable, so it most certainly does have a half-life. You can't have a mean-lifetime without having a half-life. Just like you can't have a Benni without having an idiot.
granville583762
3.3 / 5 (7) Jan 22, 2019
This free neutron, rest in peace

Until recently
it was not mentioned
that it is mentioned on wiki
the connection
between blackhole theory
and Jocelyn Bell Burnell
and her pulsar star
had not Jocelyn Bell Burnell
worked tirelessly
that Jocelyn Bell Burnell's research
used as a prop
for BH theory
a failing theory
brought to life
explaining pulsars as neutron stars
to this present day
even as blackholes are awaiting their picci
neutron stars are equally as theoretical as BHs
the only true observation
is Jocelyn Bell Burnell's pulsar star
for which she received no credit
GW170817 did not match prediction
as we squabble of more mundane facts of life
away from the esoteric world of Jocelyn Bell Burnell
we squabble over the life of this free neutron
Will no one let this free neutron rest in peace
Its funeral was held 14.7 minutes ago!
jimmybobber
3.3 / 5 (12) Jan 22, 2019
I'm convinced Benni = Granville.
They literally agree on everything.

When Benni is proved wrong suddenly Granville show up re-iterates the same thing Benni posted.
Phyllis Harmonic
4.3 / 5 (11) Jan 22, 2019
I'm convinced Benni = Granville.
They literally agree on everything.

When Benni is proved wrong suddenly Granville show up re-iterates the same thing Benni posted.

Granville's mumbo-jumbo attempt at some sort of lyrical writing is too annoying for me. I have him on ignore 'cause he just takes up so much space and I have better things to do than parse his nonsense.
observicist
3.9 / 5 (14) Jan 23, 2019
Benni,

If you ask me, you got caught -- you were proven completely wrong about neutron decay, and, instead of admitting you were wrong and didn't know what you were talking about, and manning up, you deflected. Da Schneib is right -- it has nothing to do with astrophysics, neutron stars (except the part of a neutron star that's made of neutrons, of course), or black holes.

You don't know the difference between half-life and mean lifetime; you think every neutron decays in 14.7 seconds precisely; you don't appear to understand the exponential distribution -- and perhaps any distribution except the unweighted mean, as in (1+2+3+4+5)/5=3; you don't appear to understand random quantum events; and you don't appear to be a sincere Christian (only your god knows for sure -- if it exists).

You damn sure got proven wrong, and you damn sure won't admit it.

Man up, Benni.
SkyLight
4.1 / 5 (9) Jan 23, 2019
@PH
Granville's mumbo-jumbo attempt at some sort of lyrical writing is too annoying for me
For the rest of us also. Me - I don't have anybody on ignore, but when it comes to posts from @granville, I've come to understand them to be the ramblings of a deranged mind - he's very evidently suffering from schizophrenia.

So, I don't even register what he's trying to say, I just scan it quickly as one might scan a collection of Lego bricks stuck semi-haphazardly together, and intuit what he is trying to say.

And what he's "saying" is nothing but a hash of quasi-scientific, "poetic" gibberish which probably makes some kind of sense in the dark corridors of his mind, but has no real meaning in the real world. So, yes, he can safely be ignored.
kl31415
4.6 / 5 (11) Jan 23, 2019
How brave do you think impecunious 'hacks' are, mate, when coming out with that claim will ostracize them and end their careers (such as they are now)?

Or how stupid do you think the 'cosmology experts' (whose flawed work/claims are being increasingly falsified) are, if making such admissions will make them lose face and 'past honors' (they are hoping they will be dead before the new mainstream paradigm is finally brought together).

Get real, jd! :)


Hilarious !

Can you actually read ?

https://www.natur...-05432-2
kl31415
4.6 / 5 (9) Jan 23, 2019

he's also anti-vaccine


Oh, that kind of special.

Da Schneib, Benni called you gay ?
Ah, the epitome of comebacks from the genius differential equasionist...

Good werk Benni !
So just so I understand properly, as a gay man.

Are gay people the essence of evil, degenerates or ?

Cheers
kl31415
4.6 / 5 (9) Jan 23, 2019
For the rest of us also. Me - I don't have anybody on ignore, but when it comes to posts from @granville, I've come to understand them to be the ramblings of a deranged mind - he's very evidently suffering from schizophrenia.

So, I don't even register what he's trying to say, I just scan it quickly as one might scan a collection of Lego bricks stuck semi-haphazardly together, and intuit what he is trying to say.

And what he's "saying" is nothing but a hash of quasi-scientific, "poetic" gibberish which probably makes some kind of sense in the dark corridors of his mind, but has no real meaning in the real world. So, yes, he can safely be ignored.


I am not sure about schizophrenia, but 8 year olds write better poetry than him.

Just FYI !

He doesn't use punctuation so he has more characters to use and convey more meaning !
That's a fact he stated himself.

The irony is palpable !
hat1208
4.6 / 5 (9) Jan 23, 2019
I'm convinced Benni = Granville.
They literally agree on everything.

When Benni is proved wrong suddenly Granville show up re-iterates the same thing Benni posted.


Now you're getting it.
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 23, 2019
@kl31415.
How brave do you think impecunious 'hacks' are, mate, when coming out with that claim will ostracize them and end their careers (such as they are now)?

Or how stupid do you think the 'cosmology experts' (whose flawed work/claims are being increasingly falsified) are, if making such admissions will make them lose face and 'past honors' (they are hoping they will be dead before the new mainstream paradigm is finally brought together).

Get real, jd! :)
Hilarious ! Can you actually read ?

https://www.natur...-05432-2
Perhaps you should ask yourself that question, @kl31415. If you had read that properly, you would have realised it was the 'missing baryons' (not the 'exotic' DM) component that was discovered via that particular observation.

My (longstanding) point to @jd (and @RNP etc) was/is that this 'missing baryons' finds are 'the tip of the iceberg' of even MORE discoveries of ORDINARY (not 'exotic') PREVIOUSLY 'dark' Matter. :)
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 24, 2019
ps: @kl31415.

Re my previous post wherein I alluded to "the tip of the iceberg" of ordinary 'previously dark' matter now being increasingly found by recent mainstream discovery/reviews, here is yet another mainstream report which confirms me correct all along on the point I have long been making to @RNP, @IMP-9, @jonsedave and etc:

https://phys.org/...per.html

Note this:
After improving the process of combining several images, the group was able to recover a large quantity of light from the outer zones of the largest galaxies in the HUDF. Recovering this light emitted by the stars in these outer zones was equivalent to recovering the light from a complete galaxy ("smeared out" over the whole field) and this missing light shows that some galaxies have diameters almost twice as large as previously measured.
Add that latest 'finding' to all the previous findings and you have the 'findings' trend which you all apparently missed/deny. :)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Jan 25, 2019

he's also anti-vaccine


Oh, that kind of special.

Da Schneib, Benni called you gay ?
Ah, the epitome of comebacks from the genius differential equasionist...

Good werk Benni !
So just so I understand properly, as a gay man.

Are gay people the essence of evil, degenerates or ?

Cheers

Are bisexuals only half gay?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 26, 2019
LOL

The standard troll response, "yur teh geigh." Third grade playground taunt. Easily spotted by anyone who has kids.

Yur teh funny.
Da Shneibo

Yup - Da Scheibo is gay.
Can't call him Da Pussyman anymore now that we all know why he keeps referring to "butthurt" and the "orange anus'.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 26, 2019
I'm convinced Benni = Granville.
They literally agree on everything.

When Benni is proved wrong suddenly Granville show up re-iterates the same thing Benni posted.
says jimmyBooBoo

And your evidence for that is....?
Does that also mean that Da Schinbone, Captain Beelzebub, Phil Harmonica, Skylight, Bojangles, and a few others are all sock poopies of jonesdave because they all agree with everything he says?
It seems that you're not a very discerning fellow.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (4) Jan 26, 2019
Exponential decay is meaningless in the manner Pop-Cosmology fantasy applies it to 14.7 minute Neutron Beta Decay.


Thick bastard! Why are neutrons detected well after 15 minutes? Why does the rate of decay fall on an exponential decay curve? You are so thick, and simply don't understand the subject matter, you cretin.

says jonesy

You asked, " Why are neutrons detected well after 15 minutes?"
We were discussing that very thing in another physorg phorum, jonesy. While referring to the decay of 40000 Free Neutrons that were captured in the glass - it was evident that the 40000 Free Neutrons were not ALL of the same AGE. IOW not all 40000 had emerged from each individual Neutron's nucleus AT THE SAME TIME - which would account for the big differences in "mean lifetime" AND the so-called "half-life", where some decayed after X seconds; another group decayed after XX seconds, and so on, while the last group of Free Neutrons decayed in 880 seconds. Age counts
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 27, 2019
LOL

The standard troll response, "yur teh geigh." Third grade playground taunt. Easily spotted by anyone who has kids.

Yur teh funny.
Da Shneibo

Yup - Da Scheibo is gay.
Can't call him Da Pussyman anymore now that we all know why he keeps referring to "butthurt" and the "orange anus'.


And add this to the list for Da Schneibo being gay.
Ignore userQuoteReport
Da Schneib

3 /5 (4)
13 hours ago
Wow, physics Just So Stories. This one seems to be How The Benni Got Its Asshole.

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

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.