The 'stuff' of the universe keeps changing

February 1, 2019 by Laura Arenschield, The Ohio State University
Credit: CC0 Public Domain

The composition of the universe—the elements that are the building blocks for every bit of matter—is ever-changing and ever-evolving, thanks to the lives and deaths of stars.

An outline of how those elements form as stars grow and explode and fade and merge is detailed in a review article published Jan. 31 is the journal Science.

"The universe went through some very interesting changes, where all of a sudden the periodic table—the total number of elements in the universe—changed a lot," said Jennifer Johnson, a professor of astronomy at The Ohio State University and the article's author.

"For 100 million years after the Big Bang, there was nothing but hydrogen, helium and lithium. And then we started to get carbon and oxygen and really important things. And now, we're kind of in the glory days of populating the periodic table."

The periodic table has helped humans understand the elements of the universe since the 1860s, when a Russian chemist, Dmitri Mendeleev, recognized that certain elements behaved the same way chemically, and organized them into a chart—the periodic table.

It is chemistry's way of organizing elements, helping scientists from elementary school to the world's best laboratories understand how materials around the universe come together.

The sources of elements in the Universe, from 15 minutes to 8 billion years. Credit: Jennifer Johnson
The sources of elements in the Universe, from 15 minutes to 8 billion years. Credit: Jennifer Johnson
The sources of elements in the Universe, from 15 minutes to 8 billion years. Credit: Jennifer Johnson
The sources of elements in the Universe, from 15 minutes to 8 billion years. Credit: Jennifer Johnson
But, as scientists have long known, the periodic table is just made of stardust: Most elements on the periodic table, from the lightest hydrogen to heavier elements like lawrencium, started in stars.

The table has grown as new elements have been discovered—or in cases of synthetic elements, have been created in laboratories around the world—but the basics of Mendeleev's understanding of atomic weight and the of the universe have held true.

Nucleosynthesis—the process of creating a new —began with the Big Bang, about 13.7 billion years ago. The lightest elements in the universe, hydrogen and helium, were also the first, results of the Big Bang. But heavier elements—just about every other element on the periodic table—are largely the products of the lives and deaths of stars.

Johnson said that high-mass stars, including some in the constellation Orion, about 1,300 from Earth, fuse elements much faster than low-mass stars. These grandiose stars fuse hydrogen and helium into carbon, and turn carbon into magnesium, sodium and neon. High-mass stars die by exploding into supernovae, releasing elements—from oxygen to silicon to selenium—into space around them.

Smaller, low-mass stars—stars about the size of our own Sun—fuse hydrogen and helium together in their cores. That helium then fuses into carbon. When the small star dies, it leaves behind a . White dwarfs synthesize other elements when they merge and explode. An exploding white dwarf might send calcium or iron into the abyss surrounding it. Merging neutron stars might create rhodium or xenon. And because, like humans, stars live and die on different time scales—and because different elements are produced as a star goes through its life and death—the composition of elements in the universe also changes over time.

"One of the things I like most about this is how it takes several different processes for stars to make elements and these processes are interestingly distributed across the periodic table," Johnson said. "When we think of all the elements in the , it is interesting to think about how many stars gave their lives—and not just high-mass stars blowing up into supernovae. It's also some stars like our Sun, and older stars. It takes a nice little range of to give us elements."

Explore further: UNESCO celebrates 150 years of chemistry's periodic table

More information: Jennifer A. Johnson, Populating the periodic table: Nucleosynthesis of the elements, Science (2019). DOI: 10.1126/science.aau9540

Related Stories

What are the different kinds of supernovae?

March 15, 2016

There are a few places in the universe that defy comprehension. And supernovae have got to be the most extreme places you can imagine. We're talking about a star with potentially dozens of times the size and mass of our own ...

Old star, new trick

April 30, 2012

The Big Bang produced lots of hydrogen and helium and a smidgen of lithium. All heavier elements found on the periodic table have been produced by stars over the last 13.7 billion years. Astronomers analyze starlight to determine ...

Recommended for you

What rising seas mean for local economies

February 15, 2019

Impacts from climate change are not always easy to see. But for many local businesses in coastal communities across the United States, the evidence is right outside their doors—or in their parking lots.

Where is the universe hiding its missing mass?

February 15, 2019

Astronomers have spent decades looking for something that sounds like it would be hard to miss: about a third of the "normal" matter in the Universe. New results from NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory may have helped them ...

721 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

FredJose
2 / 5 (21) Feb 01, 2019
is ever-changing and ever-evolving,

Not the same, then, right? So what's the difference?
"For 100 million years after the Big Bang, there was nothing but hydrogen, helium and lithium. And then we started to get carbon and oxygen and really important things. And now, we're kind of in the glory days of populating the periodic table."
This is simply story telling - there is no observational evidence to back it up.
..and organized them into a chart—the periodic table.
Isn't it strange that random materialistic processes are capable of creating Logically distinguishable characteristics with vast implications for assembly and function? Almost as if to anticipate the creation of planets and life...?
FredJose
2 / 5 (20) Feb 01, 2019
Notice that Dr Johnson carefully avoids telling us how clouds of gas were able to condense and form the first stars all by themselves with no outside interference in the vacuum of space.
Maybe it's because she assumes that some miraculous invisible and undetectable force was able to overcome the Jeans Mass Limit and get fusion to start and continue unabated.
She also avoids telling us just how those exploding stars were able to broadcast their newly made elements into the clouds of gas so as to form planets around the other stars yet to be born. How did those elements cross over light-years of space to where planets were going to form. And how did so much of it get made when so few traces of exploded stars are around?
Did current stars "form" out of gas or out of clouds of dust? If you're a newly "formed" star, where did you get your dust cloud from to initiate planet "formation"? So many stars - and most with planets - must have been lots of dust going around....!
antialias_physorg
2.7 / 5 (15) Feb 01, 2019
is ever-changing and ever-evolving

This phrasing is redundant, since 'evolving' - in a cosmological context - means the same as 'changing'.

On the other hand I would have expected a certain amount of heavy elements also to form early (before stars) with some non-zero probability.
SCVGoodToGo
4.2 / 5 (25) Feb 01, 2019
This is simply story telling - there is no observational evidence to back it up.


Yes fred, we are well aware of what your bibble is.
SCVGoodToGo
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 01, 2019
repeat post
SCVGoodToGo
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 01, 2019
repeat post
Bart_A
1.3 / 5 (16) Feb 01, 2019
SCV, you are a snake. Just reply the comments at hand. Obviously you don't know what to say to it, so you change the subject.
dsylvan
5 / 5 (16) Feb 01, 2019
This is simply story telling - there is no observational evidence to back it up.
---FredJose

Like JaxPaven said in another thread--you're entitled to believe whatever creation story you prefer...

But that Table, as devised by professor Johnson, and the science that backs it up is powerful evidence about what it is that permits you to exist--no matter how creative your personal views may be.
rrwillsj
3.6 / 5 (20) Feb 01, 2019
okeydope bart, here's a reply to your comment.

scv is correct.

you * fred * hax * all the other babble-thumper fools are wrong.

There, better now?
humy
4.2 / 5 (21) Feb 01, 2019
is ever-changing and ever-evolving,

Not the same, then, right? So what's the difference?
"For 100 million years after the Big Bang, there was nothing but hydrogen, helium and lithium. And then we started to get carbon and oxygen and really important things. And now, we're kind of in the glory days of populating the periodic table."
This is simply story telling - there is no observational evidence to back it up.
FredJose

No. There is evidence to back it up. The evidence comes from something called SCIENCE, which apparently you know absolutely nothing about. Keep your stupid baseless religious beliefs out of it.
wduckss
3.5 / 5 (8) Feb 01, 2019
Obviously is, today everyone can be a professor. Good, she does not understand, but is she blind and why is he lying?
-Sun Photospheric composition (by mass)
Hydrogen 73.46%
Helium 24.85%
Oxygen 0.77%
Carbon 0.29%
Iron 0.16%
Neon 0.12%

-Earth Chemical composition
Silica……………SiO2…..60.2%
Alumina………...Al2O3…15.2%
Lime…………….CaO…….5.5%
Magnesia……….MgO……3.1%
iron(II) oxide……FeO…….3.8%
sodium oxide…..Na2O……3.0%
potassium oxide.K2O……..2.8%
iron(III) oxide…...Fe2O3…..2.5%
water…………….H2O…….1.4%
carbon dioxide….CO2…….1.2%
titanium dioxide…TiO2……0.7%
rrwillsj
1.8 / 5 (8) Feb 01, 2019
Oh duckdown, The failure of communication?
Obvious that Professor Johnson doesn't speak your loon quackery.

A while back I was browsing through wikipedia on the subject of Periodic Tables.
I was flabbergasted at the varieties proposed by ingenious researchers.
Some of them are real works of art!

Recently there was an article posted to phys.org. About the discovery of a rare surviving copy of an early table.
granville583762
2.5 / 5 (13) Feb 01, 2019
Apparently our Milkyway is 13.5billion years old

A few years shy of this cosmic egg
the first stars burning through their life-time in a few million years flooding our Milkyway with heavy elements
As in all reality our Milkyway is not 13.5billion years old
it is actually 27billion years old as the crow flies
As this crow is the speed of light
this means our Milkyway's been seeding heavy elements for 27billion years
As have all the other galaxies in this Galactic vacuum
Bigbangcon
1.9 / 5 (13) Feb 01, 2019
"The 'stuff' of the universe keeps changing"
This is a correct statement from a dialectical point of view which asserts that the universe is infinite, eternal and ever-changing: http://redshift.v...2MAL.pdf

But the claim made here by this Professor of astronomy is based on standard official cosmology (of Big Bang creation in the finite past), is spurious speculation and a mere a deductive tautology and nothing to do with astrophysics! The displayed (so-called) evolutionary Periodic Table is concocted & is mere sophistry. This Professor does not even seem to know the fact that the quasars, which are supposed to be the furthest and the earliest "creations" contains as much iron as the nearby intergalactic dust! https://www.annph...1_0.html

richk
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 01, 2019
wonderful tables. How do "dying low mass" stars produce all those heavy elements? What elements do merging black holes produce?
richk
2 / 5 (5) Feb 01, 2019
Obviously is, today everyone can be a professor. Good, she does not understand, but is she blind and why is he lying?
-Sun Photospheric composition (by mass)
Hydrogen 73.46%
Helium 24.85%
Oxygen 0.77%
Carbon 0.29%
Iron 0.16%
Neon 0.12%

-Earth Chemical composition
Silica……………SiO2…..60.2%
Alumina………...Al2O3…15.2%
Lime…………….CaO…….5.5%
Magnesia……….MgO……3.1%
iron(II) oxide……FeO…….3.8%
sodium oxide…..Na2O……3.0%
potassium oxide.K2O……..2.8%
iron(III) oxide…...Fe2O3…..2.5%
water…………….H2O…….1.4%
carbon dioxide….CO2…….1.2%
titanium dioxide…TiO2……0.7%

air, o2, N. animals, c,o, .....How could that be possible?
granville583762
2.8 / 5 (13) Feb 01, 2019
Good point
This Professor does not even seem to know the fact that the quasars, which are supposed to be the furthest and the earliest "creations" contains as much iron as the nearby intergalactic dust!

We forgot our iron master of Ironbridge, of the industrial revolution - our Quasars
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (15) Feb 01, 2019
@Bigbangcon.
"The 'stuff' of the universe keeps changing"
This is a correct statement from a dialectical point of view which asserts that the universe is infinite, eternal and ever-changing: http://redshift.v...2MAL.pdf

the claim made here by this Professor of astronomy is based on standard official cosmology (of Big Bang creation in the finite past), is spurious speculation and a mere a deductive tautology...!
To make matters worse, these 'publish-or-perish' papers/articles continue to mislead uncritical readers; because most 'science writers' remain totally oblivious to the fact that mainstream is increasingly realising/finding that TREMENDOUS quantities of 'old' ordinary matter has been RECYCLING (deconstructed and ejected to DEEP SPACE) over EONS, via disc-polar-jet systems/processes. Hence all BB-dependent 'fantasy' interpretations/claims re 'timelines', 'proportions', etc are moot. BB 'experts' etc desperately need reality checks. :)
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.5 / 5 (15) Feb 01, 2019
The Periodic Table could be likened to a book on Ancient History. Nobody alive was there to witness all of the transformations and diversity that came from atoms/particles merging and then transforming into a completely different element due to various changes such as temperatures, E-M and any other natural influences that rendered them either compatible or unable to retain itself as a stable element/unit. The Table exemplifies the beauty and grace of the Natural Order set in the abundance of Time and Space.
Manmade religions have nothing to do with how and why the elements were created and then became so diversified as to transform into something other than the original and with new properties. There too, it can be said that Evolution occurs, and the organic machine is created from inorganic elements.
Once a new element has been added to the Periodic Table, it had better be consistent in its value.
wduckss
3 / 5 (8) Feb 02, 2019
@ rr
Are you blind or stupid.
It is not difficult (nor) idiot notice, that the stars have 74% hydrogen, 25% helium and 1-1.5% less complex elements, opposite Earth, Moon, Mars. To argue that the stars are creating (instead of decomposed) complex elements is for idiotic from idiots. Look at the real evidence and do not be a lawyer for idiots.

-The Moon Chemical composition
Silica……………SiO2…45.4%..........45.5%
Alumina………..Al2O3..14.9%..........24.0%
Lime…………....CaO….11.8%..........15.9%
iron(II) oxide……FeO….14.1%...........5.9%
magnesia……….MgO…..9.2%...........7.5%
titanium dioxide..TiO2…...3.9%...........0.6%
sodium oxide…...Na2O….0.6%...........0.6%
Total……………………….99.9%.......100.0%
Mars..e plagioclase feldspar NaAlSi3O8 to CaAl2Si2O8; pyroxenes are silicon-aluminium oxides with Ca, Na, Fe, Mg, Zn, Mn, Li replaced with Si and Al; hematite Fe2O3, olivine (Mg+2
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (15) Feb 02, 2019
Denying reality based on a Babble about a super magic sky daddy written by drunken stone age sheep herders is psychotic.
Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (16) Feb 02, 2019
Showing reality based on scientific instruments is a about what we can see. No super magic sky daddy, no drunks, no sheep herders, no stone age maundering.
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4 / 5 (12) Feb 02, 2019
Nice graphics!

How do "dying low mass" stars produce all those heavy elements? What elements do merging black holes produce?


The first case is described in the article, white dwarf mergers (or mass accretion from a larger companion) makes supernovas, supernovas make elements through radiative capture of neutrons and protons (s and p processes, IIRC). Black holes may perhaps make elements if they had an accretion disk around one or both, for example the merger release a lot of energy. Though that is speculation from my side and I dunno what has been observed.

So on to the not nice part, the trolling comments that makes erroneous claims and have no references:

story telling

nothing to do with astrophysics

mainstream is increasingly realising/finding that ...

Nobody alive was there to witness


Up front error/irrelevance, see the paper.

[And again for the loons, there are no 'gods', c.f. Planck 2018: 100 % mechanic system.]
Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (12) Feb 02, 2019
This is simply story telling - there is no observational evidence to back it up.
---FredJose

Like JaxPaven said in another thread--you're entitled to believe whatever creation story you prefer...

But that Table, as devised by professor Johnson, and the science that backs it up is powerful evidence about what it is that permits you to exist--no matter how creative your personal views may be.

Not to quibble, but;
The periodic table has helped humans understand the elements of the universe since the 1860s, when a Russian chemist, Dmitri Mendeleev, recognized that certain elements behaved the same way chemically, and organized them into a chart—the periodic table.
Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (14) Feb 02, 2019
Denying reality based on a Babble about a super magic sky daddy written by drunken stone age sheep herders is psychotic.

Actually, I'd venture it was the sky daddy who was drunk. Are you aware of all the free floating alcohol around out there in the Universe?
"Here, hold my beer - I wanna try somethin'..."
rrwillsj
1.2 / 5 (10) Feb 02, 2019
I gotta disagree with you bjorn. It is my speculative opinion that this Universe is not mechanical. But rather a frenzy if stochastic processes.

However, that is only on a Universal scale. Locally & temporarily, mechanical processes prevail.

Real Science proves it everyday (or maybe just in this aeon?) with working technology based upon the principles of mechanistic physics.

That is why I concede the superiority of Real Science over the wooloons.
(please do not blow up my city!)
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.6 / 5 (14) Feb 02, 2019
okeydope bart, here's a reply to your comment.

scv is correct.

you * fred * hax * all the other babble-thumper fools are wrong.

There, better now?
says rrwilliejoe

What you are referring to as "babble-thumpers", as you say due to your ability to not get most things right - the text of the "Holy Bible" is taken LITERALLY by most Christians, Jews and, I assume. Muslims who regard Jesus Christ as a Prophet. The Bible, for the most part, depicts the history of the original Jews/Hebrews who believed that they had been 'chosen' by the Creator God to be His chosen people - simply because they acknowledged His Presence and the Laws that He expected them to follow and to not disobey. They disobeyed anyway while still believing that they had entered into some sort of bargain with God, as long as they made their prayers, built altars, sacrificed lambs and goats, circumcised their boys and male servants, gave money to poor Jews, read the Torah and kept kosher.
-contd-
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.6 / 5 (14) Feb 02, 2019
-contd-
@rrwilliejoe
So the gist of the Bible actually starts when the father of Abraham and Sarah, (Abraham's half-sister/wife) bade them farewell and the couple, their brother, Lot, and their servants and flocks traveled all the way to the Near East region where the Filistines (Philistines) - now referred to as the Palestinians had their villages, which are now in the state of Israel. The rest is history.
However, in Genesis - the scribes who wrote that portion of the Bible had misrepresented the Truth of God's Creation of, not only the Earth and Moon, but also of the Stars, and, by extension - the whole Universe and its Laws. This is why the first several parts of Genesis seem topsy-turvy and really messed up, because that is the way it was written by the ancient scribes who, as humans often do, create their own rambling versions of the truth instead of what is, is - and quite often, in the wrong sequence of events. This is why those who have read Genesis are often puzzled
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.6 / 5 (13) Feb 02, 2019
-contd-
@poor deluded rrwilliejoe
OK I have to admit that it isn't only Atheists that are deluded with regard to their opinions of the Holy Bible being mythical, particularly Genesis - it is also religious Christians, Jews and, of course, Muslims who believe that the Earth, Moon and Stars were all created within 6 whole days and nights. THAT is a delusion. For one thing - there is the 24/7/365 timeframes of the Earth, as opposed to the Cosmic timeframe which is what the Holy Angels expected the scribes (who wrote Genesis) to understand and to show their comprehension of the meaning of "Natural Events".
The Earth is but ONE place where 24/7/365 timeframe exists - other planets orbiting their Stars all have differing timeframes from each other. But the COSMIC TIMEFRAME NEVER VARIES. It is ALWAYS the same no matter where in the Universe one goes. And this is what seems to not have been fully explained to the scribes who were taking dictation from one or more of the Holy Angels.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.6 / 5 (14) Feb 02, 2019
says FredJose
Notice that Dr Johnson carefully avoids telling us how clouds of gas were able to condense and form the first stars all by themselves with no outside interference in the vacuum of space.


That Dr Johnson omitted telling it is irrelevant. Perhaps she is a Creationist and wishes to avoid having to go through the insults and quackery from fellow Scientists who are atheists.
There are the LAWS of the Universe, Fred. Natural Laws that govern when, where and on what conditions are Stars to be created. The First Stars were, of course, CREATED by a "program" that was designed BY the Creator God. After their creation in the emptiness of the early Universe, the Program/Algorithm extended to the next Stars that followed the same LAWS and the Program/algorithms in order to become new Stars. There are no coincidences.
The Universe is a Mechanical achievement - like a clockwork of infinite duration. As the wheels and gears of the clock turn and click - Stars are created

Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.6 / 5 (14) Feb 02, 2019
-contd-
@FredJose
Stars do not get created just for the sake of being and existing. There are many many conditions that have to be met - otherwise, the dust and gas clouds remain as they are. There is also the TIMING of the cosmic clockwork that determines when and if Stars are created. So that it's self-defeating to expend energy wondering WHY the gas and dust clouds aren't doing anything to create a Star or HOW it happens. Stars need plenty of room to grow and take in the "fuel" from the dust and gas that is available. I don't believe that it was the Creator's intention for every bit of dust and gas to be transformed into Stars. Both Jupiter and Saturn could have become small Stars, but for their small sizes and lack of enough fuel to sustain a good burn/fusion.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.6 / 5 (13) Feb 02, 2019
says FredJose
She also avoids telling us just how those exploding stars were able to broadcast their newly made elements into the clouds of gas so as to form planets around the other stars yet to be born. How did those elements cross over light-years of space to where planets were going to form. And how did so much of it get made when so few traces of exploded stars are around?


Not all Stars have planets or Moons orbiting them. So that any newly-made elements that were expelled from an exploding Supernova would be traveling at a great enough velocity to escape being drawn/pulled back into the vicinity of the dead Star. Dust and gases are forms of Matter that are available in the event that a protostar requires that material to become a full-blown Star. The dust and gas travels along with the Galaxy to which it is attached. If there isn't enough of the material, then there is no Star formation. It's like a car's petrol tank about to become empty - even of fumes.

rrwillsj
1.4 / 5 (8) Feb 02, 2019
"Laws of the Universe"?
So servialmaximouse.
When did you gain
the authority
to dictate creation?

To parry-a-phrase:
Laws are born.
Laws live.
& then, Laws die.
Whydening Gyre
3.9 / 5 (11) Feb 02, 2019
SEU,
However, in Genesis - the scribes who wrote that portion of the Bible had misrepresented the Truth of God's Creation of, not only the Earth and Moon, but also of the Stars, and, by extension - the whole Universe and its Laws.
This is why the first several parts of Genesis seem topsy-turvy and really messed up, because that is the way it was written by the ancient scribes who, as humans often do, create their own rambling versions of the truth instead of what is, is - and quite often, in the wrong sequence of events. This is why those who have read Genesis are often puzzled

You forgot to mention all the other various scribes/copiers who have done the same thing over the years...
By the time it gets here - might as well use it for TP...
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (9) Feb 02, 2019
Denying reality based on a Babble about a super magic sky daddy written by drunken stone age sheep herders is psychotic.

Actually, I'd venture it was the sky daddy who was drunk. Are you aware of all the free floating alcohol around out there in the Universe?
"Here, hold my beer - I wanna try somethin'..."
Actually, it's "Here! Watch this!" and usually precedes catastrophes of various severity.
Da Schneib
3.8 / 5 (10) Feb 02, 2019
The amazing thing about what Mendeleev did was that it preceded any notions of the atomic and nuclear structure, but turned out to be right and to be directly connected to those structures. Mendeleev's Periodic Table of the Elements was a watershed in atomic and nuclear physics, and is still used today.
observicist
3.2 / 5 (18) Feb 02, 2019
I have often wondered why creationists feel competent to comment on the Big Bang, and why non-scientists feel competent to comment on science.
Whydening Gyre
4.4 / 5 (14) Feb 02, 2019
Actually, I'd venture it was the sky daddy who was drunk. Are you aware of all the free floating alcohol around out there in the Universe?
"Here, hold my beer - I wanna try somethin'..."
Actually, it's "Here! Watch this!" and usually precedes catastrophes of various severity.

I was using a punchline from a joke about last words before a fatal accident...
So... yeah
wduckss
3.3 / 5 (7) Feb 03, 2019
@ s e u
The composition of super-new and nebula remains. exactly reveals lies from the article. There are no complex elements there. The chemical composition is much smaller than the chemical composition of the stars.
"All nebulae observed in the Milky Way Galaxy .. Their chemical composition, however, is fairly uniform; it corresponds to the composition of the universe in general in that approximately 90 percent of the constituentatoms are hydrogen and nearly all the rest are helium, with oxygen, carbon, neon, nitrogen, and the other elements together making up about two atoms per thousand." https://www.brita...e/nebula
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (9) Feb 03, 2019
Dudebro doesn't "believe in" the Periodic Table of the Elements.

According to this wingding, there aren't any "complex elements." One has to assume this means anything with an atomic weight over 20 or so.
wduckss
2.6 / 5 (10) Feb 03, 2019
@d s
"Believing" is your field, my evidence. In a table with more than 100 elements, you claim that the first twenty complex (the remaining 90 are simple) elements.
The theme is, proving lies from the article, that the stars after the explosion create complex elements.
There are almost all elements on Earth from the table (exclude artificially created elements). Composition of the stars, Earth, clouds .. I attached. Earth is a top in complex elements, the star is the bottom (with the chemical composition of nebulae and the Universe).
These are official evidence (see link). There are no, here, beliefs.
You're smart, show your evidence! Please do not attach the Bible and Youtube.
Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (11) Feb 03, 2019
No, son, I require evidence better than that from your claims, and you have none. Whereas gamma ray spectroscopic evidence from GW20170817 provides all I need.

This was published over a year ago: https://arxiv.org...10.05463

Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (11) Feb 03, 2019
For starters, let's check out Glenn Seaborg, Nobel Prize Winner in Chemistry, 1951: https://en.wikipe..._Seaborg

These trolls will spam anyone. It's disgusting.
Benni
1.9 / 5 (14) Feb 03, 2019
I have often wondered why creationists feel competent to comment on the Big Bang, and why non-scientists feel competent to comment on science.
......using this reasoning begs the question as to why YOU are here?
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (12) Feb 03, 2019
I have often wondered why creationists feel competent to comment on the Big Bang, and why non-scientists feel competent to comment on science.
......using this reasoning begs the question as to why YOU are here?


Talking to yourself, janitor-boy? Cretin.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (13) Feb 03, 2019
^^^^^^Can he cure Dunning-Kruger syndrome? If so, Benni is in urgent need of his help.
Steelwolf
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 03, 2019
Yeah, "Here, hold my beer, I am gonna try something..."

And here we are, billions of years later, Still looking at the mess made!
dsylvan
5 / 5 (5) Feb 03, 2019

But that Table, as devised by professor Johnson...

Not to quibble, but;
The periodic table has helped humans understand the elements of the universe since the 1860s, when a Russian chemist, Dmitri Mendeleev, recognized that certain elements behaved the same way chemically, and organized them into a chart—the periodic table.

Good quibble Whydening Gyre. Better I'd said "...as depicted by professor Johnson..."
gculpex
4 / 5 (8) Feb 03, 2019
Yeah, "Here, hold my beer, I am gonna try something..."

And here we are, billions of years later, Still looking at the mess made!

And what a beautiful mess it is! Staggering in depth as in it is width.
Sometimes I wonder... maybe too much.
rrwillsj
2 / 5 (8) Feb 03, 2019
obscurerist, good question but you misunderstand the several purposes of this site.

Myself. I like to putter around the sciences. I am a satirist & I enjoy pricking the pompous.
No, no, of course I did not mean you ob!
(osst. do you think he believed me?)

First purpose, lots of clickbait headlines to get the eyeballs on the ads. Those pay the salaries. The business of business is business,

The most important, is the public service phy.org provides. By ensnaring the wooloons & stuporstitious. Diverting the crazies from bollixing up the channels of communication between real scientists. A sheeple pen to keep the bleating from becoming a public nuisance.

In addition to providing a collection of thesis material for the Mental Health & Social Sciences students monitoring the commentators.

As much as these prats hate (fear) the psych specialties?
It would make their heads explode if they ever realized their contribution to graduating so many psych students.
wduckss
1.6 / 5 (8) Feb 03, 2019
@ da sch
"The cosmic origin of the elements heavier than iron has long been uncertain. Theoretical modelling shows that the matter that is expelled in the violent merger of two neutron stars can assemble into heavy elements such as gold and platinum in a process known as rapid neutron capture (r-process) nucleosynthesis."

Is that your evidence? Your theory (without proof) against official evidence (chemical composition of stars and planets). I do not congratulate you. I congratulate your supporters who are also without any sense of mind.
observicist
2.8 / 5 (13) Feb 03, 2019
Benni

When I'm insulted, I consider the source.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.3 / 5 (13) Feb 03, 2019
Denying reality based on a Babble about a super magic sky daddy written by drunken stone age sheep herders is psychotic.

Actually, I'd venture it was the sky daddy who was drunk. Are you aware of all the free floating alcohol around out there in the Universe?
"Here, hold my beer - I wanna try somethin'..."
says Whyde

Uh..free floating alcohol "out there"? Please don't tell me that the Trappist monks have started a brewery in outer space now.
I know that YOU have noticed that Da Schniebo always manages to inject his Babble super magic sky daddy drunken sheep herders delusion/falsehood into almost every physorg phorum that might draw the religious folks in, to deride what they wish to express.
Da Schniebo alias Da Pussyman (and some others in this website) has damned his own Soul that he doesn't believe that he has - so that when all of the cells of his body retaliate by becoming cancerous - Da Schniebo (whoever he is) will fear death - the end of his life
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.6 / 5 (13) Feb 03, 2019
-contd-
@Whyde
Take care, Whyde - not to fall into the same trap that Da Schneebo finds himself in - where he seizes on every opportunity to make fun of the Creator God. Although Schneebo might think that he is not really making fun of the Creator God when he uses words like "Babble" and "super magic sky daddy" instead of Bible and God - I/We already KNOW what is in his heart and mind - thus, he in his Soul (after we take his Soul from the rotting flesh of his body) will suffer greatly for all eternity. That I can promise you.
The body is only the material part of the Soul, FYI. The cells of the material body - the molecules that consist of the cells - the elements that make up the molecules - the atoms that make up the elements - the quantum particles that make up the atoms - they will ALL reduce to their humble origins. But Da Schneebo's filthy blackened Soul remains to suffer the horrors and pain for all eternity for what he has done while his trillions of cells were alive.
granville583762
3 / 5 (10) Feb 03, 2019
If its worth saying
obscurerist you misunderstand the several purposes of this site
I like to putter around the sciences am a satirist I enjoy pricking the pompous
No of course I did not mean you ob
osst do you think he believed me
First purpose lots of clickbait headlines to get the eyeballs on the ads Those pay the salaries The business of business is business
The most important is the public service phy.org provides By ensnaring the wooloons & stuporstitious. Diverting the crazies from bollixing up the channels of communication between real scientists A sheeple pen to keep the bleating from becoming a public nuisance.
In addition to providing a collection of thesis material for the Mental Health & Social Sciences students monitoring the commentators
Much as these prats hate fear the psych specialties
It would make their heads explode if they ever realized their contribution to graduating so many psych students

Its worth repeating
Benni
1.5 / 5 (15) Feb 03, 2019
Benni

When I'm insulted, I consider the source.


I know, because Benni knows how to solve Differential Equations & you don't, I give you something to aspire to.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.4 / 5 (11) Feb 03, 2019
"Laws of the Universe"?
So servialmaximouse.
When did you gain
the authority
to dictate creation?

To parry-a-phrase:
Laws are born.
Laws live.
& then, Laws die.
says rrwilliejoe

I/We were not given the authority to dictate the Creation - but we had learnt of it. So I am uncertain as to whom you were actually referring - having such authority. Surely you don't mean that FredJose, Bart_A , granville or Whyde had that authority to dictate the Creation.
Perhaps you had meant the dictation of the first book of the Bible - which is Genesis? No, I was not the one who provided the dictation to the scribes.

As to Laws - no Law is "born", so where did you get such a silly idea? There are MANMADE Laws that are often changed/changeable - according to which dictator or Party is in power.
And there are the Laws of Nature that were authorised by the Creator God - those Laws being immutable and unchangeable - and to which all Matter/Energy is subject. Thermodynamics is one
Benni
1.6 / 5 (15) Feb 03, 2019
As to Laws - no Law is "born", so where did you get such a silly idea? There are MANMADE Laws that are often changed/changeable - according to which dictator or Party is in power.
And there are the Laws of Nature that were authorised by the Creator God - those Laws being immutable and unchangeable - and to which all Matter/Energy is subject. Thermodynamics is one


"Thermodynamics is one" as being the most notable 2nd Law of Thermodynmaics, ENTROPY.

Entropy is the reason black holes & Dark Energy & other perpetual motion machinations don't exist.

Entropy is hated by the Pop-Cosmology clan living in this chatroom because entropy is the most self-governing of all the immutable laws of physics, it never needs tweeking or updating.

It would be a lighter load for Pop-Cosmology to carry if they simply accede to self-governance that carry no visible evidence something is guiding it to an unpredictable END. Entropy is completely predictable, dark energy is not.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.4 / 5 (11) Feb 03, 2019
Yeah, "Here, hold my beer, I am gonna try something..."

And here we are, billions of years later, Still looking at the mess made!
says Steelwolf

As you can see in the world around you - there are messes, and there are successes.

Most of the "messes" were and are prompted by you humans who are so inept at understanding that you are all "here" - on THIS planet - only to determine whether or not you "belong".
And that determination is determined by the "choices" that you humans make during your lifetime. There are some/certain animals that have made better choices - and not all of them are Soulless.
Only humans deliberately make bad choices and are unremorseful - even happy in their unhappiness and messes. The Creator God (whose existence in which you don't believe) fully expects humans to make messes - as that is the unfortunate nature of Man.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.3 / 5 (12) Feb 03, 2019
@rrwilliejoe
ROFLOL
I have just recently noticed that you have transformed the user name "observicist" into "obscurerist". That may refer to an Observer turning into an Obscurer or Obscurantist - both of which seem an adequate impression of said commentator.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.3 / 5 (12) Feb 03, 2019
I have often wondered why creationists feel competent to comment on the Big Bang, and why non-scientists feel competent to comment on science.
says observicist aka obscurerist, courtesy of rrwilliejoe
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.3 / 5 (13) Feb 03, 2019
I have often wondered why creationists feel competent to comment on the Big Bang, and why non-scientists feel competent to comment on science.
says observicist aka obscurerist, courtesy of rrwilliejoe's renaming abilities


You seem perturbed by the freedom felt by Creationists and those who adhere to a religion to express their thoughts in the physorg phorums. Why? Do you imagine that YOU are far more competent to make comments on the science that you have learnt from books, journals, science papers, phyorg articles, seminars, webinars, and word of mouth? Why, and what right do you have to dictate what is to be said and who says it in a science website? You are free to disagree with them; and they are free to disagree with what you have learnt. You are not any better, for all of your book learning, and your arrogance and pomposity and lack of humility are clearly an embarrassment to yourself - whether or not you take it as such. It is well noted.
Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (11) Feb 03, 2019
∂²Ψ/∂x² + ∂²Ψ/∂y² + ∂²Ψ/∂z² = ?

There's a partial differential equation for you, @Benni. What's the solution? And what is the name of this PDE?

For extra credit, what are the partial differentials with respect to?
Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (10) Feb 03, 2019
Actually, I'd venture it was the sky daddy who was drunk. Are you aware of all the free floating alcohol around out there in the Universe?
"Here, hold my beer - I wanna try somethin'..."
says Whyde

Uh..free floating alcohol "out there"? Please don't tell me that the Trappist monks have started a brewery in outer space now.

https://phys.org/...ace.html

Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.4 / 5 (10) Feb 03, 2019
∂²ψ/∂x² + ∂²ψ/∂y² + ∂²ψ/∂z² = − [(px²py²+pz²)/h²]ψ

Schroedinger's
Whydening Gyre
4.7 / 5 (13) Feb 03, 2019
"Thermodynamics is one" as being the most notable 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, ENTROPY.

Notice that it is set down by Men...
Entropy is not unidirectional - That's what makes it predictable.

Entropy is the reason black holes & Dark Energy & other perpetual motion machinations don't exist.

Silly rabbit. It is WHY they exist...

Entropy is hated by the Pop-Cosmology clan living in this chatroom because entropy is the most self-governing of all the immutable laws of physics, it never needs tweaking or updating.

I LOVE entropy. BECAUSE it self governs.
That said, I think you need to re-examine your own understanding of "entropy'.

observicist
3 / 5 (14) Feb 03, 2019
SEU

Say whatever you like; I simply wonder why you do so.

This is a physics site, not a theology site.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.4 / 5 (12) Feb 03, 2019
Actually, I'd venture it was the sky daddy who was drunk. Are you aware of all the free floating alcohol around out there in the Universe?
"Here, hold my beer - I wanna try somethin'..."
says Whyde

Uh..free floating alcohol "out there"? Please don't tell me that the Trappist monks have started a brewery in outer space now.

https://phys.org/...ace.html

says Whyde

Not fair, Whyde. That article is from 2014, which I never saw.
Methyl alcohol is poison. I don't think that the Trappist monks would brew that stuff out there. Well, maybe on one of the planets of Trappist 1.....maybe.
:)
Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (11) Feb 03, 2019
∂²Ď�/∂x² + ∂²Ď�/∂y² + ∂²Ď�/∂z² = − [(px²py²+pz²)/h²]Ď�

Schroedinger's

Goggle works pretty good that way, doesn't it.
But...
YOu were supposed to let Benni do it. He's just hopeless, not helpless...
Whydening Gyre
4.7 / 5 (12) Feb 03, 2019
Actually, I'd venture it was the sky daddy who was drunk. Are you aware of all the free floating alcohol around out there in the Universe?
"Here, hold my beer - I wanna try somethin'..."
says Whyde

Uh..free floating alcohol "out there"? Please don't tell me that the Trappist monks have started a brewery in outer space now.

https://phys.org/...ace.html

says Whyde

Not fair, Whyde. That article is from 2014, which I never saw.

You don't get out much, do ya...
It said MOSTLY methyl. with some ethyl mixed in.
And to an Omnipotent Creator, that shouldn't pose a prob, should it?

And...
while not all of them will be about that free floating methyl or ethyl alcohol in space, Google can present you roughly 640,000,000 references to alcohol in space...
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.3 / 5 (13) Feb 03, 2019
SEU

Say whatever you like; I simply wonder why you do so.

This is a physics site, not a theology site.
says obs

No duhhh....really? I half expected that The Pope himself would be sitting in.
But actually - The Study that is referred to as Science depends largely on that which has been discovered and recorded as Science Fact. Science was the actions taken by the early scientists such as Galileo Galilei, Copernicus, et al, who were the driving forces that taught the Church leaders that the Natural Order existed. After some time thereafter, the Church could no longer stay the course without acknowledging that discoveries were being made about the natural world/worlds. So they had to relent and include the science facts into Church doctrines. But as I've said many times - the Creation itself - before, during and afterwards - has NOTHING TO DO with church doctrines, those doctrines which are MANMADE and came long long long after the Creation happened.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.3 / 5 (13) Feb 03, 2019
∂²ÄŽď��/∂x² + ∂²ÄŽď��/∂y² + ∂²ÄŽď��/∂z² = − [(px²py²+pz²)/h²]ÄŽď��

Schroedinger's

Goggle works pretty good that way, doesn't it.
But...
YOu were supposed to let Benni do it. He's just hopeless, not helpless...
says Whyde

LOL Awww I thought I'd take a crack at it. Don't get peeved over it. Anyway, Benni is probably too busy to respond to Da Pussyman.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.3 / 5 (12) Feb 03, 2019
Actually, I'd venture it was the sky daddy who was drunk. Are you aware of all the free floating alcohol around out there in the Universe?
"Here, hold my beer - I wanna try somethin'..."
says Whyde

Uh..free floating alcohol "out there"? Please don't tell me that the Trappist monks have started a brewery in outer space now.

https://phys.org/news/2014-09

says Whyde

Not fair, Whyde. That article is from 2014, which I never saw.

You don't get out much, do ya...
It said MOSTLY methyl. with some ethyl mixed in.
And to an Omnipotent Creator, that shouldn't pose a prob, should it?

And...
while not all of them will be about that free floating methyl or ethyl alcohol in space, Google can present you roughly 640,000,000 references to alcohol in space...
says Whyde

Be that as it may - I am certain that the Creator has much better things to do in His Universe than to imbibe free floating alcoholic beverages
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.3 / 5 (12) Feb 03, 2019
Drinking and driving is a no-no. And now that Elon Musk has launched his gorgeous red Corvette into the wild blue outer space - there may be more of a reason to take that baby for a ride. LOL
Whoever finds it first - I wish them good luck.
observicist
3.2 / 5 (16) Feb 03, 2019
SEU

You know no more about any creation event than does my pet Blue Tic Beagle (Lady Bugglesworth MacBeagle, familiarly known as Lady Bug, Miss Bug, Buggles, or Bug). My other dog, Ares, being a god, probably knows, but he's not telling -- if he told anyone, it would be my third dog, King Leonidas II, but he hasn't.

No one knows anything about any creation event, including whether there even was one, which is why I, personally, wish you would stop gabbing on about it.
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (11) Feb 03, 2019
Schroedinger's
Bzzzzt. Nope.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.3 / 5 (12) Feb 03, 2019
SEU

You know no more about any creation event than does my pet Blue Tic Beagle (Lady Bugglesworth MacBeagle, familiarly known as Lady Bug, Miss Bug, Buggles, or Bug). My other dog, Ares, being a god, probably knows, but he's not telling -- if he told anyone, it would be my third dog, King Leonidas II, but he hasn't.

No one knows anything about any creation event, including whether there even was one, which is why I, personally, wish you would stop gabbing on about it.
says obstructionist

So you have made your false argument against the Creator and His Works to include your flea-bitten pets, as though they might bolster your philosophy. It doesn't, of course.
Therefore YOU, personally, may wish all you want - it doesn't change the Truth by any means, that your Soul will be taken after you draw your last breath, just as will happen to Da Schneibo and Captain Beelzebub.
You would not even exist if the Creation hadn't happened - but believe as you will.
Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (8) Feb 03, 2019
https://pbs.twimg...pg:large

This is what they teach their spawn.
observicist
3.1 / 5 (15) Feb 04, 2019
SEU

Please read what I wrote, again; your reading comprehension needs work.

I wrote nothing whatsoever about any creator; what I wrote was about you, specifically.

I'll make it easier for you: you know nothing about any creation event. You really don't. And you never will.
observicist
2.8 / 5 (13) Feb 04, 2019
Da Schneib

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dw5PpIgVAAIIVyd.jpg:large

This is what they teach their spawn.


I'm beginning to understand that. It's too bad, really.
ThomasQuinn
3.5 / 5 (13) Feb 04, 2019
Benni

When I'm insulted, I consider the source.


I know, because Benni knows how to solve Differential Equations & you don't, I give you something to aspire to.


So, you're an idiot savant then?

I don't usually respond to your posts, because I don't care for pointless arguments with people not susceptible to reason and not interested in meaningful discussion, but I do note that you rarely, if ever, contribute anything of substance to discussions here, but do incessantly point out that you are capable of solving differential equations. I do not know what things are like in your country, but where I'm from, that's part of high school mathematics for everyone who chooses a science-oriented high school curriculum, and hardly a feat that sets you apart from any first year university student in a hard-science discipline.

So, I really am interested to hear why you think this trivial capability is so important and has any relevance in assessing your qualities.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (9) Feb 04, 2019
Especially considering that @Benni can't solve two different ones when presented with them. So much for the idiot savant hypothesis.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (9) Feb 04, 2019
∂²Ψ/∂x² + ∂²Ψ/∂y² + ∂²Ψ/∂z² = ?

Just as a reminder.
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) Feb 04, 2019
Benni

When I'm insulted, I consider the source.


I know, because Benni knows how to solve Differential Equations & you don't, I give you something to aspire to.


Lol. From the idiot who can't even do simple maths. As proven.
ThomasQuinn
3.2 / 5 (11) Feb 04, 2019
Especially considering that @Benni can't solve two different ones when presented with them. So much for the idiot savant hypothesis.


Well, if so that would leave "idiot savant" without the "savant" part.

I would still be interested to hear why Benni is of the opinion that the ability to solve differential equations is the most important factor in determining the value of a contributor's views on any given science article that does not directly relate to differential calculus.
Steelwolf
3.7 / 5 (9) Feb 04, 2019
In The Beginning there was a great Void, and this void was shaped much akin to a bowl. God did fill this void with great amounts of matter, green, crystally and of pungent smell. In another void, directly below the first and shaped as a globe, God created great volumes of water, pure and cold.

God then spoke: "OK, who has a Light?" and Lo, a Lighter was given unto Him. God directed His Lighter at the Void filled with green and did inhale deeply, drawing the vapours from the Green into His very body and declared it Good. (In fact He inhaled so deeply and so long that His friends chided him about 'Bogarting' a reference that He would not get for many billions of years.)

God then did blow His smoke out into yet another void and in so doing did create what we see as our Universe of swirls of gas and dust, smoke from His lungs which in his imagination gained a life of it's own and we see as our Universe today.

This is my Creation Story called the Big Bong Theory.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (9) Feb 04, 2019
Especially considering that @Benni can't solve two different ones when presented with them. So much for the idiot savant hypothesis.


Well, if so that would leave "idiot savant" without the "savant" part.

I would still be interested to hear why Benni is of the opinion that the ability to solve differential equations is the most important factor in determining the value of a contributor's views on any given science article that does not directly relate to differential calculus.
It's a long sad story, about two or three years deep, but the upshot is this isn't the first time @Benni has been presented with DEs and been unable to "solve" them despite all its claims.
ThomasQuinn
3.2 / 5 (11) Feb 04, 2019
I gathered as much, but regardless of Benni's ability (or lack thereof) to solve differential equations, I am curious as to why this ability would have any bearing on the value of comments on scientific topics that do not directly involve differential calculus. I'm guessing that the reality-based answer would be "it doesn't", but still, Benni obviously thinks it does, so I'd be interested to hear why that is.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (9) Feb 04, 2019
Well, that's a good question, I guess, if you're involved in psychological research.

Among many other uses, PDEs are used in relativity, and @Benni doesn't "believe in" relativity, so it tries to either subsume or denigrate DEs in general to pretend it has some as-yet unrevealed "proof" relativity is wrong that the rest of us here can't figure out because we can't "solve" PDEs.

This is obvious psychotic ideation, if you want to put some notes down.

DEs are where @Benni feels the rest of us "fail," despite the fact that it obviously cannot deal with them rationally, since it doesn't have the training necessary to do so.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (9) Feb 04, 2019
"Differential equations" has become a thing to @Benni, something it knows it cannot ever understand (or at least it believes so) and therefore something no one else can either.

For reference you should see its comments on half-life and average lifetime of subatomic particles.
ThomasQuinn
3 / 5 (10) Feb 04, 2019
That sounds like a fairly reasonable explanation. The reason I'm wondering is because I can't really pin down what Benni's angle is. There are numerous, let's say less-than-meaningful-contributors, on this site, and most of them are easily classified - religious anti-science fanatics, conspiracy theorists who think 'real science' is suppressed (electric universe and others), political extremists (especially active in AGW topics) and a few, like Otto, who appear to be simply argumentative for the sake of it (which doesn't mean that they never push BS and/or have other personal issues they are expressing). Benni doesn't seem to fit into any of those categories, so it makes me wonder what he thinks he is doing.
Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (8) Feb 04, 2019
Anything I might hypothesize about @Benni's motivations would be speculative at best since I cannot imagine a mindset that deals with reality in that manner. It makes up stories that are only marginally internally consistent, never mind externally, about physics, and particularly astrophysics. Most here see it as yet another irritation to go with the religious anti-science fanatics. conspiracy theorists, and political extremists, and the outright trolls who don't care about anything but whether they get a response of some kind.

TBQH I am far past caring.
Benni
1.5 / 5 (15) Feb 04, 2019
Anything I might hypothesize about @Benni's motivations would be speculative
.......it's ONLY because unlike yourself, and the rest of the Pop-Cosmology clan living in this chatroom, Benni doesn't live in a fantasyland of perpetual motion.

Benni lives & works in the REAL Universe where the orderly physics of ENTROPY & where the orderly physics of CONSTANT MASS=CONSTANT GRAVITY rules everywhere, no exceptions, & none of you foul mouthed name calling ranters in the Pop-Cosmology clans can FALSIFY those IMMUTABLE laws.

Not a one of you in the Pop-Cosmology crowd living here have EVER attempted to take on an issue like trying to FALSIFY the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics & replacing it with the absolute silliness that it can be precluded by Dark Energy, therefore none of you will engage in any discussion of ENTROPY, you never sat in that classroom solving those Differential Equations.

Da Schneib
4 / 5 (8) Feb 04, 2019
∂²Ψ/∂x² + ∂²Ψ/∂y² + ∂²Ψ/∂z² = ?

What's the answer, @Benni?
Benni
1.5 / 5 (15) Feb 04, 2019
∂²Ψ/∂x² + ∂²Ψ/∂y² + ∂²Ψ/∂z² = ?

What's the answer, @Benni?
.......OK, you be the one explaining how it FALSIFIES entropy.
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (11) Feb 04, 2019
Has nothing to do with entropy. Has to do with you claiming to be able to "solve differential equations."

Obviously and blatantly, you cannot. Here's one:

∂²Ψ/∂x² + ∂²Ψ/∂y² + ∂²Ψ/∂z² = ?

Now "solve" it. Or admit you lied.
Da Schneib
3.8 / 5 (10) Feb 04, 2019
This is simple stuff. Simple mechanics. Invented in the nineteenth century and taught to every physics student in their freshmen year. You either got it or you don't, and @Benni, you don't. Your claim to be any kind of engineer is obviously false. You aren't even qualified to be a technician.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (11) Feb 04, 2019
you never sat in that classroom solving those Differential Equations.


Well, you certainly didn't.
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.3 / 5 (12) Feb 04, 2019
I gotta disagree with you bjorn. It is my speculative opinion that this Universe is not mechanical. But rather a frenzy if stochastic processes.


I think you mean Torbjorn.

But I was referring to the 2018 3d data release from Planck. It is robust: two independent ways (CMB area and polarization) integrate all cosmological data, including the tension in the local Hubble velocity, and distinguish the type of inflation (slow roll). And from inflation it is perfectly flat space to 100 %, so we can sum over all the objects and their work (energy differences) that is included in the cosmological system general relativistic (and thermodynamic) constrained process.

And yes, stochastic mechanisms is a large part of the mechanical process - but for sure we can now see that no magical activity 'gods' has ever or will ever be part of nature.
rrwillsj
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 04, 2019
thamks torbjorn for correcting me.
Yes I understand the results you were discussing. To the best of my limited capacity. I certainly have no argument with such verifiable empirical results.
Or even with the conclusions drawn from such research. Makes the technology sing. don't it?

Just as using terms such as Black Holes or metamaterials are placeholders for phenomena we do not yet have more precise definitions. So I use the term Coyote Trickster Goddess as a temporary placeholder for the yet inexplicable "Why" this Universe is such a mucked-up mess.

Yes, your mechanistic physics actually works. At this time in Time. Please correct me if I am misinterpreting the known facts. The MP rules & regulations did not exist during the Big Bang?
& still have some unresolved issues as too how Universal those "Laws" actually are?

I do not accept the reality of the supernatural nor religious dogmas, Thus I am a materialist-atheist.

As a satirist I am a devotee of Coyote.
TuringTest
3.7 / 5 (9) Feb 04, 2019
Must be awful being benni. So frustrated that the world has gone insane and is completely oblivious to the truths only they and a few other enlightened ones know. To be trapped in a world of obfuscation and lies, so that the evil egotistical "popular scientists" can roll around in their glory and opulent lives full of riches and carnal pleasures at the expense of the public's ignorance of the universe. Oh how the tyranny of the establishment would fall if only people knew black holes were a lie.

Just step back for a second benni and look at the global social structure, across many diverse and competing groups, that it would require for your position to be true. Either some crazy large percentage of scientists are just wrong (and you are right), or all the institutions, including all the admin and all the industries that support the various involved fields are engaged in a systematic international effort to lie to the public of all people... about black holes....
Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (10) Feb 04, 2019
@ rr
Are you blind or stupid.
It is not difficult (nor) idiot notice, that the stars have 74% hydrogen, 25% helium and 1-1.5% less complex elements, opposite Earth, Moon, Mars. To argue that the stars are creating (instead of decomposed) complex elements is for idiotic from idiots. Look at the real evidence and do not be a lawyer for idiots.
...

Wducks,
They don't necessarily create them when they are an active star. When stars go nova and supernova they produce heavier elements. (Via additional heat and compression shock, to name just a couple)
A star's "remnants" are what make up planets and comets and asteroids.
Whydening Gyre
4.5 / 5 (8) Feb 04, 2019
...

Just step back for a second benni and look at the global social structure, across many diverse and competing groups, that it would require for your position to be true. Either some crazy large percentage of scientists are just wrong (and you are right), or all the institutions, including all the admin and all the industries that support the various involved fields are engaged in a systematic international effort to lie to the public of all people... about black holes....

Turning,
"All the world's a stage..."
Even Shakespeare knew about the evil worldwide "conspiracy"... :-)
Whydening Gyre
4.5 / 5 (8) Feb 04, 2019
∂²Ψ/∂x² + ∂²Ψ/∂y² + ∂²Ψ/∂z² = ?

What's the answer, @Benni?
.......OK, you be the one explaining how it FALSIFIES entropy.

"Bbzzzzttt…" Wrong answer.
I said it before and I'll say it again.
You need to revise your understanding of "entropy"... :-)
Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (7) Feb 04, 2019
@Whyde, don't forget that after GW 20170817, they found evidence (gamma ray spectroscopy) that a lot of heavy elements (that is, higher atomic mass and number than iron) got created during the neutron star merger and they're now spreading into a nebula.

One of the problems with the hypothesis that heavy elements get created in supernovae is that, actually, they don't seem to be. Most of what gets created seems to be elements lighter than iron, which is not surprising as iron is at the bottom of the packing fraction curve. There was an article on here after GW 20170817 about this. It specifically mentioned gold, but that was just for clickbait.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.7 / 5 (12) Feb 04, 2019
SEU

Say whatever you like; I simply wonder why you do so.

This is a physics site, not a theology site.
sys obscurerist

Why are you so concerned with what I say? Have I made insinuations about you with regard to your personality, your character, and your obvious egocentricity by which you seem to reflect poorly on those with whom you disagree? Where did you come from? How long have you been commenting on these physorg phorums? Are you someone's sock poopie or do you just fall in line with those whom you believe to be popular due to their 5 ratings?

Personally, I couldn't care less - so that I will not also tell you to "say whatever you like; I simply wonder why you do so".
As I am a Creationist, not a theologist - your mischaracterization of me or your attempt thereof, is of no concern to me.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.7 / 5 (12) Feb 04, 2019
∂²Ψ/∂x² + ∂²Ψ/∂y² + ∂²Ψ/∂z² = ?

What's the answer, @Benni?
.......OK, you be the one explaining how it FALSIFIES entropy.

"Bbzzzzttt…" Wrong answer.
I said it before and I'll say it again.
You need to revise your understanding of "entropy"... :-)
says Whyde

Another crack at it coming up -

∂²ψ/∂t²−∂²ψ/∂x²−∂²ψ/∂y²−∂²ψ/∂z²=0
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.7 / 5 (11) Feb 04, 2019
@ rr
It is not difficult (nor) idiot notice, that the stars have 74% hydrogen, 25% helium and 1-1.5% less complex elements, opposite Earth, Moon, Mars. To argue that the stars are creating (instead of decomposed) complex elements is for idiotic from idiots. Look at the real evidence and do not be a lawyer for idiots.
...

Wducks,
They don't necessarily create them when they are an active star. When stars go nova and supernova they produce heavier elements. (Via additional heat and compression shock, to name just a couple)
A star's "remnants" are what make up planets and comets and asteroids.
says Whyde

But then Da Sch says

One of the problems with the hypothesis that heavy elements get created in supernovae is that, actually, they don't seem to be. Most of what gets created seems to be elements lighter than iron, which is not surprising as iron is at the bottom of the packing fraction curve. There was an article on here after...
Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (9) Feb 04, 2019
@Whyde, don't forget that after GW 20170817, they found evidence (gamma ray spectroscopy) that a lot of heavy elements (that is, higher atomic mass and number than iron) got created during the neutron star merger and they're now spreading into a nebula.

One of the problems with the hypothesis that heavy elements get created in supernovae is that, actually, they don't seem to be. Most of what gets created seems to be elements lighter than iron, which is not surprising as iron is at the bottom of the packing fraction curve. There was an article on here after GW 20170817 about this. It specifically mentioned gold, but that was just for clickbait.

I wasn't inferring that all heavier elements are created via star death events. It does make sense that higher atomic elements than iron might be a result of a different process...
Explain "fraction packing curve"...
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.8 / 5 (10) Feb 04, 2019
That sounds like a fairly reasonable explanation. The reason I'm wondering is because I can't really pin down what Benni's angle is. There are numerous, let's say less-than-meaningful-contributors, on this site, and most of them are easily classified - religious anti-science fanatics, conspiracy theorists who think 'real science' is suppressed (electric universe and others), political extremists (especially active in AGW topics) and a few, like Otto, who appear to be simply argumentative for the sake of it (which doesn't mean that they never push BS and/or have other personal issues they are expressing)...
says ThomasQuinn

Just wondering here, Tommy - exactly WHO are these
"religious anti-science fanatics"
of whom you have alluded to as "easily classified"? And what makes you think they are anti-science?
Do you honestly think that anti-science fanatics would spend a lot of their time in a science website if they did not like or were against science?
Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (7) Feb 05, 2019
The packing fraction curve describes the mass defect fraction that each nuclide has. This is the difference between the atomic mass and the mass of an equivalent number of free neutrons and protons, divided by the atomic mass. The "curve" part comes in because it turns out that this decreases from hydrogen to iron, then starts increasing again beyond iron so it forms a curve across the elements with iron at the bottom.

Both fission and fusion take advantage of it; in fusion light elements get fused to heavier elements and the change in packing fraction is released as energy. In fission, very heavy elements split into lighter ones and the change in packing fraction is, again, released as energy. Once everything gets down to iron, there's no more energy deficit left so you can't get nuclear energy out of iron.

Does that help?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (12) Feb 05, 2019
-contd-
@ThomasQuinn
The physorg phorums are for the general public. I have yet to see a Phys.org declaration that only scientists are allowed to comment in these phorums - unless such declaration is hidden somewhere not apparent. You can disagree with anyone in this site, but it is always much friendlier and less hostile to explain your own stance as to your reason(s) for your disagreement. There are many here who are learning - I am learning as a scholar and interested observer - and some are a bit more advanced in the learning curve. But no matter how well we THINK we know about science - we are STILL ALL STUDENTS. Even the best/top scientists are still learning as they go. So to pretend to know everything and that no errors could have been made is foolish.
Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (9) Feb 05, 2019
The packing fraction curve describes the mass defect fraction that each nuclide has. This is the difference between the atomic mass and the mass of an equivalent number of free neutrons and protons, divided by the atomic mass. The "curve" part comes in because it turns out that this decreases from hydrogen to iron, then starts increasing again beyond iron so it forms a curve across the elements with iron at the bottom.

Both fission and fusion take advantage of it; in fusion light elements get fused to heavier elements and the change in packing fraction is released as energy. In fission, very heavy elements split into lighter ones and the change in packing fraction is, again, released as energy. Once everything gets down to iron, there's no more energy deficit left so you can't get nuclear energy out of iron.

Does that help?

It did, thanks...
Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (10) Feb 05, 2019
-contd-
@ThomasQuinn
The physorg phorums are for the general public. I have yet to see a Phys.org declaration that only scientists are allowed to comment in these phorums - unless such declaration is hidden somewhere not apparent. You can disagree with anyone in this site, but it is always much friendlier …
But no matter how well we THINK we know about science - we are STILL ALL STUDENTS. Even the best/top scientists are still learning as they go. So to pretend to know everything and that no errors could have been made is foolish.

As another "(simply) interested observer", methinks you should give the "pretending to know it all" speech to Benni...
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.9 / 5 (13) Feb 05, 2019
-contd-
@ThomasQuinn
The physorg phorums are for the general public. I have yet to see a Phys.org declaration that only scientists are allowed to comment in these phorums - unless such declaration is hidden somewhere not apparent. You can disagree with anyone in this site, but it is always much friendlier …
But no matter how well we THINK we know about science - we are STILL ALL STUDENTS. Even the best/top scientists are still learning as they go. So to pretend to know everything and that no errors could have been made is foolish.

As another "(simply) interested observer", methinks you should give the "pretending to know it all" speech to Benni...
says Whyde

I did not notice that Benni ever pretended to "know it all". He has mentioned knowing "Differential Equations" and also that he is involved in a science lab - as well as having received a good education in the sciences.
Who am I to judge Benni? And who are YOU or anyone else to judge Benni?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.9 / 5 (13) Feb 05, 2019
-contd-
@Whyde
As far as I know - Benni has never hurt anyone in this website in any shape or form. He doesn't use foul language as jonesy does, habitually it seems. He doesn't troll anyone as Da Schneibo does- to a fault.
If Benni is onto something where he works, such as a possible big scientific breakthrough - it would be expected that he would have to be tightlipped about it. Science is like that. On the verge of a possible great discovery in your line of work - however much you would like to brag about it - you can't.
And Benni has an amazing amount of patience with the fools that he encounters in these comment phorums. While they are behaving like bullies in the schoolyard, Benni is behaving as the adult trying to rein in the kindergarten loudmouths.
observicist
3 / 5 (14) Feb 05, 2019
SEU

SEU

Say whatever you like; I simply wonder why you do so.

This is a physics site, not a theology site.
sys obscurerist



You've insulted me several times. However, I consider the source.

My students did have a running joke whereby they all would run to the back of the classroom and open all the windows because my ego was using up all the oxygen. I always thought it was hilarious.

I'm not about to tell you where I came from, or my present location.

I've been here for years. It's been years since my last posts.

I've said before I'm no one's sock puppet. I'm no one's follower. If I gave my name, you would know it if you're really a scientist. That's why I don't ever use it.

If you couldn't care less, why are you responding?

Theologist, creationist (young earth?) -- you were spouting theology when talking about me insulting the "Creator God" and stating that my soul would pay. Not very polite, but, then, you're not.
Benni
1.7 / 5 (12) Feb 05, 2019
Theologist, creationist (young earth?) -- you were spouting theology when talking about me insulting the "Creator God" and stating that my soul would pay. Not very polite, but, then, you're not.


.......then what has been all your past bluster about the "eternal neutron" if you're not a theologian? Anyone who believes that within the realm of the ENTROPIC finite Universe, that something INFINITE exists is no less a deluded person than yourself.

You're a big black hole enthusiast but you can't put up observational evidence for what YOU BELIEVE to be the most massive stellar masses to exist in the Universe, however you expect US to have FAITH in what YOU BELIEVE.......no thanks, I'll accede to the Immutable Laws of Physics, it's easier.
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) Feb 05, 2019
.......no thanks, I'll accede to the Immutable Laws of Physics, it's easier.


You don't know Jack about physics. As proven.
Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (8) Feb 05, 2019
∂²Ψ/∂x² + ∂²Ψ/∂y² + ∂²Ψ/∂z² = ?

Still waiting for @Benni to solve this.

Run away and hide again, @Benni.
antialias_physorg
4.1 / 5 (9) Feb 05, 2019
Once everything gets down to iron, there's no more energy deficit left so you can't get nuclear energy out of iron.

Niggle: ...unless the proton turns out to have a half life of its own ;)
(which is something yet to be established....and which is something the LHC successor could have a look at )
MrBojangles
3.5 / 5 (8) Feb 05, 2019
IMMUTABLE laws, INFINITE mass on a FINITE stellar body, differential equations...


Yep, move along, nothing to see here.
observicist
3.2 / 5 (13) Feb 05, 2019
Benni

I never said one damn thing about an "eternal neutron" -- I said its decay was probabilistic, with decay time following an exponential probability density function. (Do you even know what that means?) Because neutron decay is probabilistic, there is no certainty that any given neutron will ever decay (but it most likely will). You don't know until it decays.

There's a great deal of observational evidence for black holes, just none of it direct, because (guess what?) you can't see a black hole, 'cause no light gets out of it until it's almost completely decayed. Can you see the air? There's still lots of indirect observational evidence for it, like trees swaying, breathing -- you know, simple stuff. And accretion disks for black holes, stars in really wild orbits around something that ain't there, wobbles in gravity (gravitational waves) -- you know, simple stuff, easy to understand.

Yesterday, I could not see
A little man who spoke to me...

Can you see me?
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) Feb 05, 2019
Benni

I never said one damn thing about an "eternal neutron" -- I said its decay was probabilistic, with decay time following an exponential probability density function. (Do you even know what that means?) Because neutron decay is probabilistic, there is no certainty that any given neutron will ever decay (but it most likely will). You don't know until it decays.


You'll have to forgive Benni. He suffers terribly from stupid disease. He thinks neutron decay has something to do with neutron stars and black holes. We keep telling him that this is due to the Pauli Exclusion Principle. In other words, neutron degeneracy. The poor suffering fool thinks that if he shows that all neutrons decay at 14.7 minutes, then neutron stars, and therefore black holes, cannot exist!
What can one do? Should one really be poking fun at somebody with stupid disease? ............... yeah, why not? Pointless trying to educate the poor fool.

jonesdave
3 / 5 (8) Feb 05, 2019
And accretion disks for black holes, stars in really wild orbits around something that ain't there, wobbles in gravity (gravitational waves) -- you know, simple stuff, easy to understand.


Not to mention gravitational redshift observed from the star S2 as it reached its closest approach to the SMBH;

Detection of the gravitational redshift in the orbit of the star S2 near the Galactic centre massive black hole
GRAVITY Collaboration
https://www.aanda...8-18.pdf

granville583762
2.7 / 5 (12) Feb 05, 2019
Observicist - no certainty it ever decays - most likely will - You don't know till it decays
Observicist> I never said one thing on an eternal neutron
neutron decay is probabilistic,
there is no certainty any given neutron will decay
it most likely will - you don't know until it decays

Observicist- mathematician - retired professor researcher in quantum mechanics
of many probabilistically probable skills
that leaves the obfuscated challenged floundering in probabilistic probabilities
the saying goes
have your cake and eat it
have it every way but lose
there's no certainty it will ever decay
it most likely will decay
you don't know until it decays
you have obfuscation to a fine art
you have probabilistics in obfuscation in a twixt
that only a mathematician in probabilistics
Observicist
the master of obfuscation in his art
in silver tongue
it maketh a change Observicist
Maketh a high probability of no - meaneth a high probability of yes
jonesdave
3 / 5 (8) Feb 05, 2019
^^^^^^^^Stop talking crap, you loon.
observicist
2.8 / 5 (11) Feb 05, 2019
granville

Never underestimate the power of probability -- especially when I understand it and you don't.
granville583762
2.7 / 5 (12) Feb 05, 2019
The packing fraction in nucleon mass's

As in the energy of mass difference
in energy release of neutrons
what is this the packing fraction
as it applies to nucleons
in reaction that release the energy
the packing fraction is higher in neutrons
even though the decay after emission
even though the neutrons carry energy away
we have to get this the packing fraction curve
in proportion
proportionally correct
in its proportion of mass
to the individual protons and individual neutrons
as this is where
Differential calculus comes to bare
it separates the packing fractions
into fractional mass's within the nucleus
so
Observicist
Have we a Mathematician in this House
Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (9) Feb 05, 2019
You're a big black hole enthusiast but you can't put up observational evidence for what YOU BELIEVE to be the most massive stellar masses to exist in the Universe, however you expect US to have FAITH in what YOU BELIEVE.......no thanks, I'll accede to the Immutable Laws of Physics, it's easier.

Okay, so what do your "Immutable laws of physics" say about the massive gravitational anomaly at the center of our galaxy?
granville583762
2.7 / 5 (12) Feb 05, 2019
Understanding understands understood in probability
granville
Observicist > Never underestimate the power of probability -- especially when I understand it and you don't

In this quantum world
in these quantum fluctuations
where these quantum particles flutter in this quantum breeze
where in this quantum world
probabilities exist
of probabilistics most proud
that as in this macro-world sanity rules
where this universe of neutrons always decay
but
down this rabbit hole quantum world
where positive and negatives
do not equal zero
two wrongs make a right
and yes means no
where no means yes
where
ulitimatly
a neutron never decays means no
a neutron always decays means yes
in this quantum world
yes, no ,no, yes
it makes no never mind
no always equals yes
because
whether in quantum
whether in macro
this neutron in this vacuum always decays
Maketh a high probability of no - meaneth a high probability of yes
Benni
1.7 / 5 (11) Feb 05, 2019
granville

Never underestimate the power of probability -- especially when I understand it and you don't.


........but always negate it for Beta Particle Decay of a neutron. There are no nuclear physics textbooks used in college classrooms which discuss the 14.7 minute lifetime of Neutron Beta Particle Decay as being an indeterminate span of time subject to the chances of probability you are deluding yourself with.

Oh, I know, the next thing you'll be tempted to say is you have such a textbook from college, right? Or maybe jonesy will beat you to it & tell us what page number it's found in one of his Anthropology bone picking textbooks.
granville583762
2.7 / 5 (12) Feb 05, 2019
Our Milkycurve

What is this galactic Hole we speak
when contemplating galactic Holes
one cannot discard observational data
as the latest data is galactic curves in rotational forcing
it cannot be discarded as crackpot
because
at our galactic centre of mass
data purports four million solar mass's in tight formation
where surrounding this Hole
is a multi light year accretion disc
even though in our Milkycurve
hide nor hair of this multi light year accretion disc is visible
come to that
neither is this gamma-ray emitting matter falling into this light radius
we can accept up to this light radius is invisible
but
beyond, all in falling gamma-ray emitting matter is visible
so as we cannot see hide nor hair of this mullti light year accretion disc
nor
hide nor hair of this multi light year accretion discs infilling matter
at
only
25,000Lyrs
It's time to pause for thought
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.7 / 5 (11) Feb 05, 2019
says obscurerist

You've insulted me several times. However, I consider the source.

Theologist, creationist (young earth?) -- you were spouting theology when talking about me insulting the "Creator God" and stating that my soul would pay. Not very polite, but, then, you're not.
says obscurerist

Theology is the study of religions, but also:

"Theology is the critical study of the nature of the divine. It is taught as an academic discipline, typically in universities and seminaries.[1]

Theology is basically the study of deities or their scriptures[2] in order to discover what they have revealed about themselves. While theology has turned into a secular field, religious adherents still consider theology to be a discipline that helps them live and understand concepts such as life and love and that...."

As I am not in the habit of studying deities or their scriptures, I am neither a theologist nor a "young earth creationist", which you had copied from Da Schniebo
granville583762
2.5 / 5 (11) Feb 05, 2019
There are no nuclear physics textbooks in college that discuss the 881s life of Neutron Beta Decay

Benni - this sure is a fact
No mention has been seen
except as this discussion on these boards
it does not discuss in this in WOOLLY MAMBO
all it discus's is exponential curves
which
are probabilistics
where a neutron decays 50 - 50
which
Benni, if 50 - 50 is probable
when your down to the last 100 neutrons in this WOOLLY MAMBO
this 50 - 50 probability will be seen
because
Oh wise one observicist, each 1/100 neutron will be decaying 50 - 50
as at the lower echelons of this curve
this curve will become erratic
as neutron decay in a erratic fashion
with sharp peaks
no longer following an exponential curve
but
following an erratic 50 - 50 curve
Benni, observicist and co do not want to find out in WOOLLY MAMBO
how
this
single neutron observed in isolation decays in isolation
Which is self explanatory
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.4 / 5 (10) Feb 05, 2019
-contd-
@obscurerist
If you had insulted the Creator God, then of course you can look forward to some form of punishment whether you are a believer or not. You (and many others) are simply not in a position to understand fully the uniqueness of the human (homo sapiens) existence as a sentient being. As jonesdave has professed his preference of having been descended from an apelike ancestor, rather than from a created fully-formed human, where the only reason for a relationship with animals was the DNA that had been dropped into the clay from which the first humans were formed - that is jonesy' choice.
If you felt insulted by my mentioning that you would pay - clearly you have no idea how the Creator God feels also by what you say. The immortal Souls of all those who blaspheme against the Creator will pay for their sin(s).

By the way, it was rrwillsj who had changed your user name to "obscurerist". I am only imitating. And this IS a PUBLIC WEBSITE, science or not.
observicist
3 / 5 (10) Feb 05, 2019
SEU

I never once asked anyone to stop saying whatever they wanted to say -- I just wondered why they said what they did, and why people ignorant of science feel competent to challenge the practitioners thereof. Challenge all you like, even if you're not competent to do so (which is obvious); I just wonder why you do so.

No, I have no elementary textbooks that talk about neutron decay. My elementary training was not in nuclear physics; I got that in graduate school at the PhD level. Please forgive my mistake.

What you call me makes no difference to me -- I actually think "obscurerist" is rather funny, and something of a compliment. I was not copying Da Schneib, by the way; what I write is my own.

I'm proud to be a member of a species that evolved from primitive apes. In fact, I think it's wonderful.

Please -- this is a request, mind you -- stop with the theology. It's boring. If I have a soul, you're not competent to judge where it ends up, whatever you think.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.4 / 5 (10) Feb 05, 2019
Benni

I never said one damn thing about an "eternal neutron" -- I said its decay was probabilistic, with decay time following an exponential probability density function. (Do you even know what that means?) Because neutron decay is probabilistic, there is no certainty that any given neutron will ever decay (but it most likely will). You don't know until it decays.
says obscurerist

I see where the term "statistical probability" likely has come from as applied to Free Neutron Mean Lifetime & Halflife
In United States criminal law, probable cause is the standard by which police authorities have reason to obtain a warrant for the arrest of a suspected criminal or the issuing of a search warrant. It is also the standard by which grand juries issue criminal indictments. The principle behind the standard is to limit the power of authorities to perform random or abusive searches (unlawful search and seizure), and to promote lawful evidence gathering and procedural...
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.4 / 5 (10) Feb 05, 2019
-contd-
Probable Cause and Statistical Probability are related.

"Probable in this case may relate to statistical probability or to a general standard of common behavior and customs. The context of the word probable here is not exclusive to community standards, and could partially derive from its use in formal mathematical statistics as some have suggested;[2] but cf. probō, Latin etymology.[3]
In U.S. immigration proceedings, the "reason to believe" standard has been interpreted as equivalent to probable cause.[4]"

Probability is too indefinite an explanation for the timing/duration of ANY Neuron Beta decay, which renders it too ambiguous for science to take such a stance. It is too inexplicit.
Benni
1.7 / 5 (11) Feb 05, 2019
Benni, observicist and co do not want to find out in WOOLLY MAMBO
how
this
single neutron observed in isolation decays in isolation
Which is self explanatory


You bet granDy, and don't we all know this already? Well, some of us anyway.

Oh, by the way:
There are no nuclear physics textbooks in college that discuss the 881s life of Neutron Beta Decay
......this in fact is what they discuss.

The textbooks do not discuss Obfuscation's point about an indeterminate probability.

I guess I'm gonna haf to go back up & give you a 4-Star unless you hit the stardust trail of the MilkyCurve & repent.
Benni
1.7 / 5 (11) Feb 05, 2019
Challenge all you like, even if you're not competent to do so (which is obvious); I just wonder why you do so.

No, I have no elementary textbooks that talk about neutron decay. My elementary training was not in nuclear physics; I got that in graduate school at the PhD level. Please forgive my mistake.
......well then, why are you so obscure about the nature of the Beta Particle Decay of a neutron?

observicist
3 / 5 (12) Feb 05, 2019
granville,

There's something bright down there, that's for sure. Whether it's coming from our supermassive black hole, or from something else, is yet unknown. We'll figure it out, though. I have great faith in human intelligence. I try not to despair over human stupidity, but you know what they say -- against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain.

Milky Way is not the only galaxy with a central supermassive black hole, by the way -- most galaxies have them (some have two), and we look at them, too. Some of them are quasars, some are blazars, and some have inactive galactic nuclei. Inactive galactic nuclei don't have accretion disks because no gas, dust, or other matter are close enough to get sucked down (towards a black hole is always down).

Don't feel left out; Milky Way does have a regulation, general issue, standard, supermassive black hole. We are not bereft.

We even have some pulsars and magnetars (one of those zapped us in 2004 -- we lost some stratosphere).
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.7 / 5 (11) Feb 05, 2019
SEU

Please -- this is a request, mind you -- stop with the theology. It's boring. If I have a soul, you're not competent to judge where it ends up, whatever you think.


I haven't noticed any request from you to jonesy to stop his foul language diatribes against some of the commenters in these physorg phorums. And yet, you talk of theology where I, personally, have not mentioned anything that is based on theology, particularly since theology encompasses many religions, beliefs, doctrines, dogma, and religious practices of which I have no knowledge.
Creationism has nothing to do with manmade relgions/theology. It is the science of the Creation itself and what came afterward.

That you are unaware of it is irrelevant to me, just as your "probability" is meaningless to those of us who disagree with such a faerie tale made into science fact.

I will continue to express my thoughts on Creationism, mind you, and you will continue to express yours.
Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (7) Feb 05, 2019
When data are denied, reality is denied.

Good luck with that.
observicist
3.2 / 5 (13) Feb 05, 2019
Benni
SEU

I'm plain as day about neutron decay -- it can't be predicted with certainty because it's probabilistic. You just can't understand me.

The universe is built on probability.

I'm getting the definite impression both of you have neither the vaguest understanding of probability theory, nor how it applies to the quantum world. (If the first is true, so is the second, and I think the first is true. It sure looks like it.) You don't even understand what a memoryless distribution is, and what the only two distributions are that qualify as such. You don't understand mean, variance, standard deviation, the difference between a density function and a probability distribution, how the Gaussian distribution applies to everything, the t-distribution, or anything else about probability theory, yet you talk about neutron decay.

I'm almost certainly contending in vain, here (they called me "the probability god" in graduate school).
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.7 / 5 (11) Feb 05, 2019
SEU

I never once asked anyone to stop saying whatever they wanted to say -- I just wondered why they said what they did, and why people ignorant of science feel competent to challenge the practitioners thereof. Challenge all you like, even if you're not competent to do so (which is obvious); I just wonder why you do so......

.....Please -- this is a request, mind you -- stop with the theology. It's boring. If I have a soul, you're not competent to judge where it ends up, whatever you think.
says obscurerist

Are you certain that you understand what your are posting in this phorum?

First, you say that you "never once asked anyone to stop saying whatever they wanted to say".

Then, in the same post - you say "stop with the theology".

Smacks of a fair bit of egocentricity on your part, or are you just being ambivalent?
Competency is learnt and, as a mere scholar and interested observer - my future competency is assured. Is your future competency likewise assured?
Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (7) Feb 05, 2019
https://pbs.twimg...pg:large

This is what so-called "Christians" believe.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.7 / 5 (12) Feb 05, 2019
Benni
SEU

I'm plain as day about neutron decay -- it can't be predicted with certainty because it's probabilistic. You just can't understand me.

The universe is built on probability.

says obscurerist

It's only probabilistic for the simple reason that quantum particles such as Free Neutron Beta decay is pure guesswork, conjecture, the practice of voodoo and clairvoyance without the gypsy.
Guessing games, no matter how you wish to define it - is not Science.

What is the probability that the USA and Russia will get into a shooting war with each other?
If a war with Russia happens, what is the probability of the outcome, of who wins and who loses?What is the probability (in numbers) that half (more or less) of the American population will die in this war? The same with the Russian population - how many will die or live?
What is the probability of a sinkhole opening up under your house or your neighbor's house?
Try to guess. Any certainty?
granville583762
2.7 / 5 (12) Feb 05, 2019
Down the rabbit hole of quantum fluctuations we go
observicist> The universe is built on probability

All though we speak of macro-world
all we speak of quantum-world
neither exist in all reality except in our imagination
as we feel the oxygen molecule bouncing of our skin
is how, observicist we feel the temperature in the room we stand
so as you talk in quantum probabilities in quantum worlds
there is no quantum world atoms exist in
we are in this quantum world you speak of
our very being is made of these probabilities of which you speak
but
we do not experience these probabilities of which you speak
we are constructed of these probabilities but they do not exist
Observicist, they only exist in your mathematics not in this quantum world we inhabit
observicist
2.8 / 5 (11) Feb 05, 2019
SEU

So-called "foul language" doesn't bother me -- I often use language that makes sailors blush. Would you like me to do so?

Your theology on this site bothers me because you have nothing with which to back it. There are no data behind it -- none. It cannot be falsified. It can't be proven or disproven. Back it with data, and I'll welcome it -- data, not arguments only. Theology on a science site is a waste of computer memory and network bandwidth which, while inexpensive, are not free. It's a waste of everyone's time who'd rather discuss science without metric tons of theological pollution (yes, it's theology) in between posts containing questions and answers. Some people don't know this science and want more information; others have information to share. That's the real purpose of a site like this, whatever is or isn't allowed.

I'm asking you to stop, mind you. I would never even try to make you stop (if I could -- I can't), though free speech does not apply here.
granville583762
2.7 / 5 (12) Feb 05, 2019
Unless you hit the stardust trail of the Milkycurve & repent

Benni
How the sinners sinneth
how the sinners repenteth
in rotational forcing in Milkycurves
as was pointed out
in the article of Milkycurves
we have plenty of piccies
of Andromeda
as these piccies
of rotational curves in Andromeda in curves
do not exist
as
presently
no one has seen Andromeda in curves
come to that
neither has any one seen
the Milkyway in curves
Benni, is like your favourite picci
your little cupeth joyeth over floweth in joyeth with
this picci of the Milkyway in curves like all the rest of these piccies
another artistic masterpiece
An Artists simulation
jimmybobber
2.8 / 5 (9) Feb 05, 2019
SEU, Benni, and Grandville live in a deterministic universe.

And unfortunately a Physics 101 education if that.
Benni
1.7 / 5 (12) Feb 05, 2019
I'm plain as day about neutron decay -- it can't be predicted with certainty because it's probabilistic. You just can't understand me.


I understand you "plain as day", that's why as you keep digging deeper you are also piling higher, and that's ALL that Phd of yours is translating into.

It is not PROBABILISTIC a free unbound neutron will decay in 14.7 minutes after separation from a nucleus, it's 100%. It is also the reason why the nuclear physicists who do those lifetime measurements know how long to keep the gate from the reactor tunnel to the Proton Trap open.

Your problem is you have never learned the difference between Beta Particle Decay & Gamma Radiation Decay when applying an exponential decay rate based on half-life. You'd do well to go back & review your competency in evaluating that Differential Equation for exponential decay of radio-isotopes because a neutron is NOT a radio-isotope & you obviously don't know that.

jimmybobber
2.8 / 5 (9) Feb 05, 2019
@Benni

Thanks for the laughs.
You are clearly a moron.
jimmybobber
2.8 / 5 (9) Feb 05, 2019
@Benni

It's clear you have never studied Quantum Mechanics.

I wonder if you think electrons orbit a nucleus analogous to a solar system.
observicist
3.2 / 5 (13) Feb 05, 2019
SEU
Benni
Granville

I've known the mean time to decay of free neutrons was in the realm of 12 to 17 minutes since I was age twelve (they didn't have it pinned down any closer than that at that time), and that it was a probabilistic quantum event, and I knew what that meant. Hence my assumption that that knowledge was in introductory textbooks on the subject.

SEU, "Stop the theology" is a request (and a reasonable one, this being a science site), because I have no authority to enforce it, which everyone knows, and wouldn't if I did. I figured that was obvious. I'm guessing maybe (p = ~0.005) I was wrong; there's a large probability (p = ~0.995), however, that I'm right and you're just trying to make hay about it.

SEU, I'm not the one telling people they are going to pay for the "sin" of insulting the so-called "Creator God." You can't back that up with data. Although, it might be fun to see you try. I doubt you will.
granville583762
2.7 / 5 (12) Feb 05, 2019
We knew it all along jimmybobber
jimmybobber> SEU, Benni, and Grandville live in a deterministic universe.

As you inhabit this virtual phys.org world
this world of probabilistic probabilities
we sort of knew it all along, jimmybobber
You were never deterministic, just a probabilistic virtual soul, lost in virtual reality
granville583762
2.5 / 5 (11) Feb 05, 2019
But where oh where, Oh Observicist is this documented
observicist> I've known the mean time to decay of free neutrons was in the realm of 12 to 17 minutes since I was age twelve

Where is this experiment on this free isolated single neutron
that is not this WOOLLY MAMBO pulling the wool
as jimmybobber has pointed out observicist
An actual experiment is a deterministic approach!
jimmybobber
3 / 5 (10) Feb 05, 2019
@Benni

And when I call you a moron. It's not being mean or insulting. It's the truth. If the truth hurts your feelings then that is something you need to deal with.

@SEU you are a moron too.
@Granville you are a moron too.
observicist
3 / 5 (12) Feb 05, 2019
SEU

I don't need any future competency; my past competency is, however, well accepted.

Your religious beliefs are just as man-made as anyone's -- by you (I'm assuming you're human, although some of what you have posted makes me wonder if you think you're human -- stuff about a League of Planets, etc -- and that maybe you should take a trip to your local mental health center -- there are some very nice people there who will help you clear your head). Please stop saying they are not (and they are, indeed, religious beliefs).

Please talk about science, and not about your god. (This is getting more and more fun.)
Benni
1.6 / 5 (13) Feb 05, 2019
And when I call you a moron. It's not being mean or insulting. It's the truth.


OK jimbo, you too are a moron & like most such people have never seen a Differential Equation you could solve or you too would never have attached your credibility to the Obscurity guy who tried faking knowing how to solve Differential Equations & blew it as I pointed out above.

Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (7) Feb 05, 2019
Still waiting for the solution to

∂²Ψ/∂x² + ∂²Ψ/∂y² + ∂²Ψ/∂z² = ?

This isn't anything esoteric, it's basic mechanics taught in Physics 101.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (8) Feb 05, 2019
Still waiting for the solution to

∂²Ψ/∂x² + ∂²Ψ/∂y² + ∂²Ψ/∂z² = ?

This isn't anything esoteric, it's basic mechanics taught in Physics 101.

That looks French. And my French teacher had narcolepsy (she kept dozing off on her feet in front of the classroom).
SO I didn't learn as much French as I should have...
Or maybe it's Dutch, which I didn't have a class in, at all...
Benni
1.7 / 5 (12) Feb 05, 2019
Still waiting for the solution to

∂²Ψ/∂x² + ∂²Ψ/∂y² + ∂²Ψ/∂z² = ?

This isn't anything esoteric, it's basic mechanics taught in Physics 101.


You should see if shroedinger is available for a date.
Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (7) Feb 05, 2019
It's not SchČŤdinger. It's basic mechanics.

And you can't solve it.

You lied, @Benni.
Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (7) Feb 05, 2019
Here, I'll give you the answer: ∂²Ψ/∂r²

Now, what does it mean? What is it?
Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (7) Feb 05, 2019
You can also write it as: ∂²Ψ/∂d²

depending on how you define d or r. If you use d you are using Minkowski.
observicist
3 / 5 (12) Feb 05, 2019
Benni

When did I try to fake knowing how to solve differential equations? I haven't mentioned them at all. I have said I know how to solve for probabilities associated with exponential decay, such as that associated with free neutrons, and how to find the probability of a given number of them decaying in a given span of time, and that's pretty much all I've said, except for some not overly extremely rude invective against you and a couple others.

Respectfully, with respect to and respecting differential equations, you got asked, first, so how about you solve, first? Perhaps that's not fair, given the pile of well-read and well-thumbed DiffEq texts I can see in my bookshelf from where I'm sitting, but, well, sometimes life just isn't fair.

I like to keep my references close, just in case I get an idea. Thinking is fun -- it keeps me young (well, actually, it doesn't, because I'm not, but I like to pretend -- it makes my wife laugh).

I'm the eternal optimist.
observicist
3 / 5 (12) Feb 05, 2019
Benni

The bet's off -- Da Schneib did it for you.

You could, if you really want to, answer all those questions about probability theory I asked a while ago about mean, variance, standard deviation, memoryless distributions, etc. I did ask first, after all. (You can add transforms -- what, when, why, how, where, who -- to my list of questions about probability theory, if you like. You probably don't. Pun intended.) And we are talking about quantum mechanics, at least in part.
Da Schneib
2.5 / 5 (6) Feb 05, 2019
A spider wanders aimlessly within the warmth of a shadow
Not the regal creature of border caves
But the puir misguided directionless familiar
Of some obscure Scottish poet
Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (7) Feb 05, 2019
I figured I'd give it a few days to try to figure it out.

If @Benni were any normal person it would admit it lied.

It's not a normal person; it's a psychotic. It denies mathematics and astrophysical data. Denying math and data is psychotic.

This is the Wave Equation; not the Schrȍdinger version, used in quantum mechanics but the simple one used in classical mechanics. It was first written down by d'Alembert. For that reason it is often known as the d'Alembert equation.
observicist
3 / 5 (12) Feb 05, 2019
Da Schneib,

Do you think Benni will remember this helpful instruction of yours? Thereby proving to few and sundry he can solve differential equations.
Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (7) Feb 05, 2019
It's simply the equation to find the amplitude of a wave at some distance (or radius) from the measured wave at a particular point.

Nice simple classical mechanics. Nothing difficult or esoteric.

I'll be happy to post some PDEs concerning thermodynamics if you like. You won't be able to solve them either considering you don't understand what ▽² means.
Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (7) Feb 05, 2019
@observer, this troll @Benni lies about what people say. I don't think it is capable of instruction; it doesn't seem to understand probability or fractions, and claims to understand differential equations without demonstrating the capability to figure out what they're saying.

I have personally seen it claim to be a nuclear engineer without any sign of the skills needed for graduation from this curriculum. I have personally seen it claim to be capable of "solving" PDEs without any apparent understanding of what they mean or where they fit into physics.

I don't think there's anything to do but mock and ridicule it. I wouldn't if it didn't lie about what I say, as well as lying about what anyone else says that mocks its psychotic ideation. You have been subject to these lies and you know what I'm saying.
Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (7) Feb 06, 2019
Try to imagine this troll lying about what you said and misrepresenting physics for a few years and see if you might feel like I do.
Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (7) Feb 06, 2019
@Benni, explain what ▽² means.

Here's the thermodynamics equation:

∂U/∂r = x ▽²U

Now tell us what it means. This is basic thermodynamics; if you can't explain it you're not qualified to talk about thermodynamics.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.7 / 5 (12) Feb 06, 2019
SEU

So-called "foul language" doesn't bother me -- I often use language that makes sailors blush. Would you like me to do so?

Your theology on this site bothers me because you have nothing with which to back it. There are no data behind it -- none. It cannot be falsified. It can't be proven or disproven. Back it with data, and I'll welcome it -- data, not arguments only.

I'm asking you to stop, mind you. I would never even try to make you stop (if I could -- I can't), though free speech does not apply here.
says obscurista

ROFLOL
Oh do shut up, you annoying fatuous little punk. You have a lot of nerve talking as though you were some big shot on this website. And what do you mean by "free speech doesn't apply here"?
When did you transition into Captain Beelzebub. Your words are good imitations of that fool.
There is plenty of data - but an idiot like you and Da Schithead will never be allowed to share in that knowledge. So bugger off - you twat.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (6) Feb 06, 2019
@SEU, you can't "solve" DEs any better than @Benni. So, the only question remaining is whether you're just another psychotic or a sock puppet of @Benni's.

Keep up your whining and I'll give you Schrȍdinger's Equation and see how you deal with that, having mistaken the classical equation for the quantum one.

These fanatics make up their pretentions assuming they're not talking anyone who knows enough to make them look foolish. BZZZZZZT.

Bring it YEC fool.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (6) Feb 06, 2019
And this is their icon of peace:

https://pbs.twimg...pg:large

"Peace" to these individuals is "We beat you up and you submit."
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.7 / 5 (12) Feb 06, 2019
Or perhaps obscurista and Da Schnot are the same person - where Da Schithead gets to toot his own horn while using this obscure fellow as his wingman - like Abbot and Costello, for example. Yes, that seems quite right.
Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (7) Feb 06, 2019
Or perhaps @SEU and @Benni are the same person. Both of whom are YEC nutjobs who are off their medication.
Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (7) Feb 06, 2019
Oh, and noticed @SEU has no more comment on DEs than @Benni. Yet more evidence they're sock puppets.
Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (7) Feb 06, 2019
Thinking maybe you shouldn't have opened that particular box, dumbshit?

Not to mention the one where you claimed to be an alien mindreader. Read my mind, dumbshit, and tell us the "solution" to the DE:

∂U/∂r = x ▽²U
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.7 / 5 (12) Feb 06, 2019
But where oh where, Oh Observicist is this documented
observicist> I've known the mean time to decay of free neutrons was in the realm of 12 to 17 minutes since I was age twelve

Where is this experiment on this free isolated single neutron
that is not this WOOLLY MAMBO pulling the wool
as jimmybobber has pointed out observicist
An actual experiment is a deterministic approach!
says granville

I would also like to know. He said that he knew it at age 12, of the decay of Free Neutrons being at 12 - 17 minutes that is supposedly "deterministic". And yet he claims to a "retired scientist/teacher", wasn't it?
It seems that the whole research project to determine "Mean Lifetime" and "Half-life" of a radioactive Free Neutron stinks, as it is claimed that they can't determine ANYTHING UNTIL THE NEUTRON TRANSITIONS INTO A PROTON. So, they are actually waiting for each Free Neutron to become a Proton before they can determine how long it takes to do so. Total bollocks.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 06, 2019
Ummm, where they got the half-life from? You know, by measuring it and stuff, which is called "data," which you are denying.

Duhhh ummmm.

This is easy; YECs are dumbshits.
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 06, 2019
∂U/∂r = x ▽²U

Dumbshit.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.7 / 5 (12) Feb 06, 2019
ROFLMAO
Da Schithead thinks I'm an "alien mindreader". But before that, Da Schithead thought I was an alien LIZARD in some other physorg phorums. And now he makes haste to get all of his strange ideas into the comment box as fast as his pudgy fingers can type his foolishness - to impress the great Captain Beelzebub who is looking on - waiting to see what else is being said.
Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (7) Feb 06, 2019
∂U/∂r = x ▽²U

You claimed it. If it's true you'd already know the answer.

You're a nutjob, dumbshit.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.7 / 5 (12) Feb 06, 2019
Who is this fathead bozo talking to? And why is it putting up that equation? Doesn't it know the answer?
Methinks there is some question into this fathead bozo's mental mischief that causes it to put up strange symbols, while insisting that someone knows the answer.
Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (7) Feb 06, 2019
What, no answer dumbshit?

I win.

YEC trolls are so easy.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.7 / 5 (12) Feb 06, 2019
And now Da Schithead is claiming to have won. A booby prize, I would imagine. Crazy people who talk to themselves and claiming to win a booby prize. Wow, SNL couldn't be funnier than this.
Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (7) Feb 06, 2019
You can't say what the equation is.

I win. You lose, which is what luser YECs do.
Da Schneib
2.7 / 5 (7) Feb 06, 2019
I'm listening to "Lunatic Fringe" by Red Rider. It seems quite appropriate.

https://www.youtu...a_G1h3pw
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.7 / 5 (11) Feb 06, 2019
AND he reiterates winning the booby prize. What a loser.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (6) Feb 06, 2019
Then post the "solution" to the DE, dumbshit.

We're all here watching you, lunatic fringe. We're on guard this time against your final solution.

Did you know that before Nixon got elected, more Republicans were in favor of abortions than Democrats?

Look it up, lunatic fringe.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.7 / 5 (12) Feb 06, 2019
Oh noooooo - how it's talking about a "final solution". What can it mean? A concentration camp?
And also talking about abortions. Perhaps Da Schithead believes in Eugenics?
Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (7) Feb 06, 2019
And yet more lunatic fringe: https://pbs.twimg...pg:large

These YECs are social toxic waste. They need to be sterilized so they don't spawn and torture children: https://www.thewe...e-verses

They're not qualified to be parents. They're sadistic psychotic murderers.
Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (7) Feb 06, 2019
Sorry what your fellow psychotic sadistic murderers post upsets you, dumbshit. Maybe if you don't want to see yourself pilloried any more you should leave. I got plenty more; neither of those links took me more than a minute to find. Bring it.

Bye now, luser.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.7 / 5 (12) Feb 06, 2019
Ho hum How positively boring. Going for a spot of good hot tea and take the dog for a walk. I've named the ground where the dog poops and pees after Da Schneibo. So I tell the dog to go poop on Da Schneibo - and he does it. Good dog.
Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (7) Feb 06, 2019
This dumbshit thinks it's OK to beat a little kid up and bury him in the snow to die.

See a professional. Get medication. Take it. Don't beat up little kids and bury them in the snow any more, dumbshit.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (6) Feb 06, 2019
Listening to Rush, "Jacob's Ladder." As far from you as anything I can imagine.

It sucks that there are murdering psychotic YECs like you. If there were actually a god you'd all die in agony.
observicist
3 / 5 (12) Feb 06, 2019
Da Schneib, I rather do have a bit of a feeling for how you feel, although I can't say it is as intense as what you're dealing with. You have my sympathies. I've been watching for years, but I haven't had it directed at me. I felt I had no choice but to jump in when the nonsense about mean lifetime and half-life and associated absolute dreck started coming from people who either should know better or should know when to shut up and listen.

I do want you to know one thing: SEU has it wrong about me. I'm not Captain Beelzebub, I'm merely Lieutenant Beelzebub. I've got quite a ways to go before I make Captain.

I also want you to know (you already do, to be sure) that I'm by no means you. Others appear to be less than certain about that.

You're right about how nasty they get. It's unbecoming. As the lawyers say, if you have facts, argue the facts. Lacking facts, argue the law. Lacking law, pound the table. They're Kruschev and his shoe.
Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (7) Feb 06, 2019
Guess I'm the shoe. ;)

It sucks posting on a science site and watching these idiots try to dodge real science questions. Eventually one becomes exasperated and starts using their own tactics against them.

Hope you stick around. Folks who seriously know what they're talking about aren't common here; they mostly leave because of the trolls.
Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (7) Feb 06, 2019
Used to be you only had them on the global warming threads telling how many guns they have.
Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (7) Feb 06, 2019
They shout about love
But when push comes to shove
They look for things they're afraid of

He's not afraid of your judgements
He knows of horrors worse then your hell
He's a little afraid of dying
But he's a lot more afraid of your lying
observicist
2.8 / 5 (11) Feb 06, 2019
SEU

You're having trouble with your reading comprehension again. I said I knew free neutron decay was in the realm of 12 to 17 minutes, and probabilistic -- not deterministic. If you're going to insult me, at least get it right. I read it; where, I do not recall. It was long ago.

Free speech doesn't apply to any privately owned website. Whatever the owners don't want said doesn't get said. Free speech is a government concept, not a private one. I also clearly said I was not one of the site bigwigs, owners, enforcers, flunkies, or anything else. If the site rules allow total free speech, that's up to the site owners. If they want to clear and censor everything, they can do that, too.

Are you about to claim I'm gay too, as you have with Da Schneib, given the feminine ending you've suddenly chosen for your friendly nickname for me? You're not very creative; you can do better. Tell my wife.

Neither my body nor brain is little, nor are they punk (they're prog rock).
observicist
3 / 5 (12) Feb 06, 2019
Da Schneib, I'll stick around.

You're not the shoe, Benni's the shoe, and you're pounding said Benni on the heads of granville and SEU. They just don't realize it.

I love Rush; I have a 1972 Rickenbacker 4001 4-string bass. I bought it in the same store on Denmark Street in that Moody Blues music video ("I Know You're Out There Somewhere"). The last time I saw Rush, Geddy and I ended up in a corner, afterwards, for a good hour, talking basses, arguing over pick playing vs. fingers (I use a thin circular pick; Geddy uses his fingers just above the bridge). Alex and Neil were hitting on my wife (in fun). Sorry -- someone says Rush, I talk shop. I was a studio musician for a dozen years.

(SEU, I won't bring it up, again.)

Benni, SEU, and granville, of course, won't believe a word of it (few do). Doesn't matter -- it's a nice memory.

I've seen those global warming threads. A guy around the corner has a big sign that says, "God causes climate." I can't get away from them.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (6) Feb 06, 2019
prog rock
Heh. Got seven axes and a recording studio in my addition complete with an 8-track. I spent my time being a fixer of big server systems.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (6) Feb 06, 2019
Just about to start "Red Barchetta." Rush kick today; prolly Yes tomorrow.
observicist
2.8 / 5 (11) Feb 06, 2019
Da Schneib, I also have a Rick 5-string bass, a headless Hohner 5-string with a Steinberger tuning system, a Peavey 5-string bass, one 6-string axe, a Spanish guitar, an MAudio 88 key electronic piano/organ with wooden weighted keys, a rack mounted analog synth, two 56-key analog synths, a 1972 minimoog analog synth, a Leslie synth, stomp boxes, two 100 watt amps, 2 tube external pre-amps (four channels, total), two mixers, and an 8-track. I did the whole Geddy Lee thing. I also play violin/viola, trumpet, trombone, french horn, acoustic double bass, clarinet, bass clarinet, and recorder. I even sing and have perfect pitch (not a blessing). Half the time I dream in quarter notes.

My proudest musician moment was when I was warming up on a studio piano waiting for my employer, and Keith Emerson stuck his head in, and told me he liked what I was playing. It was all I could do not to puddle at the Great Man's feet.

Music and science go together a lot, I've found. I do miss it.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Feb 06, 2019
It is not PROBABILISTIC a free unbound neutron will decay in 14.7 minutes after separation from a nucleus, it's 100%.


Yes it is. As proven. In the scientific literature. Try understanding it, you moron.

observicist
3 / 5 (12) Feb 06, 2019
There are -- maybe -- all of two Yes tracks I don't like.

I like everything (and can play everything) Chris Squire ever recorded, but I can't stand the guy, personally. He wanted me to work on one of his solo projects with him, and after three days we called it quits. We like each other's style, respect each other's musicianship and work ethic, and can't stand each other, personally. To say that our personalities do not mesh well is the understatement of the age of the cosmos. It was a good experience, though. And I know that, in truth, he's a really nice guy. We just can't stand each other. Word got around, but he never said one bad thing about me to anyone -- just that we could not seem to work together.

These things happen. I'm on plenty of albums. But Chris is another Great Man, in my book, and finishing the project would have been good. We just couldn't. And he still paid me.

I have way too many memories. I do miss it.
observicist
3 / 5 (12) Feb 06, 2019
If free neutron decay were not probabilistic, free neutron decay would not have a half-life. Think about it a while, and maybe the light bulb will come on over your head. A free neutron has a mean lifetime of 14.7 minutes, and any group of free neutrons has a half-life of (ln 2)(14.7 minutes). Half-life has no meaning with respect to a single neutron, or a single anything. Mean time to decay is always 14.7 minutes, no matter how long the neutrons have been hanging around. If that were not the case, there would be no such thing as a half-life. Neutrons don't keep track of how long they've been hanging around. Mean time to decay of all remaining free neutrons is always 14.7 minutes from whenever you start timing them, regardless of how long they've been sitting around, all bored and stuff. There's no half-life, otherwise.

Think about it for a half-while.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (6) Feb 06, 2019
Ah, an aficionado. My best story is meeting CSN backstage after the show when I was doing a sing-a-long of Suite Judy Blue Eyes with the crew. This of course had the potential to be massively embarrassing, but they spared me and brought out their own acoustics. In the end, they were musicians, same as me, and even after their set were still happy just to play.
granville583762
2.7 / 5 (12) Feb 06, 2019
Observicist is not saying no, probably
observicist> SEU
I never once asked anyone to stop saying whatever they wanted to say
stop with the theology. It's boring

Observicist is not saying yes, probably
observicist is saying you are free to speak your mind, probably
as long as you do not speak
observicist in full woolly flow
observicist pulling the wool
observicist, the epitome of probabilistic probabilities
where you're probably free to speak
as long as there is a high probability you stay silent
Observicist has consulted the gods
Observicist Gods Have Spoken
observicist
3.2 / 5 (11) Feb 06, 2019
granville,

Has it occurred to anyone that I hadn't asked anyone to stop saying whatever they liked, but decided to ask SEU to stop, finally, please, because it was getting boring?

Ever think of that? Because that's what happened.

Damnation, you people are dense!

I'm not a god, but my dog, Ares, is.
granville583762
2.7 / 5 (12) Feb 06, 2019
There is a hole in our bucket - in honour of probabilistic Observicist

Observicist Gods Have Spoken
observicist> If free neutron decay were not probabilistic, free neutron decay would not have a half-life.

So why not test it, dear observicist
test it
but there is a hole in WOOLLY MAMBO
a hole
well fix it dear observicist
fix it
well what shall fix it
simple dear observicist
simple
drop these probabilistic probabilities
and
take a deterministic approach
in singularity
a single neutron in isolation
Will fix it dear observicist
jonesdave
3 / 5 (8) Feb 06, 2019
a single neutron in isolation
Will fix it dear observicist


There is nothing to fix, and observing a single neutron will tell you nothing. I keep asking, idiot - how are you going to do this? And what will it tell you? Stop talking nonsense.
granville583762
2.7 / 5 (12) Feb 06, 2019
I'm not a god, but my dog, Ares, is
granville,
Has it occurred to anyone that I hadn't asked anyone to stop saying whatever they liked, but decided to ask SEU to stop, finally, please, because it was getting boring?
Ever think of that? Because that's what happened.
Damnation, you people are dense!
I'm not a god, but my dog, Ares, is.

Well done observicist
You do not need a little voice in your shell like
saying
Thou art mortal, thou art mortal
granville583762
2.7 / 5 (12) Feb 06, 2019
Concerning observicist's Gods

But observicist
your pooch
does not know he is a god
except your good self, observicist
so
observicist
how does observicist determine these Gods of yours
or
is to determine
too deterministic approach
For a probabilistic God

p.s. we are not getting bored with your probabilistic approach
granville583762
2.7 / 5 (12) Feb 06, 2019
Questions not in physics vocabulary

How are you going to do this?
What will it tell you?
granville583762
2.3 / 5 (12) Feb 06, 2019
Concerning these questions
Questions not in physics vocabulary

How are you going to do this?
What will it tell you?

They are questions to be asked
but
not in the context
that as it can be proved in probabilities
there is no point in carrying them to proof of concept
in a
Working model
an
Experiment
jonesdave
2.7 / 5 (7) Feb 06, 2019
^^^^^WTF are you talking about?
Benni
1.7 / 5 (12) Feb 06, 2019
>Obs....

You could, if you really want to, answer all those questions about probability theory I asked a while ago about mean, variance, standard deviation, memoryless distributions, etc.


I did answer "all those questions", you just didn't like the answers when I corrected your dead wrong assertions that the 14,7 minute lifetime measurement of a neutron via Beta Particle Decay is not measured via the exponential 1/2 life decay rate used for Gamma Radiation Decay.

None of you Pop-Cosmology dinosaurs living here in this chatroom comprehend the difference between Beta Particle Decay & Gamma Radiation Decay. And just look at the Comments of that clown of an embedded Physorg Moderator Schneibo, same problem you have, misapplying one type of decay for another.

It's no one wonder you believe neutron stars & black holes exist, it's all about your misapplied fantasy math in search of the eternal neutron that doesn't exist in the real world of nuclear physics.

Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (8) Feb 06, 2019
@Benni, you didn't even understand those questions, much less answer them. You can't even get fractions right. I shudder to imagine you trying to talk about standard deviation. It would probably be worse than your half-life screwup and we'd have to listen to it for the next six months while you tried and failed to prove it was wrong, or something "teh siensetis jist made up" or whatever.
jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (9) Feb 06, 2019
I did answer "all those questions", you just didn't like the answers when I corrected your dead wrong assertions that the 14,7 minute lifetime measurement of a neutron via Beta Particle Decay is not measured via the exponential 1/2 life decay rate used for Gamma Radiation Decay


No, you didn't you brainless oik. ***Everything*** that beta-decays has a half-life, you moron. This has nothing to do with gamma, you cretin.

granville583762
2.8 / 5 (11) Feb 06, 2019
The First rule of phys.org
^^^^^WTF are you talking about?

If at first one does not understand
invokes
The second rule of phys.org
do not let anyone know
which
invokes
The third rule of phys.org
If you do not understand these 1st and 2nd rules
Do not let your frustration be known
jonesdave
3 / 5 (8) Feb 06, 2019
^^^^Sod off you uneducated fool. Show me the science, or STFU.
granville583762
2.7 / 5 (12) Feb 06, 2019
For those that have just complemented this frustration
^^^^Sod off you uneducated fool. Show me the science, or STFU.

As your completing frustration
Do not let your frustration be known, which is the 3rd rule
you're complementing
Incomprehension, which is the 1st rule
and
as we all now know
Do not let anyone know, which is the 2nd rule
jonesdave
2.7 / 5 (7) Feb 06, 2019
^^^^Sod off you uneducated fool. Show me the science, or STFU.
Benni
1.7 / 5 (11) Feb 06, 2019
@Benni, you didn't even understand those questions, much less answer them
......they're just a sideshow you create to distract attention from the issue of the difference between Beta Particle Decay measurement & Gamma Radiation Decay measuement.

Your problem has been the fact that this time a year ago you never knew about the 14.7 lifetime decay rate rate of a free neutron until Benni brought it up for discussion for the first time in the history of this chatroom. And now look at you ever since, totally apoplectic & scurrying around all over the landscape because Benni has wrecked the pathway to the "eternal neutron", the seed you Pop-Cosmology aficionados need for Pop-Cosmology's holy grail being that of black holes.

jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Feb 06, 2019
Your problem has been the fact that this time a year ago you never knew about the 14.7 lifetime decay rate rate of a free neutron until Benni brought it up for discussion for the first time in the history of this chatroom.


Wanker. That is first year physics stuff. D-K afflicted loon.

......they're just a sideshow you create to distract attention from the issue of the difference between Beta Particle Decay measurement & Gamma Radiation Decay measuement.


WTF are you talking about, you cretinous oaf? What the hell has gamma radiation got to do with anything, shitforbrains? You been shown the papers, you idiot. This is beta-decay, and anything that beta-decays has a half-life, you moron. Go learn some physics, janitor-boy.

Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 06, 2019
@Benni is lying again.

Boooooooooooooooooooooring.
granville583762
2.6 / 5 (10) Feb 06, 2019
TrollianJD, there is no one stopping you inkly typing your own scientific comments
^^^^Sod off you uneducated fool. Show me the science, or STFU.

It is not beholden on everyone else
To type your scientific comments for your good self, TrollianJD
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Feb 06, 2019
TrollianJD, there is no one stopping you inkly typing your own scientific comments


I have, you tosspot. I have told you that there is no way to observe a single neutron, and even if you could, it would tell you the square root of zero. So, I am asking you to show me, scientifically, how you would do this. If you can't do that, then STFU, you loon.
MrBojangles
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 06, 2019
No matter how many links you provide showing free neutron decay is probabilistic, Benni will come back and say he knows how to solve differential equations, and therefore he's right and the rest of the world is wrong. Why continue to engage?
jonesdave
3.1 / 5 (8) Feb 06, 2019
Why continue to engage?


Because I gain a sadistic pleasure in showing how clueless the idiot is :)
MrBojangles
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 06, 2019
Fair enough. I think he in turn gets some masochistic pleasure from it as well.
observicist
3 / 5 (10) Feb 06, 2019
Da Schneib

Depending on when you worked with CSN, it's entirely possible we've met and worked together. I've done quite a bit of studio work with them, and backed on bass and keys on several of their tours.

Benni

You did not answer a single one of the questions I asked -- I doubt you even know what mean means, and variance seems beyond you. Do you even know what a moment is? What a central moment is? A transform? I know you have no idea why the exponential distribution has no memory -- or even what that means. What's its discrete analog? Why do the exponential and Poisson distributions go together? What's the difference between variance and standard deviation? Why is a half-life the mean time to decay multiplied by ln 2? What's a stochastic process? Ever followed around an electron? What's a wave function? What's wave function collapse? What's a standing wave? (Hint: why does Saturn have a hexagon at its north pole?)
observicist
3 / 5 (10) Feb 06, 2019
Da Schneib

All my music work was when I was much, much younger than I am, now.
hat1208
4.6 / 5 (10) Feb 06, 2019
@observicist

Don't leave me hanging, why does Saturn have a hexagon?
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (7) Feb 06, 2019
granville,
...

I'm not a god, but my dog, Ares, is.

a dyslexic agnostic would wonder - is there a dog?
:-)

observicist
3 / 5 (10) Feb 06, 2019

a dyslexic agnostic would wonder - is there a dog?
:-)


You'll have to ask Ares.

Wear noise canceling headphones -- he never speaks softly. He's a war god. Dog. Whatever. He's probably something. He's definitely big. Probably very big.

We don't need a can opener -- he bites open his dog food cans. God food cans. Whatever.

Really.
observicist
2.8 / 5 (9) Feb 06, 2019
@observicist

Don't leave me hanging, why does Saturn have a hexagon?


It is hypothesized that different densities of atmospheric gases rotating at different speeds create stable vortices that contain a standing wave. It's been duplicated in labs, wherein anywhere from three to eight sided polygonal standing waves have spontaneously formed in rotating tanks of liquids. The speed differentials have to be within certain ranges, as do the liquid density differentials.

There's that word "differential" again.

Saturn rotates so fast it's equatorial bulge is easily visible through a telescope; it's not visible to the naked eye, but it's visible to the telescopic eye. The planet is stunningly an oblate spheroid. You could even say it's bulgy.

"A Bear Named Saturn":

Algy saw Saturn.
Saturn saw Algy.
Saturn was bulgy.
The bulge was Algy.

The hexagon's rotational period is identical to that of Saturn's interior RF emissions.

SEU's League of Planets, anyone?
observicist
2.8 / 5 (9) Feb 06, 2019
Sorry, Benni -- but @hat1208 asked.

I did give you a chance.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 06, 2019
says obscurerista
SEU

You're having trouble with your reading comprehension again. I said I knew free neutron decay was in the realm of 12 to 17 minutes, and probabilistic -- not deterministic. If you're going to insult me, at least get it right. I read it; where, I do not recall. It was long ago.
- that is correct. I have to concede that I mistakenly typed the word "deterministic" rather than probabilistic after having read jimmy bobber's post.

Are you about to claim I'm gay too, as you have with Da Schneib, given the feminine ending you've suddenly chosen for your friendly nickname for me? You're not very creative; you can do better. Tell my wife.
- Why? Are you gay? I have nothing against gay people acting out their choices, unless they are sexually abusing young boys and teens, that is. So if you are gay - that is YOUR problem. I don't know your wife, so why and what would you have me tell her?
jimmybobber
2.5 / 5 (8) Feb 06, 2019
@SEU

Deep hole you just dug there. I will enjoy watching you try to climb your way out.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 06, 2019
@observer, I wasn't crew; my wife was there doing business and as things were I was waiting for her to finish. I don't believe I care to give any more on an open forum.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 06, 2019

Saturn rotates so fast it's equatorial bulge is easily visible through a telescope; it's not visible to the naked eye, but it's visible to the telescopic eye. The planet is stunningly an oblate spheroid. You could even say it's bulgy.

"A Bear Named Saturn":

Algy saw Saturn.
Saturn saw Algy.
Saturn was bulgy.
The bulge was Algy.

The hexagon's rotational period is identical to that of Saturn's interior RF emissions.

SEU's League of Planets, anyone?
- The bear ate Algy. Rather corny but cute.
Ahaaa - so you read it and couldn't forget it. League of Planets it is. If you want more information - you will have to find one of them and inquire about it. But you should be very careful as they are very sensitive to human smells.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.4 / 5 (10) Feb 06, 2019
@SEU

Deep hole you just dug there. I will enjoy watching you try to climb your way out.
says jb

What hole is that, jb? Kindly explain as you're not making sense - as usual.
jimmybobber
2.5 / 5 (8) Feb 06, 2019
@SEU

I'm pretty sure everyone who read my post made sense of it except for you.
You associated gay people with pedophiles. And then said "So if you are gay - that is YOUR problem."

I'm not gay but I'm not homophobic. You clearly are.

Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.4 / 5 (11) Feb 06, 2019
says obstructionista
Da Schneib

Depending on when you worked with CSN, it's entirely possible we've met and worked together. I've done quite a bit of studio work with them, and backed on bass and keys on several of their tours.
- So - in addition to having been a "scientist/teacher" you also worked on bass and keyboards with Crosby, Stills, Nash & Neil Young - is that so? Hmmm interesting
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (8) Feb 06, 2019
@observicist

Don't leave me hanging, why does Saturn have a hexagon?


It is hypothesized that different densities of atmospheric gases rotating at different speeds create stable vortices that contain a standing wave. It's been duplicated in labs, wherein anywhere from three to eight sided polygonal standing waves have spontaneously formed in rotating tanks of liquids. The speed differentials have to be within certain ranges, as do the liquid density differentials.

There's that word - "hypothesized"...
I've read somewhere that Neptune has one, too..
And I think Hat wanted more specific that 3 to 8 (so do I)
Why hexagonal?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 06, 2019
says jimmybooboo
@SEU

Deep hole you just dug there. I will enjoy watching you try to climb your way out.
- From what I can see (with my 20-20 vision) there is no hole to climb out of - especially when it is YOU suggesting it.

@SEU

I'm pretty sure everyone who read my post made sense of it except for you.
You associated gay people with pedophiles. And then said "So if you are gay - that is YOUR problem."
I'm not gay but I'm not homophobic. You clearly are.
- I doubt that anyone in their right mind had the "gay" word except for obstructionist and you. As I've already said (which you are trying to pretend that you didn't read) I have no problem with gays - unless they're abusing young boys - and when they do that, why, then that makes them into paedophiles. That's odd that you would say that you're not gay nor homophobic - when clearly nobody was accusing/saying you were.
Are you, perhaps, hiding something that would make you come out and say these things?
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 06, 2019
@Whyde, the number of sides of the polygon is determined by the speed differentials and the density differentials, if I recall correctly. I believe this feature surrounds the pole of Saturn. I'm sure I saw an article on here about it.

On edit, yes. There are several articles; search the site with "saturn hexagon."
jimmybobber
2.3 / 5 (9) Feb 06, 2019
@SEU

Seems to me that you are gay and feel guilty about it.

Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.9 / 5 (9) Feb 06, 2019
I enjoy staring at that Saturnian hexagon. I, too, have wondered about the dynamics that cause such a form.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 06, 2019
@SEU

Seems to me that you are gay and feel guilty about it.

- says jimmybooboo

Seems to me that you are anxious about how you feel about me. Are you looking for a date? Sorry, I'm not available.
observicist
3.2 / 5 (9) Feb 06, 2019
SEU, your correction is acknowledged -- we all make mistakes. No, I'm not gay; I was suggesting you tell my wife I was and see what she had to say about it. I was being silly/snarky, but not in a too terribly nasty way. I know both gays and straights -- all are ordinary people; perverts are not.

Respecting the League of Planets, I have a very good memory. Can you give me a hint about how to find a member or representative? I will be careful to bathe well prior to any contact.

Are Saturn's hexagon and RF emissions, that both have the same rotational frequency, an approach beacon? Or are such beacons more subtle (or unnecessary)? (Making a huge hexagon at one pole, only, that rotates with Saturn's RF emissions really is almost too obvious. Dark energy would be much better, broadcast in a gabriel's horn shape that would widen only after it was outside the Solar System, its sides being almost parallel for a few Tkm.)

Am I on to something?

I heard the poem in sixth grade.
jimmybobber
2.6 / 5 (10) Feb 06, 2019
@SEU

Can you please stop calling me Jimmybooboo. It's creepy.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 06, 2019
@SEU is obsessed with gay, and here is its answer:

https://pbs.twimg...pg:large
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 06, 2019
@obstreperous
You get a 5 for being so understanding. I call them "people". They prefer privacy and don't usually make their presence known. They look more human now than they did long ago. I'm sure that you have heard of the "mutilated cattle".
As far as giving hints as to where you may locate them - I won't do that.
I'm not certain that the hexagon is a "beacon", a signaling/messaging device. If it were, the black ops agencies would have known of it by now.
There is no sense in endangering them by revealing too much and no sense in scaring the human population who might react in strange ways.
observicist
3 / 5 (8) Feb 06, 2019
SEU, I've worked with many well-known musicians, and a great many almost unknown musicians. However, I worked with CSN, not CSNY. I never had the occasion to work with Neil Young. I've mastered several musical instruments. I was in that business from 1971 to 1983. I was a studio and stage backup musician, not a name musician, although I got more call-backs than I could handle, and had a nice house in a nice neighborhood -- the pay is quite good for good backup musicians who show up on time, play as they are asked, don't make unsolicited suggestions, and don't outplay the names (studio musicians are usually better musicians, anyway, than the names). You don't have to be famous to perform. Which I and my wife both did (she was a vocalist and violinist), usually together. Good backup vocalists are hard to find.

-continued-
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 06, 2019
I read that David Crosby wants to get back with the band and is sorry for his behaviour while they were together. It would be nice to hear them play "live" again - but they are older in years and the music has changed. The millennials may like them - but will they get the messages in the lyrics.
observicist
3.2 / 5 (9) Feb 06, 2019
-continued-

I left the business when my wife was killed in 1983. I sold our house, our airplanes (we were both private pilots -- we had an aerobatics plane for fun, and a fast plane for travel), our boat (a 26' inland lake cutter sloop keelboat), gave most of the money to charity, keeping enough to finish my Bachelor's degree. I kept my musical equipment and instruments -- some are irreplaceable -- and bought a few more, later.

I'm no saint; far from it. I was trying to forget my grief, and it didn't work. But I discovered a flair for and fascination with science, especially the really, really, really mathematical sciences. I play along with albums for fun, and fly sometimes (I rent an airplane for a couple hours -- I'll sometimes see my first wife in the other seat).

Is that interesting enough? It's less interesting than it may seem. The people I knew are interesting. I'm just a scientist/musician -- a common combination, actually; those talents are correlated.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (8) Feb 06, 2019
@SEU

I'm pretty sure everyone who read my post made sense of it except for you.
You associated gay people with pedophiles. And then said "So if you are gay - that is YOUR problem."

I'm not gay but I'm not homophobic. You clearly are.

Out and loud, proud lesbian, here...
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 06, 2019
@observingist
From the New York Post. This is the work of the "others". Not the ones I described to you.

https://nypost.co...artland/
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 06, 2019
@SEU

I'm pretty sure everyone who read my post made sense of it except for you.
You associated gay people with pedophiles. And then said "So if you are gay - that is YOUR problem."

I'm not gay but I'm not homophobic. You clearly are.

Out and loud, proud lesbian, here...
says Whyde

Proud male lesbian here. LOL
Actually I'm just along for the ride. My human host is the male lesbian. I have been with him since he was born, you see.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (4) Feb 06, 2019
What's next, a link to the drudge report? Infowars? Russia?

Psychotic believes it's an alien mind reader.

Why is anyone talking to this psychotic nutjob?
observicist
3 / 5 (8) Feb 06, 2019
Da Schneib,

I completely understand that you don't want to say more in an open forum. I have some stories I would never make public, some I would never tell to anyone, and many that would not be believed.

I'm glad to have met a fellow musician/scientist, however. One thing you wrote last night inspired me -- I slept to Yes on headphones all night (I have some excellent headphones). Best sleep I've had in months. (My wife is understanding of my idiosyncrasies -- she lets me be a weird old geezer from time to time, but from time to time, only.)

Keep playing.

(I really don't think Saturn's hexagon and synchronized RF emissions are a landing beacon. That really would be just too damned obvious.)
observicist
2.8 / 5 (9) Feb 07, 2019
SEU

All those "mutilations" are not aliens.

Try reading up on what very high voltage electric shock will do to an animal. The ground is an electrical conductor. An animal can be struck by lightning that has traveled through the ground. If it happens that the animal is, by happenstance, a better conductor than the ground where it is standing, electricity will travel up the animal's legs, and the result is what you see (less the photoshopping and the faking -- those photographs are not real). You are being lied to, and you are deluding yourself because of what you want to believe. Subjective belief cannot be trusted. That is why I ask for evidence. Those photos are faked in order to sell newspapers and hysteria -- hysteria sells. Hysteria sells big.

None of it's true. If you provide real, honest, falsifiable evidence that this is aliens, I'll be the first to back down. But you can't. Because nobody has. It's all fake. Prove it's not, and I'll back down. Nobody has.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 07, 2019
The fact that no blood was found in either the carcass or the ground, not even congealed blood must indicate that blood was withdrawn. There were many more instances of cattle mutilation - this was just one of them. The photos don't appear to have been photoshopped and, while you could be right, the NYPost is not National Enquirer - so I have to give the Post the benefit of a doubt..
BTW - speaking of music:
https://phys.org/...ion.html
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (7) Feb 07, 2019
Okay, we've backed off on the animosity a bit.
So, now I'd like to get back to the subject of elements heavier than iron.
I find it intriguing that it doesn't appear they are created in supernovae.
What then, is the process?
hmmm...
observicist
3 / 5 (8) Feb 07, 2019
SEU

I don't think CSN can make it now. They had a message for the 1960's through the 1980's. Times changed; their message helped times change, but their message lost its purpose.

I actually became friends with Dave, and was "friendly colleagues" with Stephen and Graham, but all three, together, gave the sweetest gift to my wife. I won't say what it was, but I still have it. That was the last time we saw them, because my wife was killed soon thereafter, between tours and albums. Everybody loved her -- me, most of all, and I couldn't stay in music without her. Dave, himself, gave me a gift I still have, but I won't say what it was publicly, or to anyone who isn't a friend I'd trust with my life and money. The only reason I'm saying anything is no one knows my name -- I'd say nothing at all if anyone did. So, it doesn't matter who believes me.

I do miss it. Mostly, I miss her.

Now I'm science, except my hair's halfway down my back.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (8) Feb 07, 2019

...
Now I'm science, except my hair's halfway down my back.

I did computer network consulting that way in the 90's...
I made a shitload of money and everyone thought I was some sort of genius... :-)
Still have the hair, but without the money...:-)

Sorry bout the loss of your wife, tho... truly.
I can't imagine how I'd feel...

Oh, and CSN?
I saw the Beach Boys a few years ago and felt they would be happier hanging out with their grand kids....
observicist
2.8 / 5 (9) Feb 07, 2019
I wonder if somebody's going to bring dark matter into the creation of elements heavier than iron. I certainly can't -- that's not my expertise.

Perhaps the massive neutrino release during a supernova has something to do with heavy element synthesis.

I'm just brainstorming -- I actually have no idea at the moment.

Someone, please blow the above brainstorms out of the water, and, while doing so, come up with something that has a probability greater than zero (yes, I know what I said) of being right.
observicist
3.2 / 5 (11) Feb 07, 2019

...
Now I'm science, except my hair's halfway down my back.

I did computer network consulting that way in the 90's...
I made a shitload of money and everyone thought I was some sort of genius... :-)
Still have the hair, but without the money...:-)


That's both of us. I still am a genius. (Somebody open a window.)


Sorry bout the loss of your wife, tho... truly.
I can't imagine how I'd feel...


Thanks. I really do appreciate that.


Oh, and CSN?
I saw the Beach Boys a few years ago and felt they would be happier hanging out with their grand kids....


Have you seen Chris Squire? Rick Wakeman made an album of hymns. Kerry Livgren (Kansas) got religion; everything he does is "Christian rock." And Ann and Nancy Wilson (Heart) used to be every guy's dream three-way -- not any more. Styx look like the band have all crossed said river. Keith Emerson did.

People get old. Sucks. That's why I try to keep thinking -- makes my wife laugh.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 07, 2019
Okay, we've backed off on the animosity a bit.
So, now I'd like to get back to the subject of elements heavier than iron.
I find it intriguing that it doesn't appear they are created in supernovae.
What then, is the process?
hmmm...
Neutron star mergers like GW 20170817. At least that's the best guess right now. It seems supernovae don't make enough to account for how much we see. Pardon me, I thought I was clear above.

Here's one of the articles: https://phys.org/...als.html
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 07, 2019
@observer, I saw most of the rock I wanted to see in the '80s and '90s. I remember seeing Nancy break a string. She adapted quite skillfully considering she had a floating bridge. A few bands I hadn't caught when I was young I saw in the '00s on the big dinosaur rock stadium tours that were popular then. But mostly I've seen a great deal of jazz. Rit, Carlton, Miles, Spyro Gyra, Joe Sample, Rippingtons, Hiroshima, and so forth. I saw the Rite of Strings tour. Carlton is one of my strong influences. Di Meola is too, but I certainly can't play like that.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 07, 2019
The most memorable thing I've ever seen was Buck Dharma playing a solo to Don't Fear the Reaper one handed doing a descending scale while throwing peanuts in the air and catching them in his mouth... then pulling the axe back up, still one-handed, doing an ascending scale. Dude must have fingers like a robot.

I have to say I saw Miles play out his ass, but that's a cliche these days.

Have you ever seen Stanley Jordan or Bela Fleck and the Flecktones?
granville583762
2.3 / 5 (9) Feb 07, 2019
Observicist, age is in the mind

People get old
I left the business when my wife was killed in 1983. I sold our house, our airplanes we had an aerobatics plane for fun, our boat gave most of the money to charity, keeping enough to finish my Bachelor's degree.
Have you seen Chris Squire? Rick Wakeman made an album of hymns
People get old. Sucks. That's why I try to keep thinking -- makes my wife laugh.

We had an aerobatics plane for fun
People get old
it sucks
makes my wife laugh
but
in 83
you both
should
have kept one aerobatics plane for fun
because
now in 2019
with your wife at the controls
forget your fragilities
and soar like the birds
till you both land
then need
scooters driving your wife and self of the airfield
Imagination helps you through the passing years
as you keep your private life secret
Observicist, good look in your future together
observicist
2.5 / 5 (8) Feb 07, 2019
@Da Schneib, I've heard a little of Stanley Jordan; more of Bela Fleck and the Flecktones. The bassist and I have some style in common, although I play exclusively with a pick (I can pop a string even using a pick).

I have to admit I prefer playing rock.

I've seen Keith Emerson play three keyboards at once, with two hands, in concert, and he had the magnanimity to compliment my playing! A Great Musician.

Nancy Wilson was always greatly underestimated as a guitarist, even though she played classical guitar -- a Great Musician. I knew the group slightly.

I can fret the low B bass string with my unaided pinky and hold it forever, but I could not do what Buck did.

I once saw a guy in a club band break a string, keep playing while restringing his axe, and tune it, all within 30 seconds. I hope he made it big -- he was already that good.
observicist
2.8 / 5 (9) Feb 07, 2019
granville,

Thank you. That was very thoughtful and kind.

May your future be better than mine.
granville583762
2.3 / 5 (9) Feb 07, 2019
This Universe, at 15 minutes old

How coincidental
this article on elemental, elemental elements
starts with this life-time
of the most infamous nucleon
to grace these boards
phys.org must be listening
phys.org must have an ear to the ground
because
without this nucleon
that when this universe
was only 15minutes old
those unlucky neutrons
that had not found their Partner in life
had not joined in Holy matrimony
had not taken their Oath of allegiance together
those unlucky neutrons
left out in the cold
in their darkest 15minutes
out of their darkness is born
a neutrino
an electron
and in this finality of moment
this 15minutes
this mighty
this pristine
Proton is born all in 15minutes
granville583762
2 / 5 (8) Feb 07, 2019
Why this Neutron and Proton exist in this universe together

To get this proton
past the coulomb force
when an isotope
of
hydrogen forms
this first 15minutes
this neutron
through beta-decay
transforms
into a pristine proton
so
with
no velocity
no collision
this neutron
transforms into a proton
forming this chain of elements in this vacuum
as
this proton
in
combination with its scrumptious electron
this combination
transforms into a neutron
as
this process
is how
this proton builds its nucleus
in the elements
in this vacuum
this mighty proton
singly cannot approach fellow protons due to its coulomb barrier
by
this technique
of neutrons transforming into protons
inside the coulomb barrier
inside the nuclear force
this mighty proton
all alone
in this vacuous vacuum
at absolute zero
its lowest energy
creates
the elements in this universe
that later in life go on to form stars
Stars which exist at the density of water
691Boat
5 / 5 (5) Feb 07, 2019
@observicist: If you haven't done much bass work with more recent music, I might suggest learning a few Muse songs. Chris Wolstenholme can come up with pretty fun bass lines to play. If you aren't overly familiar, a few of my favorite bass lines of theirs are 'Newborn', 'Hysteria', and 'Psycho'. I have definitely developed a few blisters while learning some of their music, and can tire out my left hand pretty well on Newborn and Hysteria. Enjoy!
observicist
3 / 5 (8) Feb 07, 2019
@granville,

Ah, but you still need some neutrons around to move from hydrogen to helium. And they also make it possible to move to lithium without fusion.

A few neutrons sticking around just for the fun of it give the baby Periodic Table a good head start.
hat1208
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 07, 2019
@observicist

So sorry for your loss, my condolences.
observicist
2.6 / 5 (8) Feb 07, 2019
@691Boat,

Thanks. I'll have a listen, even though I officially qualify as an old fart. (So does Chris Squire, yet Yes' latest album -- Heaven and Earth -- was released in 2014, unless I'm behind, again. I can still stay ahead of the airplane, but I'm always behind the new music.)

It's difficult, although not impossible, to teach an old probability god some new licks. Chops. Bass lines. Whatever. As long as Ares, my god dog (dog god? -- no, that's a person, which, being designated an old fart, I'm not) doesn't bite the neck off my Rick...

If you want hysteria, listen to "The Gates of Delirium" on Yes' album, Relayer.
observicist
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 07, 2019
@hat1208,

Thank you -- that was very kind.
granville583762
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 07, 2019
Fusion without collision of fusion

Observicist
observicist> @granville,

Ah, but you still need some neutrons around to move from hydrogen to helium. And they also make it possible to move to lithium without fusion.

A few neutrons sticking around just for the fun of it give the baby Periodic Table a good head start.

Yor self observicist, and jonesdave are getting the idea
making elements without the problems of collision of fusion
the neutron has many reason for its existance
but
its primary reason for existance is to get the proton past the coulomb barrier
using the minium energy
without the high speed collisions which require lots of energy
This proton in this vacuous vacuum is at its very minium energy

granville583762
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 07, 2019
Observicist

You did not get round to utilising your mathematical skills
in differential calculus
separating
in proportion to their packing fraction
the neutrons and protons differing masses
if
you
get stuck
jonesdave is always by your side to deal with difficulties
you cannot handle
The differential calculus
jonesdave
2.7 / 5 (7) Feb 07, 2019
Yor self observicist, and jonesdave are getting the idea


No, we already have the idea. Neutron lifetime is a measurement of its mean lifetime. It has a half-life. As proven. You seem to struggle with this concept, as accepted by the whole of the scientific community working on such things. You really need to change the record. This stuff is obviously beyond you. Stop embarrassing yourself.
granville583762
2.5 / 5 (8) Feb 07, 2019
Cox and Box

They would try anti-neutrons
but
Even they cannot be in the same place at the same time

Cox and box
or
observicist and jonesdave
The story concerns a landlord who lets a room to two lodgers
one who works at night and one who works during the day
They never see each other
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 07, 2019
SEU

I don't think CSN can make it now. They had a message for the 1960's through the 1980's. Times changed; their message helped times change, but their message lost its purpose.

I actually became friends with Dave, and was "friendly colleagues" with Stephen and Graham, but all three, together, gave the sweetest gift to my wife. I won't say what it was, but I still have it. That was the last time we saw them, because my wife was killed soon thereafter, between tours and albums. Everybody loved her -- me, most of all, and I couldn't stay in music without her.

I do miss it. Mostly, I miss her.

Now I'm science, except my hair's halfway
says observicist

They say that the very First Love is the sweetest and most memorable, so I think that I can understand. No one else could take her place. Perhaps you just may see her again somewhere in Time. She will remember you.
I/we have always loved listening to British Rock - Emerson, Lake & Palmer was my personal favorite.
observicist
3 / 5 (8) Feb 08, 2019
Every neutron has a mean time to decay (otherwise known as mean lifetime). Here, the word, "mean," means (pun intended) "average." No neutron remembers how long it's been around; it's mean time to decay is measured from whenever you start your stopwatch (we don't need picoseconds -- we're talking 14.7 minutes; easy for a cheap stopwatch). Hang around some neutrons for a while, a few days, weeks, millions of years, then click your stopwatch. However many free neutrons are there when you click your stopwatch, no matter how long they've been around, will have a mean time to decay from that moment of 14.7 minutes. And about half of them will have decayed by the the (ln 2)(14.7 minutes) has elapsed. About half. And, about half of the rest of them will have decayed after another (ln 2)(14.7 minutes) has elapsed. About half. This will continue to happen until either you run out of free neutrons, or the end of time arrives. That's really cool.
granville583762
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 08, 2019
Cox and box or observicist and jonesdave
Every neutron has a mean time to decay Hang around some neutrons for a while, a few days, weeks, millions of years, then click your stopwatch. no matter how long they've been around, will have a mean time to decay from that moment of 14.7 minutes. That's really cool.

observicist and jonesdave
As a antiproton has been trapped with laser a positron placed in orbit-creating the first anti-hydrogen atom

Please place one neutron in a trap and measure its life-time
repeat as required, That's really cool
https://physicswo...pectrum/
now this is really cool
as it now it really gets cooler
as cool as Cox and box or observicist and jonesdave
https://physicswo...at-cern/
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 08, 2019
^^^^^^^Total nonsense, and a total irrelevance.
observicist
1.8 / 5 (6) Feb 08, 2019
@SEU,

ELP has always been my personal favorite as well (they're in a three-way tie with Yes and Kansas).

That's why I damn near melted into a pool of metallic hydrogen when Keith complimented my doodling on the piano that day.

He must have asked one of the engineers who I was (I did a lot of work at that studio, which shall remain nameless), because the next time ELP played in that city, I found myself on the guest list, and a signed copy of Works Volume I was there, waiting for me. He was truly a Great Musician, and a Great Person.

I'm not the least bit afraid of dying. How can I fear to follow where a loved one -- any loved one -- has gone before?

Can we please go back to fighting, now? This is getting weird... (That's supposed to be funny. True... but funny.)
granville583762
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 08, 2019
Cox and box or observicist and jonesdave
observicist and jonesdave> ^^^^^^^Total nonsense, and a total irrelevance

observicist and jonesdave> Can we please go back to fighting, now? This is getting weird..

observicist and jonesdave or cox and box
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 08, 2019
^^^^^^^^^^^WTF are you on about?
granville583762
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 08, 2019
Dirty old town habits laddie
jonesdave> ^^^^^^^^^^^WTF are you on about?

Why not stop and think once in your life
that is the language
of
old town habits
and
dirty old town habits at that laddie
did not your mum wash your mouth out with soap and water
when you were a lad
slums or no slums
back to back terraced houses
cobbled streets sparking clogs
poverty is not slum behaviour
slum behaviour
is
Dirty old town habits laddie, jonesdave
Benni
1.7 / 5 (12) Feb 08, 2019
Can we please go back to fighting, now? This is getting weird


OK, I corrected your dead wrong assertions that the 14,7 minute lifetime measurement of a neutron via Beta Particle Decay is measured via the exponential 1/2 life decay rate used for the Gamma Radiation Decay of radio-isotopes. For some odd reason you don't know ANYTHING about GAMMA RADIATION DECAY.....Why is this?

You don't know that a NEUTRON is not a radio-isotope, that radio-isotopes are ATOMIIC MASS & not NEUTRONS.

In addition you misapply the Mean & the Average Bell Distribution Curve of Beta Particle Decay. Mean & Average are not quite the same but for our purposes of employing the Bell DC they're close enough. If the neutron 14.7 minute decay rate were a MEAN, that on a BDC would place half the newly created population of neutrons above 14.7 & half below 14.7 minutes, but this is not what the three measurement techniques find, they find 100% of the population decays in 881 ± 2-5 secs....

jonesdave
3 / 5 (10) Feb 08, 2019
OK, I corrected your dead wrong assertions that the 14,7 minute lifetime measurement of a neutron via Beta Particle Decay is measured via the exponential 1/2 life decay rate used for the Gamma Radiation Decay of radio-isotopes. For some odd reason you don't know ANYTHING about GAMMA RADIATION DECAY.....Why is this?


No, you ignorant cretin, you corrected nothing. You were linked to a whole bunch of scientific literature that showed you to be dead wrong. You are still wrong, you idiot.

Benni
1.7 / 5 (12) Feb 08, 2019
...........this is not what the three lifetime measurement techniques find, they find 100% of the population decays in 881 ± 2-5 secs.

A whole lot for illiterates in Beta Particle Decay translate the ± 2-5 secs into the term AVERAGE or most frequently MEAN just like you do. The ±2-5 is a RANGE OF ERROR of the Beta Decay rate not a MEAN as YOU translate it into, this because the nuclear physicists running the lifetime measurement apparatus know there are imperfections inherent within the three measurement techniques.

jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (9) Feb 08, 2019
this is not what the three lifetime measurement techniques find, they find 100% of the population decays in 881 ± 2-5 secs.


Liar. They are still detecting neutrons after 3000s, you moron. On an exponential decay curve, thicko. Get an education, you braindead fool.

jimmybobber
2.8 / 5 (11) Feb 08, 2019
@Benni

"...........this is not what the three lifetime measurement techniques find, they find 100% of the population decays in 881 ± 2-5 secs."

Provide a link to an experiment that shows "100% of the population decays in 881 ± 2-5 secs"

You can't.
granville583762
2.7 / 5 (7) Feb 08, 2019
Curious and Curiouser

After all the hypocrisy
after all the wailing
all the crying
all the handwringing
everyone saying
it can't be done, it's impossible
a free neutron
all on its tod
in isolation
Impossible they claim
it can't be done
so now these hypocrites
want proof
want data
want experimental data
to prove
what they them selves
have so far failed to prove except mathematically
so even though there experiment failed in its probabilities of half-life
they now want an experiment
to determine
this neutron in beta-decay
Decays in 881.5seonds
jonesdave
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 08, 2019
they now want an experiment
to determine
this neutron in beta-decay
Decays in 881.5seonds


We've had bloody loads, you clown. And I've linked to them. That is a mean lifetime, for the hundredth time. Stop talking crap.
granville583762
2.7 / 5 (7) Feb 08, 2019
Spare this single neutron

Do not isolate it
do not time it in isolation
do not count its decay particles
do not tear it from its family of neutrons
make sure any experiments
on this neutron are always in a crowd of thousands
make sure there is confusion in numbers
make sure their life-time is in confusion of probabilities
and
finally make sure
no one performs experiments
on
this single isolated neutron
as
then everyone
can proclaim
its all in the probabilities
where
this single neutron
proclaims
test me
And we will see!
jonesdave
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 08, 2019
this single neutron
proclaims
test me
And we will see!


Stop talking shite. How the hell are you isolating a single neutron? Observing it will tell you what? Zilch. Now go away and learn some relevant science.
granville583762
2.5 / 5 (8) Feb 08, 2019
make sure there is confusion in numbers
this single neutron
proclaims
test me
And we will see!


Stop talking shite. How the hell are you isolating a single neutron? Observing it will tell you what? Zilch. Now go away and learn some relevant science.
and
finally make sure
no one performs experiments
on
this single isolated neutron
as
then everyone
can proclaim
its all in the probabilities

Got it in one TrollianJD

Benni
1.8 / 5 (10) Feb 08, 2019
they now want an experiment
to determine
this neutron in beta-decay
Decays in 881.5seonds


We've had bloody loads, you clown. And I've linked to them. That is a mean lifetime, for the hundredth time. Stop talking crap.


Decaying neutrons do not have a "mean lifetime" they have an 881± 2-5 second lifetime, no exceptions.

Why must you insist repeating the erroneous "mean"? Oh, I know, it's what you read in Wiki, that great on-line textbook that would be tossed out of any college classroom. Right Observicist?
observicist
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 08, 2019
I give up trying to correct those who refuse to listen. It doesn't matter -- the universe does what it does, regardless of what Benni, SEU, and granville think.
jimmybobber
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 08, 2019
@Benni

So where is your experiment?

Show us.
Benni
1.9 / 5 (9) Feb 08, 2019
I give up trying to correct those who refuse to listen. It doesn't matter -- the universe does what it does, regardless of what Benni, SEU, and granville think.
....... or jimbo, schneibo, jonesy the Anthropologist, etc.

Good to hear your giving up trying to redefine the Beta Particle Decay rate of a neutron from 881 with ±2-5 seconds measurement error.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Feb 08, 2019
...
Good to hear your giving up trying to redefine the Beta Particle Decay rate of a neutron from 881 with ±2-5 seconds measurement error.

They've arrived at this figure via measurement of thousands of them at a time (probablisticly). Has there ever been a test applied to a single neutron? or even just 10?
Benni
1.9 / 5 (9) Feb 08, 2019
Good to hear your giving up trying to redefine the Beta Particle Decay rate of a neutron from 881 with ±2-5 seconds measurement error.


They've arrived at this figure via measurement of thousands of them at a time (probablisticly). Has there ever been a test applied to a single neutron? or even just 10?


The Proton Traps used to count decaying neutrons can be counted one at a time or 1000, or 10000. The number of decays counted is totally dependent on how long the valve from the reactor core tunnel is left open before closing the entrance point to the Proton Trap. The scintilation detectors can detect & record EVERY neutron that decays within the Proton Trap.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 08, 2019
@SEU,

ELP has always been my personal favorite as well (they're in a three-way tie with Yes and Kansas).

Can we please go back to fighting, now? This is getting weird... (That's supposed to be funny. True... but funny.)
says observicist

Oh well - if you insist.

This "probability" factor in the timing/duration of the Beta decay of a mass of Free Neutrons is much too inconclusive to regard it as a "perfect" duration/moment or even a definite portion of the mass being counted. That they are not being counted simultaneously and all together seems to be the reason WHY some fully decay at 822 seconds and others fully decay after a longer period of time.
But counting of the mass can't be exactly 1/2 or 1/3 or 1/4 of the entire mass due to the "probability clause" and uncertainty as to how many will decay at any given time. Thus, the reason for the probability turning into the improbability of when and how many. 14.7 minutes or 2000 years? Too haphazard.
Whydening Gyre
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 08, 2019
@SEU,

ELP has always been my personal favorite as well (they're in a three-way tie with Yes and Kansas).

Can we please go back to fighting, now? This is getting weird... (That's supposed to be funny. True... but funny.)
says observicist

Oh well - if you insist.

This "probability" factor in the timing/duration of the Beta decay of a mass of Free Neutrons is much too inconclusive … That they are not being counted simultaneously and all together seems to be the reason WHY some fully decay at 822 seconds and others fully decay after a longer period of time.
But counting of the mass can't be exactly 1/2 or 1/3 or 1/4 of the entire mass due to the "probability clause" and uncertainty as to how many will decay at any given time. Thus, the reason for the probability turning into the improbability of when and how many. 14.7 minutes or 2000 years? Too haphazard.

I thought you said you didn't drink....
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 09, 2019
Was watching/listening to Yes with Geddy Lee on bass (YouTube)

Then ELP
https://www.youtu...jJVcrKQU
Da Schneib
2 / 5 (4) Feb 09, 2019
The point you guys seem to be missing is that the neutrons don't all decay at the same time.

This is characteristic of weak interactions; you can say how many will occur in a given time, but you can't isolate one particle and say when it will decay.

Half-life is the point in time at which there is a 50% probability that any one particle will have decayed. It's also the point in time at which approximately half the particles (if there's an odd number, it won't be exactly- you can't have half a neutron, for example) in a large collection will have decayed, which is why it's called "half-life." A few might decay almost instantly; a few might last a thousand, or a billion, years. It's probabilistic; and this has been known since the 1940s (Chadwick discovered the neutron in 1932).

All this maundering about how all the neutrons decay after 800 some-odd seconds is brought on by innumeracy, a typical attribute of trolls.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 09, 2019
@Whyde
I believe I will now drop out of this intensive Neutron conversation before I fall asleep from boredom, and I will listen to some more ELP and Yes - as well as some southern rock such as Allman Brothers, CCR, Tom Petty & the Heartbreakers and Led Zeppelin.
So auvoir to all my little decaying Neutron friends and don't forget to turn off all lights.
observicist
3 / 5 (8) Feb 09, 2019
Haphazard and probabilistic aren't the same thing, as @Da Schneib pointed out in his explanation of half-life.

@SEU, Geddy Lee isn't a member of Yes, so someone was either sitting in or doing a cover or mistaken about something or someone. Chris Squire is the bassist for Yes; he is, in fact, the only member ever to have played on every album. The group ABWH was made up of Jon Anderson, Bill Bruford, Rick Wakeman, and Steve Howe, four multi-album members of Yes, with Tony Levin on bass (never a member of Yes). It's only maybe without Chris Squire.

Geddy Lee is the bassist and keyboardist of Rush.

I'm thinking of forming a group named Free Neutron. You'll never know how long we'll play, but our mean set length will be 14.7 minutes, exponentially distributed, assuming, probabilistically, no such group already exists.
Da Schneib
2 / 5 (4) Feb 09, 2019
Geddy performed at the Rock 'n' Roll Hall of Fame induction of Yes, replacing Squire on a couple of songs. It's the only time I'm aware of Geddy ever played with them.
granville583762
2.7 / 5 (7) Feb 09, 2019
This universe of stuff keeps changing
Benni> Proton Traps used to count decaying neutrons can be counted one at a time, 1000, 10000
The number of decays counted is totally dependent on how long the valve from the reactor core tunnel is left open before closing the entrance point to the Proton Trap The scintillation detectors detect & record EVERY neutron that decays within the Proton Trap

but
not this eternal neutron
this neutron
if we believe this troublesome priest Georges Lemaitre
as the crow fly the speed of light is 27.6billion Lys
as
still this neutron beta-decays in its fixed life-time
as
just as there are single protons in 1m³ in this vacuum
single helium and hydrogen nucleons in 1m³ in this vacuum
there would be single neutrons in 1m³ in this vacuum
but
you have to be fleet of foot to catch them
they decayed 27.6billion years ago
any
neutrons presently unbound from these helium and hydrogen nucleons
Promptly decay in 881.5s
observicist
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 09, 2019
@SEU, @Da Schneib,

I sit somewhat corrected; I did speculate that someone was sitting in. However, I had not known about Geddy Lee sitting in for Chris Squire.

Thank you, @SEU, for bringing it up, and thank you, @Da Schneib, for correcting me!

In my opinion, only Geddy could sit in for Chris.
granville583762
2.7 / 5 (7) Feb 09, 2019
1m³ in this vacuous vacuum
Benni> Proton Traps used to count decaying neutrons can be counted one at a time

This vacuous vacuum
is
a relative term
for those suffering sleep deprivation, neutron fatigue, finrot
just spare a thought for this neutron
between these sleep deprived intensive neutron debates
this neutron has not a wink of sleep nye on these 27.6billion years
and when it manages a wink of sleep its only 881.5s
so
to this neutron
these neutrons counted one by one as they file in the ark
with Georges Lemaitre wielding his staff
for
those who say it cannot be done
a nucleon in a cubic metre
these nimbi's
it already has been done
in proton traps
in proton counters
in this cubic metre of vacuous vacuum
as
all that is required
is to collect all these entities
collect all your equipment
start your neutron generator
as this world is your oyster
the day will arrive
you will be timing
These neutrons one by one
observicist
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 09, 2019
@granville,

I happen to have the very third neutron ever created on my mantelpiece. It's quite old (it's gone grey, even). Its provenance is beyond doubt.

The first neutron decayed about 11,000,000,000 years ago, but the second one didn't decay until August 3, 1992 (a friend of mine had it). He's offered to buy mine, but I refuse to sell (although I do bequeath it to him in my will, if both he and it are still undecayed when I, myself, decay; if my friend has decayed but the third neutron has not, it is to be set free, upon my decay, with great ceremony but no fanfare).
jonesdave
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 09, 2019
all that is required
is to collect all these entities
collect all your equipment
start your neutron generator
as this world is your oyster
the day will arrive
you will be timing
These neutrons one by one


Been there, done that. Neutrons decay exponentially, and can last well beyond ~ 880s. Give up. Do you really think you know better than the people qualified to study this, who are designing and running the experiments? No, you don't. Which is why they are doing the experiments, and all you can do is misrepresent what they are doing on a comments section. It is really quite pathetic.

granville583762
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 09, 2019
As we look back in time
observicist> The first neutron decayed about 11,000,000,000 years ago

Correction in time
this vacuum is 27.6billion years old not 11billion
as
we look back in time
are galaxies have moved
the distances have increased
as
if you were to pace these miles
as light moves eternal
if we believe this expansion
as
observicist believes in probabilities
observicist believes in expansion
so
observicist believes in religion
in gods of religion
as
Georges Lemaitre, an ordained priest is as one with his god
has turned this physical science in to the scriptures of god
as science is now a belief
in
point of fact observicist
science is not probabilistic
Science is now belief
thanks
to
Georges Lemaitre, an ordained priest
Benni
2 / 5 (8) Feb 09, 2019
Half-life is the point in time at which there is a 50% probability that any one particle will have decayed.
......dead on wrong, there is no such measurement technique in Beta Particle Decay.

Schneibo........you never do get do you, that half-life radio-active decay is unique to GAMMA RADIATION DECAY, it is not applicable to BETA PARTICLE DECAY because a neutron is not a RADIO-ISOTOPE subject to half-life decay measurement.

..........hey, old dinosaur computer programmer, do you know the difference between an ELEMENT & a NEUTRON? Apparently you don't because you continually insert diametrically opposed concepts of Beta Particle Decay & Gamma Radiation Decay throughpout this entire discussion of neutron lifetime decay measurement, I mean hell's bells man, even WkiPedia could help you out here a little bit if you'd just go read about it.

jimmybobber
2 / 5 (8) Feb 09, 2019
Did someone say wikipedia?

"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).[1] The beta decay of the neutron, described above, can be denoted as follows:[2]"
https://en.wikipe...on_decay
jimmybobber
2 / 5 (8) Feb 09, 2019
@Benni

You should correct the wikipedia page. That correction will be short lived however. Probably around 14.7 minutes. Then someone who actually knows what they are talking about will fix it.
granville583762
2.7 / 5 (7) Feb 09, 2019
Cox and box or observicist and jonesdave
all that is required
is to collect all these entities
collect all your equipment
start your neutron generator
as this world is your oyster
the day will arrive
you will be timing
These neutrons one by one

Been there, done that. Neutrons decay exponentially, and can last well beyond ~ 880s. Give up. Do you really think you know better than the people qualified to study this, who are designing and running the experiments? No, you don't. Which is why they are doing the experiments, and all you can do is misrepresent what they are doing on a comments section. It is really quite pathetic.

As more time is required
to ascertain in this virtual world
until that definitive time
more time than 881.5s
it remains
Cox and box or observicist and jonesdave until probabilities are resolved
as both are probabilistic realities in this virtual world
in reality
A deterministic world
jonesdave
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 09, 2019
......dead on wrong, there is no such measurement technique in Beta Particle Decay.


No, you are wrong, you uneducated moron.

https://www2.lbl....3/2.html

So, now the idiot Benni is going to tell us that the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, along with the Los Alamos NL, don't know what they are talking about! Benni is a brainless cretin, and there is no need to take any notice of anything it says. It is clueless.
jonesdave
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 09, 2019
Cox and box or observicist and jonesdave until probabilities are resolved


WTF is that supposed to mean, you simple minded fool? The experiments have been done. Multiple times. Neutrons definitively last beyond their MEAN lifetime. They also decay before their MEAN lifetime. That is why it is called a MEAN lifetime. Idiot.
Benni
1.8 / 5 (10) Feb 09, 2019
This is characteristic of weak interactions; you can say how many will occur in a given time, but you can't isolate one particle and say when it will decay.
.......again just total bullshit from you schneibo.

You know absolutely ZERO about how the apparatus for measuring neutron lifetime is conducted, you know ZERO about how a Proton Trap works & you know zero about how neutron decay within the Proton Trap is detected with scintillation detectors & INDIVIDUALLY counted.

Keep shooting off your stupid mouth & keep making a pointy headed dunce of yourself, you right along with jimbo & jonesy the Anthropologist who wanders with you out in the tall grass & weeds picking bones & imagining that makes you some kind of a science professional.

jonesdave
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 09, 2019
.......again just total bullshit from you schneibo


Wrong, dickhead.

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.


Los Alamos National Laboratory.
https://www.lanl....sure.pdf

Read and weep, thicko poser.
Benni
1.8 / 5 (10) Feb 09, 2019
all that is required
is to collect all these entities
collect all your equipment
start your neutron generator
as this world is your oyster
the day will arrive
you will be timing
These neutrons one by one


Been there, done that. Neutrons decay exponentially, and can last well beyond ~ 880s. Give up. Do you really think you know better than the people qualified to study this, who are designing and running the experiments? No, you don't. Which is why they are doing the experiments, and all you can do is misrepresent what they are doing on a comments section. It is really quite pathetic.
.....no mister flunky anthropologist presently doing Physical Therapy work as an occupation, there is no Proton Trap data "well beyond 880 seconds", anomalous background measurements are NOT COUNTED with the Proton Trap data, but you don't know what background measurements are because you know nothing about how these tests are conducted, I do.

Da Schneib
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 09, 2019
OK, if I'm wrong, why do they call it "half-life?"

https://en.wikipe...alf-life

Half-life (symbol t1⁄2) is the time required for a quantity to reduce to half its initial value.
jonesdave
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 09, 2019
you know nothing about how these tests are conducted, I do.


Wrong, cockwomble. The papers prove you wrong. As shown. There is no proton trap, you cretin. Show me on the figure detailing the set up where there is a proton trap, shitforbrains.
And background measurements, you f***ing cretinous retard, would not fall on an exponential decay curve. Moron.
Benni
1.8 / 5 (10) Feb 09, 2019
@Benni

You should correct the wikipedia page. That correction will be short lived however. Probably around 14.7 minutes. Then someone who actually knows what they are talking about will fix it.


I'm just as happy to let neophytes like you live & die by what you read in Wiki, it's entertaining to watch. Real world science professional never use Wiki as some kind of textbook, just people like yourself do this, people who have never sat in a classroom studying this material like I have.

jonesdave
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 09, 2019
I'm just as happy to let neophytes like you live & die by what you read in Wiki, it's entertaining to watch. Real world science professional never use Wiki as some kind of textbook, just people like yourself do this, people who have never sat in a classroom studying this material like I have.


So, you dismiss LANL & LBL as untrustworthy, unscientific sources? Tosser. You are wrong, and you know it. You just continue to display your astonishing scientific illiteracy for all to see. Idiot.

Da Schneib
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 09, 2019
@Benni can't even say why they call it "half-life."
granville583762
2.7 / 5 (7) Feb 09, 2019
With gritted teeth
Cox and box or observicist and jonesdave until probabilities are resolved

WTF is that supposed to mean, you simple minded fool? The experiments have been done. Multiple times. Neutrons definitively last beyond their MEAN lifetime. They also decay before their MEAN lifetime. That is why it is called a MEAN lifetime. Idiot.

You would think
butter would not melt
that angels flock in admiration
this angelic soul
as he says so convincingly
"WTF is that supposed to mean, you simple minded fool"
so angelically truthfully convincing
these flocking angel barely notice this colourful language
so
are we to take this as the word of Saint Jones surrounded by his flock of angels in admiration
we all know the meaning of Cox and box
and
so does his angels
They're just not letting on
and
so
Bottle versus Beam are not neutrons in isolation
jonesdave
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 09, 2019
Bottle versus Beam are not neutrons in isolation


And I keep asking you, you cretin; how would you observe a neutron in isolation, you idiot? What would it tell you, dickhead? How would you determine when, and if, it has decayed? Stop talking crap. You are way out of your depth, just like the idiot Benni.
granville583762
2.7 / 5 (7) Feb 09, 2019
Thou shall not pass

A crowd of neutrons does not a single neutron make
all
experiments quoted in PDF form on these forms
involve
crowds of neutrons in thousands
not
one single neutron in isolation is to be found
Benni, this phys.org neutron supremo
has pointed out a fatal flaw in everyone's arguments
their data
their half life probabilistics
Benni> I'm just as happy to let neophytes like you live & die by what you read in Wiki, it's entertaining to watch. Real world science professional never use Wiki as some kind of textbook, just people like yourself do this, people who have never sat in a classroom studying this material like I have

Without
Wikipedia you would not even have a probabilistic theory in half-life
as
presently
Wikipedia is struggling
to continually finance its add free status
that
if it does not scientifically advertise as phys.org does
Wikipedia will cease to exist
Along with all your precious theories
jonesdave
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 09, 2019
^^^^Stop talking shit, you uneducated clown. You haven't got a clue what you are talking about.
I'll say it again, moron;

And I keep asking you, you cretin; how would you observe a neutron in isolation, you idiot? What would it tell you, dickhead? How would you determine when, and if, it has decayed?


Answer the question, you utter waste of oxygen.

Da Schneib
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 09, 2019
Since neutrons have no electric charge it can be pretty difficult to detect them. They have a weak charge (actually a combination of hypercharge and isospin, if you want to get technical), but that can only be detected when they decay, by the production of protons and electrons. Gravity is far out of the picture; can't be measured for something as small as a particle. The strong charge is contained. So how do you detect a neutron?

Just askin'.
granville583762
2.5 / 5 (8) Feb 09, 2019
Keep asking the question
^^^^Stop talking shit, you uneducated clown. You haven't got a clue what you are talking about.
I'll say it again, moron;
And I keep asking you, you cretin; how would you observe a neutron in isolation, you idiot? What would it tell you, dickhead? How would you determine when, and if, it has decayed?

Answer the question, you utter waste of oxygen.

Then one day
It
Will come to you
You will realise
Why a single neutron in isolation is required
We are just waiting for that day to dawn!
jonesdave
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 09, 2019
So how do you detect a neutron?


Well, various methods have been employed, but the latest, most accurate counts, were done thusly;

First, Morris and the team developed a different mechanism for counting neutrons without draining them from the bottle, making their counts directly inside the bottle instead. They created a rigid "dagger" coated on both sides with the isotope vanadium-51. (The term refers to the retractable daggerboard some sailboats employ as a keel for stability.) When lowered into the bottle, the dagger would absorb neutrons, thereby converting its vanadium-51 into vanadium-52, which is radioactive with a 3.7-minute half-life. Then all the scientists had to do was count the subsequent vanadium decays with radiation detectors


.....cont....
jonesdave
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 09, 2019
......cont

"It worked, and we got good data, but it was taking too long," recalls Morris ............................................
Help ultimately came from the Lab's chemistry division, where researchers had independently developed a technique for depositing a nanometer-scale coating of a different neutron absorber, boron-10, onto a zinc-sulfide surface. When a neutron strikes boron-10, an alpha particle (helium nucleus) is emitted, causing the zinc sulfide—a scintillator material used by experimental physicists for about 100 years—to glow. This happens instantly, so there's no half-life to wait out. And it happens visually, so a specialized camera focused on the dagger, even from some distance away, could track all the neutron impacts in real time.


https://www.lanl....sure.pdf
jonesdave
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 09, 2019
Then one day
It
Will come to you
You will realise
Why a single neutron in isolation is required
We are just waiting for that day to dawn!


And again thicko, how will this happen?

And I keep asking you, you cretin; how would you observe a neutron in isolation, you idiot? What would it tell you, dickhead? How would you determine when, and if, it has decayed?


Answer the question, shitforbrains.

Da Schneib
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 09, 2019
@jones, so you know I showed up on site at LANL in the late '80s to help them complete a design for a neutron detector board using a CAD tool I supported at that time on a fairly well-known neutron scattering experiment they were running. They wanted to be able to re-design the board quickly as they found out more and have it fabbed one-off.

I have a printout from a large-scale printer from that adventure; I pin it up on my wall as a conversation piece. They weren't worried about copyright or tech transfer; they were revving the design on about a monthly basis. The CAD company is out of business and the experiment is long shut down after generating a bunch of papers; the guy I worked with (boss of the project) is almost certainly dead now, unless he's one of the oldest living humans.
Benni
1.8 / 5 (10) Feb 09, 2019
So, you dismiss LANL & LBL as untrustworthy, unscientific sources?
.....yep it's garbage. It's only useful for measuring BACKGROUND beta decay, nothing else, but you are totally clueless for the purpose of making background beta particle decay readings which have zero to do withmaking lifetime beta particle measurements.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (4) Feb 09, 2019
And now out comes the conspiracy theory: "All the siensetis at the US national labs are fabrecating teh datas!"

Just keep poking a nutjob troll long enough and it will flop over on its back to be gutted.
jonesdave
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 09, 2019
.....yep it's garbage. It's only useful for measuring BACKGROUND beta decay,


Wrong, shitforbrains, as pointed out. Background radiation, you clueless moron, does not fall on an exponential decay curve. Thicko, get an education.
Da Schneib
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 09, 2019
Notice how @Benni keeps moving the goalposts.

Now it's background. Before we "dint unnersan half-life," for which it can't give a definition.

Standard trolling. Not even particularly imaginative.

What you'd expect of a janitor who dumps the toilet moppings into the reactor sump.
Benni
1.8 / 5 (10) Feb 09, 2019
The CAD company is out of business and the experiment is long shut down after generating a bunch of papers;


..........it sure isn't hard to figure out why they went out of business with you supplying them the means of data collection, you don't even know the difference between Beta Particle Decay & Gamma Radiation Decay so how could they be expected to stay in business.
jonesdave
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 09, 2019
you don't even know the difference between Beta Particle Decay & Gamma Radiation Decay so how could they be expected to stay in business.


Yes we do. It is you that seems to struggle with it. Anything that beta-decays has a mean lifetime and, therefore, a half-life. As proven.

Da Schneib
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 09, 2019
@Benni doesn't know what CAD is.
Benni
1.8 / 5 (10) Feb 09, 2019
https://phys.org/...itu.html

"Neutrons, though, are inherently unstable (where lifetime, τ, is approximately 881 seconds) and don't last long outside an atomic nucleus. Because the neutron decays on a time scale similar to the period for BBN, accurate simulations of the BBN era require thorough knowledge of the neutron lifetime, the average time required for a neutron to decay, but this value is still not precisely known. This week in the journal Review of Scientific Instruments, scientists at Los Alamos National Lab (LANL) report an exciting new method to measure it."

"In the results published this week, Morris and co-workers report a neutron lifetime of 878 seconds,"

Why don't you eternal neutron aficionados read one of Physorg's own articles about free neutron decay, not one word of discussion in it about so-called neutron half-life, but you don't know why?
Da Schneib
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 09, 2019
Having failed to solve three differential equations which you claim to know how to solve, and totally bungled the definition of half-life, I don't see any reason why anyone would believe anything you say, @Benni.

And you still don't know what CAD is.
jonesdave
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 09, 2019
the neutron lifetime, the ****average time**** required for a neutron to decay


Moron shoots himself in the foot again!

scientists at Los Alamos National Lab (LANL) report an exciting new method to measure it."


LANL - 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.


Officially, the neutron half-life is quoted at 611.0 ± 1.0 seconds. This level of precision is not atypical among particle-physics lifetimes, but it is far from the best.


More foot shooting from the idiot Benni! Lol.

jonesdave
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 09, 2019
Why don't you eternal neutron aficionados read one of Physorg's own articles about free neutron decay, not one word of discussion in it about so-called neutron half-life, but you don't know why?


Because, you cretin, they have measured the mean lifetime. Any idiot then knows that to obtain the half-life, you only need multiply it by ln(2).

Da Schneib
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 09, 2019
This troll doesn't even understand fractions. How's it gonna understand natural logarithms?
Benni
1.8 / 5 (10) Feb 09, 2019
Having failed to solve three differential equations which you claim to know how to solve, and totally bungled the definition of half-life, I don't see any reason why anyone would believe anything you say, @Benni.


.....and life has been getting tougher for those of you living on the funny farm of the Pop-Cosmology fantasy culture. Just think about it, until about a year ago you had never heard a free neutron had a 14.7 lifetime decay rate, all of you went instantly apoplectic at the thought.

Now look where we are today, Benni spent the whole past year subtly leading the Pop-Cosmology clan living here right into a Proton Trap, a "trap" you never suspected was coming.

I lead you down every path I could so as to expose your every argument against a 14.7 minute decay rate of a free neutron and you bunch of neophytes bit down hard never knowing there was a Proton Trap in your near future, courtesy of Benni........... by the way you're welcome.

Da Schneib
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 09, 2019
Then solve the equations and tell us why half-life is called half-life, @Benni.

We're all watching and waiting and all you're doing is trolling.
jonesdave
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 09, 2019
Just think about it, until about a year ago you had never heard a free neutron had a 14.7 lifetime decay rate, all of you went instantly apoplectic at the thought.


What a conceited twat. Any first year physics undergrad knows that, you tosser. You have been proven wrong, you idiot. Definitively. You have no scientific support for your retarded beliefs, and a shed load saying you are wrong. Go away and get an education, you cretin.

granville583762
2.7 / 5 (7) Feb 09, 2019
This first 15minute in this abyss

"All matter making up the stars 13.8 billion years ago as a result of the Big Bang
A millisecond later, neutrons and protons formed and fused into atomic nuclei
Known as the Big Bang Nucleon synthesis (BBN) era
During BBN, protons, combined with neutrons to form helium and other light elements
All of this happened within the first, approximately, 20 minutes of this new universe"

To the Nitty-Gritty
of this neutron
has anyone read this article
< Neutron lifetime measurements take new shape for in situ detection >
has any one read this article on the day phys.org released it
because
all the bluster of this life of this neutron emitting a proton in 15minutes
If all the curious souls
scroll down page
till you get to the comment
yes, one and all, there is only one comment
which demonstrates
As of May 30, 2017
No one was interested in this neutrons life-time
https://phys.org/...html#jCp
observicist
2.5 / 5 (8) Feb 09, 2019
The key to half-life is that neutrons don't keep track of how long they've been around. It doesn't matter how long they've been free neutrons, the mean time to decay, and half-life, is counted from whenever you start your stopwatch. In fact, the concept of half-life is predicated on the current lifetime of every free neutron having absolutely no effect on its mean time to decay from right now, whenever right now is. Keep starting your timer over and over again. It won't change your measurments.

Free neutron decay is probabilistic and follows the exponential distribution exactly, and that distribution has no memory. What does that mean, @Benni? I honestly believe you have no idea. And whether or not a distribution has no memory is crucial. Where there is half-life, there is no memory, and you can't explain why.

Free neutron instability remains constant over time.
jonesdave
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 09, 2019
No one was interested in this neutrons life-time


So what? I'm still waiting for you to tell me how you are going to observe a single neutron. Get on with it.
granville583762
2.6 / 5 (7) Feb 09, 2019
Observicist or jonesdave
observicist> Free neutron decay is probabilistic and follows the exponential distribution exactly, and that distribution

Of course it's probabilistic, the mathematics says its probabilistic
who needs experiments on free isolated neutrons
when we have the mathematica
that
proves
Virtually, that its probabilistic mathematically
jonesdave
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 09, 2019
Virtually, that its probabilistic mathematically


And I keep telling you, you idiot; observing a single neutron will tell us nothing, you knob. I'm still waiting for a proposal of how this pointless experiment will be done.
And the exponential decay is observed, you cretin. What do you think those figures I linked are showing? Do the remaining neutrons fall on an exponential decay curve? Yes they do. Now sod off.
Benni
1.8 / 5 (10) Feb 09, 2019
Free neutron decay is probabilistic and follows the exponential distribution exactly
.......and you too, welcome to the Proton Trap, 881±2-5 secs, no exponential distribution curve, just a single plain hard number that been measured but not accepted by overage Trekkies such as yourself.

jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 09, 2019
Free neutron decay is probabilistic and follows the exponential distribution exactly
.......and you too, welcome to the Proton Trap, 881±2-5 secs, no exponential distribution curve, just a single plain hard number that been measured but not accepted by overage Trekkies such as yourself.



Liar. The curves are shown in the papers that you fail to understand, thicko. Go get an education, dumbo.
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 09, 2019
http://www.imageb...20946854

The decay curve of UCN population in the main storage trap is very close to exponential....................


Only a clueless retard could fail to understand that. Eh, Benni? Lol.
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 09, 2019
881±2-5 secs


Is a mean lifetime, retard.
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 09, 2019
Poor ol' Benni! It must be torture to have the worst case of Dunning-Kruger syndrome known to man, and yet only possess the IQ of a brain damaged badger. We should really have some sympathy ;)
Benni
2 / 5 (8) Feb 09, 2019
Free neutron decay is probabilistic and follows the exponential distribution exactly
.......and you too, welcome to the Proton Trap, 881±2-5 secs, no exponential distribution curve, just a single plain hard number that been measured but not accepted by overage Trekkies such as yourself.



Liar. The curves are shown in the papers that you fail to understand, thicko. Go get an education, dumbo.


881±2-5 secs is not a number on a distribution curve, it's a single hard number with a reading error range that is far too generous for the latest technology placing the margin of error at less than one second.

Anger management has become a problem with you jonesy.......it's what happens when an Anthropologist like you tries passing himself off as being scientifically relevant when in fact you get trapped in so far over your head that you're unable to see outside the Proton Trap that Benni put you in.
jonesdave
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 09, 2019
881±2-5 secs is not a number on a distribution curve, it's a single hard number with a reading error range that is far too generous for the latest technology placing the margin of error at less than one second.


No, you braindead f***wit, it is a mean lifetime obtained from that curve. Dickhead. Lern to scienz.

granville583762
2.7 / 5 (7) Feb 09, 2019
Measurement of the Neutron Lifetime, pdf
Using a Proton Trap
F. E. Wietfeldt
Tulane Univeristy
M.S. Dewey, D.M. Gilliam, and J.S. Nico
National Institute of Standards and Technology
X. Fei and W.M. Snow
Indiana University
G.L. Greene
University of Tennessee
J. Pauwels, R. Eykens, A. Lamberty, and J. Van Gestel
Institute for Reference Materials and Measurements, Belgium
TRIUMF UCN Workshop, September 13, 2007

As to where this is leading
for those who believe in
half-lives
probabilities
50/50
it is best for those poor souls
to look away, as you might not like what you discover
keep the safety of your bridges handy
because
over the coming weeks
These sensitive souls will have time to adjust
jonesdave
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 09, 2019
you're unable to see outside the Proton Trap that Benni put you in.


There is no proton trap, you dense twat. Look at the figure, dickhead. Are they, or are they not, detecting neutrons on an exponential decay curve after 880s? Answer, shitforbrains.
And all this from a retard who said;

You don't even know what the decay rate of a free neutron in beta decay is do you? It's 15 minutes.

If a free neutron ACTUALLY had a half-life decay rate it would be exactly HALF of 15 minutes, 7.5 and half it's mass would be gone, but that never happens because free neutrons do not have a half-life decay rate.

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


Lol. What a thick bastard!
jonesdave
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 09, 2019
Measurement of the Neutron Lifetime, pdf
Using a Proton Trap


And...................??? They measured the mean lifetime. Whoopee do. Your point is.......?
Benni
1.9 / 5 (9) Feb 09, 2019
Measurement of the Neutron Lifetime, pdf
Using a Proton Trap


And...................??? They measured the mean lifetime. Whoopee do. Your point is.......?
.......you got snared in the Proton Trap I set up out there in the weeds & tall grass where you spend so much time wandering jonesy, gotcha angry guy.
jonesdave
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 09, 2019
.......you got snared in the Proton Trap I set up out there in the weeds & tall grass where you spend so much time wandering jonesy, gotcha angry guy.


Dafuq are you talking about, thicko? That is a beam experiment, where they measure the MEAN lifetime by proton trapping. The papers I have linked are known as bottle experiments, where they count surviving neutrons. Which fall on an exponential decay curve. As proven. Ergo, you are talking shite, you uneducated cockwomble.

observicist
2.5 / 5 (8) Feb 09, 2019
Mean lifetime means average lifetime, @Benni.

Measuring the lifetime of a single free neutron would give you that, and no other, free neutron's lifetime, which could turn out to be any non-negative value. To find the mean -- the average -- the experiment would have to be repeated hundreds of thousands of times (or millions, billions, or more repetitions). They've run these measurements, and they've found a mean time to decay of 14.7 minutes, exponentially distributed -- and that's memoryless, which is incredibly important (that's where the mathematics comes in so nicely, @granville).

I couldn't give up -- I'm the eternal optimist.
jonesdave
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 09, 2019
I couldn't give up -- I'm the eternal optimist.


Indeed. I have been dealing with various flavours of cranks for some years. Hence my less conciliatory response;

Ergo, you are talking shite, you uneducated cockwomble.

granville583762
2.7 / 5 (7) Feb 09, 2019
Observicist or jonesdave
To find the mean -- the average -- the experiment would have to be repeated hundreds of thousands of times (or millions, billions, or more repetitions)

But
Dear chaps, observicist or jonesdave
WOOLLY MAMBO, only used 40,000 neutrons
or
Were these 40,000 porkies
Benni
1.9 / 5 (9) Feb 09, 2019
>Obs
I couldn't give up -- I'm the eternal optimist.
.......frantically in search for the nonexistent eternal neutron.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 09, 2019
@SEU, @Da Schneib,

I sit somewhat corrected; I did speculate that someone was sitting in. However, I had not known about Geddy Lee sitting in for Chris Squire.

Thank you, @SEU, for bringing it up, and thank you, @Da Schneib, for correcting me!

In my opinion, only Geddy could sit in for Chris.
says observicist

I should have included that Youtube video of Yes with Geddy Lee also. He was filling in for Squire who was unavailable and, in my opinion, proved that he is a master bassist in the same class as Chris Squire. That was in 2017. I memorised the lyrics of "Roundabout" early on.
https://www.youtu...NsnlPc54
observicist
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 09, 2019
@granville,

40,000 this time, and a great many others have used thousands, as well, all going to confirm 14.7 minutes mean (average) time to decay, exponentially distributed.

Anyway, you need to bone up on your reading comprehension. I wrote, "the experiment would have to be repeated" a great many times to confirm the measured value -- which it has been. Measuring 1 free neutron 200,000 times would be equivalent to measuring 40,000 free neutrons 5 times. The number of repetitions depends entirely on the variability of the results, and how tight you want your final values to be.

Learn some mathematics -- especially some probability theory.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 09, 2019
Measurement of the Neutron Lifetime, pdf
Using a Proton Trap


And...................??? They measured the mean lifetime. Whoopee do. Your point is.......?

says jonesy

If every one of the radioactive Free Neutrons in the trap did not Beta decay into Protons for 10 months, what then would be the "Mean Lifetime" of the whole mass of them?
If you still say that their Mean Lifetime is 881 seconds, that would be illogical and idiotic, since there would have been no variance in their overall duration of decay, rendering the 14.7 minute decay moot and unobservable in that one particular test/sample.

Probability is only true when variability of a mass of Free Neutrons is observable, where there are large differences that must be accounted for. Probability = variability
observicist
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 09, 2019
@SEU,

Thanks for the video!

I've been playing "Roundabout," "Heart of the Sunrise," "Close to the Edge," "And You and I," and many others, both bass and keys, for years and years. I love those classic Yes tracks.

One of my favorite ELP albums is Black Moon -- Greg Lake has some really good bass lines on that one. I love playing keys along with Keith Emerson on Tarkus.

I love playing both bass and keys along with part of every Kansas album up through Audiovisions.

I love playing along with Geddy Lee on about 20 Rush tracks.

I gotta play music. I gotta do science. I have no choice about either one.
granville583762
3 / 5 (8) Feb 09, 2019
Really, it has to be repeated billions of times

To prove what
That if you repeat it long enough
you might probabilistically find a neutron that lives longer than 881.5s

if you measure 40,000 isolated neutrons
give or take the odd second
you have your 881.5s.

Which
now it's pointed out
after 40,000 neutrons in a crowd
The error is give or take the odd second
Which proves the point, repeated 40,000x is sufficient accuracy for any type of measurement
Whydening Gyre
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 09, 2019
oops... my bad...
granville583762
2.7 / 5 (7) Feb 09, 2019
Measurement of the Neutron Lifetime, pdf
Using a Proton Trap

And...................??? They measured the mean lifetime. Whoopee do. Your point is.......?

says jonesy
If every one of the radioactive Free Neutrons in the trap did not Beta decay into Protons for 10 months, what then would be the "Mean Lifetime" of the whole mass of them?
If you still say that their Mean Lifetime is 881 seconds, that would be illogical and idiotic,
Probability is only true when variability of a mass of Free Neutrons is observable, where there are large differences that must be accounted for. Probability = variability

This is what I have been saying, SEU
That if this is 50/50
The neutrons are decaying erratically
Sometimes all together
Sometimes one at a time
Sometimes not at all
So they will not follow an exponential curve
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 09, 2019
PROBABILITY THEORY
Probability theory is the branch of mathematics concerned with probability. Although there are several different probability interpretations, probability theory treats the concept in a rigorous mathematical manner by expressing it through a set of axioms. Typically these axioms formalise probability in terms of a probability space, which assigns a measure taking values between 0 and 1, termed the probability measure, to a set of outcomes called the sample space. Any specified subset of these outcomes is called an event.

Central subjects in probability theory include discrete and continuous random variables, probability distributions, and stochastic processes, which provide mathematical abstractions of non-deterministic or uncertain processes or measured quantities that may either be single occurrences or evolve over time in a random fashion.
-contd-
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 09, 2019
-contd-
Although it is not possible to perfectly predict random events, much can be said about their behavior. Two major results in probability theory describing such behaviour are the law of large numbers and the central limit theorem.

As a mathematical foundation for statistics, probability theory is essential to many human activities that involve quantitative analysis of data.[1] Methods of probability theory also apply to descriptions of complex systems given only partial knowledge of their state, as in statistical mechanics. A great discovery of twentieth-century physics was the probabilistic nature of physical phenomena at atomic scales, described in quantum mechanics.[2]
Benni
1.8 / 5 (10) Feb 09, 2019
If you still say that their Mean Lifetime is 881 seconds, that would be illogical and idiotic, since there would have been no variance in their overall duration of decay, rendering the 14.7 minute decay moot and unobservable in that one particular test/sample


Carry your point to the next logical step when using that word "mean". The MEAN is defined as half the points of distribution are above one particular defined point, and that half the points of distribution are below that defined point which occurs at the apex of the Bell Curve of distribution.

The Magneto-Gravity Trap technique has a measurement has come in with results 877.7 ± 0.7 secs, this is NEVER defined as a MEAN, always a hard number allowing for ±0.7 secs ERROR. Be clear here, the ±0.7 is not a MEAN allowing for a Bell Curve of Distribution with 877.7 at the apex of the bell & half the population of points equally distributed on either side of the apex. 0.7 is a really tight margin of error.
Da Schneib
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 09, 2019
However many you have now, after one half-life you'll have half that many. That's why it's called "half-life." Duhhh ummm.
Benni
1.8 / 5 (10) Feb 09, 2019
However many you have now, after one half-life you'll have half that many. That's why it's called "half-life." Duhhh ummm.


It's clear why that business you wrote that program for in the 80's went out of business, you forgot to tell them you didn't know the difference between Beta Particle Decay & Gamma Radiation Decay & you did their software package backwards.
observicist
2.5 / 5 (8) Feb 09, 2019
@Benni,

You have exposed your complete ignorance of probability theory.

Not all distributions are Gaussian Normal (bell-curve) distributions. The Uniform Random distribution is "flat"; the Exponential Random distribution is a constantly decreasing asymptotic curve. Distributions can be folded, truncated, skewed, tilted, etc. There are convolutions of distributions. Not all distributions are continuous -- distributions can be discrete, such as the Geometric Probability distribution. Only two distributions have no memory, one of which is the Exponential Random distribution; neutron decay times are exponentially distributed, and the number that decay during a period of time have a Poisson probability distribution.

You know absolutely nothing about probability theory except a few words, and you don't really know what those words mean. Crawl back in your hole and hide, please. (I don't want to fail to be polite, but I could not contain myself following your statement.)
Da Schneib
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 09, 2019
@Benni still doesn't understand CAD. Particularly not the difference between circuit design and PCB design.

We won't even talk about IC design, since this is as far out of @Benni's reach as exponential functions. Like, for example, you know, half-life and stuff.
Da Schneib
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 09, 2019
Meanwhile still waiting for @Benni to explain why half-life is called half-life, and for the solutions to those DEs it bragged about being able to solve.
Da Schneib
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 09, 2019
Can you imagine trying to explain to @Benni how EMI design works on a PCB, and why you extend a trace that goes nowhere from a ground plane to surround a trace carrying a clock pulse? It would be screaming "but it doesn't go anywhere!!!!111oneoneeleventyone!!11"
Benni
1.7 / 5 (11) Feb 09, 2019
Not all distributions are Gaussian Normal (bell-curve) distributions. The Uniform Random distribution is "flat"; the Exponential Random distribution is a constantly decreasing asymptotic curve. Distributions can be folded, truncated, skewed, tilted, etc. There are convolutions of distributions. Not all distributions are continuous -- distributions can be discrete, such as the Geometric Probability distribution. Only two distributions have no memory, one of which is the Exponential Random distribution; neutron decay times are exponentially distributed, and the number that decay during a period of time have a Poisson probability distribution


.......none of which is applicable to Beta Particle Decay for the lifetime measurement of a neutron.

You have exposed your complete ignorance of neutron lifetime decay measurements, you be the one to go crawl back in your hole, or do you just want to stay here & be the next foul mouthed old codger like schneibo?
Da Schneib
1 / 5 (4) Feb 09, 2019
@observer, can you play Red Barchetta and Freewill?

How about Jacob's Ladder?

Now let's talk about Montrose and Gamma.
Da Schneib
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 09, 2019
Not all distributions are Gaussian Normal (bell-curve) distributions. The Uniform Random distribution is "flat"; the Exponential Random distribution is a constantly decreasing asymptotic curve. Distributions can be folded, truncated, skewed, tilted, etc. There are convolutions of distributions. Not all distributions are continuous -- distributions can be discrete, such as the Geometric Probability distribution. Only two distributions have no memory, one of which is the Exponential Random distribution; neutron decay times are exponentially distributed, and the number that decay during a period of time have a Poisson probability distribution


.......none of which is applicable to Beta Particle Decay for the lifetime measurement of a neutron.
Wrong. Neutrons decay at random. Half-life and average lifetime are exponential functions describing them and you are totally incapable of understanding their nature, since you are innumerate.
Da Schneib
1 / 5 (5) Feb 09, 2019
Double post.
observicist
2.5 / 5 (8) Feb 09, 2019
@Benni,

It's your complete ignorance of probability theory that causes you to misunderstand free neutron decay. That value you quoted -- 877.7 ± 0.7 seconds -- is the mean value. They didn't pin it down more accurately than ±0.7 seconds. That ±0.7 seconds is the error in the mean value; it has nothing to do with the half-life, standard deviation, etc. The mean lifetime for free neutrons is 877.7 ± 0.7 seconds; its half-life is that value multiplied by ln 2.

Actually, to be strictly correct, 877.7 ± 0.7 seconds is the mean free neutron lifetime with a particular alpha value, because, to be completely correct, without an alpha value, the margin of error is from 0 to infinity. Do you know what an alpha value is? (It's not a helium nucleus.) If alpha is 0.01 in this case, then there is a probability of 0.99 that the mean is between 877.0 seconds and 878.4 seconds. You're not interpreting the value properly.
observicist
2.5 / 5 (8) Feb 09, 2019
@Benni,

I haven't noticed @Da Schneib to be particularly foulmouthed, and, from a couple things he's said, I think I'm a fair bit older than he is. Therefore, I'm already an old codger even if @Da Schneib isn't, and, in person, I'm frequently very foul-mouthed; I just don't like to be so on a public message board -- probably my old-fashioned upbringing. Therefore, I'm already a foul-mouthed old codger.

I intend to keep using what I consider to be appropriate public language. I may not always be courteous, however.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (8) Feb 10, 2019
The point is that no matter how many samples of 40,000 (in every sample) of freshly Freed Neutrons are timed wrt how long it takes for each Neutron to decay into a Proton/Electron - the fact that each sample is made up of 40k Free Neutrons makes it necessary to consider each of those 40k individual Neutrons as though it were only one individual whose Beta decay has to be timed. Because it isn't feasible to time each Neutron individually, each sample of 40k would be counted as a "unit", and timed as a unit. But given that the unit is decaying randomly as individual Neutrons decay, some will decay fully at 14.7 m (882 seconds) and others will decay sooner or some later. So there is no Mean Lifetime or Half-life unless ALL of them decayed at 882 seconds which would make that the MeanLifeTime. If ALL of them decayed after 24 hours, then 24 hours would be the MLT.
If half of the 40k decayed at 12 hours, then 18 hours would be the Half-life and 24 h remains MLT.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (8) Feb 10, 2019
says observicist
@Benni,

I haven't noticed @Da Schneib to be particularly foulmouthed, and, from a couple things he's said, I think I'm a fair bit older than he is. Therefore, I'm already an old codger even if @Da Schneib isn't, and, in person, I'm frequently very foul-mouthed; I just don't like to be so on a public message board -- probably my old-fashioned upbringing. Therefore, I'm already a foul-mouthed old codger.

I intend to keep using what I consider to be appropriate public language. I may not always be courteous, however.


Courtesy, decency and good manners are always appreciated - which is something that jonesdave has yet to learn.
Da Schnieb is best known for telling lies about commentators and trolling (following) them into physorg phorums to tell lies about them - possibly hoping that others will believe those lies and ignore or turn on the commentator. You are impressed with Da Sch's knowledge of science, but do a search for his posts in other phorums
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (8) Feb 10, 2019
-contd-
and you will find that Da Schniebo is quite a nasty individual when he is not trying to impress some of the other commentators....such as YOU.
So far, Da Schniebo has called me "an alien LIZARD" and " an alien mindreader", etc. As far as I can tell, I'm not a lizard.
RealityCheck and Benni are also 2 of his favorite victims in his trolling career.
What motivates such strange and scary behaviour - I have no clue.
observicist
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 10, 2019
@Da Schneib,

Red Barchetta, Freewill, Jacob's Ladder: I can and do currently play those.

Montrose and Gamma: no; I am not familiar with those, so I have never tried to learn them (unless I am familiar with the music but not the name, and didn't want to learn to play them -- I'm that way about a lot of tracks by most artists). I'll have to get back to you on them.

Rush is in my first tier, but not among my top three favorites. I am a bit more picky about what I know and what I have decided to learn of their music.

I have hundreds of albums/CD's/MP3's; probably two-thirds I have listened to exactly once. Probably half the rest I listen to two or three tracks, only. I know about ten hours worth of music at any one time, but what's in that ten hours is always slowly changing.

Some of what I listen to I have written and recorded myself at home. It's strictly for my own enjoyment.
Da Schneib
1 / 5 (5) Feb 10, 2019
Wow, never heard of Montrose? There's a self-titled album. Might check that out. There are three Gamma albums. Try Voyager from Gamma 2. And Razor King from Gamma 1.
observicist
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 10, 2019
@SEU,

The way you find mean lifetime is to measure a whole bunch of identical samples for different times, and plot how many neutrons are left at the end of each sample, and how long the test was. A pattern begins to show, which can be used to zoom in on the mean. You test identical samples over and over, measuring the samples' decay rate. Eventually, you get a bunch of values you can use to compute the mean lifetime, along with an error and alpha value. If there is a mean lifetime, repeated testing will show it. The statistical techniques are well known.

We'll never know exactly what the mean lifetime of any decaying particle is; we can narrow the error range more and more, but it will never go down to zero. The universe won't let us measure anything with perfect (infinite) accuracy. There will always be some wiggle in our data.

Read "The endochronic properties of resublimated thiotimoline." It's an older publication.
observicist
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 10, 2019
@Da Schneib,

I'm not sure I've never heard of Montrose; I shall check it out.

Gamma sounds interesting -- I like the names.

More to listen to.

Have you ever listened to any Starcastle? They made just three albums that I know of. They sound very much like a cross between Yes and ELP. They hail from the 1970's. As if often the case, their first album is their best.

The average group has a mean lifetime of about 18 months. I saw eight life-cycles over my twelve years as a studio musician. I had a good, steady income that kept increasing; the popular groups came and went. They would peak, then die -- often undeservedly, in my opinion. A typical recording contract lasted two or three albums; sometimes just one. I was a grunt -- with an income and an interesting life. Playing and performing steadily is much better than being famous.
granville583762
2.7 / 5 (7) Feb 10, 2019
Neutron Decay Lifetime

Neutron beta-decay is the process in which a neutron is transformed into a proton, electron, and electron antineutrino.
Neutron decay tests the SM through increasingly precise measurements of the lifetime and its decay correlation coefficients.
With these motivations and the fact that the most precise measurements of the neutron lifetime are discrepant by several standard deviations, we are working to mount another neutron lifetime measurement using a cold neutron beam.
https://www.nist....ron-beam

The key word is Lifetime
In these cold beam experiments it only discus's Lifetime
Da Schneib
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 10, 2019
I don't think I've ever heard of Starcastle.

Have you ever heard of UFO?
granville583762
2.7 / 5 (7) Feb 10, 2019
50/50 Probabilistic Decay

In observicists assertion of decay
there is a probalistic 50/50
where observicist proclaims
that when the numbers are in billions
a probalistic 50/50 decay demonstrates a exponential curve
but
as the numbers dwindle to 40,000
this 50/50 makes its self heard
as
observicist proclaims
50/50 is demonstrated in paltry 40,000 numbers
where these neutrons only have 50/50 probability of decay
because
observicist proclaims
each individualistic neutron in this paltry 40,000
have a high probability
of
not decaying
not decaying in 15minutes
not decaying in 60minutes
not decaying in 12months
because
observicist proclaims
this is the probability of decay
so
as observicist proclaims
of this 40,000
20,000 decay 6months later, 12months later
so
as this extrapolated to this 40,000 neutrons
20,000 neutron decay 12months and more later
playing
Havoc with this exponential curve
granville583762
2.7 / 5 (7) Feb 10, 2019
50/50 Probabilistic Decay is all in the Numbers

Observicist, phys.orgs probabilistic supremo
proclaims
its all in the numbers
as observicist
demonstrates, when in paltry numbers
observicist points to this 50/50 probabilistic possibility
that clearly demonstrates its self mathematically
that this neutron no longer lives for 15minutes
this neutron, if we wait eternal
if we wait a lifetime
the probability is as we wait
for this single neutron
we will shuffle this mortal coil in our eternity
so
as we extrapolate this neutrons eternity
into numbers of billions
as we extrapolate this single neutrons eternity of our mortal coil
as
we chose this neutron randomly
out this crowd of billions
these billions of neutrons in this vacuum
this neutron, this single neutron is duplicated in billions
as this neutron lives for ever
a neutron chosen at random
extrapolated
means
These billions of neutrons live forever, observicist!
Da Schneib
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 10, 2019
Read "The endochronic properties of resublimated thiotimoline." It's an older publication.
A classic. We'll see if it gets it.
jonesdave
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 10, 2019
ERROR. Be clear here, the ±0.7 is not a MEAN allowing for a Bell Curve of Distribution with 877.7 at the apex of the bell & half the population of points equally distributed on either side of the apex. 0.7 is a really tight margin of error.


Not a bell curve, thicko. It is an exponential decay curve. Are you blind as well as stupid?
jonesdave
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 10, 2019
Measurement of the Neutron Lifetime, pdf
Using a Proton Trap


And...................??? They measured the mean lifetime. Whoopee do. Your point is.......?

says jonesy

If every one of the radioactive Free Neutrons in the trap did not Beta decay into Protons for 10 months, what then would be the "Mean Lifetime" of the whole mass of them?
If you still say that their Mean Lifetime is 881 seconds, that would be illogical and idiotic, since there would have been no variance in their overall duration of decay, rendering the 14.7 minute decay moot and unobservable in that one particular test/sample.

Probability is only true when variability of a mass of Free Neutrons is observable, where there are large differences that must be accounted for. Probability = variability


Yep, dummy, go tell that to NIST, LANL, LBL, etc. They all say you are wrong. Who should we believe? Idiots like you and Benni, or real scientists? Rhetorical.
Benni
2 / 5 (8) Feb 10, 2019
Actually, to be strictly correct, 877.7 ± 0.7 seconds is the mean free neutron lifetime with a particular alpha value,
.......and YOU fundamentally do not even understand the definition of the word MEAN, and then you compound your mis-characterized application of it to the lifetime measurement rate of Beta Particle Decay & then try to impress Benni with how cleverly you came up with the ETERNAL NEUTRON.

You do not understand that a neutron CANNOT exist apart from an atomic nucleus for more than ~14.7 minutes before it decays out of existence. Your silly PROBABILITY arguments for the Beta Particle Decay of a neutron has zero foundation in the particle physics of free neutron decay.

You don't like the idea that the 877.7 ± 0.7 secs decay time of a neutron is a HARD number for every neutron that has ever been unbound from a nucleus, so you concoct all this slop & swill PROBABILITY math that has no basis in lifetime Beta Particle Decay of a neutron.



Da Schneib
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 10, 2019
@Benni, half-life means how long until half the particles are gone if they decay at the standard rate.

And you are so stupid you can't figure this out.
granville583762
2.7 / 5 (7) Feb 10, 2019
Instinct is Powerful Magic
Benni>
You don't like the idea that the 877.7 ± 0.7 secs decay time of a neutron is a HARD number for every neutron that has ever been unbound from a nucleus, so you concoct all this slop & swill PROBABILITY math that has no basis in lifetime Beta Particle Decay of a neutron.

As of February 1, 2018
fresh from the crème de la crème
this neutron was intriguing
this battle of lifetimes
inconsistent with fusion reactor lithium plates
concerning this 15minute high velocity neutron
playing havoc with this fusion reactors construction
this neutron has long
been
known to have this 15minute lifetime
as
up to February 1, 2018, no conception
was ever considered
But that this neutrons lifetime is 877.7 ± 0.7s
jonesdave
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 10, 2019
You do not understand that a neutron CANNOT exist apart from an atomic nucleus for more than ~14.7 minutes before it decays out of existence.


Wrong. As proven in numerous papers and experiments. Bye-bye loser.

jonesdave
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 10, 2019
But that this neutrons lifetime is 877.7 ± 0.7s


Wrong, dickhead. That is the mean lifetime.

http://www.imageb...20946854
Benni
1.9 / 5 (9) Feb 10, 2019
@Benni, half-life means how long until half the particles are gone if they decay at the standard rate.

And you are so stupid you can't figure this out.


You just don't like the idea that the 877.7 ± 0.7 secs decay time of a neutron is a HARD number for every neutron that has ever been unbound from a nucleus, so you concoct all this slop & swill PROBABILITY math that has no basis in lifetime Beta Particle Decay of a neutron.

Talk about someone "stupid", you're the epitome of "stupid". How long has this been a topic of discussion in this chatroom, over a year now? And why still have you never bothered to study the difference between Beta Particle Decay & Gamma Radiation Decay so that you could have the basic concepts distinguishing the two? Instead you just keep plowing ahead with your foul mouthed name calling rants because you're afraid of losing the pathway to the ETERNAL NEUTRON.

jonesdave
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 10, 2019
So, in the figure linked above, what do the tosspots Granny and Benni think they are seeing? How many neutrons on that exponential decay curve are measured at;

1000s?

1300s?

2000s?

3000s?

Come on, cretins, let's hear it.
jonesdave
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 10, 2019
You just don't like the idea that the 877.7 ± 0.7 secs decay time of a neutron is a HARD number for every neutron that has ever been unbound from a nucleus, so you concoct all this slop & swill PROBABILITY math that has no basis in lifetime Beta Particle Decay of a neutron.


Wrong, blind boy;

http://www.imageb...20946854

Not a single piece of proof for your lies. Go away, idiot. Why do you think it has a half-life? Talk about dumb!

jonesdave
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 10, 2019
Come on, cretins, let's hear it.


Still waiting..........
granville583762
2.7 / 5 (7) Feb 10, 2019
The life of a Trollian, TrollianJD

A lonely struggling Trollian soul
as when a Trollian
wanders far from his bridge
doom and gloom transcends this Trollian
he wanders
confused
confused in mind and Trollian soul
far from his bridge
that bridge
all Trollians seek solace
when this worlds troubles descend
when finrot in this winter festers
a lonely Trollian has only his bridge for comfort
but still
as this Trollian seeks his solace
woe betide unsuspecting passing travellers over this bridge
as
all sorts of obscenities emerge
for example
Come on, cretins, let's hear it
Wrong, dickhead
Ergo, you are talking shite, you uneducated cockwomble
and
then his speciality, his calling card
This Trollians catchphrase
< ^^^^^^^WTF are you talking about? >
To all struggling Trollians under their Bridge
Take head of this advice
or
You will become TrollianJD
jonesdave
1 / 5 (5) Feb 10, 2019
^^^^^^^ Answer the question, shitforbrains;

So, in the figure linked above, what do the tosspots Granny and Benni think they are seeing? How many neutrons on that exponential decay curve are measured at;

1000s?

1300s?

2000s?

3000s?

Come on, cretins, let's hear it.


Still waiting.........
observicist
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 10, 2019
@Da Schneib,

Are we the only two who are aware of the importance of the resublimated thiotimoline paper? I mean, the author published prior to his PhD and his committee knew! They even discussed it with him. It's that important! It set the standards for the techniques and importance of measurement.
Benni
2 / 5 (8) Feb 10, 2019
It set the standards for the techniques and importance of measurement.
..... Standards? Ok, try this:

https://arxiv.org...1817.pdf

You care to learn what "mean" is all about? It's well explained right here in the results of this Magneto-Gravity Trap test, it has nothing to do your your silly explanations of PROBABILITY, the range of the numbers are HARD & they don't extend out into your blatant fantasy in coming up with the eternal neutron.
observicist
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 10, 2019
Spare me, @Benni.
jimmybobber
2 / 5 (8) Feb 10, 2019
@Benni

Try reading page 3 under Analysis.
https://arxiv.org...1817.pdf

What does it say there?

jonesdave
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 10, 2019
It set the standards for the techniques and importance of measurement.
..... Standards? Ok, try this:

https://arxiv.org...1817.pdf

You care to learn what "mean" is all about? It's well explained right here in the results of this Magneto-Gravity Trap test, it has nothing to do your your silly explanations of PROBABILITY, the range of the numbers are HARD & they don't extend out into your blatant fantasy in coming up with the eternal neutron.


Wrong.
jonesdave
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 10, 2019
It set the standards for the techniques and importance of measurement.
..... Standards? Ok, try this:

https://arxiv.org...1817.pdf

You care to learn what "mean" is all about? It's well explained right here in the results of this Magneto-Gravity Trap test, it has nothing to do your your silly explanations of PROBABILITY, the range of the numbers are HARD & they don't extend out into your blatant fantasy in coming up with the eternal neutron.


Still waiting...........

So, in the figure linked above, what do the tosspots Granny and Benni think they are seeing? How many neutrons on that exponential decay curve are measured at;

1000s?

1300s?

2000s?

3000s?

Come on, cretins, let's hear it.


jonesdave
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 10, 2019
@Benni

Try reading page 3 under Analysis.
https://arxiv.org...1817.pdf

What does it say there?



The expected number of surviving neutrons after storing an initial number N0 of neutrons in the trap for a time t is Nsurv=N0e-t/t meas where t meas is the mean measured survival time of the trapped neutrons.


Pretty obvious to all but the dumbest, I would say. What does the idiot Benni think 'e' represents in that equation? What does he think is shown in Fig. 3?
Benni
1.9 / 5 (9) Feb 10, 2019
Results

"As a final check for non-exponential behavior in the data, a global fit to the yields of the long and short storage time measurements was performed and is shown in Figure 3. The unblinded measured neutron lifetime extracted from this fit was 877.6 ± 0.7 s." (no discussion about "mean")

@Benni

Try reading page 3 under Analysis.
https://arxiv.org...1817.pdf


What does it say there? Lots of paragraphs in there , Copy & Paste at least part of the one you're referencing so we at least end up on the same paragraph.
jimmybobber
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 10, 2019
See Jonesdave post above yours.
It's literally the first paragraph under Analysis.
jimmybobber
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 10, 2019
Under Results from your own link.

"After correction for gas upscattering, the final unblinded measured
mean neutron lifetime was 877.7 ± 0.7 (stat) +0.4/-0.2 (sys) s."
https://arxiv.org...1817.pdf
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 10, 2019
And the lead author is from LANL. And they have already told us that the neutron has a half-life.
Benni
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 10, 2019
".... the final unblinded measured mean neutron lifetime was 877.7 ± 0.7 "

Easy:

877.7 less 0.7 = 877.0

877.7 plus 0.7 = 878.4

877.0 + 788.4 / 2 = 877.7

Do you get it? It's the mean of the ± margin of error. I even did the math for you so you couldn't complain about it being too difficult.
granville583762
3 / 5 (6) Feb 10, 2019
Measurement of the Neutron Lifetime
Using a Proton Trap
F. E. Wietfeldt
Tulane University
Showing the inner trap workings

A nice convoluted web address, as to whether this works only phys.org knows

https://www.googl...SH-VvGIR

granville583762
3 / 5 (6) Feb 10, 2019
Well that was a surprise, that convoluted web address worked
All thanks to phys.org
Something to remember for future reference
Benni
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 10, 2019
Measurement of the Neutron Lifetime
Using a Proton Trap
F. E. Wietfeldt
Tulane University
Showing the inner trap workings

A nice convoluted web address, as to whether this works only phys.org knows

https://www.google.com/url
.......that was okay granDy. One thing I wished they would have gone into is the graph of Lifetime vs. Backscatter. They make a note that it is IMPORTANT, then never discuss it. I'm almost certain however, it is the same thing I do to calculate detector efficiency by first doing a measurement run for background radiation, this to null the effects of radiation sources that are not part of the neutrons injected into the Proton Trap from the neutron source.
granville583762
3 / 5 (6) Feb 10, 2019
NIST Penning Trap Apparatus for Measuring the Neutron Lifetime!

Consisting of Proton Detector
With its cold neutron beam
Magnet/Cryostat and Penning trap
1/v Neutron Detector and Beam Stop

< Penning Traps >
For the storage of charged particles using a homogeneous axial magnetic field and an inhomogeneous quadrupole electric field
Suited to precision measurements of properties of ions and stable subatomic particles
Geonium atoms have been created and studied this way, to measure the electron magnetic moment these traps have been used in the physical realization of quantum computation and quantum information processing by trapping qubits
Penning traps are used in many laboratories worldwide, including CERN, to store antimatter like antiprotons

A Penning trap, a very sophisticated piece of equipment
granville583762
3 / 5 (6) Feb 10, 2019
This Lifetime
Benni> that was okay granDy. One thing I wished they would have gone into is the graph of Lifetime vs. Backscatter. They make a note that it is IMPORTANT, then never discuss it. I'm almost certain however, it is the same thing I do to calculate detector efficiency by first doing a measurement run for background radiation, this to null the effects of radiation sources that are not part of the neutrons injected into the Proton Trap from the neutron source

That is the first one I've ever looked up in my entire life, as I only looked it up yesterday
as that is the most difficult web address phys.org has handled without a whimper
when you work day to day with this equipment you know exactly what to look for
After these sessions on phys.org, the rest of the day must be likened to a breath of fresh air!
observicist
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 10, 2019
Spare me.
Benni
2 / 5 (8) Feb 10, 2019
This Lifetime

Benni> that was okay granDy. One thing I wished they would have gone into is the graph of Lifetime vs. Backscatter. They make a note that it is IMPORTANT, then never discuss it. I'm almost certain however, it is the same thing I do to calculate detector efficiency by first doing a measurement run for background radiation, this to null the effects of radiation sources that are not part of the neutrons injected into the Proton Trap from the neutron source

That is the first one I've ever looked up in my entire life, as I only looked it up yesterday
as that is the most difficult web address phys.org has handled without a whimper
when you work day to day with this equipment you know exactly what to look for
After these sessions on phys.org, the rest of the day must be likened to a breath of fresh air!


"likened unto a breath of fresh air!".......well, not quite granDy, I've been running our gamma spectroscopy lab for a number of years.

granville583762
3 / 5 (6) Feb 10, 2019
Cox and box or observicist and jonesdave
observicist>

We're are all waiting for your paths to cross on the stairs
When the penny drops
as there's only one room in the inn
but
there again
this might be beneficial
especially
if you can venture further than this room, this board
as this new avatar
this new virtual existence
knocks socks of the shadow you pass on the stairs
one can only hope you venture further than this board
We don't want it to become your bridge, observicist
granville583762
3 / 5 (6) Feb 10, 2019
Benni, this breath of fresh air
"likened unto a breath of fresh air!".......well, not quite granDy, I've been running our gamma spectroscopy lab for a number of years.

When you're struggling home across these Yorkshire moors in the driving wind and rain
There is a freshness you do not get anywhere else as you descend the 1500ft into Otley
then into Guiseley where the chip shop Harry Ramsdens used sell fish and chips in his now famous restaurant
Luckily I've never encountered gamma-rays
jonesdave
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 10, 2019
Measurement of the Neutron Lifetime
Using a Proton Trap
F. E. Wietfeldt
Tulane University
Showing the inner trap workings

A nice convoluted web address, as to whether this works only phys.org knows

https://www.google.com/url
.......that was okay granDy. One thing I wished they would have gone into is the graph of Lifetime vs. Backscatter. They make a note that it is IMPORTANT, then never discuss it. I'm almost certain however, it is the same thing I do to calculate detector efficiency by first doing a measurement run for background radiation, this to null the effects of radiation sources that are not part of the neutrons injected into the Proton Trap from the neutron source.


Wrong.
jonesdave
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 10, 2019


"likened unto a breath of fresh air!".......well, not quite granDy, I've been running our gamma spectroscopy lab for a number of years.


Lol. You know as much about spectroscopy as you do about nuclear physics. In other words, f***all. Dumbo.
Benni
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 10, 2019
"likened unto a breath of fresh air!".......well, not quite granDy, I've been running our gamma spectroscopy lab for a number of years.


Lol. You know as much about spectroscopy as you do about nuclear physics. In other words,


Look what I do for you & jimbo, I show you how to calculate "mean neutron lifetime" of 877.7 ± 0.7:

877.7 less 0.7 = 877.0

877.7 plus 0.7 = 878.4

877.0 + 788.4 / 2 = 877.7

It's the mean of the ± margin of error. I even did the math for you so you couldn't complain about it being too difficult and you're still running off your foul mouth.

Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 10, 2019
And the lead author is from LANL. And they have already told us that the neutron has a half-life.
says jonesy

Then what is the Half-life and the Mean Lifetime of a sample of 40000 freshly Freed Neutrons who have Beta decayed (en masse) into Protons/Electrons precisely within the very second after 10 months of taking their time to fully decay after all have been freed from each one's nucleus (en masse)? In this sample of 40000 there is no probability due to the sameness of the conditions.
10 months - no more, no less.

Half-life =

Mean Lifetime =
Benni
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 10, 2019
>Egg.........whataya think of that Anthropologist, the jonesy guy? I show him how "mean lifetime" of a neutron is calculated, and all he does is get mad & go off on another foul mouthed rant. At least jimbo has had the good manners to simply remain silent.
granville583762
3 / 5 (6) Feb 10, 2019
All in a Lifetime
And the lead author is from LANL. And they have already told us that the neutron has a half-life.
says jonesy
SEU> Then what is the Half-life and the Mean Lifetime of a sample of 40000 freshly Freed Neutrons who have Beta decayed (en masse) into Protons/Electrons precisely within the very second after 10 months of taking their time to fully decay after all have been freed from each one's nucleus (en masse)? In this sample of 40000 there is no probability due to the sameness of the conditions.
10 months - no more, no less.
Half-life =
Mean Lifetime =

SEU, It appears TrollianJDs take on this Lifetime is an irrelevance
all his bluff and bluster is to no avail
what is of interest is why it should irritate his finrot so
as what has now appeared
TrollianJD is likened to King Canute telling the tide not to come up the beach
This must be TrollianJDs culmination of his Lifetimes work
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 10, 2019
>Egg.........whataya think of that Anthropologist, the jonesy guy? I show him how "mean lifetime" of a neutron is calculated, and all he does is get mad & go off on another foul mouthed rant. At least jimbo has had the good manners to simply remain silent.
says Benni

jimmybobs is determined to follow in the footsteps of his uncle DaSchneibo, and jonesy will follow in the paths of the Half-life believers as long as they have produced papers attesting to the probabilities of the Half-life of inorganic particles. The term "Half-life" should have been better thought out before applying it to a Free Neutron that cannot cease its Beta decay process/function midways to its full transition into a Proton/Electron. IF somehow it were possible to stop that transition at precisely half of the time it takes, THEN Half-life would be a valid description of a half-arsed effort toward completion of the decay/transition
So, Half-life is a nonsensical term that means absolutely nothing.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 10, 2019
@granville
I would hesitate to imagine exactly what could possibly be jonesy's lifetime work. Perhaps he is a carnival barker who lures paying customers into sideshows to see the bearded lady or the sword swallower - for all we know. But the fact that jonesy was educated at Manchester is a clear indication that the culture of the Manchester slums rubbed off on him - that Manchester which we all know has been the ruin of many a young lad - and still is.
The ruffian crowd of Manchester has given the city its well-deserved status of crime capitol of England. And jonesy is quite clear on whose company in Manchester he preferred to keep. No niceties there and no wiggle room for change....sadly.
granville583762
3 / 5 (6) Feb 10, 2019
Do not worry SEU and Benni

The half lifers will be back
in the morning
because
its Ground Hog Day
everyone will not remember what took place today
as tomorrow never comes
It's just that I remember
but I won't let on
Till tomorrow night
granville583762
3 / 5 (6) Feb 10, 2019
@granville
I would hesitate to imagine exactly what could possibly be jonesy's lifetime work. Perhaps he is a carnival barker who lures paying customers into sideshows to see the bearded lady or the sword swallower - for all we know. But the fact that jonesy was educated at Manchester is a clear indication that the culture of the Manchester slums rubbed off on him - that Manchester which we all know has been the ruin of many a young lad - and still is.
The ruffian crowd of Manchester has given the city its well-deserved status of crime capitol of England. And jonesy is quite clear on whose company in Manchester he preferred to keep. No niceties there and no wiggle room for change....sadly.

As soon as JD uttered his first colourful language it was obvious his problem but on these boards he is not in Manchester any more, he can escape
As the ghost of Bolling Hall says, pity poor Bradford
Pity poor Manchester like as not
Da Schneib
1 / 5 (2) Feb 10, 2019
Yet another symptom of innumeracy: can't read a simple graph.
Whydening Gyre
4 / 5 (4) Feb 10, 2019
@Da Schneib,

Are we the only two who are aware of the importance of the resublimated thiotimoline paper? I mean, the author published prior to his PhD and his committee knew! They even discussed it with him. It's that important! It set the standards for the techniques and importance of measurement.

Was that the last question they asked?
And...
How could a musician from my day NOT know who Ronnie Montrose was?
Sammy Hagar contemporary....
observicist
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 10, 2019
@Benni says (edited to remove irrelevancies without changing meaning, and to correct an arithmetic mistake because we knew what he meant):

I show you how to calculate "mean neutron lifetime" of 877.7 ± 0.7:

877.7 - 0.7 = 877.0

877.7 + 0.7 = 878.4

(877.0 + 878.4) / 2 = 877.7

It's the mean of the ± margin of error.


I already did that.

You've presented no evidence that you understand, first, the statistical techniques necessary to determine a margin of error; second, why a margin of error has an associated probability; third, what a margin of error is; and, finally, that the concept of margin of error (which also applies to the net weight of boxes of breakfast cereals) has nothing to do with the concept of the variability of the lifetime of free neutrons.

Until you do so, please, spare me. Spare us all.
Da Schneib
1 / 5 (2) Feb 10, 2019
More than a contemporary, Sammy Hagar was the lead singer in Montrose. He left after 1 or 2 albums and did his own thing, then wound up being offered lead singer in Van Halen after David Lee Roth left them.

Montrose did a couple non-successful albums, then started Gamma with Davey Pattison and made three albums chock full of goodness with pretty good success.
Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 10, 2019
@observer, it's been a couple decades since I read the paper on the thiotimoline experiment. I can't recall for sure, but wasn't the timeframe 1.14 seconds?

On edit, I misremembered, it's 1.12 seconds. Anyway that's the mean time. Snicker.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 10, 2019
Margin of Error has no place in science, as it could mean the difference between a proper launch of a spacecraft to the Moon or Mars or a satellite in LEO - and the spacecraft falling back to Earth - such as the Challenger with all aboard lost.
If such a Margin of Error has an associated probability - sane minds would insist that airplanes don't fly, ships don't sail, and spacecraft/missiles don't launch. It's also called "taking chances".
A few boxes of cereal missing a few flakes or two is of no real consequence - not even to the consumer. Those who quibble about the weight being less in a box of cereal doesn't bear the same burden of an airplane not having enough fuel to land on a runway, and instead crashes in the jungle or the sea.
There are important things to consider, and others that are not quite as important.
Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 10, 2019
Wow, someone thinks experiments are perfect. There are always uncertainties and the most common are systematic. These uncertainties are quantified in any responsible scientific paper by giving a margin of error. This is a set of statistical procedures that is obviously well beyond the understanding of any of the innumerate trolls denying them.
Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 10, 2019
So now we have a troll claiming to have done gamma ray spectroscopy with no margin of error.

Risible.
observicist
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 10, 2019
@Whydening Gyre, @Da Schneib,

Ronnie Montrose I know, Sammy Hagar, Edgar Winter, etc. As it turns out, I have heard of and heard much of Gamma. The name, "Montrose," by itself, just didn't ring the correct bell in my head (I was expecting to hear C#, not G). Why Ronnie used the name "Gamma" instead of his own, I don't know. Legal reasons?

I understand why it's "Boston" and not "Tom Scholtz and session musicians," but Montrose was already established.

Too many (un)expected values lately (pun intended).

Sorry to disappoint.

I've never been a fan of Sammy Hagar, although I am of Edgar Winter, as well as a lot of Ronnie's session work. I never had the pleasure of working with him, though.

P.S. Why did Boston do a version of "Hey, Hey, We're the Monkees"? It embarrasses me to listen to it, so I don't. It even pains me to think of it, which I cannot always prevent. It's your fault this time, @WG.
Whydening Gyre
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 10, 2019
I've never been a fan of Sammy Hagar, although I am of Edgar Winter, as well as a lot of Ronnie's session work. I never had the pleasure of working with him, though.

P.S. Why did Boston do a version of "Hey, Hey, We're the Monkees"? It embarrasses me to listen to it, so I don't. It even pains me to think of it, which I cannot always prevent. It's your fault this time, @WG.

I'm a bigger fan of Johnny than Edgar. Never heard of Boston doing the Monkees… would make me like 'em even less... How would it be my fault ?!?
ANd now I have the Monkees version of that dang song in my head.... Your fault...
Da Schneib
1 / 5 (2) Feb 10, 2019
Gah, Scholtz must have done the Monkees as a joke. I wasn't aware of that and I wouldn't listen to it any more than you did.

Gamma wasn't just Montrose revisited. Davey Pattison is a very talented vocalist and lyricist, and Jim Alcivar is a very talented keyboardist. These were the primary songwriters on the first two Gamma albums.
Da Schneib
1 / 5 (2) Feb 10, 2019
Most of the founding members of Gamma have gone on to make a difference in rock. The Wikipedia article on Gamma is quite informative.

Me, I mostly just listen to classics like Wish I Was and Right the First Time. Play 'em too.

Now to change the conversation how about The Dan? Best band ever named after a dildo.

And don't forget Skunk Baxter who played both for them and for The Doobie Brothers.

I play what I can of The Dan and The Doobies. You should check out Takin' It To the Streets and Your Gold Teeth.
observicist
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 10, 2019
@Benni,

How can any scientist not understand the concept of margin of error? Especially one who runs a gamma spectroscopy laboratory?

@SEU,

There is always margin of error, and there will always be margin of error, and all scientists pay careful attention to it, always -- especially with Moon shots, Mars shots, and satellites in orbit. That's why there are always orbital corrections and extra fuel on board all satellites and spacecraft that are intended to be used for a while.
Benni
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 10, 2019
Look what I do for you Obsy, I show you how to calculate "mean neutron lifetime" of 877.7 ± 0.7:

877.7 less 0.7 = 877.0

877.7 plus 0.7 = 878.4

877.0 + 788.4 / 2 = 877.7

It's the mean of the ± margin of error. I even did the math for you so you couldn't complain about it being too difficult and you're still complaining.

You've presented no evidence that you understand, first, the statistical techniques necessary to determine a margin of error; second, why a margin of error has an associated probability; third, what a margin of error is; and, finally, that the concept of margin of error ......has nothing to do with the concept of the variability of the lifetime of free neutrons.


Well then if you don't like the way Authors:

R. W. Pattie Jr.1
N. B. Callahan2
C. Cude-Woods1,3, E. R. Adamek2
L. J. Broussard4
S. M. Clayton1

....above who wrote up the test report, then contact them, they can have YOU explain to THEM why their Test Report is garbage.
Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 10, 2019
Only a troll like @Benni could ignore the graphs because it is innumerate.
Benni
1.9 / 5 (9) Feb 10, 2019
@Benni,

How can any scientist not understand the concept of margin of error? Especially one who runs a gamma spectroscopy laboratory?

@SEU,

There is always margin of error, and there will always be margin of error, and all scientists pay careful attention to it, always -- especially with Moon shots, Mars shots, and satellites in orbit. That's why there are always orbital corrections and extra fuel on board all satellites and spacecraft that are intended to be used for a while.


Neither Benni or SEU wrote the the paper reporting the results of the Measurement Test. Go to the link & contact all the remainder of the names that I didn't have space for in my previous Comment.

You're whining & crying your beady little eyeballs out over something you think Benni should rewrite? Is that it? How about if YOU rewrite it, send a copy to the Authors instructing them how to do a better job putting up their data.
Whydening Gyre
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 10, 2019
@Benni,

How can any scientist not understand the concept of margin of error? Especially one who runs a gamma spectroscopy laboratory?

@SEU,

There is always margin of error, and there will always be margin of error, and all scientists pay careful attention to it, always -- especially with Moon shots, Mars shots, and satellites in orbit. That's why there are always orbital corrections and extra fuel on board all satellites and spacecraft that are intended to be used for a while.

Benni's not a scientist. He's an "Engineer"....
Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 10, 2019
No, it's not an engineer. If it was it would understand half-life. It''s a technician at best, and not a very good one. It reads numbers from instruments and believes they are Absolute Truth. A janitor trying to understand nuclear physics.
Benni
1.9 / 5 (9) Feb 10, 2019
@Benni,

How can any scientist not understand the concept of margin of error? Especially one who runs a gamma spectroscopy laboratory?

@SEU,

There is always margin of error, and there will always be margin of error, and all scientists pay careful attention to it, always -- especially with Moon shots, Mars shots, and satellites in orbit. That's why there are always orbital corrections and extra fuel on board all satellites and spacecraft that are intended to be used for a while.

Benni's not a scientist. He's an "Engineer"....


No, in my case there is almost no distinction between the two, i have physicists who work UNDER me & are trained by me.
observicist
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 10, 2019
@Da Schneib,

No, it wasn't a cover of the Monkees' "about them" song. It was Boston's own "about them" song -- "Rock & Roll Band." It started out,

"We were just another band out of Boston,
On the road to try to make ends meet.
Playin' all the bars, sleepin' in our cars,
And we practiced right on out in the street.

No, we didn't make much money,
We barely made enough to survive.
But when we got up on stage,
And got ready to play,
People came alive!"

I can't stand "about them" songs, and I can't forget them, either! (The above was from memory.)

I cannot believe Scholtz was willing to record that, unless it was tongue in cheek, or demanded.

It says nothing special or original. That's what all "first bands" go through. We slept in our cars in back of the club many a night. We considered ourselves lucky to be able to afford one hotel room for all of us. And the song, itself, is nothing special -- not even close.

I have to go be sick.
observicist
2.7 / 5 (7) Feb 10, 2019
@Benni,

I find it impossible to believe you have physicists who work under you and are trained by you.
observicist
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 10, 2019
@Da Schneib,

It was 1.12 seconds, indeed. Forwards and backwards.

I know, love, and have played with the Doobies.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (8) Feb 10, 2019
@Benni,

How can any scientist not understand the concept of margin of error? Especially one who runs a gamma spectroscopy laboratory?

@SEU,

There is always margin of error, and there will always be margin of error, and all scientists pay careful attention to it, always -- especially with Moon shots, Mars shots, and satellites in orbit. That's why there are always orbital corrections and extra fuel on board all satellites and spacecraft that are intended to be used for a while.

Benni's
says obstetrics :)

Of course there is a Margin of Error in almost everything - but not in science. Or, at least, there shouldn't be. If a Margin of Error has been found to be possible in science, then the Error(s) should be quickly found before any further testing occurs. If a Margin of Error had occurred before the first atomic bomb test - it would have prevented the test - "Fail Safe" comes to mind.
Science is too important to leave anything to chance or probability

Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (8) Feb 10, 2019
If there is STILL a Margin of Error or a possibility of it - then there is something drastically wrong. It should all come to a halt until the error is found and resolved. This is also true in Medicine and all other science disciplines. As in Medicine where lives could be lost because of that One Little Margin of Error, so too in all others. The domino effect.
Calculating the timing of Neutron Beta decay may not seem as important - but the fact that all of the particles are radioactive make it important to be exact. Or don't do it at all.
observicist
2.7 / 5 (7) Feb 11, 2019
@Benni, @SEU,

There is now, always has been, and always will be margin of error. Sometimes it is called measurement error, but it is the same thing. It is impossible to eliminate, regardless of how good one's measurements are, and every scientist knows this.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 11, 2019
Sorry but I cannot accept such a built-in Margin of Error. They (scientists) just may be the cause of a future extermination of all life on this planet with their M of E crap.
Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 11, 2019
And this margin of error has nothing to do with half-life.

Your acceptance has nothing to do with reality. You "believe in" stone age origin stories from drunken stone age sheep herders about your super magic sky daddy.

Sorry but science and math show you're just another idiot.
observicist
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 11, 2019
@SEU,

Whether you accept it or not, a margin of error, or error in measurement, is there, and always will be. It is built into the universe. All that can be done is reduce it with technology and experiment design, but some margin of error will always exist, no matter how good technology becomes, and no matter how well experiments are designed. It is impossible to eliminate.

It's not the scientists who are at fault.

It is the universe, itself.
Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 11, 2019
Trolls:

You got a mean streak
Inside of you
A mean streak
Runnin' all the way through
A mean streak comin' from your heart
A mean streak that'll tear a man apart

You're bad all the way through. And can't stop being mean.

You got the face of a Madonna
And the heart of of a snake
You never do any given'
All you wanna do is take
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 11, 2019
@SEU,

Whether you accept it or not, a margin of error, or error in measurement, is there, and always will be. It is built into the universe. All that can be done is reduce it with technology and experiment design, but some margin of error will always exist, no matter how good technology becomes, and no matter how well experiments are designed. It is impossible to eliminate.

It's not the scientists who are at fault.

It is the universe, itself.
says obstinator

No, this "margin of error" BS is built into the human mind and is expected to be so, in order to make excuses for human failings and laziness, rather than going for the "gold standard" in every possible way. It has become indoctrinated into the minds of the young for decades - to not expect perfection under any circumstances. It is strictly a human invention - and yes, scientists are to blame as their instructors at University were also too lazy to demand perfection. It is most definitely NOT the Universe
Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 11, 2019
Dumbshit doesn't understand that instruments have margins of error.

Wouldn't know a science it it bit it in the ass.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 11, 2019
@SEU,

Whether you accept it or not, a margin of error, or error in measurement, is there, and always will be. It is built into the universe. All that can be done is reduce it with technology and experiment design, but some margin of error will always exist, no matter how good technology becomes, and no matter how well experiments are designed. It is impossible to eliminate.

It's not the scientists who are at fault.
says obscured

Margin of Error is a clear indication that the instruments used were not effectively CALIBRATED according to accepted international standards of measurement by comparison with a finely calibrated standard instrument. That would be the responsibility of the scientists involved.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 11, 2019
@obs

CALIBRATION
In general use, calibration is often regarded as including the process of adjusting the output or indication on a measurement instrument to agree with value of the applied standard, within a specified accuracy. For example, a thermometer could be calibrated so the error of indication or the correction is determined, and adjusted (e.g. via calibration constants) so that it shows the true temperature in Celsius at specific points on the scale. This is the perception of the instrument's end-user. However, very few instruments can be adjusted to exactly match the standards they are compared to. For the vast majority of calibrations, the calibration process is actually the comparison of an unknown to a known and recording the results.

Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 11, 2019
@obs

Basic calibration process
Purpose and scope
The calibration process begins with the design of the measuring instrument that needs to be calibrated. The design has to be able to "hold a calibration" through its calibration interval. In other words, the design has to be capable of measurements that are "within engineering tolerance" when used within the stated environmental conditions over some reasonable period of time.[6] Having a design with these characteristics increases the likelihood of the actual measuring instruments performing as expected. Basically,the purpose of calibration is for maintaining the quality of measurement as well as to ensure the proper working of particular instrument.
Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 11, 2019
You ever actually done any calibration?

Kinda doubt it. They don't let the stupids fuck with the instruments much. It generally doesn't work out well.

It's kinda like when the forensic accountants show up. You prolly know about that.
Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 11, 2019
So, how many years did you spend in a cell with Bubba before you found jebus?

Just askin'.
observicist
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 11, 2019
@SEU,

The first test of an explosive nuclear device took place July 16, 1945 (incidentally, my mother's 17th birthday; she died at age 89), at 5:29 a.m. local time, in the Jornada del Muerto desert, about 35 miles SE of Socorro, New Mexico, USA.

The theoretical predicted yield was 5 to 10 kilotons of TNT (wide margin of error -- no fail safe). Bets among the scientists ranged from 0.0 KT yield to 45.0 KT yield:

Ramsey: 0.0 KT
Oppenheimer: 0.3 KT
Bethe: 8.0 KT
Segrè: 8.0 KT
Rabi: 18.0 KT (he won)
Teller: 45.0 KT

Fermi used dropped pieces of paper to estimate 10 KT from a displacement of about 2.5 meters.

A 2016 analysis gives 22.1 KT ± 2.7 KT yield.

From Wikipedia.

Until you stop flatly denying it, you will never understand one single thing about error of measurement -- margin of error -- not enough even to begin to attempt to disprove it.
Da Schneib
1 / 5 (2) Feb 11, 2019
The troll isn't even good enough at math to avoid the perils of forensic accounting. I can't even imagine it doing statistics; one might as well ask a dog about statistics.

Castle Bravo was the most powerful weapon ever tested by the US; it was predicted to be 6 megatons and turned out to be 15. I think that bolsters your point.
granville583762
3 / 5 (6) Feb 11, 2019
Lifetime - It is True

From these names, these reports exist
so
after all the handwringing
first impression are always correct
everything everyone has said
Since its discovery in 1932
in lifetime has held true and fast
as the only quibble ever was
was only give a second or two
as taking all in all in consideration
what is a second between friends
its not going to break the bank
as it is only give or take 0.7seconds
0.7seconds is closer than Wikipedia moderators have been able to publish
It must be true about Wikipedia that they on a knife edge of bankruptcy eternally
As Wikipedia are not publishing present academia researches
a lesson when visiting Wikipedia
Remember your bushel of salt
Da Schneib
1 / 5 (2) Feb 11, 2019
It's not handwringing. It's just math which you cannot do because you're innumerate.
Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 11, 2019
Hell bent
Heaven sent
It all got started by an accident
If we can't have the ball
There won't be any winner this time
observicist
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 11, 2019
The universe does not permit exact measurements of any kind.
granville583762
3 / 5 (6) Feb 11, 2019
Lifetime It is True
Da Schneib> It's not handwringing

Handwringing is a figure of speech over anguishing over details
whereas, It's just mathematics, this does not apply concerning physical objects
Mathematics does determine Lifetime
mathematics measure and calculates the physical objects movement in three dimensions which includes
the oscillating motion of photons
mathematics is tool to be used just as any other tool
we live in a probabilistic world but we are not confused
because
our minds live this probability
so
our minds do not see it as probability
because
we see it as normal
so we as people can say exactly what is about to happen
but
not so the mathematics of probability
we as people are made of quantum particles but we are not confused
not so the mathematics of probability
the mathematics is confused in this quantum world
That we as people live in this day to day quantum world and are not confused
observicist
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 11, 2019
Tsar Bomba was a totally weird mix of good and bad luck (not to mention imprecision).
observicist
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 11, 2019
@granville,

You're confusing historical facts and mathematical facts and getting salt everywhere.
jonesdave
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 11, 2019
....above who wrote up the test report, then contact them, they can have YOU explain to THEM why their Test Report is garbage.


It isn't garbage. They are reporting the mean lifetime, as measured. Look at Fig. 3. Detections well after 880s. You lose again. Can't understand science papers, can you? rhetorical.
Benni
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 11, 2019
@Benni,

I find it impossible to believe you have physicists who work under you and are trained by you.


.....at least they understand this & YOU don't:

Look what I do for you Obsy, I show you how to calculate "mean neutron lifetime" of 877.7 ± 0.7:

877.7 less 0.7 = 877.0

877.7 plus 0.7 = 878.4

877.0 + 788.4 / 2 = 877.7

It's the mean of the ± margin of error. I even did the math for you so you couldn't complain about it being too difficult and you're still complaining anyway.

Your Pop-Cosmology psycho-babble in search of the ETERNAL NEUTRON is easy, it's the Immutable Laws of Nuclear Physics Benni is forcing you to deal with which you just don't think is fair as Benni keeps bringing all of you into the REAL WORLD of the immutable laws of physics.........this is just so much fun watching the depths of psycho-babble you are descending into in your search for the ETERNAL NEUTRON.

jonesdave
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 11, 2019
It's the mean of the ± margin of error. I even did the math for you so you couldn't complain about it being too difficult and you're still complaining anyway.


Idiot. Look at figure 3, you tosser. They measure neutrinos well after 880s, yet again showing you to be wrong. And also from the same authors in Fig. 7 of this paper;

https://www.resea...detector

Not to mention the description of the experiments in the text, which will be way too difficult for a janitor to understand. Go away, you lost, loser.

Benni
1.9 / 5 (9) Feb 11, 2019
And this margin of error has nothing to do with half-life.
At least you've learned a something from me......and I might add to this, neither does the Beta Particle Decay of Neutron lifetime measurements have anything to do with "half-life", just like I've shown you right above.
Benni
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 11, 2019
They measure neutrinos well after 880s, yet again showing you to be wrong. And also from the same authors in Fig. 7 of this paper;
.......those are BACKGROUND/ BACKSCATTER DECAYS which were never part of the original population of neutrons loaded into the Proton Trap for decay measurement.

jonesdave
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 11, 2019
And this margin of error has nothing to do with half-life.
At least you've learned a something from me......and I might add to this, neither does the Beta Particle Decay of Neutron lifetime measurements have anything to do with "half-life", just like I've shown you right above.


Wrong. You are just too dumb to understand the papers. You are scientifically illiterate. The free neutron has a half-life, as proven. Get over it, thicko.
jonesdave
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 11, 2019
They measure neutrinos well after 880s, yet again showing you to be wrong. And also from the same authors in Fig. 7 of this paper;
.......those are BACKGROUND/ BACKSCATTER DECAYS which were never part of the original population of neutrons loaded into the Proton Trap for decay measurement.



No they are not, and neither do the authors say such a thing, you lying prick. I keep asking this, dumbo; why would background scatter lie on an exponential decay curve, you ignorant tosser?
Benni
2 / 5 (8) Feb 11, 2019
Wrong. You are just too dumb to understand the papers.
......you're one of those here who doesn't understand this:

Look what I do for you jonesy, I show you how to calculate "mean neutron lifetime" of 877.7 ± 0.7:

877.7 less 0.7 = 877.0

877.7 plus 0.7 = 878.4

877.0 + 788.4 / 2 = 877.7

It's the mean of the ± margin of error. I even did the math for you so you couldn't complain about it being too difficult and you're still complaining anyway.

Capiche? No, probably you don't.
jonesdave
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 11, 2019
Capiche? No, probably you don't.


Wrong, shitforbrains, and the literature proves you wrong as shown, thicko.
jonesdave
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 11, 2019
population of neutrons loaded into the Proton Trap for decay measurement


There is no proton trap, you dumb prick.
jonesdave
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 11, 2019
Just for the terminally stupid, again;

Help ultimately came from the Lab's chemistry division, where researchers had independently developed a technique for depositing a nanometer-scale coating of a different neutron absorber, boron-10, onto a zinc-sulfide surface. When a neutron strikes boron-10, an alpha particle (helium nucleus) is emitted, causing the zinc sulfide—a scintillator material used by experimental physicists for about 100 years—to glow. This happens instantly, so there's no half-life to wait out. And it happens visually, so a specialized camera focused on the dagger, even from some distance away, could track all the neutron impacts in real time.


They are detecting neutrons, not protons. Undecayed neutrons, dumbo. Get an education.

https://www.lanl....sure.pdf
jonesdave
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 11, 2019
And more for the terminally stupid;

Look at Eq. 5, here;

https://www.resea...detector

And just underneath that, look at Fig. 7.

So, what are the counts at 20s and 1520s? Well, the y-axis is logarithmic, but it looks like ~ 500 per second at 20s. At 1520s it looks to be ~ 90 per second.
So, back to Eq. 5;

1520 - 20 = 1500. 1500/ ln(500/90 = ~ 5.5 ), becomes 1500/ 1.7 = 882s. Pretty bloody close given I was reading off a logarithmic axis.
This shit will be well over Benni's head, given that he hasn't a clue about either physics or mathematics.
jonesdave
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 11, 2019
Another way of looking at the above is to calculate the number of half-lives between 1520s and 20s = 1500s = 25 minutes/ 10.2 minutes, = 2.45. So, with 500 neutrons per second at 20s, the remainder after 1520s should equal 500 x 1/ 2.45^2. So, that would be ~ 500 x 0.167 = ~ 83. Which is pretty much what we see.
granville583762
3 / 5 (6) Feb 11, 2019
Do not worry SEU and Benni

The half lifers will be back
in the morning
because
its Ground Hog Day
everyone will not remember what took place the previous night
as tomorrow never comes
It's just that I remember
but I won't let on
Till tomorrow night
jonesdave
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 11, 2019
The half lifers will be back


You have been proven wrong multiple times, you ignorant fool. Go away, thicko.
granville583762
3 / 5 (6) Feb 11, 2019
In the beta decay community
A lifetimer says to a halflifer
Whats the diference between a lifertimer versus a halflifer
A halflifer only gets 877years
jonesdave
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 11, 2019
In the beta decay community
................

..................Everybody knows the free neutron has a half-life. The only people denying it are ignorant, scientifically illiterate tosspots like you.
Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 11, 2019
And @Benni still hasn't offered any reason why it's called "half-life."
observicist
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 11, 2019
@Da Schneib,

The troll isn't even good enough at math to avoid the perils of forensic accounting. I can't even imagine it doing statistics; one might as well ask a dog about statistics.

Castle Bravo was the most powerful weapon ever tested by the US; it was predicted to be 6 megatons and turned out to be 15. I think that bolsters your point.


Especially as @granville, @Benni, and @SEU have no point at all.

@Benni, consider

877.0 + 788.4 / 2 = 877.7

There's a lot more wrong with that than the swapped digits in 788.4 (878.4) -- you're violating the rules of arithmetic.

877.0 + 878.4 / 2 = 1316.2

Think "order of operations" and "operator precedence."

(877.0 + 878.4) / 2 = 877.7

I mentioned this earlier, but you still didn't see it. I wrote that WE knew what you meant, but did YOU know what you meant?
observicist
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 11, 2019
@granville,

The last I knew, where I am, Groundhog Day is 2 February.

Today is 11 February. Are you using base 1?
Benni
1.9 / 5 (9) Feb 11, 2019
877.0 + 788.4 / 2 = 877.7

There's a lot more wrong with that than the swapped digits in 788.4 (878.4) -- you're violating the rules of arithmetic.

877.0 + 878.4 / 2 = 1316.2

Think "order of operations" and "operator precedence."

(877.0 + 878.4) / 2 = 877.7

I mentioned this earlier, but you still didn't see it. I wrote that WE knew what you meant, but did YOU know what you meant?
.......your point has no point to it, it's meaningless that YOU make it sound like Benni should be responsible for the manner in which someone else writes up their peer reviewed reports for which Benni has no responsibility & about which you have a grievance.

Take your whine to the two dozen Authors who wrote up the results of the measurement test, capiche? No, probably you don't.

observicist
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 11, 2019
@Benni,

The above is your mistake; no one else's.

You were trying to teach me about margin of error; that didn't come from anyone's paper. We both know that.

You cannot weasel out of this one, although you will never stop trying.
jonesdave
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 11, 2019
Take your whine to the two dozen Authors who wrote up the results of the measurement test, capiche? No, probably you don't.


Yes, we know what the paper says, dickhead. Why are they detecting neutrons at 1520s, shitforbrains? That just happen to follow an exponential decay curve, as shown in Eq. 5 and Fig. 7? I said this shit would be beyond you, and it obviously is. Thicko.

Benni
1.9 / 5 (9) Feb 11, 2019
@Benni,

The above is your mistake; no one else's.

You were trying to teach me about margin of error; that didn't come from anyone's paper. We both know that.

You cannot weasel out of this one, although you will never stop trying.


Old man......there's nothing wrong with it in the first place, but since you're still so convinced the margin or error was written up wrong then go to the source & tell THEM.
jonesdave
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 11, 2019
Take your whine to the two dozen Authors who wrote up the results of the measurement test, capiche? No, probably you don't.


Nobody is whining. We agree with the authors. Neutrons have a mean lifetime, and survive well beyond that mean lifetime. You are just too stupid to understand the paper. Due to being completely bereft of any scientific or mathematical knowledge.

jonesdave
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 11, 2019
@Benni,

The above is your mistake; no one else's.

You were trying to teach me about margin of error; that didn't come from anyone's paper. We both know that.

You cannot weasel out of this one, although you will never stop trying.


Old man......there's nothing wrong with it in the first place, but since you're still so convinced the margin or error was written up wrong then go to the source & tell THEM.


Lol. Why are you still here? You lost the argument. You have been proven wrong. Go away. Find an astrology forum, or something else more suited to your total lack of scientific knowledge.
observicist
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 11, 2019
@Benni,

How can it possibly be correct when the arithmetic, itself, is wrong?

In my case (not in yours), age brings wisdom.
jonesdave
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 11, 2019
Benni knows he has lost, and is incapable of explaining Eq. 5 and Fig. 7 in the paper;

https://www.resea...detector

Benni
1.9 / 5 (9) Feb 11, 2019
@Benni,

How can it possibly be correct when the arithmetic, itself, is wrong?

In my case (not in yours), age brings wisdom.


877.0 + 878.4 / 2 = 877.7 ±0.7. i see what you mean, I used 7 instead of 0.7. My error.
jimmybobber
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 11, 2019
Benni!

877.0 + 878.4/2 = 877.0 + 439.2 = 1316.2 !!!!

You have to write is as (877.0 + 878.4)/2 = 877.7 !!!!

Observicist has already pointed this out. This is basic math!
jonesdave
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 11, 2019
This is basic math!


Not a strong point of Benni's!
jonesdave
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 11, 2019
Come on Benni, you mathematical retard - explain what is happening in equation 5 in that paper. Should be a piece of piss for somebody who continually lies about being able to do DEs. Lol. Loser.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (8) Feb 11, 2019
Benni!

877.0 + 878.4/2 = 877.0 + 439.2 = 1316.2 !!!!

You have to write is as (877.0 + 878.4)/2 = 877.7 !!!!

Observicist has already pointed this out. This is basic math!
says jimmybobs

Why go through all that fancy-shmancy rigmarole?
You already add 877.0 plus 439.2 = 1316.2
Then to get 877.0 you only have to subtract 439.2 from 1316.2 = 877.0
What is the need for the .7 then?

I honestly don't understand why humans always have to make things so complicated when plain old addition, subtraction and division is sufficient to get the correct answer.
LOL Obviously I'm not a math genius but I fail to see the sense in adding 877.0 to 878.4 and expect it to equal 877.7 whilst including symbols such as (, ), and /
jonesdave
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 11, 2019
Benni!

877.0 + 878.4/2 = 877.0 + 439.2 = 1316.2 !!!!

You have to write is as (877.0 + 878.4)/2 = 877.7 !!!!

Observicist has already pointed this out. This is basic math!
says jimmybobs

Why go through all that fancy-shmancy rigmarole?
You already add 877.0 plus 439.2 = 1316.2
Then to get 877.0 you only have to subtract 439.2 from 1316.2 = 877.0
What is the need for the .7 then?

I honestly don't understand why humans always have to make things so complicated when plain old addition, subtraction and division is sufficient to get the correct answer.
LOL Obviously I'm not a math genius but I fail to see the sense in adding 877.0 to 878.4 and expect it to equal 877.7 whilst including symbols such as (, ), and /


Tit!
jimmybobber
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 11, 2019
@SEU what the hell.

You do realize (877.0 + 878.4)/2 means add 877.0 to 878.4 then divide that result by 2?
And you do realize Benni was the one attempting to do that incorrectly?

granville583762
3 / 5 (6) Feb 11, 2019
It's Pitiful to Watch This
These losers down to squabbling over mathematics of 1+3=4
its pitiful to watch these losers down to this
Having to resort to pitiful petty squabbling
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 11, 2019
Yep, we have a trifecta of mathematical retards here! Lol.
jonesdave
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 11, 2019
It's Pitiful to Watch This
These losers down to squabbling over mathematics of 1+3=4
its pitiful to watch these losers down to this
Having to resort to pitiful petty squabbling


Dickhead. Explain equation 5 in the paper I linked. Go, shitforbrains. Benni the burke can't do it. Have a try, retard.

granville583762
3 / 5 (6) Feb 11, 2019
Thanks TrollianJD, for setting out your WOOLLY MAMBO culminating in verifying this Lifetime
Your invaluable help in proving this fixed Lifetime is much appreciated

p.s. there will be an extra chocolate Easter egg in your basket come Easter Sunday
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 11, 2019
@granville,

The last I knew, where I am, Groundhog Day is 2 February.

Today is 11 February. Are you using
says observing

In case you weren't aware, granville lives in the Shires of England, UK where, I assume, badgers take the place of American and Canadian groundhogs. I never heard of anyone observing groundhogs in England when I lived there - but it is possible that such a Day has recently become a celebration. Certainly it is a good day for neighbors and strangers to come together for a social.
But yes, traditionally Groundhog Day is celebrated on February 2nd both in Canada and the US.
It originated in Germany and was brought to the US by the Pennsylvania Dutch in whose language the badger is called a "dachs". I had always wondered what Dachshund meant.
granville is a bit late by about 9 days. Perhaps granville will be wanting to emigrate to the US if BREXIT is dismissed by Madam Theresa May and the UK is forced to stay in the European Union (EU). Oh horrors.
granville583762
3 / 5 (6) Feb 11, 2019
Thanks SEU, This ground hog tradition is cute

Although everyone has seen on the flicks, ground hog day where he wakes up next day
so every day is ground hog day, English Shire humour by American actors in an American film
where no one remembers yesterday today
Just like yesterdays Lifetime!
observicist
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 11, 2019
@Benni,

You can't even do elementary arithmetic.

Your mistake wasn't a shifted decimal point (a common minor clerical error); your mistakes were not understanding that division takes precedence over addition, and not understanding that parentheses are required to change the order of operations. Each is a fundamental lack of understanding, not a clerical error.

You are trying to avoid admitting to making two fundamental errors of understanding by "admitting" to a common minor clerical error you actually did not make (you did not shift the decimal point; you did make an error in operator precedence and you did make an error in order of operations -- both fundamental errors).

@Benni, you have been caught. Anyone who admits to a minor mistake he didn't make to try to cover up two major mistakes he did make is deliberately lying.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.9 / 5 (9) Feb 11, 2019
@SEU what the hell.

You do realize (877.0 + 878.4)/2 means add 877.0 to 878.4 then divide that result by 2?
And you do realize Benni was the one attempting to do that incorrectly?

says jimmybobs
As I said,, I'm not into fancy-shmancy unnecessarily complicated math calisthenics when the normal fast and easy sums will do. I'm no math genius and wouldn't want to be if writing unnecessary gobble -de-gook to get to the results where you would ordinarily wind up anyways just by using the normal arithmetics before they started referring to it as mathematics (to sound more impressive and difficult, of course).

Now, you want to add 877.0 to 878.4 = 1755.4
Then you want to DIVIDE the 1755.4 by 2 which equals = 877.7

But, you had told Benni this:
"877.0 + 878.4/2 = 877.0 + 439.2 = 1316.2 !!!!
You have to write is as (877.0 + 878.4)/2 = 877.7 !!!!"
So where does the figure of 1316.2 come from and why would you need to subtract 439.2 from it in order to get 877.0 again?
observicist
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 11, 2019
"Dachshund" means "badger dog."

About 20 years ago, at a different homestead, far in the country, I watched my neighbor's dog kill a badger. My neighbor's dog was very large, and so was the badger (we do also call them "groundhogs," but I prefer "badger") -- badgers can be large and dangerous.

I wish the fight had never happened -- I hate seeing that side of nature. Nothing I can do about it, but I hate seeing it. I'm a sensitive soul, and do not like killing. It's ugly and horrible.

Dachshunds were originally bread to go down into badgers' holes after the holes' badgers and pull them out, preferably dead. A standard size Dachshund is a very large dog. It's so long that, in the immortal words of my departed uncle (a WWII B-24 pilot, but he died this millennium), its ears can be drooping from present sadness while its tail is still wagging from previous gladness.

I like Dachshunds.
Uncle Ira
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 11, 2019
@Observacist-Skippy. How you are? I am fine and dandy, thanks for asking.

(we do also call them "groundhogs," but I prefer "badger")
Where do we call a badger a groundhog? They are two different critters. One is a rodent like the prairiedogs and squires and nutria,,,,,,,,,,, and the other one is a carnivore like the weasel and minks and otters.

Oh yeah, I almost forget.
A standard size Dachshund is a very large dog.
Where you are how large is the very large dog?

20 or 30 pounds is not what we call the very large dog down here,,,,,,, we call a 90 or 100 pound dog the very large dog.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.9 / 5 (9) Feb 11, 2019
@jimmybobs
OK I will try again
So 877.0 + 878.4 = 1755.4 then divided by 2 = 877.7
Then you take 877.0 again and add it to 439.2 = 1316.2 from which you will subtract 439.2 = 658.1
So, you are saying that 877.0 + 878.4 where the result is divided by 2, is the same as 877.0 + 439.2 where the result is also divided by 2?
So that both 1316.2 AND 1755.4 divided by 2 comes out to 658.1 and 877.7 respectively.

Exactly what does that prove, I might askkkkk?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.9 / 5 (9) Feb 11, 2019
OOOOPS
One more try. Instead of 1316.2 minus 439.2 = 877.0 I divided by 2 and got 658.1
I've got to stop drinking so much coffee. lol
But still, what does it prove?
Da Schneib
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 11, 2019
https://en.wikipe...erations

In mathematics and computer programming, the order of operations (or operator precedence) is a collection of rules that reflect conventions about which procedures to perform first in order to evaluate a given mathematical expression.

For example, in mathematics and most computer languages, multiplication is granted a higher precedence than addition, and it has been this way since the introduction of modern algebraic notation.


This is basic stuff. I was taught this as soon as I had learned to multiply and divide.
granville583762
3 / 5 (6) Feb 11, 2019
There is an outbreak of race horse flue in Newmarket. Its costing billions of dollars, these Sheiks million dollar pets are all glum faced unable to count their bales of hay
It appears to have crossed the pond SEU

What is more amusing, SEU
Is, Uncle Ira - Discussing American culture, with Observicist
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (8) Feb 11, 2019
Hiya Uncle Ira
How you be, mon? Dem gators be freezing dere arse off by now, eh? No swimming in dat ol bayou wif dem gators and stuff, non. I hears you gots some jambalaya and crawfish pie, filet gumbo and étouffée cookin up right good in your sugar shack. Mebbe we gets some of your Cajun Navy guys together and have a reel good cookout. Then go fishin for some mudbugs, eh?
Benni
1.8 / 5 (10) Feb 11, 2019
@Benni, you have been caught. Anyone who admits to a minor mistake he didn't make to try to cover up two major mistakes he did make is deliberately lying.


A shift creating a 6 second error is such a big deal to you? When you fail to comprehend that the 877.7 sec lifetime decay of a free neutron begins the instant it becomes unbound from a nucleus?

Applying your concept of statistical probability to Beta Particle Decay in trying to make such a neutron go into suspended animation for decades, centuries, or even billions of years in light of results from neutron measurement tests is a math problem that pales a 6 second error into absolute insignificance.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 11, 2019
There is an outbreak of race horse flue in Newmarket. Its costing billions of dollars, these Sheiks million dollar pets are all glum faced unable to count their bales of hay
It appears to have crossed the pond SEU

What is more amusing, SEU
Is, Uncle Ira - Discussing American culture, with Observicist
says granville

LOL Uncle Ira is doing his usual 'put-on' to welcome observicist and make him feel at home.
Those steeds had best be heavily insured if the Sheiks can't get them to eat. Rough times in the old corral, eh?
Well, I hope that they survive and finally be let out to pasture, the poor creatures. Such animals do so much for humans but get so little in return. A goodnight hug and a gentle pat on the bum for old Dobbie would be nice.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 11, 2019
@Benni, you screwed up operator precedence. Everyone here who knows any math saw it immediately.

As @observer noted, you will of course never admit it. Now tell us why half-life is called that.
Benni
1.9 / 5 (9) Feb 11, 2019
Benni!

877.0 + 878.4/2 = 877.0 + 439.2 = 1316.2 !!!!

You have to write is as (877.0 + 878.4)/2 = 877.7 !!!!

Observicist has already pointed this out. This is basic math!


.....and you wouldn't have known any of the above if I hadn't put you on to how the Authors calculated the "mean" in the first place to come up with 877.7 secs. Up till this time you thought "mean" was defined as "radio-active 1/2 life", something which is computed for use in Gamma Radiation Decay, this as you kept trying every convoluted argument tying it into the outcome for measuring Beta Particle Decay. Any Comment there?
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (4) Feb 11, 2019
The arithmetic mean (often called "the average") is determined as follows:

Take all the data points. Count them. Add them together. Divide by the count.

That is all.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 11, 2019
There are, of course, more esoteric methods in statistics for determining the mean, but I don't see any point in discussing them with someone who can't keep the precedence of addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division correctly. Nor do I see what business any such individual has trying to lie about half-life.

Other than trolling, of course.
Benni
2 / 5 (8) Feb 11, 2019
Nor do I see what business any such individual has trying to lie about half-life.


Of course you don't, because you don't know the difference between Beta Particle Decay & Gamma Radiation Decay, & you follow that up with your 100% misapplication of "half-life" to the lifetime measurement of a free neutron at 877,7±0.7 seconds.

So where else is there for you to go when you can't get Pop-Cosmology's eternal neutron? You make it up.

Da Schneib
3 / 5 (4) Feb 11, 2019
Still no explanation of half-life. Still no solved DEs. Still can't admit to not knowing the precedence of mathematical operations.

Looks like you're deflecting again.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 11, 2019
Beta decay changes a down quark to an up quark, and emits a W- particle which decays into an electron and an electron antineutrino.

Gamma rays are emitted by energized particles and nuclei often shortly after alpha or beta decays. They are extremely high-energy (i.e. short wavelength) electromagnetic radiation, higher than X-rays.

Now, would you like to claim you "told" me that, too?

Meanwhile, what's an alpha particle and why is it emitted by radioactive nuclides? Since we're talking about beta and gamma emissions, it seems a propos that it should be discussed but you seem to have left it out which no one with any training in nuclear physics would do.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 12, 2019
After I've let you twist in the wind a bit I'll explain the what and why of alpha decay.

Not that it will shut you up, but at least it will let others who think you're smart see the truth.

You're a troll.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (4) Feb 12, 2019
Just so folks understand the degree of stupid on display here, referring to beta and gamma without reference to alpha is like referring to B and C without mentioning A. The individual here is a troll, nothing else, nothing but. It doesn't want to talk about alpha particles because it doesn't understand them, any more than it understands differential equations, gamma rays, beta decay, half-life, fractions, arithmetic operator precedence, or averages.
Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 12, 2019
Still waiting for that explanation of why half-life is called that, not to mention the solutions to the two differential equations you claimed to be able to solve.

You can't even tell the part of the equation that's a solution, never mind what it means.
observicist
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 12, 2019
@Uncle Ira,

Who is Skippy?

Where I live people call badgers "groundhogs" as well as "badgers." A peculiarity of the area, I suspect. We call groundhogs "hedgehogs." I didn't even think about that until you commented.

The last standard size Dachshund I saw was a good 50 - 60 lbs, and a bit over three feet long. When a dog that long is that low to the ground, and weighs that much, I call it a large dog, and so does everyone I know. I will admit that my huge god dog, Ares, is large by any standard -- he's about 120 lbs. He's no Irish Wolfhound, but a 120 lb. dog is huge. My stepdaughter is a grown woman, and she can ride him.

I remember seeing you in a thread several years back, but I never wrote anything in any post until very recently. Are you under the impression we know each other? I've been around for several years, but only recently have I done anything but observe -- I only recently even created my ID. I saw some posts to which I had to respond.
Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 12, 2019
Waiting for the troll to expose its stupid to my attacks again.

Then there's the part about forgetting arithmetic precedence and lying about it, and the part about failing to understand the difference between experimental uncertainty and the uncertainty of an exponential decay.

I have explained this to a bagboy, and to a medical student, and both of them understood better than @Benni. And they're both under 20 years old.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (4) Feb 12, 2019
@observer, let me introduce you to @Ira. He's a real engineer and is testing to find out if you are a nutjob. You're doing fine; just keep telling the truth and you'll be OK with him.

"Skippy" is for Ira like "dude" or "guy" is for us. It's a linguistic peculiarity that you get used to after a bit. Semantically it's equivalent to "you."
observicist
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 12, 2019
@Da Schneib,

The youthful intelligence of the bagboy and the medical student have restored my optimism. @Benni is annoying, but he doesn't actually upset me, anymore. A certain percentage are always beyond help.
observicist
2.7 / 5 (7) Feb 12, 2019
@Da Schneib,

Understood about @Uncle Ira. I've known a number of very smart, very intelligent people who have their idiosyncrasies, and as long as they aren't actually mean, I've never had any problems. I'm sure I have my share of mannerisms, myself.

@Uncle Ira, nice to meet you. I'm sorry if I was a bit off-putting.
jonesdave
2.7 / 5 (7) Feb 12, 2019
.....and you wouldn't have known any of the above if I hadn't put you on to how the Authors calculated the "mean" in the first place to come up with 877.7 secs.


Wrong, idiot. I showed you how they did it. Eq. 5 and Fig. 7, remember? Why can't you explain those? Why are they detecting neutrons at 1520s and using it in the equation for calculating the mean lifetime? Come on, dummy, let's hear it.
Benni
2 / 5 (8) Feb 12, 2019
Just so folks understand the degree of stupid on display here, referring to beta and gamma without reference to alpha is like referring to B and C without mentioning A. The individual here is a troll, nothing else, nothing but. It doesn't want to talk about alpha particles because it doesn't understand them, any more than it understands differential equations, gamma rays, beta decay, half-life, fractions, arithmetic operator precedence, or averages.


Isn't it just so nice that Benni comes here & challenges the Pop-Cosmology status quo to finally learn something about the difference between Gamma Radiation Decay & Beta Particle Decay?

And FINALLY they learn from Benni's Comments how to calculate the "mean lifetime Beta decay of a neutron" & that it is not calculated from math used for Gamma Radiation Decay. I've been a good teacher even for the hard of reading.
jonesdave
2.7 / 5 (7) Feb 12, 2019
I've been a good teacher even for the hard of reading.


No, you are a complete f***wit, who understands the square root of zero about physics. As proven.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 12, 2019
@Benni, you're a troll. You don't know your ass from a hole in the ground.
Uncle Ira
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 12, 2019
@ Observicist-Skippy

@Uncle Ira,

Who is Skippy?

You are Skippy, and me, and everybody else too. Even my wife is Mrs-Ira-Skippette. I don't mean nothing by it, eh?

The last standard size Dachshund I saw was a good 50 - 60 lbs, and a bit over three feet long.
Hooyeei, yeah he is large, that is too large for the dog show large, eh?

Anyhoo, don't mind me, just keep working on teaching the Bennie-Skippy something. And don't get discouraged non, some really smart Skippys have been working on him for years and you see how far they have got with him.

Benni
1.9 / 5 (9) Feb 12, 2019
@Benni, you're a troll. You don't know your ass from a hole in the ground.


We know schneibo.........how cold & cruel it is of Benni to drag your Pop-Cosmology theories out into the cold cruel light of day exposing the Pop-Cosmology Fantasy of the Eternal Neutron.

We also know schneibo, if you don't get your Eternal Neutron then Pop-Cosmology never rises to the pinnacle of achieving the holiest of it's holy grails of fantasy, BLACK HOLES.

All you are is just mad that Benni has put up irrefutable evidence that there is no evidence from Beta Particle Decay lifetime measurements that a free unbound neutron has a lifespan exceeding 15 minutes.

That HOLE in the ground is yours leaving no room for the groundhog.
jonesdave