Hiding black hole found

March 1, 2019, National Institutes of Natural Sciences
Artist's impression of a gas cloud swirling around a black hole. Credit: NAOJ

Astronomers have detected a stealthy black hole from its effects on an interstellar gas cloud. This intermediate-mass black hole is one of over 100 million quiet black holes expected to be lurking in the galaxy. These results provide a new method to search for other hidden black holes and help us understand the growth and evolution of black holes.

Black holes are objects with such strong gravity that nothing, including light, can escape once it falls beyond the event horizon. Because do not emit light, astronomers must infer their existence from the effects of their gravity on other objects. Black holes range in from about five times the mass of the sun to supermassive black holes millions of times the mass of the sun. Astronomers think that small black holes merge and gradually grow into large ones, but no one had ever found an intermediate-mass black hole weighing hundreds or thousands of times the mass of the sun.

A research team led by Shunya Takekawa at the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan noticed HCN-0.009-0.044, a gas cloud moving strangely near the center of the galaxy 25,000 light-years away from Earth in the constellation Sagittarius. They used ALMA (Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array) to perform high-resolution observations of the cloud and found that it is swirling around a massive invisible object.

Takekawa says, "Detailed kinematic analyses revealed that an enormous mass, 30,000 times that of the sun, was concentrated in a region much smaller than our solar system. This and the lack of any observed object at that location strongly suggests an intermediate-mass black hole. By analyzing other anomalous , we hope to expose other quiet black holes."

Tomoharu Oka, a professor at Keio University and coleader of the team, adds, "It is significant that this intermediate mass black hole was found only 20 light-years from the supermassive black hole at the . In the future, it will fall into the , much like gas is currently falling into it. This supports the merger model of black hole growth."

These results were published as Takekawa et al. "Indication of Another Intermediate-mass Black Hole in the Galactic Center" in The Astrophysical Journal Letters on January 20, 2019.

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

More information: Shunya Takekawa et al, Indication of Another Intermediate-mass Black Hole in the Galactic Center, The Astrophysical Journal (2019). DOI: 10.3847/2041-8213/aafb07

Related Stories

Oxymoronic black hole RGG 118 provides clues to growth

August 12, 2015

Astronomers using NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory and the 6.5-meter Clay Telescope in Chile have identified the smallest supermassive black hole ever detected in the center of a galaxy, as described in our latest press release. ...

How massive can black holes get?

August 11, 2015

Without the light pressure from nuclear fusion to hold back the mass of the star, the outer layers compress inward in an instant. The star dies, exploding violently as a supernova.

Recommended for you

A decade on, smartphone-like software finally heads to space

March 20, 2019

Once a traditional satellite is launched into space, its physical hardware and computer software stay mostly immutable for the rest of its existence as it orbits the Earth, even as the technology it serves on the ground continues ...

Tiny 'water bears' can teach us about survival

March 20, 2019

Earth's ultimate survivors can weather extreme heat, cold, radiation and even the vacuum of space. Now the U.S. military hopes these tiny critters called tardigrades can teach us about true toughness.

Researchers find hidden proteins in bacteria

March 20, 2019

Scientists at the University of Illinois at Chicago have developed a way to identify the beginning of every gene—known as a translation start site or a start codon—in bacterial cell DNA with a single experiment and, through ...

667 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (24) Mar 01, 2019
The plasma ignoramuses don't understand plasma physics and when there is motion indescribable by gravitational effects leprechaunian unicorns are invoked, see above article.
MrBojangles
4.5 / 5 (22) Mar 01, 2019
When a man has no social life, and has been outcast by the rest of society, he has a tendency to become paranoid and adversarial. See above post.
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (18) Mar 01, 2019
They've been looking for intermediate mass black holes for a while. This is quite a find.

Chalk up another big find for ALMA!
Tuxford
1.9 / 5 (13) Mar 01, 2019
"It is significant that this intermediate mass black hole was found only 20 light-years from the supermassive black hole at the galactic center. In the future, it will fall into the supermassive black hole, much like gas is currently falling into it. This supports the merger model of black hole growth."

Merger maniacs desperate for any good news!

OR it supports LaViolette's SQK which predicts accelerated internal growth of objects in the vicinity of supermassive objects. Other observations show twin supermassive holes only a few thousand LYrs apart, one spawned from the other and having grown internally all the while drifting apart. Just a matter of perspective!
theredpill
2.1 / 5 (16) Mar 01, 2019
It's amazing that everywhere they find a black hole, there's an artists impression to show us what it looks like. I tried buying lunch with an artists impression of a 20$ bill....no go.
MrBojangles
4.5 / 5 (16) Mar 01, 2019
It's amazing that everywhere they find a black hole, there's an artists impression to show us what it looks like. I tried buying lunch with an artists impression of a 20$ bill....no go.


I'm sorry to hear that. Depending on where you live, and your particular circumstances, you may qualify for financial aid. If you provide me with some general details, such as what city and state you live in, as well as your household income, I'd be glad to assist you in contacting the proper establishments.

In the meantime, If you're artistically endowed, you may even consider drawing black holes and selling your work.
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (11) Mar 01, 2019
It's worth noting that if you are close enough to a black hole to see the event horizon, and there is any appreciable accretion by it, you are in deadly danger and in any event shouldn't try to have children any more even if you live.
theredpill
2.8 / 5 (13) Mar 01, 2019
" you may even consider drawing black holes"

If I didn't only own a chalkboard....dammit.
cantdrive85
1.9 / 5 (14) Mar 01, 2019
They've been looking for intermediate mass black holes for a while. This is quite a find.

Chalk up another big find for ALMA!

Stop lying da schnied, they said "may" have found via indirect means.
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (14) Mar 01, 2019
So propose something that can make the gas do exactly that which doesn't involve GRT. And it ain't the EU.

See the thing is,
Detailed kinematic analyses revealed that an enormous mass, 30,000 times that of the sun, was concentrated in a region much smaller than our solar system. This and the lack of any observed object at that location strongly suggests an intermediate-mass black hole.
Guess you missed that part.
Benni
1.6 / 5 (20) Mar 01, 2019
They've been looking for intermediate mass black holes for a while. This is quite a find.

Chalk up another big find for ALMA!


Stop lying da schnied, they said "may" have found via indirect means.
.......Yep, to quote the article: "Because black holes do not emit light, astronomers must infer their existence.....", schneibo should look up the definition of "infer", guess he missed that part.
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (14) Mar 01, 2019
And @Benni missed the fact that it only infers gravity. It's never seen it.
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (15) Mar 01, 2019
Guess you missed that part.

You mean the part where they say "strongly suggests..."
Kinda along the lines of infer and may.
Benni
1.7 / 5 (18) Mar 01, 2019
And @Benni missed the fact that it only infers gravity. It's never seen it.


There's not one mention in the article about INFERRING gravity, only BHs. I guess you missed that too.

I see you're still not up to speed on definitions schneibo: INFER is to make an educated guess that someone else's conclusions are correct when they IMPLY something.

valeriy_polulyakh
1.2 / 5 (11) Mar 01, 2019
In search of black holes and dark matter astrophysicists are relying on indirect observations. It would seem that the measurement of the event horizon of a black hole directly would be a direct evidence. However, by the nature of a horizon, any real measurement of the event horizon will be indirect. The Event Horizon Telescope will get picture of the silhouette of the Sgr A* which is due to optical effects of spacetime outside of the event horizon. The result will be determined by the simple quality of the resulting image that does not depend on the properties of the spacetime within the image. So, it will be also indirect and an existence of BH is a hypothesis.
https://www.acade...ilky_Way
cantdrive85
1.6 / 5 (13) Mar 01, 2019
In the meantime, If you're artistically endowed, you may even consider drawing black holes and selling your work.

My impression of a BH;

● or is it ○ or is it ♧ or .. for two orbiting BH's.
Da Schneib
4.5 / 5 (16) Mar 01, 2019
Ever seen gravity, @Benni?
rrwillsj
2.6 / 5 (12) Mar 01, 2019
"... over 100 million quiet black holes expected to be lurking in the galaxy. ..."
Damn! Talk about your speedtraps.
These suckers are going to bring a whole new level of meaning to terms like "pothole" & "pitfall".

Okay Tux. I usually wouldn't bother with any more effort than ridiculing your woomongering.
However "LaViolette's SQK" has me monkey curious.

Yeah, I already regret asking..

So tux, II doubt if you are discussing syphilitic whores, Albanian sign language, feetball strykers, Quebec villages or French Cinema.

So give us a clue. What is the link to a peer reviewed publication of this mysterious ?LaViolette's SQK?

What?
Nothing in print that was not "Pay to Publish"?

& you think that will i,press anybody here?

Well, anyone but your usual useless fellow looneytoons,
cant, benni.& flattire,
Benni
1.5 / 5 (17) Mar 01, 2019
Ever seen gravity, @Benni?


I can measure it, but I can't measure an inferred BH.
observicist
3.9 / 5 (21) Mar 01, 2019
@Benni,

Ever seen gravity, @Benni?


I can measure it, but I can't measure an inferred BH.


Tell me, then, why they think it's there if they didn't measure its influence, just like you measure gravity's influence?
Benni
1.4 / 5 (19) Mar 01, 2019
@Benni,

Ever seen gravity, @Benni?


I can measure it, but I can't measure an inferred BH.


Tell me, then, why they think it's there if they didn't measure its influence, just like you measure gravity's influence?
.......then tell us about the device you used sitting next to a BH with your BH meter in hand & measured it as can be done with a gravimeter? Probably think it's a trick question don't you?

So tell us all about how INFERRED BHs are measured.
SkyLight
3.9 / 5 (14) Mar 02, 2019
@Benni's multimeter is showing...
antigoracle
1.8 / 5 (10) Mar 02, 2019
When a man has no social life, and has been outcast by the rest of society, he has a tendency to become paranoid and adversarial. See above post.

LMAO.
MrBojangles aka Da Schitts, is at it again.
Well, it was inevitable that phys org would spawn its first supermassive asshole. Most unfortunate, however, is that despite being so dense, its gravity cannot contain the shite between its ears and so the forum must suffer his persistent soiling.
SkyLight
3.9 / 5 (15) Mar 02, 2019
Calm down, @ag - @DS is a trained scientist commenting on a new scientific discovery in a forum dedicated to science.

If you have a problem with that, you're probably in the wrong place.
Old_C_Code
3.8 / 5 (13) Mar 02, 2019
The plasma ignoramuses don't understand plasma physics


Like you, who doesn't understand plasma physics either. You fraud.
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (13) Mar 02, 2019
Watching @Benni prove it's been trolling for years.

Classic stuff. Comedy gold.

Seen any gravities today, @Benni?
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.3 / 5 (12) Mar 02, 2019
@Benni's multimeter is showing...


Don't mind the anti-scientists - which these never-try-to-learn-something-but-perhaps-post-irrelevant-texts-and-ideas trolls effectively are - they would not observe an observation (experiment) even if stood next to it.

It is trivially boring trying to explain basic science - such as observation - and basic accepted results such as black holes, and RTFA - over and over when such help is also not accepted.

Which no doubt is the goal, get a reaction and steer people away from those that are curious about science and the world. The internet has its problems ... as do the crackpots. But at least we are here for the laughs!
Benni
1.5 / 5 (17) Mar 02, 2019
Calm down, @ag - @DS is a trained scientist commenting on a new scientific discovery in a forum dedicated to science.
........really? In what?

He has trouble comprehending that the lifetime Beta Decay Rate of a neutron is 14.7 minutes, or that there is an electron shell of orbital electrons that gain & lose energy in accordance with the Pauli Exclusion Principle in making transitions within the orbital shell structure of an atom.......and to top it off these days, he's been trying to advance 19th Century Black Hole math as HIS foundational structure for BHs as it was advanced back in the days by the same Cosmologists who were pushing AETHER THEORY.

If you have a problem with that, you're probably in the wrong place.
.......No, you & schneibo belong on a Trekkie site where all your Pop-Cosmology fantasies are realized.

Hey, I'll betcha schneibo sells BH meters & you've bought one.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (10) Mar 02, 2019
LOL

@Benni lies some more. You have no idea what half-life means, @Benni, and no idea what an orbital is. This has already been established.
Benni
1.5 / 5 (16) Mar 02, 2019
Watching @Benni prove it's been trolling for years.

Classic stuff. Comedy gold.

Seen any gravities today, @Benni?
........has your BH meter measured any BHs today schneibo? My gravimeter works just fine.......at least it's REAL, that's more than you can say for your 19th Century Pop-Cosmology concept as YOUR evidence that BHs exist.

Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 02, 2019
The evidence for black holes is just as good as the evidence you'll go splat if you jump out a tenth story window.

Meanwhile, care to tell us how a shape that looks like a bunch of flower petals is "farther out" than one that looks like a bunch of nested toruses?

And you didn't answer my question, @Benni: seen any gravities today?

Oh, and BTW you just undercut your butt buddy from the Russian troll farm. I got a time meter. I guess that's as good as your gravity meter. Most people call it a clock.

Caper, troll. Amuse us.
observicist
3.7 / 5 (15) Mar 02, 2019

Tell me, then, why they think it's there if they didn't measure its influence, just like you measure gravity's influence?
.......then tell us about the device you used sitting next to a BH with your BH meter in hand & measured it as can be done with a gravimeter? Probably think it's a trick question don't you?

So tell us all about how INFERRED BHs are measured.


It's called a telescope, @Benni. You look at what everything around it is doing.

That should be simple enough for you to understand. If not, I can't help you.
SkyLight
3.7 / 5 (12) Mar 02, 2019
...he has trouble comprehending that the lifetime Beta Decay Rate of a neutron is 14.7 minutes
Poor @Benni, it pains me to say that you are so congenitally retarded that you very evidently do not have the ability to learn what kids in high school easily learn about half-lives, and the probability that a certain free neutron will decay in time t. High school stuff, standard physics, and you flunk out every time.
there is an electron shell of orbital electrons
This is the kind of thing that 11-year-olds are taught in a first primer on atomic structure. Later, they will go on to learn that there are no shells, but rather 3-D regions with complicated shapes surrounding the nucleus, and which describe the probability of finding an electron with a certain energy. Shells went out with the Bohr atom,@Benni, a hundred years ago and counting. But I'm betting your RadioShack multimeter probably doesn't have a setting for that.
rrwillsj
2.3 / 5 (9) Mar 02, 2019
benni doesn't have any time to spare doing his schoolwork & learning the science of half-life.

He's too busy sucking on a bong, playing the game!

Well, at least that's an honest appraisal of his learning potential.
Benni
1.7 / 5 (12) Mar 02, 2019
It's called a telescope, @Benni. You look at what everything around it is doing.

That should be simple enough for you to understand. If not, I can't help you.
.....then take a pic of one & link us to where we can see it.

This is the kind of thing that 11-year-olds are taught in a first primer on atomic structure.
......did you skip being 11 yo or the first primer? You don't know Beta Decay is not measured in units of half-life, nor does schneibo, or rw.

benni doesn't have any time to spare doing his schoolwork & learning the science of half-life.

He's too busy sucking on a bong, playing the game
......then you can be the one tell us?

Tuxford
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 02, 2019
Okay Tux. I usually wouldn't bother with any more effort than ridiculing your woomongering.
However "LaViolette's SQK" has me monkey curious.

So give us a clue. What is the link to a peer reviewed publication of this mysterious ?LaViolette's SQK?

What? Need to scratch an itch in the brain? Try through the nose!

Find his list here:

https://starburst...archive/

Including references to:

https://starburst...leon.pdf

https://www.starb...enic.pdf

https://www.tandf...#preview

https://www.tandf...#preview

https://www.tandf...#preview

SkyLight
3.5 / 5 (13) Mar 02, 2019
You don't know Beta Decay is not measured in units of half-life
"An example of electron emission (β− decay) is the decay of carbon-14 into nitrogen-14 with a half-life of about 5,730 years", and "An example of positron emission (β+ decay) is the decay of magnesium-23 into sodium-23 with a half-life of about 11.3 s." (both Wiki)

Beta-decay half-lives for the r-process nuclei - https://www.scien...15002833

β-decay half-lives of neutron-rich nuclei and matter flow in the r-process - https://www.scien...13003377

Calculations of the β-decay half-lives of neutron-deficient nuclei - https://iopscienc...5/054103

94 β-Decay Half-Lives of Neutron-Rich _{55}Cs to _{67}Ho: Experimental Feedback and Evaluation...etc. - https://www.ncbi....28256889

Looks like Benni's favourite search engine needs an oil check.
observicist
3.4 / 5 (15) Mar 02, 2019
@Benni,

I do wish you would learn to read.

I didn't say we could see the black hole. I said we could use telescopes to see what was going on around it an infer a black hole, thereby. Just like you can infer the existence of gravity by dropping something heavy on your foot.

I'm not going to do for you what you can do for yourself, but I'll give you a hint. Look up Sagittarius A*. Somewhere you'll find information about stars whipping around something very small, yet extremely massive -- millions of stellar masses kind of massive. The only thing that can possibly be is a black hole, unless you wish to invoke magic (which wouldn't surprise me in the least, because you won't believe evidence). There is as much evidence for neutron stars and black holes as there is for gravity. Why do you doubt the first two yet not the third?

You're still wrong about neutron decay.

You know nothing, and I am weary of you.
Benni
1.6 / 5 (13) Mar 02, 2019
the decay of carbon-14 into nitrogen-14 with a half-life of about 5,730 years", and "An example of positron emission (β+ decay) is the decay of magnesium-23 into sodium-23 with a half-life of about 11.3 s."


You just quoted an example of GAMMA RADIATION DECAY, this is not NEUTRON BETA PARTICLE DECAY.

Your problem lies in fundamental knowledge of knowing the difference between the half-life decay rate of elements (atoms) that are radio-isotopes.

A neutron is NOT an ATOM that forms a radio-isotope, it is a sub-atomic PARTICLE with it's own specific decay rate which is 14.7 minutes, it's in Wiki, go look it up.
Benni
1.6 / 5 (13) Mar 02, 2019
There is as much evidence for neutron stars and black holes as there is for gravity.
......oh really? I presume then that you have a BH meter, or a Neutron Star meter by which we can measure these things like we do with a Gravimeter for measuring gravity?

Pop-Cosmology psycho-babble is having yet another bad day here.
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 02, 2019
@Benni

@observicist to @Benni:
I didn't say we could see the black hole. I said we could use telescopes to see what was going on around it an infer a black hole, thereby. Just like you can infer the existence of gravity by dropping..
@Benni to @observicist:
I presume then that you have a BH meter, or a Neutron Star meter by which we can measure these things like we do with a Gravimeter for measuring gravity?

@Benni, both telescope and gravimeter are 'measuring devices'. One (gravimeter) is 'in situ immersed' in (eg, Earth's) local gravitational field and 'tells' the strength/variations of the gravitational effect on gravimeter's components/processes.

Whereas the other (telescope) is a 'remotely located' device, for 'telling' (via optical tracking/analysis of the components/processes of target system, ie, stars closely orbiting BH) the local (there) strength/variations of gravitational effects at/within BH location/system (think: 'theodolite').

Cheers. :)
humy
4.1 / 5 (9) Mar 02, 2019
They've been looking for intermediate mass black holes for a while. This is quite a find.

Chalk up another big find for ALMA!

Stop lying da schnied, they said "may" have found via indirect means.
cantdrive85

No, they didn't say "may". And you accuse HIM of lying?
They ACTUALLY said;
"Astronomers HAVE detected a stealthy black hole from its effects on an interstellar gas cloud. " (my emphasis)
"have" doesn't mean "may".

RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (9) Mar 02, 2019
@SkyLight.
@DS is a trained scientist....
Not so, mate; @DS himself has on more than one occasion admitted he is not a scientist.

Just an FYI to help avoid misunderstandings on that score in further exchanges between the interlocutors in question. :)
humy
4.2 / 5 (10) Mar 02, 2019
.......Yep, to quote the article: "Because black holes do not emit light, astronomers must infer their existence.....", schneibo should look up the definition of "infer", guess he missed that part.
Benni

"infer" does NOT mean "may", moron.

If he did look up the definition of "infer", he will see it does NOT mean "may" and he will also have conformation that you are a moron.

Infer means deduce or conclude (something) from evidence and reasoning rather than from explicit statements. -where is the word "may" implied there?
Try learning ENGLISH.
cantdrive85
2.2 / 5 (10) Mar 02, 2019
So propose something that can make the gas do exactly that which doesn't involve GRT. And it ain't the EU.

It is two interacting Birkeland currents, they will "orbit" around one another in just the observed fashion. No invisible gravity monsters needed.
Benni
1.6 / 5 (13) Mar 02, 2019
"infer" does NOT mean "may", moron.
......the "moron" is you looking in a mirror, here's what I wrote:

".......Yep, to quote the article: "Because black holes do not emit light, astronomers must infer their existence.....", schneibo should look up the definition of "infer", guess he missed that part."

.......I don't see "may" in there anywhere, just more Pop Cosmology delusion on your part.

Hey, ever seen a Differential Equation you could solve?
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 02, 2019
@cantdrive85.

@Da Schneib to @cantdrive85:
So propose something that can make the gas do exactly that which doesn't involve GRT. And it ain't the EU.

@cantdrive85 to @Da Schneib:
It is two interacting Birkeland currents, they will "orbit" around one another in just the observed fashion. No invisible gravity monsters needed.
If that is as you claim, @cd, the obvious question needing answering is: "How long would such a system in 'free space' (ie, not part of any containment system involving solid materials/structures to maintain the morphology/dynamics of the current-flow 'structure) remain stable before exploding"; and why, what physical processes/features would/could be responsible for keeping your claimed "Birkeland currents" feature stable for as long as a (so-labeled) BH feature?

Have you the answers, @cd? If so, please post them for us all to know. Thanks. :)
rrwillsj
2.5 / 5 (8) Mar 02, 2019
Well tux my boy, you've managed to live down to your lack of reputable sources.

Taylor & Francis are a notorious purveyor of pay to print gibberish.
Not only do they target the wooloon market but are themselves regular consumers of deliberate hoaxes.

Hilarious that you claim Starburst Magazine, a British science fiction magazine, as a source for your scientific knowledge.

Your ignorance of peer review of empirical evidence utilizing the Scientific Method?
Is as wretchedly sour as the alleged candy.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.7 / 5 (12) Mar 02, 2019
says observatrist
@Benni,

I didn't say we could see the black hole. I said we could use telescopes to see what was going on around it an infer a black hole, thereby...

..Look up Sagittarius A*. Somewhere you'll find information about stars whipping around something very small, yet extremely massive -- millions of stellar masses kind of massive. The only thing that can possibly be is a black hole,
says observicist

"Detailed kinematic analyses revealed that an enormous mass, 30,000 times that of the sun, was concentrated in a region much smaller than our solar system. This and the lack of any observed object at that location strongly suggests an intermediate-mass black hole. By analyzing other anomalous clouds, we hope to expose other quiet black holes."

In the case of THIS 'object', there is a lack of 'observed objects' AT THAT LOCATION. Therefor, they had to come up with an explanation for it - resulting in guesswork of an unobserved "intermediate-mass BH"
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.7 / 5 (12) Mar 02, 2019
-contd-
@observerist
In effect, this object that can't be observed directly, and with no available direct effect on any objects due to the lack of any other objects in its vicinity, just HAS TO MEAN that a Black Hole lingers there within a CLOUD, the BH being of intermediate size at a certain distance from the alleged BH at the centre of Sgr A. These astronomers refuse to consider the possibility that this "mass" could be something else, rather than their beloved Black Hole of intermediate size.

"Because black holes do not emit light, astronomers must infer their existence from the effects of their gravity on other objects."

But lo and behold, there are no objects around it for its "gravity" to have any effect on. And yet, the science is settled - in spite of not enough evidence to prove it.

"Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence" - Carl Sagan
Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 02, 2019
Watching @Benni prove it's been trolling for years.

Classic stuff. Comedy gold.

Seen any gravities today, @Benni?
........has your BH meter measured any BHs today schneibo? My gravimeter works just fine.......at least it's REAL, that's more than you can say for your 19th Century Pop-Cosmology concept as YOUR evidence that BHs exist.

Your gravimeter doesn't measure gravity directly - it measures gravity's effect...
cantdrive85
2.2 / 5 (10) Mar 02, 2019
"Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence" - Carl Sagan

No, ordinary evidence is just fine.
observicist
3.2 / 5 (13) Mar 02, 2019
@SEU,


@observerist
"Because black holes do not emit light, astronomers must infer their existence from the effects of their gravity on other objects."


But lo and behold, there are no objects around it for its "gravity" to have any effect on. And yet, the science is settled - in spite of not enough evidence to prove it.

"Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence" - Carl Sagan


Except for a bunch of stars whipping around Sag A* at orbital velocities with eccentricities that speak of a very small several-million stellar mass something, and the only thing it can be is a black hole. It's not an overweight unicorn.

People who do not accept that evidence are totally uneducated to the point that their opinions are worthless. There are decades of education behind my opinion; there's no education behind yours. This is not an extraordinary claim.

Ask the star being for which you're the host, but don't listen too much to what it says.
Benni
1.6 / 5 (13) Mar 02, 2019
These astronomers refuse to consider the possibility that this "mass" could be something else, rather than their beloved Black Hole of intermediate size.
......it's pretty dusty in that part of the galaxy they tell us. So I would imagine 30k stars, smaller even than that so-called 4 million mass BH, could just as easily make up the difference.

Benni
1.6 / 5 (13) Mar 02, 2019
Your gravimeter doesn't measure gravity directly - it measures gravity's effect...


You don't know my gravimeter.
cantdrive85
2.2 / 5 (10) Mar 02, 2019
"How long would such a system in 'free space' (ie, not part of any containment system involving solid materials/structures to maintain the morphology/dynamics of the current-flow 'structure) remain stable before exploding

You are unaware of the properties of plasmas? I thought you considered ALL conditions/dynamics/physics RELEVANT to the properties of the systems in question. Ruh rho, when you get up to speed on plasmas it might require an edit to your BigTOE.
observicist
3.4 / 5 (15) Mar 02, 2019
@Benni,

We know how gravimeters work. So, we know your gravimeter. Unless you've been given one by your very own star being.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.7 / 5 (12) Mar 02, 2019
To all those of you who have accused Benni of saying "may" rather than "inferred" - the following bears the Truth:
"cantdrive85

2.2 / 5 (10)
Mar 01, 2019
They've been looking for intermediate mass black holes for a while. This is quite a find.
Chalk up another big find for ALMA!
Stop lying da schnied, they said "may" have found via indirect means."
====
That was CD85 who said it.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.7 / 5 (12) Mar 02, 2019
-contd-
Benni actually said:

Benni

1.9 / 5 (13)
Mar 01, 2019
They've been looking for intermediate mass black holes for a while. This is quite a find.
Chalk up another big find for ALMA!
Stop lying da schnied, they said "may" have found via indirect means.
.......Yep, to quote the article: "Because black holes do not emit light, astronomers must infer their existence.....", schneibo should look up the definition of "infer", guess he missed that part.

Benni used "iNFERRED", not "may".
Kindly get your facts straight before making accusations. Try not to imitate the liar, Da Scheide, who goes into physorg phorums for the purpose of attacking, misrepresenting and lying.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.7 / 5 (12) Mar 02, 2019
@SEU,


@observerist
"Because black holes do not emit light, astronomers must infer their existence from the effects of their gravity on other objects."


But lo and behold, there are no objects around it for its "gravity" to have any effect on. And yet, the science is settled - in spite of not enough evidence to prove it.

"Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence" - Carl Sagan


-contd-
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.7 / 5 (12) Mar 02, 2019
-contd-

Except for a bunch of stars whipping around Sag A* at orbital velocities with eccentricities that speak of a very small several-million stellar mass something, and the only thing it can be is a black hole. It's not an overweight unicorn.

People who do not accept that evidence are totally uneducated to the point that their opinions are worthless. There are decades of education behind my opinion; there's no education behind yours. This is not an extraordinary claim.

Ask the star being for which you're the host, but don't listen too much to what it says.

says observarest

Perhaps you fell asleep and are not aware that the topic of the article and this phorum is the "mass" within the interstellar Cloud (with no visible objects in its vicinity) that is being referred to as "an intermediate Black Hole", that happens to be at quite a distance from the alleged BH that is claimed to be at Sgr A.
The "mass" is yet to be confirmed as a BH of said size/mass.
Castrogiovanni
2.8 / 5 (16) Mar 02, 2019
-contd-

The "mass" is yet to be confirmed as a BH of said size/mass.


Sorry? Show me your credentisls, otherwise be quiet, because you haven't a clue what you are talking about. You appear to be a loony, who doesn't undersdand any science. Just like this idiot Benni that keeps posting. Please post links to your paspers. I will destroy them.
observicist
3.3 / 5 (14) Mar 02, 2019
@SEU,

Sometimes discussion of black holes in general seems advisable, as some who post here don't seem to believe they exist at all.

I am well aware of the topic. I'm also well aware you have no scientific credibility, whatsoever. You've admitted that.

Yes, everything in the article is "may" -- but the evidence is pretty strong, and not to be tossed away as meaningless. "May" is a good thing.

Scientists generally don't publish unless they have most, if not all, their facts and observations lined up. I never once published anything that turned out to be wrong. Often others added stuff I hadn't discovered or realized -- which pleased me no end, as it meant I published on a good topic. Sometimes I was able to put the proof on something. Any paper that generates interest, discussion, and research by others is a good paper.

I'm betting they're right.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.8 / 5 (10) Mar 02, 2019
-contd-

The "mass" is yet to be confirmed as a BH of said size/mass.


Sorry? Show me your credentisls, otherwise be quiet, because you haven't a clue what you are talking about. You appear to be a loony, who doesn't undersdand any science. Just like this idiot Benni that keeps posting. Please post links to your paspers. I will destroy them.


LOL Sure, it's right there in the DOI at the bottom of the article

https://iopscienc...b07/meta
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.8 / 5 (10) Mar 02, 2019
All they have is "circumstantial evidence", as it says in the DOI

"Abstract
We report the discovery of molecular gas streams orbiting around an invisible massive object in the central region of our Galaxy, based on the high-resolution molecular line observations with the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array. The morphology and kinematics of these streams can be reproduced well through two Keplerian orbits around a single point mass of (3.2 ± 0.6) × 104 M ⊙. We also found ionized gas toward the inner part of the orbiting gas, indicating dissociative shock and/or photoionization. Our results provide new circumstantial evidences for a wandering intermediate-mass black hole in the Galactic center, suggesting also that high-velocity compact clouds can be probes of quiescent black holes that abound in our Galaxy."

Circumstantial evidence would not hold up in a Court of Law. Neither will it hold up in Astronomy until the evidence is 100% that the "mass" is an "inter BH
antigoracle
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 02, 2019
Now for some real science.
https://www.youtu...6GTY9eVc
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.8 / 5 (10) Mar 02, 2019
@SEU,

Sometimes discussion of black holes in general seems advisable, as some who post here don't seem to believe they exist at all.

I am well aware of the topic. I'm also well aware you have no scientific credibility, whatsoever. You've admitted that.

Yes, everything in the article is "may" -- but the evidence is pretty strong, and not to be tossed away as meaningless. "May" is a good thing.

Scientists generally don't publish unless they have most, if not all, their facts and observations lined up.

I'm betting they're right.
says observatory

Well, good for you.
But as the evidence isn't forthcoming at this time, I prefer to wait until they have come up with something that's tangible and observable. I am not into faerie dust and unicorn farts, as you and some others seem to be. I want proof; I want full evidence; otherwise there is nothing to accept/believe.
I am here to FALSIFY SCIENCE, and to get at the whole Truth and nothing but the whole Truth.
Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 02, 2019
All they have is "circumstantial evidence", as it says in the DOI
...
Circumstantial evidence would not hold up in a Court of Law.

That depends on the "circumstances" …

I am here to FALSIFY SCIENCE, and to get at the whole Truth and nothing but the whole Truth.

And... what if Science is TELLING you the truth?
You don't falsify science by just denying it...
observicist
3 / 5 (12) Mar 02, 2019
@SEU,

Circumstantial evidence has been used successfully to convict people of first degree premeditated murder, which, in the US, frequently results in a needle in one's arm that is removed only when the punctured one is dead.

You can't falsify science; I doubt you can falsify your tax return.

You have no scientific competence.

You wouldn't know scientific truth if it hit you over the head hard enough to crack your skull, which is probably of double thickness.

You can't understand scientific truth.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.8 / 5 (10) Mar 02, 2019
Now for some real science.
https://www.youtu...6GTY9eVc
from antigoracle

Funny video, gor. thanks. I'll pass it on
rrwillsj
2 / 5 (8) Mar 02, 2019
benniflunker, auntieoral & sillyegghead.

A menagerie du triage in the primate cage at the looneytunes zoo.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.9 / 5 (9) Mar 02, 2019
@SEU,

Circumstantial evidence has been used successfully to convict people of first degree premeditated murder, which, in the US, frequently results in a needle in one's arm that is removed only when the punctured one is dead.

You can't falsify science; I doubt you can falsify your tax return.

You have no scientific competence.

You wouldn't know scientific truth if it hit you over the head hard enough to crack your skull, which is probably.

You can't understand scien.


You have no idea how much competency I have in science. You are only conjecturing as to who I am and the level of my skills/knowledge. You are too full of yourself and by your words, you prove that you are egotistical and crave as much attention as does Da Schnitzophrenic. Two peas in a pod, you are. This site lures many weirdos into the comments, and you appear to be just as weird and moronic as any or all of them. As you age further, perhaps you will learn humility and modesty, but I doubt it
Benni
1.7 / 5 (11) Mar 02, 2019
Sorry? Show me your credentisls, otherwise be quiet, because you haven't a clue what you are talking about. You appear to be a loony, who doesn't undersdand any science. Just like this idiot Benni that keeps posting. Please post links to your paspers. I will destroy them.


Follow your own advice, Show me your credentials (at least I spelled the word correctly), otherwise be quiet. Oh, we get it being quiet is for other people who make cogent arguments against the fantasies of Pop-Cosmology psycho-babble, & because you can't compete in the same realm of intellectual thought, out comes the SHUTUP demand.

I want Comments like yours never to cease, bouncing off your insensible pseudo-science narratives is a form of entertainment I can't get anywhere else, the reason being that you wouldn't be allowed to post your kinds of Comments anywhere else, so I need to come here.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.9 / 5 (9) Mar 02, 2019
https://en.wikipe...evidence

Circumstantial evidence as evidence for a Black Hole is merely an inference that is of no real value. The "mass" that is being referred to as an intermediate Black Hole is only ASSUMED TO BE THAT. The DOI clearly states that it is still only an assumption, and a search for more of such "objects" must be done.
It is most likely a gas/dust cloud that is in the process of accretion in its most early stage.
Benni
1.7 / 5 (11) Mar 02, 2019
And... what if Science is TELLING you the truth?
You don't falsify science by just denying it...
..........that wasn't what he said:

I want full evidence; otherwise there is nothing to accept/believe.
I am here to FALSIFY SCIENCE
.....he didn't say he was here to FALSIFY SCIENCE, he was pointing to those who would twist his words to say that he was here falsifying science.

Just like you bend metal with that blowtorch of yours in your artworks studio, you also try to bend other people's words to make them look just as low in cogent thought as you are.

Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.8 / 5 (10) Mar 02, 2019
@Benni
This "Castrogiovanni" person is obviously a sock belonging to Da Scheide or one of its nasty cohorts to impersonate a newbie who has just joined physorg - according to its profile. It has commented in only 2 phorums so far.
Captain Beelzebub and company cannot stand any opposing views against anything about Black Holes and Dark Matter/Dark Energy. Those 3 topics are sacred to them and any opposition to them will be summarily hounded.
AGW is also dear to their hearts.
Benni
1.7 / 5 (11) Mar 02, 2019
Captain Beelzebub and company cannot stand any opposing views against anything about Black Holes and Dark Matter/Dark Energy. Those 3 topics are sacred to them and any opposition to them will be summarily hounded.


That's for sure, it's their 3 Holy Grails, without which they would have no reason for being in this chatroom.

AGW is also dear to their hearts.
.......anything that can't be quantified is dear & precious to them, & the darker the better. I've read a little about the occult, black & dark are their two favorite words, religious nutcases that they are.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.8 / 5 (10) Mar 02, 2019
To falsify science doesn't mean to try to eliminate science. It means to demand the Truth be in the Scientific Method and the conclusions which follow the research. I require complete Honesty and Relevancy before I'm prepared to believe that the science methods and their results are sound.
Anyone in the scientific community can come up with an idea; give it some tests, and declare that they have found something extraordinary. Without honest evidence, it's only an assumption at best; and fake at worst.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.8 / 5 (10) Mar 02, 2019
And... what if Science is TELLING you the truth?
You don't falsify science by just denying it...
..........that wasn't what he said:

I want full evidence; otherwise there is nothing to accept/believe.
I am here to FALSIFY SCIENCE
.....he didn't say he was here to FALSIFY SCIENCE, he was pointing to those who would twist his words to say that he was here falsifying science.

Just like you bend metal with that blowtorch of yours in your artworks studio, you also try to bend other people's words to make them look just as low in cogent thought

says Benni

There were certain commenters who gave so much of their personal and public info (especially their business info) to Captain S that they were obligated to CS to not do or say anything that could bring ruin to them. In return, such people would be rated "5" as long as they complied with what CS and the "club members" were adhering to, such as DM, BHs, and AGW. Otherwise, they could face ruin
observicist
3.3 / 5 (14) Mar 02, 2019
@SEU,

You, yourself, have stated you know nothing about mathematics. Knowing nothing about mathematics means you know nothing about science, as mathematics is the language of science.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.9 / 5 (9) Mar 02, 2019
-contd-
@Benni
These humans, who had come to physorg to offer their comments/opinions on the articles, began to enthusiastically provide much of their personal and business information to CS and, thinking that they were forming possible friendships in the phorums with Beelzebub, eventually found that they were being threatened with exposition of their information. The fact that anyone can come into the site and read all of the comments make it extremely important to realise that, with the info that CS & company could reveal to unsavory characters, that those who were so free with their info would be very much AT RISK of physical and economic harm. So they complied with what was required of them. Some of them have gone and no longer are seen commenting. Others are still commenting.
There is something else involved, but I will not reveal it as yet.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.9 / 5 (9) Mar 02, 2019
@SEU,

You, yourself, have stated you know nothing about mathematics. Knowing nothing about mathematics means you know nothing about science, as mathematics is the language of science.
says observatory

I have admitted that I am but a mere scholar and an interested observer. I have never said that I don't know mathematics. Please show me in which link I said it.
It is not my duty to prove my proficiency in math, or in any other discipline in these phorums. All that you need to know about me, I have mentioned already, including that I am a Creationist. Some Creationists believe in a young Earth because they have been misdirected into it. I have seen evidence of an ancient Earth, and that suits me just fine.
Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (8) Mar 02, 2019
There is as much evidence for neutron stars and black holes as there is for gravity.
......oh really? I presume then that you have a BH meter, or a Neutron Star meter by which we can measure these things like we do with a Gravimeter for measuring gravity?
Yep, sure do. Accretion disks, X-rays, radio waves, light, and infrared all measure gravity. So do the orbits of normal stars (i.e. main sequence stars) and neutron stars. They measure it by their behavior, just as instrumentation devised by people does. If gravity is real then so are neutron stars and black holes. Are you now going to reverse course and say measurement doesn't mean anything?

Love getting these trolls to tangle their feet up and do faceplants.
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (8) Mar 02, 2019
@cantdrive85.
How long would such a system in 'free space' (ie, not part of any containment system involving solid materials/structures to maintain the morphology/dynamics of the current-flow 'structure) remain stable before exploding
You are unaware of the properties of plasmas? I thought you considered ALL conditions/dynamics/physics RELEVANT to the properties of the systems in question. ...when you get up to speed on plasmas it might require an edit to your BigTOE.
Come, mate, don't start making evasive/insulting posts in the vein of DS when faced with a poster who actually KNOWS the science (as I already well proved in many exchanges with DS etc to which you were also witness). So it's beneath you now to pretend I do not know the relevant science (like DS has done all too many times with me, to his reputational cost, such as it was to begin with). The fact I do know, is why I asked you the question(s). Are you going to answer; or will you 'do-a-DS' again? :)
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 03, 2019
I got this thing called a "chrono-meter." It measures time. Most people call it a clock.

If I can measure it, according to @Benni, then I am not inferring it.

Guess time actually exists and isn't "a product of the human mind."

We done here, or would you trolls like to tangle your feet some more?
Whydening Gyre
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 03, 2019
And... what if Science is TELLING you the truth?
You don't falsify science by just denying it...
..........that wasn't what he said:

I want full evidence; otherwise there is nothing to accept/believe.
I am here to FALSIFY SCIENCE
.....he didn't say he was here to FALSIFY SCIENCE, he was pointing to those who would twist his words to say that he was here falsifying science.

Just like you bend metal with that blowtorch of yours in your artworks studio, you also try to bend other people's words to make them look just as low in cogent thought as you are.

Since I quoted from his comment just previous to mine, It was most definitely what he said.

Whydening Gyre
4.1 / 5 (9) Mar 03, 2019
For Benni and SEU.
The "club" downvotes boastful arrogance and pomposity...
It ain't what you say, it's how you say it.
Or maybe it's ME that has something on all those "club" members so that they give me a 5...
(Except for TBGL and DS... They downvote me on occasion, too..)

SkyLight
2.8 / 5 (9) Mar 03, 2019
So, guys, a couple of points need clearing up. Firstly, none of the scientific clowns and loons here - y'all know who you are - have the slightest effect on the current theories, conduct and progress of science. You're like rocks in the path of the scientific stream - there's a lot of commotion and chatter as science rolls over you, and then it continues along in its' path undisturbed and unabated. How does it feel to be so ineffectual?

Secondly, chronometers do not measure time (pace @DS), they're devices containing very stable oscillators which are so constructed and tuned that they almost perfectly mimic what we call the passage of time down here on the surface of Earth.

Thirdly, gravimeters do not measure gravity, they measure accelerations or displacements of test masses (or the current required to hold a spherical mass at a given point in a magnetic field) due to gravitational acceleration.

Neither time nor gravity can be directly measured.
SkyLight
3 / 5 (10) Mar 03, 2019
@Benni
You just quoted an example of GAMMA RADIATION DECAY
For your edification @Benni (and boy, do you ever need it), here are the two quotes again:

1) An example of electron emission (β− decay) is the decay of carbon-14 into nitrogen-14 with a half-life of about 5,730 years:

(14, 6)C → (14, 7)N + e− + ν(e) = BETA MINUS DECAY, with emission of an electron and an electron neutrino.

2) An example of positron emission (β+ decay) is the decay of magnesium-23 into sodium-23 with a half-life of about 11.3 s:

(23, 12)Mg → (23, 11)Na + e+ + ν(e) = BETA PLUS DECAY, with emission of a positron and an electron neutrino.

No gamma radiation emitted, Benni. Not gamma radiation decay. Beta decay: B, E, T, A, BETA decay.

Not gamma radiation decay.

Beta decay.

Got that now?

Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 03, 2019
@Sky, you are of course correct.

Except one thing: time doesn't "pass." Mass moves in time. That's what Einstein told us. We, being made of mass, can measure this movement, by various means.
SkyLight
3.2 / 5 (9) Mar 03, 2019
Except one thing: time doesn't "pass"
- correct! We "pass" in spacetime. I simply said "what we call the passage of time" 'cos that's what most folks would think or say.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Mar 03, 2019
And to my mind, it's no more unreasonable that matter should spontaneously move in time than that light should spontaneously move in space. And they do.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.9 / 5 (9) Mar 03, 2019
And... what if Science is TELLING you the truth?
You don't falsify science by just denying it...
..........that wasn't what he said:

I want full evidence; otherwise there is nothing to accept/believe.
I am here to FALSIFY SCIENCE
.....he didn't say he was here to FALSIFY SCIENCE, he was pointing to those who would twist his words to say that he was here falsifying science.

Just like you bend metal... you also try to bend other people's words to make them look just as low in cogent thought as you are.

Since I quoted from his comment just previous to mine, It was most definitely what he said.

says Whyde

Of course I said that I'm here to falsify science - as defined by Wiki - to wit:
"falsify | ˈfôlsəˌfī |
verb (falsifies, falsifying, falsified) [with object]

2 prove (a statement or theory) to be false: the hypothesis is falsified by the evidence."

I should have said that I'm here to falsify INCORRECT science
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 03, 2019
Only problem is you haven't falsified anything yet.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.9 / 5 (9) Mar 03, 2019
Except one thing: time doesn't "pass"
- correct! We "pass" in spacetime. I simply said "what we call the passage of time" 'cos that's what most folks would think or say.

says Skylight

There is no such thing as "Spacetime". Einstein was wrong in equating time with Space as though the 2 are equal/same. As Benni mentioned, Minkowski talked Einstein into including "time" in his "Spacetime", postulating that Space and Time were inseparable - which they are not. One is real and the other isn't. Time is not a dimension and is nothing but a concept/product of the human mind that was translated into the building of clocks.
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 03, 2019
I will refer you to the 1905 Einstein paper in which the time transform appears first in section 3. This is the key idea in the paper.

Do you need the link?
SkyLight
3.2 / 5 (11) Mar 03, 2019
I should have said that I'm here to falsify INCORRECT science
Since your many posts in this "chatroom" (as @Benni calls this science forum) make abundantly clear, you are evidently untrained in science, and hence unqualified to falsify any kind of science, "correct" or not.

Or perhaps you are in possession of a "science correctness meter"? Or maybe you're in regular contact with your "Creator" who gives you the low-down on the "correctness" of this or that scientific theory?

In any case, and completely independent of ragged-trousered observers like yourself, science itself continually seeks to disprove its' own hypotheses and theories by conducting experiments. Any time observed behavior contradicts theoretical prediction, alarm bells will ring.

But knock yourself out @SEU - we need a few laughs around here from time to time.
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 03, 2019
This fable about Minkowski influencing Einstein before the 1905 paper is easily quashed by noting that Minkowski's paper didn't appear until 1908.

Just sayin'.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.9 / 5 (9) Mar 03, 2019
-contd-
Dark Matter/Dark Energy = have yet to be proven
Black Holes = still theory
Time = intangible - no effect on Matter/Energy. Time is only the title/name of an insubstantial and imaginary 'qualifier' that is used to describe the passage and duration/length of Events through Space
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 03, 2019
How long you gonna keep denying Einstein? You got something better? SRT seems to work fine.

Just askin'.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.8 / 5 (10) Mar 03, 2019
I should have said that I'm here to falsify INCORRECT science
Since your many posts in this "chatroom" (as @Benni calls this science forum) make abundantly clear, you are evidently untrained in science, and hence unqualified to falsify any kind of science, "correct" or not.

Or perhaps you are in possession of a "science correctness meter"? Or maybe you're in regular contact with your "Creator" who gives you the low-down on the "correctness" of this or that scientific theory?

In any case, and completely independent of ragged-trousered observers like yourself, science itself continually seeks to disprove its' own hypotheses and theories by conducting experiments. Any time observed behavior contradicts theoretical prediction, alarm bells will ring.

But knock yourself out @SEU - we need a few laughs around here from time to time.
You seem to be saying that only scientists/researchers have the right to comment in these phorums. Are you now the dictator here?
LOL
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.9 / 5 (9) Mar 03, 2019
This fable about Minkowski influencing Einstein before the 1905 paper is easily quashed by noting that Minkowski's paper didn't appear until 1908.

Just sayin'.
says the physorg village idiot

What Minkowski's paper are you talking about, FOOL? All references were about Einstein - not his peers.
SkyLight
3 / 5 (10) Mar 03, 2019
Minkowski talked Einstein into including "time" in his "Spacetime"
As if Minkowski had visited the deeply stupid Einstein and talked him into this! That's not what happened.

Both you and our resident buffoon @Benni could benefit from reading the history of the development of special relativity, paying particular attention to the timelines - i.e. WHEN certain developments took place. SR was first proposed in September 1905 by Einstein; in 1905-06 Henri Poincaré introduced the idea of time as an imaginary 4th spacetime coordinate (actually Lagrange in the 1700's and Riemann in 1854 also introduced/reworked these ideas; also Hamilton's quaternions of 1843 dealt with 4 dimensions).

Minkowski, in his 1908 paper on Space and Time - i.e. a couple of years AFTER Einstein had proposed SR - elaborated on these ideas to restate the Maxwell equations in four dimensions, showing directly their invariance under the Lorentz transformation.

@DS - read your post after this

[TBC]
granville583762
3.2 / 5 (9) Mar 03, 2019
The Day Of The Picci has arrived

Gone are the days of artiste's artistic imaginative simulations
It's amazing that everywhere they find a black hole, there's an artist's impression to show us what it looks like. I tried buying lunch with an artist's impression of a 20$ bill....no go.

In this month
this month, march on this day of our Lord is the day of the picci
the picci of a piccies
a picci so famouse
no explanation is required
as
this, this piccies name, The Picci
is
all that is required
to fully describe a humongous billion mass star
not
25,000Lys hence
so massive
it is totally invisible
except
the surrounding stellar mass stars
so
we have
THE PICCI - an artists simulation
https://3c1703fe8...ackh.jpg
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.9 / 5 (9) Mar 03, 2019
From Space.com
"n 1905, Albert Einstein determined that the laws of physics are the same for all non-accelerating observers, and that the speed of light in a vacuum was independent of the motion of all observers. This was the theory of special relativity. It introduced a new framework for all of physics and proposed new concepts of space and time.

Einstein then spent 10 years trying to include acceleration in the theory and published his theory of general relativity in 1915. In it, he determined that massive objects cause a distortion in space-time, which is felt as gravity."

Massive objects don't cause a distortion in Time - only in Space as gravity. He made an error by including time with Space. FALSIFIED
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (8) Mar 03, 2019
The Day Of The Picci has arrived

Gone are the days of artiste's artistic imaginative simulations
It's amazing that everywhere they find a black hole, there's an artist's impression to show us what it looks like. I tried buying lunch with an artist's impression of a 20$ bill....no go.

In this month
this month, march on this day of our Lord is the day of the picci
the picci of a piccies
a picci so famouse
no explanation is required
as
this, this piccies name, The Picci
is
all that is required
to fully describe a humongous billion mass star
not
25,000Lys hence
so massive
it is totally invisible
except
the surrounding stellar mass stars
so
we have
THE PICCI - an artists simulation
https://3c1703fe8...ackh.jpg
says granville

Disappointing, isn't it. The very same picci as the one in the article. LOL
Is that all there really is?
SkyLight
3.2 / 5 (11) Mar 03, 2019
[continued]

None of this history of who did what and when, nor indeed your flatulent comments, have any bearing on the spectacular success of Einstein's SR in explaining and/or predicting many phenomena - including length contraction, time dilation, relativistic mass, mass–energy equivalence, a universal speed limit and relativity of simultaneity - observed countless times every day.

Bashing Einstein is a popular sport amongst people singularly unqualified to do so and who, instead of getting down to the difficult and exacting process of actually learning science, and thereby becoming qualified to speak on such matters, seem quite content to stay blissfully ignorant of what science is, and of what makes science tick.

See what I did there?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.8 / 5 (10) Mar 03, 2019
Minkowski talked Einstein into including "time" in his "Spacetime"
As if Minkowski had visited the deeply stupid Einstein and talked him into this! That's not what happened.

Both you and our resident buffoon @Benni could benefit from reading the history of the development of special relativity, paying particular attention to the timelines - i.e. WHEN certain developments took place. SR was first proposed in September 1905 by Einstein; in 1905-06 Henri Poincaré introduced the idea of time as an imaginary 4th spacetime coordinate (actually Lagrange in the 1700's and Riemann in 1854 also introduced/reworked these ideas; also Hamilton's quaternions of 1843 dealt with 4 dimensions).


etc etc etc
And as I have already said many times - there is no time dimension. It doesn't exist. There is only the first 3 dimensions, and Space - no such thing as time involved.
Thanks for the information

SkyLight
3 / 5 (10) Mar 03, 2019
Oh good God above, can't you please inject some extra functioning brain-matter into @SEU's head???

The poor sap evidently believes that if he writes something, or says something - regardless of what that might be - it becomes objective fact. So, he opines
Massive objects don't cause a distortion in Time - only in Space as gravity. He made an error by including time with Space. FALSIFIED
without a shred of proof. In his world of biblical conjecture, that's AOK.

By that same token, I could posit some nonsensical notion that Einstein made a mistake when he came up with the mass-energy equivalence E=mc² : WRONG, I say! it should be E=Mc³ any fool can see that, Einstein was a complete idiot. NOW - observe how the entire body of post-1905 science is brought crashing to the ground by my utterances (Ozymandias, anybody?), and is replaced by Scientific Cubism? - NOT!

How can anybody BE so stupid as to engage in a fist-fight with a speeding locomotive?
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 03, 2019
@SRU, tell us where SRT is wrong. Not "there is no time dimension." But where the mathematical errors are.
SkyLight
3 / 5 (10) Mar 03, 2019
You seem to be saying that only scientists/researchers have the right to comment in these phorums
Not at all, all are welcome to comment here.

Just be aware that if anybody makes unscientific claims, they should be prepared to provide evidence and learned papers to back up their claims or - failing that - to be brought to task, invited to actually learn some science, and to be shot down in flames if they refuse to.

This isn't Disney World, sonny.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 03, 2019
And trolling to avoid admitting it after you're shot down in flames is dishonest and dishonorable. And you can expect after that to be viciously ridiculed at every turn.
Whydening Gyre
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 03, 2019
Man... don't you people ever sleep?
Benni
1.9 / 5 (9) Mar 03, 2019
Just be aware that if anybody makes unscientific claims, they should be prepared to provide evidence and learned papers to back up their claims or - failing that - to be brought to task, invited to actually learn some science, and to be shot down in flames if they refuse to.


> Skyhigh .........you mean like learning the difference between Beta Particle Decay & Gamma Radiation Decay when making mistakes like this:

"An example of electron emission (β− decay) is the decay of carbon-14 into nitrogen-14 with a half-life of about 5,730 years", and "An example of positron emission (β+ decay) is the decay of magnesium-23 into sodium-23 with a half-life of about 11.3 s"

.........you don't even know if what you put up in this quote is Gamma Radiation Decay or if it's Beta Particle Decay. Must have something to do with what YOU know about science & making "unscientific claims" that you infer upon others but for which you are among the most glaring examples.

Benni
1.9 / 5 (9) Mar 03, 2019
says Benni

There were certain commenters who gave so much of their personal and public info (especially their business info) to Captain S that they were obligated to CS to not do or say anything that could bring ruin to them. In return, such people would be rated "5" as long as they complied with what CS and the "club members" were adhering to, such as DM, BHs, and AGW. Otherwise, they could face ruin


..........don't I already know, I was appalled that the anti-alias guy came on here a couple years ago bragging about having sent his resume to Stumpo, Ira same thing. There are a couple others whose monikers I don't recall who were cloistering at a blog account that Stumpo set up for the express purpose of putting their tiny brains together solely for the purpose of creating counter Comments on Benni. Stumpo set that up about 4 years ago at a time when he was threatening me with bodily harm if I didn't cease my Comments.
Castrogiovanni
2.3 / 5 (12) Mar 03, 2019
@SEU,

And as I have already said many times - there is no time dimension. It doesn't exist. There is only the first 3 dimensions, and Space - no such thing as time involved.
Thanks for the information



You would appear to be a non-scientist, with no scientific knowledge or qualifications. Would you mind backing up your assertions with some references to the scientific literature, please? As per the comments guidelines;

Keep science: Include references to the published scientific literature to support your statements. Pseudoscience comments (including non-mainstream theories) will be deleted (see pseudoscience).
Benni
1.8 / 5 (10) Mar 03, 2019
Bashing Einstein is a popular sport amongst people singularly unqualified to do so and who, instead of getting down to the difficult and exacting process of actually learning science, and thereby becoming qualified to speak on such matters, seem quite content to stay blissfully ignorant of what science is, and of what makes science tick.


Sure Skyhigh, follow you're own advice with evaluating this:

Albert Einstein- Oct 1939
"On a Stationary System With Spherical Symmetry Consisting of Many Gravitating Masses"

The essential result of this investigation is a clear understanding as to why the "Schwarzschild singularities" do not exist in physical reality. The problem quite naturally leads to the question, answered by this paper in the negative, as to whether physical models are capable of exhibiting such a singularity.

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

Schneibo claims this paper is "erroneous".

Benni
1.9 / 5 (10) Mar 03, 2019
Einstein then spent 10 years trying to include acceleration in the theory and published his theory of general relativity in 1915. In it, he determined that massive objects cause a distortion in space-time, which is felt as gravity."

Massive objects don't cause a distortion in Time - only in Space as gravity. He made an error by including time with Space. FALSIFIED


Einstein did this at the behesting of his teacher Minkowski with whom he was competing at the time for the bragging rights to publishing a General Theory of Gravity.

Minkowski was a threatening presence causing Einstein to cave on definitions of words that were Minkowski's pet phrases just so Minkowski could have certain bragging rights to being the real source for Einstein's GRT & thereby should have been the person to whom credit should have been given for GR & not Einstein.
Castrogiovanni
2.5 / 5 (13) Mar 03, 2019


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

Schneibo claims this paper is "erroneous".



That paper is erroneous. As is well known in the scientific community. Dear old Einstein did not like the fact that his math was shown to lead to a singularity. He tried a thought experiment to avoid it. It was wrong. This was shown by Oppenheimer et al in 1939.
cantdrive85
3 / 5 (6) Mar 03, 2019
Sometimes discussion of black holes in general seems advisable, as some who post here don't seem to believe they exist at all.

Scientific viewpoints have zero to do with belief, although the question of black holes is no doubt a question of beliefs. From wikistupidia;
"Belief is the state of mind in which a person thinks something to be the case regardless of empirical evidence to prove that something is the case with factual certainty."
Being there is zero empirical evidence or factual certainty regarding BH's it is entirely about beliefs, which shows it ain't science.
Castrogiovanni
2.5 / 5 (13) Mar 03, 2019
From Space.com
"n 1905, Albert Einstein determined that the laws of physics are the same for all non-accelerating observers, and that the speed of light in a vacuum was independent of the motion of all observers. This was the theory of special relativity. It introduced a new framework for all of physics and proposed new concepts of space and time.

Einstein then spent 10 years trying to include acceleration in the theory and published his theory of general relativity in 1915. In it, he determined that massive objects cause a distortion in space-time, which is felt as gravity."

Massive objects don't cause a distortion in Time - only in Space as gravity. He made an error by including time with Space. FALSIFIED


Again, you would appear to be untutored in this area. Why don't you read what you just quoted?

massive objects cause a distortion in space-time


If you cannot understand a simple concept, then why would you comment upon it?
cantdrive85
2.7 / 5 (7) Mar 03, 2019
If you cannot understand a simple concept, then why would you comment upon it?

Amusing! Simply explain the concept of "space-time".
Castrogiovanni
2.5 / 5 (13) Mar 03, 2019
Sometimes discussion of black holes in general seems advisable, as some who post here don't seem to believe they exist at all.

Scientific viewpoints have zero to do with belief, although the question of black holes is no doubt a question of beliefs. From wikistupidia;
"Belief is the state of mind in which a person thinks something to be the case regardless of empirical evidence to prove that something is the case with factual certainty."
Being there is zero empirical evidence or factual certainty regarding BH's it is entirely about beliefs, which shows it ain't science.


Complete nonsense. You also appear to be one of the posters with no knowledge of this subject area. There is plenty of evidence for the existence of black holes. Have a look in the scientific literature. Google Scholar is your friend. Why do you feel the need to comment upon things of which you clearly have no knowledge?
Castrogiovanni
2.5 / 5 (13) Mar 03, 2019
If you cannot understand a simple concept, then why would you comment upon it?

Amusing! Simply explain the concept of "space-time".


Go and read Einstein. Nobody is doubting it, until we get to singularities, and it is one of the most tested scientific theories of all time. It always passes. Unless you know otherwise. In which case, please link to the relevant scientific literature.
Castrogiovanni
2.3 / 5 (12) Mar 03, 2019


You just quoted an example of GAMMA RADIATION DECAY, this is not NEUTRON BETA PARTICLE DECAY.

Your problem lies in fundamental knowledge of knowing the difference between the half-life decay rate of elements (atoms) that are radio-isotopes.

A neutron is NOT an ATOM that forms a radio-isotope, it is a sub-atomic PARTICLE with it's own specific decay rate which is 14.7 minutes, it's in Wiki, go look it up.


Possibly the stupidest thing posted on this thread. And that is saying something. The poster Benni is clearly uintutored in this area. The example quoted is of beta-decay. If you need a definition of beta decay, I'll happily give one. Otherwise, it would be the smart thing to do to stop commenting on subjects until you have at least a basic understanding of them.
Benni
1.8 / 5 (10) Mar 03, 2019
Complete nonsense. You also appear to be one of the posters with no knowledge of this subject area. There is plenty of evidence for the existence of black holes. Have a look in the scientific literature. Google Scholar is your friend. Why do you feel the need to comment upon things of which you clearly have no knowledge?
......so why then did you write this about Einstein:

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

Schneibo claims this paper is "erroneous".

That paper is erroneous. As is well known in the scientific community. Dear old Einstein did not like the fact that his math was shown to lead to a singularity. He tried a thought experiment to avoid it. It was wrong. This was shown by Oppenheimer et al in 1939.


You Einstein basher, what are your credentials for the bragging rights in declaring "On Stationary Systems with Spherical Symmetry consisting of many Gravitating Masses" is "erroneous"?

You don't even know the differences between Beta & Gamma decay.

Castrogiovanni
2.3 / 5 (12) Mar 03, 2019
You don't even know the differences between Beta & Gamma decay.


Yes I do. You do not, however. You referred to an example of beta-decay, provided by another poster, as gamma decay. That shows an appalling lack of knowledge in the relevant area. Might I suggest attending a university? There are even online courses you can take these days.
Castrogiovanni
2.3 / 5 (12) Mar 03, 2019
You Einstein basher, what are your credentials for the bragging rights in declaring "On Stationary Systems with Spherical Symmetry consisting of many Gravitating Masses" is "erroneous"?


You may have heard of Robert Oppenheimer. He, along with colleagues, showed it to be wrong in 1939. Nobody since has given any credence to Einstein's erroneous paper. The fact that black holes exist shows him to be wrong.

cantdrive85
3 / 5 (6) Mar 03, 2019
Come, mate, don't start making evasive/insulting posts in the vein of DS when faced with a poster who actually KNOWS the science

You asked a very rudimentary question regarding plasms and Birkeland currents;
"How long would such a system in 'free space' (ie, not part of any containment system involving solid materials/structures to maintain the morphology/dynamics of the current-flow 'structure) remain stable...


Plasma has its own "containment system" in 'free space', they are called double layers and field-aligned electric and magnetic fields.

https://plasmauni...smic.pdf
And structures in the plasma, due to the electrodynamical properties of the plasma;
https://plasmauni...2007.pdf
https://plasmauni...sTPS.pdf

If you are unaware of these facts, it shows you don't KNOW the science as you claim
granville583762
3.2 / 5 (9) Mar 03, 2019
The Vacuous Vacuum that is Space
massive objects cause a distortion in space-time

Vacuums definition of a 3-dimensional spatial dimension
devoid of energy, gravity, inertial-mass
protons, electrons occupy the vacuum
and pass through the vacuum
To the nitty-gritty
Distortion in space-time
how does one distort vacuum
can you have half a vacuum
you cannot have half a vacuum
time is ethereal, existing only in the mind
time, just like vacuum is not physical
you cannot compress, stretch, bend, Vacuum
you cannot bend, stretch, Time
the statement is a misnomer, an Impossibility
gravity is not vacuum
the quantum particle of gravity is the graviton
gravitons occupy the vacuum
gravitons pass through the vacuum at the speed of light
gravitons accelerate inertial mass
protons, electrons are inertial mass
Gravitons curve the path of protons as they pass through the vacuum
The Vacuous Vacuum that is Space
Castrogiovanni
2.3 / 5 (12) Mar 03, 2019
Come, mate, don't start making evasive/insulting posts in the vein of DS when faced with a poster who actually KNOWS the science

You asked a very rudimentary question regarding plasms and Birkeland currents;
"How long would such a system in 'free space' (ie, not part of any containment system involving solid materials/structures to maintain the morphology/dynamics of the current-flow 'structure) remain stable...


Plasma has its own "containment system" in 'free space', they are called double layers and field-aligned electric and magnetic fields.

https://plasmauni...smic.pdf

If you are unaware of these facts, it shows you don't KNOW the science as you claim


And where is the evidence for the claim that these unobserved currents have anything to do with the above article? Please link to the actual science.
cantdrive85
3 / 5 (6) Mar 03, 2019
There is plenty of evidence for the existence of black holes. Have a look in the scientific literature. Google Scholar is your friend. Why do you feel the need to comment upon things of which you clearly have no knowledge?

I would prefer to read Jules Verne if I wanted to read pop-sci-fi stories such as you suggest, he is much more interesting than the pseudoscientific claptrap of BH's.
cantdrive85
3 / 5 (6) Mar 03, 2019
And where is the evidence for the claim that these unobserved currents have anything to do with the above article? Please link to the actual science.

You obviously didn't read the paper above where they described the "streams" of constrained charged particles. They are only "unobserved" due to willful ignorance.
Castrogiovanni
2.3 / 5 (12) Mar 03, 2019
There is plenty of evidence for the existence of black holes. Have a look in the scientific literature. Google Scholar is your friend. Why do you feel the need to comment upon things of which you clearly have no knowledge?

I would prefer to read Jules Verne if I wanted to read pop-sci-fi stories such as you suggest, he is much more interesting than the pseudoscientific claptrap of BH's.


So, you have no science to call upon? As expected. You simply don't understand the science, do you? Which is why you rail against it. This is a typical response of those with feelings of inadequacy, low self esteem, and a jealousy of others are far more informed than themselves. All too common, I'm afraid, in places such as this. People who would be laughed off science forums feel the need to vent their frustrations in comments sections, such as this. When pushed to provide actual science to back up their wrongheaded belief systems, they run a mile.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 03, 2019
Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler discuss this paper's findings in Section 31.2 of the standard textbook Gravitation (1973). The section is titled "The Nonsingularity of the Gravitational Radius." This is a direct reference to Einstein (1939); the authors decline to state that Einstein was wrong, but show conclusively that he was.

Most importantly, they show that the singularity that Einstein claimed existed at the Schwarzchild radius is a coordinate singularity, not a physical singularity.

I should note that Gravitation is *the* standard textbook on gravity. If you don't have it and haven't seen it, anything you say about gravity is meaningless.
Castrogiovanni
2.3 / 5 (12) Mar 03, 2019
And where is the evidence for the claim that these unobserved currents have anything to do with the above article? Please link to the actual science.

You obviously didn't read the paper above where they described the "streams" of constrained charged particles. They are only "unobserved" due to willful ignorance.


And you obviously do not understand the paper, and have resorted to making things up. Please show where anybody, in the scientific literature, has equated Birkeland currents with black holes.
As per the comments guidelines;

Keep science: Include references to the published scientific literature to support your statements. Pseudoscience comments (including non-mainstream theories) will be deleted (see pseudoscience).


https://sciencex....omments/
cantdrive85
3 / 5 (6) Mar 03, 2019
'Are Black Holes Necessary?'

https://plasmauni...sCLR.pdf

So, you have no science to call upon?

The irony being you do not have an iota of science to call upon regarding BH's, just volumes of pseudoscientific claptrap in the so called "scientific" literature. Maths gymnastics does not make science.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 03, 2019
I seriously doubt @Benni has a copy of Gravitation, or would understand it if it did considering it can't do 4th grade math.
Castrogiovanni
2.3 / 5 (12) Mar 03, 2019
'Are Black Holes Necessary?'

https://plasmauni...sCLR.pdf

So, you have no science to call upon?

The irony being you do not have an iota of science to call upon regarding BH's, just volumes of pseudoscientific claptrap in the so called "scientific" literature. Maths gymnastics does not make science.


Complete nonsense from a psedoscience site. Reported.
What is the cause of the orbit of this mostly neutral gas in the article?
What is the cause of the orbits around the SMBH in the galactic centre?
Do you know what Kepler's third law is?
Do you, in fact, understand anything about science?

Ity sounds to me as if you have a huge chip on your shoulder about being totally inadequate in both science and mathematics. Am I right?
Castrogiovanni
2.3 / 5 (12) Mar 03, 2019
'Are Black Holes Necessary?'

https://plasmauni...sCLR.pdf

So, you have no science to call upon?

The irony being you do not have an iota of science to call upon regarding BH's, just volumes of pseudoscientific claptrap in the so called "scientific" literature. Maths gymnastics does not make science.


You may also want to consider that the awful article from Peratt is over 30 years old. Please link to where any scientist is proposing such utter nonsense for the observations of the stellar orbits as mentioned around Sgr A*. From the scientific literature, please.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 03, 2019
It's not even a paper; it's an article. It doesn't give references and instead refers the reader to the paper.

Peratt was a maverick when he was young. He now has a disclaimer on his web site as follows:
The Plasma Universe and Plasma Cosmology have no ties to the anti-science blogsites of the holoscience 'electric universe'.
Apparently he finds it embarrassing to be associated with the EU crowd.
cantdrive85
3 / 5 (6) Mar 03, 2019
Complete nonsense from a psedoscience site. Reported.

So, 'Sky and Telescope' magazine is pseudoscientific? A website hosted by Los Alamos National Laboratory is pseudoscientific? Nice double standard.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 03, 2019
S&T isn't a journal of record.

And since you're part of the EU crowd, Peratt's disclaimer applies directly to you; he finds you embarrassing.

You just got pissed on. Hope you like the aroma.

@Castro, @cantthink tries that one on every user it's never seen before.
Castrogiovanni
2.3 / 5 (12) Mar 03, 2019
Complete nonsense from a psedoscience site. Reported.

So, 'Sky and Telescope' magazine is pseudoscientific? A website hosted by Los Alamos National Laboratory is pseudoscientific? Nice double standard.


It may be hosted by LANL, but it is Peratt's site. You will find very little support amongst his peers for some of his strange beliefs. And, as pointed out, the article is ancient. Perhaps it was a reasonable, if fringe, idea at the time. However it is no longer tenable.
cantdrive85
3 / 5 (6) Mar 03, 2019
Do you know what Kepler's third law is?

Kepler's laws are valid for electric charges too.
granville583762
3 / 5 (10) Mar 03, 2019
Castrogiovanni - The ghosts are haunting
Castrogiovanni> What is the cause of the orbit of this mostly neutral gas in the article?

Who else would say, mostly neutral gas
if not
Quasi-neutral
cantdrive85
2.7 / 5 (7) Mar 03, 2019
Peratt's disclaimer applies directly to you; he finds you embarrassing.

The really amusing part, Peratt didn't pen the disclaimer, nor did he add it. It was forced upon him in order to keep his webpage active, but who cares about truth and accuracy when discussing scientific matters.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 03, 2019
Just FYI @Castro, @cantthink thinks there is no gravity and the motions of planets are driven by electric charges.

I wouldn't bother attempting to engage with this crank. It's a waste of your time and it will always have a million excuses about why you are "wrong" because you "believe in" gravitation.
Castrogiovanni
2.3 / 5 (12) Mar 03, 2019
Peratt's disclaimer applies directly to you; he finds you embarrassing.

The really amusing part, Peratt didn't pen the disclaimer, nor did he add it. It was forced upon him in order to keep his webpage active, but who cares about truth and accuracy when discussing scientific matters.


Which tells you precisely what LANL think of such pseudoscience.
cantdrive85
2.7 / 5 (7) Mar 03, 2019
Castrogiovanni - The ghosts are haunting

The ghost of jonesdumb perhaps? A cockpuppet buried in his fleshy backside? The hints abound, and if true he risks a permanent ban as have others who have resorted to contrive phys.orgs click counts.
SkyLight
3 / 5 (10) Mar 03, 2019
@CG
Possibly the stupidest thing posted on this thread. And that is saying something. The poster Benni is clearly untutored in this area. The example quoted is of beta-decay
It gets better - he has claimed, on numerous occasions in other threads, to be a Nuclear Electrical Engineer, with six years of college education, and to be an expert in Partial Differential Equations (he very often throws that last one in people's faces).

And he claims to be currently employed in - wait for it - a Gamma Ray Spectroscopy Lab, where he considers a multimeter to be a really high-tech, groovy instrument.

There are claims, and there are preposterous claims - take your pick!
Castrogiovanni
2.3 / 5 (12) Mar 03, 2019
Castrogiovanni - The ghosts are haunting
Castrogiovanni> What is the cause of the orbit of this mostly neutral gas in the article?

Who else would say, mostly neutral gas
if not
Quasi-neutral


I have no idea what you are talking about. Read the paper to see what I meant. They are observing HCN. This is nothing to do with quasi-neutrality. That can refer to a plasma that has no neutral content at all. It merely states that the number of positive and negative charges balance within a certain distance.
cantdrive85
2.7 / 5 (7) Mar 03, 2019
Just FYI @Castro, @cantthink thinks there is no gravity and the motions of planets are driven by electric charges.

As always, da schnied resorts to outright lies and obfuscation. He has not an iota of dignity and wears it as badge of pride.
Benni
1.8 / 5 (10) Mar 03, 2019
You don't even know the differences between Beta & Gamma decay.


Yes I do. You do not, however. You referred to an example of beta-decay, provided by another poster, as gamma decay.


OK mister faux nuclear physics expert, put YOUR "credentials" on the line & YOU be the one to explain the difference between Beta Particle Decay & Gamma radiation Decay if you think YOU know so much about it.........bet you won't do it because you know I'm gonna come right in behind you explaining why Gamma Radiation Decay applies only to radio-active atomic isotopes & not to the beta sub-atomic particle decay of neutrons.

Go, your turn..................Benni is waiting.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 03, 2019
Then why did you post

Kepler's laws are valid for electric charges too.


I mean, just askin'.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 03, 2019
explain the difference between Beta Particle Decay & Gamma radiation Decay
Beta decay involves a charged particle, the electron. Gamma decay does not.

We done here?
granville583762
3 / 5 (10) Mar 03, 2019
The Ghosts are haunting to night

This highlights a problem of preference
who do you settle with
who's hat takes your liking
all those years imbedded in only one, and only one psyche
there are so many to choose from
it is impossible to settle down ever again
with just one Avatar
Is it not
Oh, Multitudes of Avatars
Castrogiovanni
2.3 / 5 (12) Mar 03, 2019
YOU be the one to explain the difference between Beta Particle Decay & Gamma radiation Decay if you think YPOU know so much about it


In a nutshell, beta decay is so named because a beta particle is emitted. That is, an electron or positron, depending on whether it is B- or B+ decay. An example would be C-14 decay.
Gamma decay does not involve the emission of such particles. Gamma ray emission can follow beta-decay, as the excited atom relaxes to the ground state causing the release of gamma rays.

I can only assume that you have little to no knowledge of the subject area.

cantdrive85
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 03, 2019
Which tells you precisely what LANL think of such pseudoscience.

Yet the very science the EU relies upon is just that which Peratt himself promotes on that very webpage. And what does Peratt say about the science the EU offers up? A comment on Don Scott's electric sun proposal;

"It is gratifying to see the work of my mentor, Nobel Laureate Hannes Alfvén enumerated with such clarity. I am also pleased to see that Dr. Scott has given general readers such a lucid and understandable summary of my own work."
~ Anthony L. Peratt, PhD, USC, Fellow of the IEEE (1999), former scientific advisor to theU.S. Department of Energy and member of the Associate Laboratory Directorate of the Los Alamos National Laboratory.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (4) Mar 03, 2019
@Castro: tolja. We been dealing with this bitch of trolls for years now.
Benni
1.8 / 5 (10) Mar 03, 2019
explain the difference between Beta Particle Decay & Gamma radiation Decay
Beta decay involves a charged particle, the electron. Gamma decay does not.

We done here?
.......didn't ask what it "involved", I asked what it actually is. You have the same comprehension level of nuclear physics as castro......
granville583762
3 / 5 (10) Mar 03, 2019
Castrogiovanni in halves
Castrogiovanni> beta decay is so named because a beta particle is emitted

The anticipation is tantalising, Castrogiovanni
before any realises
you will be getting to grips with that infamous neutron
the infamous half a neutron
apparently
it was never Bennies idea
Was it not, Castrogiovanni
Castrogiovanni
2.3 / 5 (12) Mar 03, 2019

Yet the very science the EU relies upon is just that which Peratt himself promotes on that very webpage. And what does Peratt say about the science the EU offers up? A comment on Don Scott's electric sun proposal;


EU has no science. It is pseudoscience. Reported.

Keep science: Include references to the published scientific literature to support your statements. Pseudoscience comments (including non-mainstream theories) will be deleted (see pseudoscience).


https://sciencex....omments/
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 03, 2019
@Benni, beta decay is the emission of a beta particle, a charged particle whether it is an electron (B-) or positron (B+). Gamma decay is the emission of an uncharged particle, a gamma ray.

Again, we done here?
Castrogiovanni
1.8 / 5 (10) Mar 03, 2019
Castrogiovanni in halves
Castrogiovanni> beta decay is so named because a beta particle is emitted

The anticipation is tantalising, Castrogiovanni
before any realises
you will be getting to grips with that infamous neutron
the infamous half a neutron
apparently
it was never Bennies idea
Was it not, Castrogiovanni


No idea what you are talking about. You seem to struggle with English.
Old_C_Code
3 / 5 (8) Mar 03, 2019
Anything the EU says is unbelievable. Because their very basic premise of the Sun being powered by the galaxy has zero evidence. A bunch of non-EE's telling people electricity is magic and can span across light years of pure electrical insulation. Complete nonsense.
cantdrive85
2.9 / 5 (7) Mar 03, 2019
Then why did you post

Kepler's laws are valid for electric charges too.

I mean, just askin'.


"Gravitational systems are the 'ashes' of prior electrical systems." Hannes Alfven

I never claimed gravity doesn't exist, gravity is valid on the scale of the solar system yet fails miserably when applied to larger scales.
Castrogiovanni
2.1 / 5 (11) Mar 03, 2019
explain the difference between Beta Particle Decay & Gamma radiation Decay
Beta decay involves a charged particle, the electron. Gamma decay does not.

We done here?
.......didn't ask what it "involved", I asked what it actually is. You have the same comprehension level of nuclear physics as castro......


I told you what it is. You were clearly wrong.

https://en.wikipe...ta_decay

https://en.wikive...ma_decay
Benni
1.9 / 5 (9) Mar 03, 2019
YOU be the one to explain the difference between Beta Particle Decay & Gamma radiation Decay if you think YPOU know so much about it


In a nutshell, beta decay is so named because a beta particle is emitted. That is, an electron or positron, depending on whether it is B- or B+ decay.
......beta particle decay is not measured in half-life, until you get that straightened out you will never comprehend the 14.7 minute Beta Decay process of free unbound neutron,

Castrogiovanni
2.1 / 5 (11) Mar 03, 2019


I never claimed gravity doesn't exist, gravity is valid on the scale of the solar system yet fails miserably when applied to larger scales.


Evidence please.

Keep science: Include references to the published scientific literature to support your statements. Pseudoscience comments (including non-mainstream theories) will be deleted (see pseudoscience).


https://sciencex....omments/
Castrogiovanni
2.1 / 5 (11) Mar 03, 2019
.....beta particle decay is not measured in half-life, until you get that straightened out you will never comprehend the 14.7 minute Beta Decay process of free unbound neutron,


Yes it is. The decay of C-14 to N-14 is beta-decay, for example. That has a half-life of 5730 years. The free neutron has a measured half-life of around 10 minutes.
Quite clearly, you are untutored in this subject. I would suggest studying it before commenting further.

SkyLight
2.8 / 5 (9) Mar 03, 2019
I think I'm beginning to see just how Benni's understanding works of this whole subject of decay of nuclei, and of free neutrons (@castro, FYI, Benni in many other posts has often given us his views on free neutron decay).

It would appear that Benni believes that free neutron decay to be the only example of beta decay to be found in nature, and that decay of atomic nuclei do not occur via beta decay, but rather by gamma ray decay. (He never mentions alpha decay)

Would that be a fair comment, Benni?
Castrogiovanni
2.1 / 5 (11) Mar 03, 2019
A free neutron will decay with a half-life of about 10.3 minutes but it is stable if combined into a nucleus. This decay is an example of beta decay with the emission of an electron and an electron antineutrino.


http://hyperphysi...ton.html
granville583762
3.2 / 5 (9) Mar 03, 2019
The Ghosts are haunting to night

Its Uncanny
Castrogiovanni> No idea what you are talking about. You seem to struggle with English

We all thought it was just a pretence
just the wrong kind of Norse
but
no, the words are so identical
everyone does not struggle to understand
except
< No idea what you are talking about. You seem to struggle with English >
cantdrive85
2.7 / 5 (7) Mar 03, 2019
A bunch of non-EE's telling people electricity is magic and can span across light years of pure electrical insulation. Complete nonsense.

Alfvén was an EE, he stated the opposite.
"Space is filled with a network of currents which transfer energy and momentum over large or very large distances. The currents often pinch to filamentary or surface currents. The latter are likely to give space, as also interstellar and intergalactic space, a cellular structure"
Peratt is an EE, and he wrote a paper about it;
https://plasmauni...smic.pdf
It would seem the non-EE is you.
Castrogiovanni
2.3 / 5 (12) Mar 03, 2019
The Ghosts are haunting to night

Its Uncanny
Castrogiovanni> No idea what you are talking about. You seem to struggle with English

We all thought it was just a pretence
just the wrong kind of Norse
but
no, the words are so identical
everyone does not struggle to understand
except
< No idea what you are talking about. You seem to struggle with English >


Reported.

Stay on topic: Acceptable comments include those that add to the discussion in a meaningful and thought-provoking manner or provide an intelligent counterpoint to our articles.

Avoid pointless verbiage: Try not to post comments such as e.g. "this is great", "useless" or "this is wrong". Say what you think is wrong, useful or useless about the article. Our readers are an articulate group. We want to know what you think.


https://sciencex....omments/

However, it seems that not all of their readers are articulate.
cantdrive85
2.7 / 5 (7) Mar 03, 2019
Evidence please

Dark matter. Galactic rotation curves. Orbits of stars at galactic center in absence of 4m solar mass object. There are many others but the point is made.

< No idea what you are talking about. You seem to struggle with English >

jonesdumb being as transparent as glass with the intelligence of a meat cleaver. It will only be a matter of time before the vulgarities return. I have sneaking suspicions of the observicist as well. If so, it will only be a matter of time before we are done with them all together, phys.org doesn't like it when folks tinker with their clicks.
granville583762
3 / 5 (10) Mar 03, 2019
Ghosts of a feather flock together
The Ghosts are haunting to night
Its Uncanny
Castrogiovanni> No idea what you are talking about. You seem to struggle with English

We all thought it was just a pretence
just the wrong kind of Norse
but
no, the words are so identical
everyone does not struggle to understand
except
< No idea what you are talking about. You seem to struggle with English >

We want to know what you think.

However, it seems that not all of their readers are articulate.

Ghosts of a feather flock together
You too quick to down vote, Castrogiovanni
For, someone you apparently did not know
Castrogiovanni
2.3 / 5 (12) Mar 03, 2019
Dark matter. Galactic rotation curves. Orbits of stars at galactic center in absence of 4m solar mass object. There are many others but the point is made.


How does that have any relevance to what I asked for? The orbits of the stars around Sgr A* prove conclusively that Kepler, Newton and Eintein were correct. The 4 million solar mass object is a proven fact. There is no other explanation for those orbits.

Castrogiovanni
2.3 / 5 (12) Mar 03, 2019

You too quick to down vote, Castrogiovanni
For, someone you apparently did not know


I downvoted and reported you for posting irrelevant, off-topic gibberish. Stick to the science please.
cantdrive85
3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 03, 2019
The orbits of the stars around Sgr A* prove conclusively that Kepler, Newton and Eintein were correct. The 4 million solar mass object is a proven fact.

Yet, there is nothing there. Kepler is correct, but Newton and Einstein don't operate there. The stars act as electric charges, no massive object required.
cantdrive85
3 / 5 (8) Mar 03, 2019
Dark matter. Galactic rotation curves. Orbits of stars at galactic center in absence of 4m solar mass object. There are many others but the point is made.


How does that have any relevance to what I asked for?


The need for the invention of faerie dust proves conclusively GR fails beyond the scale of the solar system. It's not a complex idea.
Castrogiovanni
2.3 / 5 (12) Mar 03, 2019
The orbits of the stars around Sgr A* prove conclusively that Kepler, Newton and Eintein were correct. The 4 million solar mass object is a proven fact.

Yet, there is nothing there. Kepler is correct, but Newton and Einstein don't operate there. The stars act as electric charges, no massive object required.


Pure nonsense. Please link to the evidence for this before I report the post as pseudoscience.
granville583762
3.5 / 5 (8) Mar 03, 2019
Ghosts of a feather flock together

You too quick to down vote, Castrogiovanni
For, someone you apparently did not know

< The Vacuous Vacuum that is Space >

Rather than down vote
as you say, Castrogiovanni - thought-provoking
did you comment
or
down vote
no, Castrogiovanni
not a peep
just
simply a down vote
which
apparently, Castrogiovanni
Is against your ethos
Castrogiovanni
2.3 / 5 (12) Mar 03, 2019
Dark matter. Galactic rotation curves. Orbits of stars at galactic center in absence of 4m solar mass object. There are many others but the point is made.


How does that have any relevance to what I asked for?


The need for the invention of faerie dust proves conclusively GR fails beyond the scale of the solar system. It's not a complex idea.


Sorry, but you appear to have no idea what you are talking about. Let's see the alternatives that you believe in. And the evidence for them. In the scientific literature. Otherwise, another reported post.
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (8) Mar 03, 2019
@Castrogiovanni
There is no other explanation
Otherwise, another reported post.
welcome to the world of delusional behaviour

the electric universe (eu - always lowercase, IMHO) will always refuse to accept science, especially if it's validated or it goes against their dogma

case in point: they refuse to accept that magnetic reconnection is real despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary

keep posting the real science for the sake of the layman who wishes to follow the steps as to how [x] is derived, but for sanity's sake, just report the idiots like benni and cantdrive

unless, of course, you're studying them and need them to open up
then, by all means, poke away so we can all learn their processes
Castrogiovanni
2.3 / 5 (12) Mar 03, 2019
Ghosts of a feather flock together

You too quick to down vote, Castrogiovanni
For, someone you apparently did not know

< The Vacuous Vacuum that is Space >

Rather than down vote
as you say, Castrogiovanni - thought-provoking
did you comment
or
down vote
no, Castrogiovanni
not a peep
just
simply a down vote
which
apparently, Castrogiovanni
Is against your ethos


Reported. You posted gibberish. I downvoted it.
cantdrive85
3 / 5 (8) Mar 03, 2019
Sorry, but you appear to have no idea what you are talking about. Let's see the alternatives that you believe in. And the evidence for them...

Alternatives are meaningless in the discussion, they have no bearing on the validity of GR. GR has failed every test on scales beyond the solar system. Gravity doesn't operate there, EM does.
Benni
1.8 / 5 (10) Mar 03, 2019
The decay of C-14 to N-14 is beta-decay, for example. That has a half-life of 5730 years.


The free neutron has a measured half-life of around 10 minutes.
.....wrong.

The time required for HALF of the Carbon-14 atoms to change into Nitrogen is called the Half Life of Carbon14. In the process C-14 emits a neutron often referred to as a beta particle, which then undergoes Beta Particle Decay of 14.7 minutes. A free unbound neutron does not undergo half life decay, it just decays in 14.7 minutes exclusive to anything else that is going on inside the atomic isotope it left behind 14.7 minutes previously........didn't know any of this did you?
Castrogiovanni
2.7 / 5 (12) Mar 03, 2019
Sorry, but you appear to have no idea what you are talking about. Let's see the alternatives that you believe in. And the evidence for them...

Alternatives are meaningless in the discussion, they have no bearing on the validity of GR. GR has failed every test on scales beyond the solar system. Gravity doesn't operate there, EM does.


Incorrect. Please show where GR has failed. From the scientific literature. Otherwise, reported. Explain the orbits around Sgr A* with published science. Explain the gravitational redshift observed around said SMBH. And at AGNs. Show us the science. I'm afraid you don't have any, do you?
cantdrive85
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 03, 2019
Castrogiovanni and potentially Observicist should be reported as being jonesdumb cockpuppets. Cockpuppetry is not tolerated by phys.org, we could be done with it once and for all...
cantdrive85
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 03, 2019
Please show where GR has failed.

Faerie dust, invented to salvage GR on galactic scales. Fail.
Castrogiovanni
2.5 / 5 (13) Mar 03, 2019
The time required for HALF of the Carbon-14 atoms to change into Nitrogen is called the Half Life of Carbon14. In the process C-14 emits a neutron often referred to as a beta particle, which then undergoes Beta Particle Decay of 14.7 minutes. A free unbound neutron does not undergo half life decay, it just decays in 14.7 minutes exclusive to anything else that is going on inside the atomic isotope it left behind 14.7 minutes previously........didn't know any of this did you?


Total nonsense. You really do not have a grasp of this subject, do you? Carbon-14 does not emit a neutron. That is a ridiculous statement. One of its neutrons decays to a proton, with the emission of an electron and an electron antineutrino. And the 14.7 minutes is a mean lifetime. And the half-life of 10 minutes is an irrefutable, measured, scientific fact.
Castrogiovanni
2.5 / 5 (13) Mar 03, 2019
Please show where GR has failed.

Faerie dust, invented to salvage GR on galactic scales. Fail.


So where is your science? Explain the orbits around Sgr A*. I'll be waiting. You appear to have nothing, other than a total ignorance of the subject matter. No science. No maths. Just baseless assertions. Start backing it up, or more reported posts.
SkyLight
3.2 / 5 (11) Mar 03, 2019
The time required for HALF of the Carbon-14 atoms to change into Nitrogen is called the Half Life of Carbon14. In the process C-14 emits a neutron often referred to as a beta particle, which then undergoes Beta Particle Decay of 14.7 minutes. A free unbound neutron does not undergo half life decay, it just decays in 14.7 minutes exclusive to anything else that is going on inside the atomic isotope it left behind 14.7 minutes previously........didn't know any of this did you?
Wow. Thanks for the explanation, Benni, it clears up a lot of misunderstanding.

So we now can see just how mind-bogglingly ill-informed on this whole subject of beta decay/free neutron decay you are. Just for the record, no: it doesn't work like that. You would need to go back to school and learn how these things actually work. But we know that that is beyond your capabilities.
Castrogiovanni
2.5 / 5 (13) Mar 03, 2019
Anything the EU says is unbelievable. Because their very basic premise of the Sun being powered by the galaxy has zero evidence.


Nobody sane could possibly believe that!
Captain Stumpy
3.2 / 5 (9) Mar 03, 2019
@Castrogiovanni
Nobody sane could possibly believe that!
correct - cantdrive [cd] has strong conspiracist ideation and delusional beliefs about reality. he displays behaviour more akin to a fanatical religious sect than rational or literate educated persons

for a glimpse into the delusional mind of cd, I recommend you go to this thread and read the interactions with Tim Thompson: https://phys.org/...ggs.html

you will have others chime in who support eu as well, but cd is the grand poobah of the phys.org sect
Castrogiovanni
2.5 / 5 (13) Mar 03, 2019
@Castrogiovanni
Nobody sane could possibly believe that!
correct - cantdrive [cd] has strong conspiracist ideation and delusional beliefs about reality. he displays behaviour more akin to a fanatical religious sect than rational or literate educated persons

for a glimpse into the delusional mind of cd, I recommend you go to this thread and read the interactions with Tim Thompson: https://phys.org/...ggs.html

you will have others chime in who support eu as well, but cd is the grand poobah of the phys.org sect


Surprising they are still here, as per the comments guidelines;

Keep science: Include references to the published scientific literature to support your statements. Pseudoscience comments (including non-mainstream theories) will be deleted (see pseudoscience).


Benni
1.7 / 5 (11) Mar 03, 2019
Total nonsense. You really do not have a grasp of this subject, do you? Carbon-14 does not emit a neutron
....the nonsense is yours, if a neutron is not shed nitrogen cannot be created.

C-14 → N-14 + β−

The carbon-14 atoms undergo beta-minus decay (electron emission) by first shedding a neutron & thus producing a beta particle and a nitrogen-14 atom. The beta particle neutron shed from the atom undergoes beta decay and will produce a proton, electron and an electron antineutrino.
granville583762
3.2 / 5 (9) Mar 03, 2019
There is only one who describes so eloquently - Gibberish
Ghosts of a feather flock together
You too quick to down vote, Castrogiovanni
For, someone you apparently did not know
< The Vacuous Vacuum that is Space >
Rather than down vote
as you say, Castrogiovanni - thought-provoking
did you comment
or
down vote
no, Castrogiovanni
not a peep
just
simply a down vote
which
apparently, Castrogiovanni
Is against your ethos

Reported. You posted gibberish. I downvoted it.

You down voted my gibberish
And then what did you do
You reported my gibberish
Why did you report my gibberish
They read my gibberish
As you always read my gibberish
Not that you can understand it, as you oft openly admit
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (8) Mar 03, 2019
@Castrog
Surprising they are still here, as per the comments guidelines
I and others have felt the same - and we've lost some incredible posters here, including physicists, astrophysicists, engineers and other scientists

personally, I think that it's because Phys.org wants volume and the ability to sell "activity" on the site, so the prolific trolls get to keep their coveted profile and status. some religious posters are also allowed to stay, and (worst yet) the denier camp is growing

moderation doesn't usually happen, but sometimes you'll get deletions, though rarely the pseudoscience crowd

plans have been presented to the site to moderate with minimal changes using existing educated posters, but it's come to nought

the one thing that the site is good for: studying the deniers and pseudoscience crowd

Castrogiovanni
2.5 / 5 (13) Mar 03, 2019
Total nonsense. You really do not have a grasp of this subject, do you? Carbon-14 does not emit a neutron
....the nonsense is yours, if a neutron is not shed nitrogen cannot be created.

C-14 → N-14 + β−

The carbon-14 atoms undergo beta-minus decay (electron emission) by first shedding a neutron & thus producing a beta particle and a nitrogen-14 atom. The beta particle neutron shed from the atom undergoes beta decay and will produce a proton, electron and an electron antineutrino.


Total nonsense. No neutron is emitted! It decays into a proton. As explained. Go read about it. You really are out of your depth here.
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 03, 2019
@Benni typically fails to note that ejecting a neutron will not turn a carbon atom with six protons into a nitrogen atom with seven protons. Only gaining a proton can do that.

More troll fairy tales.
rrwillsj
2.6 / 5 (10) Mar 03, 2019
Thank you Captain for reaffirming my opinions of this site.
Though, to be honest, I am as guilty of enjoying the confrontations with the looneytoons & denierbots, as anyone else who responds to their agitprop.

However, I like to kid myself that I manage to do bellicose with a flair of artistic humor.
Which does seem to irritate people whose opinions I do respect.

The struggle against ignorance goes on. The resulting deaths instigated by the anti-vaxxer wing of the the ant-science & anti-0democracy campaigns, show the importance of our public stance for Science & Humanity.

If we do not stand up to the fascist quislings & copperheads? Who will?
granville583762
3 / 5 (10) Mar 03, 2019
Wordy Semantics
Total nonsense. You really do not have a grasp of this subject, do you? Carbon-14 does not emit a neutron
....the nonsense is yours, if a neutron is not shed nitrogen cannot be created.

C-14 → N-14 + β−

The carbon-14 atoms undergo beta-minus decay (electron emission) by first shedding a neutron & thus producing a beta particle and a nitrogen-14 atom. The beta particle neutron shed from the atom undergoes beta decay and will produce a proton, electron and an electron antineutrino.

As you quibble in your familiar style, Castrogiovanni
it is quite clear in Bennies descriptive, C-14 → N-14 + β−
that a neutron has to be shed
for a proton to emerge from the ashes
or are you going to report this as gibberish, Castrogiovanni
along with everyone's else's comments
if you keep this up, Castrogiovanni
you are going to be one lonely soul
On this phys.org, till you report yourself
Castrogiovanni
2.7 / 5 (14) Mar 03, 2019
@Benni typically fails to note that ejecting a neutron will not turn a carbon atom with six protons into a nitrogen atom with seven protons. Only gaining a proton can do that.

More troll fairy tales.


Precisely. This is the level of stupid we are dealing with here! How can 14/6 carbon become 14/7 nitrogen by expelling a neutron? If it magically expelled a neutron, it would be 13/6 carbon! It rather appears to me that the people challenging real science are those that have very little to no knowledge of it.
SkyLight
2.8 / 5 (11) Mar 03, 2019
@granville - I've reported your post for what it is - a sorry turgid mess of unscientific claptrap.
Castrogiovanni
2.7 / 5 (14) Mar 03, 2019
It is quite clear in Bennies descriptive, C-14 → N-14 + β−
that a neutron has to be shed


Utter nonsense. The carbon and nitrogen have the same number of baryons! C-14 has 8 neutrons and 6 protons. One of the neutrons decays to a proton, leaving 7 neutrons and 7 protons.
Yourself and Benni need to go back to school
SkyLight
3.2 / 5 (11) Mar 03, 2019
@castro - do not expect the likes of @Benni to worry themselves with such piffling concerns as conservation of mass, energy or charge in nuclear decay schemes, or anything else for that matter.

Same with the orbits of stars very close to Sag A* - Benni and his chums argue that their motions are typical of stars orbiting a barycenter of mass to be found at the galactic center, and ignore the shapes of the orbits, the very high velocities of the stars in those orbits, and most certainly ignore the precessions of those orbits, all indications of a nearby, very massive, but unseen object at the GC and at the foci of those orbits.

As with the GC, so now with the object mentioned in the article here. The maniacal obsession shown by these people that BH's do not - cannot - exist is far stronger than any desire they might once have had to learn some science. Their minds are shut tight as clams to ward off any possibility that objective knowledge might enter and enlighten them.
granville583762
3 / 5 (10) Mar 03, 2019
And so back to school

As a definitive utterance defines another
as on this phy.org
all phys.org
in all reality
was to keep it clean
so
that as there are no restrictions on this site
as
this site is an excellent site for school children
children from St John's College, Cambridge
who
their Tutors should not at any time worry concerning the language on this phys.org
but
of late, these highly elite tutors have had to worry concerning the language on this site
as
this is Granville's trade mark
keep it clean
no foul language
so
little children can safely peruse and read this phys.org safely
with the graduates and public who comment on this phy.org
where
on this phys.org
not only should children not read extreme comments on this phys.org
they should also not see

jonesdave
Feb 24, 2019
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
https://phys.org/...wer.html

because
This means rude offensive comments have been made!
Castrogiovanni
2.3 / 5 (12) Mar 03, 2019
@Granville,

Reported.
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (8) Mar 03, 2019
@Gran
this site is an excellent site for school children
I beg to differ: the articles are ok
the comments section is not, and it has nothing to do with language

the comment sections of this site are riddled with pseudoscience, religious idiocy, blatant denial of science and reality as well as conspiracist ideation

The schools in our area will no longer allow PO to be used or even accessed on school computers because of that problem
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 03, 2019
Y'know, the dude who says he's a mind-reading space alien who chased off @Phyllis Harmonic is probably the one who really should go.
granville583762
2.8 / 5 (11) Mar 03, 2019
Excuse's
@Gran
this site is an excellent site for school children
I beg to differ: the articles are ok
the comments section is not, and it has nothing to do with language

the comment sections of this site are riddled with pseudoscience, religious idiocy, blatant denial of science and reality as well as conspiracist ideation

The schools in our area will no longer allow PO to be used or even accessed on school computers because of that problem

Excuse's are no excuse, Captain Stumpy
Children should not be banned from phys.org
because of bad language
phys.org does not use bad language in its articles
that it allows commenter's to comment on
so
no commenter should use bad language
even if that is the street language
of the urchins sparking clogs
you do not bring it into phys.org
so
that children
through no fault of their own
are banned from phys.org
while
the foul language continues
PUNISH NOT THE INNOCENT CHILD
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 03, 2019
It's supposed to be a site for learning about science, @Granny, and you are polluting it with your pseudo-science. Are you proud of yourself?
granville583762
3 / 5 (10) Mar 03, 2019
This where communication comes into play
Captain Stumpy > I beg to differ: the articles are ok
the comments section is not, and it has nothing to do with language

the comment sections of this site are riddled with pseudoscience, religious idiocy, blatant denial of science and reality as well as conspiracist ideation

Captain Stumpy, Children are quite adept at knowing when the wool is being pulled
as there are plenty of commentators with the more down to earth explanations
even the unmentionable one
when he puts quill to parchment
not even the angel Gabriel has any quibble
concerning his textural scribing
and
no concerns concerning scientific foundations
that is
when he stops thinking about
when
He was a lad, sparking clogs
antigoracle
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 03, 2019
It's supposed to be a site for learning about science, @Granny, and you are polluting it with your pseudo-science. Are you proud of yourself?

LMAO.
Da Schitts the knob gobbler, brays.
The only thing Da Schitts has "learned" is how to soil the forum, with the shite between his ears, as his boyfriend pummels the stupid out of him, while trying to hit that "sweet" spot in his ass.
Now that's "pride".
cantdrive85
2.3 / 5 (9) Mar 03, 2019
Anything the EU says is unbelievable. Because their very basic premise of the Sun being powered by the galaxy has zero evidence.


Nobody sane could possibly believe that!

Here is observational evidence of the helical inflow of "magnetized gas" (i.e. plasma) along the spiral arms of a galaxy.
https://www.unive...-galaxy/

The stars form along those helical currents, just as would be expected. Of course, they call them spiral density-waves because they always have the tail wagging the dog, but it is the currents driving these processes.
granville583762
2.8 / 5 (11) Mar 03, 2019
Galaxy M74 from our perspective
cantdrive85> Here is observational evidence of the helical inflow of "magnetized gas" (i.e. plasma) along the spiral arms of a galaxy

Galaxy M74, as we would observe our galaxy Milkyway if we were living in M74
we are observing features, the spiral arms
luminous gas flows
star forming regions
and
ultimately M74's heart
that as M74 is identical to our Milkyway
we can see features that exist on our own galaxy
that we are physically unable to see
because
all these spiral galaxies
of similar size
are identical
M74 is like looking into one humongous mirror
40 million Lys away from us, slowly slipping away at a speed of 793 km/s
Castrogiovanni
2.5 / 5 (13) Mar 03, 2019
Anything the EU says is unbelievable. Because their very basic premise of the Sun being powered by the galaxy has zero evidence.


Nobody sane could possibly believe that!

Here is observational evidence of the helical inflow of "magnetized gas" (i.e. plasma) along the spiral arms of a galaxy.
https://www.unive...-galaxy/

The stars form along those helical currents, just as would be expected. Of course, they call them spiral density-waves because they always have the tail wagging the dog, but it is the currents driving these processes.


Evidence please. Who is saying this, and where are they saying it. I suspect that you are making things up. Science does not appear to be your strong point.
Castrogiovanni
2.3 / 5 (12) Mar 03, 2019
Galaxy M74 from our perspective
cantdrive85> Here is observational evidence of the helical inflow of "magnetized gas" (i.e. plasma) along the spiral arms of a galaxy

Galaxy M74, as we would observe our galaxy Milkyway if we were living in M74
we are observing features, the spiral arms
luminous gas flows
star forming regions
and
ultimately M74's heart
that as M74 is identical to our Milkyway
we can see features that exist on our own galaxy
that we are physically unable to see
because
all these spiral galaxies
of similar size
are identical
M74 is like looking into one humongous mirror
40 million Lys away from us, slowly slipping away at a speed of 793 km/s


Granville - you appear to have zero understanding of science. What on Earth are you doing here?
Benni
1.7 / 5 (12) Mar 03, 2019
> jonesdave alias castro:

The free neutron has a measured half-life of around 10 minutes.


In beta minus decay, a neutron decays into a proton, an electron, and an anti-neutrino, this is what happens 14.7 minutes after an atomic nucleus of a radio-isotope sheds a neutron, there is no ten minute half-life of a free unbound neutron, for the umpteenth time jonesy, will you ever get this straight?

We see the jonesdave moniker got the boot because all you were finally reduced to was the foul mouthed rantings. You must also be using a different device or the Device ID# would have been picked up on because that is how websites monitor your presence, not by email address or moniker, I guess you had to learn that the hard way. Hey, how is K131415 doing these days?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.7 / 5 (11) Mar 03, 2019
LOL All the evidence is in after reading all of the comments attributable to Da Schniebo, Skylight, Captain Beelzebub and this new account, Castrojohnny - it is apparent that there is a fair bit of sockpuppetry going on in this phorum between all the above named. Nothing new.
It is also apparent that these demonically-possessed individuals have a strong desire to keep the physorg science website as their own meeting ground as a "meeting place" for their Satanic cult. Yes folks, step right up and read the news. Satan/Lucifer roams the Interwebz and loves physorg where there is a huge volume of ATHEISTS, who don't believe that Satan/Lucifer exists.
Thus it is far easier to catch these unbeliever/disbelievers, etc in order to acquire their Souls that they don't believe that they have.
More to the point: The recruiting of unbelievers is going well and will continue under the guise of the PROVE IT TO ME/PROVE IT TO ME (scientific method).
Isn't that right, Captain Beelzebub?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.8 / 5 (10) Mar 03, 2019
@Granville,

Reported.


Castrogiovanni reported for excessive reporting without good cause.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (9) Mar 03, 2019
Worth Noting - Captain Stumpo's religious lambasting of the mere mention of "religious belief" even when there is none:

1. strong conspiracist ideation and delusional beliefs about reality. he displays behaviour more akin to a fanatical religious sect

2. some religious posters are also allowed to stay, and (worst yet) the denier camp is growing

moderation doesn't usually happen, but sometimes you'll get deletions, though rarely the pseudoscience crowd

3. plans have been presented to the site to moderate with minimal changes using existing educated posters, but it's come to nought

4. the comment sections of this site are riddled with pseudoscience, religious idiocy, blatant denial of science and reality as well as conspiracist ideation

5. Waiting for #5

Captain Stumpy alias Captain Beelzebub is not known for offering any scientific knowledge of his own - ONLY REQUIRING EVIDENCE from others as to THEIR knowledge of science so that he may validate it. How strange.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.8 / 5 (10) Mar 03, 2019
Y'know, the dude who says he's a mind-reading space alien who chased off @Phyllis Harmonic is probably the one who really should go.
says Da Schniebo alias Da Scheide

And just WHO is that "dude", Schniebo? Do you mean to say that a "mind-reading space alien" has been entering and exiting this lovely science website unbeknownst to all but yourself?
Do share your vast knowledge of "mind-reading space aliens" so that we can all enjoy his august company on this site.
:)
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.4 / 5 (9) Mar 03, 2019
> jonesdave alias castro:

The free neutron has a measured half-life of around 10 minutes.


In beta minus decay, a neutron decays into a proton, an electron, and an anti-neutrino, this is what happens 14.7 minutes after an atomic nucleus of a radio-isotope sheds a neutron, there is no ten minute half-life of a free unbound neutron, for the umpteenth time jonesy, will you ever get this straight?

We see the jonesdave moniker got the boot because all you were finally reduced to was the foul mouthed rantings. You must also be using a different device or the Device ID# would have been picked up on because that is how websites monitor your presence, not by email address or moniker, I guess..learn that the hard way. Hey, how is K131415 doing these days?

says Benni

Jonesy's last comment as jonesdave seems to have occurred on Feb.23rd after having 3 comments removed by a Moderator. And here it is 8 days later and no sign of hide nor hare of the nasty individual
granville583762
3 / 5 (10) Mar 03, 2019
Correction
SEU> Jonesy's last comment as jonesdave seems to have occurred on Feb.23rd after having 3 comments removed by a Moderator. And here it is 8 days later and no sign of hide nor hare of the nasty individual

You're not keeping your eye on the ball
https://phys.org/...ass.html
https://phys.org/...ure.html
https://phys.org/...ion.html
https://phys.org/...wer.html
https://phys.org/...bal.html

As they say, watch this space.
Benni
1.7 / 5 (11) Mar 03, 2019
> jonesdave alias castro:

We see the jonesdave moniker got the boot because all you were finally reduced to was the foul mouthed rantings. You must also be using a different device or the Device ID# would have been picked up on because that is how websites monitor your presence, not by email address or moniker, I guess..learn that the hard way.

says Benni

Jonesy's last comment as jonesdave seems to have occurred on Feb.23rd after having 3 comments removed by a Moderator. And here it is 8 days later and no sign of hide nor hare of the nasty individual
Those were just more foul mouthed rantings. Now we get to see jonesy's repentant side. Apparently this site has more than one moderator, schneibo got overridden because he wasn't doing his job. Let's be attentive to see if schneibo has also cleaned up his foul mouthed name calling rants.

Keep an eye peeled for other monikers that disappeared with jonesy, k131415 was jonesy
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 03, 2019
@cantdrive.
Plasma has its own "containment system"....
Yes, I long knew that, hence why I included that 'condition'. :)

Realise, @cd, that ALL'plasmoid' INSTABILITIES have a 'lifetime'; after which they EXPLODE.

THEN, depending on SCALE of said plasmoid/event, and MASS of the 'ashes' of the explosion, it MAY create a GRAVITATIONAL body/feature which may or may not go on to be an 'anchor' for further evolution of a (stellar/BH type) HYBRID gravitational-plasma system.

Which was the thrust of the great Hannes Alfven's early insight, @cd; ie:
Gravitational systems are the 'ashes' of prior electrical systems.
Hence why I put the question I did; because I KNEW WELL both the plasma and gravitational science which had led me to LONG point out that these are ALL HYBRID systems when STELLAR/MULTI-STELLAR MASS SCALES are involved!

Hence my question implying that your 'Birkeland currents system' ALONE can NOT be STABLE without a GRAVITATIONAL (BH) mass as 'anchor'. :)
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.8 / 5 (10) Mar 03, 2019
Correction
SEU> Jonesy's last comment as jonesdave seems to have occurred on Feb.23rd after having 3 comments removed by a Moderator. And here it is 8 days later and no sign of hide nor hare of the nasty individual

You're not keeping your eye on the ball
https://phys.org/...ass.html

As they say, watch this space.
says granville

Your 4 other links don't show up in my post, or they might once I submit - but I checked all 5 of them and found jonesy's most current one in each phorum. Thus -

On Feb 23rd jonesdave says:
F*** off. Go read Einstein.

On Feb 23rd jonesdave says:
Clueless tosser.

On Feb 24th jonesdave says:
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

On Feb 24th jonesdave again says:
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

On Feb 24th in yet another article, jonesdave says:
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

What a guy.
cantdrive85
2.5 / 5 (8) Mar 03, 2019
Realise, @cd, that ALL'plasmoid' INSTABILITIES have a 'lifetime'; after which they EXPLODE.

Why are we talking about a plasmoid? There is no plasmoid or massive object needed for this twisted pair of Birkeland currents. If more was visible from our vantage point it may look like this twisted pair;

https://en.m.wiki...bula.jpg

Hence my question implying that your 'Birkeland currents system' ALONE can NOT be STABLE without a GRAVITATIONAL (BH) mass as 'anchor'.

If you had read the papers I had linked you would have read the Birkeland current is stable over extra-galactic distances due to the field-aligned currents and fields. Nowhere does it suggest a massive object is required for the formation or stability of the Birkeland currents. Galaxies, stars, and likely planets are created along these Birkeland currents through the magnetic pinch effect.
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 03, 2019
@Castro is right on all counts and especially nuclear decay.

More clown car. Now they're getting paranoid and think everyone's a sock puppet.
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 03, 2019
Just so no one gets caught up in the bullshit, there are three main types of radioactive decay:

Alpha, which is the ejection of a helium-4 nuclide from the nucleus of the radioactive isotope
Beta, in which a neutron *in the nucleus* decays into a proton and a W- particle; the W- particle then quickly decays into an electron and an electron antineutrino
Gamma, in which an excited nuclear state (usually caused by prior alpha or beta decay) relaxes into a ground state, emitting a highly energetic photon

The half-life for each of these processes is different.

Only heavy nuclides (except beryllium-8)- that is elements with a higher atomic number than tellurium, element 53- emit alpha particles. For the lighter nuclides- for example carbon-14 or oxygen-15- only beta and gamma radiation are detected.

Many radioisotopes with very short half-lives are known, quite a few on the close order of a few seconds (by which I mean less than 10 seconds).

[contd]
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 03, 2019
[contd]
Considerably after radioactive decay was discovered by Becquerel (1896, for a Nobel Prize), the neutron was discovered (Chadwick 1932, for a Nobel Prize) and then found to decay by the same beta process as light radionuclides, leaving a proton and emitting an electron (and, it was eventually discovered, an electron antineutrino). This is completely separate from the decay of radioactive nuclides, as can be seen from the very different half-lives of the various radionuclides (which range from microseconds to billions of years).

@Benni never has had any training at nuclear physics, or it would already know all of this instead of making up fairy tales about ejected neutrons.
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 03, 2019
The decay of the neutron is driven by the same mass difference that drives the beta decay of radionuclides, but this is obviously (given the difference in half-lives) different for free neutrons and radionuclides. This further implies that the action of the color force is different for neutrons in a nucleus and free neutrons. This is an outstanding problem in nuclear physics, and the person who concisely describes exactly why will almost certainly win a Nobel Prize in Physics.

I'll tell you for sure it isn't radionuclides emitting neutrons.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Mar 03, 2019
So, @Benni, got any scientific papers on this "neutron emission" fairy tale you're telling?
humy
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 04, 2019
So, @Benni, got any scientific papers on this "neutron emission" fairy tale you're telling?

Answer; NONE. Or at least any 'papers' on it wouldn't be 'scientific' papers but 'complete gibberish for a bad joke' papers.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Mar 04, 2019
LOL

@Benni doesn't have any scientific papers to support its fairy tales so it transparently downvotes.

Cookie crumbs on shirt detected.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Mar 04, 2019
Meanwhile, @Benni admits there are black holes, because we can measure them:

https://phys.org/...ter.html
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Mar 04, 2019
Not to mention dark matter because we can measure that too:

https://phys.org/...ter.html
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Mar 04, 2019
Music for the moment:

https://www.youtu...yjWL81_c
Castrogiovanni
2.7 / 5 (12) Mar 04, 2019
If you had read the papers I had linked you would have read the Birkeland current is stable over extra-galactic distances due to the field-aligned currents and fields. Nowhere does it suggest a massive object is required for the formation or stability of the Birkeland currents. Galaxies, stars, and likely planets are created along these Birkeland currents through the magnetic pinch effect.


Pseudoscientific twaddle, for which there is no scientific evidence whatsoever.

Castrogiovanni
2.5 / 5 (11) Mar 04, 2019
In beta minus decay, a neutron decays into a proton, an electron, and an anti-neutrino, this is what happens 14.7 minutes after an atomic nucleus of a radio-isotope sheds a neutron, there is no ten minute half-life of a free unbound neutron, for the umpteenth time jonesy, will you ever get this straight?


Sorry, but you are lying. You really do not understand the subject. I would suggest reading up on it. A simple web search shows you to be wrong. Try it.

Along with protons, neutrons make up the nucleus, held together by the strong force. The neutron is a baryon and is considered to be composed of two down quarks and one up quark. A free neutron will decay with a half-life of about 10.3 minutes but it is stable if combined into a nucleus.


http://hyperphysi...ton.html

It is patently obvious that you have no understanding of the relevant science. One wonders what causes you to comment on this subject?
cantdrive85
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 04, 2019
Pseudoscientific twaddle, for which there is no scientific evidence whatsoever.

So now Alfvén, Falthammar, and Peratt are purveyors of pseudoscience.

And there is no evidence so long as we remain willfully ignorant of the observations made by Herschel and Alma.
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 04, 2019
Falthammar and Peratt don't agree with you. Shall I post the disclaimer from Peratt's site again?

Now stop lying.
Castrogiovanni
2.5 / 5 (11) Mar 04, 2019
Pseudoscientific twaddle, for which there is no scientific evidence whatsoever.

So now Alfvén, Falthammar, and Peratt are purveyors of pseudoscience.

And there is no evidence so long as we remain willfully ignorant of the observations made by Herschel and Alma.


You are talking nonsense. Peratt is a nobody, as far as astrophysics goes, and the other two never claimed - "Galaxies, stars, and likely planets are created along these Birkeland currents through the magnetic pinch effect."

So, that is an outright lie.

And what observations of ALMA and Herschell? Show me one single observation of galactic scale Birkeland currents. Not your inept interpretation - actual scientists claiming such observations.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Mar 04, 2019
To be more accurate, Peratt is a better bureaucrat than physicist.
Castrogiovanni
2.7 / 5 (12) Mar 04, 2019
To be more accurate, Peratt is a better bureaucrat than physicist.


TBF, he has a decent grasp of plasma physics in the lab. However, his knowledge of the astrophysical applications of such go a bit haywire. His galaxy model was a complete joke. And he is now engaged in looking for ancient plasma stuff in rock art!
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Mar 04, 2019
he is now engaged in looking for ancient plasma stuff in rock art!
Well, I suppose everybody oughtta have a hobby... Better than hanging around on science sites claiming to be a mind-reading space alien I guess.
antigoracle
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 04, 2019
he is now engaged in looking for ancient plasma stuff in rock art!
Well, I suppose everybody oughtta have a hobby... Better than hanging around on science sites claiming to be a mind-reading space alien I guess.

Da Schitts, the "meat" gobbler, brays another mouthful.
Too bad your boyfriend can't satisfy your hobby of hitting that "sweet" spot in your ass. Instead, you hang around on science sites, using sock puppets to talk to yourself.
LMAO.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Mar 04, 2019
Like I said, they're all paranoid now and stuck on sock puppets.

And if you want someone to hit your sweet spot I think your Russian troll farmer butt buddy is up for that. If not maybe @Benni. Sorry, I don't "do" guys. Good luck with that.
MrBojangles
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 04, 2019
Da Schitts, the "meat" gobbler, brays another mouthful.
Too bad your boyfriend can't satisfy your hobby of hitting that "sweet" spot in your ass. Instead, you hang around on science sites, using sock puppets to talk to yourself.
LMAO.


In psychology, this is known as projection. Who hurt you, little man?
observicist
3.8 / 5 (10) Mar 04, 2019
@SEU,

You seem to be saying that only scientists/researchers have the right to comment in these phorums. Are you now the dictator here?
LOL


Everyone has the right to comment on this site, and even present ridiculous ideas. No one has the right to have their posts respected; respect must be earned. On this site, respect is give to those posts that are consistent with current science, or are a reasonable and educated reinterpretation of old and new current data -- not just any reinterpretation -- an educated reinterpretation.

You're don't deserve respect.

And no, I'm not arrogant. I just know bullshit when I see it. I don't remember which post you said you admitted you know nothing about mathematics, and I'm not going to bother looking, but you said it, and others remember it -- not just me.

I am weary of you, as well, what with your psychotic delusion of being a host to some sort of alien being. It's not real. You are psychotic, @SEU. What you say is suspect.
observicist
3.7 / 5 (9) Mar 04, 2019
Einstein then spent 10 years trying to include acceleration in the theory and published his theory of general relativity in 1915. In it, he determined that massive objects cause a distortion in space-time, which is felt as gravity."

Massive objects don't cause a distortion in Time - only in Space as gravity. He made an error by including time with Space. FALSIFIED


Einstein did not make an error. Massive objects do cause distortion in time. If they didn't, your GPS in your smartphone wouldn't work, as it depends on that distortion.

UNFALSIFIED

Go back to school until you know enough not to make totally uneducated statements.
cantdrive85
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 04, 2019
the other two never claimed - "Galaxies, stars, and likely planets are created along these Birkeland currents through the magnetic pinch effect."

I already pointed out that they said just that in a thread when you were still jonesdumb. Not that lying and deception are foreign to you or da schnied for that matter.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 04, 2019
@eu fanatical cult pseudoscience cd
I already pointed out that they said just that in a thread when you were still jonesdumb
1- you have not met any scientific requirement of evidence for either your claims about extra-galactic birkeland currents nor jones sock puppets

2- you've not shown where Alfvén, Falthammar, and Peratt have in any way produced any scientific papers, studies or observed evidence of galatic birkeland currents

3- failure to produce replicable or falsifiable results is considered pseudoscience

a simple conclusion:
you're lying and you have a delusional belief based solely upon your interpretations of science that you don't comprehend while promoting the beliefs of others who you claim are authorities which also do not comply with the scientific principles

this is the definition of a religion

reported
Castrogiovanni
2.5 / 5 (8) Mar 04, 2019
the other two never claimed - "Galaxies, stars, and likely planets are created along these Birkeland currents through the magnetic pinch effect."

I already pointed out that they said just that in a thread when you were still jonesdumb. Not that lying and deception are foreign to you or da schnied for that matter.


If they did, they were wrong. Not very good at this science thing, are you?
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 04, 2019
@cantdrive85.
If more was visible from our vantage point it may look like this twisted pair;

https://en.m.wiki...bula.jpg
Context of my comments was BH effects on space cloud, regardless of cloud morphology.

YOU, @cd, claim cloud 'indicated' Birkeland currents. So I challenged you to connect your (alleged) Birkeland current with (article's) BH feature said to affect said cloud motion.

My plasmoid comment was meant to elicit from YOU what possible 'feature' could develop that would affect said cloud motion WITHOUT a (BH massed) GRAVITATING 'component' of the overall HYBRID system which might be determining said cloud motion. So, do YOU claim BH is a plasmoid or not, @cd? :)

ps: Re "Double-Helix Nebula"...BEWARE FALSE PATTERN RECOGNITION TENDENCIES! Remote-observation 'artifacts' can make clouds/systems 'look like', eg, 'butterflies', 'triangles', 'double-helixes' etc from afar. :)
MrBojangles
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 04, 2019
Time dilation exists as a consequence of the speed of light, because of the fact that the speed of light is:
A) Finite
B) Constant

Since the speed of light cannot be added to or subtracted from, if you travel at speed .5c, any photons you emit still travel at c. Time must therefore slow for you relative to a stationary observer. Otherwise, the speed of light is violated and the universe as we know it ceases to be. Length also contracts as a consequence. You can say
"Time is only the title/name of an insubstantial and imaginary 'qualifier' that is used to describe the passage and duration/length of Events through Space"


but the duration or length of these events does in fact change, or dilate due to massive objects and relativistic speeds. This cannot be avoided because of the nature of fact A and B above. Call it what you want, we know this to be true, have measured it, and most importantly, can use it predictively.
RealityCheck
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 04, 2019
@observicist.
Massive objects do cause distortion in time.
Actually, Einstein said it affected (ie, 'conditioned') the surrounding SPACE-TIME FABRIC mathematical ABSTRACTION (of the REAL physically effective ENERGY-SPACE that IS the affected 'medium in reality).

Anyone who doen't know WHY this 'space-time' ABSTRACTION was done (for the MATHS for Einstein's theory), should read/comprehend Einstein's address (5 May 1920, University of Leiden) many times before 'vehemently' asserting further.

http://www-histor...her.html

Two paragraphs in particular are relevant to this 'convenient' ABSTRACTION: the paragraph beginning thusly...
More careful reflection teaches us however, that the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny ether....
...and the paragraph immediately following that one, beginning thusly...
Think of waves on the surface of water. Here we can describe two entirely different things......
Cheers. :)
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 04, 2019
@MrBojangles
@observicist (this is also by way of being a ps to my earlier post to you re Einstein's Leiden lecture).

My previous posts, across more than one thread, explained that the only real SR-GR (equivalence principle) effect is on motion/change states, not some abstract 'time' concept which only appears as a convenient term/value in maths/analysis constructs. The 'time' and 'timing' aspects involve COMPARISON of more than one system of motion/change; eg, 'timing' your marathon race MOTION INTERVAL by COMPARISON with your race CLOCK TICK MOTION/CHANGE intervals accumulated during said race motion distance taken. Yes, TIME and TIMING *do exist*, but NOT as fundamental physically effective entity/dimension(s) like ENERGY-SPACE is/are. Cheers. :)
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 04, 2019
So, @Benni, got any scientific papers on this "neutron emission" fairy tale you're telling?

Answer; NONE. Or at least any 'papers' on it wouldn't be 'scientific' papers but 'complete gibberish for a bad joke' papers.
says humy

Now humy, haven't you learnt yet how crass, impolite and incredibly stupid it is to pretend that you KNOW unequivocally what is on another person's mind or what sort of information that he has available to him? Benni hasn't done it to YOU, so why are you doing the nasty Da Schniebo diddley act? Learn some good manners for a change, Aye?

When a man has no social life, and has been outcast by the rest of society, he has a tendency to become paranoid and adversarial.
says Bo

Now Bo, who is this paranoid and adversarial person of whom you speaketh? Exactly how DO you know what kind of social life he has had? Are you an FBI agent? Do tell us.
observicist
3.5 / 5 (8) Mar 04, 2019
@RealityCheck,

@MrBojangles
@observicist (this is also by way of being a ps to my earlier post to you re Einstein's Leiden lecture).

My previous posts, across more than one thread, explained that the only real SR-GR (equivalence principle) effect is on motion/change states, not some abstract 'time' concept which only appears as a convenient term/value in maths/analysis constructs. The 'time' and 'timing' aspects involve COMPARISON of more than one system of motion/change; eg, 'timing' your marathon race MOTION INTERVAL by COMPARISON with your race CLOCK TICK MOTION/CHANGE intervals accumulated during said race motion distance taken. Yes, TIME and TIMING *do exist*, but NOT as fundamental physically effective entity/dimension(s) like ENERGY-SPACE is/are. Cheers. :)


Utter garbage.

Space-time is real. Movement in time is movement in space; movement in space is movement in time. That's why it's called "space-time."
cantdrive85
3 / 5 (6) Mar 04, 2019
Context of my comments was BH effects on space cloud, regardless of cloud morphology.

Context of my comments was there is no black hole or massive object affecting the cloud. From wikistupidia;

"Pairs of parallel Birkeland currents will also interact due to Ampère's force law: parallel Birkeland currents moving in the same direction will attract each other with an electromagnetic force inversely proportional to their distance apart whilst parallel Birkeland currents moving in opposite directions will repel each other. There is also a short-range circular component to the force between two Birkeland currents that is opposite to the longer-range parallel forces."

The twisted helical pair is rotating, as such the two clouds are rotating about a common center. No infinite gravity monsters or faerie dust needed.
Benni
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 04, 2019
So, @Benni, got any scientific papers on this "neutron emission" fairy tale you're telling?

Answer; NONE. Or at least any 'papers' on it wouldn't be 'scientific' papers but 'complete gibberish for a bad joke' papers.
says humy

Now humy, haven't you learnt yet how crass, impolite and incredibly stupid it is to pretend that you KNOW unequivocally what is on another person's mind or what sort of information that he has available to him? Benni hasn't done it to YOU, so why are you doing the nasty Da Schniebo diddley act? Learn some good manners for a change, Aye?


> Egg......what drives them is their advocacy for Perpetual Motion, what drives me is the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics which is totally counter to BH & Dark Energy fantasy, either of which are as diametrically opposite of ENTROPY as fantasy can achieve.
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 04, 2019
@observicist.
effect is on motion/change states, not some abstract 'time' concept which only appears as a convenient term/value in maths/analysis constructs. The 'time' and 'timing' aspects involve COMPARISON of more than one system of motion/change; eg, 'timing' your marathon race MOTION INTERVAL by COMPARISON with your race CLOCK TICK MOTION/CHANGE intervals accumulated during said race motion distance taken. Yes, TIME and TIMING *do exist*, but NOT as fundamental physically effective entity/dimension(s) like ENERGY-SPACE is/are. Cheers. :)
Utter garbage. Space-time is real. Movement in time is movement in space; movement in space is movement in time. That's why it's called "space-time.
Please read the Einstein lecture I linked earlier, mate; then you may (he says, hopefully) understand that Einstein ABSTRACTED a maths/analytical 'space-time' CONSTRUCT in order to convey his theory/insights about the REAL 'energy-space' it relates to. Calm down and read it. :)
cantdrive85
3 / 5 (6) Mar 04, 2019
So, do YOU claim BH is a plasmoid or not, @cd? :)

Do you get it? The clouds are not orbiting due to gravitational effects, they are experiencing electromagnetic forces. The parallel twisted pair experiences long range attractive, short range repulsive forces
And no, a BH is not a plasmoid. A BH is a maths construct with zero basis in reality, infinite gravity monsters are as real as leprechauns and unicorns.
OTOH, toroidal plasmoids are very real objects. Known to occur along Birkeland currents, store energy until threshold met which causes jets, and to be prodigious producers of EM radiation. Just as observed. What plasma ignoramuses claim to be BH's are in fact plasmoids.
cantdrive85
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 04, 2019
Space-time is real. Movement in time is movement in space; movement in space is movement in time. That's why it's called "space-time."

LOL! Reverse in space is going back in time.
Space is real, time a human construct.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (4) Mar 04, 2019
From Space.com
"n 1905, Albert Einstein determined that the laws of physics are the same for all non-accelerating observers, and that the speed of light in a vacuum was independent of the motion of all observers. This was the theory of special relativity. It introduced a new framework for all of physics and proposed new concepts of space and time.

Einstein then spent 10 years trying to include acceleration in the theory and published his theory of general relativity in 1915. In it, he determined that massive objects cause a distortion in space-time, which is felt as gravity."

Massive objects don't cause a distortion in Time - only in Space as gravity. He made an error by including time with Space. FALSIFIED

Why don't you read what you just quoted?

massive objects cause a distortion in space-time


If you cannot understand a simple concept, blah
says CG

Time does NOT exist, only Space. Where do you see time? PROVE that time exists.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (4) Mar 04, 2019

Utter garbage.

Space-time is real. Movement in time is movement in space; movement in space is movement in time. That's why it's called "space-time."
says observatory

What does time look like? How does it appear to you? What form does it take? Can you breathe it , smell-taste-feel-hear it? Does it come to you in dreams?
If you can "move in time", as you say - you should be able to move backwards in time and reverse its course, yes? Have you done that yet? If not, then why not? I know that you can walk backwards in SPACE. So If you build a time machine and reverse time - will you be able to change what came after?
Please be specific in your descriptions.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 04, 2019
Since the speed of light cannot be added to or subtracted from, if you travel at speed .5c, any photons you emit still travel at c. Time must therefore slow for you relative to a stationary observer. Otherwise, the speed of light is violated and the universe as.. Length also contracts as a consequence. You can say
"Time is only the title/name of an insubstantial and imaginary 'qualifier' that is used to describe the passage and duration/length of Events through Space"


but the duration or length of these events does in fact change, or dilate due to massive objects and relativistic speeds. This cannot be avoided.. Call it what you want, we know, have measured it, and most importantly, can use it predictively.
says observatory

C remains at the same velocity whether there is an observer or not. Only thing that can change its direction is grav lensing when it is redirected by Mass.
Length of Events is either an arbitrary decision or by unavoidable circumstances
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 04, 2019
That actually has an explanation, but you have to know math to understand it.

For others who will get it, the explanation is that time does not have the same relation to the space dimensions that they have to each other. The three space dimensions relations to one another are circular; this means that ordinary circular trigonometry can be used to calculate angles and distances among them. However, time's relation to each of them is hyperbolic, meaning you have to use hyperbolic trigonometry to calculate angles and distances. This introduces a discontinuity, where calculations become badly behaved; and this prevents changing your time direction from one to another. Hyperbolic trig doesn't have the concept of a "right angle."

A little experimentation with hyperbolic trig (probably best done with a calculator) will convince any reasonable person of this. But
a) you have to know trig, and
b) you have to be a reasonable person,
and neither applies to you.
[contd]
Benni
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 04, 2019
C remains at the same velocity whether there is an observer or not. Only thing that can change its direction is grav lensing when it is redirected by Mass.
.......schneibo has stated he knows how to make a lens that can make an EM Wave go in circles, he has the 19th Century BH Math to prove it too, math by the same ones who gave us AETHER.

I have a feeling it is about to be presented.........
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 04, 2019
[contd]
Now as for whether you can sense time, that's silliness. Every time anyone moves they sense time. I "was" there then, now I "am" here. That's about as basic as it gets.

As for the rest of your argument, it's unnecessary to taste touch smell or hear time; you can't do that with space either. Your argument is specious logic common among innumerate self-identified "philosophers," for whom I hold nothing but contempt.

Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 04, 2019
Einstein then spent 10 years trying to include acceleration in the theory and published his theory of general relativity in 1915. In it, he determined that massive objects cause a distortion in space-time, which is felt as gravity."

Massive objects don't cause a distortion in Time - only in Space as gravity. He made an error by including time with Space. FALSIFIED


Einstein did not make an error. Massive objects do cause distortion in time. If they didn't, your GPS in your smartphone wouldn't work, as it depends on that distortion.

UNFALSIFIED

Go back to school until you know enough not to make totally uneducated statements.
says observatory

You seem perturbed.
Of course Einstein made a huge error. Massive objects such as the Sun and all planets distort/dilate SPACE. There is no such thing as "Time" that is capable of doing to Space what massive objects are capable of doing to Space - such as 'gravity wells' in Einstein's Fabric of Space.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 04, 2019
As @Whyde has noted, the fact that motion can occur is proof of the existence of time. Motion cannot occur if there is no such thing as time. This is probably the most persuasive argument, and it's the one that swayed me forty or so years ago.

What are you, about 15 years old? That seems to be your mental age. Divide that into your physical age and multiply by 100 and that's your IQ.
Benni
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 04, 2019
Your argument is specious logic common among innumerate self-identified "philosophers," for whom I hold nothing but contempt.
......but you hold no contempt toward those 19th Century purveyors of aether theory who were the same ones who conjured up your BH Math theory for which you've pushed hard, you know that theory of a gravity lens that makes an EM Wave turn in circles.

Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 04, 2019
schneibo has stated he knows how to make a lens that can make an EM Wave go in circles, he has the 19th Century BH Math to prove it too, math by the same ones who gave us AETHER.

I have a feeling it is about to be presented.........
You're lying again, @Benni. Show where I stated this. Link and quote.

You lie a lot. Seems like you're pretty insecure.
Benni
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 04, 2019
schneibo has stated he knows how to make a lens that can make an EM Wave go in circles, he has the 19th Century BH Math to prove it too, math by the same ones who gave us AETHER.

I have a feeling it is about to be presented.........
You're lying again, @Benni. Show where I stated this. Link and quote.

.......you backed off just now because I called you on it.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 04, 2019
Incidentally worth noting that space is not dilated by either time or gravity; it's contracted. It's time that dilates. This is because space is circular (i.e. Euclidean) geometry, whereas time is hyperbolic (i.e. Poincareian) geometry. This is manifest not only in SRT but also in AdS/CFT correspondence. So now we're talking about string physics. This again for interested observers; none of the bitch of trolls will understand this so they will ridicule it and lie about it, just like insecure people always do.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 04, 2019
No, @Benni, your maneuverings are as transparent as a 3-year-old's. You either have this link and quote or you don't, and you don't. If you do bring it. Since when is requiring you to substantiate what you say with evidence "backing off?" Seems to me it's pressing you, and in this case you failing miserably and trying to make up an excuse.

None of this is new to me and most of it is things I learned decades ago. You, on the other hand, are innumerate and incapable of learning math. I pity you.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (8) Mar 04, 2019
As @Whyde has noted, the fact that motion can occur is proof of the existence of time. Motion cannot occur if there is no such thing as time. This is probably the most persuasive argument, and it's the one that swayed me forty or so years ago.

What are you, about 15 years old? That seems to be your mental age. Divide that into your physical age and multiply by 100 and that's your IQ.
says Da Schnitzophrenic

ROFLOL You're still wrong, you dummy.
Describe time if you can. What is time made of? If time is real, then what are its properties? How is it able to dilate and by which method? Where did time come from? Can you reverse time?
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 04, 2019
Again for observers, if you know the Lorentz transforms, you will be interested to find that there are also a set of Poincaire transforms that instead of algebra use hyperbolic trig. Search on "rapidity relativity" and you may bring any questions here, given this understanding.

Time is a dimension, just like the three space dimensions, but with a different relation.

And remember that light moves at c. What makes it do that? And if it can, then why cannot mass move at c in time, that is, one second per second?

Claims of "perpetual motion" apparently ignore that light is in perpetual motion.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 04, 2019
What are space dimensions "made of?"

The properties of time are given in physics equations you have already admitted you are incompetent to assess because you have admitted you are innumerate.

If time doesn't exist, how can I have been "there then" and be "here now?" You've been ignoring this question for weeks now. Which is yet another proof you are wrong; "weeks" is a measure of time.

Teh stoopit it burnz.

And you said you were ignoring me. Just another lie.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (8) Mar 04, 2019
[contd]
Now as for whether you can sense time, that's silliness. Every time anyone moves they sense time. I "was" there then, now I "am" here. That's about as basic as it gets.

As for the rest of your argument, it's unnecessary to taste touch smell or hear time; you can't do that with space either. Your argument is specious logic common among innumerate self-identified "philosophers," for whom I hold nothing but contempt.

says Da Pussy (according to SpookyOtto)

All motion/movement/momentum is done only through Space, which is an Event whose length/duration can be measured by clocks. Space carries sounds such as sonic booms and thunder. Time doesn't. Voices are carried through Space too.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 04, 2019
Still waiting to hear how anything can change without time. "It was that then, and it's this now" is the statement of time. And it's always that then and this now. How can anything change if there is no time?
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 04, 2019
Tonight's listening:

https://www.youtu...a_G1h3pw
cantdrive85
2.5 / 5 (8) Mar 04, 2019
If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to see it does it still fall?

Time is a measurement, a clock a ruler, a second is a centimeter. Without an observer time is meaningless.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 04, 2019
Cause you gotta blame someone
For your own confusion
And we're on guard this time
'Gainst your final solution

-Red Rider 1981
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (8) Mar 04, 2019
Still waiting to hear how anything can change without time. "It was that then, and it's this now" is the statement of time. And it's always that then and this now. How can anything change if there is no time?
says Da P

Nope. Changes in motion/momentum don't require time. Such changes are recorded in the mind as awareness of those changes - which are done in Space. Increments of changes are measured by clocks only.
AND you said: "As for the rest of your argument, it's unnecessary to taste touch smell or hear time; you can't do that with space either." I specified that sounds can be heard through Space, but you ignored that true statement - as you always do.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 04, 2019
Changes in motion/momentum don't require time
That's the supidest thing I've heard on this thread. There can be no change if there is no time.

Motion and momentum both require time which you'd know if you knew any math or physics.

Their very definitions are based on time.

"Motion" means there then and here now. How can we define "then" and "now" without time?

"Momentum" means "impulse to move from there then to here now." Again, how can we define "then" and "now" without time?

Your philosophy is deficient.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 04, 2019
If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to see it does it still fall?

Time is a measurement, a clock a ruler, a second is a centimeter. Without an observer time is meaningless.
says CD

Yep.Without a mind to record the activity/Event, no one knows what happened to that tree. It is the MIND that is aware of Events/activities, as well as motion and the passage of events. The concept of time is only IN the MIND.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 04, 2019
Without a mind to record the activity/Event, no one knows what happened to that tree.
Sure we do. It fell over. Ummm duh.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 04, 2019
Changes in motion/momentum don't require time
That's the supidest thing I've heard on this thread. There can be no change if there is no time.

Motion and momentum both require time which you'd know if you knew any math or physics.

Their very definitions are based on time.

"Motion" means there then and here now. How can we define "then" and "now" without time?

"Momentum" means "impulse to move from there then to here now." Again, how can we define "then" and "now" without time?

Your philosophy is deficient.


Pure BS on your part.
Time is a production of the human mind because the MIND is aware of the passages and changes in his environment. He needed a description for the causes of changes and called it time.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 04, 2019
Without a mind to record the activity/Event, no one knows what happened to that tree.
Sure we do. It fell over. Ummm duh.
says Da mindless Idiot
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 04, 2019
Time is a production of the human mind because the MIND is aware of the passages and changes in his environment.
Space is a production of the human mind because positions can change.

Your solipsistic philosophy is exposed for its vapidity.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 04, 2019
What are space dimensions "made of?"

The properties of time are given in physics equations you have already admitted you are incompetent to assess because you have admitted you are innumerate.

If time doesn't exist, how can I have been "there then" and be "here now?" You've been ignoring this question for weeks now. Which is yet another proof you are wrong; "weeks" is a measure of time.

Teh stoopit it burnz.

And you said you were ignoring me. Just another lie.
says Da P

I meant to ask: What are Time dimensions made of? Not Space dimensions. Time is not a dimension.
Nope. I didn't lie. I Ignored your posts except in this phorum.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 04, 2019
The hypocrites are slandering the sacred halls of truth
Ancient nobles showering their bitterness on youth
Can't we find the minds that made us strong?
Can't we find the minds that know what's right, from what's wrong?

-Rush, A Farewell to Kings, 1977
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 05, 2019
It's not a "forum," it's a thread.

And you still lied since threads all have the same ignore function.

You might as well ask what space dimensions are "made of.' You have no answer.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 05, 2019
Time is a production of the human mind because the MIND is aware of the passages and changes in his environment.
Space is a production of the human mind because positions can change.

Your solipsistic philosophy is exposed for its vapidity.


Up yours. Oops I meant to say: As is yours.

Nope. Space is not produced. It's a natural medium.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 05, 2019
You said it. I was merely quoting you. Time is a natural medium too, given we can see change. No one produces space.

This is the problem with philosophy. It doesn't acknowledge reality.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 05, 2019
It's not a "forum," it's a thread.

And you still lied since threads all have the same ignore function.

You might as well ask what space dimensions are "made of.' You have no answer.


Were you born stupid?
Nope. I don't tell lies, but YOU do. And all your lies are on record.
I ignored your caterwauling in the other forum. Just not in this one. Got a problem with that?
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 05, 2019
But you still don't have an answer to what space is "made of." Your argument that we don't know what time is "made of" therefore is at odds with perceived reality.

Philosophers always forget reality. Or try to dismiss it with solipsism and derridism.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 05, 2019
You said it. I was merely quoting you. Time is a natural medium too, given we can see change. No one produces space.

This is the problem with philosophy. It doesn't acknowledge reality.


LOL Every time you type your nonsense versions in this phorum, you are telling your philosophy.
Philosophy is ideas, opinions, data, hypothesis, theory, lecture, anything that's on a human's mind is philosophical. And don't forget that.

LOL again. I see that your master, Captain Stumps has been giving me"1' ratings again. Lurking around, I see.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 05, 2019
But you still don't have an answer to what space is "made of." Your argument that we don't know what time is "made of" therefore is at odds with perceived reality.

Philosophers always forget reality. Or try to dismiss it with solipsism and derridism.


I see that you can't remember that Einstein described the "Fabric of Space". Oh well, perhaps your memory might improve someday
LOL
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 05, 2019
What's space "made of?"

Changing the subject won't help. Everyone can see it.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 05, 2019
What's space "made of?"

Changing the subject won't help. Everyone can see it.
says Da Doofus

LOL That's easy. Space is made up of quantum particle inclusions in Matter/Energy, but on a very fine scale that is indiscernible. Unlike time that is a figment of the imagination of humans
humy
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 05, 2019
Space is made up of quantum particle inclusions in Matter/Energy
Surveillance_Egg_Unit

No. Space isn't 'made' of anything because space is a dimension.
What space contains (quantum particle or whatever) is merely just that, merely what it contains. It doesn't make any sense to say space is 'made' of what it contains.
Unlike time that is a figment of the imagination of humans
At what points in TIME did this figment of the imagination occur? WHEN did you decide time is a figment of the imagination? There is no "when" or 'moment in time' without time thus all your assertions that contain/imply "when", "before" "after" "past" "future" etc will be meaningless if there is no time.
I assert time is more than imagined; it is a dimension of sorts. Prove me wrong!
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 05, 2019
Space is made up of quantum particle inclusions in Matter/Energy,
Is that supposed to mean something? What's a "quantum particle inclusion?"

Now you're just making shit up.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 05, 2019
Time is defined by the measuring of clocks, as distance is defined by the measuring of rulers. I've already explained why. Trolls always worm and squirm to try to avoid their lies.

Philosophers should be alarmed to be co-opted by trolls, but they always defer to the trolls. What does this say about philosophers?
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 05, 2019
So, how we doin' on the whole "hiding black hole" thing? Seems like this got pretty off-track because the "no black holes" trolls took it that way in order to prevent discussion of science.

This is their goal.
Castrogiovanni
3.4 / 5 (10) Mar 05, 2019
Your argument is specious logic common among innumerate self-identified "philosophers," for whom I hold nothing but contempt.
......but you hold no contempt toward those 19th Century purveyors of aether theory who were the same ones who conjured up your BH Math theory for which you've pushed hard, you know that theory of a gravity lens that makes an EM Wave turn in circles.



Gravitational lensing is an observed fact. You really do seem to be hopeless when it comes to science. Have you ever actually studied it? Highly unlikely, I'd say.
Castrogiovanni
3.4 / 5 (10) Mar 05, 2019
So, do YOU claim BH is a plasmoid or not, @cd? :)

Do you get it? The clouds are not orbiting due to gravitational effects, they are experiencing electromagnetic forces. The parallel twisted pair experiences long range attractive, short range repulsive forces
And no, a BH is not a plasmoid. A BH is a maths construct with zero basis in reality, infinite gravity monsters are as real as leprechauns and unicorns.
OTOH, toroidal plasmoids are very real objects. Known to occur along Birkeland currents, store energy until threshold met which causes jets, and to be prodigious producers of EM radiation. Just as observed. What plasma ignoramuses claim to be BH's are in fact plasmoids.


Total nonsense. Please explain the orbits of the stars around the galactic centre. Using science. Please explain the gravitational redshift. Using science. You appear to be as science deficient as Benni. Plenty of silly assertions, no science.
Castrogiovanni
3.2 / 5 (9) Mar 05, 2019
Context of my comments was BH effects on space cloud, regardless of cloud morphology.

Context of my comments was there is no black hole or massive object affecting the cloud. From wikistupidia;

"Pairs of parallel Birkeland currents will also interact due to Ampère's force law: parallel Birkeland currents moving in the same direction will attract each other with an electromagnetic force inversely proportional to their distance apart whilst parallel Birkeland currents moving in opposite directions will repel each other. There is also a short-range circular component to the force between two Birkeland currents that is opposite to the longer-range parallel forces."

The twisted helical pair is rotating, as such the two clouds are rotating about a common center. No infinite gravity monsters or faerie dust needed.


Total nonsense. How are these unseen currents moving neutral molecules around?
Benni
2 / 5 (8) Mar 05, 2019
No, @Benni, your maneuverings are as transparent as a 3-year-old's. You either have this link and quote or you don't, and you don't. If you do bring it. Since when is requiring you to substantiate what you say with evidence "backing off?" Seems to me it's pressing you, and in this case you failing miserably and trying to make up an excuse. .


,,,,,then how about you telling us again how BHs form without the fabled SINGULARITY?

Got your 19th Century BH Math ready that explains how EM Waves travel in circular pathways? You know, the fabled PHOTON SPHERE cooked up by the 19th Century aether theory advocates.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 05, 2019
Thought you were claiming I said something about gravitational lensing.

Where did that go?

And why are you now worming and squirming and changing the subject?

No links, no quotes, you're lying again, @Benni. Just like always when it gets tough.
Benni
1.9 / 5 (9) Mar 05, 2019
Thought you were claiming I said something about gravitational lensing.

Where did that go?

And why are you now worming and squirming and changing the subject?

No links, no quotes, you're lying again, @Benni. Just like always when it gets tough.


Then you won't mind explaining again to us how BHs form without that vaunted Singularity with all that infinite gravity & density would you?
Castrogiovanni
3.2 / 5 (11) Mar 05, 2019


,,,,,then how about you telling us again how BHs form without the fabled SINGULARITY?

Got your 19th Century BH Math ready that explains how EM Waves travel in circular pathways? You know, the fabled PHOTON SPHERE cooked up by the 19th Century aether theory advocates.


This poster really appears to have no scientific knowledge.
granville583762
3.5 / 5 (8) Mar 05, 2019
A Moment in TIME
observicist>.UNFALSIFIED
Go back to school until you know enough not to make totally uneducated statements.

When
time pass's immortal
in comments in time
Observicist
in aging mortal coil
memories
a flooding back cometh
of days of school
in
Go back to school until you know enough not to make totally uneducated statements
these
statements are so familiar
in their syntax
as
even, Castrogiovanni
total nonsense. How are these unseen currents moving neutral molecules around
as time stops for no man
through Dobbelstein to Castrogiovanni
as
the time continuum broke way back August 13, 2018
when emerged in time, kl31415 in Cox and Box
where time came to fruition
as the space boffins slowed the chronometers in orbit
so we have a time continuum
kl31415, Observicist, Dobbelstein, Castrogiovanni
as
from this maelstrom in the quantum fluctuations
emerged in all finality, Castrogiovanni
The question is, why?
and
Is there more to come?
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 05, 2019
No, @Benni. You're not changing the subject.

Links and quotes or you're lying, @Benni. Just like you always do.
Castrogiovanni
3.2 / 5 (9) Mar 05, 2019
A Moment in TIME
observicist>.UNFALSIFIED
Go back to school until you know enough not to make totally uneducated statements.

When
time pass's immortal
in comments in time
Observicist
in aging mortal coil
memories
a flooding back cometh
of days of school
in
Go back to school until you know enough not to make totally uneducated statements
these
statements are so familiar
in their syntax
as
even, Castrogiovanni
total nonsense. How are these unseen currents moving neutral molecules around
as time stops for no man.............blah, blah, blah.


Do you have anything on-topic, and intelligent to say?
Benni
1.9 / 5 (9) Mar 05, 2019
No, @Benni. You're not changing the subject.

Links and quotes or you're lying, @Benni. Just like you always do.


,,,,,and all this time you had jonesy thinking you were a mathematical genius.

Now you refuse to put up "your math" for the schneibo version of BHs. We can only conclude that YOU never believed in the PHOTON SPHERE of 19th Century TUGMath calculations to begin with.
Castrogiovanni
3.4 / 5 (10) Mar 05, 2019

Now you refuse to put up "your math" for the schneibo version of BHs. We can only conclude that YOU never believed in the PHOTON SPHERE of 19th Century TUGMath calculations to begin with.


Is this clown for real? Go and look in the scientific literature for the math of black holes. It will be completely beyond your level of understanding. Nobody cares what you believe. You do not understand science.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 05, 2019
No, @Benni. Nothing will distract me.

You lied and now it's proven.

Liar liar pants on fire, hang yourself from a telephone wire.
Benni
1.9 / 5 (9) Mar 05, 2019

Now you refuse to put up "your math" for the schneibo version of BHs. We can only conclude that YOU never believed in the PHOTON SPHERE of 19th Century TUGMath calculations to begin with.


Is this clown for real? Go and look in the scientific literature for the math of black holes. It will be completely beyond your level of understanding. Nobody cares what you believe. You do not understand science.

Sure jonesy, we know.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 05, 2019
You always do the same stuff when you get caught, @Benni.

Like I said, as transparent as a 3-year-old.
kl31415
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 05, 2019
No, @Benni. You're not changing the subject.

Links and quotes or you're lying, @Benni. Just like you always do.


,,,,,and all this time you had jonesy thinking you were a mathematical genius.

Now you refuse to put up "your math" for the schneibo version of BHs. We can only conclude that YOU never believed in the PHOTON SPHERE of 19th Century TUGMath calculations to begin with.


No one's a genius like you Benni, between you, Grandelusion and Stupid Egg, not sure who takes the cake...

How did that partial differential equation go ? 2-2/2=

Should we remind the thread about the solutions provided ? :D

Benni cannot share links as they all lead to unscientific domains or if he does, the validity of the 'science' is questionable at best.

Isn't that right Benni ?
kl31415
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 05, 2019
You always do the same stuff when you get caught, @Benni.

Like I said, as transparent as a 3-year-old.


Benni's moto - Denial, denial denial !
Denial all the way and of course counterattack !

Brilliant strategy ! :)
cantdrive85
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 05, 2019
Total nonsense. How are these unseen currents moving neutral molecules around?

Amusing, jonesdumb or canastadementiras or whatever he is calling himself today, doesn't know the first thing about plasma. Yet he spouts his ignorance freely and somewhat proudly.
Castrogiovanni
3.2 / 5 (9) Mar 05, 2019
Total nonsense. How are these unseen currents moving neutral molecules around?

Amusing, jonesdumb or canastadementiras or whatever he is calling himself today, doesn't know the first thing about plasma. Yet he spouts his ignorance freely and somewhat proudly.


So point to the scientific literature to show that these currents are shifting neutral gas around at some velocity.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 05, 2019
Crickets

Maybe @cantthink will post links to some of the EU drivel. At best.
Castrogiovanni
3.2 / 5 (9) Mar 05, 2019
Crickets

Maybe @cantthink will post links to some of the EU drivel. At best.


In which case they will be reported :)
Benni
2 / 5 (8) Mar 05, 2019
Crickets

Maybe @cantthink will post links to some of the EU drivel. At best.


In which case they will be reported :) ......like you were jonesy, and then got the boot because of your interminable foul mouth.
SkyLight
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 05, 2019
@Benni
In which case they will be reported :) ......like you were jonesy
You really should get a life, Benni, since you're sure never going to get an education.

If @cd gets reported, it'll be because he will (as he always has done) provide links to pseudoscience sites. I'm just quoting the Guidelines for posting comments on Science X articles:
Keep science: Include references to the published scientific literature to support your statements. Pseudoscience comments (including non-mainstream theories) will be deleted
Get it?
MrBojangles
4 / 5 (8) Mar 05, 2019
says observatory

Who's that?

C remains at the same velocity whether there is an observer or not.

Right, that's what I said. Because of this fact, we know that time dilation and length contraction exist.

Only thing that can change its direction is grav lensing when it is redirected by Mass.

Who was talking about light changing its direction?

I explained the concept in the most layman way I could. Do the Lorentz transforms, it's relatively easy math and if you do the calculations you will understand what's going on.

Or, explain mathematically when something traveling a fraction of c emits a photon in the direction of travel, what parameter is changing to preserve the speed of light? Certainly we can agree the speed of light is finite and constant. So what is physically happening when I try to add some velocity to light relative to a stationary observer?
observicist
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 05, 2019
@CD, @SEU,

Perform a little thought experiment for me.

Pretend you are in your favorite armchair and, sitting there, you move into the future one year -- and you move forward in time only (note that I'm having you move forward to avoid paradoxes). Where will you be?

Think carefully.
Benni
1.8 / 5 (8) Mar 05, 2019
Now I get it:

2+2/2 = Pretend you are in your favorite armchair and, sitting there, you move into the future one year -- and you move forward in time only (note that I'm having you move forward to avoid paradoxes). Where will you be?Think carefully.
antigoracle
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 05, 2019
LMAO.
It's beyond amusing to see Da Schitts naming one of his sock puppet MrBojangles.
Hey Da Schitts, is that what you call your boyfriend's "meat".
MrBojangles
4.1 / 5 (9) Mar 05, 2019
LMAO.
It's beyond amusing to see Da Schitts naming one of his sock puppet MrBojangles.
Hey Da Schitts, is that what you call your boyfriend's "meat".


You really come to a physics website to sling Grade School insults?
Is anyone that scares you with math and logic a "sock puppet"?

When a man has no social life, and has been outcast by the rest of society, he has a tendency to become paranoid (everyone's a DS sock puppet) and adversarial (everyone I disagree with is ghey.) See above post.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 05, 2019
Space is made up of quantum particle inclusions in Matter/Energy
Surveillance_Egg_Unit

No. Space isn't 'made' of anything because space is a dimension.
What space contains (quantum particle or whatever) is merely just that, merely what it contains. It doesn't make any sense to say space is 'made' of what it contains.
Unlike time that is a figment of the imagination of humans
At what points in TIME did this figment of the imagination occur? WHEN did you decide time is a figment of the imagination? There is no "when" or 'moment in time' without time thus all your assertions that contain/imply "when", "before" "after" "past" "future" etc will be meaningless if there is no time.
I assert time is more than imagined; it is a dimension of sorts. Prove me wrong!
says humy

Perhaps you didn't read what Da Scheide asked: "What's space "made of?"" and I gave my answer which you copied.
There are ONLY 3 DIMENSIONS PLUS SPACE. No Spacetime.
-contd-
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 05, 2019
-contd-
@humy
What you call Time is only a product of the human mind, conceived to EXPLAIN the length of sunrise to sunrise and the length of SEASONS, DAYS, MONTHS AND YEARS. Once they achieved the formation of that concept, they went on to dividing moments and the passage of Events into increments of seconds, minutes and hours by the use of clocks that were conceived and invented by the human mind also.
What is referred to as a "moment" or "moment in time" is actually a moment within an Event; the Moment is an Increment within that Event. The Event can be divided up into Moments, as well as seconds, minutes, hours, days, etc. A day can be regarded as a Moment in the mind of someone who recalls that day. "You had your moment in the Sun" or "You had your 15 minutes of fame". These are conceptions that the mind recalls or projects to happen. The CONCEPT of time is only a "placeholder" to describe the increments of an Event. IT IS NOT A DIMENSION.
jimmybobber
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 05, 2019
SEU said

"There are ONLY 3 DIMENSIONS PLUS SPACE"

What?

Whydening Gyre
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 05, 2019
If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to see it does it still fall?

Time is a measurement, a clock a ruler, a second is a centimeter. Without an observer time is meaningless.

I've had three trees fall in my back yard recently. I didn't hear it or see it , but when I was walking around in my back yard a day or 2 later, there they were - on the ground.
guess they fell when nobody was listening, watching...
Get back to reality, CD.
Benni
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 05, 2019
guess they fell when nobody was listening, watching...
....... must be the case, you said you weren't there.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 05, 2019
If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to see it does it still fall?

Time is a measurement, a clock a ruler, a second is a centimeter. Without an observer time is meaningless.

I've had three trees fall in my back yard recently. I didn't hear it or see it , but when I was walking around in my back yard a day or 2 later, there they were - on the ground.
guess they fell when nobody was listening, watching...
Get back to reality, CD.
says Whyde

Perhaps you were in your house watching videos or sleeping. Poor argument, Whyde
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 05, 2019
SEU said

"There are ONLY 3 DIMENSIONS PLUS SPACE"

What?

says jimmy booboo

That's right, jimmybooboo
Now you can believe the truth - or not, and be deluded all the rest of your life. It's your choice.
You and your "friends" here are oblivious to Truth, and want everyone in physorg to agree with the established science conformity.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 05, 2019
LMAO.
It's beyond amusing to see Da Schitts naming one of his sock puppet MrBojangles.
Hey Da Schitts, is that what you call your boyfriend's "meat".


You really come to a physics website to sling Grade School insults?
Is anyone that scares you with math and logic a "sock puppet"?

When a man has no social life, and has been outcast by the rest of society, he has a tendency to become paranoid (everyone's a DS sock puppet) and adversarial (everyone I disagree with is ghey.) See above post.
says Bojingles

You do seem to be one of Da Scheide's sox as he also spells the word gay as "ghey".
This is the second time that you have said, "When a man has no social life, and has been...." in this same phorum. Habits tend to run deep, so will you also grace other phorums with the same philosophical outlook?
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 05, 2019
These are lightweights.

They have no evidence, just a bunch of ridiculous claims.

They can't do math. Not even simple gradeschool stuff.

They try to distract attention from all this by slinging insults.

Obvious trolls.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 05, 2019
@CD, @SEU,

Perform a little thought experiment for me.

Pretend you are in your favorite armchair and, sitting there, you move into the future one year -- and you move forward in time only (note that I'm having you move forward to avoid paradoxes). Where will you be?

Think carefully.
says observatory

LOL My Spellcheck INSISTS that your name is observatory.
Your thought experiment is implausible. Since time is nonexistent as a "thing" nor a dimension, there is no way to even "pretend" such an Event could happen. You may have seen "ads" on the interweb (as Onkel Ira calls it) relating to alleged "time travel" where a photo is presented where there is an alleged "iPhone" in the photo that is held by a woman in the 1800s? That is something to laugh at, isn't it?
If it were possible, even moving forward 1 year would produce at least 1 paradox within that year, so that when you actually arrive there, things would have changed - but you wouldn't know it.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 05, 2019
These are lightweights.

They have no evidence, just a bunch of ridiculous claims.

They can't do math. Not even simple gradeschool stuff.

They try to distract attention from all this by slinging insults.

Obvious trolls.
says the head troll who loves attention
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 05, 2019
Endless repetition of the same stupid thing, over and over and over again.

Never has any evidence.

Can't do math.

Lightweight.
MrBojangles
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 05, 2019
You do seem to be one of Da Scheide's sox as he also spells the word gay as "ghey".

Says Egghead

I spelled it that way so as not to potentially draw scrutiny on a work network.
I might also point out you have the same mannerisms as Benni, and the only reason you would continually defend him is because you are one of his personalities. The one that thinks it's an alien apparently.

This is the second time that you have said, "When a man has no social life, and has been...." in this same phorum

Also Egghead

That was the second time it was applicable on this thread.

At any rate, you've deflected from the real question because you don't have an answer. You can pretend to wax philosophic on metaphysics and time, but the reality is you're an innumerate (DS has also used this word) troll.

You lose again Benni/Egghead
cantdrive85
2.7 / 5 (7) Mar 05, 2019
guess they fell when nobody was listening, watching...
Get back to reality, CD.


I did mention the requirement of the observation. Without the observation there is nothing to measure, such as time.

Time is a measurement
Clock is a ruler
Minute is a meter
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 05, 2019
double post
Benni
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 05, 2019
They can't do math. Not even simple gradeschool stuff.
......sez schneibo, but look:

Now I get the math:

2+2/2 = Pretend you are in your favorite armchair and, sitting there, you move into the future one year --
and you move forward in time only (note that I'm having you move forward to avoid paradoxes).
Where will you be?Think carefully.
.......the observant guy may have something here?
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 05, 2019
Looks like @Whyde can measure the trees, @cantthink.

Just sayin'.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 05, 2019
the observant guy may have something here?
Yet you still don't have the answer to

2 + 2 / 2 = ?

despite being told it multiple times.

You're a stoopit, @Benni.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 05, 2019
You do seem to be one of Da Scheide's sox as he also spells the word gay as "ghey".

Says Egghead

I spelled it that way so as not to potentially draw scrutiny on a work network.
I might also point out you have the same mannerisms as Benni, and the only reason you would continually defend him is because you are one of his personalities. The one that thinks it's an alien apparently.

This is the second time that you have said, "When a man has no social life, and has been...." in this same phorum

Also Egghead

At any rate, you've deflected from the real question because you don't have an answer. You can pretend to wax philosophic on metaphysics and time, but the reality is you're an innumerate (DS has also used this word) troll.

You lose again Benni/Egghead
says Da Scheide's sock

ROFLOL
I wish that I had as much knowledge of science as Benni does, but I am still learning and can only offer what I know to be true
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 05, 2019
Is that like you "offering" "time doesn't exist?" Without any evidence and contrary to math that's lasted a century?

Just repeating the same stupid shit over and over and over again.

No evidence.

No math.

Lightweight.

Get whatcha pay for lightweight.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 05, 2019
Let me put this another way:

Those who sow the wind shall reap the tornado.

That will be the sewage rope gangs. Who have more guns than you do and more will to use them.

Enjoy drowning in their septic tanks. Or being shot; it might be preferable.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 05, 2019
Is that like you "offering" "time doesn't exist?" Without any evidence and contrary to math that's lasted a century?

Just repeating the same stupid shit over and over and over again.

No evidence.

No math.

Lightweight.

Get whatcha pay for lightweight.
says Da Pussy (according to SpookyOtto)

Time doesn't exist, dummy. What is your proof that time is a "thing" like the 3 dimensions of height, depth and width or length. What is time made of?
I already told you what Space is made of. Now it's your turn.
What is "time" made of?
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 05, 2019
In twenty years, sewage rope gangs with more guns than you have will roam the US looking for science deniers in order to hang them over overflowing septic tanks as the tide rises. Just like Rialto Bridge.

You are a target.

Run away and hide, denier.

And that's if the nukes from the states whose people are dying by the billion don't get you first.
cantdrive85
2.7 / 5 (7) Mar 05, 2019
Pretend you are in your favorite armchair and, sitting there, you move into the future one year -- and you move forward in time only (note that I'm having you move forward to avoid paradoxes). Where will you be?

I will need to create a Superdiminutive black hole, right now, then connect it to a nanosecond strange neutronium pulsar a year from now via a comical Einsteinian wormhole. Then, jump in the Superdiminutive BH, ride the comical Einsteinian wormhole to the strangium star, at which time beta decay of the strange neutronium will transmute into human flesh (and stuff) and deposit me right back into the recliner in which I'm currently settled. So not far, only then.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 05, 2019
Let me put this another way:

Those who sow the wind shall reap the tornado.

That will be the sewage rope gangs. Who have more guns than you do and more will to use them.

Enjoy drowning in their septic tanks. Or being shot; it might be preferable.
says Da Pussy

Wow!! That is SO profound. Got anything else? And time still doesn't exist.
Benni
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 05, 2019
the observant guy may have something here?
Yet you still don't have the answer to

2 + 2 / 2 = ?

despite being told it multiple times.
.......that's right, I forgot about your 19th Century Cosmology TUGMath calcuation for BHs.......could that be what this is? Awwwwww schneibo, you sly dog you, and you thought this encryption code was gonna fool me.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Mar 05, 2019
And you still have zero evidence "time doesn't exist" against clocks.

Tellin' ya, denying science will be as much as your life is worth when AGCC hits hard and billions are starving.

The science will be proven, at the cost of multiple nuclear exchanges. And the people who denied it will be pariahs. Your position will be overrun. You should shut up before someone traces you down and gives your address to the sewage rope gangs.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 05, 2019
2 + 2 / 2 isn't "19th century cosmology."

It's just fourth grade math. Which you don't get. So your mental age is 9.

Divide that into your physical age and multiply by 100 to get your IQ.

If you're 20, that will be 9 / 20 x 100 which is 45. The older you are the worse you look.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 05, 2019
In twenty years, sewage rope gangs with more guns than you have will roam the US looking for science deniers in order to hang them over overflowing septic tanks as the tide rises. Just like Rialto Bridge.

You are a target.

Run away and hide, denier.

And that's if the nukes from the states whose people are dying by the billion don't get you first.

says Da Pudge

Nukes from the states??? Surely you ARE daft.
Still using 2 computers, eh?
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Mar 05, 2019
Ummm, that wasn't US states. That was states like China, Russia, and India.

Were you born stupid, or did you have to practice?

What would you do if you were in charge of a nuclear state and your people were dying by billions? Just sit on the nuclear weapons and let them die?

Get ready for the rope gangs, asshole.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 05, 2019
And you still have zero evidence "time doesn't exist" against clocks.

Tellin' ya, denying science will be as much as your life is worth when AGCC hits hard and billions are starving.

The science will be proven, at the cost of multiple nuclear exchanges. And the people who denied it will be pariahs. Your position will be overrun. You should shut up before someone traces you down and gives your address to the sewage rope gangs.
says Da Pussyman

Talking about climate change, I see. You're in the wrong phorum. Is your wife still using a dildo?
And no, time still doesn't exist, but clocks do.

@SpookyOtto - that's CLOCKS with an L
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (4) Mar 05, 2019
The rope gangs won't care what science you're denying or why you deny it.

They'll just hang you by your ankles over their septic tanks as the tide rises. Maybe you can argue with them about time as you drown in sewage because you denied science.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 05, 2019
Ummm, that wasn't US states. That was states like China, Russia, and India.

Were you born stupid, or did you have to practice?

What would you do if you were in charge of a nuclear state and your people were dying by billions? Just sit on the nuclear weapons and let them die?

Get ready for the rope gangs, asshole.
says Da Pudge

Answer these questions, Pudge.
1. What is time made of?
2. Does your wife still use a dildo?
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 05, 2019
See, all you got is insults to try to cloud the fact you don't have any evidence.

When they ask, I will identify the deniers. It's no skin off my ass. Watching you drown in sewage will be gratifying. And gravitating. And you will count the seconds, which according to you do not exist.
Whydening Gyre
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 05, 2019
guess they fell when nobody was listening, watching...
Get back to reality, CD.


I did mention the requirement of the observation. Without the observation there is nothing to measure, such as time.

I guess the space of time it must have taken for each of them to fall didn't happen, then?
Or the time from when they fell to when I observed them, as well?
Whydening Gyre
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 05, 2019
2. Does your wife still use a dildo?

Ignorant, idiotic question, SEU...
Do you still use yours?
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (4) Mar 05, 2019
See, here's the thing: in the 1980s we could have done something about this fairly easily.

Thirty years on, you've delayed things until its a crisis.

Your anti-science bias has created this crisis.

They'll hang you by your heels over a rising cesspool tide you said would never happen.

As ye sow so shall ye reap.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 05, 2019
guess they fell when nobody was listening, watching...
Get back to reality, CD.


I did mention the requirement of the observation. Without the observation there is nothing to measure, such as time.

I guess the space of time it must have taken for each of them to fall didn't happen, then?
Or the time from when they fell to when I observed them, as well?
says Whyde

Their falling was an Event/happening/occurrence. It had nothing to do with what you call time. It could have happened anyway, whether or not you were there to witness it. If it happened during a hurricane, you have to blame the weather, not time. If it happened during a forest fire, you have to blame the fire. It doesn't matter WHEN it happened (time), it remains that it DID happen - an Event. You can refer to a clock to see how long the duration of the fire or hurricane. Both are events
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Mar 05, 2019
Denying science is offering yourself to the sewage rope gangs.

I'll just link this thread; they'll know your identity and your address from your handle. It's not my problem. It's yours.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 05, 2019
See, here's the thing: in the 1980s we could have done something about this fairly easily.

Thirty years on, you've delayed things until its a crisis.

Your anti-science bias has created this crisis.

They'll hang you by your heels over a rising cesspool tide you said would never happen.

As ye sow so shall ye reap.
says Da Pudge

The article is about a "gas cloud swirling about a Black Hole. It isn't about cesspools and climate change.
Answer at least ONE of the questions, Da Pudge.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Mar 05, 2019
All already answered, and lied about by you. Sorry, boring answering lies with data.

You bring some. Or face the sewage rope gangs.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 05, 2019
2. Does your wife still use a dildo?

Ignorant, idiotic question, SEU...
Do you still use yours?
says Whyde

Was I asking YOU?? I thought I was posing the 2 questions to Da Scheide. Why are you getting involved?
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Mar 05, 2019
Sorry, @SRU, not interested in your projections about your wife(?). Maybe it's your dog. Loving you cowering in your basement.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 05, 2019
Ummm, that wasn't US states. That was states like China, Russia, and India.

Were you born stupid, or did you have to practice?

What would you do if you were in charge of a nuclear state and your people were dying by billions? Just sit on the nuclear weapons and let them die?

Get ready for the rope gangs, asshole.
says Da Pudge

Answer these questions, Pudge.
1. What is time made of?
2. Does your wife still use a dildo?


Waiting for your answers to my 2 questions, Pudgy
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Mar 05, 2019
Not answering loaded questions from trolls.

Answer clocks, troll.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 05, 2019
Sorry, @Da Scheide, not interested in your projections about your dog(?). Maybe it's your wife using her dildo on YOU?. Loving you cowering in your basement.

cantdrive85
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 05, 2019
I guess the space of time it must have taken for each of them to fall didn't happen, then?
Or the time from when they fell to when I observed them, as well?

A "space of time" is a measurement. From now til then.
As is the "space of distance" between the trees a measurement. From here to there.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 05, 2019
Not answering loaded questions from trolls.

Answer clocks, troll.
says the head troll, Da Scheide
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Mar 05, 2019
@SRU is totally incoherent and emotionally disturbed so far it cannot even post a rebuttal.

Loving watching you cower in the basement.

Clocks, troll. And enjoy the sewage rope gangs. Be sure to bring all your guns.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 05, 2019
I guess the space of time it must have taken for each of them to fall didn't happen, then?
Or the time from when they fell to when I observed them, as well?

A "space of time" is a measurement. From now til then.
As is the "space of distance" between the trees a measurement. From here to there.


Precisely CD. Welcome aboard. I could not have said it better or more exact.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 05, 2019
So what's a time between now and then?

The sewage rope gangs are coming for you. Better think fast.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 05, 2019
@SRU is totally incoherent and emotionally disturbed so far it cannot even post a rebuttal.

Loving watching you cower in the basement.

Clocks, troll. And enjoy the sewage rope gangs. Be sure to bring all your guns.
says Da Pudge

Still waiting for your answers to my 2 questions, Da Scheide while you cower in your wife's panties.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 05, 2019
Your two questions are trolling.

Seriously,
Does your wife still use a dildo?


Here's my response: Do you still rape, kill, and eat babies and claim to be a mind-reading space alien?

Seems fair to me.

There's your answer.

Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1 / 5 (5) Mar 05, 2019
Your two questions are trolling.

Seriously,
Does your wife still use a dildo?


Here's my response: Do you still rape, kill, and eat babies and claim to be a mind-reading space alien?

Seems fair to me.

There's your answer.

says Da Scheide

No, no, no, and no.
But I did eat your wife once, and Boy did she stink....like rotten fish.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 05, 2019
Yeah, I bet your only response is a downrating.

Lightweight wuss.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 05, 2019
So you now claim you're stopped raping, killing, and eating babies and stopped claiming to be a mind-reading space alien?

OK.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 05, 2019
Maybe you can go tell Phyllis Harmonic and she'll come back. Doubt it though; she's decided the moderators allow psychotics like you and doesn't care to interact with trolls like you.

I prefer to fight them. Get psychiatry; take the drugs. Get over it.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1 / 5 (5) Mar 05, 2019
Answer these questions, Da Scheide.
1. What is time made of?
2. Does your wife still use a dildo?
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 05, 2019
Do you still rape, kill, and eat babies, @SRU?

Answer the question.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1 / 5 (5) Mar 05, 2019
Do you still rape, kill, and eat babies, @SRU?

Answer the question.


Nope. Never have
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 05, 2019
You said you did. And that you were a mind-raping space alien.

So you were lying again?

Who's to say you aren't lying again about raping, killing, and eating babies, then?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1 / 5 (5) Mar 06, 2019
Answer these 3 questions, Da Scheide.
1. What is time made of?
2. Does your wife still use a dildo?
3. Does her vayjay still stink like rotting fish?
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Mar 06, 2019
Answer this single question, @SRU:

Have you stopped raping, killing, and eating babies yet?

You have denied it but no evidence has been presented. I think you still rape, kill, and eat babies and suck your dog's dick. Prove me wrong.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1 / 5 (5) Mar 06, 2019
One more once
Answer these 3 questions, Da Scheide.
1. What is time made of?
2. Does your wife still use a dildo?
3. Does her vayjay still stink like rotting fish?
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 06, 2019
I ask again, have you stopped raping, killing, and eating babies and sucking your dog's dick?

Simple question, simple answer you keep avoiding.

Your answer is "no." which means you still rape, kill, and eat babies and suck your dog's dick.

No means no. You said it you own it.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1 / 5 (3) Mar 06, 2019
One more thrice
Answer these 5 questions, Da Scheide.
1. What is time made of?
2. Does your wife still use a dildo?
3. Does her vayjay still stink like rotting fish?
4. Is it true that you're gay and love a big clock up your arse?
5. Your wife says you can't get it up. Is she telling the truth?
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 06, 2019
I don't care what an admitted baby rapist, baby killer, and baby eater says about me. Never mind an admitted dog cock sucker. And admitted psychotic who thinks its a mind raping alien.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1 / 5 (4) Mar 06, 2019
One more 4x
Answer these 5 questions, Da Scheide.
1. What is time made of?
2. Does your wife still use a dildo?
3. Does her vayjay still stink like rotting fish?
4. Is it true that you're gay and love a big clock up your arse?
5. Your wife says you can't get it up. Is she telling the truth?
Oh, so it is true.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 06, 2019
Troll tries more insults without supporting evidence.

Your shit is weak. The whining is obvious after your grandiose clams with no evidence. Mine is substantiated by your own claims.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1 / 5 (4) Mar 06, 2019
One more 5x
Answer these 6 questions, Da Scheide.
1. What is time made of?
2. Does your wife still use a dildo?
3. Does her vayjay still stink like rotting fish?
4. Is it true that you're gay and love a big clock up your arse?
5. Your wife says you can't get it up. Is she telling the truth?
Oh, so it is true.
6. Tell us about your boyfriend, Da Schniebo. Does he cum in your moof often?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1 / 5 (4) Mar 06, 2019
Troll tries more insults without supporting evidence.

Your shit is weak. The whining is obvious after your grandiose clams with no evidence. Mine is substantiated by your own claims.
says Da Head Troll

One more 6x
Answer these 7 questions, Da Scheide.
1. What is time made of?
2. Does your wife still use a dildo?
3. Does her vayjay still stink like rotting fish?
4. Is it true that you're gay and love a big clock up your arse?
5. Your wife says you can't get it up. Is she telling the truth?
Oh, so it is true.
6. Tell us about your boyfriend, Da Schniebo. Does he cum in your moof often?
7. Your wife says that you hate sex with women. Is she right?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1 / 5 (4) Mar 06, 2019
And with that, Da Scheide goes off to cower in his wife's panties, still not having answered my question: What is time made of?
Whydening Gyre
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 06, 2019
says Whyde
Their falling was an Event/happening/occurrence. It had nothing to do with what you call time. It could have happened anyway, whether or not you were there to witness it.
This is true. Much like the duration it took you to type this out...
If it happened during a hurricane, you have to blame the weather, not time. If it happened during a forest fire, you have to blame the fire.

Why on Earth would I blame time?
It doesn't matter WHEN it happened (time), it remains that it DID happen
Indeed it did. A sunset or two before I observed it, I'm sure...
-an Event. You can refer to a clock to see how long the duration of the fire or hurricane. Both are events

Both would be a SERIES of events that happen in - what...?
Whydening Gyre
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 06, 2019
I guess the space of time it must have taken for each of them to fall didn't happen, then?
Or the time from when they fell to when I observed them, as well?
says Whyde

Their falling was an Event/happening/occurrence. It had nothing to do with what you call time. It could have happened anyway, whether or not you were there to witness it. If it happened during a hurricane, you have to blame the weather, not time. If it happened during a forest fire, you have to blame the fire. It doesn't matter WHEN it happened (time), it remains that it DID happen - an Event. You can refer to a clock to see how long the duration of the fire or hurricane. Both are events

Was I asking YOU?? I thought I was posing the 2 questions to CD. Why are you getting involved?
Whydening Gyre
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 06, 2019
If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to see it does it still fall?

Time is a measurement, a clock a ruler, a second is a centimeter. Without an observer time is meaningless.

I've had three trees fall in my back yard recently. I didn't hear it or see it , but when I was walking around in my back yard a day or 2 later, there they were - on the ground.
guess they fell when nobody was listening, watching...
Get back to reality, CD.
says Whyde

Perhaps you were in your house watching videos or sleeping. Poor argument, Whyde

Was I asking YOU?? I thought I was posing the 2 questions to CD. Why are you getting involved?

Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 06, 2019
I guess the space of time it must have taken for each of them to fall didn't happen, then?
Or the time from when they fell to when I observed them, as well?
says Whyde

Their falling was an Event/happening/occurrence. It had nothing to do with what you call time. It could have happened anyway, whether or not you were there to witness it. If it happened during a hurricane, you have to blame the weather, not time. If it happened during a forest fire, you have to blame the fire. It doesn't matter WHEN it happened (time), it remains that it DID happen - an Event. You can refer to a clock to see how long the duration of the fire or hurricane. Both are events

Was I asking YOU?? I thought I was posing the 2 questions to CD. Why are you getting involved?
says Whyde

You're right. I have made the mistake of butting into your tête-à-tête with CD. I will put you on ignore so that doesn't happen again. Thanks.
granville583762
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 06, 2019
A Moment in Time

In your favourite armchair sitting there move into the future one year
observicist> Perform a little thought experiment for me.
Pretend you are in your favourite armchair and, sitting there, you move into the future one year -- and you move forward in time only (note that I'm having you move forward to avoid paradoxes). Where will you be?
Think carefully.

As you sit in your armchair
for one year you sit
where would you be
as your chair
in your room
stays
in the middle of your room
not moving an inch
for one year of our Lord
as you sit on your chair
in your house
as your house
sits on this Earth
as this Earth orbits our Star
as our Star orbits our Galaxy
as our Galaxy travels through the Vacuum
it is the addition
of
the
64 Dollar Question
the sum of velocities
is
Where you will be!
Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 06, 2019
No one else says I'm in charge but you.

Your shit is weak and smells.
granville583762
5 / 5 (5) Mar 06, 2019
TrollianDaSchneib
Da Schneib> No one else says I'm in charge but you
Your xxxx is xxxx and xxxxxx

When a Trollian
TrollianDaSchneib, alone far from his bridge
surrounded
conered
trapped
by
a chain of his own making
left, in charge
with diminishing subordinates
to
delegate responsibilities
TrollianDaSchneib, all alone in this phys.org world
this phys.org virtual reality
TrollianDaSchneib, only has his bridge for comfort
as TrollianDaSchneib worries compound
as TrollianDaSchneib finrot takes root
under his bridge
all alone, he has no one to blame but himself
this is TrollianDaSchneibs own making and no ones else's
so
as TrollianDaSchneibs finrot festers
as he curses obscenities under his bridge
not on tear doth TrollianDaSchneib repentive
because
his shrill cries
are for his long lost friend
the only friends Trollians seek
fellow Trollians
but, TrollianDaSchneib
TrollianJonesDave is never coming back!
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (2) Mar 06, 2019
Music for this evening, quite appropriate:

https://www.youtu...Kljb1p-Q
Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 06, 2019
Jade, a shade of pain and then we die
But life it don't always live that way
Benni
2 / 5 (8) Mar 06, 2019
2 + 2 / 2 isn't "19th century cosmology."

It's just fourth grade math. Which you don't get.


Well you'da fooled me, it works out so close to zero that I just don't see much difference.
humy
5 / 5 (7) Mar 06, 2019
2 + 2 / 2 isn't "19th century cosmology."

It's just fourth grade math. Which you don't get.


Well you'da fooled me, it works out so close to zero that I just don't see much difference.
Benni

You think 2 + 2 / 2 ≈ 0 ?
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 06, 2019
Just when TrollianCastroGiovanni, humy
2 + 2 / 2 isn't "19th century cosmology."
It's just fourth grade math. Which you don't get.

Well you'da fooled me, it works out so close to zero that I just don't see much difference.
Benni
You think 2 + 2 / 2 ≈ 0 ?

Humy, just when TrollianCastroGiovanni
is mourning his loss
under his bridge
suffering the ravages of finrot
still, in TrollianCastroGiovanni darkest hours
in his world of links
let's hope, humy
you do not disillusion TrollianCastroGiovanni
more than the depths of his existing despair
as
you, humy
drive home one more time
2 + 2 / 2 ≈ 0 ?
MrBojangles
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 06, 2019
So do any of Benni's personalities want to answer the perfectly reasonable question I've posed? Or are they all wrapped up in talking about DS's wife?

When a moving body emits a photon, what parameter is changing to preserve the speed of light?
antigoracle
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 06, 2019
No one else says I'm in charge but you.

Your shit is weak and smells.

Da Schitts, now has a sock puppet for every boyfriend he's got, swirling around his "black hole".
And as his words above, betray. He's become a shit expert, from trolling toilets, looking for "meat".
antigoracle
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 06, 2019
When a moving body emits a photon, what parameter is changing to preserve the speed of light?

LMAO.
Hey, Da Schitts, aka MrBodangles, here's a question for you.
When a moving boyfriend emits a "photon", what parameter is changing, in your rectum, to preserve what's left of your dignity?
MrBojangles
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 06, 2019
Hey, Da Schitts, aka MrBodangles, here's a question for you.
When a moving boyfriend emits a "photon", what parameter is changing, in your rectum, to preserve what's left of your dignity?


Seriously, who hurt you?
If you can't afford counseling, I'm sure someone would do the work pro bono given the severity of your case.
humy
4 / 5 (8) Mar 06, 2019
There are ONLY 3 DIMENSIONS PLUS SPACE.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit

"PLUS" space? What? You think those two things are dimensions don't DEFINE space but are just a superfluous extra? Tell us how, given the vary definition of (3D) space as being the 3 space dimensions combined, there can be (3D volume of) space without the space dimensions or vice versa.
No Spacetime.
So, now you deny the proven scientific facts I see.
With loads of irrelevant words in a huge post about time, you still haven't proved that time doesn't exist.
Benni
2 / 5 (8) Mar 06, 2019
2 + 2 / 2 isn't "19th century cosmology."

It's just fourth grade math. Which you don't get.


Well you'da fooled me, it works out so close to zero that I just don't see much difference.
Benni

You think 2 + 2 / 2 ≈ 0 ?

....for the purpose of rating your IQ I'd say that's a fairly good approximation. Interestingly it also works out to be a pretty close calculation of 19th Century Cosmology for Schneibo's TUGMath solution for calculation of BHs.
antigoracle
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 06, 2019
Hey, Da Schitts, aka MrBodangles, here's a question for you.
When a moving boyfriend emits a "photon", what parameter is changing, in your rectum, to preserve what's left of your dignity?


Seriously, who hurt you?
If you can't afford counseling, I'm sure someone would do the work pro bono given the severity of your case.

LMAO.
Da Schitts, aka MrBodangles, is at (sh)it, again.

"Pro Bono", is that how you get it, trolling toilets, for man "meat"?
You are definitely a severe case.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 06, 2019
You think 2 + 2 / 2 ≈ 0 ?
Janitor math.

Goes with janitor physics I guess.
antigoracle
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 06, 2019
You think 2 + 2 / 2 ≈ 0 ?
Janitor math.

Goes with janitor physics I guess.

If anyone would know what janitor maths is, it's Da Schitts. Years of trolling toilets, looking for man "meat", qualifies him.
LMAO.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 06, 2019
Your fascination (more of an obsession) with homexual sex acts is notable. And quite revealing.
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 06, 2019
TrollianDaSchneib
You think 2 + 2 / 2 ≈ 0 ?


Da Schneib> Goes with janitor physics I guess.

When is your eternal search cometh to an end
there is only one way
as
Trollians do
find their long lost Trollians
as
TrollianDaSchneib, your search is simplicity it's self
just continue the straight and narrow path of your choosing
then let nature take its course
then
TrollianDaSchneib, that day will come
when your request is answered
as you share finrot symptoms
under your bridge
with
TrollianCastroGiovanni, as you squabble together over your new Avatar
as you hasten that day, TrollianDaSchneib
just
Think on 2 + 2 / 2 ≈ 0 ?
Castrogiovanni
3 / 5 (10) Mar 06, 2019
TrollianDaSchneib
You think 2 + 2 / 2 ≈ 0 ?


Da Schneib> Goes with janitor physics I guess.

When is your eternal search cometh to an end
there is only one way
as
Trollians do
find their long lost Trollians
as
TrollianDaSchneib, your search is simplicity it's self
just continue the straight and narrow path of your choosing
then let nature take its course
then
TrollianDaSchneib, that day will come
when your request is answered
as you share finrot symptoms
under your bridge
with
TrollianCastroGiovanni, as you squabble together over your new Avatar
as you hasten that day, TrollianDaSchneib
just
Think on 2 + 2 / 2 ≈ 0 ?


Have you ever posted anything scientific? Or intelligible?
granville583762
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 06, 2019
TrollianCastroGiovanni
TrollianCastroGiovanni> Have you ever posted anything scientific? Or intelligible?

As we tread warily over TrollianCastroGiovanni's bridge
for to waken TrollianCastroGiovanni lying under foot
as his Trollian ear fins protruding
as TrollianCastroGiovanni, always is wary of footsteps on his bridge
as
you oft hear TrollianCastroGiovanni cry out in the dead of night
"Have you ever posted anything scientific? Or intelligible?"
for
to whateth it meaneth
only Trolliaths knoweth
because
TrollianCastroGiovanni, if it truly had any depth of integrity
it
would
not
be coming from TrollianCastroGiovanni
not
that it had any integrity in your former life
as it has even less now
TrollianCastroGiovanni
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 06, 2019
@Whyde
@S_E_U.

Stop mixing metaphysical/philosophical concept of time (existence, duration) with physical/analytical concept/tool of time (comparative interval between events within some process/series under examination).

Natural series of state-motion/change events occur; ie: process happens (ie, 'shite happens').

They OCCUR whether anyone there to notice/analyse or not. :)

Once WE come along to notice/analyse some process (which is merely a subset/part of the overall infinite universal process), THEN WE bring the abstract 'analytical physics' concept/tool into play.

The point: NEITHER of the 'time' concepts (metaphysical/philosophical OR analytical physics) actually exists as an independent 'physically effective dimensional thing' (unlike energy-space, which DOES, as I explained before).

Now get on same page to avert hopelessly confused exchanges; ie: Time 'exists' ONLY ABSTRACTLY in ANALYTICAL PHYSICS and/or METAPHYSICS/PHILOSOPHY 'constructs'.

Subtle. :)
observicist
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 06, 2019
@Granville,

A Moment in Time

In your favourite armchair sitting there move into the future one year
observicist> Perform a little thought experiment for me.
Pretend you are in your favourite armchair and, sitting there, you move into the future one year -- and you move forward in time only (note that I'm having you move forward to avoid paradoxes). Where will you be?
Think carefully.

As you sit in your armchair
for one year you sit
where would you be
as your chair
in your room
stays
in the middle of your room
not moving an inch
for one year of our Lord
as you sit on your chair
in your house
as your house
sits on this Earth
as this Earth orbits our Star
as our Star orbits our Galaxy
as our Galaxy travels through the Vacuum
it is the addition
of
the
64 Dollar Question
the sum of velocities
is
Where you will be!


Wrong.

Think again.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Mar 06, 2019
@Whyde
@S_E_U.

Stop mixing metaphysical/philosophical concept of time (existence, duration) with physical/analytical concept/tool of time (comparative interval between events within some process/series under examination).

Now get on same page to avert hopelessly confused exchanges; ie: Time 'exists' ONLY ABSTRACTLY in ANALYTICAL PHYSICS and/or METAPHYSICS/PHILOSOPHY 'constructs'.
Subtle. :)

Just trying to "equate" on his level, RC.
3D space IS time. The motion WITHIN it is a clock.
antigoracle
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 06, 2019
I captured a black hole in a bottle and there I saved time....wait...someone wrote a song about this.

Time is the veil, through which, reality offers us glimpses of her true nature, but only if we dare peer beyond our ignorance.

/ Well, there is no better time than the present and that joint ain't gonna smoke itself.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 06, 2019
@Whyde
@S_E_U.

Stop mixing metaphysical/philosophical concept of time (existence, duration) with physical/analytical concept/tool of time (comparative interval between events within some process/series under examination).

The point: NEITHER of the 'time' concepts (metaphysical/philosophical OR analytical physics) actually exists as an independent 'physically effective dimensional thing' (unlike energy-space, which DOES, as I explained before).

Now get on same page to avert hopelessly confused exchanges; ie: Time 'exists' ONLY ABSTRACTLY in ANALYTICAL PHYSICS and/or METAPHYSICS/PHILOSOPHY 'constructs'.
says RC

First of all, RC, you have been expressing (in your own words) my opinions on the nonexistence of Time other than as a Concept that was developed within the human mind, for all the reasons which I have already mentioned many times earlier.
Secondly, I have not expressed my opinions of nonexistence of Time under anything but analytical physics.

-contd-

Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 06, 2019
-contd-
@RC
"metaphysics |
plural noun [usually treated as singular]
the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space.
• abstract theory or talk with no basis in reality: his concept of society as an organic entity is, for market liberals, simply metaphysics.
Metaphysics has two main strands: that which holds that what exists lies beyond experience (as argued by Plato), and that which holds that objects of experience constitute the only reality (as argued by Kant, the logical positivists, and Hume). Metaphysics has also concerned itself with a discussion of whether what exists is made of one substance or many, and whether what exists is inevitable or driven by chance."

Expressions of thoughts, ideas, information, theory, hypotheses, etc all stem from Philosophy.
But the concept of time is only a product of Mind and has no basis in Physics

Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 07, 2019
There are ONLY 3 DIMENSIONS PLUS SPACE.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit

"PLUS" space? What? You think those two things are dimensions don't DEFINE space but are just a superfluous extra? Tell us how, given the vary definition of (3D) space as being the 3 space dimensions combined, there can be (3D volume of) space without the space dimensions or vice versa.
No Spacetime.
So, now you deny the proven scientific facts I see.
With loads of irrelevant words in a huge post about time, you still haven't proved that time doesn't exist.
says humy

Scientific theory, you mean. 3-dimensional constructs are within Space, but if you remove the 3 dimensions - you still have Space - where Space (granville's vacuous vacuum) is a volume even without the 3 physical dimensions of height, width, depth. IOW = Mass. Gravity affects Mass. Mass is 3 dimensional. Mass exists in Space, but even without Mass - Space still exists.
Sorry that you feel offended by my posts.
humy
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 07, 2019
This is a question for any physiatrist reading this;

Why are there always a bunch of loonies and morons with their stupid rhetorics in their posts trying in vain to convince everyone else that time doesn't exist?
I don't understand this weird obsession.
Do they WANT time to specifically NOT exist? If so, why so?
Anyone?
humy
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 07, 2019
if you remove the 3 dimensions - you still have Space
Surveillance_Egg_Unit

3D space IS those 3 dimensions therefore remove one and you remove the other.
where Space (granville's vacuous vacuum)
Oh now don't bring granville's "vacuous vacuum" CRAP into this. I have no idea what the hell he is talking about whenever he talks about his "vacuous vacuum". "vacuous vacuum" isn't a scientific term but rather just some crap he made up. I don't know why you bothered to mention it. OF COURSE "vacuum" is "vacuous"! But so what? Did anyone say it wasn't?
granville583762
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 07, 2019
A Moment in Time as we occupy this vacuum

Observicist
You move into the future one year you move forward in time only
as the length of time you sit is immaterial
because
Time is existential, it does not exist
as you sit
time does not come into the equation
as sad as it seems
as we sit in our chair
in all reality we are doing just that

Where would you be
as your chair
in your room
stays
in the middle of your room
for one year of our Lord
as you sit on your chair
in your house
your house
sits on this Earth
this Earth orbits our Star
our Star orbits our Galaxy
our Galaxy travels through this Vacuum
is the addition of the sum of all velocities

we are simply, protons and electrons occupying this vacuum
moving through this vacuum

A sad but fitting epitaph
time does not exist
except in the mind
in memories
that fragrant scent
that brush of hair in the wind
that laughter on the stairs
that tantalising music
Time, just memories
granville583762
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 07, 2019
Granville Space

Granville's "vacuous vacuum"
SPACE
HUMY.. Humy.. humy... hummmmy..
Granville Space, is a spatial dimension
length, breadth, width
devoid of all protons, electrons, photons, gravity, electric-magnetic fields, electromagnetism
where
all theses afore mentioned occupy space
Space, that when not occupied by the afore mentioned
is by description space devoid of all material entities
Space is Vacuum
The Vacuous Vacuum that is Space
is space
when it is not occupied
by
protons, electrons, photons, gravity, electric-magnetic fields, electromagnetism
the definition of vacuum
Space is not an entity
but
simply > protons, electrons, photons, gravity, electric-magnetic fields, electromagnetism <
occupying this vacuum

The Vacuous Vacuum that is Space
MrBojangles
4 / 5 (8) Mar 07, 2019
the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space.


Space is just as abstract and nonexistent as time.

Expressions of thoughts, ideas, information, theory, hypotheses, etc all stem from Philosophy.
But the concept of time is only a product of Mind and has no basis in Physics


Physicists can and do use time as a necessary part of everything they do. Who are you (a non-physicist) to tell them such a thing?

Again, if you want to talk physics, when a moving body emits a photon, what parameter is changing to preserve the speed of light? Have you attempted the Lorentz transforms? Let's talk physics.
Whydening Gyre
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 07, 2019
if you remove the 3 dimensions - you still have Space
Surveillance_Egg_Unit

3D space IS those 3 dimensions therefore remove one and you remove the other.
where Space (granville's vacuous vacuum)
Oh now don't bring granville's "vacuous vacuum" CRAP into this. I have no idea what the hell he is talking about whenever he talks about his "vacuous vacuum". "vacuous vacuum" isn't a scientific term but rather just some crap he made up. I don't know why you bothered to mention it. OF COURSE "vacuum" is "vacuous"! But so what? Did anyone say it wasn't?

It's 3 dimensionally vacuous...
MrBojangles
4 / 5 (8) Mar 07, 2019
[I don't know why you bothered to mention it. OF COURSE "vacuum" is "vacuous"! But so what? Did anyone say it wasn't?


Because Granville is another account that Benni/SEU uses, they're one and the same. Notice how nobody but SEU/Benni nod their head or tip their cap at Granville? And Granville invariably agrees with whatever Benni/SEU posts. I put that account on ignore a long time ago, because

randomly
splitting up words
and splitting
up
words randomly is
not what
the poets of yore call
poetry
It's like he's having
a
massive
stroke
while writing.

That's why you don't drink the pretty blue liquids under the sink.
granville583762
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 07, 2019
MrBojangles gift to one and all
MrBojangles, poet, lyricist, scientific commenter

Randomly
splitting up words
and splitting
up
words randomly is
not what
the poets of yore call
poetry
It's like he's having
a
massive
stroke
While writing

https://www.youtu...F9WSDydA
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 07, 2019
[I don't know why you bothered to mention it. OF COURSE "vacuum" is "vacuous"! But so what? Did anyone say it wasn't?


Because Granville is another account that Benni/SEU uses, they're one and the same. Notice how nobody but SEU/Benni nod their head or tip their cap at Granville? And Granville invariably agrees with whatever Benni/SEU posts. I put that account on ignore a long time ago, because

randomly
splitting up words
and splitting
up
words randomly is
not what
the poets of yore call
poetry
It's like he's having
a
massive
stroke
while writing.

That's why you don't drink the pretty blue liquids under the sink.
says Bo

Nope. We 3 are 3 separate folks, but believe as you wish - however wrong
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 07, 2019
The black hole is between your cheeks, dumbshit. Apparently you need both hands and a mirror to even try to find it, and can't even with that.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 07, 2019
says Bojingles
Space is just as abstract and nonexistent as time.
- Tell that to yourself if you ever fall off a tall building.

Expressions of thoughts, ideas, information, theory, hypotheses, etc all stem from Philosophy.
But the concept of time is only a product of Mind and has no basis in Physics
- That is correct.

Physicists can and do use time as a necessary part of everything they do.
- Physicists can do what they want. They aren't "using" time, they are only including the Spacetime equation with Time as a fill-in for a measurement of an action/Event that takes place in SPACE.

Again, if you want to talk physics, when a moving body emits a photon, what parameter is changing to preserve the speed of light? Have you attempted the Lorentz transforms? Let's talk physics.
- The speed of light cannot be changed. It always remains at c. However, light can be redirected when it bounces off Mass = gravitational lensing.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 07, 2019
Da Schniebo was reported for filthy abusive language.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Mar 08, 2019
Go ahead. Considering the filthy language you've used against me I don't see what your point is.

Holier than thou lying piece of shit.

You know, I kicked my uncle out of my house before he could even take a bite of the steak for trying to pray out loud at my table.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Mar 08, 2019
Oh and BTW, you're chickenshit just like all religionists.

And you stink like them too.
granville583762
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 08, 2019
With great big ugly eyes as big as saucers
by the by, Da Schneib, SEU, you dodged the bullet again, last night
your bridges awaiteths, Oh wiseth oneths
tis a saddeth dayeth that comeths
wheneth it comeths
MrBojangles
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 08, 2019
Tell that to yourself if you ever fall off a tall building.

It's not possible to fall off a tall building because that would require a sequence of events, and time doesn't exist in our fairytale here.
Time as a fill-in for a measurement of an action/Event that takes place in SPACE.

Space only exists as an abstraction of the human mind.

The speed of light cannot be changed. It always remains at c.

Correct. So if c is constant, what changes when one tries to add velocity to light?
What is physically happening to account for the constancy of light's speed?

However, light can be redirected when it bounces off Mass = gravitational lensing.

Relevance?
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 08, 2019
@Bojangles, prolly best to put a /s sarcasm end marker on those. The smarts know but the stupids need a clue.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Mar 08, 2019
Da Schniebo was reported for filthy abusive language.
Well, that sure worked out great, huh?
observicist
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 08, 2019
@SEU,

Time is real. The names we give to increments of time are inventions of the human mind, but time, itself, is not. It is a dimension; it is real.

If time doesn't exist, how fast do you drive your automobile, or walk across the room? If time doesn't exist, how does light have a frequency?

Spacetime is real; space and time cannot be separated. Motion in one is motion in the other. The rate at which time is measured to pass is affected by a gravitational field. If you moved forward in time one year, without moving at all in space, your location would be completely indeterminate.

If time doesn't exist, how come it isn't still yesterday? What about tomorrow?
RealityCheck
2.5 / 5 (6) Mar 08, 2019
@Whyde.
Stop mixing metaphysical/philosophical concept of time (existence, duration) with physical/analytical concept/tool of time (comparative interval between events within some process/series under examination).

Now get on same page to avert hopelessly confused exchanges; ie: Time 'exists' ONLY ABSTRACTLY in ANALYTICAL PHYSICS and/or METAPHYSICS/PHILOSOPHY 'constructs'.
Just trying to "equate" on his level, RC.
Ok, mate; but do that properly/logically, not by adding confusion by mixing of metaphysical/philosophical and physics-analytical 'time' concepts as already distinguished by me earlier for your discussions. :)
3D space IS time. The motion WITHIN it is a clock.
Actually, the '3-d' is 'OMNI-d'; which has been conveniently 'reduced' to 'abstraction construct' of 3-d Cartesian Coordinates System for ease of mathematical/geometrical analysis/description etc. REAL ENERGY-SPACE is OMNI-DIMENSIONAL re energy-mass MOTIONAL degrees of freedom within). :)
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 08, 2019
@observicist.
Time is real. The names we give to increments of time are inventions of the human mind, but time, itself, is not. It is a dimension; it is real.

If time doesn't exist, how fast do you drive your automobile, or walk across the room? If time doesn't exist, how does light have a frequency?

Spacetime is real; space and time cannot be separated. Motion in one is motion in the other. The rate at which time is measured to pass is affected by a gravitational field. If you moved forward in time one year, without moving at all in space, your location would be completely indeterminate......
Take care not to mix the metaphysical-philosophical notion of 'time' with the physics-analytical notion of time/timing which 'exists' ONLY as an abstract physics-analytical 'tool' in our maths/geometry constructs (but it does not 'exist' as an extant independent physically-effective 'thing' like 'energy-space does). :)
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 08, 2019
@Da Schneib.
@Surveillance_Egg_Unit.
Da Schniebo was reported for filthy abusive language.
Well, that sure worked out great, huh?
Yep; almost as well as the zillions of times @Stumpy has "reported" me for having the temerity of being correct all along while @Stumpy ranted and trolled and bot-voted in self-induced frustration! :)
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 08, 2019
@SEU,

Time is real. The names we give to increments of time are inventions of the human mind, but time, itself, is not. It is a dimension; it is real.
- No. Time is ONLY a CONCEPT that is/was conjured up by the mind to explain Actions and Events in Nature that took place long before the advent of science discoveries and instruments. "A time to sow and a time to reap" are all incremental Actions/Motions that are done according to the season of the year. A year is also a multiple of increments that are perceived by the mind as the passage of Events & Actions during the course of each season. Time is not a substance, nor can anything be built upon it. It is the "nothing".

If time doesn't exist, how fast do you drive your automobile, or walk across the room? If time doesn't exist, how does light have a frequency?
- Driving fast is Velocity; walking across the room is Motion. Both are Actions. Light doesn't depend on time, only on its own Velocity.
-contd-

Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 09, 2019
-contd-
@observicing
Spacetime is real; space and time cannot be separated. Motion in one is motion in the other. .
- SPACE has Substance. It gives way when objects pass through it. Gravity wells are made of it.
OTOH,Time is, as previously notated, a Nothing; it has no substance with which to interact; cannot contract, dilate, increase, decrease, or have anything added onto it or removed from it. It simply isn't there.

The rate at which time is measured to pass is affected by a gravitational field. If you moved forward in time one year, without moving at all in space, your location would be completely indeterminate.
- Pure science fiction. Time doesn't affect Gravity and Gravity has no effect on a NothingBurger. You cannot measure the concept of time except by a working clock. Or by 2 poles method.

If time doesn't exist, how come it isn't still yesterday? What about tomorrow?.
- The Earth's rotation makes yesterday today, and today tomorrow.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 09, 2019
The black hole is between your cheeks, dumbshit. Apparently you need both hands and a mirror to even try to find it, and can't even with that.
says Da Scheide

@Da Scheide, you shouldn't talk about your master, Captain Dumpy this way. You should know by now how sensitive he is to criticism. Go kissy kissy and make up for your sins against Satan.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Mar 09, 2019
@Whyde.[
3D space IS time. The motion WITHIN it is a clock.
Actually, the '3-d' is 'OMNI-d'; which has been conveniently 'reduced' to 'abstraction construct' of 3-d Cartesian Coordinates System for ease of mathematical/geometrical analysis/description etc. REAL ENERGY-SPACE is OMNI-DIMENSIONAL re energy-mass MOTIONAL degrees of freedom within). :)

NOW, who's splitting hairs...
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 09, 2019
@Whyde.[
3D space IS time. The motion WITHIN it is a clock.
Actually, the '3-d' is 'OMNI-d'; which has been conveniently 'reduced' to 'abstraction construct' of 3-d Cartesian Coordinates System for ease of mathematical/geometrical analysis/description etc. REAL ENERGY-SPACE is OMNI-DIMENSIONAL re energy-mass MOTIONAL degrees of freedom within). :)

NOW, who's splitting hairs...
says Whyde

Splitting hairs is Describing an Action, Whyde. Only Motion is involved, not the nothingness of time.
Take a Cube eg.The third dimension is the third dimension that exists IN Space. The concept of time is not Motion nor is it a Dimension - it is only a concept; a thought; idea; a dream.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Mar 09, 2019
Without time there is no motion. Without space there is no position.

This is the most basic classical physics.

Without defining position and motion, which requires space and time, there is no physics.

When I say motion is the first derivative of position with respect to time, does this even mean anything to you? If not then you don't know any physics. Derivatives were invented to be able to say this simply, by Newton, hundreds of years ago. So basically you want to live in the sixteenth century and not be bothered with all this physics stuff. So, again, why are you even here?
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Mar 09, 2019
One might as well try to do banking without math as physics without math. It's ludicrous.

This is your New Clue™. Please consult with a local authorized fact dealer in your local area before attempting to utilize your New Clue™; it is sharp and you may cut yourself if you try to use it incorrectly.
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 09, 2019
in the beginning there was a singularity then that singularity expanded but as in the beginning there was a singularity vacuum space dimension did not exist so when this singularity expanded nothing existed around this singularity as this singularity expands what is this singularity expanding into because time dimension space vacuum does not exist outside this singularity it follows as there is nothing existing outside this singularity this singularity by definition cannot expand so TrollianDaSchneib Without time there is no motion Without space there is no position as your comment TrollianDaSchneib clearly states that Without time there is no motion Without space there is no position this cosmic egg this blackhole this singularity cannot expand but TrollianDaSchneib if we are to believe our telescopes TrollianDaSchneib these galaxies are clearly moving in an expanding direction which requires light years of space that clearly does not exist
Benni
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 09, 2019
in the beginning there was a singularity then that singularity expanded but as in the beginning there was a singularity vacuum space dimension did not exist so when this singularity expanded nothing existed around this singularity as this singularity expands what is this singularity expanding into because time dimension space vacuum does not exist outside this singularity it follows as there is nothing existing outside this singularity this singularity by definition cannot expand so TrollianDaSchneib Without time there is no motion Without space there is no position as your comment TrollianDaSchneib clearly states that Without time there is no motion Without space there is no position this cosmic egg this blackhole this singularity cannot expand but TrollianDaSchneib if we are to believe our telescopes TrollianDaSchneib these galaxies are clearly moving in an expanding direction which requires light years of space that clearly does not exist


.......it's called ENTROPY
antigoracle
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 09, 2019
One might as well try to do banking without math as physics without math. It's ludicrous.

Da Schitts, the "meat" gobbler, brays again.
So, any other advanced civilization in the Universe, could not exist without maths?
Castrogiovanni
2.7 / 5 (7) Mar 09, 2019
One might as well try to do banking without math as physics without math. It's ludicrous.

Da Schitts, the "meat" gobbler, brays again.
So, any other advanced civilization in the Universe, could not exist without maths?


Correct.
observicist
3.7 / 5 (9) Mar 09, 2019
@SEU,

You are hopeless.

You understand neither basic mathematics nor basic physics.

I've said it before, and I'll probably (P = 0.9...) say it again: I am weary of you.

It's not yesterday any more because enough time has passed for Earth to complete a rotation; that is true regardless of one's inertial reference frame.

Time is real; what isn't real about it is your conception of it.
Whydening Gyre
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 09, 2019

NOW, who's splitting hairs...
says Whyde

Splitting hairs is Describing an Action, Whyde. Only Motion is involved, not the nothingness of time.
Take a Cube eg.The third dimension is the third dimension that exists IN Space. The concept of time is not Motion nor is it a Dimension - it is only a concept; a thought; idea; a dream.

And blah, blah, blah says the individual who recognizes when it's time to walk Precious.
I guess that turd she left on the carpet is just imaginary...
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (4) Mar 09, 2019
@Castro, ask the troll what it thinks "advanced civilization" means. Betcha it means the Babble by the drunken stone age sheep herders about the super magic sky daddy. And thinks it exists in alien cultures because jebus took it there.
Whydening Gyre
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 09, 2019

.......it's called ENTROPY

A word description which would not exist without 3 dimensions of motility and the ability to sequentially establish itself in subsequent reference frames.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (4) Mar 09, 2019
@Benni has not the slightest clue that entropy is mathematically defined.

Do the math, @Benni. Or shut up.
Castrogiovanni
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 09, 2019
@Castro, ask the troll what it thinks "advanced civilization" means. Betcha it means the Babble by the drunken stone age sheep herders about the super magic sky daddy. And thinks it exists in alien cultures because jebus took it there.


Lol. Yeah, I was kind of thinking of 1969 style advanced. You know, calculate the strength of the Earth's gravity, build a huge rocket, figure out how much fuel you need to attain escape velocity, figure out how much fuel needed to reach and land on the Moon, and take off again, and get back to Earth, and what sort of shielding you need to avoid burning up on re-entry. Among other things. Try doing that without math!
Whydening Gyre
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 09, 2019

NOW, who's splitting hairs...
says Whyde

Splitting hairs is Describing an Action, Whyde. Only Motion is involved, not the nothingness of time.
Take a Cube eg.The third dimension is the third dimension that exists IN Space. The concept of time is not Motion nor is it a Dimension - it is only a concept; a thought; idea; a dream.

And blah, blah, blah says the individual who recognizes when it's time to walk Precious.
I guess that turd she left on the carpet is just imaginary...

BTW, SEU... That was a question intended for RC, not you...
antigoracle
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 09, 2019
@Castro, ask the troll what it thinks "advanced civilization" means. Betcha it means the Babble by the drunken stone age sheep herders about the super magic sky daddy. And thinks it exists in alien cultures because jebus took it there.

LMAO.
Da Schitts, the "meat" gobbler, taking a break, from getting the stupid pummelled out of his ass, by his boyfriend, to talk to his own sock puppet -- CastratedGiovASSi.
Don't give up Da Schitts, one day he'll hit that "sweet spot" in your rectum.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (4) Mar 09, 2019
One might as well try to do banking without math as physics without math. It's ludicrous.

Da Schitts, the "meat" gobbler, brays again.
So, any other advanced civilization in the Universe, could not exist without maths?


Correct.
says Castratedjohnny

Math is merely a construct out of the human mind. If early humans had never THOUGHT of NUMBERS - there would be NO MATH. Therefore NO BANKING and NO SPACETIME - ergo, no Physics. You and your friends here continued to ignore the power of the human mind to construct thoughts, ideas, information/data, etc and follow through with inventions like clocks and telescopes.
You also ignore the Natural Order in the Universe of the rotations of planets being the origin of the measurement of sunrise to sunrise, and season to season. Your calling it "time" and the belief in the existence of time as some kind of Force or Entity or Dimension is foolish. Only SPACE and the 3 Dimensions exist.
Castrogiovanni
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 09, 2019
Math is merely a construct out of the human mind. If early humans had never THOUGHT of NUMBERS - there would be NO MATH. Therefore NO BANKING and NO SPACETIME - ergo, no Physics. You and your friends here continued to ignore the power of the human mind to construct thoughts, ideas, information/data, etc and follow through with inventions like clocks and telescopes.
You also ignore the Natural Order in the Universe of the rotations of planets being the origin of the measurement of sunrise to sunrise, and season to season. Your calling it "time" and the belief in the existence of time as some kind of Force or Entity or Dimension is foolish. Only SPACE and the 3 Dimensions exist.


What a load of unscientific tosh. How can you have space + 3 dimensions?
granville583762
5 / 5 (4) Mar 09, 2019
Nature is good in what it creates

Nature from the materials at hand
the proton and the scrumptious electron
Nature, from these two elements, nature creates the bewildering complexity
that exists in this vacuum
without,TrollianDaSchneib a single slide rule
without a single calculator
without a single differential calculus
because
Nature knows all the steps in the genome of life
all the steps in nuclear fusion
it needs not one single calculation
TrollianDaSchneib and TrollianCastroGiovanni, Nature made your very Trollian animalistic beings
so
NATURE is SUMPREME, as every one else are mere mortals, struggling to survive
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (4) Mar 09, 2019
@SEU,

You are hopeless.

You understand neither basic mathematics nor basic physics.

I've said it before, and I'll probably (P = 0.9...) say it again: I am weary of you.

It's not yesterday any more because enough time has passed for Earth to complete a rotation; that is true regardless of one's inertial reference frame.

Time is real; what isn't real about it is your conception of it.
says obserd

It is YOU who is hopeless. "Time" does not have to exist for planets to orbit around their Star, or to rotate from sunrise to sunrise. These are ALL ACTIONS OF PLANETS IN MOTION. Motion does NOT require time in order to BE in motion. They have only but to MOVE and PROCEED IN SPACE. PLANETS and STARS are 3 dimensional figures of Matter/Energy that move THROUGH SPACE. What are referred to as "yesterday, today and tomorrow" are ALL the RESULTS OF THE ACTIONS OF PLANETS IN MOTION.

As jonesdave would say: "YOU ARE THICK!!"
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (4) Mar 09, 2019
Math is merely a construct out of the human mind. If early humans had never THOUGHT of NUMBERS - there would be NO MATH. Therefore NO BANKING and NO SPACETIME - ergo, no Physics. You and your friends here continued to ignore the power of the human mind to construct thoughts, ideas, information/data, etc and follow through with inventions like clocks and telescopes.
You also ignore the Natural Order in the Universe of the rotations of planets being the origin of the measurement of sunrise to sunrise, and season to season. Your calling it "time" and the belief in the existence of time as some kind of Force or Entity or Dimension is foolish. Only SPACE and the 3 Dimensions exist.


What a load of unscientific tosh. How can you have space + 3 dimensions?
says CG

Think carefully of what you have said. You might want to rephrase or discard it.
granville583762
5 / 5 (4) Mar 09, 2019
TrollianCastroGiovanni in the naughty box
As jonesdave would say: "YOU ARE THICK!!"

SEU>
As phys.org has kindly left all TrollianCastroGiovanni's previous comments for all to see
RealityCheck
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 09, 2019
@Whyde.
3D space IS time. The motion WITHIN it is a clock.
Actually, the '3-d' is 'OMNI-d'; which has been conveniently 'reduced' to 'abstraction construct' of 3-d Cartesian Coordinates System for ease of mathematical/geometrical analysis/description etc. REAL ENERGY-SPACE is OMNI-DIMENSIONAL re energy-mass MOTIONAL degrees of freedom within). :)
NOW, who's splitting hairs...
You think that my pointing out and explaining the crucial difference (between physically NON-EFFECTIVE 'abstract 3-d' mathematical/analytical/graphing 'tool', and physically EFFECTIVE 'real omni-d' energy-space fundamental universal 'fabric') is "hair splitting"? No wonder you easily mix up real things with unreal 'things' in discussions. Try to read/understand objectively, without trying to score imaginary points with your subjective prejudices and confusions, mate. The objective scientific method was invented in order to follow science/logic substance while ignoring irrelevances. :)
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 09, 2019
When you watch the sun rise in the East and set in the West (at any location on Earth) you are watching an EVENT, where the Sun itself is performing an ACTION by shining its rays ON the Earth. You watch the CYCLE of Sun rise and Sun set and wonder to yourself, "UggaBugga, how did that ball of fire go across the sky so fast and magically return again to where it started to move?" So you perform a few calculations in your head, and come to the conclusion that the Sun is a god in a fiery chariot drawn by fiery red steeds and, as it sounds good - that is the story that you tell your inquisitive children.

-contd-

Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (4) Mar 09, 2019
-contd-
"But why does the Sun take so long to cross over the hills to the West, Papa?" "Well, my children, I have worked it out in my mind that the Earth is a round ball that is turning westward, which is why the god in his chariot rides across the sky starting at dawn until he gets to the hills and darkness comes."

"But Papa, how long does it take for that to happen? We are afraid to be caught outside of our cave without you and Mum when it is getting dark and the wolves and bears want to eat us." "Don't worry, my children, for I have thought about that problem also and have invented a Tick Tock which I call a 'clock' that will tell us when to go inside and explains the DURATION of the Event that is the Sun's CYCLE on our land in increments of hours, minutes and seconds".
"But Papa, can we call it a 'timepiece' since it will tell us when it is time to go inside?" "Well of course you may call it that, my children."
observicist
3 / 5 (4) Mar 09, 2019
@SEU

Math is merely a construct out of the human mind. If early humans had never THOUGHT of NUMBERS - there would be NO MATH. Therefore NO BANKING and NO SPACETIME - ergo, no Physics.


So, if we hadn't invented math, the universe as it is would be completely different? Physics wouldn't exist? Chemistry? Numbers? Banking? Quantum mechanics? Psychology? Medicine? Nothing that depends on numbers would exist? People would have no age? No time would pass?

That is the most ridiculous assertion I have ever seen in my entire life, and I have seen some weird ones, having been a university professor as well as a researcher.

If time doesn't exist, then why can't we visit yesterday? Answer that, or admit you have no idea what you're talking about.

The universe is numbers and mathematics. It most definitely is not your hand waving.
Benni
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 09, 2019
@Benni has not the slightest clue that entropy is mathematically defined.

Do the math, @Benni. Or shut up.


Well then, so can intelligence be mathematically defined: 2+2/2= schneibo's IQ
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 09, 2019
TrollianCastroGiovanni in the naughty box
As jonesdave would say: "YOU ARE THICK!!"

SEU>
As phys.org has kindly left all TrollianCastroGiovanni's previous comments for all to see
says granville

That jonesdave comment was directed at observiciz, who seems unable to absorb straightforward information, due to his clinging to the worship of spacetime (old science) and can't abide any new stuff that isn't already in the books - similar to jonesy's preference.
But, be as it may, no arm-twisting is going on and they are free to keep true to dear old Albert's gross error in judgement of spacetime.
granville583762
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 09, 2019
Hitting the Sweet Spot
"But Papa, can we call it a 'timepiece' since it will tell us when it is time to go inside?"

SEU, actually this problem with time
is actually more fundamental than this
as Dear old Albert fell into this childish hole in his rush to publish his Toe
it is simply everyone has swallowed this childish intellectual view point
that this 9billion oscillations were telling the time
they forgot they were scientists, engineers, designers
they forgot
to look in this clock
to investigate
why
these 9billion oscillation
were
actually physically changing in motion and gravitational acceleration
A Bone Headed Oversight
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (4) Mar 09, 2019
@SEU

Math is merely a construct out of the human mind. If early humans had never THOUGHT of NUMBERS - there would be NO MATH. Therefore NO BANKING and NO SPACETIME - ergo, no Physics.
says obserd

So, if we hadn't invented math, the universe as it is would be completely different? Physics wouldn't exist? Chemistry? Numbers? Banking? Quantum mechanics? Psychology? Medicine? Nothing that depends on numbers would exist? People would have no age? No time would pass?

That is the most ridiculous assertion I have ever seen in my entire life, and I have seen some weird ones, having been a university professor as well as a researcher.

If time doesn't exist, then why can't we visit yesterday? Answer that, or admit you have no idea what you're talking about.

The universe is numbers and mathematics. It most definitely is not your hand waving.


Now WHY would you think that "the universe as it is would be completely different" if Math hadn't been invented?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 09, 2019
Hitting the Sweet Spot
"But Papa, can we call it a 'timepiece' since it will tell us when it is time to go inside?"

SEU, actually this problem with time
is actually more fundamental than this
as Dear old Albert fell into this childish hole in his rush to publish his Toe
it is simply everyone has swallowed this childish intellectual view point
that this 9billion oscillations were telling the time
they forgot they were scientists, engineers, designers
they forgot to look in this clock
to investigate why these 9billion oscillation were
actually physically changing in motion and gravitational acceleration
A Bone Headed Oversight
says granville

Mere changes in Motion and Gravitational Acceleration. Electrons dancing to beat the band. Albert had too much kosher wine that went to his head and took that dancing to literally mean 8 beats to the bar. (musically speaking) LOL
Had he investigated, all he would have seen is the Motions of the mechanism - not time.
Castrogiovanni
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 09, 2019
and can't abide any new stuff that isn't already in the books -


What new stuff? Methinks you are lying.
Benni
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 09, 2019
Rates of time actually run differently depending on relative motion. Time passes at different rates for different observers travelling at different speeds, an effect dubbed time dilation.

Two synchronized clocks may not remain synchronized if they move differently relative to each other, this due to length contraction because in spatial dimensions moving bodies are fore-shortened in their direction of travel, in other words when mass is foreshortened so also is time congruently foreshortened, this is space-time in a nutshell.
Castrogiovanni
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 09, 2019

Had he investigated, all he would have seen is the Motions of the mechanism - not time.


Now this untutored fool thinks he knows better than Einstein! You couldn't make this stuff up. Except that he is. What is it with these clueless cranks? Some sort of mental disorder? Mind boggling stuff.
Castrogiovanni
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 09, 2019
Rates of time........................


Let's do it properly, shall we? With a link to the source;

Also as a result of Einstein's work and his Special Theory of Relativity, we now know that rates of time actually run differently depending on relative motion, so that time effectively passes at different rates for different observers travelling at different speeds, an effect known as time dilation. Thus, two synchronized clocks will not necessarily stay synchronized if they move relative to each other. There is a related effect in the spatial dimensions, known as length contraction, whereby moving bodies are actually foreshortened in the direction of their travel.


http://www.exactl...ic-time/
granville583762
4 / 5 (4) Mar 09, 2019
The Perils of rushing to Publishing your Toe before Time

This is why the space boffins correct chronometers in orbit by slowing them down
because
they have to be synchronised with Earth based clocks
time has not changed
just the mechanisms that are digitally measuring time at different rates
due to accelerative motion of frequency and wave
because
as we have to use chronometers
that are prone to errors
we have to calculate
these errors
and
apply the appropriative correction
nothing what so ever to do with time
Purely a mechanical problem
Castrogiovanni
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 09, 2019
The Perils of rushing to Publishing your Toe before Time

This is why the space boffins correct chronometers in orbit by slowing them down
because
they have to be synchronised with earth based clocks
time has not changed
just the mechanisms that are digitally measuring time at different rates
due to accelerative motion on frequency and wave
because
as we have to use chronometers
that are prone to errors
we have to calculate
these errors
and
apply the appropriative correction
nothing what so ever to do with time
Purely a mechanical problem


Rubbish.
Benni
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 09, 2019
Rates of time.

Let's do it properly, shall we? With a link to the source;


Also as a result of Einstein's work and his Special Theory of Relativity, we now know that rates of time actually run differently depending on relative motion, so that time effectively passes at different rates for different observers travelling at different speeds, an effect known as time dilation. Thus, two synchronized clocks will not necessarily stay synchronized if they move relative to each other. There is a related effect in the spatial dimensions, known as length contraction, whereby moving bodies are actually foreshortened in the direction of their travel.
........you quoted it wrong.

Castrogiovanni
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 09, 2019
Rates of time.

Let's do it properly, shall we? With a link to the source;


Also as a result of Einstein's work and his Special Theory of Relativity, we now know that rates of time actually run differently depending on relative motion, so that time effectively passes at different rates for different observers travelling at different speeds, an effect known as time dilation. Thus, two synchronized clocks will not necessarily stay synchronized if they move relative to each other. There is a related effect in the spatial dimensions, known as length contraction, whereby moving bodies are actually foreshortened in the direction of their travel.
........you quoted it wrong.



No I didn't.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (4) Mar 09, 2019
says Benni
Rates of time actually run differently depending on relative motion.
- It is Gravity that is affecting the Motion of the mechanism which is either running slower or faster. Or at a normal rate.

Time passes at different rates for different observers travelling at different speeds, an effect dubbed time dilation. [/q - Again, It is the force of Gravity that affects clocks according to the differences in Velocity, Altitude, Direction and Orientation of the traveler relative to another observer.

Two synchronized clocks may not remain synchronized if they move differently relative to each other, this due to length contraction because in spatial dimensions moving bodies are fore-shortened in their direction of travel, in other words when mass is foreshortened so also is time congruently foreshortened, this is space-time in a nutshell.
- It is only Gravity acting on Mass, seemingly shortening or lengthening Mass. No need for time. It's mechanical

Castrogiovanni
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 09, 2019
- It is only Gravity acting on Mass, seemingly shortening or lengthening Mass. No need for time. It's mechanical


Wrong.

granville583762
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 09, 2019
Typically TrollianCastroGiovanni
The Perils of rushing to Publishing your Toe before Time

This is why the space boffins correct chronometers in orbit by slowing them down
because
they have to be synchronised with earth based clocks
time has not changed
just the mechanisms that are digitally measuring time at different rates
due to accelerative motion on frequency and wave
because
as we have to use chronometers
that are prone to errors
we have to calculate
these errors
and
apply the appropriative correction
nothing what so ever to do with time
Purely a mechanical problem


TrollianCastroGiovanni> Rubbish.

TrollianCastroGiovanni cannot make comments of his own
as Trollians are at home in the Rubbish
it is appropriate TrollianCastroGiovanni reply
is his most favourite word
Rubbish
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 09, 2019
- It is only Gravity acting on Mass, seemingly shortening or lengthening Mass. No need for time. It's mechanical


Wrong.

castratedjonny thinks it's wrong

OK brightboy. Explain what Time is made of.
If Time is made of Matter/Energy - only then does it have the capacity to affect other Matter/Energy. Do tell us. The same question that I put to Da Scheide, who refuses to answer.
WHAT IS TIME MADE OF?
Castrogiovanni
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 09, 2019
- It is only Gravity acting on Mass, seemingly shortening or lengthening Mass. No need for time. It's mechanical


Wrong.

castratedjonny thinks it's wrong

OK brightboy. Explain what Time is made of.
If Time is made of Matter/Energy - only then does it have the capacity to affect other Matter/Energy. Do tell us. The same question that I put to Da Scheide, who refuses to answer.
WHAT IS TIME MADE OF?


Stop talking nonsense, and go and get yourself an education. You are completely clueless on all things scientific. Why are you here?
You made a stupid statement, so back it up. Where are the equations? Where is it in the scientific literature? If you can't answer that, you are nothing more than a liar.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (4) Mar 09, 2019
- It is only Gravity acting on Mass, seemingly shortening or lengthening Mass. No need for time. It's mechanical


Wrong.

castratedjonny thinks it's wrong

OK brightboy. Explain what Time is made of.
If Time is made of Matter/Energy - only then does it have the capacity to affect other Matter/Energy. Do tell us. The same question that I put to Da Scheide, who refuses to answer.
WHAT IS TIME MADE OF?


Stop talking nonsense, and go and get yourself an education. You are completely clueless on all things scientific. Why are you here?
You made a stupid statement, so back it up. Where are the equations? Where is it in the scientific literature? If you can't answer that, you are nothing more than a liar.


ANSWER THE QUESTION:
WHAT IS TIME MADE OF?
DO YOU EVEN UNDERSTAND TIME AND WHAT IT IS, AND WHAT IT DOES?
Castrogiovanni
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 09, 2019
Rates of time.

Let's do it properly, shall we? With a link to the source;


Also as a result of Einstein's work and his Special Theory of Relativity, we now know that rates of time actually run differently depending on relative motion, so that time effectively passes at different rates for different observers travelling at different speeds, an effect known as time dilation. Thus, two synchronized clocks will not necessarily stay synchronized if they move relative to each other. There is a related effect in the spatial dimensions, known as length contraction, whereby moving bodies are actually foreshortened in the direction of their travel.
........you quoted it wrong.



No I didn't.


Not sure why I'd be downvoted for telling the truth;

http://www.imageb...57679164

http://www.exactl...ic-time/
Castrogiovanni
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 09, 2019
- It is only Gravity acting on Mass, seemingly shortening or lengthening Mass. No need for time. It's mechanical


Wrong.

castratedjonny thinks it's wrong

OK brightboy. Explain what Time is made of.
If Time is made of Matter/Energy - only then does it have the capacity to affect other Matter/Energy. Do tell us. The same question that I put to Da Scheide, who refuses to answer.
WHAT IS TIME MADE OF?


Stop talking nonsense, and go and get yourself an education. You are completely clueless on all things scientific. Why are you here?
You made a stupid statement, so back it up. Where are the equations? Where is it in the scientific literature? If you can't answer that, you are nothing more than a liar.


ANSWER THE QUESTION:
WHAT IS TIME MADE OF?
DO YOU EVEN UNDERSTAND TIME AND WHAT IT IS, AND WHAT IT DOES?


You don't. Go away you fool. You do not understand the subject. You are a scientifically illiterate poser.
granville583762
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 09, 2019
TrollianCastroGiovanni

When you make a reasoned reason
why
Chronometers
digitally record oscillations at different rates
without referring to Dear old Albert's Toe
you
will begin to gain some credibility
as
this will require you to make independent comments of your own
as
TrollianCastroGiovanni, there is a déjà vu feel about this comment
as
though it has been said before
to
a Trollian in a past life, TrollianCastroGiovanni
but
be that as it may
it is never to late
To make comments of your own
Castrogiovanni
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 09, 2019
TrollianCastroGiovanni

When you make a reasoned reason
why
Chronometers
digitally record oscillations at different rates
without referring to Dear old Albert's Toe
you
will begin to gain some credibility
as
this will require you to make independent comments of your own
as
TrollianCastroGiovanni, there is a déjà vu feel about this comment
as
though it has been said before
to
a Trollian in a past life, TrollianCastroGiovanni
but
be that as it may
it is never to late
To make comments of your own


Waste of pixels.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (4) Mar 09, 2019
- It is only Gravity acting on Mass, seemingly shortening or lengthening Mass. No need for time. It's mechanical


Wrong.

castratedjonny thinks it's wrong

OK brightboy. Explain what Time is made of.
If Time is made of Matter/Energy - only then does it have the capacity to affect other Matter/Energy. Do tell us. The same question that I put to Da Scheide, who refuses to answer.
WHAT IS TIME MADE OF?


Stop talking nonsense, and go and get yourself an education. You are completely clueless on all things scientific. Why are you here?
You made a stupid statement, so back it up. Where are the equations? Where is it in the scientific literature? If you can't answer that, you are nothing more than a liar.


DO YOU UNDERSTAND TIME AND WHAT IT IS?

You don't. Go away you fool. You do not understand the subject. You are a scientifically illiterate poser.


ANSWER THE QUESTION, DUMMY:
WHAT IS TIME MADE OF?
Castrogiovanni
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 09, 2019

ANSWER THE QUESTION, DUMMY:
WHAT IS TIME MADE OF?


Who are you calling a dummy, you retard? Only a moron would even ask 'what is time made of'! Go and get an education, you jumped up ignoramus.
RealityCheck
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 09, 2019
@Castrogiovanni.
Not sure why I'd be downvoted for telling the truth;
Yeah, funny that, hey?...'welcome to my world', mate! :)

ps: By the way, just between us, are you really who they say you are? If so, welcome back under your new username. I for one am always prepared to let bygones be bygones....forgive and forget, you know? Anyhow, good luck and good thinking to you in your future discussions, matey. Cheers. :)
observicist
3 / 5 (4) Mar 09, 2019
@SEU,

Now WHY would you think that "the universe as it is would be completely different" if Math hadn't been invented?


Your own words: Therefore... NO SPACETIME.

If there's no spacetime, the universe is completely different.

If you were referring to our perception, only, that's stupid, too. Perception doesn't change reality. It still takes one day of time for Earth to rotate once on its axis. Spacetime is real.

I ask you again: if there is no such thing as time, why can't we visit yesterday?

@Granville,

The different rates at which chronometers measure time in orbit as opposed to on Earth's surface is not due to any mechanical or electronic problem. It's due to the fact that the intensity of a gravitational field affects the relative flow of time, which, it seems, really is real. GPS takes advantage of this difference to calculate where you are when you ask your smartphone's GPS to give you directions. Spacetime is real.

I am weary of you both.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 09, 2019
UNBELIEVABLE!!
Old Albert's faux pas is SO ingrained into these _____ but they can't even explain what time is made of. They BELIEVE in something but can't or won't explain WHY they believe in Time.
LOL It's not like I'm asking them why they believe in a god. Or why they believe in Communism.
What dullards these are and their belief in pseudoscience.
Castrogiovanni
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 09, 2019
I am weary of you both.


Indeed. It is difficult to explain science to those who have no grasp of it whatsoever.
Castrogiovanni
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 09, 2019
UNBELIEVABLE!!
Old Albert's faux pas is SO ingrained into these _____ but they can't even explain what time is made of. They BELIEVE in something but can't or won't explain WHY they believe in Time.
LOL It's not like I'm asking them why they believe in a god. Or why they believe in Communism.
What dullards these are and their belief in pseudoscience.


Oh do go away. You are tiresome. Are you saying you have proven Einstein wrong? Hahahahahaha. Please, do link us to this paper. Or admit that you are lying. GR and SR have been tested over and over again. They have never failed. They especially do not fail based on the lunatic ramblings of yours. Now, do go read a book, there's a good chap.
granville583762
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 09, 2019
When TrollianCastroGiovanni's finrot bites
@Castrogiovanni.
Not sure why I'd be downvoted for telling the truth;
RealityCheck> Yeah, funny that, hey?...'welcome to my world', mate! :)

ps: By the way, just between us, are you really who they say you are? If so, welcome back under your new username. I for one am always prepared to let bygones be bygones....forgive and forget, you know? Anyhow, good luck and good thinking to you in your future discussions, matey. Cheers. :)

RealityCheck, when TrollianCastroGiovanni finrot bites deep
Your question, RealityCheck will be answered
in
Trollian most foul
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (4) Mar 09, 2019

ANSWER THE QUESTION, DUMMY:
WHAT IS TIME MADE OF?


Who are you calling a dummy, you retard? Only a moron would even ask 'what is time made of'! Go and get an education, you jumped up ignoramus.


YOU are a DUMMY if you can't even explain what Time is made of. Something that you believe in without question - but you don't know what it is or what it's made of.
LOL a sucker born every minute, as they say. Believe in Time but know nothing about it. Is it animal, vegetable, mineral? What are its properties?
Castrogiovanni
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 09, 2019

ANSWER THE QUESTION, DUMMY:
WHAT IS TIME MADE OF?


Who are you calling a dummy, you retard? Only a moron would even ask 'what is time made of'! Go and get an education, you jumped up ignoramus.


YOU are a DUMMY if you can't even explain what Time is made of. Something that you believe in without question - but you don't know what it is or what it's made of.
LOL a sucker born every minute, as they say. Believe in Time but know nothing about it. Is it animal, vegetable, mineral? What are its properties?


You know nothing about science. Why are you here? Show me where Einstein has been proven wrong, or admit that you are a liar.
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 09, 2019
@observicist.
@SEU, If there's no spacetime, the universe is completely different.
Did you miss my post quoting Einstein's Leiden address? Wherein he explicitly states he abstracted the 'space-time' construct for ease of conveying his theory insights into the real fundamental entity underlying the universal phenomena. Please go and read it for yourself. The upshot is that the only real thing is energy-space; which Einstein abstracted into the maths/geometry/analytical 'construct' of 'space-time'; not a real thing, just an abstraction analysis etc tool.
@Granville, the different rates at which chronometers measure time in orbit as opposed to on Earth's surface is not due to any mechanical or electronic problem. It's due to the fact that the intensity of a gravitational field affects the relative flow of time,...
Equivalence Principle involves real SR/GR effects on real physical bodies/energy in MOTION/GRAVITY-WELLS. 'Time Dilation' is ABSTRACT maths 'term'. :)
granville583762
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 09, 2019
When all else fails
quote belief

The different rates at which chronometers measure time in orbit as opposed to on Earth's surface is not due to any mechanical or electronic problem. It's due to the fact that the intensity of a gravitational field affects the relative flow of time

Realy
A scientific conclusion to prove a Toe
< he intensity of a gravitational field affects the relative flow of time >
Is this an alter of time
that has an following of believers
who
come
regularly
to this alter
when time is in full flow
where all the disciples fill their goblets of time
and
drink at this altar of time

Tis time Oh Time Disciples
for
a reasoned reason for this anomaly
because
it is not time you are worshiping
at
This alter of Time, observicist
Castrogiovanni
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 09, 2019
When all else fails
quote belief

The different rates at which chronometers measure time in orbit as opposed to on Earth's surface is not due to any mechanical or electronic problem. It's due to the fact that the intensity of a gravitational field affects the relative flow of time

Realy
a scientific conclusion to prove a toe
< he intensity of a gravitational field affects the relative flow of time >
is this an alter of time
that has an following of believers
who
come
regularly
to this alter
when time is in full flow
where all the disciples fill their goblets of time
and
drink at this altar of time

Tis time Oh Time Disciples
for
a reasoned reason for this anomaly
because
it is not time you are worshiping
at
This alter of Time, observicist


Another total waste of pixels.
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 09, 2019
@Castrogiovanni.
@S_E_U,
WHAT IS TIME MADE OF?
Only a moron would even ask 'what is time made of'! Go and get an education, you jumped up ignoramus.
It might be timely for you to recall what Prof. Roger Penrose said whenever he was asked:
What happened before the Big Bang?
He said that UNTIL RECENTLY he (Penrose) used to dismissively give the 'stock' answer:
Time began with the Big Bang, so any question of a "before" makes no sense.
Well, he changed his tune, admitting it was NOT a stupid question after all; and in fact was a very legitimate question, which he and fellow Big Bang proponents (previously) evaded by resorting to the above stock answer. So, @Castrogiovanni, I suggest you do a similar rethink re S_E_U's question. It may to YOU seem 'stupid', but in reality it goes straight to the heart of the matter; ie, what is real, and what is abstraction. Evasion by insulting and/or ignoring that question is not what Penrose would advise now.

Cheers. :)
Castrogiovanni
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 09, 2019
@Reality Check,

So you answer his idiotic question. Go have a look what he's saying. This untutored nobody is claiming to have disproven Einstein. I have better things to do than waste time on such people. Let him go write up his disproof, instead of spouting idiotic nonsense on here.
RealityCheck
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 09, 2019
@Castrogiovanni.

Mate, it's not a good look for you if, just after your complaint about others' voting you down unfairly...
Not sure why I'd be downvoted for telling the truth;
...you then hypocritically do that exact same thing to me, downvoting me for telling the truth to you. Not a good look at all, mate. Nip such hypocrisy and insensibility in the bud quick smart, @Cg; else your new username will be as much 'tainted' by your own actions as your previous one was. Be better and do better this time round, hey? Good luck. :)
Castrogiovanni
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 09, 2019
@Castrogiovanni.

Mate, it's not a good look for you if, just after your complaint about others' voting you down unfairly...
Not sure why I'd be downvoted for telling the truth;
...you then hypocritically do that exact same thing to me, downvoting me for telling the truth to you. Not a good look at all, mate. Nip such hypocrisy and insensibility in the bud quick smart, @Cg; else your new username will be as much 'tainted' by your own actions as your previous one was. Be better and do better this time round, hey? Good luck. :)


So answer the question. It is a stupid question. Good luck.
granville583762
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 09, 2019
In Timely Fashion Time has Run Out

RealityCheck, even when the greats question this Timely belief
the likes
of
TrollianCastroGiovanni will have none of it
as
TrollianCastroGiovanni sits under his bridge
in bitter disappointment
as he sees his cherished theories
simply
blowing away in the wind
Time has run out
on this Trollian
in Timely fashion
a
fitting
epitath
on
TrollianCastroGiovanni Bridge

In Timely Fashion Time has Run Out
Castrogiovanni
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 09, 2019
In Timely Fashion Time has Run Out

RealityCheck, even when the greats question this Timely belief
the likes
of
TrollianCastroGiovanni will have none of it
as
TrollianCastroGiovanni sits under his bridge
in bitter disappointment
as he sees his cherished theories
simply
blowing away in the wind
Time has run out
on this Trollian
in a Timely fashion
a
fitting
epitath
on
TrollianCastroGiovanni Bridge

In Timely Fashion Time has Run Out


Waste of pixels. Again.
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 09, 2019
@Castrogiovanni.
@Reality Check,

So you answer his idiotic question. Go have a look what he's saying. This untutored nobody is claiming to have disproven Einstein. I have better things to do than waste time on such people. Let him go write up his disproof, instead of spouting idiotic nonsense on here.
I have already effectively 'answered' everybody's questions re time concept and the different contexts it is used in. Haven't you been reading my posts here and elsewhere re that issue? Anyhow, it's incumbent upon you/others claiming real physically effective/causative etc properties for 'time', to answer S_E_U's question fairly (note that his question would NOT have 'needed' to BE asked at all, had not you/others kept insisting that 'time' concept has some real physically effective/causative properties).

ps: You seem to be 'bundling' MANY issues you have with S_E_U, and it's leading you to knee-jerk to ALL at once, instead of sticking to the issue at hand. Calm down. :)
Castrogiovanni
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 09, 2019

ps: You seem to be 'bundling' MANY issues you have with S_E_U, and it's leading you to knee-jerk to ALL at once, instead of sticking to the issue at hand. Calm down. :)


On ignore.
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 09, 2019
@Castrogiovanni.
I have already effectively 'answered' everybody's questions re time concept and the different contexts it is used in. Haven't you been reading my posts here and elsewhere re that issue? Anyhow, it's incumbent upon you/others claiming real physically effective/causative etc properties for 'time', to answer S_E_U's question fairly (note that his question would NOT have 'needed' to BE asked at all, had not you/others kept insisting that 'time' concept has some real physically effective/causative properties).
ps: You seem to be 'bundling' MANY issues you have with S_E_U, and it's leading you to knee-jerk to ALL at once, instead of sticking to the issue at hand. Calm down. :)
On ignore.
Your loss, mate. Defaulting to old 'denial-avoidance' tactics will only delay your (eventual, I hope) proper comprehension of the crucial difference between real things and abstract 'things'. It's a defeatist's gambit, @Cg; a non-objective-scientist's tactic. Not good.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 09, 2019
@SEU,

Now WHY would you think that "the universe as it is would be completely different" if Math hadn't been invented?


Your own words: Therefore... NO SPACETIME.

If there's no spacetime, the universe is completely different.

Perception doesn't change reality. It still takes one day of time for Earth to rotate once on its axis. Spacetime is not real.

I ask you again: if there is no such thing as time, why can't we visit yesterday?

@Granville,

The different rates at which chronometers measure time in orbit as opposed to on Earth's surface is not due to any mechanical or electronic problem. It's due to the fact that the intensity of a gravitational field affects the relative flow of time, which, it seems, really is real. GPS takes advantage of this difference to calculate where you are when you ask your smartphone's GPS to give you directions. Spacetime is real.


Which means that you have no idea what time is made of but you are afraid to admit it.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (4) Mar 09, 2019
says Professor unobservant
"It still takes one day of time for Earth to rotate once on its axis. Spacetime is real.
- SPACE is real, while Time is UNREALand does not exist except as a concept of the mind - with spacetime together as a unit, you are negating Space as real, while pretending that Time also allows objects to travel through it - which is nonsense. You cannot travel THROUGH time - you can ONLY travel through SPACE.

I ask you again: if there is no such thing as time, why can't we visit yesterday?"
- Yesterday, today and tomorrow are Events that happened or will happen due to the rotation of the Earth on its axis. Yesterday is gone and has been replaced by today as the Earth rotates. You cannot return to visit yesterday as it no longer exists - except in your memory.

Have you come up with a solution/answer yet to "WHAT IS TIME MADE OF?"

Whydening Gyre
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 09, 2019
@Whyde.
Actually, the '3-d' is 'OMNI-d'; which has been conveniently 'reduced' to 'abstract construct' of 3-d Cartesian Coordinates System for ease of mathematical/geometrical analysis/description etc. REAL ENERGY-SPACE is OMNI-DIMENSIONAL

NOW, who's splitting hairs...

You think that my pointing out and explaining the crucial difference (between physically NON-EFFECTIVE 'abstract 3-d' mathematical/analytical/graphing 'tool', and physically EFFECTIVE 'real omni-d' energy-space fundamental universal 'fabric') is "hair splitting"?

Yes.
Calling it something else (that you consider more descriptive or apt), doesn't make it "NON-EFFECTIVE". 3D space is the accepted term by actual rocket scientists determining "real" orbit parameters, so it's good enough for me...
And those guys have been pretty effective...
Benni
3 / 5 (6) Mar 09, 2019
I have already effectively 'answered' everybody's questions re time concept and the different contexts it is used in.
.....but there is yet one context about DILATION of SPACE-TIME I've yet seen discussed here outside my passing mention of it, LENGTH CONTRACTION.

LENGTH CONTRACTION is the shortened distance a mass travels from it's current location to another more distant location based upon it's relativistic speed.

A vehicle traveling from Los Angeles to NYC covers about 2800 miles distance. If the speed of the vehicle were 180,000 miles/sec, the distance it would have covered is about 720 miles as recorded by an on board odometer. This is the length contraction effect of relativistic speeds, dilation of distance between two positions is what is occurring here, TIME dilates proportionately because like the odometer it too runs on the expenditure of kinetic energy.

Benni
3 / 5 (6) Mar 09, 2019
This is the length contraction effect of relativistic speeds, dilation of distance between two positions is what is occurring here, TIME dilates proportionately because like the odometer it too runs on the expenditure of kinetic energy.


And digressing a bit more here, I mean to suggest that LENGTH CONTRACTION is a really bad term physicists use to describe how the distance from Los Angeles to NYC changes based on the velocity of the vehicle.

The Contracting Length is in actuality a CONTRACTING DISTANCE between two points & is what is called in Relativity as SPACE, when using the term Space-Time. Therefore at higher speed, the distance a mass must travel is literally shorter than if it were traveling at a lower speed.

There's a good Length Contraction calculator:

https://www.omnic...traction
Whydening Gyre
3 / 5 (2) Mar 09, 2019
SPACE is real, while Time is UNREAL and does not exist except as a concept of the mind -

Nope.
You cannot travel THROUGH time - you can ONLY travel through SPACE.

Spacial volume is the stage, Time is the presentation ON the stage.

"WHAT IS TIME MADE OF?"

a sequential series of 3D reference frames(events)... Change.
A process which the Universe presents to us as immutable and unchangeable. Ergo... "real".
I know, I know... you didn't ask me...
Castrogiovanni
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 09, 2019
The Contracting Length is in actuality a CONTRACTING DISTANCE between two points & is what is called in Relativity as SPACE, when using the term Space-Time. Therefore at higher speed, the distance a mass must travel is literally shorter than if it were traveling at a lower speed.

There's a good Length Contraction calculator:

https://www.omnic...traction


Utter nonsense. Length contraction is an observed foreshortening of the object in motion in a moving reference frame, not a contraction of the distance between two points;

http://hyperphysi...dil.html
Castrogiovanni
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 09, 2019
I have already effectively 'answered' everybody's questions re time concept and the different contexts it is used in.
.....but there is yet one context about DILATION of SPACE-TIME I've yet seen discussed here outside my passing mention of it, LENGTH CONTRACTION.

LENGTH CONTRACTION is the shortened distance a mass travels from it's current location to another more distant location based upon it's relativistic speed.

A vehicle traveling from Los Angeles to NYC covers about 2800 miles distance. If the speed of the vehicle were 180,000 miles/sec, the distance it would have covered is about 720 miles as recorded by an on board odometer. This is the length contraction effect of relativistic speeds, dilation of distance between two positions is what is occurring here, TIME dilates proportionately because like the odometer it too runs on the expenditure of kinetic energy.



Nothing to do with kinetic energy.
observicist
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 09, 2019
I'm not worshiping at any alter of time. I don't worship anything at all.

I do, however, accept demonstrated scientific results for what they are, unlike others here who won't accept them because they either cannot or will not understand them.

I am always open to new interpretations, and new experimental or theoretical results, but only when they are not demonstrably stupid.

No one knows what spacetime is "made of," but spacetime is demonstrable, and its properties are used by everyone, every day. One of its properties is that Earth moves through spacetime in its orbit around the sun at the rate of one orbit per year. We are moving through space, and we are moving through time -- we are moving through spacetime.

There's also GPS, which takes advantage of the time-dilating effects of gravity.

"Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens" (Friedrich Schiller).

I am extremely weary of the Dummheit exhibited here by some. Dummheit tut weh.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 10, 2019
I'm not worshiping at any alter of time. I don't worship anything at all.

I do, however, accept demonstrated scientific results for what they are, unlike others here who won't accept them because they either cannot or will not understand them.

I am always open to new interpretations, and new experimental or theoretical results, but only when they are not demonstrably stupid.

No one knows what spacetime is "made of," but spacetime is demonstrable, and its properties are used by everyone, every day. One of its properties is that Earth moves through spacetime in its orbit around the sun at the rate of one orbit per year. We are moving through space, and we are moving through time -- we are moving through spacetime.

There's also GPS, which takes advantage of the time-dilating effects of gravity.
says obs

The question I asked (many times) was: WHAT IS TIME MADE OF?
I never asked about "what is spacetime made of". Are you hard of reading? Be honest. Time is not real.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 10, 2019
[q
No one knows what spacetime is "made of," but spacetime is demonstrable, and its properties are used by everyone, every day. One of its properties is that Earth moves through spacetime in its orbit around the sun at the rate of one orbit per year. We are moving through space, and we are moving through time -- we are moving through spacetime.

GPS, which takes advantage of the time-dilating effects of gravity. claims obs

The term "spacetime" was coined by Albert Einstein in 1905.
"Until the turn of the 20th century, the assumption had been that the three-dimensional geometry of the universe (its spatial expression in terms of coordinates, distances, and directions) was independent of one-dimensional time. However, in 1905, Albert Einstein based his seminal work on special relativity on two postulates: (1) The laws of physics are invariant (i.e., identical) in all inertial systems (i.e., non-accelerating frames of reference); (2) The speed of light in a vacuum is
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 10, 2019
There's also GPS, which takes advantage of the time-dilating effects of gravity.

says observator

Gravity does not 'dilate' time, as time is not a spatial geometric form of Mass, and thus time hasn't the capability/capacity to change shape as time is massless and shapeless, nonconforming to gravitational influence.
GPS is only influenced/affected by Gravity on the mechanism of its timepiece. Time is not dilated there either.
granville583762
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 10, 2019
The Vacuous Vacuum of Space

Observicist, Going into Space
when it is said, going into space to visit the space station
Space:- is the generalised adjective to describe this vacuum
this vacuum is infinite in its dimensions
so
we have an adjective
that
aptly describe this vacuum
and
that is observicist, SPACE
which
observicist, is why I aptly call this Space
The vacuous vacuum of space
so
that observicist, that all though the generalised adjective correctly describes this vacuum, SPACE
because
this confusion hath arisen concerning this adjective
used
to correctly describe this vacuum
Is why observicist
SPACE
is
called in full description
The Vacuous Vacuum of Space
Benni
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 10, 2019
No one knows what spacetime is "made of," but spacetime is demonstrable, and its properties are used by everyone, every day. One of its properties is that Earth moves through spacetime in its orbit around the sun at the rate of one orbit per year. We are moving through space, and we are moving through time -- we are moving through spacetime.


It's plain to see why you have no comprehension of Einstein's SR or GR. All you do is talk in convoluted circles of Pop-Cosmology psycho-babble & then congratulate yourself on how cleverly you strung a bunch of words together which make absolutely no sense.
Benni
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 10, 2019
The term "spacetime" was coined by Albert Einstein in 1905.


> Egg........it was a contentious point of agreement between Einstein & Minkowski with regard to the use of the term SPACE-TIME.

Einstein was reluctant to use SPACE-TIME, but Hermann Minkowski was his teacher who had a big huge fat ego & did not like the idea that one of his students should prove to be smarter than himself.

Minkowski had already put forth the phrase SPACE-TIME when Einstein was sitting in on his classroom lectures as a student. When Minkowski saw that now former student Einstein was on the verge of publishing the FIELD EQUATIONS for gravity, he demanded Einstein use the phrase SPACE-TIME or he wasn't going to put the authority of his prestigious name to a document generated by one of his students who could not possibly be smarter than he was, yeah it was politics & Einstein caved & this is what has led to the present day struggle in defining what SPACE is & what TIME is.

granville583762
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 10, 2019
...................SPACE TIME……………………
Space is vacuum, as vacuum is not time

The reason no one knows what space time is Benni
is
because of the adjective, Space
which
is used to describe this vacuum
The vacuum
is infinite in dimension
and
is devoid of protons, electrons, gravity, electromagnetic energy
in
other words Benni, a vacuum
as
a vacuum devoid of all matter and energy is not an entity
so
can not be stretched, squashed and as there is only one and one only VACUUM
no energy exists, as in zero-point energy, no wormholes
as
protons, electrons electromagnetic energy occupy this vacuum as they pass through this vacuum
which
Comes to the biggest anomaly since blackholes

...................SPACE TIME……………………
Space is vacuum, as vacuum is not time
Benni
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 10, 2019
yeah it was politics & Einstein caved & this is what has led to the present day struggle in defining what SPACE is & what TIME is.


Therefore continuing..........the entire concept of defining LENGTH CONTRACTION is what has caused all the present day squabbling about the definition of SPACE-TIME.

LENGTH CONTRACTION due to relativistic velocity, is synonymous with the term SPACE. It simply means that distance between two points in the line of direction of travel LITERALLY changes for the Relativistic Mass & becomes shorter the closer a mass approaches lightspeed, this is what the length contraction calculator at https://www.omnic...traction is very clear about, but which is little understood by almost ANYBODY engaged in the semantics of what exactly is meant by SPACE-TIME, especially the SPACE part of the phrase.

If the term DISTANCE had been used in place of SPACE for SPACE-TIME we would not be having these space time arguments.

granville583762
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 10, 2019
SPACE TIME FLOW is in the mind of Hermann Minkowski

Then we have this time flowing
protons flow as they occupy and pass through this vacuum
but
no one has seen vacuum flow
because
as we evacuate vacuum flasks on Earth
the vacuum
in this vacuum flask
is the exact same vacuum
that
is the vacuum between the galaxies
because
there is only one vacuum
as you cannot subdivide vacuum
hence, The vacuum
so
no one has seen vacuum flow
and
certainly in the silence of this vacuum
no one has heard this vacuum tick with time
and as vacuum does not flow
time does not flow
this misconstrued misconception
concerning Space Time Flow
is
all
In the mind of Hermann Minkowski
granville583762
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 10, 2019
Length contraction in this vacuum

You cannot compress this vacuum
as
this is the equivalence of length contraction
because as you pass through this vacuum
this vacuum is your dimension
as you cannot subdivide or compress this vacuum
by definition
Length contraction does not exist in this vacuum
Benni
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 10, 2019
this misconstrued misconception
concerning Space Time Flow
is
all
In the mind of Hermann Minkowski
........yeah, he's the guilty guy that started all this confusion about the definition of space & time. Einstein too is just as guilty because he knowingly caved just so he could get a good review from his teacher.

What I don't know is what WORD Einstein would have used in the place of SPACE, the word DISTANCE has a tremendously more definitive ring to it, whereas a casual reader would associate SPACE with something connected to inter-stellar & inter-galactic regions of the Universe.

Once again, I encourage readers to play around with that length contraction calculator at https://www.omnic...traction

As you play around with the length contraction calculator, the more evident it will become that the concept of TIME is entirely associated with the relativistics effects of changing DISTANCE & totally void of changing TIME.
Benni
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 10, 2019
What I don't know is what WORD Einstein would have used in the place of SPACE
.....in looking through additional comments Einstein made, it appears he initially wanted to use the phrase LENGTH CONTRACTION instead of SPACE-TIME in GR. Use of this terminology would have been far better because it would dispel the notions casual readers associate with the term SPACE as a reference is to the interstellar regions of the Universe.
granville583762
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 10, 2019
The speed of light The reason for length contraction?
What I don't know is what WORD Einstein would have used in the place of SPACE
it appears he initially wanted to use the phrase LENGTH CONTRACTION instead of SPACE-TIME in GR

This length contraction, devised to maintain equivalence in the constancy of the velocity of light
in all relative motion

The speed of sound in a closed room travels at 750mph no matter how fast the room is travelling
the vacuum is the same vacuum where ever you are in this vacuum
so
This vacuum is a closed room, light travel the same speed anywhere in this vacuum
The speed of sound in air is unaffected by the speed of he emitter
The speed of light in vacuum is unaffected by the speed of the emitter
because
both are frequency and wave
there is no need for length contraction
The maximum velocity in vacuum is 299792458m/s unaffected by the speed of the emitter
observicist
3 / 5 (4) Mar 10, 2019
Now it's only the idiots arguing among themselves -- @Gran, @Benni, @SEU.

@SEU, time is real, and no one knows what it's made of. Does that make it not real? No one knows what space is made of, but, the last time I looked, I could move around in it, and it seems real to me -- just as real as time. Time passes -- that makes it real.

Space and time cannot be separated, regardless of what you think Einstein wrote or meant. You're not capable of understanding Einstein. You're not capable of understanding SR, GR, quantum mechanics, differential equations, probability theory, computation -- the list goes on, but I'm out of the energy required to deal with the amount of ignorance displayed here.

Go ahead and continue to be stupid. It doesn't matter. Have your fun.

All of you are unteachable.

I am weary of all of you.
granville583762
5 / 5 (4) Mar 10, 2019
As vacuum follows vacuum - pun on, as night follows day

The maximum velocity in vacuum is 299792458m/s unaffected by the speed of the emitter
where
the maximum velocity of the emitter is 299792458m/s
as neither light or the emitter go faster than 299792458m/s
because
the emitter is constructed of protons and electrons which operate and are held together by electromagnetism which travels at the speed of light
With the result, nothing in this vacuum travels faster than light!
………………………………. 299792458m/s …………………………
granville583762
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 10, 2019
A Moment in Time
observicist> I am weary of all of you

Observicist, you are a mere babe in arms as of January 23, 2019 you have hardly had time to wet your whistle with only 200 souls of wit to your name
whereas Bennie, November 10, 2011 with over 6000 souls of wit to his name
as Bennies been through thick and thin and has never tired

Observicist, if you are weary after only 2months
You're going to in a sorry wearisome state after 8years
as
all you're fins will be suffering the ravages of finrot
because
Observicist, if you have never seen the ravages of 8years of finrot
on the facial features
just look in the mirror each morning
as
you are about to find out
because
of the high demand for bridges of late
a special batch has just been delivered
as
these bridges are the only cure for finrot
do not delay
Promptly place your order, Observicist
granville583762
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 10, 2019
Minkowski Spacetime

In mathematical physics
Minkowski spacetime
combination of three-dimensional Euclidean space and time
into 4-dimensional manifold
the spacetime interval between any 2 events
independent of the inertial frame of reference
which they are recorded
developed by mathematician Hermann Minkowski

Observicist, as can be clearly seen
There's many cooks at work in this cocktail
Dear old Albert a mere scholar in these shenanigans
everyone wants their moment of fame
as did Hermann Minkowski, Nobel Prizes are hard to come by Observicist
they 're not to be sneezed at
when Hermann Minkowski was discussing points of interest, Dear old Albert did not
say < I am weary of all of you >
if he had no one would have heard of either Hermann or Albert

RealityCheck has pointed out
Sir Roger Penrose is now asking the same questions as SEU and Benni
Observicist, if Sir Roger Penrose can backtrack on his theories
Let's be a little less hasty, Observicist
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 10, 2019
What I don't know is what WORD Einstein would have used in the place of SPACE
.....in looking through additional comments Einstein made, it appears he initially wanted to use the phrase LENGTH CONTRACTION instead of SPACE-TIME in GR. Use of this terminology would have been far better because it would dispel the notions casual readers associate with the term SPACE as a reference is to the interstellar regions of the Universe.
says Benni

I want to discuss with you this "Length Contraction" of Mass and Space, in particular of SPACE. Time has nothing to do with such contractions.
We already know that Mass is able to contract, expand, turn inside-out, and all that good stuff.
But when SPACE ITSELF contracts, expands, etc as in 'the fabric of Space' as a Gravity Well, I believe that the shortening or lengthening of SPACE should imply that A WORMHOLE has been created for objects to get from Point A to B in a much shorter Route, Distance, and Duration of that Event
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 10, 2019
-contd-
@Benni
Now that we understand that SPACE has the ability to BEND and shorten/lengthen itself by "folding in upon itself" as needed, I see no problem for Space to take on the form of a hollow tube-like passageway where objects are able to travel through a shorter route/distance to Point B without encountering other objects/Mass. Possibly even a semi-tube form, although a full-tube would have much less friction.
I am in favour of the "WORMHOLE" hypothesis as it would incorporate "Conservation of Energy" within spatial constructs.
Your opinion, please.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 10, 2019
Now it's only the idiots arguing among themselves -- @Gran, @Benni, @SEU.

@SEU, time is real, and no one knows what it's made of. Does that make it not real? No one knows what space is made of, but, the last time I looked, I could move around in it, and it seems real to me -- just as real as time. Time passes -- that makes it real.

Space and time cannot be separated, regardless of what you think Einstein wrote or meant. You're capable of understanding Einstein. You're capable of understanding SR, GR, quantum mechanics, differential equations, probability theory, computation -- the list goes on, but I'm out of the energy required to deal with the amount of ignorance displayed here.

All of you are unteachable.

I am weary of all of you.
says obs

As jones says: YOU are thick!!

You wouldn't know time if it bit you on your arse, as jones would say.
Nobody has ever refuted being able to move around in SPACE, but Time is not Space, so you are unable to MOVE in Time
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 10, 2019
@Whyde.
You think that my pointing out and explaining the crucial difference (between physically NON-EFFECTIVE 'abstract 3-d' mathematical/analytical/graphing 'tool', and physically EFFECTIVE 'real omni-d' energy-space fundamental universal 'fabric') is "hair splitting"?
Yes.
Your response failed to address the point made, ie, that there is a crucial EFFECTIVE difference between real things and abstract 'things'.
Calling it something else (that you consider more descriptive or apt), doesn't make it "NON-EFFECTIVE". 3D space is the accepted term by actual rocket scientists determining "real" orbit parameters, so it's good enough for me...
And those guys have been pretty effective...
The point was that the abstract maths/analysis construct is derived from the real thing, not that real thing itself. Do you NOW understand the subtle but crucial EFFECTIVE difference? If so, then it was hardly 'splitting hairs' to point that difference out for your/others benefit.
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 10, 2019
@Whyde.
@S_E_U,
WHAT IS TIME MADE OF?
a sequential series of 3D reference frames(events)... Change. A process which the Universe presents to us as immutable and unchangeable. Ergo... "real".
Do you realise that you just agreed with _S_E_U there, @Whyde? You effectively referred to the real thing (motion/process etc) and then merely agreed that we LABEL it 'time' for convenience in quantitative analysis comparing different motions/processes against a chosen 'clock standard' of motion/process. See why the confusions? The real thing is being 'equated' with its abstract/maths label/term! That's all. I suggest everyone goes back and reads my various posts about time as understood in the contexts and the difference between real things and abstract 'things'' like labels/math terms. Perhaps that may help in ending the seemingly interminable careless-misunderstandings 'process' due to failure to discern between real things and abstract 'things'. Good luck. :)
Benni
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 10, 2019
> Egg

"Length Contraction" of Mass and Space, in particular of SPACE
First clearly understand Length Contraction is not about Mass expanding or contracting, that's a different parameter, it's about DISTANCE between two points that change based solely on the velocity of an identifiable mass.

Have you looked at that Length Contraction Calculator yet? Understanding this is key to comprehending & getting a good handle on so-called SPACE-TIME that from all appearances Einstein simply wanted to label LENGTH CONTRACTION & drop the use of the word TIME.

But when SPACE ITSELF contracts
.......however SPACE is the DISTANCE between two points, always keep in mind that it is DISTANCE that expands or contracts, the LENGTH of the pathway between two points. As a mass gains greater relativistic velocity. I showed you above what happens to the distance between LA & NYC as a mass gains velocity, the distance shrinks & you don't need a "wormhole" for conveyance.

Benni
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 10, 2019