Cosmic waves discovery could unlock mysteries of intergalactic space

Astronomers make history in a split second
Artist's impression of CSIRO's Australian SKA Pathfinder (ASKAP) radio telescope finding a fast radio burst and determining its precise location. The KECK, VLT and Gemini South optical telescopes joined ASKAP with follow-up observations to image the host galaxy. Credit: CSIRO/Dr Andrew Howells

Scientists were celebrating a groundbreaking astronomical discovery Thursday that they say could pave the way for mapping the outer reaches of the universe.

An Australian-led team of international astronomers have determined for the first time the precise source of a powerful, one-off burst of cosmic radio waves.

They have pinpointed it to a massive galaxy billions of light years away, with properties that upend what scientists previously thought they knew about the formation of mysterious fast radio bursts (FRBs).

"This result is highly anticipated within the astronomy community," Casey Law, an astronomer at UC Berkeley who was not involved in the study told AFP.

The findings, published in the journal Science, are among the most significant since the discovery in 2007 of FRBs, which flash for only a micro-instant but can emit as much energy in a millisecond as the Sun does in 10,000 years.

Exactly what creates these high-energy surges of long waves at the far end of the electromagnetic spectrum remains the subject of intense debate, though scientists now agree they originate in far away galaxies.

Since the first FRB was detected a little over a decade ago, a global hunt has found 85 bursts. Most have been "one-offs" but a small fraction have been "repeaters" that recur at the same spot in the sky.

Astronomers make history in a split second
ASKAP's dish antennas feature a novel phased array feed (PAF) receiver, that enable a massive 30 square degree wide-field view on the sky. Credit: CSIRO/Dragonfly Media

Live replay

In 2017, astronomers were able to trace the source of a repeating burst, but locating a one-off FRB presented a much more difficult challenge.

Without the benefit of knowing where to look, a team led by Keith Bannister of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) had to devise a new methodology.

"You can think of it as live action replay mode, where we have a computer that's actually looking for the FRB, so it looked through about a billion measurements every second and I tried to find the one that contains an FRB," Bannister told AFP.

Bannister and his team pinpointed the location of FRB 180924 about 3.6 billion light years from Earth.

The discovery was detected on CSIRO's Australian Square Kilometre Array Pathfinder (ASKAP) radio telescope in Western Australia.

ASKAP has 36 dish antennas, with the burst reaching each one at a slightly different time, allowing the scientists to calculate its origin.

In a world first, an Australian-led international team of astronomers has determined the precise location of a powerful one-off burst of cosmic radio waves. The discovery was made with CSIRO's new Australian Square Kilometre Array Pathfinder (ASKAP) radio telescope in Western Australia. Fast radio bursts last less than a millisecond, making it difficult to accurately determine where they have come from. CSIRO's Dr Keith Bannister and his team developed new technology to freeze and save ASKAP data less than a second after a burst arrives at the telescope. This technology was used to pinpoint the location of FRB 180924 to its home galaxy (DES J214425.25?405400.81). The team made a high-resolution map showing that the burst originated in the outskirts of a Milky Way-sized galaxy about 3.6 billion light-years away. The galaxy from which the burst originated was then imaged by three of the world's largest optical telescopes - Keck, Gemini South and the European Southern Observatory's Very Large Telescope. The cause of fast radio bursts remains unknown but the ability to determine their exact location is a big leap towards solving this mystery. Credit: CSIRO/Sam Moorfield

"It's like looking at the Earth from the Moon and not only knowing what house a person lived in, but what chair they were sitting in at the dining room table," Bannister said.

The team then imaged the galaxy with the European Southern Observatory's Very Large Telescope in Chile, and measured its distance with the Keck telescope in Hawaii and the Gemini South telescope in Chile.

While the previously localized FRB 121102 was found to emanate from a dwarf galaxy that was actively forming young stars, the new FRB comes from the outskirts of a massive galaxy with old stars, suggesting a completely different engine is responsible for its creation.

"The first localization inspired lots of modeling based on magnetars formed in the deaths of massive stars," said Law, a model which predicted a number of properties confirmed in 121102.

A magnetar is a highly-magnetized type of neutron star, which are formed by the gravitational collapse of a star not quite massive enough to produce a black hole when it explodes.

But the new location is incompatible with the old theory, suggesting there are multiple channels for forming FRBs.

"This might suggest that repeating and non-repeating FRBs come from completely different origins," said Shriharsh Tendulkar, an astronomer at McGill University who was not involved in the work.

Fast Radio Bursts (FRBs) are intense flashes of radio waves that represent a great astrophysical mystery: what causes them, and where do they come from? Now, researchers have been able to pinpoint the precise location of a burst using CSIRO’s ASKAP radio telescope in Western Australia, bringing us closer to solving the mystery. Credit: Australian Academy of Science

Weighing space

The new finding is also exciting for another reason: it could help astronomers probe what lies in the vast spaces between galaxies and bring us a step closer to resolving the "missing matter" problem.

Theoretical calculations have suggested there should be twice the number of atoms that can be seen in the stars, which led astronomers to theorize they must be contained in ionized gases in the vast spaces that separate galaxies.

Just as light splits into different colors as it passes through a prism, radio waves disperse as they encounter matter. In the case of FRBs, higher frequencies arrive first, and lower frequencies arrive later.

This creates a dispersion pattern, and the pattern observed from FRB 180924 matched what astronomers expected from the theory, meaning the intergalactic space does indeed contain the amount of ionized gas that was expected.

Moving forward, the team would like to localize thousands, if not tens of thousands of more FRBs and look at their dispersions, to generate a detailed map of the far reaches of space.

"It's like making a CT scan of this cosmic web," said co-author Ryan Shannon from Swinburne University.

On the missing matter problem, he said: "I think we're on the way to sewing it up. With a few more localized bursts we will be able to nail it."


Explore further

Aussie telescope almost doubles known number of mysterious 'fast radio bursts'

More information: K.W. Bannister el al., "A single fast radio burst localized to a massive galaxy at cosmological distance," Science (2019). science.sciencemag.org/lookup/ … 1126/science.aaw5903

Press release

Journal information: Science

© 2019 AFP

Citation: Cosmic waves discovery could unlock mysteries of intergalactic space (2019, June 27) retrieved 18 July 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2019-06-astronomers-history.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
7 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Jun 27, 2019
"intergalactic space does indeed contain the amount of ionized gas that was expected."

TL;DR: FRBs turns out to be more interesting than we thought (since there are several pathways for making them); cosmology turns out to be less interesting than we thought (since we have solved it already).

Jun 27, 2019
First big discovery for ASKAP. Congratulations! Well done.

Now let's get the SKA online.

Jun 27, 2019
Its probably electricity or something.

Jun 27, 2019
Why hasn't SETI also noticed these FRB's? Or did they and forgot to mention it?

"The new finding is also exciting for another reason: it could help astronomers probe what lies in the vast spaces between galaxies and bring us a step closer to resolving the "missing matter" problem.

Theoretical calculations have suggested there should be twice the number of atoms that can be seen in the stars, which led astronomers to theorize they must be contained in ionized gases in the vast spaces that separate galaxies."


And there was the article referring to a 'mysterious bridge of radio waves between galaxies"

https://www.lives...ics.html

According to lead study author Federica Govoni, a researcher at the Italian National Institute for Astrophysics, this is the first time a magnetic field has been observed coursing through a galactic filament, and could call for some rethinking about how particles are accelerated over....

Jun 27, 2019
https://www.seti....citement

So SETI DID notice the FRB's after all. Good for them

Jun 27, 2019
The extreme release of energy in astrophysical objects is accompanied by outflows, sometimes superluminal. It is important that these phenomena are observed on the scales from stars to galaxies, setting off a unity of explosive processes. But the nature of the central engines remains unclear. In our model all these phenomena have a common nature and the central engines are elastons.
https://www.acade...nization
https://www.acade...and_Jets

Jun 27, 2019
Distant Galaxies LOL

They localised Sympathetic reactions in the space of our solar system to F'ing Plutonium forges!

Jun 28, 2019
Albert's Dilemma

For these fast radio bursts
Come from stars
From dwarf star galaxies with active star formation
To
Galaxies with old stars with nonexistent star formation
For FRBs are coming from a wide diverse spectrum of our galaxies
For these FRBs come in repetitive signals
Meaning these FRBs are from a single repeating source
These FRBs are from a single star
For on average in this vacuum
Stars on average are the mass of our sun
For FRBs only flash a micro-instant
Emit as much energy in a millisecond as the Sun in 10,000 years
As the sun is an average star
By implication
Our sun is capable of emitting 10Thousand years of Energy in 1Millisecond
For this star is a repeater FRB star
Continually ejecting 10,000 years of Energy in 1Millisecond
We are observing these repeater FRBs 3.6Billion Lys away
Repeating for 3.6Billion years
That's more than the energy in this FRB star

For this is Albert's Dilemma - Where is this energy continually materialising from in this FRB star!

Jun 28, 2019
"A magnetar is a highly-magnetized type of neutron star, which are formed by the gravitational collapse of a star not quite massive enough to produce a black hole when it explodes."

To believe the radiowave source emanates from a stellar body composed almost solely of neutrons which have only a 14.7 minute lifetime decay rate per neutron is pure Pop-Cosmology fantasy.

Next they pile on to their mistake by making it sound like there there exists a condition whereby new gravity somehow exceeds the presence of the original mass to support it, thus exceeding the Inverse Square Law of Gravity whereby gravity is demonstrably mass dependent.

Where in SCIENCE can it be demonstrated that a finite body can create a so-called state of "gravitational collapse" such that it's total gravity can exceed the presence of mass to support gravity that can reach infinity if "gravitational collapse" continues to the point of creating a black hole? Add to this, where do all the neutrons come from?

Jun 28, 2019
Benni knows the true source of the FRBs, but refuses to share it with the general public. He doesn't think they can understand the super complex differential equations he solved to reach his conclusions.

Jun 28, 2019
To believe the radiowave source emanates from a stellar body composed almost solely of neutrons which have only a 14.7 minute lifetime decay rate per neutron is pure Pop-Cosmology fantasy.

The intense gravity and pressure of neutron stars prevent degeneracy and thus decay.
Add to this, where do all the neutrons come from?

Neutron stars are extremely dense, far more so than regular stars. The pressures inside result in K-Capture and turn protons and electrons into neutrons.

Jun 28, 2019
@Benni give up man you will never understand science.

Jun 28, 2019
@Benni comes out with the neutron decay bullshit again.

Boooooooooooooooooooorrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrring.

Jun 28, 2019
Next they pile on to their mistake by making it sound like there there exists a condition whereby new gravity somehow exceeds the presence of the original mass to support it, thus exceeding the Inverse Square Law of Gravity whereby gravity is demonstrably mass dependent.

While gravity is mass dependent it is also dependent on the amount of space an object takes up. If it's mass is evenly distributed over a large distance the star will not be able to collapse into something more dense. When a star uses most of it's fuel(hydrogen and helium) it physically collapses into a smaller object. Since its mass is essentially the same but exerted over a much smaller volume the gravity is more intense. Depending on the mass of the object beforehand it may turn into a neutron star, black hole, a white dwarf, or just stellar gas. The inverse square law supports this.

Jun 28, 2019
Where in SCIENCE can it be demonstrated that a finite body can create a so-called state of "gravitational collapse" such that it's total gravity can exceed the presence of mass to support gravity that can reach infinity if "gravitational collapse" continues to the point of creating a black hole?

Infinity isn't something that is real, probably. We say the gravitational force of a black hole is basically infinite because even going the fastest possible speed(aka speed of light) an object would be unable to escape the intense gravity just behind the accretion disc. You could use all the energy from all the stars in the universe but using conventional methods you'd at best just be stuck in the same position, ignoring the fact that upon passing through the accretion disc would likely rip you apart or spaghettify you on a subatomic level.

Jun 28, 2019
Same thing as trying to accelerate beyond the speed of light.

Jun 28, 2019
I always read the comments to these astronomy articles so I can find out the simple silly mistakes the authors made, which the brilliant and masterful commenters so astutely point out.

Jun 28, 2019
350 seconds worth of FRBs over the life time of its star

For FRBs only flash a micro-instant
Emit as much energy in a millisecond as the Sun in 10,000 years
For over 3.5Billion years divided by 10,000 years multiplied by 1/1000s is 350 seconds

Jun 28, 2019
To believe the radiowave source emanates from a stellar body composed almost solely of neutrons which have only a 14.7 minute lifetime decay rate per neutron is pure Pop-Cosmology fantasy.


Add to this, where do all the neutrons come from?

Neutron stars are extremely dense, far more so than regular stars. The pressures inside result in K-Capture and turn protons and electrons into neutrons.
A stand alone proton cannot perform K-capture. It can't because it is not the nucleus of an atom with nucleus binding forces to sustain the decay required for k capture.

Electron capture is a radioactive decay where the NUCLEUS of an ATOM absorbs an EXISTING K shell electron. Electron capture happens most often in the heavier neutron deficient elements where the mass change is likely to be the least, this does not describe a stand alone PROTON.

A proton snagging a passing electron will however create hydrogen, but not a neutron, take a look at the Periodic Table.

Jun 29, 2019
Electron capture

Benni
A stand alone proton cannot perform K-capture. It can't because it is not the nucleus of an atom with nucleus binding forces to sustain the decay required for k capture

K-electron capture
Or
L-electron capture
Is a process
In which the proton-rich nucleus
Of an electrically neutral atom
Absorbs an inner atomic electron
From the K or L electron shell
This process thereby changes a nuclear proton to a neutron
Simultaneously causing the emission of an electron neutrino.
https://en.wikipe..._capture

Jun 29, 2019
These Scrumptious Electron shells

In chemistry and atomic physics
An electron shell
Or a principal energy level
May be thought of as an orbit
Followed by electrons around an atom's nucleus
The closest shell to the nucleus is called the 1st shell K shell
Followed by the 2nd L shell
Then the 3rd M shell
And so on farther and farther from the nucleus
These shells correspond with the principal quantum numbers n = 1, 2, 3, 4 ...
Or are labelled alphabetically with letters used in the X-ray notation K, L, M, …

For
Each shell can contain only a fixed number of electrons
The first shell can hold up to two electrons
The second shell can hold up to eight 2 + 6 electrons
The third shell can hold up to 18 2 + 6 + 10 and so on
https://en.wikipe...on_shell

Jun 29, 2019
These Protons Nuclear Binding Force

Benni
It can't because it is not the nucleus of an atom with nucleus binding forces to sustain the decay

Nuclear forces
The nuclear weak and strong force
Are forces that act between two or more nucleons
Bind protons and neutrons into nucleons
Into atomic nuclei
The nuclear force
Is 10 million times stronger
Than chemical binding force that holds atoms together in molecules
This is why
Nuclear reactors produce a million times more energy per kilogram
Compared to chemical fuel
http://www.schola...r_Forces

Jun 29, 2019
This Protons Scrumptious Electron Capture

For it appears
Electron K-capture
Cannot occur
In a hydrogen atom
As it only has a single proton
For it requires
This nuclear binding force
That binds
Two or more protons together as a nucleon
For these nucleon binding forces to sustain the decay required for k capture

For it appears this nuclear force is necessary for radioactive decay
Where this nuclear force is only present in two or more protons?

Jun 29, 2019
This nuclear binding force necessary for radioactive decay

For this question
If two or more protons to bind
Require these nuclear forces
Does each proton
When spying
From afar
A friendly proton
Looking for a home to join up with
Does each proton
Before joining
Have these nuclear forces within their rugged exterior?
Or
Do these nuclear forces materialise upon joining?

p.s. for each proton has these nuclear forces within their rugged exterior every time a single lonely pristine proton emerges into this vacuum looking for its scrumptious pristine electron


Jun 29, 2019
p.s. for each proton has these nuclear forces within their rugged exterior every time a single lonely pristine proton emerges into this vacuum looking for its scrumptious pristine electron
.......and it will create HYDROGEN, a not quite so amazing feat considering how plentiful the stuff is.

It's always interesting how Pop-Cosmology finds a way to use the language of science & turn it into meaning something that sounds plausible but can never happen for reasons they never think about. Just for example this k-Capture as you & I have been pointing out, cannot occur except in the rare cases of elements in a specific area in the middle of the Periodic Table

A proton not being an element with an existing electron shell cannot undergo k-capture because it has no electron shell with nuclear binding forces within the nucleus to sustain a k-capture event, but try explaining that to Astronomers & othe Pop-Cosmology types & they get lost in the nuclear physics.

Jun 29, 2019
p.s. for each proton has these nuclear forces within their rugged exterior every time a single lonely pristine proton emerges into this vacuum looking for its scrumptious pristine electron
.......and it will create HYDROGEN, a not quite so amazing feat considering how plentiful the stuff is.

This is not k-capture.

Just for example this k-Capture as you & I have been pointing out, cannot occur except in the rare cases of elements in a specific area in the middle of the Periodic Table

Would you please reference a numeric range?
A proton not being an element with an existing electron shell cannot undergo k-capture because it has no electron shell with nuclear binding forces within the nucleus to sustain a k-capture event...

Careful - consider the tremendous gravitational and magnetic forces found in a neutron star...

Jun 29, 2019
For whatever gravitational surface gravity a star exhibits

Whydening Gyre
Careful - consider the tremendous gravitational and magnetic forces found in a neutron star...

This stars gravity is zero at this stars centre of mass
For these neutrons at this stars centre of mass are weightless
They experience not one drop of this extreme gravity that is spoken of in hushed tones

p.s. for Whydening Gyre, putting zero gravity aside for one mo, concerning these magnetic forces found in a neutron star, a neutron is called a neutron for a reason, for it is electrically neutral as is has no electric field so consequently it has no magnetic field
for these reasons is why neutrons are distinguished as neutrons for they are spoken of in these hushed tones as being electrically and magnetically inert

Jun 29, 2019
Careful - consider the tremendous gravitational and magnetic forces found in a neutron star...
......first find one to do the measurements, report back after you've been there & returned.

Jun 29, 2019
Whydening Gyre, the question

Does each proton
Before joining with its friendly proton
Have these nuclear forces within their rugged exterior?
Or
Do these nuclear forces materialise upon joining?

For Whydening Gyre, this is the relevant question
For radioactive decay can only occur if these nuclear forces only occur when two or more protons join
For then in hydrogen, there would be no nuclear forces and consequently no radioactive decay

Jun 29, 2019
Whydening Gyre
This stars gravity is zero at this stars centre of mass.
For these neutrons at this stars centre of mass are weightless
They experience not one drop of this extreme gravity that is spoken of in hushed tones.

I would beg to differ. And, additionally, there is pressure applied by said gravity.
p.s. for Whydening Gyre, putting zero gravity aside for one mo, concerning these magnetic forces found in a neutron star, a neutron is called a neutron for a reason, for it is electrically neutral as is has no electric field so consequently it has no magnetic field

A neutron star is not solid neutrons. It just produces and maintains a lot of them. Due to crushing gravity.
https://en.wikipe...on_star.
Magnetars are neutron stars, as well.

Jun 29, 2019
Whydening Gyre, the question

Does each proton
Before joining with its friendly (electron fixed that for ya)
Have these nuclear forces within their rugged exterior?

Yes, it's what binds the quarks inside together.

For Whydening Gyre, this is the relevant question
For radioactive decay can only occur if these nuclear forces only occur when two or more protons join

Not protons. Electron and proton. Usually due to crushing pressure induced by gravity.
For then in hydrogen, there would be no nuclear forces and consequently no radioactive decay

What do you think causes electrons and protons to bind? Neutrons occur because the nuclear force has been exceeded by extreme gravitational pressures causing the electron and proton to merge. K-capture.

Jun 29, 2019
Careful - consider the tremendous gravitational and magnetic forces found in a neutron star...
......first find one to do the measurements, report back after you've been there & returned.

Gravity of neutron stars has been measured/calculated thousands of times by astronomers.
Here's an article about measurement of magnetism of a neutron star;
https://www.unive...st-time/

Could you please provide that numeric range I asked you for?

Jun 29, 2019
What do you think causes electrons and protons to bind? Neutrons occur because the nuclear force has been exceeded by extreme gravitational pressures causing the electron and proton to merge. K-capture.
......only happens in the immutable fantasyland of Pop-Cosmology. Gravitational pressure (whatever that is in the first place) does not cause k-capture, I explained above:
Electron capture is a radioactive decay where the NUCLEUS of an ATOM absorbs an EXISTING K shell electron. Electron capture happens most often in the heavier neutron deficient elements where the mass change is likely to be the least, this does not describe a stand alone PROTON.
.....there's nothing in here about gravity causing k-capture, it's just a fantasy.

Pop-Cosmology is not an alternative to nuclear physics Whyguy, don't try re-explaining things YOU don't understand.

Could you please provide that numeric range I asked you for?
.....no, do it on your own.

Jun 29, 2019
For in equal numbers little acorns grow

WG
A neutron star is not solid neutrons. It just produces and maintains a lot of them. Due to crushing gravity

There are generally equal numbers of protons and neutrons
Equally experiencing this crushing gravity
For while it maintains its electrons and protons there exists a magnetic field
With a few neutrons to neutralise the soup

Jun 29, 2019
Whydening Gyre (electron fixed that for ya)

Whydening Gyre, the question

Does each proton
Before joining with its friendly (electron fixed that for ya)
Have these nuclear forces within their rugged exterior?

(electron fixed that for ya) not what was expected at all
For one day
You can elucidate what is was you fixed
Because old bean
The nuclear force binds protons not electrons

Jun 29, 2019
The nuclear force binds protons not electrons.......
......because within the binding energy of nuclear forces within an atomic nucleus contains the remaining constituent components for the creation of a bound neutron, a neutrino & a gamma photon which are two more parts of the recipe for creating a neutron.

Oh, and that makes me think to elucidate that the neutron created in the above is a BOUND NEUTRON & cannot be found in a so-called neutron star which according to hypotheses is almost 100% free neutrons, otherwise the stellar body would have to be some kind of BOUND NEUTRON metallic mass & not a mass composed only of neutrons. If you want a K-Capture mass, the star you get will be an atomic metallic mass of some kind, otherwise in an unbound neutron mass the neutrons will exist for no longer than the 14.7 minute time lapse Beta Particle Decay Rate .

Jun 30, 2019

Because old bean
The nuclear force binds protons not electrons

Annnddd… What is it binding protons to?
Protons are positive charged, therefore would repel other protons.
So... to electrons. (and Neutrons)
Hence protons (and their attendant electrons) crushed together (by massive gravity and it's attending pressure), create neutrons.
And Benni...Gamma emission is a central part of what made that neutron star in the first place.
Annnddd.. Neutrinos are only emitted (along with an electron)… They weren't required to MAKE it a neutron...

Jun 30, 2019
...
Oh, and that makes me think to elucidate that the neutron created in the above is a BOUND NEUTRON & cannot be found in a so-called neutron star which according to hypotheses is almost 100% free neutrons,
Whose hypothesis are you reading? Take a look at :
https://en.wikipe...ron_star
And scroll down to the "Structure" section.
otherwise the stellar body would have to be some kind of BOUND NEUTRON metallic mass & not a mass composed only of neutrons. If you want a K-Capture mass, the star you get will be an atomic metallic mass of some kind, otherwise in an unbound neutron mass the neutrons will exist for no longer than the 14.7 minute time lapse Beta Particle Decay Rate .

How many times do you have to be told it is NOT composed strictly of neutrons...?

Jun 30, 2019
Bound protons and neutrons
The nuclear force binds protons not electrons.......
......because within the binding energy of nuclear forces within an atomic nucleus contains the remaining constituent components for the creation of a bound neutron, a neutrino & a gamma photon which are two more parts of the recipe for creating a neutron

For if a proton
Has electron shell orbital's to fill
As protons are bound protons
There would be no need for k shell electron capture
Because
Theoretically as protons have electron shell to fill this makes electrons nuclear bound electrons

Fore this is not the case
As electrons are held in place by positive and negative fields

Whichever way one twists this k capture
For k capture to be consistent
K capture has to be observed in elemental hydrogen!

Jun 30, 2019
K capture has to be observed in elemental hydrogen!

For this reason - neutrons decay in 14.7 minutes in this vacuum
For
How
Is this pristine proton and its pristine scrumptious electron
Going to join two protons at the hip with this impassable Coulomb force
Without this neutron as it decayed in trillions of totality 14.7 minutes ago in this infinite vacuum

For this pristine proton and its pristine scrumptious electron
Have to convert this second proton into a neutron so as to get this neutron past this Coulomb force
To have a nuclear bound proton and neutron
Where by nuclear decay
This pristine proton and its pristine scrumptious electron convert this neutron to a pristine proton

So by this cunning technique
This pristine proton and its pristine scrumptious electron
Get this second proton past this impassable Coulomb barrier
All alone in this infinite vacuum

Jun 30, 2019
How many times do you have to be told it is NOT composed strictly of neutrons...?
.....Annndddd how many times for the continuing hard of reading do I need to quote this neutron star definition from your favorite textbook:

2nd paragraph......

"Most of the basic models for these objects imply that neutron stars are composed almost entirely of neutrons (subatomic particles with no net electrical charge and with slightly larger mass than protons); the electrons and protons present in normal matter combine to produce neutrons at the conditions in a neutron star. "

https://en.wikipe...ron_star

......so what about this quote do you disagree with?

You see WhyGuy, your argument is not with Benni, it is with Pop-Cosmology's definition of a neutron star. I'm simply APPLYING YOUR textbook Pop-Cosmology definitions to well established nuclear physics of K-Capture & Beta Particle Decay to explain why a stellar mass of unbound neutrons cannot exist.

Jun 30, 2019
This is interesting - for Jocelyn Bell Burnell is the fairer sex

What exactly do these text books?
Actually state
The actual percentage of neutrons to protons and electrons in a neutron star

For now we seem to have an anomaly in these neutron star theories
An interpretation in neutron star theory
So
Now
Before going and taking another look at this neutron star theory
Was it not
Jocelyn Bell Burnell in 1967 who observed a pulsar star
Where preceding theory stated a pulsar star is composed solely of neutrons
For a neutron star theory stated as this precursor to this blackhole

For this outcome of all this hard work
Jocelyn Bell Burnell was refused her share of this Nobel Prize
Because
As her name suggests
Jocelyn Bell Burnell is the fairer sex

Dame Susan Jocelyn Bell Burnell
An astrophysicist from Northern Ireland
https://www.smith...0970248/

Jun 30, 2019
You're not going to convince @Benni that neutron stars don't all decay in 18 seconds any more than you're going to convince @cantthink69 that the Sun isn't a giant electric light bulb.

Jun 30, 2019
You're not going to convince @Benni that neutron stars don't all decay in 18 seconds .......


You see schneibo, your argument is not with Benni, it is with Pop-Cosmology's definition of a neutron star. I'm simply APPLYING YOUR textbook Pop-Cosmology definitions to well established nuclear physics of K-Capture & Beta Particle Decay to explain why a stellar mass of unbound neutrons cannot exist. Capiche? No, you never will because science is not your primary interest in being here going off on your constant name calling rants just because the facts of nuclear physics is not in comport with the fantasyland of Pop-Cosmology.

Jun 30, 2019
You see WhyGuy, your argument is not with Benni, it is with Pop-Cosmology's definition of a neutron star. I'm simply APPLYING YOUR textbook Pop-Cosmology definitions to well established nuclear physics of K-Capture & Beta Particle Decay to explain why a stellar mass of unbound neutrons cannot exist.

The implication here is;
Decay within the gravitationally bound star, is an ongoing process of Beta + AND - decay...

K capture has to be observed in elemental hydrogen!

I don't argue that. But...
What has the power to bring that "pristine proton" and "pristine electron" in sufficient proximity?
Crushing gravity...

Jun 30, 2019
I'm simply APPLYING YOUR textbook Pop-Cosmology definitions to well established nuclear physics of K-Capture & Beta Particle Decay to explain why a stellar mass of unbound neutrons cannot exist.


The implication here is;
Decay within the gravitationally bound star, is an ongoing process of Beta + AND - decay...


K capture has to be observed in elemental hydrogen!


I don't argue that. But...
What has the power to bring that "pristine proton" and "pristine electron" in sufficient proximity?
Crushing gravity...


"Crushing gravity", within the small mass of an atomic nucleus? What do you think we do to measure & observe electron k-Capture events? Travel to the nearest neutron star then come back & report it?

We keep explaining to you how nuclear binding forces within the nucleus of atoms is what creates the k-Capture event & YOU keep insisting it is "gravity" doing the work. Where on planet Earth are YOU finding all this crushing gravity?

Jun 30, 2019
K-capture isn't prevalent in hydrogen.

As anyone would know by Luis Alvarez' report in 1937 in a Physical Review paper.

Cranks can't count.

Jun 30, 2019
"Crushing gravity", within the small mass of an atomic nucleus?
Not within it.
We keep explaining to you how nuclear binding forces within the nucleus of atoms is what creates the k-Capture event & YOU keep insisting it is "gravity" doing the work.

SOMEthing needs to be pressing those intra atomic particles into close enough proximity for nuclear force to take over and do the actual transform.
Where on planet Earth are YOU finding all this crushing gravity?

On Earth? Not likely.
In a Neutron star? quite likely.

Jun 30, 2019
SOMEthing needs to be pressing those intra atomic particles into close enough proximity for nuclear force to take over and do the actual transform.

It won't be gravity, the weakest of natural forces.

Jun 30, 2019
Benni
Jun 29, 2019
p.s. for each proton has these nuclear forces within their rugged exterior every time a single lonely pristine proton emerges into this vacuum looking for its scrumptious pristine electron


".......and it will create HYDROGEN, a not quite so amazing feat considering how plentiful the stuff is.

this k-Capture as you & I have been pointing out, cannot occur except in the rare cases of elements in a specific area in the middle of the Periodic Table.

A proton not being an element with an existing electron shell cannot undergo k-capture because it has no electron shell with nuclear binding forces within the nucleus to sustain a k-capture event, but try explaining that to Astronomers & other Pop-Cosmology types & they get lost in the nuclear physics".

K-capture isn't prevalent in hydrogen.

As anyone would know by Luis Alvarez' report in 1937 in a Physical Review paper.
.....at least schneibo you learned something from Benni yesterday.

Jun 30, 2019
SOMEthing needs to be pressing those intra atomic particles into close enough proximity for nuclear force to take over and do the actual transform.

It won't be gravity, the weakest of natural forces.

Only weakest at the atomic/sub-atomic level...

Jun 30, 2019
SOMEthing needs to be pressing those intra atomic particles into close enough proximity for nuclear force to take over and do the actual transform.


It won't be gravity, the weakest of natural forces.


Only weakest at the atomic/sub-atomic level...
......what did you think I've been talking about as to what creates a K-Capture event? It's proof that gravity is not "pressing those intra atomic particles into close enough proximity for nuclear force to take over", it is the nuclear force doing it with ZERO assistance from gravity as demonstrated by such an event that occurs right here on planet Earth. Why do you persist trying to work gravity into a K-Capture event?


Jun 30, 2019
@cantdrive
@Whydening Gyre.

From @Whyde to @cantdrive:
SOMEthing needs to be pressing those intra atomic particles into close enough proximity for nuclear force to take over and do the actual transform.

From @cantdrive85 to @Whyde:
It won't be gravity, the weakest of natural forces.
The point Whyde is making is the PRESSURE of the CUMULATIVE MASS's overlying gravitational COMPRESSION force; ie, NOT the individual gravitational force of each particle per se. Just as Earth's centre is crushed by the cumulative gravity-induced WEIGHT/PRESSURE of the 'overburden' cross-section of material extending all the way to the surface. :)

ps: Anyhow, if you research "pressure chemistry' you will see that high prepares are used in industrial chemistry to induce reactions between constituents which would otherwise not happen at standard atmospheric temp and pressure. It has to do with the 'dwell time' the intimate contact lasts between the reactant atoms/molecules. :)

Jun 30, 2019
ERRATA: in the above quote, @Whyde was responding to @Benni, not @cantdrive; however, it was @cantdrive's subsequent comment on @Whyde's response to @Benni that triggered my above observation to @cantdrive85. Apologies. Thanks. :)

ps @Benni, I trust you will read my relevant post and realise that @Whyde was actually referring to the cumulative force of the whole overlaying matter due to the WHOLE MASSIVE body's gravitational self-compression. :)

Jun 30, 2019
Whyde was actually referring to the cumulative force of the whole overlaying matter due to the WHOLE MASSIVE body's gravitational self-compression.
.....then why couldn't he say it after numerous opportunities to say so?

The fact of the matter is that nuclear binding forces are not even remotely under the influence of either gravity or compression.

This has nothing to do with nuclear binding forces within the nucleus of an atom:
if you research "pressure chemistry' you will see that high prepares are used in industrial chemistry to induce reactions between constituents which would otherwise not happen at standard atmospheric temp and pressure
.....it is manipulation of ONLY the electron shell, shows just how much you too know about nuclear physics, about the same level as schneibo & Whyguy.

Jun 30, 2019
@Benni.
Whyde was actually referring to the cumulative force of the whole overlaying matter due to the WHOLE MASSIVE body's gravitational self-compression.
...then why couldn't he say it after numerous opportunities to say so?
I think he assumed you understood the concept of pressure/weight due to cumulative mass.gravity effect, as distinct from the gravitation effect of a single particle. Anyhow, glad that's been cleared up now. :)

The fact of the matter is that nuclear binding forces are not even remotely under the influence of either gravity or compression.
My pressure chemistry example was to convey the PRINCIPLE of close-proximity 'dwell time' which weight/pressure can enforce on any two/more particles, regardless of those being atoms, molecules, protons or electrons (hence the Electron degeneracy pressure' state which opposes the gravitational collapse tendency from the whole sun's material weight on its core plasma of Protons and Electrons. :)

CONT

Jun 30, 2019
...CONT @Benni.

As for the actual electron capture itself and etc, there seems to be some confusion. Normally only the very powerful internal forces within a COMPLEX NUCLEI atom (containing many protons as well as neutrons) can spontaneously capture one of its innermost electrons. It does not usually happen in 'simple nuclei' Hydrogen atoms (containing ONLY ONE proton; hence the internal forces which promote K-capture in COMPLEX more massive atomic nuclei cases is not as great in SIMPLE less massive atomic nucleus case). The only way that a Hydrogen nucleus can capture an inner electron is by external forces applied to help the two particles overcome the forces which usually keeps the proton and electron geometry/relation stable in Hydrogen Atom form; else ALL Hydrogen atoms would have long since formed Neutrons!

In Neutron star INTERIOR/CORE, the energy/pressure is so great that ALL particles are constantly oscillating between QGP and proton, electron energy forms/states. :)

Jun 30, 2019
My pressure chemistry example was to convey the PRINCIPLE of close-proximity 'dwell time' which weight/pressure can enforce on any two/more particles, regardless of those being atoms, molecules, protons or electrons (hence the Electron degeneracy pressure' state which opposes the gravitational collapse tendency from the whole sun's material weight on its core
.....what the hell are you talking about when at the surface of a star gravity has it's greatest effect subsiding in accordance with the Inverse Square Law until it is zero at the center.

You, like Whyguy, can't get away from the gravity problem you've been creating for yourselves, then you go & muddle it up even worse by inserting a "gravitational collapse" condition for electron degeneracy, I mean like huh? Where on a stellar mass does something called "gravitational collapse" occur?

It is unknown that compression forces can squeeze an electron shell right into the nucleus of an atom.

Jun 30, 2019
As for the actual electron capture itself and etc, there seems to be some confusion. Normally only the very powerful internal forces within a COMPLEX NUCLEI atom (containing many protons as well as neutrons) can spontaneously capture one of its innermost electrons. It does not usually happen in 'simple nuclei' Hydrogen atoms (containing ONLY ONE proton; hence the internal forces which promote K-capture in COMPLEX more massive atomic nuclei cases is not as great in SIMPLE less massive atomic nucleus case).
.....I already stated all this long before you just came along, you're simply coat tailing me. Go back & get caught up to what Benni has already explained about electron K-Capture, you're late to the discussion including my discussion about why hydrogen can never K-Capture, something you still haven't figured out.

Jun 30, 2019
@Benni.
...the surface of a star gravity has it's greatest effect subsiding in accordance with the Inverse Square Law until it is zero at the center.
You conflate TWO SEPARATE factors, mate. The gravity at the SURFACE is what you say, no problem; BUT the WEIGHT/PRESSURE effect on material at the core is another thing altogether. See? The weight/pressure ON a SURFACE layer is LEAST because only the ATMOSPHERE MASS weighs on it from above; whereas in the core, the WHOLE BODY's Mass/weight presses down on the innermost contents. Get the subtle difference? :)

As for the rest, I am clarifying the confusion about the K-capture by COMPLEX atomic Nuclei containing MANY protons etc rather than simple atomic nuclei containing only one proton...which LATTER can only usually happen in high energy-pressure conditions forcing past the 'electron-degeneracy pressure' BARRIER to formation of Neutron in a free Hydrogen atom case? :)

Jun 30, 2019
As for the rest, I am clarifying the confusion about the K-capture by COMPLEX atomic Nuclei containing MANY protons etc rather than simple atomic nuclei containing only one proton?
....and I already did this & you're hard of reading because you did not follow my advice to read back on my earlier Comments about the criteria for K-Capture, now shut up & go back & do an hour's worth of reading before continuing to coat tail me. Capiche?

Jun 30, 2019
@Benni.

I edited that bit, as follows:
As for the rest, I am clarifying the confusion about the K-capture by COMPLEX atomic Nuclei containing MANY protons etc rather than simple atomic nuclei containing only one proton...which LATTER can only usually happen in high energy-pressure conditions forcing past the 'electron-degeneracy pressure' BARRIER to formation of Neutron in a free Hydrogen atom case?


To further clarify that it requires some external (to atomic) forces to overcome the 'electron degeneracy barrier' and create Neutrons from the simple Hydrogen nucleus and an adjacent electron.

THAT is the salient point which matters (as @Whyde implied to you, @Benni, re extreme pressures etc that produce such electron-proton 'fusing' into Neutron state (however transiently).

And the fact you were not 'getting it' when @Whyde explained that to you is the reason I was motivated to clarify/stress that aspect which you apparently missed. :)

Jun 30, 2019
SOMEthing needs to be pressing those intra atomic particles into close enough proximity for nuclear force to take over and do the actual transform.

It won't be gravity, the weakest of natural forces.

Only weakest at the atomic/sub-atomic level...

Weakest at all scales.

Jun 30, 2019
And the fact you were not 'getting it' when @Whyde explained that to you is the reason I was motivated to clarify/stress that aspect which you apparently missed


To further clarify that it requires some external (to atomic) forces to overcome the 'electron degeneracy barrier' and create Neutrons from the simple Hydrogen nucleus and an adjacent electron
......and YOU think I'm "not getting it" when you make so gross a mistake as to state a neutron can be created from a proton & an electron? It's NEVER happened in the history of the Universe for whatever length of time that is, and I also explained that if you would finally go back & read everything I've thus far in this thread written about K-Capture.

In short, you still do not comprehend electron K-Capture is ALL about nuclear binding forces, binding forces that are not present in the nucleus of hydrogen. Wiki has a list of elements that can K-Capture, I'd suggest you do like schneibo has already done & look at it.


Jun 30, 2019
@Benni.
...electron K-Capture is ALL about nuclear binding forces, binding forces that are not present in the nucleus of hydrogen.
Actually, it's all about nature's energy-minimisation tendencies/processes. The energy status of the complex atom nucleus containing a surfeit of protons is high enough to be inherently in an unstable energy-matter configuration/state; and it is this 'energetically untenable' situation that triggers some process to shed that extra energy so as to fall back to a stable configuration/state. The problem is that, when the extra positive proton charge energy isn't sufficient to allow the more straightforward process of EXPELLING a (quantum of ' + ' charge) Positron by the proton in order to convert by that route to Neutron status, the only other way nature has to minimise energy to achieve more stability is to CAPTURE a (quantum of ' - ' charge) Electron!...usually triggering re-arrangement of remaining electrons around that complex atom nucleus. :)

Jun 30, 2019
ps @Benni.

That energy-minimisation/stability-maximisation tendency/process can occur in ISOLATED 'free' complex atom nuclei WITHOUT any external pressure or other forces involved or needed.

THAT scenario is totally different from the free Hydrogen atomic nucleus case; where capturing an electron from its K-shell can only usually be 'forced' by external pressure/impact etc which overcomes the usual force barrier which keeps the Hydrogen atom stable as a central proton and a surrounding electron (else, like I said before, IF that were not the case, then all free Hydrogen atoms would have become neutrons long since).

It's easy to miss/confuse all the subtle differences, processes and causes/forces involved in such phenomena if one is not paying attention to al the details involved. Hence why I got involved between you and your interlocutors to clarify/refine the actual situation(s) being discussed. Good luck @Benni, everyone. :)

Jun 30, 2019
@Benni.
electron K-Capture is ALL about nuclear binding forces, binding forces that are not present in the nucleus of hydrogen.


The energy status of the complex atom nucleus containing a surfeit of protons is high enough to be inherently in an unstable energy-matter configuration/state ...... that triggers some process to shed that extra energy so as to fall back to a stable configuration/state......' + ' charge) Positron by the proton in order to convert by that route to Neutron status, the only other way nature has to minimise energy to achieve more stability is to CAPTURE a (quantum of ' - ' charge) Electron!...usually triggering re-arrangement of remaining electrons around that complex atom nucleus.
..... I already explained the nucleus charge if you'd just knock it off trying to lecture me about what I've already put into much more clear & concise language than this pile of confusion you created. Now take off for an hour & update yourself.

Jun 30, 2019
THAT scenario is totally different from the free Hydrogen atomic nucleus case; where capturing an electron from its K-shell can only usually be 'forced' by external pressure/impact etc which overcomes the usual force barrier
.....there is no such K-Capture process, IT DOESN'T EXIST & you still don't know why because you won't go back & reread what I already wrote about why hydrogen cannot K-Capture under any circumstances!

Jun 30, 2019
@Benni.

Again, the only reason I got involved and explained the two different situations is because YOU said:
A proton snagging a passing electron will however create hydrogen, but not a neutron, take a look at the Periodic Table.
...while OTHERS have been pointing out that the conditions of PRESSURE INSIDE extreme gravitationally self-compressed body is NOT a 'free' Hydrogen atom situation (neither is it a BOUND atom situation for that matter, as some Neutron Star describers here have couched it). It is just plain PRESSURE and DWELL TIME and other EXTERNAL (to the protonic nucleus itself) that determines IF/WHEN the usual energy-barrier (which prevents Protons and Electrons in Hydrogen atoms from fusing to Neutrons spontaneously) is OVERCOME.

See? That has nothing to do with 'binding energy' already present in the quark states within a single PROTON; it does have to do with the externally supplied/applied energy/conditions available for proton-electron 'capture'. Ok? :)

Jun 30, 2019
See? That has nothing to do with 'binding energy' already present in the quark states within a single PROTON; it does have to do with the externally supplied/applied energy/conditions available for proton-electron 'capture'. Ok?
.....well of course it has nothing to do with nuclear "binding energy", which is EXACTLY WHY it can never happen in the first place. Nuclear physics knows nothing about gravity & compression forces for generating a K-Capture neutron, that's purely a Pop-Cosmology fantasy.

Jul 01, 2019
Electron Orbital's in Electric Fields

Whydening Gyre
What has the power to bring that pristine proton and pristine electron in sufficient proximity
Crushing gravity

Firstly, professor Gyre
Where exactly is this crushing gravity between a pristine proton and pristine electron

Secondly, professor Gyre
Is it not the mutual attraction of the positive proton and the negative electron
That brings a pristine proton and pristine electron into orbital proximity

p.s. for professor Gyre; this is fascinating that a pristine proton and pristine electron are so massive at 1.67x10-27kg, the mind boggles at this gravitational crushing power of this proton for this electron at 1/2000 of this proton at 9.1x10-31kg is just the feather that broke this proverbial camel's back, for this electron is so small that it is debatable which is smaller, a singularity or this electron
for this electron at 1Femto metre has a surface gravity g = 6.1x10-11m/s²
hardly what one would describe as crushing

Jul 01, 2019
Electron Orbital's in Electric Fields - this Crushing gravity

Professor Gyre
As the gravitational force at 1Femto metre between two electrons is 5.6x10-41 Newton's
This is countered by this electric force between two electrons at 1Femto metre of 230.4 Newton's
This is why, professor Gyre
This Crushing gravity is talked of in these hushed tones
Foreth there is no contest between this Crushing gravity and this puny electric field
Thateth if this puny electric field is divided by this Crushing gravity
We have electric fields conquering all
For Electric Fields Are 4.2x10+42 Times More Crushing - than this puny crushing gravity

Jul 01, 2019
Secondly, professor Gyre
Is it not the mutual attraction of the positive proton and the negative electron
That brings a pristine proton and pristine electron into orbital proximity
......dead on the money granDy, it's called HYDROGEN, the first element in the Periodic Table of Elements that Whyguy, Unreal RC, schneibo, etc, know almost nothing about because they've never taken a college level chemistry course & passed it & getting a final grade.

Just look at Unreal RC, he still hasn't figured out why squashing an electron right onto the surface of a proton will NEVER transform a proton into a neutron, this because he has no comprehension of the constituent components required in creating a neutron, that a proton & electron are only half the the recipe of a neutron. This guy really believes so long as the combined mass of a proton & electron are pretty close to the mass of a neutron then magic can happen from out of nowhere to create a neutron, only in Pop-Cosmology fantasy.

Jul 01, 2019
In Honour of Professor Gyre

Did gyre and gimble in the wabe!

'T WAS brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

"Beware the Jabberwock, my son! 5
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!"

granDy
For Secondly, professor Gyre
Is it not the mutual attraction of the positive proton and the negative electron
That brings a pristine proton and pristine electron into orbital proximity

Benni
......dead on the money granDy, it's called HYDROGEN

For professor Gyre
When this pristine proton and scrumptious electron finally reach oxygen
These pristine protons and electrons will combine with their first miracle, hydrogen
As then, professor Gyre
You will then be able to quench your thirst in this white heat of crushing gravity
For
The Jabberwocky by Lewis Carroll
https://www.bartl...846.html

Jul 01, 2019
This Elemental Gold Standard – laid down in these sands of time by Benni

Foreth hereth
Is a this gold standard
Erected by Benni
HYDROGEN
This first element
Created in the wild
By this pristine proton
And this scrumptious electron
Through their electrifying attraction to each other
All alone in this infinite vacuum

Benni
......dead on the money granDy, it's called HYDROGEN, the first element in the Periodic Table of Elements

Jul 01, 2019
This Elemental Gold Standard – laid down in these sands of time by Benni

Foreth hereth
Is a this gold standard
Erected by Benni
HYDROGEN
This first element
Created in the wild
By this pristine proton
And this scrumptious electron
Through their electrifying attraction to each other
All alone in this infinite vacuum

Benni
....dead on the money granDy, it's called HYDROGEN, the first element in the Periodic Table of Elements
.....leaves you to wondering why so few in the forum have never had knowledge of it's makeup.

Hang around Benni long enough & sooner or later some of the deeper secrets of nuclear physics becomes common knowledge. I wonder if Unreal RC has come to terms with the makeup of hydrogen versus that of a neutron? Maybe he still hasn't finished reading my other Comments higher up, and he's now studying them real hard?

Jul 01, 2019
Crushing Pressure is proportional to surface area

Benni
Hang around Benni long enough & sooner or later some of the deeper secrets of nuclear physics becomes common knowledge

For these pristine protons and pristine electrons occupy radii of 1Femto metre
A circular area of 3.1x10-30m²
For this is why
Pristine protons and pristine electrons
Withstand pressure of millions of tons
In point of fact as phys.org points out
These pristine protons and pristine electrons
Withstand 10 times the theorised pressure in this proverbial neutron star
In fact
To be even blunter
This 10 times pressure
Is greater than this theorised blackhole
All because
This circular area is 3.1x10-30m²
For a million tons m²
Is a billion kg m²
Is still
Only 3.1x10-20 Newton's of force on these pristine protons and pristine electrons
Where as
230.4 Newton's of electrical force exists between these pristine protons and pristine electrons
Still
Electric fields conquers all

Jul 01, 2019
@granville853762
@Benni
@Whydening Gyre.

You two (Benni, granville) are conflating the electron-proton arrangement that produces the Hydrogen ATOM, with the electron-absorption BY the proton to produce the Neutron state.

That subtle difference is what you two and are talking at cross-purposes about. That is, @Whyde points out the close proximity/pressure conditions in the extreme mass/gravity pressure situation that promotes the ABSORPTION of an electron by a Proton which forms Neutronic arrangement...and NOT the usual 'free Hydrogen ATOM' arrangement formed merely by the 'opposing-charge' proximity effect.

Get it? The gravitational MASS-induced Pressure case does NOT depend on the 'opposite charges attract' phenomena; it depends on PRESSURE phenomena which FURTHER FORCES the electron-proton into even closer proximity than in the 'atomic' arrangement, and so fuse as into NEUTRON state...and NOT into the normal Hydrogen ATOMIC structure which applied before. Ok? :)

Jul 01, 2019
You two (Benni, granville) are conflating the electron-proton arrangement that produces the Hydrogen ATOM, with the electron-absorption BY the proton to produce the Neutron state.


No, Unreal RC.....you still refuse to review my previous Comments. You do not have enough comprehension of nuclear physics to understand an electron & a proton absorption does not create a neutron, not through K-Capture or any other means.

Your problem is not having a good grip on fundamental nuclear physics, that a neutron is made up of more than a proton & an electron.

When a free unbound neutron goes through it's 14.7 minute Beta Particle Decay, it spontaneously decays into a proton, neutrino, gamma ray, & an electron.

In a reverse Beta Particle Decay in a K-Capture event to create a neutron, all of the above four must be reassembled again, capiche so far? Now for the first time in your life you've had it explained what the individual components of a neutron are.

Jul 01, 2019
@Benni.
When a free unbound neutron goes through it's 14.7 minute Beta Particle Decay, it spontaneously decays into a proton, neutrino, gamma ray, & an electron. In a reverse Beta Particle Decay in a K-Capture event to create a neutron, all of the above four must be reassembled again,..
You are confused and missing important caveats, mate. For example, IIRC, the only reason a Gamma Ray photon may (rarely) be produced in Free Neutron Beta Particle Decay is due to INTERNAL interactions, between the Electron about to be expelled and the Proton from which the Electron is in the process of being separated.

Understand? A Gamma-ray Photon is NOT an 'input' requirement in forming a Neutron. So there goes your 'argument' on that score. Ok? :)

And in BOUND Neutrons in complex nuclei, a Neutron can ALSO form via the (+)Proton EXPELLING a (+)Positron 'charged particle', instead of gaining an (-)Electron charged particle (as I explained to you earlier).

Un-confuse yourself, mate. :)

Jul 02, 2019
This Elemental Gold Standard – laid down in these sands of time by Benni

Foreth hereth
Is a this gold standard
Erected by Benni
HYDROGEN
This first element
Created in the wild
By this pristine proton
And this scrumptious electron
Through their electrifying attraction to each other
All alone in this infinite vacuum

Benni
......dead on the money granDy, it's called HYDROGEN, the first element in the Periodic Table of Elements

And... what caused it to fuse and make the SECOND element of the periodic table, Helium?
Nuclear binding forces?
Nope... The crushing gravity of gazillions of hydrogen atoms in a tightly bound stellar body...

Jul 02, 2019
you have to factor in the ambient time of the galaxy in question

Jul 02, 2019
This crushing gravity by Professor Gyre

And... what caused it to fuse and make the SECOND element of the periodic table, Helium?
Nuclear binding forces?
Nope... The crushing gravity of gazillions of hydrogen atoms in a tightly bound stellar body...

For it is said
In these hallowed halls
These protons and electrons
In this suns interior
In these clashing of these two titanic forces
Our sun
Is
Only
At this crushing density of water
So this suns mass
2.0x10+30kg
Multiplied
By the square of 1Femto metre radius
3.1x10-30m²
Simply multiplying this 800 thousand plasmatic ball at this density of water
3.1x10-30m² by 2.0x10+30kg = 6.2kg of force on this proton and electron
Fore in this Femto world of atomic particles
These crushing forces diminish with the square of their Femto radii

p.s. tis time Professor Gyre to get your slide rule and calculator out and do some gravitational calculations for to apply them on 3.1x10-30m² for Whydening Gyre – it raises interesting possibilities

Jul 02, 2019
This crushing gravity by Professor Gyre

Tis time Professor Gyre to get your slide rule and calculator out
For, Professor Gyre
This 2.0x10+30kg solar furnace
Is spreadeth out in an 800 thousand plasmatic ball
Soeth here comeths our calculator
Our sun is 1.4Billion metres in diameter
Equals 6.2x10+18m²
Equals 325 billion kg m²
Multiplied by our electron and protons radii area = 1.0x10-18 kg

Fore Professor Gyre, there is magic in these numbers
This sun in all its totality spread out over its 800 thousand mile diameter
Only exerts 1.0x10-18 kg on these protons and electrons

Hardly what we would call crushing Professor Gyre!

Jul 02, 2019
Fore it is debatable which is smaller a singularity or this electrons Femto radii

In these minutiae singularitively world of atomic particles, Professor Gyre
These atomic particles float weightless
No matter how great this crushing gravity
For when this weight is weighing on this scrumptious electrons mind
For this electron just slips these quantum fluctuations
Adjusts its size zero
Adjusts its waist line
Simply reduces its radii
Smaller that this Femto radii where the air is fresh and light
This crushing gravity simply diminishes in these diminishing radii

Jul 02, 2019
@Benni.
When a free unbound neutron goes through it's 14.7 minute Beta Particle Decay, it spontaneously decays into a proton, neutrino, gamma ray, & an electron. In a reverse Beta Particle Decay in a K-Capture event to create a neutron, all of the above four must be reassembled again,..


{q]the only reason a Gamma Ray photon may (rarely) be produced in Free Neutron Beta Particle Decay is due to INTERNAL interactions, between the Electron about to be expelled and the Proton from which the Electron is in the process of being separated.
......by giving up energy.

Gamma-ray Photon is NOT an 'input' requirement in forming a Neutron. So there goes your 'argument' on that score.
.......it sure is required or there is no energy for spontaneous Beta Particle Decay & therefore it can never happen. By the way, you also missed the neutrino, where does that come from when you're squashing that electron onto a proton to hypothetically create YOUR hybrid neutron?


Jul 02, 2019
And... what caused it to fuse and make the SECOND element of the periodic table, Helium?
Nuclear binding forces?
Nope... The crushing gravity of gazillions of hydrogen atoms in a tightly bound stellar body
.....and what nuclear physics textbook can you quote this statement from, that extra-ordinary GRAVITY conditions are required for fusion reactions to make helium? If you think this be the case, explain how hydrogen bomb fusions are created in the presence of the feeble gravity field of planet Earth?

I know Whyguy, you'll go find a Pop-Cosmology on-line text book & try passing that off as being written by someone who is an expert nuclear physicist when when in fact the author is just a lowly Astronomer none of whom know even basic nuclear physics, just like you & Unreal RC.


Jul 02, 2019
And... what caused it to fuse and make the SECOND element of the periodic table, Helium?
Nuclear binding forces?
Nope... The crushing gravity of gazillions of hydrogen atoms in a tightly bound stellar body
.....and what nuclear physics textbook can you quote this statement from, that extra-ordinary GRAVITY conditions are required for fusion reactions to make helium?

Actually, it's extraordinary pressure, caused by gravity.
If you think this be the case, explain how hydrogen bomb fusions are created in the presence of the feeble gravity field of planet Earth?

Non sequitur comparison. We sidestep the requirement of gravity by creating intense pressure.

Jul 02, 2019
@Benni

What the hell are, "hydrogen bomb fusions".

Jul 02, 2019
The crushing gravity of gazillions of hydrogen atoms in a tightly bound stellar body


Asks Benni:
.....and what nuclear physics textbook can you quote this statement from, that extra-ordinary GRAVITY conditions are required for fusion reactions to make helium?


sez Whyguy:
Actually, it's extraordinary pressure, caused by gravity.

Non sequitur comparison. We sidestep the requirement of gravity by creating intense pressure.


If you think these conditions be the case, explain how hydrogen bomb fusions are created in the presence of the feeble gravity field of planet Earth?

Luv ya WhyGuy, now you're trying to escape the "gravity" box I put you into by "sidestep the requirement of gravity", and then you clumsily re-explain that inside the small feeble shell of an H-bomb, that scientists have somehow built a pressure chamber inside a bomb housing for "creating intense pressure", to do what? Pressure to duplicate "pressure" conditions somewhere in the SUN?


Jul 02, 2019
Fusion weapons are not confined by gravity.

@cantthink is lying again.

Jul 02, 2019
Luv ya WhyGuy, now you're trying to escape the "gravity" box I put you into by "sidestep the requirement of gravity", and then you clumsily re-explain that inside the small feeble shell of an H-bomb, that scientists have somehow built a pressure chamber inside a bomb housing for "creating intense pressure",

Natural solar fusion uses gravity and (I forgot to include) heat to build pressure.
H-bomb fusion uses fission trigger bomb to replicate that heat and pressure conditions found in the sun.
to do what? Pressure to duplicate "pressure" conditions somewhere in the SUN?

Now you're getting it...
Actually, you know how it is done.
Stop playing stupid.

Jul 02, 2019
Tis time for these lbs shillings and pence

WhydeningGyre
Actually, it's extraordinary pressure, caused by gravity.

To put some meat on thare bones, WhydeningGyre
For how many psi is required to equal this crushing gravity
How many bazillion tons a square millimetre does an electron require to form hydrogen
For in reality per femto square metre, what have you ascertained this electron experiences in our sun

Fore WhydeningGyre, you are just a hop skip and jump from this river bank
Where these babbling brooks floweth under

For what are these crushing forces in lbs shillings and pence, WhydeningGyre?

Jul 02, 2019
@Benni.[q..it sure is required or there is no energy for spontaneous Beta Particle Decay & therefore it can never happen. You are self-confusing yourself again, @Benni. The energy comes from the electron absorbed by the proton. That is what is unstable arrangement' in free Neutron state once formed...hence spontaneous decay by expelling the previously absorbed electron. Again, the only time (rarely) that a Gamma-ray is emitted when a free Neutron beta-decays is when INTERNAL energy states/motions happen to transiently be in a position to cause the separating particles (electron and proton) to internally collide and cause some form of bremstrahlung effect/radiation which can form because of the motions/kinetic energy of the excited particles and NOT because of the inherent electron-proton energy-mass quotients.

ps: All matter is practically SWIMMING in ubiquitous 'sea' of Neutrinos/Anti-Neutrinos. Availability of same during N formation processes is NOT a limiting factor. :)

Jul 02, 2019
@Benni.
it sure is required or there is no energy for spontaneous Beta Particle Decay & therefore it can never happen.
You are self-confusing yourself again, @Benni. The energy comes from the electron absorbed by the proton. That is what is unstable arrangement' in free Neutron state once formed...hence spontaneous decay by expelling the previously absorbed electron. Again, the only time (rarely) that a Gamma-ray is emitted when a free Neutron beta-decays is when INTERNAL energy states/motions happen to transiently be in a position to cause the separating particles (electron and proton) to internally collide and cause some form of bremstrahlung effect/radiation which can form because of the motions/kinetic energy of the excited particles and NOT because of the inherent electron-proton energy-mass quotients.

ps: All matter is practically SWIMMING in ubiquitous 'sea' of Neutrinos/Anti-Neutrinos. Availability of same during N formation processes is NOT a limiting factor. :)

Jul 02, 2019
Please excuse the re-post; re-formatted due to missing quote bracket. Thanks. :)

Jul 02, 2019
now you're trying to escape the "gravity" box I put you into by "sidestep the requirement of gravity", and then you clumsily re-explain that inside the small feeble shell of an H-bomb, that scientists have somehow built a pressure chamber inside a bomb housing for "creating intense pressure"


Natural solar fusion uses gravity and (I forgot to include) heat to build pressure.
......dead on wrong.

Look, just to make your Pop-Cosmology fantasy short, the reason fusion temps must be so high is not to build "pressure", but to attain the temperature needed for FUSION, not to attain the PRESSURE you claim is FIRST required for fusion, any conditions of rising pressure is subsequent to the fusion event, that's what happens AFTER things blow up.

H-bomb fusion uses fission trigger bomb to replicate that heat and pressure conditions found in the sun.
.......only half right. The fission trigger is ONLY for the purpose of raising the "heat", not pressure.

Jul 02, 2019
because of the motions/kinetic energy of the excited particles and NOT because of the inherent electron-proton energy-mass quotients.
....and again you skip over the neutrino almost as if neutrinos zipping around at nearly the speed of light have some mystical capability of always finding a proton & electron tying to mate with one another while waiting for that germinating neutrino to show up.

All matter is practically SWIMMING in ubiquitous 'sea' of Neutrinos/Anti-Neutrinos. Availability of same during N formation processes is NOT a limiting factor.
........then how come we have such a hard time just trying to capture one of these elusive dudes. One of those things will zip right through the entire mass of the Sun & never hit a thing, but you think that's crowded swimming do you?

Most of galactic medium is hydrogen. If the universe so "SWIMMING in ubiquitous 'sea' of Neutrinos" then how come there is so much hydrogen and so few free neutrons? Luck of the draw?

Jul 02, 2019
@Benni.
...and again you skip over the neutrino..
That was about the Gamma-ray photon; which you has stated was an indispensable input requirement when forming a Neutron via Electron capture. I pointed out to you that why it wasn't. Ok on that score now? :)
All matter is practically SWIMMING in ubiquitous 'sea' of Neutrinos/Anti-Neutrinos. Availability of same during N formation processes is NOT a limiting factor.
..If the universe so "SWIMMING in ubiquitous 'sea' of Neutrinos" then how come there is so much hydrogen and so few free neutrons?
Neutrinos/Anti-Neutrinos do interact via the weak force, and the proximity 'dwell time' increase within extreme-pressure environment is exponentially higher than the 'normal' UNCONSTRAINED 'free space' Hydrogen ATOM would experience. And WHY Hydrogen ATOMS instead of Neutrons?...that is already known to you: Free Neutrons are UNSTABLE, whereas Hydrogen ATOMS are stable. Ok? :)

Jul 02, 2019
@Benni
@Whydening Gyre.

From @Whydening Gyre to @Benni:
H-bomb fusion uses fission trigger bomb to replicate that heat and pressure conditions found in the sun.

From @Benni to @Whyde:
only half right. The fission trigger is ONLY for the purpose of raising the "heat", not pressure.


@Benni, please recall what I said about PROXIMITY DWELL TIME; INCREASED by PRESSURE effects on 'crowding' the particles into a vastly smaller volume. That is what the Fission bomb explosion does...the heat/preassure from the FISSION explosion causes the FUSION material to compress, temporarily raising the pressure/temperature of that fuel; EXPLOSIVELY COMPRESSING and also heating the mass to fusing temps; and KEEPING THAT MASS in close proximity for JUST LONG ENOUGH for a significant proportion of the mass to FUSE BEFORE it all explodes and the fusion stops; and we observe the explosion of the fused proportion AND the REMAINING unfused proportion of that mass. Ok on that now also? :)

Jul 02, 2019
the heat/preassure from the FISSION explosion causes the FUSION material to compress
What?

That paltry increase in pressure caused by fission is not a factor for raising temperature to the point of creating fusion. The fission process is the ONLY thing resulting in temperature. When is the last time you observed an earthly fusion process encased in a pressure vessel that could contain the pressure levels found in the Sun? I'll give you the answer, NEVER, and we certainly NEVER put such a containment vessel inside the small size of an H-bomb.

Jul 02, 2019
@Benni.
the heat/preassure from the FISSION explosion causes the FUSION material to compress
That paltry increase in pressure caused by fission is not a factor for raising temperature to the point of creating fusion. The fission process is the ONLY thing resulting in temperature. When is the last time you observed an earthly fusion process encased in a pressure vessel...
You misunderstand, mate. The explosive-compression method does not require a 'containment vessel' at all; but the bombs are provided with heavy gauge steel shell to add to the containment effect. The explosive kinetic energy creates compression WAVES, just like a high-explosive creates a SHOCK WAVE of much denser/hotter gas/air than ambient air pressure/temp. You must understand that fusion reactions happen very fast, and it only requires the pressure/temp to be just high enough and for just long enough to start the further self-compressing/heating chain-reaction effects in the fusing mass. :)

Jul 02, 2019
Okay, Benni.
What is it about heat that causes the fusion?
What brings all those atoms into close enough proximity for the nuclear force to take over and do it's thing?

Jul 02, 2019
It's not just heat. It's heat and pressure.

Jul 02, 2019
It's not just heat. It's heat and pressure.

I know that. I just want to hear Benni's explanation...
Actually, RC explained it pretty well...

Jul 03, 2019
Fusion weapons are not confined by gravity.

@cantthink is lying again.
actually gravity and internal time in the weapons or in a star, play a big role in fusion, as without higher gravity and time flow fusion will not happen. chk out
https://www.scribd.com/sayys84

Jul 03, 2019


H-bomb fusion uses fission trigger bomb to replicate that heat and pressure conditions found in the sun.
.......only half right. The fission trigger is ONLY for the purpose of raising the "heat", not pressure.
benni you are wrong, the internal pr in the h bomb is 240,000 atmospheres before fusion begins. chk out the link in my earlier post

Jul 03, 2019
Actually, that's incorrect. The X-rays from the fission pit are redirected by plastic tubes into the fusion array. These supply the heat *and* the pressure. At least in modern thermonuclear weapons. These tubes are traditionally described as "soda straws," and are said to be plated with metals to increase the concentration of X-rays from the fission pit.

Jul 03, 2019
WhydeningGyre, the heat is on

WhydeningGyre
It's not just heat. It's heat and pressure.

I know that. I just want to hear Benni's explanation...
Actually, RC explained it pretty well...

How's this pressure of work
Is this white heat literally getting on top of you?
Is this crushing pressure getting you down?
Foreth
Especially for your quiet contemplation
For TrollianWhydeningGyre, your own personal bridge
On this picturesque river bank
Over this babbling brook, to contemplate the meaning and measure of this crushing pressure

Jul 03, 2019
You misunderstand, mate. The explosive-compression method does not require a 'containment vessel' at all; but the bombs are provided with heavy gauge steel shell to add to the containment effect. The explosive kinetic energy creates compression WAVES
.....now Unreal you're finally getting it, that the pressure created in a fusion bomb detonation is subsequent to the detonation & not the requirement prior to the detonation.

.....and no I didn't misunderstand you, it was what you & Whyguy are actually & clearly stating, that Sunlike pressure conditions are required for fusion when in fact this is NOT the case. Give Benni some thanks for clearing the pressure of fog out of your brain so that you now better understand the fusion process.

Jul 03, 2019
benni you are wrong, the internal pr in the h bomb is 240,000 atmospheres before fusion begins. chk out the link in my earlier post
.......not prior to detonation it doesn't, this is SUBSEQUENT to detonation. Do you know what the word SUBSEQUENT means?

Raise the "atmospheres" to a million, so what.

Jul 03, 2019
Actually, that's incorrect. The X-rays from the fission pit are redirected by plastic tubes into the fusion array. These supply the heat *and* the pressure. At least in modern thermonuclear weapons. These tubes are traditionally described as "soda straws," and are said to be plated with metals to increase the concentration of X-rays from the fission pit.

Actually , what is incorrect? Pl specify

Jul 03, 2019
benni you are wrong, the internal pr in the h bomb is 240,000 atmospheres before fusion begins. chk out the link in my earlier post
.......not prior to detonation it doesn't, this is SUBSEQUENT to detonation. Do you know what the word SUBSEQUENT means?

Raise the "atmospheres" to a million, so what.
no its not subsequent. read the paper on the link

Jul 03, 2019
Starry Fusion

Man mad fusion in explosives
Versus
Natures Jellyfish-Galaxies in ram-pressure stripping of plasma
Where
These tenuous Jellyfish-Galaxies tentacles create Starburst Galaxies

There seems an attempt to square completely diferent processes
Man made nuclear explosions require completely different process
To
Protons naturally joining in holy matrimony with electrons
Forming hydrogen without such as a whimper
For a neutron can join this proton with no resistance what so ever
When neutrons pass through this coulomb barrier without so much as a whimper
Protons and electrons have a process of decaying this neutron to a proton
Creating helium with no pressure what so ever

So as this crushing pressure is weighing heavily on every ones minds
These protons and scrumptious electrons are creating helium
In these ram stripping Jellyfish-Galaxies in these plasmatic tentacle fly bys
Creating stars of the density of water - hardly what is described as crushing pressure

Jul 03, 2019
without higher gravity and time flow fusion will not happen.
It has nothing to do with gravity. The hohlraum contains the initial blast from the pit that ignites the fusion fuel.

Jul 03, 2019
without higher gravity and time flow fusion will not happen.
It has nothing to do with gravity. The hohlraum contains the initial blast from the pit that ignites the fusion fuel.

Lol. So what does the initial blast do?actually

Jul 03, 2019
Compresses and heats the fusion fuel to ignition temperature and pressure.

I am of course discussing a two-stage thermonuclear weapon.

Jul 03, 2019
@granville
so by your reasoning, cold fusion is possible?

Jul 03, 2019
Compresses and heats the fusion fuel to ignition temperature and pressure.

I am of course discussing a two-stage thermonuclear weapon.
Compression raises the gravity inside and time flow inside.
Care to Explain the synthesis by which you get fusion temp?
Anyway the synthesis is explained in my paper. i doubt if you have read it on the link

Jul 03, 2019
Compression raises the gravity inside and time flow inside.
I have no idea what you think you're talking about. I suggest you read some articles on nuclear weapons design because you obviously have no idea how they work.

Jul 03, 2019
You need to do that.
yes i know how they work. go ahd and read all the papers on my link.

Jul 03, 2019
That's OK, I don't need any viruses today.

Try this one: https://en.wikipe...r_weapon

Jul 03, 2019
That's OK, I don't need any viruses today.

Try this one: https://en.wikipe...r_weapon

oops you mean that website is jinxed?
wiki ive read sometime back

Jul 03, 2019
Well, you obviously didn't understand it. It's got pictures and everything.

Jul 03, 2019
This white heat of cold fusion is why this Neutron exists

savvys84
@granville
so by your reasoning, cold fusion is possible?

Without this white heat and crushing pressure
By utilising why this neutron exists - to pass through this coulomb barrier
Negates this white heat of this sledge hammer fusion approach
For these protons and neutrons still experience this mass defect effect
Releasing this mass defect energy of fusion
Where this energy of fusion, this mass defect
Is not diluted with this sledge hammer approach
Where this heat of fusion is when this neutron decays to a proton
These pristine helium atoms are this white heat of fusion
For this is how in this tenuous filamentary plasma
These pristine protons and electrons are fusing hydrogen to helium
Without this white heat and crushing pressure

Jul 03, 2019
Ain't no coulomb barrier for neutrons. They's neutral. That's why they're called "neutrons."

Jul 03, 2019
For Bennies half a Neutron lives

This neutron rises from the ashes
Bennies infamous half a neutron
For in this infinite vacuum
Bennies half a neutron
Has 14.7minutes to find it proton and scrumptious electron
Has 14.7minutes to find this hydrogen atom
For to pass this coulomb barrier to join this proton
So that
As it passes through this barrier
Joins this proton
Just in time
When it's time runeths out
So that these 14.7minutes are finally done as this neutron decays to this proton
For
This is why this neutron decays in this vacuum to a proton
So that this neutron has this 14.7minutes
To get this neutron to this nuclear binding force
With no resistance
Just as this neutron decays to a proton
Where
Because of these bazillions of hydrogen atoms
By sheer numbers
As numbers are of the essence
Sufficient will get this timing just right
In 14.7minutes, to form helium atoms!

Jul 03, 2019
Got it in one, DaSchneib

DaSchneib
Ain't no coulomb barrier for neutrons. They's neutral. That's why they're called "neutrons."

For, DaSchneib
This why this neutron is neutral
For to get this neutron past this Coulomb force
With no resistance
Just as it decays in 14.7minutes to a proton

p.s. fore all your quiet reflection by your babbling brook is time well spent

Jul 03, 2019
Well, you obviously didn't understand it. It's got pictures and everything.
Looks like you have not gone beyond high school.
Forget it, wallow in your ignorance

Jul 03, 2019
once again granville, is cold fusion possible?

Jul 03, 2019
Compression raises the gravity inside
........only a resident living on the plantation of funny farm pseudo-science would make a statement like this.

Gravity cannot be created by compressing a constant mass volume into a smaller space, all that occurs is a change in the per unit area of applied force, that is not adding NEW gravity, total gravity field remains the same because the quantity of MASS remains the same.

Jul 03, 2019
If you are referring to Fleishman and Pons

savvys84
once again granville, is cold fusion possible?

For, savvys84 Fleishman and Pons
Were using man made electrolysis test tubes

So if, savvys84 - if this it was what you are referring to
Cold Fusion Does Not Occur

p.s. for savvys84 when there are alternatives to achieve the same result
where Fleishman and Pons are an infamous example of how not to approach fusion
you cannot be so black and white in your question because this neutron while not hot fusion is most definitely not cold fusion, especially since Fleishman and Pons

Jul 03, 2019
Looks like you have not gone beyond high school.
Apparently my high school was better than yours.

BTW, I have an EE. You know, the Master's Degree kind.

Jul 03, 2019
For, savvys84
Fleishman and Pons
Were not
Using
This 14.7minute decay of this neutron
Neither were Fleishman and Pons using this neutron to bypass this coulomb barrier
To decay into a proton
As
savvys84
Fleishman and Pons
Experimental results
Were not reproducible
For
savvys84
This speaks volumes in the land of the dollar, for that quick buck

Jul 03, 2019
For this is why, Benni
Compression raises the gravity inside
........only a resident living on the plantation of funny farm pseudo-science would make a statement like this.

Gravity cannot be created by compressing a constant mass volume into a smaller space, all that occurs is a change in the per unit area of applied force, that is not adding NEW gravity, total gravity field remains the same because the quantity of MASS remains the same.

Where simply stumps is taking time out
For he is writing up these memoirs of these goings on
These coming and goings on this phys.org
For one day, all we souls of wit
Will be infamous
Courtesy, of simply stumps

Jul 03, 2019
Its probably electricity or something.
What about the alloys tho'?

Hey cd85, are you sitting down? This may shake your worldview a bit, but it appears electromagnetism and plasma may be more important than you thought, in ways and at scales you didn't consider. The USN has some interesting new patents, including one for a craft that matches many UFO descriptions, and one for an electromagnetic field generator (like Tesla 2.0) where it's stated, "Quantum Vacuum Plasma (QVP) is the electric glue of our plasma Universe." See:
Craft using an inertial mass reduction device
Electromagnetic field generator and method to generate an electromagnetic field

Jul 03, 2019
Looks like you have not gone beyond high school.
Apparently my high school was better than yours.

BTW, I have an EE. You know, the Master's Degree kind.
........from the 19th Century? That's the century all your Cosmology comes from, so why not that too.

Jul 04, 2019
Its probably electricity or something.
What about the alloys tho'?

Hey cd85, are you sitting down? This may shake your worldview a bit, but it appears electromagnetism and plasma may be more important than you thought, in ways and at scales you didn't consider. The USN has some interesting new patents, including one for a craft that matches many UFO descriptions, and one for an electromagnetic field generator (like Tesla 2.0) where it's stated, "Quantum Vacuum Plasma (QVP) is the electric glue of our plasma Universe." See:
https://patents.g...re+Pais)
says Protoplasmix

It says that the inventor is Salvatore Pais. Who IS this guy? Does he work for DARPA or the USNavy or which governmental department?
I am now wondering if "they" reverse-engineered one of the UFOs that they shot down and are now attempting to build one from the ground up.
Oh boy. IF it is what I think it is....that's not good

Jul 04, 2019
Compression raises the gravity inside
........only a resident living on the plantation of funny farm pseudo-science would make a statement like this.

Gravity cannot be created by compressing a constant mass volume into a smaller space, all that occurs is a change in the per unit area of applied force, that is not adding NEW gravity, total gravity field remains the same because the quantity of MASS remains the same.
benny old fella, gravity is a function of density of the mass
if you compress the earth to a size of a tennis ball it would turn into a black hole

Jul 04, 2019
Looks like you have not gone beyond high school.
Apparently my high school was better than yours.

BTW, I have an EE. You know, the Master's Degree kind.

ahaha. so what is the relationship between power factor and electron spin?

Jul 04, 2019
so granville, is spaghetti andrea rossis E Cat for real?
And your kind of cold fusion, would it have any useful engineering application?

Jul 04, 2019
So I looked up "inertial mass reduction" and found many sites wrt what the USN is doing and possibly building. But my favourite was this one:

https://resonance...duction/

Thanks to Protoplasmix for his timely submission here of the Patent filing for a possible new propulsion system without the use of chemical fuels. It certainly does resemble a UFO spacecraft.

@savvys84
Are you certain that it is granville who supports the e-Cat debacle and Cold Fusion?
I think that you are mistaken and that it may be someone else that you're thinking of who supports Andrea Rossi's foolishness.

Jul 04, 2019
Savvys84, have you read, Andrea Rossi's E-cat fusion device on target by Ric Werme
https://wattsupwi...-target/

Savvys84
so granville, is spaghetti andrea rossis E Cat for real?
And your kind of cold fusion, would it have any useful engineering application?

For, savvys84
Andrea Rossi's E-cat fusion device has absolutely no bearing
On
A lonely proton looking for its scrumptious in the wilds of this infinite vacuum
Where protons and there scrumptious electrons combine into hydrogen in this vacuum
Where hydrogen combines decaying neutrons with no resistance thought this coulomb barrier
As this is why, savvys84
This neutron has these 14.7 minutes
For all this occurs in these trillions of billions of light years of infinite vacuum
In this tenuous plasma

For, savvys84
This is Nature at work
Time would be better spent in working out how Nature is achieving this miracle
In this tenuous plasma
Without so much as a whimper

Jul 04, 2019
Another attempt to conflate unassociated parameters. Power factor has nothing to do with electron spin. Power factor is entirely due to the difference between current drain and voltage fluctuation in a reactive (as opposed to purely resistive) circuit, containing capacitive and inductive reactances.

Why do you keep trying this bullshit?

Jul 04, 2019
Another attempt to conflate unassociated parameters. Power factor has nothing to do with electron spin. Power factor is entirely due to the difference between current drain and voltage fluctuation in a reactive (as opposed to purely resistive) circuit, containing capacitive and inductive reactances.

Why do you keep trying this bullshit?

hey bullshit man, you need to go back and do your EE again. good luck

Jul 04, 2019
Hey, it's a shame you don't know what impedance is, but it's not bullshit and it's not my problem.

Welcome to the real world: https://en.wikipe...mpedance

Ever heard of ELI the ICEman?


Jul 04, 2019
Just for lurkerz, resistance, capacitive reactance, inductive reactance, and impedance are essential elements of complex circuit design, much used in the designs of filters and oscillators. That @savvys86 doesn't know this indicates it knows nothing of electronics engineering.

Note carefully that when challenged on some relation of electron spin to resistance, inductive reactance, capacitive reactance, and impedance, @savvys86 doesn't have anything to say. Feel free to search the Wikipedia article on impedance for the word "spin." It is not mentioned.

We done here?

Jul 04, 2019
Lol so you are only wiki educated are you?
yes we are done. less said the better for wiki jockeys

Jul 04, 2019
Nothing to say about electronics. Or spin.

Transparent as a 3-year-old kid.

Jul 04, 2019
Gravity cannot be created by compressing a constant mass volume into a smaller space, all that occurs is a change in the per unit area of applied force, that is not adding NEW gravity, total gravity field remains the same because the quantity of MASS remains the same.


benny old fella, gravity is a function of density of the mass
if you compress the earth to a size of a tennis ball it would turn into a black hole
......bullshit this is daschneibo's 19th Century degree in EE speaking volumes of easily disproven Pop-Cosmology theory.

In the 20th Century we learned that gravity is MASS DEPENDENT, you haven't learned that yet, that CONSTANT MASS results in CONSTANT GRAVITY that can't be increased except by adding additional mass, that it doesn't matter how small a volume CONSTANT MASS is squeezed into, the TOTAL GRAVITY cannot change, but you like schneibo with your 19th Century education have yet to learn this, right schneibo?

Jul 04, 2019
Gee, @Benni leaves out distance again.

Just as a reminder,

F=GMM'/r²

Jul 04, 2019
Gee, @Benni leaves out distance again.

Just as a reminder,

F=GMM'/r²
It's also pretty clear Benni doesn't understand vector potentials for F (with magnitudes and directions pointing to where the earth's mass under his feet is) and how to add their components -- that would require some trig. And if the earth was the size of a tennis ball, Benni doesn't see vectors for F are now all pointing in the same direction...

Jul 04, 2019
Gee, @Benni leaves out distance again.

Just as a reminder,

F=GMM'/r²
.....and your problem is that you can't decipher the constants in the equation.

I'm not referring to force of gravitational attraction based on distance (r²) between two bodies, this has nothing to do with yours, s84's & Pp's funny farm pseudo-science about single body density. You need to update your 19th Century EE degree & at least move into 20th Century science & learn that CONSTANT MASS results in CONSTANT GRAVITY no matter what the DENSITY of the material is.

Jul 04, 2019
It's also pretty clear Benni doesn't understand vector potentials for F (with magnitudes and directions pointing to where the earth's mass under his feet is) and how to add their components -- that would require some trig. And if the earth was the size of a tennis ball, Benni doesn't see vectors for F are now all pointing in the same direction...
......vectors have nothing to do with the fact CONSTANT MASS results in unchanging CONSTANT GRAVITY, you're just spouting Pop-Cosmology psycho-babble about things in which you've never been educated in a 1st Semester College Physics course......I know, now you're gonna say you learned it in high school physics.

Jul 04, 2019
Nothing to say about electronics. Or spin.

Transparent as a 3-year-old kid.

Lol, so this is what your extensive education, leads you to believe, is it?
Bravo, carry on.
My anti gravity machine which, i have built uses electronics, but forget it, you wouldnt understand it as it does not figure in the wiki.

Jul 04, 2019
Gravity isn't constant, @Benni. It varies with distance. That's why there's a r² in the denominator of the equation.

Oh, that's right, I forgot, you don't understand fractions. You can't even figure out "half," as in half-life.

Jul 04, 2019
My anti gravity machine
Nutjob alert.

I have an antigravity machine too. It's called a "magnet." Maybe you've heard of them.

Jul 04, 2019
Gravity isn't constant, @Benni. It varies with distance. That's why there's a r² in the denominator of the equation.

Oh, that's right, I forgot, you don't understand fractions.
.....and for a single body MASS, there is no r² DISTANCE to calculate, but you can't figure that out. You see schneibo, this is why you need to take a 20th or 21st Century Physics course of instruction, you are unable to read & comprehend 20th Century physics equations. Your 19th Century high school physics is more than a 100 years out of date.

Jul 04, 2019
Starry Fusion
Protons naturally joining in holy matrimony with electrons
Forming hydrogen without such as a whimper
For a neutron can join this proton with no resistance what so ever

So.... where is this neutron coming from? Has to be within roughly 15 mins...
When neutrons pass through this coulomb barrier without so much as a whimper

One Neutron and 1 Proton don't make Helium - it takes 2 of each...

Protons and electrons have a process of decaying this neutron to a proton

Please explain that one...
Creating helium with no pressure what so ever

You still need 2 protons to overcome Coulomb barrier to make He. Then add 2 neutrons created from - where, again?
Creating stars of the density of water -

Source info for this claim?

Jul 04, 2019
Benni, are we hearing this right

The total gravity remains the same
For it is proportional to the surface area of the sphere
4.pi.r²
For the total gravity = 4pi(GMM'/r²)r²
1 = (1/r²)r² the total gravity always remains the same

Jul 04, 2019
My anti gravity machine
Nutjob alert.

I have an antigravity machine too. It's called a "magnet." Maybe you've heard of them.

then this is a rather large magnet
https://www.youtu...g68VE-Ys

Jul 04, 2019
WHERE DID THESE NEUTRONS COME FROM

WhydeningGyre
Starry Fusion
Protons joining in holy matrimony with electrons
Forming hydrogen
For a neutron can join this proton with no resistance what so ever

So.... where is this neutron coming from? Has to be within roughly 15 mins...
When neutrons pass through this coulomb barrier without so much as a whimper

One Neutron and 1 Proton don't make Helium - it takes 2 of each...

Protons and electrons have a process of decaying this neutron to a proton

Please explain that one...
Creating helium with no pressure what so ever

You still need 2 protons to overcome Coulomb barrier to make He. Then add 2 neutrons created from - where, again?
Creating stars of the density of water -

Source info for this claim?

GOOD QUESTION, WhydeningGyre
For come to that
Where Did These Protons and Scrumptious Electrons Come From

For WhydeningGyre, if you can answer that; fame and fortune will come your way

Jul 04, 2019
WhydeningGyre - WHERE DID THESE NEUTRONS COME FROM

Are you, WhydeningGyre
Implying
That all that exists in this vacuum are These Protons and Scrumptious Electrons
And
From these protons and electrons are created neutrons
So, in this beginning from this maelstrom
From this primeval soup
Emerged protons and electrons
Why not neutrons
Or
Are you, WhydeningGyre
Implying Bennies little cupeth iseth overflowing witheth joyeth
That you are agreeing all these pristine protons, neutrons and electrons
The reason there are no neutrons around
You are agreeing WhydeningGyre, that they all decayed 14.7minutes after this moment of creation

We never knew you were so full of these fascinating theories

p.s. so now WhydeningGyre, as all these neutrons decayed 15Billion years ago in 14.7minutes we are now left with an alternative solution for these much needed neutrons, thought it sort of leaves our protons and scrumptious electrons sort of up in the air, creation wise!

Jul 04, 2019

Benni, are we hearing this right


Grandy, what schneibo has shown is how little comprehension of the correct notation & use of the formula he put up, F=GMM'/r². When he used this formula he wrote it wrong as he has done many times in the past, it should have been written F=GMM'/d² where d is distance between centers of each mass.

For single body:
Force of gravity = gravitational constant + mass of object/ square of radius of object= G + M/r², notice there is no distance (d) in this formula.


Jul 04, 2019
Benni, old dogs cannot learn new tricks

The use of distance d is actually correct as it is the distance between two bodies
Of late there is a trend to use radius r
Where r is the radius of the planet
But
Once this incorrect use of r and d take hold
The saying old dogs cannot learn new tricks

Unfortunately or is that fortunately, Benni
You're dealing with old dogs that don't realise their old dogs

Jul 04, 2019
@Benni.

It's a subtle point you are missing, mate. :)

Consider. The airless Moon has its own gravitational effect/field regardless of whether or not there is another body in gravitational interaction with that gravitational effect/field. We introduce two 'test masses', eg, a hammer and a feather, each having vastly weaker (compared to Moon's) and greatly differing gravity effect/fields of their own. We simultaneously drop the hammer and feather. We observe that, in the absence of extraneous factors (such as atmospheric drag), the feather and hammer BOTH fall at the SAME RATE. You can then deduce that the accelerative force 'per unit mass' on both feather and hammer IS THE SAME, making them hit the Moon surface simultaneously. Hence the Moon's gravity effect/field EXISTS IRRESPECTIVE of whether or not other bodies/masses, regardless of their own respectively gravity effect/field, are interacting with the Moon's gravity effect/field. Do you get that subtle aspect, @Benni? :)

Jul 04, 2019
Just Why Is This Brute Force Necessary

Smashing protons into protons can create neutrons
But this where this theory loses the advantage of this neutral neutron
For it does not decay to a proton
And the theory is self defeating the advantage of this decaying neutron to a proton
For what is the point of further smashing protons to form two protons and the newly formed neutron?
When the neutron can simply decay to a proton leaving two protons

When this neutron is neutral
When this neutron passes through this coulomb barrier with no resistance
When this neutron decays to a proton

Where is the logic of using brute force to fuse two protons?
When a proton and neutron inside this coulomb barrier
This neutron is able to decay into a proton

Why this brute force, when this neutron can decay to a proton without so much as a whimper

Just Why Is This Brute Force Necessary

Jul 04, 2019
ps: @Benni.

Another subtle point. :)

While the TOTAL GRAVITY effect/field of, eg a massive Star, is a 'constant' when calculated/measured from a great distance (usually the term "from infinitely far away" is used to stress the great distance)....the ACCELERATIVE GRADIENT in the STRENGTH of that SAME total gravity effect/field is dependent on the INTERVENING DISTANCES from that Star's centre-of-mass. That is, the closer you are to the Star's surface, the stronger the ACCELERATIVE STRENGTH of the effect/field is (naturally, as per the 'Shell Theorem', the gradient begins to change WITHIN the Star's spherical mass distribution; the more the mass of the upper layers exceeds the mass of the mass within the layers below). Anyhow, it's NOT the TOTAL GRAVITY that is the critical issue in Black Hole situation, it is the NEW GRADIENT 'PROFILE' in that same total gravity...because the mass is EXTREMELY COMPRESSED. Hence the GREATER ACCELERATIVE effect/field AT surface/EH of a BH feature. :)

Jul 04, 2019
the NEW GRADIENT 'PROFILE' in that same total gravity.
......huh? Unreal RC must have made this psycho-babble Comment.

Jul 04, 2019
@Benni.
the NEW GRADIENT 'PROFILE' in that same total gravity.
......huh?
Do you really not understand what the English term 'gradient profile' means in this context, mate? If so, please try to figure out for yourself what it is about the words "gradient' and 'profile' (and their English language usage in juxtaposition as in my relevant post) that you do not 'get'; and why it is used to convey the presence of a 'profile' in a 'gradient' in whatever range of effect/property is being discussed (in this instance, it is the gradient or 'RATE OF CHANGE' in the gravity strength as one moves towards away from any gravitating body under study). Try, mate. Thanks. :)

Jul 04, 2019
'RATE OF CHANGE' in the gravity strength as one moves towards away from any gravitating body under study
......why didn't you just say INVERSE SQUARE LAW, I would have recognized immediately what you were trying to talk about.

Jul 04, 2019
@Benni.
'RATE OF CHANGE' in the gravity strength as one moves towards away from any gravitating body under study
why didn't you just say INVERSE SQUARE LAW, I would have recognized immediately what you were trying to talk about.
Because "Inverse Square Law" is a GENERIC concept/property/term. Just using that term does not convey the further subtlety I am trying to get you to 'get' about the change in density which accompanies the compression of the same gravitating mass into a smaller volume to the extent of creating an EXTREME DENSITY feature whose gravitational GRADIENT 'profile' is DIFFERENT from that of its stellar progenitor mass...even though the TOTAL GRAVITY of that unchanged mass is the same overall as measured/felt from a significantly great distance (ie, 'at infinity'). Do you NOW understand the subtle aspects involved which I and others have tried to convey to you for some time now, but which you have so far 'missed' in the 'getting' of? Is it clearer now? :)

Jul 04, 2019
to 'get' about the change in density which accompanies the compression of the same gravitating mass into a smaller volume to the extent of creating an EXTREME DENSITY feature whose gravitational GRADIENT 'profile' is DIFFERENT from that of its stellar progenitor mass...even though the TOTAL GRAVITY of that unchanged mass


Ok, FORCE PER SQUARE UNIT OF AREA.........now tell us Unreal, was that really hard? I used 6 words & you used 55 & explained nothing in comprehensible scientific terminology.

Jul 04, 2019
.....and for a single body MASS, there is no r² DISTANCE to calculate, but you can't figure that out. You see schneibo, this is why you need to take a 20th or 21st Century Physics course of instruction, you are unable to read & comprehend 20th Century physics equations. Your 19th Century high school physics is more than a 100 years out of date.


Oh dear, what a tool! Fg = GMm/ r^2. So to work out the gravitational force on a person on the surface of a planet, you need the mass of the planet (M), and the mass of the person (m). We all know about G. And r = the radius of the planet. As r is the denominator, then the smaller it is, the higher the gravitational force. Guess they didn't teach that in grade school, which appears to be where you stopped studying science!

Jul 04, 2019
RealityCheck, is density of gravity an actual mathematical term

RealityCheck, for all these, as Benni appears to be the only one
Who's remembered his mathematical symbols and physics
And its correct use of mathematics of physics symbols
It looks like the only one who can answer your question
Is there gravitational density as a gravitational term, is Benni
So after all these whacker moles days
As these mole whackers thateth hath cometh and goneth
Soeth, RealityCheck iteth lookeths thateth Benni is the only one to answer your question

Jul 04, 2019
^^^^^Benni couldn't find his own arse with an extra pair of hands!

Jul 04, 2019
For Oh dear is right

Oh dear, what a tool! Fg = GMm/ r^2
For dear old jonesy
r^2 is written r²

Jul 04, 2019
.....and for a single body MASS, there is no r² DISTANCE to calculate, but you can't figure that out. You see schneibo, this is why you need to take a 20th or 21st Century Physics course of instruction, you are unable to read & comprehend 20th Century physics equations. Your 19th Century high school physics is more than a 100 years out of date.


Oh dear, what a tool! Fg = GMm/ r^2. So to work out the gravitational force on a person on the surface of a planet, you need the mass of the planet (M), and the mass of the person (m). We all know about G. And r = the radius of the planet. As r is the denominator, then the smaller it is, the higher the gravitational force. Guess they didn't teach that in grade school, which appears to be where you stopped studying science!
.....u made the same mistake as schneibo, inserted r² for radius instead of d² for the distance between the centers of the two bodies, Fg = GMm/ r^2 is meaningless.

Jul 04, 2019

.....u made the same mistake as schneibo, inserted r² for radius instead of d² for the distance between the centers of the two bodies, Fg = GMm/ r^2 is meaningless.


Wrong, dickhead.

https://emandppla...ndFg.htm

Jul 04, 2019
Dumbshit thinks it makes a difference what variables you use.

Should have had its head bashed out against a tree when it was born. Retroactive abortion.

Jul 04, 2019
Dumbshit thinks it makes a difference what variables you use.

Should have had its head bashed out against a tree when it was born. Retroactive abortion.
......bent out of shape because you were caught yet again not understanding high school physics & math.

Jul 04, 2019
What, using d vs. r makes a difference in the equation?

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

Jul 04, 2019
What, using d vs. r makes a difference in the equation?

Were you born this stupid or did you have to practice?
.......you've certainly been the one doing a lot of practicing lately. You need to get back under that bridge where there is far less light exposing the ugly features of the troll that you are.

Jul 04, 2019
What, using d vs. r makes a difference in the equation?

Were you born this stupid or did you have to practice?
.......you've certainly been the one doing a lot of practicing lately. You need to get back under that bridge where there is far less light exposing the ugly features of the troll that you are.


And you need to progress beyond grade school science, dumbo.

Jul 04, 2019
Oh, thanks for answering. You had to practice.

Maybe if you weren't such a super asshole I'd just leave you on ignore.

Jul 04, 2019
ps: @Benni.

Another subtle point. :)

While the TOTAL GRAVITY effect/field of, eg a massive Star, is a 'constant' when calculated/measured from a great distance (usually the term "from infinitely far away" is used to stress the great distance)....the ACCELERATIVE GRADIENT in the STRENGTH of that SAME total gravity effect/field is dependent on the INTERVENING DISTANCES from that Star's centre-of-mass. ...Anyhow, it's NOT the TOTAL GRAVITY that is the critical issue in Black Hole situation, it is the NEW GRADIENT 'PROFILE' in that same total gravity...because the mass is EXTREMELY COMPRESSED. Hence the GREATER ACCELERATIVE effect/field AT surface/EH of a BH feature. :)
says RealityCh

Now, since the Mass of the black hole is EXTREMELY COMPRESSED AT THE SURFACE of the BH/EH, how do you account for such massive strong gravitational downward pull toward the surface ALLOWING such strong polar jets spewing Matter and Energy out into the Cosmos from the BH/EH? Gravity shuts down?

Jul 05, 2019
Oh, and there's the other super asshole.

Lovely. Now we get both of them gaping, farting, flapping, and stinking in the same thread.

Jul 05, 2019
Oh, and there's the other super asshole.

Lovely. Now we get both of them gaping, farting, flapping, and stinking in the same thread.


You have described yourself extremely well, Schneib. No one else could have described you that well or as accurately.

Jul 05, 2019
Oh, by the way, Schneib. What is TIME made of? Don't hurry. Think it over carefully and try to come up with the answer if you can.

Jul 05, 2019
@Benni
@S_E_U
@granville583762.

The higher density is not the determining factor for creating extreme BH EH gradient/profile; it is the smaller volume into which the preceding SAME mass was COMPRESSED and hence CONCENTRATED into, that creates the different extreme gravity GRADIENT PROFILE that differs from the gravity gradient profile of the precursor star's mass. I stress: The greater density of that same mass is a direct result of compression of that same mass into a smaller volume. And it requires a certain minimum of cumulative mass/gravity to create a BH EH once it is compressed as explained...eg, there would be NO BHs/EHs formed from compressing a cumulative mass/gravity the size/strength of the Earth; only a certain minus stellar scale mass/gravity will work ; because the Quantum Forces would be stronger than the LESSER cumulative mass/gravity compared to cumulative stellar gravities/masses (hence why we have not observed 'Micro or Mini' scale black holes).

continued…

Jul 05, 2019
...continued @Benni, @S_E_U and @granville.

And the crucial point, about the smaller volumetric diameter of the newly compressed (same) mass, is the DISTANCE BETWEEN one side of the sphere and the opposite side. Because that distance is SHORTER than it was when the star was in its UN-compressed (and hence less dense) state/size. Get it? The gravitational 'attraction' experienced BETWEEN the opposing surface layer is GREATER when sphere collapsed because the opposing SURFACES are now CLOSER due to the shrunken diameter of the SAME AMOUNT of mass. See? It is THAT distance factor that creates the new/different gravitational acceleration strength GRADIENT 'profile' compared to the star case where the opposing surface masses were FARTHER APART, and hence the "INVERSE SQUARE LAW" gravity strength was LESS than in the new compressed case involving LESS DISTANCE from one side of the spherical mass to the other. Ok? :)

ps @S_E_U. The plasma activity/jets occur/launch from ABOVE the EH. :)

Jul 05, 2019
Oh, by the way, Schneib. What is TIME made of? Don't hurry. Think it over carefully and try to come up with the answer if you can.

As you are bringing time up again, I'll repeat my question from other comment section where you didn't answer.

What do you call the "thing" that for example makes clocks in earth orbit satellites tick faster than the ones on the ground? If there is no time, there must be some other explanation for this difference?

Jul 05, 2019
@RC
Yes, I know. What I was enquiring about is whether or not the extent of the gravitational force on all Matter/Energy within the EH is strong enough at surface to prevent the polar jets or not. In the link below, it is explained that the polar jets consist, not of Matter that had been pulled into the disc and EH, per se, but is actually more of detritus, flotsam and jetsam that somehow escapes the attractive, gravitational force at surface. Perpendicular columns of polar jets aren't removing massive amounts of Matter, and the gravity continues to pull in as much Mass as is available.

https://www.resea...ck_holes

Incidentally, I wondered about it so hard that I was driven to this researchgate website, which did give me a basic rundown on the propagation of relativistic polar jets. I am still unsure whether they are propagated from the accretion disc or the EH.

Jul 05, 2019
Oh, by the way, Schneib. What is TIME made of? Don't hurry. Think it over carefully and try to come up with the answer if you can.

As you are bringing time up again, I'll repeat my question from other comment section where you didn't answer.

What do you call the "thing" that for example makes clocks in earth orbit satellites tick faster than the ones on the ground? If there is no time, there must be some other explanation for this difference?
says Cortezz

My query directed to Schneib was in answer to his stupidity - not to anyone else. He refused to answer in several phorums in spite of my unceasing efforts to get one.

That "thing" is the mechanism of the clock, whether nuclear or plainly mechanical. There are several factors for which nuclear clocks are dependent on and adjusted for. Such as: velocity, lat and long, altitude, direction, and even moisture. Solar radiation and magnetic fields might even affect nuclear clocks.
-contd-

Jul 05, 2019
-contd-
Time itself doesn't exist as an Object that can be quantified as a Particle, Wave, Photon, element, atom, compound, or anything but a Concept. It has no ability of its own; Time is not sensed as is weather, night and day, aging, happiness, etc.. All time is is a Concept directly from the human Mind. That human Mind questioned the rate of events and actions such as sunrise and sundown; seasons and when it was time to plant just by looking at the Stars and other methods long before there were any clocks. When someone invented the clock, it was incremental with hands denoting the course, minutes, seconds, microseconds. But mainly, it let humans know when it was time to get up in the morning, to go to bed at night. The invention of the clock was one of the things that enabled science and telescopes to also be invented. But those increments on the clock face told you When, in addition to What, Where, Why and How.

ALSO, the Earth's gravity affects the nuclear clock's mechanism.

Jul 05, 2019
ALSO, the Earth's gravity affects the nuclear clock's mechanism. Even though it's nuclear, it is still mechanical work with jumping electrons moving about in the radioactive element inside the clock.

The reason why nuclear clocks tick faster at high altitudes is due to gravity's affect on Mass. At high altitudes, the clock ticks faster due to far less gravitational drag on its mechanism. Closer to the Earth's surface and the clock ticks slower due to gravitational pull on Mass. For those reasons, nuclear clocks have to be adjusted, amended, etc. But the radioactive element - they're usually good for IIRC 15 thousand Earth years.

Pssst - Schneib thinks that Time is real, but he can't tell me what it's made of.

Jul 05, 2019
EDIT" When someone invented the clock, it was incremental with hands denoting the course, minutes, seconds, microseconds.
The word "course' had been typed 'hours'. Darn this Spellcheck.
:)

Jul 05, 2019
Blackhole stars ejecting spin axis plasma

Blackholes have come to this realisation
It is pointless keeping this traditional idea of blackholes
For they have polar spin axis jets ejecting plasma out their interiors from inside their event horizon

Fore we need to think these blackholes again

Jul 05, 2019
Thinking these blackholes again

To be ejecting plasma out their spin axis
This is indicative to their gravitational acceleration
Their gravitational acceleration is not what we have been led to believe
For their plasma accumulates inside their event horizon
As it is common for these fabled Sagittarius*A type accretion disks are commonly invisible
Despite their gamma radiation emissions
These common or garden blackholes have the density of not much more than water
As stars are these densities of water

Just about sums up these blackholes

Jul 05, 2019
The perception of time

SEU
ALSO, the Earth's gravity affects the nuclear clock's mechanism.

This perception of time that we perceive today
Is this
Tick-tock of moving hands
That has been assembled on clocks for hundreds of years
We have been impressing upon our minds that time flows and is material as our minds hear this physical tick-tock of moving hands

For now our minds are refusing to shed this physical belief that has been hardwired into our minds
For, SEU
Take this in mind
As you preach from this mount
That time is truly in our minds
Having been hardwired since birth
With this tick-tock of these grandfather clocks

My Grandfather's Clock
Johnny Cash

My grandfather's clock was too large for the shelf
So it stood ninety years on the floor
It was taller by half than the old man himself
Though it weighed not a pennyweight more
It was bought on the morn of the day that he was born
https://www.youtu...Xhn9mMB0

Jul 05, 2019
Ready anytime. Just as soon as alien mind-reading man tells us what space is "made of."

Jul 05, 2019
and hence the "INVERSE SQUARE LAW" gravity strength was LESS than in the new compressed case involving LESS DISTANCE from one side of the spherical mass to the other. Ok?
......well them Unreal, here's "Ok" for you: Changing the density of a CONSTANT MASS only changes pressure per square unit area of the surface of the mass, the total force of gravity will not change because no NEW mass is introduced to the system to change it..........see if you can say YES to this? Schneibo & CV Jonesy can't figure this out, maybe you could give a try at figuring out why this is an Immutable Law of Physics?

Jul 05, 2019
total force of gravity will not change


F = GMM'/r²

@Benni forgot the distance again.

Jul 05, 2019
time and dark matter are coupled together so time is indeed a thing

Jul 05, 2019
total force of gravity will not change


F = GMM'/r²

@Benni forgot the distance again.
.......no, you did, it should be written F=GMm/d², just check out CV Jonesy's misconstrued response to your mistake:

Oh dear, what a tool! Fg = GMm/ r^2. So to work out the gravitational force on a person on the surface of a planet, you need the mass of the planet (M), and the mass of the person (m). We all know about G. And r = the radius of the planet. As r is the denominator
......you see, he too admits he assumed that "r" was radius of a body of mass & almost immediately copied right in behind your mistake. You just simply Copied & Pasted someones else's mistake because you had no comprehension of what you were talking about in the first place.