Dark matter may be older than the big bang, study suggests

dark matter
Credit: CC0 Public Domain

Dark matter, which researchers believe make up about 80% of the universe's mass, is one of the most elusive mysteries in modern physics. What exactly it is and how it came to be is a mystery, but a new Johns Hopkins University study now suggests that dark matter may have existed before the Big Bang.

The study, published August 7 in Physical Review Letters, presents a new idea of how was born and how to identify it with astronomical observations.

"The study revealed a new connection between particle physics and astronomy. If dark matter consists of new particles that were born before the Big Bang, they affect the way galaxies are distributed in the sky in a unique way. This connection may be used to reveal their identity and make conclusions about the times before the Big Bang too," says Tommi Tenkanen, a postdoctoral fellow in Physics and Astronomy at the Johns Hopkins University and the study's author.

While not much is known about its origins, astronomers have shown that dark matter plays a crucial role in the formation of galaxies and galaxy clusters. Though not directly observable, scientists know dark matter exists by its gravitation effects on how visible matter moves and is distributed in space.

For a long time, researchers believed that dark matter must be a leftover substance from the Big Bang. Researchers have long sought this kind of dark matter, but so far all experimental searches have been unsuccessful.

"If dark matter were truly a remnant of the Big Bang, then in many cases researchers should have seen a direct signal of dark matter in different experiments already," says Tenkanen.

Using a new, simple mathematical framework, the study shows that dark matter may have been produced before the Big Bang during an era known as the cosmic inflation when space was expanding very rapidly. The rapid expansion is believed to lead to copious production of certain types of particles called scalars. So far, only one scalar particle has been discovered, the famous Higgs boson.

"We do not know what dark matter is, but if it has anything to do with any scalar particles, it may be older than the Big Bang. With the proposed mathematical scenario, we don't have to assume new types of interactions between visible and dark matter beyond gravity, which we already know is there," explains Tenkanen.

While the idea that dark matter existed before the Big Bang is not new, other theorists have not been able to come up with calculations that support the idea. The new study shows that researchers have always overlooked the simplest possible mathematical scenario for dark matter's origins, he says.

The new study also suggests a way to test the origin of dark matter by observing the signatures dark matter leaves on the distribution of matter in the universe.

"While this type of dark matter is too elusive to be found in particle experiments, it can reveal its presence in . We will soon learn more about the origin of dark matter when the Euclid satellite is launched in 2022. It's going to be very exciting to see what it will reveal about dark matter and if its findings can be used to peak into the times before the Big Bang."


Explore further

Looking for warm dark matter

More information: Dark Matter from Scalar Field Fluctuations, Physical Review Letters (2019). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.061302
Journal information: Physical Review Letters

Citation: Dark matter may be older than the big bang, study suggests (2019, August 8) retrieved 23 August 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2019-08-dark-older-big.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.
11972 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Aug 08, 2019
Some sick thoughts on dark matter: what do you think if ghosts, souls, heaven and even God were made of dark matter? They would be truly eternal.
When does a jet engine work with dark matter? It would really be a non-polluting and invisible propulsion system (a real UFO). Exciting ideas for a science fiction novel (not strictly related to known physical laws).

Aug 08, 2019
Good! Finally an article that puts inflation before the Big Bang. Worth reading if only for that.

Aug 08, 2019
The headline says " before the big bang" yet in this article it says "the study shows that dark matter may have been produced before the Big Bang during an era known as the cosmic inflation when space was expanding very rapidly." Cosmic inflation wouldn't be before the big bang would it! Before the big bang would be before the singularly.

Aug 08, 2019
I began reading the article, hoping that perhaps there would be a culmination with solid facts after so much 'time' to determine whether or not there is such a thing as Dark Matter. And as usual, the article is a hodgepodge of:
IF -- 4
SHOULD HAVE -- 1
MAY BE -- 3
MAY HAVE -- 2

which researchers believe
is one of the most elusive mysteries in modern physics.
What exactly it is and how it came to be is a mystery
now suggests that
dark matter may have existed

STILL nothing to get excited over. More projections and conjecture.

Looking forward to the NEXT big nothing article.

Aug 08, 2019
Cosmic inflation wouldn't be before the big bang would it! Before the big bang would be before the singularly.
It would have to be before, some reasons are the rate at which it occurred was much faster than what accepted theory allows but it explains the observed isotropy in the cosmic microwave background -- did it start with a singularity or was it just a hot, dense quantum vacuum fluctuation?

Aug 08, 2019
A BIGBANG REQUIRES A BIG-IMPLOSION

Darkmatter
Consists of particles
Those were born before the BigBang
Affect the way; galaxies are distributed in the vacuum

Finally
The truth be out
The realisation, that to have an explosion in the vacuum
Clouds of matter coalesce
Into an increasingly compact cloud
This forms a star
That eventually
Goes supernova
Expanding into the vacuum
For to form clouds
To coalesce
To
Form a star again
PROOF
If proof were needed
A BIGBANG REQUIRES A BIG-IMPLOSION

p.s. in other words, an acceptance all this matter and energy that we can see, and what we can't yet see, already existed, before the last bigbang in this infinite vacuous vacuum of space!

Aug 08, 2019
The headline says " before the big bang" yet in this article it says "the study shows that dark matter may have been produced before the Big Bang during an era known as the cosmic inflation when space was expanding very rapidly." Cosmic inflation wouldn't be before the big bang would it! Before the big bang would be before the singularly.
Nope, The universe (according to Susskind, Verlinde, and several other eminent physicists and cosmologists) started with a vacuum fluctuation which had, by chance, the right value of cosmological constant to inflate to enormous size. Since CC varies only with space, this meant that it contained energy. It then underwent vacuum decay, and this energy was dumped into the newly inflated space, and that was the BB.

I can give more detail, and refer you to a book by Susskind if you like.

Aug 08, 2019
A BIGBANG REQUIRES A BIG-IMPLOSION

granville583762

Why?
Finally
The truth be out
The realisation, that to have an explosion n the vacuum
No, the big bang wasn't an explosion (a common layperson misunderstanding) because it was the space itself that expanded. Please study what the scientific theories actually say before commenting on it.

Aug 08, 2019

More projections and conjecture..
Surveillance_Egg_Unit

Most if not all of science ultimately comes from projections and conjecture. There is nothing wrong with projections and conjecture as this is often (if not always) the only way to figure out a previously unknown truth and science has been shown to do a pretty good job of figuring out the truth via projections and conjecture. Projections and conjecture doesn't make science wrong. If science was wrong then your computer wouldn't work and you will not be able to post this message. This vindicates the scientific method involving projections and conjectures.
IF -- 4
SHOULD HAVE -- 1
MAY BE -- 3
MAY HAVE -- 2
If science wasn't allowed to ask such questions or consider such concepts then there will be no science. Your above criticism of science shows you don't know what science is let alone how it works!

Aug 08, 2019
Good video from PBS on the subject: What Caused the Big Bang?

Aug 08, 2019
"Tommi Tenkanen, a postdoctoral fellow in Physics and Astronomy at the Johns Hopkins University and the study's author."

........and Tommi has immutable evidence: The Sacred Immutable Fantasies of Pop-Cosmology.

Tommi babe is riding the wave of theory that the more preposterous the hypothesis can be made the more likely the gullible acolytes within the Pop-Cosmology crowd who will believe it.

Aug 08, 2019
Defining an Expansion and an Implosion in the Vacuum

Dear humy
A BIGBANG REQUIRES A BIG-IMPLOSION

granville583762

Humy> Why?
Finally
The truth be out
The realisation, that to have an explosion n the vacuum
No, the big bang wasn't an explosion (a common layperson misunderstanding) because it was the space itself that expanded. Please study what the scientific theories actually say before commenting on it.

Humy, a collapsing cloud of plasma
In these Starry Nurseries
Is the same as an Implosion
As
When this star
Formed from this Implosive Starry Nursery
Goes Supernova
Is the same as a bigbang
Expanding into the vacuum
Foreth, humy
Gravity
To cause this expanding plasma to coalesce
An Implosion

p.s. foreth it is not possible to have a bigbang unless the matter coalesced to cause a bigbang; i.e. a star going supernova requires plasma to implode to form a star, which a bigbang is a very good descriptive to when this star goes supernova

Aug 08, 2019
Humy, concerning this Vacuum

As you say humy, " it was the space itself that expanded."
Just a little shell like in your shell - A Vacuum cannot expand
A vacuum is devoid of all matter that is light
And
A vacuum is devoid of all matter that is dark
Foreth, humy
Space is the Infinite Vacuous Vacuum

In a nutshell humy
As space is the Vacuum
Vacuum cannot expand

Aug 08, 2019
"Tommi Tenkanen, a postdoctoral fellow in Physics and Astronomy at the Johns Hopkins University and the study's author."

........and Tommi has immutable evidence: The Sacred Immutable Fantasies of Pop-Cosmology.

Tommi babe is riding the wave of theory that the more preposterous the hypothesis can be made the more likely the gullible acolytes within the Pop-Cosmology crowd who will believe it.


Says an idiot who doesn't know what a half-life is, and thinks 14C decays via gamma decay! Lol.

Aug 08, 2019
While not much is known about its origins
.......whatta mean "not much is known", none can be found to even determine it has "origins".

Though not directly observable, scientists know dark matter exists by its gravitation effects on how visible matter moves and is distributed in space
What gravitational effects?

What are the gravitational effects within the INTERSTELLAR & INTERGALACTIC MEDIUM for a particle density of DM that per cm³ is 3-100 times less than the content of ordinary matter?

Pop-Cosmology Fantasy states there is an equivalent of 0.3 particles of DM in every cm³ of outer space, in the meantime REAL SCIENCE reports there is an AVERAGE of one hydrogen or helium atom within that exact space and this doesn't count ions & sub-atomic particles.

One complete atom of hydrogen is 3 times the total mass of the 0.3 particles of DM within one cm³, therefore the so-called gravitational effects you allude to is not from DM but overwhelmingly from ORDINARY MATTER.

Aug 08, 2019
Funny humans, cannot control it's life beyond one day, yet creates fake mathemagic calculus and then applies it to calculate the age of the universe, which was assumed to be born out of a dot and into such mass. The so called dark matter is dark, because it cannot be seen, touched and measured, namely does not exist (at least within dimension available to an average human being).
Math must be written from scratch, based on ultimately new concept of single unit of consciousness, meaning - it describes the need and possibility of the particular human to exist within confines of it's limitations. Example of always writing a formula: "According to me" then xyz. Even if you have to copy and paste, add: according to me, can be abbreviated to "atm".

The idea, that this vastness was born out of nothing, on it's own, is ridiculous, closer to insanity then any common natural sense, be it spiritual or scientific in nature.
#newmath #eternity #fakebigbang #fakeblackholes

Aug 08, 2019
Something about this topic really attracts the nutbags, doesn't it?

What's cool about this particular theory is that it's testable. I'm hoping it checks out, if only for the entertainment value of watching the goalposts get moved again: "If there's no God, then who made the dark matter?"

Aug 08, 2019
"Tommi Tenkanen, a postdoctoral fellow in Physics and Astronomy at the Johns Hopkins University and the study's author."

........and Tommi has immutable evidence: The Sacred Immutable Fantasies of Pop-Cosmology.

Tommi babe is riding the wave of theory that the more preposterous the hypothesis can be made the more likely the gullible acolytes within the Pop-Cosmology crowd who will believe it.


Says an idiot who doesn't know what a half-life is, and thinks 14C decays via gamma decay! Lol.
......of course I know you think 14C decays via Beta Particle Decay, but the C14 isotope is not a sub-atomic neutron particle & cannot decay via Beta Particle Decay.

The C14 decay occurs when C14 sheds an excess neutron, then 14.7 minutes later THAT FREE NEUTRON (not the C14) undergoes Beta Particle Decay releasing a proton. When this proton is released during the Beta Particle Decay of the neutron it is captured within the original nucleus of C14 converting it to nitrogen.

Aug 08, 2019
......of course I know you think 14C decays via Beta Particle Decay, but the C14 isotope is not a sub-atomic neutron particle & cannot decay via Beta Particle Decay.



Lol. Dumb as a bag of spanners! Of course it is Beta decay, you moron. By definition. A Beta particle (electron) is emitted. Dumbo. Get back to us when you understand high school physics.

Aug 08, 2019
Get back to us when you understand high school physics.
.....and this is your problem, you never got further than high school physics which is the reason why you keep bringing it up as your frame of reference.

Aug 08, 2019
Get back to us when you understand high school physics.
.....and this is your problem, you never got further than high school physics which is the reason why you keep bringing it up as your frame of reference.


Yes I did, dumbo, which is how I know you are talking out of your arse. The decay of 14C is an example of Beta decay. As is the decay of a free neutron. Easily proven. Want me to?

Aug 08, 2019
......of course I know you think 14C decays via Beta Particle Decay, but the C14 isotope is not a sub-atomic neutron particle & cannot decay via Beta Particle Decay.


Lol. Dumb as a bag of spanners! Of course it is Beta decay, you moron. By definition. A Beta particle (electron) is emitted. Dumbo. Get back to us when you understand high school physics.


Why is high school physics always your frame of reference? Because you don't know what is in college level nuclear physics like I do as a Nuclear/Electrical Engineer with six years of Engineering school education behind me.

When you cannot comprehend radio-active atomic isotopes are not sub-atomic particles subject to Beta Particle Decay, then you will never comprehend how C14 with 6 protons in it's nucleus converts to nitrogen with 7 protons in it's nucleus, it is via the Beta Particle Decay of the free neutron shedded from C14 that captures the proton, but this is incomprehensible to Anthropologists like you.

Aug 08, 2019


Why is high school physics always your frame of reference? Because you don't know what is in college level nuclear physics like I do as a Nuclear/Electrical Engineer with six years of Engineering school education behind me.


A laughable lie! Lol.

.........it is via the Beta Particle Decay of the free neutron shedded from C14, but this is incomprehensible to Anthropologists like you.


Dear God, what a moron! First you say it is gamma decay, now you are saying a free neutron is shed, and that turns into a proton via Beta decay, and heads back into the atom! Lol! You really are a thick poser!
One of the neutrons in the nucleus decays into a proton. It does this by a down quark changing into an up quark. And with the emission of an electron. Which is a beta particle. Hence the term 'Beta-decay'.

Aug 08, 2019
One of the neutrons in the nucleus decays into a proton
.....just goes to show where your high school nuclear physics continues to fail you.

Free neutrons do not decay into & become protons during Beta Particle Decay. During BPD the neutron releases a proton as one of four products of Beta Particle Decay, that released proton from Beta Particle Decay is captured by the C14 nucleus converting the C14 to nitrogen which has now 7 protons in it's nucleus due to the capture event of the released proton subsequent to the Beta Particle Decay of a free neutron.

Aug 08, 2019
Poor @Benni nobody believes your stupid shit.

Aug 08, 2019
One of the neutrons in the nucleus decays into a proton
.....just goes to show where your high school nuclear physics continues to fail you.

Free neutrons do not decay into & become protons during Beta Particle Decay. During BPD the neutron releases a proton as one of four products of Beta Particle Decay, that released proton from Beta Particle Decay is captured by the C14 nucleus converting the C14 to nitrogen which has now 7 protons in it's nucleus due to the capture event of the released proton subsequent to the Beta Particle Decay of a free neutron.


Lol. Trivially false.

http://oregonstat...9rev.pdf

Aug 08, 2019
So, according to the moron who claims to understand nuclear physics, 14C emits a neutron (????!!!!????), thus becoming 13C. This emitted neutron decays into a proton, and rejoins the 13C to become 14N! What's not to believe?
If only this Dunning-Kruger afflicted imbecile realised what a tit he keeps making of himself, then maybe he'd bugger off.

Aug 08, 2019
The headline says " before the big bang" yet in this article it says "the study shows that dark matter may have been produced before the Big Bang during an era known as the cosmic inflation when space was expanding very rapidly." Cosmic inflation wouldn't be before the big bang would it! Before the big bang would be before the singularly.
Nope, The universe (according to Susskind, Verlinde, and several other eminent physicists and cosmologists) started with a vacuum fluctuation which had, by chance, the right value of cosmological constant to inflate to enormous size. Since CC varies only with space, this meant that it contained energy. It then underwent vacuum decay, and this energy was dumped into the newly inflated space, and that was the BB.

I can give more detail, and refer you to a book by Susskind if you like.


Thank you for your perspective.

Aug 08, 2019
Good! Finally an article that puts inflation before the Big Bang. Worth reading if only for that.


conformal geometry. Roger Penrose.

Aug 08, 2019
Dark matter may be older than the big bang

plus
Dark matter, which researchers believe make up about 80% of the universe

equals:
The Universe may be older than the Big Bang.

cool

Aug 08, 2019
for the cmb to be the remnants of the big bang, the big bang had to happen everywhere at once, this can only happen if space had not inflated to any size (singularity). So inflation (superluminal or not) happened after the big bang.

like others have mentioned, this article must assume some interpretation that is not widely accepted as being likely. Leading to confusion. An explanation of this alternative theory would have helped, since it's obviously not common knowledge.

I dont subscribe to it.

I'm more inclined to believe in a superstring type universe with folded dimensions where gravity imparts most of it's force in such a dimension explaining why it's so comparatively weak in our 3d space. Dark matter would be within such a dimension, interacting with our 3d space in the only way that transcends both of our dimensions, gravity.

Aug 08, 2019
for the cmb to be the remnants of the big bang, the big bang had to happen everywhere at once, this can only happen if space had not inflated to any size (singularity). So inflation (superluminal or not) happened after the big bang.

like others have mentioned, this article must assume some interpretation that is not widely accepted as being likely. Leading to confusion.

It's becoming common for physicists and cosmologists to define everything that happened after inflation as being the actual starting point of our Universe(aka the "Big Bang") and during inflation as being before the Universe(and Big Bang) begins.

I'm more inclined to believe in a superstring type universe with folded dimensions

I have a lot of hope for M-theory myself.

Aug 08, 2019
I thought that the idea of 'time' started with the big bang? How can anything have existed beforehand?

Aug 08, 2019
Though I must admit I don't agree with that scenario. Seriously, how can inflation have started beforehand? It messes with the whole concept of GR. As we cross the event horizon time is 'supposed to speed up to infinity' thus rendering anything outside immaterial?

Aug 08, 2019
The link to the study seems broken so if anyone wants to read it: https://arxiv.org...1214.pdf

Aug 08, 2019
Something about this topic really attracts the nutbags, doesn't it?

What's cool about this particular theory is that it's testable. I'm hoping it checks out, if only for the entertainment value of watching the goalposts get moved again: "If there's no God, then who made the dark matter?"

Well, one man's nutbag is another man's bollocks.
So, if it does not "check out", who would be the nutbag?

Aug 08, 2019
The headline says " before the big bang" yet in this article it says "the study shows that dark matter may have been produced before the Big Bang during an era known as the cosmic inflation when space was expanding very rapidly." Cosmic inflation wouldn't be before the big bang would it! Before the big bang would be before the singularly.
Nope, The universe (according to Susskind, Verlinde, and several other eminent physicists and cosmologists) started with a vacuum fluctuation which had, by chance, the right value of cosmological constant to inflate to enormous size. Since CC varies only with space, this meant that it contained energy. It then underwent vacuum decay, and this energy was dumped into the newly inflated space, and that was the BB.

I can give more detail, and refer you to a book by Susskind if you like.
says Schneib

There was NO 'cosmic inflation' OR 'Dark Matter' produced BEFORE the Big Bang. Space only began expanding/inflating AFTER the BB.


Aug 08, 2019
There was NO 'cosmic inflation' OR 'Dark Matter' produced BEFORE the Big Bang. Space only began expanding/inflating AFTER the BB
SHUT the PHUCK up you PHREAK.

Aug 08, 2019
There was also no 'cosmological constant' or any other stilly nonsense before the Big Bang. It was only AFTER the explosion that the inflation of Space occurred. It expanded exponentially with the WINDS coming from dying/exploding Stars and the creation of new Stars. Birth and death of Stars are the driving force of expansion of Space. The lack of new or current Stars leaves a large VOID IN SPACE that has to be filled. As long as Stars continue to be 'BORN' and die, the Universe will continue on. The Space within galaxies without Stars tend to shrink, but that Space is capable of expanding again once new Stars are born to reside in that formerly empty void.

Note: SpookyOtto REPORTED for inappropriate and abusive language

Aug 08, 2019
Play on words - Formerly empty Vacuum is a formerly empty Void

SEU, "The Space within galaxies without Stars tend to shrink, but that Space is capable of expanding again once new Stars are born to reside in that formerly empty void."
Or
To put it another way

The Vacuum within galaxies
Without Stars
Tend to shrink
But that Vacuum
Is capable of expanding again
Once new Stars
Are born to reside
In
That
Formerly empty Vacuum.

Aug 08, 2019

More projections and conjecture..
Surveillance_Egg_Unit

Most if not all of science ultimately comes from projections and conjecture. There is nothing wrong with projections and conjecture as this is often (if not always) the only way to figure out a previously unknown truth and science has been shown to do a pretty good job of figuring out the truth via projections and conjecture. Projections and conjecture doesn't make science wrong. If science was wrong then your computer wouldn't work and you will not be able to post this message. This vindicates the scientific method involving projections and conjectures.
IF -- 4
If science wasn't allowed to ask such questions or consider such concepts then there will be no science. Your above criticism of science shows you don't know what science is let alone how it works!
says humy

I took you off Ignore/Block since I don't wish to imitate Torbjorn the Swede
-contd-

Aug 08, 2019
I thought that the idea of 'time' started with the big bang? How can anything have existed beforehand?
Martinchen

Its true its just nonsense for something to exist 'before' the big bang if time started at the big bang.
But by far it isn't scientifically universally agreed among scientists that time DID start at the big bang. Some think the physics says it did while others think physics says it didn't and this is an ongoing controversy that shows no sign of resolution any time soon. We really need some very significant and new evidence to resolve this.

Aug 08, 2019
-contd-
@humy
Projecting, suggesting, and conjecturing are fine. However, none are close to producing actual scientific Truth. All three (and others such as hypothesising) are often the reason why facts are skewed and experiments go wrong. What you have described above is NOT science. It is more an attempt to provide relevancy to possibilities. Possibilities are also fine, but it should be set apart from the REALITIES and the facts. A possibility is not a fact, neither is probability.

Aug 08, 2019
Play on words - Formerly empty Vacuum is a formerly empty Void

SEU, "The Space within galaxies without Stars tend to shrink, but that Space is capable of expanding again once new Stars are born to reside in that formerly empty void."
Or
To put it another way

The Vacuum within galaxies
Without Stars
Tend to shrink
But that Vacuum
Is capable of expanding again
Once new Stars
Are born to reside
In
That
Formerly empty Vacuum.
says granville

Precisely. And it is already known from (is it GR or SR) that Space (without the false 'time') has the capability of bending, lengthening, shortening or shrinking, folding in on itself, wrapping around Mass, and interacts with gravity, amongst other things. Space is a very versatile commodity and is full of quantum particles and energy. When it shrinks, it MAY squeeze out those Particles, which are drawn back in to Space as it expands again.

Aug 08, 2019
I can give more detail, and refer you to a book by Susskind if you like.


Thank you for your perspective.
So you don't wanna read the book?

Aug 08, 2019
The term "Void" doesn't replace "Vacuum" except that a Void is free of Mass such as Stars, planets. There was a physorg article lately explaining that there is a VOID BEHIND the Milky Way that contains no Stars. There were pictures of artist's renderings as to what it is believed to be.
So a Void is only a place in the Vacuum of Space that is empty of Stars.

Aug 08, 2019
One of the neutrons in the nucleus decays into a proton
.....just goes to show where your high school nuclear physics continues to fail you.

Free neutrons do not decay into & become protons during Beta Particle Decay. During BPD the neutron releases a proton as one of four products of Beta Particle Decay, that released proton from Beta Particle Decay is captured by the C14 nucleus converting the C14 to nitrogen which has now 7 protons in it's nucleus due to the capture event of the released proton subsequent to the Beta Particle Decay of a free neutron.
says Benni

From what I know of FREE NEUTRON DECAY, the process is TWO-FOLD. In the FIRST PHASE of Free Neutron Decay, the Neutron goes into the MINUS BETA DECAY, where the Neutron loses its Proton. Electron and a Neutrino. After that, the Proton and Electron go into the PLUS BETA DECAY where the Proton and Electron are joined by an AntiNeutrino, creating a brand new Neutron where they are all residing inside it

Aug 08, 2019
I hope that I described the Neutron minus and plus Beta Decay phases correctly. If not, I'm sure that Castronvagina will be along to help. I realise that the FIRST PHASE of Free Neutron Decay description must include the term MINUS, and the last phase must include the term PLUS. The PLUS indicates that it is the second and last phase of the Beta Decay where a new Neutron comes into existence.
Correct me if I omitted anything, please.

Aug 08, 2019
I hope that I described the Neutron minus and plus Beta Decay phases correctly. If not, I'm sure that Castronvagina will be along to help
......"plus" or "minus" is not about what happens to the NEUTRON, it is about what happens when an atomic nucleus sheds an excess neutron.

In beta-minus decay an atom gains a proton, in beta-plus decay it loses a proton, consequently in each case the atom becomes a different element because it has a different number of protons.

Aug 08, 2019
From what I know of FREE NEUTRON DECAY, the process is TWO-FOLD. In the FIRST PHASE of Free Neutron Decay, the Neutron goes into the MINUS BETA DECAY, where the Neutron loses its Proton. Electron and a Neutrino. After that, the Proton and Electron go into the PLUS BETA DECAY where the Proton and Electron are joined by an AntiNeutrino, creating a brand new Neutron where they are all residing inside it


Lol! Oh dear, you really should stay away from science.

Aug 08, 2019
In beta-minus decay an atom gains a proton, in beta-plus decay it loses a proton, consequently in each case the atom becomes a different element because it has a different number of protons.


Lawdy. I'm going to have to find something even more basic than high school science sites! Here it is again, for the hard of thinking;

When a nucleus has too many neutrons, it is unstable. This is the case with 14C. It has 8 N and 6 P. Now, the nucleus does not lose or gain a nucleon. One of the neutrons is transformed, when a down quark transforms to an up quark. This then results in the formation of an electron and an antineutrino. As the neutral neutron has changed to a positive proton, then an electron must be produced to satisfy conservation of charge. As an electron is a lepton (1), then to satisfy the conservation of lepton number, an antineutrino (-1) has to be produced.
Beta-plus decay is similar, except that a proton transforms to a neutron, and other particles are produced.

Aug 08, 2019
From what I know of FREE NEUTRON DECAY, the process is TWO-FOLD. In the FIRST PHASE of Free Neutron Decay, the Neutron goes into the MINUS BETA DECAY, where the Neutron loses its Proton. Electron and a Neutrino. After that, the Proton and Electron go into the PLUS BETA DECAY where the Proton and Electron are joined by an AntiNeutrino, creating a brand new Neutron where they are all residing inside it


Lol! Oh dear, you really should stay away from science.
says Castrovagina

Then why don't YOU explain it IN FULL so that I can understand it better, and don't tell me to look it up. You have already committed yourself as "the expert" here by making your comment above.

Aug 08, 2019
When a nucleus has too many neutrons, it is unstable.
....and everything else you wrote below is indecipherable because it does not describe beta-minus decay in which an atom gains a proton, or in the case of beta-plus decay where an atom loses a proton, and consequently in each case the atom becomes a different element because it has a different number of protons.

This is the case with 14C. It has 8 N and 6 P. Now, the nucleus does not lose or gain a nucleon. One of the neutrons is transformed, when a down quark transforms to an up quark. This then results in the formation of an electron and an antineutrino. As the neutral neutron has changed to a positive proton, then an electron must be produced to satisfy conservation of charge. As an electron is a lepton (1), then to satisfy the conservation of lepton number, an antineutrino (-1) has to be produced.
Beta-plus decay is similar, except that a proton transforms to a neutron, and other particles are produced.


Aug 08, 2019
and everything else you wrote below is indecipherable because it does not describe beta-minus decay in which an atom gains a proton,


Yes it does you imbecile. That is precisely what Beta-minus decay is, you idiot. Do I need to draw a picture, you thick wretch?

https://energyedu...ta_decay

Aug 08, 2019
Good video from PBS on the subject: What caused the Big Bang?
https://www.youtu...X2NlhdTc
says Protoplasmix

The real answer to your query would be too Metaphysical for you to understand.

Aug 08, 2019
The nature of the physical space seems the most important subject in physics. A present paper proceeds from the assumption of physical reality of space contrary to the standard view of the space as a purely relational nonexistence - void. The space and its evolution are the primary sources of phenomena in Mega- and micro-worlds. Thus cosmology and particle physics have the same active agent - physical space.
https://www.acade...osmology

Aug 08, 2019
....and everything else you wrote below is indecipherable because it does not describe beta-minus decay in which an atom gains a proton,


Yes it does you . That is precisely what Beta-minus decay is


........."plus" or "minus" is not about what happens to the NEUTRON, it is about what happens to the nucleus when an atom nucleus sheds an excess neutron.

In beta-minus decay an atom gains a proton, in beta-plus decay it loses a proton, consequently in each case the atom becomes a different element because it has a different number of protons.

Aug 08, 2019
In my theory, the big bang, continually happens at the edge of the universe. If there are no signs of dark matter collisions, they may not break up at all.

Aug 08, 2019

........."plus" or "minus" is not about what happens to the NEUTRON, it is about what happens to the nucleus when an atom nucleus sheds an excess neutron.

In beta-minus decay an atom gains a proton, in beta-plus decay it loses a proton, consequently in each case the atom becomes a different element because it has a different number of protons.


Wrong. The atom is not gaining a proton. A neutron is transformed into a proton. That is Beta-minus decay. So called, because of the emission of an electron (-). In Beta-plus decay, a proton is transformed to a neutron. So, to conserve charge in going from + to =, a positron is emitted. This is also a beta particle, but with a + sign. Hence, Beta-plus decay.
This is high school science. How come you don't understand it?


Aug 08, 2019
I can give more detail, and refer you to a book by Susskind if you like.


Thank you for your perspective.
So you don't wanna read the book?


I'd be interested, if no one else is.

Aug 08, 2019
......"plus" or "minus" is not about what happens to the NEUTRON, it is about what happens to the nucleus when an atom nucleus sheds an excess neutron.

In beta-minus decay an atom gains a proton, in beta-plus decay it loses a proton, consequently in each case the atom becomes a different element because it has a different number of protons.


Wrong. The atom is not gaining a proton. A neutron is transformed into a proton.
....factually "Wrong" a neutron cannot transform into a proton, but YOU don't know why. Therefore what followed as your descriptions of PLUS or MINUS Beta Particle Decay is mostly wrong because YOU have no comprehension as to why neutrons & protons cannot reverse transform to one another.


Aug 08, 2019
@zz, The Cosmic Landscape, 2005.

Aug 08, 2019
....factually "Wrong" a neutron cannot transform into a proton, but YOU don't know why. Therefore what followed as your descriptions of PLUS or MINUS Beta Particle Decay is mostly wrong because YOU have no comprehension as to why neutrons & protons cannot reverse transform to one another.



Trivially false. Read a textbook on physics, dummy. Start here;

https://www.open....ection-7

Aug 08, 2019
Of course, things existed before the so-called big bang. BBT is an incorrect speculation about the reality. Good ideas presented in the paper.

Human knowledge about the origins of existence is negligible.

Aug 08, 2019
....factually "Wrong" a neutron cannot transform into a proton, but YOU don't know why. Therefore what followed as your descriptions of PLUS or MINUS Beta Particle Decay is mostly wrong because YOU have no comprehension as to why neutrons & protons cannot reverse transform to one another.


Trivially false. Read a textbook on physics
.........no it isn't trivially false, a proton cannot transform to a neutron because there is not enough mass present in a proton to support the mass of a neutron.......and THAT is NOT trivial, it's only trivial to acolytes of Pop-Cosmology such as yourself & whatever was on your link.

Aug 08, 2019
@zz, The Cosmic Landscape, 2005.

Thanks, I'll check it out.

Aug 08, 2019
Though I must admit I don't agree with that scenario. Seriously, how can inflation have started beforehand? It messes with the whole concept of GR. As we cross the event horizon time is 'supposed to speed up to infinity' thus rendering anything outside immaterial?

There are other forums in which some argue that inflation came before the BB with something like an inflation of (some type) quantum foam but I think it is fair to say that it isn't mainstream (yet). At present various diagrams do show BB, then Inflation (about 10^-32 s) etc. But I have to admit I'm not sure if 'mainstream' is really applicable here. 'Old inflation' refers to A. Guth's idea and there seems to be 'New inflation' which incorporates (I think) of 'eternal' and 'hybrid' inflation models. SUSY & LQG models have also been proposed as well.

Aug 09, 2019
The real answer to your query would be too Metaphysical for you to understand.
oh yeah? try me

Aug 09, 2019
Human knowledge about the origins of existence is negligible.
Human knowledge is nothing more than awareness of truth, which is hardly negligible ...

Aug 09, 2019
@zz, The Cosmic Landscape, 2005.
I read it around 2006/7, interesting book but very old and outdated now, also unprovable, so not really science.

Aug 09, 2019
Dude, General Relativity is a hundred years old.

And not old and outdated.

Aug 09, 2019
Not only that, but you claim it's "not really science." It's extensively sourced. Maybe you didn't realize that.

About one more contemptuous post like that and I hit the ignore button. I don't like trolls much.

Next time bring references. Good luck with that.

Aug 09, 2019
Dude, General Relativity is a hundred years old.

And not old and outdated.
I have a lot of respect for Leonard Susskind, but do not agree with him in that book. You can have observations and experiments for General Relativity.

Aug 09, 2019
and receipts!

Aug 09, 2019
Not only that, but you claim it's "not really science." It's extensively sourced. Maybe you didn't realize that.

About one more contemptuous post like that and I hit the ignore button. I don't like trolls much.

Next time bring references. Good luck with that.


"the Anthropic Principle (AP) cannot yield any falsifiable predictions, and therefore cannot be a part of science" - Lee Smolin

Scientific alternatives to the anthropic principle - https://arxiv.org.../0407213

Aug 09, 2019
While it is technically true that the proposed scalar field(s) particles are older than the rest of the Big Bang particles, it is not by much; the paper has to require that they are essentially massless during inflation and acquire mass after. Not unlike the "standard" inflation field Planck found, the flat potential during slow roll makes mass low, the difference is that inflation particles decay and heat the universe. That is the problem with this proposal, it is ad hoc yet adds subdominant fluctuations to the cosmic background spectra that thus far looks dominantly and exactly inflationary.

The difference to dark matter being part of the particle fields that are created during phase transitions to matter and no antimatter (the Sakharov conditions for having matter) is small yet seems crucial to me (not expert). The dark matter as part of particles - yet only massive, not electroweak as for late created particles - looks natural to me. The 5:1 mass-energy budget seems natural too.

Aug 09, 2019
I don't like Smolin much. He made a big deal over how string theory "wasn't even science" because it couldn't be tested, promoted his own prowess with loop quantum gravity, and hasn't made a testable prediction either.

And everyone knows it.

Aug 09, 2019
what do you think if ghosts, souls, heaven and even [popular magic figure]


Where have you been the last few years? First look up how particle physicist Brian Cox since 2017 notes that LHC has tested 'ghosts' (and so 'souls') by having to know all significant interactions for matter to know Higgs sufficiently - they don't exist. Then note that Planck 2018 secured (two independent ways) that the universe is 100 % mechanical - magic and magic figures don't exist.

When does a jet engine work with dark matter?


Never, likely. If dark matter is only interacting through gravity, we can't easily control it.

Aug 09, 2019
I don't like Smolin much. He made a big deal over how string theory "wasn't even science" because it couldn't be tested, promoted his own prowess with loop quantum gravity, and hasn't made a testable prediction either.

And everyone knows it.
I really don't care if you like him or not, it's completely off topic. You asked for a reference and you had one immediately.

Aug 09, 2019
The headline says " before the big bang" yet in this article it says "the study shows that dark matter may have been produced before the Big Bang during an era known as the cosmic inflation when space was expanding very rapidly.


Two used senses of "big bang" [ https://medium.co...194f5cd9 ]:

- The 'singularity' is an unphysical proposal, after inflationary cosmology was discovered also unlikely.

- The Hot Big Bang is the usual sense in inflationary, standard cosmology.

The universe (according to Susskind, Verlinde, and several other eminent physicists and cosmologists) started with a vacuum fluctuation which had, by chance, the right value of cosmological constant to inflate to enormous size.


Possibly, but arguable. Planck sees eternal inflation of indeterminate age, most likely eternal.

Aug 09, 2019
I really don't care if you like him or not, it's completely off topic. You asked for a reference and you had one immediately.
But your complaint about my reference doesn't include someone doing self-aggrandizement. You're obviously a disciple of Smolin, and obviously unable to actually talk about the subject at hand.

Sorry, bye troll.

Aug 09, 2019
The Universe may be older than the Big Bang.


That is the standard cosmology observation since about 2004 - WMAP nailed inflation before Hot Big Bang - though I think it took Planck to convince the majority of cosmologists.

Aug 09, 2019
@torbjorn, what evidence do you care to present about the Planck measurements and eternal inflation?

You appear to be claiming that Planck data supports eternal inflation; what exactly is eternal inflation and how does it differ from what I described?

Aug 09, 2019
the big bang had to happen everywhere at once, this can only happen if space had not inflated to any size (singularity).


You make a claim against evidence. In the same way that we see the universe made stars at the same time in volumes that never had casual connection we see that the cosmic background radiation is isotropic since Hot Big Bang happened everywhere at the same time. It was *precisely* how we discovered inflation that makes it so!

I mean, it is in the encyclopedia now, just read the figure and its text here:

"The plot illustrates how the perturbation mode grows larger than the horizon during cosmological inflation before coming back inside the horizon, which grows rapidly during radiation domination.

- tbctd -

Aug 09, 2019
- ctd -

If cosmological inflation had never happened, and radiation domination continued back until a gravitational singularity, then the mode would never have been inside the horizon in the very early universe, and no causal mechanism could have ensured that the universe was homogeneous on the scale of the perturbation mode."

[ https://en.wikipe...smology) ]

Aug 09, 2019
Da Schneib, that is a long history.

But to start simple, Planck 2018 showed by the size and - independently - by the orientation of the cosmic background thermal fluctuation area sizes that LCDM works, and had for the first time been able to characterize and deduct the dust noise correctly. The result looks robust (give or take the local Hubble rate measurements).

And LCDM includes inflation of course. By combining the Planck measurements with terrestrial radio telescopes they could, for the first time observe a slow roll inflation field with natural exit. (I.e. the field potential looks like the Higgs field potential, just a U1 instead of SU2 field.) [ https://arxiv.org...07.06209 ]

Okay, so what does that mumbo-jumbo means?

- tbctd -

Aug 09, 2019
- ctd -

It means that slow roll inflation is of indefinite length, potentially eternal. Here is an article which describes why: https://www.forbe...db1116c9 . Look at the figure with the text "... inflation will continue, arbitrarily far into the future."

It is arguable that inflation needs an initial condition, and so did not have continued from "arbitrarily far into the past". Guth claims it has to (but personally I checked and don't agree with his analysis - yeah, I know, not an expert, what do I know, but it is an easy "but" on statistics ground). Linde and Susskind has articles that claims the opposite.

It is an open question, I think. Most cosmologists would pick "not eternal" I think. But the field has a history of wanting "a singularity" since it was hoped it would set the universe parameters uniquely - a "Theory Of Everything", for one. Most simple and likely in ratio test: eternal.

Aug 09, 2019
@torbjorn, what a pleasure to talk with someone who doesn't have an ideological axe to grind.

What Susskind (et al) think is that there is an underlying "multiverse" that is eternal and whose only discernible characteristic is to support vacuum fluctuations. As is usual with vacuum fluctuations, these have varying parameters, particularly their value of cosmological constant. As a result, many "universes" are created with these varying values. Some last only an instant as their CC doesn't support inflation; others have values that make them inflate, but that doesn't mean they have the same laws of physics as we see. There are many different possible values of the CC, and all of them are realized; whether they make a "universe" like ours that has physical laws, or whether they last long enough to mean anything. depends on the values in the original fluctuation, which are random.

[contd]

Aug 09, 2019
[contd]
Now, this implies that these "multiverse bubbles" we call "universes" are at least very large in number, if not infinite. With no underlying time dimension in this "multiverse," I would call that as close to infinite as we are ever going to get. And as close to eternal.

So I see no problem with slow-roll inflation; it just happens all over the "multiverse" instead of just in our singular "universe."

Possibly, Susskind et al. have missed a bet by not considering Everett/Many Worlds, but I'd need to see some real evidence to convince me of that since I like consistent histories.

Aug 09, 2019
It's becoming common for physicists and cosmologists to define everything that happened after inflation as being the actual starting point of our Universe(aka the "Big Bang") and during inflation as being before the Universe(and Big Bang) begins.


Not what I can see.

And mind that, like big bang, there are several senses of universe. The observed universe, the observable universe (the one observed as time goes to infinity), the local universe in multiverse theories since eternal inflation likely is ongoing and dominates the multiverse, the multiverse with (most likely) infinitely many local universes.

The two latter senses are arguable, of course, but the hot big bangs pertains to the local universes in those theories.

Aug 09, 2019
Da Schneib, likewise!

The vacuum fluctuation scenario is differen though. It is the cosmology of Boltzmann. Eternal inflation has the field exponentially occupy the entire universe, with the fluctuations helping preserve the eternal process during slow roll (that figure I pointed to) as well as prematurely pushing local universes out of iinflation. The remaining later vacuum fluctuations in the inflation field is the ones that seed structure formation and show up in the cosmic background spectra.

To confuse things even more, the "vacuum fluctuation starts inflation" model is a Boltzmann type universe but without anything much - a pre-universe if you will. The late Hawking and Sean Carroll makes much hay of it. Again, not the likeliest in a statistical ratio test where you promote less, not more, constraint ("assumptions"). But they are of course possible too.

Aug 09, 2019
- ctd -

Re consistent histories (oh noes, a side track!), it is at least useful if I understand correctly that it promotes the pointer state formalism? There was a paper mentioned on Phys.org the other day that used it - it works.

But unless it is very different from other possible quantum mechanics models it *should* work. So, ho hum - I prefer quantum fields, they are even more useful. ;-)

Aug 09, 2019
@torbjorn, no problem, then, we're of similar opinions. I merely mentioned CH to contrast it with MW, and you should look them both up.

Aug 09, 2019
And into the Ark they went - One plus one plus proton a time
Benni> ....in each case the atom becomes a different element because it has a different number of protons.

According to the periodic table
https://www.chemi...able.png
A proton
Forms an element
One proton plus one proton a proton an element a time
For it matters not how many neutrons an element has
When elemental helium gains one proton, lithium forms

The question is not when a proton transforms to neutron
As an element can have any number of neutrons
The question is when an element changes its number of protons
For it matters not how an element changes its number of protons
For when a neutron decays to a proton an element is plus one proton
Conversely
When a proton decays to a neutron an element is minus one proton
For in the wild of this vacuum
An elemental atom changes its elemental atomic status
To another one elemental atom
One atom a time in this infinite vacuum

Aug 09, 2019
.........no it isn't trivially false, a proton cannot transform to a neutron because there is not enough mass present in a proton to support the mass of a neutron.......and THAT is NOT trivial, it's only trivial to acolytes of Pop-Cosmology such as yourself & whatever was on your link.


Yep, trivially false. And not a single scientist would disagree with me, nor support your unscientific gibberish. In particular, those that designed the PET scanner. And the winners of the Nobel Prize in 1935. Still, they are faced with a janitor who doesn't even know what a half-life is, so it could be a close call! Not.

Aug 09, 2019
also unprovable, so not really science.


Everything is "unprovable". However, in science it must be testable, and string theory arguably is.

Many vocally argues it is not science, the majority seems uninterested. We just don't know yet (and that is okay).

the Anthropic Principle (AP) cannot yield any falsifiable predictions
.
I really don't care if you like him or not, it's completely off topic.


Please - Smolin is fringe, it is not "off topic" as regards science. The loop quantum gravity Da Schneib mentions on Smoli is "not even dynamics". I.e. it can be rejected on the grounds that you cannot form harmonic oscillators in it (so no clocks and no quantum fields - it is not the world we see) yet Smolin et al continues to propose research on it.

In reality, several cosmologists have proposed tests. I cannot find the reference I am most excited about right now, but here is one article with several tests [ https://academic..../1040529 ].

Aug 09, 2019
For it matters not how many neutrons an element has
Sure it does, they're called isotopes ...

Aug 09, 2019
also unprovable, so not really science.


Everything is "unprovable". However, in science it must be testable, and string theory arguably is.

Many vocally argues it is not science, the majority seems uninterested. We just don't know yet (and that is okay).
Folks are impatient. Mostly folks who don't know much math. It really makes them uncomfortable, I guess. First thing you learn, you always gotta wait unless you do it yourself.

Aug 09, 2019
Maybe the truth is that there is not dark matter, electro-magnetic interactions actually drives galaxy rotation and we've been paying alot of people a salary for no good reason.

Aug 09, 2019
Maybe the truth is that there is not dark matter, electro-magnetic interactions actually drives galaxy rotation and we've been paying alot of people a salary for no good reason.


Which EM interactions? Tell me how they are moving a star around at the same velocity as a proton? Perhaps if you link to where this has been written up, we may get a better idea of what you are talking about.

Aug 09, 2019
no it isn't trivially false, a proton cannot transform to a neutron because there is not enough mass present in a proton to support the mass of a neutron.......and THAT is NOT trivial, it's only trivial to acolytes of Pop-Cosmology such as yourself & whatever was on your link.


How can anyone take you seriously, when you have such poor communication skills? You can't type out a sentence without randomly capitalizing words. Why is this? You and the clown SEU both seem to suffer from the same affliction in that regard. Also, you'd do well to expand your vocabulary beyond the same few words such as immutable and pop cosmology. Or do you prefer to come off as a troglodyte?

Aug 09, 2019
I thought that the idea of 'time' started with the big bang? How can anything have existed beforehand?
Martinchen

Its true its just nonsense for something to exist 'before' the big bang if time started at the big bang.
But by far it isn't scientifically universally agreed among scientists that time DID start at the big bang. Some think the physics says it did while others think physics says it didn't and this is an ongoing controversy that shows no sign of resolution any time soon. We really need some very significant and new evidence to resolve this.


@Humy

I thought it was impossible to un-link space and time, so saying time started as a separate entity it incorrect, isn't it?


Aug 09, 2019
I can give more detail, and refer you to a book by Susskind if you like.


Thank you for your perspective.
So you don't wanna read the book?


I'd be interested, if no one else is.


Goes for me too @DaSchneib. Sorry didn't read far enough ahead in comments. Thanks

Aug 09, 2019

@Humy

I thought it was impossible to un-link space and time, so saying time started as a separate entity it incorrect, isn't it?

I don't quite follow; why a "separate" entity? I thought the old (controversial and scientifically disputed) theory was that space and time always existed together right from the start i.e. space and time (in the form of space-time) BOTH began at the big bang so at no point was one divorced from the other?

Aug 09, 2019
Nothing matters all you idiots are wasting your damn time moving your fingers back and forth and trying to impress each other about nothing

Aug 09, 2019
Buncha monkeys humping a giant bowling ball hurling thru space

Aug 09, 2019
You will never understand the nature of the universe without understanding the ether. You can make up particles and ascribe properties to privations(space) all you want. Everything is about pressure mediation of the ether modalities.

Aug 09, 2019
Nothing matters all you idiots are wasting your damn time moving


Die already.Thank you.

Aug 09, 2019
The real answer to your query would be too Metaphysical for you to understand.
oh yeah? try me
says Protoplasmix

First, answer this. Do you believe in the existence and power of the Creator God?

Aug 09, 2019
Goes for me too @DaSchneib. Sorry didn't read far enough ahead in comments. Thanks
I posted it above for @zz; if you didn't see it LMK and I'll post it again.

Aug 09, 2019
what do you think if ghosts, souls, heaven and even [popular magic figure]


Where have you been the last few years? First look up how particle physicist Brian Cox since 2017 notes that LHC has tested 'ghosts' (and so 'souls') by having to know all significant interactions for matter to know Higgs sufficiently - they don't exist. Then note that Planck 2018 secured (two independent ways) that the universe is 100 % mechanical - magic and magic figures don't exist
says Torbjorn the god-hating Swedish atheist

Ghosts and Souls are unphysical, immaterial entities that exist in a different plane but still within the current physical Universe. Being immaterial, they/we are not made of Matter/Energy as physical objects and Life Forms are made of.
Particle Physics is the study of Matter and Energy and their functions. As Ghosts (Spirits) and Souls are not made of particles, they are not detected by the majority of human eyes or instruments. The Universe IS mechanical.


Aug 09, 2019
Being immaterial, they/we are not made of Matter/Energy as physical objects and Life Forms are made of.

(: So what exactly are they/you made of?

Aug 09, 2019
Are you all a bunch of wimps?

Aug 09, 2019
no it isn't trivially false, a proton cannot transform to a neutron because there is not enough mass present in a proton to support the mass of a neutron.......and THAT is NOT trivial, it's only trivial to acolytes of Pop-Cosmology such as yourself & whatever was on your link.


How can anyone take you seriously, when you have such poor communication skills? You can't type out a sentence without randomly capitalizing words. Why is this? You and the clown SEU both seem to suffer from the same affliction in that regard. Also, you'd do well to expand your vocabulary beyond the same few words such as immutable and pop cosmology. Or do you prefer to come off as a troglodyte?
says Bojingles

Exactly WHAT IS IT that you have against the CAPITALISING OF LETTERS that is done to get a salient point across to someone of your weak-minded calibre? WHEN did YOU become the Miss
Schoolmarm of Physorg and did you come armed with a thesaurus and your dictionary? Learn to relax.

Aug 09, 2019
Being immaterial, they/we are not made of Matter/Energy as physical objects and Life Forms are made of.

(: So what exactly are they/you made of?
says Kron, excitedly

Well Kron, I have already explained above what we are NOT made of. So, in order for you to ever be wiling to accept that which you don't understand, it will be better if you have patience and wait until the moment comes when you WILL be able to see us. You will then know, I promise.

Aug 09, 2019
Are you all a bunch of wimps?


Yes. In particular, Schneib's habit of wimping out is legendary.

Aug 09, 2019
Being immaterial, they/we are not made of Matter/Energy as physical objects and Life Forms are made of.

(: So what exactly are they/you made of?


The substance can be found on many farms. Often close to creatures of the bovine persuasion.

Aug 09, 2019
Maybe the truth is that there is not dark matter, electro-magnetic interactions actually drives galaxy rotation and we've been paying alot of people a salary for no good reason.
says mkingmlw

That is correct. There is no such thing as Dark Matter. But it does make for a good part of the title of any physorg article. Anytime that an article is submitted with the words, "Dark Matter" in it, all of the believers in Dark Matter come flocking like ducks to read the article and then comment, hoping that one day they will find the confirmation of DM that they've all been hoping and praying for. They hope and pray for nought, since Dark Matter has never been found or confirmed as to its existence. Just wishing and hoping and planning and scheming will not make it so.
Time is also nonexistent, but that is a different topic.

Aug 09, 2019

Time is also nonexistent, but that is a different topic.


Lol. Uneducated imbecile.

Aug 09, 2019
Being immaterial, they/we are not made of Matter/Energy as physical objects and Life Forms are made of.

(: So what exactly are they/you made of?


The substance can be found on many farms. Often close to creatures of the bovine persuasion.
says Castrovagina

Yes, we know that you have a fondness for laying on the dirt in which farm animals have walked on previously. Which is why we can smell your stench throughout the inter web. It precedes you everywhere you go. Even the Maori folks can smell it on you.

Aug 09, 2019

Time is also nonexistent, but that is a different topic.


Lol. Uneducated imbecile.
says Castro the unmarried bachelor Mop and bucket man

LOL I have proven the nonexistence of 'time'. When have YOU proven the opposite?

Aug 09, 2019
Being immaterial, they/we are not made of Matter/Energy as physical objects and Life Forms are made of.

(: So what exactly are they/you made of?


The substance can be found on many farms. Often close to creatures of the bovine persuasion.
says Castrovagina

Yes, we know that you have a fondness for laying on the dirt in which farm animals have walked on previously. Which is why we can smell your stench throughout the inter web. It precedes you everywhere you go. Even the Maori folks can smell it on you.


Give up you retarded loon. Go take your meds. Have a lie down. On a motorway.

Aug 09, 2019
How can anyone take you seriously, when you have such poor communication skills? You can't type out a sentence without randomly capitalizing words. Why is this? You and the clown SEU both seem to suffer from the same affliction in that regard. Also, you'd do well to expand your vocabulary beyond the same few words such as immutable and pop cosmology.
......don't like the finesse in my communication skills I see.

My digs have brevity & make effective points without the use of all the foul mouthed rants you so frequently put up.

Or do you prefer to come off as a troglodyte?
I'm presuming everyone living within the fantasy culture of Pop-Cosmology cares about this?

Aug 09, 2019

Time is also nonexistent, but that is a different topic.


Lol. Uneducated imbecile.
says Castro the unmarried bachelor Mop and bucket man

LOL I have proven the nonexistence of 'time'. When have YOU proven the opposite?


You have proven nothing, you idiot. You don't understand the first thing about science. I have proved otherwise. Time dilation, remember? Predictable. And has been. Energy, remember, dickhead? Define a joule without time. Now sod off you demented retard.

Aug 09, 2019
My digs have brevity & make effective points without the use of all the foul mouthed rants you so frequently put up.


Nope, you are a scientifically illiterate poser with clue zero about any sort of science.

Aug 09, 2019
Being immaterial, they/we are not made of Matter/Energy as physical objects and Life Forms are made of.

(: So what exactly are they/you made of?


The substance can be found on many farms. Often close to creatures of the bovine persuasion.
says Castrovagina

Yes, we know that you have a fondness for laying on the dirt in which farm animals have walked on previously. Which is why we can smell your stench throughout the inter web. It precedes you everywhere you go. Even the Maori folks can smell it on you.


Give up you retarded loon. Go take your meds. Have a lie down. On a motorway.
says Mop man

Retarded? I have asked you several times, "what is 'time' made of?", which you have refused to answer. Now THAT's retarded when you can't even offer a GUESS as to what it's made of.
A motorway? Are you crazy? Oh yes, of course you are. YOU don't even know what 'time' is made of, and yet you expect everyone to believe that it exists.

Aug 09, 2019

Time is also nonexistent, but that is a different topic.


Lol. Uneducated imbecile.
says Castro the unmarried bachelor Mop and bucket man

LOL I have proven the nonexistence of 'time'. When have YOU proven the opposite?


You have proven nothing, you idiot. You don't understand the first thing about science. I have proved otherwise. Time dilation, remember? Predictable. And has been. Energy, remember, dickhead? Define a joule without time. Now sod off you demented retard.


YOU have NEVER proven that 'time' exists, and you have NEVER explained how an intangible 'time' can DILATE ANYTHING. IT IS SPACE THAT DILATES, not 'time'. Your 'time' has no physical capabilities, and I have already explained why and how. Spacetime was only the product of Hermann Minkowski's delusion to create a 4th Dimension of Space and time. He also NEVER could explain how 'time' could accomplish a physical function such as dilation.

Aug 09, 2019
Retarded? I have asked you several times, "what is 'time' made of?", which you have refused to answer. Now THAT's retarded when you can't even offer a GUESS as to what it's made of.
A motorway? Are you crazy? Oh yes, of course you are. YOU don't even know what 'time' is made of, and yet you expect everyone to believe that it exists.


Yep, retarded. An imbecile. An uneducated tosser. How can we predict time dilation? Hmmmm? Look at the equations, dumbo. Explain it. What is energy, thicko? Define a joule. Get on with it, you freak.

Aug 09, 2019
Retarded? I have asked you several times, "what is 'time' made of?", which you have refused to answer. Now THAT's retarded when you can't even offer a GUESS as to what it's made of.
A motorway? Are you crazy? Oh yes, of course you are. YOU don't even know what 'time' is made of, and yet you expect everyone to believe that it exists.


Yep, retarded. An imbecile. An uneducated tosser. How can we predict time dilation? Hmmmm? Look at the equations, dumbo. Explain it. What is energy, thicko? Define a joule. Get on with it, you freak.


Equations don't mean squat. There has never been a verifiable confirmation that 'time' has any such capabilities. It is ALL a HOAX. A BIG GIGANTIC HOAX which has been taught to young folks who have no way of fighting back, otherwise get a failing grade if they don't comply with the hoax.
And YOU are in on the hoax, and you have NO IDEA what 'time' is made of. Give us the answer to that.

Aug 09, 2019
YOU have NEVER proven that 'time' exists, and you have NEVER explained how an intangible 'time' can DILATE ANYTHING. IT IS SPACE THAT DILATES, not 'time'. Your 'time' has no physical capabilities, and I have already explained why and how. Spacetime was only the product of Hermann Minkowski's delusion to create a 4th Dimension of Space and time. He also NEVER could explain how 'time' could accomplish a physical function such as dilation.


Says a complete retard who thinks he is an alien lizard! Lol.

Aug 09, 2019

Equations don't mean squat. There has never been a verifiable confirmation that 'time' has any such capabilities. It is ALL a HOAX. A BIG GIGANTIC HOAX which has been taught to young folks who have no way of fighting back, otherwise get a failing grade if they don't comply with the hoax.
And YOU are in on the hoax, and you have NO IDEA what 'time' is made of. Give us the answer to that.


Lol. Typical nutjob! It's all a hoax, because you are too dumb to understand equations! Pathetic lizard boy. Like I said - go take your meds, you clown.

Aug 09, 2019
YOU have NEVER proven that 'time' exists, and you have NEVER explained how an intangible 'time' can DILATE ANYTHING. IT IS SPACE THAT DILATES, not 'time'. Your 'time' has no physical capabilities, and I have already explained why and how. Spacetime was only the product of Hermann Minkowski's delusion to create a 4th Dimension of Space and time. He also NEVER could explain how 'time' could accomplish a physical function such as dilation.


Says a complete retard who thinks he is an alien lizard! Lol.


Yes, further proof that you can't give the answer to 'what is time made of'. You resort to silly crap like the above.
NOW TELL US WHAT IS 'TIME' MADE OF, YOU PHONY.

EQUATIONS are supposed to SUPPORT FACTS. There is NOTHING to support 'time'.

Aug 09, 2019
Yes, further proof that you can't give the answer to 'what is time made of'. You resort to silly crap like the above.
NOW TELL US WHAT IS 'TIME' MADE OF, YOU PHONY.

EQUATIONS are supposed to SUPPORT FACTS. There is NOTHING to support 'time'.


Equations do support facts, dickhead. They predicted the observed facts. Now sod off you useless, uneducated cretin.

Aug 09, 2019
Yes, further proof that you can't give the answer to 'what is time made of'. You resort to silly crap like the above.
NOW TELL US WHAT IS 'TIME' MADE OF, YOU PHONY.

EQUATIONS are supposed to SUPPORT FACTS. There is NOTHING to support 'time'.


Equations do support facts, dickhead. They predicted the observed facts. Now sod off you useless, uneducated cretin.


The only observed facts have to do with the atomic clocks that have to be amended/adjusted according to altitude, velocity, direction, etc., as well as GPS. And you have already been TOLD that it is the MECHANISMS of those clocks that need adjusting. Time is NOT hiding inside those clocks. And 'time' is nowhere to be found. Only clocks are the instruments that measure duration of events/actions/distance, etc.
There is NO SUCH THING AS TIME, as it is only the invention of the human mind. You have already been told these things, and all you can do is to ignore what you have been told

Aug 09, 2019
Time is the 4th dimension. I'll give you an answer on what it is made of when you tell me what the other 3 dimensions are made of...and also what you're made of.. :)

Aug 09, 2019


The only observed facts have to do with the atomic clocks that have to be amended/adjusted according to altitude, velocity, direction, etc., as well as GPS. And you have already been TOLD that it is the MECHANISMS of those clocks that need adjusting. Time is NOT hiding inside those clocks. And 'time' is nowhere to be found. Only clocks are the instruments that measure duration of events/actions/distance, etc.
There is NO SUCH THING AS TIME, as it is only the invention of the human mind. You have already been told these things, and all you can do is to ignore what you have been told


Trivially wrong. Show me how the equations describe what happens with atomic clocks long before they were invented. Which part of the equations do that? Show us, fruitloop.

Aug 09, 2019
Even Whyde has agreed with me when I said that rotation of the Earth, sunrise to sunrise, is the ORIGINAL timekeeper. Humans set their body clock by the 24 hour cycle. The EARTH IS A CLOCK. And so is every other planet, that keeps its rotation for whatever amount of hours it take for a full cycle. Ask Whyde. He can explain it.

Aug 09, 2019
Time is the 4th dimension. I'll give you an answer on what it is made of when you tell me what the other 3 dimensions are made of...and also what you're made of.. :)

Aug 09, 2019
Even Whyde has agreed with me when I said that rotation of the Earth, sunrise to sunrise, is the ORIGINAL timekeeper. Humans set their body clock by the 24 hour cycle. The EARTH IS A CLOCK. And so is every other planet, that keeps its rotation for whatever amount of hours it take for a full cycle. Ask Whyde. He can explain it.


Irrelevant. Explain how equations can describe what happens to atomic clocks long before they were invented. Get on with it dumbo.

Aug 09, 2019
Time is the 4th dimension. I'll give you an answer on what it is made of when you tell me what the other 3 dimensions are made of...and also what you're made of.. :)


ROFLMAO
One dimensional = stick figure on a flat sheet of paper.
Two dimensional = a 4 sided stick figure on a flat sheet of paper; a painting on canvas
Three dimensional = You, the Earth, the Stars, a ham and cheese sandwich

Aug 09, 2019
Even Whyde has agreed with me when I said that rotation of the Earth, sunrise to sunrise, is the ORIGINAL timekeeper. Humans set their body clock by the 24 hour cycle. The EARTH IS A CLOCK. And so is every other planet, that keeps its rotation for whatever amount of hours it take for a full cycle. Ask Whyde. He can explain it.


Irrelevant. Explain how equations can describe what happens to atomic clocks long before they were invented. Get on with it dumbo.


Get on with it yourself, dummy.
ANSWER THE QUESTION: WHAT IS 'TIME' MADE OF? And stop obfuscating and deflecting.
Everyone that reads these comments can SEE that you are nothing but a big phony and you have no idea of what is 'time' or what it is made of.
And your comebacks are weak and senseless.

Aug 09, 2019
This doesn't explain what dimension 1, 2, or 3 is made of... Try again.

Aug 09, 2019
This doesn't explain what dimension 1, 2, or 3 is made of... Try again.
says Kron

Well, if YOU know that answer, then why don't YOU tell us.
Actually, the first 3 are SPATIAL dimensions that are likely surrounded by Space itself. You know, that Space that is capable of bending, folding, supporting planets and Stars, and a lot more.

Aug 09, 2019
Uh Kron, what have you done with Castrodavingo? He was in here awhile ago. Is he looking up what 'time' is made of? Or did you tie him up, blindfold him and thrown him in your boot? Be sure to stop for a pint or two on your way to take him to the dump.

Aug 09, 2019



Get on with it yourself, dummy.
ANSWER THE QUESTION: WHAT IS 'TIME' MADE OF? And stop obfuscating and deflecting.
Everyone that reads these comments can SEE that you are nothing but a big phony and you have no idea of what is 'time' or what it is made of.
And your comebacks are weak and senseless.


Lol. I'm not the retard claiming to be an alien lizard. Or that time and energy don't exist! You are a total cretin.

Aug 09, 2019
"The beauty of satellite clock measurements is that they combine the satellite clock's inertial orbital velocity and its gravitational escape surface velocity to form the single vector of absolute motion for the Lorentz transformation of the clock's mass and time. Thus, there is no need for metaphysical assumptions and undetectable parameters such as the potentials of a gravitational field or the invention of a four-dimensional spacetime continuum. Changes in satellite clock rates are the result of the Lorentz transformations in mass. As a clock's mass and momentum is increased, it rate slows due to the conservation of angular momentum."

Aug 09, 2019
"The beauty of satellite clock measurements is that they combine the satellite clock's inertial orbital velocity and its gravitational escape surface velocity to form the single vector of absolute motion for the Lorentz transformation of the clock's mass and time. Thus, there is no need for metaphysical assumptions and undetectable parameters such as the potentials of a gravitational field or the invention of a four-dimensional spacetime continuum. Changes in satellite clock rates are the result of the Lorentz transformations in mass. As a clock's mass and momentum is increased, it rate slows due to the conservation of angular momentum."


And who wrote that pile of fail?

Aug 09, 2019
ENERGY EXISTS. 'TIME' DOES NOT EXIST. It is your buddy, Schneib who first claimed that I was an 'alien lizard'. I have no idea why he decided that I was a Lizard. I have never given any indication of being a lizard; a brown bear, perhaps. Or a dire wolf.

Aug 09, 2019
ENERGY EXISTS. 'TIME' DOES NOT EXIST..


So you'll have no problem defining the SI unit of energy - the joule. Get to it.

Aug 09, 2019
The entire Solar system is moving at about 600 km/s toward the constellation Crater, near Leo and Virgo, relative to the CMB. That's not mentioning Earth's orbit around the Sun, nor its rotation, nor the Solar System's orbit around the galaxy, all of which are negligible compared to that 600 km/s toward Crater.

Anyone who thinks the Earth's surface is an absolute frame is either an idiot or a lunatic.

Note also that the speed of the movement is 600 km/s, which includes seconds, a unit of time.


Aug 09, 2019


And who wrote that pile of fail?


Forget it. It was another crank;

https://en.wikipe...ientist)

Aug 10, 2019
The entire Solar system is moving at about 600 km/s toward the constellation Crater, near Leo and Virgo, relative to the CMB. That's not mentioning Earth's orbit around the Sun, nor its rotation, nor the Solar System's orbit around the galaxy, all of which are negligible compared to that 600 km/s toward Crater.

Anyone who thinks the Earth's surface is an absolute frame is either an idiot or a lunatic.

Note also that the speed of the movement is 600 km/s, which includes seconds, a unit of time.



And you should have known by now that hours, minutes, seconds, etc are all increments of the 24 hour clock; where that 24 hour clock is BASED ON the 24 hour sunrise to sunrise rotation cycle of Earth at sea level, in particular.
The velocity of the Solar System and where it is headed towards is irrelevant with regard to the Earth's rotation and its effects on the duration of events and actions that are measurable by the 24 hour clock at sea level. This is base measurement

Aug 10, 2019
Dark Matter could easily be supersolid, very much like a huge entropic wheel of zombie-like swiss cheese on the internet.

Aug 10, 2019
-conrd-
And as I've already discussed with Whyde, each planet is ITS OWN CLOCK whose planetary rotation cycle gives the planet its own incremental day/night cycle of hours, minutes and seconds that is also bound by its sunrise to sunrise cycle as the planet rotates. If the planet is Jupiter with a sunrise to sunrise rotation cycle of 10 hours, then Jupiter's clock will be based on 10 hours and its clocks adjusted accordingly.

Aug 10, 2019
I see no possible reason to respond to a scientologist psychotic who claims to be a mind-reading alien lizard-boi.

https://www.youtu...bv2ZKOto

Aug 10, 2019
A Scientific study by the BBC's Horizon Channel

Time, a mathematical concept
Where the mathematics theorizes
Time is a mathematical concept
Therefore, as a mathematical concept
Time does not exist except in the mathematics

p.s. we appear to have stick in the mud's, stuck in the ways of old men unable to accept that the passage of time as we age is simply in the mind fore time does not actually exist

Aug 10, 2019
-conrd-
And as I've already discussed with Whyde, each planet is ITS OWN CLOCK whose planetary rotation cycle gives the planet its own incremental day/night cycle of hours, minutes and seconds that is also bound by its sunrise to sunrise cycle as the planet rotates. If the planet is Jupiter with a sunrise to sunrise rotation cycle of 10 hours, then Jupiter's clock will be based on 10 hours and its clocks adjusted accordingly.


Which has absolutely nothing to do with predicted and measured time dilation. Zilch.

Aug 10, 2019
-conrd-
And as I've already discussed with Whyde, each planet is ITS OWN CLOCK whose planetary rotation cycle gives the planet its own incremental day/night cycle of hours, minutes and seconds that is also bound by its sunrise to sunrise cycle as the planet rotates. If the planet is Jupiter with a sunrise to sunrise rotation cycle of 10 hours, then Jupiter's clock will be based on 10 hours and its clocks adjusted accordingly.


Which has absolutely nothing to do with predicted and measured time dilation. Zilch.
says Castrobazinga

Your profound ignorance of science fact regarding the falsification of 'time' is understandable, since you had been heavily indoctrinated into believing the absurdity of something as intangible and imperceptible as the fully supported LIE that has never been proven, except by equally well-indoctrinated scientists who write papers containing math equations that prove nothing regarding the existence of 'time'.
-contd-

Aug 10, 2019
-contd-
All of the science textbooks, papers written and approved by "scientists" who DARE NOT reveal the truth of the nonexistence of 'time', else they will be harassed and possibly lose funding for their other pet projects. They don't see that bucking the system regarding the hoax of the existence of a 'time' as a major important move, if there is any possibility that their careers could be jeopardised or destroyed and their source of revenue discontinued.
But they will leave the heavy work to others who may be far more fortunate financially and who may be more supportive of the obverse aspects of mainstream science regarding the misbegotten faerie dust of Hermann Minkowski's baby.
That Einstein was put upon by Minkowski to repeat Mink's idiocy in Albert's math, and once included, could no longer be removed as the halls of science worldwide was hungry for such mathematical mumbo-jumbo for the purpose of writing NEW papers that included a CONCEPT that was untried and unknown.

Aug 10, 2019
So I searched the interweb for the proof of the existence of 'time' and here it is in the Scientific American 2014 issue. Notice that nowhere is there any mention of Gravitational pull on the Mass of the clocks, or the effects of Gravity on the jumping electrons of the Atomic Clocks. Their premise is that it is 'time' that is responsible for the slowing down or running faster, without mentioning the Earth's gravity's effect on Mass.

https://www.scien...erified/

Aug 10, 2019
^^^^^ This guy is mentally retarded! Lol.

Aug 10, 2019
-conrd-
And as I've already discussed with Whyde, each planet is ITS OWN CLOCK whose planetary rotation cycle gives the planet its own incremental day/night cycle of hours, minutes and seconds that is also bound by its sunrise to sunrise cycle as the planet rotates. If the planet is Jupiter with a sunrise to sunrise rotation cycle of 10 hours, then Jupiter's clock will be based on 10 hours and its clocks adjusted accordingly.


Which has absolutely nothing to do with predicted and measured time dilation. Zilch.
...."time dilation" happens because that's what clocks do at RELATIVISTIC SPEED, something you know nothing about because you do not understand Lorentz Contraction.

Aug 10, 2019
...."time dilation" happens because that's what clocks do at RELATIVISTIC SPEED, something you know nothing about because you do not understand Lorentz Contraction.


I know far more about it than a scientifically illiterate janitor who doesn't even understand radioactive decay, or what a half-life is! Back to the mopping, D-K boy.

Aug 11, 2019
...."time dilation" happens because that's what clocks do at RELATIVISTIC SPEED, something you know nothing about because you do not understand Lorentz Contraction.


I know far more about it than a scientifically illiterate janitor who doesn't even understand radioactive decay, or what a half-life is! Back to the mopping, D-K boy.


Stop talking to your father that way. Have you no respect? Now that you have been released from Reform School after shoplifting you THINK that you can treat your old man any old way? Shame on you, and get back to emptying out the cesspool. Do try not to fall in this time, stinky.

Aug 11, 2019
The term "TIME DILATION" is and was MISNAMED due to the CLOCKS (representative of the concept of 'time') that were used in the experiments involving 2 Atomic Clocks; one at sea level and one at Altitude. The higher the Altitude of the second Atomic Clock away from sea level, the faster the ticking of the Atomic clock. This is also true of GPS, which is also an Atomic Clock that has to be adjusted to compensate for the increments of the GPS Clock at an Altitude (or Altitudes) higher than sea level.
At sea level, the Earth's gravitational pull is strongest, which makes the Atomic Clocks tick slower. But at Altitudes that are higher than sea level, Gravity gets weaker, making clocks tick faster.

And the scientists (who were obviously enamored of 'time' and Einstein's equations) decided to call this natural phenomenon with the title of "Time Dilation" without realising and then understanding that it was GRAVITY and its effects on Mass that was the culprit all along - NOT 'time'.

Aug 11, 2019
The MISNAMING of "TIME DILATION"

It appears (scientifically) that the manmade fantasy concept of 'time' has no place in the experimental testing of the two Atomic Clocks, where one was at sea level and one mainly at Altitude. Other factors and conditions such as Velocity and Flight Direction also influence the ticking of Atomic Clocks that contain a radioactive element such as Caesium with its jumping Electrons that are what causes the steady and correct ticking of the Clock. Although other conditions and factors necessitates certain adjustments to the mechanical structure of the working clock, it is basically the level of Altitude that the Earth's Gravity imposes differences in the ticking of the Atomic Clock.

Therefore, there is no such thing as 'time' affecting and influencing the faster or slower ticking of Atomic clocks. It is all a matter of the influence and force of GRAVITY on Mass. I recommend that the 'time dilation' be changed to _______ ________.


Aug 11, 2019
Albert's time dilation dilemma - Measuring time by the acceleration of gravity

A metre pendulum in Moonchines gravity
Due to acceleration of gravity
Takes longer to accelerate than the same metre pendulum
Placed in Earth's gravity
If we believe in Albert's time dilation
Using gravities acceleration on mass
To measure time
The metre second in Moonchines gravity
Is six times as long as the same metre second in Earth's gravity

For what to do with this conundrum
When it is not possible to measure
This gravitational acceleration on mass
As we move through the vacuum
Foreth
Whichever chronometer is used to measure the standard second
Gravity accelerates every atomic particle that occupies the vacuum
Which is why?
Caesium chronometers are used as gravitometers

Gravity affects all mass and all EM in the vacuum
Caesium chronometers consists of mass and EM
Nothing escapes the acceleration of gravity

To measure time in this vacuum
Gravitational acceleration hatheth to be eliminated

Aug 11, 2019
And the scientists (who were obviously enamored of 'time' and Einstein's equations) decided to call this natural phenomenon with the title of "Time Dilation" without realising and then understanding that it was GRAVITY and its effects on Mass that was the culprit all along - NOT 'time'.


Lol. Trivially false. Show us in the equations for time dilation where that could allow the time dilation to be predicted. You can't. Ergo, shut up, you clueless clown.

Aug 11, 2019
So I searched the interweb for the proof of the existence of 'time' and here it is in the Scientific American 2014 issue. Notice that nowhere is there any mention of Gravitational pull on the Mass of the clocks, or the effects of Gravity on the jumping electrons of the Atomic Clocks. Their premise is that it is 'time' that is responsible for the slowing down or running faster, without mentioning the Earth's gravity's effect on Mass.

https://www.scien...erified/


Lol! And the idiot links to an article that shows Einstein's time dilation to be correct! Dumb, or what? And this is about time dilation due to velocity, not gravity, you utter moron! If you want to see the combination of the correct predictions for both velocity and gravity induced time dilation, you only have to look at the GPS results from '77. Among numerous other proofs.
Give up, you uneducated poser. You are thick.

Aug 11, 2019
I recommend that the 'time dilation' be changed to _______ ________.


.........CLOCKTIME CONTRACTION.

it's the almost perfect description of Lorentz transformations which expresses the relativity concepts that space and time are not absolute; that length, time, and mass are dependent on the relative motion of the observer with regards to LENGTH CONTRACTION at relativistic speeds.

Because TIME measurement CONTRACTION precisely match that of LENGTH CONTRACTION in Lorentz Contraction, it can only be concluded the two are mechanically & inextricably bound to one another as being one in the same.

Aug 11, 2019
Lol! And the idiot links to an article that shows Einstein's time dilation to be correct! Dumb, or what?
The idiots are the ones who are interacting with that freak.

She's trolling you. Got a string around your balls making you twitch for shits and giggles.

Proud of yourself?

The only reasons to engage with that freak are to make fun of it and to warn others of its nature as the imbecile who has been posting here for years under a number of socks for the sole purpose of tricking YOU and others like you into responding.

Aug 11, 2019
Time and Length DILATE to the same degree

Lorentz transformation by Benni
It's the almost perfect description
Of Lorentz transformations
Expresses the relativity concepts
That space and time are not absolute
That length
Time
And mass
Are dependent on the relative motion
Of the observer with regards to LENGTH CONTRACTION
At relativistic speeds
TIME measurement CONTRACTION
Precisely match that of LENGTH CONTRACTION

Foreth
After rescuing Albert from these witches of this five star Aether club
Albert needs to get a grip, as this is not dilation
Because we're discussing contraction
To Contract in the Cambridge English Dictionary - the fact of something becoming smaller or shorter
To DILATE in the Cambridge English Dictionary - the state of being larger or more open than usual

If you shorten length and time by the same degree - the speed of light quadruples
Because
The speed of light is unchanging and absolute for it cross a shorter distance A to B in shorter seconds

Aug 11, 2019
East Kent University - Commonsense Ruins Physics

If you shorten length and time by the same degree - the speed of light quadruples
The speed of light is unchanging and absolute
For it cross a shorter distance A to B in shorter seconds
This shorter distance A to B
Has shortened according to contraction formulation
As it has no bearing on the speed of light
Foreth
The time and distance light travels and takes to travel remains unchanged
Because the speed of light is constant in the vacuum

Contracting the distance of Andromeda to one million light years and consequently contracting 1 second to half a second
A PHOTON crosses half the distance in half the time
Because this photon now takes 1/4 of 2million Lys
Effectively, the speed of light quadruples
All thanks
To Lorenz contraction

Foreth
Canterbury University - Commonsense Ruins Physics

Aug 11, 2019


Because TIME measurement CONTRACTION precisely match that of LENGTH CONTRACTION in Lorentz Contraction, it can only be concluded the two are mechanically & inextricably bound to one another as being one in the same.


Wrong.

Aug 11, 2019
The only reasons to engage with that freak are to make fun of it...


And where didn't that happen in my comment?

Lol! And the idiot links to an article that shows Einstein's time dilation to be correct! Dumb, or what?


Please explain.


Aug 11, 2019
Maybe the truth is that there is not dark matter, electro-magnetic interactions actually drives galaxy rotation and we've been paying alot of people a salary for no good reason.


A claim without evidence can be rejected without evidence, and as for the combination of unevidenced psedosciences and unevidenced conspiracies: those are rejected twice as fast.

Aug 11, 2019
Nothing matters


Blocked by me for repeated inane trolling.

Aug 11, 2019
Maybe the truth is that there is not dark matter, electro-magnetic interactions actually drives galaxy rotation and we've been paying alot of people a salary for no good reason.


A claim without evidence can be rejected without evidence, and as for the combination of unevidenced psedosciences and unevidenced conspiracies: those are rejected twice as fast.
.....like for another example, a claim within the tinfoil hat crowd that particles of DM exist at a density 0.3/cm³ outpopulating Ordinary Matter in the ISM & IGM by a 5:1 ratio, when it is factually known that Ordinary Matter has an average density of 1.0 atoms/cm³ which does not include ions & subatomic particles.

Aug 11, 2019
So I searched the interweb for the proof of the existence of 'time' and here it is in the Scientific American 2014 issue. Notice that nowhere is there any mention of Gravitational pull on the Mass of the clocks, or the effects of Gravity on the jumping electrons of the Atomic Clocks. Their premise is that it is 'time' that is responsible for the slowing down or running faster, without mentioning the Earth's gravity's effect on Mass.

https://www.scien...erified/


Lol! And the idiot links to an article that shows Einstein's time dilation to be correct! And this is about time dilation due to velocity, not gravity, you utter moron! If you want to see the combination of the correct predictions for both velocity and gravity induced time dilation, you only have to look at the GPS results from '77.
says MopMan

Perhaps you fail to understand the first sentence of my comment above. I advise you to read it again

Aug 11, 2019
And the scientists (who were obviously enamored of 'time' and Einstein's equations) decided to call this natural phenomenon with the title of "Time Dilation" without realising and then understanding that it was GRAVITY and its effects on Mass that was the culprit all along - NOT 'time'.


Lol. Trivially false. Show us in the equations for time dilation where that could allow the time dilation to be predicted. You can't. Ergo, shut up, you clueless clown.
says CastroGiacomo

LOL. You are still clinging to the Hermann Minkowski fantasy of "SPACETIME", and the subsequent false phantom of 'time dilation'. And yet, you STILL CANNOT TELL US WHAT 'TIME' IS MADE OF. Why is this so, and why do you rely on phony math equations that also don't explain WHAT TIME IS MADE OF.
There is NO SUCH THING as an equation that can predict 'time dilation'. IT IS SPACE THAT DILATES - all along it is SPACE and GRAVITY THAT CAUSE CHANGES IN MASS and its properties.

Aug 11, 2019


Because TIME measurement CONTRACTION precisely match that of LENGTH CONTRACTION in Lorentz Contraction, it can only be concluded the two are mechanically & inextricably bound to one another as being one in the same.


Wrong.
says CastroBlinko

Your one-word does not an explanation make. Try to do better.

Aug 11, 2019
Maybe the truth is that there is not dark matter, electro-magnetic interactions actually drives galaxy rotation and we've been paying alot of people a salary for no good reason.


A claim without evidence can be rejected without evidence, and as for the combination of unevidenced psedosciences and unevidenced conspiracies: those are rejected twice as fast.
says Torbjorn Larsson

There IS plenty of evidence AGAINST DARK MATTER, but YOU and those like you reject that evidence out-of-hand, because you cannot BEAR to have the "total garbage" that YOU believe in tossed out of the scientific community. But the winds are changing and those like you will be left far behind. As you had blocked my comments, your ignorance is bliss.

Aug 11, 2019
I recommend that the 'time dilation' be changed to _______ ________.


.........CLOCKTIME CONTRACTION.

it's the almost perfect description of Lorentz transformations which expresses the relativity concepts that space and time are not absolute; that length, time, and mass are dependent on the relative motion of the observer with regards to LENGTH CONTRACTION at relativistic speeds.

Because TIME measurement CONTRACTION precisely match that of LENGTH CONTRACTION in Lorentz Contraction, it can only be concluded the two are mechanically & inextricably bound to one another as being one in the same.
says Benni

Time is only a CONCEPT that had been INVENTED by the human Mind. As it is merely a concept that has been utilised as a "representation" of the Earth's Sunrise to Sunrise 24 hour ROTATION CYCLE, the word 'time' evokes in most English speakers the idea that 'time' has substance and qualities that enable it to proceed in its essence to have 'influence' on Mass.

Aug 11, 2019
-contd-
@Banni
Because 'time' is ONLY a concept and has no substance or qualities, it is IMPOSSIBLE for it to have influence on objects of substance such as Atomic Clocks or pendulum clocks, etc.
It is ONLY a WORD, Benni. It was Hermann Minkowski who attempted to give it substance and qualities by coaxing Einstein to include the word in Einstein's math equations along with the substantial SPACE as Spacetime. Minkowski fooled the world, with Einstein as his 'sacrificial goat'.
Because the word 'time' is of NO SUBSTANCE and is merely a concept from the fertile imaginings of ancient humans, it would be a grave error to use any part of it to replace 'time dilation'.
"Contraction" would be fine, but it is not All-Encompassing to describe all of its qualities. It is important to be as precise as possible in order to avoid reinfecting future STEM students with the word 'time'.

Aug 11, 2019
IT IS SPACE THAT DILATES - all along it is SPACE and GRAVITY THAT CAUSE CHANGES IN MASS and its properties.
.....more succinctly it is the DIMENSIONS of SPACE that dilates (contracts).

In Special Relativity always keep in mind that when Einstein used the word SPACE, he carefully inserted in parenthesis alongside it as being DIMENSION.

Aug 11, 2019
It is important to be as precise as possible in order to avoid reinfecting future STEM students with the word 'time'.


I think the most effective way to do this is use of the word CLOCK alongside TIME essentially making them one word, this way an immediate connection to a kinetic energy driven device is made. As I responded to you earlier with my suggestion of CLOCK-TIME or maybe TIME-CLOCK & maybe without putting a separation between the two words.

Mangled word meanings are the hallmarks of a mathematician trying to be a physicist, witness Einstein's quote:

"Since the mathematicians have invaded the theory of relativity, I do not understand it myself any more."

Einstein should simply have gone on his own, rather than cede any portion of credit in SR or GR to that idiot Minkowski. I wonder how Einstein got lucky enough to end up in Minkowski's math classes, probably the only prof there at the time who could teach Differential Equations is the way I see it.

Aug 11, 2019
Possibly. No wonder Einstein had such a 'hang-dog' look to his countenance.
I checked Wiki for 'time' and found that the use of it for almost everything is too extensive. I suppose that it will be virtually impossible to come up with a satisfactory verb or noun that would be the best and most proper description to replace such a concept of 'time'. Event also sounds good, but incomplete.

Aug 11, 2019
Well, it's movie time. We will be watching "A Dog's Purpose". It has no sex, drugs or rocknroll, so I doubt that Mop man will ever want to see it.
:)

Aug 11, 2019
Interesting that the titch of brolls, including the nuclear janitor and the scientologist psychotic, should see fit to try to bury the stinky like cats by spamming the thread. Not that I've read any of it, nor ever shall.

Aug 12, 2019
bravo. now they are coming around to my way of thinking
chk out my papers at https://www.scrib...savvys84

Aug 12, 2019
Interesting that the titch of brolls, including the nuclear janitor and the scientologist psychotic, should see fit to try to bury the stinky like cats by spamming the thread. Not that I've read any of it, nor ever shall.
........"Not that I've read any of it", then how do you know?

Aug 12, 2019
Einstein should simply have gone on his own, rather than cede any portion of credit in SR or GR to that idiot Minkowski. I wonder how Einstein got lucky enough to end up in Minkowski's math classes, probably the only prof there at the time who could teach Differential Equations is the way I see it.


Who cares how you see it? You are a scientifically illiterate poser on a comments section. Your views and opinions are worthless. As are you.

Aug 12, 2019
Interesting that the titch of brolls, including the nuclear janitor and the scientologist psychotic, should see fit to try to bury the stinky like cats by spamming the thread. Not that I've read any of it, nor ever shall.
........"Not that I've read any of it", then how do you know?


@Benni he knows because you are an idiot.

Aug 12, 2019
LOL. You are still clinging to the Hermann Minkowski fantasy of "SPACETIME", and the subsequent false phantom of 'time dilation'. And yet, you STILL CANNOT TELL US WHAT 'TIME' IS MADE OF. Why is this so, and why do you rely on phony math equations that also don't explain WHAT TIME IS MADE OF.
There is NO SUCH THING as an equation that can predict 'time dilation'. IT IS SPACE THAT DILATES - all along it is SPACE and GRAVITY THAT CAUSE CHANGES IN MASS and its properties.
So... what are space and gravity made of again?

Aug 12, 2019
Exactly WHAT IS IT that you have against the CAPITALISING OF LETTERS that is done to get a salient point across to someone of your weak-minded calibre? WHEN did YOU become the Miss Schoolmarm of Physorg and did you come armed with a thesaurus and your dictionary?


Sorry, I couldn't decipher this nonsense. Try again, except without randomly capitalizing words.

Aug 12, 2019
...probably the only prof there at the time who could teach Differential Equations is the way I see it.


Your obsession with differential equations is comical.

Aug 12, 2019
........"Not that I've read any of it", then how do you know?


@Benni he knows because you are an idiot.
Yep.

Aug 12, 2019
whichever idiot that has given me negative points read my paper universal ambient time from 2 years ago and see that i say exactly what the title of this article says:

the link is provided above

Aug 12, 2019
whichever idiot that has given me negative points read my paper universal ambient time from 2 years ago and see that i say exactly what the title of this article says:

the link is provided above


Not papers. Pure woo uploaded to a fake predatory journal.

Aug 12, 2019
This new buzz word - Lol Trivially false

LOL, by SEU
You are still clinging to the Hermann Minkowski fantasy of "SPACETIME"
And subsequent false phantom of 'time dilation'
And yet
You STILL CANNOT TELL US WHAT 'TIME' IS MADE OF
Why is this so
And why do you rely on phony math equations that also don't explain WHAT TIME IS MADE OF
There is NO SUCH THING as an equation that can predict 'time dilation'
IT IS SPACE THAT DILATES
All along it is SPACE and GRAVITY THAT CAUSE CHANGES IN MASS and its properties

Foreth
What experimental proof
Did Hermann Minkowski fantasy of "SPACETIME" have
When he presented his imaginations to this world

No one has shown
Any solidity to this vacuum
For "SPACETIME"
SPACE is the VACUUM
I defy anyone to show solidity of substance to Vacuum
As to Time
Time is ethereal in its existence so hath no substance
Two none existent entities maketh not a substance
Their hath been no further progress
The day Hermann Minkowski fantasy of "SPACETIME" hit these streets!

Aug 12, 2019
time is made of time
space is made of space
spacrtime is made of spacetime
gravity is made of gravity

all these words are meaningless noise if you are incompetent at the relevant underlying math

benni & seu & the other looneytoons infesting this site are all made of 50% ignorance 50% stupid & 50% innumerate
cretintrolls can't even slice a Pi...

salv, it is self-centered infantile to concern yourself with redundant scoring by the other looneytoons
only the credulous clown posse cares
that is why they are always messing with those thumbs
cause the dolts opinionate that gives some sort of meaning to their pathetic lives

those who cannot invent or create or conceive an original thought?
the looneytrolls are such hypocrites unable to turn the math into engineering to produce the very technology the idiots rely on to spam the internet with babbling stupidity

worse, now DM theory is producing it's first tech device
https://phys.org/...vy-metal


Aug 12, 2019
The Quickening

SpaceTimeGravity - by rrwillsj
Time is made of time
Space is made of space
SpaceTime is made of spacetime
Gravity is made of gravity

Foreth rrwillsj
Time is a mathematical concept
Space is the Vacuum
SpaceTime is a vacuous mathematical concept
Gravity is a property of Electromagnetic radiation

In conclusion rrwillsj
Just like "The Quickening"
There is one and one only that exists
Gravity, as a property of Electromagnetic radiation

Aug 12, 2019
time is made of time
space is made of space
spacrtime is made of spacetime
gravity is made of gravity

all these words are meaningless noise if you are incompetent at the relevant underlying math

rrwillsj, Castrogiogogo, DaSchheib and theghostofotto1923 infesting this site are all made of 50% ignorance 50% stupid & 50% innumerate
cretintrolls can't even slice a Pi...

salv, it is self-centered infantile to concern yourself with redundant scoring by the other looneytoons
only the credulous clown posse cares

those who cannot invent or create or conceive an original thought?
the looneytrolls are such hypocrites unable to turn the math into engineering to produce the very technology the idiots rely on to spam the internet with babbling stupidity

worse, now DM theory is producing it's first tech device
https://phys.org/...vy-metal
says rrwilliejoe

But why haven't you exhibited your prowess in math and science yet, williejoe?

Aug 12, 2019
...
Just like "The Quickening"
There is one and one only that exists
Gravity, as a property of Electromagnetic radiation

Or is it Electromagnetic radiation that is a property of Gravity...
And... SeU has yet to tell us what "space" is made of...

Aug 12, 2019
granny,
i've read some pretty ludicrous notions from your ouiija board
but your claim gravity emits from electro-magnetism?
is truly a stupendous whopper!

so when your caretaker puts you to bed at night?
as they leave the room & turn off the light?
it is double-plus-good that you are safely tucked in?
otherwise you would float away from the safety of your bed?

sleep tight & sweet dreams, Nemo

Aug 12, 2019
WG, the real problem for the sillyegghead is not only a failure at coherently explaining it's fantasies but an additional handicap of suffering from innumeracy

seu is just as smart as every other termite-ridden fence post & unable to honestly face up to it's lack of cognitive functions

Aug 12, 2019
I began reading the article, hoping that perhaps there would be a culmination with solid facts after so much 'time' to determine whether or not there is such a thing as Dark Matter. And as usual, the article is a hodgepodge of:
IF -- 4
SHOULD HAVE -- 1
MAY BE -- 3
MAY HAVE -- 2

which researchers believe
is one of the most elusive mysteries in modern physics.
What exactly it is and how it came to be is a mystery
now suggests that
dark matter may have existed


Um....that's how science works. Science always accepts and acknowledges upfront that there is uncertainty, particularly regarding new theories or discoveries.

I struggle to understand how you could be reading this article and not understand that.

Aug 13, 2019
Sorry, I'm not an expert in this area, but....

"dark matter may have been produced before the Big Bang during an era known as the cosmic inflation"

My layman understanding was that cosmic inflation was *after* the Big Bang?

Aug 13, 2019
The Quickening - g = G(E/C²)/r²

Rrwillsj
Time, a mathematical concept
Space, the Vacuum
SpaceTime, a vacuous mathematical concept
Gravity, a property of Electromagnetic radiation
granny,
i've read some pretty ludicrous notions from your ouiija board
but your claim gravity emits from electro-magnetism?
is truly a stupendous whopper!

when your caretaker puts you to bed at night?
as they leave the room & turn off the light?
it is double-plus-good that you are safely tucked in?
otherwise you would float away from the safety of your bed?

sleep tight & sweet dreams, Nemo

Albert foretells
Gravity
Attracts
Photons
Where photons exist as electromagnetic radiation
To be attracted is to attract
For electromagnetic radiation attracts inertial mass
Because
Photons have their quota of gravity
g = GM/g²
g = G(E/C²)/r²
Foreth rrwillsj
Mass is energy
E = MC²
For photons are energy
Where their equivalent mass
Mass M = E/C²
Gravitational attraction is portioned to energy
g = G(E/C²)/r²

Aug 13, 2019
The Quickening - g = G(E/C²)/r²

g = G(E/C²)/r²

gr² = GE/C²

gr²C² = GE

E = gr²C²/G

Isaac and Albert in unison of Gravity as a derivation of Energy E = gr²C²/G
Rrwillsj, in your vacuous world of vacuum
There is one and one only that exists
The Quickening is this energy E = gr²C²/G

Electromagnetic Energy is the Quickening

Aug 13, 2019
granny,
i've read some pretty ludicrous notions from your ouiija board
but your claim gravity emits from electro-magnetism?
is truly a stupendous whopper!

so when your caretaker puts you to bed at night?
as they leave the room & turn off the light?
it is double-plus-good that you are safely tucked in?
otherwise you would float away from the safety of your bed?

sleep tight & sweet dreams, Nemo
says rrwilliejoe

No maths or science coming out of you yet, eh rrwilliejoe?

Aug 13, 2019
WG, the real problem for the sillyegghead is not only a failure at coherently explaining it's fantasies but an additional handicap of suffering from innumeracy

seu is just as smart as every other termite-ridden fence post & unable to honestly face up to it's lack of cognitive functions
says rrwillsj aka rrwilliejoe

And STILL no maths or science coming out of you, eh rrwilliejoe?
Try answering this: What is time made of?

Aug 13, 2019
...
Just like "The Quickening"
There is one and one only that exists
Gravity, as a property of Electromagnetic radiation

Or is it Electromagnetic radiation that is a property of Gravity...
And... SeU has yet to tell us what "space" is made of...
says Whyde

Snips and snails and puppy dog tails.
Not good enough, you say?
OK Even though I have answered your query many time before, here it is again.

Space is a Vacuum that is not empty. It is filled with various kinds of Particles, including Photons, and different sources of Energy, including EM and magnetic fields and electric currents and Plasma. Even without all that good stuff, the Vacuous Vacuum of Space has the ability to E-X-P-A-N-D and contract; it can bend over and sideways and fold in on itself. It can stretch itself around planets, moons, Stars and pieces of dust. On Earth you can breathe and exhale it. Space is a MEDIUM all its own. Everything FLOATS IN IT. There are empty VOIDS made of it.

Aug 13, 2019
It is ELASTIC enough to do all of such acrobatics as necessary. Space is NOT a CONCEPT nor is it a product of the imagination like 'time'.

OK Whyde. It's YOUR turn. What is 'time' made of?
You may want to copy everything I said about Space, so that I won't have to keep repeating myself for the next 160 years.