Glitch in neutron star reveals its hidden secrets

stars
Credit: CC0 Public Domain

Neutron stars are not only the most dense objects in the Universe, but they rotate very fast and regularly. Until they don't.

Occasionally these neutron start to spin faster, caused by portions of the inside of the star moving outwards. It's called a "glitch" and it provides astronomers a brief insight into what lies within these mysterious objects.

In a paper published today in the journal, Nature Astronomy, a team from Monash University, the ARC Centre of Excellence for Gravitational Wave Discovery (OzGrav), McGill University in Canada, and the University of Tasmania, studied the Vela Pulsar, a neutron star in the southern sky, that is 1,000 away.

According to the paper's first author, Dr. Greg Ashton, from the Monash School of Physics and Astronomy, and a member of OzGrav, Vela is famous—not only because only 5% of pulsars are known to glitch but also because Vela "glitches" about once every three years, making it a favourite of "glitch hunters" like Dr. Ashton and his colleague, Dr. Paul Lasky, also from Monash and OzGrav.

By reanalysing data from observations of the Vela glitch in 2016 taken by co-author Dr. Jim Palfreyman from the University of Tasmania, Dr. Ashton and his team found that during the glitch the star actually started spinning even faster, before relaxing down to a final state.

According to Dr. Lasky, an ARC Future Fellow also from the Monash School of Physics and Astronomy, and a member of OzGrav this observation (done at the Mount Pleasant Observatory in Tasmania) is particularly important because, for the first time, the scientists got a glimpse into the interior of the star—revealing that the inside of the star actually has three different components.

"One of these components, a soup of superfluid neutrons in the inner layer of the crust, moves outwards first and hits the rigid outer crust of the star causing it to spin up," Dr. Lasky said.

"But then, a second soup of superfluid that moves in the core catches up to the first causing the spin of the star to slow back down.

This overshoot has been predicted a couple of times in the literature, but this is the first real time it's been identified in observations," he said.

One such prediction of the overshoot came from study co-author Dr. Vanessa Graber from McGill University, who visited the Monash team as an OzGrav international visitor earlier this year.

Another observation, according to Dr. Ashton, defies explanation.

"Immediately before the glitch, we noticed that the star seems to slow down its rotation rate before spinning back up," Dr. Ashton said.

"We actually have no idea why this is, and it's the first time it's ever been seen.

"It could be related to the cause of the glitch, but we're honestly not sure," he said adding that he suspects this new paper to inspire some new theories on and glitches.


Explore further

Radio telescope records a rare 'glitch' in a pulsar's regular pulsing beat

More information: Rotational evolution of the Vela pulsar during the 2016 glitch, Nature Astronomy (2019). DOI: 10.1038/s41550-019-0844-6
Journal information: Nature Astronomy

Provided by Monash University
Citation: Glitch in neutron star reveals its hidden secrets (2019, August 12) retrieved 23 August 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2019-08-glitch-neutron-star-reveals-hidden.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.
959 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Aug 12, 2019
Occasionally these neutron stars start to spin faster, caused by portions of the inside of the star moving outwards.
This description would seem to defy conservation of angular momentum, is it worded correctly?

Also, LIGO, VIRGO, and GEO are all in observation mode currently, doing O3 -- hopefully the Vela Pulsar's within range for its 2109 glitch!

Aug 12, 2019
oops, 2019 glitch ...

Aug 12, 2019
Occasionally these neutron stars start to spin faster, caused by portions of the inside of the star moving outwards.
This description would seem to defy conservation of angular momentum, is it worded correctly?
While the angular velocity is changed the angular momentum is not. The same applies to ice skaters : their angular velocity gets higher as they retract their hands and legs inward but their angular momentum is preserved, and remains constant.

That's because no external torque is applied on them, just as no external torque is exerted on the Vela Pulsar. Of course Vela is much more complex. It is a huge solid sphere full of neutronic superfluids and possibly even quark degenerate matter in the core. Nevertheless, Newtonian mechanics concepts like conservation of angular momentum should equally apply to Vela.

Aug 12, 2019
Only if the center material moving outward is less dense than what falls in to replace it. Which begs the question: why is it worded that way? Why isn't it worded that denser material moves inward causing an increase in rotation, if that's what they mean?

Otherwise the article is nonsense.

Aug 12, 2019
Rotational evolution of the Vela pulsar during the 2016 glitch
Ashton, G. et al.
https://arxiv.org...1124.pdf

Aug 12, 2019
The only glitch is in the guesswork to explain this as a rotational phenomenon. Only morons can conceive of the idea that this is due to rotational changes because of gravitational forces. But alas, the stoopidity runs deep in the gravity only clergy.

Aug 12, 2019
The only glitch is in the guesswork to explain this as a rotational phenomenon. Only morons can conceive of the idea that this is due to rotational changes because of gravitational forces. But alas, the stoopidity runs deep in the gravity only clergy.


Lol. Care to back that up with science? In case you missed it, we have detected neutron stars. Get over it. Stick to Velikovsky. It requires little to no intellect.

Aug 12, 2019
Care to back that up with science? In case you missed it, we have detected neutron stars.

We have detected energetic, bright stars, beyond that the claims are pure conjecture. Especially those claims that defy the laws of physics such as neutronium, strange matter, and stars which spin at 30k rpm.

Aug 12, 2019
Care to back that up with science? In case you missed it, we have detected neutron stars.

We have detected energetic, bright stars, beyond that the claims are pure conjecture. Especially those claims that defy the laws of physics such as neutronium, strange matter, and stars which spin at 30k rpm.


Nope. We have detected the (predicted) gravitational waves from the merger of two neutron stars. Closely followed by the (predicted) EM signature. Including (predicted) r-process nucleosynthesis. There will no doubt be many more detections to come. I'm not seeing anybody questioning these observations.

Aug 12, 2019
The only glitch is in the guesswork to explain this as a rotational phenomenon. Only morons can conceive of the idea that this is due to rotational changes because of gravitational forces. But alas, the stoopidity runs deep in the gravity only clergy.


Lol. Care to back that up with science? In case you missed it, we have detected neutron stars. Get over it. Stick to Velikovsky. It requires little to no intellect.


Well, it was put in a fairly abrasive manner, but what about Saturn? Saturn produces radio emissions which are tied to its rotation, but the coupling isn't trivial. The radio period wanders around at the few percent level over the course of a few years, and no one thinks that's mass redistributions within the planet or even a change in the rotation rate. It's some time-variable slippage between the planet's magnetic field and the surrounding plasma which generates the emissions. Why couldn't something similar happen with a pulsar?

Aug 12, 2019
Well, it was put in a fairly abrasive manner, but what about Saturn? Saturn produces radio emissions which are tied to its rotation, but the coupling isn't trivial. The radio period wanders around at the few percent level over the course of a few years, and no one thinks that's mass redistributions within the planet or even a change in the rotation rate. It's some time-variable slippage between the planet's magnetic field and the surrounding plasma which generates the emissions. Why couldn't something similar happen with a pulsar?


I think you need to figure out the difference between a neutron star and a gas giant to be able to answer your own question.

Aug 12, 2019
Well, it was put in a fairly abrasive manner, but what about Saturn?


I think you need to figure out the difference between a neutron star and a gas giant to be able to answer your own question.


No, someone has to measure the difference. We've got tons of data on planetary radio emissions, from the Earth, Jupiter and Saturn, and we still don't fully understand the processes involved. Compared to that level of measurement, we've just got a vague guess on how pulsars produce radio emissions. Not a bad guess, and probably good to zero or first order (I'd quibble about incoherent synchrotron versus coherent cyclotron maser instability.) But we simply do not know enough about the emissions processes from pulsars to with certainty what a glitch is. The whole process is complicated and we just don't have much in the way of data.

Aug 12, 2019
As they slow down their surface shifts in a manner that results in them forming into a more perfect sphere. Thanks to the the conservation of angular momentum, this, in turn, causes the neutron star to speed up!

Aug 12, 2019
No, someone has to measure the difference. We've got tons of data on planetary radio emissions, from the Earth, Jupiter and Saturn, and we still don't fully understand the processes involved. Compared to that level of measurement, we've just got a vague guess on how pulsars produce radio emissions. Not a bad guess, and probably good to zero or first order (I'd quibble about incoherent synchrotron versus coherent cyclotron maser instability.) But we simply do not know enough about the emissions processes from pulsars to with certainty what a glitch is. The whole process is complicated and we just don't have much in the way of data.


Well, evidently we knew enough about it for some clever buggers to predict these glitches. And I believe they did so without reference to gas giants.

Aug 12, 2019
Occasionally these neutron stars start to spin faster, caused by portions of the inside of the star moving outwards.
This description would seem to defy conservation of angular momentum, is it worded correctly?
While the angular velocity is changed the angular momentum is not. The same applies to ice skaters : their angular velocity gets higher as they retract their hands and legs inward but their angular momentum is preserved, and remains constant.

That's because no external torque is applied on them, just as no external torque is exerted on the Vela Pulsar. Of course Vela is much more complex. It is a huge solid sphere full of neutronic superfluids and possibly even quark degenerate matter in the core. Nevertheless, Newtonian mechanics concepts like conservation of angular momentum should equally apply to Vela.
says Sahstar

Perfectly expressed, including your analogy to the ice skater's arms and legs in the spin phase. Purely mechanical.

Aug 12, 2019
Another glitch has just been reported in MNRAS, from the Crab pulsar. Arxiv version here;

The Largest Crab Glitch and the Vortex Creep Model
Gugercinoglu, E. & Ali Alpar, M.
https://arxiv.org...8180.pdf

Aug 12, 2019
Sometimes the whacks come up with stuff that makes me cringe and want to speak really loud to get through the fingers the have poked tightly into their ears.
Doesn't help.
Several comments have been made stating facts and observations of those facts, all to no avail.
Their pet theories, based on secret knowledge known only to them and misunderstood by the world, prevents them from acknowledging true finding made by real scientists who do research for a living and are peer reviewed by other scientists in competition with them.

Mostly I laugh. It is either laugh or cry, and crying will not help. So I smile and shake my head, wow.

Aug 12, 2019
whar's this "we" stuff canttieownshoestrings?

you loons are always plagiarizing real scientists work
then you garble repeating what you are too incompetent to understand

no, that's not a telescope you are peering though
it's a toy kaleidoscope

no wonder your ravings are so incoherent!

Aug 12, 2019
We've got tons of data on planetary radio emissions, from the Earth, Jupiter and Saturn, and we still don't fully understand the processes involved.


Well, evidently we knew enough about it for some clever buggers to predict these glitches. And I believe they did so without reference to gas giants.


Nonsense. No one has ever predicted a glitch. That's saying when it would happen, the magnitude, the details, prior to the glitch occurring. That's never been done.

The before/after period is clearly a change in moment of inertia. This paper is about the transient during the glitch. That could be due to lots of things, say a part per million deflection in magnetic field direction. Which is actually quite possible.

No, those "clever buggers" are not considering planetary radio emissions. That's the problem. From those data, we know it's complicated. They are ignoring those known complications, and attributing the transient during one observed glitch to their pet theory.

Aug 12, 2019


No, those "clever buggers" are not considering planetary radio emissions. That's the problem. From those data, we know it's complicated. They are ignoring those known complications, and attributing the transient during one observed glitch to their pet theory.


Planetary radio emissions have absolutely nothing to do with neutron stars. Zilch. And it is not one observed glitch. You need to read the paper.

Aug 12, 2019
A spinning skater who moves her arms out slows down, not speeds up. LOL

Aug 12, 2019
There is a simpler and more likely explanation of this phenomena other than the geology and techtonics of neutronium, particularly given the unlikely periodicity and the profound amount of potential energy that would have to reset every three years.

Aug 13, 2019
@fcrary

Welcome to physorg. Hoping you enjoy your time here.

Aug 13, 2019
A spinning skater who moves her arms out slows down, not speeds up. LOL


Why, the description of this 'glitch' etc almost seems like (now don't laugh) an intake and output of breath. Or something.

Aug 13, 2019
For the curious, I copied these parts:

Occasionally these neutron stars start to spin faster, caused by portions of the inside of the star moving outwards. It's called a "glitch"

Vela "glitches" about once every three years

from observations of the Vela glitch in 2016

Dr. Ashton and his team found that during the glitch the star actually started spinning even faster, before relaxing down to a final state.

…this observation is particularly important because, for the first time, the scientists got a glimpse into the interior of the star—revealing that the inside of the star actually has three different components.

"One of these components, a soup of superfluid neutrons in the inner layer of the crust, moves outwards first and hits the rigid outer crust of the star causing it to spin up

"But then, a second soup of superfluid that moves in the core catches up to the first causing the spin of the star to slow back down.

Aug 13, 2019
"Immediately before the glitch, we noticed that the star seems to slow down its rotation rate before spinning back up

Aug 13, 2019
So a few weeks ago we hear that Sol's solar activity is tidally linked to the orbits of the planets and now this. Could Vega have planets influencing it's Rayleighian statis?

Aug 13, 2019
Instantaneous angular momentum

When a star shrinks temporally in radii
Its velocity does not change
Its angular rotation changes
For it is instantaneous
Because the actual momentum remains constant
Foreth
When this pulsar star changes its rate of spin
There should be no time delay of glitches and rate of spin

Aug 13, 2019

Planetary radio emissions have absolutely nothing to do with neutron stars. Zilch. And it is not one observed glitch. You need to read the paper.


Would that paper be "Rotational evolution of the Vela pulsar during the 2016 glitch", Ashton et al., Nature Astronomy, 2019? Note the singular "the" in the title? Many, many glitches have been observed before and after the event. The 2016 Vela glitch is (so far) the only one observed _during_ the event.

And if you think planetary radio emissions have nothing to do with pulsars, could you please explain two things? First, describe the emission process for pulsars, the evidence supporting that mechanism, and how it differs from the planetary emission process. Second, explain why NASA funds so many proposals which specifically cite better understanding of pulsars as a reason to study planetary magnetospheres.

Aug 13, 2019

Would that paper be "Rotational evolution of the Vela pulsar during the 2016 glitch", Ashton et al., Nature Astronomy, 2019? Note the singular "the" in the title? Many, many glitches have been observed before and after the event. The 2016 Vela glitch is (so far) the only one observed _during_ the event.

And if you think planetary radio emissions have nothing to do with pulsars, could you please explain two things? First, describe the emission process for pulsars, the evidence supporting that mechanism, and how it differs from the planetary emission process. Second, explain why NASA funds so many proposals which specifically cite better understanding of pulsars as a reason to study planetary magnetospheres.


How about just linking to the papers that are studying pulsars to understand magnetospheres? Or vice versa?

Aug 13, 2019
...explain why NASA funds so many proposals which specifically cite better understanding of pulsars as a reason to study planetary magnetospheres.


How about just linking to the papers that are studying pulsars to understand magnetospheres? Or vice versa?


Because there are too many of them. I'll just quote the paper we are currently discussing: ``mechanism in the star, although this is far from certain. Reference 2 reported short-timescale variations in pulse shape during the glitch... These could indicate the glitch or preceding slowdown are magnetospheric in origin...'' They go on to wave their hands a bit (two sentences) about how they think magnetospheric effects are less likely than their mechanism. We thought we knew quite a bit magnetospheres before we had much data, and much it that turned out to be wrong. I'm not even suggesting the glitch was magnetospheric, just that the details of the transient during the glitch could be.

Aug 13, 2019
Because there are too many of them.


Then just link a couple.

Aug 13, 2019
Pulsar-Planets

The earth emits radio-pulses
Electrons flow through the poles
Turning the earth in to a pulsar-planet
Pulsing with the earth's axial wobble
This puts a new spin on pulsar-stars
Now that it is known planets emit radio-pulses
For there are no neutrons close packed
In planet earth
So
Why do pulsar-stars require neutrons?

Aug 13, 2019
Because there are too many of them.


Then just link a couple.


A quick search on the SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System (http://adswww.harvard.edu/) for abstracts containing "pulsar" and "magnetosphere" turns up 2155 papers in refereed journals. Further restricting the search to also require "Jupiter" in the abstract gives 17 papers (101 is I make that "Earth" rather than "Jupiter." You can look them up yourself. A classic reference is ``Space physics and astronomy converge in study of Jupiter's magnetosphere'' Hill, T. W. and Dessler, A. J. Earth Space, Vol. 8, No. 2, p. 6 - 9 (1995).

Aug 13, 2019
A quick search on the SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System (http://adswww.harvard.edu/) for abstracts containing "pulsar" and "magnetosphere" turns up 2155 papers in refereed journals. Further restricting the search to also require "Jupiter" in the abstract gives 17 papers (101 is I make that "Earth" rather than "Jupiter." You can look them up yourself. A classic reference is ``Space physics and astronomy converge in study of Jupiter's magnetosphere'' Hill, T. W. and Dessler, A. J. Earth Space, Vol. 8, No. 2, p. 6 - 9 (1995).


Nope. I specifically asked for papers studying neutron star magnetospheres in order to understand planetary magnetospheres. Or vice-versa. In particular as it relates to radio emission. Because, you see, I don't think there is any relation whatsoever. We understand our magnetosphere well enough. On the other hand, neutron stars are a bit of a mystery. Hard to see a connection.

Aug 13, 2019
Well, I was talking about using what we know about the Earth's magnetosphere to understand neutron star magnetospheres. That's where we actually have data. As one terrestrial example, NASA is currently flying a >$1 billion mission to study reconnection in the Earth's magnetosphere. The mission's science web site says, "Reconnection occurs universally in plasmas, the electrically conducting mixes of positively and negatively charged particles that account for an estimated 99% of the observable universe. Besides its role in eruptive flares/CMEs and magnetospheric disturbances, magnetic reconnection has been invoked in theoretical models of a variety of astrophysical phenomena including star-accretion disk interaction, pulsar wind acceleration, and the acceleration of ultra-high-energy cosmic rays in active galactic nuclei jets." Is there some reason saying such information should be ignored when studying pulsars?

Aug 13, 2019
A quick search on the SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System (http://adswww.harvard.edu/) for abstracts containing "pulsar" and "magnetosphere" turns up 2155 papers in refereed journals. Further restricting the search to also require "Jupiter" in the abstract gives 17 papers (101 is I make that "Earth" rather than "Jupiter." You can look them up yourself. A classic reference is ``Space physics and astronomy converge in study of Jupiter's magnetosphere'' Hill, T. W. and Dessler, A. J. Earth Space, Vol. 8, No. 2, p. 6 - 9 (1995).


Went through several dozen of those sorted by date. None, including the one you specifically point out, say much of anything about the magnetospheres of planets relating to magnetospheres of pulsars outside of mentioning that they both have magnetospheres.

Aug 13, 2019
Went through several dozen of those sorted by date. None, including the one you specifically point out, say much of anything about the magnetospheres of planets relating to magnetospheres of pulsars outside of mentioning that they both have magnetospheres.

Found a bygone paper about this: http://articles.a...000.html

Aug 13, 2019
Went through several dozen of those sorted by date. None, including the one you specifically point out, say much of anything about the magnetospheres of planets relating to magnetospheres of pulsars outside of mentioning that they both have magnetospheres.

Found a bygone paper about this: http://articles.a...000.html

I could probably do better if I weren't working from home today. At work, we've got a whole book on the shelf about pulsar magnetospheres, and I remember it being full of comparisons between planetary and pulsar/neutron star magnetospheres. The real problem is that (except for fairly vague statements), it's relatively rare for astrophysicists and (planetary) magnetospheric physicists to collaborate. The two communities just don't seem to communicate; that doesn't mean they couldn't learn from each other if they did.

Aug 13, 2019
Well, it was put in a fairly abrasive manner, but what about Saturn? Saturn produces radio emissions which are tied to its rotation, but the coupling isn't trivial. The radio period wanders around at the few percent level over the course of a few years, and no one thinks that's mass redistributions within the planet or even a change in the rotation rate. It's some time-variable slippage between the planet's magnetic field and the surrounding plasma which generates the emissions. Why couldn't something similar happen with a pulsar?


I think you need to figure out the difference between a neutron star and a gas giant to be able to answer your own question.
.......and what you need to do is learn some nuclear physics like I have, and finally learn that free unbound neutrons have a 14.7 lifetime Beta Particle Decay Rate, then you will understand why neutron stars don't exist except as trivia for Pop-Cosmology Fantasy.


Aug 13, 2019
.......and what you need to do is learn some nuclear physics like I have, and finally learn that free unbound neutrons have a 14.7 lifetime Beta Particle Decay Rate, then you will understand why neutron stars don't exist except as trivia for Pop-Cosmology Fantasy.


Lol. Says the scientifically illiterate janitor! Back to cleaning the toilets, you loon! Which part of nuclear physics taught you that 14C is subject to gamma decay? Or that a half-life means that half the mass disappears? I kid you not folks - these are the beliefs of our resident Dunning-Kruger poser!

Aug 13, 2019
...and what you need to do is learn some nuclear physics like I have, and finally learn that free unbound neutrons have a 14.7 lifetime Beta Particle Decay Rate, then you will understand why neutron stars don't exist except as trivia for Pop-Cosmology Fantasy.


Lol. Says the scientifically illiterate janitor! Back to cleaning the toilets, you loon! Which part of nuclear physics taught you that 14C is subject to gamma decay? Or that a half-life means that half the mass disappears? these are the beliefs of our resident Dunning-Kruger poser!
......your degree in Anthropology from the Uni of Auckland, NZ is only your imaginary mechanism to a higher level of education than what you try coming here to impress people with.

You Anthropology studies have nothing to do with nuclear physics or unserstanding ANYTHING about the 14.7 minute Beta Particle decay rate of a neutron. Take you name calling rants somewhere else, maybe go pick some real bones outdoors in weeds & tall grass?

Aug 13, 2019
You Anthropology studies have nothing to do with nuclear physics or unserstanding ANYTHING about the 14.7 minute Beta Particle decay rate of a neutron. Take you name calling rants somewhere else, maybe go pick some real bones outdoors in weeds & tall grass?


Never formally studied anthropology, sh!tforbrains. Just as you have never studied physics. As is obvious from the crap you believe. Figured out what 14C gamma decays to yet? Lol. Idiot.

Aug 13, 2019
Here is our pretend nuclear physicist proving that he was just as thick at 16 as he is now!

......when I was 15-16 I knew that C-14 was an atomic radio-isotope subject to GAMMA RADIATION DECAY & that a FREE NEUTRON was a subatomic particle subject to decay ONLY by BETA PARTICLE DECAY.

You don't even know the difference between an atomic radio-isotope & a sub-atomic particle.


https://phys.org/...ory.html

Aug 14, 2019
Went through several dozen of those sorted by date. None, including the one you specifically point out, say much of anything about the magnetospheres of planets relating to magnetospheres of pulsars outside of mentioning that they both have magnetospheres.

Found a bygone paper about this: http://articles.a...000.html

Aug 14, 2019
OOOPs Errata on my previous post.

@fcrary

Perhaps this might help:

http://adsabs.har...89L..71H

Aug 14, 2019
Gammas don't have a charge, so they can't change a nucleus from one element to another.

Basic physics.

Aug 14, 2019
Pulsar-Planets

The earth emits radio-pulses
Electrons flow through the poles
Turning the earth in to a pulsar-planet
DaSchneib> Gammas don't have a charge, so they can't change a nucleus from one element to another

Foreth, DaSchneib
When electrons flow through the earth's poles
Electrons spiral earth's magnetic field lines, creating gamma-rays
For gamma rays are this energy of these protons and scrumptious electrons
It is this electromagnetic energy created by these electrons from protons magnetism
That is driving these protons and electrons in Hydrogen to create Neutrons out of protons
To go this step by step
This next step, Helium
For Neutrons cross this coulomb barrier with no resistance
This infamous lonely Neutron, is this key to elemental atomic formation
Foreth, as we all know by now, DaSchneib
If this lonely Neutron
Does not join in holy matrimony
With this proton and scrumptious electron
This lonely Neutron, pines away disheartened and beta-decays in 14.7 minutes

Aug 14, 2019
Foreth, DaSchneib
When
You
Immerse yourself in this intriguing technique
That this scrumptious electron uses, extracting energy
This infamous energy
E = MC²
Foreth, DaSchneib
This scrumptious electron
Can extract gamma-rays
From magnetic field lines
From other electrons magnetic fields
From a single protons field in this vacuum
From lightning strikes in the atmosphere
As the electrons ride these magnetic fields through the earth's poles

For even in our suns solar furnace
These electrons drive this solar fusion spiralling these solar field in gamma-rays
Which is why, DaSchneib?
Solar fusion does not works in our fusion reactors
Because, DaSchneib
These scrumptious electrons, extracting gamma-rays by encircling magnetic fields
Are heating up our sun, our solar furnace
Are actually extracting nuclear energy, E = MC²

For DaSchneib, E = MC² Is Ultimately Where All Nuclear Energy Is Derived

Aug 14, 2019
DaSchneib

If you ever get disheartened
Waiting forever
For clean bountiful fusion energy
From our metallic solar furnaces

Foreth, DaSchneib
Give a thought to our Sun
Fore
It does not count the costs
It does not ask for any reward
The heat that is produced
Is recycled in these solar convection currents
For our Sun
Ultimately
By these scrumptious electrons
Producing gamma-radiation
Allow
Our Sun
To produce more heat
Than theory predicts though the proton-proton cycle
Because
DaSchneib, our Sun needs more energy than our fusion reactors are producing
Our Sun has alternative sources of energy
Gravity
Magnetic fields
Gamma-rays
Solar-wind
Deep solar convection currents
As
All his and more is required by our Sun
And
Our Sun still requires and needs more heat
So
Next time, DaSchneib
When you hear the latest news in 2035
Give a thought, that you will hear an update in 2075
For our fusion reactors are physically too small, to extract the energy we require!

Aug 14, 2019
You Anthropology studies have nothing to do with nuclear physics or unserstanding ANYTHING about the 14.7 minute Beta Particle decay rate of a neutron. Take you name calling rants somewhere else, maybe go pick some real bones outdoors in weeds & tall grass?


Isn't projection just a wonderful shield from yourself @Benni ? :D

Please tell us more about the differential equation you are solving today - is it the one that cleans the toilets with most efficiency ?


Aug 14, 2019
Yes do please tell us more, kl31415
You Anthropology studies have nothing to do with nuclear physics or unserstanding ANYTHING about the 14.7 minute Beta Particle decay rate of a neutron. Take you name calling rants somewhere else, maybe go pick some real bones outdoors in weeds & tall grass?


Isn't projection just a wonderful shield from yourself @Benni ? :D

Please tell us more about the differential equation you are solving today - is it the one that cleans the toilets with most efficiency ?

For was is not, antialias_physorg
Who once said "it is so obvious to that you are doing, everyone can see you"
For kl31415, words speak 1000 pictures
kl31415, you need to go and think this out again!

Aug 14, 2019
For was is not, antialias_physorg
Who once said "it is so obvious to that you are doing, everyone can see you"
For kl31415, words speak 1000 pictures
kl31415, you need to go and think this out again!


Or you need to STFU you uneducated clown.

Aug 14, 2019
Gammas don't have a charge, so they can't change a nucleus from one element to another.

Basic physics.
.....but Neutron Emission sure does.

Aug 14, 2019
So it is you, Castrogiovanni
For was is not, antialias_physorg
Who once said "it is so obvious to that you are doing, everyone can see you"
For kl31415, words speak 1000 pictures
kl31415, you need to go and think this out again!


Or you need to STFU you uneducated clown.

Thank you for your confirmation!

Aug 14, 2019
Gammas don't have a charge, so they can't change a nucleus from one element to another.

Basic physics.
.....but Neutron Emission sure does.


Errrrm, you said 14C decay was due to gamma, you clown. It isn't. It is beta decay. As is the decay of a free neutron. Or a bound neutron. Do you know why it is called 'beta' decay?

Aug 14, 2019
Elemental Atoms Form Outside Stars

For a elemental atom
To form the next heavier elemental atom
Requires Neutrons
For although atoms do not climb this periodic table on Neutrons alone
An elemental atom cannot accept protons
For it can only accept Neutrons
Once this excess of Neutrons has been accepted
This elemental atom can transform Neutrons to protons
Increasing its proton number
Taking this next step up this periodic table

Aug 14, 2019
Atoms cannot accept protons

The simple reason
Elemental atoms cannot accept protons
Is this Coulomb force
Fore it requires this Coulomb force to hold these atoms together
Which is counteracted by the nuclear strong force
This coulomb force is this protons own positive electric field
Which is why it cannot accept protons
As neutrons simply bypass this proton electric field
When sufficient neutrons join this family
One neutron beta-decays emitting a proton
This pristine proton is already inside this Coulomb force
This innocuous neutron has defeated this greatest atomic force this vacuum hath created
This neutron is this Trojan Horse, gaining access inside this atom
Foreth
It is simplicity it's self
Before a neutron decays emitting a proton
These Neutrons are Neutral

Aug 14, 2019
says fcrary
Well, I was talking about using what we know about the Earth's magnetosphere to understand neutron star magnetospheres. That's where we actually have data. As one terrestrial example, NASA is currently flying a >$1 billion mission to study reconnection in the Earth's magnetosphere. The mission's science web site says, "Reconnection occurs universally in plasmas, the electrically conducting mixes of positively and negatively charged particles that account for an estimated 99% of the observable universe. Besides its role in eruptive flares/CMEs and magnetospheric disturbances, magnetic reconnection has been invoked in theoretical models of a variety of astrophysical phenomena including star-accretion disk interaction, pulsar wind acceleration, and the acceleration of ultra-high-energy cosmic rays in active galactic nuclei jets." Is there some reason saying such information should be ignored when studying pulsars?


Seems that fcrary has left the building.

Aug 14, 2019
OOOPs Errata on my previous post.

@fcrary

Perhaps this might help:

http://adsabs.har...89L..71H
says I

I had searched for the above link to submit here. It is from 1992 but is more recent than the link that fcrary offered.
I had so hoped that there would be a discussion here regarding his concerns of the relationship between planetary and pulsar/neutron Star magnetospheres.

Well, perhaps fcrary will return and we will have that discussion after all. It could be a good one.

Aug 14, 2019
you said 14C decay was due to gamma, you clown. It isn't. It is beta decay. As is the decay of a free neutron. Or a bound neutron. Do you know why it is called 'beta' decay?
You don't understand what happens during radio-isotope decay when an excess neutron is emitted from a nucleus.

Virtually all of nuclear reactions emit gamma rays. For simplicity the gamma rays are generally not shown. Nuclear reactions produce a great deal more energy than chemical reactions. Nuclear reactions release binding energy between protons & neutrons within the nucleus and converts tiny amounts of matter into energy. The energy released in such a nuclear reaction via gamma radiation decay involve almost a million times more energy release per atom than chemical changes.

If you'd ever taken a course in nuclear physics you'd know Neutron Emission occurs prior to the 14.7 minute onset of Beta Particle Decay of the Neutron which in turn has nothing to do with 1/2 life radio-isotope decay.

RNP
Aug 15, 2019
@Benni
You don't understand what happens during radio-isotope decay when an excess neutron is emitted from a nucleus.
.....................
If you'd ever taken a course in nuclear physics you'd know Neutron Emission occurs prior to the 14.7 minute onset of Beta Particle Decay of the Neutron which in turn has nothing to do with 1/2 life radio-isotope decay.



Laughable! Another epic fail from our self-styled "Nuclear Engineer"!

Individual neutrons are not emitted in ANY decay process.

You have simply failed to understand beta-minus decay of isotopes, where a neutron decays to a proton *inside* a nucleus.

In such a decay an electron and anti-neutrino are emitted, not a neutron.

This is high-school level physics which anyone that feels they are qualified to comment on the subject should know.

So, why did you not know it Benni? And, given that you didn't, why do you feel that you are qualified to comment?

Aug 15, 2019
Yes do please tell us more, kl31415
You Anthropology studies have nothing to do with nuclear physics or unserstanding ANYTHING about the 14.7 minute Beta Particle decay rate of a neutron. Take you name calling rants somewhere else, maybe go pick some real bones outdoors in weeds & tall grass?


Isn't projection just a wonderful shield from yourself @Benni ? :D

Please tell us more about the differential equation you are solving today - is it the one that cleans the toilets with most efficiency ?

For was is not, antialias_physorg
Who once said "it is so obvious to that you are doing, everyone can see you"
For kl31415, words speak 1000 pictures
kl31415, you need to go and think this out again!


What ??? LMAO

GranDelusion have you been mixing your meds with spirits ? :D


Aug 15, 2019
So it is you, Castrogiovanni
For was is not, antialias_physorg
Who once said "it is so obvious to that you are doing, everyone can see you"
For kl31415, words speak 1000 pictures
kl31415, you need to go and think this out again!


Or you need to STFU you uneducated clown.

Thank you for your confirmation!


I gotta say, just coming here and reading a few comments from the Stupid Squad makes me smile :D

Hey @Benni, @StupidEgg, @GranDelusion
I am spending some days at NPL in London for work.

Should I ask for some clarification about Neutron decay for you ?

Aug 15, 2019
Laughable! Another epic fail from our self-styled "Nuclear Engineer"!

Individual neutrons are not emitted in ANY decay process.


https://education...ion.html

"Neutron emission is one process that unstable atoms can use to become more stable. During neutron emission, a neutron is ejected from an atom's nucleus.

Since the number of protons within an atom doesn't change during neutron emission, it doesn't change from one element to another. It does, however, become a different isotope of that element. For example, after undergoing neutron emission, an atom of beryllium-13 (with 9 neutrons) becomes an atom of beryllium-12 (with 8 neutrons)."

Little round man, you are so full of Anthropology that any discussion you have with Benni renders your brain into such hate filled rage that you become incapable of just LOOKING IT UP FIRST before you start shooting off your mouth.

Neutron Emission Decay is not the SAME as Beta Particle Decay.


Aug 15, 2019
Sez RNP:

Laughable! Another epic fail from our self-styled "Nuclear Engineer"!

Individual neutrons are not emitted in ANY decay process.

You have simply failed to understand beta-minus decay of isotopes, where a neutron decays to a proton *inside* a nucleus
........and you're another piece of great laughing material to reiterate the same false conclusion Cv made. Here, I'll repeat the link again explaining Neutron Emission Decay:

https://education...ion.html

Neutron Emission Decay is not the SAME as Beta Particle Decay, two COMPLETELY different processes which explains how a neutron becomes unbound from a nucleus BEFORE it can move onto the 14.7 minute Beta Particle Decay Process.

Aug 15, 2019
The point
"how a neutron becomes unbound from a nucleus BEFORE it can move onto the 14.7 minute Beta Particle Decay Process"
In an atom, how to use this process to increase the proton number

Aug 15, 2019
Cox and Box

Interesting
So it is you, Castrogiovanni
For was is not, antialias_physorg
Who once said "it is so obvious to that you are doing, everyone can see you"
For kl31415, words speak 1000 pictures
kl31415, you need to go and think this out again!

Or you need to STFU you uneducated clown.

Thank you for your confirmation!

kl31415 > I am spending some days at NPL in London for work.

Like Cox and Box, kl31415 eternally passing Castrogiovanni on the stairs
As one and only one lives in the room, the other at work in london!

Aug 15, 2019

kl31415 > I am spending some days at NPL in London for work.

Like Cox and Box, kl31415 eternally passing Castrogiovanni on the stairs
As one and only one lives in the room, the other at work in london!

LOL @GranDelusion

Just for you then ;)
Don't fall on your ass with the undeniable evidence hahaha
https://drive.goo...rVAKtpdG

Oh, wasn't aware Castrogiovanni spends his time in NPL. You around Castro ? Let's get a coffee.


RNP
Aug 15, 2019
@Benni
https://education...ion.html

I have to admit to having not been strictly precise with my words. I was talking about the types of decays under discussion, e.g. the decay of C14, specifically,
or any other long lived radionucleide.

The example you linked is not the same type of "decay". It is a type of decay induced only in very high energy collisions (see nuclear spallation ; https://en.wikipe...allation )
that split the impacted nucleus into pieces.

For instance, the Be13 decay that you presented has a halflife of 10^-21 seconds. (i.e. 0.000000000000000000001 seconds) and can only be created in very high energy collisions.

Neutron Emission Decay is not the SAME as Beta Particle Decay,

Agreed.

a neutron becomes unbound from a nucleus BEFORE it can move onto the 14.7 minute Beta Particle Decay Process.

Complete BS.

RNP
Aug 15, 2019
@Benni

..a neutron becomes unbound from a nucleus BEFORE it can move onto the 14.7 minute Beta Particle Decay Process.

So, can you explain your process describing the beta decay of C14 to N14?

Let me start YOUR description for you. then you finish it off;
C14(6 protons, 8 neutrons) loses one neutron ==> C13(6 protons, 7 neutrons)
The loose neutron ==> proton, electron and anti-neutino.

Now, how does the C13(6 protons, 7 neutrons) become N14(7 protons, 7 neutrons)?

Aug 15, 2019
So, can you explain your process describing the beta decay of C14 to N14?


First, do you concede that you were wrong about this laughable statement you made that:

Laughable! Another epic fail from our self-styled "Nuclear Engineer"!

Individual neutrons are not emitted in ANY decay process.
.....you were dead wrong because you do not understand nuclear physics at ANY level of education much less high school. Either admit you concede the point to me or we don't move on, I'm not wasting anymore of my time with a freelance journalist who knows so little about radio-active decay of atomic isotopes that moving on from this point is simply a futile effort on Benni's part.


RNP
Aug 15, 2019
@Benni
LOL.

COP OUT!! You haven't even tried to finish the description.

You have realized that it is wrong, haven't you ?

Come on, finish it!!

You have again been exposed as an arrogant fool.

Aug 15, 2019
According to our magic scientific cauldron, Wikipedia
DaSchneib> Gammas don't have a charge, so they can't change a nucleus from one element to another.

Basic physics.

The proton–proton chain reaction
Involves the emission
Of neutrinos and gamma-rays
Is it possible?
Using this magic potion
Of protons and electrons
To create helium
Without the emission of neutrons, neutrinos
And
Lest we forget
Gamma-rays
Foreth, according to DaSchneib
We can make atomic elements without these atomic constituents
For DaSchneib has earned his bridge
TrollianDaSchneib requires some quiet reflection under his bridge to weasel out this magic potion

Aug 15, 2019
@Benni
LOL.

COP OUT!! You haven't even tried to finish the description.

You have realized that it is wrong, haven't you ?

Come on, finish it!!
......can'r finish an error as blatant as this,
how does the C13(6 protons, 7 neutrons) become N14(7 protons, 7 neutrons)?


You have again been exposed as an arrogant fool.
......you just continue exposing yourself for the "arrogant fool" that is none other than you because you can't even identify a radio-active isotope inside your erroneous question, chances are that you probably can't identify what is wrong with your own foolish question, but your welcome ahead of time for allowing Benni to give you some classroom time to sort yourself out.

Maybe if you're real nice & you can't figure out what was erroneous about your question, & instead of leaving you hanging on a tenuous thread maybe you would like for Benni to point out the error?

RNP
Aug 15, 2019

you just continue exposing yourself for the "arrogant fool" that is none other than you because you can't even identify a radio-active isotope inside your erroneous question, chances are that you probably can't identify what is wrong with your own foolish question.


????

WOW! I think I've broken Benni!

Sorry Benni!

Aug 15, 2019

you just continue exposing yourself for the "arrogant fool" that is none other than you because you can't even identify a radio-active isotope inside your erroneous question, chances are that you probably can't identify what is wrong with your own foolish question.


????

WOW! I think I've broken Benni!

Sorry Benni!


Sez RNP:
how does the C13(6 protons, 7 neutrons) become N14(7 protons, 7 neutrons)?
......care to continue making a fool of yourself?


Aug 15, 2019

Oh, wasn't aware Castrogiovanni spends his time in NPL. You around Castro ? Let's get a coffee.



Not me. Not London. Can't stand the bloody place!

Aug 15, 2019


If you'd ever taken a course in nuclear physics you'd know Neutron Emission occurs prior to the 14.7 minute onset of Beta Particle Decay of the Neutron which in turn has nothing to do with 1/2 life radio-isotope decay.


I have. You are wrong. Next?


Aug 15, 2019

you just continue exposing yourself for the "arrogant fool" that is none other than you because you can't even identify a radio-active isotope inside your erroneous question, chances are that you probably can't identify what is wrong with your own foolish question.


????

WOW! I think I've broken Benni!

Sorry Benni!


Sez RNP:
how does the C13(6 protons, 7 neutrons) become N14(7 protons, 7 neutrons)?
......care to continue making a fool of yourself?



You said it, idiot! You said the neutron in 14C (6p-8n) leaves the nucleus and decays to a proton, you moron. Before it rejoins the nucleus to form 14N (7p-7n). It doesn't, thicko. It transforms from a neutron into a proton within the nucleus. Understand? It's all to do with quarks, but that sh!t is going to be so far ahead of your grade school knowledge of science, that it is hardly worth getting into. Anybody that thinks 14C decays via gamma decay is a lost cause! And probably insane.


Aug 15, 2019
Gammas don't have a charge, so they can't change a nucleus from one element to another.

Basic physics.

.....but Neutron Emission sure does.


No it doesn't. If the number of protons is not changing, you idiot, it is still the same element! Duh! If 14N 'loses' a neutron, what does it become, oh stupid one? 13N! See, still nitrogen! If 14C 'loses' a neutron, what does it become? 13C! See, still Carbon! In the example you linked, what did 13Be become after emission of a neutron? 12Be! See, still Beryllium!
Man, you are dumb!

Aug 15, 2019
No it doesn't. If the number of protons is not changing, you idiot, it is still the same element
.....not talking about that, talking about NEUTRON EMISSION, something which you courtesy of Benni have been learning about for the first time in the past couple of days.

When NEUTRON EMISSION occurs, there is a release of a gamma ray at the instant of the release of a bound neutron to become a free unbound neutron. Over your head already?........ more than likely, so I won't take time to discuss how nuclear binding energy factors into gamma radiation decay of a radio-isotope.

Aug 15, 2019

Oh, wasn't aware Castrogiovanni spends his time in NPL. You around Castro ? Let's get a coffee.



Not me. Not London. Can't stand the bloody place!
says Castro-a-gogo

Neither it seems could Prince Andrew stand it. Being that he spent a lot of his own time in the wilds of American cities chasing after 14 year old virgins.
But seeing as how Sarah has aged so, it is almost prophetic that Andy would become a rolling stone, gathering no moss.

Aug 15, 2019
No it doesn't. If the number of protons is not changing, you idiot, it is still the same element
.....not talking about that, talking about NEUTRON EMISSION, something which you courtesy of Benni have been learning about for the first time in the past couple of days.

When NEUTRON EMISSION occurs, there is a release of a gamma ray at the instant of the release of a bound neutron to become a free unbound neutron. Over your head already?........ more than likely, so I won't take time to discuss how nuclear binding energy factors into gamma radiation decay of a radio-isotope.


Idiot. This has nothing to do with beta-decay, you bloody imbecile. You claimed 14C decayed via gamma decay. You were wrong, you uneducated idiot.

Aug 15, 2019
I said:
No it doesn't. If the number of protons is not changing, you idiot, it is still the same element.


The D-K afflicted idiot said:
not talking about that, talking about NEUTRON EMISSION,......


So, what did this pathetic, lying moron say?

DaSchneib said:
Gammas don't have a charge, so they can't change a nucleus from one element to another.

Basic physics.


The D-K afflicted imbecile said:
.....but Neutron Emission sure does.


So, I say again - no it bloody doesn't, you utter cretin. You even proved yourself wrong by linking to 13Be changing into 12Be!!!!! Still Beryllium, you moron. The emitted neutron has not changed it into another element, you hopeless waste of oxygen! Why do we continually have to correct you on very basic high school physics? Tell you what - why don't you go get an education in the subject, and stop making a complete arse of yourself on here?

Aug 15, 2019
No it doesn't. If the number of protons is not changing, you idiot, it is still the same element
....not talking about that, talking about NEUTRON EMISSION, something which you courtesy of Benni have been learning about for the first time in the past couple of days.

When NEUTRON EMISSION occurs, there is a release of a gamma ray at the instant of the release of a bound neutron to become a free unbound neutron. Over your head already?........ more than likely, so I won't take time to discuss how nuclear binding energy factors into gamma radiation decay of a radio-isotope.


This has nothing to do with beta-decay, you bloody imbecile. You claimed 14C decayed via gamma decay. You were wrong,
I was right, already "over your head".

You still do not comprehend it is Neutron Emission accompanied by spontaneous gamma ray emission that initiates C-14 decay, this decay has NOTHING to do with Beta Particle Decay of the free neutron that is released subsequent to NE.

Aug 15, 2019
You still do not comprehend it is Neutron Emission accompanied by spontaneous gamma ray emission that initiates C-14 decay, this decay has NOTHING to do with Beta Particle Decay of the free neutron that is released subsequent to NE.


Lol. And where did you read this, you uneducated moron? Link please. There is no neutron released you stupid idiot. Not a single scientist has ever claimed such an idiotic mechanism. If a frigging neutron leaves 14C, you imbecile, it becomes 13C, eh dummy? Get back to school you useless lump. Probably best to start at grade school. That appears to be where you left off.

Aug 15, 2019
......when I was 15-16 I knew that C-14 was an atomic radio-isotope subject to GAMMA RADIATION DECAY & that a FREE NEUTRON was a subatomic particle subject to decay ONLY by BETA PARTICLE DECAY.

You don't even know the difference between an atomic radio-isotope & a sub-atomic particle.


https://phys.org/...ory.html

^^^^^This is science in BenniWorld! Hahahahahahahaha! Priceless. Back to cleaning those toilets, janitor boy.

Aug 16, 2019
@Benni

I am beginning to believe that you KNOW all of this stuff that CastroVagina seems to THINK you don't know, but you are having a good laugh while making CastroV jump through your hoops and dance the fandango to YOUR tune.
While I would ordinarily say that you are being dishonest toward CV by making him think this, on the other hand, well why not?
Carry on :)

Aug 16, 2019
It's that Cox and Box Time Again
kl31415 > I am spending some days at NPL in London for work.

Like Cox and Box, kl31415 eternally passing Castrogiovanni on the stairs
As one and only one lives in the room, the other at work in London!

Cox and Box – Episode One

Cox and Box in Interiors
When the dawn breakeths
the creatures of the night
pass like shadows on the stairs
for like two peas in a pod
none know of the others existence
except upon a squeezing past
each other on the stairs
fore when Cox materialises
Box is sure to follow on the stairs

Aug 16, 2019
This World Of Atomic Rebirth

ISOTOPES
Isotopes are variants of a chemical element
Differ in neutron number
Consequently in nucleon number
Isotopes of a given element
Have the same number of protons
But different numbers of neutrons in each atom

Consulting Our Magic Cauldron

If we take this ISOTOPIC definition
Isotopes:
Have the same number of protons
But differing numbers of neutrons in each atom

According to our magic cauldron
There are three naturally occurring isotopes of carbon on Earth
carbon-12
carbon-13
carbon-14
FORETH - there only appears to be TWO Isotopes - carbon-13 and carbon-14

p.s. for carbon-12 is not an isotope; in the full meaning of the definition of the descriptive "isotope"
for an isotope has the same number of protons and a differing number of neutrons in each carbon-atom
whereas, carbon-12 has 6-protons and 6-neutrons is not an isotope!

Aug 16, 2019
This World Of Atomic Rebirth

Isotopic carbon-14
Carbon-14 is unstable
Has a life of 5,730years
Decays into nitrogen-14
The primary natural source of carbon-14 on Earth is cosmic ray action on nitrogen

This contradictory carbon-14, nitrogen-14 fishy tale
Of atoms jumping up and down this periodical tree
For nitrogen is losing protons converting to carbon
Then carbon is gaining protons
Converting back to nitrogen again

This is this constant theme
Concerning this lonesome proton and this scrumptious electron
All alone together in this inky blackness of this vacuum

These neutrons
In this carbon
Are converting to protons
Inside this coulomb electric field
Changing this protonic number
There by changing one atom
To another atom
In this inky blackness of our vacuum

Aug 16, 2019
@Benni

I am beginning to believe that you KNOW all of this stuff that CastroVagina seems to THINK you don't know, but you are having a good laugh while making CastroV jump through your hoops and dance the fandango to YOUR tune.
While I would ordinarily say that you are being dishonest toward CV by making him think this, on the other hand, well why not?
Carry on :)


That must be it surely ! :D

Does your IQ fall on a daily basis or do you have special times through the month ?

Aug 16, 2019
........and you're another piece of great laughing material to reiterate the same false conclusion Cv made. Here, I'll repeat the link again explaining Neutron Emission Decay:

https://education...ion.html

Neutron Emission Decay is not the SAME as Beta Particle Decay, two COMPLETELY different processes which explains how a neutron becomes unbound from a nucleus BEFORE it can move onto the 14.7 minute Beta Particle Decay Process.


Hey @Benni,
That's a nice link there. Have you possibly clicked on the Previous Term link to see what is there ?

Iteration is the key !

https://education...ron.html

Can you tell us what are they saying about free neutron decay possibly ?

Aug 16, 2019
Can you tell us what are they saying about free neutron decay possibly ?


Quite a nice idiots guide to 14C decay as well;

https://education...cay.html

It even has pictures for those that may struggle with the written description!

Aug 16, 2019
@Benni

I am beginning to believe that you KNOW all of this stuff that CastroVagina seems to THINK you don't know, but you are having a good laugh while making CastroV jump through your hoops and dance the fandango to YOUR tune.
While I would ordinarily say that you are being dishonest toward CV by making him think this, on the other hand, well why not?
Carry on :)
.......yeah, catching him & RNP making this absolutely false statement:

Laughable! Another epic fail from our self-styled "Nuclear Engineer"!

Individual neutrons are not emitted in ANY decay process.


When he & RNP came to this conclusion they REALLY did give it all away as to their depth of comprehension regarding ANY topic about nuclear physics, this is not high school physics like both of them claim it is, if it actually were HS physics then they obviously never took high school physics or they would have known better than to present themselves before Benni only to be made fodder as a laughingstock.


Aug 16, 2019
known better than to present themselves before Benni only to be made fodder as a laughingstock.



Errrrm, you were wrong, dickhead. Gamma decay has nothing to do with 14C decay, loser. No neutron is emitted, you clown. You are always wrong. You know nothing about nuclear physics.

Aug 16, 2019
@Castrogiovanni
You know it's eating him alive when he starts off with talking about himself in the third person...
One of the few times Benni actually comes back with a link and it bites him in the ass, hahahaha.
Subarashi !

Aug 16, 2019

When he & RNP came to this conclusion they REALLY did give it all away as to their depth of comprehension regarding ANY topic about nuclear physics, this is not high school physics like both of them claim it is, if it actually were HS physics then they obviously never took high school physics or they would have known better than to present themselves before Benni only to be made fodder as a laughingstock.


Q incessant rambling to avoid any more discussion about the epic non-understanding of the link the troll has posted, hahahaha.


Aug 16, 2019
@Castrogiovanni
You know it's eating him alive when he starts off with talking about himself in the third person...


Yep, a sure sign that what little sanity he may have possessed is trickling away!

Aug 16, 2019
Neutrons are not elementary particles - by kl31415
Electric and magnetic fields
by
conclusion
this magnetic field of this neutron
is
This neutrons spinning electric field

kl31415: Neutrons are not elementary particles, electrons are...
Your conclusion is wrong as they know why there is a magnetic moment.

Foreth
This has all the hallmarks
Of
Cox and Box – Episode Two
As
Everyone knows
That
This proton, electron, neutrino and lest we forget, this gamma-ray
Prior to decay, all these atomic particles do not exist
Which meaneths
Cox and Box, this Neutron's an Elementary Particle!


Aug 16, 2019
Cox and Box, this Neutron's an Elementary Particle!


Wrong, simpleton.

Aug 16, 2019
@Benni

Nobody believes your bullshit!

Aug 16, 2019
@Benni

Nobody believes your bullshit!


@hat1208

It's not bullshit, it is the (absolute) inability to comprehend even the basics of any science he dares speak of, hence the DK is so strong with him, hehe.

Aug 16, 2019
Neutrons are not elementary particles - by kl31415
Electric and magnetic fields
by
conclusion
this magnetic field of this neutron
is
This neutrons spinning electric field

kl31415: Neutrons are not elementary particles, electrons are...
Your conclusion is wrong as they know why there is a magnetic moment.

Foreth
This has all the hallmarks
Of
Cox and Box – Episode Two
As
Everyone knows
That
This proton, electron, neutrino and lest we forget, this gamma-ray
Prior to decay, all these atomic particles do not exist
Which meaneths
Cox and Box, this Neutron's an Elementary Particle!


Surely, you can be even dumber than this GranDelusion.
Come on, give it a go, don't hold back on our account...


Aug 16, 2019
An Unbound Neutron versus a Bound Neutron

An unbound neutron in the process of decay
Does not have a half life decay rate
Simply a 14.7 minute decay rate
Decaying into a proton, electron, neutrino and gamma-ray
The instant a neutron becomes unbound
In 14.7 minutes
Decays in isolation to other neutrons
No other neutrons have any effect on the 14.7 beta decay rate of the decaying neutron

We have a bound neutron
Decaying
For example
With
A half-life of 5,730years

Foreth
A bound neutron decays in a half-life
Whereas
An unbound neutron decays in a specific time

p.s. for if an unbound neutron decays in any time, but a specific time "14.7 minutes", because of "Isotopes" atoms in the wild generally have more neutrons than protons implying there are more neutrons than protons by number – but in our vacuum you would be led to believe there are more protons – because neutrons in our vacuum are unbound having decayed in 14.7 minutes, billions of years ago!

Aug 16, 2019
Cox and Box, this Neutron's an Elementary Particle!

Prior to decay this neutron contains no particles
They are created on decay

Are you suggesting, Cox and Box
These protons, electrons, neutrinos and gamma-rays
Are close packed inside this neutron
Where they just come spilling out
These neutrons that bind with protons
Are
Not the mythical beasts that exist in neutron stars

Remember, Cox and Box
That Nobel Prize
That Jocelyn Bell in her finest hour
When she discovered pulsar stars
That cherished prize
Jocelyn Bell was refused
Because
She was the fairer sex

p.s. in case you're wondering, Cox and Box; its kl31415 Cox and Castrogiovanni Box

RNP
Aug 16, 2019
@kl3415
@Castrogiovanni
You know it's eating him alive when he starts off with talking about himself in the third person..

I've done a little research and found this in a psychology dictionary;

Illeism - the act of using the third person when talking about oneself.

Illeism tends to signal a number of personality quirks in the speaker, none of them good:
A stunted intellect; the presence of psychotic personality disorders or rampant egoism.

Which of these would you say applies to Benni? Perhaps all of them?

Aug 16, 2019
This confuses Cox and Box

In case you're wondering, Cox and Box
kl31415 Cox> Please tell us more about the differential equation you are solving today - is it the one that cleans the toilets with most efficiency ?

If these stairs are getting you down
After battling London traffic
Befuddled in confusion
Why this Cox and Box
Simply kl31415 Cox
There is one and one only janitor, kl31415 Cox
Known colloquially as MopMan
Foreth reading kl31415 Cox's textulisations is no different to reading Castrogiovanni Box's textulisations

p.s. for kl31415 Cox, to shed this Cox and Box image, just like a proton does not exist prior to neutron decay, for when this neutron does decay, this proton emergeths a completely independent pristine proton, for kl31415 Cox this is your key in shedding this Cox and Box image!

Aug 16, 2019
Which of these would you say applies to Benni? Perhaps all of them?


All, for sure.

Aug 16, 2019
@kl3415
@Castrogiovanni
You know it's eating him alive when he starts off with talking about himself in the third person..

I've done a little research and found this in a psychology dictionary;

Illeism - the act of using the third person when talking about oneself.

Illeism tends to signal a number of personality quirks in the speaker, none of them good:
A stunted intellect; the presence of psychotic personality disorders or rampant egoism.

Which of these would you say applies to Benni? Perhaps all of them?
says RNP

There is nothing wrong with using the 'third person singular' occasionally. Why do you even bring it up?
It is well known that the Royals such as Queen Elizabeth II has used it in the form of the royal "WE", and so does the members of Parliament. I think you bring too much importance to what Benni says when he chooses to use that 'third person singular' as relating to the topic. But you have nothing to say concerning CastroV's diatribes.

Aug 16, 2019
@kl3415
@Castrogiovanni
You know it's eating him alive when he starts off with talking about himself in the third person..

I've done a little research and found this in a psychology dictionary;

Illeism - the act of using the third person when talking about oneself.

Illeism tends to signal a number of personality quirks in the speaker, none of them good:
A stunted intellect; the presence of psychotic personality disorders or rampant egoism.

Which of these would you say applies to Benni? Perhaps all of them?


@RNP All has to be all.

Aug 16, 2019
I think you bring too much importance to what Benni says when he chooses to use that 'third person singular' as relating to the topic. But you have nothing to say concerning CastroV's diatribes.
......or when Gamma Radiation Decay occurs within the chain of a radio-isotope so it can become stable.

Everytime an atom releases a particle via Alpha, Beta, or Neutron Emission, a gamma or an x-ray is always emitted from the nucleus spontaneous to the release of a particle. This because the nucleus must give up binding energy for the particle emission to occur in the first place, this where the gamma or x-ray emission comes from, it's the atom giving up energy so a particle can be released so the atom can move to the next lowest energy state.

Aug 16, 2019
I think you bring too much importance to what Benni says when he chooses to use that 'third person singular' as relating to the topic. But you have nothing to say concerning CastroV's diatribes.
......or when Gamma Radiation Decay occurs within the chain of a radio-isotope so it can become stable.

Everytime an atom releases a particle via Alpha, Beta, or Neutron Emission, a gamma or an x-ray is always emitted from the nucleus spontaneous to the release of a particle. This because the nucleus must give up binding energy for the particle emission to occur in the first place, this where the gamma or x-ray emission comes from, it's the atom giving up energy so a particle can be released so the atom can move to the next lowest energy state.


Wrong.

Aug 16, 2019
Wrong
......here, from your own government:

https://www.arpan...adiation

"What are some common sources of gamma radiation?
Gamma radiation is released from many of the radioisotopes found in the natural radiation decay series of uranium, thorium and actinium as well as being emitted by the naturally occurring radioisotopes potassium-40 and carbon-14. These are found in all rocks and soil and even in our food and water."


Aug 16, 2019
Wrong
......here, from your own government:

https://www.arpan...adiation

"What are some common sources of gamma radiation?
Gamma radiation is released from many of the radioisotopes found in the natural radiation decay series of uranium, thorium and actinium as well as being emitted by the naturally occurring radioisotopes potassium-40 and carbon-14. These are found in all rocks and soil and even in our food and water."



Not my government, dumbo. And they appear to be wrong. All of which has absolutely nothing to do with beta - decay. Which emits a beta particle (electron) and an antineutrino. No gamma rays.

Aug 16, 2019
I think you bring too much importance to what Benni says when he chooses to use that 'third person singular' as relating to the topic. But you have nothing to say concerning CastroV's diatribes.
......or when Gamma Radiation Decay occurs within the chain of a radio-isotope so it can become stable.

Everytime an atom releases a particle via Alpha, Beta, or Neutron Emission, a gamma or an x-ray is always emitted from the nucleus spontaneous to the release of a particle. This because the nucleus must give up binding energy for the particle emission to occur in the first place, this where the gamma or x-ray emission comes from, it's the atom giving up energy so a particle can be released so the atom can move to the next lowest energy state.


Wrong.
says Castrovagina

You seem to be saying "Wrong" as an adjective, but without explaining as to WHY it is wrong. Your one-syllable answers/comments are ineffective as an explanation and is of no value.

Aug 16, 2019


You seem to be saying "Wrong" as an adjective, but without explaining as to WHY it is wrong. Your one-syllable answers/comments are ineffective as an explanation and is of no value.


Anybody who is familiar with high school physics will know why it's wrong. And I couldn't care less what you are unable to understand. Go back to school if you want to learn. It isn't my job to educate loons like you.

Aug 16, 2019
I doubt that ANYONE could understand the term "Wrong" without your qualifying WHAT is wrong and WHY it is wrong. You have an ongoing problem of stating things without backing them up. And THAT is wrong.

Aug 16, 2019
A 14 year old who is looking for the answer to a Physics problem and reads YOUR saying "Wrong" would be puzzled as to WHY it is wrong. And YOU are too lazy to provide the correct answer to the lad or lass. But you come into physorg on a daily basis, and yet have NO TIME to provide good answers so that the 14 year old could possibly learn from such an arse as you..
Lazy is your middle name.

Aug 16, 2019
I doubt that ANYONE could understand the term "Wrong" without your qualifying WHAT is wrong and WHY it is wrong. You have an ongoing problem of stating things without backing them up. And THAT is wrong.


Nope, you have a problem with any science beyond primary school.

Aug 16, 2019
Since you have no time or inkling to explain your meanderings and can only answer with a short "Wrong", I suggest that you not respond to those comments that you have no intention of explaining what and why something is wrong. You seem too upset to carry on a decent discussion with anyone in physorg, unless they are in full agreement with you and your stance. So it might be best for you to just read the comments and be quiet the rest of the day.

And you still haven't answered my query of "What is time made of". Which is a clear indication that you don't know.

Aug 16, 2019
A 14 year old who is looking for the answer to a Physics problem and reads YOUR saying "Wrong" would be puzzled as to WHY it is wrong. And YOU are too lazy to provide the correct answer to the lad or lass. But you come into physorg on a daily basis, and yet have NO TIME to provide good answers so that the 14 year old could possibly learn from such an arse as you..
Lazy is your middle name.


Most 14 year olds would have a text book or online resource to help answer their questions. Not to mention science teachers. They would not be in a place like this, reading comments from scientifically illiterate janitors.

Aug 16, 2019
And you still haven't answered my query of "What is time made of". Which is a clear indication that you don't know.


Dumb question, sh!tforbrains. How does time dilate, predictably, if it doesn't exist, thicko? What is the SI unit of energy if you take seconds out of the definition? You are a brain dead moron, with zero understanding of science. You are as thick as pigsh!t. You are a fruitloop who thinks he is a ****ing alien, for chrissakes!
Go take your meds, Have a lie down. Stop bothering yourself with things that are beyond your understanding.

Aug 16, 2019
Since you have admitted to being an illiterate janitor, I would hope that no 14 years olds come into this site to read your self-abusing rhetoric and pretenses to being an "expert" in all things science.
Not all teachers are available to students, or make themselves available. Students who scan the 'net are liable to enter this site and find that not all commenters are well versed in science and are too lazy to explain what they have posted.

Aug 16, 2019
And you still haven't answered my query of "What is time made of". Which is a clear indication that you don't know.


Dumb question, sh!tforbrains. How does time dilate, predictably, if it doesn't exist, thicko? What is the SI unit of energy if you take seconds out of the definition? You are a brain dead moron, with zero understanding of science. You are as thick as pigsh!t. You are a fruitloop who thinks he is a ****ing alien, for chrissakes!
Go take your meds, Have a lie down. Stop bothering yourself with things that are beyond your understanding.


What is your 'evidence' that there is such a thing as 'time'? Have you seen 'time'? What is 'time' made of? Is it a particle? come on, expert. Answer the question. What is your PROOF that it is 'time' that dilates?

Aug 16, 2019
Most 14 year olds would have a text book or online resource to help answer their questions. Not to mention science teachers. They would not be in a place like this, reading comments from scientifically illiterate.
.....so what's your excuse for being here if you won't even believe an "online resource" I linked to help answer your questions, you know, like this:

https://www.arpan...adiation

"What are some common sources of gamma radiation?
Gamma radiation is released from many of the radioisotopes found in the natural radiation decay series of uranium, thorium and actinium as well as being emitted by the naturally occurring radioisotopes potassium-40 and carbon-14."

.....maybe you imagine YOU are an "online resource"? That would be funny mopman.


Aug 16, 2019
And you still haven't answered my query of "What is time made of". Which is a clear indication that you don't know.


Dumb question, sh!tforbrains. How does time dilate, predictably, if it doesn't exist, thicko? What is the SI unit of energy if you take seconds out of the definition? You are a brain dead moron, with zero understanding of science. You are as thick as pigsh!t. You are a fruitloop who thinks he is a ****ing alien, for chrissakes!
Go take your meds, Have a lie down. Stop bothering yourself with things that are beyond your understanding.


What is your 'evidence' that there is such a thing as 'time'? Have you seen 'time'? What is 'time' made of? Is it a particle? come on, expert. Answer the question. What is your PROOF that it is 'time' that dilates?


Another bunch of dumb sh!t! You really are thick, aren't you? Try to remember - you know absolutely nothing about science you idiot.

Aug 16, 2019
Most 14 year olds would have a text book or online resource to help answer their questions. Not to mention science teachers. They would not be in a place like this, reading comments from scientifically illiterate.
.....so what's your excuse for being here if you won't even believe an "online resource" I linked to help answer your questions, you know, like this:

https://www.arpan...adiation

"What are some common sources of gamma radiation?
Gamma radiation is released from many of the radioisotopes found in the natural radiation decay series of uranium, thorium and actinium as well as being emitted by the naturally occurring radioisotopes potassium-40 and carbon-14."

.....maybe you imagine YOU are an "online resource"? That would be funny mopman.



And they are wrong. Simple. 14C decays via beta decay. No gammas are produced. Fact.

Aug 16, 2019
Gamma-rays in atomic decay

Laying your credentials on the ground
As far as isotopic decay
Not involving gamma-rays
Is a courageous decision
Because
As we speculatively consult our magic cauldron
Its magic potions are looking favourably
On all types of decay
Involve gamma-rays
So just for old times sake
A variation on "no"
No in Maori
Kahore kau

Aug 16, 2019
And they are wrong. Simple. 14C decays via beta decay. No gammas are produced. Fact.
......this link specifies gamma radiation release in the beta decay process: "Gamma ray emission frequently follows beta decay".

https://www.nde-e...amma.htm

"Gamma-rays"

"A nucleus which is in an excited state may emit one or more photons (packets of electromagnetic radiation) of discrete energies. The emission of gamma rays does not alter the number of protons or neutrons in the nucleus but instead has the effect of moving the nucleus from a higher to a lower energy state (unstable to stable). Gamma ray emission frequently follows beta decay, alpha decay, and other nuclear decay processes."

..........your problem is that you don't know how to read nuclear equations that are complete enough to include the gamma emissions involved in radio-active decay, and in C-14 they are plentiful.

Aug 16, 2019
Just heard on the radio that actor Peter Fonda has died today. The star of "Easy Rider", some of you may remember him.

Aug 16, 2019
And they are wrong. Simple. 14C decays via beta decay. No gammas are produced. Fact.
......this link specifies gamma radiation release in the beta decay process: "Gamma ray emission frequently follows beta decay".

https://www.nde-e...amma.htm

Gamma-rays

A nucleus which is in an excited state may emit one or more photons (packets of electromagnetic radiation) of discrete energies. The emission of gamma rays does not alter the number of protons or neutrons in the nucleus but instead has the effect of moving the nucleus from a higher to a lower energy state (unstable to stable). Gamma ray emission frequently follows beta decay, alpha decay, and other nuclear decay processes."



And has nothing to do with beta decay. Particularly that of 14C. Which decays to 14N, with the production of an electron and an antineutrino. 14C decay has nothing whatsoever to do with gamma decay, and nobody is claiming otherwise.

Aug 16, 2019
And you still haven't answered my query of "What is time made of". Which is a clear indication that you don't know.


Dumb question, sh!tforbrains. How does time dilate, predictably, if it doesn't exist, thicko? What is the SI unit of energy if you take seconds out of the definition? You are a brain dead moron, with zero understanding of science. You are as thick as pigsh!t. You are a fruitloop who thinks he is a ****ing alien, for chrissakes!
Go take your meds, Have a lie down. Stop bothering yourself with things that are beyond your understanding.


What is your 'evidence' that there is such a thing as 'time'? Have you seen 'time'? What is 'time' made of? Is it a particle? come on, expert. Answer the question. What is your PROOF that it is 'time' that dilates?


Another bunch of dumb sh!t! You really are thick, aren't you? Try to remember - you know absolutely nothing about science you idiot.
says CV

Answer my questions, dopey.

Aug 16, 2019
include the gamma emissions involved in radio-active decay, and in C-14 they are plentiful.


No, they are non-existent, you uneducated clown. Go back to school, janitor boy. Leave this science stuff alone. It is too much for your poor brain (such as it is) to cope with.

Aug 16, 2019
Answer my questions, dopey.


There are no questions, imbecile. Just the idiotic musings of a scientifically illiterate retard who thinks he is an alien lizard. Time exists. As proven. Time dilates. As proven. Energy exists. As proven. Energy cannot exist without time. Ergo, there is nothing to answer.

Aug 16, 2019
Answer my questions, dopey.


There are no questions, imbecile. Just the idiotic musings of a scientifically illiterate retard who thinks he is an alien lizard. Time exists. As proven. Time dilates. As proven. Energy exists. As proven. Energy cannot exist without time. Ergo, there is nothing to answer.
.....then why do you keep coming back? Ooops, another question.

Aug 16, 2019
Let's see if the dumb janitor can understand this;

https://www.rsc.o...7765.pdf

So, to translate from scientific into something a janitor might understand;

Example of pure beta decay: 14C to 14N. No gammas.

Examples of beta plus gamma decay: 12N to 12C & 12B to 12C. In both cases the 12C is left in an excited state, and decays to the ground state by emitting a gamma ray. After the beta decay has already happened. Obviously.

Aug 16, 2019
include the gamma emissions involved in radio-active decay, and in C-14 they are plentiful.


No, they are non-existent, you uneducated clown. Go back to school, janitor boy. Leave this science stuff alone. It is too much for your poor brain (such as it is) to cope with.
.....now gamma radiation doesn't exist anywhere in the Universe in your fantasy world of Pop-Cosmology. There's a lot of science behind it but you don't know how to discover it.

Aug 16, 2019
ROFLOL Alien Lizard

So what you're really saying, Mop man, is that you BELIEVE IN TIME DILATION, but you have no idea what "time" is made of; what are its components, its constituents, its qualities and qualifications to dilate; AND you accept it as fact.
This means that YOU have NEVER inquired anything about it, but it MUST BE TRUE BECAUSE IT IS WRITTEN IN THE TEXTBOOKS.
Your refusal to answer my queries regarding your knowledge of what 'time' is made of, should tell everyone reading your non-answers that you are a phony-baloney plastic-banana blowhard who is a sucker for anything that is written in science literature, and that you are WILLING TO BELIEVE ANYTHING without looking further into it to ascertain whether it is true or not.
You're a fool, jonesy, an even bigger fool than Einstein was for including that Minkowski spacetime bullcrap in his math equations.
I have decided to BLOCK your comments due to your disgusting habits of maligning your betters and pretending.

Aug 16, 2019
.....now gamma radiation doesn't exist anywhere in the Universe in your fantasy world of Pop-Cosmology. There's a lot of science behind it but you don't know how to discover it.


I didn't say any such thing you lying, uneducated clown. I said that they are not involved in 14C decay. And they aren't, dumbo. I even gave you examples of where they are produced after beta decay, but you are too dumb to understand it. Not my fault. I think you'll find that they also make an appearance in the p-p fusion chain. However, I'm guessing that stuff is well beyond you.

Aug 16, 2019
Answer my questions, dopey.


There are no questions, imbecile. Just the idiotic musings of a scientifically illiterate retard who thinks he is an alien lizard. Time exists. As proven. Time dilates. As proven. Energy exists. As proven. Energy cannot exist without time. Ergo, there is nothing to answer.


OK just one more before you're gone.
Clocks exist. The Earth's rotation exists. The sunrise to sunrise rotation of the Earth cycle exists.

Time does NOT exist and has never been proven to exist, otherwise you would be able to DESCRIBE ITS PHYSICAL ASPECTS. Clocks exist only to INCREMENTALLY MEASURE DURATIONS OF EVENTS AND ACTIONS. Energy exists because it is made of particles/waves. Energy does not need 'time' to exist. 'time' is only a CONCEPT. IT WAS CONCEIVED IN THE MINDS OF THOSE WHO NEEDED A WORD TO DESCRIBE THE SUNRISE TO SUNRISE EFFECT OF ROTATION OF THE EARTH. TRY TO REMEMBER THAT, YOU IDIOT

Aug 16, 2019
So what you're really saying, Mop man, is that you BELIEVE IN TIME DILATION, but you have no idea what "time" is made of; what are its components, its constituents, its qualities and qualifications to dilate; AND you accept it as fact.
This means that YOU have NEVER inquired anything about it, but it MUST BE TRUE BECAUSE IT IS WRITTEN IN THE TEXTBOOKS.
Your refusal to answer my queries regarding your knowledge of what 'time' is made of, should tell everyone reading your non-answers that you are a phony-baloney plastic-banana blowhard who is a sucker for anything that is written in science literature, and that you are WILLING TO BELIEVE ANYTHING without looking further into it to ascertain whether it is true or not.
You're a fool, jonesy, an even bigger fool than Einstein was for including that Minkowski spacetime bullcrap in his math equations.
I have decided to BLOCK your comments due to your disgusting habits of maligning your betters and pretending.


Lol. Uneducated tosser.

Aug 16, 2019
OK just one more before you're gone.
Clocks exist. The Earth's rotation exists. The sunrise to sunrise rotation of the Earth cycle exists.

Time does NOT exist and has never been proven to exist, otherwise you would be able to DESCRIBE ITS PHYSICAL ASPECTS. Clocks exist only to INCREMENTALLY MEASURE DURATIONS OF EVENTS AND ACTIONS. Energy exists because it is made of particles/waves. Energy does not need 'time' to exist. 'time' is only a CONCEPT. IT WAS CONCEIVED IN THE MINDS OF THOSE WHO NEEDED A WORD TO DESCRIBE THE SUNRISE TO SUNRISE EFFECT OF ROTATION OF THE EARTH. TRY TO REMEMBER THAT, YOU IDIOT


Hahahahaha! The incoherent ramblings of a scientifically illiterate nutjob who thinks he is an alien lizard! We should care why exactly, thicko? Go take your meds, there's a good lizard.

Aug 16, 2019
You're a fool, jonesy, an even bigger fool than Einstein was for including that Minkowski spacetime bullcrap in his math equations.
.....he sure spent a lot of unnecessary time explaining clocks to that generation.

I'm not coming back to this Glitch thing anymore with jonesy in tow. He gets lost so easily with any mention of following nuclear decay chain equations. I think the Sun has gotten to him from spending so much time wandering around in the open fields of tall grass & weeds picking bones for his next Anthropology project.


Aug 16, 2019


I'm not coming back to this Glitch thing anymore with jonesy in tow



Yep, running away from making a tit of yourself yet again! Now, who was it said;

......when I was 15-16 I knew that C-14 was an atomic radio-isotope subject to GAMMA RADIATION DECAY & that a FREE NEUTRON was a subatomic particle subject to decay ONLY by BETA PARTICLE DECAY.

You don't even know the difference between an atomic radio-isotope & a sub-atomic particle.


https://phys.org/...ory.html

Now, that is really, really, dumb! I would not even be on this site after making a tit of myself like that! Some people just can't help themselves though. I guess it's the worst case of Dunning-Kruger known to mankind, that makes a loon keep on coming back after so many cringeworthy comments and cock ups! Have you ever considered self-mutilation? It can't be as painful, surely? Lol.

Aug 16, 2019
Well, it was easy to see that Castrovagina will swallow anything. And after he swallows it, he won't even care where it is coming from or from whom. Thus, Castrovagina has swallowed the whole lie from DaSchneib about 'alien lizards' and 'time dilations' from the whole Hermann Minkowski/Einsteinian faerie tales that there is such a thing as 'time', where NO SCIENTIST HAS EVER EXPLAINED WHAT TIME CONSISTS OF, and what its properties, qualities and capabilities are. Which is another reason why Castrovagina can't even tell us what 'time' is made of. Because he simply doesn't KNOW. It is NOWHERE IN THE TEXTBOOKS and other science literature. There is NEVER ANY TALK OF IT in ANY science literature. And you will never hear scientists speak of it in the halls of academia.
So Castrovagina alias jonesdave has nowhere to go for such information. So instead, he accuses with all manner of indecent talk, thinking that he is making himself look good to everyone who reads his foul idiocy.

Aug 16, 2019
^^^^^^^Lol. Says a scientifically illiterate cretin. Give up you clown. You haven't got a clue about science. Take your meds and get back in your vivarium for a lie down.

Aug 16, 2019
Since you have admitted to being an illiterate janitor, I would hope that no 14 years olds come into this site to read your self-abusing rhetoric and pretenses to being an "expert" in all things science.
Not all teachers are available to students, or make themselves available. Students who scan the 'net are liable to enter this site and find that not all commenters are well versed in science and are too lazy to explain what they have posted.

The Phys.org comment section is rated R, hopefully children don't visit this site with the vulgar meatheads such as jonesdumb, da schnied, among others posting.

Aug 16, 2019
The Phys.org comment section is rated R, hopefully children don't visit this site with the vulgar meatheads such as jonesdumb, da schnied, among others posting.


And hopefully don't see the puerile crap believed by idiots like you! Thankfully, most people are not gullible enough to fall for that woo. You would find that if idiots like you, lizard boy and Benni the burke stopped posting their inane drivel, then the place would be far better. No need to respond to idiots, if the idiots stop posting.

Aug 17, 2019
Since you have admitted to being an illiterate janitor, I would hope that no 14 years olds come into this site to read your self-abusing rhetoric and pretenses to being an "expert" in all things science.
Not all teachers are available to students, or make themselves available. Students who scan the 'net are liable to enter this site and find that not all commenters are well versed in science and are too lazy to explain what they have posted.

The Phys.org comment section is rated R, hopefully children don't visit this site with the vulgar meatheads such as jonesdumb, da schnied, among others posting.
says CD85

The truth is that what we say here in these phorums gives 'food for thought' that encourages students and others to 'think for themselves' and to seek out the facts, rather than just stare at a textbook, while wondering if there's more to it than what is printed.
I happen to know that 'time' is an imaginary concept derived from the human brain, eg.

Aug 17, 2019
There is a huge difference between the acceptance of the tried and tested truth that actually works, such as the Laws of Thermodynamics; and the full acceptance of untried and untested but merely imaginative and philosophically generated hypotheses such as Space-time. The inclusion of Space is perfectly legitimate due to it being readily quantified out of which a number of occurrences are known to happen in it, such as gravitational attraction on Mass.
But 'time' is thoroughly accepted as a part of Special Relativity without the prerequisite of PROVING that 'time' does indeed exist and is of Matter/Energy such as Protons and Electrons or Photons or is a sub-particle. And yet, the foolish ones swear by it. When given the explanation that 'time' is still only a CONCEPT and nothing real, the fools resort to proving that they know nothing by behaving like the idiots that they really are.
Which goes to prove that their presence in a science site doesn't mean that they're intelligent.

Aug 17, 2019
It wasn't immediately clear how the cross-section of this object should appear, now it seems there is a dense core with a central part running pole to pole, I mean it's a bit apple-like, a dense or energetic periphery and possibly interior layers concentric with those but otherwise very little coupling between these levels and the core except through the polar axis, there might as well be foam-bubble insulation filling the gaps between dense current levels. I'm reminded of the spacing between concentric sheathes in a diagram of twistor geometry there. Sometimes the polar axis coupling may shear off as overall spin adapts to surroundings, especially polar-aligned external conditions, I imagine. I guess it is like a combined toroidal-winding/transmission system, an electric wheel with a temporarily-decouplable electric motor idling inside. But, it's just a neutron star, they have super-strong magnetic fields from massive internal currents. Gravity pretty much still rules space.

Aug 17, 2019
Angular Momentum - It's called a glitch

Neutron stars start to spin faster
Caused by portions of the inside of the star moving outwards
It's called a "glitch"

The Theory
A soup of superfluid neutrons
In the inner layer of the crust
Moves outwards first
And hits the rigid outer crust
Of the star
Causing it to spin up

Where as in conservation of angular momentum
When inner starry layers
Expand into outer starry layers
The outer starry layers
Slow the overall rotation of the star
In short
This neutron star is
By redistributing its mass
To its outer layers
Is the equivalent
Of an ice skater
Stretching her arms to her outer extremities
There by reducing her spin

Either that
Or this neutron star
Has discovered that cherished Holy Grail
Perpetual motion
There by increasing its spin by out stretching its inner layers

Aug 17, 2019


Which goes to prove that their presence in a science site doesn't mean that they're intelligent.


Says a scientifically illiterate idiot. Time exists. As proven. Obviously. Its behaviour is predictable. As shown by time dilation. It is required for energy to exist. No time = no space. Really, really dumb idea. Stick to being a lizard, you clown.

Aug 17, 2019
The truth is that what we say here in these phorums gives 'food for thought' that encourages students and others to 'think for themselves' and to seek out the facts, rather than just stare at a textbook, while wondering if there's more to it than what is printed.
I happen to know that 'time' is an imaginary concept derived from the human brain, eg.


According to an idiot that can't even spell forum correctly! You are giving students nothing to think about, due to understanding the square root of zero about science. You are just a poser on a comments section. Otherwise, you'd be on a physics forum discussing your idiocy. You are nothing more than an uneducated blowhard. And, quite likely, mentally ill.

Aug 17, 2019
It is required for energy to exist. No time = no space.

Stupid is as stupid types.

Aug 17, 2019
The truth is that what we say here in these phorums gives 'food for thought' that encourages students and others to 'think for themselves' and to seek out the facts, rather than just stare at a textbook, while wondering if there's more to it than what is printed.
I happen to know that 'time' is an imaginary concept derived from the human brain, eg.


According to an idiot that can't even spell forum correctly! You are giving students nothing to think about, due to understanding the square root of zero about science. You are just a poser on a comments section. Otherwise, you'd be on a physics forum discussing your idiocy. You are nothing more than an uneducated blowhard. And, quite likely, mentally ill.


I spell it in whichever way I want to spell it. And when did YOU become the schoolmarm of Physorg? Teaching English class, are you? If ever you decided to look further into your 'time dilation' myth, you would discover that the cause of the dilation is elsewhere.

Aug 17, 2019


Which goes to prove that their presence in a science site doesn't mean that they're intelligent.


Says a scientifically illiterate idiot. Time exists. As proven. Obviously. Its behaviour is predictable. As shown by time dilation. It is required for energy to exist. No time = no space. Really, really dumb idea. Stick to being a lizard, you clown.
says the easily-fooled, Castrovagina

Which proves nothing but your insanity. Your 'time dilation' evidence is mere Theory. There is no such thing as an Observer looking into a spaceship and seeing the humans within the ship moving slower according to the velocity as it approaches c. It has never happened, thus it has never been proven. A Theory is make-believe until proven as fact; then it is no longer a theory.
Atomic clocks are simply machines to MEASURE THE INCREMENTAL MOVEMENTS of the clock's hands, and ticking caused by jumping Electrons. And it is all controlled by Gravity.
But keep on believing the faerie tales.

Aug 17, 2019
It is required for energy to exist. No time = no space.

Stupid is as stupid types.


So, dumbo, what is the definition of the SI unit of energy? That would be a joule, to save you looking it up. Does it include a time measurement?

Aug 17, 2019
^^^^^ Anybody know what delta t in Maxwell's equations means? I've forgotten. :)

Aug 17, 2019
Anybody ever looked at where Einstein's relativity came from? Try Maxwell > Lorentz > Einstein. Take out time, and none of that sh!t works. It is a stupendously idiotic idea.

Aug 17, 2019
As they slow down their surface shifts in a manner that results in them forming into a more perfect sphere. Thanks to the conservation of angular momentum, this, in turn, causes the neutron star to speed up!


If I remember properly, it was once theorized that the electrons near a plack hole would become a thick soup and thus have the ones in a more distant orbit moving faster than normal and those closer moving slower. I did not grasp the reason for this at the time. Anyway, such effects may play a part in the mix of factors involved in the changing spin rate.

Aug 17, 2019
As they slow down their surface shifts in a manner that results in them forming into a more perfect sphere. Thanks to the conservation of angular momentum, this, in turn, causes the neutron star to speed up!


If I remember properly, it was once theorized that the electrons near a black hole would become a thick soup and thus have the ones in a more distant orbit moving faster than normal and those closer moving slower. I did not grasp the reason for this at the time. Anyway, such effects may play a part in the mix of factors involved in the changing spin rate. This site may be trying to discuss this effect. https://www.groun...ources/1

Aug 19, 2019
^^^^^ Anybody know what delta t in Maxwell's equations means? I've forgotten. :)

Yep, an abstract variable in an abstract maths equation.

Aug 19, 2019
This Alice and wonderland of Relativity

Seeing humans within the ship
Moving slower approaching c
This nonsensical down the rabbit hole
Alice and wonderland, SEU

The Walrus and the Carpenter by Lewis Carroll

"The sun was shining on the sea,
Shining with all his might:
He did his very best to make
The billows smooth and bright
And this was odd, because it was
The middle of the night.

The moon was shining sulkily,
Because she thought the sun
Had got no business to be there
After the day was done —
"It's very rude of him," she said,
"To come and spoil the fun."

The sea was wet as wet could be,
The sands were dry as dry.
You could not see a cloud, because
No cloud was in the sky:
No birds were flying overhead
There were no birds to fly.

The Walrus and the Carpenter
Were walking close at hand;
They wept like anything to see
Such quantities of sand:
If this were only cleared away,'
They said, it would be grand!'

Aug 19, 2019
^^^^^ Anybody know what delta t in Maxwell's equations means? I've forgotten. :)

Yep, an abstract variable in an abstract maths equation.


Lol. So you reject Maxwell's equations? Alfven would turn in his grave!

Aug 20, 2019
Anybody ever looked at where Einstein's relativity came from? Try Maxwell > Lorentz > Einstein. Take out time, and none of that sh!t works. It is a stupendously idiotic idea.
says CastroVagina

Then none of that sh!t must've worked, because there's no such thing as 'time'. You still can't produce something out of NOTHING.

Aug 20, 2019
From the Horse's Mouth
Castrogiovanni> Anybody ever looked at where Einstein's relativity came from? Try Maxwell > Lorentz > Einstein. Take out time, and none of that sh!t works. It is a stupendously idiotic idea.

SEU> Then none of that must've worked, because there's no such thing as 'time'. You still can't produce something out of NOTHING.

TIME
As the earth monotonously
Regularly
As clockwork
Completes one yearly orbital of its star
Making that
1,825,000,000,000 orbital's since the birth of earths Star
Foreth, timeth is a strangeth beast
Fore as the earth orbits to this regular beat
Our satellites
In the same frame of reference
As our earth orbiting its star
Are strangely inaccurate
According to our chronometers
Where as
Our earth has not missed a beat
In 1,825,000,000,000 orbital's since the birth of earths Star

Requiring no relativive correction these 5Billion years

Aug 20, 2019
TIME

As the Earth orbits its star
Satellites orbit their Earth
For if Earth's chronometers are inaccurate
When placed on Earth's satellites

This meaneths
When Earth is a satellite orbiting its star
Earth's chronometers are inaccurate
Because Earth is a satellite

Foreth if this satellitic motion affects chronometer timing and positioning
Our earth is undergoing this same chronometer timing and positioning as Earth's satellites

Fore where is this Earth's chronometer
Corrected in its yearly orbit of our star
For 1,825 Billion corrections have had to be made
Since the earth was created 5Bllion years ago

As this is theorised to be 1/3 this Universe age
So what is this true age of Time

FORE NOW NO ONE NOW KNOWS THIS TRUE AGE OF TIME

Aug 20, 2019
FORE NOW NO ONE NOW KNOWS THIS TRUE AGE OF TIME

Because
Simply
SATELLITIC MOTION EFFECTS CHRONOMETER TIMING AND POSITIONING

This simple key, satellitic motion affects chronometer timing
Namely, accelerative motion
As in gravity and centrifugal motion
For
If it was not obvious by now
The earth has made 1,825 Billion orbits
Which we call a year
Where the only deviation
In length of this year
Is if there has been any physical deviation
Effecting this earth
In its yearly orbital of its star, our sun

Because in the vacuum of space, a body remains in motion unless acted on by a force!

Aug 20, 2019
Anybody ever looked at where Einstein's relativity came from? Try Maxwell > Lorentz > Einstein. Take out time, and none of that sh!t works. It is a stupendously idiotic idea.
says CastroVagina

Then none of that sh!t must've worked, because there's no such thing as 'time'. You still can't produce something out of NOTHING.


Trivially false. As proven. Give up lizard boy. You are too dumb to understand science.

Aug 20, 2019
tis time
Castrogiovanni> Trivially false. As proven.

to put this time back where it belongs in time and space!

Aug 20, 2019
Satellitic Motion affects Chronometer Timing

36,000 km orbit takes 23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4 seconds to complete an orbit
Which strangely
Is this exact length of day

For what happened to relative velocities
A person at 36,000 km
Is moving faster
Than when they are standing on the ground

Foreth, chronometers are affected by motion
A stationary orbit
Is effectively; a fixed imaginary radii extending from earth
Taking 23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4 seconds to complete one revolution
Where; apparently, anywhere along this radii – Time Remains Constant

As velocity of rotation varies along this radii – How Is Time Remaining Constant
Taking 23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4 seconds to complete one revolution?

Aug 20, 2019
^^^^^ Anybody know what delta t in Maxwell's equations means? I've forgotten. :)

Yep, an abstract variable in an abstract maths equation.


Lol. So you reject Maxwell's equations? Alfven would turn in his grave!

Damn you are dumb!

Aug 20, 2019
^^^^^ Anybody know what delta t in Maxwell's equations means? I've forgotten. :)

Yep, an abstract variable in an abstract maths equation.


@Cantthink Interpretation, "Duh, I dunno".

Aug 20, 2019
No fish in the sea
^^^^^ Anybody know what delta t in Maxwell's equations means? I've forgotten. :)

Yep, an abstract variable in an abstract maths equation.


Lol. So you reject Maxwell's equations? Alfven would turn in his grave!

Damn you are dumb!

@Cantthink Interpretation, "Duh, I dunno".

As all this was jonesy, angling

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more