The neutron decays into a proton and an electron.
Probably the antineutron decays into an antiproton and a positron.
These are the predictions of the new mass building model.
... and here are the experimental premises:
https://www.caltech.edu/about/news/how-long-does-a-neutron-live
On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 5:50:04 AM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:
The neutron decays into a proton and an electron.
Probably the antineutron decays into an antiproton and a positron.
These are the predictions of the new mass building model.
... and here are the experimental premises:
https://www.caltech.edu/about/news/how-long-does-a-neutron-liveThere is no anti world. How would man make it from positive particles?
How is negative matter made from a positive matter source?
On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 5:50:04 AM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:
The neutron decays into a proton and an electron.
Probably the antineutron decays into an antiproton and a positron.
These are the predictions of the new mass building model.
... and here are the experimental premises:
https://www.caltech.edu/about/news/how-long-does-a-neutron-live
There is no anti world. How would man make it from positive particles?
How is negative matter made from a positive matter source?
On 4/27/2023 1:55 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 5:50:04 AM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:
The neutron decays into a proton and an electron.
Probably the antineutron decays into an antiproton and a positron.
These are the predictions of the new mass building model.
... and here are the experimental premises:
https://www.caltech.edu/about/news/how-long-does-a-neutron-live
There is no anti world. How would man make it from positive particles?
How is negative matter made from a positive matter source?
Roy, did you have a problem understanding something when you googled
"pair production"?
The neutron decays into a proton and an electron.
Volney <vol...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 4/27/2023 1:55 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 5:50:04 AM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote: >>> The neutron decays into a proton and an electron.
Probably the antineutron decays into an antiproton and a positron.
These are the predictions of the new mass building model.
... and here are the experimental premises:
https://www.caltech.edu/about/news/how-long-does-a-neutron-live
There is no anti world. How would man make it from positive particles?
How is negative matter made from a positive matter source?
Roy, did you have a problem understanding something when you googledHe has problems with which shoe goes on which foot and how to tie the
"pair production"?
laces.
On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 5:50:04 AM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:
The neutron decays into a proton and an electron.No, it does not.
Read a dang textbook, making crap up as you go along is not science, it is your own personal fantasy...
https://hepweb.ucsd.edu/ph110b/110b_notes/node63.html#:~:text=While%20neutrons%20are%20stable%20inside,antineutrino%20of%20the%20electron%20type.
piątek, 28 kwietnia 2023 o 06:20:14 UTC+2 Paul Alsing napisał(a):
On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 5:50:04 AM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:
The neutron decays into a proton and an electron.No, it does not.
Read a dang textbook, making crap up as you go along is not science, it is your own personal fantasy...
https://hepweb.ucsd.edu/ph110b/110b_notes/node63.html#:~:text=While%20neutrons%20are%20stable%20inside,antineutrino%20of%20the%20electron%20type.
Let's not be so petty.
Of course:
-a neutron decays into a proton, an electron, and some "junk"
- an antineutron decays into antiproton, positron and "junk"
Do not regret quarks, the new physics will be simple and understandable.
piątek, 28 kwietnia 2023 o 06:20:14 UTC+2 Paul Alsing napisał(a):
On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 5:50:04 AM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:
The neutron decays into a proton and an electron.No, it does not.
Read a dang textbook, making crap up as you go along is not science, it is your own personal fantasy...
https://hepweb.ucsd.edu/ph110b/110b_notes/node63.html#:~:text=While%20neutrons%20are%20stable%20inside,antineutrino%20of%20the%20electron%20type.
Let's not be so petty.
Of course:
-a neutron decays into a proton, an electron, and some "junk"
- an antineutron decays into antiproton, positron and "junk"
Do not regret quarks, the new physics will be simple and understandable.
Enes Richard <pies_na...@vp.pl> wrote:
piątek, 28 kwietnia 2023 o 06:20:14 UTC+2 Paul Alsing napisał(a):
On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 5:50:04 AM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:
The neutron decays into a proton and an electron.No, it does not.
Read a dang textbook, making crap up as you go along is not science, it is your own personal fantasy...
https://hepweb.ucsd.edu/ph110b/110b_notes/node63.html#:~:text=While%20neutrons%20are%20stable%20inside,antineutrino%20of%20the%20electron%20type.
Let's not be so petty.
Of course:
-a neutron decays into a proton, an electron, and some "junk"
- an antineutron decays into antiproton, positron and "junk"
Do not regret quarks, the new physics will be simple and understandable.and wrong.
On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 5:50:04 AM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:
The neutron decays into a proton and an electron.No, it does not.
Read a dang textbook, making crap up as you go along is not science, it is your own personal fantasy...
https://hepweb.ucsd.edu/ph110b/110b_notes/node63.html#:~:text=While%20neutrons%20are%20stable%20inside,antineutrino%20of%20the%20electron%20type.
piątek, 28 kwietnia 2023 o 06:20:14 UTC+2 Paul Alsing napisał(a):
On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 5:50:04 AM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:
The neutron decays into a proton and an electron.No, it does not.
Read a dang textbook, making crap up as you go along is not science, it is your own personal fantasy...
https://hepweb.ucsd.edu/ph110b/110b_notes/node63.html#:~:text=While%20neutrons%20are%20stable%20inside,antineutrino%20of%20the%20electron%20type.How are antineutrons produced by fission of atomic nuclei (according to the Standard Model fantasy)?
piątek, 28 kwietnia 2023 o 16:46:11 UTC+2 Jim Pennino napisał(a):
Enes Richard <pies_na...@vp.pl> wrote:
piątek, 28 kwietnia 2023 o 06:20:14 UTC+2 Paul Alsing napisał(a):
On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 5:50:04 AM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:
The neutron decays into a proton and an electron.No, it does not.
Read a dang textbook, making crap up as you go along is not science, it is your own personal fantasy...
https://hepweb.ucsd.edu/ph110b/110b_notes/node63.html#:~:text=While%20neutrons%20are%20stable%20inside,antineutrino%20of%20the%20electron%20type.
Let's not be so petty.
Of course:
-a neutron decays into a proton, an electron, and some "junk"
- an antineutron decays into antiproton, positron and "junk"
Do not regret quarks, the new physics will be simple and understandable. >> and wrong.
Antineutrons (in significant amounts) are everywhere: in the atmosphere, in atoms,
in accelerator beams, in nuclear reactors...
How does the standard model explain this?
"This experiment however revealed persisting fluctuations and striking patchy spatial
patterns in neutron spatial distributions." https://www.nature.com/articles/s42005-021-00654-9
piątek, 28 kwietnia 2023 o 06:20:14 UTC+2 Paul Alsing napisał(a):
On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 5:50:04 AM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:
The neutron decays into a proton and an electron.No, it does not.
Read a dang textbook, making crap up as you go along is not science, it is your own personal fantasy...
https://hepweb.ucsd.edu/ph110b/110b_notes/node63.html#:~:text=While%20neutrons%20are%20stable%20inside,antineutrino%20of%20the%20electron%20type.
How are antineutrons produced by fission of atomic nuclei (according to the Standard Model fantasy)?
Enes Richard <pies_na...@vp.pl> wrote:
piątek, 28 kwietnia 2023 o 16:46:11 UTC+2 Jim Pennino napisał(a):
Enes Richard <pies_na...@vp.pl> wrote:
piątek, 28 kwietnia 2023 o 06:20:14 UTC+2 Paul Alsing napisał(a):and wrong.
On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 5:50:04 AM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote: >> >> > The neutron decays into a proton and an electron.
No, it does not.
Read a dang textbook, making crap up as you go along is not science, it is your own personal fantasy...
https://hepweb.ucsd.edu/ph110b/110b_notes/node63.html#:~:text=While%20neutrons%20are%20stable%20inside,antineutrino%20of%20the%20electron%20type.
Let's not be so petty.
Of course:
-a neutron decays into a proton, an electron, and some "junk"
- an antineutron decays into antiproton, positron and "junk"
Do not regret quarks, the new physics will be simple and understandable.
Antineutrons (in significant amounts) are everywhere: in the atmosphere, in atoms,Where is your data that shows this, and in particular, the existence of antineutrons in atoms?
in accelerator beams, in nuclear reactors...
How does the standard model explain this?
"This experiment however revealed persisting fluctuations and striking patchy spatialNon sequitur.
patterns in neutron spatial distributions." https://www.nature.com/articles/s42005-021-00654-9
No mention of anti-anything.
piątek, 28 kwietnia 2023 o 21:31:11 UTC+2 Jim Pennino napisał(a):
Enes Richard <pies_na...@vp.pl> wrote:
piątek, 28 kwietnia 2023 o 16:46:11 UTC+2 Jim Pennino napisał(a):
Enes Richard <pies_na...@vp.pl> wrote:
piątek, 28 kwietnia 2023 o 06:20:14 UTC+2 Paul Alsing napisał(a): >> >> On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 5:50:04 AM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:and wrong.
The neutron decays into a proton and an electron.No, it does not.
Read a dang textbook, making crap up as you go along is not science, it is your own personal fantasy...
https://hepweb.ucsd.edu/ph110b/110b_notes/node63.html#:~:text=While%20neutrons%20are%20stable%20inside,antineutrino%20of%20the%20electron%20type.
Let's not be so petty.
Of course:
-a neutron decays into a proton, an electron, and some "junk"
- an antineutron decays into antiproton, positron and "junk"
Do not regret quarks, the new physics will be simple and understandable.
Antineutrons (in significant amounts) are everywhere: in the atmosphere, in atoms,Where is your data that shows this, and in particular, the existence of antineutrons in atoms?
in accelerator beams, in nuclear reactors...
Where do antiprotons come from, which can be used to build antihydrogen?. Not from atomic nuclei by chance, by antineuton decay?
How does the standard model explain this?
"This experiment however revealed persisting fluctuations and striking patchy spatialNon sequitur.
patterns in neutron spatial distributions." https://www.nature.com/articles/s42005-021-00654-9
No mention of anti-anything.
You have to use your imagination and deduction... and read between the lines.
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 1:04:10 PM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:
piątek, 28 kwietnia 2023 o 21:31:11 UTC+2 Jim Pennino napisał(a):
Enes Richard <pies_na...@vp.pl> wrote:
piątek, 28 kwietnia 2023 o 16:46:11 UTC+2 Jim Pennino napisał(a):
Enes Richard <pies_na...@vp.pl> wrote:
piątek, 28 kwietnia 2023 o 06:20:14 UTC+2 Paul Alsing napisał(a): >> >> On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 5:50:04 AM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:and wrong.
The neutron decays into a proton and an electron.No, it does not.
Read a dang textbook, making crap up as you go along is not science, it is your own personal fantasy...
https://hepweb.ucsd.edu/ph110b/110b_notes/node63.html#:~:text=While%20neutrons%20are%20stable%20inside,antineutrino%20of%20the%20electron%20type.
Let's not be so petty.
Of course:
-a neutron decays into a proton, an electron, and some "junk"
- an antineutron decays into antiproton, positron and "junk"
Do not regret quarks, the new physics will be simple and understandable.
Antineutrons (in significant amounts) are everywhere: in the atmosphere, in atoms,Where is your data that shows this, and in particular, the existence of antineutrons in atoms?
in accelerator beams, in nuclear reactors...
Where do antiprotons come from, which can be used to build antihydrogen?. Not from atomic nuclei by chance, by antineuton decay?
How does the standard model explain this?
"This experiment however revealed persisting fluctuations and striking patchy spatialNon sequitur.
patterns in neutron spatial distributions." https://www.nature.com/articles/s42005-021-00654-9
No mention of anti-anything.
You have to use your imagination and deduction... and read between the lines.Neutrons made the Big Bang. They split into protons and electrons
and created first Hydrogen..
piątek, 28 kwietnia 2023 o 21:31:11 UTC+2 Jim Pennino napisał(a):
Enes Richard <pies_na...@vp.pl> wrote:Where do antiprotons come from, which can be used to build antihydrogen?.
piątek, 28 kwietnia 2023 o 16:46:11 UTC+2 Jim Pennino napisał(a):Where is your data that shows this, and in particular, the existence of
Enes Richard <pies_na...@vp.pl> wrote:
piątek, 28 kwietnia 2023 o 06:20:14 UTC+2 Paul Alsing napisał(a):and wrong.
On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 5:50:04 AM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote: >> >> >> > The neutron decays into a proton and an electron.
No, it does not.
Read a dang textbook, making crap up as you go along is not science, it is your own personal fantasy...
https://hepweb.ucsd.edu/ph110b/110b_notes/node63.html#:~:text=While%20neutrons%20are%20stable%20inside,antineutrino%20of%20the%20electron%20type.
Let's not be so petty.
Of course:
-a neutron decays into a proton, an electron, and some "junk"
- an antineutron decays into antiproton, positron and "junk"
Do not regret quarks, the new physics will be simple and understandable.
Antineutrons (in significant amounts) are everywhere: in the atmosphere, in atoms,
in accelerator beams, in nuclear reactors...
antineutrons in atoms?
Not from atomic nuclei by chance, by antineuton decay?
You have to use your imagination and deduction... and read between the lines.How does the standard model explain this?Non sequitur.
"This experiment however revealed persisting fluctuations and striking patchy spatial
patterns in neutron spatial distributions."
https://www.nature.com/articles/s42005-021-00654-9
No mention of anti-anything.
piątek, 28 kwietnia 2023 o 06:20:14 UTC+2 Paul Alsing napisał(a):
On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 5:50:04 AM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:
The neutron decays into a proton and an electron.No, it does not.
Read a dang textbook, making crap up as you go along is not science, it is your own personal fantasy...
https://hepweb.ucsd.edu/ph110b/110b_notes/node63.html#:~:text=While%20neutrons%20are%20stable%20inside,antineutrino%20of%20the%20electron%20type.
Let's not be so petty.
Of course:
-a neutron decays into a proton, an electron, and some "junk"
- an antineutron decays into antiproton, positron and "junk"
Do not regret quarks, the new physics will be simple and understandable.
The production of first hydrogen, for example, continues throughout the entire evolution
of the Galaxy, although only 2 times per revolution (there are always 2 arms coming out of the center of spiral galaxies).
This was the case in Sgr A* around above 28,000. years ago, where it's thick with hydrogen and newly formed
stars that make up a globular cluster. Probably...
piątek, 28 kwietnia 2023 o 21:31:11 UTC+2 Jim Pennino napisał(a):
Enes Richard <pies_na...@vp.pl> wrote:Where do antiprotons come from, which can be used to build antihydrogen?.
piątek, 28 kwietnia 2023 o 16:46:11 UTC+2 Jim Pennino napisał(a):Where is your data that shows this, and in particular, the existence of
Enes Richard <pies_na...@vp.pl> wrote:
piątek, 28 kwietnia 2023 o 06:20:14 UTC+2 Paul Alsing napisał(a): >>>>>> On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 5:50:04 AM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote: >>>>>>> The neutron decays into a proton and an electron.
No, it does not.
Read a dang textbook, making crap up as you go along is not science, it is your own personal fantasy...
https://hepweb.ucsd.edu/ph110b/110b_notes/node63.html#:~:text=While%20neutrons%20are%20stable%20inside,antineutrino%20of%20the%20electron%20type.
Let's not be so petty.
Of course:
-a neutron decays into a proton, an electron, and some "junk"
- an antineutron decays into antiproton, positron and "junk"
Do not regret quarks, the new physics will be simple and understandable. >>>> and wrong.
Antineutrons (in significant amounts) are everywhere: in the atmosphere, in atoms,
in accelerator beams, in nuclear reactors...
antineutrons in atoms?
Not from atomic nuclei by chance, by antineuton decay?
You have to use your imagination and deduction... and read between the lines.How does the standard model explain this?Non sequitur.
"This experiment however revealed persisting fluctuations and striking patchy spatial
patterns in neutron spatial distributions."
https://www.nature.com/articles/s42005-021-00654-9
No mention of anti-anything.
How are antineutrons produced by fission of atomic nuclei (according to the Standard Model fantasy)?
The neutron decays into a proton and an electron.
Probably the antineutron decays into an antiproton and a positron.
These are the predictions of the new mass building model.
... and here are the experimental premises:
https://www.caltech.edu/about/news/how-long-does-a-neutron-live
czwartek, 27 kwietnia 2023 o 14:50:04 UTC+2 Enes Richard napisał(a):either one of the methods is faulty or because something new is going on in the physics that is yet to be understood.
The neutron decays into a proton and an electron.
Probably the antineutron decays into an antiproton and a positron.
These are the predictions of the new mass building model.
... and here are the experimental premises:
https://www.caltech.edu/about/news/how-long-does-a-neutron-live
"While the results do not solve the mystery of why the bottle and beam methods disagree, they bring scientists closer to an answer.
"This new result provides an independent assessment to help settle the neutron lifetime puzzle," says Brad Filippone, the Francis L. Moseley Professor of Physics and a co-author of the new study. The methods continue to disagree, he explains, because
"When combined with other precision measurements, this result could provide the much-searched-for evidence for the discovery of new physics," he says."
Smart physicist, accurate conclusions. One has to sympathize that as an experimenter
he has to work surrounded by erroneous theories.
Of course, the second method is wrong (longer decay period), new physics soon will
indicate a way to correct it, and then the results of both methods will match almost exactly.
sobota, 29 kwietnia 2023 o 08:21:55 UTC+2 Enes Richard napisał(a):either one of the methods is faulty or because something new is going on in the physics that is yet to be understood.
czwartek, 27 kwietnia 2023 o 14:50:04 UTC+2 Enes Richard napisał(a):
The neutron decays into a proton and an electron.
Probably the antineutron decays into an antiproton and a positron.
These are the predictions of the new mass building model.
... and here are the experimental premises:
https://www.caltech.edu/about/news/how-long-does-a-neutron-live
"While the results do not solve the mystery of why the bottle and beam methods disagree, they bring scientists closer to an answer.
"This new result provides an independent assessment to help settle the neutron lifetime puzzle," says Brad Filippone, the Francis L. Moseley Professor of Physics and a co-author of the new study. The methods continue to disagree, he explains, because
"When combined with other precision measurements, this result could provide the much-searched-for evidence for the discovery of new physics," he says."
"Smart physicist, accurate conclusions. One has to sympathize that as an experimenter
he has to work surrounded by erroneous theories.
Of course, the second method is wrong (longer decay period), new physics soon willhttps://www.caltech.edu/about/news/how-long-does-a-neutron-live
indicate a way to correct it, and then the results of both methods will match almost exactly.
Interpretation of experimental results.
1)
"In the bottle method, free neutrons are trapped in an ultracold, magnetized bottle about the size of a bathtub, where they begin to decay into protons. Using sophisticated data analyses methods, researchers can count how many neutrons remain over time.
The result is correct. If, in addition to neutrons, there were also small amounts of antineutrons,
then their decay time should be the same. Counting neutrons (along with antineutrons) makes sense.
2)
"In the beam method, a beam of neutrons decays into protons, and the protons are counted not the neutrons."
If there are small amounts of antineutrons in the neutron beam, counting only the protons (created from the decay of neutrons)
does not make sense and the lifetime seems longer. You also need to add antiprotons (created from the decay of antineutrons).
Then the result should match the first method.
This is an idea for a new experience project, good luck :)
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 12:26:57 AM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:because either one of the methods is faulty or because something new is going on in the physics that is yet to be understood.
sobota, 29 kwietnia 2023 o 08:21:55 UTC+2 Enes Richard napisał(a):
czwartek, 27 kwietnia 2023 o 14:50:04 UTC+2 Enes Richard napisał(a):
The neutron decays into a proton and an electron.
Probably the antineutron decays into an antiproton and a positron. These are the predictions of the new mass building model.
... and here are the experimental premises:
https://www.caltech.edu/about/news/how-long-does-a-neutron-live
"While the results do not solve the mystery of why the bottle and beam methods disagree, they bring scientists closer to an answer.
"This new result provides an independent assessment to help settle the neutron lifetime puzzle," says Brad Filippone, the Francis L. Moseley Professor of Physics and a co-author of the new study. The methods continue to disagree, he explains,
"When combined with other precision measurements, this result could provide the much-searched-for evidence for the discovery of new physics," he says."
time."Smart physicist, accurate conclusions. One has to sympathize that as an experimenter
he has to work surrounded by erroneous theories.
Of course, the second method is wrong (longer decay period), new physics soon willhttps://www.caltech.edu/about/news/how-long-does-a-neutron-live
indicate a way to correct it, and then the results of both methods will match almost exactly.
Interpretation of experimental results.
1)
"In the bottle method, free neutrons are trapped in an ultracold, magnetized bottle about the size of a bathtub, where they begin to decay into protons. Using sophisticated data analyses methods, researchers can count how many neutrons remain over
How are you verifying your neutrons?
How are you measuring your sub atomic neutron in free space?
How would you know what you bottled?
``
How do they get out of the cold nucleus?
The result is correct. If, in addition to neutrons, there were also small amounts of antineutrons,How did you measure your anti neutron quantity? They don't exist.
then their decay time should be the same. Counting neutrons (along with antineutrons) makes sense.
2)
"In the beam method, a beam of neutrons decays into protons, and the protons are counted not the neutrons."
If there are small amounts of antineutrons in the neutron beam, counting only the protons (created from the decay of neutrons)
does not make sense and the lifetime seems longer. You also need to add antiprotons (created from the decay of antineutrons).
Then the result should match the first method.
This is an idea for a new experience project, good luck :)The anti world is also the imaginary...
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 1:28:37 PM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:
The production of first hydrogen, for example, continues throughout the entire evolutionLet's just go ahead and add "astronomy" to the list of scientific subjects about which you are clueless. Although 2 arms are "usual" for most galaxies, there are literally millions of galaxies with more than 2. Clearly, there are NOT "always 2 arms".
of the Galaxy, although only 2 times per revolution (there are always 2 arms coming out of the center of spiral galaxies).
and understand that this is just a *little* black hole.This was the case in Sgr A* around above 28,000. years ago, where it's thick with hydrogen and newly formedProbably? This is good science? Sgr A* is clearly not a globular cluster, it is a black hole, with a mass about 4 million times as massive as our Sun. It has a diameter of only 17 light-hours, or about 122 times the distance from Earth to the Sun...
stars that make up a globular cluster. Probably...
You *really* need to stop making shit up as you go along because it only makes you look uneducated... which is undoubtedly the case.
sobota, 29 kwietnia 2023 o 02:34:14 UTC+2 Paul Alsing napisał(a):
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 1:28:37 PM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:
The production of first hydrogen, for example, continues throughout the entire evolutionLet's just go ahead and add "astronomy" to the list of scientific subjects about which you are clueless. Although 2 arms are "usual" for most galaxies, there are literally millions of galaxies with more than 2. Clearly, there are NOT "always 2 arms".
of the Galaxy, although only 2 times per revolution (there are always 2 arms coming out of the center of spiral galaxies).
Show an example of a typical spiral galaxy (not distorted) where otherwise.
and understand that this is just a *little* black hole.This was the case in Sgr A* around above 28,000. years ago, where it's thick with hydrogen and newly formed
stars that make up a globular cluster. Probably...
Probably? This is good science? Sgr A* is clearly not a globular cluster, it is a black hole, with a mass about 4 million times as massive as our Sun. It has a diameter of only 17 light-hours, or about 122 times the distance from Earth to the Sun...
Not true, you can see thousands of young stars and dense regions of hydrogen. You can't see the effects of a black hole, despite many prophecies. I believe that the black hole was put there (such an assumption was made) and its mass was calculated fromthe movement of 1 star.
Calculated from the motions of other stars, the mass differs markedly.
It's like the mass of the sun is different for each planet :D
You *really* need to stop making shit up as you go along because it only makes you look uneducated... which is undoubtedly the case.
You cling stubbornly to outdated and even erroneous knowledge, you use too little with your own mind, I think.
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 12:18:47 PM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:.
sobota, 29 kwietnia 2023 o 02:34:14 UTC+2 Paul Alsing napisał(a):
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 1:28:37 PM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:
The production of first hydrogen, for example, continues throughout the entire evolutionLet's just go ahead and add "astronomy" to the list of scientific subjects about which you are clueless. Although 2 arms are "usual" for most galaxies, there are literally millions of galaxies with more than 2. Clearly, there are NOT "always 2 arms"
of the Galaxy, although only 2 times per revolution (there are always 2 arms coming out of the center of spiral galaxies).
Show an example of a typical spiral galaxy (not distorted) where otherwise.How about our own Milky Way?
https://www.space.com/gaia-reveals-spiral-arms-milky-way
"The Milky Way is known to have two main spiral arms, the Perseus arm and the Scutum-Centaurus arm. Our galaxy also possesses two less pronounced arms, or spurs, called the Sagittarius and the Local Arm (which passes close to the sun)."
There is an entire catalogue of galaxies with 3 or more arms... here you go...
https://tinyurl.com/457d8z6f
and understand that this is just a *little* black hole.This was the case in Sgr A* around above 28,000. years ago, where it's thick with hydrogen and newly formed
stars that make up a globular cluster. Probably...
Probably? This is good science? Sgr A* is clearly not a globular cluster, it is a black hole, with a mass about 4 million times as massive as our Sun. It has a diameter of only 17 light-hours, or about 122 times the distance from Earth to the Sun...
from the movement of 1 star.Not true, you can see thousands of young stars and dense regions of hydrogen. You can't see the effects of a black hole, despite many prophecies. I believe that the black hole was put there (such an assumption was made) and its mass was calculated
Calculated from the motions of other stars, the mass differs markedly. It's like the mass of the sun is different for each planet :D
giants, which are thought to reside at the center of most galaxies."You *really* need to stop making shit up as you go along because it only makes you look uneducated... which is undoubtedly the case.
You cling stubbornly to outdated and even erroneous knowledge, you use too little with your own mind, I think.No, you do not think, at least, not enough.There is *overwhelming* evidence that Sgr A* is a 4-million solar mass black hole... in general...
https://tinyurl.com/yt7z4hzd
... and more specifically...
https://scitechdaily.com/first-direct-visual-evidence-that-the-object-in-the-center-of-the-milky-way-is-indeed-a-black-hole/
"Astronomers have unveiled the first image of the supermassive black hole at the center of our own Milky Way galaxy. This result provides overwhelming evidence that the object is indeed a black hole and yields valuable clues about the workings of such
Do you actually think that you have more insight than modern cosmologists? Based on what, your sense of "logic"?ignorance...
Really, your knowledge of astronomy appears to be very limited. It is not a crime to ignorant about a particular subject, like astronomy, but it is irresponsible to have a loud opinion on various astronomical subjects while remaining in this state of
"The believing mind is externally impervious to evidence. The most
that can be accomplished with it is to induce it to substitute one
delusion for another. It rejects all overt evidence as wicked..."
- H. L. Mencken
sobota, 29 kwietnia 2023 o 22:11:27 UTC+2 Paul Alsing napisał(a):arms".
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 12:18:47 PM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:
sobota, 29 kwietnia 2023 o 02:34:14 UTC+2 Paul Alsing napisał(a):
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 1:28:37 PM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:
The production of first hydrogen, for example, continues throughout the entire evolutionLet's just go ahead and add "astronomy" to the list of scientific subjects about which you are clueless. Although 2 arms are "usual" for most galaxies, there are literally millions of galaxies with more than 2. Clearly, there are NOT "always 2
of the Galaxy, although only 2 times per revolution (there are always 2 arms coming out of the center of spiral galaxies).
Show an example of a typical spiral galaxy (not distorted) where otherwise.
How about our own Milky Way?
https://www.space.com/gaia-reveals-spiral-arms-milky-way
Good joke. What telescope is this image from? Did aliens make it?
"The Milky Way is known to have two main spiral arms, the Perseus arm and the Scutum-Centaurus arm. Our galaxy also possesses two less pronounced arms, or spurs, called the Sagittarius and the Local Arm (which passes close to the sun)."
There is an entire catalogue of galaxies with 3 or more arms... here you go...
https://tinyurl.com/457d8z6f
I have wrote about typical spiral galaxies, not deformed spirals.
.. and understand that this is just a *little* black hole.This was the case in Sgr A* around above 28,000. years ago, where it's thick with hydrogen and newly formed
stars that make up a globular cluster. Probably...
Probably? This is good science? Sgr A* is clearly not a globular cluster, it is a black hole, with a mass about 4 million times as massive as our Sun. It has a diameter of only 17 light-hours, or about 122 times the distance from Earth to the Sun.
from the movement of 1 star.Not true, you can see thousands of young stars and dense regions of hydrogen. You can't see the effects of a black hole, despite many prophecies. I believe that the black hole was put there (such an assumption was made) and its mass was calculated
Calculated from the motions of other stars, the mass differs markedly.
It's like the mass of the sun is different for each planet :D
such giants, which are thought to reside at the center of most galaxies."You *really* need to stop making shit up as you go along because it only makes you look uneducated... which is undoubtedly the case.
You cling stubbornly to outdated and even erroneous knowledge, you use too little with your own mind, I think.
No, you do not think, at least, not enough.There is *overwhelming* evidence that Sgr A* is a 4-million solar mass black hole... in general...
https://tinyurl.com/yt7z4hzd
... and more specifically...
https://scitechdaily.com/first-direct-visual-evidence-that-the-object-in-the-center-of-the-milky-way-is-indeed-a-black-hole/
"Astronomers have unveiled the first image of the supermassive black hole at the center of our own Milky Way galaxy. This result provides overwhelming evidence that the object is indeed a black hole and yields valuable clues about the workings of
Aren't this just computer simulations?
ignorance...Do you actually think that you have more insight than modern cosmologists? Based on what, your sense of "logic"?
Really, your knowledge of astronomy appears to be very limited. It is not a crime to ignorant about a particular subject, like astronomy, but it is irresponsible to have a loud opinion on various astronomical subjects while remaining in this state of
"The believing mind is externally impervious to evidence. The most
that can be accomplished with it is to induce it to substitute one delusion for another. It rejects all overt evidence as wicked..."
- H. L. Mencken
However, we have strayed from the main topic. Do you think they dare to count antiprotons in the neutron beam
(prohibited by standard model) in the proposed experiment?
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 1:46:55 PM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:arms".
sobota, 29 kwietnia 2023 o 22:11:27 UTC+2 Paul Alsing napisał(a):
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 12:18:47 PM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:
sobota, 29 kwietnia 2023 o 02:34:14 UTC+2 Paul Alsing napisał(a):
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 1:28:37 PM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:
The production of first hydrogen, for example, continues throughout the entire evolutionLet's just go ahead and add "astronomy" to the list of scientific subjects about which you are clueless. Although 2 arms are "usual" for most galaxies, there are literally millions of galaxies with more than 2. Clearly, there are NOT "always 2
of the Galaxy, although only 2 times per revolution (there are always 2 arms coming out of the center of spiral galaxies).
Sun... and understand that this is just a *little* black hole.Show an example of a typical spiral galaxy (not distorted) where otherwise.
How about our own Milky Way?
https://www.space.com/gaia-reveals-spiral-arms-milky-way
Good joke. What telescope is this image from? Did aliens make it?There was no claim made that this was an actual photo... it is just an artist's conception of a "possible" layout of our galaxy.
"The Milky Way is known to have two main spiral arms, the Perseus arm and the Scutum-Centaurus arm. Our galaxy also possesses two less pronounced arms, or spurs, called the Sagittarius and the Local Arm (which passes close to the sun)."
There is an entire catalogue of galaxies with 3 or more arms... here you go...
https://tinyurl.com/457d8z6f
I have wrote about typical spiral galaxies, not deformed spirals.Really? Here is your *exact* quote... "(there are always 2 arms coming out of the center of spiral galaxies)" Perhaps you would like to make a retraction?
This was the case in Sgr A* around above 28,000. years ago, where it's thick with hydrogen and newly formed
stars that make up a globular cluster. Probably...
Probably? This is good science? Sgr A* is clearly not a globular cluster, it is a black hole, with a mass about 4 million times as massive as our Sun. It has a diameter of only 17 light-hours, or about 122 times the distance from Earth to the
calculated from the movement of 1 star.Not true, you can see thousands of young stars and dense regions of hydrogen. You can't see the effects of a black hole, despite many prophecies. I believe that the black hole was put there (such an assumption was made) and its mass was
(...)Let's see your evidence for this claim. I will say that it is incorrect.Calculated from the motions of other stars, the mass differs markedly.
niedziela, 30 kwietnia 2023 o 04:30:49 UTC+2 Paul Alsing napisał(a):2 arms".
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 1:46:55 PM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:
sobota, 29 kwietnia 2023 o 22:11:27 UTC+2 Paul Alsing napisał(a):
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 12:18:47 PM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:
sobota, 29 kwietnia 2023 o 02:34:14 UTC+2 Paul Alsing napisał(a):
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 1:28:37 PM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:
The production of first hydrogen, for example, continues throughout the entire evolutionLet's just go ahead and add "astronomy" to the list of scientific subjects about which you are clueless. Although 2 arms are "usual" for most galaxies, there are literally millions of galaxies with more than 2. Clearly, there are NOT "always
of the Galaxy, although only 2 times per revolution (there are always 2 arms coming out of the center of spiral galaxies).
Sun... and understand that this is just a *little* black hole.Show an example of a typical spiral galaxy (not distorted) where otherwise.
How about our own Milky Way?
https://www.space.com/gaia-reveals-spiral-arms-milky-way
Good joke. What telescope is this image from? Did aliens make it?
There was no claim made that this was an actual photo... it is just an artist's conception of a "possible" layout of our galaxy.
"The Milky Way is known to have two main spiral arms, the Perseus arm and the Scutum-Centaurus arm. Our galaxy also possesses two less pronounced arms, or spurs, called the Sagittarius and the Local Arm (which passes close to the sun)."
There is an entire catalogue of galaxies with 3 or more arms... here you go...
https://tinyurl.com/457d8z6f
I have wrote about typical spiral galaxies, not deformed spirals.
Really? Here is your *exact* quote... "(there are always 2 arms coming out of the center of spiral galaxies)" Perhaps you would like to make a retraction?
This was the case in Sgr A* around above 28,000. years ago, where it's thick with hydrogen and newly formed
stars that make up a globular cluster. Probably...
Probably? This is good science? Sgr A* is clearly not a globular cluster, it is a black hole, with a mass about 4 million times as massive as our Sun. It has a diameter of only 17 light-hours, or about 122 times the distance from Earth to the
calculated from the movement of 1 star.Not true, you can see thousands of young stars and dense regions of hydrogen. You can't see the effects of a black hole, despite many prophecies. I believe that the black hole was put there (such an assumption was made) and its mass was
Calculated from the motions of other stars, the mass differs markedly.
Let's see your evidence for this claim. I will say that it is incorrect.(...)
I have calculated it many years ago, you can repeat the calculation yourself.
For Sgr A* analogies from the Solar System have been adopted with the assumption that the black hole plays the role of the Sun and the orbiting stars play the role of planets (although their motion is completely different). One of the stars (S2 ?) hasmade a full rotation and the geometrical parameters of the orbit are known.
The generalized Kepler's 3rd law is used for the calculations, which is simply presented (at the end) here:completely different.
https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prawa_Keplera
Other orbiting stars didn't make full revolutions during the observation period (there were tables on the web), but from the orbits fragments one can extrapolate the final parameters. Then the results of calculations of the alleged BH mass were
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 1:46:55 PM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:
sobota, 29 kwietnia 2023 o 22:11:27 UTC+2 Paul Alsing napisał(a):
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 12:18:47 PM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:
sobota, 29 kwietnia 2023 o 02:34:14 UTC+2 Paul Alsing napisał(a):
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 1:28:37 PM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:
know"...However, we have strayed from the main topic. Do you think they dare to count antiprotons in the neutron beamI know very little about antiprotons and am not qualified to comment about them... are you? Based on what I have seen from you, I rather doubt it! Your knowledge of physics is minuscule at best. As Socrates once said... "you do not know what you do not
(prohibited by standard model) in the proposed experiment?
“Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance,”
- Confucius
On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 2:27:24 AM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:always 2 arms".
niedziela, 30 kwietnia 2023 o 04:30:49 UTC+2 Paul Alsing napisał(a):
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 1:46:55 PM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:
sobota, 29 kwietnia 2023 o 22:11:27 UTC+2 Paul Alsing napisał(a):
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 12:18:47 PM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:
sobota, 29 kwietnia 2023 o 02:34:14 UTC+2 Paul Alsing napisał(a):
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 1:28:37 PM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:
The production of first hydrogen, for example, continues throughout the entire evolutionLet's just go ahead and add "astronomy" to the list of scientific subjects about which you are clueless. Although 2 arms are "usual" for most galaxies, there are literally millions of galaxies with more than 2. Clearly, there are NOT "
of the Galaxy, although only 2 times per revolution (there are always 2 arms coming out of the center of spiral galaxies).
the Sun... and understand that this is just a *little* black hole.Show an example of a typical spiral galaxy (not distorted) where otherwise.
How about our own Milky Way?
https://www.space.com/gaia-reveals-spiral-arms-milky-way
Good joke. What telescope is this image from? Did aliens make it?
There was no claim made that this was an actual photo... it is just an artist's conception of a "possible" layout of our galaxy.
"The Milky Way is known to have two main spiral arms, the Perseus arm and the Scutum-Centaurus arm. Our galaxy also possesses two less pronounced arms, or spurs, called the Sagittarius and the Local Arm (which passes close to the sun)."
There is an entire catalogue of galaxies with 3 or more arms... here you go...
https://tinyurl.com/457d8z6f
I have wrote about typical spiral galaxies, not deformed spirals.
Really? Here is your *exact* quote... "(there are always 2 arms coming out of the center of spiral galaxies)" Perhaps you would like to make a retraction?
This was the case in Sgr A* around above 28,000. years ago, where it's thick with hydrogen and newly formed
stars that make up a globular cluster. Probably...
Probably? This is good science? Sgr A* is clearly not a globular cluster, it is a black hole, with a mass about 4 million times as massive as our Sun. It has a diameter of only 17 light-hours, or about 122 times the distance from Earth to
calculated from the movement of 1 star.Not true, you can see thousands of young stars and dense regions of hydrogen. You can't see the effects of a black hole, despite many prophecies. I believe that the black hole was put there (such an assumption was made) and its mass was
right? You are basically claiming that your own calculations are more accurate than those of scientists from countries all over the world who have made the same calculations, as shown on the graph about half way down this page,...Calculated from the motions of other stars, the mass differs markedly.
So your only evidence is your own calculation for the orbits of the S stars in the vicinity of Sgr A*, and it is your claim that only S2 was used to determine the mass of the black hole and that the other S stars do not fit the model... Is that aboutLet's see your evidence for this claim. I will say that it is incorrect.(...)
I have calculated it many years ago, you can repeat the calculation yourself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_A*has made a full rotation and the geometrical parameters of the orbit are known.
... a graph that shows the orbital parameters for 8 of those S stars? Tell me, which of those parameters is incorrect, and what are the correct numbers as shown in your own calculations?
...
For Sgr A* analogies from the Solar System have been adopted with the assumption that the black hole plays the role of the Sun and the orbiting stars play the role of planets (although their motion is completely different). One of the stars (S2 ?)
completely different.The generalized Kepler's 3rd law is used for the calculations, which is simply presented (at the end) here:
https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prawa_Keplera
Other orbiting stars didn't make full revolutions during the observation period (there were tables on the web), but from the orbits fragments one can extrapolate the final parameters. Then the results of calculations of the alleged BH mass were
No, this is not correct... unless, of course, you have evidence to support your own position.
Evidence rules... got any?
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 1:46:55 PM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:arms".
sobota, 29 kwietnia 2023 o 22:11:27 UTC+2 Paul Alsing napisał(a):
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 12:18:47 PM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:
sobota, 29 kwietnia 2023 o 02:34:14 UTC+2 Paul Alsing napisał(a):
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 1:28:37 PM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:
The production of first hydrogen, for example, continues throughout the entire evolutionLet's just go ahead and add "astronomy" to the list of scientific subjects about which you are clueless. Although 2 arms are "usual" for most galaxies, there are literally millions of galaxies with more than 2. Clearly, there are NOT "always 2
of the Galaxy, although only 2 times per revolution (there are always 2 arms coming out of the center of spiral galaxies).
Show an example of a typical spiral galaxy (not distorted) where otherwise.
How about our own Milky Way?
https://www.space.com/gaia-reveals-spiral-arms-milky-way
Good joke. What telescope is this image from? Did aliens make it?There was no claim made that this was an actual photo... it is just an artist's conception of a "possible" layout of our galaxy.
"The Milky Way is known to have two main spiral arms, the Perseus arm and the Scutum-Centaurus arm. Our galaxy also possesses two less pronounced arms, or spurs, called the Sagittarius and the Local Arm (which passes close to the sun)."
There is an entire catalogue of galaxies with 3 or more arms... here you go...
https://tinyurl.com/457d8z6f
I have wrote about typical spiral galaxies, not deformed spirals.Really? Here is your *exact* quote... "(there are always 2 arms coming out of the center of spiral galaxies)" Perhaps you would like to make a retraction?
On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 2:27:24 AM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:always 2 arms".
niedziela, 30 kwietnia 2023 o 04:30:49 UTC+2 Paul Alsing napisał(a):
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 1:46:55 PM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:
sobota, 29 kwietnia 2023 o 22:11:27 UTC+2 Paul Alsing napisał(a):
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 12:18:47 PM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:
sobota, 29 kwietnia 2023 o 02:34:14 UTC+2 Paul Alsing napisał(a):
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 1:28:37 PM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:
The production of first hydrogen, for example, continues throughout the entire evolutionLet's just go ahead and add "astronomy" to the list of scientific subjects about which you are clueless. Although 2 arms are "usual" for most galaxies, there are literally millions of galaxies with more than 2. Clearly, there are NOT "
of the Galaxy, although only 2 times per revolution (there are always 2 arms coming out of the center of spiral galaxies).
the Sun... and understand that this is just a *little* black hole.Show an example of a typical spiral galaxy (not distorted) where otherwise.
How about our own Milky Way?
https://www.space.com/gaia-reveals-spiral-arms-milky-way
Good joke. What telescope is this image from? Did aliens make it?
There was no claim made that this was an actual photo... it is just an artist's conception of a "possible" layout of our galaxy.
"The Milky Way is known to have two main spiral arms, the Perseus arm and the Scutum-Centaurus arm. Our galaxy also possesses two less pronounced arms, or spurs, called the Sagittarius and the Local Arm (which passes close to the sun)."
There is an entire catalogue of galaxies with 3 or more arms... here you go...
https://tinyurl.com/457d8z6f
I have wrote about typical spiral galaxies, not deformed spirals.
Really? Here is your *exact* quote... "(there are always 2 arms coming out of the center of spiral galaxies)" Perhaps you would like to make a retraction?
This was the case in Sgr A* around above 28,000. years ago, where it's thick with hydrogen and newly formed
stars that make up a globular cluster. Probably...
Probably? This is good science? Sgr A* is clearly not a globular cluster, it is a black hole, with a mass about 4 million times as massive as our Sun. It has a diameter of only 17 light-hours, or about 122 times the distance from Earth to
calculated from the movement of 1 star.Not true, you can see thousands of young stars and dense regions of hydrogen. You can't see the effects of a black hole, despite many prophecies. I believe that the black hole was put there (such an assumption was made) and its mass was
right? You are basically claiming that your own calculations are more accurate than those of scientists from countries all over the world who have made the same calculations, as shown on the graph about half way down this page,...Calculated from the motions of other stars, the mass differs markedly.
So your only evidence is your own calculation for the orbits of the S stars in the vicinity of Sgr A*, and it is your claim that only S2 was used to determine the mass of the black hole and that the other S stars do not fit the model... Is that aboutLet's see your evidence for this claim. I will say that it is incorrect.(...)
I have calculated it many years ago, you can repeat the calculation yourself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_A*
... a graph that shows the orbital parameters for 8 of those S stars? Tell me, which of those parameters is incorrect, and what are the correct numbers as shown in your own calculations?
...has made a full rotation and the geometrical parameters of the orbit are known.
For Sgr A* analogies from the Solar System have been adopted with the assumption that the black hole plays the role of the Sun and the orbiting stars play the role of planets (although their motion is completely different). One of the stars (S2 ?)
completely different.The generalized Kepler's 3rd law is used for the calculations, which is simply presented (at the end) here:
https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prawa_Keplera
Other orbiting stars didn't make full revolutions during the observation period (there were tables on the web), but from the orbits fragments one can extrapolate the final parameters. Then the results of calculations of the alleged BH mass were
No, this is not correct... unless, of course, you have evidence to support your own position.
Evidence rules... got any?
niedziela, 30 kwietnia 2023 o 04:30:49 UTC+2 Paul Alsing napisał(a):2 arms".
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 1:46:55 PM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:
sobota, 29 kwietnia 2023 o 22:11:27 UTC+2 Paul Alsing napisał(a):
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 12:18:47 PM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:
sobota, 29 kwietnia 2023 o 02:34:14 UTC+2 Paul Alsing napisał(a):
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 1:28:37 PM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:
The production of first hydrogen, for example, continues throughout the entire evolutionLet's just go ahead and add "astronomy" to the list of scientific subjects about which you are clueless. Although 2 arms are "usual" for most galaxies, there are literally millions of galaxies with more than 2. Clearly, there are NOT "always
of the Galaxy, although only 2 times per revolution (there are always 2 arms coming out of the center of spiral galaxies).
Show an example of a typical spiral galaxy (not distorted) where otherwise.
How about our own Milky Way?
https://www.space.com/gaia-reveals-spiral-arms-milky-way
Good joke. What telescope is this image from? Did aliens make it?
There was no claim made that this was an actual photo... it is just an artist's conception of a "possible" layout of our galaxy.
"The Milky Way is known to have two main spiral arms, the Perseus arm and the Scutum-Centaurus arm. Our galaxy also possesses two less pronounced arms, or spurs, called the Sagittarius and the Local Arm (which passes close to the sun)."
There is an entire catalogue of galaxies with 3 or more arms... here you go...
https://tinyurl.com/457d8z6f
I have wrote about typical spiral galaxies, not deformed spirals.
Really? Here is your *exact* quote... "(there are always 2 arms coming out of the center of spiral galaxies)" Perhaps you would like to make a retraction?
It is not a good method to pay attention to trifles in general considerations, then you remove the essence of the problem.
The bottom-up approach is wrong, it should be top-down. It is easier to break down the whole into details than to create the whole from the details.of fragmentary knowledge that does not want to form a rational whole.
This is the cause of the regression of physics. There is one consistent reality from the macro world to the micro world, each governed by incompatible theories. The division of science into various fields and narrow specialties has led to the creation
niedziela, 30 kwietnia 2023 o 04:30:49 UTC+2 Paul Alsing napisał(a):not know"...
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 1:46:55 PM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:
sobota, 29 kwietnia 2023 o 22:11:27 UTC+2 Paul Alsing napisał(a):
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 12:18:47 PM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:
sobota, 29 kwietnia 2023 o 02:34:14 UTC+2 Paul Alsing napisał(a):
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 1:28:37 PM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:
(...)
However, we have strayed from the main topic. Do you think they dare to count antiprotons in the neutron beamI know very little about antiprotons and am not qualified to comment about them... are you? Based on what I have seen from you, I rather doubt it! Your knowledge of physics is minuscule at best. As Socrates once said... "you do not know what you do
(prohibited by standard model) in the proposed experiment?
Here Mitch seems to know what's going on, but I'm having trouble with Google translate. In addition, he has different moods and at times he is happy with the upcoming changes, and at other times he does not want to part with his current knowledge.
“Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance,”
- Confucius
niedziela, 30 kwietnia 2023 o 20:34:12 UTC+2 Paul Alsing napisał(a):always 2 arms".
On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 2:27:24 AM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:
niedziela, 30 kwietnia 2023 o 04:30:49 UTC+2 Paul Alsing napisał(a):
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 1:46:55 PM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:
sobota, 29 kwietnia 2023 o 22:11:27 UTC+2 Paul Alsing napisał(a):
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 12:18:47 PM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:
sobota, 29 kwietnia 2023 o 02:34:14 UTC+2 Paul Alsing napisał(a):
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 1:28:37 PM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:
The production of first hydrogen, for example, continues throughout the entire evolutionLet's just go ahead and add "astronomy" to the list of scientific subjects about which you are clueless. Although 2 arms are "usual" for most galaxies, there are literally millions of galaxies with more than 2. Clearly, there are NOT "
of the Galaxy, although only 2 times per revolution (there are always 2 arms coming out of the center of spiral galaxies).
the Sun... and understand that this is just a *little* black hole.Show an example of a typical spiral galaxy (not distorted) where otherwise.
How about our own Milky Way?
https://www.space.com/gaia-reveals-spiral-arms-milky-way
Good joke. What telescope is this image from? Did aliens make it?
There was no claim made that this was an actual photo... it is just an artist's conception of a "possible" layout of our galaxy.
"The Milky Way is known to have two main spiral arms, the Perseus arm and the Scutum-Centaurus arm. Our galaxy also possesses two less pronounced arms, or spurs, called the Sagittarius and the Local Arm (which passes close to the sun)."
There is an entire catalogue of galaxies with 3 or more arms... here you go...
https://tinyurl.com/457d8z6f
I have wrote about typical spiral galaxies, not deformed spirals.
Really? Here is your *exact* quote... "(there are always 2 arms coming out of the center of spiral galaxies)" Perhaps you would like to make a retraction?
This was the case in Sgr A* around above 28,000. years ago, where it's thick with hydrogen and newly formed
stars that make up a globular cluster. Probably...
Probably? This is good science? Sgr A* is clearly not a globular cluster, it is a black hole, with a mass about 4 million times as massive as our Sun. It has a diameter of only 17 light-hours, or about 122 times the distance from Earth to
calculated from the movement of 1 star.Not true, you can see thousands of young stars and dense regions of hydrogen. You can't see the effects of a black hole, despite many prophecies. I believe that the black hole was put there (such an assumption was made) and its mass was
right? You are basically claiming that your own calculations are more accurate than those of scientists from countries all over the world who have made the same calculations, as shown on the graph about half way down this page,...Calculated from the motions of other stars, the mass differs markedly.
So your only evidence is your own calculation for the orbits of the S stars in the vicinity of Sgr A*, and it is your claim that only S2 was used to determine the mass of the black hole and that the other S stars do not fit the model... Is that aboutLet's see your evidence for this claim. I will say that it is incorrect.(...)
I have calculated it many years ago, you can repeat the calculation yourself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_A*
... a graph that shows the orbital parameters for 8 of those S stars? Tell me, which of those parameters is incorrect, and what are the correct numbers as shown in your own calculations?
Read the cited source carefully. Different methods and different teams have estimated
the mass of the supposed black hole in the range (3.2 to 4.7) x 10^6 Ms
Such a black hole is not acceptable given the accuracy of Kepler's laws in the solar system (taken to analogy), see tables and graph: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler%27s_laws_of_planetary_motion
Look how many decades and with what effort the reasons for the discrepancy in the decayhas made a full rotation and the geometrical parameters of the orbit are known.
of the neutron are sought from 879s to 888s, min/max = 0.99 (and what a scandal by the way!)
... and the black hole is accepted uncritically at min/max=0.68
...
For Sgr A* analogies from the Solar System have been adopted with the assumption that the black hole plays the role of the Sun and the orbiting stars play the role of planets (although their motion is completely different). One of the stars (S2 ?)
completely different.The generalized Kepler's 3rd law is used for the calculations, which is simply presented (at the end) here:
https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prawa_Keplera
Other orbiting stars didn't make full revolutions during the observation period (there were tables on the web), but from the orbits fragments one can extrapolate the final parameters. Then the results of calculations of the alleged BH mass were
No, this is not correct... unless, of course, you have evidence to support your own position.
Evidence rules... got any?
On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 4:19:40 PM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:always 2 arms".
niedziela, 30 kwietnia 2023 o 20:34:12 UTC+2 Paul Alsing napisał(a):
On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 2:27:24 AM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:
niedziela, 30 kwietnia 2023 o 04:30:49 UTC+2 Paul Alsing napisał(a):
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 1:46:55 PM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:
sobota, 29 kwietnia 2023 o 22:11:27 UTC+2 Paul Alsing napisał(a):
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 12:18:47 PM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:
sobota, 29 kwietnia 2023 o 02:34:14 UTC+2 Paul Alsing napisał(a):
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 1:28:37 PM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:
The production of first hydrogen, for example, continues throughout the entire evolutionLet's just go ahead and add "astronomy" to the list of scientific subjects about which you are clueless. Although 2 arms are "usual" for most galaxies, there are literally millions of galaxies with more than 2. Clearly, there are NOT "
of the Galaxy, although only 2 times per revolution (there are always 2 arms coming out of the center of spiral galaxies).
to the Sun... and understand that this is just a *little* black hole.Show an example of a typical spiral galaxy (not distorted) where otherwise.
How about our own Milky Way?
https://www.space.com/gaia-reveals-spiral-arms-milky-way
Good joke. What telescope is this image from? Did aliens make it?
There was no claim made that this was an actual photo... it is just an artist's conception of a "possible" layout of our galaxy.
"The Milky Way is known to have two main spiral arms, the Perseus arm and the Scutum-Centaurus arm. Our galaxy also possesses two less pronounced arms, or spurs, called the Sagittarius and the Local Arm (which passes close to the sun)."
There is an entire catalogue of galaxies with 3 or more arms... here you go...
https://tinyurl.com/457d8z6f
I have wrote about typical spiral galaxies, not deformed spirals.
Really? Here is your *exact* quote... "(there are always 2 arms coming out of the center of spiral galaxies)" Perhaps you would like to make a retraction?
This was the case in Sgr A* around above 28,000. years ago, where it's thick with hydrogen and newly formed
stars that make up a globular cluster. Probably...
Probably? This is good science? Sgr A* is clearly not a globular cluster, it is a black hole, with a mass about 4 million times as massive as our Sun. It has a diameter of only 17 light-hours, or about 122 times the distance from Earth
calculated from the movement of 1 star.Not true, you can see thousands of young stars and dense regions of hydrogen. You can't see the effects of a black hole, despite many prophecies. I believe that the black hole was put there (such an assumption was made) and its mass was
about right? You are basically claiming that your own calculations are more accurate than those of scientists from countries all over the world who have made the same calculations, as shown on the graph about half way down this page,...Calculated from the motions of other stars, the mass differs markedly.
So your only evidence is your own calculation for the orbits of the S stars in the vicinity of Sgr A*, and it is your claim that only S2 was used to determine the mass of the black hole and that the other S stars do not fit the model... Is thatLet's see your evidence for this claim. I will say that it is incorrect.(...)
I have calculated it many years ago, you can repeat the calculation yourself.
order to apply the law of gravity to calculate the mass of the black hole you need to know the mass of the star orbiting it. This mass is estimated by taking the spectrum of those stars and then finding other stars with a similar makeup that we arehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_A*
... a graph that shows the orbital parameters for 8 of those S stars? Tell me, which of those parameters is incorrect, and what are the correct numbers as shown in your own calculations?
Read the cited source carefully. Different methods and different teams have estimatedYou are really clueless about error bars as they apply to astronomy. The calculated masses of the black hole at the center of the galaxy vary in a ratio of 4.7/3.2, which is equal to 1.48... which is a *really* good answer for such calculations. In
the mass of the supposed black hole in the range (3.2 to 4.7) x 10^6 Ms
Such a black hole is not acceptable given the accuracy of Kepler's laws in the solar system (taken to analogy), see tables and graph: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler%27s_laws_of_planetary_motionAs explained above, this is a ridiculous assertion. Unless and until you undertake a *lot* of classes in physics you will remain mostly ignorant of the reality of all of this.
has made a full rotation and the geometrical parameters of the orbit are known.Look how many decades and with what effort the reasons for the discrepancy in the decay
of the neutron are sought from 879s to 888s, min/max = 0.99 (and what a scandal by the way!)
... and the black hole is accepted uncritically at min/max=0.68
...
For Sgr A* analogies from the Solar System have been adopted with the assumption that the black hole plays the role of the Sun and the orbiting stars play the role of planets (although their motion is completely different). One of the stars (S2 ?)
completely different.The generalized Kepler's 3rd law is used for the calculations, which is simply presented (at the end) here:
https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prawa_Keplera
Other orbiting stars didn't make full revolutions during the observation period (there were tables on the web), but from the orbits fragments one can extrapolate the final parameters. Then the results of calculations of the alleged BH mass were
No, this is not correct... unless, of course, you have evidence to support your own position.
Evidence rules... got any?
poniedziałek, 1 maja 2023 o 03:22:51 UTC+2 Paul Alsing napisał(a):whether it made sense - is not allowed. I definitely prefer my own cosmology.
Start using your own mind. This is pure scientific hypocrisy. One can take analogies from the solar system and Kepler's laws for inserting a black hole in Sgr A* and calculating its mass. In the other direction, to compare (accuracy here and there)
There is most likely just a dense region of swirling hydrogen where new stars can form and sometimes flash in formation. Big black holes are in far neigborhood.
On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 11:55:53 PM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:
poniedziałek, 1 maja 2023 o 03:22:51 UTC+2 Paul Alsing napisał(a):
There is most likely just a dense region of swirling hydrogen where new stars can form and sometimes flash in formation. Big black holes are in far neigborhood.Swirling hydrogen? Flash in formation? Far neighborhood? My, what a fantastic imagination you have! I don't suppose you have any evidence to provide in support of any of these claims, do you?
As always, evidence rules, and you don't seem to have any to offer in support of your claims... do you?
wtorek, 2 maja 2023 o 05:17:46 UTC+2 Paul Alsing napisał(a):
On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 11:55:53 PM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:
poniedziałek, 1 maja 2023 o 03:22:51 UTC+2 Paul Alsing napisał(a):
(...)
There is most likely just a dense region of swirling hydrogen where new stars can form and sometimes flash in formation. Big black holes are in far neigborhood.
Swirling hydrogen? Flash in formation? Far neighborhood? My, what a fantastic imagination you have! I don't suppose you have any evidence to provide in support of any of these claims, do you?
As always, evidence rules, and you don't seem to have any to offer in support of your claims... do you?
Let's do a thought experiment that can weaken or strengthen the black hole hypothesis.
My idea, your calculations. Ok?
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 7:17:03 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
On 4/28/2023 2:55 PM, Enes Richard wrote:
How are antineutrons produced by fission of atomic nuclei (according to the Standard Model fantasy)?Because they aren't.
Sergio, you are special.
On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 5:50:04 AM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:
The neutron decays into a proton and an electron.No, it does not.
Read a dang textbook,
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 12:13:43 AM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:
piątek, 28 kwietnia 2023 o 06:20:14 UTC+2 Paul Alsing napisał(a):
On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 5:50:04 AM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:
The neutron decays into a proton and an electron.No, it does not.
Read a dang textbook, making crap up as you go along is not science, it is your own personal fantasy...
https://hepweb.ucsd.edu/ph110b/110b_notes/node63.html#:~:text=While%20neutrons%20are%20stable%20inside,antineutrino%20of%20the%20electron%20type.
Let's not be so petty.
Of course:
-a neutron decays into a proton, an electron, and some "junk"
- an antineutron decays into antiproton, positron and "junk"
Do not regret quarks, the new physics will be simple and understandable.You *really* need to study physics for several thousand hours because you are completely clueless. Making it up as you along is really, really obvious to those of us that have put in the time and effort.
My bullshit meter is vibrating a LOT!
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 4:51:17 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 12:13:43 AM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:
piątek, 28 kwietnia 2023 o 06:20:14 UTC+2 Paul Alsing napisał(a):
On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 5:50:04 AM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote: >> > > > The neutron decays into a proton and an electron.Let's not be so petty.
No, it does not.
Read a dang textbook, making crap up as you go along is not science, it is your own personal fantasy...
https://hepweb.ucsd.edu/ph110b/110b_notes/node63.html#:~:text=While%20neutrons%20are%20stable%20inside,antineutrino%20of%20the%20electron%20type.
Of course:
-a neutron decays into a proton, an electron, and some "junk"
- an antineutron decays into antiproton, positron and "junk"
Do not regret quarks, the new physics will be simple and understandable. >> You *really* need to study physics for several thousand hours because you are completely clueless. Making it up as you along is really, really obvious to those of us that have put in the time and effort.
My bullshit meter is vibrating a LOT!
You are a vague nitwit, incapable of formulating a point.
On 4/28/2023 2:55 PM, Enes Richard wrote:
How are antineutrons produced by fission of atomic nuclei (according to the Standard Model fantasy)?Because they aren't.
On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 9:20:14 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 5:50:04 AM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:
The neutron decays into a proton and an electron.No, it does not.
Read a dang textbook,
LOL. You got nothing!!!
Find a new hobby, moron.
On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 5:50:04 AM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:
The neutron decays into a proton and an electron.No, it does not.
Read a dang textbook, making crap up as you go along is not science, it is your own personal fantasy...
https://hepweb.ucsd.edu/ph110b/110b_notes/node63.html#:~:text=While%20neutrons%20are%20stable%20inside,antineutrino%20of%20the%20electron%20type.
Solving Tornadoes <solvingt...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 4:51:17 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 12:13:43 AM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:
piątek, 28 kwietnia 2023 o 06:20:14 UTC+2 Paul Alsing napisał(a):You *really* need to study physics for several thousand hours because you are completely clueless. Making it up as you along is really, really obvious to those of us that have put in the time and effort.
On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 5:50:04 AM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:Let's not be so petty.
The neutron decays into a proton and an electron.No, it does not.
Read a dang textbook, making crap up as you go along is not science, it is your own personal fantasy...
https://hepweb.ucsd.edu/ph110b/110b_notes/node63.html#:~:text=While%20neutrons%20are%20stable%20inside,antineutrino%20of%20the%20electron%20type.
Of course:
-a neutron decays into a proton, an electron, and some "junk"
- an antineutron decays into antiproton, positron and "junk"
Do not regret quarks, the new physics will be simple and understandable.
My bullshit meter is vibrating a LOT!
You are a vague nitwit, incapable of formulating a point.So says the uneducated, unemployable and delusionally insane crackpot
with a multiple personality disorder that makes him post everything
twice and who refuses to read any books, including dictionaries, because
the content of books threaten his delusions.
McGinn's delusions leaves him with nothing to say other than to babble insane nonsense and obscene insults as he has no actual knowledge of
any subject and becomes angry and terrified when confronted with actual facts.
Meanwhile, the real world has thousands of years of history with untold numbers of scientists doing an untold number of documented experiments,
all of which can be found in books by people who are not terrified of reading them because of crippling delusions, crackpot.
On Tuesday, May 2, 2023 at 12:43:05 PM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:observation and experiments as described by mainstream astronomy hold a lot more sway for me. You are just an undetected tiny pimple on the ass of mainstream astronomy and physics.
wtorek, 2 maja 2023 o 05:17:46 UTC+2 Paul Alsing napisał(a):
On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 11:55:53 PM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:
poniedziałek, 1 maja 2023 o 03:22:51 UTC+2 Paul Alsing napisał(a):
(...)
There is most likely just a dense region of swirling hydrogen where new stars can form and sometimes flash in formation. Big black holes are in far neigborhood.
Swirling hydrogen? Flash in formation? Far neighborhood? My, what a fantastic imagination you have! I don't suppose you have any evidence to provide in support of any of these claims, do you?
As always, evidence rules, and you don't seem to have any to offer in support of your claims... do you?
Let's do a thought experiment that can weaken or strengthen the black hole hypothesis.No, let's talk about your complete lack of evidence for your own claims instead, and not waste our time on your unsupported fairytales.
My idea, your calculations. Ok?Not OK. How about we talk about the observations that have already been made and how they led directly to the evidence for a 4 million solar-mass black hole in the center of our galaxy. Your thought experiments may mean something to you, but the actual
AGAIN, evidence rules... and you haven't had any to offer, so far. Thought experiments are not required for subject matter that is very well understood. You are NOT likely to save astronomy from its irregularities... as perceived by you!
On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 10:00:55 AM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:actual observation and experiments as described by mainstream astronomy hold a lot more sway for me. You are just an undetected tiny pimple on the ass of mainstream astronomy and physics.
środa, 3 maja 2023 o 04:25:46 UTC+2 Paul Alsing napisał(a):
On Tuesday, May 2, 2023 at 12:43:05 PM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:
wtorek, 2 maja 2023 o 05:17:46 UTC+2 Paul Alsing napisał(a):
On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 11:55:53 PM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:
poniedziałek, 1 maja 2023 o 03:22:51 UTC+2 Paul Alsing napisał(a):
(...)
There is most likely just a dense region of swirling hydrogen where new stars can form and sometimes flash in formation. Big black holes are in far neigborhood.
Swirling hydrogen? Flash in formation? Far neighborhood? My, what a fantastic imagination you have! I don't suppose you have any evidence to provide in support of any of these claims, do you?
As always, evidence rules, and you don't seem to have any to offer in support of your claims... do you?
Let's do a thought experiment that can weaken or strengthen the black hole hypothesis.No, let's talk about your complete lack of evidence for your own claims instead, and not waste our time on your unsupported fairytales.
My idea, your calculations. Ok?Not OK. How about we talk about the observations that have already been made and how they led directly to the evidence for a 4 million solar-mass black hole in the center of our galaxy. Your thought experiments may mean something to you, but the
Had the vanishing black hole summoned this annoyance... and set the simpleton free?
Don't object to thought experiments (they usually don't hurt). Leading the way is the general theory of relativity, which seems to have been used to create the image of a black hole... just like Kepler was used to create mass.
AGAIN, evidence rules... and you haven't had any to offer, so far. Thought experiments are not required for subject matter that is very well understood. You are NOT likely to save astronomy from its irregularities... as perceived by you!
Something for something. First the mass of the star S2 supported by calculations, then my turn...Just how do you think the mass of S2 was originally determined? Hint: it was not calculated...
środa, 3 maja 2023 o 04:25:46 UTC+2 Paul Alsing napisał(a):actual observation and experiments as described by mainstream astronomy hold a lot more sway for me. You are just an undetected tiny pimple on the ass of mainstream astronomy and physics.
On Tuesday, May 2, 2023 at 12:43:05 PM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:
wtorek, 2 maja 2023 o 05:17:46 UTC+2 Paul Alsing napisał(a):
On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 11:55:53 PM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:
poniedziałek, 1 maja 2023 o 03:22:51 UTC+2 Paul Alsing napisał(a):
(...)
There is most likely just a dense region of swirling hydrogen where new stars can form and sometimes flash in formation. Big black holes are in far neigborhood.
Swirling hydrogen? Flash in formation? Far neighborhood? My, what a fantastic imagination you have! I don't suppose you have any evidence to provide in support of any of these claims, do you?
As always, evidence rules, and you don't seem to have any to offer in support of your claims... do you?
Let's do a thought experiment that can weaken or strengthen the black hole hypothesis.No, let's talk about your complete lack of evidence for your own claims instead, and not waste our time on your unsupported fairytales.
My idea, your calculations. Ok?Not OK. How about we talk about the observations that have already been made and how they led directly to the evidence for a 4 million solar-mass black hole in the center of our galaxy. Your thought experiments may mean something to you, but the
Had the vanishing black hole summoned this annoyance... and set the simpleton free?
Don't object to thought experiments (they usually don't hurt). Leading the way is the general theory of relativity, which seems to have been used to create the image of a black hole... just like Kepler was used to create mass.
AGAIN, evidence rules... and you haven't had any to offer, so far. Thought experiments are not required for subject matter that is very well understood. You are NOT likely to save astronomy from its irregularities... as perceived by you!
Something for something. First the mass of the star S2 supported by calculations, then my turn...
On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 8:01:10 AM UTC-7, Jim Pennino wrote:
Solving Tornadoes <solvingt...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 4:51:17 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:So says the uneducated, unemployable and delusionally insane crackpot
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 12:13:43 AM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:
piątek, 28 kwietnia 2023 o 06:20:14 UTC+2 Paul Alsing napisał(a):You *really* need to study physics for several thousand hours because you are completely clueless. Making it up as you along is really, really obvious to those of us that have put in the time and effort.
On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 5:50:04 AM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:Let's not be so petty.
The neutron decays into a proton and an electron.No, it does not.
Read a dang textbook, making crap up as you go along is not science, it is your own personal fantasy...
https://hepweb.ucsd.edu/ph110b/110b_notes/node63.html#:~:text=While%20neutrons%20are%20stable%20inside,antineutrino%20of%20the%20electron%20type.
Of course:
-a neutron decays into a proton, an electron, and some "junk"
- an antineutron decays into antiproton, positron and "junk"
Do not regret quarks, the new physics will be simple and understandable.
My bullshit meter is vibrating a LOT!
You are a vague nitwit, incapable of formulating a point.
with a multiple personality disorder that makes him post everything
twice and who refuses to read any books, including dictionaries, because
the content of books threaten his delusions.
McGinn's delusions leaves him with nothing to say other than to babble
insane nonsense and obscene insults as he has no actual knowledge of
any subject and becomes angry and terrified when confronted with actual
facts.
Meanwhile, the real world has thousands of years of history with untold
numbers of scientists doing an untold number of documented experiments,
all of which can be found in books by people who are not terrified of
reading them because of crippling delusions, crackpot.
Are you suggesting these books are being hidden from the public?
Explain how you gained knowledge of books you can't find.
On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 9:20:14 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 5:50:04 AM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:
The neutron decays into a proton and an electron.No, it does not.
Read a dang textbook, making crap up as you go along is not science, it is your own personal fantasy...
https://hepweb.ucsd.edu/ph110b/110b_notes/node63.html#:~:text=While%20neutrons%20are%20stable%20inside,antineutrino%20of%20the%20electron%20type.
Why don't you imbeciles pool your resources and see if you can hire somebody to help you formulate an argument. Or even a point.
środa, 3 maja 2023 o 19:18:35 UTC+2 Paul Alsing napisał(a):
Something for something. First the mass of the star S2 supported by calculations, then my turn...
Just how do you think the mass of S2 was originally determined? Hint: it was not calculated...
Of course, there was no need. Assuming there is a black hole and using Kepler's 3 laws, the mass of the star is negligible.
It is completely different in the absence of a black hole, then there is the movement of two bodies (two stars S2) around the empty center of mass ... With known orbital parameters for S2, the mass can be calculated.
If the calculations result in a mass of S2 much greater than 100 Ms, then a black hole is needed to explain the motion of those stars.
With a mass of 10 Ms, a black hole is unnecessary.
The neutron decays into a proton and an electron.
The neutron decays into a proton and an electron.
Probably the antineutron decays into an antiproton and a positron.
These are the predictions of the new mass building model.
... and here are the experimental premises:
https://www.caltech.edu/about/news/how-long-does-a-neutron-live
On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 10:38:25 AM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:variable except for one. Since 2 of the variable are the masses of the 2 objects, we *must* know the mass of at least one of them to successfully solve the problem This means that either the mass of S2 had to be estimated or the mass of the black hole
środa, 3 maja 2023 o 19:18:35 UTC+2 Paul Alsing napisał(a):
Something for something. First the mass of the star S2 supported by calculations, then my turn...
Just how do you think the mass of S2 was originally determined? Hint: it was not calculated...
Of course, there was no need. Assuming there is a black hole and using Kepler's 3 laws, the mass of the star is negligible.There is no need of what? Determining the mass of S2? Kepler's 3rd law is filled with variables that need defining in order to get an answer. 2 of those variable are the masses of the 2 stars. The problem can be solved as long as we know all of the
the problem.It is completely different in the absence of a black hole, then there is the movement of two bodies (two stars S2) around the empty center of mass ... With known orbital parameters for S2, the mass can be calculated.This "empty center of mass" that you speak of is more properly called the barycenter, and even knowing all of the orbital parameters you *still* need the mass of at least one star to solve the problem, as outlined above. This is the *only* way to solve
orbit!If the calculations result in a mass of S2 much greater than 100 Ms, then a black hole is needed to explain the motion of those stars.
With a mass of 10 Ms, a black hole is unnecessary.A black hole is the *only* thing that can explain the motion of those stars. Just try to imagine a 4 million solar mass object in a body with a Schwarzschild radius of only seven million miles... about 7 times *smaller* than the radius of Mercury's
On Thursday, 4 May 2023 at 07:08:32 UTC+10, Paul Alsing wrote:variable except for one. Since 2 of the variable are the masses of the 2 objects, we *must* know the mass of at least one of them to successfully solve the problem This means that either the mass of S2 had to be estimated or the mass of the black hole
On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 10:38:25 AM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:
środa, 3 maja 2023 o 19:18:35 UTC+2 Paul Alsing napisał(a):
Something for something. First the mass of the star S2 supported by calculations, then my turn...
Just how do you think the mass of S2 was originally determined? Hint: it was not calculated...
Of course, there was no need. Assuming there is a black hole and using Kepler's 3 laws, the mass of the star is negligible.There is no need of what? Determining the mass of S2? Kepler's 3rd law is filled with variables that need defining in order to get an answer. 2 of those variable are the masses of the 2 stars. The problem can be solved as long as we know all of the
solve the problem.It is completely different in the absence of a black hole, then there is the movement of two bodies (two stars S2) around the empty center of mass ... With known orbital parameters for S2, the mass can be calculated.This "empty center of mass" that you speak of is more properly called the barycenter, and even knowing all of the orbital parameters you *still* need the mass of at least one star to solve the problem, as outlined above. This is the *only* way to
orbit!If the calculations result in a mass of S2 much greater than 100 Ms, then a black hole is needed to explain the motion of those stars.
With a mass of 10 Ms, a black hole is unnecessary.A black hole is the *only* thing that can explain the motion of those stars. Just try to imagine a 4 million solar mass object in a body with a Schwarzschild radius of only seven million miles... about 7 times *smaller* than the radius of Mercury's
There are no black holes anywhere, except around the heads of physicists permanently locked thus.This sort of nonsense in the name of science is nothing new. Swift wrote about it more than 300 years ago. Now this is very well funded and accepted, to continue with the status quo, to pre-empt genuine innovations. For the welfare of the fatcats and
On Thursday, 4 May 2023 at 07:08:32 UTC+10, Paul Alsing wrote:variable except for one. Since 2 of the variable are the masses of the 2 objects, we *must* know the mass of at least one of them to successfully solve the problem This means that either the mass of S2 had to be estimated or the mass of the black hole
On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 10:38:25 AM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:
środa, 3 maja 2023 o 19:18:35 UTC+2 Paul Alsing napisał(a):
Something for something. First the mass of the star S2 supported by calculations, then my turn...
Just how do you think the mass of S2 was originally determined? Hint: it was not calculated...
Of course, there was no need. Assuming there is a black hole and using Kepler's 3 laws, the mass of the star is negligible.There is no need of what? Determining the mass of S2? Kepler's 3rd law is filled with variables that need defining in order to get an answer. 2 of those variable are the masses of the 2 stars. The problem can be solved as long as we know all of the
solve the problem.It is completely different in the absence of a black hole, then there is the movement of two bodies (two stars S2) around the empty center of mass ... With known orbital parameters for S2, the mass can be calculated.This "empty center of mass" that you speak of is more properly called the barycenter, and even knowing all of the orbital parameters you *still* need the mass of at least one star to solve the problem, as outlined above. This is the *only* way to
orbit!If the calculations result in a mass of S2 much greater than 100 Ms, then a black hole is needed to explain the motion of those stars.
With a mass of 10 Ms, a black hole is unnecessary.
A black hole is the *only* thing that can explain the motion of those stars. Just try to imagine a 4 million solar mass object in a body with a Schwarzschild radius of only seven million miles... about 7 times *smaller* than the radius of Mercury's
There are no black holes anywhere, except around the heads of physicists permanently locked thus.
On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 4:27:43 PM UTC-7, Arindam Banerjee wrote:variable except for one. Since 2 of the variable are the masses of the 2 objects, we *must* know the mass of at least one of them to successfully solve the problem This means that either the mass of S2 had to be estimated or the mass of the black hole
On Thursday, 4 May 2023 at 07:08:32 UTC+10, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 10:38:25 AM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:
środa, 3 maja 2023 o 19:18:35 UTC+2 Paul Alsing napisał(a):
Something for something. First the mass of the star S2 supported by calculations, then my turn...
Just how do you think the mass of S2 was originally determined? Hint: it was not calculated...
Of course, there was no need. Assuming there is a black hole and using Kepler's 3 laws, the mass of the star is negligible.There is no need of what? Determining the mass of S2? Kepler's 3rd law is filled with variables that need defining in order to get an answer. 2 of those variable are the masses of the 2 stars. The problem can be solved as long as we know all of the
solve the problem.It is completely different in the absence of a black hole, then there is the movement of two bodies (two stars S2) around the empty center of mass ... With known orbital parameters for S2, the mass can be calculated.This "empty center of mass" that you speak of is more properly called the barycenter, and even knowing all of the orbital parameters you *still* need the mass of at least one star to solve the problem, as outlined above. This is the *only* way to
orbit!If the calculations result in a mass of S2 much greater than 100 Ms, then a black hole is needed to explain the motion of those stars.
With a mass of 10 Ms, a black hole is unnecessary.
A black hole is the *only* thing that can explain the motion of those stars. Just try to imagine a 4 million solar mass object in a body with a Schwarzschild radius of only seven million miles... about 7 times *smaller* than the radius of Mercury's
I doubt if you have that much Monopoly money.There are no black holes anywhere, except around the heads of physicists permanently locked thus.Arindam... if you can find another person here who has less brains than you do I will give you $1,000,000... but I know for sure that my money is safe... but this does not include McGinn :>)
On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 10:38:25 AM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:variable except for one. Since 2 of the variable are the masses of the 2 objects, we *must* know the mass of at least one of them to successfully solve the problem This means that either the mass of S2 had to be estimated or the mass of the black hole
środa, 3 maja 2023 o 19:18:35 UTC+2 Paul Alsing napisał(a):
Something for something. First the mass of the star S2 supported by calculations, then my turn...
Just how do you think the mass of S2 was originally determined? Hint: it was not calculated...
Of course, there was no need. Assuming there is a black hole and using Kepler's 3 laws, the mass of the star is negligible.There is no need of what? Determining the mass of S2? Kepler's 3rd law is filled with variables that need defining in order to get an answer. 2 of those variable are the masses of the 2 stars. The problem can be solved as long as we know all of the
the problem.It is completely different in the absence of a black hole, then there is the movement of two bodies (two stars S2) around the empty center of mass ... With known orbital parameters for S2, the mass can be calculated.This "empty center of mass" that you speak of is more properly called the barycenter, and even knowing all of the orbital parameters you *still* need the mass of at least one star to solve the problem, as outlined above. This is the *only* way to solve
orbit!If the calculations result in a mass of S2 much greater than 100 Ms, then a black hole is needed to explain the motion of those stars.
With a mass of 10 Ms, a black hole is unnecessary.A black hole is the *only* thing that can explain the motion of those stars. Just try to imagine a 4 million solar mass object in a body with a Schwarzschild radius of only seven million miles... about 7 times *smaller* than the radius of Mercury's
On Thursday, 4 May 2023 at 07:08:32 UTC+10, Paul Alsing wrote:orbit!
On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 10:38:25 AM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:
With a mass of 10 Ms, a black hole is unnecessary.A black hole is the *only* thing that can explain the motion of those stars. Just try to imagine a 4 million solar mass object in a body with a Schwarzschild radius of only seven million miles... about 7 times *smaller* than the radius of Mercury's
There are no black holes anywhere, except around the heads of physicists permanently locked thus.
On Thursday, 4 May 2023 at 07:08:32 UTC+10, Paul Alsing wrote:variable except for one. Since 2 of the variable are the masses of the 2 objects, we *must* know the mass of at least one of them to successfully solve the problem This means that either the mass of S2 had to be estimated or the mass of the black hole
On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 10:38:25 AM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:
środa, 3 maja 2023 o 19:18:35 UTC+2 Paul Alsing napisał(a):
Something for something. First the mass of the star S2 supported by calculations, then my turn...
Just how do you think the mass of S2 was originally determined? Hint: it was not calculated...
Of course, there was no need. Assuming there is a black hole and using Kepler's 3 laws, the mass of the star is negligible.There is no need of what? Determining the mass of S2? Kepler's 3rd law is filled with variables that need defining in order to get an answer. 2 of those variable are the masses of the 2 stars. The problem can be solved as long as we know all of the
solve the problem.It is completely different in the absence of a black hole, then there is the movement of two bodies (two stars S2) around the empty center of mass ... With known orbital parameters for S2, the mass can be calculated.This "empty center of mass" that you speak of is more properly called the barycenter, and even knowing all of the orbital parameters you *still* need the mass of at least one star to solve the problem, as outlined above. This is the *only* way to
orbit!If the calculations result in a mass of S2 much greater than 100 Ms, then a black hole is needed to explain the motion of those stars.
With a mass of 10 Ms, a black hole is unnecessary.A black hole is the *only* thing that can explain the motion of those stars. Just try to imagine a 4 million solar mass object in a body with a Schwarzschild radius of only seven million miles... about 7 times *smaller* than the radius of Mercury's
There are no black holes anywhere, except around the heads of physicists permanently locked thus.
On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 4:27:43 PM UTC-7, Arindam Banerjee wrote:variable except for one. Since 2 of the variable are the masses of the 2 objects, we *must* know the mass of at least one of them to successfully solve the problem This means that either the mass of S2 had to be estimated or the mass of the black hole
On Thursday, 4 May 2023 at 07:08:32 UTC+10, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 10:38:25 AM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:
środa, 3 maja 2023 o 19:18:35 UTC+2 Paul Alsing napisał(a):
Something for something. First the mass of the star S2 supported by calculations, then my turn...
Just how do you think the mass of S2 was originally determined? Hint: it was not calculated...
Of course, there was no need. Assuming there is a black hole and using Kepler's 3 laws, the mass of the star is negligible.There is no need of what? Determining the mass of S2? Kepler's 3rd law is filled with variables that need defining in order to get an answer. 2 of those variable are the masses of the 2 stars. The problem can be solved as long as we know all of the
solve the problem.It is completely different in the absence of a black hole, then there is the movement of two bodies (two stars S2) around the empty center of mass ... With known orbital parameters for S2, the mass can be calculated.This "empty center of mass" that you speak of is more properly called the barycenter, and even knowing all of the orbital parameters you *still* need the mass of at least one star to solve the problem, as outlined above. This is the *only* way to
orbit!If the calculations result in a mass of S2 much greater than 100 Ms, then a black hole is needed to explain the motion of those stars.
With a mass of 10 Ms, a black hole is unnecessary.A black hole is the *only* thing that can explain the motion of those stars. Just try to imagine a 4 million solar mass object in a body with a Schwarzschild radius of only seven million miles... about 7 times *smaller* than the radius of Mercury's
Nonsense.There are no black holes anywhere, except around the heads of physicists permanently locked thus.Actual evidence says otherwise...
On 5/3/2023 7:27 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:orbit!
On Thursday, 4 May 2023 at 07:08:32 UTC+10, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 10:38:25 AM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:
With a mass of 10 Ms, a black hole is unnecessary.A black hole is the *only* thing that can explain the motion of those stars. Just try to imagine a 4 million solar mass object in a body with a Schwarzschild radius of only seven million miles... about 7 times *smaller* than the radius of Mercury's
There are no black holes anywhere, except around the heads of physicists permanently locked thus.Just saying "no such thing because I say so" doesn't cut it. Especially
when you consider what ELSE can explain 4 million solar masses crammed
into 7 million miles diameter, and when looking there we can't see
anything other than indirect side effects of 4 million solar masses.
So tell us, Banjo, what is invisible and has 4 million solar masses but isn't a black hole?
On Friday, 5 May 2023 at 02:01:49 UTC+10, Volney wrote:orbit!
On 5/3/2023 7:27 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
On Thursday, 4 May 2023 at 07:08:32 UTC+10, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 10:38:25 AM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:
With a mass of 10 Ms, a black hole is unnecessary.A black hole is the *only* thing that can explain the motion of those stars. Just try to imagine a 4 million solar mass object in a body with a Schwarzschild radius of only seven million miles... about 7 times *smaller* than the radius of Mercury's
Just saying "no such thing because I say so" doesn't cut it. Especially
There are no black holes anywhere, except around the heads of physicists permanently locked thus.
when you consider what ELSE can explain 4 million solar masses crammed
into 7 million miles diameter, and when looking there we can't see
anything other than indirect side effects of 4 million solar masses.
Where is it? Have you been there? How is it so nicely measured? With imagination and thought experiments?
So tell us, Banjo, what is invisible and has 4 million solar masses but
isn't a black hole?
Just nothing.
A blak hole does not exist as it is a theoretical conjecture to support E=mcc nonsense
in turn to please monotheists.
On Thursday, 27 April 2023 at 22:50:04 UTC+10, Enes Richard wrote:
The neutron decays into a proton and an electron.
It cannot decay,
On 5/4/2023 7:52 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:s orbit!
On Friday, 5 May 2023 at 02:01:49 UTC+10, Volney wrote:
On 5/3/2023 7:27 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
On Thursday, 4 May 2023 at 07:08:32 UTC+10, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 10:38:25 AM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote: >>
With a mass of 10 Ms, a black hole is unnecessary.A black hole is the *only* thing that can explain the motion of those stars. Just try to imagine a 4 million solar mass object in a body with a Schwarzschild radius of only seven million miles... about 7 times *smaller* than the radius of Mercury'
Yes they do. Heard of binary stars?Just saying "no such thing because I say so" doesn't cut it. Especially >> when you consider what ELSE can explain 4 million solar masses crammed
There are no black holes anywhere, except around the heads of physicists permanently locked thus.
into 7 million miles diameter, and when looking there we can't see
anything other than indirect side effects of 4 million solar masses.
Where is it? Have you been there? How is it so nicely measured? With imagination and thought experiments?Are you really so stooopid that you are unaware of how we know about SGR
A*? Hint: We can tell its mass from Kepler's Laws and the orbits of
several stars.
So tell us, Banjo, what is invisible and has 4 million solar masses but >> isn't a black hole?
Just nothing.What are those stars around SGR A* orbiting? Stars don't orbit "just nothing".
A blak hole does not exist as it is a theoretical conjecture to support E=mcc nonsenseIt's not "nonsense" if the evidence supports it.
in turn to please monotheists.Plenty of what you call monotheists (the Bible thumpers) hate science in general, including astronomy and cosmology, if it goes against their
6000 year old earth or whatever. They certainly are not "pleased" with cosmology, SGR A*, black holes etc.
On 5/4/2023 7:52 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:s orbit!
On Friday, 5 May 2023 at 02:01:49 UTC+10, Volney wrote:
On 5/3/2023 7:27 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
On Thursday, 4 May 2023 at 07:08:32 UTC+10, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 10:38:25 AM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote: >>
With a mass of 10 Ms, a black hole is unnecessary.A black hole is the *only* thing that can explain the motion of those stars. Just try to imagine a 4 million solar mass object in a body with a Schwarzschild radius of only seven million miles... about 7 times *smaller* than the radius of Mercury'
Bad people tell lies, and you are all bad, being Einsteinians. Not a word you lot say need be believed. You crooks believe in the invariance of the speed of light, when evidently this is not the case. Your entire foundations are on swamps, sooner it allJust saying "no such thing because I say so" doesn't cut it. Especially >> when you consider what ELSE can explain 4 million solar masses crammed
There are no black holes anywhere, except around the heads of physicists permanently locked thus.
into 7 million miles diameter, and when looking there we can't see
anything other than indirect side effects of 4 million solar masses.
Where is it? Have you been there? How is it so nicely measured? With imagination and thought experiments?Are you really so stooopid that you are unaware of how we know about SGR
A*? Hint: We can tell its mass from Kepler's Laws and the orbits of
several stars.
Yes they do. Heard of binary stars? Do they orbit black holes? Is that going to be the new theory now? Have you guys have no clue at all about how centrifugal and gravitational force works with tangential velocities involved?
So tell us, Banjo, what is invisible and has 4 million solar masses but >> isn't a black hole?
Just nothing.What are those stars around SGR A* orbiting? Stars don't orbit "just nothing".
No it does not. Lies repeated a trillion lies do not become truth.A blak hole does not exist as it is a theoretical conjecture to support E=mcc nonsenseIt's not "nonsense" if the evidence supports it.
They are far far less pleased with the Hindu notions of infinite universe, no creation but eternity, aum or aether, the law of karma, polytheism, etc so they fund the less unattractive zerotheists splendidly. Up Bible and only Bible for them. The bigin turn to please monotheists.Plenty of what you call monotheists (the Bible thumpers) hate science in general, including astronomy and cosmology, if it goes against their
6000 year old earth or whatever. They certainly are not "pleased" with cosmology, SGR A*, black holes etc.
On Friday, 5 May 2023 at 13:15:38 UTC+10, Volney wrote:Mercury's orbit!
On 5/4/2023 7:52 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
On Friday, 5 May 2023 at 02:01:49 UTC+10, Volney wrote:
On 5/3/2023 7:27 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
On Thursday, 4 May 2023 at 07:08:32 UTC+10, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 10:38:25 AM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote: >>
With a mass of 10 Ms, a black hole is unnecessary.A black hole is the *only* thing that can explain the motion of those stars. Just try to imagine a 4 million solar mass object in a body with a Schwarzschild radius of only seven million miles... about 7 times *smaller* than the radius of
(...)Just saying "no such thing because I say so" doesn't cut it. Especially >> when you consider what ELSE can explain 4 million solar masses crammed >> into 7 million miles diameter, and when looking there we can't see
There are no black holes anywhere, except around the heads of physicists permanently locked thus.
anything other than indirect side effects of 4 million solar masses.
Where is it? Have you been there? How is it so nicely measured? With imagination and thought experiments?Are you really so stooopid that you are unaware of how we know about SGR A*? Hint: We can tell its mass from Kepler's Laws and the orbits of several stars.
So tell us, Banjo, what is invisible and has 4 million solar masses but >> isn't a black hole?
Yes they do. Heard of binary stars?Just nothing.What are those stars around SGR A* orbiting? Stars don't orbit "just nothing".
piątek, 5 maja 2023 o 05:21:55 UTC+2 Arindam Banerjee napisał(a):Mercury's orbit!
On Friday, 5 May 2023 at 13:15:38 UTC+10, Volney wrote:
On 5/4/2023 7:52 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
On Friday, 5 May 2023 at 02:01:49 UTC+10, Volney wrote:
On 5/3/2023 7:27 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
On Thursday, 4 May 2023 at 07:08:32 UTC+10, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 10:38:25 AM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:
With a mass of 10 Ms, a black hole is unnecessary.A black hole is the *only* thing that can explain the motion of those stars. Just try to imagine a 4 million solar mass object in a body with a Schwarzschild radius of only seven million miles... about 7 times *smaller* than the radius of
Just saying "no such thing because I say so" doesn't cut it. Especially
There are no black holes anywhere, except around the heads of physicists permanently locked thus.
when you consider what ELSE can explain 4 million solar masses crammed
into 7 million miles diameter, and when looking there we can't see
anything other than indirect side effects of 4 million solar masses.
Where is it? Have you been there? How is it so nicely measured? With imagination and thought experiments?Are you really so stooopid that you are unaware of how we know about SGR A*? Hint: We can tell its mass from Kepler's Laws and the orbits of several stars.
So tell us, Banjo, what is invisible and has 4 million solar masses but
isn't a black hole?
(...)Yes they do. Heard of binary stars?Just nothing.What are those stars around SGR A* orbiting? Stars don't orbit "just nothing".
Not only binary stars can move around an "empty" center of mass.
The same can be true in globular clusters with many thousands of stars.
An alternative to the black hole in Sgr A* is a globular cluster (in statu nascendi),
which explains the movements of the observed stars ...
and, by the way, a hitherto unknown way of forming globular clusters.
On Friday, 5 May 2023 at 13:15:38 UTC+10, Volney wrote:s orbit!
On 5/4/2023 7:52 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
On Friday, 5 May 2023 at 02:01:49 UTC+10, Volney wrote:
On 5/3/2023 7:27 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
On Thursday, 4 May 2023 at 07:08:32 UTC+10, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 10:38:25 AM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote: >>>>
With a mass of 10 Ms, a black hole is unnecessary.A black hole is the *only* thing that can explain the motion of those stars. Just try to imagine a 4 million solar mass object in a body with a Schwarzschild radius of only seven million miles... about 7 times *smaller* than the radius of Mercury'
Are you really so stooopid that you are unaware of how we know about SGRJust saying "no such thing because I say so" doesn't cut it. Especially >>>> when you consider what ELSE can explain 4 million solar masses crammed >>>> into 7 million miles diameter, and when looking there we can't see
There are no black holes anywhere, except around the heads of physicists permanently locked thus.
anything other than indirect side effects of 4 million solar masses.
Where is it? Have you been there? How is it so nicely measured? With imagination and thought experiments?
A*? Hint: We can tell its mass from Kepler's Laws and the orbits of
several stars.
So tell us, Banjo, what is invisible and has 4 million solar masses but >>>> isn't a black hole?
Just nothing.
What are those stars around SGR A* orbiting? Stars don't orbit "just
nothing".
Yes they do. Heard of binary stars?
On Friday, 5 May 2023 at 13:15:38 UTC+10, Volney wrote:
On 5/4/2023 7:52 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
A blak hole does not exist as it is a theoretical conjecture to support E=mcc nonsenseIt's not "nonsense" if the evidence supports it.
No it does not. Lies repeated a trillion lies do not become truth.
They are far far less pleased with the Hindu notions of infinite universe, no creation but eternity, aum or aether, the law of karma, polytheism, etcin turn to please monotheists.Plenty of what you call monotheists (the Bible thumpers) hate science in
general, including astronomy and cosmology, if it goes against their
6000 year old earth or whatever. They certainly are not "pleased" with
cosmology, SGR A*, black holes etc.
so they fund the less unattractive zerotheists splendidly. Up Bible and only Bible for them.
The big bang theory black holes are in tune with Genesys.
On 5/3/2023 7:23 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
On Thursday, 27 April 2023 at 22:50:04 UTC+10, Enes Richard wrote:
The neutron decays into a proton and an electron.
It cannot decay,
Saying it cannot do X while there's plenty of evidence of X happening is delusional thinking. Delusions are a symptom of many forms of mental illnesses. Which form of mental illness do you have, Arindam?
On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 5:50:04 AM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:
The neutron decays into a proton and an electron.
Probably the antineutron decays into an antiproton and a positron.
These are the predictions of the new mass building model.
... and here are the experimental premises:
https://www.caltech.edu/about/news/how-long-does-a-neutron-liveThere is no anti world. How would man make it from positive particles?
How is negative matter made from a positive matter source?
An alternative to the black hole in Sgr A* is a globular cluster (in statu nascendi),
which explains the movements of the observed stars ...
and, by the way, a hitherto unknown way of forming globular clusters.
On 5/4/2023 11:21 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:Mercury's orbit!
On Friday, 5 May 2023 at 13:15:38 UTC+10, Volney wrote:
On 5/4/2023 7:52 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
On Friday, 5 May 2023 at 02:01:49 UTC+10, Volney wrote:
On 5/3/2023 7:27 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
On Thursday, 4 May 2023 at 07:08:32 UTC+10, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 10:38:25 AM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote: >>>>
With a mass of 10 Ms, a black hole is unnecessary.A black hole is the *only* thing that can explain the motion of those stars. Just try to imagine a 4 million solar mass object in a body with a Schwarzschild radius of only seven million miles... about 7 times *smaller* than the radius of
Are you really so stooopid that you are unaware of how we know about SGR >> A*? Hint: We can tell its mass from Kepler's Laws and the orbits ofWhere is it? Have you been there? How is it so nicely measured? With imagination and thought experiments?Just saying "no such thing because I say so" doesn't cut it. Especially >>>> when you consider what ELSE can explain 4 million solar masses crammed >>>> into 7 million miles diameter, and when looking there we can't see
There are no black holes anywhere, except around the heads of physicists permanently locked thus.
anything other than indirect side effects of 4 million solar masses. >>>
several stars.
So tell us, Banjo, what is invisible and has 4 million solar masses but >>>> isn't a black hole?
Just nothing.
What are those stars around SGR A* orbiting? Stars don't orbit "just
nothing".
Yes they do. Heard of binary stars?That's rather misleading of you. Binary stars don't orbit "just
nothing", they orbit each other. Or technically their barycenter.
us, what are those stars around SGR A* orbiting?
The barycenter of
themselves and what?
to use that, that the other part contributing to the barycenter has a
mass of some 4 million suns, and a maximum diameter of 7 million miles (otherwise stars would have crashed into it) yet it's invisible.
So tell us, what is invisible and has 4 million solar masses but isn't a black hole?
On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 6:12:36 PM UTC-7, Arindam Banerjee wrote:Mercury's orbit!
On Saturday, 6 May 2023 at 02:17:14 UTC+10, Volney wrote:
On 5/4/2023 11:21 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
On Friday, 5 May 2023 at 13:15:38 UTC+10, Volney wrote:
On 5/4/2023 7:52 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
On Friday, 5 May 2023 at 02:01:49 UTC+10, Volney wrote:
On 5/3/2023 7:27 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
On Thursday, 4 May 2023 at 07:08:32 UTC+10, Paul Alsing wrote: >>>>>> On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 10:38:25 AM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:
With a mass of 10 Ms, a black hole is unnecessary.A black hole is the *only* thing that can explain the motion of those stars. Just try to imagine a 4 million solar mass object in a body with a Schwarzschild radius of only seven million miles... about 7 times *smaller* than the radius of
Forgetting Einstein are we and going back to Kepler! Some retreat-ful vomit there, Rotating Head Alsing.Are you really so stooopid that you are unaware of how we know about SGRJust saying "no such thing because I say so" doesn't cut it. Especially
There are no black holes anywhere, except around the heads of physicists permanently locked thus.
when you consider what ELSE can explain 4 million solar masses crammed
into 7 million miles diameter, and when looking there we can't see >>>> anything other than indirect side effects of 4 million solar masses.
Where is it? Have you been there? How is it so nicely measured? With imagination and thought experiments?
A*? Hint: We can tell its mass from Kepler's Laws and the orbits of >> several stars.
So tell us, Banjo, what is invisible and has 4 million solar masses but
isn't a black hole?
Just nothing.
What are those stars around SGR A* orbiting? Stars don't orbit "just >> nothing".
At least this is clear, good. You are not saying there has to be a black hole at the centre of a binary system, and that is a mercy.Yes they do. Heard of binary stars?That's rather misleading of you. Binary stars don't orbit "just nothing", they orbit each other. Or technically their barycenter.
Tell
us, what are those stars around SGR A* orbiting?Around each other of course, just as a binary star system.
Their centres of mass, for the two halves of the stars, are doing just that.
Behaving as a binary star.
I thought this was only too obvious, but equally obviously I was mistaken. I tend to overestimate the intelligence of the supposedly intelligent and that is a mistake.
The barycenter ofWhat indeed, answer is nothing. NO black holes around, just as there are no black holes between binary systems.
themselves and what?
The entire galaxy thus behaves as a binary system, endlessly rotaing around NOTHING.
Just gravity, an electrostatic force, perennial as charge, and kinetic motion, are at work to keep things going from infinity and eternity to infinity and eternity.
Now, this may be too much for your weak minds to grasp. It is only recently that you barbarians/bandits have grasped some idea of the concept of zero.
Infinity is the inverse of zero.
We know from Newtonian mechanics, should we choose
to use that, that the other part contributing to the barycenter has a mass of some 4 million suns, and a maximum diameter of 7 million miles (otherwise stars would have crashed into it) yet it's invisible.It is invisible because nothing is invisible.
Arindam, the length and breadth of you ignorance is truly astounding! So, you no longer believe that Kepler's 3rd law is incorrect? Based on what evidence?So tell us, what is invisible and has 4 million solar masses but isn't a black hole?NOTHING.
On 5/4/2023 10:18 PM, Volney wrote:
On 5/3/2023 7:23 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
On Thursday, 27 April 2023 at 22:50:04 UTC+10, Enes Richard wrote:
The neutron decays into a proton and an electron.
It cannot decay,
Saying it cannot do X while there's plenty of evidence of X happening is delusional thinking. Delusions are a symptom of many forms of mental illnesses. Which form of mental illness do you have, Arindam?
He has, for sure, narcissistic schizophrenia, and probably other
comorbid conditions. But in his wife's eyes he's pretty and
apparently she can control him in the ways that matter to her.
I suspect he married money.
On 5/4/2023 11:44 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
On Friday, 5 May 2023 at 13:15:38 UTC+10, Volney wrote:
On 5/4/2023 7:52 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
A blak hole does not exist as it is a theoretical conjecture to support E=mcc nonsenseIt's not "nonsense" if the evidence supports it.
No it does not. Lies repeated a trillion lies do not become truth.But it is experimental evidence and scientific observation, not a
trillion lies. The evidence does not lie.
But those bible thumpers are irrelevant.They are far far less pleased with the Hindu notions of infinite universe, no creation but eternity, aum or aether, the law of karma, polytheism, etcin turn to please monotheists.Plenty of what you call monotheists (the Bible thumpers) hate science in >> general, including astronomy and cosmology, if it goes against their
6000 year old earth or whatever. They certainly are not "pleased" with
cosmology, SGR A*, black holes etc.
Besides this is all science,
and science cannot have an opinion on religion. Religions are based on faith, and faith doesn't work in science.
Regardless, many scientists are religious. Many are Indian and this
likely Hindu, yet these are good scientists.
so they fund the less unattractive zerotheists splendidly. Up Bible and only Bible for them.
What about the Hindu Indians? If you knew these Bible thumpers, they
hate atheists ("zerotheists") more than anything.
The big bang theory black holes are in tune with Genesys.Definitely not! These fundamentalists hate cosmology and the Big Bang because it goes against Genesis! They hate anything that doesn't say the earth is 6000 years old. They hate anything that says the universe
wasn't created in the precise order and method of Genesis. Appealing to fundamentalists is the silliest excuse for the Big Bang and cosmology.
Back to the evidence, we looked and looked. There's something there with
4 million solar masses, which is huge. Yet we can't see it. What is it?
On Saturday, 6 May 2023 at 02:17:14 UTC+10, Volney wrote:Mercury's orbit!
On 5/4/2023 11:21 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
On Friday, 5 May 2023 at 13:15:38 UTC+10, Volney wrote:
On 5/4/2023 7:52 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
On Friday, 5 May 2023 at 02:01:49 UTC+10, Volney wrote:
On 5/3/2023 7:27 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
On Thursday, 4 May 2023 at 07:08:32 UTC+10, Paul Alsing wrote: >>>>>> On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 10:38:25 AM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:
With a mass of 10 Ms, a black hole is unnecessary.A black hole is the *only* thing that can explain the motion of those stars. Just try to imagine a 4 million solar mass object in a body with a Schwarzschild radius of only seven million miles... about 7 times *smaller* than the radius of
Are you really so stooopid that you are unaware of how we know about SGRWhere is it? Have you been there? How is it so nicely measured? With imagination and thought experiments?Just saying "no such thing because I say so" doesn't cut it. Especially
There are no black holes anywhere, except around the heads of physicists permanently locked thus.
when you consider what ELSE can explain 4 million solar masses crammed
into 7 million miles diameter, and when looking there we can't see >>>> anything other than indirect side effects of 4 million solar masses. >>>
A*? Hint: We can tell its mass from Kepler's Laws and the orbits of
several stars.
So tell us, Banjo, what is invisible and has 4 million solar masses but
isn't a black hole?
Just nothing.
What are those stars around SGR A* orbiting? Stars don't orbit "just
nothing".
At least this is clear, good. You are not saying there has to be a black hole at the centre of a binary system, and that is a mercy.Yes they do. Heard of binary stars?That's rather misleading of you. Binary stars don't orbit "just
nothing", they orbit each other. Or technically their barycenter.
Tell
us, what are those stars around SGR A* orbiting?Around each other of course, just as a binary star system.
Their centres of mass, for the two halves of the stars, are doing just that. Behaving as a binary star.
I thought this was only too obvious, but equally obviously I was mistaken. I tend to overestimate the intelligence of the supposedly intelligent and that is a mistake.
The barycenter ofWhat indeed, answer is nothing. NO black holes around, just as there are no black holes between binary systems.
themselves and what?
The entire galaxy thus behaves as a binary system, endlessly rotaing around NOTHING.
Just gravity, an electrostatic force, perennial as charge, and kinetic motion, are at work to keep things going from infinity and eternity to infinity and eternity.
Now, this may be too much for your weak minds to grasp. It is only recently that you barbarians/bandits have grasped some idea of the concept of zero.
Infinity is the inverse of zero.
We know from Newtonian mechanics, should we choose
to use that, that the other part contributing to the barycenter has aIt is invisible because nothing is invisible.
mass of some 4 million suns, and a maximum diameter of 7 million miles (otherwise stars would have crashed into it) yet it's invisible.
So tell us, what is invisible and has 4 million solar masses but isn't a black hole?NOTHING.
On Saturday, 6 May 2023 at 04:03:04 UTC+10, whodat wrote:
On 5/4/2023 10:18 PM, Volney wrote:
On 5/3/2023 7:23 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
On Thursday, 27 April 2023 at 22:50:04 UTC+10, Enes Richard wrote:
The neutron decays into a proton and an electron.
It cannot decay,
Saying it cannot do X while there's plenty of evidence of X happening is >>> delusional thinking. Delusions are a symptom of many forms of mental
illnesses. Which form of mental illness do you have, Arindam?
Genius, moron Moroney.
My "mental illness" to morons like you is genius, sheer genius, the greatest and purest genius of all time.
anything from this world any more".He has, for sure, narcissistic schizophrenia, and probably other
comorbid conditions. But in his wife's eyes he's pretty and
apparently she can control him in the ways that matter to her.
I suspect he married money.
I married much more than money, silly whodumbo.
To quote myself "My death, so far as the dusty streets of Ghaziabad were concerned, was to be altogether more pleasant. Within several months I would marry a matchless lady - in every noble aspect, perfect. And I would never, just for myself, ask
I am so lucky.
And so blessed by all the Gods and Goddesses.
On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 1:11:33 AM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:
An alternative to the black hole in Sgr A* is a globular cluster (in statu nascendi),This is completely absurd and only does to show how little you understand globular clusters.
which explains the movements of the observed stars ...
and, by the way, a hitherto unknown way of forming globular clusters.
As reported before, the Schwarzschild Radius of the object at the center of the galaxy is only about 7.5 million miles (a diameter of 15 million miles), which is about 8 light-minutes from Earth. Hold this thought... 8 light-minutes.minutes would be 86 X 365 X 24 X 60 = 45,201,600 light minutes, so after diving by 8 to establish a ratio, a 4 million solar-mass globular cluster would be over 5 million times too large to be the guy that S2 is orbiting... so no, a globular cluster is
It just so happens that the great globular cluster Omega Centauri, the largest globular cluster in our Milky Way...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega_Centauri#:~:text=It%20is%20the%20brightest%2C%20largest,is%20brighter%20and%20more%20massive.
... has a mass that happens to be about 4 million solar-masses, pretty much the same as the calculated mass of the black hole! The kicker here is that Omega Centauri has a radius of about 86 light-years! Let's see, converting 86 light years to light
By the way, studies show that Omega Centauri itself is probably the core of a dwarf galaxy that was ripped apart by tidal forces when interacting with the Milky Way... and it almost certainly has its very own black hole in its center! Fascinating stuff,eh?
Aren't thought experiments fun?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 99:28:32 |
| Calls: | 6,700 |
| Calls today: | 5 |
| Files: | 12,232 |
| Messages: | 5,349,703 |
