Cosmology

[Ophiolite]

Drilling experiments do not justify your reasoning. The Russian bore hole found that below a certain depth the rock became less dense, not more dense..... Perhaps you should study up on actual experiments and observations and less on pure theory..... just saying.

Are you unaware that there are frequent changes,up and down, in density as we penetrate further into the Earth. There is not a consistent increase in density. To avoid the perception that you are deliberately cherry picking data, please provide a bona fide citation that supports your implication that this was a significant and systematic decrease in density.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Are you unaware that there are frequent changes,up and down, in density as we penetrate further into the Earth. There is not a consistent increase in density. To avoid the perception that you are deliberately cherry picking data, please provide a bona fide citation that supports your implication that this was a significant and systematic decrease in density.

How would you know? We havent even penetrated into the earth hardly at all. And seismic waves indicate less dense material deeper. In fact three oceans worth of water near the core......

Sure, since you are too lazy to do your own research and instead prefer to cast aspersions of validity....

In fact the heat combined with the reduced porosity made drilling virtually impossible as the rock acted more like a plastic than a pressured heated rock would.

https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/kola-superdeep-borehole

"Also unexpected was a decrease in rock density after the first 14,800 feet. Beyond this point the rock had greater porosity and permeability which, paired with the high temperatures, caused the rock to behave more like a plastic than a solid and made drilling near impossible."

http://www.softschools.com/facts/deepest_places/kola_superdeep_borehole_facts/3108/

"Drilling at such low depths at the Kola Superdeep Borehole meant drilling in extremely high temperatures. The rock density was also more like plastic than rock and it also contributed to the difficulty in drilling and eventually having to stop."


We won't mention that it falsified their beliefs of the mantle and that large amounts of unexpected water were found, as well as other gasses like hydrogen.....

But that's the problem with using incorrect beliefs in geology, you find water where your beliefs held you never would.....

So basically three major predictions of geology were falsified, but you certainly won't hear them tell it.....

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Except I'm not criticizing anyone for correcting me. I'm criticizing you because you always say I have been corrected, but can't ever seem to present any actual science that corrects me, just keep making unsupported claims of correction..... As they all do..... as you are doing in this very post.....

I noticed not a single one of you actually wanted to discuss the actual evidence..... and observations that falsify the Big Bang, instead just make vague unsupported remarks about people being wrong.... I on the other hand listed several actual scientific discoveries that falsify the standard belief, which you all ignored..... in favor of your unsupported claims....

As others have pointed out, you need to work on reading what others say, not what you think they have said. I'd also suggest you work on your attitude and the tone of your posts.

 

[Halbhh]

Are you claiming against all of known science that neutrons outside of the atom stick together???? or is this another diversion to avoid what you know is true????

[note from halbhh: I've forgiven you for this small but still actually slanderous accusation, because Christ instructs us to forgive that we may be forgiven]

Without neutrons protons would fly apart, without protons, neutrons fly apart.

Hello there, how are you today?

I hope you are having a good day.

While the fast paced discussion had so many pieces to address, I did think this post of yours raised an interesting side question (for me) -- we know that Deuterium and Tritium last long enough (stable or having a measurable half life) so that they have names, and I wondered to myself 'is there a particle composed of only 2 neutrons together that lasts long enough to have a name? Now, oridinarily every human is surrounded in life by dozens of unanswered and basic questions of interest, if they are curious enough to remember their questions. It's the human condition, to have anywhere from a handful to dozens or even many hundreds of open questions.

Of course, one indirect way of getting at this one is to ask how is it a neutron star is believed to be mostly neutrons (in the layers below the crust and above the core, since the crust is not neutronium, and the core isn't through to be either)? For the latter, and for the former question -- both! -- I hope you enjoy this lucid and well written explanation (which likely this professor has done more than once) --

Short and pretty clear --
http://www.askamathematician.com/2010/09/q-why-cant-you-have-an-atom-made-entirely-out-of-neutrons/


...
Additionally I wondered also about the less interesting but still interesting question of half lives as you add more and more neutrons to 1 proton (why these heavier isotopes decay explained in the first link)

Tritium
3H is known as tritium and contains one proton and two neutrons in its nucleus (mass number = 3). It is radioactive, decaying into helium-3 through beta-decay accompanied by a release of 18.6 keV of energy. It has a half-life of 12.32 years. Naturally occurring tritium is extremely rare on Earth, where trace amounts are formed by the interaction of the atmosphere with cosmic rays.

Heavier Synthetic Isotopes
4H contains one proton and three neutrons in its nucleus. It is a highly unstable isotope of hydrogen. It has been synthesized in the laboratory by bombarding tritium with fast-moving deuterium nuclei. In this experiment, the tritium nuclei captured neutrons from the fast-moving deuterium nucleus. The presence of the hydrogen-4 was deduced by detecting the emitted protons. Its atomic mass is 4.02781 ± 0.00011 amu. It decays through neutron emission with a half-life of 1.39 ×10−22 seconds.

5H is another highly unstable heavy isotope of hydrogen. The nucleus consists of a proton and four neutrons. It has been synthesized in a laboratory by bombarding tritium with fast-moving tritium nuclei. One tritium nucleus captures two neutrons from the other, becoming a nucleus with one proton and four neutrons. The remaining proton may be detected and the existence of hydrogen-5 deduced. It decays through double neutron emission and has a half-life of at least 9.1 × 10−22 seconds.

6H decays through triple neutron emission and has a half-life of 2.90×10−22 seconds. It consists of one proton and five neutrons.

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/introchem/chapter/isotopes-of-hydrogen/

(also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_hydrogen)

Interesting, no? See, a particle of 2 neutrons coming into existence would have some brief half life, we'd guess. Lemme search up what's known. Ok, here:

• • Dineutron: The dineutron, containing two neutrons, was unambiguously observed in 2012 in the decay of beryllium-16.[7][8] It is not a bound particle, but had been proposed as an extremely short-lived state produced by nuclear reactions involving tritium. It has been suggested to have a transitory existence in nuclear reactions produced by helions (helium 3 nuclei, completely ionised) that result in the formation of a proton and a nucleus having the same atomic number as the target nucleus but a mass number two units greater. The dineutron hypothesis had been used in nuclear reactions with exotic nuclei for a long time.[9] Several applications of the dineutron in nuclear reactions can be found in review papers.[10] Its existence has been proven to be relevant for nuclear structure of exotic nuclei.[11] A system made up of only two neutrons is not bound, though the attraction between them is very nearly enough to make them so.[12] This has some consequences on nucleosynthesis and the abundance of the chemical elements.[10][13]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutronium#Neutronium_and_the_periodic_table

Interesting stuff! As before, we understand neutronium in a neutron star has to do with high pressure and the neutronium being the favored energy state of the matter under those conditions (see first link above also).

 

[Justatruthseeker]

As others have pointed out, you need to work on reading what others say, not what you think they have said. I'd also suggest you work on your attitude and the tone of your posts.

I read just fine, and again, all I see are bold faced claims........

I'd suggest you work on yours. What comes around goes around..... Don't like the attitude, look in the mirror and fix your own and you won't get it back...... I follow the firefighter creed... water is best, but sometimes you just got to fight fire with fire......

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Hello there, how are you today?

I hope you are having a good day.

While the fast paced discussion had so many pieces to address, I did think this post of yours raised an interesting side question (for me) -- we know that Deuterium and Tritium last long enough (stable or having a measurable half life) so that they have names, and I wondered to myself 'is there a particle composed of only 2 neutrons together that lasts long enough to have a name? Now, oridinarily every human is surrounded in life by dozens of unanswered and basic questions of interest, if they are curious enough to remember their questions. It's the human condition, to have anywhere from a handful to dozens or even many hundreds of open questions.

Of course, one indirect way of getting at this one is to ask how is it a neutron star is believed to be mostly neutrons (in the layers below the crust and above the core, since the crust is not neutronium, and the core isn't through to be either)? For the latter, and for the former question -- both! -- I hope you enjoy this lucid and well written explanation (which likely this professor has done more than once) --

Short and pretty clear --
http://www.askamathematician.com/2010/09/q-why-cant-you-have-an-atom-made-entirely-out-of-neutrons/


...
Additionally I wondered also about the less interesting but still interesting question of half lives as you add more and more neutrons to 1 proton (why these heavier isotopes decay explained in the first link)

Tritium
3H is known as tritium and contains one proton and two neutrons in its nucleus (mass number = 3). It is radioactive, decaying into helium-3 through beta-decay accompanied by a release of 18.6 keV of energy. It has a half-life of 12.32 years. Naturally occurring tritium is extremely rare on Earth, where trace amounts are formed by the interaction of the atmosphere with cosmic rays.

Heavier Synthetic Isotopes
4H contains one proton and three neutrons in its nucleus. It is a highly unstable isotope of hydrogen. It has been synthesized in the laboratory by bombarding tritium with fast-moving deuterium nuclei. In this experiment, the tritium nuclei captured neutrons from the fast-moving deuterium nucleus. The presence of the hydrogen-4 was deduced by detecting the emitted protons. Its atomic mass is 4.02781 ± 0.00011 amu. It decays through neutron emission with a half-life of 1.39 ×10−22 seconds.

5H is another highly unstable heavy isotope of hydrogen. The nucleus consists of a proton and four neutrons. It has been synthesized in a laboratory by bombarding tritium with fast-moving tritium nuclei. One tritium nucleus captures two neutrons from the other, becoming a nucleus with one proton and four neutrons. The remaining proton may be detected and the existence of hydrogen-5 deduced. It decays through double neutron emission and has a half-life of at least 9.1 × 10−22 seconds.

6H decays through triple neutron emission and has a half-life of 2.90×10−22 seconds. It consists of one proton and five neutrons.

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/introchem/chapter/isotopes-of-hydrogen/

(also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_hydrogen)

Interesting, no? See, a particle of 2 neutrons coming into existence would have some brief half life, we'd guess. Lemme search up what's known. Ok, here:

• • Dineutron: The dineutron, containing two neutrons, was unambiguously observed in 2012 in the decay of beryllium-16.[7][8] It is not a bound particle, but had been proposed as an extremely short-lived state produced by nuclear reactions involving tritium. It has been suggested to have a transitory existence in nuclear reactions produced by helions (helium 3 nuclei, completely ionised) that result in the formation of a proton and a nucleus having the same atomic number as the target nucleus but a mass number two units greater. The dineutron hypothesis had been used in nuclear reactions with exotic nuclei for a long time.[9] Several applications of the dineutron in nuclear reactions can be found in review papers.[10] Its existence has been proven to be relevant for nuclear structure of exotic nuclei.[11] A system made up of only two neutrons is not bound, though the attraction between them is very nearly enough to make them so.[12] This has some consequences on nucleosynthesis and the abundance of the chemical elements.[10][13]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutronium#Neutronium_and_the_periodic_table

Interesting stuff! As before, we understand neutronium in a neutron star has to do with high pressure and the neutronium being the favored energy state of the matter under those conditions (see first link above also).

I am doing pretty good, how about yourself?

But you missed the important part....

"It is not a bound particle, but had been proposed as an extremely short-lived state produced by nuclear reactions involving tritium. It has been suggested to have a transitory existence"

By not bound, they mean they travel close to one another for extremely short distances.... By transitory they mean they fly apart in fractions of a nanosecond......

Why the term suggested???? Because their proximity is so brief, they are not really sure if it's just a blip on their detectors.....

But not everyone agrees......

"Bob Charity, a chemist specializing in nuclear structure and reactions at Washington University in St Louis, US, thinks the results are impressive. “A single neutron may interact with one part of a detector and in the process scatter and then interact with another part, making it hard to differentiate a single-neutron event from a true two-neutron event,” he says. “The experimental effort…should be praised for ferreting out the two-neutron events from this background of ‘fake’ two-neutron events.”

However, some scientists, including Charity, are sceptical that the dineutron should be considered a well-defined entity. Since the emitted neutrons are already correlated inside the beryllium nucleus’s halo, these scientists say, they are likely to be correlated outside, too – but that does not mean the neutrons are truly bound together.

“I am not convinced that what they see is a new type of particle,” Marek Pfützner told physicsworld.com. Pfützner is a nuclear physicist at the University of Warsaw in Poland and believes that the concept of a dineutron is “a very simplified way to describe the data, which is used when a more detailed and rigorous description is missing”."

Basically, have they really ferreted out a two-neutron event from the background of 'fake' two-neutron events????? Their data to some seem suspiciously lacking in detailed and rigorous descriptions.....

And even if they did, this does not prove it is a bound particle, but could merely be an artifact......

But hey, why worry about proof when just hypothesizing dark matter will get you a Nobel Prize........

It would not be surprising that the neutron correlated in the halo when ejected, simply travel in close proximity for a micro-flash of a nanosecond before the nuclear force drives them apart.... Then claiming you can ferret out this event from the 'fake' events, in what lasts for only the briefest of time......

So ok, I'll give your 'fake' neutron stars a brief nano-second before they fly apart.....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

But I still don't need your lighhouses....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_oscillation

"Plasma oscillations, also known as Langmuir waves (after Irving Langmuir), are rapid oscillations of the electron density in conducting media such as plasmas or metals in the ultraviolet region."

Which actually emit at all wavelengths....

https://www.plasma-universe.com/Plasma

"This may cause the plasma to constrict (or pinch) into filaments, generate particle beams, emit a wide range of radiation (radio waves, light, microwave, x-ray, gamma and synchrotron radiation),"

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I read just fine, and again, all I see are bold faced claims........

When I say "It's red, and here's why" and your response is "Stop saying it's blue", the evidence would indicate that a) you haven't read what I said and b) what I said is more than a bold faced claim.

Edit: Case in point:

Me: "Pick a thread where you criticise others for not being open to being corrected" - Note what my point is and that I give you support for that point
You: "I'm not criticizing anyone for correcting me" - Note how you have responded to something I did not say.

 

[Northbrook]

Justatruthseeker wrote:

>> So ok, I'll give your 'fake' neutron stars a brief nano-second before they fly apart....

Haha, this is like the type a woman called in to the NPR radio program "Car Talk" and asked Tom and Ray to settle a argument she was having with her husband, who refused to change his highly theoretical approach to a certain physics problem. And Tom and Ray sided with the woman, but then one of them added, "Of course, in the FRICTIONLESS UNIVERSE your husband lives in..." hahaha

 

[Halbhh]

I am doing pretty good, how about yourself?

But you missed the important part....

"It is not a bound particle, but had been proposed as an extremely short-lived state produced by nuclear reactions involving tritium. It has been suggested to have a transitory existence"

By not bound, they mean they travel close to one another for extremely short distances.... By transitory they mean they fly apart in fractions of a nanosecond......

Why the term suggested???? Because their proximity is so brief, they are not really sure if it's just a blip on their detectors.....

But not everyone agrees......

"Bob Charity, a chemist specializing in nuclear structure and reactions at Washington University in St Louis, US, thinks the results are impressive. “A single neutron may interact with one part of a detector and in the process scatter and then interact with another part, making it hard to differentiate a single-neutron event from a true two-neutron event,” he says. “The experimental effort…should be praised for ferreting out the two-neutron events from this background of ‘fake’ two-neutron events.”

However, some scientists, including Charity, are sceptical that the dineutron should be considered a well-defined entity. Since the emitted neutrons are already correlated inside the beryllium nucleus’s halo, these scientists say, they are likely to be correlated outside, too – but that does not mean the neutrons are truly bound together.

“I am not convinced that what they see is a new type of particle,” Marek Pfützner told physicsworld.com. Pfützner is a nuclear physicist at the University of Warsaw in Poland and believes that the concept of a dineutron is “a very simplified way to describe the data, which is used when a more detailed and rigorous description is missing”."

Basically, have they really ferreted out a two-neutron event from the background of 'fake' two-neutron events????? Their data to some seem suspiciously lacking in detailed and rigorous descriptions.....

And even if they did, this does not prove it is a bound particle, but could merely be an artifact......

But hey, why worry about proof when just hypothesizing dark matter will get you a Nobel Prize........

It would not be surprising that the neutron correlated in the halo when ejected, simply travel in close proximity for a micro-flash of a nanosecond before the nuclear force drives them apart.... Then claiming you can ferret out this event from the 'fake' events, in what lasts for only the briefest of time......

So ok, I'll give your 'fake' neutron stars a brief nano-second before they fly apart.....

No, I didn't miss that at all.

What made you think I did?

I wonder if you read the first link to the end? The last paragraph is under the 2nd graphic, so you might have missed it. Here one can learn why neutron stars are stable. A short clear explanation.

Here it is again:

http://www.askamathematician.com/2010/09/q-why-cant-you-have-an-atom-made-entirely-out-of-neutrons/

 

[Justatruthseeker]

When I say "It's red, and here's why" and your response is "Stop saying it's blue", the evidence would indicate that a) you haven't read what I said and b) what I said is more than a bold faced claim.

Edit: Case in point:

Me: "Pick a thread where you criticise others for not being open to being corrected" - Note what my point is and that I give you support for that point

What, couldn't bring yourself to say exactly what you did say because it shows you in error?????

"Lol. Pick a thread where you criticise others for not being open to being corrected, then reject others correcting you."

You: "I'm not criticizing anyone for correcting me" - Note how you have responded to something I did not say.

And hence my response to the above claim.... "I'm not criticizing anyone for correcting me"

But let's finish that out too. ..."but making claims I am wrong without any support....

I'm not rejecting others correcting me, because every time they claim to be doing so they just make bald faced claims with no facts to back them up.... just like you are doing and we find your facts were not even correct, because you didn't just say criticizing others, but that I reject others correcting me, when they simply make bald faced claims I am wrong....

You can't even get your own statement correct, so you shouldn't be worrying about others until you even know what you said.....

I fully back up my criticism, just like I had to finish your original statement which you found convenient to forget......

I read and understand just fine, it is apparently you who don't even read and understand what you wrote very good...

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Justatruthseeker wrote:

>> So ok, I'll give your 'fake' neutron stars a brief nano-second before they fly apart....

Haha, this is like the type a woman called in to the NPR radio program "Car Talk" and asked Tom and Ray to settle a argument she was having with her husband, who refused to change his highly theoretical approach to a certain physics problem. And Tom and Ray sided with the woman, but then one of them added, "Of course, in the FRICTIONLESS UNIVERSE your husband lives in..." hahaha

Yes, people that live in those "friction-less universes, live in another reality altogether from the one I inhabit ...

 

[pitabread]

As others have pointed out, you need to work on reading what others say, not what you think they have said.

Maybe they studied at the Cathy Newman school of debate...

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Maybe they studied at the Cathy Newman school of debate...

I admit when I make a mistake...

https://www.christianforums.com/thr...sprove-the-bible.8070715/page-4#post-72913342

 

[Bungle_Bear]

What, couldn't bring yourself to say exactly what you did say because it shows you in error?????

"Lol. Pick a thread where you criticise others for not being open to being corrected, then reject others correcting you."





And hence my response to the above claim.... "I'm not criticizing anyone for correcting me"

Wow, thank you for making my point even better. Please take time to reread what I said and your response. Then explain how "rejecting others correcting you" is the same as "criticizing anyone who corrects" you. And when you eventually work out that it's not the same, admit that, once again, I am right and you are wrong.

I won't hold my breath.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No, I didn't miss that at all.

What made you think I did?

I wonder if you read the first link to the end? The last paragraph is under the 2nd graphic, so you might have missed it. Here one can learn why neutron stars are stable. A short clear explanation.

Here it is again:

http://www.askamathematician.com/2010/09/q-why-cant-you-have-an-atom-made-entirely-out-of-neutrons/

Lol, gravity? We have NO quantum theory of gravity to get the neutron to start sticking together in the first place.

They tell us all about how it is impossible, then in one paragraph want to reverse everything they just said by invoking the magic word (gravity) without any evidence at all of a viable theory of quantum gravity to get them to stick together in the first place..........

Hyperbole and speculation to save their epicycles.......

The neutrons would fly apart long before the gravitational force was strong enough to overcome any repulsive force between the neutrons....... It could never even get to be earth sized to begin with. Even in the gravity of earth, they immediately fly apart.

Even with the gravity of our own sun - the solar wind is accelerating at a "continuing" rate out past the orbit of Jupiter, then suddenly comes to an almost complete stop at the heliosphere. These are not gravitational anomalies, but electromagnetic.

And to top it off we are first going to ignore gravity and blow the star up to begin with, then magically what is left is going to scrunch down when it couldn’t even do that before it blew half its mass away........

Neutrons are ejected in atomic decay and reactions, not saved up to become the star itself. It goes against all of actual physics...

And let’s not forget his invocation of another magic word......

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutronium

A hypothetical substance never observed.... right up there with dark matter and dark energy.....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

And let us not forget the deeper you go below the surface, the less gravitational force there is, not more......

See post on this page that in actual experiments the rock is less dense the deeper we have drilled, matching the gravitational force becoming less....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

And let us not forget the deeper you go below the surface, the less gravitational force there is, not more......

See post on this page that in actual experiments the rock is less dense the deeper we have drilled, matching the gravitational force becoming less....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Wow, thank you for making my point even better. Please take time to reread what I said and your response. Then explain how "rejecting others correcting you" is the same as "criticizing anyone who corrects" you. And when you eventually work out that it's not the same, admit that, once again, I am right and you are wrong.

I won't hold my breath.

Except I didn’t criticize you for thinking you were correcting me, but claiming I was corrected without any supporting facts. Once again, you made simple bald faced claims, which deserve all the criticism they get.

Basically you and others have said “your wrong@ with not a shred of scientists doc data to back up that claim. That it was gets the criticism.

But you can’t even get that right in your mind. You equate saying someone is wrong without backing it up being the same as having backed it up.......

Only in your minds have you done so.....

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Except I didn’t criticize you for thinking you were correcting me, but claiming I was corrected without any supporting facts. Once again, you made simple bald faced claims, which deserve all the criticism they get.

Basically you and others have said “your wrong@ with not a shred of scientists doc data to back up that claim. That it was gets the criticism.

But you can’t even get that right in your mind. You equate saying someone is wrong without backing it up being the same as having backed it up.......

Only in your minds have you done so.....

And yet again you have not read what I wrote and responded to what you wanted to see, not what was actually said. It's almost as if you are trying to make yourself look ridiculous, but I can't begin to fathom why you'd want to do that.