Why do YECs believe the universe is only a few thousand years old?

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

1-Antimatter would be trapped in the care in it survived. Since this is still in its basic steps, you cannot say it does or doesn't violate current data. Antimatter exists in more places than expected, there is some in most matter particles.

2-As in 1, still working on some finer details. Mostly these

3-Sorry about the terminology, I was referring to the star that collapses into a black hole.

4-Two particles make perfect sense. Why else would light have wave like and particle like properties? Their properties are opposite in some respects and the same in others. Since they are photons, they will not emit photons. And, if you believe E=mc^2, then light does have mass, simple math.

5-Gravity is extremely strong at these distances. Some ripples have been proven, even by those you would regard as mainstream. Particles trapped in this partial sphere would not be able to escape easily, creating the strong force and setting its distance limits.

I am very serious about this material. You no doubt see why I am not ofte published. Although none of my theories have been disproven, people, such as yourself, often like to point and laugh at them. You're a scientist: accept that the accepted may not be acceptable.

 

[Captain_Jack_Sparrow]

1-Antimatter would be trapped in the care in it survived. Since this is still in its basic steps, you cannot say it does or doesn't violate current data. Antimatter exists in more places than expected, there is some in most matter particles.

2-As in 1, still working on some finer details. Mostly these

3-Sorry about the terminology, I was referring to the star that collapses into a black hole.

4-Two particles make perfect sense. Why else would light have wave like and particle like properties? Their properties are opposite in some respects and the same in others. Since they are photons, they will not emit photons. And, if you believe E=mc^2, then light does have mass, simple math.

5-Gravity is extremely strong at these distances. Some ripples have been proven, even by those you would regard as mainstream. Particles trapped in this partial sphere would not be able to escape easily, creating the strong force and setting its distance limits.

I am very serious about this material. You no doubt see why I am not ofte published. Although none of my theories have been disproven, people, such as yourself, often like to point and laugh at them. You're a scientist: accept that the accepted may not be acceptable.

1) Yes it does violate current data. Show me how such a configuration is stable? Where does the antimatter come from? How do you prevent the mixing that has to occur.

How is the neutrino flux produced?

Do you know any hydrodynamics?

What is this nonsense about anitmatter in most particles? This is just ridiculous! What evidence is there for this?

2) Antigravity??????????????????????????????????????????????? - Nonsense!

3) So how does the star lose most of it's mass?

4) This is the post that is not only bizarre it shows you don't even understand special relativity at all. Having proven this shows you have not the requisite knowledge (or skill set) to do any research. This is basic undergrad physics and you don't understand it.

Do you know anything about basic 4 vectors?

Do you know any QFT? Evidently not. Gauge invariances? Doubt it.

No offence but you are just out of your depth.

5) Gravity is not strong even at these scales. The strong force has the wrong distance dependence in your model. It cannot be a form of gravity.

QCD anyone?

Heard of asymptotic freedom?




All in all - bizarre.

 

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

1-The config is stable because the core is compressed antimatter and the gravity interactions will keep it stable. According to my unification theory, antimatter is in most particles.

2-I believe that true antimatter also produces anti-gravity.

3-It doesn't; it is compressed into a black hole.

4-Understand but do not accept.

5- In the way the gravity is centered, it would be strong enough.

Bizarre indeed, but not disproven

 

[Captain_Jack_Sparrow]

1-The config is stable because the core is compressed antimatter and the gravity interactions will keep it stable. According to my unification theory, antimatter is in most particles.

2-I believe that true antimatter also produces anti-gravity.

3-It doesn't; it is compressed into a black hole.

4-Understand but do not accept.

5- In the way the gravity is centered, it would be strong enough.

Bizarre indeed, but not disproven

1) What is producing the stars energy then? Where is the fusion occurring? If it's in the core then this will be convective and result in mixing.

How can this be stable - the antimatter/matter interface will annihilate instantly.

2) No it doesn't. You just don't know enough theoretical physics.

3) Directly contradicted by observational constraints. Where are these intermediate mass black holes?

Doesn't work for many other reasons of stellar physics too.

4) HOW CAN YOU NOT ACCEPT THIS? This is like not accepting water is a liquid at room temperature!

Are you familar with why the photon has zero mass? How you aware of the experiments putting upper limits on a photons mass?

Do you just not understand special relativity?

You will never get anything but derision from scientists over this kind of ostrich like behaviour.

5) No it would not. It is just wrong - the basic force dependence on distance is wrong? The basic behaviour of quark confinement and the colour charges cannot be explained with such a construct? It is just wrong every which way.

Directly excluded by experiment. End of story!

 

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

1-The fusion will occur in both the matter an antimatter sections. There may be some minor mixing, but gravity will sperate it.

2-What I define as antimatter is something that has negative mass.

3-As I said a while back, still not finished with this. Currently studying some cases of this very observation.

4-If you think the photon has 0 mass, then you need to rewrite tons of equations on which your theories are based. Basic science cannot allow for photons being massless.

5-I do think this force is dependant on distance. Quarks still don't exist.

I have yet to find any inconsistancy yet except your far-out assumption that light has 0 mass.

 

[Captain_Jack_Sparrow]

1-The fusion will occur in both the matter an antimatter sections. There may be some minor mixing, but gravity will sperate it.

2-What I define as antimatter is something that has negative mass.

3-As I said a while back, still not finished with this. Currently studying some cases of this very observation.

4-If you think the photon has 0 mass, then you need to rewrite tons of equations on which your theories are based. Basic science cannot allow for photons being massless.

5-I do think this force is dependant on distance. Quarks still don't exist.

I have yet to find any inconsistancy yet except your far-out assumption that light has 0 mass.

1) No gravity won't separate it. Why doesn't it annihilate instantly at the interface. The mixing is not minor. In most stars the core is CONVECTIVE. The convective overturn timescale is very short. This implies complete homogeneity very quickly.

You don't understand the physics involved here. That isn't a crime but you claim your model works and isn't contradicted because you are not understanding the physics as to why it is nonsense.

2) Well your definition is of something that DOES NOT EXIST. You should not even refer to it as antimatter which has a different definition.

What you are postulating is an unknown, not observed family of particles WITH NO OBSERVATIONAL (or theoretical for that matter) basis.

3) DOESN'T MATTER - observationally ruled out. The physics of stellar collapse rules this out anyway.

4) OK THIS IS PATHETIC.

The photon is a massless spin 1 boson. PERIOD.

If it had mass we lose gauge invariance in QFT - this would imply charge is not conserved. THIS IS NOT OBSERVED.

QED would not have the precision it has because we could not renormalise the theory by appropriate gauge choice. AGAIN NOT OBSERVED.

The helicity of the photon is + or - 1. If it had mass we would observe the zero helicity state - THIS IS NOT OBSERVED.

Sensitive experiments have put upper limits on the photon mass - due to the fact the inverse square law is violated for non zero mass of the photon. The upper limits are less than 10^-17 eV (for astrophysical measurements of the galactic magnetic fields it is 10^-27 eV.)

Science is BASED upon the photon being massless - and it is theoretically expected and observationally verified to a great degree.

FOR YOU TO MAINTAIN OTHERWISE IS LUNACY. What the heck are you reading????

How can you maintain this fallacy?

(I actually have an idea for this misunderstanding - and it lends even more clues as to you no understanding basic physics.)


5) Of course it depends upon distance - but not the way your model would.

How do you explain the 3 fold nature of charge in QCD?

How do you explain the scattering experiments over the last 20 years showing quarks - their charges, masses and expected QCD behaviour?


Have you any knowledge of particle physics (or physics in general) at all?

I think this is a valid question of you because you clearly know next to nothing about physics and what you think you know is just plain wrong - even at a basic level!

 

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

1 & 3-Nothing can yet be contradictory because this theory is not yet finished.

2-There is a great amount of evidence to support true anti matter.

4-Photons must have mass to have energy, or momentum. Its basic science

5-The results are interpreted that way

It is not I who doesn't understand basic science. Just because our views don't agree doesn't mean you should try to beat at my position, and myself.

 

[Captain_Jack_Sparrow]

1 & 3-Nothing can yet be contradictory because this theory is not yet finished.

2-There is a great amount of evidence to support true anti matter.

4-Photons must have mass to have energy, or momentum. Its basic science

5-The results are interpreted that way

It is not I who doesn't understand basic science. Just because our views don't agree doesn't mean you should try to beat at my position, and myself.

Well it's bedtime for me BUT

1) & 3) - it does not matter - your theory cannot in any way be reconciled with OBSERVED data. Period. End of story.

To maintain otherwise is self delusion. Heck you are postulating something that is NOT known to exist to explain something, that for the most part, is already explained. Talk about a reverse Occams razor.

2) There is NO evidence. What do you think constitutes evidence?

4) NO NO NO NO NO - a thousand times NO.

You would FAIL a basic undergrad special relativity class with this nonsense.

Energy YES, Momentum Yes, MASS NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You are confusing things.

5) Interpreted ??? Observed - there is really no other way to interpret direct scattering data.

You are being an ostrich on this topic. Pretending the evidence isn't there is DELUSION, pure and simple.


PS

You do not understand basic physical science. Your posts are evidence of this. You just are not understanding not only the terms but also how to formulate a physical theory.

Before someone dabbles in quantum field theory/ particle physics/ general realtivity/ astrophysical hydrodynamics you NEED to understand the basics of mechanics, electromagnetism, quantum mechanics, thermodynamics and special relativity. At least on some of these you plainly do not.

I don't want to pull an appeal to authority on you but based on these posts you would flunk a basic undergrad physics curriculum. I do know this material - I have worked as an astrophysicist for the last 17 years or so and have been on the faculty of an Ivy League school for 15 years.

 

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

Thats great, and I have said I've not had the ability to recieve that type of education. It is actually impossible at this time for me to do so. However, you still do not understand some basic concepts, on which you base your flawed theories. Terminology is great, but yours often related to the unproven as well. Light does have mass. It does. If it doesn't, it cannot have either energy or momentum. The only way for it to not have mass would be an acceptance of the fact that true antimatter exists. Either way, you tighten the nose.

 

[Captain_Jack_Sparrow]

Thats great, and I have said I've not had the ability to recieve that type of education. It is actually impossible at this time for me to do so. However, you still do not understand some basic concepts, on which you base your flawed theories. Terminology is great, but yours often related to the unproven as well. Light does have mass. It does. If it doesn't, it cannot have either energy or momentum. The only way for it to not have mass would be an acceptance of the fact that true antimatter exists. Either way, you tighten the nose.

You are flat out, 100%, wrong.

How can you maintain this nonsense?

Do you not follow basic relativity?

You cannot possibly have studied this.

Photons cannot have mass. Period. No ifs ands or buts.

Did you read my earlier post. For the photon to have mass we would OBSERVE consequences of this. No charge conservation, observe 0 helicity states.

Do you think 100 years of the physics community have this basic fact wrong?

Why can you not understand this?

What basic concepts am I somehow (and my colleaugues for decades) not understanding?

And how do you turn this around and somehow say if the photon is massless then it proves your antimatter concept? You seem to want to have your cake and eat it too.

My advice is either leave this study alone or go away and learn some physics. You are using terms and concepts you have not studied or have failed to understand even the basics.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Let's make this simple, Bizzlebin.

What is the gamma factor at c?

What, therefore, would be the mass of a particle with mass of (arbitrarily) x be at c?

Do you still maintain that photons have mass?

 

[Henaynei]

This article appears to say both:

1) Photons - because they are never at rest don't have mass

2)The estimated resting mass of a photon is: "We have, however, put an upper limit on the photon rest mass............ 'This number is close to zero; it is equivalent to 0.00000000000000000000039 times the mass of an electron (the lightest particle), says Turner.'"

 

[Captain_Jack_Sparrow]

The article does not say both. The photon does not have mass.

The article is referring to putting an upper limit on any possible mass. However, the photon is not expected to have mass from many theoretical reasons. But people look anyway.

What confuses people (and especially our Antarctica friend) is that the term relativistic mass is often used.

Yes, a photon carries energy and momentum but it is still massless. It has no rest mass.

Most physicists don't use the term 'relativistic mass' precisely because of the confusion it can cause.

 

[Henaynei]

then this too is confusing.....

A New Limit on Photon Mass

"A new limit on photon mass, less than 10-51 grams or 7 x 10-19 electron volts, has been established by an experiment in which light is aimed at a sensitive torsion balance; if light had mass, the rotating balance would suffer an additional tiny torque. This represents a 20-fold improvement over previous limits on photon mass. "

 

[Henaynei]

Here is a bit of dualistic clarification
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/photon_mass.html

 

[Captain_Jack_Sparrow]

Why is this confusing?

It's supposed to be zero. But people always want to confirm this. So they perform experiments to put upper limits. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

A pohoton must have mass to carry any type of energy. If you accept that a photon has a mass element and an anti-mass element to it, then I may believe what you say about it being massless but energetic. However, no one has truely been able to prove that light has mass, or that is massless. Results have been mixed.

 

[Captain_Jack_Sparrow]

No results have not been mixed.

I'm sorry but you are obviously incapable of understanding what is pretty basic (undergrad level) physics.

Your statement that it must have mass to carry energy is pure bs.

Your frequent mentioning of negative mass is an appeal to nonsense.

If your science is an example of your abiltity to learn and investigate then your Biblical studies shall probably be similarly prone to error.

I can make definite statements I can back up mathematically (and observationally) as to why the photon must be massless. You are making appeals of fantasy why this isn't so whilst at the same time exhibiting and incredible obtuseness with regards to the facts of special relativity.

Why do you persist in defending the indefensible?

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Bizzlebin - I'll explain my last post, since you've ignored it and have no clue as to its significance.

Any object with rest mass has that rest mass multiplied by the gamma factor when it is in motion. At what we consider ordinary speeds, the gamma factor is as near 1 as makes no odds.

At c, gamma = infinite.

This means that any particle with mass moving at c has infinite relatavistic mass, and therefore infinte kinetic energy and infinite momentum. This is, of course, why objects with mass cannot move at c.

Photons do move at c, by definition. Their 0 rest mass is multiplied by infinity to give a real finite relatavistic mass - so they have kinetic energy and momentum. But they are by nature massless.

If I've got this @rse about ***, Capn Jack will correct me I'm sure.

 

[Captain_Jack_Sparrow]

Bizzlebin - I'll explain my last post, since you've ignored it and have no clue as to its significance.

Any object with rest mass has that rest mass multiplied by the gamma factor when it is in motion. At what we consider ordinary speeds, the gamma factor is as near 1 as makes no odds.

At c, gamma = infinite.

This means that any particle with mass moving at c has infinite relatavistic mass, and therefore infinte kinetic energy and infinite momentum. This is, of course, why objects with mass cannot move at c.

Photons do move at c, by definition. Their 0 rest mass is multiplied by infinity to give a real finite relatavistic mass - so they have kinetic energy and momentum. But they are by nature massless.

If I've got this @rse about ***, Capn Jack will correct me I'm sure.

You have it kind of right - but the error is in saying the rest mass is multiplied by infinity to give a real finite mass.

The problem comes from the confusing term 'relativistic mass'. The word mass should never have been used in that phrase.

The "relativistic mass" is the time component of the conserved 4-vector of momentum and energy.

The space components of this conserved 4-vector are the standard linear momenta.

The mass is the magnitude of the 4-vector itself and is an invariant quantity.

In component notation:

E = dt/d(tau) - i.e. energy is the time component of the 4 vector

p(x) = m dx/d(tau) where m is the rest mass

p(y) = m dy/d(tau)

p(z) = m dz/d(tau)

These are the 3 space components of the 4 vector

put them all together

and you get E^2 - p^2 = m^2. i.e. invariant and = to the rest mass squared.

Remember d(tau) = dt/Gamma.

Note I have used units with c=1.

E^2 = p^2*c^2 + m^2*c^4.

For object at rest p=0 and this reduces to the infamous E=mc^2.