New Science

To New Science

 

You are not reading a word anyone has ever written to you unless you can twist it to mean something you like.

 

This is confirmed by the post above.

 

What appears to be happening is a blunt ignorance of the forum rules, as well as incredible disrespect for both the entire field of physics and chemistry and the methodology and art of proper debate.

 

Ignoring all sources other than the single one you like is not science. Twisting people's claims to make sure you can answer them is not science. Insisting we are wrong when you clearly havent' even read the answers is not even polite.

 

 

Please stop taking us as fools. We have put more than enough time into your fantasyworld. The least you could do is read what we say.

 

As I said in the other thread (in a post that was actually meant for you), this is beyond trolling. It's utter silliness.

 

Thank you,

 

~moo

 

I think it's time someone puts a stop to this, it's not going anywhere ANYWAYS.

It does not take any brains to criticize but it does take brains to provide solutions.

So what is your solitions for those two SIMPLE questions?

By the way, I do not drink milk. Ha ha.

NS

I second this call. What's your point? The absence of stable isotopes at the mass numbers violates nothing of mainstream physics.

It sure does. The description of the 'strong force' would not leave any gaps in the Elemental and isotope nuclei chain.

Since it is being promoted as a attractive force ONLY with a very short range, it should act like a gravitational force.

The gravitational force is NOT a quantum type of force.

There are no quantum mass jumps/energies in the mass bodies observered.

NS

Say you are on the Nortn Pole with a telescope and look straight up and see a galaxy "A" that's 12 billion light years away and somebody on the South Pole looks up and sees a galaxy "B" 12 billion light years away. An entity on galaxy "A" could look past earth to galaxy "B" and say that it is 24 billion light years away. This disproves wmap's version of the cbr theory which states the universe is only 13.7 billion years old. If the cbr is wrong, then the big bang, which uses the cbr as a pillar is wrong. Give the devil his due.

You are right Jeff!

The BBT is LUDICROUS. Originally derived from the Slipher, Hubble and the Humason observations and wrongly interpreted as a DOPPLER redshift that had to be replaced because it implied a repeat of the geocentric theory that was REFUTED back in the 16th century.

So Lemaitraes expansion of space was accepted as the cause of the redshifts.

But that still did not convince the skeptics until the CMBR was discovered as a BB remnant radiation.

This proves nothing because this radiation is supposed to have a redshift of 1000.

This radiation is not a light radiation but a heat radiation similar to an ideal gas since it is expanding with space as a gas would. Besides, it is just a NOISE radiation that tells me that is is a gas.

I could give other reas9ons for discrediting the BBT but I think that should be enough.

NS

 

Science is based on facts, not opinions. New Science here is taking the role of the Church, not of Galileo, as he is trying to override facts with opinions.

Now that is an example of JAWS wide open. You should compete in the 'hot dog eating contest'. Ha ha.

Aboit trolls:.I do not fish. I quit a long time ago.

As I said BEFORE, my post are based on real science like the CON'n Laws, Exp'ts and Obser'ns.

Now how about you experts answering a couple of question?

What science PRECEDED the BBT? .......The bible creation theory is incorrect.

What is driving the expansion of space? Dark energy is incorrect.

I asked 'poo' those questions and he appealed to others for help. Ha ha.

NS

New Science,

 

please see the definition of crackpot.

 

No one is suggesting that you take any illegal drugs.

 

And please there is little point in bringing up the history of science and in particular the role of the Roman Catholic Church. It does not support your case, in fact it weakens it.

 

Also see charlatan and quack.

More profanity!

NS

An interesting point, maybe we should change the forum to speculations and crackpot dump?

The only thing I see here is a lot of insulting remarks.

I do not smoke 'crack'. or use pot, so your remarks are wrong.

As far as the quacks go, I admire those ducks. Cute.

I do not care about the fangs and claws of the lion and the 'one god concept' promoted by the old testament. To me, jaws are uigly.

FYI, jaws is waging war against HANDS (apes). That is why the OT discrimiates against the Evolution of humans.

Going back to the 16th centutry, The church had the 'inquisition' boards that represent our 'review' boards today.

Nuff said

NS

What is demanded is that it not be opinion, but instead be something rigorous, falsifiable, and properly supported.

Does psuedoscience require these scientific rules? If the post is accepted as science, it does not belong here in Psuedoscience.

Seems to me that this thread would have more freedom for its existence.

Besides, all my posts are cited on real evidence like I said. Conservation Laws, experiments and observations.

NS

To All

I have checked that book by Semat, page 588 and find no omissions of stable missing isotopes except the two (5 and 8) that are missing.

This is confirmed by the table above.

What appears to be missing isotopes in some elements are supplied by the previous element or the following elements.

Check on each element where there appears to be a missing isotope and you will see that it is present in the one before or after the apparent gap in this chain of stable elements and isotopes.

Thank you for your patience.

NS

It's truly amazing! After 2 pages of refutations, never mind the months you've spent at hypography pushing this garbage, you still re-post the exact same thing!

 

I don't think anyone here has anything more to add to this thread, if you didn't even bother to understand all the arguments we put forth, it's unlikely we will make any progress.

 

Before we inevitably close this topic, just like what happens in all the other threads, I'm just simply going to yet again repeat what I said earlier:

 

 

 

 

 

All in favor of locking this thread and/or letting it sink, say I *raises hand*. There is no more to discuss.

 

 

 

 

http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html

 

--->

Hey, I admire ducks.

If quacks are not credible, than who is?

The chauvinist lion and his followers that practice the 'one god concept' that constitutes slavery?

Incidentally, that last post of mine is a DIFFERENT version of my real science. So there is no repitition!.

And regarding the BBT, I can promote a dozen different versions of falsifying the BB.

So throw away your religious BADGE and accept others opinions that can make sense.

NS

NS

what baout He-3 and He-4? oh and the legend says that it means less than one day, not second. He-6 comes close(for the unstable isotopes) at just 0.2s short of a second.

OK, so it does say 'one day'.

But you will notice that all the white boxes represent NON existant isotopes. So 5 and 8 do not exist or are shown to be non existant.

Who said anything about Helium 3?

NS

The strong force is NOT the only thing involved here, have a look at the semi-empirical mass formula, and you'll see tehre are MANY terms involved in it.

 

You're creating you're own rules to fit your world view... Something can exist or it can't just because it's got a short half life doesn't mean it's any less valid than something with a half life of a few seconds, it's still enough time for it to interact.

I discovered a table of the isotopes. See below

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotope_table_%28complete%29

Notice in that table that the Helium nucleus has no isotopes with a half life of more than ONE second.

Notice the side menu color chart on each side of the elements.

NS

Agreed.

 

If there's any more "new math" or "new" dimensional analysis, then I'll take that as an indication that there's no point in continuing the discussion.

Iwould like to revise that expansion above as an added expansion that adds up to the Hubble constant of 72^6 meters per second.

So when you multiply the 72^6 meters x the lifespan of the BB in seconds, it gives the BBT a size of 3.4^9 light years in extent.

This is still a miniscule size when the HDFN can see more than 25 billion light years deep.

So this is another example of the unrealistic probability of the BB concept.

NS

To All:

My article was directed about AMN's 5 and 8.

8 has a half life of a small fraction of one tenth of a second?

And 5 has a fraction of ^-22 seconds?

This is hardly a stable state if you consider that to be an existence.

On the other hand. with the description of the 'strong force', these 2 AMN's should be completely stable because these nuclei would be clumps of nucleons as shown in some physicss books.

So I still say that the strong force is fallaceous and should be replaced by a Quntum type as I have described.

Thank you for understanding this reality.

NS

Reaper

 

You can use the Virgo Cluster redshift to determine its distance.

Its RS is determined to be .0035 for a selected group of the clusters galaxies or its central giant M87 that has a RS of .004.

 

I did this by using the redshift as a 'partial' of a redeshift of 'one' because that is what it is.

So dividing the RS .0035 into one gives us a value of 285 partials.

So mulitiply this with the VC distance that is determined to be 54^6 light years or 16.7 mega parsecs that equals the same value and you get a distance of 15^9 ly's. WOW!

 

Somthing is wrong here and I would call this the best way to determine the distance to any objects, by using the expansion method of the light waves because these redshifts are supposed to be precise methods of measurement..

 

NS

I would like to add the fact that this is an example of Arp's RS Anomaly.

The reason for this is that the current Virgo Cluster RS's are based on ordinary galaxies that have lower Red Shift 'ENERGIES than the galactic RS's that were derived from the HDFN where RS's of 7+ were observed.

So we can say that the ones observed in that deep field are the high energy QUASARS rather than the ordinary galaxies that the Malmquist bias eliminates.

So this would be further proof of the reality of Arps RS Anomaly.

NS

What does this + notation even mean? I don't even know how to interpret this.

 

Anywho...

 

The constant is 72 km/mpc/s.

 

This can also be written as:

 

[math] 72 \frac{km}{mpc \cdot s}[/math]

 

Now, 1 megaparsec is 3.08*10^19 km

 

So, if you multiply the above fraction by that conversion you get:

 

 

[math] 72 \frac{km}{mpc \cdot s} \cdot \frac{1}{3.08 \cdot 10^{19}}\frac{mpc}{km} = 2.34 \cdot 10^{-18} \frac{1}{s}[/math]

 

the length units (the km and the mpc) and you get units of inverse time.

 

This isn't even physics 101, this is high school stuff. Haven't you ever had to convert a mile into a kilometer? Or a U.S. gallon into a Liter? I have serious, serious doubts about your claim of working as a scientist when you cannot even get simple unit conversions correct.

You do not use kms in your calculations because the SI unit is the 'meter'.

Secondly, you do not include seconds in the calculation because the calculations are based on one second.

So to include the megaparsec in the expansion of space, you just divide

72^6 meters by a mpc in meters +72^6 to get the correct rate of expansion.

This equals 2.33^-15 meters per second.

The point here is that the Hubble expantion is spread out over a mpc.

NS

And U-235 is one of those long-lived isotopes, so this is either a really bad example or complete nonsense. "All isotopes of U-235" falls under the latter: U-235 is one isotope. Perhaps "all isotopes of uranium" is what you meant.

No, U235 does not exist in isolation. It has to be purufied through a process of extraction from uranium.

NS

What "constant" is this, and were are you getting teh value from, link?

 

And if you've got the value for it in a formula when doing dimensional analysis you have to take into account all the units.

I am talking about the expansion of the BBT.

The latest value for this was extracted from the WMAP calculations and it is 70.1 kms/mpc/s .

If you include the mpc in the expansion of the BB, then the true rate of expansion would be 3.24^-23 meters/mpc/second.

This would not be a detectable expansion.

NS

Do you only want stable ones?

 

Why did you not state that?

 

We've got quite good mathematical models that tell us the reasons why some isotopes are stable and other are not, it's no great mystery!

 

If you just want stable isotopes then there's ALOT of heavier atomic mass numbers where there are no stable isotopes... take U238 as an example

 

 

 

What do you mean by that, something is either stable or unstable... Unless you carefully define a quasistable state.

What I am talking about is whether there is a quantity of stable isotopes in 'natural abundance.

U235 has none in natural abundance. So all isotopes of U235 decay.

Although a couple have decaying halflifes in billions of years.

I think these are extracted from Uranium ores.

NS

right. A km (kilometer) is a unit of distance. And a mpc (megaparsec) is a unit of distance. Therefore, 72 km/mpc/s has units of inverse time.

 

Period.

 

The math you posted doesn't have the right units and it therefore 100% wrong. If you can't even get the units correct when performing a calculation, any interpretation of that calculation is completely wrong and meaningless and useless.

 

Start getting the units right (on this particular calculation, and in your your thread about the "MAJOR" discovery) and then maybe we can talk slightly intelligently about the interpretation of those calculations.

 

But, without the correct units on your calculations, you are spouting nonsense.

 

I might as well say "I have to drive 47 Kelvin in my car to get to work every day, and my car gets 26 amperes per mole. I get paid 0.0812 deciliters per lumen squared. On the way home, I buy dinner at the grocery store and pay an average of 14.87 hair follicles." Do you see how ridiculous this gets? Without correct units, I might as well be talking in a foreign language.

I asked you how do you incorporate the mpc into a formula.

Is the BB expanding at 72 kms/s or 72kms + a mpc /second.

Both cannot be right. So which one is right?

NS

Cancelled' .................NS

• ⁵He and ⁸He.
  ⁵He has a half-life of 7.6×10⁻²² seconds. ⁸He has a half-life of 0.119 seconds and is widely researched for insight on the behavior of neutron stars.
  Sources:
  http://www.site.uottawa.ca:4321/astronomy/index.html#helium8
  http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080205201555.htm
  http://www.helium.com/items/866476-the-chemical-properties-of-helium-5-he5-and-its-potential-usefulness,
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_helium#Table
   
   
  
• ⁵Li and ⁸Li.
  ⁵Li has a half-life of 6.8x10^-22 seconds. ⁸Li has a half-life of 0.84 seconds.
  Sources:
  http://www.site.uottawa.ca:4321/astronomy/index.html#lithium8
  http://li-lithium.info/isotopes.html
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_lithium#Table
   
   
  
• Need I continue?

 

NS, the very first thing a scientific theory must do is conform with existing facts. Isotopes with atomic mass number 5 and 8 do exist. Your Theory of Everything is kaput. None of these isotopes stable, but physicists know why this is the case. Hint: The answer involves mathematics.

I have a book here authored by John Emsley entitled 'The Elements' and printed by the Oxford Press.

It is the most complete book on this subject.

I have another book by Henry Semat entitled 'An Introduction to Atomic and Nuclear Physics. On page 588 that lists all the Atomic Mass Numbers of the isotopes and the elements and it showws that numbers 5 and 8 are missing.

These are the only numbers missing.

The Emsley book lists Lithium as having just two stable isotopes. One at 92.5% (#7) and the ither at 7.5% (6). This adds up to 100%. So any others would be completely unstable.

Regarding Berylium, The book lists three isotopes with #9 as being 100% stable and the other 2 (7 and 10) as unstable.

So those you dredged up are no doubt just done by human experimentors.

I explained why they cannot exist because of EM intewrastions while you use math that is a fabrication of the human intellect.

With the strong force explanation, the nuclei would clump together as some illustrations show but this is a human creation.

My visualization uses the EM forces interactions that I consider are more realistic.

NS

. .

What makes you say they're missing?

 

According to the graph I've got here they're definitely in there...

 

In fact there's isotopes with atomic mass number of 5 and 8 for Lithium... ⁸Li has a halflife measured in ms... And beryllium and Helium, Boron has one at 8 but not 5...

I will try to find an URL on these isotopes.

What graphs are you talking about? Post the URL.

NS

Actually, the big, giant, overwhelming point that you are completely missing here is that while the specific value of Hubble's constant is not agreed upon, every single source has the same units -- a velocity divided by a length or equivalently inverse time.

 

Is there any possibility that you could cite any source whatsoever that calls a number Hubble's constant in said constant doesn't have the units of inverse time?

Well, the constant is quoted as being an expansion of 72 kms/mpc/s

(consensus). So the expansion is for every second.

The question here is how do you incorporate the mpc into any formula?

NS

That has got to be one of the most classic crackpot quotes I have ever heard. Maybe I will start a new "hall of shame" thread on this...

My post on the Flat Space universe (former SSU) is based on the LAWS of CONSERVATION, the M-M EXP and ARPS RS Anomaly. I cannot think of anything that is more scientific rather than accepting a CosmoGONY universe.

This is a matter of faith in science.

NS

This pretty much smashes Mike C's objections. And to top it all off' date=' all you really need is the galaxy's velocity in order to determine how fast the expansion of the Universe is accelerating, so I don't know what he's trying to get at.[/quote']

 

Reaper

 

You can use the Virgo Cluster redshift to determine its distance.

Its RS is determined to be .0035 for a selected group of the clusters galaxies or its central giant M87 that has a RS of .004.

 

I did this by using the redshift as a 'partial' of a redeshift of 'one' because that is what it is.

So dividing the RS .0035 into one gives us a value of 285 partials.

So mulitiply this with the VC distance that is determined to be 54^6 light years or 16.7 mega parsecs that equals the same value and you get a distance of 15^9 ly's. WOW!

 

Somthing is wrong here and I would call this the best way to determine the distance to any objects, by using the expansion method of the light waves because these redshifts are supposed to be precise methods of measurement..

 

NS

Telescope design is highly mathematical, and he didn't just watch things and go "oh pretty" and you were comparing himself to you and that's what you're doing pretty much.

 

I suspect that's due to the measurement of the SN not being too great, do you know when it was done?

I just mentioned that the SN1a's are a poor example for measuring distances because their error margins are the largest of the 8 different methods used in that URL above.

That post on the different methods were being taught by a university in the UK?, I think.

This Dark Energy was a serindipidy discovery by the researchers that included Santage and Permutter to establish a precise Hubble constant..

NS

I don't know what Hubble's constant you could be talking about.

 

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/HubbleConstant.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble's_law

http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/ast25may99_2.htm

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Hubble's+constant

 

Every single one of these sources (and many others) states that Hubble's constant is a velocity (km/s typically) divided by a length (parsecs or megaparsecs, typically) which would have units of inverse time.

 

Is there any way you could post a source that lists Hubble's constant in any other units? Such as this distance you seem to think exists?

The Hubble Constant is not an actual constant but one measured by a variety of methods.

The consensus, as far as I know, is 72 kms/second.

NS

I don't know what Hubble's constant you could be talking about.

 

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/HubbleConstant.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble's_law

http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/ast25may99_2.htm

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Hubble's+constant

 

Every single one of these sources (and many others) states that Hubble's constant is a velocity (km/s typically) divided by a length (parsecs or megaparsecs, typically) which would have units of inverse time.

 

Is there any way you could post a source that lists Hubble's constant in any other units? Such as this distance you seem to think exists?

Originally, the universe was split between two factions . One for 50 Kms/mpc/sec while the other was promoting a 100 Kms/mpc/s rate.

So this established the age of the universe as being from 20 billion years old to 10 billion years old. So this was comprimised at 75 kms/mpc/s and an age of 15 bioon years.

So the latest figures from WMAP is that the universe is 14 billion years old and the Hubble valus as 70.1.

Since I believe in a Flat Soace SSU, I do not give any credibility to these findings and previous accepted values for our universe.

I just follow the current opinions to keep in touch with the latest news.

NS

Stop with the stupid, non-standard acronyms. If you want to communicate, do so. If you merely want to obfuscate, you don't belong here.

If you are confused about AMN, then that means Atomic Mass Number.

This number includes all the nucleons in the elementary chain like the protons and the neutrons.

When considering all the elements and their isotopes, the only AMN's

missing are 5 and 8.

This is a 'glaring' omission that should not exist.

NS

In a word, no.

 

Absorption spectra that identify the "light of the universe" follow from atomic structure that is explained by quantum mechanics.

I have mentioned here a number of times that an electron ABSORBS a photon before it radiates a photon.

This is obvious in measuring the absorption lines for determining the redshifts that is more precise that using the emission lines. That is my opinion.

NS

Not that I expected you to learn from the previous discussions of dimensions, but your math is "ludicrous"

 

H0 = hubbles constant = 70.1 km/s/Mpc (I took the number from wikipedia, there is a margin or error, but the exact number itself is unimportant)

 

Note that since km and Mpc are both units of length, this can also be expressed in units of inverse seconds (1/s or s^-1) and is about 2.5*10^-18 s^-1

 

c = speed of light = 300 000 km/s

 

Now, in your own words here "Divide 'c' by the Hubble constant"

 

c/H0 = 300 000 km/s / 2.5*10^-18 s^-1 = 1.2*10^23 km

 

It has units of kilometers. And, I have no idea what that number may mean.

 

But the point is it does NOT NOT NOT have units of time!!! Wherever you got 4000 seconds from, it certainly wasn't from the division you said because the division you talk about only has units of length in it. The units of time cancel.

 

Learning how to ensure that your calculations have the right units is day 1 Introduction to Physics stuff. Until you get these things right, I don't know how you can think your "calculations" can be taken seriously.

The Hubble Constant has a given distance in seconds also. For every expansion of the HC, a seconf is involved. So the constant represents both distance and TIME.

Incidentally, how would you incorporate the mpc into determining the size of the current BBU?