Science > Physics > Neutron Lifetime Sets Time for Atom Formation at Big Bang
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Nick" |
| Date: |
25 Oct 2005 08:21:30 PM |
| Object: |
Neutron Lifetime Sets Time for Atom Formation at Big Bang |
If free neutrons decay in under 15 minutes uless atomically bound then
all the atoms of the universe must have formed before the first few
minutes of the start of the universe.
Not Bad for an amature huh?
Mitch
.
|
|
| User: "Gregory L. Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: Neutron Lifetime Sets Time for Atom Formation at Big Bang |
26 Oct 2005 02:31:29 PM |
|
|
In article <1130289690.527746.61450@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
Nick <macromitch@yahoo.com> wrote:
If free neutrons decay in under 15 minutes uless atomically bound then
all the atoms of the universe must have formed before the first few
minutes of the start of the universe.
Not Bad for an amature huh?
Mitch
Not only is it not bad, it's an important issue in cosmology.
--
"Let us learn to dream, gentlemen, then perhaps we shall find the
truth... But let us beware of publishing our dreams before they have been
put to the proof by the waking understanding." -- Friedrich August Kekulé
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Neutrons made by fusion after the Big Bang Martin |
26 Oct 2005 12:00:23 AM |
|
|
Nick wrote:
If free neutrons decay in under 15 minutes uless atomically bound then
all the atoms of the universe must have formed before the first few
minutes of the start of the universe.
Not Bad for an amature huh?
Mitch
I see that the original matter of the Big Bang would have mostly been
hydrogen devoid of any neutrons.
AH....
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bilge" |
|
| Title: Re: Neutrons made by fusion after the Big Bang Martin |
26 Oct 2005 04:12:59 AM |
|
|
macromitch@internetCDS.com:
Nick wrote:
If free neutrons decay in under 15 minutes uless atomically bound then
all the atoms of the universe must have formed before the first few
minutes of the start of the universe.
Not Bad for an amature huh?
Mitch
I see that the original matter of the Big Bang would have mostly been
hydrogen devoid of any neutrons.
It was devoid of a great deal more than that.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Neutrons made by fusion after the Big Bang Martin |
26 Oct 2005 11:32:24 AM |
|
|
<macromitch@internetCDS.com> wrote in message
news:1130302823.144432.274370@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Nick wrote:
If free neutrons decay in under 15 minutes uless atomically bound then
all the atoms of the universe must have formed before the first few
minutes of the start of the universe.
Not Bad for an amature huh?
Mitch
I see that the original matter of the Big Bang would have mostly been
hydrogen devoid of any neutrons.
AH....
Why are you replying to yourself as if you are a different person?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mahmoud In My Dinner Jacket" |
|
| Title: Re: Neutrons made by fusion after the Big Bang Martin |
26 Oct 2005 04:55:11 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Nick wrote:
If free neutrons decay in under 15 minutes uless atomically bound then
all the atoms of the universe must have formed before the first few
minutes of the start of the universe.
Not Bad for an amature huh?
Mitch
I see that the original matter of the Big Bang would have mostly been
hydrogen devoid of any neutrons.
AH....
~~~IN THE BEGINNING THERE WAS ...~~~
Nucleosynthesis of helium.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mahmoud In My Dinner Jacket" |
|
| Title: Re: Neutron Lifetime Sets Time for Atom Formation at Big Bang |
26 Oct 2005 04:49:46 AM |
|
|
Nick wrote:
If free neutrons decay in under 15 minutes uless atomically bound then
all the atoms of the universe must have formed before the first few
minutes of the start of the universe.
Not Bad for an amature huh?
Mitch
Now if you meant "armature", this is indeed a great achievement for an
inanimate object.
If you meant "amateur" ........ that ain't so bad, either!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Martin" |
|
| Title: Re: Neutron Lifetime Sets Time for Atom Formation at Big Bang |
25 Oct 2005 08:30:55 PM |
|
|
Nick wrote:
If free neutrons decay in under 15 minutes uless atomically bound then
all the atoms of the universe must have formed before the first few
minutes of the start of the universe.
Yes. And in existing theory of nucleosynthesis, light atomic nuclei
started forming at just a few minutes post-big bang, when the average
temperature dropped sufficiently.
Not Bad for an amature huh?
This sort of attitude is at the heart of your problems, kid.
-Mark Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nick" |
|
| Title: Re: Neutron Lifetime Sets Time for Atom Formation at Big Bang |
25 Oct 2005 08:32:57 PM |
|
|
How old am I Fartin Martin?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Martin" |
|
| Title: Re: Neutron Lifetime Sets Time for Atom Formation at Big Bang |
25 Oct 2005 08:37:00 PM |
|
|
Nick wrote:
How old am I Fartin Martin?
Emotionally, about 12.
-Mark Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Neutron Lifetime Sets Time for Atom Formation at Big Bang |
25 Oct 2005 09:04:41 PM |
|
|
Mark Martin wrote:
Nick wrote:
How old am I Fartin Martin?
Emotionally, about 12.
-Mark Martin
I kill filed nicky boy and his aliases long ago... makes the
newsgroup less cluttered.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Martin" |
|
| Title: Re: Neutron Lifetime Sets Time for Atom Formation at Big Bang |
25 Oct 2005 09:15:16 PM |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
I kill filed nicky boy and his aliases long ago... makes the
newsgroup less cluttered.
Nicky is way too much fun to plonk. >:)
-Mark Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bilge" |
|
| Title: Re: Neutron Lifetime Sets Time for Atom Formation at Big Bang |
26 Oct 2005 04:11:21 AM |
|
|
Mark Martin:
Sam Wormley wrote:
I kill filed nicky boy and his aliases long ago... makes the
newsgroup less cluttered.
Nicky is way too much fun to plonk. >:)
The novelty wears off once you start seeing reruns, which won't
take all that long.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nick" |
|
| Title: Re: Neutron Lifetime Sets Time for Atom Formation at Big Bang |
25 Oct 2005 08:56:05 PM |
|
|
Your the emotional one!!!
SQUAT!!!
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Neutron Lifetime Sets Time for Atom Formation at Big Bang |
26 Oct 2005 11:30:37 AM |
|
|
"Nick" <macromitch@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1130291765.186546.135400@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Your the emotional one!!!
SQUAT!!!
Its funny that this is you reply to show you are not emotionally twelve
years old.
I think you are correct. I suspect your emotional development is a few years
younger than that.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Martin" |
|
| Title: Re: Neutron Lifetime Sets Time for Atom Formation at Big Bang |
25 Oct 2005 09:13:53 PM |
|
|
Nick wrote:
Your the emotional one!!!
SQUAT!!!
EXCLAMATION POINTS!!!
-Mark Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Neutron Lifetime Sets Time for Atom Formation at Big Bang |
25 Oct 2005 09:15:54 PM |
|
|
Don't leave them out
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Neutron Lifetime Sets Time for Atom Formation at Big Bang |
26 Oct 2005 11:31:03 AM |
|
|
<macromitch@internetCDS.com> wrote in message
news:1130292954.323728.31280@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Don't leave them out
We have to. You use up the worlds supply.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: Neutron Lifetime Sets Time for Atom Formation at Big Bang |
26 Oct 2005 09:38:56 AM |
|
|
Nick wrote:
If free neutrons decay in under 15 minutes uless atomically bound then
all the atoms of the universe must have formed before the first few
minutes of the start of the universe.
Not true. You seem unaware that neutrons and nuclei can be created by
physical processes, which can occur long after the big bang (billions of
years in standard astrophysical models).
I repeat: posting nonsense about things you know nothing about is silly.
You would be well advised to actually LEARN SOME PHYSICS.
Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "BruceS" |
|
| Title: Re: Neutron Lifetime Sets Time for Atom Formation at Big Bang |
26 Oct 2005 11:35:57 AM |
|
|
Tom Roberts wrote:
Nick wrote:
If free neutrons decay in under 15 minutes uless atomically bound then
all the atoms of the universe must have formed before the first few
minutes of the start of the universe.
Not true. You seem unaware that neutrons and nuclei can be created by
physical processes, which can occur long after the big bang (billions of
years in standard astrophysical models).
I repeat: posting nonsense about things you know nothing about is silly.
You would be well advised to actually LEARN SOME PHYSICS.
What an insufferable snob. If nobody posted from a position of
ignorance, Usenet would shrivel up and blow away. I'll bet on kooks
over pundits any day. They have you vastly outnumbered, and have much
more free time on their hands.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bilge" |
|
| Title: Re: Neutron Lifetime Sets Time for Atom Formation at Big Bang |
26 Oct 2005 02:40:43 PM |
|
|
BruceS:
Tom Roberts wrote:
Nick wrote:
If free neutrons decay in under 15 minutes uless atomically bound then
all the atoms of the universe must have formed before the first few
minutes of the start of the universe.
Not true. You seem unaware that neutrons and nuclei can be created by
physical processes, which can occur long after the big bang (billions of
years in standard astrophysical models).
I repeat: posting nonsense about things you know nothing about is silly.
You would be well advised to actually LEARN SOME PHYSICS.
What an insufferable snob. If nobody posted from a position of
ignorance, Usenet would shrivel up and blow away.
If even a few people posted from a position ignorance with the
goal of becoming less ignorant, I'd be forced to consider becoming
deeply religious. But, that isn't the case here. While nick is
defininately posting from a position, he has never once wavered
from his goal of remaining ignorant. To the best I can tell, he
has only found additional ways to prove his determination to
stay that way. I see nothing snobbish about recognizing his
accomplishment.
I'll bet on kooks over pundits any day.
They have you vastly outnumbered, and have much more free time on
their hands.
You mean on usenet, the premier venue for publishing scientific
work due to the vast number of oustanding scientific breakthroughs
made by collaborations established in the newsgroups? Well OK.
Anything else?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Neutron Lifetime Sets Time for Atom Formation at Big Bang |
26 Oct 2005 11:55:54 AM |
|
|
BruceS wrote:
What an insufferable snob. If nobody posted from a position of
ignorance, Usenet would shrivel up and blow away. I'll bet on kooks
over pundits any day. They have you vastly outnumbered, and have much
more free time on their hands.
If you here to learn something... listening to kooks won't do.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: Neutron Lifetime Sets Time for Atom Formation at Big Bang |
26 Oct 2005 02:12:52 PM |
|
|
BruceS wrote:
If nobody posted from a position of
ignorance, Usenet would shrivel up and blow away.
Questions are fine, and get more civil answers. The problem is when
idiots repeatedly post articles claiming knowledge far beyond their
abilities.
I'll bet on kooks
over pundits any day.
"A fool and his money are soon parted." -- but read "experts" rather
than "pundits"....
Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: Neutron Lifetime Sets Time for Atom Formation at Big Bang |
26 Oct 2005 08:33:23 PM |
|
|
"Tom Roberts" <> wrote in message
news:djokfk$q00@netnews.net.lucent.com...
| BruceS wrote:
| > If nobody posted from a position of
| > ignorance, Usenet would shrivel up and blow away.
|
| Questions are fine, and get more civil answers. The problem is when
| idiots repeatedly post articles claiming knowledge far beyond their
| abilities.
|
| > I'll bet on kooks
| > over pundits any day.
|
| "A fool and his money are soon parted." -- but read "experts" rather
| than "pundits"....
|
From: Tom Roberts <tjrobe...@lucent.com> - Find messages by this
author
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 17:57:18 GMT
Local: Sat, Sep 17 2005 6:57 pm
Subject: Re: Does the 'Curvature of Spacetime' cause gravity?
"Yes, tests of strong fields are few and far between, but there are
some:
the binary pulsars, and observations of accretion disks near black
holes
OBSERVATIONS!
Tom Roberts
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "BruceS" |
|
| Title: Re: Neutron Lifetime Sets Time for Atom Formation at Big Bang |
26 Oct 2005 07:30:06 PM |
|
|
Tom Roberts wrote:
BruceS wrote:
If nobody posted from a position of ignorance, Usenet would shrivel up
and blow away.
Questions are fine, and get more civil answers. The problem is when
idiots repeatedly post articles claiming knowledge far beyond their
abilities.
I'll bet on kooks over pundits any day.
"A fool and his money are soon parted." -- but read "experts" rather
than "pundits"....
Methinks I detect a humor deficit.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nick" |
|
| Title: Re: Neutron Lifetime Sets Time for Atom Formation at Big Bang |
27 Oct 2005 12:45:48 AM |
|
|
Tom your bet is on authorities. My bet is on others. Authorities are
blind.
As Einstein said he never wanted to be an authority but men made him
one anyway.
That guy was right.
Go look at your sheepskins. Its all you really have. HA! HA!
I don't need an authority. I don't need you.
Te He
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Neutron Lifetime Sets Time for Atom Formation at Big Bang |
27 Oct 2005 04:39:47 PM |
|
|
Nick wrote:
Tom your bet is on authorities. My bet is on others. Authorities are
blind.
As Einstein said he never wanted to be an authority but men made him
one anyway.
That guy was right.
Go look at your sheepskins. Its all you really have. HA! HA!
I don't need an authority. I don't need you.
Te He
Someone who automatically takes truth to be whatever an authority says
it is may occasionally be surprised to learn that the truth is
different. This is a part-time fool.
Someone who automatically takes the truth to be whatever an authority
says it is NOT will occasionally be surprised to learn that the
authority gained authority for a reason. This is a full-time fool.
Someone who listens to an authority and understands clearly what he or
she is trying to say, and then checks for himself whether this is the
truth, is rarely surprised. This is a student, and a good one.
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Neutron Lifetime Sets Time for Atom Formation at Big Bang |
27 Oct 2005 10:37:29 PM |
|
|
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1130449187.625832.50690@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Someone who automatically takes truth to be whatever an authority says
it is may occasionally be surprised to learn that the truth is
different. This is a part-time fool.
Someone who automatically takes the truth to be whatever an authority
says it is NOT will occasionally be surprised to learn that the
authority gained authority for a reason. This is a full-time fool.
Someone who listens to an authority and understands clearly what he or
she is trying to say, and then checks for himself whether this is the
truth, is rarely surprised. This is a student, and a good one.
I really like this post. As long as you don't mind (actually, I will do it
anyway - but at least I am letting you know my appreciation :-) ) I am
planning to print this off and put it up in work.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: Neutron Lifetime Sets Time for Atom Formation at Big Bang |
27 Oct 2005 08:50:10 PM |
|
|
TRASH.
there was no BB.
time colided with time .
time is the rate energy reacts with energy.
Hubble constant is UNDENIABLE .
BGR is the edge of the universe NOT its just the edge of the VISIBLE
HUBBLE CONSTANT
DARK ENERGY is the photons frm outside the visible hubble constant at c
with no wavelength.
dont forget the simple FACT wavelength x frequency equals
c .
run that to the max at boath ends you get the same thing .
gods active force is the same inside and outside the universe c
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Neutron Lifetime Sets Time for Atom Formation at Big Bang |
27 Oct 2005 10:37:48 PM |
|
|
"tj Frazir" <GravityPhysics@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:29203-436183D2-264@storefull-3211.bay.webtv.net...
TRASH.
Yes. All your posts are.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Neutron Lifetime Sets Time for Atom Formation at Big Bang |
26 Oct 2005 03:03:11 PM |
|
|
BruceS wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote:
Nick wrote:
If free neutrons decay in under 15 minutes uless atomically bound then
all the atoms of the universe must have formed before the first few
minutes of the start of the universe.
Not true. You seem unaware that neutrons and nuclei can be created by
physical processes, which can occur long after the big bang (billions of
years in standard astrophysical models).
I repeat: posting nonsense about things you know nothing about is silly.
You would be well advised to actually LEARN SOME PHYSICS.
What an insufferable snob. If nobody posted from a position of
ignorance, Usenet would shrivel up and blow away. I'll bet on kooks
over pundits any day. They have you vastly outnumbered, and have much
more free time on their hands.
Individual cases aside, there are some general trends about this n.g.
about when it works well and when it doesn't.
When it works well:
- someone asks a specific well-contained question about a matter in
which they have some background. The answer is usually prompt and
on-target.
- someone asks a general question about the philosophy behind physical
concepts. The discussion is often spirited and interesting, though very
little factual information is obtained.
- someone asks a question about how to get started understanding
something better. Pointers to references that the OP will likely read
are quick to come.
When it doesn't work well:
- someone without any background attempts to posit something from their
common-sense notions, usually in the form of "so-and-so is hogwash", to
see if anyone can convince them otherwise. Failure to be convinced is
taken as a personal victory and an incentive to repeat the endeavor.
This is the "I must be right if no one can make me admit that I'm
wrong" strategy.
- someone who is intimidated by physics and has no intention of reading
further than what is posted on the newsgroup. This is the "educate me
for free" strategy.
- when someone is aspiring to publish their theory in any avenue
available to them, even if it's in an unmoderated newsgroup, in
anticipation of eventual glory in a diamond-in-the-rough tale. Failure
to receive acceptance only increases martyr status. This is the
"romantic revolutionary" strategy.
If there is any moral to be gained from this group, it is probably one
of the following:
- there is no shortcut to understanding physics
- physics is not understandable from pure reason and common sense alone
- if you don't know enough about a question to distinguish the right
answer from the rest of the flotsam, then you won't get your question
answered here
- there are people here who will recognize immediately when you are
spouting crap
PD
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
