It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Neutron Stars, Pulsars, and Magnetars

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 03:08 AM
reply to post by Alaskan Man

Yeah, I love that video, I've seen it before. I have two jpg images that have the same stars/planets on them, too, somewhere, from that video.

Imagine, though, after that last star, that then you have galaxies, superclusters, and beyond that, so much empty space that even the clusters of galaxies are like dust compared to the emptiness.

posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 04:32 AM
Ah, yes.

Pulsars, Neutron stars, and Magnetars. Along with Black holes...these are some of the fixes that are required to keep weak gravity at the top of the fundamental forces.

See, a long time ago some scientists said "gravity rules the universe"...they have been patching the big bang theory ever since then to make it so. Inventing the above mentioned phenomenon. I say invent, due to the fact that none of them can actually exist.

Pulsars have already been covered, they are indeed objects that radiate electric oscillations, nothing as large as a star can spin that fast and stay intact.

Neutron stars, Magnetars, Black holes, and other such super-dense objects...likewise are scientific folly.

Charge separation is one force that would keep such objects from forming. Powered by the electromagnetic force (much more powerful than gravity), it would act to keep atoms from getting anywhere near enough to each other to create any super-dense object.

The other, is the proven pattern of heavier elements degrading into lighter ones. Even if a neutron star or something denser could form, it would proceed to immediately radiate away into lighter elements...ending up no more dense than the heaviest common elements.

Black holes are folly for the same reason, they could not form due to charge separation or elemental degradation.

Black holes were invented when scientists (possibly the very same ones who swear that gravity rules the universe) realized that gravity was actually too weak to keep galaxies and larger structures together. They invented black holes that could super concentrate gravity and hold a galaxy together.

It doesn't end there though, they eventually discovered that even with the fictitious Black holes, galaxies still didn't have enough gravity to hold themselves together. This is when dark matter was invented to make sure that gravity COULD NOT BE WRONG...but Dark matter, Dark energy, and other gravity apologies go beyond this topic.

Long story short, gravity is too weak to hold everything together, all by itself. It is but a very very very small portion of the forces that provide cohesion in this universe. Scientists are now invested into gravity, so much so that admitting it cannot do what they claim, would be a blow to their pride.

As long as proud scientists refuse to admit that they may be wrong about gravity, we will have no real advances in the astronomical sciences concerning large physical objects and how they interact....and that is a true shame.

If after reading all this, you still firmly believe that gravity is king, please remember.

99.999% of matter in the universe is plasma, plasma is electromagnetically reactive, and the electromagnetic force is a thousand billion billion billion times more powerful than gravity.

posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 07:43 AM
One strong reason I don't trust science is because of who finances it.

The way Tesla was disqualified as a scientist, because he was "just" an "inventor" is a good reason for me to discard much of the so called scientific theories. Does anyone know how many Tesla's inventions are hidden, and inventions from others? Why? I think it's self explanatory. It doesn't fit into the modern era Ptolemaic, egocentric theory.

Theory of gravity comes nice into a play during an absolutist rule in England - stupid mass ("lazy" mass) ruled by an arbitrary force (absolutist).

In social and political theory, George Orwell, Aldous Huxley, Dostoevsky, Zamyatin, Kafka, London, Capek and many others gave much more to the point observation of what is really going on than all the "official" theoreticians, starting with Plato and Aristotle. These writers were independent thinkers, not officials of some institutes, paid to proliferate "suitable" PC theories.

When Dostoevsky says that "there is an axe circling the Earth and chopping heads which protrude" I believe him much more than scientists who are projecting "exploration, exploitation and appropriation" of the existing Universe and pretending that we humans, led by scientists, are god given supremely conceived beings with bright future of ruling the "so far" perceived "dead" Universe.

Talk about Resonance. Rhythm is "permeating", actually creating everything. How does rhythm fit into theory of gravity? It doesn't. We have Laplace resonance in movement of planets and moons (like Jupiter moons) but is the gravity source of this resonance? I think it's not. There is no rhythm in gravity, gravity does not produce rhythm. So, where does it come from and how it organizes "mass" in mathematically articulate patterns?

Gravity is simply perception, information. Matter. Dead matter. Dead without something to stir it up and organize it or disperse it.

There is no such thing as anti gravity. How can there be anti gravity, when gravity has no defined direction. What really attracts is the same quality, not the "opposition" of "poles". Quality attracts quality, and difference does not attract matter brought to "order".

Science neglects this, and I say it does so intentionally. It is very visible from the Theory of All, which tries to project Universe as a totally causal event, with the so called Big Bang, which stands at the "beginning" of time and space as some scientifically approved "God".

Blasphemy and nonsense of "bending space" is also the product of science. How can space, which is a principle, be bent?

How can time, which is simply the means of thinking, be bent?

It can, but only in "scientific" reflection, where reflection itself (also a principle of differentiation) can be manipulated at will and claimed to possess justification in itself. Self justifying reflection is the true face of science controlled by political powers and interests.

Those who seek truth are disgusted with such theories, proliferated by paid scientists.

Astronomy is an ideal place to be turned into a scientific sandbox. Because the mass of information is such, no one can really "organize" it in some comprehensible system. Thee are plenty of "working" theories posing as "guides" for human thought. All those theories are subject to change, an arbitrary change, depending on the newly acquired data.

"Newly" acquired data is nothing but arbitrarily introduced novelty into our perception.

Hawking described the concept of "imaginary time", a time line orthogonal to one existing point in another time line. This brings the experience of the whole Universe from its supposed beginning to its end.

Hawking is a smart guy. He knows that this concept introduces anticipation in science and that science will spit it out as "unsuitable". The knowledge "in advance" does not depend on "incoming" data.

Hawking, as one of the most praised scientists of today, discarded "scientific method" by introducing this concept. And the truth is, time is something imaginary, it is not objective. Time is clearly the "means" of thinking and nothing more than that.

The true scientific method is deprived of incoming data, empiricism is not scientific method. What passes as analytical thinking in science is actually statistical manipulation, because true analytical method is about principles, it is about ethics in the first place - honesty, which is removed from the official science in favor of arbitrariness - and that is a political, opportunistic stance.

posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 09:26 AM
thank you for an awesome thread. im going to come back later and read the rest of your threads and videos you suggested. "The Universe" is my fave TV show. I just watch and read about this stuff over and over until finally i start to grasp it, its just crazy and interests me so much! Thats so awesome you are studying cosmology....if i had it to do all over again i would too. Maybe at a nearby university i can at least find some astronomy classes to fit in while i run the rat

S and F!

posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 09:41 AM
reply to post by jkrog08

hey i just tried sending a U2U to you, but it wont let me cause i dont have 20 posts yet, i never knew of anyone studying the field of cosmology and was wondering if you have any books/websites or anything you can recommend to me, i love studying this in my spare time, thank you!

posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 10:28 AM
Wow, there are some great posts on here, there is some good debates from the Electric Universe supporters, this thread has turned into a nice peice of work IMO.



As far as suggested reading and such, really anything by Dr.Michio Kaku or Neil Degeasse Tyson is good. There are some other good books out there too though. As far as websites go, really there are many and to be honest wikipedia contains a lot of information (I know how people do not like it, and you can't use it in school,lol), you can browse NASA, or go to multiple persons websites, here is a good one by Dr. Max Tegmark of MIT: it is pretty good. Here is a link to an online version of a book from Kaku called Hyperspace, do not know if you have read it but it is t&ct=result&resnum=11

[edit on 6/22/2009 by jkrog08]

posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 11:44 AM
reply to post by jkrog08

Wow! What outstanding work and research! I know you are in school, so you deserve an A+ for this thread!

I haven't read all of it yet and haven't watched the videos, but I will.

posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 12:32 PM

Originally posted by jkrog08The first radio pulsar CP 1919 (now known as PSR 1919+21), with a pulse period of 1.337 seconds.

L33t, heh heh, I see the universe is not without a sense of humor.


[edit on Mon Jun 22 2009 by Jbird]

posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 08:54 PM
reply to post by jkrog08

thank you! Right now im reading "physics of the impossible" by Kaku. Thanks for the sites ill be sure to check all that out.

posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 03:28 PM
Damn Krog your threads are getting a ton of attention! So far so good mate. Keep up the hard work and the research, and one day it will pay off. I am sure this thread itself could have earned you some money and probably could still earn you money today! So keep it up and when you make it big with this kind of hard work and dedication, be sure to give me a

posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 09:31 PM
could elenin be a neutron star?

posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 05:25 PM
I have always thought Pulsars were stars that were changed to be a Galaxy GPS by a very advanced alien civilization.. It would make sense. They somehow manipulated the star to rotate and send out beams of light"energy" at very exact time rotations.. Just a thought. This is actually a pretty old theory but it does make sense.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in