Pulsars Don't Exist

An excerpt from my article Einstein Was Wrong - Falsifying Observational Evidence Presented:

• Neutron stars and pulsars violate the known laws of physics. The proposed density of neutrons in these stars by the standard model violates the Island of Stability in nuclear chemistry. Neutrons can not be packed together that densely without having them fly apart instantaneously. Also, in pulsars, rotation rates have been observed on the order of 1200 hz. This also flies in the face of standard theory. It is impossible that a star can rotate that fast. The outer edges of the star would be approaching appreciable speeds of light.

Given the ridiculous assumption of a meager 10 mile radius, the outer edge of a pulsar rotating at 1200 hz would be traveling at .4 c (almost half the speed of light). A 25 mile radius would mean the outer edge would be traveling at 1 c. Such compact bodies with such high rotation rates are utterly preposterous. The scientific community is telling the public that an object the size of an asteroid is spinning around at near light speed emitting a beam of energy detectable across galactic distances. THIS IS PREPOSTEROUS!

Previous theory held that ~700 hz was the maximum attainable spin rate for a pulsar. Healy and Peratt offer a far simpler explanation that doesn't violate any laws of physics. Such an explanation can also account for Jupiter’s millisecond radio pulses.[40][41][42][43][44]


----

40. Radiation Properties of Pulsar Magnetospheres: Observation, Theory, and Experiment
Healy, K. R. & Peratt, A. L. Ap&SS, Vol. 227, Issue 1-2, pp. 229-253

41. Island of Stability
Wiki Entry

42. XTE J1739-285 Neutron Star
Wiki Entry

43. A Radio Pulsar Spinning at 716 Hz
Hessels J. W. T. ,Science 31 Vol. 311. no. 5769, pp. 1901 - 1904, March 2006

44. Millisecond Radio Pulses from Jupiter
Bart E. E. ,Nature, Vol. 211, pp.808 - 810, 20 August 1966

reply to post by mnemeth1

Neutron stars and pulsars violate the known laws of physics. The proposed density of neutrons in these stars by the standard model violates the Island of Stability in nuclear chemistry. Neutrons can not be packed together that densely without having them fly apart instantaneously.

But Island of stability does not take gravity into account. Wouldnt this attraction be enough to hold the neutron star together?

Gravity from the ground up

Look at page 263 and on. It says that since gravity cannot be shielded, neutron stars with more than 2% mass of the sun would have strong enough gravity to prevent it from flying apart.

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

Neutron stars and pulsars violate the known laws of physics. The proposed density of neutrons in these stars by the standard model violates the Island of Stability in nuclear chemistry. Neutrons can not be packed together that densely without having them fly apart instantaneously.

But Island of stability does not take gravity into account. Wouldnt this attraction be enough to hold the neutron star together?

If I was in the center of a neutron star, how much would I weigh?

Saying gravity is capable of holding a star together as it spins around at light speed is a fairy tale fit for kids.

Further, saying stars exist that are the size of asteroids is just as preposterous.

The whole thing is a big joke to them.

reply to post by mnemeth1

If I was in the center of a neutron star, how much would I weigh?

In the center of neutron star, but also Earth, gravitational forces are balanced, so there is weightlesness. Of course, the pressure is extreme, because forces outside the center are not balanced, so all the weight is pushing on. What is your point?

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

If I was in the center of a neutron star, how much would I weigh?

In the center of neutron star, but also Earth, gravitational forces are balanced, so there is weightlesness. Of course, the pressure is extreme, because forces outside the center are not balanced, so all the weight is pushing on. What is your point?

My point is that I am not dumb enough to believe an object the size of an asteroid, that is made out of entirely hypothetical matter, is spinning around at the speed of light emitting a fine beam of energy in our general direction, which we are capable of detecting with normal radio telescopes.

I personally find this theory even more ludicrous than the theory of black holes.

reply to post by Maslo


You know this idea that there is extreme pressure at the center of celestial objects is also unfounded. I don't see why this should be so.

Since we know that gravity is balanced at the center of a celestial object, we know that gravity arises from matter itself.

If we say the matter of a neutron star is so dense that it has such a huge gravitational pull that it can over-come the island of stability, then the matter should oblate leaving the center hollow.

Matter will attract to itself from all directions, inward as well as outward. The pressure would be greatest halfway down to the center if gravity is the force holding it all together.

Plus we must not forget the utterly tremendous centripetal forces at work in an object that is spinning at the speed of light. Those forces are going to push matter outward.

reply to post by mnemeth1

My point is that I am not dumb enough to believe an object the size of an asteroid, that is made out of entirely hypothetical matter, is spinning around at the speed of light emitting a fine beam of energy in our general direction, which we are capable of detecting with normal radio telescopes.

What physical law makes this scenario impossible? What physical law prevents neutron star formation? Dont tell me its island of stability, because at such pressures (10exp11 times the earths gravity) even the most unstable nuclei are stabilised by analogue of "hydrostatic" pressure.
Gravity is the weakest force, but in contrast to other forces it can act on unlimited and macroscopic distances, is only additive and cannot be shielded. Therefore when we deal with large masses and high densities, it becomes the dominant force.

en.wikipedia.org...

What is your hypothesis to explain the observed then?

And what is ridiculous about black holes? They are inescapable consequence of known physical laws (gravity).

reply to post by mnemeth1

If we say the matter of a neutron star is so dense that it has such a huge gravitational pull that it can over-come the island of stability, then the matter should oblate leaving the center hollow.

Why? The centripetal force vector acting on the matter pointing outward diminishes when we approach the center (centripetal force = angular rotational velocity times distance from the center), and the force of gravity pointing inward is balanced from all directions in the center, and the pressure from all directions is at the highest. If we add all vectors acting on the matter in the center - approx. zero centripetal force vector, approx. zero effective gravity, maximum pressure pointing inward, there is no reason why matter should move from the center - the only non-balanced force acting on the central matter is the pressure vector pointing to the center of the star, the exactly opposite direction required to make the center hollow.

Neutron star cross section

Originally posted by Maslo
What physical law makes this scenario impossible? What physical law prevents neutron star formation? Dont tell me its island of stability, because at such pressures (10exp11 times the earths gravity) even the most unstable nuclei are stabilised by analogue of "hydrostatic" pressure.
Gravity is the weakest force, but in contrast to other forces it can act on unlimited and macroscopic distances, is only additive and cannot be shielded. Therefore when we deal with large masses and high densities, it becomes the dominant force.

en.wikipedia.org...

What is your hypothesis to explain the observed then?

And what is ridiculous about black holes? They are inescapable consequence of known physical laws (gravity).

edit on 20/10/10 by Maslo because: typos

The theory is preposterous on its face.

The forces involved would blow up any known form of matter in the universe instantaneously.

We are talking about spinning an object the size of an asteroid at near the speed of light.

Claiming gravity, which is one of the weakest forces in the universe, is capable of holding matter together as it rotates around at the speed of light is the most retarded theory I have ever heard in my life.

I've included a link in the OP to research that is much more plausible that light speed rotating asteroids.

I have no knowledge of the finer points of the theory of pulsars and neutron stars, but I do know that the following quote is absolute bollocks.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Maslo

 

You know this idea that there is extreme pressure at the center of celestial objects is also unfounded. I don't see why this should be so.

Since we know that gravity is balanced at the center of a celestial object, we know that gravity arises from matter itself.

If we say the matter of a neutron star is so dense that it has such a huge gravitational pull that it can over-come the island of stability, then the matter should oblate leaving the center hollow.

Matter will attract to itself from all directions, inward as well as outward. The pressure would be greatest halfway down to the center if gravity is the force holding it all together.

Extreme pressure at the center of a celestial object makes perfect sense, if you stop and think about it. While the gravity at the center is balanced, everything else is under the pull of gravitation and ALL of that matter is trying to get towards the center. The center of the object is the only place where every single atom of the object is pushing towards you. That means quite respectable amounts of pressure

As you move "upwards" towards the surface, the matter "above" you is still trying to push towards you, but the matter "below" is trying to get away from you (towards the center). The amount of matter pushing towards you gets smaller and smaller as you rise up, and the amount of matter that pushes away from you gets bigger. In other words, as you get up, the pressure decreases.

reply to post by MacAnkka


No, not all matter is trying to pull towards the center.

The center matter is trying to pull toward the outer matter.

Lets illustrate an example with sand.

Suppose our moon is made entirely out of loose sand.

Now we scoop out the center leaving a few mile thick crust.

Should the sand on the edge of the inner hollow sphere be attracted to the center or to the sand above it?

Since there is no gravity at the center of the sphere, we know this is not the case. And since the distance is greater from the opposite side to the sand above it, yet the mass is identical, the sand will be most attracted to the sand above it.

It will not gravitate toward the center under pressure.

Loose sand may bounce around in there, but it will not pressurize.

Further, if we apply a high rate of spin, this will pin the sand to the inner walls of the sphere and actually create pressure outwards. With a fast enough spin, it would blow the moon up.

reply to post by mnemeth1

No, not all matter is trying to pull towards the center. The center matter is trying to pull toward the outer matter.

No, the center matter is not trying to pull anywhere. Thats what balanced forces mean. All the other matter is pulling towards the center, thus increasing pressure on the center matter. This is simple classical physics, high school level. And it makes perfect sense.

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

No, not all matter is trying to pull towards the center. The center matter is trying to pull toward the outer matter.

No, the center matter is not trying to pull anywhere. Thats what balanced forces mean. All the other matter is pulling towards the center, thus increasing pressure on the center matter. This is simple classical physics, high school level. And it makes perfect sense.

You're leaving out centripetal force.

reply to post by mnemeth1


No pulsars with a rotational frequency above 716 Hz have been verified.

reply to post by mnemeth1

Lets illustrate an example with sand. Suppose our moon is made entirely out of loose sand. Now we scoop out the center leaving a few mile thick crust. Should the sand on the edge of the inner hollow sphere be attracted to the center or to the sand above it? Since there is no gravity at the center of the sphere, we know this is not the case. And since the distance is greater from the opposite side to the sand above it, yet the mass is identical, the sand will be most attracted to the sand above it.

The sand in this hollow cavity would actually not be attracted anywhere, it would be weightless. Thats because the forces exactly cancel out, no matter the mass or radius or wall thickness of the sphere.

Further, if we apply a high rate of spin, this will pin the sand to the inner walls of the sphere and actually create pressure outwards.

Correct, but only for particles inside the hollow sphere.

You're leaving out centripetal force.

No I am not, because unless the centripetal force is high enough, the object would not desintegrate.

Originally posted by nataylor
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

No pulsars with a rotational frequency above 716 Hz have been verified.

iopscience.iop.org...

Of course, I really don't care if the spin rate is 1200 hz or 700 hz, either one is preposterous.

At 700 hz, a 10 mile radius object would be spinning at a quarter the speed of light - which is utterly ridiculous.

Originally posted by Maslo
The sand in this hollow cavity would actually not be attracted anywhere, it would be weightless. Thats because the forces exactly cancel out, no matter the mass or radius or wall thickness of the sphere.

Nope. Since the sand on the inner side of the sphere is closer to the sand above it, it will have a greater attraction to the sand directly above it. It would indeed be under gravitational force - it would not be weightless.

A person would be able to walk around the inner sphere and arrive back where they started from.

Originally posted by Maslo
No I am not, because unless the centripetal force is high enough, the object would not desintegrate.

That makes no sense.

If you are standing on the inner sphere and the object is rotated, centripetal force will pin you to the wall of the inner sphere.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
We are talking about spinning an object the size of an asteroid at near the speed of light.

Let's take the centripetal force on a single neutron on the surface of neutron star with a 16-km radius, rotational frequency of 716 Hz, and a mass of 2 Solar masses. That would give us 5.4*10^-16 N of centripetal force. Now with what force would gravity be pulling that single neutron in? That would be 8.7*10^-16 N. As you can see, the pull of gravity is larger than the centripetal force.

Claiming gravity, which is one of the weakest forces in the universe, is capable of holding matter together as it rotates around at the speed of light is the most retarded theory I have ever heard in my life.

Science doesn't work that way. Prove what you are saying with math. So far, what you are saying doesn't hold up.

Seriously, sand as a analogy to the relationship of mass to the center of a neutron star?


Hm if you had the material to make up a grain of sand, that was from a neutron star, I am sure the density difference would be astronomical. Beyond apples and oranges...