Pulsars Don't Exist

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by nataylor
So far, you have failed to demonstrate why they are implausible, let alone impossible. You have shown no math that would make such an object implausible. You supposition that centripetal force would exceed gravity has been shown to be in error. I find it odd that you dismiss such things as "ludicrous" when your apparent understanding of the forces involved is minimal.

I have a clear understanding of the forces involved, which is why I find the theory totally asinine.

You clearly don't, as you believed there was a net force of gravity inside a hollow sphere. "LOL" doesn't show any math to be in error.

There is if you put spin on it. That's the whole point you seem to be missing. The centrifugal force would blow the star apart post haste at those rates.

Show your math. I've shown that centripetal force does not exceed gravity. You have shown nothing. Saying something is "retarded" isn't showing your work. You need to demonstrate things. Can you show the centripetal force exceeds gravity? Let's see your numbers.

Otherwise, you are just ranting and consider this some kind of intuitive issue where math doesn't matter. That's not science.

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

Of course, the qualifier is the rotation rate. Which I suppose is why these objects must disturb you.

At 1122 Hz, is the centrifugal force higher than gravitational? If the answer is yes, I may indeed be disturbed.

The answer is yes.

Which is why theory holds ~700 hz is the fastest a pulsar can spin.

Show your math! I've already calculated the gravitational pull on a single neutron on a star with two solar masses and a radius of 16,000 meters is 8.7*10^-16 N. What's your calculation for the centripetal force? I'll give you mine after you give yours.

reply to post by mnemeth1

Believing that the magical force of gravity can somehow overcome this fundamental tenant of nature with absolutely ZERO evidence to prove that it can is idiotic in the extreme.

The force of gravity is not magical.
Island of stability is not a fundamental tenet of nature, but stems from underlying theory of nuclear forces - quantum chromodynamics. And there is nothing in the theory which prevents neutronium, or even more degenerate states of matter, like quark-gluon plasma to form, if sufficient energy conditions are met.

Gravity is only "weak" because we only measure and experience it's force in an instant of time. Gravity is timeless and its "strength" lingers outside of time as matter moves through space. Its strength is smeared across time, yet it continues to effect the area of displaced space from its orgin for a time as the matter moves across space. This is why space is "warped".

If all matter were to come to a dead stop in space, time would cease and the full force of "gravity" would no longer be smeared in time. This would cause all matter in the universe to instantly collapse under gravities force into a singularity or pre big bang state.

Matter moving through space creates time and "weakens" or "smears" the force of gravity.

Originally posted by nataylor
Show your math. I've shown that centripetal force does not exceed gravity. You have shown nothing. Saying something is "retarded" isn't showing your work. You need to demonstrate things. Can you show the centripetal force exceeds gravity? Let's see your numbers.

Otherwise, you are just ranting and consider this some kind of intuitive issue where math doesn't matter. That's not science.

Math doesn't matter when you:

1. Don't know what the star is made out of (mass)
2. Don't know its actual diameter/radius

Any calculations I do will be based on total unknowns.

Further, the any matter used MUST necessarily be totally hypothetical because the island of stability absolutely prevents matter than dense from forming. Looking at XTE J1739-285 we can see it would have to be comprised almost 100% of neutrons to exist.

Neuton Star Timing

EOS curves that do not pass through every region
must be ruled out;...

Figure 2. Mass-radius curves of representative
EOSs for nucleonic (black), condensate
(green), and strange quark (blue) matter. Regions
to the upper left are disallowed by GR
and causality. The lower right is excluded for
the highest-frequency pulsar known (716 Hz);
confirmation of 1122 Hz spin would exclude
any EOS (e.g., MS2) that does not extend
above the dashed red curve. The red oval
shows the statistical precision achievable using
lightcurve modeling with a 8 m2 X-ray timing
mission, excluding condensate, quark matter,
and stiff nucleonic (PAL1 and MS2) models.

XTE J1739-285 falls juuuuuuuuuuuuuuuust on the border for a star made out of pure neutrons.


I find this to be completely ridiculous.

The star is not made out of pure neutrons.

The star is not spinning on its axis at 66,000 times per minute.

The star is not a few kilometers in radius.

We know what causes pulsar pulses, and its not rotating blocks of neutrons. Pure neutrons would be incapable of exhibiting the effects observed anyways. Peratt and Dessler have explained exactly what is going on.

reply to post by mnemeth1

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

I don't know but I propose we do a full scale test and find out. Let's call the Russian Space Agency, strap you to a rocket, and send you to the nearest neutron star to find out.

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by nataylor
Show your math. I've shown that centripetal force does not exceed gravity. You have shown nothing. Saying something is "retarded" isn't showing your work. You need to demonstrate things. Can you show the centripetal force exceeds gravity? Let's see your numbers.

Otherwise, you are just ranting and consider this some kind of intuitive issue where math doesn't matter. That's not science.

Math doesn't matter when you:

1. Don't know what the star is made out of (mass)
2. Don't know its actual diameter/radius

Any calculations I do will be based on total unknowns.

Ah, very good dodge of the question. I gave you my "assumptions" (which are the widely scientifically accepted values for neutron stars). We know the rotation rate. What's your calculation for centripetal force?

I've shown my math and done the calculations. You've said "retarded." You suggest Einstein is wrong not because the math doesn't work out, but because the idea is "retarded." I trust people will value these two arguments accordingly.

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by nataylor
Show your math. I've shown that centripetal force does not exceed gravity. You have shown nothing. Saying something is "retarded" isn't showing your work. You need to demonstrate things. Can you show the centripetal force exceeds gravity? Let's see your numbers.

Otherwise, you are just ranting and consider this some kind of intuitive issue where math doesn't matter. That's not science.

Math doesn't matter when you:

1. Don't know what the star is made out of (mass)
2. Don't know its actual diameter/radius

Any calculations I do will be based on total unknowns.

And I also find it odd that in the very same post in which you say the above, you cite this paper, which says:

A few dozen neutron star have had masses reliably determined (some to ±0.001 M) from bi- nary pulsar timing. All measured masses are consistent at 4σ with a maximum of 1.5–1.65 M. In contrast, no reliable radius measurement is currently available, although most estimates are consistent with the expected theoretical range of 10–15 km.

I guess somethings that, according to your source, "have had masses reliably determined" qualify as "total unknowns."

I understand your reluctance to do the math, either out of inability or because you know that even at 1122 Hz the centripetal force would not exceed the force gravity.

Originally posted by nataylor
Ah, very good dodge of the question. I gave you my "assumptions" (which are the widely scientifically accepted values for neutron stars). We know the rotation rate. What's your calculation for centripetal force?

I've shown my math and done the calculations. You've said "retarded." You suggest Einstein is wrong not because the math doesn't work out, but because the idea is "retarded." I trust people will value these two arguments accordingly.

a star with two solar masses and a radius of 16,000 meters rotating at 1122 hz, I get 3.16339 10^42 N for centrifugal force

Does that make you happy?

Oh yes, I see what you want now.

You want the force on a neutron being rotated on such an object.

3.69963 10^-13 N for the case of a neutron.

Originally posted by mnemeth1

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.

edit on 20-10-2010 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)

You have made yourself, from what I've seen on your other threads, sound very stupid many other times.

First of all the increase in spin is easily explained with the laws of angular momentum. Since angular momentum has to be conserved when an object collapses it increases speed to magnitudes far above it's previous speed. This is all due to the angular momentum, and mass, before the gravitational collapse.

Second of all I noticed in another thread you said that all cases of black holes, or something along the lines of that, where neutron stars. Would you mind telling me why you say something can't exist, then say it has to exist for something else not to exist?

Third the reason you don't weigh anything at the center of any celestial object, provided that object being circular, is because gravity pulls on you equally from all directions. I.e. balancing you out. Then since weight is dependent on gravity and mass you wouldn't way anything.

Did that help you?

reply to post by binomialtheorem


From what I've seen, you've made your self sound stupid in many other threads.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by binomialtheorem

 

From what I've seen, you've made your self sound stupid in many other threads.

Would you mind answering the question?

(As have you)

Originally posted by binomialtheorem

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by binomialtheorem

 

From what I've seen, you've made your self sound stupid in many other threads.

Would you mind answering the question?

(As have you)

edit on 20-10-2010 by binomialtheorem because: decided to join in on his banter

1. I never said anything about increasing or decreasing spin rates.

2. black holes violate special relativity

3. I don't dispute that.

So thanks for pointing out stuff I already knew.

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by binomialtheorem

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by binomialtheorem

 

From what I've seen, you've made your self sound stupid in many other threads.

Would you mind answering the question?

(As have you)

edit on 20-10-2010 by binomialtheorem because: decided to join in on his banter

1. I never said anything about increasing or decreasing spin rates.

2. black holes violate special relativity

3. I don't dispute that.

So thanks for pointing out stuff I already knew.

1. So it was someone else who posted this?

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!

2. Explain.

3. Good

I was pointing out a few things you should know.

reply to post by binomialtheorem


Is there something wrong with what I wrote?

I take it you actually believe this crackpottery.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by binomialtheorem

 

Is there something wrong with what I wrote?

I take it you actually believe this crackpottery.

math.ucr.edu...

Have you done anything here?

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by nataylor
Show your math. I've shown that centripetal force does not exceed gravity. You have shown nothing. Saying something is "retarded" isn't showing your work. You need to demonstrate things. Can you show the centripetal force exceeds gravity? Let's see your numbers.

Otherwise, you are just ranting and consider this some kind of intuitive issue where math doesn't matter. That's not science.

Math doesn't matter when you:

1. Don't know what the star is made out of (mass)
2. Don't know its actual diameter/radius

Any calculations I do will be based on total unknowns.

Ah, very good dodge of the question. I gave you my "assumptions" (which are the widely scientifically accepted values for neutron stars). We know the rotation rate. What's your calculation for centripetal force?

I've shown my math and done the calculations. You've said "retarded." You suggest Einstein is wrong not because the math doesn't work out, but because the idea is "retarded." I trust people will value these two arguments accordingly.

neutron on a star with two solar masses and a radius of 16,000 meters rotating at 1122 hz, I get 3.16339 10^42 N for centrifugal force

Does that make you happy?

That seems to be way off. I get 1.33186864*10^-15 N.

Let's look at the case of a single neutron on the equator of a neutron star of two solar masses and a radius of 16km rotating 1,122 times per second.

Here's my math:

Assumptions: Radius: 16,000 m. Mass of neutron star: 3.97784*10^30 kg. Mass of neutron: 1.67492729*10^-27 kg. Rotational frequency of neutron star: 1,122 Hz.

Centripetal force in a circle (F) is equal to the mass of the object (m) times the rotational speed (v) squared, over the radius. Or F= (mv^2)/r

Let's find the rotational speed of the equator first. That's going to be in meters per second. The circumference (c) is 2pi*r. We know r is 16,000 m. That gives a circumference of 100,530.965 m. We know the star is rotating 1,122 times per second, so that circumference is being traversed 1,122 times per second, or 1,122(c). So in one second, a point on the equator will travel 112,795,743 m. That gives us the value v for our F= (mv^2)/r calculation.

We know the mass of a neutron (m) is 1.67492729*10^-27 kg. We know the radius is 16,000 m. So lets take our value v of 112,795,743 m/s and square it. That's 1.27228796*10^16 m^2/s^2. Now let's multiply that by the mass of the neutron, 1.67492729*10^-27 kg, to get 2.13098982*10^-11 kg*m^2/s^2. Now we divide by the radius r (16,000 m). That gives us 1.33186864*10^-15 kg*m/s^2.

Centripetal force: 1.33186864*10^-15 N.

Now lets do gravity:

The force of gravity in a two-body system (F) is equal to the gravitational constant (G) times the mass of the first object (m1), times the mass of the second object (m2), over the distance between them (r) squared. Or F=G(m1*m2)/r^2.

The gravitational constant G is 6.6726*10^-11 N*m^2/kg^2. The first mass m1 is the star, or 3.97784*10^30 kg. The second mass m2 is the neutron, or 1.67492729*10^-27 kg. Multiply all those together and you get 4.44568165*10^-7 N*m^2. Now we take the distance between the two objects (which is to the center when dealing with spherical objects). We can assume the radius of the neutron is so small that it doesn't count, so we know the distance is equal to the radius of the star, or 16,000 m. Let's square that to get 256,000,000 m^2. Now we take our previously calculated value of 4.44568165*10^-7 N*m^2 and divide by our radius squared to get 1.73659439*10^-15 N.

Gravitational force: 1.73659439*10^-15 N
Centripetal force: 1.33186864*10^-15 N

Or, the gravitational force is 1.3 times as large as the centripetal force.

reply to post by nataylor


That's wrong.

I get 1.33187 10^-9 N

I miss calculated 3.69963 10^-13 because I used revolutions per minute instead of revolutions per second.

-16000 meter radius
-1122 hz angular speed
-1.0086649156 u mass

= 1.33187 10^-9 N Centrifugal force

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by nataylor

 

That's wrong.

I get 1.33187 10^-9 N

I miss calculated 3.69963 10^-13 because I used revolutions per minute instead of revolutions per second.

-16000 meter radius
-1122 hz angular speed
-1.0086649156 u mass

= 1.33187 10^-9 N Centrifugal force

edit on 20-10-2010 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)

Show me where it's wrong. I went through every step in detail.

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by nataylor

 

That's wrong.

I get 1.33187 10^-9 N

I miss calculated 3.69963 10^-13 because I used revolutions per minute instead of revolutions per second.

-16000 meter radius
-1122 hz angular speed
-1.0086649156 u mass

= 1.33187 10^-9 N Centrifugal force

edit on 20-10-2010 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)

Show me where it's wrong. I went through every step in detail.

Centrifugal force is mass * (linear speed / radius)^2 * radius

for an easy check, look at the calculator

www.calctool.org...

I didn't check your conversions, but I suspect they are wrong.