Pulsars Don't Exist

reply to post by mnemeth1


Seriously buddy you are so passionate about this crazy science that makes no sense, I do not understand why you do not use this as a good thing and study real science.

Are there things we cannot explain sure, but going crazy does not help that.

I choose to not argue with you because I really think you have no real understanding of special relativity. If you truly understood it you would know that is where the idea of black holes came from and also, the crazy idea of wormholes.

When you understand the math and concepts of it you'll get it.

I think your a very smart guy that has been lead down the wrong path, go get a couple text books and study relativity and you'll have a better thought process involved.

Get on the right side, if it is against mainstream science, do real research, not copy off of one site with a few scientists that have lost their way.

You can say what you want about mainstream science and the corruption there, but when you have the equations and the research to back it up they will have no choice but to accept it. They always have and always will things will not change, we would not have advanced as much in the past 100 years if things were ran to suppress science.

Science that goes against big corporations gets bought by them not killed.

People need more common sense and research skills.

Pred...

Originally posted by mnemeth1

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.

There's something wrong with the calculator on that page. When you enter the values of

Radius: 16000 m
Angular speed: 1122 Hz
Mass: 0.00000000000000167492729 ng

You get my result of 1.33187*10^-15 N.

When you enter your values of

Radius: 16000 m
Angular speed: 1122 Hz
Mass: 1.0086649156 u (Da)

You get your result of 1.33187*10-9.

The problem? 1.0086649156 u is equal to 0.00000000000000167492729 ng (or 1.67492729*10^-27 kg).

At any rate, my value is the correct one. Your calculator is off by 6 orders of magnitude.

reply to post by predator0187


I love it when people who have no f'n clue what special and general relativity represent lecture me on how little I know about them.

Sir.

Please.

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by mnemeth1

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.

There's something wrong with the calculator on that page. When you enter the values of

Radius: 16000 m
Angular speed: 1122 Hz
Mass: 0.00000000000000167492729 ng

You get my result of 1.33187*10^-15 N.

When you enter your values of

Radius: 16000 m
Angular speed: 1122 Hz
Mass: 1.0086649156 u (Da)

You get your result of 1.33187*10-9.

The problem? 1.0086649156 u is equal to 0.00000000000000167492729 ng (or 1.67492729*10^-27 kg).

At any rate, my value is the correct one. Your calculator is off by 6 orders of magnitude.

I think its the other way around.

reply to post by mnemeth1


I have read most of your posts and threads and see very little "real" science.

I have studied special relativity in depth and I am telling you, along with many other physicists that you are not clear on what you are talking about.

No insults intended buddy I think your smart, I just think you need to understand the concepts your talking about a little better.

No disrespect intended.

Pred...

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by mnemeth1

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.

There's something wrong with the calculator on that page. When you enter the values of

Radius: 16000 m
Angular speed: 1122 Hz
Mass: 0.00000000000000167492729 ng

You get my result of 1.33187*10^-15 N.

When you enter your values of

Radius: 16000 m
Angular speed: 1122 Hz
Mass: 1.0086649156 u (Da)

You get your result of 1.33187*10-9.

The problem? 1.0086649156 u is equal to 0.00000000000000167492729 ng (or 1.67492729*10^-27 kg).

At any rate, my value is the correct one. Your calculator is off by 6 orders of magnitude.

I think its the other way around.

Do the calculations by hand. You'll come up with my value. Pretty simple to check. Your reliance on that flawed calculator is holding you back.

It's pretty easy for anyone to see that calculator has a problem by plugging in the numbers I gave and then converting 0.00000000000000167492729 ng to atomic mass units to see that 0.00000000000000167492729 ng is equal to 1.0086649156 u is equal to 1.67492729*10^-27 kg, the mass of a neutron.

Originally posted by Wertdagf
unfortunatley for the rest of everyones egos here.... the OP is right. We are all gonna have to admit it.

The main stream physics community has been controlled for the last century, for good reason.

What do you mean by controlled?

Controlled by whom?

I hate to tell you but in the last century we have made the most advancements in human history. Whoever is "controlling"' it is doing a good job.

I always love comments like this because most of our science has been proven. Do we have a lot to discover? absolutely. Do we have a lot of work ahead of us? Of course.

To get there we need to build on proven science, concepts will change of course, but there is a reason we think it is true, and it is not because it is controlled.

Pred...

reply to post by nataylor


hmmm...

It does look like there is a problem with the Da conversion.

I really have nothing to add as most of this is above my head.

From what I know of physics and quantum physics isn't what we know currently just our best guess? Aren't the theories of these things being revised all the time as new information comes to light?

What about the electric universe theory?

I will say thought, this is an excellent debate thread, very informative and I commend you guys for keeping it relatively civil .

I'm looking forward to reading the rest .

~Keeper

Double post....

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by nataylor

 

hmmm...

It does look like there is a problem with the Da conversion.

I'd like to offer a hearty handshake for admitting that.

I think we can both agree that real science means not holding on to ideas in the face of facts. Science is about constant refinement. When you think about it, that means every idea, every theory, every concept except our current best ones were at least partial failures.

reply to post by nataylor


I'm not one to argue with facts - just theory.

reply to post by mnemeth1


SF And this is why I come to ATS, to see thought provoking discussions such as this. I seen a computer model of a universe that showed what a pulsar star looked like on the History Channels The Universe and was sort of curious about the sudo-science involved. We know little about these types of phenomenon in the universe and should just not speculate that things exist. Also these types of theories should not be just mascaraded as fact on mainstream tv. Thanks all.

reply to post by mnemeth1


It does not come apart because of the extreme density of the pulsar and thus the incredible amount of gravity generated. The mass of a teaspoon of a white dwarf weighs somewhere in the range of 1000 tons on earth, and the pulsar is that much more dense. It's emense gravity of the upper layers pulled inward more than make up for the tremendous rotational forces.

Very nice read op thanks
Most of your ideas are good and i think you have seen through the vale there are many things in science physics
that make no sense black holes/singularity's ect math or no math (it's crazy) one wrong calculation or perceived variable and you will come up with a hole lot of crazy theory's to explain a hole lot of stuff that never happened, or that is not actually there or only exists because we think that the something we cant see is something its not

Stars and flags good read

Originally posted by mnemeth1


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.




Quantum mechanics is ludicrous but it is true.

And what DOES happen according to the laws of physics when you have a star which has a large mass but no more nuclear fuel which can fuse? Gravity and conservation of angular momentum do not take a holiday, ever.

Why is it "dumb" to believe in something that is observed in all sorts of electromagnetic bands, and is known to occur as a remnant of a supernova? The observations are a fact. What's a better explanation?

reply to post by Freedom_is_Slavery


Once again we have a lot to learn we don't even understand our planet yet we believe we can understand space and heavenly body's give me a break science and physics are mere toddlers in the grand scheme of it all and is growing and changing by the minute it is good to listen to new ideas and thoughts or to go over previous things taken as absolute because that is where errors are noticed and change happens

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
I really have nothing to add as most of this is above my head.

From what I know of physics and quantum physics isn't what we know currently just our best guess? Aren't the theories of these things being revised all the time as new information comes to light?

No, principles of nuclear physics, angular momentum and relativity relevant to neutron stars have been the same since the 1920'-1930's and have, so far, never been proven wrong.

What about the electric universe theory?

Crucified on the WMAP data.

Originally posted by mnemeth1

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.

Indeed, that's why they're called "neutron stars". In a sufficiently large gravitational potential (big mass) of a star you convert proton + leptons into a neutron.

In atoms there are no "entirely neutronic" nuclei because there are weak force transitions which decay them to protons + stuff, but in the gravitational potential of a neutron star things are different.

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.

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

So, why are the pulses so regular? Why are pulsars found in supernova remnants? And why does the period increase ever so slightly at exactly the rate expected from loss from GR's gravitational radiation?

Originally posted by mbkennel

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
I really have nothing to add as most of this is above my head.

From what I know of physics and quantum physics isn't what we know currently just our best guess? Aren't the theories of these things being revised all the time as new information comes to light?

No, principles of nuclear physics, angular momentum and relativity relevant to neutron stars have been the same since the 1920'-1930's and have, so far, never been proven wrong.

What about the electric universe theory?

Crucified on the WMAP data.

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

I beg to differ.

It was the standard model that was crucified.

The WMAP has shown the existence of large scale cold and hot spots in the supposed “cosmic background” from the big bang.[10] These cold and hot spots were not predicted and stand in direct contradiction to predictions made by the theory of general relativity.[11] Further, as the ACG so eloquently states:

“It seems that there are spurious temperature anisotropies that are comparable with the entire anisotropy found in the WMAP team’s maps. Therefore the entire analysis of cosmological parameters based on these maps is wrong. Indeed it seems very puzzling that an analysis that is so contaminated with errors should come up with parameters anywhere near those expected by LCDM models.”[12]


as for neutron stars being proved wrong, previous theory held 700 hz was the max spin rate - until of course the 1122 hz whopper was found, after which theories were magically revised.