Pulsars Don't Exist

Originally posted 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.

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.

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

You have just described an impossible scenario: if you carve out the center of the moon the matter left around the outer periphery will collapse and give rise to the pressure you claim not to exist.

-rrr

Originally posted by whatukno
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.

It's a red herring. Your weight is not what matters but the pressure.

-rrr

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Considering we don't know jack squat about our own Sun, I find such theories about what stars do when they explode to be nothing more than geeks writing science fiction.

I highly doubt stars ever do explode.

why?

Originally posted by mnemeth1
In fact, not only do I think the whole theory of neutron stars is preposterous, I also think the current theory of our own sun is totally preposterous.

How come?

Originally posted by mnemeth1
The entire theory of stars is one huge exercise in fraudulent physics.

Says who, and based on what?

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Magnetic reconnection violates conservation laws.

The sun's atmosphere is hotter than its surface.

The solar model itself violates conservation laws.

Really? please elaborate!

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Sun spots are cold, yet they are the farthest we can see into the sun - and they are totally unexplained in any rational fashion by the solar "dynamo" model,

Sun spots are not "into the sun" when we see them. By then the gases have undergone a rapid expansion. Surely you must remember the law of ideal gases.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
which is yet another totally unfounded, untested, unscientific hypothesis.

Oh really? Seems like the conclusions you draw from the temperature of sun spots are not well founded or tested either.

You are entertaining!

-rrr

Originally posted by mnemeth1
For example, explain why physicists treat astrophysical plasma as a perfect conductor when they know damn well from lab experiments that it is not.

Answer me that oh wise one.

They must do it just to mess with your head, It seems to be working! LOL!!!


-rrr

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Its very silly, i can smell the sillyness, scientists are rubbish even that bloke in a wheelchair, i bet he's never even seen a pulsar, well i have, there is one at the end of my street and i can tell you it isnt no where near as big as wot an asteroid is and it isnt spinning faster than light. Scientists just want you to believe stuff for the sake of it and i am way, way more cleverer than that. I can count to twenty three WITHOUT TAKING MY SOCKS OFF and once when i went to a shop i worked out how much change i should get before the assistant did....and he was'nt even a female, so dont come all this 'la de da' space science bunkum with me cos i got a reputation in da hood and respec is my middle name innit

Good point, but you forget about the space mouse glue, it hold 'em strong them energy bundles keemosavvy and spinning like a crazy horse is actually the norm for stuff in the universe. Its getting things to SLOW DOWN that can sometimes be an issue.

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

And there is virtually no centripetal force.

So 700 hz rotation rates generates "virtually no centripetal force"

ok.

Well you said centre of the star SO low to zero radius so no centripel force! Is that not correct if you look at the exact centre of the star.

You know you remind me of this guy

www.youtube.com...

He thinks all the great minds were wrong as well!

reply to post by mnemeth1


Black holes violate the laws of physics also. That is the Holy Grail of physics. A theory that doesn't break down inside black holes etc.

reply to post by mnemeth1

Wouldn't it be more accurate to claim that Pulsars do exist, they are just not what we think they are (or what we were told they are)?

So let me guess, Pulsars are high energy bursts of radio waves that propagate omnidirectional away from the source and are not focused energy beams from rotating neutron stars. This would make Pulsars more of an electrical phenomena than a gravitational one.

We can reproduce this electrically but not gravitationally, it's scalable electrically. We have electronic devices that produce electrical signals thousands of times and even millions of times per second (microfarad capacitors) and I don't know of any reproduction of the same gravitationally outside of the lighthouse comparison and these rates of rotations are very limited.

I tend to find the mainstream explanation of Pulsars very hard to accept. I'm sure that with time new Pulsars will be found with signal rates above 10 KHz and even MHz ranges. Perhaps they have already been found yet go beyond current explanation and therefore fall into the "unknown" category and are ignored.

reply to post by Devino


That's pretty much it in a nut shell.

Of course, I'm the crazy one for not believing that asteroids made out of pure neutrons are spinning around at the speed of light while shooting beams of energy at us.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Devino

 

That's pretty much it in a nut shell.

Of course, I'm the crazy one for not believing that asteroids made out of pure neutrons are spinning around at the speed of light while shooting beams of energy at us.

Underlined! Thats it change what you first stated because others show your assumptions are wrong.
Collapsed star not asteroid and not spining at the speed of light and they dont shoot a beam at us, they rotate so the beam is like a light house we only see it when turned towards us!

reply to post by mnemeth1


Here's a thought, couldn't these pulses be from rotating spherical standing waves that emit radio waves? Rather than the star itself rotating at impossible rates this spherical standing radio wave is rotating at these observed speeds and send out a signal at wave amplitude and is null during rarefaction.

Oh and by the way, the word many people here are looking for is "Centrifugal" force. Centripetal is "center seeking" or towards the center and Centrifugal is the fictitious force that tends to throw you away from the center. It is the inertia to the inward spinning acceleration.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Anyone that thinks the standard model is "self-consistent" hasn't bothered to actually look at the models.
Perhaps you should spend some time reading the journal articles and educate yourself before getting on your high horse.
For example, explain why physicists treat astrophysical plasma as a perfect conductor when they know damn well from lab experiments that it is not.
Answer me that oh wise one.

What I mean by the standard model being self-consistent is that there are very few places where it breaks down; you could get a nobel prize if you can find evidence of physics beyond the standard model.

Speaking of journal articles, let me just grab some off my desk and refer them to you:

"Electron conduction along quantizing magnetic fields in neutron star crusts" Potekhin and Yakovlev 1996

"An introduction to the theory of diffusive shock acceleration of energetic particles in tenuous plasmas" Drury 1983

"Pair annihilation in superstrong magnetic fields" Daugherty and Bussard 1979

If you look at these papers, you may realize we are way past deciding if pulsars exist or not. We're working instead on modeling the polar jets, to better understand why pulsars have the spectrum they do. It's done by simulating the models, tailoring them to agree with the data (not the other way around).

As far as I know, we don't ever treat astrophysical plasma like a perfect conductor, because, as you said, it's not. The 2 categories of plasma models are kinetic and fluid. Kinetic theories are statistical, and can account for things like electrostatic collisions of the individual particles in the plasma. Fluid theories are useful for studying plasma waves, among other things. In fact, in ideal magnetohydrodynamics, (i.e. a fluid plasma theory), you actually have a fluid version of Ohm's law, which describes the resistivity. Let me know if you have a reference that assumes perfect conduction, but we usually assume nonzero resistivity and have equations relating it to other quantities like the current density.

*gets back on high horse*

reply to post by Devino


I thought so too. I thought I was the stupid one for thinking centripetal accelerations were center directed.

Originally posted by Balboa

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Anyone that thinks the standard model is "self-consistent" hasn't bothered to actually look at the models.
Perhaps you should spend some time reading the journal articles and educate yourself before getting on your high horse.
For example, explain why physicists treat astrophysical plasma as a perfect conductor when they know damn well from lab experiments that it is not.
Answer me that oh wise one.

What I mean by the standard model being self-consistent is that there are very few places where it breaks down; you could get a nobel prize if you can find evidence of physics beyond the standard model.

Speaking of journal articles, let me just grab some off my desk and refer them to you:

"Electron conduction along quantizing magnetic fields in neutron star crusts" Potekhin and Yakovlev 1996

"An introduction to the theory of diffusive shock acceleration of energetic particles in tenuous plasmas" Drury 1983

"Pair annihilation in superstrong magnetic fields" Daugherty and Bussard 1979

If you look at these papers, you may realize we are way past deciding if pulsars exist or not. We're working instead on modeling the polar jets, to better understand why pulsars have the spectrum they do. It's done by simulating the models, tailoring them to agree with the data (not the other way around).

As far as I know, we don't ever treat astrophysical plasma like a perfect conductor, because, as you said, it's not. The 2 categories of plasma models are kinetic and fluid. Kinetic theories are statistical, and can account for things like electrostatic collisions of the individual particles in the plasma. Fluid theories are useful for studying plasma waves, among other things. In fact, in ideal magnetohydrodynamics, (i.e. a fluid plasma theory), you actually have a fluid version of Ohm's law, which describes the resistivity. Let me know if you have a reference that assumes perfect conduction, but we usually assume nonzero resistivity and have equations relating it to other quantities like the current density.

*gets back on high horse*

They are going to look like raging idiots when the first probe gets to a pulsar and we all see that it's not spinning at 66,000 times per minute. Granted they will all be dead by then, but they will still look like idiots to the future generation that has to undo the gigantic mess of a theory they are creating. Considering Jupiter doesn't spin around on its axis at millisecond rates, yet it emits millisecond pulses, I have to consider the standard model of pulsars to be a joke.

Given that Peratt, Dessler, and Healy have come up with models of pulsars that don't require fictitious forms of matter and fit the data better - I think I'll stick with them.

And yes, the entire field of magnetohydrodynamics constantly treats the fields as frozen in.

If it didn't, then the physicists would have to contend with Kirchoff's rules. The plasma MUST obey circuit laws. These can not be circumvented by claiming preposterous nonsense such as magnetic reconnection and frozen fields.

Magnetic reconnection is a complete joke of a theory. It is a fraud of science. Any idiot knows that magnetic fields can not merge nor snap. Magnetic reconnection violates conservation laws of physics, it creates energy from nothing.

The standard theory of reconnection treats the fields as completely frozen with no resistance and then assumes additional energy out of NOTHING to create the cascade.

This is not only preposterous because it violates conservation laws, it is also totally preposterous because WE KNOW what the hell is going on! Ask any electrical engineer that works with plasma and he will say the "magnetic reconnection" events they are trying to model are nothing more than exploding double layers.

reply to post by mnemeth1

Hi ,

thanks for the reply , I did read your post , I didnt read the article because I use ATS primarly at work and dont always have time to read through the full on articles .
I just wanted to know what you thought pulsars were .
So pulses of electricity along these transmission lines through fields of plasma are being recorded by our radio telescopes on earth as apposed to the rapid spinning of the star itself .
What is it then that causes the pulsing ?

Just to chuck this in at the end , why would scientists use the accepted theory on pulsars , as apposed to a theory you and others share ?

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Devino

 

That's pretty much it in a nut shell.

Of course, I'm the crazy one for not believing that asteroids made out of pure neutrons are spinning around at the speed of light while shooting beams of energy at us.

lol, I tend to agree.

Ive had a few discussions on this with a guy from lockheed who helped put cassini up...
and he seems to feel the same way.
one night the telescope builder in the group at the time told us we were' crazy' also..


So, I must ask.. mnemeth1..
what do you think they actually are?

Sorry if i missed it,
im over tired and could only get thru about 4 pages before i had to stop and yap for a second. lol
Thanks.

See when you say energy out of nothing !

Isnt that how the universe began, energy from nothing ,since before the supposed big bang there was as far as we know nothing !

Originally posted by sapien82
See when you say energy out of nothing !

Isnt that how the universe began, energy from nothing ,since before the supposed big bang there was as far as we know nothing !

Not exactly. What ever existed 'before' the big bang (and its not sure there was a 'before' as such as time may not have existed until it manifested at the point of the big bang), but whatever existed had to have had the potential to become this universe, so potential existed as the 'type' of energy that became this universe.

That said, even the big bang is disputed nowadays, quite a few new, cool theories worth checking out about what happened 'before'. Here is good recent documentary from the BBC www.bbc.co.uk...

Originally posted by Ahmose
lol, I tend to agree.

Ive had a few discussions on this with a guy from lockheed who helped put cassini up...
and he seems to feel the same way.
one night the telescope builder in the group at the time told us we were' crazy' also..

So, I must ask.. mnemeth1..
what do you think they actually are?

Sorry if i missed it,
im over tired and could only get thru about 4 pages before i had to stop and yap for a second. lol
Thanks.

The simplified version is as follows:

They are nothing more than pulses bouncing back and forth on an electrical transmission line made out of plasma.

Just as we can have energy pulses cascade across our electrical grids, so too can stars have pulses that bounce back and forth in their plasma fields.

Since plasma is a near perfect conductor, the attenuation rate of an energy pulse bouncing along a plasma stream would be extremely low. This would enable a pulse to bounce back and forth for insanely long periods of time. The same time we see in pulsar "spin down" rates.

mnemeth1...

Have you ever considered that the rate of spin is directly connected to the fact that the star is on the verge of collapse into a black hole.

For a neutron star to spin at such rates it has collapsed to a point where the spin is preventing it from decaying further.

In other words the higher the mass of the neutron star, the faster it has to spin to prevent it from collapsing beyond the Schwarzschild radius.

Do you see?

The entropy of the neutrons themselves means that over time neutron stars get smaller and so spin gradually slower over time.

Korg.