Exploring the magnetic personalities of stars

Well the song We are Stardust We are Golden, was written by Joni Mitchell and maybe sung by CSN but definitely not written by them.

I would like to know what the field strength of these 'unfathomable' magnetic fields are, not mentioned in the piece. I thought magnetars make the strongest fields with gauss readings in the billions and trillions, so what are the gauss readings of the simulation?

the simulations are scaled up to 64,000 cores, giving the team a more realistic picture of the magnetic activity in a CCSN.

How do they know that the scaled up picture is "more realistic"? "More interesting" I'll believe, but by what measure do they determine how realistic it is?

This latest discovery is just one more step toward unraveling the mysteries of CCSNs.

This latest "discovery" is just one more step toward unraveling the mysteries of complex models, and the misapplication of their results as being evidence of objective extant reality.

"The magnetic fields of almost unfathomable strength . . . "

Come from the neutron star at the core of stars, obscured from view by waste products (H and He) in the photosphere ["Neutron Repulsion," The APEIRON Journal in press (2011), 19 pages

arxiv.org/pdf/1102.1499v1

See also: Huang, S.-S., "A nuclear-accretion theory of star formation," Astronomical Society of the Pacific, vol. 69, 1957, pp. 427-430; Dzhunushaliev, V., Folomeev, V., Kleihaus, B. and Kunz, J., A star harbouring a wormhole at its center, 22 February 201, 15 pp.

arxiv.org/pdf/1102.4454v1

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel

=But the evolution and nature of these elemental fountains is still a mystery, one of the greatest unsolved problems in astrophysics.= It can explain the solar fountains but publications of the spectral data are prohibited. Each stellar shell is an amazing cradle of nuclides. Violent Thermonuclear Bombardment by lightist particles, protons, neutrons, deuteriums.....and alpha particles produce an impressive turbulent shell that is a cradle of nuclides. Each shell is a plasma diffusor that sorts atoms by mass.
http://www.neutro...es/1.pdf
K. Margiani

hmmmm - looks like a slack-jawed video gamer wearing headphones to me. (sorry, I couldn't resist).

@omatumr: Last month I read Su-Shu Huang's "A nuclear-accretion theory of star formation" of 1957, just as you have suggested on this site. Page 427 says "Stars do not form by gravitational collapse of an interstellar cloud. They form on the collapsed cores of precursor stars-pulsars. We here propose a theory of the formation of stars from pre-stellar nuclei."

My immediate thought was: Where in the world does "pre-stellar nuclei" come from?? You can't just make up a word and not explain it!!

The answer is on page 428: "For the formation of pre-stellar nuclei, no definite process has yet been proposed."

This is all bull crap, pure and simple. Please do not mention this again as an example of STAR FORMATION. It is pure bunk.

@omatumr: Last month I read Su-Shu Huang's "A nuclear-accretion theory of star formation" of 1957, just as you have suggested on this site. Page 427 says "Stars do not form by gravitational collapse of an interstellar cloud. They form on the collapsed cores of precursor stars-pulsars. We here propose a theory of the formation of stars from pre-stellar nuclei."

My immediate thought was: Where in the world does "pre-stellar nuclei" come from?? You can't just make up a word and not explain it!!

The answer is on page 428: "For the formation of pre-stellar nuclei, no definite process has yet been proposed."

This is all bull crap, pure and simple. Please do not mention this again as an example of STAR FORMATION. It is pure bunk.

No, the problem is yours.

Study the evidence for fragmentation of massive neutron stars at the centers of galaxies and you may learn beyond "groupthink."

arxiv.org/pdf/1102.1499v1

"Study the evidence for fragmentation of massive neutron stars at the centers of galaxies and you may learn beyond "groupthink."

arxiv.org/pdf/1102.1499v1"

Oliver, the paper you refer to contains NO mention of the words "galaxy" or "galaxies". Why do you point those with legitimate questions to references with no direct mention of the phenomenon you are trying to explain ("...fragmentation of massive neutron stars at the center of galaxies...")?

(I know of other papers of yours that DO mention this so why cite a non-relevant source?)

Some time ago I asked you for papers describing observations of individual (named) galaxies that explicitly mention "fragmentation" of (supermassive?) neutron stars at the nucleus as the dominant mechanism being observed. Your reply at the time was that such observations did not exist. Are such published observations available now?

Unfortunately that simulation is not very realistic looking.
It looks like water vs a plasma. Notice how there is no filamentation as you would see in a real plasma.

No, the problem is yours.

Study the evidence for fragmentation of massive neutron stars at the centers of galaxies and you may learn beyond "groupthink."

arxiv.org/pdf/1102.1499v1

How does neutron stars at the center of galaxies tally with Arps work on ejection from Seyferts??

Oliver has one of toadies on the site now. Its either a sockpuppet or the naive kid that is making his videos as the posts are purely toadying up to Oliver.

Oliver there is nothing new in those 19 pages. Nothing that turns neutron repulsion into reality. Nothing that makes the Sun COLDER at the core than at the surface. Its just the usual Cranking.

Only now you have a sockpuppet-toady just like you had on the Physics Forum. No one that contributes anything except more quotes of your unsupported silliness.

How to find Oliver on other sites. Just search for Peter Toth - pulsar. Even Peter Toth doesn't mention it so you only get Oliver or a toady. Unless Peter only writes about it in Magyar.

Ethelred

Oliver, the paper you refer to contains NO mention of the words "galaxy" or "galaxies". vailable now?

Sorry. See: "On the cosmic nuclear cycle and the similarity of nuclei and stars'" J. Fusion Energy 25 (2006) 107:

http://arxiv.org/...511051v1

"However if the collapse of a neutron star is halted by neutron repulsion before becoming a
singularity (a black hole), then repulsive interactions in super-massive neutron stars are the likely energy source that fragments cosmic matter to create clusters of galaxies, galaxies of stars, and planetary systems"

W. K. Brown, Astrophys. & Space Sci., 72, 15-31 (1980).
W. K. Brown, Astrophys. & Space Sci., 121, 351-355 (1986).
W. K. Brown, Astrophys. & Space Sci., 122, 287-298 (1986).
W. K. Brown and L. A. Gritzo, Astrophys. & Space Sci., 123, 161-181 (1986).
W. K. Brown, Astrophys. & Space Sci., 126, 255-267 (1986).
G. A. Harutyunian, Astrophys., 46, 81-91 (2003); Astrofizika, 46, no. 1, 103-118 (2003)

K.Margiani
From Naked Scientist

Thus, if Atlantis City really ever existed, modern coordinates of the golden temple which lies beneath the ocean are that; Latitude: 37:19N, Longitude: 24:58W.
I discovered the Atlantis City! Sorry Vern only the graveyard! 3/4 of the Golden City is covered by thickest magma layers.
Through the Google; Latitude: 37:19 N, Longitude: 24:58 W.

He thinks Atlantis was real. So I guess Neutron Repulsion would seem like rock solid science to him.

ttp://historicmysteries.com/how-old-is-the-sphinx/comment-page-1

The Giza project began by survived Atlantians after 10,465 B.C. and finished approximately in 10,400 B.C.

His website
ttp://www.cosmogeology.ge/

The US doesn't have all the Cranks. Georgia seems to have it's share as well. That is the Georgia that Stalin came from not the Georgia that Jimmy Carter is from. So he isn't a sockpuppet. He Cranks all on his own.

Ethelred

See also:

"It now seems more likely that asymmetric stellar explosions, bipolar outflows [117] and
flares [118] are powered by neutron repulsion [98] and guided by the magnetic field of
the neutron core [112] or the iron-rich material that surrounds it [118]. Neutron decay
into oppositely charged H+ and e-, in the presence of a strong magnetic field, may initiate
the electrical currents that have long puzzled careful observers of the Sun and other
stellar objects [106,119,120].

Conclusions

Dynamic competition between gravitational attraction and neutron repulsion sustains our
dynamic universe, the Sun, and life on planet Earth. Nuclear matter in the solar system is
mostly dissociating rather than coalescing (fusing together). "

"Neutron Repulsion" [The APEIRON Journal in press (2011), pages 10-11

arxiv.org/pdf/1102.1499v1

Oliver, the paper you refer to contains NO mention of the words "galaxy" or "galaxies".

This video on neutron repulsion discusses fragmentation of galactic centers:

youtube.com/watch?v=sXNyLYSiPO0

In addition clue is in the link
http://www.youtub...vk2wDYwc
to explain how the oldest objects in solar system indicate a turbulent beginning
http://www.physor...ent.html
The origin place of the solar system was from the turbulent streams of the parent star.
The injection event interrelated to violent nucleo-synthesis reactions in the deep interior of the spots. Each spot is a highly radioactive matter by means of the violent thermonuclear bombardment through the shell. It causes periodic catastrophic concentration of the super heavy matter. The spectral data of the giant protuberances and flares vividly show the demolished super heavy matter, by powerful nuclear reaction. But publications of the spectral data are prohibited. The data contradicts to old view on hydrogen-helium ball
K. Margiani

In addition clue is in the link

Yes. It is a clue. That you are yet another Crank.

Atlantis is a fantasy. There is NO evidence for it. Just ONE story about a story that the author couldn't be bothered to complete. The rest is even more obviously fantasy because it came from one single source The Sleeping Fraud and his successor a notorious fraud herself.

If you buy into crap like that you are likely to accept anything.

Ethelred

Sub: SUN Links-up -ADTYA
Sun links-up Aditya- which is a missing links in most of Indian texts- overlook a basic fact- that help Magnetic Vision.1. JIJNASA and 2.OM VISION SEARCH-ORIGINS-ADITYA LINKS TO SUN-HELIOSPHERE [COSMIC VISION-SOLAR ORBITER]
Proposals to ESA groups and application -Copyrights -USA[Dec 2010]- See cosmology Vedas Interlinks-Information on my books-
http://www.scribd...ormation
http://www.scribd...40713557
Vidyardhi Nanduri

Oliver, the paper you refer to contains NO mention of the words "galaxy" or "galaxies".

This video on neutron repulsion discusses fragmentation of galactic centers:

youtube.com/watch?v=sXNyLYSiPO0

Yeah, not a reliable source. Either bring the peer reviewed research, with observations, or go away.

Atlantis is a fantasy. There is NO evidence for it. Just ONE story about a story that the author couldn't be bothered to complete.

It could be just a fantasy (of Plato).
And it could be a myth based on the Thira/Santorini eruption around 1600 or 1500 BC. (Archaeological and radiological data are not yet synchronized.)

Atlantis is a fantasy. There is NO evidence for it. Just ONE story about a story that the author couldn't be bothered to complete.

It could be just a fantasy (of Plato).
And it could be a myth based on the Thira/Santorini eruption around 1600 or 1500 BC. (Archaeological and radiological data are not yet synchronized.)

And when you look at the cursory dating, as you outlined above, this agrees with the direct statement within the story of Atlantis sinking beneathe the waves 900 years prior to the time of Solon. (Keep in mind Plato's 10x multiplier error when it comes to dates).

However, another potential is that he was referring to Helike, similar to how he wrote of the Trojan war, it is quite possible he was preferentially retelling a more current story, with a fanciful mythos attached.

And it could be a myth based on the Thira/Santorini eruption around 1600 or 1500 BC.

Could be. But the unfinished story Plato told didn't match Thera very well. Not surprising since happened long before Plato and time between was so bad the Greeks went illiterate and when they started writing again it was with a whole new system. A much better system.

And the city on Santorini sure doesn't fit with the silly stuff The Sleeping Fraud made up while pretending to be writing in his sleep. Not even if you mix it up with the Cretan stuff.

Ethelred

to Skeptic_Heretic.
Quote =Yeah, not a reliable source. Either bring the peer reviewed research, with observations, or go away=
Researches by Prof. Oliver are the results of the intensive and hard investigations for last decades. He has already proved that the solar shell is a cradle of the nuclides. Even the standard solar model suggests the violent thermonuclear reactions around the core. Violent thermonuclear wind (bombardment) through the radiative zone and shell produces nuclear synthesis reactions. Thus cradle of nuclides (shell) is produced by bombardment of the protons, neutrons, deuteriums,.. and alpha particles. Do you know physics? This is an alimentary nuclear law.
K. Margiani

Ethelred I'm very sorry, this is not a historical forum. If you have any interest on prohibited and forgotten history of the mankind.
please::: http://vixra.org/abs/1102.0053

And the city on Santorini sure doesn't fit with the silly stuff The Sleeping Fraud made up while pretending to be writing in his sleep. Not even if you mix it up with the Cretan stuff.

I don't know what "The Sleeping Fraud" refers to.
But I'd be surprised when an event of the Thira eruption class would not leave any trace in the myths of the surviving cultures.

Researches by Prof. Oliver are the results of the intensive and hard investigations for last decades. He has already proved that the solar shell is a cradle of the nuclides.

No they're not. He fails to explain the iron stacks in India with his hypothesis because he was wholly ignorant of them until Ethelred brought them up, crushing his whole fundamental misunderstanding of reality.

Even the standard solar model suggests the violent thermonuclear reactions around the core.

/facepalm.

Thus cradle of nuclides (shell) is produced by bombardment of the protons, neutrons, deuteriums,.. and alpha particles.

/double facepalm

Do you know physics?

I think you should understand who you're talking to before you venture further down this rabbit hole, Alice.

This is an alimentary nuclear law.

No it isn't 'alimentary' nuclear law. You have 'special needs'.

I don't know what "The Sleeping Fraud" refers to.

Edgar Cayce, otherwise called "The Sleeping Prophet"

to Skeptic_Heretic.
There are much tactful ways to explain your point. This is not a street or market. This is not a scientific explanation. You dont know anything on nuclear laws.

1. "The beginning of knowledge is the discovery of something we do not understand."

- Enrico Fermi

2. "To know that you do not know is best,
To pretend to know what you do not know is a disease."

- Lao Tzu

3. "A sage is not afraid of lack of knowledge; he is not afraid of hesitations, or hard work, but he is afraid of only one thingto pretend to know the things which he does not know."

- Leo Tolstoy's Calendar of Wisdom for 1 October

I don't know what "The Sleeping Fraud" refers to.

Edgar Cayce, otherwise called "The Sleeping Prophet"

Thanks.
My goodness - another chapter in the never-ending history of superstition.

to Skeptic_Heretic.
There are much tactful ways to explain your point.

There are no tactful ways to express the amount of displeasure I take in dealing with pseudoscientists.

This is not a street or market.

Correct, this is a public forum, and as such ignorance and deception is to be shouted down immediately and without remorse.

This is not a scientific explanation.

Tit for tat.

You dont know anything on nuclear laws.

My undergrad degree says otherwise. My master's further serves to prove the point.

I'm still unsure of the Crank's motives with all this crankiness.

I'm still unsure of the Crank's motives with all this crankiness.

Attention whoring, pure and simple.

The Atlantis craze died down, and 2012 is about to vanish off into the distance, just as y2k, 1924, 1887 and 1843 all vanished when the 'prophet' of the date was found to be an utter fool.

This fool, (kio), is simply trying to get skin back in the game.

He fails to explain the iron stacks in India with his hypothesis because he was wholly ignorant of them until Ethelred brought them up, crushing his whole fundamental misunderstanding of reality.

What are you talking about?

to Bog_Mire.
So called scientists like the Skeptic_Heretic have already destroyed Physics. Using billions of dollars for the false modeling, false researches.etc, these false degrees were sleeping on the high wages but suddenly became alive. Now they have already demolished Physics, Astronomy and cosmology by false =BBT=, =Dust origin=. =Circumstellar disk=.etc.
There is began new epoch of the infinite and cyclic universe, stellar origin,.etc.
False name - Skeptic_Heretic is a NASA agent sent in the most famous forum to fight against the truth. NASA is a main falsifier organization. NASA is blame for the falsification of the important scientific fields. Using the false modeling, false degrees and false researches, Physics Astronomy and Cosmology almost became candidates for the pseudoscientific fields.
K. Margiani

1. "The beginning of knowledge is the discovery of something we do not understand."

When are YOU going to understand that there is evidence of bound neutrons decaying?

When are you accept the fact that just because you don't understand the temperature of the corona that does mean that the surface cools as you go down to the center in total denial of physics?

When are you going to understand that you cannot have a rigid iron layer that is IONIZED gas and not iron in the first place?

When are you going to understand that TRACES of iron in those ionized gasses does not equate to a rigid iron shell?

When are you going to understand that water was below freezing one AU out 4.5 billion years ago?

When are you going to understand that your lack of understanding of the Pauli Exclusion Principle does not equate to the existence of long range neutron repulsion? Long range being beyond the nucleon right next to it.

When is physorg going to learn that brevity is for COMICS?

Ethelred

-Prof. Oliver has already proved that the neutron decay is an important source of energy for the Sun. He has already proved that the Sun is a neutron star system like the other stars.
http://www.neutro...es/1.pdf
-You did not understand the ground breaking research and its meaning. You dont want to see beyond the old teaching and old dogmatic views.
-The Iron Sun is interrelated to cradle of the nuclides that is the shell.
http://www.youtub...vk2wDYwc
With kind regards,
K. Margiani

-Approximately 4.5 -5 billion years ago solar system had been injected by fiery precursor (parent) star. Your knowledge on freezing water is interrelated to old false view of the BBT, dust origin ...etc. There is begun new epoch of the infinite and cyclic universe, stellar origin ....etc. I want to invite you in the new epoch, beyond the old teaching
We have an amazing proof on stellar origin in the turbulent streams.
http://www.physor...ent.html
-You have to read the research on neutron repulsion much more attentively.
With kind regards,
K. Margiani

Ethelred I'm very sorry, this is not a historical forum.

Yet archeology news is in articles here and

Atlantis Cranks come a running
as fast as they can
cause every Crank is crazy for an Atlantis fan.

False name - Skeptic_Heretic is a NASA agent

Secret NASA Man
Secret NASA Man
They've given you a
handle and taken way
your name

Beware of Cranking people
that you find
A Cranky person can have a twisted mind

Be careful what you say
or you'll give yourself away

Odd are they will Crank
again tomorrow

Secret NASA Man
Secret NASA Man
They've given you a
handle and taken way
your name

Cosmology almost became candidates for the pseudoscientific fields.

Oliver sure went that way. You too. You seemed to have learned all that you think you know from Oliver. A really bad source for over a decade now. His nonsense violates a LOT of physics and he absolutely refuses to look at evidence that shows he is wrong.

Ethelred

What are you talking about?

You know perfectly well what he is talking about. I have only brought it up dozens of times and you just keep pretending just like this time.

The stack of iron in India and another here in the US that were built to test proton decay. They would also show neutron decay as that woould have a much larger signal. Then there is Kamiokande, Super Kamiokanda and a lot other proton decay tests that found no decay of nucleons of any sort. They did find neutrinos which is a lot harder to notice than neutron decay.

No one anywhere has found even a single sign of decay of a bound neutrons. Neutronium is as bound as it gets.

Ethelred

Ethelred - You are a NASA agent as well. I'm very sorry that you did not study in the NASA a scientific discussion. Your time is over. There is began new epoch of the neutron repulsion science led by Prof. Oliver.

Prof. Oliver has already proved that the neutron decay is an important source of energy for the Sun

Claiming it is not the same as proof and a bare faced claim is all he has. NO ONE has ever seen a bound neutron decay. Oliver refuses to even read the research or as you can see on this very thread even admit that he has been asked to do so.

He has already proved that the Sun is a neutron star system like the other stars

No. He made it up. NO ONE is backing him on this that has a clue. The smallest possible neutron star is 1.3 solar masses and Oliver's answer to this is to stonewall and say they can be any size without a shred of math or evidence to support him.

You did not understand the ground breaking research and its meaning

It isn't ground breaking if it is crap and that is what it is. Claiming things simply isn't enough.

Let me know when Peter Toth agrees with him. He quotes him all the time yet he gets zero support from Dr. Toth.

More

You dont want to see beyond the old teaching and old dogmatic views.

How about I am going on actual REAL science instead one mans astoundingly poor reasoning. When questioned Oliver's answer is to repost the same crap we are asking for clarification on. For instance where is the evidence that the sun has a rigid iron shell? One video? That shows TRACES of iron in a PLASMA? That isn't even close to evidence. And yes I HAVE read all that stuff he has posted.

-Approximately 4.5 -5 billion years ago solar system had been injected by fiery precursor (parent) star.

No. The solar system formed out of a cloud of dust, gas, and the debris of a big star that went supernova. Oliver has evidence for that but he is just kidding himself that he has evidence for Sol being the supernova.

More

our knowledge on freezing water is interrelated to old false view of the BBT

No. It is based on Nobel prize winning work on the way the Sun actually works and the way Neutron stars form by people that did the math. Something Oliver has NEVER done. He would have to learn rather a lot more to do so but he has done nothing but spam site after site with same exact stuff and ignore EVERY difficult question.

We have an amazing proof on stellar origin in the turbulent streams.

Horseshit. And YOU haven't a clue about what is real and what isn't or you would not be into Atlantis.

That link has nothing to support Oliver. Turbulence is normal in a collapsing cloud. I guarantee you that the people that did that work completely disagree with Oliver.

More responses to Oliver's Running Dog as soon as my secret master send me my first paycheck. No pay no play.

Yes more is coming. No I don't work for NASA. Wish I did. I could use the money.

-You have to read the research on neutron repulsion much more attentively.

I read it. Multiple times. Evidence of the Pauli-Exclusion Principle and statistical stability is not evidence that there is a new force. Indeed Oliver's chart shows there is no such thing as neutron repulsion because if there was then adding extra neutrons would DECREASE stability not increase it. Dozens of people have pointed this out INDEPENDENTLY to Oliver. He just pretends that no one mentioned it.

Watch him ignore it all over again on this thread.

Which is typical Crank behavior.

Ethelred

Ethelred - You and NASA dont want to understand on real observational data. Your data came from false modeling only. We can see lots of video clips on giant protuberances and flares. We can read lots of researches on same topics but we can not find any spectral data of the amazing events. Otherwise the spectral data on distant stars and their injections are not prohibited.
Why? Why? Why?

Kio, game's up. you are now aware of the relevance of the iron stacks conundrum (if you weren't before and just being narky that is) and how they have rather serious and terminal implications for the proposals of Oliver (given in rather generous and patient detail). Please give us all a direct answer that scientifically - with proof - solves this conundrum, and we can all shake our heads and marvel at how wrong we all are. Or you can go away and take Kind Oliver with you.

Bog_Mire - I'm in another hemisphere. You have to meet Prof. Oliver in the USA to understand the additional data on neutron star systems.

Yet you share similar evasion traits. The Kind Professor refuses to address that simple and fundamental stumbling block to his hypothesis. Heck, he flat out refuses to even acknowledge the question. Doesn't this strike you as a tad odd - given your obviously firm grasp on "nuclear laws" - that a simple rebuttal is not even attempted amongst all of this debate? Perhaps the Kind Professor could kindly intervene and settle this once and for all himself, if, that is, you cannot?

Bog_Mire,Ethelred - In addition I want to suggest inviting Prof. Oliver in the your scientific organization to investigate a giant protuberance or flare event and its spectrum.

Ethelred - You and NASA dont want to understand on real observational data.

Actually I do understand it. Oliver doesn't and you don't understand anything except that Oliver is a fellow Crank.

Your data came from false modeling only.

It is OLIVER'S data that shows there is no neutron repulsion. And there is no modeling inolved in the total lack of evidence showing decay of bound neutrons. There simply isn't any evidence at all that it happens. Go ahead, read Oliver's crap again and POST THE EVIDENCE. You won't do it because there is none.

We can see lots of video clips on giant protuberances and flares.

Yes and those are made of PLASMA. Not rigid iron.

We can read lots of researches on same topics but we can not find any spectral data of the amazing events.

Right. Because there is none.

More

Ethelred - You are playing a role of an ignorant man when you say on spectrum data =Right. Because there is none=. Each physicist has known what the spectral data is. Otherwise this is a well-known =Ostrich position=.

Otherwise the spectral data on distant stars and their injections are not prohibited.

What do you mean OTHERWISE. There is no prohibition. You can't find it because it is is figiment of Oliver's imagination.

Why? Why? Why?

Why do you think there is a conspiracy to hide evidence that simply doesn't exist in the first place because there is no such phenomana. I guess that level of paranoia is to expected from someone that lives in Stalin's birthplace. I think it is the weather.

Kind Oliver. I love that. It is so not him. I have even had him tell me to essentially piss off and die and then finish with Kind Regards. He seems to think the words make up for the actions.

Bog_Mire,Ethelred - In addition I want to suggest inviting Prof. Oliver

NO. I don't want to be anywhere near that person. And he can't leave the state where he is living. You may not understand but that is NOT normal in the US.

Ethelred

Ethelred - You are playing a role of an ignorant man when you say on spectrum data =Right. Because there is non

Sorry you misunderstood. There is no such data that supports you.

I really don't know what the heck you think is missing.

Otherwise the spectral data on distant stars and their injections are not prohibited.

They do spectral analysis to find out what the stars are made of. The same thing HAS been done for the Sun. Even Oliver's claim of iron is based on spectral analysis of OUR Sun. There isn't ANY evidence to support an iron shell. Which is thermodynamically impossible.

Otherwise this is a well-known =Ostrich position=.

So take your head out of Oliver's ass and look around at the real world. It is not my fault that you and Oliver are burying your heads in the sands. See two can make that claim but mine is based on KNOWING WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT and you based yours on the crap you read from Oliver and nowhere else. Go get a CLUE.

Ethelred

There are two decays modes for a Neutron.

1. n -> p+ e- +Vbar(e) which is energetically barred in bound states.

2. n -> (pe-) +Vbar(e) which can occur in a bound state and has been suggested to occur in strong magnetic fields such as in magnetars.

#winning

Ethelred - You are playing a role of an ignorant man once again.
For you and NASA in the in the spectrum of the solar outflow is nothing, while the distant star indicates the ground breaking data in the spectrum: http://www.neutro...s/51.pdf
[Fe II] 24.51 _m,
[Fe II] 25.98 _m,
[S III] 33.5 _m,
[Si II] 34.8 _m,
and [Fe II] 35.35 _m).
In addition
http://www.zazzle...70890071
Water Ice,
Methyl Alcohol,
Methane Gas, Silicates,
Carbon Dioxide Ice...etc.

Unfair: I want to also be a NASA agent. *sigh*.

Ethelred - You are playing a role of an ignorant man once again.

The ignorance as is all yours. I see that you are evading my questions while I deal with yours. Another bad habit you learned from Oliver.

So I will repeat the challenges. Answer one and I will deal with both links. Two for one. Not till tomorrow or the next day. I have to sleep.

And there is no modeling inolved in the total lack of evidence showing decay of bound neutrons. There simply isn't any evidence at all that it happens. Go ahead, read Oliver's crap again and POST THE EVIDENCE. You won't do it because there is none.

So where is that evidence? You are so sure of it there should be evidence. Continued evasion will result in repeated questioning.

More

Indeed Oliver's chart shows there is no such thing as neutron repulsion because if there was then adding extra neutrons would DECREASE stability not increase it. Dozens of people have pointed this out INDEPENDENTLY to Oliver. He just pretends that no one mentioned it.

Where is an explanation for larger atoms having MORE neutrons per proton yet being MORE stable than isotopes that are closer to a one to one ratio? Oliver won't acknowledge question and you have evaded it as well. So that is two evasions by you.

Let me know when Peter Toth agrees with him. He quotes him all the time yet he gets zero support from Dr. Toth.

Why doesn't even Dr. Toth cite his own paper? Why doesn't he support Oliver on the idea of the Sun being a pulsar? Three evasions.

The smallest possible neutron star is 1.3 solar masses and Oliver's answer to this is to stonewall and say they can be any size without a shred of math or evidence to support him.

Four evasions.

More

bluehigh - You have no answer on ground breaking data? Your false epoch of the BBT is over. Go to bed but tomorrow you have to begin studying new cosmology of the cyclic and infinite universe.

Ethelred and Bog_Mire - You too.

bluehigh - You have no answer on ground breaking data? Your false epoch of the BBT is over. Go to bed but tomorrow you have to begin studying new cosmology of the cyclic and infinite universe. Ethelred and Bog_Mire - You too.

Hey slick, you do recognize that the Ekpyrotic/Cyclical models of the universe are inclusive of Big Bang cosmology, don't you? Dumbass.

Bluehigh, love the Sheenism.

"Truthing" is a joyful path of life that reduces egotism.

Personal insults and conflicts are an indication that we have failed.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel

This news item is about the "Magnetic Personalities of Stars."

What I tried to communicate is that the neutron star at the core of the Sun is highly magnetic ["Neutron Repulsion," The APEIRON Journal in press (2011), 19 pages].

arxiv.org/pdf/1102.1499v1

Neutron repulsion generates solar luminosity by these reactions:

1. 60%: Neutron emission
2. 05%: Neutron decay to H
3. 35%: H-fusion of the decay product

See: "Neutron Repulsion," The APEIRON Journal in press (2011), page 10

arxiv.org/pdf/1102.1499v1

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo

"Truthing" is a joyful path of life that reduces egotism.

Personal insults and conflicts are an indication that we have failed.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel

Sometimes, when explaining something to a child, you must act as one in order to reach an understandable medium of communication. Then again, aren't you the one who was relieved of duty for bullying his peers and students? Ah yes indeed.

egotism has a lot to answer for.

Kio

Ethelred and Bog_Mire - You too.

I see that you are still evading my questions thus I must repeat them until at least one is answered before answering yours. You have NO BUSINESS asking me questions while refusing to answer mine.

1 Show evidence for the decay of bound neutrons. Anywhere at any time. Evidence not speculation.

2 Oliver's chart shows tthat lager atoms have a higher neutron to proton ratio. Please show how atoms need MORE neutrons when adding more repelling nutrons should decrease stability if they repel each other as Oliver states.

3 Why doesn't even Dr. Toth cite his own paper? Why doesn't he support Oliver on the idea of the Sun being a pulsar?

4 The smallest possible neutron star is 1.3 solar masses. Please explain how a neutron star of less than 1.3 solar masses can exist.

5 Where is the evidence that Sun has a RIGID iron shell when all Oliver has done is shown that there iron PLASMA in a filament of PLASMA?

Ethelred

Ethelred - The forum has no place to explain everything. I've written you can meet Oliver to understand everything. The framework indicates shortly our point of view. http://www.neutro...ork.html
As a main poor organization in the world, I can teach to NASA scientists for free how the main heat source is working. Small Stars have the minimal mass limit - 10 times less that the Sun. similar limit has a naked core of the exploded star Neutron star. In reality this is a star of the recycled neutrons. An ordinary neutron is a fuel for the neutron star systems. Smaller stars are extracting own neutron and thermonuclear fuel much slowly. Thus to discovery their explosions and their naked cores - neutron stars of the recycled neutrons is too difficult.
K. Margiani

I've written you can meet Oliver to understand everything.

And I told you I don't want to be anywhere near him. He has serious psycholigical problems. A known bully. And that is the GOOD problem he has.

He has had ample opportunity to explain right here and in other forums and he has cosistently pointed to the articles that have the problems that we ask about.

I can teach to NASA scientists for free how the main heat source is working.

No you can't. You have no proof of a neutron core or neutron repulsion and thus can't use them to explain things. Those are the claims that need explaining.

Small Stars have the minimal mass limit - 10 times less that the Sun.

That is a meaningless noise. What mass limit? Perhaps it is a matter of language.

More

similar limit has a naked core of the exploded star Neutron star

NO. The limit is 1.3 solar masses and making a bare faced claim with no evidence or math is not an explanation. It is the repetition of what is in question.

4 The smallest possible neutron star is 1.3 solar masses. Please explain how a neutron star of less than 1.3 solar masses can exist

Repeating the claim is not an explanation.

reality this is a star of the recycled neutrons

Claim without support.

1 Show evidence for the decay of bound neutrons. Anywhere at any time. Evidence not speculation.

Smaller stars are extracting own neutron and thermonuclear fuel much slowly

Claim that denies evidence as no bound neutron has been seen to decay.

discovery their explosions and their naked cores

No such discovery. All neutron stars have been over 1.3 solar masses.

neutron stars of the recycled neutrons is too difficult

Of course it is too difficult. It doesn't exist.

Ethelred

Ethelred - I wish you and NASA next destruction of the Physics, Astronomy and Cosmology by false modeling like the BBT.
You don't know even what the spectrum of the protuberances or flares is.
You are amateur scientist in the NASA.
Now go to bed.

I wish you and NASA next destruction of the Physics, Astronomy and Cosmology by false modeling like the BBT.

I see that you are still evading my questions thus I must repeat them until you stop stonewalling or go away.

1 Show evidence for the decay of bound neutrons. Anywhere at any time. Evidence not speculation.

2 Oliver's chart shows tthat lager atoms have a higher neutron to proton ratio. Please show how atoms need MORE neutrons when adding more repelling nutrons should decrease stability if they repel each other as Oliver states.

3 Why doesn't even Dr. Toth cite his own paper? Why doesn't he support Oliver on the idea of the Sun being a pulsar?

4 The smallest possible neutron star is 1.3 solar masses. Please explain how a neutron star of less than 1.3 solar masses can exist.

5 Where is the evidence that Sun has a RIGID iron shell when all Oliver has done is shown that there iron PLASMA in a filament of PLASMA?

Ethelred

From the article:
> In an effort to locate the source of
> the magnetic fields, the team simulated
> a supernova progenitor, or a star in
> its pre-supernova phase, using
> tens of millions of hours on Jaguar,
> the nation's fastest supercomputer.
---
Huh???
10,000,000 hours / 24 = approximately 416,667 Days
416,667 / 365 = approximately 1,142 Years

...perhaps that needs to be reworded in order to make sense as I'm sure that "Jaguar" hasn't been running since before Christ was born.

I think they meant processor hours. It has thousands of multicore processors.

Ethelred

The AP news reports* from Japan about damage to a nuclear reactor from the recent earthquake states:

"Inside the troubled nuclear power plant, officials knew the risks were high when they decided to vent radioactive steam from a severely overheated reactor vessel. They knew a hydrogen explosion could occur, and it did. The decision still trumped the worst-case alternative total nuclear meltdown."

After expulsion from neutron-rich nuclei of stars, U or Pu, the neutron decays to hydrogen in ~10 minutes.

*news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110312/ap_on_re_as/as_japan_quake_power_plant

Neutron => H+ + e-

That is also the source of hydrogen pouring from the top of the Sun's atmosphere.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel

Omatumor- They're using seawater mixed with boric acid in a desperate bid to cool the rods. Boron, as we all remember, is a neutron absorber with a very large cross section for fast neutrons. There should be very few free neutrons because of this. Also consider the enormous amount of hydrogen being produced. If neutrons were the source, the large numbers could only come from a runaway fission reaction so intense that the core and its containment vessel would already be a puddle of goo.

What's really going on is that the seawater is chemically reacting with the fuel rods under high temperature and pressure. The oxygen from the water is oxidizing the fuel rods and their casings, releasing hydrogen in the process.

I'm disgusted by your attempt to use this horrific tragedy in Japan to promote your pseudo-scientific dribble, especially when it is so off-topic, and I'm reporting you to the admins.

Information on the hydrogen bubble is from the Three Mile Island incident as both the Japanese and Three Mile Island are light water cooled reactors.

From
ttp://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nucene/tmi.html

A large hydrogen "bubble" was formed at the top of the reactor by reaction between the zirconium fuel rod cladding and the superheated water.

From
ttp://www.policyalmanac.org/environment/archive/three_mile_island.shtml

Because adequate cooling was not available, the nuclear fuel overheated to the point where some of the zirconium cladding (the long metal tubes or jackets which hold the nuclear fuel pellets) reacted with the water and generated hydrogen.

The hydrogen is NOT free neutrons Oliver and that should have been clear to you as there aren't enough free neutrons being created to produce a significant bubble. Get a clue. Do the research. Quit the HandWaving.

Nonsense will not become real by spouting MORE nonsense that violate physics.

Ethelred

"researchers want to know how these magnetic fields are created"
Magnetic fields are created by electric currents. This is Electro-magnetism.
"In an effort to locate the source of the magnetic fields,"
The source of the magnetic fields are electric currents, meaning that stars are likely z-pinches as first described by W.H.Bennett in 1934.
Its much easier to theoretically explain enormously strong magnetic fields if we just assume that they are generated the same way every other known magnetic field is: by electric currents.