Neutron star blows away models for thermonuclear explosions

Why would you expect explosions to be uniform in the first place?

Uniform accretion is unlikely to be the norm, particularly in a binary system, where almost all of the gases are coming from one source: the companion star...

Why would you expect explosions to be uniform in the first place?

Uniform accretion is unlikely to be the norm, particularly in a binary system, where almost all of the gases are coming from one source: the companion star...

Considering that 90% of all explosions ARE uniform... I would consider that the norm. Wouldn't you?

... .
across the equatorial plane, and even then it probably won't appear symetrical.

So that's the big fallacy. There's actually nothing symetrical about accretion in a binary system.

It's a one-armed spiral, and one-armed spirals cannot be symetrical.

Why would you expect explosions to be uniform in the first place?

a neutron star confounds existing models

At last, Oliver has chimed in with neutron repulsion as the solution to everything. We can all breath easy now knowing that he has jumped on the bandwagon. I was beginning to worry that something might have happened to him. All is well with the Universe now.

Barely relevant neutron repulsion spam in 3.....2.....1.....

It's the Electric Universe

Why would you expect explosions to be uniform in the first place?

From the article: "Normally, the entire surface of the star explodes uniformly."

That sounds like observation to me.

I am also shocked at the rapid collapse of the seemingly unshakable SSM and the AGW models of the Sun and the Earth, after they were firmly tied to the decision to end the Apollo program at Henry Kissinger's secret meeting with Mao Tse-Tung and Chao En-lai on 9-11 July 1971 [1].

[1] Henry Kissingers summary of events of 9-11 July 2011 were declassified in 2003]
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/N SAEBB/NSAEBB66/ch-40.pdf

Why would you expect explosions to be uniform in the first place?

From the article: "Normally, the entire surface of the star explodes uniformly."

That sounds like observation to me.

[1] Henry Kissingers summary of events of 9-11 July 2011 were declassified in 2003]
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/N SAEBB/NSAEBB66/ch-40.pdf

"Truth is victorious, Never untruth"

So you guys are repulsed by neutrons ? Is that what you are saying ?

when a neutron star collides with another star, would it be possible that chunks of neutronium be able to fly off into space? ...

Why would you expect explosions to be uniform in the first place?

From the article: "Normally, the entire surface of the star explodes uniformly."

That sounds like observation to me.

Do you recall the recent observation when the entire hemisphere of the Sun exploded?

Far beneath the glowing sphere of waste products (photosphere), the explosion may have been triggered by an event that was confined to a small part of the solar pulsar core.

With kind regards,
Oliver

Its purest crap. Utter and complete bullshit

I am glad our mental health facilities allow their patients to use the Internet. Otherwise Oliver might not have been able to share his wisdom.

See: "Lysenkoism"

Where is the evidence that neutrons repel each other in a way that is different from the Pauli Exclusion Principle?

Where is that evidence for Iron in the those solar flares? Sure isn't in this article.

Where is someone, someone remotely competent as opposed to the South African geologist, that supports your idea that the Sun is a pulsar? And how can a pulsar form IF there is such a thing as neutron repulsion? How could degenerate matter form with that going on keeping in mind your contradictory claim that neutron repulsion makes Black Holes impossible despite the math not working for you at all?

Heck you can't even admit that you blew it with that link that showed you were pushing garbage for weeks.

Where is the evidence that neutrons repel each other in a way that is different from the Pauli Exclusion Principle?

Where is that evidence for Iron in the those solar flares? Sure isn't in this article.

Where is someone, someone remotely competent as opposed to the South African geologist, that supports your idea that the Sun is a pulsar? And how can a pulsar form IF there is such a thing as neutron repulsion? How could degenerate matter form with that going on keeping in mind your contradictory claim that neutron repulsion makes Black Holes impossible despite the math not working for you at all?

Oliver, I've read posts of your theories for a couple years now and I have 2 quick questions for you.

1. If all stars must have neutron stars in their center, how does the original generation of neutron stars form?

2. Why aren't neutron stars all over? If all stars require a neutron star and there are billions of stars in our galaxy alone, that would seem to imply that many times that number of free neutron stars must be floating around in our galaxy. Where are all these extra neutron stars waiting to form additional stars at?

the most visible part of the Great Reality that surrounds and sustains us

Oliver, I read through your link but didn't see an explanation of how the first generation of neutron stars formed.

the most visible part of the Great Reality that surrounds and sustains us

Oh great, now he's stealing from Star Wars! Why not - one fantasy is as valid as another

This book is an attempt to report, as dispassionately and candidly as possible, the findings on a journey that led to an awakening to the Reality that surrounds and
sustains us. That was certainly not the authors goal, but that is what happened.
The book is an expression of gratitude for the kindness of Fate in revealing the
nature of the forces that create and sustain life. The forces that cause centers of atoms, stars and galaxies:
a) To explode violently on some occasion, and
b) To release streams of continuous energy at other times

Stars seem to be the most visible part of the Great Reality that surrounds and sustains us, our infinite and cyclic Universe

Sorry I didn't post [1] earlier.

The idea of "first" is only valid in a finite universe.

What preceded "first?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kissinger_Mao.jpg

On 14th Oct 2011 I will appearing at this Conference
Neutron Abhorrents Mandated By Laughable Assertions (NAMBLA)

If you can't answer these questions Oliver I will have no choice but to think you just another spammer and start hitting the Report Abuse button.

What preceded "first?"

Well ZERO is a pretty obvious answer and thus with a ONE and ZERO we have the beginnings of math. Indeed it can be said we have that without a universe.

We might have the beginnings of Math with zero (= "nothing") and one (= "something"). But, even "zero" cannot be empirically considered to be first in a queue of numbers. "minus one" could also be considered to precede zero -and there are plenty of negative states (in a relative, opposite state sense) :) (Just trying to break the icky mood..)
On a more serious note, seriously, Oliver;
You sound as fanatic as the fanatics you decry! Therefore, since you are one, every time you repeatedly yell out your incoherent rants, you point the finger at yourself too!
How does it feel to self-accuse?...... Apart from that, I agree with the others. I am HEARTLY sick of you hijacking nearly every thread for your own, selfish and demented ends!!!
It's gone beyond 'simple' hobbyhorsing! GRRRRRRRR! GET LOST DH66

If only we could use all these comments as a psycho/sociological experiment/survey.

If only we could use all these comments as a psycho/sociological experiment/survey.

How would you know? It's easy to set up an automated wget script that feeds a MySQL data base containing the comments with authors, rankings and all the strings attached.