Neutron star blows away models for thermonuclear explosions

Sep 14, 2011
A neutron star. Image: NASA

(PhysOrg.com) -- Amsterdam astronomers have discovered a neutron star that confounds existing models for thermonuclear explosions in such extreme objects. In the case of the accreting pulsar IGR J17480-2446, it seems to be a strong magnetic field that causes some parts of the star to burn more brightly than the rest. The results of the study, by Yuri Cavecchi et al. (2011), are to be published in the journal Astrophysical Journal Letters.

The neutron star concerned is part of the X-ray binary IGR J17480-2446 (hereafter J17480). X-ray binaries consist of a neutron star and a in orbit around each other. , which are about 1.5 times as massive as the Sun, with a diameter of about 25 km, have a strong that can pull gas from the companion star. This gas can build up on the neutron star surface and explode in a fast, high-energy . Normally, the entire surface of the star explodes uniformly. However, in about 10 percent of cases, some parts of the star become much brighter than the rest. Why this occurs is not understood.

In recent years a number of have been developed to explain this phenomenon. According to one model, the rapid rotation of the neutron star prevents the burning material from spreading, just as the rotation of the Earth contributes to the formation of hurricanes via the Coriolis force. Another idea is that the explosion generates global-scale waves in the surface ‘ocean’ layers of the star. The ocean on one side of the star cools and dims as it rises up, while the other stays warmer and brighter.

The new study of J17480 excludes both of these models. Like other stars, J17480 develops unusually bright surface patches during thermonuclear explosions. However the star rotates much more slowly than other neutron stars that exhibit this behavior -- only 10 times per second (the next slowest rotates 245 times per second). At this speed, the Coriolis force is not strong enough to affect the flame front, preventing the formation of thermonuclear hurricanes. The development of large-scale ocean waves can also be ruled out.

Instead, the astronomers think that the of the star might explain the uneven burning. The exploding gas expands, moving upwards and outwards. This churns up the magnetic field, which acts like an elastic band to prevent the burning bubble from spreading any further. “More theoretical work is needed to confirm this, but in the case of J17480 it is a very plausible explanation for our observations”, says lead author Yuri Cavecchi (University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands).

Co-author Anna Watts (University of Amsterdam) stressed that their new model may not necessarily explain non-uniform burning for all stars. “The new mechanism may only work in stars like this one, with magnetic fields that are strong enough to stop the flame front from spreading. For other stars with this odd burning behavior, the old models might still apply.”

Explore further: Astrophysicist's passion for exotic science inspired 'Interstellar'

More information: Preprint of research article is available at eprintweb.org/S/article/astro-ph/1102.1548

Provided by University of Amsterdam

4.8 /5 (23 votes)

Related Stories

Probing the origins of extreme neutron stars

May 31, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- Neutron stars are the unimaginably dense corpses of what were once much more massive stars that died while being ripped apart in a supernova explosion. Their average density is typically more than one billion ...

Carbon Atmosphere Discovered on Neutron Star

Nov 04, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- Evidence for a thin veil of carbon has been found on the neutron star in the Cassiopeia A supernova remnant. This discovery, made with NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory, resolves a ten-year ...

Three satellites needed to bring out 'shy star'

Jul 13, 2005

An international team of scientists has uncovered a rare type of neutron star so elusive that it took three satellites to identify it. The findings, made with ESA’s Integral satellite and two NASA satellites, rev ...

The case of the neutron star with a wayward wake

Jun 01, 2006

A long observation with NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory revealed important new details of a neutron star that is spewing out a wake of high-energy particles as it races through space. The deduced location ...

Research sheds new light on neutron stars (w/ Video)

Nov 02, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- Research by Michigan State University scientists has shed new light on the properties of neutron stars, galactic oddities that are formed when a large star runs out of fuel and collapses.

Recommended for you

User comments : 74

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

CHollman82
4.1 / 5 (14) Sep 14, 2011
Thermonuclear hurricanes!
Nanobanano
2 / 5 (11) Sep 14, 2011
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...
Skultch
4.4 / 5 (22) Sep 14, 2011
Barely relevant neutron repulsion spam in 3.....2.....1.....
nkalanaga
4.7 / 5 (3) Sep 14, 2011
And it seems that the incoming gas would be channeled down the field lines to the magnetic poles, so most of the burning would be there.
Shootist
5 / 5 (3) Sep 14, 2011
It's the Electric Universe

SemiNerd
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 14, 2011
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?
Nanobanano
1 / 5 (5) Sep 14, 2011
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?


Not really.

You're thinking of man-made bombs, or perhaps ordinary stellar burning of hydrogen, etc.

Assymetric accretion, i.e. from one local body being robbed by the other as in a binary star system, should be more like a fuel leak in a tank bursting into flame, rather than a bomb.

The gases in these systems spiral onto the neutron star along one plane or one vector, well, perhaps depending on the axis of spin of the neutron star relative to the plane of orbit of the companion, but the point is any spiral is by it's very nature slightly assymetric.
Nanobanano
1 / 5 (4) Sep 14, 2011
So depending on the characteristics of the orbits and rotations, the matter stream spiraling onto the neutron star should hit the surface in an oscillating sine wave which bobs up and down on the neutron stars surface accross it's equator at a rate of one oscillation per orbit.

Gradually, because of conservation of angular momentum, the axis of rotation of the neutron star will tilt more and more towards the normal of the orbital plane of the companion star.

But here's the deal, if you are looking at the neutron star from certain angles, you will only "see" an explosion on a peak or valley as the matter stream crosses the equator into your field of view (considering that it is probably tilted on it's axis with respect to your viewing angle.)

If you are looking from above the equatorial plane, you will see explosion only on the peaks. If you are below, you will see it only on the valley. If you are exactly at the equatorial plane, you will see a sine wave of explosions.
Nanobanano
1 / 5 (4) Sep 14, 2011
Additionally, the sine wave would not be perfect or uniform, because the system is dynamic and you have changes like frame dragging and changes in angular momentum of the neutron star itself (though for the system it is conserved).

So it's basically impossible to get a symetric explosion or a symetric series of explosions in a binary system, unless you are ridiculously lucky and looking directly 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.
Doom1974
5 / 5 (6) Sep 14, 2011
I am amazed...where is the neutron repulsion explanation????
HannesAlfven
1.7 / 5 (13) Sep 14, 2011
Re: "It's the Electric Universe"

The gravitationalists like to point to the dark side of the universe -- magnetic fields, dark energy, dark matter, black holes -- in order to clean up the mess which a gravity-centric universe leaves them with.

That people on physorg would prefer inferring a rotating star made of hypothetical neutronium over a simple electric discharge between two cosmic bodies is testament to the ideological nature of the investigation. Even as the rotational speeds exceed those of a dentist's drill, there is never any decision to revisit the initial hypothesis.

This approach to science is true to Socrates' original approach to scientific discourse. The Socratic dialectic involved a process of loaded questions designed to guide a student to come to a particular answer.

By contrast, electric universe proponents simply point to laboratory plasmas and the established link between magnetic fields and electric currents to make their case.

Oh, the heresy!
GreyLensman
5 / 5 (10) Sep 14, 2011
... .
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.


I see where you're coming from, but what happens is (I believe - I forget the original ref) the accreted material falls onto the neutron star over an extended period of time and spreads evenly over it's surface quickly - the stars are very small, and the gravitational gradient very high. Think of a 'layer' of hydrogen growing almost uniformly. Eventually, the mass of the topmost layers of H is enough to compress the bottom-most layer past the proton repulsion point and you get flash fusion. The high temperatures are enough to fuse the rest of the H. Imagine a hosepipe filling a swimming pool of gasoline - the glare of the pool igniting would drown out the pipe stream itself.
PosterusNeticus
3 / 5 (2) Sep 14, 2011
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.
omatumr
1.5 / 5 (25) Sep 14, 2011
a neutron star confounds existing models


Existing models claimed neutron stars were "dead nuclear embers" of stars, when neutron repulsion was identified [1-3 and reference therein].

Neutron repulsion - the energy source that causes nuclei of atoms, stars, and galaxies to fragment (fission) or emit neutrons - powers the Sun, controls Earth's climate, and sustains life on Earth.

Instead of confirming/denying neutron repulsion, scientists ignored [1-3] and supported:

a.) The SSM model of a steady Sun, and
b.) The AGW model of Earth's changing climate.

Directed, consensus thinking has plagued government science since 1971 [4].

1. "Neutron Repulsion" http://arxiv.org/...2.1499v1

2. "Is the Universe Expanding?" http://journalofc...102.html

3. "Origin, Evolution of Life" http://dl.dropbox...5079.pdf

4. "Summary of Research Career (1961-2011)"
http://dl.dropbox...reer.pdf

Oliver K. Manuel
thermodynamics
4.6 / 5 (25) Sep 14, 2011
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.
Drew_L
3.8 / 5 (5) Sep 14, 2011
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.


Hahaha I was waiting for it too. I do enjoy predicting which articles are Oliver worthy.

I also don't understand why people keep saying exploding or accreting gas when a plasma is a completely different state of matter with it's own properties...
jsdarkdestruction
4.3 / 5 (7) Sep 15, 2011
Barely relevant neutron repulsion spam in 3.....2.....1.....

wow, its been 7 hours since you posted that.....he must not be hom or something, its quite obvious that this is somehow proof of neutron repulsion and the mao-kissinger-nixon and all the other world leaders deciding to hide evidence of neutron repulsion and the pulsar sun.....some 30-40 yrs before the theories were "discovered" by Oliver.
jsdarkdestruction
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 15, 2011
its odd, i would of thought oliver would of given you a 1 if he was around but oddly enough he just posted the spam and didnt bother to give any 1's out.
jsdarkdestruction
4.6 / 5 (10) Sep 15, 2011
Instead of confirming/denying neutron repulsion, scientists ignored [1-3] and supported:

How can something that doesnt exist be ignored? Even if you were right you didnt even come up with your theory of neutron repulsion and the pulsar sun until around 2003. How do you ignore and conspire against a theory that doesnt yet exist?
Husky
1 / 5 (1) Sep 15, 2011
when a neutron star collides with another star, would it be possible that chunks of neutronium be able to fly off into space? I've read with much interest about the possible formation of gold and other heavy elements in the ejecta, but can you have fist sized chunks of pure neutronium floating in space that are are gravitaionally together or would olivers neutron repulsion rip them appart??? and you need something bigger to hold all the neutrons together with gravitational pull? I am still sitting on the fence about neutron repulsion
rawa1
5 / 5 (3) Sep 15, 2011
Neutrons have life time 15 minut - such a piece of neutronium would decompose wildly and they cannot survive the travelling at cosmological distances.
GuruShabu
2.3 / 5 (6) Sep 15, 2011
It's the Electric Universe


You are quite right mate!
It is the PLASMA Universe!
omatumr
1.2 / 5 (19) Sep 15, 2011
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
omatumr
1.4 / 5 (21) Sep 15, 2011
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
jsdarkdestruction
5 / 5 (11) Sep 15, 2011
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

total garbage. get real oliver. how about you answer my question? oh wait, you cant answer my or anyone else's questions......
omatumr
1 / 5 (14) Sep 15, 2011
Link repaired:

[1] Henry Kissingers summary of events of 9-11 July 2011 were declassified in 2003]

http://www.gwu.ed...h-40.pdf
Nanobanano
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 15, 2011
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.


That's talking about supernovas, not localized explosions.

Even sypernovas are only "somewhat" symetrical. Take a look at the Crab Nebula...

http://en.wikiped...b_nebula

yes, this is very symetrical compared to many things in nature, but it is far, far from true symetry, and is much less symetrical than the original star was...

We see flares and CME on the Sun and other stars all the time, and they are not symetrical at all.
omatumr
1 / 5 (16) Sep 15, 2011
The Bilderberg model of the Sun as a steady H-fusion reactor and the AGW model of Earth's climate were part of the 1971 decision to end the Apollo program and unite nations [ref. 1 above and 2].

Since Earth's heat source is as unsteady as our present social and economic systems, we urgently need to:

1. Acknowledge benefits from the secret 1971 meeting:
_a.) Nationalism and racism were reduced,
_b.) World peace was enhanced, and
_c.) Nuclear war was avoided.

2. Avoid retaliation for harm done, and

3. Work together to restore:
_a.) Integrity to government science, and
_b.) Citizens control over our government.

Reference:

2. "Political Roadblocks to Progress" (July 22, 2011)
http://dl.dropbox...oots.pdf
http://dl.dropbox...oots.doc

AGW was a "blessing" that again
confirmed the oldest scriptures:

"Truth is victorious, Never untruth"
[Mundaka Upanishad 3.1.6;
Qur'an 17.85; Other scriptures]

O K Manuel

Ethelred
5 / 5 (13) Sep 15, 2011
[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


I am pleased that Oliver linked to that letter without actually reading. If he read it he would not have linked to it.

After reading the PDF of what Kissinger wrote to Nixon, yes all of it, it is quite clear that Oliver did not read it. It does not support his nonsense in any way what so ever. It pretty much fits my memory of what was going on at the time. The only real surprise was that the Chinese were worried that we would allow the Japanese to put troops in Taiwan and the Sino-Indian War was mentioned. I didn't really remember that war as I was only ten at the time.

There was not one single word about environmental issue of any kind. I think even Oliver won't be surprised that Neutron Repulsion was completely absent as well.

Heck Kissinger didn't even meet Mao.>>
Ethelred
5 / 5 (14) Sep 15, 2011
Someone made that conspiracy up Oliver. Its purest crap. Utter and complete bullshit written by someone even more wacked out than normal for this site. And you bought into it because you wanted it to be true.

"Truth is victorious, Never untruth"
So why are you pushing a pack of lies and not even reading the stuff you link to?

Any bets Oliver pretends this never happened?

Ethelred
Isaacsname
5 / 5 (5) Sep 15, 2011
So you guys are repulsed by neutrons ? Is that what you are saying ?
Skultch
5 / 5 (7) Sep 15, 2011
So you guys are repulsed by neutrons ? Is that what you are saying ?


Yes, they offend me with their neutrality. Pick a side neutrons!! There's a war on!!!
SpiffyKavu
4.7 / 5 (13) Sep 15, 2011
when a neutron star collides with another star, would it be possible that chunks of neutronium be able to fly off into space? ...


We couldn't get free chunks of free neutron matter, and we don't need to invoke "neutron repulsion." A free neutron normally decays (n -> p e^- anti-neutrino) in something like 10-20 minutes. But at very high density, this reaction turns around; it becomes energetically favorable for neutrons to exist over protons and electrons. And only the action of the neutron star's gravity can keep such a high pressure.

If we consider a small volume of neutronium inside the neutron star, it is kept at very high pressure; there is a lot of force pushing in on all sides of the volume. And there is an equal pressure pushing outward to balance the pressure. Take away that inward pressure suddenly (free the chunk from the neutron star) and the internal pressure would cause the chunk to explode. The neutrons would then quickly decay into protons and electrons.
Skultch
not rated yet Sep 15, 2011
SpiffyKavu = my new favorite poster. That is all.
PosterusNeticus
3.4 / 5 (9) Sep 15, 2011
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


Please don't ever quote me again as an excuse for pushing your insane, crackpot ramblings. Thanks in advance.
omatumr
1 / 5 (11) Sep 15, 2011
Some techniques used to promote:

a.) The AGW model of Earth's climate and
b.) The Bilderberg model of the Sun

Were used to promote the Lamarck model of evolution [1] in the old USSR.

A dissenting opinion on the mechanism by which our pulsar-centered Sun controls Earth's climate was published [2] in 2002.

This new paper [3] by Y. Cavecchi et al of the MIT Kavli Institute for Astrophysics and Space Research in fact supports the mechanism suggested in 2002: Neutron repulsion in the Sun's pulsar core may cause solar eruptions [2].

References:

1. Skeptics dictionary, Lysenkoism: http://www.skepdi...nko.html

2. "Super-fluidity in the solar interior: Implications for solar eruptions and climate",
Journal of Fusion Energy 21, 193-198 (2002):

http://arxiv.org/.../0501441

3. "Implications of burst oscillations from the slowly rotating accreting pulsar IGR 17480-2446": http://eprintweb....102.1548

I will post evidence of our pulsar:

omatumr
1 / 5 (11) Sep 15, 2011
Experimental observations reveal a solar pulsar core:

1. Stellar surface:

www.omatumr.com/P...face.htm

2. Surface composition:

www.omatumr.com/i...Fig1.htm

3. Mass fractionation (MF) observed at surface:

www.omatumr.com/i...Fig2.htm

4. Mantle composition - Inferred from MF isotopes:

www.omatumr.com/i...Fig3.htm

5. Mantle composition - Inferred from MF s-products:

www.omatumr.com/i...Fig4.htm

6. Core - Inferred from measurements on solar
luminosity, solar neutrinos, and solar wind emissions:

www.omatumr.com/P...core.htm

For more information, see "Neutron Repulsion", The APEIRON Journal, in press (2011);

http://arxiv.org/...2.1499v1
omatumr
1 / 5 (10) Sep 15, 2011
Its purest crap. Utter and complete bullshit


See: "Lysenkoism"

www.skepdic.com/lysenko.html
Doom1974
4.4 / 5 (7) Sep 15, 2011
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.
stellar-demolitionist
5 / 5 (6) Sep 16, 2011
Not noted above: These "explosions" are known as "X-ray Bursts" and the systems that have bursts are called "X-ray Bursters". Both are known by the abbreviation "XRB" or "XRBs" for plural.

Typical XRBs show a rapid rise (a few seconds) followed by a slower, exponential decay over 10s to 100s of seconds.

The bursts occur when enough accreted fuel (H/He) builds up on the surface to trigger an explosion.

Some of these bursts show oscillations with similar frequency to the spin period of the accreting NS (when known), indicating that the burning is confined, or stronger, in a spot.

Spherically symmetric models of XRBs fit the overall outburst quite well, but don't include the oscillations.
jsdarkdestruction
4 / 5 (4) Sep 16, 2011
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.

he deserves to be in prison or executed(yeah, i do think the penalty for child molesters, especially repeated ones like oliver, should be death.) google "oliver k. manuel arrested" and take a look at what comes up and youll see what i mean
Ethelred
5 / 5 (9) Sep 16, 2011
See: "Lysenkoism"
YOU posted the letter. How about you read it before you go Lysenko on Global Warming and Henry Kissinger again. You are the one insulting and denigrating everyone doing real science or even normal diplomacy.

I know perfectly well who Lysenko was Oliver. And you are lying about it in regards to YOU just like you lied about Nixon, Kissinger, and Chou En Lai.

You are not a Soviet biologist who is trying to improve the Soviet agriculture system and being hounded by Lysenko. You a REALLY bad scientist with only one thing in common with Newton. You are and he was an asshole. He was stubborn, vindictive and right. You are stubborn, nasty and wrong. He lied about Leibniz, you lie about pretty much everyone involved in astronomy, meteorology, geology, physics and lately politics.

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

Ethelred
Ethelred
5 / 5 (9) Sep 16, 2011
In regards to Oliver reposting his Cranking Spam.

Oliver, answer please these questions three.

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?
Quoted the most recent time Oliver ignored them.

They are not going away till you deal with them Oliver.

Ethelred
omatumr
1 / 5 (10) Sep 16, 2011
Thanks for the message.

The space race [1], the electric universe (EU) [2] and the pulsar-centered model of stars [3] conflicted with 1971 international agreements to avoid mutual nuclear annihilation by making global climate change the "common enemy" of all nations.

I regret that I witnessed these developments during my research career [4], but only recently recognized the dangerous trend.

1. Claud Lafleur, No More Dreams, Mr. President http://claudelafl...ams.html

2. "Observational confirmation of the Sun's CNO cycle," Journal of Fusion Energy 25, 141-144 (2006):

3. "Neutron Repulsion", The APEIRON Journal, in press (2011);
http://arxiv.org/...2.1499v1

4. "Video Summary of Research Career" (14 Sept 2011)
http://dl.dropbox...reer.doc
http://dl.dropbox...reer.pdf

Please take time to watch and send me your comments on the videos.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Ethelred
5 / 5 (7) Sep 16, 2011
Thanks for ignoring my post while pretending to respond in a rational manner.

Please take time to ACTUALLY respond.

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?


Where is the evidence for ANY of those claims. Where was is it in that letter you CLAIMED had evidence? WHERE?

Without HYPOCRITICAL regards
Ethelred
jsdarkdestruction
4.5 / 5 (8) Sep 17, 2011
once again oliver runs away with his tail between his legs. Why dont you answer the questions oliver? let me guess.....because you cant.
typicalguy
5 / 5 (5) Sep 17, 2011
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?
omatumr
1 / 5 (12) Sep 17, 2011
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?


Thanks for excellent questions!

Stars seem to be the most visible part of the Great Reality that surrounds and sustains us, our infinite and cyclic Universe [1].

The universe is now expanding, as neutron stars "evaporate" to fill interstellar space with hydrogen. Then it will collapse.

Sorry I didn't post [1] earlier.

1. "Is the Universe Expanding?", The Journal of Cosmology 13, 4187-4190 (2011)

http://journalofc...102.html

jsdarkdestruction
4.1 / 5 (9) Sep 17, 2011
so they exist because they do? good answer oliver, sounds like a dogmatic religious nonsense view to me. something that you often acccuse others of.
Resonance
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 17, 2011
Oliver I have two questions for you.
If there is neutron repulsion, then how do n-n bound states ever form?
And second, did you really rape/molest your children?
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (8) Sep 17, 2011
"Do you recall the recent observation when the entire hemisphere of the Sun exploded?" - OmaTard

Nope, and if you do, then you are clearly suffering from delusions.

Get help immediately, OmaTard.
omatumr
1 / 5 (11) Sep 17, 2011
typicalguy
5 / 5 (7) Sep 17, 2011
Oliver, I read through your link but didn't see an explanation of how the first generation of neutron stars formed. Do you believe they just started that way? If so, wouldn't that present problems with entropy? I eagerly await your response describing how the first neutron stars formed.
Deesky
5 / 5 (6) Sep 17, 2011
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.
omatumr
1 / 5 (12) Sep 17, 2011
Oliver, I read through your link but didn't see an explanation of how the first generation of neutron stars formed.


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

That question is closely tied to the Judeo-Christian views of creation and the Big Bang model of the universe.

So far as I know, there is no convincing evidence that the Great Reality that surrounds and sustains us is finite or that it was created by something else that is infinite. To me God, the Great Reality, the Universe and the Cosmos are different names for the same thing.

There is no "first" in an infinite universe. As noted in the conclusion: The restless universe and all ordinary matter in it appear to consist of two different forms of one fundamental particle, compacted and expanded:

Neutrons <=> Hydrogen Atoms
Nuclear Form <=> Atomic Form

1. "Is the Universe Expanding?", The Journal of Cosmology 13, 4187-4190 (2011)

http://journalofc...102.html
Deesky
5 / 5 (6) Sep 17, 2011
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

He's been spamming the same nonsense elsewhere too:
http://buythetrut...oy-code/

It's an embellishment of the phrase he used in his mystical/crank pdf "A Journey to the Core of the Sun":
http://www.neutro...s/57.pdf
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
Ethelred
4.7 / 5 (9) Sep 18, 2011
Stars seem to be the most visible part of the Great Reality that surrounds and sustains us, our infinite and cyclic Universe
Oliver, in his infinite capacity for bad logic, has yet again contradicted himself. There is no such thing as a universe that is both infinite and cyclic. The one precludes the other. Unless of course Oliver can produce the math the proves his claim as everyone else's math shows it cannot happen that way. Only a closed universe can contract and infinite universes are not closed.

Sorry I didn't post [1] earlier.
You did. As near an infinite number of times as can be done on a site that is less than a decade old.

The idea of "first" is only valid in a finite universe.
Got some evidence that the Universe is both closed and thus capable of contraction and infinite and thus not closed.>>
Ethelred
5 / 5 (6) Sep 18, 2011
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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kissinger_Mao.jpg
Yes Oliver I know he met Mao LATER. But not in the context of what I was pointing out. He did NOT meet Mao on that first trip to China and YOU claimed that letter somehow was relevant to the crap you have pushing for weeks. Which included a secret plot involved Mao and Kissinger and that fist secret meeting. Which you now know never occurred. So instead of admitting you were wrong you posted another irrelevant link.

I note that link is the first you even admitted to having seen my reply. I note that you you have not responded in any other way to my post. I note that you have not made repeated the lie you spammed us with since.

Have you read the letter yet?

Bet he still hasn't.

Ethelred
omatranter
3.2 / 5 (11) Sep 18, 2011
"Heck you can't even admit that you blew it with that link that showed you were pushing garbage for weeks."

One has to remember the Illuminati are this very minute using my Neutron Repulsion to power their time-machines to go back and make me look like a total knob. Such irony, but I will not submit, the more ludicrous I look the more followers "true believers" will gather, my name will be exalted, statues built of me, countries renamed after me, children sacrificed in my name, mark my words.
Their will be a great gnashing of teeth, the dead will rise from their graves....

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

Oh and Neutron repulsion, Neutron repulsion, Neutron repulsion.
aroc91
5 / 5 (2) Sep 18, 2011
On 14th Oct 2011 I will appearing at this Conference
Neutron Abhorrents Mandated By Laughable Assertions (NAMBLA)


DOHOHO, I see what you did there.
omatumr
1 / 5 (12) Sep 18, 2011
Opponents and proponents of AGW are descends of two responses to threats of nuclear war:

Hippies and frighten world leaders agreements to endorse the Bilderberg model of a stable H-filled Sun and global climate change as a common enemy to unite nations and promote world peace [1]:

1. Historical roots of Climategate

http://en.wikiped..._Mao.jpg

http://dl.dropbox...oots.pdf

http://dl.dropbox...oots.doc

But Earth is heated by a variable star, powered by neutron repulsion in its neutron-rich core. That is why Earths climate has always changed and life continues to evolve [2]:

2. Origin and evolution of life

http://dl.dropbox...5079.pdf

Fanaticism replaced consensus science after errors were found in government claims that we caused global climate change.

3. Meteorologist fired!

http://www.climat...ekes.pdf
Ethelred
5 / 5 (6) Sep 19, 2011
Did you read the letter Oliver?

What is so difficult about answering the question? Reality have your tongue?

I know why you can't answer the other questions. The answer is that you are wrong on neutron repulsion and you have to create a vast conspiracy to protect your tender ego.

Baby steps Oliver.

1] Did you read the letter you linked to?
2] Why did you link to it?
3] What was it supposed to show?
4] Since it doesn't support the claim of conspiracy you need to admit that you were wrong about the link
6] You have the power to admit you could be wrong on this
7] You do not have the power to create a conspiracy where there never was one
8] You should write an apology on all the threads you posted that crap on
9] You should apologize to all the politicians you falsely accused
10] You apologize to all the scientists you accused
11] You should apologize to all the people you gave unwarranted ones to
12] You should promise YOURSELF not to Crank again.

A nice 12 step program

Ethelred
jsdarkdestruction
5 / 5 (3) Sep 19, 2011
i like it, you missed step 5 though.....
omatumr
1 / 5 (9) Sep 19, 2011
jsdarkdestruction
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 19, 2011
oliver, ethelred explained it to you already, posting the same link over and over doesnt magically make it relevent to your conspiracy theory. it's been debunked, admit you were wrong and accept it.
omatranter
4 / 5 (8) Sep 19, 2011
"Did you read the letter Oliver?"

If I could read do you think I would be able to believe in anything I have ever written?

Being able to write the pointless verbiage that I can is a gift given to few and only to those that cannot read, this helps to stop the brainwashing that the Brandenburg Orchestra, working in league with the Illuminati and the Murdock media empire employ to push the Global Warming Agenda.

By solely focusing on what I want to believe, my ideas have no peer so peer review is pointless, and "spam review", now trademarked by me, is I assure you much superior, the more who deny my brilliance the greater that brilliance must be.
"Ergo Postfactum Sum"

The thin air at the heights my insights have climbed while causing some brain damage, has helped me clarify many of my ramblings.

Neutron Abhorrents Mandated By Laughable Assertions (NAMBLA) Conference, in October, be their or be straight.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (8) Sep 19, 2011
Did you read the letter Oliver?

What is so difficult about answering the question? Reality have your tongue?

Do you have a shred of evidence besides the voices in your head to support this claim Oliver?

Have you read the letter you linked to? Why did you post it?

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. Responding to questions with the same crap is not a response and on many science sites is grounds for banning. Indeed YOU have been banned that way.

Time for another banning if you refuse to engage in reasoned discourse.

The issue is do you have anything besides a picture of Mao and Kissinger IN PUBLIC long after the time you claimed they met. Thus an utterly irrelevant photo. Pretty much like all the spam you have poisoned the site with for two years.

Ethelred
leptonsoup337
5 / 5 (3) Sep 19, 2011
I really wish these comments were moderated... this is complete nonsense.
Skultch
5 / 5 (5) Sep 19, 2011
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.


I've been doing this for a week or so now, when I deem that he's far enough off topic and just plain spamming. He's getting worse....

I know I should just use the filter, but I shouldn't have to; screw that guy.
jsdarkdestruction
3 / 5 (2) Sep 19, 2011
I've been reporting olivers spam/off topic posts for months now.....doesnt seem to do any good whatsoever.
Skultch
5 / 5 (1) Sep 19, 2011
If only we could use all these comments as a psycho/sociological experiment/survey. There's some behavior that just makes no sense to me. I think part of the reason I sometimes respond to the cranks is just to maybe glean a bit of their neurosis from a response. Just dismissing them as crazy does no favors for my worldview.
DarkHorse66
3 / 5 (2) Sep 20, 2011
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
frajo
1 / 5 (1) Sep 22, 2011
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.
Skultch
not rated yet Sep 22, 2011
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.


Yeah, I don't think it would be worth much without some in depth analysis, and even then, I think it would be guessing at motivations.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.