Pulsars Don't Exist

Great thread here Mnemeth i agree with you that mainstream astronomy and physics can't hold a candle to reality with it's adhoc inventions like dark matter, dark energy and black holes. If they turned back to real science and came up with a reliable hypothesis based on observation instead of trying to bend the evidence to support the current theories then we would be heading in the right direction.

You are probably my favourite poster on ATS as my two passions are austrian economics and alternative views of cosmology both are fields in which you are an expert in.

Originally posted by Maslo
If we add all vectors acting on the matter in the center - approx. zero centripetal force vector, approx. zero effective gravity, maximum pressure pointing inward, there is no reason why matter should move from the center - the only non-balanced force acting on the central matter is the pressure vector pointing to the center of the star.

Originally posted by nataylor
You have shown no math that would make such an object implausible. Let's see your numbers.

reply to post by mnemeth1

theory held that ~700 hz was the maximum attainable spin rate for a pulsar

I am very skeptical of that one.

just waiting to see a signature line with advanced degrees weigh in on this.

the great thing about science is that sometimes things dont hold to common sense. you can say something doesnt make sense based on the limited amount of knowledge you have gained from books (usually a boiled down version) but wont actually know until you do the calculations yourself.

so, until a denier does the math and publishes it, i think i have to side with the scientists that actually have.

Originally posted by quantum_flux
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

theory held that ~700 hz was the maximum attainable spin rate for a pulsar

I am very skeptical of that one.

ciera.northwestern.edu...


Abstract. Accreting neutron stars in the weakly magnetic Low-Mass X-
Ray Binaries (LMXBs) are expected to be spun up near the breakup frequency
»>1 kHz in a small fraction of their age. The lack of observed systems above
» 600¡700 Hz has led to the suggestion that gravitational-wave spindown torque
may be setting a maximum rotation rate. If true, searches for sub-millisecond
radio pulsars will not be successful, and no constraint can be placed on the
equation of state of dense nuclear matter from measuring the breakup frequency.
However, if gravitational waves are limiting the neutron star spin rate, the spin
period distribution may contain information about neutron star structure and
microphysics.

---

Notice he says the breakup frequency is around 1000 hz - I can guarantee we will find another whopper at well over that in the future.

I can make this guarantee because I know what a pulsar really is.

I've heard that most neutron stars have very small radiuses, like about the size of a beach volleyball.

Dewey B Larson's works all online: www.reciprocalsystem.com...

This man created an intriguing and amazingly well-fitting model for the universe, complete enough to be considered a unified field theory. I am aware of quasars and pulsars but to a small degree, but I have read many times that the Reciprocal System resolves a few problems with these phenomena. That link is his site's free library. There's a book on quasars and pulsars which might be of interest to ya'll. If you're interested in the more primary ideas, the book from the above link, "Nothing But Motion", is the intro book to the system of theory. I personally think that this system has HUGE potential if only currently popular science could stop limiting their thinking, but that's another topic.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
The theory is preposterous on its face.
The forces involved would blow up any known form of matter in the universe instantaneously.
We are talking about spinning an object the size of an asteroid at near the speed of light.
Claiming gravity, which is one of the weakest forces in the universe, is capable of holding matter together as it rotates around at the speed of light is the most retarded theory I have ever heard in my life.

We are talking about an object that has the mass of a star, but has burned all its nuclear fusion fuel that provides an outwards pressure, preventing collapse against gravity. So, the star collapses, and the matter starts condensing until the next force that can oppose collapse equilibrates with the force of collapse. In the case of a neutron star, all protons are fused with electrons into neutrons, which produce a so-called degeneracy pressure, due to the fact that neutrons, which are fermions, oppose occupying the same state. They resist being compacted at a point, due to the very nature of the particle. This is what produces a neutron star, which despite being the size of an asteroid and spinning at near the speed of light, is also the mass of a star. If the force of gravity is stronger than the degeneracy pressure, then, ignoring the theoretical 'quark star' stage that is supported by quark degeneracy pressure, there is no known force that prevents the matter from collapsing to a singularity, i. e. a black hole. The data is better supported than you think, it's just hard for a layman to get enough of the picture to understand.

Originally posted by Balboa

Originally posted by mnemeth1
The theory is preposterous on its face.
The forces involved would blow up any known form of matter in the universe instantaneously.
We are talking about spinning an object the size of an asteroid at near the speed of light.
Claiming gravity, which is one of the weakest forces in the universe, is capable of holding matter together as it rotates around at the speed of light is the most retarded theory I have ever heard in my life.

We are talking about an object that has the mass of a star, but has burned all its nuclear fusion fuel that provides an outwards pressure, preventing collapse against gravity. So, the star collapses, and the matter starts condensing until the next force that can oppose collapse equilibrates with the force of collapse. In the case of a neutron star, all protons are fused with electrons into neutrons, which produce a so-called degeneracy pressure, due to the fact that neutrons, which are fermions, oppose occupying the same state. They resist being compacted at a point, due to the very nature of the particle. This is what produces a neutron star, which despite being the size of an asteroid and spinning at near the speed of light, is also the mass of a star. If the force of gravity is stronger than the degeneracy pressure, then, ignoring the theoretical 'quark star' stage that is supported by quark degeneracy pressure, there is no known force that prevents the matter from collapsing to a singularity, i. e. a black hole. The data is better supported than you think, it's just hard for a layman to get enough of the picture to understand.

No, it is not "better supported" than I think.

It is a bunch of hypothetical nonsense backed up by exactly ZERO experimental data.

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

I highly doubt stars ever do explode.

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

The entire theory of stars is one huge exercise in fraudulent physics.

Magnetic reconnection violates conservation laws.

The sun's atmosphere is hotter than its surface.

The solar model itself violates conservation laws.

Sun spots are cold, yet they are the farthest we can see into the sun - and they are totally unexplained in any rational fashion by the solar "dynamo" model, which is yet another totally unfounded, untested, unscientific hypothesis.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
No, it is not "better supported" than I think.
It is a bunch of hypothetical nonsense backed up by exactly ZERO experimental data.
Considering we don't know jack squat about our own Sun, I find such theories about what stars do when they explode to be nothing more than geeks writing science fiction.
I highly doubt stars ever do explode.
In fact, not only do I think the whole theory of neutron stars is preposterous, I also think the current theory of our own sun is totally preposterous.
The entire theory of stars is one huge exercise in fraudulent physics.
Magnetic reconnection violates conservation laws.
The sun's atmosphere is hotter than its surface.
The solar model itself violates conservation laws.
Sun spots are cold, yet they are the farthest we can see into the sun - and they are totally unexplained in any rational fashion by the solar "dynamo" model, which is yet another totally unfounded, untested, unscientific hypothesis.

edit on 21-10-2010 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)

The standard model is pretty self-consistent, I think you may be mistaking your own lack of understanding as evidence that the model is wrong in explaining these things. Maybe instead of ranting on ATS, you should spend time reading about these things which you doubt are true. You may have to study math for a while to understand the subjects, but the if you wrap your head around the subject, then you can understand the proof.

They exist you just haven't seen them yet.

reply to post by mnemeth1

2. black holes violate special relativity

How exactly? Explain or provide a link which led you to this conclusion. Black holes directly stem from relativity.

reply to post by mnemeth1


I think I should simply use the same argument I've used against you when we argued economics: Show your mathematical work.

The sort of science you're using is heavily mathematical, so I'd like to see you calculate the forces involved and then show that the entirety of the scientific establishment, as well as the posters that actually bothered to post the actual mathematics involved, are wrong.

reply to post by mnemeth1


So your saying that the deeper we bury you the lighter the pressure would be? I bet if you were to test this theory you would be one uncomfortable kitten.

Originally posted by mnemeth1

I can make this guarantee because I know what a pulsar really is.

edit on 21-10-2010 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)

What in your opinion is a pulsar then ?

and where is your evidence to back your claim , Im only asking because you seemed so positive about it in your post

I must be retarded or something, but isn't centripetal acceleration directed inwards? I thought that centrifugal forces (which I read are pseudo-forces due to rotating frames of reference) are the ones directed outwards.

In any case, carry on. I will say that unless you can show the math behind your theory, Einstein was probably right.

Originally posted by Balboa

The standard model is pretty self-consistent, I think you may be mistaking your own lack of understanding as evidence that the model is wrong in explaining these things. Maybe instead of ranting on ATS, you should spend time reading about these things which you doubt are true. You may have to study math for a while to understand the subjects, but the if you wrap your head around the subject, then you can understand the proof.

Anyone that thinks the standard model is "self-consistent" hasn't bothered to actually look at the models.

Perhaps you should spend some time reading the journal articles and educate yourself before getting on your high horse.

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

Answer me that oh wise one.

Originally posted by sapien82

Originally posted by mnemeth1

I can make this guarantee because I know what a pulsar really is.

edit on 21-10-2010 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)

What in your opinion is a pulsar then ?

and where is your evidence to back your claim , Im only asking because you seemed so positive about it in your post

Well, you see I actually posted a link to a paper in the OP that provides a rational explanation.

Of course, since you didn't read the OP, it's understandable why you would ask me such a question.

To wit, I shall provide an answer.

Plasma can act just like an electrical transmission line. Pulses of electricity can flow through a plasma field just like transmission lines here on earth. If a discharge excites a traveling wave of energy in such a plasma "transmission line", depending on how the line is terminated, it can bounce back and forth along that line nearly forever. Plasma is a near perfect conductor, so attenuation of the signal will be very slight - which is the very slow spin down rates we see.

The pulsing signals have nothing to do with rotating stars the size of asteroids. They have everything to do with the electrical nature of stars and their surrounding plasma fields.

reply to post by mnemeth1


The Sun has 30 gees of force on its surface. Lets say a 50kg man was on the surface and then the sun shrinks to 1 meter in circumference leaving the man intact on the surface. How fast must the sun be spinning to start "spinning off" the person? I'm not spectacular at math, so I used a centripetal force calculator at:
easycalculation.com...

A 50kg man spinning .3183 radius surface at 1khz would be going outwards with 47 kilonewtons of force, or the same force as if being pushed upwards by 4.8 metric tons of upward force. But since gravity works by the inverse square law and you are now much closer to all of that mass, it would no longer be 30 gees of force. Wikipedia says gravity would be something like 10^11 gees instead of 30. Without having to do the math I'm sure that would be sufficient to keep the man firmly on the surface. Wikipedia estimates a typical neutron star has an escape velocity of .33c. Therefore a larger star should be able to have an escape velocity of .4c or more.

So, I don't think that centripetal force makes pulsars impossible.

reply to post by truthquest


The outer edge of the object is approaching 40% the speed of light.

I do believe relativistic mass increase needs to be applied, which the calculator does not do.

Regardless, most of the mainstream papers I've seen put the limit on a pure neutron star's rotation rate at roughly 1000 hz.

Above this, different forms of matter other than neutrons would be required because pure neutrons would not be dense enough to stick together.

I'm not going to dispute the physics put forth that says this is theoretically possible, I am however disputing the entire theory as a bunch of total crackpottery.

There is NOTHING in physics that says space aliens can't be responsible for the energy pulses that come from pulsars. It is entirely possible that the energy pulses we see coming from these objects are being created by alien motherships attempting to communicate with the universe. - Of course, this is an utterly ridiculous theory. However it has the exact same amount of scientific backing as the current theory of pulsars.

The question is - what theory is the most plausible.

And for me, a star made out of pure neutrons which is the size of an asteroid spinning around at near light speed while emitting a beam of energy in our general direction is less plausible than space aliens.