Astronomers discover planet made of diamond

[BigMag2700]

Just wondering the general consensus of this article.....

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/ ... 9A20110825

[sjw40364]

First you have to ask yourself how valid is an explanation that relies on the star itself to be composed of Neutronium, a scientific impossibility.
As per wiki, notorious backers of current cosmology:

While bound neutrons in stable nuclei are stable, free neutrons are unstable; they undergo beta decay with a mean lifetime of just under 15 minutes (881.5±1.5 s).
Neutronium is used in popular literature to refer to the material present in the cores of neutron stars (stars which are too massive to be supported by electron degeneracy pressure and which collapse into a denser phase of matter). This term is very rarely used in scientific literature, for two reasons:

There is no universally agreed-upon definition for the term "neutronium".
There is considerable uncertainty over the composition of the material in the cores of neutron stars (it could be neutron-degenerate matter, strange matter, quark matter, or a variant or combination of the above).

When neutron star core material is presumed to consist mostly of free neutrons, it is typically referred to as neutron-degenerate matter in scientific literature.

Also two or more neutrons will immediately fly apart, not stay together. So of course with something as massive as a neutron star must be in order to explain a pulsar according to current theory of spin, an orbiting planet that close would also have to be composed of something almost equally massive. But if you take the theory that a pulsar is just an electrically oscillating star, then the planet needs not be likewise massive.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/ ... onstar.htm
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2009/ ... nsters.htm
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2011/ ... mother.htm
http://www.answers.com/topic/island-of-stability

[Aeon]

Also two or more neutrons will immediately fly apart, not stay together.

Do you know of any experiments that verified this? My education in physics only consists of the Aether Physics Model, and, while I plan on being educated in nuclear physics sometime, I would like to see if Dave and Jim are justified in saying that neutrons can bind with neutrons and protons with protons. Supposedly the magnetic charge (what he calls the electromagnetic charge) will hold them together. At least that's what my edition of his book Secrets of the Aether says. I don't know if that was changed with the later editions or not.

[mjv1121]

Also two or more neutrons will immediately fly apart, not stay together.

Scepticism for neutronium and diamond planets is well placed, but the above sentence has no justification. Personally, I would assume that two stationary neutrons would be bound together by gravity. However, notwithstanding my personal crank ideas, there is no reason to assume that the neutrons would repel each other. There is substantial reason to believe that they would decay in the absence of sufficient protons - in fact all data and experience up to now points to this as the logical default. Seeing as neutronium cannot be accounted for by data, experiment, experience and logic, one must concluded that it is created and remains stable under the influence of and in the presence of, wishful thinking!

Michael

[Sparky]

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2009/ ... nsters.htm

Don Scott, author of The Electric Sky, recently wrote: "The 'neutron star' is simply yet another fantasy conjured up, this time, in order to avoid confronting the idea that pulsar discharges are electrical phenomena. A nucleus or charge free atom made up of only neutrons has never been synthesized in any laboratory nor can it ever be. In fact, a web search on the word 'neutronium' will produce only references to a computer game—not to any real, scientific discussion or description. Lone neutrons decay into proton/electron pairs in less than 14 minutes; atom-like collections of two or more neutrons will fly apart almost instantaneously."

Since these lack "charge" , why do they "fly apart"?

Where's the gravity effect?

[mjv1121]

atom-like collections of two or more neutrons will fly apart almost instantaneously

Do they? Under what conditions? Also, by what method was the position, or direction and velocity of travel, of said neutrons determined? I hope you haven't been firing photons or E/M fields at them.

[mjv1121]

Also, bear in mind that a neutron is definitely not a fundamental particle. It is a merging of a proton and an electron and some extra mass (I would describe the extra mass as quantum particle mass, which you might also think of as photonic mass. Current theory describes it along the lines of a neutrino and some "binding energy".). Hanging out with protons and other neutrons in a nucleus keeps the neutron "stable". Except in "badly designed" nuclei where there are too many neutrons and seemingly not enough love to go around - so the unloved neutron on the edge of town decays. This produces an uppity electron, which demands to be referred to as a "beta particle" during the decay process.

Outside of proton influence, neutrons decay quite rapidly (a maximum of just under fifteen minutes, but the average decay time is a few minutes). We might therefore deduce that the electron and proton are always having a bit of a tussle, one might presume caused by, or at least aided by, outside influences. Given that a neutron is a fundamentally unhappy place to be, we should expect some amount of dynamic behaviour prior to decay. Since there is no way to observe this process we are left to theory and speculation. In fact, bombarding neutrons with photons is only going to make matters worse (as Mr Heisenberg and the Copenhagen posse so "helpfully" pointed out). Donald Scott is one of my heroes so it pains me to criticise a quote from him, but I wonder exactly how were these neutrons captured and brought to rest next to each other, so that the "flying apart" process could be observed. However, even without such a spontaneous dynamic mutual loathing, the concept of stable neutronium flies squarely in the face of what meagre knowledge we have of neutrons and all subatomic dynamics.

Michael

[Sparky]

atom-like collections of two or more neutrons will fly apart almost instantaneously

Do they? Under what conditions? Also, by what method was the position, or direction and velocity of travel, of said neutrons determined? I hope you haven't been firing photons or E/M fields at them.

Michael, it seems to me that much of what we state with certitude as fact, should more accurately be expressed by levels of probability. We also quote what we believe to be reliable sources with certitude, when in fact, they may be just doing the same, with no understanding of the probabilities involved.

We need a word smith to suggest a hierarchy of probabilities. And reserve the realm of "fact" to a much smaller one.

[mjv1121]

Sparky,

Quite right. In fact you strike right at the heart of what should be the scientific attitude. Confident posturing tempered with indecisiveness and uncertainty. As such, I think a language of relative uncertainty is unnecessary, for we should always retain an unspoken degree of scepticism for others' opinions and an even greater degree of scepticism for our own opinions - it's much easier to fool yourself than it is to convince others. Also, if we're lucky we might say something wrong, then when it is pointed out to us we can feel stupid. The feeling of embarrassment will likely be short lived, but the improvement in our knowledge and thought processes will hopefully last considerably longer.

Michael

[celeste]

Just wondering the general consensus of this article.....

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/ ... 9A20110825

We are missing the obvious here. Why does the planet have to be so dense? Because it must have a lot of mass to keep it in such a tight gravitational orbit around the star? Well if EU theory is right, a planet's charge, as well as it's mass, can keep it bound to the star. We could attribute a lower mass (and more reasonable density) to the planet if we just assume a greater charge difference between the planet and it's star.
Now this let's us make a prediction. The mainstream says that once an object passes the density of a neutron star, the next stop is a black hole. That is, we better not find a visible object, orbiting a star, with a density exceeding the density of a neutron star. If EU theory is right, I imagine we will be " surprised" with observations of massively dense planets in even faster orbits around their parent stars. Causing even more speculation from the mainstream as to why they did'nt collapse into black holes.

[mharratsc]

Good call, Celeste! I agree with you there on those points.

[The Great Dog]

Picture of the Day about this:

The Diamond Fields of the Mind

TGD

[jjohnson]

The density of a satellite is not relevant to its orbital parameters around a primary, unless an external drag force, such as a low orbit creating a small amount of atmospheric drag on the satellite, is involved. Generally, even though mass is involved in the calculation of the mutual force of gravity between two objects, it drops out in calculation of the period of revolution (about the barycenter or center of mass of the two bodies.

Kepler equations are widely used in calculating orbits and orbital parameters, and do not involve mass at all.

Think about it: You have the International Space Station (ISS) orbiting between 278 and 460 km above the Earth's surface, with occasional rocket boosts required as the tenuous atmospheric drag reduces its altitude (which increases its velocity). It has a mass of about 400 tons. A cosmonaut massing about 120 kg can float out of the airlock and remain right there in orbit with the space station. Neither mass nor density of the masses are relevant.

Getting to an orbit, or moving to another orbit? Mass is important since work is required. The higher the orbital altitude (assuming a near-circular orbit here) the lower the velocity and the longer the period. That's why the Moon takes almost a month to revolve around the Earth, and the ISS about an hour and a half.

Jim