Carbon Atmosphere (4inches think) discovered on Neutron Star

[seanoz]

Man, how badly botched up can they get this theory, (a theory that is spoken of like it's fact in every sentance).

Jeez! Only pseudosciences are spoken about in that fashion, and medicine in many areas, yet here is a science wiith one of the biggest budgets, not nearly as useful or practical as say entomology, and yet, no questioning of it from journos!!?

I know you guys probably look at sciencedaily.com, but that site is hilarious.

And this one really took the cake for me, like the mountains on neutron stars!, you see that one?

Enjoy:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 132808.htm

[kc0itf]

http://www.floridatoday.com/article/200 ... 20revealed

More ad hoc "science" with models!

[Osmosis]

Now it's clear! Neutron stars are actually made from butterscotch!

[jjohnson]

This is Clear Proof from Science of what happens when a very large charc-hole briquette spirals in and is crushed by its own gravity, due to the curved space-time vectors minimizing the event horizon radius and forcing electrons to occupy the interstitial spaces between the quarks. At least in the model.

[mharratsc]

"Our carbon veil solves one of the big questions about the neutron star in Cas A," said Craig Heinke. "People have been willing to consider some weird explanations, so it's a relief to discover a less peculiar solution."

(Italics mine)

"Less peculiar solution"... Ahhh-hahahahahah!

Good ol' carbon! There ain't no a-squishin' no protons outta good ol' carbon!

Seriously- WTH?? Don't they even follow the physics of their own B.S. made up stories??? They don't even feel the need to justify their hypothesis with a rationalization of how carbon is the only atom that cannot have it's protons crushed right out of it's nucleus in the fictitious gravity well of a neutron star???

These guys make my brain itch. >.<

Ya know- considering how outlandish stories like this that defy even mainstream explanation can make it to print (you would presume they wouldn't want anyone mucking up their current theories, right?)- yet anything Electrical or Plasma cannot even make it past the editor's desk- truly almost has me believing the conspiracy theories which state that "Anything may be said, saving that the Truth must never be revealed..."

Sheesh!

Mike H.

[Birkeland]

They don't even feel the need to justify their hypothesis with a rationalization of how carbon is the only atom that cannot have it's protons crushed right out of it's nucleus in the fictitious gravity well of a neutron star???

What about "sentrifugal debris outside the neutron horizon"? There may even be a belt of diamonds orbiting the star!

[seanoz]

Well done Birkeland, both you and I know what to look for, that - the notion of diamonds - will be the next exotic bullshit story they will 'reveal'.

I prognosticate it's coming, let's keep an eye out, this will come, because let's face it, astronomy and cosmology is really a sensationalist field.

I guess a google of 'diamonds' and 'neutron stars' is a way to verify, let me run the first search... OHH SH*T it's there already!!! Lol

Same story different spin...

Here it is: http://74.125.153.132/search?q=cache:FM ... =firefox-a

But wait, they have to qualify that because of the 3.6million degree temperatures the carbon is actually gaseous, lol, surely they mean a plasma?? Nah, they don't

But wait, the truth appears:

"Being based on computer models, the finding isn't ironclad, added Edmonds, "but it's a strong case.""

Sean.

[nick c]

Can someone explain how the mainstream rationalizes the existence of neutron stars when they know that free (independent of atomic nuclei) neutrons can only exist for less than 15 minutes? Would someone summarize their reasoning?

Outside the nucleus, free neutrons are unstable and have a mean lifetime of 885.7±0.8 s (about 14 minutes, 46 seconds); the half-life for this process is 613.9±0.8 s (about 10 minutes, 14 seconds)[2]. Free neutrons decay by emission of an electron and an antineutrino to become a proton:[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_neutr ... beta_decay

Scott has pointed this out (p 177, The Electric Sky), but I have never read any explanation how this known fact is circumvented in the mainstream's description of a neutron star.

Nick

[Birkeland]

I think they just assume that gravity alters the nuclear island of stability.

[mharratsc]

Hmm, that article that Seanoz posted has them talking like they've known about the existence of that 'neutron star' for years... but oddly, Wiki doesn't mention it whatsoever!

[url2=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassiopeia_A]Cassiopeia A[/url2]

Wassup widdat?! Won't they let them update the article?? Could there be division in the rank and file of Mainstream?! Doesn't ScienceApologist like the idea of candy-coated neutron stars to wash down his black hole and dark matter theory??

Sorry- sometimes I just can't help myself!


Mike H.

[jjohnson]

"Sentrifugal" ??

Anyway, the article's author stating (based on an absence of observed evidence for magnetic fields, or Black Swan logic) that a carbon neutron star should have a low strength magnetic field is an interesting proposition in light of Mathis's proposition that the E/M field is proportional to density, and gravity to radius. If his idea is the right one, it implies that the electromagnetic field force could be a large fraction, or possibly exceed that of the gravity field. I wonder how escape velocity is defined for a body in which its repulsive force exceeds its gravity attraction force? I love Miles's theories, and since I haven't worked this through I do not know if G, the scaling force between the Coulomb equation and the gravity equation, prevents E/M from ever exceeding gravity. - But it's an interesting idea. I also wonder if the star isn't actually a plasmoid, in the process of being pinched into a star, rather than the end result of a stellar collapse.