“Magneto-Rotational Hypernova”

[Maol]

Watts up with this? Imagine the amperage and voltage of such a star to create "all stable elements in the periodic table at once".

https://dailygalaxy.com/2021/07/13-bill ... Br8mdeVqzU

“The extra amounts of these elements had to come from somewhere,” said Associate Professor Chiaki Kobayashi from the University of Hertfordshire, UK.“We now find the observational evidence for the first time directly indicating that there was a different kind of hypernova producing all stable elements in the periodic table at once — a core-collapse explosion of a fast-spinning strongly-magnetized massive star. It is the only thing that explains the results.”

[Maol]

Watts up with this? Imagine the amperage and voltage of such a star to create "all stable elements in the periodic table at once".

https://dailygalaxy.com/2021/07/13-bill ... Br8mdeVqzU

“The extra amounts of these elements had to come from somewhere,” said Associate Professor Chiaki Kobayashi from the University of Hertfordshire, UK.“We now find the observational evidence for the first time directly indicating that there was a different kind of hypernova producing all stable elements in the periodic table at once — a core-collapse explosion of a fast-spinning strongly-magnetized massive star. It is the only thing that explains the results.”

I find it odd that this has been up for two weeks and hasn't generated any comments or discussion.

[jacmac]

From your link Maol:
"The astronomers calculate that only the violent collapse of a very early star – amplified by rapid rotation and the presence of a strong magnetic field – can account for the observed chemical abundances."

These conditions would be present in a plasma filament Z pinch.
It is the only thing they can think of ( only the violent collapse of a very early star )
in the big bang/gravity model of their universe.

The belief that I hold is that in a basic "steady state" universe the Z pinch of collapsing plasma
is probably the primary source of large amounts of

"all stable elements in the periodic table at once —"

We have had discussion of this on this forum. I don't have references handy.
It seems logical to me that a collapsing (Z pinched) plasma under the tremendous electromagnetic force
would be able to drive protons and electrons together in all possible combinations
and the result is what we arrange into the periodic table of elements.

I think that what is called the Strong Force does not really exist as a separate force,
but it is a natural state of charged matter that has been compressed under extreme electromagnetic forces
beyond its natural ability to resist (due to its charged state) such compressions.
Jack

[Harry]

The image is a typical-observation described by:
Chiral Supersymmetry Dipolar Electromagnetic condensate.
Transients of condensates from Axion Gluon matter (comp est 10*35)
To
Composite Partonic Gluon matter
To
Quark matter
To
Kaon Matter ( 2 quarks)
To Neutron Matter (comp 10*17)

The image may fit around Neutron Matter possibly with a Quark core.

[Harry]

Elements are formed within the solar envelope.
The core of the Sun has a probable Neutron core.
The vortex formed by the Dipolar electromagnetic expel Neutrons that lose and electron forming a Proton (H). Via fusion the elements form.
Most elements up to Fe remain stable all elements above F in time break down to other elements VIA photo-disintegration.

[nick c]

The core of the Sun has a probable Neutron core.

Probably not. Free neutrons, outside of an atom's nucleus, are inherently unstable and can only exist for minutes before deteriorating into protons and electrons.

[Harry]

Neutrons under confinement can be compacted.
We have evidence of this within Neutron Stars.

Z-pinch experiments have failed to contain the Neutron compaction.
You cannot control unless you have extreme confinement.
Over 70 billion dollars have gone to these experiments.
Once resolved free energy for the world.
Space travel resolved.

[nick c]

We have evidence of this within Neutron Stars.

Neutron stars are theoretical. To say neutron stars are evidence that neutrons can sustain a free existence (outside an atom's nucleus) you are using a theory to support another theory.
The Electric Universe has no need for neutron stars:
https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2018/1 ... pace-news/

[Harry]

Research
Transients of condensates.
To understand how Neutrons can be compacted is of most important in understanding the forces associated with Dipolar electromagnetic jets.

[Harry]

Submitted on 9 Jul 2021 (v1), last revised 16 Jul 2021 (this version, v2)]
The Mass Distribution of Neutron Stars in Gravitational-Wave Binaries

Philippe Landry, Jocelyn S. Read
The discovery of two neutron star-black hole coalescences by LIGO and Virgo brings the total number of likely neutron stars observed in gravitational waves to six. We perform the first inference of the mass distribution of this extragalactic population of neutron stars. In contrast to the bimodal Galactic population detected primarily as radio pulsars, the masses of neutron stars in gravitational-wave binaries are thus far consistent with a uniform distribution, with a greater prevalence of high-mass neutron stars. The maximum mass in the gravitational-wave population agrees with that inferred from the neutron stars in our Galaxy and with expectations from dense matter.
Comments: 10 pages, 4 figures; abridged version submitted to ApJL
Subjects: High Energy Astrophysical Phenomena (astro-ph.HE); General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology (gr-qc)
Cite as: arXiv:2107.04559 [astro-ph.HE]
(or arXiv:2107.04559v2 [astro-ph.HE] for this version)


To understand the formation and changes to the objects found in the Universe we need to understand the forces that create such changes.
The transient condensates are determined by the mass that determines the forces of confinement.

[Maol]

As Neutrons have neutral charge, neither + nor -, how can a neutron star be magnetic, unless there is an external current entering at one pole and exiting the other, thereby creating positive and negative poles, much like an earthly solenoid winding.

The neutrons themselves are neutral charge, therefor rotation or no rotation, there can be no polarity. Not even sure neutrons can be a conductor.

....... snip ... edit..... disregard the above, it was just pondering anyway ...

I postulated the above before finding this https://duckduckgo.com/?q=neutron+super ... fcm&ia=web so I see I have some schooling to catch up on. Anybody have any other suggestions or links to follow?

It still seems like there needs to be an external current source through the rotating mass of the star to jump start the generation of the magnetic field, unless there is sufficient mass of magnetic elements, ferrous or ?, to harbor residual magnetism like in the rotor of an automotive alternator which can self-excite itself to output current and power its own field winding without an external power source to initially excite the rotor field winding.

[balsysr]

I have recently become converted to the structured atom model (SAM) of the nucleus (see structuredatom.org) as it is simple in that it only uses electrostatics to explain nuclear structure. In simple terms neutrons do not exist - they are simply an electron/proton pair orbiting in the atomic radius. One of the consequences is that neutrinos are not needed as they are only used to explain a spin conservation problem in current models. Take a look at the website before you decide the theory is nuts.

So if neutrons do not exist then neutron stars are hypothetical hobgoblins, ... or are they. The structured atom model balances the repulsive and attractive force between protons and electrons by having these charges located (on average) at the vertices of regular polygons. This actually is reasonable and makes physical sense. Perhaps a star could be composed of electron proton pairs within an orbital radius equivalent to the radius of the proton. These may form crystal type lattices that provide the balance of electrical forces between all the proton/electrons so the star is stable.

Not sure how such things would ever form. I still relegate neutron stars/ black holes in the imaginary category. Amongst the reasons for this discussed in other posts, I include a problem with causality in that according to conventional theories such monsters "bend" time. Any sort of time travel angle is a clear sign of quackery imo. I refuse to believe that all my life, decision, everything, can collapse in a "time" paradoxes that time travel throws up.

Cheers,

[jacmac]

Harry:

The discovery of two neutron star-black hole coalescences by LIGO and Virgo brings the total number of likely neutron stars observed in gravitational waves to six.

To understand the formation and changes to the objects found in the Universe we need to understand the forces that create such changes.

Harry,
You are presenting new "discoveries" about objects that are generally not believed to exist by members of this forum,
as indicated by the post of nick c above.
I wonder if you have watched the video he has provided
https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2018/1 ...
and what your reaction might be to it ?

Also, it seems ironic that you believe we need to understand "forces that create changes" when the pronouncements about neutron stars are made by persons that do not even recognize electricity in space.

[Harry]

Hello one and all

My information is not new but founded on science paper via arXiv.
I did look at the site and so what is the point?

Electromagnetic explanations are important in explaining observations.

How these properties are created by matter/energy and their interconnections are worth discussing.

We question and resolve through science.

[Harry]

How do you explain Star Hour Glass formation?
How do yo explain the arms of spiral galaxies?
How to you explain the dipolar jets observed from M87 ?
How do you explain the long life of our Sun?