The Coulomb Force
The coulomb force is not confined solely within the hydrogen atom and the other elements.
The 'star flares' that are explosions, create very high temperatures to separate the electrons from their nuclei to create the dark matter problem as well as the concept of black holes.
The tremendous gravitational effects are the result of these coulomb forces enhancing the gravity to create the illusion that there is more matter present. Obviously, that is why it is not seen.
I theorize that the central regions of the galaxies are at a much higher temperature then in the outer regions because of a higher concentration of stars. This would shorten the evolution of these stars to create a higher concentration of neutron star remains.
Neutron stars would generally have a 'positive' charge because of a deficiency of electrons. The surrounding regions of the central area would have an excess of these free electrons to cause a great acceleration within these areas to create the 'black hole' concept.
So these separated electrons and the deficient nuclei must be considered as causes of these dark matter problems.
These dark matter problems would not give GR or the spacetime concept any credibility. These are strictly Quantum effects.
Mike T
.
Coulomb Force
-
kumininexile
- Posts: 170
- Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2005 2:02 am
Coulomb Force
Superb. Now are you ready for your Nobel Prize?
Coulomb Force
kuminen quote
Superb. Now are you ready for your Nobel Prize?
reply
Well, thanks a lot. But I am an amateur self educated scientist and that means 'no political clout'.
Besides, I get no respect. Ha Ha.
Mike CT
Superb. Now are you ready for your Nobel Prize?
reply
Well, thanks a lot. But I am an amateur self educated scientist and that means 'no political clout'.
Besides, I get no respect. Ha Ha.
Mike CT
Coulomb Force
why do you discard general reletivity, it is the second most successful theory of all time.
applying general reletivity for a second.
observations of of the motion and velocity's of stars in the core region of the galaxy have shown that, the stars are moving much faster than stars further out, in fact to explain this you would need a very large mass at the center to spin the stars round the galaxy at that speed. the amount of mass found only in a black hole.
gravity by far the weakest of the 4 forces, hence its not surprising that a super large mass is required to have any effect on an object which is by cosmic distances very small indeed.
besides i thought the coulomb force was a repulsive force, one of the reasons it takes a lot of energy to fuse two hydrogen atoms.
applying general reletivity for a second.
observations of of the motion and velocity's of stars in the core region of the galaxy have shown that, the stars are moving much faster than stars further out, in fact to explain this you would need a very large mass at the center to spin the stars round the galaxy at that speed. the amount of mass found only in a black hole.
gravity by far the weakest of the 4 forces, hence its not surprising that a super large mass is required to have any effect on an object which is by cosmic distances very small indeed.
besides i thought the coulomb force was a repulsive force, one of the reasons it takes a lot of energy to fuse two hydrogen atoms.
Coulomb Force
Alfred
In a SSU, space is flat, so GR is not needed. GR deals with and needs a space curvature and an expanding universe. Otherwise, GR would collapse as Einstein believed and he was right. It would collapse.
The GR corrections are all so trivial that I do not give them too much credibility.
GR cannot explain the dark matter (coulomb enhancement) problem.
The DM problem explains the galactic spiral problem, the accelerated galactic cluster velocity problem and can explain the black hole problem.
The coulomb force is both attractive and repulsive depending on the similarity or opposition of the charges.
Mike CT
In a SSU, space is flat, so GR is not needed. GR deals with and needs a space curvature and an expanding universe. Otherwise, GR would collapse as Einstein believed and he was right. It would collapse.
The GR corrections are all so trivial that I do not give them too much credibility.
GR cannot explain the dark matter (coulomb enhancement) problem.
The DM problem explains the galactic spiral problem, the accelerated galactic cluster velocity problem and can explain the black hole problem.
The coulomb force is both attractive and repulsive depending on the similarity or opposition of the charges.
Mike CT
Coulomb Force
Mike CT wrote: Alfred
In a SSU, space is flat, so GR is not needed. GR deals with and needs a space curvature and an expanding universe. Otherwise, GR would collapse as Einstein believed and he was right. It would collapse.
The GR corrections are all so trivial that I do not give them too much credibility.
GR cannot explain the dark matter (coulomb enhancement) problem.
The DM problem explains the galactic spiral problem, the accelerated galactic cluster velocity problem and can explain the black hole problem.
The coulomb force is both attractive and repulsive depending on the similarity or opposition of the charges.
Mike CT
ok if a SSU has flat spacetime then there would be quantum gravity, as only the force of gravity has enough range to have its noticable effect on two objects.
it is not the job of GR to explain dark matter as it is not the theory of everything. QM deals with matter at it's basic level so all GR explains is that there is a different type of matter out there that causes a somewhat larger gravitational distortion of spacetime.
what does DM have to do with black holes?
think back to how a black hole is formed if you don't understand what i mean.
In a SSU, space is flat, so GR is not needed. GR deals with and needs a space curvature and an expanding universe. Otherwise, GR would collapse as Einstein believed and he was right. It would collapse.
The GR corrections are all so trivial that I do not give them too much credibility.
GR cannot explain the dark matter (coulomb enhancement) problem.
The DM problem explains the galactic spiral problem, the accelerated galactic cluster velocity problem and can explain the black hole problem.
The coulomb force is both attractive and repulsive depending on the similarity or opposition of the charges.
Mike CT
ok if a SSU has flat spacetime then there would be quantum gravity, as only the force of gravity has enough range to have its noticable effect on two objects.
it is not the job of GR to explain dark matter as it is not the theory of everything. QM deals with matter at it's basic level so all GR explains is that there is a different type of matter out there that causes a somewhat larger gravitational distortion of spacetime.
what does DM have to do with black holes?
think back to how a black hole is formed if you don't understand what i mean.
Coulomb Force
Alfred quote
ok if a SSU has flat spacetime then there would be quantum gravity, as only the force of gravity has enough range to have its noticable effect on two objects.
it is not the job of GR to explain dark matter as it is not the theory of everything. QM deals with matter at it's basic level so all GR explains is that there is a different type of matter out there that causes a somewhat larger gravitational distortion of spacetime.
what does DM have to do with black holes?
think back to how a black hole is formed if you don't understand what i mean.
reply
I wrote an article that eliminated the strong and weak forces and unified EM and gravity.
So, in my opinion , EM forces and Quantum theory are the only players in a SSU.
Since 'seperated electric charges (electrons and positive ions)' would be attracting each other with far more force than gravity, they then are the components of this 'mysterious dark matter' that the BB GR scientists are ignoring.
To me, black holes can be easily replaced with the MDM component because of the strong attraction between SEC's that gives the BH's such huge mass estimates.
Because of the 'extreme density (10^12+Kgs/m^3)' and mass of the protons, I cannot belive they can be compressed to an infinite density. So I think the coulomb force plays a role in the BH concept.
Mike CT
ok if a SSU has flat spacetime then there would be quantum gravity, as only the force of gravity has enough range to have its noticable effect on two objects.
it is not the job of GR to explain dark matter as it is not the theory of everything. QM deals with matter at it's basic level so all GR explains is that there is a different type of matter out there that causes a somewhat larger gravitational distortion of spacetime.
what does DM have to do with black holes?
think back to how a black hole is formed if you don't understand what i mean.
reply
I wrote an article that eliminated the strong and weak forces and unified EM and gravity.
So, in my opinion , EM forces and Quantum theory are the only players in a SSU.
Since 'seperated electric charges (electrons and positive ions)' would be attracting each other with far more force than gravity, they then are the components of this 'mysterious dark matter' that the BB GR scientists are ignoring.
To me, black holes can be easily replaced with the MDM component because of the strong attraction between SEC's that gives the BH's such huge mass estimates.
Because of the 'extreme density (10^12+Kgs/m^3)' and mass of the protons, I cannot belive they can be compressed to an infinite density. So I think the coulomb force plays a role in the BH concept.
Mike CT
Coulomb Force
Mike CT wrote:
reply
I wrote an article that eliminated the strong and weak forces and unified EM and gravity.
So, in my opinion , EM forces and Quantum theory are the only players in a SSU.
Since 'seperated electric charges (electrons and positive ions)' would be attracting each other with far more force than gravity, they then are the components of this 'mysterious dark matter' that the BB GR scientists are ignoring.
To me, black holes can be easily replaced with the MDM component because of the strong attraction between SEC's that gives the BH's such huge mass estimates.
Because of the 'extreme density (10^12+Kgs/m^3)' and mass of the protons, I cannot belive they can be compressed to an infinite density. So I think the coulomb force plays a role in the BH concept.
Mike CT
the EM force and gravity can only unite under the imense energies found in the big bang, which never happened in a SSU. along the way it also unites with the weak nuclear force to become the electroweak force, this can then combine with the strong force at still higher energies. gravity is united with the 4 forces last.
the SEC's have a greater attracting power, but that is only over a much shorter range than gravity. well in the GR sense anyway as for Quantum gravity we'll have to wait until the LHC opens for buisness in 2007 to see if gravitons exist.
oh yes and before i forget...just because you can't believe that the huge gravitational collapse of a stars iron core crushes the matter into an infinitely small space with an infinite density doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
reply
I wrote an article that eliminated the strong and weak forces and unified EM and gravity.
So, in my opinion , EM forces and Quantum theory are the only players in a SSU.
Since 'seperated electric charges (electrons and positive ions)' would be attracting each other with far more force than gravity, they then are the components of this 'mysterious dark matter' that the BB GR scientists are ignoring.
To me, black holes can be easily replaced with the MDM component because of the strong attraction between SEC's that gives the BH's such huge mass estimates.
Because of the 'extreme density (10^12+Kgs/m^3)' and mass of the protons, I cannot belive they can be compressed to an infinite density. So I think the coulomb force plays a role in the BH concept.
Mike CT
the EM force and gravity can only unite under the imense energies found in the big bang, which never happened in a SSU. along the way it also unites with the weak nuclear force to become the electroweak force, this can then combine with the strong force at still higher energies. gravity is united with the 4 forces last.
the SEC's have a greater attracting power, but that is only over a much shorter range than gravity. well in the GR sense anyway as for Quantum gravity we'll have to wait until the LHC opens for buisness in 2007 to see if gravitons exist.
oh yes and before i forget...just because you can't believe that the huge gravitational collapse of a stars iron core crushes the matter into an infinitely small space with an infinite density doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
Coulomb Force
Alfred quote
oh yes and before i forget...just because you can't believe that the huge gravitational collapse of a stars iron core crushes the matter into an infinitely small space with an infinite density doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
reply
The final product of a star is a neutron star. These neutron stars are compacted together to very small sizes with extreme densities. Iron does not come close to the density of a neutron star.
You are just parroting what you have learned. I am familiar with all that. Iron cores as thr remains of 'blue giants'? Are there any iron core remains in space?
Mike CT
oh yes and before i forget...just because you can't believe that the huge gravitational collapse of a stars iron core crushes the matter into an infinitely small space with an infinite density doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
reply
The final product of a star is a neutron star. These neutron stars are compacted together to very small sizes with extreme densities. Iron does not come close to the density of a neutron star.
You are just parroting what you have learned. I am familiar with all that. Iron cores as thr remains of 'blue giants'? Are there any iron core remains in space?
Mike CT
Coulomb Force
neutron stars are not the only final state to any star...
there are black holes, neutron stars and white dwarfs which eventually cool into black dwarfs.
we know black holes exist and are created when supermassive stars go supernove. the material that makes up the outer layers of the star, plasma i guess, is no longer held in place by thermo-nuclear reactions within the star and so they cool and the star shrinks. once it reaches a crittical density the material rebounds and the star explodes.
once this proccess is complete the core of the star will become one of either 2 things. after a Type II or Ib/c supernove the core will become a neutron star.
star remains that are equal to or over 3 solar masses will continue to collapse into a black hole.
hence there are no iron core remains because they either became neutron stars or black holes.
there are black holes, neutron stars and white dwarfs which eventually cool into black dwarfs.
we know black holes exist and are created when supermassive stars go supernove. the material that makes up the outer layers of the star, plasma i guess, is no longer held in place by thermo-nuclear reactions within the star and so they cool and the star shrinks. once it reaches a crittical density the material rebounds and the star explodes.
once this proccess is complete the core of the star will become one of either 2 things. after a Type II or Ib/c supernove the core will become a neutron star.
star remains that are equal to or over 3 solar masses will continue to collapse into a black hole.
hence there are no iron core remains because they either became neutron stars or black holes.
Coulomb Force
To Alfred
When our galaxy was in the making, it must have had 10 times as many blue giant stars as there is today. Since the majority would have gone SN to become BH's, how come there is no 'visible' evidence of these remains? A BH should be visible because
I believe they would be surrounded by 'halo's of light'. Any light passing close to one would be bent to form a part of a halo. All surrounding starlight would be bent to contribute to a visible halo around these BH's.
Don't you think they should exist?
Mike CT
When our galaxy was in the making, it must have had 10 times as many blue giant stars as there is today. Since the majority would have gone SN to become BH's, how come there is no 'visible' evidence of these remains? A BH should be visible because
I believe they would be surrounded by 'halo's of light'. Any light passing close to one would be bent to form a part of a halo. All surrounding starlight would be bent to contribute to a visible halo around these BH's.
Don't you think they should exist?
Mike CT
Coulomb Force
they should and probably do.
yes the sky is full of black holes.
however think about this. once a black hole is created (GR black hole i'm talking about) will it move in the same path as the origional star would've or will it move of in a completely different direction?
i myself think that they keep following the same path as the star that created it, meaning that the chances of a black hole meeting a star is roughly the same as the chances of stellar collision. of course once it does come close to a star then yes it's orbit around the galaxy will be distorted.
yes black holes have been observed through means of either looking at the accretion disks surrounding them, i belive they use the x-ray spectrum for observation, gravitational microlensing. the microlensing techique has found many many black holes since the first observation was made, rather recently.
there everywhere :-3
yes the sky is full of black holes.
however think about this. once a black hole is created (GR black hole i'm talking about) will it move in the same path as the origional star would've or will it move of in a completely different direction?
i myself think that they keep following the same path as the star that created it, meaning that the chances of a black hole meeting a star is roughly the same as the chances of stellar collision. of course once it does come close to a star then yes it's orbit around the galaxy will be distorted.
yes black holes have been observed through means of either looking at the accretion disks surrounding them, i belive they use the x-ray spectrum for observation, gravitational microlensing. the microlensing techique has found many many black holes since the first observation was made, rather recently.
there everywhere :-3
Coulomb Force
Alfred
Which came first? the galaxies or the BH's?
If the BH's came first, have we seen any at high redshifts?
If the galaxies came first, how did the BH's wind up in the center since 'linear momentum' would prevent them from being central to the galaxy?
Mike CT
Which came first? the galaxies or the BH's?
If the BH's came first, have we seen any at high redshifts?
If the galaxies came first, how did the BH's wind up in the center since 'linear momentum' would prevent them from being central to the galaxy?
Mike CT
Coulomb Force
Mike CT wrote: Alfred
Which came first? the galaxies or the BH's?
If the BH's came first, have we seen any at high redshifts?
If the galaxies came first, how did the BH's wind up in the center since 'linear momentum' would prevent them from being central to the galaxy?
Mike CT
your asking me to answer one of the many unsolved questions in physics that plagues the greatest thinkers around, i havn't even started taking high school physics yet and i wasn't there to witness the formation of the galaxy so how should i know when no one does.
i can take a stab at it though.
they formed at the same time. no one yet knows how the suppermassive black holes are formed so its plausible. i guess.
and how would we see a redshifting of a black hole when it is black? the only way we can observe it is when we see it pass in front of a star or when it starts chewing it up.
Which came first? the galaxies or the BH's?
If the BH's came first, have we seen any at high redshifts?
If the galaxies came first, how did the BH's wind up in the center since 'linear momentum' would prevent them from being central to the galaxy?
Mike CT
your asking me to answer one of the many unsolved questions in physics that plagues the greatest thinkers around, i havn't even started taking high school physics yet and i wasn't there to witness the formation of the galaxy so how should i know when no one does.
i can take a stab at it though.
they formed at the same time. no one yet knows how the suppermassive black holes are formed so its plausible. i guess.
and how would we see a redshifting of a black hole when it is black? the only way we can observe it is when we see it pass in front of a star or when it starts chewing it up.
Coulomb Force
Alfred
You haven't taken physics yet? Then how did you get so knowledgeable with astronomy?
I still think that a BH should be surrounded by a 'halo of light'. All the light from the background stars would be bent around the 'event horizon' of the BH, so I think one should exist and be obserable with the advanced telescopes and technology today.
Personally, I do not think they will find one because I do not believe BH exist. To me, they are concentrations of neutron stars that have electron deficiencies to give them a coulomb boost for gravity that would give them the appearance of very massive objects.
Of course, that is my opinion.
Mike CT
You haven't taken physics yet? Then how did you get so knowledgeable with astronomy?
I still think that a BH should be surrounded by a 'halo of light'. All the light from the background stars would be bent around the 'event horizon' of the BH, so I think one should exist and be obserable with the advanced telescopes and technology today.
Personally, I do not think they will find one because I do not believe BH exist. To me, they are concentrations of neutron stars that have electron deficiencies to give them a coulomb boost for gravity that would give them the appearance of very massive objects.
Of course, that is my opinion.
Mike CT
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Coulomb Force
Mike CT wrote: Alfred
You haven't taken physics yet? Then how did you get so knowledgeable with astronomy?
He is impressive, isn't he?
You haven't taken physics yet? Then how did you get so knowledgeable with astronomy?
He is impressive, isn't he?
Coulomb Force
Mike CT wrote: Alfred
You haven't taken physics yet? Then how did you get so knowledgeable with astronomy?
I still think that a BH should be surrounded by a 'halo of light'. All the light from the background stars would be bent around the 'event horizon' of the BH, so I think one should exist and be obserable with the advanced telescopes and technology today.
Personally, I do not think they will find one because I do not believe BH exist. To me, they are concentrations of neutron stars that have electron deficiencies to give them a coulomb boost for gravity that would give them the appearance of very massive objects.
Of course, that is my opinion.
Mike CT
you'd be surprised where a little intrest will take you.
the halo around a black hole would be what is visible when gravitational microlensing occurs and the stars light is bent around the black hole, making the star appear a little brighter. but thats only when the black hole passes infront of a star.
a lot of black holes aren't actually that big either so light distortion around the event horizon is not highly noticable with telescopes
from what i have read on neutron stars there gravity comes from the extreme density of the star in a spece that is roughly 6 times smaller than the sun. well in general reletivity anyway.
as for the coulomb force in neutron stars if there were electron deficiencies then the star would only attract electricaly charged objects that are of an opposite polarity.
You haven't taken physics yet? Then how did you get so knowledgeable with astronomy?
I still think that a BH should be surrounded by a 'halo of light'. All the light from the background stars would be bent around the 'event horizon' of the BH, so I think one should exist and be obserable with the advanced telescopes and technology today.
Personally, I do not think they will find one because I do not believe BH exist. To me, they are concentrations of neutron stars that have electron deficiencies to give them a coulomb boost for gravity that would give them the appearance of very massive objects.
Of course, that is my opinion.
Mike CT
you'd be surprised where a little intrest will take you.
the halo around a black hole would be what is visible when gravitational microlensing occurs and the stars light is bent around the black hole, making the star appear a little brighter. but thats only when the black hole passes infront of a star.
a lot of black holes aren't actually that big either so light distortion around the event horizon is not highly noticable with telescopes
from what i have read on neutron stars there gravity comes from the extreme density of the star in a spece that is roughly 6 times smaller than the sun. well in general reletivity anyway.
as for the coulomb force in neutron stars if there were electron deficiencies then the star would only attract electricaly charged objects that are of an opposite polarity.
Coulomb Force
Alfred quote
the halo around a black hole would be what is visible when gravitational microlensing occurs and the stars light is bent around the black hole, making the star appear a little brighter. but thats only when the black hole passes infront of a star.
a lot of black holes aren't actually that big either so light distortion around the event horizon is not highly noticable with telescopes
from what i have read on neutron stars there gravity comes from the extreme density of the star in a spece that is roughly 6 times smaller than the sun. well in general reletivity anyway.
as for the coulomb force in neutron stars if there were electron deficiencies then the star would only attract electricaly charged objects that are of an opposite polarity.
reply
Gravitational lensing occurs around the galactic clusters at the outer edges.
The central region of these clusters have no matter but do have stong x-ray radiations.
How do you explain that?
Tour estimate of the Sun to a neutron star volume is grossly short of the difference.
The neutron stars are supposed to be about 16 kilometers in diameters as compared to the Sun's diameter of 1,400,999 kilometers. Would you care to revise your estimate?
My conclusion of why neutron stars decay is because elements on Earth that have a ratio greater that 3 neutrons to 2 protons naturally decay. So the neutron stars would have to be decaying back into hydrogen gas.
Mike CT
the halo around a black hole would be what is visible when gravitational microlensing occurs and the stars light is bent around the black hole, making the star appear a little brighter. but thats only when the black hole passes infront of a star.
a lot of black holes aren't actually that big either so light distortion around the event horizon is not highly noticable with telescopes
from what i have read on neutron stars there gravity comes from the extreme density of the star in a spece that is roughly 6 times smaller than the sun. well in general reletivity anyway.
as for the coulomb force in neutron stars if there were electron deficiencies then the star would only attract electricaly charged objects that are of an opposite polarity.
reply
Gravitational lensing occurs around the galactic clusters at the outer edges.
The central region of these clusters have no matter but do have stong x-ray radiations.
How do you explain that?
Tour estimate of the Sun to a neutron star volume is grossly short of the difference.
The neutron stars are supposed to be about 16 kilometers in diameters as compared to the Sun's diameter of 1,400,999 kilometers. Would you care to revise your estimate?
My conclusion of why neutron stars decay is because elements on Earth that have a ratio greater that 3 neutrons to 2 protons naturally decay. So the neutron stars would have to be decaying back into hydrogen gas.
Mike CT
Coulomb Force
Mike CT wrote:
reply
Gravitational lensing occurs around the galactic clusters at the outer edges.
The central region of these clusters have no matter but do have stong x-ray radiations.
How do you explain that?
Tour estimate of the Sun to a neutron star volume is grossly short of the difference.
The neutron stars are supposed to be about 16 kilometers in diameters as compared to the Sun's diameter of 1,400,999 kilometers. Would you care to revise your estimate?
My conclusion of why neutron stars decay is because elements on Earth that have a ratio greater that 3 neutrons to 2 protons naturally decay. So the neutron stars would have to be decaying back into hydrogen gas.
Mike CT
most galactic form from the same cloud/material and are close enough together to heat the cloud, evidently enough to emit x-rays. but i was refering to microlensing.
yes i will revise that figure, it wasn't my own anyway, but i'll do it later. the origional point was that it is very small and dense.
neutrons on earth are not subject to densities of 8×10^13 to 2×10^15 g/cm³ so no one can yet predict what happens under these preasures, esspecialy at the core of the star.
reply
Gravitational lensing occurs around the galactic clusters at the outer edges.
The central region of these clusters have no matter but do have stong x-ray radiations.
How do you explain that?
Tour estimate of the Sun to a neutron star volume is grossly short of the difference.
The neutron stars are supposed to be about 16 kilometers in diameters as compared to the Sun's diameter of 1,400,999 kilometers. Would you care to revise your estimate?
My conclusion of why neutron stars decay is because elements on Earth that have a ratio greater that 3 neutrons to 2 protons naturally decay. So the neutron stars would have to be decaying back into hydrogen gas.
Mike CT
most galactic form from the same cloud/material and are close enough together to heat the cloud, evidently enough to emit x-rays. but i was refering to microlensing.
yes i will revise that figure, it wasn't my own anyway, but i'll do it later. the origional point was that it is very small and dense.
neutrons on earth are not subject to densities of 8×10^13 to 2×10^15 g/cm³ so no one can yet predict what happens under these preasures, esspecialy at the core of the star.
Coulomb Force
Alfred quote
most galactic form from the same cloud/material and are close enough together to heat the cloud, evidently enough to emit x-rays. but i was refering to microlensing.
reply
Although x-rays can be scattered throughout the cluster, the strongest radiations come from the central regions of these clusters.
Alfred
neutrons on earth are not subject to densities of 8×10^13 to 2×10^15 g/cm³ so no one can yet predict what happens under these preasures, esspecialy at the core of the star.
reply
The outer shells of these neutron stars are in contact with the spatial vacuum. So, I do not see any pressure here. The gravity is not stronger than the forces causing the decay.
Mike CT
most galactic form from the same cloud/material and are close enough together to heat the cloud, evidently enough to emit x-rays. but i was refering to microlensing.
reply
Although x-rays can be scattered throughout the cluster, the strongest radiations come from the central regions of these clusters.
Alfred
neutrons on earth are not subject to densities of 8×10^13 to 2×10^15 g/cm³ so no one can yet predict what happens under these preasures, esspecialy at the core of the star.
reply
The outer shells of these neutron stars are in contact with the spatial vacuum. So, I do not see any pressure here. The gravity is not stronger than the forces causing the decay.
Mike CT
Coulomb Force
Mike CT wrote:
reply
Although x-rays can be scattered throughout the cluster, the strongest radiations come from the central regions of these clusters.
so your saying there's a neutron star at the center.
Mike CT wrote:
reply
The outer shells of these neutron stars are in contact with the spatial vacuum. So, I do not see any pressure here. The gravity is not stronger than the forces causing the decay.
Mike CT
not entirely true, i read somewhere that according to todays model of a neutron star there is a 1 meter thick 'atmosphere', if you could call it that.
i guess it was wrong to label the density as creating preasure since the preasure would move from high levels to low levels so the star would drift apart would it not.
reply
Although x-rays can be scattered throughout the cluster, the strongest radiations come from the central regions of these clusters.
so your saying there's a neutron star at the center.
Mike CT wrote:
reply
The outer shells of these neutron stars are in contact with the spatial vacuum. So, I do not see any pressure here. The gravity is not stronger than the forces causing the decay.
Mike CT
not entirely true, i read somewhere that according to todays model of a neutron star there is a 1 meter thick 'atmosphere', if you could call it that.
i guess it was wrong to label the density as creating preasure since the preasure would move from high levels to low levels so the star would drift apart would it not.
Coulomb Force
Alfred quote
so your saying there's a neutron star at the center.
reply
Ha Ha. A neutron star could not possibly supply the needed force to accelerate the galaxies to mimic a 10x to 20x increase in attraction for the observed velocities of these clusters.
However you have been promoting black holes as the source of these massive increases. Why did you not suggest them?
I said on the Dark Matter article that the central region of these clusters is composed of 'electron clouds' that supply the added coulomb force to create these increases in accelerations of the cluster galaxies. This would not seem logical because these electron concentrations would fly apart. But star flaring in the galaxies would be ejecting billions of these free electrons in all directions. The electrons moving toward the center of these clusters would be met by electrons approaching from opposite directions, so they would stop in the central region and look for outlets in other directions. But electrons would be coming from all directions so most of these electrons would be trapped in the central region.
In the meantime, these galaxies are attracting each other gravitationally and are also slightly charged positively to be attracted to this EC. Since all the electrons are being attracted back to the galaxies from all dirctions, they are than stabilized in the center to act as a coulomb anchor and increase the attraction to cause the accelerated velocities of the galaxies.
This is 'new science' to explain the dark matter problem in the clusters IMHO. The interaction of these electrons would generate the x-rays that are observed .
Alfred quote
i read somewhere that according to todays model of a neutron star there is a 1 meter thick 'atmosphere', if you could call it that.
i guess it was wrong to label the density as creating preasure since the preasure would move from high levels to low levels so the star would drift apart would it not.
reply
What happened to your current establishment view?
Neutron stars are supposed to be bound by the strong force as well as gravity. The trouble is that the neutrons desintegrate in the elements when they exceed that 3 to 2 ratio relative to the protons in the nuclei. If these neutrons are unstable in the heavy elements, they are bound to be unstable in the neutron stars as well. Result? Decay of the NS's.
Mike CT
so your saying there's a neutron star at the center.
reply
Ha Ha. A neutron star could not possibly supply the needed force to accelerate the galaxies to mimic a 10x to 20x increase in attraction for the observed velocities of these clusters.
However you have been promoting black holes as the source of these massive increases. Why did you not suggest them?
I said on the Dark Matter article that the central region of these clusters is composed of 'electron clouds' that supply the added coulomb force to create these increases in accelerations of the cluster galaxies. This would not seem logical because these electron concentrations would fly apart. But star flaring in the galaxies would be ejecting billions of these free electrons in all directions. The electrons moving toward the center of these clusters would be met by electrons approaching from opposite directions, so they would stop in the central region and look for outlets in other directions. But electrons would be coming from all directions so most of these electrons would be trapped in the central region.
In the meantime, these galaxies are attracting each other gravitationally and are also slightly charged positively to be attracted to this EC. Since all the electrons are being attracted back to the galaxies from all dirctions, they are than stabilized in the center to act as a coulomb anchor and increase the attraction to cause the accelerated velocities of the galaxies.
This is 'new science' to explain the dark matter problem in the clusters IMHO. The interaction of these electrons would generate the x-rays that are observed .
Alfred quote
i read somewhere that according to todays model of a neutron star there is a 1 meter thick 'atmosphere', if you could call it that.
i guess it was wrong to label the density as creating preasure since the preasure would move from high levels to low levels so the star would drift apart would it not.
reply
What happened to your current establishment view?
Neutron stars are supposed to be bound by the strong force as well as gravity. The trouble is that the neutrons desintegrate in the elements when they exceed that 3 to 2 ratio relative to the protons in the nuclei. If these neutrons are unstable in the heavy elements, they are bound to be unstable in the neutron stars as well. Result? Decay of the NS's.
Mike CT
Coulomb Force
Mike CT wrote: reply
Ha Ha. A neutron star could not possibly supply the needed force to accelerate the galaxies to mimic a 10x to 20x increase in attraction for the observed velocities of these clusters.
However you have been promoting black holes as the source of these massive increases. Why did you not suggest them?
because there are many types of neutron star, one of these is an x-ray burster.
unless the hawking radiation is in the form of x-rays or the black hole is active then it would not explain the x-rays. and i don't know of any extragalactic black holes big enough to accelerate entire galaxies as they all seem to lie at the very center of galaxies, perhaps that helping to attract other galaxies. but most galactic mergers are mearly collisions aided by gravity. as the collision between the milky way and the andromeda galaxy will be.
Mike CT wrote: I said on the Dark Matter article that the central region of these clusters is composed of 'electron clouds' that supply the added coulomb force to create these increases in accelerations of the cluster galaxies. This would not seem logical because these electron concentrations would fly apart. But star flaring in the galaxies would be ejecting billions of these free electrons in all directions. The electrons moving toward the center of these clusters would be met by electrons approaching from opposite directions, so they would stop in the central region and look for outlets in other directions. But electrons would be coming from all directions so most of these electrons would be trapped in the central region.
In the meantime, these galaxies are attracting each other gravitationally and are also slightly charged positively to be attracted to this EC. Since all the electrons are being attracted back to the galaxies from all dirctions, they are than stabilized in the center to act as a coulomb anchor and increase the attraction to cause the accelerated velocities of the galaxies.
This is 'new science' to explain the dark matter problem in the clusters IMHO. The interaction of these electrons would generate the x-rays that are observed .
the electrons approching the center of the cluster being met by the electrons coming in the opposite direction would just continue to repel each other until there is an even distribution of electrons, which in the vastness of space means that there would be a big distance between each electron until the center of the cluster fills up with a substantial greater amount.
Mike CT wrote: reply
What happened to your current establishment view?
Neutron stars are supposed to be bound by the strong force as well as gravity. The trouble is that the neutrons desintegrate in the elements when they exceed that 3 to 2 ratio relative to the protons in the nuclei. If these neutrons are unstable in the heavy elements, they are bound to be unstable in the neutron stars as well. Result? Decay of the NS's.
Mike CT
the imense force and extreame densities prevent the decay of neuclei inside the star.
Ha Ha. A neutron star could not possibly supply the needed force to accelerate the galaxies to mimic a 10x to 20x increase in attraction for the observed velocities of these clusters.
However you have been promoting black holes as the source of these massive increases. Why did you not suggest them?
because there are many types of neutron star, one of these is an x-ray burster.
unless the hawking radiation is in the form of x-rays or the black hole is active then it would not explain the x-rays. and i don't know of any extragalactic black holes big enough to accelerate entire galaxies as they all seem to lie at the very center of galaxies, perhaps that helping to attract other galaxies. but most galactic mergers are mearly collisions aided by gravity. as the collision between the milky way and the andromeda galaxy will be.
Mike CT wrote: I said on the Dark Matter article that the central region of these clusters is composed of 'electron clouds' that supply the added coulomb force to create these increases in accelerations of the cluster galaxies. This would not seem logical because these electron concentrations would fly apart. But star flaring in the galaxies would be ejecting billions of these free electrons in all directions. The electrons moving toward the center of these clusters would be met by electrons approaching from opposite directions, so they would stop in the central region and look for outlets in other directions. But electrons would be coming from all directions so most of these electrons would be trapped in the central region.
In the meantime, these galaxies are attracting each other gravitationally and are also slightly charged positively to be attracted to this EC. Since all the electrons are being attracted back to the galaxies from all dirctions, they are than stabilized in the center to act as a coulomb anchor and increase the attraction to cause the accelerated velocities of the galaxies.
This is 'new science' to explain the dark matter problem in the clusters IMHO. The interaction of these electrons would generate the x-rays that are observed .
the electrons approching the center of the cluster being met by the electrons coming in the opposite direction would just continue to repel each other until there is an even distribution of electrons, which in the vastness of space means that there would be a big distance between each electron until the center of the cluster fills up with a substantial greater amount.
Mike CT wrote: reply
What happened to your current establishment view?
Neutron stars are supposed to be bound by the strong force as well as gravity. The trouble is that the neutrons desintegrate in the elements when they exceed that 3 to 2 ratio relative to the protons in the nuclei. If these neutrons are unstable in the heavy elements, they are bound to be unstable in the neutron stars as well. Result? Decay of the NS's.
Mike CT
the imense force and extreame densities prevent the decay of neuclei inside the star.
Coulomb Force
Alfred quote
the imense force and extreame densities prevent the decay of neuclei inside the star.
reply
I said the outer surface of the NS's would be decaying. If the strong force binding the nuclei in the elements is not capable of preventing the decay of the heaviest elements, what other force could? Gravity does not even come close to the strength of the stronf force.
You also have to consider the GRB's as the result of the NS decays.
Mike CT
the imense force and extreame densities prevent the decay of neuclei inside the star.
reply
I said the outer surface of the NS's would be decaying. If the strong force binding the nuclei in the elements is not capable of preventing the decay of the heaviest elements, what other force could? Gravity does not even come close to the strength of the stronf force.
You also have to consider the GRB's as the result of the NS decays.
Mike CT
Coulomb Force
Mike CT wrote:
Neutron stars are supposed to be bound by the strong force as well as gravity. The trouble is that the neutrons desintegrate in the elements when they exceed that 3 to 2 ratio relative to the protons in the nuclei. If these neutrons are unstable in the heavy elements, they are bound to be unstable in the neutron stars as well. Result? Decay of the NS's.
Mike CT
3:2 ratio? the core of stars between 1.4 and 3 solar masses are in the most part neutrons hence when the star goes supernove these neutrons are smashed together to create the densities found in neutron stars.
the neutron star should by al rights be highly compacted free neutrons with the occasional proton or electron mixed in.
i need clarification on these points before i can procceed to discuss the matter any further and i'm having trouble finding the info else where on the net.
Neutron stars are supposed to be bound by the strong force as well as gravity. The trouble is that the neutrons desintegrate in the elements when they exceed that 3 to 2 ratio relative to the protons in the nuclei. If these neutrons are unstable in the heavy elements, they are bound to be unstable in the neutron stars as well. Result? Decay of the NS's.
Mike CT
3:2 ratio? the core of stars between 1.4 and 3 solar masses are in the most part neutrons hence when the star goes supernove these neutrons are smashed together to create the densities found in neutron stars.
the neutron star should by al rights be highly compacted free neutrons with the occasional proton or electron mixed in.
i need clarification on these points before i can procceed to discuss the matter any further and i'm having trouble finding the info else where on the net.
Coulomb Force
complicated isn't it.
Coulomb Force
thats understandable.
Coulomb Force
Alfred quote
3:2 ratio? the core of stars between 1.4 and 3 solar masses are in the most part neutrons hence when the star goes supernove these neutrons are smashed together to create the densities found in neutron stars.
the neutron star should by al rights be highly compacted free neutrons with the occasional proton or electron mixed in.
i need clarification on these points before i can procceed to discuss the matter any further and i'm having trouble finding the info else where on the net.
reply
That 3:2 ratio is an elemental ratio here on Earth were the highest 'stable' elements have that ratio of 3 neutrons to two protons. Any higher ratios cause the neutrons to decay.
Neutrons cannot exist in a free state. They are only stable when coupled to a proton.
The helium nucleus has 2 protons and 2 neutrons. All subsequent elemenmts have the same number of neutrons as protons or an excess of neutrons.
You are also confusing a white dwarf with a neutron star. A white dwarf is a much larger star than a neutron star. When it accumulates more than 1.4 solar masses, it goes SN.
Your second paragraph has been answered. Neutrons cannot exist in a free state without protons.
Yes, you are having trouble by confusing a NS with a WD.
Mike CT
3:2 ratio? the core of stars between 1.4 and 3 solar masses are in the most part neutrons hence when the star goes supernove these neutrons are smashed together to create the densities found in neutron stars.
the neutron star should by al rights be highly compacted free neutrons with the occasional proton or electron mixed in.
i need clarification on these points before i can procceed to discuss the matter any further and i'm having trouble finding the info else where on the net.
reply
That 3:2 ratio is an elemental ratio here on Earth were the highest 'stable' elements have that ratio of 3 neutrons to two protons. Any higher ratios cause the neutrons to decay.
Neutrons cannot exist in a free state. They are only stable when coupled to a proton.
The helium nucleus has 2 protons and 2 neutrons. All subsequent elemenmts have the same number of neutrons as protons or an excess of neutrons.
You are also confusing a white dwarf with a neutron star. A white dwarf is a much larger star than a neutron star. When it accumulates more than 1.4 solar masses, it goes SN.
Your second paragraph has been answered. Neutrons cannot exist in a free state without protons.
Yes, you are having trouble by confusing a NS with a WD.
Mike CT
Coulomb Force
i'm confused... i'll come back to this later once my head gets screwed on straight.
Coulomb Force
i give up...i'll just use the science forum you've been posting under.
Coulomb Force
Alfred
You don;t give up. You just keep on studying physics and astronomy.
Physics ia a well proven science whereas astronomy is more speculative.
Mike CT
You don;t give up. You just keep on studying physics and astronomy.
Physics ia a well proven science whereas astronomy is more speculative.
Mike CT
Coulomb Force
yes i can see from all the maths and illustrations in the thick book that lies next to me.
i can't wait to start high school physics.
i can't wait to start high school physics.
Coulomb Force
Alfred wrote: yes i can see from all the maths and illustrations in the thick book that lies next to me.
i can't wait to start high school physics.
reply
Yes, physics is based on a tremendous amount of laboritory research and observations. It is amongst the most accurate concepts in science.
I would not place to much reliance on nuclear research since it has not contributed much that justifies its costs and budgets.
Mike CT
i can't wait to start high school physics.
reply
Yes, physics is based on a tremendous amount of laboritory research and observations. It is amongst the most accurate concepts in science.
I would not place to much reliance on nuclear research since it has not contributed much that justifies its costs and budgets.
Mike CT
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Coulomb Force
Alfred wrote: yes i can see from all the maths and illustrations in the thick book that lies next to me.
i can't wait to start high school physics.Damn, son. You're my hero!
i can't wait to start high school physics.Damn, son. You're my hero!
Coulomb Force
Mike CT wrote: reply
Yes, physics is based on a tremendous amount of laboritory research and observations. It is amongst the most accurate concepts in science.
I would not place to much reliance on nuclear research since it has not contributed much that justifies its costs and budgets.
Mike CT
it is also very strict around what becomes fact and what doesn't.
ahh just 3 more weeks of 'suffering' (HAHAHAHA) before year 11.
Accountable wrote: Damn, son. You're my hero!
i try... nothing much to save the world from nowdays.
Yes, physics is based on a tremendous amount of laboritory research and observations. It is amongst the most accurate concepts in science.
I would not place to much reliance on nuclear research since it has not contributed much that justifies its costs and budgets.
Mike CT
it is also very strict around what becomes fact and what doesn't.
ahh just 3 more weeks of 'suffering' (HAHAHAHA) before year 11.
Accountable wrote: Damn, son. You're my hero!
i try... nothing much to save the world from nowdays.