Astrophysics overturned by baffling pulsar

[Zeuzzz]

Erm, ok. So saying:

after previously, repeatedly, giving us a link to a Scott paper titled "Real Properties of Electromagnetic Fields and Plasma in the Cosmos" was just a misunderstanding was it?

I meant that Scotts speculative electric sun model should not be linked with PC. The best way to categorize PC material is anything that has been peer reviewed and published in a journal, so his few publoications that have been peer reviewed and published would be counted as this, yes. The few of thornhills can be counted as PC material, although his far more speculative ideas should be kept at a distance. Its just that if you search for either of them, you'll get a load of material that is not accepted PC material. There's a peer review process for a reason, you know.

Perhaps you could answer my question about why you state two of the core ideals of PC being

and then regularly reference the supposed merits of steady state theory when SST is in direct conflict with both 2 and 3.

Ah, the good old argument from incredulity again. You do realize that doesn't wash in the scientific community.

So then, can you give me a quantitive description of this dark strange matter that pulsars are now made of? Wheres the direct evidence for this substance?

Why do you keep bringing up steady state theory? Its not consistant with PC, they are fundamentally different approaches, theres a difference between saying that the universe is in a steady and state literally, and Hoyles steady state theory, which you would know if you had read this; http://bigbangneverhappened.org/p27.htm. And why are you talking about this sort of thing here anyway? this thread is surely about pulsars? your taking a leaf of of DRD's book. As i said above "please don’t respond to this post in a similar vein here, i'm sure its quite tedious for other people listening to you bicker about me all the time... try to keep your posts about the SCIENCE of the discussion at hand (pulsars), you are posting in the Science and Technology section after all."

 

[Zeuzzz]

double post

 

[Zeuzzz]

This paper is absolutely appalling Zeuzzz, one of the worst I've ever read (and I've read a paper on QM in homeopathy).

Starting with the abstract:

I don't think a reason is ever given for this but its stupid either way since the Bohr model is wrong.

Ok. So it should be noted here that ref 2 is the NNDC’s nuclear wallet cards. A very useful thing to have. The analysis that apparently shows the repulsive interactions between neutrons, however, is apparently contained in references 3 to 5.The lead author of these three articles… yep the very same author of this paper, O. Manuel. Funny that. Despite there being 6 years between the first paper reporting neutron repulsion and the publishing of this paper, the authors cannot find a single other source to back up their supposedly revolutionary finding.

So. I read on…
Apparently the Sun is made of common elements in planets, its just that the surface is H and He. And the references they use? Well there’s 4 of them. The lead author in all of them. Guess who? O. Manuel. Funny he can’t find an independent source to agree with him.


That’s nice. Except neutron repulsion isn’t recognized as an energy source by anyone other than Manuel and his cronies.

The paper then goes on to talk about the Sun forming from the core collapse of a Supernova (apparently the model was proposed by Manuel in the 70’s but from the lack of independent references one should hazard a guess that it has not been accepted by anyone else) and the evidence against oscillation of solar neutrinos. No mention of the fact that atmospheric neutrino data also shows neutrino oscillations do occur. This is all in the introduction!

Well apparently there is “little doubt” that the core of the Sun is iron rich. And yet despite the fact there is little doubt the author can’t provide a single paper not written by himself to support this case. This is absolutely ridiculous.


Not really. Iron 56 has the highest binding energy per nucleon. The density of nucleons varies little from that of other nucleons around the valley of stability.

There then follows a completely nonsensical diagram (figure 3) which seems to suggest that hydrogen-1 has a mass number of somewhere between 100 and 150 (its hard to tell but whatever it is its wrong).

There then follows a blatant lie:

So revolutionary that the author of this paper can’t quote a single reference to it other than their own paper. I can’t think of anything less revolutionary.


I see nothing in this quote to suggest that Lunney et al. agree with Manuel’s theory. Can anyone else?

I could go on but can't be bothered.

'if there was anything to it, someone would have noticed it already, its not cited much, blah blah'. Maybe you should contact the reputable Journal of Fusion Energy and inform them of their fatal mistake in publishing it?

Ok. So you dont like this theory. Too bad, I think its an interesting perspective on stars in general, and since the journal didn't seem to have any problems with publishing it, thats good enough for me

 

[Tubbythin]

I meant that Scotts speculative electric sun model should not be linked with PC. The best way to categorize PC material is anything that has been peer reviewed and published in a journal, so his few publoications that have been peer reviewed and published would be counted as this, yes. The few of thornhills can be counted as PC material, although his far more speculative ideas should be kept at a distance. Its just that if you search for either of them, you'll get a load of material that is not accepted PC material. There's a peer review process for a reason, you know.

Why didn't you say that at the time then rather than dismissing them as never having written any PC papers?

So then, can you give me a quantitive description of this dark strange matter that pulsars are now made of? Wheres the direct evidence for this substance?

Huh?

Why do you keep bringing up steady state theory? Its not consistant with PC, they are fundamentally different approaches, theres a difference between saying that the universe is in a steady and state literally, and Hoyles steady state theory, which you would know if you had read this; http://bigbangneverhappened.org/p27.htm.

I know! That's my point. You kept bringing it up as a viable alternative to BBT in one of the other threads. And yet it directly conflicts with PC. You can't have it both ways.

And why are you talking about this sort of thing here anyway? this thread is surely about pulsars? your taking a leaf of of DRD's book. [/I]

Because you had just said:

Well, as I keep telling you, I will enjoy actually discussing some PC material when I've the time, and I really dont know why you have to resort to writing these sort of posts. You should just do what Reality Check, or D'David does, if you think that I have not answered a question, just keep pointing it out, without all the personal accusations, I will respond eventually.

So I followed your instructions.

 

[Tubbythin]

'if there was anything to it, someone would have noticed it already, its not cited much, blah blah'. Maybe you should contact the reputable Journal of Fusion Energy and inform them of their fatal mistake in publishing it?

Steady on. I don't think anybody has died yet from it.

Ok. So you dont like this theory. Too bad, I think its an interesting perspective on stars in general, and since the journal didn't seem to have any problems with publishing it, thats good enough for me

I dislike the paper because it seems to completely ignore the fact that the nuclear force is charge independent.

 

[Dancing David]

Sol did make an interesting comment about the peer review process...

 

[shadron]

Electrical engineer Donald Scott says the phenomenon that gives pulsars their name (rapidly pulsed radio signals) "is produced electrically (much like a radio station)." (SNIP)

There's where it all went wrong. You shouldn't go to an EE for an explanation of Astrophysics. You do know they are two different branches of science, right?

Laugh. Cry. Laugh. Cry. Laugh. Cry. A scientific turf war isn't the answer. The answer to the problem behind your rhetorical question is, which science will yield the most correct answer, and I don't think you can resolve it from the data given.

Actually, a better wording of an answer would be that any astrophysicist who is asked to explain an unusual pulsar would be a fool not to include an EE in his team.

Honestly, people, how are we to come to a synthesis (and I maintain that it has to be a synthesis; neither Force alone, nor any three out of four, will explain all the observations) without going interdisciplinary? Hell, the very definition of an astrophysicist is interdisciplinary. Whacking at degrees here isn't going to "get you where you want to go", unless you are only looking for the ego satisfaction.

Work the theory, SG, not the personalities - that's where the meat is. Sometimes it is a good idea to ask whether an astrophysicist's idea about an electric phenomena really can happen, and if you ignore engineers you might just get the wrong answer. Period.

What, exactly, do you find to fault in the statement that the EE makes cited above? Is he incorrect in saying it is electromagnetic? What kind of sensors are being used to examine it, for pity's sake?

 

[robinson]

Here's more for you to consider (or ignore) regarding pulsars ...


http://eu.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=5946

Wow. How can anyone keep up these days? So many new discoveries, so many strange new measurements.

 

[Skeptic Guy]

He's an astronomer too, although that is not his main qualification, and he happens to have proposed a quite tenable theory based on electricty that seems likely to be correct. Much progress in science has come from interdisiplinary approaches, where experts in one field apply what their knowledge to other fields. Electrical engineers seem to have applied many innovative ideas in space, take electrical engineer Alexander Bolonkin's very interesting idea for example; http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0701058 Utilizing the idea that when on earth, the actual power that you use is not created in your house, its created miles away and transferred to you, and he proposes that a similar mechanism could occur in space plasma. That would certainly explain the recent observation of an explosion that seemingly occured where nothing at all existed; Baffling Cosmic Explosion Comes Out of Nowhere, I'm not sure that astronomers would have come up with this idea...

An amateur astronomer postulating a really long plasma extension cord. I'll wait for the peer review.

As far as the "Baffling Cosmic Explosion...", I'll wait for the astrophysicists to elliminate the more mundane explanations, such as (from your article):

One possibility is that the star formed in the outskirts of an interacting galaxy. To test this idea, astronomers will have to take a long exposure of the area with the Hubble Space Telescope to see if they can find the tidal tail of an interacting galaxy there.

Laugh. Cry. Laugh. Cry. Laugh. Cry. A scientific turf war isn't the answer. The answer to the problem behind your rhetorical question is, which science will yield the most correct answer, and I don't think you can resolve it from the data given.

Actually, a better wording of an answer would be that any astrophysicist who is asked to explain an unusual pulsar would be a fool not to include an EE in his team.

Honestly, people, how are we to come to a synthesis (and I maintain that it has to be a synthesis; neither Force alone, nor any three out of four, will explain all the observations) without going interdisciplinary? Hell, the very definition of an astrophysicist is interdisciplinary. Whacking at degrees here isn't going to "get you where you want to go", unless you are only looking for the ego satisfaction.

Work the theory, SG, not the personalities - that's where the meat is. Sometimes it is a good idea to ask whether an astrophysicist's idea about an electric phenomena really can happen, and if you ignore engineers you might just get the wrong answer. Period.

What, exactly, do you find to fault in the statement that the EE makes cited above? Is he incorrect in saying it is electromagnetic? What kind of sensors are being used to examine it, for pity's sake?

I'm working the theory...

If we were talking about an electrical system, I'd go with the EE, if I wanted to talk about astrophysics...well you get the idea.

Note to self: Call the plumber and schedule my car repair.