Rare dead star found near Earth

BBC ^ | Monday, 20 August 2007, 19:57 GMT 20:57 UK

[NativeSon]

It's like holding your finger up, and alternating closing each eye. The finger "moves" relative to the background.

and since the object by definition may not be producing energy to gain a spectral analysis, you can't measure the object's "red shift"...

but this object should have some affect on gravity and a I'd expect a more precise measure of distance to be forthcoming

[Constantine XIII]

In this thread: People who aren’t “good at math” and “don’t know equations” but who think they are smarter than a century’s worth of physicists whose hard work has led to the advent of our modern technological society, including the computers that they are using to deny said discoveries in favor of their favorite brand of kookiness. :p

[jpsb]

It is my understanding that our creation (solar system) required two almost simultaneous super nova blasts. Where the two waves met third generation star could form as the waves canceled one another out. All else was swept clear of dust (giving us a nice view). I have also read that there is a black hole somewhere near by. Could be the dual supernova blast theory is correct? Interesting stuff.

[RightWhale]

I start my day by dividing a couple of complex numbers or calculating a cross product of a couple of vectors. Until I am focused enough to get a correct result I don’t even attempt to read Husserl. I assume most of the posters on these threads have a similar routine.

[RightWhale]

Definite possibility. Even 80-90 years ago we didn’t have a clue what was out there. The universe was only a billion years old and our galaxy was the whole ball of wax.

[Constantine XIII]

It happens in neutron stars when the gravitational force exceeds the electron degeneracy pressure exerted by the electrons due to the Pauli Exclusion Principle. The inverse beta decay is not powered by electromagnetic potential as it is in proton-rich nuclides, but by the release of gravitational potential energy as the star's core contracts during the process of neutron star formation.

Just as the gravitational potential energy of an overloaded truck is released into the truck's axle by deforming and breaking it, so too does the "fall" (compression under gravity) of the core matter transfer the gravitational potential energy into the compressed atoms, more than enough energy, it happens, to overcome the electron degeneracy pressure and cause inverse beta decay, creating a neutron star.

There is also more direct evinence, if you want it.

We can tell by the motion of the stars and gas around it what its mass is. We can tell by it's emission spectrum what its temperature and surface composition are. Combine that with its luminosity and we can derive its surface area.

Assuming it's spherical, we know it's volume.

Divide mass by volume to get density.

OMG, look, it reasonably matches the calculated values we'd expect. I GUESS THOSE EGG HEADS WERE RIGHT AFTER ALL LOL.

[RockinRight]

To be fair...it’s a vernacular to use “dead” to mean inert or inactive.

Example: “My car died this morning” or “the deal is dead.”

[GourmetDan]

"Are you actually so anal as to hold against me that I said beta plus decay when I should have said inverse beta decay or electron capture? OK, fine I was wrong. I will correct it."

Absolutely not. You can call it whatever you want, I am interested in the substance of a conversation, not the style. I would say that you are projecting your own personality again.

Thanks Jason, but what you wrote is entirely theoretical and can’t be observed. ... We see it going the other way (neutron > proton-electron-neutrino), but not that way except in our theories and imaginations."

I see that you are selectively editing my statements in order to misrepresent what I said again.

What I really said was:

"Thanks Jason, but what you wrote is entirely theoretical and can’t be observed. Gravity would have to convert energy into matter for an electron-proton pair to become a neutron. We see it going the other way (neutron > proton-electron-neutrino), but not that way except in our theories and imaginations."

"You're wrong. This happens in so-called inverse beta decay (or electron capture) which is observed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_capture

There is a reason that I wrote what I did and that same reason requires you to misrepresent my statements and take them out of context in order to say that I am 'wrong'. I am not. What I said is not disproved by 'so-called inverse beta decay' or 'electron capture'.

The conditions for 'neutron star' creation are not modeled after the conditions in 'inverse beta decay' or 'electron capture'. The conditions for 'inverse beta decay' or 'electron capture' are very specific and are not the conditions under which 'neutron stars' are presumed to occur.

Obviously, some people think that merely pointing to 'inverse beta decay' or 'electron recapture' solves the problem for 'neutron star' creation. It does not, as the conditions are entirely different.

You would need to go back to post #98 and read what Jason wrote.

He wrote:

"This creates a new catastrophic transition - an electron can be effectively "forced inside" the nearest proton, creating a neutron instead. It takes net energy to do this, so it normally does not happen spontaneously, but the gravitational potential of further contraction supplies this energy. Once this starts anywhere in the star, it reduces the electron repulsion and EDP between nearby components and allows a further contraction."

This is why my statement included the comment about gravity converting energy into matter being unobserved. This is not 'inverse beta decay' or 'electron capture'. It is something very different and is the reason that phenomenon does not apply. While the strong and weak nuclear forces may be able to convert energy into matter, gravity has never been observed to do that. Gravity is impossibly weak compared to the strong and weak nuclear forces and 'electron capture' using gravity is not observed, only modeled.

This is why it is so important not to selectively edit other people's statements to make it appear that they said something that they did not. That you continue to do this makes it clear that you simply insist on engaging in misrepresentation, the 'burden of proof' fallacy and projecting your disingenuous personality onto others.

[GourmetDan]

I think it is important that you not confuse the model with reality, esp when it involved unobserved processes. Gravity being able to convert energy into matter is unobserved.

That your model inevitably calculates to that conclusion is an indication that the model is wrong, not evidence that these objects actually exist. This is a key bit of truth that most scientists are unwilling to admit publicly. After all, there is great risk in publicly diverging from the accepted model without majority support.

It is the ‘gravity-only’ model of the universe that has given us ‘dark matter’ after all because the observed motions are inconsistent with expected gravitational fields. This is another indication that the model is wrong, not evidence that ‘dark matter’ actually exists.

I would suggest that you take some time to step out of the ‘gravity-only’ box and see if you can find any other natural forces that might produce the effects you see without invoking unobserved and unobservable entities.

Are you able to distinguish between reality and the model? The post I am responding to did not indicate such ability. Your next response will likely provide definitive evidence.

[Constantine XIII]

What “gravitational box” are you talking about? LOL

BTW, ever heard of pair production?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production

Energy is transformed into matter all the time. It happens billions of times a day in particle detectors connected to particle accelerators all over the world, and uncounted times all over the world as high energy cosmic rays collide with the atmosphere.

Instead of being accelerated with electromagnetic forces as particles here on earth are, however, the energy is supplied as the neutron star contracts. All of that stuff going down one friggin steep gravitational gradient.

All of that energy goes somewhere, and making neutrons is where a lot of it goes. That and making neutrinos, which play a big part in the dynamics of an ongoing supernova.

[GourmetDan]

"What “gravitational box” are you talking about? LOL"

As expected. Thanks.

[Constantine XIII]

Seriously, if you know something I don’t, don’t be a snarky jerk, explain it to me.

I’m open minded. Try me.

What do you think is going on?

What’s the little white arrow pointing to in that photograph?

What natural process makes a signal that repeats with a perfect periodicity and almost always lies at the heart of a supernova remnant?

Answers, man!

[GourmetDan]

"Seriously, if you know something I don’t, don’t be a snarky jerk, explain it to me."

I did. I explained that you confuse the model with reality and do not understand the difference between actual observations and theoretical artifacts generated by the model.

"I’m open minded. Try me."

Clearly that is a matter of perspective. When I tell you that you confuse the model with reality, it simply does not compute for you. Unfortunately you cannot understand that and misrepresent me as though I am a 'snarky jerk'. Now, that may be characteristic of an 'open-minded' person where you come from but your claims don't match up to your behavior in my experience.

"What do you think is going on?"

The object is too far away to tell. Running observations through a model that produces these bizarre entities is not an answer. It is evidence that the model is broken, not that these bizarre extrapolations actually exist.

"What’s the little white arrow pointing to in that photograph?"

It's pointing to a point in space that is emitting electromagnetic radiation. That's all that you can say. After that, you are held captive to whichever model you run the effects through. That's what I explained to you previously and got called a 'snarky jerk'.

"What natural process makes a signal that repeats with a perfect periodicity and almost always lies at the heart of a supernova remnant?"

You assume so many things here that can't be shown to be true. Many points in space 'flicker' and they don't 'almost always lie at the heart of a supernova remnant'. Then (if you continue to insist on a neutron star) you have to explain why so many conveniently point this theoretical 'jet' at the earth so that you can detect the 'flicker'. There is practically no end to the number of assumptions contained in your belief in neutron stars, most of which you are completely unaware.

"Answers, man!"

As should be clear by now, the 'answers' you have are no more substantive than any I would give you. What you think are 'answers' are nothing more than the fallacy of appeal to popular opinion (all these scientists believe this, therefore it must be true). It is your basic need for someone to give you an 'answer' that actually drives you to accept and defend theoretical objects that are products of a model.

Were you really open-minded, you would already know how theoretical these objects are and would not cling to your beloved 'answers' so closely. Better to actually be open-minded and look for alternative explanations than just claim to be open-minded and descend into fallacy defending the status quo.

[Constantine XIII]

So...what’s your point other than saying “LOL no one really knows anything about anything.” :p

[GourmetDan]

"So...what’s your point other than saying “LOL no one really knows anything about anything.” :p"

Ah, more misrepresentation.

Is that another example of your self-described 'open-mindedness'?

[Constantine XIII]

I’m not even sure what our point is. lol

[finnigan2]

“As long as it doesn’t become ert ...”

- No, you’re thinking of the old Biblical story in which Noah learns that there are 8 erts in one cubit.