Replies

I didn't think that you would admit the differences between neutron star models and beta plus decay and you clearly won't.

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.

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.

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

"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.

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.