Sometimes you gotta just laugh at science journalists. This genius is claiming that Cassiopeia A's supernova remnant is a neutron star of 20 Solar masses! You gotta wonder how it's able prevent itself from collapsing into a black hole without nuclear fusion?
Other than that, the article is okay, describes a newly formed neutron star that still has an atmosphere of carbon on it. The carbon was created from left over fusion reactions in an atmosphere of hydrogen and helium on the surface of the neutron star even after it had gone supernova.
CBC News - Technology & Science - Canadian physicist IDs young neutron star "Craig Heinke and his colleague Wynn Ho at the University of Southampton, U.K., say that the remnant of the supernova Cassiopeia A is a very young neutron star, 20 times heavier than the sun, but only 20 kilometres wide." http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009/11/04/tech-space-alberta-neut...
Yousuf Khan wrote: > Sometimes you gotta just laugh at science journalists. This genius is > claiming that Cassiopeia A's supernova remnant is a neutron star of 20 > Solar masses! You gotta wonder how it's able prevent itself from > collapsing into a black hole without nuclear fusion?
> Other than that, the article is okay, describes a newly formed neutron > star that still has an atmosphere of carbon on it. The carbon was > created from left over fusion reactions in an atmosphere of hydrogen and > helium on the surface of the neutron star even after it had gone supernova.
> CBC News - Technology & Science - Canadian physicist IDs young neutron star > "Craig Heinke and his colleague Wynn Ho at the University of > Southampton, U.K., say that the remnant of the supernova Cassiopeia A is > a very young neutron star, 20 times heavier than the sun, but only 20 > kilometres wide." > http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009/11/04/tech-space-alberta-neut...
> Yousuf Khan
There have never been any neutron star masses greater than or even 3 solar masses. Methinks the science writer has no clue about the subject matter!
Sam Wormley wrote: > Yousuf Khan wrote: >> Sometimes you gotta just laugh at science journalists. This genius is >> claiming that Cassiopeia A's supernova remnant is a neutron star of 20 >> Solar masses! You gotta wonder how it's able prevent itself from >> collapsing into a black hole without nuclear fusion?
>> Other than that, the article is okay, describes a newly formed neutron >> star that still has an atmosphere of carbon on it. The carbon was >> created from left over fusion reactions in an atmosphere of hydrogen >> and helium on the surface of the neutron star even after it had gone >> supernova.
>> CBC News - Technology & Science - Canadian physicist IDs young neutron >> star >> "Craig Heinke and his colleague Wynn Ho at the University of >> Southampton, U.K., say that the remnant of the supernova Cassiopeia A >> is a very young neutron star, 20 times heavier than the sun, but only >> 20 kilometres wide." >> http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009/11/04/tech-space-alberta-neut...
>> Yousuf Khan
> There have never been any neutron star masses greater than or even 3 solar > masses. Methinks the science writer has no clue about the subject matter!
Yousuf Khan wrote: > Sometimes you gotta just laugh at science journalists. This genius is > claiming that Cassiopeia A's supernova remnant is a neutron star of 20 > Solar masses! You gotta wonder how it's able prevent itself from > collapsing into a black hole without nuclear fusion?
It is horseshit, that's why. There is no possible way it is 20 solar masses.
> Other than that, the article is okay, describes a newly formed neutron > star that still has an atmosphere of carbon on it. The carbon was > created from left over fusion reactions in an atmosphere of hydrogen and > helium on the surface of the neutron star even after it had gone > supernova.
> CBC News - Technology & Science - Canadian physicist IDs young neutron > star "Craig Heinke and his colleague Wynn Ho at the University of > Southampton, U.K., say that the remnant of the supernova Cassiopeia A is > a very young neutron star, 20 times heavier than the sun, but only 20 > kilometres wide." > http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009/11/04/tech-space-alberta-neut... star.html
>> Sometimes you gotta just laugh at science journalists. This genius is >> claiming that Cassiopeia A's supernova remnant is a neutron star of 20 >> Solar masses! You gotta wonder how it's able prevent itself from >> collapsing into a black hole without nuclear fusion?
> It is horseshit, that's why. There is no possible way it is 20 solar masses.
I think he just got confused with the mass of the progenitor star.
> Sometimes you gotta just laugh at science journalists. This genius is > claiming that Cassiopeia A's supernova remnant is a neutron star of 20 > Solar masses! You gotta wonder how it's able prevent itself from > collapsing into a black hole without nuclear fusion?
> Other than that, the article is okay, describes a newly formed neutron > star that still has an atmosphere of carbon on it. The carbon was > created from left over fusion reactions in an atmosphere of hydrogen and > helium on the surface of the neutron star even after it had gone supernova.
> CBC News - Technology & Science - Canadian physicist IDs young neutron star > "Craig Heinke and his colleague Wynn Ho at the University of > Southampton, U.K., say that the remnant of the supernova Cassiopeia A is > a very young neutron star, 20 times heavier than the sun, but only 20 > kilometres wide." > http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009/11/04/tech-space-alberta-neut...
> Yousuf Khan
One of the most massive observed neutron stars is 1.74 solar-mass pulsar PSR J1903+0327. 20 solar masses attributed to any neutron star under any circumstances isn't even wrong.
On Nov 6, 2:49 pm, Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
> One of the most massive observed neutron stars is 1.74 solar-mass > pulsar PSR J1903+0327. 20 solar masses attributed to any neutron star > under any circumstances isn't even wrong.
Within the context of Discrete Scale Relativity, the upper limit for Stellar Scale black holes or neutron stars [which are the former in low to very highly excited states] is roughly 30 solar masses.
Nature and empirical evidence trumps theoretical assumptions. Every time.
> On Nov 6, 2:49 pm, Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
> > One of the most massive observed neutron stars is 1.74 solar-mass > > pulsar PSR J1903+0327. 20 solar masses attributed to any neutron star > > under any circumstances isn't even wrong.
> Within the context of Discrete Scale Relativity, the upper limit > for Stellar Scale black holes or neutron stars [which are the > former in low to very highly excited states] is roughly 30 solar > masses.
Knecht wrote: > On Nov 6, 2:49 pm, Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>> One of the most massive observed neutron stars is 1.74 solar-mass >> pulsar PSR J1903+0327. 20 solar masses attributed to any neutron star >> under any circumstances isn't even wrong.
> Within the context of Discrete Scale Relativity, the upper limit > for Stellar Scale black holes or neutron stars [which are the > former in low to very highly excited states] is roughly 30 solar > masses.
> Nature and empirical evidence trumps theoretical assumptions. > Every time.
On Nov 7, 6:55 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Knecht wrote: > > Within the context of Discrete Scale Relativity, the upper limit > > for Stellar Scale black holes or neutron stars [which are the > > former in low to very highly excited states] is roughly 30 solar > > masses.
> > Nature and empirical evidence trumps theoretical assumptions. > > Every time.
> Now we wait for the furious backpedal once the misreporting error is > revealed.- Hide quoted text -
NOTE: A crucial characteristic of definitive predictions is that they cannot be "adjusted".
If DSR is right, then 20 solar mass neutron stars must exist. If the latter do not exist, then DSR is wrong.
ALSO NOTE: The highest mass black hole so far observed has a mass of about 30 solar masses.
This is called doing real science, as opposed to untestable post- modern landscaping.
On Nov 7, 8:10 pm, Knecht <rlolders...@amherst.edu> wrote:
Speaking of intolerance, ignorance and wetware, I can't understanding why he is still running Reptillian 1.0 when most enlightened people have switched to Humanbean 3.0 .
And a 1,000 pardons. The initial news report on the Ho and Heinke paper gave a mass of 20 solar masses, instead of the correct 2.0 solar masses. The mistake was reported verbatim on the internet.
Ho and Heinke actually estimate the mass of Cas A at 1.5 - 2.4 solar masses, which they expressly note "is significantly higher than the canonical" neutron star mass of 1.4 solar masses.
So it looks like I will have to setle for a single instead of a Grand-Slam homerun, for now.
Not that long ago conventional physics said that the masses of neutron stars could only be in the range of about 1.3 - 1.5 solar masses. Neuton stars outside this range were considered "impossible". Ruled out on theoretical grounds.
In the last decade: (1) at least 3 neutron stars have had mass estimates below 1.0 solar mass, and (2) now we have clearly breached the "upper mass limit". Discrete Scale Relativity definitively predicts that Kerr-Newman ultracompacts [the dark matter] range in mass from roughly 0.6 - 34 solar masses, and that neutron stars are members of this same class of objects, but are in very highly excited states. Black holes have had empirical mass estimates from at least 1 - 30 solar masses. DSR predicts the same mass range for neutron stars. It is to be expected that the high mass ones are relatively rare.
Note also that in the Ho and Heinke paper one model gives a blackbody solution with R = 2 km. Another model with a H atmosphere yelds R = 0.4 km! These smaller than expected R values are very much in keeping with DSR's definitive predictions for neutron star radii.
> And a 1,000 pardons. The initial news report on > the Ho and Heinke paper gave a mass of 20 solar > masses, instead of the correct 2.0 solar masses. > The mistake was reported verbatim on the internet.
> Ho and Heinke actually estimate the mass of Cas A > at 1.5 - 2.4 solar masses, which they expressly note > "is significantly higher than the canonical" neutron star > mass of 1.4 solar masses.
Well, a mass of 2.4 solar masses is still significantly higher than the 2.1 solar masses previously thought to be the upper limit of neutron stars.
> In the last decade: (1) at least 3 neutron stars have > had mass estimates below 1.0 solar mass, and > (2) now we have clearly breached the "upper mass limit".
Which neutron stars are below 1.0 solar masses? Don't they have to be at least above 1.4 solar masses to be above the Chandrasekhar Limit?
On Nov 8, 3:43 pm, Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
> > > idiot
Speaking of intolerance, ignorance and wetware, I can't understanding why he is still running Reptillian 1.0 when most enlightened people have switched to Humanbean 3.0 .
For Chrissake the "Ch... Limit" is a Platonic theoretical construct.
You've got to start questioning the UNTESTED theory.
The TESTED science is the most precious thing humans have, but the untested stuff is PSEUDO-SCIENCE until it is empirically tested. Speculation is a more polite word for it.
The whole "world" of untestable post-modern landscaping, i.e., "multiverses", "anthropic reasoning", "wimps", "string theory" and "Boltzmann Brains" is pseudo-science. Handle with thick gloves and keep a clothes pin on your nose.
Untested assumptions and untestable theories should not be used in scientific reasoning.
The true mass range for neutron stars will be determined empirically, NOT THEORETICALLY!!!
Reject Pseudo-science! Demand TESTABLE SCIENCE! Call editors and writers out when they sycophantically repeat pseudo-scientific crap in their publishing and reporting! SHOW THE FALSE PROPHETS THE DOOR!
|
