Scientist says neutron stars, not black holes, at center of galaxies (Forwarded)
Andrew Yee
University of Missouri-Rolla
Contact: Lance Feyh
Phone: 573-341-4269
Email: lfeyh @ umr.edu
December 1, 2005
SCIENTIST SAYS NEUTRON STARS, NOT BLACK HOLES, AT CENTER OF GALAXIES
ROLLA, Mo. -- For the past 50 years, black holes have been all
the rage. Now, a University of Missouri-Rolla researcher says they never
existed.
Scientists have long believed that hydrogen fusion generates
heat and light in the sun and other ordinary stars for billions of years
before the star collapses into a neutron star or black hole when its
fuel is exhausted. "Most scientists think neutron stars are dead matter,
rather than energized, and that eventually they can collapse and form
black holes at the center of galaxies," says Dr. Oliver Manuel, a
professor of nuclear chemistry at UMR. "In this scenario, the end game
is the end of light as we know it."
Manuel thinks neutron stars are at the beginning of an
astronomical renaissance, so to speak.
In a new paper, http://arxiv.org/pdf/nucl-th/0511051 , Manuel
and his co-authors claim massive neutron stars are the energy source at
the center of galaxies. "The neutron stars break up and form smaller
stars, which drift apart to form planetary systems," Manuel says.
Manuel is the lead author of the new paper, "On the Cosmic
Nuclear Cycle and the Similarity of Nuclei and Stars." In the abstract,
the authors state, "This cycle involves neither the production of matter
in an initial Big Bang, nor the disappearance of matter into black
holes."
Since the 1960s, scientists have more or less assumed that
black holes populate the center of galaxies. Manuel says that assumption
just doesn't make sense to him.
"You should find a hole there, not a huge outpouring of energy
and light," Manuel insists. "If black holes exist at the center of
galaxies, stars should be falling in -- instead of explosively moving
away from the center."
According to Manuel, all of the "fragmentation" created by
neutron stars and the fission of heavy elements at the centers of
galaxies can be explained by "neutron repulsion."
"Neutrons and protons in the nucleus work like the north and
south ends of magnets," Manuel explains. "Neutrons repel neutrons,
protons repel protons, but neutrons attract protons. Neutron repulsion
is the force that energizes neutron stars. This empirical fact was
discovered by five graduate students working with me to decipher the
nuclear mass data for the 2,850 known nuclides in the spring of 2000."
Manuel and the group of UMR graduate students published their
findings in 2000 in the Journal of Fusion Energy.
Last summer, Manuel and other UMR researchers reported that a
small neutron star is at the core of our sun and other ordinary stars.
Those conclusions are forthcoming in the Proceedings of the First Crisis
in Cosmology Conference by the American Institute of Physics.
"The heat, light and hydrogen pouring from these stars are
produced by neutron repulsion in their cores," Manuel says.
Furthermore, according to the UMR scientist, our sun once
belonged to a larger neutron star that exploded to form the current
solar system. He imagines massive neutron stars to be like giant nesting
dolls that give birth to smaller stars.
"The super massive neutron stars break up and form galaxies of
smaller stars, just as the nuclei of the heavy elements break apart,"
Manuel says.
In their paper "On the Cosmic Nuclear Cycle and the Similarity
of Nuclei and Stars," Manuel and co-authors Michael Mozina of Emerging
Technologies and Hilton Ratcliffe of the Astronomical Society of South
Africa argue that neutron repulsion also explains the luminosity of the
sun and other ordinary stars.
"Additionally, neutron repulsion explains extremely high
energy events like quasars, which are associated with high-density
regions of space," Manuel says. "These were previously attributed to
black holes."
Jan Panteltje
<ay...@nova.astro.utoronto.ca> wrote in
<R%Plf.8543$kt5.6...@news20.bellglobal.com>:
>Office of Public Relations
>University of Missouri-Rolla
>
>Contact: Lance Feyh
>Phone: 573-341-4269
>Email: lfeyh @ umr.edu
>
>December 1, 2005
>
>SCIENTIST SAYS NEUTRON STARS, NOT BLACK HOLES, AT CENTER OF GALAXIES
I have often wondered why the big star bulge at the center of gallaxies..
You'd expect those there swalled up by the black hole...
Interesting, is this real, eh I mean accepted mainstream ;-)?
Yes I have read the paper, but that stuff ... I am no nuclear physicist...
Would change a LOT of things it is was true!
ianpa...@gmail.com
over a million suns. How can a neutron star be stable at that mass? It
MUST be a black hole. Nothing else fits.
The stars in the bulge orbit the black hole and the mass of stars
closer in. I think you are under a certain misapprehension about how
black holes actually work and what they look like. When matter is
sucked in it tens to form a ring of relativistic plasma round the event
horizon. A star will produce a burst of energy, and if the BH is
spinning a jet. This is what powers abnormal galaxies.
Abnormal galaxies were more common in the earlier Universe than they
are now. The Milky Way may have been a quasar, or abnormal galaxy, once
but it is no longer. All the matter in danger of falling in has already
fallen in.
Why galaxies need a point mass of 0.5% at their center is still not
clear. It may be linked to stability considerations.
Martin Brown
> On a sunny day (Thu, 08 Dec 2005 01:02:24 -0500) it happened Andrew Yee
> <ay...@nova.astro.utoronto.ca> wrote in
> <R%Plf.8543$kt5.6...@news20.bellglobal.com>:
>
>>Office of Public Relations
>>University of Missouri-Rolla
>>
>>Contact: Lance Feyh
>>Phone: 573-341-4269
>>Email: lfeyh @ umr.edu
>>
>>December 1, 2005
>>
>>SCIENTIST SAYS NEUTRON STARS, NOT BLACK HOLES, AT CENTER OF GALAXIES
>
> I have often wondered why the big star bulge at the center of gallaxies..
> You'd expect those there swalled up by the black hole...
Not unless it gets very close to the BH. Otherwise from a safe distance
a BH gravitational field is no significantly different to any normal
matter spherical mass. It is only when you get in close that things get
ugly (especially since real ones tend to be spinning).
> Interesting, is this real, eh I mean accepted mainstream ;-)?
The paper appears to be real. It is another question altogether why
University of Missouri-Rolla is drawing attention to it... to ensure
they get students of the right calibre in future perhaps?
Anyone know which peer reviewed journal accepted this paper for
publication??
> Yes I have read the paper, but that stuff ... I am no nuclear physicist...
> Would change a LOT of things it is was true!
I expect to see a proof of 0==1 from their maths department next.
Regards,
Martin Brown
Jan Panteltje
wrote in <1134051162....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>:
OK, let's look again, of cause the stars in the bulge rotate around what
is in the center.
But as to the whole gallaxy rotation, we already have the rotation speed
problem with the spiral arms (dark matter, Mond theory).
What bothered me was this: The central buklge is VERY bright (even in our
own milky way).
That is not likely light from matter falling into the black hole.. if that
was so, then it would have swallowed that bulge long ago.
Then why this extreme density of stars in that area (and we cannot really
look in IIRC).
(Extreme density, great number of stars per unit of space, would explain
such a bright area).
Interesting is, that they come with some explanation for that.
The other thing is of cause, as I have stated many times, that nature does
not like infinities, something is always limiting (giving way), so it would
nicely get rid of the black hole like singularity, but that is of cause only
for my thinking convenience.
We will have to wait and see how the nuke experts think about repelling neutrons...
Thanks
Jan
Llanzlan Klazmon
@news20.bellglobal.com:
This appears to be total crackpottery. Which journal published this paper if
any?
Klazmon.
>
newedana
* * * * * * *
THE MECHANISM OF STAR FORMATION IN GALAXY.
(adapted from "Natural Science Founded on A New Atomic Model" by Hansik
Yoon)
- The mechanism of star formation from the neutron mass block in
galaxy.
- The giant neuron block at the center of a galaxy as the gravity
center for its all family stars.
- The real source of solar energy.
All kinds of materials in the nature consist of merely two fundamental
particles, proton and electron. If a proton carries an electron at the
closest distance it makes a neutron, while combining it at some
distance it gives a hydrogen atom.
Hydrogen atom or helium atom cannot gather automatically by themselves
to build a giant gas block in the cosmic space (according to "Natural
Science Founded on A New atomic Model" by Hansik Yoon, on page 296 -
http://www.yoonsatom.net ), in which nuclear fusion takes place to
construct element atoms of higher atomic numbers, and new stars are
built from them, or the Stephen Hawking's black hole from singularity
substance produced by collapse of their atomic structure.
The electric repulsion between electrons is 4.17×10^42 times as great
as the gravitational attraction between them from Newtonian and
Coulomb's law. This kind of the lightest elements has a strong effusive
character resulted from the repulsion between their orbital electrons.
So balloons filled with this kind of gases expand endlessly and burst
at the stratosphere of the earth, They are being diluted limitlessly in
the vacant vacuum space.
The gathering process of these light gases results in decreasing their
entropy, so the idea they can gather automatically by themselves
conflicts critically with the Thermodynamic 3rd law.
Hans Bethe predicted that cosmic gases such as hydrogen and helium must
be the fuel of nuclear fusion of the sun or other stars, and he
explained how stars produce energy by nuclear fusion in his work on
nuclear reactions in the 1930s.
However, it appears that he didn't care how these kinds of lightest
gases can continuously be fed to the core phase of the sun or stars
where nuclear fusion takes place. These gases have to avert the
penetration problem through a highly denser celestial material, say,
solar material with an average density of 100g/cc.
According to G. Gamow's, after the Big Bang explosion the basic
elements of hydrogen and helium were built within 10^3 seconds from the
singularity, and then creation of other elements from them, and
formation of few hundred billions of galactic universes were followed
after 10^5 years of the explosion.
Although his story of creating hydrogen and hundred billions of
galactic universes from singularity is imaginary and fictitious, the
story of expanding galactic universes says one of basic orders of mass
world in the nature.
Although the moving order of all the celestial stars are governed by
gravitational attraction and counter balancing centrifugal repulsion
between them given by their orbiting motion, the numerous galactic
universes do not perform such an orbiting circular motion but a
straight linear motion directing in radial symmetric direction with an
accelerated speed, equivalent at least to the gravitational
acceleration (expansion of universe).
It is the only way to avoid the collapse of all galactic universe due
to their gravitational attraction that slows down their expanding
speeds.
If there was certainly the so-called Big Bang explosion in the
beginning of this universe, the giant mass block of pre-explosion was
NOT built from singularity as believed today, but surely with pure
neutrons.
Allegedly the singularity is an imaginary substance invented by Stephen
Hawking who predicted the existence of Black Hole built with this
singularity.
It seems that he was quite ignorant for the atomic structure. For
instance, hydrogen atom has 10^ -10 meters in diameter, while its
proton nucleus 10^ -15 meters in diameter, so their volume ratio is
1/10^15. It says that atomic structure is built with 99.999999.....% of
vacant space.
If this vacant space is excluded from hydrogen atom, the density of
pure mass well exceeds to be the utmost value of 7×10^7 metric
tons/cc, approximately 7×10^11 times as large as that of solar
materials.
Neutrons are hydrogen atoms from which their vacant space is excluded,
according to Dr. Yoon's physics.
Why is Stephen Hawking's singularity needed to build his black hole?
In addition, atomic structure is difficult to be collapsed due to a
massive gravitation since it has an enormously elastic resiliency like
a steel ball against external compression.
Dr. Hansik Yoon assumed that neutron was at first built from the
original elementary mass particles, proton and electron, by taking up
energy from a some hot energy source of cosmic furnace.
The evidence is that it emits energy it absorbed in reverse when it
decomposes to produce a proton and an electron. So neutron is possible
to pile up to make a giant block due to their gravitational attraction,
without violating the natural law of thermodynamics since they are
electrically perfect neutral, according to "Natural Science Founded on
A New atomic Model" by Hansik Yoon. (www.yoonsatom.net and
http://yoonsphysics.blogspot.com/ )
zzbu...@netscape.net
It doesn't matter what he knew about atoms,
Since his theory is based on the pauli exclusion prunciple
not atoms.
>
> If this vacant space is excluded from hydrogen atom, the density of
> pure mass well exceeds to be the utmost value of 7×10^7 metric
> tons/cc, approximately 7×10^11 times as large as that of solar
> materials.
But the theory applies at Planck time scales.
not atomic time scales.
newedana
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.astro/msg/db1dde20e21e683f?dmode=source
> December 1, 2005
THE MECHANISM OF STAR FORMATION IN GALAXY (continued)
Neutron decomposes by β-decay to produce a proton and an electron to
build a hydrogen atom, releasing energy. Since inside of the neutron
mass must be a supercritical environment of ultra high temperature and
pressure, there can occur a variety of nuclear reaction.
For example, if a proton produced by β-decay combines another neutron
nearby it turns out to build a deuteron. Deuterons thus made are also
possible to bind themselves to construct a helium nucleus in such a
supercritical environment. Thus deuterons inside the neutron blocks
becomes a fundamental building block of 92 kinds of all the natural
atomic nuclei.
Dr. Yoon's physics defines that the force of binding protons by nuclear
electron ring in atomic nuclei is the nuclear strong force, and proton
↔ neutron with an enormous frequency.
When the nuclear electron ring attached to proton to make a neutron
expands its radius to be an atomic electron ring of hydrogen atom, it
has to emit its structural potential energy (neutrino).
This energy is stored in a neutron and consequently the hydrogen atom
distributed in the cosmic space is NOT the fuel of nuclear fusion of
stars, but is mere an ash exhausted to emit its structural potential
energy which is newly defined as atomic energy by Dr. Hansik Yoon (in
"Natural Science Founded on A New atomic Model"
The giant neutron block had to explode if energy produced by β-decay
was accumulated gradually in it, due to formation of atomic nuclei in
neutron mass.
This might be the so-called Big Bang explosion. The explosion might
produce numerous fragments of neutron blocks with various sizes. The
fragments with giant sizes develop to make the galactic universes with
a variety of sizes.
The fragmented neutron blocks by the explosion turn out to inflate
their volume as atomic nuclei and atomic structures are built inside
them, inserting vacant space inside their structure. Nuclear electron
rings attached to neutrons expand to be atomic electron rings, as they
build atoms, emitting a variety of electromagnetic radiations and mass
particles with high energy. Thus there occurs phase separation inside
the fragmented mass blocks; core phases with a higher density and shell
phases with a lesser density.
A new star is created by the shell phases stripped and spun off from
the core phases, since the fragmented neutron blocks which have ultra
high temperature and pressure must rotate at a fast speed due to the
Big Bang explosion.
The star-making process repeats by countless times, and build a
galactic universe carrying billions of family stars. The star already
spun-off can also produce new stars of second generation, the planets,
and these planets can also spin off new stars of third generation, the
satellites, with the same mechanism of forming new stars. It is assumed
that, for example, the sun is a star of first generation, the earth and
other 9 planets are second generations, and our moon is the third
generation.
This is the mechanism of forming all stars in a galactic universe from
a fragmented neutron mass block.
One evidence that supports this mechanism of forming stars is that few
hundred billions of stars are densely created and distributed within
the limited regions of each galactic universe and orbiting around the
center of galactic universe, carrying their family stars, and no stars
being made outside of each galactic universe.
Second evidence is that our sun rotates around the center of Milky Way
galactic universe, and all of its 10 planets are orbiting along
concentric circular paths on the same plane with respective speeds, and
all satellites orbit also around their planets on the same plane. This
plane and orbiting direction must be the spinning plane and spinning
direction of fragmented neutron mass block.
Based on this new cosmology by Dr. Hansik Yoon, we can reasonably
explain the energy source of the sun and other stars, entirely
different from current understanding. It is the energy that originates
for the nuclear reaction of forming these element atoms from neutrons
contained in them.
The core phase of giant neuron block remained in the center of a
galactic universe plays a role of gravity center for its all family
stars, since neutron mass block has the density of around 7×10^13
metric-tons/cc, approximately 7×10^11 times as large as that of solar
materials, which is equivalent to pull 350 billions of stars as large
as the sun.
Active galaxy is a young galaxy where active formation of atomic nuclei
and new stars takes place, emitting across most of the electromagnetic
spectrum, as infrared, radio waves, UV, X-ray and gamma rays.
In the center of galactic universe there must exist such a neutron star
with a giant size, emitting across most of electromagnetic spectrum and
all kind of mass particles with the highest energy.
The sun blows out the solar wind, involving atomic nuclei such as
proton, deuteron, and helium nucleus which turn finally into cosmic
gases. The fixed stars that are young and active in their nuclear
reaction, also blow out these kind of winds involving a variety of
atomic nuclei like the solar wind which effects to bend and focus star
lights passing nearby, acting like a optical lens, according to Dr.
Yoon's new physics.
The sun must contain still a large amount of neutrons that develop into
atomic nuclei, emitting energy which is the source of solar energy. The
earth might have such neutron mass decaying very slowly and inertly to
give out heat from its core phase to sustain global temperature.
However, a sudden active nuclear reaction might be the energy source of
triggering earthquakes and volcano explosion, according to "Natural
Lloyd Parker
"newedana" <simples...@hanmail.net> wrote:
>Andrew Yee wrote:
>> Office of Public Relations
>> University of Missouri-Rolla
>>
>> Contact: Lance Feyh
>> Phone: 573-341-4269
>> Email: lfeyh @ umr.edu
>>
>> December 1, 2005
>>
>> SCIENTIST SAYS NEUTRON STARS, NOT BLACK HOLES, AT CENTER OF GALAXIES
>>
>> ROLLA, Mo. -- For the past 50 years, black holes have been all
>> the rage. Now, a University of Missouri-Rolla researcher says they never
>> existed.
>>
>> Scientists have long believed that hydrogen fusion generates
>> heat and light in the sun and other ordinary stars for billions of years
>> before the star collapses into a neutron star or black hole when its
>> fuel is exhausted. "Most scientists think neutron stars are dead matter,
>> rather than energized, and that eventually they can collapse and form
>> black holes at the center of galaxies," says Dr. Oliver Manuel, a
>> professor of nuclear chemistry at UMR. "In this scenario, the end game
>> is the end of light as we know it."
>>
>> Manuel thinks neutron stars are at the beginning of an
>> astronomical renaissance, so to speak.
>>
>> In a new paper, http://arxiv.org/pdf/nucl-th/0511051 ,
Uh, that's not a paper. A paper is in a scientific journal, not on a web
site.
Did he ever hear of gravity?
>>
>> Manuel and the group of UMR graduate students published their
>> findings in 2000 in the Journal of Fusion Energy.
>>
>> Last summer, Manuel and other UMR researchers reported that a
>> small neutron star is at the core of our sun and other ordinary stars.
>> Those conclusions are forthcoming in the Proceedings of the First Crisis
>> in Cosmology Conference by the American Institute of Physics.
>>
>> "The heat, light and hydrogen pouring from these stars are
>> produced by neutron repulsion in their cores," Manuel says.
>>
>> Furthermore, according to the UMR scientist, our sun once
>> belonged to a larger neutron star that exploded to form the current
>> solar system. He imagines massive neutron stars to be like giant nesting
>> dolls that give birth to smaller stars.
Which doesn't square with the make-up of the solar system (for one thing, all
the mass added together wouldn't make a neutron star).
>>
>> "The super massive neutron stars break up and form galaxies of
>> smaller stars, just as the nuclei of the heavy elements break apart,"
>> Manuel says.
>>
>> In their paper "On the Cosmic Nuclear Cycle and the Similarity
>> of Nuclei and Stars," Manuel and co-authors Michael Mozina of Emerging
>> Technologies and Hilton Ratcliffe of the Astronomical Society of South
>> Africa argue that neutron repulsion also explains the luminosity of the
>> sun and other ordinary stars.
>>
>> "Additionally, neutron repulsion explains extremely high
>> energy events like quasars, which are associated with high-density
>> regions of space," Manuel says. "These were previously attributed to
>> black holes."
>
>* * * * * * *
>
>
>THE MECHANISM OF STAR FORMATION IN GALAXY.
>(adapted from "Natural Science Founded on A New Atomic Model" by Hansik
>Yoon)
>
So it's all a fraud.
Lloyd Parker
No it doesn't. In most such decays, the electron has enough velocity that
it's not captured by the proton to make a hydrogen atom.
> Since inside of the neutron
>mass must be a supercritical environment of ultra high temperature and
>pressure, there can occur a variety of nuclear reaction.
Except all that's there are 3 quarks.
>
>For example, if a proton produced by β-decay combines another neutron
>nearby it turns out to build a deuteron. Deuterons thus made are also
>possible to bind themselves to construct a helium nucleus in such a
>supercritical environment. Thus deuterons inside the neutron blocks
>becomes a fundamental building block of 92 kinds of all the natural
>atomic nuclei.
Ever hear of something called iron? Can't go beyond it without putting energy
in.
>
>Dr. Yoon's physics defines that the force of binding protons by nuclear
>electron ring in atomic nuclei is the nuclear strong force, and proton
>↔ neutron with an enormous frequency.
Dr. Yoon's brain is full of mush.
Happy Hippy
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/
The center of the galaxy/atom is the
nucleus.
The SPIN at the center re-establishes
neutrons into highly-charged plasma,
which is repelled out the poles and re-forms into
stars, which radiate until they become neutron stars
and are no longer repelled, fall in, spin up, and
on and on and on.
John
Happy Hippy
These are heavy/non-repelled electrically by the
massive nucleus. They fall into the center.
> The SPIN at the center re-establishes
> neutrons into highly-charged plasma,
and negative; spinning both the same way very rapidly
creates opposite magnetic fields)
> which is repelled out the poles and re-forms into
> stars, which radiate until they become neutron stars
> and are no longer repelled, fall in, spin up,
and
> on and on and on.
> John
The only question is
'Whence the spin?'
The answer:
The Universe is spinning.
Sam Wormley
>
> The only question is
> 'Whence the spin?'
> The answer:
> The Universe is spinning.
There is plenty of spinning going on *within* the universe, but the
universe as a whole....
Assuming the inflationary scenario is correct, one would expect any
universal rotation to be extremely small.
Some Papers involving "Rotation of the Universe"
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22rotation+of+the+universe%22+site%3AarXiv.org
Jonathan Silverlight
<swor...@mchsi.com> writes
Andrew Yee's post is really stirring the nuts, but hasn't that been
shown to be the case?
I've quoted that passage by George Smoot in "Wrinkles in Time" about
"one hundred-millionth of a rotation in the last billion years" in
discussions on sci.astro, and someone else commented that's what you
would expect from inflation.
BTW, no-one seems to have commented on the claim in this very odd paper
that the sun is a rigid structure.
(Turnpike is telling me I shouldn't cross post to 5 newsgroups, but it
does seem on topic)
Happy Hippy
The Universe continues at larger and smaller scales infinitely.
But the scale we are concerned with
is the next up from Black Holes.
Consider the neutron star; collections of electrons
melded to protons fall back into the BH to be spun
back up into plasma, stuff of stars.
What is this Black Hole? It is itself a nucleus
composed of protons and neutrons. It is spin.
Where did it get its spin? When it was in the same
Super Black Hole that created ALL the galaxies we
can see!
Of course all the galaxies we can see plus their brethren
that we can't see are not the only matter in the
Universe; simply that making up the stars and planets
of ONE Super Galaxy.
One of many, many, many such Super Galaxies.
Each separated by *VAST* volumes of empty space.
So, yes, in the Universe there are pockets of spin, which
are surrounded by smaller and smaller pockets of spin.
"There is plenty of spinning going on *within* the universe, but the
universe as a whole...." is infinite.
John
Galaxy Model for the Atom
Happy Hippy
Sam Wormley
> What is this Black Hole? It is itself a nucleus
> composed of protons and neutrons. It is spin.
>
One property of black hole is angular monentum... At least
you got that correct... progress.
Joseph Lazio
JS> BTW, no-one seems to have commented on the claim in this very odd
JS> paper [by O. Manuel] that the sun is a rigid structure.
What's there to comment?
--
Lt. Lazio, HTML police | e-mail: jla...@patriot.net
No means no, stop rape. | http://patriot.net/%7Ejlazio/
sci.astro FAQ at http://sciastro.astronomy.net/sci.astro.html
Martin Brown
>>>>>>"JS" == Jonathan Silverlight <jsilve...@spam.merseia.fsnet.co.uk.invalid> writes:
>
> JS> BTW, no-one seems to have commented on the claim in this very odd
> JS> paper [by O. Manuel] that the sun is a rigid structure.
>
> What's there to comment?
There is the pressing question of why Andrew Yee forwarded something to
sci.astro that is so obviously Kookdom "science" from the lunatic
fringe. I will be charitable and assume that he did not read the
abstract. But I'd love to know which peer reviewed journal accepted this
paper!
I note that it is now extensively cross posted as Yoon's sock puppets
are understandably upset that their master's work has been plagarised.
What sort of University is Missouri-Rolla?
Their website appears quite plausible.
Regards,
Martin Brown
Joe Fischer
>Joseph Lazio wrote:
>>>"JS" == Jonathan Silverlight <jsilve...@spam.merseia.fsnet.co.uk.invalid> writes:
>> JS> BTW, no-one seems to have commented on the claim in this very odd
>> JS> paper [by O. Manuel] that the sun is a rigid structure.
>>
>> What's there to comment?
>
>There is the pressing question of why Andrew Yee forwarded something to
>sci.astro that is so obviously Kookdom "science" from the lunatic
>fringe. I will be charitable and assume that he did not read the
>abstract. But I'd love to know which peer reviewed journal accepted this
>paper!
>[snip]
>Regards,
>Martin Brown
Well maybe you need to keep up with astro related news,
there has been a paper(s) that suggest that most spiral galaxies
DO NOT have _MASSIVE_ black holes at their center.
So this paper _may_ have been a follow-up to that premise,
to explain the mass observed in those regions.
I have posted often that small bright stars are inordinately
difficult or even impossible to see with the best telescopes and
the longest exposures, a fact that may have been misconstrued
to support the estimate of the number of black holes existing.
Even with the best telescopes it is even difficult to image
pulsars without the ability to zero in to the coordinates with
radio telescope data.
Most of the exciting stuff about General Relativity is
likely to be found in astrophysics, there isn't much new
going on on this planet.
Joe Fischer
Jonathan Silverlight
<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> writes
>Joseph Lazio wrote:
>>>>>>>"JS" == Jonathan Silverlight
>>>>>>><jsilve...@spam.merseia.fsnet.co.uk.invalid> writes:
>>
>> JS> BTW, no-one seems to have commented on the claim in this very odd
>> JS> paper [by O. Manuel] that the sun is a rigid structure.
>> What's there to comment?
>
>There is the pressing question of why Andrew Yee forwarded something to
>sci.astro that is so obviously Kookdom "science" from the lunatic
>fringe. I will be charitable and assume that he did not read the
>abstract. But I'd love to know which peer reviewed journal accepted
>this paper!
>
interpretation of the TRACE results on web sites, but this is the first
"paper" I've seen.
Jonathan Silverlight
Silverlight <jsilve...@spam.merseia.fsnet.co.uk.invalid> writes
Sorry to follow up my own post, but the web site in question is Michael
Mozina's <http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/> (I found it via an ad on
the Heavens Above site), and all I can say is "you ain't seen nothing
yet" :-)
Here's a nice example
"The neon layer that composes the penumbral filaments is the layer our
eyes can see. This layer has another VERY important function, specially
to COOL the lower layers. Neon is used as a cryogenic refrigerant
because of its incredible "cooling" abilities."
Looking at Oliver Manuel's site at <http://web.umr.edu/~om/> he's been
Professor Emeritus since 2000. Would anyone like to comment on
<http://web.umr.edu/~om/picpages/compsun.html>?
Lloyd Parker
Happy Hippy <J0...@accesscomm.ca> wrote:
>Sam Wormley wrote:
>> Happy Hippy wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> The only question is
>>> 'Whence the spin?'
>>> The answer:
>>> The Universe is spinning.
>>
>>
>> There is plenty of spinning going on *within* the universe, but the
>> universe as a whole....
>>
>> Assuming the inflationary scenario is correct, one would expect any
>> universal rotation to be extremely small.
>>
>> Some Papers involving "Rotation of the Universe"
>>
>>
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22rotation+of+the+universe%22+site%3AarXiv.org
>>
>Yes, there is lots of spinning in the Universe.
>The Universe continues at larger and smaller scales infinitely.
>But the scale we are concerned with
>is the next up from Black Holes.
>
>Consider the neutron star; collections of electrons
>melded to protons fall back into the BH to be spun
>back up into plasma, stuff of stars.
>
>What is this Black Hole? It is itself a nucleus
>composed of protons and neutrons. It is spin.
No. There are no protons and neutrons on a BH. It is a singularity. Zero
volume, infinite density.
>
>Where did it get its spin?
From the spinning star that collapsed. Conservation of angular momentum.
Happy Hippy
hahaha
>
>>Where did it get its spin?
>
>
> From the spinning star that collapsed. Conservation of angular momentum.
>
Which star was that?
Is there a *preferred* star that collapses and then
becomes the central BH of each galaxy?
After this preferred star collapses then no
more stars collapse to form BHs...ever? Why?
PD
I don't know why you would think that. Just because a galaxy has a Big
Old Black Hole in the core does not mean that there are no other black
holes in the galaxy.
PD
Randy Poe
Happy Hippy wrote:
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
> > In article <439b0b4e$1...@news.accesscomm.ca>,
> > Happy Hippy <J0...@accesscomm.ca> wrote:
> >>What is this Black Hole? It is itself a nucleus
> >>composed of protons and neutrons. It is spin.
> >
> > No. There are no protons and neutrons on a BH. It is a singularity. Zero
> > volume, infinite density.
>
> hahaha
Start with neutronium, then add sufficient pressure that even
that volume can't be sustained. There is no force to prevent
the volume from collapsing to zero. How would *you* describe
that state?
> >>Where did it get its spin?
> >
> > From the spinning star that collapsed. Conservation of angular momentum.
>
> Which star was that?
>From the star that contained the mass before it collapsed into
a black hole.
> Is there a *preferred* star that collapses and then
> becomes the central BH of each galaxy?
No, but where there is a black hole, there used to be a collection
of hot, ordinary matter called a "star".
- Randy
Happy Hippy
So why are they only seeing one at
the center of spiral galaxies?
Stars are collapsing ALL the time.
Where are all these black holes?
On the other hand, if spiral galaxies
are atoms and ellipticals are molecules
the former will have one at the center
and the latter more than one.
John
Galaxy Model for the Atom
Lloyd Parker
Happy Hippy <J0...@accesscomm.ca> wrote:
>PD wrote:
>> Happy Hippy wrote:
>>
>>>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <439b0b4e$1...@news.accesscomm.ca>,
>>>> Happy Hippy <J0...@accesscomm.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Sam Wormley wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Happy Hippy wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The only question is
>>>>>>>'Whence the spin?'
>>>>>>>The answer:
>>>>>>>The Universe is spinning.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is plenty of spinning going on *within* the universe, but the
>>>>>> universe as a whole....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Assuming the inflationary scenario is correct, one would expect any
>>>>>> universal rotation to be extremely small.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Some Papers involving "Rotation of the Universe"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>http://www.google.com/search?q=%22rotation+of+the+universe%22+site%3AarXiv
That is not a logical reply to the previous post. Is English your second
language?
>So why are they only seeing one at
>the center of spiral galaxies?
Because they're hard to see?
>
>Stars are collapsing ALL the time.
But not to black holes; most become brown dwarfs or neutron stars.
>Where are all these black holes?
How do you detect one?
>
>On the other hand, if spiral galaxies
>are atoms and ellipticals are molecules
If 2 +2 = 7. Dumb and dumber.
PD
The one at the center of a galaxy did not come from the collapse of one
star necessarily. These typically have a mass of thousands to millions
of suns, which means that several black holes near each other coalesced
or that the black hole consumed a large number of stars (some of which
would have collapsed into a black hole and some of which would not
have) or both.
>
> Stars are collapsing ALL the time.
> Where are all these black holes?
In the arms of the spiral galaxy there are some that haven't been
sucked into the big one in the middle.
>
> On the other hand, if spiral galaxies
> are atoms and ellipticals are molecules
> the former will have one at the center
> and the latter more than one.
You'll note that the protons in atoms and the atoms in molecules do not
coalesce the way that black holes do. There goes that model!
PD
Happy Hippy
wager. I'll also bet that I've read at
least twice the books you have.
If you haven't been 'keeping up' with recent
observations, you wouldn't know
that they specifically reported recently
that they *haven't* seen any
BHs *except* at centers of galaxies.
Which I go on to state below.
>>So why are they only seeing one at
>>the center of spiral galaxies?
>
>
> Because they're hard to see?
Hard to see? Yes.
Hard to detect by their effects? No.
>
>
>>Stars are collapsing ALL the time.
>
>
> But not to black holes; most become brown dwarfs or neutron stars.
So there should be an overwhelming majority
of neutron stars around.
Where are they all?
>
>
>>Where are all these black holes?
>
>
> How do you detect one?
You got me.
>
>
>>On the other hand, if spiral galaxies
>>are atoms and ellipticals are molecules
>
>
> If 2 +2 = 7. Dumb and dumber.
These are the ideas I explore in my
page. I provide the link lots.
You click on the different-colored
letters. That should be of help to you.
Lloyd Parker
They're there, but heck, we can't even see all the active stars; what makes
you think we can see all the inactive ones?
>>
>>
>>>Where are all these black holes?
>>
>>
>> How do you detect one?
>
>You got me.
Exactly. We have to detect them indirectly; by seeing matter falling into one
(the X-rays or gamma rays it emits) or by seeing the perturbations in the
orbit of another star orbiting a black hole. Neither is easy to do from a
distance.
>
>
>>
>>
>>>On the other hand, if spiral galaxies
>>>are atoms and ellipticals are molecules
>>
>>
>> If 2 +2 = 7. Dumb and dumber.
>These are the ideas I explore in my
>page. I provide the link lots.
Link lots? Yeah, your English is sooooo good.
>You click on the different-colored
>letters. That should be of help to you.
>>
No thanks; I read enough nonsense with the crap newedana posts.
Jonathan Silverlight
<lpa...@emory.edu> writes
>In article <43a02fab$1...@news.accesscomm.ca>,
> Happy Hippy <J0...@accesscomm.ca> wrote:
>>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Where are all these black holes?
>>>
>>>
>>> How do you detect one?
>>
>>You got me.
>Exactly. We have to detect them indirectly; by seeing matter falling into one
>(the X-rays or gamma rays it emits) or by seeing the perturbations in the
>orbit of another star orbiting a black hole. Neither is easy to do from a
>distance.
Oh? Cygnus X-1 (one of the best candidates) is one of the brightest
X-ray sources in the sky and it's 2.5 kPc (about 8000 light years) away.
They hope to get a resolved image of the BH at the centre of "our"
galaxy http://www.world-science.net/othernews/051104_blackholefrm.htm>
Ben Tawn
[snip]
> > Since inside of the neutron
> >mass must be a supercritical environment of ultra high temperature and
> >pressure, there can occur a variety of nuclear reaction.
>
> Except all that's there are 3 quarks.
What you said is simply nonsense. Idiot Parker, learn more.
[snip]
> >
> >Dr. Yoon's physics defines that the force of binding protons by nuclear
> >electron ring in atomic nuclei is the nuclear strong force, and proton
> >↔ neutron with an enormous frequency.
>
> Dr. Yoon's brain is full of mush.
>
The truth is that Lloyd Parker's brain is full of garbage like his
postings.
Ben Tawn
"Lloyd Parker" <lpar...@emory.edu> wrote:
[snip]
> >>
> >> In a new paper, http://arxiv.org/pdf/nucl-th/0511051 ,
>
>
> Uh, that's not a paper. A paper is in a scientific journal, not on a web
> site.
Have you heard about e-journal or e-publishing? Primitive Parker.
You must be living in the Stone Age.
[snip]
> >> "Additionally, neutron repulsion explains extremely high
> >> energy events like quasars, which are associated with high-density
> >> regions of space," Manuel says. "These were previously attributed to
> >> black holes."
> >
> >* * * * * * *
> >
> >THE MECHANISM OF STAR FORMATION IN GALAXY.
> >(adapted from "Natural Science Founded on A New Atomic Model" by Hansik
> >Yoon)
> >
>
> So it's all a fraud.
>
Nobody won't be fooled by Lloyd Parker because his all postings are
fraud from the Stone Age.
Ben Tawn
> >
> >On the other hand, if spiral galaxies
> >are atoms and ellipticals are molecules
>
> If 2 +2 = 7. Dumb and dumber.
>
Lloyd Parker is the dumbest.
ianpa...@gmail.com
the BH gives orbital stabiliy. The stars in the bulge are all OLD
stars. The bulge condensed out first. The bulge is also poor in metals
relative to the spiral arms. We know that except for Hydrogen, Helium
and Lithium all the elements were produced by supernovae. The spiral
arms are gas and contain supergiants which the bulge does not. All the
supergiants have long become extict.
What is needed is a good numerical model.
Lloyd Parker
"Ben Tawn" <waldo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lpar...@emory.edu> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>> >>
>> >> In a new paper, http://arxiv.org/pdf/nucl-th/0511051 ,
>>
>>
>> Uh, that's not a paper. A paper is in a scientific journal, not on a web
>> site.
>
>Have you heard about e-journal or e-publishing? Primitive Parker.
>You must be living in the Stone Age.
No, I insist on some peer review, not junk science like you and newedana.
Lloyd Parker
Lloyd Parker
"Ben Tawn" <waldo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"Lloyd Parker" <lpar...@emory.edu> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>> > Since inside of the neutron
>> >mass must be a supercritical environment of ultra high temperature and
>> >pressure, there can occur a variety of nuclear reaction.
>>
>> Except all that's there are 3 quarks.
>
>What you said is simply nonsense. Idiot Parker, learn more.
A neutron consists of 3 quarks. What part of that do you not understand?
Happy Hippy
You got it backwards again, PD.
Hint: we *see* that "the protons in atoms and the atoms in molecules do
not coalesce". OK so far.
Now.
"(T)he way that black holes do."
Hmm. Are you saying we have seen this?
Because if we have, then you're right.
You see, I'm saying that BHs do what atomic nuclei
do.
However, you might have to watch carefully for
a fairly extended period to see BHs coalescing.
Happy Hippy
And yeah is good?
Hey, I'm just trying to use words you'll understand.
>
>>You click on the different-colored
>>letters. That should be of help to you.
>>
>
> No thanks; I read enough nonsense with the crap newedana posts.
>
>
So you haven't even read my page?
It's short.
It uses simple words you'll 'get'.
It has lots of pictures. (Maybe none
of them are of the girlie variety, but you
gotta branch out sometime.)
Try it, sweety, maybe you'll like it.
It's the one with the differently-colored letters.
PD
Two comments:
a) It is strongly suspected that gamma ray bursts are precisely the
coalescence of black holes.
b) It is known the *single* highly massive object in the core of the
galaxy *cannot* be due to the collapse of a single object. There are no
observed precursors (stars with masses of tens of millions of solar
masses) that would collapse into a black hole.
Lloyd Parker
Nuclei have dimensionality; they are not a singularity.
>
>However, you might have to watch carefully for
>a fairly extended period to see BHs coalescing.
I've got an idea -- you go watch. Don't look away or you might miss it.
newedana
Chandra X-ray Observatory about the formation of new stars from the
so-called black holes.
You will find how exactly Dr. Yoon's cosmology agrees with it, while
today's particle physics cannot explain it.
Based on "Natural Science Founded on A New Atomic Model" by Hansik
Yoon. ( http://www.yoonsatom.net and
http://yoonsphysics.blogspot.com/ )
newedana
Happy Hippy
(Or DM.
Or DE.)
>
> Nuclei have dimensionality; they are not a singularity.
>
>
Sam Wormley
> No such thing as a singularity, Dude.
> (Or DM.
> Or DE.)
>
Singularity Theorem
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/SingularityTheorem.html
Happy Hippy
Singularity
Flat Earth
Hollow Earth
Universe in the volume of an atom
Idiots abound.
Sam Wormley
Welcome to the wold of idiots, or should I say, untutored fools, John!
John Savage
>So why are they only seeing one at
>the center of spiral galaxies?
In a science brief a few weeks back it was reported that a ring of black
holes has been discovered orbiting the central SMBH of our galaxy, at a
distance out from the event horiz of just a few light years, IIRC.
--
John Savage (my news address is not valid for email)