[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

Originally Posted by renormalised

Now, let me take up a point I made in a previous post (#101) about pulsar mechanisms and their origin as relaxation oscillators in close binary systems. Let's follow the EU lead here and ignore neutron stars for the time being.

Given the number of binary stars that are close contact binaries, spectroscopic binaries and such, there should be a great number of pulsars around...far more than the 2000 or so known objects. Not only that, their positions would be quite well known as all the known contact binaries and spectroscopic binaries have their positions already plotted on any number of star charts and stored in astronomical databases. Stars such as W Ursae Majoris, by definition of the EU's theories, should be pulsars. They're close to one another (actually they are close enough to be touching and sharing their outer envelopes) and therefore the interplay between their respective magnetic fields (if any) should be quite substantial. They should be acting as relaxation oscillators with the interactions between their shared gaseous (plasma) envelopes.

EU's hypothesis is that the electrical environment, particularly the current that is being received by the body, in this case the star or system determines. There is no claim that all binary systems are pulsars.

You are mixing standard with EU to intentionally or unintentionally, create confusion?

Originally Posted by renormalised

Considering the numbers they represent (1% of all stars), that means in this galaxy alone, if you believe the EU, there should be 4 billion pulsars!!!!!!!!!. Even if only 1/1000 of them was magnetically active enough, that still leaves 4 million pulsars. Where is the observational evidence for all these pulsars??

Again here we are mixing standards model of stars with the EU hypothesis. Many of the components are not interchangeable and will lead to this confusion.

Originally Posted by renormalised

Now, if you also add the numbers of spectroscopic binaries that aren't contact binaries but still close orbiting stars, the numbers skyrocket.

As above, this is not proposed. Red herring.

Originally Posted by renormalised

Then if you add the small numbers of cataclysmic variable stars that have real neutron stars/pulsars as part of a binary system

Real neutron stars? This is the science of reification of a model.

Neutron stars are an adhock invention, beyond experimental stability.

Originally Posted by renormalised

, the whole premise of their "relaxation oscillator" theory and mechanism (as it stands) not only doesn't add up, it is totally preposterous.

Again complete misunderstanding of the ES model, they are not interchangeable like this.

Originally Posted by renormalised

A brief glance at any astronomy textbook would explain to you why this is so, but it seems Peratt and the proponents of EU have skipped that little exercise. It has to do with the internal structure of the stars and the amount of convection present in their outer layers. This is all driven by the laws of thermodynamics and the relative densities of the material within the bodies of the stars (which is determined by the gas laws).

These are only models tho Carl. The many failures of the convection models is what the EU hypothesis seeks to address.

ie.. "The Coronal Heating Problem", "The Neutrino Flux Problem" etc.

Yet they seem to pretend they can claim that crater chains are made from electric discharges and yet they dismiss the idea of how the moons and planets were formed in the first place!

1) Crater chains are an experimentally verified action of EDM. Lab-Verified Fact.

2) Yes it is a different, or extended hypothesis, although EU is not exclusive of all impacts.... it is an extension that provides a mechanism for many anomalies.

Why not explore these differences and anomalies?