Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvamundo
Quite correct there Steven. I should've included "25% of C at the surface of the hypothesized equator of this hypothetical star"? This would be a tangental.
|
Let's put tangential velocity in the correct perspective.
First of all it represents the velocity of a single point on the circumference of a circle. If your angular velocity is constant then the tangential velocity is purely a function of the radius of the circle.
Increase the radius and you increase the tangential velocity. There is no force parallel to the direction of the tangent and no expenditure of further energy.
In fact one can exceed C by simply increasing the radius.
This forms the basis of the lighthouse thought experiment.
Quote:
But i think you see where we are going with this. None the less a valid clarification there.
"Postulating this theory as an explanation for observed pulsar emissions is far less of a stretch of one's sense of reality than proposing that an incredibly massive star rotates with the speed of a dentist's drill. Healy & Peratt"
So xray pulsars are up to what now? 20,000+... 60,000 RPM? cmon.
|
There is nothing incredulous about this at all.
A neutron star represents a state change. Initially neutron stars existed as massive supergiants that went supernova. Angular momentum is still conserved from going from state A to state B. Since neutron stars are
much smaller and have less mass than the pregenitor stars, the angular velocity must increase substantially in order for angular momentum to be conserved.
Regards
Steven