Quasar Time Dilation

[bojan]

I know it will be mostly useless.. But, could we concentrate on debunking those ideas (presented above) methodically, one by one?
Alex is using a shotgun, spraying all around (and with help of language that is really annoying, to me at least. But it's the same language used on those EU sites.. so it comes as natural for him, it seems).

So, specifically, just for the start:
How can relaxing oscillator concept be used to explain all observed (empirical. that is) aspects of pulsars (especially double ones)?
How exactly EU guys explain neutrinos detected from SN1987A? And from out Sun? (I know I am in trouble here .. Neutrino problem can be 'easily' explained by EU, no? But I need to see from his mob - how exactly?)

And I do not want to see the links to suspicious websites as an answer, this is not good enough for constructive discussion.

[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

Quite happy to go one by one Bojan, and address particulars... the shot gun of Adhom attacks will need to be put down too?

Regarding Pulsars / relaxation oscillator. please see Professor Don Scott section on previous link?

It is already covered.

Should we open a new thread on this...? we're drifting.

[bojan]

Not good enough mate.
I want to read this expressed with your own words.
No cheating here.

[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

Originally Posted by bojan

Not good enough mate.
I want to read this expressed with your own words.
No cheating here.

Ahh.... so we are not interested in exploring the theories themselves?

wow.

[bojan]

I didn't say that.
"We" are interested to hear (read) from you the explanation of at least some of those theories.. I don't have that much time so please explain.
If you can't explain those things with your own words, you do not have the understanding of those matters. This is how I was taught to behave at school.
Plain and simple.

[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

ok... this is probably the most suitable section for your query.

Some pulsars oscillate with periods in the millisecond range. Their radio pulse characteristics are: the 'duty cycle' is typically 5% (i.e., the pulsar flashes like a strobe light - the duration of each output pulse is much shorter than the length of time between pulses); some individual pulses are quite variable in intensity; the polarization of the pulse implies the origin has a strong magnetic field; magnetic fields require electrical currents. These characteristics are consistent with an electrical arc (lightning) interaction between two closely spaced binary stars. Relaxation oscillators with characteristics like this have been known and used by electrical engineers for many years.

To me, variations in rates will also be a point of falsification... youd know being an engineer, that varying the pulses on a relaxation oscillator is a simple thing to do... This becomes very important when we begin to analyse the frequency glitches detected in pulse rates...

A question from a layman might be "How does this pulsar, that is one of the heaviest things known, apparently spin up, then spin down"

relaxation oscillator = simple
spinning lighthouse = ?

[bojan]

OK.
Now, I am not sure if you know this, but me being an electronics engineer, I do know that relaxation oscillators are VERY unstable, exactly because it is so easy to change their frequency.
Typical relaxation oscillator will vary more than 10% over relatively narrow temperature range and power supply voltage...

Now we just have to explain, why pulsars are so stable? Because, the change in pulsar frequencies are minuscule, compared to those in typical relaxation oscillator (in terms of ppm). Also, those changes are occuring very rapidly. This also needs explanation/modelling.

However, this was not my question.

I want to see the description of that oscillator of yours - how it works.. I want to see the (equivalent of ) "schematic", in other words.
Or, I want to see the precise description of mechanism of this oscillator: from where the energy comes from, what is this that oscillates and how. Where is the feedback path?
Also, I know how to calculate the oscillation frequency of the circuit consisting of two transistors (or even valves... the first oscillator I build myself was with ECC81) and couple of resistors and capacitors.
I want to see the same type od calculation here. And of course, I need to see some examples.. and how those calculated results relate to observed specimens.
Until I don't see it... I simply can't take those ideas seriously.

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by Jarvamundo

Carl is correct here (wow i said it), with regard to PC.

#1 Black holes
1) No body has ever found a black hole. Never. Zip.
2) Black holes (hilberts error) are not permitted by Schwartzchild actual solution.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4GFAjX62Yg

With the empirical plasma z-pinch you can describe the centers of galaxies, you can both computer model, AND produce this in the lab.

#2 Neutron Stars (should we be leaving out strange stars?
These fantasticly spinning (25% speed of light) super heavy stars, which include SPEED UPs, SPEED Downs, Frequency "glitches".... are well a bit of a stretch...

EU proposes a relaxation oscillator. That is a real thing, any freshman can assemble. No super dooper spinning, No never-observed neutron hand holding, beyond empirical possibilities.

#3 Other stars
In this case the HR diagram can be replaced by current density.

Professor Don Scott, recently invited to present at NASA has put together this page. The details are best left to his explantions here:
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/hrdiagr.htm

#4 Stars don't explode?
This is well catered for, and is actually the foundation of Hannes Alfvens works.... ie he was employed to work on exploding plasma in power distribution. I thought you said you were aware of this?

Heard of exploding double layers?

Exploding stars are an EM "dipole" phenomina.... all you need to do is look at a picture of an exploding star, and you will [mostly] see an Hour Glass... This is DIPOLE in nature.... NOT neutral GAS + gravity.

Other bits
Have a look at the rotation curve of a galaxy spiral that does not ignore EM. (Much like the work B Gaensler Syd Uni is currently measuring)... and you will see that No dark matter is needed.

"whole lot of nonsense"
like creation from nothing? worm holes? divide by zero black holes? 25% of speed of light spinning stars, dark matter, dark energy..... good luck with that.

The distaste for such concepts certainly has not been limited to me in this thread. A fair few of us, are not happy with these gravity-only dark mysteries, and search for solutions.

All that is required is that the models keep in mind that charge-separation does exist on large scales. This is currently not catered for in the neutral gas models that dominate gravity only cosmology.

PC ignore gravity? certainly not.... all it's doing is also acknowledging that 99.99% of matter in the universe is in plasma state. fact. The models simply incorporates EM forces, as per our terrestrial lab experiments, which as mentioned here.... led to the discovery of Birkeland Currents.

yep, you can do it in the lab. yes more needs to be done.

Best to you all.

Herbert Spencer once said, “There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance—that principle is contempt prior to investigation.”

Quoting an YouTube video means zip. If anyone wants to deny the existence of black holes, then they have to answer to the vast majority of the written papers that deal with just such objects at the centres of galaxy and as the remnants of supernovae explosions....

http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AND.../0/1/0/all/0/1

That is only some of the papers present in the literature.

Have a large enough mass of material concentrate in a small enough area and you have the conditions for the formation of a black hole, which is effectively an enormously steep gravitational gradient generated by a highly concentrated mass. And despite their protestations, it is an outcome of the Schwarzchild metric. He didn't finish off his equations and it was up to Hilbert and Einstein to do so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Schwarzschild

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivin...child_solution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_metric

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole

You will get the usual nonsense reply from the EU crowd saying his solutions don't allow for the formation of black holes, but a quick reading of the above will show otherwise. It's here they'll start talking about conspiracies etc.

Let's now look at neutron stars....

http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AND.../0/1/0/all/0/1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_star

Not only are they researched to a great degree in the journals and the theories regarding the formation of and the physical characteristics widely known, they have actually observed thousands of the object and since the EU fraternity are so big on empirical and observational data, what more needs to be said than this (see picture below). That is the Crab Nebula and that little star below the one near the centre of the pic is the neutron star (indicated by the arrow)... a pulsar by chance that also shines in the visible part of the spectrum. Then you have lone neutron stars without any evidence of surrounding nebula (see picture below).

Here is the EU's answer...relaxation oscillators. Read this and see if this tallies with what they have found out about quasars...see for yourselves. This appeal to simplicity as they would have it (even a freshman could assemble) is nonsense. They have nothing to do with neutron stars.

Prof Don Scott, who is an electrical engineer, not an astrophysicist and has no training in the field, has proposed that stars are powered by galactic scale birkeland currents and that generate z-pinches in condensed balls of plasma. Firstly, let's look at Birkeland currents. They do apply to solar-terrestrial and planetary physics....yes. For certain situations. However, to then come out and say they power stars as well is completely off the planet (pardon the pun). If they power the stars, as they say, how do they account for the generation of neutrinos and gamma rays from the cores of stars. How do they account for the ratio of hydrogen to helium and the heavier elements found in stars. How do they account for the longevity of the stars....massive electrical fields have to have a power source to create a separation of charge and drive the flow of current. Where is their power source???? Or do we have some magical source of power at the centre of the galaxies and/or in the subsequent physical structures. They may propose that the z-pinch creates the power and that certain turbulent instabilities within the plasmas generate extra power and pass that onto the z-pinch and such. well, what they don't tel you is that most plasmas are electrically neutral...there us no net flow of charge within the system. These ideas about turbulent flows transferring charge are just pure speculation and that unless they have a permanent power source (and even then), z-pinches give out and the plasma leaks away like a sieve. Once it cools it recombines as a normal gas. In any case, with these enormous Birkeland currents supposedly circulating around the galaxy (and, they also generate the spirals arms of galaxies, according to EU), where is the synchrotron radiation and bremsstrahlung?? There would be massive amounts of it present in the galaxies as well as in the universe in general if this was occurring. Why aren't we seeing the results of Compton scattering occurring in even greater amounts than what already occurs in astrophysical processes?? Over the projected lifetime of the universe, the amount of radiation generated by all this activity would've raised the temp of the CMB by about 1-4K and radio telescopes would be buzzing with its presence in space. It seems to be conspicuously absent by its evidence. It would also seem reasonable to assume that this same radiation would also be coming from all the stars, if they were powered in such a fashion, plus the radio waves they would give off would be characteristic of such processes occurring. Where are those radio waves?? Not there I wonder!!.

Stars don't explode...well, tell that to the millions that have and all the remnants of these explosions that have been observed, catalogued and such. How do the EU fraternity account for the distribution of heavy elements within the gases of the cosmos. I'm sure there's some magical electrical effect which can produce these elements and disperse them. I invite everyone to go online and have a look for these processes they claim exist. Go and have a read of Prof Alfven's work. It has been shown to be wrong time and time again with respect to most areas of astrophysics. Despite the fact that he is a Nobel Laureate (something the EU crowd harp on about incessantly) and he was a very good electrical engineer, and many of his ideas have been subsequently adopted in plasma physics and some areas of astrophysics, not everything that he has espoused has been shown to have any veracity. Observation and further theoretical work has seen to that. I would also recommend that you have a look at these pages...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reaction

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton%...chain_reaction

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNO_cycle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple-alpha_process

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-process

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-process

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernova

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hertzsp...ussell_diagram

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_nebula

http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+sup.../0/1/0/all/0/1

http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AND.../0/1/0/all/0/1

http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AND.../0/1/0/all/0/1

http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AND.../0/1/0/all/0/1

As for "Other bits" that will be taken care of all in due course. I doubt that Dr Gaensler would be so bold as to put any stamp of approval on anything the EU says despite the fact that they claim his work supports their views. Neither would any other scientist working today worth their salt in their respective fields. Any that did would be looking for notoriety and to get publicity through controversy. Few scientists would risk their careers in such a way.

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by Jarvamundo

ok... this is probably the most suitable section for your query.



To me, variations in rates will also be a point of falsification... youd know being an engineer, that varying the pulses on a relaxation oscillator is a simple thing to do... This becomes very important when we begin to analyse the frequency glitches detected in pulse rates...

A question from a layman might be "How does this pulsar, that is one of the heaviest things known, apparently spin up, then spin down"

relaxation oscillator = simple
spinning lighthouse = ?

If you actually even bothered to go and read a textbook on astrophysics, or one specifically on neutron stars and pulsars, then you would know why they have the physical characteristics and why they behave in the manner they do. But apparently that's beyond your own capabilities as it might actually teach you some real science for a change. You have been repeatedly challenged on numerous points of science and asked to explain yourself and yet you just steadfastly ignore everything written and those challenges, to post more rhetorical nonsense and bad science. It is quite plainly obvious that you came to this site with these views already quite strongly believed in and were prepared to openly cause problems with the good conduct of posts here by knowingly proselytising your views that you knew would engender a response from people here who can see through the BS you quote, post and write.



I'm not wasting anymore of my time nor my breath arguing with you because I know that it will amount to nothing. I have more important things to do than argue with a fool.

[sjastro]

Yes Alex why don't you explain it in your own words.

It's very easy to hide behind youtube extracts, particularly nonsense titled Einstein's idiots.

You would not even have the vaguest comprehension of Crother's ideas let alone appreciate the fact it is utter crap.
It is not surprising that Crothers was never able to complete his PhD as even a switched on maths undergraduate can see the flaws in his paper.

The utter hypocrisy is how you evoke Ad Hom attacks at the drop of a hat, yet post links for an individual who calls all and sundry idiots for disagreeiing with him.

Steven

[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

What do you propose causes the magnetic fields Gaensler and many other teams are mapping?

Since plasma dominates the inter-stellar regions of space, would it be a giant leap to conclude it is an electric current? Is this not well the simplest of Maxwell... ? one and the same? Are you proposing bar magnets? Gaensler certainly is not.

Gaensler is ofcourse not proposing an externally powered sun, or Alfven like galactic system, his work (to my knowledge) is focusing on a dynamo style theory, unfortunately the issue of where the seed current (or m-field) comes from.

Either way, Gaenslers work and others are reporting... the magnetic fields, and there for large currents (since they are one an the same) are there, awaiting explanation.

Does this align with PC/EU expectations? Well one simple look at Alfven's circuit and Peratt's simulations makes it kinda obvious. What are the other explanations?

for Carl:TB.info Joined: at Feb 06, 2010 10:26 am
IIS:Join Date: Apr 2009

Calm down, and do the math there champ.

I'll continue to explore mainstreams ideas for pulsars, but we are now hitting 25%c rotation, and other fantastic forms of matter, relaxation oscillators are (to me) a far far simpler explanation, i am more at ease with these ideas. It does require that pulsars occur as binary pairs. The EU pulsar model was a bucket of pennies dropping for me, after years of following the lighthouse theory.... i simply find the RPM involved in these fantastic beacons of light to be to much of a stretch.

[renormalised (Carl)]

for Carl:TB.info Joined: at Feb 06, 2010 10:26 am
IIS:Join Date: Apr 2009

My mistake...I apologise. But don't think that let's you off

[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

Originally Posted by sjastro

Yes Alex why don't you explain it in your own words.

It's very easy to hide behind youtube extracts, particularly nonsense titled Einstein's idiots.

You would not even have the vaguest comprehension of Crother's ideas let alone appreciate the fact it is utter crap.
It is not surprising that Crothers was never able to complete his PhD as even a switched on maths undergraduate can see the flaws in his paper.

The utter hypocrisy is how you evoke Ad Hom attacks at the drop of a hat, yet post links for an individual who calls all and sundry idiots for disagreeiing with him.

Steven

We have been through this in a prior series of discussions, where we came to a head over inverse Gaussian curvature vs the radius. "the r" in the Schwartzchild solution, which you now admit is not his actual solution?

I respectfully. left that discussion still uneasy with the sharp step like event horison of a SMBH. As you continue to point out... "it's the smaller black holes you need to watch out for". If you just stand back from this, it is a bit contradictory (that is without the hilberts derivation imprint).

To me it seems, still to this day, un-intuitive for a geometric model, to have a SMBH appear less dangerous than a BH. Granted this is not the basis for Crothers proof, but you just see where my curious-laymen headspace is here.

It was after this I discovered the works of Stephen Crothers, so far i have not seen his hypothesis been refuted. Rather he was flown to the German Royal Society to present this, and continues to. You mention that "even an undergraduate can spot his errors".... well why would his PHD professor need to fly to London to consult his Nobel laureate peer? Surely consulting an undergraduate would've been easier?

Anyways it's all irrelevant, i'd be very interested in where you can show Crothers to be wrong, i'm sure he would too?

[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

Originally Posted by bojan

OK.
Now, I am not sure if you know this, but me being an electronics engineer, I do know that relaxation oscillators are VERY unstable, exactly because it is so easy to change their frequency.
Typical relaxation oscillator will vary more than 10% over relatively narrow temperature range and power supply voltage...

Now we just have to explain, why pulsars are so stable? Because, the change in pulsar frequencies are minuscule, compared to those in typical relaxation oscillator (in terms of ppm). Also, those changes are occuring very rapidly. This also needs explanation/modelling.

However, this was not my question.

I want to see the description of that oscillator of yours - how it works.. I want to see the (equivalent of ) "schematic", in other words.
Or, I want to see the precise description of mechanism of this oscillator: from where the energy comes from, what is this that oscillates and how. Where is the feedback path?
Also, I know how to calculate the oscillation frequency of the circuit consisting of two transistors (or even valves... the first oscillator I build myself was with ECC81) and couple of resistors and capacitors.
I want to see the same type od calculation here. And of course, I need to see some examples.. and how those calculated results relate to observed specimens.
Until I don't see it... I simply can't take those ideas seriously.

Interesting points Bojan... lets also take into account the scales of these, essentially capacitors.

A seemingly highly balanced system... well yes.... impossibly balanced... well given the scales, i think not.

Another clue here is the curve of the impulses themselves. Looks very similar to that of an arc no? I'm still puzzled on this one, from a lighthouse-beacon model.

I do just explore this theory side by side with mainstream... your EE input and circuit theory knowledge becomes as valuable, if not more, than curved plane mathematics, with regard to this hypothesis.

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by Jarvamundo

Looks very similar to that of an arc no? I'm still puzzled on this one, from a lighthouse-beacon model.

Alex;

Perhaps its just for the masses (mainstream does this also - 'Precisely' for instance) but I see a lot of these kinds of statements on EU. Is it just a bit of sarcasm or are these 'observational' statements fair dinkum ?

I mean if you put on a pair of yellow sunglasses, everything looks yellow, doesn't it ?

Cheers

[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

Alex;

Perhaps its just for the masses (mainstream does this also - 'Precisely' for instance) but I see a lot of these kinds of statements on EU. Is it just a bit of sarcasm or are these 'observational' statements fair dinkum ?

I mean if you put on a pair of yellow sunglasses, everything looks yellow, doesn't it ?

Cheers

Correct - a requirement for the relaxation oscillator hypothesis (for me) was that the shape of the pulse match empirical experience with plasma emissions.

Then we move onto the required speeds.

Again, i just explore these side by side... on pulsars in particular the relaxation hypothesis sits FAR FAR better than super dooper heavy mass whizzing at 25% c.

What happens when it's > 25%C... well we start inventing strange matter stars etc etc...

What about the oscillator model? well bojan will tell you varying the rate upto the GHz is a simple terrestrial experiment.

All one needs to to picture that electrical discharge is taking place between 2 orbiting bodies...

GIANT MAGNETIC LOOP SWEEPS BETWEEN STELLAR PAIR
http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/s...ad.php?t=64043

The newly-discovered magnetic loop helps explain phenomena seen in earlier observations of the Algol system at X-ray and radio wavelengths, the scientists said. In addition, they now believe there may be similar magnetic features in other double-star systems.

again... question: WHAT IF NOT AN ELECTRIC CURRENT THROUGH PLASMA is causing this magnetic field.

We have birkeland currents powering auroras... (fact, verified by space probes measuring them)

Tell me how many pulsars are found orbiting a partner... ? Granted mainstream has many explanations... just saying during my investigations some far simpler ones appear in PC theory. Not for all... but for pulsars... for me... well it's pretty simple.

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by Jarvamundo

Correct - a requirement for the relaxation oscillator hypothesis (for me) was that the shape of the pulse match empirical experience with plasma emissions.

Then we move onto the required speeds.

Again, i just explore these side by side... on pulsars in particular the relaxation hypothesis sits FAR FAR better than super dooper heavy mass whizzing at 25% c.

What happens when it's > 25%C... well we start inventing strange matter stars etc etc...

What about the oscillator model? well bojan will tell you varying the rate upto the GHz is a simple terrestrial experiment.

All one needs to to picture that electrical discharge is taking place between 2 orbiting bodies...

GIANT MAGNETIC LOOP SWEEPS BETWEEN STELLAR PAIR
http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/s...ad.php?t=64043


again... question: WHAT IF NOT AN ELECTRIC CURRENT THROUGH PLASMA is causing this magnetic field.

We have birkeland currents powering auroras... (fact, verified by space probes measuring them)

Tell me how many pulsars are found orbiting a partner... ? Granted mainstream has many explanations... just saying during my investigations some far simpler ones appear in PC theory. Not for all... but for pulsars... for me... well it's pretty simple.

Interesting .. your motives are driven by the desire for simplicity (I'm not being critical here).
What if the nature of the thing you're viewing is actually complex ? Would you see the complexity ?

Cheers

[bojan]

Alex,
you seem to misunderstood me..
My example of relaxation oscillator was put to make you think... outside of EU, and by no means as a contribution to those theories....
First you have to explain the mechanism (schematic if you will) of this "cosmic relaxation oscillator", and then, of course, it's phenomenal frequency stability (Interesting.. when we are discussing mechanical versus "electrical" model - Crystal oscillators are VERY stable - and they are VERY mechanical devices . Rotating star core is also mechanical device) .

Also, you have to explain why the pulsar frequency is so close in value to the rotational speed that theoretical model (based on angular momentum preservation principle) of collapsed star predicts? Coincidence?
( And no, it is not a coincidence that I am using the same tone as EU mob).
A simple explanation to pulsar and its observed properties then is, that it is an ultra-dense stellar mass, fast rotating object with strong magnetic field.. Simple.

[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

Interesting .. your motives are driven by the desire for simplicity (I'm not being critical here).
What if the nature of the thing you're viewing is actually complex ? Would you see the complexity ?

Cheers

Do you mean in the absence of simplicity.... well then i guess i would lean to the most simplest available.

I though there was a razor for this? I thought we were all cool with this?

I guess i try to explain whats out there, with what we actually have here, well understood physics can explain some things, without theoretical conjecture (95% dark). It is only with this natural philosophy of real things can we be reasonably confident we are describing actual reality. Science must lead mathematics, in astro i tend to feel we have it the other way. I (me, doesnt have to be you) see PC as a possible branch we can pinch *some* answers from.

Acknowledging electric currents that cause these large scale magnetic fields (that have been dubbed 'flux tooobs') is really *the* only step.

[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

Originally Posted by bojan

Alex,
you seem to misunderstood me..
My example of relaxation oscillator was put to make you think... outside of EU, and by no means as a contribution to those theories....
First you have to explain the mechanism (schematic if you will) of this "cosmic relaxation oscillator", and then, of course, it's phenomenal frequency stability (Interesting.. when we are discussing mechanical versus "electrical" model - Crystal oscillators are VERY stable - and they are VERY mechanical devices . Rotating star core is also mechanical device) .

Also, you have to explain why the pulsar frequency is so close in value to the rotational speed that theoretical model (based on angular momentum preservation principle) of collapsed star predicts? Coincidence?
( And no, it is not a coincidence that I am using the same tone as EU mob).
A simple explanation to pulsar and its observed properties then is, that it is an ultra-dense stellar mass, fast rotating object with strong magnetic field.. Simple.

Power source, capacitor bank, spark gap? seems pretty stable to me?
Wave reflections on plasma 'flux toobs'?
Really most of this should be able to be modeled quite well with plasma dynamics... but yes the body of work is no where near as funded or developed as mainstream's neutral view.

Interestingly we are finding radio patterns between Saturn and moons, that are exhibiting pulse signaling too. We can and have measured these electrical currents (birkeland currents). It would be very interesting to study these in detail.... similar to what themis is doing now, here.

Yes as mentioned there are mainstream explanations, what makes me nervous is that the models are continuously adjusted for new discoveries... lets be quite clear... the new 'strange matter' stars were not expected.

Have we ever found ultra-dense stellar mass to be stable? ie a cup of neutrons.

Relaxation oscillator is both simple, and well understood with empirical ties to technology.