It seems that all of these models are all very much under construction.
They do have some historical basis however, most of this information seems to be superseded by now available (space bound) measurements.
You refer to models, but a model must be documented. So far, those I've looked at are outdated.
To discuss these matters requires focus and knowledge of the models. Very difficult to achieve when we can't find things like circuit diags etc, for the relaxation oscillators etc.
If the models only exist in online articles and youtubes, how can we grasp the basics underpinning them ?
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 muchsmaller and have less mass than the pregenitor stars, the angular velocity must increase substantially in order for angular momentum to be conserved.
It seems that all of these models are all very much under construction.
They do have some historical basis however, most of this information seems to be superseded by now available (space bound) measurements.
You refer to models, but a model must be documented. So far, those I've looked at are outdated.
To discuss these matters requires focus and knowledge of the models. Very difficult to achieve when we can't find things like circuit diags etc, for the relaxation oscillators etc.
If the models only exist in online articles and youtubes, how can we grasp the basics underpinning them ?
Cheers
The basics underpinning them are faulty to begin with. What we have here is a bunch of electrical engineers trying to paste their "black box" circuitry and electrical theory onto astrophysical processes without any clue as to how these astrophysical processes actually work or in what context they are found. YouTube vidoes and such are not an answer to anyone's questions. All they are is a diversion from the reality of the problem, in order to hide the truth of their ignorance. They offer little in the way of answers and are nothing more than propaganda. A way of selling their books on the subject, which is the real reason behind all these sites.
Promulgating their trash is just an ends to a means.
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.
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 muchsmaller and have less mass than the pregenitor stars, the angular velocity must increase substantially in order for angular momentum to be conserved.
Regards
Steven
Precisely Steven, but I doubt Alex will understand what you wrote, or won't bother to try to because he'll come out with his usual arguments to the "contrary".
It's what I asked him to think about on, earlier in this thread. Seems my suggestion has fallen on deaf ears.
I think the objection they have on this one is how does the neutron stay intact at these rotational velocities …
Cheers
The rotational velocity is totally insignificant compared to why the supernova core isn't oblitered due to the negative pressure effects of the Pauli exclusion principle (some very serious QM here). It shows that gravity even defeats QM.
I think the objection they have on this one is how does the neutron stay intact at these rotational velocities …
Cheers
For an object to fly apart, it must reach the breakup velocity (due to centrifugal motion) that will overcome both the force of gravity on the object and the stiffness of the material it's made out of. Simple, back of the envelope calculations will show you that the despite the high velocities exhibited by the rotation of neutron stars, the force of gravity of these stars, alone, is sufficient to keep them from flying apart...let alone the stiffness of the material they're made out of. If it was easy to write the equations down in these posts, I would, and you could the calculations yourself, but these forums don't allow you to write the equations (except for simple ones) very easily.
The rotational velocity is totally insignificant compared to why the supernova core isn't oblitered due to the negative pressure effects of the Pauli exclusion principle (some very serious QM here). It shows that gravity even defeats QM.
Steven
That as well....the neutron degeneracy pressure, all things being equal, would cause the neutron star to fly apart explosively...and with greater force than the original supernova explosion!!!!. That it doesn't is a testament to the gravity holding the star together (and it's also the reason why the star is as compact as it is).
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?
EDM? Give me an example of EDM on a large scale that has been verified as being the result of EDM?
Again, you can't just scale-up a lab experiment!
Just because you got some pits to form in a lab does not mean that crater chains can form that way on a large scale! You're talking many tens to hundreds of kilometres in diameter....what size current are you saying can form a crater hundreds of kilometres in diameter?
I found this:
"The similarity between craters on cosmic bodies and craters in the lab does not prove that the craters seen in space were created by electric arcs."
along with this:
"The shallow craters in Dr. Ransom's experiments above have interesting parallels in cratering experiments undertaken by Zane Parker, using nothing more than dust on an electrified CRT screen."
Dust on a CRT screen, the scale is obviously tiny!
Well i have seen craters formed by "Antlions" but i don't go in and say that Hyperion must be full of Antlions because i have a photo of some i found in a field and that is fact, so therefore everything that 'looks like' something else must be!
OutbackManyEp... The antlions do not match the photographs of comets / plantary "crater chains". Plasma EDM does.
Yes the scales are different. Do you have a point here?
"Again, you can't just scale-up a lab experiment!"
You ofcourse do know that similar experiments, using compressed air canon projectiles impacted on soft material, were used to determine possibilities of impact craters on the moon, prior to apollo investigations?
All they did with these experiments, Alex, was "simulate" the craters...then they went and verified what formed them. It wasn't massive electrical discharges
There's no evidence, anywhere, showing that craters are formed from massive electrical discharges, no matter what your lab experiments say.
What is your real life evidence....apart from a few pits burnt into a metal or glass surface by a plasma arc torch
Go to Meteor Crater, in Arizona, and you dig me up the irrefutable evidence for a plasma arc discharge, and I'll change my mind. How's that.
You impress me with your geological knowledge and understanding of impact crater physics and I'll sit here and listen to what you have to say.
All they did with these experiments, Alex, was "simulate" the craters...then they went and verified what formed them. It wasn't massive electrical discharges
How did they verify the crater chains were actually formed by impacts?
Were they filmed? No
Did they find buried meteors in the crater chains? No
Did they kinda look like crater chains? well maybe...
Does this exclude plasma EDM? no
Again EU does not exclude impacts, EU is an extension of some of the anomalies that impact theory and erosion does not cater for.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carl
What is your real life evidence....apart from a few pits burnt into a metal or glass surface by a plasma arc torch
Eye witness verified evidence of EDM in nature: http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/im...universe34.jpg
Example of a powerful lightning strike at Baker, Florida in 1949. It furrowed the infield for 40 feet during a baseball game, killing 3 players and injuring 50 others. The more sinuous path taken by the lightning can be seen as a smaller trench in the bottom of the furrow. National Geographic, June 1950, p.827
So now we have:
Lab verfied small scale 10-20mm: check
Larger verified 10-20m scale: check
I am still waiting for this "relaxation oscillator" model Alex..
Instead of fooling around with others, how about fulfilling your promise loooong time ago?
I am still waiting for this "relaxation oscillator" model Alex..
Instead of fooling around with others, how about fulfilling your promise loooong time ago?
Hi Bojan;
I've put in a request on your behalf on the 'Mars' thread.
How did they verify the crater chains were actually formed by impacts?
Were they filmed? No
Did they find buried meteors in the crater chains? No
Did they kinda look like crater chains? well maybe...
Does this exclude plasma EDM? no
Again EU does not exclude impacts, EU is an extension of some of the anomalies that impact theory and erosion does not cater for.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carl What is your real life evidence....apart from a few pits burnt into a metal or glass surface by a plasma arc torch
Eye witness verified evidence of EDM in nature: http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/im...universe34.jpg
Example of a powerful lightning strike at Baker, Florida in 1949. It furrowed the infield for 40 feet during a baseball game, killing 3 players and injuring 50 others. The more sinuous path taken by the lightning can be seen as a smaller trench in the bottom of the furrow. National Geographic, June 1950, p.827
So now we have:
Lab verfied small scale 10-20mm: check
Larger verified 10-20m scale: check
Is it extraordinary to scale to 1000m?
well this evidence suggests not.
I'm talking about any craters, chain or otherwise. If you knew anything about impact cratering, you'd also know that most impactors vapourise upon impact or breakup into millions of pieces. Your chances of finding any debris from the impactor is rather small. When you do find it, it's usually small spherules and pieces at distance from the impact site, usually in the ejecta blanket. Those that leave substantial pieces have been slowed down considerably by atmospheric friction before they hit, and are usually small bolides. They either fracture upon impact or just above the ground.
Where is the evidence for EDM?? Where are the effects of plasma discharge upon the various rocktypes, where are the structural, geochemical and other changes which will occur in such circumstances?? Where is the identifying geology?? There isn't any. Have you actually seen a fulgerite at all, Alex?? Seen the physical changes to rocks and soil caused by a lightning strike?? I have Alex. I've also studied what happens when a plasma discharge (lightning for instance) hits geology. There is nothing like impact cratering caused by plasma discharges. As a matter of fact, some rocks actually act as insulators to electrical strikes and most spall out over their surfaces. The only way a plasma discharge normally travels any distance within large bodies of rock is to travel down paths of least resistance....faults and fractures in the rock, or if it's porous, or has some electrical permittivity itself. If you knew anything about how electricity flows through soils, you'd know a little about resistivity and soil characteristics which allow electrical discharges to flow through soils and why some are less resistant than others. The movement of electrical discharges through soil has everything to do with soil minerals and chemistry, the degree of porosity of the soils, density of the soils, the moisture content of the soils, as well as the characteristics of the lightning/plasma discharge that allow it to travel through the soil. Your little article from National Geographic is no evidence at all of anything to do with impact cratering. All it's evidence of is the effect of a plasma discharge in soils...nothing that scientist don't already know about, including geologists.
As for the scaling, there is no evidence for scaling up from anything that can be observationally verified. Nor is there any evidence in the geological (or any other record) for plasma discharges on the scale that the EU propose (or espouse). As a matter of fact, if there was, the evidence would still be quite readily evident, especially for events that only occurred within the racial memory of mankind (as Talbott and Thornhill, etc, propose). You wouldn't need myths to verify any of the occurrences. So, where is your evidence, Alex??
I am still waiting for this "relaxation oscillator" model Alex..
Instead of fooling around with others, how about fulfilling your promise loooong time ago?
I've asked Alex to read your dissertation on neutrons/pulsars and comment. I hope he does. We'll see.
Cheers
He'll dismiss it. No matter what I say, I don't know what I'm talking about. Nor does Steven, or anyone else or any scientist that disagrees with their mindset. You only have to look at the way they talked about some of them over at Thunderbolts, or even about some of us (Les, especially).
They have all the answers (according to Alex and the others over there).
For Bojan (& other interested parties, of course ) .. and for the record .. here's copy of a post I just made on the 'Peratt' thread ...
I may have misjudged the Relaxation Oscillator thingy also.
Alex forwarded us a paper which contained a model of transmission lines.
What's that got to do with a Relaxation Oscillator ? I asked.
Apparently what they're saying is that a pulse entered into that system bounces up and down the transmission line (like what caused power blackouts in the Northern US). The pulse continues bouncing back and forth between impedance boundaries simulated by the combination of modelled elements in the transmission circuit model. This then, starts to emulate the behaviour of a Relaxation Oscillator. Mind you, each time the pulse rebounds, it loses energy and eventually dies out due to losses in the transmission line media.
I'll have to re-read the Peratt/Healy paper again on this one.
This post should also be on our 'Primordial Magnetic Fields' thread. I might copy it over there, for the record (& for Bojan & anyone to shoot me down on this .. be gentle .. I'm 'finely' balanced )
.. I'm not saying that any of this makes sense, yet .. I'm just seeing that there may be a lot of miscommunication going on as the Electrical speak comes together with AstroPhysics .. not of our making .. it's up to the PC authors to have explained all this much more clearly .. and they haven't.
