Starship Asterisk*

harry wrote: There are mechanisms for breaking down a neutron star.

Rather than just closing the door on some issues go the distance and find the answer.

I'd love to read about one. Link me up!

Hello Qev

Are you saying that you have look and cannot find.

Or you do not understand the ups and downs of a neutron star.

What Qev is saying, is what I am saying, I can't find any evidence to support you assertions. So if it exists and you know where it is why dont you provide a link?

The fact is there is no known theory in mainstream science that allows you to destroy a neutron star. As Qev points out gravity totally dominates all the other forces, this is why neutron stars can exist. Free neutrons decay with a half life of 8 minutes, it is only because of the overwhelming force of gravity that they can exist indefinitely.

Please provide a link that even hints at what you are saying.

harry wrote: Are you saying that you have look and cannot find.

Or you do not understand the ups and downs of a neutron star.

No, what I'm saying is that I'm not going to go look for it. If you have evidence to back your position, please present it. I'm not your student, and you're not my professor giving me a research project.

I'd say I have a fairly reasonable understanding of the basics of how neutron stars work. I'm certainly no astrophysicist, more of an armchair cosmologist, really.

that is precisely what frustrates me about Harry

Qev wrote : I'm not your student, and you're not my professor giving me a research project.

Harry need s to present his conclusions written in a journal subject to peer review, and not links to what others have written.

Hello All

That is 100% correct, I'm not your slave. If you want more info on Neutron Stars look for it.

I think Qev you missunderstood. My intention. I do not have all the time in the world, and it is a very complicated subject. So if I can get some help along the way with some research.

I will provide some info along the way, but! in my time. Until than, keep smiling.

Hello Astro
You say

The fact is there is no known theory in mainstream science that allows you to destroy a neutron star. As Qev points out gravity totally dominates all the other forces, this is why neutron stars can exist. Free neutrons decay with a half life of 8 minutes, it is only because of the overwhelming force of gravity that they can exist indefinitely

Just by your statement, i understand you lack the info. If you are happy with that info so be it.

I will try to come back, later with more info.

If you do not agree with me, why become upset.

harry,

Earlier in this thread I asked you:

For that matter, would you be prepared to show us all, using the Dr Manuel or Michael Mozina ideas, how the average density of the Sun could be what we observe it to be?

If you aren't even prepared to try such an apparently simple thing, and if the observed average density of the Sun is waaay below that of solid iron, why waste anyone's time (including your own) on these wild ideas?

After all, I'm sure any of us could come up with fascinating, equally wild, ideas ... by the thousand. One of the things which gets you to first base re taking any such wild idea even the tiniest bit seriously is at least an OOM (order of magnitude) match to good observational or experimental results.

So, I'm wondering if there's not something else going on here - perhaps you feel that an idea's ability to match observational or experimental results is irrelevant (in terms of evaluating that idea)? Or that some people's ideas must be right, whether or not they can account for phenomena explicitly within their domain?

I'm curious ...

harry wrote:That is 100% correct, I'm not your slave. If you want more info on Neutron Stars look for it.

I think Qev you missunderstood. My intention. I do not have all the time in the world, and it is a very complicated subject. So if I can get some help along the way with some research.

I can find plenty of information on neutron stars, I already have. Not a bit of it supports the idea of evaporating or fragmenting neutron stars. You're the one claiming that there's evidence that they can evaporate or fragment, so you're going to have to provide that evidence. I'm arguing on the other side, here.

Do you know how hot a neutron star would have to be to evaporate?

Unless I am missing something...if all or most stars formed via the "neutron star seed" method, you'd think there would be an easy, readily available way or ways for neutron stars to fragment...or very few stars.

Hello Neried

I'm not working full time on this.

So my time is limited. But! in time I will.

Until than keep your comments respectful. Please do not try to verbal me into other words.

=======================================

Qev I will come back on Neutron stars soon.
Mechanism
Option 1

a) The escape of neutrons from the NS, <1n> –> 1n + 10-22 MeV

b) The decay of free neutrons, 1n –> 1H+ + e- + nanti + 0.78 MeV

c) Fusion of hydrogen, 4 1H+ + 2 e- –> 4He++ + 2 n + 26.73 MeV

d) Some H+ reaches the surface and departs in the solar wind


option 2

Jets created by the Neutron stars eject matter.
http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2003/v ... tions.html
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap041223.html
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap960531.html

option 3
Neutron star collisions
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/n ... 31203.html

I will add more to this later.

harry wrote:Hello Neried

I'm not working full time on this.

So my time is limited. But! in time I will.

Until than keep your comments respectful. Please do not try to verbal me into other words.

=======================================

harry,

I checked, and would ask, respectively, that you do so too ... I asked you questions - did you find the wording of my questions disrespectful?

In any case, I would like to remind you of The Rules of this forum:

This is a scientific forum

As I see has been pointed out here, numerous times, the process of doing science (astronomy, astrophysics, cosmology, and space science, in our case) is pretty unambiguous ... and in the confrontation between 'Sun has a solid iron surface' and some basic, easily verified observational data, the onus lies with those who propose such wild ideas as Mozina's to come up with good answers.

How is it disrespectful to comment on the extent to which a case (which you brought here) is scientific (or not, as with those wild ideas)?

Qev I will come back on Neutron stars soon.
Mechanism
Option 1

a) The escape of neutrons from the NS, <1n> –> 1n + 10-22 MeV

b) The decay of free neutrons, 1n –> 1H+ + e- + nanti + 0.78 MeV

c) Fusion of hydrogen, 4 1H+ + 2 e- –> 4He++ + 2 n + 26.73 MeV

d) Some H+ reaches the surface and departs in the solar wind

[snip]

I will add more to this later.

I have no idea what this means, in relation to 'evaporating neutron stars', so I look forward, with interest, to you providing an account of any such relationship.

harry wrote:Qev I will come back on Neutron stars soon.
Mechanism
Option 1

a) The escape of neutrons from the NS, <1n> –> 1n + 10-22 MeV

b) The decay of free neutrons, 1n –> 1H+ + e- + nanti + 0.78 MeV

c) Fusion of hydrogen, 4 1H+ + 2 e- –> 4He++ + 2 n + 26.73 MeV

d) Some H+ reaches the surface and departs in the solar wind

None of these are even close to being energetic enough to eject individual neutrons from the surface, let alone large quantities of them. Not to mention:

Step a) is an impossibility, anyway, since it's claiming a neutron climbing out of a potential well is going to generate energy.

Step b) isn't going to occur because gravity is confining the neutrons; their constituents can't escape, beta decay can't happen.

Step c) isn't impossible, but there isn't any hydrogen to fuse in a neutron star; the only place this is going to occur is above the surface if the neutron star is accreting material from a nearby source, which means it's going to be gaining mass, not losing it.

Step d) seems to be a leftover from the 'neutron star core' article this list was pulled from, and doesn't really apply I guess.

The surface temperature of a young neutron star is typically around 1-10 million Kelvin, and they're apparently colder on the inside due to weird cooling processes that go on. To get neutrons to evaporate off the surface, you need to increase the temperature by over 1000 times. That's around one and a half trillion degrees, corresponding to a particle energy of 145MeV. This is the temperature about 1/1000th of a second after the Big Bang.

option 2

Jets created by the Neutron stars eject matter.
http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2003/v ... tions.html
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap041223.html
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap960531.html

Again I'll point out, these jets are not originating from the neutron star itself, but rather from the interaction of an accretion disk with magnetic fields above the neutron star surface. The neutron star itself is not evaporating.

option 3
Neutron star collisions
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/n ... 31203.html

Neutron star collisions are estimated to occur roughly once per year within a 60 million light year radius around Earth. This is an increase from the previously estimated rate of one per ten years. Assuming they're perfectly efficient in converting all their mass into the smallest, and therefore most numerous, viable fragments (and this does not happen), and they're about the biggest neutron stars you can have, that's about 60 fragments per collision.

This implies a star formation rate of roughly 60 stars per year within that radius. The Milky Way galaxy, alone, is estimated to produce 6 new stars every year. There are over 35 thousand galaxies within 60 million light years of us.

Hi Michael, welcome!

Michael Mozina wrote:Sure, but nuetron stars do have strong magnetic fields and they spin. If it's spinning inside a metallic crust, induction is a possible energy source.

That's simply energy stored as angular momentum. It has no fuel, no means of spinning itself back up again. If its magnetic field is what's powering the Sun, it's converting spin into thermal energy at a phenomenal rate, and would quickly stop.

Even if some mysterious 'neutron emission' effect could occur, that would rob the core of energy, and it would simply collapse futher, eventually into a black hole.

I don't think so. I think I "MECO" might form if it's large enough, but it's nowhere near that size.

Actually, you're right; since it's supported by neutron degeneracy, a neutron star won't collapse past its own even horizon unless it gains mass.

Solar helioseismography shows no evidence for a neutron star inside the Sun.

I does show evidence of a crust however, and that would require a complete rework of a shell model to hope to find evidence of the core using heliosiesmology techniques.

It shows evidence of stratification and changes in the stratification within the Sun. Isn't it a bit of a leap to say this is evidence for a solid surface?

Actually the minimum size of a nuetron star is less than .6 solar masses, thought they require about 1.4 solar masses to first form. They can "shrink" quite a bit however without becoming unstable.

I've read they can be stable down to about 0.1 solar masses or thereabouts, in fact. But what mechanism exists that can cause a neutron star to lose significant mass?

No, it wouldn't, especially if it was covered by various plasmas, with the lightest and hottest plasmas being the hydrogen and helium layers. The current spectrum *assumes* that there is no significant amount of mass separation, certainly not mass separated layers of plasma.

If the structure of stars required the separation of elements in this fashion, with the lightest elements comprising the surface, then why do we see different stars with differing spectral lines and elemental abundances? Wouldn't the heavier elements always sink deeper into the star to be masked by the lighter-element plasmas, making all stellar spectra similar?

Now that the Solar Neutrino Problem has effectively been solved due to the observation of neutrino oscillation, doesn't this also throw a spanner into the works for this particular theory?

Hello All

Different spectral lines means different stages of solar evolution.

Your right qev its theoretical.

Therfore theoretical options are placed in place.

You would not expect to see evidence of a neutron star. The original neutron core has deminished. It has lost its mass and therfore its abilty to keep the core without a solar envelope. A new neutron star has no solar envelope.
Loss of mass also reduces its abilty to balance the heat out flow. Heat flow from the core is most important, it stops the over heating.

One of the triggers of a supernova is the critical point where the core loses its mass, allowing the solar envelope to expand and during this period the elements segregate even more, iron found near the outer core and hyrogen to the surface. Also the release of the high energy photons from the core hits Iron atoms breaking them down to neutrons in a chain reaction releasing huge amounts of energy which creates a chain reaction in fusion of atoms that adds to the energy required in a supernova.

There is a more complicated theory, I will add it one day.

Thats my theoretical opinion.

Michael Mozina wrote:

Nereid wrote:

Wadsworth wrote:Welcome Nereid! Link away, sounds interesting.

Thanks for the welcome, Wadsworth!

Let's start with Michael Mozina:

Well, since you "started" with me, you don't mind if I respond do you?

Now Michael's ideas are based almost entirely on published images from various sources, including TRACE. That he misunderstands even fairly basic things about these images is clear from this thread.

That is simply false Nereid. I am right about the heat signature issue, though my approach was all wrong in that thread. It has little to with with BB principles, and everything to do with the emission of light, and scattering. LMSAL is absolutely incorrect about the heat signature of the image however.

To the extent that Dr Manuel's ideas incorporate Michael Mozina's, they incorporate the same flawed logic and bad science.

What "flaw" might that be? Observation?

Perhaps the easiest way to see that Michael's idea is wrong is to consider the observed density of the Sun.

Why would you focus there when that is not what I based my case upon in the first place? Why do you also ignore the other kinds of "spheres" that form in space that are not more dense in the center?

http://pof.aip.org/pof/gallery/video/20 ... hflong.mov

For the density of (solid) iron, you can either measure it yourself, or take someone else's word for it.

But I never claimed the sun was "solid iron" in the first place!

Now the flaw with Michael's idea is that the estimated average density of the Sun, by the above method or others, is much smaller than the density of solid iron ... and the errors in the measurements and calculations are far too small to allow the difference to be explained away as just 'measurement error'.

If I was trying to do that, I might understand your concern.

So, either the Sun is not composed of solid iron, or Newton's F = Gm1m2/r^2 is very wrong, or .... Michael's idea is inconsistent with good observational and experimental results.

Well, then the obvious solution is that the sun is not made of solid iron. I never proposed anything of the sort in the first place.

Hi Michael,

Has your idea been published in a peer-reviewed (astronomy or astrophysics) scientific journal?

If so, would you be kind enough to give us the reference(s)?

Michael Mozina wrote:

Nereid wrote:Hi Michael,

Has your idea been published in a peer-reviewed (astronomy or astrophysics) scientific journal?

If so, would you be kind enough to give us the reference(s)?

Our work has been published in the Journal Of Fusion Energy, and Yadernaya Fitzika.

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/jofe1.pdf
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/jofe2.pdf
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/Plasm ... rFinal.pdf

I've now been involved in a total of five papers published papers.

http://arxiv.org/find/grp_q-bio,grp_cs, ... /0/all/0/1

Thanks for this.

I could see only three references to published papers - the first three (ArXiV is a preprint server) - have the last two been published too? If so, what are the references?

Michael Mozina wrote:

Nereid wrote:

Wadsworth wrote:Welcome Nereid! Link away, sounds interesting.

Thanks for the welcome, Wadsworth!

Let's start with Michael Mozina:

Well, since you "started" with me, you don't mind if I respond do you?

Now Michael's ideas are based almost entirely on published images from various sources, including TRACE. That he misunderstands even fairly basic things about these images is clear from this thread.

That is simply false Nereid. I am right about the heat signature issue, though my approach was all wrong in that thread. It has little to with with BB principles, and everything to do with the emission of light, and scattering. LMSAL is absolutely incorrect about the heat signature of the image however.

To the extent that Dr Manuel's ideas incorporate Michael Mozina's, they incorporate the same flawed logic and bad science.

What "flaw" might that be? Observation?

Perhaps the easiest way to see that Michael's idea is wrong is to consider the observed density of the Sun.

Why would you focus there when that is not what I based my case upon in the first place? Why do you also ignore the other kinds of "spheres" that form in space that are not more dense in the center?

http://pof.aip.org/pof/gallery/video/20 ... hflong.mov

For the density of (solid) iron, you can either measure it yourself, or take someone else's word for it.

But I never claimed the sun was "solid iron" in the first place!

Now the flaw with Michael's idea is that the estimated average density of the Sun, by the above method or others, is much smaller than the density of solid iron ... and the errors in the measurements and calculations are far too small to allow the difference to be explained away as just 'measurement error'.

If I was trying to do that, I might understand your concern.

So, either the Sun is not composed of solid iron, or Newton's F = Gm1m2/r^2 is very wrong, or .... Michael's idea is inconsistent with good observational and experimental results.

Well, then the obvious solution is that the sun is not made of solid iron. I never proposed anything of the sort in the first place.

Would you please present a determination of the average density of the Sun, based on your 'Sun has a rocky, calcium ferrite surface' idea?

I can't find any such determination on your website, nor in any of the five papers you cite (in a later post).

Michael Mozina wrote:

Nereid wrote:Would you please present a determination of the average density of the Sun, based on your 'Sun has a rocky, calcium ferrite surface' idea?

I can't find any such determination on your website, nor in any of the five papers you cite (in a later post).

The only "determination" I could reach is that the average density of the sun is as described. How that breaks down in the various layers isn't well understood at this time. There are obviously different plasma layers in the sun's outer atmosphere, and undoubtedly there are high temperature, mass separated plasma layers under the surface as well. The solid surface shell is relatively thin, and constitutes no more than 5%-7% of the total mass of the sun. While it is *mostly* iron (by weight), there are many other elements present. The surface crust is not homogeneous either, and some areas may be more the average density of something like Olivine rather than pure iron.

Is there a 'neutron star' at the core of the Sun, in your idea?
If so, what is its mass?

The only "determination" I could reach is that the average density of the sun is as described. How that breaks down in the various layers isn't well understood at this time.

Try looking up solar-acoustic resonance or imaging, the Suns density stratifications are more "well understood" than you may think.