Notices
Results 1 to 25 of 25
Like Tree4Likes
  • 1 Post By PhDemon
  • 3 Post By Strange

Thread: Origin of Neutron Stars

  1. #1 Origin of Neutron Stars 
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    manteski@aol.com. I live in Massachusetts
    Posts
    106
    I think the most rational theory for the origin of neutron stars is that they arise during the destruction of "tired" ordinary stellar stars. Inasmuch as I am an ether theorist, my Model for formation of a neutron star is along those lines.

    Destruction of an ordinary star whowse internal energy has been depleted would involve forces of such violence it would be beyond our earthly experience, and would quite possibly erase atomic signatures in the star system. The concomitant flux of energies would not only be violent but also so chaotic that electrical processes such as resonance would be impossible there.

    My concept of an etheric continuum includes the idea that there is no "empty space" as physicists now propose, and no solid-matter particles. Instead, there is an etheric "contiguum" of etheric, etheroidal, subatomic, and atomic units, with the units larger than the elemental etheric units being made up of the elemental units which were derived from first-causal space. The larger units are actually "particle capacities" made up of elemental units with uniform, organization-adapted, resonant "nodes" and all energic processes take place via these uniform elemental nodes.

    Returning to the hypothetical situation of a newly-destructed star, and the chaotic fluxes associated with that, one would have neutronic, protonic, and electronic "etheroid scale" units (but not intact atoms), which could then potentially resonate like-to-like (but not electrically). The likeliest mechanism for like-to-like resonances would be according to unit size. Neutronic units would resonate like to like to form a neutron star. The protonic units would likewise aggregate like to like into a new star (Nova.) The electronic units would produce cosmic rays such as gamma rays.

    The neutron star would leave the area and migrate toward neutronic attractor regions in the etheric continuum of space. The Nova would remain in the area, establishing resonances with other stars in its galactic neighborhood.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,346
    Just more inane made up nonsense. Try reality Michael, actually learning some physics is a lot more satisfying that making up bullshit about "etheric" or "etheroidal" units that only exist in your fantasies. PS have you found anyone gullible enough to pay for the secret "tests" you were harping on about last time?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,767
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Anteski View Post
    I think the most rational
    Good start.

    I am an ether theorist
    Bad follow-through.

    And then it just gets worse.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,034
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Anteski View Post
    I think the most rational theory for the origin of neutron stars is that they arise during the destruction of "tired" ordinary stellar stars. Inasmuch as I am an ether theorist, my Model for formation of a neutron star is along those lines.

    Destruction of an ordinary star whowse internal energy has been depleted would involve forces of such violence it would be beyond our earthly experience, and would quite possibly erase atomic signatures in the star system. The concomitant flux of energies would not only be violent but also so chaotic that electrical processes such as resonance would be impossible there.

    My concept of an etheric continuum includes the idea that there is no "empty space" as physicists now propose, and no solid-matter particles. Instead, there is an etheric "contiguum" of etheric, etheroidal, subatomic, and atomic units, with the units larger than the elemental etheric units being made up of the elemental units which were derived from first-causal space. The larger units are actually "particle capacities" made up of elemental units with uniform, organization-adapted, resonant "nodes" and all energic processes take place via these uniform elemental nodes.

    Returning to the hypothetical situation of a newly-destructed star, and the chaotic fluxes associated with that, one would have neutronic, protonic, and electronic "etheroid scale" units (but not intact atoms), which could then potentially resonate like-to-like (but not electrically). The likeliest mechanism for like-to-like resonances would be according to unit size. Neutronic units would resonate like to like to form a neutron star. The protonic units would likewise aggregate like to like into a new star (Nova.) The electronic units would produce cosmic rays such as gamma rays.

    The neutron star would leave the area and migrate toward neutronic attractor regions in the etheric continuum of space. The Nova would remain in the area, establishing resonances with other stars in its galactic neighborhood.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Anteski View Post
    I think the most rational theory for the origin of neutron stars is that they arise during the destruction of "tired" ordinary stellar stars.
    1. What is a "tired" star?
    2. How does a stellar star differ from an ordinary star?
    3. What do you find to be at fault with the current explanation for the origin of neutron stars?

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Anteski View Post
    Destruction of an ordinary star whowse internal energy has been depleted would involve forces of such violence it would be beyond our earthly experience, and would quite possibly erase atomic signatures in the star system.
    4. Why should an "ordinary depleted star" suffer destruction at all, in your view?
    5. Since almost all stellar activities are "beyond our earthly experience" in what way is the remark relevant?
    6. What od you mean by atomic signature? What evidence do you have that such signatures are erased? What do you mean by star system?

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Anteski View Post
    The concomitant flux of energies would not only be violent but also so chaotic that electrical processes such as resonance would be impossible there.
    7. Have you quantified these energies? If not how do you know they would prevent resonances? At what energy level would resonance be impossible?

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Anteski View Post
    My concept of an etheric continuum includes the idea that there is no "empty space" as physicists now propose, and no solid-matter particles.
    8. Physicists do not prpose that there is empty space. What do you mean by empty space?

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Anteski View Post
    Instead, there is an etheric "contiguum" of etheric, etheroidal, subatomic, and atomic units, with the units larger than the elemental etheric units being made up of the elemental units which were derived from first-causal space. The larger units are actually "particle capacities" made up of elemental units with uniform, organization-adapted, resonant "nodes" and all energic processes take place via these uniform elemental nodes.
    9. This is word salad. If you want to post on a science forum you are expected to use scientific terms. Any new terms should be carefully defined in accepted language.

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Anteski View Post
    Returning to the hypothetical situation of a newly-destructed star, and the chaotic fluxes associated with that, one would have neutronic, protonic, and electronic "etheroid scale" units (but not intact atoms), which could then potentially resonate like-to-like (but not electrically). The likeliest mechanism for like-to-like resonances would be according to unit size. Neutronic units would resonate like to like to form a neutron star. The protonic units would likewise aggregate like to like into a new star (Nova.) The electronic units would produce cosmic rays such as gamma rays.
    Please show me the maths for that.

    Moderator Warning: Michael, unless you produce some really good answers to the foregoing questions I shall move this to Trash. I look forward to a positive response.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Anteski View Post
    I think the most rational theory for the origin of neutron stars is that they arise during the destruction of "tired" ordinary stellar stars. Inasmuch as I am an ether theorist, my Model for formation of a neutron star is along those lines.

    Destruction of an ordinary star whowse internal energy has been depleted would involve forces of such violence it would be beyond our earthly experience, and would quite possibly erase atomic signatures in the star system. The concomitant flux of energies would not only be violent but also so chaotic that electrical processes such as resonance would be impossible there.

    My concept of an etheric continuum includes the idea that there is no "empty space" as physicists now propose, and no solid-matter particles. Instead, there is an etheric "contiguum" of etheric, etheroidal, subatomic, and atomic units, with the units larger than the elemental etheric units being made up of the elemental units which were derived from first-causal space. The larger units are actually "particle capacities" made up of elemental units with uniform, organization-adapted, resonant "nodes" and all energic processes take place via these uniform elemental nodes.

    Returning to the hypothetical situation of a newly-destructed star, and the chaotic fluxes associated with that, one would have neutronic, protonic, and electronic "etheroid scale" units (but not intact atoms), which could then potentially resonate like-to-like (but not electrically). The likeliest mechanism for like-to-like resonances would be according to unit size. Neutronic units would resonate like to like to form a neutron star. The protonic units would likewise aggregate like to like into a new star (Nova.) The electronic units would produce cosmic rays such as gamma rays.

    The neutron star would leave the area and migrate toward neutronic attractor regions in the etheric continuum of space. The Nova would remain in the area, establishing resonances with other stars in its galactic neighborhood.
    And I think you are trying to take us for a ride. Like so :

    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    manteski@aol.com. I live in Massachusetts
    Posts
    106
    PhDemon and Dywyddyr: Your critical comments don't bother me, I realize where they are coming from. What bothers me is the lack of vocal support and a lack of finance to run the test that I have mentioned in the Forum that could put my debate to rest by showing it's valid.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,346
    fine, you don't mind your nonsense being pointed out for what it is, you might be a crank but at least you are thick skinned.
    Lack of vocal support for what? All you've presented is made up nonsense and hand-waving (you even used the Bermuda triangle in one of your explanations FFS), who in their right mind would support that (vocally or otherwise) over the accepted science that actually works? Crackpots and idiots that's who.

    Still looking for financial support, eh, looks like your snake oil salesmen skills are about the same as your skills in physics, non-existent.

    It isn't valid, it's made up nonsense. I don't know why you are allowed to repeatedly post this ether theory guff, if Forrest Noble was banned for constantly spamming the forum with his crank nonsense you are your ether theory shouldn't be far behind.

    ETA: I see you have addressed none of the points raised by John Galt so I'm guessing a move to the Trash Can is iminent.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,965
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Anteski View Post
    What bothers me is the lack of vocal support and a lack of finance to run the test that I have mentioned in the Forum that could put my debate to rest by showing it's valid.
    There are two reasons for that:

    1. You refuse to describe what the test is or what results you expect. No one is going to support something completely unknown.

    2. Your idea is completely meaningless made-up crap.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    manteski@aol.com. I live in Massachusetts
    Posts
    106
    John Galt: The term "tired" star has been used often to refer to a star whose internal energy has been depleted over the course of time (millions of years.) I don't see any conflict theoretically between standard theory and my Model as far as the concept that stars are gradually depleted of energy. In my Model, the depletion occurs via universal resonations, which exist both within the star and with the outside etheric continuum, because both the star and the outside realms consist of identical etheric energic modalities. Gradually, the higher energic content of the star becomes depleted via diffusion toward the less energized outside realms. I view this as similar to any diffusion process. -Your criticism concerning "stellar star versus ordinary star" seems to reflect a misinterpretation of what I intended to convey in my Post. I used the two adjectives redundantly. I just wanted to emphasize the concept of stars similar to our Sun, and that I was not referring to dwarf stars or other "non ordinary" stars.

    My Post offers a new model for the origin of neutron stars. As to your request to compare it to "current theory" for the origin of neutron stars, I have to say that I don't see any current theory worth discussing. The standard view is that neutron stars arise "when a massive star collapses during a supernova." I see no etiological mechanism being proposed that I can compare my Model to. My Model proposes a detailed hypothesis whereas standard theory really only describes objects observed in space.

    Your request for elaboration of my hypotheses as to the forces produced by a star destructing, and specific evidence as to why atomic signatures would be erased, I cannot give specific data. The hypotheses however do make sense if you keep in mind the end point of the Model, that a peculiar spatial object, a neutron star, gets produced, and we currently have no detailed explanation for how. The hypothesis that the forces are great enough to disrupt the integrity of atoms I think is justified within the framework of a new Model for an unexplained body containing neutrons in space.

    The question you raise about whether the energies produced during the destruction of a star are quantitatively sufficient to make electrical resonance impossible seems to me to be hyper critical. I don't know of any way to quantify energies during star destruction. Again, I believe this to be a justifiable hypothesis in the context of my theoretic Model.

    Your criticism that I shouldn't have said that physicists view space as "empty" is I feel tilting at windmills. My ether Model views space as an etheric continuum in which contiguous etheric, etheroidal, subatomic, and atomic energic units occupy space. (But all energic processes occur via resonational elemental "nodes".) Physics of course views space very differently. The basic disconnect theoretically is at a more fundamental theoretic level, i.e., between relying on earthly empirical data to construct cosmic models, and relying on first-causal space-to-elemental ether as the framework for cosmic processes.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,346
    Quote Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw View Post

    The above post is the punchline
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,767
    Quote Originally Posted by michael anteski View Post
    the basic disconnect theoretically is at a more fundamental theoretic level, i.e., between relying on earthly empirical data to construct cosmic models, and relying on completely made up crap as the framework for cosmic processes.
    fify.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,519
    Member Michael Anteski, I shall post this only once:

    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,965
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Anteski View Post
    I don't see any conflict theoretically between standard theory and my Model as far as the concept that stars are gradually depleted of energy.
    The conflict is that one is based on a sound theoretical basis and solid observational evidence, while the other is meaningless waffle with no basis whatsoever. I'll leave you to figure out which is which.

    In my Model, the depletion occurs via universal resonations, which exist both within the star and with the outside etheric continuum, because both the star and the outside realms consist of identical etheric energic modalities.
    There is no such thing as "universal resonations", "etheric continuum" or "etheric energic modalities". These are meaningless terms that you have invented.

    Do you really think you are saying something intelligent or even meaningful, here? Seriously.

    My Post offers a new model for the origin of neutron stars.
    No it doesn't. If it were a model, it would make quantitatively testable predictions. Can you do that? No.

    Therefore, it is not a model. It is just a string of meaningless words.
    As to your request to compare it to "current theory" for the origin of neutron stars, I have to say that I don't see any current theory worth discussing. The standard view is that neutron stars arise "when a massive star collapses during a supernova." I see no etiological mechanism being proposed that I can compare my Model to.
    Your utter ignorance of the relevant physics does not invalidate the standard model. Ironically, however, it does render yours moot.

    My Model proposes a detailed hypothesis whereas standard theory really only describes objects observed in space.
    You seem to have got that the wrong way round. There is no detail in your meaningless string of verbiage. There are no quantitative predictions that can be compared against observation and experiment. The only thing you can verify your "model" against is your own ignorant musings.

    The standard theory, on the other hand, provides very detailed information about the nature, behaviour and internal structure of neutron stars. This can be used to test, and refine, the model by comparing these quantitative predictions against observations of real stars.

    Your request for elaboration of my hypotheses as to the forces produced by a star destructing, and specific evidence as to why atomic signatures would be erased, I cannot give specific data.
    So, for example, you cannot provide information on nucleosynthesis, neutrino bursts and γ-rays from coalescing neutron stars, or predict rates at which we should observe neutron star mergers, or predict rotation rates and therefore pulsar frequencies.

    You cannot say anything at all about neutron stars. And yet you claim to have a "detailed hypothesis"? Why is that?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    manteski@aol.com. I live in Massachusetts
    Posts
    106
    Strange, You harp on aspects of neutron stars other than what I theorized about in my Thread. I posited a new theory for how neutron stars "form." You're complaining that I "fail to address" other aspects of neutron stars such as rates at which neutron stars merge. You also posit that rotation rate correlates with pulsar frequencies. In my Model, pulsation of a star would correlate with alternating resonance between inner energy and outside energies, outside forces being largely etheric and thus not measurable using our earthly quantally mediated instruments. You are applying standard data as though it's beyond question whereas my ether Model is predicated on a fundamentally different view of cosmic forces, and questions the very concept of applying our earthly data to cosmic processes, other than oibvious observations of astronomic events. The underlying mechanism of cosmic processes is what I'm calling into question.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,965
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Anteski View Post
    In my Model, pulsation of a star would correlate with alternating resonance between inner energy and outside energies
    Then please provide a quantitative prediction of rotation rates based on your theory. You can do that can't you?

    thus not measurable using our earthly quantally mediated instruments.
    Then how do you propose to measure it? If it can't be measured, then it can't form part of your theory.

    You are applying standard data as though it's beyond question
    That is because data is measured; it is what is known as "reality". Something you may not be familiar with. Your theory needs to produce quantitative results that are consistent with that data. Does it?

    BTW. Thank you for engaging in discussion rather than your usual habit of making one post and then disappearing.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,346
    @MA Utter nonsense and hand-waving bullshit, but then that's all we ever get from you. You do not have a model, you've been told before a model makes predictions that can be tested, you just make asinine statements that are meaningless or plain wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,280
    @Michael Anteski. I'm not even going to try comparing your writing skills with your science knowledge. It's not like apples and oranges, which are both fruit. But precisely like any fruit and absolute void. One is existent, the other not. I'll leave it for you to tell the difference. Admittedly, the skill you do possess is at least a little above average.
    Here, I think this will help you put the skill you do possess to some use; Smashwords – Ebooks from independent authors and publishers
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    manteski@aol.com. I live in Massachusetts
    Posts
    106
    Replying to Strange's of Dec. 17. -You're repeating all the same kinds of criticisms of my approach to cosmic forces theory. You insist that the only valid approach is one using observable and measurable data, and empirical evidence based on earthly energy systems. I maintain that logic can trump that approach if it makes more sense. I claim my ether model makes more sense logically, taking everything into consideration. I don't give any weight to prevailing consensus if an alternative model makes more sense. -You're right, I can't use rotation rates or such data to buttress my ether model. I have a potential field test of my Model but haven't the finances to do it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,965
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Anteski View Post
    You insist that the only valid approach is one using observable and measurable data
    Correct. That is what science (and engineering) does.

    I maintain that logic can trump that approach if it makes more sense.
    And you are clearly wrong. Can you show a single example of a useful result obtained by pure "logic" rather than the use of objective data?

    You are going back to the failed approach of philosophers like Aristotle. He had all sorts of odd beliefs about the world based, presumably, on "logic". A simple look at the world around him would have shown these ideas were wrong.

    Observation and data trump "logic" or "common sense" every time.

    I claim my ether model makes more sense logically, taking everything into consideration.
    That is an entirely subjective claim. And that is where the problem starts. Others might disagree about whether it makes more sense or not.

    How do we resolve that disagreement? The answer is to use objective data to decide. If Aristotle had looked he would have found that men do not have more teeth than women, despite it "making sense logically, taking everything into consideration". But he was too arrogant to test his ideas. Don't be like that.

    I have a potential field test of my Model but haven't the finances to do it.
    You will never get any support for doing it because you refuse to discuss what it is.

    You can't even quantify what the results of this mythical test are. Therefore the claim of having a test is as meaningful as your invented words.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Moderator Action: Michael, I find no evidence of science in what you have posted. I suspect you are sincere in your belief that you have posited something of value. However, you have failed to convince me that there is even a possibility this is so. Your invention of undefined terms used to make general statements lacking in substance and unsupported by either valid logic or evidence is rather silly. Overall your contributions in this thread appear like classic pseudoscience. So, I am moving the thread.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Malignant Pimple shlunka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dogbox in front of Dywyddyr's house.
    Posts
    1,785
    Nickelodeon
    "MODERATOR NOTE : We don't entertain trolls here, not even in the trash can. Banned." -Markus Hanke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    manteski@aol.com. I live in Massachusetts
    Posts
    106
    Strange: In your last post, you said that I refuse to discuss the field test or to specify what the results of the test would consist of. -I have mentioned the test in my posts in the past. You should recall that the test would use elements composed of natural materials emplaced is series in a certain field setting, with the overall design intended to selectively produce and amplify etheric forces. Reportedly this test could pose a unique type of danger if done without using knowledgable information from outside sources. There could be a unique biological benefit. -The scientific end point would consist of observing a decrease in density of elements in the test system.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,346
    Crank Rubbish, A Complete Knucklehead Posting Obvious Twaddle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,965
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Anteski View Post
    You should recall that the test would use elements composed of natural materials emplaced is series in a certain field setting, with the overall design intended to selectively produce and amplify etheric forces. Reportedly this test could pose a unique type of danger if done without using knowledgable information from outside sources. There could be a unique biological benefit. -The scientific end point would consist of observing a decrease in density of elements in the test system.
    This is so vague as to be meaningless. Have you ever been involved in testing something? It is not enough to say, "if we do this vague thing, we might get some vague results".

    For example:
    • What elements?
    • What natural materials?
    • In series how?
    • What setting?
    • Amplify by how much (quantitatively)?
    • Reported where?
    • What type of danger?
    • What information?
    • From what sources?
    • What biological benefit?
    • What would cause this benefit?
    • How would this benefit be measured?
    • How great (quantitatively) would this benefit be?
    • By how much (quantitatively) would the density decrease?
    • Why would the density decrease?
    • How would you measure the density decrease?



    These are just some of the obvious questions of the top of my head. If this was a real project, there would doubtless be many more. How many of these are you able to answer?

    BTW, I am pointing this out to help you to either (a) understand your ideas have no value or (b) take a more rigorous, scientific approach. The choice is yours.
    MrMojo1, Flick Montana and PhDemon like this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. The Missing Link: Merging Neutron Stars
    By Michael_Roberts in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: July 10th, 2011, 03:16 PM
  2. neutron
    By goodgod3rd in forum Physics
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: January 24th, 2010, 10:54 AM
  3. What makes up a Black Hole compared to Neutron Stars
    By Tau Neutrino in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: August 31st, 2009, 02:11 PM
  4. What Exactly Is A Neutron?
    By Frenchi in forum Physics
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: June 4th, 2008, 05:27 PM
  5. Neutron emission
    By Photon in forum Physics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: June 2nd, 2007, 01:07 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •