What is needed to creat Proton?

[Dandav]

4 hours ago, oldpaddoboy said:

NB:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_star" "The "atmosphere" of a neutron star is hypothesized to be at most several micrometers thick, and its dynamics are fully controlled by the neutron star's magnetic field. Below the atmosphere one encounters a solid "crust". This crust is extremely hard and very smooth (with maximum surface irregularities on the order of millimeters or less), due to the extreme gravitational field" 

If you read that fairly comprehensive article, you may understand the error of some of the assumptions you have made.

I have read carefully your attached article.

It is stated:

"Neutron stars are detected from their electromagnetic radiation. Neutron stars are usually observed to pulse radio waves and other electromagnetic radiation, and neutron stars observed with pulses are called pulsars."

Hence, Neutron stars are detected from their electromagnetic radiation.

In other words, we can't see / observe the star at the center of the Pulsar.

4 hours ago, oldpaddoboy said:

Do you have any legitimate reason for wanting to ignore the equations and mathematics that is needed for gravitational collapse.  

Why can't we agree on what we see before we try to understand how "the equations and mathematics that is needed for gravitational collapse" can explain the observation? 

Why do you refuse to answer my simple legitimate question?

What do we really observe?

 

5 hours ago, Dandav said:

Please, at this phase do not try to explain why we don't see the star. Just tell if you confirm those observations.

Hence, do you confirm the observations which I have highlighted?

Please, Yes or no?

Edited May 4 by Dandav

[oldpaddoboy]

6 hours ago, Dandav said:

Hence, Neutron stars are detected from their electromagnetic radiation.

This is just an example of your incorrect assumptions you are inclined to make, presumably to give your hypothesis, (whatever that is) some sort of legitimacy. No where does it say this is the only means of detection. Obviously, they are also detected by their gravitational effects on spacetime and objects in their vicinity. This again obviously raises the equations of gravity and as such size and position can be confidently calculated.

6 hours ago, Dandav said:

Why can't we agree on what we see before we try to understand how "the equations and mathematics that is needed for gravitational collapse" can explain the observation? 

Because Neutron/Pulsars/Magnetars, along with black holes, are at astronomical distances, and generally don't give out light. Although there are exceptions.  So we need other means other then optical telescopes to detect them. electromagnetic radiation in other frequencies, along with the gravitational effects on spacetime and objects in their vicinity. A third method is gravitational lensing of more distant objects. Again the appropriate mathematics are required, which you seem intent on ignoring.

7 hours ago, Dandav said:

Why do you refuse to answer my simple legitimate question?

Because it is not just a simple matter of agreeing with a yes or a no. You should know that. 

7 hours ago, Dandav said:

What do we really observe?

We observe the end product of stars by the means already mentioned, and as determined by the tried and tested and verified appropriate mathematics, EDP, NDP and as a consequence either white dwarfs, Neutron/Pulsar/Magnetars, or black holes.

7 hours ago, Dandav said:

Hence, do you confirm the observations which I have highlighted?

Please, Yes or no?

I don't believe you are in a position to demand yes or no answers, particularly when you have been shown to have made false assumptions. https://sciencing.com/characteristics-redgiant-whitedwarf-stars-8395763.html         

https://www.space.com/22180-neutron-stars.html

Finally, to try to convince you of the power of mathematics, you must know that astronomers first hypothesized the existence of neutron stars in the 1930s, shortly after the discovery of the neutron itself. However, it wasn't until the 1960s that the first evidence for their existence was realized. The same hypotheticals apply of course to black holes, which were first hypotheized in 1789 by a bloke named John Michell, using simply Newtonian mechanics. 

And again, the relatively new science, (and confirmation of gravitational waves) also can decipher through the mathematical templates whether they are from Colliding Neutron stars, Neutron star and black hole or black hole and black hole merger.

Why are you so intent on ignoring the equations of state and maths, and the successful validated physics that have emerged from that maths? 

[Dandav]

10 hours ago, oldpaddoboy said:

Because Neutron/Pulsars/Magnetars, along with black holes, are at astronomical distances, and generally don't give out light. Although there are exceptions.

I have asked you to confirm that we have not observed / see the star in the core of the Neutron/Pulsars/Magnetars.

In this reply you confirmation that Neutron/Pulsars/Magnetars don't give out light (based on distance?).

With regards to distance- we clearly see the light from the gas around the star (at radius of 18 - 20Km).

Therefore, the distance is not a limitation to see the star (at 10Km) if it was visible.

Hence, by definition when we see the gas but we don't see the star then at least for this example we should agree that there is no limitation for distance to see the star.

If there are exceptions as you claim then your statement that Neutron/Pulsars/Magnetars don't give out light is just incorrect.

So please would you kindly show just one exception (just one example for a nearby observable star)?

Could it be that we have never ever observed the light from Neutron/Pulsars/Magnetars (even if it is very close - 1KLY) as those stars just don't give out light due to their size and not due to their location / distance?

Hence, would you reconsider your reply?

10 hours ago, oldpaddoboy said:

This is just an example of your incorrect assumptions you are inclined to make, presumably to give your hypothesis, (whatever that is) some sort of legitimacy. No where does it say this is the only means of detection. Obviously, they are also detected by their gravitational effects on spacetime and objects in their vicinity.

Why do you insist to confuse yourself with the gravitational effects and claim that my understanding that we can't observe / see the star is incorrect, while in your above reply there is a  confirm that some stars don't give out light (due to distance) and therefore they should be invisible?

Therefore - my claim for invisible stars is correct.

Again, if there is exception - please show it.

10 hours ago, oldpaddoboy said:

Why are you so intent on ignoring the equations of state and maths, and the successful validated physics that have emerged from that maths? 

Don't you agree that any math is based on some assumptions.

If we assume that in the core of the Pulsars/Magnetars there is a star which is made by neutrons, then we can easily calculate its expected size.

If we assume that in the core of the Pulsars/Magnetars there is a star which is made by quarks, then we can find that its size should be smaller than a neutron star.

However, the Math by itself can't prove if it is made by neutrons, quarks, black hole or any other combination.

If you think differently, then would you kindly introduce the math which can prove that the star in the core of Pulsars/Magnetars is made by neutrons?

Please don't talk about the math - introduce the equations & math with all the calculations and assumptions.

Please also introduce the math why the gas around the star (at 18 - 20Km) is visible, while the star at a size of 10 kilometers is invisible.

Edited May 5 by Dandav

[oldpaddoboy]

14 hours ago, Dandav said:

I have asked you to confirm that we have not observed / see the star in the core of the Neutron/Pulsars/Magnetars.

And I have confirmed, and of course it is common sense, that we have not seen, nor are positively aware of what the core of Neutron stars consist of. What we can be confident of of course, is that the greater bulk of the star, are Neutrons, as the name suggests. End of story.

14 hours ago, Dandav said:

In this reply you confirmation that Neutron/Pulsars/Magnetars don't give out light (based on distance?).

No, that is another incorrect assumption. I have rightly said that Neutron stars (as well as black holes of course) are at astronomical distances. And I have suggested, that they generally (although there are some exceptions) don't give out visible light.(irrespective of distances, although again, all are at astronomical distances measured in many hundreds and thousands of light years)  https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-a-neutron-star-29341

14 hours ago, Dandav said:

Hence, would you reconsider your reply?

No, not at all. I suggest you read all the links without any incorrect assumptions. Suffice to say, that the mainstream model of Neutron/Pulsars/Magnetars, are supported by the maths and thus correct as of the 6th May 2024. And of course the great bulk of their makeup are Neutrons. They are the only questions I am considering in this debate, despite your red herrings.

14 hours ago, Dandav said:

If there are exceptions as you claim then your statement that Neutron/Pulsars/Magnetars don't give out light is just incorrect.

https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-a-neutron-star-29341  "Neutron stars give off little visible light, making them practically impossible to detect in blind searches. Most of the few-thousand known examples have been discovered instead via their radio pulsations."

14 hours ago, Dandav said:

So please would you kindly show just one exception (just one example for a nearby observable star)?

No, I have given links, you need to do your own research without making false and incorrect assumptions that I have pointed out, over many posts now, and then failing to even acknowledge those errors. That in my estimation, is approaching avoidance of the matter at hand and admitting your errors.

14 hours ago, Dandav said:

Why do you insist to confuse yourself with the gravitational effects and claim that my understanding that we can't observe / see the star is incorrect, while in your above reply there is a  confirm that some stars don't give out light (due to distance) and therefore they should be invisible?

The confusion is yours. Gravitational waves and gravitational lensing are two of the methods that can be employed to discover Neutron stars. I will ask you in return, why do you want to ignore such valid scientific methods for discovering Neutron stars, along with ignoring the associated maths? That is against the scientific method I suggest. 

14 hours ago, Dandav said:

 

Therefore - my claim for invisible stars is correct.

All Neutron stars, should be able to be detected by one of the many methods I have listed, some by visible light, others, by other means. Again, my debate with you is with regards to the mainstream model of Neutron stars, supported by the maths, which you want to insist on ignoring and of course that they consist of Neutrons in the main. . Again, ignoring the maths is is contravening the scientific method. Please be aware of that and stop avoiding that point.

14 hours ago, Dandav said:

Don't you agree that any math is based on some assumptions.

 

No.Mathematics has been an indispensable adjunct to the physical sciences and technology and has assumed a similar role in the life sciences. 

14 hours ago, Dandav said:

 

If we assume that in the core of the Pulsars/Magnetars there is a star which is made by neutrons, then we can easily calculate its expected size.

If we assume that in the core of the Pulsars/Magnetars there is a star which is made by quarks, then we can find that its size should be smaller than a neutron star.

However, the Math by itself can't prove if it is made by neutrons, quarks, black hole or any other combination.

If you think differently, then would you kindly introduce the math which can prove that the star in the core of Pulsars/Magnetars is made by neutrons?

Please don't talk about the math - introduce the equations & math with all the calculations and assumptions.

Please also introduce the math why the gas around the star (at 18 - 20Km) is visible, while the star at a size of 10 kilometers is invisible.

You have my answer many times. You also have my answer regarding my inability to supply the maths involved as I am not a scientist. I support the current model of Neutron/Pulsars/Magnetars as are supported by the equations of gravity and NDP. Plus I have given many reputable links and a scientific paper, rather then as you have done, giving unsupported ideas with many baseless assumptions, while ignoring the most essential part...the maths involved... the maths that predicted these things even before they were detected. You actually havn't a leg to stand on in choosing to ignore the maths.  And since we are going round in circles, and you insist on failing to recognise the facts of the indispensable nature of the maths involved, I will leave you to your confusion and will not be partaking anymore. You also have again avoided my suggestion, based on your misplaced confidence, to write up a scientific paper for peer review. Obviously, like myself and others partaking in this thread, we all know what the outcome of that will be. 

Best of luck.

Edited May 5 by oldpaddoboy

[oldpaddoboy]

https://phys.org/news/2024-04-advance-gravitational-collisions-neutron-stars.html

APRIL 26, 2024

 Editors' notes

"Researchers advance detection of gravitational waves to study collisions of neutron stars and black holes"

article at link.

the paper:

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2316474121

Abstract

"Multimessenger searches for binary neutron star (BNS) and neutron star-black hole (NSBH) mergers are currently one of the most exciting areas of astronomy. The search for joint electromagnetic and neutrino counterparts to gravitational wave (GW)s has resumed with ALIGO’s, AdVirgo’s and KAGRA’s fourth observing run (O4). To support this effort, public semiautomated data products are sent in near real-time and include localization and source properties to guide complementary observations. In preparation for O4, we have conducted a study using a simulated population of compact binaries and a mock data challenge (MDC) in the form of a real-time replay to optimize and profile the software infrastructure and scientific deliverables. End-toend performance was tested, including data ingestion, running online search pipelines, performing annotations, and issuing alerts to the astrophysics community. We present an overview of the low-latency infrastructure and the performance of the data products that are now being released during O4 based on the MDC. We report the expected median latency for the preliminary alert of full bandwidth searches (29.5 s) and show consistency and accuracy of released data products using the MDC. We report the expected median latency for triggers from early warning searches (−3.1 s), which are new in O4 and target neutron star mergers during inspiral phase. This paper provides a performance overview for LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA (LVK) low-latency alert infrastructure and data products using theMDCand serves as a useful reference for the interpretation of O4 detections." 

fGet full access to th

 

[Dandav]

On 4/30/2024 at 5:47 PM, Dandav said:

In the following article it is stated:

https://nathaliedegenaar.com/2011/06/14/peeking-into-the-crust-of-a-neutron-star/

It is the first time that cooling of an accretion-heated neutron star crust has been observed for a neutron star with a “normal” accretion phase of a few weeks.

By comparing the observed change in temperature with theoretical calculations, we found evidence for the presence of (strong) sources of heat in the outer layers of the crust. It remains a puzzle what should produce heat at such shallow layers.

Hence, those scientists are puzzled as they have found contradiction between the observation to their theoretical calculations.

So, why are we so sure that there is no error in the math ?

How can we trust the theoretical calculations of those puzzled scientists?

Your answer for the above question was:

On 4/30/2024 at 11:39 PM, oldpaddoboy said:

Answering your last question first,  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics

"Most mathematical activity...

Again, Neutron stars are so called because it aligns with the proven concept of the maths involved, and EDP and NDP.

And of course to repeat myself, there is still much to learn and know about these exotic forms of matter that we label Neutron/Pulsar/Magnetars, particularly with regards to the deeper inner parts. While Neutron stars are essentially made up of neutrons according to the maths, much of the exact nature remains hypothetical, as has already been pointed out to you.

Sorry, I couldn't find in this reply an aswer to my question.

 

With regards to the ultra-strong electromagnetic of the Neutron star:

In the following article it is stated:

https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/378/1/159/1154016

As regards the neutron and proton systems, their Pauli paramagnetic magnetization is much weaker than that of the electron system in neutron stars. The main reason for this is the inherent magnetic moment of a neutron or a proton is only one-thousandth of the electron magnetic moment.

 

On 5/5/2024 at 1:18 PM, oldpaddoboy said:

And I have confirmed, and of course it is common sense, that we have not seen, nor are positively aware of what the core of Neutron stars consist of. What we can be confident of of course, is that the greater bulk of the star, are Neutrons, as the name suggests. End of story.

As the inherent magnetic moment of a neutron or a proton is only one-thousandth of the electron magnetic moment, then why do we insist on Neutrons and ignore the simple understanding that Neutrons might not have enough Pauli paramagnetic magnetization (as electron system) to support the ultra-strong magnetic radiation that we do observe.

On 5/5/2024 at 1:18 PM, oldpaddoboy said:

I support the current model of Neutron/Pulsars/Magnetars as are supported by the equations of gravity and NDP.

Please show how the current model of Neutron/Pulsars/Magnetars as are supported by the equations of gravity and NDP can explain the (strong) sources of heat in the outer layers of the crust and its ultra-strong electromagnetic while the greater bulk of the star are Neutrons?

Edited May 9 by Dandav

[oldpaddoboy]

 I support the current model of Neutron/Pulsars/Magnetars as are supported by the equations of gravity and NDP. Plus I have given many reputable links and a scientific paper, rather then as you have done, giving unsupported ideas with many baseless assumptions, while ignoring the most essential part...the maths involved... the maths that predicted these things even before they were detected. You actually havn't a leg to stand on in choosing to ignore the maths.  And since we are going round in circles, and you insist on failing to recognise the facts of the indispensable nature of the maths involved, I will leave you to your confusion and will not be partaking anymore. You also have again avoided my suggestion, based on your misplaced confidence, to write up a scientific paper for peer review. Obviously, like myself and others partaking in this thread, we all know what the outcome of that will be. 

[Dandav]

On 5/9/2024 at 11:26 PM, oldpaddoboy said:

Plus I have given many reputable links and a scientific paper, rather then as you have done, giving unsupported ideas with many baseless assumptions, while ignoring the most essential part...the maths involved... the maths that predicted these things even before they were detected. You actually havn't a leg to stand on in choosing to ignore the maths. 

 

Dear Oldpaddoboy

1. Real Observation & evidence

I have offered real data from Chandra satellite:

https://nathaliedegenaar.com/2011/06/14/peeking-into-the-crust-of-a-neutron-star/

We used the Chandra satellite to study the neutron star X-ray binary IGR 17480-2446...

We observed the neutron star at different epochs after it had ended a 10-week episode of accretion.

The evidence is very clear:

"we found evidence for the presence of (strong) sources of heat in the outer layers of the crust".

Therefore, those sources of heat in the outer layers of the crust are real.

However, as those observations & evidences contradicts the current hypothetical theory about the Neutron star, you wish to ignore them all by claiming that it is "unsupported ideas with many baseless assumptions,".

2. puzzled Observation

It is stated:

It remains a puzzle what should produce heat at such shallow layers. Further Chandra observations are planned to further investigate the temperature evolution of this neutron star.

Therefore, those scientists don't know what should produce heat at such shallow layers and therefore they are so puzzled.

3. Math

Do you think that those scientists don't know the math?

Sorry, the math can't solve the puzzle.

If yes, please show it.

4. Source of energy

Neutron star has integrated strong sources of heat.

In other words, it must power itself by some kind of energy source.

Its ultra-high spinning of 700 times per second and its ultra-high electromagnetic radiation is not due to the supernova that took place millions of years ago.

Why we refuse to understand that there must be some internal heat process that generates constantly the requested energy.

That energy is transformed into heat and electromagnetic radiation.

In the Sun for example - the science community believe that fusion activity is the source for energy.

However, based on the current understanding there is no possibility  for fusion activity at neutron star.

So, instead of looking for better idea for that energy, we prefer to ignore the observation from Chandra.

5. Layered neutron star:

Why the science claimed for a Layered neutron star?

On 4/30/2024 at 5:47 PM, Dandav said:

Let's look again on a neutron star:

It is stated that it is a layered star.

https://www.nasa.gov/universe/nasas-nicer-probes-the-squeezability-of-neutron-stars/

Scientists think neutron stars are layered.

1. Atmosphere - Hydrogen, Helium & Carbons

2. Outer Crust - IONS & Electrons.

3. Inner Crust  -  IONS & superfluid Neutrons

4. Outer Core - supercunducting Protoms

5. Inner Core - Unknown

Could it be that they know that the inner core layer should spin faster than the outer layers?

6. Ultra-strong electromagnetic radiation.

We all know that generator can produce electromagnetic energy while its rotor/Dynamo is spinning with reference to its stator.

If we would spin the whole generator, it won't generate any energy.

In the same token, a spinning Neutron star by itself, won't be able to produce the requested Ultra strong electromagnetic radiation.

Hence, there is a need for a spinning rotor/dynamo inside the neutron star.

As the inner core is spinning faster than the outer layers it generates strong sources of heat in the outer layers and ultra-strong electromagnetic radiation that we clearly observe.

So, there is no need for the entire star to spin at 700 times per second. The inner core spinning with reference to the outer layers is good enough.

However, in this case we need to explain why the inner core is spinning faster than the outer layers?

7. write up a scientific paper for peer review.

On 5/9/2024 at 11:26 PM, oldpaddoboy said:

You also have again avoided my suggestion, based on your misplaced confidence, to write up a scientific paper for peer review.

As the science community have totally ignore the clear observation for the presence of (strong) sources of heat in the outer layers of the crust, how can I hope that they would accept my explanation for that activity?

8. What is the mission:

It is very clear to me that the mission of the science community is to protect the current ideas and theories regardless to any contradicted observation or evidence.

I wonder why 100 - 50 years ago, the science community was flexible enough to change the theories based on new observations, but once they did it, they have totally lost their flexibility and refuse to look for better theory for those new contradicted observations.

Instead, they try to fit those contradicted observations into the current theories or just ignore them.

As the science community refuse to accept the observations from Chandra satellite , why do they invest so much money in those kinds of satellites?

9.  It's time for reset.

Let's accept all those contradicted observations.

Why the science community refuse to reset the current theory about Neutron stars, set all the updated observations & evidences on the table and look for better solution?

I'm quite sure that if the science community would do so, they would easily find the correct theory for the neutron star functionality without my help.

Edited May 13 by Dandav

[oldpaddoboy]

I support the current model of Neutron/Pulsars/Magnetars as are supported by the equations of gravity and NDP. Plus I have given many reputable links and a scientific paper, rather then as you have done, giving unsupported ideas with many baseless assumptions, while ignoring the most essential part...the maths involved... the maths that predicted these things even before they were detected. You actually havn't a leg to stand on in choosing to ignore the maths.  And since we are going round in circles, and you insist on failing to recognise the facts of the indispensable nature of the maths involved, I will leave you to your confusion and will not be partaking anymore. You also have again avoided my suggestion, based on your misplaced confidence, to write up a scientific paper for peer review. Obviously, like myself and others partaking in this thread, we all know what the outcome of that will be. Your pet assumptions remain as assumptions.  End of story. 

Edited May 14 by oldpaddoboy