The True Origin of The Universe?

No, you as already pointed out are wrong again.
And perhaps you should also realise that Neutron stars are not really stars per se at all. Just like Pulsars, White Dwarfs, BH's they are stellar remnants left over when a star comes to the end of its life.
So we'll just add that also to Russ's quite objective observations on your other many wrong assumptions.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Arguing with this bloke is akin to arguing with chinglu and at least two others that have nothing to offer except whinging, whining and complaining.

From memory all this has started due to my very factual remark that hydrogen is gradually being used up in the Universe.
That claim is 100% correct, despite the many red herrings and other complaints about the relevance of some posts or otherwise.
This thread is about the origin of the Universe. Thankfully the other myth listed as a possibility in the OP seems to have died a natural death.
Like other threads that have diversed some [the Alternative theorist thread for instance] the discussions are still relevant.
Stars are a product of the first element and gravity in the main.
That element hydrogen, came to be 380,000 years after the BB.
Then in association with the laws of conservation of matter and energy, and the continued formation of stars and nucleosynthesis, means that hydrogen is being used up, and stellar production is destined to cease one day.

And logically and sensibly, it all fits into the BB/inflationary model as the near certain model for Universal/spacetime evolution.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

100% correct, along with the other incessant bellowing, screaming, howling, squawking individuals and their as usual, expected complaints when a thread isn't going the way they want it to go.
Shame.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The following is a nice little extract from a Hawking lecture entitled "The Origin of the Universe"

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-origin-of-the-universe.html

 

*** Moderators/Administrators : one (1) reason this Thread should be relegated to "The Cesspool". ***

- Post # 523 :

- Post #541 :

- for some reason the Yahoo answers "post" of someone claiming knowledge Sourced from an "Astrophysics Degree: is given credence.

- Post #543 :

- the Member that has "lost track actually what all this is about" - in less than 8 hours!! - claims to utilize "Common sense" and knowledge of "nuclear physics" based on a response from "Yahoo answers" to proclaim a "fact".

- post #543 :

- What evidence was presented that the response on "Yahoo answers" ... "as per someone with an Astrophysics degree", was actually given by someone that had in fact earned an Astrophysics degree?

- Yet in Post #523, the Poster clearly stated : "Fission in neutron stars, supernovas and black holes is not my theory, I just said that I've seen articles and papers about it, and I do not find it to be surprising at all."

- Post # 523 :

...

- ???!!!

There are websites, such as : http://www.stanford.edu , that all anybody has to do is got to and "type in" something as simple as : " fission in stars?? ", hit enter and get the following responses : http://www.stanford.edu/search/?cx=...??&sa=Search&siteurl=http://www.stanford.edu/ ,
- from the FIRST response : "Technetium of the Stars", Link : http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2011/ph241/hamman1/

- the ^^above quoted^^ from : http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2011/ph241/hamman1/


This Post from me, dmoe, will most likely be "received" as most any other Post of mine, by the Members that claim common sense and a reliance on mainstream science - Yahoo answers is "mainstream science" ???!!!

The "internet" can easily be a source of Real Science Knowledge - such as http://www.stanford.edu - but evidently "sources" such as http://www.stanford.edu , are not "reputable" enough for the Members that claim "common sense and a reliance on mainstream science".

There seems to be a curious inability by the Members that claim "common sense and a reliance on mainstream science", to actually exhibit or produce supporting evidence in their Posts, to actually back up those spurious claims!


*** Moderators/Administrators : This is only one (1) of a myriad of reasons that this Thread should be relegated to "The Cesspool". ***

So...

...just another ad hominem attack?

So now...the question is - if you can answer a direct question put to you, paddoboy...
...is this discussion flowing the way that you had hoped it would when you deliberately derailed it, to exercise what you seem to think of as control?


*** Moderators/Administrators : The directly above is another one (1) of the myriad of reasons that this Thread should be relegated to "The Cesspool". ***

 

The point also that's relevant, is that Neutron stars are not stars.
And it's odds on that our telescope friend will continue to ignore the facts you have listed, as well as others.
This as already mentioned has come about because he seems to refute the fact that hydrogen is being used up.
Shame.

 

Perhaps if others admit some ignorance and take pride in learning something he'll feel this is a safe place for him to admit his ignorance and learn:

I admit I hadn't really ever put a whole lot of thought into neutron stars, so when I researched, I learned that they aren't just uniform balls of neutrons, they have layers and near the surface even have actual atoms. (still no fission though)

I also admit that I didn't know about the current place our universe is in its lifespan -- with 95% of the stars the universe will ever see already having been born. (paddoboy's link: http://www.wired.com/2012/11/universe-making-stars/ ). Kinda depressing actually.

 

Do you admit this statement of your is ridiculously false?

 

No Neutron stars are not stars. Neither are Pulsars, White Dwarfs and Black Holes.
They are remnants left over after stars have exhausted all their available fuel.
All these remnants, are not producing any energy at all, and all are destined to become black cinders [except for BH's]

I don't expect you though to admit your thoughts on the matter are ridiculously false.
STAR:
Definition: star: A ball of mostly hydrogen and helium gas that shines extremely brightly. Our Sun is a star. A star is so massive that its core is extremely dense and hot. At the high core temperatures of a star, atoms move so fast that they sometimes stick to other atoms when they collide with them, forming more massive atoms and releasing a great amount of energy. This process is known as nuclear fusion. Star. (See image for picture of Polaris, the North Star.)

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star
A star is a massive ball of plasma (very hot gas) held together by gravity. It radiates energy because of the nuclear reactions inside it.

 

Critical mass of what? Why is this mass low, what are you talking about?

I'm talking about only one. The topic you drove us out of was entropy and heat-death of the universe. I'm talking about pressure due to gravity exerted on a planet's core that is proportional to mass of the planet. Whatever else you are talking about you talking to yourself.

Indeed, and most of it is due to gravitational pressure.

I didn't say it creates hydrogen, I said it CAN create hydrogen. Fission of different atoms produces different atoms. I can't prove what hasn't been tested. My conclusion is based on the PRINCIPLE of nuclear fission. Do you have any reason to believe otherwise?

Do you claim fission can not produce hydrogen?
Do you claim not any atom with 2 or more neutrons can undergo fission?

I've never said that. Please don't hallucinate, just simply quote me if you wish to point something I have said.

 

You are insane, pal. The link you gave yourself proves you wrong.

- "Stars vary greatly in size. The smallest neutron stars (which are actually dead stars) are no bigger than a city. The neutron star is incredibly dense."
http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star

 

Tsk tsk...Take it easy...Don't get too excited.
You must realise that sometimes scientists are lazy....Neutron stars and WD's are often referred to as stars, but just as I have laid out for you and proven, they are not really stars.

You need to read the definitions carefully.
But I won't stand you against the wall for being lazy.
Another erronious point you made and have as yet to concede among your many other errors, is your ridulious claim that Mars has no water.



But I'm glad to help out anyway.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

This is link I posted is about supernovas and not about any regular stars: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0607180

Do you acknowledge?


At no point I was talking about regular stars made of hydrogen, and I explicitly told you so several times. Therefore, it is you who is wrong and yet you still keep making your irrelevant false statements for no other reason but to engage in petty arguments. It's pathetic.

 

Stop embarrassing yourself. Neutron stars are stars, that is their name "neutron star". Are you 7 years old, what the hell is your problem?

 

No they are not stars, despite the laziness in still referring to them as stars.
They are stellar remnants, nothing more, nothing less. Unless of course you care to add some new definition as to what a star really is.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I would consider who really is embarrassing himself at this stage though.

 

Addendum:
In fact Neutron stars and White Dwarfs are nothing but degenerate matter, or more factually electron degenerate matter, neutron degenerate matter.
But they do shine like stars, until they expel all the pent up energy they have.

 

Oy. Had you never even heard the word "fission" before seeing it in this thread?

Critical mass is the minimum mass of a fissable material required in order for a chain reaction to happen. In the first nuclear bombs, it was a lump of plutonium about the size of a softball. This was already explained to you, but you can read more in the wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_mass

You aren't following: you claimed that pressure and density are the same thing and I gave an example of where pressure and density are for all practical purpose independent of each other. The point is that the pressure inside a planet plays little or no role in causing fission in the planet.

No. But again, as with all your false claims, if you feel you are correct, by all means prove it with documentation.

There is no practical difference between those statements: either way it is still wrong. Still, no, you did most certainly claim explicitly that fission creates hydrogen: "...chain nuclear fission reaction, and that's how new hydrogen atoms are born."

So it hasn't been theorized or demonstrated -- so it is your "theory"!

Yes: I know how fission works and I know that hydrogen has never been observed as a reaction product -- nor any relatively light element.

Yes, I claim your claims are wrong. So again: substantiate your claims with evidence or retract them!

Um...did you forget:

So you claim to have read a paper about fission in neutron stars and black holes. Produce the paper or retract the claim!

Or, go the other way: if you say you weren't claiming that fission happens in neutron stars and black holes, then fine: explicitly acknowledge the opposite: fission does not happen in neutron stars and black holes -- you've never seen a paper that says it does.

[edit] D'oh. Banned. Buh bye.

 

No wonder people get confused with the silly hypothesis that have been thrown around by three.
Let's just stick to the current 'telescope argumenter....
So far in this thread,
*he has rubbished and denied even considering the evidence for the BB
*Instead he hypothesis and Infinite Universe or master Universe and denies it is just an hypothesis.
*No evidence at all to support the above....
*Then tries to brainwash the forum into believing the BB does not fit in with an Infinite Universe...
* Then he argues against the obvious fact re entropy and the fact that the Universe is heading towards a heat or freeze death.
*Somehow he then confuses my claim that the BB is 98% certain, with my speculative summary on the Universe being the ultimate free lunch...
*Then procedes to argue against the fact that the hydrogen eventually will be used up, and stellar production will stop.
*Confusion then reigned for some time re stellar fusion processes in stars, and his Fission in stars dandy claim.
* When that was showed to be grossly wrong, he raised the Neutron star argument and supernova argument as producing hydrogen to somehow counter the fact that it will all be used up.
* The law of conservation of matter and energy was raised and he likened that to "electrons stop spinning around protons"
* Mainstream science was likened to a bible with me being the cheer leader, Nuclear fission bombs operating under pressure rather then critical mass, and on and on.....
Like I said, with 'his deft side-stepping, ignoring of answers and evidence, the thread is heading into outright confusion. Sad.

 

In the absence of my dear twin brother, perhaps I could help satisfy your knowledge hunger.


* Gamma-ray bursts from nuclear fission in neutron stars
- "A model for gamma-ray bursts in neutron stars is presented in which a glitch causes a rearrangement of matter leading to a nuclear fission explosion. The accompanying optical flashes and absorption lines in hard X-rays can be explained in the context of this model."
link: adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992grbo.book...89B


* Explosive black hole fission and fusion in large extra dimensions
- "Recent understanding of the first order nature of the transition indicate a powerful ``hysteresis'' curve, where black objects may undergo fusion or fission during a tachyonic decay with Planck power and duration of the order of the size of the compact dimension L."
link: researchgate.net/publication/2004276_Explosive_black_hole_fission_and_fusion_in_large_extra_dimensions


* Neutrinos, Fission Cycling, and the r-process
- "It has long been suggested that fission cycling may play an important role in the r-process. Fission cycling can only occur in a very neutron rich environment.
link: arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0607180

 

Neutron star
- "A neutron star is a very small and dense star made almost completely of neutrons. It is a very large nucleus held together by gravity."
link: simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_star


It's fascinating a person who is able to read and write can be confused about the fact that neutron stars are stars. For the love of God, it's in the name!