I suggest that you need a third category that is related to scaling. I can for instance see that fusion occurs on Earth. I haven't however seen it scaled in a way that produces *consistent* fusion. Likewise I can't scale a mass of neutrons to see if actually becomes stable with enough gravitational curvature. There is an empirical difference between something that shows up in the lab (a neutron) and something that doesn't (a WIMP). Like I said, I think you need a third category.
Yet I don't think you nor I believe that even in the mass of the sun there exists lone neutrons not paired to protons. That's the thing about atomic structures, they are limited in their scaling, unlike the electrical force.
Regardless of the cosmology theory in question, there will be scaling issues involved. I can't scale gravity to the point of demonstrating that it will provide the necessary stabilizing influence on neutron matter, nor can I get fusion energy to remain stable in the lab at the moment. That doesn't preclude either possibility from occurring in the correct conditions, potentially conditions I simply won't be able to replicate here on Earth in a lab.
Not true, plasma and its electrical interactions are known to be scalable up to 100's of orders of magnitude (and its limit has yet to be reached). No other theory is as scalable, to that I will agree. I don't think there is such a thing a stable nuclear fusion. What occurs on the sun is happening at its surface, at the tufting zones where the pinches occur, not in its interior.
I don't actually fully trust that *assumption*. It actually seems rather doubtful from my perspective.
Like you I am willing to entertain that option. I wouldn't however suggest that it entirely rules out pulsars or rapidly rotating massive objects:
How fast does a black hole spin? Astronomers clock speed for first time. (+video) - CSMonitor.com
But since we know their redshift = velocity and distance theory is incorrect, I have no reason to believe anything they say regarding measurements obtained from such. Nor is gravitational lensing a valid assumption. it is nothing more than refraction in the galaxies plasma bubble that surrounds it.
They claim to measure its mass by its interaction with gas. We both know it is plasma, not gas, and plasma responds strongly to EM fields, not gravity. What they are measuring is the plasmas interaction with the pinch, the electric and magnetic fields in that locale. They are not measuring velocity, but electron density and the shift in the frequency caused by that interaction. Quasars are not black holes, but plasma ejected from a galaxy under electrical stress, which is why almost all quasars are in a polar field alignment around Syrfert galaxies.
It could also be a massively heavy object rotating at incredible speeds, but one way or another you're going to need to address those spin rate issues. Something compose of iron alone would be massive, and a spin rate approaching the speeds observed in various observations is pretty impressive.
I need not address the spin issue because there are no objects spinning at those speeds. it is all based upon faulty theory to begin with, starting with redshift and ending with treating plasma like a gas, not a plasma which responds to EM fields.
Strange Star or Strange Science? | holoscience.com | The Electric Universe
Well, we do see jets and corresponding features that do resemble lighthouses with jet approaching the speed of light.
And those jets we observe are all traveling in one direction, not spinning around at 24,000 RPM. And is an electrical event. And every single one comes from the poles, along the Birkeland Current pathways.
Plasma experiment recreates astrophysical jets - space - 04 July 2005 - New Scientist
As are CME's.
The lab where it is always sunny: Researchers recreate precursor to solar flares | Mail Online
No need for fantastical exotic stuff, never before observed. Isn't that why you object to Dark matter?
Certainly iron.
I'm not clear what you're even asking form. Neutrons alone are not what we use to produce fission. Why would I even suggest such a thing?
Exactly. So how could a neutron star composed of neutrons sustain fission?
I would say that neutrons are the primordial substance of the universe. When they "decay", they produce electrons, protons and neutrinos. When enough of the material is compressed with enough gravitational curvature, it can become stable IMO.
Or electrons, protons and neutrinos are bound together by the electrical force and what you observe is a neutron, the end result. If neutrons were the primordial substance, then electrons and protons would decay into them, not them into electrons and protons. This tells me electrons and protons are the primordial stuff of the universe. Neutrons cease to exist when not bound to protons. The same protons they decay into. I'm not sure we understand atomic science half as much as we like to pretend we do. By we, I mean mainstream science.
I "naked" neutron core isn't really a "star" under the standard model or any model that I'm aware of. The rotational property, along with the magnetic field surrounding it, induces the flow of current in the surround plasma body. That current probably does act to create those relaxation oscillation patterns we observe.
I'm essentially assuming pretty much the same thing, only I'm not discounting the possibility it's more than simply iron, particularly when you start looking at the largest ones.
Unreliable data based upon measurement of incorrect redshift = distance theory. If that theory is incorrect, as I believe you also entertain ideas to that effect, then so is the distance measurements, the luminosity, and their size. They are closer, fainter and smaller than presumed. They must only be large and highly luminous, if placed at vast distances. Some so highly luminous as to require metaphysical processes because they are placed at those incorrect distances based purely on redhsift.
As best as I can tell, you and I agree there's a massive object there in the core, and it's a focal point of the flow of current through the galaxy. We both agree it *contains* iron, but we seem to disagree on the core of the beast. So be it.
We don't really seem that far apart IMO.
We certainly agree it is not a zero volume point mass. And its mass is based upon its interaction with the surrounding "gas", which is not gas, but plasma, which is strongly affected by EM fields and not gravity. So most of that mass can be ignored as merely EM effects in the surrounding plasma, and not from gravity.
!
.
