Cosmology

[Justatruthseeker]

An observation of a neutron star merger:

On October 16, 2017, the LIGO and Virgo collaborations announced the first simultaneous detections of gravitational waves (GW170817) and electromagnetic radiation (GRB 170817A, SSS17a) of any phenomena,[7] and demonstrated that the source was a kilonova caused by a binary neutron star merger.[8] This short GRB was followed by a longer transient visible for weeks in the optical electromagnetic spectrum (AT 2017gfo) located in a relatively nearby galaxy, NGC 4993.[9]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilonova#Observations

In everyday english -- too extremely dense neutron stars fell together because of orbital decay (via gravitational wave radiation that increases exponentially as they get closer together, and converts orbital energy into gravity waves, and thus makes them spiral down together over time). As they were merging, the gravitational wave emission was very high, and was observed by LIGO. Astronomers turned telescopes toward the location and observed the kilonova, the flare of light and radiation, from the merger.

In everyday english. -- all of our other theories were falsified, so we resort to fantasies of neutron stars despite the fact we know that outside of the atomic structure it is scientifically impossible to get two neutrons to stick together for even the briefest of time. That they immediately fly apart, despite calling them neutral.... So we will conjecture against all of known science that it is these magical neutron stars that now create the heavy elements because without magic, we have nothing..... As we turned our attention towards the electromagnetic event our detectors recorded..... we observed the flash of electromagnetic radiation this electromagnetic event in plasma produced. But since we treat a universe 99.9% plasma unlike plasma, we have to imagine stars spinning at speeds of dentists drills..... because we refuse to accept laboratory experiments with plasma producing these same effects..... plus we like to never mention the fact that the lorentz equations we deduce gravity from, are electromagnetic formulas.... but we didn't want to mention that.....

 

[Halbhh]

In everyday english. -- all of our other theories were falsified, so we resort to fantasies of neutron stars despite the fact we know that outside of the atomic structure it is scientifically impossible to get two neutrons to stick together for even the briefest of time. That they immediately fly apart, despite calling them neutral.... So we will conjecture against all of known science that it is these magical neutron stars that now create the heavy elements because without magic, we have nothing..... As we turned our attention towards the electromagnetic event our detectors recorded..... we observed the flash of electromagnetic radiation this electromagnetic event in plasma produced. But since we treat a universe 99.9% plasma unlike plasma, we have to imagine stars spinning at speeds of dentists drills..... because we refuse to accept laboratory experiments with plasma producing these same effects..... plus we like to never mention the fact that the lorentz equations we deduce gravity from, are electromagnetic formulas.... but we didn't want to mention that.....

If neutrons could not be made to hold together nearby to each other....then atoms would fly apart. Which they do not, of course. (just for fairness, I should let you know I have some learning of atomic theory on the level of a physics undergraduate degree, though it was not an area of intense focus for me)

Why don't atomic nuclei fly apart even with the intense electric (same charge) repulsion of protons from each other?

Here's a quick overview of nuclear force I just searched up you can read in a few minutes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_force

The nuclear force which allows neutrons to stick together, and protons, in atomic nuclei is of course totally essential for life, and a wonderful and beautiful force that is so perfect and sorta amazing in how it works precisely, attracting at the right distance and not more or less than --

The nuclear force is powerfully attractive between nucleons at distances of about 1 femtometre (fm, or 1.0 × 10−15 metres), but it rapidly decreases to insignificance at distances beyond about 2.5 fm. At distances less than 0.7 fm, the nuclear force becomes repulsive. This repulsive component is responsible for the physical size of nuclei, since the nucleons can come no closer than the force allows. By comparison, the size of an atom, measured in angstroms (Å, or 1.0 × 10−10 m), is five orders of magnitude larger. The nuclear force is not simple, however, since it depends on the nucleon spins, has a tensor component, and may depend on the relative momentum of the nucleons.[2] The strong nuclear force is one of the fundamental forces of nature.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

If neutrons could not be made to hold together nearby to each other....then atoms would fly apart. Which they do not, of course. (just for fairness, I should let you know I have some learning of atomic theory on the level of a physics undergraduate degree, though it was not an area of intense focus for me)

if true, then you should know my statement was completely true, that outside of the atomic nucleus neutrons have not been observed to stick together..... So why the strawman of the atom when that is precisely what I said???? it's their strawman that neutrons stick together outside of the atom, not mine.....

Why don't atomic nuclei fly apart even with the intense electric (same charge) repulsion of protons from each other?

because they like to ignore that short range repulsion and long range attraction of electromagnetic particles......

Here's a quick overview of nuclear force I just searched up you can read in a few minutes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_force

The nuclear force which allows neutrons to stick together, and protons, in atomic nuclei is of course totally essential for life, and a wonderful and beautiful force that is so perfect and sorta amazing in how it works precisely, attracting at the right distance and not more or less than --

The nuclear force is powerfully attractive between nucleons at distances of about 1 femtometre (fm, or 1.0 × 10−15 metres), but it rapidly decreases to insignificance at distances beyond about 2.5 fm. At distances less than 0.7 fm, the nuclear force becomes repulsive. This repulsive component is responsible for the physical size of nuclei, since the nucleons can come no closer than the force allows. By comparison, the size of an atom, measured in angstroms (Å, or 1.0 × 10−10 m), is five orders of magnitude larger. The nuclear force is not simple, however, since it depends on the nucleon spins, has a tensor component, and may depend on the relative momentum of the nucleons.[2] The strong nuclear force is one of the fundamental forces of nature.

yes, the electric columb force, but I don't ignore electrical interactions in plasma in space.....

"This repulsive component is responsible for the physical size of nuclei, since the nucleons can come no closer than the force allows"

Seems they like to ignore nuclear physics......

Oh I understand they can't be forced together under any known process, and since there is no quantum theory of gravity do we even need to pretend in that farce as capable of doing the job??????

So it seems to me you understand their impossibility, but yet want to argue against the facts that you know are true..... so why argue for what you know can't be the actual reality????

 

[Halbhh]

In everyday english. -- all of our other theories were falsified, so we resort to fantasies of neutron stars despite the fact we know that outside of the atomic structure it is scientifically impossible to get two neutrons to stick together for even the briefest of time. That they immediately fly apart, despite calling them neutral.... So we will conjecture against all of known science that it is these magical neutron stars that now create the heavy elements because without magic, we have nothing..... As we turned our attention towards the electromagnetic event our detectors recorded..... we observed the flash of electromagnetic radiation this electromagnetic event in plasma produced. But since we treat a universe 99.9% plasma unlike plasma, we have to imagine stars spinning at speeds of dentists drills..... because we refuse to accept laboratory experiments with plasma producing these same effects..... plus we like to never mention the fact that the lorentz equations we deduce gravity from, are electromagnetic formulas.... but we didn't want to mention that.....

You know, that overview I linked for you just above show's how amazingly perfect God's design is, when you think about it --

At distances larger than 0.7 fm the force becomes attractive between spin-aligned nucleons, becoming maximal at a center–center distance of about 0.9 fm. Beyond this distance the force drops exponentially, until beyond about 2.0 fm separation, the force is negligible. Nucleons have a radius of about 0.8 fm.[5]

At short distances (less than 1.7 fm or so), the attractive nuclear force is stronger than the repulsive Coulomb force between protons; it thus overcomes the repulsion of protons within the nucleus. However, the Coulomb force between protons has a much greater range as it varies as the inverse square of the charge separation, and Coulomb repulsion thus becomes the only significant force between protons when their separation exceeds about 2 to 2.5 fm.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You know, that overview I linked for you just above show's how amazingly perfect God's design is, when you think about it --

At distances larger than 0.7 fm the force becomes attractive between spin-aligned nucleons, becoming maximal at a center–center distance of about 0.9 fm. Beyond this distance the force drops exponentially, until beyond about 2.0 fm separation, the force is negligible. Nucleons have a radius of about 0.8 fm.[5]

At short distances (less than 1.7 fm or so), the attractive nuclear force is stronger than the repulsive Coulomb force between protons; it thus overcomes the repulsion of protons within the nucleus. However, the Coulomb force between protons has a much greater range as it varies as the inverse square of the charge separation, and Coulomb repulsion thus becomes the only significant force between protons when their separation exceeds about 2 to 2.5 fm.

We are not discussing supposed proton stars, but supposed neutron stars...... no distractions allowed....

 

[Halbhh]

if true, then you should know my statement was completely true, that outside of the atomic nucleus neutrons have not been observed to stick together..... So why the strawman of the atom when that is precisely what I said???? it's their strawman that neutrons stick together outside of the atom, not mine.....

because they like to ignore that short range repulsion and long range attraction of electromagnetic particles......



"This repulsive component is responsible for the physical size of nuclei, since the nucleons can come no closer than the force allows"

Seems they like to ignore nuclear physics......

Oh I understand they can't be forced together under any known process, and since there is no quantum theory of gravity do we even need to pretend in that farce as capable of doing the job??????

So it seems to me you understand their impossibility, but yet want to argue against the facts that you know are true..... so why argue for what you know can't be the actual reality????

Your last paragraph (or 2) is a good opportunity for you to notice what you're doing here -- you assumed some (seeming) viewpoint I do not have and ascribed that viewpoint to me. I can tell because of how you assert finally the opposite to how I am conclusion that I'm arguing for something against other facts I know. That's crucial for you to notice -- the wildly unlike-me conclusion you reach about me or what you think I've said. It's a key thing for you to notice and become aware of in life, as a pattern. We all need to find our own patterns of unworkable interaction (ways of relating that don't work with other humans beings), and it's not easy to do, because it means looking in the mirror!

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Your last paragraph (or 2) is a good opportunity for you to notice what you're doing here -- you assumed some (seeming) viewpoint I do not have and ascribed that viewpoint to me. I can tell because of how you assert finally the opposite to how I am conclusion I'm arguing for something against other facts I know. That's crucial for you to notice -- the wildly unlike me conclusion you reach about me. It's a key thing for you to notice and become aware of in life, as a pattern. We all need to find our own patterns, and it's not easy to do!

Are you claiming against all of known science that neutrons outside of the atom stick together???? or is this another diversion to avoid what you know is true????

Without neutrons protons would fly apart, without protons, neutrons fly apart.

 

[Halbhh]

We are not discussing supposed proton stars, but supposed neutron stars...... no distractions allowed....

Both protons and neutrons are "nucleons". Stop making assumptions, and work harder, is my motto.

 

[Halbhh]

Are you claiming against all of known science that neutrons outside of the atom stick together???? or is this another diversion to avoid what you know is true????

In neutron stars they are in a kind of liquid like state (my wording) at least in the layer of the neutron star because they are held together in what is somewhat like (not precisely the same, but somewhat like) one gigantic atom, held together in spite of it's gigantic size by the immense crushing force of gravity. More particularly though there are thought to be layers as shown in this article, but don't rush to that section without getting the overview first.

I recommend reading through from the start to get the overview:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_star

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Not to mention outside of a stable nucleus neutrons by themselves decay in less than 14 minutes....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Both protons and neutrons are "nucleons". Stop making assumptions, and work harder, is my motto.

Work harder at trying to avoid the distinction between neutron stars and atoms.....

 

[Halbhh]

Work harder at trying to avoid the distinction between neutron stars and atoms.....

Sorry for going over your head on that. I have the advantage or perhaps disadvantage of having already read dozens of articles on neutron stars, so that I could bury you in hypothetical material I remember, like the fact in some ways (not all or most, just some) much of a neutron star acts like a giant atom.

I think your making a mistake to assume other people don't understand much, and that physicists are mostly blind and unable to figure out stuff.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

In neutron stars they are in a kind of liquid like state (my wording) at least in the layer of the neutron star because they are held together in what is somewhat like (not precisely the same, but somewhat like) one gigantic atom, held together in spite of it's gigantic size by the immense crushing force of gravity. More particularly though there are thought to be layers as shown in this article, but don't rush to that section without getting the overview first.

I recommend reading through from the start to get the overview:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_star

Except the further you go below the surface, the weaker the gravitaional force becomes, so the theory breaks down.......

Why would I be interested in reading a fantasy book about neutron stars while having to ignore a universe 99.9% plasma? You haven't yet justified why we should ignore how plasma behaves in the laboratory and why we should ignore this behavior in a universe 99.9% plasma and apply gravitational theory as the dominating force instead of particle physics and electromagnetic theory???? Like in the laboratory.....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Sorry for going over your head on that. I have the advantage or perhaps disadvantage of having already read dozens of articles on neutron stars, so that I could bury you in hypothetical material I remember, like the fact in some ways (not all or most, just some) much of a neutron star acts like a giant atom.

I think your making a mistake to assume other people don't understand much, and that physicists are mostly blind and unable to figure out stuff.

Over my head? Oh yes, you probably do have the advantage when it comes to reading about fantasy books.... I am sure you could bury me in fantasy hypotheticals, but sadly we are discussing the reality of a universe 99.9% plasma so don't be surprised if your knowledge is short on that subject.... or if i reject the fantasy hypotheticals for known plasma physics.....

No, I just understand that astronomers don't understand plasma physics, as the plasma physics experts keep trying to tell them..... But they keep trying to treat it like ordinary matter instead.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

So basically what you are saying is you want me to accept hypotheticals as reality while ignoring known experimental plasma behavior in a universe 99.9% plasma????? Are you sure this is the route you want to take, ignoring 99.9% of the universe and 200+ years of experiments with plasma and how it behaves for hypotheticals instead?

 

[Halbhh]

Except the further you go below the surface, the weaker the gravitaional force becomes, so the theory breaks down.......

Why would I be interested in reading a fantasy book about neutron stars while having to ignore a universe 99.9% plasma? You haven't yet justified why we should ignore how plasma behaves in the laboratory and why we should ignore this behavior in a universe 99.9% plasma and apply gravitational theory as the dominating force instead of particle physics and electromagnetic theory???? Like in the laboratory.....

The pressure inside a neutron star, in the inner layers, such as near the middle layer, is not only from the immense crushing gravity of the core below, but also from the overwhelmingly immense weight and fantastic pressure of the layers above pushing down.

It's years of learning I'm drawing on. Now that I think of it, I probably rely on 5-15 basic principles of physics and mechanics without even thinking about them, just as I read and talk about this stuff, and that's mostly from earning a degree in engineering physics (though I learned a lot after college, as much or more). So I don't even know what to explain to you.

You ought better to think of me as a friendly resource, trust me, and ask me questions, and try to gain from my knowledge.

It's wrong to think physicists ignore plasmas. I know, having personally worked with some that worked on plasma theories for nuclear fusion.

Plasmas matter where they are, such as in our sun and other stars and between stars, or inside a Tokamak, and are quite amazing in so many ways.

 

[Halbhh]

So basically what you are saying is you want me to accept hypotheticals as reality while ignoring known experimental plasma behavior in a universe 99.9% plasma????? Are you sure this is the route you want to take, ignoring 99.9% of the universe and 200+ years of experiments with plasma and how it behaves for hypotheticals instead?

It's really important you notice you said I am "ignoring known experimental plasma behavior in a universe 99.9% plasma?????".

Notice you said that?

That's more opposite to reality than you might ever expect.

I personally worked a summer on plasma fusion, and love to read about various plasma phenomena in stars.

You should pause. You should say, "Why did I jump to a conclusion that was the opposite of reality about this person I am talking with?
"If I reached a totally opposite to real conclusion, it may mean I have a bad process of making assumptions."

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The pressure inside a neutron star, in the inner layers, such as near the middle layer, is not only from the immense crushing gravity of the core below, but also from the overwhelmingly immense weight and fantastic pressure of the layers above pushing down.

It's years of learning I'm drawing on. Now that I think of it, I probably rely on 5-15 basic principles of physics and mechanics without even thinking about them, just as I read and talk about this stuff, and that's mostly from earning a degree in engineering physics (though I learned a lot after college, as much or more). So I don't even know what to explain to you.

You ought better to think of me as a friendly resource, trust me, and ask me questions, and try to gain from my knowledge.

It's wrong to think physicists ignore plasmas. I know, having personally worked with some that worked on plasma theories for nuclear fusion.

Plasmas matter where they are, such as in our sun and other stars and between stars, or inside a Tokamak, and are quite amazing in so many ways.

Drilling experiments do not justify your reasoning. The Russian bore hole found that below a certain depth the rock became less dense, not more dense..... Perhaps you should study up on actual experiments and observations and less on pure theory..... just saying.

Now why would I want to believe in those who find it necessary to add 95% ad-hoc theory to a theory tested to a 99.8% accuracy without those ad-hoc theories?????? tested to this great degree of accuracy inside the solar system in relation to non-ionized matter. That the second one then attempts to apply this already tested theory to a 99.8% accuracy without hypotheticals, suddenly needs 95% added to it????

But then that is what one has to do when they use the wrong physics as the dominating force in a universe 99.9% plasma. As long as you continue to ignore what the dominating forces are in every single plasma laboratory, then ask I ignore those experiments in a universe 99.9% plasma, your attempts to convince me you know what you are talking about will fail every single time..... instead you will only convince me you actually know nothing, since gravitational theory is not the dominating force used in the plasma laboratory. So why would you think it was the dominating force in a universe 99.9% plasma? then when you get the wrong answers under that assumption, start proposing hypotheticals instead of changing the physics to what is used in the laboratory?????

 

[Halbhh]

Drilling experiments do not justify your reasoning. The Russian bore hole found that below a certain depth the rock became less dense, not more dense..... Perhaps you should study up on actual experiments and observations and less on pure theory..... just saying.

Now why would I want to believe in those who find it necessary to add 95% ad-hoc theory to a theory tested to a 99.8% accuracy without those ad-hoc theories?????? tested to this great degree of accuracy inside the solar system in relation to non-ionized matter. That the second one then attempts to apply this already tested theory to a 99.8% accuracy without hypotheticals, suddenly needs 95% added to it????

But then that is what one has to do when they use the wrong physics as the dominating force in a universe 99.9% plasma. As long as you continue to ignore what the dominating forces are in every single plasma laboratory, then ask I ignore those experiments in a universe 99.9% plasma, your attempts to convince me you know what you are talking about will fail every single time..... instead you will only convince me you actually know nothing, since gravitational theory is not the dominating force used in the plasma laboratory. So why would you think it was the dominating force in a universe 99.9% plasma? then when you get the wrong answers under that assumption, start proposing hypotheticals instead of changing the physics to what is used in the laboratory?????

Ah, you have a favored theory about plasmas, or perhaps also with the interesting large scale magnetic fields on galactic or intergalactic scales? If so, why not try to share that in a friendly way without insulting other people? I enjoy learning about those also, in mainstream physics articles.

Have a good evening, and please learn to reflect on your own language and the way you treat other people.

Christ told us, "So in everything, do to others as you would have them do to you"

 

[Ophiolite]

Eventually, most of the largest objects had collided with planets or the sun, or had been dragged into stable orbits by gravity.

Nice summary. Just one minor adjustment, for completeness: some/many of the large objects were, according to most of the models of the process, ejected from the system entirely.