Neutron Repulsion

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Neutron Repulsion

Unread postby Lloyd » Wed Nov 04, 2009 11:20 am

* I just received this message from Oliver Manuel. It's an invitation to join his new forum.
Kirt Griffin therefore formed and will moderate a Yahoo Group on this subject, "Neutron Repulsion: An Alternative Energy,"

neutron_repulsion@yahoogroups.com
To subscribe to this group, send an e-mail to neutron_repulsion-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Familiarity with arithmetic, the concept of gravity, and the equivalency of mass and energy (E = mc2) are probably the only background information needed to understand the role that neutron repulsion plays in our lives and in the dynamic universe that surrounds us.

Please feel free to forward this message to other scientists or science writers who may be interested.

With kind regards,

Oliver K. Manuel

http://myprofile.cos.com/manuelo09

* We can discuss the subject here too, if anyone would like to. It's related to his Iron Sun theory, as well as supernovae, neutron stars, pulsars etc. I think he considers the solar system to be constituted from the remnants of a supernova.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4384
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Neutron Repulsion

Unread postby GaryN » Wed Nov 04, 2009 7:09 pm

From a lizzie link about Mayan knowledge:

Now it has become quite evident that at one time people had a thorough understanding of the construction of our Sun, it's several different layers that rotate in different sequence and have very different magnetic fields.


If this is what the Mayans believed, and they were correct about so much else, then this fits well with my idea of the Suns structure. M.Oliver was on the right track, but for the wrong reason, IMO, with his plasma diffuser model.I think it was Pythagoras who asked "should not an atom coming from closer to the center of the sun travel that much faster than one from closer to the surface", or words to that effect. He was also on the right track. The 'atom' would have more energy, but not travel faster.

Charge accumulation in the EM shells of the sun will mean that the inner shells contain the highest charge, and strongest field, and in the case of some of the higher energy suns, the spherical standing wave peaks will reach the levels of the highest energy cosmic rays, measured at 3x10^20 electronvolts, but which may well have no upper limit, and can easily penetrate their magnetic confinement.


Supernovas, I believe, happen when a surge in the cosmic currents cause the 'pressure' in a confinement shell to reach a rupture level, releasing the ultra-high energy contents into space, a much higher energy version of a CME, which occur in one of the much less 'rigid' outer EM shells of our sun.

The neutron star is a charge accumulator of very high voltage, with the corresponding very high magnetic fields, the two go together. The spin of a pulsar too is deduced from the rate of repetition of the beam of radiation (whos source still isn't understood), and is very consistent, down to atomic clock regularity. Could this regularity be achieved with an oscillator circuit? I don't see why not.

If you are a 'Spinner', then this is where you are at:

Magnetized rotators are ubiquitous: pulsars, AGN, GRBs (?)


and in his conclusions, Spitkovsky notes that:

Simulations and lab experiments are the only tools to understand the unresolved physics of magnetized rotators.


http://www.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-wrap/g ... kovsky.pdf

I'd rather believe experiments.

I'm a 'Pulser', so I believe that we are looking at a bursting EM bubble, or an exploding spherical double layer.

Oh, er, sorry for the rant Lloyd, got a little carried away, I should check into Mr Manuels site before I make further comments, shouldn't I? :-)
In order to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete. -Buckminster Fuller
User avatar
GaryN
 
Posts: 2661
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: Neutron Repulsion

Unread postby Lloyd » Thu Nov 05, 2009 6:46 pm

Gary: The neutron star is a charge accumulator of very high voltage, with the corresponding very high magnetic fields, the two go together. The spin of a pulsar too is deduced from the rate of repetition of the beam of radiation (whos source still isn't understood), and is very consistent, down to atomic clock regularity. Could this regularity be achieved with an oscillator circuit? I don't see why not.

* Mathis says the gravity of an object is dependent only on its radius, so I think he would conclude that no star can achieve the density of a "neutron star". However, I don't know how an EM field might affect density. I think he says the EM field is dependent on the distance between two objects and their masses. I don't think there's really any evidence that neutrons can collect together without protons, so it seems unlikely that any large accumulation of neutrons can exist. I think Oliver assumes that a supernova implosion can squeeze matter into a solid neutron mass, whereas Thornhill has said that it's unlikely that a supernova implosion, if it indeed implodes, could be symmetrical enough to squeeze matter into pure neutrons. If a Z-pinch is the strongest possible compressive force, then maybe it could form a solid neutron object, but neutrons are unstable and likely would explode back into the form of plasma within minutes.
* If pulsars are electrical oscillators or capacitors or something, then there's no need for them to spin fast enough to shoot out a jet pulse that repeats hundreds or more times per second, i.e. hundreds or more revolutions per second. As Thornhill has said, such speed should tear any object apart, although I think he or someone should provide a calculation to support that claim. If a neutron star, having the mass of a star, but the diameter of a soft ball, or soccer ball, maybe such a small massive object could spin that fast. But making the object in the first place seems pretty undoable. Again, a calculation would be nice to have for that. Do you know an appropriate one? Should we check Mathis's Angular Momentum paper at http://milesmathis.com?
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4384
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Neutron Repulsion

Unread postby GaryN » Sat Nov 07, 2009 2:47 pm

There are some excellent and thought provoking discussions on the board right now, and some really sharp minds at work, keep it up guys! I'm no scientist, but enjoy seeing whats going on, and trying to keep up. So long as you are in the lower boards though, you might have to put up with some of my strange musings! ;-)

The creation of a much more massive pair, like a proton and antiproton, requires photons with energy of more than 1.88 GeV (hard gamma ray photons).


Our sun, as far as I am aware, has the capability of exceeding these energies by 3 or 4 times, so proton production is no biggie.

Neutrons can be produced in a number of ways, and I'm not qualified to even guess if one or more methods would apply to our Sun.

Here's an interesting question:
Is their a such thing as a proton star or electron star?

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index ... 037AA0JG06

I'm beginning to think the Universe is ambiguous by design, keeps us monkeys going round in circles! I'm just convinced that resonance and charge accumulation are primary drivers in the creation of the 'material' universe.
In order to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete. -Buckminster Fuller
User avatar
GaryN
 
Posts: 2661
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: Neutron Repulsion

Unread postby nick c » Sat Nov 07, 2009 5:03 pm

Lloyd wrote: We can discuss the subject here too, if anyone would like to. It's related to his Iron Sun theory, as well as supernovae, neutron stars, pulsars etc. I think he considers the solar system to be constituted from the remnants of a supernova.

Oliver Manuel is to be commended for pointing out the flaws in the "nuclear fusion at the core" model for the Sun and for having the courage to go against mainstream. However, he has mistakenly relied on some other mainstream concepts which also need to be discarded, such as neutron stars.
The impossibility of a neutron star:
Donald E. Scott wrote: Instead, the concept of the "neutron star" was invented. It was proposed that only such a dense material could make up a star that could stand those rotation speeds.
But, one of the basic rules of nuclear chemistry is the 'zone of stability'. This is the observation that if we add neutrons to the nucleus of any atom, we need to add an almost proportional number of protons (and their accompanying electrons) to maintain a stable nucleus. In fact, it seems that when we consider all the natural elements (and the heavy man made elements as well), there is a requirement that in order to hold a group of neutrons together in a nucleus, a certain number of proton-electron pairs are required. The stable nuclei of the lighter elements contain approximately equal numbers of neutrons and protons, a neutron/proton ratio of 1. The heavier nuclei contain a few more neutrons than protons, but the limit seems to be 1.5 neutrons per proton. Nuclei that differ significantly from this ratio SPONTANEOUSLY UNDERGO RADIOACTIVE TRANSFORMATIONS that tend to bring their compositions into or closer to this ratio.

Flying in the face of this observed fact, mainstream astrophysicists continue to postulate the existence of stars made up of solid material consisting only of neutrons, "neutronium". This is yet one more example of Fairie Dust entities fantasized by astrophysicists to explain otherwise inexplicable observations. The 'neutron star' is simply yet another fantasy conjured up, this time, in order to avoid confronting the idea that pulsar discharges are electrical phenomena. A nucleus or charge free atom made up of only neutrons has never been synthesized in any laboratory nor can it ever be. In fact, a web search on the word 'neutronium' will produce only references to a computer game – not to any real, scientific discussion or description. Lone neutrons decay into proton - electron pairs in less than 14 minutes; atomlike collections of two or more neutrons will fly apart almost instantaneously.

Perhaps some astronomers have begun to realize neutronium is embarrassingly impossible. In any event, a less easily falsifiable entity has now been proposed. Wal Thornhill has written about this latest mainstream explanation of pulsar emissions:

"The discovery now of an x-ray pulsar SAX J1808.4-3658 (J1808 for short), located in the constellation of Sagittarius, that flashes every 2.5 thousandths of a second (that is 24,000 RPM!) goes way beyond the red-line even for a neutron star. So another ad hoc requirement is added to the already long list - this pulsar must be composed of something even more dense than packed neutrons - strange matter! ...When not associated with protons in a nucleus, neutrons decay into protons and electrons in a few minutes. Atomic nuclei with too many neutrons are unstable. If it were possible to form a neutron star, why should it be stable?"
"Strange matter"! Yet another ad hoc fictional invention! They have been getting away with this kind of nonsense for decades. How ludicrous does it have to get before some responsible astronomer cries out that this Emperor Has No Clothes On?

http://www.electric-cosmos.org/hrdiagr.htm


For a summary of the EU viewpoint on the theories of Oliver Manual, neutron stars, supernova, and the Iron Sun theory see:
[url2=http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/060120solar1.htm]The Iron Sun Debate 1[/url2]
[url2=http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/060123nebula.htm]The Iron Sun Debate 2[/url2]
[url2=http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/060124solar3.htm]The Iron Sun Debate 3[/url2]
[url2=http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/060126solar4.htm]The Iron Sun Debate 4[/url2]

Nick
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2462
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: Neutron Repulsion

Unread postby Lloyd » Sat Nov 07, 2009 6:34 pm

* There's also these earlier threads: Neutron-Iron Sun:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... 10&t=1625&
sid=be6ed48d9bb85c6c4114189fb923aee3
- Recovered: Iron Sun Theories:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=148
- And this TPOD: Projecting Nuclear Fusion onto the Sun:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/ ... fusion.htm
- And here are lots of search results for this website on "iron sun":
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=site:thu ... 834e645580
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4384
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Neutron Repulsion

Unread postby Lloyd » Tue Jan 25, 2011 6:34 pm

* Here's the latest from Oliver Manuel.
I am pleased to offer you the opportunity to read and comment on a new paper, "Neutron Repulsion" http://db.tt/9SrfTiZ
The paper - to appear in The APEIRON Journal - reviews decades of "overlooked" experimental data that show:
Earth's heat source is a neutron star, obscured from view by brightly glowing waste products (H & He) in the solar photosphere.
Please feel free to forward the link to others. Comments and questions would be appreciated.

* I think Oliver once agreed to debate his iron sun theory with others, but I wasn't able to find anyone else who wanted to debate. I'd sure like to see a debate on that some day. I can't easily imagine that there's anything to the idea of nuclear repulsion, neutron stars etc, but there seems to be a remote possibility. So maybe someone knows why that remote possibility isn't really possible.
* What makes it remotely possible is that I don't know what the maximum pressure of a Z-pinch might be, so I don't know if a Z-pinch could squeeze hydrogen into neutrons and hold them there indefinitely.
* Oliver claims that massive neutron objects exist, but that they're unstable and the surface neutrons form back into hydrogen and leave the star.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4384
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm


Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests