/sci/ - Science & Math

>>6977300
It would absorb the earth in a split second and become a slightly heavier neutron star.

>>6977310
/thread

>>6977310
I think OP means some matter from a neutron star, not the whole thing. In this case it would expand, there is no equilibrium state for degenerate matter.

>>6977318
>there is no equilibrium state for degenerate matter.
you mean aside from while it is in the neutron star, right?

>>6977300
Neutron stars don't exist.

>>6977322
This is physics, you fucking retard. Get out.

>>6977322
Retard alert

>>6977320
Of course. Remove the pressure and it expands.

>>6977329
Neutron stars break the laws of physics. Scientists don't understand how so much energy can be in one place so they make up some bullshit to patch the sinking ship known as GE. Can you tell me the difference between mass and matter? :^)

>>6977373
>Scientists don't understand how so much energy can be in one place
Click Here To Read About A Wierd Trick Of Gravity That Scientists Hate! With This Asian Diet Fruit You Can Gain Weight And Still Be Slim!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_collapse
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degenerate_matter
:^):^):^):^):^):^):^)

>>6977392
So what keeps the Neutron star from ripping itself apart? They have been recorded spinning at 240rpm

>>6977401
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_star

>>6977405
So do you just copy/paste wiki articles?

The article says nothing about how they hold together. The page also states they are formed from gravitational collapse (lel) yet it has been observed that they can accelerate (toplel)

Also, how does something that is comprised of NEUTRONS generate x-rays or magnetic fields? Shit nigga get it together

>>6977401
>So what keeps the Neutron star from ripping itself apart?
Gravity. 240 RPM is slow for a pulsar. The record holder is about 800 Hz.

>>6977423
>yet it has been observed that they can accelerate
Glitches have a proposed mechanism.

>how does something that is comprised of NEUTRONS
It's not made of only neutrons. This is more about your ignorance of theory than anything else.

>>6977423
Do you just ask ignorant questions without reading the previous answers?

>>6977433
"Neutron stars are composed almost entirely ofneutrons" straight from the article. But I guess the power house is in that other .01%

> proposed mechanism
Is it spoopy dark energy?

I swear you GE retards and your purely mechanical ideas

>>6977423
>NEUTRONS generate x-rays or magnetic fields

You do know neutrons have a magnetic moment, right?

>>6977401
What holds it together is gravity.
The gravity of a neutron star is enormous.
Neutron stars start out with much higher radii and when they are compressed down they spin faster and faster to conserve momentum. Their radius is only a few tens of KM so it's not surprising that they spin at hundreds of RPM

>>6977464
>"Neutron stars are composed almost entirely ofneutrons"
The article is wrong. Current theory does not allow for neutron degenerate matter to exist in the core. Aside from this protons and electrons can be found thoughtout the neutron degenerate matter. On the surface there are even things resembling atoms. Off the surface there is the magnetosphere composed of plasma which generates x-rays and radio emission.

Wikipedia isn't a technical source for a reason. It's funny you harass some poster for blindly copying from wikipedia and then do it yourself.

>Is it spoopy dark energy?
No. It is based on a superfluid model of the interior, there are others.

I'll stick to the "purely mechanical" world of testable science.

>>6977300
My mom says I'm degenerate. I'm a neutron star! Yay!

>>6977423
>it has been observed that they can accelerate (toplel)
All physicists that died in the collapse are spinning in their graves when they hear about your ignorance.


>>6977401
>They have been recorded spinning at 240rpm
And with a radius of only 13km it only clocks in at 2000 g at the rim. The mini centrifuge pictured is also a 2000 g centrifuge.

There's 1 000 000 g+ centrifuges availible for lab use that fit on top of a bench so the supposedly magic spin of a neutron star pales in comparison to human made devices.

>>6977481
I'm just using their own source to refute their argument.

So if I get it right, a Neutron star is made of neutrons except it's not and gravity, the weakest force in the universe, holds it together and overcomes Centrifugal force. And all of this is true because you say so. Gotcha

>>6977510
>a Neutron star is made of neutrons except it's not
It's like you have a problem with revising theories when new data becomes available.

>gravity, the weakest force in the universe, holds it together and overcomes Centrifugal force.

Why not? It does it with the other celestial bodies. Also just because it's the weakest force doesn't mean it's powerless, remember it's this weakest force that gives you things like black holes.

>>6977518
Because a good theory makes accurate predictions. If you have keep revising you're theory is bad.

Oh god you believe in black holes also? Which one do you believe in? Infinite universe/ infinite density finite universe/finite density or finite universe/infinite density.

>>6977528
>This post.

Nope, I'm out.

>>6977510
>I'm just using their own source to refute their argument.
They didn't have an argument. They lazily copied a wiki link and you haven't actually done any research to know any better.

>And all of this is true because you say so.
It's the model which explains the data. It will be the top model until a better model comes along.

>>6977528
>Because a good theory makes accurate predictions. If you have keep revising you're theory is bad.
Agree, however neutron stars don't fall into this.

>you believe in black holes also? Which one do you believe in? Infinite universe/ infinite density finite universe/finite density or finite universe/infinite density.
You have no idea what you're talking about. The boundaries of the universe do not change models of black holes. We have Kerr black holes, in the special case Schwarzschild.

>>6977555
It most certainly matters. Infinite density = infinite space/time curvature

>>6977300

This will answer some of your questions, if you havn't already read it.

http://io9.com/5805244/what-would-a-teaspoonful-of-neutron-star-do-to-you

>>6977579
But why do you think the boundaries of the universe affect this?

>>6977579
>Confirmed for having never read so much as an introductory text in GR.

I can recommend a few, most people will go for Schutz but I prefer Hobson et al, that said both should be read together for the greatest effect. From there if you want to know more move onto Wald.

>>6977340
>remove the pressure and it fails
>pressure

such fail. wow.

>>6977623
>What is an equation of state?

Moron.

>>6977595
Why would I waste my time reading outdated theories? GR fails because it only can equate an empty universe or a one body universe. It has no basis on reality

>>6977637
>This is what the plebeian actually believe.

>>6977635
pressure is what keeps the star from collapsing further. gravity is what keeps the star from exploding.

physicists who speak of 'gravitational pressure' are just fucking sloppy as it gets.

>>6977641
Pressure is what keeps a lump of degenerate matter from expanding. Gravity is what causes the pressure.

I am not taking about 'gravitational pressure'.

>>6977637
> GR fails because it only can equate an empty universe or a one body universe.

Nope. You confuse exact solutions with results. GR can be used to calculate much more than you suggest. You again have no idea what you're talking about.

>It has no basis on reality
Post-Newtonian gravity (computational GR) is what's used to calculate trajectories of spacecraft like Mars rovers en-route. GR has hundreds of successful tests and it's never been modified, a great theory by your standard.

>>6977649
lol wut? gravity is the only thing that keeps the degenerate matter from expanding.

the degeneracy pressure caused by gravity is what keeps it from collapsing into a blackhole. this is why there is a mass limit on neutron stars: too big and gravity overcome degeneracy pressure and you get total collapse.

such fail. wow.

>>6977652
Stephen J Crothers does an amazing job destroying GR. You can use to plot flight trajectories but to use it to explain energetic phenomenon is silly
http://youtu.be/Y8FsfFs_nvM

>>6977637
Why would you waste your time trolling this badly?

>>6977300
If a neutron star got anywhere near earth, earth would be destroyed. It would literally be pulled apart into the neutron star and immediately crushed like a fucking can.

>>6977669
>You cannot use GR to explain energetic phenomenon

But we do, and the results are accurate. Fuck off with your ignorance.

>>6977669
You admit you've never studied it but you blindly accept a man on youtube who says he destroyed it. Lol. You don't even question what you read.

http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~hooft101/gravitating_misconceptions.html

There is a rebuttal, a shame you won't understand it.

>>6977667
Yes, you just restated your original claim without making an argument.

>gravity is the only thing that keeps the degenerate matter from expanding.
Oh really. Replace the rest of the neutron star with a point mass. Does the degenerate matter expand? Yes, whilst accelerating towards the mass.

You could replace that pressure due to gravity with any equivalent pressure, from an anvil for example and it wouldn't expand.

Pressure keeps the matter degenerate. Look at an equation of state, it doesn't contain gravity.

>>6977699
> inventing absurd theories that require imaginary objects and hypothetical scenarios to explain an energetic phenomenon
> not realizing it's simply a relaxation oscillator from a plasmoid
> thinking you have correct results.

I sure hope you didn't pay to go to college.

>>6977697
This is the answer

>>6977723
>literally incoherent gibberish: the post

Troll harder Nigger

>>6977723
>not realizing it's simply a relaxation oscillator from a plasmoid


Oh, you're one of those Electric Universe nuts. It's nice you have blind faith but what you need is a testable model which can describe the observations.


And what is the predicted spin down rate? How does this model compare to the Hulse-Taylor binary pulsar which matched GR to one part in 10,000? Ah, it doesn't. All you have is faith.

>>6977723
>it's simply a relaxation oscillator from a plasmoid
Then you won't mind showing some proof.

>>6977744
Questioning theories that do not reflect observations is the opposite of blind faith.

>>6977771
You didn't question a theory you claimed your idea was the truth without a shred of evidence. You didn't question existing theories because "they do not reflect observations" you did it because they were "absurd" and "imaginary". You haven't even mentioned observations.

Blind faith.

>>6977783
>still responding

>>6977771
>GR does not reflect observations