Neutron "Star" Hmmmm ???

Lets start with size. Neutron stars are very small,about 12 miles in
diameter. They don't shine. I think we should give them a new name that
fits better. We can't call them planets,for planets revolve around
neutron stars Fact is so do stars. The new name would have to be more
like colossal neutron,and this colossal neutron has the great gravity
force of a microscopic neutron multiplied by its size in the macro realm
of being 12 miles in diameter. Neutrons,and neutron stars have gravity
as their main feature. Bert

(G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote

Lets start with size. Neutron stars are very small,about 12 miles in
diameter. They don't shine. I think we should give them a new name that
fits better. We can't call them planets,for planets revolve around
neutron stars Fact is so do stars. The new name would have to be more
like colossal neutron,and this colossal neutron has the great gravity
force of a microscopic neutron multiplied by its size in the macro realm
of being 12 miles in diameter. Neutrons,and neutron stars have gravity
as their main feature. Bert



Hi Bert,

A neutron star isn't a big neutron, but _consists_ of neutrons. Thus I
think the name is _very_ appropriate.

--
CeeBee


Uxbridge: "By God, sir, I've lost my leg!"
Wellington: "By God, sir, so you have!"


Google CeeBee @ www.geocities.com/ceebee_2

Jonathan I think you are wrong in saying neutron stars "shine" I think
you are thinking of white dwarfs having fusion cores. I read neutron
stars are called pulsars because they pulse out radio waves at a set
rate according to how fast they spin. You mention density and a white
dwarf is about a million times more dense than water. A neutron star is
a billion times more dense than a white dwarf. At this high
density,electrons and protons prefer to live together in the form of
neutrons so that all of the matter resides in neutrons. I posted I see
the neutron star as a colossal(gigantic) neutron,or nucleus. Jonathan
can't see an amateur telescope seeing a neutron star. Possibly if we
put our radio on an off station we could here its static. Bert

Hi CeeBee I like neutron,but the word star sounds a little out of
place. It is very hard to rename things(a rose is still a rose) If we
found out blackholes had just quarks inside,we would have a hard time
calling it a quark star. How about calling it a spacehole? Bert.

In message ,
G=EMC^2 Glazier writes
Jonathan I think you are wrong in saying neutron stars "shine" I think
you are thinking of white dwarfs having fusion cores. I read neutron
stars are called pulsars because they pulse out radio waves at a set
rate according to how fast they spin. You mention density and a white
dwarf is about a million times more dense than water. A neutron star is
a billion times more dense than a white dwarf. At this high
density,electrons and protons prefer to live together in the form of
neutrons so that all of the matter resides in neutrons. I posted I see
the neutron star as a colossal(gigantic) neutron,or nucleus. Jonathan
can't see an amateur telescope seeing a neutron star. Possibly if we
put our radio on an off station we could here its static. Bert

You didn't read what I wrote. We _can_ see neutron stars. The pulsar in
the Crab nebula is clearly visible in pictures taken with amateur
equipment, and its pulses have recently been observed by an amateur.
As others here have said, a neutron star is not a single neutron, though
its outer layers are made of neutronium. Its inner regions are made of
more exotic particles.
You have the enormous resources of the WWW available to you, and you
just don't want to use them. I'm bored with you.

--
"Roads in space for rockets to travel....four-dimensional roads, curving with
relativity"
Mail to jsilverlight AT merseia.fsnet.co.uk is welcome.
Or visit Jonathan's Space Site http://www.merseia.fsnet.co.uk

In message ,
G=EMC^2 Glazier writes
Hi CeeBee I like neutron,but the word star sounds a little out of
place. It is very hard to rename things(a rose is still a rose) If we
found out blackholes had just quarks inside,we would have a hard time
calling it a quark star. How about calling it a spacehole? Bert.


You're missing the point - again. Black holes don't have _anything_
inside them, except perhaps a singularity. Quark stars have been
proposed and are something else.

Hey Bert,

I understand your reasoning, because well... Try to plot a neutron star on
an HR-diagram :-)

BUT: Neutron stars were 'real' stars before they entered their neutron-star
phase... If you don't classify them as stars, then what do we do woth white
dwarves? I think it's unjust to classify a star as 'something that shines in
visible wavelengths'...

Just my two pennies ;-)

- John

"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote in message
...
Lets start with size. Neutron stars are very small,about 12 miles in
diameter. They don't shine. I think we should give them a new name that
fits better. We can't call them planets,for planets revolve around
neutron stars Fact is so do stars. The new name would have to be more
like colossal neutron,and this colossal neutron has the great gravity
force of a microscopic neutron multiplied by its size in the macro realm
of being 12 miles in diameter. Neutrons,and neutron stars have gravity
as their main feature. Bert

I get a kick out of my posts when people tell me it gets them thinking.
It also gets me thinking. Now I'm thinking of a sameness about a neutron
star and the nucleus of an atom. In a nucleus neutrons don't decay.
Neutrons inside a neutron star don't decay. Gravity is the reason for
neutrons in a neutron star. Gravity is the reason for neutrons not
decaying in a nuclei. Easy theory to hypothesis(yes) Because its
gravity all the way down. In the next 100 years gravity will be
theorized in the micro,as it is today in the macro,but without GR The
super-string theory could be the way to take our thinking in the micro
realm. Bert

(G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote in
:

Lets start with size. Neutron stars are very small,about 12 miles in
diameter. They don't shine.

Sure they do. If they are hot (and you can bet they are), they will
radiate energy. Of course over time they will cool down if they are in
an isolated system. On the other hand, if they are interacting with
another star things can get interesting.


I think we should give them a new name that
fits better. We can't call them planets,for planets revolve around
neutron stars Fact is so do stars. The new name would have to be more
like colossal neutron,and this colossal neutron has the great gravity
force of a microscopic neutron multiplied by its size in the macro
realm of being 12 miles in diameter. Neutrons,and neutron stars have
gravity as their main feature. Bert


Neutron star is a reasonable name for them. Heck, they are made of
neutrons and used to be an ordinary star. I guess you could say they are
no longer stars by the usual definition. "Neutron star" does roll of the
tongue better than "neutron ex star thingy".

L.

Jonathan I see you can't be all that bored for you are still answering
my posts in your usual way. You used amateur telescopes to see neutron
stars,and now you changed that to amateur equipment(yes) I did not say
a neutron star was a single neutron. I said more like a colossal
neutron. You have the strong force keeping the electron in the nucleus.
Why do neutrons decay? The strong force keeps the quarks in the
nucleus. Your a fast jumper in to knock my posts(been watching you)
You just lack the brains to do it well. Read the other posts and you
will see they have constructive criticism(that I like)
You now tell me "gravity doesn't work in the micro level" "Read Hawking
book The Universe in a Nut Shell" I had a cockroach(Big Moe) that could
think better than you. Bert PS I got collosal neutron out
of a book,and others in this group must have heard that term used for a
neutron star.