Neutron "Star" Hmmmm ???

Painius wrote,

Void-space premise = the big a** fingers
of science? g

Yeah, void-space and flat Earth are in the same league- both regimes
'work' OK in their local frames, but begin breaking down when curvature
and density-gradients enter the equation(s). Waiting for Scott to come
pouncing out of the woodwork to bestow corrective admonishments.g

oc

In article , "Painius" wrote:
"Tom Kerr" wrote in message...
...

snip

Didn't Henry Cavendish come up with a way to measure the
gravitational constant using rather small lead balls? And didn't he
use his newly found figure back in 1798 to compute the mass of
the Earth?

Small lead balls in 1798 and fundamental particles are somewhat different.
The strong force, for instance, has a *much* greater effect than gravity in
the atom. Jonathan is quite correct.

snip

Good point, Tom... so where do YOU think the cut off point for
gravity is? Are you saying that stars, planets and small lead balls
have gravitational fields but, say, atomic nuclei do not?

I'm not saying that. On atomic-scale distances, the strong force is *much*
more significant than the gravitational attraction between small particles.
IIRC, the strong force is something like 10^40 times stronger than gravity
(someone might have this number handy, I don't), but it's only significant
on atomic distance scales.

How many atomic nuclei are needed to start up a gravitational
attraction?

Nuclei will have a gravitational force, so in one sense your question is
meaningless. However, I think your question is how many nuclei are needed
to make gravity a significant force compared to the strong force. That's a
tough one, but using the number I mention above, then you'd need ~10^40
nuclei. That's an extremely simplistic argument though.

Tom Kerr wrote:

Nuclei will have a gravitational force, so in one sense your question is
meaningless. However, I think your question is how many nuclei are needed
to make gravity a significant force compared to the strong force. That's a
tough one, but using the number I mention above, then you'd need ~10^40
nuclei. That's an extremely simplistic argument though.

It seems to me that there's a problem with our picture of gravity on
very small scales; in "classical" terms gravitational forces approach
infinity as distances become infinitesimal, no matter how small the
masses involved may be. Presumably a quantum theory of gravity will
have some way of "renormalizing" these infinities, but until the
classical and quantum models can be reconciled by a comprehensive
"GUT" or "TOE", just how gravity works at this level will remain mysterious.

--
Odysseus

Bert wrote,

If there was no gravity in the micro there
would be no gravity in the universe,and
that means no universe. =A0

Yup. Under the flowing-space model, gravity *is* the flow of the spatial
medium into matter's constituent protons, the seat of the strong force.
Spatial flow is the unification of gravity and the strong force. And
fully understandable (gasp) without need for math.

oc

Bert wrote:

You have the strong force keeping the electron in the nucleus.

Wrong again Bert. There are only Protons and Neutrons in the nucleus of an
atom. The strong nuclear force keeps them together. Electrons are found
*outside* the nucleus.

Why do neutrons decay?

They decay due to the action of the weak nuclear force. This weak force
changes one of the quarks in the neutron from an "up" quark to a "down" quark
and thus turning the neutron into a proton. The decay thus creates and
electron, a proton, and a neutrino. In a nucleus, Neutrons are stable due to
the action of the strong nuclear force, but when set free, neutrons decay.
You have been told this before.

The strong force keeps the quarks in the
nucleus.

Not exactly. Quarks are held together by the "color" force, and it is
residual color force which in effect creates the strong nuclear force.

Your a fast jumper in to knock my posts(been watching you)

You make yourself a very easy target by not taking the time to really *read*
up on the things you try to talk about, or by not understanding them.



--
David W. Knisely
Prairie Astronomy Club: http://www.prairieastronomyclub.org
Hyde Memorial Observatory: http://www.hydeobservatory.info/

**********************************************
* Attend the 10th Annual NEBRASKA STAR PARTY *
* July 27-Aug. 1st, 2003, Merritt Reservoir *
* http://www.NebraskaStarParty.org *
**********************************************

Well David you should be smart enough to know that I know where
electrons are in their construction of an atom/.(yes) We are talking
about neutrons,and neutrons have an electron inside their nuclei(yes).
Stop Knocking and stay on the subject of the post(please) I also know
quarks up and down force,as regards to protons,and neutrons. Just
answer why neutrons don't decay in the nucleus of of heavier atoms than
hydrogen? Tell us how gravity can compress an electron back into a
proton,and create a 12 mile in diameter colossal neutron star that is
very stable? Is the neutron star say after a billion years hot or cold?
Are neutron stars more apt to be binary? My theory is they are rather
cold,as compared to say our sun(yes?) David instead of knocking,and
saying my questions are stupid(because they are not in the last book you
read) Think and give me your best shot. It would be very refreshing.
Bert PS One last question. Does gravity compress an neutrino back into
the proton so that the reverse decay is complete? Hmmmmm

David in books I read "A free neutron will decay in an average time of
10 minutes,and release an ELECTRON,and a neutrino(neutron decay)
Mentioning two down and one up quark as part of the structure on a
neutron,you mention strong force,and the strong force is a particle
called a gluon(no mass) like the photon) Since quarks are fractal
positive charged particles and would fly apart the gluon is 100 times
more powerful than the electromagnetic force,and keeps them "glued
together" It also has the same function when it keeps protons together
in the nucleus of atoms.
David you can't possibly leave out electronic fields when discussing
atoms,such a positive and negative charges. Is it the book that told you
about quarks? Ask yourself David if you can't find it in your book what
creates a charge,and how an electron is attracted to the proton with
space between them.(great space as compared to their size) How do
gluons do their job of locking up quarks inside of protons and neutrons?
You did it in big capital letters(shouting at me) an electron is not
found in a neutron(yes) You posted its not gravity that compresses an
electron back into the proton but"extreme pressure" Ha,Ha,Ha That tells
me you can't think David. You
mention the weak force,and that involves "weak gauge bosons"to cause
radioactive decay. A boson is a messenger particle,like the photon,and
the gluon. Well you left out the one thing that
makes all we discussed work,and in essence is the most important. Think
about it David you will have trouble finding it in a book,and if you
can't find it in a book or in your brain,and I have to give you the
answer,you will know its true(reality) Bert

Bert once again blurted out:

David in books I read "A free neutron will decay in an average time of
10 minutes,and release an ELECTRON,and a neutrino(neutron decay)

These particles are *CREATED* by the decay, they are *not* inside of the
neutron! They do not exist until the quark changes from down to up and
creates the W- boson which they decays into an electron and a neutrino.
Particles are created all the time without necessarily being "inside"
something else. Electrons and positrons can be created from photons by
passing a high energy gamma ray past a heavy nucleus (its called "pair
production"), so particles can be created from energy or from the decay of
more massive unstable particles. Do you understand this?

Since quarks are fractal
positive charged particles

There is no such thing as a "fractal particle". Quarks have a "fractional"
charge, in that they have a *fraction* of the electron's charge, either 1/3rd
or 2/3rds the amount of electric charge of the electron or the proton
(electron charge: 1.6 x 10^-19 coulombs).

David you can't possibly leave out electronic fields when discussing
atoms,such a positive and negative charges.

Bert, its ELECTROMAGNETIC fields, NOT "electronic". Electronics are for car
stereos and computers, not for particles. Particles experience electric
fields and magnetic fields, which were unified by Maxwell into electromagnetic
fields. The Weak force responsible for particle decays is also linked to the
electromagnetic field (neutrinos and electrons interact with it for example).

Ask yourself David if you can't find it in your book what
creates a charge,and how an electron is attracted to the proton with
space between them.(great space as compared to their size)

Electrons are positively charged. Protons are negatively charged. It has
been known for centuries that unlike charges attract each other, and this is
presumably still taught in elementary school. I don't have to ask myself
anything about this. All I really have to ask myself is why are you are
saying all this?

How do
gluons do their job of locking up quarks inside of protons and neutrons?

The short-range strong "color" force is similar to that of a spring, in that
the more you extend or pull on the spring, the stronger the force you feel in
response. To fully answer your question would require that you take an
advanced undergraduate or graduate course in physics, but somehow, I doubt you
would be able to do this.

You did it in big capital letters(shouting at me) an electron is not
found in a neutron(yes)

Sigh... Bert, an electron is *not* found inside a neutron (no). If you can't
understand this, then I guess that is your loss.

That tells
me you can't think David.

Your postings clearly shows that:
1. You can't get the terminology correct.
2. You don't read many books on the subjects you talk about.
3. You don't understand what the books you claim to have read really say.
4. You can't understand what other people tell you.
5: You don't know what you are talking about.

In other words, Bert, YOU just don't think very well.





--
David W. Knisely
Prairie Astronomy Club: http://www.prairieastronomyclub.org
Hyde Memorial Observatory: http://www.hydeobservatory.info/

**********************************************
* Attend the 10th Annual NEBRASKA STAR PARTY *
* July 27-Aug. 1st, 2003, Merritt Reservoir *
* http://www.NebraskaStarParty.org *
**********************************************

You posted:

You read stuff that I can tell
you don't understand,but repeat it like a parrot.

Insults again? Is your position so weak that you have to resort to these
tactics? Please, your situation is bad enough without you making things worse
by trotting out that old "parrot" lable.

I asked you what is a charge? (no reply naturally)

No Bert, you did *not* ask "what is a charge?" (read your own posting). The
definition of charge is: "The property of some elementary particles which
causes them to exert forces on one another". This kind of force is also known
as the "electrostatic force", as two charged particles will exert an
electrostatic force on each other (like charges repell each other while
opposite charges attract). Charge is intrinsic to elementary particles like
quarks and electrons (in other words, it merely exists, just like mass does).
It allows a static electric field to exist around such a stationary charged
particle in the same way that mass allows a gravitational field to exist
around a piece of matter. In the case of matter, all particles have mass, but
in the case of electromagnetic fields, not all particles have charge.

You tell me neutron decay did not release
an electron (so where did it pop up from?)

The electron came from the decay of the W- boson, as did the neutrino. Why
didn't you *read* what I wrote?

You say it is pressure,but
not gravity(yes) David what cause the great pressure to push an
electron back into the proton to recreate a neutron?

You still fail to understand what other people say. A *SINGLE* PROTON AND A
*SINGLE* ELECTRON CANNOT BE PUSHED TOGETHER BY GRAVITY ALONE TO CREATE A
NEUTRON. It take billions of tons of material to create enough pressure to do
this, and that is found only in the cores of dying stars. Gravity holds the
mass together to form the core of the star and helps create the necessary high
pressure, but it does *not* have enough force between *only* two isolated
particles to do the job. You clearly do not understand. Again, you need to
READ what I said instead of resorting to insults.

Those that know me and read my posts know I'm not
precise,don't use math.,but I can think theoretically and use good
science.

You do *not* use "good science". You don't get enough of the information and
frequently don't understand the information that you do manage to get. You
should want to change that, but for some reason, you don't. Why is that Bert?

Please answer all my questions in my last post,such
as the most important question what is charge,and how does it work?

Why should I bother, since all you will do is say:
you are a first class idiot




--
David W. Knisely
Prairie Astronomy Club: http://www.prairieastronomyclub.org
Hyde Memorial Observatory: http://www.hydeobservatory.info/

**********************************************
* Attend the 10th Annual NEBRASKA STAR PARTY *
* July 27-Aug. 1st, 2003, Merritt Reservoir *
* http://www.NebraskaStarParty.org *
**********************************************

David Knisely wrote:

Electrons are positively charged. Protons are negatively charged.

You must mean the converse! Or were you thinking of their
antiparticle complements, positrons and antiprotons?

--
Odysseus