Scientist says neutron stars, not black holes, at center of galaxies(Forwarded)

Office of Public Relations
University of Missouri-Rolla

Contact: Lance Feyh
Phone: 573-341-4269
Email: lfeyh @ umr.edu

December 1, 2005

SCIENTIST SAYS NEUTRON STARS, NOT BLACK HOLES, AT CENTER OF GALAXIES

ROLLA, Mo. -- For the past 50 years, black holes have been all
the rage. Now, a University of Missouri-Rolla researcher says they never
existed.

Scientists have long believed that hydrogen fusion generates
heat and light in the sun and other ordinary stars for billions of years
before the star collapses into a neutron star or black hole when its
fuel is exhausted. "Most scientists think neutron stars are dead matter,
rather than energized, and that eventually they can collapse and form
black holes at the center of galaxies," says Dr. Oliver Manuel, a
professor of nuclear chemistry at UMR. "In this scenario, the end game
is the end of light as we know it."

Manuel thinks neutron stars are at the beginning of an
astronomical renaissance, so to speak.

In a new paper, http://arxiv.org/pdf/nucl-th/0511051 , Manuel
and his co-authors claim massive neutron stars are the energy source at
the center of galaxies. "The neutron stars break up and form smaller
stars, which drift apart to form planetary systems," Manuel says.

Manuel is the lead author of the new paper, "On the Cosmic
Nuclear Cycle and the Similarity of Nuclei and Stars." In the abstract,
the authors state, "This cycle involves neither the production of matter
in an initial Big Bang, nor the disappearance of matter into black
holes."

Since the 1960s, scientists have more or less assumed that
black holes populate the center of galaxies. Manuel says that assumption
just doesn't make sense to him.

"You should find a hole there, not a huge outpouring of energy
and light," Manuel insists. "If black holes exist at the center of
galaxies, stars should be falling in -- instead of explosively moving
away from the center."

According to Manuel, all of the "fragmentation" created by
neutron stars and the fission of heavy elements at the centers of
galaxies can be explained by "neutron repulsion."

"Neutrons and protons in the nucleus work like the north and
south ends of magnets," Manuel explains. "Neutrons repel neutrons,
protons repel protons, but neutrons attract protons. Neutron repulsion
is the force that energizes neutron stars. This empirical fact was
discovered by five graduate students working with me to decipher the
nuclear mass data for the 2,850 known nuclides in the spring of 2000."

Manuel and the group of UMR graduate students published their
findings in 2000 in the Journal of Fusion Energy.

Last summer, Manuel and other UMR researchers reported that a
small neutron star is at the core of our sun and other ordinary stars.
Those conclusions are forthcoming in the Proceedings of the First Crisis
in Cosmology Conference by the American Institute of Physics.

"The heat, light and hydrogen pouring from these stars are
produced by neutron repulsion in their cores," Manuel says.

Furthermore, according to the UMR scientist, our sun once
belonged to a larger neutron star that exploded to form the current
solar system. He imagines massive neutron stars to be like giant nesting
dolls that give birth to smaller stars.

"The super massive neutron stars break up and form galaxies of
smaller stars, just as the nuclei of the heavy elements break apart,"
Manuel says.

In their paper "On the Cosmic Nuclear Cycle and the Similarity
of Nuclei and Stars," Manuel and co-authors Michael Mozina of Emerging
Technologies and Hilton Ratcliffe of the Astronomical Society of South
Africa argue that neutron repulsion also explains the luminosity of the
sun and other ordinary stars.

"Additionally, neutron repulsion explains extremely high
energy events like quasars, which are associated with high-density
regions of space," Manuel says. "These were previously attributed to
black holes."

On a sunny day (Thu, 08 Dec 2005 01:02:24 -0500) it happened Andrew Yee
wrote in
:

Office of Public Relations
University of Missouri-Rolla

Contact: Lance Feyh
Phone: 573-341-4269
Email: lfeyh @ umr.edu

December 1, 2005

SCIENTIST SAYS NEUTRON STARS, NOT BLACK HOLES, AT CENTER OF GALAXIES
I have often wondered why the big star bulge at the center of gallaxies..
You'd expect those there swalled up by the black hole...
Interesting, is this real, eh I mean accepted mainstream ;-)?
Yes I have read the paper, but that stuff ... I am no nuclear physicist...
Would change a LOT of things it is was true!

The mass of a galactic center is 0.5% of the mass of the galaxy and is
over a million suns. How can a neutron star be stable at that mass? It
MUST be a black hole. Nothing else fits.

The stars in the bulge orbit the black hole and the mass of stars
closer in. I think you are under a certain misapprehension about how
black holes actually work and what they look like. When matter is
sucked in it tens to form a ring of relativistic plasma round the event
horizon. A star will produce a burst of energy, and if the BH is
spinning a jet. This is what powers abnormal galaxies.

Abnormal galaxies were more common in the earlier Universe than they
are now. The Milky Way may have been a quasar, or abnormal galaxy, once
but it is no longer. All the matter in danger of falling in has already
fallen in.

Why galaxies need a point mass of 0.5% at their center is still not
clear. It may be linked to stability considerations.

Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Thu, 08 Dec 2005 01:02:24 -0500) it happened Andrew Yee
wrote in
:

Office of Public Relations
University of Missouri-Rolla

Contact: Lance Feyh
Phone: 573-341-4269
Email: lfeyh @ umr.edu

December 1, 2005

SCIENTIST SAYS NEUTRON STARS, NOT BLACK HOLES, AT CENTER OF GALAXIES

I have often wondered why the big star bulge at the center of gallaxies..
You'd expect those there swalled up by the black hole...

Not unless it gets very close to the BH. Otherwise from a safe distance
a BH gravitational field is no significantly different to any normal
matter spherical mass. It is only when you get in close that things get
ugly (especially since real ones tend to be spinning).

Interesting, is this real, eh I mean accepted mainstream ;-)?

The paper appears to be real. It is another question altogether why
University of Missouri-Rolla is drawing attention to it... to ensure
they get students of the right calibre in future perhaps?

Anyone know which peer reviewed journal accepted this paper for
publication??

Yes I have read the paper, but that stuff ... I am no nuclear physicist...
Would change a LOT of things it is was true!

I expect to see a proof of 0==1 from their maths department next.

Regards,
Martin Brown

On a sunny day (8 Dec 2005 06:12:42 -0800) it happened
wrote in . com:

The mass of a galactic center is 0.5% of the mass of the galaxy and is
over a million suns. How can a neutron star be stable at that mass? It
MUST be a black hole. Nothing else fits.

The stars in the bulge orbit the black hole and the mass of stars
closer in. I think you are under a certain misapprehension about how
black holes actually work and what they look like. When matter is
sucked in it tens to form a ring of relativistic plasma round the event
horizon. A star will produce a burst of energy, and if the BH is
spinning a jet. This is what powers abnormal galaxies.

Abnormal galaxies were more common in the earlier Universe than they
are now. The Milky Way may have been a quasar, or abnormal galaxy, once
but it is no longer. All the matter in danger of falling in has already
fallen in.

Why galaxies need a point mass of 0.5% at their center is still not
clear. It may be linked to stability considerations.
OK, let's look again, of cause the stars in the bulge rotate around what
is in the center.
But as to the whole gallaxy rotation, we already have the rotation speed
problem with the spiral arms (dark matter, Mond theory).
What bothered me was this: The central buklge is VERY bright (even in our
own milky way).
That is not likely light from matter falling into the black hole.. if that
was so, then it would have swallowed that bulge long ago.

Then why this extreme density of stars in that area (and we cannot really
look in IIRC).
(Extreme density, great number of stars per unit of space, would explain
such a bright area).
Interesting is, that they come with some explanation for that.
The other thing is of cause, as I have stated many times, that nature does
not like infinities, something is always limiting (giving way), so it would
nicely get rid of the black hole like singularity, but that is of cause only
for my thinking convenience.
We will have to wait and see how the nuke experts think about repelling neutrons...
Thanks
Jan

Andrew Yee wrote in news:R%Plf.8543$kt5.607246
@news20.bellglobal.com:

Office of Public Relations
University of Missouri-Rolla

Contact: Lance Feyh
Phone: 573-341-4269
Email: lfeyh @ umr.edu

December 1, 2005

SCIENTIST SAYS NEUTRON STARS, NOT BLACK HOLES, AT CENTER OF GALAXIES

ROLLA, Mo. -- For the past 50 years, black holes have been all
the rage. Now, a University of Missouri-Rolla researcher says they never
existed.

Scientists have long believed that hydrogen fusion generates
heat and light in the sun and other ordinary stars for billions of years
before the star collapses into a neutron star or black hole when its
fuel is exhausted. "Most scientists think neutron stars are dead matter,
rather than energized, and that eventually they can collapse and form
black holes at the center of galaxies," says Dr. Oliver Manuel, a
professor of nuclear chemistry at UMR. "In this scenario, the end game
is the end of light as we know it."

Manuel thinks neutron stars are at the beginning of an
astronomical renaissance, so to speak.

In a new paper, http://arxiv.org/pdf/nucl-th/0511051 , Manuel
and his co-authors claim massive neutron stars are the energy source at
the center of galaxies. "The neutron stars break up and form smaller
stars, which drift apart to form planetary systems," Manuel says.

Manuel is the lead author of the new paper, "On the Cosmic
Nuclear Cycle and the Similarity of Nuclei and Stars." In the abstract,
the authors state, "This cycle involves neither the production of matter
in an initial Big Bang, nor the disappearance of matter into black
holes."

Since the 1960s, scientists have more or less assumed that
black holes populate the center of galaxies. Manuel says that assumption
just doesn't make sense to him.

"You should find a hole there, not a huge outpouring of energy
and light," Manuel insists. "If black holes exist at the center of
galaxies, stars should be falling in -- instead of explosively moving
away from the center."

According to Manuel, all of the "fragmentation" created by
neutron stars and the fission of heavy elements at the centers of
galaxies can be explained by "neutron repulsion."

"Neutrons and protons in the nucleus work like the north and
south ends of magnets," Manuel explains. "Neutrons repel neutrons,
protons repel protons, but neutrons attract protons. Neutron repulsion
is the force that energizes neutron stars. This empirical fact was
discovered by five graduate students working with me to decipher the
nuclear mass data for the 2,850 known nuclides in the spring of 2000."

Manuel and the group of UMR graduate students published their
findings in 2000 in the Journal of Fusion Energy.

Last summer, Manuel and other UMR researchers reported that a
small neutron star is at the core of our sun and other ordinary stars.
Those conclusions are forthcoming in the Proceedings of the First Crisis
in Cosmology Conference by the American Institute of Physics.

"The heat, light and hydrogen pouring from these stars are
produced by neutron repulsion in their cores," Manuel says.

Furthermore, according to the UMR scientist, our sun once
belonged to a larger neutron star that exploded to form the current
solar system. He imagines massive neutron stars to be like giant nesting
dolls that give birth to smaller stars.

"The super massive neutron stars break up and form galaxies of
smaller stars, just as the nuclei of the heavy elements break apart,"
Manuel says.

In their paper "On the Cosmic Nuclear Cycle and the Similarity
of Nuclei and Stars," Manuel and co-authors Michael Mozina of Emerging
Technologies and Hilton Ratcliffe of the Astronomical Society of South
Africa argue that neutron repulsion also explains the luminosity of the
sun and other ordinary stars.

"Additionally, neutron repulsion explains extremely high
energy events like quasars, which are associated with high-density
regions of space," Manuel says. "These were previously attributed to
black holes."

This appears to be total crackpottery. Which journal published this paper if
any?

Klazmon.

Joseph Lazio wrote:
"JS" == Jonathan Silverlight writes:

JS BTW, no-one seems to have commented on the claim in this very odd
JS paper [by O. Manuel] that the sun is a rigid structure.

What's there to comment?

There is the pressing question of why Andrew Yee forwarded something to
sci.astro that is so obviously Kookdom "science" from the lunatic
fringe. I will be charitable and assume that he did not read the
abstract. But I'd love to know which peer reviewed journal accepted this
paper!

I note that it is now extensively cross posted as Yoon's sock puppets
are understandably upset that their master's work has been plagarised.

What sort of University is Missouri-Rolla?
Their website appears quite plausible.

Regards,
Martin Brown

On Sun, Martin Brown wrote:

Joseph Lazio wrote:
"JS" == Jonathan Silverlight writes:
JS BTW, no-one seems to have commented on the claim in this very odd
JS paper [by O. Manuel] that the sun is a rigid structure.

What's there to comment?

There is the pressing question of why Andrew Yee forwarded something to
sci.astro that is so obviously Kookdom "science" from the lunatic
fringe. I will be charitable and assume that he did not read the
abstract. But I'd love to know which peer reviewed journal accepted this
paper!
[snip]
Regards,
Martin Brown

Well maybe you need to keep up with astro related news,
there has been a paper(s) that suggest that most spiral galaxies
DO NOT have _MASSIVE_ black holes at their center.

So this paper _may_ have been a follow-up to that premise,
to explain the mass observed in those regions.

I have posted often that small bright stars are inordinately
difficult or even impossible to see with the best telescopes and
the longest exposures, a fact that may have been misconstrued
to support the estimate of the number of black holes existing.

Even with the best telescopes it is even difficult to image
pulsars without the ability to zero in to the coordinates with
radio telescope data.

Most of the exciting stuff about General Relativity is
likely to be found in astrophysics, there isn't much new
going on on this planet.

Joe Fischer

In message , Martin Brown
writes
Joseph Lazio wrote:
"JS" == Jonathan Silverlight
lid writes:

JS BTW, no-one seems to have commented on the claim in this very odd
JS paper [by O. Manuel] that the sun is a rigid structure.
What's there to comment?

There is the pressing question of why Andrew Yee forwarded something to
sci.astro that is so obviously Kookdom "science" from the lunatic
fringe. I will be charitable and assume that he did not read the
abstract. But I'd love to know which peer reviewed journal accepted
this paper!

None, surely? It's an ArXiv.org e-print. I've seen the "rigid sun"
interpretation of the TRACE results on web sites, but this is the first
"paper" I've seen.

In message , Jonathan
Silverlight writes
In message , Martin Brown
writes
Joseph Lazio wrote:
"JS" == Jonathan Silverlight
alid writes:

JS BTW, no-one seems to have commented on the claim in this very odd
JS paper [by O. Manuel] that the sun is a rigid structure.
What's there to comment?

There is the pressing question of why Andrew Yee forwarded something
to sci.astro that is so obviously Kookdom "science" from the lunatic
fringe. I will be charitable and assume that he did not read the
abstract. But I'd love to know which peer reviewed journal accepted
this paper!

None, surely? It's an ArXiv.org e-print. I've seen the "rigid sun"
interpretation of the TRACE results on web sites, but this is the first
"paper" I've seen.

Sorry to follow up my own post, but the web site in question is Michael
Mozina's http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/ (I found it via an ad on
the Heavens Above site), and all I can say is "you ain't seen nothing
yet" :-)
Here's a nice example

"The neon layer that composes the penumbral filaments is the layer our
eyes can see. This layer has another VERY important function, specially
to COOL the lower layers. Neon is used as a cryogenic refrigerant
because of its incredible "cooling" abilities."

Looking at Oliver Manuel's site at http://web.umr.edu/~om/ he's been
Professor Emeritus since 2000. Would anyone like to comment on
http://web.umr.edu/~om/picpages/compsun.html?