"When you have to shoot someone, don't talk, just shoot!"
Posted on 08/20/2007 2:41:15 PM PDT by james500
Astronomers have spotted a space oddity in Earth's neighbourhood - a dead star with some unusual characteristics.
The object, known as a neutron star, was studied using space telescopes and ground-based observatories.
But this one, located in the constellation Ursa Minor, seems to lack some key characteristics found in other neutron stars.
Details of the study, by a team of American and Canadian researchers, will appear in the Astrophysical Journal.
If confirmed, it would be only the eighth known "isolated neutron star" - meaning a neutron star that does not have an associated supernova remnant, binary companion, or radio pulsations.
The object has been nicknamed Calvera, after the villain in the 1960s western film The Magnificent Seven.
"The seven previously known isolated neutron stars are known collectively as The Magnificent Seven within the community," said co-author Derek Fox, of Pennsylvania State University, US.
"So the name Calvera is a bit of an inside joke on our part."
(Excerpt) Read more at news.bbc.co.uk ...
You *assume* that gravity can do this. You cannot observe it.
People can no longer distinguish between assumption and observation.
I can’t observe it, but I definately witness it ;o)
"When you have to shoot someone, don't talk, just shoot!"
BAD move.
It's all the fault of the quarks, being the strange and charming things that they are ;-)
My intuition is that a teaspoon of it on Earth would explode because it's internal pressure would be enormous.
You're wrong. This happens in so-called beta plus decay which is observed. http://www.rstp.uwaterloo.ca/manual/radiation/types/beta_plus.htm
No, no, no. The correct creationist phrasing (or is it pomo phrasing, hard to tell the difference) would be that the other side of the moon was a mere theoretical construct.
Of course today it's still just a theoretical construct, it's just the theory is about the spaceship that took the pictures and their transmission to us and that NASA isn't just a Hollywood studio etc..
I must respectfully disagree, here. The dark side was not merely a theoretical construct - it was actual green cheese. However, the act of first observing it caused it to turn to dust covered rock. I hope this clarifies the situation.
Man, you naturalismists just can't think outside your theoretical constructs.
Yes. The dark side of the moon is on the Columbia Pictures backlot, where they took the pictures. I only sampled the cheese the first day of the shoot because it rained the second day and made an awful mess of the set. So, yes, I am an authority on the matter.
Aw shucks, ed-sur, I was jest havin’ some fun.
;’)
"You're wrong. This happens in so-called beta plus decay which is observed. http://www.rstp.uwaterloo.ca/manual/radiation/types/beta_plus.htm"
No, I wasn't wrong. I suppose the reason that you added the ellipses was to provide you some cover for misrepresenting what I said. I actually said, "Gravity would have to convert energy into matter for an electron-proton pair to become a neutron." but that wouldn't have given you anything to say.
Beta plus decay is not presented as the method that 'neutron stars' are formed. The point with beta plus decay is that the nucleus seeks to attain stability from an excess of protons. A nucleus of all neutrons would not be stable either and is only imaginary. And we don't even have to look at how the nucleus got the 'extra' proton, which doesn't help your 'neutron star' theory either.
But don't let the facts get in the way of your imaginations, my friend.
You said:
We see it going the other way neutron > proton-electron-neutrino), but not that way except in our theories and imaginations.Do you think gravity plays any noticeable role in this process?
You misrepresentd me my selectively omitting part of my statement.
"You said:
We see it going the other way neutron > proton-electron-neutrino), but not that way except in our theories and imaginations."
No, I said:
"Thanks Jason, but what you wrote is entirely theoretical and can’t be observed. Gravity would have to convert energy into matter for an electron-proton pair to become a neutron. We see it going the other way (neutron > proton-electron-neutrino), but not that way except in our theories and imaginations."
Are you able to detect any differences between what I actually said and what you propose that I said? Are you able to remember the context in which the statement was made?
I see, you aren’t able to explain how the omitted sentence added context to your claim. Therefore by leaving it out, I wasn’t misrepresenting you. Thanks for confirming.
I see that you aren't able to admit that you changed the context of my remarks by selectively editing my statements. Therefore, by attempting to divert the discussion away from your disingenuous editing, you tacitly admit your misrepresentation. Thanks for confirming.
Except that you can't explain how that omitted sentence provides context for the remark. And I don't see that it does. But I'll give you another opportunity.
"Except that you can't explain how that omitted sentence provides context for the remark."
Especially since you continue to selectively edit my remarks since what I actually said was, "I see that you aren't able to admit that you changed the context of my remarks by selectively editing my statements."
"And I don't see that it does. But I'll give you another opportunity."
I know that you don't see that it does. It doesn't matter how many opportunities you get or how much explanation I give; you won't ever see that it does. It's called the 'burden of proof' fallacy and you aren't the first one to try to play it.
But... I'll give you another opportunity.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.