Impossible “Neutron Star” Shatters Theory | Space News

Impossible “Neutron Star” Shatters Theory | Space News


Welcome to Space News from
the Electric Universe
brought to you by The
Thunderbolts Project™
at Thunderbolts.info
What is a neutron star?
Astronomers tell us that these
tiny yet massively dense objects
formed by the gravitational collapse from the
remnants of a massive star that exploded.
According to NASA, a neutron
star is about 20 km in diameter,
and has the mass of about
1.4 times that of our Sun.
This means that the neutron
star is so dense that on Earth,
one teaspoonful would
weigh a billion tons!
The theoretical neutron star
was invented to try to explain
highly intense bursts of energy
from tiny regions of space.
But no one has ever seen a neutron star,
scientists infer the object existence
when interpreting energetic
emissions in deep space.
Indeed according to a recent
paper in the journal Nature,
a so-called neutron star
has been discovered
that defies understanding
of accepted physics.
In the nearby galaxy M82, scientists have
observed ultra-luminous X-ray pulses
from what they believe is a
binary system between the star
and a pulsar or
rotating neutron star.
However, this so-called pulsar
shines impossible brightly
with the intensity
of 10 million suns.
In a recent Nature Podcast,
researcher Janet C. Gladstone
said of this discovery:
“The original theory that put this limit on how bright these
things should be is about 100 times fainter than this object.”
This was observed with NASA’s NuSTAR
it is a space X-ray telescope
that was actually put in
place exactly to survey
this kind of ultra-luminous
X-rays events.
Now, what was observed was a pulsar
thought to be a rotating neutron star
that is emitting energies in the
ultra-luminous X-ray range.
Now, this is a real problem.
It has been held that super-massive
black holes are required
to power X-rays sources,
at this level of energies
and this pulsar is about 10 times
powerful than any know pulsar.
So, something was obviously
wrong with the current theory
and that is the point
that the author has made.
The real issue is that
mainstream astrophysics
has a gravity dominated
view of the universe.
Everything is
powered by gravity,
so when an ultra-luminous X-rays source
is observed the first question is:
Where is the energy
coming from to power it?
Well, since gravity is the
only tool in the toolbox
the idea of an accretion
disk was evolved where
a super-massive black hole is
pulling matter from a companion star
This matter forms a very thin
accretion disk around the black hole
The angular momentum of
the in-falling matter
is converted to heat and
then super heated gas,
this is in the range of millions
Kelvin emits high-energy X-rays.
Let’s be clear, the astro-images
that we get are X-ray point sources
We don’t see accretion disks or
black holes or black holes binaries
What we see are highly
energetic points of X-rays,
points sources of X-rays,
X-rays that flicker and pulse.
But do you need exotic super dense masses
to get X-rays at this high energies?
Well, actually no.
Lightning is a very good example of
natural phenomenon that emits X-rays
and actually gamma rays as
well, at very high energies.
And let us look at the X-ray machines,
X-rays are emitted from X-ray tubes
basically a vacuum tube where a cathode
emits electrons which impact the anode.
The X-ray spectrum and energy dependent
on what is used as the anode
And the kind of accelerating voltage
you have for the vacuum tube.
I mean, we found this
all in the late 1800’s
So, you don’t really need an exotic super-massive
body and super heated gas to get X-rays.
And it’s a good thing too, because imagine
how big an X-ray machine would have to be
if gravity were the only power source that we
had with black holes and super heated gases.
Astrophysicists are finding all
kinds of stars that shouldn’t exist,
according to the
standard theory.
But even so, there is no hint that the
standard models of stars are under any threat.
Now we have a report of
a pulsating dead star
beaming with the energy of
about 10 million suns.
So, one might think it’s
back to the drawing board.
But how badly does a
theory have to fail
before you wipe the board
clean and start again?
How can a dead star beam far more
energy than 10 million live ones?
The reason for calling
a star “dead”
is that it has been found to
pulsate every 1.37 Seconds
which characterizes a supposed neutron star,
and it is assumed that only a very small
rapidly rotating object acting some-
how as a lighthouse could do that.
Also, say astrophysicists who adopt a
simple mechanical view of pulsars.
But this requires then to stuff more
than 1.5 times the mass of the sun
into a
sphere of only 10 km radius.
As usual, when astrophysicists
run into difficulties
they call on particles
physicists to get them out of it.
And as usual, particle physicists
use it as an excuse for
inventing strange unseeing
states of matter or dark forces.
In the case of pulsars, we are told
that the atoms are squeezed so intensely
in the imagined death throats
of a large star that electrons
combine with protons in the nucleus
of each atom to form a neutron star.
This is another one of those
astrophysical theories
that can’t be tested
in the laboratory
Where neutrons only seem to exist
stably for more than a few minutes
inside an atomic nucleus in
the presence of protons.
However, two dinosaurs
unnoticed in Astrophysics Lab
are our total ignorance
of the cause of gravity
And their unshakeable belief that
stars are internally powered.
Newton wisely admitted that
he did not understand gravity
And Einstein merely described it
with a non-physical geometry.
But a moment of reflection
shows that the idea of
super condensed matter
in any form is nonsense.
Because it is asking the force of gravity
to overcome the electrical force
Which can be up 1,000 billion billion billion
billion times stronger than gravity.
Infrared images show
that stars are born
nongravitationally along
glowing current filaments.
This results in stars with
cool cores of heavy elements
that can not initiate a
thermonuclear fusion.
And in the star’s gravitational field,
the heavy nucleus of each atom
will be drawn towards the center of
gravity of the star or planet.
That means each atom will
become football shaped,
With the inner end positive and
the outer end negatively charged.
These tiny atomic electric dipoles will
daisy chain like magnets and set up a
repulsive electric field inside the star
which offsets gravitational compression.
So, black holes and neutron
stars do not exist.
So, what is the electric universe answer
to the discovery of an object that
pulsates and shines about 100 times
brighter than theory suggest?
It has been shown that the complex structure
of stellar pulses can be explained
by repeated short circuits in the
magnetospheric circuit of a normal star.
There is no need for a fanciful
whirling neutron star .
It’s simple electrical
engineering one-o-one.
A relaxation oscillator effect
in the star atmosphere.
The ultra luminosity of a star or galactic
object can be attributed to 2 factors.
First, is a misinterpretation
of redshift,
which can place the star much
further away than it actually is.
If the star is much closer, the calculated
energy output may be grossly overestimated.
The second, is the ability for plasma
to store phenomenal amounts of
electromagnetic energy in a very
tiny volume known as a plasmoid.
Simple application then, of E=MC²
shows that a plasmoid can account
for the apparent concentration
of mass in a small volume.
No black holes or neutron
stars are necessary.
What’s more, plasmoids release particles
and energy periodically in jets
as shown by active
galactic nuclei.
That suggests that we are looking down
the narrow beam of a stellar plasmoid
that is shining in our direction with
equivalent energy of 10 million suns.
As long as gravity is held
as the only energy source
for these cosmological phenomena
the mainstream astrophysicist
will continue to run into the kind of
issues that they found in the pulsar.
That leads me to kind of wonder where
mainstream theory would be now
if this kinds of X-ray gamma
rays and radio observations
have been available in the
late 1800’s or around 1900.
Available, for example, for people
like Faraday, or Maxwell,
or plasma science
pioneers as Birkeland.
Maybe now pulsars may be modeled
as oscillating circuits
and the energy that they pulse
and the frequency would dependent
on the acceleration voltage
of the electric field
and other characteristics
of the electrical circuit.
We know there are electric currents in
space carried by Birkeland filaments
These current-carrying filaments have
been directly observed between the Sun
and the Earth and for example
between Jupiter and Io.
We see filaments twisting and extending
thousands of light years wherever you look.
More importantly, we see
electromagnetic phenomena
pulsing and flickering X-rays, gamma
rays and plasma glowing radio.
Things that are no more exotic than
lightning or electric circuits
that we’ve been building in lab
in the last 100 years or so.
For continuous updates on Space
News from the Electric Universe
stay tuned to
Thunderbolts.info

31 thoughts to “Impossible “Neutron Star” Shatters Theory | Space News”

  1. If Black Holes, in particular Supermassive Black Holes that are accepted by the overwhelming majority of the scientific community to be found at the centers of most galaxies…if those don't exist, then explain the motions of stars that we've observed at the center of our Galaxy. There is an object there that we can't see (yet) that the stars are orbiting. We've taken images over many years and can actually see and measure the motions and the velocities of those stars. They've made videos of those motions by combining the data from years of observations. If Supermassive black holes don't exist…what explains the motions of those stars which could mathematically only orbit in that manner if they were effected by an object which emits no light but weighs millions of times the mass of our Sun?

  2. Since the EU model is the challenger, come up with a prediction based upon your model, that gravity theory can not explain – then test it.

  3. At 6:39 it says electrical force is 1000 billion billion billion billion times stronger than gravity.  But does electrical force combine with increased mass as gravity does?  This number only seems true when comparing the electrical force of one atom to the gravitational force of one atom.

  4. Have you ever thought that maybe the energy is coming from outside of the Universe? My theory "the Quantum Mechanics Universe" the energy is inside out hydrogen. (Hydrogen without space) is coming from outside "shadow-space"

  5. 897 downvotes, ha ha.. my god, people don't think the electromagnetic force is important? Most people are trained not to think, that is the problem… 897 people saying "muh gravity".. gravity explains everything when they can't even explain gravity… ugh.. to say that gravity is the answer to everything, they may as well say it is magic gravity fairies.

  6. observations of all space phenomena
    are best explained via electric universe model with least plastic fudge-factors (none, actually)

    but most poorly explained by fantasy of contrived super-gravitational-based big-bang universe model using most plastic fudge-factors (fudged upped gravity: imaginary black holes, neutron stars, missing matter dubbed dark matter, shortfall of dark matter dubbed dark energy)

    well established plasma and electromagnetism physics, as well as applied physics in electric engineering point to known scalable plasmic behaviour that readily apply up to cosmic scale or down to subatomic scale, from laboratory scale

    scientists only observation of what is dubbed as "gravity" does not scale very well as a "force-affecting-at-a-distance" beyond a tiny distance even with super-massive subjects, any two objects, on any laboratory scale

    as soon as one observes everyday "falling objects", one now has a better electric charge differential-based model, which obviously includes interconnected interaction over short local distances to vast distances up to cosmic scale, to account for all so called "gravity" phenomena (which turns out to be electric based after all)

    scientist can see and measure electric interconnectivity of local and cosmic scale electric circuit phenomena
    which can fully explain galactic spin, stellar spin, planetary spin, orbital spin, and atomic/subatomic spin

    even an "electric atom" does not require a fictional-fudge factor such as a "neutron particle" (which is better described as a proton+electron pairing existing in a particular spinning quantum state)

    high luminous point source objects observed are far more easily explained as straightforward electric phenomena as electromagnetic based plasmoids, much like all luminous objects, whether galaxies, stars/quasars, x-ray stars, glowing planets, comets, driven by vast electric circuits that pervade all space like a web in our universe

    fictional fantasy "super-upsized" gravity-based (big bang cosmology) model involves far too many plastic-prone fudge-factor non-observed "observed" non-objects, to keep it afloat (keeping the emporer's new clothes tailors employed)

  7. … It's hard to think we can fully understand anything on the scale that things like this work on considering we are next to nothing on the scale. Something we understand on earth maybe just completely different when you see it on a scale we can't even fathom.

  8. Anyone know how an ethernet or phone wire works? Twisted pairs, just like the filaments that extend between our planets. This is the least noisy way of transmitting a signal and energy.

  9. These idiots who compare EU to flat earth are engaging in a common practice called "label and dismiss". Just like the term "conspiracy theory" it using mockery to silence ideas that they were given to them without doing any kind of reality check on. EU is backed by real observations not just made up mathematical models that lead to absurd conclusions like neutron stars and blackholes.

  10. The case against a neutron star. The following is hypothetical scenario based on known physics, which would explain the Improbability of neutron stars ; Neutron is made out of an electron and proton and neutrino, (neutrons are Known to be unstable due to Beta decay) they say Neutrinos escapes because of nuclear decay and low mass or close to zero mass of the neutrino and it’s lost or radiated out, it must be understood that neutrino is part of the ingredients of a neutron . Then what would be left is a proton and a electron, that would constitute the ingredients of a hydrogen atom not a neutron , being that the protons are heavier then the electron it is quite possible that the interior will become a large Proton like object, there for, it should be called a proton star and not a neutron star,. They are playing Word games, it just doesn’t make sense ! The fact is that a neutron stars is actually Hypothetical objects and the physics that is suppose to supports this is vague . The Pauli exclusion principle Is introduce because it helps explain the density packing, there is absolutely no evidence that this phenomena is taking place in these fictional hypothetical objects, and there are other forces (coulombs forces) that will inhibit the densities needed to keep this so-called neutron or protons stars together , also there is no explanations, Other than gravity, but here, there’s a problem, the initial explosion would have expelled the massive outer Shell Into space . This shell would have been the only thing keeping neutron core (compressed to high densities) together, in other words, the object with less mass would have less gravity. Both of these hypothetical Explanation are based on the imagination, but at least a proton star idea has some real science behind it, because Protons are stable and neutrons are not. In conclusion, the EU Idea is a more viable Explanation especially when you consider gravitational energy versus electrical energy!

  11. The sky is a superconducting sea of supercooled hydrogen created by an electric field . This is why they say the stars are made of hydrogen and they say there are radiation belts thousands of miles in the sky . H2O can be separated in an electric field . Explains RF communications , GPS , SAT TV , HAM RADIO . discharge from lightning . Lightwaves travel in a circuit and deliver the charge they carry to organic life . Depleted light returns to the moon , giving a cooler light in moonlight .

    Wave pattern shadows On the eclipse is earthshine reflecting off the Hydro-Dome firmament .

    Extreme vacuum creates ultra low temperatures . At these temps gases and liquids are converted to solids .
    H2O can be split in an electrical field to create a hydrogen superconductor which could explain the following .
    van allen radiation belts , stars made of hydrogen , aurora borealis , star trails held within the field lines .
    BB microwave background radiation illustrates the earth to be the center of our universe .
    ( aka : axis of evil in the religion of psyantisim )
    The sky is a firmament made of a supercooled hydrogen superconductor held firm by an electromagenic field .
    The cosmos we see are the fields of magnetism holding the HYDRO_DOME firm in place ,
    like a tent to dwell in . a molten looking glass .

  12. the moon is a drain for depleted light that has shed it energy to organic life . its a return circuit , not a rock floating thru space . the sky is a hardened translucent hydrogen quantum superconductor with a viscous surface on the underside that holds the sun and moon in the sky . the stars dwell within the electric field lines on both north and south directions , sun and moon travel east to west . the topology used in the design layout of gps is a matrix of non overlapping squares within squares within squares . have a look at the wave pattern shadows on the solar eclipse which describe a earth shine reflection off the firmament .

    depleted light waves that have shed their energy onto organic life return to the receptacle moon . these depleted waves are the ether and the field that makes rf communication possible . the circuit that they travel from sun to life and back to be absorbed by the moon is also what create the tides .lunar waves could be the refresh rate of our celestial dielectric (a medium or substance that transmits electric force without conduction; an insulator.) lightwave regenerator which returns the waves back to the sun and creates an electromagnetic hydrogen superconductor sky .

  13. Gravity is THE STRONGEST of all forces as it triggers all actions..duh…….You are all thinking yourselves into a nightmare….! Common sense has gone…overly scienced to death..

  14. Saying what it shouldn't be is easier than saying what it is. I notice a lot of speculation on why it isn't, but no one is jumping at the opportunity to explain what it is.

    Less than useless criticism as usual.

  15. Which means that black holes can not exist either, and how many times do I have to tell these fools that the laws of physics only pertain to the confines of earth's atmosphere, if you want to study space you have to find a way to bring space into a laboratory.

  16. If a neutron star is a rotating lighthouse, why does it have surface features that beam out a ray in one direction only? Is that a kind of x ray volcano on its surface? Why does it not radiate in all directions? This is of course another question to drive the defenders of gravity cosmos nuts, but, they need to be able to answer it. I don't think there is an answer.

  17. Sorry guys.
    If gravity was electro-magnetic then a normal bar-magnet would align itself with the field.

    It would stand upright and defy being pushed over.

    But relativity is also wrong. Details of that here:
    http://www.flight-light-and-spin.com/proof/proof-against-relativity.htm

  18. Nice explanation. Let's hope to find the truth one day. I didn't know that neutron star and black hole existed only in theory.

  19. Everything on THIS SIDE of the universe is just that , THI SIDE……… And so we humans EXPLAIN what is on this side….
    Most make sense to us, because making sense is mostly what we seek….And we get what we seek, right or wrong…

  20. 1. You totally fail to mention that neutron stars are believed to be so small because their jets rotate dozens of times per second. 2. One hundred times brighter is not very far off for objects that are this dense. If you were right and neuron stars didn’t exist, the prediction of luminosity would be off by far more. 3. Also it is the only neutron star where there is this problem with the luminocity. 4. Lightening and such needs charges, and those don’t naturally occure on large scales. 5. Electromagnetism never stops gravity. Claustrophobic degeneration pressure based on the exclusion principle can stop it, but only up to the limit of 1.3 solar masses. 6. Current filaments can’t occur without gravity having accumulated matter to cause density differences in the first place. Electromagnetism never causes structure formation. 7. Atoms cannot become football shapped magnets. That is utterly absurd. You try to make up a huge conspiracy of the universe to create such things, ignoring the gravitational collapse of ordinary stars. 8. Trying to explain pulsars by electromagnetic effects is silly, because those could never reach the precision of a pulsar. Lightening can never happen with the same precision as the fast rotation of a very dense object. 9. You have no math to offer. 10. What is your distance for these pulsars?

  21. The simplest argument will do, until a better one comes along.
    Sadly, acolytes of the previous argument will kill to defend their theory that is failing.

  22. The strength of gravity decreases by a factor of 1/(R^2) in relation to distance. The strength of a magnetic dipole decreases by 1/(R^3). This is why gravity is so much more significant on the cosmic scale than electro magnetism.

    It's really funny seeing how easily people are convinced by crazy speculations… Since this video was released, we have observed a neutron star collision and imaged a black hole.

    You are harnessing the power of social media to deceive your viewers.

    There is always more to learn about the universe, but it is totally disingenuous to suggest astronomers only care about gravity, and you are blatantly misrepresenting research and scientific theory.

    In truth, our current models of astrophysics draw on nearly every field of the physical sciences including chemistry, geology, astronomy, quantum physics, fluid dynamics, plasma physics… it goes on and on.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *