Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
Drexel University or The Math Forum.
|
|
|
|
preliminary explanation of pulsars and quasars via Maxwell Equations
#1240 New Physics #1360 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed
Posted:
Feb 18, 2013 4:43 PM
|
|
Alright I have 60 pages to go before I automatically stop writing New
Physics and continue with just the Atom Totality text. However I may
stop before reaching 1300 pages of New Physics, as I am slowly
blending into Atom Totality theory. And this post is one of those
blending into the theory.
In astronomy we witness two facts that are difficult to explain and
Old Physics does a horrible job with them. These two facts are pulsars
and quasars. Now Old Physics had no axiom system to keep them honest
with logic and where any crank or crackpot of physics could insert
their own stupid explanation because no axiom system would contradict
them. And so when something like pulsars or quasars come to be
factually seen, then those cranks and crackpots fill up the
explanation with silly things that would contradict the Maxwell
Equations. They do not care so long as their crackpot explanations
theory fills the literature and textbooks and pollutes the minds of
students.
So let me take a few minutes here and start a reasonable explanation
of both pulsars and quasars when we put them to a Maxwell Equations
test. Let us put pulsars and quasars to a Maxwell Equations
preliminary test and see if we can get a reasonable explanation,
rather than the far flung explanation by a nattering-nutter who has no
axiom system to guide him, just his greed for fame.
Now I remember vacationing out West in USA, driving from Ohio to the
Western Parks of the USA with my father and others when I was a
teenager. And we camped in the National Parks. It was a lot of fun,
and I remember also a favorite radio station in the late 1960s of
Oklahoma City that played a lot of rock and roll songs at that time.
But I remember trying to tune to the station far away in another state
and there was static. But listening closely to the static I recall a
pulse in the static. Funny how I remember that. I remembered it
because later in life when on a Caribbean Island and tuning into the
BBC
for the news, I would also listen to the static and hear a pulse. Now,
I am sure others have listened to the radio and heard their own
pulses.
But the main message here is, we have the Maxwell Equations as axioms
and we have pulsars in Space as radio pulses by some astro body far
away from Earth. Our job here is not to dream up some crazy theory
like so many cranks and crackpots that have no axiom system to guide
them, but our job is to stay solely confined to the Maxwell Equations
as axioms. Is there something in the Maxwell Equations that gives us
pulsars that are natural and purely out of the Maxwell Equations?
Well, if a distant radio station like the Oklahoma City or BBC can
give out pulses in their signal and because of interference with other
signals of radio waves that these pulses occur naturally, means that
pulsars of astro bodies are just normal radio signals that are too far
away and intermediate signals are interfering and causing the more
distant ones to pulse. Now we would be terrible silly in thoughts if
we thought that Oklahoma City radio tower was spinning around in a
circle at a huge speed to produce the pulses. We would be classified
as a crackpot to think that the radio pulses were from a spinning
platform. We would not be classes a crackpot if we thought the pulses
were due to the interference of other radio signals upon the weaker
Oklahoma signal.
So I think here, I have a preliminary natural explanation for pulsars
as normal radio signals but which have some interference by other
signals in the line of sight of origin.
The reader must see that we have to conform everything to the Maxwell
Equations and not contradict the equations.
Now moving on to quasars. Recently I bought a cat play toy of a laser
light and the cat's love it, for they think it is some mouse. Now when
quasars were first discovered in astronomy in the 20th century, in
late 1950s, of course the way physics was run in that century was
there was no axiom system to keep physicists honest in logic, and it
was run purely on high testosterone of those with the biggest mouth
and greed for fame. When you have the Maxwell Equations as axioms, we
no longer have to put up with obnoxious fame seekers who lack logic to
think.
We no longer have to put up with crackpots like Hawking or Higgs or
Weinberg or Gell-Mann who never had a axiom system to keep them
logically sound.
Getting back to quasars.
I have several battery operated lanterns run on 3 AA batteries as well
as flashlights run on 3 AA batteries.
Stars are for the most part, say 99.99% of them are lantern type
stars. But, could we not configure a star, a natural shining star that
its radiation is more like a flashlight beam concentrated or better
yet, a laser beam? My cat laser toy, if I recall is 3 AA batteries. I
need to examine it, to see if it has a parabolic mirror to focus the
light beam. Now I do realize that stars are globe or sphere shaped and
that they have no
parabolic reflector surrounding them. But can we envision where a star
does simulate the laser beam?
Because the laser beam comes from the Maxwell Equations and is not a
contradiction of the Maxwell Equations. But junk science or science
fiction of black-holes is a violation of the Maxwell Equations.
So, here, today, we have pulsars and quasars and the Maxwell
Equations. We cannot violate the equations and so we must find an
explanation of pulsars and quasars keeping with the equations.
We do not care about greed fame and limelight and prizes. We care only
that we have the Maxwell Equations as axioms never violated and that
they will deliver the real truth.
--
Google's archives are top-heavy in hate-spew from search-engine-
bombing. Only Drexel's Math Forum has done a excellent, simple and
fair archiving of AP posts for the past 15 years as seen here:
http://mathforum.org/kb/profile.jspa?userID=499986
Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
|
|
|
|
