Gamma ray bursts fully explained

[granpa]

Gamma ray bursts fully explained:
The explosion is driven by the energy in the gravitational field when the material becomes massless! (100% mass defect!)

A "neutron" star is >11.5 km in radius. This is <6900 times smaller than Jupiter. 
     This is what would be expected if it were made entirely of material with atomic mass<13800
It's also possible that the neutron star has a dense core of atomic mass 16384 surrounded by a material of atomic mass 8192.
atomic mass 8192
     atomic number: 1215
     Density: 2.35 * 10^14 g/cm^3 
     Pressure: 3.1 * 10^28 bar
atomic mass 16384
     atomic number 1808
     Density: 1.55 * 10^15 g/cm^3 
     Pressure: 3.35 * 10^29 bar
Atomic mass as a function of atomic number:
     atomic mass = (Atomic number)^2/256 + 2 * atomic number + x (x goes rapidly to zero after element 96)
Surface gravity
     G * (density g/cm^3 ) * (4/3) * 3.14159 * (radius km) in g = 9.4 * 10^10 g
Pressure at top of dense core:
    0.5 * 11 km * (3.1 * 10^14 g/cm^3) * (9.4 * 10^10 ) * (9.8 m/sec^2) in bar = 1.5 * 10^28 bar
The density of a neutron star = 3 * 10^14 g/cm^3 
Gravitational binding energy of a neutron star is one tenth of its rest Mass
     3 * G * (1 solar mass)^2/(5 * 10 km) = 0.1 solar mass

A typical Quasar emits 1 solar mass of energy per year. The biggest emit 100 times more.
Over a billion years about 10^10 solar masses. 
Thats the gravitational binding energy of a 100,000 solar mass 900 meter neutron star.
     ( 3 * G * (10^5 solar mass)^2/(5 * 900 m))/c^2
If the quasar is made of element 65,536 (7.55 * 10^22 bar)  with atomic mass 16,777,216 (2^6 in size) then it would be expected to be 9 meters and 0.122 solar masses.
     The density might be 10,000 times less than expected due to the mass defect.
     That would allow it to be 100 times bigger therefore 10 solar masses but with the active gravitational mass of 100,000 solar masses
The last 10 solar masses might be released in the final gamma ray burst. 
     The resulting material would be massless and unaffected by gravity.
     Being massless it would explode outward releasing the energy stored in the gravitational field (10^10 solar masses) and turning itself into a 2 dimensional sheet.

The sheets kinetic energy is converted to matter and antimatter.
The final size of the sheet might be around 1000 au.
     Surface area: 10^22 times earth surface area
It does not emit light even at extremely high temperatures. 
     It does however emit considerable thermal energy as gravity waves.
The final orbitals may well be infinitely incompressible.

All matter within the sheet is attracted very strongly toward a remarkably flat central plane. 
     Very much like a liquid membrane. 
It is as though there were a tiny drop of liquid at the very center of every proton or neutron.
     The strong force pulls everything (matter or antimatter) toward the surface membrane of that drop. 
     When the final core collapse occurs all of these liquid drops merge into one giant drop. 
     The entire core of the quasar now finds itself inside one giant drop. 
The sheet ends up only one particle thick with the particles straddling the fluid membrane and therefore experiencing zero force,
Left to itself the fluid forms a very nearly perfect sphere.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_binding_energy#Mass_defect
 

This means that like repels like for active gravitational mass just as it does for electric charges.

 

Passive gravitational mass on the other hand does the opposite of what one would expect and completely changes the nature of gravity

[swansont]

Do you have evidence and/or a model for the existence of active gravitational mass?

 

Do you have evidence and/or a model for the existence of an element with such a large atomic number? How would that element be formed?

 

How does a system with that high of a density not undergo the reaction that combines electrons with protons to form neutrons?

 

 
     The resulting material would be massless and unaffected by gravity.

 

Gravity affects photons.

[granpa]

The only affect gravity has on photons is time dilation

[Strange]

The only affect gravity has on photons is time dilation

 

 

And changing the path. Perhaps you have heard of "gravitational lensing".

[granpa]

Evidence for active gravitational Mass? The evidence is gravitational fields. As for like repelling like that is the normal expected behavior for any field who's energy density is proportional to the square of the field strength. Combining two particles doubles the field strength and multiplies the energy by 4. When the two particles repel energy is released. It is passive gravitational mass that is weird

 

Evidence for large atomic mass:

 

A "neutron" star is >11.5 km in radius. This is <6900 times smaller than Jupiter.

This is what would be expected if it were made entirely of material with atomic mass<13800

And changing the path. Perhaps you have heard of "gravitational lensing".

Yes. Due to time dilation. That was the point. Are you deaf?

Edited September 24, 2016 by granpa

[Strange]

Yes. Due to time dilation. That was the point. Are you deaf?

 

 

Interesting. I have never heard it related to the dilation before. Can you provide a reference to an explanation of that?

[swansont]

 

 

Interesting. I have never heard it related to the dilation before. Can you provide a reference to an explanation of that?

 

 

Shapiro delay can be explained in terms of time dilation. Or in terms of the path length, I think, similar to how two different observers see SR effects in terms of one or the other.

[wayne_m]

Due to time dilation

 

 

Interesting idea. As a wave, the photon would approach and retreat from the gravity source, and as it gets closer, travels more slowly, and as it retreats, more quickly. Within the effect, from the photon's frame of reference, it would not change speed, but from the outside, the effect would be observed.

 

But the gravity would have to be pretty intense to have such a differential effect at the scale of the wavelength of observable light. We see it in much less intense gravity fields, so it is probably not the explanation.

[swansont]

Evidence for active gravitational Mass? The evidence is gravitational fields. As for like repelling like that is the normal expected behavior for any field who's energy density is proportional to the square of the field strength. Combining two particles doubles the field strength and multiplies the energy by 4. When the two particles repel energy is released. It is passive gravitational mass that is weird

Whichever the new one is you're proposing. One mass does not repel another mass. What is your evidence that this happens?

 

Evidence for large atomic mass:

 

A "neutron" star is >11.5 km in radius. This is <6900 times smaller than Jupiter.

This is what would be expected if it were made entirely of material with atomic mass<13800

That's your conjecture. I want the independent evidence that supports it, and/or a model somehow based on accepted physics that says it's possible.

[granpa]

That's your conjecture.

no. thats what the equation says

 

pressure at which an orbital becomes degenerate = 1/radius^6

 

 

thats why all brown dwarfs are the same size

[wayne_m]

A somewhat more likely explanation is space contraction. I don't know off-hand how it relates to time dilation, but spatial contraction is the explanation for why the planet mercury is moving "too fast" in its current orbit.

If space contracts, its density would change, and just as with any change of density, it would refract light.
So maybe refraction is the answer, rather than gravitic attraction? It would answer the question of how a massless particle could be affected by gravity.
But it would pretty much require that there be something in empty space that has "density" that changes when it contracts. I've never heard anyone propose that sort of thing.

 

Path length might work - Since light cannot exceed c objectively, if the path inside a gravity field is shorter due to contraction, it would have to emerge from the field having traveled an internal distance that would be equal to the chord distance across the field for the angle at which it entered. Thus, it would have to change angle until the chord (or arc) inside the field was of equal length to the chord line from the objective frame of reference. Thus, gravity would not have to act directly on the photon to make it curve.

[granpa]

 

 

The size of a brown dwaef or neutron star is a function of atomic mass only

[MigL]

No, white ( and brown ) dwarf stars have the same upper size limit.

Determined by degeneracy factors.

See Chandrashekar limit.

Edited September 24, 2016 by MigL

[granpa]

http://beyondearthlyskies.blogspot.com/2015/07/classifying-planets-brown-dwarfs-stars.html

 

[swansont]

no. thats what the equation says

 

 

 

Your conjecture is that there is a nucleus of atomic mass 16384 (or whatever). You need to post evidence of that, and/or that the equation has validity above a value of a few hundred. You have used Z = 1215 and 1808. We've not seen anything past 120.

[granpa]

You demand evidence and then ignore it when it's presented.

 

I assumed you would be able to figure it out yourself but since you evidently can't I will explain it to you.

Active gravitational mass is mass that actively creates a gravitational field. It is the equivalent of charge.

Passive gravitational mass does not create a gravitational field but it is affected by it.

 

I did not invent either concept. Both are old ideas.

[Strange]

I did not invent either concept. Both are old ideas.

 

 

Then you should have no problem providing a reference.

[Sensei]

Atomic mass as a function of atomic number:

atomic mass = (Atomic number)^2/256 + 2 * atomic number + x (x goes rapidly to zero after element 96)

You are making up these things by yourself, don't you?

 

Take for example

H-1, atomic number (Z) = 1, mass number (A) = 1

your "equation" tells 1^2/256 + 2*1 = 2.00390625

but should be A=1,m=1.00784..

Then it's wrong, isn't?

 

Take for example

Fe-56, atomic number (Z) = 26, mass number (A) = 56

your "equation" tells 26^2/256 + 2*26 = 54.640625

but should be A=56,m=55.9349 (Fe-54 has 53.9396)..

Then it's wrong, isn't?

 

Countless, countless other examples you can create.

Simply put the all 3142 isotopes in OpenOffice SpreadSheet and make column with your equation taking Z and A as arguments..

Edited September 24, 2016 by Sensei

[granpa]

Well of course the equation isn't exact. Have you ever seen a graph of the Isotopes?

 

 

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:NuclideMap_stitched_small_preview.png#mw-jump-to-license

 

[Sensei]

Well of course the equation isn't exact. Have you ever seen a graph of the Isotopes?

I made several applications which have the all 3142 isotopes database (made by me),

and calculating decay energy, and decay mode, energy released during fusion, neutrino capture (telling which material is good for neutrino detector), how much energy you need to spend on destroying nucleus, etc. etc.,

of every single isotope, with precision to few eV...

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/83451-radioactive-decay-and-information-split-from-what-is-real-in-physics/?p=808281

 

 

Such graph, I am generating in the real-time from db, with the all information. f.e. highlight just isotopes decaying by double electron capture.

Edited September 24, 2016 by Sensei

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

Granpa

 

You will not get another warning on any of the below matters

 

1. Stop being so rude - if you cannot answer questions without appending insults to members then you will endup suspended

2. When a reference is asked for it is not sufficient to say it is obvious, or just post your own work, etc.; members are looking for outside citations

3. Try to accept that you might not have a fast-track to all human wisdom - in the last few threads you have been making out-landish claims with the only back-up being your own work and misunderstood graphs and wikipedia articles

 

Do not respond to this moderation other than via the reporting system

 

[granpa]

God hath spoken

[swansont]

You demand evidence and then ignore it when it's presented.

What experiment has shown an element with Z>120?

 

I assumed you would be able to figure it out yourself but since you evidently can't I will explain it to you.

Active gravitational mass is mass that actively creates a gravitational field. It is the equivalent of charge.

Passive gravitational mass does not create a gravitational field but it is affected by it.

 

I did not invent either concept. Both are old ideas.

I can't find any mainstream references to repulsive passive mass. According to GR, inertial, active gravitational and passive gravitational mass are the same thing. So you are, in fact, proposing a new (i.e. non-mainstream) concept when you say that there is repulsion.

[granpa]

Repulsive passive gravitational Mass?

This means that like repels like for active gravitational mass just as it does for electric charges.

Passive gravitational mass on the other hand does the opposite of what one would expect and completely changes the nature of gravity

Gamma ray bursts fully explained: The explosion is driven by the energy in the gravitational field when the mass defect (nuclear binding energy) reaches 100%.

100% mass defect means that 100% of the passive gravitational mass (inertia) has been converted to energy.

Passive gravitational mass causes like to attract like.

Without it all that is left is active gravitational mass and like repels like just as it does for electric charge so the quasar explodes in a grb.

 

 

Ordinary matter has both active and passive gravitational Mass. But the passive gravitational Mass dominates.

[swansont]

Repulsive passive gravitational Mass?

You tell me.

 

This means that like repels like for active gravitational mass just as it does for electric charges.

But then you say passive is the one that acts weird. I took that to mean you had gotten something backward in your post.

 

Gravitational mass is attractive. If you claim otherwise, you need to present evidence of it.