- Fatima - Bad News and Good News - the latter provi...
- Panthéisme ? Non. Trinité ? Oui.
- Do not support World Childhood Foundation!
- Hans-Georg Gadamer was of the "Frankfurter Schule"...
- A Relevant Quote from J. R. R. Tolkien
- Sur le concept de l'ésotérique et sur les sociétés secrètes
- In Case Someone Thinks I am Preaching ...
- Would Gay Marriage Allow them an Authentic Life?
- Malfaisance de "Sécurité"
- Have I Done Ill Speaking Against the Real Pope a F...
- Drodzy Polacy - i Rosjanie itd.
- Vatican in Exile : Calendar and Marian Anthems
- Code ASCII et James Bond
Tuesday, 6 December 2016
Neutron Stars - a Geocentric Minority Report
Intermingling own observations with the data I glean from the two wiki articles:
400 ly - 1 light day : 146097 reduction of every dimension
424 light years - light day : somewhat greater reduction, if needed?
It is considered a very old pulsar with an estimated age of 166 million years and a rotation period of 0.8 seconds.
No actual size given, but I think the "apparent sizes" were comparable, and so are the distances considered as correct.
A rotation period of 0.8 seconds does fit a bit better with an object of 1 dm diameter than an object of 14 km diameter, right?
What were the apparent magnitudes again?
RX J1856.5-3754 : ~25.6
PSR J0108-1431 : ≤ 27.8
If apparent magnitudes are comparable, the real ones would also be comparable in the sphere of the fixed stars. And if apparent magnitudes are comparable and false "parallax calculated" distances are comparable, then calculated "real magnitudes" would also be comparable.
In other words, both objects would have a size about 1 dm in diameter.
And if an object has a rotation period of 0.8 seconds, 1 dm in diameter gives a vastly different approach to its energy than 14 km in diameter.
A magisterial example of how false assumptions about distances can give us false conclusions about the nature of a thing - not unlike the false assumptions evolutionists do about ages.
Hans Georg Lundahl
St Nicolas of Myra