What is it then, vapourous, gaseous, fluid, flexible, bouncy? And a supplemental question - what are the chances, in the unimaginable vastness of the universe, of one neutron star finding another neutron star to bump- into?
Actually , they aren't terrible odds, in dense, star forming regions. The nearest star to us may be 4 light years away, but in dense star clusters, the stars can become an often are as close to each other as our solar system is wide. And once two very dense objects get about that close to one another, they can start to orbit each other. Then, the orbit degrades over time, and the objects combine. Perhaps one binary system member is a white dwarf, and the other a main sequence star .The dwarf can devour the other star, turning itself into a neutron star. Now that neutron star finds another formerly-married-but-ate-my-partner neutron star, and true love ensues. In this way, dense star clusters inevitably produce such collisions. They are "selected for" in this environment.
But the impact would cause them to disintegrate not meld together as a single entity? Am I really needing to point that out? I think we should wait to read what tecoyah has to say to my post 26?
A fast impact might, yes. But, slow impacts? These impacts are happening at all speeds, when planets form. What happens when you knock a dirt clod against another dirt clod? The lighter or softer dirt clod leaves behind some material on the larger or harder dirt clod, and the rest of the the softer/lighter breaks up. And so on and so forth, until a dirt clod or two is (are) big enough to generate strong gravity, and the ejected material from softer or lighter dirt clods knocking against these big, hard dirt clods starts to, instead of flying outward into space, fall back inward on the larger dirt clod(s). And so on and so forth, until you have a rocky planet that has all but cleared its neighborhood.
As for neutron stars colliding -- which event, mind you, ejects a lot material sometimes, and then just leaves a single body behind, showing that you are right to expect material to be ejected -- this is not really a high speed collision, though it is extremely high in energy involved/released. Have you ever watched an animation of two massive bodies combining in this way?
Thank you, but what about the supplemental question - what are the chances of two neutron/plasma stars colliding in the vastness of the universe, do you think? And if they did, what would be the chances that someone in one of the space agencies just happening to notice an event which happened in less time than the blink of an eye? I think it would so incalculably unlikely as to be unrealistic, and with those odds in mind, if someone declared they had actually witnessed it I'd call them a liar.
Hmmmm...Trillins of galaxies with hundreds of Billions of stars interacting quadrillions of times over Billion of years and innumerable hours of observation by thousands of computers tied to hundreds of telescopes....uh...yeah, what are the chances? The collision did not happen in "The Blink of an Eye".....it is a process and residual effects last for quite some time.
Talk about bigging it up? But then these ridiculous superlatives do seem to impress the gullibles. And you know this how?? Have you seen one with your own eyes, or is it something you read somewhere? It can only be one or the other? So which is it?
How do you know they're not putting their own spin on something? Like, Alex Jones, with "gay bombs" turning frogs gay.
I guess I'm just weird in that I read what other people who have the time and resources (scientists) produce to figure stuff out. I guess I just submit to my gullible nature like people have done for thousands of years and use this false data to pretend I is all smart an stuff.
Time, resources, and a long-term self-serving agenda? I'm getting the impression that you're all theorum (and I compliment you on it, actually) but no 'hands-on' (The Don won't approve of my quote commas - lol) experience? Am I right, or am I right?
You wouldn't know this but the UK tabloid press is a dumbed-down waste of the earth's precious timberland resources. A waste of paper, in other words.
Admittedly and stated I am not a scientist. I have never been to space or handled plasma beyond toys. Where you and I differ in this is my acceptance of data and minimal experience with experimentation which has verified many basics explained by science. All scientist have an inherent "Self Serving Agenda" just as we all do.
I liken it to the science of medicine, where the clever practitioners go into the physical specialties where skills and results are tangible, and the useless ones go into psychiatry, where everything is trial-and-error/hit-and-miss until they accidentally stumble upon something that works.
In a way ALL science is trial and error, however many fields rely on hypothesis and thought experiment to reach conclusions that can be tested and verified/debunked. This is how discovery is made and theory developed which allows for further exploration and knowledge. It seems to me you do not allow this process to be incorporated into your personal understanding which severely limits the ability to grasp many things.
As I have said many times previously, I have no problem with scientific experimentation - I quite understand how the various sciences have progressed and spectacularly succeeded because of it. What I actually 'fail to grasp' (legit quotation commas this time, The Don, if you're tuned in? lol) is that whilst I imagine that some benefits have been gained, and still are, thanks to the global space industry - and I should jolly well hope so too, remembering the prodigious amount of our taxes that are being used for it? . . . Where was I? Oh yeah . . . what I fail to grasp is that so many otherwise intelligent individuals, yourself included, can't see through all the peripheral hyperbole and outrageous space-babble spinning of this particular 'science' - and I'm talking about the space agencies, not the dumbed-down nonsense from the media: after all, the media isn't making up this crap, they're merely sensationalising it.
From that one defensively puerile sentence I get the impression I've finally brought you around to my way of thinking. My work here is done!
