you are running way before you can walk here. I noticed your posts on another forum where I saw you asking the most basic of questions about even how stars can explode yet you came on here with a "paper" about positing 3 supernovae for SN1987A.
Also in starting this thread you list several topics hinting that you can refute several well known topics in supernovae physics and the like.
How can you even begin to do this if you are asking, on another forum, rudimentary things like how can a star explode?
Your post here that I am replying to again shows you have not possibly researched this suject at all - but in spite of this you claim to be able to set the astronophysics community straight.
I really recommend you get a basic astrophysics/astronomy text and slowly work through it before writing papers that, to quote someone on the other forum descried that
This is such a profound misinterpretation of the observational data and facts that I am a bit perturbed at being hooked into reading it.
Think about what you said:
I do not think that the crab pulsar is a rotating neutron star. Why should a rotating neutron star produce a magnetic field?
However, a rotating normal non-degenerate star can produce a magnetic field. Due to high temperatures, we would expect ionized atoms. The rotating ionized atoms are like a huge electrical current. From Ampere's law, an electric current produces a magnetic field.
Rotating neutrons which are electrically neutral, shouldn't create a magnetic field.
When a star collapses - what happens to it's magnetic field strength? Since flux will be basically conserved and the surface area has dropped by many orders of magnitude the field strength increases by this factor. Hence a neutron star is born with a huge field strength.
A neutron star is not just neutrons, if it was it would decay rapidly. The electrical conductivity of a neutron star is quite high. Irrespective of this the initial field would take a long time to decay but since it is very condcutive and rotating fast a dynamo is probably operating anyway which makes the decay pretty slow at worst.
Also Sirius B is extremely weak in X-rays compared to a neutron star.
The Crab pulsar puts out about 100,000 times the solar luminosity - a lot of this is X-ray flux. Sirius B is about the luminosity of the Sun in total - most of which is UV flux. There is no comparison here.
Your lack of basic knowledge is leading you to assumptions and extrapolations that are not only unwarranted they are foolish.
As I said - learn to walk before attempting to run.
This message has been edited by Eta_Carinae, 04-02-2005 02:48 PM