Supernovae

but that does not make it so.We see the pulsar.

in a paragraph or so state your problems with convetional astronomy/astrophysics with points 2), 3) & 4) in your list.thanksThis message has been edited by Eta_Carinae, 04-01-2005 10:24 AM

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 Think about what you said: 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

See what I mean. Your knowledge is lacking on even something this basic. Yet you've gone ahead and written a paper trashing all the observational efforts of professionals on SN1987A without basic knowledge. Don't you think the efforts of several hundreds (to a few thousand) professional researchers might have come up with your attempts if there was validity in them. Especially in light of the fact that the neutrinos from SN1987A are probably the most analysed small data set in the history of human science.Nothing good is going to come of this. Astronomy/astrophysics is a wonderful rich subject but it takes time to master or even become conversant with. Jumping into criticism without a grounding in the basic physics is not the way to go about it.