An Exploded Star - the Crab Nebula

.
The Crab Nebula has long been a favorite of mine.

In a not unrelated subject - how sound is created, combining waves, Cr6 asked, Can you see the charge field?

I can't exactly say I see the charge field, but after not having looked at the Crab Nebula for a few years, it's more beautiful than ever.
 
Astronomy Picture of the Day, APOD 2015 August 16
https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap150816.html
M1: The Crab Nebula from Hubble


Image Credit: NASA, ESA, J. Hester, A. Loll (ASU)

Explanation: This is the mess that is left when a star explodes. The Crab Nebula, the result of a supernova seen in 1054 AD, is filled with mysterious filaments. The filaments are not only tremendously complex, but appear to have less mass than expelled in the original supernova and a higher speed than expected from a free explosion. The featured image, taken by the Hubble Space Telescope, is presented in three colors chosen for scientific interest. The Crab Nebula spans about 10 light-years. In the nebula's very center lies a pulsar: a neutron star as massive as the Sun but with only the size of a small town. The Crab Pulsar rotates about 30 times each second.

APOD 2016 July 8
https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap160708.html
The Swirling Core of the Crab Nebula

Image Credit: NASA, ESA - Acknowledgment: J. Hester (ASU), M. Weisskopf (NASA / MSFC)

Explanation: At the core of the Crab Nebula lies a city-sized, magnetized neutron star spinning 30 times a second. Known as the Crab Pulsar, it's actually the rightmost of two bright stars, just below a central swirl in this stunning Hubble snapshot of the nebula's core. Some three light-years across, the spectacular picture frames the glowing gas, cavities and swirling filaments bathed in an eerie blue light. The blue glow is visible radiation given off by electrons spiraling in a strong magnetic field at nearly the speed of light. Like a cosmic dynamo the pulsar powers the emission from the nebula, driving a shock wave through surrounding material and accelerating the spiraling electrons. With more mass than the Sun and the density of an atomic nucleus, the spinning pulsar is the collapsed core of a massive star that exploded. The Crab Nebula is the expanding remnant of the star's outer layers. The supernova explosion was witnessed on planet Earth in the year 1054.
.

I just love this nebula! It's among my favorites, as well.

In the article though, we have more ineptitude and mystery here, cloaked in the official jargon and misdirection.

It's pretty well-established that neutron stars don't exist and are purely fictional, just like black holes. Neutrons have a mean decay time of under 15 minutes outside the nucleus - something Mathis has explained where all others previously failed. It's being despun by the ambient charge field. We could likely test this if we were able to toss some free neutrons around out past Neptune or something - my guess is they might live a bit longer, given less ambient charge out there. In no known circumstances would free neutrons be magically stable, however. There would always be some decay or despin.

But the logical conundrums don't even start there. We have an initial star (presumably, since they said "supernova") exploding, due to whatever reason (they don't say, can't say). It blasts off a great deal of its mass, ejecting it out to become the matter we're seeing as the nebula itself. Yet the remaining object is somehow denser and more massive?

Then we have this denser, more massive object that allegedly just shed much or most of its mass but then somehow gained more mass magically from nowhere spinning at nearly relativistic speed? What's keeping these free neutrons together, given that much centrifugal force? Gravity, somehow intensified by the quantity of so-called neutronium?

What caused the spin? An explosion wouldn't (necessarily) cause spin. An explosion is a motion out, of course. An out-vector. Perhaps they're thinking that the star which supernovaed isn't the same guy as the "pulsar". And that maybe the supernova caused the pulsar to spin up? But they don't say that, and indeed say the opposite.

"With more mass than the Sun and the density of an atomic nucleus, the spinning pulsar is the collapsed core of a massive star that exploded."

.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crab_Nebula

Hi Jared, glad we agree, it’s a great image. It screams “dynamo” to me. I think we also agree that it was probably caused by a two body collision.

I posted, but paid little attention to the “explanations” and didn’t offer any objective commentary, just enjoying the view. The bare facts, if we can accept them: The Crab Nebula is one of the highest energy objects in our sky, occasionally emitting what are referred to as superflares. Most of the material comprising the original star’s body was torn off in a supposed supernova, yet a thousand years later the nebula shows a seemingly intact, high energy (x-ray emissions) rotating region as well as a central star about 5 miles in radius, spinning 30 times a second. I’ll give them credit, they admit readily enough, they can’t explain it. Given the charge field, we should be able interpret it better than they can.

We haven’t discovered any charged particles larger than a proton, but the rules governing charge recycling through charged particles extend throughout the scales of the universe, including planets and suns. Unless there was some sort of incredible flux in the charge field, we may assume the Crab nebula was probably the result of a collision between two such masses. The star was stripped of its outer spins, revealing its spinning core. The other object may have evolved into the pulsar. One star or two, we know that the charge channeled by the masses before the collision is still (many lightyears away of course) channeling through the nebula.

I’d need to study the facts quite a good deal more, I’ve never seen motion images that I’m sure must exist.
.

I rather disagree, actually. Or more accurately I remain agnostic here. We can only make assumptions about what caused the supernova to form a nebula and the "pulsar" may be completely unrelated to the supernova. They had no telescopes of note 1,000 years ago, that we're aware of. It wasn't until 500 years later that they even had 'scopes as powerful as my binoculars (35x optical zoom).

And the distances? They've admitted they were off by at least 15% in all their distance measurements recently, or rather stubbornly didn't admit it but Mathis exposed it anyway. The article itself says the nebular matter is moving faster than it should be, so we have a flag right there as well.Could it be... 15% faster? Or 85%, perhaps?

From the Wiki on the Crab Pulsar:

The Crab Pulsar is one of very few pulsars to be identified optically. The optical pulsar is roughly 20 kilometres (12 mi) in diameter and the pulsar "beams" rotate once every 33 milliseconds, or 30 times each second.^[3] The outflowing relativistic wind from the neutron star generates synchrotron emission, which produces the bulk of the emission from the nebula, seen from radio waves through to gamma rays. The most dynamic feature in the inner part of the nebula is the point where the pulsar's equatorial wind slams into the surrounding nebula, forming a termination shock. The shape and position of this feature shifts rapidly, with the equatorial wind appearing as a series of wisp-like features that steepen, brighten, then fade as they move away from the pulsar into the main body of the nebula. The period of the pulsar's rotation is slowing by 38 nanoseconds per day due to the large amounts of energy carried away in the pulsar wind.^[8]

So the pulsar's rotation speed would have dropped .6 milliseconds since discovery alone, and if we factor in the thousand years since the supernova (and assume a connection between the two), it would have been rotating terrifically faster back then.

How do we know it's 20 km across? We're looking at imagery that's allegedly 3 light years across, and the object is huge, and yet somehow Hubble is able to extrapolate at a resolution far, far smaller than even a pixel would be, even with its optical camera resolutions?



Here's an animation of the "pulsar" pulsing. Yet somehow it's the same optical size as it's neighbor, the north Crab star?

Astronomers then searched for the nebula's central star. There were two candidates, referred to in the literature as the "north following" and "south preceding" stars. In September 1942, Walter Baade ruled out the "north following" star, but found the evidence inconclusive for the "south preceding" star.^[9] Rudolf Minkowski, in the same issue of The Astrophysical Journal as Baade, advanced spectral arguments claiming that the "evidence admits, but does not prove, the conclusion that the south preceding star is the central star of the nebula".^[10]

So they have no argument for either star, basically. Walter just "ruled out" the north one, then said the south one was inconclusive. And how does evidence "admit" anything? Minkowski was always the idiot.

But it gets even worse. The main assertion that the pulsar is anything important at all comes from LIE-GO. No shit. I can't even make this stuff up.

The Crab Pulsar was the first pulsar for which the spin-down limit was broken using several months of data of the LIGO observatory. Most pulsars do not rotate at constant rotation frequency, but can be observed to slow down at a very slow rate (3.7e-10 Hz/s in case of the Crab). This spin-down can be explained as a loss of rotation energy due to various mechanisms. The spin-down limit is a theoretical upper limit of the amplitude of gravitational waves that a pulsar can emit, assuming that all the losses in energy are converted to gravitational waves. No gravitational waves being observed at the expected amplitude and frequency (after correcting for the expected Doppler shift) is therefore a proof that other mechanisms must be responsible for the loss in energy. The non-observation so far is not totally unexpected, since physical models of the rotational symmetry of pulsars puts a more realistic upper limit on the amplitude of gravitational waves several orders of magnitude below the spin-down limit. It is hoped that with the improvement of the sensitivity of gravitational wave instruments and the use of longer stretches of data, gravitational waves emitted by pulsars will be observed in future.^[19] The only other pulsar for which the spin-down limit was broken so far is the Vela Pulsar.

So LIE-GO can assume all the losses in energy are due to gravity waves, but somehow couldn't use use the fucking Crab Pulsar to detect them? They had to contrive some farcical black holes "colliding" billions of light years away, when instead they could have just used the fucking Crab Pulsar? Ridiculous.

To sum up my argument against the mainstream:

1. We know absolutely jack shit about this pulsar star, and everything asserted in the mainstream is either fake, illogical, or retarded. Or outright lies. They don't even know how large it is, or how far away. Or how far away from the nebula it is, for that matter. It could be well in front of it or well behind it, as we've seen in other situations of interstellar distance. Any connection is inferred.

2. The nebula most likely came from the supernova. I have no problem with that, but who was sitting around looking up at that spot in the sky prior? Could the nebula not have been there, simply unlit properly for observation, prior?

3. Neutron stars don't exist and are purely fictional, and this pulsar cannot be one any more than it could be a black hole or an ancient dragon Highlord or God's light. We can know jack shit about it but still deduce many things that it is not or cannot be. It's not me, and it's not you for example. We can be fairly certain of these deductions for obvious reasons.

.

Jared wrote. I rather disagree, actually. Or more accurately I remain agnostic here. We can only make assumptions about what caused the supernova to form a nebula and the "pulsar" may be completely unrelated to the supernova. They had no telescopes of note 1,000 years ago, that we're aware of. It wasn't until 500 years later that they even had 'scopes as powerful as my binoculars (35x optical zoom).

Airman. All we have is what we’ve seen over the last couple hundred years or so. Any explanation requires assumptions. The mainstream (m/s) assumes that the Crab Nebula formed from a stellar explosion. Is that idea consistent with the charge field? No it is not, from the charge field perspective, particles don’t explode, they collide.

Are there any m/s theories supporting a stellar collision here? Please correct me if I’m wrong, old stars die and form nebulae. Nebulae, a source of hydrogen, are usually star birthing zones for the next generation of stars. Stars don’t collide so much as aggregate to form larger bodies and stable mature systems in the ongoing evolution of star systems. I don’t recall any m/s evidence of stellar collisions. I would expect plenty of visible evidence, a significant number of collision events in our sky, it just seems to be missing from the list of m/s assumptions.

Remain as agnostic as you like, the simplest charge field assumption is that the Crab Nebula was formed by the collision of two stars. The very unusual, highly energetic central pulsar is consistent with that idea.

Jared wrote. And the distances? They've admitted they were off by at least 15% in all their distance measurements recently, or rather stubbornly didn't admit it but Mathis exposed it anyway. The article itself says the nebular matter is moving faster than it should be, so we have a flag right there as well.Could it be... 15% faster? Or 85%, perhaps?

Airman. As seen from the Earth, the crab nebula is still expanding, about a third the diameter of the moon. It lies above Orion’s head, within his arm’s reach. Large enough to see with your binoculars, but not very well. 6,500 light years, give or take 85% makes no difference to the discussion, how the two stars collided or not.

…

Jared wrote. So the pulsar's rotation speed would have dropped .6 milliseconds since discovery alone, and if we factor in the thousand years since the supernova (and assume a connection between the two), it would have been rotating terrifically faster back then.

Airman. Maybe, but there’s no reason to expect the rate to just diminish constantly over time. Later in this post you refer to the Crab breaking the spin-down limit, is this related to that, the change of the pulsar pulse rate? In any case, one must assume that the pulsar rate varies with the changes in local galactic charge density that the pulsar channels. I suppose that rate would change slowly over the last 1,000 years.

Jared wrote. How do we know it's 20 km across?
…
Ridiculous.

To sum up my argument against the mainstream:

1. We know absolutely jack shit about this pulsar star, and everything asserted in the mainstream is either fake, illogical, or retarded. Or outright lies. They don't even know how large it is, or how far away. Or how far away from the nebula it is, for that matter. It could be well in front of it or well behind it, as we've seen in other situations of interstellar distance. Any connection is inferred.

Airman. Fair enough, although you’re painting with broad strokes, I find it difficult to disagree with your arguments against the m/s.

Jared wrote. 2. The nebula most likely came from the supernova. I have no problem with that, but who was sitting around looking up at that spot in the sky prior? Could the nebula not have been there, simply unlit properly for observation, prior?

Airman. It seems a bit strange, one would expect more than just the three or so known recorded observations of the crab nebula over the first hundred years, maybe the event wasn’t as anywhere near bright as the m/s believes.

Jared wrote. 3. Neutron stars don't exist and are purely fictional, and this pulsar cannot be one any more than it could be a black hole or an ancient dragon Highlord or God's light. We can know jack shit about it but still deduce many things that it is not or cannot be. It's not me, and it's not you for example. We can be fairly certain of these deductions for obvious reasons.

Airman. I don’t believe in Neutron stars either, but that’s only because of my understanding of the charge field, for the reasons you've mentioned. While it’s likely some exotic star stuff may exist out there, I have no real problem agreeing with your arguments against the m/s; however, before dismissing all the m/s assertions, try arguing for our preferred alternative, a charge field solution.
.

Thank you, Airman, for your consistent assertions here and on other topics. I tend to have a bitter, angry edge towards the mainstream as a consequence of being lied to, duped, and condescended to by "them" my entire life. It makes me apt to dismiss anything they propose, out of hand, immediately. Not very scientific of me. Your neutrality helps me take the edge off of things, at least internally. I strive to be less impassioned about polemics.

I agree with everything you stated in the last post.

The more I think about stars colliding, the more interesting and potentially devastating the concept becomes. Is it possible that most or even all "supernova" events come from such collisions? Is that a more likely scenario - two great charge entities meeting and trading energies, often with the demolition of one or both, perhaps - than the alleged and unproven "lifespan of a star" that we all grew up with from the mainstream?

Given a star in a relatively calm or consistent charge field, what would cause it to supernova? Only charge flux should be able to cause such an event. The star would have to be bombarded by an extreme amount or change in charge, it seems to me.

The "lifespan of a star" has been based solely off deduction, not science, by the mainstream (they have not tested it and have no way to test their theories yet, and they of course have never made a star and measured it from start to supernova).

I find your theory interesting, so would like to paraphrase to see if I'm reading you how you intended:

Two stars collided, one becoming the nebula after obliteration and one becoming the pulsar we now see.

.
Two stars collided, one becoming the nebula after obliteration and one becoming the pulsar we now see.

I agree, that's a perfectly valid charge field model, a good starting point for discussions, that is, until you come up with something better.

Thanks for being so reasonable, I was afraid the m/s broke ya.
.

I have a really hard time with stuff like this because the media they present us with is, to me, very highly suspect. To be clear, almost every photograph or dataset we've seen from NASA and co. is very, very easily faked. I'm pretty deep into the CGI world and it's often quite easy to replicate these photos of nebulae, or just about anything else we've seen. So I'm skeptical, very much so.

We've seen evidence of this in other areas as well, when looking for photographs of various events or topics. There either aren't any or the entire search engine is weighted towards "artist's renditions" or outright CGI. I find the same thing when looking up "stellar collision" or "stars colliding". There are only one or two actual photos available in such a search - if we're lucky.

In this search, only the third image is a photo, and it's not necessarily such a collision at all:

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=stars+colliding+photo&atb=v93-2&iar=images&iax=images&ia=images

Google is even worse, generally. But lack of any photography isn't lack of collisions of course, which would still be much more rare than binaries or solitaries or anything else. It's just... Fishy. So I researched the topic further.

From https://www.universetoday.com/107244/can-stars-collide/ we get one scenario:

The Milky Way mostly has multiple star systems. Several stars can be orbiting a common center of gravity. Many are great distances, but some can have orbits tighter than the planets around our Sun.


When one star reaches the end of its life, expanding into a red giant, It can consume its binary partner. The consumed star then strips away 90% of the mass of the red giant, leaving behind a rapidly pulsating remnant.

That seems to fit our hypothesis, for the most part.

From some douchebags on Vox.com we get a prediction, but not much else and no data or photography. They even claim to have witnessed one such collision, but give us nothing else to go on.

How do astronomers know these stars could collide?

Scientists have never predicted a binary star system collision. (A binary star system is a solar system that has two stars that orbit one another. Think of the double sunset in the original Star Wars.) But they have seen them before, and have partial data on what the systems look like in the years before a collision.


In 2008, Romuald Tylenda, a Polish astronomer, observed such an explosion. Shortly after, Tylenda realized, by coincidence, she had partial data on the stars leading up to the collision. In that data, there was a pattern. The stars — as they got closer to impact — seemed to be growing closer together. The length of time they took to orbit one another was decreasing, like two tether balls getting wrapped up around the same pole. They spun closer and closer, faster and faster, until … bang!

Researching Romual Tylenda got me nowhere. In fact, nowhere else is she even mentioned that I could find EXCEPT in articles on this 2022 "prediction". I couldn't find any evidence that she ever existed at all, and Tylenda is certainly not a Polish name.

I did find this data-pic of the aftermath of an alleged collision, as witnessed by Hubble:



And from the wonderfully credible site, "The Daily Mail", I found an article entitled:

A match made in heaven: Scientists capture amazing moment two stars fuse into ONE


But reading the short article, they offer us only one picture and immediately state (which would be obvious to anyone with eyes, anyway) that it's just CGI.



If these idiots actually "captured" such an event, how come we have no evidence? No photography, no data-pics, no data, nothing. We have only their claim. And how could they possibly know two stars collide without any such data or evidence? Even radio-mapping is a visual tool. Nobody sits around reading printouts of numbers in 2017, any more than we do here when we're making our models. (Except in our tables of spins and stuff, but that's not the same thing, damnit!)

I've been reading too much Mathis again, probably. But I can't help but critically dissect all these astrophysical articles and posts. They're a Swiss cheese, at best. When there's any cheese at all to be tasted.

.
The plot thickens.

Jared wrote.

https://www.universetoday.com/107244/can-stars-collide/. When one star reaches the end of its life, expanding into a red giant, It can consume its binary partner. The consumed star then strips away 90% of the mass of the red giant, leaving behind a rapidly pulsating remnant.

That seems to fit our hypothesis, for the most part.
Airman. The Crab Nebula was formed by stellar collision? Yes, with room to spare. I said m/s assumed a stellar explosion. You found an m/s example where stellar collisions can form pulsars, a slowly expanding binary star can engulf its partner - a slow motion collision. The description is very confusing – is the pulsar formed from what remained of the red giant? How can the binary partner be “consumed”, yet strip 90% of the giant?

With respect to colliding stars, the same article discusses globular clusters. Regions filled with many old red stars, and a small number of larger “blue stragglers”.  It's accepted belief that when binary partners join, the result is a single, higher energy star, the blue straggler.  

Here's another quote from the same Universe Today article.

“When you see two stars colliding with each other, it depends on how fast they’re moving. If they’re moving at speeds like we see at the center of our galaxy, then the collision is extremely violent. If it’s a head-on collision, the stars get completely splashed to the far corners of the galaxy. If they’re merging at slower velocities than we see at our neck of the woods in our galaxy, then stars are more happy to merge with us and coalesce into one single, more massive object.”

I really want to believe Romuald Tylenda’s account of binary stars spiraling into collision.

The stars — as they got closer to impact — seemed to be growing closer together. The length of time they took to orbit one another was decreasing, like two tether balls getting wrapped up around the same pole. They spun closer and closer, faster and faster, until … bang!

The V838 Mon Light Echo HST ACS/WFC Hubble Heritage image spanning less than three years is wonderful. It looks as though it might be a stellar explosion, or it looks like the outer spin may have been punctured as in this article,
https://partners.nytimes.com/library/national/science/061300sci-stars-collisions.html Two Stars Collide; a New Star Is Born June 13, 2000 By KENNETH CHANG

Describing a simulation in which one star crashes into another about twice its size at a speed of about half a million miles per hour, "the small one actually plows through the larger one and tears a furrow," said Dr. Joshua E. Barnes, an associate professor of astronomy at the University of Hawaii.
The crash sends a splash of gas into space while the smaller, denser star burrows to the center of the larger one.
"There's a huge wave that gets set up in the larger one, and it's going to splash around for a while," Dr. Barnes said. "The bigger one is wobbling around."
What happens after that is not clear, because the simulation only covers the first 12 hours.

And just last year we learned, First-seen neutron star collision creates light, gravitational waves and gold. http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/16/world/neutron-star-collision-gravitational-waves-light/index.html. Virgo and LIGO teams worked together after detecting gravitational waves in August *, in October they saw the bright blue explosion, which quickly faded to a deep red. Unfortunately, the collision was 130 million light-years away, too far for a decent image.

Mainstream believes stars can merge or splatter. Indeed, collisions may come in different forms. The most common involve spiraling in. High speed head on collisions are thought to be too unlikely to occur, but I disagree. According to the charge field, despite the fact that the two stellar sized charged particles would bombard each other with photons continuously, we know that the two particles may approach from the direction of least resistance, charge pole to charge pole. I don't believe two stars could simply remain in polar contact, it seems likely the two stars would merge.

The outer spins of stars are easily stripped, meaning that the material of which those spins were comprised were torn loose from the star. That’s where the nebula’s main body comes from, although the nebula may be formed from the outer spins of both stars. The pulsar is presumably one (or both??) of the two original solar cores.

Plenty to think about.

* Just a mention, there were no good images. Hoping to avoid the LIE GO trail.
.

I was able to find this animated .gif, taken from the Chandra observatory, of the Crab Pulsar.



Here's another, source unknown, but it's not clear where the pulsar is in this one:



And here's a time-lapse taken from Hubble:

.
Golly Jared, great gifs. I'll try giving them a critical look, but I don't think I understand them well enough to do them any justice.

Sep/Oct/Nov/2005. This is the same expanded view as the second image at the top of the string.  The one that needs a 90 degree turn CW. Reminds me of looking into a whale’s eye, or maybe god’s eye. Your gif is much better. Vast pools of ions several light year across are in motion inside the crab. The rightmost central star appears to be the center of a spin axis column with several top and bottom fog like motions, suggesting variations in charge medium density, possibly charge intake vortices that align to the vertical spin axis. I guess the rightmost star is the pulsar. Motions corresponding to equatorial emissions appear to roll like fog toward the inner surface of the nebula.

I see the horizontal spin about the vertical axis primarily as an oblate toroidal volume. The leftmost central star (with prominent beams) appears to make a tiny (easy to miss) one/two shifting motion, is that a clue or my imagination? How many stars, (or star cores) are inside the nebula?

The first, blue gif is amazing. This is a thousand year old stellar collision, thousands of times larger than the original event. There’s an incredible amount of structure, as if the object is seeking order. It looks like something plowed through a quarter section of the central fly wheel, just an impression. Where is the leftmost central star? There appears to be a single large central star, presumably the pulsar, and a ring of smaller objects that emit high energy intermittently. Another object seems to be orbiting the pulsar’s pole – the orbiter looks fast – or it might be an image artifact.

The red gif must be mainly ultraviolet, presenting a broad swath of material, a bit flabby, most notable for showing rapid changes in the apparent motion of the ion medium’s surface. We again see the left and right most central stars, with the main motion about the rightmost central star's (pulsar’s) spin axis.
 
I’m still agog. Any observations?

Anyone, your comments/criticisms/inputs are welcome. Do you see the charge field?
.

Oh, these definitely look like colossal charge structures to me as well, though of course we're quite biased and looking for such structure. I did try to toss these .gifs into Photoshop and rotate them so they're vertical/equatorial, but it didn't really help any.

So far, I think your theory that two stars collided and one was obliterated and cast out to become the nebula while the other was spin-augmented is the best theory around, hands-down. It would explain all the matter and it would explain the rotational speed as well as its slow decline, to me.

What I don't buy is that this thing is only 20km across or whatever. At no resolutions we've seen could one extrapolate any such measurements, so I'll just call them wild, erroneous guesses by the mainstream. They are looking for "neutron stars", so they just see them wherever. Same with black holes. They have black holes, massive black holes, and then supermassive black holes - despite any any all black holes alleged to be infinitely massive, already, so it's completely retarded to suggest that one infinite mass is larger than another. They're both already "infinite", right?

But I like your theory a lot, and we should continue along with it and eventually see what Mathis thinks. It wouldn't surprise me if he wrote up a paper on the topic, if we have a little bit more to go on for him.

.
All I said was, particles don’t explode, they collide. Given my imagination and understanding of the charge field, the likelihood of a flux in the charge field sufficient to explode a star approaches zero. Ergo, the Crab Nebula was formed by two stars rather than one. I wouldn’t call it a theory, more like an article of faith or a first principle.

I’m also fairly certain that the Crab Nebula can only be explained through the charge field, so yes, I’m completely biased. I consider it our goal to help develop charge field models. There’s a lot here to learn, I’m happy for the shared interest and effort.

I’ll include some additional pulsar information below.  

////////////////////////////////

1) I haven't seen the movie, the stills caught my attention. Taking a closer look at x-ray sources. The ring of intermittent x-ray sources is thought to be some sort of plasma boundary.
http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2002/0052/
CRAB NEBULA: SPACE MOVIE REVEALS SHOCKING SECRETS OF THE CRAB PULSAR


Crab Nebula: The remnant of a supernova located 6000 light years from Earth in the constellation Taurus.
(Credit: NASA/CXC/ASU/J.Hester et al.)

Caption: This collage is composed of Chandra images made over a span of several months (ordered left to right, except for the close-up). They provide a dramatic look at the activity generated by the pulsar (white dot near the center of the images) in the Crab Nebula. The inner X-ray ring is thought to be a shock wave that marks the boundary between the surrounding nebula and the flow of matter and antimatter particles from the pulsar. Energetic shocked particles move outward to brighten the outer ring and produce an extended X-ray glow. The jets perpendicular to the ring are due to matter and antimatter particles spewing out from the poles of the pulsar.

A wisp can be seen moving outward at half the speed of light from the upper right of the inner ring around the pulsar. The wisp appears to merge with a larger outer ring that is visible in both X-ray and optical images.
The inner X-ray ring consists of about two dozen knots that form, brighten and fade. As a high-speed wind of matter and antimatter particles from the pulsar plows into the surrounding nebula, it creates a shock wave and forms the inner ring. Energetic shocked particles move outward to brighten the outer ring and produce an extended X-ray glow.
Enormous electrical voltages generated by the rotating, highly magnetized neutron star accelerate particles outward along its equator to produce the pulsar wind. These pulsar voltages also produce the polar jets seen spewing X-ray emitting matter and antimatter particles perpendicular to the rings.

////////////////////////////////

2) And here we see the left and right-most central stars, in optical wavelengths. The rightmost star, what I guessed to be the pulsar in my previous post, is not always there.
http://www.messier.seds.org/more/m001_pulsar.html

NOAO image of the Crab pulsar
Here, a time sequence for the pulsar in the Crab nebula is shown, and its location in the Crab nebula (as shown in a KPNO 4-meter Mayall image). The images of this sequence were also obtained with the 4-meter Mayall telescope on Kitt Peak, during the night of 20 October 1989 using a standard B-band optical filter and the Kitt Peak Photon Counting Array (KPCA). Phased accumulation over almost 2 hours was necessary to create this image; the observed period that day was 33.36702 milliseconds.
Each of the 33 images represents a time slice of about 1 millisecond in the pulsar period. The brighter, primary pulse is visible in the first column: the weaker, broader inter-pulse can be seen in the second column.
Credit: N.A.Sharp/AURA/NOAO/NSF

////////////////////////////////

3) The Crab Nebular pulsar is emitting electrons at these spectral energies.  
http://user.astro.columbia.edu/~jules/W3273/crab_figures.html


////////////////////////////////

4) Again, don’t read too much into the explanation. The objects presented in the diagram are quite interesting. What is the Inner Knot? Is the sprite same as the object the blue gif showed orbiting the pulsar’s pole?
http://www.solstation.com/x-objects/crab-neb.htm
Crab Nebula & Pulsar

The Crab Nebula emits radiation from the motion of high-speed electrons being accelerated or decelerated in its magnetic field by its the pulsar. Due to its similarity to the process in a cyclotron, the creation of high-energy electrons that spiral in a large-scale magnetic field has been dubbed "sync[h]rotron radiation" (I.S. Shklovsky, 1953; J.H. Oort; and T. Walraven). As a result, the Crab Pulsar generates enough energy to keep the entire nebula radiating over almost the entire electromagnetic spectrum, with enough power to make the nebula shine brighter than 75,000 suns.

////////////////////////////////

A few more pics and references, and I'll try my hand at modeling this sucker as well in Maya.

From http://minsex.blogspot.com/2011/01/messier-1-crab-nebula.html :

This is a composite image of the Crab Nebula, probably the most iconic relic of a star's demise: first spotted as a supernova in 1054 AD, this object appears today as the remnant of that explosion, a vast nebula hosting a rapidly spinning neutron star, or pulsar, at its core.

The optical view of the nebula, obtained by the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope, is shown in red and yellow, the X-ray image obtained by the Chandra X-ray Observatory is shown in blue, and the Spitzer Space Telescope's infrared image is in purple. At infrared and optical wavelengths the intricate structure of the nebula is visible on a larger scale, whereas the X-ray image shows the emission coming from the most highly energetic electrons, which are concentrated much closer to the central pulsar powering the entire nebula's emission.

The image is 5 arc-minutes across.

And here is a visual/infrared animated .gif of the Orion Nebula, showing what appears to be an equatorial charge emission from one of its centers of activity (although tilted here about 80°):




It appears that the Crab Nebula, however, has been heavily involved in instrument calibration over the decades. I'm not sure what implications that would have on their accuracy, since it's not a reliable "candle" after all. We already know how fallible their measurements and theories are, so it's no surprise to see them fall even further.

For decades, this emblematic nebula has been employed to set the absolute flux scale of the instruments on board most of the space-based telescopes that observe the Universe at the highest energies. Instrument calibration is a complex matter, and even more so in the hostile environment of space, but since the earliest days of X-ray astronomy—the 1960s—the Crab Nebula has been employed by astronomers as an indisputable normalisation ruler. That is, until recently, when, in June 2010, an examination of nearly two years of data gathered by NASA's Fermi Gamma-Ray Burst Monitor (GBM) revealed, for the first time, evidence for a possible dimming of this supposedly steady source.

...

Without a standard candle, it will become necessary to rethink the way most X-ray and gamma-ray observations are performed, although it is not yet clear how. Some telescopes, among them INTEGRAL, used to regularly point to the Crab Nebula for calibration. "We will probably still be able to use the Crab as a calibrator, but we will need to constantly monitor this source in order to carefully characterise its variations and take them properly into account when studying other objects," says Kuulkers.

http://sci.esa.int/integral/48124-the-crab-nebula-standard-candle-no-more/

.
Jared wrote. I'll try my hand at modeling this sucker as well in Maya.

Me. That's quick. Do you mean to recreate the gifs? Or do you have another idea?

Will you be making a model or animation; I ask because you've indicated that you were limited to animations in the past.

Another possibility, we might all work together in three.js. That is if you'd like a team or committee approach.
.

A little confusion, then. I model everything by hand in Maya, but in this case I meant to model the physics. I do "stills" for a living, in architectural visualization, but I'll try to animate this one. What I mean is, recreate a dynamic particle simulation that looks like the Crab Pulsar, and behaves like it. It won't be remotely physically accurate, but might help us identify charge channels in the pulsar.

Here's a nebula I modeled up awhile back, strictly for personal art purposes. Never quite finished the main scene though. I think I need to model up a new starcraft and work on the composition a bit more or something, but the scene got a bit tedious for me. Anyway:




You can right-click, "View Image" to see the full resolution, at 4K.

Found this on the Eddington Limit.

Also this paper may be of interest on GRBs:  
http://www.the-electric-universe.info/download/Scripts/electric_GRB/ElectricGRB.pdf
and
http://www.the-electric-universe.info/download/Scripts/chandra/chandra.pdf (Are "Filaments" the directed charge field in a single direction? If you buy his theory... Dr. K' is traditional Feynman)
http://www.the-electric-universe.info/printings/electric_magnetars.html

PROTON SKIN, WHAT IS IT ?

The proton has a 1836 times larger mass than the electron. Because of this asymmetry, the protons have a 43 times lower velocity than the electrons in the same temperature due to the Boltzmann-equation. The core will be positively charged, since more electrons than protons leave the core. (See additionally the Zhang-effect below.) During the forming of the neutron body, already 1 cm³ of protons in overbalance form a „proton-skin". This mono-proton-layer is fixed to the neutron body by the strong nuclear force (Fig. 2).
http://www.the-electric-universe.info/Pictures/M03.gif


---------

Ultra-bright star in the Crab Nebula, breaks all the rules

Cosmos Magazine
Fri, 24 Feb 2017 03:48 UTC
Crab Nebula
NASA/Getty Images
Multiple images of the Crab Nebula made over a span of several months with NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory show matter and antimatter propelled to nearly the speed of light by the Crab pulsar, a rapidly rotating neutron star the size of Manhattan.
Well, bang go those theories. Astrophysicists have identified a neutron star that overturns not one but three well supported hypotheses.

The star, known as NGC 5907 ULX, is emitting far more x-rays than any other ever observed.

So huge is the output that it has been classified as an "ultraluminous x-ray source" (ULX). It is by no means the first ULX to be recorded in nearby galaxies, but all the others are confidently predicted to be generated by black holes - this is the first one that uses star-power.

So there goes the first theory.

But there are still more baffling elements to the discovery, made by a team led by Gianluca Israel from the National Institute of Astrophysics in Rome, Italy, and reported in Science.

For a start, until now it was thought that there was a physical constraint that prevented a neutron glowing as brightly as NGC 5907 ULX. It's called the Eddington limit, which describes the theoretical maximum set by the balance between the force of radiation acting outward and the gravitational force acting inward.

This star exceeds the Eddington limit by 1,000 times - which shouldn't be possible, but evidently is. So there goes theory number two.

The third theory that has taken a battering is one that is familiar to every primary school pupil: magnets, planets and stars have two poles. Ordinary stars do, of course, but NGC 5907 ULX is far from ordinary.

Israel and colleagues contend that the only way the star could achieve such an extremely high output is by having multiple magnetic poles.

"Such high luminosities are often displayed by many ULXs that have previously been classified as accreting black holes," they write.

"A multicomponent strong magnetic field is necessary to account for the properties of NGC 5907 ULX."

https://www.sott.net/article/343782-Ultra-bright-star-in-the-Crab-Nebula-breaks-all-the-rules

Jared Magneson wrote:A little confusion, then. I model everything by hand in Maya, but in this case I meant to model the physics. I do "stills" for a living, in architectural visualization, but I'll try to animate this one. What I mean is, recreate a dynamic particle simulation that looks like the Crab Pulsar, and behaves like it. It won't be remotely physically accurate, but might help us identify charge channels in the pulsar.

Here's a nebula I modeled up awhile back, strictly for personal art purposes. Never quite finished the main scene though. I think I need to model up a new starcraft and work on the composition a bit more or something, but the scene got a bit tedious for me. Anyway:


You can right-click, "View Image" to see the full resolution, at 4K.

Really cool Jared! Wow. Nicely done.

Thanks! But it still doesn't look real, like the data-graphs of these nebulae. So while I remain skeptical, and knowing what's possible with CGI, I still think that many of these nebulae are real. And thus worth constant study.