Black Hole.... Not so Black

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by RajeshTrivedi, Oct 1, 2014.

  1. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    You said it yourself.....I know it makes you look rather foolish in line of the observational and experimental supporting GR.
    Sure I'll raise it, whenever I see the need to.
    The rest your childish "spitting the dummy" "blah, blah" diatribe will be ignored, as will most of your other off topic crap.
    And that was undefined's methodology to a "T"

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    What I have said, I'll stand by. And just as I have informed you previously, your peers and mine on this forum, will be the final judges.
    I won't be playing your silly kindergarten games anymore anyway, reason being is you are heading for moderation, and I don't want to be any part of it. Pretty obvious to all and sundry.
    As usual, have fun!!
     
    Last edited: Dec 18, 2014
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Nup...My attempt was giving a layman's take on it to another layman.
    And It was a pretty good attempt in my most humble opinion.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Q-reeus Banned Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,695
    Then let the record so stand. But pray tell, does the last bolded bit mean you have reported me?!!
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    No comment Rajesh? Just wondering as you have quoted my post without any.
    That's basically it in a nutshell, but I have also given some pretty good links that extend on certain aspects.
    They certainly deserve reading if you are Interested in the accepted mainstream cosmology.
     
  8. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    This is the key here in pads thinking

    " if you are Interested in the accepted mainstream cosmology "

    Pad has NO inclination to investigate outside the mainstream thinking , he is uncomfortable there , he knows what he is given , nothing more , nothing less
     
  9. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,914
    Nobody, Knows anything more. Much of even mainstream thinking is only what we think we know.

    Pushing the boundaries is a young man/woman's game. Most of the young around here have not yet reached that place, in thier life or understanding, and the rest of us are long past.
     
  10. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,525
    Paddoboy,

    There was some problem and type space was not appearing...I sent a message to admin also, finally found out problem with my lappy only. Hence the comment could not be typed.


    actually your statement as objected by Q-reeus is ok to a large extent..

    1. When the Gravitational pressure increases, the electrons are pushed but due to Pauli's exclusion principle they cannot acquire the same energy state. Their energy levels are occupied till the maximum fermi enery level.

    2. But this compacting creates dx (uncertainty in position) very less and hence dp (uncertainty in momentum) increases, making these electrons quite relativistic, this increased momentum and energy is in principle responsible for countering the gravitational pressure in so called EDP process.

    3. if the mass is still higher, further increase in gravitational pressure, forces these electrons towards nucleus and they are captured by protons to form neutrons....the story of NDP starts..
     
  11. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    You really have a problem river...not the least being your fanatical ignorance of what has been passed down through the ages by the giants of the past, that has got us to the point we are at today.
    The mainstream position is the mainstream position for one very simple reason. It is the position that supports our observational and experimental data best.
    Your position, which you chose to wear like a badge of honour, is to automatically ignore the mainstream position, and flash your "badge of honour" with your support for the most outragious model, or that which opposes the mainstream model, just for the sake of it. eg: your conclusion UFO's of Alien origin are factual, that human giants once roamed the Earth, and of course who can ever forget your fanatical support for the long discarded Electric/Plasma Universe model over the BB.

    I have plenty of suppositions and speculative scenarios about the hows and whys of what is not covered by our present cosmological models.
    But speculation they remain. I don't chose to exalt them or myself above the proven qualified giants of the present and past.
    In other words I adhere to the scientific method and peer review, which you so ignorantly ignore while flashing that worn out badge of honour.

    In essence its you who is on the outer, casting your aspersions against anything mainstream, just for the sake of it.
    Like the cocky on the biscuit tin, you just ain't in it.
     
  12. Q-reeus Banned Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,695
    Implying that in some way I had something wrong there. Not wishing to restart any discussion with said p..... - do you even understand just precisely what my objection was, and what it implied?!
     
  13. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,525
    Without being offensive, my analysis is quite simple...

    1. Either you are just boasting.
    2. You are not sure of what these speculations are and lack confidence.
    3. You may have something great up to your sleeve, but afraid of getting ridiculed.

    Come on man, please share your ideas, there will always be some people who will ridicule you, let them. Rest assured it will not be a blasphemy against mainstream.
     
  14. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,525
    No, sir, I just commented on Paddoboy statement and what I understood of that, your reference was to link and pin point that statement since you picked it out of that lengthy post..

    By the way I have a question for you......If Electrons and Neutrons were to be Bosons instead of Fermions then what would have happened to the formation sequence of Black Hole ?
     
  15. Q-reeus Banned Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,695
    Fair enough. Thanks for clearing that up.
    The last point first. Personally I would substitute the term GCO (gravitationally collapsed object) for BH, being extremely doubtful the latter, as having a causally disconnected interior to an EH, actually exists.

    Your main question can be rephrased as "would a bosonic NS (neutron star) be more or less resistant to collapse than one comprised of ordinary fermionic neutrons and electrons." That's asking "what if the laws of nature were radically different?"
    It's not quite that bad though since it's fairly strongly established that much of the interior of a typical NS is both superfluid and superconducting. Which implies there is a large amount of neutron pairing into composite bosons something roughly equivalent to Cooper pairs in a terrestrial superconductor. [edit: superconductivity is attributed primarily to protons:http://www.astro.umd.edu/~miller/nstar.html#internal , with more exotic 'color' superconductivity a possibility according to some theorists.] Don't ask me for the details, it's highly complex and even now more than half a century after their discovery, the EOS deep within a NS (or 'quark' or 'strange' etc. hypothesized variants) is only roughly estimated. What is believed certain is that any exotic states that form beyond the neutron state, such as quark or strange, has a necessarily softer EOS than for pure 'neutronium'. Hence will always reduce the upper mass limit if present. Which presence afaik is still unknown with any certainty.
     
    Last edited: Dec 21, 2014
  16. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543

    Well wouldn't you guess! wrong on all three accounts.
    But I will share it with you.
    The key to what I said, is "what I hypothesise is not covered by present models"
    I hypothesise that the BB maybe the arse end of a BH stemming from another Universe...a White Hole no less....I hypothesise that BH's within our Universe, likewise create other regions, or Universes of spacetime via the Singularity which in effect is a wormhole that passes via an ERB to other newly created regions/Universes of spacetime.

    But here's where I differ from the more common variety of alternative hypothesis pushers we have here....
    I have no evidence to support such concepts. And as such it would be dishonest, stupid and unscientific to push them as fact, as do so many of other hypothesis pushers.
    One day we may have observational evidence supporting my hypothesis. One day we may have observational evidence invalidating my concept.
    I make no claims as to the superiority of my hypothesis...I do not have any inflated ego to deflate. I simply have some ideas which are highly speculative.
    And most importantly, as I said, my hypothesis are in relation to what present theories like GR and the BB do not cover anyway...It is out of their domain.
    So I'm not deriding or rubbishing accepted mainstream cosmology. I accept all of that.
    I'm stepping outside those parameters.
     
  17. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Well close......the term most relevant is a GCCO, or a Gravitationally Completely Collapsed Object.
    Why do I say that? Because GR says that once the Schwarzchild radius is reached in any collapsing object, further collapse is compulsory.
    And GR is the best and most efficient theory we have on gravity.



    Yep, agreed probably likely, but as yet unknown.
     
  18. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,525

    Is this collapse defined or absolutely undefined ? What causes this imminent compulsory collapse after that ? Can't we have a stable or even transient object whose radius is below Schwarzschild radius ? Where does GR say that compulsory collapse beyond this limit ?

    Please do not direct to some site or wiki or some literature, do give your understood and well reasoned response.
     
  19. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    The mathematical Schwarzschild description of a black hole tells us that all matter inside the event horizon moves continually towards the centre of the hole. No force is strong enough to oppose that, and to move in the opposite direction would in fact require faster-than-light travel. Applying this to a collapsing star, once the radius of the star is smaller than the event horizon, all the matter in the star must hit the singularity. There is no alternative in the mathematics of general relativity (for a Schwarzschild black hole).
     
  20. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,914
    If horses had feathers, could they fly?
     
  21. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,914
    Huh? Where is your reference for the above statement.., which reads as fact?

    The link you supplied is not proven it is theoretical.
     
  22. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543

    Therein lies your problem in learning.
    So, are you now telling me you never accept anything you read or have read?
    If you do I suggest you are lying.
    Have you never researched any info on any subject at all?
    If you say no, again I suggest you are lying.
    My links to references, links etc will continue as I see fit and when I see as necessary, based on my own ability to put it in words and of course my own limited knowledge.
    In the meantime James has given an appropriate reply.

    Let's hope you are one day able to change this fixation of yours in not ever accepting any thing in print or referenced links. Then you maybe open to gaining knowledge.
     
  23. Q-reeus Banned Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,695
    Firstly, NS's come in a range of masses, spin, magnetic moment and orientation wrt spin axis, composition (crust especially) and temperature. A newly formed small and hot NS may well have no initial superfluidity or superconductivity, but almost certainly develops such once the core cools to a mere ca billion or so degrees K. All reasonable calculations indicate it is true for a typical NS. That's a condensed matter issue of how neutrons under great pressure must behave. There are great uncertainties in some areas but the existence of superfluidity & superconductivity is not one of them. As for evidence, it obviously cannot be direct in the sense of diving in and sampling the interior. But observation has confirmed theoretical predictions very well, e.g.:
    http://chandra.harvard.edu/press/11_releases/press_022311.html
    My go to article, a little dated now but still quite relevant, is www.slac.stanford.edu/econf/C0507252/papers/L007.PDF

    Just do your own web search if that's not sufficient. I'm surprised you are suprised on this.
     

Share This Page