Singularity Vs Quantum Theory of Gravity

Paddoboy,

Above is the mainstream theory of formation of stellar BH. If you call above as pseudoscience or my nonsense...then my dear, Can I conclude that you are just trolling and know nothing ? Were you wasting your time (12 years) on all these forums ?? Why don't you write in as many lines how stellar BH is formed from a Main Sequence Star ? Get to the work......google and write a small summary how stellar BHs are formed. That will be more useful for you, then bingos and gotchas....

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You are again a liar, and I have many posts to prove you are a liar.
When we observe frame dragging [ergosphere] it is then reasonably logical and sensible, to assume the BH and the gravitational field that makes up the BH, is also spinning, at least up to and including the mass.
Frame dragging by definition, is caused by a rotating mass.
As much as this interferes with your agenda, those are the scientific assumptions generally taken.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Duh! By attracting opposite charge.

Obviously you are the ignorant one, at least cosmologically speaking, evidenced by starting so many cosmology threads, asking questions, then spouting alternative bullshit.
Spin or angular momentum is what a Kerr BH has.
Again if that stuffs up your agenda, well I suggest you see your religious adviser and check it out with him.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Just to highlight the point again, which our alternative troll has not accepted.
A BH can have three properties which define it.
MASS, ANGULAR MOMENTUM and CHARGE

 

Thats great !!!! Charges inside BH get negated by attracting matter particle of the opposite charge ? What is your formal education Paddoboy ??

 

You are again being totally dishonest. The formation methodology of a BH which you seemed to have copied from somewhere without referencing is just a red herring, to detract from your other troublesome aspects re BH cosmology.....that being the properties of mass, spin and charge a BH can have, the compuslsory collapse once the schwarzchild limit is reached.
I 'm relatively clued up on how and why they form for a layman, and as I showed you in a previous post, which you have ignored, the fact that in a BH, gravity can overcome the strong nuclear force.

You seem rather jealous of the bingos and gotchas, particularly since they show that everyone so far, and every link, has disagreed with your childish assumptions, orders, demands, and pretentious behavour.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Really Rajesh, you need to grow up and realise that you are nothing in the greater scheme of things, especially cosmology, [as am I] and what you say is like dust in the wind, and only mentioned on forums such as this, which are open to every Tom, Dick, and Harry...or should that be every theorist constant, chinglu and Rajesh...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

A charged black hole is one of four possible types of black holes that could exist in the theory of gravitation called general relativity. Black holes can be characterized by three (and only three) quantities, its

• mass M (called a Schwarzschild black hole if it has no angular momentum and no electric charge),
• angular momentum J (called a Kerr black hole if it has no charge), and
• electric charge Q (charged black hole or Reissner–Nordström black hole if the angular momentum is zero or a Kerr–Newman black hole if it has both angular momentum and electric charge).

A special, mathematically oriented article describes the Reissner–Nordström metric for a charged, non-rotating black hole.

The solutions of Einstein's field equation for the gravitational field of an electrically charged point mass (with zero angular momentum) in empty space was obtained in 1918 by Hans Reissner and Gunnar Nordström, not long after Karl Schwarzschild found the Schwarzschild metric as a solution for a point mass without electric charge and angular momentum.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charged_black_hole


and more for our confused friend......
http://jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/insidebh/rn.html
Real black holes probably spin, but probably have almost no electric charge, because our Universe appears to be electrically neutral, and a charged black hole would quickly neutralize by attracting charge of the opposite sign. Nevertheless, the internal geometry of an electrically charged black hole resembles mathematically that of a rotating black hole. For this reason the behavior inside a charged black hole is often taken as a surrogate for that inside a rotating black hole.
http://jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/insidebh/rn.html

 

Like you, I'm a lay person with no recognised education in cosmology.
Like you I did not attend university.
Unlike you, that hasn't stopped me from learning all I can from reputable sources re cosmology.
Unlike you, I have no inflated ego to bruise, and do not pretend to know more than the links I provide and the professors and other reputable people that have given their own advice on this matter.
Unlike you I remain honest, and do not lie, hoping people will forget what went on yesterday or the day before.
Unlike you, I do not have an agenda.

 

Copying is not my type...that is yours...You even copy paste and write a small summary how BH is formed.

Jealous of what, you ?? Thats a joke man.

 

Fair enough !

 

What's your formal education, Rajesh?

 

*shrug* That's your problem, and why you appear so ignorant on different aspects of BH's.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The truth hurts and all that.
Let's see just in two pages, you have been shown that [1] gravity does overcome the strong nuclear force in a BH, [2] A BH can have three and only three properties...mass, angular momentum and charge, [3] Once the schwarzchild limit is reached, further collapse is compulsory[4] Charge can be negated over time, as can spin over longer times, [5] BH's exist until at least someone is able to explain the critical effects of spacetime and matter/energy we observe.

Have I forgotten anything?

 

More quotes out of context Rajesh, as you did with the professors.
The agenda force is strong in this one!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

My flawed understanding as you put it, has been generally supported continually from your first efforts in starting threads to denigrate accepted cosmology.
My flawed understand as you put it, is generally as accepted by mainstream cosmology.
My flawed understanding as you put it, is not flawed, but generally correct.
This is why you have been acting so dishonestly with your lies, cherry picking, ignoring of reputable links, and anything that doesn't support your troubled inflated ego.
Oh, btw, you have another question to answer at post 48...or are you going to shirk that too?

 

I am an engineer in Electrical and Electronics Engineering, with more than 25 years experience. I have done extensive work on Power and Energy field, Control& Automation, generation, distribution and optimization. I have few publications in the area of law and philosophy as well.

And I have developed some interest in cosmology for last a year or so, out of shear fascination for the subject, I have already submitted two articles/papers one on Neutron Star and another on BH singularity....The first one is accepted after peer review and expected to get published in the March 2015 edition of a journal. The second has passed the initial QC by a reputed journal and pending for further peer review. I will definitely share with this forum once they get published, because a huge credit goes to this forum for that.

 

You may be able to gauge that from a few of his old threads, some shifted to the fringe.
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/black-hole-not-at-all.142714/
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/so...nderstanding-of-main-stream-cosmology.142422/
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/dark-energy-–-required-to-explain-a-plausible-mistake.142322/

 

Many many many papers are published everyday.
Many many many papers are no more than hypothetical scenarios....
SOME COMPANIES THAT PUBLISH PAPERS WILL PUBLISH JUST ABOUT ANYTHING...REALLY!

I won't hold my breath for yours anyway.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

ps: Did you mention me in these papers you have and the fact that I have shown you to be wrong in at least 6 crazy BH notions you were sprouting here?

 

Can you please tell me which one is shifted to fringe ? Despite my objection you are spreading falsehood. This will not help you Paddoboy.

 

Thats bad, very much in poor taste, without knowing about the publisher.

 

Do these journals have names?