Singularity Vs Quantum Theory of Gravity

Anyway we all await your scientific paper,,,,,

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Won't hold my breath though.......

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Choice is yours, if that helps you in learning. Revision always helps during learning phase.

I must complement you and take credit myself that you are learning......that change in BH density view by you......that easy typing of so many cosmology concepts in one breath....is the ample proof that you are learning. Keep it up...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Thank you....I'm genuinley sorry though that your agenda prevents you from learning, That is a shame.
And also naturally just to refute another of your many lies in many threads, my thoughts on the meaningless nature of BH density was supported along with every other aspect and has not changed.
Better luck on your next evangelistic mission.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Here's a scientic paper on BHs by Professor Hamilton, the one who replied to my E=Mail and whose reply so damagingly rebuffed and refuted some of the nonsensical claims by Rajesh......
This bloke has about 63 papers at the link........

http://arxiv.org/abs/1010.1269?context=gr-qc

The interior structure of rotating black holes 1. Concise derivation:

abstract:
This paper presents a concise derivation of a new set of solutions for the interior structure of accreting, rotating black holes. The solutions are conformally stationary, axisymmetric, and conformally separable. Hyper-relativistic counter-streaming between freely-falling collisionless ingoing and outgoing streams leads to mass inflation at the inner horizon, followed by collapse. The solutions fail at an exponentially tiny radius, where the rotational motion of the streams becomes comparable to their radial motion. The papers provide a fully nonlinear, dynamical solution for the interior structure of a rotating black hole from just above the inner horizon inward, down to a tiny scale.

 

Since you are still sulking and attempting to redeem, and taking cudgels with me non stop, without even telling what your scientific argument is (beyond those points as responded by James also)....so take this

The paper does not answer the question raised by me about the authenticity of the email response in toto........I did not say that you didn't get the email, my claim was that you edited to suit your stand......infact my hunch got stronger after looking at this abstract that those paras #1 to #3 were not of Prof Hamilton, anguage is strikingly different.....As James said, its irrelevant, science does not change.....so relax...

 

I'm not sulking Rajesh, that's just you as usual trying to turn the spotlight off yourself.The post was totally genuine despite you spitting the dummy, and claiming otherwise, just as every other professional reply disputed your nonsense and all links.
You have not been able to question the science as yet, all you do his rant on about some Imaginary scientific paper.
The forum knows you have not a leg to stand on...your thoughts and hypothesis are just that...unsupported thoughts and hypothesis, with nothing at all supporting them except your 12 months interest in cosmology, your delusions of grandeur, your befuddled brain, your overall dishonesty and your total lies.

 

The last sentence from post 444, says it all and totally rebukes Rajesh's unscientific, unsupported and irrationally and emotionally driven claims.........

" The papers provide a fully nonlinear, dynamical solution for the interior structure of a rotating black hole from just above the inner horizon inward, down to a tiny scale".

 

So as the forum can see in line with the expert opinion of Professor Hamilton, we are reasonably logically able to assign angular momentum, to the Kerr BH metric [all of it] and even the mass as inferred in the Professors E-Mail to me.
In totality that E-Mail is as follows..........

Barry,

> The question being debated is simply, can we logically and reasonably assign angular momentum to a ring singularity/mass, and the spacetime within the EH proper?

A black hole is a place where space is falling faster than the speed of light.
http://jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/insidebh/waterfall.html
The horizon is the place where space falls at the speed of light.
Inside the horizon, space falls faster than light. That is why
light cannot escape from a black hole.

Light emitted directly upward from the horizon of a black hole
stays there forever, barrelling outward at the speed of light
through space falling at the speed of light. It takes an infinite
time for light to lift off the horizon and make it to the outside
world. Thus when you watch a star collapse to a black hole,
you see it appear to freeze, and redshift and dim, at the horizon.

Since gravity also propagates at the speed of light, gravity,
like light, cannot escape from a black hole. The gravity you
experience from a black hole is the gravity of the frozen star,
not the gravity of whatever is inside the black hole.

> Or are we only allowed to assign angular momentum [frame dragging] to the ergopshere?

All the gravity, including the frame-dragging, is from the frozen star.

> Is it not logical that if we observe frame dragging, we should be able to assume that we have a rotating mass?

Indeed you have a rotating mass.

> And is not angular momentum conserved by the mass that has collapsed to within its Schwarzchild radius to give us a BH?

Yes.

> Other questions that have arisen are...
> Can we have massless Black holes held together by the non linearity of spacetime/gravity?

A black hole has mass, whatever it might have been formed from.

It is possible to form a black hole from gravitational waves
focussed towards each other. Gravitational waves propagate
in empty space, and locally cannot be distingished from empty space.
Nevertheless they do curve space, and do carry energy.

Hope this helps,
Andrew
It was in reply to an E-Mail I sent thus........


Hi professor...
My name is Barry and I’m only a lay person with a great interest in cosmology and having read your’s and Sir Martin Rees’ book, “Gravity’s Fatal Attraction” and Thorne’s “Black Holes and Time Warps among many others.
I’m also participating in a science forum, where we have a contentious issue being debated at this time.
I realize your time is precious, but I was wondering if you can give your thoughts on the following scenario re Kerr Black Holes.
The question being debated is simply, can we logically and reasonably assign angular momentum to a ring singularity/mass, and the spacetime within the EH proper?
Or are we only allowed to assign angular momentum [frame dragging] to the ergopshere?
Is it not logical that if we observe frame dragging, we should be able to assume that we have a rotating mass?
And is not angular momentum conserved by the mass that has collapsed to within its Schwarzchild radius to give us a BH?

Other questions that have arisen are...
Can we have massless Black holes held together by the non linearity of spacetime/gravity?
Or is this strictly a theoretical thought experiment?

Thanking you for your time and effort,
Your’s Sincerely
Barry
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

 

All these repeat copy paste does not answer the main point about non-editing of response etc......you should have dropped this Barry-Hamilton episode...You still have at least one more opportunity.

By the way, what do you think is my objectionable stand against mainstream ? I, myself, do not know if at all I am crossing any swords with mainstream...How do you derive such funny conclusion ? As I stated earlier you seem to have certain compromised ability with respect to comprehension, may be that is causing this continued and repeat conclusions.

 

A few points.....
[1] BHs almost certainly exist.
If anyone doubts that, they need to explain the critical actions on space-time and matter-energy around the BHs vicinity

[2] A BH is bordered by an EH, beyond which nothing that has entered will ever escape again.

[3] BHs can have three properties and three properties only: Mass, Angular Momentum, and Charge.

[4]A Kerr BH is a BH with angular momentum, and is duly recognised by the frame dragging effect it has on space-time within its vicinity, and which we call the ergosphere. Upon observing an ergosphere, it can be reasonably logically deduced that we also have the space-time making up the BH, as having angular momentum, and also the mass comprising the BH having angular momentum.
Obviously as per definition, frame dragging [Lense-Thirring effect] is caused by a rotating mass.

[5] When the Schwarzchild radius is reached, according to GR, further collapse is compulsory.

[6] Any photons emitted just at and this side of the EH, will arc back to secumb to the BH, except for all photons emitted directly radially away, where they will hover never falling in and never getting away [from a local FoR with the photon]

[7] Within BHs gravity can overcome the strong nuclear force, tearing atoms apart, ripping off electrons, ripping apart protons and neutrons and even down to basic quarks. The same applies as one approaches t=0 and the BB.


[8]Space-time curvature/gravity will oppose the large scale expansion of space-time, and this can immediately be evidenced in our local group of galaxies being decoupled from the overall expansion rate.
All views above have been 100% supported by many links.
These points have been the bone of contention in this and the other BH threads that Rajesh has started.
My view continues as is, and is sustained by many reputable references and links when and where required.
Rajesh on the other hand, continues with trolling, making false accusations and telling outright lies.
That along with the desperation and emotional tactics he is now projecting, are a result of the continued refutation he has been subject to, deservedly so, in at least three threads now.
He claims to be a "professional"

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

His own claims of a 12 month interest in cosmology and his total lack of knowledge show that to be laughable.
He claims to have a scientific paper...yet numerous requests has faailed to get any more details.
He lowers himself to gutter level and shows a complete lack of guts by accusing me of "doctoring" an EMail, with no evidence whatsoever.......The reasons quite obviously are another case of dummy spitting that we have seen from him.

 

Because as to date, you have yet to express any correct knowledge about any aspect of BHs......because the methodology and "questionings" in your early threads, show a rather fraudulent side to yourself when compared to the more recent threads full of arrogance, claims of superiority and delusions of grandeur.

 

Your childish, gutter sniping unsupported accusations are just that.
All you need to do if you really believe what you are accusing me of is E-Mail him yourself. But as usual, someone as gutless and as low as yourself will not do that.
Just as you deride all links because they refute your position....a position from total ignorance and errors.

 

Just to further the support for my claim [and accepted mainstream cosmology] that gravity can and does overcome the strong nuclear force, here is another reputable link.........
http://www.calpoly.edu/~rechols/6edastro102/astro112ch21sol8th.html
where it says.........
" Neutron degeneracy pressure arises when neutrons are so close that their quantum states begin to overlap. Since no two fermions, neutrons in this case, can occupy the same quantum state, a pressure results. The combined pressure from neutron degeneracy pressure and the strong nuclear force prevent further gravitational collapse of a neutron star if the remaining supernova core (neutron star) is less than 2-3 solar masses."
Inferring of course that when the limit is exceeded, gravitational effects will overcome the NDP along with the strong nuclear force.

 

May be you should be more careful of what you post, besides denying the existence of BHs in an earlier thread you also said this.

 

May be you should be more careful of what you post, besides denying the existence of BHs in an earlier thread you also said this.
Just plain total anti mainstream bullshit

 

The impression I get, in these discussions is, many people are knowledgeable of the details of mainstream physics, including the math, but few appear to understand at the conceptual level, except those who ask the tough questions. Those who memorize the main stream, always answer these questions with an appeal to dogmatic absolutes. If that does not work then insults.

I asked the question, why a quantum universe in the first place?

Before the quantum universe POV appeared in science, the universe was assume to be continuous. Quantum reduced the number of possible states, to a tiny fraction of the original continuous assumption. This change in POV implied our perception of the universe, had transformed the universe into a higher level of order, that had completely loaded the former dice so only a few sides ever fall.

The next question is why did/does science assume a random universe, if quantum, made the universe more ordered by orders of magnitude? Wasn't that illogical? This cornerstone premise is still the foundation of modern physics and was/is still illogical; swamp land.

I don't disagree with the data or math that supports the black hole or any phenomena of the universe that is assumed or is real. But if you build on swamp land, even a mansion will start to sink, eventually. This who ask the questions sense the water in the basement, while others are staying in denial, since they don't understand construction.

 

The impression I get, is that we have many who after 12 months or so reviewing BH cosmology, are then arrogant enough to offer "solutions" while ignoring the accepted mainstream solutions based on much data gained from many probes and state of the art instrumentalities that these would be's if they could be's "blow ins" do not have access to.
That would also include your own nonsensical philosophical take on the subject. In essence, you fail miserably the scientific methodology.

The quantum world was not invented...It was discovered and realised,
We are also still ignorant of the why and how aspects of it despite using the concepts every day.

Except that is not the case in this situation. Please refer to my first reply.

 

Anyone not yet convinced on the "alternative hypothesis" leanings and other shall we say weird cosmological concepts by Rajesh, should take a read of this thread.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/dark-energy-–-required-to-explain-a-plausible-mistake.142322/

The first three pages are proof positive as to what we are/were dealing with here, before the thread was joined by another nutter in the next three pages claiming even further nonsense.

 

Paddoboy, you are working hard, to redeem yourself and to put me down. This is what I call realistic time travel in the past and digging out above thread, not that you go to past, flirt with your young, yet to be married and would be MIL, and come back to present....ok.

Coming to the point.....your defense and response to my above thread was that all these scientists with so much of state of art instrumentation cannot be stupid guys to miss out something like this.....I did not say, I just proposed something...


The point in the thread " Galaxy Speed Distribution Curves" they should be tapering in nature as Keplarian orbits but they are flat...to resolve this crisis, there are two prevalent theories

1. Dark Matter
2. MOND

Dark Matter is quite elusive, we cannot say for sure that we have detected this monster and on the other hand MOND although accepted by many, has issues with momentum conservation...rather it offers some corrective variation in Gravity.... both are open for further discussions.

So I proposed as per my thread...what's wrong in that, Pad ? And now mind you, only recently we have a finding that our Milky Way is 150% larger than what we thought of it, it has corrugation layers also... So Dark Matter share has come down even before we could find it......that will change whole lot of calculations.....visible matter is laughing and telling us please first find me completely and then look for Dark Matter. And MOND is struggling with conservation of momentum.

So, there is a need for something to explain the Galaxy Distribution Curve with a different perspective. I did that. And let me tell you, we are supposedly 25000 Light Years Away from GC, we do not know fully about Kuiper Belt (possibly not even a light day away), So how can we be so sure that Our Solar System is rotating directly around GC ? And only yesterday this 150% came into light. It is a possibility that there exists a Super Sol (or multiple thereof), and finally in cascade manner we all are rotating around GC. Thats my opinion and I am not forcing...yours is a no argument that our scientists with state of art instruments cannot miss this. After all they have missed 50% of MW.

 

Thats a very good observation.........I will add, few feel that they have understood mainstream fully....but they have not and still they claim to dogmatic absolutes.