Neutron Star

[1]Most physicists know that the classical point singularity probably does not exist.
[2]Most physicists know that once the Schwarzchild radius of any mass is reached, further collapse is compulsory.
[3]Most physicists understand that not withstanding point [2] that GR fails at the quantum /Planck level.
[4] Taking all that into consideration, a QGT should reveal a surface of sorts at or below the Planck/quantum level, and above the dreaded classical point singularity.
But you have been told all this before.
In effect, gravity overcomes all other forces, including the strong nuclear force.
And of course all my claims have been referenced, while all yours remain, well just claims.

Instead all are coming forward correcting your simple misinterpretations on GR and BHs,

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

With all modesty, most of my claims are supported, by reputable links, references, our members on this forum, and by most of tashja's professors.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The reality of the situation is most of my copy n pastes are from reputable learning institutions, while again, as per usual, you expect people to take your unsupported claims as fact.
Writing a paper, getting it published without proper peer review, and from a less then reputable publisher, does not mean you have discovered anything, nor does it mean you have invalidated GR or BHs.
Your paper. like many others that I could raise for a joke, are just specualtive scenarios, and will languish for a time and then fade into oblivion.
That's a shame, and a total waste of what talents you do have as an Electrician.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Paddoboy,

Pl answer the below question......

Pl provide maths which will prove that GR classic singularity is at Planck's Level ??

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I've given you plenty of references...reputable ones.
You are the one refuting GR......You are the one refuting GR inspired total collapse after the Schwarzchild metric is reached...you are the one claiming that NS exist inside a BH EH...you are the one claiming gravity does not overcome all other known forces.
The onus is on you my friend to invalidate all the above accepted scenarios.
Not by your dodgy maths...not by your unsupported say so.....but by references and links.
Obviously you have yet to find anything supporting your anti GR/BH stance.
In other words you have SFA.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Paddoboy,

Pl answer the below question......

Pl provide maths which will prove that GR classic singularity is at Planck's Level ??

 

Some more food for thought Rajesh...May help you on your next paper, with a more reputable publisher of course.
The Planck scale is really only a theoretical concept that exists at the quantum level. And while GR predicts compulsory collapse of a mass once the Schwarzchild radius is reached, it also itself fails at this same quantum/Planck level.
So a QGT should reveal the nature of what does exist at that level.

 

Paddoboy,

Pl answer the below question......

Pl provide maths which will prove that GR classic singularity is at Planck's Level ??

Or admit that you are just fooling around in all directions...

 

The onus is on you, or are you also ignorant of the scientific method.
My claims stand and are supported.
Your claims are unsupported and no more than a load of hot air.
That's been shown in at least a half a dozen threads so far.

 

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/blkhol.html
Black Hole Conditions
After collapse to the neutron star stage, stars with masses less than 2-3 solar masses should remain neutron stars, gradually radiating away their energy, because there is no known mechanism for further combination, and forces between neutrons prevent further collapse. But this neutron force is the last stand, and our best calculations indicate that this repulsion which prevents collapse cannot withstand the gravity force of masses greater than 2 to 3 solar masses. Such neutron stars would collapse toward zero spatial extent - toward a "singularity". Once they collapsed past a certain radius, the "event horizon", then even light could not escape: black hole. Since black holes by their very definition cannot be directly observed, proving their existence is difficult. The indirect evidence for the black hole Cygnus X-1 is a good example of the search for black holes.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
and this...........
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2011/12/the-schwarzschild-radius-natures-breaking-point/

Really though Rajesh, as this is accepted mainstream BH cosmology, the onus is on you to shown that this "compulsory collapse" once the Schwarzchild limit is reached, is not valid.
I'll keep checking in to see if you have come up with the necessary evidence.

 

Don't beat around the bush.....

Pl answer the below question......

Pl provide maths which will prove that GR classic singularity is at Planck's Level ??

Or admit that you are just fooling around in all directions...

 

You are now making a fool of yourself Rajesh.
Have you heard of the scientific method?
Why not abide by it?
The onus is on you to show that what you claim is valid.
You need references and links for that, as obviously shown elsewhere and mentioned by others, your own credibility leaves a lot to be desired.

[1]You question the existance of BHs, without being able to offer an alternative.
[2] You question the fact that gravity inside BHs can and do overcome the strong nuclear force.....
[3] You question the fact that we can and are able to assign angular momentum to a Kerr BH and its mass.
[4] You question the fact that any light/photons emitted this side of the EH, directly radially away will appear to hover forever, from a local FoR.
[5]You claim without question that one can meaningfully talk of BH density
[6] You question how they are able to distinguish between a lensed image and a real direct image.
All the above have been referenced and linked and all support what I have said.
And the evidence is now conclusive [with this paper about the NS inside BH hypothesis

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

] that you most certainly did have an agenda, as I disclosed many moons ago.

 

Don't beat around the bush, and don't bother about my views

Pl answer the below question......

Pl provide maths which will prove that GR classic singularity is at Planck's Level ??

Or admit that you are just fooling around in all directions...

PS: You can claim help from your friends, for whom you advocate incessantly. I am invoking your friends, either they should come forward and prove what you are saying since months or educate you.

 

According to the scientific method the onus is on you to provide reputable links or references [not your unsupported say so] to support your hypothesis.
And no, I certainly do not bother about your views, as apparently no one does.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

No, I'm not fooling around...Your doing that job quite well.
And the friends with whom I advocate are in the main correct. If they were not, I would say so......
Still that's generally the line of argument you take when caught between a rock and a hard place.
Let me educate you Rajesh........
All here have disagreed with you.
I simply accept the scientific method and proper peer review, and remain open for change based on further observations.
Again, as appears to be the case with most alternative hypothesis pushers, I don't need to wear my ability to think for myself, or outside the box, like a badge of honour, nor have I an inflated ego like you.
I accept I'm a learner, I respect those that are professional, even if I disagree with them, and I certainly accept the validity of reputable links, as well as professional replies to questions asked.
You could learn greatly from that yourself.

Let me finish with the following statement....
There is certainly the possibility and a non zero chance of the next revolution/change in cosmology, to appear from someone out in left field, or even someone like myself who has no professional qualifications.
But considering the technological advances and state of the art satellites, probes, including ground based equipment as well as the myriad of space craft, that are only accessed by professionals, that chance is very fucking small.
You or I aint gunna do it!!!!
Like it or not, those are the facts and I suggest you accept that.

 

Paddoboy,

If you knew or if there was any proof, then instead of wasting last 8-10 posts, you would have answered the questions.

This is what you are claiming since last few months, even you put James R behind 8 balls, now come in the front and prove the below.......what are you afraid of ??

Pl provide maths which will prove that GR classic singularity is at Planck's Level ??

PS : Paddoboy, nothing wrong in being wrong, but you are persisting with this statement for ages despite soft and hard nudges, and you bring this forward in every discussion and post, so it must be settled.

 

I come back only to defend against what you wrongly insinuate above. The truth is the opposite. You have been the one dodging e.g. A & B in #61, besides similar relevant questions in previous and later posts, beginning with #29 And further, out of frustration presumably, quite improperly raising extraneous matters that just muddies the real issue. The OP issue - hypothetical below-EH statically stable BNS as per your published article.
Your contact email address is shown in that article. Any responses via that? And where are the unedited opinions from NS experts you agreed to contact? Well?

 

Rajesh, it is true that the Schwartzschild radius is proportional to mass. The problem above is that mass density has not impact on the Schwartszchild radius. You are making a common intuitive mistake. It is only the total mass and radius from the center of mass that are important. The radius does not change as the initial mass collapses past the event horizon. The radius remains unchanged while the total mass collapses from just inside the event horizon all of the way to the singularity... The total mas remains constant while the density moves toward infinite!

Though most GR experts do not expect that mathematical singularities exist, all of the solutions to EFE discussed, end with a singularity.., and all singularities have zero volume, an infinite mass density and a specific total mass (even where the mass must be determined during the collapse and becomes undefined in a mathematical singularity). the radius is associated with the total mass only...

While I believe I have made it clear, that it is my belief that GR begins to have problems, at the event horizon, not just at the singularity.., I also don't see that you have provided an alternate model, allowing your conjectures to be taken seriously. Unless a better explanation or conceptual interpretation of gravitation is presented, you are chasing lost causes claiming the existence of a gravitating body that is inconsistent with GR. Your Dark or Black Neutron Star, does not seem to be based on any reasonable theory of gravitation and quantum mechanics.

You keep asking for the math, and yet I don't see that you have provided any math that supports your assertions. Neither as it relates to gravity or quantum mechanics.

A long winded way of saying, you need to provide some sort of reasonable model, that allows for your conclusions, before anyone is going to take then seriously.

 

Clinging to an idea in the face of counter data is not conducive to furthering your education. We are all wrong now and then. If you have an idea that is shown to be wrong or not supported by the evidence then learn from it and move on.

 

He was trolling you. Since he chooses to remain uneducable for personal reasons he's an illiterate crank.

 

Proof??? Your inflated ego has you floating Rajesh...come back down to Earth!
A scientific theory is not "proof" but obviously a scientific theory gains in certainty over time. GR tells us that when the Schwarzchild radius is reached, then further collapse is compulsory.
As per the scientific method, if you don't accept this scenario of GR and BHs, the onus is on you to show different.
I do understand you are unable to do that, hence your continuing waffling and trolling.

Appealing to James again?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Ignoring the fact that the onus is on you to invalidate?
Not sure of what your James inference is referring to, but James himself, in one of your many "mission threads" to invalidate GR, did also say he was no expert.
And again, your game in trying to turn the spotlight off yourself and on to me, has like your paper, floundered....Evidence by the numerous posts deriding your general stance, your stubborness, your ignoring and avoiding many pertinent questions, your untruths, and your constant use of red herrings to escape the spotlight.

As you know, I'm unable to supply the maths. As you also know, irrespective of that fact, it does not alter the premise encased by GR, that once the Schwarzchild radius is reached, further collapse is compulsory.
You have been told that many times, along with many other facts re GR and BHs.
GR also fails at the Planck/Quantum level, and as most scientists/cosmologists do not believe in the "classical point singularity", a surface of some sort, or degenerate mass, should exist at between the quantum/Planck level and this classical point singularity that we believe does not exist.

No, there is nothing wrong in being wrong, and consequently you need to heed your own advice. Your "nudges"as you put it, coming from someone unqualified in cosmology, and who refutes GR and BHs, and who has been so very wrong in many issues in that regard, do not shake my belief in what I have claimed as correct.
And what I have claimed to be correct, on all occasions, in all your BH threads, have all been supported by reputable links, some from prestigious learning institutions.
Whereas you have shown nothing to support your fairy tale version of GR and cosmology.
So, yes, despite your pretentious claim that "this must be settled!" the fact is that it has already been settled, as evident in my many links, references and other professional replies.

 

With respect to the actual theory general relativity they're no problems. You expect GR to make predictions associated with quantum phenomena. That's why you think there's a problem when it doesn't. With the theory of general relativity the physicist can do an analysis of any spacetime the theory predicts. All the way down to r=0.

 

This also raises his other problem and his stubborn refusal to accept...that being the meaningless application of density to a BH.
Obviously the density of a BH would normally refer to volume out to the EH and the mass at the center.This means that larger SMBHs are less dense than Stellar size BHs.
That's of course taking the BH out to the EH.
Or you may prefer to ask what is the density of the collapsed mass/singularity at or below the quantum/Planck level?
And then what time frame?
The following highlights the meaningless concept of density with regards to a BH.
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/density-of-supermassive-black-holes.483191/
Wikipedia gives this description of supermassive black holes to distinguish then from stellar black holes: "The average density of a supermassive black hole (defined as the mass of the black hole divided by the volume within its Schwarzschild radius) can be much less than the density of water for very large mass black holes (the densities are similar for 108 solar mass black holes). This is because the Schwarzschild radius is directly proportional to mass, while density is inversely proportional to the volume. Since the volume of a spherical object (such as the event horizon of a non-rotating black hole) is directly proportional to the cube of the radius, average density decreases for larger black holes, being inversely proportional to the square of the mass." I get how the density determined by the Schwarzschild radius should be inversely proportional to the mass, but it still seems so counter-intuitive to me, with so much weight bearing down upon the center of the black hole. Could someone give me an explanation as to which forces counteract the huge gravitational forces driving the volume of the black hole towards a point, and allowing it to have a density less than that of water?

Reference https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/density-of-supermassive-black-holes.483191/