Black Holes A Opposed To The Big Bang

So, I'm the flavour of the month again? OnlyMe and brucep have lost favour.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Oh what a laughing stock you are!.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Rajesh, you may be crackers, but you are not stupid. Bruce was talking about the geodesics of a single black hole not the whole universe.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I did respond to your #159 below. It just wasn't the response you wanted. The question is a diversion from the issue of relativistic mass....

The only way that anything in that question would have anything relative to the initial issue of relativistic mass, is if you first make the connection. You are trying to start an entirely different debate. One which I have no interest in, at the moment.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I won't press the issue.

 

I have to correct myself, I did not earlier respond to # 159. But the second sentence in my earlier post was on point.

 

OnlyMe,

What do you mean by Geodesic of single Black Hole ?? My dear friend Geodesic is the part of spacetime in the context...kind of shortest path which the light would travel....kind of curved distortion caused by the mass.....for a BH mathematically spacetime extends up to infinity, where it kind of becomes flat (Euclidean Approximation).........mathematically it is not an impossibility that a Geodesic line connects two BHs....but that would violate the very definition of BH..........so please do not support a non technical statement like this that Geodesic terminates at r = 0 (it is just vague, not properly defined at r = 0, due to infinities in curvature part)

 

I've just received this reply from Prof. Dolan, JTIS*:

* Dr. Schmelzer, I hope you don't mind.

 

tashja thanks again, I'm sure brucep will be delighted!
The part I like which once again confirms what I said earlier to Schmelzer was the part about......
- why Newton's Laws are not "wrong" (Chap.III under the heading 'Ockham's Razor');
although I did add within their "zones of applicability".
What will be amazing, is that this professional expert will also be derided by the "alternative few" and we'll hear all sorts of excuses, as we have for every professional reply that has rebuked all anti standard accepted cosmology.
I'll probably get a few more rantings re myself I would imagine too.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Of course I don't mind. I thank you for this quote. Especially his "It remains to be seen whether the orbital topography near compact objects in theories of gravity without event horizons is similar enough to the Schwarzschild metric that there may be ways of mimicking dying pulse trains in them." is the point I make all the time. GLET is exactly such a theory which mimicks GR. The limit Y->0 gives the GR equations, but nonetheless for each Y>0 (but not Y<0) there remains a stable star greater than horizon size.

Unfortunately, I have not found the book and the article on the net, only the later article http://arxiv.org/pdf/1104.3164v2.pdf, which mentions as a possibility that the pulse trains observed in 2001 have been spurious. But I would not bet on that, I would expect that such dying pulse trains will be observed. Simply because I know independently that Y has to be extremely small (it defines inflation, and therefore defines the minimal a(tau) which will be reached during the big bounce, so, it has to be small enough to allow for the dense state of the universe we observe by the CMBR). Given that it is extremely small, the metric will be extremly close to the BH metric already very close to the horizon. And that means that it will mimick GR black holes very closely. And all one needs to mimick the dying pulse train is to make the large final pulse when all this hits the surface invisible. But this happens essentially automatically if the radius is close enough to the Schwarzschild radius, because in this case the outgoing radiation has to be emitted almose exactly vertically. But if something hits a surface, what one can expect is radiation going away almost isotropically. In this case, only the small part of it radiated away almost exactly vertically will be able to leave the star to infinity.

 

All I have to rant is that one needs tashja to present some evidence to support your point. It would have been your job to find such support, once you have made the point.

Regarding the "Newtonian theory is not wrong", one has to read the context. There is the point that there are some quite stupid people who would reject any application of NT once "NT is wrong", even if in the domain of question NT is completely sufficient as an approximation. To tell such stupid guys "NT is not wrong, it is true in its domain of applicabity" would be what one could name a justified lie, justified by the wish to prevent harm caused by the predictable misinterpretation of the truth.

But I personally prefer not to tell even such legitimate falsities.

 

And as I believe you already stated elsewhere, any outgoing radiation has to cope with penetrating through a relativistic infalling stream. Not to mention that for astrophysically real gravitationally collapsed objects, high spin associated also with intense magnetic fields is the expected norm. Making any simplistic argument that a dying pulse train invalidates all but GR just silly. But folks don't understand or just plain aren't willing to acknowledge the self-serving PR element in many 'official' claims. Not that I believe in 'gravastar' type objects with a physical surface - just that criticism is almost invariably skew of the mark.

 

Wrong again. On the issue of the correctness or otherwise of models such as NT, I gave my reasons and supported that with a reputable link.
tashja was able to get a reply from a professional person, that re-enforced what I said.

And one needs to read the context and deeper meaning of all our alternative hypothesis pushers that claim to know better then recognised professionals.
Delusions of grandeur, anti science or establishment bias, religious dogma, having an agenda or another hypothesis that they are unable to let go of despite evidence to the contrary.
The fact remains my previous claim re NT and GR are right and that has been further re-enforced.

 

In the paper I published on dying pulse trains (Publ. Astron. Soc. Pacific, v. 113,
974, 2001), I argued (in Secs.1 & 5) that the observation of decreasing intensity pulses with decreasing separations between them and no large final pulse, were evidence for an event horizon surrounding a physical singularity (a black hole), as predicted by GR. I also stated that this would be evidence against alternate
theories of gravity in which event horizons do not exist. But I added (in Sec, 5) that "It remains to be seen whether the orbital topography near compact objects in theories of gravity without event horizons is similar enough to the Schwarzschild
metric that there may be ways of mimicking dying pulse trains in them."

I'm sure the Professor's comments above, give the "dying pulse train" as convincing evidence for the generally accepted BH EH.

 

That's awesome. Professor Dolan is great. I attended his talk on the discovery at the conference in San Diego in January 2001.

 

With respect to the later paper. The original discovery was found why observing in a UV spectrum while the later attempt to observe the dying pulse train, at Cygnus x-1, was in a weak x-ray spectrum. Interesting stuff. The orbiting accretion disc flare can be modeled as points to trace a radial path to the event horizon. The impact parameter for a radial path is 0. If it hit a shell outside r=2M it should be an observable. It shouldn't 'wink out'. It's < r=2M for Cygnus since the rotation parameter is .75. Blows my mind.

 

http://www.messagetoeagle.com/dyingpulsetr.php

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Nice one brucep.....We have Neil De-Grasse Tyson giving a lecture tour in Australia in August. My Son's just told me and has offered to buy me a ticket to see him for my Birthday. I'm taking him up on the offer!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

In the interests of quote war 'balance', might as well provide a link to an article by Chapline et al giving an eerily similar pov to Schmelzer: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0503200
(and some basic searching at arXiv will show up many other related articles by above and others)
I have no horse in the BH vs Dark/Gravastar race, but consider it highly prejudiced when only a particular dogma is pushed, especially by types with zero technical capabilities.

[And in anticipation of less than useful responses: knock-knock - you there tashja? Mind employing your eliciting skills again, and try getting George Chapline et al to weigh in on on his/their response to dying pulse train as 'proof' of BH's?]

 

stuff up

 

From your link......
Event horizons and closed time-like curves cannot exist in the real world for the simple reason that they are inconsistent with quantum mechanics.
The first sentence is Interesting in that he talks of Inconsistencies with QM.
I mean we spoke plenty about that when the media sensationalised Hawking's theoretical take on a similar subject with the headlines "BHs do not exist"
Of course that's all it was journalistic sensationalism. BHs most certainly exist according to the evidence.