Translational Motion of Black Hole

There is no paradox and that has been explained to you before.The properties of nonliniarity and the fossil field takes care of your confusions.

Just as the Sun carries its gravitational field and associated properties like EMF, or the MW galaxy carries its gravitational field and associated EMF.
Some nice simulations at this link......
http://physics.aps.org/story/v1/st3

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Paddoboy,

You repeating this thread after thread, and post after post....it must be concluded

My understanding of your point above is as follows..., please clarify if I am understanding you incorrectly on this..

1. You say that Physicists believe (or started believing) that classical point singularity does not exists.......so you agree with me that Singularity is not a realistic solution of EFE.

2. Now the second point is more interesting. Before that you must understand that as soon as we assign the mass to a non zero geometry (like Planck's level, a sphere of Lp), then its no longer a singularity..simply because infinities are taken off..... Do you agree with this ?

3. Once you assign the mass to Lp or any value > 0 and < Lp, effectively what you are saying is that an object of very huge mass but of microscopic size (radius_around or less than Lp) exists inside EH. Is this what you want to say ?

More after you confirm the above.....

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There is no dispute with this aspect...I have written in the OP itself that there is no problem for the object which is bigger than its Schwarzchild radius..We are talking about objects which have contracted and collapsed inside their own Rs.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Only when needed.

I actually find it hard to agree with anything you say due to your underlying agenda.
But you have my answer.

I understand obviously you have an agenda, and once again, you are using this science forum to push that invalidated agenda.
Just to add anyway, the classical point singularity in general, and as inferred, Is a non physical mathematical result that lies outside the zone of applicability of GR.
Also as I have informed you of before, a singularity need not be of infinite extent, and is sometimes inferred where theories such as GR break down...that is the quantum/Planck level.

I am saying a surface of sorts probably exists at between Planck/Quantum level, and the point singularity. Or outside the realms of GR.
You would be able to see that simple point if not for your agenda.

More not needed, only in possible response to any more nonsensical claims such as BNSs.

 

It makes no difference. Why should it? Obviously any star collapsing already has a gravitational field. That's what we mean by a fossil field.

 

If you do not wish to clarify what you write, then why present the argument ?? You are just trolling....And almost all the threads you are spoiling with your absolute lack of knowledge. Kindly contribute otherwise stay away.

 

BH's can't move theoretically because both QGT and GR have defined a substrate quantum/tensor field that behaves as though it were part of an aether or a Euclidean/Pythagorean/Minkowski/Witten topological solid which cannot move because of the way it is defined. Relativity must be consistently applied to quantum fields also. If something moves or is stationary, it is always relative to something else. All the way down.

A large part of matter (bound electrons) is in actual fact entangled in the stationary quantum field and is therefore not entirely constrained by relativity's limitations on propagation of energy in the field that is in motion. Entangled particles remain entangled on the inside/outside of BH's because even though time runs at different rates, the instant that is the present is the same instant everywhere the inertialess stationary quantum field exists. The instant of time that is the present is absolute; space (and motion at different rates <c through it) , and the rate at which time progresses based on relative motion or proximity to other matter, are not.

Parmenides or Zeno's would have been a better choice of ancient greek concepts. Time actually is infinitely divisible, and the existence of quantum entanglement is the proof of this. Only entanglement with a field that is everywhere at once, combined with the Uncertainty Principle can overcome the Zeno paradox in which nothing matter or energy can move in time that is infinitely subdivisible. QFT has been stuck in a version this particular paradox ever since they threw out time and replaced it with probability densities.

 

All answers are clarified. All BHs move or rotate. The gravitational field of a BH is maintained by the fossil field and the property of nonlinearity.
And of course as the record shows, it is you that are trolling and being dishonest to boot.
And I will keep reminding you of those facts, as long as you keep infesting this forum with the totally invalidated and rebuked notion of a BNS under any guise your insidiously feel like using.

 

You do not know what you talk.....You just screw up the thread for any meaningful discussion by your stupid interjections. Keep yourself away from giving any opinion, just keep posting the news snippets.

 

I havn't given you my opinion. I've given you the accepted facts, that BHs move and there is no paradox or problem with that.
As far as the rest of your "dummy spit" is concerned, it is you railing against accepted cosmology knowledge and BHs, and it is being dishonest in posting this thread along with others, merely to keep pushing your totally invalidated BNS.
If you were honest, you would post in the alternative section.

 

Again I'll attempt to help you......Here is a cosmology tutorial that may help alleviate your unsupported fixations re cosmology and BHs
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_01.htm
And here is another tutorial that outlines the basis of relativity that may help also, and of course you were told to get SR/GR instructions by a Professor also.....
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/relatvty.htm

 

The simple answer is that the BH singularity/BH is being salvaged.........Secondly I have read nowhere that a BH cannot move, GR tensor field has no restriction on the motion, it is not defined not to move.

You have also fallen trap to this relative motion argument, which although is fundamental and fine but not applicable as yet on the OP. As long as a BH has got displaced from a position P1 wrt to any reference to a position P2, the OP applies.

No. 'Present' cannot be meaningfully defined on the inside of EH wrt to outside 'present'........If there were no temporal disconnect (due to EH), then irrespective of rate of time flow, your explanation wrt to "present here' and 'present there' would have been ok. As long as core > EH, things are fine.

We are still stuck with Tp as the quanta of time, with no further observation or studied argument. Existence of quantum entanglement (another questionable issue) is not the proof of discreteness of time. We have nothing in hand about discreteness of time except some mathematical unit calculations for Tp (Planck's time).

 

First you state what is your argument as per my post # 82, once you do that you are most welcome to give links to tutorial or whatever educative material in your possession...

 

My argument is that anything inside EH, having influence outside EH, has a problem due to time disconnect. It has got nothing to do with BNS or Gravatstar or BH. You are meaninglessly arguing that Fossil Field, non linearity etc are the solution, without having an iota of understanding about these concepts.

Why don't you clarify your argument as asked in my post #82...thats a very fair thing to do....You throw stones and run away...at this age either you will fall or you will be caught.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You are so conceited!
A couple of points you need to recognise quick smart...I have answered your post 82, and[2] I'll post whatever material I like, when I like, and how I like as long as it is with accordance to the rules.
Some advice again, as detailed by one more expert than me.....
You need to study up on GR BH cosmology and become more familiar with it.
Secondly, you need to accept gracefully when you are wrong and pushing a dead horse.

 

I will tone down my post # 82 as below so that you can state what you want to say.........

1. You say that Physicists believe that classical point singularity does not exists.......Does it mean that Singularity is not a realistic solution of EFE ?

2.As soon as we assign the mass to a non zero geometry (like Planck's level, a sphere of Lp), then its no longer a singularity..simply because infinities are taken off..... Do you agree with this ?

3. You say that there is no singularity, and the entire mass resides at some level at or below Plancks level. Effectively what you are saying is that an object of very huge mass but of microscopic size (radius_around or less than Lp) exists inside EH. Is this what you want to say ?

Let the forum know, what is your argument..........

 

Wrong: It has everything to do with BHs...What else has an EH?
And deny it as much as you like, but again you are wrong. As detailed in the links I gave and other posts of mine, nonlinearity and fossil fields most certainly without question, are the reasons that the paradox/problem that you imagine does not exist.
And of course I also remember a fool not so many posts back, arguing about comparing/relating time inside and outside the EH.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Run away??? We just had another rather childish poster inferring and mentioning running away and similar immature comments. I'm here whenever I can be.
Oh, and your post 82 has been answered. The main point being the problem that you have fabricated, [to support the nonsensical BNS] does not exist, for the reasons stated.

ps: Have you taken the Professor's advice yet, and studied some GR and 21st century cosmology?

 

The classical point Singularity falls outside the realms where GR is applied.

Already answered previously.

Again, already answered, but just to reiterate....GR fails at the Planck/quantum level: The classical point singularity probably does not exist:
A QGT should reveal a surface of sorts at or below the quantum/Planck level:

I would say the forum knows my argument, and the position put by most mainstream cosmologists, and that is accepted as such.
You are the one way out on a limb, without a way back......you are the one in the canoe without a paddle!
No one else needs to prove anything! Including me.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Just to add anyway, the classical point singularity in general, and as inferred, Is a non physical mathematical result that lies outside the zone of applicability of GR.
Also as I have informed you of before, a singularity need not be of infinite extent, and is sometimes inferred where theories such as GR break down...that is the quantum/Planck level.

 

Sorry, all non committal !! You are being vague. Try linking the definition of singularity with above colored statement of yours, and see if you make any sense or not.