BLACK HOLES Tutorial based on observations and GR

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by paddoboy, Sep 9, 2015.

  1. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543

    You must really be hurting.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Take a disprin and have a good lay down, it may relax you.
    My reply to you in post 59 stands as does my tutorial.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    You sure sound like that crank Rajesh. What' wrong? You so embarrassed being Rajesh that you had to hide behind being God.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    I have now decided to answer all the original difficulties that 'the god"supposedly had with my excellent tutorial.



    I'm not really interested in your many people although I see it as no more than your imagination, but can you supply a credible link that shows many mainstream scientists dispute BH's

    Yes fuel, most certainly fuel......
    I also said available fuel....Not all the hydrogen undergoes and the fusion of lighter elements into the heavier elements depends on the stars mass and size. That is and was all that is necessary to give a basic picture of how stellar remnanst form.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_black_hole
    http://phys.org/news/2011-05-mini-black-holes-atoms-earth.html

    Any charged BH will attract opposite charge.
    http://jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/insidebh/rn.html
    http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/rn.html

    See previous link.

    Yes, the Schwarzchild solution is the simplest and most mathematically easy to work with.
    My statement re the Schwarzchild metric and being the most mathematically easy to work with stands, and will be the end state of all BHs.

    Probably but I'm not going to try as in reality all one needs to consider is common sense and known cosmology.
    Stars all spin as far as we know, it follows then that whatever remnant is left behind is also spinning. So the Kerr metric should be the most common.
    But of course you could find a credible link to invalidate that. Wanna try?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    My approximation stands.


    My description stands despite your silly childish antics.

    Another rather basic bit of knowledge. Let me sum it up like this.
    The singularity lies at the quantum/Planck level of spacetime within the BH and that is at the center. The mathematical singularity comes about due to the limitations of our models
    http://newt.phys.unsw.edu.au/einsteinlight/jw/module6_Planck.htm
    http://people.bu.edu/pbokulic/blackholes/

    Agreed...I should have said "none has ever"....but since no one has or can, can shall suffice in this instant.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Only in your dreams. The SMBH solution for the whole galaxy remains unapposed

    No, that's totally wrong, no alternative model has come close to the generally accepted BH solution, including the refuted, defunct crazy Black Neutron Star fairy tale.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    The only one who has not got a correct perspective is yourself.
    But then again you also lack the intestinal fortitude to admit to all your other weird cosmology stands that you have, and that have been shown to be incorrect.
    Add to that your continued refusal to supply credible back up or links for your claims, similar to rajesh, and its obvious you are no more than a phony fraudulent anti mainstream troll, who is dead set a troll.

    It appears also other members are waking up to who you are, one in particular who like me, was prominent in getting the nonsensical BNS shown for what it was.
    Funny, there was always going to be a back up improved paper a month later

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Perhaps they sent that to the sewage outlet.

    I have also written an addendum to my tutorial in post 47, in a list of facts format....no numbers involved for you to wrangle and song and dance about...just plain facts.
    Care to refute them? with credible support of course.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    rajesh actually thought he was god actually........didn't need credible references, accused numerous professors of not knowing what they were talking about, avoided difficult questions and entire posts at times, a grossly over-inflated ego and opinion of himself.
     
  8. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    Paddoboy has a serpentine nature, look how he has snubbed your sensible post, calling the same as pedantic and how he has lapped up your post in which you attempted to deride me. He is not worthy of blind support. Why don't you ask him what is this 5 Kms and 4 meters instead of being rude with me. That is more honorable and to the point.
     
  9. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    I am not refuting anything, I am just stating the truth.....You are mis-interpretating the mainstream Physics. I may be against some of the mainstream ideas, but I do not represent them inaccurately.

    Anyways, I will do that first please explain what is this 5 Kms and 4 meters....This issue has linger on quite a long and your stupid persistence with inaccuracy amounts to trolling.
     
  10. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
     
  11. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    You very rarely state the truth and even rarer to be correct.
    But all you need do is state a credible link supporting your nonsense


    History shows you do represent most ideas inaccurately, as well as anyone who dares disagree with you.
    My facts are all supported...you have nothing.


    Your answer has been given and will not change because of your trolling. See the other thread and answer all the questions along with any credible link you may have. Take your time.

    GR tells us that once any massive object is forced to undergo collapse, once it reaches a point called the Schwarzchild radius [which for a BH is the EH] then further collapse is compulsory. This means that if we squeeze the Sun into a volume of around 5 kms, it would reach its Schwarzchild radius, further collapse would continue and it would become a BH.

    I said if you squeeze Jupiter to within a volume of approx 4mtrs, it would "breach" its Schwarzchild radius. I stand by that. OK?
     
  12. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    I have written many BH facts at post 47: Are you going to answer them and show what you are made of?
    Please offer credible links as I always do.
     
  13. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543

    As you have continually shown, it is you that lacks honour and decency as well as courage.
    But keep posting...each post reveals more and more of who you are.
     
  14. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    Black-holes are physical non-sense.

    They are mathematical concepts only.
     
  15. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    I have reported your post, I don't do backbiting.

    Now please tell me...
    "This means that if we squeeze the Sun into a volume of around 5 kms, it would reach its Schwarzchild radius"

    what is this 5 Kms

    a. Radius which is 2.95 Kms
    b. Corresponding Diameter which is 5.9 Kms
    c. Approximate Diameter, if so why not change to 6, instead of 5.
    d. Volume


    I got a good, easy to understand link for you, which gives the desired and acceptable approximations.

    http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/S/Schwarzschild Radius
     
  16. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    That's nice.

    Your answers are given and only an Idiot would not truly understand that...that you just a plain dummy spitting troll hell bent on getting his revenge.
    My tutorial stands my friend and you have some points to either support or invalidate with credible references at post 47
     
  17. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    I have given the reference and calculations, the approximate Schwarzchilds radius for a solar mass BH is 3 Kms, and approximate diameter is 6 Kms...you have made an incorrect representation and stupidly persisting with the inaccuracy despite the fact that it was brought to your notice as back as post #6. Your failure to not correct it, tantamounts to Trolling and now I will leave this on Mods. No further discussion on this topic from my side.

    James R...Why this silence?
     
  18. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Note friends! This coming from someone who pushes ghosts, goblins, fairies, Bigfoots, Alien origin UFOs, Poltergeists, santa claus and the easter bunny

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    So much for his science contribution.
     
  19. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Schwarzschild Radius
    by FRASER CAIN on SEPTEMBER 10, 2009
    http://www.universetoday.com/39861/schwarzschild-radius/

    A black hole is an object where the gravity is so powerful that nothing, not even light can escape it. They’re called black holes because they emit no radiation. If you take any object and compress it down, there will be a point that it becomes a black hole. If you could compress the Sun down to a radius of 2.5 km, it would be come a black hole. For the Earth, that radius is 0.9 cm. And a large mountain might be smaller than a nanometer. That radius is called the Schwarzschild Radius.

     
  20. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    rajesh had this habit of continually appealing to the mods....another nail in your coffin I suggest.
     
  21. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    Sure

    But atomics and subatomics both need space in order to manifest and/or exist.

    Gravity is an extremely weak force

    Just saying
     
  22. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    Recall what I said about you in another that "time measurement based on orbital period" point on a different thread

    "Note: Most of your statements, which I have questioned, in other threads also are suffering from same problem. There is a vast amount of literature available on internet, you read some pop science (or easy journal based paper) and take that as mainstream truth, and then persist with that."


    So, this figure of 2.5 Kms as radius and 5 Kms as diameter comes from this Popular Science stuff by Fraser Cain, you have the choice to go with this but please make a point Schwarzchild radius for a solar mass is 2.95 Kms which is around 3 Kms. not 2.5 kms.

    Now since you know that 6 Kms is a proper approximate figure for diameter, kindly issue a correction. If Fraser makes a mistake (meant for general curious crowd), it is not necessary that mistake is perpetuated by you in a Tutorial.
     
  23. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    They are approximations pure and simple, just as I meant them to be.
    Despite the song and dance by you, that will not change, nor will the fact that is all I said and claimed in my wonderful tutorial.
    You need to get over this fanatical obsession of yours, it will lead to your demise.
    Obviously the tutorial stays as is as no correction is necessary nor warranted.
     

Share This Page