Problem of gravitons and black holes

Is it?
Then why don't you explain the significance of LauriAG formula. Let's see about your non ignorance.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You know it is.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You asked the question...stop trying to get out from under: The forum knows you too well.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Exactly! Thank you...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

So you expect this forum to accept your own fabricated nonsense, from some glorified Electrician no less, without any credentials in the field you are denying. Then you wonder why I add 2+ 2 and get a "god of the gaps" answer!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And that is basically what you are trying so deviously to establish.
Like what another said, arguing from incredulity, while accepting some magical spaghetti monster is, well quite hypocritical.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Paddoboy, The God -

Your continual personal bickering is of no interest to other forum members. In fact it is one of the reasons I come here so seldom now. You run the risk of deterring other members too.

For the record, you might like to note that differential geometry is a Hard Subject, but an understanding of it is essential to an understanding of the existence (or not) of Black Holes and their singularities.

Neither of you have shown any such understanding, so your interactions on the subject are quite worthless. Let alone irritating.

Just take a break and get an education.

 

Agreed, and again I apologise: Point though is that when people come here with an agenda, and express denial of near all 21st century cosmology, and expressions of incredulity, then I believe refutation of such nonsense should be forthcoming.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I have always let it be known that I am a lay person and amateur in this field, but one who has read many reputable books, and in the main my view/s is what is accepted by mainstream, and obviously in that respect, quite correct.
Those views and accepted theeories are expressed certainly in lay person speak, and mostly correct I believe.
Oh, and thanks for the two likes, and sorry to see that what you regard as bickering, is driving you away.

 

I do not think understanding the differential geometry is essential for understanding of Black Hole and related singularity.

You are giving importance to whatever is stated in mainstream, nothing wrong in that, because in your case it appears that mostly it is based on understanding of the subject, on the other hand Paddoboy gives importance to mainstream as such.

My position is very clear that Singularity is nonsense, that means prevalent definition of Black Hole is non sense. You can fiddle with your differential geometry knowledge, the nature does not care. There are no singularity in nature, they are the bad solutions of your hard differential geometry. Faster these singus are chucked off, better for science.

 

A few things you have arse up my friend:
Firstly all mainstream theories were at one time simply hypothetical and speculative: They achieve theory status by matching observational and experimental results and continuing to make successful predictions.
Secondly while no one embraces any singularity, including that predicted in a BH, a future QGT should eliminate such and extend the parameters as per GR, thirdly when that happens, BH's do not cease to exist.
They are already near confirmed in the eyes of most reputable physicists and cosmologists.
But all this has been told to you many times.

 

I think you are whatever up!
It is not necessary that theory comes first and then the matching observations as you are suggesting. Most of the times observations lead to theories and then the relevant predictions. When predictions are observed, the theory gains better status.

 

Arse up, it's arse up....
Understandable your confusion English not being your first language.
What I'm saying is that all theories were at one time just hypothetical and speculative, before they became mainstream theories, the stuff which you hate!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And of course before they become mainstream, they need to match observation and make correct predictions.
The scientific theory certainly gains in stature and certainty, the more observations it aligns with, and the more predictions it makes.eg: GR.
So you see your angst against mainstream is rather silly.

 

Can you be so stupid?

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

That's OK my friend, obviously you are unable to understand, or your agenda is blinkering you.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Take it easy! OK?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

And no end of bickering yet in sight! Are you two clowns determined to destroy the forum?

 

It is amazing how far got this thread from the original topic

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Agreed....
In GR gravity is the curvature of spacetime and the curvature of spacetime from a BH, is a "fossil" field from the star/stellar object from whence it formed. Gravity/spacetime is also nonlinear...that is gravity makes more gravity.
We have no quantum theory of gravity as yet and gravitons do not exist under the umbrella of GR.

 

A black hole formed while its matter is rotating will preserve this spin as a measurable attribute. If we impart spin on an existing "fossil" gravity field surrounding a black hole, what exactly is spinning? Is the matter within the EH now rotating? If so, how is that rotation being communicated back beyond the EH?

 

Both: The Kerr metric, a solution in GR, describes a spinning BH, with a "ring singularity" and even "frame dragging"evident with the ergosphere.
I do not see your problem in asking how is the rotation communicated to outside, if one recognises the fossil field concept and the property of nonlinearity of spacetime/gravity.
Just to add, in GR, spacetime is continuous.

 

From your posts it seems like you are claiming that the nonlinearity of gravity resolves all issues; as if the mass within the BH cannot communicate in any way with the outside world but that we would still be able to effectively feel that mass' influence by this fossil field. The nonlinearity of gravity is a mathematical result which does not come from the existence of gravity, it still requires the presence of mass. If it were true that gravity could perpetuate its own existence then we could introduce mass and then remove it from the equation completely with persistent results.

I'm not attacking your understanding, I'm taking issue with the "fossil field" explanation of Dr. Baez.

 

Actually, I see the fossil field as far more explanatory and logical.

As an amateur and lay person, I can only put it as I understand it and as I have read and learned.
I do have Thorne's "BH's and Time Warps" which I will have a glance through sometime today, to see if I can find anything more relevant.
I did also add a little to my previous post that you may have missed, simply that in GR, spacetime is a continuous field.

 

You give 'likes' and criticize Paddoboy at the same time?

I would urge you why not try to respond to his posts and educate him, as long as he copy pastes, there is no problem, but once he starts offering his argument, things go haywire and if someone points out his gaffe, he becomes further aggressive.

 

Spacetime...a field?


And fossil field is not at all logical, you must attempt to understand the inherent problem...how this fossil field traverses with BH?

I must tell you that I understand the concept of assigning spin, emf and even gravity as field to any spatial point, but as long as source is able to communicate with such point. In case of BH, singularity cannot communicate outside of EH. This fossil field would have been great if BH was absolutely static, but thats not case. Talking about fossil field for a moving singularity appears to be science of convenience. Something wrong somewhere, we do not need fossil field concept to save on BH.