Black Hole.... Not so Black

Was ready to answer some crap with a post that would have been #123, third entry on p7. But then, noticed just in time p7 became p6, two posts gone missing, a confusing drastic change in post numbering (then sort of corrected), and confusing rearrangement in ordering of various surviving posts. That has made some of my referencing in a given post back to others now look silly. But not my fault and can't go back and correct.

WHAT THE HELL HAS BEEN GOING ON HERE!!??

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Thats the question I should ask in different context. Lot of cross fire in this thread.

Mathematically BH can exist, at least something up to Event Horizon can exist. Observation-ally also existence of certain massive but invisible gravity holder object can be deduced. The problem arises because we do not know what is inside EH.

With due modesty, I attempted to include some simple mathematics to arrive at the radius of Neutron Star and I got a simple result that for a given mass star the Neutron Star can exist smaller than EH for that mass. What I am trying to say is the nature of mass/energy/? inside EH is not so vague in some cases. An all Neutron Star can exist inside EH, what is required to be calculated is the life span of such object before it becomes Singularity.

Let me further throw some light on "my understanding" (I may be wrong)...

1. A black hole is defined if the radius of the star is less than Event Horizon.

2. The journey to Black hole is via the Neutron Star then possibly Quark Star and even after that possibly Preon Star.....then BH.

3. My simple calculations have proved that a Neutron Star can exist smaller than EH for that mass. So the journey would be Black Hole (star inside EH) and then Neutron Star and then..........may be singularity via Quark and Preon Stars.

With due respect to Paddoboy, peer review is pending..... may be dismissed, may be admitted. If dismissed I will put the details on this thread. If admitted it will be known.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I have traced 4 now missing entries in p3 by an apparent sock-puppet of reiku. What were posts 45, 47, 49, 56. The discrepancy of 2 evidently some intermediate editing situation.
OK so remaining ordering is in time order as you say, and I probably got confused when trying to sort out the various screwed-up post references those deletions created. It has royally screwed up many of mine, plus a few of others. Wouldn't it have made more sense to just slap a banned notice on the entries of (banned member) as seems to be the case with all other banned members? Or is this a special treatment consistently applied only to sock-puppets? Or permanently banned members too? Say I was banned. Would all my posts vanish? I noticed that (banned member) had a post count of ~ 109 before vanishing. Presumably that has screwed up the logical flow in quite a few other threads.

 

That explains the policy fine. But that last bit 'It is easy to remove posts.', while no doubt true, fails to mention it's quite a bit harder to then go back and undo any collateral damage caused. As per:

from my (currently

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

) #124.

 

I just followed post links back from the last page to the OP with no problem. If what you are complaining about is a post referenced by post number only, perhaps it would be a good idea to use a post link. Otherwise, just deal with it, this kind of thing is not happening all of the time. It is a special case situation.

From James' explanation I am sure I have responded to a few posts that no longer exist (and there are few of my own I wish no longer exited), but in the larger scheme of things this is not a life altering situation.

Unless a thread is the sort that might become of significant historical reference, as in remaining a top Google hit in years to come, this is really insignificant. True I have to go back and re-read what I posted yesterday to even remember who I was responding to, but most of the posters here don't seem to have the same problem.

Enough off topic diversion.......

 

Please post the math that resulted in this unusual result.

 

BH's are primarily inferred by the effects they have on space time and matter/energy within their vicinity.
I don't believe anyone has yet determined anything else that could cause similar effects.....
John Mitchel theorised Newtonian BH's as far back as 1879 but nothing much came of it and it was forgotten about. As Newtonian BH's they were to have a surface of sorts at just below the volume where density gave it the escape velocity exceeding "c"....Hence they were know as Dark Stars.
GR then came along, and predicted that once past the Schwarzchild limit, [that same volume where density gave it an escape velocity exceeding "c"] further collapse to Singularity status was compulsory.
The great success and predictability of GR saw it naturally accepted over the Newtonian Dark Star.
At this stage Quark stars, and other exotic forms of degenerate matter are yet to be confirmed.
Degenerate matter stars are governed by "forces" that surpass Pauli's exclusion principle. White Dwarfs are prevented from further collapse by EDP [ Electron Degeneracy Pressure] Neutron/Pulsars are held up from further collapse by NDP [Neutron Degeneracy Pressure]
EDP is surpassed when the remnant core of the collapsed star exceeds 1.4 solar masses, and for a Neutron star 3 solar masses.

How can any Neutron star exist inside an EH?
The EH, which corresponds to the Schwarzchild limit, tells us that this is when a BH will form.
That is the definition of an EH.
The Schwarzchild limit or radius was calculated by Karl Schwarzchild in line with Einstein's GR.
All that exists inside any EH [ignoring incoming matter and energy if any] is just critically curved spacetime, up to the Singularity at the center.

Any Neutron star accreting matter can form a BH once the NDP [3 solar masses] is exceeded.

 

Word salad practitioners nearly always exposes themselves for what they are.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Well I'll treat that with the contempt it rightly deserves, especially coming from a self confessed GR denier.

My attempt was a description from a layman [that's me] to another layman.
And I'm sure those more attuned to mainstream physics in its more elaborate form don't see too much of a problem with it.

You??

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

:shrug: Your reputation and beliefs speak for themselves.

 

http://www.physics.drexel.edu/~bob/Term_Reports/John_Timlin.pdf
We have discussed earlier that the Pauli Exclusion Principle prevents two identical
fermions from occupying the same state at the same time. Also, we know that when all of the
lowest energy states of the neutrons in a neutron star are filled, the neutron star is at its lowest
possible total energy. When a star contracts, the free neutrons get pushed closer together, and
thus, by the Pauli Exclusion Principle, cannot all remain in their lowest energy states. This,
therefore, forces the neutrons to occupy increasingly higher energy states, which, in turn, creates
a pressure.
http://www.physics.drexel.edu/~bob/Term_Reports/John_Timlin.pdf

 

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/whdwar.html
Electron Degeneracy
Electron degeneracy is a stellar application of the Pauli Exclusion Principle, as is neutron degeneracy. No two electrons can occupy identical states, even under the pressure of a collapsing star of several solar masses. For stellar masses less than about 1.44 solar masses, the energy from the gravitational collapse is not sufficient to produce the neutrons of a neutron star, so the collapse is halted by electron degeneracy to form white dwarfs. This maximum mass for a white dwarf is called the Chandrasekhar limit. As the star contracts, all the lowest electron energy levels are filled and the electrons are forced into higher and higher energy levels, filling the lowest unoccupied energy levels. This creates an effective pressure which prevents further gravitational collapse.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/whdwar.html

 

Agreed.....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Do not be bullied out of your common sense by the specialist; two to one, he is a pedant”
Oliver Wendell Holmes:

 

Since you choose to disingenuously repeatedly dig up that past issue (as for instance you further do in #120):
post #35 there: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/fr...-trust-authorities.142870/page-2#post-3237091
puts it into proper perspective. There was no true justification for that censorship disguised as a re categorizing, as I made clear there and then. One only need look at various other threads allowed to remain in Physics & Maths as proof of that, a point I made in last para of #38. Shame on those involved who would not answer me and declined any attempt to rationalize. I would now further expand the list in #35 there to include not just the one(s) approving and enacting such censorship, but who initiated it! Such cowards. And despite your denial of involvement paddoboy, I trust nought of anything you as a proven chronic liar and defamer say. That this gets me even further offside with whoever as mod/admin was responsible is something you may have tried to cunningly engineer here, but it worries me not. To go down your path as shameless sycophant as per your pitch to 'movers and shakers' in the (hopefully now stablly numbered) #120 - that would be worrying. And that path I will never take.

 

A single accurate and frank word. Rare indeed for paddoboy.

I guess you meant 'their style', but then spelling is clearly not your strong suite. Sycophantic drivel mixed with chronic lying, misrepresentation, and cowardice are. But you yet again insinuate I am sock-puppet of undefined. Someone I rarely even noticed here. Again - from 'new' #109:

That reference is now to the 'new' #91 - which in part referenced to the last para of the 'new' #69.
Make good you vain coward - there is no excuse for not following my repeated and repeatedly shirked challenges in 'new' #101, #103, #115, and as listed above. It disgusts me your kind are tolerated here at all.

 

aborted!

 

Double entry?!

 

Still playing that cheap shot tactic - like a broken record, it has long lost any psychological impact even on any uninformed of the original context.

Your attempt here is to excuse yourself for a gaffe exposing your base ignorance of the topic. Something that attempted catch-up quote mining in #132, #133 does not expunge. But which exposes the falsity of your oft claim of 'having no ego to defend'. BS. Those 'attuned to mainstream physics' likely cannot be bothered with correcting you. After all, I managed that already by highlighting a single giveaway word.