Neutron Star to Black Hole

Farsight, you keep quoting out of context, which misrepresents the intent of those you quote!

What appears to occur at an event horizon, depends entirely upon the coordinate system you choose... And it does not seem that you get that straight, no matter how many times, others try to explain it.

Since the quote above was from a response Prof. Moore made relative to one of your comments, the first and last sentences of the his whole response are important.

Prof. Moore in response to your comment,

This is a good example of how intuitive models can go astray. ...

To understand all this fully, I strongly recommend that the questioner take a course in general relativity!​

The questioner he refers to, is you!

The link takes you to the post, in the now locked thread, that includes your comment and his response in full.

From http://www.sciforums.com/threads/qm-gr-black-holes-cannot-exist.142658/page-25#post-3235725

Have you changed your mind since the statement in that post? If not those first and last lines in Prof. Moore's response remain accurate.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

By the way Tashja, more good replies. Notice how they are becoming more succinct!

Perhaps an attempt to limit misunderstanding?

Or maybe an indication that atemps to explain in detail, seem useless here? (But this last may be more a reflection of my own, than anything these professors intended.)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And still you continue with your childish frustrations and references to myself and brucep.
Again, and I will repeat it as many times as is necessary, brucep is quite apparently knowledgable, along with OnlyMe.
Both I admit, are a class above the layman status of you and I.
Here though is where the difference ends. I don't have an ego to bruise, and am not striving like you to "win" or "conquer" me in some child like game, evidenced by your "GOTCHA" type remarks.
Especially since you have not even half "GOTCHA" anyone at all, including me.
Anyway back on track again.......

Let me put two facts to you that I have been aware of from the beginning of your campaign here......
[1] Frame Dragging of spacetime is caused by rotational mass:
[2] We know nothing as yet of the quantum/Planck .singularity region of a BH, so stringently speaking, we cannot assign any property to it.

But like the footprints we may see in snow made by an invisible man, we can logically deduce that something [as in [1] ] made those footprints.

Ignoring your fallacious statement you claim I am always falling back on, [

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

]
our latest professor says this.......
"I don't know what it means to say that the "singularity spins" or not. The Kerr solution certainly has angular momentum---a notion that is well defined at infinity---and it would probably not be unreasonable to view the ring singularity as "producing" this angular momentum".
Robert Wald:
No Professor has ever said "A SINGULARITY DOES NOT SPIN"



So, since it is you disputing what I claim, why are you keeping this up in line with the evidence so far? much of which you openly admit you are not reading because it comes from mainstream!

Brucep does not need any senior advocate, especially myself. This inference along with a similar inference re OnlyMe, which reads like a new "conspiracy afoot" [

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

] is really breathtaking in its ignorance and childishness.
Here's another similar attempted "conspiracy"claim by yourself......
RAJESH SAID:
"So if you are making this statement to keep Brucep in good humor, then fine with me"

Wrong yet again.....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Angular Momentum by a rotational mass IS THE CAUSE OF FRAME DRAGGING:

Again, remembering it is you questioning and campaigning against mainstream thought on BH's let me state quite categorically again.
[1] A Kerr BH by definition spins. [2] This causes frame dragging in what we call the ergosphere. [3]Frame Dragging is caused by a rotating mass. [4] The BH singularity by definition "starts" at the Planck/quantum level.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It's more commonly and correctly referred to as "spaghettification" or "
spaghetified"

Those same questions which you cling to were answered a few pages back.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

[1]Why are you so opposed to reputable "copy and paste"? including the paper from Roy Kerr himself. Actually the answers are obvious.
[2]You may have not objected to anything the professors have said, but you have taken short quotes out of context.
[3]No, paddo is not spreading any misinformation, and neither is brucep. It's all here in more than 20 pages...nor am I or brucep, lying or misinterpreting or making childish "conspiracy"claims.

You need to take a big step back, and have a good look at what you have been saying, what I have been saying, along with brucep and OnlyMe, and what the professors have been saying in totality.

 

To set things straight, while there was a time long in the past, when I was on a path which would have led to some status other than layman, I chose not to pursue it and took over a family business. I classify myself as a layman... And I don't now, have the mathematical abilities I had even then.

The following I would state a little differently:

1. The frame-dragging effect involves not just the ergosphere, but that part of spacetime inside of an event horizon, which is not occupied by a singularity or physical mass.
2. True.
3. Not clearly accurate in all cases. Say, as a point of reference only, that for the smallest of black holes, the associated singularity might be measured in plank units.., might then the units of measurement for a super massive black hole even reach classically measureable dimensions? The greater the mass the greater the radius where whatever solution used, begins to breakdown. We don't really have the answer to questions like those, because we have no real understanding of the specific structure of whatever collapsed mass remains, within the event horizon.

I see part of the problem in this discussion as revolving around whether we are discussing black holes entirely from the context of GR, which attributes no size to the collapsed mass, or within the context of speculations about the existence of a physical mass, associated with a black hole. The latter really being the a subject for quantum mechanics (not successfully at present) and reasonably applied speculation based on practical classical experience. I do favor the later as more realistic, specifically supported by the fact that the theoretical model and various solutions do breakdown, at the predicted singularity, reguadless of what size it may have.

 

Hehe.. No, you're right. It's a little bit of both.

 

One more:

 

Very nice!

 

I second that!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Tashja, Thanks for stupendous efforts in organising all these response.

With due respect to profs there is nothing nice about this...because it keeps things inconclusive.

1. Majority says it is meaningless to assign any spin to singularity.
2. Some support the Pt#1 saying that singularity is not the part of space time.
3. some other say singularity is not a solution of Einstein Equations.
4. Some says it is ok to say that singularity rotates, but in some context.
5. No one has yet clearly stated that singularity does not spin, most are limited to the statement that it is meaningless to assign any spin to singularity.

With this kind of open response, obviously any argument that it spins or does not spin...will never be concluded only bitterness would increase. So every one is at liberty to make his own conclusions and with that, we should put this thread at rest.

 

No it doesn't. It gives a clear concise picture....

It is not covered by our theoretical models, but one needs to apply common sense...If we observe frame dragging, we conclude it's caused by a rotating mass. Sane logical, sensible conclusion.

All conclude that spacetime has angular momentum right up to the Singularity.

Yep, exactly what I have been telling you from day one. That is no one has ever said the Singularity does not spin....except of course yourself, who also claimed the spacetime/BH does not spin.

It has been concluded. I, OnlyMe, and brucep view all the professor's as basically saying the same thing, each with a different emphasis, that's all.
Your problem, without a doubt in not being able to interpret that...that is due to your agenda. Like all religious agenda's, you'll argue that black is blue until the cows come home, to do whatever it is within your power to discredit accepted mainstream cosmology.
As in your other thread, you have failed in that endeavour.
Game, set, and match! Thank you Linesman, thank you ball boys!

 

Paddoboy,

You have no standing of your own and cling to Brucep or Onlyme or anyone who does not question you due to your sycophantic babbling. These guys keep silent on you, not because you are right, but because you show complete lick-their-xxx approach. So grow up Paddoboy and learn something, show some spine...not some incorrect interpretation.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Say what you like fella, you were wrong on all counts, and as I believed and you have now confirmed your God Bothering agenda has been revealed and now you "spit the dummy "

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Better luck on your next attempt to invalidate some other mainstream scenario....You'll need it.

 

MY answer in post 2:

In actual fact Rajesh, all your questions were answered in post 2:
The problem obviously exists with you and your just as obvious agenda that has muddled your view of reality and accepted cosmology.
Oh, are you still going to write up your scientific paper on BH's and the Rajesh interpretation?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

The profs are addressing a largely lay audience, Rajesh. A full mathematical treatment of this topic has not been presented. But rest assured if it were--it would contain no ambiguities. OK, one more reply:

 

Hi 'Tashja,

Good question!

In general relativity, quantities like "angular momentum" or "energy" are not properties of individual objects or bits of spacetime, but are instead properties of the whole spacetime taken together. I.e. they are only defined "asymptotically".

Sometimes for very special spacetimes with a high degree of symmetry or other special properties, it can be helpful to think of the angular momentum or energy as residing in one particular component, but in general it is not well defined.

Best wishes,
Adam

Thanks tashja, not as informative as the previous answer, but basically says the same.
Compare that answer again along with the other professors to the following statement.

That misunderstanding has been corrected many times along with his other misconceptions, yet he still refuses to accept.
The God Bothering force is strong with this one!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Rajesh, what do you think the word singularity means, in physics.

From the top hit of a Google search of the word singularity,

PHYSICS & MATHEMATICS
a point at which a function takes an infinite value, especially in space-time when matter is infinitely dense, as at the center of a black hole.​

The first sentence from the Wiki article, Gravitational Singularity

A gravitational singularity or spacetime singularity is a location where the quantities that are used to measure the gravitational field become infinite in a way that does not depend on the coordinate system.​

The two words in blue bold above, really have the same meaning in physics. They both mean, where the math breaks down and begins to return infinities. Size in our everyday sense, is not really an issue, even though at least in early solutions, it really was thought of as a point.

The singularity, whether you think of it as a point or a location, is nothing more than the place where solutions to Einstein's field equations, can no longer describe reality. Because we cannot describe anything real associated with a singularity, we cannot say it has mass or angular momentum.., and we cannot say it does not have mass and/or angular momentum. This leads most of the Prof. Tasha has received comment from to characterize any description of the singularity, as not being meaningful. The theory they are working with does not say anything about a singularity, other than it cannot be described in any meaningful way!

There are really two reasons. The math and theoretical solutions they are working with do not describe objects, they describe the spacetime associated with massive objects... And once you reach the singularity whether it is thought of as a point or location, it is no longer part of spacetime, and thus is not described other than as the point or location where descriptions, of spacetime, no longer make any sense.

But keep in mind, these solutions are describing the gravitational field not the massive object that the field is associated with. That may be hard to reconcile, because we in an everyday sense, even cosmologically, think of a black hole as an object. Look back at the responses Tasha has obtained and you will see that these answers almost without exception, continue to refer to the metrics or the gravitational field, described by one or another solution to Einstein's field equations. In a few of the early responses, the professors were attempting to explain in lay terms, concepts that are not lay concepts.

These answers have been to questions about GR. GR assume a mass that is not described other than as a mass figure in the equations... Essentially a point mass, which allows spacetime to extend toward the center of mass, until it reaches a location where it breaks down, a location referred to as the singularity. A singularity is not an object, so it cannot be described... and it is not part of spacetime, because the metrics that describe space time make no sense when you reach that point/location, in the metric.

Now, where I add my own speculation to the discussion, is where I assert that there is a mass that exists within the event horizon of a black hole and if we could observe it, the solutions we have been discussing would describe spacetime to a location arbitrarily close to the surface of that mass... And since within the context of my assertion, the surface of that mass exists at a location suficiently distant from the center of mass, that the issues associated with a singularity are not encountered, no singularity exists in a real black hole.... And any angular momentum associated with that mass is the source of the frame-dragging effect we predict and observe in the spacetime around it.

 

OnlyMe,

It appears you are not keeping tab on all the posts...

In pursuance to my question, long back I got satisfied with the prof's response that..

1. It is meaningless to assign any spin to Singularity.
2. And hence Angular momentum is associated with the ErgoSphere.

But somewhere down the line Paddoboy and Brucep got stuck as follows..

1. Singularity also spins. (Paddo)
2. Angular Momentum has nothing to do with Frame Dragging. (Brucep)

(refer their previous posts, and you will get these gems)

Moreover Paddo continued with his earlier troll that ultimately for non spinning BH, singularity is at Planck's level, but he won't say to which level of Planck's (L or T or M or any X ?)

This nonsense being continued today...and Paddo as usual padding and took salvage that no professor has yet stated that singularity does not spin, he conveniently ignore that almost all the professors have stated that assigning any spin to singularity is meaningless as well as singularity is not the part of solution.

I do not wish to take him on any further as he is not a person worth arguing with. Because he has no stand of his own, he wants to talk about Ergosphere without even knowing the boundaries yet, without even knowing the processes involved in ErgoSphere, without even knowing the maths involved. The guy is not fit to give any opinion on the matter as he is not even aware about linear momentum conservation. He just copy pastes and provides links, that any lab clerk can do...thanks to google. He has a clerical role in the forum of providing links and he should stick to that.

 

Still with the childish personal infatuation stuff hey Rajesh?
Still spitting the dummy hey Rajesh?
And most obvious, you still don't get it yet do you?

And if you have any credibility left at all, which it seems by your obtuseness, childish banter, and lies you do not, you will notice that the first reply to your OP was mine.
And having "got all of what the professors have said" I certainly stand by that.
Like you said, no professor [or anyone else] has ever said Singularities do not spin, while at the same time you claim among many other erroneous nonsense that....

Like I said, you just don't get it do you?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Game, set, and match. Thank you linesmen, thank you ball boys!