Singularity Vs Quantum Theory of Gravity

Paddoboy,

Check...

So below understanding of yours is acquired 12 years ago or few months ago ??

[5] Density of a BH is rather a meaningless concept.......

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You are the one claiming a typo.
I see the link as reputable, along with the other links I have given, and supporting of all I have claimed.
Again, are you going to clear up the 5 issues you seem confused about?

ps: Just one more question with regards to all your threads, the methodology you have used in [1] starting to ask questions, [2] refusing to accept answers off anyone, and[3] then progressing to expert professional status.....
Why have you [as far as I can see] only ever posted in the threads you have started re BH cosmology?
Seems a rather strange methodology and certainly adds weight to my claim that you have an agenda driven mission against the acceptance of BHs per se

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I have given a link explaining that, have also explained it in my own words, and I'm sure that has been supported by another poster in another of your threads..

If you want to keep trolling, and asking the same questions over and over again, after they have been answered and supported, then maybe action should be taken in relation to this "spamming"
All questions on those issues have been answered and explained and supported.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Paddo,

You are asking me my stand on 5 issues, I am starting from #5

[5] Density of a BH is rather a meaningless concept.......

My question is above stand of yours is 12 year old or few months old ??

 

You seem to be struggling.
As is obvious, if you ask the density of a BH, what are you measuring....the EH?, the critically curved space-time that makes up 99.9% of the BH? The Singularity?? whatever and wherever that is.

 

PS Rajesh:
If you disagree with any of the 5 claims I made, please show reputable references and/or links to support your layman's version.
Otherwise it is just meaningless.

 

So you won't commit yourself about this stand of yours about BH density...One last try, 12 year old or few months old ??

 

Current mainstream acceptance that has been the same for as long as I can remember.
Now why not stop the side tracks, stop repeatedly asking the same questions over and over and if you disagree, show some link supporting your view.
best of luck.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Well said QuarkHead !!

Paddoboy, if someone says that your mass (M_Paddoboy = Mp)

mP = 2.18 × 108 kg

You will catch the mistake instantly, because you understand the significance. But since you do not understand the significance of Planck's mass you could not identify the typo in link below in the first line itself.....

http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/P/Planck Mass

So, Paddo you miserably failed to associate meaningful mass to Planck's level, and you are crying hoarse that Singularity lies at Planck's level.......without understanding the theory.....

 

So, for you concept of "density of BH being meaningless" was there for quite sometime......basic concept, right ?

 

More side tracks, more red herrings, more avoiding answering the questions.
Certainly nothing is perfect, including the scientific method and peer review.
But they are the best we have, and as I said, and no one can deny, we all reference, we all read, and 99.999% it is reliable providing the link is reputable in the first place.
Now Rajesh, any fault you want to imagine with my linking and referencing will pale into insignificance with your own ignorance. That has been shown by many times.
Now again, just in case you failed to get it.
Speaking of BH density is really a meaningless concept.
Afterall we have the mass that is undefined at least at the Planck/Quantum/Singularity level where GR fails...we have just space-time that could stretch for many millions and billions of kms, and we have the EH.
Like I said, and as supported by at least one professor, and like as generally accepted in mainstream cosmology, a meaningless concept.
Hope that helps.

 

showing tantrums Paddo, hold on !! Now more tantrums will come from you !!

 

Why are you continuing to troll?
If you want to assign meaningful density, then supply a reputable link supporting that concept. easy peasy!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

[if it was available]
You do know that rubbishing the scientific method, peer review, reputable internet links and references, is the game that all our alternative pushers play don't you?
After all, as I have mentioned before, they are unable to achieve any notoriety or fame anywhere else, particularly recognised mainstream, and that is terribly troubling for inflated egos.

 

Few Months Back ..... certainly not 12 years ago....Paddostand was as follows

And Now.....Paddostand changes to

I have no objection to someone learning, and working on his knowledge, this man needs to acknowledge that he is in nascent stage of learning.

 

:shrug:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

While you refuse to answer the questions that support all my claims, I see it as you throwing tantrums. Another typical Rajesh methodology approach though...trying to turn the tables on those that dare oppose your fairy tales.

 

Nice try...
Stars, WDs, neutron stars/Pulsars are not BH's
And again assigning density to a BH is meaningless for the reasons I have stated.
[Did I hear someone talking about tantrums?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

]

 

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/b...you-dont-know-about-black-holes/#.VPaRynyUdZ8

Black holes can be low density.

Of all the weirdnesses about black holes, this one is the weirdest to me.

As you might expect, the event horizon of a black hole gets bigger as the mass gets bigger. That’s because if you add mass, the gravity gets stronger, which means the event horizon will grow.

If you do the math carefully, you find that the event horizon grows linearly with the mass. In other words, if you double the black hole’s mass, the event horizon radius doubles as well.

That’s weird! Why?

The volume of a sphere depends on the cube of the radius (think way back to high school: volume = 4/3 x π x radius3). Double the radius, and the volume goes up by 2 x 2 x 2 = 8 times. Make the radius of a sphere 10 times bigger and the volume goes up by a factor of 10 x 10 x 10 = 1000.

So volume goes up really quickly as you increase the size of a sphere.

Now imagine you have two spheres of clay that are the same size. Lump them together. Is the resulting sphere twice as big?

No! You’ve doubled the mass, but the radius only increases a little bit. Because volume goes as radius cubed, to double the radius of your final clay ball, you’d need to lump together eight of them.

But that’s different than a black hole. Double the mass, double the size of the event horizon. That has an odd implication…

Density is how much mass is packed into a given volume. Keep the size the same and add mass, and the density goes up. Increase the volume, but keep the mass the same, and the density goes down. Got it?

So now let’s look at the average density of matter inside the event horizon of the black hole. If I take two identical black holes and collide them, the event horizon size doubles, and the mass doubles too. But volume has gone up by eight times! So the density actually decreases, and is 1/4 what I started with (twice the mass and eight times the volume gives you 1/4 the density). Keep doing that, and the density decreases.

A regular black hole — that is, one with three times the Sun’s mass — with have an event horizon radius of about 9 km. That means it has a huge density, about two quadrillion grams per cubic cm (2 x 1015). But double the mass, and the density drops by a factor of four. Put in 10 times the mass and the density drops by a factor of 100. A billion solar mass black hole (big, but we see them this big in galaxy centers) would drop that density by a factor of 1 x 1018. That would give it a density of roughly 1/1000 of a gram per cc… and that’s the density of air!

A billion solar mass black hole would have an event horizon 3 billion km in radius — roughly the distance of Neptune to the Sun.

See where I’m going here? If you were to rope off the solar system out past Neptune, enclose it in a giant sphere, and fill it with air, it would be a black hole!

That, to me, is by far the oddest thing about black holes. Sure, they warp space, distort time, play with our sense of what’s real and isn’t… but when they touch on the everyday and screw with that, well, that’swhat gets me.

I first thought of this at a black hole conference at Stanford a few years back. I was walking with noted black hole expert Roger Blandford when it hit me. I did a quick mental calculation to make sure I had the numbers right, and related to Roger that a solar system full of air would be a black hole. He thought about it for a moment and said, "Yes, that sounds about right."

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/b...you-dont-know-about-black-holes/#.VPaRynyUdZ8

 

http://physics.stackexchange.com/qu...-of-a-black-hole-and-how-can-it-be-calculated

 

Bye Paddoboy, You have been checkmated and you can stare from outside at those four [1] to [4] remaining pieces of yours. You can ask any chess player what happens with the remaining pieces once checkmated.

I sincerely regret bruising OnlyMe and Brucep in last couple of threads. My only issue was that they attempted to take a high stand, which a knowledgeable man should never take, moreover Brucep started with derision, but OnlyMe unnecessary got bruised by making some loose unrelated statements. Sorry, guys.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Whatever.
I think you have just conclusively shown who has been checkmated.
Such arrogance, such delusions, such hypocrisy, such stupidity!

PS: Does this mean the other 5 claims of mine go unanswered?
Can we call this another cop out?