Neutron Star

No problems, we all do have a life outside of the forum.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

It appears that generally speaking, we are adhering [you and I] to the same generally accepted answer to the question/s at hand.
It appears from my end anyway, that the only differences being that you put more emphasis on the "we dont know what its like inside an EH" while I more or less accept more positively that we can "accept what is predicted by GR and other current knowledge"
If I can give an example, its in many ways similar to the question, "does ETL exist beyond Earth?" while I accept the correct answer is "we do not know", I'm also certain that it does and that a yes answer is an extension of common sense, logic and current knowledge.

Agreed, but as I said, and as was evident to how even all our professional replies varied with the degrees of emphasis and certainty and confidence.
Or how much certainty we give our predictions as reality.
I do recognise that fact.

Probably correct but also it does seem a reasonable approach to take.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I made a mistake in pointing to his #162, as #156 really started it imo and then got a kick off in your #159 and so on back and forth till now.

I will admit to being too harsh in using 'psychological...issues' there. It just irks me to see topics raised again and again with nothing profitable gained thereby. To be fair this is a problem across many SF subforums and members, not just here.

Nice of you to say so and you also made many good points. My forlorn hope is Rajesh has finally seen the light and quit, not just pausing to recharge before another tilt at windmills....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hi Rajesh. I have contacted, as per Q-reeus request, a neutron star expert to review your paper. Here's Prof. Bennett Link's reply:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Thanks for providing above, tashja. So you are still around!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

As Prof Link shows TOV really settles it. The denominator expression clearly causes a blowout when or rather if it were possible for 2Gm[r]/c^2 -> r, and hypothetically dp/dr becomes infinite hence infinite pressure at any depth below surface. Well before that the usual core collapse must occur. I'm pretty sure Rajesh has referred to TOV many times in the past so this should not be a surprise for him.

 

Nice post Prof. Bennett. Thanks for Linking it tashja. The wiki on the TOV equation is pretty good.

 

Why am I not surprised you wouldn't figure it out? LOL. What I said was the neutron star trapped inside the event horizon HAS TO FALL DIRECTLY TO r=0. That's what GR strong field physics predicts for the fate of the neutron star. My example to help you get a clue. You have no desire to get a clue since you think you already have a clue. LOL. Like most every crackpot you're not interested in the science beyond your own version of it. LOL. See if you can figure out what Prof. Bennett wrote down for you. You're probably going to make up something Prof. Bennett forgot. Oh yeah LOL.

 

Sorry OnlyMe, I was not spamming, it was Paddoboy, who was bringing in this issue again and again in almost every thread/post, hence it was required.

The answer to the question is very clear.....classical GR singularity is at r = 0 not at Planck's level...

If you and Paddoboy, cannot rise above this, then you have to address your Physics knowledge only...not mine.

 

Tashja, Thanks a lot....as usual great work....

With due acknowledgement to worthy and rational posts by Q-Reeus, wherein we both got into Prof Hamilton type objection briefly very early on this thread.

But
After first around 160 posts (Prof Hamilton objection) and after around 180 post (Prof Benett response), it is amply clear that no other poster could raise an iota of proper objection on the paper, they were all arguing that GR is violated without knowing what (and how) of GR is violated....kind of exposes their complete ignorance about the subject. And now they are jumping....that look I told you so...

Q-Reeus

I have answer to both these objections by profs, both are unsustainable.
Will get back soon with proper counter. It appears to me that conclusion of this thread (not my paper) may result into something significant....Just an hint, pl see the calculations behind 9/8 Rs as limit (Bennett) and 4/3 Rs (Hamilton) ??

 

Prof Bennett had time to write equations, but you did not have ?? Now rushing to take credit..

Granted !!

 

A snide remark was made by one of the poster stating all in the paper as High School Physics....Before I advent on responding to these two worthy professors objections, I wish to draw the attention of general members of this forum to the "Power of High School Physics" which some of the vociferous-know-all-type members of this forum have forgotten...

Neutron Star Mass

Since the time Chandra calculated the EDP mass of around 1.44 Solar mass (around 1920s), the work is on for Neutron Star Mass. The first breakthrough came in 1939 (Starting of story of TOV Limit) involved highest level of Physics that is Cold Fermi Gas, Fermi Energy Level, Degeneracy Pressure, Heisenberg Uncertainty principle and KE/P calculations, Hydrostatic Balance, Gravitational Collapse......and the result was 0.7 Solar Mass, less than EDP value of Chandra, so obviously some problem. Then another 70-75 years and still issue is not settled and now there is a consensus (Yes, consensus !!) among scientific community that this limit is around 3 Solar Mass...

It took me some simple High School Physics to conclude that Neutron Star Mass range is 1.44 - 2.65 Solar Mass.

Quark Star - Preon Stars

Another interesting research topic, involves everything but High School Physics, although it has a kindergarten term called 'Soup'....

Till today we could not observe such stars, we will observe one day if at all they are there..

It took me again that simple High School Physics to conclude that a compact star of mass range around 2.65 - 3.24 and radius of around 8-10 Kms can fall in this exotic category.......No known work on this aspect till today, we are busy in finding out the state of equation of Neutron Star itself forgetting the High School Physics.

Black Hole Minimum Mass (Stellar)

The struggle is on for decades...involving every known complex concept of Physics, but this guy is very elusive. Some scientists say its is 10^14 grams, some say it is 25 Solar Mass (50 X 10^30 Kg), some say it is 3 Solar Mass...but no certainty and no consensus.

Again a simple High School Physics and we have Minimum Mass for a Stellar Gravitation-ally collapsed BH as 3.24 Solar Mass...........sooner I am going to put some more high school physics in it and it is quite likely that.....?

Everyone charged the easy to object conclusion (BNS)...but no one could find fault with other conclusions based on High School Physics..This amply demonstrates the power of High School Physics...

 

Even at this late stage of proceedings with your hypothesis in tatters, you still chose to lie...shame about that.
With this matter done and dusted I was going to let things go and hope that you would put far more thought into your next evangelistic mission against GR, BHs or accepted standard cosmology.
I have never said that the classical GR Singularity [point] is at the Planck/quantum level.
I have said at least a dozen times that cosmologists generally do not accept that the classical GR point singularity will ever eventuate.
I have said at least a dozen times that GR breaks down below the quantum/Planck level.
I have also said that this is also referred to as a Singularity.
I have also said at least a dozen times that since we don't accept the classical point Singularity, a QGT should see the form of degenerate mass and a surface of sorts at between the quantum/Planck level, and the classical point singularity and its infinities.
And I have also stated a few times, that a Singularity need not be infinite but may lead to infinite quantities.
As usual, references have been supplied supporting what I have said in one of your other misunderstandings.
It's now obvious to all that you will chose to do anything to get out from under and try and salvage some credibility for the nonsense that you have proposed in this so called scientific paper.
The mind boggles as to what you have planned for us next.

 

People should learn from you how to camouflage and how to lie !!

Anyways better late than never !!

 

No, that shows the limitations of high school physics. Your conjecture was shown to be flawed and incorrect by college level physics. High school physics is just fine for building a base for further studies, but trying to use high school physics for fundamental research is a fool's game.

 

So says origin !!

 

If you continue your education you will see how absurd the idea of research based on high school physics is. At this point you just don't realize how little you know about physics.

So says origin.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Origin,

Do a small introspection and you will find that your contribution to the forum is reduced to finding fault and cribbing.

 

Hard to do as you give no specific links to either. The 9/8 limit is derived on p4 here: http://www.astro.princeton.edu/~gk/A403/ns.pdf
Take note of the leading paragraph:

The 9/8 Rs limit as per eqn. (7) is an unrealistic lower one for two reasons - it assumes material incompressibility, and further that the core can sustain up to infinite pressure. Obviously (well hopefully obviously) for real matter the limiting radius must be greater when relaxing either or both assumptions. Likely the 4/3 figure you say Prof. Hamilton gives, a priori assumes more realistic behavior and/or upper pressure bound. In which case they are both right but according to different starting models. Shouldn't we all be moving on by now?

 

So says Rajesh the crackpot. A major component of being a crackpot is sticking to your nonsense at all costs. IE you don't give a crap about the physics you just give a big gargantuan crap about being right and maintaining your 'pain in the ass' intellectually dishonest, uneducable stance. If you had high school physics you didn't learn a thing. One hope of the entry class in high school is for the student to learn something about how science is conducted.

 

I'll leave it up to your's and my peers on this forum as to who people should learn from re lies and camouflaging.
In the mean time why not admit you are totally wrong in your hypothesis, as in every other hypothesis you have had in half a dozen or more threads.

 

I do find fault with people posting pseudoscience, but cribbing? I don't live in a barn and if I did I certainly would not chew on my stall!