Black Holes A Opposed To The Big Bang

And if an EH is established to be true [to use your own words] then as per the GR edict, once an EH is established, further collapse is compulsory and no BNS or any other weird phenomenon can exist.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That is an outright lie, and you know it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You're welcome, guys. See Dr. Chapline's response below:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So.. is there anyway to differentiate between a Rajesh black neutron star (RBNS), a gravastar, and a black hole? Apparently there is (at least theoretically) according to Prof. Wiltshire:

 

Paddoboy, this is all the struggle about, to find something realistic inside EH. Why don't you understand this ? BNS or any object inside EH is not weird, but singularity is certainly weird......


Secondly 'GR' has no business telling you about halt of collapse by EDP and NDP, the contraction continues but it is halted by fusion radiation first, then by EDP, then by NDP....and beyond that we do not know anything about any counter pressure to create stability so it must collapse....The search is on to find out some mechanism beyond NDP....

 

Hi Tashja,

The DPT is a mathematical theorem that the space-time metric outside a spherical mass has to be exactly the Schwarzchild solution. There is no such theorem that the space-time outside a rotating compact object has to be exactly the Kerr solution. In particular if the compact object is topologically similar to a toroid, then the metric doesn't have to be the Kerr metric. My guess is that your "dying pulse" idea would somehow have to be related to this loophole to be viable.

GC


Tashja, due to you, a bar is set on the level of discussion. Mostly when we discuss compact objects, the reference is to spherical symmetry......Prof is referring to different geometry toroid.........I am attempting to find out some way wherein if the mass distribution inside the EH is flat (disk type, non spherical), then the collapse is not dynamic and not mandate as prevalent.....it is also one of the possibilities that inside EH, the spherical object explodes, and resettles with non spherical geometry or in dispersed manner.

 

BNS or any other object within a BHs EH certainly is weird as it contravenes GR. The classical point singularity probably does not exist either but something may form or have a surface at or below the Planck level

It has been pointed out to you by a few professionals that once the Schwarzchild radius is reached, GR tells us further collapse is compulsory.
Gravity increasingly overcomes all other forces including the strong nuclear force, which evidence has also been presented for.

 

Possibly Dr. Chapline had a different understanding of DPT and may not have been aware of the particular article linked to in #216, which DPT is afaik certainly not a theorem but a generic prediction (based on certain assumptions) and also an observation of optical nature. A likely similar thing applied to Prof. David Wiltshire's remarks in #264, but further in his case the proposed GW signatures as distinguishing evidence is interesting as to proposed methods, but something far removed from the optical DPT observations.
All-in-all I'd say Prof. Mottola in #249 had the clearest understanding of what our DPT issue was and gave the most relevant judgement. Thanks again tashja for your efforts in getting interesting feedback.

 

The point really is that there is always a common bond between our anti GR people, involving fabricated conspiracies, manufactured complaints about mainstream cosmology, the fact that being unable to make an impression on the true professionals at the coal face, they instead do there level best to boost fading egos on science forums such as this.
Not much else.

 

It is quite typical that people who permanently accuse others of various sins often do this because this is also their own sin, which they want to hide. Given the permanent accusations by Paddoboy that I propose conspiracy theories, and his complete ignorance of my explanations that there is no conspiracy theory in my purely economic considerations, I have already suspected that Paddoboy himself has a tendency to conspiracy theories.

Here, nicely, is the proof. All those who do not accept his quasi-religious worship of mainstream theories like GR are, it appears, engaged in a conspiracy, a "common bound".

 

Let's look at a few facts.
Most of what I claim, is reputably linked and aligns with mainstream logical views.
Most of what you claim is highly theoretical and unevidenced.
I accept scientific theories can change over time.
You claim that your totally theoretical claims already over ride the incumbent.
You claim the mainstream academia is recalcitrant and set in unmovable ways, and as such, will not accept your version of cosmology.
You claim science is a religion because of this.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

It's rather obvious who is fabricating conspiracies, making excuses and telling porky pies, simply because they are unable to let go of their baby [hypothesis] driven by inflated egos and delusions of grandeur

 

I don't even use terms like "over ride" and "incumbent". Of course, I present the advantages of my theory in comparison with GR - what else would you expect? If there would be no advantages, I would not start to present it.

A lie. I have never made such claims. I claim that your, completely private, ideal of Science would be a New Scientific Religion. This is a critique of your cranky position, and not at all directed against science. But it is, of course, a standard propaganda technique to present attacks against the own position as attacks against some general good.

I claim that the actual organization of science - with its necessity to get grants every two years - is fatal for fundamental physics, because it leads to concentration of the resources in a few fashionable directions, in a domain where the situation (absence of experiments to guide the search for more fundamental theories) requires almost complete freedom of speculation. This is an economic argument. There is no conspiracy at all in this. There is nobody "recalcitrant" or so.

Thus, there are no conspiracy theories from my side. Instead, you have invented here some conspiracy. Moreover, not based on evidence (as usual), and unfalsifiable by construction: "there is always a common bond between our anti GR people". This is the typical worldview of the conspiracy theoretic: All the other people, who do not accept my ideas, are in a conspiracy. Always.

 

Grok'd!

 

I don't believe that for one minute. It's only on your say so and your opinion, that your hypothesis has advantages over the incumbent model.
And I have given you the reasons for such delusional concepts many times.

No, I'm not lying. Your thoughts and rantings against mainstream academia is obvious, and your then fabricated conspiracy claims add even more foolishness to your posts.

Of course there is. The real problem maybe that you are not sufficiently learned enough to be offered any grant.

Again, of course there is, and the proof of the pudding is your own posts.

 

And yet we have extended our knowledge of the Universe a 100 fold in the 20th/21st century, with overwhelmingly validated models such as the BB, SR, and GR.
What you claim is neither here nor there, and makes no difference to the mainstream establishment and those working at the coal face where it matters.

 

Who cares about your beliefs, once they are not supported by arguments?

LOL. I would not take a grant for string theory research even if they would beg.

 

Anyway, back on track and ignoring the cranks:
The original premise of the OP is/was.
Why did not the BB collapse into a BH?
Let's re-establish those reasons again:
[1] The BB was the evolution of space and time: There was no before:
A BH forms in spacetime:
[2] A BH has an EH: The BB did not:
[3] The BB evolved with the tendency to expand overcoming any gravitational tendency to collapse: This is evident by the discovery of the acceleration in the expansion rate in recent time, as the Universe becomes less dense:
[4] In the first Planck instant after the BB [a period where it was impossible for matter to exist] extrapolation and logic implies that the four known forces were all combined into one Superforce: Gravity per se, did not exist as a single entity.

 

No, it makes a difference. I have explained that the main problem of this system is fundamental theoretical research, because in this domain it is fatal if all scientist follow a few fashionable directions. In experimental physics this is not a problem. The improvements are mainly of technical nature.

In fundamental theory it is, instead, a quite strong problem. The theories we work with come from the beginning of the last century - at that time, science was organized differently, at least in those states where the progress has been reached. The last really fundamentally new thing was the Dirac equation.

The SM was, of course, a huge work, but mostly technical, following the progress of accelerator experiments. So, here the direction was clear, what remained was to do the hard job of working out the details. In cosmology, the situation is similar - a lot of technical progress, a lot of progress in computations because of the development of computers, but not much really fundamentally new after BB theory. Thus, if scientists simply follow the established mainstream, this is not a big problem.

But beyond the SM it is completely unclear what to do, similarly in quantum gravity, and here concentration on a few fashionable directions is fatal, because one needs to try out a lot of very different approaches.

 

If of course we would speculate and step outside the zone of applicability of the BB, one could surmise/speculate that the BB maybe the arse end of another BH, which we call a White Hole.
And likewise we could speculate that a BH within our Universe, may lead via a ERB and wormhole to another outpouring of spacetime, creating another Universe.
The trick is though for one to recognise these musings as speculative.