# Asymptotic Freedom in QCD and...

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by RajeshTrivedi, Sep 14, 2017.

1. ### NotEinsteinRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
549
If you think I'm dishonest, feel free to get the moderators involved.

Right, because you apparently don't understand my point, let's plug in some dummy numbers:
y = x + 5
k = 1
x > 0 (actually not needed in this case)

Then always: y > kx
dy/dx = 1
k = 1
dy/dx > k
1 > 1
But 1 is not larger than 1.

QED.

I have just proved it wrong once again.

No, I do not admit that your obviously wrong derivation is correct, obviously.

OK, one by one.

to hide all adverts.
3. ### RajeshTrivediValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,470
I have understood your point. You have forgotten your basics, you are just playing word games.

There is a mistake in your proof, which will be difficult for you to figure out. [Hint : You are using dy/dx of y = x, for dy/dx of y > x. Both are different numbers.]

I will guide you through..

1. Consider the first quadrant (YOX) of Cartesian coordinates.
2. Draw a line OP such that angle POX is Arctan(k)
3. This line will be y = kx, all the points (x,y) on this line will satisfy y = kx.
4. All the points between OP and OY will satisfy the inequality y > kx.
5. Take an arbitrary point P' between OP and OY, this will satisfy y > kx.
6. Now

for y > kx
Angle (P'OX) > Angle (POX)
tan(P'OX) > tan(POX)
dy/dx > k.

(tan(POX) is k, and tan(P'OX) is dy/dx of y>kx.)

No, you have just proved that you are ill equipped even to handle basics maths.

[As far as involving moderator is concern, then I will leave it to James R and his team. It is a forum rule that if a person persists with mistaken argument despite a direct and clear proof is shown to him, then it tantamount to intellectual dishonesty and trolling. Lets see what they do]. If they can decide to shift this thread to pseudo, then surely they can see through your persistent mistaken argument, despite proof of contrary.

Last edited: Nov 29, 2017

to hide all adverts.
5. ### NotEinsteinRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
549
If you think I'm playing word games, please involve the moderators.

Agreed so far.

But that if I draw my line through P' parallel to OP, and use k=1? That's what I've done with my numerical example. y > kx, but dy/dx = 1, per construction.

You are measuring your angle(P'OX), but that's doesn't give dy/dx if the line through P' doesn't go through the origin O.

Well, at least one of us is unable to do even basic maths, I agree.

I am aware of this.

Yes, let's.

I'm confident they will indeed be able to see through someone's persistent mistaken argument(s), yes.

to hide all adverts.
7. ### RajeshTrivediValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,470
You have done many things to sustain your objection. You brought in square function, inverse function, outside object, vacuum inside the object and now the parallel line.
Why dont you simply prove that if y > kx then dy/dx > k is false (dont change the goal post, by introducing y =1 /x or x^2 or kx+5 etc).

8. ### exchemistValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,623
It is in Pseudo, and has been for a while, hasn't it?

9. ### NotEinsteinRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
549
Which I have done using "square function, inverse function, outside object, vacuum inside the object and now the parallel line".

If you think I'm changing the goalposts, then you haven't defined them properly in the first place. If you don't specify any specifics for "y" except that it has to be "+ive" and linear, then $y=x+5$ for the $x>0$ domain is a valid choice.

But let's fix that. Please list all requirements on x, y, and k.​

10. ### RajeshTrivediValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,470
It is just that you have not understood properly. Let me rephrase,

1. When an object of mass M is just at EH.
2. Then for outer most surface r = Rs and m = M.
3. At this instant, all the inner fraction sphere (of mass m where m<M and radius r) will be out of their (m) respective schwarzschild radius.

for this to be true for any given fraction of mass m (m<M) of radius r, following condition should meet

m > rc^2/2G

dm/dr > c^2/2G

Your objection is that dm/dr > c^2/2G is false even if m > rc^2/2G. Prove your claim or retract.

11. ### NotEinsteinRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
549
Agreed.

False. I can give a density distribution where that two main components: a inner core, which has a mass $m_1$ such that there's an event horizon at $r_1$, and a spherical shell at some $r_\text{shell}>r_1$ that has mass $m_2$ such that at some $r_2>r_\text{shell}$ the Schwarzschild condition holds ($m_1+m_2$ is $M$).

This object thus has two event horizons. But note how it still conforms to your point #1 and point #2. In other words, point #3 does not follow; you are making assumptions/imposing restrictions without naming them. Please also post these additional assumptions/restrictions.

Which is proved to be false in general under your stated conditions by my example above, as $\frac{dm}{dr}$ in that example is zero between $r_1$ and $r_\text{shell}$.

I've given multiple examples now where your logic fails. I've thus already proven my claim multiple times. You are the one that keeps repeating a claim without proof. Please prove your claim or retract it.

12. ### RajeshTrivediValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,470
Yes, you can give a density profile, please refer to my post #126

#126 part
if you calculate values and see then your this m1, m2 example supports this view only. Subject to if you understand a very basic thing, that if a density profile d(r) = f(r) gives all the points of an object just at their inner part EH, then all the points will be beneath their EH if density profile d(r) > f(r). Where will you get a density profile of the order d(r) > 10^25/r^2 kg/m3 when the core is just at EH?

No it is not proved false, it is just that you have forgotten your basics and you are incapable of recalling even when reminded.
You could not prove that if m>rc^2/2G then why dm/dr > c^2/2G is false? The point is it cannot be proved wrong, you are just playing with all the other functions but not with this.

13. ### NotEinsteinRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
549
(There's a slight misquote in your post: the "agreed" was not to point #3.)

What values?

The grammar here appears broken. What are you trying to say?

Why are you introducing a non-specified function to replace another non-specified function? This doesn't do anything.

Why must this be true? Why must the density be larger inside the object than on its outer surface? You are claiming here that a spherical shell is an invalid matter configuration; in other words, you are saying that a spherical shell cannot form an event horizon.

More interesting is that you are saying it cannot have a constant density, thereby disproving your own assertions in your texts.

In my post #132, I gave you a Fermi-style estimate, indicating that the outer regions of neutron stars can reach these densities just fine.

Last time I checked, zero is not larger than amy positive number, and you haven't pointed out any mistakes in my math.

I have already done so multiple times. That you apparently fail to understand that isn't my fault.

Except it already has been multiple times; you just stubbornly refuse to accept this.

At least several of the functions I've used in some of the examples I've provided comply perfectly with the requirements you've given, so you are either wrong or making an irrelevant point.

14. ### RajeshTrivediValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,470
For any given spherical object (not reduced to BH singulairty), all the points including interior points will lie on respective Event Horizon (an interior point respective EH is by considering the mass inner to this point), then to satisfy this condition,

r = 2Gm/c^2

(where m is the mass of the inner sphere of radius r).

This will give us: m = rc^2/2G
from this dm/dr = c^2/2G
This will give the density profile as

d(r) = c^2/(8piGr^2) or of the order (5.3* 10^25)/r^2 kg/m3.

[This density profile is for all the points (surface+interior) to be on their respective EH], but for all the points to be beneath their respective EH, the density must be higher than above

that is d(r) > 5.3*10^25/r^2 kg/m3.

[No, realistic object when at EH will satisfy this density profile and hence it can be easily deduced that when the object is at EH, it is not necessary that all the inner shell points will also lie on their respective EHs.]

NotEinstein is not able to produce any credible objection to this, he has been trolling. But since this observation of mine, is coupled with some kind of alternative proposal, and people like NotEinstein are supporters of mainstream, so the moderator team is also keeping a blind eye to his persistent incorrect objection.

15. ### Xelasnave.1947Valued Senior Member

Messages:
3,293
Well is that such a bad thing the thread keeps going and most entertain ing it is.
Good to see you here and hope all is going well.
Alex

16. ### NotEinsteinRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
549
Incorrect; they must lie on or within their Schwarzschild radius.

This is the change with respect to the Schwarzschild radius of the minimum mass necessary to satisfy the Schwarzschild condition.

By setting "the minimum mass necessary to satisfy the Schwarzschild condition" equal to "the encompassed mass" and the "Schwarzschild radius" equal to the "radial coordinate" you have derived a density profile that will be exactly at the Schwarzschild condition for all points including interior points.

Incorrect. I can build a density profile that has a large mass in its center, with an event horizon extending far beyond it, and with a spherical shell at the outer edge of this region. Or formulated the other way around: I can have a spherical shell that's at the edge of the event horizon of the inner core. Such a density distribution has d(r)=0 between the inner core and the outer shell, thus proving that your condition on a minimum density is not necessary in general.

Which is, as just proven (again) not necessary. Additionally, neutron stars can reach that density in their outer regions.

This conclusion I do not disagree with; it's the derivation leading up to it that's the problem.

Or: "RajeshTrivedi has been unable to understand all the credible objections to this". One of the two.

If you think I have been trolling, please contact the moderation and have them deal with it.

No, it's coupled with high school level math that contains many mistakes, unspoken assumption, and a fundamental lack of understanding of GR.

I'm a supporter of truth, mostly. Your derivation is wrong.

Is this a "it's a conspiracy" claim?
But if you don't like the members of this forum, if you don't like the premise of this forum ("science forums"), and you don't like the moderation of this forum, might I suggest you find another place where you feel more accepted? You're only hurting yourself more by staying here.

17. ### NotEinsteinRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
549
I have a feeling the thread is going to end soon, seeing as RajeshTrivedi is just repeating him-/herself without actually addressing (or even acknowledging) all the credible objections I've brought forth so far.

18. ### Xelasnave.1947Valued Senior Member

Messages:
3,293
Please don't let it end.
Alex

19. ### NotEinsteinRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
549
I'm not planning on it, but in my experience, when one side of a discussion gets stuck just repeating themselves, the discussion ends soon afterwards.

20. ### RajeshTrivediValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,470
Thank you.
This is what all along I have been saying,
and the result of this is that if a photon is produced at any such inner point then it need not travel towards the center, if it is directed radially outward, it can very well travel outward, till it encounters a point (on the collapsing core) which brings the point inside the now changed inner part's Schwarzschild radius..

21. ### RajeshTrivediValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,470
This is another dishonest attempt.
You are just playing with the words, you have not produced any credible objection. In your previous post you agreed to whatever I was saying.
If you further play with words, you will be humbled that even the simple mathematical proof and my claim of unrealistic density profile >5.3*10^25/r^2 is also correct.

22. ### NotEinsteinRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
549
Not sure why you are thanking me?

No, it's not. What you've been saying all along is a mess of incorrect calculations and derivations, missing definitions and conditions, dodging questions, and failing to explain yourself.

And I've never denied the possible correctness of that statement. It's just that you've come to a conclusion for all the wrong reasons. In other words, your stated conclusion might be correct, but you've made elementary math mistakes in coming to it. It might be true, but it is invalid logically speaking. You cannot back up your conclusion.

Only for certain density distributions, which probably are unstable.

And perhaps you could be so intellectually honest as to respond to the rest of that post too?

If you feel I'm being dishonest, feel free to involve the moderators.

I could argue that it is you that's being dishonest right now, by misrepresenting my acknowledgement of the possibility that your concluding statement may hold truth as agreeing with your derivation to reach it.

If you think I'm just playing with the words, feel free to involve the moderators.

Except that I have, multiple times. You repeating this accusation over and over again without backing it up is starting to look more and more like trolling.

I have done no such thing, as I just explained.

Indeed, at least one of us indeed needs to be humbled.

23. ### RajeshTrivediValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,470
All noise, no quality at all.
I checked few other threads and shocked to see how you trolled Schmelzer, he also had to give up on you. You even just short of boasted that you may have some peer reviewed papers published in your name, while questioning his paper as decade old with few citations, why not come forward and say what you have. This thread doubly proves (along with Schmelzer thread) that you have no basic knowledge of maths and physics and just trolling around.

let us take few example,

3 Solar Mass object just at EH:
Rs = 8905 Meters.
d = 2.02 * 10^18 kg/m3
Rs (of 90% core) = 8015 Meters
R (of 90% core) = 8598 Meters.

So R(90% of core) > Rs (of 90% core), Suggesting that inner 90% fraction is out of inner fraction EH.

Density calculations when the core was just of its EH size and not yet collapsed to form BH, and calculations are done for inner fraction 90%, but any fraction can be considered and will give the same conclusion.

10 Solar Mass object just at EH:
Rs = 29685 Meters.
d = 1.82 * 10^17 kg/m3
Rs (of 90% core) = 26719 Meters
R (of 90% core) = 28661 Meters.

So R(90% of core) > Rs (of 90% core), Suggesting that inner 90% fraction is out of inner fraction EH.

30 Solar Mass object just at EH:
Rs = 89056 Meters.
d = 2.02 * 10^16 kg/m3
Rs (of 90% core) = 80150 Meters
R (of 90% core) = 85983 Meters.

So R(90% of core) > Rs (of 90% core), Suggesting that inner 90% fraction is out of inner fraction EH.

None of these density profiles are unrealistically dense or whatever as NE is handwaving, they are nuclear level or rarer.
All these clearly prove that inner fractions will be out of their respective Schwarzschild radius, this calculation is done with uniform density, I call upon this poster NotEinstein to come forward and give his non uniform density profile (within < 5.3*10^25/r^2) to disprove this, or if he has some civility he should retract his objection.

In general (not exception) when an "object is just at EH", except the outer surface points all other inner points will be out of their respective schwarzschild radius. This condition will be false only for very high unrealistic density profiles.