Black Holes A Opposed To The Big Bang

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by ISDAMan, Apr 30, 2015.

  1. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,603
    For someone who likes to characterize others as 'ready for a coronary', the evident error-prone haste in above post suggests you are all together too anxious to 'head things off at the pass'. Wait a bit. Just see if tashja manages to come through with an expert(s) counterargument(s) that imo would be a proper, fair, and balanced thing. Then see if YOU can counter that with anything more than further quote mongering.
     
    Last edited: May 20, 2015
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    I'm heading nothing off at the pass. GR is the reigning theory of gravity and as yet we can only theorise with quantum mechanics as Hawking was doing.
    In that regard, BHs are a near certain prediction of HT, that we also have observational evidence for.
     
    Last edited: May 20, 2015
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    Nobody has actually conducted experiments on a real black hole. We look from a distance, using the imagination, and model it with math that also can be used with computer game engines. When space probes first reached Mars, they found things nobody expected, and Mars is a far simpler system to predict. Science is a work in progress and should be open minded and not given the status of a dogma.

    Any reasonable idea with access to the right resources can be published. I used to work at a national lab and anything I did would automatically get published. It was all about access and not necessarily content or results. One can publish coffee is good today and bad tomorrow studies, which are useless and lack any insight, as long as money is spent in a accredited lab. But if you theorize why this is the case, and don't spend, this is heresy. Black holes are not a done deal.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    Well blow me down! Nobody has actually conducted experiments on a BH!
    What happens is we look from a distance, we notice extraordinary effects on spacetime and the matter/energy within the vicinity of the potential BH, then we use maths to calculate and arrive at a conclusion that nothing other than a mass that has collapsed to within its Schwarzchild radius could posibly cause such effects.
    In other words pure logic.
    What did we find on Mars that was not already predicted?
    And yes certainly science is a work in progress and always will be, and the progress that entails in overwhelmingly most disciplines, initiates from the mainstream academia because of the advanced technological age of state of the art equipment, on Earth, in orbit and further afield that mainstream have access to.
    If BHs are not a done deal, do you have any other evidence based example of what causes the effects we see?
    They may not be a done deal....no scientific theory is [although Evolution and a couple of others come close] but they are at present the only logical explanation we have.
     
  8. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    I already know you can't do any derivation so I gave you the formula so you could just substitute values and find out what GR predicts for yourself. It was my attempt to get you to realize your neutron star will follow a geodesic that terminates at r=0 for the Schwarzschild geometry. Hey dumbass it's the proper time it takes to follow the geodesic and has nothing to do with time dilation since the analysis is done using local proper coordinates. Your coordinates are 'intellectual dishonest fool'. That's your preferred coordinates.
     
  9. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    Every attempt to detect the ether has failed. So that's what science thinks. Along with realizing that it's unnecessary for describing natural phenomena. When Einstein was writing down the theory of relativity everybody believed that some kind of medium was required for stuff to move through. Look at the junk these cranks have linked associated with Einstein discussing the ether. He was like everybody else until he realized it wasn't required. You can't find it mentioned as a component of Einsteins theory of gravity. Or special relativity which is just the component of the general theory where the effects of spacetime curvature can be ignored during experimental analysis. Generally this includes all experiments where the effects of infinitesimal spacetime curvature will have no meaningful effect on the results of the experiment. An example where infinitesimal spacetime curvature can't be ignored is the GPS experiment. Since light travels ~ .3 meter every nanosecond.
     
    Last edited: May 21, 2015
  10. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,603
    Apologies for posting the following drearily detailed post here, but the alternative of starting a new thread just to needfully answer lying BS in a thread now locked, is a worse option. Referring to allegations made in http://www.sciforums.com/threads/wh...y-an-approximation.146684/page-6#post-3300402

    Kittamaru in locking that other thread saved brucep the embarrassment of being shown up as a liar there. But I won't let you get away with it. Lying denial is easily found out.
    I came in, at the time relatively late (p16) to this eventually very long thread: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/qm-gr-black-holes-cannot-exist.142658/
    What caught my eye was Billy T challenging your vagueness in #316. So I decided to give a straight, clear, no-waffling answer in #319.
    Your erroneous response to Billy T (after your meaningless #324) in #326 CLEARLY STATED PHOTONS (ACCORDING TO GR) HAVE NO GRAVITATIONAL INTERACTION! An even more clearly erroneous statement by you in #337: "As far as GR is concerned photons don't interact with eachother."
    To which error I responded in #339 - again making it clear - providing a link to the well-known (by some) classic paper of R.Tolman et al, that light in general DOES gravitationally mutually interact in GR. Your absurd response in #350 failed to acknowledge your error and actually tried to turn the tables on me, but there was never a chance of that succeeding.

    And in #355 - not to my decisive rebuttal - but to Billy T, you were again characteristically evasive whilst pretending to be relevant.
    My #357 gave a definitive, clear reply, replete with a simple thought-experiment. AND MADE IT CLEAR I DID NOT BELIEVE LIGHT ACTUALLY HAS GRAVITATIONAL MASS - BUT THAT SUCH IS A VIEW THAT GOES OUTSIDE OF GR.
    Rather than acknowledging your error (NO light-light gravitational interaction in GR), you disingenuosly again tried to 'turn the tables' in #373, by seizing on my position. Clearly stated as being a non-GR position. And attempted to deflect your own inconsistent position - of 'GR defender' whilst simultaneously denying standard GR view re light-light interactions. Hypocrite!
    More meaningless waffle from you in #374, #376, followed by a #380 that ends with the absurd statement:
    "My answer I gave long ago in the thread, no two individual photons exert any gravitational influence on eachother... Two photons traveling side by side will do so to the end of time or space, whether it is flat or not. Equally as waves they don't interfere with one another, and thus once again do not affect the path of the each other. Two photons do not become one and one photon does not become two... If this were not true we could make no sense at all of any of the information of the distant universe."
    Revealing laughable ignorance as highlighted in bold by me.
    Further error in your #382 was followed by my #385, 386 that set the record straight.Thence a typical word-salad piece from you in #416 followed by a needed challenge in #417. I came back in in #438 to steer things towards some much-needed true expert debate and opinions.
    After that there is not much worth commenting on. Except, as I truthfully and accurately stated - YOU never once had the decency to come back and retract your error as per posts #326, #337. Your 'crank' position - conflicting with your own 'GR is Truth' position!

    Don't ever think you will get away with lying in reference to anything involving me while I'm around.
     
  11. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    You're pretty confused. This is the way it works. Light follows the path determined by the local spacetime curvature [gravity]. That's how every natural path is determined. Like John A. Wheeler said mass tells spacetime how to curve and spacetime tells matter how to move. Paraphrased. If I remember correctly BillyT was having a hard time understanding how this works. Apparently you have the same problem. There's a tensor which describes all the components which make up the mass which tells local spacetime how to curve [gravity] which determines the path of the object. That's the interaction. Who gives a crap about your crank opinions in bold. The real problem is you don't know jack about GR yet you want to pretend you do. You would have never had your feelings hurt if you did since you would know what I was trying to unsuccessfully explain for BillyT.
    The way photons contribute to the local spacetime curvature is their energy contributes to the local spacetime curvature which in turn determines the photons path. If I Remember correctly BillyT asked me if over time the photons following the same path could merge. I said no because they can't merge. If they could merge the CMBR wouldn't be able to tell us anything about the past since they would all be merged by now. Photons don't pull on eachother and they don't scatter off eachother. They follow the natural geodesic path determined by the local spacetime curvature. In essence they go pretty much straight until the local spacetime curvature is great enough to alter the path or something is in the way. Something they can interact with such as an electron.
     
    Last edited: May 21, 2015
    paddoboy likes this.
  12. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,603
    Tempted to say 'unbelievable hypocrisy' but actually it's all too familiar. So rather than finally face up to and admit your basic error that condemned yourself as a 'crank' according to your own criteria, you once again resort to a futile deflection tactic. OK, let the record so stand.
     
  13. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    Getting back to the question and OP of this thread, who as it appears, seems to be a God Botherer with an agenda, going on his avatar, and had no intention of accepting any answer, other than the BB did not happen.......typical.
    [1] the BB was the evolution of spacetime, while a BH forms in spacetime, by the collapsing of a stellar mass to within its Schwarzchild radius[2]the BB started off expanding driven by a vacuum energy density, [3]we now see that expansion accelerating.
    The BB and a BH are two different animals.
    A BH also has an EH, while the BB does not.
     
  14. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,703
    Wrong. You mingle logic with GR. In GR, they are the only explanation. In other theories, like GLET, there are no black holes, but other things which can explain them, namely frozen stars with a size extremely close to the Schwarzschild horizon size.

    As has been explained here many times.
     
  15. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647

    No, really, I am correct. GR is the only logical evidence based accepted theory of BH's.
    I've told you many times, you have a "theoretical paper" nothing more....no evidence, no validated predictions over and above GR.
    GLET is not an accepted theory but if that changes get back to me, will you?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  16. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    In summing Schmezer, if what you say is true go out and sell it.....and please don't start with the conspiracy nonsense.
     
  17. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,703
    Just to clarify this: The photons of course have energy and momentum, thus, because the energy-momentum tensor is the source of the gravitational field, they also create a nontrivial gravitational field. And this nontrivial gravitational field can also influence other photons. So that there is a gravitational interaction between photons.

    This interaction is, on the other hand, so minimal, that one can usually ignore it completely.

    As well, there are higher order corrections in quantum field theory, with the effect that there appears some resulting interaction between photons. As far as I know, this non-linearity is so small that it has not even yet established in real experiments (but this may be out of date, not cared about this). So, in reality one can ignore these nonlinearities of QFT too.
     
  18. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647

    Correct!
     
  19. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,603
    Schmelzer - to gain some appreciation of who actually said what, it would pay to go through all the links (and then some) as given in #227 here. The beginning of my doubts re self-consistency of standard GR picture, and two brief, hasty refinements, 'evolved' in that other thread like so:
    http://www.sciforums.com/threads/qm-gr-black-holes-cannot-exist.142658/page-17#post-3232380
    http://www.sciforums.com/threads/qm-gr-black-holes-cannot-exist.142658/page-17#post-3232633 (containing link to Tolman article that I GAVE)
    http://www.sciforums.com/threads/qm-gr-black-holes-cannot-exist.142658/page-18#post-3232866
    [see also #346 there]

    I never developed that thought further, but to now go any further this thread is yet further side-tracking. If anyone wishes to begin a dedicated thread on that issue, I would consider participating there.
     
    Last edited: May 21, 2015
  20. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,467
    No, it is not given up because it is negligibly small !! The interaction causing distortion is just not there !!

    Two parallel photons remain so throughout......
     
  21. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,467
    Schmelzer,

    Regarding the issue of non linearity......leave aside photons even for bigger object GR equations cannot be solved...

    All those frightening tensor equations are non linear with respect to Energy/mass, clearly suggesting that solution for body A cannot be superimposed on body B.....all approximation...see how Mercury precession issue is solved by GR, by treating Mercury negligible as compare to Sun. Point is not that Mercury is not extremely small as compared to Sun, but the point is GR is essentially a single body solution....while Gravity is essentially a two (read multi) body aspect.......
     
  22. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,703
    Nobody cares anymore if GR equations can be solved analytically. Today one can compute approximate solutions on a computer if necessary.
     
  23. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,603

Share This Page