Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by ISDAMan, Apr 30, 2015.
No doubt, but they break down miserably in strong gravitational fields...............
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
No not forgotten, the point here being made is GR experts or GR followers tend to ignore everything which has faintest hint of uneasiness for GR..........And Numerical GR is another such thing to overcome the failure of analytic methods around strong Gravity..........Solution fails so Analytical solution, they also fail so Numerical GR, it is going for a century or so...but no one wants to think beyond the holy word R......
Difficult but have a go about above link....How NR is being sold...all fancy colorful maths.
An interesting compendium of reasonably current approaches in GR. So sure without 'guidance' from analytic strong gravity solutions, NGR can itself flounder somewhat owing to overwhelming number of possible precise boundary conditions etc. Well as you were made aware via PM, at least one other theory claims exact analytic solutions are possible up to arbitrarily strong gravity: http://www.powershow.com/view/1bbc8-ZjhlZ/P1246341516SeoJH_flash_ppt_presentation (e.g. slides 4, 6, 28 (echoed in 'another theory'), 30, 31 etc.)
[Unfortunately for your BNS idea, that theory also does not permit such a thing.]
But let's not open yet another can of worms herePlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Obviously, conspiracies of various kinds are the only thing that our alternative cranks can turn to, to address flagging egos. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Do you understand the A B C of the reference cited or you are just babbling for the sake of it ?
I understand that you do not understand what the BB was, and apparently are just as ignorant to what BHs are.
I understand that at least 8 professional replies from tashja, and two I obtained, all totally invalidate everything you have said over many threads. In fact from memory at least on Professor said words to the effect that you need to do a basic course in relativity and cosmology.
This is complete nonsense, since it is not based on any relativistic ideas of gravity. It seems to be based on the simple packing of rigid spheres, but physical spheres could not remain rigid inside the event horizon, since this would require the material composing the spheres to have an internal sound speed greater than the speed of light, which directly contradicts relativity. The fact that the author did not begin the paper by stating this (exceeding the speed of light) as a premise implies a deep ignorance of the subject of the paper.
Prof Mitch Begalman, with due respect to him, overlooked a simple thing......
What I stated that for a standard NS of around 2-3 Solar Mass the stability comes well before causality is violated and Neutrons are not fully relativistic......but for a larger core the the causality point comes closer to (but less than) R(p) which is inside EH but due to Neutrons getting more and more relativistic there is a possibility of some hyrdrostatic balance..........It is silly to say that for all mass 4/3 Rs is causality point, for a core of 1 million solar mass the density at Rs is very less (water like)....so claiming that causality is violated at 4/3 Rs is incorrect...in such cases causality point will come much inside EH somewhere near R(p).
But alas ! you will not understand this.......
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Of course he did Rajesh! *nudge, nudge, wink, wink* Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I understand that you are floundering and that no one and nothing has supported your fairy tails.
I understand that you are incapable of admitting or accepting error on your part, which is evidenced in every post.
I understand that the simple GR edict of compulsory collapse after the Schwarzchild radius is reached, proves your BNS as cesspool material.
That's enough understanding for the moment. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Hi, Q, Dr. Schmelzer and Raj (this might interest you, too). See Prof. Mottola's reply below. If I get any more replies (Dr. Chapline et al), I will post them.
Thanks heaps tashja - I just knew you would come through.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Emil Mottola's response nicely illustrates a point made earlier. One should not slavishly follow fashion and just accept official PR pieces. As in 'dying pulse trains' somehow 'prove' GR as uniquely 'true'. Like any responsible professional I'm sure Mottola will agree his and fellow worker's theory is, for now at least, necessarily speculative but then so are lot's of 'mainstream' theories out there - e.g. GUT's & QGT's. As one recent member here keeps reminding others who would rather not listen. With luck there may be some further expert feedback reinforcing the need to be cautious in condemning based on 'consensus opinion'.
Tashja, thats nice..
Prof Dolan is trying for last couple of decades on this Dying Pulse Train, but he is clear enough even in his latest paper after 2008, that no such observation is found for DPT....
Yes it is true if DPT is observed then it will certainly establish existence of EH, but it will not rule out any surface inside EH. It will be a proof of EH not of singularity....
Edit : Some not so good wrods...
Umm....not really. The whole point of Mottola's response is there need NOT be an EH as such. Their Dark Star/Gravastar has a physical boundary surface existing ever so close to but just EXTERIOR TO that of a GR EH.
I was just referring to DPT.....how the quote of Dolan was grabbed by these two posters as proof of EH and so on........At least last 2 papers of Dolan (certainly not 2001) did not confirm observation of DPT.....
Then be careful with your wording, since your #251 ends (did end) with "It will be a proof of EH not of singularity...." But I see you have since recognized the issue with an edit there.
I am of the opinion that there exists something within Rs which is well defined.....so EH is there but not the singularity.......DPT will prove EH but not singularity, even if some well defined object is there inside EH, DPT would still manifest....Hope I am clear.
Then I had your initial reaction wrong. Because that above statement reads as an in-principle rejection of what Mottola was saying - i.e. you don't accept possibility of Gravastar etc. Yet still, after all the goings on in those earlier threads, continue to believe in possibility of a stable 'BNS' interior to EH! Just be clear on that.
The topic is, what is the difference between a blackhole singularity and the singularity of the BB. Nobody claims a blackhole can explode/expand. We all assume they form a steady state. What is it that allows the BB to expand/explode, which sets it apart from a steady state black hole?
One thing that is different, is the BB singularity contains all the mass/energy of the universe, while a blackhole contains only a small fraction. This extrapolates to mean the larger the black hole, the less stable it becomes. In the limit, if the BH contained all the mass/energy of the universe, it could expand.
The difference has to do with the amount of external space-time, this is not part of the BH. A BH is king of its own castle, but just beyond its castle, it is not in charge of the space-time. The BB rules all of space-time.
This suggest expanded space-time, outside the blackhole, keeps it from reaching the BB state. The persistent expanded space-time is like a vacuum, placed outside something trying to contract; falls short.
Recall my repeated questioning to prof Link, that during collapse from r >> Rs, the core will encounter a situation where r < 4/3 Rs and then < 9/8 Rs.....(this 9/8 Rs issue was briefly discussed between us also before Prof Chipped in)....... Because this is a stage a core must pass thru while collapsing to form a BH from a stable NS (by mass accretion)....Prof Link avoided this question.
Let me go through Prof Mottola paper and then I will revert.......I am of the opinion that beyond extremal NS (around 3 Solar Mass and R = 10 Kms), if at all anything exists then it is inside EH only without singularity.
Rajesh, this is not a logical or realistic position!
As GR is currently understood, as long as the surface of an object is outside of an the event horizon limit, the gravitational field inside and outside that limit do not preclude the existence of stable matter. As soon as the surface meets the requirements establishing a Schwarzschild event horizon, there is no composition of matter that can resist further collapse.., and that collapse must occur at an accelerating rate.... IOW very rapidly!
While is is reasonable and logical to assume that mass continues to exist during that collapse, it is not reasonable to assume that matter as we understand it continues to exist.
Re-read the professor's comments and even better take the time to read the paper he linked.
The above requires a rejection of GR.., which has proven to consistently predict what has then been observed. I have said this in the past, where your proposals require a rejection of GR, you must present a viable alternate theory of gravity. as long as you keep saying you believe pink elephants can fly, no one is going to believe in pink elephants, until you prove an elephant can fly.... IOW your BNS requires a new successful theory of gravity, before it can even be considered possible. You cannot just say I think this is possible....
Separate names with a comma.