BLACK HOLES Tutorial based on observations and GR

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by paddoboy, Sep 9, 2015.

  1. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,703
    I'm having fun my friend and wait for you to show some gumption.
    The tutorial stands as correct despite your kindergarten attempt to wreck it.
    do better.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,703
    Ummm just like rajesh you attempt in vain to confuse.
    I didn't mention 2.95 as the Schwarzchild radius. My only reference was squeezing the Sun to within a 5km volume then its Schwarzchild radius [the point at which further collapse becomes compulsory] would be reached.

    This is why you are a total dishonest fraud attempting to deceive due to our past interactions where you have been, shall we say?? that I and others have buried you in the dust?? destroyed you and your fairy tales?? totally refuted and derided the same fairy tales?? mangled you beyond recognition?
    Let's say all of them.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Careful my friend, it is becoming increasingly obvious as to who you are and I will not need to do a thing.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,703
    I don't need to ask anyone anything. Just as I demolished you in past threads about Black Neutron stars fairy tales, so to you have been demolished here.
    The 5km/6km is a lie perpetrated by you, a fraud. I only mentioned one number with respect to volume.
    brucep anyway has stated one post noting your ignorance.

    Suppose what you like. It makes no difference. The Tutorial is mainstream common knowledge and correct, as well as being peer reviewed by a GR expert. Your own review is a total joke...you are unqualified, and totally biased after I was a prime mover in getting the Black Neutron Star paper demolished.
    But wasn't there another?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Or has that gone the way of most pseudoscientific attempts to rewrite cosmology.

    So what's left...The Tutorial as posted, and as deemed correct by a GR expert on most on this forum, other than for yourself. which doesn't count....I mean Donald Duck could do better.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,703
    What I would add at this stage is a reputable site that gives easy to understand pictures of BH's of all types, as well as easy to understand physics and details, with computer generated illustrations.
    This site is run by a Professor Hamilton, who was one of a party of five or six other professors that helped demolish some irrational thoughts by rajesh on BH's. It complements my tutorial quite well.
    enjoy!

    http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/home.html

    http://jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/insidebh/index.html
     
    Last edited: Sep 16, 2015
  8. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,950
    Falling into a black hole means, from the perspective of an observer who is not "spaghettified", that the history of the entire rest of the universe transpires before entering the event horizon, the same as if matter ever achieved the speed of light (it can't), or that observer on the edge of the relativistic merry-go-round to make it to the end of a single revolution once light speed is never achieved.

    Spaghettification must mean the same thing aa anhialation.
     
  9. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,703
    It's far easier and simpler to say.....
    From the perspective on an observer, he will never actually see anything cross the EH.He sees whatever/whoever is falling towards the EH, as gradually redshifted until fading from view.
    Correct no particle or anything other than light/photons, are ever accelerated to "c" outside the EH
    Yep, I accept that. the tidal gravitational forces that are responsible, literally rip matter apart, eventually into its basic fundamentals, overcoming even the strong nuclear force as the singularity is approached.
    [another idea that offends rajesh despite expert confirmation on it

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    .]
     
  10. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546

    Your continued reference to your bete noir no longer puzzles me. I reported but got an alert that as long as Paddoboy does not address me by that name, its ok. So be it. But, It is quite apparent that you are badly screwed by that guy. I did search for him, but now I will go deeper to see, why around 5-6 professors were needed to demolish his irrational thoughts. Were those thoughts really irrational? or Some guys got shaken? Or you are just showing a false bravado in his absence? You are no doubt shaken and stirred badly, thats apparent.

    By the way volume of a solar mass size BH is around 107 kms^3, I am just wondering how you are fitting 5 Kms, It does not fit with volume (107), it does not fit with radius (2.95 Kms) and it does not fit with diameter (5.9 Kms), it does not fit with surface area of EH (109 Kms^2) but it excellently fits with the teen-adult behaviour. You can prove me wrong by citing your age, of course with reputable evidence like copy of your passport or even your graduation certificate. Or you can give us the name of that GR expert who was with you on that board, I will find out why and how he peer reviewed your tutorial. I am sure smile and move, is what he adopted.
     
  11. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    You goofed up big time by accepting Danshawen bait.

    In physics Annihilation means "the conversion of matter into energy, especially the mutual conversion of a particle and an antiparticle into electromagnetic radiation."

    Suggestive of basic lack of understanding.
     
  12. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,950
    Excellent reply and OP, paddo.

    When energy is bound into a particle, the energy inside is still "propagating", simply in a different mode than the linear propagation of unbound energy. It may or may not actually propagate at c in there; there is no way our current level of science can know this, any more than we could sample the various modes of propagation of energy inside the event horizon of a BH. Hawking radiation is all the information a BH is ever likely to reveal from what fell in until or unless it completely evaporates, which may take many times longer than the current age of the known universe for a moderate sized BH.

    The Higgs boson, which is the boson that imparts inertial mass to about 2% of atomic structure (but a very important 2% without which atomic structure would evidently not be possible) might or might not "orbit" black holes. Very likely, they can penetrate to the core, or else the BH would abruptly have no inertial (and therefore gravitational) mass other than the energy layered in the EH. We don't know, because we don't even know if a Higgs propagates in straight line or if it can be a part of the energy of the vacuum or non baryonic dark matter. We do know that it decays very rapidly, in about a zeptosecond, and we also know that most of the time, it decays into gluons. No doubt, this is fortuitous for the other 98% of atomic structure which is both quark and gluon rich. We do know that Higgs does not propagate at c, because it has its own mass which it derives by "slowing down" those 2% atomic particles RELATIVE to something that does not depend on the state of motion of atoms themselves. In the process, evidently the Higgs boson itself also "slows down", RELATIVE to something, which evidently is the energy equivalent of a Doppler shift into the red, where most of vacuum energy evidently resides.

    That is a very long laundry list of things that are evidently not going to get resolved with something as sterile and contrived as playing with Lie groups with scratches on a whiteboard that is based on the same geometry Euclid noodled with in Ancient Greece. The answers are "out there"; not "in your head". Your head needs something more substantial than empty space (even though it is mostly made of that) but less concrete than Euclidean solids to work with.

    Stephen Hawking was disappointed and lost a bet when the Higgs was discovered. I'm not sure why his earlier ideas and Nobel prize winning research about BHs led him to that conclusion. It's no shame to be wrong once in a while.

    Just something to think about. This is all I have to say on the subject of BHs.
     
    Last edited: Sep 16, 2015
  13. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,703
     
  14. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,703
    Oh for Christ sake, give up on your bullshit!
    Annihilation applies to many aspects.
    If he prefers it to spaghettification that's his choice. I see nothing wrong except your usual pedantic bullshit and pretentious exersise in showing at least a glimpse of credibility.
     
  15. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,703
    Thank you.
     
    danshawen likes this.
  16. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,703
    Your maths has been questioned and shown to be in error in the past, so I'll just stick with my thought experiment of squeezing the Sun into a 5km volume [please note: volume not Schwarzchild radius]
    The rest is simply pretentious word salad that you obviously plagiarised from somewhere.
    You do realise that is against the rules the same as posting under a false handle, don't you?
     
  17. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,703
    In reference to my post as follows......
    What I would add at this stage is a reputable site that gives easy to understand pictures of BH's of all types, as well as easy to understand physics and details, with computer generated illustrations.
    This site is run by a Professor Hamilton, who was one of a party of five or six other professors that helped demolish some irrational thoughts by rajesh on BH's. It complements my tutorial quite well.
    enjoy!
    http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/home.html

    http://jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/insidebh/index.html


    Some of the more important facts discussed at this excellent link are the defining of stable and unstable orbits around BH's and the orbital parameter that is referred to as the "Photon Sphere" and exists at 1.5 Schwarzchild radius, applicable to a Schwarzchild metric BH.
    The photon sphere also marks the lower parameter for a stable orbit.
    Imagine orbiting a BH at the photon sphere with a very bright torch which you shine directly ahead of you along the line of orbit.The torch beam will orbit the BH and you will get a great view of the back of your head!
    To complicate the issue, probably the most common type of BH, the Kerr type, or a BH with angular momentum, will have two photon spheres around the BHs equator, complicated by the EH proper and the ergosphere, and each moving in opposite directions to the other. [see the link]
     
  18. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    You can stick to anything you like, I don't care.

    But I think you will make a good ad for GOOGLE promotion series.

    Audio script may run like this......Hi ! I am Paddoboy, I have no formal education, absolutely no understanding of primary maths and science and I am still to learn about finding out the volume of sphere when radius is given. But I can engage experts on maths-science internet forums while discussing about Black Hole Theory, Gravitation Compression, Hawking radiations, Spacetime Geometry, Time Dilation etc. Thanks to Google. Please Google.....

    Forget Tutorial on BH, start with following tutorial to gain some basics..

    https://www.easycalculation.com/area/learn-sphere.php
     
  19. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,703
    Obviously you don't care...You never have even in the face of professional experts.
    Either way the Tutorial stands as is and quite correctly so.
    That's nice dear....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Pretty well correct in all respects. I would also add that I'm quite capable also of sorting the wheat from the chaff and the anti mainstream science nuts from the logical mainstream.
    Whatever script I did on you would be an obituary that would run something like this.
    Here lies an arrogant self gratuitous would be if he could be that went nowhere and was buried along with his delusions of grandeur and arrogant self piety.
    My tutorial is up and running despite your emotional outbursts, and remains correct and according to present accepted mainstream cosmology, and having already undergone peer review by a professional.



    ps: I really don't believe you are convincing anyone of anything my friend, other than your rather arrogant self gratuitous uninformed lay person persona.
    Do better.
     
  20. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    If 2.95 Kms is incorrect, then please tell what is the Schwarzschild radius of a solar mass BH. Can you? You can refer to my post #6.

    Again wrong. The Schwarzchild diameter of Jupiter is 5.63 meters not 4 mtr....Refer the formula in my Post #6, mass of jupiter is 1.898*10^27 Kg.

    The effect on nearby star motion etc, can be described by alternative mass distribution models, so it cannot be stated that none have ever...


    I did not dispute this in your tutorial, whether rajesh disputed it or not, is his and your business, but since you are accusing him time and again why don't you support your accusation. The way you are trying it is quite likely that you are misquoting to get away.

    Again wrong. It shows that you do not understand the mechanism of charge-charge interaction. Even though you claim that you have read two books on string theory, I doubt if you would understand what I am going to tell you now even though its relatively less difficult. Understanding QED is tough for you, suffice to say that charge charge interact with photon as as mediator. Now tell me how a charged BH can attract, repeat attract as claimed by you, opposite charge? It cannot because photon cannot escape out of EH.....So correct scientific point is accretion of opposite charged mass....it is not electrical attraction.

    (Actually the charged BH metric is quite complex, and if we get into nitty gritty of electromagnetic field residing only outside EH, like angular energy in Ergosphere, things become quite tough). But suffice to say there is nothing like obviously, quickly, attraction...all non sense.

    The other related claim by you...spin will also obviously fade away, sooner....How? try that now. Reread my initial objections.


    I am not throwing any mud......you are just writing bullshit, I am just not letting it go uncontested. Find any fault in any of my post, i will concede.
     
  21. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,703
    I didn't say it was incorrect.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    I said that if we magically squeeze the sun into a volume of 5kms, its Schwarzchild radius would be reached.
    Two points: I never spoke of any Schwarzchild diameter and I don't believe the phrase is used in professional circles very much, still that is being pedantic

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    I said if you squeeze Jupiter to within a volume of approx 4mtrs, it would "breach" its Schwarzchild radius. I stand by that. OK?
    And obviously I'm not really drawn to your mathematical ability, although mine is also not too crash hot.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Cite? Reference[reputable]
    Again as yet no valid explanation for the effects we observe on spacetime and matter/energy in certain regions of spacetime, can only ever be put down to gravitationally completely collapsed objects....or BHs

    That's nice. So the "no hair theorem"stands. Thank you.

    A charged BH loses that charge rather quickly by attracting opposite charge.
    No one says anything about photons getting out of a BH, Clue: Think how gravity " gets out" of a BH. It doesn't of course.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    No one said anything about a charged BH not being complex...I agree, it is.
    They are also probably very rare and if we bring in the ergosphere [which makes it a Kerr-Newman BH].
    I'm not really interested in your objections...You are not really qualified to object as much as you continually chose to ignore that fact. Suffice to say spin or angular momentum is certainly most likely negated over time, via interactions with the accretion disks and other matter/energy.
    Though most likely the most common form of BH [the Kerr metric] the final end state prior to evaporation via HR would be the Schwarzchild metric.

    Yes you are.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Reference supporting what you believe? Or is these BH facts just irking you due to your agenda that BHs do not exist.
    Firstly I don't really care, secondly know you won't.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    You seem to want to maintain your song and dance on this matter. Be my guest.
     
    Last edited: Sep 18, 2015
  22. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,703

    Just picked up something.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    rajesh was adamant that we could not under any circumstances, invoke any properties outside the EH, to anything inside the EH.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Are you saying the same thing? Or is this just a slip up on your part?
    While we know for certain that nothing can ever cross the EH, from inside to outside, [even Hawking Radiation] we are reasonably and logically allowed to assign properties such as spinning of spacetime and the mass with regards to Kerr BHs, to inside the EH.
    This is plain old common sense. I mean the ergosphere [frame dragging effect] needs to be caused by something and of course that something was the rotating mass and spacetime within.
    and of course supported by the following expert professional which rajesh totally ignored among other professional replies.

    Barry,

    Q:> The question being debated is simply, can we logically and reasonably assign angular momentum to a ring singularity/mass, and the spacetime within the EH proper?

    A:A black hole is a place where space is falling faster than the speed of light.
    http://jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/insidebh/waterfall.html
    The horizon is the place where space falls at the speed of light.
    Inside the horizon, space falls faster than light. That is why
    light cannot escape from a black hole.

    Light emitted directly upward from the horizon of a black hole
    stays there forever, barrelling outward at the speed of light
    through space falling at the speed of light. It takes an infinite
    time for light to lift off the horizon and make it to the outside
    world. Thus when you watch a star collapse to a black hole,
    you see it appear to freeze, and redshift and dim, at the horizon.

    Since gravity also propagates at the speed of light, gravity,
    like light, cannot escape from a black hole. The gravity you
    experience from a black hole is the gravity of the frozen star,
    not the gravity of whatever is inside the black hole.

    Q: Or are we only allowed to assign angular momentum [frame dragging] to the ergopshere?

    A:All the gravity, including the frame-dragging, is from the frozen star.

    Q: Is it not logical that if we observe frame dragging, we should be able to assume that we have a rotating mass?

    A:Indeed you have a rotating mass.

    Q: And is not angular momentum conserved by the mass that has collapsed to within its Schwarzchild radius to give us a BH?

    A:Yes.

    Q: Other questions that have arisen are...
    > Can we have massless Black holes held together by the non linearity of spacetime/gravity?


    A: A black hole has mass, whatever it might have been formed from.

    It is possible to form a black hole from gravitational waves
    focussed towards each other. Gravitational waves propagate
    in empty space, and locally cannot be distingished from empty space.
    Nevertheless they do curve space, and do carry energy.

    Hope this helps,
    Andrew
     
  23. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,703
    to the god:
    From your troll thread
    I persist because I am basically correct.
    I persist because the tutorial has already been peer reviewed.
    I persist because you have never offered any reputable link supporting your claims.
    I persist because you are taking things out of context, you are pedantic in the extreme, and are misinterpreting.
    I persist because your own qualifications on this matter are not clear.
    I persist because I believe you have an agenda, which in a nut shell is that BHs do not exist.
    I persist because you continually brazenly refuse to reveal your supposed credentials.
    I persist because I do believe you are someone else, who has had even the most basic knowledge about BHs wrong.
     

Share This Page