# BLACK HOLES Tutorial based on observations and GR

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

1. ### The GodValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,546
None will ask him what is this 5 kms stuff, everyone is interested in giving all probable explanations on behalf of Paddoboy. Its a tutorial, few thought what he meant was diameter (see that DMOE thread), I thought it was radius, Paddoboy denied both, you came up with literal meaning stating that it was volume....So how much time it takes for paddoboy, to write this statement unequivocally. I can provide a rough sample..

If an object is squeezed to a size less than its Schwarzchild radius (which is 3 Km for Solar mass object), then it becomes BH and further collapse is imminent.......

3. ### OnlyMeValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,914
Here is my point and why this is a stupid argument, which from where I sit, looks more like personal personality problems than any discussion of physics...

In your post #6 and then Bruce's post #49.., the sun's Schwarzschild radius is estimated at 2.95 Km.... Bruce actually put it a little more accurately in meters. However, in meters or kilometers, even the 2.95 is an approximate figure based on assumptions about the exact mass.., which is not known! And is actually constantly changing.

Then James in his post #83 put the Schwarzchild radius at 2.9, but he began by clearly establishing the assumptions leading to that figure.., a far better approach in discussion.., which is again an estimate for the same reasons earlier mentioned.

When you "the god" jumped in you did so in a manner that was critical rather than constructive. You did not ask for clarification of the use of the word volume instead of diameter or radius, which implies that you did understand it was initially an error, though it did not make the statement incorrect.., or by not clarifying your correction to 3 Km as a radius rather than volume, made a similar mistake... And you were both ether right or wrong!

Paddoboy did not handle responses to your criticism, that reads to me as personal attacks any better than you... All leading to a stupid argument having little to do with the underlying science and everything to do with some mutually fueled vendetta.

I believe it was clear that paddoboy's initial intent with the 5 Km volume was the volume of a 5 Km sphere, which from posts #6 & #49, quoted above should have been a 5.9 Km sphere and as stated in the quote from James a 5.9 km sphere. I believe you knew that, because I don't think you are stupid, and your argument has been about personal conflict carried even across threads rather than the science or estimated facts.

It is really a shame that so many of these threads get trashed by this kind of crap!

Messages:
21,703
Handling the following sentence from your post first....
Paddoboy did not handle responses to your criticism, that reads to me as personal attacks any better than you..
Yep, you are 100% correct.
I tend to get rather angry when people purposely "misunderstand"and "misinterpret" that which I believe is obvious. But in essence you are correct and most probably I should have handled him better than I did. Maybe with "kid gloves"
I suppose my history with my other adversary on this forum carried over somewhat.

On the rest of your revelations, again you have handled it far better than I and you are correct in every respect. And I'm sure most on this forum recognise the fact that what I have said and the "minimal" mention of figures on my part, and my mentioning it with the highlights of words in my claims such as "approx" and "around" would have made what I meant obvious to a three year old.

In a previous post of yours, I also believe you are aware of who the god is.
I'm sure of that for many reasons, based on his his style, the arrogance that is evident, the refusal to ever give reputable links, the unjust derision or refuting of any links that I have given, the total ignoring of the difficult questions and requests of his own credentials, the often leaving out of simple words like "the"and "a" in sentences, and a few other similarities, like overall dishonesty.

On the another sentence of your's,
It is really a shame that so many of these threads get trashed by this kind of crap!
again you are correct.
My style is my style OnlyMe, and I don't try and hide it. The enemies that I have made here, all hail from the fringes, although that number is only two or possibly three.
I do though value honesty in what I say and when I am inferring others as it appears you do. That cannot be said for "the god" a fact that I believe is now becoming patently obvious.
And I am able to reasonably accurately sort the wheat from the chaff, and make it clear in what I present as to scientific theory and speculation.
What differences you and I have had, has in my opinion, been on the degree of certainty in some scientific theories.

My tutorial was written a decade ago [maybe longer] and was unofficially reviewed by a SR/GR professional expert on my request.
All facts, theories and speculation contained within, were derived from memory and what I have learnt and maintained in my mind.
The figures obviously were all approximate, all the "one" of them.

Worth noting at this time that the link I gave in post 76 to an article at "Universe Today" did put the Schwarzchild radius of the Sun at 2.5kms.
The article was from 2009 and I was unaware of it until the other day.
Estimates change as accuracy and data improve and the 2.5km was wrong in the article, maybe some estimate mass? was different at that time?.......irrespective and just as obviously the statement made by me thus.....
"If we squeeze the mass of the Sun into a volume of around 5kms, its Schwarzchild radius will be reached and it will have become a BH"
is also correct as you competently and correctly recognised.

Last edited: Sep 21, 2015

7. ### The GodValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,546
No there was no change in the solar mass or G or c since quite sometime (may be few decades but certainly not since 2009). Hats off to Onlyme, if he has correctly recognized this 5 kms, because you are denying that it is neither radius nor diameter nor volume...tell the forum what it is or amend?

Messages:
21,703

Tell the forum what it is or amend?? Or what?

Let me state it again.......
"If we squeeze the mass of the Sun into a volume of around 5kms, its Schwarzchild radius will be reached and it will have become a BH"
Sorry my friend...It stands as is because it is correct.
Now is there anything else you would like to learn re BH's?
Or any of my previous 11 points concerning BH's you would like to question?
Or any of the answers I finally gave to all your original concerns re BH's you want clarified?

9. ### The GodValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,546
Your belief is contradicted by Paddoboy himself, he very categorically stated that it was not radius, it was not diameter and of course it was not volume (see that DMOE locked thread).......In my first post #3, I gave him benefit of doubt and ignored his use of unit Kms with volume thinking that by 5 Kms he is meaning radius, but Paddoboy denied that, then he denied he ever referred to diameter. Now he is feeling shy of correcting it.....Leave it OnlyMe, your post is nothing but a salvaging post for Paddoboy.

Messages:
21,703
Except you are a blatant liar.
Unless you can reference where I said that. But like your non existent credentials you cannot do that either.
What I said......
Dywyddyr said:
Of course, if you weren't the dumbest man on earth you'd have quoted the post correctly, thus:
into a volume of around 5kms [which obviously would be the diameter]

I replied:
Exactly Dywydder, quite understandable I thought.
But the mentality of some people is questionable
[from the locked and cesspooled thread]

Yes, once again you are blatantly lying.

11. ### The GodValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,546

And now you are clinging to Dwdyddr, who offered a way out for you, in that DMOE thread.

Messages:
21,703
I'm not arguing with you anymore , you are a total fool.
My tutorial stands despite your song and dance as do my approximation claims.

13. ### The GodValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,546
Your lie is completely evidenced and recorded.
You have the right to remain silent.
I may be a fool, but you are a "proved and evidenced liar".

Messages:
21,703

No comment OnlyMe, just thought it wise to repeat.

15. ### James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
31,287
The God:

Sure.

If you posted the correct figure back in post #6, why is it still an issue for you 80 posts on from that?

16. ### The GodValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,546
As early as Post #3, I raised few points on Paddoboy's post. It was a Tutorial, and I feel tutorials are expected to be clear and error free.

Since Paddoboy has denied that it is not radius, it is not diameter then what it is? Thats the question, he is latching on like a straw man to everyone who is trying to ascertain this mystery. The dialog persisted because he started questioning the maths given by me and kept on vacillating. As you indicated persisting with mistakes, despite the same is brought to notice, is trolling and I reported.

17. ### originIn a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
10,353
That is probably the most logical thing that has been stated on this thread.

Messages:
21,703

Being a big softy at heart, I believe in giving all nuts a fair go and to right the nonsense they espouse. But some like the one in question, along with other infamous nuts like constant theorist, jcc and chinglu do turn out to be lost causes.
Still, on ocassions, always good for a laugh!

19. ### brucepValued Senior Member

Messages:
4,098
In post number 49 I converted to geometric units and used the unit meter. Using unit meter is because you won't tend to do what the OP did. Set r=2M at 2.95km rather than 2.954km. Doing the former results in a 4m error per solar mass. For example over 10M the error becomes 40 meter. For doing an analysis neither get it right. Both result in an unexceptible error bar for the calculated M and r. I wrote it down that way in the hopes they could figure that out for themselves. Learn some physics.
I forgot to note that both OP choices result in unacceptable error bar for M and r. The degree of unacceptable is irrelevant.

Last edited: Sep 25, 2015

Messages:
21,703
the god again showed he has no character with his usual lying at post 113.
Among other things, I certainly meant diameter as I said at post 7, and as raised by OnlyMe at post 1oo, the god did understand that my figure [one figure of 5km] was an approximation.
Perhaps the god has been interacting and watching too much bollywood stuff, as this whole shemozzle is one big act by the god in his "pay back" to me for demolishing [or helping to demolish] the black neutron star paper.
:shrug:

Messages:
21,703
The point is bruce, and according to how I worded it in the tutorial, even if we squeeze the Sun to a volume of 1km, we would obviously have reached and surpassed its Schwarzchild radius also

. the god has a problem with ascertaining meanings to simple words such as "approx" "within" and "around" and couple that with his bollywood style acting ability and false "throwing his hands up in the air" indignation, and we have your recipe for rajesh.

22. ### The GodValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,546
If you meant it to be diameter, then you would not have posted the below..

23. ### The GodValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,546
This is an invalid generalization, showing lack of knowldege of finer concepts. I gave you the calculations for volume of a solar mass BH at schwarzchild radius (that is 109 cubic Kms), you mindlessly questioned the same and declared the same as plagiarized (?). You failed to understand that once a star core of a solar mass falls below a volume of 109 cubic Kms, then no 'even if' or no 'somehow' squeezing is required, it will collapse on its own forming a BH. You cannot squeeze a solar mass core by anyhow or somehow below the trigger point of "schwarzschild sphere", gravity will do the rest. Its a point of no return and you are required to take it 'somehow' to that point only.