Gravitational waves from black hole merger

'EMF' is quickly negated ????? Please demonstrate if you understand what 'EMF' means ?

And why do you think that Kerr - Newman BH could generate only a small magnetic field ?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This is irrelevant to Hansda's point. whether you write a formula in SI system or FPS system or some other geometrical or conventional or paramterized units, as long as you know the conversion, it does not matter. I told you last time you do not understand c = 1 and G = 1 stuff, so leave that.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Do you know the real mechanism behind transefer of energy from mass to EM radiation ??

Can you find fault if some one says that mass can directly convert into Gravitational Radiation Energy under certain circumstances ?

[This is till the time I get a better answer for how 3M got converted into Gravitational wave energy in recent event ?]

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well, you will have trouble if you do not know how things happen. You still do not know how BH charge is negated ? and what that 'quickly' qualifier means ?

 

I've demonstrated many times with you and with regards to your errors and false view of mainstream cosmology with professional expert opinions, but sadly to no avail, as is the case with many with agendas.

 

I've told you that many times and each time supported by expert professional opinions to counteract your rather amateurish take on standard accepted cosmology.
I mean any one that holds a view that GP-B results were falsified and aLIGO has not as yet been confirmed, shows how out of touch and how extreme and error ridden your views are on mainstream cosmology.
And the maths you do pretend to sometimes use to add a supposed authoritarian touch to your views, has of course been shown to be far from trustworthy...again by a professional expert.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You also denied the BH has no hair theorem a while back...You know about a BH only having three possible observable properties...mass, charge and angular momentum.
I could go on and on and on and on about Schwarzchild limit, compulsory collapse, gravity overcoming all other known forces, BH density, and other old issues you have failed to as yet understand properly.
But just like the rather amateurish nonsensical claim in the following, which was answered, you will ignore anyway.

 

This is based on Einstein's paper for E=MC^2. I think I already mentioned that link earlier where the mass loss gets converted into photon particles.

From Einstein's paper I am not able to make such a conclusion. If you have some reference/link for that, let me know.

I think they simply followed Einstein's paper and considered EM energy as GW energy. If you have a better explanation, let me know with proper references.

 

The question was: Do you know what is EMF ?

 

But that does not reflect that you know how BH charge is negated and that too quickly...

 

Pl look at the bottom of the link page...and dig further

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-body_problem_in_general_relativity

This clearly explains about the Gravitational Radiation Energy with readable maths.....No where it says and I do not think it is required also, that m will first convert into EM energy and then into Gravitational radiation. Your notion that E = mc^2, E represents EM energy needs some change.

 

Cop out ? standard diversion tactic of yours...

1. what is 'Intrinsic EM charge'.....you did not answer.
2. You still believe that mass of a BH resides at r = 0 ?

 

I saw your link. But I could not find the equation E=MC^2 being discussed there; though this equation is considered in the LIGO paper for mass loss.

My notion is based on Einstein's paper. Show me a reference where E of E=MC^2 is explained as GW energy. From Einstein's paper I am not able to conclude that. If you are able to conclude that from Einstein's paper, let me know and please explain also. Without any proper reference, how can I change my opinion. Thats not scientific.

 

this also clearly explains this:
"

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

This article needs attention from an expert in general relativity. Please add a reason or a talk parameter to this template to explain the issue with the article. WikiProject General relativity (or its Portal) may be able to help recruit an expert. (May 2013) "

"

• This page was last modified on 1 March 2016, at 04:51. "

 

ancillary?

extent of sun's magnetosphere?

 

And the answer is I'm not playing your silly games you are so noted for.
But a question in return...What credentials do you have to dismiss generally held mainstream cosmological views? None most likely...correction: None most certainly!

 

That has been answered many times and supported by expert opinion.
Yet you still play games.
Perhaps if you take the time to do some proper research without any hindrance, you'll find your questions have been answered by myself [and supported by professional experts] in anyone of the BH/cosmology threads, including your own two threads which you started and which have since been shifted to the fringes.

 

The paper from which you don't even understand the scientific terms. The capital C is for electromagnetic phenomena. Look it up and quit writing nonsense. This is nonsense -> E does not equal MC^2. Figure out what you're writing down and then ask your question. At least get the dimensions right. Einstein never said anything that stupid in a published paper.

 

It's also not very scientific to ignore the many reputable answers and links you have been given, considering you have as yet to disclose what your own expertise are.
All sarcasm aside, let me ask you a couple of questions....
What are your credentials?
What professional education and learning do you have in 21st century cosmology?
Can you see the logic in the fact that your questions and claims and paper are treated with some disdain, simply due to the fact that if you had anything of substance you would not be here?
We would probably see you in Stockholm next November.
You see what I'm driving at?
Let me state other facts......
In my time here, I have seen four TOE's by four different posters, all different and all claiming to invalidate SR/GR.
Add to that another half a dozen or so "would be's if they could be's" that will not disclose their supposed credentials and/or titles, yet expect those interested in cosmology to automatically take their word when they claim mainstream is wrong and that they are unquestionably right, and one logically sees the malady of delusions of grandeur and inflated egos as being overwhelmingly evident.
It is also patently obvious that some are conducting evangelistic like missions, at every turn to try and fault some aspect of GR: Even after the recent confirmations. That reflects that agendas are afoot, and obviously some of those agendas are religious.
Now if after contemplating all that, you still find a problem with accepted cosmology and you still see your claims as valid, and you still refuse to accept the many answers you have been given over many pages, then why not get it from the horse's mouth, so to speak.
https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/
https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/WA
https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/LA

Then let us know how you went.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect
The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which relatively unskilled persons suffer illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability to be much higher than it really is. Dunning and Kruger attributed this bias to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their own ineptitude and evaluate their own ability accurately. Their research also suggests corollaries: highly skilled individuals may underestimate their relative competence and may erroneously assume that tasks which are easy for them are also easy for others.