Gravitational waves from black hole merger

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by Plazma Inferno!, Feb 10, 2016.

  1. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,919
    Thanks Bruce and thank you paddoboy for your input without which there would be no point in following this thread.
     
    brucep likes this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,919
    Duplicate post
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    It's a shame that some cosmology threads started by well meaning people can develop into fraudulent claims from less well meaning people, about alternative hypotheticals under the guise of questions: A totally dishonest and cunning ploy to attempt to gain some semblance of credibility for their own unsupported fraudulent ideas, that should in essence be in the fringes.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,919
    Yes indeed paddo boy.
    It would not be so bad if these folk presented an alternative model but pulling at their perception of a loose thread here or there is frustrating.
    If one has something to offer present it I say but tugging on threads offers nothing.
    Got a problem with the current model then present a new one which does it better and makes better predictions.
    Of course the problem then becomes that one really must learn understand and be capable of working with current models before presenting a better model. But it is easy to be a critic so thats all we get but not a new model. There is only one member here as far as I know who has a paper offerring an alternative model and be it worthwhile or not does not offer a prediction.
    In any event as you point out we are unlikely to see someone here present the first hint of their future Nobel prize.
     
    krash661 likes this.
  8. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    Nice analogy 'pulling at threads'. For some of us it's a magnificent discussion. What a great experimental result.
     
  9. hansda Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,184
    Well, consider "E=MC^2" as "E=mc^2".
     
  10. hansda Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,184
    I am yet to see a reference/paper where E of E=mc^2 is proven as GW energy. If you can prove this from Einstein's paper, let me know.


    You are welcome.

    I am not a PhD but I have a theory. One of my article is published in a Patent Journal. For another article I obtained copyright.


    These things can be learnt from the internet.


    I havent yet submitted my paper to a journal but have a plan to do so. It may take some time.


    My model is based on Newtonian model of force and the principles of set-theory. I never said SR/GR is wrong, rather they have more predictive power than Newtonian model.

    I think I have already disclosed my theory-statement earlier.


    I did not question the LIGO detection, though I raised some questions for clarification about their analysis.


    Thanks for these links.
     
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2016
  11. krash661 [MK6] transitioning scifi to reality Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,973
    these science sites are nothing more than cesspools--every single one of them. they do not pertain to the actual work in the science sectors. they do not contribute anything too actual science. they are simply places for the want-to-bes and the mentally disable to play at(while endlessly insulting actual scientist and science within the same moment), nothing more.
     
  12. krash661 [MK6] transitioning scifi to reality Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,973
    just stop--you clearly have no understanding of anything. my advice, step-back and go get some actual education--this level is, obviously, far advanced for you.
     
  13. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    That apparently is certainly the case with this forum: Other science forum's though have much stricter codes of conduct relating to the preaching and pushing of anti science crap and nonsense.
    The part in your statement I have highlighted is most certainly factual though and what I have been trying to tell our "would be's if they could be's" for quite a while now.
     
  14. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,497
    You really should have tried to respond to e.g. #341 with more than characteristic evasion and attack-as-defense deflection. There is NO EMF generated by a notional stationary Kerr-Newman BH, but one needs to have a basic grasp of elementary EM theory to appreciate that. Clearly you do not understand the nature of a Coulomb field.
    Thumbs-ups from those with no technical expertise whatsoever does not count for much. Actual demonstrable competence in the topic does.
    And yet, despite your characteristic of flooding threads with full webpage reproductions of supporting articles (rather than simply linking to such), here you offer not a single one. Just unsupported claims. Let me repeat - if your rather imprecise claims are true, it represents a schism within GR. I already gave you actual supporting links in #324, #330 to standard position there is NO intrinsic magnetic field for a Kerr-Newman BH. Further support at:
    http://www.chaos.org.uk/~eddy/physics/Kerr-Newman.html (first para)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotating_black_hole (explicit statement that only static Coulomb field is allowed)
    http://physics.stackexchange.com/qu...ld-collapses-to-form-a-black-hole-what-h?rq=1
    (covers the case of collapsing pulsar you claimed allowed a magnetic field 'trapped near the EH')

    But wait! There ARE references to an actual intrinsic B field. Examples:

    http://physics.stackexchange.com/qu...ike-a-charged-spinning-heavy-magnet-what-kind
    (but no indication of expertise there - just 'seems like it should be like this' stuff.)
    http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Kerr-Newman_metric (there's no way you could interpret it, but a non-zero intrinsic B field is implied by eqn. (44) there).
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerr–Newman_metric (use of imaginary component of radius makes it somewhat problematic to interpret, but non-zero B is implied).

    Which all-up means: there is indeed schism within GR on this matter. But then we are dealing with GR after all - a theory that allows 'time travel' in the H.G.Wells sense.
    Mainstream, as I have above and via earlier links shown, is in this case a useless crutch. There are just different schools of thought, much like the division over e.g. 'zero energy universe' notion.
     
    Last edited: Mar 22, 2016
  15. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225

    Like you said different schools of thought....and re your questionable link...it is just that, [questionable] for obvious reasons which I'll let you fathom out yourself.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    ps: It really worries me that the way I give my links troubles you so.....But that's me, I hope you are able to grin and bear it [

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ] without too much bother.
    Like you said, there are different schools of thought, but that doesn't make mainstream a useless crutch:
    Check out the fringes [alternative hypothesis and pseudoscience] for examples of useless crutches.


    Wow! That seems to bring out some joy in you.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    There is debate, certainly, so? Nothing wrong with debate among professional experts: Einstein and Bohr are a good example.But as you well know, GR stands as even firmer and more certain since the recent great confirmations of gravitational waves and BH's.
    What you need to do is direct your wrath at the would be's if they could be's, that believe they can come to forums such as this and over turn 21st century cosmology. A few of those problematic issues I have already mentioned in this thread.
    You don't accept time travel? That's OK too......the point remains though, it is still allowed for by GR, and in reality the only thing preventing real time travel, is our lack of technology.....


    Again, As I said, any EMF is relatively quickly negated. A Kerr-Newman BH may generate a small magnetic field, a fossil field from a Neutron star possibly, which like charge and spin is negated over time: In other words the outcome of any and all BH's are the simple Schwarszchild solution, and than over the lifetime of the Universe final evaporation via Hawking Radiation as logically predicted and supported by quantum interactions.
    And yes, we also have theories that if a Neutron star with a significant magnetic field, collapses to a BH, then part remains of the magnetic field can remain trapped near the EH, although again, quickly negated.
    A BH can have three properties, mass, charge and spin:
     
    Last edited: Mar 22, 2016
  16. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,497
    WOW - compare above - your original #372 posting, to the RADICALLY edited one now appearing!!! So who advised you via PM that your above linked articles were completely off the mark?
    Anyway, here is my response to the above ORIGINAL #372 - the one prior to SOMEONE tipping you off:
    Not having a good day - paddoboy. Or maybe just a normal one. I only see 2, not 3. Whatsmore, neither of the articles deal with the subject we were discussing - *intrinsic* magnetic fields of a Kerr-Newman BH. Those two articles deal only with response of a Kerr BH to being immersed in an *external* magnetic field - owing to accretion disc.
    Original article they relate to: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0610841
    Also, you claim my (singular) link is doubtful? I have given all-up 6 nay case links, and 3 pro case ones. Having a particularly bad day - paddoboy.
    And, once again, there is NO EMF associated with a stationary Kerr-Newman BH - whether or not one allows an intrinsic B field. Basic EM theory.
     
  17. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    Why are you making a big issue of C or c ? Can you not figure out that C in E = MC^2 is referred as light speed by Hansda ? And by the way what is C in physics ? Charge, Capacitance, Heat capacity ???? What ? Do you know ? The dimension of E = MC^2 is perfect , your confusion of E = M, and R(s) = 2M will persist because you do not know c = 1, G = 1 concept properly.....
     
  18. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    Too much !! This is totally parrotized, mugged up.....and messed up too.....

    How a magnetic field gets negated like charge and spin ???? as if magnetic field is some fourth estate of a BH, beyond charge, mass and spin...
     
  19. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Yet its your threads that have been moved to the fringes, and O f course you have already been informed.....check out your two ringe threads...answers there I think.
     
  20. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    No one advised me by any means that anything was off the mark.....
    Let me reiterate....
    Again, As I said, any EMF is relatively quickly negated. A Kerr-Newman BH may generate a small magnetic field, a fossil field from a Neutron star possibly, which like charge and spin is negated over time: In other words the outcome of any and all BH's are the simple Schwarszchild solution, and than over the lifetime of the Universe final evaporation via Hawking Radiation as logically predicted and supported by quantum interactions.
    And yes, we also have theories that if a Neutron star with a significant magnetic field, collapses to a BH, then part remains of the magnetic field can remain trapped near the EH, although again, quickly negated.
    A BH can have three properties, mass, charge and spin:

    Oh, and my day's fine, how's yours?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  21. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    But the recent two BHs, tango behind present GW detection, were actullay spinning ! Parrotized issues ?
     
  22. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    So that gives you liberty to make mistakes ?? How absurd.

    And by the way, if Mods have shited any thread of mine to fringe, that is because of their admitted lack of knowledge. As per you and some your type like minded guys anything which does not endorse mainstream will be termed as pseudo or fringe.
     
  23. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    I realise that English is your second language, but you do know what "outcome" means don't you?
    Let me elaborate on your education......
    Probably all BH are born at least with angular momentum as well as mass:
    In time that angular momentum will be negated: There are probably instances where it maybe speeded up for a short time, depending on interactions with the accretion disk: But in the end, it will be negated.
    Charge of course is negated over far smaller intervals of time, and that has been professionally supported to you on a number of occasions.

    Not at all: The claims I make about angular momentum and charge are factual and well supported.
    You on the other hand do not need any liberty per se at all: Making erroneous claims is par for the course for yourself.
    No they were shifted because of your ludicrous claims such as [1] Compulsory collapse does not take place when Schwarzchild radius is reach, [2] that one can meaningly speak of BH density [even my other matey Qreeus had to pull you into gear on that ludicrous claim], [3] That the nuclear force is not overcome by gravity, and [4] photons do not seemingly hover forever if emitted directly radially away.
    My claims re those points were all adequately supported by professional reputable links and opinions, while your total denial of them was not supported by any sort of professional opinion: Hence the mods had no other choice.

    With regards to anything not aligning with mainstream, that's debatable and depends.
    If some alternative nut claims some unsupported claim as "gospel" or certain, then yes, most certainly it should be shifted to the fringes as it is with most other forums.

    Finally
    When you realise the above, you'll be half way to achieving some sort of credibility.
     

Share This Page