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:
    3,294
    Unfortunately you are correct.
    I know very little and enjoy this site.
    It is unfortunate that insults occupy so much of the threads.

    There is no need for insults.

    I was sort of a crack pot on my favoured astronomy site and presented alternative ideas however when folk tried to help I was happy to receive help, and by being respectful learnt more.

    I think many miss a wonderful opportunity when they just want to blurt out non science and happy to resort to insults.

    Thank you for your input.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,605
    Really? Then pray tell, why post those 2-not-3 links & summaries in #372, then mysteriously withdraw them? Sudden mood swings of late?
    Repetition will win the day if all else fails, eh paddoboy? While deeply ironic ('three fingers pointing back'), two earlier posts page 19 actually well describe the state of affairs here at SF. It's so clear to me that the (technical competency, and moral/ethical integrity) sins of some, while many, are all forgiven owing to their purity of allegiance to mainstream political/ideological dogma. Especially if they enthusiastically bash non-conformists. It pays to know what is the winning formula here at SF.
    It's always a mix of amusement and anger and disbelief after looking through the latest postings at SF.
     
    Last edited: Mar 22, 2016
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. hansda Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,218
    It seems you have no answer to my question.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    deleted
     
  8. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    Yes, really...really really...as real as me not being the one that reported your past anti GR thread that was rightly shifted.
    You don't believe me? Guess what? I don't really give a flying f^%$.
    I see it as more of the indisputable facts eating at the craws of trolls.
    Krash hit the nail on the head.
     
  9. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    What I have said......
    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:

    """""""""""""""""""""""""

    Found the following in Kip Thorne's book, BH's and Time Warps:
    page 283: chapter 7: The Golden Age:
    A sequence of snapshots showing the implosion of a magnetised star to form a black hole. The hole at first inherits the magnetic field from the star. However the hole has no power to hold on to the field. The field slips off it and is converted into electromagnetic radiation and flies away.
    page 284:
    The laws of physics permit the field to turn itself into electromagnetic radiation, [ripples of electric and magnetic force] and Price's theorm then demands that it do so.
    The electromagnetic radiation flies away, partly down the hole, and partly away from it, leaving the hole unmagnetised.
     
  10. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,605
    He he he. Clear signs - a 'deleted' post (#384), followed by a poorly formatted #385, that not me but paddoboy needs to take his own advice and 'have a panadol and a good lay down'.
    As for that last quote from Kip Thorne in #386 - it backs the 'no intrinsic B field for Kerr-Newman BH' position nicely. So, going from Arthur to Martha without blinking, paddoboy.
    Damn - you should have taken that Harbour cruise later, not then. Try and sleep well tonight, paddoboy.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Mar 22, 2016
  11. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    You are a liar, I never said this....

    Yes, one can meaningfully speak of BH density...whats your problem ? You don't know that if you treat BH mass at r = 0, then it is as ridiculous as spacetime curvature, but for a BH denisty can be discussed considering BH to be of R(s) size....I do not think I ever made any other statement ont this..

    Your parroting is BS on this........You do not understand what is the formation process of BH and what is accretion process. Both processes are different...

    This is lullaby for kids like you.
     
  12. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    You are missing on fundamentals.....E = mc^2 came much before GR, it says about equivalence of mass with energy...you know that.

    Now I am making a statement...

    that mass can be converted into energy through..1. EM Radiation. 2. Gravitation Radiation.

    Transfer of energy and loss of mass is on account of 2 for this GW event......

    PS: [I have just tried to put the mainstream perspective, I have my doubts about existence of BH itself.]
     
  13. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546

    Great !

    How did you manage to 'present alternative ideas' with little knowhow ?

    Pl present one here, lets discuss...
     
  14. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546


    There is no science in this statement.......This is Kip Thorne popsci..
     
  15. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,294
    I would not present anything here in a mainstream science forum.
    And my attempts were child like in reflection and initially deluded in what I thought was going to be ground breaking.
    However the forum was polite and kind folk helped me learn a great deal.
    Trust me however I now have all the answers and I am not telling anyone.
     
  16. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    I trust you for what you are..

    I find your complement to Krash661 on his inputs amusing....I have not seen any worthwhile inputs from him so far, except shaking his head or shrugging his shoulders......
     
  17. krash661 [MK6] transitioning scifi to reality Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,973
    MY GOD--comical--

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    (shakes head)--carry on.
     
  18. krash661 [MK6] transitioning scifi to reality Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,973
    how do YOU endlessly execute such a thing?
     
  19. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,294
    I
    I probably could have been clearer but my reference to input was specific to the recent posts between us.
    So your amusement is upon a non reality as it were.
    Happy to clear up the misunderstanding.
    There is a debate section on this forum I am surprised no one uses it.
    May be a good way to ease tensions.
     
  20. krash661 [MK6] transitioning scifi to reality Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,973
    it is simply because of your low level mentality and lack of any actual knowledge, understanding, and wisdom-- as you endlessly sit here and pretend that you do, while making it obvious that you clearly do not, as you boast yourself--it is quite pathetic and comical(not even amusing), but whatever you need to continue to tell yourself, correct? --

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    (shakes head)--carry on.
     
  21. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    How do you endlessly shake and shrug ? I mean that consumes lot of power, scarce resource for AIs...
     
  22. krash661 [MK6] transitioning scifi to reality Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,973

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    -- pathetic-- is this all?
     
  23. hansda Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,218
    See Einstein's paper https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/ . You can also see the links mentioned in this paper for " previous investigation " and "(ยง 8)". Einstein only talked of Light energy and no other form of energy in this paper. So, this mass-energy equivalence is for mass and EM energy only.



    EM Radiation and Gravitation Radiation are different. So, the same equation can not be true for both these cases. Mass to EM Radiation conversion is proven for its energy content. Is the mass to Gravitation Radiation conversion proven for its energy content?



    Let us assume that, your statement is correct. Now what is the condition that the Radiation should be 1.EM or 2.Gravitational .
     
    Last edited: Mar 22, 2016

Share This Page