Neutron Star to Black Hole

Paddo, I am quite amused.

Please re read what the good prof is saying. He makes it clear (like many other profs) that it is not a good thing (meaningless) to assign any property to Singularity.

So, how is your view supported ? This dispute apart, it is heartening to note that you are in the company of educated people....Rest assured now you are, with me around.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

My view is supported in two ways...
[1] No one except yourself has ever said Kerr BHs and Singularities do not spin.
[2] And although our present theories are ignorant of any event at this imaginary singularity [in reality, although we do not have a QGT as yet, a surface of sorts probably does exist at the Planck/quantum level] it is reasonable to assign spin to the mass for other reasons, namely conservation of angular momentum, plus a rotating mass causes frame dragging.
Now again Rajesh, I have made some accusations. Please don't try and worm your way out of answering them, or to avoid the above scenario.

Those accusations and the religious agenda, is what is preventing you from interpreting these replies as they should be.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

"but when we have a better description of gravity, telling us what it is the singular nature of the GR equations are hiding, it will have an angular momentum associated with it"
Prof Geraint F. Lewis,.

Did you miss that bit Rajesh?
Note: Not may, not probably, not likely, not perhaps, but WILL!!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm sure the rest of the forum is far more amused at you and your antics in trying to "get out from under".
You have been shown to be wrong on around 5 or 6 facts re BH's, and the likelyhood of you being a religious troll from the evidence is around 85% I would think.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

No I did not miss that.........but that is in the realms of future..........as and when we have better description of Gravity....not as on date.......I am talking about, and that is what almost all the profs are saying, that as on date it is foolhardy to associate any spin with singularity.

You are talking, as I said earlier also, in pure incredulous lay language...that since frame dragging is present so singularity must be spinning............why don't you get into your head...that something must be happening inside r+...but we do not know anything inside Event Horizon. Yes, of course, as and when we know then our theories would change. Talk of what we know today, do not talk of what we may know tomorrow.

That is what is your another problem with Schwarzschild singularity when again and again you say that it is at Planck's level. No it is not, because we know nothing as on date inside Event Horizon...of course as and when we improve on our understanding inside EH, then may be yes, may be not.

 

Paddo,

Please answer which one of the two below statement is more sensible....

1. It is meaningless to assign any spin with the singularity or
2. It is meaningless not to assign any spin with singularity. (Thats what you say)

In English

Meaningless = Not having any meaning

So your statement #2 is a double negative, which you can ask any English scholar is not a right usage (may be Aqueous ID can help you in that).

 

And what is this "GOD Brother Concept" of yours, how is anybody's religious inclination comes in between the scientific pursuits ?? You think all the scientists or Physicists who have won Noble are GOD deserters. Every-time when you are confronted, you not only start babbling about the topic in hand, you increase your frequency of copy paste, you declare them as religious troll and you bring in this GOD brother issue. Grow up man, stick to the topic. I can put on record that my scientific pursuits or professional matters have nothing to do with my faith in GOD.

MEND YOUR WAYS AND DO NOT TAKE UP SUCH PERSONAL MATTERS ON PUBLIC FORUM WITH ANYONE IN FUTURE....

 

A couple of them have said it is a reasonable assertion to make, and all my links which you stupidly refuse to read because it is mainstream data have also confirmed it.
And more to the point, NO ONE, EXCEPT ONE PARTICULAR TROLL HAS EVER SAID THE SINGULARITY DOES NOT SPIN.

Of course I am!...I am only a lay person, just like your self....Big difference is that I do not have a grossly over-inflated ego to bruise, and I'm in pretty good company, while you are more on your own than Robinson Crusoe.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

...

Because all the smart people know that sometimes common sense and logic can lead to reasonable assumptions, and of course no one has ever said that they do not spin, have they?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

yes it is, as a couple have agreed to...Why because again those two qualities which seem to desert you, logic and common sense, says that the classical GR point singularity is most certainly not real. Which leaves the quantum/Planck level where GR breaks down, and as I have been trying to drill into your head since the thread started.
Still you religious zealots, in your efforts to denigrate or show some sort of paradox with science/cosmology, are hard to shift from your delusions of mythical omnipotent deities.

 

As a God Botherer you have an agenda. That agenda has been evidenced in many threads you have started, expressing initial ignorance by asking simple questions, and than revealing the "self claimed expert"later on to refute or deride or show a paradox with standard accepted cosmology.
And again, please do not attempt to tell me what not to do.
You have an agenda..There is evidence for that.
When you use your religious fanatacism as a means to cunningly attack science under a weak disguise, it will certainly be noted and revealed.

 

Whatever booboo I've made with any grammatical statement, does not detract from the fact that you are wrong on the cosmology side....
Your statement again, among many others....
Singularities do not spin.
My view is that it is a logical reasonable concept to asign spin to a singularity, because of angular momentum conservation, and the observed frame dragging, are by definition caused by rotating mass/Singularity.

Your other cosmological absurdities....
[1] BHs do not exist or are unlikely:
[2] BH's have meaningful measurable densities:
[3] The Schwarzchild limit and compulsory collapse does not hold:
[4]The Singularity not being in vogue at the Planck/quantum/Singularity level:
[5] Frame Dragging in the Ergosphere is not caused by any rotating mass:
[6] A Kerr metric BH does not spin:

Now are you standing by those stupid claims?

 

Rajesh

Why does a singularity have no spin ? Is it because a singularity , is at the end of its spin energy ?

 

Answer is simple, singularity cannot be defined Physically, and it cannot be observed. We do not know what is inside Event Horizon. We observe the effect of something inside Even Horizon due to effect on other nearby objects...thats it.

Take for example Bermuda Triangle, ships and aircrafts used to vanish, there must be something....but we do not know (I am not aware of latest developments)....so we can theorize that so and so must be there thats why ships ets are facing problems....same thing with BH, we find unusual things around certain areas in the space, we do maths on that, we find out the mass/spin/radius and make certain conclusions.....once we do calculations (predicted before observation) then we find out that mass and radius of invisible object falls in the Category of Black Hole......and this Black Hole inside EH is pure maths.

 

Paddo, when you say that singularity spins, you are saying it is something Physical ?

 

And even when we have a QGT we still will not be able to observe.
But a few simple physical aspects do come into play.
[1] BH's most certainly exist: There is no other means by which such dramatic effects on spacetime, matter/energy can take place.
[2] GR predicts that once the Schwarzchild radius is reached, further collapse is compulsory. This leads to the classical point singularity]
[3] GR also fails at the quantum/Planck level, and this is actually where most cosmologists think the singularity will be...A finite mass at the Planck/Quantum level.
[4]We have observed frame dragging [ergosphere] and as such we also know that frame dragging is caused by rotating mass.
[5] This then leads to reasonable assigning of spin to the Singularity/mass, even though we know nothing about it.
[6] conservation of angular momentum of the collapsed star, is also reasonable assumption as to why spin can reasonably be applied to the singularity.
[7]Spin may be negated from a Kerr BH, but I would imagine it would take a long time, somewhere in with Hawking Radiation.

 

As you have been told many many many times, most all cosmologists do not now accept the GR predicted classical point singularity.
See? This is what agendas do to people. They are oblivious to what has already been told to them countless times.
So, yes, a mass should exist at the Planck/Quantum level where GR fails.
But that should be evidenced with a validated QGT.

 

Slightly off track so apologies. In reality the Bermuda Triangle is no more "active"for missing ships and planes then some other areas of Ocean around the world. Most disappearances have also been put down to "natural causes" etc and certainly not any Alien abduction scenario.

 

What other areas of Ocean around the world ?

Natural Causes being defind as ......? pad

river

 

You Interested in discussing?
Good, start a thread in the appropriate section.

 

Its your idea pad , hence your thread to start

Please no substitutes for pad

He speaks for himself , alone , for now , not forever

river

 

Sorry to say Paddo, you also know nothing about QGT and Planck's level....

See, a star core of around 3 Solar Mass can from a BH, now 3 solar mass is equal to 6 X 10^30 Kgs......The Planck's scale (of course you are referring to Planck's Length) is of the order 10^-35 meters.......So in that case if the entire mass collapses to Planck's level then density of such mass shall be of the order 10^135 Kg/Meter3.........Do you understand the significance of this density ?? Or Do you think that even those professors who referred to QGT are thinking on these lines ?? Thats why I said you are just bluffing your way out. Take a walk Paddo, further you speak beyond copy paste, you will expose yourself and kind of become liability to those who are silently supporting you...


And you do not understand that singularity is not the name of that ghostly object with mass M inside Event Horizon ?? Thats why time and again you are saying singularity is spinning ? In basic form Singularity in maths means x/0....it has no equivalent in Physics...it is not any object inside Event Horizon......you understand ??