Neutron Star to Black Hole

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by RajeshTrivedi, Jan 12, 2015.

  1. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    As usual, not much you have correct there.
    As already confirmed by one of our experts the Singularity begins where GR fails.....That is at the quantum/Planck level.
    It escapes you obviously due to the agenda you are burdned with and have admitted to, but the Planck scale referred to is the Planck volume or the quantum realm and most likely where our finite mass will be shown to exist, rather than your imaginary point singularity.OnlyMe has done his best to explain this to you but to no avail.
    Perhaps he may try again.


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    The God Bothering force is strong in this one!
     
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2015
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    The more you post, the more you reveal your agenda in pushing your God bothering scenario......You obviously don't like my copy n pastes, all from reputable people like Thorne, Kerr himself, and others, because along with all the Professional replies they rebuke your outstandingly stupid statement, saying a Kerr BH/Singularity/mass does not spin.
    That along with your many other faux pas like BH density, and denying the Schwarzchild limit leaves you out in the cold, behind the proverbial 8 ball without a cue.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    Just a quick reminder for our God troll.......

    I think that to say that "the Kerr's ring singularity is spinning" is a fairly reasonable intuitive interpretation of the Kerr geometry.
    Kerr geometry has angular momentum, and it is reasonable (at least in some respects) to think of the ring singularity as the source of this angular momentum; and for this reason it is reasonable to interpret the situation as if the ring singularity is rotating.
    Best regards,
    Amos Ori

    http://www-conf.slac.stanford.edu/einstein/talks/kip-bhs.pdf


    "I don't know what it means to say that the "singularity spins" or not. The Kerr solution certainly has angular momentum---a notion that is well defined at infinity---and it would probably not be unreasonable to view the ring singularity as "producing" this angular momentum".
    Robert Wald:


    No Professor has ever said "A SINGULARITY DOES NOT SPIN"
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    As a God fearing individual, your honesty is non existent, goverened by your fanatical desire to deride cosmology.
    Like many other aspects of this trolling by you, you have been told many many times, that once the Schwarzchild limit/radius is reached, further collapse is compulsory. It's totally irrelevant how dense a BH is.
    But of course this is just more of your childish nonsensical crap to eventually say what you are leading to...That BH's do not exist,
    Dishonesty by the truck load, misinterpretations by the dozen, and plain old ignorance by the bag.
     
  8. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,473
    Thats Paddoscience !! He can create a Black Hole out of 1 loaf of bread around 200 gms !!


    First and the Last Postulate of Paddoscience

    Density of the singularity is irrelevant, but singularity is spinning. Because no one says that it is not spinning.

    Question to Dr. Paddoboy (Founder of Paddoscience)

    Q1 What is a singularity, Dr. Paddo..
    his answers, all true..

    1. It is a lump of mass.
    2. It is a very mysterious physical object, I do not know about, but its spinning.
    3. I just know the name because it appears in the forum in which I have been trolling for couple of years and got caught trolling due to this singularity.
    4. It is something which got stuck inside me, and I do not know how to get it out.
    5. It is available at 10^-35 m and I am just in the process of reducing myself to that level.
    6...
    7...
    8...
    9..
    10. Please leave me, I swear I will not use the word singularity for next few years.
     
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2015
  9. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,473
    Ok Paddo, you put a 200 gms Loaf of Bread (finite mass, Right ?? instead of solar mass) and calculate the density of this Loaf of Bread at Planck's Volume !! You will be amazed what Paddoscience can produce !!
     
  10. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647

    You give me too much credit. The irrelevant fact of BH density is accepted mainstream cosmology, and you have also been informed of that at least three times from memory, including myself either in this thread or the other BH thread. Reason being is that the BH is mainly just critically curved spacetime.
    Along with everything else you have raised tonight, all have been explained to you.
    Generally when we refer to a BH we refer to the Schwarzchild radius. Density does not really make any sense, since the mass is within a Planck/Quantum volume.
    What does this say about you and your agenda, and consequent trolling.
     
  11. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647

    Such Ignorance!
    As I have just said, it is the Schwarszchild radius/limit that defines a BH
    eg: Ignoring your childish example, squeeze the earth into a volume of around 3cms radius and it will become a BH [its Schwarzchild radius] ....Squeeze the Sun into a volume around 2.5 KMs radius, [its Schwarzchild radius] and it to would become a BH.

    Have you woken up yet?
    Whatever paddoscience is, it isn't governed by the belief in some stupid mythical all mighty being who pulls chickens out of his arse!
     
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2015
  12. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,473
    Yes, that appears to be mistake, because you are not learning. And you are feeling guilty and conscious that a person of my calibre is giving you some credit [albeit in humor].

    It does not say anything about me, but it says a lot about you that you know nothing.... Even Sir Stephen Hawking has never said that the mass of a BH resides at Planck's Volume. You know why ? Because he does not follow Paddoscience.
     
  13. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,473
    See, Paddo, Humor and sarcasm apart, Seriously I will try again

    .....Singularity is not a Physical Object...its a mathematical disaster...and even in simple algebraic equations when we encounter a division by Zero (x/o), we say that solution does not exist. So assigning anything to a disaster, to a non existent solution, is plain simple stupidity. On top of that when you say that singularity is at Planck's level, that is just plain mix up..Because Planck's level is at Quantum Level and we have no mathematical singularity problems at that level...GR and Quantum levels have different operational domains..


    I will think from your point of view which is perfectly common-sensical to a large extent.....There must be something which is causing some effect in the near by space as observed around [BH]...this is also true that if we have Frame Dragging then something must be in existence with angular momentum.......but that something is not singularity. Singularity is the name given to absurd mathematical solution (x/0), not to any object inside Horizon. Our failure is that as on date our understanding says that we know nothing inside Event Horizon and our maths results into Singularity, that is a failed solution, so we are in hunt for a better explanation which may come by, emphasize MAY, as and when we have a theory of Quantum Nature of Gravity, which we are not sure of as on date.

    Somewhere due to this hunt for solution of Quantum Nature of Gravity at Quantum Level, the terms singularity got stuck with Planck's Level, because Planck's Level is fundamental to Quantum Level. So loosely few people started claiming that singularity may be at Planck's level [there is a paper on Planck's star]. But actually what they mean is that as and when we are able to resolve the Quantum Nature of Gravity, which is likely at Plankc's Level (again Emphasis on word Likely) then may be we will know all the way from Schwarzschilds radius to Plankc's Level....But as on date there is no such knowledge and linkage. Period.

    It is my friendly advise to you do not troll further, whatever I have suggested above, can be mailed to your professor friend and I assure you not even a single alphabet will be objected by him.
     
  14. Kristoffer Giant Hyrax Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,233
    • Please do not insult other members of the forum
    Rajesh, you're not learning and your caliber is so puny it wouldn't concuss, let alone pierce, a jellyfish.
     
  15. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,914
    Rajesh, how did you arrive at (x/o)? What does dividing by zero have to do with the infinities encountered in solutions to Einstein's field equations?

    I have mentioned several times in past posts that, in Einstein's field equations and the several solutions that end in singularities, the mass variable (m or sometime M) is treated as a point mass*. Doing so when dealing with planets and stars (etc.) produces no problems and describes the gravitational field exceptionally well. What happens in the extreme case associated with black holes is that general relativity, contains no description of matter or any of the atomic or quantum forces that define the structure of matter and its associated mass. This leads to the situation where there is nothing in the math that opposes the collapse.., which then continues until the resulting mass densities and field potentials begin to produce infinities... It is that point or location that is referred to as a singularity, because the solutions no longer make any sense....

    * Even when discussing the formation of a black hole from a collapsing mass, as soon as the collapsing mass passes the Schwartszchild radius, the collapse just continues unopposed.

    This last might even be true, but not for the reason you think. Most of what you posted is hogwash and so confused that, there can be no expectation that you would understand any credible explanation...
     
  16. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647

    Yes, you have given me much advice since you have started your vendetta about BHs. I treat that advice the way it deserves to be treated.
    With your suggestion about passing on your gibberish to the professor mate of mine.....[1] He is not a mate per se. I was just lucky enough to have been on a now defunct forum where he and a GR theorist participated...both well respected, and certified experts.[2] I would not waste the professors time with such rubbish.

    There are a few facts you need to realise Rajesh. While you and I continue to hurl insults backwards and forwards, a few facts are indisputable .
    As both lay people, neither of us are infallible in what we present.
    Yet you "refuse" to read any reputable links I have given. why?
    Is this sensible or wise thing to do?
    You believe in thinking for yourself? Quite an admirable thing to do.
    But as a lay person surely you are not a vessel of complete knowledge of BHs.
    All the professors replies could also be likened to reputable links.
    Yet you read those, dismiss what doesn't fill your agenda, cherry pick phrases that do suit your agenda, and generally misquote.
    Or do you believe that there is a conspiracy afoot against you by the members here that have replied to this thread?

    Have you heard of the expression uttered by Issac Newton about seeing as far as he did because he stands on the shoulders of giants?
    I'm confident I don't need to explain that to you any further.

    You have also started threads in the past in the science sections, that after some time have been shifted to the fringe sections, when your real goals have been revealed.
    This appears now to be heading that way.

    You have also made many personal attacks on me re my not being able to think for myself, and just follow blindly the accepted mainstream science.
    Ask yourself, how does accepted mainstream science, become accepted mainstream science?
    Part of the reason is that because the majority of scientists [and lay persons] see a particular theory or model, as best fitting any particular situation, and making the most sense.
    So yes, I certainly generally adhere to the accepted mainstream models, because as far as I am concerned, they fit the best and make the most sense.

    On the current issue, I also stand with the accepted mainstream model, as it makes the most sense.
    I am not driven by any ego, or agenda.
    In that respect I stand by all I have claimed in this thread, and see it all as aligning more or less with all my reputable links and the professional replies that have been forthcoming.
    Again, its your view that is on the outer..It's you that appears to be continually ignoring of many issues and answers to those issues, only to ask questions about it again a few pages later.

    I'll stand by my credibility on this forum [no I'm not perfect, far from it, as I generally return fire on all insults directed in my direction that maybe I should ignore] and remind you that both you and I as lay people, are judged by our peers on this forum.

    I also stand by all my claims re BHs on this forum, and see them all aligning more or less with my links and the professor's replies.
    In my opinion all those replies obtained by tashja, agree basically with each other, some with more or less emphasis on different aspects.
    No one has ever said, [and no one will ever say] that a singularity/mass of a BH does not spin, other than yourself.
    You need to think long and hard about that fact.
     
    dumbest man on earth likes this.
  17. tashja Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    715
    Prof. Thorne's reply!

     
  18. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,914
    Another rally great answer!

    It really hit the nail on the head, as far as the problems in this dsicussion are concerned.., it all in English.
     
  19. tashja Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    715

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  20. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,473



    Busted !! It is apparent and clear that you have been using EFE...EFE...EFE ad infinitum without once seeing the same. So its time that you had a look and come back to this thread only after that. As of now it appears [that] this thread is couple of steps ahead of your present understanding..

    may be you can start learning with..
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerr_metric
    http://eagle.phys.utk.edu/guidry/astro490/lectures/lecture490_ch13.pdf
    (Page # 311)


    It is true and it is true for the reason I think. You will agree with me only after learning about origin of singularity till then it will appear a hogwash to you.
     
  21. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,473
    Thanks again Tashja ! Despite your tremendous efforts in getting response from many profs, despite a clear assertion by profs that it is meaningless to assign any spin to singularity....people are stuck...that it must be spinning....why ? ...... because no Prof said that it is not spinning...How silly and stupid !!
     
  22. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,914
    You did not answer the question!

    So I ask again, explain how x/0 has anything to do with the infinities encountered... Anywhere, let alone in this discussion.

    Edit: To leave nothing uncertain, the result of division by zero is undefined, not infinie.
     
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2015
  23. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    Again, without repeating what other professors have said, just because we cannot observe or describe it, does not mean, that sensible logic and theoretical physics demands we ignore it and not assign anything to it.
    What we know about angular momentum, frame dragging, singularities/mass and the Planck quantum level leaves assigning of spin to the mass as well as the gravitational field/spacetime that make up the BH as a reasonable assumption.


    Oh heck!

    I think that to say that "the Kerr's ring singularity is spinning" is a fairly reasonable intuitive interpretation of the Kerr geometry.
    Kerr geometry has angular momentum, and it is reasonable (at least in some respects) to think of the ring singularity as the source of this angular momentum; and for this reason it is reasonable to interpret the situation as if the ring singularity is rotating.
    Best regards,
    Amos Ori


    Oh and congrats for finally referring to a couple of links...Nice to see you take my advice. But they support exactly what I OnlyMe, the professors and everyone else has been saying.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Thanks for that also.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    This subject despite your continued misgivings is done and dusted.
    Thank you linesman, thank you ball boys!
     

Share This Page