Neutron Star to Black Hole

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

  1. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member


    Since you have not withdrawn your statement that for the kerr BH, even the space inside EH also rotates (space where r<Rs), although Brucep made a statement that entire Kerr geometry rotates, you went ahead and gave explanation to this 'entire' including the space from r = 0 to r = Rs and included Brucep also in your statement.

    Now the question for you (as usual without wiki links or reference because I hate this kind of copy paste beyond certain limit)..

    You have heard about frame dragging, I know that you have only heard about GP-B proof of Frame Dragging, and thus the terminology, not beyond that...but please google yourself (you are a resident expert in that) and find out more about frame dragging and then tell yourself first "How you would reconcile this frame dragging inside r < Rs......inside that infinitely critically curved spacetime (your words).....inside that place where escape velocity is "c".....inside that place where the time and spatial parameters become haywire......and so on.. and finally read a statement in one of your google search results about frame dragging in Ergosphere !!
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. river Valued Senior Member

    The mainstream certainly don't have the best minds
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Well sorry to disppoint you, but whether you hate WIKI links or any reputable links does not really concern me...not one iota. In truth, that's just a gutless copout.

    Yes, I did happen to inform you of the science of frame dragging or the Lense Thirring effect, so? It exists, it happens, and has been verified by GP-B and even other satellites.

    I don't need to google anymore. I made a statement that the Kerr BH metric spins in totality according to our best models and what GR predicts.
    brucep has r-enforced that position.
    I really suggest, you stop your whinging, pontificating, ranting and raving, and come out and say what you think, and naturally supply evidence to that.
    Or at least a reputable link as I have given, and which you like all anti mainstream science people, have misinterpreted.
    I await anxiously.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    Then answer the frame dragging would take place inside your spinning spacetime of r < Rs ??
  8. paddoboy Valued Senior Member


    You have that answer, at least twice.
    clue: Your impression of the EH maybe somewhat askew.

    And while you are trying to find the answer I already have given you, ask yourself why or how does the gravity of the BH itself get out.
    I also gave you those reasons.
    Obviously you do not read the links, and just as obviously you are not reading some of the posts in answer to your questions.
  9. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    No, thats not the answer, that is flooding the thread with inane posts and then claiming something to suit yourself....

    Ok I will help you....any spinning space time would produce frame dragging .....right ? Now if the spacetime around BH (r < Rs) is spinning as fondly claimed by you, then an object dropped just inside r = Rs will experience this frame dragging...will it not ? So the path of this object will not be radial towards singularity...isn't it ? Do you get the problem with your fondness of making spacetime at r < Rs spinning ?
  10. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Correct. And please get over your infatuation for me please!
    All have claimed what I have.
    Now my turn to help you.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Just to pass more mainstream referenced knowledge on to you, if you adjust your trajectory careful enough from the polar regions of the spin, so as to pass directly through the center of the ring singularity, the equalizing effect of gravity on your person, may see you pass through unharmed, into where? we are not sure.

    Also on the spin itself, and your obvious dillema, how do you think that an ergosphere [spinning spacetime] could exist, and a ring singularity [spinning mass at the center] without the intervening spacetime not spinning, which is apparently what you are suggesting.
    Do you see the problem in your fondness in claiming that a Kerr BH does not spin within the EH?
    I'm sure you do.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  11. paddoboy Valued Senior Member


    My posts are quite simply constructed, in layman, Occam's razor type fashion and certainly get the message across to any normal sane reasonable individual, without an agenda.
    Yours on the other hand, as I have told you before, are in part gibberish, complicated, pretentious, and most appear to have trouble understanding what you are trying to say, as well as myself.
  12. brucep Valued Senior Member

    You're just hypothesizing bullshit. Pay attention then review for yourself. It's conservation of angular momentum. If you don't want an answer to your question then quit asking it.
    I'm not arguing with you because I don't argue with intellectually dishonest trolls. I answered your questions but you're not interested in the answer. It's pretty simple as physics goes. It's conservation of angular momentum. For gravitional collapse spinning objects conserve angular momentum and wind up spinning much faster. How do you think a neutron star winds up spinning as fast as they do? An extremmal Kerr black hole can spin up to the speed of light. Show some intellectual honesty and read the reference I linked for you. It's way more interesting than the drivel you're conjuring up.
  13. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    The same way it takes place outside!
  14. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    I am not infatuated with you. I withdrew from the BH thread, you again triggered that after a silence of few days..In this thread also I urged you twice to drop the issue of singularity and to enable focus on new point, but you continued with your tirade with singularity......I cannot help if you wish to commit harakiri.
  15. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    [Again ignoring the substantial noise made by you..]

    So you do not understand the question despite my making the same very clear, because you do not wish to rise beyond high school physics of conservation of angular momentum....if the momentum was not to be conserved then this question would have become infructuos. Since momentum is to be conserved thats why the question...Where does it go ?

    I will make it further clear to you, a star core of around 2-3 solar mass gravitationally gets degenerated to a Neutron Star of around 10-11 Kms, this would entail a very high spin speed...very high angular momentum...and a very high rotational energy to Neutron this NS acquires additional mass by accretion and gets beyond TOV limit (say around 3M) and dynamically collapses into BH (within a second)......No problem so far ?

    This is Kerr BH (lets forget charge for time being), now the point.....Rotational KE of the Kerr BH is associated to ergo sphere (outside to Rs for a non maximally rotating Kerr BH)...this hypo has no violation....but an angular momentum cannot be associated with any imaginary sphere or geometry, it has to be associated with spinning mass, which has disappeared (not the right word) into singularity ? So would you still sing like, paddoboy, that this mass at singularity is spinning ? Show some intellectual depth and answer, rather than making noises.
  16. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member


    Please see the attached file.....probably now spacetime spinning from r = o till inner horizon will not be insisted upon, and also it is clear that mass at singularity is also not spinning...

    Attached Files:

  17. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    This is what professor Carlip said in Tasja post # 261 in another BH thread...

    ......In classical GR, "the Planck scale" doesn't mean anything -- it
    is a scale that explicitly involves Planck's constant. But
    classical singularities are predicted to occur at zero size and,
    typically, infinite curvature and density, which is certainly
    smaller in size and larger in energy than any quantum scale.

    Steve Carlip

    Paddoboy, you are playing with fire....stop trolling...and just delink this singularity with Planck's scale or Planck's level or Planck's region.... Please do not flood this thread also with your further copy-paste type links on this topic..
  18. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Say we have sphere of mass that is spinning. Gravity begins to act upon the mass, causing the radius to decrease toward neutron density, and then finally toward a black hole singularity. Since the mass will need to spin faster and faster as the radius decreases, the velocity of the surface mass increases toward the speed of light. However, since we are dealing with mass it can't reach the speed of light. How is angular momentum conserved at the break point where the surface approaches C. Will this limit the final radius?
    KilljoyKlown likes this.
  19. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    If a neutron star accumulates sufficient additional mass that it collapses to form a black hole, its original angular momentum is conserved and you wind up with a black hole mass, that has angular momentum. As the neutron star collapses, it does not not shed the angular momentum associated with its mass. If the colapse is violent, meaning some mass is ejected during the collapse.., that mass would carry with it some of the conserved angular momentum.., but not all of it.

    How you are arriving at some of your conclusions is mystery!

    It really isn't clear that a neutron star could collapse to form a black hole, other than in theory. I don't think there has been any observation we could attribute to the formation of a black hole by any means. We do find evidense that supports black holes exist, but watching one form???

    The image shows nothing and says nothing about what happens inside the event horizon. However, since the mass of the black hole is isolated form any mass outside the event horizon, it is not unreasonable to believe that the curvature of spacetime outside the event horizon, is associated with spacetime curvature inside. The same could be said for any frame-dragging.....

    IOW so maybe you get the picture, any angular momentum associated with the physical mass of the black hole results in a Lense-Thirring or frame-dragging effect that extends from the physical mass of the black hole through the event horizon — spacetime itself has some angular momentum, in proximity to a gravitational mass that has any angular momentum. This has been confirmed by the near earth GP-B experiment and both the angular momentum and gravitational field associated with a black hole far exceeds anything observed here on or near the earth.... Obviously!

    There could be some conceptual issues associated with frame-dragging and conservation of angular momentum, but I have not researched any theoretical work that discusses it, so that is purely speculation on my part... And it would seem to require an inertial relationship between space and any massive object in space.... Which would suggest that the frame-dragging effect itself might result in a spin down of the angular momentum of any massive object.., however the time frame over which any such transfer of momentum would occur, would have to be far beyond our ability to measure...
    KilljoyKlown likes this.
  20. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    The answer, for any mass within an event horizon, requires first that we determine the fundamental origin of inertia, since the speed of light limitation as associated with any massive object, is directly associated with acceleration and thus the inertial resitance of mass to acceleration. For macroscopic conditions, such as those that exist outside an event horizon the origin of inertia itself is of less importance to the issue of speed of light limitations and angular momentum, because individual massive components of a spinning object, can be treated as individually limited by inertia and acceleration to velocities below the speed of light.

    Once we begin to consider any mass inside an event horizon, the origin of inertia becomes more important to the question. Whatever exotic form the physical mass associated with a black hole consists of, it is almost certain it does not involve atoms or even protons and neutrons...

    Any model of inertia that follows Mach's principle, may extend the same speed of light limitations, to any mass within an event horizon, but that assumes that gravity crosses the event horizon. And it could be argued in both directions... (Which could involve speed of light issues itself.)

    Einstein was never able to incorporate Mach's principle in his field equations, which leads to a question of whether any spacetime curvature outside an event horizon would have any effect on the curvature of spacetime inside an event horizon, or does the curvature associated with the black hole dominate? If the later is the case, the angular momentum of the mass of a black hole, may not be affected by any inertial limitations.... as we know them to exist outside the event horizon....
    KilljoyKlown likes this.
  21. paddoboy Valued Senior Member


    Rajesh, stop posting the stupid pretentious nonsense that you are posting.
    Now again, on the above red herring you have raised to avoid admitting you are again in error with regards to a Kerr type BH and spin.
    There were around four or five professors that answered, and the others specifically supported what I said.
    * I also told you what Carlip has said about the Planck scale actually meaning nothing, just a theoretical mathematical concept.
    * The classical singularity he mentions in actual fact is not believed to exist anymore by most physicists.
    * The singularity in essence is most probably not infinite in any context at all, although the possibility of leading to infinite quantities may still exist.
    * A BH singularity effectively starts at where GR leaves off.....We know that to be the Planck/quantum level.
    If this fact was put to the good professor Carlip, I'm sure being an obvious logical bloke, he would agree.
    What you believe is neither here nor there and does not matter in the greater scheme of things.
    You cannot, and will not supply any of your own references to support any of the erroneous concepts that you have dreamt up about GR and BH's
    Now that we have that red herring out of the road, let's get onto your latest current faux pas.

    In the first place you are obviously behind the eight ball as you believe BH's do not exist, but are unable to show any other scenario that would explain what we observe and the effects on spacetime and matter/energy.

    * The Schwarzchild metric is used for ease of operation and calculations.
    It most likely is not evident anywhere, despite your beliefs otherwise.
    * The Kerr metric BH is the most likely outcome, considering that all stars we know of are spinning.
    * The Kerr metric, according to GR solutions, consists of a "ring singularity" the EH proper, and an ergosphere bounded by what we call the static limit.
    * Again, according to the mathematical solutions of GR, and by definition, this whole metric is spinning, the ring singularity [ a result of that spin] the BH in the main itself of course, the frame dragging effect we call the ergosphere, and to a much lower extent, even spacetime beyond the static limit of the ergosphere.

    Now if you do not accept any of that, which all others so far have supported, then please supply some reputable links to the contrary.
    Obviously that is the big stumbling block for you.
    Your general anti GR/BH stance sees you stubbornly resisting getting for yourself any reference or link, and of course I doubt that you could find anything supporting any of your unsupported notions about BH's...which by the way are now many.

    Avoiding answering any of those issues, ignoring the answers from myself and others that have been given, and purposely misinterpreting what you are told, will only show you up as an anti science/GR/BH troll.

    Please do the right thing, which begins with supplying any reputable link or reference to support your latest faux pas.

    ps: To show I have no hard feelings with regards to your many faux pas, I will again supply more links about BH's

    Hope some of that at least helps.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  22. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Oh stop it Rajesh for Christ sake! [Apologies If I insult any religious convictions you may have]
    The tone of your posts, their pretense, their pomposity, their arrogance, is enough to make one want to throw up.
    You have no qualifications, you have nothing we know of, yet you continue with your stubborn refusal to supply any reputable link to support yourself, and expect people to bow down and accept your nonsense. Taking careful note that that nonsense is contaminated by your bias against GR/BH's and the like anyway.
    To take your word on these things [when shown to be in error in all respects] would be the height of insanity.

    The reality seems to be that in effect, you are not interested in any answers unless they conform with your bias.
    That is evident in two threads that "question" BH's and their properties. and the many answers you have been given, both by amateur and professional, and the total ignoring of these answers to again ask the same question a dozen or so posts later on, expecting intelligent people to somehow forget that the answers have already been given.
  23. paddoboy Valued Senior Member


    I must apolgise to Rajesh. It appears he has supplied one link!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I'm unable to retrieve it for some reason.

    Hmmm..OnlyMe does comment on the link. Interesting.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Last edited: Jan 15, 2015

Share This Page