Neutron Star

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by RajeshTrivedi, Apr 7, 2015.

  1. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,856
    I have yet to see any evidence supporting your assertion/claim that : "Theoretical science, and scientific theory are one and the same."

    You even provided a Link that seemed to "refute" your own assertion/claim : http://pages.uoregon.edu/its/index.shtml

    maybe, check this Link : http://pcts.princeton.edu/pcts/

    ...maybe : "In 1975, Kip Thorne (BS '62, and the Richard P. Feynman Professor of Theoretical Physics, Emeritus) and then-Caltech postdoctoral fellow Anna ┼╗ytkow sought the answer to an intriguing question..." - from : http://phys.org/news/2014-06-kip-thorne-discusses-discovery-thorne-zytkow.html

    ...or maybe : "Kip Stephen Thorne is an American theoretical physicist, known for his prolific contributions in gravitation physics and astrophysics and for having trained a generation of scientists." - from : http://www.spokeo.com/Kip Thorne 1

    So, do you suppose that Kip Stephen Thorne could be an American theoretical physicist if there were not a field of Theoretical Physics in the Theoretical Sciences?



     
    Last edited: May 4, 2015
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    Found a nice link that absolutely adheres to the general opinion here that the theoretical sciences, particularly in the field of cosmology, are blurred to any distinction from scientific theories.

    http://pcts.princeton.edu/pcts/current_future_programs.html

    Why are atoms stable? What caused galaxies, stars and planets to form? I will explain why quantum physics is crucial for explaining both. Finally, I will discuss the experimental evidence that assures us that everything in our universe originated from quantum fluctuations.

    The workshop will bring together string theorists and cosmologists to discuss central outstanding challenges in our understanding of Big Bang cosmology and the connection between CMB observations and fundamental theory. Potential future discoveries, such as the detection of B mode polarization of CMB anisotropies, would provide a direct experimental window into physics close to the Planck scale, and thereby put powerful constraints on attempts to realize inflation in string theory. Any model which can account for a detectable signal of primordial gravitational waves will not be able to parametrically isolate stringy effects from inflation, so it will have to rely on innovative dynamical mechanisms for theoretical control. We believe the time is right for a serious top-down look at this problem. Besides a small number of overview talks, the workshop will consist of organized discussion sessions on a number of key questions.


    As I said previously, to claim a cosmolgist is just a theorist because he studies something that we are unable to grasp and sample in the Lab, is silly.
    Simple application of physics, GR gives us a reasonable logical insight into these things, as was totally agreed by Professor Hamilton earlier on in the piece, we most certainly are able to assign properties logically and reasonably, to that which we are unable to sample.
    The differences between the theoretical sciences, and scientific theories, are as brucep said, just not worth differentiating between and to try and differentiate between is well..........
     
    Last edited: May 4, 2015
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    Again while we may have those that call themselves theoretical physicists, they deal in theoretical physics and gathering data for scientific theories that we are able to apply to those artifacts such as the Sun and how nuclear fusion is what powers it.
    It's simple really...theoretical physics, and the scientific method, along with scientific theories are all inter-merged.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,856

    ...actually, what you Posted is through the link I provided in Post #499... :
    http://pcts.princeton.edu/pcts/ ,
    by clicking on the "calendar of events" :
    http://pcts.princeton.edu/pcts/current_future_programs.html :

    -begin quote - " PROGRAMS 2014-2015
    (Listed in chronological order, so scroll down to see all programs.)

    Public Lecture
    23 October 2014
    8:00 PM
    Room A-10 Jadwin Hall

    "Quantum Universe"
    Viatcheslav Mukhanov
    Arnold Sommerfeld Center for Theoretical Physics
    Ludwig -Maximilians Universitat Munchen, Germany

    Why are atoms stable? What caused galaxies, stars and planets to form? I will explain why quantum physics is crucial for explaining both. Finally, I will discuss the experimental evidence that assures us that everything in our universe originated from quantum fluctuations.

    Public Lecture supported by
    The William A. Kuncik '75 and Cheryl A. LaFleur '75 Endowment for Princeton Physics
    " - end quote -

    How does a brief synopsis of a scheduled Public Lecture listed in the Calendar of Events, in any way support your statement that : "the theoretical sciences, particularly in the field of cosmology, are blurred to any distinction from scientific theories." ?

    Why are you persisting in this?
    For a Fact : Theoretical Sciences and Theoretical Scientists EXIST in reality.

    So, where is the support for your assertion/claim that : "Theoretical science, and scientific theory are one and the same." ?

    ...because an Item on a Calendar of Events is not supporting your assertion/claim.
     
    Last edited: May 4, 2015
  8. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    Of course it quite notable that those that are railing against the fact that the theoretical sciences, and scientific theories are basically one and the same, with no worthwhile difference, are those that are on record for not accepting present mainstream cosmology. They want to cling to the "It's only a theory" ignorance, to support any fairy tale they happen to conjur up. The case in question of course being Neutron stars or any other artifact that is imagined to exist within BHs...
    Science, cosmology in particular, has been responsible for what we have achieved today...electricity, flight, phones, TV, Satellites, Moon Landings and much much more to come......
    All of science...theoretical science/scientific theories and the application thereof.


    As I said earlier and worth repeating,
    I suppose what we do need to be thankful for, is that science forums like this, and as well intentioned as most of its contributors are, will never be the voice of mainstream science and academia in general.
    They are isolated voices in the wilderness, some seething in the fact that science has pushed the need for a magical deity into oblivion, others suffering from delusions of grandeur and their vain hope for fame in trying to invalidate something that is not going to be invalidated.
     
  9. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    Here's another example from the theoretical sciences, formulating scientific theories and furthering our understanding......
    http://pcts.princeton.edu/pcts/current_future_programs.html
    The Earth is relentlessly bombarded by ultra-relativistic particles produced in cosmic accelerators. These cosmic-ray sources also show prominent non-thermal emission, offering us a direct insight into the physical processes able to produce the most-energetic particles in the Universe. The aim of this program is to bring together a selected pool of scientists, with mixed observational and theoretical skills, to illustrate the wealth of new data provided by the present generation of experiments, and to discuss successes and issues of current theoretical models of particle acceleration and transport.
    Moreover, special attention will be given to the still poorly-understood role of cosmic rays in galactic dynamics.

    That's simply how science works and progresses.
    Besides robust theories and the theoretical sciences, we from them are able to logically deduce and make reasonable assumptions.
    Of course future observations and data could alter things somewhat in some issues and respects, but again, that's the theoretical sciences...that's what a scientific theory is....and that's science, period.
     
  10. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,856
    ...why are you still copying and pasting excerpts from a Calendar of Events - completely out of context, may I add - that in no way support your assertions/claims?
     
  11. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,856
    I am not "railing against the fact that the theoretical sciences, and scientific theories are basically one and the same, with no worthwhile difference..." simply because what you state/assert/claim is NOT a fact.

    Your Personal Attacks, Ad Hominems and blatant accusations of "ignorance" are just more of what Professor Link was referring to in his Posts #285 and #385...

    ...sigh...
     
  12. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,914
    This has become an argument nit picking semantics!

    There are theoretical physicists and theoretical physics. Is theoretical physics a science? Are the physicists working on quantum gravity, which is theoretical at this point, doing science?

    Someone earlier in this thread, mentioned that all of cosmology is theoretical, is cosmology science?

    I think this has become an argument for the sake of argument.

    Maybe it is time to call a time out.
     
  13. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    Obviously, along with many others in the past, and that have also been duly noted.
     
  14. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,856
    Theoretical Physics is a hugely important Science.

    Yes, Theoretical Scientist are "doing" Science.

    Yes Cosmology is a Science and a Theoretical Cosmologist is a Scientist, also.

    A time out would be nice, Only Me. ...one was Threatened in Post #489...

    Only Me, when we speak of Theoretical Science - we are not merely re-arranging and re-forming the words : scientific theory.

    You see, Only Me, theoretical science and scientific theory are NOT one and the same.
     
    Last edited: May 4, 2015
  15. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,366
    OnlyMe....

    I did not, I asked this question, Prof responded that we know very litrtle or nothing about it for sure.......You have to ask Brucep, why he brought in the fall of a particle into an existing UMBH....this was never the discussion and I told him time and again not to mix up formation with in fall......to me it appeared that he is talking about collapse from r = 2M to r = 0.....

    What is this ??....Desist the temptation of going Paddoway.......


    Read the above para again and again (although it is written by you only), what you are saying is what I am harping...........That as soon as the radius of the object falls below 4/3Rs (or 9/8 Rs) or some higher value as per Prof, then something must happen ?? What is that something ? No one answered ?? Try it this way....If an object starts collapsing from nRs (where n >> 4/3), then when n just becomes < 4/3 what happens ??

    Prof Bennett just said causality cannot be violated under SR/GR....fine, then something must happen it cannot simply keep collapsing to Rs and to r = 0.......

    PS : Prof Hamilton said/implied that my BNS is not possible due to causality violation because formation of BNS is at less than 4/3Rs (or 9/8Rs)........so he is also indirectly saying that an object cannot be smaller than 4/3Rs, even in dynamic compression...
     
  16. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225

    I'm not sure now how it arose, but I certainly know why it arose!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    As I said, the differences are indistinguishable and merge into one another.
     
  17. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,366
    I personally feel you should stay away from talking about GR, because you do not know beyond the above statement......
     
  18. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,366
    True, Gravity is not single body issue, thats what I am emphasizing......

    OnlyMe, do you know how GR is applied to Son / Mercury to solve precession problem ? The mass of Mercury is taken to be negligible.........There is no proper relativistic solution even to our Planetary System in GR, we have to invariably fall on Newtonian / Keplarian calculations...

    Please explain in at least 3-4 lines how GR is the successful description of Gravity ?? You can explain with respect to Sun / Earth / Moon System....find difficult (?) then try Earth ....Moon ..........
     
  19. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,856
    @ Only Me

    I really thought that with Kip Thorne, being such a preeminent Theoretical Physicist, it would be understood exactly what a paramount importance the Theoretical Sciences are in science.

    Instead, games...
     
  20. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,366
    Ok, if at r = o we get singularity, where we cannot meaningfully assign any Physical quantity.....so while collapsing we would have passed through r = 1 meter (for example).......so ??
     
  21. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Not exactly...
    Professor Link said...
    ..Little to nothing is known about how these super massive black holes were formed in the first place........
    There are, however, a number of formation theories. The wiki page on supermassive black holes is reasonably good.



    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    You are the one that asked a silly question as to why a galaxy does not collapse into a BH...Now you get all uppity when someone confronts you with such nonsense. There are a few others too, very similar and of the same standard.
    It's been answered many times. In the first instant it violates GR.
    Principally the postulate that once the Schwarzchild radius is reached, further collapse is compulsory.
    Professor Link also explained that to you, at least twice.
    Professor Hamilton said the following......
    A black hole is a place where space is falling faster than the speed of light.
    http://jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/insidebh/waterfall.html
    The horizon is the place where space falls at the speed of light.
    Inside the horizon, space falls faster than light. That is why
    light cannot escape from a black hole.

    Light emitted directly upward from the horizon of a black hole
    stays there forever, barrelling outward at the speed of light
    through space falling at the speed of light. It takes an infinite
    time for light to lift off the horizon and make it to the outside
    world. Thus when you watch a star collapse to a black hole,
    you see it appear to freeze, and redshift and dim, at the horizon.

    Since gravity also propagates at the speed of light, gravity,
    like light, cannot escape from a black hole. The gravity you
    experience from a black hole is the gravity of the frozen star,
    not the gravity of whatever is inside the black hole.

    > Or are we only allowed to assign angular momentum [frame dragging] to the ergopshere?

    All the gravity, including the frame-dragging, is from the frozen star.

    > Is it not logical that if we observe frame dragging, we should be able to assume that we have a rotating mass?

    Indeed you have a rotating mass.

    > And is not angular momentum conserved by the mass that has collapsed to within its Schwarzchild radius to give us a BH?

    Yes.

    > Other questions that have arisen are...
    > Can we have massless Black holes held together by the non linearity of spacetime/gravity?


    A black hole has mass, whatever it might have been formed from.

    It is possible to form a black hole from gravitational waves
    focussed towards each other. Gravitational waves propagate
    in empty space, and locally cannot be distingished from empty space.
    Nevertheless they do curve space, and do carry energy.

    Hope this helps,
    Andrew Hamilton
    """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

    Now you have a choice.
    Are you going to admit you were in error and your paper has been invalidated,
    or do you suggest that the whole world is wrong, and this is a conspiracy against yourself.

    Although the answer is patently obvious, I would rather have you say it yourself.
    Once you do that, that's the last you will here of me, other then in the situation of any other false irrational claims by yourself.
     
    Last edited: May 4, 2015
  22. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    But it is you refuting and deriding against GR!
    It is you refuting and deriding at least six Professors [maybe more] as well as many links, and expecting all to swallow your nonsense without argument.
    It won't happen.
    Professor Link has certainly had enough of your refusal to accept common sense. I will be here though to keep you honest.
     
  23. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    Professor also answered that.
    It appears you put your hands over your ears when anything is said to invalidate your nonsense. Anything that passes into the BH, is quickly disassembled, if it hasn't already been disassembled this side of the EH.
    Nothing is stable...Gravity overcomes all other forces including the strong nuclear force.
    How many more Professors do we need to get for you to understand you are totally wrong.
    Or would you have us all believe that it is the rest of the world that is wrong?
     

Share This Page