Neutron Star

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

  1. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    To use your real name is foolish imo, and your maths has been shown to be in gross error.
    What you need is expertise in cosmology.
    Of course they are baseless, and I have given many links and references showing such baseless assumptions over many threads.
    But you appear to be rather fanatically adverse into accepting reputable links and references, particularly when they invalidate your own speculation.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    More then one person has asked you to answer questions which you so often just ignore. So really, it appears you doing the dodging.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    Nitwit. For the Schwarzschild spacetime r=2M. For one solar mass black hole that would be r_s = 2954 meter. What's r for a neutron star? ~5,000 meter. Let's pretend a very large mass, large in the sense that r_s will wind up large enough for an existing neutron star to be trapped inside the pretend black holes event horizon when it forms. What does GR predict happens to the neutron star trapped inside the event horizon? How long does this happening, event, last as measured on a clock on the surface of the neutron star? At what point, on the event path, will the neutron degeneracy be overcome and the neutron star cease to exist?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    As has been here as well as elsewhere, what GR predicts does not seem to concern Rajesh. He has argued against total compulsory collapse once the Schwarzchild radius is reached since day one.
    Also if he could be convinced of what I have been trying to convince him of since day one, that coupled with the fact that gravity at such levels inside the EH and approaching the Singularity/Planck/Quantum level, overcomes all other known forces, including the strong nuclear force, he may start to understand why BHs of the GR variety are near certain to exist.
    And of course the continued agenda that I have spoken of with regard to Rajesh, is highlighted by the outcome of this nonsense, in him claiming [as is evident in his old threads] that GR variety BHs do not exist, and instead we have a BNS, even though this claim defies all we know and all that GR tells us.
    That appears to be the objective of this ongoing exercise, after all earlier threads insinuating the same nonsense were invalidated and exposed.
     
  8. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    Incidentally there is a paper??

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    and incidentally you have also quoted "some"references. So how does all this apparent hypocrisy stand up to your railings against all my many reputable references and links, that invalidate your obvious stand against accepted cosmology.

    With your above post, any speculative "quark star" would be a step between NS and BH obviously....certainly and totally Impossible for either to exist at or below the gravitational forces that create an EH, a parameter equal to the Schwarzchild radius and an escape velocity at "c" as dictated by GR.
     
  9. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    Folks tend to think that 'spagetification' occurs near the event horizon for an object following the natural path, free fall geodesic for matter and the null geodesic for bosons. For a main sequence star falling into the black hole it will start to come apart when delta g across the star is great enough to overcome thermal pressure keeping the star from collapsing under it's own gravity. The Hubble has pics of several stars being torn apart while falling towards the black hole. For you and I it wouldn't happen, even feel any pain, until about a micro second before we reached r=0. This is because delta g across our body would need to overcome the electromagnetism that holds us together. For the neutron star delta g across the neutron star would have to overwhelm the the neutron degeneracy, > strong nuclear force, before the neutron star would start to come apart. Some time less than a microsecond before the neutron star reaches r=0. LOL. I'll ask that question a lot in the hopes that somebody will think about it and realize why and when stuff is predicted to be torn apart. For the gravitational collapse we start with gravity but then rely on thermodynamics and quantum mechanics to tell us much of the rest of the story. Just like we need to use quantum mechanics to figure out r=0. Stuff that falls into the black hole have a geodesic that terminates at r=0.
     
  10. NittanyJ Registered Member

    Messages:
    13
    Kindly explain me what is Energy-mass-Energy continuum?
     
  11. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,914
    Rajesh has a vivid imagination. The phrase is not from any mainstream interpretation of physics. It is a product of his imagination and his disbelief in general relativity and the existence of black holes.
     
  12. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,818
    That is quite true, no quark star has been observed in the range of 2.65 - 3.24 solar masses. There also have been no quark stars observed in the range < 2.65 sm or > 3.24 sm. There has in fact never been an observation or any other conclusive evidence that a quark star even exists.
     
  13. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,366
    Brucep,

    You surely can learn to keep away your rude tone....you are kind of habituated to that.

    On the merit front also, you are still talking about fall of NS into a Black hole...which is not the premises of this paper.
     
  14. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,366
    Paddoboy,

    You are mixing up past also in almost all your posts, so it is not clear what your objection is.........

    Yes, you took an objection that NDP is overcome outside EH.......no it is not for all the mass range.

    For star cores up to around 2.65 Solar Mass NDP come into play outside Rs and a stable visible NS is formed...But for star core > 3.2 Solar Mass the NDP comes into picture only inside EH (during formation process)......

    The Schwarzschild radius is directly proportional to Mass, and hence the density of the star when the core size is just at Rs is inversely proportional to (Mass)^2 ........So as the Rs increases the density decreases when core is at Rs (assuming a uniform mass distribution for understanding).

    Now NDP becomes effective when even Neutrons are compacted by Gravity and dx for neutrons becomes extremely small, suggesting a very high density, but for higher core mass, Rs is higher, and density is inversely proportional to M^2 so density decreases, and NDP does not come into picture even at Rs, it comes into picture much inside the EH.

    The calculations shows that for a 1 million mass, the EH is at 3 million Kms and the NDP can only be fully overcome when star gets compacted to around 650 Kms or less...

    So, your this objection does not stand...
     
  15. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,366

    May be because the mass conditions do not offer much of possibilities (2.65 < M < 3.24), very small mass range.
     
  16. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,366
    You have couple of posts in this thread.....but made no clear objections, just some remarks here and there.
     
  17. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    My objection is twofold, and which you most certainly do know about...
    [1] You are offering fantasies that do not adhere to GR.
    [2] As usual, you have no references or links.
    Whereas every point I have made re BHs over many threads, have all been verified and supported by reputable links and references.
    And I stand by everyone of those points which you have so furiously argued against without and reference or link.
    On those grounds your paper is a furphy and is just one of many papers put out everyday by many "would be's if they could be's" by a less then trustworthy publisher.
    Your hypothesis is obviously baseless and without any evidence, theoretical or practical.
     
  18. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    But he has hit the nail on the head with his observations of your agenda in objecting to GR and BHs.
     
  19. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    Good legitimate questions with obvious logical answers according to GR.
     
  20. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    I'm simply saying that any speculative "quark star" would be a step between NS and BH obviously...and certainly and totally Impossible for either to exist at or below the gravitational forces that create an EH, a parameter equal to the Schwarzchild radius and an escape velocity at "c" as dictated by GR.
     
  21. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,366
    Paddoboy,

    See, when the discussion with Q-reeus was moving towards existence/stability of Neutron Star inside EH....he moved out.........

    What is a Neutron Star ...... When the inward Gravitational Pressure is balanced by the Neutron Degeneracy Pressure......

    Now the point is for higher mass than 3.24 Solar Mass, such condition that is implication of NDP will come only inside EH..........you still object to this ?


    I am not responding to your other posts, let those guys respond.
     
  22. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    For all intents and purposes, the only thing that exists within the EH of a BH is critically curved spacetime, and the mass/singularity at or below the Planck/quantum level, where GR breaks down, and ignoring the classical point singularity scenario.

    Your habit of ignoring the difficult questions is evident in all your threads.
     
  23. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,366
    Those posts are not marked to you, let those guys respond...

    And since you are not leaving your fixation with Planck's Level...

    Pl provide maths which will prove that GR classic singularity is at Planck's Level ??


    (Someone should come forward and educate Paddoboy, on this basic aspect of classic GR singularity, I do not know why he is mixing up GR classic singularity with Planck's level).

    PS: And pleeeeeeese Paddoboy, don't flood the thread with those clumsy copy pastes..
     

Share This Page