Neutron Star

Let us see how I am making a common intuitive mistake.......Do you agree that a star of reasonably high mass will pass through a size equal to Rs (Event Horizon), before becoming the BH ? I feel it has to, if you are collapse, say from a big size to r= 0, then naturally you will pass through r = Rs.....

Now, what I am saying is the density of this object at r = Rs......For M < 2.65, the density at r = Rs comes out to be substantially high and Neutrons are compacted to create NDP..........for M > 3.24 (or at some point higher) the density at r= Rs comes out to be not so sufficient even to create initiation of Neutron Degeneracy.......So the first hurdle is that NDP is overcome outside Rs during BH formation....is crossed, Isn't it ?

Now please explain me where is the intuitive mistake ??


PS: Only fair assumption is that mass is uniformly distributed, even if it is not the conclusion will not change.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Thanks for the suggestion, but you have provided no counter data....

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Contact mail is ok and functional...

You did not respond to my pertinent question, which would have taken the objection to lower level..I asked you a very simple question....

1. Do you agree that for a larger mass (> some value x, in my paper it is 3.24 Solar Mass)), the NDP will be encountered only inside EH, during formation. ??

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, that's not true and is contrary to what GR tells us.

It appears though that you certainly fit into a certain quality exhibited exclusively by our alternative hypothesis pushers.
So with apologies to Alex, for borrowing his post from another thread, as I'm sure it says quite admirably what most forumites are thinking.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Thats no sin......but you are persisting with the statement since ages.....

You are honest in admitting that but None of your so called friends, whom you advocate time and again, came to your rescue ?? Why ?? Because they do not have the intellectual honesty to admit the truth irrespective of consequences....

If they feel, you, are right then they can prove

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

These guys are not your friends, Paddoboy, they want to keep you ignorant..

 

Paddo, GR does not talk about density, the way you are talking....and since you cant understand maths, leave this topic here itself for time being....

And by the way ask your friends first to prove, what you said...

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

 

Don't be so extraordinarily dishonest and daft. And again, I have already told you about "proof".
It does not need rescuing...it is GR...You my dear friend certainly do need rescuing though.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

It must really be hurting so to be stuck out on your lonesome so much...everyone deriding what you claim..everyone laughing....
There is a cure though....Admit you are wrong, and admit you have been wrong in at least half a dozen threads, then take up tiddlywinks. You may do better.

 

Admirable efforts from you on this.............Now for a moment think........that while the star core was getting inside Rs, it would have certainly had a size r = Rs, so for SMBH or big BH formation the density was much less when they were of the size of Rs, could NDP be overcome with such less density ??

(Just the qualitative idea to you, Paddoboy)

 

GR certainly talks about compulsory collapse though, which by itself invalidates your hypothesis

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You do accept that measuring a BHs density is really meaningless now after I have explained it? Good. At least some basic learning.

 

When was the last time you posted without showing your utter frustration and mental sickness ??
And when was the last time you contributed anything positive to this forum ?

You can pay back Paddoboy for his support towards you by answering..


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

 

Although once anything crosses the EH, it has a very short but finite trip to the center/Quantum/Planck realm, it is just as meaningless grasping that scenario, as it is to discuss a BHs density. ;0
Try again.

 

No, whats the problem in being lonesome on certain issues ?? You are left in lurch by your friends, on that question of Planck's level, they dishonestly are keeping silent......you admitted your inability to support the statement made by yourself.......

Please do not post anything technical till you get the answer for below from your friends..


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

 

Did you mention something about mental illness and/or frustration?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Or is this just your continued infatuation with me?

 

No, whats the problem in being lonesome on certain issues ?? You are left in lurch by your friends, on that question of Planck's level, they dishonestly are keeping silent......you admitted your inability to support the statement made by yourself.......

Please do not post anything technical till you get the answer for below from your friends..


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

 

No infatuation Paddoboy,

Since almost last three months, you are spreading, incorrect information in almost all the threads that the Classic GR singularity lies at Plancks' level.

I am just asking you to either prove yourself or ask your friends to prove it for you ??

 

That's good, I was getting worried about you.

No, that is incorrect. I have spent my time correcting your nonsense, and have had all contentious issues supported by reputable links and references.
That correct will continue as long as you keep sprouting fairy tales.

You seem unable to rise above the "novice" stage.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Let me again tell you that "proofs" are not mingled with scientific theories. Scientific theories do gain near certainty in time though...Evolution, SR and GR just to name three.

All I have claimed besides being supported, are mainstream accepted theories. You know why? Because on those theories and ideas make the most logical sense to most cosmologists.
You on the other hand offer your word, and your 12 months perusal of cosmology, and insist we all bow down before you in admiration and accept it holus bolus. Guess what? That aint gunna happen.
Your paper took time and effort...you deserve cudos for that...Your paper though ignores GR and accepted BH cosmology, without any evidence to support it...Your paper is published by a less then reputable publisher and remains a an unlikely or impossible scenario as it totally defies GR.

What peer review the publishers gave it is questionable. What peer review this forum has given it, is a big thumbs down.....

 

Just again on that point and your total misinterpretation.....
As per mainstream acceptance, I abhore the classical point singularity due to the infinities involved.
As per mainstream acceptance, I see a QGT finally revealing a surface of sorts between the beginning of the quantum/Planck level where GR totally breaks down, and the unlikely classical point singularity.

 

You do have a problem don't you. You do know your credibility is brought into question don't you?

On your many claims re BHs most were entirely and totally refuted.
The following E-Mail I received supports that position.
Barry,

> The question being debated is simply, can we logically and reasonably assign angular momentum to a ring singularity/mass, and the spacetime within the EH proper?

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
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

 

Which as usual avoids the question - any responses via that? I guess none, or none of an endorsive nature.

You keep forgetting that supernova explosion is inherently chaotic with most matter expelled outwards. But lets assume some rare supermassive stellar hypernova event has core collapse such that GR predicts an EH forms before any below EH random pockets of NS dense matter form. So what? How would that salvage your model of statically stable below EH BNS? Are you appealing to the 'frozen star' picture from perspective of exterior observer? Are you grasping at the notion that pockets of NS dense matter are 'time frozen' from exterior perspective thus in some strange sense 'stable'? If that's your final hope, it fails on two points at least.

firstly, 'time freeze' precludes any formation of NS dense matter (re above unlikely hypernova scenario) from exterior perspective. (And a supermassive BH formed from infalling duck feathers would present the same issue.) At best, formation of transient pockets of NS dense matter interior to EH is a projected thing based on a free-falling perspective.

Secondly, from that free-fall perspective, the arguments I gave from #29 on precludes any possible stable static structure. Tidal forces acting on massively chaotic infalling matter will at best generate pockets ('streamers' or whatever) of dense matter which however are undergoing spaghetification - squeezed and stretched simultaneously. No-one knows the details but it's taken for granted the real picture will be violently chaotic and very far from a neat spherically symmetric collapse process. As mentioned in an earlier post. But collapse all the way down is all you can have. Singularity vs Planck scale arguments is a distraction and you know it. BNS is the issue.
[it's entirely possible one could have one or more BH's forming inside the main one (free-fall perspective). But none of that allows your BNS.]
Now, answer what YOU keep dodging. Do you finally admit a below-EH static & stable BNS (any perspective - exterior, or interior free-fall) is impossible for reasons given earlier?
If not, do you have the guts and honesty to do what I asked - contact NS experts and present here each and every one of their unedited frank opinions?

 

The inconsistency of Rajesh is evident in that over many threads he has stipulated in no uncertain terms, we cannot know what is beyond the EH of a BH.
Obviously then that also applies to his own nonsensical claim in spades.
In actual fact though, we are allowed to make logical assumptions based on GR and other known laws of physics. [see post 138]
It's just that what he claims disregards GR.
The first scenario is obviously total and compulsory collapse once the Schwarzchild radius is reached.
The other point that Rajesh should accept is that BHs will obey all our known laws of physics and GR.......