Problem of gravitons and black holes

If the core of a BH were really a singularity, its EH would be also, any mathematics to the contrary not withstanding. We understand this because we know for certain that there are both big black holes and even bigger black holes. No object composed of bound energy is really a singularity (or at least, not after the BB), and neither is the ground state of any particle. The math only works as far as electron degeneracy and neutron stars, and for good reason. Matter still exists at relative velocities arbitrarily close to c, and it still exists inside of the EH of a BH. Time dilation is off the charts there, but we know why that makes no difference to the stability of matter, other than to extend it. Besides which, it would require an infinite amount of time, from our perspective, for a BH to shrink or collapse to a real singularity.

The universe does insist on self-consistency, even if we sometimes don't.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I learn much, including how you avoid the scientific issues when cornered to to obfuscate and rant on about semantics.
And again, a BH most certainly has a core and that is where the mass resides in an unknown state, causing the spacetime curvature.
Of course you due to your agenda and "god of the gaps" paranoia have already denied the existence of spacetime curvature, BH's and their cores as defined.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Can anyone educate him or at least correct him.

If a person insists on incorrect version despite notice, then thats trolling as per site rules. Paddoboy is trolling.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, I'm not trolling, and I have given the correct answer and description: Your usual false bravado in trying to appeal to mods is par for the course for yourself, as you have done previously specifically on issues concerning, compulsory collapse once the Schwarzchild radius is reached, and who could forget your other gross faux pas re claiming that gravity does not overcome all other forces, including the strong nuclear as one approaches the core/Singularity/mass of the BH.
As we both know, other reputable members do have you on ignore, so I suggest that once again, you support with a reputable citation/link/reference what you are claiming, remembering, another was rightly banned for ignoring a similar request, when he to was carrying on pretentiously with other unsupported nonsense.
Let's sum up again'.........
"Gravity need not "escape" a BH: The gravity is simply a fossil field of the star from whence it collapsed: Also gravity/spacetime is nonlinear, and of course a BH is simply critically curved spacetime, with of course a mass [in an unknown state] at its core"

 

Most physicists now accept that the mathematical point Singularity does not exist:
Remember a Singularity need not be infinite, but may lead to infinite quantities. Taking this in conjunction with the fact that GR is not applicable at the quantum/Planck level, then one can assume if the Singularity does not exist, a state of mass in an unknown form, at or just below the quantum/Planck level. NB. The Planck level concept is just a convenient mathematical construct.

The mass of a BH is virtually unlimited: Density and spacetime curvature would indeed be limited if as physicists believe, the point singularity does not exist.

Yes, at the quantum/Planck level where GR fails or is not applicable, remembering that GR also dictates that once any Schwarzchild radius is breached, then further collapse is compulsory...at least up to where it is not applicable.

In actual fact we never see anything cross the BH singularity, due to time dilation and redshift approaching infinity. From any local frame though, any mass crosses the EH, will in a short but finite time, be literally disassembled as it approaches the core/Singularity, gravity overcoming all other forces, including the strong nuclear force.

 

What do you mean a singularity need not be infinite, but may lead to infinite qtys?

Singularity is x/0....its maths, it is not some thingie that it will be finite or infinite. It leads to infinite qty like density as mass/volume becomes infinite for a point which is ridiculous nonsense.

And then you write mass of a BH is virtually unlimited but density etc is limited... Thats another nonsense,.density is simply mass/volume, so if mass is unlimited your density will also be as volume is as you say at Planck's level only..another nonsense.

Just cool down, don't show your pathetic parrotised popo knowledge. Seek help and learn first. You know nothing about these complex concepts. Unfortunately none is correcting you, because they know you will counter them too.

 

This thread is in physics and science forum. Do we have some knowledgeable Mod here who can educate Paddoboy and correct him? He won't listen to anyone else.

 

Singularity is a mathematical term for division by zero, it has taken a cult status.

1. The prevalent mainstream theory says that once an object falls beneath its schwarzschild radius, there is no sufficient counter pressure to hold on the collapse and it collapses to a point.

2. Collapsing a mass to a point means collapsing it to zero volume thus density becoming m/0 as infinite.

3. This r = 0 is the point where Schwarzschild solution fails or you can roughly say that GR fails. There is no other metric point where the Schwarzschild solution fails.

4. It is bad science to claim that GR fails at Planck or quantum level, GR equations do not fail at these levels.

5. It is bad to claim that for a BH mass is virtually unlimited but density is limited.

Paddoboy should be cautioned for spreading misinformation and incorrect interpretation of mainstream.

 

Most physicists as opposed to lay people such as yourself, believe the Mathematical point singularity does not exist.

Reword it as you like, :shrug: the outcome is as I have told you many times: When the Schwarzchild radius is reached, further collapse is compulsory.

Most physicists as I said, believe that will never be reached.

Our laws of physics and GR do not apply at the quantum/Planck level.

It is even badder science to deny the existence of BH's, expansion of spacetime, spacetime curvature, gravitational lensing and gravitational waves.
Again, GR is not applicable at the quantum/Planck level.

Wrong again: A BH theoretically has no mass limit just as I said, and also since the point singularity should never be reached, density is limited.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

All you need to do is supply a link, citation of reputable origin to support your claims: Something you cannot do, which confirms exactly why most reputable members have you on ignore.
ps: This is exactly what expletive deleted was banned for.

 

I do not believe in so called singularity, that is BS. But the point here is mainstream interpretation.

 

Expletive Deleted was banned because Mods are not equipped see through your stupid posts. Insteading of banning him, you should have been taught basics. The guy was making valid points but tacit support of Mods to illiterates like you did him.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Perhaps with the fact that most all your threads and claims are in the fringes, with many red penned comments by at least two mods correcting your nonsense and to your continued agenda based misconception re 21st century cosmology, it is you who needs to be corrected,
Add to that your constant whinging and whining for mod intervention and you most certainly appear rather frustrated and out of your depth.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Which you have no idea of and have constantly denied in your fruitless efforts to invalidate 21st century cosmology, obviously driven by your agenda.
All you need to do is supply a link, citation of reputable origin to support your claims: Something you cannot do, which confirms exactly why most reputable members have you on ignore.

 

Just what I said and just what I have explained to you many times.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Yes as are most of your previous claims...all ridiculous nonsense.
The mathematical point singularity is probably never reached, therefor neither is the infinite quantities of density and spacetime curvature:
Again, mass is theoretically only limited by the amount of mass in the whole Universe.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Nup, fact ol fella, just as I have described to you......

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Well again, it's your claims and your threads that are red penned and moved to the fringes...and again it's you that denies all 21st century cosmology including BH's, spacetime curvature, gravitational lensing, gravitational waves, expanding Universe etc, and again it's you appealing to the mods and whinging, and again it's you with an obvious agenda..... Have I forgotten anything? Sorry about that.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Don't despair too much though...I'll spend more time with you as required and in the hope that all will, in time, be revealed to you.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Lets talk about mainstream not what I think of mainstream.

 

Sure my boy! I have answered all your questions, just as I did rajesh before you.
All you need to do is listen and not be so fanatically concerned with trying to worm in your god of the gaps.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Rpenner has taken his hands off, James R mostly remains off, I do not think there is any other Mod who can correct you. Keep spreading darkness.

 

The latter part of Paddoboy's comment #25 seems to be about a description of the geometry of spacetime where space and time are labelled with orthogonal coordinates (the Schwarzschild metric) which would normally permit radial travel in both directions (like Minkowski space) which is not the geometry of the coordinate singularity at R=2M in the Schwarzschild metric, which prevents all description of movement at R=2M as a side-effect of forbidding escape. Alternate choices of coordinates describe the same geometry as a one-way barrier to matter and light at R=2M and all smaller radii until you reach the real singularity of the geometry at R=0, which was always going to be necessary since the Schwarzschild is a vacuum solution external to a spherical body and at R=0 there is nowhere for the mass-containing interior to be anymore. (At R≤2M, there is no way for the matter to not collapse, so the singularity at R=0 is an indication of ignorance necessarily beyond what physical theory of today can describe. Hypotheses non fingo.) Even Newton's Universal Gravitation has a similar singularity at R=0 and yet we still do physics with the abstraction of point particles for the reason it is a useful description of what we do know about a system and encapsulates our ignorance.

Since the entire region R≤2M is one we on the outside must remain ignorant of, and all examples of black holes are necessarily remote, our knowledge of black holes is extrapolated by the studies of gravitation and space-time in less extreme conditions. The geometric singularity at R=0 is a consequence of our rational exploration of the encapsulation of our ignorance, not a rallying point on which to take an ideological stance. It is presumed that better physics would lead to better understanding of the interior of black holes but the path to that better physics in the light of today's data is not clear except it is likely to rewrite our description of both gravitational and quantum behaviors, so it usually talked under the umbrella of the term "quantum gravity."

Paddoboy's claim that “density is limited” is nonsense without a clear statement of what that limit is and the physical theory behind it. The God's posts do not go far enough in advancing positive knowledge and go too far in tone and insulting content. Both are far out of their depth in gravitational physics and matters related to the scientific philosophy of ignorance.

 

True, but when every thread is plagued by Paddoboy's nonsense, then insulting content cannot be avoided.

BTW thanks for posting, I hope you devise a method wherein nonsense in science section is blocked instantly.

PS: from time stamp, its apparent that you were typing while I posted my #37. My post #37 stands withdrawn.

 

I thought I gave that.....
at post 25 as follows:

Obviously that "unlimited mass" comment is a theoretical aspect and depends on the mass/energy within the universe, recognising also of course that a BH is not an all purpose vacuum cleaner.
The point of the "limited density" comment was in response to the god's implication that density is infinite.
If physicists are correct and the point singularity with infinite spacetime curvature and infinite density is not reached, then we don't have infinite spacetime curvature nor infinite density.