Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by RajeshTrivedi, Feb 15, 2015.
Quit trolling me. You get zero respect from me.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Switching tact again after been caught out lying? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Of course you are wrong....Gravity most certainly does overcome the strong nuclear force inside BHs according to what we know, common sense and logic....
when gravity overcomes the nuclear force - carl sagan
Take it easy Rajesh You'll have a coronary! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Rajesh, you continue to seem to be terribly confused about almost everything anyone says!
Paddoboy, has generally held close to a mainstream perspective of GR. It was I who, when in one of these threads the discussion was becoming confused between GR descriptions of black holes, speculations about how a QTG gravity might resolve some issues that seem unresolved by GR and a touch of unrealistic hypotheticals As if they represented something real.... To which my comment was, and remains.., we don't know with certainty that gravity ever overcomes the strong nuclear force in practice.... If it does any QTG may be a total pipe dream. But that is opinion and speculation.
I think that paddoboy acknowledged the speculation, but I am not sure he ever agreed.
I don't believe you really think about the implications of what anyone says!
And you really do have a problem with putting things in a patronizing format. Do you need a translation there? What I am saying is you are trying to make it sound like you know more than you do, or are somehow more intelegence than, well everyone else. Ironically, your comments seem to lead most to the opposite conclusion.
If you need that interpreted of that, ask.
See, what I said, in paddoboy's post above he supports the opposite of my original comment!
I'll answer that for brucep....
If we observe frame dragging, it infers a Kerr BH, which just as logically infers rotating/spinning spacetime that makes up the majority of the BH and also the mass. Got it?
Now how about you for once admitting all your errors of judgment...
BHs do not exist: But I'm unable to explain the observed effects on spacetime and matter/energy we observe.
Once the Schwarzchild limit is reached according to GR, further collapse is compulsory
To speak of density of a BH is meaningless
Photons emitted this side of the EH, directly radially away will hover there forever from the point of view of a local frame, never getting away and never secumbing.
DM is accepted cosmology and is well evidenced
 We are able to logically infer angular momentum to a Kerr BH and its mass, just as logically as we are reasonably allowed to infer mass.
All the above claims of mine have been referenced from mainly learning reputable institutions, while all we have fro our little friend Rajesh, is his hypothetical thoughts based on 12 months perusal of most probably pseudscience rubbish, which then explains why he is so violently against any reputable references claiming different.
I wonder what Bunny he'll pull out of his arse in the next thread he starts. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
As I said earlier OnlyMe, I understand what you say.....But just as professor Hamilton said and at least three others, we are allowed to logically infer or assume, based on current knowledge and data.
This has been where Rajesh has come undone from the beginning.
He refuses to acknowledge that point and as you say then pretentiously pontificates and rants about what is and what isn't, slandering all and sundry as Idiots. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The most important thing out of all the replies I have got and tashja, is that no one has said anything at all like or inferring that a Kerr BHs mass and spacetime does not spin.
His early threads also as I pointed out started as asking pretty basic questions, getting good answers, ignoring good answers, then inferring Super Suns and similar nonsense, and then onto another pretentious rant.
I'm sure you have read a sample so I won't reproduce them again at this time.
With yourself, myself, brucep, and the professors, it is just a matter of degree, how each of us has applied the reasonably logical assumptions we are allowed to make to within the BHs EH, always remembering what I have highlightes above.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
It's nice to have some support even if it is from another rather eccentric anti mainstream knocker, and a philosophically inspired one at that!
Science is what we know: Philosophy is what we dont know:
The jokes on you Bozo! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You have given SFA.......
The below color remark is from paddoboy, he not only took cue from you, he elaborated on that..and he has stated this at 3-4 places, and this is a part of his questionnaire to me...
........Then as the mass approaches the center of the BH, electrons are stripped, the atomic nucleus is torn apart, and even protons and neutrons most probably, so overcoming the strong nuclear force that is responsible for the original stability of the atomic nucleus and atom.
A similar scenario is envisaged again according to our best models, the closer we approach the moment of the BB........
Now, pl put on record, do you agree with above ? Also please withdraw or correct that atom ionization (stripping of electronics) when accelerated to a speed of 20-30% c...........I do not need interpreter, you may need, recall how miserably you concluded that recent paper on Galaxy structure, that misinformation is still on record you should correct your position there also ?
It is sickening, all 3 of you led by Paddo, (paddo, you and brucep in that order) are posting incorrect information without subsequent retraction or correction.......since I am involved in these threads, I can't let misinformation go by.....
Paddo: next is your favourite singularity at Planck scale, correct your position asap.
A foul mouth, cannot respect anyone !!
You are obviously quite delusional, and the ego problem really needs attending to. That is the true definition of "sick"
All my claims have been referenced, and shown to be correct.
All your claims remain as unsupported pseudoscience at least until you can show a reputable reference supporting them....[[which obviously you cannot and that explains why you do not want reputable links and references...Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!]
Correct my correct position? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Oh grow up fella!
Let me put it again anyway.
GR fails at the quantum/Planck level and that is almost certainly where the mass/singularity resides.
The Planck scale: relativity meets quantum mechanics meets gravity.[/QUOTE]
You do not warrant any respect at all, considering the lies, slander, more lies, malicious ignoring of evidence and links, and totally unsupported junk and pseudoscience you post..
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! We may have to add paranoia to your qualities also Rajesh.
Getting back to the OP.......
That's partly true, but at least my efforts and OnlyMe and brucep have tried to keep it on track.
The professional replies, along with the reputable links and references certainly did add some authoritive expert cosmology to the subject at hand.
That's a rather loaded and untruthful opinion. A QGT by its very nature will eliminate the point Singularity, and probably establish a mass at or between the Planck/quantum level and where the point Singularity and its unlikely infinities were.
A QGT by definition will describe spacetime/gravity at the quantum/Planck level. GR breaks down at the Planck/quantum level, so a QGT will most probably solve our Singularity dilema.
The following reputable link from the "Max Planck Institute of Gravitational Physics" tells it this way........
This approach, which complements and extends the old geometrodynamics approach, employs a non-perturbative and background independent framework allowing (at least in principle) to describe the fluctuations of geometry itself, and leading to a discrete structure at the Planck scale. On this basis, it is now possible to study the full quantum dynamics of gravity and space-time itself. Most recently, these concepts have been successfully applied to the study of cosmological and black hole singularities, where classical general relativity breaks down. In this way it may become possible to understand how the Big Bang singularity of classical relativity is “dissolved” in quantum cosmology.
Rajesh, what paddoboy posted is consistent with the way at least one of the commenting professors suggests, I falling matter would be affected by the spacetime inside an event horizon... And yes it is speculation based on GR predictions.., and specific conceptual interpretation...
My comment was that atoms accelerated to somewhere between 20% & 30% the speed of light become ionized. They don't accelerate whole atoms at the LHC.., bare gold and lead nuclei yes, but not whole atoms. It is even very difficult to accelerate individual electrons to near c in anything other than a linear accelerator... So only in the case of in falling very massive objects would any atom reach the event horizon, as long as one expects its velocity to reach the speed of light as it crosses the event horizon...
I further speculated that, that process was perhaps related to the Unruh effect..., and the black body radiation an object experiences, when accelerated with respect to the vacuum.
The fact that acceleration based ionization occurs is not in question. The exact mechanism remains theoretical.
About the corrugated galaxy paper, I am fair sure the consensus has been that you did not understand or intentionally misrepresented the impact and conclusions drawn from that data might have on Dark Matter. Claiming that the addition of distant mass to the galaxy would explain the need for the presence of dark matter, is conceptually almost laughable... Dark matter increases the effective central mass sufficiently to explain orbital dynamics. Adding mass distant from the galactic center would have an opposite affect on orbital velocities.
Now, you keep claiming that interpretations and speculations of almost everyone else are wrong, but I have yet to see you present any credible counter argument. So just how would adding, what did half again the mass of the galaxy, at the perimeter of the previously defined galactic margins, explain anything about dark matter?
Paddoboy says so.......
Photons emitted this side of the EH, directly radially away will hover there forever from the point of view of a local frame, never getting away and never secumbing
I told you earlier, Paddoboy, do not venture out on FoRs without first understanding the same fully......Don't you understand that there is no special realization with respect to local frame.......this is the harm of reading too much of "fish swimming against the stream" type web pages.....
James attempted to educate you with Red Shift here, I tried to bring in the thrust power to explain you.....but no, you don't get.....will you correct this now ? I will get all the mistakes being made by you three corrected one by one...
And you believe that adding personalized and patronizing comment to almost all of your posts, deserves any respect?
As I said, the style of your commentary says a great deal more about yourself than it does anyone you are targeting... And that is not saying anything positive....
Rajesh, you do understand that the discussion when it involves anything that happens at or within the event horizon is highly theoretical and dependent on conceptual interpretaions... Even among the professors that have been quoted through a series of these black hole threads, there has been differences in their conceptual interpretation and thus what they believe would happen in hypotheicals that involve particles and/or photons at, near or within an even horizon!
We have a variety of theoretical interpretaions and no practical experimental or observational evidence. Everything we think happens is the result of conceptual interpretation of a variety of theoretical models.
It is foolish to oppose any speculation that mirrors any mainstream interpretation, there is no single conceptual perspective that represents an unopposed consensus.
Instead of complaining, why not just tell us what you believe is the truth?
I have already answered why Paddoboy (and he took hint from you) is absolutely beyond Physics here, I will take up that later on also. I do not think that you are suggesting that GR predicts stripping of electrons inside EH ?? It appears so, but then don't attribute later that I need interpreter.
Leave aside LHC...or read again about LHC, Your take which was subsequently blindly supported by Paddoboy, that an atom moving at 20%-30% of c will get ionized as his electrons will get stripped......no it does not happen that way.. Yes, if it strikes some other particle or even the radiation, then may be what you say is right....but that was not your case.
Your friend Brucep will tell you, that why you were not talking about Unruh effect ?? Thats a different ball game altogether..
Not in the context you were talking about, certainly not the way Paddoboy seconded it...
First of all who all are there in consensus ?? Secondly you do not know the background of my early thread which Paddo dig out, regarding Galaxy Speed Distribution Curve.......In that I proposed Multiple Solar system and some mismatch in speed profile plotting thus giving the Flat Galaxy Distribution Curve...which was as usual taken up very strongly by paddo, origin and Aqueous ID........So when this issue was resurfaced by paddo (and incidentally this Galaxy paper was also hot) then I said look MOND is on week footing and now even refudging is required in DM on account of increase in visible mass of our galaxy by 50% (it was off the cuff statement without reading the paper), so whats wrong in what I suggested (alternative to MOND & DM for speed curves).....See my initial comment from that perspective...later on when i read the paper then it was clear to me (don't know about you guys) that new modelling if accepted will increase the size of galaxy from 100 kly to 150 kly and of course mass between 100-150 kly will also get added up in its estimate, requiring correction in DM mass predictions.......
For this you have to read why Vera Rubin worked strongly on DM to analyse the galaxy speed distribution curves...and what she concluded.
I am not complaining, I am attempting to ensure that senior members do not make silly and stupid statements......would it require a second read by you to find out the apparent mistake in paddoboy statement ??
It appears again you may need an interpreter!
What I have said is that in some hypothetical situations GR can be conceptually understood to predict just that! That the affect of the spacetime cuvature on an in falling atom would result in ionization and even further deterioration of subatomic particles. This is what paddoboy has been saying and is supported by references he has presented. So yes, I do agree that this is a prediction supported by GR.
On the other hand, my personal belief is that most if not all matter would, have been ionized before it ever crosses an event horizon.
You seem to have a difficult time keeping who says what straight. I understand paddoboy's position and comments and I believe he understands mine. There may be disagreement..., that is not the same as completely rejecting divergent conceptual interpretations.
You on the other hand seem to have a great deal of trouble with any interpretation other than your own.
That figure was a guess on my part originating in a discussion that predates your time here... And I believe at the time it was supported by someone who has practical experience with particle accelerators... And again so you get it straight, my explanation about the mechanism, is speculation based in part, on information originating with research papers addressing parallel issues from the context of QED and SED.
The hypothetical Unruh effect (or sometimes Fulling–Davies–Unruh effect) is the prediction that an accelerating observer will observe black-body radiation where an inertial observer would observe none. In other words, the background appears to be warm from an accelerating reference frame; in layman's terms, a thermometer waved around in empty space, subtracting any other contribution to its temperature, will record a non-zero temperature.
The above supports my speculation that at near relativistic velocities, the black body radiation an object experiences as a result of its acceleration relative to the vacuum, becomes a heat bath equivalent to ionizing radiation... And it is a conceptual extension of the Unruh effect, not a different ball game altogether.
I think you have named at least a portion of the local opposing consensus, above!
Any additional mass, you are referring to, would be distributed in a manner inconsistent, with the predicted distribution of dak matter, necessisary to explain Vera Rubin's observations.
Adding mass outside of the galactic orbit of any star, does not explain the need for additional unobserved mass inside of that star's galactic orbit.
And before you could make any judgement about how any of the additional mass might be involved you would have to determine if it also follows orbital dynamic similar to Vera Rubin's observations... And that must wait for some consensus as to whether the galaxy actually extends to incorporate the larger volume and mass. A consensus which has not yet been reached, as indicated in your own words in red bold large type above. Pay attention to your own words!
Separate names with a comma.