Singularity Vs Quantum Theory of Gravity

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by RajeshTrivedi, Feb 15, 2015.

  1. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    You are engaging in a discussion that is based on theory and hypotheticals, and then complaining that interpretations not consistent with your limited understanding, are silly and stupid... Beyond that you have not demonstrated the authority to police or correct anyone's interpretation and/or understanding of the topic being discussed. If your really think your position is the one true and correct interpretation, provide some credible reference, with links.., that supports your claims.
    paddoboy likes this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. paddoboy Valued Senior Member


    And I also told you, you were grossly incorrect.
    It is common knowledge and one of the postulates of SR, that all FoRs are as valid as each other.
    The fish swimming against the stream is only an analogy, but a valid analogy, something else of which your understanding is lacking.
    One of the first rules one should learn when perusing cosmology is that all analogies do have limitations. Maybe they failed to tell you that in your 12 perusal of the subject.

    Again you need to recognise FoRs.
    James was speaking of distant remote FoRs, in which his interpretation was correct, and I have also said that many times.
    I am speaking of a local FoR in conjunction with the photon/light and am also totally correct, as is Professor Hamilton.

    In fact there is no question whatsoever in that regard. A photon emitted directly radially away, just at the EH, will seem to hover forever, never getting away and never secumbing to the BH.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Are you able to post anything without reference to me. Your obsession in that regard is much like that of another. I suggest you get your coaching and advice of someone more reputable.

    Let me again try and alleviate the quandary you find yourself in.....
    In the first instance, any object falling into a black hole will feel tidal forces, the strength of which depends on the BHs size.......the smaller the BH, the stronger the effects at the EH, and the larger the BH, the lesser the effects at the EH. [in fact one could cross the EH of a SMBH without any immediate ill effects.
    This means that an object/matter/atom feels the gravity more critically at the part first entering the BH. This has the effect we call spaghetification. The end result is that the atom is stretched in the direction towards the black hole and squeezed in the direction at right angles to it's motion.
    So the question really is whether at some point the tidal forces get so strong that they tear the atom apart. Obviously first the electrons would be torn off then the nucleus would be torn apart.
    This means that at some point the tidal forces will get stronger than even the strong force and the atom will be completely torn apart. Presumably even the protons and neutrons would be torn into separate quarks.
    This is what we call reasonably logically extrapolation of present cosmology and science to regions where we are unable to observe.
    That has been explained to you many times before.
    So why keep on trolling, unless you really do have an agenda which is evident in your posting style and the early threads you started with.

    Atoms are certainly ionized by acceleration.
    I showed you that in the reverse effect 380,000 years after the BB, but which like a lot of stuff put to you, you fail to comment on, or offer any counter arguments.
    I also asked you a couple of questions at post 515?
    Are you going to answer them? Or are you passively going to convict yourself?
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. paddoboy Valued Senior Member


    Your model was aptly and logically refuted along with your dreams of a Super Sun. As Aqueous ID noted, you seemed to be trying to rort some sort of hoax.
    That is obviously also supported by your many basic style of questions [ although inherently stupid] in your early threads, such as for example.....
    "Why does not the galaxy collapse into a BH as individual stars do"
    or words to that effect. If you would like me to produce the exact question it can be done.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Another question was......
    "What did GPB actually achieve"
    again or words to that effect.
    Both rather strange inferences and questions one would not expect of someone as knowledgable and as renowned as yourself [tic mode on of course]

    As I have previously informed you, MOND was never on any strong footing...that is a total furphy!
    I personally totally rejected it for to its inconsistencies.
    DM on the other hand, although originally a "fudge factor" has been shown to be anything but, and has plenty of robust support within the cosmological community.
    The Bullet cluster was one of the strong bits of evidence that has now virtually seen DM totally accepted by the cosmological community.
  8. paddoboy Valued Senior Member


    On this issue again, and since you seem to befuddled to accept what I have said, and what James has said, I will reproduce the E-Mail reply again in totality, as it not only resolves the "photon emitted at but outside the EH, directly radially away"question, it also resolves other questions.


    > 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.
    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?


    > 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,
  9. paddoboy Valued Senior Member


    Bingo, and well put!
    But isn't this the way of many of our alternative hypothesis pushers?
    theorist constant, chinglu, Farsight, sscully, undefined, etc etc etc etc

    I'm completely totally amazed how such individuals can sprout their nonsense, and expect that people really believe them.
    They are making no difference to the scientific community in general, as the scientific methodology and peer review certainly dictate. I suppose in answer to my own question, forums such as this being the only outlet these type have, and being unknown over the Internet, they can imagine all sorts of scenarios, and are able to perceive themselves as "giants" unaware that most are laughing at them.
  10. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    What I have claimed over many threads aligns with current accepted theoretical concepts and does not need correction.
    All I have claimed has been referenced and shown to be correct.
    [1] Schwarzchild limit and total collapse.
    [2] Strong nuclear force overcome by gravity.
    [3] photons outside the EH emitted directly radially away.
    [4] the meaningless scenario of assigning density to a BH .
    [5]BHs certainly exist in the absence of alternative explantion.
    [6] Ionization of atoms via acceleration.
    [7] Existence of DM.
    [8] Orbital parameters of Solar system and non existence of silly Super Sun.
    [9] GPB findings and verifications of Lense Thirring effect and spacetime warping in the presence of mass.
    [10]The failure of GR at the quantum/Planck level and beginning of Singularity.
    Finally my claims have been and remain consistent, despite your claims to the contrary and the pedant and misinterpretations that are a part of your makeup. All have been referenced and shown to be correct.
    OnlyMe, brucep, origin, Aid, and a few others have all questioned your interpretation and more importantly your motives.

    Now Rajesh, I have addressed every point you have made and every unfounded allegation you have made.
    What you need to do is address all my questions as in post 515 and other issues inferred by myself and others, re your own capabilities or lack thereof.
    Prime issue in all of that being why should anyone on this forum, accept your interpretation as Gospel, over that of reputable links, expert Professors and our own online peers.
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2015
  11. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    In the old days, around 12 to 15 years ago, I participated in a forum called SSSF [ Self Service Science Forum] We were very fortunate to have on this forum, as reasonably regular contributors, a professional Astronomer/Cosmologist from Sydney Uni, and a professional GR theorist expert whose name was Chris. The SSSF site is now defunct.
    With determined to learn individuals like myself around, firing questions left, right and center re BHs and cosmology in general, Chris undertook to write a few BH tutorials.
    Some of what he covered is relevant to what most of us in the recent BH threads have been on about.
    Let me present some of those issues......
    Firstly the tutorials in total can be found at.......

    The relevant points that are interesting in light of what has been discussed here are as follows.......
    With Einstein’s theories of SR and GR came a new understanding of space-time and the role of the speed of light. Einstein’s field equations for GR were like a ready made calculator for working out the effects of mass on space-time and vice versa. A Russian soldier by the name of Schwartzschild was the first to come up with a GR solution for enough mass concentrated in a small volume to turn space in on itself – effectively shutting the mass away from the rest of the universe.
    effectively saying once the Schwarzchild radius is reached total collapse is compulsory according to GR.

    The Event Horizon is the region where d = R. This is a geometrical region which marks a boundary between the inside and outside of the black hole. A photon at d = R travelling perpendicularly away from the singularity would be trapped at this radius, not moving with respect to the singularity. For this reason the event horizon is said to be “a light surface travelling at light speed” – even though the horizon doesn’t move away from the singularity. No object of any mass (even zero) can escape the black hole once it reaches this point.
    Effectively saying that any Photon emitted outside but just on the EH, directly radially away, will hover forever.

    It can be shown that a black hole only has three distinct external properties: mass (size), charge and angular momentum. The mass is the accumulated mass of the hole as measured in its rest frame – ie real, rest or invariant mass. This mass determines the size of the hole, where the hole is defined as everything inside the event horizon. For example the size of the schwartzschild hole above is given by the radius R.
    effectively saying that a BH has three properties..mass, angular momentum and charge.
    If the hole is rotating about an axis then it has an angular momentum (ie, it is “spinning”). The spinning has a consequence for the space-time paths around the edge of the hole. By a process known as “Frame Dragging” (or more properly the Lens Thirring effect) rotating mass cause local space-time to precess, ie they “drag reference frames” with them. This will distort the space-time paths leading into the hole, as well as any available orbits.
    effectively saying any observed effect put down to frame dragging, can be logically inferred by a spinning BH and mass.

    I do realize that all those points have been supported by myself with reputable links many times, and are totally accepted theoretical concepts re BHs, but one more link is never too many when we have fanatical anti mainstream, self acclaimed genuises, saying anything different.

    Thank you linesman, thank you ball boys......or in the case of chess, Check Mate!!!
  12. brucep Valued Senior Member

    You're the potty mouth Idiot Wind. A friggin know nothing trying to resolve his dumbass comments by posing as an expert. You're a clueless troll.
  13. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    If you are in your early 20s or younger, then such outbursts are ok, otherwise you must seek help of some psychiatrist.... I am not reporting, you need help rather than rebuke.
    Last edited: Mar 22, 2015
  14. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    Please !! Can anyone explain to him how the spacetime curvature would nevel result in ionization of infalling atom ?? He further claims that it is predicted by GR ??


    So now at least you understood that the recent paper does indeed cover increase in mass. Yes true, even the author stated as highlighted by me, that we have to re visit our galaxy models prevalent since 1992, in the light of proposed observations by the authors...You and Paddo were unnecessarily adamant that it talks of increase in distribution (whatever that meant) but not in the increase of mass.....
  15. Daecon Kiwi fruit Valued Senior Member

    Is it because the atom will be accelerated to relativistic speed as it falls in?
  16. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    What happens in the particle in a potential box physics, when you accelerate the box?
  17. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Since I'm still logged in, my answer is that the electron accelerates with the box, but sees the box as being less deep (the electron gains kinetic energy and so does the box, representing the potential well of the atom's nucleus), eventually the box has no depth, from the electron's perspective, and starts looking like a bump or a barrier.
  18. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Bingo! Matter/atoms etc will generally spiral in from an accretion disk, accelerating to relativistic speeds, as it approaches the EH. Chances are it could be ionized even before it crosses the EH.
    Once across the EH, it can be logically and reasonably inferred that matter is broken down into atoms, then electrons are stripped off, then even closer to the Singularity, protons, neutrons ripped apart and possibly even quarks.
    Indeed a case of gravity overcoming the strong nuclear force.
  19. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Still waiting.....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    "And that must wait for some consensus as to whether the galaxy actually extends to incorporate the larger volume and mass".

    You appear again to have misinterpreted expert opinion. Just as you obviously have throughout this thread and others. As usual besides the questions you refuse to answer, you also ignore reputable links. I mean how pretentious can you be. Even our real experts at times check reputable links.
    Another aspect of your diatribe and methodology you need to explain.
    That plus the fact that stellar counts in the MW galaxy vary from 100 billion to 400 billion. So even in the uncertain "prediction" you are trying to pretend to champion, any possible new count has plenty of scope, dont you think?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    The other point is that DM will probably come out of this looking even more secure than its already secure position at this time.

    ps: Please do not ignore the genuine questions you need to answer if you want to claw back any of your lost credibility at all.
  20. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    First Rajesh, I was sayings that I understand that theoretically it can be predicted that atoms ionize inside an event horizon. How that happens is dependent on who exactly you are talking to... It is after all assuming that the atom crossed the event horizon intact.., and then on how one conceptually imagines the interaction between the atom and the character of spacetime inside the event horizon. It could be pulled apart by tidal forces or some other mechanism, wholey dependent on the nature of space and time itself, inside an event horizon......

    More and more it seems you deliberately take things out of context....

    Rajesh, think for just a minute, where is it believed that dark matter must be located to explain Rubin's observations? And then where is the additional mass you believe has been discovered?

    Then step back and think again... Where is the additional mass, mentioned in the paper you are distorting? There is none! Even if we accept that the Milky Way extends an additional 25 to 50 LY in radius, that increased radius only encompasses mass already known to exist. The authors are only suggesting that, material that has long been known to exist.., and exist in the same location relative to the galactic plane.., may be part of the Milky Way rather than just outside the Milky Way... They are not adding any newly discovered mass, so they are not changing the gravitational dynamics of the visible mass of the galaxy....
    From the paper's conclusion -
    We suggest that the TriAnd and Monoceros Rings could look like both satellite accretion and like the disk if they in fact consist of accreted satellites that form the outer disk. If the Monoceros and TriAnd rings are in the outer disk, then the stellar disk extends to at least 25 kpc from the Galactic center.

    Pay special attention to all of the ifs and the final underlined sentence. They are not talking about anything that was not previously known to exist, or even that the Monceros and TriAnd rings are in a different a location than earlier observations suggest. It is almost like arguing whether Pluto is a planet or dwarf planet, what you call it does not change where it is or its mass and its affect on the overall gravitational field of the solar system. Nothing in the paper being debated changes anything, as far as how any visible matter, affects the galactic gravitational field or the need for additional dark matter to explain observation!

    I mean really Rajesh, read the paper and posts you are complaining about slowly... Your conclusions are not supported by anything in the paper. The only thing that anyone might concede, as supporting your conclusions, is your own imagination. Not the facts!
  21. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member


    It is not required for me to read the paper again, slowly, because whatever I stated is the conclusion of the paper....

    1. Now possibly after reading the paper few times, at least you agree with me that some additional mass as in the 100 Kly - 150 kly will get added up to the estimate of the Milky Way......good at least you are not stuck like paddoboy...

    2. Please be corrected again that Monoceros rings were known to us not from older days, they were discovered around 2002....they were not known in 1960s when Vera Rubin was working on DM. Moreover the present mass distribution model of MW is of around 1992.

    3. Paddoboy is just bluffing that our estimates says that we have 100 b to 400 b stars, so how does it matter few more stars got added ?? That is very cute from Paddoscience.

    4. Now coming to main point.....please make yourself fully conversant with Galaxy Speed Distribution star at r = 8 kpc and another star at r = 25 kpc, if both the stars have same orbital speed....then Kepler fails. So to resolve this MOND was proposed, and also this DM theory was proposed.

    5. Coming to DM thoery, without violating Kepler orbital Motion, these curves were fitted in, and DM was brought in to picture. That means not only DArk matter Mass but its distribution also needed to be accounted for to adjust those curves (this is maths, think slowly), kind of freezing both mass and distribution profile of DM about/around our Milky Way keeping in view the existing Milky Way visible mass and mass distribution profile.

    6. So, OnlyMe, since you showed some sign to learn despite funny opposition to me, please answer this question : If the visible mass and its distribution changes on account of this new maths then would we not do certain adjustment in our derived maths of DM mass and its distribution...(Now please do not say that this paper is yet to be fully accepted...thats no argument)

    I do not want to comment on your ionization bloomer any further, thats getting funnier....stop that please....If you still wish to continue then as i suggested find out the Tidal force between Nucleus and electron on other side (away side from BH centre) and compare the same with electro static force between electron and nucleus....That will throw some light on stripping of electrons, if tidal force > Electrostatic force...if you succeed then think of way to calculate the tidal force between two opposite nucleons (assume) and compare that with Nuclear force scale and see if Tidal force Succeeds in overcoming the strong nuclear force.....Till then please let only Paddoboy continue with this cute funny science.....
  22. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    Rajesh, you did not answer the question, where is the mass associated with dark matter predicted to be relative to the galactic center of mass and how does that compare to any mass you believe has been added to the total mass of the Galaxy?

    As far as when the Monceros ring, was first identified as a ring like group of stars and globular clusters 2002 is accurate. The problem is your comments suggest that the stars and other associated structures included in the ring like formation, was not known to exist before that time. You have provide no supporting reference for that implied claim. It was identified as a goup and named a little over ten years ago, but most of the associated mass was known for far longer.

    The point was and is that nothing in the paper you continually misinterpret suggests that any new mass has been discovered.... And any mass outside the currently accepted boundaries of the galaxy, has nothing to do with flat rotation curves that suggest a need for a greater central mass than is observable.

    Stop responding with comments directed at persons and stick to the facts of the discussion. Even though nothing you have to say, think or believe is of any threat to me personnaly, if you continue with the patronizing comments and comments directed at persons rather than the subject, I will begin reporting your posts. It seems you are more interested in inciting conflict and misunderstanding than reaching any consensus, about the underlying science.
  23. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    This thread is no longer on topic. Instead it has become an extension of another thread, The corrugated galaxy:

    The current discussion has nothing to do with the OP, of this thread. Unless there is further discussion of the OP, the thread should be closed.

Share This Page