Singularity Vs Quantum Theory of Gravity

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

  1. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    What qualifications do you have to have an opinion overriding that of experts educated in this field. and the evidence that suggests otherwise.

    [2] If not what do you suggest is the mechanism for the catastrophic effects we see on spacetime and metter/energy?
    You have evaded the question. Whether a BH has a classical singularity or not, does not effect the definition of a BH and an EH.
    And again, as OnlyMe, myself and all the professors have told you, the classical point singularity probably does not exist.
    WHs and wormholes are allowed by GR. As yet they are still speculative and just another red herring by yourself.
    Well, at least you have learnt something.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_radius
    TheSchwarzschild radius was named after the GermanastronomerKarl Schwarzschild who calculated this exact solution for the theory ofgeneral relativity in 1916.
    Again, as the ignorant child like thread starter of other threads with the same agenda as this one, it is also logic and common sense, just as all the links [that you stupidly ignore] say, and as also said in simple words by at least three of our professors.
    Whatever you have tried to explain is nothing but pseudoscience gibberish as
    exampled so often in your old threads I have come across...You know the ones.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    It most likely will be explained by a validated QGT, as by definition, that's what a QGT is for.
    And of course as per [1] You really have no qualifications or anything near that, to comment on any aspect of BHs.
    please check out the following as evidenced of that.....
    http://www.sciforums.com/threads/black-hole-not-at-all.142714/
    http://www.sciforums.com/threads/so...nderstanding-of-main-stream-cosmology.142422/
    http://www.sciforums.com/threads/dark-energy-–-required-to-explain-a-plausible-mistake.142322/
    I dont need to read anything about neutron stars.
    Again, whether or not you agree [and not that it matters] a BH can only ever have three properties...mass, charge and angular momentum.



    To make it clear to the experts??

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Your utter delusions of grandeur are on the scale of that of theorist constant and chinglu...In fact right off the scale.
    Anyone that doubts that please read the old threads by Rajesh I have linked to.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,468
    why do expect that my answers will be agreeing with your flawed understanding ?? I have the right to keep informed and analysed opinion. You cannot find fault, so you keep making irrelevant remarks...Paddo, you are stuck in your created wormhole, and poor gravity is indecisive which side you should be thrown...entry or exit ?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    • This content is unsuitable for the Science sections of sciforums. Please post in a more appropriate subforum in future - e.g. Pseudoscience
    If you look at a star, the fastest average frequencies occur within the fusion core; gamma. The core is the place of highest pressure and closest distances. This is also where the space-time well is most contracted.

    Although the distance aspect within space-time and the density/wavelength aspects of matter and energy are moving in the same direction; both contracting or getting smaller, time is moving in the opposite direction. The time in space-time is running slower as we go down the well, yet the time intervals connected to frequency of matter and energy is getting faster and faster the deeper in the well we go. This discrepancy in time is always left out. Distance goes the same way, but matter/energy frequency time goes the opposite of space-time.

    BH may have mass, charge and angular momentum but they also have extra time potential that is resisting the slow down in time of space-time; if we extrapolate stars.

    For the BB to occur, in the tiny proposed increment of time, starting with black hole density, the core time was going much faster than the time within space-time; overrides space-time. The expansion has space-time moving in the time direction of the faster core time/frequency. I look at this as the fabric of space-time woven with extra threads of time until d/t/t causes an acceleration. In stars the extra t cause pressure=force/area.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,993
    That is absurd - reported as madeup pseudoscience in the science section.
     
  8. Kittamaru Now nearly 40 pounds lighter. Staff Member

    Messages:
    13,422
    Yeah... that sounds like pretty word-salad to me to be honest...
     
  9. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,468
    This is your problem, you do not read, you do not understand, you do not analyse....You just copy paste....

    See, Paddoboy, when i say I have reservation about BH having charge, then there is a reason as follows..

    Once the Fe56 is formed in the fusion process, there is no exothermic fusion process beyond this, so if the core is less than 1.4 solar mass, its collapse due to Gravity is countered by Electron Degeneracy Pressure. If the core mass is more than 1.4 Solar Mass, then this Electron degeneracy Pressure is not sufficient to counter the Gravity pressure, and these electrons are captured by protons in reverse beta reaction to form neutrons......you may be knowing that in general number of electrons and the number of protons are same in elements, and thus all the electrons get captured by protons to form the Neutrons and NDP comes into picture if the core mass is less than around 3 Solar Mass (TOV) and Neutron Star is formed....so you see even a neutron star is almost all the neutrons, almost nil electrons and possibly very few protons in the core......Now if the core mass is more than 3 solar mass, even NDP will not be able to sustain the Gravitational pressure and BH is formed......

    So you see, in general charge does not remain inside the BH core.....may be it is acquired through accretion on the external surface...but not originally.....and by now you would have also realised that Nuclear force plays no role in countering the gravity in BH....that was a shear ignorant rant by OnlyMe.....

    You also would have realised that the question of emission of Photon also plays no role as on date...we just do not know inside mechanism, BH is BH because it does not even allow lights to get reflected, thus making it fully invisible...another rant by OnlyMe on this point.
     
  10. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    No, I do read, I do understand, and I'll continue to copy and paste.
    Trying to turn the tables and continued lying, is making you look more and more foolish.
    See Rajesh, when I say a BH has three properties, mass, charge and spin, I mean that in a scientific sense, as that is what is observed and in line with our GR application of BHs.
    Your reservations [excuse me while I give a

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ] are neither here nor there. They mean nothing in the greater scheme of things.
    This forum [and two others I have been active on] are the only outlet alternative pushers have to spout there rubbish.
    The annals and halls of science and academia, proceed as per normal via the scientific method and peer review, while the cranks, nuts and ego inflated souls, wallow in their delusional state.

    Now with the rest of your post, I suggest where ever you are getting your info from, that you link to it, and stop trying to pretentiously look more knowledgable then we all know you are not.

    Not looking forward to your next rant.
     
  11. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,914
    Before I spend any time attempting to address issues you believe exist, answer me this one question...

    Given the following two situations how would you tell which one was true?
    1. Photons are emmited inside the radius of a black hole associated with an event horizon and cannot escape to be SEEN or DETECTED, because the escape velocity is greater than the speed of light. (This is limited to predictions consistent with GR.)
    2. The structure of matter or mass as it exists inside of the radius of a black hole associated with an event horizon does not allow the emmission of photons.., so there are no photons to escape.., to be SEEN or DETECTED, no matter what the escape velocity might be. ( This would require a QTG that is consistent with the predictions of GR and observation.., outside of the event horizon.)

    As far as the, line in the sand phrase is concerned, you could just google the phrase. Is English not your first language or perhaps you are just very young?
     
  12. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647

    Ignoring the rest of your side track red herring, the way I see the relationship between gravity and the strong nuclear force is as follows........
    Any object falling into a BH will feel the critical tidal effects of gravitation. This has an immediate effect we have [the cosmological community] labeled "spaghettification", or being stretched apart more and more as we approach the Singularity [in whatever form]
    As the tidal forces get stronger and stronger, the atoms themselves making up the body, will start to be stripped apart...first electrons will be torn away, then the protons and neutrons making up the atomic nucleus and held together by the strong nuclear force, will be torn apart......Possibly even taking it further, the quarks that make up protons and neutrons will also be torn apart.


    SO, YES, IN EFFECT, THE GRAVITY IS OVERCOMING THE STRONG NUCLEAR FORCE.
    OnlyMe was correct. You are [as usual] wrong.

    How far the above scenario would advance would depend on where the mass actually will stop collapsing, taking into account that the infinite density and spacetime curvature and gravity that eventuates with regards to the classical point singularity, should not be reached, according to most reputable cosmologists today.


    Just another example of your incomplete, alternative picture that you have of cosmology Rajesh, and one I am again happy to reveal the reality of the situation.
    One thing that you can take comfort in Rajesh, is the fact that in my dozen years or so on science forums, I have never once seen any alternative hypothesis, ever gain "scientific theory" status, most ending up just as unsupported ideas by individuals, that have inflated egos to satisfy and administer to.
     
  13. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    Let me make it quite clear.
    Accepted mainstream cosmology theories show us that a BH has only three properties: : MASS, CHARGE, AND SPIN:
    Charge can be/may be negated over time......Spin maybe added to or negated over a longer time......and mass can be negated via "HAWKING RADIATION" over the lifetime of the Universe.
     
  14. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,914
    Actually, I think I was saying that we cannot know that to be an accurate description of reality, without a successful quantum theory of gravitation. There is presently no means to compare the strong nuclear force vs gravity and no successful theory that includes both GR and QM.

    It is a theoretical prediction of solutions to Einstein's field equations, but they do not include a description of matter. As earlier pointed out they include only an energy and momentum associated with mass. Heck, we don't even really have a fundamental understanding of what mass is. Whether it is fundamental or emergent...
     
  15. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647

    Agreed...but I did add......
    "How far the above scenario would advance would depend on where the mass actually will stop collapsing, taking into account that the infinite density and spacetime curvature and gravity that eventuates with regards to the classical point singularity, should not be reached, according to most reputable cosmologists today".

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  16. Dinosaur Rational Skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,618
    A singularity at the center of a black hole suggests that current theories are not complete.

    BTW: I see no reason to assume/believe that there is a singularity at the center of a black hole.

    Why not a finite volume with extreme density?​
     
  17. Dinosaur Rational Skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,618
    Considering conservation of angular momentum, I would expect almost all black holes to be spinning incredibly fast.

    It is my understanding that almost all stars rotate about a central axis. I wonder if any stars do not rotate.
     
  18. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    Bingo! That's what most physicists now suggest. The classical point singularity is near rejected.
     
  19. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    Bingo again!!
    Although the EH is a one way "membrane" and prevents us knowing anything for certain, it is reasonably logical and sensible to "assume" that the BH and mass are spinning, particularly if we have observed the ergosphere [frame dragging]
     
  20. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,468

    Both the points are irrelevant. And as far as English is concerned you may lurk around Linguistic sub forum...this cosmology thing is not your mug of beer...err ..I mean cup of tea....so don't spend your time here.
     
    Last edited: Feb 20, 2015
  21. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,468


    How ?? If at all any charge is there, which you say is there, then how can that be negated....Paddoscience does not include conservation of charge ??



    So finally you learnt Penrose process. Thats ok, that is the purpose of this forum.
     
  22. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,468
    Thats again good learning, now you concede that frame dragging is present in Ergosphere only, earlier you were drumming that it is there in Ergosphere, Inside EH, everywhere....
     
  23. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,468
    Welcome on Board !! Thats the question and answer is yet to come.
     

Share This Page