Singularity Vs Quantum Theory of Gravity

Huh!!!!Are you on drugs?
Of course they reflect photons! Perhaps you need to go back to school.
What the fuck do you think reflection means?

Keep dreaming. I've given you a reputable link. And that certainly trumps any self proclaimed cosmology expert after 12 months study??
What an ego problem you have!
Let me add also, when researching the early Universe and BB. We approach further and further to the time when all the forces were united, with none holding sway over the other...BH cosmology is similar.
And again, you are a liar....I have not changed track, unless you would like to produce evidence showing that.
At this stage of proceedings Rajesh, your continued lying is getting out of hand.
I would be careful.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This non sense must go out of your head....GR equations no where fails at Lp or Mp or Tp.........this false and misinformation is main cause behind Paddo's troll and my agitation. What QGT will do....it will do...it has not done...it is in the realms of future.

I had earlier highlighted that few scientists came up with a hypothesis that all the mass of BH goes and parks at Lp, and they called this as Planck's Star....the basis was quantum nature of spatial point (Planck's Length) that like Photon of Energy we must have a quanta of length (Lp), so before any mass can collapse to r = 0 (point like), it will get restricted at a sphere of Lp, thus eliminating the singularity and making a definite object. But the problem is that this offered a very large density of the order of 10^135 SI units. So the hypo did not get much attention. Moreover on the scale Planck's level is fine with Lp, and Tp, but the Planck's mass (Mp) is unusually high and lighter particles are observed, so this puts dent on acceptability of Planck's level. As on date this is nothing but mathematics (dimensional analysis).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

same old problem, you did not read what I had written.....the same is reproduced below.....I am not on drugs, but you surely are tipsy....can't focus on words ? And if you are saying BH reflects Photon....then thats another gem from you.

.....Escape velocity of any object does not have anything to do with photon or speed of light. Similarly visibility of any object also has nothing to do with emission of photons by it. We are able to see moons or many planets (they in general do not emit photons) due to reflection, not because they emit light.....

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Wrong, wrong, wrong again.
GR breaks down at the quantum/Planck level. That's why we need a QGT to explain that level.
Denying that is as stupid as saying reflection of planets and stars is not light...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

In earlier threads you claim to know next to nothing about BHs. Now you come up with that?
Any references? links? or are you plageurising?

 

What Rajesh said and as reproduced at post 121.
"Similarly visibility of any object also has nothing to do with emission of photons by it. We are able to see moons or many planets (they in general do not emit photons) due to reflection, not because they emit light".

 

So whats druggy about above statement ?? Which part you find incorrect to your understanding ?

 

Stop playing the fool, what I said is there for all to see.
Any light that is emitted by an object just this side of the EH, will arc back and secumb to the BHs EH......Except for any photons of light that are emitted directly radially away.
In that case they will appear to hover just above the EH, never getting sucked in, and never quite getting away.
To use an analogy, imagine a fish swimming upstream at 10kms/hr against a current of 10kms/hr.
http://jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/insidebh/waterfall.html

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

So, planets, moons etc, reflect, but not photons/Light?
Are you theorist constant with another handle?
I'm beginning to think so.

 

Rajesh, seriously ol son, you need to take a step back, have an aspro and a good lay down. Two of your statements are just plain kiddy stuff!
Take it easy! I know you can do better.

 

Does that do anything to the photons in terms of redshift or anything? What does a stationary photon look like, if that's even a sensible question?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflection_(physics)

http://sciencelearn.org.nz/Contexts/Light-and-Sight/Science-Ideas-and-Concepts/Reflection-of-light

 

Light is never at rest.
Cosmological Redshift of light is simply the stretching of light waves due to intervening spacetime expansion.

 

Ah, so then a photon caught in the gravity of a black hole keeps its original wavelength and isn't stretched out to infinity by the gravity? I think I must be confusing it with something I read about matter and "spaghettification"?

 

Spaghetification is the beginning of the disassembling of matter when falling into a BH, caused by tidal gravitation effects.
It can even be felt outside if the BH was small enough [stellar size for example.
Light/photons are fundamental and cannot be broken down any more.

 

Just to be clearer, light can also be "Doppler redshifted/blueshifted, and also gravitationally redshifted/blueshifted.

 

I think I understand. Thanks for the clarification about spaghettification.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

[edit] So can a Black Hole's gravity cause that kind of gravitational shifting to a photon that's caught at the point where it can't escape?

 

Yes, certainly to that.
For instance, if you were watching me fall towards a BHs EH from a safe distance, you would see the light from me gradually redshifted further and further along the spectrum until you saw me gradually fade from view.
You would never see me cross the EH though.
But from my point of view, I would continue to the EH, cross it with nothing strange happening [ignoring tidal gravity effects] and on to the singularity to be part and parcel of the mass of the BH.

 

You just copy paste...you do not read.......Read your own reference !!

A misleading Picture..

.......In 1784, John Michell1 proposed, in the context of Newton's corpuscular theory of light, that if the escape velocity from a mass exceeded the speed of light, then the mass would be invisible. In his picture, light emitted from the object would go up, curve around, and come back down.
Michell's picture is enticing, but it is different from what general relativity predicts. General relativity predicts that any light emitted within the horizon is dragged inward, even if the light is pointed directly outward. The picture at left, which shows light going up, turning around, and falling back down, is misleading.......

 

You do not read and you do not understand.....What is stated is that emission of light is not required for the object's visibility.....you are seeing your pal across the table, not because he is emitting photons, but because light from other source is getting reflected from him...Do you understand now ?

 

"that any light emitted within the horizon is dragged inward,"

NOTE: WITHIN THE EH.
WE ARE TALKING LIGHT FROM OUTSIDE THE EH.
Did I not make that clear?