Translational Motion of Black Hole

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by RajeshTrivedi, Jun 6, 2015.

  1. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    I don't believe I'm vague at all. Maybe the answers and probabilities I give just don't fit in with your agenda.
    Physicist: Singularities are just artifacts that fall out of math. They show up a lot in theory, and (probably) never in nature. The “singularities” most people have heard of are black hole singularities.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    Thats what I am saying that BH singularity does not exist....don't you know my stand.

    Your stand is vague, you want to stick to mainstream GR which predicts compulsory collapse to r = 0 and then in the same breath you say no Physicist believe that classical point singularity exits and GR fails there........if GR fails there, then it fails...And then you say may be QGT will let the GR pass till Lp and then QGT will prove some sort of surface at Lp or below that....what an unmitigated crap.

    This is all read out crap and non-physics-non-sense you are talking about.........

    Note: Physicists are thoroughly confused about this singularity business, its a hard ball, neither they are able to digest it nor they are able to spit it out. The fact is that there is nothing like any kind of singularity in real life, there is no collapse to r = 0 or r = Lp, and moreover there is no solution (and will never be) any solution to this problematic compulsory collapse at or around Planck's level. Finding a surface at or below Lp is as ridiculous as the singularity. This Paddoboy character has crapped this thread too by perpetuating this singularity non sense......
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. paddoboy Valued Senior Member


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Firstly you need to calm down a bit and stop all your pretentious emotive crap....secondly and obviously to all, the only person to have crapped this thread is your own dishonest transparent guise to once again raise your BNS nonsense, and which from what I can see everyone else has ridiculed also.

    The rest of your claims is the usual anti mainstream bullshit by our forum electrician with 12 months perusal of the subject.
    Have a good day my friend.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. paddoboy Valued Senior Member


    Yet they are at the coal front doing the research, while you lurch into oblivion and infest a science forum, trying to make a name for yourself

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Delusions of the extreme variety!
  8. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    This pathological virus called Paddoboy is infesting every thread.....he needs to be eradicated, at least for some time.
  9. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Unfortunately, the definition of GR as a physical theory does not contain any list of regions which is named "zone of applicability". Given that it is a theory about spacetime, and physics without space and time is simply unthinkable, it would be also very nonsensical if such a theory makes claims of type "here is the end of the zone where notions of space and time cannot be applied".
    And, anyway, if a theory is true, it is true everywhere. A "domain of applicability" is something which is reasonably connected not with true theories, but with approximations, which are known to be wrong, but there is a zone where the error can be reasonably expected to be small.
    Of course, to find approximate solutions is very important, in fact all solutions of physical theories make sense only as approximations, even the exact solutions depend on idealized conditions like exact homogeneity, or an exact vacuum, which are never realized in the real world, thus, can be applied to reality only as approximations. So one of the main problems in science is to find reasonable approximations.
    The successful theories of the past, even if we know today that they are wrong, remain useful as approximations. Given that we know they are wrong, because we have a better theory now, we can reasonably define the domain where they remain useful as approximations and the domains where they are simply completely off. We do this by comparing the solution of the wrong theory with the solution of the better theory.
    Sometimes it happens that we know a theory is wrong without having a better theory yet. Simply, we have experiments where the theory fails to make the correct predictions. In this case, we can also define domains of applicability - which are those domains where the predictions of the theory are in acceptable agreement with observation. And, of course, in these domains the theory will be used, even if we know it is wrong in general.
    Last but not least, there is the case of singularities. Here it is the theory itself which tells us that it is wrong - singularities do not make sense in physics, and, therefore, a theory predicting them has to be wrong, necessarily. Here, to identify the true domain of applicability is difficult, all what is known is that it cannot contain the singularities themself.
    But in all these cases the definition of the domain of applicability is something which makes sense only if it is already known that the domain of applicability is everywhere. That means, if we know the theory is wrong - which is simply logic, because for a general theory to be wrong a single counterexample is sufficient, and here we are talking about whole domains of inapplicability.
    I would like to add an unexpected possibility to get rid or create singularities - the interpretion. Some term becoming infinite maybe, in itself, not a problem, it is a problem only if it is claimed that the thing which becomes infinite is a physically important thing, some physical value. But what is physical sometimes depends on the interpretation. What in one interpretation may look like an infinity for a physical variable, may appear in another one as a physically meaningless relation between two unrelated variables, where one of which has a zero.
    There are even two interesting examples for this. The first is the interpretation of quantum theory. The point is that one half of the Schroedinger equation looks very classical - like a classical conservation law \(\partial_t \rho + \partial_i (\rho v^i) = 0\). Nice, and, given that the \(\rho(x,t) \) in this equation is the probability to observe the value x if we measure at time t, this equation cries for an interpretation of \(\rho v^i\) as the probability flow and of \(v^i\) as a velocity.
    Fine, but the problem is that the expression for this velocity is \(\vec{v} = \nabla \Im \ln \psi\) has a singularity where the wave function becomes zero. Thus, in such interpretations the zeros of the wave function become singularities. But for the minimal interpretation of QM this expression is simply nothing it interprets at all, thus, it is not a singularity for those who follow the minimal interpretation.
    The second example how a singularity can go away without even changing the equations is the big bang singularity. In the Lorentz ether interpretation, we introduce a true time T, with an equation for it, the harmonic equation. And we interpret the proper time differently, not as anything related to fundamental time, but as the result of clock showings, which are heavily influenced by the gravitational field.
    Now, the FLRW solutions for a flat universe in harmonic coordinates is \(ds^2 = a^6(t) dt^2 - a^2(t)(dx^2+dy^2+dz^2)\). Thus, to compute harmonic time from proper time is quite simple: \(dt = a^{-3}(\tau) d\tau\). The surprising consequence is that if the BB singularity is of type \(a(\tau) \sim \tau^\alpha \text{ with } \alpha \ge \frac13\), then there will be no singularity in harmonic time.
    Here, the singularity is gone away by the reinterpretation of proper time. If proper time is only a distorted physical process, there is nothing unphysical in the assumption that this process may become completely frozen, thus, can never reach a certain finite limit even in infinite true time.

    PS: I think this text deserves a separate thread, so if you find this interesting reply at
    Last edited: Jun 11, 2015
  10. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Not nice Rajesh, a sign of emotive and desperate times I see.
    For the umpteenth time, I'll be here when necessary, and will refute your total nonsense when necessary.
    If you can't stand the heat of defeat, and insist on lowering yourself to cesspool level name calling, then perhaps its you that needs to be eradicated...for good!
    Again, it's you railing against GR with nonsensical BNS bullshit, and no matter how many threads you raise with that as your underlying agenda, it will never be validated.
    Live with it my Son!
  11. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    A heap of unmitigated nonsense I'm afraid.
    GR is as robust as any theory can be, despite your ranting to the contrary and it still has its regions of applicability, recognised by cosmologists and physicists everywhere.
    It will give the same result within Newtonians zone of applicability albeit with more accuracy.
    Of course you do have a barrow to push in all of this with your theoretical paper that you would like to see accepted and GR dropped. That won't happen, as we both know, for obvious reasons.
    Your hypothesis does not do anymore than GR, and probably far less.
    Plus of course as an independent worker, you would also love to unseat all that mainstream science has accepted, and as before, if you did have anything of substance, you would not be here.
    Zones of applicability certainly do apply with most theories, and SR/GR and Newtonian are no different
  12. Kittamaru Never cruel nor cowardly... Staff Member

    You asked a question - several members, Paddoboy included, gave you great answers and cited supporting evidence. You got argumentative and said their were wrong, and are now insulting them... knock it off. Just because you don't like an answer, that doesn't invalidate it's correctness
  13. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    Kittamaru, I don't believe that most of your comment above is accurate. Yes, Rajesh has made insulting comment... But most of the opposing argument has not been about the situation presented in the OP, it seems more a biased personalized attack on what individuals think...

    I don't agree with much of what I think Rajesh believes about black holes, but that does not invalidate his questions...

    Rajesh's OP...

    Several outside experts have asserted that nothing can be communicated outward across a black hole event horizon. One of the explanations for a black hole's gravitational field outside of an event horizon is that it is a Fossil Field left over from the black hole's mass just before it collapsed to within the event horizon. After that collapse the black hole mass can no longer communicate with space time outside the event horizon.

    Rajesh, in the OP asked a legitimate question which should be discussible.., which was... If the mass of the black hole cannot communicate with spacetime outside the event horizon, what stops the black hole and its mass from moving out of the center of the fossil field?

    In a vacuum solution one could assume that the black hole and any Fossil Field retain the same inertial motion before and after the collapse. The problem is reality is not a vacuum solution and while one could argue that the black hole itself does not affect spacetime outside the event horizon and the Fossil Field, no one has presented any argument how any dynamic change outside the event horizon affects the black hole.

    In essence Rajesh was asking why the black hole and Fossil Field continue to move as of inertially connected? No one has answered that question. I don't believe most have even tried to understand what was being asked. Instead they start by responding with a preconceived idea of what Rajesh believes generally.

    The black hole and proposed Fossil Field may begin with the same inertial motions, but as soon as the black hole forms, in order to explain why the black hole remains centered within the proposed Fossil Field, one must explain how the spacetime external to the event horizon, affects the black hole while the black hole no longer affects the external spacetime.

    I don't see where anyone has attempted to address that question and the way I read it that is the question (or at least a question) presented by the OP.

    Most of the argument in this thread has been about preconceived opinions not about the OP.
    Last edited: Jun 11, 2015
  14. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    The Planck time is the time required for light to travel a distance of 1 Planck length in a vacuum.

    Entanglement has been clocked at a minimum of 10,000 time faster than that speed to traverse the same length.

    Whether you argue about uncertainties in the quantum domain of distances/velocities/momenta or not, it's a fact that quantum entanglement is faster AND THIS WOULD BE NOT BE THE CASE UNLESS THERE IS A SMALLER POSSIBLE TIME INTERVAL THAN THE PLANCK TIME. This is true even it it were impossible to construct an instrument to measure smaller time intervals than the Planck time, but in fact the necessary measurement of entanglement speed on our scale has already been performed and repeated. The fact that no experiment can be performed on a quantum scale to verify this because atoms themselves are dynamic structures does nothing to negate this finding.

    This also impacts the Minkowski determination to discuss relativistic issues involving simultaneity, which actually does not exist EXCEPT FOR QUANTUM ENTANGLEMENT, for after the instant that is the present has occurred and passed time literally runs at different rates everywhere. The only exception to the rule would be the same event viewed from different directions (as in a pair creation event). Since simultaneity itself would be impossible to verify within uncertainty principle limits, and also because bulk matter itself consists largely of entangled bound electrons, any such discussion of simultaneity in relativistic terms is reduced to nonsense.
    Last edited: Jun 11, 2015
  15. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    That's patently false and you know it.
    The first obvious thing is that Rajesh from day one, has been pushing a certain concept outlined in his beloved paper, published in a somewhat less than reputable publisher without peer review.
    Secondly Rajesh has been given explanations re why the premise he outlines in this thread and any fabricated paradox or problem is non-existent.

    Yet in your own words you have chosen to "give up" on him and instead, again in your own words, "be hard on me

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    " because you happen to dislike my posting style and giving back at least as good as I get.

    And those same experts have also asserted that due to properties of spacetime external to the EH, plus known laws of physics and GR, that it is totally and logically reasonable to assign properties of the spacetime and mass inside the EH.
    According to GR spacetime is continuous and the fossil field explanation plus the property of nonlinearity sees Rajesh's fabricated problem as just that...a fabrication.
    How does the gravity get out of a black hole?
    Purely in terms of general relativity, there is no problem here. The gravity doesn't have to get out of the black hole. General relativity is a local theory, which means that the field at a certain point in spacetime is determined entirely by things going on at places that can communicate with it at speeds less than or equal to c. If a star collapses into a black hole, the gravitational field outside the black hole may be calculated entirely from the properties of the star and its external gravitational field before it becomes a black hole. Just as the light registering late stages in my fall takes longer and longer to get out to you at a large distance, the gravitational consequences of events late in the star's collapse take longer and longer to ripple out to the world at large. In this sense the black hole is a kind of "frozen star": the gravitational field is a fossil field. The same is true of the electromagnetic field that a black hole may possess.

    Often this question is phrased in terms of gravitons, the hypothetical quanta of spacetime distortion. If things like gravity correspond to the exchange of "particles" like gravitons, how can they get out of the event horizon to do their job?

    Gravitons don't exist in general relativity, because GR is not a quantum theory. They might be part of a theory of quantum gravity when it is completely developed, but even then it might not be best to describe gravitational attraction as produced by virtual gravitons. See the physics FAQ on virtual particles for a discussion of this.

    Nevertheless, the question in this form is still worth asking, because black holes can have static electric fields, and we know that these may be described in terms of virtual photons. So how do the virtual photons get out of the event horizon? Well, for one thing, they can come from the charged matter prior to collapse, just like classical effects. In addition, however, virtual particles aren't confined to the interiors of light cones: they can go faster than light! Consequently the event horizon, which is really just a surface that moves at the speed of light, presents no barrier.

    I couldn't use these virtual photons after falling into the hole to communicate with you outside the hole; nor could I escape from the hole by somehow turning myself into virtual particles. The reason is that virtual particles don't carry any information outside the light cone. See the physics FAQ on virtual particles for details.
    If you mean by "discussible" not using insulting inferences etc, perhaps it may warm your heart to go back in this thread, and notice who first started to hit below the belt. The ball's in your court.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Of course they have. You yourself said at post 24......
    Not only the fossil field aspect, but the property of nonlinearity.
    'Firstly I don't believe there is a problem, secondly the question has been answered, and thirdly the only preconception by anyone is the Rajesh BNS aspect which he clings to for dear life..
    Why not take some time and go back over the eight or nine threads that Rajesh has started, and notice the fact that they start out asking questions like, "why does not the galaxy collapse into a BH" and similar, to finally advance a couple of threads ago to the revelation of his paper, which was totally demolished.
    Every thread since [most moved to the fringes] has had as its basis his BNS.
    And obviously, [in his mind at least] if he can show some inconsistency in GR with regards to BHs, that would be his cue to again raise that nonsensical BNS.
    Something as yet, he has never forgone.[the same applies to his many other BH inconsistencies]
    You answered that yourself from post 24......
    Again the question has been addressed, and for you to say it hasn't is to put it mildly surprising.
    Perhaps your own "preconceived opinions" particularly with regards to my posting style, and your mission "to be hard on me" should be brought into question.
  16. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    Paddoboy, your post as a whole proves my point! You are still arguing past threads/discussions....

    And if you believe someone has answered the OP as I interpreted it in my post, provide a link! The discussion has touched on other things but not why a black hole stays centered in a fossil field it cannot communicate with.... There are answers but just linking to physics FAQ that describes Fossil Fields (which remain speculation) does not answer the question.
  17. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    I don't see that at all.
    You obviously take your speculative interpretation to the nth degree, without any regards to logic and reasonability...seems similar in a way to religious fanatics and others, saying, "Ahaa! It's only a theory"
    The fossil field seems a logical extension from where I sit, just as was inferred by most expert opinions with regards to other properties such as spin that can be "logically" inferred inside the EH, and as obtained by tashja.
    Like I said, you answered the question yourself in post 24 and as I rehashed thus...
    "However, the fossil field and its fossil event horizon are still connected to spacetime and other gravitational fields and so are subject to changes in their state of motion".
    And you also have a link, whether you chose to take notice or ignore like Rajesh is your business.
    Let me add anyway to what it does say there, gravity isn’t “emitted” by matter.....It is simply a property of the spacetime which is a continuous field in the presence of mass/energy.
    here's another reputable link......
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2015
  18. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    An E-Mail from Professor Geraint Lewis:

    Re: nonlinearity of gravity

    Geraint Lewis:
    To B.C.

    Hi BC -

    It has been a while!

    I must admit that I am not 100% sure what you are asking - non–linearity is a property of mathematics, and the mathematics of general relativity are non-linear. What this means is the solution for the gravitational field of a pair of objects is not simply the gravitational field of one plus the gravitational field of the other.

    “gravity makes gravity” - depends what you mean. If one piece of space-time is curved right here, the bit next to it will. But this is true in Newtonian gravity also (a bit of gravity here will mean there is a bit of gravity next door). This is because they are field theories.

    Cheers - Geraint
  19. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Here is a definition of a "Singularity" as defined by Kip. S Thorne in his book,
    "Black Holes and Time warps"

    page 557:

    Singularity: A region of spacetime, where spacetime curvature becomes so strong that the general relativistic laws break down, and the laws of quantum gravity take over. If one tries to describe a singularity using general relativity alone, one finds (incorrectly) that tidal gravity and spacetime curvature are infinitely strong there. Quantum gravity probably replaces these infinities by quantum foam
  20. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Your post also proves a point. You have not as usual addressed all the issues that are relevant.
  21. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Both the Schwarzschild remote bookkeeper and the Schwarzschild local proper coordinates end at r=2M. The rain coordinates are local paper frame coordinates derived from the Schwarzschild metric and special relativity and can be used to evaluate spacetime events from any r to the limit r=0.
  22. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    What do you think the above quote is saying? Did you read it in context?

    Perhaps you are confused by my mention of a fossil event horizon...? If that is the case it starts at the black hole event horizon and extends outward. Everything about the fossil field is separated from everything about the black hole by the black hole's event horizon.., across which no information can be communicated outward.

    The only question relative to the OP is how does the black hole inside of an event horizon stay centered in a fossil field that it cannot communicate with? The black hole cannot drag space time outside the event horizon anywhere (if you believe in fossil fields) and if you believe that the fossil field can drag a black hole around you wind up with a conservation of momentum issue...., because since the black hole cannot communicate with spacetime outside the event horizon, it cannot resist any change in motion, but we still describe it in terms of solar masses...

    The OP contained the essence of a legitimate question, which cannot be addressed and put to rest by just saying, anyone thinks it is logical to assume anything.

    The question is how does the black hole tell the space time outside of the event how it is moving? And/or if the spacetime outside of the event horizon, represented by a fossil field changes the way it moves, can it change the way a black hole moves.., if so does the black hole resist the change?... Then does oes that resistance get communicated from the black hole to the fossil field..., or does the black hole and any mass inside the event horizon just disappear?

    You started the above quote by referring to past threads and the say his question in the OP of this thread has been answered, but fail to point out just when, where or what that answer was.

    Then you mischaracterize my words by saying I give up on him (Rajesh) when all I said was that I did not agree with much of what I think Rajesh believes about black holes! And then followed that with, but that does not invalidate his questions.

    My post 24 did not answer anything it just restated what I thought the issue involved... Without much detail!

    As far as, "again in your own words, "be hard on me

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    " because you happen to dislike my posting style and giving back at least as good as I get.
    " that was a reference to you using almost exclusively quotes from authority as argument and it was initially because of your responses to Schmelzer not Rajesh.
  23. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    While no information can get back across the EH, the gravity field/spacetime is a continuous field, and taking nonlinearity into consideration as well as other explanations given in my link, I see no problem at all.
    Consider also the river/waterfall analogy which is mathematically supported, and we can view the EH as moving at "c"
    Maybe you are confused in picturing the EH as some physical barrier? It's not.

    Again, the BH itself and the gravity field, is associated with the same spacetime both inside and outside.....nonlinearity and the fossil field does the rest.
    And I'm not sure what you mean by if "I believe in fossil fields". Fossil fields are a logical extension of what we know.
    In that case, I believe you have had the wool pulled over your eyes. I don't believe it was a genuine question as such, [without an agenda] and that is proven by the methodology in all his threads, around nine or ten now.
    If you chose to disregard logic like assuming fossil fields then I don't believe you are being genuine. Science makes logical assumptions all the time, and based on what we already know and observe.
    The BH certainly does not resist any change of conditions or properties, just as any other gravitational field, and any communication is via as already explained and also in two links.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Are you just evading the issue now?
    You most certainly did say "you have given up on him", or words to that effect, not in this post in particular, [and I did not infer that] but a few pages back and inferred you were dropping out...It may well have been in his last thread even, and that was moved to the fringes..
    Whatever. As usual, when needed, I will respond with quotes from authority, and as long as that authority is expert in the subject and discipline at hand, I see that as beneficial and helpful to my own line of opinion.
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2015

Share This Page