Cygnus X - 1 a BNS ?

[paddoboy]

I am attempting to bring the thread back to science..

I doubt that on past evidence, plus you are in the fringe section.
Those are just facts.

1. Cygnus - X1 is believed to be a Black hole, there are certain observation based on which mass and size of Cygnus - X1 is calculated, which puts the same in BH category.

That's what most level headed reasonable cosmologists interested in science and the scientific method believe.

Now the problem....
1. Present day BH is a concept of spacetime, an infinitely curved or distorted spacetime, it has not much to do with an object inside EH, because a point singularity is envisaged.

2. Now many Physicists after research involving huge funds and creative time, are slowly veering towards a view that this Singularity is a problem and in nature there cannot be a singularity. But Not many mainstream scientists have come openly for reasons best known to them. But things will change.

No that is wrong...Firstly BHs are accepted as most likely based on evidence despite the predicted singularity, and of course you are totally wrong on your second assumption...Most physicists/cosmologists are certainly doubtful of the classical point singularity and most that have replied to your many invalid assumptions have said that.
You fail to realise that in predicting the singularity. all GR is doing is predicting its own downfall. In fact that happens at the quantum/Planck level as you have been told before.

3. It is a very old idea that QTG will resolve this singularity business as and when QTG comes, but despite plethora of papers not much agreement on this. Fundamentally GR is a theory of Gravity but GR is in crosswire with Quantum Theory of Gravity.......

Old idea??? GR and BHs have only been around for 100 years and quantum theory even less.
QGT by its very nature will most probably solve the point singularity problem.
Most cosmologists agree with that.

4. Moreover, as paddoboy tells time and again, that QTG may yield some sort of surface at or below Planck's level. Let us assume for time being that a QTG establishes some object at that level, instantly the present day definition of BH is gone......Because the concept of BH from a curved spacetime changes to an extremely small but highly densed deterministic object. A paradigm shift...

No that is nonsense. The concept of a BH is an EH where the escape velocity equals "c"

Technically as far as Black Holes are concerned, we are at scientific deadlock......Any reference to BH would be speculative unless and until we resolve what is inside EH, if at all EH is formed. It does not mean that research or argument in support of present day definition of BH would not continue.....people talk of ghosts.

That is also nonsense. BH are as well supported as they have ever been.
And again, as you have been told many times previously, we are allowed to ascertain properties reasonably logically by the properties that exist external to the BH.
Science makes many such assumptions, isotropic and homegenous properties of the Universe are just two.

 

[paddoboy]

PS: Remember one thing, be careful of those friends who remain silent at your fault or support you when you are at fault, they can never be anybody's friends.

What you need to remember is that no one has yet supported your ridiculous concept of a BNS, even those you mention in attempting again to deride me, have scolded you for such stupidity.
In fact in all your threads, no support for you has been forthcoming.
Criticism of me on my posting style is just that, and that is mainly concerned with you and I.
Irrespective, and no matter in what section, science or fringe, If I see something as nonsense or wrong, I'll refute it to the best of my ability and supply whatever links I need.

 

[paddoboy]

I did say by all parties, paddoboy! That is the problem, when that is all one finds in what should be discussions of science or even alternative theories/ideas, it is difficult to not be drug down to that level.

Even this banter, back and forth has no place in the discussion.., but then how much of any of these last discussions have been any different?

Yes, nice to see you at least admit that, and nice to see you agree that it is difficult not to be dragged down., and obviously that also includes yourself.
OnlyMe, you see the need to be hard on me, is OK...great stuff! But for Christ sake stop with the hypocrisy and that was the point I made .
I am ceasing the insult game with Rajesh, and will only answer and refute crap.
And I hope that the banter back and forth on this particular subject now ceases.

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

....Cosmology is always open for change as further observations are made, and that change will almost certainly come from mainstream cosmologists and the myriad of state of the art equipment that is available to them.
It will not be forthcoming from any alternative hypothesis pusher...

...Most cosmologists today also agree that the classical point singularity does not exist, and a future validated QGT should eliminate that....

I read your nonsensical posts as the answers to my posts, to OnlyMe posts and RajeshTrivedi and my conclusion is still the same that you do not understand what you are reading and what you are writing.

You many times wrote that black holes cannot be neutron black holes but it is obvious that you are unable to prove it. Can you? On the other hand, you write that “Most cosmologists today also agree that the classical point singularity does not exist….” Next, as the answer to RajeshTrivedi post you wrote “Firstly BHs are accepted as most likely based on evidence despite the predicted singularity…” Can you see that you are simultaneously both pro and contrary?

It indeed looks as a split personality. My diagnosis is as follows. In your first posts you showed that you are a dunce. Next, you have read our posts and you decided to read a little about the black holes and it is our success that a dunce started to read the articles. Now your posts look a little better but as OnlyMe wrote “you copy entire articles from elsewhere on the Internet, without significant personal comment and/or opinion…” And he is right.

It is the Alternative Theories Section so we should discuss here the many unsolved problems concerning the black holes. And besides a few boys, we have courage to present new ideas based on scientific arguments. The unsolved problems are as follows.
1.
What is the information encoded in a particle falling on a black hole? Maybe information is not directly associated with gravitational mass? Can it be superluminal? You know, GR leads to non-gravitating superluminal objects as well so it could solve the information paradox.
2.
Where and how information is accumulated when a black hole destroys a particle?
3.
When we insert the gravitational constant into the GR equations then the Planck size is the lower limit for General Relativity. It leads to conclusion that sizes of black holes cannot be smaller than the Planck scale so maybe there are in existence the neutron black holes? The radial speed on event horizon (EH) is the speed of light, c. Maybe there is an inner second horizon where spin speed is equal to c? For a neutron black hole it is possible.
4.
Can gravitational mass be emitted by neutron black hole? What is the mechanism?
5.
It is very easy to show that neutron black hole can create strong magnetic field (due to the spin polarization of the neutrons) but it is impossible to show a mechanism of production of strong magnetic field by mainstream black hole with size smaller than the Planck size so tremendously hot. Are the black holes very hot or very cold objects (I do not write about the accretion disc (!))?
6.
Why neutron black holes do not collapse to singularity?
7.
Can there be in existence black holes composed of neutron black holes with parallel spins? Such black holes should have the two horizons as well and produce very, very strong magnetic field.
8.
Observational facts show that there are in existence the gravitational black holes but can there be black holes in respect of the strong and weak interactions? Can there be in existence electrically charged black holes?
9.
What is shape of a black hole? Is the spacetime inside a black hole spinning as well i.e. is the spinning black hole in the rest in relation to the spinning spacetime?
10.
Can a black hole inside baryons limit the range of the strong interactions?
11.
Can black holes emit luminal virtual particles via the flows in spacetime? You know, the luminal spacetime must be inside the black holes as well. Is there something else in the black holes, for example, a superluminal Higgs field or superluminal entanglons responsible for the quantum entanglement? Such fields could solve many unsolved problems in the mainstream theory of the black holes.

And so on.

All these problems are solved within the coherent (i.e. there do not appear the indeterminate mathematical forms, approximations, mathematical tricks and free parameters as it is in the all fundamental mainstream theories) Scale-Symmetric Theory.


PS
When we obtain within mainstream theories some nonsensical results as, for example, the all singularities then we say that it follows from our incompetence (there are as well the toy models i.e. the approximate models that I call the childish theories) - just it is the common scientific jargon which has nothing with your undeniable rudeness. Notice as well that I never claimed that GR and QM are incorrect. Just they are incomplete so there appear many nonsensical conclusions. I many times wrote that the Scale-Symmetric Theory (S-ST) LEADS to GR and QM and is the LACKING PART of the ultimate theory. Just my theory causes that the GR and QM become the complete theories i.e. when we take into account the S-ST then in the mainstream theories do not appear the indeterminate mathematical forms and nonsensical conclusions.

Your big problem is that you write tremendous number of nonsensical and untrue sentences without any justification, without scientific arguments, without needed citations. Just you are a dishonest person.

 

[paddoboy]

I read your nonsensical posts as the answers to my posts, to OnlyMe posts and RajeshTrivedi and my conclusion is still the same that you do not understand what you are reading and what you are writing.

Your conclusions do not really matter, and that is evidenced by your many papers at vixra and in the fringe sections here.

You many times wrote that black holes cannot be neutron black holes but it is obvious that you are unable to prove it. Can you?

If you were a scientists of any calibre, the first thing you would learn is that there is no absolute proof in science.
And just as obviously most cosmologists know that in line with GR, once the Schwarzchild radius is reached, further collapse is compulsory.

On the other hand, you write that “Most cosmologists today also agree that the classical point singularity does not exist….” Next, as the answer to RajeshTrivedi post you wrote “Firstly BHs are accepted as most likely based on evidence despite the predicted singularity…” Can you see that you are simultaneously both pro and contrary?

Not really, the predicted classical point singularity is outside the parameters of GR. In other words GR predicts its own downfall.

It indeed looks as a split personality. My diagnosis is as follows. In your first posts you showed that you are a dunce. Next, you have read our posts and you decided to read a little about the black holes and it is our success that a dunce started to read the articles. Now your posts look a little better but as OnlyMe wrote “you copy entire articles from elsewhere on the Internet, without significant personal comment and/or opinion…” And he is right.

Gee, what do I say! Except that it is yourself that languishes in the fringe sections and publishes with a less than reputable publisher.
ON your diagnosis, I put it to you that it is actually a self examination.
Do better.
On articles and links I give, that of course will continue and are used to support my claims, and at the same time throw the spotlight on the nonsensical stuff from a couple of others.

It is the Alternative Theories Section so we should discuss here the many unsolved problems concerning the black holes. And besides a few boys, we have courage to present new ideas based on scientific arguments. The unsolved problems are as follows.
1.
What is the information encoded in a particle falling on a black hole? Maybe information is not directly associated with gravitational mass? Can it be superluminal? You know, GR leads to non-gravitating superluminal objects as well so it could solve the information paradox.
2.
Where and how information is accumulated when a black hole destroys a particle?
3.
When we insert the gravitational constant into the GR equations then the Planck size is the lower limit for General Relativity. It leads to conclusion that sizes of black holes cannot be smaller than the Planck scale so maybe there are in existence the neutron black holes? The radial speed on event horizon (EH) is the speed of light, c. Maybe there is an inner second horizon where spin speed is equal to c? For a neutron black hole it is possible.

BNS are not possible at all according to GR and compulsory collpase once the Schwarzchild radius is reached. Sorry about that. Oh and here's confirmation of what I say since you have decided to venture outside your own personalised thread.
The following is an E-Mail reply based on the BNS nonsense.
from:
Re: Neutron stars/Black holes
Mitch Begelman (mitch@jila.colorado.edu)

This is complete nonsense, since it is not based on any relativistic ideas of gravity. It seems to be based on the simple packing of rigid spheres, but physical spheres could not remain rigid inside the event horizon, since this would require the material composing the spheres to have an internal sound speed greater than the speed of light, which directly contradicts relativity. The fact that the author did not begin the paper by stating this (exceeding the speed of light) as a premise implies a deep ignorance of the subject of the paper.
and then we had this reply from Professor Bennett Link:
The question is if a self-gravitating body can have a surface that lies within its Schwarzchild radius. The answer is no, within the context of General Relativity, independent of the composition of the body, how the particles pack together, etc.

In General Relativity, a self-gravitating body in equilibrium has a pressure gradient that satisfies the TOV equation:

dp/dr = - G (rho + p/c^2 )(m[r] + 4 pi r^3 p/c^2)/[ r(r - 2Gm[r]/c^2)]

where p is the pressure at radius r, rho is the density, and m[r] is the mass contained within radius r. p as a function of rho depends on composition, but is unimportant for this argument.

Let the surface of the body be at r=R. Then

m[R] = M,

where M is the mass of the body.

For the body to have a surface, the pressure must fall to zero at r=R, that is, the pressure gradient is negative there. From the TOV equation, we can have a negative pressure gradient only if

2 G m[r]/c^2 < r

Evaluating at the surface

2 G m[R]/c^2 = 2G M/c^2 < R

2 G M/c^2 is the Schwarzchild radius for the body. Hence, the body's radius must exceed its Schwarzchild radius if it is to be in equilibrium. A black neutron star, or any other black *material* object, cannot exist.

Best regards,

Bennett Link
Department of Physics
Montana State University
Most of your other points you list are irrelevant since BNS most certainly do not exist as per the professional comments above.

What is shape of a black hole? Is the spacetime inside a black hole spinning as well i.e. is the spinning black hole in the rest in relation to the spinning spacetime?

Of course we are unable to get any Information of what is inside the EH of a BH, but we can reasonably and logically infer conditions inside based on properties outside and in line with GR.
So we can say in the event of observing an ergosphere [frame dragging] that the spacetime within the EH proper and the mass are also spinning.
I also have an E-Mail or two confirming those claims.

11.
Can black holes emit luminal virtual particles via the flows in spacetime? You know, the luminal spacetime must be inside the black holes as well. Is there something else in the black holes, for example, a superluminal Higgs field or superluminal entanglons responsible for the quantum entanglement? Such fields could solve many unsolved problems in the mainstream theory of the black holes.

Those are quantum effects which as yet we are unable to answer with any degree of certainty. Still it does not invalidate the existence of BHs one way or the other. Just as Hawking's recent musings did not invladiate BHs despite sensationalistic headlines.

PS
When we obtain within mainstream theories some nonsensical results as, for example, the all singularities then we say that it follows from our incompetence (there are as well the toy models i.e. the approximate models that I call the childish theories) - just it is the common scientific jargon which has nothing with your undeniable rudeness. Notice as well that I never claimed that GR and QM are incorrect. Just they are incomplete so there appear many nonsensical conclusions. I many times wrote that the Scale-Symmetric Theory (S-ST) LEADS to GR and QM and is the LACKING PART of the ultimate theory. Just my theory causes that the GR and QM become the complete theories i.e. when we take into account the S-ST then in the mainstream theories do not appear the indeterminate mathematical forms and nonsensical conclusions.

I hate repeating myself, but see it as required when you post nonsense as above. The facts remain that it is you that have published your papers in vixra and it is you that have been given a personalised thread for all your nonsense, and it is even more factual that if you really had anything that had any evidence supporting it, you would not be here.
Remember as fond as I am of this science forums and others, they are also a melting pot for trolls anti science nuts, and religious ratbags, that are always trying in vane to make a name for themselves by invalidating mainstream scientific theories and principals.
All this while the real scientists are at the coal face doing the required research.

Your big problem is that you write tremendous number of nonsensical and untrue sentences without any justification, without scientific arguments, without needed citations. Just you are a dishonest person.

You must be looking into a mirror my friend. And didn't you just mention somewhere about me using too many links and proper citations? Do I smell hypocrisy? So, again, who really is being dishonest?

 

[paddoboy]

What you need to remember is that no one has yet supported your ridiculous concept of a BNS, even those you mention in attempting again to deride me, have scolded you for such stupidity.

It appears now I must post a retraction to the above.
You do have one supporter for a BNS, our friend Sylvester who appears to have a permanent home in the fringes.

 

[RajeshTrivedi]

And just as obviously most cosmologists know that in line with GR, once the Schwarzchild radius is reached, further collapse is compulsory.

further compulsory collapse to what ?

Because singularity doe not exist, so assume that the star collapses, then it will shrink to a definite size, this is logical, is it not ?

and then we had this reply from Professor Bennett Link:
The question is if a self-gravitating body can have a surface that lies within its Schwarzchild radius. The answer is no, within the context of General Relativity, independent of the composition of the body, how the particles pack together, etc.

In General Relativity, a self-gravitating body in equilibrium has a pressure gradient that satisfies the TOV equation:

dp/dr = - G (rho + p/c^2 )(m[r] + 4 pi r^3 p/c^2)/[ r(r - 2Gm[r]/c^2)]

where p is the pressure at radius r, rho is the density, and m[r] is the mass contained within radius r. p as a function of rho depends on composition, but is unimportant for this argument.

Let the surface of the body be at r=R. Then

m[R] = M,

where M is the mass of the body.

For the body to have a surface, the pressure must fall to zero at r=R, that is, the pressure gradient is negative there. From the TOV equation, we can have a negative pressure gradient only if

2 G m[r]/c^2 < r

Evaluating at the surface

2 G m[R]/c^2 = 2G M/c^2 < R

2 G M/c^2 is the Schwarzchild radius for the body. Hence, the body's radius must exceed its Schwarzchild radius if it is to be in equilibrium. A black neutron star, or any other black *material* object, cannot exist.

Best regards,

Bennett Link
Department of Physics
Montana State University
Most of your other points you list are irrelevant since BNS most certainly do not exist as per the professional comments above.

Now see your argument only, that some sort of surface will be found by QTG at or below Planck's level. Let me agree to that, so we will have a stable object inside EH, that means Prof Link Bennett proof gets contradicted by you.


You decide what you want to say....BH or no BH....

 

[paddoboy]

further compulsory collapse to what ?

Because singularity doe not exist, so assume that the star collapses, then it will shrink to a definite size, this is logical, is it not ?

Further collapse to the classical point singularity which you have been told many times.
In other words GR predicts its own downfall. Cosmologists certainly do not believe the point singularity exists due to the nonsensical infinities involved, and since GR fails at the quantum/Planck level, but is applicable everywhere else, we assume a surface of sorts at or below the quantum/Planck level.
But you have been told this in nearly every thread you have started.

Now see your argument only, that some sort of surface will be found by QTG at or below Planck's level. Let me agree to that, so we will have a stable object inside EH, that means Prof Link Bennett proof gets contradicted by you.

You seem to be making up fairy tales as you go. Firstly it isn't my argument, it's mainstream cosmology, secondly it does not contradict Professor Bennett, as the good professor was obviously speaking of the domain of GR, where absolutely nothing other than spacetime exists.

You decide what you want to say....BH or no BH....

I say what I have always said, and what accepted mainstream cosmology adheres to, that is BHs are the only conclusion one can arrive at to explain observed gravitational effects on matter/energy and spacetime exterior to the BH.
And of course that does not mean one has to accept the point singularity, as this is outside the domain of GR.
Hope that helps.

 

[RajeshTrivedi]

Further collapse to the classical point singularity which you have been told many times.
In other words GR predicts its own downfall. Cosmologists certainly do not believe the point singularity exists due to the nonsensical infinities involved, and since GR fails at the quantum/Planck level, but is applicable everywhere else, we assume a surface of sorts at or below the quantum/Planck level.
But you have been told this in nearly every thread you have started.

There is inherent contradiction in above paragraph of yours....

You seem to be making up fairy tales as you go. Firstly it isn't my argument, it's mainstream cosmology, secondly it does not contradict Professor Bennett, as the good professor was obviously speaking of the domain of GR, where absolutely nothing other than spacetime exists.

That is speculation that QTG may do something.........as on date GR fails at some point or some range, leaving a void in Physics, calling for some solution..

I say what I have always said, and what accepted mainstream cosmology adheres to, that is BHs are the only conclusion one can arrive at to explain observed gravitational effects on matter/energy and spacetime exterior to the BH.
And of course that does not mean one has to accept the point singularity, as this is outside the domain of GR.
Hope that helps.

This is also contradiction. A BH is a spacetime concept and it includes singularities not an object inside EH. So as soon as you say singularity does not exist and a surface of sort exits at or below Planck's level. You are screwing up the definition of a BH. It hardly matters if inside the EH, an object of 1 Km exists or 10^-35 Meter size exists, both kill the very definition of a BH, pl understand this....

 

[RajeshTrivedi]

You seem to be making up fairy tales as you go.

Black Hole Singularity is a fairy tale !!

You have realized this but you can't let it go, simply because your very existence on this forum will be at stake.....

 

[paddoboy]

There is inherent contradiction in above paragraph of yours....

Nup, not at all. Simply realise that GR is predicting its own downfall, that's all.
Quite simple really.

That is speculation that QTG may do something.........as on date GR fails at some point or some range, leaving a void in Physics, calling for some solution..

QGT will do something. That's the nature of the beast.
GR fails at some point certainly....you know where that is as well as I. But it most certainly aint the Grand Canyon!

This is also contradiction. A BH is a spacetime concept and it includes singularities not an object inside EH. So as soon as you say singularity does not exist and a surface of sort exits at or below Planck's level. You are screwing up the definition of a BH. It hardly matters if inside the EH, an object of 1 Km exists or 10^-35 Meter size exists, both kill the very definition of a BH, pl understand this....

No again, and again you have been informed of the error in your thinking. The premise or concept for a BH is simply the Schwarzchild radius or EH.
Think about it.

 

[paddoboy]

Black Hole Singularity is a fairy tale !!
You have realized this but you can't let it go, simply because your very existence on this forum will be at stake.....

Rajesh, really you are being childish.
What is a fairy tale is wholly your concept of 20th/21st century cosmology, particularly on BHs.
And to infer that will affect my existence on this forum, once again just reflects on the hyper-inflated ego.
I realise the truth can sometimes hurt, but when you spread nonsense, I must apply that truth.

 

[RajeshTrivedi]

And of course that does not mean one has to accept the point singularity, as this is outside the domain of GR.
Hope that helps.

You need to show some intelligence.....

The singularity is a pathological child of GR equations, it is not predicted by QM or QTG or even Newtonian. GR produced this illegitimate child called singularity and now you are saying that this is outside the domain of GR. Wow !! How convenient or lack of understanding ?

 

[RajeshTrivedi]

No again, and again you have been informed of the error in your thinking. The premise or concept for a BH is simply the Schwarzchild radius or EH.
Think about it.

After 13 years or so on forums, if you do not know the actual concept behind BH, then how may I help you, Sir ?

 

[paddoboy]

You need to show some intelligence.....

The singularity is a pathological child of GR equations, it is not predicted by QM or QTG or even Newtonian. GR produced this illegitimate child called singularity and now you are saying that this is outside the domain of GR. Wow !! How convenient or lack of understanding ?

Take it easy Rajesh. Most of your threads have either been moved or closed due to the unscientific, nonsensical nature of them.
GR predicts its own downfall at the point singularity, no matter how much you want to create a song and dance about it.
In fact GR fails before the classical point singularity comes into vogue.
GR has stood the test for 100 years and its parameters and zone of applicability is well known.
It most 100% certainly will not be invalidated by you or the likes of you, on any science forum.
You need to get out into the big wide world and do the research at the coal front.
That will teach you many lessons, not the least being that science/cosmology stands on the scientific method, peer review and the proper research.

 

[Daecon]

You need to show some intelligence.....

The singularity is a pathological child of GR equations, it is not predicted by QM or QTG or even Newtonian. GR produced this illegitimate child called singularity and now you are saying that this is outside the domain of GR. Wow !! How convenient or lack of understanding ?

So what's your idea? If singularities aren't real, then what's inside a black hole?

 

[paddoboy]

After 13 years or so on forums, if you do not know the actual concept behind BH, then how may I help you, Sir ?

Look into a mirror?
Realize that it is you that has had your model and your paper totally demoralised? Realise that it is the EH [Schwarzchild radius] that initially defines a BH? and much much more!.

 

[RajeshTrivedi]

Take it easy Rajesh. Most of your threads have either been moved or closed due to the unscientific, nonsensical nature of them.
GR predicts its own downfall at the point singularity, no matter how much you want to create a song and dance about it.
In fact GR fails before the classical point singularity comes into vogue.
GR has stood the test for 100 years and its parameters and zone of applicability is well known.
It most 100% certainly will not be invalidated by you or the likes of you, on any science forum.
You need to get out into the big wide world and do the research at the coal front.
That will teach you many lessons, not the least being that science/cosmology stands on the scientific method, peer review and the proper research.

You do not understand what you write !!

 

[paddoboy]

You do not understand what you write !!

Sure I do.
You and your threads have been totally refuted, moved and/or closed down, due to your misunderstandings.
I certainly understand that.
I understand that the EH defines a BH.
I understand that GR defines that once the Schwarzchild radius is reached, that further collapse is compulsory.
I understand perfectly that this rules out any BNS or similar nonsense.

 

[RajeshTrivedi]

Look into a mirror?
Realize that it is you that has had your model and your paper totally demoralised? Realise that it is the EH [Schwarzchild radius] that initially defines a BH? and much much more!.

You are talking in support of my paper, although unknowingly and unwittingly....

Your stand is that instead of singularity an object of degenerate mass and of the size of Plack's Level may exist, you my call that as BPS (Black Planck's Star)

what I said that an object of Neutron Mass and of some size may exist, I called that as BNS (Black Neutron Star).


PS: It is not that I need a your support, it just eliminates the nuisance value.