Are all dissenting voices cranky ?

[paddoboy]

[1] Spaghettification,

This is popo for kids like you.

As the forum is aware I'm sure, your "modus operandi" is always to write off anything contradicting your pseudoscience view of cosmology as "pop science"
And of course pop science does not equal wrong, whereas pseudoscience and crankdom most certainly does.

[2] Schwarzchild radius and compulsory collapse,

No stable system can go or remain inside that.

More religiously driven pseudoscience crank nonsense.

[3] tidal gravity effects overcoming the strong nuclear force,

This is also popo....Tidal gravity forces are not so strong till NS, beyond that it is pure speculation.

No, just more application of GR and logical assumptions as supported by the professional experts.

[4] Photons emitted directly radially away hovering forever in local FoR

This is your Hamilton popo.

More desperation tactics and continued stupidity, driven by your religious agenda.

[4] futilty of speaking of BH density, and probably a few more you were totally ignorant of.

If you understand what volume you are considering, there is no issue. But you don't know what the volume is even if radius is given.

Well since even your own nominated expert Q-reeus has seen the need to pull you up on that, we'll take that with a grain of salt as is needed with all you preach to the forum.
Your failure is of course, that you cannot understand that a BH is near all just simply critically curved spacetime as directed by GR, the Schwarzchild radius and compulsory collapse.

[5]"No Hair Theorem"and that a BH can only ever have three properties...Mass, Spin, and Charge.

Another nonsense as BH cannot exist in nature. I do not care how you keep your BH, shaved or bearded.

Observational data and your own total lack of ability to explain anything else that can explain those observations, means that yes, BH's are near certain, and your own emotional inspired denial is just plain illogical and inane.

 

[paddoboy]

Whatever you talk inside EH will be speculative unobservable stuff. As far as I am concerned it is non sense as no mass can get into its Schwarzschild radius.

As far as I am concerned!
Now we are getting somewhere. In other words in your own unsupported, irrational, agenda laden, religiously inspired, god of the gaps pseudoscience.
And that my dearest friend, is why this thread of yours is in "free thoughts" and your other threads in the fringes also.

 

[paddoboy]

With black hole there is no possibility of reasonable assumption. Once the material goes inside its Schwarzschild radius, the time becomes spatial and it must go to r =0, thats what GR says. So singularity is an integral part of GR. GR cannot claim that look it will not form into singularity and it will halt at r = some x.

In your own agenda driven ignorant opinion that is.
Simply put the EH where escape velocity equals "c", and also where GR tells us that the Schwarzchild radius is reached and further collapse is compulsory, denotes what we know of as a BH.
While that "compulsory collapse" edict most certainly logically denotes a point singularity, we must all remember [that means you too] that GR is not applicable at the center where this point singularity should reside, and in fact is not applicable at the quantum realm in general and probably around 10-35 mtrs from the exact center [the mathematically derived Planck length]

So Black Holes and all the work around black holes, are guided by the existence of that unavoidable singularity. We cannot say something else is there. Thats why I said you cannot take a position that singularity is bad but BH is confirmed. This is laughable.

No, just as I have informed you, and as you have been informed of many times in this thread and others, where you have decided to run your god driven,evangelistic crusade against science and cosmology. What defines a BH is the EH, escape velocity, Schwarzchild radius and compulsory collapse.
The mathematically derived point singularity is simply where GR is not applicable.

 

[paddoboy]

Mouth-watering. That makes my sardine and tomato sandwich look so wimpy. I may add some sliced radish to make it more exotic.

I actually love my Sardines!
But yeah, man, nothing better then freshly caught and cooked prawns with boiled mango juice for breaky.

 

[paddoboy]

MY BOLD is the telling part.
So, your telling people you still think Xelasnave is what you implied in the first place...so the apology was a sham. You really are a foul minded 'person'.

Of course it was a sham! Any apology with conditions attached is a sham.
He will though [in his mind] need to face his mythical imaginary spaghetti monster in time to explain his foul actions, not only in this case but others also.
IMO, a person making such unsupported disgusting allegations, probably himself needs watching.

 

[rpenner]

But before that I urge you to go through the work of Joel Smoller and Blake Temple on possibility of gravitational collapse.

Rpenner surely knows it and he understands the violation.

That's not a proper citation or form of argument.

Oh ! Sorry, I did not notice that a person of your calibre has dismissed Smoller and Blake ! What a joke you are !!

So, we continue with causality violation.

The first limit is model independent is Buchdahl limit. It is 9/8 * Schwarzschild radius, that is a star can be stable only if its radius is greater than 9/8 times higher than its EH, the other limit comes from taking the subluminal speed for sound, this limit comes as 4/3 time the EH.

In both these cases, the stability point comes when the star is still bigger than its Schwarzschild radius, suggesting that it cannot collapse to form a BH.

That's an invalid form of argument. The Buchdahl Stability theorem demonstrates that there can be no stable, spherically symmetric star below a characteristic radius determined by it's total mass.

Obtaining the Buchdahl Stability limit is straightforward given the Tolmann-Oppenheimer- Volkoff equations. The criterion says that the radius $$R$$ of the star is:

$$R \geq \frac{9}{8} R_S$$​

where $$\frac{9}{8} R_S$$ is the Schwarzschild radius. One thing to note is that this stability criterion does not depend on any equation of state relating $$p$$ and $$\epsilon$$. This stability theorem relies on the following:

• The density, $$\epsilon_0$$, and the pressure $$p_0$$ at the center of the star must be finite
• The density must decrease as a function of $$r$$, i.e. $$\epsilon'(r)$$ must be negative while inside the star
• The density must be zero outside the star’s radius $$R$$
• $$e^{\nu_0}$$ and $$e^{\lambda_0}$$ must be positive

which are all reasonable assumptions for a stable star.​

https://www.math.ucdavis.edu/~temple/AsadLodiaSummer2011.pdf

Thus every star less than this radius is unstable. There is no return to equilibrium.

Thats why I said...

1. Study polytropes or refer to the work of Smoller etc..

2. Causality cannot be violated, you cannot have a condition where star goes below 9/8 or 4/3 whichever is higher. I cannot tell you what happens, but it can't. Journey from this limit to R or to r = 0, is not possible. Black Hole cannot form.

Not according to Smoller and Temple.
https://www.math.ucdavis.edu/~temple/!!!PubsForWeb/cv50.pdf
According to them, to have a stable star with $$ r_s \lt R \lt \frac{9}{8} r_s $$ you need negative mass at the center of the star. And not just negative mass but a central object of zero radius and finite negative central mass. Therefore, Smoller and Temple have not disproven the Buchdahl theorem but have extended it for a case that Buchdahl ignored — a universe where negative gravitational mass exists. Therefore, in the absence of a demonstration that such infinitely dense negative masses exist and form naturally in collapsing stars, the work of Buchdahl, Smoller and Temple demonstrate that there are no stable stars below $$\frac{9}{8} r_s $$.

 

[paddoboy]

Here's a pretty lengthy run down on BH's and Singularities, which supports and explains why the varied issues that the god has denied and written off as pop science, is indeed just simply a cop out and an example of total ignorance and avoidance of the evidence available.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spacetime-singularities/#BreGenRel

If needed I will reference various sections as required.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

I do not fail to present my case, pl desist from teaching tidal force or tensile force. These are general physics concepts, but quite a novelty for those who are not exposed to basics like you and paddoboy

Clearly you present no arguement as you fail the most basic aspects of laying out what you are talking about.

Try appearing in a court, before a committee or any form of body where adults present propositions of any kind an try blurting out....
Spaghettification, This is popo for kids like you.
Do you think you would be taken seriously?

And you hold the delusion you are clever and yet you do all in your power to show you are a fool.

I posted something on the subject and you throw your childish tantrum.

Why should we believe you when you say you are an adult male when you continuely act like a spoilt teenager trying to show off and pretending he is an adult.

Your various attempts at being a grown up fail miserably.

You are not who you pretend to be and your act is transparent.
You talk like a kid, you act like a kid, why should we believe you are not a kid.

You say you retired yet you never talk with pride of your former profession.... Who retires and does not talk about what they once did with pride. I dont have to say more because forum members will put together how you dont add up.

Then you hint that you give it away..... No one says that. If you claim that you give it away is supposed to have us think you are doing charitable donations are you unaware folk who give dont not mention it.. Of course a foolish kid has yet to learn that. You cant argue anything you have proved that to me such that there is not a shadow of a doubt in my mind.

You grunt out.
Spaghettification,

This is popo for kids like you.

And this is an arguement??????

Grunting like an ape does not cut it, now run around your cage and squeal and throw fistfulls of straw and your own crap come back rattle the bars and beat your chest.
Your arguement and attempt to fool us is pathetic.

You are a toy members play with when they are bored and now I have let the cat out of the bag that we know more about you than you think.

Present a reasonable management of my question if you can and show us you can do more than grunt and squeal.
Have a good day and work on your act I know who you are, I know you are not who you pretend to be. You bite on smelly baits which shows you are a little fish unsckilled in adult arguement.
Whilst you behave badly I am going to give you stick. Just remember I am trying to help you so dont weep this is all about helping you grow up and become an adult.
Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

This is laughable

Your inability to understand a singularity is past laughable.
You remind me of that mythical nutter attacking windmills.
Work out what they mean and your perceived problem should fade.
It is so simple you miss it.
Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

So Black Holes and all the work around black holes, are guided by the existence of that unavoidable singularity. We cannot say something else is there. Thats why I said you cannot take a position that singularity is bad but BH is confirmed. This is laughable.

What is laughable is you just dont get it.
Our current models talk to us and tell us what we can expect.
What you need to come up with is a better model.

If you can do that everyone will be happy but in this world you put up or shut up.
If you think you can beat the pool champ dont just run around boasting and beating your chest, just quietly step up put your money on the table and win the game. Then and only then will the crowd call you the champ. You call yourself the champ and you cant even point the stick at a ball.
Put up or shut up... Dont like it well do a few more laps of your cage, throw some straw beat your chest rattle the bars and avoid facing the reality.
Alex

 

[The God]

If you had presented your case then one of two situations would exist:
1. Persuaded by your use of evidence, theory and logic your readers would agree that you are correct.
2. You argument would be deconstructed and its most prominent weakness highlighted.

There is no evidence of the first and only ephemeral indications of the second, insufficient to consider it probable. We are therefore left with the conclusion that what you think of as presenting a case is a concatenation of bluster, bullshit, blunders, bombast and braggadocio.

I thought you were getting to the point. The current point highlights what are the physical laws which get violated by the existence of Black Holes.


And please note Buchdahl limit is in the mainframe phyisics.

So my case is that if a stable star cannot exist bellow 9/8Rs, then where is the possibility of Black Hole formation. Rpenner too agrees to the instability aspect below these limits.

So now the argument should boiled down to a simple English word ...stable star...what I am saying is are we required to play with the word 'stable' to keep the concept of BH alive.

 

[The God]

Alex,

There are clear and visible spelling mistakes in your posts, many of them cannot be attributed to smart phone usage or hurried typing.

Your argument is also not forceful, you claim to be a trained lawyer, you should know that a good lawyer will never get personal in his arguments even under extreme provocation. Its amply clear that you have no idea about the subject in hand, but you are failing in your claim that you were the best lawyer, who never lost a single case. Some moot court arguments ?

 

[The God]

That's an invalid form of argument. The Buchdahl Stability theorem demonstrates that there can be no stable, spherically symmetric star below a characteristic radius determined by it's total mass.

Obtaining the Buchdahl Stability limit is straightforward given the Tolmann-Oppenheimer- Volkoff equations. The criterion says that the radius $$R$$ of the star is:

$$R \geq \frac{9}{8} R_S$$​

where $$\frac{9}{8} R_S$$ is the Schwarzschild radius. One thing to note is that this stability criterion does not depend on any equation of state relating $$p$$ and $$\epsilon$$. This stability theorem relies on the following:

• The density, $$\epsilon_0$$, and the pressure $$p_0$$ at the center of the star must be finite
• The density must decrease as a function of $$r$$, i.e. $$\epsilon'(r)$$ must be negative while inside the star
• The density must be zero outside the star’s radius $$R$$
• $$e^{\nu_0}$$ and $$e^{\lambda_0}$$ must be positive

which are all reasonable assumptions for a stable star.​

https://www.math.ucdavis.edu/~temple/AsadLodiaSummer2011.pdf

Thus every star less than this radius is unstable. There is no return to equilibrium.


Not according to Smoller and Temple.
https://www.math.ucdavis.edu/~temple/!!!PubsForWeb/cv50.pdf
According to them, to have a stable star with $$ r_s \lt R \lt \frac{9}{8} r_s $$ you need negative mass at the center of the star. And not just negative mass but a central object of zero radius and finite negative central mass. Therefore, Smoller and Temple have not disproven the Buchdahl theorem but have extended it for a case that Buchdahl ignored — a universe where negative gravitational mass exists. Therefore, in the absence of a demonstration that such infinitely dense negative masses exist and form naturally in collapsing stars, the work of Buchdahl, Smoller and Temple demonstrate that there are no stable stars below $$\frac{9}{8} r_s $$.

So every star below these limits is unstable. Then how does a BH form from accretion of mass by an NS ?

 

[paddoboy]

Alex,
There are clear and visible spelling mistakes in your posts, many of them cannot be attributed to smart phone usage or hurried typing.

Also in yours.....

So my case is that if a stable star cannot exist bellow 9/8Rs, .

So my case is that if a stable star cannot exist bellow 9/8Rs, then where is the possibility of Black Hole formation. Rpenner too agrees to the instability aspect below these limits.

So every star below these limits is unstable. Then how does a BH form from accretion of mass by an NS ?

A BH is not a star....It has no surface to speak of and which we can point to...It is a stellar remnant.
Other than your free thoughts, BH's remain as overwhelmingly supported and evidenced by most normal logical thinking people.
Oh, and again, a singularity does not define a BH.

 

[paddoboy]

I would also suggest that any Neutron star rotation [more likely than not] would support a higher mass than a non rotating one.
And of course that possible likely extra step between Neutron star and BH formation, ie a Quark star.
While these aspects of cosmology encompass some assumptions, [maximum mass, limits etc] the more positive aspect that BH's themselves are near certain to exist, is overwhelming.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Alex,

There are clear and visible spelling mistakes in your posts, many of them cannot be attributed to smart phone usage or hurried typing.

Your argument is also not forceful, you claim to be a trained lawyer, you should know that a good lawyer will never get personal in his arguments even under extreme provocation. Its amply clear that you have no idea about the subject in hand, but you are failing in your claim that you were the best lawyer, who never lost a single case. Some moot court arguments ?

Thats more like it get your hands dirty and sling some mud.
I type with one finger on a smart phone and near 70 years do you think I give a damn.
Dealing with you I do not see a need to be careful with spelling, grammmar or sound tactics.
There is nothing in your game that causes me to play my full game. Mindyou I am not the fella I once was but that is in your favour because it is only in my advanced years and current boredom that I waste my time trying to train you up.
Your responce tells me you realise that I have you pegged and so you try to put on a front that you really are mature.. You fall into traps I dont even set.
Your fishy comments give you away... Just letting you know how the use of one word tells a story.
So what is your difficulty with the gravitational distortion. Do you say such does not exist at all... I suspect the effect could be observed in any gravitational field strong or weak. Would you agree or not, if not why not. If you just thinks it is silly thats ok I already suspect that is your position but I would welcome something better.
And it is you who is the pretender, I dont pretend I know much on cosmology or math or how to manage a spell checker or that I care about grammar these days. I dont pretend I am infallible I dont pretend I have a mysterious past and present. But you pretend. You make out to be something you are not.. You are not infallible, you are not particularly knowledgeable about cosmology and you are not that sharp to avoid traps and smelly baits.
But if you pretend to others you no doubt pretend to yourself.
Now as I have told you when you misbehave I will give you the stick.
And feel free to point out anything you like but stick to the truth.
So are you going to answer or fall into traps and take smelly baits.
Discussion will be good for the both of us.
Again thanks for helping me take my mind off my feet and legs.
It is kind of you to chat with an old man.
And I thought you pointing out I should be cool was very good that is more or less what I have been trying to teach you grasshopper.
If you dont mind I little preaching take your advice to me and apply it to your approach. Learn to turn the other cheek and dont respond to smelly baits as you get older being able to focus on being calm will help you grately in life which I hope there is a lot left for you to enjoy.
Alex

 

[paddoboy]

What is laughable is you just dont get it.
Our current models talk to us and tell us what we can expect.
What you need to come up with is a better model.

If you can do that everyone will be happy but in this world you put up or shut up.
If you think you can beat the pool champ dont just run around boasting and beating your chest, just quietly step up put your money on the table and win the game. Then and only then will the crowd call you the champ. You call yourself the champ and you cant even point the stick at a ball.
Put up or shut up... Dont like it well do a few more laps of your cage, throw some straw beat your chest rattle the bars and avoid facing the reality.
Alex

I love your analogies! In physics one must be careful to realise that analogies have limitations. Your analogies though, hit directly home!
The names the god is raising, the issues and such like Smoller and Temple and the Buchdahl theorem, do not in anyway invalidate GR or BH's.
It's our friend searching for any sign of a hole, or weak point, then slip in some of the more less known aspects of BH/stellar cosmology, putting his own unsupported, fabricated take on things, and then as you say, "beating his chest" and exclaiming that look, BH's cannot exist!
Experts, many thousands of them, over the last 100 years, have been researching continually, and testing continually, the predictions of Einstein's GR and the BH aspect.
And so far they have a score of AAA+, particularly since the aLIGO observational experiments!

 

[The God]

Thats more like it get your hands dirty and sling some mud.
I type with one finger on a smart phone and near 70 years do you think I give a damn.

Again age card ? Its already encashed.

There is nothing in your game that causes me to play my full game.

Oh !

boredom that I waste my time trying to train you up.

train me !!

Your responce tells me you realise that I have you pegged and so you try to put on a front that you really are mature.. You fall into traps I dont even set.

Thats what you have been doing all along. Trapping. That proves me right about you.

So what is your difficulty with the gravitational distortion. Do you say such does not exist at all... I suspect the effect could be observed in any gravitational field strong or weak. Would you agree or not, if not why not. If you just thinks it is silly thats ok I already suspect that is your position but I would welcome something better.

Its amply clear that you are not conversant with the subject so cannot be engaged in any fruitful dialog on this.

and you are not that sharp to avoid traps and smelly baits.

may be, I am not. You have almost half a century experience of trapping people. But I caught you for what you are and you admitted that you trap people. Hermit and goody goody Alex tag flys off.

Now as I have told you when you misbehave I will give you the stick.

You lied about stick last time; age gracefully old man, Leave this trapping business at least now when you are beyond 70.

And feel free to point out anything you like but stick to the truth.

I always stick to truth. No trappings, no falsehood, like you.

Discussion will be good for the both of us.

I dont think so, because you are not learning even when you admit you know nothing about the subject.

Again thanks for helping me take my mind off my feet and legs.

Please do not bring health or age card everytime. I do not sympathise with people, those who seek sympathy based on age or health they should not rough participate. I surely empathise with you for any health issues you have. May God give you relief from any pain or burning you have. The health issues can inflict anyone.

It is kind of you to chat with an old man.

Unfortunately you are not behaving like one. If you do, you get my respect and patient hearing. You are siding with nuts who are trolling, still you expect that I be kind with you.

 

[The God]

And so far they have a score of AAA+, particularly since the aLIGO observational experiments!

Since you are so much in love with aLIGO conclusion..

Observation is something which cannot be disputed. The question is conclusion based on these observations.

What have they concluded..

A. That two BHs of around 30 Solar Mass in orbit with each other at a distance of 1.3 bly merged and this merger released an energy of around 3 Solar Mass, and created such a strong ripple in the curvature of spacetime that it was detected by an interferometer through a path difference of the size less than that of proton.

Now to extablish this conclusion, we need to establish something else before that...

1. Existence of two BHs orbiting each other.
2. Mind you formation of BH takes lot of time, so how could two BHs formed at such close proximity, in all likelyhood if one had formed before the other one, it would not have allowed the second one to form, nearby.
3. So that leads to a possibility, that at the time of formation of one BH, somehow the collapsing object, got split and we had twins BH, but then problem comes how they acquired a binary orbit.
4. Another consideration is that both BHs were formed distance apart and somehow came together and got into binary orbit. This hypo also has a problem that by the time two BHs come nearby, expecting any binary orbit formation under such extreme gravitation is expeting a bit too much.Moreover such long distance travel by a BH would have left many signatures.


And now these guys are claiming that there are hundreds of such binary BHs...so it is called upon them to first establish that how two BHs can come in binary configuration. Unless and untill this done, this premises is establihsed, any conclusion will be just playing with maths on computer.

Can you respond logically on these points without calling names ?

 

[Daecon]

Why, exactly, do you think that the people who have studied this stuff for years for their careers don't know what they're talking about?

And why, exactly, do you think anyone should believe that you know better than these people?