Are all dissenting voices cranky ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
People who have poor or no understanding and act smart, they are generally brushed aside by me.
Wow! Standing in front of that mirror again...How narcissistic of you! :rolleyes:
That too after I give them sufficient opportunity to present their views cogently
I, others on this forum, expert professionals, and the scientific world in general, have always presented the best application of the scientific method available, and the models/theories that stem from experiments and observations: You simply reject anything that closes the opportunity to slip in you god of the gaps.
 
I am very happy to see this thread has taken an upward swing and in particular THE GOD is managing his anger very well and being respectful. He is to be complimented. I hope this is a new dawn for him.
Alex
 
Wow! Standing in front of that mirror again...How narcissistic of you! :rolleyes:

I, others on this forum, expert professionals, and the scientific world in general, have always presented the best application of the scientific method available, and the models/theories that stem from experiments and observations: You simply reject anything that closes the opportunity to slip in you god of the gaps.

Hmmmm....

That maybe true pad .

The thing is , is this ; when do the professionals of the other side get their experiments funded ?
 
Last time I checked, 4/3 was higher than 9/8. You can probably confirm this for yourself. I suggest consulting the work of Smoller.


Then it seems you have a problem to solve. What could possibly stop the stellar collapse due to gravity?

Also, please tell me: what do you think active galactic nuclei are, if not black holes?

Well that's how the results are, 4/3 being higher than 9/8.

Your argument, as I understand, that look AGN are there and their process is linked with existence of Black Holes, so BH must be there. This is more or less similar to Paddoboy argument that look GWs have been detected of 2 BHs mergers, so BH must be there.

These are not the infallible evidences of existence of Black Holes.

I get a feeling and your questions suggest a general understanding of the subject, that is not sufficient to counter me on this.
 
Paddoboy,

You copy pasted a link with red highlight by you that once Buchdahl limit comes, the star collapses to form a BH.

Please define the word 'collapse' in this context.....you will see that it is fishy.
 
Your condescending, Dunning-Kruger bullshit is tiresome.

You need a patient hearing.

I did not make any condescending comments about James R questioning, I just pointed out the apparent problem with his line of questioning. His questioning is toned towards finding a problem with my argument, his foundation was that I am wrong, he was showing an attempt to build a case against my argument, but for that what is required is more than general understanding of the subject. But there are ample signatures in his questioning which suggest that he has no understanding beyond general aspect. Nothing wrong in that but it does not gel with his objective of questioning. I give you some examples..

1. He was not aware of use of SMBH for Super Massive Black Hole, even though the same are in news recently.
2. He was questioning about P and pho, it should have gone smooth if he was into this subject.
3. He expressed the general science sound speed formula that is Bulk Modulus based, suggesting lack of understanding at high density approaching or higher than nuclear density.
4. He expressed his suprise over 4/3R being higher than 9/8R, suggesting he was not conversant about this apparently anomalous aspect. He is right 9/8R is for infinite central pressure and 4/3R is about subluminal speed, so ideally the values should be reversed, but then thats how they are.
5. Then he introduced AGN, wholly irrelevant to the context. We still do not fully understand the cause or mechanism behind AGN.

This prompted me to say that he is talking from the general understanding, which is not sufficient to counter.

I do not make an adverse statement for the sake of making it, it has a cause behind.
 
Paddoboy,

You copy pasted a link with red highlight by you that once Buchdahl limit comes, the star collapses to form a BH.

Please define the word 'collapse' in this context.....you will see that it is fishy.
Nothing fishy at all, except [1] your once admittance to believing in a god and then a denial of that myth, [2] Your total and complete misunderstanding of 21st century cosmology, BH's and in this case the fact that the Buchdahl limit does not invalidate BH's. Although in your favour, you are in free thoughts.
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience...ere_a_limit_on_how_bigdense_an_object_can_be/
There exists a limit, called the Buchdahl limit, which describes the maximum amount of mass that can exist in a sphere before the sphere must undergo gravitational collapse to a black hole.

If a spherically symmetric star has mass M and radius R, then the limit is

R > RB = 9GM/4c2

If a star in equilibrium with mass M and radius RB is given a spherically symmetric push inward, the star has no choice but to collapse inwards and eventually become a black hole. The star never reaches a steady state again.

You will often read or hear that if an object is contained within its Schwarzschild radius RS = 2GM/c2, then it will become a black hole. Although that is a true statement, it is misleading. The inevitable collapse occurs once the object is within its Buchdahl radius, which is slightly larger than the Schwarzschild radius.

That answers how big an object can be. Your question about a maximum density is now easily answered. The average density of a spherical star is

ρ = kM/R3

where k = 3/(4π). The density itself must satisfy the inequality

ρ < kM/RB3 = K/M2

where K is some constant. Insofar that the mass M can be arbitrarily small, the average density can be arbitrarily large. So there is no limit.

Or how much gravity it produces?

This question can be interpreted in a number of ways. If by "gravity" you mean the curvature (i.e., the Ricci scalar), then that can be arbitrarily large. At the center of a spherically symmetric star of constant density, the curvature behaves like 1/(M-4R/9). The Buchdahl limit is M>4R/9, so this curvature is always positive, but it can be arbitrarily large for stars close to the Buchdahl limit. Of course, for a Schwarzschild black hole, the curvature is infinite at the singularity.​


You need a patient hearing.
You obviously need urgent treatment for delusions of grandeur.
1. He was not aware of use of SMBH for Super Massive Black Hole, even though the same are in news recently.
An acronym is an acronym.
You in your crusade here were also not aware of terms such as "spaghettification" although an every day common usage with BH conversations....You were also unaware of GR demanding compulsory collapse once Schwarzchild radius is breached.....and unaware of the application of Planck realm, and unaware that tidal gravitational effects will overcome all forces including the strong nuclear force as one approaches the center of a BH. Need I say anymore re your ignorance?
 
Last edited:
Paddoboy,

First of all SMBH is not an acronym..

Rest of your post is duplication of earlier copy paste and some unsupported nonsense as usual.
 
Paddoboy,

First of all SMBH is not an acronym..
I know this is free thoughts my friend but really, how much are you going to delve into fairy tales?
acronym:
a word formed fr om the initial letters or groups of letters of words ina set phrase or series of words and pronounced as a separate word,as Wac from Women's Army Corps, OPEC from Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, or loran from long-range navigation.
2.
a set of initials representing a name, organization, or the like, witheach letter pronounced separately; an initialism.

Super Massive Black Hole: = SMBH :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:


Rest of your post is duplication of earlier copy paste and some unsupported nonsense as usual.
Duplicate maybe, but totally supported by the expert professionals, mainstream and science in general.
You are pissing into the wind again. :)
 
So pronounce SMBH...Anyways take this to linguistic section, they will teach you, what is an acronym....

Just define "collapse" beyond 9/8R...
 
Your are doing very well TG I am very impressed how you are presenting yourself.
Pity I am on your ignore and you will not get to read my compliment.
Alex
 
So pronounce SMBH...Anyways take this to linguistic section, they will teach you, what is an acronym....

Just define "collapse" beyond 9/8R...
Why not just be man enough to admit you were totally wrong again, instead of trying to side step the issue.
Is that too much to ask of a supposed adult?
SMBH = Super Massive Black Hole!
I suppose though as obviously english is your second language, I should not be too hard on you. :smile:
 
Why not just be man enough to admit you were totally wrong again, instead of trying to side step the issue.
Is that too much to ask of a supposed adult?
SMBH = Super Massive Black Hole!
I suppose though as obviously english is your second language, I should not be too hard on you. :smile:

See, even if English is your first language, there is no guarantee that you are knowledheable in that......why don't you take it up in linguistic section and see for yourself, how shallow you are in English.
 
See, even if English is your first language, there is no guarantee that you are knowledheable in that......why don't you take it up in linguistic section and see for yourself, how shallow you are in English.
No need to my friend. It is as I have said, and this of course is just another side step from other issues you have constantly floundered in. :D
 
You in your crusade here were also not aware of terms such as "spaghettification" although an every day common usage with BH conversations....You were also unaware of GR demanding compulsory collapse once Schwarzchild radius is breached.....and unaware of the application of Planck realm, and unaware that tidal gravitational effects will overcome all forces including the strong nuclear force as one approaches the center of a BH. Need I say anymore re your ignorance?
Well yes, just one more....
You also denied the common knowledge of BH's and the "No Hair Theorm" and that a BH can only ever have three properties...Mass, Spin, and Charge.
 
You're far too kind Alex: The force/agenda is strong in this one, to the point of lunacy.
Thank you Paddoboy I am happy to be kind and happy he is presenting with some degree of control.
He can push whatever he likes as far as I am concerned so long as he drops the dummy spits and the bad behaviour, and whatever his motive or agenda at least present it with clear points and an honest account. I learn nothing when its a personal slugging match so my motives are for personal gain and given I can probably sling mud with the best of folk there is not much to learn for me when itcomes to talking trash. But when the arguement is on science I am all ears, and even from this thread I learn or confirm earlier impressions.
And I simply hope it stays on science with no dummy spits.
Hope all is well even though you know who will get back you know where and raise you know what to 15%
I have not looked maybe later.
Spent 30 minutes doing an absentee vote they could not find where I lived I told them my electorate but not good enough we have to check the map... Oh we dont have a map.. Ring someone.. He cant tell either.... 30 minutes later they take my word for my electorate... Hope my one vote counts it cost me a lotta time.
Alex
 
Rpenner,

Either pl educate Paddoboy on this 'SMBH' not being an acronym or create a new thread. I will suggest the title..."Paddoboy thinks and insists that SMBH is an acronym".

You have created such threads for others, why not for him ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top