John T. Nordberg's theory...

[paddoboy]

Since you are declaring that I am wrong, can you please answer the question in #193. You are running away from answering a direct question. I.must know what's your unambiguous stand on this density issue.

No, you are declaring I am wrong as well as others here.
You are also running away from giving any citation/link or reference supporting your claim re BH's and density.
Let me again put it another way, although I suspect you will continue to obfuscate.....
Squeeze the mass of the Earth to within the radius of a pea.....guess what? The density is such that the Earth becomes a BH.
Squeeze the mass of the sun to within a radius of 2.5 kms...guess what? The density would be such that the Sun would become a BH.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Astro/blkhol.html


http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/ph...-what-is-the-density-of-a-black-hole-advanced


http://physicsforidiots.com/space/black-holes/

You have claimed many things in the past, contrary to accepted mainstream cosmology, yet like at least two others, you will never, or cannot ever support your claims.
I ask you again......
if you claim anything different then what I have said, then please supply a reputable citation.

 

[paddoboy]

Although I have attempted to explain it before to rajish, I suspect that he is getting totally confused as detailed.......
For stellar mass BH's, the average density is humungously high and has a G force and tidal force that will rip almost anything apart at the BH EH.
Yet, the average density decreases dramatically for far more massive BH's eg: A BH of 400 million solar masses would have the average density of water.
BH's in the order of billions of solar masses, would have the density of air.
This is why speaking of the density of BH's is really a meaningless concept, as most of us know, that essentially a BH is just critically curved spacetime, with the mass collapsed to a small region at the core, with subsequently huge density and thereby the curvature out to the EH, that sets the parameters of the BH.

 

[RajeshTrivedi]

For stellar mass BH's, the average density is humungously high...

Yet, the average density decreases dramatically for far more massive BH's eg: A BH of 400 million solar masses would have the average density of water.
BH's in the order of billions of solar masses, would have the density of air.
.

This is precisely what I said 10 pages ago on this thread. There is no certain density value for BH formation, but there is certain value for M/R.

 

[paddoboy]

This is precisely what I said 10 pages ago on this thread. There is no certain density value for BH formation, but there is certain value for M/R.

I now believe you are back tracking and playing games....
No one has ever denied the fact that talking of BH density is meaningless, because the mass/density exists only at the singularity core...the rest of the BH is just critically curved spacetime..
But for any BH to form, it must reach a certain density [its Schwarzchild radius] Once that happens, and as the god had trouble accepting, further collapse as dictated by GR is compulsory.

 

[paddoboy]

Not counting your whinging posts and your posts attacking James the following was the post of yours I and others answered at 147.......

For all,
No 'certain density' is required for black hole formation. For a BH defining density is meaningful only when object is just at EH and about to collapse to form BH. At this point an object can have any density, from as high as nuclear to as low as near vacuum. The condition is that it's mass should fall within its schwarzschild radius, at this point density of the object is inversely proportional to mass squared. Higher the mass, lesser density and vice versa.

Except that this is all bullshit. One has to have a certain amount of mass in a certain volume (and without too much outward pressure). That's density!

my reply at 151:

Total ignorant nonsense rajish and of course PhysBang is correct!
While the density of any BH is virtually a meaningless concept, the density of the mass causing the spacetime curvature, up to and including the EH, is not.
That density of course lies at what GR tells us is the Singularity, and where densities and spacetime curvatures approach infinity.
Plus of course you are also incorrect re your fabricated version of events at the EH. That density by definition and in line with GR, needs to be such that the escape velocity equals "c"
No amount of confusing obfuscation will change that fact.

This is similar methodolgy to what you have used before in making unsupported claims, such as your BNS and other threads of yours that were moved to the fringes.
I ask you again, to support what you say about density and BH formation, with reputable links or citations.

 

[RajeshTrivedi]

Paddoboy;

I see nothing wrong in whatever I stated, as taken in quote by you in #205. Can you tell me what's wrong in that?

Physbang made a statement which implied that certain density is required for BH formation, you supported it. Then James R tried to push linear Mass density for a sphere, which is meaningless.

I am again stating that for BH to form for an object at EH, M/r needs to be = to certain value which is independent of mass. Density at EH can be any value depending on the mass.

 

[paddoboy]

Paddoboy;

I see nothing wrong in whatever I stated, as taken in quote by you in #205. Can you tell me what's wrong in that?

Physbang made a statement which implied that certain density is required for BH formation, you supported it. Then James R tried to push linear Mass density for a sphere, which is meaningless.

I am again stating that for BH to form for an object at EH, M/r needs to be = to certain value which is independent of mass. Density at EH can be any value depending on the mass.

Perhaps more to the point, you do not want to see anything wrong with what you said.
Certain density is required for BH formation, yes, how many more times do you need to be told.
But the density of the BH once it is formed is a meaningless concept for the reasons already stated.
But obviously you are still avoiding having to support what you claim. Why is that? Another was perm banned for the same avoidance and trolling.
Now again, please support your claim with appropriate reference or link.

Re your other claims, James is a Physicist, PhysBang is and has been a reputable member.
You are not a physicist.

 

[James R]

RajeshTrivedi:

There is no point in responding to you when you continually fail to address the points I raise in my posts, instead just repeating your previous arguments. You're wasting my time.

 

[RajeshTrivedi]

RajeshTrivedi:

There is no point in responding to you when you continually fail to address the points I raise in my posts, instead just repeating your previous arguments. You're wasting my time.

By this post, you are tacitly supporting Paddoboy nonsense.

It's you who have to respond not me. Choice is yours and I am not asking you. You are claiming that linear Mass density is meaningful for sphere, it is not. You are not correcting yourself despite my example of cylinder.

Another aspect which you appear to be supporting is this density dependence for BH formation. An object can have any density at EH depending on its Mass, to be a BH. There is no certain density requirement, in fact M/r need to be certain independent of Mass not M/V.

 

[paddoboy]

By this post, you are tacitly supporting Paddoboy nonsense.

My claims are supported by reputable links, while you continue to dishonestly ignore the requests for links or citations supporting your own nonsense.

Another aspect which you appear to be supporting is this density dependence for BH formation. An object can have any density at EH depending on its Mass, to be a BH. There is no certain density requirement, in fact M/r need to be certain independent of Mass not M/V.

Any mass must reach a density where the escape velocity equals "c" and which we know as the Schwarzchild radius. So yes, for any BH to form, we are most certainly dependent on mass/density.
If you claim differently, then please support your claim with reputable links or references, or is this simply more of the kind of nonsense you were fanatically claiming with your BNS and other even more bizzarre claims now in the fringes?

Let me again make it quite clear........
To speak of density of a BH is really meaningless, because the mass/density exists only at the singularity core...the rest of the BH is just critically curved spacetime out to the EH.....so the density of a SMBH could certainly be less then water: Do you understand?
But for any BH to form, it must reach a certain mass/density dictated by its Schwarzchild radius. Once that happens, further collapse as dictated by GR is compulsory. Do you understand?
So we have two issues which you are conflating, but which are separate issues...BH density, and density associated for a BH to form.

 

[paddoboy]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_radius

Schwarzschild radius (sometimes historically referred to as the gravitational radius) is the radius of a sphere such that, if all the mass of an object were to be compressed within that sphere, the escape velocity from the surface of the sphere would equal the speed of light. An example of an object where the mass is within its Schwarzschild radius is a black hole. Once a stellar remnant collapses to or below this radius, light cannot escape and the object is no longer directly visible, thereby forming a black hole.[1] It is a characteristic radius associated with every quantity of mass. The Schwarzschild radius was named after the German astronomer Karl Schwarzschild, who calculated this exact solution for the theory of general relativity in 1916.

 

[RajeshTrivedi]

Do you understand?
But for any BH to form, it must reach a certain mass/density dictated by its Schwarzchild radius.

Yes, I understand, but do you?
I will write the correct sentence for you, whatever you have written is incorrect.

But for any BH to form, it (the object) must reach a certain radius as dictated by its Mass, and this radius is called schwarzschild radius.

 

[paddoboy]

Yes, I understand, but do you?
I will write the correct sentence for you, whatever you have written is incorrect.

But for any BH to form, it (the object) must reach a certain radius as dictated by its Mass, and this radius is called schwarzschild radius.

Thank you: And to squeeze any mass into any smaller radius means increasing its density.
It appears you are doing as much side stepping and obfuscating here, as you are over there.

 

[paddoboy]

As per usual rajish, I'm now not sure what you are claiming, and obviously neither do some of the members over at that other place.
You appear to be now back tracking from your original claim that

For all,
No 'certain density' is required for black hole formation. For a BH defining density is meaningful only when object is just at EH and about to collapse to form BH. At this point an object can have any density, from as high as nuclear to as low as near vacuum. The condition is that it's mass should fall within its schwarzschild radius, at this point density of the object is inversely proportional to mass squared. Higher the mass, lesser density and vice versa.

Squeeze the mass of the Earth to within the radius of a pea.....guess what? The density is such that the Earth becomes a BH.
Squeeze the mass of the sun to within a radius of 2.5 kms...guess what? The density would be such that the Sun would become a BH.
While the density of any BH is virtually a meaningless concept, the density of the mass causing the spacetime curvature, up to and including the EH, is not, and also the density required to reach the Schwarzchild radius is paramount in BH formation.
The density of the BH once it is formed is another story as I have just said.....That density of course lies at what GR tells us is the Singularity, and where densities and spacetime curvatures approach infinity.
Again, you are also incorrect re your fabricated version of events at the EH. That density by definition and in line with GR, needs to be such that the escape velocity equals "c" as I have detailed.
No amount of confusing obfuscation will change that fact.
Again, to speak of density of a BH is really meaningless, because the mass/density exists only at the singularity core...the rest of the BH is just critically curved spacetime out to the EH.....so the density of a SMBH could certainly be less then water: Do you understand?
But for any BH to form, it must reach a certain mass/density dictated by its Schwarzchild radius. Once that happens, further collapse as dictated by GR is compulsory. Do you understand?
So we have two issues which you are conflating, but which are separate issues...BH density, and density associated for a BH to form.

Let me again repeat myself and make it quite clear........
To speak of density of a BH is really meaningless, because the mass/density exists only at the singularity core...the rest of the BH is just critically curved spacetime out to the EH.....so the density of a SMBH could certainly be less then water: Do you understand?
But for any BH to form, it must reach a certain mass/density dictated by its Schwarzchild radius. Once that happens, further collapse as dictated by GR is compulsory. Do you understand?
So we have two issues which you are conflating, but which are separate issues...BH density, and density associated for a BH to form.

Now again if you are claiming anything different to what I have said than please supply a reputable reference or link supporting your claim.
To keep on ignoring this reasonable request, and carrying on with your obfuscation, simply amounts to trolling.