John T. Nordberg's theory...

PhysBang said:
Except, you pathetic crackpot, that when one is using spherically symmetric coordinates, like one does in the Schwarzschild metric, and one is speaking of a radius from the center of the coordinates, like one does when using the Schwarzschild metric to describe a possible black hole, then giving a radius describes a sphere of that radius centered on the origin of the coordinates. This is one of the advantages of using a set of spherically symmetric coordinates.

But, by all means, please show what a petty idiot you are by repeating the same mistake over and over again, in thread after thread. You are a great student of Farsight.
Click to expand...


James R / or Any Mod,

Can you guys handle physbang?
Will yiu keep a blind eye to his insults, abuses and less than uncivilized behavior.
 
James R, the participating member,

You are off the mark on both the points, as per site rules it amounts to trolling (persisting with incorrect argument).

1. Give one text, any class, which talks of linear mass density in the context of a sphere. There is no concept of linear mass density for a sphere, it's meaningless. No object can naturally form with M/r constant at various radial points. It's a designer sphere by you where normal density varies as 1/r^2.

2. Yes you are right in agreeing with me that an accounting system cannot contribute to mass. But energy contributes to the mass thus it is not an accounting system.

If you are still not able to figure it out, pl invite some technically sound member for the sake of this board. You are a Mod here, it is obvious that people like physbang take cues from you. Do not misteach them
 
RajeshTrivedi said:
James R / or Any Mod,

Can you guys handle physbang?
Will yiu keep a blind eye to his insults, abuses and less than uncivilized behavior.
Click to expand...
How horrible it is that I keep pointing out the science and that you continue to be wrong?

You have a choice: learn the science or continue to peddle your fantasy.
 
PhysBang said:
How horrible it is that I keep pointing out the science and that you continue to be wrong?

You have a choice: learn the science or continue to peddle your fantasy.
Click to expand...

You are stating that a sphere is determined by its radius. So, why are you using such unwarranted technical terms. Whom are you impressing?

You have only one choice : first be civil and leave your abuses.
 
RajeshTrivedi said:
You are stating that a sphere is determined by its radius. So, why are you using such unwarranted technical terms. Whom are you impressing?
Click to expand...
I'm actually doing a couple of things. I'm defending myself from your charge that I'm a liar. I'm also defending the physics of black holes, given that you deny that density plays a role in black hole formation and you do not understand what a spherically symmetric coordinate system is. I am also embracing the new moderation policy, which freely allows personal attacks.
 
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.
 
RajeshTrivedi said:
He is admitting that he is into personal attacks. I am not aware if it is new moderation policy.
Click to expand...
It was made clear to me when I was told that, even though you lied about me and not merely about science like you usually do, that you would face no consequences.

So I'm embracing this new fucking policy. I think it's great. Or maybe that's a lie, but it doesn't fucking matter, since this forum is all about lying cranks.
 
RajeshTrivedi said:
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.
Click to expand...
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!
 
Moderator note:

RajeshTrivedi and PhysBang may not reply to this thread for 7 days.

If you are unable to conduct a civil conversation, it seems reasonable to exclude you in order to make room for other members who may wish to contribute to the thread without being in the midst of a flame war.

In the meantime, if either of you attempts to start up your argument in a different thread, you will receive official warnings and may be excluded from sciforums.
 
Last edited:
RajeshTrivedi said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
PhysBang said:
I would say that the arrangements are approximated by a mathematical order.
Click to expand...
I understand and agree with the statement in context of human mathematics. However, expanding the context to include the physical states and values themselves..........

I would say that the inherent physical and mathematical values are exact (naturally accounted for), which can be approximated by human mathematics.
 
RajeshTrivedi said:
one text, any class, which talks of linear mass density in the context of a sphere. There is no concept of linear mass density for a sphere, it's meaningless. No object can naturally form with M/r constant at various radial points. It's a designer sphere by you where normal density varies as 1/r^2.
Click to expand...
Linear density
Linear density is the measure of a quantity of any characteristic value per unit of length. Linear mass density (titer in textile engineering, the amount of mass per unit length) and linear charge density (the amount of electric charge per unit length) are two common examples used in science and engineering.
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_density

Question: "what prevents one from making linear density measurements of the geometry of a curved or spherical object?"
 
Last edited:
James R said:
So fast atoms gravitate more strongly than slow atoms.
Click to expand...
Yep. Because a concentration of energy causes gravity rather than matter or mass per se. A massive body causes gravity because of its energy-content. The more energy present in your box, the more gravity as a result.

James R said:
So photons can affect gravitation, too.
Click to expand...
Yes. A photon has a non-zero active gravitational mass, and a non-zero inertial mass. These "mass" measures are really a measure of energy rather than mass. The word mass nowadays tends to mean rest mass. The photon has no rest mass because it's never at rest. However when it's going round and round inside the mirror box it's "effectively" at rest, and the box is harder to move because the photon is in there.

James R said:
So if you take some stuff out of the box (photons), there's less stuff causing gravitational effects in there.
Click to expand...
Yep. A gedanken box containing a 511keV electron causes the same gravity as a gedanken box containing a 511keV photon.
 
Last edited:
PhysBang said:
I would say that the arrangements are approximated by a mathematical order.
Click to expand...
Only for humans. The natural mathematical functions work flawlessly, under any given circumstance.
You are correct that human maths are approximations of that which is already there as a natural, mathematical imperative! From that POV, the universe works in an orderly accounting of values, some of which we can approximate with human symbolic mathematics.
 
James R said:
That's where you need an accounting system. We call that "energy".
Click to expand...
This is certainly a valid point of view if you believe in conservation of energy as if it were like counting beans. But we don't have an accounting system that is called "conservation of substance", nor is there a conservation law for matter the way there is for energy. Your assertion that "atoms are not energy" is therefore about as inconsistent an accounting system as can possibly be. When matter converts to energy or vice versa, your accounting system doesn't work very well. What kind of science do you claim this is?

And as Farsight keeps pointing out, E=mc^2 works just fine as an accounting system to replace yours.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top