Again, welcome to SciForums, BennettLink.
I just wanted to say that your input - both scientific and otherwise - could really help some on this Forum.
Could...
Neutron Star
- Thread starter RajeshTrivedi
- Start date
Again, welcome to SciForums, BennettLink.
I just wanted to say that your input - both scientific and otherwise - could really help some on this Forum.
Could...
Rajesh, what you are saying in this post does not make sense!
Above you seem to accept and agree with the concluding comment from Professor Link's post. No stable material object can have R<Rs!
Then below you contradict that concession....
You seem to be attempting to present what you believe is a realistic solution to the issue of a predicted unrealistic singularity... The problem is that your solution does not meet the conditions you earlier agreed were perfectly alright! — No stable material object can exist when R<Rs!
I don't remember in any of the threads you have raised on the issue of black holes where anyone has insisted that the predicted mathematical point singularity represents anything real. What that means is that.., since in almost all other respects GR describes gravitation in a manner consistent with what we know to be true.., until a better theory of gravity is developed, the singularity acts as a placeholder, for the mass associated with a black hole, where descriptions of the gravitational fields of black holes are concerned. We have, at least externally consistent observational evidence, that supports the existence of objects consistent with the black holes predicted by GR. However, since the fundamental composition and structure of matter is the subject of QM, not GR.., and QM and GR cannot yet be reconciled where gravitation is concerned, we cannot yet replace the singularity predicted by GR with any real massive object. That is what the search for a successful quantum theory of gravitation (QTG) is expected to accomplish.., but once more no cigars.., yet!
It seems to me that everyone has been attempting to explain, in different ways how and why your black neutron star (BNS), as presented is not consistent with what we currently know. You above seem to have admitted that no stable material object can exist with a radius less than Rs, which must include your BNS. Without an alternate theory of gravity by your own admission, no stable object can exist inside Rs.
Above you seem to accept and agree with the concluding comment from Professor Link's post. No stable material object can have R<Rs!
Then below you contradict that concession....
Note my bold emphasis on the last line in the portion of Professor Link's comment that you quoted. (Prof. link, "A realistic equation of state will give a larger radius than the above two limits.") Which I interpret to mean that the compressive force of gravitation begins to overcome the stability of matter even before that matter crosses the event horizon...
You seem to be attempting to present what you believe is a realistic solution to the issue of a predicted unrealistic singularity... The problem is that your solution does not meet the conditions you earlier agreed were perfectly alright! — No stable material object can exist when R<Rs!
I don't remember in any of the threads you have raised on the issue of black holes where anyone has insisted that the predicted mathematical point singularity represents anything real. What that means is that.., since in almost all other respects GR describes gravitation in a manner consistent with what we know to be true.., until a better theory of gravity is developed, the singularity acts as a placeholder, for the mass associated with a black hole, where descriptions of the gravitational fields of black holes are concerned. We have, at least externally consistent observational evidence, that supports the existence of objects consistent with the black holes predicted by GR. However, since the fundamental composition and structure of matter is the subject of QM, not GR.., and QM and GR cannot yet be reconciled where gravitation is concerned, we cannot yet replace the singularity predicted by GR with any real massive object. That is what the search for a successful quantum theory of gravitation (QTG) is expected to accomplish.., but once more no cigars.., yet!
It seems to me that everyone has been attempting to explain, in different ways how and why your black neutron star (BNS), as presented is not consistent with what we currently know. You above seem to have admitted that no stable material object can exist with a radius less than Rs, which must include your BNS. Without an alternate theory of gravity by your own admission, no stable object can exist inside Rs.
BennettLink
Registered Member
Dear Rajesh,
Are you saying that my proof in post #183 is correct?
Best,
Bennett
BennettLink
Registered Member
Thanks, Rajesh. When I look at my posts, my name, affiliation, and website appear at the bottom. Is that not visible to others?
Best,
Bennett
BennettLink
Registered Member
Why not grow up and admit you have been in error in every thread?
You are the one making silly claims.
Let's look at the latest...the core temperatures of NS.
That along with the total refutation of your nonsensical paper and the other faux pas, makes you the foolish amateur as distinct from me being a lay person interested in learning.
Difference of course being I know where I stand...you do not and are under severe delusions.
Have a good day Rajesh..your achievments are nil.
Do better on your next attempt
Dear Paddoboy and Rajesh,
I request that you both desist from the personal attacks on each other. I doubt anyone wants to read these attacks, and they go nowhere. If you would like to fight offline, perhaps you could exchange email addresses and take it from there.
Everyone in this forum shares a common interest in science. Let's stick to logical argument and refutation.
Sincerely,
Bennett
It shows up.
Your affiliation, and website DO NOT APPEAR at the bottom of your Posts in my Browser(Opera).
The quoted below is what I see :
Idiot wind. Can you really be this illiterate? For sure. Ignorance is a choice you embrace. The answer to when and where stuff will begin to be stretched and crushed is Tau_ouch for when and r_ouch for where. I wrote this down for you. Professor Link has written down stuff to help you understand yet you still show no sign of understanding any of it. Let's get to the reason why you can't understand. I say it's because you don't want to admit your paper is nonsense. This makes you an intellectually dishonest troll.
Last edited:
That would be nice but not going to happen. Not to hard to figure out why. This nonsense has been going on ever since the inception of the Internet and public forums. As long as folks are allowed to troll the subject matter others will get pissed off and respond in a negative way. A significant percentage of folks participating are low score Dunning & Kruger candidates. They all think science is a sham.
You are of course correct Professor. But by the same token you are not aware of the history of some on this forum. While admitting I'm no Angel, in most cases I stick to what makes the most sense, and what is most obvious...that being in most cases the accepted mainstream position.
We have had many members/posters that participate here and on other forums, that have agendas and one thing in mind. Some are fanatical religious adherents and see science as the enemy.....Others are burdened with delusions of grandeur and believe they have better models and Interpretations then present incumbent theories, particularly in the fields of cosmology.
You know we have had four individuals here [some now banned] that all claim to have a TOE?
The stuff that Rajesh has preached on this forum, over five or six threads, and the claims that he has made, contradict all of present BH cosmology.
I may only be a lay person [as is Rajesh] and I may be a minnow at the mathematical side of models, but I'm quite aware of what cosmology and BHs in particular entail and the reasons.
I apologise for probably boring you with the above, but I believe it is the duty of scientists such as yourself and even laymen like myself, to reveal the fraudulent agenda based claims of those that profess to know better then the giants of the present and past.
Revealing these frauds for what they are, obviously then creates some tension.
Let me respectfully ask you a question.
Do you believe anyone [scientist or layman alike] would come to a science forum such as this, with claims of rewriting 21st century cosmology, or invalidating GR, if they really had anything of substance? I mean if they did, they would be in line for the Physics Nobel, and they would be pounding on the doors of Academia for due recognition.
We have many good knowledgable people on this forum [I would hope I fit into that category somewhere to some degree] but the nature of forums such as this, also means we have fanatics of various varieties out to hinder science as much as they can.
Again, my apologies for my part in this scrap, and I hope that you are not too put off by it.
Other threads maybe of interest to you also...one at present by someone questioning why the BB was not a BH.
If you have the time, you could confirm or otherwise my replies in that thread?
This is what I see after the quote above on an iPad, in light grey text...
Bennett Link
Professor of Physics
Department of Physics
Montana State University
http://www.physics.montana.edu/people/facdetail.asp?id_PersonDetails=15
In any respect, the Professor and anyone else can post in whatever style and revelation they like, and I find it audaciously arrogant for someone to try an "educate" another of known expertise, in any manner of posting.
I think he was confusing the caution not to provide personal contact information. The professor posted nothing that could not be found with a simple name search. There is nothing wrong with indentifying oneself in the manner he has. The university acts as a buffer...
In any case I don't believe in this case Rajesh meant his comment the way it seems you interpret it.
No, you said you doubt the existence of BHs
No you denied and questioned me vigouressly on the fact that further collapse was compulsory as detailed by GRI understand enough to know that gravity inside a BH will overcome all other forces including the strong nuclear force and I supported my claim with a reputable link. You, as usual gave nothing except denial
You categorically denied that any angular momentum can be reasonably assigned to the Kerr metric and the mass. That's why I approached Professor Hamilton for his verification.
Wrong again. You denied that any photon from any frame of reference would be ever seen to be hovering always above the EH if directed radially away. Again the reason that I sought confirmation of Professor Hamilton.
The above nonsense reflects your inept thinking processes. The analogy does not hold. Earth is not a BH.
No its not complex. The temperatures at or inside a NS are in the extreme range as everyone has told you and as references have supported.
I don't lie. Everything I claim is in black and white over at least half a dozen threads.
I really don't take too much enjoyment out of correcting other people. I see it as a duty.
Apologies. I'm unable to credit you with anything other then basic errors of thinking and inept reasoning.
I see the same as DMOE. From my IPad. All that information is linked to the Professors literature. This is interesting. Professor Link references everybody by name on every line the reference occurs. I like that since most everybody reviewing the papers for predictions probably have prior knowledge of the science and scientists being referenced. Instead of only a number on the references list. A nice touch.
RajeshTrivedi
Valued Senior Member
Prof Bennett,
In my chrome browser on the Desktop / Laptop (not tried with IPad), only your name appears as DMOE post # 387. Anyways the idea was to keep you away from unintentional loose comments from some unfamiliar member, nothing more nothing less.
Best Regards
Rajesh
In my chrome browser on the Desktop / Laptop (not tried with IPad), only your name appears as DMOE post # 387. Anyways the idea was to keep you away from unintentional loose comments from some unfamiliar member, nothing more nothing less.
Best Regards
Rajesh
RajeshTrivedi
Valued Senior Member
You are of course correct Professor. But by the same token you are not aware of the history of some on this forum. While admitting I'm no Angel, in most cases I stick to what makes the most sense, and what is most obvious...that being in most cases the accepted mainstream position.
We have had many members/posters that participate here and on other forums, that have agendas and one thing in mind. Some are fanatical religious adherents and see science as the enemy.....Others are burdened with delusions of grandeur and believe they have better models and Interpretations then present incumbent theories, particularly in the fields of cosmology.
You know we have had four individuals here [some now banned] that all claim to have a TOE?
The stuff that Rajesh has preached on this forum, over five or six threads, and the claims that he has made, contradict all of present BH cosmology.
I may only be a lay person [as is Rajesh] and I may be a minnow at the mathematical side of models, but I'm quite aware of what cosmology and BHs in particular entail and the reasons.
I apologise for probably boring you with the above, but I believe it is the duty of scientists such as yourself and even laymen like myself, to reveal the fraudulent agenda based claims of those that profess to know better then the giants of the present and past.
Revealing these frauds for what they are, obviously then creates some tension.
Let me respectfully ask you a question.
Do you believe anyone [scientist or layman alike] would come to a science forum such as this, with claims of rewriting 21st century cosmology, or invalidating GR, if they really had anything of substance? I mean if they did, they would be in line for the Physics Nobel, and they would be pounding on the doors of Academia for due recognition.
We have many good knowledgable people on this forum [I would hope I fit into that category somewhere to some degree] but the nature of forums such as this, also means we have fanatics of various varieties out to hinder science as much as they can.
Again, my apologies for my part in this scrap, and I hope that you are not too put off by it.
Other threads maybe of interest to you also...one at present by someone questioning why the BB was not a BH.
If you have the time, you could confirm or otherwise my replies in that thread?
Paddoboy, you have a problem, you do not stick to point and immediately start talking about agenda etc. I am not making Professor Bennett as arbitrator in our argument. Because you are a fun, not any arguments at all with you henceforth on science. I have agreed to all the correct things which you have said, I cannot agree to anything nonsense by you, and when I try to counter, you start a canary music of agenda, mainstream, troll, reputable links .......all crap cacophony.
You are so insecure that you want the prof to endorse your views on that kiddy stuff which you have put up in that funny BB / BH thread you referred to.
Never ever you provide logical argument in your language to whatever is objected on your points. See your replies to my red color posting, all nonsense by you...no science at all.
RajeshTrivedi
Valued Senior Member
Ok, lets keep my paper aside and answer the following.....do not run away like a coward, answer...
1. Your UMBH star would take 3 days (72 Hrs) to collapse to singularity from r = 2M, will it not have any surface ? Do not say that the surface is in dynamic compression towards r = 0, a surface under dynamic compression for 72 Hrs will also have p = 0 at the surface...
2. Calculate the density of your this UMBH at r = 2M, it comes out to be 100 times less than that of air. How will it start collapsing ?
3. If at all it does collapse, then calculate the value of 4/3 * 2M and 9/8 * 2M ? What will happen when the star was of that size ? Nothing !
4. And even if it starts collapsing then at what r = ?, the NDP would come into picture, will it be 2M or much below 2M ?
5. Finally let me see what you have understood about this 4/3Rs and 9/8Rs business from an existing NS point of view........if an NS starts collapsing on mass accretion from 10-12 Kms radius, then what would happen when it comes to 4/3 Rs, and what would happen when its core size is less than 4/3 Rs or less than 9/8Rs.....
Copy pasting the calculations or formula from various text books and links is very easy, abusing others and calling others as idiot wind is very very easy........contributing anything positive is difficult and thinking and coming up with new hypothesis is extremely difficult and requires courage. if you have the intellectual capacity then answer the question above. I promise, if you answer correctly, I will acknowledge.........
RajeshTrivedi
Valued Senior Member
I did not say, it will become infinitely strong.....I just said there is a possibility that NDP may balance Gravitational Pressure as the Neutrons have become highly relativistic thus increasing the NDP...
by the way if the entire mass goes to r = 0, does it not become infinitely strong ? Infinities are allowed at r = 0 but not at r = some non zero value ?? Yeah !! Read Kerr Metric ring singularity also.
Origin, It is nobody's genuine case that entire mass will go to r = 0, Many Physicists think that some kind of quantum pressure should halt the collapse, but the point is we don't know that yet.........
RajeshTrivedi
Valued Senior Member
Prof Bennett,
No, Sir...I am not saying that and I am not equipped as on date to counter that. I only stated once before you chipped in that possibly the boundary condition in your analysis is taken as p = 0 at r = Rs, so obviously r < Rs there will not be p = 0, kind of proving the assumed condition. I did not harp on that after your arrival because I thought this argument of mine would not hold, nonetheless I am trying aside to see into this aspect .
But couple of questions came up which are somehow related to this discussion, and hence this continuation....
You have still not answered what would happen to an object which contracts below 4/3Rs and if it survives this then what would happen when below 9/8Rs........
Before you answer, may be you can open it up for other members to respond on this, because an impression is created that every one else has understood the answer to this question...but not me. It will be an eye opener for all.
Last edited: