'This thread is about your paper that has been demolished and invalidated many pages ago.
Your continued attempt to pass the buck is not working.
Neutron Star
- Thread starter RajeshTrivedi
- Start date
Your continued attempt to pass the buck is not working.
RajeshTrivedi
Valued Senior Member
old man, relax !! Stick to the point, do not camouflage the thread further.....Why bring Aqueous Id in between, when he is not around....Stop this nonsense...
So you want it explained to you how Einstein's theory of gravity is a theory of gravity? Like I said this is getting weirder and weirder.
GR tells us that what we call the force of gravity is just the distortion of space time from a mass.
RajeshTrivedi
Valued Senior Member
Still trying to escape having to concede your paper is invalidated?
Still too embarrassed to do that?
You are behind the eight ball Rajesh...You have been check mated.....It's game, set, and match, and your paper has lost.
Do better next time.
That one if I recall correctly is on "matter-energy-matter continuum??
Same publishing company I take it....
I'm sure all here realise your emotions are getting out of hand with this rather easy invalidating of your paper, from page one Rajesh.
So, O'll let you rant and rave on Rajesh......It appears desperation times for you...sorry about that.
And quickly before I go, GR has been confirmed in near all respects and is beyond doubt within its broad sphere of applicability. And the two or three or more body problem does not invalidate it, if that is the next pseudoscience exercise you are trying to push, then as in your evangelistic mission regarding BH cosmology, you are wrong again.
But keep trying...I'll be here as often as the Mrs allows to help you.
So, O'll let you rant and rave on Rajesh......It appears desperation times for you...sorry about that.
And quickly before I go, GR has been confirmed in near all respects and is beyond doubt within its broad sphere of applicability. And the two or three or more body problem does not invalidate it, if that is the next pseudoscience exercise you are trying to push, then as in your evangelistic mission regarding BH cosmology, you are wrong again.
But keep trying...I'll be here as often as the Mrs allows to help you.
GR leaves out the impact of gravitational pressure, which creates effects beyond the contraction of space-time. Special relativity contacts space-time using velocity, but this does not add pressure, that I know of. Space ships are not expected to implode as they approach the speed of light. Space-time and pressure are separate, because pressure is force=ma/area with acceleration having the units of space-time-time. The velocity of SR has only space-time and not space-time-time for pressure
This extra time can be seen if we look at the impact of gravitational pressure on vibrational frequencies. The core of the sun is where fusion occurs, inducing the fastest gamma frequencies. A measure of time, frequency, is speeding up even though space-time is most contracted in the fusion core. The two times go in opposite directions.
This extra element of time, due to gravitational pressure, is also how gravity interfaces and integrates all the forces of nature. The magnitude of the extra t impacts which force is being induced. The pressure of the sun's core add the most space-time-time to allow the strong nuclear force to become integrated to the pressure.
I understand the traditions well enough to show where they fall short, and can be improved upon. Science is a work in progress, not the recitation of dogma.
This extra time can be seen if we look at the impact of gravitational pressure on vibrational frequencies. The core of the sun is where fusion occurs, inducing the fastest gamma frequencies. A measure of time, frequency, is speeding up even though space-time is most contracted in the fusion core. The two times go in opposite directions.
This extra element of time, due to gravitational pressure, is also how gravity interfaces and integrates all the forces of nature. The magnitude of the extra t impacts which force is being induced. The pressure of the sun's core add the most space-time-time to allow the strong nuclear force to become integrated to the pressure.
I understand the traditions well enough to show where they fall short, and can be improved upon. Science is a work in progress, not the recitation of dogma.
So, you didn't understand the simple explanation? Why do you want to play this childish little game, is it to distract us from your failed paper? Jeeze, just accept you were wrong and move on!
Your math knowledge is around early high school algebra based on you little paper, so I really don't know why you want to pursue GR, it is so far over your head that it will be a waste of your time.
This is the type of pseudoscience crap that got you banned from the science sections last time! I suppose you figure if Rajesh can do it so can you.
Rajesh, where did you get the idea that anyone believes that a UMBH forms from an initial massive collapse? While no one can say with any certainty exactly how massive black holes, SMBH and UMBH form, it does not seem to be logical to assume they are the result of the collapse of an initial ultra massive star or mass of any sort. It seems far more likely that black holes begin with the collapse of stellar masses.., into black holes where the total mass and mass density at Rs exceeds the mass and mass density of even neutron stars.
That would leave SMBH and UMBH formation as a process beginning with accretion by stellar mass black holes, or by smaller black holes merging through collision.., even massive or super massive black holes, once independently formed, merging...
It is not logical or reasonable to jump to the conclusion that any SMBH or UMBH formed, as you imply above. That said your questions again don't make sense. What you suggest and/or imply is not consistent with what we do know about gravity. Galaxies don't collapse into black holes because the kinetic energy associated with their orbital velocities counter balance the cumulative effect of gravitation... The same reason our solar system does not collapse into a black hole...
So in #1 the infall time is not the time it takes to form/collapse, it is the time it would take a test particle to fall from Rs to R=0 in the case of an already existing UMBH...
In #2 the average density of a UMBH says nothing about how it, the UMBH was formed. The fact that the average density is as low as it is predicted to be should have been a hint!...
The 4/3Rs and 9/8Rs limits, in#3, have nothing to do with UMBHs, because it is not reasonable to suggest that they formed from the collapse of a single ultra massive object or even ultra massive group of objects, directly into a black hole...
Numbers 4 & 5 stray off into your imagination. As the professor pointed out the 9/8Rs limit assumes an infinitely ridged mass.., not realistic..., and the 4/3Rs limit represents the limit where the speed of sound would equal the speed of light, also not realistic! And as the professor concluded a realistic stable radius would be greater than either 4/3Rs and 9/8Rs... So any realistic collapse occurs from an initial radius greater than those limits.., those limits have no realistic meaning... They are theoretical limits that have value in understanding gravitational dynamics, but no realistic counterpart. Thus the composition of collapding mass would begin to breakdown as soon as its radius is less than its stable radius and be completely degenerated by the time it crosses Rs.
You have said this but you have not proven it and it is not consistent with our current understanding.
The short answer is no! No physical characteristic can be associated with the singularity at R=o. As I have mentioned earlier, and you choose not to acknowledge, no one has asserted that the singularity represents anything real! It remains a placeholder for the mass associated with a black hole, until a better theory of gravity, that can better explain the composition of any mass inside of an event horizon, is developed.
While the above begins as an accurate statement, it ends with your own assumption and interpretation of what Many Physicists think. It seems you believe that - is - what those working on developing a QTG believe, because you don't understand what they believe!
As a disclaimer here, I cannot keep up with most of the math required to really understand any of the current approaches to quantum gravity, I am aware of.
Rajesh, it seems that you begin the above post by admitting that you do not understand the professor's comments and then go on to ask questions that prove you did not understand his comments!
Take the time to go back and really think through what has been posted... Your questions have been asked and answered. If you don't understand, just asking the same question over is not working.
If this were true, GR would not have provided a better explanation for Mercury's orbit.., and many other two body situations.
Wrong! Gravity is a many body thing. We just have limitations in our ability to model it as a many body problem.., too many variables.
GR began as a description of gravity, improving on Newtonian Mecanics. In a modern conceptual interpretation is does become a theory of gravity itself... But that remains somewhat controversial.
Be clear what you mean!
From where I sit, GR is a very successful description of gravity, but says very little about the fundamental cause of why gravitational fields originate from massive objects.., or in other words, the why of how a massive object affects spacetime, only that they do.
General Relativity is controversial? Why would you say that? General relativity is an amazingly robust and well supported theory.
Amazingly robust and well supported description of how objects interaction gravitationally.
What is controversial is the modern conceptual interpretation that the curvature of spacetime is the cause of gravitation rather than a geometric description.
Until we can describe how/why the presence of mass results in spacetime geometry, we don't really have a fundamental origin.
GR describes that geometry but doesn't really describe the why of it.
BennettLink
Registered Member
In that case, to you and the other participants of this forum:
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Bennett Link
Montana State University
That is kind of silly, it is like saying electricity is controversial because we don't really describe why + and - attract each other.
Thanks for visiting, Bennett Link.
Members of this Forum are "Mostly Harmless" - however you got exposed to one of the...
...potential...electron flow...actually we know and can describe quite well "why + and - attract each other".
Electronics/Electricity are NOT one of the Theoretical Sciences.
But...you already know this, so...