OnlyMe....
I did not, I asked this question, Prof responded that we know very litrtle or nothing about it for sure.......You have to ask Brucep, why he brought in the fall of a particle into an existing UMBH....this was never the discussion and I told him time and again not to mix up formation with in fall......to me it appeared that he is talking about collapse from r = 2M to r = 0.....
Not exactly...
Professor Link said...
.
.Little to nothing is known about how these super massive black holes were formed in the first place........
There are, however, a number of formation theories. The wiki page on supermassive black holes is reasonably good.
What is this ??....Desist the temptation of going Paddoway.......
You are the one that asked a silly question as to why a galaxy does not collapse into a BH...Now you get all uppity when someone confronts you with such nonsense. There are a few others too, very similar and of the same standard.
Read the above para again and again (although it is written by you only), what you are saying is what I am harping...........That as soon as the radius of the object falls below 4/3Rs (or 9/8 Rs) or some higher value as per Prof, then something must happen ?? What is that something ? No one answered ?? Try it this way....If an object starts collapsing from nRs (where n >> 4/3), then when n just becomes < 4/3 what happens ??
It's been answered many times. In the first instant it violates GR.
Principally the postulate that once the Schwarzchild radius is reached, further collapse is compulsory.
Prof Bennett just said causality cannot be violated under SR/GR....fine, then something must happen it cannot simply keep collapsing to Rs and to r = 0.......
Professor Link also explained that to you, at least twice.
PS : Prof Hamilton said/implied that my BNS is not possible due to causality violation because formation of BNS is at less than 4/3Rs (or 9/8Rs)........so he is also indirectly saying that an object cannot be smaller than 4/3Rs, even in dynamic compression...
Professor Hamilton said the following......
A black hole is a place where space is falling faster than the speed of light.
http://jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/insidebh/waterfall.html
The horizon is the place where space falls at the speed of light.
Inside the horizon, space falls faster than light. That is why
light cannot escape from a black hole.
Light emitted directly upward from the horizon of a black hole
stays there forever, barrelling outward at the speed of light
through space falling at the speed of light. It takes an infinite
time for light to lift off the horizon and make it to the outside
world. Thus when you watch a star collapse to a black hole,
you see it appear to freeze, and redshift and dim, at the horizon.
Since gravity also propagates at the speed of light, gravity,
like light, cannot escape from a black hole. The gravity you
experience from a black hole is the gravity of the frozen star,
not the gravity of whatever is inside the black hole.
> Or are we only allowed to assign angular momentum [frame dragging] to the ergopshere?
All the gravity, including the frame-dragging, is from the frozen star.
> Is it not logical that if we observe frame dragging, we should be able to assume that we have a rotating mass?
Indeed you have a rotating mass.
> And is not angular momentum conserved by the mass that has collapsed to within its Schwarzchild radius to give us a BH?
Yes.
> Other questions that have arisen are...
> Can we have massless Black holes held together by the non linearity of spacetime/gravity?
A black hole has mass, whatever it might have been formed from.
It is possible to form a black hole from gravitational waves
focussed towards each other. Gravitational waves propagate
in empty space, and locally cannot be distingished from empty space.
Nevertheless they do curve space, and do carry energy.
Hope this helps,
Andrew Hamilton
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Now you have a choice.
Are you going to admit you were in error and your paper has been invalidated,
or do you suggest that the whole world is wrong, and this is a conspiracy against yourself.
Although the answer is patently obvious, I would rather have you say it yourself.
Once you do that, that's the last you will here of me, other then in the situation of any other false irrational claims by yourself.
