Neutron Star

[paddoboy]

Please explain in at least 3-4 lines how GR is the successful description of Gravity ?? You can explain with respect to Sun / Earth / Moon System....find difficult (?) then try Earth ....Moon ..........

Anything with regards to gravity is explainable by GR...two, three or more body systems, its just things get more difficult.
Again you try and sidetrack...again you try and turn the tables.
You are railing against an accepted near certain scientific theory.
The onus is on you to show what GR cannot do,

 

[RajeshTrivedi]

Summary of the discussion spanning 517 Posts, mostly to refute, invalidate, declare crap, a small qualitative paper on the collapse of object.......

There are two sets of conclusion

Conclusion A:

1. Maximum Mass of Neutron Star < 2.65 Solar Mass, Mass range for Quark Star 2.65 Solar Mass to 3.24 Soalr Mass.
2. Minimum Mass of BH > 3.24 Solar Mass....

These conclusions matches with prevalent data, and no one objected. The matching of data with prevalent figures as derived from complex TOV equations suggests that use of simple packing aspect in calculating these masses is perfectly alright.....

Conclusion B

Formation of BNS

1. The objection is that it violates GR so it is crap.......and its not shown what aspect of GR is violated, because all solutions of GR at EH and beyond are fluid and give rise to discontinuities.

My refutation :
a. Even singularity violates GR, so there is no sanctity of violation of GR inside EH.


2. The objection is that it violates causality.

My refutation :
1. No it does not.....the causality violation (Sound speed > c) comes into argument only beyond Neutron Degeneracy, not before that. BNS is formed due to successful counterbalance by NDP inside EH, so the causality violation point has not come yet.


3. The objection is that a surface (with p = 0) cannot exist inside EH.

Following points are not clarified in support of the above objection...

a. For a core > 3.24 Solar Mass, the NDP will manifest only inside EH, so a transient type NS cannot be avoided (unless we feel that object will explode in multiple pieces)...and thats what I am saying NDP will provide counter as the neutrons become extremely relativistic....stability is a question.

b. A big question about what happens when r gets < 4.3 Rs may hold the key about both BNS and BH..for NS accretted collapse.


So, although there are objections on BNS, some very well taken, some not sustainable, but there are no objections on the other conclusions, and hence I am not conceding that the paper is bad science or pseudoscience.

Thanks all......

 

[paddoboy]

And just to confirm the expertise and authoritive position of Professor Link, his area of research are Neutron Stars, condensed matter physics, and GRBs

 

[paddoboy]

So, although there are objections on BNS, some very well taken, but there are no objections on the other conclusions, and hence I am not conceding that the paper is bad science or pseudoscience.

Thanks all......

'

There are objections on all your conclusions.
Your whole premise violates GR. All the experts have told you that.
The Singularity does not violate GR. It is just where GR breaks down and is not applicable.
What you concede or otherwise is neither here nor there. Your paper has been demolished and most all cosmologists [except for the few who have invalidated it here] will never ever even here about it.
And also refusing to accept or concede something that is patently obvious, is the way of all trolls and not really smart.
Please check out the Alternative hypothesis section.

 

[RajeshTrivedi]

Paddoboy,

Thread has covered almost everything intended, lets us start a New Thread, lot to learn !!!

 

[paddoboy]

Paddoboy,

Thread has covered almost everything intended, lets us start a New Thread, lot to learn !!!

I hope so.

 

[origin]

Paddoboy,

Thread has covered almost everything intended, lets us start a New Thread, lot to learn !!!

Please start any more of your threads in pseudoscience where they belong. It is sad that you have chosen self delusion over science.

 

[RajeshTrivedi]

Please start any more of your threads in pseudoscience where they belong. It is sad that you have chosen self delusion over science.

Wherever the thread may be....Astro, Physics, Pseudoscience even cesspool.....your contribution is going to be nil, you are reduced to a pathogen creating nuisance and negativity around.......

at least Paddoboy works and digs out links despite his lack of formal education, an admirable job to certain extent, on the other hand you are a waste despite having a degree in engineering........

 

[origin]

Wherever the thread may be....Astro, Physics, Pseudoscience even cesspool.....your contribution is going to be nil, you are reduced to a pathogen creating nuisance and negativity around.....

Just saying you are becoming a typical crank with your arrogance exceeded only by your ignorance and as such you should only be starting threads in the fringe section.

 

[OnlyMe]

Please explain in at least 3-4 lines how GR is the successful description of Gravity ?? You can explain with respect to Sun / Earth / Moon System....find difficult (?) then try Earth ....Moon ..........

Rajesh, what you ask could only be done mathematically.., and not in 3-4 lines. However, even if it could be done in 3-4 lines you have already admitted you don't understand the mathematics involved. (This in your last response to the professor.) You are asking for an answer you have admitted you would not understand.

The professor tried to explain, repeatedly and has given up.

 

[OnlyMe]

So, although there are objections on BNS, some very well taken, some not sustainable, but there are no objections on the other conclusions, and hence I am not conceding that the paper is bad science or pseudoscience.

Rajesh, above you seem to claim that someone has agreed with some part of your paper or your explanation of your ideas in this thread. I do not remember that as the case. Please provide a specific reference that supports any of your conclusions, with links. It is my recollection that enough of what you have been arguing has been countered and shown to be inconsistent with what is known to be true, that any portion that has not been directly commented on is of little or no value. (When you claim to have seen a pink elephant flying, once it has been proven there are no flying elephants, it is not necessary to prove there are no pink elephants, to have proven what you believe you have seen to be false.)

I do not believe that another thread in the science sections of the forum would be of any value.., and that you should be posting in the Fringe sections.

 

[BennettLink]

Rajesh, what you ask could only be done mathematically.., and not in 3-4 lines. However, even if it could be done in 3-4 lines you have already admitted you don't understand the mathematics involved. (This in your last response to the professor.) You are asking for an answer you have admitted you would not understand.

The professor tried to explain, repeatedly and has given up.

Hi all,

I had no idea my departure from the forum would create such a stir! A forum participant has asked me for clarification.

My involvement began when Tashja asked if could comment on Rajesh's paper. I joined the forum to make posting easier; I had no intention of remaining in the forum after the issue of Rajesh's paper was resolved. I enjoyed answering some questions for a week, but I'm just not a forum person. Forums are huge time sinks, and I need to actually do the research that I am delighted to see you folks talking about. Nobody drove me away.

I read Rajesh's paper, and by the fourth line of the abstract I knew that it was wrong. I posted a simple proof in post #183, though some basic knowledge of mathematics and physics is required. There are no holes in this proof. This proof, which has been known for about a century, demolishes Rajesh's paper. I felt that further discussion was unnecessary, but I remained to answer questions about the proof.

In normal scientific and logical discussion, if person A (Rajesh) presents an argument, and person B (me) presents a counter-argument, person A (Rajesh) must say what is wrong with the counter-argument before the discussion can continue. At the end of post #363, I insisted that Rajesh address my post #183. In post #400, Rajesh declined to address my post #183, and said he was unable to do so. I believe that Rajesh has almost no knowledge of GR, or he would see that post #183 invalidates his paper. Seeing that logical discussion was not going forward, I felt my job was done.

To Rajesh: when you propose an alternative theory, you must fully understand the theory you are trying to supersede. I have never said you are a crackpot or a pseudoscientist; I've only said that your paper is wrong. And if I might offer some unsolicited advice, you should relent and retract your paper from publication; otherwise your wrong paper will remain out there for posterity. Do you want that? Thanks to Tashja, your paper was reviewed by five experts and perhaps hundreds of forum participants. I've never seen work get subjected to such scrutiny; Tashja is better than most journal editors. You are lucky. You might not feel lucky, but you should.

For a more substantial forum with many contributing experts, many of you might prefer the Q/A-based quora.com. I am not a member, but it looks interesting from the wiki entry. It also looks like quora.com has a number measures in place to keep out crackpots and pseudoscientists.

I've had fun, and have absolutely no hard feelings.

Best wishes to you all,

Bennett Link

 

[paddoboy]

For a more substantial forum with many contributing experts, many of you might prefer the Q/A-based quora.com. I am not a member, but it looks interesting from the wiki entry. It also looks like quora.com has a number measures in place to keep out crackpots and pseudoscientists.

I've had fun, and have absolutely no hard feelings.

Best wishes to you all,

Bennett Link

Thanks again Professor....for your thoughts, for your expertise, and for re-enforcing what most of us knew about this paper in question.
paddo boy

 

[brucep]

Wherever the thread may be....Astro, Physics, Pseudoscience even cesspool.....your contribution is going to be nil, you are reduced to a pathogen creating nuisance and negativity around.......

at least Paddoboy works and digs out links despite his lack of formal education, an admirable job to certain extent, on the other hand you are a waste despite having a degree in engineering........

You should take Professor Links advice and remove your paper from public view. You're proving to be consistently intellectually dishonest in this forum. Consistently intellectually dishonest is what cranks do Rajesh. You should move on to a venue where you can fix that serious character flaw. Writing papers which were falsified a hundred years ago is what is a waste of time Rajesh.

 

[RajeshTrivedi]

Hi all,

I had no idea my departure from the forum would create such a stir! A forum participant has asked me for clarification.

My involvement began when Tashja asked if could comment on Rajesh's paper. I joined the forum to make posting easier; I had no intention of remaining in the forum after the issue of Rajesh's paper was resolved. I enjoyed answering some questions for a week, but I'm just not a forum person. Forums are huge time sinks, and I need to actually do the research that I am delighted to see you folks talking about. Nobody drove me away.

I read Rajesh's paper, and by the fourth line of the abstract I knew that it was wrong. I posted a simple proof in post #183, though some basic knowledge of mathematics and physics is required. There are no holes in this proof. This proof, which has been known for about a century, demolishes Rajesh's paper. I felt that further discussion was unnecessary, but I remained to answer questions about the proof.

In normal scientific and logical discussion, if person A (Rajesh) presents an argument, and person B (me) presents a counter-argument, person A (Rajesh) must say what is wrong with the counter-argument before the discussion can continue. At the end of post #363, I insisted that Rajesh address my post #183. In post #400, Rajesh declined to address my post #183, and said he was unable to do so. I believe that Rajesh has almost no knowledge of GR, or he would see that post #183 invalidates his paper. Seeing that logical discussion was not going forward, I felt my job was done.

To Rajesh: when you propose an alternative theory, you must fully understand the theory you are trying to supersede. I have never said you are a crackpot or a pseudoscientist; I've only said that your paper is wrong. And if I might offer some unsolicited advice, you should relent and retract your paper from publication; otherwise your wrong paper will remain out there for posterity. Do you want that? Thanks to Tashja, your paper was reviewed by five experts and perhaps hundreds of forum participants. I've never seen work get subjected to such scrutiny; Tashja is better than most journal editors. You are lucky. You might not feel lucky, but you should.

For a more substantial forum with many contributing experts, many of you might prefer the Q/A-based quora.com. I am not a member, but it looks interesting from the wiki entry. It also looks like quora.com has a number measures in place to keep out crackpots and pseudoscientists.

I've had fun, and have absolutely no hard feelings.

Best wishes to you all,

Bennett Link

Prof Bennett,

It was nice that you stayed put for so long and was very kind and patient. It was not at all my intention to keep you on the forum for a longer duration, in fact I was praying that you leave asap as you were with your real name and without proper signature appearing. You did not realize that not even once after your arrival I questioned your proof about p = 0, in the last post also I said that let me get more into this p = 0.

The argument was mostly into 4/3Rs and 9/8 Rs (an issue discussed between me and another member Q-Reeus and specifically pointed out by Prof Hamilton), which you kept on answering that causality cannot be violated under GR / SR.......You know Prof, what I was asking but you chose not to respond specifically on this......but I am sure this question and another couple of doubts which got propped in about BH formation, will linger in your mind.*1

and please note that none of these guys (Paddoboy, Origin and Brucep) are aware of the significance of the question and answer thereof, they are just interested in putting me down....not that they have any personal animosity, but you know those insects stuck in the well, if one attempts to get out, the other insects pull him back......kind of, we can't get out so you also cannot.....

PS : Regarding your advise about withdrawal of paper, I am taking the same in right spirit, I do not think it is necessary at this stage, because as stated above the other conclusions hold, I am finishing another paper which will take care of some of the objections raised, I will surely make a mention about this paper. Even though saving your contribution in this thread, the bickering and negativity was huge, but still whatever I could gather, I gathered from the huge noise....Thanks again, Sir.


*1: Either I do not understand the formation of BH at all or these questions stay.

 

[RajeshTrivedi]

You should take Professor Links advice and remove your paper from public view. You're proving to be consistently intellectually dishonest in this forum. Consistently intellectually dishonest is what cranks do Rajesh. You should move on to a venue where you can fix that serious character flaw. Writing papers which were falsified a hundred years ago is what is a waste of time Rajesh.

Please answer the question which I specifically asked you.......we will talk about other things later on.

 

[RajeshTrivedi]

Rajesh, what you ask could only be done mathematically.., and not in 3-4 lines. However, even if it could be done in 3-4 lines you have already admitted you don't understand the mathematics involved. (This in your last response to the professor.) You are asking for an answer you have admitted you would not understand.

The professor tried to explain, repeatedly and has given up.

.............Please explain in at least 3-4 lines how GR is the successful description of Gravity ?? You can explain with respect to Sun / Earth / Moon System....find difficult (?) then try Earth ....Moon ..............


You are taking my word out of context about maths.........

Since you talk of EFE again and again, I asked you a very basic question as above.....rest assure I will understand the math if you choose to respond that way...

Note : The question is not about GR per say, It is about what you know about GR...The question is open to you, Brucep and Origin.

 

[RajeshTrivedi]

Just saying you are becoming a typical crank with your arrogance exceeded only by your ignorance and as such you should only be starting threads in the fringe section.

Yet to see any positive contribution from you in any thread.................

 

[Daecon]

Rajesh, what exactly do you hope to achieve here?

What goal are you after from posting the things you do? Nobody is going to suddenly proclaim that you were right after all, because your claims have already been refuted and shown to be false. You won't change anybody's opinion on you or your work by restating your arguments whilst ignoring their input.

 

[RajeshTrivedi]

Thanks to Tashja, your paper was reviewed by five experts and perhaps hundreds of forum participants. I've never seen work get subjected to such scrutiny; Tashja is better than most journal editors. You are lucky. You might not feel lucky, but you should.
Bennett Link

Prof Bennett,

No doubt Tashja deserves complete applaud........she is a darling.....in fact I wanted a fair run for this paper, you are right that a defective thing should not stay put, and I am sure to do something about that in some way or the other.....

You should have seen my opening line of this thread....

..........It is my opinion that success at peer review is the first process of bringing an idea into open for public scrutiny, for scrutiny by people who can understand the subject....furthermore success at peer review is not the guarantee about the certainty of the idea as we are all human beings, and rejection under peer review is also not the guarantee that the idea is not worthy of pursuing......