Singularity Vs Quantum Theory of Gravity

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by RajeshTrivedi, Feb 15, 2015.

  1. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    With regard to "personal criticisms"please check out posts 242, 251, 262 and 272,

    With accepted modern day cosmology and BHs, he has
    [1] Refused to recognise that Once Schwarzchild limit is reached, further collapse is compulsory according to GR.
    [2] Gravity overcomes the strong nuclear force within a BH
    [3] Space-time curvature is not the same as space-time expansion
    [4] Any photon emitted this side of the EH, just at the EH but directly radially away from a local FoR, will be seen to hover, never getting away and never falling into the BH.[ From any remote FoR, the photon is gradually redshifted beyond view and fading from view]
    [5]The meaningless application or reference of density for a BH.

    All have been referenced from reputable links by myself, while Rajesh rubbishes all links and claims his knowledge as superior. Knowledge by the way gained from an Interest in cosmology for 12 months by his own admittance..
    My comment about him crusading against mainstream cosmology stems from post 295 in this thread, and couple this with the "innocent questions" he asked in earlier threads and his now supposed expertise in the same subject of BH cosmology....
    see.....
    http://www.sciforums.com/threads/few-more-questions.142963/

    http://www.sciforums.com/threads/black-hole-not-at-all.142714/
    in this thread he says.....
    "My stand is, Black Hole has some problems with its existence, if we are existing"

    http://www.sciforums.com/threads/black-hole-not-so-black.142702/

    http://www.sciforums.com/threads/so...nderstanding-of-main-stream-cosmology.142422/

    http://www.sciforums.com/threads/dark-energy-–-required-to-explain-a-plausible-mistake.142322/

    OK, James, I'll tone down the "personal comments" just lets hope Rajesh does to.
    Also again, I do realise your time is precious, but plase take the time to read those threads I have linked to, and have a word also with brucep and OnlyMe who have also crossed swords with this expert, who denigrates all links as inferior.

    Two other BH threads he has also recently started are.....
    http://www.sciforums.com/threads/neutron-star-to-black-hole.143965/
    where he says in post 2....
    " The Black Hole in my opinion is some kind of reverse singularity, our mass which came out of Big Bang, is going back towards this singularity, creating something like a situation prior to t =0 or at t = 0.

    If Black Hole is true then there was no need for Big Bang to happen, for the simple reason if Black Hole Singularity can exist with infinite density, then Big Bang singularity also could have existed."

    and.....
    http://www.sciforums.com/threads/time-dilation-or-relativistic-time.142756/

    where wait for it! He references WIKI!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543

    Just quickly James, please read post 304 and how he takes people out of context, quite often by the way, a fact that has driven off two others from this thread.
    Quite annoying.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,525
    Paddoboy,

    Are you telling that there is no mistake (typo) in the Univ link below ??

    http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/P/Planck Mass

    Since you have failed in first attempt, pl take one more call and identify and let the forum know if there is any mistake (Hint : errata...not intentional, kind of typo) in the University link given above.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,525
    Paddoboy, Even I am not keeping record of what all I posted !! Thanks for this list, its quite handy now, it will give me an opportunity to find out if I really asked any silly question, during my early learning phase, not that it will embarrass me. You also leave this ostrich like dependence on references, imbibe what is written, don't be a document supplier or a record keeper.

    Your problem is Paddoboy, you find 12 months too less a time to understand cosmology, that may be quite insulting to some of the real intelligent guys around (including me

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ), the fact is, it depends on 1. the educational background, 2. the availability of relevant information and of course 3. the intelligence of the person who is learning. Probably you lack in Parameter 1 and 3.
     
  8. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,525
    This is a quality which you possess, Paddoboy, not me. You have reduced yourself to a link supplier, most of these links are either tutorial based or pertaining to general information.

    I asked you show me in your words with maths

    1. How singularity appears in GR at Planck's level ?

    You did not respond, continued with the statement ad infinitum, but you can't show.

    QuarkHead asked you to

    2. Show in your language with maths, how GR equations mandates existence of BH ?

    You did not respond.

    What kind of cosmology knowledge you possess ? You are camouflaging the threads after threads with copy paste material, thats quite annoying. Stop this and write in your language. Start that and very soon you would realize that most of the references which you are giving so far are actually quite elementary and do not deserve any rebuttal. Give me a paper with maths which shows that singularity lies at Planck's level, thats the quality reference, not some stray and general dialog here and there which you have been pushing since I started these threads.
     
  9. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    I got in the habit of posting and running, a few years back, due to being harassed by a gang of jackals, as a result of my positions on liberal social and political policies. They were using the silence the critic tactic to my common sense arguments. This abusiveness went on for some time before the moderators stepped in. The wild west style was in vogue at that time and I found it easier to hit and run instead being surrounding by bullies if I stopped in one place. Before that period of targeting, I used to write in serial form sticking to the topic. Maybe the hit and run is no longer necessary.

    Back to the facts;

    The fact remains, energy is at lower potential than matter, in our universe. This is inferred by the fact that matter net converts to energy in our universe, via the forces of nature and via mass burn. The direction of potential in our universe is toward energy, which moves at C; away from the inertial. Gravity moves matter in the direction of contracting space-time reference. If we extrapolate that to the limit, this heads us in the direction of the point-instant implicit of V=C. All roads are leading toward lower potential at C.

    The reason my ideas look odd, is physics and cosmology both use our earth based inertial reference as the ground state. Although this is not wrong per se, and is very convenient, it adds some extra potential, that is not seen, if we use C as the ground state. The result is the need for extra variables to account for the extra potential due to this classical reference choice.

    I used the analogy of comparing the references of the top of the mountain, to sea level (C-level). The top of the mountain has built in potential energy, that might come into play. This has to be taken into account with variables that one does not need at C-level. Since I often leave these variables out, many assume my analysis is overly simplified. But the simplification is the result of my base premise being consistent with observation. The main problem for others is getting used to thinking from C-level instead of in the clouds at the mountain tops where there is extra hidden potential relative to C-level.

    Motion Blur:

    I am using motion blur from photography because this a conceptual way to show how time and distance interact, when time is stopped, but is not zeroed out. This adds Heisenberg Uncertainty. The moving object can't be pinned down to a unique place in space-time because the shutter speed is slower than the motion speed. Distance is conserved in the photo, within the speed difference delta d/t, but since time has stopped we get only delta d being used to define the lost time; blur.

    Let me make this more complicated. Say instead of a photo, we could stop time within an actual scene in reality. Again, the distance grids will remain, with the space and position of objects conserved. Matter and energy is now part of this reality scene, with these frozen and conserved in position. Only time has stopped.

    With time stopped, the motion blur will be connected to the matter/energy becoming uncertain in distance. This does not add any more matter or energy, but adds potential to the matter/energy via an uncertainty in distance. The matter now contains distance potential.

    Say we have a matter contracting into a black hole. Since space-time is contracting and heading in the direction of C, the difference between the shutter speed (inertial) and the C-level (action speed) is getting less and less with time. The result is less and less motion blur in the matter, or the uncertainty in position of the matter is getting less.

    With distance potential decreasing and the difference in shutter speed to action speed getting less, there is a conversion of distance potential back to time potential. The time potential adds an extra t=time to space-time to get acceleration/forces for conversion of matter to energy; pressure.
     
  10. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    wellwisher:

    You're not posting more pseudoscience to the Science sections, are you?
     
  11. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    I'm telling you that there is no one, I repeat, no one that has not obtained information by reading reputable books, or reputable web sites.
    Pretty simple and concise fact, unless one suffers from delusions of grandeur.
    Plus of course I'm not the least bit interested in your pedant and your general "expertise" in taking all things out of context, as others have alluded to.

    I'm not really interested in your side tracks, suffice to say the link in question, as well as my other links are many many rungs up the ladder of factual knowledge and reputability than your unsupported statements.
    But of course, as soon as you adhere to the scientific method, submit your scientific paper that you claim you are going to do, and get proper peer review, I'll obviously then will need to rethink my stance on how far up the ladder of cosmological knowledge you have progressed to.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    tic mode on of course!
     
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2015
  12. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543

    All my claims are referenced and supported by reputable links.
    You have from day one, exhibited an obvious agenda driven bias.
    That has been noted by others and that agenda driven bias has blinded you to the real issues of accepted mainstream cosmology.
     
  13. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543

    Therein lies your quandary. You do not have facts. You have an unsupported opinion on many things, and a rather extreme philosophical take also. :shrug:
     
  14. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    The forces of nature result in matter converting to energy as potential lowers. This basic observation shows the direction of potential in our universe, is from inertial reference toward the speed of light reference of energy, at C. Since the energy reference is at lower potential, why does the consensus use the higher potential inertial reference as the ground state?

    Inertial references are relative, while the speed of light is the same in all references. All inertial references use the same C ground state. I no longer understand why we continue to use a relative reference, that is at higher potential, instead of the C reference that is the same ground state for all references, when these facts are pointed out?
     
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2015
  15. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Telling lies makes little baby Jesus cry.
    My cosmological knowledge is reasonable, and a couple of rungs up the ladder from yours obviously....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    But still being an amateur like yourself, I will always supply reputable links to support my knowledge. That's not camouflaging, that's just giving an appropriate authoritive touch, which just as obviously you are unable to do to support your fairy tales.
    No, on that issue I'll give you the accepted mainstream interpretations in my own words.
    It is common knowledge among all students of cosmology, their teachers, their professors and the cosmological academia in general, that a Singularity is seen to exist where the laws of physics and GR break down. This happens at the Planck/quantum level. And while GR says that compulsory collapse is imminent after the Schwarzchild radius is reached, most physicists/cosmologists do not accept the classical point singularity you seem obsessed with.
    In other words a surface of sorts, should exist before the stages of the point singularity and its silly infinite densities and space-time curvature.

    Now what you need to do to refute my claims about your threads in general, the paradoxical nature of them and the probable not so hidden agenda, is answer the following questions.

    [1] Do you now accept that GR says that once the Schwarzchild limit/radius is reached, further collapse is compulsory.
    [2]Space-time curvature is not the same as space-time expansion, in fact space-time curvature or gravity, opposes the overall space-time expansion.
    Do you accept that as yet?
    [3] The strong nuclear force is certainly surpassed by gravity within BHs and increases as one approaches the singularity and matter is stripped into its basic fundamentals...sort of like approaching the BB until we reach a state where matter can not exist. Is that clear to you?
    [4] Photons emitted just this side of the EH and directly radially away, will appear to hover there, not quite escaping and not getting sucked in...from a local FoR of course. Is that as yet clear? [from any remote frame, as james alluded to, the photon is redshifted and gradually fades from view. You also do realise that all FoRs [all FoRs!!] are as valid as each other, don't you?
    [5] Density of a BH is rather a meaningless concept, simply due to the fact that all a BH is, is critically curved space-time with the mass at a singularity.

    Please do not side step those questions Rajesh, as in this thread, they are the crux of what I am saying and what you appear to be denying.
     
  16. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543

    I'm not clear on what you are saying, but let me say that according to relativity, all frames of references are as valid as each other. And I'm not being a smart arse but the speed of light is best represented as c not C
     
  17. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I'm not keeping records either, never really have, and never will. I mean its just not that Important.As I like telling our alternative hypothesis pushers and anti science brigades, what any of them claim on this or any other forum, is neither here nor there. It makes no difference to accepted scientific academia in the greater scheme of things, and of course most educated and expert in the disciplines of science, do not have the time to frequent science forums such as this. Oh, by the way, all your threads back to a certain point, as well as everyone else's, is available to access on the forum.
     
  18. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    The claims you make are exactly the claims made by all our alternative hypothesis pushers and anti science brigade.
    Their delusions of grandeur, their agendas, the taking of phrases out of context, purposely and insidiously mis-quoting and mis-interpreting, and the continued claiming that they know more then qualified experts, etc etc.
    Those claims are the only way our alternative and agenda driven society are able to exist.
    But as I inferred earlier, those same claims are like dust in the wind, and make no difference to how science works.

    ps: How is your scientific paper going. Don't forget to send me a copy!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2015
  19. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    This will help...A very reputable site to help the amateurs/lay people amongst us, including myself and Rajesh.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/ast123/lectures/lec17.html


    a couple of extracts......
    "Events before before the Planck time are undefined in our current science and, in particular, we have no solid understanding of the origin of the Universe (i.e. what started or `caused' the Big Bang). At best, we can describe our efforts to date as probing around the `edges' of our understanding in order to define what we don't understand, much like a blind person would explore the edge of a deep hole, learning its diameter without knowing its depth".



    "In the early Universe, the physics to predict the behavior of matter is determined by which forces are unified and the form that they take. The interactions just at the edge of the Planck era are ruled by supergravity, the quantum effects of mini-black holes. After the separation of gravity and nuclear forces, the spacetime of the Universe is distinct from matter and radiation".

    "Although the Planck time marks the beginning of time in the Universe, the convuluted nature of space-time in this early phase with numerous singularities and overlapping event horizons, makes it impossible for matter, photons, or even causality to exist"
     
  20. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    My logical attempt at explaining the extracts I did note.......

    "While observations beyond the event horizon are impossible, testable science does not for we can build models of the behavior inside the event horizon then look for observable predictions from those models."

    Meaning of course that we are reasonably and logically able to invoke and explain certain aspects, by what we already know.
    This was what some of our professors was trying to get across. eg: We can reasonably and logically assign angular momentum to a Kerr BHs space-time and even the mass, based on our observations of frame dragging and the ergosphere...Homegeinity and Isotropy of our Universe is another.




    Although this refers to the BB singularity and Planck era, it can be extrapolated to a BH singularity and Planck/quantum level, and the fact that gravity reigns supreme over all other forces, simply by the extreme space-time curvature that exists at both regions.

    At certain levels approaching the BB and BH classical point singularities, conditions are such that matter cannot exist and infinite quantities start rearing their ugly heads. The probable reasons why most cosmologists/physicists do not accept the existence of the classical BH singularity.
     
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2015
  21. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,525
    Third call,

    So will you tell what the big typo in the link below ??

    http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/P/Planck Mass

    You possess good knowledge...so why you need 3 attempts ?
     
  22. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,525
    Paddoboy,

    Do you play chess ?......... My ELO rating, when active, was quite close to Ian Roger's.

    Start of Endgame.
    You responded to James, that 12 years ago, you acquired excellent knowledge on BH cosmology, and you see no reason, why to change that. I presume that your basics are unmoved and unchanged since then ? Can I presume so ??
     
  23. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Chess has nothing to do with your present lack of accepted knowledge re BH cosmology.

    I think you have made enough incorrect assumptions.
    Unlike you I do keep up with new discoveries and knowledge based on new data. You should try it.
    Now you have 5 or 6 issues to straighten out. Are you going to reveal your thoughts without any red herrings?

    Again, let me make it clear. All my claims are referenced by reputable sites.
    Since you are so adamant that you are correct on the issues I mentioned, it should not be too hard to show some authoritive link.
    In other words with all due respect, your self claimed genius guise, just doesn't hold water. Sorry about that. :shrug:
     

Share This Page