Neutron Star

Ok...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well we aint here about my guess are we?
We're discussing your "guess" and defying GR

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Dear Rajesh,

Notice that the TOV equation depends on p and rho, and one needs a relation between p and rho to proceed with the calculation of the radius for a given mass. It does not matter how the pressure is created; whether it is neutron degeneracy pressure or something else is irrelevant. Whether strong interactions are important or not is irrelevant. Whether the pressure is provided by some force no one has thought of is irrelevant. All that matters is the relationship between p and rho. We do not need to know anything about what it providing the pressure to answer the question as to whether a black anything can exist.

(9/8) Rs comes from assuming that the matter is infinitely strong. Roughly speaking, to have a smaller stable object would require a pressure that is "greater than infinite." Of course "greater than infinite" is not possible, hence the limit.

(4/3) Rs comes from assuming that the equation of state (the p versus rho relation) is casual, that is, the speed of sound is c, the most extreme case that is physically possible in principle.

A realistic equation of state will give a larger radius than the above two limits.

But these limits come with assumptions. We can be more general by assuming nothing whatsoever about the matter, as I did in my post #183. I show that no stable object can be smaller than Rs, which rules out black neutron stars and anything else that is smaller than Rs. Indeed, it is possible to have a material object that is smaller than Rs, but it is not static; it is in the process of collapsing to become a black hole. Note that in this argument I assumed nothing about how p depends on rho. I assumed only one thing: that GR is the correct theory of gravity. Given that assumption, there are no loopholes in my proof. I think (hope) this addresses all of your questions above.

Before we proceed with any discussion, I must insist that you either point exactly what you think is wrong with my proof in post#183, or concede the point that no stable, material object can have R<Rs.

Best,

Bennett

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Q-reeus,

I had not known about the endorsement process, a fairly new policy, because it did not apply to me; I already had a track record with the arXiv. Thank you for making me aware of this.

The endorser is not endorsing the paper as wrong or right, or even plausible or implausible. The endorser is merely indicating that in his or her opinion the paper looks like real science and so is suitable for the arXiv. As long as the paper isn't obvious nonsense or pseudoscience most prospective endorsers, when approached, will endorse the person who would like to post. The endorser really has nothing to lose, and most scientists feel that real science, even science that might be wrong, should be hashed out in the literature.

The way it often works is that a student is about to submit his or her first paper, and wants to post on the arXiv. The student's advisor provides the endorsement.

There are many highly speculative papers on the arXiv, but they are real science. To take an example related to this thread, consideration of alternative theories to General Relativity is an active area of research. This subfield of physics is perfectly respectable and constitutes legitimate science. Not anything goes, though. For example, an alternative theory of gravity that conflicts with observed orbital dynamics would be considered pseudoscience, and the author would almost certainly not be endorsed on the arXiv.

Overall, the system seems to work pretty well.

Best,

Bennett

 

I'll bet you a nickel he does not agree.

 

Many thanks Prof. Link for clarifying and expanding there. Such helpfully fills in the blank spots not covered by official blurb.

 

Looks perfectly alright, but we are discussing the other point which cropped in.

I am sure when you say infinitely strong, you must be talking about density or compressibility.

But, Sir, there is a small issue, a larger object will have lesser density when it is of the size of Rs (or of 9/8 Rs or 4/3 Rs)............that is because Rs = kM, and density = k/M^2........

So question of larger object being infinitely strong (at 9/8Rs) or becoming causal at 4/3Rs does not arise........thats the point I am attempting to make.......How am I incorrect in this assessment ??

PS : Let me attempt to raise it differently......for the collapsing object the issue of infinitely strong or causal point may come by only when densities are much higher of the order > 10^15, now I wish to draw your attention that such densities for higher mass core (>3.24 Solar) will not come at 9/8 or 4/3 Rs, they will come by only when core size < Rs, much less than Rs, somewhere around Rp as calculated in my paper.

 

Why don't you chip in and write down in your language what you agree and what you have not........I will bet 10 nickels that you have not understood the point in question.

 

Prof Bennett Link,


Sir, a small suggestion, since you are very kindly and actively participating.....We all know you, so the respect and decorum is visible, but new members may not.....and you know the loose comments around....

So kindly use your full signature at the bottom of your post......may be as below...

Dr Bennett Link
Professor
Montana State University.

Earlier Prof Dr. Pankaj Joshi also wanted to chip in with his real name, I had to warn him about coming with the real name, for obvious reasons. Incidentally, as far as I know, only both of us are with our real names.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You only bet on sure things, you rascal you!

[ps: Check out the over the top arrogance in the last couple of posts of his

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

]

Might be getting close to the time that this should be moved to pseudoscience.

 

Yes you said.....that Neutron Star will be torn apart even before EH or at EH ? So what do you want to guess ? That BNS will not form and a BH also will not form ?? Or you want to say that fine it will get torn apart, BNS will not form, but those fragments will individually go to singularity and from BH....Yeah !!

You know what you are saying ? You are saying 1. That disintergration time is of the order of Planck's time, you do not know the significance 2. You are saying that (if at all) BNS may form for a very short local time, in the process of collapse.

So Paddoboy, please find out how much is dt = Planck's time inside EH or just outside EH or at EH, equal to Earth's time ?? You may have to wiki about Gravitational Time Dilation first, and may be you have to take the help of your time keeper friend.


PS: Sometimes I wonder that you attempt to take more than what you can chew or swallow. Honestly speaking you would be better off if you stick to link providing and avoid your layman guesstimates on such complex issues.

 

As I said, a guess, and I prefer not to really give any credence on your thoughts on the matter, since I have shown you to be wrong on at least one issue in every thread you have started...and all refutes of mine were supported by reputable links.

I'm saying that you are full of unsupported pretentious crap. and you lack the decency and intestinal fortitude to admit you are wrong....Latest incident being your lame brain claim that the interior of a NS was cool...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Instead of casting the spot light on me, why not admit to your own pretentious
lack of decency throughout many threads, highlighted by your lack of intestinal fortitude in admitting you have been wrong in every thread.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Whatever lies, inuendos, and crap you want to spew, is evident throughout many threads, along with the agenda you have pushed from the beginning.

 

Paddoboy,

When you guess something and when you make reference to Planck's time, nuclear force, and what not of Astrophysics...then sometimes do write in your own language also......this nonsense crap which you have written in support of your guesstimate on complex issue will not suffice.....I insist you should stick to link supply only, don't venture out and give your opinion.......

But still if you think you know anything about GR beyond terminology, please let us know how much is dt = tp (Planck's time) inside or at or just outside EH, is equal to earth's time......You can take others help. Let me tell you, your knowledge will get multiplied..

 

The professor has posted his points very clearly and at a very basic level so anyone can understand. There is nothing to disagree with.

 

Do you really believe anyone can take notice of anything you say?
Do you really believe you are fooling anyone? Other than your gullible self of course?
Let's list all the total indisputable errors you have made....
[1] You deny the existence of BHs
[2] You deny the GR postulate that once the Schwarzchild limit is reached, further collapse is compulsory.
[3] You dispute the fact that gravity overcomes all other forces within a BH, including the strong nuclear.
[4] You deny being able to assign spin to the Kerr metric and mass
[5] You deny that any photon emitted just this side of the EH, directly radially away will appear to hover there forever from the local frame.
[6] And the most astonishing latest faux pas, you stipulate that the interoir of a NS is at low temperatures.
Apologies If I have forgotten anything.
Perhaps since those claims may embarrass you, you maybe inclined to deny them.
Go ahead, be my guest.

Now why not do the manly thing and admit that this total goofball paper has been totally refuted and refuted totally from the first page..

 

This gem among all the others, highlights the claims I am making in regards to the pretentious crap put out by this imposter.

 

Despite Professor Links refutation and derision of this nonsensical paper, the many other issues you claim in earlier threads was answered in the following two E-Mails from Professor Hamilton and Professor Mitch Begalman.

Barry,

> The question being debated is simply, can we logically and reasonably assign angular momentum to a ring singularity/mass, and the spacetime within the EH proper?

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
[the parts in red were my questions which you totally denied]
And another from Mitch Begalman directly on your paper and similar to Professor Link's reply although briefer.
Re: Neutron stars/Black holes
Mitch Begalman (mitch@jila.colorado.edu

This is complete nonsense, since it is not based on any relativistic ideas of gravity. It seems to be based on the simple packing of rigid spheres, but physical spheres could not remain rigid inside the event horizon, since this would require the material composing the spheres to have an internal sound speed greater than the speed of light, which directly contradicts relativity. The fact that the author did not begin the paper by stating this (exceeding the speed of light) as a premise implies a deep ignorance of the subject of the paper.

 

You are certainly taking !! DON'T KNOW WHAT ALL YOU ARE DIGGING...


Let's list all the total indisputable errors you have made....

[1] You deny the existence of BHs

I am critical about singularity.. and the formation process.

[2] You deny the GR postulate that once the Schwarzchild limit is reached, further collapse is compulsory.

No, I gave you the detailed work out on collapse, which you failed to understand !! But since I am not comfortable with singularity, I think of alternatives...My next paper is an extension of the same..

[3] You dispute the fact that gravity overcomes all other forces within a BH, including the strong nuclear.

You do not understand the role of Nuclear force either in formation or during free fall....your understanding is that at 0.2c, electrons will be stripped from atoms and after that protons etc. That rules out any Modern Physics study on your part. So no point talking on this issue.

[4] You deny being able to assign spin to the Kerr metric and mass

No, I said assigning of angular momentum with ErgoSphere resolved the issue..You are still stuck that singularity must be spinning.

[5] You deny that any photon emitted just this side of the EH, directly radially away will appear to hover there forever from the local frame.

Your statement reflects poor understanding of the subject, its not even proper copy paste.....You do not know what is local frame and what is remote frame and what is escape velocity.

Ok, just try this, the escape velocity at Earth's surface is around 11.2 Km / Sec, does it mean that if you throw a stone from just above the surface radially will it hover at the Earth surface from the local frame perspective ? If you say yes, then please go to linguistic forum. If you say no, then many old cobwebs from your head will go away. Probably you will start learning about spacetime.

[6] And the most astonishing latest faux pas, you stipulate that the interoir of a NS is at low temperatures.

No, thats not faux pas, Paddoboy !! This is quite complex for you, you do not understand the Fermi level calculations for degeneracy pressure of Neutrons, inner Neutrons (as per prevalent theories) in the NS are actually pretty cold. You need to study about Thermodynamics to know about temperature.

[7] Apologies If I have forgotten anything.

You are pardoned for such silly takes on me !!

Enjoy !!


PS : It is not necessary for you to tell or convey (by your post) to all that you are a layman......done we all know that. Just chill, man, I like your enthu for the subject..........And I am sure after my entry in this forum your knowledge has gone up by millions...At least credit me with that....

 

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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

No, it never arises.

Your paper made a huge assumption that at Rp the material become infinitely strong, which is wrong. This has been explained to you.
Packing works swell with marbles or when working with different sized particles in areas like ceramics or cement but trying to apply packing to matter in a black hole is just plain wrong.