Dark matter and black hole.

I have asked you twice now to support your concept with a legitimate, reputable citation and/or link: Twice now you have ignored that request. This isn't the fringe sections, this is the science section. And you do not get away with making unsupported claims.
Expletive deleted was thankfully and rightly permanently banned for also stating with certainty unsupported nonsense, and continued to refuse to give citations and/or reputable links when requested.
I ask you again, to give a link, reference or citation to support your nonsense, otherwise I will report you for your obvious dishonesty.
Got it?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What is my concept here? Nothing, I am talking about established theory. It is not my fault that you guys are not able to decide on these basics.

For a uniform sphere

1. Density = 3M/4pir^3

2. Schwarzschild radius = 2GM/c^2

To get density at EH we substitute (2) in (1), we get.

3. Density at EH = 3c^6/ 32pi M^2 G^3.

From 3 it is clear that density at EH has no certain constant value, it is dependent on the mass of BH but from 2 it is clear that M/r is constant at EH for any BH. It is also clear from 1 that for a sphere M/r is not functionally same as M/r^3.

I will consider my efforts of typing this not gone in vain, if you learn this and acknowledge.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Why this man is allowed to post here in science section? His posts are full of fucks, morons, false accusations and above all inaccuracies. If officials here control his behavior at the start then others do not have to fall to his low level.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So like expletive deleted, you refuse to support your stance with a reputable link.

 

What reputable link you need for my #62?

 

BH formation is simply a matter of density and squeezing matter to and past its Schwarzchild radius.
As with your debunked BNS, and your failed nonsense in cosmoquest, you have nothing.
As a nobody rajish, you must learn and accept that you will never reach the hallowed halls of scientific academia, for many reasons.....not that there's anything wrong with that of course!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I am at loss of words. Thats all I can say.

 

Not necessary: Simply pick up a good cosmological book and see that what everyone has been telling you, and as everyone was telling you with your BNS debacle, and your cosmoquest effort, is correct, and you are horribly wrong...again.
Now why not support what you so stringently claim with a reputable citation?

 

1. I still standby a possibility of an object inside EH, however transient.
2. Do not bring in cosmoquest, but still it had a wonderful run there. The fact is neither they could demolish nor could I establish. It was a good discussion.
3. Regarding giving you citation for density and Schwarzschild radius, pick up any relevant text. This is basic.

 

And despite all the evidence showing you are wrong.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You need to remove your rose coloured glasses, it was just as efficiently demolished as Professor Link demolished your BNS.

Stop being so down right dishonest again rajish...I have already given links...You have failed to support anything you say, possibly believing that you are a professional....you are not...electrician perhaps...glorified, maybe, but certainly not professional.

 

You know there is a saying.
Fight fire with fire.
I suspect the equations you post are basic and found anywhere so why not present the equation and a link to something.

I think it would be a good habit to develope.

Even in sales one does not make a statement without establishing it as a fact.
Same in law.
And same in science.
It may mean a little more effort but you meet constant calls for references and authority and it is so simple to provide them.

And you did do ok at cosmoquest even if you did not get up.

But I really think you could benefit by giving references authority etc.

If you say it well that is your say so, with respect that is not necessarily impressive but if you say I use this evidence and here is a paper in support well right away you sound more credible.

You may think what I say is silly but games have rules and if you want to play you need to respect the rules.

Alex

 

Only correction, my name is Rajesh not Rajish, and its my name, no cyber shield.

And hope one day you realize the difference between a mechanic and a mechanical engineer; an electrician and and an electrical engineer.

 

Again a BH has its origins simply due to collapsing mass, and/or accretion on Neutron/Pulsars.
The object becomes so compact that , a point is reached called the schwarzchild limit, at which the escape velocity of light at the surface is reached. At this point also and as dictated by GR, compulsory collapse follows.
Or to put it in more familiar basic terms, take the mass of an entire star and compress it down into an object so compact that the force of gravity defies comprehension and surpasses all other forces at or near the core..

 

Whatever, a shame though you are unable to correct your obfuscation and avoidance of questions as you were warned about at cosmoquest.
Your cyber shield is your problem, not mine.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

That's why I used the term "glorified"

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Ok, but have I overestimated the education level of Paddoboy and few others?

Schwarzschild radius

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_radius

Density = mass/volume

Volume of sphere = 4/3 pi r^3.

 

More to the point, perhaps you have under estimated the true professionals with access to state of the art equipement, and at the same time, overestimated your own ability, and recognition that you are simply not qualified.
ps: And of course we have your usual avoidance of any link, reference or citation that supports what you are saying. Do you understand that?
My apologies! You have given a link...but it does not support your stance!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Are we through with your reputable link demand?

 

The link you gave does not support your stance...anyway, thank you.

 

Never over estimate or underestimate anyone.

All I am saying is it is a matter of presentation.
Also if everything you present has back up most will not notice when you slip something in with no authority. Because your style is seen as always having backup.
Also saying things in a simple manner is not really best.
Well it is but much better to say something in brief form, add a reference, and in a following sentence expand the original simple statement.
Also qualifying as you go is helpful.
Example.
The dog, a rather large animal brown and appearing agressive, sat by the door.
The reason for this is others read our words not our mind.
We need to convey our complex thoughts with only simple words and even between highly educated folk this may not be simple.

Some of the things you say I find difficult to understand and I think that may be due to the way you have put it rather than any complexity of the subject matter.

Anyways take what you can use and disgard the stuff of no use to you.

Alex

 

I will take you step by step, pl tell me what is wrong with my stance and what type of link you want. I invite a neutral poster, James R can come back, and lets resolve this issue to the satisfaction and learning of Paddoboy and Physbang.

Their problem, as I understand, seems to be that a blackhole requires certain density for formation. Density referred at EH.

The correct reply is that in general it is not true. The density is inversely proportional to mass squared, so for larger massed BH, the density will be much less. Yes for smaller BH it will be densed of the order of nucleus density.

Another problem is that M/r is functionally same as sphere density. The fact is no it is not. The density of a sphere is M/r^3 which is not same as M/r. For a uniform sphere M/r^3 is constant but M/r is not and while for all BHs M/r is constant at EH but not M/r^3.