Neutron Star & Black Hole - Some Misconceptions

I have a reputation for opposing pseudoscience, paddoboy. You have a reputation for peddling it.
Now listen up and pay attention: you say Einstein was wrong. That means you're on the wrong side of the crackpot fence. Capiche?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No I do not say Einstein was wrong. I do say that his theories have been improved on and examined in far greater detail since his death.
And you in reality are a purveyor of pseudoscience, hence your bannings from many other forums.
You are synonymous with crackpottery my friend.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Who ever said that gravity overcomes a Neutron Star?
You seem to be hurriedly manufacturing any lie/misinterpretation you can muster up. Similar to you previously inferring that I said a Singularity was a real physical thing.
Of course as we all know just the usual unsupported hear say usual red herrings to get away from the two issues you have yet failed to recognise, despite many reputable links saying you are wrong.
As I told you in the other thread..........
Although we have no information re what happens inside a BH's EH, we are reasonably allowed to theorise most likely scenarios, based on what we already know. That was re-enforced by a few Professors when another similar anti GR/Cosmology mission, was being foisted on us by another called rajesh a while back. Along with what GR tells us about compulsory collapse once the Schwarzchild limit is reached , we are allowed to reasonably and logically assume properties inside the EH like tidal gravitational effects that increase to infinity, all the way to the Singularity, and during that trip any body of matter that is sucked in is spagettified and torn apart to its most basic fundamentals, as inferred in Thorne's book and my other references.
Other properties that are ascertained to be inside a BH, are the properties of spinning spacetime and singularity/mass, evidenced from any observed ergosphere outside the EH proper, and also the common denominator that all stars spin and conservation of energy and momentum.
BH's themselves are a logically reasonably assumed scenario, based on observations and the laws of physics and GR.

To pinpoint where tidal gravity effects overcome all other forces, depends on the size of the BH. Any SMBH EH, could in reality be crossed without any immediate ill effects or spaghettifiaction. But as the Singularity is approached tidal gravity effects will come into play. Theoretically gravity could overcome all the other forces as soon as the mass crossed the EH.
In fact at this late stage in this discussion, it now appears that 'the god" is just using this "we cannot know" argument as a cop out after previous arguments have proven invalid.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, its not directed at you. You still have not understood the point. People like you misinterpret that a positively charged BH will attract a negative charged particle from inside of EH. There is no such Electric attraction, its the accretion of negatively charged partcile due to Gravity and in the process charge gets neutralized.

[/B]

You are confused. read carefully, it is Neutron Star, there is no singularity or infinities in a Neutron Star, its a stable structure.

[/B]

As long as CMBR absorption is there with higher temperature than BH/HR temperature, BH cannot evaporate. And there are no stellar BHs which have less temperature than CMBR and CMBR is ominipresent.

Good if you agree that singularity is not a Physical Thing.

Crap

Falsehood. You very rarely refer to scientific papers.

The problem with you is that you are a mainstream follower with no formal education on Physics and maths, so you cannot decipher the scientific papers, so you read lot of pop science journals and magazines, they are a bit flawed and you cannot figure out the real science behind, so unfortunately and unintentionally you end up pushing the poposcience. This gets further aggravated by your delusion that whatever you read in that pop journal is right.

 

Misconception # 5 : [in the context of Singularity] our models fail at the Planck/quantum level.

No, they don't. In case of Schwarzchilds BH, the singularity appears at r = 0, so we can say our models fail at r = 0, while in case of spinning/charged BH, the singularity is ring type and appears at a value which is dependent on the mass, angular momentum/charge.

Plank's level gives certain values of (M, L and T) and no GR equations fail there.

 

I've misunderstood nothing and again state the pure and simple fact that any charged BH will in time, negate that charge.
That also applies to spin. and both also supported.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

No again you are confused and as usual doing "the god" thing.
Let me again state what is generally accepted by mainstream....The tidal gravitational effects that are evident in a BH, move towards infinity and at some time overcome all other forces.
Again you seek to confuse with Neutron star stability

Again doing "the god" thing and avoiding the question. Let me state it again....In time all BH's including stellar size will evaporate if Hawking radiation is valid.And that is the general consensus that it is valid.
Are you not aware that the CMBR is lessening with time?

Are you able to reference anywhere in any thread, where ever I have said that a singularity is a physical thing? Or is this just another red herring to confuse?
That's called dishonesty to put it as politely as possible.

No totally true as I have shown with the isotropic and homogenous assumptions of the Universe and of course what at least three Professors have re-enforced.

I have referred to a scientific paper in this thread, and all my links are from qualified educated professionals, rather than rank amateurs like your self who has never referenced anything to support your own god driven nonsense.

The trouble with you is you are a recognised ego inflated uneducated lay person in the required discipline, who through your delusions of grandeur, have sat down for 12 months or so, fabricated some nonsense, put it on a science forum, here, as no other forum or outlet will accept, and expect all and sundry to bow down at your own delusional character.
That won't work unless you finally reference some of your nonsense, which you are unable to do. Sad.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Yes, I push mainstream accepted science, because it generally describes the universe far better than any alternative fabricated issue, constructed to support some flagging ego [yours] in the face of truth and fact.

 

what a massive joke you truly are.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

shakes head.