Problem of gravitons and black holes

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Ultron, Sep 28, 2016.

  1. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    I don't spread darkness: I leave that up to you, although I will correct your nonsensical quackery when appropriate and when I am able.
    Do I need to list that nonsensical quackery and darkness again?

    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
    Yes, most certainly, and I'm sure all would agree with that.
    [ps: If you check out the fringes, alternative, pseudoscience and cesspool, you will see that has occurred anyway, to a great extent.]
     
    Last edited: Oct 14, 2016
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    I certainly accept my limitations on the subject and always have.
    [I hope I have explained my comment re infinite density to your satisfaction]
    Although as you have commented on in the past, obviously my adversary does not recognise any limitations.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    I disagree with the philosophical musing of Rpenner here.

    1. Well its clear that we do not and have no means to know beyond r < 2M, but mainstream has not accepted its ignorance about that region rather a big Industry is on about singularity.

    2. There is tremendous amount of work around singularity with funny funny words invented like naked singularity, cosmic censorship, sphaggetifications, merging of singularity etc.

    3. Entire Black Hole drama is around singularity whether it is Kerr or schwarzschilds BH, because GR offers no relief. Kerr singularity nonsense is ring type with zero thickness, that is worse than point singularity.

    So Rpenner ruling out singularity in light of mainstream observation is incorrect.

    He also failed to correct paddoboy about his insistence on GR failing at Planck's / Quantum level.

    PS: As far as my views are concerened, singularity is nonsense. So much money and time of mainstream should not have been wasted on this., but still every second day we have a paper on this.
     
    danshawen likes this.
  8. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    The infinite density is associated with the nonsense called singularity. Pl appreciate that.
     
  9. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    And the mathematical point Singularity is most probably never reached, please appreciate that.
     
  10. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    Thats my point, thats why I call singularity as BS. And it is most certainly never reached .

    But you are a mainstream propagandist, since when you started taking such views?
     
  11. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    You disagree with the scientific facts and evidence in all 21st century cosmology also:
    While you essentially remain ignorant, most cosmologists and scientists, as you have been informed professionally before, are able to make reasonable logical judgments, based on current physics.
    The only funny, funny names re 21st cosmology I have heard are that fabricated by yourself and expletive deleted in protecting yours and his "god of the gaps".
    21st century cosmology, based on observation, GR, and reasonable assumptions, are at present the accepted scientific theory: BH's themselves have also now been near confirmed with the confirmation of gravitational radiation, which all of course puts a great big hole in your own fabricated fairy tales.
    Rpenner is most likely correct, just as most physicists now accept.
    Because essentially I am correct: GR is not applicable at the quantum level, but that is just one aspect of 21st century cosmology you are ignorant about, among the myriad of others, which to avoid any more embarrassment for you, I won't mention at this time.
    Your views are of no concern or any great worry to mainstream academia, let alone to those on this forum.
    When you can accept that, you will start learning something.
     
  12. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    No, what your problem is of course, is your obfuscation, obtuseness and cunning to try and deride anything that mainstream accept, and in doing so confuse yourself and all others.
    I have been telling you for as long as you have been here, that the mathematical point singularity probably does not exist, while you have argued on semantics, pedant and petulant irrelevancies.
    In fact you have even claimed that since this singularity does not exist, neither does the BH: Another example of the fabricated nonsense you infest this forum with.
     
  13. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    Your entire post is nothing but anti-me rant.

    One interesting point is if there is no singularity, then pl define your near certain Black Hole. You cannot. If no singularity, then BH needs to be redefined then GR needs to be either thrown out or corrected.
     
  14. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546

    Again probably???

    It most certainly does not exist! Do you get it?
     
  15. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    No, my entire posts and threads I start are always in promoting the scientific methodology, the advancement of science, and refuting the agenda driven crank nonsense pushed by some, and their futile efforts to discredit the sciences in general.
    You just happen to fit that profile better than most.
    More fabricated nonsense.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    A BH is simply a region of space where the gravitational force is so strong that not even light can escape from it. Black holes are formed when matter collapses in on itself catastrophically so that more than a critical quantity of mass is concentrated into a particularly small region.
     
  16. Daecon Kiwi fruit Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,133
    And it will be if/when something better comes along.

    Do you have something better?

    For now, GR works perfectly fine with what it covers, that's why GR is "mainstream".
     
    The God likes this.
  17. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    No, most probably does not exist. No certainty involved as yet, not withstanding your own lay person's take on things.
     
  18. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    See the problem. We are forced to define a BH as region of space, because we cannot give any massed core concept for a BH once its beneath EH. Understand the intermingled concept, grow beyond parrotizing.
     
  19. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    A BH is primarally just critically curved spacetime, with a mass squeezed into a tiny region at its core:
    Again, and as you have been professionaly informed prior to this, we are allowed to reasonably and logically make assumptions re the critically curved spacetime beyond the EH: One for example is that the mass keeps collapsing as GR dictates. Nice to see you finally accept the legitamacy of describing the center as "core". I may yet be achieving something with you! *fingers crossed*

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  20. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    Again foolish statement....the prevalent notion of a BH does not have massed core concept, as you are attempting to push. No mainstream talks of mass getting squeezed into a tiny region, if you follow GR then it is r = 0.

    Your popo that mass resides between Planck level and singularity is shear stupidity.

    Yes someone proposed Planck's star, but that all pure nonsense.
     
  21. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    As soon as you say that mass resides at some tiny region inside EH, instantly GR is killed. There is no hard surface. The monster called Singularity has become a must to sustain GR.
     
  22. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Wrong again for the same aforementioned reasons.
    No, certainly fact, particularly if the mathematical point singularity does not exist. You need to learn that.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    A Planck star [if it exists] would obviously be at the quantum/Planck level, fitting my claim perfectly. But irrespective, the mass would be in an as yet unknown state.
    Thank you my dear friend!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  23. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    Bye bye.....you will never learn.
     

Share This Page