Problem of gravitons and black holes

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

  1. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    No, that's simply fabricated nonsense and a result of your religious agenda I suggest.
    Perhaps you need to read rpenner's post again? Afterall you literally begged him to intervene!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    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
    Sure I will!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    All the time!
    But just as certain, I am rarely taken in by claims from buffoons and those with agendas and god of the gaps hopes.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    3,546
    Again dishonest representation. I did not beg Rpenner to respond. I showed the double standard of this forum Moderation, when MR posts some funny thing about ghosts and aliens in fringe, two Mods jump to him and close the thread with a lengthy unreadable sermon, but you here in science section post nonsense after nonsense still given a very very long rope? Thankfully finally Rpenner called your point as 'nonsense'.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Sure you did, three times, or was it four?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    You showed SFA: As usual you fabricate scenarios to suit your self.
    MR, like yourself, when backed into a corner, just starts repeating the same unsupported claims over and over and over again.
    Your own threads have been moved for the same reasons: Making the same claims over and over and over again, and never supporting them with references and/or citations.
    Something which I often will do.
    Rpenner called my point on "density" and I replied. I don't believe he understood my stance properly and I addressed that and clarified the position, to his satisfaction I presume, as he has been in today and no more post on that point.
     
  8. Kristoffer Giant Hyrax Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,364
    You won't. You refuse.

    paddoboy have kindly offered you link after link after link from reputable sources.

    You might occasionally be right when you say he doesn't understand what was meant, but he at least attempts to learn.

    YOU DON'T.
     
  9. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    You are right he does not understand, but then what's the point of giving link after link and un-understood copy pastes.

    He is right because he is with mainstream hands down, but he is wrong when he takes up the responsibility of explaining.

    Your other comment is just the adhoms.
     
  10. Daecon Kiwi fruit Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,133
    You haven't given any indication that you understand any of the stuff you complain about being "parrotized", all you do is object against anything mainstream. You come across as nothing more than an ignorant contrarian.
     
    paddoboy likes this.
  11. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    I understand enough to show in the vast majority of cases, you are wrong.
    Just as I have in this thread.
    Daecon's previous comment best sums you up and the reason you lack any credibility.
    Isn't that what rpenner has recently commented on re yourself?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Oh the irony and hypocrisy of it all!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  12. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    I did answer that at post 40 thus
    Let me add to that. When we say a BH has finite mass and infinite density and spacetime curvature, we speak on face value and presume a mathematical point Singularity. As I have said in bold above, most all physicists and cosmologists do not believe such a stage will be reached, so in effect we do not have infinte density nor infinite spacetime curvature.
    The other point I failed to mention was actually even discussing the density of a BH is in effect meaningless and does not really make much sense. This was another point that I tried to drum into the god a while back, and actually with the help of queerus also but as usual, to no avail.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    I hope that clears up the "density is limited" aspect of my comments.
     
  13. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    Since a singularity is mathematical, one can't ever say, "any mathematics to the contrary not withstanding."
     
  14. rpenner Fully Wired Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    Saying density is not infinite is not the same as the stronger claim that density is limited. For example, if there was some sort of minimum volume, then density would not be limited, yet it would not infinite for there are no infinite masses. And in light of Lorentz contraction, density of nuclei (and other objects) can be made arbitrarily large, but not infinite, by choice of frame. Because you aren't using precise terminology, you appear guilty of substituting hand-waving for a communicable rational basis for your claims.

    The density of a black hole of mass M is conventionally its mass divided by the volume of an Euclidean sphere, \(\frac{4 \pi}{3} R^3\), with a radius of its Schwarzschild radius, \(R = r_s \equiv \frac{2 GM}{c^2}\), thus it is inversely proportional to the square of the mass: \(\frac{3 c^6}{32 \pi G^3 M^2} \approx 7.3\times 10^{79} \; \textrm{kg}^3 \cdot \textrm{m}^{-3} \times \frac{1}{M^2} \approx 1000 \; \textrm{kg} \cdot \textrm{m}^{-3} \times \left( \frac{135700000 M_{\odot}}{M} \right)^2\). Since all observation and experiment must be exterior to this sphere this is suitable for discussion.

    Nevertheless, the geometric singularity at the heart of the Schwarzschild geometry is a modeled singularity of vacuum solutions to General Relativity. Infalling particles are modeled to reach it in finite proper time. It's pointless to talk about what people may believe separates model from reality in this case, this is the model and has been such since 1916. The ways potentially to avoid a model with a singularity are varied, but as some go far beyond Riemannian geometry (to the point where "density" may not have meaning) and none has shown to give better predictions of observable phenomena than GR, it is premature to have a lay discussion on the "real" "density" of the "singularity".

    The considered verdict of the entire moderation team is that: Paddoboy and The God don't know enough to have a discussion on such a topic because no one on Earth has a factual basis for opinion on the subject. They aren't philosophically inclined enough to discuss their own ignorance but would rather throw stones at each other's. They aren't civil enough to stay out of the gutters. Therefore they will not be forgiven for the tiniest breach of civility to each other on any topic. If the two of them lack the human capacity to act like civilized guests invited to a state dinner, they had best put each other on ignore or leave this forum. They may not discuss moderation actions in this thread, but only by PM. Neither of you has been acting like a friend to this forum, to science or even to reality. Instead you seem driven by other concerns and rationalizing the desire to post poison with a fictional view that you are somehow "helping." We don't buy that.
     
  15. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    • Please don't insult other members or troll or ignore warnings.
    Rpenner,

    No moderation is discussed. You can blame me because you do not know the history.

    But you have not responded on Paddoboy claim of...

    1. Mass residing between, yes between, plancks level and singularity at r = 0.

    This has been insistently and erroneously posted by Paddoboy at least 10 times, I gave him an idea, like the formula you have given that even if a solar mass to reside at planks level it's density will be of the order of 10^145 kg/m3, which is ridiculous. But he as usual started hand waving.

    2. His pet claim that GR fails at Planck's level.

    Correct him on these two points and face the music.
     
    Last edited: Oct 18, 2016
  16. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    Man, do I agree with that! Since I put them both on ignore it has really made the forum a much better place IMO.
     
  17. rpenner Fully Wired Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    Fuck the petty history and your puerile attempts at counting coup. None of that matters to decent people.
    You don't have the right to demand a response from anyone. That is the entitlement of Moderation staff and those that raise with clean hands the charge that a poster is being evasive on claims of scientific support.
    That's an armchair version of how quantum mechanics avoids a singularity in the muon-positron bound system; applying it to General Relativity is supported more by analogy than by physics, but it is still being explored under the umbrella of "quantum gravity" — the future replacement to General Relativity.
    I think you are off by 11 orders of magnitude, ignore utterly the issue of non-Euclidean geometry, and you have not stated any physical reason why it is ridiculous.
    At least one of GR or QFT must fail because they don't coexist at extreme conditions. Heuristically, Planck's length separations and Planck's mass-black holes are ideal candidates for systems for which a complete physics of quantum gravity is expected to give radically different results than either GR or QFT. I don't see his claim as particularly original to him which means it's not "his pet claim."
    This would be an example of "throwing stones at each other's ignorance." You have done nothing to distinguish yourself in this post, which is another reason why it should end.
     
  18. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    I have never said, nor have I ever implied that I know all there is to know about BH's. In fact I have often made the point, particularly to newbies, that I am a lay person.
    So, yes my description is directed at a lay person, and with all due respect, I also believe that my lay person's description is far more understandable then your own precise, more correct, but at times highly mathematical description.
    Don't get me wrong: I appreciate your mathematical professional opinion, particularly in light of imo the anti GR stuff that some see the need to push.
    And yes, I have faith that your mathematical description is spot on.
    The highlighted text by me, seems to be six of one and half a dozen of the other. I mean "density is limited" and "density is not infinite"
    In my opinion [my lay person's opinion] the mathematical point singularity certainly invokes infinite quantities such as density and spacetime curvature.
    But most cosmologists/physicists also believe the point singularity is not reached, so those infinite quantities are not reached.
    That is all I'm referring to.
     
  19. rpenner Fully Wired Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    Claiming "density is not infinite" is a simple denial that the abstraction of point masses are literally point-like. It's a denial that GR geometric singularities are physically realized exactly as described in GR and a denial that QFT's treatment of electrons as point objects is valid at all energy levels. It lies in the gap between Alternate Theories and the Mainstream because it is unevidenced, and yet asserting it doesn't actually change yet how physics is done. It's somewhat a stronger claim than "quantum gravity will replace both GR and QFT" (likely within the mainstream) which is a stronger claim that "quantum gravity will replace at least one of GR or QFT." (Conservative mainstream)

    Claiming "density is limited" indicates that there is a physical quantity, \(\rho_0\), that physical mechanisms enforce as an upper bound on density despite the incompatibility of that view with Special Relativity and length contraction. Thus it is not only a much stronger claim than the above, but posits a specific model which renders the claim pseudoscience. It would be fair game to challenge you to document such a limit on density and when you cannot, flag the claim as unsupported nonsense.

    Compare the analogous "velocity is not infinite" and "velocity is limited" in pre-1905 physics. One is a much more radical claim.
     
    Last edited: Oct 18, 2016
  20. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Is it correct that most cosmologists do not believe that this mathematical point singularity is ever reached?
    I have said many times that GR is not applicable at the quantum level, and have also said maybe a future QGT will reveal more.
    I have also said many times that we have no knowledge or evidence of anything within the EH, but I have also said that we are able to reasonably assume certain properties/conditions, based on our current knowledge of GR and the laws of physics, this side of the EH: In past threads, I have had this supported by Professor Carlip and Professor Hamilton
    At this time and a quick search, I cannot find anything to support what I said.
     
  21. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Is the following statement true?
    A finite mass packed into a zero space has infinite density. As soon as it grows to a size less than zero, its density then becomes finite.
     
  22. rpenner Fully Wired Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    That is not a question in the field of cosmology, but in theoretical physics. Cosmologies work within GR but don't address the interior of black holes. No one on this forum is equipped to speak to the beliefs of "most cosmologists."

    Those two different viewpoints ("GR is not applicable" / "assume ... based on our current knowledge of GR") are in conflict at the geometric singularity.

    Not literally true as you have provided no mechanism for a space of zero measure to "grow". Not literally true, because if it grew it would be more than zero.
    But if x & y are variables are in the range \(\left[0, \infty \right]\) then \(x/y\) is considered to be a number in the range \(\left[0, \infty \right]\) except when \(x=y=0\) or \(x=y=\infty\) when it is undefined when continuity is used as a guide. When x is positive, finite and not zero and y is zero \(x/y\) is considered synonymous as \(\lim_{t\to 0} x/t = \infty\). If y is not zero, the same logic requires y to be finite, \(0 < y < \infty \Rightarrow \lim_{t\to y} x/t \neq \infty\).

    Shorter: The quotient of two finite positive quantities is positive and finite.
    http://us.metamath.org/mpegif/rpdivcl.html
     
  23. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    I'm not speaking for "most cosmologists" I'm stating what I believe to be true, after many conversations and much reading.
     
    Last edited: Oct 18, 2016

Share This Page