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 asked.......
    You replied.....
    OK, let me reword it....
    "A finite mass packed into zero space, has infinite density: A finite mass packed into a size more then zero has finite density"
    True or false?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. rpenner Fully Wired Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    That's true in conventional assumptions about 3-dimensional geometry, for it follows from the definition of density. However, Special Relativity, General Relativity and Quantum Field theory are formulated in 4-dimensional space time which is why density is not a Lorentz invariant scalar quantity. You have one more post to get to the point, because this thread has already exceeded its quota of moderator hours.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    I,m simply asking a question of a forum member, not a moderator.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. RJBeery Natural Philosopher Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,222
    This description, particularly the portion in red, is flawed. Using the term "before" precludes the idea that the black hole can interact with mass in the future. Imagine the "fossil field" of a large black hole sitting quietly for millions of years. Now imagine a second black hole passing by it in such a way that they enter a mutual orbit. This behavior cannot possibly be "calculated entirely from the properties of the star and its external gravitational field before it becomes a black hole".

    Black holes, as commonly described, cannot exist.
     
  8. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Not sure how you managed to fabricate such nonsense, but the fossil field and the property of nonlinearity of spacetime/gravity, makes perfect sense.

    BH's as predicted and evidenced by GR most certainly do exist, not withstanding your rhetoric otherwise.
    [Although there is some debate and interpretations re the EH and hypothetical firewall, of which I'm not that well versed in]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firewall_(physics)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox

    https://www.ecnmag.com/news/2016/04/hot-problem-black-hole-firewalls
     
    QuarkHead likes this.
  9. RJBeery Natural Philosopher Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,222
    So your position is that all future behavior of a black hole can be "calculated entirely from the properties of the star and its external gravitational field before it becomes a black hole"?
     
  10. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    My position is as I have detailed.
    Gravity does not need to get out of a BH for the reasons I stated.
    I'm not sure how you can assume that all future behavior, can be calculated by the properties of the star and its gravity field, before it becomes a BH, other then the mass of the star in the first instant.
    eg: Our Sun will never become a BH:
     
  11. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546

    I am infracted for above post?

    Rpenner,

    You use the F word and giving me a sermon on civility. Why did you use F word? Probably you got frustrated by my ( and Paddoboy) behavior. Same here, You have attempted to correct Paddoboy, but he has been posting these two points every thread on GR and Black Hole. Se, his further dialog with Rjbeery, don't you think, those lines also require correction.

    You have failed to note that Paddoboy has posted around 20000 posts, a kind of milestone, and a casual visitor of this site would surely expect or believe that his posts would be meaningful, but thats not the case. Correcting someone is not trolling, refusing to get corrected is.

    You are a person who can decipher nonsense immediately, I do not know as a Mod if it falls in your Mod time to correct outright mistakes by posters in science subforums.

    Moreover, you have warned me couple of times that I cannot demand answers. This warning of yours is based on mistaken premises. I am asking question on his belief, on his posting like how is that GR fails at Planck's level. In fact you should warn a poster who does not respond after making certain claims.
     
  12. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    There are questions, not for your response, but please ponder...

    1. How do you pack a finite mass in zero space? Don't you see the apparent absurdity in this.

    2. How does one grow to a size less than zero?
    In the context, what you are attempting is that mass collapses to r = 0, that is M within zero space, then magically it grows to non zero size? How?

    You have read, no doubt, but understanding what you have read is different ball game altogether.
     
  13. Daecon Kiwi fruit Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,133
    Then why do you constantly ignore people when they try to correct your own misunderstanding?
     
  14. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546

    Mr Daecon,

    Your past posts shows that you are not conversant with basic physics and maths. It is quite straightforward that a person who is not aware of units of measurement of an angle, cannot be engaged in meaningful discussion on science. So please do not troll and if possible stay away from my posts. You are most welcome if you post some science / maths as a learner.
     
  15. Daecon Kiwi fruit Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,133
    Was not aware. I am now. It's called learning.

    Maybe you should try it instead of arrogantly preaching all the time. You're like the poster child for the Dunning-Kruger effect.
     
  16. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    Yes, it is called learning. No doubt.

    But you want to learn about angle units in a thread which talks about Sun and planets and Kepler orbits?

    You are too raw for such advanced topics, please cross the bar of at least high school physics and maths, then your participation will be much more beneficial. You are just trolling or at the best siding with people who are finding fault in others.

    Keep this D-K thing aside, first learn.
     
  17. Daecon Kiwi fruit Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,133
    Every fucking time.

    Every time you always make some snide fucking comment about me not knowing what a radian was in an attempt to what? Disparage me? Invalidate my comments?

    And you wonder why I never bother posting any more of my science questions on here, because I know you'll just use it as more of your "You're just a kid, you need to learn basic physics..." trolling bullshit.

    I know I'm going to get a whole lot of infractions for this but I'm beyond caring.

    Fuck you, The God.

    Fuck. You.
     
  18. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546

    I am not reporting and I request Mods not to take any action, I empathize with you, the problem which you made and are still making is that you are siding with people who love finding faults in others. You support them by making catchy one liners. This gives you some acceptance here on this forum, as this forum is mostly against critical thinking, but its my advise, since you have blurted out your pent up frustration, pl learn and do not participate in mud slinging.

    You make a thread, ask questions, I will be the first one to respond with deserving affection and with proper text book answers.
     
  19. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    As usual, you continue obfuscating.
    The finite mass into zero space is the definition of the Sungularity, that which most cosmologists do not believe to exist.
    And with all due respect, please see post 82:

    Yes, a slip of the finger: And as already recognised it should be more than zero.
    PLease see post 81:
    I have read nothing in actual fact and am discussing, or was discussing a point with rpenner, re density of singularity.
    I am also familiar with much of your mistaken hypotheticals re BH's and 21st century cosmology in general.
     
    Last edited: Oct 22, 2016
  20. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    Yes, now you are on track, finite mass at r = 0 for Schwarzschild BH.

    Now please cite which cosmologists do not believe in existence of such singularity? Because if so it changes the very definition of BH. Now do not parrotise that if and when Quantum Theory of Gravity comes, then this will be resolved. Thats not the argument.

    And BTW, singularity has no meaningful properties like density etc.
     
    Last edited: Oct 22, 2016
  21. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Your obfuscation continues, sadly.
    I have never denied that position. The point is that most cosmologists/physicists do not believe that will ever be reached, rather that a future QGT will abolish it.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Most all. And if you want clarification then I'm sure you are capable of finding it, and would suggest you do so, considering your apparent lack of knowledge on BH's.
    In any respect, the BH exists as evidenced, and a future QGT should eliminate the singularity.


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    As I have told you over the last 12 months or so, speaking of BH density is certainly meaningless, yet you argued vehemently against that point.
    Any point singularity of mass by definition, of course does leads to infinite density and infinite spacetime curvature, which is specifically why most cosmologists and physicists do not believe that it is reached and that a future QGT will eliminate it.
     
    Last edited: Oct 22, 2016
  22. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    An Interesting paper:
    https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0806/0806.1176.pdf

    “A fresh look at some questions surrounding black holes”

    Abstract:

    The modern notion of a black-hole singularity is considered with reference to the Schwarzchild solution to Einstein’s field equations of general relativity. A brief derivation of both the original and the modern line elements is given. The argument is put forward that the singularity occurring within the Schwarzchild line element, that has been associated with the radius of the black-hole event horizon, is in fact merely a mathematical occurrence, and does not exist physically. The real aim here, however, is to attempt to open up the whole problem, draw some conclusions but finally to urge everyone to consider the points raised with no preconceived opinions and then come to their own final conclusion.
     
  23. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    Rpenner,

    That's the point, despite your clear post to him, that debunking singularity, is denial of GR, this man is pushing the same thing.

    And he is evading responding on his claim that most cosmologist, yes most, feel that singularity does not exist. This is anti GR position that singularity is non sense. We cannot say that once QGT comes then only we will Chuck singularity out.
     

Share This Page