The black hole "frozen star" interpretation is the one that's right

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by Farsight, Mar 12, 2014.

  1. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,846
    And again as I mentioned before, most scientists reject any singularity as defined by infinities of spacetime curvature or density.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,628
    I have answered the dying pulse train argument in detail, with reference to a publication, you have presented no counterargument at all, so this is not an issue.

    Everything else was nothing beyond ignorance. GR and my theory make the same predictions, except near BHs and the BB if $\Upsilon>0$, for $\Upsilon<0$ everywhere. So, once GR is empirically viable, my theory is empirically viable too.
    They recognize that in the quantum domain GR fails and has to be replaced by a theory of quantum gravity. My ether theory has no such problem, quantum condensed matter theory is textbook physics.
    Yes, in modern physics ignorance became an argument. In fact, the ignorance has a simple and well-defined reason - there are no grants for studying alternatives to string theory and LQG, so, those who risk studying them need some independent income, else they become taxi drivers after the end of their actual grant. "Independence of science" is a memory of the past, when most scientists worked as university teachers and were free to research whatever they liked, and in case of failure had their job as teachers anyway. Today, young scientists have to s.... those in power of the grants, that means, the proponents of the established research directions.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,846
    I don't accept your so called arguments, as obviously you do have an agenda...your own model, and of course if it wasn't an issue, the overwhelming mainstream would be on to it...You maybe a scientist, but you don't get to over rule mainstream opinion that easy, or for that matter, pull the wool over my eyes...sorry schmelzer.
    If it doesn't recognise BH's it isn't viable.
    So your in line for the Physics Nobel this year?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Again I maybe no physicist schmelzer, but you can't pull the wool over my eyes.
    I reject conspiracy theories also schmelzer. And I also reject your claim re no grants for string theory....
    https://www.quora.com/Who-funds-the-string-theory-research-and-why
    "String theory, like other basic research, is mostly supported by government funding. For example, in the United States I believe most funding for string theory research comes from the Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation. A smaller portion of the funding comes from philanthropists such as Jim Simons (a mathematical physicist who went on to found the world's most successful hedge fund).

    The question of why an organization does something is a complicated one. The answer may depend slightly on what level in the management hierarchy you ask the question to. If you ask the program managers who are administering the detailed funding decisions why they fund string theory I'm sure the answer is the direct and obvious one: they want to solve the mystery of quantum gravity and string theorists are trying to do that. Higher up the management chain I expect that you will get a broader collection of motivations which includes the desire to solve quantum gravity but which also includes other considerations such as national pride and attracting STEM talent".

    If your're not getting any funding for your research, I would suggest asking yourself why.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,628
    That means, you simply ignore arguments. Your choice.
    Meaningless, once you ignore the arguments.
    No. The Nobel price is a mainstream supporting price. So, first, string theory has to die out completely, LQG too, then the way of financing fundamental science would have to be changed, to make independent research by young scientists at least imaginable. After this, my theory would have a chance to be considered by the mainstream. This needs some decades. Ok, I would accept it, despite appearing then in a list of mass murderers who have received the peace Nobel prize, but the Nobel in physics is sufficiently far away from that mass murderer list so that this will not endanger my reputation.
    Very simple. I know anathema will not be funded. I know that I have no chance and so I don't even try to get any funding. Thanks to bitcoin, I can live without funding. So why I should lose my time for doing hopeless things? If I don't even try, it is obvious that I will not receive any.
     
  8. RJBeery Natural Philosopher Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,189
    I subscribe to the frozen star theory by default, not because I prefer it. The modern interpretation of black holes suffers from a logical inconsistency, which I'll simplify into a couple of sentences -- the event horizon takes an infinite amount of time to form from the external observer's perspective, but we already know that micro black holes formed by cosmic rays dissipate due to some evaporative process in finite time. This means that micro black holes contain(ed) the energy to form a GR event horizon but dissipated before doing so, therefore any hypothetical event horizon did not exist. Any process which limits the span of a black hole's existence precludes the event horizon from being physical.
     
  9. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,846
    No more then you ignoring the argument of the vast majority in favour of your own agenda.
    See previous answer.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Wow! The obvious message is that you are so far out in left field, you'll resort to any nonsensical argument and/or analogy.
    Again, nice to see you make an effort schmelzer, but really, you should realize that every Mother believes her baby to be the most adorable.
     
  10. river

    Messages:
    12,760
    I don't recognise BH's as a realistic physical thing .
     
  11. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    33,467
    Nobody cares what you recognise or don't recognise. You can't give any reasons, so why bother giving us your opinion on something like this?
     
  12. river

    Messages:
    12,760

    What form of matter is the essence of BH ?
     
  13. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    33,467
    Nobody knows what's inside a black hole. We can't go inside to look, and we have no working theory about what's right at the centre.

    But go back to your statement, that you don't believe that black holes are physical things.

    We have a photo of a black hole!

    What do you think those astronomers photographed, if black holes aren't physical things?

    Moreover, what do you think is the source of the high-energy jets we see from active galactic nuclei?

    Moreover, what do you think those stars in Saggitarius A are orbiting, if not a black hole? What other theory are you putting forward to account for those observations?

    You see what I mean when I say that nobody cares about your unsupported opinions? Real scientists look for evidence. They make observations. They develop theories to explain the observations.

    We've collected so much evidence that is consistent with black holes being "physical things" that if you want to deny that black holes exist, at a minimum you need to show that all that evidence can be explained in some other way.
     
  14. river

    Messages:
    12,760
    Thats because BH is mathematical rather than based on the physical .



    But what causes the BH to form ?

    Something we have as yet to understand .

    BH are really about the three dimensional compression of matter .

    By gravity .

    These Galactic Jets are caused by the galaxy balancing its self . And these jets are from two poles . Opposite directions . North-south





     
    Last edited: Aug 4, 2019
  15. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,846
    While its certainly correct that we will never actually see what is inside a BH, GR does tell us that once the Schwarzchild radius is reached, further collpase is compulsory. Therefor I believe we can reasonably assume that all we have inside a BH is critically curved spacetime [ignoring any mass/energy that is falling in] a vacuum in actual fact.
    Along with that premise, we know that GR fails us at the quantum/Planck level and as such we do not know what condition the mass/energy that has compulsory collapsed to exists in. Most cosmologists now reject the singularity as defined by infinite spacetime curvature and density, so all we have then is a singularity as defined by where our laws of physics and GR fail us. I conclude from all that, that it is not drawing too long a bow to then suggest a surface of sorts at or just below the quantum/Planck level.
     
  16. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    33,467
    river:

    You are denying the existence of black holes. I have told you that there's abundant evidence that black holes are real, physical objects. We observe them. We observe effects associated with them. In reality.

    Your claim that they are just mathematical is baseless nonsense, unless you can back it up. So far, no dice from you.

    How does your question relate in any way to my statement that we have a photo of a black hole?

    Also, how can you make the claim that black holes are unphysical when you aren't even aware of the basics of how they form? The first step is to understand what you're trying to talk about. Otherwise, when you start making pronouncements about stuff you don't know about, you just end up looking like a bit of an idiot.

    To answer your question: black holes usually form from collapsing stars.

    In other words, you deny the existence of black holes, but have no alternative theory to explain all the observations that are usually explained with reference to black holes.

    It's just denial for denial's sake, is it? Why do you bother?

    A minute ago you were telling me you have no idea how black holes form, so how can you begin to talk about what they are "really about"?

    I asked you what is the physical source of the jets. You respond with some nonsense you just made up about "balancing".

    You need to stop just making stuff up.
     
  17. river

    Messages:
    12,760

    If BH is a real physical object .

    Then on what is the basis of BH based ?
     
  18. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    33,467
    paddoboy:

    You used the word "assume" there. You're assuming you understand something about the interior of a black hole based on what GR says about that. That's all well and good, but it remains the case that we can't go inside to check if what GR predicts is accurate, and of course we have good reasons to doubt whether GR applies all the way to the centre anyway. So, my previous statement is accurate - nobody knows what is inside a black hole, and we have no theory that predicts what goes on at the centre.

    It's fine to speculate about what might be there, but the fact remains that we don't know. I could ask you why you think a "surface" of any kind would form at the centre, and how and why it would resist gravitational collapse and so on, but I suspect you'll be unable to help me with those questions.
     
  19. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    33,467
    I don't know what you mean by "basis" in this context.

    Consider a specific example. A massive star undergoes gravitational collapse, forming a black hole. In the process, an event horizon forms, with all of the mass of the former star inside (apart from any that was ejected in the process - likely a supernova - of forming the hole in the first place).

    So, if this is what you mean, you might say the black hole is "based on" the mass of the star that it formed from.

    You agree, I presume, that stars are real physical objects?
     
  20. river

    Messages:
    12,760
    James

    BH is based on what physically ?

    You can't compress matter endlessly .
     
  21. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,846
    GR tells us that once the Schwarzchild radius is reached further collapse is compulsory. We can only logically assume that to be true at least up to the quantum/Planck level where GR fails us. Or the singularity as dfined by those failures.
    I see it as reasonable speculation in line with what I said above, while agreeing with you, we will never be able to look.
    The only way I can help with "a surface of sorts" is as I already said...that is most cosmologists now reject any singularity of infinite spacetime curvature or density. the surface of sorts then, certainly is my assumption. The "of sorts" meaning we do not know the true nature of that mass/energy, as we do not know the true nature of spacetime itself at the quantum Planck level.
    I was simply adding information to your statement, nothing more, nothing less.
     
  22. river

    Messages:
    12,760
    Yet gravitation moves outward not inward .
     
  23. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,846
    You could also attempt to explain to river that stellar remnants depend on the mass of the star...Small yellow dwarf stars like the Sun, leave behing White Dwarfs....larger more massive stars leave behind Pulsars/Neutron stars, and even bigger stars leave behind BH's as EDP and NDP that hold up White Dwarfs and Neutron stars from further collapse, are overcome.
     

Share This Page