BB needs to be in ICU.Is big bang theory without flaw?
BB needs to be in ICU.Is big bang theory without flaw?
Black holes are a lack of understanding of relativity.
Relativity accounts for the curvature of spacetime external to a given mass, it does not account for the curvature inside the mass at all.
The Schwarzschild solution is a mathematical musing with no basis in reality, it only exists as a two dimensional mathematical anomaly when one takes the mathematics outside of the context of relativity.
The problem can be shown quite simply with Newtonian mechanics, if you take the angular velocity of any planet in our solar system, apply the inverse square law and find the distance at which the angular velocity equals the speed of light you reach an answer of about 9km radius, which isn't that far from the 3km radius calculated using the Schwarzschild solution. Now work out the angular velocity for the surface of the sun and compare your calculation to the velocity observed, don't make any sense does it?
The Newtonian model and general relativity only apply to the observed motions of bodies external to the mass, they make absolutely no sense to unobserved internal motions of the mass, which at this current time are speculations. It's what you get when mathematicians take equations out of context.
Quasars are probably not what we think they are....
BB needs to be in ICU.
I'm sorry but that speculation is not very convincing.
ok, you provide your theory and also provide the observational evidence to back it. with references please.
ok, you provide your theory and also provide the observational evidence to back it. with references please.
ok, you provide your theory and also provide the observational evidence to back it. with references please.
I've heard of neutron stars with angular velocity close to the speed of light at the surface. But still wonder how they might calculate it for any BH. If I recall Schwarzschild solution correctly it assumes a zero angular velocity which as we know doesn't exist in nature for any sizable celestial body.
Also, you keep making that comment about quasars. Just what do you think they are?
The metric used to study rotating objects, such as neutron stars and black holes, is the Kerr Metric solution to Einstein's field equations. The maximum extremal rotating Kerr black hole rotates very close to the local coordinate speed of light. One that we're all familiar with, Cygnus X 1, has angular momentum per unit mass, J/m, of .75. It's considered an extremal Kerr black hole rotating at 3/4 local coordinate speed of light. I would hazard to guess most every collapsed star which winds up a black hole is extremal. Just a guess.
I tried looking up extremal, but am still having a problem relating to how it applies to this subject?
However I do have a question. When an object on the surface of a neutron star approaches the speed of light because of the rotation. The centripetal force must be measured in the hundreds of thousands of G's. At what point would the centripetal force exactly equal the force of gravity of the neutron star? If ever?
This is an excellent question that I must really go back and think deeply about, at the speed of light the CP should be infinite throwing the object outward from the BH, this is a paradox the object is not thrown out but drawn into the BH somehow?
I would like to pose a siimlar question, if you have no objections!
Let's assume that there is nothing in the universe except Earth. If the Earth rotates on its axis as it does, then would we experience the effects of rotational motion like centrifugal force and Coriolis force?
The question is: is Earth rotating relative to space?
This is worthless rubbish. The Schwarzschild solution is what allows us to calculate the many of the predictions which we have used to test general relativity.
Take a read of the astronomy and cosmology posting guidelines - further trolling from you will result in punative action.
LOL?
How about you show everyone where relativity describes the curvature inside the mass?
Or show that the Schwarzschild is anything but two dimensional?
The Schwarzschild solution is for all practical purposes an extension of the two dimensional gravitational rotation described by Newton in his second book, but applied to relativity, not classical mechanics. It shares the same flaw with Newtons description in that when the radius is within the mass and approaches zero, the curvature of spacetime, or angular velocity, approaches infinity.
It's just easier to see, post Einstein, that the flaw in Newtons rotation occurs before zero radius, when the angular velocity approaches the velocity of light.
That is the definition of a 'black hole', the mass from zero radius to the Schwarzschild radius, the mass is infinite for ANY volume or point within the Schwarzschild radius.
If you expect the flaw to disappear just because your using relativity rather than classical mechanics then please show us why.
Calling it a prediction instead of a flaw doesn't make it any more valid.
Troll me one more time, please.
What does this even mean? GR tells us that the presence of energy or matter deforms spacetime. By "curvature inside the mass," do you mean "what does GR say the gravitational field inside a star is?" If that's the case then there have been a number of studies using GR to compute the metric of a spheres. The only paper I can think of off the top of my head is by Bjorken et al who talk about the collapse of shells of matter and fluid spheres.
I presume you are thinking of this type of picture:
The real Schwarzschild metric is $$ds^2 = -f(r) dt^2 + \frac{dr^2}{f(r)} + r^2 \left( d\theta^2 + sin^2(\theta) d\phi^2\right)$$ with $$f(r) = 1- \frac{r_s}{r}$$.
Glance at that for the merest of seconds and you will see that there are 4 dimensions, $$t,r,\theta,\phi$$. Specifically we have a system of polar coordinates which makes sense because the Schwarzschild solution is spherically symmetric. If you like you can easily generalise the Schwarzschild solution to any number of dimensions.
In the light of what I wrote above, that the Schwarzschild metric is certainly not 2 dimensional, the stuff you wrote above is wrong. Additionally, when you consider gravity in 2 dimensions it becomes a lot simpler. Gravity in 2D is topological, meaning there are no propagating degrees of freedom. That's quite a subtle point, but it is interesting.
The mass of a black hole is not infinite anywhere. I think you are getting confused with the density, which according to classical GR does diverge (but that tells us that GR is an incomplete theory - it is unable to deal with objects that are both very massive and very small which we would need a theory of quantum gravity to study). To get the mass of a black hole you simply have to integrate the 00 component of the energy momentum tensor, which you can work out from the Einstein equations. For the Schwarzschild metric you have the rather simple relation that $$r_s = 2M$$, where I have set constants like c and G to 1.
See above. Hopefully you can see now where some of your misunderstandings lie.
Einstein considered the "Schwarzschild singularity" and black holes as bizzarre constructs, resisting the logic of his own theory right up to his death in 1955.
the Schwarzschild solution (or the Schwarzschild vacuum), named after Karl Schwarzschild, describes the gravitational field outside a spherical, uncharged, non-rotating mass
Prometheus. First may I apologize for anything I have directed at you which you may feel is offensive or derisory, it was meant to be lighthearted and no offense intended.
The picture you reference is a curvature of flat spacetime, spherically symmetric is essentially flat spacetime, I know you think it isn't, I consider it to be, it's like taking a flat spacetime and arbitrarily rotating it, reality doesn't work like that, if the sun worked like that then the planets would all have different orbital planes.
So if Einstein considered black holes to be nonsense, and the Schwarzschild solution describes the curvature of spacetime (gravitational field) outside a mass, then who am I to argue with that?
Mass in a black hole is not infinite? So to accelerate something to the velocity of light and beyond you need what? I not sure why I'm arguing that point really.
To me the internal mechanics of masses like stars and galactic centers have a geometry that is reflected, yet isn't symmetric, about a plane, this geometry doesn't have an infinite curvature at the center, the center for all practical purposes has a curvature of 0.
@KilljoyKlown re-quasars. I don't know really, I think they are a variety of different objects with the same pigeon hole name. But it's just an opinion.
Prometheus. First may I apologize for anything I have directed at you which you may feel is offensive or derisory, it was meant to be lighthearted and no offense intended.
The picture you reference is a curvature of flat spacetime, spherically symmetric is essentially flat spacetime, I know you think it isn't, I consider it to be, it's like taking a flat spacetime and arbitrarily rotating it, reality doesn't work like that, if the sun worked like that then the planets would all have different orbital planes.
So if Einstein considered black holes to be nonsense, and the Schwarzschild solution describes the curvature of spacetime (gravitational field) outside a mass, then who am I to argue with that?
Mass in a black hole is not infinite? So to accelerate something to the velocity of light and beyond you need what? I not sure why I'm arguing that point really.
To me the internal mechanics of masses like stars and galactic centers have a geometry that is reflected, yet isn't symmetric, about a plane, this geometry doesn't have an infinite curvature at the center, the center for all practical purposes has a curvature of 0.
The way I understand relativistic mass is