#### NotEinstein

**Valued Senior Member**

Please refrain from insults; it's against the forum rules.All noise, no quality at all.

If you think I'm trolling, please contact the moderation.I checked few other threads and shocked to see how you trolled Schmelzer,

No, that "on you" is incorrect. Schmelzer couldn't defend his position (just like you can't), so he gave up. Period.he also had to give up on you.

I did no such thing. I pointed out to Schmelzer thatYou even just short of boasted

__his__boasting was unwarranted, as he didn't have a clue how many peer-reviewed papers I have published. In other words, his argument of authority might back-fire in a spectacular way, so I warned him not to make one in the first place.

Why should I make an argument of authority? Please respond to the contents of my posts, not to the poster of them.that you may have some peer reviewed papers published in your name, while questioning his paper as decade old with few citations, why not come forward and say what you have.

Erm, it's you that's making high school math mistakes.This thread doubly proves (along with Schmelzer thread) that you have no basic knowledge of maths

Erm, it's you that doesn't even know the basics of GR or QCD.and physics

If you think I'm trolling, please contact the moderators.and just trolling around.

Actually, I don't think you have any intend to do just that. Wouldn't that make your constant "intimidating" a form of trolling too?

You can show specific hand-picked examples all you like; if the underlying formulas are incorrect (as I've shown), you're not proving anything.let us take few example,

3 Solar Mass object just at EH:

Rs = 8905 Meters.

d = 2.02 * 10^18 kg/m3

Rs (of 90% core) = 8015 Meters

R (of 90% core) = 8598 Meters.

So R(90% of core) > Rs (of 90% core), Suggesting that inner 90% fraction is out of inner fraction EH.

Density calculations when the core was just of its EH size and not yet collapsed to form BH, and calculations are done for inner fraction 90%, but any fraction can be considered and will give the same conclusion.

10 Solar Mass object just at EH:

Rs = 29685 Meters.

d = 1.82 * 10^17 kg/m3

Rs (of 90% core) = 26719 Meters

R (of 90% core) = 28661 Meters.

So R(90% of core) > Rs (of 90% core), Suggesting that inner 90% fraction is out of inner fraction EH.

30 Solar Mass object just at EH:

Rs = 89056 Meters.

d = 2.02 * 10^16 kg/m3

Rs (of 90% core) = 80150 Meters

R (of 90% core) = 85983 Meters.

So R(90% of core) > Rs (of 90% core), Suggesting that inner 90% fraction is out of inner fraction EH.

OK, that's easy. Let's take your first example, and modify it a bit:None of these density profiles are unrealistically dense or whatever as NE is handwaving, they are nuclear level or rarer.

All these clearly prove that inner fractions will be out of their respective Schwarzschild radius, this calculation is done with uniform density, I call upon this poster NotEinstein to come forward and give hisnon uniform densityprofile (within < 5.3*10^25/r^2) to disprove this, or if he has some civility he should retract his objection.

d = 0 kg/m3 if r < 1 meter

d = 2.02 * 10^18 kg/m3 if r > 1 meter

It's non-uniform, and the numbers for Rs (of 90% core) and R (of 90% core) doesn't change significantly. However, within r < 1 meter, dm/dr = 0, in direct contradiction to your result of: dm/dr > c^2/2G. In other words, there are density profiles for which your equations do not hold.

You've got that first part the wrong way around: in general, your results are incorrect; they are only valid for certain density profiles. However, you still haven't been able to produce the conditions to which such density profiles must conform, as I asked you to, so nobody knows whether there are realistic density profiles for which your derivation also doesn't hold.In general (not exception) when an "object is just at EH", except the outer surface points all other inner points will be out of their respectiveschwarzschild radius. This condition will be false only for very high unrealistic density profiles.

Additionally, since the derivation is mathematically wrong, any conclusion that you reach being right is purely accidental, as I've explained earlier.