Neutron Star & Black Hole - Some Misconceptions

[Farsight]

I have a reputation for opposing pseudoscience, paddoboy. You have a reputation for peddling it.
Now listen up and pay attention: you say Einstein was wrong. That means you're on the wrong side of the crackpot fence. Capiche?

 

[paddoboy]

I have a reputation for opposing pseudoscience, paddoboy. You have a reputation for peddling it.
Now listen up and pay attention: you say Einstein was wrong. That means you're on the wrong side of the crackpot fence. Capiche?

No I do not say Einstein was wrong. I do say that his theories have been improved on and examined in far greater detail since his death.
And you in reality are a purveyor of pseudoscience, hence your bannings from many other forums.
You are synonymous with crackpottery my friend.

 

[paddoboy]

The point which I am trying to make is that a Neutron Star is a stable structure and once it is formed making a statement that Gravity overcomes Strong Nuclear Force in a Neutron Star is bad. In fact opposite is a better statement that till Neutron Star (barring some small hypotheseized Quark Soup in the innermost core which could have formed during the initial push back at the time of Supernova implosion) the Nuclear Strong Repulsive Force dominates the gravity and saves it from collapsing to next stage (a Black Hole?)

Who ever said that gravity overcomes a Neutron Star?
You seem to be hurriedly manufacturing any lie/misinterpretation you can muster up. Similar to you previously inferring that I said a Singularity was a real physical thing.
Of course as we all know just the usual unsupported hear say usual red herrings to get away from the two issues you have yet failed to recognise, despite many reputable links saying you are wrong.
As I told you in the other thread..........
Although we have no information re what happens inside a BH's EH, we are reasonably allowed to theorise most likely scenarios, based on what we already know. That was re-enforced by a few Professors when another similar anti GR/Cosmology mission, was being foisted on us by another called rajesh a while back. Along with what GR tells us about compulsory collapse once the Schwarzchild limit is reached , we are allowed to reasonably and logically assume properties inside the EH like tidal gravitational effects that increase to infinity, all the way to the Singularity, and during that trip any body of matter that is sucked in is spagettified and torn apart to its most basic fundamentals, as inferred in Thorne's book and my other references.
Other properties that are ascertained to be inside a BH, are the properties of spinning spacetime and singularity/mass, evidenced from any observed ergosphere outside the EH proper, and also the common denominator that all stars spin and conservation of energy and momentum.
BH's themselves are a logically reasonably assumed scenario, based on observations and the laws of physics and GR.

To pinpoint where tidal gravity effects overcome all other forces, depends on the size of the BH. Any SMBH EH, could in reality be crossed without any immediate ill effects or spaghettifiaction. But as the Singularity is approached tidal gravity effects will come into play. Theoretically gravity could overcome all the other forces as soon as the mass crossed the EH.
In fact at this late stage in this discussion, it now appears that 'the god" is just using this "we cannot know" argument as a cop out after previous arguments have proven invalid.

 

[The God]

Let's have a look at "the god's" misconception re HBH's as he himself has listed.
Misconception # 1 : Charge Neutralization of a Black Hole as Electrostatic attraction.
Obviously, and as usual directed at me.
What I have said:
A charged BH, Reisnner-Nordstrom, although probably a rarity, will gradually negate that charge over time. The same applies to any BH spin/angular momentum.
Although various issues may exist that can cause complications, both spin and charge are negatable.
This has been supported by reputable links.
Conclusion: No misconception.

No, its not directed at you. You still have not understood the point. People like you misinterpret that a positively charged BH will attract a negative charged particle from inside of EH. There is no such Electric attraction, its the accretion of negatively charged partcile due to Gravity and in the process charge gets neutralized.

Misconception # 2 : Strong Nuclear Force Getting Overcome by Gravity in Neutron Star:

[/B]

Again, directed at me:
What I have said.......
Tidal gravitational effects approach infinity as one approaches the Singularity,
[Singularity understood as being where GR breaks down.] and will overcome all other forces including the strong nuclear.
The initial progress of that scenario is called spaghettification.
This has been supported by reputable links.
Conclusion: No misconception.

You are confused. read carefully, it is Neutron Star, there is no singularity or infinities in a Neutron Star, its a stable structure.

Misconception #3 : That Stellar Black Hole will evaporate.

[/B]

This is a new issue raised by "the god"in an effort to get around him saying that BH's to not have spin negated.
Irrespective, all BH's will evaporate over time, and again other complications can come into vogue, but the finality is that the BH will evaporate, accepting that HR is valid, which general mainstream cosmology certainly does at this stage.
Conclusion: No misconception.

As long as CMBR absorption is there with higher temperature than BH/HR temperature, BH cannot evaporate. And there are no stellar BHs which have less temperature than CMBR and CMBR is ominipresent.

Misconception # 4 : That singularity is somekind of Physical Thing.

Again, another red herring, since no one to my knowledge has said that the Singularity is a physical thing.
A mathematical singularity certainly does, and is where our models fail at the Planck/quantum level.
Conclusion: No misconception, just confusion and a red herring.

Good if you agree that singularity is not a Physical Thing.

....just as logic and reasonable sensibility reign with regards to the isotropic and homogenous nature of the Universe, so to are cosmologists allowed to logically theorise and extend properties inside the EH, based on what is happening outside and the equations of GR. eg: An ergosphere logically infers a spinning BH and spinning mass, along with the ring singularity.
This has also been supported in at least two other threads by professionals in the game.

Crap

Cosmologists/theorists/physicists in general are hard at work at the coal face and have many state of the art technical advanced equipment supporting them such as Spitzer, Planck, Kepler, and of course ground based equipment.
To continually dismiss scientific papers and other reputable links with "pop science"or "we just don't know" is no more than an outrageous cop out.
It's akin to treating knowledgable learned men as Idiots, and coming from a lay person with no training or learning in the cosmological field, makes it twice as bad.
But that in the end is what forums such as this are all about and the type of character they attract.

Falsehood. You very rarely refer to scientific papers.

The problem with you is that you are a mainstream follower with no formal education on Physics and maths, so you cannot decipher the scientific papers, so you read lot of pop science journals and magazines, they are a bit flawed and you cannot figure out the real science behind, so unfortunately and unintentionally you end up pushing the poposcience. This gets further aggravated by your delusion that whatever you read in that pop journal is right.

 

[The God]

Misconception # 5 : [in the context of Singularity] our models fail at the Planck/quantum level.

No, they don't. In case of Schwarzchilds BH, the singularity appears at r = 0, so we can say our models fail at r = 0, while in case of spinning/charged BH, the singularity is ring type and appears at a value which is dependent on the mass, angular momentum/charge.

Plank's level gives certain values of (M, L and T) and no GR equations fail there.

 

[paddoboy]

No, its not directed at you. You still have not understood the point. People like you misinterpret that a positively charged BH will attract a negative charged particle from inside of EH. There is no such Electric attraction, its the accretion of negatively charged partcile due to Gravity and in the process charge gets neutralized.

I've misunderstood nothing and again state the pure and simple fact that any charged BH will in time, negate that charge.
That also applies to spin. and both also supported.

You are confused. read carefully, it is Neutron Star, there is no singularity or infinities in a Neutron Star, its a stable structure.

No again you are confused and as usual doing "the god" thing.
Let me again state what is generally accepted by mainstream....The tidal gravitational effects that are evident in a BH, move towards infinity and at some time overcome all other forces.
Again you seek to confuse with Neutron star stability

As long as CMBR absorption is there with higher temperature than BH/HR temperature, BH cannot evaporate. And there are no stellar BHs which have less temperature than CMBR and CMBR is ominipresent.

Again doing "the god" thing and avoiding the question. Let me state it again....In time all BH's including stellar size will evaporate if Hawking radiation is valid.And that is the general consensus that it is valid.
Are you not aware that the CMBR is lessening with time?

Good if you agree that singularity is not a Physical Thing.

Are you able to reference anywhere in any thread, where ever I have said that a singularity is a physical thing? Or is this just another red herring to confuse?
That's called dishonesty to put it as politely as possible.

Crap

No totally true as I have shown with the isotropic and homogenous assumptions of the Universe and of course what at least three Professors have re-enforced.

Falsehood. You very rarely refer to scientific papers.

I have referred to a scientific paper in this thread, and all my links are from qualified educated professionals, rather than rank amateurs like your self who has never referenced anything to support your own god driven nonsense.

The problem with you is that you are a mainstream follower with no formal education on Physics and maths, so you cannot decipher the scientific papers, so you read lot of pop science journals and magazines, they are a bit flawed and you cannot figure out the real science behind, so unfortunately and unintentionally you end up pushing the poposcience. This gets further aggravated by your delusion that whatever you read in that pop journal is right.

The trouble with you is you are a recognised ego inflated uneducated lay person in the required discipline, who through your delusions of grandeur, have sat down for 12 months or so, fabricated some nonsense, put it on a science forum, here, as no other forum or outlet will accept, and expect all and sundry to bow down at your own delusional character.
That won't work unless you finally reference some of your nonsense, which you are unable to do. Sad.
Yes, I push mainstream accepted science, because it generally describes the universe far better than any alternative fabricated issue, constructed to support some flagging ego [yours] in the face of truth and fact.

 

[krash661]

I have a reputation for opposing pseudoscience, paddoboy. You have a reputation for peddling it.
Now listen up and pay attention: you say Einstein was wrong. That means you're on the wrong side of the crackpot fence. Capiche?

what a massive joke you truly are.
shakes head.