Charge Escape ?
Mass through GW/HR fine, spin through Ergosphere by penrose process fine, but charge, how ??
Gravitational waves from black hole merger
- Thread starter Plazma Inferno!
- Start date
Charge Escape ?
Mass through GW/HR fine, spin through Ergosphere by penrose process fine, but charge, how ??
Your theory is definitely wrong if it makes predictions that don't match the predictions of GR. Who turned down your paper and why? You should be able to, at the least, provide that information. Then you'll be able to describe why your theory is right and GR is wrong. LOL. Your statement that your theory is right isn't confirmed by you saying it is. You need to pay attention to the physics that's been provided for you. Start by learning the difference between a electromagnetic wave, light, and a gravitional wave. Then you'll have a better chance to become less confused. Another helpful way to understand the difference is to research the different known and predicted properties of the photon and the graviton. So far you don't seem to want to accept the classical results to the LIGO and supporting experiments. Could it be because you think your idea is right so all the actual physics has to be wrong? That seems to be my observation. Ok. You have a theoretical model [that's what a theory needs to be]. Make a prediction associated with this specific black hole merger for the final ringdown mass associated with angular momentum. Shouldn't have said you have a theory if you don't.
Last edited:
This has been told to you before, and my answer was as usual supported by a professional expert, Professor Hamilton.
Let me explain again: A BH can have three recognised properties, mass, charge and spin.
Charge is simply negated by attracting opposite charge.
Would you like the link supporting that again?
http://jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/insidebh/rn.html
A Reissner-Nordström black hole is a black hole with mass and electric charge, but no spin. The geometry was discovered independently by Reissner (1916)1 and Nordström (1918)2.
Real black holes probably spin, but probably have almost no electric charge, because our Universe appears to be electrically neutral, and a charged black hole would quickly neutralize by attracting charge of the opposite sign. Nevertheless, the internal geometry of an electrically charged black hole resembles mathematically that of a rotating black hole. For this reason the behavior inside a charged black hole is often taken as a surrogate for that inside a rotating black hole
A Reissner-Nordström black hole is a black hole with mass and electric charge, but no spin. The geometry was discovered independently by Reissner (1916)1 and Nordström (1918)2.
Real black holes probably spin, but probably have almost no electric charge, because our Universe appears to be electrically neutral, and a charged black hole would quickly neutralize by attracting charge of the opposite sign. Nevertheless, the internal geometry of an electrically charged black hole resembles mathematically that of a rotating black hole. For this reason the behavior inside a charged black hole is often taken as a surrogate for that inside a rotating black hole
Let us all know when your "theory" [really an hypothesis
] is published and has undergone appropriate peer review.If you are nominated for this year's Nobel, don't forget to invite your friends on this forum to the award ceremonies, OK?
PS; In essence my first thoughts about you after the many pages of constant questioning and constant ignoring of answers was an agenda of some kind. That has now been confirmed...thanks.
Last edited:
The numerical relativity is really an awesome tool for doing this physics. The final predictions for the ringdown are really informative about the accuracy of the numerical analysis and the equations they feed it. Feed me the numerical models cry. I wonder if hansda theory can feed a numerical model?I'm always in control as well as having the common sense to recognise the confirmations I spoke of......
https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/news/ligo20160211
https://losc.ligo.org/events/GW150914/
The G150914 detection paper:
LIGO DCC, arXiv, or Phys. Rev. Letters
This paper and all the companion papers can also be found at papers.ligo.org
.
[paste:font size="5"]Estimated source parameters
QuantityValueUpper/Lower error
estimateUnit
Primary black hole mass36+5 -4M sun
Secondary black hole mass29+4 -4M sun
Final black hole mass62+4 -4M sun
Final black hole spin0.67+0.05 -0.07
Luminosity distance410+160 -180Mpc
Source redshift, z0.09+0.03 -0.04
Energy radiated3+0.5 -0.5M sun
TABLE I. Estimated source parameters for GW150914. We report the median value as well as the range of the 90% credible interval. Masses are measured in the source frame; to convert masses to detector frame, multiply by (1 + z). The source redshift assumes standard cosmology.
click for DATA
click for DATA (L1 only)
click for DATA (Numerical relativity)
click for DATA (Numerical relativity)
click for DATA
click for DATA
FIG. 1. The gravitational-wave event GW150914 observed by the LIGO Hanford (H1, left column panels) and Livingston (L1, right column panels) detectors. Times are shown relative to September 14, 2015 at 09:50:45 UTC. For visualization, all time series are filtered with a 35–350 Hz band-pass filter to suppress large fluctuations outside the detectors’ most sensitive frequency band, and band-reject filters to remove the strong instrumental spectral lines seen in the Fig. 3 spectra.
- Top row, left: H1 strain. Top row, right: L1 strain. GW150914 arrived first at L1 and 6.9 (+0.5 −0.4) ms later at H1; for a visual comparison the H1 data are also shown, shifted in time by this amount and inverted (to account for the detectors’ relative orientations).
- Second row: Gravitational-wave strain projected onto each detector in the 35–350 Hz band. Solid lines show a numerical relativity waveform for a system with parameters consistent with those recovered from GW150914 confirmed by an independent calculation. Shaded areas show 90% credible regions for two waveform reconstructions: one that models the signal as a set of sine-Gaussian wavelets and one that models the signal using binary-black-hole template waveforms. These reconstructions have a 95% overlap.
- Third row: Residuals after subtracting the filtered numerical relativity waveform from the filtered detector time series.
- Bottom row: A time-frequency decomposition of the signal power associated with GW150914. Both plots show a signal with frequency increasing with time.
Numerical relativity DATA
Reconstructed DATA
separation DATA
velocity DATA
FIG. 2. Left: Estimated gravitational-wave strain amplitude from GW150914 projected onto H1. This shows the full bandwidth of the waveforms, without the filtering used for Fig. 1. The inset images show numerical-relativity models of the black hole horizons as the black holes coalesce. Right: The Keplerian effective black hole separation in units of Schwarzschild radii and the effective relative velocity.
Hanford DATA
Livingston DATA
FIG.3. The average measured strain-equivalent noise, or sensitivity, of the Advanced LIGO detectors during the time analyzed to determine the significance of GW150914 (Sept 12 - Oct 20, 2015). Hanford (H1) is shown in red, Livingston (L1) in blue. The solid traces represent the median sensitivity and the shaded regions indicate the 5th and 95th percentile over the analysis period. The narrowband features in the spectra are due to known mechanical resonances, mains power harmonics, and injected signals used for calibration.
Search Result C3 DATA
Search Background C3 DATA
Search Result C2 C3 DATA
Search Background C2 C3 DATA
Search Results DATA
FIG. 4. Search results from the generic transient search (left) and the binary coalescence search (right). These histograms show the number of candidate events (orange markers) and the mean number of background events in the search class where GW150914 was found (black lines) as a function of the search detection statistic and with a bin width of 0.2. The scales on the top give the significance of an event in Gaussian standard deviations based on the corresponding noise background . The significance of GW150914 is greater than 5.1 σ and 4.6 σ for the binary coalescence and the generic transient searches, respectively. (Left): Along with the primary search (C3) we also show the results (yellow markers) and background (green curve) for an alternative search that treats events independently of their frequency evolution (C2+C3). The classes C2 and C3 are defined in the text. (Right): The tail in the black-line background of the binary coalescence search is due to random coincidences of GW150914 in one detector with noise in the other detector. (This type of event is practically absent in the generic transient search background because they do not pass the time-frequency consistency requirements used in that search.) The blue curve is the background excluding those coincidences, which is used to assess the significance of the second strongest event candidate.
More at the link
I'm surprised I'm going to say this to you [since you clearly can't read with comprehension. That's what I take from the dumbshit response you made about the constants of motions I tried to introduce you to.] Those three components are measureable either directly or indirectly. It turns out that all three components, the Schwarzschild mass [M], the angular momentum rotation parameter [J], and charge [Q] are components of the total black hole mass. Now you can post that I'm wrong about that and your sycophant can like your answer. Rajesh.
A real hypothesis must have some scientific path to possible realization. A coherent reason for making the hypothesis. IE: for example the scientific reasoning which led Guth and Linde to hypothesize inflation. So let's check out hansda scientific reasoning for his hypothesis. If we ever hear about it.
Let us all know when your "theory" [really an hypothesis
If you are nominated for this year's Nobel, don't forget to invite your friends on this forum to the award ceremonies, OK?
PS; In essence my first thoughts about you after the many pages of constant questioning and constant ignoring of answers was an agenda of some kind. That has now been confirmed...thanks.
This has been told to you before, and my answer was as usual supported by a professional expert, Professor Hamilton.
Let me explain again: A BH can have three recognised properties, mass, charge and spin.
Charge is simply negated by attracting opposite charge.
Would you like the link supporting that again?
Read again. There is a difference between Neutralising and escaping.
Wrong again !
J and Q contribute (like M) to the Einstein stress-energy tensor, but they are not the components of the total black hole mass.
The word for you is autodidacticism..
In your case autodidacticism is not supported by any formal education, which makes you a bit dangerous person. You must have read GR and along with that you must have encountered conservation laws, concepts of motions, energy mass, even the Noether theorem,....you read them but to apply this autodidactic knowldege without really understanding what the momentum is makes you dangerous.
For example you know momentum/angular momentum remains conserved when a particle travels on geodesic, you also say that when an object falls it is extremal geodesic (all read out stuff from varied sources), so when an object is dropped from a height it is a geodesic motion and its momentum should remain conserved....Thats where you failed yourself, because of lack of basic foundation on the subject. Cofeee table discussion on GW/GR is fine with uncomplemented autodidacticism, not serious stuff.
Another autodidacticism expose, in a recent post you praised Numerical Relativity, this again shows lack of understanding. We are forced, repeat forced to apply Numerical methods because we cannot solve those equations (say for multi body GR equations) analytically. We would love to solve analytically to get exact solutions, but we cannot, so we resort to Numerical Tools. It could be beautiful but not exact, it could be beautiful but not desired.
Get a clue, abuses do not make you learned....discuss the counter argument also, if your point of view is stronger and put in right tone, the other guy will accept. After all mainstream followers like you have edge, because you guys are supported.
PS: Basic Physics: When you drop a ball of mass m from a nearby height (?) h from rest, then its initial momentum = 0, and final momentum (just before it strikes the earth) is m*sqrt(2gh)....now please see, is it conserved ? But if you dig deep, you will realise that if the ball had an acceleration of g towards earth, then the earth has an acceleration g/M towards the ball, do the calculations and see that momentum of the system (ball + earth) remains conserved.
Last edited:
Mainstream is mainstream for logical reasons: It is the best theory applicable at that time. You have given virtually no reputable links, no reputable references and expect the forum to take notice?
Say what you like, claim what you like, think what you like: That isn't being contested. :shrug: What is contested is your expectations that you are making any difference to any of the real cosmological sciences out there, let alone anyone taking any notice of you here.
BH's are at this stage confirmed, as is gravitational waves.
??? Who ever said anything about escaping, other than yourself?
I have never even used the word neutralising. I have always said charge is negated: And that has always been professionally supported unlike any of your own claims.
Hence why two of your threads have been shifted appropriately.
What is 'negated' in this context ? Please be specific and brief. No copy paste, i will appreciate if you just clarify in your language.
http://jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/insidebh/rn.html
A Reissner-Nordström black hole is a black hole with mass and electric charge, but no spin. The geometry was discovered independently by Reissner (1916)1 and Nordström (1918)2.
Real black holes probably spin, but probably have almost no electric charge, because our Universe appears to be electrically neutral, and a charged black hole would quickly neutralize by attracting charge of the opposite sign. Nevertheless, the internal geometry of an electrically charged black hole resembles mathematically that of a rotating black hole. For this reason the behavior inside a charged black hole is often taken as a surrogate for that inside a rotating black hole.
The big difference between a charged (Reissner-Nordström) and an uncharged (Schwarzschild) black hole is that the mathematical solution to the charged black hole has, inside its horizon, a one-way wormhole that connects to a white hole that propels you to another space and time. Sadly, the wormhole is violently unstable, and would not occur in reality. Click on Waterfall to learn more about why the charged black hole has a wormhole. Click on Realistic to see what happens in reality, and to learn more about the mass inflation instability that in reality prevents any wormhole from forming.
and now you will claim, that look I did not say, but the link which I provided did....enjoy.
Most certainly...That was of course the quote from Professor Hamilaton and his web page.
You really need to do better.
http://jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/insidebh/rn.html
Real black holes probably spin, but probably have almost no electric charge, because our Universe appears to be electrically neutral, and a charged black hole would quickly neutralize by attracting charge of the opposite sign.
http://jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/insidebh/rn.html
A Reissner-Nordström black hole is a black hole with mass and electric charge, but no spin. The geometry was discovered independently by Reissner (1916)1 and Nordström (1918)2.
Real black holes probably spin, but probably have almost no electric charge, because our Universe appears to be electrically neutral, and a charged black hole would quickly neutralize by attracting charge of the opposite sign. Nevertheless, the internal geometry of an electrically charged black hole resembles mathematically that of a rotating black hole. For this reason the behavior inside a charged black hole is often taken as a surrogate for that inside a rotating black hole.
The big difference between a charged (Reissner-Nordström) and an uncharged (Schwarzschild) black hole is that the mathematical solution to the charged black hole has, inside its horizon, a one-way wormhole that connects to a white hole that propels you to another space and time. Sadly, the wormhole is violently unstable, and would not occur in reality. Click on Waterfall to learn more about why the charged black hole has a wormhole. Click on Realistic to see what happens in reality, and to learn more about the mass inflation instability that in reality prevents any wormhole from forming.
Figure it out for yourself. This is the Kerr solution to Einsteins Field Equations. It's an exact solution for a rotating spacetime geometry. It includes both the Schwarschild mass component and the rotation parameter component for J/M. Angular momentum per unit mass. The second link is for the Reissner-Nordstrom exact solution for a non-rotating charged black hole. In this solution charge is a component of the total black hole mass.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerr_metric
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reissner–Nordström_metric
Here's a project from a text on GR. Choose the project for the spinning black hole
http://www.eftaylor.com/download.html
Pretty sure this stuff is way over your head. Rajesh. But give it a try. Try query three of the spinning black hole project. Note that a=J/M, Nearly equal to M; J nearly equal to M^2. Note that M is the Schwarzschild mass in the metric. So all you're saying is metric solutions to the Einstein Field Equations, which is the foundation for GR, are wrong.
Last edited:
....admit the lies.
Not lies....Obvious to all that the "neutralising" word was from Professor Hamilton's link, so why do you persist? Anyway reported.
[Not that there is anything wrong with it [THE WORD] anyway :shrug: ]
When you couple that with unsupported absolute nonsense like GP-B was a fraudulent result, as was LIGO, and it becomes obvious what is going on and the agenda being fanatically adhered to.