Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Thanks Bruce and thank you paddoboy for your input without which there would be no point in following this thread.
Gravitational waves from black hole merger
- Thread starter Plazma Inferno!
- Start date
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Duplicate post
It's a shame that some cosmology threads started by well meaning people can develop into fraudulent claims from less well meaning people, about alternative hypotheticals under the guise of questions: A totally dishonest and cunning ploy to attempt to gain some semblance of credibility for their own unsupported fraudulent ideas, that should in essence be in the fringes.
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Yes indeed paddo boy.
It would not be so bad if these folk presented an alternative model but pulling at their perception of a loose thread here or there is frustrating.
If one has something to offer present it I say but tugging on threads offers nothing.
Got a problem with the current model then present a new one which does it better and makes better predictions.
Of course the problem then becomes that one really must learn understand and be capable of working with current models before presenting a better model. But it is easy to be a critic so thats all we get but not a new model. There is only one member here as far as I know who has a paper offerring an alternative model and be it worthwhile or not does not offer a prediction.
In any event as you point out we are unlikely to see someone here present the first hint of their future Nobel prize.
It would not be so bad if these folk presented an alternative model but pulling at their perception of a loose thread here or there is frustrating.
If one has something to offer present it I say but tugging on threads offers nothing.
Got a problem with the current model then present a new one which does it better and makes better predictions.
Of course the problem then becomes that one really must learn understand and be capable of working with current models before presenting a better model. But it is easy to be a critic so thats all we get but not a new model. There is only one member here as far as I know who has a paper offerring an alternative model and be it worthwhile or not does not offer a prediction.
In any event as you point out we are unlikely to see someone here present the first hint of their future Nobel prize.
Nice analogy 'pulling at threads'. For some of us it's a magnificent discussion. What a great experimental result.
Well, consider "E=MC^2" as "E=mc^2".
I am yet to see a reference/paper where E of E=mc^2 is proven as GW energy. If you can prove this from Einstein's paper, let me know.
You are welcome.
I am not a PhD but I have a theory. One of my article is published in a Patent Journal. For another article I obtained copyright.
These things can be learnt from the internet.
I havent yet submitted my paper to a journal but have a plan to do so. It may take some time.
My model is based on Newtonian model of force and the principles of set-theory. I never said SR/GR is wrong, rather they have more predictive power than Newtonian model.
I think I have already disclosed my theory-statement earlier.
I did not question the LIGO detection, though I raised some questions for clarification about their analysis.
Thanks for these links.
Last edited:
these science sites are nothing more than cesspools--every single one of them. they do not pertain to the actual work in the science sectors. they do not contribute anything too actual science. they are simply places for the want-to-bes and the mentally disable to play at(while endlessly insulting actual scientist and science within the same moment), nothing more.
just stop--you clearly have no understanding of anything. my advice, step-back and go get some actual education--this level is, obviously, far advanced for you.
That apparently is certainly the case with this forum: Other science forum's though have much stricter codes of conduct relating to the preaching and pushing of anti science crap and nonsense.
The part in your statement I have highlighted is most certainly factual though and what I have been trying to tell our "would be's if they could be's" for quite a while now.
You really should have tried to respond to e.g. #341 with more than characteristic evasion and attack-as-defense deflection. There is NO EMF generated by a notional stationary Kerr-Newman BH, but one needs to have a basic grasp of elementary EM theory to appreciate that. Clearly you do not understand the nature of a Coulomb field.
Thumbs-ups from those with no technical expertise whatsoever does not count for much. Actual demonstrable competence in the topic does.
And yet, despite your characteristic of flooding threads with full webpage reproductions of supporting articles (rather than simply linking to such), here you offer not a single one. Just unsupported claims. Let me repeat - if your rather imprecise claims are true, it represents a schism within GR. I already gave you actual supporting links in #324, #330 to standard position there is NO intrinsic magnetic field for a Kerr-Newman BH. Further support at:
http://www.chaos.org.uk/~eddy/physics/Kerr-Newman.html (first para)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotating_black_hole (explicit statement that only static Coulomb field is allowed)
http://physics.stackexchange.com/qu...ld-collapses-to-form-a-black-hole-what-h?rq=1
(covers the case of collapsing pulsar you claimed allowed a magnetic field 'trapped near the EH')
But wait! There ARE references to an actual intrinsic B field. Examples:
http://physics.stackexchange.com/qu...ike-a-charged-spinning-heavy-magnet-what-kind
(but no indication of expertise there - just 'seems like it should be like this' stuff.)
http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Kerr-Newman_metric (there's no way you could interpret it, but a non-zero intrinsic B field is implied by eqn. (44) there).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerr–Newman_metric (use of imaginary component of radius makes it somewhat problematic to interpret, but non-zero B is implied).
Which all-up means: there is indeed schism within GR on this matter. But then we are dealing with GR after all - a theory that allows 'time travel' in the H.G.Wells sense.
Mainstream, as I have above and via earlier links shown, is in this case a useless crutch. There are just different schools of thought, much like the division over e.g. 'zero energy universe' notion.
Last edited:
Like you said different schools of thought....and re your questionable link...it is just that, [questionable] for obvious reasons which I'll let you fathom out yourself.
ps: It really worries me that the way I give my links troubles you so.....But that's me, I hope you are able to grin and bear it [
] without too much bother.Like you said, there are different schools of thought, but that doesn't make mainstream a useless crutch:
Check out the fringes [alternative hypothesis and pseudoscience] for examples of useless crutches.
Wow! That seems to bring out some joy in you.
There is debate, certainly, so? Nothing wrong with debate among professional experts: Einstein and Bohr are a good example.But as you well know, GR stands as even firmer and more certain since the recent great confirmations of gravitational waves and BH's.What you need to do is direct your wrath at the would be's if they could be's, that believe they can come to forums such as this and over turn 21st century cosmology. A few of those problematic issues I have already mentioned in this thread.
You don't accept time travel? That's OK too......the point remains though, it is still allowed for by GR, and in reality the only thing preventing real time travel, is our lack of technology.....
Again, As I said, any EMF is relatively quickly negated. A Kerr-Newman BH may generate a small magnetic field, a fossil field from a Neutron star possibly, which like charge and spin is negated over time: In other words the outcome of any and all BH's are the simple Schwarszchild solution, and than over the lifetime of the Universe final evaporation via Hawking Radiation as logically predicted and supported by quantum interactions.
And yes, we also have theories that if a Neutron star with a significant magnetic field, collapses to a BH, then part remains of the magnetic field can remain trapped near the EH, although again, quickly negated.
A BH can have three properties, mass, charge and spin:
Last edited:
WOW - compare above - your original #372 posting, to the RADICALLY edited one now appearing!!! So who advised you via PM that your above linked articles were completely off the mark?Q-reeus said: ↑
Mainstream, as I have above and via earlier links shown, is in this case a useless crutch. There are just different schools of thought, much like the division over e.g. 'zero energy universe' notion.
Like you said different schools of thought....and re your questionable link...it is just that, [questionable] for obvious reasons which I'll let you fathom out yourself.
ps: It really worries me that the way I give my links troubles you so.....But that's me, I hope you are able to grin and bear it without too much bother.
In the meantime here are three papers: Like you said, there are different schools of thought, but that doesn't make mainstream a useless crutch:
Check out the fringes [alternative hypothesis and pseudoscience] for examples of useless crutches.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1602.03242v1.pdf
Abstract:
Analytical studies have raised the concern that a mysterious expulsion of magnetic field lines by a rapidly-spinning black hole (dubbed the black hole Meissner effect) would shut down the BlandfordZnajek process and quench the jets of active galactic nuclei and microquasars. This effect is however not seen observationally or in numerical simulations. Previous attempts at reconciling the predictions with observations have proposed several mechanisms to evade the Meissner effect. In this paper, we identify a new evasion mechanism and discuss its observational significance. Specifically, we show that the breakdown of stationarity is sufficient to remove the expulsion of the magnetic field at all multipole orders, and that the associated temporal variation is likely turbulent due to the existence of efficient mechanisms for sharing energy across different modes. Such an intrinsic (as opposed to being driven externally by, e.g., changes in the accretion rate) variability of the electromagnetic field can produce the recorded linear correlation between microvariability amplitudes and mean fluxes, help create magnetic randomness and seed sheared magnetic loops in jets, and lead to a better theoretical fit to the X-ray micro variability power spectral density.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1405.2098v2.pdf
Abstract:
Magnetic fields surrounding spinning black holes can confine radiation and trigger superradiant instabilities. To investigate this effect, we perform the first fully-consistent linear analysis of the Ernst spacetime, an exact solution of the Einstein–Maxwell equations describing a black hole immersed in a uniform magnetic field B. In the limit in which the black-hole mass vanishes, the background reduces to the marginally stable Melvin spacetime. The presence of an event horizon introduces a small dissipative term, resulting in a set of long-lived – or unstable – modes. We provide a simple interpretation of the mode spectrum in terms of a small perfect absorber immersed in a confining box of size ∼ 1/B and show that rotation triggers a superradiant instability. By studying scalar perturbations of a magnetized Kerr–Newman black hole, we are able to confirm and quantify the details of this instability. The instability time scale can be orders of magnitude shorter than that associated to massive bosonic fields. The instability extracts angular momentum from the event horizon, competing against accretion. This implies that strong magnetic fields set an upper bound on the black-hole spin. Conversely, observations of highly-spinning massive black holes impose an intrinsic limit to the strength of the surrounding magnetic field. We discuss the astrophysical implications of our results and the limitations of the Ernst spacetime to describe realistic astrophysical configurations.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Again, As I said, any EMF is relatively quickly negated. A Kerr-Newman BH could generate a small magnetic field, which like charge and spin is negated over time: In other words the outcome of any and all BH's are the simple Schwarszchild solution, and than over the lifetime of the Universe final evaporation via Hawking Radiation as logically predicted and supported by quantum interactions.
And yes, we also have theories that if a Neutron star with a significant magnetic field, collapses to a BH, then part remains of the magnetic field can remain trapped near the EH.
Anyway, here is my response to the above ORIGINAL #372 - the one prior to SOMEONE tipping you off:
Not having a good day - paddoboy. Or maybe just a normal one. I only see 2, not 3. Whatsmore, neither of the articles deal with the subject we were discussing - *intrinsic* magnetic fields of a Kerr-Newman BH. Those two articles deal only with response of a Kerr BH to being immersed in an *external* magnetic field - owing to accretion disc.
Original article they relate to: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0610841
Also, you claim my (singular) link is doubtful? I have given all-up 6 nay case links, and 3 pro case ones. Having a particularly bad day - paddoboy.
And, once again, there is NO EMF associated with a stationary Kerr-Newman BH - whether or not one allows an intrinsic B field. Basic EM theory.
Why are you making a big issue of C or c ? Can you not figure out that C in E = MC^2 is referred as light speed by Hansda ? And by the way what is C in physics ? Charge, Capacitance, Heat capacity ???? What ? Do you know ? The dimension of E = MC^2 is perfect , your confusion of E = M, and R(s) = 2M will persist because you do not know c = 1, G = 1 concept properly.....
Too much !! This is totally parrotized, mugged up.....and messed up too.....
How a magnetic field gets negated like charge and spin ???? as if magnetic field is some fourth estate of a BH, beyond charge, mass and spin...
Yet its your threads that have been moved to the fringes, and O f course you have already been informed.....check out your two ringe threads...answers there I think.No one advised me by any means that anything was off the mark.....
Let me reiterate....
Again, As I said, any EMF is relatively quickly negated. A Kerr-Newman BH may generate a small magnetic field, a fossil field from a Neutron star possibly, which like charge and spin is negated over time: In other words the outcome of any and all BH's are the simple Schwarszchild solution, and than over the lifetime of the Universe final evaporation via Hawking Radiation as logically predicted and supported by quantum interactions.
And yes, we also have theories that if a Neutron star with a significant magnetic field, collapses to a BH, then part remains of the magnetic field can remain trapped near the EH, although again, quickly negated.
A BH can have three properties, mass, charge and spin:
Oh, and my day's fine, how's yours?
But the recent two BHs, tango behind present GW detection, were actullay spinning ! Parrotized issues ?
So that gives you liberty to make mistakes ?? How absurd.
And by the way, if Mods have shited any thread of mine to fringe, that is because of their admitted lack of knowledge. As per you and some your type like minded guys anything which does not endorse mainstream will be termed as pseudo or fringe.
I realise that English is your second language, but you do know what "outcome" means don't you?
Let me elaborate on your education......
Probably all BH are born at least with angular momentum as well as mass:
In time that angular momentum will be negated: There are probably instances where it maybe speeded up for a short time, depending on interactions with the accretion disk: But in the end, it will be negated.
Charge of course is negated over far smaller intervals of time, and that has been professionally supported to you on a number of occasions.
Not at all: The claims I make about angular momentum and charge are factual and well supported.
You on the other hand do not need any liberty per se at all: Making erroneous claims is par for the course for yourself.
No they were shifted because of your ludicrous claims such as [1] Compulsory collapse does not take place when Schwarzchild radius is reach, [2] that one can meaningly speak of BH density [even my other matey Qreeus had to pull you into gear on that ludicrous claim], [3] That the nuclear force is not overcome by gravity, and [4] photons do not seemingly hover forever if emitted directly radially away.
My claims re those points were all adequately supported by professional reputable links and opinions, while your total denial of them was not supported by any sort of professional opinion: Hence the mods had no other choice.
With regards to anything not aligning with mainstream, that's debatable and depends.
If some alternative nut claims some unsupported claim as "gospel" or certain, then yes, most certainly it should be shifted to the fringes as it is with most other forums.
Finally
When you realise the above, you'll be half way to achieving some sort of credibility.