Gravitational waves from black hole merger

krash661 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately you are correct.
I know very little and enjoy this site.
It is unfortunate that insults occupy so much of the threads.

There is no need for insults.

I was sort of a crack pot on my favoured astronomy site and presented alternative ideas however when folk tried to help I was happy to receive help, and by being respectful learnt more.

I think many miss a wonderful opportunity when they just want to blurt out non science and happy to resort to insults.

Thank you for your input.
 
paddoboy said:
No one advised me by any means that anything was off the mark.....
Click to expand...
Really? Then pray tell, why post those 2-not-3 links & summaries in #372, then mysteriously withdraw them? Sudden mood swings of late?
Let me reiterate....
Click to expand...
Repetition will win the day if all else fails, eh paddoboy? While deeply ironic ('three fingers pointing back'), two earlier posts page 19 actually well describe the state of affairs here at SF. It's so clear to me that the (technical competency, and moral/ethical integrity) sins of some, while many, are all forgiven owing to their purity of allegiance to mainstream political/ideological dogma. Especially if they enthusiastically bash non-conformists. It pays to know what is the winning formula here at SF.
Oh, and my day's fine, how's yours?;)
Click to expand...
It's always a mix of amusement and anger and disbelief after looking through the latest postings at SF.
 
Last edited:
Q-reeus said:
Really? Then pray tell, why post those 2-not-3 links & summaries in #372, then mysteriously withdraw them? Sudden mood swings of late?
Click to expand...
Yes, really...really really...as real as me not being the one that reported your past anti GR thread that was rightly shifted.
You don't believe me? Guess what? I don't really give a flying f^%$.
Q-reeus said:
Repetition will win the day if all else fails, eh paddoboy?
Click to expand...
I see it as more of the indisputable facts eating at the craws of trolls.
Krash hit the nail on the head.
Q-reeus said:
while many, are all forgiven owing to their purity of allegiance to mainstream political/ideological dogma{/QUOTE]
The funny thing is, as well as being the truth, is that the alternative hypothetical pushers, trolls and general anti mainstream posters, get more of a even hand here than anywhere else.....In fact imho, the admins are actually bending over backwards to placate them.
Q-reeus said:
It's always a mix of amusement and anger and disbelief after looking through the latest postings at SF.
Click to expand...
Don't take it to heart....
Remember,
krash661 said:
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
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
What I have said......
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:
"""""""""""""""""""""""""

Found the following in Kip Thorne's book, BH's and Time Warps:
page 283: chapter 7: The Golden Age:
A sequence of snapshots showing the implosion of a magnetised star to form a black hole. The hole at first inherits the magnetic field from the star. However the hole has no power to hold on to the field. The field slips off it and is converted into electromagnetic radiation and flies away.
page 284:
The laws of physics permit the field to turn itself into electromagnetic radiation, [ripples of electric and magnetic force] and Price's theorm then demands that it do so.
The electromagnetic radiation flies away, partly down the hole, and partly away from it, leaving the hole unmagnetised.
 
He he he. Clear signs - a 'deleted' post (#384), followed by a poorly formatted #385, that not me but paddoboy needs to take his own advice and 'have a panadol and a good lay down'.
As for that last quote from Kip Thorne in #386 - it backs the 'no intrinsic B field for Kerr-Newman BH' position nicely. So, going from Arthur to Martha without blinking, paddoboy.
Damn - you should have taken that Harbour cruise later, not then. Try and sleep well tonight, paddoboy.:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
paddoboy said:
No they were shifted because of your ludicrous claims such as [1] Compulsory collapse does not take place when Schwarzchild radius is reach,
Click to expand...

You are a liar, I never said this....

paddoboy said:
[2] that one can meaningly speak of BH density [even my other matey Qreeus had to pull you into gear on that ludicrous claim]
Click to expand...

Yes, one can meaningfully speak of BH density...whats your problem ? You don't know that if you treat BH mass at r = 0, then it is as ridiculous as spacetime curvature, but for a BH denisty can be discussed considering BH to be of R(s) size....I do not think I ever made any other statement ont this..

paddoboy said:
, [3] That the nuclear force is not overcome by gravity,
Click to expand...

Your parroting is BS on this........You do not understand what is the formation process of BH and what is accretion process. Both processes are different...

paddoboy said:
[4] photons do not seemingly hover forever if emitted directly radially away.
Click to expand...

This is lullaby for kids like you.
 
hansda said:
I saw your link. But I could not find the equation E=MC^2 being discussed there; though this equation is considered in the LIGO paper for mass loss.



My notion is based on Einstein's paper. Show me a reference where E of E=MC^2 is explained as GW energy. From Einstein's paper I am not able to conclude that. If you are able to conclude that from Einstein's paper, let me know and please explain also. Without any proper reference, how can I change my opinion. Thats not scientific.
Click to expand...

You are missing on fundamentals.....E = mc^2 came much before GR, it says about equivalence of mass with energy...you know that.

Now I am making a statement...

that mass can be converted into energy through..1. EM Radiation. 2. Gravitation Radiation.

Transfer of energy and loss of mass is on account of 2 for this GW event......

PS: [I have just tried to put the mainstream perspective, I have my doubts about existence of BH itself.]
 
paddoboy said:
Found the following in Kip Thorne's book, BH's and Time Warps:
page 283: chapter 7: The Golden Age:
....The hole at first inherits the magnetic field from the star. However the hole has no power to hold on to the field. The field slips off it and is converted into electromagnetic radiation and flies away....
Click to expand...


There is no science in this statement.......This is Kip Thorne popsci..
 
The God said:
Great !

How did you manage to 'present alternative ideas' with little knowhow ?

Pl present one here, lets discuss...
Click to expand...

I would not present anything here in a mainstream science forum.
And my attempts were child like in reflection and initially deluded in what I thought was going to be ground breaking.
However the forum was polite and kind folk helped me learn a great deal.
Trust me however I now have all the answers and I am not telling anyone.
 
Xelasnave.1947 said:
Trust me however I now have all the answers and I am not telling anyone.
Click to expand...

I trust you for what you are..

I find your complement to Krash661 on his inputs amusing....I have not seen any worthwhile inputs from him so far, except shaking his head or shrugging his shoulders......
 
The God said:
I trust you for what you are..

I find your complement to Krash661 on his inputs amusing....I have not seen any worthwhile inputs from him so far, except shaking his head or shrugging his shoulders......
Click to expand...
I
I probably could have been clearer but my reference to input was specific to the recent posts between us.
So your amusement is upon a non reality as it were.
Happy to clear up the misunderstanding.
There is a debate section on this forum I am surprised no one uses it.
May be a good way to ease tensions.
 
The God said:
I trust you for what you are..

I find your complement to Krash661 on his inputs amusing....I have not seen any worthwhile inputs from him so far, except shaking his head or shrugging his shoulders......
Click to expand...
it is simply because of your low level mentality and lack of any actual knowledge, understanding, and wisdom-- as you endlessly sit here and pretend that you do, while making it obvious that you clearly do not, as you boast yourself--it is quite pathetic and comical(not even amusing), but whatever you need to continue to tell yourself, correct? -- :)(shakes head)--carry on.
 
The God said:
You are missing on fundamentals.....E = mc^2 came much before GR, it says about equivalence of mass with energy...you know that.
Click to expand...

See Einstein's paper https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/ . You can also see the links mentioned in this paper for " previous investigation " and "(§ 8)". Einstein only talked of Light energy and no other form of energy in this paper. So, this mass-energy equivalence is for mass and EM energy only.



The God said:
Now I am making a statement...

that mass can be converted into energy through..1. EM Radiation. 2. Gravitation Radiation.
Click to expand...

EM Radiation and Gravitation Radiation are different. So, the same equation can not be true for both these cases. Mass to EM Radiation conversion is proven for its energy content. Is the mass to Gravitation Radiation conversion proven for its energy content?



The God said:
Transfer of energy and loss of mass is on account of 2 for this GW event......

PS: [I have just tried to put the mainstream perspective, I have my doubts about existence of BH itself.]
Click to expand...

Let us assume that, your statement is correct. Now what is the condition that the Radiation should be 1.EM or 2.Gravitational .
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top