Yeah sure it is.
"Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is."
Yet it is your own threads that languish in the fringes, tainted by your agenda.
Gravitational waves from black hole merger
- Thread starter Plazma Inferno!
- Start date
Yeah sure it is.
"Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is."
Yet it is your own threads that languish in the fringes, tainted by your agenda.
Apologies, rajesh said that didn't he?
No it is not meaningful to speak of BH density...rajesh also made that fundamental error [
] as we all know essencially a BH is nothing more then critically curved spacetime [also denied by yourself and rajesh] with a singularity at the center.In fact speaking of BH density makes no sense....
No, my parroting as you put it is fact: All forces are gradually overcome by tidal gravitational effects on a mass's one way trip to the singularity where the mass resides...And of course all supported by the many links I have given in the past to you, particularly in your threads that were moved to the fringes where they should be. Again false, facts are that a photon emitted just this side of the EH, directly radially away will seem to hover there forever and a day, never quite getting away and never succumbing to the EH of the BH, from the point of view of a local frame:Again.....
"Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is."
Oh, and also......
You need to absorb both those highlighted texts my dear friend, because they are the undeniable facts re yourself and others that chose to diss mainstream science on forums such as this.
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.
No it backs exactly what I have said matey.....all charges are negated rather quickly, while angular momentum over longer aspects of time.
Oh, and I'm not much of a pill popper, and rarely take any medication, although this year and last I am receiving the flu shot before the onset of our Winter which is free for old bastards such as myself...
No it backs exactly what I have said matey.....all charges are negated rather quickly, while angular momentum over longer aspects of time.
What is 'rather quickly' in the context ? And what is longer aspect of time ? The rather quickly can be as quick as quickie.....
Einstein said:
As Einstein used the term radiation in the above quote, Can it be used for "gravitational radiation"?
Einstein also said that (from the same paper)
Einstein said:
We know that EM Radiation corresponds to this fact. EM radiation is proven/tested to this Einstein's equation. Is this equation also tested for gravitational radiation? Gravitational radiation is only detected for the first time. So, this Einstein's equation is still not tested for gravitational radiation.
Exactly as has been explained to you many times, particularly if I recall correctly, your threads that were shifted to the fringes for obvious reasons.
You mean the charge would be negated as fast as the 'quickie' time.....that is around 5 minutes ???
I mean the charge would be negated in time while angular momentum over far longer periods.
Keep trying, you're bound to snag something one day.
In the meantime don't forget the following facts.....
"Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is."
and as krash so succulently put it
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.
That is more than evident in your case.
How long ??
Depends.
On what ??
A number of things, which has already been answered in this thread. Or are you trolling again?
A number of things, which has already been answered in this thread. Or are you trolling again?
Take one example....quantify these number of things, and then let us calculate this time for charge ?? Let all know what you really mean by quick negation of charge and somewhat longer of angular momentum...
https://books.google.com.au/books?i...ll lose its charge and magnetic field&f=false
There are three possible reasons for a BH magnetic field in the presence of accretion:
[1] Produced by an intrinsic BH magnetic moment.
[2] Created from magnetic flux dragged in by accreting matter.
[3] Generated in situ by local dynamos in the accretion inflow.
There are three possible reasons for a BH magnetic field in the presence of accretion:
[1] Produced by an intrinsic BH magnetic moment.
[2] Created from magnetic flux dragged in by accreting matter.
[3] Generated in situ by local dynamos in the accretion inflow.
I'm afraid I have zero confidence in your mathematical ability and your unqualified, unsupported rather anti cosmological stance.My links are all reputable: Use them. Your say so and opinion is worthless...sorry about that.
I am talking about spin and charge !!
Talk about what you like...Your questions have all been answered, in this thread and others.
And all have been supported by reputable links.
You have nothing except a dream, bolstered by fanaticism.
I never cop out my friend...and what adhoms are you referring too?The truth hitting home as to your trolling?
Again, your questions on charge and spin being negated have all been answered.
Take it or leave it.
Remember, what you try and fanatically push and over turn in this forum, makes no difference to the professionals at the coal face. It gets you know where: You must accept that as ego deflating that it is!
Although Krash put that a lot more succulently.