As far as I know, no, just one.....a combination of both singularities.Further question: Are there two singularities behind the event horizon of the newly formed combined black hole or only one?
As far as I know, no, just one.....a combination of both singularities.Further question: Are there two singularities behind the event horizon of the newly formed combined black hole or only one?
Are you kidding me? Do you think this experiment was done by some dudes in their mom's garage. Seriously, are you really that out of touch that you think you are coming up with shit they didn't think of?
How can you possibly think the gods absurd statement, "You can't possibly get two suns at light-micro-seconds apart, leave aside getting two BHs of around 30 Solar masses so close" is real skeptism? You seem to be becoming a first rate crank!
Well then, how could they get that close, hmm lets see, how about they were that close the instant before combining; after spiralling into each other for millions of years! There is no need to lose it in your golden years!
Possibly because they started out closer together, and of course much stronger gravitational attraction then the Earth and Sun.The problem is that "spiralling into each other" needs a lot of time. The Earth is spiralling into the Sun how long now, without an end in sight? So the question how they come so close to each other is a reasonable one.
Gravity/spacetime is non linear: plus the gravitational field of a stellar BH is a fossil field from the original star.Theory permits this, no mass/em radiation escapes from inside the EH, but curvature of spacetime (gravity) extends till infinity...
A theoretical prediction held in high regard by most cosmologists and in conjunction with quantum field theory a logical assertion."Hawking radiation" is only a mathematical/theoretical prediction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation . This is not Physically verified.
Timespace, spacetime...the same I would imagine.What is "time-space" ? Is it same as "space-time" ? We have also seen that "space-time" is a mathematical model and not the physical reality.
Not at all. But you'd be surprised how often the wrong compromises are made in real life engineering. The Concorde's tires and the Shuttle's many problems with ceramic tiles and Morton Thiokol's gaskets, and Perkin-Elmer's fiasco with the first Hubble optics are all something that shows just how easy it is to mess up when the pressure is on and the stakes are high.
There is a lot of radiation from infalling matter. There is no fixed ratio for this, if, say, something neutral would fall directly into the black hole there would be no such radiation, but the usual way to fall inside is much longer. Usually matter rotates a lot of time around the BH in some accretion disc, similar to the ring of Saturn.
But all this is the long way from far away toward the BH horizon. Nothing special, in principle this is similar for matter falling into the Sun or on Earth. The role of the atmosphere of the Earth, which transforms the invisible meteorites into fireballs before they reach the surface can be played by this accretion disc.
And, the more close to the horizon, gravitational waves become more and more important for the loss of energy.
Take this reply Dan as a continuation of my post to you at post 60.......
Sure mainstream science makes mistakes, as happens in every field, but just as sure is the fact that the discoveries of these mistakes, the anomalies sometimes discovered, the falsification of incumbent theories etc, are all revealed and solved and modified by those same mainstream scientists and cosmologists.
It is not solved, nor falsified, nor modified by any Tom, Dick, Harry or Dan or paddoboy or the god, from a sliver of cyber space on a remote science forum, posting incognito and without any fallback or consequence of their outrageous actions and/or silly claims.
Surely you realise that? Others obviously do not, being snowed under by delusions of grandeur and inflated egos. Or perhaps you don't.
The views of space and time which I wish to lay before you have sprung from the soil of experimental physics, and therein lies their strength. They are radical. Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality.
:Hermann Minkowski:
I do not know about any Tom, Dick or Harry....but you are a misfit in the list. It cannot come from you.
Gravity/spacetime is non linear: plus the gravitational field of a stellar BH is a fossil field from the original star.
Gravity/spacetime is non linear: plus the gravitational field of a stellar BH is a fossil field from the original star.
This fact was verified a while back when another called rajesh was preaching anti science nonsense and denial.Gravity/spacetime is non linear: plus the gravitational field of a stellar BH is a fossil field from the original star.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/BlackHoles/black_gravity.html
Purely in terms of general relativity, there is no problem here. The gravity doesn't have to get out of the black hole. General relativity is a local theory, which means that the field at a certain point in spacetime is determined entirely by things going on at places that can communicate with it at speeds less than or equal to c. If a star collapses into a black hole, the gravitational field outside the black hole may be calculated entirely from the properties of the star and its external gravitational field before it becomes a black hole. Just as the light registering late stages in my fall takes longer and longer to get out to you at a large distance, the gravitational consequences of events late in the star's collapse take longer and longer to ripple out to the world at large. In this sense the black hole is a kind of "frozen star": the gravitational field is a fossil field. The same is true of the electromagnetic field that a black hole may possess.
This fact was verified a while back when another called rajesh was preaching anti science nonsense and denial.
http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/gravity_of_gravity
The gravity of gravity
One reason why the physics of general relativity is much more difficult than that of Newton's theory of gravity or the theory of electrodynamicsis a property called non-linearity. In short, gravity can beget further gravity - where gravitational systems are concerned, the whole is not the sum of its parts.
This is to accommodate our inability to do anything beyond EH, do you get it ? This is another classic example of continued pseudoscience. Its like, park your shoes and even characteristic properties outside, and then enter the premises (read EH). Paddoboy, can't you rightfully ask a simple question that how the mass falls to singularity once it crosses EH if Gravity is parked outside EH ? You talk so fondly that for a large BH it will be spaghettified (whatever) as it nears the singularity, but where is the Gravity inside EH, why the inside of spacetime be so curved, when the field is fossiled outside EH itself ?
This is maths.....this non-linearity and non superimposition of solution is due to complex equations. Try solving x = km and x = km^2...You will get the idea. In case # 1 you can simply add x1 and x2 as derived from m1 and m2 to get x3 for m1+m2, but in case of # 2 you cannot add x1 and x2 to get x3 for (m1+m2). You are pushing something which you do not understand. The probability that you have understood my example also is very very low..
I'm not arguing or debating with you my friend...Obviously your anti science, pro pseudoscience stance is beyond redemption, suffice to say if you have any evidence for your stuff then present it for peer review...because guess what?you aint gonna change anything baby!
Incredible money being undertaken to further validation of Einstein's Universe, gravitational waves, BH's and GR in particular, but all worth it I suggest.....
GP-B, LIGO, and LISA to come.Coupling all those with the ISS, the HST, and LHC and it has taken a pretty penny to achieve what we already have.