Gravity: The why and the how:

[paddoboy]

Dear God (I always wanted to write that),

The strong nuclear force is repulsive at short range, and so raises the maximum mass of a neutron star.

Best regards,

Bennett Link
Professor
Montana State University

Hi Professor...Nice answer.
The other points being argued on and denied in this thread if you have the time are as follows.
[1] A charged BH [although a rarity] will in time lose that charge by attracting opposite charge.
[2] A BH can also over time lose its angular momentum.
[3] Within a BH's EH the effects of tidal gravity which move towards infinity as we approach the singularity, also spaghetiffies any body/mass falling into the BH, eventually overcoming the strong nuclear force, so reducing the matter to its most basic fundamentals.

 

[OnlyMe]

Hi Professor...Nice answer.
The other points being argued on and denied in this thread if you have the time are as follows.
[1] A charged BH [although a rarity] will in time lose that charge by attracting opposite charge.
[2] A BH can also over time lose its angular momentum.
[3] Within a BH's EH the effects of tidal gravity which move towards infinity as we approach the singularity, also spaghetiffies any body/mass falling into the BH, eventually overcoming the strong nuclear force, so reducing the matter to its most basic fundamentals.

Be clear if you are talking about what might be predicted in a purely theoretical context and what is or might be expected to exist cosmologically. These discussions often go astray largely on confusing hypotheticals, theoretical predictions and cosmological reality.

1. Charge is not something that propagates faster than the speed of light, so even if, and paraphrasing a portion of Prof. Misner's earlier comment, any of the compact objects currently thought to be black holes, might have some charge.., it could not communicate that with any charge outside the event horizon.., to attract it. And by your statement in 3, would an I falling charge where even the strong force is overcome retaining anything resembling its original charge? In fact some of the issues raised in other threads even invoke things like fossil fields to resolve the issue. But that agin leaves the black hole or compact object disassociated with spacetime outside the horizon....
2. So since we have no evidence of a black hole with no angular momentum, that would be like the half life of a proton, right? Greater than the age of the universe? Are you speaking of something that really happens or is found in some untested model of what might happen?
3. How many authorities on GR believe that the predicted singularity actually exists? The reason I added that paraphrase of Prof. Misner..., any of the compact objects currently thought to be black holes.., is because it implies that he at least does not believe that the classic singularity exists, in reality. Which then brings into question.., exactly where does what does exist, deviate from theory?

 

[paddoboy]

Be clear if you are talking about what might be predicted in a purely theoretical context and what is or might be expected to exist cosmologically. These discussions often go astray largely on confusing hypotheticals, theoretical predictions and cosmological reality.

I'm speaking of as you know, that which is generally accepted by mainstream.
The reasons these discussions often go astray is due to those that do not support the mainstream cosmology picture, and the need to muddy the waters.

Charge is not something that propagates faster than the speed of light, so even if, and paraphrasing a portion of Prof. Misner's earlier comment, any of the compact objects currently thought to be black holes, might have some charge.

A charged BH which most likely are a rarity would over time gradually lose that charge. I have supplied reputable references supporting that.

So since we have no evidence of a black hole with no angular momentum, that would be like the half life of a proton, right?

Stars spin...stars collapse....some of them into BH's.....[conservation of angular momentum. That angular momentum over time would also be negated in less time than it would take HR to evaporate the BH I would presume.
As I have state before in threads about the predictive age of the Universe, these things take enormous time, but they are theorised to eventuate and are generally the accepted picture again.

How many authorities on GR believe that the predicted singularity actually exists? The reason I added that paraphrase of Prof. Misner..., any of the compact objects currently thought to be black holes.., is because it implies that he at least does not believe that the classic singularity exists, in reality. Which then brings into question.., exactly where does what does exist, deviate from theory?

????What are you on about? I'm talking about tidal gravity effects within the EH [and possibly also outside], that get more critical and move to infinity as it approaches the singularity. The area/region where our models break down.
Whether the singularity or not exists [and I believe it doesn't at least not infinity] tidal gravity effects still increase and will overcome the strong nuclear force probably before the singularity, again according to best mainstream theoretical applications.

 

[paddoboy]

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.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose_process
The Penrose process (also called Penrose mechanism) is a process theorised byRoger Penrose wherein energy can be extracted from a rotating black hole.[1][2] That extraction is made possible because the rotational energy of the black hole is located not inside the event horizon of the black hole, but on the outside of it in a region of the Kerr spacetime called the ergosphere, a region in which a particle is necessarily propelled in locomotive concurrence with the rotating spacetime. All objects in the ergosphere become dragged by a rotating spacetime. In the process, a lump of matter enters into the ergosphere of the black hole, and once it enters the ergosphere, it is split into two. The momentum of the two pieces of matter can be arranged so that one piece escapes to infinity, whilst the other falls past the outer event horizon into the hole. The escaping piece of matter can possibly have greater mass-energy than the original infalling piece of matter, whereas the infalling piece has negative mass-energy. In summary, the process results in a decrease in the angular momentum of the black hole, and that reduction corresponds to a transference of energy whereby the momentum lost is converted to energy extracted.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_blackholes_theory.html

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

https://books.google.com.au/books?i...=does a spinning black hole lose spin&f=false

 

[OnlyMe]

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.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose_process
The Penrose process (also called Penrose mechanism) is a process theorised byRoger Penrose wherein energy can be extracted from a rotating black hole.[1][2] That extraction is made possible because the rotational energy of the black hole is located not inside the event horizon of the black hole, but on the outside of it in a region of the Kerr spacetime called the ergosphere, a region in which a particle is necessarily propelled in locomotive concurrence with the rotating spacetime. All objects in the ergosphere become dragged by a rotating spacetime. In the process, a lump of matter enters into the ergosphere of the black hole, and once it enters the ergosphere, it is split into two. The momentum of the two pieces of matter can be arranged so that one piece escapes to infinity, whilst the other falls past the outer event horizon into the hole. The escaping piece of matter can possibly have greater mass-energy than the original infalling piece of matter, whereas the infalling piece has negative mass-energy. In summary, the process results in a decrease in the angular momentum of the black hole, and that reduction corresponds to a transference of energy whereby the momentum lost is converted to energy extracted.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_blackholes_theory.html

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

https://books.google.com.au/books?id=qZXwCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA142&lpg=PA142&dq=does a spinning black hole lose spin&source=bl&ots=9lXqj5EBTv&sig=HHi9rnykBmkC1JusRzrzHOgeGH4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CEEQ6AEwB2oVChMI4IGOy7DuyAIVVedjCh0k-w3N#v=onepage&q=does a spinning black hole lose spin&f=false

Sometimes it seems to me you are picking puzzle pieces from a variety of untestable mathematical solutions and theorized what ifs.., cramming them together and declaring that this is the cosmos.

In the Penrose piece find a clear definition of just what negative mass-energy is in our reality and who has confirmed that it exists.

Not everything that every theorist imagines and mathematician discovers in his geometries, represents anything we will ever find in our real world experience. That does not mean that we cannot learn from them, it does mean that you have to keep a firm grip on the difference between theory and what has been observed to be an accurate description of some part of the universe.

 

[paddoboy]

Sometimes it seems to me you are picking puzzle pieces from a variety of untestable mathematical solutions and theorized what ifs.., cramming them together and declaring that this is the cosmos.

Not at all...Until you literally confused and misinterpreted the issues at hand, this is what they are...
A BH can only have three properties, mass, spin and charge.
[1] Spin and charge can be and are negated over time.
[2] Tidal gravitational forces increase to infinity and in the process, overcome the strong nuclear force.
That's it, pure and simple.

 

[The God]

Dear God (I always wanted to write that),

The strong nuclear force is repulsive at short range, and so raises the maximum mass of a neutron star.

Best regards,

Bennett Link
Professor
Montana State University

Very true, Sir.

But the strong nuclear force when it becomes repulsive (around 6-8 fm), the nucleonic distance becomes smaller than the normal center to center distance between them.

I have written on this thread somewhere that this is the stage when a Neutron Star EOS is not clear to us, and it is hypothesized that Quark (exotic matter) soup etc gets formed, the point is, it is no longer in domain of nucleonic strong force which is being discussed as p-p, p-n and n-p interaction.

In case of Neutron star where mostly all are neutrons in the core (with few protons), the Strong Nuclear Force (attractive type) is dominating and that is in direction of Gravity only, because the density (at par with nucleus) suggests that in the NS, the nucleonic distance has not fallen to a level below 6 fm.....Please do enlighten if I am wrong.

 

[The God]

Dear Prof Link,

The below post was made by me to clarify my stand on Strong nuclear force, the reference is towrds attraction between nucleonic pairs....I was expecting that paddoboy etc would raise the issue of repulsion, thats why I left the pt#1 open to be taken up later.

Now since Daecon has specifically raised this issue and wants to know why this nuclear force thingie is poposcience, then I must clarify...before you proceed you may like to brush up by referring https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_interaction

1. In the context, your reference is about Strong Nuclear Force as attractive force between Neutron/Proton in a nucleus which is very strong. This force binds the nucleons together by despite the Proton-Proton repulsion. The classic theory behind this with potential well is know to any middle school Physics student, but it has something more which if required/raised will be taken up later.

2. This attraction force is inward, and Gravitational collapse is also inward, so there is no need for Gravity to overcome this. Gravity will have to overcome if this attraction force acts as resistance to collapse but it does not. So his argument fails here itself.

3. When a core collapses and say it has sufficient mass to form just the Neutron Star, then all Neutrons in the inner core, has strong Nuclear Force binding them, Gravity also acts as compressive / binding force only, so in the Neutron Star there is no overcoming of Nuclear Force (Which is present in its extreme maxima) by Gravity.

4. If the star core mass is more, then the 'Equation of state of matter' changes, and we really do not know, what becomes of Neutrons, you may like to read about hypothetical Quark Stars, and also above wiki link would have given you an idea about strong interaction...but thats no longer Nuclear Force, as there are no longer Neutrons/Protons...so called some kind of hypothesized Quarks/Gluons soup.

5. if the star core mass is still more than, a BH comes, and we know nothing about Equation of State for sure beyond Neutron Star, not even mathematically.

So can anyone pin point where the Gravity has overcome the strong Nuclear Force and how ?

Now coming to mass accretion by Black Hole..

6. If the BH is large, then nothing untoward may happen near EH because tidal forces may not be so strong. As the object approaches singularity, tidal forces become significant. How these Tidal Forces overcome Strong Nuclear Force, I do not know, this is a free fall and we do not know the maths under such extreme Gravity. The plight of the object as it merges with the singulairty (or vanishes to oblivion) is unknown...Its a very complex stuff and I am not aware of any paper/work which talks of a condition when for pair of Neutrons or protons or for Neutron Proton pair (Tidal Force > Strong Nuclear Force).

If any of you can put a paper, which explicitly discusses this issue, I am willing to retract.

So, I urge all three of you, pl desist from making such false accusations that I am terming mainstream as poposcience. I have no problem with your blind support to Paddoboy's popscience, Poposcience and adhoms posts, but do not make false representations. Post some science, contribute, not some one liners.

 

[OnlyMe]

Not at all...Until you literally confused and misinterpreted the issues at hand, this is what they are...
A BH can only have three properties, mass, spin and charge.
[1] Spin and charge can be and are negated over time.
[2] Tidal gravitational forces increase to infinity and in the process, overcome the strong nuclear force.
That's it, pure and simple.

You speak in absolutes about things that cannot be tested... And you speak of them as if they are confirmed descriptions of real objects, rather than theoretical extensions, of an otherwise successful underlying model.

1. In a classical environment spin and charge do seem to diminish with time. But at quantum scales and relativistic solutions, that time frame is so far beyond measure, that it becomes meaningless. Is a proton that began its journey some 14 billion years ago different today? And if you believe so how do you prove that? You cannot because it is theoretical speculation.
2. Infinities are where the solutions you rely on breakdown, which means they are the point at which you can no longer relay on predictions. Since once a mass has reached its Schwarzchild radius the solutions you relay on predict unavoidable singularities, even the horizon becomes questionable, as anything other than a mathematical/theoretical prediction.

The point is most of what you are stating as if it were settled science and fact, remains in the domain of the hypothetical and theoretical... Though I don't always agree with the conclusions, I don't object to any of the theoretical information you reference. What I object to is your insistence on presenting and defending untestable theoretical conclusions as if they were gospel. Anything that can be imagined may turn out to be an accurate description of reality, but not everything that can be imagine can... And some of the fundamental assumptions differ sufficiently from one model/theory to another, that they become mutually exclusive.

O.K. I'm done with the rant for now, least this become another battle for the last word.

 

[paddoboy]

You speak in absolutes about things that cannot be tested... And you speak of them as if they are confirmed descriptions of real objects, rather than theoretical extensions, of an otherwise successful underlying model.

As someone else pulled you up on the other day, and as I have constantly reminded you, that is an outright lie at worst and/or total misunderstanding at best.
I speak in general of what is held and believed by mainstream, and I'm certainly not going to encouch all I say with "this is only theoretical" just to appease you.

In a classical environment spin and charge do seem to diminish with time. But at quantum scales and relativistic solutions, that time frame is so far beyond measure, that it becomes meaningless. Is a proton that began its journey some 14 billion years ago different today? And if you believe so how do you prove that? You cannot because it is theoretical speculation.

As you should no, science rarely deals in proofs. I speak of the situation that is accepted by mainstream cosmology based on current knowledge.

1. Infinities are where the solutions you rely on breakdown, which means they are the point at which you can no longer relay on predictions. Since once a mass has reached its Schwarzchild radius the solutions you relay on predict unavoidable singularities, even the horizon becomes questionable, as anything other than a mathematical/theoretical prediction.

   Again, I speak from the mainstream position on most occasions and as upheld on most occasions by professional opinions.

The point is most of what you are stating as if it were settled science and fact,

You know my position and what you state is not the case.
Perhaps any near certainty I may encouch my claims in, are more driven by pseudoscientific arguments against it, which even you have highlighted on occasions.

remains in the domain of the hypothetical and theoretical... Though I don't always agree with the conclusions, I don't object to any of the theoretical information you reference. What I object to is your insistence on presenting and defending untestable theoretical conclusions as if they were gospel. Anything that can be imagined may turn out to be an accurate description of reality, but not everything that can be imagine can... And some of the fundamental assumptions differ sufficiently from one model/theory to another, that they become mutually exclusive.

Let me assure you for the umpteenth time, that in general, that is not the case, but by the same token, again, I am not going to encouch all my claims with "this is highly theoretical".
And of course the implementation of reasonable assumptions, logic, and current knowledge, are all a part of a scientific theory and how certain it is.
That includes for example, the reasonable assumption that the spacetime of a Kerr BH has spin including the mass, all based on observation of what we find outside the EH, in the ergosphere and frame dragging.

O.K. I'm done with the rant for now, least this become another battle for the last word.

As I said in the beginning, in another thread the other day, someone else had to pull you up on what you were assuming about my claims.
This is not a matter of the last word, just refutation on a number of bogus claims you have made.

 

[The God]

[*]In a classical environment spin and charge do seem to diminish with time. But at quantum scales and relativistic solutions, that time frame is so far beyond measure, that it becomes meaningless. Is a proton that began its journey some 14 billion years ago different today? And if you believe so how do you prove that? You cannot because it is theoretical speculation.

This negation of charge was raised by paddoboy in his questionable tutorial, and I objected it on the grounds that a charged BH (say +ive) cannot attract a negatively charged particle from the other side of EH, simply because charge - charge interaction cannot take place, if both the charges are separated by EH. But paddoboy, did not correct and he insisted with attraction between the charges, this is bad physics. The fact is that a negatively charged particle on the other side will get accreted (gravitational) by a positively charged BH (this process is independent of charge) and in the process BH charge will nullify to that extent. paddoboy does not seem to agree with me on this.

He is relying on prof Hamilton web page where he has used the word attraction....I am sure Prof Hamilton who has done so much work on charged BH (RN), is not at all implying charge -charge attraction on either side of EH. He means accretion and thus neutralization....

 

[paddoboy]

This negation of charge was raised by paddoboy in his questionable tutorial, and I objected it on the grounds that a charged BH (say +ive) cannot attract a negatively charged particle from the other side of EH, simply because charge - charge interaction cannot take place, if both the charges are separated by EH. But paddoboy, did not correct and he insisted with attraction between the charges, this is bad physics. The fact is that a negatively charged particle on the other side will get accreted (gravitational) by a positively charged BH (this process is independent of charge) and in the process BH charge will nullify to that extent. paddoboy does not seem to agree with me on this.

I have in most cases used the word "negated" and as usual I stand by that as opposed to your rather fabricated jumbled interpretation.

He is relying on prof Hamilton web page where he has used the word attraction....I am sure Prof Hamilton who has done so much work on charged BH (RN), is not at all implying charge -charge attraction on either side of EH. He means accretion and thus neutralization....

I as a lay person, have used Professor Hamilton and other experts at various times to support all my claims...nothing more, nothing less.
You as a lay person, on the other hand, have no reference of any kind to support anything you have claimed.

 

[The God]

Dear God (I always wanted to write that),

The strong nuclear force is repulsive at short range, and so raises the maximum mass of a neutron star.

Best regards,

Bennett Link
Professor
Montana State University

Professor Bennet Link,

Request please refer to the below graph of Nuclear force Vs Center to Center distance between Nucleons..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_force#/media/File:ReidForce2.jpg

(As taken from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_force)

It is well established that Nuclear force between Nucleons is repulsive, only if the center to center distance between them falls below 0.6 - 0.8 fm or so.

In case of a Neutron Star of around 1 - 1.5 Solar mass the radius is around 12-13 Kms and the nucleonic center to center distance is of the order of more than 1 fm (much > 0.8 fm), where the strong nuclear force attraction prevails. I am surprised why do you say that in a Neutron Star there is repulsive Nuclear Force? Please note that we are not talking about NDP here.

 

[paddoboy]

I have in most cases used the word "negated" and as usual I stand by that as opposed to your rather fabricated jumbled interpretation.


I as a lay person, have used Professor Hamilton and other experts at various times to support all my claims...nothing more, nothing less.
You as a lay person, on the other hand, have no reference of any kind to support anything you have claimed.

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.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose_process
The Penrose process (also called Penrose mechanism) is a process theorised byRoger Penrose wherein energy can be extracted from a rotating black hole.[1][2] That extraction is made possible because the rotational energy of the black hole is located not inside the event horizon of the black hole, but on the outside of it in a region of the Kerrspacetime called theergosphere, a region in which a particle is necessarily propelled in locomotive concurrence with the rotating spacetime. All objects in the ergosphere become dragged by a rotating spacetime. In the process, a lump of matter enters into the ergosphere of the black hole, and once it enters the ergosphere, it is split into two. The momentum of the two pieces of matter can be arranged so that one piece escapes to infinity, whilst the other falls past the outer event horizon into the hole. The escaping piece of matter can possibly have greater mass-energy than the original infalling piece of matter, whereas the infalling piece has negative mass-energy. In summary, the process results in a decrease in the angular momentum of the black hole, and that reduction corresponds to a transference of energy whereby the momentum lost is converted to energy extracted.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_blackholes_theory.html
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""


Gravity or more accurately the effects of tidal gravity, are thought to increase to infinity as we get closer to the Singularity.
The smaller the BH, the more critically effective is that tidal gravity effect.
So much so that it will shred all matter/mass apart after spaghettifing and strip down to its most basic fundamentals, overcoming all other forces in the process.
Unlike a Neutron Star that people are confused with, the gravity at the NS 's surface is at its strongest, and as we approach the center, the effects of gravity are reduced by pulling of the gravity of the matter from all sides. Just as on the surface of the Earth and at the Earth's center, or at the poles and at the equator. Other factors of course also come into play like centrifigal force.
In effect the gravity at the center of a NS is equalised from all directions and effectively zero.
This does not occur on a BH, where all the mass is thought to be concentrated at the center/singularity.
This is the reason that tidal gravity effects are the dominant force, depending on the BH's mass.
Also as referenced and validated earlier, in Kip Thorne's book, "Black Holes and Time Warps"

 

[paddoboy]

My claim is supported in its entirety by the following.......
This is supported by Kip Thorne in his book, "Black Holes and Time Warps" 0n page 475/476, Chapter 13 here............
http://www.plouffe.fr/simon/math/Bl...ps, Einstein's Outrageous Legacy - Thorne.pdf

And one of the many links I gave a while ago to rajesh in his similar argument against my logical claim.....
http://www.calpoly.edu/~rechols/6edastro102/astro112ch21sol8th.html
Neutron degeneracy pressure arises when neutrons are so close that their quantum states begin to overlap. Since no two fermions, neutrons in this case, can occupy the same quantum state, a pressure results. The combined pressure from neutron degeneracy pressure and the strong nuclear force prevent further gravitational collapse of a neutron star if the remaining supernova core (neutron star) is less than 2-3 solar masses. In a white dwarf star it is electron degeneracy pressure that is preventing gravity from collapsing the star. In this case the upper mass limit is 1.4 solar masses which is better known than for the case of a neutron star (see 30. below)

Thorne explains just as I have that tidal gravity effects increase to infinity, as one approaches the Singularity.
The results of this are rather obvious.

 

[The God]

http://jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/insidebh/rn.html

....and a charged black hole would quickly neutralize by attracting charge of the opposite sign.

I have already expressed that the intent of Prof Hamilton is that the opposite charge particle would get accreted (gravitationally) and thus neutralize to that extent.......Thats ok; but you are suggesting and insisting that this is some kind of charge - charge interaction across EH...no it is not.

 

[paddoboy]

I have already expressed that the intent of Prof Hamilton is that the opposite charge particle would get accreted (gravitationally) and thus neutralize to that extent.......Thats ok; but you are suggesting and insisting that this is some kind of charge - charge interaction across EH...no it is not.

Yes I am and yes it is. Unless you can offer some reputable link saying different?
Please though do not tell Professor Hamiliton what he is saying. What he says is obvious.

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.
http://jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/insidebh/rn.html

 

[The God]

Yes I am and yes it is. Unless you can offer some reputable link saying different?
Please though do not tell Professor Hamiliton what he is saying. What he says is obvious.

No I will not ask Prof Hamilton, it is so obvious that this is your complete lack of understanding of basic Physics.

"The electromagnetic interaction is responsible for the attractive or repulsive forces between charges".

I am sure at least you know this much that EM interaction is not possible from inside of EH to outside of EH. Do you still need any reference or you will agree ouch, goofed up, sorry not goofed up exposed again.

 

[paddoboy]

No I will not ask Prof Hamilton, it is so obvious that this is your complete lack of understanding of basic Physics.

Who has asked you to ask any Professor anything? Not me! I would not insult there intelligence and knowledge against your usual arrogant misinterpretations and bullying tactics. You have his website.,,use it.
In regards to your usual boring claims that I have no understanding, well we'll leave that to your peers on this forum, won't we?... And you still are ignoring requests for any supportable references.
Which makes your opinion worth about 0/10

I am sure at least you know this much that EM interaction is not possible from inside of EH to outside of EH. Do you still need any reference or you will agree ouch, goofed up, sorry not goofed up exposed again.

No one claimed any interaction from inside to outside other than yourself.
Which leaves the only goof up, and exposure, to be of your own rear end.
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.
http://jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/insidebh/rn.html\"
""""""""""""""""""
And to even further support your usual rear end exposure and blundering ignorant bullying tactics .......
http://cds.cern.ch/record/473477/files/0010103.pdf
Spontaneous loss of charge of the Reissner-Nordstrom black hole
Abstract:
In this paper, we study by a functional method the vacuum instability of a charged scalar field, when it is quantized in the background of the Reissner Nordstrom¨om black hole; we also show that the first stage of the evaporation process of the black hole can be driven by a Schwinger-like effect.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

Yep most certainly any existing Reissner-Nordström BH will have that charge negated over time without violating any of the known theoretical applications as attaining to BH's .

 

[paddoboy]

the god said:
2. This attraction force is inward, and Gravitational collapse is also inward, so there is no need for Gravity to overcome this. Gravity will have to overcome if this attraction force acts as resistance to collapse but it does not. So his argument fails here itself.

3. When a core collapses and say it has sufficient mass to form just the Neutron Star, then all Neutrons in the inner core, has strong Nuclear Force binding them, Gravity also acts as compressive / binding force only, so in the Neutron Star there is no overcoming of Nuclear Force (Which is present in its extreme maxima) by Gravity.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Correct!!But no one ever claimed anything at all about any Neutron Star! Except yourself!
So, no real argument with your above red herring.

the god said:
4. If the star core mass is more, then the 'Equation of state of matter' changes, and we really do not know, what becomes of Neutrons, you may like to read about hypothetical Quark Stars, and also above wiki link would have given you an idea about strong interaction...but thats no longer Nuclear Force, as there are no longer Neutrons/Protons...so called some kind of hypothesized Quarks/Gluons soup.

5. if the star core mass is still more than, a BH comes, and we know nothing about Equation of State for sure beyond Neutron Star, not even mathematically.

So can anyone pin point where the Gravity has overcome the strong Nuclear Force and how ?

Although we have no information re what happens inside a BH's EH, we are reasonably allowed to theorise most likely scenarios, based on what we already know. That was re-enforced by a few Professors when another similar anti GR/Cosmology mission, was being foisted on us by another called rajesh a while back. Along with what GR tells us about compulsory collapse once the Schwarzchild limit is reached , we are allowed to reasonably and logically assume properties inside the EH like tidal gravitational effects that increase to infinity, all the way to the Singularity, and during that trip any body of matter that is sucked in is spagettified and torn apart to its most basic fundamentals, as inferred in Thorne's book and my other references.
Other properties that are ascertained to be inside a BH, are the properties of spinning spacetime and singularity/mass, evidenced from any observed ergosphere outside the EH proper, and also the common denominator that all stars spin and conservation of energy and momentum.
BH's themselves are a logically reasonably assumed scenario, based on observations and the laws of physics and GR.

To pinpoint where tidal gravity effects overcome all other forces, depends on the size of the BH. Any SMBH EH, could in reality be crossed without any immediate ill effects or spaghettifiaction. But as the Singularity is approached tidal gravity effects will come into play. Theoretically gravity could overcome all the other forces as soon as the mass crossed the EH.
In fact at this late stage in this discussion, it now appears that 'the god" is just using this "we cannot know" argument as a cop out after previous arguments have fell flat.!