Gravity: The why and the how:

[The God]

No one claimed any interaction from inside to outside other than yourself.

Wow, that is called a white lie. You are claiming all along and now coping out. Shame on you.

James R, do you have any opinion on such trolls, or despite multiple reportings you will maintain the silence to support this cheap liar.

 

[The God]

My post to Paddoboy on this point...

...but you are suggesting and insisting that this is some kind of charge - charge interaction across EH...no it is not.

Paddoboy response...

Yes I am and yes it is.

And now, all in same thread.

No one claimed any interaction from inside to outside other than yourself.

Can there be a bigger lie? Paddoboy!

 

[The God]

Paddoboy's insistence that a charged BH will attract opposite charge from the other side of EH,

Most certainly just as I have referenced....

This is from Post # 59. And now he says, he did not say that.

 

[origin]

Wow, that is called a white lie. You are claiming all along and now coping out. Shame on you.

James R, do you have any opinion on such trolls, or despite multiple reportings you will maintain the silence to support this cheap liar.

I reported this mess:
Is there anything that can be done with the ridiculous ongoing flame war between 'paddoboy' and 'The God'? It seems like they both need a timeout or something.
I don't actually know if this is reportable but thought I would give it a try. I no longer read post from either of you guys because they are nothing but insults against each other.

 

[OnlyMe]

I reported this mess:
Is there anything that can be done with the ridiculous ongoing flame war between 'paddoboy' and 'The God'? It seems like they both need a timeout or something.
I don't actually know if this is reportable but thought I would give it a try. I no longer read post from either of you guys because they are nothing but insults against each other.

That often don't even make sense!

The argument and having the last word, has become more important than any real discussion.

 

[origin]

That often don't even make sense!

The argument and having the last word, has become more important than any real discussion.

It seems so.

 

[tashja]

The last word from Prof. Hamilton :

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.

A charged black hole has a long-ranged electric field that extends
outside the horizon. Real astronomical black holes live in galaxies
with an interstellar medium. The interstellar medium contains both
positive and negative charges (protons and electrons, mainly). A
positively charged black hole would electrically attract negative
charges and electrically repel positive charges, while gravitationally
attracting both. So a positively charged black hole would tend to
accrete negative charges preferentially.

An important ingredient of the above argument is that the Universe as a
whole appears to be electrically neutral.

Hope this helps,
Andrew

 

[paddoboy]

Wow, that is called a white lie. You are claiming all along and now coping out. Shame on you.

I claim that any charged BH is eventually negated. And that is totally supported by the experts and the accepted mainstream scenario.

James R, do you have any opinion on such trolls, or despite multiple reportings you will maintain the silence to support this cheap liar.

All you need to is support what you say...nothing more, nothing less.
Your personal insults to me are like water off a duck's back.

 

[paddoboy]

The last word from Prof. Hamilton :

Thanks once again tashja......
A shame though you needed to go to such lengths to attain that confirmation [according to accepted theory] from Professor Hamilton, as the links to his site are mentioned quite a few times throughout this thread.
Again thanks for the good work.

 

[OnlyMe]

The last word from Prof. Hamilton :

An interesting response Tashja and once again thanks for all of your effort, on our behalf.

If we are talking about GR and solutions to EFE in a theoretical context...,

I have always thought of any electromagnetic or electrically charged fields associated with a black hole, as resulting from the dynamics of the spacetime outside of the event horizon... The word spacetime used here for simplicity and perhaps not the best term, since in this context, as far as any electric and/or EM field is involved I am referring to not just the classical and/or relativistic geometry of spacetime outside of an event horizon, but also the dynamics of the mass and energy associated with that spacetime geometry. Which would place the origin of the field outside of the year vent horizon.

This seems to be consistent with the following from Prof. Hamilton's comments,

"Real astronomical black holes live in galaxies with an interstellar medium. The interstellar medium contains both positive and negative charges (protons and electrons, mainly)." ​

As long as the long-range electric field originates in that interstellar medium, rather than with the mass of a black hole which lies inside of an event horizon. I have some difficulty understanding how a field that propagates at the speed of light can extend outward across an event horizon... Even when discussing the issue confined to GR and a theoretical context.

-----------

If on the other hand we are discussing how real astronomical black holes, interact with the matter, energy and geometry of spacetime around them, I am inclined to think that what we currently believe to be black holes, are actually compact massive objects, that will at some point be described within the context of quantum theory.., and that once the theoretically predicted singularity is set aside, there would be no reason that a long-range electric or even EM field of a charged compact mass, could not interact with anything within the field. Once the singularity is dispensed with, even the concept of an event horizon as it exists today will be questionable and there would be nothing but distance, separating the compact mass and any associated field from the rest of spacetime...

I believe that quoted comments from both Prof. Misner (recently) and I think it was Prof. Moore in an earlier thread, both used "compact object" when referring to a black hole in an astronomical context... I don't claim that either of them agree with anything I just said.

 

[paddoboy]

I have some difficulty understanding how a field that propagates at the speed of light can extend outward across an event horizon... Even when discussing the issue confined to GR and a theoretical context.

Nothing crosses the EH from inside to outside and I have never claimed otherwise.
Whatever context you feel like discussing it in, nothing crosses the EH...not even HR. Perhaps you need to also ask yourself the question...how does the gravity get out of a BH? It doesn't of course!

If on the other hand we are discussing how real astronomical black holes, interact with the matter, energy and geometry of spacetime around them, I am inclined to think that what we currently believe to be black holes, are actually compact massive objects, that will at some point be described within the context of quantum theory.

You may well be right. At the moment though, and until someone describes the effects we see, guess what? they are BH's.

., and that once the theoretically predicted singularity is set aside, there would be no reason that a long-range electric or even EM field of a charged compact mass, could not interact with anything within the field. Once the singularity is dispensed with, even the concept of an event horizon as it exists today will be questionable and there would be nothing but distance, separating the compact mass and any associated field from the rest of spacetime...

Any possible elimination of the Singularity, and any redefining of an EH, will not invalidate the concept we have of a BH. Until someone can explain the effects we see on spacetime, and the prediction by GR that once Schwarzchild radius is reached, further collapse is compulsory, we will always have BH's as per the best definitions of a scientific theory.

I believe that quoted comments from both Prof. Misner (recently) and I think it was Prof. Moore in an earlier thread, both used "compact object" when referring to a black hole in an astronomical context... I don't claim that either of them agree with anything I just said.

Of course a BH is a compact object! In fact the term BH was coined by Wheeler instead of the long winded Gravitationally Completely Collapsed Object.
And really, if the Professor''s do not agree with what you say, I would be asking myself why, and start reading all the links that I have supplied and the E-mails obtained and the inferences of both.

 

[paddoboy]

The last word from Prof. Hamilton :

And compare that last word with
http://jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/insidebh/rn.html

Bingo!

 

[OnlyMe]

Nothing crosses the EH from inside to outside and I have never claimed otherwise.
Whatever context you feel like discussing it in, nothing crosses the EH...not even HR. Perhaps you need to also ask yourself the question...how does the gravity get out of a BH? It doesn't of course!


You may well be right. At the moment though, and until someone describes the effects we see, guess what? they are BH's.

Any possible elimination of the Singularity, and any redefining of an EH, will not invalidate the concept we have of a BH. Until someone can explain the effects we see on spacetime, and the prediction by GR that once Schwarzchild radius is reached, further collapse is compulsory, we will always have BH's as per the best definitions of a scientific theory.

Of course a BH is a compact object! In fact the term BH was coined by Wheeler instead of the long winded Gravitationally Completely Collapsed Object.
And really, if the Professor''s do not agree with what you say, I would be asking myself why, and start reading all the links that I have supplied and the E-mails obtained and the inferences of both.

PADDOBOY, I WAS NOT RESPONDING TO ANYTHING YOU HAVE POSTED!

My comments were free thought based on the professor's comments quotled by tashja.., and some past comments by other outside authorities.

I offered the disclaimer, because I invoked quotes from the professors only on the use of the terminology Compact Objects, with respect to black holes, not any of my other comments or personal inclinations. I did not want anyone to think I was attributing anything else in my comments to them.

P.S. By repeatedly using qualifiers such as, "I believe.., I think.., I am inclined", I thought I was being clear that this was an opinion piece not a declaration of fact.

 

[paddoboy]

PADDOBOY, I WAS NOT RESPONDING TO ANYTHING YOU HAVE POSTED!

I was responding to what you have posted. And really, nothing wrong with my hearing.
You have though responded in the recent past to posts of mine that were addressed to others, to express your opinion and thoughts on theoretical aspects of cosmology, which most of us do realise anyway, and yet when I have returned your replies and pointed out your error in thinking, you have ignored.

 

[tashja]

Thanks once again tashja......
A shame though you needed to go to such lengths to attain that confirmation [according to accepted theory] from Professor Hamilton, as the links to his site are mentioned quite a few times throughout this thread.
Again thanks for the good work.

No trouble at all, Paddo.

I have some difficulty understanding how a field that propagates at the speed of light can extend outward across an event horizon... Even when discussing the issue confined to GR and a theoretical context.

OnlyMe,

I anticipated that this question would come up, so when I read his reply, I immediately emailed Prof. Hamilton a follow-up question. See below:

Prof. Hamilton: How does the charged black hole extended electric field gets out of the event horizon? Is there some kind of superluminal motion going on?

Tashja,

The electric field does not get out. Nor does gravity get out. When you watch a black hole, you are actually watching the redshifting and dimming surface of the star that collapsed long ago, frozen at the horizon. Likewise you are feeling the electric field and gravity of the star that collapsed long ago. There is no superluminal motion.

Andrew

 

[paddoboy]

P.S. By repeatedly using qualifiers such as, "I believe.., I think.., I am inclined", I thought I was being clear that this was an opinion piece not a declaration of fact.

GOOD POINT! sorry, good point!
And if you go through all my claims, at least in most of them, you will find I do generally say as "accepted by mainstream"
And whatever opinions abound on forums such as this, open to all and sundry, the mainstream accepted position is by definition, the "incumbent" theory.
Your sole beef with me appears to be that you see me putting such theories as certainties. That certainly applies only as far as the defining aspect of any scientific theory, and the logical assumptions that do need to be made on occasions. But at least those assumptions are from experts with access to the state of the art scientific equipment open to them and not to us and the anti standard cosmological types that are now frequenting here..

 

[paddoboy]

OnlyMe,

I anticipated that this question would come up, so when I read his reply, I immediately emailed Prof. Hamilton a follow-up question. See below:

Great reply!
My own summation at post 131 went like this.......

Nothing crosses the EH from inside to outside and I have never claimed otherwise.
Whatever context you feel like discussing it in, nothing crosses the EH...not even HR. Perhaps you need to also ask yourself the question...how does the gravity get out of a BH? It doesn't of course!
.

I must say though tashja, the replies you are receiving seems to indicate you have something that I havn't got...youth? , beauty?
[Us old bastards are always getting discriminated against ]tic mode on of course

 

[BennettLink]

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.

Indeed, the strong nuclear force between nucleons (neutron and protons) becomes repulsive for a separation of about 1 fm. A neutron star reaches that density at a depth of only half a km, so nuclear repulsion is important through essentially the entire star. This fact is fundamental in determining the maximum mass.

One must keep in mind that nucleons are made of quarks, and it is these quarks that fundamentally carry the strong nuclear force (transmitted by gluons). In the deep core of a neutron star, it probably doesn't make much sense to discuss neutron and protons as distinct particles; instead there is strongly interacting matter of quarks or quasi-nucleonic entities. In either case, at such densities, the repulsion will be dominant even if the nucleons have dissolved into quarks.

What makes a neutron star the way it is, and also determines its maximum mass, is a combination of NDP and the repulsive, strong nuclear force.

Best,

Bennett Link

 

[OnlyMe]

I was responding to what you have posted. And really, nothing wrong with my hearing.
You have though responded in the recent past to posts of mine that were addressed to others, to express your opinion and thoughts on theoretical aspects of cosmology, which most of us do realise anyway, and yet when I have returned your replies and pointed out your error in thinking, you have ignored.

The disclaimer about the professors was because I had only referenced their use of compact object in reference to a black hole. I did not want anyone to think any other comments of mine were being attributed to either of them...

I don't always respond because I have said what I intended and have no need or desire to enter into an argument.

Regarding your last comment about me ignoring you. I don't put anyone on ignore. But I also don't have a need to always have the last word in a discussion. It really is ok with me if people have a different understanding, perspective and interpretation, than I do. I don't need anyone to see it my way.

 

[OnlyMe]

No trouble at all, Paddo.



OnlyMe,

I anticipated that this question would come up, so when I read his reply, I immediately emailed Prof. Hamilton a follow-up question. See below:

Great anticipation!

I do have some issues with the fossil field concept, but it does address the issue and I think was discussed at some length in an earlier thread.