Delusions of Grandeur are inevitabley only applicable to the claimant/pretender/dreamer/nut. 
What is the use of General Relativity
- Thread starter The God
- Start date
Delusions of Grandeur are inevitabley only applicable to the claimant/pretender/dreamer/nut. The evidence and observations for BH's are well known, so why balk at binary systems, and of course you are just implementing "wishful thinking" to leave that "god of the gaps" door always open.
http://phys.org/news/2016-10-ligo-black-holes-gravastars.html
http://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.94.084016
Did GW150914 produce a rotating gravastar?
ABSTRACT
The interferometric LIGO detectors have recently measured the first direct gravitational-wave signal from what has been interpreted as the inspiral, merger and ringdown of a binary system of black holes. The signal-to-noise ratio of the measured signal is large enough to leave little doubt that it does refer to the inspiral of two massive and ultracompact objects, whose merger yields a rotating black hole. Yet, the quality of the data is such that some room is left for alternative interpretations that do not involve black holes, but other objects that, within classical general relativity, can be equally massive and compact, namely, gravastars. We here consider the hypothesis that the merging objects were indeed gravastars and explore whether the merged object could therefore be not a black hole but a rotating gravastar. After comparing the real and imaginary parts of the ringdown signal of GW150914 with the corresponding quantities for a variety of gravastars, and notwithstanding the very limited knowledge of the perturbative response of rotating gravastars, we conclude it is not possible to model the measured ringdown of GW150914 as due to a rotating gravastar.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
The above paper of course shows the frivolous nature of one of your many anti science claims, along with the previous nonsensical unqualified claims of the fraudulent nature/s of aLIGO and GP-B.
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Yes you are correct and I know you are right and even so I still get taken in by my emotional responce.
I do get tired reading... Einstein proved right again... Such name dropping is tiresome.
However our expectations of a profession be it science or journalism (and not limited only to those) will often be different to those of the practicing members of that profession for example we expect a journalist to report accurately whereas the interest of the journalist is to increase his followers.
I enjoy your input.
In six days I will have been with your site six months and note that my lack of contribution comes from my respect for your site not a lack of interest.
Alex
http://www.messagetoeagle.com/dyingpulsetr.php
The Day Hubble Space Telescope
Discovered "Dying Pulse Train"
It was an extraordinary event in the history of the Hubble Space Telescope and astronomers using it.
It was more than ten years ago, when NASA's Hubble Space Telescope for the first time provided direct evidence for the existence of black holes by observing the disappearance of matter as it falls beyond the "event horizon," the boundary between a black hole and the outside universe.
This evidence was found when astronomers were watching the fading and disappearance of pulses of ultraviolet light from clumps of hot gas swirling around a massive, compact object called Cygnus XR-1, located 6,000 light-years from Earth in the summer constellation Cygnus the Swan.
The observed activity suggested that the hot gas fell into a black hole. The discovery was made after astronomers made a detailed statistical analysis of a 1992 observation of one of the first black holes ever discovered, Cygnus XR-1.
No one has ever seen before, what really happens to a piece of matter swirling into the event horizon, like water down a drain. The secret was tucked away in nearly decade-old Hubble data that took meticulous analysis.
Joseph F. Dolan, of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, MD, observed pulses of ultraviolet light from clumps of hot gas fade and then disappear as they swirled around a massive, compact object called Cygnus XR-1.
"We are trying to establish the existence of black holes by obtaining observational evidence that rules out more exotic things, just as previous observations of black hole candidates have ruled out less exotic things," said Dolan, presenting his findings at the American Astronomical Society meeting in San Diego, CA.
The Day Hubble Space Telescope
Discovered "Dying Pulse Train"
It was an extraordinary event in the history of the Hubble Space Telescope and astronomers using it.
It was more than ten years ago, when NASA's Hubble Space Telescope for the first time provided direct evidence for the existence of black holes by observing the disappearance of matter as it falls beyond the "event horizon," the boundary between a black hole and the outside universe.
This evidence was found when astronomers were watching the fading and disappearance of pulses of ultraviolet light from clumps of hot gas swirling around a massive, compact object called Cygnus XR-1, located 6,000 light-years from Earth in the summer constellation Cygnus the Swan.
The observed activity suggested that the hot gas fell into a black hole. The discovery was made after astronomers made a detailed statistical analysis of a 1992 observation of one of the first black holes ever discovered, Cygnus XR-1.
No one has ever seen before, what really happens to a piece of matter swirling into the event horizon, like water down a drain. The secret was tucked away in nearly decade-old Hubble data that took meticulous analysis.
Joseph F. Dolan, of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, MD, observed pulses of ultraviolet light from clumps of hot gas fade and then disappear as they swirled around a massive, compact object called Cygnus XR-1.
"We are trying to establish the existence of black holes by obtaining observational evidence that rules out more exotic things, just as previous observations of black hole candidates have ruled out less exotic things," said Dolan, presenting his findings at the American Astronomical Society meeting in San Diego, CA.
Sometimes Alex, those on the ''outer" so to speak, confuse deserved respect with hero worship.
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Yes indeed.Sometimes Alex, those on the ''outer" so to speak, confuse deserved respect with hero worship.
But I think I can understand what is taking place.
Perhaps the name dropping gets too much for some folk and in an attempt to attack the perceived over the top hero worship they lose touch and set on a course to attack the model etc when really all they should be complaining about is journalistic style.
And fair recognition becomes clouded.
I wonder does the God get upset with space time as presented by the model or as it is presented by the journalist.
I once would get annoyed at claims I perceived were made by the big bang model but I finally realised that I was responding to journalistic interpretation or representation and I would be better off trying to work out what the model actually said.
Well first I find there is not one specific model and secondly, so far, I can not determine, because of limited education, exactly what the model really does say.
All I can do is learn more and perhaps realise and accept that full understanding will probably not ever be mine.
My goal is to listen without judgement but that falls in a heap when I enter the religious forum to remind me that wisdom still is one step ahead of my position.
Alex
I am sure the GW characteristics will be different if there is no singularities. That means merging of two compact heavy objects will produce different GW signature as compared to merging of two BH singularities. We all say that singularity cannot exist, that means GW calculations based on singularities are incorrect, putting a big question mark over GW detection.
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
Wrong. The BH singularity cannot have any causal influence on anything. This is not different for a merger of two of them.
Can you please elaborate.
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
You know (I hope) that in relativity it is not possible to define a unique preferred time coordinate. There are many. But each legal time coordinate is a valid one, does not contain any causal influences from the future into the past. So we can say that if a solution allows a global time-like coordinate, nothing from future (in this time coordinate) can influence the past (in this time coordinate).
Unfortunately, there are solutions which do not allow global time-like coordinates - those with closed causal loops, like the Goedel universe.
Now, a collapsing start which ends in a black hole is not from this dangerous type. Even if in some situations a Kerr black hole may contain such causal loops, this happens inside the event horizon. And even in this case, there are time-like coordinates which cover a large part of the solution - everything before the collapse, and everything outside the event horizon. From the point of view of such coordinates, the whole region inside the horizon after horizon formation is always in the future. And it cannot causally influence anything in the past, which is also anything outside the event horizon. All this is inside the mainstream GR.
What is true for a singular collapse is also true for two BHs hitting each other. In fact, this is nothing but a particular case of some asymmetric collapse. There will be a time-like coordinate too which excludes all what is inside the resulting bib black hole horizon into the infinite future. And this time coordinate also excludes all what for the two initial BHs is "behind the horizon". This is because the horizon only becomes greater. If the greater horizon can be excluded, the original smaller is excluded too.
From point of view of this time coordinate, all we can see we see in finite time. And it is caused by some past described by even earlier finite time. And all the part behind the horizon(s) is moved away into infinite future, and so has no causal influence on anything we could observe here outside. Including, of course, gravitational waves. All the singularities are behind the horizon(s) and therefore in this region which cannot influence anything outside.
Unfortunately, there are solutions which do not allow global time-like coordinates - those with closed causal loops, like the Goedel universe.
Now, a collapsing start which ends in a black hole is not from this dangerous type. Even if in some situations a Kerr black hole may contain such causal loops, this happens inside the event horizon. And even in this case, there are time-like coordinates which cover a large part of the solution - everything before the collapse, and everything outside the event horizon. From the point of view of such coordinates, the whole region inside the horizon after horizon formation is always in the future. And it cannot causally influence anything in the past, which is also anything outside the event horizon. All this is inside the mainstream GR.
What is true for a singular collapse is also true for two BHs hitting each other. In fact, this is nothing but a particular case of some asymmetric collapse. There will be a time-like coordinate too which excludes all what is inside the resulting bib black hole horizon into the infinite future. And this time coordinate also excludes all what for the two initial BHs is "behind the horizon". This is because the horizon only becomes greater. If the greater horizon can be excluded, the original smaller is excluded too.
From point of view of this time coordinate, all we can see we see in finite time. And it is caused by some past described by even earlier finite time. And all the part behind the horizon(s) is moved away into infinite future, and so has no causal influence on anything we could observe here outside. Including, of course, gravitational waves. All the singularities are behind the horizon(s) and therefore in this region which cannot influence anything outside.
There is no evidence of Kerr BH? Two singularities cannot form a binary stable structure. Two BH singularities cannot form in close binary formation, in fact the one which forms first, will not let the second one form in near vicinity.
Whatever you have stated is fine under GR, but misses a point that inside of EH causally cannot influence the outside. All sort of field stuff outside EH to be invoked. Not real.
Whatever you have stated is fine under GR, but misses a point that inside of EH causally cannot influence the outside. All sort of field stuff outside EH to be invoked. Not real.
Schmelzer,
You have brought ether in your theory but you use GR maths. GR just does not talk about any materialistic property to space but you are invoking ether. Are you trying to say that ether curves in presence of mass? And this curving is same as given by GR maths?
Secondly more important, Verlinde is invoking thermodynics, so don't you think he too is discarding nothingness of space, kind of some materialistic property to space(time). Ether again? Ether is too taboo so he is just not naming it?
You have brought ether in your theory but you use GR maths. GR just does not talk about any materialistic property to space but you are invoking ether. Are you trying to say that ether curves in presence of mass? And this curving is same as given by GR maths?
Secondly more important, Verlinde is invoking thermodynics, so don't you think he too is discarding nothingness of space, kind of some materialistic property to space(time). Ether again? Ether is too taboo so he is just not naming it?
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
No, I use other words, because the words you use do not describe my ether. First, because what is named "matter" or "mass" are simply some material properties of the ether. Roughly, a nontrivial amount of matter in some region indicates inhomogeneities of these material properties.
Then, the mathematical expression which describes "spacetime curvature" in GR describes inner stress (and modifications of stress) of the ether. So, I would say that inhomogeneities of various material properties of the ether lead to inner stress in their environment. And this general inner stress has, reversely, some influence on these inhomogeneities.
Ask Verlinde, I don't care about him.
In general, that what is named "vacuum" in GR as well as QFT is something in a quite nontrivial state, and not "nothing", has never been denied even by mainstream physicists. The acceptance that this is not nothing, but something, should not be confused with the acceptance of an ether. Because the ether is a quite special model for this "something". Say, in my ether theory this "something" has density, velocity and a stress tensor like usual condensed matter, and follows the same Euler and continuity equations as usual condensed matter.
????? Of course, all the BH candidates rotate, so, would have to be described by Kerr BHs.
They don't, and there is no need for this. An asymmetric star may collapse in a way that first two parts collapse separately into something close to two BHs, they rotate around each other some time, and then collapse into one BH-like object. All this without any influence from inside of any horizons.
You obviously have completely misunderstood my text. I do not claim at all that something inside the EH can influence something outside, instead, I tried to explain that this is impossible.
So you use something with density etc! GR does not, so your this something follows the stress as given by GR maths?
When I said we have no evidence of Kerr BH, I meant it. In general all BHs must be Kerr only, but we have no evidence of any spin of any BH.
No, I understood you right. Inside of EH cannot causally influence outside of EH, so for spin and mass we have to invoke maths just outside EH. That is playing with maths. Not real.
When I said we have no evidence of Kerr BH, I meant it. In general all BHs must be Kerr only, but we have no evidence of any spin of any BH.
No, I understood you right. Inside of EH cannot causally influence outside of EH, so for spin and mass we have to invoke maths just outside EH. That is playing with maths. Not real.
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
The density of the ether is $g^{00}\sqrt{-g}$. This mathematical function can be used in GR too, as one component of the gravitational field, but is not interpreted there as a density of something. Similar for the stress tensor and so on.
All stars rotate, so with or without evidence it makes no sense to assume that all BHs do not rotate.
No, it is playing with the part inside the EH is playing with math without any connection with observable reality.
The law of conservation is obviously another aspect of science that you ignore, when it contradicts your god bothering agenda......
Also of course the familiar polar jets we see emanating from regions where BH's exist, are evidence of the Kerr metric.
http://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.94.084016
Did GW150914 produce a rotating gravastar?
ABSTRACT
The interferometric LIGO detectors have recently measured the first direct gravitational-wave signal from what has been interpreted as the inspiral, merger and ringdown of a binary system of black holes. The signal-to-noise ratio of the measured signal is large enough to leave little doubt that it does refer to the inspiral of two massive and ultracompact objects, whose merger yields a rotating black hole. Yet, the quality of the data is such that some room is left for alternative interpretations that do not involve black holes, but other objects that, within classical general relativity, can be equally massive and compact, namely, gravastars. We here consider the hypothesis that the merging objects were indeed gravastars and explore whether the merged object could therefore be not a black hole but a rotating gravastar. After comparing the real and imaginary parts of the ringdown signal of GW150914 with the corresponding quantities for a variety of gravastars, and notwithstanding the very limited knowledge of the perturbative response of rotating gravastars, we conclude it is not possible to model the measured ringdown of GW150914 as due to a rotating gravastar.
Another Interesting paper on the BB......................
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0704/0704.3579.pdf
The Rise of Big Bang Models, from Myth to Theory and Observations:
Abstract.
We provide an epistemological analysis of the developments of relativistic cosmology from 1917 to 2006, based on the seminal articles by Einstein, de Sitter, Friedmann, Lemaitre, Hubble, Gamow and other main historical figures of the field. It appears that most of the ingredients of the present-day standard cosmological model, such as the accelation of the expansion due to a repulsive dark energy, the interpretation of the cosmological constant as vacuum energy or the possible non-trivial topology of space, had been anticipated by Lemaitre, although his papers remain desperately unquoted.
Conclusion
Big bang models are based on observations and experiments whose results have been extrapolated as far as possible into the past (it is not possible to get back to the very beginning of the universe) and are constructed by a process of hypothesis and calculation -as is the rule in physics. No other kind of model corroborates as many observed phenomena as big bang theory. The latter, which is now almost universally accepted by astrophysicists, can satisfactorily explain the mass of observations made by the great telescopes and the results of experiments carried out in particle accelerators and retrace the principal stages in the creation of the universe – a process which took not six days, but 14 billion years! It is useful to emphasize that the big bang theory allows for many possible models (depending on cosmological parameters such as the space curvature, the ordinary matter density, the cosmological constant or dark energy field, the space topology, etc.). Some of them are now excluded by experimental data (for instance the strictly flat universe in decelerated expansion filled in only with ordinary matter, namely the Einstein-de Sitter model, much in favour in the 1930-1980’s), but the general picture (i.e. a presently universe starting from an initial hot dense configuration) is much reinforced. A confusion sometimes present in the mind of some cosmologists is that the big bang theory is synonymous of inflation theory. However, the latter – or at least the usual inflationary models – is seriously challenged by WMAP data when one looks at the power spectrum « anomalies » . Of course the « conservative cosmologists » prefer to consider that the anomalies are artifacts, coming from bad data analysis. Among those researchers who believe that the anomalies are reliable, some inflationists invoke a special feature in the inflaton field, using the well-known theorem « inflation can do everything ». However, adding special features and fitting free parameters in the speculative inflation theory to « save the apparences » looks much like adding epicycles in Ptolemy’s theory. There is no physical model behind this! Eventually, some cosmologists think that anomalies are reliable, some of them (the low quadrupole and octopole) having a geometrical explanation in terms of a finite space with a non trivial topology, while others anomalies (violations of statistical isotropy in the same multipoles) are due to local effects. My belief is clearly this one (Luminet, 2005). It would not be a fundamental upheaval of relativistic cosmology to modify, or even abandon the inflation scenario. It would be more interesting (in my opinion) to get a definite clue of the finiteness and the non trivial topology of space – but, as said above, all this is already potentially included in the large family of big bang solutions. A major upheaval would rather be related to the confirmation of more radical new views which, in the framework of quantum gravity theories such as superstrings, M-theory or quantum loop gravity (see e.g. Smolin, 2002), allow for entirely new phenomena, e.g. additional space dimensions, pre-big bang models, multiverse, etc. This would really change the present-day cosmological « paradigm ». Neither WMAP or Planck Surveyor satellites will do that. May be some high energy experiments in particle accelerators will provide hints for a drastically new vision of the Universe we inhabit.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
But of course both those are scientific papers, so I would not expect you to take too much notice of them.
Last edited:
The second paper certainly re the history of science, which just as certainly some need, the first paper is discussion on the GW150914 confirmation and the elimination of a Gravastar modelling.
And the relevance or otherwise of your comment re Friedman being a Catholic is strange indeed. I mean we all know, [at least most of us] that the Catholic church not only recognises the BB, but also the theory of Evolution...of course though they put those down to the work of god, while cosmologists continue to search for real answers.
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
The relevance was the combination orthodox catholic about a Russian scientist. He was probably an orthodox Christian, because the overwhelming majority of Russian Christians are orthodox. But for an orthodox Christian, a catholic is an archenemy, there has been a lot of fighting between them (and actually is, btw, in the Ukraine), and so the combination orthodox catholic is as nonsensical as catholic protestant or catholic moslem. So, this was simply an indication that the author is completely uneducated about Russian religious history, which is not really a recommendation, even if the paper is about history of science and not religion.
Just as I thought...Irrelevant!