Trouble with Einstein

[Mcdilly-Willy]

No black holes, no "magnetospheric eternally collapsing objects"

Just neutron stars.

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/11/051103080649.htm

 

http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/health/neutron-stars-more-abundant-black-holes-rarer-than-earlier-believed_10012943.html

 

Both of those articles have no reference to there being NO black holes, just that Neutron stars may be more abundant.

 

"magnetospheric eternally collapsing objects"

 

Couple of points here:

 

1. MAGNETOSHPERIC - is a term usually used to describe the outer region of the earth's ionosphere.

 

2. ETERNALLY COLLAPSING OBJECTS - "general relativity describes a black hole as a region of empty space with a pointlike singularity at the center and an event horizon at the outer edge."

 

You are talking about the star that became the black hole, and it's not "eternally" collapsing:

 

• "Stars undergo gravitational collapse when they can no longer resist the pressure of their own gravity."
  "The collapse transforms the matter in the star's core into a denser state which forms one of the types of compact star."
  "Only the largest remnants, those exceeding a particular limit (the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff limit, not to be confused with the Chandrasekhar limit), generate enough pressure to produce black holes"
  "Any remnant this size will never be able to stop collapsing, and when its outer radius falls below its Schwarzschild radius, the transition to black hole is complete."

 

You see that sentence doesnt make sense, and is just plain wrong. I find it strange that you would dismiss "black holes" before actually knowing what you're talking about?

 

Stop making stuff up and get your facts straight...

[KOYAANISQATSI]

Both of those articles have no reference to there being NO black holes, just that Neutron stars may be more abundant.

 

Nobody said it, that's why I'm telling you.

 

http://space.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn9620&feedId=online-news_rss20

I dont buy into MECOs myself but nor did I make them up.

[JAStewart]

At the start of time, why would the universe choose then to go off? why not have gone off a non minute before, or a minute after? Why bother going off at all?.

 

Infinite energy/density cannot exist as such, although they might appear to be that, from where we are looking, or from our understanding

If it cant run for ever then surely it could never have got charged in the first place.

 

The universe didn't choose to 'go off' when it went off in the same way that you had no choice on when you were born. If it had happened a minute later than you'd probably still be asking why it didn't go off a minute later. As a matter of fact, why did you post this post at exactly the time you did? Seems a bit weird doesn't it? Why didn't you post it one minute later or before?

 

What DID happen then if the Big Bang didn't?

 

"Relativity Mathematically Fails!"

$50,000.00 each are hereby offered by the author, Cameron Y. Rebigsol, of this web site to people who can successfully defend Relativity

http://members.aol.com/crebigsol/awards.htm

 

Thanks for the input guys but you'll have to give me something more solid I can use to get my hands on the cash.

 

I guarantee that 'prove this get money' thing will fall into the same category as people who offer you to prove Evolution for £100,000, but what they don't state is that you also have to prove their is not a god too. They're complete farce's. People have the same sort of deal set up for the 9/11 conspiracy theory, which one can easily disprove, however in the terms is says to prove that a plane hit the pentagon using a clear video of the pentagon being hit. We can't do that, we can just give the most accurate assumption based on the evidence, and as we all know that can be pretty accurate. Again, its a complete farce, its designed so that the person never has to lose their money.

[KOYAANISQATSI]

just to add another point, we are pretty sure black holes exist.

 

This guy may disagree:

 

Black hole expert Marek Abramowicz at Gothenburg University in Sweden agrees that the idea of dark energy stars is worth pursuing. "We really don't have proof that black holes exist," he says. "This is a very interesting alternative."

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18925423.600

 

Not that I believe in dark energy stars either.

 

Another problem is that light from an object falling into a black hole is stretched so dramatically by the immense gravity there that observers outside will see time freeze: the object will appear to sit at the event horizon for ever. This freezing of time also violates quantum mechanics. "People have been vaguely uncomfortable about these problems for a while, but they figured they'd get solved someday," says Chapline. "But that hasn't happened and I'm sure when historians look back, they'll wonder why people didn't question these contradictions."

[PoolHaddock]

What a bizzare thread.

 

KOYAANISQATSI, I suggest du has a look at either of these two books if du's interested.

 

Here

 

and

 

Here

[KOYAANISQATSI]

Q- Why dont super massive black holes leave the center and chew up the galaxys?

 

A- Gravitys pushin on em.

[Evil Inky]

Q- Why dont super massive black holes leave the center and chew up the galaxys?

 

A- They are big bloody neutron stars and gravitys pushin on em.

 

With the greatest of respect, I'm afraid you are talking rubbish. Black holes and neutron stars are both effectively point masses, so a black and a neutron star with equal masses would both be affected by gravity in the same way. Oh, and gravity pulls, it doesn't push.

 

( And I promised myself I wouldn't get involved in this thread - shame on me )

[KOYAANISQATSI]

as I said GRAVITY PUSHES, else they would not remain in the center.

 

Vampires rise where ignorance reigns

[Evil Inky]

as I said GRAVITY PUSHES

If you had any real evidence for this, you'd win the Nobel Prize for Physics.

[Mcdilly-Willy]

as I said GRAVITY PUSHES

If you had any real evidence for this, you'd win the Nobel Prize for Physics.

 

Evil Inky you've made my day, excellent!

 

Q- Why dont super massive black holes leave the center and chew up the galaxys?

 

A- They are big bloody neutron stars and gravitys pushin on em.

 

No.

 

A.1- Because the black holes obey the laws of physics, and as far as I'm aware don't have any sort of cognitive power which might allow it to "decide" to leave.

 

A.2- The rest of the galaxy orbits around it, also obeying the laws of physics.

 

KOYAANISQATSI, here's a question for you:

They are big bloody neutron stars and gravitys pushin on em.

 

Gravity is pushing from where?

 

I thought gravity was an attractive force between objects with mass?

 

Hence the reason: if you fall off your bike you are not thrown into the air at 9.8 m/s?

 

Or the fact you can stand on the earth at all?

 

In fact by your reasoning the first humans would have had a repulsive effect on each other (in outer space unable to walk on earth), and man would have ceased to exist, very quickly.

[KOYAANISQATSI]

Gravity is pushing from where?

 

Everywhere else of course.

[Mcdilly-Willy]

Gravity is pushing from where?

 

Everywhere else of course.

 

I think I'm going to start a new thread: "Trouble with KOYAANISQATSI"

 

Everywhere but the neutron star? So the neutron star doesnt have any gravitational effect?

 

This is bonkers...

[KOYAANISQATSI]

http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-intro.asp

[Carlos]

Gravity is pushing from where?

 

Everywhere else of course.

 

Isn't that a "frame of reference" argument?

Which would bring us right back to Einstein and particularly SR again......

[Carlos]

Isn't that a "frame of reference" argument?

Which would bring us right back to Einstein and particularly SR again......

 

Ah, Ok, you actually mean it as a physical model, as per Le Sage?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage's_theory_of_gravitation