0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
It is all about the ratio between the size of the hydrogen atom to its Proton.
BH is made out of particles as Protons.
That proves that BH would never ever be created out of collapsing star.
Atom wouldn't give up its physical size not even due to supernova or ultra high gravity.
So, a star could be very massive without any need to collapse and transfer into BH.
Just as an example, one of the biggest star has 1700 times the Sun radius (and it is still a star)https://www.space.com/41290-biggest-star.html"The largest known star in the universe is UY Scuti, a hypergiant with a radius around 1,700 times larger than the sun."Hence, a star can be very massive and it would never be converted to BH.
Can you please prove that a BH is not made out of particles as protons
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1989BAICz..40...65B"The Kerr BH are known to be the most general isolated BH. In fact they are the ONLY BH which have a none zero magnetic field and that is why they are also referred to as "Magnetic Black Holes"
Do we all agree that a BH has a real physical size?
A Kerr BH or a Rotatable BH has the ability to generate Magnetic field and therefore It should be referred as "Magnetic Black Hole"Please, yes or no?
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 04:55:37A Kerr BH or a Rotatable BH has the ability to generate Magnetic field and therefore It should be referred as "Magnetic Black Hole"Please, yes or no?If it has net electric charge, yes. Otherwise, no.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 04:55:37A Kerr BH or a Rotatable BH has the ability to generate Magnetic field and therefore It should be referred as "Magnetic Black Hole"Please, yes or no?
Quote from: Kryptid on 21/09/2020 06:07:10Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 04:55:37A Kerr BH or a Rotatable BH has the ability to generate Magnetic field and therefore It should be referred as "Magnetic Black Hole"Please, yes or no?If it has net electric charge, yes. Otherwise, no.ThanksDo appreciateSo, as we discuss on a rotatable BH with net electric charge - then we all agree that this kind of BH should be considered as magnetic BH.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 04:55:37A Kerr BH or a Rotatable BH has the ability to generate Magnetic field and therefore It should be referred as "Magnetic Black Hole"Please, yes or no?If it has net electric charge, yes. Otherwise, no.
In the meantime, for the third time of asking.Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 16:10:06Well, since you say it is easy, please show us how you do it.Show how you can use QM to calculate the size of the BH.
Well, since you say it is easy, please show us how you do it.Show how you can use QM to calculate the size of the BH.
So, as we discuss on a rotatable BH with net electric charge - then we all agree that this kind of BH should be considered as magnetic BH.
That kind of BH is the leading power for any new creation particles in our Universe.Hawking claims that negative + positive mass particles are created due to gravity.This is a fatal error.There are no negative mass in our universe.Negative mass is just a fiction.
Any new particle creation must be based on two particles (both with positive mass)
Their creation could be take place ONLY by using the energy transformation from the magnetic BH.If we shut down the magnetic field of the BH, not even a single photon would be created by gravity.So, a BH without magnetic field wouldn't be able to create any sort of new particle.Therefore, any BH with accretion ring is by definition a magnetic BH.
Do you have an idea what is the correct ratio?
It is all about the ratio between the size of proton with regards to the size of Hydrogen Atom.
It seems that Neutron star fully meets my expectation about a magnetic rotatable BH.
Therefore, after all it seems that I was fully correct. In my vision I thought about rotatable (Kerr) BH while our scientists call it neutron star.
So what is the real difference between Neutron star to rotatable magnetic BH?
So, how do we know that our estimation about each physical size is correct?
How can we distinguish between the two objects?
Actually, do you agree that if we eliminate the magnetic field from a neutron star we get a BH?
We know that's not true, because, even neutron stars (which are less compact than BH don't have free protons any more.
Thanks for that excellent message.
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 21:19:21Actually, do you agree that if we eliminate the magnetic field from a neutron star we get a BH?I absolutely, positively do not!Coincidentally, a study was recently done that can distinguish black holes from neutron stars: https://scitechdaily.com/cosmic-x-rays-reveal-a-distinctive-signature-of-black-hole-event-horizons/
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 21:19:21Actually, do you agree that if we eliminate the magnetic field from a neutron star we get a BH?
A black hole is an exotic cosmic object without a hard surface
Definitive proof of the existence of such objects is a holy grail of modern physics and astronomy."
So, the main difference between BH to Neutron star is the idea that a BH has a soft surface while Neutron star has hard surface.
So, could it be that the idea of a hard/soft surface is none realistic for any of those objects?
from many X-ray observations of about two dozens of black holes and neutron stars. It is clearly seen that the black hole (red symbols) and the neutron star (blue symbols) are almost entirely separated in an unprecedented manner,
"What is the meaning of "Comptonization parameter" in that X-ray graph?
How do they know that the red dots represent Neutron stars while the Blue represent BHs?
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 17:17:03So, could it be that the idea of a hard/soft surface is none realistic for any of those objects?In reality. we have evidencehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quake_(natural_phenomenon)#Starquake
Why is it?
Why Einstein’s theory of General Relativity doesn't predict a hard surface for a BH but only for Neutron star?
In any case, it is also stated that there is no proof for that as it is just a theoretical concept which had not been validated yet.
So, why that gamma rays or quake in a neutron star gives an indication about the crust of that Neutron star, while when we see a similar/identical gamma rays phenomenon (that we call "flare") from a BH we don't claim that it gives any indication about its crust?
This is very similar to a...
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 17:59:14This is very similar to a "flare" at a BH or even a SMBH.No; it's not.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 17:59:14This is very similar to a "flare" at a BH or even a SMBH.
As I have stated many, many times, there is no such thing as proof in science. However, every single bit of evidence to date supports it.
So, let me ask again::
Because it is literally impossible for a black hole to have a crust.
Which kind of evidence?Do you mean Gamma ray?