G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
Eric No such BH is known to be static. go figure Bert

Oh, so your idea of a proof doesn't involve a physical theory.

WebTV always attracts the best

G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
Eric Yes you are right WEBTV has all the right stuff. Please give me
your idea of a "static" black hole. Please leave out any of your idiotic
computer bigotry,for it only shows "what a fool you are" Bert

Schwarzschild.

Eric Karl Schwarzchild using GR math showed that BH can exist. Going
with Roy Kerr who created a set of solutions of the equations of GR that
describe "rotating" black holes. It goes like this. Black holes rotate
at a constant rate,and their size and shape depending on their "mass"
and rate of "spin" If a BH eventually settled down to a stationary
state than Eric you would be talking about a non rotating black hole,and
I do have a critical mass theory depending on a black hole becoming a
perfect circle,which can only came be if it stops rotating. I theorize
it will then explode. This is the heart of my theory on mini bangs. Bert

G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
Eric Karl Schwarzchild using GR math showed that BH can exist. Going
with Roy Kerr who created a set of solutions of the equations of GR that
describe "rotating" black holes. It goes like this. Black holes rotate
at a constant rate,and their size and shape depending on their "mass"
and rate of "spin" If a BH eventually settled down to a stationary
state than Eric you would be talking about a non rotating black hole,and
I do have a critical mass theory depending on a black hole becoming a
perfect circle,which can only came be if it stops rotating. I theorize
it will then explode. This is the heart of my theory on mini bangs. Bert

You are making up everything you say without any justification
whatsoever. How can I argue against made-up facts?

I doubt your theory can even make a quantitative prediction.

G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
Karl Schwarzchild using GR math showed that BH can exist.

No. He showed that a given solution to the field equation is A SOLUTION
TO THE EQUATION. It has since become known as one type of "black hole".
whether or not such objects actually inhabit the universe we live in
depends on OBSERVATION, not math.


Going
with Roy Kerr who created a set of solutions of the equations of GR that
describe "rotating" black holes. It goes like this. Black holes rotate
at a constant rate,and their size and shape depending on their "mass"
and rate of "spin"

Yes.

If a BH eventually settled down to a stationary
state than Eric you would be talking about a non rotating black hole,

No. The Kerr solutions all have intrinsic spin and are stationary.

You are apparently thinking of "static", not "stationary". A Kerr black
hole with nonzero spin cannot "settle down" to one without spin
(remember that in the Kerr solutions there are no other objects in the
universe).

A Kerr black hole with zero spin is the same as a Schwarzschild black
hole, and is static.

If one has a Kerr-like black hole in a universe with other objects, then
by throwing material into it one can (in principle) reduce its spin to zero.


Tom Roberts

Tom Roberts wrote:

[snip]


If one has a Kerr-like black hole in a universe with other objects, then
by throwing material into it one can (in principle) reduce its spin to zero.

Penrose process.



Tom Roberts

Eric Have a post in this group that claims there are no facts,or
truths. Theorizing on BHs is tricky thinking at best. Their structure is
not seen like the Sun's core and its layers before getting to its
surface. I do the best I can with what the Hubble is showing me,and the
theories we have now on BHs. I only claim my right to think,and type my
posts how I see stuff. Bert

Tom With zero spin the BH would be a perfect circle. Since it is written
there are no perfect circles let me ask you this. How many BH do not
rotate? When you answer that it will tell me how many perfect
circles(Spheres) there are in the universe. Black holes like their
cousins neutron stars all came out of supernovas explosions,and these
very massive dense stars all had spin.Reality is compressed down to so
small a size only made their spin much faster. Yes gravitational
tugging can slow them down over time,and I like that. However their
great inertia means means a great length of time to come to a stop. That
also means they all spin at different rates I like that too Still Tom
if we go with Mach's thinking a non rotating BH still has all the stars
in the universe with their gravity to see that it can't become a perfect
circle. Go figure Bert

G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:


Eric Have a post in this group that claims there are no facts,or
truths. Theorizing on BHs is tricky thinking at best. Their structure is
not seen like the Sun's core and its layers before getting to its
surface. I do the best I can with what the Hubble is showing me,and the
theories we have now on BHs. I only claim my right to think,and type my
posts how I see stuff. Bert

Except the only experimentally validated theory that we have is general
relativity, and the stuff you are saying about it is complete garbage.

Familiarize yourself with general relativity so you stop saying such
nonsense. One excellent book is Sean Carroll's "Spacetime and
Geometry". Have fun with tensors, I know I did(n't).