wrote in message
...
A black hole cannot and does not rotate. The singularity is a point in
space, not an object. The accretion disk does indeed rotate at least
up to the event horizon, and then it's anyone's guess what happens
after that as it is not yet been directly observed, and may never be.
This is pretty basic stuff.

GM

RKS:
On a point that David made, that a black hole may form upon the collision of
two massive objects (eg two large neutron stars that spiral into each other)
and that the angular momentum must be preserved, I offer the following
observation:

All of the angular momentum could be radiated off as gravitational waves.

As time ceases inside the event horizon relative to a distance space
observer, any radiated gravitational wave, though initially radiated (as the
black hole was forming) could never completely be radiated (because there is
effectively no time in which to move ie how many km/s can a thing move in
zero seconds?)

I would then postulate that all gravitational waves that initially began to
radiate but which were effectively caught by the forming event horizon must
form a spiral or bar depending on the mix of angular momentum and the
momentum of the collision itself eg two objects colliding 'head on', so to
speak.

Is there any reason why the spiral trough in which stars in a galaxy
accumulate formed by these standing gravitational waves that occurred as
momentum is radiated off during the formation of the black hole?

Note that I am not asking for a proof of this conjecture, just the main
reasons why it *cannot* be true, if that it is indeed the case.

--
Kind Regards
Robert Karl Stonjek

Robert Karl Stonjek wrote:
All of the angular momentum could be radiated off as gravitational waves.

Not ALL of it -- an axially-symmetric spinning object emits no
gravitational waves, and yet has nonzero angular momentum.


As time ceases inside the event horizon relative to a distance space
observer, any radiated gravitational wave, though initially radiated (as the
black hole was forming) could never completely be radiated (because there is
effectively no time in which to move ie how many km/s can a thing move in
zero seconds?)

That's nonsense. You cannot expect to make accurate statements about
physics without a deeper understanding that comic books.


Tom Roberts

"Tom Roberts" wrote in message
. net...
Robert Karl Stonjek wrote:
All of the angular momentum could be radiated off as gravitational
waves.

Not ALL of it -- an axially-symmetric spinning object emits no
gravitational waves, and yet has nonzero angular momentum.


As time ceases inside the event horizon relative to a distance space
observer, any radiated gravitational wave, though initially radiated (as
the
black hole was forming) could never completely be radiated (because
there is
effectively no time in which to move ie how many km/s can a thing move
in
zero seconds?)

That's nonsense. You cannot expect to make accurate statements about
physics without a deeper understanding that comic books.


Tom Roberts

RKS:
Reality is the same regardless of its source - no time passes at an event
horizon in any finite interval as measured by a space observer. That is the
reality - it is in the most basic math and it is measured at the low mass
end by navigation satellites. If the Earth were to somehow put on weight
then the navigation satellites would measure an ever greater disparity or
require ever greater correction. If we extrapolate this to an object that
is one electron short of the required mass for a black hole, then the
disparity would be almost infinite. There is no reason to not assume that
with the extra electron, the newly formed black hole would have an infinite
temporal disparity ie the for *any* interval as measured by a clock at the
surface of the black hole an infinite amount of time passes on the
satellites (as calculated by extrapolation from less massive,. non-black
hole objects).

But these temporal anomalies are so embarrassing to General relativists that
they will do just about anything to avoid them including trying any
mathematical strategy that might eliminate the anomaly and if that fails,
why not try throwing insults??


--
Kind Regards
Robert Karl Stonjek

On Jan 16, 3:55 am, "Robert Karl Stonjek"
wrote:
"Tom Roberts" wrote in message

. net...



Robert Karl Stonjek wrote:
All of the angular momentum could be radiated off as gravitational
waves.

Not ALL of it -- an axially-symmetric spinning object emits no
gravitational waves, and yet has nonzero angular momentum.

As time ceases inside the event horizon relative to a distance space
observer, any radiated gravitational wave, though initially radiated (as
the
black hole was forming) could never completely be radiated (because
there is
effectively no time in which to move ie how many km/s can a thing move
in
zero seconds?)

That's nonsense. You cannot expect to make accurate statements about
physics without a deeper understanding that comic books.

Tom Roberts

RKS:
Reality is the same regardless of its source - no time passes at an event
horizon in any finite interval as measured by a space observer. That is the
reality - it is in the most basic math and it is measured at the low mass
end by navigation satellites. If the Earth were to somehow put on weight
then the navigation satellites would measure an ever greater disparity or
require ever greater correction. If we extrapolate this to an object that
is one electron short of the required mass for a black hole, then the
disparity would be almost infinite. There is no reason to not assume that
with the extra electron, the newly formed black hole would have an infinite
temporal disparity ie the for *any* interval as measured by a clock at the
surface of the black hole an infinite amount of time passes on the
satellites (as calculated by extrapolation from less massive,. non-black
hole objects).

But these temporal anomalies are so embarrassing to General relativists that
they will do just about anything to avoid them including trying any
mathematical strategy that might eliminate the anomaly and if that fails,
why not try throwing insults??

Tom is right. Your understanding /is/ at the superficial comicbook
level.


--
Kind Regards
Robert Karl Stonjek

"Eric Gisse" wrote in message
...
On Jan 16, 3:55 am, "Robert Karl Stonjek"
wrote:
"Tom Roberts" wrote in message

. net...



Robert Karl Stonjek wrote:
All of the angular momentum could be radiated off as gravitational
waves.

Not ALL of it -- an axially-symmetric spinning object emits no
gravitational waves, and yet has nonzero angular momentum.

As time ceases inside the event horizon relative to a distance space
observer, any radiated gravitational wave, though initially radiated
(as
the
black hole was forming) could never completely be radiated (because
there is
effectively no time in which to move ie how many km/s can a thing
move
in
zero seconds?)

That's nonsense. You cannot expect to make accurate statements about
physics without a deeper understanding that comic books.

Tom Roberts

RKS:
Reality is the same regardless of its source - no time passes at an
event
horizon in any finite interval as measured by a space observer. That is
the
reality - it is in the most basic math and it is measured at the low
mass
end by navigation satellites. If the Earth were to somehow put on
weight
then the navigation satellites would measure an ever greater disparity
or
require ever greater correction. If we extrapolate this to an object
that
is one electron short of the required mass for a black hole, then the
disparity would be almost infinite. There is no reason to not assume
that
with the extra electron, the newly formed black hole would have an
infinite
temporal disparity ie the for *any* interval as measured by a clock at
the
surface of the black hole an infinite amount of time passes on the
satellites (as calculated by extrapolation from less massive,. non-black
hole objects).

But these temporal anomalies are so embarrassing to General relativists
that
they will do just about anything to avoid them including trying any
mathematical strategy that might eliminate the anomaly and if that
fails,
why not try throwing insults??

Tom is right. Your understanding /is/ at the superficial comicbook
level.


RKS:
Avoiding the phenomena, demonstrable even on our own planet, is a very weak
position to take. You have not even bothered to pick out a point which you
think is comic book in nature - you don't like the entire approach I've used
because it draws conclusions you find distasteful while being consistent
with the basic calculations describing the phenomena I'm discussing. This
is truly pathetic.


--
Kind Regards
Robert Karl Stonjek

Robert Karl Stonjek wrote:
no time passes at an event
horizon in any finite interval as measured by a space observer.

Your statement is too imprecise to be valid.

Say, rather, that to a distant observer watching light signals sent at
equal intervals from a clock near the horizon, as that clock approaches
the horizon the interval between received signals increases without bound.

You keep trying to make overly simplistic statements that are hopelessly
too vague to be meaningful or useful.


That is the
reality

Nonsense. Your statement avoids defining what "time passes" means.
Without a careful and precise meaning for that phrase your statement is
meaningless -- Not "reality".


But these temporal anomalies are so embarrassing to General relativists

There are no such "anomalies", except for ones generated by your
undefined terms, vague claims, and general lack of understanding.


they will do just about anything to avoid them including trying any
mathematical strategy that might eliminate the anomaly and if that fails,
why not try throwing insults??

First your need to show that an "anomaly" actually exists. To do that
you must of course use the mathematics of GR. Comic-book statements
simply will not do. "That is the reality" (your phrase) -- if you
consider that an insult, that's YOUR problem, not mine. And certainly
not a problem for GR.


Tom Roberts

On Jan 16, 4:44 pm, "Robert Karl Stonjek"
wrote:
"Eric Gisse" wrote in message

...



On Jan 16, 3:55 am, "Robert Karl Stonjek"
wrote:
"Tom Roberts" wrote in message

.net...

Robert Karl Stonjek wrote:
All of the angular momentum could be radiated off as gravitational
waves.

Not ALL of it -- an axially-symmetric spinning object emits no
gravitational waves, and yet has nonzero angular momentum.

As time ceases inside the event horizon relative to a distance space
observer, any radiated gravitational wave, though initially radiated
(as
the
black hole was forming) could never completely be radiated (because
there is
effectively no time in which to move ie how many km/s can a thing
move
in
zero seconds?)

That's nonsense. You cannot expect to make accurate statements about
physics without a deeper understanding that comic books.

Tom Roberts

RKS:
Reality is the same regardless of its source - no time passes at an
event
horizon in any finite interval as measured by a space observer. That is
the
reality - it is in the most basic math and it is measured at the low
mass
end by navigation satellites. If the Earth were to somehow put on
weight
then the navigation satellites would measure an ever greater disparity
or
require ever greater correction. If we extrapolate this to an object
that
is one electron short of the required mass for a black hole, then the
disparity would be almost infinite. There is no reason to not assume
that
with the extra electron, the newly formed black hole would have an
infinite
temporal disparity ie the for *any* interval as measured by a clock at
the
surface of the black hole an infinite amount of time passes on the
satellites (as calculated by extrapolation from less massive,. non-black
hole objects).

But these temporal anomalies are so embarrassing to General relativists
that
they will do just about anything to avoid them including trying any
mathematical strategy that might eliminate the anomaly and if that
fails,
why not try throwing insults??

Tom is right. Your understanding /is/ at the superficial comicbook
level.

RKS:
Avoiding the phenomena, demonstrable even on our own planet, is a very weak
position to take. You have not even bothered to pick out a point which you
think is comic book in nature - you don't like the entire approach I've used
because it draws conclusions you find distasteful while being consistent
with the basic calculations describing the phenomena I'm discussing. This
is truly pathetic.

Like Tom said, you are not being clear about what you mean by "time
passes". Your babbling is basically saying that to a high degree we
have verified that the Schwarzschild manifold is an accurate
description of our part of reality and that there are apparent
singularities at the event horizon in the manifold.

We know this, and it has been resolved for nearly 70 years now.
Consider for a minute that the entire population of physicists are
actually intelligent and not stupid, and that they would have seen and
dealt with the things a layman has immediately noticed.




--
Kind Regards
Robert Karl Stonjek