The Deist Objectivist

[StrictlyLogical]

vickster:

 

 

Do black holes in their current theoretical form conserve all physical quantities other than "information" as such?

 

If so why was something theorised to exist in a particular way which violates conservation of physical quantities?  What permitted such theorization?

[vickster339]

I guess the Oist defending the black hole unicorn are ok with the idea of an existent with infinite density?

Edit: The real black hole war:

"The notion of black holes voraciously gobbling up matter, twisting space-time into contortions that trap light, stretching the unwary into long spaghetti-like strands as they fall inward to ultimately collide and merge with an infinitely dense point-mass singularity, has become a mantra of the scientific community, so much so that even primary school children know about the sinister black hole, waiting patiently, like the Roman child’s Hannibal, for an opportunity to abduct the unruly and the misbehaved. There are almost daily reports of scientists claiming black holes again found here and there.

It is asserted that black holes range in size from micro to mini, to intermediate and on up through to supermassive behemoths. Black holes are glibly spoken of and accepted as scientific facts and that they have been detected at the centre of galaxies. Images of black holes having their wicked ways with surrounding matter are routinely offered with reports of them. Some physicists even claim that black holes will be created in particle accelerators, such as the Large Hadron Collider, potentially able to swallow the Earth, if care is not taken in their production.

Yet despite all this hoopla, contrary to the assertions of the astronomers and astrophysicists of the black hole community, nobody has ever identified a black hole, anywhere, let alone ‘imaged’ one. The pictures adduced to convince are actually either artistic impressions (i.e. drawings) or photos of otherwise unidentified objects imaged by telescopes and merely asserted to be black holes, ad hoc.

No Escape

The alleged signatures of the alleged black hole are an infinitely dense point-mass singularity and an event horizon. Scientists frequently assert that the escape velocity of a black hole (from its event horizon) is that of light and that nothing, not even light, can escape the black hole. In fact, according to the same scientists, nothing, including light, can even leave the event horizon. But there is already a problem with these bald claims (black holes are also alleged to have ‘no hair’).

If the escape velocity of a black hole is that of light, then light, on the one hand, can escape. On the other hand, light is allegedly not able to even leave the event horizon, so the black hole has no escape velocity. If the escape velocity of a black hole is that of light, not only can light both leave and escape, material objects can also leave the event horizon, but not escape, even though, according to the Theory of Special Relativity, they can only have a velocity less than that of light. This just means that material bodies will leave the black hole and eventually stop and fall back to the black hole, just like a ball thrown into the air here on Earth with an initial velocity less than the escape velocity for the Earth. So the properties of the alleged event horizon of a black hole are irretrievably contradictory.

What of the infinitely dense point-mass singularity at the heart of the black hole? It is supposed to be formed by irresistible gravitational collapse so that matter is crushed into zero volume, into a ‘point’, a so-called ‘point-mass’. One recalls from high school that density is defined as the mass of an object divided by the volume of the object. If the mass is not zero and the volume is zero, as in the case of a black hole, one gets division by zero. But all school children know that division by zero is not allowed by the rules of mathematics. Nonetheless, black hole proponents are, by some special privilege, somehow permitted to flout the rules of elementary mathematics and divide by zero! No, the scientists too cannot divide by zero, despite their claims to the contrary.

Einstein Violated

Furthermore, black holes are allegedly obtained from Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity. It is called the General Theory because it is a generalisation of his Special Theory of Relativity. As such, General Relativity cannot, by definition, violate Special Relativity, but that is precisely what the black hole does.

Special Relativity forbids infinite densities because, according to that Theory, infinite density implies infinite energy (or equivalently that a material object can acquire the speed of light in vacuo). Therefore General Relativity too forbids infinite densities. But the point-mass singularity of the black hole is allegedly infinitely dense, in violation of Special Relativity. Thus the Theory of Relativity forbids the existence of a black hole.

Non-event on the Horizon

What now of the event horizon of the black hole? According to the proponents of the black hole it takes an infinite amount of time for an observer to watch an object (via the light from that object, of course) fall into the event horizon. So it therefore takes an infinite amount of time for the observer to verify the existence of an event horizon and thereby confirm the presence of a black hole. However, nobody has been and nobody will be around for an infinite amount of time in order to verify the presence of an event horizon and hence the presence of a black hole. Nevertheless, scientists claim that black holes have been found all over the place.

The fact is nobody has assuredly found a black hole anywhere – no infinitely dense point-mass singularity and no event horizon. Some black hole proponents are more circumspect in how they claim the discovery of their black holes. They instead say that their evidence for the presence of a black hole is indirect. But such indirect ‘evidence’ cannot be used to justify the claim of a black hole, in view of the fatal contradictions associated with infinitely dense point-mass singularities and event horizons. One could just as well assert the existence and presence of deep space unicorns on the basis of such ‘evidence’.

"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." - Albert Einstein

It is also of great importance to be mindful of the fact that no observations gave rise to the notion of a black hole in the first place, for which a theory had to be developed. The black hole was wholly spawned in the reverse, i.e. it was created by theory and observations subsequently misconstrued to legitimize the theory. Reports of black holes are just wishful thinking in support of a belief; not factual in any way.

Another major and fatal contradiction in the idea of the black hole is the allegation that black holes can be components of binary systems, collide or merge. Let us, for the sake of argument, assume that black holes are predicted by General Relativity. The black hole is fundamentally described by a certain mathematical expression called a line-element (which is just a fancy name for a distance formula, like that learnt in high school) that involves just one alleged mass in the entire Universe (just the alleged source of a gravitational field), since the said distance formula is a solution for a space-time allegedly described by Einstein’s equations in vacuum (or, more accurately, emptiness), namely Ric = 0.

One does not need to know anything at all about the mathematical intricacies of this equation to see that it cannot permit the presence of one black hole, let alone two or more black holes. The mathematical object denoted by Ric is what is called a tensor (in this case it is Ricci’s tensor, and hence its notation). The reason why Ric = 0 is because in Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity all matter that contributes to the source of the gravitational field must be described by another tensor, called the energy-momentum tensor. In the case of the so-called vacuum field equations the energy-momentum tensor is set to zero, because there is no mass or radiation present by hypothesis. Otherwise Ric would not be equal to zero. So the alleged black hole can interact with nothing, not even an ‘observer’. Ric = 0 is not a two body situation, only, allegedly, a one body situation (and hence quite meaningless).

One cannot just introduce extra objects into a given solution to Einstein’s field equations, because his theory asserts that the curvature of space-time (i.e. the gravitational field) is due to the presence of matter and that the said matter, all of it, must be described by his energy-momentum tensor. If the energy-momentum tensor is zero, there is no matter present. Einstein's field equations are nonlinear, so the ‘Principle of Superposition’ does not apply. Before one can talk of relativistic binary systems it must first be proved that the two-body system is theoretically well-defined by General Relativity.

This can be done in only two ways:

(a) Derivation of an exact solution to Einstein's field equations for the two-body configuration of matter; or

( Proof of an existence theorem.

There are no known solutions to Einstein's field equations for the interaction of two (or more) masses, so option (a) has never been fulfilled. No existence theorem has ever been proved, by which Einstein's field equations even admit of latent solutions for such configurations of matter, and so option ( has never been fulfilled either. Since Ric = 0 is a statement that there is no matter in the Universe, one cannot simply insert a second black hole into the space-time of Ric = 0 of a given black hole so that the resulting two black holes (each obtained separately from Ric = 0) mutually interact in a mutual spacetime that by definition contains no matter.

One cannot simply assert by an analogy with Newton's theory that two black holes can be components of binary systems, collide or merge, because the ‘Principle of Superposition’ does not apply in Einstein's theory. Moreover, General Relativity has to date been unable to account for the simple experimental fact that two fixed bodies will approach one another upon release. So from where does the matter allegedly associated with the solution to Ric = 0 come, when this is a statement that there is no matter present? The proponents of the black hole just put it in at the end, a posteriori and ad hoc, in violation of their starting hypothesis that Ric = 0.

No Solution

Finally, the fundamental solution to Ric = 0 is usually called the "Schwarzschild solution". Despite its name, it is not in fact Schwarzschild’s solution. Schwarzschild’s actual solution forbids black holes. The frequent claim that Schwarzschild found and advocated a black hole solution is patently false, as a reading of Schwarzschild’s paper on the subject irrefutably testifies. False too are the claims that he predicted an event horizon and that he determined the "Schwarzschild radius" (i.e. the alleged ‘radius’ of the black hole event horizon). Schwarzschild actually had nothing to do with the black hole, but attaching his name to it lends the notion an additional façade of scientific legitimacy. "

http://www.thunderbolts.info/thunderblogs/archives/guests08/061108_sjcrothers.htm

I like the thinking here.  Black holes were originally conceived as a mathematical construct.  Observations in astronomy and development of stellar theory have strengthened the notion of this construct.  I mentioned earlier that alleged SMBH at the center of the galaxy has been pinned down to with 600x the schwarzchild radius based on star orbits and soon a gas blob accreting into this dense mass with further our ability to pin it down.  Mind you this is a large mass, with high mass density, that emits NOTHING.  We do not know what is really at the core of a star when it forms or when it dies.  Current stellar theory predicts in massive stars the core will collapse when the hydrostatic equilibrium fails based on the stars mass.  Protons crushed into electrons, electrons crushed into neutrons and neutrons crushed into who knows what based on star mass.  Neutron stars 15 years ago were figured to be 10-15km in diameter, Cornell has them down to 6-7km in diameter.  At this mass density a neutron stars escape velocity is 2/3 the speed of light.  If Neutron degeneracy pressure does not halt the collapse nothing known does.  Consider this as a preamble to the following.

 

Big Bang cosmology is shackled to the fact that all the hydrogen, helium, lithium, and deuterium that has ever existed in our universe was created in this one event.  Metallicity discrepancies between what the big bang predicts and what we observe over the history of the universe are off by 50%, a staggering proportion.  The G dwarf, K dwarf, and M dwarf problems have haunted astronomers for decades.  Both of these problems and a few others strongly imply hydrogen, helium, lithium, and deuterium has to have been produced since the supposed Big Bang.  There are only two currently known theoretical ways to achieve the mass densities necessary to synthesize hydrogen, helium, lithium, and deuterium a cosmological singularity (Big Bang singularity) or a Black hole.  I clearly do no subscribe to the notion of black hole singularities being infinitely dense or infinitely approaching infinity.  I do want to know what neutrons are crushed into, at what mass density they stop, how far sub Planck scale it is when they stop, and more importantly how two of these objects synthesize hydrogen, helium, lithium, and deuterium.

 

Meh, I need to sleep I will get to more replies tomorrow.

[Plasmatic]

Vick said:

"1. Inductive reasoning argues black holes exist.......Black holes were originally conceived as a mathematical construct. Observations in astronomy and development of stellar theory have strengthened the notion of this construct"

A valid concept is a green light to induction. A valid concept black holes are not.

The inference of extreme mass density is an artifact of the gravity centric cosmology denying the orders of magnitude greater force of electromagnetism at work in the interstellar plasma so pervasive in the universe. ( 99.99% of the universe)

Edit: Also where is the predicted lensing surrounding the SMBH's?

Edited September 1, 2013 by Plasmatic

[StrictlyLogical]

http://phys.org/news/2013-05-space-time-magnifying-glass.html

http://www.google.ca/search?q=hubble+gravitational+lensing&tbm=isch

 

 

http://www.scienceinthebible.net/

 

"Dr. Dowdye is an independent researcher and is Founder of Pure Classical Physics Research where he focuses in depth on the Truth and the Profound Fundamentals and Pure Laws of Nature, all first set in motion by the Devine Creator, the Almighty Lord God. Dr. Dowdye is a recognized and leading expert on the theories of both General and Special Relativity, Electromagnetism and Gravitation. He is a member of the American Physics Society and a member of several other nationally and internationally recognized Physical Science organizations. He frequently gives lectures and seminars at conferences, university Physics Deportments, churches, schools and at on-line video web-broadcast physical science conferences. Dr. Dowdye is the author of a book, Discourses and Mathematical Illustrations Pertaining to the Extinction Shift Principle..., a challenge to Einstein’s Relativity, as well as a number of other important papers published in some renown refereed journals. Dr. Dowdye's book and theory on the Extinction Shift Principle was recently chosen at an elite status university in Germany, Universität Karlsruhe, as a seminar project assigned to the bright young graduate students in Mathematics and Physics."

Edited September 1, 2013 by StrictlyLogical

[Plasmatic]

Yeah, its a great opportunity to separate facts from compartmentalized fiction.....

 

Edit: As to the magnifying glass article. Dowdye does not claim that no refraction happens. Does the image shown include the lensing farther out from the plasma lem that Dowdye claims is missing ?

 

Edit:Lets not forget tha BB cosmology was invented by a catholic priest. His religious status is obviously a strawman in this regard. That being said I did not know he was religious. The fact that most are, means we need to deal with their claims in particular separately from this. To dismiss BB cosmology for this fact would be ridiculous.

 

Also this is a perfect time to remind oneself that a picture is not an argument.

https://estore.aynrand.org/p/108/a-picture-is-not-an-argument-mp3-download

Edited September 1, 2013 by Plasmatic

[StrictlyLogical]

Updated links.

 

Does Dowdy also disbelieve evidence of time measurements of atomic clocks at different altitudes which have been used to verify general relativity?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment

 

Does Dowdy also disbelieve time dilation confirmed by direct measurement in many contexts including muon particle decay? 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation_of_moving_particles

Edited September 1, 2013 by StrictlyLogical

[Plasmatic]

SL do you believe that the experiments that have taken place could in any possible way lead to the idea that time is the type of existent that can dilate or bend? If so we can just simplify all this to an epistemic discussion.

Edited September 1, 2013 by Plasmatic

[StrictlyLogical]

As we must first rely on perception to understand reality I merely raise the experimental observations of "time dilation" ... simple things like a muon travelling fast decays slower, while a muon travelling slow decays faster.

 

I assume you allow yourself to refer to "time" in at least some sense.  So irrespective of the technical epistemic considerations, quite simply we observe motion of an existent is correlated with passage of time (again whatever time is or whatever the concept "time" means) associated with the existent. 

Edited September 1, 2013 by StrictlyLogical

[Plasmatic]

Sl said:

"As we must first rely on perception to understand reality I merely raise the experimental observations of "time dilation" ... simple things like a muon travelling fast decays slower, while a muon travelling slow decays faster."

This is a common mistake. The entire experiment was designed with CONCEPTIONS of what time is and how said conception directs interpretation of results. You cannot even raise the issue of confirmation of "time dation" without pressupposing a position on what time is, unless you have done so as a floating abstraction.

Edit:

In other words if one doesnt know what one means one has no epistemelogical right to that concept, i.e. its stolen....

Edited September 1, 2013 by Plasmatic

[StrictlyLogical]

So scientists cannot measure seconds and meters in the context of observation without a philosophic foundation of what "space" and "time" "REALLY" is?

 

Were men of all levels of intellect who used concepts of time and space in every day speech, in solving problems, in designing the wheel or the first steam engine morally corrupt for not first having an epistemological agreed definition of what time and space were... and in fact should have delayed all such speech and discovery before any progress were made?

 

I do not quite agree with that...  

[Plasmatic]

SL said:

"Were men of all levels of intellect who used concepts of time and space in every day speech, in solving problems, in designing the wheel or the first steam engine morally corrupt for not first having an epistemological agreed definition of what time and space were... and in fact should have delayed all such speech and discovery before any progress were made"

Uh, whoa. I said nothing like the above and you really need to examine why you come to these type of assumptions when reading others post.

A practical consequence of the fact that knowledge is hierarchical and contextual is that man has a responsibility to personally reduce his concepts in order to practice rationality.

SL said:

"So scientists cannot measure seconds and meters in the context of observation without a philosophic foundation of what "space" and "time" "REALLY" is?"

So, a rational man cannot simply accept the unreduced and or invalid conceptions of others if they want to possess a CONTEXTUALLY valid, non secondhanded, view of anything. One only needs valid content in ones file folder, not omniscient or exaustive content.

[StrictlyLogical]

Let me rephrase my original question:

 

Insofar as Dowdey referred to space and time in his presentation, and you did not deem it necessary to investigate the true nature of time or space from epistemological consideration at the time you posted his video, I merely ask does he disbelieve observations of space and time as experimentally measured by atomic clocks and the decay of muons.

[Plasmatic]

Sl said:

"Insofar as Dowdey referred to space and time in his presentation, and you did not deem it necessary to investigate the true nature of time or space from epistemological consideration at the time you posted his video"

In fact, my epistemological knowledge of space and time is central to what promted me to check the special science premises here being discussed.

Im bot sure if he has specific criticism of Relativity concerning either of the types of experiments you mention. I know that I do.

[StrictlyLogical]

Do you disbelieve in the experimental evidence collected in connection with one or both of special and general relativity or only disbelieve the "interpretation" of experimental results regarding one or both.

[Grames]

There are most likely no such things as black holes.

 

First, the idea originates in an extrapolation of known physics into an unknown context so it is not an ironclad deduction but just a speculation without hard evidence.  

 

Second, the idea actually postulates the real existence of a singularity, the point of infinite density at the center of a black hole.  There are philosophical objections to actual infinities.

 

Third, the idea contradicts other known principles of physics.  Within physics the theory of gravity and theory of quantum mechanics are not integrated together and they cannot both be true for the case of black holes.  For example the Pauli exclusion principle forbids two fermions to have the same quantum state but in a black hole singularity only one quantum state would be possible. 

 

Fourth, mathematical analysis of the physics of black holes has led to the exploration of thermodynamics of black holes.  If black holes are considered as having finite entropy then it turns out there cannot more entropy within its volume than can exist entirely upon its surface (the Bekenstein Bound).  As entropy or information can only exist in the form of mass or energy then this implies that there is an upper limit on the possible density of a finite quantity of mass and energy.

 

Extremely massive gravitational objects exist, such as at the center of our galaxy and others,  but they do not reach infinite density.  Extreme gravitational redshift would make any emissions very hard to detect, so there is that similarity to the 'invisibility' of a black hole.

[Plasmatic]

Sl:

The interpretation of the experiments is where I differ.

[StrictlyLogical]

Sl:

The interpretation of the experiments is where I differ.

 

Good.

 

 

Assume time "as measured" here is simply a relationship between actions or events occurring naturally (uninterrupted not interfered with) in a physical process, and a standard is chosen based on an arbitrarily chosen physical process.  The first swings of a pendulum, decays of atoms, orbits of a planet, the first vibration of a particular spring with a mass on its end, etc. each can be related to each other based on number or fraction of swings, decays, orbits, or vibrations and hence can be defined completely as a relationship between events or actions.

 

Is it safe to say that time "as measured" by atomic clocks and Muons, i.e. non-interfered with physical process from state to state, varies based on where the atomic clock or Muon are in a gravitational field, and also varies based on the relative velocity of the atomic clock or Muon, to some standard process (as discussed above) used to "measure" time.

[StrictlyLogical]

Plasmatic

 

I am curious to hear your answer, I'll try to be patient... 

[Plasmatic]

It is a fact that physical entities, like clocks, are affected by gravitational fields in such a manner as to cause a change in speed.

[StrictlyLogical]

It is a fact that physical entities, like clocks, are affected by gravitational fields in such a manner as to cause a change in speed.

 

Um speed... it is a conspiracy of coincidence but it looks like you just said all things accelerate due to gravity.... sorry I had to bring it up ... I know you didn't mean that because that would be irrelevant.  Its a little funny tho...

 

As to the experiments re. clocks or observations of Muons and time "as measured" by them ... when they are travelling at different speeds relative to another (the standard) physical process "measuring time"... do you accept those observations?

Edited September 5, 2013 by StrictlyLogical

[dream_weaver]

StrictlyLogical,

 

I ran across this article several years ago when I discovered this forum searching for information on "circular time theory". Miss Rand is quoted in a few locations and the Mr. Miller considers himself an Objectivist 'filosofer' with 30 years experience. He primarily credits Aristotle for this particular topic.  It might provide some fodder for thought on the matter. The article is entitled: Time, Clocks and Causality.

Edited September 6, 2013 by dream_weaver

[Plasmatic]

"... I know you didn't mean that because that would be irrelevant"

In fact I see it as the essential issue. Let me know what you think of the Miller argument above.

Edited September 6, 2013 by Plasmatic

[Plasmatic]

Weaver, its been a long time since I read the whole article. While refreshing myself on it, I noticed that Miller confuses similarity with sameness. We've talked about that issue before. Not certain how this effects the rest at present.

Edit: nevermind he clarifies that: "only by claiming omniscience could one claim that they were indeed the same in all respects."

Edited September 6, 2013 by Plasmatic

[StrictlyLogical]

StrictlyLogical,

 

I ran across this article several years ago when I discovered this forum searching for information on "circular time theory". Miss Rand is quoted in a few locations and the Mr. Miller considers himself an Objectivist 'filosofer' with 30 years experience. He primarily credits Aristotle for this particular topic.  It might provide some fodder for thought on the matter. The article is entitled: Time, Clocks and Causality.

 

Interesting... perhaps I will look at it in more detail later.  These fringe theories don't strike me as particularly sophisticated.

 

What I have noticed, is that certain individuals who dispute relativity, end up with a concept of an absolute ether or some such filling all of space... I find it hard to distinguish in causal or consequential terms the difference between someone asserting existence of "absolute space": a thing filling the universe, and someone asserting "space" itself is relational BUT there is this other thing called "ether" filling the universe...

[vickster339]

Vick said:

"1. Inductive reasoning argues black holes exist.......Black holes were originally conceived as a mathematical construct. Observations in astronomy and development of stellar theory have strengthened the notion of this construct"

A valid concept is a green light to induction. A valid concept black holes are not.

The inference of extreme mass density is an artifact of the gravity centric cosmology denying the orders of magnitude greater force of electromagnetism at work in the interstellar plasma so pervasive in the universe. ( 99.99% of the universe)

Edit: Also where is the predicted lensing surrounding the SMBH's?

 

Sorry it has taken me awhile to respond yet again. I have already pissed off some plasma cosmologists and it may indeed become a new second hobby of mine.  A satellite measured or is measuring the gravitational well of the Earth with high precision, I cannot recall if the mission is done yet or if they are still compiling data from it.  Astronomers have it good in some ways but most of the time they have it pretty rough.  Keck and all other associated instruments combined can barely resolve the stars orbiting the SMBH at the center of galaxy through all the crap, let alone see the gravitational lensing from stars beyond the crap they must shine through on the other side.  The gas glob currently accreting into this central region will hopefully improve our knowledge based on observations.  The good news is, some new big scopes will be coming online in the next 10 years. 

 

The universe needs to have produced more of the light elements attributed to Big Bang Nucleosynthesis since the theoretical event of the Big Bang occurred.  There is a 50 percent discrepancy between what Big Bang Nucleosynthesis predicts and what we observe.  In the context of the Big Bang, metallicities observed are low to the point of being problematic.  This is both on a cosmic scale and when you consider the G, K, and M dwarf problems.  Rather than try to figure out multiple impossible paradox's for another 40 years, how about trying to figure out how the universe can achieve mass densities high enough to produce the non metal elements on a macroscopic level?  The current list of possible constructs is not long.

 

Another strong argument for black holes is there is no currently known degeneracy pressure beyond that of Neutrons that can halt a star core collapse.  The good news is, neutron star observations  have come a long way in my lifetime.  Objects once thought to be 15-25 km in diameter with escape velocities of 100k km/sec - 150k km/sec have recently been updated and you do not hear about it much...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSR_J0348%2B0432

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/1302.0023 ---- just as a point of reference I went with run 7 as the authors suggest it is the best run.

 

Neutron stars are far smaller in diameter than once thought.  Go play with escape velocities for these babies based on the full range of possible diameters.  Even if you assume the least favorable constraints possible for calculating escape velocity you end up with a rather astoundingly high escape velocity. I will not deprive you of the opportunity to astound yourself. (I always loved Rand's affinity for that word)

 

Since there is no degeneracy pressure beyond that of Neutrons "on the books" to halt a massive star cores collapse and I am unwilling to subscribe to the concept of a textbook gravitational singularity (an infinitely dense or infinitely approaching infinitely dense object that is infinitely warping space time) for very good reasons, I will search for Rambo.  Rambo's are at the heart of my black holes, as of now all I know is Rambo's are objects with an escape velocity exceeding that of the speed of light that are not infinitely dense or infinitely approaching infinite density.  There is a long way from the mass density needed for a black hole and infinity.  Implying an as of yet undiscovered final state of degeneracy and I am it's huckleberry.

 

In preparation for gravitational wave observation data I am going to need something to look for... welcome to the fun little hell I have created for myself.  Using a collection of discrete methods I am going to attempt to come up with a theoretical mass density range for Rambo.  Then using some hacked PPN formalism (which is only good up until PPN3 since I do not have a supercomputer to run numerical relativity on) I will attempt to hack out some black hole inspiral failure scenarios for the full range of possible values for Big G (since I am working with an object of unknown mass density, this consideration may be irrelevant to consider initially but not to be forgotten later).  With a matrix of outputs from this steaming pile I must then come up with some gravitational waves to look for.  I have some other tricks in mind but I am keeping those on the down low for now.

 

I am intentionally skipping over making some individual replies in attempt to cover multiple duplicate inquiries more quickly.  There are also some comments I am still pondering on how to best respond to them.

Edited September 8, 2013 by vickster339