What is more common BH or Neutron Star???

I theorize neutron stars are more common. For every black hole in the
universe there are 3 neutron stars. Reason is black holes are harder to
make. Bert

"G=EMC^2 Glazier" ha scritto nel messaggio
...
I theorize neutron stars are more common. For every black hole in the
universe there are 3 neutron stars. Reason is black holes are harder to
make. Bert

I think you're right saying that neutron stars are more common.
But how you can say one BH every 3 neutron stars (and not 5 or 8)?
Why you ruin your interesting theories shooting random numbers?

Luigi Caselli

Hi luigi have to back my theories with numbers. It gives them more
reality. It is easier for humankind to create a fission bomb,than a
H-bomb;. A neutron star was three times with less force of gravity and
since gravity created both it is very easy to assume less is easier to
create than more. Gravity evolves going down hill,and neutron stars are
created on the way down. Black holes are at the bottom. Where can the
force of gravity go when it hit bottom.The only direction from down is
up Beert

Luigi Caselli wrote:
"G=EMC^2 Glazier" ha scritto nel messaggio
...

I theorize neutron stars are more common. For every black hole in the
universe there are 3 neutron stars. Reason is black holes are harder to
make. Bert


I think you're right saying that neutron stars are more common.
But how you can say one BH every 3 neutron stars (and not 5 or 8)?
Why you ruin your interesting theories shooting random numbers?

Luigi Caselli

The nature of what causes and allows for all the stars 'clustering' is a
hot enough topic as it is, never mind neutron stars.

nightbat wrote

Luigi Caselli wrote:

"G=EMC^2 Glazier" ha scritto nel messaggio
...
I theorize neutron stars are more common. For every black hole in the
universe there are 3 neutron stars. Reason is black holes are harder to
make. Bert

I think you're right saying that neutron stars are more common.
But how you can say one BH every 3 neutron stars (and not 5 or 8)?
Why you ruin your interesting theories shooting random numbers?

Luigi Caselli

nightbat

Officer Luigi it's called deep theoretical dart throwing and
Officer Bert is a professional at it. Statistically, due to Chandra
upper mass stellar class threshold limits, most probable answer is
neutron stars. It all boils down to numbers just don't get lost in the
math. A stich in time saves nine. If you certainly know from the past
one key opens a lock and you have say 12 of them, try and try again and
after the 11th failure the next one should be the right one. Trouble is
with uncertainty nature, there are infinite possibilities, so try all
the ones you have and if they don't work you may search for others until
you find the right key. You could search you whole life and never
physically find the right key like Einstein towards GUT resolution
formulation but at least you gave it a good try. Also you can learn from
the best so you don't have to try the same wrong keys they tried. If all
the present known keys don't fit then it's an untried key least
suspected or undiscovered as yet. At least by knowing and discounting
the myriad of keys that have been tried and failed, it eliminates the
time of having to try them again. If Einstein and Peers brilliantly and
dedicatedly did search all the known math keys and didn't find the GUT
it resultantly meant the missing key wasn't in known math or frame
comparative in our known time frame. On the other hand dart throwing at
least shows you're trying and any ones guess is as good as the dart
throwers, of always hoping you find the one that fits. Genius Tesla
hated time wasting dart throwing habit of Edison, but after 1, 50, 100,
1000, 5000, 10,000+ etc. tries, Edison's particular persistant trial and
error got it right. It many times works using myriad trial and error,
but what happens if a certain key doesn't exist in the present, you
could lose a whole life time then trying and never find it like
Einstein. What is the answer, the clue is since you know Einstein and
Peers already tried all the known keys, the right key is in the probable
past because the present is an observable Universe mechanism reality
without key cause. Knowing what the key is made of is half the battle,
observing what that substance is trying to do is the other. Reverse
engineering is fruitful to a point, but if there is no frame of
reference for what is presented where do you find it? See clue above.
Dart throw and you can wind up like either Edison or Einstein, or study
and perceptively mentally observe and be like Tesla, and get it right
the first time.

Criteria necessary to do what brillient scientists and researchers like
young to adult Tesla did requires not necessary 200+ IQ just that it be
flexable, moldable, patient, and expandable, photographic memory or good
substitute, total or 100% short term memory recall ability or reminder
substitude, near perfect logic handling ability, for science higher
knowledge education learning especially applied math, extensive all
subject supplemental reading, eliminating wasteful negative time
consuming bad habits, absorbing and learning from all your Peers of
subject(s) of interest, knowing what has been learned and tested,
charted results, and having the instrument means for comparative
testing. Staying away from things that make you unhappy, use of
imagination, understanding everything is a drain on logic handling
ability therefore choose wisely what you mentaly devote to and always
follow through. 1% inspiration 99% perspiration. If you must throw
random darts, do it, at least it's better then not trying at all. Better
to learn from your Peers for they have already studied and thrown some
profound calculated well educated darts. Conservation of energy is the
key, for Mother Nature obeys it. And there is no substitute for talent,
giftedness, study, and devotion to application reduction.

ponder on,
the nightbat

G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
I theorize neutron stars are more common. For every black hole in the
universe there are 3 neutron stars. Reason is black holes are harder to
make. Bert


Should we label neutron stars as "failed" black holes?

Double-A

Hi nightbat If the person drinks beer that is a clue he knows how to
throw darts. Throwing darts is good exercise for the brain. If you see
my ideas as darts I can live with that. Darts can not be thrown randomly
to win,and if hitting the target is the same as hitting on a good theory
to answer natures secretes I can see nightbat your relative view to tie
them together. Bert

From Nightbat:

You could search you whole life and
never physically find the right key like
Einstein towards GUT resolution..

Yeah, under the void-space regime, the quest for the 'holy grail'
(specifically the unification of gravity) is like chasing the rainbow.
The harder you strive for it, the more it recedes from your grasp.

...but at least you gave it a good try.

And came up zip.

If all the present known keys don't fit
then it's an untried key least suspected
or undiscovered as yet.

Heh. Try replacing the 'Void' with the spatial medium and its requisite
SCO (supra-cosmic overpressure).

Einstein and Peers brilliantly and
dedicatedly did search all the known
math keys and didn't find the GUT it
resultantly meant the missing key
wasn't.. known..

Yeah, they had thrown it out, the baby with the bathwater.

But when the "missing key" (more like the 'Missing Dimension') is
recognized, the GUT/UFTOE resolves itself, unsought and unsolicited.
Like the friendly dog that trotted in thru the back door and sat down
grinning.
oc

From Double-A:

Should we label neutron stars as "failed"
black holes?

Hey why not? Jb will love it.

oc

Hi double-A Not failed black holes but massive stars that need three
times more mass to go from neutron star to black hole. Jupiter is a gas
planet that needs about 1,000 times more mass to be a star. Still there
are so many binary stars in our galaxy,and that tells us for some reason
Jupiter was left out in the cold. Beert