Very simple reason for no black hole

On Nov 1, 5:12*pm, jon car wrote:
How can a black hole form with zero gravity at its center?
Drop off gravity inside means zero gravity center.
But what about the black hole? how is the center
having strength?

I have a candidate for looking alike for the black hole; that is a
result of limit in strength with General Relativity. There is
something short of a black hole that redshifts by its gravity just the
same. That is supermassive neutronium form; not a black hole.

Mitchell Raemsch

Perhaps black holes are just extra large and massive neutron stars
with a surface gravitational redshift of 300,000 km/sec.

When such massive neutron stars form, then where do all of the
electrons and positrons go?

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

On Nov 5, 8:03*pm, Brad Guth wrote:

Why can't there be black dwarfs? (spent neutron stars?)

Understand that black dwarfs are defined to be spent white dwarfs, and
NOT spent neutron stars, huge difference in density between dwarf and
neutron stars. Having said that, the universe is not yet old enough
for any white dwarf to have reached the black dwarf stage.

Why can't the universe be considerably older or recycled?

The age of the current universe varies depending on who you ask, but
they all agree that that age is far less than the many trillion years
it will take for a white dwarf to cool down to become a black dwarf.
See this for more;

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

A recycled universe? Well... why not. I don't think any research is
close to either proving or disproving such an idea, and you can read
about it here...

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

.... so, if you want to believe in a recycled universe, I don't think
that anyone could really give a definitive argument against it.

\Paul A

On 11/6/11 3:57 PM, Brad Guth wrote:


so, any item capable of generating a surface escape gravity redshift
of 300,000 km/sec/sec is going to be invisible to us. Seems a neutron
star should qualify, although its surrounding atmosphere might not
qualify.

The speed of light is 299792 km/s

Redshift is a unitless number

Surface gravity of a black hole (not well defined)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface...f_a_black_hole

On 11/6/11 4:08 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
Perhaps black holes are just extra large and massive neutron stars

Nope the density on neutron stars is not great enough. The Mass must
lie within the Schwarzschild radius.

On Nov 6, 3:33*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 11/6/11 4:08 PM, Brad Guth wrote:

Perhaps black holes are just extra large and massive neutron stars

Thats exactly what they are.

* *Nope the density on neutron stars is not great enough. The Mass must
* *lie within the Schwarzschild radius.

They are black hole look alikes. But the strength of gravity is
limited.

Mitchell Raemsch

On Nov 6, 3:50*pm, jon car wrote:
On Nov 6, 3:33*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:

On 11/6/11 4:08 PM, Brad Guth wrote:

Perhaps black holes are just extra large and massive neutron stars

Thats exactly what they are.

* *Nope the density on neutron stars is not great enough. The Mass must
* *lie within the Schwarzschild radius.

They are black hole look alikes. But the strength of gravity is
limited.

Mitchell Raemsch
According to review by G. Srinivasan, the research of Rhoades and
Ruffini found the maximum neutron star mass = 6.4e30 kg, and yet
“Nauenberg and Chapline” gives a maximum NS of 7.2e30 kg, beyond which
it triggers over towards becoming a black hole.

The gravitational redshift of a 2.5 Ms NS (depending on its diameter
of say 66 km) should be getting close to or exceeding the 300,000 km/
sec.

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

On Nov 6, 2:58*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 11/6/11 3:57 PM, Brad Guth wrote:



so, any item capable of generating a surface escape gravity redshift
of 300,000 km/sec/sec is going to be invisible to us. *Seems a neutron
star should qualify, although its surrounding atmosphere might not
qualify.

* *The speed of light is 299792 km/s

* *Redshift is a unitless number

* *Surface gravity of a black hole (not well defined)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface...avity_of_a_bla...

In that case, just take my word for it, that large and massive enough
neutron stars can't be directly viewed.

According to review by G. Srinivasan, the research of Rhoades and
Ruffini found the maximum neutron star mass = 6.4e30 kg, and yet
“Nauenberg and Chapline” gives a maximum NS of 7.2e30 kg, beyond which
it triggers over towards becoming a black hole.

The gravitational redshift of a 2.5 Ms NS (depending on its diameter
of say 66 km) should be getting close to or exceeding the 300,000 km/
sec.

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

On Nov 6, 9:16*pm, Brad Guth wrote:
On Nov 6, 2:58*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:

On 11/6/11 3:57 PM, Brad Guth wrote:

so, any item capable of generating a surface escape gravity redshift
of 300,000 km/sec/sec is going to be invisible to us. *Seems a neutron
star should qualify, although its surrounding atmosphere might not
qualify.

* *The speed of light is 299792 km/s

* *Redshift is a unitless number

* *Surface gravity of a black hole (not well defined)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface...avity_of_a_bla...

In that case, just take my word for it, that large and massive enough
neutron stars can't be directly viewed.

According to review by G. Srinivasan, the research of Rhoades and
Ruffini found the maximum neutron star mass = 6.4e30 kg, and yet
“Nauenberg and Chapline” gives a maximum NS of 7.2e30 kg, beyond which
it triggers over towards becoming a black hole.

The gravitational redshift of a 2.5 Ms NS (depending on its diameter
of say 66 km) should be getting close to or exceeding the 300,000 km/
sec.

Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet... did
you even bother to read the link that Sam provided? It says, in
part...

"The surface gravity of a white dwarf is very high, and of a neutron
star even more. The neutron star's compactness gives it a surface
gravity of up to 7×10^12 m/s² with typical values of a few ×10^12 m/s²
(that is more than 10^11 times of that of Earth). One measure of such
immense gravity is the fact that neutron stars have an escape velocity
of around 100,000 km/s, about 33% of the speed of light...", which is
still a long way from 300,000 km/sec.

\Paul A

On Nov 6, 10:05*pm, palsing wrote:
On Nov 6, 9:16*pm, Brad Guth wrote:









On Nov 6, 2:58*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:

On 11/6/11 3:57 PM, Brad Guth wrote:

so, any item capable of generating a surface escape gravity redshift
of 300,000 km/sec/sec is going to be invisible to us. *Seems a neutron
star should qualify, although its surrounding atmosphere might not
qualify.

* *The speed of light is 299792 km/s

* *Redshift is a unitless number

* *Surface gravity of a black hole (not well defined)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface...avity_of_a_bla...

In that case, just take my word for it, that large and massive enough
neutron stars can't be directly viewed.

According to review by G. Srinivasan, the research of Rhoades and
Ruffini found the maximum neutron star mass = 6.4e30 kg, and yet
“Nauenberg and Chapline” gives a maximum NS of 7.2e30 kg, beyond which
it triggers over towards becoming a black hole.

The gravitational redshift of a 2.5 Ms NS (depending on its diameter
of say 66 km) should be getting close to or exceeding the 300,000 km/
sec.

Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet... did
you even bother to read the link that Sam provided? It says, in
part...

"The surface gravity of a white dwarf is very high, and of a neutron
star even more. The neutron star's compactness gives it a surface
gravity of up to 7×10^12 m/s² with typical values of a few ×10^12 m/s²
(that is more than 10^11 times of that of Earth). One measure of such
immense gravity is the fact that neutron stars have an escape velocity
of around 100,000 km/s, about 33% of the speed of light...", which is
still a long way from 300,000 km/sec.

\Paul A

I think bigger NS exist, perhaps of at least 2.5 Ms.

According to review by G. Srinivasan, the research of Rhoades and
Ruffini found the maximum neutron star mass = 6.4e30 kg, and yet
“Nauenberg and Chapline” gives a maximum NS of 7.2e30 kg, beyond which
it triggers over towards becoming a black hole.

The gravitational redshift of a 2.5 Ms NS (depending on its diameter
of say 66 km) should be getting close to or exceeding the 300,000 km/
sec, thus preventing photons from leaving the surface, or at least the
gravitational redshift would be so great as to exceed -c.

Are you suggesting that gravity is not faster than c?

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

On 11/6/11 11:16 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
On Nov 6, 2:58 pm, Sam wrote:
On 11/6/11 3:57 PM, Brad Guth wrote:



so, any item capable of generating a surface escape gravity redshift
of 300,000 km/sec/sec is going to be invisible to us. Seems a neutron
star should qualify, although its surrounding atmosphere might not
qualify.

The speed of light is 299792 km/s

Redshift is a unitless number

Surface gravity of a black hole (not well defined)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface...avity_of_a_bla...

In that case, just take my word for it, that large and massive enough
neutron stars can't be directly viewed.

That's the last thing I would do (take your word for it) given
your posting record over the years.


According to review by G. Srinivasan, the research of Rhoades and
Ruffini found the maximum neutron star mass = 6.4e30 kg, and yet
“Nauenberg and Chapline” gives a maximum NS of 7.2e30 kg, beyond which
it triggers over towards becoming a black hole.


When a neutron star collapses into a black hole, it is no longer
a neutron star, but a black hole. Not that for black holes, all
observed masses are less that the theoretical maximum.