Very simple reason for no black hole

On Nov 6, 10:11*pm, Brad Guth wrote:
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”

I'm suggesting that you actually read the freakin' article...

On Nov 7, 6:54*am, Sam Wormley wrote:
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.

It kind of depends on what's inside the neutron star, as well as in
between its core and surface of supposedly neutrons.

On 11/7/11 11:41 AM, Brad Guth wrote:

It kind of depends on what's inside the neutron star, as well as in
between its core and surface of supposedly neutrons.

Although there are plenty of remaining questions about white dwarfs,
neutron stars and black holes, there is no doubt that:

o White dwarfs are electron degerate matter consisting of mostly
carbon, oxygen and helium.

o Neutron stars are neutron degenerate matter consisting mostly
of neutrons.

o Black holes, who's matter resides inside its Schwarzschild radius.

On Nov 7, 9:41*am, Brad Guth wrote:
On Nov 7, 6:54*am, Sam Wormley wrote:





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.

It kind of depends on what's inside the neutron star, as well as in
between its core and surface of supposedly neutrons.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yes neutronium stars are usualy full of neutrons!

In sci.physics Sam Wormley wrote:
....
o Black holes, who's matter resides inside its Schwarzschild radius.

Talking about which, I saw a nice pic in the news of the past couple
days of infalling gas around a BH.

--
co2 has no climate forcing effect and is not a greenhouse gas and, for that
matter, neither is water vapour.
-- BONZO@27-32-240-172 [100s of nyms], 5 Sep 2009

On Nov 7, 9:50*am, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 11/7/11 11:41 AM, Brad Guth wrote:

It kind of depends on what's inside the neutron star, as well as in
between its core and surface of supposedly neutrons.

* *Although there are plenty of remaining questions about white dwarfs,
* *neutron stars and black holes, there is no doubt that:

* *o White dwarfs are electron degerate matter consisting of mostly
* * *carbon, oxygen and helium.

* *o Neutron stars are neutron degenerate matter consisting mostly
* * *of neutrons.

* *o Black holes, who's matter resides inside its Schwarzschild radius.

Centers of all mass represents zero gravity, so there's really no
telling what's inside of stars, planets, planetoids, moons and even
asteroids can be hiding almost anything.

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

On Nov 7, 12:02*pm, james thomas wrote:
On Nov 7, 9:41*am, Brad Guth wrote:









On Nov 7, 6:54*am, Sam Wormley wrote:

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.

It kind of depends on what's inside the neutron star, as well as in
between its core and surface of supposedly neutrons.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yes neutronium stars are usualy full of neutrons!

In theory perhaps. In objective reality the center of all stars
represents zero gravity.

Can a sphere of pressure formed density always exist at zero gravity?

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

On Nov 7, 3:41*pm, Brad Guth wrote:
On Nov 7, 9:50*am, Sam Wormley wrote:

On 11/7/11 11:41 AM, Brad Guth wrote:

It kind of depends on what's inside the neutron star, as well as in
between its core and surface of supposedly neutrons.

* *Although there are plenty of remaining questions about white dwarfs,
* *neutron stars and black holes, there is no doubt that:

* *o White dwarfs are electron degerate matter consisting of mostly
* * *carbon, oxygen and helium.

* *o Neutron stars are neutron degenerate matter consisting mostly
* * *of neutrons.

* *o Black holes, who's matter resides inside its Schwarzschild radius.

Centers of all mass represents zero gravity,

This is science monkeying with original GR. Einstein said
"contractile curvature" without dropoff in gravity strength
all of the way to the center of the earth. Because of this the weight
of the Earth is much greater. But they had no right to think
they got better than Einstein with his own theory. Equal weight has
already been demonstrated the truth.



so there's really no
telling what's inside of stars, planets, planetoids, moons and even
asteroids can be hiding almost anything.

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

On Nov 7, 6:55*pm, james thomas wrote:
On Nov 7, 3:41*pm, Brad Guth wrote:









On Nov 7, 9:50*am, Sam Wormley wrote:

On 11/7/11 11:41 AM, Brad Guth wrote:

It kind of depends on what's inside the neutron star, as well as in
between its core and surface of supposedly neutrons.

* *Although there are plenty of remaining questions about white dwarfs,
* *neutron stars and black holes, there is no doubt that:

* *o White dwarfs are electron degerate matter consisting of mostly
* * *carbon, oxygen and helium.

* *o Neutron stars are neutron degenerate matter consisting mostly
* * *of neutrons.

* *o Black holes, who's matter resides inside its Schwarzschild radius.

Centers of all mass represents zero gravity,

This is science monkeying with original GR. Einstein said
"contractile curvature" without dropoff in gravity strength
all of the way to the center of the earth. Because of this the weight
of the Earth is much greater. But they had no right to think
they got better than Einstein with his own theory. Equal weight has
already been demonstrated the truth.







so there's really no
telling what's inside of stars, planets, planetoids, moons and even
asteroids can be hiding almost anything.

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

BH theory gets better over time. Reason it answers more questions. The
Hubble keeps showing its reality. TreBert

On Nov 7, 3:44*pm, Brad Guth wrote:
On Nov 7, 12:02*pm, james thomas wrote:





On Nov 7, 9:41*am, Brad Guth wrote:

On Nov 7, 6:54*am, Sam Wormley wrote:

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.

It kind of depends on what's inside the neutron star, as well as in
between its core and surface of supposedly neutrons.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yes neutronium stars are usualy full of neutrons!

In theory perhaps.

Not at all. When atoms collapse it is basically all the way to
neutronium due to the balance of charge. The contingency would be ions
leaving leftover electrons and/or protons.

This looks like it would be at the surface.



In objective reality the center of all stars
represents zero gravity.

Can a sphere of pressure formed density always exist at zero gravity?

*http://translate.google.com/#
*Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -