Neutron star and no black hole

See

http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2005/wd1/

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall...05/05-171.html

Maybe something like dark energy repulsion avoid the black hole creation?

Luigi Caselli

Luigi Caselli wrote:
See

http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2005/wd1/

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall...05/05-171.html

Maybe something like dark energy repulsion avoid the black hole creation?

Luigi Caselli


I think that all objects currently thought to be black holes will turn
out to be something similar to neutron stars.

Like all computers, the big simulator doesn't like working with
infinities!

Double-A

Double-A wrote:
Luigi Caselli wrote:
See

http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2005/wd1/

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall...05/05-171.html

Maybe something like dark energy repulsion avoid the black hole creation?

Luigi Caselli


I think that all objects currently thought to be black holes will turn
out to be something similar to neutron stars.

Like all computers, the big simulator doesn't like working with
infinities!
Doesn't that prove to be a bit of a problem for just about everything
in phyics, then?

The entire subject is built around 'Deperately seeking THE perfect
convergence'.

RL
Double-A

"Double-A" ha scritto nel messaggio
oups.com...

Luigi Caselli wrote:
See

http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2005/wd1/

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall...05/05-171.html

Maybe something like dark energy repulsion avoid the black hole
creation?

Luigi Caselli


I think that all objects currently thought to be black holes will turn
out to be something similar to neutron stars.

I agree, maybe more massive than a neutron star but without a singularity,
so no wormholes to think about...

Like all computers, the big simulator doesn't like working with
infinities!

You're right, a black hole can drive the Big Computer into a stack
overflow...

Luigi Caselli

"Ra?ï?g L???i?" ha scritto nel messaggio
ups.com...
Double-A wrote:
Luigi Caselli wrote:
See

http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2005/wd1/


http://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall...05/05-171.html

Maybe something like dark energy repulsion avoid the black hole
creation?

Luigi Caselli


I think that all objects currently thought to be black holes will turn
out to be something similar to neutron stars.

Like all computers, the big simulator doesn't like working with
infinities!
Doesn't that prove to be a bit of a problem for just about everything
in phyics, then?

The entire subject is built around 'Deperately seeking THE perfect
convergence'.

Only black holes can destroy the space structure, other infinities in
physics are not so problematic...
In a black hole you must have different mathematics, physics and so on.
Really to weird for the Big Computer...
IMHO there must be some effect (I'm thinking about something lik dark energy
repulsion at small scale) avoiding infinite collapsing even for a
supermassive star.

Luigi Caselli

Luigi Caselli wrote:
"Double-A" ha scritto nel messaggio
oups.com...

Luigi Caselli wrote:
See

http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2005/wd1/

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall...05/05-171.html

Maybe something like dark energy repulsion avoid the black hole
creation?

Luigi Caselli


I think that all objects currently thought to be black holes will turn
out to be something similar to neutron stars.

I agree, maybe more massive than a neutron star but without a singularity,
so no wormholes to think about...

Like all computers, the big simulator doesn't like working with
infinities!

You're right, a black hole can drive the Big Computer into a stack
overflow...
....Not just that!
Use an inappropriate discrete difference equation for doing the
integration and it may not converge as expected.

RL
Luigi Caselli

Luigi Caselli wrote:
"Ra?ï?g L???i?" ha scritto nel messaggio
ups.com...
Double-A wrote:
Luigi Caselli wrote:
See

http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2005/wd1/


http://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall...05/05-171.html

Maybe something like dark energy repulsion avoid the black hole
creation?

Luigi Caselli


I think that all objects currently thought to be black holes will turn
out to be something similar to neutron stars.

Like all computers, the big simulator doesn't like working with
infinities!
Doesn't that prove to be a bit of a problem for just about everything
in phyics, then?

The entire subject is built around 'Deperately seeking THE perfect
convergence'.

Only black holes can destroy the space structure, other infinities in
physics are not so problematic...
In a black hole you must have different mathematics, physics and so on.
Really to weird for the Big Computer...
IMHO there must be some effect (I'm thinking about something lik dark energy
repulsion at small scale) avoiding infinite collapsing even for a
supermassive star.

Luigi Caselli


Yes, dark energy could play a role.

Note this ressponse by astrophysicist Steve Carlip to my question a
while back:

"Double-A wrote:
I was wondering if it could be said to always be the case that once
the event horizons of two black holes join in any way, even to form a
neck, that the two black holes can never again be separated? That
from that moment on, merger is inevitable?

Yes, at least within standard general relativity (and provided that
there's no negative energy around to mess things up). This is a
consequence of work by Hawking on the general behavior of black
holes. If you want an exact technical reference, see Theorem 12.2.1
in Wald's textbook, _General Relativity_.

Steve Carlip"

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...329e5e8?hl=en&

Notice that he is mindful of the effect of dark energy on black hole
objects.

There you go, Luigi! Great minds think alike!

Double-A

Hi Luigi Reality is there are more neutron stars than BH Good guess
would be three times as many. Fact is fast rotation could mean a neutron
star over a BH. that fits well with my "Spin is in theory" After all we
know motion and gravity are equivalent. bert

Hi Luigi,and Double-A Why can't we think along with infinites? Why
must there be an end? Hydrogen atoms last trillion trillion trillion
trillion etc of years. What does a computer say about that? Where does
spacetime end? We read this in every book. It is stated in GR that the
universe began in a state of 'infinite" matter density,energy and
temperature. We have a dilemma in the quantum field
theory,for it predicts that certain quantities such as mass and charge
of the electron were "infinite" Hmmmm So along came Feynman and two
other guys,and they subtract out the "infinites" This is called
"renormalization" (I call it fudging) Feynman got his Nobel out of
this. However he claimed he did "hocus-pocus" math To be funny he
use to claim he got the Nobel for "sweeping some infinites under the
rug" Go figure Best to tell me where an EM wave comes
to an end?? If you can I'll believe only finite is in. Bert.
..

Luigi Caselli wrote:
"Ra?ï?g L???i?" ha scritto nel messaggio
ups.com...
Double-A wrote:
Luigi Caselli wrote:
See

http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2005/wd1/


http://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall...05/05-171.html

Maybe something like dark energy repulsion avoid the black hole
creation?

Luigi Caselli


I think that all objects currently thought to be black holes will turn
out to be something similar to neutron stars.

Like all computers, the big simulator doesn't like working with
infinities!
Doesn't that prove to be a bit of a problem for just about everything
in phyics, then?

The entire subject is built around 'Deperately seeking THE perfect
convergence'.

Only black holes can destroy the space structure, other infinities in
physics are not so problematic...
Oh? ... No reason to worry about Unified field theories or Universal
constants, then ...
Might as well chuck out Conservation laws while you are at it, too.
In a black hole you must have different mathematics, physics and so on.
Really to weird for the Big Computer...
IMHO there must be some effect (I'm thinking about something lik dark energy
repulsion at small scale) avoiding infinite collapsing even for a
supermassive star.

Luigi Caselli