Starship Asterisk*

gordhaddow


You said "Actually, the radius of the event horizon for a given mass is smaller than the radius of a neutron star of equivalent mass. And a black hole is only giving up mass if we can grant that gravitons are not massless. Anything that we can detect being 'excreted' by a black hole was probably never within the black hole, but consists of degenerate matter from the 'atmosphere' surrounding the event horizon being ejected as a result of a combination of rotational and electromagnetic forces"

In my opinion you are completely wrong

The neutron star may give us more ideas of the ongoings of a blackhole since it is part of the stage of becoming a blackhole.

The Black Hole can be small or quite large as with M87 a few billion times that of our sun.

see links
Look at the links

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/apo ... lack+Holes+
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/apo ... tron+stars

harry wrote: The neutron star may give us more ideas of the ongoings of a blackhole since it is part of the stage of becoming a blackhole.

A neutron star is not a 'stage' on the way to a black hole; any mass with the initial properties which would result in a black hole cannot form a neutron star at any time because there are not sufficient counteracting forces to stabilize the gravitational collapse. Conversely, if the initial properties are appropriate for the formation of a neutron star, there can be no further collapse without the application of additional external force sufficient to overcome the inner stabilization.

Harry:

I can tell you are reading a lot and have made great progress, but I'm not sure if you are reading what you need to be reading. The fundamentals need to be well understood before valid judgments can be made on the speculative side of science. Snooping around web page after web page looking for any comment to validate your biased opinion is not good science. You've jumped into the fire and are learning to design you fire suit from with in the flames - you'll get burned every time.

I don't want to discourage you at all, I just think you should be asking a lot more questions than posting of opinions - its a much faster way to learn to differanciat good science from bad. I don't think you are ready to solve the great questions of the universe - yet.

P.S. Try not to support your chosen theory with the faith of a religion, if your base assumptions prove to be false, it will all crash back down on you.

Oooooooooouch.

Hello Bilderback

Never assume about what people have read and their back ground.

Focus on the issues and the discussions.

Whether I post opionions or questions who do you think is qualified to anwser.

My opinions are backed by others in the field, I cannot take credit for them, although if I express them that means in many cases I agree with them.

At this particular point in time, not many cosmologists know what is going on. Emotioanlly many are trapped in models that they have been brain washed.

I have been looking at these Models for the past 40 years and my opinions have not grown over night.

Never ever bring religion into discussion.

As for fundementals, what fundementals are you tallking about?

As for discouragement,,,,,,,I'm too old in the tooth for that.

As for the links that I post sometimes, there just to help others snoop a bit quicker.

Judge and others will judge you.

I for one think that some of your ideas are OK,,others are inside out based on info that has been outdated.

All of us need to grow with the new info that is flooding the science world.

Keep smiling

Guys & gals (If any)

Everyone reads a book or a link on a web site from his own reference frame (extending relativity). The reference frame is made up of one's own experiences and thinking style developed from childhood onwards. Lots of great theories are made from the thinker's own intution - the best example is Einstein, Newton. The same reading might even affect two different people differently. Interestingly, einstein used to think about running close to and at the same speed of a wave of light from very childhood, which he later turned into theory. The maths for the theory was developed later. Newton's developing of calculus is another example.

One has a freedom of choice untill a theory of the unknown aspect has been proven to be fact. There still you are free to doubt, if it makes you comfy - free will.

Sorry Harry,

I can't sit idle and watch bad science being propagated. The fundamentals I'm referring to is you misuse of terminology, stating speculation as fact, supporting one speculation with another, ignoring good science, and so on.

It has nothing to do with me agreeing or disagreeing with your theory, it is how you are/aren't supporting it. To insinuate that if others knew more and would read what you read they would agree with you is a false assumption.
I'm sure there are people out there tha could correct me on some of my assupmtion, the difference is I listen, learn and don't put all my eggs in one basket.

smile,,,,,,,

Hello Bilderback

I agree with you about the eggs.

As for good in depth science,,,,I don't think this is the zone for it.

You will burn most people from the discussions.

I have a personal email, if you want indepth knowledge, I'm more than pleased to help you.

I came across this link on starburst galaxies

http://chandra.harvard.edu/xray_sources/starburst.html

I hope its not a repeat