n-stars.
in [Relativity]
|
From: cavedweller on 17 Jun 2010 19:37 On Jun 17, 7:34 pm, cavedweller <jawnwil...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 16, 7:34 pm, xxein <xx...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 16, 3:19 am, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...(a)vianet.on.ca> wrote: > > > > I approach the differently than most theoreticians. > > > (Apart from a purely geometric approach). > > > In place of BH's I think about high density objects such as neutron > > > stars, then increment their mass with infall, from there, integrate to > > > see what results. > > > > Regards > > > Ken S. Tucker > > > xxein: But Ken. Sooner or later you will come to realize that a BH > > is just a more dense object than what is called a n-star. The > > strength of it's gravity will form this infinitely thin shell (called > > the event horizon or Schwartschild radius) if the mass lies entirely > > inside of it. > > > You understand how a n-star can form. What happens when more incident > > mass is added in due to it's gravity? The event horizon just becomes > > a point of no return as the increased gravitational mass causes the > > effect of the gravity to block any outward light. > > > This is when a mass achieves more density than it's 2M radius. 'M' is > > a mass expressed in meters of light. You get this by dividing the > > gravitational constant (G) by c^2 and multiplying it by the mass in > > kg. > > > I can't say how an n-star will accomodate the infall but increment > > your n-star density as if it's volume stays almost the same (although > > it would probably decrease). > > > Hope this helps. > > You share some of Ken's traits.....neither of you know the difference > between "its" and "it's". .....or should it be "knows"?
From: John Park on 18 Jun 2010 11:14 cavedweller (jawnwillie(a)hotmail.com) writes: > On Jun 17, 7:34=A0pm, cavedweller <jawnwil...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> On Jun 16, 7:34=A0pm, xxein <xx...(a)comcast.net> wrote: >> >> >> >> > On Jun 16, 3:19=A0am, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...(a)vianet.on.ca> wrote: >>[...] >> >> You share some of Ken's traits.....neither of you know the difference >> between "its" and "it's". > > ....or should it be "knows"? Yes. " . . . neither (one) of you knows . . . " --John Park
From: xxein on 18 Jun 2010 19:14
On Jun 17, 7:34 pm, cavedweller <jawnwil...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 16, 7:34 pm,xxein<xx...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 16, 3:19 am, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...(a)vianet.on.ca> wrote: > > > > I approach the differently than most theoreticians. > > > (Apart from a purely geometric approach). > > > In place of BH's I think about high density objects such as neutron > > > stars, then increment their mass with infall, from there, integrate to > > > see what results. > > > > Regards > > > Ken S. Tucker > > >xxein: But Ken. Sooner or later you will come to realize that a BH > > is just a more dense object than what is called a n-star. The > > strength of it's gravity will form this infinitely thin shell (called > > the event horizon or Schwartschild radius) if the mass lies entirely > > inside of it. > > > You understand how a n-star can form. What happens when more incident > > mass is added in due to it's gravity? The event horizon just becomes > > a point of no return as the increased gravitational mass causes the > > effect of the gravity to block any outward light. > > > This is when a mass achieves more density than it's 2M radius. 'M' is > > a mass expressed in meters of light. You get this by dividing the > > gravitational constant (G) by c^2 and multiplying it by the mass in > > kg. > > > I can't say how an n-star will accomodate the infall but increment > > your n-star density as if it's volume stays almost the same (although > > it would probably decrease). > > > Hope this helps. > > You share some of Ken's traits.....neither of you know the difference > between "its" and "it's".- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - xxein: What does your nitpicking of spelling have to do with anything on SPR? This is fisix, not spelen. Why don yu atak the greeks or germins or italiens for there lak of spellen? |