n-stars.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Ken S. Tucker on 16 Jun 2010 03:19 On Jun 15, 1:43 pm, Oh No <N...(a)charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote: > Thus spake brad <lbjohnson1...(a)yahoo.com> > > >On Jun 12, 4:17 am, Oh No <N...(a)charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote: > > >> The gedanken only shows that you cannot consider a shell of zero > >> thickness, because such a shell would itself be singular. I have posted > >> this description on s.p.r. > > >Hawking says you can remove the singularity at the shell with a simple > >transformation. > > I think he is probably talking of removing the singularity at the event > horizon of a black hole. There is no argument about that. However, a > transformation is just a manipulation in formulae. The question has to > do with whether it is physically meaningful to do discuss doing so. 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. A question arises as to the pressure at the center of a n-star but good estimates are achievable. We have a running assumption that a neutron has 'infinite' strength, or IOW's can not be deformed by pressure or crushing. I questioned that 'infinity' assumption. I should mention ordinary respect for Baryon conservation. It's a bit complicated, but I find that neutrons under sufficient pressure will become relatively anti-particles and then annihilate each other. (given sufficient pressure, the spins become relatively anti-spin). That process eventually decays to gamma rays, by the mixture of a neutron and anti neutron. We occasionally observe Gamma Ray Bursts, (GRB's) that so far have ambiguous theoretical context, however infall into n-stars is a possibility. Two things occur 1) Baryon conservation is abrogated under extreme pressure. hence, 2) BH's cannot form, because of insufficient density. Regards Ken S. Tucker
From: Ken S. Tucker on 16 Jun 2010 14:02 On Jun 16, 7:03 am, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...(a)vianet.on.ca> wrote: > On Jun 15, 1:43 pm, Oh No <N...(a)charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote: > > >Hawking says you can remove the singularity at the shell with a simple > > >transformation. > > > I think he is probably talking of removing the singularity at the event > > horizon of a black hole. There is no argument about that. However, a > > transformation is just a manipulation in formulae. The question has to > > do with whether it is physically meaningful to do discuss doing so. > > I approach the problem 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. > A question arises as to the pressure at the center of a n-star but > good estimates are achievable. > We have a running assumption that a neutron has 'infinite' strength, > or IOW's can not be deformed by pressure or crushing. > I questioned that 'infinity' assumption. > I should mention ordinary respect for Baryon conservation. > It's a bit complicated, but I find that neutrons under sufficient > pressure > will become relatively anti-particles and then annihilate each other. > (given sufficient pressure, the spins become relatively anti-spin). > That process eventually decays to gamma rays, by the mixture of > a neutron and anti neutron. > We occasionally observe Gamma Ray Bursts, (GRB's) that so far > have ambiguous theoretical context, however infall into n-stars is a > possibility. > Two things occur > 1) Baryon conservation is abrogated under extreme pressure. > hence, > 2) BH's cannot form, because of insufficient density. > Ken S. Tucker I've intermittently posted on GRB's, I'll explain the logic, about the annihilation of 2 Neutrons under Pressure. We have a Neutron diameter Nd, N radius Nr, and N area Na, and a Pressure P also N Mass is M. Force = Na x P. Hypothetically, the Energy required to cause 2 Neutrons to become antiparticles is E=2Mc^2, that is the quantity of energy that is to be liberated when a Neutron and anti Neutron annihilate. Usually the spins of Neutrons repel at close distances, however under sufficient pressure two Neutrons forced together will spin +/- 90 making the spin difference 180 at Nr, at which point they attract and convert to Leptons and so forth to gamma rays, as the Neutrons are forced to become relatively antiparticles. Energy = Force x distance, so that we have a prediction, E = 2Mc^2 = (Force = Na X P) x (distance = Nr). Regards Ken S. Tucker
From: xxein on 16 Jun 2010 19:34 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.
From: cavedweller on 17 Jun 2010 19:34 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".
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". ..... |