Re: Re: Re: A partial black hole?

On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 00:55:49 GMT, throopw@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (Wayne Throop) wrote:

>: Mike Huskey <mikehsk@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>: Let see. Neutron star with escape velocity of .999999999999999999999999
C.
>
>No such thing.  It'd have collapsed long since, since even neutrons
couldn't
>sup****t the forces.  But let's say that there was.

Then what is it if it isn't a neutron star, and it isn't a black hole?
It is very very dense, but can theoretically be observed.

>
>: Compare with a very slightly more massive neutron star with escape
>: velocity of 1.00000000000000000000001 C. 
>: I don't see any difference other than light/radiation can escape from
>: the first, but not the second. 
>
>The difference is, even if you allow the first one, the second one
>*cannot* sup****t the forces cru****ng it, for the same reason that
>objects can't resist going into the future.  And would thus increase
>in density without limit; there wouldn't be a stable object inside
>the event horizon.
>
>The point being, an event horizon isn't simply where forces get very
>very large.  It's where spacetime is distorted so much that futurewards
>points inwards to the center.

I still don't get it. Escape velocity above the horizon is less than C.
At the horizon is C, and below is greater than C. So nothing gets out.
Its just an immaterial boundary zone. Yes, conditions are extreme, but I
still
don't see where the laws of physics suddenly go berserk.

---
The Bill of Rights - Void where prohibited by Law.