Re: Re: Re: A partial black hole?

: Mike Huskey <mikehsk@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
: Then what is it if it isn't a neutron star, and it isn't a black hole?

I already said.  It isn't anything: no such object can exist.  It could
be a stage in in a dynamic process of collapse just short of the event
horizon, but then to call it a "star" is a bit odd, and by then it
probably wouldn't be composed of neutrons (depending on size); probably
some sort of quark-gluon soup we don't have a standard name for.

:: 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. 

Oh well.  So it goes.

: [an event horizon is]
: just an immaterial boundary zone.  Yes, conditions are extreme,
: but I still don't see where the laws of physics suddenly go berserk. 

Conditions are extreme in the sense that no static object can exist
inside the event horizon, while such things can in principle exist
outside.  If you think that's not an im****tant distinction, and there's
no difference between an object that's not collapsing on itself, and
one that is, then OK.  If that's not a difference worth mentioning,
then they aren't different.  Much like, if it's not worth distingui****ng
whether a house is on fire or not, then there's nothing remarkable about
the neighbor's house being on fire.  This attitude may be an advantage
for living in southern california.  Or... maybe the reverse.


Wayne Throop   throopw@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
   http://sheol.org/throopw