Re: more careless assertions
Posted by Pasti on Mar 24, 2002 at 16:40
(64.10.121.245)Re: more careless assertions (Paul)
<<"Paul: "...without the density of the mass of a <
<Paul,you can even sit on the above, because it doesn't make any difference.You are wrong.It is not the density that causes a black-hole,it is the mass and the spacetime structure/geometry.
Take newtonian gravitation for example:1kg of lead produces the same gravitational field as 1 kg of water(and water and lead have different densities),so from the viewpoint of an object/observer that feels this gravitational field, it is produced by a mass of 1 kg, irrespective of the type of substance involved.
Same argument can be made in GR too.<<1) if matter did not condense into other matter <
< < The incresase in density is a by-product of the collapse, and not the cause.Try to understand this.And what prebvents the light from escaping is the event horizon, not only the mass per se.Light might escape the collapsing mass, but it will never get out of the event horizon,it will never get to an observer outside the event horizon.And this happens never mind the density of the collapsing mass after it had entered the corresponding event horizon.
It is not a matter of the density of the black hole,but a matter of the causal structure of the spacetime.
<<"Your point #2 is incorrect. Gravity responds << < < Cougar is correct.And it seems that you are the one who dosen't understand all the implications of the word "dense", if you know what I mean. The mass inside the black-hole is dense, denser than the regular matter if you calculate the density at the horizon,but the density at the horizon is everything you can say about its density(since you can get no info after the mass has shrunk below the event horizon)but the density has nothing to do with the existence of the black hole itself. As I said before, it is just a byproduct of the black-hole formation, if you consider a collapsing mechanism of formation.
Follow Ups:
- Re: more careless assertions Paul 24/3 22:07 (21)
- Re: more careless assertions Pasti 25/3 02:22 (20)
- Re: more careless assertions Paul 25/3 11:54 (19)
- Re: more careless assertions Pasti 25/3 15:26 (17)
- Re: more careless assertions Paul 26/3 09:36 (14)
- Re: more careless assertions Pasti 27/3 02:08 (12)
- Re: more careless assertions Paul 27/3 09:25 (11)
- Re: more careless assertions Pasti 27/3 10:51 (10)
- Re: more careless assertions DA Morgan 27/3 11:13 (9)
- Re: more careless assertions Amaranth Rose 27/3 23:01 (8)
- Re: more careless assertions Paul 29/3 12:49 (5)
- Re: more careless assertions Amaranth Rose 29/3 16:07 (4)
- Re: more careless assertions Paul 29/3 17:43 (3)
- Re: more careless assertions Amaranth Rose 30/3 01:10 (2)
- Re: more careless assertions Paul 30/3 10:28 (1)
- Re: more careless assertions Amaranth Rose 30/3 15:41 (0)
- Re: more careless assertions DA Morgan 28/3 11:52 (1)
- Re: more careless assertions Amaranth Rose 28/3 20:54 (0)
- Re: more careless assertions Paul 26/3 10:02 (0)
- Re: more careless assertions Amaranth Rose 25/3 20:23 (1)
- Re: more careless assertions Paul 26/3 10:12 (0)
- Re: more careless assertions"correction" Paul 25/3 12:08 (0)
- Re: more careless assertions Paul 24/3 21:36 (10)
- Re: more careless assertions Pasti 25/3 03:24 (9)
- Re: more careless assertions Paul 25/3 12:31 (8)
- Re: more careless assertions Pasti 25/3 16:02 (0)
- Re: MORE careless assertions cougar 25/3 13:13 (6)
- Re: MORE careless assertions Paul 26/3 08:56 (5)
- Re: MORE careless assertions Pasti 27/3 02:35 (2)
- Re: MORE careless assertions Paul 27/3 08:59 (1)
- Re: MORE careless assertions Pasti 27/3 11:34 (0)
- Re: MORE careless assertions cougar 26/3 17:15 (1)
- Re: MORE careless assertions Paul 26/3 19:58 (0)