[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwTasaop2-g[/yt]
A Solar Black Hole
- Thread starter Dryson
- Start date
Your original post:
Nothing to do with the time it takes photons to get to a star's surface from its centre, and certainly nothing to do with Neutron Stars. Consider those goalposts immovable.
Dryson, this is not a situation where, if you say the same thing over and over and over again enough times, eventually makes it true. Basic high school-level astronomy combined with the several links that people have provided prove that you are quite simply incorrect.
What is it with you, man? Seriously!
Sometimes I feel like your posts prove the existence of a multiverse because your posts clearly don't originate from the same universe as ours.
Here is another case of a star exhibiting Black Hole like characteristics.
Magnetars
http://m.space.com/30263-paul-sutter-on-why-magnetars-are-scary.html
Magnetars
http://m.space.com/30263-paul-sutter-on-why-magnetars-are-scary.html
We did colonize the moon, but it wasn't a sustainable colony and so the effort was abandoned after a short time. This of course nullifies your Theory of Degenerate Orbits.
---------------
Dryson,
What is the escape velocity from UY Scuti?
Anyway, here is a link that addresses your question head on and explains precisely why UY Scuti is not a black hold. Spoiler: it is not about semantics!
https://www.quora.com/Star-UY-Scuti...black-hole-how-come-light-can-escape-the-star
Dryson, do you understand what a Schwarzschild radius is and why it is important here?
What is the escape velocity from UY Scuti?
Anyway, here is a link that addresses your question head on and explains precisely why UY Scuti is not a black hold. Spoiler: it is not about semantics!
https://www.quora.com/Star-UY-Scuti...black-hole-how-come-light-can-escape-the-star
Dryson, do you understand what a Schwarzschild radius is and why it is important here?
Schwarzschild radius? Something to do with Stormin' Norman's belt size, right?
I would be more impressed had Dryson tried to equate the visible Universe with a black hole. Still incorrect, but more worthy of consideration.
http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/04/28/the-universe-is-not-a-black-hole/
http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/04/28/the-universe-is-not-a-black-hole/
I really, really, don't get why this is so hard for him to grasp. Black holes are called that for a reason. They're BLACK! Pure black. The blackest things in the universe. The black color on your car, or monitor, or whatever? Not truly black since you can see it! It is reflecting *some* light.
Black holes consume light and it never, ever, escapes. We don't look at black holes we look for the effects of one to know it is there and make conclusions from that.
If a star is called something like a "Red Giant" it can't be a black hole since, you know, it's RED!
Objects consuming things because of strong gravity has nothing to do with being a black hole. Hell, *everything* pulls things in and consumes them because of gravity. Larger, more massive, objects are just much, much better at doing it since they have a greater pull. But if they're not pulling in *light* (which is also affected by gravity) to the point of it being unable to escape then they're not black holes.
Argument *could* be made that "black holes are stars" but only in the thinnest, barest, most hand-waving-iest ways of arguing it. Black holes are collapsed stars and there is something of mass "inside" of them providing the singularity but that's about as far as we can make the argument. Things like "white dwarfs" are "technically" stars since that's where their life began but they're not doing anything "star like." A star, pretty much by definition, is fusing elements together in order to create denser elements and then spitting out all of the heat and radiation left over, which we can feel and observe.
A white dwarf is literally a very, very hot rock in space. It's emitting light because it's so hot but it's not a star since it's not doing anything. It's a glowing piece of charcoal on the bottom of your grill. It's just white-hot and will glow for millions of years until it exhausts its thermal radiation. Black dwarfs -none are thought to exist yet as the universe isn't old enough- are that coal once it has cooled and is just sitting there. All thermal radiation gone. It's not a star, it's a lump of rock. It was *once* a star but it's not anymore.
Same with black holes. They were *once* stars but they're no longer fusing elements together to create more complex elements, they've gone as far as they possibly can go with that and now it's just a very, very, dense ball of lead that's collapse the space-time around it and is so dense and has so much mass it can drastically impact light's trajectory into it and never let it go.
If light can escape. It's not a black hole. We can see it.
Black holes consume light and it never, ever, escapes. We don't look at black holes we look for the effects of one to know it is there and make conclusions from that.
If a star is called something like a "Red Giant" it can't be a black hole since, you know, it's RED!
Objects consuming things because of strong gravity has nothing to do with being a black hole. Hell, *everything* pulls things in and consumes them because of gravity. Larger, more massive, objects are just much, much better at doing it since they have a greater pull. But if they're not pulling in *light* (which is also affected by gravity) to the point of it being unable to escape then they're not black holes.
Argument *could* be made that "black holes are stars" but only in the thinnest, barest, most hand-waving-iest ways of arguing it. Black holes are collapsed stars and there is something of mass "inside" of them providing the singularity but that's about as far as we can make the argument. Things like "white dwarfs" are "technically" stars since that's where their life began but they're not doing anything "star like." A star, pretty much by definition, is fusing elements together in order to create denser elements and then spitting out all of the heat and radiation left over, which we can feel and observe.
A white dwarf is literally a very, very hot rock in space. It's emitting light because it's so hot but it's not a star since it's not doing anything. It's a glowing piece of charcoal on the bottom of your grill. It's just white-hot and will glow for millions of years until it exhausts its thermal radiation. Black dwarfs -none are thought to exist yet as the universe isn't old enough- are that coal once it has cooled and is just sitting there. All thermal radiation gone. It's not a star, it's a lump of rock. It was *once* a star but it's not anymore.
Same with black holes. They were *once* stars but they're no longer fusing elements together to create more complex elements, they've gone as far as they possibly can go with that and now it's just a very, very, dense ball of lead that's collapse the space-time around it and is so dense and has so much mass it can drastically impact light's trajectory into it and never let it go.
If light can escape. It's not a black hole. We can see it.
[Spinal Tap] NONE MORE BLACK! [/Spinal Tap]
The singularity isn't black, just the event horizon around it due to it removing light from it. Mostly why 'black hole' hasn't been a proper term for some years now.
But most of them do emit low level radiation that has significant redshift so most of them would be a murky brown from an external viewpoint or if not surronded by ecretion matter, invisible really.
But most of them do emit low level radiation that has significant redshift so most of them would be a murky brown from an external viewpoint or if not surronded by ecretion matter, invisible really.
Oh, NOW we're bringing science back into this?! That's just bloody fantastic!
Last edited:
My clothes stick to me. I must be a black hole.
You have a singular wit.
That's true. Not a single joke can escape.
My Snozberry horizon has a rather large radius.
Similar threads
- Poll
