Posted on 01/19/2018 1:38:43 PM PST by Red Badger
Lots of wild claims represented as facts. Settled science or more mathemagic?
Let’s see them put their hypothesis to a falsifiable test.
I thought the existence of black holes was in doubt.
“It created ripples in the fabric of space-time”
Well, get out the old space-time iron and iron it down.
Maybe a little starch would help.
What is the mass limit of crappy countries before they become shitholes?
Okay. Apparently some people are trying to raise some doubt.
As a non-astrophystican, I just watch from the wings.
Still miss that old star field screensaver, though.
1 socialist/communist dictator................
There are some significant questions. One possibility is that a star core collapses to form a black hole so there is an event horizon, but the core is not compacted into zero size. Instead, the core collapses to Planck density (10^96 grams/cm^3) and then rebounds. However, time dilation is so severe near the collapsed core that to an outsider the rebound occurs very slowly. Indeed, the black hole looks stable. You can read about this in several articles on the net about Planck stars. You can also read about quark stars and strange stars that are intermediates between neutron stars and black holes. Some pretty mind blowing stuff there...
Figures don’t lie, but liars figure.
I doubt that they exist, so its settled.
2.16 Obamas.
“I doubt that they exist, so its settled.”
Oh, well, I didn’t realize.
CNN: Physics fat shames Neutron Stars into massive weight loss until they become a racist term.
These space articles give the reader quite a bit of license, dont you think?
This whole article is blatant white-privilege racism using the excuse of “...light not being able to be observed...” as a reason to call a hole in space-time a “black” hole.
In a sphere about 12 miles across. These are some of the most fascinating objects in the universe.
I wonder, if you could ever get close enough to even see one, before this happens:
It becomes something else. The neutrons are smooshed together in the collapse.
It's been known since the 1930s that it's totally dependent on mass, that's not something that was discovered last week. An older book I have that talks about the mathematical derivations (doesn't actually show the math but explains it) says that up to 1.4 solar masses, your star will become a white dwarf. (This is the Chandrasekhar Limit, named after an Indian astrophysicist who derived it it 1930.) From 1.4-3.3 solar masses, your star will become a neutron star. From 3.3 solar masses on, your star will become a black hole. Maybe the difference between the 3.3 and 2.16 solar masses is that 3.3 is for a normally shining star and the 2.16 is after it has exploded in a supernova and blown off some material.
Bottom line: conceptually, there's nothing new here except for a few numbers that are suspect. Must be a slow day at Popular Mechanics. The title Astronomers Find Mass Limit for Neutron Stars Before Collapsing Into Black Holes is a complete crock, this number was known back in the 1930s and was refined in the 1960s when calculating differential equations and integrals with computers became a lot better. These scientists may have tightened up some of the numbers using some new methods but they discovered something new? No, that's a total crock.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.