Black holes and such

Rodent of Unusual Size Ken.Coar@Golux.Com
Thu, 09 Aug 2001 23:22:38 -0400

[Re-sent because of the black hole of Xent downtime..]

If I have done the math correctly, the gravitational radius
for a mass of 4x10**26kg is about 0.62m.  So if you managed to
shoehorn that much mass into a cubic metre, it would collapse,
yes?  (Leave aside for the moment my suspicion that you would
have long previously passed the gravitation radius for a smaller
mass, and would hence be feeding a singularity already.. I
sense a Zeno factor here. ;-)

Now if it collapses, what becomes the significance of the
gravitational radius?  It is a property of mass, not volume,
so it should not change.  Does it define the event horizon?
That seems elegant, but I do not see that the collapse of a
mass and the escape velocity of that mass really have much to
do with each other.  Or is that part of the definition of
gravitational collapse?  (Hmm.  Is it possible for a macroscopic
mass [i.e., one too diffuse to fit within its own gravitational
radius] to be great enough to have that high an escape velocity?)

So if the mass has collapsed to the proverbial point, and the
R(g) has not changed.. what is the state of things in the space
between the centre point and the radius?  Or is that a meaningless
question, or at least one to which there is no answer in English?

Why would not the mass of a black hole within another body
contribute to that body's gravity?  Why do they remain two
discrete systems?  Or do they?

This is all in the literature, I am sure.. but where is the
literature? :-)
#ken    P-)}

Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini  http://Golux.Com/coar/
Apache Software Foundation
"Apache Server for Dummies"        http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Apache Server Unleashed"          http://ApacheUnleashed.Com/