Black holes and such

Bill Stoddard
Fri, 10 Aug 2001 16:53:04 -0400

Hey, your s'posed be working on Apache 2.0 :-)


> [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/