Expert: Tom Whiting - 9/19/2010

Question
QUESTION: I was wondering if you could answer this question regarding the formation of a Near Black Hole, without event horizon.  Imagine the formation of a hot, overmassed, degenerating Neutron Star, where the neutron forces fail to produce a supporting material, and only thermal kinetic energy holds the star up.  By Newton's Shells, the surface has maximum redshifting gravity acceleration, and by the exact core, there is only hot degenerate neutron star matter at zero gravity, being at the center.  The only way nebulae form stars, is by gravity compressing, and surface cooling, supported by thermal kinetic energy from gravity and chaos.  After fusion thermal neutral equilibrium support runs out, a star shrinks by gravity collapsing, and surface / interior cooling, to the 4[K] cosmic background, under gravity and chaos.  Same for White Dwarf Pauli Degeneracy Matter Support.  Same for Neutron Star Neutron Degeneracy Matter Support.  At each phase, thermal kinetic energy, provides material support, that declines, as the mass cools to space.  Now the Hot Overmassed Degenerate Neutron Star, cools to space, with reduced efficiency, say, producing a 60% redshift to all light, initially.  As millions to billions of years pass, it cools, but as it cools, it redshifts light speed light increasingly, producing an apparent surface temperature that asymptotically declines, approaching the 4[K] cosmological constant temperature background, preventing further cooling, in neutral thermal blackbody equilibrium.  How does a Black Hole with Singularity form, in such an asymptotic approach, or is this a Quantum Mechanically Indistinguishable Model, from a True Black Hole?  Especially considering that it allways has a hot zero gravity core, in this Newton's Shells Neutral Equilibrium.
=
Additionally, I can add, that if a Black Hole is not merely a Theoretical Object, and singularities Do Form, then it also implicitly represents the exact quantum level where all the forces of nature become unified to null effect, excepting gravity, reducing all the forces of nature to zero, simultaneously, allowing the remaining force of gravity to perform what otherwise prima fascia appears to be virtually infinite work compressing the hot declining-to-zero gravity degenerating neutron star core of an otherwise eternal steady state equilibrium of redshifted apparent surface temperature at 4[K] with a hot zero gravity core, compressing skin to center like a collapsing pagoda, with what is actually zero force, meaning that energy is Actually Conserved at This Unification to Nullification, because the "gas" particle thermal kinetic energy becomes zeroed, along with strong, weak, and electromagnetic forces, except the remaining symmetry of gravity. But I have never heard this taught, that this 4[K] background equilibrium cosmological constant, that changes with time as the cosmos expands and cools, And the functionally related total mass and temperature relative to the surface sphere redshifted to produce 4[K] of any hot degenerating neutron star model, represents this nullifying unification of all forces equal to zero effect, except gravity, to permit a singularity formation without new energy. Anything less than zero effect, still implies the creation of virtually infinite energy from not any thing, to make the singularity, inside of a closed system sphere, from the perspective of This Universe at 4[K] (at this point in time). It also implies, that relativistic gravity will show a marginal affect of this nullifying unification of all other forces, except gravity, as this "zeroing" is asymptotically approached. But, again, I've really never read this before, from Einstein Field Equations of General Relativity, put anything like this. All because Gas Laws are all ways gas laws, and Newton's Shells all ways leaves a declining to zero gravity hot core, despite the increasing redshift of the surface of the star, hampering its natural cooling to the 4[K] cosmic background, asymptotically.
=
Nice Dob, by the way.  Met Mr. Dobsonian back about 2000, at RTMC.  I bet you can see color in Orion Nebula with that one!  I suggest trying for Venus and Mars in the daytime, on a high thin air mountain top, though spotting them is hard without a long tracking wedge base, on an Alt-Azimuth Dob, from dawn, or digital reckoning.

ANSWER: From bottom to top... yes, I see slight color tinges in M-42 thru the 30 inch.  One can see Venus with the naked-eye in the daytime under a cobalt blue sky, so no need for a scope.  I don't get into the planets because they are night blinding so I don't want to wait the 30 minutes to get your full night adaptation back again.  The 30 inch at f4.5 is strictly a deep sky telescope.  I have no wedge, no clock drive, no digital reckoning... I am strictly manual; I am my own goto and my own
arm-powered drive... I am not a lazy person. I am strictly eyeball to the eyepiece with no photography.  (Who can beat the Hubble anyway?)
With a 30, you try (and get) things like Stephan's Quintet, Einstein's Cross, NGC 100 in Pisces, and all those Abell galaxy clusters out there. We hate the moon and bright planets... they are nothing but big light polluters.  

I have never heard of a "Near black hole" or even if such an animal exists;  and real black holes don't form by subsequent cooling of the remaining neutron star. (At least I don't think we've ever seen that happen, as yet).  The core of a supernova either has the power to over-ride neutron pressure at the time of the implosion or it doesn't, forming either a neutron star or a black hole. The amount of redshift of the remaining emitted light has nothing to do with the cooling process. Besides, the cooling mass would actually decrease, not increase, (due to expulsion of radiation - including gravity waves)... unless the neutron star was in a close binary system, accreting additional mass from it's close double star partner.
The cosmic background temperature is not 4 K, it's 2.73 K... sometimes rounded off to 3 K.

Your first two paragraphs are too long, involved, convoluted, and border on what we call metaphysics.  Science simplifies and reduces things, not makes them more and more and more convoluted and confusing, which your statement after statement after statement after statement, does, each building on more and more subsequent premises.  This is considered metaphysics at it's best.
SO, you'd actually have to observe and locate and show us an actual example in space of what you are proposing.
As Carl Sagan once stated; extraordinary statements require extraordinary proofs.

Just like Einstein when he said, "Newton, your concept of gravity is wrong... gravity is not a force, it's a curvature of space simply due to a presence of mass... and here's THE proof -  photograph the sun during the 1919 total solar eclipse and the stars will be displaced outward from the sun's limb, a departure from their true position... Newton's gravity can't do or predict that, mine can". (Note, about 60 words, not one or 2000 words as your's above does).   They did, and the rest is history. Just like Einstein, you need to provide a REAL example, and give a solid demonstrated proof of all the statements above, otherwise the entire premises above... can be disregarded.

Real science is... that simple. It simplifies things... (not complicated statement after statement after statement.) Give us a demonstratable and verifiable proof and example, like Einstein did;  not convoluted statement after statement after statement.  Where even, is your... example of a near black hole?  Not statements, give us one real example, in the real sky and a solid verifiable proof like Einstein did for gravity.  That's all it takes, science is like that... real simple and basic.  Metaphysics complicates things... real
science simplifies things... that's why science is correct, and metaphysics is incorrect most of the time.
Good Luck,
Tom Whiting
Erie, PA USA


---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: You fail to detect a Gedanken.  Have you considered Exotic_star on Wikipedia?  Or consider a very dense Quark_star on Wikipedia proposed.  All potentially built from binary or multiple neutron star coalescing, under special conditions, that make their observation rare.  And as for observeables, you lie, because Dark_matter on Wikipedia shows a severe lack of accounting for physics based on what is measured.  Additionally, many of your statements are lies.  Did you ever consider how neutrino emissions are used to cool White Dwarfs and Neutron Stars, in their initial supernova formation, as in Wikipedia Neutrino#Supernova_neutrinos?  And if you can't read long paragraphs, then you should be Humble.  Christians could disregard all that you say because they might say the cosmos is only 6000 years old, and so you have not any leg to stand on.  And to quote Newtonian Gravity in even Flat Space, the acceleration deflection of starlight at the limb of the sun, being pulled like Gallileio's Cannonball, or Pebble, or Feather in a vacuum, happens to be ... guess what ... 1.7[arcsec], just what light in an elevator at the sun's rate of acceleration would produce, in Special Relativity.  Does that 1.7[arcsec] sound familiar, Mr. Not so Astronomer.  So why not try out the Gedanken, and consider how a overmassed Neutron-Quark-Star, falling into singularity, reaches a surface temperature matching the 4[K] cosmic background, and quit Ju disregarding essential issues, putting them at the botoom of the pile, for that kind of thinking would see Einstein put into Concentration Camps, for performing Gedanken, years before observation, or likewise looking for Heavy Higgs Boson, that may never be seen, either, in their Gedanken Predicitons based on theory extrapolation.  Got it?  Real science is NOT what you do, but what I do, among many other methods, for your finger pointing has some fingers pointing back at yourself.  And for your information, passing equations along inside of linear text is problematic, so a level of scientific literacy and Gedanken Capability is required, to not be as dysfunctional, as your response, akin to a NAZI glibly disregarding what can be possible, unlike Einstein Gedanken.  And if you can convey explicitly string theory or einstein field equations, so a child can understand in few words, with their accompanying Heisenberg Uncertainty in five words or less, then you are a Ju Manipulating Linguist, because data requires volume, like representing software can only be reduced so far, before it becomes unintelligible complex statement after statement in self modifying code.  Got it?!  What you do is metaphysics, manipulation, and pandering to special interest that disregards Gedanken.  Afraid to use words, because your in an american word recession-depression?  Americans will Parish in this attitude in their software, terse or long, as they collapse the tech market, housing market, world economy, with the world's best and brightest systems engieers and voter representation in america.  Got it?

Answer

FOLLOW UP:
Sorry, I don't speak German... I barely got thru English. So no, I was not familiar with that word.  But I did see how well those thought experiments worked in the past, especially with ultra-smart Aristotle... bodies of different weights fall at different speeds; The Earth is non-moving, in the center of the Universe, with everything revolving around the stationary Earth...he was right on, wasn't he?  Had us all fooled for over 2000 years with that last one. Until experimental science came along with Galileo and eventually Friedrich Bessell, to set the record straight.
tom