JEROME - Black holes do not exist

Not exactly the Eddington limit only relates mass to the maximum luminosity possible for that mass. It does not, itself, require a specific type of power source for that luminosity but just contrasts the outward radiant energy against the inward gravitational energy on the star.

The fact that stable main sequence stars (like our Sun) are in a general state of Hydrostatic equilibrium, outward pressure balanced by inward pressure, indicates the most probable source for the energy of that outward pressure is directly related to the mass of the star. Internal fusion fits those requirements and the observation. But don’t let that stop you, propose any power source that you like and the Eddington limit would still apply (within its constraints), unless of course you are proposing an external power source that would require incoming energetic particles to supply that power and thus increases inward pressure, then you would need a greater output to balance that incoming pressure plus gravity, which would require more energetic, or more, incoming particles to supply that power, increasing the inward pressure, requiring greater output, more inward pressure, requiring greater output, more inward pressure, requiring greater output, more inward pressure……..

Wollery said that as mass increases, the rate of fusion scales with it and that at a certain point the star explodes. Jerome had a problem with that so I posted the site about the Eddington Limit. The site had information on the maximum mass of a star.

I was answering a different question.
 
Is there a formula you used to know that?

How is such a formula figured out? Has it ever been tested? Or is this hypothetical?
I posted that formula earlier on this thread, and has for tested, there are blacks holes.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
Now you are saying that gravity "powers" stars?
:confused:
[Sarcasm] Yes Jerome. That is exactly what he's saying. Why obviously that is the only way to read his post. Thank you for pointing out the obvious to our pathetically small brains. I'm going to wash down all that information you've given us with a great big glass of bleach.[/sarcasm]
 
Indirectly yes. I won't bother explaining it though. If I did, you would just disappear for a few days, come back, and pretend like it never happened. (See above.)

Sorry, my hands are tied by your opacity.

Gravity causes nuclear reactions?

The Woo is getting thick in here.
 
Gravity causes nuclear reactions?

The Woo is getting thick in here.

NASA is woo?

The collapsing material becomes warmer, and its pressure increases. But the pressure tends to counteract the gravitational force that is responsible for the collapse. Eventually, therefore, the collapse slows to a gradual contraction. The inner parts of the clump form a protostar, a ball-shaped object that is no longer a cloud, but is not yet a star. Surrounding the protostar is an irregular sphere of gas and dust that had been the outer parts of the clump.

When the temperature and pressure in the protostar's core become high enough, nuclear fusion begins. Nuclear fusion is a joining of two atomic nuclei to produce a larger nucleus.
 
12 Paulhoff 6:1

In the beginning so-called god saw that all that it made was not good (sometimes being perfect is being not perfect), and that some of its makings needed to be pruned, so in its so-called all-knowing wisdom it created gravity and cliffs and hands and it also gave some of its creatures the brains to throw the ones that needed to be pruned off the cliff.

13 Paulhoff 6:2

JEROME goes off the cliff, in a holy way…………

Paul

:) :) :)
 
I watched Carl Sagan's cosmos episode on the lives of stars recently... It had black holes, nebulas, stars forming, stars dying. Gravity was present. It was very cool. I sure do miss Carl...hope he's not spinning.

glenn
 

Back
Top Bottom