When a blackhole of the mass that is equivalent to
to the mass of 3 billion suns the diameter of the compact object is about 4000 miles with a density in the order of 2x10**16 gms. Off course one will not be able to see the object with even the most powerfull telescope. As people cannot see such a tiny object conjectures it to be a hole. Please some of you check on my math using radius of neutron as 0.83X10**-13 cm.

• We see what is "Not" there. - bettysfetish - May 29, 2004 - 20:38 UTC
  • We see whats not there, contd - jnansaha - May 30, 2004 - 15:47 UTC
• infinity leads to nothing - qazws - May 29, 2004 - 20:49 UTC
  • Just an Opinion. :) - bettysfetish - May 30, 2004 - 18:19 UTC
    • just a question - qazws - May 30, 2004 - 20:05 UTC
      • S.S.T. Reply. - bettysfetish - May 30, 2004 - 22:05 UTC
        • The meaning of nothing - qazws - May 31, 2004 - 09:35 UTC
          • Infinity is a mathematical being - wandaqueen - June 1, 2004 - 14:16 UTC
            • The concept of rules - qazws - June 1, 2004 - 19:55 UTC
              • The most fundamental rule of physics - yanniru - June 2, 2004 - 14:11 UTC
                • What?!! - qazws - June 2, 2004 - 16:00 UTC
                  • GR is limited to cases of spherical symmetry - yanniru - June 2, 2004 - 19:04 UTC
                    • The GR theory - qazws - June 3, 2004 - 13:45 UTC
                      • I agree with Richard - secretary - June 3, 2004 - 19:18 UTC
                        • The right question - qazws - June 3, 2004 - 20:42 UTC
                          • Because infinity cannot happen - secretary - June 4, 2004 - 01:22 UTC
                            • Congratulations - qazws - June 4, 2004 - 09:05 UTC
                              • All theories are incomplete - secretary - June 4, 2004 - 16:16 UTC
                                • Singularities can exist - qazws - June 4, 2004 - 19:08 UTC
                                  • The infinite part of GR has never been tested - secretary - June 5, 2004 - 01:44 UTC
                                    • WHY? - qazws - June 5, 2004 - 09:22 UTC
                                      • Several reasons why - secretary - June 5, 2004 - 12:41 UTC
                                        • My reply-the complete concept - qazws - June 5, 2004 - 18:11 UTC
                                          • You might read up on the work of Fred Hoyle - wandaqueen - June 5, 2004 - 19:52 UTC
                                            • A few questions - qazws - June 5, 2004 - 21:38 UTC
                                              • I never have heard of it - wandaqueen - June 6, 2004 - 01:30 UTC
                                                • I don't know - qazws - June 6, 2004 - 08:43 UTC
                                                  • Google search for singularity, nothing and rules - wandaqueen - June 6, 2004 - 11:36 UTC
                                                  • A quote from Kurtzweil's article - wandaqueen - June 6, 2004 - 11:39 UTC
                                                    • I'm still waiting... - qazws - June 6, 2004 - 16:47 UTC
          • A singularity or a nothing - any difference? - peterw - September 22, 2004 - 12:58 UTC
            • It does a lot - qazws - October 31, 2004 - 09:58 UTC
        • Actually SST has been struck down - wandaqueen - May 31, 2004 - 12:02 UTC
          • Un resolved. - bettysfetish - May 31, 2004 - 15:55 UTC
            • I knew Brian Greene - wandaqueen - June 1, 2004 - 00:43 UTC
              • Can someone explain me...? - qazws - June 1, 2004 - 09:27 UTC
                • I will try - wandaqueen - June 1, 2004 - 14:04 UTC
                  • The Big Question - qazws - June 1, 2004 - 20:10 UTC
                    • No such thing as infinity - wandaqueen - June 1, 2004 - 23:07 UTC
                      • A reply - qazws - June 2, 2004 - 09:47 UTC
                        • I can - yanniru - June 2, 2004 - 12:58 UTC
                          • Never say never - qazws - June 2, 2004 - 13:33 UTC
                            • Infinity cannot be observed - yanniru - June 2, 2004 - 14:13 UTC
                              • A naked singularity - qazws - June 2, 2004 - 16:31 UTC
                                • Here is obsrvable evidence that GR is incorrect - yanniru - June 2, 2004 - 19:15 UTC
                                  • That is observable evidence that you... - bruce - June 3, 2004 - 05:53 UTC
                                    • An acquaintance of mine says the samething - secretary - June 3, 2004 - 19:27 UTC
                                      • They don't have a clue... - bruce - June 4, 2004 - 14:25 UTC
                                        • Kerr may just be a non-symmetric solution - secretary - June 4, 2004 - 16:32 UTC
                                          • Nobody is interested in cahill's work for a good reason. - bruce - June 4, 2004 - 21:43 UTC
                                            • Put up or shut up - secretary - June 5, 2004 - 01:46 UTC
                                              • A little knowledge is a dangerous thing - wandaqueen - June 5, 2004 - 19:57 UTC
                                              • Stuff it... - bruce - June 6, 2004 - 01:23 UTC
                                                • Why are you not answering him - wandaqueen - June 6, 2004 - 01:33 UTC
                                                  • I did answer him... - bruce - June 6, 2004 - 09:01 UTC
                                  • Neither SST nor LQG is complete yet - qazws - June 3, 2004 - 14:02 UTC
                                    • GR is not complete - secretary - June 4, 2004 - 01:23 UTC
                                      • Does QM provides a mechanism to stop the collapse of matter? - qazws - June 4, 2004 - 09:17 UTC
                                        • Yes- It's in Brain Greene's book - wandaqueen - June 4, 2004 - 10:39 UTC
                                          • A full cicrcle - qazws - June 4, 2004 - 14:01 UTC
                                            • The GUT theory is extant - wandaqueen - June 4, 2004 - 16:08 UTC
                                              • Thank you very much - qazws - June 4, 2004 - 17:03 UTC
                                          • GR doesn't have a version of the.... - bruce - June 4, 2004 - 14:36 UTC
                                            • general relativistic effects on a quantum field. - secretary - June 5, 2004 - 01:50 UTC
                                      • Quantum mechanics isn't the.. - bruce - June 4, 2004 - 14:31 UTC
                                        • A theory is complete if it includes all domains - secretary - June 5, 2004 - 12:49 UTC
                                          • Puzzled about your use of the word complete. - wandaqueen - June 5, 2004 - 20:42 UTC