Determining If An Object Is A Neutron Star Or A Black Hole

Discussion in 'General Science' started by Glenn Holland, Jan 19, 2015.

  1. Glenn Holland

    Thread Starter Member

    Dec 26, 2014
    I would like to know how astrophysicists can determine if an object is a neutron star or a black hole.

    Both of these objects have an intense gravitational field that can deflect light, but at enormous distances away from the object, how can they determine if light is actually being captured by the object -IE- a black hole?
  2. Kermit2

    AAC Fanatic!

    Feb 5, 2010
    Most neutron stars, if not all, would have been called pulsars in days past. We know the location of hundreds and hundreds of them. Black holes don't have such high visability. Other methods must be used.
  3. BR-549

    Well-Known Member

    Sep 22, 2013
    No one has observed a black hole yet. Black holes have not been confirmed. Because a theory is old is not proof. As a matter of time goes by......chances are that there are no black holes. We should have found one by now.

    We have never seen or detected an object that doesn't emit light. has not been proven that gravity bends light. Wanting it to be true is not enough.

    The lensing effect of a eclipse was proven to be plasma diffraction.......not from gravity.

    That's why it was so distorted. One can simulate gravity lensing on a computer. If we ever see the process, we will know it. There will be no mistake.

    Also....a black hole has no structure. It is a singularity. A point particle. Does such a thing exist?

    As a matter of fact...except for nearby stars........we don't know the distances to stars. We guess the best we can......but we have no reference.

    How old is it? We have not a clue. The age of the universe depends on decay rates of isotopes. These decay rates depend on the G being constant. Is G constant?

    If gravity really bent would bend it all the time. Then all light rays would have an arc.

    We have only seen straight rays so far.

    They are convince that we had a big bang.......and it flung the universe outward very quickly. They say that this is the reason that all the oldest and most distant stars are all red shifted so much.

    Some of these stars have red shifted so much......that the calculated speeds are in excess of light.

    I think not. It's a classic mis-understanding of observations.

    The reason that all the oldest and most distant stars are red shifted is because at the time of light emission......the gravity was many magnitudes higher. That is the cause of red shift.

    The universe is expanding slowly now, because the decay rate of gravity is slow now.

    And the seeable universe, is much smaller and the age is much younger.

    It's not that space and time that's gravity that changes.
  4. Kermit2

    AAC Fanatic!

    Feb 5, 2010
    (golf clap)
    Wow, classic science rant. Are you out of breath?
  5. Glenn Holland

    Thread Starter Member

    Dec 26, 2014
    The process for creating a neutron star is well known and the theory is demonstrated in many books on atomic physics.

    However the process for creating a black hole is not clear. The collapse of a large star will produce a neutron star which is a stabile object. To create a black hole, the process must first go through the stage to create a neutron star, then something must case further contraction.
  6. sirch2

    Well-Known Member

    Jan 21, 2013
    Someone once suggested to me that a black hole is just a star with an escape velocity grater than the speed of light. So something just a bit denser than a neutron star.

    I just came across this, which while it doesn't answer your question is food for thought:


    "Light from the activity of a distant supermassive black hole is serving as a giant cosmic flashlight, illuminating an enormous strand of gas held together by invisible dark matter."