# Possibility of star formation around black holes

So a black hole is one gigantic boson of pastafarianism?

Since there is no information crossing event horizon to tell us what is going on inside, it is hard to say. There is no known force that would prevent the mass from collapsing to a singularity

If it collapsed into a singularity wouldn't the photon sphere be reduced and energy be released?

If it collapsed into a singularity wouldn't the photon sphere be reduced and energy be released?

I have no idea what that is suppose to mean.

well then I'll leave you with that enigma.

well then I'll leave you with that enigma.
Gibberish does not lead to any sort of enigma - it is just meaningless gibberish....

How is the question, "If a black hole collapses into a singularity wouldn't the radius of the photon sphere collapse as well?" Gibberish?

How is the question, "If a black hole collapses into a singularity wouldn't the radius of the photon sphere collapse as well?" Gibberish?

Because by definition, the photon sphere is the lowest allowed stable orbit around any BH.
An orbit that entails light being able to orbit.
Your gibberish obviously is suggesting a "BH will collapse into a singularity" [The mass of the singularity actually governs the size of the BH out to the EH] to speak of any further collapse is gibberish.....Second example of gibberish, is suggesting any photon sphere will collapse, when that also depends on the size of the BH and mass of the singularity.
For convenience sake we are speaking of the Schwarzchild metric, and it should be noted that when applied to any Kerr metric BH, we can have two photon spheres at different radii, one retrograde and one prograde.
But I'll let someone more attuned into that far more complicated scenario, speak on that if he or she wishes.

How is the question, "If a black hole collapses into a singularity wouldn't the radius of the photon sphere collapse as well?" Gibberish?
Because the gravity at the photon sphere of a stellar black hole does not change whether the mass is in a ball 100 ft in diameter or in a singularity.

Because the gravity at the photon sphere of a stellar black hole does not change whether the mass is in a ball 100 ft in diameter or in a singularity.

Says who?

Says who?

Newton, Einstein and physicists.

The acceleration due to gravity it dependent on the mass not the density.

Newton, Einstein and physicists.

The acceleration due to gravity it dependent on the mass not the density.

So? gravity is still dependent upon two radi. If the internal radius shrinks more rapidly a wave is formed.

So? gravity is still dependent upon two radi. If the internal radius shrinks more rapidly a wave is formed.

I think what origin is saying, is that whether the mass of a BH as per GR has collpased to Singularity status, or whether the mass exists evenly spread out inside the EH as per Newtonian Dark Star concept, the photon sphere will remain the same.
It would be nice Beaconator, and less confusing if you could use proper accepted scientific terms.

I think what origin is saying, is that whether the mass of a BH as per GR has collpased to Singularity status, or whether the mass exists evenly spread out inside the EH as per Newtonian Dark Star concept, the photon sphere will remain the same.
It would be nice Beaconator, and less confusing if you could use proper accepted scientific terms.

John Mitchell wrote about a star not a black hole to porportions of 500 to 1.

We are talking about porportions that render a radius to a statistically insignifigant degree. This sort of break should be the underlying cause of waves. The effect is an astronomical change in gravity. 500 to zero radius creates 499 strings.

Or 499 individual singularaties

John Mitchell wrote about a star not a black hole to porportions of 500 to 1.

We are talking about porportions that render a radius to a statistically insignifigant degree. This sort of break should be the underlying cause of waves. The effect is an astronomical change in gravity. 500 to zero radius creates 499 strings.

More gibberish.

John Michell was the first to propose a "Dark Star" in around 1780's, the Newtonian equivalent of a GR BH.
The rest is just gibberish.

More gibberish.

Oh yeah.

500 singularities in the hole,
500 singularities;
Take one out and pass it around,
499 singularities in the hole!

More gibberish.

John Michell was the first to propose a "Dark Star" in around 1780's, the Newtonian equivalent of a GR BH.
The rest is just gibberish.

These ratios are important 100:1 is different than 100:0 by a statistically signifigant degree.

its even got a catchy new song already.

The question is what happens when the chances get split one side between 100:1 and the other 100:0?

a 1 and a zero. So out of these two chances of the original mass being aplicable outside that radius we have only one mass that is and it is only one meter. Thats a void of 99 meters.

These ratios are important 100:1 is different than 100:0 by a statistically signifigant degree.
Cool now we know that different ratios are different.

The question is what happens when the chances get split one side between 100:1 and the other 100:0?
a 1 and a zero. So out of these two chances of the original mass being aplicable outside that radius we have only one mass that is and it is only one meter. Thats a void of 99 meters.

Does all that silliness actually mean something to you?

E= (MC^2)^2 + PC^2

Can Jerk not be equivocated einto the above equation to read.

(MC^2)^2 + PC^2 + Da(t)/dt =E into this perdicament so a hyperjerk condition can be satisfied?

The implications of which mean the second the photonsphere is entered Distance becomes infinite and time becomes zero because mass is zero and momentum is becoming infinite.

E= (MC^2)^2 + PC^2
In exactly what universe is this equation true?