Talk:Gravastar

This article was nominated for deletion on 8 April 2014 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 720 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

This page was proposed for deletion by 65.28.108.179 (talk · contribs) in the past.
It was contested by Xoloz (talk · contribs)

Physics: Relativity Mid‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the relativity task force.

Astronomy: Astronomical objects Low‑importance

	Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Astronomical objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects.

Archived

I've moved the old (Feb 2004) talk to Talk:Gravastar/Archive1. Find below a copy of the newest contrinution. --Pjacobi 20:22, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Debate

I've read the quote from the nasa article, and it doesn't appear to say that they're using redshift to determine the distance of Gamma ray bursters, but that they are unable to. It also seems to me that there isn't an argument anymore, but both sides just bashing one another. What exactly is the discussion about? ! Obviously Plautus is in support of plasma theories over black hole ones. There's nothing wrong with that. But the way that everyone goes about these arguments concerning them (I also reference talk:black hole), is an indicator of... hostility. Can't we make our points without having a negative tone to our text? It makes it harder for people to get the point when they're too busy trying to sort through all of the negativity (this doesn't seem to be a side-specific thing). Debate all we want, but don't throw around insults. Pointing out lack of credibility can be much nicer, I believe. But then again, my opinion may be completely out there. 18:51, 27 Nov 2004 4.226.255.51

Contradiction?

Why this page claims that Planck length is "universal "smallest size" that is known to exist according to well-accepted quantum theory", but page about Planck length claims that "There is currently no proven physical significance of the Planck length"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.56.153.73 (talk) 20:01, 21 May 2016

Hawking Radiation

The article claims "Externally, a gravastar appears similar to a black hole: It is visible by the high-energy radiation it emits while consuming matter, and by the Hawking radiation it creates.". However, Mazur and Mottola's paper states "Because of the absence of an event horizon, the GBEC star does not emit Hawking radiation". Should the reference to Hawking Radiation be removed? 4.26.27.202 (talk) 16:56, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]