Talk:Gravastar

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)