argumentA line of reasoning from premises to a conclusion. Like a claim, it belongs to no one who makes it.constitution →

Eddington throttling objection

againstThis argument, if it holds, weighs against the claim.constitution →A rapidly accreting captured black hole would destroy its host star on timescales shorter than observed stellar ages.

The argument

If accretion by micro black holes inside dense stars were limited by the Eddington luminosity, radiation pressure would throttle growth to rates at which consuming the star could take longer than observed stellar ages, and the claim would fail.

Does it work?

Not yet evaluated.

Premises

ContradictedThe evidence, examined directly, weighs against the claim.constitution →Accretion by micro black holes inside dense stars is limited by the Eddington luminosity.

Where it is made

Passages where sources make, criticize or mention this argument. They record where it appears, not how strong it is, and none has precedence over another.

No source is recorded as making it.

Earlier ratings

Jul 31, 2026
The objection would go through if its premise held: Eddington-limited growth could stretch consumption beyond observed stellar ages. But the argument rests entirely on accretion inside dense stars being Eddington-limited, which stands contradicted: in degenerate matter the inflow is optically thick and radiation is carried inward with the flow rather than escaping to exert braking pressure. With its sole premise contradicted, the objection does not weaken the claim.