>Things become black holes by being dense, not by having large mass.
not really. The larger the mass the less dense it has to be when it fits into its Schwarzschild radius. For example, our visible Universe - 46B ly radius - has Schwarzschild radius of 13.7B ly (that number sounds strangely familiar, isn't it? and may give rise to various speculations :), ie. it would have to be just 64 times denser that it is now, ie. like 64 atoms/m3 instead of the current 1 atom/m3.
"The Schwarzschild radius of an object is proportional to the mass. "
Thus we can see that given the same density mass grows as a cube of the radius of containing sphere, and thus Schwarzschild radius of such a mass would grow as a cube of that sphere radius too. So if a mass grows it is possible for it to lose density pretty fast, like the sphere's radius square fast, and still fit into its Schwarzschild radius.
not really. The larger the mass the less dense it has to be when it fits into its Schwarzschild radius. For example, our visible Universe - 46B ly radius - has Schwarzschild radius of 13.7B ly (that number sounds strangely familiar, isn't it? and may give rise to various speculations :), ie. it would have to be just 64 times denser that it is now, ie. like 64 atoms/m3 instead of the current 1 atom/m3.
According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_radius :
"The Schwarzschild radius of an object is proportional to the mass. "
Thus we can see that given the same density mass grows as a cube of the radius of containing sphere, and thus Schwarzschild radius of such a mass would grow as a cube of that sphere radius too. So if a mass grows it is possible for it to lose density pretty fast, like the sphere's radius square fast, and still fit into its Schwarzschild radius.