House Member
Posts: 3,530 
Videos: 2
Location: 50° 30' N, 104° 38' W
Videos: 2
Location: 50° 30' N, 104° 38' W
March 20th, 2008, 07:54 AM
All you need is the basic understanding, a knowledge of how to use Google, a couple of good reference books near at hand, a browser that'll display multiple windows or tabs, and a wide screen monitor and a big desk so you can see everything at once. And take your time composing a post.
Quoting Kreskin
Actually, it's all perfectly simple, you too can appear to know far more than you actually do.
Dexter, unless you're nearing your 300th birthday, how in hell did you ever find the time and brainpower to learn all this stuff?
All you need is the basic understanding, a knowledge of how to use Google, a couple of good reference books near at hand, a browser that'll display multiple windows or tabs, and a wide screen monitor and a big desk so you can see everything at once. And take your time composing a post.
The Angry Beaver
Posts: 3,660
Location: Atlantic Canada
Location: Atlantic Canada
March 20th, 2008, 08:38 AM
And they tell us there is no other side to black holes.... but:
"While general relativity describes a black hole as a region of empty space with a pointlike singularity at the center and an event horizon at the outer edge, the description changes when the effects of quantum mechanics are taken into account. Research on this subject indicates that, rather than holding captured matter forever, black holes may slowly leak a form of thermal energy called Hawking radiation. However, the final, correct description of black holes, requiring a theory of quantum gravity, is unknown."
It's all still theory at this point and seems to be based on scientific observations without tangible evidence, so it's anybody's guess at this point.
"In physics, a wormhole is a hypothetical topological feature of spacetime that is basically a 'shortcut' through space and time. A wormhole has at least two mouths which are connected to a single throat or tube. If the wormhole is traversable, matter can 'travel' from one mouth to the other by passing through the throat. While there is no observational evidence for wormholes, spacetimes containing wormholes are known to be valid solutions in general relativity."
One is a theory on a hole which can take you to point A to point B in a different time frame/speed in the known universe.... the other is unknown.... well both are unknown actually, but the concepts are different, yet similar.
Quoting karrie
If energy is always constant, then it can not be destroyed, therefore that energy must go somewhere. Just because you might be ripped to shreds and have no possible chance of survival as we know it when you go through the Event Horizon, doesn't mean all that matter doesn't still go somewhere or turn into something.
You keep saying 'other side', as if talking about worm holes rather than black holes Prax. I was always told there is no 'other side' with black holes, no?
And they tell us there is no other side to black holes.... but:
"While general relativity describes a black hole as a region of empty space with a pointlike singularity at the center and an event horizon at the outer edge, the description changes when the effects of quantum mechanics are taken into account. Research on this subject indicates that, rather than holding captured matter forever, black holes may slowly leak a form of thermal energy called Hawking radiation. However, the final, correct description of black holes, requiring a theory of quantum gravity, is unknown."
It's all still theory at this point and seems to be based on scientific observations without tangible evidence, so it's anybody's guess at this point.
"In physics, a wormhole is a hypothetical topological feature of spacetime that is basically a 'shortcut' through space and time. A wormhole has at least two mouths which are connected to a single throat or tube. If the wormhole is traversable, matter can 'travel' from one mouth to the other by passing through the throat. While there is no observational evidence for wormholes, spacetimes containing wormholes are known to be valid solutions in general relativity."
One is a theory on a hole which can take you to point A to point B in a different time frame/speed in the known universe.... the other is unknown.... well both are unknown actually, but the concepts are different, yet similar.
The Angry Beaver
Posts: 3,660
Location: Atlantic Canada
Location: Atlantic Canada
March 20th, 2008, 08:45 AM
*shrugs*
Quoting Dexter Sinister
But in space, gravity for the most part is zero... there is no major resistence, and if I push you, we both move away and just keep on going. Therefore, if the event horizon pulls you in, to me, it makes sense that it's be just like dipping your foot in a strong river current which would suck you along. There is resistence here on earth when considdering the river idea, but how much resistence is there in space to cause this massive pulling effect that may kill you? No wind resistence, no gravity from a planet nearby.... granted when you are thrown at a high speed from this effect, there's chances that you'd get shredded by high speed traveling space dust or something (like a bullet to the head) but other then that, seems all clouded to me.
There is, in a sense, it's called inertia, but it's easier to describe the other way around. The acceleration is less at the top than at the bottom, so your feet will gain velocity faster than your head, and if the difference is large enough it'll pull you apart. Under normal circumstances, like standing on the earth for instance, the difference in the force of gravity between your feet and your head is pretty small, but it's there. It diminishes as the inverse square of the distance, as measured from the centre of the earth. The distance between your feet and your head is such a tiny fraction of that that it makes no sensible difference, but in a hugely stronger field, it will.
*shrugs*
March 20th, 2008, 10:15 AM
Quoting Dexter Sinister
Would staying at a Holiday Inn Express help me?
Actually, it's all perfectly simple, you too can appear to know far more than you actually do. All you need is the basic understanding, a knowledge of how to use Google, a couple of good reference books near at hand, a browser that'll display multiple windows or tabs, and a wide screen monitor and a big desk so you can see everything at once. And take your time composing a post.
All you need is the basic understanding, a knowledge of how to use Google, a couple of good reference books near at hand, a browser that'll display multiple windows or tabs, and a wide screen monitor and a big desk so you can see everything at once. And take your time composing a post.
The Angry Beaver
Posts: 3,660
Location: Atlantic Canada
Location: Atlantic Canada
March 20th, 2008, 10:30 AM
Yes even though it may still seem I have someting crossed when I actually post, that's usually because I have several other things in my head I'm taking into account which I don't yet explain (Sorta to help lead the debate into it later on.... and to reduce how long my posts become.)
Quoting Dexter Sinister
That's what I usually do.... I remember bits and pieces of something I read/learned in the past, then I just double check the common explinations, etc. online to confirm that I didn't get something crossed.
Actually, it's all perfectly simple, you too can appear to know far more than you actually do. All you need is the basic understanding, a knowledge of how to use Google, a couple of good reference books near at hand, a browser that'll display multiple windows or tabs, and a wide screen monitor and a big desk so you can see everything at once. And take your time composing a post.
All you need is the basic understanding, a knowledge of how to use Google, a couple of good reference books near at hand, a browser that'll display multiple windows or tabs, and a wide screen monitor and a big desk so you can see everything at once. And take your time composing a post.
Yes even though it may still seem I have someting crossed when I actually post, that's usually because I have several other things in my head I'm taking into account which I don't yet explain (Sorta to help lead the debate into it later on.... and to reduce how long my posts become.)
Electoral Member
Posts: 835
Location: Red Deer AB
Location: Red Deer AB
March 20th, 2008, 11:25 AM
Instead of using a human body, what you had was something that had elasticity. One end attached to a string, it is just strong enough that it doesn't stretch when hanging. You then start to lower it at a constant, but slow, speed, so it touches the water just where the water starts to free-fall. The first part starts to move at the same speed as the water, that starts to stretch the material. The longer it is in the water the greater it's speed because it is keeping up with the speed of the water. At a slow enough original descent speed into the water the first part of the material is at the bottom of the falls before the last part of the material is in the water at the top of the falls. Once the first part of the material is at the bottom it's speed slows down as the river starts flowing horizontal again. A really stretchy rubber-band might be able to return to it's original shape once it is all at the bottom but something like a piece of gum will never reform it previous shape, it will be 'longer and less wide'.
Quoting Praxius
Using your river idea a black-hole would not be like a river that is flowing mostly horizontal (and slightly verticle otherwise it would be calm water). A black-hole would be the part of a river that forms a waterfall. Water, at a certain point, starts increasing speed when it passes a certain point. Due to gravitational effects, once it is in free-fall it's speed increases, the water is moving faster at the bottom of the falls than it is when it just starts to fall freely.
Therefore, if the event horizon pulls you in, to me, it makes sense that it's be just like dipping your foot in a strong river current which would suck you along. There is resistence here on earth when considdering the river idea, but how much resistence is there in space to cause this massive pulling effect that may kill you?
Instead of using a human body, what you had was something that had elasticity. One end attached to a string, it is just strong enough that it doesn't stretch when hanging. You then start to lower it at a constant, but slow, speed, so it touches the water just where the water starts to free-fall. The first part starts to move at the same speed as the water, that starts to stretch the material. The longer it is in the water the greater it's speed because it is keeping up with the speed of the water. At a slow enough original descent speed into the water the first part of the material is at the bottom of the falls before the last part of the material is in the water at the top of the falls. Once the first part of the material is at the bottom it's speed slows down as the river starts flowing horizontal again. A really stretchy rubber-band might be able to return to it's original shape once it is all at the bottom but something like a piece of gum will never reform it previous shape, it will be 'longer and less wide'.
House Member
Posts: 3,530
Videos: 2
Location: 50° 30' N, 104° 38' W
Videos: 2
Location: 50° 30' N, 104° 38' W
March 20th, 2008, 07:56 PM
Granted, its effect is vanishingly small that far out, in fact it's vanishingly small just on the scale of the solar system--at the distance of the moon it's about .02% of what it is down here on the surface, unless I've slipped a decimal point somewhere--but again, it's there. It diminishes rapidly with increasing distance, that's the gradient (i.e. rate of change) I mentioned earlier, but near a compact massive body like a black hole, the gradient can be pretty severe.
Quoting Praxius
You may be labouring under a fundamental misapprehension here. There's no place in space where gravity is not present, that could happen only if the universe contained no mass. Perhaps you've been misled by the appearance of zero gravity among people in orbiting vehicles...? They're not free of gravity, they're simply responding to it freely, they're in free fall. Depending on their altitude, the force of gravity where they are is down to about 94 to 98% of what we feel on the ground. Gravity binds the solar system together, it's responsible for the large scale structure of the galaxy, it binds our galaxy and the Andromeda galaxy (over 2 million lightyears away) and a few dozen smaller nearby galaxies into what's called the Local Group, which is gravitationally bound as part of the Virgo supercluster of galaxies... gravity is everywhere. It's not very strong in most places--consider that a small magnet can lift a nail against the entire mass of the earth and its gravity--but it's there. Given that the earth is about 4.7 billion years old, its gravitational effect extends about 4.7 billion light years in all directions and is spreading at the speed of light.
But in space, gravity for the most part is zero...
Granted, its effect is vanishingly small that far out, in fact it's vanishingly small just on the scale of the solar system--at the distance of the moon it's about .02% of what it is down here on the surface, unless I've slipped a decimal point somewhere--but again, it's there. It diminishes rapidly with increasing distance, that's the gradient (i.e. rate of change) I mentioned earlier, but near a compact massive body like a black hole, the gradient can be pretty severe.
House Member
Posts: 3,530
Videos: 2
Location: 50° 30' N, 104° 38' W
Videos: 2
Location: 50° 30' N, 104° 38' W
March 20th, 2008, 08:15 PM
You also need to understand that velocities don't add in a straight line. No relative velocity (and all velocities are relative) greater than the speed of light is possible. If you're watching an object receding from you at .9c, then you start going the opposite direction at .9c, you can't just add the velocities to get 1.8c. What you'd then see is that object receding from you, to six digits of accuracy, at .994475c.
Quoting MHz
I think you too are labouring under some fundamental misapprehensions. The big bang took place everywhere, there's no location in the universe you can point to and say "that's where it happened." You seem to be thinking of an explosion taking place in a pre-existing spacetime, but the big bang created the spacetime we're in.
I was hoping to find a number that is in % of a light years from any galaxy that is headed in the opposite direction, I could then divide that by 2 to get how fast our world is heading away from where the big bang took place.
You also need to understand that velocities don't add in a straight line. No relative velocity (and all velocities are relative) greater than the speed of light is possible. If you're watching an object receding from you at .9c, then you start going the opposite direction at .9c, you can't just add the velocities to get 1.8c. What you'd then see is that object receding from you, to six digits of accuracy, at .994475c.
Electoral Member
Posts: 835
Location: Red Deer AB
Location: Red Deer AB
March 21st, 2008, 02:19 AM
For instance, a little while back I saw a program about when the moon hit the earth. In summary besides the great graphics it had a story-line. Hit, moon forms closer to earth, bigger tides, etc. Very wild weather, high winds being one thought. I agree that there might have been bigger storms than today but I disagreed as to what caused them. The programs theory is that the earth was spinning faster, Slow spin=slow winds, fast spin=fast winds. That would indicate the outer space would be trying to slow down the atmosphere (mixing creates winds), aren't winds temperature driven. What would cause wild weather would be cause by liquid water falling as rain would hit a very warm earth and evaporate quickly, add cold ait that would come from the north (always cooler the further away from the tropics) that could result in very high winds. However in the lowest parts of the earth could have been sheltered from the highest winds (jet stream) The lower areas might have been in a perpetual 'mist.
I can't find any info on somebody covering that particular 'view', if i had i would have done a copy & paste. As long as I put it as a question it invites a response and it's only a thought anyway. No proof can be offered, for either.
This can be observed today.
Lots of thermal heat from the ground and water you get fog, very little solar warming. In fog you get diffused lighting only.
Now I'll give you an example of copy & paste, in another thread.
Quoting Dexter Sinister
Crawling around the web is a great resource. After you go through any article you have certain opinions. Sometimes you agree, sometimes you don't. When you don't agree that is either because you have heard something or you have just had an original thought for you, it is often called a question. An original question that you had might have been thought of before by somebody somewhere before. Maybe not.
Actually, it's all perfectly simple, you too can appear to know far more than you actually do. All you need is the basic understanding, a knowledge of how to use Google, a couple of good reference books near at hand, a browser that'll display multiple windows or tabs, and a wide screen monitor and a big desk so you can see everything at once. And take your time composing a post.
All you need is the basic understanding, a knowledge of how to use Google, a couple of good reference books near at hand, a browser that'll display multiple windows or tabs, and a wide screen monitor and a big desk so you can see everything at once. And take your time composing a post.
For instance, a little while back I saw a program about when the moon hit the earth. In summary besides the great graphics it had a story-line. Hit, moon forms closer to earth, bigger tides, etc. Very wild weather, high winds being one thought. I agree that there might have been bigger storms than today but I disagreed as to what caused them. The programs theory is that the earth was spinning faster, Slow spin=slow winds, fast spin=fast winds. That would indicate the outer space would be trying to slow down the atmosphere (mixing creates winds), aren't winds temperature driven. What would cause wild weather would be cause by liquid water falling as rain would hit a very warm earth and evaporate quickly, add cold ait that would come from the north (always cooler the further away from the tropics) that could result in very high winds. However in the lowest parts of the earth could have been sheltered from the highest winds (jet stream) The lower areas might have been in a perpetual 'mist.
I can't find any info on somebody covering that particular 'view', if i had i would have done a copy & paste. As long as I put it as a question it invites a response and it's only a thought anyway. No proof can be offered, for either.
This can be observed today.
Lots of thermal heat from the ground and water you get fog, very little solar warming. In fog you get diffused lighting only.
Now I'll give you an example of copy & paste, in another thread.
March 30th, 2008, 10:41 PM
There has been a lawsuit filed in a Hawaii District Court.
http://www.lhcdefense.org/LHC_Legal_Defense_Fund.html
There has been a lawsuit filed in a Hawaii District Court.
http://www.lhcdefense.org/LHC_Legal_Defense_Fund.html
Steven Hawking's Tutor
Posts: 4,612
March 30th, 2008, 10:48 PM
Tonington
WOW talk about yer synchronicity...
In a post I just recently contributed to CC I mentioned the very machine yer talkin about!
Is it the fear of dragging the essence of god out of a few wayward leptons and quarks that's got these folk all worked up or is it to reserve the process for American interests?
What's their chief bitch?
Tonington
WOW talk about yer synchronicity...
In a post I just recently contributed to CC I mentioned the very machine yer talkin about!
Is it the fear of dragging the essence of god out of a few wayward leptons and quarks that's got these folk all worked up or is it to reserve the process for American interests?
What's their chief bitch?
Council Member
Posts: 1,434
Location: BC
Location: BC
March 31st, 2008, 02:57 AM
Quoting Praxius
Why do I have a nagging feeling that as soon as they turn this thing on and it starts to make these particles, that half the planet will be obliterated?
Meh, who cares?
I don't think it will cause any damage here. Besides this thing won't create an implosion so we'll be safe IMO. It should be the source of many pretty pictures for years to come.
Why do I have a nagging feeling that as soon as they turn this thing on and it starts to make these particles, that half the planet will be obliterated?
Meh, who cares?
March 31st, 2008, 06:13 AM
Quoting Dexter Sinister
Nope, and if you read at the end of their claims (15), they assert that they are experts in physics and other fields of science. I thought it was funny.
Interesting. The plaintiffs don't appear to know the difference between a proton, an ion, and an atom.
