« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Down

For theEngineer

  • 95 Replies
  • 14023 Views
?

andrews

  • 141
Re: For theEngineer
« Reply #30 on: July 22, 2007, 06:08:31 AM »
Quote from: Raist on July 22, 2007, 01:52:40 AM
Quote from: andrews on July 22, 2007, 01:51:14 AM
It's interesting to note that new research in relativity suggests that we are able to see inside a black hole somehow! I don't exactly know how, and since I am not a relativist, I will not try to explain it. I also don't have any sources :)

I think that some of Stephen Hawkings' new work was about this.

Are you talking Hawking Radiation perhaps?

This is probably what I'm talking about. One of my professors was telling me about it (he's a relativist).
Logged
*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: For theEngineer
« Reply #31 on: July 22, 2007, 02:33:32 PM »
Quote from: andrews on July 22, 2007, 01:51:14 AM
It's interesting to note that new research in relativity suggests that we are able to see inside a black hole somehow!
Then it wouldn't be very...black.
Logged


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson
*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • Extra Racist
Re: For theEngineer
« Reply #32 on: July 22, 2007, 03:46:39 PM »
Quote from: TheEngineer on July 22, 2007, 02:33:32 PM
Quote from: andrews on July 22, 2007, 01:51:14 AM
It's interesting to note that new research in relativity suggests that we are able to see inside a black hole somehow!
Then it wouldn't be very...black.
You can't see black?
Logged
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

Quote from: Shifter on July 05, 2020, 09:53:30 AM
It's no slur if it's fact.
*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: For theEngineer
« Reply #33 on: July 22, 2007, 04:18:44 PM »
Can you see a black hole?
Logged


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson
?

andrews

  • 141
Re: For theEngineer
« Reply #34 on: July 22, 2007, 08:00:31 PM »
Quote from: TheEngineer on July 22, 2007, 02:33:32 PM
Quote from: andrews on July 22, 2007, 01:51:14 AM
It's interesting to note that new research in relativity suggests that we are able to see inside a black hole somehow!
Then it wouldn't be very...black.

This is a very silly point.

A "great circle" is not very great. It's the smallest path between two points on the Earth! A black hole isn't necessarily black.

Unless you're making a joke :)
Logged
?

Nomad

  • Official Member
  • 16983
Re: For theEngineer
« Reply #35 on: July 22, 2007, 08:22:26 PM »
Uh.  A black hole is indeed black.  It does not allow any light to escape it's pull.  There is no light bouncing back to make it any other color.
Logged
Quote from: PizzaPlanet on March 24, 2011, 11:05:27 AM
Nomad is a superhero.

8/30 NEVAR FORGET
*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: For theEngineer
« Reply #36 on: July 22, 2007, 09:07:06 PM »
Quote from: andrews on July 22, 2007, 08:00:31 PM
A black hole isn't necessarily black.

Unless you're making a joke :)
No joke.  So what color is a black hole?
Logged


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson
*

Dioptimus Drime

  • 4531
  • Meep.
Re: For theEngineer
« Reply #37 on: July 22, 2007, 11:14:28 PM »
Quote from: TheEngineer on July 22, 2007, 09:07:06 PM
Quote from: andrews on July 22, 2007, 08:00:31 PM
A black hole isn't necessarily black.

Unless you're making a joke :)
No joke.  So what color is a black hole?

My bet's on hot pink.

~D-Draw
Logged
*

RENTAKOW

  • 1208
  • REPENT. THE END IS EXTREMELY FUCKING NIGH!
Re: For theEngineer
« Reply #38 on: July 23, 2007, 02:36:50 AM »
This reminds me of something I heard about modern submarines: "How do you find a U.S. Nuklear (Seawolf klass) submarine? you look for the QUIET spot in the osean."
...
How do you find a blak hole? You look for the nothing in the kosmos.

You kannot SEE a blak hole, but you kan see that there IS a blak hole present. Remember the hole itself is, put simply, nothing; The stuff AROUND the hole makes it very konspikuous.
Logged
*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: For theEngineer
« Reply #39 on: July 23, 2007, 04:07:07 AM »
Quote from: rentakow (New age Martin Luther King Jr.) on July 23, 2007, 02:36:50 AM
This reminds me of something I heard about modern submarines: "How do you find a U.S. Nuklear (Seawolf klass) submarine? you look for the QUIET spot in the osean."
...
How do you find a blak hole? You look for the nothing in the kosmos.

You kannot SEE a blak hole, but you kan see that there IS a blak hole present. Remember the hole itself is, put simply, nothing; The stuff AROUND the hole makes it very konspikuous.

No one ever denied that you can see the effects of the black hole. But you can't directly view the black hole, that's the point.
Logged
Quote from: Proleg on April 22, 2009, 08:50:08 AM
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good
*

RENTAKOW

  • 1208
  • REPENT. THE END IS EXTREMELY FUCKING NIGH!
Re: For theEngineer
« Reply #40 on: July 23, 2007, 12:53:30 PM »
I was looking right at in that pikture. I don't know what you're talking about.

Blak holes are "dark" I think. It's like asking what kolor is no kolor.
Logged
*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • Extra Racist
Re: For theEngineer
« Reply #41 on: July 23, 2007, 02:37:57 PM »
Quote from: rentakow (New age Martin Luther King Jr.) on July 23, 2007, 12:53:30 PM


It's like asking what kolor is no kolor.
Black is the "color" of no color.
Logged
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

Quote from: Shifter on July 05, 2020, 09:53:30 AM
It's no slur if it's fact.
*

CommonCents

  • 1779
  • ^_^
Re: For theEngineer
« Reply #42 on: July 23, 2007, 02:48:40 PM »
Let's see.

0 red
0 green
0 blue


(0,0,0) = black!
Logged
OMG!
?

andrews

  • 141
Re: For theEngineer
« Reply #43 on: July 23, 2007, 04:31:07 PM »
Quote from: divito on July 23, 2007, 04:07:07 AM
Quote from: rentakow (New age Martin Luther King Jr.) on July 23, 2007, 02:36:50 AM
This reminds me of something I heard about modern submarines: "How do you find a U.S. Nuklear (Seawolf klass) submarine? you look for the QUIET spot in the osean."
...
How do you find a blak hole? You look for the nothing in the kosmos.

You kannot SEE a blak hole, but you kan see that there IS a blak hole present. Remember the hole itself is, put simply, nothing; The stuff AROUND the hole makes it very konspikuous.

No one ever denied that you can see the effects of the black hole. But you can't directly view the black hole, that's the point.

And this is why I would say that a black hole doesn't really have a colour. I mean, if we're going to argue about what colour a black hole is, we first have to define a colour! Is colour defined by how it is perceived by human eyes? By a computer detector? By wavelength?
Logged
?

andrews

  • 141
Re: For theEngineer
« Reply #44 on: July 23, 2007, 04:31:42 PM »
Quote from: CommonCents on July 23, 2007, 02:48:40 PM
Let's see.

0 red
0 green
0 blue


(0,0,0) = black!

Although this is a good way to think about it... :)
Logged
?

andrews

  • 141
Engineer
« Reply #45 on: July 23, 2007, 04:35:50 PM »
Engineer,
From what I understand from your previous post, you are saying that what I say is not true. (I'm talking about how physicists now believe that black holes may be able to send information from within the event horizon.) Do you believe that black holes cannot give off any information?

I am by no means an expert in this area, but a professor of mine, who does happen to be an expert in the area, tells me that it is possible for black holes to send information. I think what he is talking about is Hawking Radiation, which somebody commented on above in this thread.

What's your opinion? (I feel like the reply that you gave above was vague.)
Logged
*

Dioptimus Drime

  • 4531
  • Meep.
Re: For theEngineer
« Reply #46 on: July 23, 2007, 05:05:07 PM »
Hawking Radiations makes it so that small particles are created from the almost-particles (non-scientific word for simplification) inside the black hole, because of some bits and pieces of particles being spawned strattling the event horizon. This is not by any means READABLE, though, as Hawking Radiation really has no way of being proven other than obvious logic. Nevertheless, it's still not possible to directly view a black hole, even if they do exist.

~D-Draw
Logged
?

andrews

  • 141
Re: For theEngineer
« Reply #47 on: July 23, 2007, 05:24:19 PM »
Quote from: Diego Draw, the Tentakled Terror on July 23, 2007, 05:05:07 PM
Hawking Radiations makes it so that small particles are created from the almost-particles (non-scientific word for simplification) inside the black hole, because of some bits and pieces of particles being spawned strattling the event horizon. This is not by any means READABLE, though, as Hawking Radiation really has no way of being proven other than obvious logic. Nevertheless, it's still not possible to directly view a black hole, even if they do exist.

~D-Draw

So it is not possible to observe Hakings Radiation?
Logged
*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Engineer
« Reply #48 on: July 23, 2007, 07:12:01 PM »
Quote from: andrews on July 23, 2007, 04:35:50 PM
From what I understand from your previous post, you are saying that what I say is not true. (I'm talking about how physicists now believe that black holes may be able to send information from within the event horizon.)
Yes, I am saying this is not true.
Logged


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson
?

andrews

  • 141
Re: Engineer
« Reply #49 on: July 23, 2007, 07:23:33 PM »
Quote from: TheEngineer on July 23, 2007, 07:12:01 PM
Quote from: andrews on July 23, 2007, 04:35:50 PM
From what I understand from your previous post, you are saying that what I say is not true. (I'm talking about how physicists now believe that black holes may be able to send information from within the event horizon.)
Yes, I am saying this is not true.


July 21, 2004:
Quote from: Stephen Hawkings
It was therefore not
unreasonable to suppose that it could carry information out of the
black hole.  This explains how a black hole can form, and then give
out the information about what is inside it, while remaining
topologically trivial.
Stephen Hawkings thinks otherwise. See
http://pancake.uchicago.edu/~carroll/hawkingdublin.txt
for the full text. Comment?
Logged
*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: For theEngineer
« Reply #50 on: July 23, 2007, 07:36:15 PM »
Hawking Radiation does not arise from within the event horizon as you stated.
Logged


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson
?

Nomad

  • Official Member
  • 16983
Re: For theEngineer
« Reply #51 on: July 24, 2007, 12:16:49 AM »
Last time Hawking Radiation was explained to me, I understood that it was the generation of a matter particle and an antimatter particle simultaneously at the edge of the event horizon, with one of the particles getting sucked in, and the other being jettisoned out.  Or something like that.

I don't know how Hawking proposes that two particles just suddenly blink into existence, but obviously his intelligence is on a whole other level from mine.
Logged
Quote from: PizzaPlanet on March 24, 2011, 11:05:27 AM
Nomad is a superhero.

8/30 NEVAR FORGET
*

Midnight

  • 7671
  • RE/FE Apathetic.
Re: For theEngineer
« Reply #52 on: July 24, 2007, 02:57:51 AM »
You silly, silly geese.
Logged
Quote from: Raist on September 06, 2010, 07:48:56 PM
My problem with his ideas is that it is a ridiculous thing.

Genius. PURE, undiluted genius.
?

andrews

  • 141
Re: For theEngineer
« Reply #53 on: July 24, 2007, 05:37:15 AM »
Quote from: TheEngineer on July 23, 2007, 07:36:15 PM
Hawking Radiation does not arise from within the event horizon as you stated.

I'm sorry, but your posts are incredibly short and lack way too much information.

I didn't make any statements about the origin of Hawkings Radiation; I don't know anything about it! But Hawkings does, and he seems to think that you are wrong, and he is smarter than you, and knows a whole lot of stuff, and he explained why he thought he was right.

Why are you saying that what Stephen Hawkings says is wrong?
Logged
*

CommonCents

  • 1779
  • ^_^
Re: For theEngineer
« Reply #54 on: July 24, 2007, 06:44:52 AM »
Isn't it Stephen Hawking with no 's' at the end?  :o


It's not a hard name to avoid butchering after all.


And you did say it came from the event horizon.  Just read what TheEngineer quoted from you...
Logged
OMG!
?

The Communist

  • 1217
  • Paranoid Intellectual & Pedantic Twat
Re: For theEngineer
« Reply #55 on: July 24, 2007, 07:14:43 AM »
Quote from: TheEngineer on July 21, 2007, 10:26:33 AM
It's in a quote box, so it must be true!

Quote from: The Kommunist
Mr. Ireland wishes I was gay (wonder why  ::) )
Logged
On FES, you attack a strawman. In Soviet Russia, the strawman attacks you
-JackASCII

Do you have any outlandish claims to back up your evidence?
-Raist

Quote from: GeneralGayer date=1190908626
Yeah I love gay porn.
?

andrews

  • 141
Re: For theEngineer
« Reply #56 on: July 24, 2007, 07:56:41 AM »
Quote from: CommonCents on July 24, 2007, 06:44:52 AM
Isn't it Stephen Hawking with no 's' at the end?  :o


It's not a hard name to avoid butchering after all.
[\quote]
You're right. Brainfart.

Quote from: CommonCents on July 24, 2007, 06:44:52 AM
And you did say it came from the event horizon.  Just read what TheEngineer quoted from you...
I said that physicists (and not engineers :)) say that it may be possible to see within the event horizon. I didn't say what (because I don't know) could allow this.

Apart from this confusion and meaningless argument, I would like to know what Engineer thinks of what Stephen Hawking says.
Logged
?

sharkzf6

  • 130
  • Everything is number
Re: For theEngineer
« Reply #57 on: July 24, 2007, 12:47:33 PM »
Quote from: TheEngineer on July 23, 2007, 07:36:15 PM
Hawking Radiation does not arise from within the event horizon as you stated.
*puts on Divito cap*
Why are you saying he/she stated this?! I don't see any statements made by this individual making this claim.   ::)
Logged
"Perhaps there will be babblers who, although completely ignorant of mathematics, nevertheless take it upon themselves to pass judgement on mathematical questions..."
- Copernicus
*

CommonCents

  • 1779
  • ^_^
Re: For theEngineer
« Reply #58 on: July 24, 2007, 12:52:15 PM »
Quote from: sharkzf6 on July 24, 2007, 12:47:33 PM
Quote from: TheEngineer on July 23, 2007, 07:36:15 PM
Hawking Radiation does not arise from within the event horizon as you stated.
*puts on Divito cap*
Why are you saying he/she stated this?! I don't see any statements made by this individual making this claim.   ::)

Unfortunately it was stated.

sharkzf6Fails = sharkzf6Fails + 1;
Logged
OMG!
?

sharkzf6

  • 130
  • Everything is number
Re: For theEngineer
« Reply #59 on: July 24, 2007, 01:01:17 PM »
Quote from: CommonCents on July 24, 2007, 12:52:15 PM
Quote from: sharkzf6 on July 24, 2007, 12:47:33 PM
Quote from: TheEngineer on July 23, 2007, 07:36:15 PM
Hawking Radiation does not arise from within the event horizon as you stated.
*puts on Divito cap*
Why are you saying he/she stated this?! I don't see any statements made by this individual making this claim.   ::)

Unfortunately it was stated.

sharkzf6Fails = sharkzf6Fails + 1;
Why don't you point it out? No...let's just remember you are a dumbass and leave it at that...
Logged
"Perhaps there will be babblers who, although completely ignorant of mathematics, nevertheless take it upon themselves to pass judgement on mathematical questions..."
- Copernicus
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Up
« previous next »