Quote from: Saint Raist on May 15, 2008, 06:37:42 PMQuote from: Tony Stark on May 15, 2008, 05:58:49 PMHawking radiation has never been observed at any black hole candidate, due to low Hawking temperature.The low temp is probably why the black holes live longer than Hawking radiation would account for, which would be greatly accelerated by the time dilation occurring near the event horizon relevant to us (the black hole should disappear shortly after it's creation from our frame of reference, as pointed out before). This hasn't occurred, which is why I doubt the validity of Hawking radiation.You have that backwards. A black hole would quickly dissipate in it's own FoR, but would take a long time to disappear in our frame of reference. Time is moving extremely slowly in the black hole, so say if one day passes in the black hole, millions of years have passed out here. In that time hawking radiation takes place constantly, this means that millions of years of hawkings radiation happen in a day for the black hole. (yes the amounts of time were just examples, I have no idea the difference in time.)I am sorry, you are right. My bad. Tired, forgiveness.
Quote from: Tony Stark on May 15, 2008, 05:58:49 PMHawking radiation has never been observed at any black hole candidate, due to low Hawking temperature.The low temp is probably why the black holes live longer than Hawking radiation would account for, which would be greatly accelerated by the time dilation occurring near the event horizon relevant to us (the black hole should disappear shortly after it's creation from our frame of reference, as pointed out before). This hasn't occurred, which is why I doubt the validity of Hawking radiation.You have that backwards. A black hole would quickly dissipate in it's own FoR, but would take a long time to disappear in our frame of reference. Time is moving extremely slowly in the black hole, so say if one day passes in the black hole, millions of years have passed out here. In that time hawking radiation takes place constantly, this means that millions of years of hawkings radiation happen in a day for the black hole. (yes the amounts of time were just examples, I have no idea the difference in time.)
Hawking radiation has never been observed at any black hole candidate, due to low Hawking temperature.The low temp is probably why the black holes live longer than Hawking radiation would account for, which would be greatly accelerated by the time dilation occurring near the event horizon relevant to us (the black hole should disappear shortly after it's creation from our frame of reference, as pointed out before). This hasn't occurred, which is why I doubt the validity of Hawking radiation.
We're all jealous of Raist.
Quote from: iPot maker. on May 15, 2008, 10:11:09 AMEat that, cosmologists! Another win for FE!Actually, FE has nothing to do with why black holes can't logically exist. It's a logical conclusion based on Hawking Radiation.~D-Draw
Eat that, cosmologists! Another win for FE!
Quote from: Diego Draw 5000 on May 15, 2008, 10:12:06 AMQuote from: iPot maker. on May 15, 2008, 10:11:09 AMEat that, cosmologists! Another win for FE!Actually, FE has nothing to do with why black holes can't logically exist. It's a logical conclusion based on Hawking Radiation.~D-DrawWho needs logic when we have the bible!Noah the water fairy!Jesus, the David Blaine of Egypt!
No but I'm guess your what? 90? Cause you just so darn mature </sarcasm>
No, he's a Nazi.
A Nazi Antichrist, more like.