The thing is, this is good because it pretty much removes many of the paradoxes regarding black holes
[QUOTE=LVL FACTORY;46064532]The thing is, this is good because it pretty much removes many of the paradoxes regarding black holes[/QUOTE]
What paradoxes? Aside from the information paradox, which has several possible resolutions. Nothing fully agreed upon, but no reason to suspect it's truly a paradox.
[QUOTE=LVL FACTORY;46064532]The thing is, this is good because it pretty much removes many of the paradoxes regarding black holes[/QUOTE]
What paradoxes?
[editline]24th September 2014[/editline]
Fucking hell johnny
[editline]24th September 2014[/editline]
Besides, I happen to [I]like[/I] my universe unreasonably complicated
The paper is full of weird little language errors.
I'm not deep enough into QM to understand or criticize the paper but .... ugh. At least give it to a friend to review it.
Or do you really write "A Hawk" instead of "A Hawk" ?
-snip- dumb
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;46064574]I believe the mods controls when messages are posted letting them censor words against garry and make smart sounding posts before others. You're a second class citizen and me as a blue, I'm a third.[/QUOTE]
Yes, this is totally 100% true and you should remember it before you make rule-breaking posts. Also we are omniscient.
[QUOTE=BrainDeath;46064546]What paradoxes?
Besides, I happen to [I]like[/I] my universe unreasonably complicated[/QUOTE]
i happen to [I]like[/I] my galaxy spinning around a super massive black hole so we don't go wandering off
[QUOTE=LVL FACTORY;46064532]The thing is, this is good because it pretty much removes many of the paradoxes regarding black holes[/QUOTE]
I can't think of any paradoxes. There are some 'crazy' ideas such as black hole complimentary which [I]appears[/I] paradoxical, while in fact is one of the resolutions to the information paradox. But none that I am currently aware of if you would like to share
[QUOTE=Sableye;46064590]i happen to [I]like[/I] my galaxy spinning around a super massive black hole so we don't go wandering off[/QUOTE]
I'm sure if we poured enough theoretical dark matter on to it the galaxy would bind itself together anyway.
But christ could you imagine how profoundly grim being a civilisation around an intergalactic star would be? "This is our nearest star, at the speed of light it would take just [I]twenty thousand years[/I] to reach it!"
[editline]24th September 2014[/editline]
At least you wouldn't have to worry about alien invasions I guess.
[QUOTE=Sableye;46064590]i happen to [I]like[/I] my galaxy spinning around a super massive black hole so we don't go wandering off[/QUOTE]
I hope I am correct in saying this but galaxies don't 'orbit' around a super-massive black hole in their centre, instead they are held together by their own gravity. I assume a galaxy spins due to conservation of angular momentum.
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;46064260]Click bait?[/QUOTE]
Why do people insist on calling everything that seems worth clicking "click bait"? It's absolutely pointless.
[QUOTE=Snickerdoodle;46064698]Why do you insist on calling everything that seems worth clicking "click bait"? It's absolutely pointless.[/QUOTE]
Do you mean me personally or facepunch generally?
I think that is the first time I've called something clickbait
[QUOTE=BrainDeath;46064624]I'm sure if we poured enough theoretical dark matter on to it the galaxy would bind itself together anyway.
But christ could you imagine how profoundly grim being a civilisation around an intergalactic star would be? "This is our nearest star, at the speed of light it would take just [I]twenty thousand years[/I] to reach it!"
[editline]24th September 2014[/editline]
At least you wouldn't have to worry about alien invasions I guess.[/QUOTE]
Issue there is that dark matter appears to be distributed... unlike ordinary matter. The vast majority of the mass distribution of dark matter in galaxies is thought to actually reside in an enormous halo far beyond what you would visually identify as the 'edge' of the galaxy.
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;46064718]Do you mean me personally or facepunch generally?
I think that is the first time I've called something clickbait[/QUOTE]
Changed "you" to "people". Sorry, it just really irritates me that under every article there is always someone that posts "click bait" simply because they wanted to click the article.
[QUOTE=Rct33;46064695]I hope I am correct in saying this but galaxies don't 'orbit' around a super-massive black hole in their centre, instead they are held together by their own gravity. I assume a galaxy spins due to conservation of angular momentum.[/QUOTE]
You can say that the outer masses are orbiting the ones close to the center, but dark matter confuses this a whole lot (the outer fringes have the same angular velocity as fairly near the center, but it should be lower, like how the outer planets take more time to complete an orbit).
[editline]24th September 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=sltungle;46064738]Issue there is that dark matter appears to be distributed... unlike ordinary matter. The vast majority of the mass distribution of dark matter in galaxies is thought to actually reside in an enormous halo far beyond what you would visually identify as the 'edge' of the galaxy.[/QUOTE]
Let me just take a picture of where the dark matter is and I'll get back to you. (I'm sure that dark matter still increases galactic escape velocity).
[QUOTE=BrainDeath;46064746]Let me just take a picture of where the dark matter is and I'll get back to you[/QUOTE]
There's actually some really good evidence for its mass distribution (such as the galactic rotation curves that you mentioned). There's also some neat evidence from galaxy mergers whereby the interstellar gas experiences a lot of friction during the merge and slows down quite a lot, whereas the stars which are much more sparsely distributed fly out the other end before being pulled back in by gravity. When the stars and the interstellar gas are separated you can observe gravitational lensing quite a lot easier.
[QUOTE=sltungle;46064786]There's actually some really good evidence for its mass distribution (such as the galactic rotation curves that you mentioned). There's also some neat evidence from galaxy mergers whereby the interstellar gas experiences a lot of friction during the merge and slows down quite a lot, whereas the stars which are much more sparsely distributed fly out the other end before being pulled back in by gravity. When the stars and the interstellar gas are separated you can observe gravitational lensing quite a lot easier.[/QUOTE]
Who says the laws of physics are the same over there! I for one am going to sit and wait patiently over here for 2,500,000,000 years until we crash into Andromeda for some real [B]first hand evidence![/B]
[editline]24th September 2014[/editline]
Are gravitational lenses absolutely horrifying?
[IMG]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/A_Horseshoe_Einstein_Ring_from_Hubble.JPG[/IMG]
Yes, yes they are.
You guys are so quick to jump to the conclusion that she's wrong (and I'm not supporting her side, because personally I have faith that black holes do exist), BUT we've never actually seen a black hole for sure. It's always been speculation and theorizing in the first place.
Is this something along the lines of saying that shadows don't exist? Or that darkness doesn't exist?
[QUOTE=Chubbles;46064845]You guys are so quick to jump to the conclusion that she's wrong (and I'm not supporting her side, because personally I have faith that black holes do exist), BUT we've never actually seen a black hole for sure. It's always been speculation and theorizing in the first place.[/QUOTE]
Yes, we are skeptical. That is what you should be in science. Particularly when black holes have observational evidence and this paper has no peer review.
[QUOTE=Chubbles;46064845]You guys are so quick to jump to the conclusion that she's wrong (and I'm not supporting her side, because personally I have faith that black holes do exist), BUT we've never actually seen a black hole for sure. It's always been speculation and theorizing in the first place.[/QUOTE]
We've seen distortions in space where a star appears twice because something is bending the light round a point, it would take something with massive gravity for that.
We've seen quazars, again which would require huge gravity.
We haven't seen it but we've got a fair bit of proof for it being there. How could you see it anyway?
[QUOTE=Chubbles;46064845]You guys are so quick to jump to the conclusion that she's wrong (and I'm not supporting her side, because personally I have faith that black holes do exist), BUT we've never actually seen a black hole for sure. It's always been speculation and theorizing in the first place.[/QUOTE]
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. General relativity's predictions have been incredibly well tested in the past, and black holes are a prediction of GR so we expect them to exist.
[QUOTE=sltungle;46064893]Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. General relativity's predictions have been incredibly well tested in the past, and black holes are a prediction of GR so we expect them to exist.[/QUOTE]
Strictly speaking Hawking radiation doesn't have any strong observational evidence either, so this paper is basically making an unobserved claim on the basis of an unobserved phenomenon.
your mums so fat she creates a gravitational lens
[QUOTE=Glitchman;46064982]your mums so fat she creates a gravitational lens[/QUOTE]
ur mom's so fat when she spins around she has an ergosphere
[QUOTE=Killuah;46064560]
Or do you really write "A Hawk" instead of "A Hawk" ?[/QUOTE]
uhh...?
So is this scientist telling me that Harrison Ford's Kessel Run is all for nothing?
Didn't Hawking himself make waves a while back, saying blackholes don't exist, and it basically boils down some semantics of what a blackhole actually is and what it's true properties are?
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;46066426]Didn't Hawking himself make waves a while back, saying blackholes don't exist, and it basically boils down some semantics of what a blackhole actually is and what it's true properties are?[/QUOTE]
That was for entirely different reasons though (and kinda unsubstantiated). Black holes still exist but the event horizon isn't as we think, because it's meant to be a smooth boundary but quantum mechanics implies it can't be.
[QUOTE=BrainDeath;46064802]Who says the laws of physics are the same over there! I for one am going to sit and wait patiently over here for 2,500,000,000 years until we crash into Andromeda for some real [B]first hand evidence![/B]
[editline]24th September 2014[/editline]
Are gravitational lenses absolutely horrifying?
[IMG]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/A_Horseshoe_Einstein_Ring_from_Hubble.JPG[/IMG]
Yes, yes they are.[/QUOTE]
I find nothing scary about the depths of deep space
And I think lensing looks fucking cool as shit
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
