kris
Regular Citizen
Posts: 121
|
Post by kris on Dec 22, 2007 14:36:15 GMT
I see why that was the last post.
|
|
|
Post by Spangle on Jan 2, 2008 19:07:16 GMT
There are Hypothetical ways of travelling faster than the speed of light
such as using black holes or possibly entangled photons moved light years apart
I understand the concept of a light year, it's the distance light travels in a year for the observer.
when you approach the speed of light time appears normal to you...
if you fell into a black hole you would feel to be being stretched out by the forced of the black hole, an outside observer would see you stop at the event horizon
gravity is the same as acceleration...
it's all rather confusing and most of it has little evidence until we find a way to create and hold a black hole (which cannot actually be proven to be real)
|
|
|
Post by Brandon Azzoria on Jan 2, 2008 20:01:24 GMT
A black hole is no less likely to exist than planets orbiting other stars. Being observable only through effect does not decrease the likelihood of its reality.
|
|
|
Post by Spangle on Jan 8, 2008 18:39:49 GMT
It's not been observed through effect though,
a large and very heavy object has been observed through effect, you can use dark matter or modified newtonian dynamics to explain it.
|
|
|
Post by Brandon Azzoria on Jan 10, 2008 22:13:13 GMT
Only if it were a hyper-dense ball of dark matter that haphazardly spat X-rays into the reaches of space for no apparent reason.
Black holes are as likely to exist as extrasolar planets.
|
|
Elizabeth
Experiened Citizen
[M:-5]
Posts: 325
|
Post by Elizabeth on Jan 11, 2008 18:29:55 GMT
This is going straight over my head...
|
|
|
Post by Brandon Azzoria on Jan 11, 2008 20:26:49 GMT
Just smile and nod while Spangle and I banter.
You could read up on what we're talking about on Wikipedia.
|
|
Elizabeth
Experiened Citizen
[M:-5]
Posts: 325
|
Post by Elizabeth on Jan 11, 2008 21:44:46 GMT
I think I'll just smile and nod.
|
|
|
Post by palm9999 on Jan 11, 2008 21:59:57 GMT
I would do the same, My Good Lady!
|
|
Elizabeth
Experiened Citizen
[M:-5]
Posts: 325
|
Post by Elizabeth on Jan 11, 2008 22:01:12 GMT
I can't say I blame you for doing so!
|
|
|
Post by Spangle on Jan 12, 2008 15:43:17 GMT
Only if it were a hyper-dense ball of dark matter that haphazardly spat X-rays into the reaches of space for no apparent reason.
Black holes are as likely to exist as extrasolar planets. Neutron stars and Gravostars do exactally those and black holes don't haphazardly spit x-rays out, there's constant hawking radiation, the two large beams of xrays and xrays spat out when they "eat" something
|
|
|
Post by Brandon Azzoria on Jan 12, 2008 17:33:57 GMT
I'm aware black holes do not, but was using it to make a point about other possibilities. Neutron stars have been discovered and act much differently than black holes, not to mention that neutron stars aren't strong enough to consistently withhold light.
Why are you even arguing about this? The proof for black holes equals or surpasses that of any of the other possibilities that you mention!
|
|
|
Post by Spangle on Jan 16, 2008 20:15:02 GMT
The "proof" for bacl holes is usually something like: "black holes must exist if this is true because i observed that"
there's always a big if.
|
|
|
Post by Brandon Azzoria on Jan 16, 2008 20:44:04 GMT
Once your argument degenerates to 'if,' you've lost.
|
|
|
Post by Spangle on Jan 16, 2008 20:54:37 GMT
I was saying that's what the black hole argument degenerates to.
azzoria.justgotowned.com
|
|