PDA

View Full Version : Nokton: Over here!



Ricimer
2004-Jun-10, 12:58 AM
Just so we can keep the FAQ clean.


Really value Ricimers last post, succinct and to the point. A genuine evaluation of facts, and interpretation of concept with understanding.
My point Ricimer, about crop circles, is much to do with our understanding
of black holes, that's why I mentioned it. It is how we think that matters,
not what we think about.
Tell me what you think Ricimer, about relative time frames. We are all
on the same train here, the station we get off determines our destination.

What about relative time frames? Different people see the universe at different rates of change (sorta like everybody is fastforwarding...but by different amounts)



Thanx Kaptain for your knowledge.
Was just asking Ricimer, in an intense gravity well
according to Albert, time slows to almost a standstill.
That the laws of physics break down at the so called event
horizon, never put any credence on that, just think, and try
to conceive of the relative time frame Albert was describing.
To us, time passes at a determined rate, that rate is determined
by our velocity and our local gravity. With a different velocity,
or local gravity, our view of the universe would be much different


The laws of physics don't break down at the Event Horizon BTW, our description (notice the difference) of these laws work until you're almost on top of the singularity. And some of them should still hold, like conservation of energy and mass, along with momentum and such.

GR starts having problems though.

Normandy6644
2004-Jun-10, 05:02 PM
The laws of physics don't break down at the Event Horizon BTW, our description (notice the difference) of these laws work until you're almost on top of the singularity

Very true. There is a big difference between the event horizon and the singularity. This has to be true, since not all black holes have EH's of the same size!

ToSeek
2004-Jun-10, 05:05 PM
The laws of physics don't break down at the Event Horizon BTW, our description (notice the difference) of these laws work until you're almost on top of the singularity

Very true. There is a big difference between the event horizon and the singularity. This has to be true, since not all black holes have EH's of the same size!

And it is theoretically possible to have an event horizon without a singularity.

Taibak
2004-Jun-10, 08:53 PM
The laws of physics don't break down at the Event Horizon BTW, our description (notice the difference) of these laws work until you're almost on top of the singularity

Very true. There is a big difference between the event horizon and the singularity. This has to be true, since not all black holes have EH's of the same size!

And it is theoretically possible to have an event horizon without a singularity.

What about the other way around? If I remember right, Thorne and Hawking debated whether or not so-called 'naked singularities' exist.

Ricimer
2004-Jun-10, 08:57 PM
Taibak: They did argue over that...and I think the wager was a penthouse subscription (for hawking) or....drats, can't remember Thorne's reward if he was right. Something similar.

I think thorne won, there is no mechanism that allows naked singularities.

And he switched the reward...his wife caught wind of it apparently.

01101001
2004-Jun-10, 09:39 PM
Taibak: They did argue over that...and I think the wager was a penthouse subscription (for hawking) or....drats, can't remember Thorne's reward if he was right. Something similar.

I think thorne won, there is no mechanism that allows naked singularities.

And he switched the reward...his wife caught wind of it apparently.
The trouble is that there are so many bets to track. According to this article (http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.05/longbets.html?pg=2), it looks like "naked singularities" was a 140 dollars and a T-shirt


Cosmologist Stephen Hawking has made a number of high-profile wagers on future discoveries. In 1975, he bet Kip Thorne a subscription to Penthouse (the loser would get it mailed to his home) that a celestial mystery named Cygnus X-1 would turn out to be a black hole. It didn't. In 1991, he again lost to Kip Thorne, betting $140 and a T-shirt "embroidered with a suitable concessionary message" that a naked singularity could not exist. (A singularity is assumed to be the cosmic weirdness at the heart of a black hole; a naked singularity would be the weirdness of a point with infinite mass appearing outside the shell of a black hole.) Although no singularity, either naked or clothed, has ever been spotted in space, Hawking reluctantly conceded to Thorne in 1997 when Matthew Choptuik proved mathematically that the phenomenon was theoretically possible. Ever game, in December 2000, Hawking bet Gordon Kane $100 that the Higgs Boson - labeled by headline writers as "the God particle" because it apparently gives matter its mass - will be discovered at the Fermilab Tevatron, the most powerful accelerator.
I didn't remember, and in my hunt, I found this fun article entitled "Putting Their Money Where Their Minds Are" (http://www.ishipress.com/sci-bets.htm) about the history of science bets.

Ricimer
2004-Jun-11, 01:40 AM
I read about the first two in Kip Thornes book.

Guess I had the wager (and the outcome) mistaken.

Normandy6644
2004-Jun-11, 05:07 AM
I read about the first two in Kip Thornes book.

Guess I had the wager (and the outcome) mistaken.

Hawking mentioned it on a TV program as well.

nokton
2004-Jun-12, 04:52 PM
Thank you for inviting me in, much appreciate, more so, your
welcome msg. Hope any ideas or concepts I can contribute,
will be of value in the search fot the truth. You guys just made my
day.