First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
Black holes are confusing!
24725 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / Urban South
Offline
Posted 2/7/13

Nyuboom wrote:
That is something you should ask a scientist about.

I am a scientist, although this is not my field. Mipegg, however, is a theoretical physicist and his answers on this subject are not only reliable, but easy to follow.

BearSol wrote:
Consider a loaf of bread. If you crush it, you can make it pretty small. However, if you crush it with something containing immense force, you can make it even smaller. Crush it with something containing the force of a galaxy and the ignorant would assume it was no more. It would still be there, just too small for us to detect.

Yeah... until it becomes dense enough to bend space-time, and then it has no volume (despite having mass). Like Newtonian physics, common sense is unreliable at the quantum level. One of the reasons that we can only detect black holes by measuring gravity is because space-time warps around them in such a way that they do not actually occupy any space. Weird, but currently the accepted model.
Don't stress out too much if it just seems wrong. I had to do the math before I would believe in relativity, because it seemed too counter intuitive to be credible.
Like I said earlier, this isn't my field. I work with rat models to investigate atypical anxiolytics and neurotrophic drugs to treat neurodegenerative diseases and mood disorders.
42580 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / So Cal
Offline
Posted 2/7/13

Taurelion wrote:



You are actually the one who "looks like a jackass" here. There is so much that is blatantly wrong about your attempted explanation (including even basic terminology) that I don't know where to start. It's perfectly fine to be skeptical when you're learning about a subject, but when you go saying that people who clearly know a lot more about the subject are spouting misinformation you really just seem arrogant and closed-minded.
Here's some confirmation from NASA if you need an official source saying that black holes have zero volume, and thus infinite density:
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/010912a.html

There's even a link in there that can lead you to some more detailed information, if you're interested.


I never said anything like, "people who clearly know a lot more about the subject are spouting misinformation,"

From your link; "At the center of a black hole... infinite density." "Actually at the center of a black hole spacetime has infinite curvature and matter is crushed to infinite density under the pull of infinite gravity."

Your link says exactly what you're trying to tell me I was wrong about. Thanks linking me the same theory I was explaining and also for proving yourself to be a jackass.

Next time, try attacking someone your 'proof' doesn't agree with.



Btw, it's still just a theory, as we cannot yet prove it to be absolute.
14265 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Pennsylvania, US
Offline
Posted 2/7/13

BearSol wrote:


Taurelion wrote:



You are actually the one who "looks like a jackass" here. There is so much that is blatantly wrong about your attempted explanation (including even basic terminology) that I don't know where to start. It's perfectly fine to be skeptical when you're learning about a subject, but when you go saying that people who clearly know a lot more about the subject are spouting misinformation you really just seem arrogant and closed-minded.
Here's some confirmation from NASA if you need an official source saying that black holes have zero volume, and thus infinite density:
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/010912a.html

There's even a link in there that can lead you to some more detailed information, if you're interested.


I never said anything like, "people who clearly know a lot more about the subject are spouting misinformation,"

From your link; "At the center of a black hole... infinite density." "Actually at the center of a black hole spacetime has infinite curvature and matter is crushed to infinite density under the pull of infinite gravity."

Your link says exactly what you're trying to tell me I was wrong about. Thanks linking me the same theory I was explaining and also for proving yourself to be a jackass.

Next time, try attacking someone your 'proof' doesn't agree with.



Btw, it's still just a theory, as we cannot yet prove it to be absolute.

That's not what you said at all. You may want to re-read your initial statement and then work on your communication skills if you were really trying to convey the information I linked to.
18204 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M
Offline
Posted 2/7/13
Idk, but it would make sense...
A hole...does not take up space, it's a hole...In space...

Mind just went boom.
42580 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / So Cal
Offline
Posted 2/7/13

Taurelion wrote:
That's not what you said at all. You may want to re-read your initial statement and then work on your communication skills if you were really trying to convey the information I linked to.


Sorry, but that is what I was explaining.

Try reading the link fully and making sure you completely comprehend it, then do the same to my original post.

Perhaps then you can get off this troll-thing you've got going on.
14265 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Pennsylvania, US
Offline
Posted 2/7/13 , edited 2/7/13


I already did that. I've been reading about black holes for more than a decade, so I didn't exactly need to check my own understanding of it.

You equated having mass with having "size" (not a technical term to begin with, but as a word it is much more synonymous with volume). Your bread analogy also stated that things simply became very small under the gravity of a black hole, not that they collapsed into a singularity.

You also stated that "everyone on here thinks they're the end all of information, and that what they're spewing out are the absolute facts", which was not the case at all, since there was some perfectly good information being given and no one stated that their explanation was utterly absolute; the most detailed and informative ones actually specifically stated that there was more to it.

Maybe you were trying to explain what I pointed to, but if so, you really did a very poor job at it.
65241 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 2/7/13
You just have to understand that the gravitational forces behind black holes are so insanely massive that even the smartest people on the planet can only make educated guesses as to how they work.

Yes they are confusing

The Science channel has a great series called "Though the Wormhole" narrated by Morgan Freeman that is fantastic at explaining these things.
63241 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / N.C.
Offline
Posted 2/7/13
You're all wrong because:



Hawking radiation in the hizzy ya'll
63241 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / N.C.
Offline
Posted 2/7/13

tarel wrote:

They have no idea what's inside a black hole besides theorizing about a singularity, but like a famous physicist said, it could even be another universe.

So much scientific gibberish in a thread created by someone who probably has trouble understanding how to record on a DVD player.


well said. "why does this fucker always say 12:00? and it keeps blinking?"
42580 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / So Cal
Offline
Posted 2/7/13 , edited 2/7/13

Taurelion wrote:



I already did that. I've been reading about black holes for more than a decade, so I didn't exactly need to check my own understanding of it.

You equated having mass with having "size" (not a technical term to begin with, but as a word it is much more synonymous with volume). Your bread analogy also stated that things simply became very small under the gravity of a black hole, not that they collapsed into a singularity.

You also stated that "everyone on here thinks they're the end all of information, and that what they're spewing out are the absolute facts", which was not the case at all, since there was some perfectly good information being given and no one stated that their explanation was utterly absolute; the most detailed and informative ones actually specifically stated that there was more to it.

Maybe you were trying to explain what I pointed to, but if so, you really did a very poor job at it.


Size, defined as used in my example; Relative or proportionate dimensions.
Therefore, something without volume can still have size.



You can give it up and accept that you quoted me NASA saying the same thing as I was saying, or you can keep trying to find new ways of making me look wrong.
13057 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / West Point (USMA)
Offline
Posted 2/7/13

BearSol wrote:

You can't prove anything about a black hole, you can only theorize. So stop trying to tell each other how wrong they are and how right you are.


This. I've only listened to an in-depth discussion about black holes from a MIT professor who came to visit us for physics (I did not know half of what he was trying to explain to be honest..), but what I do know is that us humans know only so little about the black hole. It would be amazing if some of our CR members hit some right answers, but as far as I'm concerned, he said almost all black hole conversations boil down to mere theories.
4016 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / NY
Offline
Posted 2/7/13
Black holes Pfft. Gravity Schmavity they are not all that great. My people practically invented black holes, in fact we did.
13057 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / West Point (USMA)
Offline
Posted 2/7/13

kamaitachi5587 wrote:

Black holes Pfft. Gravity Schmavity they are not all that great. My people practically invented black holes, in fact we did.


I wish I could join this cool debate, but I'm so clueless and I'd be pimpslapped with pure and cruel edumacation by your people.
14265 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Pennsylvania, US
Offline
Posted 2/7/13

Then you really don't quite understand the concept of a singularity after all; as I had stated in my last post, I considered that you did and simply weren't effective at explaining the concept. A singularity has no dimensions at all; the concept of "size" as you just defined it does not apply to it.
4016 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / NY
Offline
Posted 2/7/13 , edited 2/7/13

Gyava wrote:


kamaitachi5587 wrote:

Black holes Pfft. Gravity Schmavity they are not all that great. My people practically invented black holes, in fact we did.


I wish I could join this cool debate, but I'm so clueless and I'd be pimpslapped with pure and cruel edumacation by your people.



Yeah, the Time Lords can be a bit uptight. That's why I stole the TARDIS and left. For anyone interested the gravity reference was made by the Doctor in "The Satan Pit" .
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.