Thanks, Science!

Interbane · Sun Dec 11, 2011 2:03 pm

That depends on the religion and the beliefs. They all have their contradictory beliefs.

johnson1010 · Thu Dec 15, 2011 11:42 am

Professor Speaknspell:


	Quote: The black hole says: OM NOM NOM NOM NOM!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16178112

Also, 24 deep space photos for your eye ball pleasure.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badas ... s-of-2011/

Thanks, Science!

tat tvam asi · Thu Dec 15, 2011 4:02 pm

Nice links.


	Quote: Our local supermassive black hole, dubbed Sagittarius A*, lies about 27,000 light-years away, and has a mass about four million times that of our Sun. As the name implies, beyond a certain threshold point - the event horizon - nothing can escape its pull, not even light itself. But outside that regime is a swirling mass of material, not unlike water circling a drain. In astronomical terms, it is a relatively quiet zone about which little is known.

I wonder about the whole Black Hole - White Hole theory. It would interesting if it were ever confirmed that the matter we see disappearing is eventually dispersed out of a White Hole causing a BB effect somewhere else in space and time with everything material that had passed through from our own galaxy.

johnson1010 · Thu Dec 15, 2011 4:49 pm

Deleted my ramble.

Inserted Wikipedia.


	Quote: EvaporationMain article: Hawking radiation In 1974, Hawking showed that black holes are not entirely black but emit small amounts of thermal radiation;[29] an effect that has become known as Hawking radiation. By applying quantum field theory to a static black hole background, he determined that a black hole should emit particles in a perfect black body spectrum. Since Hawking's publication, many others have verified the result through various approaches.[83] If Hawking's theory of black hole radiation is correct, then black holes are expected to shrink and evaporate over time because they lose mass by the emission of photons and other particles.[29] The temperature of this thermal spectrum (Hawking temperature) is proportional to the surface gravity of the black hole, which, for a Schwarzschild black hole, is inversely proportional to the mass. Hence, large black holes emit less radiation than small black holes.[84] A stellar black hole of one solar mass has a Hawking temperature of about 100 nanokelvins. This is far less than the 2.7 K temperature of the cosmic microwave background radiation. Stellar mass or larger black holes receive more mass from the cosmic microwave background than they emit through Hawking radiation and thus will grow instead of shrink. To have a Hawking temperature larger than 2.7 K (and be able to evaporate), a black hole needs to have less mass than the Moon. Such a black hole would have a diameter of less than a tenth of a millimeter.[85] If a black hole is very small the radiation effects are expected to become very strong. Even a black hole that is heavy compared to a human would evaporate in an instant. A black hole the weight of a car would have a diameter of about 10−24 m and take a nanosecond to evaporate, during which time it would briefly have a luminosity more than 200 times that of the sun. Lower mass black holes are expected to evaporate even faster; for example, a black hole of mass 1 TeV/c2 would take less than 10−88 seconds to evaporate completely. For such a small black hole, quantum gravitation effects are expected to play an important role and could even—although current developments in quantum gravity do not indicate so[86]—hypothetically make such a small black hole stable.[87]

tat tvam asi · Sat Dec 17, 2011 12:53 pm

I'm actually referring to something that comes to mind after black holes and Hawking radiation is considered. It's addressed to the matter that does enter an event horizon into the great unknown, not the emmissions we see ejected from an event horizon:

And the potential for science to come up with a way of observing and confirming such a thing via the LISA satellite:

johnson1010 · Sat Dec 17, 2011 4:09 pm

Thanks, Tat!

That's interesting. I have never heard the term "white hole" before.

tat tvam asi · Sat Dec 17, 2011 5:23 pm

I hadn't either until just a few years back. It's pretty interesting for sure. Now every time I see anything about black holes it makes me think about the possibility of each of them shipping off material into another dimension that "soap bubbles" into an entire universe like our own. I remember hearing that the LISA satellite launch was delayed this year. But wouldn't that be interesting if they get it launched and do get a snap shot of the BB where a black hole - white hole exchange can be detected and verified empirically. I feel pretty dam confident that science will be able to solve the mystery of what happened before the BB with enough time and effort. And everyone who ever said that it's impossible or unthinkable for science to know what happened before the BB will be just plain SOL.

Chris OConnor · Sun Dec 18, 2011 2:39 pm

The burden of proof is necessarily on the person making the affirmative claim and not the person rejecting the affirmative claim.

I cannot expect people to prove my claim false of immaterial stuttering elf's being responsible for causing lightning in the Himalayas. My obligation is to prove it is true. By default the claim should be rejected by anyone with even an elementary grasp of critical thinking.

johnson1010 · Wed Dec 28, 2011 11:25 am

The burden of proof is exactly the root of science's success in understanding and managing our world.

"It requires just as much faith to believe in science as it does in religion."

No, it doesn't. I have never had faith in science. I have confidence in science.

Faith is an expectation held without evidence, despite evidence, and regardless of evidence.

That means, that no evidence to the contrary could ever shake someones faithful belief. In fact, when you stop believing something because of new evidence then it's because you lost faith in that belief, and gained confidence in something else.

Confidence is an expectation built on a historical record of supportive evidence and expectation which all confirm that expectation.

Confidence in science is the very opposite of faith, and that difference is the entire essence of science.

The reason for believing is the strength of science. Evidence that supports, rather than evidence that must be ignored to maintain an expectation.

johnson1010 · Thu Dec 29, 2011 11:19 am

Prof. Brian Cox explains the empti-ness of atoms using Simon Pegg.

http://io9.com/5871597/brian-cox-and-si ... mpty-space

johnson1010 · Thu Jan 19, 2012 12:13 pm

earthrise over luna.

http://www.wimp.com/spectacularview/

visualizing the un-seeable.
http://www.wimp.com/unseeablebiology/

johnson1010 · Sat Jan 28, 2012 9:57 am

Here's another bird RC.

This is cool. DaVinci wants one.

http://www.wimp.com/amazingbird/

johnson1010 · Thu Feb 02, 2012 10:58 am

http://www.wimp.com/foamtorch/

* I'm walkin' through a blow-torch, whoa-o Oh Oh. And i feel GOOD! *

johnson1010 · Thu Feb 02, 2012 11:00 am

I TAKE IT ALL BACK!

Science... IS A LIE!!!!!!

johnson1010 · Sat Mar 24, 2012 8:46 am

here's a train laying it's own tracks.

http://www.dump.com/traintrack/

Here's an awesome japanese guy turning your garbage into fuel, like his name was Doc. Brown.

http://www.dump.com/plasticoil/

Forum rules

Thanks, Science! Tweet This Topic

Who is online

Chat Room Always Open!