Search results

The moon is actually moving away from the earth, this is one of the key pieces of evedince used to explain the imact creation of the moon.

I don't think we have found the correct one yet.

Hey, thats the third, go milky way.

The reason for the collapse has to due with the Jeans radius, or Jeans mass, do a google for that and it should help out alot.

Yup, perfect temp, no bugs, and lots and lots of clouds.

John, I think your intent was good to create a discussion about black holes, I feel that you started from a poor angle, and made opening statements that were detremental to your want of a discussion. You can't expect to have a real discussion of black holes if you make bad assumtions on half...

Hurkly did a good job, but there is somehting that John is missunderstanding, the mass isn't compressed into a point so small that it can't be seen, infact naked singularities have been mathmaticlay proven, but not observed, the size of a singularity can be very very large. Another point is...

if you need proof that it was real, they left mirrors on the surface, which we have bounced lasers off to measure the distance.

No, energy isn't being released when you treat it like a charged particle. Its like if you take any charged particle, and shake it up and down, a distant observer sees an induced em field, or light wave

Hawking radiation isn't EM radiation, its particle loss. A virtual particle becomes a real particle, and escapes the black hole with its mass.

Ok, so I was thinking, if charge is conserved in the singularity of a black hole, you could have a black hole with a net charge one way or another. And then you could treat the black hole as a charged particle and in a binary system it could actually produce an em-wave. Then thinking further...

You took my meaning of lining wrong, its not a straight line, the quasar in the back is off alittle bit, which creates the four points. Actually the light is bent spherecly, but due to the alignment, it peaks at four points, and the other stuff gets lost in space. That is it is so small it...

It's not rectangular, the lining is just that good, it is an oddity, but one that sheds alot of light, no pun intended, on gravitational lensing.

Mars smars, I think we should go back to the moon first.

The Universe only expands forever if you allow it too.

I heard an interesting interview with Dr. Kaku last night where he proposes building a ship to travel from one universe to another to avoid the big freeze here at home.

Sorry, I forgot my point, there is an article about it in scientific american this month http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000F1EDD-B48A-1E90-8EA5809EC5880000

Ok, so it is still purly speculation, and an unprovable argument, there is a reason I am not a theoretical physicest or astronomer, I can argue that 10^100 m from here is a giant cow that eats grass off a tiny planet orbiting a binary black hole system, nobody can prove me wrong, and I can't...

Check your models, solar systems are flat for conservation of momentum.

I meant that the subject is too indept for a blog

What you are asking about, and talking about is a Magnestar, do a search for them, they are a fringe topic and don't get alot of coverage.

There have been 100s of books on the subject of relativity, I don't think you can explain it here.

It was nice to see the issue on a public stage

The idea of the ether was never rejected, but it was Enstein that said what is the point of worring about it if you can never measure it.

As it is nice to see a local PFer on a national level, I am even more pleased to see a national, evil as MS is, picking up a story on dark skies. It seems to me, most people don't even know what a dark sky is anymore.

If your gonna write a paper on it, here is a simple thing to think about, once your in space, you can accelerate to extremely high speeds, like DS1 did, but with humans on board you would have to accelerate at a slower rate, but interstellar you would have time, the second thing to think about...