Jump to content
Curious Cosmos

Raidzuo

Members
  • Content Count

    26
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Raidzuo

  • Rank
    Active member
  1. "No I'm sorry this is not correct. The orbitals are tenuous to say the least. You side-stepped my stamentment about space time folds near the relative poles of BHes. The Halking material clearly demonstrates a fold, of division in space time. If things worked out the way you say, then BHes would be low gravity phenomenon, to where mechanics were circuitous and not regular, with respects to high gravity. You,...do not understand BH mechanist, I'm sorry to say....?... No' your offering long term dynamics of a BH which nobody cares about right now. Everyone knows that in time they fade away, like a snowball. I'm making reference to active dynamics, which would mean per-day and how particles and raw energy would react when intr droduced to polarity, not tidal forces on BHes. Polarity is everything in BHes as this defines injestion manifolds. This is what Horowitz and his sub.investigation group, out of Halking had discovered long ago. If you go by tidal forces, then this means any shape and size, which could mean anything? This is like comparing the gothic architecture of the New York Post Office as compared to a modern sky scraper in mid Los Angeles. The two don't fit. I'm not trying to raz you here, however your descriptions of BHes are abject as well as murky... Again, sorry. No I'm sorry to say that your second paragraph is incorrect also. There are no tidal forces per say on BHes, however a clear demarcation line, only of which matter can not infract. What you're describing here is more like a super giant gas planet, rather than a BH. I have private mail, if you wish to discuss your errors here? Sorry." This is not like me. I am sorry for doing this. I could never comprehend your posts here, so I had to test your knowledge. I thought perhaps that I didn't understand you. I thought you were being vague, and I could not read into it all. Maybe you were using jargon, or even had bad grammer... Whatever the case, my responses above were both taken from research papers. The fact that you repeatidly point out that I have no idea about what I am saying is absurd. Perhaps you should take it up with mr. Hawking. One of the papers was based upon Steven Hawkings very popular and widely believed (as science fact) discovery in 1975, about black holes, and how they lose their mass. The other paper is about how black holes emit infra red, and gamma radiation; also accepted as fact by the scientific community. Again let me remind you, my responses were copied and then pasted. written by experts on the subject. These duplications were not taken out of context by me, or anyone else. I don't know what kind of person you are, but I've seen enough of your posts to calculate what type of response you're going to give. I suggest examining what I've said so far, and coming to terms that it is fact, not something I made up. Regardless of your response, I will not be giving you the same courtesy. I am done with this topic. I am tarnishing the spirit of this post. My intention was to clarify Leonards questions, the jumbled responses you gave to him, and deliver to him the facts. I think I have suceeded. That is all.
  2. I don't understand you sometimes. Oh well. "To prove my point you look at the top of a black hole via 1980's Hawking subgroup information and you find infer-red measured at the top poles of a black hole. The mass almost relatively stays the same, however what is causing the heating at the top of the black hole poles? It is the animation return heat signgnature, from matter being torn a'part, returning from another scalier port in space?" Material orbits a black hole. If it happens to be gas and dust, this matter experiences friction and heats up as some of the orbital energy of the gas is converted into heat. The closer the material is to the black hole, the more rapidly it orbits so that the greater is the heating effect. Just before it reaches the Event Horizon, this matter can be heated by friction to thousands of degrees which is enough to produce X-rays. Even higher temperatures approaching a million degrees can occur which can produce gamma rays. Also: The gravitational tidal force is so strong that it pulls the matter and anti- matter particles apart before they have time to combine and disappear. One of the particles can escape while the other is dragged into the black hole and vanishes forever. The gravitational field of the black hole has exerted energy on the particle pair allowing one member of the pair to be promoted from a virtual particle to a real particle which escapes to infinity. The energy lost by the black hole to do this work comes at the expense of lowering the total mass of the black hole, and so the black hole evaporates. Because small black holes have a stronger tidal zone than massive ones, as the black hole mass shrinks, it becomes more effective in shearing virtual particle pairs, and so the pace of the evaporation increases.
  3. "When a strip of metal is struck many times by a hammer, the metal strip will emit infra red photons or heat rays. Where do these emitted photons come from?" The energy is created by the friction of the two objects hitting together. The light that seems to come out of nowhere is actually the metal losing it's mass, and being turned into something we can physically see (heat, light, ect).
  4. "...Is a singularity bounded by time?...What would the properties of a timeless dimension be like, is stasis possible?" Time flows at a slower pace in areas with heavier gravity. Ever heard the saying: "Clocks upstairs tick faster than ones in the basement."? The extreme of this effect is of course a blackhole, where time is frozen still.
  5. Re: Cosmological shape proposed for M+ I wasn't offended or anything, so you don't have to apologize to me. I know it's rude to decline an apology if the person meant it, so I accept if you did. The information I've found so far seems to be a generalization, never anything truly specific. Is this something that has not yet been explained?
  6. Re: Womin s barrowing men's shaving razors Yes. No. No. Yes. P.S. I have not found anything yet, still looking. P.P.S I understand that a sphere is the most effecient shape, but why is the most efficient shape? I'm assuming superstring theory might have an explaination as to why a sphere is used as the base structure instead of say, a donut. P.P.S. I've always wanted to make three P.S.'s P.P.S.U.P.S.D.n.L. I'm getting carried away. I better go now.
  7. I am merely in the spirit of proper brotherhood of this board, advising you of you certain vested swaged garnishes of Mandose Johnson. I don't speak yugoslavian, or etheopian or canadian or whatever, but I don't want anything to do with your garnished, or vested, or swaged: mandose johnson.
  8. Re: Messaging torbis in the sunshine Are you coming on to me?
  9. Re:Microdensity changes in air presure I was searching for an answer on the quantum level. Maybe superstring can explain it? I don't know, I still can't find anything, but still looking.
  10. Is there a theory that describes why everything is a sphere? I've done a lot of searching but could not find an answer.
  11. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sponsorization
  12. XANADAR! I'm to the sons of dust as you are to leading the sons of xanadar o great Xanfadar! Let us throw you arms up in worship for prime liability! XALADARS! To the knife I cut skin and offer the blood of sacrifice to great leader! Where is your god now? I'll tell you! XACKNIDOLE! Take up these Olive branches but spare not the barley and an 8th of the tofu. And offer them to our heaving representitive Xolifar! XYLAPHONE! XIPIDAR! XOM XOM! This is the language of the ancients. The benifactors who originate from the moons of Xupiter! If you are all so smart than why do you kneel before XANAFUNITICKENECARS now? I will tell you why! ZOONIXANADUNICKLUINCHUCKERS!
  13. negative energy. Darby, I thought Anti-matter and negative energy were the same thing? I'm no expert. Could you give me a definition of both? I spent about 3 hours looking through scientific glossaries and could only find a definition of anti-matter. Which was exactly what I thought it was. Also could you throw in a definition of exotic matter? I have a vague idea of what it is, but again I am not sure. It's very important to me. Thank you.
  14. Over the past few days I've been trying to define time. After much thought I came to the conclusion that time is simply a coordinate. For example. If I were to give you directions using X, Y, Z you would know where to go, but you would not know when to leave or when you would arrive. Time is the final factor for determining an event. With X, Y, Z, and C, (time is C) your destination is complete. If time is a coordinate just like space, and gravity effects space, even curves it, can time be curved as well? Is time effected by gravity? Of course. If you were to live on the sun for 100 years, only 99 years on earth will have passed. If you lived on a neutron star for the same 100 years, only 66 years will have passed, and inside a black hole no time will pass. This is because a strong gravitational field stretches time just like it does to space. It's like the old saying "Clocks upstairs tick faster than ones in the basement." This is nothing new I suppose, but then I began to think "what would the opposite of this effect be?" I had read somewhere a long time ago that if negative energy existed (otherwise known as anti-matter) it would move away from gravity, or fall "up" instead of down. But is it falling up, or traveling backwards in time? I reference back to what I said before, about how gravity stretches space and time. Does an environment that repels gravity compress it? If a perfect singularity (black hole) causes time and space to reach zero, does a white hole (an environment in which nothing can fall) cause time and space to expand infinitly inward? Would that movement allow you to travel inward in time? I'm not sure if that means traveling through time into the past but I find the idea interesting. Tell me what you think.
  15. You just totally replied to your own message, and then responded to the message that your yourself replied to. Not only was it insane, but it was also cool. But insane. Here are you answers: http://itss.raytheon.com/cafe/qadir/abholes.html P.S. Get some help. For serious. P.P.S Oh, it was just some dude with an extra vowel in his name. And then an E instead of an A at the end. A E I O U. Peace.
×
×
  • Create New...