From what we currently understand about black holes, they don't carry information about whether they contains matter or anti-matter, and as such dumping in anti-matter will just increase the mass of a black hole. The only properties that a black hole has are its mass, charge, and angular momentum.drpepper said:
Huge Black Holes on Collision Course
- Thread starter London Geezer
- Start date
nutball said:
you cannot apply mathamatical law to something that we dont know much about to begin with. Nobody knows much about black holes other then they range in all sizes, can appear out of no-where, appear to eat everything but it is unknown what becomes of the matter it sucks in, and that it is one of the greatest gravitational forces known. You know that the universe can be manipulated in size and time by gravity dont you? Its totally futile to apply physics laws to much that we see in the distant universe. Alot of it is estimation and best guess.
On the contrary, SugarCoat, we know quite a lot about black holes. We don't yet know all of the details of their behavior, since a fair amount of it will depend upon the nature of quantum gravity (which hasn't been completely solved yet). But we do still know quite a lot. We expect, for instance, that classical general relativity gives an excellent description of cosmic black holes from the event horizon out.
Where things may be different is far in the interior of black holes, or with very small black holes (ones created in a lab).
Where things may be different is far in the interior of black holes, or with very small black holes (ones created in a lab).
SugarCoat said:2000 years from now this civilization we currently live in will be viewed the same way we see the days of the Romans. Dont be so close minded. Within the next 10 thousand years i fully expect the human race to have developed a way to use clip planes for space travel as well as a far exceeded production rate of antimatter (currently its extremely expensive to manufacture antimatter and the yields are terrible, by terrible i mean it would take 100 billion years to create a single gram of the stuff under current conditions). This is assuming of course we dont wipe eachother out in a holocaust or a super virus doesnt kill every living thing. Quite confident we'll be living on other planets within the next 300-500 years as well. I just wouldnt underestimate the rate of technological growth. You see, when the time comes we can even get to a black hole, a nuke will be about as useful and efficient a weapon as a rock. Photon death rays and matter decoupling guns is where its at! Pretty sure mass drivers could be turned into a pretty awesome weapon as well.
In 10000 years I predict the human race will be extinct, in fact possibly well before that.
I just don't see the human race reaching the Star Trek standard universe even if we're given 500 extra years. We're just too stupid as a species and will be wiped out by either war, a virus, a comet, God whatever.
But if we do survive that, yah, I guess we'll be able to see the interior of Jupiter.
And perhaps keep tab of that colliding black hole.Here's something to think about, when we observe these two black holes, do we keep into account their local time in the universe? If we're just merely observing these things, than depending on far away these objects are, the collision has already taken place. Now to play the waiting game...
drpepper said:In 10000 years I predict the human race will be extinct, in fact possibly well before that.
I just don't see the human race reaching the Star Trek standard universe even if we're given 500 extra years. We're just too stupid as a species and will be wiped out by either war, a virus, a comet, God whatever.
But if we do survive that, yah, I guess we'll be able to see the interior of Jupiter.
Here's something to think about, when we observe these two black holes, do we keep into account their local time in the universe? If we're just merely observing these things, than depending on far away these objects are, the collision has already taken place. Now to play the waiting game...
Dinosaurs were around for 165million years before their extinction. The only way we could feasibly cease to exist that fast would be self termination via weapons or super virus. As far as the asteroid theory goes, its a load of crap. The earth is billions of years old and people think we're gonna get splattered across the universe in the next 100 or even 10000 or something by a mystical rock aimed like a cue ball. Planets are hit by things all the time, but the odds of something big enough to be a planet killer coming along isnt too good. We dont have the size or the magnetic pull strong enough to pull one in even if it came close. It would have to be aligned perfectly or we'd have to be lucky enough to catch it on its way back around after it gets sling shotted by the sun. The odds of that are basically zilch.
Chalnoth said:
Just because you can fish in the ocean doesnt mean you can state with certainty whats at the bottom. We dont know enough about anything.
Last edited by a moderator:
A virus just won't kill us all off. It's not happening. Life adapts, that its nature. You can't kill all life off with any sort of disease, as there will always be some people who develop an immunity or resistance to it.SugarCoat said:
A full-on nuclear holocaust or a large asteroid hit are currently probably the only things that could really wipe out all of humanity. Obviously, the chance of a large asteroid strike happening is very small, but we have had a number of near misses that we've only had the technology to track within the last few years.
You don't need to destroy the planet for a meteor to end life as we know it. Meteor strikes can be exceedingly violent events, and a large enough one would kill off basically all reasonably-large life forms. Maybe we could survive as a species if we holed up a large enough number of people in a bunker somewhere far from the location of impact, but we'd need to do it for a rather long time, and life would be far from easy upon exiting the bunker.
Large strikes have happened in the past. They seem to happen about once every hundred million years. So yes, the chances are small, but a large meteor strike is still the most likely to end human life on Earth. But since the chance is so small, I think it's highly likely that we will have colonized other worlds by the time one strikes, or will have the technology to deflect one.
Enough? Of course not. I would have given up my quest to become a physicist a long time ago if I thought we knew everything. But we do know quite a lot, and what's more we can be fairly confident about where our theories break down and where they don't. Outside the Swarzschild radius of a solar mass or larger black hole is one region where our theories should hold very well indeed.
Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.
Legend
There is a theory that you need gas giants in a planetary system in order to promote life. The gas giants basically do a good job of sweeping up anything large enough to destroy planets, and without them it's unlikely you'd have enough time to develop a civilisation before being hit by the normal detrius in a solar system.SugarCoat said:
Having said that, there are also pretty convincing theories that the asteroid belt used to be a planet, and that our moon was formed from a massive impact that would have turned the earth into another asteroid belt if it had been much bigger. So it's likely that as well as regular planet-killer events, there's been at least one complete planet-destruction event, and nearly another one right here on earth.
Last edited by a moderator:
i want the last word!.... there
all i was trying to say was that we havent actually had a chance to study and test anything outside of controlled areas or from huge distances. When it comes to sciences and space there is very little certainty and a whole lot of theory. Thats the entire point to the article and the excitement over the event, to confirm a theory.
that theory of the earth being struck forming the moon also lists it as happening when planets were being formed which is a bit different then saying the moon came from the earth as we know it (obviously).
The other theory is that the large and seemingly out of place distance (asteroid belt) between mars and jupiter is the remanence of a smashed planet(s). whos to know though.
http://www.freemars.org/jeff/planets/solsys.htm
all i was trying to say was that we havent actually had a chance to study and test anything outside of controlled areas or from huge distances. When it comes to sciences and space there is very little certainty and a whole lot of theory. Thats the entire point to the article and the excitement over the event, to confirm a theory.
Bouncing Zabaglione Bros. said:
that theory of the earth being struck forming the moon also lists it as happening when planets were being formed which is a bit different then saying the moon came from the earth as we know it (obviously).
The other theory is that the large and seemingly out of place distance (asteroid belt) between mars and jupiter is the remanence of a smashed planet(s). whos to know though.
http://www.freemars.org/jeff/planets/solsys.htm
Last edited by a moderator:
Mize licks the tip of his pen...
Andromeda...
"one finds that the Andromeda Galaxy and the Milky Way are approaching one another at a speed of 100 to 140 kilometres per second"
Distance to Andromeda ~2.5e6 light years that's 1,079,252,848.8 km·h-1 times the number of hours in a year = 365*24 = 8760
So the distance is about 1e9*1e4 (roughly) or 1e13 km, right?
Speed of 140 km/s ~5e5 km/hr
1e13/5e5 = 2e7
Whew. Not 2 million but 20 million!
That's a relief.
Andromeda...
"one finds that the Andromeda Galaxy and the Milky Way are approaching one another at a speed of 100 to 140 kilometres per second"
Distance to Andromeda ~2.5e6 light years that's 1,079,252,848.8 km·h-1 times the number of hours in a year = 365*24 = 8760
So the distance is about 1e9*1e4 (roughly) or 1e13 km, right?
Speed of 140 km/s ~5e5 km/hr
1e13/5e5 = 2e7
Whew. Not 2 million but 20 million!
That's a relief.
Your calculation is wrong somehow. Instead consider:
If we take our relative velocity to be 120km/sec, then that is 0.0004 times the speed of light (c = 3e5 km/sec). If the galaxy is 2.5 million light years away, then we need only divide distance by speed to get time, or 2.5/0.0004 = 6250 million years, or 6.25 billion years. Of course, as our galaxies get closer, they will accelerate, hence the 3 billion year window I mentioned earlier (obtained from another source, not calculated myself).
If we take our relative velocity to be 120km/sec, then that is 0.0004 times the speed of light (c = 3e5 km/sec). If the galaxy is 2.5 million light years away, then we need only divide distance by speed to get time, or 2.5/0.0004 = 6250 million years, or 6.25 billion years. Of course, as our galaxies get closer, they will accelerate, hence the 3 billion year window I mentioned earlier (obtained from another source, not calculated myself).
zidane1strife
Banned
I've been reading too much of everything, day and night, year after year after year. My body of knowledge in all fields continually grows without bounds.nutball said:
The laws? They're but a subset of ones far beyond our current comprehension. Ones that show these are not the only possible laws that can exist in all potential universes, fundamental laws of all that exists, laws showing the way to reshape what we presently describe as our particular universe's physical laws.nutball said:
Several years ago NASA's sattelite fell to Earth in a way that their calculations didn't show.
Ooops, they changed a gravity formula to account for that.
Looks like our theory of gravity had a slight error or the media reported it that way and the error was accidental.
Ooops, they changed a gravity formula to account for that.
Looks like our theory of gravity had a slight error or the media reported it that way and the error was accidental.
Chalnoth said:
The rules that govern the Universe and our comprehension of them are two very different things.zidane1strife said:
It is undoubtedly true that our understanding of the Universe (the man-made "laws of physics") are incomplete, contain minor or even major errors and omissions.
But that wasn't my point. What I was sniping at was a broad-brush statement that the inexorable advance in technology will overcome all obstacles. My point was that, regardless of the flaws in Man's understanding of the workings on the Universe, if the underlying principles which govern the operation of the Universe dictate that, for example, one cannot travel faster than the speed of light, then there is no possible technological development which will allow humankind to overcome that barrier. It's not a question of lacking the technology, and that waiting for another hundred years will see it all OK, if it's not possible you ain't doing it.
Star Trek has a lot to answer for in this respect I think, it muddles science with technology, shows scientific advancement as being merely the result of "engineering", and suggest that new bits of physics can simply be invented when the plot demands it. Star Trek isn't real people!
If you want to argue that there are no Laws governing the Universe, or that they are mutable and can be bent to Man's will, well then that's an interesting philosophical debate.
Otherwise one should take care not to confuse Man's ignorance of the Laws Of Physics with the those same Laws certainty in their own existence.
I think you're confusing two phenomena (unless I'm missing something!)K.I.L.E.R said:
There was a "cock-up" resulting from a miscalculation which led to the loss of a Mars probe, but this was a cock-up, it wasn't a genuine new physical phenomenon.
More interestingly there has been reported to be a very small discrepancy in the accelerations experienced by some deep space probes (the Pioneers, the Vikings I think, and Ulysses also IIRC) which if taken at face value suggests that the gravitational pull of the Sun isn't as strong as it is expected to be. A modified form of the Gravitational inverse-square law has been proposed as one of the possible explanations for this (after ruling out of bunch of other possibilities). This all came out some time ago (nearly a decade I think), I haven't kept up-to-date with the further work, so I don't know what the current favourite explanation is.
I would be more willing to bet that this has modified our understanding of the mass distribution of the outer solar system, instead of gravity. I haven't heard anything specific on the subject myself, however. The MOND (Modified Newtonian Dynamics) papers I've read recently have dealt with larger-scale modifications, but it seems that it's nearly ruled-out at present.nutball said:
