koti

I browsed through the video, they are confusing with that statement in the video where they say that just adding matter together can create a black hole. The important part to keep in mind is that matter needs to reach the Swarzchild radius to become a black hole - matter needs to be squeezed to the point that it reaches a critical density and that point is the Swarzchild radius. Matter and mass are very different physical concepts. Matter is the atoms that form molecules which form stuff around us. Mass is one of the „qualities” of matter. Mass is like weight but its independand of gravity where „weight” depends on gravity. If you have an object of say 1kg of mass on earth it will weigh less on the moon and more on Saturn because the gravity dictates how much it weighs. On all 3 planets the mass is the same though - 1kg. If that 1kg object flies around in space where there is no gravity it it still has a MASS of 1kg but weighs nothing. I don’t know if this helps, Im trying I suggest we stay away from what happens with an object at near light speeds for now, you need to understand the basics first or you’ll get confused beyond comprehension when trying to understand General Relativity.

Gravity does not pull from infinite number of directions afterall your feet always stay on the surface of the earth and you never fly away into space. Gravity compared to other forces is extremely weak but its not so obvious...electromagnetism and the strong and weak forces dominate the particle level world where the large scale, planterary and gallactic world is dominated by gravity. Ofcourse you can easly pick up a 1kg neodimium magnet from the ground „defeating” earth’s gravity and you will have problems unsticking that same magnet from a big piece of steel which implies that gravity is much weaker (and it kind of is) than electromagnetism but this is not a good comparison in my opinion... in the large cosmic scale gravity defeats all other forces, black holes being an extreme example.

Compressing mass into higher pressure so it takes less space doesn't require adding mass. No matter how much mass you add without crunching it into smaller space, you will not end up with a black hole. You need to squeeze mass into a ridiculously small space to end up with a black hole, the formula they mention in your youtube film is most likely the Schwarzschild radius formula. I'm not sure how you could confuse mass with matter, you need to ask a specific question here. To give you an idea how dense matter has to be for a black hole to form - if you'd take a matchbox full of Neutron Star matter which is much less dense than that of a black hole, the matchbox would weigh ~3 billion tonnes.

Its not about adding mass to earth, its about crunching the current earth mass into a smaller space. Adding mass would not cause a black hole, squezing earth into about 8.7mm radius would.

Apparently Riddick’s universe works differently.

What can I say, you're right. As for the downvote, stop explaining yourself or I'll really think its you

Somebody gave me down vote for the above. Could that someone explain what is wrong with the above post?

I get it. I just prefer to refuse to dig deep into contexts when faced with a trivial question like the OP. Unless the OP specifies otherwise which he didnt the context is trivial.

Aparently its easy to fall into a trap when overthinking things To put it simple and short, the answer to the OP is: „Yes, light in the visible spectrum is visible to humans” My way of thinking is this: If a cable linking the sensor to the CPU in a camera is broken it means that the cable is broken not that the camera cannot „see”

Here we go again with the semantics. I would say that "seeing" is the final product of the capture/processing process, the capture process (retina) is not seeing but its really a pointless discussion. All this doesn't change the fact that light in the visible spectrum is very much visible to humans.

Retina which is a light sensitive tissue in the human eye captures light in the ~390nm-700nm wavelength region. Light present in the tissue = "seeing" Lack of light present in the tissue = no "seeing" Light in the 390nm-700nm length is visible to humans. Light in other wavelengths is not visible to humans. There's really not many issues which are simpler than that. Edit: It doesn’t matter if the light is straight from a source or is being reflected off of something, as long as it lands in your retina we see it. Issues arise when discussing perception of what we see (color) but there is absolutely no issue as to the fact that we see light in the visible spectrum.

Do you mean does that bring light to Furyan5's understanding of the OP? I doubt it. +1 though.

He caught swansont on a good day I see.

How does he post if he was suspended yesterday ?

It really is. The rest is semantics as noted by posts above - does bacteria „see” when capable only of distinguishing between presence and lack of light or does Michael Angelo „see” working on fresques in the sistine chapel. Not an interesting question, at least not on a Monday when my gd Win10 keeps upgrading not letting me work.

Eyes are the sensors, the brain is the processor. "Seeing" occurs when both work together to create an image in our brain. The principle is basically the same as with any device which senses and processes an image. Film or still cameras work under the same basic principle, a sensor captures light and a CPU processes the captured light to form an image.

Light bouncing off of stuff is visible to humans in ~390nm-700nm wavelength region, period. The rest is overthinking.

Shame...I was hoping for some more insight on a Chinese super-human Muslim genius clone soldier with a high IQ and insane strenght and speed.

I don’t know what strategic game and charades they might be playing human cloning wise but who knows, you might be right.

Considering China’s enormous population - I believe them.

„Biologists in Shanghai, China, have created the first primates cloned with a technique similar to the one used to clone Dolly the sheep and nearly two dozen other species. The method has failed to produce live primates until now” https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-01027-z

1 week and not a single reply...could someone get me on the right track so I have the units correct when digging into this? I should be able to have the thermal behaviour of the emitters from the datasheets. Should I take into account something else besides what I included in the OP?

Lets not jump into conclusions but what comes out of in between the lines from the below quote just might have something to do with this precedent: “My sister Dr. Jeannette Epps has been fighting against oppressive racism and misogynist in NASA and now they are holding her back and allowing a Caucasian Astronaut to take her place!” Henry Epps wrote in a Facebook post Saturday. (The post has since been removed.)”

Thank you for clarifying this.