Silvestru

I was surprised to find that the planet name is Miller and it has it's own page. http://interstellarfilm.wikia.com/wiki/Miller_(planet) Also on this page there are Speculations like the one below: I also found the post below relating to the same Miller planet. Of course these are not my calculations, I am not taking credit for them or anything. Please tell me if this analysis holds up. Also if you want the explination for this quote: and basically all the questions in the OP please read: https://www.space.com/28077-science-of-interstellar-book-excerpt.html All in all, Kip Thorne tries to make a scientific explination for the possibility of this planet to actually exist but of course he had his agenda. (my opinion) Of course a planet that satisfies all these conditions cannot exist.

Your link is busted

Sorry Swansont, I don't really understand what do you mean by the gravity is fairly weak close to the event horizon. You are saying that it is a possible scenario for a planet to have such a time dilation without being on the verge of getting sucked in a BH?

Black holes have bigger mass than stars. Also when/if they get close to each other the reaction is similar to calling a pregnant woman fat.(unconcievably explosive) I really doubt that we can talk about entanglement but to be honest I cant even imagine this.

Of course Interstellar is just a movie so it is not scientifically accurate in all points. In your example I came up with 3 points: 1) Gravitational time dilation is real but for 2 hours on the planet/23 years for Romilly an object would have to be so close to a black hole that it would inevitably spiral into it. 2) The other problem is that the crew could not survive such high Gravity on this planet. (No matter how fit McConaughey is) 3) And the third that I can think of that even if they could, there is no chance that they could leave this planet. For a place with such a bit gravitational time dilation, you would need an escape velocity (How fast you have to go in order to escape the gravitational pull of a body) of almost the speed of light. To try to answer your Question, Romilly would see the planet, her spaceship and all the past decisions that she made which led her to this place, get sucked into this super-massive black hole.

I would never use this but I found a good "Insult" for a specific member on this forum: Your quanta are made up of an unusually high amount of strange particles.

I guess it could be. I can't believe that there is a special article on wikipedia for Einstein's brain. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein%27s_brain

Why don't you express it in your own words if it is so easy to understand?

Probably aiming to become a molecule haha.

Actually your idea of a coconut is probably different than mine. As I think about the green fresh very "meaty" cover coconut, you probably think of the small brown, peeled coconut. I do not understand why you keep referring to "absolute truth" like the tablets of Moses. There are no absolute truths, people have changed their perspectives throughout history. It's actually Ironic that in ancient time we believed in an earth centered universe and of course that is not true but as the observer you can consider yourself right in the middle of "your" observable universe, if that makes you feel better.

The speed of light will not increase near a black hole or any other gravitational field, it is the space itself that is bending. Light will just follow said bending. Lets wait for a more detailed explanation . The Speed of light is at least locally invariant.

I don't really know the pain of manual, hard physical work but I hate office jobs where I have nothing to do. I used to have jobs where I was literally doing nothing 7 out of 8 hours. I could feel my brain numbing.

Welcome back Bender. I agree with your and Swansont's point, I overstated what String theory really is.

Haha I wasnt expectng anything less from NBC but I thought I would add the link anyway.

And can a high energy anti-particle split into a particle and another anti-particle too?

Hello group, I was reading about positrons and in the wikipedia article there is this section: I started reading more about it and it is explained that: I thought that a fermion cannot create another fermion + it's oposite anti-fermion equivalent. It's the equivalent of disappearing.(at least at my current level of understanding). Can anyone help? Links used: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positron http://www.nbcnews.com/id/27998860/

And do all particles decay at the same rate as their anti-particle equivalent. I'm not trying to solve the baryon asymmetry here or anything but before your explanation I was under the impression that these bosons only create fermionic particles without the opposite equivalent. There is nothing mentioned about anti particles in my posted link. https://ibb.co/msHf3F

Hello forum, I was reading the below article about the Higgs boson decaying to fermions and I wanted to get your opinion. https://home.cern/about/updates/2013/11/atlas-sees-higgs-boson-decay-fermions. Is this article acurate? I know Photons and Gluons are out of the question but can other Bossons like Z or W decay into fermions too?

I don't think you guys know how the LEGAL paper industry works. If you don't use paper then paper companies sell that extra land to lets say cow farmers and they cut down the whole forest to farm cows which produce huge amounts of CO2. Actually paper companies manage their forests really well as it is not economically advantageous or sustainable to cut the whole forest so just some selected trees are cut. If paper would be much more popular we would have way more forests. Makes me sick when hippies rage for reducing paper consumption to save the trees...Ok so replace paper packaging with plastic ones. Good job humanity.

Aside from all your incredible patience, I liked this part: OP - "I have defeated all of you!" hahaha honestly I'm surprised there is wifi in the looney hospitals

What do you mean we don't know what space is or what a field is? I am not even going to post a ink for that. Can you explain that? The four fundamental forces are gravitational, electromagnetic, strong, and weak. What do you mean the weak force for example is penetrating space-time?

Can you give an example of something from nothing? We have "witnessed" something coming from nothing, as we have evidence, or a model that says our universe emerged from a point, during the Big Bang Even you say that the Universe emerged from a point. A very dense state that expanded.

I see and based on the second law or Relativity And to further elaborate on OP and your example, no matter how fast you chase a light beam, the beam's speed relative to us will be the same as before we started chasing it.

You would be out of your depth in a parking lot puddle. You are a prime candidate for natural deselection.