BobbyJoeCool

I see now then. Thanks for all the help (and the referances)!

what's a "White Hole?" If you mean what I think you do (an object with negative mass, and therefor has negative gravety), I don't believe a such object exists... But in theory, it would depend on the size of the two objects... When two objects collide and become one, to find the new mass, you simply add the masses. If said while hole has a mass of -900000 kg, and the black hole has a mass of 899999kg, the resulting mass would be -1kg, thus creating a smaller white hole. if it were say, -899999 and 900000, then you get 1kg, thus creating a smaller black hole. Although it is entirly possible for them to be EXACTLY the same mass and thus you would end up with 0... good by black hole, good by white hole, you've just created normal space. but still, I don't believe there is a such thing as a White Hole. If there is, I don't think we've found one. A black hole is something that sucks everything in, including light. It compresses it to a single point (or very near to that) called a singularity where all the mass, energy, light, information... everything is contained. it's not a conduit to another object like a white hole. (I think I remember this being the premise for the movie Star Trek: The Motion Picture, where the Voyager VI probe fell into a black hole and came out a white hole...). Everything that "falls" into a black hole is contained inside the black hole.

Theoretically then, since I could no longer produce the acceleration, would I then explode out of the singularity (because I can't really be accelerating without the power to accelerate, and since my mass isn't great enough to keep up the acceleration needed to force many atoms (or cells) to occupy a point, would I then explode, or once a singularity exists, does it just keep existing?

Are you talking about my comment, his or both... if it's mine, I'm sorry, I just got caught up in the heat of an argument. No offence intended to anyone...

[math]\frac{n^3+3n^2+2n}{6}=x[/math] Where x is the sum of the first n triangular numbers (explained later) Just because it got me into the State Math Competition when I was in High School... A "triangular number" (in this example) is definded as the sum of the first n numbers. eg "n"th triangular number is 1+2+3....+n=x. so, when n=2, x=1+2=3. When n=10, x=1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+10=55. The question I had to answer, what is the sum of the first 155 triangular numbers (with no calculator)... I had three minutes to get enough points to qualify... well, [math]1+2+3+4+5...+n=\sum_{n=1}^{n}{n}=\frac{n(n+1)}{2}[/math] so I needed to figure out (with no calculator) [math]1+3+6+10...=\sum_{n=1}^{n}{\frac{n(n+1)}{2}}=\frac{n^3+3n^2+2n}{6}[/math] Thus allowing me to get my answer... [math]\frac{(155)^3+3(155)^2+2(155)}{6}=632710[/math]

lol. that's funny. her arm is a little off color, but I still like it.

1)Using lack of evidence as evidence of the opposite. 2)See #1. 3)EVERYTHING can be proved or disproved, because science involves EVERYTHING! 4)We have those things, but where did they come from? Tell me where they come from 5)You're right... this thread was about attacking creationists as a people, which is not what this fourm is about at all. This fourm is about science. And, using the scientific method properly, there's just as much evidence to support both theories of the beginning of life. 6)Sterotype, and an assumption without basis. You're taking facts, and twisting them to say the we were not "created." that we "evolved" from a sludge.

And I refuse to dismiss it completely, as you have, until given substatial prove of it not being true. But back to my question a minute ago (which you didn't answer)... prove life stared from the primortial soup. on the same note, prove that it was "created" by some deity. you can't do either. You're assuming that God doesn't exist because it cannot be proven, yet ignoring the fact the you assume that life created itself even though it cannot be proven. Things change, it could be a deity. Things reproduce, possibly through a deity's design. I mean, we wouldn't stand much chance if we couldn't reproduce. Now say that I'm sounding like a "creationist," because "I'm using lack of evidence as evidence." I'm saying, that there is no ACTUAL evidence for either side of this argument. All the "evidence" you mentioned is being interpreted by you to support your cause. I realize that evolution is change, but you just assume that creationism is wrong because the general definition of evolution is so vague that it's hard for it not to be wrong. bypass the idea of evolution for a second (since creationism is the theory of a beginning and evolution is a theory of what has happened since) and start trying to prove that we came from a primortial soup instead of from a deity. (and don't assume that since I'm talking about creationisum, that means I think the deity created HUMAN life...)

*start sarcasum* that proves it... ok. I guess I was just wrong to even think than someone like you could be wrong... *end sarcasum*

ok. what evidence, and can you say for an ESTABLISHED FACT that evolution is true? Since I know you're going to say yes, prove it to me.

before I post this, I realize that almost all of you will now look down on me for saying this, but I posted in a thread in the PHI&RE section abut something similar... I am an evolutionist, but I have an open mind. My best friend (honestly, she is my best friend, and the closest one I've ever had. She's closer to me than my girlfriend ever was) is a creationist, and she has an open mind. We can speak intellegently about the debates and flame wars on this particular subject, but we talk about how we both really don't like the kind of people who talk as if they ARE right and that everyone who doesn't believe what they do is wrong. Evolutionists: substantially prove to me that creationisum is wrong. Creationists: substantially prove to me tha evolutionism is wrong. Now... much more importantly... Creationists: substantially prove to me that creationisum is right. Evolutionists: substantially prove to me tha evolutionism is right. Most of you spend so much of your time trying to disprove the other (creationisits especially) that you forgot that you cannot prove your view either. You get so caught up believing that the other person is wrong (and as many of you have said... evil.) that you just get mad that the rest of the world doesn't believe what you believe and spend all your time proving them wrong. Furthermore, a lot of things in those properties can be said of many evolutionists (especially on this website). using lack of evidence as evidence... flame.... spam (such as most of this thread)... personal attacks... ignoring LACK of evidence... Say what you want, but, aside from what you believe to be true (and cannot prove), a lot of you are just the same as the "creationist" described at the beginning of this thread.

do you know what dust is? There are things moving about in the air other than just bugs... there's moisture, dust, pollen, particles of so many things that it could be just catching the light and reflecting it, and the fact that there's many of them means that there's more there than in most places. Plus, the two "on top of each-other." You may notice that one orb is bigger than the other... which is one way we precive depth. One could simply be further away than the closer one. Also, there are many things else that can contribute to this... The fact the the camera has a lens. Maybe the lens was dirty and there was some light shining on it (like the light from the flash got back to the lens and illuminated the dust on the lens as the picture was being taken). Maybe there were contaminants on the film that caused this effect. And for all we know, you've somehow generated these orbs with a computer. Have you seen some of the fake images that people can make with computers nowadays? Someone could actually take one person's legs, another person's hips, another person's belly, another person's chest, another person's arms, another person's head and put them all together and make it look, except under VERY close examination, like that person actually has all the features when they actually belong to 5-7 different people. Now, before you say that I said that you're doing this, I'm mearly mentioning it as a possibility. Since you seem to have jumped to the conclution that they're ghosts, I can see you jump to the conclution that I'm trying to discredit you by accusing you of doctoring the pictures...

I see what your saying. your saying that no matter what the acceleration created by a the gravety of a black hole (for example, say it's c/s (which would be the forces at the event horizon)), after the second it takes to reach c, it reaches terminal velocity and cannot go any faster. And now that the acceloration is k*c/s, where k>1 (so the acceleration is faster than c/s), in order to escape, you have to be able to accelerate FASTER than gravety pulls on you. right? In order to escape Earth's gravety, you don'thave to reach a certain speed, you just have to accelerate up at a speed greater than 9.8m/s/s, right? So, is it theoretically possible that if one could accelereate faster than c/s (even though you can't go faster than c), that you could escape a black hole, even once inside the event horizon (assuming that the shearing effects don't tear you a new one)?

hot dogs... nature's way of saying "I told you not to just mix meatlike substances together." *shudders uncontrolably* Now, how goes the search for an edible substance? I hope you kept looking, because eat that, and you may not be able to post anymore because you will probably... well, I leave it to the imagination...

I was doing a "psudo-funny" rant the other day, and it actually involved a "beef-like food subsitiute." Very funny. (and odd...) what the frack is that? and where did you get it?

Think about the universe being the "volume" of a 4 dimentional object... For example, Imagine a sphere made up of a streachy material on the surface. Things exist in 2 dimentions on the surface of this sphere, and can move about the surface area of the sphere... and 2D being on this sphere would be perplexed when it moves in any given direction because it doesn't know that it's actually moving in 3D, because it perceives the "universe" (the sphere's surfcace) as being 2D. Try to visualize that the "universe" is actually a part of a 4D object that exists in a 4D universe (where in theory there could be other 4D objects with other 3D universes). As for expantion... think of what happens to the surface area of the sphere if the sphere gets bigger.... expands now doesn't it?

ok. As I understand it, gravity is created by mass. The more mass, the greater the effect of gravity's pull. Why does the center of a black hole have to be a singularity? What if it does have volume, albeit a very small about of volume. and that there is just enough mass in the universe to make gravity strong enough to condence all matter into a point with no volume (singularity), and it since it's a point with mass (thus infinite density) and possibly stores all the energy on the universe... the energy of the universe actually overcomes the gravetational forces of a universal black hole, and BOOM. everything is given an escape velocity from the sinularity and for a VERY long time (several trillion eons...) everything slowely comes to a stop and the gravetational forces of everything in the universe slowley draws everything back together back into a that singularity and it all happens again. But back to what I was saying... who can say that there's a true singularity at thew center of a black hole? or has this been proven and I'm just an uninformed fool?

I suppose I could ask what you put in there to get it (as in do you just type pi?) or where can I see something that will show me how to do it, because I couldn't find it in the FAQ...

how do you guys get that fancy math type that can actually show pi?

I'll try this again then... (I had 15 minutes before I had to be at work and didn't have time to proofread.) again, we're saying that r=1 V=1/3*pi*r'^2*h drawing up the first cone again, the radius of the cone is (2*pi-Ø)/(2*pi) because 2pi-Ø is the circumfrance of the circle at the base, and you divide by 2pi to get back to the radius) Just to simplify things, I'm going to subsitute 2*pi as "x"... r'=(x-Ø)/x V1=1/3*pi*((x-Ø)/x)^2*h h is a leg of a right triangle where c=1, and a=(x-Ø)/x and b=h a^2+b^2=c^2 b^2=c^2-a^2 b^2=1-(x-Ø/x)^2 so h^2=1-(x-Ø/x)^2 and h=sqrt(1-(x-Ø)/x)^2) so V1=1/3*pi*((x-Ø)/x)^2*sqrt(1-(x-Ø)/x)^2) onto the second cone... The second cone has a curcumfrance at the base of Ø, so r'=Ø/x V2=1/3*pi*(Ø/x)^2*h again, h is in a right triangle with a=Ø/x, c=1, and b=h a^2+b^2=c^2 b^2=c^2-a^2 b^2=1-(Ø/x)^2 so h^2=1-(Ø/x)^2 and h=sqrt(1-(Ø)/x)^2) and so V2=1/3*pi*(Ø/x)^2*sqrt(1-(Ø)/x)^2) and so, V1+V2=1/3*pi*((x-Ø)/x)^2*sqrt(1-(x-Ø)/x)^2)+1/3*pi*(Ø/x)^2*sqrt(1-(Ø)/x)^2) or if you like V1+V2=1/3*(pi*((x-Ø)/x)^2*sqrt(1-(x-Ø)/x)^2)+pi*(Ø/x)^2*sqrt(1-(Ø)/x)^2)) taking the derivative by hand is still a pain. but this equation still looks wrong, because I don't remember having square roots. I remember when we did this with one of the cones, I had the luxury of squaring both sides of the equation (thus getting rid of the square root), but I'm not sure if it applies here... unless you square the volume of EACH cone before adding them, but would you come up with the same result? I know it's just pi, but it was getting there that was challenging.

I really liked being able to design your own world using Forge. it was so mcuh fun. I miss Marathon now, I can't play it on my OS X...