mooeypoo

Next time post the citation with the quote, dr.syntax. This is the last time I'm going to warn you about plagiarism. It's about time you give some respect to the sources you cite.

dr.syntax, we're on the internet, it's on the internet, can you stop fiddling around and just give us a link as you are supposed to do to avoid plagiarism? It's not the first time we need to beg you for your sources. Plagiarism is against the rules.

Can we have the origin of this quote, dr.syntax? I'd love to see where it's taken from.

Oops. You're right, it should be 'contract'.. sorry. Still, though, would it? I mean, a black hole is supposedly a huge mass in a very very small area.. aren't we usually treating it as a "dot" ? how could something like that contract, if at all? And seeing as most of the relativistic effects are demonstrated by the light coming back and forth between the two frames of reference, would there be other effects worth mentioning that we would see if something like this happens? Actually, seeing as this is all about relativistic frames, I wonder if we have an example of something similar that we know of already. Did we spot a black hole that is - relative to us - moving at fast velocities? Maybe not .99999c, but close enough to make a comparison based on actual observation? Just wondering.

Yeah, that's what I meant, but I definitely see your point. It's still good to know that I was right. But say, now that we're talking about black holes moving at almost the speed of light compared to an observer -- what would we observe. That's an interesting concept.. the black hole absorbs light, but it's moving, so will we see a streak of blackness? Actually, we might because it will be expanded along the axis of movement, won't it? Will regular math work on this type of problem (If I want to check how much mass the black hole will have compared to rest-mass, etc, while moving) or are there any concepts that need to be added in (like Hawkings Radiations, for instance)..? That might help us see what would happen if a black hole comes close to the solar system at close to the speed of light compared to the solar system. Will we even feel any of its big effects? Sounds like it will be next to us for such a short time that the effect will be miniscule... or am I missing anything?

dr.syntax, you need to stop mixing threads and subjects. This has nothing to do with the supposed singularity, which has a thread on its own. Stay on topic, please, and keep each thread's topic on its own thread.

Did it kill you to just say I was right?

That doesn't mean we aren't capable of understanding it, dr.syntax, it just means there are aspects of this we can't understand yet.

Okay, I'll admit I'm relatively new to relativity (kapow! pun) but I had an idea when I read this, and so I'm hoping one of the other Physicists here could help out. Let's think of it differently. Let's say the black hole isn't what's moving (hence, remove the problem of mass moving close to the speed of light, or how it achived that speed) but rather that the observer is. Therefore, to *us* the observers, it moves at that speed. Does that make sense? My point is that I don't see a problem with thinking of a moving black hole as long as we take into account that movement is relative. We, planet Earth, are probably moving at close to the speed of light for some other random observer on the universe whose frame of reference is moving (relative to us) at close to the speed of light. We don't think we're moving, but the distant observer sees us as if we are. That's the point of relativity. So there shouldn't be many problems with a black hole moving close to the speed of light. In "no problem" I mean it *could* be treated realistically. There's no reason not to think that at some place in the universe such black hole moves at close to the speed of light in some reference frame. That's the point of relativity. When I was in E&M course a year ago (the course leading to Relativity) we drew up "time" graphs, where you can compare plausible frames of reference per events. We even had an exam question where to one observer event A happened before event B, and to another event B happened before event A, while to a third both event A and B happened at the same time. It all depended on which frame of reference you picked, and as long as the speed of the frame of reference isn't above the speed of light, it's "fair game". That said, there's a lot of other things happening with a black hole that should be considered in terms of what we would see in our moving frame of reference for that black hole. I am not sure it's as simple a calculation as to just include its massive mass, seeing as its mass affects time next to and its gravity affects light coming to/back from it. In terms of how to describe it, I'm not sure. Maybe one of the Physics experts could shed some light on it, it sounds extremely interesting as a thought exercise anyways..

It is indeed, thank you. Duplicate threads merged. dr.syntax, if you think there's a problem, reporting it once is enough. If you think we didn't notice, report the problem-post by clicking the triangular "report" icon and sending the moderators a message. ~moo

iNow, this type of statement doesn't really contribute anything to the thread other than to push it towards the personal-attack angle. Please refrain from those. dr.syntax, you should really provide citations for your claims, though. This type of post is clearly taken from somewhere; please give us the common courtesy of checking and reading more for ourselves, as well as avoiding plagiarism, and supply your resources. ~moo

(Jesus) I mean, I was getting high in the woods one day, this drunk guy somehow finds me and recognizes me. He swears up and down that he'll keep his mouth shut about the whole thing, so I let him go. BAM. mormons. (Jesus) and don't even get me started on Jehova's Witlesses.

Peeing doesn't CREATE acid, peeing makes use of existing acid. The lovely realm of semantics. Now please carry on, guys.. the acid in the pee comment was helpful in the sense that it's not something people know, so you learned something new. Instead of bickering about what the OP meant, let's just continue the discussion civilly. Whose answer is the best is irrelevant; they are all helpful, and the discussion continues on. ~moo

It's also not new. We knew that around 2012 there's going to be another solar maximum (we have those every century or so). The main difference, though, is that last time - a century and a half or so ago - we didn't have satellites and other electronics that actually ARE susceptible for such damages. The higher radiation will not harm human beings or life. It might harm electronics, specially in space. NASA knew this for a while, it's planning. Satellite companies knew this for a while, I'm sure they planned. We will most likely have a few shortages and planned power cut-offs to prevent damage. All Kaku is saying is that we might've had our calculations wrong and the peak will be higher than expected. We're not talking about "OMG LIFE ON EARTH ABOLISHED!" higher, we're talking about electronics-damage higher. It's not new. And it's definitely not Mayan. ~moo

You piqued my interest with this one specifically: May I ask how? It sounds totally unique, and yet.. not sure if it solves anything in terms of actually going places faster... ...specifically these distances. Maybe you should stick to standard stuff.. like the stargate... But yeah, if you're going for scientific plausibility, this one's a hard one, specially in those distances. You might have to give up some of the plausibility for the sake of your story plot.. ~moo

Great, only the ... were, originally "up". As in "blow up" zombies. Which makes it clearer why we didn't really think it was that funny.. hence, the bickering.

So you don't have any evidence and you don't know the physics. Now that that's settled, there's no reason to keep this thread open any longer.

Right, but if the logic isn't supported by evidence, it's not real. Here's an example for you for pure logic that doesn't represent reality: All animals that have fur are mammals. A bear has fur, therefore it's a mammal. Platypus has fur, therefore it's a mammal. Great logic. Only it's not true, because there's no evidence that the first statement is true. In fact, evidence show that the first claim is FALSE. And while the second statement is true, the third statement is absolutely false. Logic must be backed up by evidence. For that matter, Neveos, your claim is shown by evidence to be absolutely, unequivocally false. All hypothesis coming out of that claim are, therefore, false. Unless you find a way to show us why your first claim isn't false, your entire theory is bunk. It's illogical just like my three sentences above are illogical. Stop beating around the bush. It's time to give evidence, Neveos. Do you have any? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedOne more issue we must address here. I asked you what is the highest level of physics you've ever taken, to which you answered In itself, that doesn't mean your theory is false, HOWEVER, it does mean that you should be careful who you blame in not understanding the actual physics. Some of the members that have answered you are professional scientists, or well on their way of being professional scientists. While, again, this doesn't mean their claims are automatically true, it does give their knowledge in physics MUCH more credence. In other words, Neveos, next time you claim people don't know what they're talking about, and choose to ignore resources they give you to help you understand the current physics you so vehemently oppose, you might want to consider your own grasp on the subject matter. It's usually much better arguing against a subject you're actually familiar with. ~moo

Okay, that's quite enough of that. Neveos, you NEED to read our rules.

Let's move on from the accusation stage, please. Again you seem to resort to blame in an attempt to avoid an actual answer. Do you notice that you gave no actual evidence yet again, Neveos? Don't claim we're shutting you up, please. We're still waiting for the actual science you so eloquently claim we are so afraid of. I might one day understand something different about today's physics. In fact, I hope so. As a physicist, there's nothing I want MORE than to rediscover physics. Or, for that matter, for anyone to rediscover physics. That means I have a VERY big possibility for unique research and - in turn - getting a Nobel prize myself for researching this "new" brand of science. Fame an money, eh? Beyond the "small" result of understanding our universe better, rediscovering physics will give all physicist a new meaning for their research. You'll be hard pressed to find a physicist who won't be totally excited about that. That said, logic on its own isn't a good method of describing reality. You need to make sure that reality fits your logic, not the other way around. If I make the claim: All animals with fur are mammals. I can deduce, logically, that every time I see an animal with fur, it is a mammal. And I'd be right. Until we discovered the Platypus. Oops, now I'm wrong. How do I know if my logic is true for reality? I make sure that the EVIDENCE fit reality. I can state taht all dogs are friendly, because all dogs i *MET* are friendly, but that doesn't mean that they really are. If you give us a theory that relies on flawed logic, the theory is flawed. If your theory cannot be used to describe reality in a useful way -- that is, we can't use it to, say, deduce how things behave, then your theory is useless. You're supplying NOTHING scientific. Just empty claims that keep repeating themselves. Okay, see, here's the problem. If you would have tried to describe something completely unknown, then MAYBE we could have been a bit more open minded and less rigorous with asking for evidence. However, the phenomena you're trying to re-describe already have explanations. They have explanations that WORK. They have explanations that are supported by EVIDENCE. By repeated experimentation and mathematical modelling. Tehy're supported to the point of being 99% likely true. You're essentially expecting us to drop the EVIDENCED theory for a theory that you just invented because you feel like it. Give us something to work with, Neveos. Okay, I'll play. How *can* it be detected, then? If it can't be detected at all, then your theory is unfalsifiable, and hence nonscientific. Further, you will now need to explain why this "expanding matter" that we can't detect does not cause other phenomena that are SUPPOSED to happen when matter expands; whether we can detect the increased density or not, gravity WILL increase. If you claim that the density increases but we can't detect it, and gravity for some odd reason does NOT increase, then there's no difference between saying that and saying that the matter is effectively NOT expanding. It's unfalsifiable, unrealistic, and uncorroborated. It also turns moot by observations. We can explain gravitational lensing very well using a theory that was corroborated experimentally, mathematically and observationally. If you want anyone to replace current science with yours, you need to bring as strong evidence (AT LEAST as strong) or more. Otherwise, we're arguing empty claims here. So, anything and everything we can't explain supports your theory? That's unfalsifiable. It's like claiming "God works in mysterious ways" and "everything is god's plan" whether it's a dead baby or a saved baby. It's not science. She asked you how your theory will affect orbits. Seeing as we understand how orbits are affected by INCREASED MATTER, and your theory claims that matter increases, the question is legitimate. Your answer made it clear you don't quite understand how we knwo what we know about orbits; I gave you links to read about it. Okay, seriously now. What's the most advanced level of physics course that you took recently? ever? You're speaking as if you know everything while what you're *SAYING* is just simply wrong. I gave you links that SHOW that you're wrong, Neveos. Ignoring them don't make you right. I will not continue this if you insist on repeating your statements without respecting the members here enough to give proper responses to our questions. Stop avoiding questions and start debating science or find yourself another forum to debate in. We're not a philosophy forum, we're a science forum, and YOU came to US. Read our rules, that's not a request. ~moo

I like bad boys. Seriously, though, no I'm trying to say that if you want help with finding a plausible way to represent some non-scientific (or future-scientific or possible-scientific) phenomenon in a scientifically-plausible way for a plot, then you should say so. And I was trying to say that I think you are the one who made assumptions (that we would assume the aliens know a lot), and not necessarily the people who saw the aliens...which is an attempt to explain why you didn't quite get what you expected to get. Specifically, what you said here: Is an assumption we automatically have... To assume otherwise is to fall into fallacious thinking, which is why we - scientists and science-minded people -- REALLY try to avoid it. Is my point clearer? I'm trying.

There's been many attempts for a debate, Neveos. The problem seems to be your answers. See this: The problem with this answer is that you don't offer actual scientific explanation, but rather a story that has no bearing on reality. You need to give some evidence for this idea of yours, Neveos. If you don't have the math skills to build a mathematical model (which, you should know will be needed at some point) then at the very least a suggestion on how anyone can corroborate this theory with observation and experimentation, or some actual evidence. You didn't supply any.. anyone can attempt to explain a phenomenon with imaginative stories - just read old scifi books and you'll encounter DOZENS of failed attempts to describe natural phenomena. The point is not to create a convincing story, but to show that story actually happens in reality. The only way to do THAT, is to supply evidence. You mean can we explain orbits? Of course we can, very accurately, in fact. So accurately, that we can predict where an object will be years from now, minutes from now, decades from now. That accurate, yes. Luckily, wikipedia is a good place to start with general explanation about orbits: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit You can continue to a bit more here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler%27s_laws_of_planetary_motion Kepler's laws of planetary motions are EXTREMELY accurate, and allow us to explain the phenomena and predict future positions. Not only does your story not allow us to do this, it also is shown to be untrue by current observations. Just read. ~moo

Mathematics serve to give us predictability. Don't give us math, neveos, that's fine, start with something simpler. Like physics that makes sense. Like experimental evidence. Like observational evidence. Like an explanation of why the evidence CONTRADICT your theory. Start there, hm? We can wait with the math, that can come later. Just stop beating around the bush. Seriously, we aren't going to be persuaded by repetitions, and neither is the scientific community. Are you going to do science at all or are you just content to claim no one other than you understands physics? ~moo

Neveos, stop making things personal. The reason people criticize your work is because it lacks actual scientific evidence, not because they "don't like it". You are AGAIN being given the chance to prove us all wrong. Use it wisely. You're not in a philosophy forum, you're in a science forum, where we require rigor in the scientific method. Making personal attacks/claims about others who criticize your theory will NOT get your ideas to be any more scientific. It is also against our rules. I recommend you go over our rules again, Neveos. ~moo

Scifi novels can have anything in them if you don't mind not using actual physics. The problem with your initial question is that our initial assumption seemed to NATURALLY be that the aliens might not necessarily know more than we do, or rather, know everything. As science-minded people, that's a natural assumption to make - as Mr Skeptic pointed out, assuming otherwise is falling into a logical fallacy (specifically "Argument from Authority"). So, I think that's why you might not have gotten what you were looking for. It seems to me that the assumption you THINK people would automatically make (that the aliens know more about that specific issue) is not necessarily what scientists actually would make. Let me put it this way: If an alien race came to Earth and stated that the moon is made of cheese, what assumption would you say would be wrong? Obviously, no one will assume the aliens know more than us if they stated this. It would be ridiculous. We would just assume the Aliens lost their minds while travelling to earth (maybe a side-effect of FTL drive, ha! plot twist!) or that they're yanking our chains. For us to take them seriously,they'd need to show some SERIOUS evidence that we had it wrong all these years. Like, that the core of the moon is made of cheese while the rest is covered in dust.. or.. something. Anyhoo, my point is that the scenario I gave doesn't give you the flawed assumption you were looking for because it's quite clearly against everything we know. I think the same can be said about the expansion of the universe - maybe not to the same degree, but definitely close enough to have the definite majority of scientists just not take the Aliens' word for it. If the Aliens would've said their OWN planet had cheese growing from trees, we might have taken their word for it. First, because it might be implausible, but not entirely impossible, and second, because it really doesn't matter that much. The statement doesn't negate any known physical laws or overturn any theories as to require us to completely change what and how we know things about the universe. The statement you put up in the OP does change what we know about the universe and affects some of our theories, so it will require actual proof. Scientists will be demand more rigor before they agree to switch their entire worldview. ~moo