imatfaal

Neutrinos are fundamental and not made of quarks

! Moderator Note question Can a Black Hole Explode? split to its own thread. Please don't ask tangential and only vaguely related questions - keep threads to one topic please http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/107048-can-a-black-hole-explode/

That tallies with what was told to Stephen Hawking before he first published A Brief History of Time - it was why only e=mc^2 was included in that book

...says the OP positing a supernatural creature

"If God really does exist..." then I will be Smaug the Dragon from MiddleEarth

Spin is different isn't it? Sorry rush of blood to the head

David Cameron's actions whilst Leader of a Coalition government included some incredibly extreme policy without too much taking into account the much less hard-line perspectives of his co-habitees

No. The CMBR is an afterglow of the universe about 380,000 years after the big bang - when +ve ions and electrons started to become atoms and the universe stopped being opaque. It may (must) have the detail of how the universe looked at very early stages embedded in it - which might mean some folk would answer yes to your question (the big bang is a model of the universe from the very earliest stages we can hypothesise about - therefore there are fractions of time before the big bang but by definition we know nothing about them) but I would say no

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/12/opinion/wonder-woman-weaponized.html?smid=tw-nytopinion&smtyp=cur&_r=0 article on the changing character

1) Physics within the event horizon is pretty much guesswork - time and space are no longer as we normally understand them; normal physics might not apply but we don't know what will. 2) The influence of gravity is not changed by its own influence. FYG the gravitational waves from the event detected by LIGO, and the changes of the gravitational field / strength propagated outwards at speed of light. 3) see 2 4) within the black hole we do not know how physics is different - but we would not expect the gravitational attraction of the black hole to be changed by the fact that it is a black hole 5) gravity does not have an escape velocity. gravity is the curvature of space-time, so is a black hole; you cannot divorce gravity from a black hole and treat it like EMR

perfect. Here is an article - the one I think that SciAm thing is about https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3293998/

Thanks iNow and DrP. A differentiation between reported intensity and physiological ntensity of an induced pain is a nice difference and needs thought

Nope - the world is still an interesting place. And the more I learn the greater the amount I realise I have yet to learn Again No. I am still in awe - much more so than I was as an insouciant youth. The greater one's experience and skill at interacting with the world and its peoples the more marvellous it all seems

That's not a citation - it is a link to a pop-science medicine programme. not being difficult - but so much of the content of programmes like that is just not true. I am prepared to believe that women experience pain more intensely, or that men do, or both the same- but for a discussion of why this should be the case we must first be sure that it is the case.

! Moderator Note Not biology - moved to Lounge

I am not bored now - I am very rarely bored; why would I be bored over a longer stretch of time? It is not as if one would run out of things to do

Citation required. Show that your assertion is true before asking why it might be true

The thing about escape velocity is true - but to an extent coincidental. The black hole forms because space time is so warped by the gravity that the geometry does not allow any outward passages from within the event horizon. Remember that on a normal object the escape velocity is the speed that you need to be going to escape with no further effort - ie you will coast to infinity without ever being pulled back. On a normal object you could (given a very long ramp*) just walk up the gravity well ( it would just take a very long time) at a much slower speed than escape velocity. Inside the event horizon of a black hole no amount of effort can lift you away from the centre - because all directions lead to the centre; it is a geometrical trap - all roads lead to the same place and that is further in. So your calculations and conclusions are based on a very shakey ground. A very large black hole will have an acceleration due to gravity at the event horizon of 10^5 metres per second - which is huge but not beyond imagination. I will dig out a nice primer on black holes. FYG the escape velocity of light being the reason for black holes is much older than General relativity (Mithell & Laplace 18C) *Four thousand metres vertical distance is a very respectable day of cycling up hills - at this rate of vertical ascent it would take 50 days to reach low earth orbit

[latex]E_T = 0 = ( + E) + ( - E) = \sum { + m{c^2}} + \sum { - \frac{{G{m_i}{m_j}}}{{{r_{ij}}}}} = 0[/latex] This is the first equation and this is the second [latex]{E_T} = 0 = ( + E) + ( - E) = \sum { + {m_ + }{c^2}} + \sum { - {m_ - }{c^2}} + \sum U = 0[/latex]

Roger - where are you getting the idea that z is an anti-photon? Your threads would go much smoother if you provided a background to the questions you have asked.

! Moderator Note Mandlbaur Everyone in this thread realises what is wrong with your conception and why this leads to your fallacious assertions - except you. You have been really quite rude to everyone who has tried to explain your misunderstanding. Now you are insulting a member who has spent considerable time trying to re-engage your understanding of momentum and angular momentum. Personally I will not put up with this level of ingratitude. I am moving this thread to speculations and will close it fairly promptly if you do not start to respond to counter-arguments - for your further guidance, your replies to counters should be more than denials and slights. You are challenging a keystone of mechanics - and seem to be doing so based on a misunderstanding of a very basic equation and a general lack of knowledge of the field. The thread would have remained open for as long as it took for these problems to be remedied - but if you are going to spurn help then your OP will be treated as base speculation. Do not respond to this moderation within the thread.

after I was booted from Uni I did temporary work to make ends meet - I had hurt my index finger and could no longer type so had to do manual work. I spent four weeks cleaning out the compacted grapes from the bottom of huge boilers after the manufacture of sone sort of ginger wine. Ridiculously hot, full noddy suits, overpowering smell even through face mask, back-breaking and cramped - and the temping agency went bust and I never got paid for the last ten days.

To be honest your responses in this thread make me realise why people like Trump get elected. Why are you posting when you clearly have no idea of the issues, get snotty when your mistakes are pointed out to you, and fail to understand the consequences of actions? The level of actual political disengagement married with a self-perception of political nous is terrifying; DK in physics speculation is vaguely annoying - in crucial matters of politics it is a bit scary.

Proper LOL

Do I lose all geek credentials because I had to look up ST:TNG on google? Just shows I was not cut out to be a scientist.