questionposter

I'm pretty sure I'm explaining this right, but I might be getting this mixed up with something else. Unfortunately, Hawking radiation is actually way way more complex than that, and that's only because it deals with virtual particles, which are sort of like particles than carry information, but don't entirely exist until they cause an effect and are measured. What scientists have much evidence for is these semi-existent "virtual particles" to appear in a positive and negative pair out of the nothingness of space for extremely brief periods of time, and then go back to not existing by running into each other, since positive plus negative equals neutral, or nothing. So what hawking radiation is, is when these virtual particles appear out of the nothingness of space, but they appear so close to the event horizon of the black hole that one particle's probability get's sucked in, so that the other particle can't annihilate itself with the other and go back to not existing at all, so the leftover particle that didn't get sucked in simply travels through space without something to annihilate with. But, these virtual particle's still aren't "real" entirely, it's like trying to extract energy from a magnetic field. I mean a magnetic field can store energy, you can can't just take energy from it, and it's because it consists of these virtual particles that don't entirely exist in the sense that we know. If you know a bit of math beyond a basic level, they are like imaginary numbers. Imaginary numbers can still have value, but they aren't real, even though they can be multiplied in ways to generate real numbers. We can measure a gravitational field right? Well, we can measure those effects of virtual particle's, but the virtual particles themselves, are, well, virtual.

Ok, well, do we even know really anything about virtual particles?

You seem a little too cocky, and I usually see this in science when stuff sounds so strange that it can't be true, even though it is. The "Faster than light thing" could easily be miscalculations and like every single scientist in the world knows that, and that extra-dimensional stuff and relativity, in order to understand it, you just need to expand how you view things more. A lot of the complex ideas are from very simple phenomena. Whether or not time actually exists as an actual thing can't be answered, but the math as if it were real as we are describing it fits. Let's say I have 3 people in a straight line like this 0.....................................0..................................0 The two on the ends are moving away from each other, and the middle one is moving towards 1, so <---- 0.........................<---0...............................0 ---> And let's say they are all moving at the same speed. To the 0 on the left, the middle 0 is moving at around the same speed in the same direction, but to the one on the right, the middle 0 is moving away from it at a great speed. That's what relativity is. The the mathematical formulas to describe multiple views of the same situation. And if you want to understand extra-dimensional stuff better, I suggest you watch "flatland". You can probably just youtube it. And time, time is regarded as being relative, like this, so when you move faster, then to other people, your time slows down, since time also flows at the speed of c. So if the flow time is 186,000 miles per second (although not exactly as a physical motion), and you travel at 1 mile per second, that's a pretty big difference, so time, compared to you, will flow a lot faster. But, if you move at 100,000 miles per second, then your almost moving at the speed which time flows and the difference between your speed and time's is less, so compared to you, 186,000 miles per second minus 100,000 miles per second, so then time only flows 86,000mi/s faster than you rather than 185,000mi/s faster than you from your frame of reference. This is just something you have to accept no matter how strange it is, because there are already experiments with clocks demonstrating this effect. http://hyperphysics....tiv/airtim.html If you move faster than something, than compared to you, the rate at which other things happen is slower. It's not actually that big of a deal. If you travel at the speed of C which is the speed of light, then your still going to travel 186,000 miles of distance in one second, but you wouldn't age at all. It's exactly the same as if two cars were driving on a highway at the same speed. To the cars, one wouldn't be moving faster than the other, only the environment would appear to be moving.

sorry double post, but I guess I might as well use it to say "what about Mt. S.t Helens"? Did that have any significant effect? I'd imagine it would cause cooling, but it's still green-house gases, so I'm up for whichever.

But I mean, an increase in CO2 would raise global temperatures which would warm water up more, therefore putting more water in the atmosphere, therefore increasing the atmospheres capacity for heat even more and accelerating the heating process even more, that's what I was trying to say with the exponential increase rather than linear increase, is that it's not just CO2 output, its a whole chain of events. But if that whole "I'm use to being smart" thing or whatever you were saying is true, how do you explain this? http://www.sciencefo...ngs-wrong-here/ It's a relatively basic problem I should have learned about more in high school. Besides, if you look in the QM section I usually try to answer the basic questions to clear up confusing.

Earth naturally has its ups and downs, it wouldn't be the end of the world.

Well, thermodynamics is a constituent of physics, and agriculture, there sort of is already it's own sub-topic, even though its a constituent of ecology, and architecture, well maybe that should get it's own section too, unless you can break all of it down into purely physics and math. What is music a constituent of? It can't be completely art because there's usually many areas of precision, but it's not exactly science because it's still emotional and not completely understood. Actually, perhaps the "other sciences" section should just plain be more complex and include individual sections for all these other sciences, because even for something like agriculture, you need to know a lot of things to be good at it.

In short, the real nature of matter is like a ripple in a pond, not a marble. I'ts simply a wave, and one of the properties of waves is oscillation. Just like in a pond, some of the water goes below the normal level and above the normal level, only so far the only things we can come up with for "above" and "below" the fabric of space are matter's own substance or existence, or some kind of extra dimensional phasing.

But what's good and evil are relative, and have you even heard of slaughter houses? Where's the cows revenge? I don't see karma or "badness" effecting the slaughter house owners.

Even though I'm not currently religious, I still find many of Jesus's and other religious figure's moral teachings good.

Even if someone is immoral, there still logic to consider. You don't want to just go around killing everyone because a., you'll make a more hostile society, which isn't really good for anyone, and b., you'll probably be caught anyway. Personally, I don't even get how someone can truely be "immoral" because every individual organism has at least some sense of what is right for it, and then even for immorally seeming people it doesn't seem like they would enjoy watching puppies in a sac drown.

The processes of making specific music are very specific. Sure you could wing it if your prodigal or so experienced you don't have to think about it, but music theory really needs it's own section because most of the time you have to know what your doing, especially if your in a band. Most people in good bands have taken some music theory and had ear training or are naturally good with ear training and figuring out all those musical patterns. Music theory can include a lot of stuff, such as Triads 7chords 9chords and above their inversions the circle of fifths modulations suspensions sub-dominants instrument transposition 12-tone row scales and modes notation rhythm nationality history harmony and melody tone dissonance and consonance how to control or resolve it ear training phrasing dynamics and shaping wave mechanics and a bunch of other stuff.

I don't know where this topic would go since I can't post in the forum announcement sections and there doesn't seem to be a "suggestions" section, so I just put it right below the forum announcements. Although music itself is largely unknown in "how" and "why" something sounds "beautiful" or "scary" or etc, the processes involved with making music are very scientific, and just as you cannot add just any two numbers together to equal "3", you cannot just slap any amount of notes together in any order and make something that sounds modern or sad or happy, which is why there should be a music theory section on this website. There's also another website that would work quite well with showing examples for this section www.notessimo.net

Humans naturally congregate, but what also can naturally happen is a little story called Lord of the Flies.

Thanks, that seemed to be what was missing.

So what your saying is that more C-12 was released recently, but the c-14/13 was not released at as fast a rate? And if so, that increase in CO2 can almost perfectly account for the amount of heat capacity increase in the atmosphere if you also consider the water vapor it chain-reactioned into the atmosphere? Wait...if I dismissed it, why would I keep commenting on it?

Perhaps I did it wrong, but when I solved I got about .038, and when I looked on the table for the equation 750e^(.038x), it did not equal 1500 after 7 and 3/4 years. When you said [math]\implies \ln{(A)}=\ln{(x)} + (rt)[/math] did you mean Ln(x + rt) or did you mean (ln(x))+rt?

So if I have A=xe^rt for a continuously compounding interest equation, then according to the calculator that is also equal to xLn(A)=rt, but when I solved for it using real numbers, I didn't get the correct number. The known info is the initial amount is 750, and after 7 and 3/4 years, that amount doubles, I have 1500=750e^r(7+3/4) yet when I solved for it 750ln(1500)=r(7+3/4) ---> 5484.915=r(7+3/4), then /(7+3/4) and I got 707.731=r, and since I'm suppose to find out how much I will have after a specific amount of time as well, and I can't really go backwards in time, this doesn't work. Basically, I am trying to solve for the annual rate, but it's not working for some reason.

The reason I didn't want to rely on google is cause I'm still not seeing exactly how its done. I can see some approximation techniques and that people made tables along with the trigonometric function tables, but how can a calculator do it and not us if we programmed only our knowledge into a calculator?

I don't think your getting what I"m saying. If scriptures were found, how does what's on the scripture compromise the legitimacy of the Ph. D. who translated it if it happens to be some weird belief ancient people had long ago? Besides, even if religion isn't entirely true, its the reason we have all the technology we have anyway. That may sound contradictory, but there was virtually nothing bringing people together and stopping them from basically being barbarians, until there was the fears and incentives of religion that is.

So your essentially saying that he said "there wasn't as much C-12, but now there is?". I can see how that works, but c-12 is still the most abundant form of carbon in the universe, I still have to consider that. Granted, what accelerated the acceleration of CO2 in the atmosphere could easily have been humans, bur right now after this much time, I just don't think over 75% of it can any longer be humans burning fossile fuels. Just as those graphs show exponential spikes, humans could easily be at the base of a spike that's now forming, only one event already lead to another. Human CO2 output on a yearly basis is pretty linear, but what's happening is an exponential or perhaps parabolic curve and the temperatures will also be well above where they would be if it was just a linear pattern.

Wait, if the speed of c is the speed of c to any frame of reference, how could we know that's true? Is there some graph that's like a quadratic that shows some kind of reverse of time dilation after x km/s^2 or something?

So virtual particles are those force carriers that don't completely exist when traveling undetected, and then by detecting them, the consequences of detecting them cause measurement and real effects, but how does that actually work geometrically? Is there actually a single interaction point between a virtual particle and something it interacts with? What about when they interact with each other? Can they interfere with themselves and each other just as real particles do?

Maybe you can't test those things with science, but you can create accurate mathematical equations.

Did you not read the title? I'm asking how to do it.