Strange

! Moderator Note You appear to have discovered the concept of "proper time" (and proper distance). I see no reason for this to stay open in Speculations as you are just stating the obvious.

That doesn't seem to be in the first article. And the second article was just a random collection of words with no intelligence behind them. So I don't really care what it says. 🙂

What magnetic field coils? There is nothing about that in the paper. The laser pulse lasts a few picoseconds and is focussed on a point a fraction of a millimetre in size. (Ironically, given the title of the thread, some excimer lasers use argon)

As the plasma was only a few millimetres in size and at the centre of the gas chamber, I would guess it is made of metal. Seems the obvious material strong enough to withstand the pressure.

Yes. (Or, you could explain what you are talking about in a bit more detail.)

I know some that are conjugated

Well spotted. (I suppose you wouldn't believe I did that deliberately as a test? No, I thought not.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(energy)#1012_to_1017_J

So you keep telling us. 🤨

You mentioned terminal velocity earlier, so you seem to be thinking that it requires drag to stop things just getting faster and faster until they are travelling infinitely fast and take zero time to get from A to B. This is not consistent with Newton's laws of motion: 1. A body at rest remains at rest or, if it is in motion it moves with uniform velocity, unless acted on by a force. 2. A moving object will only change speed (or direction) if there is a force acting on it (F = ma) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_laws_of_motion So the concept of terminal velocity only applies to things falling through the air (or similar situations) where there is a constant force of gravity acting on it. There is no force acting on photons and so they continue to move at the same speed all the time. Also, the speed of light is not just constant, but it is invariant. It is the same for all observers, regardless of their relative speed.

Note that the description is entirely hypothetical and condition: "If some microscopic black holes were produced by the LHC, they would also have been produced by cosmic rays" The report was written to reassure people that there was no danger from the LHC: the conclusion was that there was no evidence that such microscopic black holes could be created. If they could be created they would decay. And even if they could be created, they can't be dangerous because cosmic rays would produce more of them than the LHC could. But they are hypothetical with no reason to think they exist. Yes, it is the event horizon that defines a black hole. Then I guess the question is whether the is really a black hole. With no event horizon, the singularity would be visible meaning that light can travel all the way from the singularity to the external observer. Hence not "black" (nor even a hole!) Maybe worth adding that, as singularities have been brought up, they probably do not represent something physical but show that the current theory is unable to describe what happens.

The temperature is very low. But it is not the temperature inside the black hole. I don’t know if we can say anything meaningful about the inside.

They all seem accurate except: I don't think there is any evidence that this happens, even though it is a theoretical possibility. And, rather than "black holes contain an event horizon" I would say "black holes are an event horizon." But that's just a choice of words.

I would say the Relativity section, probably: https://www.scienceforums.net/forum/10-relativity/ Unless it is more about their formation and role in galaxies, in which astronomy might be better: https://www.scienceforums.net/forum/7-astronomy-and-cosmology/ There are at least two or three people with a good level of knowledge.

Not sure what you mean by time being reactive. And I don't understand why that would mean it travels. I don't even understand what it would mean for time to "travel". 🤷‍♂️ No. Photons are massless. It has nothing to do with terminal velocity. Light always travels at the same speed. No. Photons do not have mass. And even if they did, it would not imply that space has drag. Nothing with mass can travel at the speed of light. No. Photons always travel at the speed of light. Which is why it takes them 8 minutes to get to Earth from the Sun. No.

I think it is just a byproduct (a spandrel) of our capabilities for abstract thought, looking for explanations, finding patterns (even if they are not there) and making stories. Not all of which are necessarily directly selected for either. I would say they are the same things that make us interested in science or any other form of knowledge. People just express, or use, them in different ways.

The ionisation energy for argon can be found easily. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molar_ionization_energies_of_the_elements This is the amount of energy you need to provide to create a plasma. So, if you have 10^31 atoms (to create 10^31 electrons) then that is about 10 million moles. So the energy needed is 10^7 * 1520 kJ or about 10^10 joules. Which is a lot.

You are mixing up frames of reference. They travelled 1 light-month in 1 month.

What makes you think you can generate energy from argon? It is chemically inert. And, as far as I know, all its isotopes are stable. So it is not a source of either chemical or nuclear energy. Generating a plasma requires you to provide energy. This is very near to a vacuum. (It takes much less energy to create a plasma at low pressure.) Sorry. I misread the number

You need to be very clear about which frame of reference you are measuring times and distances in. For example, how far apart are A and B as measured by the stationary observers? The spaceship crew would measure the distance travelled as very short (approximately 10 light seconds, as you say). We (the "stationary" observer) would see the distance as much longer. 1 light month, based on the fact it took them one month to travel the distance (in our frame of reference). You said they take 1 month for the journey (as measured in our frame of reference) so why would it take 10 months?

The Oxygen Catastrophe was one of the first large scale extinction events when massive volumes of a highly toxic gas was released. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxidation_Event

Any material that you can't see through is going to be light-resistant, in the sense you mean. The one exception might be plastic because that is often made so it blocks visible light but might allow ultra-violet light through, which is likely to be a problem in this application. All metals are opaque(*), so aluminium isn't special in that way. It is special in that it is easily available in thing sheets. Finding something flexible enough not to break like the aluminium foil does, but that also stays wrapped around the vials, may be a bit of a problem. How many times does each vial get wrapped and unwrapped? An alternative might be too keep them in a box made of wood or metal. (*) Because of the nature of this site, someone is going to point out that you can see through very thin sheets, such as gold leaf. But that is not relevant to this situation. ! Moderator Note I think that your description of the reason you need this is very relevant to people suggesting a possible solution. You are not asking for medical advice (which we do have a rule against). So I am going to put it back in your post. (We already have enough unhelpful replies!)

The first article is about the temperature of the Hawking radiation from the event horizon, not the inside. The second is probably about the same thing, but is really incoherent nonsense.

! Moderator Note Stop hijacking other people's threads with nonsense like this. If you want to promote your own speculative "theory" then start a new thread.

! Moderator Note Please try and find a better source than videos. It is difficult for some people to watch videos. It is impossible to quote form or easily refer to the content. This video is over 2 hours long. You need to be more specific about exactly what in this video supports your claims. If you could find a written source, it would be preferable. ! Moderator Note If you are not able to provide some proper scientific support for your claims then this thread will be closed. ! Moderator Note http://www.danwinter.com is interesting if one wants to see what sort of person Dan Winter is. It would, of course, be an ad-hominem fallacy to use his criminality as an argument against his pseudoscientific nonsense. But luckily, we don't have to. There is clearly no science here. Thread closed.

So the documentary said that people came to the Americas from Siberia, China, Mongolia and the Philippines? I have never heard those last two mentioned before. I wonder how reliable the information in this documentary was, in that case. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settlement_of_the_Americas