Why do people seem to subscribe to the multiple universe theory? There's no evidence of such a thing.
Some might say it would be a kind of solipsm to assume our universe is the only one. Some people have difficulty accepting that the constants of the universe are exactly what they are. If there are many universes however, it could be inevitable that there is a universe with the constants that we currently have. It could also be an answer to a more general question why everything is the way it is. If everything that can possibly happen happens....
String theory! Oh no, wait, that's multiple dimensions. Forget that.
Anyway...
D.Bq.:
1. Would you, under any circumstances, be prone to accepting a 1-frame submission (as far as I'm aware, there hasn't been one yet)?
2. On the "sidebar" of the main page, "Front Page" and "Movies" both link to the same thing. Would you consider getting rid of one of these (maybe saying "Front Page (Movies) on the remaining one"?
1. Would you, under any circumstances, be prone to accepting a 1-frame submission (as far as I'm aware, there hasn't been one yet)?
2. On the "sidebar" of the main page, "Front Page" and "Movies" both link to the same thing. Would you consider getting rid of one of these (maybe saying "Front Page (Movies) on the remaining one"?
1) I don't think so.
2) The ambiguousness/redundancy will resolve itself in the upcoming redesign.
I'm sciencing as fast as I can !
______________________________________
<adelikat> once more balls enter the picture, everything gets a lot more entertraining
<adelikat> mmmmm yummy penises
Joined: 11/18/2006
Posts: 2426
Location: Back where I belong
[10:20] <mmbossman> 1 frame movie or 1 frame improvement? which one did you mean?
[10:21] <mr_roberts_z> 1 frame improvement
Although my reading word for word may be lacking, I happen to be excellent at reading between the lines:)
Sorry, I mis-worded it. In fact, I did mean a one-frame improvement. Lemme try one more time.
D.Bq.: Would you, under any circumstances, accept a 1-frame improvement (the one Mmbossman linked to appeared to be accepted by Adelikat)?
Also its believed that there is many universes we just happen to be one of many and there constantly being born and dieing off.
Pure speculation. There's absolutely no evidence supporting that.
Deign wrote:
Also, as far as i know there's no physical evidence of a black hole either
There is "physical evidence" in an indirect way: If there were no black holes then the currently known physics would need heavy revising, and many observable phenomena (such as quasars) would need alternative explanations.
Currently there simply is no hard evidence that the equations of general relativity are wrong. Since these equations predict black holes, if black holes didn't really exist, it would mean that these equations are wrong. There simply is no evidence currently to support that they are wrong.
This is actuallly an interesting question: how do black holes merge? Clearly the one with smaller mass is destroyed in the process, but how do you destroy a black hole, what happens to it during the destruction?
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Just like two gas bubbles in water merge. They touch, they form a unit, then they realign themselves to sphere shape - without ever losing any air to the surroundings. None of them is destroyed, they share their air to form a bigger bubble.
now replace air with matter and the bubble's surface with the event horizon, and you should be close.
edit: now that bisqwit mentions it.. this one?
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/starsgalaxies/gwave.html
However, they do emit quite wicked gravity waves.
There was an animation or two rendered of it, I don't happen to remember how to find either one though.
Interesting question is, what happens if both rotate?
Note that the expression "black hole" is usually used for the event horizon of the phenomenon in question (thus for example things like "the radius of the black hole" refer to the radius of the event horizon).
However, the event horizon in itself is not really anything. It's basically just empty space. There's nothing there. (What makes it so special is the *geometry* of that space, but that's another long story.)
The actual physical mass of the black hole is located at its very center. That's where the actual astronomical body is located. (Although it has quite special features no other astronomical bodies have.)
When two black holes collide, their central masses will simply attract each other and these will join, forming one single bigger (ie. more massive) black hole. Nothing is destroyed.
I mean more specifically. Let's put it this way: gravitational forces make the astronomical body inside the black hole a very densely packed ball of matter (I take it explaining why it is a ball and not some other form is unnecessary).
When two of these balls collide, are they both disintegrated until the gravity pulls the resulting blob into a densely packed ball? Or, are they glued together as two densely packed balls (lol, sorry)? Or is there something else?
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Joined: 11/18/2006
Posts: 2426
Location: Back where I belong
Bisqwit wrote:
2) The ambiguousness/redundancy will resolve itself in the upcoming redesign.
Will this redesign include a revamp of the player rankings? Because there's a couple people with movies published still listed as vested members, but if that's one of your renovations, it's obviously doesn't need to be changed.
I haven't got so far in my plans as to address changes to the forums.
Though it is my plan to upgrade to phpBB3 sooner or later. But at that time, I want to keep most of the things the same.
D.Bq.:
Do you know your IQ? You seem to have taken the Jung Test and the SparkNotes Personality Test, so it seems probable that you might've taken an IQ test at one point.
Note that this isn't an insult in any way.
gravitational forces make the astronomical body inside the black hole a very densely packed ball of matter (I take it explaining why it is a ball and not some other form is unnecessary).
"Ball" would imply that it has a non-zero radius. This would imply that there's some force stopping it from collapsing further.
According to the Schwarzschild metric this is impossible inside a black hole. Inside the event horizon all geodesics, and that means *all* of them, including time geodesics, point towards the center of the black hole. There simply cannot be a force pointing away from the center of the black hole because there's no "away". *Everything* points towards the center of the black hole. Moreover, time geodesics point towards the center of the black hole. Just advancing in time means advancing towards the center of the black hole. This means that it's completely impossible to keep anything away from the center of the black hole. It's not even a question of whether there exists a force strong enough to do so because no matter how strong the force, it cannot stop the movement towards the center of the black hole.
The only possible solution to the Schwarzschild metric is that the massive center body of the black hole has zero radius.
Of course you may refuse to believe this, but so far the GR equations have been pretty accurate. Currently there's no evidence that they wouldn't hold inside an event horizon too.
(Naturally quantum effects may play a role here and change things, but as far as we don't have a unified theory we can't say anything about how it could affect things.)
But shouldn't there be a limit to collapsing (even the smallest particles have volume)? I thought there was, and the matter inside was evaporating through Hawking radiation or something.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
A limit to collapsing would mean there's some kind of force stopping further collapse. There exists no such force. There can't be such force, as I already said.
Particles degenerate when they are subject to such pressures. For example there are no distinct particles in the core of a neutron star. It's all just degenerate matter. When the density is too large for even this to work, it just all collapses into a singularity.
And Hawking radiation has nothing to do with this.
Do you know your IQ? You seem to have taken the Jung Test and the SparkNotes Personality Test, so it seems probable that you might've taken an IQ test at one point.
Yes, I took the Mensa test a year ago.
By convention, I don't disclose the result. But it was more or less exactly what I expected.
