The Debate Hall Social Thread

[Reaver197]

sometimes math and astronomy...


and then more d*ck jokes.

 

[Dre89]

Philosophy is so damn easy to hit.

Putting a philosophy character into a commedy is easy laughs. I'd so do it if I was in that business.

 

[AltF4]

Two other good ones, similar too.

http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2383#comic

http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2406#comic

 

[Dre89]

Dayam these are pretty good.

The physics one is class.

 

[Aesir]

http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.5019

Alt I need your help, what does this mean? Because if I'm reading this right it means. A creation of a blackhole means it's another universe? Aka string theory? Edit: Also if I butchered this I'm sorry, politics and economics is my area of expertise =P

I ask you because you're the science expert in the DH.

:D

 

[AltF4]

Well, I'm not a physicist. But let me do my best to translate the abstract into English...

If spacetime torsion couples to the intrinsic spin of matter according to the Einstein-Cartan-Sciama-Kibble theory of gravity, then the resulting gravitational repulsion at supranuclear densities prevents the formation of singularities in black holes.

A black hole forms because the attractive force of gravity beats out all other repulsive forces, causing the matter to collapse in on itself. And the closer they get, the stronger gravity gets, causing a feedback loop which makes the gravity spiral out of control.

Early theories suggested that black holes ought to contain a singularity. Where all matter is pushed into a single point of space. The problem is that the rest of physics breaks if this were to happen. But the good news is that it doesn't happen.

Imagine just two particles for a moment, and not many. These particles are extraordinarily tiny. Not at all like planets with size that can collide. So when two particles move at one another, they will miss each other. They will then come back and try to collide again, and miss again. Essentially, the particles are spinning around one another.

So a singularity never actually occurs. The particles continue to accelerate toward one another, yet never reach each other. IE: Rotation. (Think back to basic physics. When something is rotating, all points on the wheel are accelerating toward the center)

Consequently, the interior of every black hole becomes a new universe that expands from a nonsingular bounce.

Nonsignular means what I described above: no singularities. Bounce should be pretty self explanatory, too. The motion of these particles collapsing on each other do a kind of "bounce".

Now, once inside the black hole, you cannot ever leave. Ever. So you might as well call it another universe. If I understand the meaning of this paper correctly, it's a subtlety of definitions to call it a separate universe. But not that inaccurate. The black hole carves out a region in spacetime. So that the interior of the black hole has its distinct region of space and its own history of time. (Spacetime) Might as well call it its own universe.

We consider gravitational collapse of fermionic spin-fluid matter with the stiff equation of state in a stellar black hole.

Everything up until now was just introduction. Stuff every physicist already knows. "We consider" means "This is what this paper is actually about...".

I haven't a clue what fermionic spin-fluid matter is, though. Nor the stiff equation. I could look it up probably, but that would only help a little.

Such a collapse increases the mass of the matter, which occurs through the Parker-Zel'dovich-Starobinskii quantum particle production in strong, anisotropic gravitational fields.

Mass and energy are proportional, think back to E=Mc^2. As the matter collapses in on itself in a black hole, the potential energy of the matter decreases. Which (by conservation) causes an increase in mass.

So as the matter collapses, it gets heavier.

The subsequent pair annihilation changes the stiff matter into an ultrarelativistic fluid.

Pair annihilation refers to when particles and antiparticles collide and turn into pure energy. Which itself can also be viewed not as two particles colliding and annihilating, but rather one single particle moving in a timelike loop.

We show that

The following is the actual conclusion of the paper:

the universe in a black hole of mass MBH at the bounce has a mass Mb ∼ MBH^2 mn^(.5) /mPl^(1.5) where Mn is the mass of a neutron and mPl is the reduced Planck mass.

They show that the mass of the new universe is BLAH. That big ugly mess of an equation which just simply says how much mass is there.

For a typical stellar black hole, Mb is about 10^{32} solar masses, which is 10^6 larger than the mass of our Universe.

This is relevant because look at those numbers! For an average black hole (typical stellar black hole) the mass of the new universe inside it is actually greater than the mass of our universe. So the new baby universe is actually bigger than ours.

As the relativistic black-hole universe expands, its mass decreases until the universe becomes dominated by nonrelativistic heavy particles.

But as the black hole expands again, the whole thing dissipates. And the baby universe disappears.

Crazy, no?

EDIT: Oww, that's enough Physics for one day. My actual area of expertise happens to be networking and cryptography. So if you have any questions about stuff from here (http://arxiv.org/list/cs.CR/recent) I'd be more than happy.

 

[rvkevin]

Now, once inside the black hole, you cannot ever leave.

I thought this was shown to be mistaken due to Hawking radiation, no?

 

[AltF4]

True! But consider the time scale that Hawking Evaporation occurs in.

For a black hole of one solar mass, we get an evaporation time of 2.098 × 10^67 years - much longer than the current age of the universe at 13.73 ± 0.12 x 10^9 years.

"Much longer" is a big of an understatement!

So while true, the effects of hawking radiation of usually ignored in these sorts of calculations. For the same reason that the movements of blades of grass are ignored when calculating the center of mass of the Earth.

 

[Reaver197]

Hawking radiation is different. There is still nothing that escapes from going beyond the event horizon of a black hole. Hawking radiation is when a virtual pair of particles appear on the edge of the event horizon, but one crosses the event horizon, while the other manages to stay outside of it, which causes a weird issue. Normally, virtual pairs of particles leave no net change in energy, but now one of the has been sucked inside, and the other hasn't. What this means, essentially, is that the black hole has absorbed a "negative" unit of energy in the form of the one virtual particle it absorbed, and has radiated away the energy in the form of the other virtual particle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation#Overview

Technically, nothing still can escape the event horizon of the black hole. It's literally impossible, as once you cross the event horizon, there no longer exists a spacial path to leave the black hole.

To give an interesting story that I saw on reddit explaining this, imagine that you have built a spaceship that can somehow go faster than light (barring any temporal anomalies that come with it) and that can withstand the crushing gravitational forces of a black hole. You decide with your faster-than-light ship to see if you can journey into a black hole and back out again, so you can experience first hand what its like inside a black hole.

However, there is one hitch. You realize that once inside a black hole, you will lose all visual feedback, it will be impossible to see anything at all. You will have no idea which way to fly to get back out of it once inside (due, not to the fact that it'll be completely black, but actually will become much too bright, approaching infinite brightness, to see anything from all the photons and matter that the black hole as ever trapped). But you're clever, and create a device that can detect changes in gravity. Once inside, you will simply just need to check the device to see where the gravitational field increases, and where it decreases. Once you know where it decreases, it's simple! Just fly in that direction, and you'll get out, no problem.

So, you take your ship and your gravity detection device, and find a black hole to explore. You fly into the black hole, presumably experiencing something akin to this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=eI9CvipHl_c#t=375s

Once inside the event horizon, you check out what ever that you can even check out inside a black hole. Then you decide to try to leave, and test out your faster-than-light engines. Being bereft of having the ability to navigate by sight, you turn on your gravity detector to make your way outside of the black hole. However, no matter how you turn and point your ship, your gravity detector never shows a decrease in gravity. It only shows an increase in gravity in all directions. There is no spatial path that leads back outside of the black hole, they all lead to the singularity. Despite you having faster than light travel, you are doomed to always end up approaching the singularity. The only possible way to have escaped is in the past.

Edit: Original story and source.
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/...f_the_event_horizons_of_two/c1cuiyw?context=2

Unrelated, but I found this interesting article explaining why physicists believe we may have a multiverse instead of a universe.
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/10/why_we_think_theres_a_multiver.php

 

[rvkevin]

Hawking radiation is different. There is still nothing that escapes from going beyond the event horizon of a black hole. Hawking radiation is when a virtual pair of particles appear on the edge of the event horizon, but one crosses the event horizon, while the other manages to stay outside of it, which causes a weird issue. Normally, virtual pairs of particles leave no net change in energy, but now one of the has been sucked inside, and the other hasn't. What this means, essentially, is that the black hole has absorbed a "negative" unit of energy in the form of the one virtual particle it absorbed, and has radiated away the energy in the form of the other virtual particle.

Thanks, this explains a lot.

However, there is one hitch. You realize that once inside a black hole, you will lose all visual feedback, it will be impossible to see anything at all.

This is another curiosity that I have had. What would it look like inside of a black hole? Wouldn't it not be black since it is constantly "sucking" in light? However, I doubt that it would be intelligible what the visual inputs were before because they would probably be warped beyond recognition. Would it just be streaks of colors, that is, assuming that our eyes magically were unaffected by it?

 

[Reaver197]

The youtube video probably gives the best approximation, but I've seen some others that indicate different things. Presumably, the direction of the singularity will continue to look black, due to it not radiating any light whatsoever, and the "sky", so to speak, would become exceedingly bright. How that would even look, I don't know.

I can only imagine it would look incredibly distorted from the spin and the gravity of the black hole, with you possibly being able to see electromagnetic radiation that was normally too weak to be seen as visible light. In fact, all light might blue-shift incredibly inside a blackhole, making normally visible light too high-energy to be seen as usual. Either way, the gravity and sheer radioactivity would make all attempts to visually perceive the inside of a black hole nigh impossible.

Here's another video talking about what it might be like inside a black hole.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYKyt3C0oT4

 

[Dre89]

Ok I have a totes random and unrelated question.

When someone is feeling, agitated, tense, hyper etc. (pretty much everything you feel when sexually frustrated, but that's not why I'm asking) how does our biology differ? Basically I'm asking what's different in the body that makes us feel that way.

 

[Ocean]

Ok I have a totes random and unrelated question.

When someone is feeling, agitated, tense, hyper etc. (pretty much everything you feel when sexually frustrated, but that's not why I'm asking) how does our biology differ? Basically I'm asking what's different in the body that makes us feel that way.

hormones are released, iirc. not sure where they come from or where they go though.

 

[Sucumbio]

It really depends on why one feels this way... low blood sugar, brain chemical imbalance, dependency withdrawal, injury, stress-related situations or other emotionally charged ordeals, etc. In each instance the biology of the body differs from each other, and of course from "normal."

BTW awesome links, Reaver! I followed through onto other vids and the one about the super-sized black hole at the center of the galaxy (and apparently most if not all other galaxies) is fascinating.

 

[Reaver197]

BTW awesome links, Reaver! I followed through onto other vids and the one about the super-sized black hole at the center of the galaxy (and apparently most if not all other galaxies) is fascinating.

I'm glad you enjoyed them! I find black holes (and most astronomical phenomena) very interesting, so I always try to read up and watch up on them as I can.

Here's a nice little talk from Ian Morison on black holes. You might enjoy it.
http://fora.tv/2010/10/27/Ian_Morison_Why_Not_to_Fear_Black_Holes

It just boggles my mind that the largest black hole they've found weighs in at 18 billion solar masses. From what I can calculate, that would result in an event horizon that has a radius of 53 billion kilometers. As a comparison, the furthest distance from the Sun that Pluto achieves is just a bit further than 7 billion kilometers. This thing is large enough to swallow our whole solar system more than 7 times over. Ridiculous.

 

[Sucumbio]

And given the theory of how these giant ones "flare" every 400 million years or so, and what happens (bursts of matter flying outward creating stars) it paints a somewhat different image of how galaxies are formed... and leads to important questions about the destiny of our own Milky Way. I also wonder what the implications are for the destiny of the whole Universe, if it is to eventually be swallowed up by a ever increasing in size black hole... and of course the implication that each black hole is its own universe but many times the mass of our known universe, makes one wonder just how this will effect everything... black holes for top tier.

or...

Because black holes.

Yes i'm becoming a meme *****.

EDIT: Fantastic presentation! I applaud Prof. Ian Morison for his ability to present the material, and it certainly sheds a lot of light (no pun intended) on the nature of Black Holes.

 

[rvkevin]

http://xkcd.com/895/

A little late, but I thought I'd share.

 

[Aesir]

Thanks Alt that did help, only reason I asked you cause you're the resident science buff.

Anyway! for your troubles here's some nifty patent stuff from a lawyer. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/11/05/BUQP1LQN3V.DTL

 

[Reaver197]

I really wanted him to outright say that "software patents shouldn't be allowed". He gets so close, but doesn't clinch it.

But the last response is so revealing of what patents have become. Either, you somehow have a bunch of money to spend on patents to protect yourself from other companies, or you have to be with or in an company that was old and successful enough to file all the patents. It essentially strangles the ability of new startups to compete and innovate in any meaningful way.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

...And of course, nothing is going to change, because there's no money to be had in reforming software patent law, whereas there is big money to be had in keeping it just as ****ed as it is. So depressing...

 

[ciaza]

paging nicholas to the ntsc melee tier list thread, over

if he does get involved this might be the most amusing thing to watch in years.

 

[Aesir]

Sometimes I forget I use to troll this forum back in 06 A LOT. Then I venture outside the DH and start posting pictures and well lets just say I'm going to have fun reading those infractions.

 

[Dre89]

I love how gamers talk about infractions.

They always make out as if they enjoy getting them, as if they pride themselves on getting them, or if getting infractions are an equivalent to battle scars, as if it's a right of passage or something like that.

 

[Aesir]

I love how gamers talk about infractions.

They always make out as if they enjoy getting them, as if they pride themselves on getting them, or if getting infractions are an equivalent to battle scars, as if it's a right of passage or something like that.

Go look up Aiser, seriously go look up that name and tell me you didn't laugh at the **** I use to pull.

 

[Dre89]

Will do.

I'll check it out later today (it's 3 am here).

I better be impressed or else....there will be no consequence to you.

 

[Nicholas1024]

paging nicholas to the ntsc melee tier list thread, over

if he does get involved this might be the most amusing thing to watch in years.

Heh. Unfortunately, I don't name search, and even if I did I'm asleep at that time of morning. XD

Still, I might send M2K a VM on the subject if he's actually interested.

 

[Aesir]

Will do.

I'll check it out later today (it's 3 am here).

I better be impressed or else....there will be no consequence to you.

I actually think they deleted alot of old stuff, so you'll see my post prime trolling. You will miss such gems of my comparison of the roy boards and marth boards being comparable to evengalical thought to the scientific method.

Though there are gems when I compared Link to Jesus Christ, and proceeded to poke'rap like a mofo.

I'm sure you can find gems but a lot of my old material seems to be missing =\

Edit on a serious note I have to say that atheist in there kinda hurt my brain and I'm a total atheist myself, so I think that might say something. I found his/her arguments intellectually dishonest to say the least. You can't bash religion like that and not acknowledge a lot of good it does even with the bad that comes from blindly accepting it.

 

[Reaver197]

lol. That is pretty hilarious to read through. It started because of an argument over Yoshi?

That's pretty much the epitome of "thread derailment".

Edit: Thread Godwin'd pretty quickly. Freaking Hitler.

 

[Aesir]

Well that explains the fail, yoshi is fail all around.

 

[Nicholas1024]

Quick, with that inflammatory comment we must now turn the debate hall social thread into a melee tier list argument! Here, I'll help it along.

YOSHI IS TEH AWESOMEZZ AND U R MAJOR IDIOT!!!!11!!

 

[Aesir]

I honestly think marth is to low on that list, and jiggs is way to high. Just looks like another **** riding fest tbh.

And I would go in there and state this, but the hivemind would go all nutzo on me, so I I'll just post in the sanity of the DH. Probably the sanest place on this forum.



Edit:

How does this make you guys feel? I feel it's fairly accurate.

 

[Reaver197]

Considering the definition of "agnostic", there really isn't any other way to make it.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

Greeking Out Over News: Past to Present

A. Perry falters: Oops That third one always gets you.

B. Still don't know why Greece isn't getting dropped from the EU. There was significant indication that it would be a burden down the road. Remember what happened in 2006 aside from The Office being one of the biggest hit shows?

In September, Greece announces that its gross domestic product since 2000 has been revised upward by an unheard-of 25 percent. The secret to its newfound wealth?

A change in bookkeeping that adds in the nation's robust black-market industries such as prostitution and money laundering. But becoming "richer" turns out not to be as good as it sounds: The revised GDP figures cost the Greek government as much as $600 million annually in European Union funds earmarked to help poorer nations.

 

[AltF4]

I've never been a fan of that scale. Sure you can take ANY two axes and put the up against one another, but it doesn't necessarily impart any new meaning.

Gnosticism and Theism are just fundamentally different. I forget who said it, but there is a quote I like that says:

"Agnosticism and atheism are answers to different questions. If someone asks you 'is there a god', you might answer 'I don't know'. But if someone asks you 'Do you believe in a god', that's a yes or no question."

 

[Dre89]

To me, positive atheists belive God is metaphysically impossible. Negative agnostics and atheists both believe God is metaphysically unnecessary, but the atheist believes there is no empirical evidence for God, whereas the agnostic is unsure.

 

[blazedaces]

I think I agree that the scale doesn't impart much meaning other than to add more labels to an already confusing and non-standard group of labels...

That being said I would probably call myself an agnostic theist. I don't feel I really "know" god exists... but I believe in him. Why? I guess because I just "like" believing in God more than I "like" not believing in God (I was an atheist for quite a long time).

-blazed

 

[Aesir]

I've never been a fan of that scale. Sure you can take ANY two axes and put the up against one another, but it doesn't necessarily impart any new meaning.

Gnosticism and Theism are just fundamentally different. I forget who said it, but there is a quote I like that says:

"Agnosticism and atheism are answers to different questions. If someone asks you 'is there a god', you might answer 'I don't know'. But if someone asks you 'Do you believe in a god', that's a yes or no question."

I use to like it, but I find it works better for politics. Left Vs Right Libertarian vs Totalitarian.

I think the reason I use to like it is it helps clarify better what a person actually believes. Chances are most who claim to be an atheist probably don't believe in god because of lack of evidence but if you ask them if god exists than they'll likely say I don't know.

Frankly I feel the whole question in it's self is a waste of time, you have 70 some odd years to live why waste time thinking about it?

 

[rvkevin]

Frankly I feel the whole question in it's self is a waste of time, you have 70 some odd years to live why waste time thinking about it?

It's only a waste of time because its false. If it were true, then the consequences of ignoring the edicts would be worth considering.

 

[Suntan Luigi]

It's very important to think about how one ought to live their life. Because your life has an effect on the lives of others, for one thing. One answers this question by how one lives their life.

 

[Reaver197]

I thought that this was a particularly poignant and relevant Cracked article that everyone might enjoy reading.

http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-ways-we-ruined-occupy-wall-street-generation/