The relativistic effects do change based on your frame of reference. To an observer moving with the collapsing star, the collapse rate would accelerate normally until the black hole formed. However, his perception would be that the outside universe was speeding up until the passage of time outside was infinite.
All other frames of reference would see the collapse slow then eventually stop just outside the event horizon. Those closer to the event horizon would experience time dilation to varying degrees. The universe would run faster, but the collapsing star would still eventually slow and stop, just outside the event horizon.
As far as observing black holes, we really aren't. We're observing the effects of very high surface gravity. This is expected, since it is the intense gravity that is causing the relativistic effects in the first place.
Like I originally pointed out, the collapse would proceed very rapidly at first. It would only be when gravity reached truly tremendous levels and the relativistic effects became very pronounced that you would see the collapse slow and eventually halt.
Without going through the math, I would guess that a collapsar could easily reach 99.99999999 percent of the way to a black hole within a few thousand or a million years. However, it might take another million years to add the next decimal point, and another ten million to add the next one, etc.
When you're 99.999999 percent of the way to a black hole, gravitationally, it's pretty much a difference without a distinction. However, in terms of an event horizon and singularity, where the rules of physics break down, you're nowhere close.
Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaida.
Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?
The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages, leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind or disfigured. (ie, we know he had them and used them. To assume he would never have them again or use them again is asinine.)
Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained: by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape.
If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning.
And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country, your enemy is ruling your country.
And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation.
So, basically we have three main reasons for invading Iraq:
1. Stop WMDs. 2. Break another support structure for Al Qaeda 3. Liberate the Iraqi people from a brutal, evil monster.
Now. Number 1 proved to be a goose chase, but not for the reasons you think. NOT because Saddam was Mr. Poor, Misunderstood National ruler crushed under the evil heel of the U.S. No, No. 1 proved wrong because Saddam played a very dangerous game where he tried to pretend he still had WMD. Probably to keep his Middle Eastern neighbors from invading his country.
However, No. 2 and No. 3 are still valid. So, if only 66% of the reasons for toppling a regime exist then it was a bad idea to do it?
Conjecture. Bush and his administration have gone on record numerous times, in some cases going so far as to claim they actually knew where the weapons were, to say that the justification for invasion was, in fact, WMDs.
Why not just read his State of the Union address where he outlines the case instead of cherry picking?
WHICH report? In fact, provide the page number, because I want to see the exact text, in context.
you fail to consider a large number of legitimate options such as the forceful reinstatement of weapons inspectors.
Inspectors were shown over a 9 year period to be ineffective. Define the level of force to be used in your forceful reinstatement.
Knowing now just how rotten and corrupt the oil for food program was, it was only a short matter of time before Saddam was once again cranking out bioweapons.
Pure conjecture. No basis in fact. In addition, you're suggesting that you are psychic by making a statement of fact about something which never happened when you come to the conclusion at the end.
You're joking, right? Conjecture? No basis in fact? Do you even read a newspaper? The Oil for Food scandal is huge. Saddam was buying off entire nations with it. It was rotten to the core. And since we know Saddam had a bioweapons program ready to ramp up at a moment's notice and was more than eager to get back into the business, only a fool would think he wasn't working to bring down the entire sanctions from within the U.N.
You also criticize Bush because he didn't do enough to prevent 9/11.
Straw man. I haven't said that. Even if I had said it, it would still be immaterial.
Selective quoting. Convenient how you left off the original qualifier "Let me guess." I still stand by the guess because your position is one of personal hatred for Bush and is not based in fact.
It is not immaterial, it demonstrates hypocrisy.
I suggest a good duct tape around the temples to prevent your head exploding from the cognitive dissonance.
Concluded strong with a nice argumentum ad hominem.
Cognitive dissonance is not ad hominem (brush up on your fallacies). Cognitive dissonance is the simultaneous holding of two opposing ideas.
By definition, a black hole doesn't exist until the event horizon forms. From our frame of reference it would take an infinite time for the event horizon to form.
A more accurate term for a black hole would be a collapsar. A collapsar would be a star collapsing into a black hole. Depending on how long the collapse has been going on, the star would be closer to or further from becoming an actual black hole.
The initial collapse would be very, very rapid, but would slow assymptotically as the point where an event horizon would form approached.
positioning our troops there as a local target for every car-bombing extremist in the Middle East.
Because, of course, we all know that it is much more preferable to have car bombing extremists in the middle east targeting civilians in Kansas. I mean, how outrageous. When Bush said war on terrorism he actually meant it? Like for real? I mean, with soldiers and everything?
but look, the justifications given over and over by Bush and his crew
No, the media spin given over and over was that WMD was the reason America attacked Iraq. The media did this because they knew that many people (yourself obviously included) wouldn't bother to remember or read the actual State of the Union address where Bush cited the actual reasons to eliminate Saddam from power. Hint: WMD was one of several reasons, and not the top one.
Saddam had the capability to either make them
This statement has been factually verified by the survey teams. It appears that once again, you are only getting your information from what the media chooses to tell you rather than the actual source. Let me help. The report stated that Saddam had a complete bioweapons infrastructure in place and ready to ramp up to full production within a 6 month period. Knowing now just how rotten and corrupt the oil for food program was, it was only a short matter of time before Saddam was once again cranking out bioweapons.
Now, would you rather get the mad man out of there before he was making them or only after they were stockpiled? Let me guess: You also criticize Bush because he didn't do enough to prevent 9/11. Probably in the same breath you attack him for pre-emptively preventing Saddam from hitting this country. I suggest a good duct tape around the temples to prevent your head exploding from the cognitive dissonance.
We need to find a way to justify our increased budget request next year, Barbara.
I have it! Rocket fuel kills children!
Excellent, Barbara. Fire up the Fax machine and let CBS know. We should make the 5 o'clock news. Then in two weeks, hit up congress for another billion in funding, I want a new car.
Because there are no such things as black holes. becoming a black hole is like traveling at the speed of light. You can get infinitely close, but you can't reach it.
As the star collapses toward the black hole stage, the increasing gravity begins to warp space producing relativistic effects, including time dilation. From our frame of reference, we will see the star's rate of collapse slow assymptotically, until it seems to stop just at the formation of the event horizon. Mathematically, it would take an infinite amount of time from our viewpoint for a blackhole to actually form.
---
Let's face it - no matter where humanity goes, the environment will suffer. ---
No, the environment will CHANGE. Suffer is simply you expressing your opinion, and a rather silly opinion at that, since it assumes the existing environment is automatically the best possible environment, and that all environments are, by default, static and unchanging.
--- Where humans have tread, the Arctic has suffered. ---
Translation: The arctic will change into something I don't like. Since my view of what is the correct biosphere is morally superior to yours, any change from my view of the biosphere is destruction. You may kiss my ring, now.
Continue to pray, I suppose, that HIV may some day actually be treated like an infectious disease rather than a civil rights issue.
Re:How Israeli Companies Are Succeeding...
on
Business Under Fire
·
· Score: 1
--- A classic strategy of a bigot......instead of defending the One and Only, True, Christian Faith (as defined by Rev. Falwell) and persecuting everyone else. ---
But what if one side doesn't want to make up? Militant Islam HATES Jews. It isn't political, it's personal.
As Golda Maer said: We will have peace with the Arab when they love their children more than they hate us.
Re:How Israeli Companies Are Succeeding...
on
Business Under Fire
·
· Score: 1
Says who? Those two big guns we dropped on Japan in WWII were really, really big. That ended the war pretty fast.
As for Canada not being attacked by terrorists: Why attack when you can win by subverting? When Canadian courts grant Muslim Imams the right to arbitrate civil matters (it happened, look it up), you don't need to attack, you've assimilated.
Because, of course, he's better than you, since it's apparently impossible for you to start your own company and be successful, guaging from your whine.
A better question to ask is how can we state Hubble can see 95% of the known universe? That statement implies we know with certainty what 100% of the universe is and can therefore deduce that Hubble is only seeing 95% of it.
You do realize, of course, that ozone is an unstable molecule created by the impact of short-wave ultraviolet light on oxygen molecules in the upper atmoshere.
The Earth was not provided with a fixed amount of ozone at its formation. Ozone formation is an equilibrium reaction. The only way to completely destroy the ozone layer is to remove all molecular Oxygen from the atmosphere.
Because we all know that when that C02 was not sequestered, but actually in the biosphere, the Earth was in climatic chaos. A barren, uninhabitable wasteland filled with jungles and dinosaurs.
Slashdot Mirror
The relativistic effects do change based on your frame of reference. To an observer moving with the collapsing star, the collapse rate would accelerate normally until the black hole formed. However, his perception would be that the outside universe was speeding up until the passage of time outside was infinite.
All other frames of reference would see the collapse slow then eventually stop just outside the event horizon. Those closer to the event horizon would experience time dilation to varying degrees. The universe would run faster, but the collapsing star would still eventually slow and stop, just outside the event horizon.
As far as observing black holes, we really aren't. We're observing the effects of very high surface gravity. This is expected, since it is the intense gravity that is causing the relativistic effects in the first place.
Like I originally pointed out, the collapse would proceed very rapidly at first. It would only be when gravity reached truly tremendous levels and the relativistic effects became very pronounced that you would see the collapse slow and eventually halt.
Without going through the math, I would guess that a collapsar could easily reach 99.99999999 percent of the way to a black hole within a few thousand or a million years. However, it might take another million years to add the next decimal point, and another ten million to add the next one, etc.
When you're 99.999999 percent of the way to a black hole, gravitationally, it's pretty much a difference without a distinction. However, in terms of an event horizon and singularity, where the rules of physics break down, you're nowhere close.
Hope this helps.
Let's see. You forgot:
Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaida.
Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?
The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages, leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind or disfigured. (ie, we know he had them and used them. To assume he would never have them again or use them again is asinine.)
Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained: by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape.
If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning.
And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country, your enemy is ruling your country.
And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation.
So, basically we have three main reasons for invading Iraq:
1. Stop WMDs.
2. Break another support structure for Al Qaeda
3. Liberate the Iraqi people from a brutal, evil monster.
Now. Number 1 proved to be a goose chase, but not for the reasons you think. NOT because Saddam was Mr. Poor, Misunderstood National ruler crushed under the evil heel of the U.S. No, No. 1 proved wrong because Saddam played a very dangerous game where he tried to pretend he still had WMD. Probably to keep his Middle Eastern neighbors from invading his country.
However, No. 2 and No. 3 are still valid. So, if only 66% of the reasons for toppling a regime exist then it was a bad idea to do it?
Why not just read his State of the Union address where he outlines the case instead of cherry picking?
WHICH report? In fact, provide the page number, because I want to see the exact text, in context.
WMD Report
That took about 15 seconds in Google.
you fail to consider a large number of legitimate options such as the forceful reinstatement of weapons inspectors.
Inspectors were shown over a 9 year period to be ineffective. Define the level of force to be used in your forceful reinstatement.
Knowing now just how rotten and corrupt the oil for food program was, it was only a short matter of time before Saddam was once again cranking out bioweapons. Pure conjecture. No basis in fact. In addition, you're suggesting that you are psychic by making a statement of fact about something which never happened when you come to the conclusion at the end.
You're joking, right? Conjecture? No basis in fact? Do you even read a newspaper? The Oil for Food scandal is huge. Saddam was buying off entire nations with it. It was rotten to the core. And since we know Saddam had a bioweapons program ready to ramp up at a moment's notice and was more than eager to get back into the business, only a fool would think he wasn't working to bring down the entire sanctions from within the U.N.
You also criticize Bush because he didn't do enough to prevent 9/11. Straw man. I haven't said that. Even if I had said it, it would still be immaterial.
Selective quoting. Convenient how you left off the original qualifier "Let me guess." I still stand by the guess because your position is one of personal hatred for Bush and is not based in fact. It is not immaterial, it demonstrates hypocrisy.
I suggest a good duct tape around the temples to prevent your head exploding from the cognitive dissonance.
Concluded strong with a nice argumentum ad hominem.
Cognitive dissonance is not ad hominem (brush up on your fallacies). Cognitive dissonance is the simultaneous holding of two opposing ideas.
By definition, a black hole doesn't exist until the event horizon forms. From our frame of reference it would take an infinite time for the event horizon to form.
A more accurate term for a black hole would be a collapsar. A collapsar would be a star collapsing into a black hole. Depending on how long the collapse has been going on, the star would be closer to or further from becoming an actual black hole.
The initial collapse would be very, very rapid, but would slow assymptotically as the point where an event horizon would form approached.
positioning our troops there as a local target for every car-bombing extremist in the Middle East.
Because, of course, we all know that it is much more preferable to have car bombing extremists in the middle east targeting civilians in Kansas. I mean, how outrageous. When Bush said war on terrorism he actually meant it? Like for real? I mean, with soldiers and everything?
In my opinion, war was justified the moment Saddam tried to assassinate Bush 41.
No, the media spin given over and over was that WMD was the reason America attacked Iraq. The media did this because they knew that many people (yourself obviously included) wouldn't bother to remember or read the actual State of the Union address where Bush cited the actual reasons to eliminate Saddam from power. Hint: WMD was one of several reasons, and not the top one.
Saddam had the capability to either make them
This statement has been factually verified by the survey teams. It appears that once again, you are only getting your information from what the media chooses to tell you rather than the actual source. Let me help. The report stated that Saddam had a complete bioweapons infrastructure in place and ready to ramp up to full production within a 6 month period. Knowing now just how rotten and corrupt the oil for food program was, it was only a short matter of time before Saddam was once again cranking out bioweapons.
Now, would you rather get the mad man out of there before he was making them or only after they were stockpiled? Let me guess: You also criticize Bush because he didn't do enough to prevent 9/11. Probably in the same breath you attack him for pre-emptively preventing Saddam from hitting this country. I suggest a good duct tape around the temples to prevent your head exploding from the cognitive dissonance.
We need to find a way to justify our increased budget request next year, Barbara.
I have it! Rocket fuel kills children!
Excellent, Barbara. Fire up the Fax machine and let CBS know. We should make the 5 o'clock news. Then in two weeks, hit up congress for another billion in funding, I want a new car.
Because there are no such things as black holes. becoming a black hole is like traveling at the speed of light. You can get infinitely close, but you can't reach it.
As the star collapses toward the black hole stage, the increasing gravity begins to warp space producing relativistic effects, including time dilation. From our frame of reference, we will see the star's rate of collapse slow assymptotically, until it seems to stop just at the formation of the event horizon. Mathematically, it would take an infinite amount of time from our viewpoint for a blackhole to actually form.
Which is good, whereas man sequestering lead away under tons of earth and rock is bad.
Lead is a potent toxin and has no known minimum safe exposure level.
Which is why the entire human race has died from exposure to lead fumes in leaded gasoline. Stupid humans. What planet were you from again Xarvox?
Because we all know that the lead never existed at all until man created it from nothing, put it in electronics, then dumped it in a landfill.
You respond in court. That's what adults do. Childish brats whine and throw fits and tantrums, and look at me, I'm such a poor victim.
But, all this is irrelevant. The moment he said: I didn't think I was doing anything wrong, we have learned he is a liar.
---
Let's face it - no matter where humanity goes, the environment will suffer.
---
No, the environment will CHANGE. Suffer is simply you expressing your opinion, and a rather silly opinion at that, since it assumes the existing environment is automatically the best possible environment, and that all environments are, by default, static and unchanging.
---
Where humans have tread, the Arctic has suffered.
---
Translation: The arctic will change into something I don't like. Since my view of what is the correct biosphere is morally superior to yours, any change from my view of the biosphere is destruction. You may kiss my ring, now.
Assuming, of course that shifting weather patterns don't cause a corresponding increase in snowfall in the Antarctic.
All the doom and gloom scenarios I've seen assume the Antarctic will warm sufficiently for ice to melt, but will have unchanged precipitation rates.
Ditto Greenland.
Continue to pray, I suppose, that HIV may some day actually be treated like an infectious disease rather than a civil rights issue.
--- ...instead of defending the One and Only, True, Christian Faith (as defined by Rev. Falwell) and persecuting everyone else.
A classic strategy of a bigot...
---
Pot, meet kettle.
But what if one side doesn't want to make up? Militant Islam HATES Jews. It isn't political, it's personal.
As Golda Maer said: We will have peace with the Arab when they love their children more than they hate us.
Says who? Those two big guns we dropped on Japan in WWII were really, really big. That ended the war pretty fast.
As for Canada not being attacked by terrorists: Why attack when you can win by subverting? When Canadian courts grant Muslim Imams the right to arbitrate civil matters (it happened, look it up), you don't need to attack, you've assimilated.
Because, of course, he's better than you, since it's apparently impossible for you to start your own company and be successful, guaging from your whine.
Your sig describes Michael Moore to a T, except that he already has a few hundred million.
Yeah, that whole will of the people through their elected representatives things just sucks when it's YOUR idea you want implemented.
The tyranny that makes us feel morally superior is the tyranny we embrace.
A better question to ask is how can we state Hubble can see 95% of the known universe? That statement implies we know with certainty what 100% of the universe is and can therefore deduce that Hubble is only seeing 95% of it.
You do realize, of course, that ozone is an unstable molecule created by the impact of short-wave ultraviolet light on oxygen molecules in the upper atmoshere.
The Earth was not provided with a fixed amount of ozone at its formation. Ozone formation is an equilibrium reaction. The only way to completely destroy the ozone layer is to remove all molecular Oxygen from the atmosphere.
Because we all know that when that C02 was not sequestered, but actually in the biosphere, the Earth was in climatic chaos. A barren, uninhabitable wasteland filled with jungles and dinosaurs.