I don't know why this got modded, but I'm serious. If you find yourself exasperated by the end of reading the comments, come back and mod me up (or down, if the opposite is true).
Warning: To those looking to read the comments on this story below, don't bother. 75% of the comments below this line are about their use of the word "casualty" and whether it refers to "deaths" or "deaths and wounded". After a huge discussion on it, we finally get a couple comments, but then a new thread picks right on up and people start talking about it again!
There are very few interesting comments on this story.:(
don't most early MS Windows builds beat the last version with performance?
I can't guarantee this is the case, because it doesn't exactly follow that more development = slower speeds. However, I learned my lesson from being excited about all the great things Vista would purportedly offer. The main issue with covering early builds of Windows is that all the wonderful things Microsoft says they'll implement won't actually make it into the final product. The number of things that Vista was supposed to include pales in comparison to what we received. I'm not getting excited about Windows 7 until I read what the final release product actually has.
I'm not an american and does not follow the intricate details and controversies of 9/11.
There aren't any controversies over 9/11. It was at least worth giving a few seconds of thought to the idea that there was a government conspiracy, but there is really no evidence for it. On the contrary, all evidence is in favor of a dozen foreign operatives working in secrecy against a government that didn't know to be looking for them.
One of the worst arguments against the collapse of the towers is "the towers fell at free-fall speed!" Go drop a steel i-beam from the top of the Sears Tower, and using multiple video cameras, see if you can tell me if it reaches terminal velocity.
Show me a celestial body that is "spherical" rather than "nearly spherical". You can't, not even the event horizon of a blackhole is exactly a sphere.;)
Correct, the total volume of the oceans is ~1.3*10^6 km^3, the volume of the moon is ~2.2*10^10 km^3 so it's not even close.
Not to mention, according to the Giant Impact Hypothesis, the iron core of the mars-size body that struck the earth sunk down and was mostly absorbed into the earth's core. The moon has far less iron in its core than most other bodies in the solar system. Consider also that tectonic plates have been moving for billions of years and have formed more than a dozen different "super-continents" over time in various configurations. There's no way the Pacific ocean is a gouge from the moon-making.
Ah, thanks! That helps explain why the photon sphere is further out... although I don't quite understand why it's exactly 3/2 horizon radius instead of some other proportion. I've seen some calculations on a previous wikipedia edit for the page, but it didn't seem that simple. Thanks for your replies:)
Essentially, we'd be seeing what's behind the hole.
You'd also be seeing what's above the blackhole and yourself and whatever's behind you that's not blocked by your presence from the black hole's point of the view. Basically, everything the black hole sees essentially has a path back to an observer no matter which side of the black hole he looks at. Light can loop around a black hole, just barely missing the event horizon cut-off, and come back at the camera. Similarly, light can exactly hit the event horizon and be in a perpetual orbit around the black hole at exactly the boundary of the event horizon, until the black hole eats something and causes the event horizon to slightly increase, causing the previous "shell" of photons to fall inward.
Certainly given billions upon billions of years and extremely thorough surveys, we could come up with the relative location of the center of the universe? Surely somewhere in the universe, there must be some particles that are on the "outside" of the universe that have half of their sky extremely dark and the other half filled with the usual assortment of stars and galaxies.
I have no doubt that some or most of this post is wrong, but it's more of a probe to seek out more knowledgeable people to reply. Thanks.;)
I don't know what this "rest mass" hub-bub is all about. My photons never hold still when I put them on the scale. Jesus Christ the Holy Savior of Our People help me if I ever try to give them a bath, I'm usually lucky to get out of there alive.
Yup, that's correct, but what if Hawking radiation doesn't occur? I find those scenarios and the estimations about how long it would take to even interact with a single other particle far more interesting. God help the black hole if it swallowed a non-neutral particle.
1/n as n-->inf does not equal 0! Calculus be damned*:(
Well anyway, how do you intend to demonstrate from our frame outside of the black hole that it has 0 or approaching 0 width? The event horizon is the effective radius of a blackhole. From our frame of reference perhaps it is its actual radius, but I'm not a physicist so I am unqualified to make this last sentence except for the part of this last sentence that I am typing out now in which I detail how I'm somewhat not qualified to state that with certainty.
* Just kidding. It equals 0 under calculus. The rest of my post is fine, though.
A related question that I'm curious about, how do "cost overruns" happen in contracted programs? Why isn't it a case of "I pay you $100-million dollars to build this weather satellite, and if you promise you can do it for that price, You agreed beforehand that you could build this weather satellite for $100 million dollars, so if it costs you more than your calculations showed beforehand, tough luck for you." ? Why isn't it as simple as that?
I'm confident there are legitimate reasons the world operates this way that aren't only due to "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" business theory, and I'm wondering what they are!
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know why this got modded, but I'm serious. If you find yourself exasperated by the end of reading the comments, come back and mod me up (or down, if the opposite is true).
Warning: To those looking to read the comments on this story below, don't bother. 75% of the comments below this line are about their use of the word "casualty" and whether it refers to "deaths" or "deaths and wounded". After a huge discussion on it, we finally get a couple comments, but then a new thread picks right on up and people start talking about it again!
:(
There are very few interesting comments on this story.
We can't let there be a mine-shaft gap!
Mass Effect was great, but if they don't make a LOT of improvements, Mass Effect 2 is going to be a hell of a lot less interesting.
Congratulations. You're now a pregnant Indian. ;)
We've recovered the one-time pad he used, your honor, and it proves he is guilty!
The government shreds their papers and discs into very small pieces, and then burns them.
Suddenly I have a strange hankerin' for Queen Amidala.
with what was, essentially, a large third-world economy.
I think you mean "second-world economy".
don't most early MS Windows builds beat the last version with performance?
I can't guarantee this is the case, because it doesn't exactly follow that more development = slower speeds. However, I learned my lesson from being excited about all the great things Vista would purportedly offer. The main issue with covering early builds of Windows is that all the wonderful things Microsoft says they'll implement won't actually make it into the final product. The number of things that Vista was supposed to include pales in comparison to what we received. I'm not getting excited about Windows 7 until I read what the final release product actually has.
The crowds in Shinjuku are abuzz upon hearing this news, but it seems to have polarized Japan's greater populace.
Hooray, my signature can be relevant... although a bit dated and not fully applicable to today's Slashdot.
I'm not an american and does not follow the intricate details and controversies of 9/11.
There aren't any controversies over 9/11. It was at least worth giving a few seconds of thought to the idea that there was a government conspiracy, but there is really no evidence for it. On the contrary, all evidence is in favor of a dozen foreign operatives working in secrecy against a government that didn't know to be looking for them.
One of the worst arguments against the collapse of the towers is "the towers fell at free-fall speed!" Go drop a steel i-beam from the top of the Sears Tower, and using multiple video cameras, see if you can tell me if it reaches terminal velocity.
Show me a celestial body that is "spherical" rather than "nearly spherical". You can't, not even the event horizon of a blackhole is exactly a sphere. ;)
Correct, the total volume of the oceans is ~1.3*10^6 km^3, the volume of the moon is ~2.2*10^10 km^3 so it's not even close.
Not to mention, according to the Giant Impact Hypothesis, the iron core of the mars-size body that struck the earth sunk down and was mostly absorbed into the earth's core. The moon has far less iron in its core than most other bodies in the solar system. Consider also that tectonic plates have been moving for billions of years and have formed more than a dozen different "super-continents" over time in various configurations. There's no way the Pacific ocean is a gouge from the moon-making.
Well, that basically answers what I was looking for... thanks :)
Ah, thanks! That helps explain why the photon sphere is further out... although I don't quite understand why it's exactly 3/2 horizon radius instead of some other proportion. I've seen some calculations on a previous wikipedia edit for the page, but it didn't seem that simple. Thanks for your replies :)
The only way for light to remain at the horizon is if it is emitted straight outwards at the horizon.
What if the light is emitted at the horizon at exactly a tangential angle, assuming a perfectly spherical and unchanging event horizon?
found this article very interesting
Thank you, sir. I still have hope for humanity after this. :)
Essentially, we'd be seeing what's behind the hole.
You'd also be seeing what's above the blackhole and yourself and whatever's behind you that's not blocked by your presence from the black hole's point of the view. Basically, everything the black hole sees essentially has a path back to an observer no matter which side of the black hole he looks at. Light can loop around a black hole, just barely missing the event horizon cut-off, and come back at the camera. Similarly, light can exactly hit the event horizon and be in a perpetual orbit around the black hole at exactly the boundary of the event horizon, until the black hole eats something and causes the event horizon to slightly increase, causing the previous "shell" of photons to fall inward.
Certainly given billions upon billions of years and extremely thorough surveys, we could come up with the relative location of the center of the universe? Surely somewhere in the universe, there must be some particles that are on the "outside" of the universe that have half of their sky extremely dark and the other half filled with the usual assortment of stars and galaxies.
;)
I have no doubt that some or most of this post is wrong, but it's more of a probe to seek out more knowledgeable people to reply. Thanks.
I don't know what this "rest mass" hub-bub is all about. My photons never hold still when I put them on the scale. Jesus Christ the Holy Savior of Our People help me if I ever try to give them a bath, I'm usually lucky to get out of there alive.
Yup, that's correct, but what if Hawking radiation doesn't occur? I find those scenarios and the estimations about how long it would take to even interact with a single other particle far more interesting. God help the black hole if it swallowed a non-neutral particle.
1/n as n-->inf does not equal 0! Calculus be damned* :(
Well anyway, how do you intend to demonstrate from our frame outside of the black hole that it has 0 or approaching 0 width? The event horizon is the effective radius of a blackhole. From our frame of reference perhaps it is its actual radius, but I'm not a physicist so I am unqualified to make this last sentence except for the part of this last sentence that I am typing out now in which I detail how I'm somewhat not qualified to state that with certainty.
* Just kidding. It equals 0 under calculus. The rest of my post is fine, though.
A related question that I'm curious about, how do "cost overruns" happen in contracted programs? Why isn't it a case of "I pay you $100-million dollars to build this weather satellite, and if you promise you can do it for that price, You agreed beforehand that you could build this weather satellite for $100 million dollars, so if it costs you more than your calculations showed beforehand, tough luck for you." ? Why isn't it as simple as that?
I'm confident there are legitimate reasons the world operates this way that aren't only due to "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" business theory, and I'm wondering what they are!