davidivad

If I could accelerate a probe to "c" and send it directly at the center of the spinning axis "perpendicular to the accretion disk" entering at either pole at a black hole, would it pass the event horizon without being stretched and could it pass directly through to wherever, or would it be accelerated to the speed of light squared, essentially making it more than likely cease to exist because at that moment, "time" for the probe would possibly slow down and stop.

we do not really know what would happen. there are a few competing models that to attemt to explain interaction here but there is no observation available to us yet that can confirm or deny one in particular. my suggestion is this. we observe matter getting close and then we observe large amounts of energy getting spit out. my guess is that for something strong enough to trap light involves huge amounts of force.

how big is your black hole?

in a strictest sense math is a language with specific rules. it is a shorthand of language. you can do the same thing with language that you can do with math as long as you follow the same rules.

5+5=10

five plus five is ten

here is another proof of interest.

my brother is ignorant

a=b where a= brother and b=ignorant

in the end, math takes a language job and makes it simple. when you look at some of the math presented in physics it looks daunting but imagine having to specificly spell out your ideas in a way that truly describes your idea. yes, you can generalize with words but that comes at the cost of losing precision. math and language do the same thing.

math=language

Is there some way to force common batteries to use up all of their stored energy at once?

batteries have an internal resistance. have you ever noticed that when you subject a battery to a heavy load it gets warm? discharging a battery too quickly destroys it. some batteries can be discharged quicker than others. compare a plain battery to a nicad battery and you will understand. this is why they use those batteries in remote controlled airplanes. they can put more out in a given amount of time. cpacitors allow you to slowly store energy until you have a desired amount. you can then dump the energy very quickly. remember that capacitors are not made for long term storage.

Lets imagine a scenario, where you have just arrived at your homer, unnoticed home from work.

 

You open the door that leads directly from your garage into your living room and find to your horror two men in the act of sexually abusing your child who is just little toddler of 7. They were performing acts unspeakable depraved on the body of your screaming baby The two pedophiles did not hear you arriving, because they had put on the radio as loud a the could, to muffle the screams of your little child.

 

Assuming you have a gun on your person!.

 

What would you do?

 

(I will shoot both of them)

 

And the families of the victims of murdered don't have to imagine them been fed, getting good medical, living in relative comfort, with a television in their cell, all paid for by the tax payer of which they are one of. They never get closer as long as the murderer remains alive. If the perpetrator has been executed, they can forget him/her get on with living as best they could because of the peace given by the final act of retribution giving them closer at last

.

i do not own a gun, but i do have a baseball bat. i would beat them unconscious and then castrate them and make sure that they lived to see their day in court. what better closure than public awareness, because in the hearts and minds of the people they are already dead. yet they must live on; this would be hell.

talking about 1s and 0s and probabilities is great. however, you can describe this with math in an absolute way. this removes the element of perception. put it down as an expression and everyone can work on it.

 

I agree to a point with the first point. Some are simply deceivers. Perhaps some from this group are also deceiving themselves.

 

As for your second point:

 

 

I definitely agree with this. There is also a strong cultural influence (sub-cultural). If you are surrounded by people who all believe the same things and constantly reinforce it and don't really engage with people of differing viewpoints, it can be very difficult to see that there is a problem or that one's thinking is faulty.

maybe we are looking at the problem the wrong way.

who wants to argue with someone who is always right?

this is indicative of poor communication skills.

great for science, bad for effective communication.

i had a friend once who, for the life of him, could not get his wife to open up to him. taking a step back, i realized that he was a slow talker. when he wanted his way, he would make a logical statement and then use it to prove he was right.

i told him that he needed to show a little weakness and that it was ok not to win every time. sometimes you have to make sacrifices. "show the woman that you are a human being and you will win her heart."

my goal was to think like a creationist. did i do that well?

ok i will take care of it from now onward

time travel happens all the time. this is because time slows down as you speed up. this effect is also seen in gravitational fields. thank einstein for forward time travel. traveling backwards in time is a different story. consider feynman's idea of the positron. you may want to do research on that. it will keep you busy for a moment.

as an atheist myself brought up in a babtist/catholic community, i feel your pain. in trying to stick to the thread purpose as posted above by the moderator, i only have a few things to offer as possible arguments for creationism.

how much time and sand would it take to build a sand castle by pouring sand out of your hand and letting it hit the ground. i think we can all agree, as people of science, that the rules of entropy prevent this from happening. so far as we can tell the entire universe goes from order to chaos. lifeforms go against this rule and scientists cannot repeat how it started. we are also the goldilocks of the universe. our soup is unbelievably just right. if we won the gallactic lottery, we did so a thousand times over. and of course, in the end, we cannot prove with certainty that our universe is truly real - all particles are actually waves, the universe is an empty hollogram, ect... oh, dont forget the bones. we must use deductive reasoning to fill in the gaps between the bones of evolution. there are large gaps to say the least. according to fossil record there are explosions of life that require a modification of how evolution works. our original assumptions were wrong.

ok, the shoe goes back on the other foot for me now.

-a man that cannot look beyond logic is effectively a sociopath. science is merely a simple tool.-

i'm putting this in my box of keepers...

Hello all,

 

Question, what is energy? My science teacher vaguely defined it as the ability to do work. What does that mean? Light I believe is energy, but it doesn't do anything like work?

 

This is a really hard question to explain, so sorry for my not explaining it enough.

 

Hope you can help, and thanks for reading...

consider taking your teacher's words as true because this will be the best way to understand your class. to help you out with light being energy...

light is made of little packages of momentum or "push". in fact a photon is the smallest amount of "push" that you can make. that is why light doesn't seem to do much work at all.

Hi guys, I have two questions for you.

 

1- We understand electrons as popping in and out of existence in a field of possibilities, but is it also how we understand their behavior when they are not part of an atom?

 

2- Atoms can share electrons, but as they pop in and out of existence, and are never at the same place, how could they bind two atoms?

 

***sorry for spelling mistake of "behavior", looks like I can't edit the title.

***Looks like it's not a mistake after all, just not very American.

 

 

electrons and positrons can pop into existence ony to anihilate each other (they have opposite charges) so quickly that the law of conservation does not apply. these are called virtual particles because they did not exist long enough to be considered real. a real electron violates no laws because it's creation involved the addition of energy equivelant to it's mass.

 

Galileo believed that things like color, texture, odor ect only exist in our consciousness and are created by our sensory organs. He also felt this applied to heat, as it doesn't exist but is merely felt. Are these beliefs still endorsed by the scientific community today or have they played a part in modern science?

 

he would be correct...

but this does not mean that you cannot figure out what causes this sensation. the effect is clearly due to the motion of particles.

It is oft said that, in order to love others, one must first love oneself. What is the reasoning behind this assertion? I can appreciate the fact that, in order to accept the love of another person, we must first love our self - otherwise we are likely to disbelieve their positive comments about our self and to reject their love as we may feel that it is not deserved; that we do not deserve happiness. However, the assertion aforementioned implies that it is impossible to have loving feelings towards another person if we do not first love our self. I cannot think of satisfactory reasons as to why this may be - as far as I can tell, it is possible for a person to lack self-esteem or even to have an extremely negative self-image and yet to still be able to appreciate the qualities in another person to the extent of loving the other person. Have I simply misinterpreted the statement or are there reasons underpinning the statement which I have not thought of? Also, is a neutral self-esteem really insufficient - do we really need to love our self before we are able to love others?

it is important to love yourself (have a positive self esteem). to this extent, the love that you look for will be more healthy for you. as your self esteem improves, you begin to have higher expectations of what a partner should or should not do. yes, you can love anyone you want to but is that love true? may i suggest that taking love apart for it's numerical value may prove in the end that it does not exist at all. this would make you an unloving person. it would defeat the purpose of finding what you want. if you want to believe in love then love yourself first and good things will follow.

Does psychology define what we in common parlance term an idiot?

 

Is it a person with low IQ (intellectual) or a person with low EQ (emotional quotient) or may be a combination of the two?

 

Every "normal" individual is endowed with more or less the same number of neurons, (brain size is related to sex) so why do we end up having people who challenge the intellect, albeit in the wrong way?

 

Please elicit your opinions.

 

Thanks in advance.

perhaps you are refering to religious people?

it must be frustrating to have so many answers and always be correct. yet to no avail do they accept your proof. consider that you may not be entering a logical arguement no matter how much it may seem that way. this is an area where personal feelings come into play.

i applaud your ability to publicly admit that you have a psychiatric condition. many people go on through their lives hiding. relax, nobody is perfect.

i just came from another science forum. recently, the major topic of discussion has mostly been about the dissemination of religious structure. as an athiest, i understand the logical conclusions that followed. however, after all of the religious individuals were chased off, the individuals began attacking the weakest individuals left. as an informed community, we must responsibly handle our tools. not everyone watching us has the higher function that compliments logical proof.

for the rest of the world, removing religion to solve world problems is a fallacy. what fool trades freedom for proof? we have the endowed capability to evolve beyond a darwinistic result. we are endowed this capability by evolution itself. for those of you who disagree, i would ask your personal opinion of what the following sentence means.

A ROLLING STONE GATHERS NO MOSS.

remember that googling this for the right answer does you no favors but it may help you realize that there is more to this world than what you will find in a book. some questions do not have answers. this is the human condition.

a rolling stone gathers no moss.

if you take life apart then you are not living at all.