BobbyJoeCool

Ok... let's say you have a mass of 1kg, contained in a single point. by the equation: [math]F=-G\frac{m_{1}m_{2}}{r}[/math]

the smaller the r, the larger the force...

In fact, [math]\lim_{r\to 0^{+}}{F=-G\frac{m_{1}m_{2}}{r}}=-\infty[/math]

So, that means that any mass, if you're close enough to it (as in, like a trillionth of a nanometer) the force will be so great that once again, light would not escape it and an event horizon exists that is astronomically small.

Is there something I'm missing here or is this true?

'']Thats a neat simulation. Thanks Mart and Bobby for giving me some details on it.

Agreed, neet simulation.

And YW. I wish I could explain it better.

Its someone who fervently goes about trying to convert people to atheism.

Shudder

I cant see how anyone can defend denying a large quantity of people basic civil rights because of their sexual orientation. Why SHOULD'NT they have the same rights as anyone else. Only reason this is still up for debate in america is because of all the power the church has over government and society even in the modern age

This is true. The only people I know who support banning gay marrige are religious fanatics. I'm sure someone will prove me wrong on here, but that person will most likely be homophobic and have a somewhat distorted image of what homosexuality is (ie, ALL homosexuals want to have sex with them and are rapists and therefore should be prisoned).

Isn't this a little hypocritical? Why do you have to be in love to get the tax breaks? At the moment, a man and a woman can get married without loving one another just for the taxbreaks, so why not two men? In fact, if they are not even having sex, then the religious right might be more happy with this!

I did mention that later in the thread.

However, I see what you're saying. Man and woman get married whoaren't in love to get the benifits. Why not man and man or woman and woman? If the govt. doesn't stop men and women from doing it, why should they stop men and men?

But why is the rum gone?

Arrrr. Why ist thou pirating fromst the same film as I?

Fair warned be ye, says I.

Aye, Avast!

I was doing some calulations for someone showing the point of neutral gravety between two equal sized masses. The vectors from points not between the two masses (I hope that's clear...) all seem to point at the midpoint between the two masses... Is that what happens always? or is it just a conicidence (or misdrawing/calulation on my part)?

Is it not also true that unless near perfect conditions exist, any orbiting body will either escape orbit or crash into the body it is orbiting (be it in 5 seconds or 500 eons..)?

Tycho...

This is what you're saying indirectly...

Since the singularity is inside the black hole, you can't get any information from it, or about it. However, I know there there is a mass in the center of it (because of it's gravetational effects), and furthermore, I can tell you have much mass given only the diameter (which is twice the radius).

[math]v_{e}=\sqrt{\frac{2Gm}{r}}[/math]

Source

Where [math]v_{e}[/math] is the escape velocity at the event horizon (or the speed of light) G is the gravetational constant (apprx 6.67x10^-11, source also Wikipedia), m is the mass of the singularity, and r is the raduis of the event horizon.

[math]c=\sqrt{\frac{2Gm}{r}}[/math]

[math]c^2=\frac{2Gm}{r}[/math]

[math]rc^2=2Gm[/math]

[math]\frac{rc^2}{2G}=m[/math]

[math]m=\frac{rc^2}{2G}[/math]

r is given, c and G are constants...

but this is not possible because the information of the singulatiy cannot escape the black hole's gravitational well... but the ONLY information I know is it's mass. I do not know what it is (matter/anti-matter).

In the same way, if some mass falls past the EH, the ONLY information you will ever determine about it is it's mass. And your theorem says that you CAN determine mass... And this is all you know about the object that fell in. Therefore, you know it is there, but you do not know what it is, much like the singularity...

how about that? Does that answer you question?

WTF? Why did this post twice? It gave me an error message and said it wasn't posted... delete this (didn't mean to double post)

So when two black holes collide there is an internal as well as external event horizon for a short period? Does the internal one ever disappear?

Yes, when the singularities merge (because at EVERY time before, halfway between the singularities, gravetational force is neutral, and therefore, light could escape from one blackhole, straight into the other. And since, until they merge, there is a midpoint between them, and therefore an internal event horizon. Of course, if you are in this event horizon, you are completely screwed because the black holes will converge on where you are... and thus you cannot escape anyway...

I second that.

I third that.

I've found him very helpful in answering some questions I've had, and he's really nice about it (as long as you aren't trying to prove creation or some such thoery that cannot be scientifically proven because you can't test the theory at all).

As Phi said, if he decided to powertrip, Blike can (and will) do something about it.

Friends are only friends when it suits them

--Cpt. A.J. Rimmer

CAPTAIN!?!?!?!?! When was Rimmer Captain? He was the second lowest ranking memebr of that ship (only second to Lister)

Anyway...

"But Lisa, maybe if I'm a part of that mob I can steer it in wiser, better directions. Now, where's my giant foam cowboy hat and airhorn?" ~Homer Simpson

"Attempted murder, now honestly, what is that? DO they give the nobel prize for attempted chemestry?" ~Sideshow Bob

"I have, uh, just learned that many of you are stroking guns. So I will, uh, step aside and open the floor." ~Mayor Quimby

thanks dave! it makes sence, x,y,z (i,j,k)...

I see Mokele is a mod now... congrats.

I have a vague recolection from Pre-Calculus of learning about unit vectors...

Vector "i" and "j"... one of which goes from (0,0) to (0,1), the other (0,0) to (1,0). Does any this ring a bell to anyone? and if so, can you tell me which one is which? I can't seem to find it.

I think "i" is (0,0) -> (0,1), and "j" is (0,0) -> (1,0).

And, is there one of these for the thrid dimention? (eg, from (0,0,0) -> (0,0,1))

In order to escape a gravitational pull you need to reach escape velocity. The greater the gravitational force pulling you down, the larger that speed has to be. OK?

In a black hole, the event horizon is the point at which the escape velocity is greater than the speed of light. And since nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, nothing can escape once past the event horizon (including light).

Does that help you?

What I'm saying is that the information about the mass isn't comming from inside the event horizon... it's comming FROM the event horizon (and it's tiny little buldge) or the gravetational effects outside the event horizon. The actual information from the mass cannot escape and it isn't. but gravety's effects are greatened and thus you know that there is a mass inside at a point other than the singularity. But that's all you would know. You don't directly get information of the mass from the mass, but gravetational effects of the mass. Gravety is not entirly affected by the same laws that mass is (because mass creates gravety...).

It's a paradox just as much as the EPR paradox... you aren't directly observing the mass, you observe it's effects on the world around it. You know it's there, but again, that information comes from outside the event horizon.

But again, what you're saying is like saying that knowing the black hole exists is not possible because the singularity is inside the event horizon (and thus you can't know the mass is actually there...).

As for the wobble of planets, you aren't observing the planets... you observe their effect on the stars they orbit.

Gravity does not pull gravety... so gravity can escape from the black hole... (oversimplified).

Does that answer your question Tycho?

']Ok' date=' but that still doesn't answer my question. I'll boil it down to its main element.

 

All mass exerts gravitational attraction over other mass. Have an example mass pass through the event horizon of a black hole, but not yet reach the singularity. It would seem to me an observer would be able to tell (if only maybe for a fraction of a second) that there is a second mass present in the event horizon, as it could be detected by its gravitational influence, however small.

 

But this doesn't jive with what I know about black holes. Namely it would allow one to get information about what is going on inside the event horizon (ie that there is a mass present) out of the event horizon, which should be impossible.

 

So, how does this work? Or does this not violate any theories at all?[/quote']

 

well... as any mass falls into a black hole, it will effect the size of the event horizon ever so slightly (as in the mass is not centralized). However, since the gravetational force of the singularity is so strong, the difference in gravety is so astronomically small, that it would take a VERY sensative device to notice it... And it would only exist for the time it takes something moving at the speed of light to reach the sinularity from the event horizon.

 

But, the discrepency still exists... But this is the same paradox as the EPR paradox... Two particles, one polarized positve, and one polarized negative, are sent off at the speed of light in opposite directions and stopped after 2 minutes (so the particles are 4 light minutes apart). You measure the polarity of the particle, and you'll know the polarity of the other particle before 4 minutes has passed... so the information has gotten to you FASTER than the speed of light, which is not possible.

 

You, of course, do not know the polarization of the other particle, you just deduce that since your particle is positive that the other one is negative... This applies here in this way... you do not observe the mass directly, but you observe a inconsistancy in the gravetational forces of the black hole (ie, slight bulge in the event horizon). In the same way, you don't know that the mass is there (because in order to know it's there you need to observe it, which is not possible), you just deduce that it is by its effects being apparent.

 

Does that answer your question?

I thought that it was the sun... that eventually we will be to the sun like the moon is to earth (rotating once with each revolution). ie: one side always facing the object it is orbiting...

I assume now that that is completly wrong. Anyone?

Ok... when the two singularities get to the point that it's at the point where the event horizon would be if the other black hole wasn't there (ie, the normal point of no return for light) the event horizon will once again extend all the way around.

To show you this... draw the two black holes at any point during the colision. Connect the singularities with a straight line (line a). Draw 4 more lines, 45°*above and below line "a" from each singularity (should be going toward the other black hole. The quadrilateral contained by the points of the singularities and the intersection of the 45° lines with the lines from the other singularity (that's a bit wordy...) is the area in which the gravety of the black holes conflict with eachother...

Please note that, this is using vector forces.. at the point of the intersection on the 45° lines, you are being pulled into each black hole (at a 90° angle to eachother) with equil force... The left/right force is negated, but half of that force is pulling you directly between the two blakc holes equil to the force of one of the equil sized black holes, therefore, light still cannot escape the black holes...

Does anyone understand what I'm saying?

The event horizon isn't "ripped", just moved.

For simplicity, we'll discuss two same sized black holes, both moving directly at the other (ie, the event horizons have equal speed in opposite directions.)

As they get closer, there will be a space between the singularities that the gravetational forces equilize (this point is halfway between the event horizons) because each black hole is pulling on you equaly... but here's the thing... you're not seeing into the black hole... you're seeing past the normal event horizon, but you aren't seeing inside the black hole (as the black hole really is only a singularity or near singularity). however, before the singularities actually merge, the black hole forces in every which direction (except bewteen the singularities) is still as strong if not stronger... and before they meet, there actually is an event horizon that is solid shaped on the outside (although not spherical) AND there is another event horizon if you are still between the event horizons... Because both singularities are pulling you (and light) towards it, once they get close enough, they still pull all around it to create a gravetational pull that light cannot escape from. You will never see the singularity unless you want to become a part of it...

If that doesn't help, I might be able to make a diagram, scan it and post it... But, it won't be completely accurate (as in persice...) but it will get the point across...

If you are for freedom' date=' does that necesarily mean you must be for the freedom of people to be homosexuals? And does the opposite apply: if you are against homosexuals you are against freedom?

 

When I say against homosexuals, I should distinguish between two types of homosexual aversion. One is when you find homosexuality not to your taste but you don't mind if others engage in gay acts because you respect their freedom. The other is when you believe gay acts should be punished, jailed, etc. I'm talking about the latter not the former because the former is pro-freedom but the latter is obviously anti-freedom.[/quote']

 

At any rate... this thread does seem to have been started by a liberal... as this is anti-conservative propaganda...

It's from a movie? I was trying to figure out when the Reverend Doctor would have said it ...

 

Oh' date=' wait; was it 'An American President'?[/quote']

Yes, it was...

 

NO!

 

I am for freedom' date=' but I am not for murder.

 

Now I'm not comparing murder/homosexuality in any way, understand, no relation, I was merely pointing out (using a common example that many can relate to) that you may support freedom but that doesn't mean that anyone can do anything ie. murder.[/quote']

 

As I stated, it's a fine line between protecting and restricting freedom.

 

BTW, there is no tax break for the married in the U.S.

Not directly, but it makes things a lot easier and simpler, because married couples can file jointly, people who live together and are not married cannot.

 

2. says who? You?

Says the United States Constitiution.

well who are they "protecting" by saying I must pay for My drink when a female standing next to me doesn`t and yet orders the same drink?

 

you see' date=' what I`M trying to establish here, is what makes gays think they`re "Victimised", what is the difference that seperates Them from the rest of acceptable "discrimination", Should they be an acception made for them? and if so, on what basis?

 

what make their case "So Special"?

they WANT something and the law says no, I want a million quid for Free![/quote']

 

I can see your point here, but we're not talking about gay marrige, we're talking about the conservative view on gays, which is that gayness should be punished by jail. You're talking about an action that is in no way any worse than "normal" heterosexual sex, but they want to say, "do it (and get caught), and go to jail."

 

Gay people are discriminated against more than most other minorities. And other minorities are protected by affermitive action...

 

Also, gay people used to be able to get married all across the US (if a willing paster was found). Now they can only in MA. You can't say that isn't restricting.