Riogho

The problem with information and black holes, is that when information goes into a black hole it will then eventually be radiated back out, due to hawking radiation, however, this radiation is 'random' and it appears the information is lost. This is the Hawking Black-Hole Information paradox, and we need a quantum theory of gravity to solve it.

You're actually not at rest because time itself is moving? And since you are in time... your point on a 4 dimensional-graph would be moving... I think... o.o

Because that would give the mass a point to spin around

Iron Maiden

if it was hollow that would solve our little problem of sping angular momentum and exactly what it is.

Does this mean that the Casimir effect makes it impossible for an elementary particle to be hollow?

Are you being serious?

Do you just follow me around trying to exploit every post I make? For the love of God, stop it.

So gravity is both a force AND curvature? Or Curvature IS a force?

Everything isn't one giant wave, but it is definitely a giant field. Through which waves propogate.

But... what makes me move?

But there is no motion, I am at rest.

*sighs* Everything I post is misunderstood, it wasn't mean to be patronizing at all. I was pointing you in the direction of momentum.

Remember all those lovely conservation laws you learned in General Science in the 7th year? That is where these come into play. Keeping the nice little planets in a cute little ellipse.

I thought temperature was a measure of heat. And I thought something couldn't have heat, that heat was only the transfer of energy from one source to another. Therefore, I deduced that no sources = no heat = nothing = vacuum. Oops

As a question that doesn't deserve it's own thread, has inertia been defined and used in QM?

>.< I thought a vacuum was the absense of anything. Therefore, it would have no temperature... which is 0 kelvin. ... Elaborate for me please?

I've heard two opposing views of gravity, and many compilations. The first being: That gravity acts upon a static background and is a force that is there because of mass and it just is. And the second being that the curvature of spacetime because of mass causes objects to follow different paths making it seem they are 'attracted' to each other. Obviously, the first one is wrong, and has been disproven by GR and experiments since then. However, the second seems to be a common conception, but I don't understand how that would work. Because if something is merely curvature and I were to have a large body say, a black hole who influences much space around it to have curvature, (the black hole is at rest), and then I have me, standing 100m away from the black hole, at rest, would I fall into the black hole? If we were both at rest there would need to be energy required to push me into the black hole, curvature of space isn't energy... And of course, the curving of space wouldn't cause me to 'fall' into the black hole because 'falling' is an effect of gravity. I'm utterly confused, and I am sure other people are as well. Clarification please?

Isn't mass just the measurement of inertia?

Why can't you reach absolute zero in the classical sense? I thought a vacuum was perfectly valid in classical mechanics?

So, what you are saying is it's just wrong. In a classical sense, you reach absolute zero and nothing moves. In a quanticized sense, you cannot reach absolute zero and therefore there is still motion. So I was cross-referencing for my example?

Wouldi t work the same for hollow spheres?

But isn't space NOT infinite? Arn't we watching it expand? And isn't the dark energy that perturbs throughout the entire universe actually decreasing in density with time, therefore it isn't infinite?

The problem is using it is an amazing amount of energy, and you have no way of assembling your molecules the same way they were before. So teleportation, at least in the sense you are talking, is very improbable.

I do nothing but sing!