• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Planet-Dissolving Dust Cloud is Headed Toward Earth!

If anyone believes anything the weekly world news says they are dumber then a rock. I suppose you'll believe that I saw elvis in my cereal this morning too?
 
<<<Pssssssst>>>>
it's one of the tabloids at the register at the super market...
You know, "Elvis is really an alien and I'm having his baby" headlines??

Although, I must admit, it was kinda neat to see that the authors of those articles indeed do a little research. IIRC, the Mayan calendar ends abruptly around that time. But, maybe it's just a lucky coincidence though.

Anyway, though, for a class I had to take on doing cross-curricular education, (linking the different subjects together, managing to do history in math class, bio in math class, etc.) I said "yeah, right. How am I supposed to do history and pre-calculus together??
So, I was forced to research the Mayan's. IMHO, they were incredible. Their astronomical abilities, given the instruments available at the time, were unrivaled. It's always made me wonder why their calendar ends.
 
So um... the cloud is 28000 light years away? Since everyone whos takin physics 101 should know that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light because as your speed increases, you mass becomes greater. When you reach light speed, matter streches and becomes heavier (oversimplified), and your mass becomes infinite once you hit light speed. Using this fact, it would take over 28000 years to even reach us, and by then I hope we would have a way of distorting the cloud, if it were true.

And nothing can really excape a SMBh (super massive black hole) pull. Steven Hawking has discovered a new type of radiation, oddly enough called Hawking Radiation. Because the Black Holes are a void in the space-time, they can consume massive amounts of mass without stopping (yes they stop once they are full, so to speak). Black holes release single atoms at a time over their existance, Hawking Radiation, and once all the atoms are gone, the black hole will dissapear. But to put it simple, there is something like 2.4 trillions atoms in a gram of anything (roughly) and if you consider how much mass is consumed by just 1 star, it would take a very, very long time for a black hole to die, something along the lines of 1 google (10^100) years for a normal black hole. Ah now isnt physics fun 🙂

 
Guys, I did a search on the topic and that's the first article I got. I don't even know the website. That's why I asked you about it!
 
Originally posted by: Soccerman06
So um... the cloud is 28000 light years away? Since everyone whos takin physics 101 should know that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light because as your speed increases, you mass becomes greater. When you reach light speed, matter streches and becomes heavier (oversimplified), and your mass becomes infinite once you hit light speed. Using this fact, it would take over 28000 years to even reach us, and by then I hope we would have a way of distorting the cloud, if it were true.

And nothing can really excape a SMBh (super massive black hole) pull. Steven Hawking has discovered a new type of radiation, oddly enough called Hawking Radiation. Because the Black Holes are a void in the space-time, they can consume massive amounts of mass without stopping (yes they stop once they are full, so to speak). Black holes release single atoms at a time over their existance, Hawking Radiation, and once all the atoms are gone, the black hole will dissapear. But to put it simple, there is something like 2.4 trillions atoms in a gram of anything (roughly) and if you consider how much mass is consumed by just 1 star, it would take a very, very long time for a black hole to die, something along the lines of 1 google (10^100) years for a normal black hole. Ah now isnt physics fun 🙂
Click to expand...

i dont think thats entirely correct. conditions in a particle accelerator are worse than almost anything a particle can experience in space, and black holes have been created in there before...it is called evaporation when the black hole "dries up" and ceases to exist. it definitely happens faster than a googol. it is more like half that.
 
Originally posted by: Bigsm00th
Originally posted by: Soccerman06
So um... the cloud is 28000 light years away? Since everyone whos takin physics 101 should know that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light because as your speed increases, you mass becomes greater. When you reach light speed, matter streches and becomes heavier (oversimplified), and your mass becomes infinite once you hit light speed. Using this fact, it would take over 28000 years to even reach us, and by then I hope we would have a way of distorting the cloud, if it were true.

And nothing can really excape a SMBh (super massive black hole) pull. Steven Hawking has discovered a new type of radiation, oddly enough called Hawking Radiation. Because the Black Holes are a void in the space-time, they can consume massive amounts of mass without stopping (yes they stop once they are full, so to speak). Black holes release single atoms at a time over their existance, Hawking Radiation, and once all the atoms are gone, the black hole will dissapear. But to put it simple, there is something like 2.4 trillions atoms in a gram of anything (roughly) and if you consider how much mass is consumed by just 1 star, it would take a very, very long time for a black hole to die, something along the lines of 1 google (10^100) years for a normal black hole. Ah now isnt physics fun 🙂
Click to expand...

i dont think thats entirely correct. conditions in a particle accelerator are worse than almost anything a particle can experience in space, and black holes have been created in there before...it is called evaporation when the black hole "dries up" and ceases to exist. it definitely happens faster than a googol. it is more like half that.
Click to expand...

Sorry googol. Anyhow, its been a common law of physics that nothing can exceed the speed of light, no ifs ands or buts. How would conditions be any different inside a particle accelerator and than space, besides temp? Light, in a vacuum is something like 176000 miles per second (I dont remember). As I said before, matter stretches as it goes faster, a minute amount, but at the speed of light the matter stetches to such a degree that its mass is infinite.

There is also a difference between a black hole the size of an atom and one that comes from a sun. Since a black hole that comes from the sun size is actually something like a few hundred feet, it would have considerably more gravitational pull. I also ment that the SMBh had a life of a googol, not a smaller one. It has been discovered that there are actually SMBhs that have stopped feeding (they absorb too much mass?) and just become dormant black blobs in space. I dont know of any galaxies off the top of my head that have a dead SMBh because I only know of the Milkyway and Andromida. It is evident because some galaxies have actually stopped their spinning and the objects (stars) that occupy the spiral, or whatever type the galaxie is, start fly off into the direction they were headed in before the gravity turned off. Oh heres another example of the max speed of light, Hawking discovered that gravity has the same speed of light (mathematically of course). You can also witness this in the spiral galaxies I mentioned above, the inner stars are not rotating, heading off in the proper direction, while the outer stars are still orbiting in their usual path, so the outer stars one by one lose their orbits. If gravity was instantanious, then all of the stars would release from their orbit right away.

Ok Im done talking, too much here.
 
Actually, the common law of physics is that the speed of light in a vacuum is a sort of speed limit... You can't pass it in either direction - either by increasing speed OR by decreasing speed. Thus, this speed limit does allow for the existence of "things" moving faster than the speed of light. One example: Tachyon. (hypothetical, at this point; no direct evidence yet.)
 
Originally posted by: Soccerman06
Originally posted by: Bigsm00th
Originally posted by: Soccerman06

And nothing can really excape a SMBh (super massive black hole) pull. Steven Hawking has discovered a new type of radiation, oddly enough called Hawking Radiation. Because the Black Holes are a void in the space-time, they can consume massive amounts of mass without stopping (yes they stop once they are full, so to speak). Black holes release single atoms at a time over their existance, Hawking Radiation, and once all the atoms are gone, the black hole will dissapear. But to put it simple, there is something like 2.4 trillions atoms in a gram of anything (roughly) and if you consider how much mass is consumed by just 1 star, it would take a very, very long time for a black hole to die, something along the lines of 1 google (10^100) years for a normal black hole. Ah now isnt physics fun 🙂
Click to expand...

i dont think thats entirely correct. conditions in a particle accelerator are worse than almost anything a particle can experience in space, and black holes have been created in there before...it is called evaporation when the black hole "dries up" and ceases to exist. it definitely happens faster than a googol. it is more like half that.
Click to expand...

Sorry googol. Anyhow, its been a common law of physics that nothing can exceed the speed of light, no ifs ands or buts. How would conditions be any different inside a particle accelerator and than space, besides temp? Light, in a vacuum is something like 176000 miles per second (I dont remember). As I said before, matter stretches as it goes faster, a minute amount, but at the speed of light the matter stetches to such a degree that its mass is infinite.

There is also a difference between a black hole the size of an atom and one that comes from a sun. Since a black hole that comes from the sun size is actually something like a few hundred feet, it would have considerably more gravitational pull. I also ment that the SMBh had a life of a googol, not a smaller one. It has been discovered that there are actually SMBhs that have stopped feeding (they absorb too much mass?) and just become dormant black blobs in space. I dont know of any galaxies off the top of my head that have a dead SMBh because I only know of the Milkyway and Andromida. It is evident because some galaxies have actually stopped their spinning and the objects (stars) that occupy the spiral, or whatever type the galaxie is, start fly off into the direction they were headed in before the gravity turned off. Oh heres another example of the max speed of light, Hawking discovered that gravity has the same speed of light (mathematically of course). You can also witness this in the spiral galaxies I mentioned above, the inner stars are not rotating, heading off in the proper direction, while the outer stars are still orbiting in their usual path, so the outer stars one by one lose their orbits. If gravity was instantanious, then all of the stars would release from their orbit right away.

Ok Im done talking, too much here.
Click to expand...

"time and space and gravity have no separate existence from matter" - Albert Eintsein

This is called Space-Time.

Think of space as the surface of a balloon with lots of dimples on it. The dimples are created from massive(heavy- not always necessarily large) objects. i.e. planets, stars, galaxies, black holes. The more massive the object, the deeper the dimple.

Now picture the fabric as having gridlines on it and the gridlines get distorted by the dimples in the fabric. Objects follow a gridline as if it were a straight line. (There really is no such thing as a straight line in space because space is curved.) The gridlines near massive objects curve around that massive object and so when a small object travels over gridlines that are distorted by a massive object, the now orbiting object is still traveling in a straight line in space-time.

A black hole is something so massive(heavy) but takes up such a very very very small space that the dimple goes very very deep; it can go so deep that it creates a small tunnel to another spot on the surface of the balloon(worm hole).

Black holes have not been replicated in labs. You are thinking of antimatter. Antimatter is the evil twin of matter. They are created from concentrated energy. Think of energy as zero(inert). Matter is a positive number; antimatter is a negative number. When they combine, they equal zero and energy is released.

Particle accelerators fire particles at each other and create extreme temperatures(energy) which can create matter/antimatter pairs. Black holes also create antimatter.

Sorry, that's all I have to say about that right now.
 
Wow...I'm just impressed we could pull a reasonably scientific discussion from a thread begun under the wonderfully and oh-so-fake guidance of the Weekly World News...wow

By the way, boxoreds, there are a few reputable articles indicating scientists BELIEVE they have created a black hole under laboratory conditions in a particle accelerator. Check out the linkys, they're from BBC and National Geographic for the sake of using at least some reputable sources in this thread...

National Geographic Article

BBC Article

Hope that sheds some light on the situation...
 
Originally posted by: mooglekit
Wow...I'm just impressed we could pull a reasonably scientific discussion from a thread begun under the wonderfully and oh-so-fake guidance of the Weekly World News...wow

By the way, boxoreds, there are a few reputable articles indicating scientists BELIEVE they have created a black hole under laboratory conditions in a particle accelerator. Check out the linkys, they're from BBC and National Geographic for the sake of using at least some reputable sources in this thread...

National Geographic Article

BBC Article

Hope that sheds some light on the situation...
Click to expand...

:camera:'s

What kind of shutter speed would you need to capture something that was only around for 1/10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000th of a second?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top