It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: NewzNose
a reply to: 5StarOracle
Question!
"What does God want with a Starship?" (sorry, always wanted opportunity to quote Shatner)
Actually, what is" Hawkings Radiation" ? Who granted this nomenclature, and why?
I thought blackholes never fell in on themselves as the only thing to escape them is gravity?
originally posted by: Bicent76
a reply to: Kapusta
sure we can observe the anomaly light years away, but to say we understand why, and how they exist, and what their purpose as it is a fact, is vanity!
As I said we have no damn idea what these anomalies are we can record their decay and assume what they are but NO ONE on this planet HAS ever seen a BLACK HOLE....
I think I have said enough about this crap..
Let us discover 100 percent of our planet and all it's species and work on curing these diseases killing our kids then we can reach for the stars....
like monopoles there are various "species" of black hole model.
originally posted by: combatmaster
a reply to: Kapusta
Is a black hole a big bang of another universe? anyone?
originally posted by: AnteBellum
I thought this theory was what that other famous physicist came up with first. He started out as a plumber and had some type of arguement with Hawkins over this very issue until Hawkins finally conceded to its validity. . .
Can't remember his name, sorry.
originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: Kapusta
Earth has an event horizon. Anything that gets too close to this planet depending on mass and velocity gets sucked in. The event horizon of a so-called black hole is simply much more exaggerated.
Like I said, there are objects in space that seem to absorb light, but thats a long way froms saying that they are gate ways to another realm.
Maybe you're right, but until we can test these theories, it simply isn't scientific.
originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: chr0naut
what I like to ponder is why not search event horizons for emergency transmissions, I think it would be one of the best places to look for such a signal...
If one was sent I assume the signal would go on forever or atleast the majority of the life of said black hole, then I can't help but wonder if you would have just as long to attempt a rescue...
8)
spaghetification only occurs if the space curvature gradient is abrupt. for gradual gradients spaghettifcation is delayed or does not occur at all. so your peril depends on the size of the black hole (inversely at that .) also the peril depends on how the blackhole was created. the model it conforms to. spinning black holes allow the avoidance of the singularity and therefore at least survival and potentially exit. some models of black hole lead naturally to some form of exit which may or may not be in this universe and may or may not be at the present time coordinates. others allow for the temporary negation of the event horizon which would allow escape through ordinary means.
originally posted by: chr0naut
originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: chr0naut
what I like to ponder is why not search event horizons for emergency transmissions, I think it would be one of the best places to look for such a signal...
If one was sent I assume the signal would go on forever or atleast the majority of the life of said black hole, then I can't help but wonder if you would have just as long to attempt a rescue...
8)
Really good idea, but as Hawking explains, the information is made turbulent and would not be likely to be identifiable.
Also, how would we mount a rescue? Even light can't get away. Anything made of matter that approached the event horizon would become 'spaghettified' as gravitational tidal forces became greater than all other forces, pulling the very atoms apart.
originally posted by: AceWombat04
Is this a new insight into the holographic principle? Because I distinctly remember both he, as well as Sitchin (who I believe was first to challenge Hawking's old thinking on this,) and others talking about this years and years ago. (Read the book "The Black Hole Wars." It's pretty interesting.)
The theory that the resolution to the paradox is that to outside observers the information is "smeared" or "scrambled" at the 2D boundary of the event horizon (and even that this could apply to the entirety of the universe potentially) while to the one in the black hole it is crushed at the event horizon, isn't a new one.
So is this a new insight or mathematical proof of the concept, or... ? Just seeking clarification. (As a dumb layperson.)
Peace.
originally posted by: AceWombat04
Is this a new insight into the holographic principle? Because I distinctly remember both he, as well as Sitchin (who I believe was first to challenge Hawking's old thinking on this,) and others talking about this years and years ago. (Read the book "The Black Hole Wars." It's pretty interesting.)
The theory that the resolution to the paradox is that to outside observers the information is "smeared" or "scrambled" at the 2D boundary of the event horizon (and even that this could apply to the entirety of the universe potentially) while to the one in the black hole it is crushed at the singularity, isn't a new one.
So is this a new insight or mathematical proof of the concept, or... ? Just seeking clarification. (As a dumb layperson.)
Peace.
originally posted by: jedi_hamster
perhaps slightly offtopic, but here's an idea.
- build a transmitter based on quantum entanglement (some say it's already been done - astroengineer.wordpress.com...)
- build a probe with such transmitter, able to withstand as much pressure and radiation as possible
- send it to a black hole
the question remains, will quantum entanglement work across event horizon? if so, this could get interesting - not counting the distance to the nearest black hole, but perhaps if the probe would be made with nanotechnology and it would be sent into a small, artificial black hole... who knows.
originally posted by: chr0naut
originally posted by: AceWombat04
Is this a new insight into the holographic principle? Because I distinctly remember both he, as well as Sitchin (who I believe was first to challenge Hawking's old thinking on this,) and others talking about this years and years ago. (Read the book "The Black Hole Wars." It's pretty interesting.)
The theory that the resolution to the paradox is that to outside observers the information is "smeared" or "scrambled" at the 2D boundary of the event horizon (and even that this could apply to the entirety of the universe potentially) while to the one in the black hole it is crushed at the singularity, isn't a new one.
So is this a new insight or mathematical proof of the concept, or... ? Just seeking clarification. (As a dumb layperson.)
Peace.
Susskind, not Sitchin.
And the time dilation involved also removes temporal information at the event horizon, the holographic encoding smears multi dimensional information, creating a static image of the that information. Information isn't lost, but it is un-crackably encrypted.