2023-08-24 at 5:29 AM UTC
The Grand Unified Retarded Theory.
Volume = space
Mass = energy = time
Our understanding of physics breaks because we're hyper-focused on the time side of space-time and completely ignoring how volume itself (regardless of mass) effects reality. Or something. I need a giant photon. Someone give me the xbox hueg photons so I can do a science on them.
2023-08-24 at 5:30 AM UTC
One day PhDs will have to study GURT and they will weep because if they say it out loud they'll be expelled from Uni.
2023-08-24 at 5:31 AM UTC
aldra
JIDF Controlled Opposition
banished to the retardium
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this
post didn't die in a fire!
2023-08-24 at 9:39 AM UTC
they measure the cosmic radiation and estimate mass
2023-08-24 at 10:17 AM UTC
Originally posted by Meikai
Like, if a black hole is caused by a gravitational singularity where m=∞… why do they vary in apparent size/mass? The variance in size should preclude the possibility of a point of infinite mass or density, no? It never occurred to me before today, but this is just as retarded as dark matter. Fucking retards talking about "micro black holes" and shit like nigga what do you even mean. "Oh but a supermassive black hole has more infinite mass!"
Astrophysicists: explain this to me. Do not vaguely gesture at set theory and say "some infinities are bigger than others", I want to know what the fuck you think is going on there.
Both of these are huge glaring examples of areas in which our model of reality is completely and utterly FUBAR, yet society collectively acts as though these are real things. "Our observations conflict with our model's predictions but just trust me bro it's there haha trust me bro it's different from religion believe in the Prophet Einstein and his mathematical Revelation."
m (mass) isn't infinity. It's set and known. The singularity refers to the effect on space-time, which is basically the 4 dimensional construct we use to explain how gravity and time works. Basically as you go faster time dilates, and as you approach a large mass time dilates.
Inside the schwartzchild radius the escape velocity is infinite, and time dilates infinitely, so in theory time stands still and nothing can escape. The singularity just refers to the graphs going straight up when you plot them out.
As to how that all makes sense and whether if you were inside a black hole what it would be like, I don't know. I don't think anyone really understands what is going on inside a black hole.
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this
post didn't die in a fire!
2023-08-24 at 1:11 PM UTC
I kept asking it for examples of how classical/"singular" black holes are better supported by observation or how the proposed "regular black hole" equations have been demonstrated to conflict with observations or established experimental data (ie how they've been shown to break the rest of relativity) and it gave me fucking *nothing*. It started yammering about
Occam's Razor. Pathetic. Everything it mentioned to try to justify science's unhealthy preoccupation with Einstein's shitty math it admitted - when pressed - would also be true of the incredibly-but-not-infinitely dense cores of regular black holes. It honestly tried to tell me "ahh classical black holes are supported by observations like gravitational lensing", as if
any sufficiently massive object or cluster of objects shy of singularity wouldn't cause that.
*shniff* So: what are black holes? Dogma. *sniff*
Pure ideology.
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this
post didn't die in a fire!
2023-08-24 at 1:18 PM UTC
Yes, scientific community/Mr. AI: we should favor the simplest answer, assuming that answer satisfies all conditions. A simple answer that is obviously wrong should not be favored over a proposed correction simply because the correction is "more complex" though. Fuck's sake.
2023-08-25 at 5:07 PM UTC
aldra
JIDF Controlled Opposition
Originally posted by aldra
banished to the retardium
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this
post didn't die in a fire!
2023-08-25 at 5:27 PM UTC
Lots of Black hos here in houston...The Acres homes area you can pick one up for $15.
2023-08-25 at 9:58 PM UTC
Obbe
Alan What?
[annoy my right-angled speediness]
Originally posted by aldra
That's a scene from Loom. That's Bobbin Threadbare, visiting the glassmakers guild.
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this
post didn't die in a fire!
2023-08-25 at 10:15 PM UTC
Black holes are two-way gateways which link the dimensions.
2023-08-26 at 2:17 AM UTC
aldra
JIDF Controlled Opposition
Originally posted by Obbe
That's a scene from Loom. That's Bobbin Threadbare, visiting the glassmakers guild.
no it's hts being banished from communist space utopia to the retardium for science blasphemy
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this
post didn't die in a fire!
2023-08-26 at 5:59 AM UTC
Originally posted by Meikai
I kept asking it for examples of how classical/"singular" black holes are better supported by observation or how the proposed "regular black hole" equations have been demonstrated to conflict with observations or established experimental data (ie how they've been shown to break the rest of relativity) and it gave me fucking *nothing*. It started yammering about Occam's Razor. Pathetic. Everything it mentioned to try to justify science's unhealthy preoccupation with Einstein's shitty math it admitted - when pressed - would also be true of the incredibly-but-not-infinitely dense cores of regular black holes. It honestly tried to tell me "ahh classical black holes are supported by observations like gravitational lensing", as if any sufficiently massive object or cluster of objects shy of singularity wouldn't cause that.
I’m not a physics guy by any stretch but isn’t the theory of black hole formation that gravitational force exceeds nuclear forces? In such a scenario what would allow for non-infinitesimal volume? It’s definitely true that gravitational lensing doesn’t demonstrate singularity, but I guess I’m not clear on what would govern the volume of a non-singular black hole
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this
post didn't die in a fire!
Ps 10/10 throwback to the other venerable black holes thread
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this
post didn't die in a fire!
2023-10-02 at 5:08 AM UTC
It’s not infinite mass that makes a black hole, it’s infinite density. So mass is a variable in the equation to solve for the Schwarzschild radius of an object. The larger the mass, the larger the radius of the event horizon (generally speaking, we don’t need to get into angular momentum etc.)
Like you could make a black hole with the mass of our sun if you could somehow condense all its matter inside of its Schwarzschild radius.
Anyway I get what you mean about how these are highly abstract concepts and intuitively you wouldn’t tend to believe something just because some scientist says “HUURRRR DURR THE MATH FITS THO”. But the thing is, black holes were predicted to exist before they were observed in nature. Just like the earth was predicted to be round by measuring shadows long before we put objects into orbit. And so on.
A scientific theory is only as good as its ability to predict the behavior of our observed reality, that’s how we test how accurate it is. If it was all made up, the predictions shouldn’t actually come true. So there must be something to it.
You could get into an epistemological discussion about the nature of knowledge and how can we really know that anything is real when everything we experience is limited by our senses and thus incomplete? But when you go down that rabbit hole you end up in a place where nothing exists except your own mind, and it was only created last Thursday fully formed with false memories of a life you never lived.
So to make sense of reality there’s always going to be a couple baseline assumptions. That the world exists separately from ourselves, that there are rules to how that world works, and that they can be defined and tested to a point where we become confident enough that we can call that rule a “law”, and then we come up with new laws that build on the ones we already came up with.
The true nature of reality is most likely unknowable, I’m fairly confident there will ALWAYS be certain things we can never possibly know the answer too the most obvious of which being “why is there something instead of nothing”, but outside of shit like that I think the rest of reality is up for grabs.
