Zoklet links

1. 2019-03-08 at 4:17 AM UTC

   #101
   

   -SpectraL coward [the spuriously bluish-lilac bushman]
   Consider this..
   
   
   Negative mass would possess some strange properties, such as accelerating in the direction opposite of applied force. Despite being inconsistent with the expected behavior of "normal" matter, negative mass is mathematically consistent and introduces no violation of conservation of momentum or energy. It is used in certain speculative theories, such as on the construction of artificial wormholes and the Alcubierre drive. The closest known real representative of such exotic matter is the region of pseudo-negative-pressure density produced by the Casimir effect.
   
   
   
   
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exotic_matter
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect
2. 2019-03-08 at 4:17 AM UTC

   #102
   The Self Taught Man Black Hole
   You shouldn’t believe what Wikipedia tells you, 99.8% of it is lies
3. 2019-03-08 at 5:47 AM UTC

   #103
   Nil African Astronaut [the overexcited four-footed chanar]

   Originally posted by gadzooks The only thing that is truly contentious in SpectraL's statement was the bit about it having no mass.

   
   Really? saying that the most massive objects currently known in fact have no mass and then doubling down and just saying science is wrong is contentious? who would have thought.
4. 2019-03-08 at 5:48 AM UTC

   #104
   

   -SpectraL coward [the spuriously bluish-lilac bushman]

   Originally posted by Nil Really? saying that the most massive objects currently known in fact have no mass and then doubling down and just saying science is wrong is contentious? who would have thought.

   
   C'mon, now.
5. 2019-03-08 at 10:05 AM UTC

   #105
   

   gadzooks Dark Matter [keratinize my mild-tasting blossoming]

   Originally posted by Nil Really? saying that the most massive objects currently known in fact have no mass and then doubling down and just saying science is wrong is contentious? who would have thought.

   
   I'm not saying SpectraL has been 100% right about everything in this entire thread.
   
   He said "A black hole is still a star, it's just a star which has lost its mass, but retains its gravity."
   
   Then Methuselah made a point of drawing attention to just how fallacious that entire quote was.
   
   And then an entire debate unrolled as a result.
   
   My point was merely that calling a black hole a star is perhaps technically incorrect, but it's a truly pedantic, hair-splitting kind of correction. Again, is a corpse human? It depends entirely on context. A black hole is essentially a star's corpse.
   
   And about the gravity, well, clearly black holes have strong gravitational pulls.
   
   The middle part about mass, THAT is the part that is pretty much unilaterally incorrect.
   
   Astrophysics tells us that a black hole actually has tremendous mass.
   
   Any other fruits from that proverbial tree are outside the scope of my own personal involvement in this discussion.
6. 2019-03-08 at 10:25 AM UTC

   #106
   

   Soyboy V: A Cat-Girl/Boy Under Every Bed African Astronaut [my no haunted nonbeing]

   Originally posted by gadzooks Astrophysics tells us that a black hole actually has tremendous mass.

   
   Maybe he meant volume, but the volume of a black hole is simply regarded as being the boundary past which light doesn't escape - the event horizon.
7. 2019-03-08 at 10:28 AM UTC

   #107
   

   gadzooks Dark Matter [keratinize my mild-tasting blossoming]

   Originally posted by MORALLY SUPERIOR BEING V: A Cat-Girl/Boy Under Every Bed Maybe he meant volume, but the volume of a black hole is simply regarded as being the boundary past which light doesn't escape - the event horizon.

   
   I have no idea, myself, to be honest.
   
   I pride myself on knowing a lot of things about a lot of different topics, but astrophysics is still a bit beyond me.
8. 2019-03-08 at 10:32 AM UTC

   #108
   

   gadzooks Dark Matter [keratinize my mild-tasting blossoming]
   Also, there's the principle of charity concept which is frequently used in academia.
   
   Debate for the sake of debate is all well and good.
   
   But by defaulting to the least charitable interpretation of another person's argument is typically counterproductive.
9. 2019-03-08 at 2:15 PM UTC

   #109
   

   -SpectraL coward [the spuriously bluish-lilac bushman]
   I'm sure Lanny will vouch for my intellectual honesty.