If a micro-singularity was ever made, how much mass would it consist of? I imagine it would be have enough mass to fall due to Earth gravity and any mass if came in contact with, the floor, the crust, the mantle, the molten core, would be sucked up into it. It would fall right to the core, even if the hole was not noticable, less than a hair's width in diameter. As it ingested more mass , the event horizon would slowly expand and devour anything it came in contact with, slowly eating our planet in from the inside. Maybe it would stop at our core and just sit there in the middle of the earth, held in place by gravitational equilibrium. But with out a molten core, all techtonic activity would slowly come to a halt. Worse still, we would have lost our magnetic field that protect us from solar wind and it would immidiately affect live on our planet, possibly wiping it out for good, except maybe for life underground.
If a micro-singularity was ever made, how much mass would it consist of? I imagine it would be have enough mass to fall due to Earth gravity and any mass if came in contact with, the floor, the crust, the mantle, the molten core, would be sucked up into it. It would fall right to the core, even if the hole was not noticable, less than a hair's width in diameter. As it ingested more mass , the event horizon would slowly expand and devour anything it came in contact with, slowly eating our planet in from the inside. Maybe it would stop at our core and just sit there in the middle of the earth, held in place by gravitational equilibrium. But with out a molten core, all techtonic activity would slowly come to a halt. Worse still, we would have lost our magnetic field that protect us from solar wind and it would immidiately affect live on our planet, possibly wiping it out for good, except maybe for life underground.
Even this wouldn't actually happen IF the sigularity was stable as the event horizon radius would much much smaller than the distance between it and nearby matter. By the time it encounters any other matter it will have evaporated due to Hawking Radiation.
I can't believe that site. As an aesthetic aside, perhaps they could update it so its actually legible. I mean, maybe maybe we could use pink, blue and underlined font a little more against a pastel background. It's like I'm looking at internet circa 1993.
If you're intent on shooting something destructive at the Earth, Mister Powers, (wait for it) wouldn't it be easier if it *stood still*?!
Aries 1B
If that is what you were thinking when you posted the link...wow. Youre working at a much higher level than me!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001
I can't believe that site. As an aesthetic aside, perhaps they could update it so its actually legible. I mean, maybe maybe we could use pink, blue and underlined font a little more against a pastel background. It's like I'm looking at internet circa 1993.
Yeah. Some people will never understand that highlighting is designed to make something important stand out. Instead, they made something unimportant illegible...
If that is what you were thinking when you posted the link...wow. Youre working at a much higher level than me!!!
Nah, just a lower threshold of humor and an even lower ability to communicate clearly in written form...
PARTICULARLY since I was laughing so hard at that site that I was beginning to gray out!
Not just, "The Earth is Flat".
The author(s) of that site believe(s) that the Earth is standing still and the rest of the universe is whirling around it!!!
I did think that I was going to die, I was laughing so hard.
It's the early part of the 21st century and there's at least one person out there , who's so certain that Copernicus was wrong, that he set up a web site to promote his view. Now that's funny!
The author(s) of that site believe(s) that the Earth is standing still and the rest of the universe is whirling around it!!!
Well - all movement is relative. In order to say that something is moving you have to say "moving with respect to X" where X is something else.
Saying that the earth is stationary is a perfectly valid thing to do - you just define all other movement of objects in the universe as being wrt the earth. It does not lead to the least complex mathematical model, though.
Well - all movement is relative. In order to say that something is moving you have to say "moving with respect to X" where X is something else.
Saying that the earth is stationary is a perfectly valid thing to do - you just define all other movement of objects in the universe as being wrt the earth. It does not lead to the least complex mathematical model, though.
What I understood them to say was that the universe (our sun, Alpha Centari, Caprica , the ether everything) was orbiting around the Earth.
If I am not mistaking, at the peak of the nuclear buildup wacky humanoids had enough energy to vaporize everything on the surface + about 10 yards deep ... yeah I know ... it doesn't answer your question.
Comments
When that happens.... well it's the end of the world as we know it.
Probably won't have time to order a Pizza either.
Sebastian
How so?
I can't stop laughing!
I may have to go to the hospital!
I can't breathe!
gotta hit Submit Reply before I die!
"The whole scheme from Copernicanism to Big Bangism is a factless lie."
Aries1B
Well, that was sort of different. I was actually hoping for an interesting argument, but all I could find was recursive and almost unreadable...
But shouldn't this have been posted in the conspiracy theory thread next door?
I can't stop laughing!
I may have to go to the hospital!
I can't breathe!
gotta hit Submit Reply before I die!
"The whole scheme from Copernicanism to Big Bangism is a factless lie."
Aries1B
How so?
If you mean the Black Hole... it'll swallow us...
If you mean the Pizza... well the Blackhole will probably swallow us before the Pizza Arrives.
Sebastian
If a micro-singularity was ever made, how much mass would it consist of? I imagine it would be have enough mass to fall due to Earth gravity and any mass if came in contact with, the floor, the crust, the mantle, the molten core, would be sucked up into it. It would fall right to the core, even if the hole was not noticable, less than a hair's width in diameter. As it ingested more mass , the event horizon would slowly expand and devour anything it came in contact with, slowly eating our planet in from the inside. Maybe it would stop at our core and just sit there in the middle of the earth, held in place by gravitational equilibrium. But with out a molten core, all techtonic activity would slowly come to a halt. Worse still, we would have lost our magnetic field that protect us from solar wind and it would immidiately affect live on our planet, possibly wiping it out for good, except maybe for life underground.
Even this wouldn't actually happen IF the sigularity was stable as the event horizon radius would much much smaller than the distance between it and nearby matter. By the time it encounters any other matter it will have evaporated due to Hawking Radiation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_radius
I can't stop laughing!
I may have to go to the hospital!
I can't breathe!
gotta hit Submit Reply before I die!
"The whole scheme from Copernicanism to Big Bangism is a factless lie."
Aries1B
Wow, I really, REALLY hope that is a spoof site...but you just never know with some people!
/still a flat-earther
Well, that was sort of different. I was actually hoping for an interesting argument, but all I could find was recursive and almost unreadable...
But shouldn't this have been posted in the conspiracy theory thread next door?
If you're intent on shooting something destructive at the Earth, Mister Powers, (wait for it) wouldn't it be easier if it *stood still*?!
HA!
V/R,
Aries 1B
Oh it's real. Read some of the "Study material".
I can't believe that site. As an aesthetic aside, perhaps they could update it so its actually legible. I mean, maybe maybe we could use pink, blue and underlined font a little more against a pastel background. It's like I'm looking at internet circa 1993.
If you're intent on shooting something destructive at the Earth, Mister Powers, (wait for it) wouldn't it be easier if it *stood still*?!
Aries 1B
If that is what you were thinking when you posted the link...wow. Youre working at a much higher level than me!!!
I can't believe that site. As an aesthetic aside, perhaps they could update it so its actually legible. I mean, maybe maybe we could use pink, blue and underlined font a little more against a pastel background. It's like I'm looking at internet circa 1993.
Yeah. Some people will never understand that highlighting is designed to make something important stand out. Instead, they made something unimportant illegible...
If that is what you were thinking when you posted the link...wow. Youre working at a much higher level than me!!!
Nah, just a lower threshold of humor and an even lower ability to communicate clearly in written form...
PARTICULARLY since I was laughing so hard at that site that I was beginning to gray out!
Not just, "The Earth is Flat".
The author(s) of that site believe(s) that the Earth is standing still and the rest of the universe is whirling around it!!!
I did think that I was going to die, I was laughing so hard.
It's the early part of the 21st century and there's at least one person out there , who's so certain that Copernicus was wrong, that he set up a web site to promote his view. Now that's funny!
V/R,
Aries 1B
The author(s) of that site believe(s) that the Earth is standing still and the rest of the universe is whirling around it!!!
Well - all movement is relative. In order to say that something is moving you have to say "moving with respect to X" where X is something else.
Saying that the earth is stationary is a perfectly valid thing to do - you just define all other movement of objects in the universe as being wrt the earth. It does not lead to the least complex mathematical model, though.
The Coreolis force is the most readily proven example.
Already exists: nuclear weapons.
www.climatecrisis.net
Well - all movement is relative. In order to say that something is moving you have to say "moving with respect to X" where X is something else.
Saying that the earth is stationary is a perfectly valid thing to do - you just define all other movement of objects in the universe as being wrt the earth. It does not lead to the least complex mathematical model, though.
What I understood them to say was that the universe (our sun, Alpha Centari, Caprica
It's just hysterical.
V/R,
Aries 1B
You can quantitatively prove that the earth IS NOT stationary.
The Coreolis force is the most readily proven example.
As if that would prove anything to them.....
You can quantitatively prove that the earth IS NOT stationary.
The Coreolis force is the most readily proven example.
The atmosphere is just one part of the universe that is rotating around the stationary earth. In order to have
absolute movement like you suggest, space needs to be a substance that provides an absolute frame of
reference.