TV Black holes

[Lamp]

If you're into the physics & scientific theories related to black holes, and if you didn't watch it last night (shame on you), here is the i-player link

BBC iPlayer - Horizon: 2009-2010: Who's Afraid of a Big Black Hole?

 

[Marc]

In our galaxy, the milk way, there are billions of solar systems like our own.

In the universe there are billions of galaxies.

When I finally get my head around this, THEN i will try and tackle black holes!

 

[Lamp]

Inside every black hole (there are millions of them) is the singularity.If we ever understand the science of the singularity scientists reckon they may understand how our universe was created, since it too "came out of" (for want of a better phrase) a singularity. A miniscule point of unbelievable density and gravity.

 

[Marc]

FU lamp. Now youve fucked my head up even more

 

[Edmond]

What they need to do is build a big machine costing billons of dollars that can re create the big bang, but lets face it, no one's gonna do that, and if they did it would never get off the ground

 

[Imgormiel]

Aw, and no one mentioned brown glory holes of dQQm... ;p Yeah I watched that proggy last night. Fairly simple stuff to understand. Very interesting too

 

[Lamp]

I just tried reading an article by Hawking and Penrose on gravitational collapse and space-time singularity, and wet myself. Think I need a doctorate in theoretical physics to understand that

 

[Shagrat]

I just tried reading an article by Hawking and Penrose on gravitational collapse and space-time singularity, and wet myself. Think I need a doctorate in theoretical physics to understand that

I did the same when I tried to understand string theory. I had to go to bed for a week to recover

 

[pwn]

It was a good programme. It didn't go into much detail, but was interesting nonetheless.

 

[Raven]

FU lamp. Now youve fucked my head up even more

How about when you travel to the edge of space, what is beyond it? more space? Even at the edge of all matter/anti matter there must be something, just empty nothingness.

Or when did time start and when will it finish? Both space and time are infinite, they never started and will never end so do they exist at all?

 

[leviathane]

penrose is a god have a couple of his books, insane to understand lol.

 

[Zede]

What they need to do is build a big machine costing billons of dollars that can re create the big bang, but lets face it, no one's gonna do that, and if they did it would never get off the ground

& they need to remember to take out the hamsters this time, silly sods.

 

[Zenith.UK]

No no no... the reason it broke down last time was because they didn't feed the hamsters! The hamsters are supposed to be there. It won't work without them.

 

[BloodOmen]

Good watch tbh just finished watching it and enjoyed it. post more links like this if you come across them lamp

 

[old.Tohtori]

Inside every black hole (there are millions of them) is the singularity.If we ever understand the science of the singularity scientists reckon they may understand how our universe was created, since it too "came out of" (for want of a better phrase) a singularity. A miniscule point of unbelievable density and gravity.

I've always speculated(on a light scale) that there is no "big bang", but a chain reaction of bangs and the black holes are "spawn points".

I'll have to see if i can find the show somewhere else(damn brits!), should be interesting.

 

[georgie]

I've always speculated(on a light scale) that there is no "big bang", but a chain reaction of bangs and the black holes are "spawn points".

Can black holes get telefragged?

 

[tris-]

I've always speculated(on a light scale) that there is no "big bang", but a chain reaction of bangs and the black holes are "spawn points".

I'll have to see if i can find the show somewhere else(damn brits!), should be interesting.

that certaintly makes it more difficult to establish what if anything is outside of our universe. they started theorising a few years back that there could be 20 other dimensions, and these are the fountains of gravity. not sure if these are supposed to be inside this universe or not though.
think it was hawking that explained that initially there may have been a mass of infinite density etc and it was this mass that ripped apart to form matter and from inside this mass that space is expanding from. ultimatley the universe could crunch back to this mass.
does beg the question of where did this mass comes from, but we dont try to understand what is outside of our universe because we cannot study it.

 

[Lamp]

If anyone has some serious thoughts on a Theory of Everything (AKA Unified Field Theory):

1) Try to summarize the main idea or theme in a single paragraph. As Einstein once said, unless a theory has a simple underlying picture that the layman can understand, the theory is probably worthless.

2) If you have a serious proposal for a new physical theory, submit it to a physics journal.

3) Remember that your theory will receive more credibility if your theory builds on top of previous theories, rather than making claims like “Einstein was wrong"

4) Use mathematics to express your ideas. The language of nature is mathematics (e.g. tensor calculus and Lie group theory).

5) Once formulated mathematically, it’s then relatively easy for a theoretical physicist to determine the precise nature of the theory. At the very least, your theory must contain the tensor equations of Einstein and the quantum theory of the Standard Model. If they lack these two ingredients, then your theory probably cannot describe nature as we know it. The fundamental problem facing physicists is that General Relativity and the quantum theory, when combined into a single theory, is not “renormalizable, ” i.e. the theory blows up and becomes meaningless. Your proposal, therefore, has to give us a finite theory which combines these two formalisms. So far, only superstring theory can solve this key problem. Important: this means that, at the very minimum, your equations must contain the tensor equations of General Relativity and the Standard Model. If they do not include them, then your theory cannot qualify as a “theory of everything.”

6) Most important, try to formulate an experiment that can test your idea. But remember, your theory has to explain the experiments that have already been done, which vindicate General Relativity and the quantum theory.

This guy is a world famous physicist - Michio Kaku - check his site out here: Welcome to Explorations in Science with Dr. Michio Kaku

 

[tris-]

is 6 saying your theory must explain why previous experiments got their results, but must also prove how they are wrong?

 

[Lamp]

It goes on to say

No matter how outlandish your idea is, it must be accepted if it holds up experimentally. So try to think up an experiment which will distinguish your result from others

I think you would need to explain why previous calculations / experiments were incorrect / flawed and then go on to show how your calculations are infallable.

 

[tris-]

i know precisely jack shit about maths so id have no chance.

 

[Lamp]

First thing is to brush up on your algebra, trig & geometry. Then you'd need to take a course in basic calculus (to A-level), then degree-level courses in differential calculus, surface & volume integrals, etc

There's a shed load of free materials on line explaining relatively simply how calculus works

 

[tris-]

i think ill fuck it off and just say what i think!

 

[old.Tohtori]

Right!

1) Try to summarize the main idea or theme in a single paragraph. As Einstein once said, unless a theory has a simple underlying picture that the layman can understand, the theory is probably worthless.

"Boobies are there to give the human males some reason to multiply."

2) If you have a serious proposal for a new physical theory, submit it to a physics journal.

I think FHOT is a physics journal of sorts.

3) Remember that your theory will receive more credibility if your theory builds on top of previous theories, rather than making claims like “Einstein was wrong"

This theory is based on previous theories like "Boobies are great." and "Boobies make the world go round."

4) Use mathematics to express your ideas. The language of nature is mathematics (e.g. tensor calculus and Lie group theory).

Man is singular, female breasts are dual. Two are bigger then one, thus the male tries to reach two from his state of one.

5) Important: this means that, at the very minimum, your equations must contain the tensor equations of General Relativity and the Standard Model. If they do not include them, then your theory cannot qualify as a “theory of everything.”

Boobies are Relatively equal in size and the Standard Model is more appealing to the male then a super model.

6) Most important, try to formulate an experiment that can test your idea. But remember, your theory has to explain the experiments that have already been done, which vindicate General Relativity and the quantum theory.

Show man boobs. See man get interested in boobs.

General relativity;

The interest of man is Relative to the proximity of boobs.

And finally on the matter of quantum theory;

"In contrast to Einstein's Relativity, which is about the largest things in the universe, quantum theory deals with the tiniest things we know, the particles that atoms are made of, which we call "subatomic" particles."

Mans brain turns into the tiniest possible IQ when facing boobs, which also diminishes more when proximity gets smaller, eventually reducing the male IQ to "sub-atomic".

 

[Madmaxx]

First thing is to brush up on your algebra, trig & geometry. Then you'd need to take a course in basic calculus (to A-level), then degree-level courses in differential calculus, surface & volume integrals, etc

There's a shed load of free materials on line explaining relatively simply how calculus works

i think ill fuck it off and just say what i think!

haha now that made me lol