/sci/ - Science & Math

>>6474689

this is a vacant answer to my question, but out of everything typed thus far, it's at least relevant to what I asked

>>6474627
>stupid fucks dumbasses god you dumbfags are annoying
I don't know how your post is relevant to the question I'm asking, but you might be confusing yourself by the subjective definition of affirmation. Some are affirmed in the belief of a truth, others are affirmed in the belief of a system that determines the most viable truth, whether it can ever be entirely 'true' or not is dependent on our perception alone.

If you're frustrated because you believe some people are affirmative in believing whatever a science text/community dictates, I can't say your frustration isn't valid, but to whom in this thread you're directing your frustration I'm unsure.

>>6474620
> I would assume that the age you are has a mental state, much like childhood and puberty
>well that's stupid
so you don't have a mental state that forms opinions that guide your decision making process?
either you are:
enlightened
robotic
illiterate

>>6474607
this sums it up well enough in layman's
I'm trying to determine who sits on the side of the fence
side 1:
>We have determined truths through scientific means, they are true, all further sciences must be part of the model
side 2:
>We have determined applicable concepts, they are as true as long as they can be utilised, but it is possible for these concepts to be either false, or less accurate, than latter scientific determinations

Now when I ask this question, what side of the fence you stand on, please consider how heavy the implications are. They could undermine Einstein, Newton, Tesla, and so on. Not because these men were 'wrong' but because there are more accurate systems we have yet to discover to explain how the universe works.

Could our universe be the inside of a black hole, and could black holes lead to other universes?

>>5832391
How can you shit processed food when you eat the food?

pic related

> Gravity is a force that acts upon objects with momentum and energy
> Light has both
> High school equations and concepts ala g = G((m1m2)/d^2)) and p = mv are simplified

Hey Faggots,

my name is Black Hole, and I attract every single one of you. All of you are weak, mass-less, carbon based life forms who spend every second of their day stuck to an iron core planet. You are everything observable in the world. Honestly, have any of you ever gotten an event horizon? I mean, I guess it's fun self replicating and evolving because of your own lack of gravity, but you all take to a whole new level. This is even worse than becoming a gas nebula.

Don't be a stranger. Just hit me with your best fusion reaction. I'm pretty much perfect. I was the brightest quasar in the sky, and have an acceleration due to gravity over 9000m/s/s. What processes do you synthesize, other than "jacking off to electromagnetic absorption lines"? I also get straight accretion disks, and have a banging neutron star (She just solar flared on me; Shit was SO cash).

You are all faggots who should just go super nova. Thanks for listening.

>>3165922
>>3165868
Well i think you've effectively explained black holes & unified physics.

Any know the name of, or better yet, have a link to the blackholes that are so big scientists say they defy the laws of physics. Like they should not be able to exist. All I remember is that it was released in the last year, but I can't find it.

So i hear GM can effect the intrinsic spin of a particle?

Is this true?

Also what is spin-ice, please?

Hay thur /sci/.

I have a question about black holes!

How do black holes emit radiation? The common phrase about black holes is that "not even light can escape their gravitational pull"...so this has me scratching my head.

As I understand it (from scanning the Wikipedia article) black holes emit tiny amounts of thermal radiation, but the amount they absorb from the cosmic microwave background is more than this, so they don't "evaporate". However, very small black holes don't absorb more than they emit, so they "evaporate" very quickly and emit a lot of energy.

How can they emit anything at all if they have an event horizon?

Alright, so I'm going to be doing a presentation on Black Holes, and I do realize that most of the knowledge concerning Black Holes is all theoretical with no method of physical proof.

However, there are still some concepts that confuse me, like the Angular momentum of a Black Hole and the Ergosphere it creates.

Additionally, the entire notion of Gravitaitonal Singulairty, and how a Black Hole is born makes fuck-all sense to me.

I like to read about science, what's a good website for reading daily science related news?

I have a question /sci
Should I major in general biology or mechanical engineering. Which would be more useful?