S
Sombrero
Not sure... because at noon, I'm in the pub playing darts, avoiding forums with very complex maths puzzles about cards !!
(however whatever it is you were on about.. Mike from london won't believe you)!
Do Black Holes really Exist?
- Thread starter Mikefromlondon
- Start date
Not sure... because at noon, I'm in the pub playing darts, avoiding forums with very complex maths puzzles about cards !!
(however whatever it is you were on about.. Mike from london won't believe you)!
Sponsored Links
S
Sombrero
plus you probably won't ever get to noon because you'll be chacking your watch at 1 over infintiy!
As sombrero puts it in a statement, I worked it out mathematically
At 1 Min to noon = 11.59:00, you put cards 1-10 in, and remove No 1, so balance = 9 cards
At 1/2 min to noon =11.59:30, you put cards 11-20 in and remove No 2, so balance = 18 cards
At 1/3 min to Noon = 11.59:40 you put cards 21-30 in, and remove No 3 so new balance = 27 cards
so for each step more you would add 10 and take out 1 card
so in short you can convert this into a formula X=10y-y
where X = total number of cards left in the box after each step
where Y = Number of steps
so to test my formula on 3 steps
X = 10 x 3 - 3 = 27
So if the number of steps are infinite, then the answer is also infinite, all depends on what comes after 1, 1/2 and 1/3 min to noon, and any subsequent number of steps.
My guess is that the next step would be 1/4, 1/5,1/6,1/7,1/8,1/9, 1/10,1/11... and so on before reaching noon, and therefore the number of steps before noon would be infinitum, so sure the answer is infinity or as sombrero puts it you will never get to noon!
It's nothing to do with size, it's about mass.
Of all the elements known to us, the heaviest being iradium, or osmium, or even uranium, they are roughly twice the mass of lead, so unless the single atom black hole exists, it must be made of some unknown element that we have not discovered that must weigh by billions of times more than heaviest element we know on earth, so for a single atom blackhole to own intense gravitational pull, intense enough to stop the light escaping it must be made of an element that has not yet been discovered, but really does it might actually exist? I doubt it.
Unless God really exists, only it is possible for him to create anything that seems or appears impossible to us, since gravitational pull or force depends on Mass, and the mass of an object depends on the number of atoms and its atomic weight, so for a single atom to possess intense gravitational force to be legible as a black hole, it must be a very unique element in our universe. I doubt it if you could ever create one on earth, the amount of energy you would need to create it will probably exhaust all our earths energy resources and still won't be enough.
Nobody said a black hole could be a single atom you plonker, they said it could be the size of a single atom.
Sponsored Links
E
EddieM
It's nothing to do with size, it's about mass.
Of all the elements known to us, the heaviest being iradium, or osmium, or even uranium, they are roughly twice the mass of lead, so unless the single atom black hole exists, it must be made of some unknown element that we have not discovered that must weigh by billions of times more than heaviest element we know on earth, so for a single atom blackhole to own intense gravitational pull, intense enough to stop the light escaping it must be made of an element that has not yet been discovered, but really does it might actually exist? I doubt it.
Unless God really exists, only it is possible for him to create anything that seems or appears impossible to us, since gravitational pull or force depends on Mass, and the mass of an object depends on the number of atoms and its atomic weight, so for a single atom to possess intense gravitational force to be legible as a black hole, it must be a very unique element in our universe. I doubt it if you could ever create one on earth, the amount of energy you would need to create it will probably exhaust all our earths energy resources and still won't be enough.
You're mixing up density and mass, different things my friend.
E
EddieM
Anyway, it's very difficult to describe a black hole as all known mathematics and physics breaks down at the singularity (if of course black holes exist, as is the original question). That however cannot in any way be extrapolated or used as proof for the existence of god, that leap of "logic" is I am afraid a non sequitur.
E
EddieM
Let me little bit scientific
Interestingly, you would be left with 540,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 ( 54x10 to power of 24)cards at 1 yocto seconds before noon, and you would have removed 60,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 cards, and by the time you had done all that hard work in just a yocto second before 1 minute, you would be pretty much knackered like Sombrero
Of course I doubt it if you could practically even achieve 1000 cards in a minute! so it is not logically possible with human limitations.
Or for that matter even an electro- mechanical device could not handle such vast number of cards in 100,000,000 year at best,
HOW BIG IS 54 x 10 to power of 24, it would take a supercomputer running at 100 teraflops per second (100,000,000,000,000HZ) would take 171,115.6741 years to count down!
Now you can see why time would slow down when you travel fast, so if you were to cover 1 minute to noon using the above Dextrinous method you would need to count or handle cards at neck breaking speed! And you would still fail cause you would be 1 yS out! and you would be counting so fast that that it would seem years but it would only be just under 1 minute.
right so check I have not made any mistake, so get your calculators out and move your rusty brains!
depends on what you accept as the last valid fraction of a minute?
I woul say 1 second is the last quantifiable measurement of a minute.
1/2 30 secs
1/3 20 secs
1/4 15 secs
1/5 12 secs
1/6 10 secs
etc etc
1/60 1 sec so 58 times 10 cards in one card out = 60 X 9
540 cards plus two other cards from the first batch which was a full ten and the last lot put in which was a full ten so 542 cards...
However if you wish to continue splitting the fraction of a minute you could actually go on indefinately without end so you would never reach an answer.
I woul say 1 second is the last quantifiable measurement of a minute.
1/2 30 secs
1/3 20 secs
1/4 15 secs
1/5 12 secs
1/6 10 secs
etc etc
1/60 1 sec so 58 times 10 cards in one card out = 60 X 9
540 cards plus two other cards from the first batch which was a full ten and the last lot put in which was a full ten so 542 cards...
However if you wish to continue splitting the fraction of a minute you could actually go on indefinately without end so you would never reach an answer.
firstly, the smallest acceptable fraction i went down to equates to 1 yokto second.
However, I have to tell you that your answer has an error!
starting with 1 Minute to Noon, that is 60 seconds to Noon, so you start from 11.59:00, and count down to 12.00:00, in 60 steps,
each step you put 10 cards but also remove 1 card, it is irrelevant what card numbers i.e. (11-20 0r 21-30 etc) you put in and what card numbers you take out, i.e.( No 1, No2, etc etc) and so on so in 60 steps you would have put in 60 x 10 cards = 600 cards and taken out 1 card for each step, so that is minus 60x1= 60 cards out of 600 cards gives you exactly 540 cards in that 1 minute at 1 second resolution.
So for accuracy of the results, the timing process starts when you put the first batch of 10 cards in and finally when you have removed the corresponding card for that batch out i.e.removed card number 60,
so on your last 60th batch of 10 cards, you would insert be Nos 591 to 600, and you would have removed card No 60 out, hence all cards numbered from 1 to 60 won't be in the box, but numbers from 61 to 600.
Come to think of it, it is a Times 9 Table! the stuff you do in your primary school, but scientist like to use formulas hence I used x=10y-y
but scientist like to use formulas hence I used x=10y-y
x = 10y - y can be simplified to x = 9y. Scientists use formulas as tools, not as a way to confuse people.
Anyway, back to the original topic. Yes, black holes exist and they are directly observable. You can read scientific journals and layman's explanations on the web. It'll be a lot of effort to get to the point where you can understand what they're talking about in the journals, of course. It's much easier to jump to conclusions...
I don't see why you are trying to cherry pick commonly misunderstood scientific principles to try and support your faith, it's an oxymoron and it won't work.
Welcome to DIYnot I note its your first ever post, didn't my posting help you join this site! credit to me! So its your first ever post, what can be more simpler than that. I hope you will get involved a lot more in our discussions.
Credit must go to you for further simplifying that formula, algebra was my worst nightmare in my school days, I didn't understand a word my teacher the way he taught us, so I started to lag behind and never caught up with it. So thanks for that, x=9y, in simple terms it's also times 9 table.
I note its your first ever post, didn't my posting help you join this site! credit to me! So its your first ever post, what can be more simpler than that. I hope you will get involved a lot more in our discussions.Credit must go to you for further simplifying that formula, algebra was my worst nightmare in my school days, I didn't understand a word my teacher the way he taught us, so I started to lag behind and never caught up with it. So thanks for that, x=9y, in simple terms it's also times 9 table.
Thank you Mike, I'm interested in learning some DIY skills so I've just been lurking, trying to learn the basics.
I am a software programmer so my math is okay, not as good as it should be.
There are a lot of quizzes with explanations of the solutions on this website: http://www.mathopolis.com/questions/quizzes.php. If you want a free education in A-level grade subjects, AQA and Edexcel provide all of their past question and answer books for free and from there you can research the answers.
A couple of websites which you might find interesting are phys.org and newscientist.com, to keep up to date with what scientists are achieving. Although they seem to be a bit sensationalist nowadays, the articles comments usually indicate what realistic outcomes can be expected.
I am a software programmer so my math is okay, not as good as it should be.
There are a lot of quizzes with explanations of the solutions on this website: http://www.mathopolis.com/questions/quizzes.php. If you want a free education in A-level grade subjects, AQA and Edexcel provide all of their past question and answer books for free and from there you can research the answers.
A couple of websites which you might find interesting are phys.org and newscientist.com, to keep up to date with what scientists are achieving. Although they seem to be a bit sensationalist nowadays, the articles comments usually indicate what realistic outcomes can be expected.
Thanks Vymer, very interesting man, I always respect those who can do software programing, I am into electronics and I am hardware engineer and my weakness has always been software as you would know old folks like me who went into electronics when things spun around 7400 and cmos logic gates, things have moved on so much and now I do nothing but curse all appliances which now use microprocessors.
Take an example yesterday a friend's Renault people carrier had one of its wipers failed to swipe the screen so he asked me if I could shed some light on it, it uses two separate wiper motors each swiping the screen with its own motor, now, there are no links and the system runs such that there is no mechanical reciprocating mechanism between the two wiper arms, or even inside each of the motor/gearboxes, so that means, each motor must move or swipe the wiper arms in unison, so that arms don't get tangled with one another, so they have a wire synchronisation, as well each motor/gearbox wheel turns a few degrees and hits mechanical stop, such that motor must start to reverse its spinning direction, hence it is controlled by a microprocessor!
I just can't think why why why people need to make things so complicated and sophisticated that their reliability is zilch!
Now that motor/gearbox I took apart only to find out it has a fairly large PCB with about 5 smt chips with hundreds of pins! totally crazy really, I could have done that electrical synchronization using TTL or CMOS chips, and it would have been far more reliable as you would never get the programme corrupted, so basically the motor is not burnt but it is not responding to commands any more!
Yes there are some devices that uses a lot of CMPS chip count that can be cut down to a few, this is where software engineering comes into its own, like all modern Fire alarm and burglar alarms are software driven that cuts down on installation wiring, as the main panels communicates with each device through a serial id, and you only ever need to run each device on just two wire throughout!
So may be one day who knows you could write me a small software programme to control some model devices That i have in mind.
Take an example yesterday a friend's Renault people carrier had one of its wipers failed to swipe the screen so he asked me if I could shed some light on it, it uses two separate wiper motors each swiping the screen with its own motor, now, there are no links and the system runs such that there is no mechanical reciprocating mechanism between the two wiper arms, or even inside each of the motor/gearboxes, so that means, each motor must move or swipe the wiper arms in unison, so that arms don't get tangled with one another, so they have a wire synchronisation, as well each motor/gearbox wheel turns a few degrees and hits mechanical stop, such that motor must start to reverse its spinning direction, hence it is controlled by a microprocessor!
I just can't think why why why people need to make things so complicated and sophisticated that their reliability is zilch!
Now that motor/gearbox I took apart only to find out it has a fairly large PCB with about 5 smt chips with hundreds of pins! totally crazy really, I could have done that electrical synchronization using TTL or CMOS chips, and it would have been far more reliable as you would never get the programme corrupted, so basically the motor is not burnt but it is not responding to commands any more!
Yes there are some devices that uses a lot of CMPS chip count that can be cut down to a few, this is where software engineering comes into its own, like all modern Fire alarm and burglar alarms are software driven that cuts down on installation wiring, as the main panels communicates with each device through a serial id, and you only ever need to run each device on just two wire throughout!
So may be one day who knows you could write me a small software programme to control some model devices That i have in mind.
Sponsored Links
