What happens at the event horizon of a black hole? Or inside a nuclear reactor?
Physics Question
- Thread starter UriBentMySpoon
- Start date
What happens at the event horizon of a black hole? Or inside a nuclear reactor?
Sponsored Links
Nothing as far as I know.
It's just the point of no return beyond which you keep on falling in no matter how fast you try to escape.
It's just the point of no return beyond which you keep on falling in no matter how fast you try to escape.
Nuclear reactors convert mass into energy, they don't disappear it.
Sponsored Links
- Joined
- 22 Jan 2008
- Messages
- 294
- Reaction score
- 33
- Country
More correctly, its the point at which escape velocity for the local system exceeds the maximum velocity permitted in the universe, i.e. the speed of light in a vacuum.
- Joined
- 22 Jan 2008
- Messages
- 294
- Reaction score
- 33
- Country
Mass can't be magically removed or destroyed unless it's converted to energy. Likewise energy can't be destroyed only converted to other forms of energy or condensed into mass.
Conservation of mass/energy - fundamental physical law, innit.
There are no fundamental physical laws inside a black hole though I believe.
Scientists call it a "singularity" ,which is scientist speak for " f*ck knows".
Scientists call it a "singularity" ,which is scientist speak for " f*ck knows".
C
calorific
These "laws" are manmade and as such might not be strictly true. Indeed, the notion that nothing cannot travel faster than the speed of light is only an assumed proposition that has been around for a century or so.
They might just be giving us a pretty good approximation at the moment.
They might just be giving us a pretty good approximation at the moment.
- Joined
- 22 Jan 2008
- Messages
- 294
- Reaction score
- 33
- Country
- Joined
- 22 Jan 2008
- Messages
- 294
- Reaction score
- 33
- Country
Yep but that's past the event horizon and we can never know what's beyond that. Unless a naked singularity shows up and that would be really weird.
I think it's disingenous to pretend that some things are not known to be essentially factual especially when these claims are made by buffoons in a slippery attempt to get out making a fool of themselves on an internet bulletin board.
There are hypotheses, theories and laws. Laws are considered to be factual and to say that we know nothing about, for example, gravity is demonstrating ignorance in the extreme.
Gravity is not just something we have observed. We can make predictions using Newton's Law of gravity and (in newtonian mechanics) the events predicted can be considered to happen.
How do we know what time sun will rise tomorrow morning? How do we know the speed when the wings of an aircraft will create enough lift to clear obstacles at the end of a runway? How do we know that when we hurl a spacecraft at Mars it will land within a few miles of where we want it to?
Because we know enough about gravity to make these predictions.
To claim otherwise just makes you look like a sore losing fool.
And we all know who you are
There are hypotheses, theories and laws. Laws are considered to be factual and to say that we know nothing about, for example, gravity is demonstrating ignorance in the extreme.
Gravity is not just something we have observed. We can make predictions using Newton's Law of gravity and (in newtonian mechanics) the events predicted can be considered to happen.
How do we know what time sun will rise tomorrow morning? How do we know the speed when the wings of an aircraft will create enough lift to clear obstacles at the end of a runway? How do we know that when we hurl a spacecraft at Mars it will land within a few miles of where we want it to?
Because we know enough about gravity to make these predictions.
To claim otherwise just makes you look like a sore losing fool.
And we all know who you are
C
calorific
It is not possible to claim knowledge of an absolute universal truth.
C
calorific
Since we think in 3-D and "experience" time, and observe things within the limits of our physical capabilities, perhaps you can explain how some sentient being who inhabits 4-D with a different set of "absolute laws" which are necessary for its existence view our "absolute laws" which don;t work for him ?
C
calorific
The point that is being made is that we can use our observations, create what we think are laws since we can't imagine it being possible in any other way, and develop our models from there. We can even predict things pretty accurately within the constraints of the model. But this does not mean we actually fully understand why it works. Hence why we cannot state a universal truth or law - to do so would necessitate total knowledge which it is impossible to have.
So when we say that "energy cannot be created nor destroyed and only converted from one form to another" (or whatever the wording is) is a law - we don't know why this is the case, but just that it makes utter sense to us.
These predictions using our observations of gravity are akin to someone being able to drive a car without having the foggiest clue as to why nor how it works.
So when we say that "energy cannot be created nor destroyed and only converted from one form to another" (or whatever the wording is) is a law - we don't know why this is the case, but just that it makes utter sense to us.
These predictions using our observations of gravity are akin to someone being able to drive a car without having the foggiest clue as to why nor how it works.
Sponsored Links
