= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
DanielLC comments on Religion's Claim to be Non-Disprovable - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (310)
Your memory only shows that the ship left. It doesn't tell you that the ship continued existing once it crossed the event horizon.
It probably didn't exist as a rocket, at least for very long near a black hole, but you need magic to turn matter into nothing, and there's no evidence of magic.
It was a particularly large black hole.
As far is we know, there is nothing inside a black hole, yet it is not magic.
Not much space. Lots of mass.
There is no standard way to define blackhole's volume, so your first statement is meaningless. ("Not much time" would make a bit more sense.) Black hole's mass can vary, so "Lots of mass" depends on what you mean by lots.
My understanding was that blackholes were areas of extremely dense matter that created gravity so strong light couldn't escape their event horizons (without exotic stuff like Hawking radiation). I meant it to be a truism.
I'm not pretending my physics knowledge is super deep, but I'm pretty sure that blackhole have mass, and that if an object goes into a blackhole, their mass becomes part of it, the same as if I put the object into a sun. The mass is not magicked away.
The "extremely dense matter" part is wrong, black holes are vacuum, even though they are formed from collapsing matter. In this sense, matter "is turned into nothing".
That much is true, but mass is just a number (properly measured infinitely far from the black hole, to boot), not something you can touch or see.
Firstly, wikipedia, lied to me. Second, not being a smart ass, how do we know?
Wouldn't it's gravitational pull become stronger? It's event horizon cover a slightly larger area?
I was just saying E=MC squared. That's all. Enegy is conserved. And we base our anticipations on that.
This is the prediction of General Relativity, a theory which has been experimentally confirmed pretty well so far, so it is safe to trust it, except for maybe Planck-scale phenomena, which require quantum gravity or something similar.
Both true, but measured reasonably far outside the black hole, and so is not related to the internal structure of black hole.
E=mc^2 does not imply that energy is conserved. For example, the total energy of the universe is not conserved (and not even well defined). It only means that energy and (relativistic) mass are related.
We base our anticipations of what would happen to us should we dive into a black hole on the predictions of GR, the model describing black holes. And these predictions tell us the sad story of unavoidable and untimely demise. Note the "would" and "to us" part. It's pointless to argue about "what "really happens" to someone else, given that there is no way to actually know that. For example, that someone else could collide with another ship from the mirror universe connected to the same black hole, and we would not know the difference. Or they could be torn apart by chaotic tidal gravity earlier than they anticipated, because something else was consumed by the black hole just prior to their plunge and disturbed this otherwise sanguine object. Or, if the Cartan modification of GR is correct (not very likely), the ship (or what's left of it) might emerge into another universe through a white hole in a burst of gamma radiation. These are all predictions of GR, but there is no way to tell which one comes to pass without taking the plunge. Thus it is pointless to argue about "what really happened", just like it is pointless to argue whether a particle "which does not interact with anything in the observable universe" exists or not.