Two black holes collide
#1
Two black holes collide
When singularities collide
Scary stuff!
I wish I was around when those grav waves hit us. I've always wanted to see the inside of a black hole, even though infinite gravity wouldn't feel too good.
Scary stuff!
I wish I was around when those grav waves hit us. I've always wanted to see the inside of a black hole, even though infinite gravity wouldn't feel too good.
#2
I have read about that too. It just sucks how far away from us any stars are, and especially those two black holes that one day will release a lot of energy in their galaxy. But that will take another ten million years or so, we will never know. Though astronomy is definately a fascinating area. It is based on more theories then laws that are known to men, but still is f*cking fascinating.
#3
Originally posted by turbonium959
I have read about that too. It just sucks how far away from us any stars are, and especially those two black holes that one day will release a lot of energy in their galaxy. But that will take another ten million years or so, we will never know. Though astronomy is definately a fascinating area. It is based on more theories then laws that are known to men, but still is f*cking fascinating.
I have read about that too. It just sucks how far away from us any stars are, and especially those two black holes that one day will release a lot of energy in their galaxy. But that will take another ten million years or so, we will never know. Though astronomy is definately a fascinating area. It is based on more theories then laws that are known to men, but still is f*cking fascinating.
there is a LOT of stuff out there that is NOW considered Sci-fi, and most of it is based in some existing theory, pretty neat stuff when you think about it.
:{D
#4
There is absolutely nothing wrong with theories! A misconception about this term seems to suggest that a "theory" is baseless. In actuality, scientific inquiry follows a hierarchy: 1) a "Hypothesis" is proposed, which is generated from observations of a physical/chemical system. The hypothesis (or several hypotheses) is created to formulate an explanation of some system. Then, a means to test the hypothesis is proposed. 2) Only if a repeatable set of experimental constraints supports some hypothesis does it have a chance to become a "Theory". To be repeatable, any scientist must be able to replicate the experimental results and/or use this methodology for prediction of future experimental results. There is scrutiny and challenges placed upon any theory from the scientific community. Furthermore, a theory is never proven, instead, it is continually challenged b/c science must always inquire!
3) "Laws" are quite rare, yet, often there still remains challenges.
The beauty of science is the advancement of knowledge and the realization that our understanding of the world/universe does indeed change over time. The use of "theories", as a organized set of rules to be questioned, tested and supported (or not) helps propel us forward.
The reason why I respond is b/c I cringe when I hear folks make such remarks as: "Evolution is just a theory". Yep it is, and it hasn't been discounted yet, not to mention that the preponderance of data indicates, that yes, over time, systems do indeed change (evolve).
Thus, having an explanation based upon scientific "theory" is much more sound than only having "faith" that a particular solution is real!
3) "Laws" are quite rare, yet, often there still remains challenges.
The beauty of science is the advancement of knowledge and the realization that our understanding of the world/universe does indeed change over time. The use of "theories", as a organized set of rules to be questioned, tested and supported (or not) helps propel us forward.
The reason why I respond is b/c I cringe when I hear folks make such remarks as: "Evolution is just a theory". Yep it is, and it hasn't been discounted yet, not to mention that the preponderance of data indicates, that yes, over time, systems do indeed change (evolve).
Thus, having an explanation based upon scientific "theory" is much more sound than only having "faith" that a particular solution is real!
#5
And when you're looking at the star you're looking at how the star looked liked several million, and even billion years ago. Because it takes that many years for the light emitted to get to our eyes. The star you look at probably is much more brighter today, or even has already exploded in a supernova, and doesn't exist. In other words, you're looking into the past, Fascinating stuff.
And if someone on a planet orbiting these distant stars saw Earth, they wouldn't see us, but rather probably dinosaurs instead.
And if someone on a planet orbiting these distant stars saw Earth, they wouldn't see us, but rather probably dinosaurs instead.
#6
Originally posted by foxymazda
Hum that is pretty freaky.
Has anyone ever heard of the astriod or whatever that is that is supposed to hit the earth on Feb 1st 2017?? It is on discovery.com if anyone cares to check it out.Damn I cant find the exact story about it but if you click on the news part on top then it will take you to a bunch of stories about it and there is one about the blackholes too. They keep downsizing it so that people dont get worried. well damnit i want to know the truth!
Hum that is pretty freaky.
Has anyone ever heard of the astriod or whatever that is that is supposed to hit the earth on Feb 1st 2017?? It is on discovery.com if anyone cares to check it out.Damn I cant find the exact story about it but if you click on the news part on top then it will take you to a bunch of stories about it and there is one about the blackholes too. They keep downsizing it so that people dont get worried. well damnit i want to know the truth!
All the news people can say is "a big meanie comet wanted to hit us, but our superhero scientists were too nice to let that happen so it's gonna miss by a really big distance "
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)