Pastelland Forum

We got a long way to go.

Last try...Go to drawings.

I think what World is attempting to articulate is that it is best not to live with preconceptions. He is saying that preconceptions can dangerously alter how you perceive new information, distorting it like a bad lens. Which, is true, if that's what he's trying to get across.

If that be the case, I hate to break it to you, but one is never totally without preconceptions. It can be minimized by good thinking practices, but a lot of it is programmed into the human brain. I would agree though that actively seeking to avoid preconceptions is most certainly a good practice, even if it is like counting to infinity. But hey, it's about the journey, not the destination, right?

Black holes are solid objects anyway.

Then why is it called a HOLE?

BUM BUM, BUUUM

Because scientists are great at naming things. You do realize that a black hole isn't a literal hole, right?

As for the black hole thing, you seem to be proposing some sort of anti-gravity device that can disintegrate a black hole as it touches one, which not only sounds like it would break most laws of physics and at least a dozen hypotheses, but also seems totally counter productive. It's exactly like saying: "Well, death CAN be undone, I just need to do machine that can undo death's effects."

I think what World is attempting to articulate is that it is best not to live with preconceptions. He is saying that preconceptions can dangerously alter how you perceive new information, distorting it like a bad lens. Which, is true, if that's what he's trying to get across

Of course, why didn't we think of it like that?
World's analogies are somewhat misleading.
Or it's just the way we think.

Because scientists are great at naming things. You do realize that a black hole isn't a literal hole, right?

Lol, it's like saying pineapples are apples because they're called pine-APPLES XD

As for the black hole thing, you seem to be proposing some sort of anti-gravity device that can disintegrate a black hole as it touches one, which not only sounds like it would break most laws of physics and at least a dozen hypotheses, but also seems totally counter productive. It's exactly like saying: "Well, death CAN be undone, I just need to do machine that can undo death's effects."

No, you can't disintegrate a black hole. But actually, solutions like the Kerr and Reissner ones for rotating and charged black holes respectively allow for avoiding collision with their ring/electrified singularity. You could seemingly avoid being turned into spaghetti with a variation of this around you.

YES! My work is finish!

OnyxIonVortex wrote:

Because scientists are great at naming things. You do realize that a black hole isn't a literal hole, right?

Lol, it's like saying pineapples are apples because they're called pine-APPLES XD

As for the black hole thing, you seem to be proposing some sort of anti-gravity device that can disintegrate a black hole as it touches one, which not only sounds like it would break most laws of physics and at least a dozen hypotheses, but also seems totally counter productive. It's exactly like saying: "Well, death CAN be undone, I just need to do machine that can undo death's effects."

No, you can't disintegrate a black hole. But actually, solutions like the Kerr and Reissner ones for rotating and charged black holes respectively allow for avoiding collision with their ring/electrified singularity. You could seemingly avoid being turned into spaghetti with a variation of this around you.

Well that was an interesting paper. I would like to point out though that - if I understood it correctly - the trip would still be fatal, you can just shorten the time during which you are being torn into pieces. In fact, isn't that contraption designed to keep you alive until it crushes you? Also, while this doesn't exactly mean it is impossible per se, it isn't practically possible to build a torus that weighs about 832.2 Eg (exagrams), which weighs about the same as a thousandth of all the oceans.

YES! My work is finish!

But it's not your work, it's the work of those who made that lifeguard model...
Unless you have devised another thing like that, in which case you should publish it and earn some money

Anteroinen wrote:

OnyxIonVortex wrote:

Because scientists are great at naming things. You do realize that a black hole isn't a literal hole, right?

Lol, it's like saying pineapples are apples because they're called pine-APPLES XD

As for the black hole thing, you seem to be proposing some sort of anti-gravity device that can disintegrate a black hole as it touches one, which not only sounds like it would break most laws of physics and at least a dozen hypotheses, but also seems totally counter productive. It's exactly like saying: "Well, death CAN be undone, I just need to do machine that can undo death's effects."

No, you can't disintegrate a black hole. But actually, solutions like the Kerr and Reissner ones for rotating and charged black holes respectively allow for avoiding collision with their ring/electrified singularity. You could seemingly avoid being turned into spaghetti with a variation of this around you.

Well that was an interesting paper. I would like to point out though that - if I understood it correctly - the trip would still be fatal, you can just shorten the time during which you are being torn into pieces. In fact, isn't that contraption designed to keep you alive until it crushes you? Also, while this doesn't exactly mean it is impossible per se, it isn't practically possible to build a torus that weighs about 832.2 Eg (exagrams), which weighs about the same as a thousandth of all the oceans.

Well, that's why I said a variation, in a Schwarzschild black hole (the good-old black hole we all know) it would only serve to postpone the crush, but in a Kerr black hole it could (maybe) keep you alive for enough time to survive.
But don't get me wrong, those solutions are mathematical idealizations, real black holes aren't likely to be like that. Any small perturbation would cause the attempt to avoid the ring to fail miserably, and all real black holes are constantly absorbing matter from the surroundings. And all of this is theoretical, general relativity doesn't take quantum effects into account (many attempts to take it into account remove the concept of singularity, making all this useless), and anyways how can we know if the singularity is not shaped like a potato until we see it and test the theory?

Well that was an interesting paper. I would like to point out though that - if I understood it correctly - the trip would still be fatal, you can just shorten the time during which you are being torn into pieces. In fact, isn't that contraption designed to keep you alive until it crushes you? Also, while this doesn't exactly mean it is impossible per se, it isn't practically possible to build a torus that weighs about 832.2 Eg (exagrams), which weighs about the same as a thousandth of all the oceans.

Well, that's why I said a variation, in a Schwarzschild black hole (the good-old black hole we all know) it would only serve to postpone the crush, but in a Kerr black hole it could (maybe) keep you alive for enough time to survive.
But don't get me wrong, those solutions are mathematical idealizations, real black holes aren't likely to be like that. Any small perturbation would cause the attempt to avoid the ring to fail miserably, and all real black holes are constantly absorbing matter from the surroundings. And all of this is theoretical, general relativity doesn't take quantum effects into account (many attempts to take it into account remove the concept of singularity, making all this useless), and anyways how can we know if the singularity is not shaped like a potato until we see it and test the theory?

Admittably I don't really know the difference between those two. But, yeah, it did seem like a very ideal scenario. I mostly brought that up, because I genuinely thought the paper was interesting. While the premise of creating a device (essentially) to crush you to make you live longer sounds totally ridiculous, it is nice to know that someone thought of it.

Another reason, of course, was for debate purposes, to refute World's point (although not very solidly). We're drifting from his original point though, which is a shame, since he hasn't really done his point yet.