Science!! Fucking magnets, how do they work?

What if there isn't even a third party to vote for on the ballot which happens a lot where I'm at? I'm sure me abstaining will really teach those dirty R's and D's a lesson!

BrutulTM_sl said:

That obviously isn't going to happen so why don't you just stop being a condescending douche fuck?

Click to expand...

Not sure why that is obvious. It'll take up some of his free time and he'll learn some valuable things. We have an election coming up (though one of the first things you learn is that there is ALWAYS an election coming up in the minds of politicians and their staffs). And it isn't hard to volunteer, campaigns are always short staffed. If anything if he actually cares about the issue, the obvious thing is that he would volunteer.

Unrelated:

Fingertip sensor gives robot unprecedented dexterity -- ScienceDaily

Is really cool.

BrutulTM_sl said:

I just write in Ross Perot.

Click to expand...

Ross Perot for Denton County Comptroller!

Denton Texas?

Cause I always write in Marijuana.

Yep.

Sounds good, I have no problems voting for marijuana.

TheBeagle_sl said:

Ross Perot for Denton County Comptroller!

Click to expand...

I live in Denton county, don't know much about Perot.... I'm scared.

I just don't like that she doesn't even offer a hypothesis about what might be in the centers of galaxies if indeed there are no black holes. It seems like instead of trying to find out an actual answer, she was more focused on finding something to very loosely tie together the two theories. The headline is just click bait; she didn't even submit her "findings" to a peer review.

The best evidence for a stellar black hole is in the system:Cygnus X-1 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

And galactic supermassive black holes are also very well established. (Nobody really knows how they are formed though)

I don't think she's trying to say black holes don't exist, instead she's trying to say that collapsing stars can't make them. Although, that begs the question of what does form them instead.

I discovered a new mathematical formula too:

Not peer reviewed + ground breaking discovery = bullshit

Dabamf_sl said:

I discovered a new mathematical formula too:

Not peer reviewed + ground breaking discovery = bullshit

Click to expand...

Pretty much this.

Well, the event horizon is the boundary where our conception and model of physics breaks down into uselessness. So in a way you can say black holes cannot exist within our model of physics (which is generally what "the math all just becomes infinities" actually means), and be kind of correct. But not really. That's a philosophical question though, not a scientific one.

I've read enough offhand laymans physics pop-culture shit to know that the one and ONLY thing any cosmologist can say conclusively about black holes is that the geodesic becomes so warped within the swartzschild radius that what reality exists within that radius is, literally, incomprehensible to us for now. Further, approaching that limit on the near side quickly devolves into nonsense. Hence the entire reason (beyond being crippled) that Stephen Hawking is a physics superstar. He unraveled one small knot.

The event horizon isn't where physics breaks down, is it? I thought the actual point of singularity was. Event horizons are just the point-of-no-return from the massive gravity.

Now that you mention it, "light (you know, THE* universal constant thus far) can't even go fast enough to do its one single constant thing past this radius" seems to be a pretty good place to draw the line which our previous understanding of physical laws breaks completely. Not saying that I know wtf I'm talking about, but maybe there's sufficient theory and observed data nowadays to make the 100% theoretical mathematical concept of an infinitely dense singularity as obsolete as the ?ther?

Light is still moving at the speed of light in a black hole.

Oh right. Escape velocity. Vodka is even worse at science than I am.