Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: lycortas

Astronomy counter counter rant. There is probably no such thing as a black hole. Bad, lazy physicists.

Mike

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nedrear

Astronomy support:

There are black "things". Things that are so heavy, that the extreme small mass of light gets so high it is sucked in leaving a black spot in a burning ring of fire.
It is called a hole, because the current equations can't fathom the deepness of the gravity well and this well is extremly big. It is a hole everything in the 3D world falls into.

Yes it is correctly named as a BLACK HOLE.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sylian

lol, no offense but this statement is also bs, sorry
1st: Light has no mass, not even a tiny one and it does not get higher or lower or anything near a black hole. (well no rest mass that is, maybe you spoke of the mass equivalent of the photons energy?)
2nd: Blackholes dont have a burning ring of fire, or they could be easily observed
3rd: Black holes and their properties can be well described by the equations provided by the general relativity - we are not speaking about the big bang here, which is where current physics fails
4th: the world is not 3D, and things dont "fall"

quote:

ORIGINAL: lycortas

Unfortunately we have no evidence a black hole exists, and the equations to support them are built with the answer in mind. An hypothesis that has never been observed and requires us to divide by zero does not get my support.

Also, sub atomic particles have never been shown to be affected by gravity, magnetic forces yes, gravity no.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nedrear

1 + 2:

As a elementary particle, together with the funny names of "Gluon" "strange" "charm" or "Myon" the "Photon" is very well influenced by the same phenomenon we call mass. Yes it is constructed in a way that it does not activly interact and if in a small area with the matter effect we call gravity. That does not mean it has absolutely no interaction with the other parts, as all of them are currently funding - theory - on the Higgs particle in the universal Higgs-field. This particle generating it's field slows down the elementary particles and thereby gives them a rest mass. The light itself only got the energetic mass and a very small rest mass, because the influence is not enough to support a constant rest mass.
Now we have a big bad black hole surrounded by rotating mass if not alone and dying which radiates quite good. Because that way we SEE them. In this hole particles "fall" - metaphorical speaking for the picture of the rolling coin in a spiral way into the abyss - into a three dimensional hole as people call it. This gravity well applies from all sides in theory, but since the black whole radiates a force from within like a magnetic field the matter is bound to fall into it from the side axes.
Since we are talking about a huge clutch of mass which are all enstranged matter, composed of Higgs and other **** creating mass at such it is likely that the Higgs-field there is so high light gets a constant resting mass and thereby is forced to rest in the hole forever, beeing transferred into heat energy to propulse hot matter out of the hole through Hawking radiation.

3:

They are not. The outer layer is composed of cosmical phenomenons with the in between of the magnetic field hardly and the inner results like hawking radiation of quantum theory. Now since we didn't get the quantum gravity theory working as of yet, in your stead I would not claim to have solved the mystery of the millenia. Otherwise I hereby nominate your for the noble prize. Please insert your solution to the swedish commitee.

4:

The world compromised of a volume we live in is a three dimensional place, composed of the length, the width and the hight. Yes we can have other parameters, making it a higheer dimension. Please talk to me again if you can walk through space - today here, tomorrow on the other side of the univers - and time for our fifth dimension. As one mass place is drawing them to it, it can be considered a "hole" in a metaphor. Of course all mass draws every other, making the difference by the bigger gravity "well". A black "hole" is pretty superior in this regard... especially a big galactic one routetating our star system.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lycortas

Unfortunately we have no evidence a black hole exists, and the equations to support them are built with the answer in mind. An hypothesis that has never been observed and requires us to divide by zero does not get my support.

Also, sub atomic particles have never been shown to be affected by gravity, magnetic forces yes, gravity no.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sylian

I already love this discussion! Keep it up guys!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nedrear

1 + 2:

As a elementary particle, together with the funny names of "Gluon" "strange" "charm" or "Myon" the "Photon" is very well influenced by the same phenomenon we call mass. Yes it is constructed in a way that it does not activly interact and if in a small area with the matter effect we call gravity. That does not mean it has absolutely no interaction with the other parts, as all of them are currently funding - theory - on the Higgs particle in the universal Higgs-field. This particle generating it's field slows down the elementary particles and thereby gives them a rest mass. The light itself only got the energetic mass and a very small rest mass, because the influence is not enough to support a constant rest mass.
Now we have a big bad black hole surrounded by rotating mass if not alone and dying which radiates quite good. Because that way we SEE them. In this hole particles "fall" - metaphorical speaking for the picture of the rolling coin in a spiral way into the abyss - into a three dimensional hole as people call it. This gravity well applies from all sides in theory, but since the black whole radiates a force from within like a magnetic field the matter is bound to fall into it from the side axes.
Since we are talking about a huge clutch of mass which are all enstranged matter, composed of Higgs and other **** creating mass at such it is likely that the Higgs-field there is so high light gets a constant resting mass and thereby is forced to rest in the hole forever, beeing transferred into heat energy to propulse hot matter out of the hole through Hawking radiation.

3:

They are not. The outer layer is composed of cosmical phenomenons with the in between of the magnetic field hardly and the inner results like hawking radiation of quantum theory. Now since we didn't get the quantum gravity theory working as of yet, in your stead I would not claim to have solved the mystery of the millenia. Otherwise I hereby nominate your for the noble prize. Please insert your solution to the swedish commitee.

4:

The world compromised of a volume we live in is a three dimensional place, composed of the length, the width and the hight. Yes we can have other parameters, making it a higheer dimension. Please talk to me again if you can walk through space - today here, tomorrow on the other side of the univers - and time for our fifth dimension. As one mass place is drawing them to it, it can be considered a "hole" in a metaphor. Of course all mass draws every other, making the difference by the bigger gravity "well". A black "hole" is pretty superior in this regard... especially a big galactic one routetating our star system.

1+2. For all i know photons have no rest mass. But i am no expert in particle physicss, so you maybe you can point out a reference?

3. The effect of a black holes gravity on its surrounding is well described by general relativity. (gravity, gravitational lensing etc.) The event horizon can be described by the Schwarzschild radius. You are of course right saying that the inner mechanics of a BH can not be captured by todays theories. On the other hand, due to time dilatation, from an external observers point of view nothing with a mass can ever cross the event horizon, so why bother? (except out of curiosity how our world works ofc)

4. i'd love to do that, unfortunatly i'm just a human bound to the laws of this universe

quote:

ORIGINAL: lycortas

Unfortunately we have no evidence a black hole exists, and the equations to support them are built with the answer in mind. An hypothesis that has never been observed and requires us to divide by zero does not get my support.

Also, sub atomic particles have never been shown to be affected by gravity, magnetic forces yes, gravity no.

Division by zero is not needed. The existence of black holes is deemed to be empirically proven. At least their existence is far more certain, than the earth like planet they found the other day...

Check out my GAMEPLAY REDUX MOD (ROTS)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nedrear

Something rare with us but common in the universe? A supernove X-axis gamma ray... hit earth once, killed everything on land and in the upper sea... bad stuff. More planets and systems... more supernovae... more bad gamma sunburn.

Get your suncream today and see others get roasted as you cloat. Only today for only 500000000 credits. Yes you heard right! Naxxilian gamma ray suncream only 500720330 Credits... the longer you wait, the more the cosmic inflation will make it cost! Buy TODAY!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gelatinous Cube

If you really want to get into things that are incorrect, one of the very first should be the behaviour of Stars and Black Holes--both of which are much more violent and active than portrayed in the game, and have a full range of destructive activities they can randomly undertake. This would be evident for any space-faring civilization that had worlds orbiting hundreds of stars, as opposed to just our one, relatively stable star.

That said, DW does better than most. I can very easily suspend my disbelief in this game, which isn't something I can do for many other 4x games that I love.

quote:

ORIGINAL: feelotraveller

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gelatinous Cube

If you really want to get into things that are incorrect, one of the very first should be the behaviour of Stars and Black Holes--both of which are much more violent and active than portrayed in the game, and have a full range of destructive activities they can randomly undertake. This would be evident for any space-faring civilization that had worlds orbiting hundreds of stars, as opposed to just our one, relatively stable star.

That said, DW does better than most. I can very easily suspend my disbelief in this game, which isn't something I can do for many other 4x games that I love.

Perhaps.

However the first thing that triggers my incredulity is that spaceships come to a rest soon after you finish firing their engines. Someone had better remind Elliot of Newton's third law... Really I understand from a game mechanic point of view why this is so but the lack of realism bugs me every time I play the game. Those spaceships should keep moving until firing engines to decelarate (and be able to slingshot around celestial bodies). Really they behave as if immersed in water, or molasses or something...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sylian

A ran another test with my "Test Starbase". Here is the Design.
It has a lot of reactors to create a huge capacitor. But all reactor energy is consumed by static energy use. Thus the capacitor is only charged by the energy collector. (can be easily confirmed by removing the energy collector -> no energy build up in the capacitor)
Now i place the test base at two different points in the system. (main sequence star)
1.) Directly on top of the sun:
In this case the capacitor is fully charged in 7 seconds. Thus 1050/7 = 150 energy delivered by the energy collector module.

2.) System outskirts, where the game shows the bounday when selecting a system.
capacitor needs 85 seconds to charge up, so 1050/85 = 12.3 energy delivered by the energy collector

I didnt check different star types yet. But i guess they will also have an influence.

regards Sylian

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nedrear

Seriously just giving black holes and gas clouds a energy collectors for "games sake" sucks. I don't know one way to collect Hawking radiation on the top of a black hole storming out and I would not stand in it's way