Skip to comments.
Naked Singularities - strange siblings that violate known laws
Scientific Aerican ^
| Feb 2009
| Prof Tung en Cheex
Posted on 01/24/2009 7:14:26 PM PST by Young Werther
Modern science has introduced the world to plenty of strange ideas.
(Excerpt) Read more at sciam.com ...
TOPICS: Chit/Chat; Humor; Miscellaneous; Science
KEYWORDS: anal; ogist; porn
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21 next last
Black Holes Indeed! After many years of reading Scientific American I was astounded to see such a pronographic presentation! We must investigate the Smithsonian and all the other shenangians that occurred on the Mall!
To: Young Werther
2
posted on
01/24/2009 7:20:59 PM PST
by
PghBaldy
(Obama showing off his crotch: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=550_1210277599)
To: PghBaldy
NAKED!There you go again!
3
posted on
01/24/2009 7:25:29 PM PST
by
Young Werther
(Julius Caesar (Quae Cum Ita Sunt. Since these things are so.))
To: PghBaldy
Guess I just have problems believing that the intense gravity of the singularity would have no effect outside itself.
4
posted on
01/24/2009 7:28:49 PM PST
by
cripplecreek
(The poor bastards have us surrounded.)
To: Young Werther
I saw the headline and was expecting an article on Bill and Roger Clinton.
To: Young Werther
Last page of the article is some major malware.
6
posted on
01/24/2009 7:39:36 PM PST
by
Fred Hayek
(Leftism is a mental disorder.)
To: Young Werther
Sounds like a load of horsecrap. Read the article and the event horizon is a side effect of the singularity. Besides, how exactly are they going to measure something like this when light cannot escape the singularity in the first place? And if light can escape then you don't have infinite gravity and density; you have something closer to a stange matter star (quark matter) or neutronium.
Stange Matter article if anyone is interested.
7
posted on
01/24/2009 7:56:13 PM PST
by
Centurion2000
(01-20-2009 : The end of the PAX AMERICANA.)
To: Centurion2000
Some kind of strange inward gravity that can’t make sense in this physical realm.
8
posted on
01/24/2009 8:04:24 PM PST
by
cripplecreek
(The poor bastards have us surrounded.)
To: Young Werther
The more I read the article the more fuzzy it became.
Although I'm a genius (don't laugh), it sounded like a bunch of mumbo jumbo to me.
Gas is far more powerful than gravity and the shape of the star that's collapsing seems totally irrelevant to the type of black hole forming. If the gravity is as powerful as to not let light escape, there has to be an event horizon.
But hey, what do I know?
9
posted on
01/24/2009 8:39:06 PM PST
by
Tolkien
(Grace is the Essence of the Gospel; Gratitude is the Essence of Ethics.)
To: Tolkien
We've come along way from E=MC2. Astrophysics is a new frontier of science that we have studied and still are learning of and formulating new hypothesis about!
I remember when the big bang was first postulated. I began to have doubts about the existence of God! A friend who was charting his course thru high school to the seminary to priethood and I were discussing the big bang. I asked him if this new scientific understanding meant that there was no God and that he didn't create the Heaven and Earth.
His answer was "Big Bang! Big Deal! For God that was just the snap of a finger!"
We've come along way and have a long way to go! Ad Astra!
10
posted on
01/24/2009 8:59:26 PM PST
by
Young Werther
(Julius Caesar (Quae Cum Ita Sunt. Since these things are so.))
To: Young Werther
Are these related to naked shorts?
11
posted on
01/24/2009 9:19:23 PM PST
by
starlifter
(Sapor Amo Pullus)
To: Young Werther
The "Big Bang" never bothered me. The scriptures say God flung the heavens into being.
The astronomers had to come up with a term that excised God from the process but it didn't really.
God is on His throne and as much as "science" undergoes changes, I wouldn't chance my eternal soul on their theories.
12
posted on
01/24/2009 10:30:14 PM PST
by
Tolkien
(Grace is the Essence of the Gospel; Gratitude is the Essence of Ethics.)
To: Tolkien
The astronomer who did the math raising the prospect of the Big Bang was a Roman Catholic priest, Msgr. Georges LeMaitre.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/dp27bi.html
His Catholicism coupled with the theological implications of his findings led the scientific establishment to resist his findings for decades, until the supporting observations were pretty much inescapable.
There’s a reason everyone knows about the Big Bang, but no one knows LeMaitre’s name.
13
posted on
01/24/2009 10:39:09 PM PST
by
Philo-Junius
(One precedent creates another. They soon accumulate and constitute law.)
To: Philo-Junius
"The astronomer who did the math raising the prospect of the Big Bang was a Roman Catholic priest, Msgr. Georges LeMaitre."from your link... "Another scientist, Soviet Aleksandr Friedmann, had come to the same conclusion independently, a few years earlier."
A few years was 5. Friedman published his work in 1922. link
14
posted on
01/24/2009 10:52:43 PM PST
by
spunkets
To: spunkets
Fine. Another fabulous Soviet inwention. But it was LeMaitre's Catholicism that scared the scientific rank and file away from the theory.
15
posted on
01/24/2009 10:56:04 PM PST
by
Philo-Junius
(One precedent creates another. They soon accumulate and constitute law.)
To: Philo-Junius
That doesn't surprise me at all.
But there are Christians that are well known for their scientific discoveries.
Kepler
Farraday
Newton
Pasteur
and the list goes on.
It's just that no one knows they were Christians.
16
posted on
01/24/2009 11:07:13 PM PST
by
Tolkien
(Grace is the Essence of the Gospel; Gratitude is the Essence of Ethics.)
To: Philo-Junius
"...it was LeMaitre's Catholicism that scared the scientific rank and file away from the theory. "No.
17
posted on
01/24/2009 11:14:55 PM PST
by
spunkets
To: spunkets
18
posted on
01/24/2009 11:17:12 PM PST
by
Philo-Junius
(One precedent creates another. They soon accumulate and constitute law.)
To: Philo-Junius
Einstein himself said that he didn’t like LeMaitre’s theory because “that suggests too much the creation.”
“Big Bang” was originally a derogatory epithet bestowed by those who wanted to ridicule the very notion of a primaeval singularity.
19
posted on
01/24/2009 11:21:05 PM PST
by
Philo-Junius
(One precedent creates another. They soon accumulate and constitute law.)
To: Philo-Junius
Additionally, Friedmann’s 1922 work indicated that space was indeed expanding, but left open the possiblity that the curvature of space was a periodic function, avoiding the necessity of a Time Zero.
20
posted on
01/24/2009 11:26:55 PM PST
by
Philo-Junius
(One precedent creates another. They soon accumulate and constitute law.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson