Skip to comments.
Here's what would happen to you if you encountered a small black hole
C-Net ^
| July 16, 2015 12:26 PM PDT
| by Anthony Domanico
Posted on 07/18/2015 1:39:54 AM PDT by Swordmaker
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-47 last
To: stormhill
The idiocy that got me was the babbling about the huge explosion 3 times Hiroshima/Nagasaki. That works out to about 150 kilotons.
Pretty small potatoes compared to say, Novaya Zemlya, and that rather large blast was insignificant on a stellar scale.
41
posted on
07/18/2015 11:13:52 AM PDT
by
Don W
( When blacks riot, neighborhoods and cities burn. When whites riot, nations and continents burn.)
To: DesertRhino
The tines the power of Hiroshima would devastate a good portion of the earth? Got it. This is obviously real physics. You've got to keep the Luddites and the low information crowd scared of science and atomic energy, you know. . . exaggeration and always, always invoke Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Bugaboos. Short circuits logic every time in what laughingly passes for their minds.
42
posted on
07/18/2015 11:18:51 AM PDT
by
Swordmaker
( This tag line is a Microsoft insult free zone... but if the insults to Mac users continue...)
To: Lonesome in Massachussets
Oddly, the density of a black hole is inversely proportional to the square of its mass; a black hole with the mass of the universe would be about the size of the universe.
Would it’s gravitational force be inversely proportionate as well?
If so why couldn’t the theory be made that the Universe is a giant black hole, and Dark Matter, and Dark Energy are the by-products, or building blocks if you like.
We know what happens at the entrance to the black hole, but not what the interior is.
If this is too dumb a question please chide accordingly. As you can obviously tell, I am not an Astrophysicist.
43
posted on
07/18/2015 5:34:49 PM PDT
by
rikkir
(Anyone still believe the 8/08 Atlantic cover wasn't 100% accurate?)
To: rikkir
I am not an astrophysicist, either. Your questions are generally provocative and intelligent, and I do not have solid answers. I don’t want to confuse you with speculation. What ever little I know about anything, I learned by persistent and open minded inquiry. Good luck.
To: Lonesome in Massachussets
Thank you sir. You are a gentleman, and a scholar!
45
posted on
07/18/2015 6:49:33 PM PDT
by
rikkir
(Anyone still believe the 8/08 Atlantic cover wasn't 100% accurate?)
To: Don W
The idiocy that got me was the babbling about the huge explosion 3 times Hiroshima/Nagasaki. That works out to about 150 kilotons.More like: 40 to 50 kilotons.
But yes: Still small potatoes!
Regards,
46
posted on
07/19/2015 4:10:47 AM PDT
by
alexander_busek
(Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.)
To: alexander_busek
Sorry, each bomb dropped on Japan had a yield of about 12 - 15 kt. So three times the COMBINED explosive yield (as cited in the article) would approach 100 kt.
Regards,
47
posted on
07/19/2015 4:13:19 AM PDT
by
alexander_busek
(Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-47 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