- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
@metal-brain saidDon't try that averagejoe schtick. It doesn't work for him and it won't work for you.
suzi, I am apparently too stupid to know how that is happening. I need help. Please tell me how that is happening.
@shallow-blue saidSo you cannot answer the question either.
Don't try that averagejoe schtick. It doesn't work for him and it won't work for you.
I figured.
@metal-brain saidHeh. Meanwhile you seem to not know what a vacuum is. You may have purchased passports for your goal posts, but we all know where this thread originated. 😉
So you cannot answer the question either.
I figured.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
@metal-brain saidIt is true that non-questions do not have answers.
So you cannot answer the question either.
@Metal-Brain
Yeah, it was SO hard to find a link to an explanation of Hawking radiation, it took all of 20 seconds. Just further evidence you are at the very LEAST intellectually lazy.
https://www.sciencealert.com/hawking-radiation
I did Hawking radiation explained SIMPLY because the OTHER one I found had those nasty things in it called equations and I figured that would be too much for you.
Not measured yet because the temperature of the hypothetical radiation is lower the higher the mass so they are looking for small mass BH's which should radiate enough to measure and thus prove the hypothesis.
There is clearly a LOT you don't know about black holes, like saying it has to be a vacuum inside which proves you know JACK about black holes.
@sonhouse saidThat does not explain how matter is converted into radiation.
@Metal-Brain
Yeah, it was SO hard to find a link to an explanation of Hawking radiation, it took all of 20 seconds. Just further evidence you are at the very LEAST intellectually lazy.
https://www.sciencealert.com/hawking-radiation
I did Hawking radiation explained SIMPLY because the OTHER one I found had those nasty things in it called equations and I figured that wo ...[text shortened]... black holes, like saying it has to be a vacuum inside which proves you know JACK about black holes.
You provided a non explanation.
@Metal-Brain
I gather you didn't bother to even look at the link. So that means you are not really interested in actual learning, you are much more interested in saying things you THINK shows off your superiority. Just like in music, you are a braggard.
@sonhouse saidI read the article. Stop lying.
@Metal-Brain
I gather you didn't bother to even look at the link. So that means you are not really interested in actual learning, you are much more interested in saying things you THINK shows off your superiority. Just like in music, you are a braggard.
It does not explain how matter is converted into radiation from a black hole.
How is the matter in the black hole converted to radiation just outside the event horizon of the black hole? Explain the connection or admit you have no explanation.
MB: Why is the sky blue?
Forum: Because blue light has a shorter wavelength, and hence gets scattered in the atmosphere more than light of other colors.
MB: No, that isn't it at all. I'm asking why is the light that is scattered blue.
Forum: The light that is scattered the most in the atmosphere has a wavelength that, on the color spectrum, we perceive as blue. It's the word we use for that color.
MB: So you don't know. Got it. I'm asking why we perceive the light that is scattered the most as being what we call the color blue.
Etc. etc. etc. etc.
@soothfast saidDo you have to make up an imaginary conversation that never happened to distract people away from the fact nobody can explain how matter is converted into radiation from a black hole?
MB: Why is the sky blue?
Forum: Because blue light has a shorter wavelength, and hence gets scattered in the atmosphere more than light of other colors.
MB: No, that isn't it at all. I'm asking why is the light that is scattered blue.
Forum: The light that is scattered the most in the atmosphere has a wavelength that, on the color spectrum, we perceive as blue ...[text shortened]... ve the light that is scattered the most as being what we call the color blue.
Etc. etc. etc. etc.
Your inability to answer the question must be getting to you.
Just how frustrated are you? I notice suzi is unusually silent about it in contrast to you. It actually looks like she is smarter than you because she knows not to embarrass herself while you don't.
Digressing into imaginary conversations that never happened is not a good tactic. It wreaks of desperation. Quite pathetic.
@metal-brain saidMB: Why is the sky blue?
Do you have to make up an imaginary conversation that never happened to distract people away from the fact nobody can explain how matter is converted into radiation from a black hole?
Your inability to answer the question must be getting to you.
Just how frustrated are you? I notice suzi is unusually silent about it in contrast to you. It actually looks like she is s ...[text shortened]... ry conversations that never happened is not a good tactic. It wreaks of desperation. Quite pathetic.
Forum: Because blue light has a shorter wavelength, and hence gets scattered in the atmosphere more than light of other colors.
MB: No, that isn't it at all. I'm asking why is the light that is scattered blue.
Forum: The light that is scattered the most in the atmosphere has a wavelength that, on the color spectrum, we perceive as blue. It's the word we use for that color.
MB: So you don't know. Got it. I'm asking why we perceive the light that is scattered the most as being what we call the color blue.
[A forum member makes a post analogous to the dialogue above, only the analogy involves Hawking radiation and MB letting slip a faulty understanding of what a vacuum is.]
MB [failing to perceive the analogy]: Do you have to make up things to distract from the fact that you can't explain why the sky is blue?
[Delusional rant rages on for several additional lines, fangs bared, trying to draw blood.]
Forum [breaking character and returning to the topic at hand]: Speaking of distractions, haven't the last two pages of this thread just been about you attempting to pedal away from your embarrassing proclamation that a black hole is a vacuum because it hoovers up matter?
So look, I'm a mathematician. I ply my trade quite happily without knowing the physical mechanisms whereby Hawking radiation is generated. That's what books are for. Thanks! 😉
@Metal-Brain
There is a fact about the universe, there are particles slicing into and out of existence all the time and it is measurable. You already talked about it.
When matter gets close to the event horizon, there are these flash particles near the event horizon, some of those particles gets glomed up by the BH but some of that radiation goes OUT according to Hawking. That has not ATT been proven because the bigger more massive the BH, the weaker the radiation so they need to find small mass BH's maybe a planet mass one, the size of a football and if they had that the amount of Hawing radiation if it exists can be measured but don't hold your breath waiting for one to appear. It would change civilization if we could tap into one however, if we actually found one and was able to say build a lab around it, you can get free energy, LOTS of free energy by aiming just the right wavelength light at the right angle and that energy will be amplified by the physics of the black hole and return a much larger amount of energy coming back at you, where you don't aim the light inwards, you want it to skip as close as possible to the event horizon and collect free energy that way. LOTS of energy.
But no such BH has been found and I would not hold my breath waiting for one either.
This next bit is from the paper I linked, I don't think you read it or if you did, you didn't have a clue about it:
"How do black holes produce Hawking radiation?
The physical process behind the emission of particles from near a black hole's event horizon is fairly complex, relying on a solid understanding of the mathematics of quantum field theory.
It's commonly described as the result of twin 'virtual' particles that naturally emerge from the vacuum being separated by gravity. Usually they would recombine and cancel out, but in this case the split leaves one half of every pair to escape as actual radiation.
In fact, Hawking's own popular explanation of the mathematics describes fleeting virtual particles affected by extreme gravity, with one half of the pair removing mass from the black hole thanks to extreme gravity providing the particle with negative energy."
@sonhouse saidThat is matter from outside of the black hole.
@Metal-Brain
There is a fact about the universe, there are particles slicing into and out of existence all the time and it is measurable. You already talked about it.
When matter gets close to the event horizon, there are these flash particles near the event horizon, some of those particles gets glomed up by the BH but some of that radiation goes OUT according to Hawking. ...[text shortened]... ing mass from the black hole thanks to extreme gravity providing the particle with negative energy."
It is odd that Hawking became famous for a theory that he never explained logically. In fact, nobody has. I put you on a wild goose chase, but it was meant for suzi. I asked a question nobody has answered, even Hawking himself. You stepped into the trap. It seems suzi is smarter than you. At least she did not pretend to know.
@Metal-Brain
Why don't you take cosmology 101 at a local community college and you will find they say the same thing but OF COURSE that will never happen, you won't even deign to READ a cosmology for dummies kind of book much less actually take a real course on the subject, you are WAY more interested in proving your abject superiority.
And BTW, I DID take such courses in college, Palomar College in San Marcos California, does that name ring a bell?
@sonhouse saidIt is odd that Hawking became famous for a theory that he never explained logically.
@Metal-Brain
Why don't you take cosmology 101 at a local community college and you will find they say the same thing but OF COURSE that will never happen, you won't even deign to READ a cosmology for dummies kind of book much less actually take a real course on the subject, you are WAY more interested in proving your abject superiority.
And BTW, I DID take such courses in college, Palomar College in San Marcos California, does that name ring a bell?
If you had watched that episode of Nova you would know nobody has ever explained it. In reality the assertion black holes evaporate over time is an unproven theory and Hawking's equation is equally unproven.