--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <sparaig@> wrote: > > > [...] > > And I don't think it turns black holes theory on its head. Black holes are a consequence > of > > classical newtonian physics and Special Relativity, are they not? Hawkings' conclusions > > were combining QM with black holes. That doesn't make black holes impossible > according > > to classical physics, just questions the relationship with QM and gravity, which has > always > > been a sticky issue. > > > > I meant to say General Relativity, not special. And GR and QM have never gotten along > well. That was what made Hawking's theory so important to the Physics community, IIRC. > > The NON-quantum theories of black holes are considered reasonably intact from what I've > read. Information-escape from large-scale black holes like the ones that are supposed to > happen due to collapsing stars is expected to take TRILLIONS **of** TRILLIONS of years, > even now, after Hawkings lost his bet, so it shouldn't affect how they behave in the "near > term," like on the order of magnitude of the age of the universe, or some other short span > of time... > > IOW, if you approach a standard-theory black-hole-like entity, you'll still get ripped to > shreds by tidal effects well beore you cross the "event horizon," and if we're living in a > universe-sized black hole, we'll never know it unless we can show that space is curved > sufficiently, which does't appear to be the case. > > > I taught myself elementary calculus when I was 15, and invented a variation Gauss's > technique to sum the numbers 1 to 100 at the same age he did (3rd grade--in response > to a challenge to the class by the teacher who was telling us about Gauss). My ADHD > prevents me from going on to higher-level math, but don't get snitty with me, ok, Off- > world?
You are the one that kept saying "No" to me like some ivory tower guru. I take your point though, you are smarter than me. I have only been interested in the philosophical implications of physics and astronomy since I was 14, and decided at 16 to not pursue a career in astronomy because I realised it was mostly sitting in a stuffy closet number crunching decade after decade. > > In case you're interested, Guass's technique was > > 1+100= 101 > 2+99 = 101 > ... > 51+50 = 101 > > 51 x 101 = 5050. > > > Mine was: > > 1+99 = 100 > 2+ 98 = 100 > ... > 49 + 51 = 100 > > 49 x100 + 100 + 50 = 5050.>> I don't get it. seems hard to see why this is hard. i am sure it is. OffWorld To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
