• 🏆 Texturing Contest #33 is OPEN! Contestants must re-texture a SD unit model found in-game (Warcraft 3 Classic), recreating the unit into a peaceful NPC version. 🔗Click here to enter!
  • It's time for the first HD Modeling Contest of 2024. Join the theme discussion for Hive's HD Modeling Contest #6! Click here to post your idea!

Time Travel Theories:

Status
Not open for further replies.
Level 13
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
1,481
Wrong. Hawking radiation (which is rather plausible, albeit obviously difficult to test) dictates that black holes can lose matter. For example, a black hole of the mass of the moon and in its location would more or less break even; it would absorb space dust, the occasional larger object, and cosmic radiation, and radiate a roughly equal amount of energy.

I actually knew that! I've forgotten most of the stuff I read about black holes, it's ages ago. Maybe I should re-read.
 
Level 5
Joined
Oct 26, 2009
Messages
161
PurplePoot said:
I don't mind people who don't understand * (physics, math, chemistry, biology, programming, philosophy, religion, whatever the subject is at the time) and understand that they don't understand it (for lack of better phrasing), but those who are convinced that their misconceptions are in fact totally valid regardless of criticism (notice some of the persistence earlier in the thread) and yet apparently don't care to do research are annoying.
Yes, well, I cannot possibly argue with the resentment for the spread of misinformation as fact. I resign my point, carry on sir.
 
Level 4
Joined
May 17, 2005
Messages
94
An object cannot move faster than the speed of light in a reference frame, and a massive object cannot move at the speed of light in a reference frame. Two objects moving away from each other at 0.60c each will not separate at a rate of 1.20c.
And you're complaining about my scientific literacy?
From the point of view where the two objects are going at .6c in opposite directions, they will separate at 1.2c.

From their individual viewpoints they won't, obviously.


You're inferring ideas from my arguments that I never stated for or against. In fact, I was pretty sure that I was implying that relative travel of information at greater than c was impossible. Maybe I just suck at wording things.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top