If /b/ had the chance to take a space craft in to a black hole would /b/ do it altho the science is there about what would happen if a person traveled past the event horizon of a black hole there is no hard data on it
also intersteller thread
pic related black hole from movie
if i had the chance to pass the event horizon of a black hole i would do it
You'd have to find a way to make the ship and its insides indestructibre/incompressible and immune to gravity variations.
Plus, if the ship and crew could "Pass" the black hole, the ship would need Ansibles in order to communicate.
everyone listen to this guy HE WAS THERE ON DAY ONE! (NOV 6) HE IS A GROUND ZERO DAY ONE (NOV 6) EXPERT. Fuck, day one?! how did you survive? are you still a solid being or have you transcended into another worldly being that is a pure orb of light and day one knowledge?
The acting was good, the movie was great at creating tension. The pacing was a bit meh though
The ending was crap. A massive plot hole and stuff happening simply because the plot demanded it.
You'll enjoy the movie, it's just that everything could have been tied up in the end better.
Go and watch The Prestige instead.
that exactly what i am thinking i am all for theories but i like hard data more and well will never have hard data on black holes because not in my lifetime will any one or anything be able to pass the event horizon and send communication back to earth
but we can dream cant we
can you describe day one (6 nov) for me?
Can you also explain why you would go back 5 days later to see the same movie, are you going to sit there and go "wow, this is so mind blowing the second time around when i know exactly whats going to happen"?
It is seriously the best sci-fi movie I have ever seen. 10/10, am gonna go see it again for sure.
Why does anybody watch anything more than once? Because it's so fucking good, nigger.
Black holes cause gravity lenses in space. That kind of power is something humans can't love through. Hell, we hardly can survive the lack of gravity in space and the radiation! We are weak and require the earth. Hard to accept but how it is.
>shallow water planet.
>1000 foot wave.
>something with massive gravity causing the wave.
>planet surface doesn't even crack.
Actually I would fly right in there.
I'd be the first human being to die like that and it'd be awesome.
It sucks light into it so my last breath would actually take forever. Pretty awesome way to die even though it's kinda rough.
I didnt ask why he was watching it again, I will watch it again when it comes out. I asked why he would go back again, to the cinemas all alone, 5 days later, he was there on day one (6 nov) how can he even top that experience.
>we have no pics of black hole
>not knowing about all of the gravitational effects we can measure
Its not even a hole, the black disk is the event horizon its just the point where people watching would be like
>wtf he gone
>spaceship is kill
The spacecraft would continue to the centre being continually stretched and flattened until you reach the centre the centre is a singularity and you become 0.00000000000000001% of it your dead and tiny and thats the end
Doesn't lead anywhere there is no white hole from which you eomerge except your mothers coonch
Unless your a nigger
>something that may or may not be correct but is unverifiable at this point in time and the foreseeable future
>is almost entirely math based and everything that implies
It seems he has a better handle on it than you.
Just did. It pretty much says your implication is wrong whereas mine is giving you the benefit of the doubt. But hey, I know it's hard for children to be told they're wrong these days, try not to take it too hard.
Also this, this is the accretion disk am actual black hole. The forces increase so much as you approach it, its 'well' in spacetime is steep, that it would literally atomise you, and then break down the atoms before you get sucked into the event horizon as elementary particles.
The film is flawed in this part, the only way the black hole could have had planets around it is if it was a stellar mass one, but then it wouldn't be a 'gentle' singularity as described in the film, it would tear them to shreads. It is impossible to have a black hole that doesn't destroy you. If it was large enough to have a shallow slope in spacetime to allow you to not be spaghettified it would still have the gravity of tens of millions of suns, destroying practically EVERYTHING within several light years. You could not enter a black hole unharmed, ever.
Other than that, the film was the best one I've ever seen.
I just really need to know about day one (6 nov).
You made a point of typing it like it meant something, So I have noticed that you went to the movies one day one (6 nov) and i am paying you the attention you so deeply crave, so, how was day one (6 nov).
I just said I went there as soon as it came out no need to all this waste of bits for this faggotry nor I'm craving for attention like the one who keeps pasting around day one nov 6, my little keyboard lion
>implying a theory isn't just a hypothesis that hasn't been proven wrong yet
>implying simplifications needed to make a "theory" don't tautologically prove it wrong but since it's the current in vogue thought it's allowed to pass
So guys. Lets imply we have souls. Like souls and after life is a real thing. With that in mind. You die in a black hole...would you still be stuck in said black hole never to cross into the after life?
the plot. it doesnt spell everything out for the viewer like most other hollywud movies. it is in no way dumbed down. sorry but movies are like books, sometimes you need to reread them to understand exactly what is happening. oh but i am sure you dont anon. you have a photographic memory.
I'm waiting for your explanation.
>two people have said you're wrong while being wrong
There is a fallacy involving being a part of the herd. Given your "proof" wasn't, take the hint.
Gravity so strong light is effected. If you think that your diaphragm can still create a weak enough vacuum inside your lungs for them to inflate under those conditions, then I'd happily wave you goodbye
no. I'm just not a retard that has to watch a movie over and over to understand it...
"movies are like books, sometimes you have to reread them to understand exactly whats happening". If you have ever read a whole book and got to the end and then gone "well fuck, I just read 600 pages in 5 hours and I have no idea what was going on" then youre a fucking idiot.Though you proved that by saying movies are like books and that you have to reread a movie to understand it completely...
you might not die though, thats the thing.
blackholes are an area with a change in space, its like a door on a world that is frozen but this door is warth. all we know is they are not "normal space". just like ouside our shield, space varies. we know more about our oceans than space.
Aww, another fallacy.
You've said I'm wrong, explain how. Given you cannot understand basic English, both the previous second sentence, and the reply to it, at this point in time I have no reason to think you have understood anything that has been said and are in fact, simply trolling.
So, Explain away.
no, I have no idea what you said.
>My grammar sucks yeah but I bet you understood what I was saying and have nothing better to do than arguing about my grammar. No jimmies have beem rustled anyway, try harder
Ill tidy that up for you you illiterate fuck: Yes my grammar does suck but I bet you understood what I was saying. Do you have nothing better to do then argue about my grammar? No "insert unoriginal 2005 saying here", try harder.
nigger pls grow up and then kill yourself. movies are subtle works of art full of nuance, complex ideas and meditations of complicated subjects like human relationships and deep feelings. if you think they dont warrant multiple viewings to grok you are beyond retarded and inexperienced in understanding and appreciating all forms of art.
for the last act, it would of been better if we had scene when he's entering the black hole where he gets torn into bits of atoms and we're the audience thinks he's dead and, then reassembled to himself again, my 2 cents
first off, you do have a soul. its your spark. it hold no memories. second if you die youre in the afterlife. unless you are talking about religion, thats fine but today i talk about science
yeah, white chicks was a "subtle works of art full of nuance, complex ideas and meditations of complicated subjects like human relationships and deep feelings", so was zoolander and the waterboy.
Do you not understand that you said you need to reread a movie?
Also wouldnt me being able to understand a movie on a first time viewing, that you find too complex and complicated to understand without multiple re watching (rereading for your retarded ass, indicate that I have a much better grasp of "complex ideas and meditations of complicated subjects like human relationships and deep feelings".
I already did. You said that a theory is defined as :
>something that may or may not be correct but is unverifiable at this point in time and the foreseeable future
>is almost entirely math based and everything that implies
What you actually described there is an hypothesis, not a theory. This is what I told you, thus demonstrating that your original assertion was wrong.
You then posted -
>implying simplifications neede to make a "theory" don't tautologically prove it wrong but since it's the current in vouge thought it's allowed to pass
That doesn't make any sense at all. All you've done is put some words together in an attempt to sound intelligent and that you've thought this out.
bro bro bro bro bro get on my level. you have been schooled. go to college. learn to argue. learn to interpret art. learn the limits of your retarded brain. then get back to me on this discussion.
stop talking you stupid nigger <3
>pass the event horizon
>enter new beatiful world
>our laws of physics dont work anymore
>realize CO is no stable element here
>mfw no face
>literally go WOOOOSH
Please parse your sentence for me, then, as I'm obviously missing something. What simplifications are required for constructing a theory? How can one prove something wrong 'tautologically'? I'm not sure that word means what you think it does?
What are you asking me to explain the difference between?
2 things, you can read a movie. also he used books and needing to reread those as saying you should rewatch them. but you are too fucking stupid a delided with a sense of "this fucking guy".
This is what you don't understand about astrophysics:
As you approached the event horizon in your spacecraft, time would slow to a stand still. It would take an infinite amount of time to reach the event horizon.
>What are you asking me to explain the difference between?
Where and how am I wrong?
Almost all modern theories require simplifications. These simplifications mean that they no longer accurately represent what they are said to. This means they are wrong; tautologically. However, since they are currently the most popular thought in whatever field it may be in, they are not said to be wrong and simply accepted as "good enough", even though they are wrong. See also: approximation
oh and you did notice that I said if he cant grasp the basics of a movie or book by the time he is done with it that its probably way above his level and he should stick with watching movies staring katy perry and books with pictures.
if time was stretched, you'd be destroyed along with the matter "time" could be defined across. i bet it would hurt and you wouldn't be able to pay attention once you were stretched a million times long
god you are so stupid. i never even said that i read movies. i said you have to re watch movies to understand them fully - just like you have to reread good books. maybe you should reread what i said. kek.
ever get the feeling that i am smarter than you? if you dont. we have identified your problem.
>if i had the chance to pass the event horizon of a black hole i would do it
Great. And then we would have conclusive evidence that if you pass into a black hole, you are never heard from again. There's no way for you to transmit data out, no escape, nothing. You will simply be incapable of delivering what you find, even if you manage not to be destroyed on an atomic level.
First of all, your grammar, capitalization, and punctuation nonchalance make it difficult to take you seriously.
Anyway, allow me to clarify further.
The science of astrophysics is aware of these things called black holes. There they are, we basically know what they are, and they're a strange phenomenon, so you know what? Maybe there are some weird things about them we're unaware of.
But that's no excuse to actually believe something fucking stupid, like "oh, they're weird, and no one's ever been to one, so maybe they're the gateway to another dimension!"
Not even REMOTELY plausible.
Your logic is so fucking stupid it makes me physically exhausted. It's like saying "well no one's ever been to a star before, so how do we know they'd burn up?"
BECAUSE THEY'RE GIANT FUCKING BALLS OF INTENSE FLAMING HEAT.
I was entertaining Op's premise that some how the person in this hypothetical were immune to the crushing effects of gravity.
OH MY GOD STEVEN FUCKIN' HAWKING BROWSES /B
I would rewatch many movies, reread many books and listen over and over again lots of songs not just because 'I dididn't understood' buy cause they are just very good
all these idiots trying to sound smart. i know theybare from reddit, its,quite,obvious. though their their intelligence is lacking so they cant use a site that would question them were they cant reply with useless dribble. get you shit together anons
It's already been demonstrated that you're wrong. Your description of theory was wrong, you describes an hypothesis.
The 'simplifications' you're describing happen after the construction of a theory in order to explain them to people like yourself; so you can have a basic understanding of what's going on without having to strain your brain with the actual science.
A theory is a model which accurately reflects observation of the universe, arrived at by amassing a wealth of evidence through repeated testing. For instance, the theory of gravity is a theory, while most of what we 'know' about black holes is hypothesis.
You really also out to check the meaning of tautology and find the word you're actually looking for, as what you're saying continues to make no sense.
no you said - movies are like books, sometimes you need to reread them to understand exactly what is happening.
not - you have to re watch movies to understand them fully - just like you have to reread good books.
If you cant remember what youre saying just scroll up a little you fucking mongoloid.
"If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics."
I think Feynman had a better understanding than any of us and even he admitted that he didn't really understand it
>basic writing skills
Hey, whatever faggot. If you think it's meaningless, go make a career of writing that way in....well any field that involves writing whatsoever.
>Speculating the effects of event horizon gravity
>using Stephen hawking speculation
>listening to invelids
how was the ending loose?
sure, it was a bit anti-climatic when he submerged himself into the bathtub. But at that point, everyone knew he wanted to die. What would you do if you were the last one?
Also i notice nobody has actually mentioned Time Dilation, it's been implied but not actually stated. The parts of you closest to the singularity would be attracted so vastly differently then the parts furthest away due to the changing of the time scale that you would literally be unable to think. Your frontal lobe would reach near infinite distance from your cerebral cortex so that the act of thinking would not be possible
Oh come on, for fuck's sake. Reread the sentence yourself. It's a separate clause.
Movies are like books, (note the comma) you have to reread them (books) etc. In the second clause he is describing the books, not the movies. The first clause sets up the second as an analogy.
>It's already been demonstrated that you're wrong. Your description of theory was wrong, you describes an hypothesis.
You keep saying this but not explaining it.
>The 'simplifications' you're describing happen after the construction of a theory
Incorrect, most often it is done such that the mathematics involved are more manageable see: Navier-Stokes
>A theory is a model which accurately reflects observation of the universe, arrived at by amassing a wealth of evidence through repeated testing
So a hypothesis that hasn't been proven wrong yet. If it were anything but a hypothesis it would be called a fact, not a theory. Another way to say it is a theory is a hypothesis that with current testing methods/knowledge has not been falsified (or it has and we make caveats [exceptions] because we don't have anything better)
Nice try, kid. Now fuck off.
>theory is a hypothesis
A hypothesis is either a suggested explanation for an observable phenomenon, or a reasoned prediction of a possible causal correlation among multiple phenomena. In science, a theory is a tested, well-substantiated, unifying explanation for a set of verified, proven hypotheses. A theory is always backed by evidence; a hypothesis is only a suggested possible outcome, and is testable and falsifiable.
Saw that movie 3d ago. Do go if you have the tiniest basic knowledge when it comes to physics. This movie is huge piece of bullshit.
For fuck's sake, I wonder why do every SF director have to put the word "tesseract" the most stupid and inappropriate way
1)The black hole is super massive, meaning the tidal forces near the event horizon are manageable. Thus the close and far sides of an orbiting object would be experiencing a similar gravitational pull from the black hole.
2) The math has been done to show that being outside of the event horizon a certain distance provides the needed gravitational dilation to "slow" time enough for the movie's plot.
3)Something orbiting the black hole would essentially be "free-falling" and not feel the effects of the tremendous amount of gravity that is being imposed on the planet.
4) The planet would need to be orbiting the black hole at a tremendous speed. I have no idea at what speed, but it's probably far short of c so I wouldn't worry about any added time dilation. As for the centripetal forces imposed on the planet, that is cancelled by the gravitational pull of the black hole, hence the orbit. This would mean the worm hole is orbiting as well, and we know worm holes can orbit because that's what it's doing next to Saturn.
You have explained your position once. And were then shown to be wrong. Simply restating your erroneous views does not make them correct.
Many hypothesis fit the exact same criteria but they aren't called theories until they become the current in vogue thought in whatever community they belong to.
>begging the question fallacy
A scientific fact is
>any observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and accepted as true
So the effect that we have observed, that things fall toward the center of the earth and large bodies in space have "pulling" effects on other bodies would be a fact. Gravity is the theory of what that observation is.
>robots in the movie sounded exactly like humans, even had audibly evident breath sounds in their lines
>astronauts decided to send a probe into a black hole as if they'd actually hear from it again
>spinning a spacecraft with thrusters that of which the axis of rotation is perfectly aligned with the docking hole, as if somehow built exactly to be able to dock a spinning-out-of-control station one day by some daring idiot
>cheap space suits in the future without the capability of anti-fogging visors
>sleep chambers you just crawl into that are filled with magic water that puts you to sleep with no agent being injected into your body
Shall I continue
I haven't yet been shown to be incorrect. Directly quoting me when I quite clearly didn't restate anything makes you look like an idiot.
You're claim about hypotheses is also wrong.
Also, that isn't 'begging the question.'
If you guys are going to throw out a bunch of logical fallacy claims, you probably ought to look them up first to make sure you're not using the wrong one.
I like how its all about people thinking a like with you. Like youre some physics lone wolf, out there spouting the gritty truth, but really, youre just some idiot that has it wrong. Thats cool dude, the other guy in here says the same shit I do and I know I'm right and I know hes right. You go on with your good little self thinking the wrong things and swearing till youre black and blue in the face that its right and I will go on my own way and actually understand things that people say. Good luck!
>doesn't include what I have shown to be true
>not begging the question
Like I've said before. It's really hard being a child these days. Always being coddled and thinking you're right to the point when it's shown you aren't you just can't handle it.
>says a theory *is* a well substantiated hypothesis, in so many words.
why yes, it is, imagine that. That with testing and retesting, collection of data and it becoming a well know and proven thing that a hypothesis becomes a theory.Good for you! You almost grasped it!!
>going to a new planet that has already been visited yet never heard back from by the original first astronaut and deciding that its still worth your life to give it another check
>going to numerous new worlds and not at least bringing back a jar of dirt from one to test for life when there is more time later
>tidal waves in the middle of an ocean but there is no shore to be seen anywhere
I was asking a question you moron.
Do they not teach this stuff in schools nowadays or have you just not got to that bit yet?
Begging the question is a form of circular reasoning. How was he guilty of it with that question?
>green text to try and show oldfag status
use of word fallacy again
>more green text
calls you a kid/child as if being younger than him is the worst insult in the world.
I would argue that a hypothesis can also have been tested, but not accepted by the scientific community yet. Case in point: It often takes more than a single test for something to reach the status of theory.
Incorrect, in the scientific community a theory is the highest model of the universe that exists. "Facts" are the repeated observations that make up those theories.
Thats why im saying it needs to be a tested, well-substantiated, unifying explanation for a set of verified, proven hypotheses. Not just one thats been tested a bit and not confirmed, that is a hypotheses.
>i'm the moron but you're the one that doesn't understand/can't see the fallacy
If you do not include all possible answers then you have assumed the solution. i.e. you have begged the question.
Uh huh, right.
It points out that you do not have the faculties to be attempting whatever you are at the level you are. Being coddled is seen as a bad thing in this instance because it encourages childishness well beyond childhood.
>not understanding scientific principle and thinking terminology trumps it
The French phrase is "en-vogue", "in vogue" means the same thing.
My understanding is that her constant thumbs up messages were being replayed in a loop because of the black hole. Since she was there for only a few minutes based on the time dilation.
Also, I thought that since the planet was so near the black hole, the tidal forces covered the land mass with water, hence the only foot or so that they were walking on.
>upset my partner a billion times (like, real bad)
>She's a cunt sometimes
>still love each other
She loved me even when I got drunk, touched some other girl, came home, yacked everywhere, and then cried immensely.
>>not understanding scientific principle and thinking terminology trumps it
Says the person that thinks you can "prove" anything in the scientific community enough for any theory to ever be considered a fact.
>It points out that you do not have the faculties to be attempting whatever you are at the level you are.
Also, you need to look up what coddled actually means. I'm a chef and I still knew what both meanings are.
Imagine being friends with this guy or even just trying to have a conversation with him face to face. If someone said the word fallacy to me over and over in a conversation I would just walk away.
I haven't, as my posts in this thread has shown. Perhaps you should read them.
>agreeing that you're wrong but the other guy is the moron
Welp, good to know I won that one. 1 down 2 to go.
I know what coddled means. I even explained the typically outcome of such and why it is bad. Do you have a point to make or are you just attempting to muddy the waters again?
Damn, i meant to only copy 'I'm the moron.' Now I look silly.
It's still not begging the question. Also, what other possible answers are there that he didn't list?
The terminology people are talking about is the word 'theory' in a scientific context. You clearly have no idea what it means in that context, as you've demonstrated as much by consistently misdefining it.
Lastly, I wouldn't trust an American website's claims about grammar, syntax or word meanings.
Actually, the theory of gravity isn't' a theory. It is a law. It's actually called 'The Law of Gravity'. You are holding theories up to the highest esteem, when they are actually the middle ground. Laws are the highest standard. Theories are in-between laws and hypothesis.
>It's still not begging the question
>shown to be begging the question
lulz. Like the others, what you do or don't like doesn't matter in the face of facts. A theory is a well substantiated hypothesis. i.e. it is still a hypothesis and could very well be prove wrong or replaced by a better one in the future.
Argue this is you like. It doesn't change the facts. Good luck in your studies, you'll need it.
Time wouldn't be stopped, just very, very slow. You would need infinite gravity to stop time.
can i Argue this is you like for a second and ask why, if youre correct, do they even use the word theory then? I mean, if its the exact same thing, why call it something else?
I don't even know where to begin with you. You've been arguing a point of terminology as used by a specific community, which has different requirements and usage than standard definitions. Then you complain when people point that out. Also you demonstrated a severe misunderstanding about the point and use of the scientific method.
So far your only argument against the mass of people telling you that you are wrong and explaining why is throwing a fit and asserting you are correct "because you can't argue terminology with terminology!" What the fuck does that even mean? I claimed that you have an incorrect definition and then DEFINE that word for you properly.
I would definitely go, even if every theory in the world pointed to my death.
Better to die in a manner that practically never happens, rather than something common.
Plus I might live who knows.
Some people use a word that means X definition. Some people write out X definition. They are the same thing. This whole shitfest was started because you and tweedle dum didn't like me using the definition.
>claims to know what a begging the question fallacy is but cannot see one
Come back when you do.
No, I've been arguing the first part of this response. Perhaps you'd like to read the thread and not strawman my argument.
Yeah, look, I was really trying to discuss one specific error and I over simplified my position in an attempt to make them understand. There are definitely laws of gravity, but we don't know the whole story yet. A lot is theory, such as why it's so much weaker than the other forces and such.
As much as I love this movie I gotta say a gravity dominated universe sounds very fictional. If light cannot escape a black holes pull then why does it eject matter? And a black hole, in a photograph, wouldn't be surrounded by a bright light; scientists, in my opinion, have made a fatal error in saying gravity is the dominant force in the universe and not electromagnetism. But I guess they don't want to find out a lot of brilliant minds have just been chasing a fake rabbit down a never-ending rabbit hole.
>Perhaps you'd like to read the thread and not strawman my argument.
>misusing terminology to argue terminology
(That one when I DEFINED the terminology in my post)
>Proven becomes a fact, not a theory.
Which is demonstrably false. Case in point: "Theory of Gravity" and "Theory of Evolution"
Seriously you need to read that link. I think it would help you out a lot.
>not understanding scientific principle and thinking terminology trumps it
Then not explaining either how the post was misunderstood or incorrect in any way.
You are arguing right out of your ass. I am not straw manning your argument, I am presenting it EXACTLY as you have been.