Re: Getting out of this world?

Brian Davis <brdavis@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Tina_H...@xxxxxxxxxxx (Tina Hall) wrote:

[I think John Park just said this better, but I had this typed up
anyway. Eh.]

Don't know what you could mean.

but you have to have *some* base to build on. Quite honestly,
we have little idea where yours is...

Don't really understand that. My knowledge doesn't have anything
to do with what you people know. And if you suggest something
that I don't understand, I can still ask.

No, but your knowledge base has everything to do with how to try
to communicate to you

Yes. That's why I said I can still ask. My idea is that you suggest
theories, and I point out what I don't understand. But all I see is
attempts to shoot down the very attempt to ask. We're discussing
something else entirely, while all those characters sent through the
lines could have been used to talk about the question.

And it's just a waste of time, because you're not going to find the
exact level I understand, and I have to ask anyway, or get annoyed
because it's too simple. You don't know what I know, so you can't
calibrate anything. You're just wasting time with these questions.

As to the idea of "why don't you folks suggest stuff, and let me
decide", well... as much as we like to help,

Why don't you start, then.

I'm guessing here, but my point is we don't have the time to tell
you every possible idea we might have on the topic.

So you reduce suggesting anything to zero and attack the idea to ask
such a question here. For that you seem to have plenty of time.

Don't try to judge me and cut down the options from that.

I have to.

No, actually you don't. There's plenty of stuff you typed that could
have been actual answers to the questions.

Maybe you need to the footwork and learn the subject you are
inquiring about.

In other words, don't ask the newsgroup if you want to know
something about science in speculative fiction, because people don't
want to answer and just want to discuss amongst themselves and shoot
down any possible enquiries.

I'll remember that if anyone ever suggests asking for something here
again because it's supposedly the place to get answers.

If you really want to stick with "science", there isn't an answer.
So you have to be willing to bend it, or suspend disbelief (for
you personally, since you only seem to worry about you in the
reading of it). The question is "how much are you willing to
bend?". For instance, you are asking us to come up with something
that works,

On this world. And I didn't say 'that works', but is possible with
taking unknown stuff into account.

and apparently connects into a different reality or dimension,
where physics as we understand it doesn't follow the same rules
(where some form of "magic" operates).

That's the destination. Can you say for sure that it's not possible?

Well, that makes any truly scientific treatment of the issue
worthless,

I don't see how.

and yet at the same time gives you a lovely huge loophole - the
"unexpected" is something to do with the magic in the "other
world",

No, the unexpected is something that should be possible here.

which are rules you get to *make up*. So hit the problem
from that side. Those can be your "unexpected consequences"
(perhaps magic leaking into our reality).

That would be magic, aliens, or natural phenomenon, and tus not an
option.

...so no need to make it consistent with anything but itself.

So you're asking for a self-consistent way of connecting two
realities

No, the self-consistent is the destination. The way to get there has
to be consistent with the real world.

I already said that.

All that matters for this is that it has to satisfy
my backbrain.

Then we need to know what it takes to suspend the disbelief of
your backbrain :).

Something that's consistent with the real world. The same thing I
asked for all along, and thus gave you all the information you need
without this tedious, useless discussion: A real theory.

And here you say you don't have time to suggest any theories, while
you have plenty of time to ask questions that were answered in the
original post.

So please stop that. (It's just irritating, too.)

I understand that. It's a little irritating when someone asks for
a rundown of all possible theories that might satisfy their
desire for consistency, but then don't use the same idea of
consistency as the people reading,

I have no idea what you're talking about.

[on what defines a 'black hole']

I don't understand that. Basically, how something so small could
then eat at the mass of earth, which is a lot bigger and has
more gravity.

What does "gravity" have to do with it? That's just an attraction
between two masses, it's not something the Earth "possesses".

Without gravity, black holes do nothing. Like not attracting any
other mass, and thus there's no problem. Something that can't suck
in all matter around it isn't a very dangerous 'black hole'. So
where's the problem?

Picture an electron on the edge of a microscopic black hole.
Which is it more strongly accelerated toward, the Earth (most of
which is very very far away from it), or the tiny very dense
object (black hole) immediately next to it?

With a very dense amount of nothing much at all, I doubt anything
happens. And if the Earth is too far away, nothing's going to happen
to it, so what's the problem?

How do you get a dense photon, or whatever they're using anyway? And
What electrons? The ones in the earth are, as you say, too far away,
so they can't be pulled in.

Obviously the hole - and if that's *not* obvious, you need to
understand how gravity works (and how it doesn't). If you don't
understand it, and want to... learn it. Don't wait for "the right
teacher" or "the right book", go out there, beat down the walls of
the castle, and Figure Out a Way.

That's just ignorant.

But the effect is the same (or similar, ignoring Hawking
radiation, possible quantum effects, etc.).

I don't like ignoring stuff, even not knowing what you want to
ignore.

Well, do you understand renormalization? Virtual particle pairs?
How this sort of thing scales with the size of the hole (surface
area of the event horizon, which is a sphere, not a circle, and
the mass of the hole, which scales differently)?

No. And 'event horizon' is one of the words that don't produce an
image.

Why it inevitably leads to small holes being unstable, unless of
course they have a sufficient mass flux across the surface of the
event horizon to compensate for the mass lost as one half of a
virtual particle pair becomes real?

Ignoring the stuff I don't understand, that makes sense.

But if you're going on about science, I'd prefer answers to the
actual question.

If you want to learn this stuff, great - there are plenty of ways
to do so.

That's just ignorant.

That's where the side-effect comes in. Which of the known
theories could have (unexpected) side-effects? It just has to be
possible, not proven and tested.

All of them. None of them. I simply don't understand how you are
thinking on this. *Anything* could have unexpected side-effects -
because the theory might not be correct, or somebody might have
just missed (as in overlooked) some consequence of the theory.

But people here aren't interested in sharing that, and only want to
talk amongst themselves and shoot down enquiries. I got that.

What if X happened when exploring <theory A>? Then Y.

I'm asking for X and <theory A> in that.

OK, X = "lab catches fire", and <theory A> = "evolutionary
theory". Does that work for you?

How does that get people elsewhere?

OK, how about X = "all the air coincidentally crowds into a single
corner of the room, which statistically *could* happen" while "the
LHC was turned on". No?

How does that get people elsewhere?

Well then, X = "two people tried to send posts to rasfs with
exactly contradictory science at exactly the same instant", and
as an unanticipated consequence, "ripped a gash in the space-time
continuum" (I love that particular bit of technobabble - it
sounds so... stupid).

It is.

--
Tina
WISuspension: Seasons & Elements trilogy | Magic Earth series
Excerpts at: <http://home.htp-tel.de/fkoerper/ath/athintro.htm>

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Getting out of this world?
    ... Without gravity, black holes do nothing. ... other mass, ... all matter around it isn't a very dangerous 'black hole'. ... ::: earth, which is a lot bigger and has more gravity. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.science)
  • Re: So long, farewell, auf Wiedersehen, adieu
    ... Take the earth and replace it with a black hole the mass of the earth. ... just take until the moon dropped for it to gain any significant mass. ...
    (alt.sysadmin.recovery)
  • Re: Do evolutionists have the answers? (dont be silly)
    ... A falling object loses mass because it is losing ... nevertheless mass is energy, energy is mass. ... EARTH LOSES energy--- with the sum equal to exactly zero. ... of the Black Hole there would be no mass left - a totally ridiculous ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Physics Background for Sci Fi Story
    ... it's going to have a mass waaay below one gram. ... though that somehow they manage to create a black hole on the ... accrete any more mass to threaten the earth. ... gravitational source on the assumption it is stable or long-lived. ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • Re: According to 1905 Relativity, a single material point must be always at rest
    ... The centre of mass inertial reference frame corresponding to a ... If the body set is composed by all parts of the real Earth ... system has a nonzero velocity with respect to it. ... Consider a set of massive particles. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)