lol Becky you owe my a new sky controller :P
I wish the black hole'll eat the world when the small pieces crash.
*looks puzzled*. You could always try using the mouse to scroll through forum posts, it would probably be easier and result in less mechanical failures.
A black hole is any object that's so dense that the speed at which you need to attain to escape its gravity field is greater than the speed of light (hence they're black, as not even light can escape). The big ones are created by giant stars collapsing when they die but you can have tiny ones made by other methods too.
Here are some live Webcams from the Large Hadron Collider in Switzerland, be the first to know if something goes wrong.
http://www.cyriak.co.uk/lhc/lhc-webcams.html
http://www.cyriak.co.uk/lhc/lhc-webcams.html
At first i thought it was a real cam, thats pretty funny
Actually, the plans for the LHC have been made available. Well, I assume they're the plans, I have no idea what an LHC consists of 
The plans for each of the sensors and other related stuff is there too. I personally can't wait for the DIY versions of the "not-so-large hadron collider" to come about, for people to perfect the fine art of particle acceleration in the garage. Should prove interesting, to say the least 
The plans for each of the sensors and other related stuff is there too. I personally can't wait for the DIY versions of the "not-so-large hadron collider" to come about, for people to perfect the fine art of particle acceleration in the garage. Should prove interesting, to say the least I would have been fooled if I hadn't seen Luke's post below. Great link!
Whilst light can't escape from the event horizon, "black holes ain't so black".
we cant detect any of these... we can percieve them and measure distances along them but thats quite different from detecting one... especially without knowing what it will describe in the first place
consider that theres still plenty of discussion on what time is and how you can describe it
unfortunately that has never been proven which is the heart of the scientific side of the debate far away from the one you see in the media
You knew I meant detect in a non-scientific way 
A lot of the accepted theories have never been proven, but that doesn't necessarily make them any less valid. There is evidence (and only know a tiny bit about it really) for and against the dual-particle theory with regards to black holes (and, in fact, the whole dual-particle theory itself).
but hey, this thread is about the [mega] uninformed thinking the world was going to end because of a collision a month or two in the future - I don't think worrying about the finer details of celestial physics is really the point.
A lot of the accepted theories have never been proven, but that doesn't necessarily make them any less valid. There is evidence (and only know a tiny bit about it really) for and against the dual-particle theory with regards to black holes (and, in fact, the whole dual-particle theory itself).
but hey, this thread is about the [mega] uninformed thinking the world was going to end because of a collision a month or two in the future - I don't think worrying about the finer details of celestial physics is really the point.
I'd have thought that by definition they can't give off any kind of emissions whatsoever, so would appear black.
I remember seeing on a documantary, some CG of an ex-stellar black hole in space. The theory with that was that the gravity is so strong that it just bends all the light heading towards it around, so you can't actually see the hole at all, just what's behind it, like a kind of giant lens in space.
The quote was from Stephen Hawkings - his theory that two particles, one the anti-particle of the other - would appear on the event horizon. One goes in, the other escapes, and so in a way the black hole emits radiation.
I don't remember the book well enough without looking to go into more details, and as Shotglass mentioned it's not a totally accepted theory anyway.
I don't remember the book well enough without looking to go into more details, and as Shotglass mentioned it's not a totally accepted theory anyway.
I need to re-read a Brief History Of Time. it was all a bit beyond me when it first came out, I reckon I'd be able to properly enjoy it this time round.
Oh no you did-unt!
Poofta! 
depends on what you consider proof
all of the fully accepted theories have made predictions that stood up to experimental tests which in science is usually considered proof
well in a way it is... the problem is that should a already extremely unlikely and rather impossible creation of a black hole occur the only (currently theorised) thing preventing certain doom would be hawking radiation
iirc the problem is that the aggregation rate of observable black holes is large enough to make any radiation from particles circling the black hole very fast too bright to see the black body radiation it should emit
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ear ... 2008/09/12/scicern212.xml
If only the Telegraph had taken time to get someone who knew greek to read the defacement page. Not surprisingly, it's not related to the experiment at all, it's from some 14-15 y/o kid who's whining about being banned from greek IRC networks. The way the doomsday reporters go on about how CERN was compromised (as if the LHC is directly connected to their website) is amazing.
If only the Telegraph had taken time to get someone who knew greek to read the defacement page. Not surprisingly, it's not related to the experiment at all, it's from some 14-15 y/o kid who's whining about being banned from greek IRC networks. The way the doomsday reporters go on about how CERN was compromised (as if the LHC is directly connected to their website) is amazing.
It's English, do you expect English people to know another language? :P Most of us here don't have the slightest clue, although Greek is as useless as Russian, with those non latin characters! :P
The end of the world
(393 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG