Comments

  • Dr_AculaDr_Acula Posts: 5,484
    edited 2013-03-13 - 03:24:16
    Please don't make a black hole today, humanoido. I've got too many clever propeller projects I want to finish!
  • mindrobotsmindrobots Posts: 6,506
    edited 2013-03-13 - 03:47:27
    +1 Dr. Acula!

    I would think any inter-galactic court has to have VERY SEVERE penalties on creating black holes.
  • blittledblittled Posts: 681
    edited 2013-03-13 - 08:31:44
    I once read an astronomy book that theorized micro black holes existed from the Big Bang and were fairly common so the non threat may be plausible. It does make me think of Vulcan being swallowed up by a Black Hole in the last Star Trek movie.

    If they are safe and they warp space and time I'd use them to keep repeating a weekend where I can spend all my time on Propeller projects until I get them all done. Or I would jump ahead into the future to see if I ever get a Propeller project actually done and working :).
  • Heater.Heater. Posts: 21,233
    edited 2013-03-13 - 09:10:46
    So it seems we need to build a collider capable of smashing things with a quadrillion, or a million-billion, times more energy than the Large Hadron Collider is capable of.

    It is said that particles with far more energy than the LHC can impart are hitting the Earth's atmosphere all the time. We have not been consumed by a black hole as a consequence yet....
  • JordanCClarkJordanCClark Posts: 198
    edited 2013-03-13 - 09:24:10
    I'm pretty sure one exists in my clothes dryer. About the size and shape of a sock...
  • skylightskylight Posts: 1,915
    edited 2013-03-14 - 02:19:06
    I'm pretty sure one exists in my clothes dryer. About the size and shape of a sock...
    LOL

    A funny TV advert about black holes featuring Stephen Hawking shown in the UK

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOimeRod4TY
  • HumanoidoHumanoido Posts: 5,770
    edited 2013-03-14 - 07:59:47
    Dr_Acula wrote: »
    Please don't make a black hole today, humanoido. I've got too many clever propeller projects I want to finish!

    It's ok. It's just a tiny one.
  • HumanoidoHumanoido Posts: 5,770
    edited 2013-03-14 - 08:02:51
    Heater. wrote: »
    So it seems we need to build a collider capable of smashing things with a quadrillion, or a million-billion, times more energy than the Large Hadron Collider is capable of. It is said that particles with far more energy than the LHC can impart are hitting the Earth's atmosphere all the time. We have not been consumed by a black hole as a consequence yet....
    Do you think there's a way to control the path of incoming cosmic rays and focus their energy to smash neutrons or other particles?
  • Mike GreenMike Green Posts: 23,008
    edited 2013-03-14 - 08:17:32
    Sure there's a way. Think about the energies involved. You've got incoming near lightspeed heavy particles coming in from all sorts of directions at unpredictable times (cosmic rays). You need humongous electrical and magnetic fields to turn these incoming particles. I'll just whip up a few of those in my basement, plug it all into my personal flux capacitor and voila!
  • Martin_HMartin_H Posts: 4,050
    edited 2013-03-14 - 09:23:51
    Humanoido wrote: »
    Do you think there's a way to control the path of incoming cosmic rays and focus their energy to smash neutrons or other particles?

    In the Marvel Comics universe you can use them to become a super hero:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fantastic_Four

    But in the real world physicists use cosmic rays as atom smashers all the time. The cosmic rays can be detected by their byproducts or the Cerenkov radiation those particles produce:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_ray
  • xanatosxanatos Posts: 1,120
    edited 2013-03-14 - 18:47:43
    I personally think Black Holes could make great pets. You could carefully feed them all your junk and trash, and balance it against Hawking Radiation, and keep a controlled and stable system for all your disposable needs... :-)
  • Peter KG6LSEPeter KG6LSE Posts: 1,383
    edited 2013-03-14 - 20:53:06
    xanatos wrote: »
    I personally think Black Holes could make great pets. You could carefully feed them all your junk and trash, and balance it against Hawking Radiation, and keep a controlled and stable system for all your disposable needs... :-)

    the worlds best garbage disposal ,,, and needs no running water .
  • TorTor Posts: 1,999
    edited 2013-03-15 - 02:25:06
    And if you feed it enough it'll start pulling on you.. you could use it to create your own artificial gravity. Stephen Baxter did that in a novel (Timelike Infinity IIRC), some folks in space on a platform-like structure had carefully placed a bunch of small black holes in a matrix below the floor.
  • HumanoidoHumanoido Posts: 5,770
    edited 2013-03-15 - 06:41:55
    Tor wrote: »
    And if you feed it enough it'll start pulling on you.. you could use it to create your own artificial gravity. Stephen Baxter did that in a novel (Timelike Infinity IIRC), some folks in space on a platform-like structure had carefully placed a bunch of small black holes in a matrix below the floor.

    Exactly. There are many potential good apps for tiny black holes. NASA would be interested - astronauts who are in space for long journeys, i.e. on their way to Mars and Europa, need gravity to prevent bone and body breakdown.

    And if little black holes accept space garbage before they go extinct and disappear, all the better. We could clean up the junk debris orbiting the Earth.

    Since relativistic extinction rings from tiny black holes are temporal and time traveling, they could be used to speed up snail mail delivery to another time line.

    Possibly with enough of their temporal jets made controllable, they could alter space time and create a FTL warp drive engine.

    It's also likely these could be used to open up worm holes to other places in the Universe or other universes, for the more adventurous and bold who want to explore new places.

    A spinning black hole could have all new apps, either for a massive gyro stabilizer or a radio to send messages quickly across the galaxy.

    Maybe a black hole can have anti-gravity for auto lift devices and elevators and wheel chairs will have new meanings.

    Put one on a coring drill to mine precious metals from asteroids.
  • HumanoidoHumanoido Posts: 5,770
    edited 2013-03-15 - 06:51:01
    wow... the energies of the most energetic ultra-high-energy cosmic rays (UHECRs) have been observed to approach 3
  • Heater.Heater. Posts: 21,233
    edited 2013-03-15 - 08:16:45
    Humanoido,
    There are many potential good apps for tiny black holes. NASA would be interested - astronauts who are in space for long journeys, i.e. on their way to Mars and Europa, need gravity to prevent bone and body breakdown.

    I don't think this is going to work.

    In order to recreate the Earth's gravitational field we are going to need a black hole of the same mass as the Earth and 6 thousand kilometers below the floor of the ship. A black hole might well be small but it still has huge mass.

    We could relax the requirements a bit and say we don't care if the shape of gravitational field looks like it does on Earths surface. Then we could put a smaller black hole at a distance of say 1Km below the floor of the ship. Being much closer it can be much smaller.

    Let's see:

    According to Newton the force on a man of mass m on the surface of the Earth is:

    (G * Me * m) / (Re * Re)

    Were: G is the gravitational constant, Me is the mass of the Earth, and Re it's radius.

    The force on the same man due to our portable black hole will be:

    (G * Mb * m) / (Rb * Rb)

    Where Mb is the mass of the black hole and Rb the distance away from the space ships floor we put it.

    We want the force of the black hole on the man to be equal to that of the Earths field so:

    (G * Me * m) / (Re * Re) = (G * Mb * m) / (Rb * Rb)

    We can cancel some stuff out here:

    Me / (Re * Re) = Mb / (Rb * Rb)

    And rearranging gives the required mas of the portable black hole:

    Mb = (Me * (Rb * Rb)) / (Re * Re)

    Now, the radius of the Earth is 6.38E6 meters and the mass of the Earth is 5.89E24Kg,
    We set the distance to the black hole below the ships floor to 1000m

    Mb = (5.89E24 * 1E6) / 6.8E12 = 8.6 E 17 Kilograms

    That's rather a lot of weight to have to haul around on your space journey!!!

    OK, Let's try putting the hole closer to the floor of the ship, say 100m. In fact we could wrap the ship around it at a 100m radius. Then,

    Mb = 8.6 E 15 Kilograms

    Still rather large. It's going to slow you down somewhat.

    I'll leave it to the reader to calculate the required mass if we could arrange lot's of little black holes on a plane under the floor. Maybe that's a winner.

    Seems to be that if you have the fuel required to haul all that mass around with you on your journey into space you would be better off just using it to create acceleration which itself makes a good gravity substitute,
  • HumanoidoHumanoido Posts: 5,770
    edited 2013-03-15 - 12:47:42
    Heater: Are you are talking about black holes turned on as a constant? To control gravity with lessened proximity to black holes, black holes and their life spans would be infinitesimal and regenerated with an oscillator tuned at a rate to set gravity. Other factors also set gravity such as black hole spin, size, decay, and orientation. Gravity can also have a canceling effect such as when the Moon is no longer at High Tide. The spacecraft could have a tuned oscillator at the top and under the floor working together. Indeed, it may be possible to use the engine acceleration as gravity and regulate it with tiny black holes.
  • Dave HeinDave Hein Posts: 6,063
    edited 2013-03-15 - 14:02:06
    Humanoido, slamming a couple of particles together to make a black hole doesn't increase it's mass. It doesn't create more gravity just because it's a black hole. Also, black holes created this way would almost instantly dissipate. A black hole needs to be at least 22 micrograms to exist for any extended period of time.

    Even if you could create black holes to make gravity how are you going to keep everything from acceleration towards the black hole? Anything you use to keep the black hole away from you will be sucked in. You could orbit the black hole, but then you've lost the effect of it's gravity.
  • TorTor Posts: 1,999
    edited 2013-03-15 - 14:35:21
    The traditional way of handling black holes in fiction is to fill them up with ions.. make them charged. Then it's possible to drag them around, or push them away. In fiction, at least.. I doubt black holes can be manipulated in any useful way in the imaginable future. :)

    -Tor
  • Heater.Heater. Posts: 21,233
    edited 2013-03-15 - 23:40:01
    @Humanoido,

    I'm talking about your everday black hole as you might find at the back of the vegetable tray in my fridge. There isn't much chance of being able to control them. No matter (hey a pun) what else if your black hole is massive enough to generate usefull gravity it's also far to big to want to drag around the cosmos with your space ship. It's going to kill your acceleration and wreck fuel consumption.

    @David,

    I'm shocked at that Plank mass thing. As Plank units go that is huge.
  • HumanoidoHumanoido Posts: 5,770
    edited 2013-03-16 - 08:00:38
    Heater. wrote: »
    I'm talking about your everday black hole as you might find at the back of the vegetable tray in my fridge.
    I gotta get a fridge like that! :smile:

    BTW, I really appreciate seeing your calculations.

    Now that physicists are learning so much so fast about quantum mechanics, we may begin to see a lot more about infinitesimal black holes. I've heard some projects at CERN are already working on this.
  • HumanoidoHumanoido Posts: 5,770
    edited 2013-03-16 - 08:25:31
    Dave Hein wrote: »
    Even if you could create black holes to make gravity how are you going to keep everything from acceleration towards the black hole? Anything you use to keep the black hole away from you will be sucked in.
    Good points. There are certainly challenges to be met. One idea is the use of an opposite gravity wave (disturbance in surrounding space time) to tune the system. This would be broken up into small energy packets to pin the system. It's unknown if these infinitesimal black holes have spinning jets. If yes, it may be a way to help control it. Of course there would be temporal mechanics at work too. Currently no one knows the detailed behavior of these effects.
  • Dave HeinDave Hein Posts: 6,063
    edited 2013-03-16 - 12:43:56
    Of course, we could used anti-gravity to control the position of the black holes that we are using to create gravity. Why didn't I think of that? Let me know when you got that working. :)
  • LoopyBytelooseLoopyByteloose Posts: 12,537
    edited 2013-03-17 - 09:07:53
    I am entirely off the subject of black holes. I've seen one in my neighborhood.. so on to other topics.

    Creation is best left to God and Wall Street wiz kids.
  • There is a Google Scholar paper entitled "Gravitational Magnus Effect" which attempts to show the Magnus effect (or Spin-Hall Effect) is potentially responsible for gravity.

    https://arxiv.org/abs/1805.01097

    I have created a design which utilizes this effect - and is a potential explanation for how to create a gravity well. If placed in outer space - the device potentially offers artificial creation of planetary structures.
  • ersmithersmith Posts: 4,315
    edited 2020-07-23 - 13:45:58
    There is a Google Scholar paper entitled "Gravitational Magnus Effect" which attempts to show the Magnus effect (or Spin-Hall Effect) is potentially responsible for gravity.

    https://arxiv.org/abs/1805.01097

    Have you actually read and understood that paper? From the abstract:
    Starting from the rigorous equations of motion for spinning bodies in General Relativity (Mathisson-Papapetrou equations), we show that indeed such an effect takes place and is a fundamental part of the spin-curvature force.

    In other words, the paper claims to show that General Relativity, i.e. gravity, predicts this "Gravitational Magnus Effect". That's pretty much the opposite of claiming that the Magnus effect is responsible for gravity!

    Really, @jonabel1971 , your enthusiasm for physics is admirable, but you need to learn some real physics and math if you want to use papers like this in your work.
  • I think it is you - who need to read the paper. It calculates the Magnus Effect force of a massive black hole, and then uses the Universal Gravity Equation to calculate the gravity force.

    The author comes up with the SAME answer - for both.

    So, the paper is giving you the option to accept a difficult way (spacetime) or a simple way (spinning plasma) - to interpret gravitational force. Since Plasma Cosmology is a valid competing model to Big Bang Cosmology - this implies that a Newtonian spinning medium exists around the black hole.

    So, with all forces being equal - Occum's Razor then says I should go with the simpler way.
    So I consider what is being laid in front of me.

    That being said, condescension is not admirable. You sound like a bot.
  • This thread is 7 years old, and has nothing to do with Parallax products.

    This thread is closed.
This discussion has been closed.