Toebean_Farmer
Toebean_Farmer t1_ja8wizu wrote
Reply to comment by WhoStalledMyCar in Recently Correlated Black Hole Mass and Dark Energy Questions by WhoStalledMyCar
A singularity is quite literally the name of the impossible: it’s the point within a black hole that quantum physics breaks down. So you’re correct in that event horizons contradict them. EVERYTHING contradicts them, yet there they are.
And so yes, when Hawking was theorizing black hole decay, he was specifically trying to figure out what a singularity was. He collaborated on different theories just trying to understand singularities, whether black holes had them or not, and how they might be formed. They basically confirmed that, “yep, some spooky shit happens in there we don’t have the tools to understand yet.”
Toebean_Farmer t1_ja8rq5u wrote
Reply to comment by WhoStalledMyCar in Recently Correlated Black Hole Mass and Dark Energy Questions by WhoStalledMyCar
I don’t think so. With our current understanding of black holes, there seems to be no sort of peak energy one black hole can handle, they just keep growing depending on how much mass it can absorb.
Another thing is hawking radiation. As we understand it, black holes do decay, just very slowly. Because it’s theorized that supermassive black holes will completely decay in a relatively similar amount of time as a smaller black hole, you can hypothesize that the more mass leads to more hawking radiation EDIT: checked and the smaller a black hole, the quicker it does decay.
Toebean_Farmer t1_ja8hfmy wrote
Newest theories have hypothesized a “vacuum energy” which sounds like what you might be talking about in part A: it acts sort of like the opposite of gravity, where the energy of a black hole would push matter away from it, at a certain point.
Part C seems to be coming up on black hole cosmology and unfortunately would be damn-near impossible to prove.
Toebean_Farmer t1_ja8eupq wrote
Reply to comment by ferrel_hadley in How big was the point of dense energy before the Big Bang? by ClassicSpurzy
Unless it was flat, which many cosmologists believe it is.
Toebean_Farmer t1_j9qpjos wrote
Reply to If the cost comes down why don’t we shoot water into space to reduce rising sea levels? by anonymous494921
Seems like a way bigger logistical nightmare than just reversing climate change
Toebean_Farmer t1_j7uysnh wrote
Moons aren’t very special, they’re just debris that’s been captured by the gravity of a planet. Earths moon doesn’t “make earth livable” it makes earth more livable, and it’s not that important to life as we know it.
Jupiter has many moons surrounding it because it’s the second largest (in both size and (more importantly) mass) object in our solar system, so many things are captured by its gravity. Many of these satellites (not like our man-made satellites, simply something that orbits a planet) are large and -importantly- reflective. When moons are highly reflective, we have a much easier time spotting them because they shine with the sun’s light. However, smaller and less reflective satellites are much harder to discover.
Finding these Jupiter moons is less about the moons themselves, but instead the means in which we were able to detect them. More sensitive tools and techniques are being developed, leading to more discoveries day after day.
Toebean_Farmer t1_j7m5e36 wrote
Reply to comment by Bubbagumpredditor in The James Webb Space Telescope just found an asteroid by total accident, its smallest object yet by pecika
Then we’ll start cataloging the compositions of each, and soon we’ll have a whole database full asteroids just ready for the mining!
Toebean_Farmer t1_jc0dcv0 wrote
Reply to The largest NASA Hubble Space Telescope image ever assembled, this sweeping bird’s-eye view of a portion of the Andromeda galaxy. Credit: NASA, ESA by Davicho77
These photos are what churches were built upon. To look god in His eye and understand the there’s depth to them that can never be fathomed completely. That the vastness creates a beauty in its simplicity that can only be inferred.