Jump to content


Do black holes Die?

Started by sonic , Jul 02 2006 07:11 PM

  • Please log in to reply
20 replies to this topic

#1 sonic

sonic

Posted 02 July 2006 - 07:11 PM

When fighting over wether or not black holes "die-out" the first thing we have to talk about is Hawking Radiation. Hawking radiation is radiation emitted by black holes due to quantum effects. It is named after Stephen Hawking who worked out its existence. Hawking's discovery became the first convincing proof of quantum gravity.

Black holes are places of immense gravitational force(NOT infinte. Some older outdated resources may tell you that, but its false) into which surrounding matter is drawn by gravitational forces. Earlyer laws state that the gravity is so powerful that nothing, not even radiation, can escape from the black hole. However, by doing a calculation in the basics of quantum field theory in curved spacetimes, Hawking showed quantum mechanics allows black holes to emit radiation.

You can understand it by imagining that particle-antiparticle radiation is emitted from just beyond the event horizon. This radiation does not come directly from the black hole itself, but rather is a direct result of virtual particles being "boosted" by the black holes gravitation into becoming real particles.

A more accurate, but still much simplified view of this is that vacuum fluctuations cause a particle-antiparticle pair to appear close to the event horizon of a black hole(check my topic "faster than light?". One of the pair falls into the black hole while the other escapes. In order to fill the energy 'hole' left by the pair's instant creation, energy tunnels out of the black hole and across the event horizon. By this process the black hole loses mass, and to an outside observer it would appear that the black hole has just emitted a particle.

An example

A black hole of one solar mass has a temperature of only 60 nanokelvins. in fact, such a black hole would intake far more microwave radiation than it emits. A black hole of 4.5 × 10²² kg would be in equilibrium at 2.7 kelvins, absorbing as much radiation as it emits(Reference: "Alpha and Omega, Charles Seife). Yet smaller primordial black holes would emit more than they absorb, and thereby lose mass.

The Hawking radiation shows that the laws of black hole thermodynamics have a complete physical meaning.

When particles escape, the black hole loses a small amount of its energy and therfore of its mass (mass and energy are related by einstein's equation E = mc2, see topic "faster than light?").

Have you ever heard about the very strange Explosions of Gamma Rays? Well this can be solved with Hawking Radiation. Unlike most things in the unviverse, black holes temperature increases the more mass it looses. With the likely quantam end of a HUGE explosion of Gamma Rays.

This was meant as a more "on topic" place for me and Princ3 to agrue about black holes. He needs some real info so he's not talking out of his butt.

Edit: Oh and Cata, if you see any mistakes then tell me. :)

Edited by Sonic, 02 July 2006 - 07:12 PM.

Posted Image[br]

View Postiargue, on 31 October 2010 - 11:24 PM, said:

why should I spend time to make a well thought out statement when I am busy programming?

Advertisement

    #2 CaluM

    CaluM

    Posted 02 July 2006 - 07:18 PM

    Seems like a stupid point to argue over anyway, its not really going to affect us so why bother?

    Posted Image

    #3 sonic

    sonic

    Posted 02 July 2006 - 07:21 PM

    View PostCalum, on Jul 2 2006, 07:18 PM, said:

    Seems like a stupid point to argue over anyway, its not really going to affect us so why bother?

    AH!
    Thats were you are wrong my friend.
    Guess whats in the middle of our galaxie!
    A giant black hole.
    In 12x the current age of the universe, our black hole will "implode" and release gamma rays so powerful that the galaxie will be destroyed. Even if we escape the expanding of our sun, were goners then.
    Posted Image[br]

    View Postiargue, on 31 October 2010 - 11:24 PM, said:

    why should I spend time to make a well thought out statement when I am busy programming?

    #4 redlion

    redlion

    Posted 02 July 2006 - 07:34 PM

    View PostSonic, on Jul 2 2006, 10:21 PM, said:

    AH!
    Thats were you are wrong my friend.
    Guess whats in the middle of our galaxie!
    A giant black hole.
    In 12x the current age of the universe, our black hole will "implode" and release gamma rays so powerful that the galaxie will be destroyed. Even if we escape the expanding of our sun, were goners then.
    Aha, but how old is the universe?

    Let us assume, that for the duration of my post, the universe is a trillion years old, which isn't all that far from being possible. That means we have twelve trillion years to build a galaxy, and then move to another galexy nearby. Even if the universe were only a million years old (which it couldn't be, as science has proved that the earth is at least 6 billion years old all by itself), we'd still have at least 12 million years. How long has human kind been aware of itself? a measly ten thousand years? Thats nothing next to the age of a celestial body.

    This discussion, while possibly interesting, is nothing more than an academic discussion of theoretical material. The likely hood of humankind existing when a black hole 'implodes' (which you never even attempted to explain why this would happen) is none to none.

    Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image
    Oh, I live to be the ruler of life, not a slave.

    Spoiler

    #5 sonic

    sonic

    Posted 02 July 2006 - 08:10 PM

    View Postredlion, on Jul 2 2006, 08:34 PM, said:

    Aha, but how old is the universe?

    Let us assume, that for the duration of my post, the universe is a trillion years old, which isn't all that far from being possible. That means we have twelve trillion years to build a galaxy, and then move to another galexy nearby. Even if the universe were only a million years old (which it couldn't be, as science has proved that the earth is at least 6 billion years old all by itself), we'd still have at least 12 million years. How long has human kind been aware of itself? a measly ten thousand years? Thats nothing next to the age of a celestial body.

    This discussion, while possibly interesting, is nothing more than an academic discussion of theoretical material. The likely hood of humankind existing when a black hole 'implodes' (which you never even attempted to explain why this would happen) is none to none.

    Agreed.
    But
    The reprocussions of Quantam mechanics affect our TVs our bodies, hell EVERYTHING in the universe....


    Agreed.
    But
    The reprocussions of Quantam mechanics affect our TVs our bodies, hell EVERYTHING in the universe....

    Oh and the universe is somewere between 12bill-15billyears old. I have heard both ages in many places.

    Edited by Sonic, 02 July 2006 - 08:16 PM.

    Posted Image[br]

    View Postiargue, on 31 October 2010 - 11:24 PM, said:

    why should I spend time to make a well thought out statement when I am busy programming?

    #6 redlion

    redlion

    Posted 02 July 2006 - 08:14 PM

    Err, no. http://www.talkorigi...e-of-earth.html

    Or just do a google search for Age of the Earth. The first result will say "The Earth is accepted by scientists to be around 4.5 billion years old" Which makes it older than your figure for the entire universe.

    Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image
    Oh, I live to be the ruler of life, not a slave.

    Spoiler

    #7 sonic

    sonic

    Posted 02 July 2006 - 08:16 PM

    View Postredlion, on Jul 2 2006, 09:14 PM, said:

    Err, no. http://www.talkorigi...e-of-earth.html

    Or just do a google search for Age of the Earth. The first result will say "The Earth is accepted by scientists to be around 4.5 billion years old" Which makes it older than your figure for the entire universe.


    EEEEEEK!!!!!!!!! i meant billions. Sorry
    Posted Image[br]

    View Postiargue, on 31 October 2010 - 11:24 PM, said:

    why should I spend time to make a well thought out statement when I am busy programming?

    #8 Guest_Casilla_*

    Guest_Casilla_*

    Posted 03 July 2006 - 03:58 AM

    View Postredlion, on Jul 2 2006, 08:34 PM, said:

    Let us assume, that for the duration of my post, the universe is a trillion years old, which isn't all that far from being possible.
    <coughs a bit> We can't assume that the Universe is a trillion years old. That is very far from being possible.

    The current age of the Universe is estimated at 13.7 billion years old. It WAS 15, for a short period of time, but we withdrew that figure because it was flawed.

    As-is, we drew the figure 13.7 by looking at the, er, for lack of a better phrase, the "background noise" of the Universe...that is, by looking out into space, you are looking back in time, and the furthest we can see back is about 13.7 billion years (past that, the, er, "picture" is too noisy - basically, we see what is, in theory, the aftermath of the Big Bang - a lot of energy and matter, still compacted together, and it's too dense to see anything past it). Of course, our ways of measuring distance may be flawed, and some more recent studies have shown that they may be; but it would only add a couple billion years onto the figure.

    Of course, the Big Bang may not be the beginning of the Universe, but it is the beginning of this cycle we are currently on - in that, everything we see is only 13.7 billion years old in its current form. The energy and the particles/subparticles that make up the matter may be infinitely old, but were not stars and such. =P

    However, yes, our galaxy has been forming since shortly after the Big Bang.

    But not a trillion years. That is a hugely large estimate. A trillion is a thousand billions. It would be one thing to take an estimate from 15 billion to 100 billion. It's quite another to take an estimate from 15 billion to 1000 billion.

    I know our history is full of underestimation, but we HAVE overestimated before. :) You can't throw figures out there based on our history of underestimation.

    Anyway, Sonic, if you just created this topic to argue with PRINC3, well...PMs would have been more appropriate.

    As-is, there simply isn't enough knowledge on this board for members to intelligiably argue either way. It isn't something we SHOULD be discussing, because it's too wrapped up in theories that aren't even established by mainstream physics. They're published, respected theories, but they have not been put to a real test.

    Unlike, say, Einstein's stuff. ;)

    We could not give this discussion the justice it deserves; rather, it'd be a matter of throwing Wikipedia and other online sources at each other. Thus, a moot point.

    Plus, we are not even completely sure if there IS a black hole in the center of the galaxy. Oh, yes, we suspect so - but you must also remember that we are the kind of physicists who had to create dark matter/energy in order to validate our theories. Stuff which, apparently, compromises the vast majority of the Universe.

    The same theories that dictate that there MUST be such a large mass in the center of our galaxy, thus we fall back on black holes.

    It could be, however, that there is very little dark matter/energy in the Universe - rather, our models on the Universe are incorrect. All of our proof for a black hole in the center of the galaxy is derived from the same physics that derived our model for the Universe.

    Occam's Razor.

    Which is simpler?

    We are wrong in our model of the structure and composition of the Universe and how gravity interacts with matter and energy. (Oh wait, we don't even know HOW gravity works. We can only measure it.)

    OR

    There is this presence of dark matter and energy, which compromise (together) 96% of the Universe, but for which we have no proof of existing except for our model of the Universe, which demands for it to exist.

    I think it is very clear which is the simplest answer.

    -------------------------------------

    (Shoos previous posts about dark matter/energy and black holes away, such that they do not discredit her.)

    Hehe.

    I love playing the devil's advocate!

    The thing is, even if a black hole can die out - which it may - we aren't sure if it's violent, or if it simply burns out. We simply don't know, because we will never witness the death of one, as it takes quite a long time for a black hole to die through radiation. Basically, if one was created at the beginning of the Universe, it still would not have died out yet. But one can't have been made at the beginning of the Universe. ;) If our theories on how they are made are correct, anyway.

    Plus, I dislike quantum mechanics with a passion. I am of the firm belief that there is another explaination for the paradoxes we witness that does not involve anything like quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics estimates well enough, but it is ultimately incorrect.

    Like with gravity - how Newton was close, but not close enough. Einstein has been, so far, close enough. And in doing so, completely revolutionized our views on gravity. And he created this nice thing called space-time in the process. <3 Relativity.

    Of course, we still don't know how gravity works.

    #9 sonic

    sonic

    Posted 03 July 2006 - 06:20 AM

    View PostCasilla, on Jul 3 2006, 04:58 AM, said:

    We could not give this discussion the justice it deserves; rather, it'd be a matter of throwing Wikipedia and other online sources at each other. Thus, a moot point.

    Speak for yourself. I on one hand have been reading some of the most highly respected pieces of literature involving physics. please do not underestimate my knowledge on the subject.

    View PostCasilla, on Jul 3 2006, 04:58 AM, said:


    Plus, we are not even completely sure if there IS a black hole in the center of the galaxy. Oh, yes, we suspect so - but you must also remember that we are the kind of physicists who had to create dark matter/energy in order to validate our theories. Stuff which, apparently, compromises the vast majority of the Universe.


    Your knowledge may be out of date.
    Read "the black hole at the center of our galaxie" by Fulvio Melia
    We do know its there because of the way our Galaxie spins, and the effects of its gravity on near by objects.

    View PostCasilla, on Jul 3 2006, 04:58 AM, said:


    Plus, I dislike quantum mechanics with a passion. I am of the firm belief that there is another explaination for the paradoxes we witness that does not involve anything like quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics estimates well enough, but it is ultimately incorrect.

    Dislike it or not. Its the most perfect theory we have going today. 100% of the observations point to its legitimacy. Look at our TV's. If QM was wrong. Our TV's will not work. Quatam Mechanics is not going away.

    It is the theory those who do not understand, dislike. Honestly, find any resource that disproves Quantam Mechanics. Possibly the Copenhagen Perception.

    Who are you to say that Quantam Mechanics is "ultimately incorrect". Find me a physicist that does not support QM, and I will find you the other 99% that do.

    "The Comilogical constant was the biggest mistake of my life" - Einstein.

    See. Even mighty Albert twords the end of his life leaned twords QM.

    View PostCasilla, on Jul 3 2006, 04:58 AM, said:

    Basically, if one was created at the beginning of the Universe, it still would not have died out yet. But one can't have been made at the beginning of the Universe. ;) If our theories on how they are made are correct, anyway.

    I laugh at your incorrectness.
    Black holes WERE made in the beggining moments of the universe(well that is the uptodate thoery of today". The expansion rate of the universe in the first few seconds "in the time when normal physics break down" was so great that areas of extream density were formed. AKA black holes...

    Edited by Sonic, 03 July 2006 - 06:22 AM.

    Posted Image[br]

    View Postiargue, on 31 October 2010 - 11:24 PM, said:

    why should I spend time to make a well thought out statement when I am busy programming?

    #10 fonkeymonkey

    fonkeymonkey

    Posted 03 July 2006 - 06:25 AM

    There is evidence that states the earth beaing at a maximum of 5 billion years old ;) Big Bang theory being 2 of them. Aswell as redshift and blue shift. When a star is moving away from earth it gives off red light from the coulor spectrum. When it is coming closer, it emits blue light off the coulor spectrum. hence red shift and blue shift. All evidence that the matter in the universe was so compacted that it exploded creatign the planets, the sun and other stars. Then they all spread out in different directions.

    Scroll Merchant Guide In Depth Here
    Quit Maplestory
    Lost Power City: lvl 5
    Special thanks to Gamerash, mastachew, catalist and Steven for helping me out. And riddick, whoever you are :(

    #11 Guest_Casilla_*

    Guest_Casilla_*

    Posted 03 July 2006 - 02:30 PM

    View PostSonic, on Jul 3 2006, 06:20 AM, said:

    Speak for yourself. I on one hand have been reading some of the most highly respected pieces of literature involving physics. please do not underestimate my knowledge on the subject.
    Yes; I'll just take my college education and throw it out the window. Majoring in physics and working in a lab for three years have obviously done nothing for me.

    Plus, I have already found which websites you've been using for reference.

    Nice quotes almost word for word.

    Good literature.

    Quote

    Your knowledge may be out of date.
    Read "the black hole at the center of our galaxie" by Fulvio Melia
    We do know its there because of the way our Galaxie spins, and the effects of its gravity on near by objects.
    Right; you missed my point. If indeed, our model of the Universe is wrong, if our physics is flawed - which is extremely likely - then there may not be a black hole in the center of the galaxy, because all of our proof of its existence revolve around our model. When we take telescope data from the satellites and process it and come up with "proof" for black holes, we do ALL of that using our physics.

    Do you understand what I'm saying?

    Now, I'm not saying I don't think there ISN'T a black hole in the center of the galaxy. I'm sure there is. But I was playing devil's advocate. =P

    Quote

    Dislike it or not. Its the most perfect theory we have going today. 100% of the observations point to its legitimacy. Look at our TV's. If QM was wrong. Our TV's will not work. Quatam Mechanics is not going away.

    It is the theory those who do not understand, dislike. Honestly, find any resource that disproves Quantam Mechanics. Possibly the Copenhagen Perception.

    Who are you to say that Quantam Mechanics is "ultimately incorrect". Find me a physicist that does not support QM, and I will find you the other 99% that do.

    "The Comilogical constant was the biggest mistake of my life" - Einstein.

    See. Even mighty Albert twords the end of his life leaned twords QM.
    Yes, but Einstein never liked it. And for good reason. The ramifications of it are frightening.

    And you're a fool to think that quantum mechanics is ultimately correct. Sure, it's correct, but it's correct in the same way Newton's second law was correct.

    That is, not correct enough. ;)

    We have yet to find anything to disprove quantum mechanics, but you must also remember that it took us only 200 years to be in the correct technological position to say, "Hey, wait a minute. Mercury isn't where it should be!"

    Obviously, Mercury could not be wrong, so we must have been.

    Thus, F=MA was no longer a law. It works well enough for Earth-related physics ("How fast will this ball drop if I let it go?"), but if you're going to put a satellite into orbit, you have another thing coming.

    Arrogance in a physicist is most unbecoming.

    Also, um, we did not use quantum mechanics to figure out how to create a TV. If quantum mechanics is wrong, TVs would still work, we'd just have to figure out WHY they work.

    Don't make the result dependent on the idea.

    There HAVE been technologies dependent on quantum mechanics, there is no doubt about that. But that doesn't make quantum mechanics correct - it just makes it good enough. Do you understand?

    Are we using ANY physics that we were using 500 years ago (exact maths, not concepts)? No. Of course not. Will we be using ANY physics that we are using today in 500 years? Most likely not.

    Who am I to say such things? I am no one of no importance, but one who is mindful of our history. But I am telling you my thoughts. That is, after all, the crude purpose of the Internet and this forum.

    Quote

    I laugh at your incorrectness.
    Black holes WERE made in the beggining moments of the universe(well that is the uptodate thoery of today". The expansion rate of the universe in the first few seconds "in the time when normal physics break down" was so great that areas of extream density were formed. AKA black holes...
    Yes, they theorize that there may be some that were created then, I'm sure. But we have yet to find one so large as that we have no other explaination as to its formation, except by the Big Bang. Indeed, not even our look-back observations can see black holes in all that noise (which, oddly enough, you would think that we SHOULD be able to see them in look-back, because with the Universe still being so dense, it would be easier to spot pockets of nothingness).

    The black holes WE encounter are all much younger than the Universe, via stars collapsing, that sort of thing. The really big ones, we even think may be fusions of smaller ones. At least in theory. We could not possibly know, either way.

    I have, over the years, encountered many theories that were - at the time - the peak of physics. And of course, everyone would spout about how this would revolutionize physics, etc. Only to be disproven (sometimes, by another ultimate theory!) only a year later.

    Physicists are very exciteable. It's no wonder that almost every single one I know has heart problems.

    So don't you worry your pretty little head about any new theories about black holes. Give 'em five, ten years - which is brutally long in the world of physics - then you can give them a nice party. ;)

    Those books that are out there - at Barnes & Noble or Borders or whatever - they aren't real physics literature. They are, ultimately, bound by the laws of publishing - anything exciteable and interesting gets published, as long as the author (GHOSTWRITER) is exciteable and interesting. Sure, there are big names, and there are big theories - but it is by far the most highly respected literature.

    It's toilet reading.

    You go subscribe yourself to a nice journal, then we'll talk.

    Perhaps you can go find the paper I collaborated on in the Journal of Nuclear Materials. :p

    #12 redlion

    redlion

    Posted 03 July 2006 - 02:40 PM

    View PostCasilla, on Jul 3 2006, 04:30 PM, said:

    Perhaps you can go find the paper I collaborated on in the Journal of Nuclear Materials. :p
    :o You were published in the JNM? I don't get it, but I've heard of it. Quite a feat you have there :p

    Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image
    Oh, I live to be the ruler of life, not a slave.

    Spoiler

    #13 Guest_Casilla_*

    Guest_Casilla_*

    Posted 03 July 2006 - 02:48 PM

    View PostTr3v0r, on Jul 3 2006, 06:25 AM, said:

    There is evidence that states the earth beaing at a maximum of 5 billion years old ;) Big Bang theory being 2 of them. Aswell as redshift and blue shift. When a star is moving away from earth it gives off red light from the coulor spectrum. When it is coming closer, it emits blue light off the coulor spectrum. hence red shift and blue shift. All evidence that the matter in the universe was so compacted that it exploded creatign the planets, the sun and other stars. Then they all spread out in different directions.
    Actually, our evidence for the age of the Earth has to do with uranium.

    Uranium-238, with it's half-life of 4.5 billion years. Through uranium-lead dating, we have pinpointed the age of the Earth to be approximately 4.55 billion years (give or take 70 million years), given that it's the oldest rock we can find. =D

    I believe (this is from memory, so don't hold it to me) that most uranium formed when the planet did, but only the more stable isotopes, such as U-238, can be used for dating. But we've found other instances than that rock to confirm the age.

    Although, the Big Bang, to my knowledge, doesn't really have to do anything with the age of the Earth. All it does is say that the Earth is younger than the Universe. There is no age involved in the Big Bang; we use other methods to tell the age of the Universe.

    And yes, red/blue shift is part of our evidence for the Big Bang, but it doesn't mean that the Big Bang is necessarily true. It just means that the Universe is expanding. We used the Big Bang theory to explain WHY it's expanding.

    The Universe will still be expanding, no matter what we think.

    View Postredlion, on Jul 3 2006, 02:40 PM, said:

    :o You were published in the JNM? I don't get it, but I've heard of it. Quite a feat you have there :p
    I can see you paid attention in the last few contests. <pinch>

    I should downplay my role in this. <laugh> I was just a lab assistant, helping out with the clerical aspects (proofreading, can you believe it, imaging, cataloging, etc) - but I also did examine samples via microscope, helped with the XPS, etc. And performed a few minor experiments. In no way was I ever involved with the major physics of the operation.

    But the important thing is, my name's on the paper. :p

    Edited by Casilla, 03 July 2006 - 02:48 PM.

    #14 Raui

    Raui

    Posted 03 July 2006 - 03:08 PM

    haha trust Lindsay to be in here laying down her thoughts on quantum mechanics :p

    The fact weather or not black holes die or not i could say "Nothing lasts forever" in which case they would but thats only a earth bound law :p

    Posted Image
    Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image

    #15 Cataliste

    Cataliste

    Posted 03 July 2006 - 03:24 PM

    Holy shit. Sonic got PWND by Cassila.

    You helped write a topic that appeared in the JoNM??

    Cas, I love you. ^_^ <3
    This one is Cata's.

      ▲
    ▲ ▲

    #16 Guest_Casilla_*

    Guest_Casilla_*

    Posted 03 July 2006 - 04:23 PM

    View PostRaui, on Jul 3 2006, 03:08 PM, said:

    haha trust Lindsay to be in here laying down her thoughts on quantum mechanics :p

    The fact weather or not black holes die or not i could say "Nothing lasts forever" in which case they would but thats only a earth bound law :p

    I have a perverse love for infinity.

    View PostCataliste, on Jul 3 2006, 03:24 PM, said:

    Holy shit. Sonic got PWND by Cassila.

    You helped write a topic that appeared in the JoNM??

    Cas, I love you. ^_^ <3
    I love you, too, but you need to stop pushing my buttons.

    Will you, for once, spell my name correctly? Catallsite? :p

    #17 Cataliste

    Cataliste

    Posted 03 July 2006 - 04:29 PM

    Haha. Sorry "Casilla". =P


    I want to be published in some bigwig science magazine. Maybe when I invent the automatic washingmachine (washes yor clothes while your on-the-go, and while they are on your body!) I can obtain that dream. Until then. I shall just pretend to be Casilla and rake in her fans...
    This one is Cata's.

      ▲
    ▲ ▲

    #18 pyke

    pyke

    Posted 03 July 2006 - 04:40 PM

    View PostCataliste, on Jul 3 2006, 09:29 PM, said:

    Haha. Sorry "Casilla". =P
    I want to be published in some bigwig science magazine. Maybe when I invent the automatic washingmachine (washes yor clothes while your on-the-go, and while they are on your body!) I can obtain that dream. Until then. I shall just pretend to be Casilla and rake in her fans...
    Too late, tis already made :lol:

    Posted Image
    Posted Image

    why are you reading this?

    #19 sonic

    sonic

    Posted 05 July 2006 - 10:35 AM

    Steps back after I'm OWNED...........

    Oh and "QED" by feynman is not toilet reading. Its THE AUTHORITY on Quantam mechanics.... OR has been,
    Posted Image[br]

    View Postiargue, on 31 October 2010 - 11:24 PM, said:

    why should I spend time to make a well thought out statement when I am busy programming?

    #20 Guest_Casilla_*

    Guest_Casilla_*

    Posted 05 July 2006 - 03:41 PM

    View PostSonic, on Jul 5 2006, 11:35 AM, said:

    Steps back after I'm OWNED...........

    Oh and "QED" by feynman is not toilet reading. Its THE AUTHORITY on Quantam mechanics.... OR has been,
    Well, not ALL of them, but most of them, yes, as they have been simplified and analogied-down for the masses. Not that that is a bad thing, but it often leads to people saying things without realising what they're saying.

    #21 sonic

    sonic

    Posted 07 July 2006 - 08:33 AM

    View PostCasilla, on Jul 5 2006, 04:41 PM, said:

    Well, not ALL of them, but most of them, yes, as they have been simplified and analogied-down for the masses. Not that that is a bad thing, but it often leads to people saying things without realising what they're saying.

    Agreed,
    Most of them even advertise they are like that.
    Posted Image[br]

    View Postiargue, on 31 October 2010 - 11:24 PM, said:

    why should I spend time to make a well thought out statement when I am busy programming?
    Back to General Debate

    0 user(s) are reading this topic

    0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

    1. Neocodex - Neopets Fan Community and Cheats
    2. → Neocodex Discussions
    3. → General Chat
    4. → General Debate