Anyone come across this site?

> Craigo schrieb:
> --------------------------------------------------
> hawking explains it that way: imagine you´re a
> person living on a ball but you could only see,
> feel in 2D. there´s left/right and
> forward/backward but no height. one day you want
> to do a journey to the end of your world. you
> start walking in a straight line and once you
> arrive where you started (cause it´s a ball).
> because you only know 2 dimensions you can´t
> understand that.
>
> it´s the same for us: some theories propose at
> least 17 dimensions. we only experience 4 (if you
> add the time). so it´s likely that you wont ever
> reach an end if your travelling across the
> universe but for sure there is an end. interesting
> question is: whats outside? (perhaps someone has
> to jump into a black hole to find out, like homer
> simpson getting into the real world in an episode
> )


Flatland [www.geom.uiuc.edu], written in 1884, describes a meeting of beings from different dimensions.


I've read that observations over the last 5-10 years suggest that the rate of expansion in the Universe is increasing. Eventually, if life on Earth lasts long enough to witness it, there won't be stars in the night sky, because the light streaming from them at 300M Kmh/s will be too dim for the naked eye to see. Our instruments will have to suffice. Imagine a clear night sky empty but for the Moon providing illumination reflected from the Sun.

Thinking about the scale of the Universe might reveal how ridiculously miniscule we are, but it says nothing against our significance. Sir Martin Rees, the Royal Astronomer, amongst others probably, once suggested that the Universe, despite it's enormity, is relatively straightforward in appearance compared to the complex mystery of life.

It's a truly horrifying thought that Earth could be the only source of life in the Universe, so I doubt it. There's got to be something else out there racing more than electrons around an atomic track! I prefer to think that life is universal and the universe is alive!

in the next surrounding of a black hole the forces of gravity are changing by a very huge degree on a length of only a few centimeters. so you would be split into small pieces before even reaching the hole itself

Whatever the guy who wrote Flatland was on, I want some

---

[www.mediafire.com] Some say you should click it, you know you want to. [www.gp4central.com] <----GP4 Central

n00binio Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> in the next surrounding of a black hole the forces
> of gravity are changing by a very huge degree on
> a length of only a few centimeters. so you would
> be split into small pieces before even reaching
> the hole itself


Yes, or, once you're crossing the event horizon, you're slowly stretched into cosmic spaghetti, because 'time' is slowed by the overwhelming mass, I think?

the person falling into the hole feels no change in the speed of time. for an exterior person it would look as if the person falling into the hole stands still.

btw thanks to einstein your aging slower compared to others when your driving fast with a car

I don't think Einstein personally helped me age slower... after all, I never met the guy.

_________________________________________________

Williams' Wonders: Jones, K.Rosberg, Piquet, Mansell, Prost, Senna, Hill, Villeneuve, .....?

mcdo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
There's got to be something else out
> there racing more than electrons around an atomic
> track! I prefer to think that life is universal
> and the universe is alive!


Isnt there a particle accelerater in Germany that this year is apparently supposed to be able to create black holes for a very very small amount of time?

---

"Trulli was slowing down like he wanted to have a picnic" LOL

That's most likely CERN who are in switzerland.

My car has been a black hole lately, money just seems to disappear into it.
Sorry about that, couldn't resist.
It'd be hilarious if the particle accelerator disappeared into the black hole it created, well, maybe not, we could all get sucked into it. Have they thought about it.

---

[www.mediafire.com] Some say you should click it, you know you want to. [www.gp4central.com] <----GP4 Central

Lol. Its only very very very small because of the amount of energy needed.

---

"Trulli was slowing down like he wanted to have a picnic" LOL

i was about to say that some guys i know have to be black holes cause of the amount of beer disappearing in them^^

it is cern near zurich, yep

chet Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Isnt there a particle accelerater in Germany that
> this year is apparently supposed to be able to
> create black holes for a very very small amount of
> time?


Yeah they are looking to find the predicted Higgs Boson particle, I think (and correct me if I am wrong here) its meant to cause anti-gravity. As every other force has an anti-force.

---

Everything has an anti particle, however when a normal particle and an anti particle collide, the energy output is e=mc^2 with no losses so a small cluster of particles colliding with anti particles has the potential to destroy the solar system.

I agree.

afaik that energy output is transformed into x-rays. but a huge amount of anti particles could cause a lot of mayham, that´s right.

X rays are still harmful. I might add that you're ouputting energy proportional to the speed of light squared regardless of what form of energy it takes it will simply disintegrate any matter the radiation comes into contact with.

Sim

---

All Hail The New York Giants - Winners of Superbowl XXI, XXV and XLII!

"I'd love to know what goes on in that crazy head of yours sometimes, Sim..." - Locke Cole

LMFAO!!!!!!

---

Everyone knows that million-to-one chances happen 9 times out of 10; indeed, it's a common requirement in fairy tales. If the human didn't have to overcome huge odds, what would be the point? Terry Pratchett - The Science Of Discworld

GPGSL S5 Race driver for IED.

eg if an electron and a positron anhilate each other you´ll get at least 2 quantums with 0,511 MeV of energy each ( more quantums > less energy each) x-ray quantums as used to look into a body have 0,120 MeV max energy. both have the potential to split moleculars (eg the dna what would be important for us) the damage done is always the same (more energy does not mean bigger damage! amount of energy on one quantum only determines if it´s possible to split 2 atoms apart). important is at how many different locations damge is done. that is determined by the amount of particle-antiparticle pairs (more pairs > more quantums)

btw due to that behaviour it´s senseless to say mobile phones cause cancer. the quantums on the em-waves used by them don´t carry enough energy to split dna

sasjag Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>


HAHAHAHAHAHAHA



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/30/2008 08:36PM by Guimengo.