h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Bravo, ITIWBS! Very clear, and very lucid.

Some years back, I inflicted Stephen Hawking's book "A Brief History of Time" on my discussion group. Amazingly, we all survived the ordeal and remained friends. I do recall Hawking's theory that black holes could gradually melt away.

In one of your earlier posts, you had mentioned the very small black holes, and I had assumed that you were referring to something other than gravity as the force that formed them. The Holy Grail of physicists is the dream of a unified field theory in which the four forces holding the universe together could be explained by one consistent theory. So, if gravity wasn't enough to pull a black hole's guts inside it and keep them there, then the force involved must be one of the other three: 1. strong nuclear interaction, which holds quarks together to form neutrons and protons, 2. Electromagnetic interaction, or 3. weak nuclear interaction. Which of these three do you think would be most likely to be involved in forming a very small black hole?

Its still gravity that holds it together (if its a black hole), but momentum and inertia that force together into a sufficiently compact space in the first place with an ultralight instead of its own gravity.

Its still its own gravity that holds it together after its formed (if its a black hole), but momentum and inertia that force together into a sufficiently compact space in the first place with an ultralight instead of its own gravity.

The difference is that the force is applied externally rather than an operation of its own intrinsic gravity.

...one of Einstein's great insights, demonstration of the equivalency of the different kinds of acceleration...

Things are starting to seem clearer.

I'm still puzzled by Gnomon's remark from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/brunel/F1926355?thread=5938069 BBC - h2g2 - A Conversation Forum, post 10. Space not black, but instead "a very faint shade of beige"?

I'm going to wait for someone *else* to figure out what it means--is Doctor Pangloss in the house?

Dr. Pangloss?

Dr. Pangloss is the eternally optimistic philosopher who teaches young Candide in Volatire's "candide." His mantra is: all is for the the best in this best of all possible worlds.

A pleasant thought.

, and its only 8:00 pm. On the bright side, my insomnia that's been troubling me the past few nights is finally passing.

Iti, see post 29 in my thread, Gnoman has put a link for explanation

Since the confusion is rapidly increasing on this thread and on the Prof's similar thread, mixing what is essential to my personal interests with what is peripheral, jokes with seriousness, misunderstandings and unclarity with the optimum simplicity needed to comprehend complexity, I shall take this chance to return to where I had hoped to stay before. I wish you the best and shall continue to take an interest for the sake of possible future insights:

The CERN project's extended downtime is not helping things either.

i shall humbly unsubscribe as i have not time (and very probably no brain capacity either) to follow your thoughts and stuff. i hope to meet you again in other threads, though

Can someone tell me whats been going on

I enjoy the challenge of debate , for it is through such interactions that we are exposed to a platitude of thought processes , which we might not naturally have experienced.
Philosophy I believe is derived from ancient Greek meaning “ love of knowledge” and has a reliance on “reasoned argument“.
I applauded the bravery of all those who are no more than entries in encyclopaedias for there contributions as they did not enjoy the multitude of technological advances, like we have today.
I consider myself to be no more than a lame amateur in such matters but feel compelled to engage conversations and put my contribution forward whether it be unwittingly right or wrong.

You and I are kindred souls in that, winternights.

This is a great thread for fans of Douglas Adams, given that he wrote with the idea that universe was trying to mess with our minds and confuse us, zapping us whenever we weren't looking . If you can't laugh at the universe occasionally, you become a bit like Einstein and the physicists that he feuded one, one of whom denied him the Nobel that he most deserved. (He did win a Nobel, but in another field.) But that's nothing compared to Wittgenstein, who got into a fistfight with another philosopher in the early 1950s.

Was it Einstein that once said that for “ever action there is a equal a opposite reaction“ ,(please correct me if I am wrong).
I believe largely in this polarised train of thought.
We have life / death, black/ white and true or false , they are all perceptions and remain so whilst we address them with determined vigour .
Quantum states that nothing is so determined until the observer gets involved.
The detail of the physical world would drive you mad , if not for a little humour now and then.

F1926355?thread=5938069&skip=0&show=20
your welcome to call in here Winternights

The phytsical world has already driven me mad .

I believe that madness is not what you see but what others see in you, there is a fine line, I have been led to believe, between madness and creativity.
Being off the ball park is not a bad thing, it simply means that you are hunting for what you instinctively believes is true.