It could very well be that causality itself ceases to exist.

/en /por

It should have a way to jettison the armor if the guy needs to get out. So, uhh, I guess my point is that speculating on the actual pre-Big Bang origins of the universe is really, really hard. So we end up with 2nd generation stars, 3rd gen stars etc and on a long enough time scale, all «fuel» in a galaxy is exhausted. Yeah.

But then again, how much evidence do black holes really leave? Nothing or? There are quite a number of observations which are not just consistent with the presence of black holes, but can only be explained by black holes.

Altho’ I am an atheist I do agree «that the most reasonable place to fit G-d into creation would be pre- Big Bang as the catalyst for the first event» or first cause of the Universe.Of course, this point of view long preceded Hawking! What I was referring to here, is inside the event horizon of a black hole, between the «centre» and the event horizon. In that event, moving/walking would still cost energy, but standing wouldn’t.

Related Discussions:Is the age of the universe the same in all frames?The age of the Universe versus The age of its componentsWhat evidence is there for the cosmological dark age?Age of Universe ?[solved]Reported Post – Dave LeeUniverse Age and Diameter/Speed of Light.Discrepancy between age and size universe?Age and IQParticles and the age of the universePhoton age Originally Posted by Always.Asking So whats my point, If we lived in a universe of just black holes, and one really large one went «supernova» in a big bang type event, would we see the evidence that we see today. This is probably why even Stephen Hawking, who states that there is no need for a G-d or universal consciousness, admits that the most reasonable place to fit G-d in to creation would be pre-Big Bang as the catalyst for the first event. What ‘caused’ the Big Bang might be irrelevant. That’s an interesting view but I feel its flawed, the time scales you are looking at it from are to small. Originally Posted by SowZ37 Most models of the universe I’m aware of that haven’t been discredited, with few exceptions, have the laws of physics break down pre-Big Bang.

What would you call the structure that remains. On the other hand there are, and always have been, points in space that are separating faster than the speed of light (they just need to be sufficiently far apart, as recession speed is proportional to distance). dark galaxies (just a galaxy of black holes) I can’t imagine how such a thing could occur. Expansion is not a speed, so it too cannot be «faster than light». The nature of the physics of a accounting essay writing
«Black hole» is that it can’t blow up. Which is why the universe is thought to be the age it is.»Yes I understand why and how we determine the age of the universe, I was just hoping for a discussion on some of the questions that I have asked. This might lead to the possibility of black holes exploding, but there isn’t much indication of that currently.

What goes in, stay’s in. I mean, I haven’t been in combat myself or anything, so I don’t know that for sure, but I remember Khukri mentioned something about that part being the difficult part in the thread about using dogs to storm bunkers.Once the hallway behind that door is secure, you could always leave a few guys behind to guard the entry team’s back, and they’d watch the cable. Why is it that everyone seems obcessed with black hole’s blowing up.

A power cable could be looked at, but any guy with a bolt cutter could shut your exoskeleton off in that case. Which is why the universe is thought to be the age it is. So we end up with 2nd generation stars, 3rd gen stars etc and on a long enough time scale, all «fuel» in a galaxy is exhausted. OK, but you said «faster than light acceleration in early universe», which is what I was responding to. It is a container that is generated by the amt of filling it has.

I’m thinking you’d just use the suit to enter doorways, so ordinary soldiers could come in behind it after the room is clear. Maybe even use explosive charges to fully fling the armor away? all in all i’m still pointing to the mobile battery not having enough charge to last as the main issue. Only a small proportion of stars become black holes. that existed before the big bang There is no evidence of what existed before the big bang (or even that «before» has any meaning). Yes lets say only 1 in 1000 stars go black hole, and the rest go supernova.

For a black hole of a mass equal to the mass of the Sun, the entire process for it to disappear would take about 10**66 years, or 1 with 66 zeros after it.Thats 1,000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000,000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000 yearsand thats a very small (in fact tiny) black hole.Only 3km across, on this scale the earth would be 9mm across (the size of a peanut)The black hole in the center of our milky way galaxy is 4.1 million solar masses (and even it is a baby)The ones that we have detected from our very limited vantage point on earth can get up to 100-billion-solar-mass, thats a lifespan of 2.099496 followed by 100 zeros, it would have a radius of 1975.198 AU (1 AU is the distance between earth and the sun) or 1.836061 followed by 11 zeros kmSo whats my point, If we lived in a universe of just black holes, and one really large one went «supernova» in a big bang type event, would we see the evidence that we see today. Originally Posted by saul the modular armor would be easily removable from the exoskeleton if the person was injured and had to be taken out. a more advanced mech could be built that had the ability to drop its armor and eject the pilot if given the internal command to do so, however such advances should be looked at in earnest only after a functioning original model is built. The most extreme notion is that they might radiate energy away slightly faster than we currently think.

There is no known mechanism for a black hole to go «supernova». Even for the highest end astrophysicists. Black holes are very well characterised by our current best theory of the universe. On the other hand there are, and always have been, points in space that are separating faster than the speed of light (they just need to be sufficiently far apart, as recession speed is proportional to distance).» What I was referring to here, is inside the event horizon of a black hole, between the «centre» and the event horizon. What ‘caused’ the Big Bang might be irrelevant.

Is the universe much older than we think it is? There is no evidence for that. Something falling into a black hole reaches light speed at the horizon (in as much as you can define speed there) and continues to get faster.

Hi everyone and thanks for the responses,This was not meant to be a conversation on God or god or «there is no evidence» debates.I understand there is no evidence for these sorts of topics, I wanted to discuss hypothetical ideas, postulating forwardA couple hundred years ago there was no evidence a star could go supernova, why cant a black hole. «Acceleration is not a velocity and so cannot be «faster than light». Is the universe much older than we think it is? It could very well be that causality itself ceases to exist. It could very well be that causality itself ceases to exist. This isn’t meant to sound mean, but I don’t see much point to just saying «let’s ignore the evidence and theory» – outside of science fiction.

There is no evidence for most of what I’m talking about here, but if the evidence was out there I would just go read books, instead of trying to get a conversation going.We are scientists, throughout history we have looked behind the curtain and surmised and guessed then we go looking for the evidence, I was just hoping for some open discussion without ridicule, or a string of «there is no evidence» comments, no disrespectThanks for the discussion, I appreciate all the feedback thus far Yes, I know about space expanding and I have a basic understanding of relativity, but its a huge hole in our physics, that’s why I wanted to discuss hypothetical scenariosWe have absolutely no idea why a black hole would go «supernova» but 100+ years ago, we knew of no mechanism that would keep the earth warm as it has or keep the sun burning for as long as it has.»I can’t imagine how such a thing could occur. If you were using it to bust a bunker, then probably the way you’d deploy it, there would always be someone behind the suit to guard the cable. This is probably why even Stephen Hawking, who states that there is no need for a G-d or universal consciousness, admits that the most reasonable place to fit G-d in to creation would be pre-Big Bang as the catalyst for the first event. Most models of the universe I’m aware of that haven’t been discredited, with few exceptions, have the laws of physics break down pre-Big Bang.

We are scientists, throughout history we have looked behind the curtain and surmised and guessed then we go looking for the evidence, I was just hoping for some open discussion without ridicule, or a string of «there is no evidence» comments, no disrespect But that really isn’t how science works. Yes, I know about space expanding and I have a basic understanding of relativity, but its a huge hole in our physics, that’s why I wanted to discuss hypothetical scenarios What is a huge hole in our physics? We have absolutely no idea why a black hole would go «supernova» but 100+ years ago, we knew of no mechanism that would keep the earth warm as it has or keep the sun burning for as long as it has. What would you call the structure that remains.»There is no evidence of what existed before the big bang (or even that «before» has any meaning).»Yeah I agree there completely there is no evidence, which I feel could change once we start detecting gravity waves.

Only a small proportion of stars become black holes.»That’s an interesting view but I feel its flawed, the time scales you are looking at it from are to small. Most of the matter in the universe would still be hydrogen which is not dense enough to collapse and form stars. There might be very rare discoveries by chance or a «lucky guess». This may/will change if and when we have a theory of quantum gravity.

Things like pulsars, quasars, relativistic jets, orbits of stars, etc. So I’m hardly qualified to really answer your question, but after reading it am still fairly confident saying ‘probably not.’ That’s probably where it has the most advantage to offer, because doorway entry is really hard when the enemy knows you’re coming. If there were similar springs in the arms, perhaps it could even hold a weapon at level all day long, but then it would have to exert energy if it wanted to move it away from level, like to lower its weapon toward the ground, or raise it toward the sky. And an explosion somewhere in space would look totally unlike the expanding universe we observe (which is why it is modelled as expanding space, rather than an explosion). faster than light acceleration in early universe Acceleration is not a velocity and so cannot be «faster than light». The suit could stand there all day without using any energy.

But then again, how much evidence do black holes really leave? Nothing or?»There is no evidence for that. Originally Posted by Always.Asking A couple hundred years ago there was no evidence a star could go supernova, why cant a black hole. Dark energy, faster than light acceleration in early universe, dark galaxies (just a galaxy of black holes) that existed before the big bang lighting up with the remains of the explosion (an injection of fuel and basic building blocks from the explosion etc)and the ultimate question with these sorts of life spans. Yes lets say only 1 in 1000 stars go black hole, and the rest go supernova.

A black hole is not a container that can be over filled. Expansion is not a speed, so it too cannot be «faster than light». The more you put in the stronger the «walls» become. The majority of old stars would be left as white dwarfs, neutron stars and similar remnants (with their planets).