faranya wrote:Wouldn't black holes have different masses? If they did, couldn't parts of the black hole be torn apart, and possibly slungshot away from the point of collision farther into space? But of course, I have no theorys or formulas to support this, just a thought
sorry, but physics is NOT ALL about formulas. just jinidu likes to think that the way he likes it is the way it is by itself.
He also invented calculus, which really is all about formulas. Alchemy was considered a proper science back then, and it led to a lot of developments in chemistry. Now of course, physics is the only real science, maths is an art, and chemists are obsolete thanks to Schrodinger's equation.consider galileo, for exemple. and newton was at least half-alchemist.
Do you mean this relationship?archimedes' heureka! was not due to formula, but due to his realization of relationship.
einstein always thought without formulas & non-verbally. only when such meta-thoughts became clear and meaningful by themselves, THEN he started to verbalize them - i.e. formalization comes naturally after meaning is clear.
If they did, couldn't parts of the black hole be torn apart, and possibly slungshot away from the point of collision farther into space?
galileo not only didn't invent calculus. what he did (re)invent, was telescope. which wasn't all about formulas.
That was just a joke. Physicists always look down on other scientists, don't get too worked up about it.if you think physics is today the only real science, then what is your conception of real ?
math isn't art, it just shares certain of its attributes: it is heavily structurally coupled with art. but it's not art. if you state it is, you either overestimate physics, or don't realize art.
alchemy was not considered proper science back then as it is not today, by the same regions of socius.
you ask if your formalization of relationship is what i mean ? no. i stated what you quoted. no more or less. please re-read it and think if your formula is a meaningful question or reply to the meaning of what you quote (starting 'archimedes...').
on 2 black holes horizon, wouldn't it be rather like ellipsoid but with the part in the plane tangent to their contact slightly 'squeezed' ? i mean, what phase of 2blackholes-merge process does ellipsoid shape correspond to?
PWrong wrote:At any rate, I think I act more like an art student than a science student.
Awww... How humble...
Not to be disrespectful to art, but you've done plenty of quality derivations on this board, some of which I wouldn't be able to do myself.
and alchemy doesn't stop or limit itself to Planck scales.
I truly believe that there might come a time when it is possible for humans to understand quantum dynamics intuitively, as cartesian space is intuitively understood today.
thigle wrote:and a question for you: what do you consider most important ? most thought-provoking ? most relevant ? science ?
Return to Non-Spatial Dimensions
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests