Egghead Mayorcas just impeached.

[pjmret]

Look kid, you are a twat full of shit, nothing more. So no one has to prove anything to you, least of all me, but you go right ahead believing that you won a Nobel prize. Would anyone even miss you if you vanished on the way back to your trailer today?

Nope, sad but true

of course you dont have to prove anything you claim.
that just means you will look like a liar, a fool, or both.
your choice,
either works for me

 

[Tripoli]

of course you dont have to prove anything you claim.
that just means you will look like a liar, a fool, or both.
your choice,
either works for me

You have no idea how much of a donkey brain you are when asking for proof of something that is a theory. Can you prove the big bang?

 

[pjmret]

You have no idea how much of a donkey brain you are when asking for proof of something that is a theory. Can you prove the big bang?

i'm asking for proof of your claims.
surely you can do something besides whine and blather?
maybe not.

 

[Tripoli]

i'm asking for proof of your claims.
surely you can do something besides whine and blather?
maybe not.

I did prove Hawking radiation escapes a black hole. Your intellectual incompetence is not my responsibility to rectify

 

[pjmret]

I did prove Hawking radiation escapes a black hole. Your intellectual incompetence is not my responsibility to rectify

no you didn't. quote a sentence that says that hawking radiation starts from inside a black hole. i bet you cant

 

[Tripoli]

no you didn't. quote a sentence that says that hawking radiation starts from inside a black hole. i bet you cant

Silly

The similarity between the two theories suggested that black holes could behave as thermal, heat-emitting objects -- a confounding proposition, as black holes by their very nature were thought to never let energy escape, or radiate. Hawking eventually squared the two ideas in 1974, showing that black holes could have entropy and emit radiation over very long timescales if their quantum effects were taken into account. This phenomenon was dubbed "Hawking radiation" and remains one of the most fundamental revelations about black holes.

 

[pjmret]

Silly

The similarity between the two theories suggested that black holes could behave as thermal, heat-emitting objects -- a confounding proposition, as black holes by their very nature were thought to never let energy escape, or radiate. Hawking eventually squared the two ideas in 1974, showing that black holes could have entropy and emit radiation over very long timescales if their quantum effects were taken into account. This phenomenon was dubbed "Hawking radiation" and remains one of the most fundamental revelations about black holes.

Does Hawking radiation come from inside the black hole?

As calculated in the paper “Gravitational Pair Production and Black Hole Evaporation,” there is no emitted radiation from inside a black hole's event horizon

Hawking radiation isn't just for black holes, study shows

In 1974, Hawking showed that black holes aren't stable, but emit radiation and decay. Nearly 50 years later, it isn't just for black holes.

bigthink.com

 

[mark francis]

Trump is a democrat ? Weird
He fought l8ke he'll against the border bill

Dozens of good Americans "fought like hell" to stop the Democrats from passing another Democrat-friendly wasteful spending bill dishonestly disguised as a "border protection" measure.

 

[pjmret]

Silly

The similarity between the two theories suggested that black holes could behave as thermal, heat-emitting objects -- a confounding proposition, as black holes by their very nature were thought to never let energy escape, or radiate. Hawking eventually squared the two ideas in 1974, showing that black holes could have entropy and emit radiation over very long timescales if their quantum effects were taken into account. This phenomenon was dubbed "Hawking radiation" and remains one of the most fundamental revelations about black holes.

However, when the same thing happens just outside the event horizon of a black hole something strange can occur - the negative energy member of the pair (which may be a normal particle or an antiparticle) can cross the event horizon and fall into the black hole, in which case it can continue to exist as part of the black hole - isolated from the rest of the universe. In turn, the positive energy member of the pair (which may be a normal particle or an antiparticle) becomes real since it has lost its virtual twin and can have enough energy to leave the vicinity of the black hole altogether. In this case the total mass of the black hole is reduced because it consumed something with negative energy. Remember, that something may be a normal particle or an antiparticle, it doesn't matter - what matters is that it has negative energy. The missing energy is accounted for in the form of the other member of the pair that is radiated away as ‘Hawking radiation’.

so hawking radiation comes from outside the event horizon.

 

[Tripoli]

Does Hawking radiation come from inside the black hole?

As calculated in the paper “Gravitational Pair Production and Black Hole Evaporation,” there is no emitted radiation from inside a black hole's event horizon

Hawking radiation isn't just for black holes, study shows

In 1974, Hawking showed that black holes aren't stable, but emit radiation and decay. Nearly 50 years later, it isn't just for black holes.

bigthink.com

If the black hole evaporates as a result of Hawking radiation yes it comes from inside the black hole, the fact that the door so to speak is the event horizon is meaningless

 

[pjmret]

Dozens of good Americans "fought like hell" to stop the Democrats from passing another Democrat-friendly wasteful spending bill dishonestly disguised as a "border protection" measure.

so the bill didn't have money to improve border security?
yes or no?

 

[pjmret]

If the black hole evaporates as a result of Hawking radiation yes it comes from inside the black hole, the fact that the door so to speak is the event horizon is meaningless

nope, it evaporates by the influx of negative energy particles, as I just posted. duh
negative energy particles go in and dont come out, so the black hole's mass is reduced.

 

[Tripoli]

nope, it evaporates by the influx of negative energy particles, as I just posted. duh
negative energy particles go in and dont come out, so the black hole's mass is reduced.

New theoretical research by Michael Wondrak, Walter van Suijlekom and Heino Falcke of Radboud University has shown that Stephen Hawking was right about black holes, although not completely. Due to Hawking radiation, black holes will eventually evaporate, but the event horizon is not as crucial as has been believed. Gravity and the curvature of spacetime cause this radiation too. This means that all large objects in the universe, like the remnants of stars, will eventually evaporate.

 

[pjmret]

New theoretical research by Michael Wondrak, Walter van Suijlekom and Heino Falcke of Radboud University has shown that Stephen Hawking was right about black holes, although not completely. Due to Hawking radiation, black holes will eventually evaporate, but the event horizon is not as crucial as has been believed. Gravity and the curvature of spacetime cause this radiation too. This means that all large objects in the universe, like the remnants of stars, will eventually evaporate.

right, evaporate by absorbing negative energy particles, as I've already posted twice, duh.
absorbing particles, not emitting them.

 

[Tripoli]

right, evaporate by absorbing negative energy particles, as I've already posted twice, duh.
absorbing particles, not emitting them.

Evaporate and absorbing are antonyms, so something that is absorbing is growing not evaporating. See the difference between us is that you can read and repeat the lie, but I can comprehend