GW150914
Joined 8 years ago
Karma
1,360
Submissions
592
Member since
Apr 8
Recent submissions
Comment · 8 years ago
The whole point of a black hole is that nothing can support its own mass past a certain point. A black hole is a region more than it is an object, with a singularity beyond an event horizon. If there really is a singularity, it is a point or ring, not a sphere. There are other conjectures which replace the singularity with something else, like masses of strings, but it doesn’t really matter to the universe outside of the event horizon.
As to it being a source of dark matter, the idea that black holes and other compact objects are dark matter is encapsulated in the MACHO (MAssive Compact Halo Object) theory. It is extremely unlikely to be correct, because observations largely rule this out. Black holes warp spacetime around them and result in detectable phenomena as a result of gravitational lensing. It would appear that such lensing is not common enough to allow for black holes in sufficient quantity to explain dark matter.
Comment · 8 years ago
If you really meant dense then you have to rememberer that the average density of a black hole enjoys an inverse proportionality to its volume. In other words a supermassive black hole is far less dense on average than a much smaller hole. However it is still far far denser than a whole galaxy, which is mostly empty space and diffuse dust.
I don’t think you meant dense though, I think you meant mass, because that’s sort of how your post seems to be phrased. The answer then is that it is a minute fraction of the mass of the galaxy. Sag A* is about 4 million solar masses, and the Milky Way has 250 billion stars, many of which are far more massive than Sol. Even ignoring other objects like stellar remnants and nebulae, the mass of the central black hole is negligable on the scale of the whole galaxy.
Comment · 8 years ago
Well at least I nailed the personality disorder bit.
Comment · 8 years ago
Three articles of “data” yes...
So we have a HuffPo article, an article from MarriPedia (a religious site) and an abstract from the Sociology and Religion department of The Association of Sociolgy and Religion. Three famously unbiased, data-driven outlets (/s) which even then, only tangentially support part of your point, and then only through the loosest of correlations.
Quantity is no substitute for quality.
Comment · 8 years ago
I mean, he said it outright: “I think you'll find that most people who 'keep the wallet' are probably not religious...”
I don’t think it’s so much a carried or implied assumption as his central thesis, and his justification down the thread is a page of more claims and anecdotes. Call me cynical, but I don’t think there is any “there” there.
Comment · 8 years ago
Tesla is facing the prospect of needing to sell a honking load of stock at a discount to deal with their debt, and to do that they need a high stock price. While Musk appears to be a liability in many areas, he is the focus for a cult of personality that has made Tesla what it is, and has shown incredible talent for inflating the price of Tesla’s stock on that basis.
So while Tesla as a healthy company without crushing impending debt would almost certainly be better off without him, Tesla as it is only really exits because of his presence. Long term they have to actually make a lot of money and stop hemorrhaging money, and get out of their death spiral. Short term the only way to do that is sell expensive stock, and that stock is expensive because of the cult of Musk.
Comment · 8 years ago
Well that totally doesn’t sound like someone with a personality disorder. /s
I’m fairly sure that history will almost instantly forget them, because they exist to be disposable, to be replaced, and as interest and attention moves on their “mark” on history will be exceedingly shallow. Maybe that’s the difference between this constructed “reality” and... reality. Something real can be lasting, while this cotton candy version of reality only seems substantial from a certain angle, for a little while. It’s a kind of shallow “reality” for shallow people with minuscule attention spans.
Comment · 8 years ago
It’s a giant country, and despite what people in the Silicon Valley bubble think, there are a lot of cities with a lot of space. This is an insoluble problem if everyone demands acces to a spot in one or two major cities, because that’s where VC money is concentrated. That’s not a problem for most people though, who frankly don’t care about housing problems or traffic problems for techies. They’ll switch over to EV’s, but good luck trying to get them to embrace trains and busses.
Comment · 8 years ago
Considering that “cars owners” in America represent 88%, maybe it’s just an alignment of interests. Maybe alternatives are rejected not because of these subtle systemic issues, but rather because a supermajority of Americans own cars and don’t want the alternatives? Talking about “car owners” like that isn’t synonymous with “most Americans” is a very particular way to frame the issue that makes it seem like a top-down structure when it isn’t.
Comment · 8 years ago
People will just “pirate” the web. As for no ads, people who want that experience already get it for free. Given the incredibly low quality of most ad supported content, maybe the real solution is for much of it to die.
Comment · 8 years ago
We already do pay to help raise other poeple’s kids through a variety of taxes, including public schools via property tax. This would be more of a subsidy for reproducing, rather than helping to raise them. I think it’s only rational for a community to invest in good outcomes for children, because the alternatives are not only undesireable and immoral, but more expensive. Actually subsidizing having children though, rather than investing in existing children isn’t something quite so simple. If you want to have children and are willing to make the associated sacrifices, good for you, it entire ask me to mitigate those sacrifices when I’ve chosen to not have children. I’m still happy to pay my taxes and invest thereby in their education and health, but propping up your career? No.
Comment · 8 years ago
It’s sad that you can’t opt out and just pay for coffee. If it were just an option it would be fine, but this is the only way.
Comment · 8 years ago
The article itself is... not worth commenting on, but I’ll just comment on the irony of referring to Bitcoin as a “meteor” when far from enjoying a meteoric rise, it has crashed and burned. Beyond that, it looks like they don’t actually refute any arguments, just float the lazy idea that the economists in question are protecting their jobs because crypto would... ruin them? Because reasons?
It seems like the equivalent of someone preaching homeopathy and saying that doctors who don’t like it are just protecting their jobs because if homeopathy takes off, they’re ruined. Only it’s somehow even more poorly presented in this article. You know the routine, pharmaceutical companies are hiding the miracle cure for cancer to make money on treatments, but... with crypto.
How did it come to this?!
Comment · 8 years ago
Plus, he’s still facing a raft of civil suits beyond the SEC, even beyond the one from the man he kept accusing of being a pedophile.
As I said, beyond that suit, i.e. the suits he’s facing over the tweets. And the DOJ investigation.
If you try that stuff here you might get your legs broke.
We once found a dead guy face-down in the Slurm!
It could easily happen again to you folks.”