Hi.
Give me a few minutes, please. I’m going to answer the posts regarding the poem to be found at
ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/vi … p?t=150447
Just need to dine.
The only sense in which man can be seen as greater than a star would be his complexity which endows him with senses and intelligence…otherwise the stars win hands-down!
In which sense do you use the word, Rewucki?
You have answered yourself.
How do you know that?
Because we are made from materials that were created in the stars, and of course we need their light and heat to survive. What use are we to a star?
Actually there’s one and only one star of that kind that we know about so far.
Goddamn true. Fortunately, there are more of us.
I don’t know. Ask a star.
very constructive…
As is your question.
I don’t. Do you?
That’s good old anthropomorphization. In other words, you don’t know you’re eating your own shit.
Well done. I can’t get these concepts at all.
Higher on which scale? Peaceful for whom?
Your description isn’t satisfying me at any level. And, black holes evaporate. Sorry.
Thanks for that.
Thought parents do. But wait a minute, isn’t this…
I was right.
Personally, I don’t feel like getting any more complicated than I am now.
Tautology. Yawn.
And I decide not to change it until a star tells me I’m wrong.
I’m sorry, I’m not going to answer similar posts anymore.
please don’t, your questions are too vague
Which ones? Some may be vague, but I don’t believe that any too much.
By what?
No big deal.
Mine would be shorter.
I understand.
Good. By the way, my first name is Pawel. So what is it that you would like to forget about?
From man’s point of view, it is that which he places as greater: observer or observed.
well i think your title question is open to interpretations of many kinds. “Greater” can be taken in a variety of senses; all one has to do is pick a sense, and a successful argument will not be a problem.
Exactly. Entirely subjective question.
That’s an honest approach. Thank you for putting the matter that way. I’ll tell you what my view on it is.
First of all, the title question comes from a poem and should be understood in its context first. Another thing is that the poem is an answer to another poem, which shouldn’t be forgotten either. Let’s dig deeper here for a while.
Poetry has its own rights. I think it goes without saying that a good poem is to be felt rather than to be thought - especially word by word. That doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be any thoughts in it, but taking any thought out of the poem usually doesn’t take place without losing its (the thought) proper meaning. The poem’s strength is a matter of playing with images, how they support and enhance one another, so any divisive approach here doesn’t serve its understanding, rather.
I’m happy you’re seeing it this way.
Taken broadly, it seems to be the question of values you take, so let me take it on a more personal ground then: I’m not a humanist. Why I’m not, is another thing. But the poem is, to me, some kind of a tribute to man and a humanistic frame is the best one, I think, for its proper reception.
Concluding, let me take it this way: I’m not telling how things are, what I think they should be, etc. I wrote a poem. Truism is the following: that it might (or might not) be a good read for some and for some it might be thought provoking (and the former doesn’t exclude the latter). But with that said, we have a chance to take a more cautious way of pondering or discussing it (if we still need). Perhaps a more poetic one?
This post is taken from somthing dan~ said in the post: “How long do you think it will take God to judge everyone at the end of days”
I see a lot of debateing of what context this is ment in, read this post and it should make sense to you.
Do you know what a black whole is???
A black whole does not evaporate. Evaporation is when a liquid matter form changes states from semi solid to gas.
A black whole is a rip in the space time continuam caused by massive gravitational pull do to singularity and an extreamly dense infanantly mass orinated center, it does not evaporate. If you would like to view the Physics/makeup of one here:
ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu/211.fall200 … 20Hole.htm
I ask that you get a grasp on your knowledge and information before you consult to an arguement like this again. Your lack of knowledge or understanding is no excuse.
You have the world in your keboad, Its called Google.com Look it up next time you want to debate.
TW,
‘Evaporate’ is a metaphor in some instances, the quotation you refer to could be taken to mean that ‘Black Holes do not last forever’, just as the mass of water eventually diminishes in true evaporation.
So, instead of arguing semantics I guess the question is:
Once a black hole is established, does it last forever?
Suppermasive black holes are the center of many galaxys whitch sugest that their life span may be beyond numerization in years of time. Which could conclude to human definition of lifespan perhaps makes it eternal, Though nothingexists forever without changing or evolveing from one thing to the next.
Here are some articals.
google.com/search?hl=en&lr=& … black+hole
Ah I found the article that gave him the Idea they evaporated. Seti did some research with boinc it is a theory and suposition.
Heres the link: forum.majorgeeks.com/archive/ind … 26567.html
The average oppinion of most scientist is that a black hole has no limit to its lifespan. Which would make it eternal to a point the universe colapsed in on itself.
I know Google’s cool.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_Radiation
Black hole evaporation
When particles escape, the black hole loses a small amount of its energy and therefore of its mass (recall that mass and energy are related by Einstein’s famous equation E = mc²).
The power emitted by a black hole in the form of Hawking radiation can easily be estimated for the simplest case of a nonrotating, non-charged Schwarzschild black hole of mass M. Combining the formulae for the Schwarzschild radius of the black hole, the Stefan-Boltzmann law of black-body radiation, the above formula for the temperature of the radiation, and the formula for the surface area of a sphere (the black hole’s event horizon) we get:
P={\hbar\,c^6\over15360\,\pi\,G^2M^2}
where P is the energy outflow, \hbar is the reduced Planck constant, c is the speed of light, and G is the gravitational constant. It is worth mentioning that the above formula has not yet been derived in the framework of semiclassical gravity.
The power in the Hawking radiation from a solar mass black hole turns out to be a minuscule 10−28 watts. It is indeed an extremely good approximation to call such an object ‘black’.
Under the assumption of an otherwise empty universe, so that no matter or cosmic microwave background radiation falls into the black hole, it is possible to calculate how long it would take for the black hole to evaporate. The black hole’s mass is now a function M(t) of time t. The time that the black hole takes to evaporate is:
t_{\operatorname{ev}}={5120\,\pi\,G^2M_0^{\,3}\over\hbar\,c^4}
For a black hole of one solar mass (about 2\times1030 kg), we get an evaporation time of 1067 years—much longer than the current age of the universe. But for a black hole of 1011 kg, the evaporation time is about 3 billion years. This is why some astronomers are searching for signs of exploding primordial black holes.
In common units,
P = 3.563\,45 \times 10^{32} \left[\frac{\mathrm{kg}}{M}\right]^2 \mathrm{W}
t_\mathrm{ev} = 8.407\,16 \times 10^{-17} \left[\frac{M_0}{\mathrm{kg}}\right]^3 \mathrm{s} \ \ \approx\ 2.66 \times 10^{-24} \left[\frac{M_0}{\mathrm{kg}}\right]^3 \mathrm{yr}
M_0 = 2.282\,71 \times 10^5 \left[\frac{t_\mathrm{ev}}{\mathrm{s}}\right]^{1/3} \mathrm{kg} \ \ \approx\ 7.2 \times 10^7 \left[\frac{t_\mathrm{ev}}{\mathrm{yr}}\right]^{1/3} \mathrm{kg}
So, for instance, a 1 second-lived black hole has a mass of 2.28 × 105 kg, equivalent to an energy of 2.05 × 1022 J that could be released by 5 × 106 megatons of TNT. The initial power is 6.84 × 1021 W.
Black hole evaporation has several significant consequences:
* Black hole evaporation produces a more consistent view of black hole thermodynamics, by showing how black holes interact thermally with the rest of the universe.
* Unlike most objects, a black hole's temperature increases as it radiates away mass. The rate of temperature increase is exponential, with the most likely endpoint being the dissolution of the black hole in a violent burst of gamma rays. A complete description of this dissolution requires a model of quantum gravity, however, as it occurs when the black hole approaches Planck mass and Planck radius.
* The simplest models of black hole evaporation lead to the black hole information paradox. The information content of a black hole appears to be lost when it evaporates, as under these models the Hawking radiation is random (containing no information). A number of solutions to this problem have been proposed, including suggestions that Hawking radiation is perturbed to contain the missing information, that the Hawking evaporation leaves some form of remnant particle containing the missing information, and that information is allowed to be lost under these conditions.
I will.
True.
I’m going to comment on that more broadly soon.