March 6, 2024: Dwarf Fortress 50.12 has been released.
News: February 3, 2024: The February '24 Report is up.
News: February 4, 2021: Dwarf Fortress Talk #28 has been posted.
News: November 21, 2018: A new Threetoe story has been posted.
Forum Guidelines
...so, discussion on "what would happen when you fall into a black hole?" Well, assuming you weren't spaghetti'd (which you would be), then I think this page, written by people who actually know what they're talking about, should be useful.That didn't really address any of the issues brought up. It goes on about the conclusions, but has little to nothing about how they were reached.
If anyone's interested, I recently acquired an extra Silver Botkiller Mk. II Flamethrower.3 scrap? Or did you mean 3 ref?
It's selling for 3 scrap and two soldier weapons, if you can spare them.
Eh. The elephant is all wrinkly! No, it's all stout like a tree! No, it's soft and prehensile!I think part of this discussion involves challenging the common interpretation of GR.
I wish only people who actually understand GR spoke from now on. Not that I'm not guilty as any other here, though.
+1But if you never observe it getting into the black hole, then how can you enter the black hole yourself? You'd need to do it after the object ahead of you does it, and it essentially never does as long as you're still outside. The distance between you would shorten, but you still wouldn't be ahead of it - and thus not in the black hole. If you want cross the black horizon, you would need to essentially crash into the object ahead of you to do it.
That's why it's sorta like a Zeno's paradox.
Yes! This is EXACTLY like a Zeno's paradox. I didn't know the name of it, or I woulda said that at the very beginning. It's also wrong for the same reason that Achilles will obviously surpass the tortoise.
The Schwarzschild radius is the radius at which light cannot escape the gravitational pull of the black hole. As you get closer and closer to that radius, from the outside, it takes longer and longer for any light that started there to get to the outside. It's not that an infalling object never actually passes the horizon, but that you will never see the light from it as it did so, and the light you see from just before it fell in takes an extraordinarily huge amount of time to reach you. Something like that.
All hail our robotic overlords!So they're just fancy traffic cams?Quote“There are certain drivers who don’t respect the traffic police. But with the robot it will be different. We should respect the robot,” taxi driver Poro Zidane told AFP.
... or traffic cops, anyway.
Darths and Droids is hilarious.If you like that, he did another comic before that called "DM of the Rings".
Hm, I wonder how plausible life on a planet orbiting a binary star would be. (If the planet is close enough to the stars that it is obvious that it is a binary system)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_star#Planets
If breaking the glass increases it's entropy, then putting it back together must lower it's entropy. But since the second law is being thrown around so much, according to it, the total entropy of the universe can only increase. Since the entropy of the glass alone can oscillate back and forth, talking about it in the context of this conversation is meaningless. It was a terrible example and should have never been introduced.EDIT: Lagslayer, if you're using your argument, literally nothing in physics is in a closed system.It's a valid argument! Let's abandon entropy and create semioticcentropalpy.
New question: why don't refrigerators decrease entropy?It doesn't remove heat, it simple redistributes it. All that heat is re deposited outside the refrigerator. Combined with the less than 100% efficiency of the redistribution system, it creates more heat than there was to begin with.
There is now a Five Nights at Freddy's 3. Jesus fucking Christ. Though they may have nothing in common in game terms, FNAF is shaping up to be a low-budget Call of Duty: a series that started out good, now a treadmill of nonstop rehashes designed to capitalize on the accumulated momentum of the hype train and only fun for 10-year-olds and desperate Let's Players.I've never even played the games and I'm long sick of them. The fans are so unimaginative, or at least the ones I've come into contact with. No original works or content, just blind references in everything. "LOOK! THIS EXISTS!" gets boring really fast.
So since it isn't all put together in an arbitrarily defined manner, it has more entropy? What if the glass is intended to be in small shards? Would that mean the properly formed glass has more entropy? It's not a simple matter of a baseline, it's also assuming a particular vector has more meaning. This means nothing on such a large scale.
No, it is not like saying the sun has more mass than the earth. That operates on the molecular level and smaller. It's comparing apples to pigeons. "Entropy" has no meaning unless it's a much smaller scale.
...Except that that's completely false. Entropy is "a measure of the number of specific ways in which a thermodynamic system may be arranged", which means that it applies to all closed systems, macroscopic or no. The statement "irreversible processes increase the combined entropy of the system and its environment" also means that breaking glass (which is an irreversible process) will always increase entropy.
Because a shattered glass has higher entropy than a whole glass.That statement is complete nonsense. Why would you define an unbroken glass as the baseline for measuring entropy?
