Kugelblitz! Powering a Starship With a Black Hole

AthlonSavage
reply to post by stumason

 

I suggest you link the article which main stream science identifies as black hole.

Hahaha, what?

So, an article on Space.com (a well respected site, I might add) that discusses the latest in a black hole science, undertaken by Scientists based at a real observatory (the Instituto de Astrofisica de Canarias) is not "main stream"?

I suggest you get your head out of your arse and do some reading, boyo. Seems like you're a few decades behind the curve...

The main problem I see with using micro-black holes for propulsion, is the amount of energy required to produce them. I think the engine will spend more energy to produce the black hole than it will get out of the black hole evaporating.

P.S. German language has some of the funniest words.

JadeStar

This.

I wonder if the problem of some people on ATS is that they are confusing wormhole (a theoretical object) with black holes (objects which have been detected and observed since the 70s-80s)?

No no. He's (he?) right. You're confusing a picture of the effect with a picture of the phenomenon itself. We can postulate all we want, but as long as there's more than one theory of what's in there, there will be some room to imagine it. If the magnetic holes theory could cause the same outward appearance, then how do you propose it gets ruled out? And naturally, sometimes we miss the right theory altogether.

TKDRL
reply to post by okamitengu

 

What you are seeing captured, is not the black hole. It is the energy being sucked in like a vacume from surrounding stars etc. You can't take a picture of a tornado, what you are taking a picture of is the clouds and debris being tossed around by the tornado, or water if it is a water spout. You can't take a picture of wind, just of the stuff the wind is moving. Making any sense here lol?

i see what you are saying, and to some degree I agree with you, but only because I too like to win arguments on Pedantic little definitions rather than actual science and understanding.
if I can see an effect, and I can photograph the effect, the name we have for the phenomenon that causes that effect is a black hole, or a tornado....
then a photo of that effect *while not the actual event* is often referred to by the name of the supposed cause.
Pedantics at their finest.

From one anally retentive Pedant to another .. well done.

reply to post by JadeStar


I imagine it's an Electric Universe thing.

reply to post by okamitengu


This may be a pedantic little definition when you're observing from a vast distance, but in practical application, it would make a huge difference. Consider what it would take to create, contain and sustain such a thing. Is it pedantic if that completely changes as a result of what's actually in there?