Recent comments in /f/space

WittyUnwittingly OP t1_j29s599 wrote

Well, even if you took an Alcubierre drive into a singularity, once you get there, there would be no path you could choose to get back out, regardless of what speed you can go. Even if you could somehow distort space enough to "get back," when would you arrive? At the end of the universe?

Seems like your best bet for something that can go into and come out of blackhole, is something that does not obey the normal laws of causality, and can come out of a black hole before it goes in.

1

WittyUnwittingly t1_j29rhr0 wrote

As far as I know, everything, once it crosses the event horizon, is causally disconnected from the exterior. (I. E. There is nothing you can do from the outside, that will affect the inside)

I don't think any special physics are required to explain this other than general relativity. Any changes you make to a black hole cannot fully manifest until the end of the universe. So I guess you COULD gravitationally distort an event horizon, but from the perspective of someone inside, the distortion happens at the same time as everything else (which is all happening at once) at the end of the universe.

1

allthesamepieman t1_j29pqzj wrote

Just because an element is part of a molecule doesn't make it a part of something else. Air is mostly nitrogen, not oxygen. You can't breathe pure water vapor, it's not air. Internal combustion engines cannot burn water vapor. If you can figure out how to burn water you'll be a billionaire and save the planet.

2

spymaster1020 t1_j29part wrote

I've heard of this theory before,something about the information being spread out on the event horizon. But what about when black holes decay through hawking radiation? Does that carry away the information?

4

allthesamepieman t1_j29m4ji wrote

That's because the nuclear part only generates the heat, it doesn't provide the motive force. A steam turbine is the motor but we don't call a steam turbine an engine either even though we could. Nuclear power is used to generate electricity which in turn powers electric motors. That's why we don't call them nuclear motors or engines. We do have some nuclear detonation propulsion engines though but they have a whole host of other problems.

2

dittybopper_05H t1_j29l3z9 wrote

>You could build a steam engine that doesn't require air but it would still be an engine because it uses the heat expansion of water to create a motive force.

We have them today. It's called a "nuclear power plant". No one I know calls it a "nuclear engine", or a "nuclear motor", for that matter. Even when they are used for propulsive power (like for submarines and aircraft carriers).

2

Specialist-Look-7929 t1_j29kry9 wrote

I am not concerned with it. I am just waiting to see humans land on anything outside LEO in my lifetime. I, personally, don't think we are currently capable of it and never were. I know you will all downvote me, and think I'm am idiot, but somehow we managed to land on the moon in the 60s and broadcast to the entire world from space, through radiation belts, but I can't get a cell signal 20 miles outside of a big city. Let alone same TV channel 80 miles out! Seems sus to me. Why haven't we been back to the moon since the 60s? My guess is that we never did go because we can't traverse the Van Allen Belt.

1