164 reputation
110
bio website twitter.com/orokusaki
location Jupiter, FL
age
visits member for 3 years, 7 months
seen 2 days ago

I'm Michael Angeletti.

I am a Python / Django developer, specializing in SaaS applications.


2d
comment Could the Big Bang have simply been two black holes hitting each other at 99% of the speed of light?
I have a hard time accepting this. It would seem that black holes couldn't move, if it were also the case that matter entering them at a vector has no effect on their position or inertia. I believe that black holes are not in fact as small as they're currently believed to be. P.S. Thanks for the discussion. I just realized it's nearly 1am and I have to work early in the morning. Cheers and have a good night.
2d
comment Could the Big Bang have simply been two black holes hitting each other at 99% of the speed of light?
How could the Big Bang have ever happened. If the universe was a singularity just before the Big Bang, it would have necessarily been the most massive black hole possible. Could it be possible that space is created when matter expands, rather than matter expanding into space? If this were the case, wouldn't that also imply that a new universe could come from any given black hole, perhaps in a different dimension (re: "disconnected from the universe"?
2d
comment Could the Big Bang have simply been two black holes hitting each other at 99% of the speed of light?
That is to say, a black hole doesn't follow the rules of physics? I don't see why there is any reason that 2 equally massive (homogenous and symmetrical for simplicity's sake) objects shouldn't carry their momentum right through each other, like any other object would.
2d
comment Could the Big Bang have simply been two black holes hitting each other at 99% of the speed of light?
Would this also happen, if two planets free-fell into each other?
Feb
27
comment Is it possible to have a black hole in empty space?
No problem, thanks for taking all the time to talk through this with me. It's been very helpful.
Feb
27
comment Is it possible to have a black hole in empty space?
Ah, so then it comes down to the nature of my scenario, where the objects in question would have to orbit at a velocity near the speed of light to maintain this scenario (assuming the escape velocity of their combined mass is near the speed of light). Is this possible, if matter were continuing to be added to the two bodies in a manner which didn't interrupt their angular momentum, but in a manner which caused their orbits to downgrade and thus accelerate? Is the structural integrity of the objects (due to the energy limitations of bonds) the only prohibiting factor in a scenario like this?
Feb
27
comment Is it possible to have a black hole in empty space?
What I'm asking is different. The scenario I'm describing is two orbiting bodies whose (to reference your example) combined mass is 2-3 Msun, but whose individual mass is not enough for each body to collapse into its own black hole. (thanks for all the replies and help - I'm really trying to understand this)
Feb
27
comment Is it possible to have a black hole in empty space?
I guess the thing I'm having a hard time with is accepting that, while mass is energy, that it's somehow not possible to have some combination of mass and kinetic energy (in the form of angular momentum) which equals the same mass required to form a black hole. It feels like magic to think of a scenario where these principles don't apply.
Feb
27
comment Is it possible to have a black hole in empty space?
Is there some special principle that causes them to just suddenly "collapse to a point" after not having done so prior to containing the exact amount of mass necessary, or is it just reaching the proper point on the continuum, and it's simply paradoxical to think of objects as being able to exist in this situation without having already collapsed (presumably incrementally, due to the Roche limit)?
Feb
27
comment Is it possible to have a black hole in empty space?
This answer then concludes that no object can be dense enough to be a black hole unless all of its constituent parts are "touching", which would then conclude that anything inside of a Schwarzschild limit has to be bonded (quite perfectly bonded). Is this true?
Feb
27
comment Is it possible to have a black hole in empty space?
Isn't that what I'm doing though? Where does the continuum end and the matter of fact begin in this theory? Take, for instance, a black hole that had a large gap between two ends of its mass, and that gap was held apart by metal bars (unobtainium bars :). Would that no longer be a black hole, even though its center of mass was between the two?
Feb
27
comment Is it possible to have a black hole in empty space?
What makes a black hole gain physical properties? It's not just one thing, but rather a concept derived from the center of mass of its constituent particles, no?
Feb
27
comment Is it possible to have a black hole in empty space?
Isn't a center of mass meaningful? After all, isn't that what a black hole is comprised of, non-contiguous particles with a center of mass?
Feb
27
comment Is it possible to have a black hole in empty space?
Mass so great that light cannot escape.
Feb
11
comment How much energy would it require to send Earth to Proxima Centauri?
@RobJeffries the actual star. In other words, Earth would be slamming into the star in this scenario.
Feb
10
comment How much energy would it require to send Earth to Proxima Centauri?
The gravitational binding of Earth to the Sun is 2e32 Joules
Aug
20
comment Physical -> Chemical -> Nuclear -> (what comes next)
@HDE226868 If it doesn't matter who does an experiment, why don't I personally do an experiment in my kitchen sink to prove whether or not motor oil is made of oxygen and gold. I'll publish my results just for you.
Aug
15
comment How many joules of energy are required to convert 1 liter of water into hydrogen and oxygen, theoretically?
Thanks so much for all the info, Floris!
Aug
15
comment How many joules of energy are required to convert 1 liter of water into hydrogen and oxygen, theoretically?
Taking the complicated engineering out of the equation, is it at least materially and economically possible to make such a machine that could reuse enough of the energy of burning to bring it up to the level of efficiency (or better) than distillation (which has no energy recapture potential, and also requires energy for condensation)? In other words, is it only impractical because such a machine would be highly complex or is it pretty much unrealistic to ever make something that efficient?
Aug
15
comment How many joules of energy are required to convert 1 liter of water into hydrogen and oxygen, theoretically?
Thanks so much. So, if one was to consider electrolysis followed by burning the resulting hydrogen and oxygen in a sealed environment as a means to produce fresh water from dirty/salty water (as opposed to simply distilling, etc.), they'd basically need a nuclear power plant to make any real headway :/