I'm know I don't have ADD, I'm a 9th grader in highschool and I have almost all A's, All honors classes, and a 4.8 GPA. But, to maintain all this I have to wake up at 3:00 AM, or finish it in the car ride to school. I'm really afraid of this and my grades are starting to dip to B'S but since their honors classes they count as A's for my GPA, BUt this is still bad for me, my mom will kill me and I really need to have all A's. Please someone help me to stop being lazy and increase my ability to do my homework.
P.S. When I;m not doing what I'm supposed to I'm usually looking at tech stuff on the computer, reading, reading popular science, or surfing the web on sites like this, not necasirily bad things just not useful and makes it harder for me to finish my homework and study.
Serious answers please.How can I get myself to concentrate more with my homework and other stuuf?
i read ur first and last sentences. U need to make it happen!!! only u can and have the choices. B's are OK! Ur mom won't kill u. just start to focus on the part of the day that u have to. {the homework} it will go easier if u do.and then u can play what u want to.. u need to do the things u have to first and then play..that is life...L
To accomplish big things you have to work hard. Stay focused and know what your working towards. Talk to your Mom and let her know how hard things are so she can help you.How can I get myself to concentrate more with my homework and other stuuf?
i did the same damn thing in HS...the only way to stop getting on the computer or doing whatever ELSE instead of studying is to JUST STODU. set aside 2 hours (at least in college) RIGHT AFTER SCHOOL like when you were a kid and those were the parents rules. "you don't get to do anything fun until your homework is done" sometimes the moxt blatant/direct way is the best way. JUST DO IT. don't hold yourself back on your futureHow can I get myself to concentrate more with my homework and other stuuf?
When your doing your homework why dont you do it all and then reward yourself by getting on the websites you like or doing something you like to do. When studying study for like 30 minutes take a break for like 15 minutes but go back to it nad just keep it up until you think you know it all.
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
How do you visualize black holes in a spacetime fabric?
Many popular science books make reference to black holes. When I picture a black hole, I tend to think of it as a pin-hole in a balloon....I think of this balloon as a universe surrounded by much less dense region. In this way, I think of a black hole like the drain at the bottom of a bathtub, with the matter sucked into it escaping into some other unknown region.
I visualize the black hole this way because I tend of think of the universe like a big balloon (with boundaries). I know this is not correct, but my brain can't imagine a black hole floating freely about in the "balloon's" empty internal volume. Where would the matter escape too?
Question-In-Summary: How should I visualize black holes using some earthly metaphor?How do you visualize black holes in a spacetime fabric?
The most common visualization is that of a pool ball on a rubber sheet. The sheet sinks down to a minimum with the ball at the lowest point. This is a good 2d representation. As for 3d, imagine the pool ball sinking into the rubber sheet again, and then add rubber sheets parallel to all of the infinite planes intersecting the ball. The ball also sinks into these. This is a much better picture than the 2d representation, and really shows that the black hole (or any other object) is pulling space in towards itself instead of sinking into space-time like most diagrams show.
We don't really know if the matter goes somewhere else when it enters the black hole, but theoretically it would become part of the singularity, meaning it would pretty much go nowhere.
thinking of the universe as a drain isnt that bad but let me make it a little easier to under stand a black hole doesnot roam freely like in a bathtub true its radius keeps expanding after it sucks somthing in but it doesnt move if it runes out of things to suck it just stays in 1 spot for somthing
"Spacetime fabric" has been just about a long used cliche to explain that space is not empty and devoid of any substance. Stace must be a substance just like water is a substance and things float in it. Time in space exits only as potential barriers where moving celestial body cross it.
If worm holes per relativity theory are real just as black holes. Then it appears that a worm hole would suck in a black hole in no time at all.
try to think about the universe more like a raisin, a black hole just cuts thru on one side of a ripple then opens up on the other side.
Consider a two dimensional universe. Use the third dimension (that our brains can visualize) as a measure of gravitational force. So if there was no gravity in a region, the 2D universe would be modeled as a flat plane with no variation in the third D.
A block hole, then is a place where gravity goes to infinity, so the surface around it would be stretched in the third D to infinity.
Once you have mastered imagining a 2D universe, you can then begin to start on a 3D universe with a forth D needed to capture the force of gravity.
Oh well, I tried...
I see it as a black on black slowly swirling spot in the universe.
Sort of a fish eye view. Thats how my brain has to visualize it.
And as for where the matter goes, Couldn't it be recycled into new planets in a dimension we can not see.? Is it still there in a from we can't see or track with our current level of tech?
This question generates more questions than answers.....lol
If you thought of the sun as a bowling ball and the earth as a marble and place them on a mattress which represents space-time, you can see the effect that gravity has.
Now if you had something that was so heavy and small (dunno a hunk of depleted uranium) that would warp the fabric and tear the mattress, that would be a black hole.
That how's I understand it.
the visualization with the drain isn't too bad
it just surpresses the third dimension, which must not necessarily be in place to have the complete picture
you may get a better understanding about black holes that they not just consist of an event horizon and thats it.
In fact it has a surface and its just becoming a black hole if the event horizons is somewhere above this surface.
matter falling into it will increase its mass, causing the surface to grow, and the event horizon to be at a greater distance to the surface.
This way black holes can grow to enormous sizes.
The one believed to be at our galaxy center is believed to have the size of our complete solar system.
so theres nothing wrong with your 2D visualization, cause any 3D view on it from a single location in space is like having a 2D picture.
The whole story just gets a little more tricky if you consider what happens to time if objects fall into it. The time passing for an observer, and the time for somone falling into it.
The black hole solution to the equations of general relativity is actually not all that hard to think about. Like all solutions to the equations of general relativity, it is a curved object in four dimensional space-time, but actually a black hole is spherically symmetric in the space dimensions, and (for the basic formal solution) static in the time dimension. It therefore varies in only one dimension: radius.
At large radii, the solution looks just like ordinary, flat Minkowskian spacetime. As you move inward, however, you find that the area of a sphere surrounding the center is larger than you would expect from a flat geometry, if you measure distance inward from some point far away. That is the basis for the horn-shaped hole that is often used to depict black holes in popularizations, where the depth of the hole is not in any sense real, but is a dimension in a 6-dimensional flat embedding space, and reflects that fact that there is a lot more "distance" to the center than you would expect from measuring a sphere surrounding the center. This state of things continues to get more extreme until you get to the Schwarzschild radius. There, the radial coordinate really blows up and becomes "timelike", meaning that future time now points inwards, toward the singularity at the center. Moving toward the center now becomes as inevitable as moving forward in time, although a person dropping through this radius in a pure vacuum solution would not notice any change. After a finite amount of time, you get crushed at the singularity at the center never to return (or come out anywhere else, for that matter---it's the end of time for you).
Because of this swapping of radius and time at the Schwarzschild radius, it is not possible to compare a black hole to any 3-dimensional object you can visualize. Fundamentally, this comes from the difference between the idea of distance in Euclidean geometry and the idea of distance in Relativity, where there are curves of null (i.e. zero) length connecting many different points.
ummm yeah!!!! Seriously though I know that we are to think of this flat plane in the universe but I'm just not buyin that. The stars and other solar systems are all around us so if it were some flat plane wouldn't we all line up on this plane.I'm also not buyin into this " The universe is non-ending" Let's look at the universe from a different perspective shall we. How about we go micro for a minute. If we all lived on this tiny micro universe and we were just a speck of existence thorough the micro universe we would be oblivious to our known universe. I know I'm kinda hard to follow but stay with me. We are but a spec of dust on the edge of a remote solar system pee ons away from anything that vaguely close to us. Who's to say we are not apart os some tiny micro organism flowing through some vast openness and this black hole is just some vent. I think we as humans think too highly of our existence but Kinda like the drain thing going on there keep up with that.
I visualize the black hole this way because I tend of think of the universe like a big balloon (with boundaries). I know this is not correct, but my brain can't imagine a black hole floating freely about in the "balloon's" empty internal volume. Where would the matter escape too?
Question-In-Summary: How should I visualize black holes using some earthly metaphor?How do you visualize black holes in a spacetime fabric?
The most common visualization is that of a pool ball on a rubber sheet. The sheet sinks down to a minimum with the ball at the lowest point. This is a good 2d representation. As for 3d, imagine the pool ball sinking into the rubber sheet again, and then add rubber sheets parallel to all of the infinite planes intersecting the ball. The ball also sinks into these. This is a much better picture than the 2d representation, and really shows that the black hole (or any other object) is pulling space in towards itself instead of sinking into space-time like most diagrams show.
We don't really know if the matter goes somewhere else when it enters the black hole, but theoretically it would become part of the singularity, meaning it would pretty much go nowhere.
thinking of the universe as a drain isnt that bad but let me make it a little easier to under stand a black hole doesnot roam freely like in a bathtub true its radius keeps expanding after it sucks somthing in but it doesnt move if it runes out of things to suck it just stays in 1 spot for somthing
Report Abuse
How do you visualize black holes in a spacetime fabric?"Spacetime fabric" has been just about a long used cliche to explain that space is not empty and devoid of any substance. Stace must be a substance just like water is a substance and things float in it. Time in space exits only as potential barriers where moving celestial body cross it.
Report Abuse
How do you visualize black holes in a spacetime fabric?If worm holes per relativity theory are real just as black holes. Then it appears that a worm hole would suck in a black hole in no time at all.
Report Abuse
try to think about the universe more like a raisin, a black hole just cuts thru on one side of a ripple then opens up on the other side.
Consider a two dimensional universe. Use the third dimension (that our brains can visualize) as a measure of gravitational force. So if there was no gravity in a region, the 2D universe would be modeled as a flat plane with no variation in the third D.
A block hole, then is a place where gravity goes to infinity, so the surface around it would be stretched in the third D to infinity.
Once you have mastered imagining a 2D universe, you can then begin to start on a 3D universe with a forth D needed to capture the force of gravity.
Oh well, I tried...
I see it as a black on black slowly swirling spot in the universe.
Sort of a fish eye view. Thats how my brain has to visualize it.
And as for where the matter goes, Couldn't it be recycled into new planets in a dimension we can not see.? Is it still there in a from we can't see or track with our current level of tech?
This question generates more questions than answers.....lol
If you thought of the sun as a bowling ball and the earth as a marble and place them on a mattress which represents space-time, you can see the effect that gravity has.
Now if you had something that was so heavy and small (dunno a hunk of depleted uranium) that would warp the fabric and tear the mattress, that would be a black hole.
That how's I understand it.
the visualization with the drain isn't too bad
it just surpresses the third dimension, which must not necessarily be in place to have the complete picture
you may get a better understanding about black holes that they not just consist of an event horizon and thats it.
In fact it has a surface and its just becoming a black hole if the event horizons is somewhere above this surface.
matter falling into it will increase its mass, causing the surface to grow, and the event horizon to be at a greater distance to the surface.
This way black holes can grow to enormous sizes.
The one believed to be at our galaxy center is believed to have the size of our complete solar system.
so theres nothing wrong with your 2D visualization, cause any 3D view on it from a single location in space is like having a 2D picture.
The whole story just gets a little more tricky if you consider what happens to time if objects fall into it. The time passing for an observer, and the time for somone falling into it.
The black hole solution to the equations of general relativity is actually not all that hard to think about. Like all solutions to the equations of general relativity, it is a curved object in four dimensional space-time, but actually a black hole is spherically symmetric in the space dimensions, and (for the basic formal solution) static in the time dimension. It therefore varies in only one dimension: radius.
At large radii, the solution looks just like ordinary, flat Minkowskian spacetime. As you move inward, however, you find that the area of a sphere surrounding the center is larger than you would expect from a flat geometry, if you measure distance inward from some point far away. That is the basis for the horn-shaped hole that is often used to depict black holes in popularizations, where the depth of the hole is not in any sense real, but is a dimension in a 6-dimensional flat embedding space, and reflects that fact that there is a lot more "distance" to the center than you would expect from measuring a sphere surrounding the center. This state of things continues to get more extreme until you get to the Schwarzschild radius. There, the radial coordinate really blows up and becomes "timelike", meaning that future time now points inwards, toward the singularity at the center. Moving toward the center now becomes as inevitable as moving forward in time, although a person dropping through this radius in a pure vacuum solution would not notice any change. After a finite amount of time, you get crushed at the singularity at the center never to return (or come out anywhere else, for that matter---it's the end of time for you).
Because of this swapping of radius and time at the Schwarzschild radius, it is not possible to compare a black hole to any 3-dimensional object you can visualize. Fundamentally, this comes from the difference between the idea of distance in Euclidean geometry and the idea of distance in Relativity, where there are curves of null (i.e. zero) length connecting many different points.
ummm yeah!!!! Seriously though I know that we are to think of this flat plane in the universe but I'm just not buyin that. The stars and other solar systems are all around us so if it were some flat plane wouldn't we all line up on this plane.I'm also not buyin into this " The universe is non-ending" Let's look at the universe from a different perspective shall we. How about we go micro for a minute. If we all lived on this tiny micro universe and we were just a speck of existence thorough the micro universe we would be oblivious to our known universe. I know I'm kinda hard to follow but stay with me. We are but a spec of dust on the edge of a remote solar system pee ons away from anything that vaguely close to us. Who's to say we are not apart os some tiny micro organism flowing through some vast openness and this black hole is just some vent. I think we as humans think too highly of our existence but Kinda like the drain thing going on there keep up with that.
How long before directed energy weapons make there way onto the modern battle fields?
I'm just curious because i read in popular science that the army is working on microwave cannons and electromagnetic rail-guns.How long before directed energy weapons make there way onto the modern battle fields?
it already is... here is one you can check out
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technolo鈥?/a>
edit:
here is another one for ya
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopi鈥?/a>How long before directed energy weapons make there way onto the modern battle fields?
they are already in use, but are too expensive for use in combat, so until they find a cheap way to mass produce them, they wont have them.How long before directed energy weapons make there way onto the modern battle fields?
I doubt a radiation-type weapon is going to be more cost-effective than a chemical-propelled projectile weapon any time this century. To match regular guns, you'd need batteries or capacitors with an energy density as high as that of gunpowder, and I just can't see that happening.
The railguns are interesting, however. I think they will be made cost-effective in this century.
it already is... here is one you can check out
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technolo鈥?/a>
edit:
here is another one for ya
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopi鈥?/a>How long before directed energy weapons make there way onto the modern battle fields?
they are already in use, but are too expensive for use in combat, so until they find a cheap way to mass produce them, they wont have them.How long before directed energy weapons make there way onto the modern battle fields?
I doubt a radiation-type weapon is going to be more cost-effective than a chemical-propelled projectile weapon any time this century. To match regular guns, you'd need batteries or capacitors with an energy density as high as that of gunpowder, and I just can't see that happening.
The railguns are interesting, however. I think they will be made cost-effective in this century.
What are the best technology magazines to subscribe to?
I am currently subscribed to Popular Science Magazine. Are there any other ones that you would recommend to me that are like it or any that just have to do with technology in general!
Thanks!What are the best technology magazines to subscribe to?
Popular Mechanics covers a lot of technology in the mechanical field. A lot of cutting edge stuff. Thumb through a mag at a store and see if you'd like it.
Thanks!What are the best technology magazines to subscribe to?
Popular Mechanics covers a lot of technology in the mechanical field. A lot of cutting edge stuff. Thumb through a mag at a store and see if you'd like it.
What is the newest model of camera being made?
Is there a model that is not on the market yet that brings new technology to the market when it is ready? Something that Popular Science would be impressed by?What is the newest model of camera being made?
Since Popular Science has for years put things like flying cars and other "new" consumer products on their pages, I doubt they'd be impressed by any realistic cameras.
Currently, DSLR's are gaining better resolution, smaller size, and HD video. With the proper accessories, you can even get GPS information inserted into each digital image.
Nikon even has a consumer digital camera that has a built-in LCD projector.
Other consumer cameras allow the user to immediately upload photos to Facebook or videos to Youtube.
The Nikon D3000 has a Guide Mode that takes the novice by the hand.
What would wow Popular Science? I guess a better question would be, "What would wow the consumer market?"
Instant prints in a digital? More advanced in-camera editing? You might see the newest advances coming to smartphones first.What is the newest model of camera being made?
Not that I know of. Maybe color profiling
http://www.imaging-resource.com/NEWS/127鈥?/a>
But nothing spectacular that will blow your mind away.What is the newest model of camera being made?
We are all waiting for the next generation Nikon and Canon professional dSLR cameras. The Nikon D3s knocked the socks off photographers who shoot indoor sports. At ISO's of 128,000, the amount of noise in the images is less than most entry level cameras when shot at ISO 400. That is a six stop difference. That means that the photographer can be shooting NBA basket ball with shutter speeds of over 1/1000th second at f/4. That was the last big deal.
My guess is that the dSLR that can shoot in video RAW, will be the next hot ticket. I am sure that there are a number of camera systems working on that right now.new lipstick
Since Popular Science has for years put things like flying cars and other "new" consumer products on their pages, I doubt they'd be impressed by any realistic cameras.
Currently, DSLR's are gaining better resolution, smaller size, and HD video. With the proper accessories, you can even get GPS information inserted into each digital image.
Nikon even has a consumer digital camera that has a built-in LCD projector.
Other consumer cameras allow the user to immediately upload photos to Facebook or videos to Youtube.
The Nikon D3000 has a Guide Mode that takes the novice by the hand.
What would wow Popular Science? I guess a better question would be, "What would wow the consumer market?"
Instant prints in a digital? More advanced in-camera editing? You might see the newest advances coming to smartphones first.What is the newest model of camera being made?
Not that I know of. Maybe color profiling
http://www.imaging-resource.com/NEWS/127鈥?/a>
But nothing spectacular that will blow your mind away.What is the newest model of camera being made?
We are all waiting for the next generation Nikon and Canon professional dSLR cameras. The Nikon D3s knocked the socks off photographers who shoot indoor sports. At ISO's of 128,000, the amount of noise in the images is less than most entry level cameras when shot at ISO 400. That is a six stop difference. That means that the photographer can be shooting NBA basket ball with shutter speeds of over 1/1000th second at f/4. That was the last big deal.
My guess is that the dSLR that can shoot in video RAW, will be the next hot ticket. I am sure that there are a number of camera systems working on that right now.
Can someone help me find scholarships for fire science?
So I've been googling my but off looking for scholarships, I was wondering if anyone knows some popular or even obscure scholarships for fire science?
If you can post a direct link that would be nice. thank youCan someone help me find scholarships for fire science?
I don't know about fire science, but you can find more general science ones at http://studentscholarshipsearch.com/Can someone help me find scholarships for fire science?
Chris, some friends of mine in college told me that they have valuable information regarding scholarships from this place.
Good luck
If you can post a direct link that would be nice. thank youCan someone help me find scholarships for fire science?
I don't know about fire science, but you can find more general science ones at http://studentscholarshipsearch.com/Can someone help me find scholarships for fire science?
Chris, some friends of mine in college told me that they have valuable information regarding scholarships from this place.
Good luck
Is it rare for a really good looking popular guy to be very intelligent?
I know this guy who's an 11th grader and is really popular in his school and with girls, is a bit arrogant but he's not a bad guy. He just comes off like that. He speaks 3 languages, learned english in middle school and is now a fluent speaker, is brilliant at math and science, knows alot about politics and even goes to international conferences and stuff like that. Totally breaks the stereotype. lolIs it rare for a really good looking popular guy to be very intelligent?
Haha, unfortunately, stereotypes usually refer to good looking, popular guys as dumb jocks or total playas. However, that is definitely not really that true; good looking, popular guys these days are smart.
For example, there's a young Chinese man I know that is quite attractive and the girls pine after. He's popular in the school and is the coach to 14-16 years olds, however, for every math and english test, he would achieve at least 95%.
So basically, no, it isn't rare anymore to see a smart, good looking popular guy. Blame stereotypes for causing some people's confusion. XDD
nope not really im talking to a guy right now whose hot, captain of the football team, get good grades and wants to go to college..hes soo perfect!oooh! and hes SUPA respectful! BUT UH BU BU BU IM LOVIN HIM! LOLS:)Is it rare for a really good looking popular guy to be very intelligent?
no
everyone is different. I knew popular smart people in school.
Plus if you look in the buisness world there are plenty of good looking, smart people who are very successful.Is it rare for a really good looking popular guy to be very intelligent?
Not really.
Where I went to school, most of the the popular, good looking guys were also really intelligent and talented. Lucky boys!
I think movies + the media make that stereotype seem true.
But in general there are many good looking people who are also smart :)
That's just a stereotype. Someone's personality/ looks have nothing to do with their intelligence.
No. Infact, the most intelligent people at my school ARE the really good looking popular guys. Cause they are just soooooo perfect. :p
Nah, there are some hot guys who are nice and smart.
You just have to look for them and not deal with the fakers.
Not really, there are some guys in my school like that and i'm actually pretty good friends with them.
Some of the smartest people I go to school with are drop dead gorgeous.
It's kind of sickening..to be so perfect haha.
No. A lot of popular people at my school are smart
No
Haha, unfortunately, stereotypes usually refer to good looking, popular guys as dumb jocks or total playas. However, that is definitely not really that true; good looking, popular guys these days are smart.
For example, there's a young Chinese man I know that is quite attractive and the girls pine after. He's popular in the school and is the coach to 14-16 years olds, however, for every math and english test, he would achieve at least 95%.
So basically, no, it isn't rare anymore to see a smart, good looking popular guy. Blame stereotypes for causing some people's confusion. XDD
nope not really im talking to a guy right now whose hot, captain of the football team, get good grades and wants to go to college..hes soo perfect!oooh! and hes SUPA respectful! BUT UH BU BU BU IM LOVIN HIM! LOLS:)Is it rare for a really good looking popular guy to be very intelligent?
no
everyone is different. I knew popular smart people in school.
Plus if you look in the buisness world there are plenty of good looking, smart people who are very successful.Is it rare for a really good looking popular guy to be very intelligent?
Not really.
Where I went to school, most of the the popular, good looking guys were also really intelligent and talented. Lucky boys!
I think movies + the media make that stereotype seem true.
But in general there are many good looking people who are also smart :)
That's just a stereotype. Someone's personality/ looks have nothing to do with their intelligence.
No. Infact, the most intelligent people at my school ARE the really good looking popular guys. Cause they are just soooooo perfect. :p
Nah, there are some hot guys who are nice and smart.
You just have to look for them and not deal with the fakers.
Not really, there are some guys in my school like that and i'm actually pretty good friends with them.
Some of the smartest people I go to school with are drop dead gorgeous.
It's kind of sickening..to be so perfect haha.
No. A lot of popular people at my school are smart
No
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)