Talk:1680: Black Hole
IF the explanation of "Milkshake" being a coded message is correct, then I like how Melis plays with it. I always thought the more sexual way, Milkshake meaning shaking her milk bags. Sure, that brings boys to the yard.... 22.214.171.124
- Kurzgesagt's video illustrates how Earth would be destroyed (around two minutes in). Whichever object is considered at rest, "falling into" is sort of a euphemism for what would really happen. .42 (talk) 18:13, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- In the Big Lebowski, The Dude's reasoning for wanting the rug replaced was that "It really tied the room together" 126.96.36.199 07:50, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
The event horizon of the black hole in the cartoon appears to be roughly an inch across, which using the formula linking Schwarzschild radius to mass (r = 2MG/c^2) gives a black hole of about 3 earth masses. 188.8.131.52 08:06, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- OMG. That would mean it also excerts 3 times the gravitational force of earth. As a result people near (also as far away as earth orbits) would only be comfortable standing at a significant angle. Time may also appear to progress slower near the black hole due to the time dilation effect. But I am unsure how pronounced this effect will be from a black hole that size. Audible and visible effects of this would be people talking slower (but not lower as you have with the doppler effect, i beleive that to be a sci-fi misconception), and peoples movements seeming slower. Todor (talk) 08:50, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- That strong a pull would mean the hole would not only collect air and particles, but also pull furniture into it. Seing as both people are standing upright I'm guessing the pull can not be more than say one fifth of earths. Maybe it has a visible accretion disc? If you were to run the formula in reverse what diameter would that give you of the hole itself? Todor (talk) 09:23, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- (out of sequence) One fifth of Earth's mass would give you one fifth of g, but only if you measure it 6400 km (more or less) from the Earth's center. If you measure it 1 meter from the mass center... it's a HUUUUGE gravity. The mass of this black hole must be many orders of magnitude less than Earth's.
- --Lou Crazy (talk)
There's only 5 years between the Big Lebowski and Milkshake (1998 vs 2003) so while "more contemporary" is technically correct, I think it underestimates how old Milkshake is. 184.108.40.206 08:15, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps this comic is in reference to this article referencing tabletop particle accelerators? 220.127.116.11 08:38, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
I once read a short story about this situation where the hole kept feeding and eventually swallowed the whole Galaxy. I thought it was a Stephen King, but my Google Fu can't find it... Supachris28 (talk) 09:22, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- It was one of the scare-stories surrounding the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), where a micro-black hole would form and end-of-the-world scenario would ensue. Apparently such a hole could form but would immediately destabilize. On a related note, this brings into question as to how stable the hole in the comic would be, since it seems rather small. If it were to destabilize it would have enough energy to blow the earth to pieces, despite its deceivingly innocent size. Todor (talk) 09:48, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
See also - Earth by David Brin in which a micro black hole falls into the core 18.104.22.168 15:30, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- Hawking radiation from a black hole with "neutron bullet" mass (equivalent to the Empire State Building) would be vicious, equivalent to .78 megatons of TNT per second. However, it could spew out increasingly intense radiation for 96 years.  A lunar mass black hole would be colder than interstellar space and could outlive most of the universe. .42 (talk) 10:28, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- As deduced above I guess the hole would not be strong enough to pull them in. But you're saying a black hole with a mass smaller than earth would essentially fry them both and set their house on fire IRL? And that would only be if it was stable enough not to destabilize and blow up. Some best-case scenario that is. :) Todor (talk) 11:07, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
The article currently states that a black hole is "inconsistent with physics", this is inaccurate. If it doesn't violate any laws or break math, it is perfectly valid. Physics allow for seemingly weird stuff, as long as it is a theoretical possibility, makes mathematically sense and doesn't contradict accepted truths. And it remains valid until proven it is not. That is science in a nutshell. Todor (talk) 15:39, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- The inconsistency is in portraying the black hole as a calm, benign object that can rest safely on a coffee table. In reality, it would do something unimaginably violent that would preclude a conversation near the room it's in. .42 (talk) 18:13, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- Worst explanation ever
I came here for an explanation and I have so many questions.
What's 'The Dude's' rug in the film "The Big Lebowski"?Answer below says it has no relationship to the comic.
- What about the song "Milkshake" by Kelis?
- What about the discrimination?
- What about "Neutron Bullet" chapter of the what if? book?
- What about Black Hole Moon in that book?
And related to the comic itself
- What's the mass of a miniature blackhole?
- What are its effects?
22.214.171.124 13:31, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- What's an "explanation"? 126.96.36.199 13:53, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- Well, the effects of the black hole is directly related to its size interestingly enough. That was recently added to the article. Explanations are never perfect on the first day, but it gets improved. Todor (talk) 14:37, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- Information about the "what if" book would belong in a trivia section if it is added.Lackadaisical (talk) 14:56, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
The Big Lebowski
I'll answer my own question. In The Big Lebowski the sentence is "That rug really tied the room together." . I assume that to bring something together means to make it more agreeable. I deleted the reference. 188.8.131.52 13:40, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- Why delete it? While it may not be an explanation, it is a perfectly valid pop-cultural reference and may indeed be the one used in the comic. Todor (talk) 14:37, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- I think it is appropriate to delete it. It is a common enough phrase to simply be used without referencing anything. Stating that it was the author's intended reference is simply speculation.Lackadaisical (talk) 14:51, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
There is no such thing as "neutrally charged". If it is charged, it is, by definition, not neutral. If you want to clarify against other meanings of "neutral", use "electrically neutral". --184.108.40.206 21:52, 22 May 2016 (UTC)