171 réponses à ce sujet

[OH-UP-THIS!]

http://seds.org/hst/ngc4261.html



There read up on accretion disc + Black hole...........google is everybodys' friend.

[didymos1120]

max_ai wrote...
Don't worry. I won't. Although stable orbits are impossible around black holes (possible, but not elliptic ones, or you're very very far away).
This whole thread now looks like a large "Scientific inaccuracy". Just as specified in the title.
I just don't want people to be mislead into wrong things...

OK, fine.  But, you (and others) may find this (picked at random) discussion interesting:

minimum stable orbit around a supermassive black hole


Suffice it to say, I don't think "impossible" is entirely correct.

Modifié par didymos1120, 25 février 2010 - 09:19 .

[OH-UP-THIS!]

I don't suppose it occured to anyone, the reason they called it an "accretion disc", and NOT an "Event Horizon", is because , Disney might have them in court?

[OptimusAlex]

medlish wrote...

Also, not one object moves. Shouldn't they be sucked in by the black hole.

EDI says that she finds the collector base outside the accretion(SP?) disk, which is basically the "point of no return" for black holes

[WoodWizzard87]

I don't know whether Bioware was trying to implement the black hole in the center of the galaxy or a huge massive sun. Anyways, Stephen Hawking found that black holes actually absorb light, but only "electrons:, the protons and neutrons are actually jettisoned outward into space. That's why blackholes sometimes shoot those huge gas plumes of light thousands of light years outwards.

[Lambu1]

ohupthis wrote...

I don't suppose it occured to anyone, the reason they called it an "accretion disc", and NOT an "Event Horizon", is because , Disney might have them in court?

 ok one i made this joke already

two an accretion disc and an event horizon are to different things


"An accretion disc is a structure (often a circumstellar disk) formed by diffuse material in orbital motion around a central body. The central body is typically a young star, a protostar, a white dwarf, a neutron star, or a black hole. Gravity causes material in the disc to spiral inward towards the central body. Gravitational forces compress the material causing the emission of electromagnetic radiation. The frequency range of that radiation depends on the central object. Accretion discs of young stars and protostars radiate in the infrared; those around neutron stars and black holes in the x-ray part of the spectrum."

"In general relativity, an event horizon is a boundary in spacetime, most often an area surrounding a black hole, beyond which events cannot affect an outside observer."

i researched first this time (see i'm learning)

[max_ai]

didymos1120 wrote...

max_ai wrote...
Don't worry. I won't. Although stable orbits are impossible around black holes (possible, but not elliptic ones, or you're very very far away).
This whole thread now looks like a large "Scientific inaccuracy". Just as specified in the title.
I just don't want people to be mislead into wrong things...

OK, fine.  But, you (and others) may find this (picked at random) discussion interesting:

minimum stable orbit around a supermassive black hole


Suffice it to say, I don't think "impossible" is entirely correct.

As I said, it's possible if you were sufficiently far away from it. Not the case in the game.
It's a good link, read it (people seem to know what they're talking about there).

[Kerberus88]

Rabid Rob 3 said "We actually have quite a few examples of convergent evolution here on Earth, I think everyone is familiar with sharks and whales, especially the small ones, there is an excellent example of convergent evolution. Convergent species cannot help but be funhouse mirror images of each other. The way they sense their environment is radically different, their brains are radically different in size, and many of their behaviors are also radically different. Now, the Stat Police will correctly say that until we explore a statistically significant portion of the galaxy, we really can't make an accurate estimate on this, but anything that looks like a reskinned human (Asari, Turians, Drell, most of sci-fi) is fabulously improbable, while the warped humaniforms (Salarian, Krogan) is just really quite unlikely."

Check out the first quote in my signature in order to explain why all the aliens resemble humans.

[Endo322]

Also... you "crash land" on the collector ship. But your in space, IE no gravity... So really you would bounce off or some ****.

[Rabid Rob3]

Endo322 wrote...
Also... you "crash land" on the collector ship. But your in space, IE no gravity... So really you would bounce off or some ****.

Yeah, after that funny crash landing I was so excited, hoping for another awesome pretend low G space walk run across the hull of the station, just like in ME1, one of the coolest moments in the game...  Instead it seems like we run a 100 yards over to an airlock door and thats it. 

[BlackFox26]

scientific accuracy..... well...

you can have it all i guess.

+it's probably a *different* kind of blackhole that we haven't recognized to exist yet.. so we can't appl ywhat we know about it today to, what the game is projecting to us.

[adam_grif]

you're right except for the above. a black hole's gravity is several orders of magnitude greater than the star that form it. if it were the same then light could escape,

No. The gravity is 100% identical.



Gravity's strength diminishes with the square of it's distance from something, and thus means that the closer you get to the center of gravity, the more powerful it is locally. Orbiting a Star of X mass is the same as orbiting a black hole of X mass.



As stated before, the closer you get to the center of gravity, the more it warps spacetime locally. Since a Star has a radius of millions or billions of kilometeres, and a black hole has a radius similar to an atomic nucleus, you can get far closer to a black hole's center of mass than you can with the Star that formed it. You get stopped by the surface of the star, but you don't for a black hole.



Since you can get far closer to the center of gravity, and gravity increases very rapidly when you get closer to something, it gets to the point where light can't escape. However, this event horizon is very close to the singularity, and, as stated many times now, at X distance from the Center of Gravity it has identical gravitational pull as the star that formed it.

[Lambu1]

yet another who didn't see my correction. and smaller than an atomic radius? sure about that? perhaps you should read this article

http://www.nasa.gov/..._blackhole.html

on a different note, this video pretty well shows size differences among stars

Modifié par Lambu1, 26 février 2010 - 12:44 .

[adam_grif]

Lambu1 wrote...

yet another who didn't see my correction. and smaller than an atomic radius? sure about that?

Going back and looking, your correction was vague since it wasn't clear what you were correcting.

Also abouut the radius of black holes, the smallest possible radius is one plank length (far smaller than an atomic nucleus), however my post was misleading because a black hole with multiple stellar masses would be far larger than that.

[Lambu1]

going back and looking, you're right it was vague, too many other posts between mine and the one i was answering. i have since added the quote so others will see

[didymos1120]

max_ai wrote...

didymos1120 wrote...

max_ai wrote...
Don't worry. I won't. Although stable orbits are impossible around black holes (possible, but not elliptic ones, or you're very very far away).
This whole thread now looks like a large "Scientific inaccuracy". Just as specified in the title.
I just don't want people to be mislead into wrong things...

OK, fine.  But, you (and others) may find this (picked at random) discussion interesting:

minimum stable orbit around a supermassive black hole


Suffice it to say, I don't think "impossible" is entirely correct.

As I said, it's possible if you were sufficiently far away from it. Not the case in the game.
It's a good link, read it (people seem to know what they're talking about there).

Very belated: yeah, you're right, nevermind.  I skipped over that part in my haste.

[Turkayzo]

Modifié par Turkayzo, 27 février 2010 - 12:35 .

[Heimdall]

When Bioware made this series they put in an easy explanation for just about every implausible or impossible science issue



...Mass Effect Fields did it

[mcvxiii]

ohupthis wrote...

I don't suppose it occured to anyone, the reason they called it an "accretion disc", and NOT an "Event Horizon", is because , Disney might have them in court?

That is not even possibe as no one or no enity can own the copyright of a sceintific term for an occurrence. Now if the game was called "Black Hole" then their might be a case for Disney or if the game was called "Event Horizon" then Paramount might have something to say about it but that is for the title only. Anyone can use the terms black hole or event horizon in any media.

[didymos1120]

ILoveMirandaLawson wrote...

Black holes suck light in. Therefore they are constantly surrounded by the light they are funneling in, thus making them appear bright, not black.

Sorry, but I wish people would think about this before saying it, 'cause it seems to come up a lot: if the light is heading towards the singularity....it's not heading for your eyes (or telescope as the case may be) and you ain't gonna see it.  The light, either of the visible variety or in other parts of the EM spectrum, that's detectable to us is coming from material around and outside of the black hole...not the black hole itself (barring currently impractical to detect and still theoretical Hawking Radiation, and even that isn't being emitted the way light from a star is).

Modifié par didymos1120, 27 février 2010 - 08:53 .

[Hyper Cutter]

TIM's comment about mammals "taking their first steps on land" around the time the derelict Reaper was made derelict is WAY off. Mammals evolved during the early Mesozoic, around the time dinosaurs started diversifying I believe.

Modifié par Hyper Cutter, 01 mars 2010 - 12:59 .