Live data from Hacker News

A star appears to have collapsed straight into a black hole without supernova (2017)

science.nasa.gov

31–40 of 40 posts

Re: A star appears to have collapsed straight into a black hole without supernova (2017)

#31

Could be an advanced civilisation sucking all the stars energy into the back of their spaceship.

Perhaps a superadvanced civilization training an AI model on all remaining negative entropy in their solar system so they can more effectively create realistic propaganda for the upcoming election on their now rather chilly mars colony.

Re: A star appears to have collapsed straight into a black hole without supernova (2017)

#33
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, it certainly didn't happen tomorrow.

in some reference frames, yes.

No, not if we've observed it. There are predicted historical events which can be shunted into the future by running away bravely, but if you've seen them happen, you can only change how long ago.

Re: A star appears to have collapsed straight into a black hole without supernova (2017)

#34
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

in some reference frames, yes.

No, not if we've observed it. There are predicted historical events which can be shunted into the future by running away bravely, but if you've seen them happen, you can only change how long ago.

not for us, but in some other reference frame.

Re: A star appears to have collapsed straight into a black hole without supernova (2017)

#36
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, not if we've observed it. There are predicted historical events which can be shunted into the future by running away bravely, but if you've seen them happen, you can only change how long ago.

not for us, but in some other reference frame.

If by "reference frame" you mean "observer who lives in the past", then yes: the past is sometimes the future of a more distant past.

Re: A star appears to have collapsed straight into a black hole without supernova (2017)

#38
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

not for us, but in some other reference frame.

If by "reference frame" you mean "observer who lives in the past", then yes: the past is sometimes the future of a more distant past.

no, relativity allows for reference frames where the event hasn't happened yet, even though it has happened for you. there's no simultaneous "it has already happened" for all frames.

Re: A star appears to have collapsed straight into a black hole without supernova (2017)

#40
post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If by "reference frame" you mean "observer who lives in the past", then yes: the past is sometimes the future of a more distant past.

no, relativity allows for reference frames where the event hasn't happened yet, even though it has happened for you. there's no simultaneous "it has already happened" for all frames.

There is if the event is in the past or future light cone. If A sends a signal to B, and B receives it, there is no reference frame where that signal went backwards in time. (Unless you count exotic ones, like "particle with imaginary rest mass is zooming along at thrice the speed of light", but you can't accelerate to such a reference frame so I don't.)
Post reply on HN