1. 34.
    0
    you motherfucker you can't talk to me like to twatface and if you do again i would bang you up twatface i am livin in england c'mon let talk to me again you bastards im a little gangster u know you fucking twatfaces!
    ···
  2. 33.
    0
    ay nov ingliş
    ···
  3. 32.
    0
    @1 fak you madır
    ···
  4. 31.
    0
    The idea of a body so massive that even light could not escape was first put forward by geologist John Michell in a letter written to Henry Cavendish in 1783 to the Royal Society:

    If the semi-diameter of a sphere of the same density as the Sun were to exceed that of the Sun in the proportion of 500 to 1, a body falling from an infinite height towards it would have acquired at its surface greater velocity than that of light, and consequently supposing light to be attracted by the same force in proportion to its vis inertiae, with other bodies, all light emitted from such a body would be made to return towards it by its own proper gravity.
    —John Michell

    In 1796, mathematician Pierre-Simon Laplace promoted the same idea in the first and second editions of his book Exposition du système du Monde (it was removed from later editions). Such \\\"dark stars\\\" were largely ignored in the nineteenth century, since it was not understood how a massless wave such as light could be influenced by gravity.
    General relativity

    In 1915, Albert Einstein developed his theory of general relativity, having earlier shown that gravity does influence light\\\'s motion. Only a few months later, Karl Schwarzschild found a solution to Einstein field equations, which describes the gravitational field of a point mass and a spherical mass.A few months after Schwarzschild, Johannes Droste, a student of Hendrik Lorentz, independently gave the same solution for the point mass and wrote more extensively about its properties. This solution had a peculiar behaviour at what is now called the Schwarzschild radius, where it became singular, meaning that some of the terms in the Einstein equations became infinite. The nature of this surface was not quite understood at the time. In 1924, Arthur Eddington showed that the singularity disappeared after a change of coordinates (see Eddington–Finkelstein coordinates), although it took until 1933 for Georges Lemaître to realize that this meant the singularity at the Schwarzschild radius was an unphysical coordinate singularity.

    In 1931, Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar calculated, using general relativity, that a non-rotating body of electron-degenerate matter above a certain limiting mass (now called the Chandrasekhar limit at 1.4 solar masses) must have an infinite density. In other words, the object must have a radius of zero. His arguments were opposed by many of his contemporaries like Eddington and Lev Landau, who argued that some yet unknown mechanism would stop the collapse. They were partly correct: a white dwarf slightly more massive than the Chandrasekhar limit will collapse into a neutron star, which is itself stable because of the Pauli exclusion principle. But in 1939, Robert Oppenheimer and others predicted that neutron stars above approximately three solar masses (the Tolman–Oppenheimer–Volkoff limit) would collapse into black holes for the reasons presented by Chandrasekhar, and concluded that no law of physics was likely to intervene and stop at least some stars from collapsing to black holes.
    Oppenheimer and his co-authors interpreted the singularity at the boundary of the Schwarzschild radius as indicating that this was the boundary of a bubble in which time stopped. This is a valid point of view for external observers, but not for infalling observers. Because of this property, the collapsed stars were called \\\"frozen stars,\\\" because an outside observer would see the surface of the star frozen in time at the instant where its collapse takes it inside the Schwarzschild radius.
    Golden age
    See also: Golden age of general relativity

    In 1958, David Finkelstein identified the Schwarzschild surface as an event horizon, \\\"a perfect unidirectional membrane: causal influences can cross it in only one direction\\\". This did not strictly contradict Oppenheimer\\\'s results, but extended them to include the point of view of infalling observers. Finkelstein\\\'s solution extended the Schwarzschild solution for the future of observers falling into a black hole. A complete extension had already been found by Martin Kruskal, who was urged to publish it.

    These results came at the beginning of the golden age of general relativity, which was marked by general relativity and black holes becoming mainstream subjects of research. This process was helped by the discovery of pulsars in 1967,which were shown to be rapidly rotating neutron stars by 1969. Until that time, neutron stars, like black holes, were regarded as just theoretical curiosities; but the discovery of pulsars showed their physical relevance and spurred a further interest in all types of compact objects that might be formed by gravitational collapse.

    In this period more general black hole solutions were found. In 1963, Roy Kerr found the exact solution for a rotating black hole. Two years later, Ezra Newman found the axisymmetric solution for a black hole that is both rotating and electrically charged. Through the work of Werner Israel, Brandon Carter, and David Robinson the no-hair theorem emerged, stating that a stationary black hole solution is completely described by the three parameters of the Kerr–Newman metric; mass, angular momentum, and electric charge.

    For a long time, it was suspected that the strange features of the black hole solutions were pathological artefacts from the symmetry conditions imposed, and that the singularities would not appear in generic situations. This view was held in particular by Vladimir Belinsky, Isaak Khalatnikov, and Evgeny Lifshitz, who tried to prove that no singularities appear in generic solutions. However, in the late sixties Roger Penrose and Stephen Hawking used global techniques to prove that singularities are generic.
    Tümünü Göster
    ···
  5. 30.
    0
    you mom in the my house zaaaaaaaaa
    ···
  6. 29.
    0
    ... then my dad came over there and fucked you like a horny horse. you cried for fuck me harder, fuck again again. asshole get the fuck out of now!
    ···
  7. 28.
    0
    fuck off naughty assholes
    ···
  8. 27.
    0
    i can speak english
    ···
  9. 26.
    0
    @29 i can write it on my own twatface. you can't talk to me like that. i'm a little gangsta you know. ananın dıbına fog koyarım!
    ···
  10. 25.
    0
    are you sex?
    ···
  11. 24.
    0
    chicken translate
    ···
  12. 23.
    0
    i touch ur mom
    ···
  13. 22.
    0
    @23 copy
    ···
  14. 21.
    0
    i don't wanna see the back, i want to see front
    ···
  15. 20.
    0
    open your am
    ···
  16. 19.
    0
    your mother is my near
    ···
  17. 18.
    0
    skirt up
    ···
  18. 17.
    0
    While the standards for determining whether a body of knowledge, methodology, or practice is scientific can vary from field to field, there are a number of basic principles that are widely agreed upon by scientists. The basic notion is that all experimental results should be reproducible, and able to be verified by other individuals. These principles aim to ensure that experiments can be measurably reproduced under the same conditions, allowing further investigation to determine whether a hypothesis or theory related to given phenomena is both valid and reliable. Standards require that the scientific method will be applied throughout, and that bias will be controlled for or eliminated through randomization, fair sampling procedures, blinding of studies, and other methods. All gathered data, including the experimental or environmental conditions, are expected to be documented for scrutiny and made available for peer review, allowing further experiments or studies to be conducted to confirm or falsify results. Statistical quantification of significance, confidence, and error are also important tools for the scientific method.

    In the mid-20th century Karl Popper put forth the criterion of falsifiability to distinguish science from non-science. Falsifiability means that a result can be disproved. For example, a statement such as "God created the universe" may be true or false, but no tests can be devised that could prove it either way; it simply lies outside the reach of science. Popper used astrology and psychoanalysis as examples of pseudoscience and Einstein's theory of relativity as an example of science. He subdivided non-science into philosophical, mathematical, mythological, religious and/or metaphysical formulations on the one hand, and pseudoscientific formulations on the other, though he did not provide clear criteria for the differences.

    In 1978, Paul Thagard proposed that pseudoscience is primarily distinguishable from science when it is less progressive than alternative theories over a long period of time, and its proponents fail to acknowledge or address problems with the theory. In 1983, Mario Bunge has suggested the categories of "belief fields" and "research fields" to help distinguish between science and pseudoscience, where the first is primarily personal and subjective and the latter involves a certain systematic approach.

    Philosophers of science such as Paul Feyerabend have argued from a sociology of knowledge perspective that a distinction between science and non-science is neither possible nor desirable. Among the issues which can make the distinction difficult is variable rates of evolution among the theories and methodologies of science in response to new data. In addition, specific standards applicable to one field of science may not be employed in other fields.

    Larry Laudan has suggested that pseudoscience has no scientific meaning and is mostly used to describe our emotions: "If we would stand up and be counted on the side of reason, we ought to drop terms like 'pseudo-science' and 'unscientific' from our vocabulary; they are just hollow phrases which do only emotive work for us". Likewise, Richard McNally states that "The term 'pseudoscience' has become little more than an inflammatory buzzword for quickly dismissing one’s opponents in media sound-bites" and that "When therapeutic entrepreneurs make claims on behalf of their interventions, we should not waste our time trying to determine whether their interventions qualify as pseudoscientific. Rather, we should ask them: How do you know that your intervention works? What is your evidence?"
    Tümünü Göster
    ···
  19. 16.
    0
    ı am english minimum writer.
    good night
    be carefully
    ···
  20. 15.
    0
    adam kendi annesini gibti beyler farkında değil virgülden sonra ki cümleye dikkat
    edit: düzeltme bin :D
    ···