|
On April 11 2019 07:35 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2019 05:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 11 2019 05:29 Simberto wrote:
You can not see the black whole itself, but you can see some things that it does.
So, the thing we see is not the black hole itself, but the doomed stuff that spins around it, which will eventually fall into it. That's kinda dark. Does some of what we see escape or is everything we see around it doomed? I'd guess that at least some of it escapes, as the stuff that we see is explicitly the stuff that is not within the event horizon, from where there is no escape. And if there is enough stuff flying around at high speeds, just by random chance some of it is going to get lucky and get crashed in by other stuff in a way that launches it at escape velocity away from the black hole. This is going to be an incredibly small percentage of the things in that disc, though. The main thing that escapes is light. Which is also something, and the reason why we know anything about what is going on there. If stuff isn't emitting or influencing light in some way, we usually don't know very much about it. There are also relativistic jets, which are freaky and i have no idea how they work. Apparently black holes sometimes launch thin jets of large amounts of high-speed ionised particles away at a 90° angle to their accretion disc due to reasons. So that is another way how some of the stuff in the accretion disc can escape.
Thanks, I vaguely remembered something about the jets which was part of why I asked. I feel less bad about not quite understanding whats going on with them now though lol.
|
TLADT24920 Posts
On April 11 2019 05:03 Emnjay808 wrote:
How do u capture an image of a black hole if it sucks in light? Are we just capturing the “outter” visuals of the activity of a black hole that creates its silhouette?
Genuinely curious here
My understanding of it is that they captured the shadow of the black holes so to speak, and there's enough light around it from things being sucked it to get a decent picture considering this was considered impossible a while back afaik.
|
Who has the upper hand in a fight with no rules, and no weapons? A Krav Maga-type specialist or a more traditional martial artist?
All is legal, both are male, nut shots, eye gouging, you name it and its fair game. No props in the vicinity. Just two men trying to murder each other with their bare hands while butt naked.
|
Assuming both are equal strength, body type and weight class, and if your definition of "traditional martial arts" doesnt include wrestling, then Id give it to Krav Maga.
|
Let’s include wrestling as a traditional martial arts for the sake of completionism and science.
|
Krav Maga has the advantage of it's sole purpose: kill your opponent
Pretty much every other MMA is more of a sport.
That doesn't necessarily mean Krav Maga would win every fight. It's probably more a clash of styles.
There was a video viral of some Kung-Fu guy who demolished a Tai-Chi guy in 10 seconds
|
On April 11 2019 15:30 Zambrah wrote:
Who has the upper hand in a fight with no rules, and no weapons? A Krav Maga-type specialist or a more traditional martial artist?
All is legal, both are male, nut shots, eye gouging, you name it and its fair game. No props in the vicinity. Just two men trying to murder each other with their bare hands while butt naked.
I'm not sure I understand the question. Why would you even consider the possibilty of traditional martial arts being better?
|
On April 11 2019 19:09 Sent. wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2019 15:30 Zambrah wrote:
Who has the upper hand in a fight with no rules, and no weapons? A Krav Maga-type specialist or a more traditional martial artist?
All is legal, both are male, nut shots, eye gouging, you name it and its fair game. No props in the vicinity. Just two men trying to murder each other with their bare hands while butt naked. I'm not sure I understand the question. Why would you even consider the possibilty of traditional martial arts being better?
Im having an argument with a friend, I’m of the opinion that in a fight with no rules that the combat style designed to murder another person is at an advantage compared to traditional martial arts that don’t have the advantage of training to go for the sensitive parts since I’d figure a practitioner of like, Aikido, isn’t trained to go for the nuts and eyes.
He disagrees and thinks they would just adapt to dirty fighting and do all the dirty shit without losing an edge.
|
"Tradition" martial arts barely exist anymore, because of the need to transfer knowledge to kill someone bare handed barely exists anymore.
|
On April 11 2019 19:31 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
"Tradition" martial arts barely exist anymore, because of the need to transfer knowledge to kill someone bare handed barely exists anymore.
That actually is something I was curious about, since I don’t do any martial arts beyond minor boxing. Are modern martial arts better or worse at killing people bare handed nowadays? It seems to me from my incredibly minor perspective that it’s a lot about form, and the sport aspect more so than the martial aspect. At the same time MMA is a thing and I’m sure Jiu Jitsu is taught in commonly in a more combat focused way since its something that, I think at least, is applied in a popular modern fighting context.
|
I think the question ignores that if the traditional martial artist is experienced, he will likely be able to adapt to the new rules, especially if given some time before the fight (imagine a muai thai fighter kneeing you in the balls). MMA fighters would be even faster to adapt because they're already proficient in a number of different styles.
A second thing (and I could be wrong about this) is that Krav Maga seems to be a style that favours efficiently (quickly) taking down the opponent. This seems optimal for a soldier taking down a lightly trained combatant who got close. Against someone who was trained years specifically for fighting in close range, I wouldn't be so sure.
|
On April 11 2019 20:42 Sbrubbles wrote:
A second thing (and I could be wrong about this) is that Krav Maga seems to be a style that favours efficiently (quickly) taking down the opponent. This seems optimal for a soldier taking down a lightly trained combatant who got close. Against someone who was trained years specifically for fighting in close range, I wouldn't be so sure.
This might be a very valid point. MMA fighters are trained vs other MMA fighters of very different styles, sizes, strengths, speeds. A fighting style that is defense and counterattack, rather than offense (which Krav Maga would be considered I guess) could work very well.
This is a bit like the who would win series on youtube and whatnot: A Shark or an Elephant
|
On April 11 2019 19:35 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2019 19:31 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
"Tradition" martial arts barely exist anymore, because of the need to transfer knowledge to kill someone bare handed barely exists anymore. That actually is something I was curious about, since I don’t do any martial arts beyond minor boxing. Are modern martial arts better or worse at killing people bare handed nowadays? It seems to me from my incredibly minor perspective that it’s a lot about form, and the sport aspect more so than the martial aspect. At the same time MMA is a thing and I’m sure Jiu Jitsu is taught in commonly in a more combat focused way since its something that, I think at least, is applied in a popular modern fighting context.
I assume that most are much worse. One thing that I really didn't like about Kendo was that it's stances and moves are very focused on the tournament rules, they basically train for a 1v1 two-handed sword mirror match where you need to disable or kill your armored opponent with one strike. And while Kendo as a sport with weapons and therefore high risk of crippling consequences might be an extreme example, I'd expect most modern martial sports to suffer from similar problems in a no-rules fight.
Then again MMA f.e. has very few rules and is very competitive, so I assume it'd much better adapt to a 1v1 fight to the death.
|
|
|
My money is on Bas Rutten in his prime vs anyone if there's no rules. Bas and small group of psychopaths spend that kind of time methodically planning and practicing harming people in real world everyday scenarios.
+ Show Spoiler +
There are so many gems in there but my favorite Ruttenism might be "I don't believe in an eye for an eye, I believe in 2 eyes for an eye". and "Bangadta"
|
On April 11 2019 19:35 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2019 19:31 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
"Tradition" martial arts barely exist anymore, because of the need to transfer knowledge to kill someone bare handed barely exists anymore. That actually is something I was curious about, since I don’t do any martial arts beyond minor boxing. Are modern martial arts better or worse at killing people bare handed nowadays? It seems to me from my incredibly minor perspective that it’s a lot about form, and the sport aspect more so than the martial aspect. At the same time MMA is a thing and I’m sure Jiu Jitsu is taught in commonly in a more combat focused way since its something that, I think at least, is applied in a popular modern fighting context.
My point is that your question is just unspecified and unfocused, full of assumptions that may or may not be true. It's like asking who would win, Thor or Mars or Hercules or Vishnu or Son Goku?
|
On April 12 2019 03:06 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2019 19:35 Zambrah wrote:On April 11 2019 19:31 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
"Tradition" martial arts barely exist anymore, because of the need to transfer knowledge to kill someone bare handed barely exists anymore. That actually is something I was curious about, since I don’t do any martial arts beyond minor boxing. Are modern martial arts better or worse at killing people bare handed nowadays? It seems to me from my incredibly minor perspective that it’s a lot about form, and the sport aspect more so than the martial aspect. At the same time MMA is a thing and I’m sure Jiu Jitsu is taught in commonly in a more combat focused way since its something that, I think at least, is applied in a popular modern fighting context. My point is that your question is just unspecified and unfocused, full of assumptions that may or may not be true. It's like asking who would win, Thor or Mars or Hercules or Vishnu or Son Goku?
EZ. SSG Goku ftw  .
|
|
|
On April 13 2019 02:34 JimmiC wrote:
Is it true that the busy season for strip clubs in the USA is tax return season?
Not sure it's so much the busy season as the johns spend more money. Holidays that make people sad to be alone seem to be the busiest. Also wedding season.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
