The source is available at github.com/unclebob/more-speech. If you have a clojure environment it's pretty easy to build and run. Just look at https://github.com/unclebob/more-speech/wiki/getting_started for more information.
WARNING: more-speech is a work in progress. It is not yet set up for gramma to download and use. You will likely have to user your programming skills to work through the initial configuration and setup.
I'll be working on all that as time goes by. Eventually, while perhaps not gramma, I do want any serious nostr user to find more-speech to be a useful tool.
>From: zsm77<-cameri at 02/22/23 09:04:44 on wss://relay.damus.io
>---------------
>wow, that's amazing, thank you for the detailed explanation🍻How do I download it?
The image shows the contents of the "ub" tab. This is a tab that I created in order to display any message sent by me, or that somehow references me. You can create many such tabs in order to track individuals, groups of individuals, or topic threads.
The display shows all the events, from all the relays I listen to, that meet the criteria of the "ub" tab For example, the message at the bottom ("Yes, entirely tangential...") came in on relay.nostriches.org, relay.damus.io, filter.nostr.wine, and eden.nostr.land.
More-speech is a client in that it displays messages to the user. But more-speech is also something of a relay in that it reads and stores all events that come into it from all the relays it listens to. Indeed the "all" tab shows all those messages.
That's a _lot_ of messages, but it's useful for querying purposes. You can go to the "all" tab and search for "black hole" if you like, and find all the messages that mention those words.
>From: zsm77<-cameri at 02/21/23 16:03:29 on wss://relay.nostriches.org
>---------------
>Is this the interface of the relay? As long as we are connected to this relay, anything we say can be seen on it?
Not yet, but it's not rocket science. ;-) Just type in the search bar in hit return.
You can also refer to https://github.com/unclebob/more-speech/wiki/Features
>From: signal_and_rage1<... at 02/21/23 16:00:39 on wss://relay.nostriches.org
>---------------
>Have you done a resent video on how to use the search?
This is what more-speech looks like now.
Unit tests and acceptance tests! Nice!
>From: nym<-mikedilger at 02/21/23 15:38:29 on wss://relay.damus.io
>---------------
>booger - A nostr relay: https://github.com/huumn/booger
more-speech separates the events into tabs. You assign filters to each tab so you can follow certain people, or certain conversations in each tab. Each tab has a search bar, and the search is constrained to the events in that tab.
There is an "all" tab, which is very, very full. Searches on that tab can take a few seconds right now. If that becomes a problem there are some things I could do to speed it all up. But, for now, it seems to work just fine.
>From: jack1967<-mikedilger at 02/21/23 15:35:27 on wss://relay.damus.io
>---------------
>Is this all relays combined?
Search is now working in more-speech. It's pretty cool. Regular expression matching, npub matching, hex-id matching, petname matching, profile name matching, etc etc.
Nostr database is at 7 gig now. Grows by ~1GB per day. Maybe a little less.
Yes, though I'm not very active. I'd fogotten that I'd joined until you mentioned it; and I checked my account. My password has expired, so now I'm waiting for the change-password email to arrive.
Do you derive any benefit?
D #[3]
>From: mazin at 02/21/23 10:45:51 on wss://relay.damus.io
>---------------
>Are you a COPA member?
Yes, entirely tangential. As you say they are points in space around which material behaves as though there is an extremely compact massive object. The limits on the mass and radius leave us to the conclusion that these must be black holes because our current theories allow for no other conclusion.
Our current theories are pretty good at predicting the vast majority of the phenomina that we see out there; so we sort of have to trust them on this. But that doesn't rule out that something else may be going on.
And this is always the way it is with Science. Science is a negative discipline, i.e. no theory can ever be proven correct. All a scientist can ever do is disprove a theory -- but never prove one.
>From: TheGuyThatLookedI... at 02/20/23 14:10:19 on wss://relay.damus.io
>---------------
>From what I have seen, the evidence of them existing (as in points in space with extreme gravity pull) is pretty tangential, mostly relying on theories and suppositions.
>From: iefan1<-cameri at 02/20/23 12:20:12 on wss://relay.damus.io
>---------------
>It's fun😅
Absolutely!
>The laws of gravity and matter govern the formation and some behavior of black holes, except objects with near Schwarzschild radius, we all know that.
True; but you have to get very close indeed (10^-16cm or so) for QM to become a factor.
>but the creation of antimatter inside a black hole is a quantum mechanical phenomenon that cannot be explained solely by the laws of classical physics. That is the whole context here. If you read the first note.
We don't really know if antimatter gets "created" within the EH. The GR math suggests a space-time reversal within the EH, and QM sees an anti-particle as the normal particle moving backwards in time. SO...???
>QM governs the production of virtual particle-antiparticle pairs near the event horizon, which leads to the formation of Hawking radiation and the eventual evaporation of black holes.
Well, sort of. The virtual particle story is one that physicists like to tell laymen to describe HR. The reality is a bit stranger and has to do with the way the EH distorts the quantum fields. PBS Spacetime did a good episode on this. It's fun and very educational: https://www.pbs.org/video/hawking-radiation-joztzy/
>Last any object collapsing near Schwarzschild radius is primarily governed by QM, that is one of main characteristics of black hole. Isn't it.
From the point of view of a distant observer, GR dominates the behavior of objects in the vicinity of a BH. Very, very near the EH QM effect might become important; but our theories of GR and QM disagree too much for us to be able to predict much about it. As the PBS episode said, even HR is based on a hack.
>
>Am I missing something here😂, correct me a if I'm wrong
I'm sure we are both wrong; but it's still fun.
test
H2O is not an element, it is a compound. ;-)
The first elements formed were Hydrogen, Helium, and Lithium as the early universe expended through temperatures and densities that were roughtly equivalent to the core of a star. The other elements had to wait a few million years for stars to form and start fusing Hydrogen into Helium, and then into Carbon and Oxygen in their cores. Then those stars had to explode as supernovae in order to spread those elements far and wide. Once those elements cooled gravity gradually drew them together and they formed clouds. And then molecules like water could form.
"Sole" is probably a bit of a stretch. Carbon certainly plays a role. ;-)
>From: Raishma<-JackDorsey at 02/20/23 09:57:31 on wss://relay.damus.io
>---------------
>One word: GAMMA RAY BURST
That's three words. ;-)
GRBs are (we think) the product of several different very high energy events. Black hole mergers. Neutron star mergers. Core collapse supernovae that form black holes. Pair instability supernovae (hypernovae) etc.
Each of these events is fascinating to study individually.
QM and GR are the two most successful theories of physics that we have. Both are responsible for predictions that agree down to many, many decimal places.
And yet the two theories are utterly incompatible. GR presumes that space is continuous, and QM suggests that space, time, mass, etc are quantized. Or to say this differently (and not really accurately), GR is the domain or real numbers. QM is the domain of integers.
Because of this incompatibility there are predictions made by QM that differ from GR by over 100 orders of magnitude. This is very embarassing.
>From: iefan1<-cameri at 02/20/23 07:58:05 on wss://relay.damus.io
>---------------
>I think it's about combining general relativity & quantum mechanics right? I will definitely take a deep look into it. Thanks
The Black Hole information paradox comes in many forms.
1. QM says that information cannot be destroyed; but information entering a black hole can never come out so it is effectively destroyed from our point of view.
2. General relativity says that nothing can ever be seen to actually enter a black hole. Time slows down, relative to us, as objects approach the event horizon. Time stops (relative to us) AT the event horizon. So, according to GR, no information ever actually enters the black hole.
As an aside, the matter that we see moving closer and closer, but never entering, the event horizon is massive, and cannot move at the speed of light. This matter is not the "spin" of the black hole itself.
Of course all this makes my head hurt.
>From: Raishma<-JackDorsey at 02/20/23 07:54:04 on wss://relay.damus.io
>---------------
>See: The black hole information paradox.
Black holes are primarily objects defined by General Relativity (i.e. gravity). QM comes into play once you get very, very close to the event horizon. Beyone the event horizon we are blind so we don't know what really happens in there.
Very near the event horizon we believe that QM effects cause the black hole to radiate and evaporate. We don't know that they do this; we've never seen any of the so-called Hawking radiation coming from a black hole. But our math says this should be happening.
If that is true then the ultimate fate of a black hole is dominated by QM, it will gradually evaporate until it has radiated all it's mass back out into the universe. However, in time-frames of a few billion years this effect is so negligible as to be irrelevant.
Oh, they definitely exist. We've seen quite a few of them.
Of course this is a definitional issue. What we see out there cannot be anything other than black holes by our current understanding of physics. Are they really black holes? They are if we define them to be; but that doesn't mean they obey all the physical attirbutes we currently think a black hole should.