stardroidneptune:

mecto—amorous:

ok but what about disabled robots

robots with glitches nobody can figure out how to/cares about enough fix

robots who were never finished so they’re missing parts/limbs/ect

autistic robots who overheat and shut down if they have to process too much sensory input

nonverbal robots who’s voice boxs dont work

disabled robots bonding with disabled humans

(via glitterfickle)

i just realisesd my robot character has depression TODAY and ive been throwing around all kinds of other thoughts about him hhhh robots disability

scienceetfiction:

mothernaturenetwork:

Black holes cannot actually exist, according to mathematical proofThe scientific world is left reeling after a researcher offers breakthrough mathematical proof.

“According to her calculations, when a star collapses under its own gravity, it produces the Hawking radiation that scientists have observed. But, she argues, as the star gives off this radiation it also sheds mass. So much mass is shed, in fact, that the star loses density, and the formation of a black hole is prevented. Stars do not meet their death by collapsing into black holes, according to the proof. Rather, they swell one last time and then explode.”  
I recommend this other article (a little less sensationalist), written by an astrophycisist, about the Laura Mersini-Houghton paper : 
"This is interesting theoretical work, and it raises questions about the formation of stellar-mass black holes. But it doesn’t prove that stellar-mass black holes don’t exist, nor does it say anything about intermediate mass or supermassive black holes, which would form by processes other than stellar collapse. And of course the work depends upon Hawking’s take on firewalls to be correct, which hasn’t been proven. To say that this work proves black holes don’t exist is disingenuous at best" .

scienceetfiction:

mothernaturenetwork:

Black holes cannot actually exist, according to mathematical proof
The scientific world is left reeling after a researcher offers breakthrough mathematical proof.

According to her calculations, when a star collapses under its own gravity, it produces the Hawking radiation that scientists have observed. But, she argues, as the star gives off this radiation it also sheds mass. So much mass is shed, in fact, that the star loses density, and the formation of a black hole is prevented. Stars do not meet their death by collapsing into black holes, according to the proof. Rather, they swell one last time and then explode.”  

I recommend this other article (a little less sensationalist), written by an astrophycisist, about the Laura Mersini-Houghton paper : 

"This is interesting theoretical work, and it raises questions about the formation of stellar-mass black holes. But it doesn’t prove that stellar-mass black holes don’t exist, nor does it say anything about intermediate mass or supermassive black holes, which would form by processes other than stellar collapse. And of course the work depends upon Hawking’s take on firewalls to be correct, which hasn’t been proven. To say that this work proves black holes don’t exist is disingenuous at best" .

space science black holes