RyanJ

That's actually a misconception that most people have about singularities and black holes, of which unfortunately is propagated by the pop science media. A singularity is a solution for which GR breaks down because they yield nonsensical answers. That is, the equations of general relativity aren't defined as a singularity. It is NOT a point of infinite density or an infinitely small space. We won't know what it is until we have a fully consistent quantum theory of gravity.

You are correct. It would have better if I'd said that "the current belief of most scientists is that.... and without a coherent framework in which general relativity and quantum mechanics can be combined we have no other widely held ideas." but either way it sort of makes it easier to understand on simplistic terms.

1st off i watched this about space and the scientist

came to the conclusion that at the Center of EVERY

Galaxy is a Super Massive Blackhole that has 3 billion times

the mass of the sun how can they say that about

every galaxy and i thought blackholes had infite mass,

density and infinite gravity??.........

No. Black holes do not have infinite mass - they have a finite mass but compressed into an infinitely small space (making them infinitely dense). The net effect of this is space being curved beyond recognition producing the insatiably strong gravity you speak of.

2nd. Stellar Blackholes rip u apart before u actually reach

the inside and with Super Massive blackholes u reach the

inside but once u do u get incinerated by the stars and other

matter swirling around in it.......

what makes scientist come to these conclusions? is it proven?

Again its not so. The gravitational distortions reach their climax nearest the singularity and I assume you are referring to the the event horizon. The thing about it is that the event horizon's distance from the singularity is directly determined by the mass of the hole its self. Now on smaller black holes this puts the singularity and the event horizon fairly close together, meaning you'd get torn to pieces almost instantly. However things are different for a larger black hole because the event horizon is far enough from the singularity so that you could pass it without noticing. Either way it makes no difference because once you've crossed the event horizon you cannot escape the pull of the singularity.

Well I'd say the most convincing proof is that of gravitational lensing but there are also others such as observing the rate at which stars orbit a fixed point and in doing so you can work out the mass of the object being orbited. In this way you can work out the size of the object and its mass so you can say it could be a black hole.

3rd. once u cross the event horizon not even light can escape

what can have that kind of pull to grab light....lights a constant

if its gravity ...can gravity be strong enough to stop light on its path

Its just pure gravity. In GR mass warps the fabric of space time its self and as we know light must too obey gravity (having its path bent by it and so on) so this is simply an extension of that. It has its path bent so far that it gets pulled in too .

I don't like the word "stopping light" there as that isn't actually possible for light to stop in the way I think your asking but if I understand what your asking then this fits.

As the star collapses (say you were watching from a safe distance) you'd see it get smaller and smaller, redder and redder. This is because the light waves are straining ever more to escape the ever increasing gravity. Now if a photon is emitted just at the instant that it reaches the Schwarzschild radius (aka the event horizon) it will never be able to escape nor will it get pulled in either.

what are they really? and do any of yall have an idea on what

the jet stream that they shoot out can be made of

the jet stream of whatever it is is sent at 99% the speed of light

thats what the TV program i watched said.

i understand that the blazars have alot of energy but HOW

does it shoot material so fast

I'm not going to try and answer these because I know very little about them. I'd suggest you head here instead

I assume that you know a chiral molecule is a molecule that is asymmetrical with its mirror image. basically put the two opposing isomers aren't superimposable.

Lets take an example of bromochlorofluoromethane (CHBrClF)

Stereoisomers are isometric molecules who's atomic connectivity are the same but their groups are arranged differently in space.

So in the above example we have two enantiomers, the positive and negative rotational isomers (don't worry about which is which). As you can see the above description fits perfectly. As the molecules have a chiral center there can be more than one form of the molecule, each being asymmetric to the other. now is you look at the description for a stereoisomer above you'll see that this fits perfectly - we have two groups with identical atomic bonding internally but their spacial configurations are different.

I hope that description works for you and if not I suggest you give Wikipedia a try

Yea. They are normally just text files. I'd recommend a program called DAMN NFO Viewer for viewing them if they are from a trusted source.

That's what mass does!

I think I phrased that rather badly

I was thinking more along the lines of [math]F=ma, F=-1*12, F=-12N[/math]

Better put the object would accelerate in the opposite direction to which it is pushed.

Sorry if I put that badly. I should have thought it through a little better

lets suppose that some one found that there was a negative mass particle then we could have space ships with no net mass. but how how do you accelerate an object with no mass? any ideas

It would be very interesting for sure. Have a look at Newton's laws of motion and plus in some negative mass and speed and you'll see some interesting results.

it seems that the harder you push an object with negative mass the more it would push back so you'd actually have to pull it to make it move. Not at all practical nor useful. That's how I interpret it anyway.

I've header of him too. His mental skills are astounding, his memory is amazing in its self but I also find it interesting that his brain may not work all that differently from everyone elses.

okay, try this. if space expands so it is double the origional size why wouldn't a meter be double the origional size. i think, maybe something like that. as i said, i'm kindof confused probably because i've got somethng pretter basic wrong.

Well the problem with measurement is that everything is relative to something else. In this case the rule that you use to measure the length of the object with you ascertain its size. As the matter its self doesn't get "larger" as the space expands due to the reasoning above then the meter before will be the same as the one after - thus the lengths remain unchanged with the expansion.

On the bright side, even if everything were getting bigger you wouldn't be able to tell because everything would be increasing by the same proportion anyway so everything would seem the same

A very good question!

The answer is quite simple actually. The expansion is only apparent over large distances and on a smaller scale the force created by the spacial expansion is quite minimal, it is easily overcome by the gravitational attraction between objects as well as the other forces which are significantly stronger than gravity.

So in effect the fundamental forces are far strong enough on small scales to hold matter together but on larger scales the gravity and so forth are inherently weaker due to the larger distances between all the objects thus allowing the space there to expand without being overcome. Does that make any sense?

Is it possible to keep getting infinitely less or smaller?

Depending on the context of the question I'd say yes and no. Mathematically it is always possible for something to be made smaller simply by dividing it into two. With physics however things get a little more complicated. I'd say I can't actually answer that but really as I don't have a definite answer for you. Theoretically speaking I don't see why there should be a fundamental limit to how small something can be (say distance) other than the smaller something gets the more our ability to measure it accurately is compromised.

Like can you keep getting colder and colder or is there a limit?

As iNow said,the understood limit is Absolute Zero.

Or can matter be broken down into ever smaller pieces?

Currently the smallest particle that has been proposed is the Quark - these too could be composed of still smaller particles. If you also believe string theory then the tiny filament of energy that compose the string is the most basic constituent of matter. Realistically speaking its really hard to answer this question with much certainty as it has yet to be proven either way.

And the amount of energy in a system get lesser and less without approaching zero?

That again is similar to your first question and is hard to answer.

Not if the script can get access to the unencrypted data being displayed in your browser.

That depends nearly all browsers today use streamed decoding which used a unique key per window so there would be no way for an external script to access the decrypted stream data. Unfortunately as ou say its only used in some places when it should be used on the whole site. A recent example stating why to always use HTTPS were applicable is http://dmiessler.com/blogarchive/why-you-should-encrypt-all-of-your-google-activities-poc

Some people may find that an interesting read.

Wouldn't compressing the substance make it denser according too [math]\rho = \frac{m}{v}[/math]?

if so then that simply answers the question as yes, just compress the substance.

is sound energy? if yes.. what kind?

I'd have to say no, not directly but it can be used as an energy source. As Atheist points out a sound wave is just the air moving and therefore it has kinetic energy. There are however uses for it as an energy source in chemical reactions and in physics. Sonochemistry and Sonofusion.

are ocean waves energy? what kind?

Not directly. See above.

is light energy? "i know yes" what kind?

Light (in particle form anyway) is considered to be composed of a stream of particles called photons. These are defined as being as being light quanta which again are defined as being indivisible units of energy. therefore I'd have to say that light would be classed as energy.

is heat energy? if yes what kind?

A tough one. Seeing as heat is simply the measure of how fast a particle "vibrates" its sort of difficult to specify it as an energy source.

does light cool or heat up?

Both. See Atheist's post.

is light a solid?

Nope. It isn't.

what happens to light when it hits somthing?

Depending on what the substance is any number of things can happen. For example all elements in a gaseous state absorb photons with different wavelengths, this is done by electrons absorbing the photon and rising to a higher energy level in the molecule. This is used in spectroscopy to identify compounds and such. There are other things that can happen however.

they say the faster somthing goes the more mass it gains... is this true? or is it.. the more mass it has the faster it goes.... why is this? does the mass fuel it?

It depends I guess but I'd say no. From a relativistic point of view however it makes things awkward as I understand it. Energy has a rest mass of 0 meaning that you can't gain mass directly from it however from an external observers point of view the relativistic mass will be seen to increase.

does light age?

Nope. As you get closer and closer to the speed of light time is slowed down for you relative to everything else (time is shown to progress more slowly for toe object travelling at near light speed than those who aren't.). Imagine that every particle in the universe were wearing a watch. As something moves closer and closer to the speed of light an outside observer looking at watch of the particle would see it tick every more slowly until at the speed of light it would stop altogether. Light lives the eternal dream never to grow old (again this is from a relativistic point of view, the particle its self doesn't observer this effect and instead sees every other particles clock as speeding up while its remains the same).

does gravity affect light?

Yes it does. Gravitational lensing is a great example.

what color is a mirror? white? "it bounces light right..?"

I don't see the point in this question.

is sound energy?

You asked this question already.

if you go swimming...and you dive 8 feet down... its a sunny day and the sun still shines on you.....

 

you do down 40 feet... its dark... the water molecules stop the light?

Yes. More and more of the photons have collided with water molecules and so there are less and less as you go deeper, leading to the gradual decrease in ligt intensity.

sound can travel through water... waves can move through water... but light doesnt have the energy to move through water?

I don't really understand this question.

yes, buuuuut, my point is that in computer security "under normal circumstances x isn't possible" isn't very useful as several hacks revolve around exploiting unusual circumstances.

 

iow, "normally x isn't possible" roughly equals "it was designed to try to stop you doing x"... x is still possible, tho, whenever a situation is found that exposes a design flaw.

Yes I understand what your saying but based on the context is the question it isn't possible. Even if a script ran that could bypass the content policy checks and suck it still won't work on a bank website because they normally use HTTPS which encrypts the data to stop it being broken into this way.

yeah, but most security vulnerabilities are when people find abnormal ways to get around such measures.

 

unauthorised access to data open in another tab via cache:

 

http://www.mozilla.org/security/announce/2007/mfsa2007-03.html

 

I believe this one should allow your script to treat all pages as it's childeren?

 

http://www.mozilla.org/security/announce/2007/mfsa2007-21.html

 

reeeeeeeeeally unlikely in my (amature) oppinion, but still a theoryoretically real threat.

Your right but thankfully most of the holes are patched quickly and are of a low security risk. In normal instances however it isn't possible for a normal window to access another window that it did not open, the same goes for content within frames and so forth.

From what you've described in your first post I'd have to say the circumstances you described couldn't be exploited. Normally web browsers add a feature called a sand box which checks the permissions of a script before allowing it to execute. This is done through means of content policy checking, in this case nothing should be able to open a new window (unless given permission to do so, say for example the actual site its self opened the window then it would have permission to read some information from its child window). Other than that an externally running script can't read from other windows in normal circumstances.

I'm mainly speaking in terms of Firefox here because I am unaware about bow other browsers process security contexts and content policies and so forth.

The usual consensus (as far as I can gather) is that the dark matter exists throughout the universe in the form of weakly interacting massive particles (WIMPs) like neutrinos and so forth. As these are apparently generated by many phenomenon like the nuclear reactions within the heart of the sun but the actual composition of dark matter is unknown (as is the question of whether it really exists or not).

As for where they are apparently everywhere but it has bee speculated that the dark matter may clump at the centre of galaxies, in dwarf type starts and so forth.

Your question about galaxy locations seems to dictate that galaxies would prefer to be formed in some location rather than others and this seems wrong because all places in space are treated as equal. It could just be that as a galaxy started to form its gravity draws in the dark matter its self, in doing so it adds the extra mass that is required to hold the galaxy together.

Funnily enough dark matter doesn't seem to be the end of the story here, from what I've read 74% of the universe may be composed of something called dark energy, 22% as dark matter and the remains 4% as what we see.

If gravity is caused by matter warping space instead of matter generating Gravitons, could a ripple in the fabric or space (that isn't caused by matter interacting with space) create the same effect as gravity?

 

Of course the nature and cause of these ripples (if they were to exist) would have nothing to do with any effects they may have.

That's exactly what relativity says happens! Interestingly what you've described above seems very similar to a speculated phenomenon called gravitational waves, these would be produced when say two neutron stars collide with one and other (among other things). These however have not yet been observed.

For the record I don't think that relativity actually says anything about the carrier particle that would transmit the effect gravity. The graviton is another thing that has yet to be observed.

As for the rest, well, a body like a planet has mass, I don’t know if its because of this mass alone that a warp or curvature(?) of spacetime is produced, but if that has something in common with the idea of different reference frames also being warping of spacetime(if that’s even close to correct on my part), at what level are they different? Is it simply different means to an end?

They are not different at all. Time dilation is the same for gravitational effects as it is for accelerated ones because they are the same (gravity acts the same way as acceleration in these instances).

Right the concept of time dilation I suppose?

Exactly.

I know, but if they share a fundamental relationship are we not arbitrarily doing that anyways?

Well one can be controlled directly the other is indirectly controlled by using the direct effector, in this case the direct effector being speed changes. To me it simply makes more sense to refer to this as the primary effector.

Well what I mean is gravity if I have my Einstein down is a product of relativity at some scale right? Which also ties into time, but on the course of time space being warped and inducing gravity, then the same would be of events or actions, such as a warp should follow the trail of a comet to some extent, or even me waving my arm up and down on some level, or is this an in bulk phenomena?

Gravity is a distortion of space time, seeing as the effects of gravity and accelerated motion are the same (e.g. they both produce a recurrent force, acceleration and gravity create an effect that is identical) then this would act exactly the same way as did the speed but things would get more difficult to imagine as something would then be accelerating in the presence of a gravitational field. As we pass through a gravitational field it has the net effect of decreasing the rate at which time passes as observed from and outside reference frame but if the object is in motion that too would need to be accounted for. I think its simpler to think about it in terms without gravity for simplicity.

SO basically its that c remains a constant because its time that is shifting and or changing? So I would surmise from that that actions themselves, or then would it be speed or velocity should change time space? How does that equate to just mass, or is that also along with velocity, speed or what not?

time doesn't really change so to speak, its all in terms of different reference frames. time differences are only apparent when observed between different reference frames.

I'd say that its the speed that is causing the effect rather than the time, we can easily alter the speed of an object but we cannot so easily do the same for its "speed" through time to it makes more sense (to me anyway) to see the speed as the causal factor.

I assume by just mass you mean that the object is completely stationary? Well in that case the object is moving solely through time with no movement through space.

it doesnt matter how fast you go light still looks the same ???

Exactly. Light moves at c in all reference frames it therefore looks the same from all reference frames - its a constant.

Maybe it would be useful to think of it more like this (not actually sure this is an accurate way of representing it but it works for thought none the less!)

Imagine that an objects speed through space and its "speed" through time are added together and must always add up to c.

If we start moving through space then we must be moving more slowly through time in order for the total to remain at c as we move faster and faster we take more and more of our speed at which we travel through time in order for c to be maintained as a total.

As a result if we move faster through space then we must move slower through time and vice versa.

hope that helps

An interesting experiment YT, thanks for sharing

Merry christmas to everyone out there today, a little late but better late than never

Sure there are lots of possible tools that can do this or you could write one yourself.

Yuo failed to specify which operating system you are using, this will have an effect on the tools that are available