# Banshii

Members

24

1. ## How far away for observer to see speed of light travel?

Say your back is to the sun, in space. There's something the size of the moon in front of you, lets say 3 times the distance the moon is from the earth. Due to the suns light reflecting off of the moon-sized object, you'd be able to see it, just as you can see the moon at night from earth. So, that object is now moving across your field of view close to the speed of light. It's big enough you can see it from that far away (I think, didn't do math but seems like it would be)... but are you far enough away to be able to see it go across your "horizon field of view" at the speed of light? Or are you too close, meaning you'd see it for a nanosecond? So, do you see where the problem lies? If you have to go even further away from the moon-sized object in order to see it for a good half minute traveling near the speed of light across your plane of view, then the moon-sized object will be too small to easily see. That means it would have to be bigger than moon-sized. It's all related.
2. ## How far away for observer to see speed of light travel?

Yes I edited my last post as you said that... then close to the speed of light.... 95% the speed of light? I'm looking for ballpark...
3. ## How far away for observer to see speed of light travel?

There is some kind of answer... because if I scaled it down to my airplane example, you could say that an object the size of an airplane can be seen for about a half minute going the speed of sound if you are standing 5-10 miles away. To see an airplane going the speed of light, you would have to be sooo far away, but the airplane isn't big enough to see from that far away, so it'd have to be bigger. How big, how far away? EDIT: Or close to the speed of light (since mass can't go that fast).
4. ## Black holes

Yes! Gravity (not directly) influences light, and light has no mass. Gravity bends the space-time fabric, which light follows, therefore giving the illusion that gravity has a direct effect on light. So what does this tell us about black holes? Since light follows a path on the fabric of space-time, and light never comes back out of a black hole, this tells me that there is an infinite amount of space-time fabric inside of a Black hole... meaning that each black hole is a new Universe... with infinite space, energy, etc. Just as our Universe is. Each black hole is it's own, and we are interweaved like that over and over. I am not saying parallel universes exist. That is something different which doesn't exist. But what does exist are universes within universes within universes (black holes), but no ability to connect to another one except by the black hole that formed it. Creating a new black hole creates a new universe.
5. ## How far away for observer to see speed of light travel?

To clarify the title, How far away from an object, and how big must the object be, for you to see it travel at the speed of light for at least 30 seconds? As an example, when you are standing on the ground, you can easily see an airplane traveling faster than the speed of sound for a long while as it goes across the sky. But, for an object traveling the speed of light.... if you were in a space ship relatively staying still, what's the closest you can be in order to see an object traveling at the speed of light for 20-30 seconds, before it gets too far away (and tiny) to see? And, how big would the object need to be for you to clearly see it, as in the airplane example above?
6. ## Gravy speculations hijack

I believe what is referred to as the "big bang" is actually where the universe started... a black hole formed in another universe, which is the beginning of a new universe. No real "infinitely dense ball of energy suddenly exploding". Just the formation of a black hole in a given universe, which creates or is the beginning to the spacetime necessary for a new universe. This also explains why our observable universe is expanding. I explained this more here: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/87188-newcorrect-black-hole-theory-spacetime-special-relativity/
7. ## New/Correct Black Hole Theory? - Spacetime Special Relativity

From what I understand, is that gravity can only directly affect things with mass and space itself. Light has no mass, so gravity cannot directly effect light. However, gravity does indeed effect space. It bends space. Therefore it bends spacetime. And well, light follows the curvature of space. This has been proven through experiments. So to me, that means because the gravity of a black hole is so strong, light follows the curvature of space into the black hole, and it can't escape. Otherwise we'd see it. So light follows the curvature of space, into a black hole, and keeps going forever. That said, if there was a singularity in a black hole, that means to me that the curvature of space would come to a point or singularity (of mass), for example like the mass core in the center of jupiter. If that was the case, light would be able to escape because there would be an end to the space in a black hole. But the fact of the matter is that light does not escape, which means space must be going on forever as we know it within a black hole. Think about it, light follows the curvature of space that is affected by gravity. If that space came to a point or end, light would follow the curvature of space back out of the black hole. But because this doesn't happen, we can easily assume that space in a black hole does not curve back out or end. This means there must be an infinite amount of space in a black hole. And since space and time are directly related, known now as spacetime, that means there's got to be a whole universe in a black hole. For example, OUR "bing bang", I believe, was the result of the formation of a black hole in another universe. And as a result, our known universe is basically the inside of a black hole in another universe. And because this black hole in another universe is probably being constantly fed, our universe is expanding at a faster and faster rate. Simply put, black holes are THE gateways to different universes. A universe has a black hole that leads to our universe, and our universe has black holes that lead to other universes. It's just an invinite amount of universes leading to an infinite amount of universes.
8. ## New/Correct Black Hole Theory? - Spacetime Special Relativity

I don't understand how or what that answers. Perhaps break it up a little bit, into a more simple explanation. Or is that just a fact besides the point?
9. ## New/Correct Black Hole Theory? - Spacetime Special Relativity

Because gravity, space/time, special relativity, (and effectively light(speed)), and mass are all related, I've been thinking... It's said in an example that (simply put), a rocket ship from earth (containing people) is sent out at almost the speed of light to 4 earth-lightyears away, and then comes back. (in this example, acceleration and deacceleration is instantaneous) 4 years go by on earth, but for the people on the rocket ship, it's only a few weeks (or something like that). It was said that it's because the clocks of the space ship people slow down (in the view of the people of earth), and/or because the distance the rocket people are traveling shrinks at high speeds.... (same thing). Whatever, moving on. Also, the faster something goes, the more mass it has. So something that goes the speed of light would have an infinite mass. And if something is traveling near the speed of light, it would therefore have a freakin huge mass, and we all know that the more mass something has, the more gravity it produces. Maybe produces isn't the right word, but you know what I mean. So this led me to some thinking about black holes.... If light cannot escape a black hole, then neither can time. If mass is going into a black hole, and light cannot even escape it, there's gonna be a whole lot of gravity, mass(as in "stuff"), space, time... everything. So I'm thinking that then theoretically, a black hole could contain an entire universe of it's own because it has it's own time/stuff/gravity/everything, that cannot escape. If a black hole is collecting time, then I think it's very likely. I don't think I believe there's a singularity in a black hole anymore, I think it's a gateway to another (new) universe that's been created by the black hole. Think about it, with infinite gravity, time, space, mass, light and all that... it's gotta be a whole universe, or atleast one in the making. As in some illustrations, black holes make what is visualized as an infinitely long downward spiral in spacetime (because of its gravity). Kind of like if you put something infinitely heavy on a net that's been spread out. It will go down forever (given that the net doesn't break). So that means there's potentially infinite space, time, gravity, mass, light and everything needed for a universe. I heard theories about black holes containing a universe, but brushed it off because it didn't make sense. But now through thinking about other things, I think believe it's possible. Am I on to something (even if this is already known) or am I just completely de-railed?
10. ## What determines the direction the "disk" shape faces of galaxys and solarsystems?

Yes I realize that pwagen. That's why I stated relative to how I am facing. But anyways, why do galaxys look like a flat shape instead of everyting orbiting randomly. Why isn't it a ball shape? What makes it choose a particular orbiting path? ACG52, if it really is random, and have nothing to do with the poles, why does each object orbiting around something stay on the same line, causing it to look flat?
11. ## What determines the direction the "disk" shape faces of galaxys and solarsystems?

What determines the direction of the gravitational field (the direction the "disk" around an object faces) of something other things orbit... such as a solar system or galaxy? For example, if I am in space and am looking forward, one galaxy might look like it's sitting horizontal according to my position, while the one next to it may be verticle. Does it have to do with only gravity? Or does magnetism come into play... like does it have to do with where the magnetic poles are of the center object.
12. ## The Universe was always the same size?

If something 11 billion light years away blew up such as a supernova, and we are only seeing it now... doesn't that mean the universe was already as big then as it is now? If not, the only way it would make sense is if the universe is expanding twice the speed of light, or us and the "event" have been traveling in direct opposite directions.
13. ## asteroid may come uncomfortably close to Earth in 2036

Well I would certainly rather have a bunch of pissed off people around the world than have the entire human race wiped out. I hope at least the US leaders would see it that way as well, and use a nuke if necessary. The pros definitely out-weigh the cons there. I'd have no problem standing up and pressing the launch button if an asteroid in my face was the alternative.
14. ## In a vaccum can I move a large object with any force?

Yeah I meant it as that gravity being the force causing the friction between the refrigerator and the floor. Take away the gravity, and there's barely any friction between the refrigerator and the floor.
15. ## A part of gravity that doesn't make sense to me.

Yes that makes perfect sense to me. That's really the same thing that was going on in my head but you put it into words a lot better than I did. Like how I mentioned the slingshot thing, you simply said moving away and falling towards at the same time. That's what I was trying to explain but couldn't put it in the right words. Thanks though, that cleared it up
16. ## Where Does Space End? It Must End Somewhere!

It's easy to believe everything has to end because everything we know of has an end. That doesn't necessarily mean everything HAS to have an end. Saying space itself has and end is the same thing as saying all space as we know it is contained inside of something much larger. Which means once we get there we'd "hit" something. I personally don't believe this. Space is literally 'nothing'. What makes it something is the stuff moving around inside of it (us, gasses, planets, etc.). The end of space to me means to the edge of where no gasses, planets and etc. exist. Simply because these things just haven't gotten there yet. There doesn't have to be a physical edge to space. To say that means that there is something else on the other side (or nothing; just more "space"). Why can't "nothing" go on forever? If you think about it, "nothing" DOES go on forever. There's just simply nothing there, total void. Which is what everything as we know it is expanding into. I do believe, however, that matter can only be so far apart from each other before it's either ripped apart, or pulls itself back together. But that has nothing to do with having an edge around "nothing". If there is nothing there, how can there be an edge? This is also why we can't see anything from or in the edge of space, simply because nothing is there. Just more nothing to 'float' into or expand into. A lot of people can't seem to grasp the idea of what 'nothing' means. Which is hard to do I guess. But nothing literally means nothing, the total absence of everything and anything. Which is what earth is 'floating' though now. A vacuum on earth has to have edges to keep earths atmosphere from leaking in, thus it not being a vacuum anymore. In space, there doesn't need to be an edge simply because there is nothing out there to leak in. So why does space have to have an edge somewhere? There's just nothing.
17. ## A part of gravity that doesn't make sense to me.

I thought this topic and discussion was pretty interesting; something I really never thought to think about really. Not that I'm a fan of bringing back an old post or anything.. I just enjoy learning and discussing things that interest me. So if I understand this correctly, it's the "moving" of the planets that are keeping them orbiting around the sun along with the gravitational pulls. Like, if for example, mercury suddenly stopped moving or orbiting, it would just simply get sucked into the sun by the suns and mercury's gravity? Same with Pluto. Maybe kind of like the slingshot effect, but not so much so because the planets aren't moving fast enough for that to happen. So because of their current speed, instead of sling shotting away altogether, their gravities and speed keep them in a constant orbit around the sun. However, if it slowed down or sped up, they'd be sucked in or break orbit and leave the solar system. Did I basically hit it?
18. ## Top of Google Search.

You may want to check out Google Webmaster Tools. http://www.google.com/webmasters/tools Their help system is excellent. I used it for my personal websites and the results will happen. You just have to give it time. The Google Webmaster Tools will guide you on everything you need to do to achieve getting your website to display on Google. Yahoo also has a site submission page that allows you to submit your website to its search engine. If this is all completely new to you I can further explain the process if you still need help after looking into Google Webmaster Tools. Edit: One more thing I forgot to mention... it's free.
19. ## In a vaccum can I move a large object with any force?

For example: If you try to push a refrigerator (without wheels) across your kitchen floor you probably wouldn't be able to... unless you were super strong (more force, larger object). Now if you could some how seal your kitchen and turn it into a vacuum and try again, you would still most likely be unable to push the refrigerator... (again unless you were super strong (more force, larger object). What I'm getting at is being in a vacuum doesn't mean no resistance. That just means no air resistance. You will still have gravity, which is a resistance that still resides in a vacuum. However, if this experiment were tried in Space, you would probably be able to push the refrigerator with one finger if you yourself could be held stationary. Otherwise, you and the refrigerator would push each other in opposite directions. Does this help? Did I read your point right?
20. ## Can We Move With A Speed Of Light?, According to Einstein's special theory

I don't believe time travel is possible as described by most people. This is because I believe time is relative. What may seem like time travel to the observer, may not actually be time travel to the one "experiencing" said time/space deficiencies. Maybe "deficiencies" isn't the right word to use... fluctuations maybe? I have a theory to back this up but I'm short for time at the moment.
21. ## balancing the "computer specs" equation.

No matter what you choose, the limiting reagent will be your operating system and/or software used on the computer.
22. ## Ziploc bag example question

Yes that is a much better example. So in a vacuum, one could pull the plunger all the back in a syringe even if the head and everywhere else were completely air tight/sealed? If i understand that correctly anyways.
23. ## can light go faster than the speed of its self

Light does not accelerate, at all. Light is either full speed, or not at all. From the moment each photon is created, it's traveling at the max speed allowable by it's environment. There's no acceleration involved with light. To say light accelerates is the same thing as saying light takes 'time' to get to it's maximum speed. Which is false, because as far as we know, light does not take any time what so ever to reach its max speed. Best way I can explain it without writing more.
24. ## Ziploc bag example question

Sorry about the title, but that's the example I'm going to use in this question. I just have a misunderstanding about something to help clear some things up for myself about a theory of mine I'm working on. Imagine a Ziploc sandwich bag or something similar which can be sealed to be air tight. All of the air is pressed out of it and it's completely flat. Now imagine trying to pull apart the two flat sides of the main plastic body. You won't be able to because no air or anything else is able to seep in to it in order for the bag to expand or blow up. Also, because of the pressure of the earths atmosphere I guess. Here's my question: If this were attempted in Space or in a Vacuum, would it still be basically impossible to pull the bag apart given that there wouldn't be any atmospheric pressure on the outside of the bag? This is the best example I can come up with that will help answer some things going on in my mind about a theory I'm trying to come up with about something. But ya, the plastic bag itself is obsolete and it's just an example of something else. I'll clarify later depending on what the answer is. It's very interesting too!
×