baric

since they might not be the messengers of the true secret of existence.

This is a science forum, not a religion forum.

Are neutrinos the same as gravitons? I'm don't think they are.

 

My question really is if gravity from a black hole is that strong light can't escape does that not make whatever particles, if any, that make up gravity, travel faster than light as their effect is felt beyond the event horison?

 

 

Oh, I'm terribly sorry. There has been a lot of posts about the FTL neutrinos and I reflexively thought you were making a connection with that.

Gravitons do not have to travel faster than c to be felt beyond the event horizon. They are the hypothetical particle responsible for the transmission of gravity. Therefore, they are necessarily immune to the effects of gravity.

I have read a couple of previous posts about this, but have wondered if the supposed graviton, if responsible for gravity, could be actually faster than light.

 

My reasoning for this is that if light can't escape a black hole but gravity can, does that not make gravity faster than light?

It was a measurement error. The neutrinos were not traveling faster than light.

All the actions and transactions that take place throughout the entire universe are direct product of neutrons. Stars for example would never shine if it wasn't for their reactions, and neither would the universe ever materialized. Neutrons are not yet completely understood, for what is known about a neutron is that it is a neutral particle, and that it is unstable outside of a nucleus with a half-life of approx. 10,5 minutes. But this is precisely where all the secrets of the universe are hidden; in a neutron that is.

Then you are in luck!

The internal structure of the neutron, and therefore all of the secrets of the universe, are unveiled on this wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron

Quarks!

I can't be the first person to think of this but here it is anyway. If you took a golf ball sized chunk out of a neutron star, or quazar and threw it into outerspace, it would probably have enough weight to cause a gravitational time dialation strong enough to warp the fabric of space time and cause light to bend around it's gravity well field.

Some of these molecules might be escaping through the jets of energy that form from time to time at the polar regions.

I don't know, what do you think?

The radius of a golf ball is about 2 cm, which translates to about 33.5 cubic cm, or 3.35e-5 cubic meters. The density of a neutron star varies, but can be approximated as 5e17 kg per cubic meter.

Therefore your hypothetical neutron golf ball would have a mass of 1.67e12 kg, or 1.67 trillion kilograms.

Because it is significantly less massive than a full neutron star, its ability to warp space and photons would be much weaker than the star it was ejected from.

Also, it's misleading to call something as massive as a million mountains a "molecule". Besides, there is no way something this small could maintain this high density outside of the crushing pressure of the star. It would explode immediately and dramatically from decompression.

What do I think? There is no known mechanism for something this massive to be ejected from something as gravitationally strong as a neutron star.

Those streams of energy shooting out from the poles of rapidly spinning neutron stars do not come from the star itself, but from infalling matter that is whipped up to high accelerations and funneled out by the star's magnetic field.

Well I don't have a lot of time this morning but I did a quick search to try and find what happens to liquid water in space and I did'nt find anything yet. But I did find this interesting article about a young star shooting water out of it's poles. http://www.huffingto...l_n_879211.html

 

It seems I remember an article where astronounts were experiminting on boiling water in space but I can't remember where. Maybe I'll try to find it when I get back home from work.

Here's the original source that was not clearly quoted by the Huffington Post. (note: ALWAYS read the source articles)

and in following those traces found that these atoms are forming water on and around the star. But as the molecules move through the star and are injected into the massive jets of gas spewing from the poles, the heat and pressure vaporize the water into jets of gas.

The hydrogen & oxygen are combining in or near the star and then getting ejected into space, where they immediately vaporize. It's entirely possible that within a protostar you could have temperature & pressure combinations that allow water to exist in a liquid state (or more likely, a supercritical state).

The problem with these articles is that an astronomer says "water" and everyone else thinks he means liquid water when in fact he simply means H2O. Liquid water physically cannot exist in a vacuum and will either rapidly vaporize or freeze based on temperature.

You said "I read the other day that water is a key ingrediant to star formation". This article actually points out that water is a result of star formation which is INDEED very exciting!

But don't forget that the three most common elements in the universe are hydrogen, helium and oxygen, and helium is inert! That means that the two most common reactive elements are hydrogen and oxygen. Therefore it is no surprise that the simplest hydrogen-oxygen compound with zero valence (H2O) is also the most common molecular compound in the universe.

Battlestar Galactica drove me crazy with their search for water. It is literally everywhere.

I guess at some point it would reach a preassure and turn into hho gas. Highly volitle.

It is impossible for water to exist as a liquid in the near-vacuum of space.

I mean, literally impossible.

My question still stands for an expert here. If the Big Bang was 100 Billion degrees Kelvin at 1/100 of a second after the Big Bang, how hot was it at one trillionth of a second after the Big Bang? Just how hot can hot get?

Temperature is a measure of the average speed of the particles contained within the sample being measured. At some early point after the Big Bang you are no longer dealing with particles so the notion of temperature doesn't apply, at least in a traditional sense.

Also, neutron stars start out at about one trillion Kelvin before cooling down, which is 10 times the temperature you listed.

The existence of darkons would make all spectroscopy fail miserably.

Don't tell that to the creationists!

So I immediately convert it to Farenheit, because I like a scale I am familiar with, and I get 180 Billion degrees F.

How often do you deal with temperatures of billions of degrees so that you prefer Fahrenheit?

Everything in science is measure in Kelvins, you should probably adjust to that and just use Fahrenheit for the normal everyday stuff (weather, etc). It will save you a lot of conversion time!

cheers anyhoo guys, i appreciate you taking the time to have a look at it.

 

I want to make clear that I do not claim to be an expert in physics, but I do try to keep up with it. The paper looks suspect to me for the reasons I listed, but I think a more legitimate refutation should come from someone with a stronger background in the subject.

Are there credible theorys out there that suggest that lightning /or some percentage thereof/ is the result of cosmic rays cruzing through the atmosphere?

 

I've read that a bolt of lightning can produce anti matter in high altitudes. It seems reasonable to me that it should take no more energy than this to create matter, like maybe hydrogen from energy. Of course the hydrogen would probably explode from the heat. I guess the waste byproduct of hydrogen would have to be left behind.

I read about the cosmic ray-lightning connection a few years ago. Google found the SciAm article online: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=experts-do-cosmic-rays-cause-lightning

It's an interesting read!

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by hydrogen "exploding" from the heat. If you are talking about fusion, there's not nearly enough heat in a lightning strike to trigger it.

It is possible to make Darkons work. We just need to patch the theory to fit experimental data.

What you would need to match observation is some sort of particle that transmits the attractive force to darkons from darkon attractors. Knowing past experiments, this particle would need to travel at c. And at c, it would need to be massless and measurable in quantum packets.

All we need now is a name for this hypothetical massless particle that travels at c from darkon attractors.

Any suggestions? I was thinking "anti-darkons"

You may want to have a look at the website and find the "award winning publication" that was talked about earlier. It has been published in a conference proceeding of presumably the conference where he won the award. Conference proceedings are reviewed (at least mine went through the normal process of being reviewed by two referees). To what extent the review process of a non-physics conference counts as a peer-review for a paper that supposedly is about physics may be up for debate. But the publications can all be found on the website of "the Resonance Project". Happy reading .

Wow, such far-ranging conclusions from a paper less than 6 pages long and only 15 minutes to read.

It's basically a long train of assertions with supporting equations, but no real meat to each one other than essentially "and this equation demonstrates it" before moving to the next assertion.

One red flag is that many standard constants were explicitly referenced, such as c and G, which is slightly unusual for a technical paper. Anyone knowledgeable enough to slog through that paper does not need to be reminded of the specific values for those constants. My "fluff" alert was ringing constantly throughout the paper.

As best as I can tell, the basic gist of his theory is that protons are much denser than currently thought, and thus their smaller radii allows for a unification of the gravitational and strong nuclear forces.

However, what really confused me is that there is absolutely zero mention of the current understanding of the proton as not being a single particle, but actually a hadron composed of three quarks. If the proton is actually much more compact than this currently believed, then there would seem to be ramifications on this and should at least be mentioned.

After all, the paper is only 6 pages long, and that's INCLUDING the abstract, references and a full page devoted to a chart & table. His "conclusions" are just 4 sentences restating the introduction and there are no testable predictions.

The author clearly had plenty of time to discuss this subject in more detail and chose not to. Given that and the fact that his website is just spamming for DVD sales makes me think he's hyping a wild theory for money.

It's not the first time, and it won't be the last. I'll wait until he submits a more thorough paper to a scientific journal before assuming his conclusions are legitimate.

Scientific discoveries are all produced by people who were shunned apon because they were wrong. So, anything is possible.

Every heard about a Darkon? /troll face/

What is your background in physics?

This is important because remember that all existing scientific theories regarding light have accumulated decades of experimental confirmation.

Any theory that you claim to upend established scientific theories will need to explain the results of those experiments. As a result, it's a good idea to have an idea of these mountains of evidence you are attempting to overturn.

Light does not exist, apart from darkness; light is merely the absence of darkness. For example, the sun does not produce light, but, rather, has an attractional force that draws in particles of darkness, called "darkons''. When the earth turns toward the sun, the darkons are drawn away, leaving behind light, except in areas where the darkon field is obstructed by trees, buildings, or the like. The areas in which the darkon field is obstructed are known as "shadows''

 

 

So does my pocket flashlight have the same attractional force for darkon particles as the sun?

When I shine my flashlight and then place a mirror in front of it to reflect light behind the flashlight, how do the darkons directly in front know to stop being attracted to the flashlight, and how do the darkons behind the light know to suddenly START being attacted to it?

These are a couple of simple thought experiments that you need to think through very clearly before presenting your theory. These are all currently explained quite easily with existing theories of light.

Nope, it involves a particle faster than the speed of light, a particle that is infinitely times faster than light

That's all i'm gonna say, for now.

Oh, and light doesn't exist. There's a mind boggling theory

 

Just a theory disproving everything science has taught me thus far.

Have you considered the possibility that you might be wrong?

He goes on to say that everything is a black hole and creates matter, im not the best person to explain it,

Has he published any peer-reviewed papers on this topic? If so, can you provide a link and I'll be happy to read it.

It started out with a simple theory on the speed of light, and I stumbled upon a theory on how a Star dies and creates "black holes".

Does it involve gravity and neutron degeneracy pressure?

If so, someone has already beaten you to it. Sorry!

Curouser and Curiouser .. Nasa Apod is featuring, again, after several years, the photo which initiated my idea for waterballs in space.

http://apod.nasa.gov...d/ap111024.html

That's NOT water. It's called the "Waterfall" nebula because of its visual appearance, not its composition.

On a related note, there are no horses in the Horsehead nebula.

The rate of hawking radiation is inversely proportional to the mass of the black hole. So for a small enough black hole, you would have an acceptable rate of energy emission.

Yes, but this also presents a fundamental problem with Hawking Radiation as a power source... an inability to scale.

Also keep in mind that Hawking Radiation is so weak that you would never regain the energy required to create the black hole, redirect material to feed it, or even to build the Dyson sphere.

The real energy comes from the high energy x-rays generated as matter is ripped apart and gobbled up by the black hole. For that you wouldn't need a Dyson sphere since the energy is directed primarily along the axes of rotation.

1 divided by 0 = Infinity

thus 0 x Infinity = 1

 

and 0 = nothing & 1 = something thus 0 x Infinity = Infinite nothing which equals to 1 thus

 

You don't need to jump through so many hoops. If 0 is nothing and 1 is something, then you can simply get 1 from 0 by acknowledging -1.

Therefore you have 1 and -1, which make 0. Two somethings out of nothing.

The present understanding of phases of ice and water can be perhaps likened to an iceberg .,. a tip on the surface, the mass beneath.

This is completely untrue. How can you credibly make an assertion like that when you were not even aware of the equation of state for water just two days ago?

Exactly as Aristarchus was rejected because of established observations. Exaclty as Linus Paling rejected Quasi Crystals because of established observations.

Well, in fairness, I did reject your water planet hypothesis because of established observations regarding the equations of state for water.

If your hypothesis contradicts those established observations, the onus is upon you to explain the contradictions or to demonstrate why the established observations are incorrect. This means that you must understand the established observations!

Claiming victimization does not work in science.

As an example, the proponents of cold fusion took that same route when their hypothesis was roundly criticized in the 80s. However, if they were to present credible and reproducible evidence supporting their hypothesis today, the scientific community would embrace cold fusion once confirmation was in.

None of this is personal in the slightest, so please don't feel victimized. It is all about your hypothesis and data.

I don't know how anyone can say something is impossible since we don't know what is possible. That kind of attitude is what stunts the mind.

The only material that could possibly maintain structural integrity in the form of an infinitely-long cylinder is unobtainium. And most likely, a particularly rare isotope of it designed for rigidity.

Good luck with that.