Flak

Is posible to add a paleontology forum under the Biological Sciences forums?

He is entitled to his opinion' date=' no matter how wrong and baseless it may be.

 

That said arguing for the sake of arguing shouldn't be condoned either. Photons have no mass and nothing (with mass) can travel faster than the speed of light. If you don't understand why find any site on the web that explains the basis of special relativity. Either that or, as above, please provide evidence, if not, at least some basis for such claims.[/quote']

 

As the Relativity "proof", an object with mass cannot reach the speed of light, nothing to talk about overpass it. Because on ecuation this will give you an infinite amount since light speed is the speed limit used.

 

However if speed limit is higher wont be a problem for a mass object went into the lightspeed and even go over it.

...An interesting note: when light got absorved by a black hole it got invisible' date=' the explanation is that the black hole dont let the light to go out. However if this is true there should be a manifestaion of light before get into the hole, some kind of "funnel".

Personally, due of strongs gravitational forces on the black hole, the photons near it got attracted at speeds higher than the lightspeed, for that it got invisible...[/quote']

 

My explanation on a thread before.

Acording to a science magazine, the people studing the cosmos finds the Andromeda`s Galaxy so similiar to ours that they think it is like a mirror. Maybe there are some kind of symetry on space, or that the galaxies form in the same way.

Interesting post. I dont think Einstein is wrong, but I think that speed can go faster than lightspeed, and that photons may have some kind of mass.

I think that some people here need to check better what I DID WROTE.

Chandrasekhar, on his theory, realised that if an WD go over the limit it can became a null or collapse to infinite. Some people around the world didnt like the idea, even Einstein wrote a note about. His mate (I dont remember his name) suggest him to left that line of investigation and go over the studie of star movements.

LATER, Oppenheimer continue his work about that WHAT IF, and there where it comes THE THEORY THAT AN BLACK HOLE DONT LET THE LIGHT TO ESCAPE.

It was a comment and someone started to "challenge" me, because he didnt have anything more important to talk about.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

BTW, interesting link.

Go and check a book about. Or wait later I will post info about.

The Chandrasekhar limit says nothing about black holes, I've said it before! Infact orginally the Chandrasekhar limit did not even consider relativstic effects and the black hole comes entirely from the genral theory of relativity.

You are uneducated on Chandrasekhar limit theory.

I liked that of the uncloaking.

The local coordinate velcoity of a photon always has a length of c in general relativty, this is simply a result of the postulates of GR. The Oppenheimer limit or the Chandrasekhar limit offere no insights into how black holes 'work' (infact the original limit did not take into account general relativity).

FIRST: I`m not talking about Oppenheimer limit.

SECOND: I didnt say that Chandrasekhar limit explains how BH works

THIRD: Chandrasekhar limit, states the posibility of a formation of a BH if overpassed.

Anti-matter can be of great use for propulsion devices to reach high speeds, however is unsure if they can be aislated on big quantities somewhere, neither talk about "secure" manipulation.

Yes Sayonara³, but there was explained as a basis for BH existence.

Going back to the original post, the info about Black Holes provided either from Chandrasekhar and later by Oppenheimer is that can lead that the lightspeed can be beated. Let me explain it again but better.

I wont explain how an star work since is somewhat long and most of you SHOULD know it. As said before if the mass of an star is above Chandrasekhar limit it could be aside other things a black hole. Then later Oppenheimer described how the black hole may work, by strong gravity forces the photons got attracted and cannot escape, for that the black hole is "invisible". However altough as ok on theory, on practice is unknown. For example if photons go to the blackhole at light speed, why not show a "funnel" patern. I think that the photons are attracted to the BH at speeds higher than lightspeed, for that it is "invisible" AROUND the black hole.

.......Yet the Chandreskar limit refers to white dwarves. Infact the Chandrasekhar limit in itself does not provide a mechanism for a white dwarf to become a balck hole as it does not consider the degeneracy pressure between neutrons.

Chandrasekhar stated it (Chandrasekhar got a Novel on some part for his studies on Black Holes), and Oppenheimer explain it aswell. I shall post those notes later here?

You mean, like if we just where a photon and traveling?

Flak, what exactly are you after?

Currently trying to develop a technology that will make me able to kick Aeschylus without move from home.

If an star go over the Chandrasekhar limit it can became a black hole, it is STATED there. Or I have to scan and post the whole theory here?

Yes I'm aware yo are being sarcastic, nevertheless the Chandrasekhar limit refers speciifcally to white dwarfs which is why what you said earlier is [i']incorrect[/i]

I said that Chandrasekhar limit can be aplicated to Black Holes and so on, unless you only want to tell me that I´m wrong. It seems that someone needs to check about if not..

I had "examined" it... (I wont put any smilie to not confuse you again)

 

No you haven't' date=' that is clear.[/quote']

 

Is clear that you only want to make me upset by kidding.

Yes' date=' really:

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/ChandrasekharLimit.html

 

 

Now you could infer from this that a simlair limit may exist for neutron stars, but the Chandrasekhar limit refers specifically to white dwarfs.[/quote']

 

 

= this smilie is labelled "roll eyes (Sarcastic)"

 

Simple mechanical treatments of special relativty aren't difficult at all and by examining them you will find out why lightspeed is a 'barrier' (infact calling lightspeed a barrier is really a very superficial' date=' misleading precis of special relativity)[/quote']

 

I had "examined" it... (I wont put any smilie to not confuse you again)

The Chandrasekhar limit refers specifically[/i'] to white dwarfs.

...really?

Wheter you are "checking other possibilties" or not you still don't have clue about relativity and therefore lack the skills to evalute different possibilties.

Typically...

Yes!!! I gave you a link in post #8 !!!!!

 

Here it is again: http://pdg.lbl.gov/2004/listings/s000.pdf

I will put some info on day of this, and I will be really interested on know how you can apply that

I guess what you are talking about is the Chandrasekar limit which places a definte maximum mass on the size of a white dwarf (subject to oher factors such as it's angular momentum)' date=' due to the force of gravity overcoming the degenracy pressure between elcectrons and protons. The Oppenheimer-Volkoff limit is analgous to the Chandrasekhar limit but refers to neutron stars instead of white dwarfs. But this pretty much irrelevant as you seem quite happy to except the existamnce of black holes (even if you do not know a great dela about them) yet you cannot accept the foundation that is necessary for the theory of black holes and indeed nearly all of modern physics - special relativity.[/quote']

 

Chandrasekhar limit, also have aplication on Black Holes, Neutronic Stars and

Supernovas.

 

I'll say it again - learn about special relativty - basic special relativty is not hard and anyone with highschool maths should at least be able to undrestand the fundamentals.

 

I think you didnt read my post above yours.

']See' date=' I did not intend to insult you earlier, although it probably came off that way. You ARE uneducated on the subject of relativity, this is very evident by the things you are saying. I've been posting on this forum for about 2 months. In that time like 15 people have come up with problems with relativity, problems with lightspeed barier, c as a constant, time dilation etc etc etc. Einstien came up with this theory. It has been examined by the best physicsts in the world for coming close to a century. These arguments that are so often brought up are extremely obvious ones, and have been brought up countless times before. Yet the theory remains. For example you said

 

"For me, pure energy cannot be affected by gravity, unless they are "attached" to mass."

 

Where did you get this? This is just something you thought up because it seemed like it made sense. And I guess it sort of does. But physical theories are not always intuitive. This is explained in general relativity VERY well. This is just an opinion of yours that is not backed up by anything at all, which is why we say you are uneducated on the subject. To make critisims about relativity you must first understand it. I dont understand relativity, you dont, I'm not sure if anyone here can claim to.[/quote']

 

I understand it, Im not saying is wrong. Simply I`m "going out of it" to check other posibilities. And yes, you call me uneducated again

It's mexican for grandmother.

 

 

Kidding. It's french for probe... which is almost as funny.

Well, just call it "the UFO for the inhabitants at Alpha Centauri"

As a case in point, someone on another thread said that it wasn't 'proven' that the photon is massless. I pointed out that it has been, but he does have a (very weak) point, because there is only a limit on the mass of the photon. If could have a mass of 10^{-20[/sup'] eV and still be consistent with experiment. So what is 'proof'?}

^{, maybe becuse I`m "inane".}

No really, if you study some basic general relativity it is fairly self explainitory. I'm quite happy to explain it to you here, if you could start by pointing out where I have contradicted myself?

I dont want to be inane, so if you happy with that explanation, thats ok. For me, pure energy cannot be affected by gravity, unless they are "attached" to mass. So say that energy is affected by gravity is like to say that energy have mass.

You are uneducated on the subject, that is a simple and very plain fact, what you shouyld do is try to become educated on the subject, especially before you start to make pronouncements on it.

I think there is a big difference between uneducated by the subject and not agree with some aspect of it, as a note I`m dont desagree with all the theory.

Photons have no mass by the defintion of mass[/b'], this does not mean that they will not be affected by gravity, infact in GR it is clear that even massless objects must be affected by gravity. Of course if you'd bothered to find this out for yourself inm the first place, you would not be here making inane statements.

As I said before. Massless objects or energy? For me is not the same. Do you have a diagram with the complete structure of the photon?. I`m not making inane statements, dont you think that say that the photon "CAN NOT HAVE MASS" is inane? As said before you have SOLID information to say that the photon dont have mass?

About if I`m uneducated, the stated above about black holes (ONLY THAT, SURE) comes from the studies of Chandrasekhar (wich later Oppenheimer expanded) on the limit of the star. I want to know if you even remember that RIGHT NOW.