Flak
-
Posts
84 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Flak
-
-
With the current technology we can take like 100000000 of years to put a sonde there.
0 -
I will read it trougtly but.. as far as i read, that does not concord with your definition of wormhole, in the other hand... it looks more like a time tunnel. and the could be possible.
I had check the book at the library today, hmm, not much time with it but I didnt found the definition I told before.
0 -
']It is applicable' date=' since when trying to argue against someone who is
1) uneducated on the subject at hand and
2) not willing to do basic research on the subject,
the argument becomes totally meaningless. There are only so many ways you can prove that you are, in fact, incorrect. If you choose to ignore them, then there is nothing we can do about it.[/quote']
Uneducated on the subject.. please stop doing such coments, I`m not a kid and I asume there are no kids here (at least not much) so dont use this type of argument. Better come here and put your toughts about the subject, that will be more interesting.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Going back to the subject, if photons are pure energy without mass:
1) Why when they got a massive object, like an star, they got deviated?
2) Why the photons got affected by gravity if they dont have mass?
On this last I want to talk about. I was researching by myself for explanations about and I got responses or info that dont convince me.
For example, the light got absorved by a black hole due of strong gravity, so it have to have any kind of mass for that. An interesting note: when light got absorved by a black hole it got invisible, 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.
Comments, suggestions welcome (as soon it is not like the one exampled at start of this message)
0 -
I´m not really sure however, thats is the book I should got such info. If not I have no idea from where I got it. I asked a friend about before post and he confirm me that it would be there such theory.
0 -
Wrong. The sound "barrier" was never a barrier in any real sense of the word. No one ever said, "It is not possible to exceed the speed of sound". In fact, we were propelling objects faster than sound for decades before the "sound barrier" was "broken". All the sound barrier consisted of was the problem involved with designing a plane that could acheive controlled[/i'] flight at super-sonic speeds.
Yep, on that moment there was "exceptics" wich say that for a form of life inside or outside of a craft is not posible to do that.
The speed of light barrier is another animal all together,No' date=' it is not. The light speed limit is a [i']consequence of the postulates of Relativity, not a base starting point. There are a number of consequences of Relativity's postulates, and these are tested and shown to be correct everyday in high energy particle labs around the world. The postulates are shown to hold, and thus the light speed barrier holds, because it is an unescapable result of those very postulates.
The very fact that you would make such a statement shows that you have not thoroughly studied the subject.
Einstein used the most fast speed available in the universe wich manifestate itself. You cannot use higher values of speed on the formula listed above, so that formula says that highert velocities of speedlight are not posible and that formula also said that the photon cant have mass. My point is that there is posible higher velocities, and by this the photon can have mass.
0 -
I had remembered it, the book is called "A Brief History of Time, from Big Bang to Black Holes" from Stephen Hawking. Since your are from Mexico you will find it under the name of "Historia del Tiempo, del Big Bang a los Agujeros Negros"
However there is a little detail, when searching for the book I found my thesis that I did when bring the theory to practice by my "experiment theory" explained above.
So for sure in the book, the author talks about the "in order to create the black hole is needed an infinite cylinder" and a lot better explained. So my part is not sustained. Sorry if I confuse you.
0 -
']Pigs can fly.
No' date=' they can't.
Why not?
They do not have the means to.
Prove it.
Pigs dont fly.
Maybe they will some day.[/quote']
Not aplicable here since you are comparing a well know facts about pigs anatomy based on biology with things know but with some aspects explained by theories.
Iridium, I`m not saying that Relativity is wrong, just that one of its bases is that the lightspeed is taken as the most high speed available, and this is not highly prooved.
0 -
I also had learned at a college. All of us was for sure.
0 -
Flak' date=' give the book name.
That would be some sort of acelerator. (what you mentioned)
[/quote']
Is a somewhat old book (I readed it on 90`s), in english if I remember corretly. The book was not mine so I have no idea where it comes from.
0 -
1. I say sorry again for (as i have already said i never ment to be rude or whatever). It is just that i am very disappointed in the level of modern education.
2. No matte how many posters a person had made - it doesn't mean a thing' date=' actually - quality is more important than quantity.
3. And a little piece of advice - READ BOOKS, for i swear lots of the things u see here (about lightspeed and photons and so on) is not quite true (or misunderstood). Good luck! [/quote']
I dont know if someone can come here without read a book, unless is a 5 years old genious.
0 -
Nevermind.
0 -
Yes you right , finally someone say it right.
It is little technologicaly aswell because we dont have clue, even to reach that speed.
0 -
There is life there?
Time ago, on a publication, apeared that 4 years (or 8?) after the explosion of Krakatoa with was the most powerfull of the modern times, an strange explosion apeared on Siberia (or Russia forest). So the author talked about that maybe "someone" at Alpha Centauri solar system got this manifestation tought that was a message and reply it.
Well the above is not a must, but the point here is that with the current technology we can travel there?, even if we sent a sonde at 1/4 lightspeed we had to wait 4 years minim (depending on technology and after wait 16 years) to get reports about?
0 -
It depends:
Based on Relativity with the lightspeed as a limit, pure energy.
Based on that lightspeed is not a limit, matter.
0 -
Please, why you dont tell us what things are wrong acording to your studies?
0 -
The sound barrier is so-named only because it was once a barrier to human engineering. It has nothing to do with relativity and anyone who says "if the sound barrier can be broken, the light barrier can too" clearly has no idea what they are talking about.
Exactly. The sound speed was a barrier to human technology and now it is not more a barrier. Light speed is a barrier aswell now and some day it wont be anymore.
About the formula, ed84c, the Relativity is based with the light speed as a limit.
Time is not stoped by lightspeed. If on astronomy you check the bright of an star 90 years light of distance this is because the photons took 90 years to reach here.
0 -
Traveling to the future can be done without breaking the speed of light. As you accelerate, time slows down FOR YOU. Atomic clocks synchronized on the ground show a different time when one is placed in a supersonic airplane. Yes, you will always be in the "Present", but you can arrive to the "Present" in a shorter amount of time than everyone else.
Because is the clock got affected by the supersonic flight.
0 -
And if you do like to Sitt in the silence reading books in the library! Be Shure to pick upp Einsteins own and only pulikation the the Special and General relativity mater! I'll bet u then will come to understand what we all mean here!
Well here is my explanation about.
For sure many of you use this formula to tell me that a photon dont have mass, lets check:
m = m0 / √(1-(v/c)²)
The Relativity is based on that Einstein took the most fast speed that the universe show, the light speed. So if you think the photon dont have mass, why when the light find a massive object, like an star, it got deviated?
About if there is something faster than light lets check the following:
Let say the blue wave is a light wave and the black line a surface. The light wave move at light speed, velocity a, and collide to the surface at the same speed. The velocity b is called "phase speed" or "phase velocity", that speed is higher than the light speed, so in theory, light speed can beat itself.
About a supersonic aircraft, yourdadonapogos you dont hear the aircraft when it pass over you, the sound comes later.
0 -
We dont have proof to check is there is something faster than light, since if something is faster than light, it became invisible. As sound speed isnt a barrier, light speed is not a barrier aswell.
Show me proof that a photon dont have mass. No one is sure if it have or not.
0 -
Exlpain yourself, I know about some theories about, but when aplicated their are wrong.
The fact is that a lot of publications, (that I will find the correct source so I can foward you) explain that lightspeed can be doubled, even go 10 times its speed, by the simply concept that is not the limit of speed.
0 -
On the general science forum there was a thread about if we can go faster than light speed or not. I wanted to reply posting why it isnt a barrier but the thread was closed. I think no matter if it is like other threads, I come here to talk if not I will spend time on the library in silence.
The point is: we can travel faster than light speed?. Yes.
Speed/aceleration is acumulative, it depends on mass and energy. The lightspeed is only the barrier of the "showed" speed, faster than that is not noticiable so we dont know what move faster than light.
0 -
It is true that there was for a short time a little bit of a worry about this for the LHC (not the LC' date=' but the principles remain the same). If there are large extra dimensions (ie that have not been compactified too extremely) then potentially the Planck scale could be as low as a TeV or so. Then the LHC could potentially have enough energy to create a black hole. It was worried that the black hole would then go on to eat away parts of the detector, or even worse eat the Earth. So a comission was set up with many eminent scientists to investigate this possibility and it was soon realised that even if a black hole were produced, it would evaporate via Hawking radiation very quickly and is no danger. In fact, there are now programs which simulate balck hole production at the LHC, and seeing one would be a major scientific acheivement.
So you can sleep safe...[/quote']
Thanks for the clarifications above. About your last coment.. will be a good idea to create a space vessel to evacuate the Earth, just in case .
Really worring.
0 -
The lightspeed is not a barrier, you can go over it if you are able to. But for sure cyclons on Jupiter dont go even to lightspeed, maybe he means soundspeed?
0 -
Probably , but the fact is that this is not anything tested before. Well maybe in the past electric energy researching was considered a dark and tenebrous part of the science aswell.
0
Lightspeed "barrier"
in Relativity
Posted
Is a little contradictory, at least for me. Both may be affected by gravity.