300

After thinking about to, a bit I really do think it is a possible that black holes are formed by particles of matter which have exceeded the speed of light.......


It would explain the mass of blacks holes, as we all know e = mc^2 which means as opjects approach the speed of light, their mass becomes infinelty large.

You can derive this from m = e/c^2 where e is a contant.

This would also explain why light can not escape a black hole. The gravity created is greate enough to pull the light in. That much gravity needs to be created by an object traveling greater than the speed of light....

Just my thought anyway


Any physics heads got any thoughts??

A black hole is just any object that is so massive that the escape velocity is greater than the speed of light.

e is not really constant in that equation because the m is a symbol for "relativistic mass" which is a function of the velocity itself. As velocity increases so does mass so therefore e itself changes too.

12clicks,

Do you have a better argument than "this is not true" ? I at least studied this stuff in numbers. Alot of this stuff is proven. Since I did not major in physics, i can't tell you all the details about it. But your approach to the subject is totally wrong. You can't think so simple if you're gonna debunk someones theory that heavily relies on math and numbers. Einstein was not a philosopher, he was a scientist. Simple thoughts doesn't mean anything unless you can show a stable equation.

Are you familiar with the "theory of everything"? Its already 75% complete. Soon they will be able to explain the interaction of all forces in harmony.

How familiar are you with quatum physics? Do you have any idea how complicated it is right now? Nobody can grasp this stuff. Its all in numbers and equations. They say there is 20-something dimensions, while we can sense only 3. Do you think it is even possible to picture these things in your head?

A 2D picture is painted on a surface of a 3D object. We also live in a 3D world on the surface of a 4D universe, which is expanding. The expansion has been proven with the observation of galaxies and their speeds. Its like an inflating baloon. If you keep going in one direction, you will eventually go around the 4D object and come to where you have started. Light also goes around this 4D object, which actually is not a straight line. If you draw straight line on a baloon, it will be an arc in the 3D view. Its the same thing here. A straight line in a 3D world is actually an arc in 4D, so its not the shortest path. If you have the chance to go inside the ballon and travel through it, you would take a shortcut.
Also the shape of the universe is bent by gravitational forces, which also changes the route of light, and makes the path longer.

You also seem like you don't know much about the dual properties of light and why it has a mass.

I don't have the time or the teaching skills to explain it all right now, but I can see for a fact that your approach is wrong and too simple to disprove anything.

if you have time someday, pelase teach me! :thumbsup

I have not studied this stuff at all, and at least you are bringing examples from current scientific studies. The only thing I see 12clicks saying (other than bringing a good argument) is prove it, yet he cannot either. I think the whole conversation is mute unless both sides can prove it :)

What do you want proved? There have been a few dozen statements made.

There are hundreds of examples which confirm the relativity of time. Special Relativity was first formulated in 1905. Given the acceleration of technology one hundred years for a theory that is at the cornerstone of modern physics is in pretty good shape.

A few experiments were mentioned in this thread. One was the experiment where a clock is placed on a plane and another stays on the ground and the clocks expire at different rates depending on altitude because of the slightly weaker gravitational attraction. (general relativity). There have actually been many variations on this experiment over the years. 12 clicks (maybe jokingly) pointed out that the experiment is flawed because clocks aren't accurate to within a millionth of a second. In fact, the "clocks" used were "atomic clocks" which are accurate to BETTER THAN 1 millionth of a second because they measure the frequency of a spectral line of Cesium. Answers in nanoseconds.

Most physicists aren't just running around performing experiments with simple errors such as the degree of error in their measurements. Not only is this not a likely error from an individual but an experiment that will be published is first scrutinized and subject to peer review and then the entire scientific community.

you show them colin :thumbsup

I did not read the entire thread but:

1.) Moving faster than light will not make you go backwards or forwards in time, it will make your proccesses move backwards. For example if you accelerate to a faster than light velocity it will simply move backwards.

2.) Einstein proved that it is impossible to accelerate something to faster than light. So you cannot prove him WRONG cause he said it's impossible to move faster than light in the first place.

Lane, you hop in here in page what? 4? 5? and declare that such and such is fact but offer no proof and offer no theory. You just make a couple of meaningless *statements* and CLAIM they are facts proving my theories wrong.
I trotted out theories, you parrot what someone told you and can not show us that what you parrot is fact.

If you have a theory, present it, if not, please don't pretend you understand any of it by trotting out things you've heard in class but can't explain.:thumbsup

6 pages in and you have a statement to make without reading the thread?
get lost, your points have been covered.:321GFY

I am only telling you what is already proven. You would be right if I was making these up. You are the only one here who is supposed to bring a complete proof if you want others to accept your arguments.

I know you are probably having fun by not giving up argueing against all of this, and finding something wrong or incomplete in everyones post to point out, which makes you look like that you have proven them wrong. You sure as hell know you can't debate this with a physics proffessor and prove your arguments to him/her.
You also sure as hell know you are wrong, thats why you come to a webmaster board to talk about it instead of calling a university, because noone here can completely disprove what you say, at least thats what you think.
You are quite a character 12clicks :winkwink:

"The distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion."

Albert Einstein

I still have a problem with gravity, don't get me started on time.

12 Clicks,

You deserve a Nobel Prize for this.

In literature. ;-)

you gurus, please answer me
is Lensman check he owes me RELATIVE term or not according to Einstein theory?

I'd like to quote the true guru on that but the messages are conflicting:

"The important thing is not to stop questioning."
Albert Einstein

"Too many of us look upon Americans as dollar chasers" - Albert Einstein

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results" - Albert Einstein

Not true, your post about slowing down time for particles is something I asked you to post a link about.
so far, no link. I say that what you call fact is just a half truth.
As far as debating with a professor, find me a board full of professors.

how can a man who makes this statement:
"The distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion." -Albert Einstein
always be considered right?

simple thing

I'm sorry, this thread title was too funny not to bump.

problem number 1 - you cant travel faster than the speed of light. I dont think Einstein ever suggested you could since this very fact represents the foundation of his work.

i forgot about this jewel :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

thanks for the bump

12clicks you are one stupid mofo :thumbsup

there is no reason something can't travel faster than the speed of light.
the speed of light is just a measure of how fast light travels. there's no proof that something other than light couldn't go faster than light.
Thats like saying you can't run faster than a dog.

and I debunked Charles Darwin by reading GFY...

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

well sir... we dont know what they lerned ya in Physics For Rednecks and how yer dog figures into things... but nothing travels faster than the speed of light. if you knew anything about Einstein and his work (which you are supposedly debunking in your own uneducated, yet somehow charming way), you would know that.

dude, certain members of GFY could be considered the missing link.
I think this *proves* Darwin, not debunks him.

I threw the dog in so you might understand.
There is *no* proof that nothing travels faster than light. you can pretend otherwise but then you'd have a lot in common with the flat earth society.

"One of the reasons that prevent any object with a mass going at or faster than the speed of light is that the mass is not constant - it increases with velocity and it goes to infinity at the speed of light. So that eventually you need infinite amounts of energy to accelerate infinite mass past the speed of light mark!"

pleasurepays.
this might be over your head but here you go:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic.../tachyons.html

it's clearly over your head... since that is nothing more than a theory of something that has not been proven to exist. why not just quote the Old Testament to support your arguments?

hahaha, I love it when you show a kid a link and he challenges it with what he thinks.
:1orglaugh
I figured it was over your head.

here you go, I wonder if these guys were eating icecream too:
http://www.you.com.au/news/1121.htm
"""Inconstant Speed of Light May Debunk Einstein """

i am not saying i am smarter than you... i am simply saying that it's your lack of understanding of the physics involved, not some deeper understanding that has led you to your conclusions.

now that you have found the perfect ice cream for debunking 6 decades of physics and disproving dozens of Nobel Prize winners and proving the ignorance of the last centuries greatest scientific minds, perhaps you can find the perfect ice cream for completing unification theory? maybe chunky monkey?

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh

we are all happy that you found google and that after many painfully awkward and frustrating attempts, you finally spelled something right to get relevent results. back to your original statement - you can't prove math to be wrong with philosophical suppositions ... you have to actually to show your work, present it to your peers and see if it holds up to scrutiny or not.

To quote the Rolling Stones...

"Tiiiiiiiime is on my side.... yes it is.... "

When I was younger I could flip the light switch and get into bed before the light went off.

12clicks is right.

From the time this thread started to present I feel an incredible loss of time reading it...

Damn...


However Speed of Sound is irrelevant.
Sound is an event that requires pressure.

The boom you hear is not akin to light but the vibration of matter ebbing from the source that has reached a speed that exceeds environmental pressure.

For example a sonic boom will not occur at the same exact speeds at different parts of the planet.

Light and Sound have little in common theoretically speaking.

For example a sonic boom will not occur at the same exact speeds at different parts of the planet since the pressure is varied from different atmospheric climates and pressure.

Is that the same thing as string theory?

"The important thing is not to stop questioning."
Albert Einstein

You never know if something is bigger, brighter or faster!


BTW I like this thread! :thumbsup :1orglaugh

and the url I posted showed that light may travel at different speeds making it much more similar to light than you'd like to pretend.
But sound is merely an example of speed the same way the dog is.

Translation: you've proven my statements wrong by posting urls to scientific equasions and theory so I'll mock you in the hopes that people don't notice.

if you had half a brain, the thread title would have given you an idea of the lighthearted tone of the thread.

Sadly, some kids have a constant need to prove others wrong that precludes having a good time dicking around about Einstien and icecream.

you like everything I do, don't you? :winkwink:

It's time for everyone to get a drink. Future or past.

wrong..

Einstein-Rosen bridges

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/stra.../wormhole.html

So 12Clicks you believe in FTL?

more proof that I'm never wrong?
http://www.smh.com.au/news/science/w...553651249.html

Did you know that time is what is keeping all the planets in place? Time flows through everything.. Its all in einsteins equation.

The only thing this thread proves is that the galaxy is just one big poorly made Japanese subtitled movie.

If light travels faster than sound - then if you took a really strong telescope and viewed a person standing on Mars - you'll see their lips moving long before you'll get to hear what they're saying!