So, I've been reading a lot...

I think I mentioned I was from here, and then got banned after my first post. XD

 

It has something to do with this vector equation Einstein came up with in which the vectors are not cumulative due to the increasing inaccuracy of adding vectors of such high speed. I remember the documentaries from Physics II, which gave me a big 9 week long headache. It has something to do with not only you and the traveling light source, but a 3rd party observer as well. It also holds an explanation deep down as to how you can leave Earth in a spaceship traveling at the speed of light and return years later not having aged a bit. But everyone else will be like 20 years older. IDK, I really sucked at physics. Look at the equation. The light constant already tells you that the variables will never equal the constant, so the speed of something can never actually attain the speed of light.

 

No, everyone will have devolved into talking apes, and the remaining humans will be forced into slavery.

 

Good God I hated that film. It's like Logan's Run... everyone keeps telling me it's classic, and all I see is some dated crap that bores me out of my mind. (Seriously... I sat through the entirety of Logan's Run waiting for it to get good, and got severely pissed off at the lame-arse ending.)

 

Well I guess I won't join after all.

 

I was close.

 

Oh dear lord, where to begin....

Firstly, Aozos has moved a few times, changed it's name and I don't often have time to check there anyways nowadays, that's why I only just got your message.

Secondly, howdy y'all. Some familiar names. Some not so familiar. Some that simply scare me.

Actually, you were right the first time. Sorry. :lol:

Sorry again, but the first principles of your entire argument are bollocks.

I think you'll find that the speed of light 'c' is always given as that of the speed of light in a vacuum, for the very reason that light does infact change speed quite easily and that the only way to reliably notate the speed of light is to give it's maximum possible speed when under no external influence.

It's the same principle as driving a truck through a concrete wall - that truck is going to be going a lot slower than a truck that hasn't been driven through a concrete wall, because aforementioned concrete wall has a detrimental action on the forward velocity of also aforementioned truck.

If light hits anything, it slows down. Same as everything else.

This is easily demonstrated with a glass of water and a straw. Put the straw in the water and it appears bent. Why? Because the light going through the water is slower than the light going through the air and since it takes longer to reach your eyes, it looks different. It's called refraction is a property of light dependant entirely upon it's speed.

Actually, this can neither be proven or disproven. It's most likely correct, simply because you can't move at lightspeed. You'd also be picoscopic blob of neutronium trapped in an incalculably huge gravitational well, which tends to hamper your movement somewhat. Black hole physics is generally something you should stay away from in an argument because normal universal physical principles break down as you near the event horizon of a gravitational singularly and do not appear to apply once the event horizon is breached. As such, no one can really tell what's going on in there and the only stuff you can say about it is entirely supposition and conjecture, which is pointless in a debate situation. It's generally best to leave it to the best scientific minds on the planet.

Sadly incorrect again. Speed is not dependant on mass in a vacuum, provided that time is not a factor. It just takes longer to accelerate to that speed due to the laws of inertia. It just takes more energy to get it going.

Also, most black holes are moving at incredible speeds. Even those that look stationary are infact moving at staggeringly high speeds - it's just that, as previously mentioned by yourself, it's dragging everything else along with it. There is strong evidence to suggest that the centre of the milky way galaxy is a super black hole, but the entire galaxy (and us with it) is also moving an a phenominal speed.

There is also strong evidence to suggest that the earth has also been struck by at least 7 micro blackholes in the past. They have a similar mass to a small asteroid and are moving too quickly for us to detect, but since they're so small (subatomically small) they usually detonate with little more intensity than an asteroid strike when they degrade rather spectacularly upon contact with the ground. This is not due to any kinetic force, since they're so small as to pass through most matter, but because they're so tiny that they quickly absorb more matter than their gravitational field can sustain and so they invert (the so called 'white hole') and explosively decompress. Unfortunately, this is not my field of expertise and I can't give more details on the subject, but I'm sure there's an article in New Scientist or similar should you wish to research the topic further (I think that's where I saw the article).

An object's lifespan is the same, no matter what speed it's travelling at. It's just that due to the nature of relativity, anyone travelling at a slower speed would be unable to observe the entropic decay of that object in the same manner. If you were to be hypothetically accelerated to light speed, with all of the requirements to continue living, you would still live just as long as you would do at normal speeds according to your own perception. It's just relative (it's why it's called relativity - Einstein was good with names). to perspective and observation. Speed does not infact alter entropic decay, relative to itself.

Utter tosh. You'd simply catch up to the speed of light. The speed of light is not a relative figure, but a universal constant. It is, by it's very nature, constant. It can be slowed down by putting objects in its' path (see previous 'truck through the concrete wall' anology) but it can never go faster than it's maximum speed.

Let's just ignore the complete idiocy of your statement for now and concentrate on just why it's just so idiotic. Let's take another truck analogy. This time, with two trucks. One is parked up by the side of the road. One travels past it at speed. If the second truck were to pass the first at 40mph, would the first truck be going any faster or slower than if the second were to pass it at 80mph? The answer is simple: of course not. Just because the speed of one object changes, the speed of everything else surrounding it does not also change on a whim. Speeds are always fixed, based upon energistic values. Light has a maximum speed in a vacuum. Just because something else decides to travel at the same speed, doesn't mean that light speeds up to keep ahead. It just waves back at you and goes on it's merry way, at the speed of light.

I'd just like to take a breather here and say how much I've missed all this. Since I now generally work with people that know what they're talking about, I rarely get the opportunity to slate people so badly.

No, that would also be the strong and weak atomic forces and gravity. EM is only a small part of it. Interestingly, it's thought that gravity plays such a huge part in the interaction of matter, even though it's the weakest of the universal forces, because unlike the others that act in the normally observable four dimensions, gravity is thought it act in all ten dimensions and is thus observably weaker in all of them. Watch QI. You might learn something.

Black holes do not give off X-Rays. X-Rays may emit from matter being degraded by exposure to such an enormous gravittional singularity, but X-Rays themselves are swallowed by a black hole just as all the rest of the EM spectrum (including light) is. The only detectable things that can escape a black hole are neutrinos and Hawking radiation, both of which hold negligable mass.

You seem to have a fundamental lack of understanding of how Doppler shift works and an even more staggeringly lower understanding of the fundamental principles of light and wave-particle duality.

Light travels at the same speed. Always. The reason why the frequency changes is because you're just hitting IT faster. Think of speed bumps. If you're travelling at 20mph, they go bump... bump... bump... but if you're travelling at 80mph they go bumpbumpbump. Just because you're travelling faster, doesn't mean that the objects you interact with are changing in speed or frequency too - it's just a factor of how quickly you're interacting with them. In the case of light, you simply encounter each photon more rapidly and thus experience a heightened input of energy, raising the observable intensity.

The reason why light appears to red shift as you move away from it, is precisely because it CAN'T go faster than the speed of light, so as you run away from all those photons, they don't catch up to you as quickly, so they hit you far less frequently. This provides a lower energistic input than you would otherwise experience, lowering the observable intensity.

Please tell me you did NOT just bring up comic books as a point to support your views! You just lost the entirely debate on this one point alone, you sad, sad panda! The simple fact of the matter is, the comic is bollocks. If the Flash were to be moving at light speed, he would in actuality be observing very little of meaning. Everything behind him would simply be black. Everything in front of him would simply be black. This is because no photon behind him would be able to catch up with him and all photons in front of him would be impacting at a frequency so far behond the visible spectrum as to most likely cause him to instantly decay in spectacular fashion, taking a good portion of the planet with him. However, the fact that he would be unable to interact with the world or even observe the world AT ALL would make the comic less than interesting, so as usual they made up a whole load of bollocks that ignores reality. This is what comics do. I'm even being generous enough to be ignoring the laughable statement that he can move faster than the speed of light.

It's slightly more simple than that I'm afraid. We're just so damned far away that it's taken hundreds of thousands of years for light, even moving at light speed, to reach us. We're looking into the past, because the light from events in the distant past has only just caught up to us and we're seeing those events as they happened, even though it was so long ago.

At no point was any matter in the universe moving faster than light.

I would just like to take some more time out to commend you, person with actual real academic knowledge!

No one devolved. Apes just got their chance to evolve too, with the pressure of human development lifted from the evolutionary niche. Humans sucked because all the smart people destroyed themselves, leaving only the chavs behind, breeding mindlessly until the apes realised they were smarter than the chavs. That was only 2 years after the wars killed off the smart humans.

I should just like to note that the tone of this post is for posperity's sake and not meant as an insult in any way. Infact, I would like to encourage you to continue studying physics (and science) in all it's myriad forms. It's an incredibly interesting subject.

 

Okay, where did 7000 of my posts go? >.<

EDIT: Also, please excuse the spelling and grammatical errors in my above post. I'm normally a stickler for such things, but it took me so long to write that I don't have time to go back and edit them out.

 

I considered all of that as given information. Light will either refract as it travels through something, or be diffused before it can reach theother side, so I didn't mention it. Besides, its that much easier to work with the maximum speed of light.

Agreed.

I'm beginning to see that I may have to be extremely particular in how I word things around you, Ferret . I said what I said because of how everything around a black hole would appear to move, due to the light and various other sources of radiation around it.
From what you've said about the microscopic black holes, perhaps the Tunguska explosion could possibly be explained by earth having interfered with a black hole's journey through space, and I'm extremely interested by that. Thanks for the information!

Yes, I should have said relative to an outside observer. I've been reading many of Einstein's works in a book called A Stubbornly Persistant Illusion.

Damn, I ran out of time for now. I may be back on tomorrow, at least I hope so. I may be able to defend myself yet!
:lol:

 

I'm just picky about syntax. Most of my repostes are based around grammatical inconsistencies and the inability of people to explain what they mean. :wink:

Also, everything around a black hole does move. The material accretion disc surrounding the event horizon appears to exhibit a similar effect to that of the coreolus effect of earth - objects always revolve around a black hole in a decaying orbit, like material going down a plug hole.

This effect is quite nifty, because it means that black holes actually go through 'feeding' stages. Once the momentum of an accretion disc reaches a certain level, the black hole actually blows away it's 'food' leaving the black hole completely clear of debris. The black hole then goes dormant, often for eons at a time, until the gravitational pull of the well gradually inches the material on the outer edge back into range and the accretion disc begins to form again. The black hole will continue to grow in spurts like this, with stages of feeding and dormancy.

The super black hole at the centre of the milky way is in a dormant state at the moment, which is why scientists have only just discovered it. What we originally thought of 'dark space' does infact contain a black hole of enormous proportions that just happens to have blown it's accretion disc out of range.

This is just supposition on my part, but it could well explain the 'typical' double swirl formation of the milky way galaxy. It also means that the black hole at the centre of our galaxy has been dormant for almost as long as the universe was formed and that hopefully means that our galaxy is safe for another few eons or so until the inner edges of the milky way start aggregating again toward the event horizon.

And if that was irrelevant and you were talking about the rippling effect of objects infront of a black hole, then that is caused by the gravitational lensing of the enormous gravitational singularity behind it. It's actually impossible to observe a black hole, because no light escapes the event horizon so you don't get any light coming from it and any light that passes too close to it gets swallowed. The only light that we can detect, is the light that passes far enough away as to escape the event horizon, but this is 'lensed' around the singularity as to essentially cloak the black hole from view. The rippling effect you get around a black hole are caused by the minor gravitational shifts of the accretion disc.

Interestingly though, the neutrino streams and the hawking radiation that escape the black hole do so at both poles. If we were somehow able to directly detect these streams then the black hole would appear to have two obscenely bright beams of energy pouring out perpendicular to the event horizon on the upper and lower axis, so they're not as 'black' as people orginally thought them to be.

 

BLESS you, Ferret! I do so enjoy well-informed scientific debate. (Especially when someone is being proven conclusively wrong. It makes my little cup brimmeth the fuck over.)

 

It's quite refreshing to actually learn something on a message board once in a while. From now on, I'm going to refer to black holes as "Kaleida-Gyroscopes of Doom", and laugh when my friends ask me what that means.

 

It's information that can't travel faster than light, light itself is free to go as fast as it wants.

. Molecular cohesion causes things to stay together, gravity and the weak and strong nuclear forces simply define shape. The cohesion is responsible for why it's so difficult to shove your foot through a steel table, from the attraction of ferrous molecules to themselves via electromagnetic forces resisting the matter of our bodies.

I actually said in my post that once the event horizon is reached, nothing actually escapes the black hole. I probably should have said the accretion disk, as well as the jets formed by the disk, are what actually produces the radiation due to the influence of gravity.

Well, I just interpreted relativity wrong. I understood light's relativity better before I started reading all of these damn physics books and equations. The way I saw it, obvious to you, is that when something speeds up, so does light. I just completely had a brain fart and misinterpreted everything I read about the speed of light. I know how doppler shifts work, however; Sounds from moving cars undergo doppler shifts all the time. High pitched sounds are the result of both the observer and the point of origin getting closer at any speed, low pitched sounds are the result of the point of origin and the observer getting further away at any speed. All waves undergo doppler shifts when the observer either rushes into them or backs away.

Oh, yes I did use comic books. But for good reason!
I just read a book called The Physics of Superheros, by James Kakalios. It describes what laws the heroes either have to abide by or break in order for their powers to work. The Flash has his own chapter.
What I was trying to say is that once the observer reaches light speed, it will appear to the observer that light isn't moving. I used a bad example, since obviously the flash won't be able to see anything directly in front of himself due to the blue shift of the light bouncing off of objects and into his eyes. Everything behind him, however, would look the same as it did before he started running at light speed (since it won't change. He's effectively frozen all visible phenomena behind his own body). Forever. At least, until he stopped moving at light speed. However, moving at light speed has some problems when you've got mass...those problems being mentioned by you.

I may have something that'll change your mind.
At distances beyond the Hubble sphere, objects move away faster than the speed of light. This speed does not contradict special relativity because the motion occurs outside any observer's inertial frame. Light from such objects moves away from the receding source, toward us, while the Hubble sphere expands toward the light, as described shortly. The Hubble sphere can overtake the photons, the light enters the Hubble sphere and eventually becomes observable on Earth, even though the originating sources are receding at a rate faster than light.
Also, an experiment done in 2000 showed photons in a laser moving, at least for short distances, 300 times faster than light through caesium atoms.

 

Ferret, I just want to say that I'm not insulted at all by your post. I'm eager to interact and learn as much as I can.

It's information that can't travel faster than light, light itself is free to go as fast as it wants. In normal circumstances, yes, light is limited to c. Photons and certain subatomic particles are capable of being influenced to move faster than light. When the quantum states of two particles become entangled, they exist in a superimposed quantum state until observed. If they're separated and one of the particles is observed, the first particle's state is discovered, and automatically the second particle's state is known. Since it's intantaneous, it's considered faster than light. However, there's no way to control what state the first particle will take once observed, so no information can be transmitted.

. Molecular cohesion causes things to stay together, gravity and the weak and strong nuclear forces simply define shape. The cohesion is responsible for why it's so difficult to shove your foot through a steel table, from the attraction of ferrous molecules to themselves via electromagnetic forces resisting the matter of our bodies. I'm pretty sure I said what I said because we're absolutely surrounded by EM radiation. Our bodies even give off light in the infra-red spectrum. However, I don't have any proof behind my statement.

I actually said in my post that once the event horizon is reached, nothing actually escapes the black hole. I probably should have said the accretion disk, as well as the jets formed by the disk, are what actually produces the radiation due to the influence of gravity.

Well, I just interpreted relativity wrong. I understood light's relativity better before I started reading all of these damn physics books and equations. The way I saw it, obvious to you, is that when something speeds up, so does light. I just completely had a brain fart and misinterpreted everything I read about the speed of light. I know how doppler shifts work, however; Sounds from moving cars undergo doppler shifts all the time. High pitched sounds are the result of both the observer and the point of origin getting closer at any speed, low pitched sounds are the result of the point of origin and the observer getting further away at any speed. All waves undergo doppler shifts when the observer either rushes into them or backs away.

Oh, yes I did use comic books. But for good reason!
I just read a book called The Physics of Superheros, by James Kakalios. It describes what laws the heroes either have to abide by or break in order for their powers to work. The Flash has his own chapter.
What I was trying to say is that once the observer reaches light speed, it will appear to the observer that light isn't moving. I used a bad example, since obviously the flash won't be able to see anything directly in front of himself due to the blue shift of the light bouncing off of objects and into his eyes. Everything behind him, however, would look the same as it did before he started running at light speed (since it won't change. He's effectively frozen all visible phenomena behind his own body). Forever. At least, until he stopped moving at light speed. However, moving at light speed has some problems when you've got mass...those problems being mentioned by you.

I may have something that'll change your mind.
At distances beyond the Hubble sphere, objects move away faster than the speed of light. This speed does not contradict special relativity because the motion occurs outside any observer's inertial frame. Light from such objects moves away from the receding source, toward us, while the Hubble sphere expands toward the light, as described shortly. The Hubble sphere can overtake the photons, the light enters the Hubble sphere and eventually becomes observable on Earth, even though the originating sources are receding at a rate faster than light.
As you're most definitely aware, things that give off light are made of matter.
I'm familiar with the properties of light travelling through space. It takes about 8 minutes for the sun's light to reach earth, so it's entirely possible that one day, the sun will blow up and at the exact moment that it happens, we'll still see the sun lighting up the sky as it aways does. However, when the 8 minutes are up...
Also, an experiment done in 2000 showed photons in a laser moving, at least for short distances, 300 times faster than light through caesium atoms.
I've got to say, I'm having a great time here.