It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Black Holes may not exist

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 4 2005 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shadowflux
For instance the classic quantum experiment of how one electron acts the same as a whole bunch of electrons when shot through little slits onto phot paper. Well, one of the theories in this book stated that the single electron took every one of the infinite routes possible before arriving at the exact same spot we'd expect it to be in. If you can't see how rediculous that statement is I'm not going to explain it.

As for black holes not existing, good! I'd love to see these scientists try to squirm around that fact to keep their funding


I have preformed that experiment on many occasions, and yes it's true even when a filter is put in front of the laser that only one photon get's through to the slits and over time you still get the interference pattern...

In truth this experiment was preformed in the early part of the 20th century.

What this experiment goes a long way to show is the quantum theory that what we think of as particles can act as a wave also...

However some speculate that the photon interacts with it's negative self in an opposite universe and that is what causes the interference pattern...

We still do not fully understand why or how the interference pattern is created and is somewhat of an intriguing mystery.

This experiment was one of the first practical experiments shown to all new students to inspire and to peak their interest.


NeoN HaZe.




posted on Apr, 4 2005 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
"That image is a representation of an accretiation disk. This disk of super hot matter that whirls around a black hole as it devours matter that is sucked beyond the event horizon.

We have seen and detected accretiation disks and also matter Jets that spew from the poles of this type of phenomenon but we have and never will be able to detect directly a Black Hole..."


Is that the same thing as an "accretion disk"?


Yeah lol of course it is



posted on Apr, 4 2005 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Neon Haze
What could a Black hole be???

Well I believe that a black hole is in fact an object travelling faster than the speed of light. This is why it is so heavy and this is also why we cannot see it directly...


I'm very interested. Can you tell me more? Do you have a website with your theory, or just papers? I'm no scientist, but just very interested.



posted on Apr, 4 2005 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Neon Haze
however, what E=MC2 really means is that the faster you go the more mass you have and so as you reach the speed of light you would come to a point where you are so Heavy that you would need all the energy of the universe to push you ever faster.

Now that said...

What could a Black hole be???

Well I believe that a black hole is in fact an object travelling faster than the speed of light. This is why it is so heavy and this is also why we cannot see it directly...

What amazes me is that I can understand that and I am just ordinary Prof. of Physics then why is it not accepted in the scientific community??


Neon, do you care to explain this in a bit more detail. I don't see how the E=mc2 explains anything in the context you presented.

Also, I'm not aware of any evidence that an object being accelerated all of a sudden falls into a different state, FTL.

Black holes, in all likelihood, are indeed remnants of stars. According to your theory, where exactly are they moving?



posted on Apr, 4 2005 @ 08:02 PM
link   
How can Black Holes not exist? Havent they alreaady proved what they are? I myself have witnessed a Black Hole "eat" a star. So Where would all of that energy go? Didn't that Steven Hawkings guy have a theory that black holes are entrances to other universes.
Peace
Marius



posted on Apr, 5 2005 @ 03:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Neon Haze....And precisely the kind of knowledge share I would like to be taken up by all!!!


Thanx Byrd and NH for your encouragement: my response was actually a (poor) attempt at sarcasm - of course, we are all allowed to question and I,for one, certainly intend to. And if any of my comments here (with the exception of my "WOW" gibe of course!) have been condescending towards scientists or otherise, then I am very sorry).

So, I'm standing onthe sidelnes, popcorn in hand, looking forward to real debate and discourse!!



posted on Apr, 5 2005 @ 06:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aelita

Originally posted by Neon Haze
however, what E=MC2 really means is that the faster you go the more mass you have and so as you reach the speed of light you would come to a point where you are so Heavy that you would need all the energy of the universe to push you ever faster.

Now that said...

What could a Black hole be???

Well I believe that a black hole is in fact an object travelling faster than the speed of light. This is why it is so heavy and this is also why we cannot see it directly...

What amazes me is that I can understand that and I am just ordinary Prof. of Physics then why is it not accepted in the scientific community??


Neon, do you care to explain this in a bit more detail. I don't see how the E=mc2 explains anything in the context you presented.

Also, I'm not aware of any evidence that an object being accelerated all of a sudden falls into a different state, FTL.

Black holes, in all likelihood, are indeed remnants of stars. According to your theory, where exactly are they moving?


Hi there,

Please read the following article... it's the clasical view on light speed mass and energy.

Simple description of Special Relativity


"There are many other consequences of relativity besides length contraction and time dilation. Perhaps the most famous and most important of these concerns energy.

Energy comes in many forms. Any moving object has what physicists call "kinetic energy" due to its motion. This energy depends on the speed of the object, and on its mass. ("Mass" is very similar to, but not exactly the same as, "weight".) An object which is set on a shelf has "gravitational potential energy" because it has the potential (due to gravity) to gain kinetic energy if the shelf is removed, or if the object should fall from the shelf. Heat is also a form of energy, which can ultimately be traced to the kinetic energy of the individual atoms and molecules that make up a substance. And there are many other forms of energy.

The reason that all these phenomena are referred to as energy - the idea that links them - is the law of Conservation of Energy. This says that if we add up the total amount of energy in the universe (we can describe energy quantitatively with units such as Joules or kilowatt-hours), the total amount never changes. In other words, energy is neither created nor lost, even though it may be converted from one form to another. For example, an automobile is a device which converts heat (inside the cylinders in your engine) into kinetic energy (the motion of your car). A light bulb converts electrical energy into light (two more forms of energy).

In his theory of relativity, Einstein discovered another form of energy, sometimes referred to as "rest energy". I've pointed out that a moving object has energy due to its motion. But that same object, Einstein discovered, will have energy even if it's not moving. The amount of rest energy in an object depends on its mass, and is given by:


E=mc2.

(As if I was going to finish up these web pages without writing that somewhere!) Because the speed of light is such a big number, the rest energy of a typical object is way bigger than any other type of energy the object might have. But this usually doesn't matter because in everyday life the rest energy of an object just stays rest energy, and isn't converted into some other form that would allow us to notice it, such as heat or kinetic energy. Relatively small amounts of rest energy are converted into other forms in nuclear power plants, nuclear weapons, the sun, and a few other places, but by and large, rest energy is generally unnoticed.

The sum of the kinetic and rest energy of an object can also be written mathematically fairly easily,

Notice, that at everyday speeds, gamma is approximately 1, so the sum of the rest energy and kinetic energy is approximately the same as just the rest energy. In other words, at everyday speeds the rest energy of an object is much much greater than its kinetic energy. However, at speeds very close to the speed of light, gamma can become much larger than 1, and the kinetic energy of an object can become much larger than its rest energy. (The rest energy depends only on the mass of an object and not on whether it's moving or not.) This is very important for physicists that work with particle accelerators, such as the ones at Fermilab near Chicago, and CERN on the French-Swiss border. This is also important to us if we wish to consider how fast an object can travel.

The Limit of Speed

In reading the adventure of Astro Disastro, you may have noticed that Astro's speed was almost, but not quite, the speed of light. There's a very good reason for this. At speeds much less than the speed of light, relativistic effects are unnoticeable (and what fun would that be?), while speeds faster than light are physically impossible.
I'll show you why. Suppose Astro tried to push his ship all the way up to the speed of light. Well, we've already seen that the energy of an object is proportional to that "gamma" factor, which is so prevalent in relativity calculations. But you've also learned by now that gamma becomes infinitely large when the speed of an object is equal to the speed of light. So, in order for Astro to accelerate his ship to the speed of light, he would require an infinite amount of energy, which is clearly impossible. So any object with mass can never reach the speed of light, though there's no limit to how close to the speed of light an object can come. (An object that doesn't have mass must, in fact, travel exactly at the speed of light, for reasons I won't go into. But the only objects with no mass are particles of light (called "photons") and maybe neutrinos.) "



posted on Apr, 5 2005 @ 07:12 AM
link   
The conservation of energy law is in our visible known universe, what defines what is and is not possible.

HOWEVER that view is now being challenged by M-theory.

Where energy and mass violate the conservation of energy ( i.e. mass travelling faster than light) it would literally be drawn to the lowest common denominator... I.E one of the other extra special dimensions.

When I talk about a mass travelling in one of the other spatial dimensions I'm talking about travelling through tau space ---> wrapped warped space-time. It is perfectly possible for an object to travel through a dimension beyond our ability to detect without actually travelling through one of the 3 special dimensions we know and can detect. So what is a Black hole???

You could say it is the process of regulation to give the observed effect of the law of energy conservation.

Any mass that achieved super laminar speeds would in the classic form of relativity cause a paradox, however within M-theory faster than light travel is achievable but only in the sense that it is energy leakage into and through Tau Space.

Hope that is more in depth of my theory.

NeoN HaZe.

All the best.



posted on Apr, 5 2005 @ 07:13 AM
link   
Double post.. sorry.

[edit on 5-4-2005 by Neon Haze]



posted on Apr, 5 2005 @ 08:51 AM
link   
Would it be safe to say that light exists in everything? perhaps a black hole is a different kind of light? not in our known spectrum? I'm just trying to think outside the box as I have no education on the subject honestly... The kirlian effect displays light that's normally not visible; "life energy" is it possible for blackholes to be using that energy to "fuel" the universe or to sustain something? like a chemical reaction, only on a larger scale? are we maybe looking at the effect and not the cause?



posted on Apr, 8 2005 @ 07:09 PM
link   
Neon Haze, quick question. Is the reason we think a black hole has an enormous mass because of the gravity needed to trap light within it? A black hole must have an huge amount of rest energy.

And Byrd said that black holes have been seen rotating around stars. How would this be possible? The black hole has enough gravity to trap light but not more than another star.



[edit on 8-4-2005 by Charlie Murphy]



posted on Apr, 8 2005 @ 09:28 PM
link   
I just read up on black holes and see that they can be proved easily.

The escape velocity is the speed you need to be going to escape an objects(planet, star) gravity. The earths is 7 miles per second. The bigger the object the faster the escape velocity. We can weigh an object (Galaxy with black hole by its size, because its rotating) and see if its big enough to have an escape velocity faster than the speed of light. If it is it's a blackhole.

Im not a physicist or anything but it makes sense to me. Here is the site:
www.damtp.cam.ac.uk...




[edit on 8-4-2005 by Charlie Murphy]



posted on Apr, 9 2005 @ 05:26 AM
link   
What I understand (or think I understand...) of a black hole is about this:

The matter in a black hole is extremely dense, in a way, the void between atoms is reduced compared to "normal" matter. This causes the density of the object to be far superior to any "normal" matter. This obviously makes small objects (several kilometers in diameter, for instance) way heavier than anything (I've that some black holes are several millions of times the mass of our sun!).

This incredibly condensed mass produces then a gravitational pull that is very much stronger than anything else. This means that black holes actually don't suck but, simply anything that gets close enough just doesn't escape. Even light can't escape this force. Now, why? Does that mean, "simply", that this gravity around a black hole is so high that the escape velocity of a black hole is superior to the speed of light? Does that also mean that a black hole is condemned to grow bigger and bigger, because of the matter being caught in the course of time?



posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 02:42 PM
link   
In one slightly different version from Einsteinian relativity theory, namely Yilmaz relativity, black holes do not exist either. This refinement of Einstein's theory is however not yet generally excepted but is pretty interesting.

In standard GR, gravity is considered to be "geometrical", to be a consequence of the curvature of space produced by nearby mass-energy.. If a mass or an energy-containing field is present in space, GR predicts that the space will become distorted. This distortion or curvature of space produces gravitational effects like the attraction between masses and the gravitational bending of light rays.

The exception to this rule is the gravitational field itself. While there is energy stored in the gravitational field, unlike all of the other known energy fields (the strong, weak, and electromagnetic interactions) the energy present in gravitation does not, in conventional GR theory, produce space curvature. Starting with Einstein, the justification for this is that to have gravitationally-produced curvature would be "double counting", that since gravitation was produced by the curvature, it should not make more curvature.

However, Einstein's choice of excluding gravitational energy as a source of curvature leads to problems with local energy and momentum conservation. With the exception of gravitational energy, the law of conservation of energy applies to all fundamental interactions "locally" at all points in space. Because gravitational energy does not produce curvature, it does not respect local energy conservation. While energy is conserved in a large volume of space in GR, it is not conserved point-by-point.

It has the following advantages:

(1) it predicts a definite stress-energy tensor while GR does not;
(2) it provides exact solutions for gravity waves of arbitrary field strength while GR does not;
(3) it has a true Lagrangian while GR does not;
(4) it implies Einstein's equivalence principle, while GR must take equivalence as a separate assumption;
(5) it is quantizable while GR is not.

www.npl.washington.edu...
members.tripod.com...



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join