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.

 

is the physics community covering up the truth?

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 02:25 AM
link   
if nothing can escape a black hole,then why is it that x-rays and gamma rays can.these are two conflicting statements from the physics community.i also believe the reason for this is to cover up real ufo propulsion using said x-rays.x-rays can be created using over 35000 volts of electricity.if the skin of a craft were charged to this high voltage ,it should reduce the weight.im a newbie to starting a new thread and hope i get the blessing of zorgon and the other mods.




posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 02:36 AM
link   
they dont.
the material and get sucked by black hole tearing it. it emit radiation as it break apart.
the radiation close enough cann't escape the rest does and that is what the detectors see.

but you shoulds ask a physicist.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 02:45 AM
link   
First Google search light cones...

Then Google search X-rays...

Man, if Marie Curie only knew she pioneered antigravity propulsion back in in the 1900's she would have had a third Nobel....



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 02:51 AM
link   
from what they show on the science programs on tv,the x-ray beam comes out of the hole.no physicist has yet to explain in lamans terms.i do agree they are formed at a right angle to collision,but collisions dont happen on the surface of a black hole as much as inside the core of the hole.but yet the x-rays escape.x-rays are particles with mass.gravity effects mass



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 02:52 AM
link   
While they claim Hawking Radiation escapes to me that really that doesn't make much sense and they haven't proved anything of the sort. I've major problems in accepting anything escapes a Black Hole considering we have never observed one getting smaller in any way.

Truth is I don't know, they don't know, and anyone who claims to know is just arrogant and likely wrong.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 02:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by robomont
from what they show on the science programs on tv,the x-ray beam comes out of the hole.no physicist has yet to explain in lamans terms.i do agree they are formed at a right angle to collision,but collisions dont happen on the surface of a black hole as much as inside the core of the hole.but yet the x-rays escape.x-rays are particles with mass.gravity effects mass



What shows have you been watching? Nothing escapes from past the event horizon of a black hole.

X-Rays don't escape from black holes.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 02:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Teknikal
While they claim Hawking Radiation escapes to me that really that doesn't make much sense and they haven't proved anything of the sort. I've major problems in accepting anything escapes a Black Hole considering we have never observed one getting smaller in any way.

Truth is I don't know, they don't know, and anyone who claims to know is just arrogant and likely wrong.



The same math that created them describes their function. (Keeping that train of thought) Saying you believe in them would make you arrogant too.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 03:02 AM
link   
i believe i have seen shows on the history channel and the discovery channel proposing these theories.they were talking about if a blackhole was to be pointed at earth,the radiation would turn the whole planet into dust.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 03:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Teknikal
While they claim Hawking Radiation escapes to me that really that doesn't make much sense and they haven't proved anything of the sort.


There are vast tracts of scientific 'knowledge' that seems to work just fine on the everyday macroscopic scale yet conflicts with other 'facts' that seems to work as well in other areas. Hawking radiation, black hole evaporation, is certainly up there and if you think of black holes as science you should probably accept that they too will dissipate/decay over time.


I've major problems in accepting anything escapes a Black Hole considering we have never observed one getting smaller in any way.


Well it's gravitational/lensing effect certainly 'escapes' so yes, as best the classical model indicates black holes are not isolated systems and may not even be closed systems.


Truth is I don't know, they don't know, and anyone who claims to know is just arrogant and likely wrong.


'They' would disagree and in this instance i don't have any reason to disagree with 'them' inasmuch as i normally do.


Cheers,

Stellar



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 05:42 AM
link   
reply to post by robomont
 


Nothing escapes a black hole. It's possible for energy/material to escape before reaching the event horizon, this is probably what you're referring to.

You can't necessarily 'point' a black hole at something because it's a sphere/ball. You can be at an angle so that you're directly in the path of the north or south pole of the object, which is where we see the greatest amount of energy being released from very active black holes.

No one sees a black hole, we only see the effects of it. Or more specifically,we see the gravitational effects from an object too small to have such a large mass as to cause such effects.

If you'd like I can break it down or explain it further, just U2U me.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 06:23 AM
link   
The field of electrogravitics is one that has come under national security. There are quite a few reports and experiments that does show that there is a relationship between electricity and gravity. There are also rumours around the Einstein did complete his unified theory, but the military stamped top secret on it. The TR3-B or triangle shaped ufos is one of a few examples of this technology. www.info-quest.org...



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 06:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by robomont
i believe i have seen shows on the history channel and the discovery channel proposing these theories.they were talking about if a blackhole was to be pointed at earth,the radiation would turn the whole planet into dust.

I think you may be thinking of a directional gamma ray burst from a neutron star



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 07:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth

Originally posted by robomont
i believe i have seen shows on the history channel and the discovery channel proposing these theories.they were talking about if a blackhole was to be pointed at earth,the radiation would turn the whole planet into dust.

I think you may be thinking of a directional gamma ray burst from a neutron star


Yeah that's a worrier although one plus side is I think we would all be dust before realising it happened and I can't think of a single way to defend ourselves. It's possible black hole jets might be what he is thinking of as well I don't believe these come from within the black hole but of course it's gravity and mass plays a huge part.

Nothing worth worrying about in either case though if it happens we would never have time to even know it.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 12:39 PM
link   
As a physicist, I can say that we do not get together and decide what information to tell the public and what information we keep to ourselves. This especially applies to physicists in academia. The research we do becomes published in publicly accessible journals and is available to everyone. While physicists and other scientists who work for the government and corporations are bound by laws that may prevent them from revealing results that may be sensitive to research involving patents or military technology. However, fundamental science research has the rights to be published for the world to see, however, I am sure that this rule is bent for military research.

That being said, the study of black holes has nothing, if anything at all, to do with military research. Generally, what escapes black holes is the material or energy from the event horizon. However, if two particles are bound to each other and one enters a black hole and crossing the event horizon, while the other particle remain on the other side of the event horizon, the particle on the other side (the safe side) may be able to escape, thus giving the effect that matter has left the black hole. This matter will be witnesses as energy, such as gamma or x-rays. Black holes are still a mystery to astrophysicists because of the singularity concept. This means that black holes have an infinite density at a single point in the center. While we have come up with many theories to model the universe, both on the small scale and large scale, we lack the mathematics to fully understand singularities. Essentially, what needs to occur is a new form of math, such as calculus was couple of hundred years ago. We only await another genius person to come along and discover this mathematical form. So, please, give us a break, we are doing our best to understand the universe and its contents, but we do have limitations.

While I do agree with the OP that x-rays have mass, the amount of mass in a photon is a small, small fraction of the mass of the electron, which is also very small in itself. Yes, mass can "leave" a black hole as mentioned above, but it is extremely small and while it does occur on the large scale since black holes are huge, the effect is small when compared to the vastness of the system itself.

I do want to state that my expertise lies in solid state physics. I study atoms and materials and how to design materials with specific properties based on its composition and microstructure. I have had a few classes that have taught me about astrophysics, which of course, is elementary compared to someone who studies it for a lifetime, but what I state is valid and should be considered with some weight. I however, encourage everyone who is interested in the subject to study it for themselves. There are a multitude of texts that explain these phenomenon without the mathematical rigor required for physicists to study it.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by KnightRoseWhile I do agree with the OP that x-rays have mass, the amount of mass in a photon is a small.
Photons don't have a rest mass. They do have momentum, which is directly related to how energetic they are.

No mass or photons escape the black hole once they have crossed the event horizon. Outside the event horizon, you have particles that become superheated as they are condensed together and accelerated towards the black hole. This superheating causes the atoms to emit x-rays. All this happens outside the the event horizon, so it does have the possibility of escaping.



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 03:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by KnightRose
As a physicist, ...
If you hadn't claimed to be a physicist, I'd think your post was halfway decent, but I expect a lot better from someone claiming to be a physicist. I don't make that claim and perhaps it's best if you don't either, unless you're speaking within your area of expertise.


...if two particles are bound to each other and one enters a black hole and crossing the event horizon, while the other particle remain on the other side of the event horizon, the particle on the other side (the safe side) may be able to escape, thus giving the effect that matter has left the black hole. This matter will be witnesses as energy, such as gamma or x-rays.
That's a very convoluted explanation, it halfway sounds like hawking radiation, but that's a very poor explanation for gamma rays emanating from the region of a black hole. Other than hawking radiation, why do we care if the particles are bound or not?

Here is a much better explanation for gamma ray emissions from the vicinity of a black hole:

If nothing can escape a black hole, why do they still emit x-rays?


It is true that once matter or energy passes within the so-called Event Horizon of a black hole, that it can never turn around and get backout. However, in the real world, a lot can happen to matter as it approachesthe Event Horizon. Commonly, matter falls into what is called anaccretion disk which orbits the black hole. Material orbits the black hole within this disk, but if it happens to be gas and dust, this matter experiences friction and the disk heats up as some of the orbital energy of the gas is converted into heat. The closer the disk material isto the black hole, the more rapidly it orbits so that the greater is the heating effect. Just before it reaches the Event Horizon, this disk matter can be heated by friction to thousands of degrees which is enough to produceX-rays. Even higher temperatures approaching a million degrees can occurwhich can produce gamma rays.

This disk radiation, being outside the black hole, is what we detect as welook at black holes.
Now isn't that a better explanation?

Regarding Hawking radiation, if that's what you were alluding to, that is also better explained elsewhere:


Physical insight on the process may be gained by imagining that particle-antiparticle radiation is emitted from just beyond the event horizon. This radiation does not come directly from the black hole itself, but rather is a result of virtual particles being "boosted" by the black hole's gravitation into becoming real particles.

A slightly more precise, but still much simplified, view of the process is that vacuum fluctuations cause a particle-antiparticle pair to appear close to the event horizon of a black hole. One of the pair falls into the black hole whilst the other escapes. In order to preserve total energy, the particle that fell into the black hole must have had a negative energy (with respect to an observer far away from the black hole). By this process, the black hole loses mass, and, to an outside observer, it would appear that the black hole has just emitted a particle.
This is just defining a process by which a black hole can lose mass but it doesn't necessarily have to involve gamma radiation. And in fact most black holes won't lose mass this way because they are typically more massive than 3 solar masses so the cosmic background radiation actually exceeds the hawking radiation of the black hole.


since the universe contains the cosmic microwave background radiation, in order for the black hole to dissipate, it must have a temperature greater than that of the present-day black-body radiation of the universe of 2.7 K = 2.3 × 10−4 eV. This implies that M must be less than 0.8% of the mass of the Earth.
Since a black hole would need to be less than 0.8% of the mass of the Earth to lose mass, and the smallest black hole we know of is roughly 3.8 solar masses and they probably don't get a whole lot smaller, the 3 solar mass and larger black holes are unlikely to lose any net mass in this way. If smaller black holes were created somehow, they would, but as far as we know they are therefore unstable and I'm unaware of any such black holes being detected.


but what I state is valid and should be considered with some weight. I however, encourage everyone who is interested in the subject to study it for themselves.
Good advice because apparently you're speaking well outside your area of expertise if you are in fact a physicist, though I would have thought most physicists would know information such as this. On the other hand astrophysics has become so specialized that even astrophysicists don't fully grasp the specialized research of other astrophysicists working in other areas of astrophysics. So if you're not even working in that field at all it's even harder to keep up.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 09:16 PM
link   
This stuff is kind of fun to ponder, but I'm no expert. I think some problems with experiments or thought exercises is that everyone assumes that the rate at which time itself passes is constant. Now if something like 100 years within a black hole happens to be 1 second to an observer outside of a black hole (or even to much greater extremes), it seems like that could throw off some of the math. Yet some of the descriptions of relativistic travel seem to suggest something like this.

So maybe it's not that things can't go faster than the speed of light, but that the relative change in the rate of time progression itself is such that the speed of light remains fixed from a relative frame of reference. Remember speed is distance divided by time. But if 1 second isn't 1 second (considering there is no such thing as an absolute second), then something like the speed of light could actually change quite a bit depending on where you are. But since wherever you are is having time progress at that rate relative to where you are, you're going to observe a speed that is constant. So couldn't the speed of light in a vacuum is actually be the observation of a ratio that has to do with the progression of time under the influence of the energetic state of the observer, or in other words perhaps it's more of a coefficient?

I think that's screwy that I can visualize that (Doing something like actually going faster than light, but having nobody outside your own frame of reference observe you going faster than light. Instead from your frame of reference, the time it would take to make the trip would be as if going faster than light. The clock on your spaceship and from your origin and destination would de-sync though. Something like a limit function explaining the energy you gain as time condenses could very well match most of what Einstein says though.), but I'm curious as to whether the math for something like that would work out. (It would be like having some parts of space buffer information over temporal gradients because the energetic bounds of various systems vary, which would really screw up perception of things at vast distances.) So in certain unusual situations, instead of converting between mass and energy - time itself shifts instead.

Also I see something goofy in relation to particles/waves. Some kind of analogy where if a hypothetical road had a lane wide enough, you could do something like 100mph without going faster than the road's 50mph speed limit by driving a whole lot of zig-zags. Yet this idea of going a lot faster without "going faster" seems too cheesy to explain frequency shift based on how energetic a particle is. But having some kind of constraint like a "road" would also explain why some things have a wave/particle duality.

And if gravity can bend light, and mass is energy, and light is a form of energy, than something seems that the opposite may be possible in some cases. There's just some little stupid trick that we're totally missing. (Maybe we dumped the baby with the bathwater somewhere along the way by tossing out some factor and attributing it towards error in a calculation.) And if we can lick the gravity thing, then mass-energy conversion should be a lot easier than it is now.

It's fun to speculate based on what I can get out of what I read, but it still seems too crazy. Which is why I have to leave this stuff to the professionals.


In regards to physicists and the truth, I wonder if any of the honest ones could really claim to know what it is? If there's anything covering up the truth, it may be some people's egos or politics getting in the way. (And even for those scientists that are otherwise willing - somethings that appear too risky to the mainstream seem to kill access to the research money.)

And if the government is hiding it, it's fear of weapon applications. (Think of something like a nuke made from stuff as common as computer parts. If it's that easy, you'd understand why they would be scared and doing everything to keep it secret.) And corporations would fall under the prevailing theory of milking out the tail end of the existing business model before considerations of doing something new. (Particularly when given the risk that it could be figured out and done for free.)



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 09:22 PM
link   
When ever i hear talk about black holes its saying that light can not escape it. I just assumed they were meaning visible light hence the term black hole.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


You are right, my expertise does not lie in this field, which is a separate field at most universities. I assure you that I am a physicist, but my expertise lies with atoms and their interactions and properties in the solid state.

When I made the claim of being a physicist, I only did so to state that we do not keep information secret with the exception of patents and military contracts. Even with patents, fundamental laws of science cannot not be patented, only the materials that are derived from them or the processes to produce them. The claim was not that I knew how black holes worked in an intimate detail, which I also stated was outside my area of expertise. The grandeur of space, astrophysics, and cosmology amazes me but is not something my mind grasps easily and I offered only my ideas on the explanation.

As for why we care whether or not particles are bound or not is a deep subject. While I cannot give you details inside the astrophysics field, I can mention that particles bounded or entangled together have wide reaching application including but not limited to superconductors and in the developing field of quantum computing. I am sure there are more applications, but these are the ones I am most familiar with.

I appreciate your comments, but keep in mind that because someone is a physicist does not mean they have a grasp on all things physics. The field is far too large for that.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 08:48 AM
link   
thankyall for the input.nothing gives me a rush like watching physics debates.




top topics



 
2

log in

join