50 replies to this topic

[Overdose]

18 Mar

[Dr. Strangelove]

Scratch that. Since when was 75 minutes a necro!?

[̀̀̀̀█]

Look the post before that..... A few months.

Anyway, its not an issue as the discussion is still progressing.

Easiest way to rip open a worm hole? Separate blue green and red.

For those not in the know, blue green and red are what make up a quark, which make up different particles, which make up different atoms, which make up different molecules, which make up everything you see and know. Theoretically the smallest thing possible.

Black holes are nothing like a worm hole. Wormholes are not developed by gravity, they are developed my energy.

And to the black hole issues in the topic thus far: At the event horizon spaghettification occurs, which means that you see your self for about 13.7 seconds before and after your actual time. from the outside you just look like you get ripped to shreds as you disappear into the black hole. and time DOES theoretically stop in a black hole, but only after the event horizon, after which you don't exist as anything other than raw mass.....

To me worm holes and black holes are polar opposites, one being pure mass, the other being pure energy.

Also, isn't light weightless? doesn't that mean that even the smallest black holes can bend it? If so, I propose the idea of a black light: takes away the light in a room, controlled mentally as you wouldn't be able to see whatsoever. This is for 2020 BTW, blue zones only >.<

[Dr. Strangelove]

 pyrobob, on 13 Apr 2008, 3:55, said:

Look the post before that..... A few months.

Anyway, its not an issue as the discussion is still progressing.

Easiest way to rip open a worm hole? Separate blue green and red.

For those not in the know, blue green and red are what make up a quark, which make up different particles, which make up different atoms, which make up different molecules, which make up everything you see and know. Theoretically the smallest thing possible.

Black holes are nothing like a worm hole. Wormholes are not developed by gravity, they are developed my energy.

And to the black hole issues in the topic thus far: At the event horizon spaghettification occurs, which means that you see your self for about 13.7 seconds before and after your actual time. from the outside you just look like you get ripped to shreds as you disappear into the black hole. and time DOES theoretically stop in a black hole, but only after the event horizon, after which you don't exist as anything other than raw mass.....

To me worm holes and black holes are polar opposites, one being pure mass, the other being pure energy.

Also, isn't light weightless? doesn't that mean that even the smallest black holes can bend it? If so, I propose the idea of a black light: takes away the light in a room, controlled mentally as you wouldn't be able to see whatsoever. This is for 2020 BTW, blue zones only >.<

Two things:

1:The post before mine was made the exact same day.

2:Do you know the first thing about physics?

[Nakamura]

 pyrobob, on 13 Apr 2008, 3:55, said:

Look the post before that..... A few months.

Anyway, its not an issue as the discussion is still progressing.

Easiest way to rip open a worm hole? Separate blue green and red.

For those not in the know, blue green and red are what make up a quark, which make up different particles, which make up different atoms, which make up different molecules, which make up everything you see and know. Theoretically the smallest thing possible.

Black holes are nothing like a worm hole. Wormholes are not developed by gravity, they are developed my energy.

And to the black hole issues in the topic thus far: At the event horizon spaghettification occurs, which means that you see your self for about 13.7 seconds before and after your actual time. from the outside you just look like you get ripped to shreds as you disappear into the black hole. and time DOES theoretically stop in a black hole, but only after the event horizon, after which you don't exist as anything other than raw mass.....

To me worm holes and black holes are polar opposites, one being pure mass, the other being pure energy.

Also, isn't light weightless? doesn't that mean that even the smallest black holes can bend it? If so, I propose the idea of a black light: takes away the light in a room, controlled mentally as you wouldn't be able to see whatsoever. This is for 2020 BTW, blue zones only >.<

Time stops theoretically, but not after the eventhorison cause the gravity of the black hole is there just strong enogh to band light. To stop time fully you'll need infinite gravity which is given at the point of the singularity.

Light is massless if it isn't moving but if it moves (no one has seen a not moving photon) it has a kind of energy. Every black hole can band light if it's near enogh.

[Crazykenny]

 J.R. Bob Dobbs, on 13 Apr 2008, 4:40, said:

Scratch that. Since when was 75 minutes a necro!?

The post he replied on was from March the 18th. And I dunno if you can count, but that isn NOT 75 minutes.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Quote

'18 Mar 2008, 1:40'

and so was mine.

Edited by J.R. Bob Dobbs, 13 April 2008 - 19:37.

[Crazykenny]

Yeah, but Nakamura posted again on April the 12th. And your last post was in March. So he made a necro

[Dauth]

Back to topic, the staff decide on necros, and I was watching this thread, let the discussion continue.

[Crazykenny]

Oh yeah, sorry for helping.............

[Dauth]

I don't mind people helping, I just think once a point has been made you can leave it to rest, tbh Nakumura has brought some ideas to the thread, maybe not ones I agree with, but it got someone else to join in. In a forum with little activity it is more forgiveable to necro a topic.

[Crazykenny]

I'm not telling him he's a necromancer, I just reminded him the date. The reason why I kept posting about it is because Bob here didnt believe it was a necromance, while it clearly was.

[Dauth]

It is indeed a necro, however the rules stipulate if you bring new thoughts you are not breaking any rules.

Now back to topic please.

[̀̀̀̀█]

 J.R. Bob Dobbs, on 12 Apr 2008, 23:13, said:

 pyrobob, on 13 Apr 2008, 3:55, said:

Look the post before that..... A few months.

Anyway, its not an issue as the discussion is still progressing.

Easiest way to rip open a worm hole? Separate blue green and red.

For those not in the know, blue green and red are what make up a quark, which make up different particles, which make up different atoms, which make up different molecules, which make up everything you see and know. Theoretically the smallest thing possible.

Black holes are nothing like a worm hole. Wormholes are not developed by gravity, they are developed my energy.

And to the black hole issues in the topic thus far: At the event horizon spaghettification occurs, which means that you see your self for about 13.7 seconds before and after your actual time. from the outside you just look like you get ripped to shreds as you disappear into the black hole. and time DOES theoretically stop in a black hole, but only after the event horizon, after which you don't exist as anything other than raw mass.....

To me worm holes and black holes are polar opposites, one being pure mass, the other being pure energy.

Also, isn't light weightless? doesn't that mean that even the smallest black holes can bend it? If so, I propose the idea of a black light: takes away the light in a room, controlled mentally as you wouldn't be able to see whatsoever. This is for 2020 BTW, blue zones only >.<

Two things:

1:The post before mine was made the exact same day.

2:Do you know the first thing about physics?

1: you can shut up now.
2: Yes I naturally understand most every aspect of it, why do you ask? All my theories are logically sound, but that doesn't account for much......

Addendum to qualify yet another necro:

Two linked singularities could become a wormhole essentially...... As the only spots around that have all their properties as such, they would share some spacetime, allowing for the hole.

Screw it, i can't add more, I shouldn't have posted this. Seems I can't delete this now either.....

Edited by pyrobob, 03 May 2008 - 08:47.

[Dr. Strangelove]

 pyrobob, on 3 May 2008, 9:43, said:

 J.R. Bob Dobbs, on 12 Apr 2008, 23:13, said:

 pyrobob, on 13 Apr 2008, 3:55, said:

Look the post before that..... A few months.

Anyway, its not an issue as the discussion is still progressing.

Easiest way to rip open a worm hole? Separate blue green and red.

For those not in the know, blue green and red are what make up a quark, which make up different particles, which make up different atoms, which make up different molecules, which make up everything you see and know. Theoretically the smallest thing possible.

Black holes are nothing like a worm hole. Wormholes are not developed by gravity, they are developed my energy.

And to the black hole issues in the topic thus far: At the event horizon spaghettification occurs, which means that you see your self for about 13.7 seconds before and after your actual time. from the outside you just look like you get ripped to shreds as you disappear into the black hole. and time DOES theoretically stop in a black hole, but only after the event horizon, after which you don't exist as anything other than raw mass.....

To me worm holes and black holes are polar opposites, one being pure mass, the other being pure energy.

Also, isn't light weightless? doesn't that mean that even the smallest black holes can bend it? If so, I propose the idea of a black light: takes away the light in a room, controlled mentally as you wouldn't be able to see whatsoever. This is for 2020 BTW, blue zones only >.<

Two things:

1:The post before mine was made the exact same day.

2:Do you know the first thing about physics?

1: you can shut up now.
2: Yes I naturally understand most every aspect of it, why do you ask? All my theories are logically sound, but that doesn't account for much......

Addendum to qualify yet another necro:

Two linked singularities could become a wormhole essentially...... As the only spots around that have all their properties as such, they would share some spacetime, allowing for the hole.

Screw it, i can't add more, I shouldn't have posted this. Seems I can't delete this now either.....

Things I found wrong with your theories:

1:You can seperate Blue, Green, and Red with something called a prism, and no it does not open up a wormhole.

2:Blue, Green, and Red Quarks!? The proper classifications are top,down, strange etc.

3:Quarks are so small that colors wouldn't be visible.

4:Huh? Wormholes developed by energy? Doesn't sound like anything I've ever heard. In purely Mathematical terms, wormholes are just multiply-connected spaces.

5:Anything with immense energy would also have immense Gravity because Energy=Mass, and Mass creates Gravity.

6: Spaghettification?

7: Mass=Energy: E=MC2 anyone?

8:Light has weight because it has energy which also constitutes mass.

[CodeCat]

In response to 1, 2 and 3:

You're thinking too much in 'visible light' terms of colours. The colours or 'colour charges' of quarks are just an abstract term used to describe certain inherent properties of them. The colour of a quark is the strong force equivalent to the notion of electric charge in electromagnetism. But you could just as easily have called it 'mouse button' instead of colour. The name is arbitrary.

The reason it was termed 'colour' is because there are three varieties of it, and all three varieties of quark must exist together in one compound particle (making white) such as a proton for it to be physically stable. Furthermore, a combination of a colour and its anti-colour is also possible (which creates a meson), which is analogous to the use of complementary colours in light. And finally, according to current theory, gluons (the particles responsible for transferring the strong force between quarks) carry a combined colour from one particle to another, consisting of the emitting particle's colour and the target particle's anti-colour. This results in a law you could term 'conservation of colour'. For example, if a red and green quark exist together, then the red quark may emit a red-antigreen gluon to the green quark, which causes the emitting quark to turn green since it lost its red property, and also because it emitted the opposite of green (identical to receiving regular green). The receiving green quark will get red and antigreen, neutralising its original green colour, and then making it red.

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Color_charge

[Zero]

Well, considering if white holes exists, a black hole could be nothing but a gravitational nightmare of a wormhole which only energy can travel through. Also, wormholes would allow for travel even if they only lasted a few seconds because wormholes- if they have a singularity, which they probably do as only it has the amount of gravity to bend space-time- actually stop time and as you travel from black hole to white hole time is stopped and you arrive at the destination as soon as you left.

[̀̀̀̀█]

Code, I thank you deeply for taking that upon yourself. As soon as I started reading strangloves post I jaw dropped at his incompetence.

Not to flame, but seriously man, DO YOU EVEN READ THE POSTS?!?!?!? This is at least the fourth time I have seen this from you. I explained what red blue and green where in my post.

To destroy the rest of your post:
4: How else do you propose creating something that can timeshift? Code it? Throw a silicone chip in a microwave?! You would need energy, and a lot of it, to make something like this. LIKE EVERY OTHER COOL ASS EXPERIMENT WE EVER DO! High energy particle accelerators is what I would be talking about here........
5: > destroyed by 7. Seriously. E=Mc^2 EVERYTHING has immense energy, it is just stored in mass. Stored is nowhere near the right word there, but it gets the point across as stupidly as I can put it.
Just think for a second man, how can you not see this? A black hole is mass over lapping itself, figuratively, so that it creates gravity not in proportion to its area. The wormhole I proposed is just the same thing, but with energy. It crosses dimensions because there is so much in one point. BOOM, wormhole.
6: Yea, spelling is probably off, but it's one thing thought to happen as you enter a black hole. Wiki it or something. it should be around.
8: If light had mass, wouldn't it affect things around us more? Also, it is a dual property item, its a wave too. Seriously, have you even had physics in high school? They teach you this. Light is crazy. It's a wave and a particle, so at the same time tht it does have mass, it doesn't. I was looking to Dauth for a clarification, as he is the more well credited out of us here.

Damnit I need to go back to ignoring you.

[Dauth]

OK, this is where it gets a little hairy.

Gravitational fields are caused by Energy (any form), pressure and angular momentum.

Since light has Energy it has it's own grav field.

[̀̀̀̀█]

But given that it needs pressure, where does that pressure come from? And its angular momentum is either extremely high or nonexistent, I can't recall as I just woke up >.> It has energy, true, but how strong can the gravity be? I mean, cmon, its invisible >.> I still think that with the proper conditions you can have my proposed black light. But I just did most of the math in my head..... I forgot the units though >.>

[Dr. Strangelove]

 CodeCat, on 11 May 2008, 23:42, said:

In response to 1, 2 and 3:

You're thinking too much in 'visible light' terms of colours. The colours or 'colour charges' of quarks are just an abstract term used to describe certain inherent properties of them. The colour of a quark is the strong force equivalent to the notion of electric charge in electromagnetism. But you could just as easily have called it 'mouse button' instead of colour. The name is arbitrary.

The reason it was termed 'colour' is because there are three varieties of it, and all three varieties of quark must exist together in one compound particle (making white) such as a proton for it to be physically stable. Furthermore, a combination of a colour and its anti-colour is also possible (which creates a meson), which is analogous to the use of complementary colours in light. And finally, according to current theory, gluons (the particles responsible for transferring the strong force between quarks) carry a combined colour from one particle to another, consisting of the emitting particle's colour and the target particle's anti-colour. This results in a law you could term 'conservation of colour'. For example, if a red and green quark exist together, then the red quark may emit a red-antigreen gluon to the green quark, which causes the emitting quark to turn green since it lost its red property, and also because it emitted the opposite of green (identical to receiving regular green). The receiving green quark will get red and antigreen, neutralising its original green colour, and then making it red.

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Color_charge

Ah, whenever I read Scientific American they always refer to it as 'flavor' instead of 'color'. In fact, in just about everything I have ever read about quarks its either been called 'color' or 'spin'. That's what caused the confusion.

 ̀̀̀̀█, on 17 May 2008, 7:31, said:

Code, I thank you deeply for taking that upon yourself. As soon as I started reading strangloves post I jaw dropped at his incompetence.

Not to flame, but seriously man, DO YOU EVEN READ THE POSTS?!?!?!? This is at least the fourth time I have seen this from you. I explained what red blue and green where in my post.

To destroy the rest of your post:
4: How else do you propose creating something that can timeshift? Code it? Throw a silicone chip in a microwave?! You would need energy, and a lot of it, to make something like this. LIKE EVERY OTHER COOL ASS EXPERIMENT WE EVER DO! High energy particle accelerators is what I would be talking about here........
5: > destroyed by 7. Seriously. E=Mc^2 EVERYTHING has immense energy, it is just stored in mass. Stored is nowhere near the right word there, but it gets the point across as stupidly as I can put it.
Just think for a second man, how can you not see this? A black hole is mass over lapping itself, figuratively, so that it creates gravity not in proportion to its area. The wormhole I proposed is just the same thing, but with energy. It crosses dimensions because there is so much in one point. BOOM, wormhole.
6: Yea, spelling is probably off, but it's one thing thought to happen as you enter a black hole. Wiki it or something. it should be around.
8: If light had mass, wouldn't it affect things around us more? Also, it is a dual property item, its a wave too. Seriously, have you even had physics in high school? They teach you this. Light is crazy. It's a wave and a particle, so at the same time tht it does have mass, it doesn't. I was looking to Dauth for a clarification, as he is the more well credited out of us here.

Damnit I need to go back to ignoring you.

Gravity not in proportion to it's area? You don't need a black hole for that. A cubic meter of lead exerts a far greater gravitational field than a cubic meter of hydrogen.

Light behaves as a wave because of the Uncertainty Principle, since it cannot be pinned down to any specific point in space and time, it exists as a wave function, where the crest of the wave(the wave consists of a visualization of the probability of finding the photon in any specific point in space and time) is where the photon is most likely to be located, and the bottom of the wave is where it is least likely to be located.

Photons are not the only particles that behave like this, all subatomic particles do.

Light has very little mass, which is why you don't notice its effects. Heat also has mass. Any form of energy has mass.

[CodeCat]

To summarise that: everything that is small enough has a nontrivial wave function associated with it. Therefore it will start to behave as a wave the smaller it gets. The photon is an interesting case because it is thought to have no mass, and as a consequence it has no real velocity. It just always has a 'default' velocity of c wherever you go. A photon can not be halted by conventional (Newtonian) methods because with zero mass, there is no force small enough to reflect it back at less than maximum speed. The only thing that can really slow light, refraction, is technically not slowing it down, but just obstructing and delaying it. The light still goes at the same speed, it just doesn't go straight anymore but in a more zig-zag fashion.

[̀̀̀̀█]

Ok so my question still stands: Do you need a really big black hole to suck in light, or will a very small one do it as well?

[Dr. Strangelove]

 ̀̀̀̀█, on 19 May 2008, 3:59, said:

Ok so my question still stands: Do you need a really big black hole to suck in light, or will a very small one do it as well?

If it ist a black hole it sucks in light, by definition

Edited by Dr. Strangelove, 19 May 2008 - 05:01.

[Dauth]

The energy of the black hole determines how much it affects spacetime and thus how much light it can 'suck in'