Light speed is constan "c". I am puzzled
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: is light/radiative energy potential or kinetic or both?
Next: Timerate is a Slow C in gravity by Gamma mathematics
From: JT on 18 Feb 2010 19:37 On 19 Feb, 01:29, Brad Guth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 18, 4:12 pm, JT <jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On 6 Feb, 18:06, Sanny <softtank...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > Until now I used to agree that Speed of light is constant = "C" As it > > > has been seen by experiments. > > > > But a few minutes back I got an idea. > > > > 1. Light is a wave. It is a sine wave with Magnetic & Electric fields > > > orthogonal. > > > > Since a Sine wave is a curve. > > > > The shortest distance between two points is straight line. It takes > > > longer if you go up and down in curves. > > > > Lets imagine a light wave with amplitude "x" and wavelength "w" > > > > Now we say light travels a distance of Wavelength "w" at speed of "C" > > > > But since sine wave is a curve the perimeter of movement is larger > > > than the wavelength. > > > > When we increase the frequency of light the parameter enlarges even > > > further as the amplitude has risen. > > > > So higher frequency light has to travel a longer distance. As the sine > > > curve is more enlongated away from center. > > > > So Light wave moves up and down at a speed faster than "C" > > > > Now we assume another case an Electron is fired at speed of "c" The > > > electron too travel like a wave. So electron will go up and down in > > > sine wave. > > > > So reality is speed of electron is more than "c" As the sine wave is > > > curved. > > > > I hope my analogy is understood by all. If not let me try to speak in > > > more detail. > > > > So an electron/ Light travelling at speed "c" is actually moving > > > faster than "c" as it goes up and down the sine curves. > > > > The shortest distance between two points is straight line. It takes > > > longer if you go up and down in curves. > > > > So if an electron is moving at speed "c" It is actually moving faster > > > than "c" > > > > Bye > > > Sanny > > > > Chat with Computer:http://www.GetClub.com/Version2.0 > > > Imagine this... > > Imagine object A and B travelling parallell vectors in space, A > > travels 0.1 c and B travel 0.9 c. > > > For some reason the both pass lined up between sensor C and D at same > > moment x, when the sensor beams reach their front both ships emit one > > puls forward and one puls backward. > > > The four lightpulses can not possible travel invariant thru the space > > of C and D, for them to travel invariant in C and D space the two > > backward pulses must travel aligned and parallell forever and so must > > the two front pulses. > > > And if they do there something weird going on within A and B, > > especially the light do not spread uniform around B the light puls > > infront is contracted and expands at c-v=0.1 c relative restframe B > > in > > the space and the lightfront at back expands at 1.9 c relative B. > > > The expansion of the two lightpulses is not uniform and invariant in > > frame B unless there is shorter meters at the front then at the back. > > At even higher velocities like 0.999... c the deformation is even > > clearer. > > > For example consider that the two light pulses have been travelling > > for a year after B passed between C and D and emitted the two pulses > > now B suddenly come to halt/stop. Now anyone must surely realise that > > the pulses never traveled invariant at B and at speed c to begin > > with. > > One pulse is a lightyear away the other one is just in front off B. > > > The assertions of SR is ridculous i would go so far to say they are a > > deliberate hoax. > > > JT > > That just needs to be reworded, because as is it's a little hard to > follow. > > ~ BG- Dölj citerad text - > > - Visa citerad text - No it do not a 5 year old could follow it maybe your just not there yet....... JT
From: Brad Guth on 18 Feb 2010 20:25 On Feb 18, 4:37 pm, JT <jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 19 Feb, 01:29, Brad Guth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 18, 4:12 pm, JT <jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 6 Feb, 18:06, Sanny <softtank...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Until now I used to agree that Speed of light is constant = "C" As it > > > > has been seen by experiments. > > > > > But a few minutes back I got an idea. > > > > > 1. Light is a wave. It is a sine wave with Magnetic & Electric fields > > > > orthogonal. > > > > > Since a Sine wave is a curve. > > > > > The shortest distance between two points is straight line. It takes > > > > longer if you go up and down in curves. > > > > > Lets imagine a light wave with amplitude "x" and wavelength "w" > > > > > Now we say light travels a distance of Wavelength "w" at speed of "C" > > > > > But since sine wave is a curve the perimeter of movement is larger > > > > than the wavelength. > > > > > When we increase the frequency of light the parameter enlarges even > > > > further as the amplitude has risen. > > > > > So higher frequency light has to travel a longer distance. As the sine > > > > curve is more enlongated away from center. > > > > > So Light wave moves up and down at a speed faster than "C" > > > > > Now we assume another case an Electron is fired at speed of "c" The > > > > electron too travel like a wave. So electron will go up and down in > > > > sine wave. > > > > > So reality is speed of electron is more than "c" As the sine wave is > > > > curved. > > > > > I hope my analogy is understood by all. If not let me try to speak in > > > > more detail. > > > > > So an electron/ Light travelling at speed "c" is actually moving > > > > faster than "c" as it goes up and down the sine curves. > > > > > The shortest distance between two points is straight line. It takes > > > > longer if you go up and down in curves. > > > > > So if an electron is moving at speed "c" It is actually moving faster > > > > than "c" > > > > > Bye > > > > Sanny > > > > > Chat with Computer:http://www.GetClub.com/Version2.0 > > > > Imagine this... > > > Imagine object A and B travelling parallell vectors in space, A > > > travels 0.1 c and B travel 0.9 c. > > > > For some reason the both pass lined up between sensor C and D at same > > > moment x, when the sensor beams reach their front both ships emit one > > > puls forward and one puls backward. > > > > The four lightpulses can not possible travel invariant thru the space > > > of C and D, for them to travel invariant in C and D space the two > > > backward pulses must travel aligned and parallell forever and so must > > > the two front pulses. > > > > And if they do there something weird going on within A and B, > > > especially the light do not spread uniform around B the light puls > > > infront is contracted and expands at c-v=0.1 c relative restframe B > > > in > > > the space and the lightfront at back expands at 1.9 c relative B. > > > > The expansion of the two lightpulses is not uniform and invariant in > > > frame B unless there is shorter meters at the front then at the back. > > > At even higher velocities like 0.999... c the deformation is even > > > clearer. > > > > For example consider that the two light pulses have been travelling > > > for a year after B passed between C and D and emitted the two pulses > > > now B suddenly come to halt/stop. Now anyone must surely realise that > > > the pulses never traveled invariant at B and at speed c to begin > > > with. > > > One pulse is a lightyear away the other one is just in front off B. > > > > The assertions of SR is ridculous i would go so far to say they are a > > > deliberate hoax. > > > > JT > > > That just needs to be reworded, because as is it's a little hard to > > follow. > > > ~ BG- Dölj citerad text - > > > - Visa citerad text - > > No it do not a 5 year old could follow it maybe your just not there > yet....... > > JT Then have a 5 year old interpret and republish it in another language, and have that other language that's interpreted by yet another 5 year old, do the same back into English. This should be fun. How is it that you think I'm a bad guy? ~ BG
From: mpc755 on 18 Feb 2010 20:48 On Feb 18, 6:36 pm, Double-A <double...(a)hush.com> wrote: > On Feb 18, 3:21 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 18, 6:12 pm, Double-A <double...(a)hush.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 18, 2:44 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 18, 4:48 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Feb 18, 4:37 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 18, 3:51 pm, Brad Guth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Feb 18, 12:41 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Feb 18, 3:19 pm, Brad Guth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 18, 11:51 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > In article <e91929d1-b8b0-4f5f-81da- > > > > > > > > > > 7c289ad5b...(a)v20g2000prb.googlegroups.com>, bradg...(a)gmail.com says... > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 18, 10:40 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 18, 1:08 pm, Brad Guth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 17, 5:16 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 17, 5:09 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 17, 7:38 am, Brad Guth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 15, 10:46 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail..com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 15, 4:34 pm, BradGuth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 15, 12:03 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The aether does have mass. Matter and aether are different states of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the same material. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The mass associated with the photons have replaced the electrons. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's exactly what I'm thinking has to be taking place, and therefore > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the mass of those photons can be directly accounted for by simply > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > counting each and every electron produced by a given PV panel. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If a PV panel were 20% efficient and had an average of 340 watts/m2 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > coming into its band-gap cells = 68 watts or watt hour of electrons/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > m2, times 24 = 1.632 kw.h/day, times 365 = 595.68 kw.h/year. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1 watt second or Joule = 6.24151e18 electrons per second > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 68 w.h = 2.448e5 w.s or Joules > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course photons offer all different kinds of energy from near zero > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > at the near zero frequency of gravity, <6.626e34 J.s or 4.135667e-15 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > eV or 6.626e-27 erg.s at the Planck frequency or its wavelength, and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > somehow every m3 of this universe safely contains it all at the same > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > time. If all photons were the exact same monochromatic wavelength, as > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > such it would make for calculating the average photon mass a whole lot > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > easier. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~ BG > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We are agreeing on something fundamentally new. We are both saying the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > quantum of aether associated with the photon is physically being added > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to and physically occupy three dimensional space within the metal and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is this physical addition of aether by the photons to the metal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that is causing the electrons to be emitted. We are both also saying > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whether a photon exists as a self-contained entity or not, the mass > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > associated with this quantum of aether now exists within the metal. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Correct? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe so. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cool. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Where's our Nobel? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~ BG- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Where is the photon in light's waves? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is the photon in the electric or magnetic field? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Einstein questioned what he won the Nobel Prize for. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Photons from zero Hz to Planck Hz exist, perhaps <1e100 of such > > > > > > > > > > > > > photons/atom. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps the 98% missing mass of the LHC smashed proton is simply > > > > > > > > > > > > > Planck photons. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What's your best swag? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~ BG > > > > > > > > > > > > > Aether and matter are different states of the same material. > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT? By A. > > > > > > > > > > > > EINSTEIN'http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf > > > > > > > > > > > > > "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass > > > > > > > > > > > > diminishes by L/c2." > > > > > > > > > > > > > The mass of the body does diminish, but the matter which no longer > > > > > > > > > > > > exists as part of the body has not vanished. It still exists, as > > > > > > > > > > > > aether. As the matter transitions to aether it expands in three > > > > > > > > > > > > dimensions. The effect this transition has on the surrounding aether > > > > > > > > > > > > and matter is energy. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Even though there is nothing fundamentally incorrect about thinking of > > > > > > > > > > > > the missing mass as photons we can't know if photons exist as > > > > > > > > > > > > individual particles when at rest with respect to the aether. > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it is more conceptually correct to simply refer to the missing > > > > > > > > > > > > mass as aether. > > > > > > > > > > > > OK by me, but I still prefer to give photons their fair share of mass, > > > > > > > > > > > especially when considering how many exist and are otherwise being > > > > > > > > > > > continually created on the fly, so to speak, as whatever mass gets > > > > > > > > > > > converted back and forth creates those trillions upon trillions upon > > > > > > > > > > > trillions of photons/picosec, and those go on to create recoil/ > > > > > > > > > > > secondary photons by the cubic if not greater, whereas whatever > > > > > > > > > > > atomic or molecular mass remains the same. > > > > > > > > > > > > ~ BG > > > > > > > > > > > Photons get their fair share of mass when they are detected as a quantum > > > > > > > > > > of aether. > > > > > > > > > > Whatever make you a happy camper. > > > > > > > > > > How point-source worthy is this aether? because the volumetric point > > > > > > > > > or tail end of a photon wave or the cross sectional area of a photon > > > > > > > > > quantum string is really small. > > > > > > > > > > ~ BG > > > > > > > > > No idea. > > > > > > > > A similar question; Can this aether be artificially compressed? > > > > > > > (such as into a black hole) > > > > > > > > ~ BG > > > > > > > Matter is compressed aether and aether is uncompressed matter so in > > > > > > that regards, yes, the aether can be compressed. > > > > > > > Black holes are aetherless. > > > > > > Since matter is compressed aether a black hole could be > > > > > supercompressed aether, I don't know. But there is no aether in its > > > > > 'base' state in a black hole. > > > > > > In terms of aether in its 'base' state a black hole is an aether void. > > > > > For a long time my concept was a black hole was matter which had been > > > > compressed to the point where there was no aether 'in' the matter and > > > > that might still be the case. Neutron stars "are composed almost > > > > entirely of neutrons" (wikipedia). As far as I know, the neutrons in > > > > neutron stars consist of self contained particles and are separated by > > > > aether. If this aether is displaced out of the matter due to the > > > > increase in the pressure associated with the aether displaced by the > > > > neutrons then what is left is aetherless and this might be what a > > > > black hole is. Matter without any intervening aether. An aether void. > > > > Black holes are determined by whether an object's mass is contained > > > within its Schwarzschild radius, not by how dense it is. r_s = 2Gm/ > > > c^2. If the solar system had the density of water, it would be a > > > black hole. > > > > Double-A > > > If the mass of an object is contained within a certain radius, doesn't > > that make it more dense than if the mass extends outside of the radius? > > Large masses have large Schwarzschild radii. As a mass gets larger, > the density required for it to fit within its S. radius gets less. > > Double-A "The Schwarzschild radius (sometimes historically referred to as the gravitational radius) is a characteristic radius associated with every quantity of mass. It is the radius of a sphere in space, that if containing a correspondingly sufficient amount of mass (and therefore, reaches a certain density)..." - wikipedia Seems like density matters. What I am asking is if you have a certain amount of mass within the Schwarzchild radius which causes the mass to become a black hole, if that same mass occupies 10 times the space of its Schwarzchild radius then it will not become a black hole. So, the overall density of a certain amount of mass matters when determining if it will become a black hole or not, correct?
From: Brad Guth on 18 Feb 2010 21:29 On Feb 18, 5:48 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 18, 6:36 pm, Double-A <double...(a)hush.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 18, 3:21 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 18, 6:12 pm, Double-A <double...(a)hush.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 18, 2:44 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Feb 18, 4:48 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 18, 4:37 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Feb 18, 3:51 pm, Brad Guth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Feb 18, 12:41 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 18, 3:19 pm, Brad Guth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 18, 11:51 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > In article <e91929d1-b8b0-4f5f-81da- > > > > > > > > > > > 7c289ad5b...(a)v20g2000prb.googlegroups.com>, bradg...(a)gmail.com says... > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 18, 10:40 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 18, 1:08 pm, Brad Guth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 17, 5:16 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 17, 5:09 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 17, 7:38 am, Brad Guth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 15, 10:46 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 15, 4:34 pm, BradGuth <bradg....(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 15, 12:03 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The aether does have mass. Matter and aether are different states of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the same material. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The mass associated with the photons have replaced the electrons. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's exactly what I'm thinking has to be taking place, and therefore > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the mass of those photons can be directly accounted for by simply > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > counting each and every electron produced by a given PV panel. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If a PV panel were 20% efficient and had an average of 340 watts/m2 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > coming into its band-gap cells = 68 watts or watt hour of electrons/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > m2, times 24 = 1.632 kw.h/day, times 365 = 595.68 kw.h/year. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1 watt second or Joule = 6.24151e18 electrons per second > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 68 w.h = 2.448e5 w.s or Joules > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course photons offer all different kinds of energy from near zero > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > at the near zero frequency of gravity, <6.626e34 J.s or 4.135667e-15 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > eV or 6.626e-27 erg.s at the Planck frequency or its wavelength, and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > somehow every m3 of this universe safely contains it all at the same > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > time. If all photons were the exact same monochromatic wavelength, as > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > such it would make for calculating the average photon mass a whole lot > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > easier. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~ BG > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We are agreeing on something fundamentally new. We are both saying the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > quantum of aether associated with the photon is physically being added > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to and physically occupy three dimensional space within the metal and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is this physical addition of aether by the photons to the metal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that is causing the electrons to be emitted. We are both also saying > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whether a photon exists as a self-contained entity or not, the mass > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > associated with this quantum of aether now exists within the metal. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Correct? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe so. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cool. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Where's our Nobel? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~ BG- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Where is the photon in light's waves? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is the photon in the electric or magnetic field? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Einstein questioned what he won the Nobel Prize for. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Photons from zero Hz to Planck Hz exist, perhaps <1e100 of such > > > > > > > > > > > > > > photons/atom. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps the 98% missing mass of the LHC smashed proton is simply > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Planck photons. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What's your best swag? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~ BG > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Aether and matter are different states of the same material. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT? By A. > > > > > > > > > > > > > EINSTEIN'http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass > > > > > > > > > > > > > diminishes by L/c2." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The mass of the body does diminish, but the matter which no longer > > > > > > > > > > > > > exists as part of the body has not vanished. It still exists, as > > > > > > > > > > > > > aether. As the matter transitions to aether it expands in three > > > > > > > > > > > > > dimensions. The effect this transition has on the surrounding aether > > > > > > > > > > > > > and matter is energy. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Even though there is nothing fundamentally incorrect about thinking of > > > > > > > > > > > > > the missing mass as photons we can't know if photons exist as > > > > > > > > > > > > > individual particles when at rest with respect to the aether. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it is more conceptually correct to simply refer to the missing > > > > > > > > > > > > > mass as aether. > > > > > > > > > > > > > OK by me, but I still prefer to give photons their fair share of mass, > > > > > > > > > > > > especially when considering how many exist and are otherwise being > > > > > > > > > > > > continually created on the fly, so to speak, as whatever mass gets > > > > > > > > > > > > converted back and forth creates those trillions upon trillions upon > > > > > > > > > > > > trillions of photons/picosec, and those go on to create recoil/ > > > > > > > > > > > > secondary photons by the cubic if not greater, whereas whatever > > > > > > > > > > > > atomic or molecular mass remains the same. > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~ BG > > > > > > > > > > > > Photons get their fair share of mass when they are detected as a quantum > > > > > > > > > > > of aether. > > > > > > > > > > > Whatever make you a happy camper. > > > > > > > > > > > How point-source worthy is this aether? because the volumetric point > > > > > > > > > > or tail end of a photon wave or the cross sectional area of a photon > > > > > > > > > > quantum string is really small. > > > > > > > > > > > ~ BG > > > > > > > > > > No idea. > > > > > > > > > A similar question; Can this aether be artificially compressed? > > > > > > > > (such as into a black hole) > > > > > > > > > ~ BG > > > > > > > > Matter is compressed aether and aether is uncompressed matter so in > > > > > > > that regards, yes, the aether can be compressed. > > > > > > > > Black holes are aetherless. > > > > > > > Since matter is compressed aether a black hole could be > > > > > > supercompressed aether, I don't know. But there is no aether in its > > > > > > 'base' state in a black hole. > > > > > > > In terms of aether in its 'base' state a black hole is an aether void. > > > > > > For a long time my concept was a black hole was matter which had been > > > > > compressed to the point where there was no aether 'in' the matter and > > > > > that might still be the case. Neutron stars "are composed almost > > > > > entirely of neutrons" (wikipedia). As far as I know, the neutrons in > > > > > neutron stars consist of self contained particles and are separated by > > > > > aether. If this aether is displaced out of the matter due to the > > > > > increase in the pressure associated with the aether displaced by the > > > > > neutrons then what is left is aetherless and this might be what a > > > > > black hole is. Matter without any intervening aether. An aether void. > > > > > Black holes are determined by whether an object's mass is contained > > > > within its Schwarzschild radius, not by how dense it is. r_s = 2Gm/ > > > > c^2. If the solar system had the density of water, it would be a > > > > black hole. > > > > > Double-A > > > > If the mass of an object is contained within a certain radius, doesn't > > > that make it more dense than if the mass extends outside of the radius? > > > Large masses have large Schwarzschild radii. As a mass gets larger, > > the density required for it to fit within its S. radius gets less. > > > Double-A > > "The Schwarzschild radius (sometimes historically referred to as the > gravitational radius) is a characteristic radius associated with every > quantity of mass. It is the radius of a sphere in space, that if > containing a correspondingly sufficient amount of mass (and therefore, > reaches a certain density)..." - wikipedia > > Seems like density matters. What I am asking is if you have a certain > amount of mass within the Schwarzchild radius which causes the mass to > become a black hole, if that same mass occupies 10 times the space of > its Schwarzchild radius then it will not become a black hole. So, the > overall density of a certain amount of mass matters when determining > if it will become a black hole or not, correct? It really doesn't require all that much density for something the size of Earth to have a surface gravity force that's greater than 300,000 km/sec. I think 1.7e8 g/cm3 would do the trick. ~ BG
From: mpc755 on 18 Feb 2010 21:40
On Feb 18, 9:29 pm, Brad Guth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Black holes are determined by whether an object's mass is contained > > > > > within its Schwarzschild radius, not by how dense it is. r_s = 2Gm/ > > > > > c^2. If the solar system had the density of water, it would be a > > > > > black hole. > > > > > > Double-A > > > > > If the mass of an object is contained within a certain radius, doesn't > > > > that make it more dense than if the mass extends outside of the radius? > > > > Large masses have large Schwarzschild radii. As a mass gets larger, > > > the density required for it to fit within its S. radius gets less. > > > > Double-A > > > "The Schwarzschild radius (sometimes historically referred to as the > > gravitational radius) is a characteristic radius associated with every > > quantity of mass. It is the radius of a sphere in space, that if > > containing a correspondingly sufficient amount of mass (and therefore, > > reaches a certain density)..." - wikipedia > > > Seems like density matters. What I am asking is if you have a certain > > amount of mass within the Schwarzchild radius which causes the mass to > > become a black hole, if that same mass occupies 10 times the space of > > its Schwarzchild radius then it will not become a black hole. So, the > > overall density of a certain amount of mass matters when determining > > if it will become a black hole or not, correct? > > It really doesn't require all that much density for something the size > of Earth to have a surface gravity force that's greater than 300,000 > km/sec. I think 1.7e8 g/cm3 would do the trick. > > ~ BG The original response I am responding to stated: "Black holes are determined by whether an object's mass is contained within its Schwarzschild radius, not by how dense it is." What I am saying is the density must matter. If the same mass is not contained within its Schwarzchild radius, if in fact that same amount of mass is spread out over 100 times its Schwarzchild radius it will not become a black hole because the matter which is the mass is less dense. |