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: Brad Guth on 19 Feb 2010 00:30 On Feb 18, 8:34 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Feb 18, 7:26 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 18, 10:21 pm, "Peter Webb" > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > > >news:fdf74670-8b35-4cbb-87bf-0b7b6ce4e4c2(a)b7g2000yqd.googlegroups.com.... > > > 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. > > > > _______________________________ > > > No, density doesn't determine if an object is a black hole. Black holes can > > > be as dense (or denser) than neutron stars, or less dense than the earth's > > > atmosphere. What determines if an object is a black hole is whether its mass > > > is contained in its Schwarzschild radius. > > > If its mass is not contained in its Schwarzchild radius then it is not > > a black hole because it is less dense. > > > > (I am assuming a non-rotating > > > black hole, as Schwarzschild did in his original paper. The solution of GR > > > for rotating black holes came later). > > > > Given that you do not understand the mathematics of black holes, you > > > shouldn't really be trying to tell people who do what the equations say.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Point mass is infinitely dense or concentrated C squared energy. This > is a fundamental particle core.. > > Mitch Raemsch An electron or a positron qualifies as a black hole. ~ BG
From: JT on 19 Feb 2010 03:17 On 19 Feb, 02:25, Brad Guth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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 Because it is simply not hard to follow For object B the two pulses can not be travel/expand uniform/invariant around restspace of C and D and around restspace of B. It is that simple a 5 year old would not have any problem draw it up with chalks, but you somehow is confused by it muhahahahah how pathetic. You can not solve this problem without dealing with variant length units..... That is how fucked up the theory is. JT
From: Brad Guth on 19 Feb 2010 13:37 On Feb 19, 12:17 am, JT <jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 19 Feb, 02:25, Brad Guth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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 > > Because it is simply not hard to follow > For object B the two pulses can not be travel/expand uniform/invariant > around restspace of C and D and around restspace of B. > > It is that simple a 5 year old would not have any problem draw it up > with chalks, but you somehow is confused by it muhahahahah how > pathetic. > > You can not solve this problem without dealing with variant length > units..... > That is how fucked up the theory is. > > JT Yes, SR sucks and blows because it's tied to our limited frame that's meaningless in cosmic terms. ~ BG
From: mpc755 on 20 Feb 2010 13:07 On Feb 18, 7:10 pm, Brad Guth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 18, 1:08 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > The gravity field moves when mass moves. Gravity changes are less than > > light speed because matter moves slow carrying the fields with it. > > > Mitch Raemsch > > When did the gravity start? > > Has mass ever changed? > > Perhaps gravity is continuous and instantaneous. > > ~ BG The pressure associated with the aether displaced by massive objects is gravity.
From: mpc755 on 20 Feb 2010 13:09
On Feb 19, 12:27 am, Brad Guth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 18, 6:40 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > That is correct. In AD, the Schwarzchild radius encompasses the three dimensional space which is without aether. |