jajrussel

You seem to have changed it, maybe too much. Does the photon jump off the cliff at c in your rearangement? There is not a lot of time before the photon hits the ground. Are you going to be able to calculate changes to the photons energy in that amount of time? Can it be done? There is a medium of atmosphere. Maybe the photon does change velocity on the way down due to the medium? I don't know. There is gravity. Maybe gravity will effect a small change? I would think a very small change. I switched to the black hole, there is more time. Now maybe too much. I'm not sure. What happens to the photons energy when the medium no longr slows it down? I would think that at c the gravatational assist of the black hole would zero out. Again I don't know. It may be possible because of the angle of entry that the photon enteracts with the black hole similar to the way it would any other medium, and this thought just remended me that on TV you always see the ship banging into the side of the wormhole , which is not exactly where I was going with the thought, but in a way maybe it helps to visualze the thought better. I think I remember reading that a photons energy is its kinetic energy. Is that true? Is it correct to say that a medium effects the photons velocity?

I'm going to have to spend some more time reading and studying about this. The only thing you have writen tht I am sure of is that the physics of black holes is beyound me. To say that gravity is nothing more than space time curvature does sound like something I might have said a while back. I also used to make statements like time is nothing more than change. I'm fairly certain that I was fairly chastized for that, and I still get confused; is it general relativity, or is it special relativity? Still I am going to step up and say that I agree with your statement about Einsteins assesment of how we should consider space and time as space/time. I am absolutly certain I was trounced right here in this very forum for stating otherwise, and have no wish to ever go there again. The rest of what you have written puzels me though, so I caint really agree or disagree with it. So, thank you once again.

Okay, yes I am talking about gravity. The statement about the lights suddenly going out simply refers to the Suns sudden disapearance, and had nothing to do with electricity, or EMP waves. Yes I did expect the Suns sudden disapearing to create a gravitational shock wave as the curvature of space suddenly flattens out. And yes I expected there to be enough force to damage Earth. Sort of what happens when an astroid gets to close to Jupiter which I assume happens due to uneven gravitational forces acting on the astroid. And I suppose in conjunction with the word relativity gravity is not a force, but then what is it that tears the astroid apart if not the curvature of space being more in one spot than it is in annother? Wouldn't this be what the ripple you spoke of is? If I am wrong about this I am wrong. I'm okay with it. I just like to think a thing through. If the change occurs at c how can there not be a large gravitational energy effect? Gravity does have an effect on space ,so I would imagine that its effect on matter would be noticable. For 8 minutes we don't notice anything then suddenly we do. Are you saying that we are not even going to feel a bump?

Okay, I am acepting that the effect would occure at c. I just found another website that to my best understanding says the mechanism that keeps things from getting sucked in per say is centripetal force. In my mind this slight mechanical change was causing a time difference. But I still wonder what effect earth would have on this wave? Would Earth slow it down? Would the sudden change be enough to damage earth? Regardless of the waves speed any changes that occur on and through Earth can not occur at c. So I still wonder Do the lights go out first , and then earth trembles , or do the lights just go out as the wave passes by? What if the moon is on the oppisit side of Earth when the wave hits. Earth doesn't slow it down any before it hits the moon? Lol, I cain't seem to stop with the questions, anyway thanks, again. I watched a video that showed two galaxies coliding there is a lot of occupied space between there and here. Considering the amount of stuff that occupies space between both points I was having trouble accepting that any gravatational waves would get here at the same time as it's photons. I guess I am trying to aply a density to the wave that doesn't exist.

Thank you, I will try to explain. The void is the result of the "if" statement where the Sun is allowed to suddenly dispear. It exist it takes up space when it is there there is no void. Once again I am relying on the memory of something I once read. It was about a black hole and why they don't really just suck everything in. If I remeber corectly there was a force exibited by the black hole that tended to keeps things mostly to a safe distance. I don't remember what it was called or exactly how it was supposed to work . I am guilty of assuming that the Sun though much smaller would do the same thing though to a smaller degree, so if this force did exist or act in a manner simular to the one said to be exibited by a black hole then the Suns sudden disapearence should result in the planets suddenly moving toward the Sun before adjusting to their new direction. Thanks for the comment on my spelling. Luckily, I remembered I can open up more than one web page at a time on this device before I attempted to spell debris.

It was space.com an article i believe dated August 27. I don't know how to link to it nor do I know how to check the spelling in this reply box. I usually spell so badly that I don't even know for sure if I have spelled something wrong. Am assuming now that they were talking about debris, since they were talking 8 miles per second. I would have expected light to move at c. I would have expected gravity's effect to react at less than c. I am likely wrong, but my thought is this because, if a sudden void is created i would expect things to move toward the void, before moving away. I figured that this would take time. Was also thinking of the sun as being more than a gravitational field. Guess I'm wrong. Still thinking it through. note - the article didn't say anything about the sun suddenly disapearing that came from a CBSN interview I watched.

Thanks,

Thank you. I am still trying to get used to the concept that gravity is not a force, so this answer tugs at my desire to still think of gravity as a force. Also, I didn't realize I had presented the thought that the photons would have an effect on me after leaving the flashlight, sorry if I did.

Nothing in space, such as material objects, magnetic fields, gravatational feilds, etc. would effect the propagation rate? so, it really wouldn't matter if I were talking about the Sun or two enteracting galxies millions of lightyears away? When they write about measuring the propagation rate of Supernova shockwave what are they talking about? I kind of liked your use of the word propagation, so I may have misused it in regard to the Supernova shockwave.

If i were to jump off a very high cliff i would assume a steady increase in kinetic energy. If instead of jumping I pointed a flash light down and turned it on, being clueless I would assume the gravatational acceleration would be too small to effect a photons kinetic energy to any measurable degree. But, what if I pointed the flash light at a black hole. what then? If gravity causes a change in a photons direction of travel, implying that gravity does effect the photon what happens to the photons energy? C is th speed of light in a vacuum. What is a black hole to the photon? If all direction is a oneway street, is that the same as a vacuum? Do I need to put the word true, or perfect in front of vacuum?

I was watching a video where it was said that if the Sun were to suddenly cease to exist it would be a little over 8 minutes before we would see the light go out and feel the shock waves etc. Does this mean that a shock wave in space would travel at c, did I misunderstand the statement, or maybe is it that what I assume a shock wave to be, is not the same as would be deemed a shock wave on earth? If I see two enteracting galaxies millions of light years away should I expect to have to waite for the shockwave, much like lightning then thunder here on earth, or should I expect to detect the wave now? Or do we detect the wave then look for the cause?

What effect does a field have on particles? dose it determine their path during the experiment? If you effect the field they pass through does it effect the pattern? As in warp the field, warp the space, change the pattern? If it works this way, note I’m asking, I don’t know, but if it does what is the difference between a field and the eather that doesn’t exist? What would earlier scientist have expected from eather that the field doesn’t do?

So, any observed effect occurs outside the schwarzschild radius, and we don't know what determines the poles positions? The holes spin can be clockwise or counterclockwise depending on our observation point? This plasma in a sense coats the outside of the hole, (Acts as an atmosphere), and the magnetic/electric fields are the result of how the plasma interacts with incoming Materials? I am trying to determine where the interior that has no effect begins? I am assuming when you and others say no effect you mean other than gravity? The plasma is located on what the pictures call the ergosphere? In effect it is the ergosphere that changes shape?

Thank you. These are questions? So the Jets are made up of molecular materials that surround the black hole? We see the Jets because their temperature is a lot higher than the surrounding material? In order to sustain they would be fed by the surrounding material, rather than material from the black hole? How hot would the interior of black hole get doing that much work?

When Jupiter's gravity pulls an asteroid apart? Is this the type of warping, and damage you are talking about? If a warp drive worked the way one might imagine, would anything in the initial frame have time to be effected by the drive other than what the drive was intended to drive? If the theory of the warp drive works the thing driven would move faster than the speed of light. I would think that even in theory the whole universe would eventually notice that is coming apart, but the universe can only react so fast. Otherwise we wouldn't need to dream of a warp drive?

I tend to be clueless, but it doesn't stop me from having questions? When I think black hole, and Schwarzschild radius I tend to think spherical, but if a black hole can have plumes of energy emitting on opposite sides I want to assume that at those two points there can be no Schwarzschild radius by definition if the plumes originate from within the black hole. If the plumes originate outside the black hole why the concentration at those points? Also, artist renditions seem to suggest that the Schwarzschild radius need not be spherical? Leading me to think that the black hole doesn't need to be spherical? Does spinning flatten the black hole? It doesn't seem that it should be able to?

The quote feature isn't working the way I expected? Thanks. But I am confused, one minute the world is expected to act relativistic, the next minute Mechanical is just fine. Space shrinks, expands, causes objects large and small to turn, ye has no substance, especially when it would be nice if it did. If density is decreasing shouldn't there be an energy drop making it easier to move everything that exist within that space? I saw a vid about the double slit experiment, where the repeated firing of a single photon fired over and over resulted in the same interference pattern presented by multiple photons emitted at the same time. If the interference pattern isn't coming from the other photons where is it coming from? Space not dense, yet with enough substance to direct the path of a photon? Just a question, not a statement. I once, well maybe more than once tried to claim that relative effects were simply mechanical effects. The distance was simply longer or shorter thus presenting different observations even in simultaneity. I was soundly chastised, so i am not making that claim now. I'm just trying figure out when to use one or the other. Things simply getting further apart with density decreasing seems awfully Mechanical, and I am kind of afraid to go there.

A Photon has kinetic energy. Yet, no rest mass. I may be wrong, but of a photon, I think (substance presented as a particle). The Universe needs dark energy/matter. A lot of it. The Universes is expanding really fast, even accelerating. I am assuming space is also expanding, really fast, even accelerating. Is a defining particle of space needed to ask if the rapid expansion of space might create a lot of kinetic energy? Is the presence of energy enough to assume a link between the expanding space and the energy? Do I need a particle to assume substance? Another question - A pie chart might show 68% Dark Energy, 27% Dark Matter, then show less than 5% as being ordinary energy/matter. My question is if we show the less than 5% as a combination of ordinary matter/energy, why make a distinction between dark matter, and dark energy on the chart?

Maybe I am, but I need to think about it. It seems to me that if the bullet and I are both moving in the same direction, and then it suddenly stops, I would then slam into it at 2000, or pass it with that velocity. Seems to me that an observer on the platform should observe exactly that. The result should imply a lot of kinetic energy.

I am curious. If I push on a wall and the wall does not change direction/accelerate/move. By definition have I done anything other than push on a wall? Have I used force? Done work? It seems to me that I remember reading that if I didn't actually accomplish anything then it couldn't be said that I had done anything. Now, thinking about this one kilogram of mass just sitting on the ground. It is not just sitting on the ground. It is adding to the planets mass. This causes me to think that when I pushed on the wall I likely did something even if it wasn't readily apparent. Note, I am trying too get comfortable with the metric system, but it hurts my head when I try to imagine dividing something up in to a hundred pieces. I see the pie in my head then say okay, how exactly am I going to do this? Personally I think the meter is to big. If I remember correctly the speed of light in a vacuum rounds to 1E9 feet per second and this seems to me a little more accurate than 300 kilometers per second. Then inches would be 12E9. For clarity I mean 1 billion, and 12 billion. I clarify because I once owned a calculator that held a different view of what the E stood for. I am assuming that there actually is a good reason I should learn the metric system with its many weird sounding prefixes, but if I remember corectly it seems to me that Newton did all right with London inches.

It would seem to me that going in the same direction as the train the bullets velocity would already be 2000. From that view if you do not add force to the bullet to accelerate it 2000 in the direction of the train, you haven't accelerated the bullet. So, when you aim in the direction the train is going and fire/accelerate the bullet the bullets velocity increases 2000. I don't want to be on the train in front of the bullet, because the bullet would be moving toward me at 2000. The ground/platform observer measures the trains speed at 2000 and the bullets speed at 4000. Now I turn around and fire/accelerate the bullet in the opposite direction at 2000. Again, I don't want to be on the train in front of the bullet, because I would be moving toward the bullet at 2000. From my point of view the bullet is not sitting there suspended in air waiting for me to catch up, it is moving toward me at 2000.The ground/platform observer sees the gun moving away from the bullet at 2000, sees the bullet fall straight down at roughly 9.8. The bullet still has kinetic energy. If it lands on the train one thing happens. If it lands on the ground another thing happens. When it comes to bullets I am a coward. To the ground/platfom observer it may appear that the bullet is simply falling straight down with 9.8 worth of kinetic energy, but the coward in me says observe from a distance. That 2000 worth of kinetic energy is still there. The only way the bullet simply drops at 9.8 is if you simply drop it. The ground/platform observer is not going to see it as falling straight down. I could be wrong, but this is how it seems to me. Foreign the gun opposite to the trains direction does make my head hurt when I think about it, but if I were in space and came in contact with something of similar mass. I should be able to push off the other mass even if we are both moving in the same direction. I am thinking that there should be plenty of mass for the bullet to accelerate from zero to 2000 when it per say pushes off.

Dawning? E=mc^2 is not a kinetic equation?/has a different purpose? A universe without time or distance? A singularity? Remove my imagination, then = At rest.

Okay, too many assumptions. I'm sorry its the way my mind works. I see c squared, and think velocity change.

Thanks, this would explain why I don't remember anything but the definition. Seems odd. The formula seems to suggest that there should be an energy equivalent. When I start searching am I going to find one, or am I wrong in assuming an association between acceleration and c squared?

☺ How? How did they apply the force? How did they move the one kilogram? They used one unit of force called a Newton, to move one kilogram of mass, one meter, within a one second time frame. How? If I push or pull it I have to deal with friction. I could tie a scale to it and pick it up, but that seems wrong because the scale might tell me it weighs one kilogram, and I can assume I used one Newton of force to pick it up. I can measure off a meter, then try to take exactly one second to move it that far. Way to many assumptions. If the definition is true the only thing I can be sure of is that I used at least one Newton of force, so long as it weighs one kilogram, and I moved it one meter in one second. What experiment was done that defined a Newton?