ACG52

Do you make this up as you go along? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliptical_galaxy

That says volumes about the nonsense you're saying.

This is all complete nonsense. There are no absolute frames of reference, there is no absolute motion, there is no absolute rest and there is no relativistic resistance.

There is no faster than light movement.

So you're free to just make up nonsense? Because that's all this thread is.

Not necessary? You mean not possible. We're just supposed to accept your ignorant, simplistic assertions?

This is word salad, and more than a little nonsensical. It certainly doesn't belong in the mainstream forums. How about Speculation? (or the Trash would be fine for it).

Again, this nonsense does not belong in a physics discussion.

This kind of nonsense belongs somewhere other than a science forum.

The first link is incorrect in saying that photons may be considered to have mass because they have energy. Momentum is not mass. Again, incorrect because they are trying to be too simplistic. The equation does not say that energy and matter are the same thing, It says that a given amount of mass has a certain energy equivalent.

Ah, another wikipedia scavenger. You are ridiculously incorrect. Reading a wikipedia article does not give you any insight into particle physics. At least take some high school physics classes.

There is no center to the universe. The Big Bang was not an explosion taking place at some definitive point. The BB is the expansion of all space. Any and every point in the universe can be said to be at the center.

Just word salad.

The facts are that anyone who stayed awake during high school science classes would know better.

No, they do not. Badly misunderstood. His Nobel prize was for the photoelectric effect. Photon's have no mass, and Einstein never said they did.

It doesn't become a black hole, and it doesn't appear to be a black hole. Relativistic mass, which is an outdated and misleading concept, does not contribute to gravity.

This is not right, it's not even wrong.

Solids, liquids, and gases are states of molecules, not atomic and subatomic particles.

What do you mean by 'physical mechanism'? I think the problem is that you can't understand field theory, and so you look for something you can understand. Your conception of how the universe should operate is based on your limited experiences with a low energy, slow-moving, macro sized universe. And even in that limited subset of the universe, all physical interactions are either via gravity or electromagnetic fields. So what do you mean by 'physical'?

No, the Bohr model was discarded because quantum mechanics gave a more accurate model. Perhaps you should do some reading before posting erroneous information.

Incorrect. Photons are massless. Each refinement in measurement gives a smaller upper limit, if the photon had mass. And electrons don't orbit the nucleus, they exist in probability clouds. The old Bohr model of the atom has been discarded for many decades.

Nothing with mass can move at the speed of light.

Not anyone who paid attention in high school science class.

Atoms do not consist of charges. They consist of elements which have charges, but the charge is only one aspect of the element.

No, it doesn't. The escape velocity at the event horizon is c. No matter can attain that speed. Nothing gets ejected. Newtonian physics does not apply to BHs. Newtonian physics is an approximation which only applies to low-speed, low energy interactions.