SamBridge

When mass is added to a black hole, by the consequences of mass being added, the shape of the event horizon changes with a small bulge then eventually levels off to form a perfect sphere again as the mass approaches the singularity inside the black hole. However, from outside a black hole, theoretically time is stopped at the event horizon. So, a problem I have is how do we measure the mass of a black hole changing when theoretically we would never measure mass entering a black hole due to the effects of time dilation? How could the change in it's gravitational field be measured by an outside observer as soon as a piece of matter entered the black hole from its own frame of reference? What's the solution to this problem? Something to do with the relativity of simultaneity?

There's another fundamental problem with your assumptions. A staticfield, such as a higg's field which theoretically causes mass, does not "catch up", it merely exists where the uncertainty of it's current state says it exists, which unless there is a change in the higg's field is constantly the same everywhere. Particles such as photons and higg's bosons and others aren't completely waves, they are fields, and a property of a field is that it's position instantaneously correlates to any position it occupies before a state change. If what your saying was true then matter would fall apart as it approached the speed of light because the bosons that exchange forces and properties for mass wouldn't be able to catch up as much to different particles, which is wrong. Photons don't interfere depending on the context, they can also become entangled, but it's rather rare to randomly observe them making particles themselves.

Just watch Jersey Shore, you will see that dinosaurs were in fact MORE intelligent than some humans.

If I said "apples i row like look", that doesn't make sense, but "i apples means something" isn't a random string of words. The value "i" clearly exists since it's found in so many mathematical patterns that describe nature, just as the value "1" exists, it's only natural that we should be able to find the thing that it's suppose to represent. I can still have a beautiful apple or an elegant apple, I can still picture an honorable apple, how about you just take the traits of what you expect an honorable person to look like and apply them to an apple?

To "keep magma away" would require enormous amounts of energy to cancel out the unimaginable amounts of pressure it would put on the drill, and even before that the drill would have to be made out of a material that could resist the heat.

They don't "evolve" it, they merely transform it. Evolving would involve a process that would make stars survive better over time as the species developed if it could be called one. There's also a definition of life that moon gave. Consciousness doesn't necessarily define life, but there is no scientifically recorded observation of consciousness existing outside of a living organism.

Yeah, that would be great if it would work, except it doesn't.

I'm not really sure that aliens were involved, I don't think so, but it's pretty possible given that they had millions of years to evolve, and frankly it just doesn't make sense that they wouldn't be at least somewhat smart like some of today's animals are and Frankly the scientists had little evidence to base those assertions on, they were wrong about many different aspects of dinosaurs, ranging from some species having feathers like certain raptors to animals taking care of their young like t-Rex which originally were thought to not do so.. There use to be pretty intelligent alligators that for some reason went extinct, I can't remember what they were called though, I saw some yahoo article on it 3-4 years ago, some googling will probably find them. it's also fairly measurable that many birds have high emotional capacities, some almost to the extent of human teenagers, like certain species of parakeets and parrots, geese, lovebirds, maybe ducks too, ect.

That's something that not even the smartest scientists in the world can answer right now, All we can say is we expect that dark matter doesn't interact with the electro-magnetic force, and that dark energy makes up something around 70% of the mass in the universe. Not really sure what relevance you think that math has, but even though photons can distort space and follow its curvature, they do not have direct mass. Photons have "relative" mass, through special processes that aren't fully understood, probably involving the variety of sciences I described, they can give rise to something that for some reason interacts with a higg's field or distorts space in a different manner, but photons themselves don't have mass, you cannot put a photon on a scale and weight it, and it's not measured in kilo-grams, especially because it would either be absorbed or pass through the scale anyway. At this point, I'd say you're not even trying, you're just trolling.

They would be liars, but it doesn't mean they did it on purpose, that's merely how the described whatever experience they had because they didn't know how else to rationalize it, They could have had a seizure, accidentally (or purposely ingested a drug, had a stroke, had a lucid and vivid dream, or just misinterpreted what was physically happening. Like if an airplane is coming right at you from very far away, it looks like it's staying still, so when it curves it would look like it was stationary then it somehow moved a perpendicular direction right when it wanted to.

There's scientific evidence you're wrong. An anti-neutron forms because of the fact that you're wrong, because that they are not classical objects that follow classical motion. There's anti quarks, and something about the quantized change in field oscillations gives rise to mass, which then becomes a new variable in the overall oscillation of the anti-quarks. That's about all scientists know, and you're not really contributing to that, you're just restating spin conservation laws. What I'm talking about is called quantum purtubation theory, it's used with quantum chromodynamics to explain theoretical possibilities. Gluons are massless, photons are massless, When the collision happens, gluons can be created, which then bind the anti-quarks created to form a nucleon. Why this happens exactly is unknown. We know there are different types of particle fields (quantum field theory), and we know they can oscillate in different manners (perturbation theory), and we know they can combine with different ways and transmute forces with each other through various particles and possibly dimensions (chromodynamics and some field theory and some perturbation theory). In a sense, all particles are just the same single thing, which is a probability oscillation, but in reality its still more complex than that or just two particles.

If humans weren't around there would just be another species in it's place eventually, perhaps asking the same question, perhaps not.

The existence of humans doesn't benefit or not benefit the universe, theoretically the amount of matter and energy stays fixed no matter what due to conservation laws, or is hypothetically continually being created by an expanding universe. Besides, if you think humans are bad wait until you see how real nature works.

How do they actually do experiments on ball lightning to confirm results? It's one of the rarest things in nature.

I got plenty more if you want, I think I figured out how to model certain 4-dimensional properties as integrals, of course by using my imagination. (This is in the philosophical section now by the way) But saying "i" apples doesn't make sense without any logical proof that it can't make sense just because we don't know what it looks like doesn't make sense. You could say the same thing about "infinite" apples, yet we still have a concept of what infinite apples would physically mean or look like, we even use infinity in math regardless of the fact that it's not a number.

If there were truly nothing then that's what there would be, nothing, there wouldn't even be "distance". There is some medium for the existence of existence, and in every 3-D location that exists, a fermion will have mass, so I could only extrapolate that higg's fields, like the probability of particles themselves are in fact "everywhere".

This is getting too out of hand, both of you are too uneducated in physics to understand why you're wrong, if Swansont can get another expert to say you're wrong you should take their word for it because there's experimental evidence proving the both of you wrong in your assumptions.

It seems like you're saying photons comprise electrons. But photons don't have mass, and electrons can't move at the speed of light, electrons aren't photons. Energy isn't directly matter, it's not E=m, it's E=m^2+p^2c^2, which means m=sqrt(E/(p^2c^2)), not exactly the same as a photon. You're also not showing much except conservation of spin states. I could say anything has spins that you're saying, I could saying microscopic magical elves have the spins you're saying and get converted into photons and back because I just label them as having the right spins that can be conserved to equal what those different particles spins have. You need more observable evidence at best, and I observe that photons do not have mass and electrons do, spin does not cause this.

He was deemed hysterical by a religious group, not by the scientific community. As people grew of his knowledge it gained support to the point where we started building astral telescopes to see what he was talking about.

I would say I'm trying to use logic and evidence to extrapolate a physical meaning which by nature is philosophical because it cannot be scientifically tested at this point.

Every field of science has it's fringe nut-cases. There's even climatologists who say the Earth is cooling down on average, but that's only 3% of them, the rest of the 97% agree its warming up.

Why do you think people would die if we didn't have those farms? Some fat slobs can't eat at McDonalds every day so they are going to die? Just look at the world around you, there's millions of animals surviving without our technological advances. Besides, there's large portions of the world that eat bugs and seafood as well. I don't think those are much better though, it's still a pretty violent industrial scale slaughter/harvest of particular species of organisms, it reminds me of genocide, especially when people just hunt sharks to cut off their fins and just throw them back in the water as if they'll be fine, that's like what crack-adicted lawless militia did to people in Africa, they would just go around and cut off people's limbs who were't on their side, sometimes just for fun. But I guess I agree if more research were put into making modified plants or cultivating them more efficiently that would probably be enough, even with the current population, the only problem would be getting people to like eating vegetables more too. And industrial farms don't just have this ethics problem they have pollution problems too, they make up a large percentage of the green-house gases emitted, if I remember my stats correctly it was near 1/3. That doesn't really seem to make sense. If you back a virulent animal into a corner, like a rattlesnake, it will attack you because it thinks you are going to kill it. The mental anguish you are describing doesn't seem to be very different from fear itself. Though the cows probably I don't think know they are going to get killed, so I would agree with you there, unless they take a hint and notice that it smells like cow carcasses all around them, but I can't say for sure, maybe they are slaughtered in a different room and where they are lined up so that the smell is blocked off.

Actually I was wrong now that I think about it, A nebula; Nebulae are often hundreds of light years large, and the blue under infra-red telescopes often indicates iron, so actually there are clouds of iron, and they are created by stars almost incomprehensively large, but if we were caught in a nebula the iron wouldn't be the problem, it would be the radiation that get's absorbed and reflected from all the dust emitted from the parent star as well as shockwaves from the supernova that created it, or possibly the leftover thermal energy in the form of plasma that would strip away the atmosphere if the magnetic field isn't strong enough. Otherwise I'm sure there's random trace amounts of iron vapor traveling through space and entering Earth's atmosphere. I'm surprised no one else caught this sooner, I would think there would be some astronomy expert looking at topics...

That's true (possibly), but I would be careful, because the living things we know are just random combinations of molecules, yet somehow they make conscious life. Obviously there are ways to get consciousness from inanimate materials if we exist. There's also just the sheer growth of human population, there are just more and more people to research and make advancements.

There are a lot of set-backs, but ultimately it seems like the human race is making more progress and becoming more open minded, more counties don't have slavery and are desegregating, especially with the globalization of information like the internet where people can share ideas much faster, world leaders don't want the entire world to become a giant heap of nuclear garbage. As for moving off of the planet, eventually it will be necessary but not for at least 9.9 million years at least, and that's a 50/50 if Earth will get flung into a cluster of black holes and neutron stars. Chances are there isn't going to be a giant meteor capable of wiping out all life, just a good chunk of it. There is likely going to be enough time for space travel to develop. If humanity get's wiped out by a giant meteor, life will still have one last chance to develop to the level we are now and discover space travel before the sun expands and boils the oceans away.