Severian Posted September 3, 2004 Posted September 3, 2004 10-20 eV is an absurdly small mass, and this should be proof enough for anyone. There are other good reasons for expecting the photon to be masses, e.g. it is the gauge boson of an unbroken local symmetry.
DreamLord Posted September 4, 2004 Posted September 4, 2004 I may disagree of your comment.You cannot rely on unproved' date=' you can have faith on the unproved but you cannot trust in it. As Kekule said. " Sueña, tal vez encontrarás la verdad pero abstente de publicar tus ideas antes de ponerlas a prueba con la mente despierta" The translation would be like this: " Dream, you may find the truth but avoid publishing your ideas without having them test them before with the awakened mind" Its not narrow minded, but you should understand that about the things we dont see we dont know, we just can dream. and we cannot disprove what it is not proven first. So in order to do the things right, first prove it.[/quote'] Thales was correct in his statement. I do not rely on these ideas, I just like to talk about them and think about them. That is what some of science is about. I know there's a chance they may not exist, but I cannot forget that they can exist. As said before they are interesting, and should be discussed.
ydoaPs Posted September 5, 2004 Posted September 5, 2004 10-20 eV is an absurdly small mass, and this should[/b'] be proof enough for anyone. There are other good reasons for expecting the photon to be masses, e.g. it is the gauge boson of an unbroken local symmetry. i thought electron volts were energy units, not mass.
Aeschylus Posted September 5, 2004 Posted September 5, 2004 i thought electron volts were energy units, not mass. Rest energy = mc^2, so it is entirely consistent to give 'mass' units of energy infact the natural units of relativity c is taken as 1 and unitless (as time is measured in the units of distance).
Severian Posted September 5, 2004 Posted September 5, 2004 i thought electron volts were energy units, not mass. 10-20 eV/c2 if you insist.
Nevermore Posted September 19, 2004 Posted September 19, 2004 Back to the original question, I once heard that a worm hole can be created by the fusing of a black hole and a white hole. White holes supposedly are the opposite of black holes, spitting out matter. However, unless all white holes are joined to black holes, (thus forming a worm hole) the mere idea of white holes goes against the Law of Conservation of Matter.
Nevermore Posted September 19, 2004 Posted September 19, 2004 Oh, and by the way, 123rock, can you support your arguments with facts?Because your babbling and making your-self look bad.
TheProphet Posted September 19, 2004 Posted September 19, 2004 Back to the original question, I once heard that a worm hole can be created by the fusing of a black hole and a white hole. White holes supposedly are the opposite of black holes, spitting out matter. However, unless all white holes are joined to black holes, (thus forming a worm hole) the mere idea of white holes goes against the Law of Conservation of Matter. If it's transportation via 2 universes i see no law breaking! We now of blackholes too be a mather of fact. White holes on the other han is still just constructs of our thoughts, i haven't read about any discovery yet. But please direct me to the article where they have!
Sayonara Posted September 19, 2004 Posted September 19, 2004 Let's go back in circles and repeat things that have already been done in this thread, only this time let's be more vague! Hurrah, hooray.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now