Lightspeed "barrier"

[Thales]

No really, if you study some basic general relativity it is fairly self explainitory. I'm quite happy to explain it to you here, if you could start by pointing out where I have contradicted myself?

[Aeschylus]

Uneducated on the subject.. please stop doing such coments' date=' I`m not a kid and I asume there are no kids here (at least not much) so dont use this type of argument. Better come here and put your toughts about the subject, that will be more interesting.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Going back to the subject, if photons are pure energy without mass:

 

1) Why when they got a massive object, like an star, they got deviated?

2) Why the photons got affected by gravity if they dont have mass?

 

On this last I want to talk about. I was researching by myself for explanations about and I got responses or info that dont convince me.

For example, the light got absorved by a black hole due of strong gravity, so it have to have any kind of mass for that. An interesting note: when light got absorved by a black hole it got invisible, the explanation is that the black hole dont let the light to go out. However if this is true there should be a manifestaion of light before get into the hole, some kind of "funnel".

Personally, due of strongs gravitational forces on the black hole, the photons near it got attracted at speeds higher than the lightspeed, for that it got invisible.

 

Comments, suggestions welcome (as soon it is not like the one exampled at start of this message)[/quote']

 

You are uneducated on the subject, that is a simple and very plain fact, what you shouyld do is try to become educated on the subject, especially before you start to make pronouncements on it.

 

Photons have no mass by the defintion of mass, this does not mean that they will not be affected by gravity, infact in GR it is clear that even massless objects must be affected by gravity. Of course if you'd bothered to find this out for yourself inm the first place, you would not be here making inane statements.

[Flak]

You are uneducated on the subject, that is a simple and very plain fact, what you shouyld do is try to become educated on the subject, especially before you start to make pronouncements on it.

 

I think there is a big difference between uneducated by the subject and not agree with some aspect of it, as a note I`m dont desagree with all the theory.

 

Photons have no mass by the defintion of mass[/b'], this does not mean that they will not be affected by gravity, infact in GR it is clear that even massless objects must be affected by gravity. Of course if you'd bothered to find this out for yourself inm the first place, you would not be here making inane statements.

 

As I said before. Massless objects or energy? For me is not the same. Do you have a diagram with the complete structure of the photon?. I`m not making inane statements, dont you think that say that the photon "CAN NOT HAVE MASS" is inane? As said before you have SOLID information to say that the photon dont have mass?

 

About if I`m uneducated, the stated above about black holes (ONLY THAT, SURE) comes from the studies of Chandrasekhar (wich later Oppenheimer expanded) on the limit of the star. I want to know if you even remember that RIGHT NOW.

[Flak]

No really, if you study some basic general relativity it is fairly self explainitory. I'm quite happy to explain it to you here, if you could start by pointing out where I have contradicted myself?

 

I dont want to be inane, so if you happy with that explanation, thats ok. For me, pure energy cannot be affected by gravity, unless they are "attached" to mass. So say that energy is affected by gravity is like to say that energy have mass.

[[Tycho?]]

I think there is a big difference between uneducated by the subject and not agree with some aspect of it' date=' as a note I`m dont desagree with all the theory.

 

 

 

As I said before. Massless objects or energy? For me is not the same. Do you have a diagram with the complete structure of the photon?. I`m not making inane statements, dont you think that say that the photon "CAN NOT HAVE MASS" is inane? As said before you have [u']SOLID[/u] information to say that the photon dont have mass?

 

About if I`m uneducated, the stated above about black holes (ONLY THAT, SURE) comes from the studies of Chandrasekhar (wich later Oppenheimer expanded) on the limit of the star. I want to know if you even remember that RIGHT NOW.

 

 

See, I did not intend to insult you earlier, although it probably came off that way. You ARE uneducated on the subject of relativity, this is very evident by the things you are saying. I've been posting on this forum for about 2 months. In that time like 15 people have come up with problems with relativity, problems with lightspeed barier, c as a constant, time dilation etc etc etc. Einstien came up with this theory. It has been examined by the best physicsts in the world for coming close to a century. These arguments that are so often brought up are extremely obvious ones, and have been brought up countless times before. Yet the theory remains. For example you said

 

"For me, pure energy cannot be affected by gravity, unless they are "attached" to mass."

 

Where did you get this? This is just something you thought up because it seemed like it made sense. And I guess it sort of does. But physical theories are not always intuitive. This is explained in general relativity VERY well. This is just an opinion of yours that is not backed up by anything at all, which is why we say you are uneducated on the subject. To make critisims about relativity you must first understand it. I dont understand relativity, you dont, I'm not sure if anyone here can claim to.

[Flak]

']See' date=' I did not intend to insult you earlier, although it probably came off that way. You ARE uneducated on the subject of relativity, this is very evident by the things you are saying. I've been posting on this forum for about 2 months. In that time like 15 people have come up with problems with relativity, problems with lightspeed barier, c as a constant, time dilation etc etc etc. Einstien came up with this theory. It has been examined by the best physicsts in the world for coming close to a century. These arguments that are so often brought up are extremely obvious ones, and have been brought up countless times before. Yet the theory remains. For example you said

 

"For me, pure energy cannot be affected by gravity, unless they are "attached" to mass."

 

Where did you get this? This is just something you thought up because it seemed like it made sense. And I guess it sort of does. But physical theories are not always intuitive. This is explained in general relativity VERY well. This is just an opinion of yours that is not backed up by anything at all, which is why we say you are uneducated on the subject. To make critisims about relativity you must first understand it. I dont understand relativity, you dont, I'm not sure if anyone here can claim to.[/quote']

 

I understand it, Im not saying is wrong. Simply I`m "going out of it" to check other posibilities. And yes, you call me uneducated again

[Aeschylus]

I think there is a big difference between uneducated by the subject and not agree with some aspect of it, as a note I`m dont desagree with all the theory.

 

maybe, but you are undeducate don the subject, that is very clear.

 

You have absolutely no reason to disagree with special re;ativty besides which ypu should find out wjat special relativty is before you disagree with it.

 

 

As I said before. Massless objects or energy? For me is not the same. Do you have a diagram with the complete structure of the photon?. I`m not making inane statements, dont you think that say that the photon "CAN NOT HAVE MASS" is inane? As said before you have SOLID information to say that the photon dont have mass?

 

A massless object is not equivalent to energy, though a massless object may have energy. As far as is known photons have no structure. That photons cannot have mass is basic physics, thoguh you might want to read about this experiment:

http://www.aip.org/enews/physnews/2003/split/625-2.html

 

Seconmdly if a photon had mass the electric force would not obey an inverse square law.

 

 

About if I`m uneducated, the stated above about black holes (ONLY THAT, SURE) comes from the studies of Chandrasekhar (wich later Oppenheimer expanded) on the limit of the star. I want to know if you even remember that RIGHT NOW.

 

I guess what you are talking about is the Chandrasekar limit which places a definte maximum mass on the size of a white dwarf (subject to oher factors such as it's angular momentum), due to the force of gravity overcoming the degenracy pressure between elcectrons and protons. The Oppenheimer-Volkoff limit is analgous to the Chandrasekhar limit but refers to neutron stars instead of white dwarfs. But this pretty much irrelevant as you seem quite happy to except the existamnce of black holes (even if you do not know a great dela about them) yet you cannot accept the foundation that is necessary for the theory of black holes and indeed nearly all of modern physics - special relativity.

 

I'll say it again - learn about special relativty - basic special relativty is not hard and anyone with highschool maths should at least be able to undrestand the fundamentals.

[Severian]

As said before you have SOLID information to say that the photon dont have mass?

 

Yes!!! I gave you a link in post #8 !!!!!

 

Here it is again: http://pdg.lbl.gov/2004/listings/s000.pdf

[Flak]

I guess what you are talking about is the Chandrasekar limit which places a definte maximum mass on the size of a white dwarf (subject to oher factors such as it's angular momentum)' date=' due to the force of gravity overcoming the degenracy pressure between elcectrons and protons. The Oppenheimer-Volkoff limit is analgous to the Chandrasekhar limit but refers to neutron stars instead of white dwarfs. But this pretty much irrelevant as you seem quite happy to except the existamnce of black holes (even if you do not know a great dela about them) yet you cannot accept the foundation that is necessary for the theory of black holes and indeed nearly all of modern physics - special relativity.[/quote']

 

Chandrasekhar limit, also have aplication on Black Holes, Neutronic Stars and

Supernovas.

 

I'll say it again - learn about special relativty - basic special relativty is not hard and anyone with highschool maths should at least be able to undrestand the fundamentals.

 

I think you didnt read my post above yours.

[Flak]

Yes!!! I gave you a link in post #8 !!!!!

 

Here it is again: http://pdg.lbl.gov/2004/listings/s000.pdf

 

I will put some info on day of this, and I will be really interested on know how you can apply that

[Aeschylus]

Chandrasekhar limit' date=' also have aplication on Black Holes, Neutronic Stars and

Supernovas.[/quote']

 

The Chandrasekhar limit refers specifically to white dwarfs.

 

 

 

I think you didnt read my post above yours.

 

Wheter you are "checking other possibilties" or not you still don't have clue about relativity and therefore lack the skills to evalute different possibilties.

[Flak]

The Chandrasekhar limit refers specifically[/i'] to white dwarfs.

 

...really?

 

 

 

Wheter you are "checking other possibilties" or not you still don't have clue about relativity and therefore lack the skills to evalute different possibilties.

 

Typically...

[Aeschylus]

...really?

 

Yes, really:

 

Around 1930, S. Chandrasekhar studied astrophysical models of white dwarf stars and came to the conclusion that no white dwarf can be more massive than about 1.2 solar masses (). This became known as the Chandrasekhar limit.

 

 

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/ChandrasekharLimit.html

 

Now you could infer from this that a simlair limit may exist for neutron stars, but the Chandrasekhar limit refers specifically to white dwarfs.

 

 

 

 

 

Typically...

 

Simple mechanical treatments of special relativty aren't difficult at all and by examining them you will find out why lightspeed is a 'barrier' (infact calling lightspeed a barrier is really a very superficial, misleading precis of special relativity)

[Flak]

Yes' date=' really:

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/ChandrasekharLimit.html

 

 

Now you could infer from this that a simlair limit may exist for neutron stars, but the Chandrasekhar limit refers specifically to white dwarfs.[/quote']

 

 

= this smilie is labelled "roll eyes (Sarcastic)"

 

Simple mechanical treatments of special relativty aren't difficult at all and by examining them you will find out why lightspeed is a 'barrier' (infact calling lightspeed a barrier is really a very superficial' date=' misleading precis of special relativity)[/quote']

 

I had "examined" it... (I wont put any smilie to not confuse you again)

[Aeschylus]

= this smilie is labelled "roll eyes (Sarcastic)"

 

Yes I'm aware yo are being sarcastic, nevertheless the Chandrasekhar limit refers speciifcally to white dwarfs which is why what you said earlier is incorrect

 

 

 

I had "examined" it... (I wont put any smilie to not confuse you again)

 

No you haven't, that is clear.

[Flak]

Yes I'm aware yo are being sarcastic, nevertheless the Chandrasekhar limit refers speciifcally to white dwarfs which is why what you said earlier is [i']incorrect[/i]

 

I said that Chandrasekhar limit can be aplicated to Black Holes and so on, unless you only want to tell me that I´m wrong. It seems that someone needs to check about if not..

 

I had "examined" it... (I wont put any smilie to not confuse you again)

 

No you haven't' date=' that is clear.[/quote']

 

Is clear that you only want to make me upset by kidding.

[Aeschylus]

I said that Chandrasekhar limit can be aplicated to Black Holes and so on, unless you only want to tell me that I´m wrong. It seems that someone[/i'] needs to check about if not..

 

The Chandrasskhar limit cannot be applied to black holes! As I've said several times the Chandrasekhar limit appliues to white dwarves only!

 

 

Is clear that you only want to make me upset by kidding.

 

Though I might be being more than a little rude, I'm offereing you genuine advice: simple treatments of special relativty aren't that hard!

[Sayonara]

Flak, what exactly are you after?

[Flak]

Flak, what exactly are you after?

 

Currently trying to develop a technology that will make me able to kick Aeschylus without move from home.

 

If an star go over the Chandrasekhar limit it can became a black hole, it is STATED there. Or I have to scan and post the whole theory here?

[Aeschylus]

Currently trying to develop a technology that will make me able to kick Aeschylus without move from home.

very good.

 

If an star go over the Chandrasekhar limit it can became a black hole, it is STATED there. Or I have to scan and post the whole theory here?

 

.......Yet the Chandreskar limit refers to white dwarves. Infact the Chandrasekhar limit in itself does not provide a mechanism for a white dwarf to become a balck hole as it does not consider the degeneracy pressure between neutrons.

[Flak]

.......Yet the Chandreskar limit refers to white dwarves. Infact the Chandrasekhar limit in itself does not provide a mechanism for a white dwarf to become a balck hole as it does not consider the degeneracy pressure between neutrons.

 

Chandrasekhar stated it (Chandrasekhar got a Novel on some part for his studies on Black Holes), and Oppenheimer explain it aswell. I shall post those notes later here?

[Sayonara]

If a star goes over the limit, that suggests to me that the limit no longer applies to it.

 

What with it being a limit and all.

[Aeschylus]

If a star goes over the limit' date=' that suggests to me that the limit no longer applies to it.

 

What with it being a limit and all.[/quote']

 

Correct, you'd aslo have to examine the Oppenheimer-Volkoff limit to determine hetehr graviational collapse into a black hole will take place.

 

AS I said before the Chandrasekhar limit applies only to white dwarves, read the link I posted, Flak.

[Flak]

Yes Sayonara³, but there was explained as a basis for BH existence.

Going back to the original post, the info about Black Holes provided either from Chandrasekhar and later by Oppenheimer is that can lead that the lightspeed can be beated. Let me explain it again but better.

 

I wont explain how an star work since is somewhat long and most of you SHOULD know it. As said before if the mass of an star is above Chandrasekhar limit it could be aside other things a black hole. Then later Oppenheimer described how the black hole may work, by strong gravity forces the photons got attracted and cannot escape, for that the black hole is "invisible". However altough as ok on theory, on practice is unknown. For example if photons go to the blackhole at light speed, why not show a "funnel" patern. I think that the photons are attracted to the BH at speeds higher than lightspeed, for that it is "invisible" AROUND the black hole.

[Aeschylus]

The local coordinate velcoity of a photon always has a length of c in general relativty, this is simply a result of the postulates of GR. The Oppenheimer limit or the Chandrasekhar limit offere no insights into how black holes 'work' (infact the original limit did not take into account general relativity).