ok so here is the link to the article in discover about physicist João Magueijo's VSL theory and how it could change the way we think about interplanetary ravel and cosmic strings as well as maybe vindicate my thoughts on blackholes

link (http://www.discover.com/apr_03/featspeed.html)

and pelucidor i seem to have misremembered his black hole arguement. it's not the elongation of time but that everthing stops at the event horizon. it's at the very end of the article.

so what do you think? i never really liked inflation theory either, as much of it as i understood.

I'm more interested in how you got 2657 posts?

I need to get my good friend to sign up and chit chat ... he's a Post-Doctorate Astral Physicist at Michigan.

Originally posted by BOOSTD 7
I'm more interested in how you got 2657 posts?



ya know, i don't remember going ove the 2,000 mark?! did some numbers jump? wakeech, herc and i are all over 2k now with herc headed to break 3k soon.


but back to black holes, cosmic strings and the variable speed of light......

Originally posted by BOOSTD 7
I'm more interested in how you got 2657 posts?

I need to get my good friend to sign up and chit chat ... he's a Post-Doctorate Astral Physicist at Michigan. I hope you mean astrophysicist as opposed to someone looking at the science of out-of-body experiences.

I had actually read that article a few months back but had forgotten about it. I had not read the corollary for space travel and black holes. What about microscopic black holes that are thought to have a Schwarzchild radius smaller than an atom. How would particles of matter hover at the edge of the Event Horizon of somthing that much smaller?

The idea of VSL is pretty wild. If more proof of variations in the speed of light is forthcoming it could be quite interesting. BTW a long time ago I studied Special Relativity and other odd stuff whilst doing a degree in Pure Maths (before changing to Engineering because my parents assumed I would never find employment - they totally refused to let me study 'Astral' Physics which was my first choice). Fascinating as Spock would say.

damnit, just typed all this great stuff and the comp frigged out...now im too lazy yo do it again...
________
HERBAL VAPORIZER (http://herbalvaporizers.info)

crap ive got to lol

ok where was i...
oh yaeh
inflationay theory, or the inflationary univrerse proposed by allan guth...completely different fromt he inflationary era

guths theory takes place BEFORE the BB, at a time when the "universe" if you can call it that at that time, is simply a bubble of vacuum engery

also, the article describes a flat universe as a steady state universe, which just isnt right lol, a flat universe is an open universe in which the energy density int he universe (p) is equal to the critical density (p subscript 0) so that Omega = 1, meaning p=p0

also, he says that in his theory, nothing would emit from black holes, when its been proven that they emit Hawking Radiation.
his theory needs some slight editing, but i think its somewhat valid and it has some proof, just needs some bugs to be worked out

oh, and his thing at the end with never reaching the black hole, is just a "rip off" (though completely unwittingly) of something i postulated years ago of soemthing somewhat unrelated to black holes, which i ripped off of a postulate of Reimans geometry's main theorems


anyway...

the more theories are out there, the better
and i hope our universe is saddle shaped, cause i hate that everything is so damned "normal and ragular" the cosmos SHOULD be special and warp laws (ie Euclidian geometry)
________
Extreme vaporizer (http://extremevaporizer.net/)

I know about Hawking radiation, but it's hardly proven (except in my garage lab), still just a theory. For those that don't know - Hawking postulated that under unusual conditions (e.g. the Big Bang) that microscopic black holes could have formed (smaller than an atom - see my previous post) and should be abundant throughout the universe. They would obviously be tapped for limitless energy by any reasonably astute civilizations. Then having persuaded everyone of this, years later he theorized that black holes actually emit radiation. This radiation means black holes can shrink. Galactic sized holes will eat as much or more that they emit, but microscopic holes will quickly evaporate. Hence microscopic holes don't exist any more (except when highly technological civilizations create them for fun) as natural conditions to create them are long gone...

I agree that the occasional crazy but consistent theory is great for science and helps it advance as people have to think about why they support the old or the new.

youve preoven that in your garage? thats freking disgusting dude, i love it, a lot lol
________
AVANDIA LAWSUIT (http://classactionsettlements.org/)

wow, im really surprised theres no other thoughts on this...
________
Nexium lawsuit information (http://www.classactionsettlements.org/lawsuit/nexium/)

OK Pooman. I always thought that a black hole is from the remnants of a dead star. It's mass, being so dense, creates a gravitational field so strong that nothing with any kind of mass can exit, even light, which has mass for some reason that I can't remember. Duh, I feel so stupid right now... Well, don't flame me too bad here. Y'all got something goin on here for sure, thought maybe y'all could maybe teach me & others what te heck y'all are talkin'bout in more understandable terms. If y'all don't want, I'll jus leave youz guys alone... :(

There is a little equation you have heard of which shows that a little mass equals a lot of energy (and that they can convert from one to the other): e=mc^2

Everyone knows that mass can become energy and light (nuclear bombs) but it is less obvious that light can be thought of as having mass-like properties (e.g. effected by gravity).

The first EXPERIMENTAL proof of Einsteins Theory of Special Relativity occurred in the early 20th century. An expedition was mounted to travel to an island that would experience a total solar eclipse. There was a star that would be obscured by the sun and moon as it was directly behind them. But, as predicted, the starlight was bent by the sun's gravitational force on it's way to us and thus the star could be seen - i.e. light was effected by (a lot of) gravity. Hence black holes (aka collapsars) are black.

if you have any questions feel free to ask

adding on to the energy-matter thing;

if you change energy to matter, you get anti matter
change matter to energy, you get plain old energy

edit:
i accidentally hit submit somehow...

to your black hole post:
its not the density, its the MASS, a black hole occurs when a star is no longer able to keep itself from crushing in on itself via atomic explosions, however, they only occur when the star is at least 2 or so solar masses, or twice the size of our sun at least.
gravity is a function of mass, not density, this means:
for arguments sake, lets say a black hole CAN have a mass of one solar mass (ie, the same size as our sun). the black hole would ONLY be able to suck up as much stuff as our sun, put a better way, it only has the attraction of our sun, meaning our sun and the sun-massed black hole, would have the same gravitational force

edit 2:
if anyone has any questions, please feel free

________
Vaporizer (http://johan-luis.tumblr.com/)

I think the Superstring theory is a very exciting area of study and it has the potential to be the right theory for describing the nature of the universe. All the elements are in there: quantum physics, bosons, fermions, gauge groups, and gravity.
The superstring theory does unite gravity with a theory of radiation, which is required to solve the problem of quantum wormholes.
This is one of my favorite descriptions:
"Sub-atomic particles are really just resonances or vibrations of a tiny string. The vibrations of a violin string correspond to musical notes; likewise the vibrations of a superstring correspond to the particles found in nature. The universe is then a symphony of vibrating strings. An added bonus is that, as a string moves in time, it warps the fabric of space around it, producing black holes, wormholes, and other exotic solutions of Einstein's equations. Thus, in one stroke, the superstring theory unites both the theory of Einstein and quantum physics into one coherent, compelling picture."
Also Kerr (mathematician) used Einstein's equations of gravity. But had something a bit different in his solution. His theory predicts that if you fell into a black hole, you might be sucked down a tunnel (called the "Einstein-Rosen bridge) and shot out a "white hole" in a parallel universe.
Kerr showed that a spinning black hole would collapse not into a point, but to a ring of fire. Because the ring was spinning rapidly, centrifugal forces would keep it from collapsing.
Interesting enough, a space probe fired directly through the ring would not be crushed into oblivion, but might actually emerge unscratched on the other side of the Einstein-Rosen bridge, in a parallel universe. The wormhole may connect two parallel universes, or even distant parts of the same universe.

I love this type of stuff. I tend to find more supporting evidence to the String theory. It does make for interesting discussion.

thats very highly unlikely, except in very very rare situations, at least in nature, as the space-time warpage @ the singularity would be so intense that even basic particles like quarks and such would be ripped apart

however, if you COULD somehow manage to escape such a fate, who knows what could happen?

and even a black hole spinning at the speed of light could not keep from continuously collapsing (i dont mean constantly, just continuously)
________
List Of Chrysler Engines History (http://www.dodge-wiki.com/wiki/List_of_Chrysler_engines)

"The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible" Albert Einstein

"The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless" Dr. Steven Weinberg, 'The First Three Minutes'

What I'm struggling with is an article I read that implied that gravity is faster than light. Hurts my head.

paraphrasing a bit "Since the mathmaticians got involved, i don't understand relativity anymore either" Einstein

gravity works at the speed of light, not greater than
________
Zx14 Vs Hayabusa (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Which_bike_is_quicker_kawasaki_zx_-14_or_suzuki_hayabusa)

I have read before about experiments that have pointed to energy pulses zooming faster than light speed.
In fact this is exactly what I read about : a pulse of light that enters a transparent chamber filled with caesium gas reaches speeds 300 times the normal speed of light.
According to the researchers conducting the experiment, the main part of the light pulse leaves the far side of the chamber even before it enters at the near side.

yeah i heard about something along those lines too...

speaking of hyper luminal travel, and things that arrive before they are sent, like tachyons and stuff

yeah that stuffs pretty freking nuts

but the light in the gass thing...
its the group velocity, which is the velocity of a pulse that is undistorted in shape, which is "exceeding" the speed of light, which is actually the front velocity, or the speed of the edge of a light pulse that is instantly turned on, the pulse actually leaves the gas before it enters...

this is a good article on it (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00093487-DB4B-1C73-9B81809EC588EF21&pageNumber=1&catID=2)

edit:
what truly happens is that, due to rephasing, the pulse's components come back into phase ahead of where they would have if they were in a vacuum and rephrasing hadnt occured. so it is sort of like an accelerated re-arrangement of the pulse.

on a side note...this is kinda like quantum tunnelinglook here (http://www.photonics.com/Spectra/tech/read.asp?techid=932)

But remember POOMan, NO INFORMATION can be sent using the group velocity. The light itself never exceeds C.

And I don't think gravity "travels". It is an attribute of space-time. Specifically, it is curvature. Gravity doesn't emmanate from the sun, for example, and reach earth the way light from the sun does.

How many "astral" physicists do we have out there on the board? I don't really count myself as an astrophys, I am just an old quantum mechanic...........

holy Night of the Living Dead Thread...

all interesting reading. I try to put it all together and just end up kinda numb. Or is that dumb. Feeling. Something like that. I want to know where I can get a RX-8 transformer. Maybe.
You all have a nice day. Now I have to float this around my 2nd cup of coffee! While I'm at it- what is the frequency that the human brain 'sees' for our eyes. I know we 'see' in pulses- if someone can put that in terms I can understand I'd appreciate it.

Originally posted by rx8daniel
all interesting reading. I try to put it all together and just end up kinda numb. Or is that dumb. Feeling. Something like that. ... See what I mean (meant)?

Seeing in pulses? That's a new one on me too. The only thing that comes to mind is that artificial lighting using AC current (especially flourescent) and TV / monitors have "pulses", and that they are so fast that the mind doesn't really "see" (distinguish) them. So, I guess the "pulse" rate of eyesight is slower than those. Say, 25 or 30 Hz ?

hah i was going to bring this thread back to life myself.anyone read this months story in Discover concerning a new theory on "the Big Bang"? 2 parallel universes that touch causing the "big bang". interesting read and nice how it eliminates the need for all of this "dark matter" and "dark energy" that people have been going on about for a few years now.