Man-made Black Hole that could destroy the world

apoplectic · Post by **apoplectic** » 08 May 2007 06:28

if you accually read a physics book that isnt older than you are it says its only conveniant to think photons as massless,if it were massless it would be impossible to detect its speed or direction,because if its massless,its impossible to determine it exists,and since it obviously does exist,it does have a speed,and it does have direction,it must have at least near zero masseven if current detecters cannot go down to that small of a mass

apoplectic · Post by **apoplectic** » 08 May 2007 07:50

ok,is this newtonian?

E=mc^2

E= energy,m=mass,c=speed of light which equals 299792458 meters per second

if we assume that light equals zero,
E=0 x 299,792,458^2

E=0 x 89,875,517,873,681,764

E=0

we all know that light does have energy,thats how we get sunburns

Switch Kicker · Post by **Switch Kicker** » 08 May 2007 09:45

apoplectic wrote:ok,is this newtonian?

E=mc^2

E= energy,m=mass,c=speed of light which equals 299792458 meters per second

if we assume that light equals zero,
E=0 x 299,792,458^2

E=0 x 89,875,517,873,681,764

E=0

we all know that light does have energy,thats how we get sunburns

I'm never going to argue with this kid... He's too good at it. No insults, straight to the facts that he presents himself... Damn.

apoplectic · Post by **apoplectic** » 08 May 2007 10:05

i do insult people occasionally,but only if im really pissed.im usually pretty reserved.

cammel · Post by **cammel** » 08 May 2007 13:01

And again you didnt read my post. How can you post something that is obviously refuted in the post before yours?

FOR THE LAST DAMN TIME

E=MC^2 IS ONLY TRUE FOR THINGS AT REST

AT REST AT REST AT REST AT REST

Unfortunately for your crap argument LIGHT IS NEVER AT REST, IT MOVES AT C ALWAYS SO WE MUST USE THIS EQUATION:

E^2-(CP)^2=(MC^2)^2

Which is the general formula.

M=0 (see the links that jeremy provided. I think that NASA and the people who wrote that wikipedia article might know a tad bit more than you)

SO E^2=(CP)^2 FOR MASSLESS PARTICLES

NO MASS BUT MOMENTUM AND ENERGY.

Please read that before posting again and looking stupid.

Also i am not contending that light doesnt have relativistic mass, because it surely has that. But relativistic mass is not even really mass it is just a way of describing something moving at relativistic speeds. The particle moving at relativistic speeds does not gain more mater as it goes faster, it is just harder and harder to accelerate, so it has the same effects as mater. Photons DO NOT HAVE MASS IN THE CLASSICAL SENSE OF THE WORD.

Even if they had some tiny negligible mass that was undetectable that would totally fuck up physics theories that seem to be correct like quantum electrodynamics.[/b]

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 08 May 2007 13:30

what is the speed of light trapped in a black hole ?

What happens to the momentum of the photos in a black hole ?

BenRea · Post by **BenRea** » 08 May 2007 15:32

Tsiangkun wrote:what is the speed of light trapped in a black hole ?

What happens to the momentum of the photons in a black hole ?

i dont think these will get answered in the next 500 years if that. you could make a black hole (as we already know) and you can realease light into it but how could we possibly study what happens to the light...it would be hard enough to even study a material object, you cant just see into a black hole...right?

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 08 May 2007 18:08

Tsiangkun wrote:what is the speed of light trapped in a black hole ?

What happens to the momentum of the photos in a black hole ?

Light is both a wave and a particle. I'm sure you've heard the term "wave/particle duality." There are different experiments you can do where it clearly shows that light is a wave or it clearly shows that it is a particle, so essentially it's both. When I say that it's a wave, it's an electric field that is moving and generates a moving magnetic field, which generates a moving electric field etc. When light "stops" - for example a black hole, the wave collapses. So you don't have lots of photons building up in black holes, all you have is the energy from the light being transferred into the black hole. Photons can't exist as stationary objects, because then the wave quality of light stops working.

if you accually read a physics book that isnt older than you are it says its only conveniant to think photons as massless,if it were massless it would be impossible to detect its speed or direction,because if its massless,its impossible to determine it exists,and since it obviously does exist,it does have a speed,and it does have direction,it must have at least near zero masseven if current detecters cannot go down to that small of a mass

Please provide a source for this. If light does have a mass, and I'm in dark room with a torch, where does the mass go? Does the room slowly get heavier and heavier. Do the walls convert the mass into heat? How do they do this?

bigdirtyfoot · Post by **bigdirtyfoot** » 08 May 2007 19:35

That is SO insane - I was JUST about to post about the wave/particle thing.

Texta · Post by **Texta** » 08 May 2007 19:42

apoplectic wrote:ok,is this newtonian?

E=mc^2

E= energy,m=mass,c=speed of light which equals 299792458 meters per second

if we assume that light equals zero,
E=0 x 299,792,458^2

E=0 x 89,875,517,873,681,764

E=0

we all know that light does have energy,thats how we get sunburns

Yup, and if you can find me a photon that isn't moving I'd be prepared to bet that it won't make you sunburnt.

Anyway. The real issue isn't: Does light have a weight but Switch_kicker's outrageous statement: "Light has infinite weight".

Clearly that's wrong.

apoplectic · Post by **apoplectic** » 09 May 2007 03:24

cammel wrote:And again you didnt read my post. How can you post something that is obviously refuted in the post before yours?

FOR THE LAST DAMN TIME

E=MC^2 IS ONLY TRUE FOR THINGS AT REST

AT REST AT REST AT REST AT REST

Unfortunately for your crap argument LIGHT IS NEVER AT REST, IT MOVES AT C ALWAYS SO WE MUST USE THIS EQUATION:

E^2-(CP)^2=(MC^2)^2

Which is the general formula.

M=0 (see the links that jeremy provided. I think that NASA and the people who wrote that wikipedia article might know a tad bit more than you)

SO E^2=(CP)^2 FOR MASSLESS PARTICLES

NO MASS BUT MOMENTUM AND ENERGY.

Please read that before posting again and looking stupid.

Also i am not contending that light doesnt have relativistic mass, because it surely has that. But relativistic mass is not even really mass it is just a way of describing something moving at relativistic speeds. The particle moving at relativistic speeds does not gain more mater as it goes faster, it is just harder and harder to accelerate, so it has the same effects as mater. Photons DO NOT HAVE MASS IN THE CLASSICAL SENSE OF THE WORD.

Even if they had some tiny negligible mass that was undetectable that would totally fuck up physics theories that seem to be correct like quantum electrodynamics.[/b]

then the equation is crap!nothing is ever at rest.relative rest sure,absolute rest no.

if light were massless,how do the get caught in a black hole in the first place?if they were massless,they could exit the gravitational pull with ease

@Jeremy:

the walls dont convert mass to heat.the momentum of the photons hits the molecules in the wall giving it kinetic energy giving it heat.and yes,it would make the room heavier,just not noticeably

flockpocken · Post by **flockpocken** » 09 May 2007 04:15

BLACK HOLES ARE BIG AND BLACK AND THEY SUCK EVERYTHING INTO IT!

THE END

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 09 May 2007 04:23

LOL at David Adams.

You need to go back to school mate.

Gravity isn't an attraction between masses!!!!

Mass bends space-time. Think of everything sitting in this 4 dimensional fabric, and the heavier things are, the more they pull the fabric around them. You put a bowling ball and a pea on a mattress and the bowling ball doesn't pull the pea towards it, the bowling ball changes the shape of the mattress and the pea roles towards it. Gravity is the same thing. The light travels along space time and it gets to large masses, the space time is curved and light follows that curve. With a black hole, the fabric is so curved that all the fabric converges on a single point. Light follows the fabric and also does.

You quoted e=mc^2 and yet you don't have any clue what you're talking about.

Do magnetic fields have a mass? Do electric fields have a mass?

If, I'm presuming you answered no to both those questions, how can electromagnetic radiation, which is a combination of electric and magnetic fields have a mass?

the walls dont convert mass to heat.the momentum of the photons hits the molecules in the wall giving it kinetic energy giving it heat.and yes,it would make the room heavier,just not noticeably

So what happens to the photons? Their energy is transfered to the wall and they just lifelessly drop to the ground? Where does the mass come from? Does the torch weigh less the more light it puts out? Or is the mass just magically created somehow?

cammel · Post by **cammel** » 09 May 2007 07:13

apoplectic wrote:
then the equation is crap!nothing is ever at rest.relative rest sure,absolute rest no.

if light were massless,how do the get caught in a black hole in the first place?if they were massless,they could exit the gravitational pull with ease

You know you pretty much know nothing when you're arguing that E=mc^2 is crap. I especially like how you pulled it out when you thought it helped your argument but now say its crap. one more

E=mc^2 is only applicable to particles at relativerest and is not accurate for moving particles. but at normal speed this inaccuracy is very small because you get very little increase in relativistic mass at low speeds. E=mc^2 is only not accurate at near light speeds where the energy due to speed is great

when dealing with energy from fission in reactors or whatever E=mc^2 is perfect because the atoms breaking apart are moving at non-relativistic speeds relative to us

apoplectic wrote: if light were massless,how do the get caught in a black hole in the first place?if they were massless,they could exit the gravitational pull with ease

This has also been answered a thousand times already, but you fail to read any of the other posts. Gravity bends space-time, and light, moving in a straight line over a curved surface will appear to an observer to curve. The curvature from a black hole is so great that light will "fall" in simply because it is following a straight path in very curved space-time

stop posting, you don't get it, and you refuse to read other people's posts that refute your shit.

Switch Kicker · Post by **Switch Kicker** » 09 May 2007 07:57

cammel wrote:
apoplectic wrote:
then the equation is crap!nothing is ever at rest.relative rest sure,absolute rest no.

if light were massless,how do the get caught in a black hole in the first place?if they were massless,they could exit the gravitational pull with ease

You know you pretty much know nothing when you're arguing that E=mc^2 is crap. I especially like how you pulled it out when you thought it helped your argument but now say its crap. one more

E=mc^2 is only applicable to particles at relativerest and is not accurate for moving particles. but at normal speed this inaccuracy is very small because you get very little increase in relativistic mass at low speeds. E=mc^2 is only not accurate at near light speeds where the energy due to speed is great

when dealing with energy from fission in reactors or whatever E=mc^2 is perfect because the atoms breaking apart are moving at non-relativistic speeds relative to us

apoplectic wrote: if light were massless,how do the get caught in a black hole in the first place?if they were massless,they could exit the gravitational pull with ease
This has also been answered a thousand times already, but you fail to read any of the other posts. Gravity bends space-time, and light, moving in a straight line over a curved surface will appear to an observer to curve. The curvature from a black hole is so great that light will "fall" in simply because it is following a straight path in very curved space-time

stop posting, you don't get it, and you refuse to read other people's posts that refute your shit.

That was a really shitty and oblivious post. You also seem to love to refuse to read other people's posts before posting your own shit.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 09 May 2007 08:00

Switch Kicker · Post by **Switch Kicker** » 09 May 2007 08:07

cammel wrote:I especially like how you pulled it out when you thought it helped your argument but now say its crap.

That statement, is not true.

apoplectic · Post by **apoplectic** » 09 May 2007 08:12

Jeremy wrote:
Gravity isn't an attraction between masses!!!!

and it isnt a ttrraction between mass and massless energy

elecrtic feilds are made by electrons:not massless.magnetic feilds are made by protons and electrons:yet again not massless

and when a anti particle annihilates a particle and create a photon,i guess that mass gos nowhere if photons are massless.

and btw,i made all these posts at school

King Monkey · Post by **King Monkey** » 09 May 2007 08:24

lol Jeremy and Kester are too smart for you.

Give up now.

apoplectic · Post by **apoplectic** » 09 May 2007 08:45

if i were that easy i'd have gonorrhea