Tormod Posted April 22, 2006 Report Share Posted April 22, 2006 Hello All Light does not slow itself. It has a constant velocity.Even when the speed of light is reduced to lets say zero. The actual velocity is still at the speed of light 300,000 kms per sec. First of all I wonder how this is relevant to this thread - and second I wonder what you base your strange claims on. "Light does not slow itself" - true."Light has constant velocity" - false. Light in vacuum has constant velocity. Light in non-vacuum has less velocity. That is why light bends when it hits water, for example. Stop spreading your false knowledge, Harry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eclogite Posted April 22, 2006 Report Share Posted April 22, 2006 The vector force to hold light back at zero occurs at the event horizon of a ultra dense plasma matter called a Black Hole. Harry, I'm not the brighest star in the firmament, nor the most consolidated sediment in a geosyncline, so it took me a while to spot that you don't know what you are talking about.:) You are tossing around a handful of technical terms without understanding what they mean, failing to apply them in a consistent manner, a forming insubtantial conclusions from ephemeral and fantastic connections. [A case in point in the quoted text above: black holes are not generally considered to be composed of plasma. Rather the reverse.] My question to you is why? ;) You must be aware you are talking bollocks most of the time. ;) I am just fascinated to understand your motivation. I hope you will take the time to respond. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Costas Posted April 22, 2006 Report Share Posted April 22, 2006 Hello What makes you think that Black Holes are not Ultra dense Plasma matter? The progression to Blackholes arePlasma high densityNeutron compaction,,,,,,,,neutron starsQuark compaction,,,,,,,,,quark starsBlack Holes we are looking at greater compaction,,,the so called singularity.All are forms of Ultra dense plasma matter. Think what you think I will hold my comments about your emotions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Costas Posted April 22, 2006 Report Share Posted April 22, 2006 Hello Tormod Your statement is correct Light speed is constant and the relative influence are to be considered. But! the question is why talk like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormod Posted April 22, 2006 Report Share Posted April 22, 2006 Light speed is constant and the relative influence are to be considered. That is not my statement. Light speed is not constant. What is constant is the speed of light in a vacuum, which is also used as the c the the equation E=mc^2. But! the question is why talk like that. Because you should consider what you are doing. It appears you are constantly pouring out mindless, slightly irrelevant rubbish, completely without any supporting evidence of sorts. It has nothing to do with science. I hope this is not what you *think* you are doing, since it is in violation of our rules. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Costas Posted April 22, 2006 Report Share Posted April 22, 2006 Hello Tormod What have I said that is wrong. You have missunderstood my writing. This is why we have these discussions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormod Posted April 22, 2006 Report Share Posted April 22, 2006 Hello Tormod What have I said that is wrong. You have missunderstood my writing. This is why we have these discussions. You wrote: "Light speed is constant and the relative influence are to be considered." That is wrong. Light speed is not constant, and this is a known fact - it is related to the refractive index of the medium through which light travels. But why listen to me when others have explained this before: http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=630 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Costas Posted April 22, 2006 Report Share Posted April 22, 2006 Hello Tormod Thank for the linkhttp://curious.astro.cornell.edu/que...php?number=630 I will read it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eclogite Posted April 22, 2006 Report Share Posted April 22, 2006 What makes you think that Black Holes are not Ultra dense Plasma matter?Plasmas are ionised gases. Black holes do not consist of ionised gases. If I take a block of ice, apply heat so that first it melts then converts to steam I not warranted to describe the steam as ice because the water was in that form at one time. It is no more appropriate to call the matter that constitutes a black hole a plasma because it may once have had that form. In short, your contention that black holes are formed of plasma is incorrect: as are many of the other statements that you make.I will hold my comments about your emotions.Please feel free to make any comments about my emotions you wish, as the only one I am expressing is a mix of puzzlement and amusement (which I characterised as fascination in an earlier post) as to why you are posting such nonsense. You appear to be claiming it is not nonsense. I have demonstrated that it is in the instance above. I believe Tormod has just demonstrated it for case of light speed. I am happy to have a discussion with you, but when you make errors; claim opinion as fact; or state possibilities as certainties, then I think it is acceptable for me to correct those. You are free to do the same for any errors you find in my posts. This seems an agreeable approach. I hope you feel the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDMclean Posted April 24, 2006 Report Share Posted April 24, 2006 I believe, personally, that Black holes are Just a large collection of photons. Something like the Bose-Einsteinian state. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shane Posted April 24, 2006 Report Share Posted April 24, 2006 Hey everybody, Glad I found this site. This kind of stuff has allways fansinated me. I have a few comments and a question. First of all it was my understanding (quote me if im wrong) that the only thing that could be ejected from a black hole was gamma rays, No matter can escape. Is a gamma ray considerd matter?. Also this might sound strange but my picture of a black hole is actually being round not coned shaped or flat. like a round ball floating around in space we cant see because light cant escape or reflect off it. The outer rings or layers (event horizon etc.) only being there because of the gravitational influence the ball has on space time. Also how massive does an object have to be to have a influence on space time?. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ldsoftwaresteve Posted April 24, 2006 Report Share Posted April 24, 2006 KickAssClown:I believe, personally, that Black holes are Just a large collection of photons. So do I. Further, I think we will discover that the so-called event horizon is a myth. We're going to have to change a lot of documentaries and books.Shane, if memory serves me correctly, black holes are not perfectly round, they have less diameter on the axis of rotation. Also, 'Gamma Rays' are particles that have a very high kinetic energy. That they are ejected along the axis of rotation would seem logical. It would be the best escape route. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Costas Posted April 24, 2006 Report Share Posted April 24, 2006 Hello All Many people think that plasmas are ionized gases. This is not correct although some plasmas are ionized gases or parts of the plasma. Info on PLasma http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/downloads/CosmologyPeratt.pdf How do we define the core of stars, neutrons stars and quark stars and Black holes? What matter does this come under. In my opinion the definition of Plasma includes this type of matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eclogite Posted April 24, 2006 Report Share Posted April 24, 2006 Many people think that plasmas are ionized gases. This is not correct although some plasmas are ionized gases or parts of the plasma.You are correct. Many people think plasmas are ionized gases. This includes, but is not necessarily limited to, the following:1. Physicists2. Astronomers3. Engineers4. Persons with a scientific education5. The author of the article you offered with further information on plasmas. That is exactly what they think they are - ionised gases. They do not think they are the ultradense matter that is to be found in neutron stars or black holes. Info on PLasmahttp://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/downloads/CosmologyPeratt.pdfPlasma cosmology, the concept discussed in this article, is an interesting, unconventional, generally unpopular view of the Universe. It is one that I find appealing in many ways, largely because it is unconventional. However, it is also quite probably wrong.It does not propose that plasmas meet the ultra-dense character you appear to wish to give them. Why did you post this link in apparent support of your definition? That was rather odd. How do we define the core of stars, neutrons stars and quark stars and Black holes? What matter does this come under.In my opinion the definition of Plasma includes this type of matter.You are entitled to your opinion. In this instance it does not match up with the definitions used by the experts in this field. Can you tell us why should we ignore the experts and listen to you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFaithfulStone Posted April 24, 2006 Report Share Posted April 24, 2006 How do we define the core of stars, neutrons stars and quark stars and Black holes? What matter does this come under. In my opinion the definition of Plasma includes this type of matter. Well, that's called "degenerate matter," not Plasma. TFS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfiniteNow Posted April 24, 2006 Report Share Posted April 24, 2006 I'm having a bit of deja vu with all this back and forth with Harry. Here's my final interaction with him in the vein of Tormod and Eclogite here: http://hypography.com/forums/astronomy-cosmology/5294-maximum-gravitational-force-post87695.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EWright Posted April 25, 2006 Report Share Posted April 25, 2006 That is not my statement. Light speed is not constant. What is constant is the speed of light in a vacuum, which is also used as the c the the equation E=mc^2. Because you should consider what you are doing. It appears you are constantly pouring out mindless, slightly irrelevant rubbish, completely without any supporting evidence of sorts. It has nothing to do with science. I hope this is not what you *think* you are doing, since it is in violation of our rules. Just a little on the anal side there Tormod, my friend. The letter c is designated to the speed of light precisely because of its constant velocity. Granted, it can be found to travel at slower speeds under the conditions you mention, but I think you caught his drift. I don't imagine everyone in science who refers to the constant speed of light adds a disclaimer to account for these other conditions. One could also argue that your statement about the usage of c in reference to E=mc^2 here is incomplete as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.