no i won't, because ur analogy is not apt and u compare like with unlike. anyway gravity wells do not create black holes, the gravity well IS the black hole at its ultimate expression (when light can't escape it) although i will accept that gravity creates the black hole in the sense that when the star destroys itself, its mass collapses inwards due to to gravity because there is no longer any intra-molecular force to stop it doing so, a star's life beiong a balance between explosion and implosion. doesn't mean that tthere's any special quality of gravity nor does it prove gravity is a force in itself, it's a consequence of mass/matter. or are u seriously suggesting gravity exists separately to mass/matter?

Good point. To generate a gravity wave would you not need to create matter?

Interesting thought brought on by Taw's post... If a fraction of all stars end up as black holes, and stay that way forever (don't become new stars) than it's only a matter of time till all matter is tied up in black holes

a theory already put forward some time ago, but congrats for original thinking WB! if black holes "grow" due to their consumption of matter, eventually all matter could end up moshed in a black hole.

And then it would be the end of the universe, only to be started once again by another Big Bang. All matter was compressed together, and then in a single instant of time, it all was uncompressed. The compression might as well have been caused by a big black hole.

I don't know much about Astrophysics, but it does suck that there's all those galaxies just waiting to be explored and we can't get to them. Yet, at least.

read this and this then this

caution - flash git alert..

about 10yrs ago, I did a two year MA in Philosophy with specific reference to mathematical theosophy in Renaissance art, which sort of spilled over into early 20th century art/design theory. one of my tutors during a long and detailed conversation about Herbert Schonmakers, Walter Heisenberg, & Schrodigger's Cat 'fessed up to his dad being a particle physicist who works at the Fermi Institute. 'kin hell i thought it was Christmas! we spent the next three weeks arguing about photons and the uncertainty principle.

so take it from me, chaps, no FtL, not possible, nature won't allow it, same goes for time travel.

Now some git will announce FtL cracked in a month or so and I'll look like a total mong I'd quite like it if it was BtL Better-than-Life, or even BLt Bacon-Lettuce & Tomato...



Edited by - Tawakalna on 23-11-2003 21:19:37

I will this evening. Man that's allot of stuff! Right now I'm off to see carmina burana (sp?)

Carl Orff's "Carmina Burana?" really? that's a bit flash isn't it? I'm off to fix a burst pipe

where are u going and why? I've never seen Carmina Burana I just have a crappy scratched vinyl edition by the LPO the track jumps on Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, which is the best bit.

---

Gravity is force

---

In order to have force, or any other interaction, you need particles to "carry" the force, particles that will travel back and forth between the two entities that interact with one another.
Alternatively, you can have a force that bends time-space, thus creating a "collision path" for the two entities in question. So far, NO THIRD METHOD.
Gravitons are yet to be proven existant, and space-time bend has a definite range, a (relatively) small one too. Every particle is both wave and matter, it's just that for (relatively) large masses (say, micrograms+) you have very small wavelenghts, 10E-27 meters and less. FtL travel IS impossible, because as you're going faster, you're gaining more and more mass, and when you approach 99.99999...% the force needed for acceleration will be too much to achieve. Photons start with "zero mass"- they're pure waves until they reach the speed of light, when their mass becomes large enough to make a difference. Time is like a complex number, it restarts, but it keeps the information from before. (as it contains an "argument" value of the angle which is A+2kPi, A being current angle, 0-360 deg. or 0-2Pi radians, k being integer, Pi being const, 3.1415926...)
So in order to revert it, you would need to reset all "counters" to zero, which means you must destroy all matter that changed during that period (like call timers on a cell phone, you delete every material placeholders that are dynamically added toghether, not static data). This would also mean that you must reduce the entropy, which is proven impossible. Any questions?
BTW, some of the stuff is part of my theory that I'm currently working on... Very complex but very coherent and logical. If I ever finish it, you'll be the first ones to laugh...


Careful what you wish... You just might get it.

Two simple facts

YES, it is possible to travel BEYOND the speed of light
NO, it is NOT possible to accelerate beyond the speed of light

as you accelerate to speeds relative to the speed of light, your mass becomes bigger, your length(yes your LENGTH) gets shorter, and time runs slower.
So, at the speed of light, your mass is infinite, your length is zero, and time runs at a tation of 0:1
so you either Become the universe,
Or become a black hole


*Breaks out the niobium riot shield*
Back you flamers, BACK!

Faster then Light travel: is it possible?

Apparently you haven't seen me run from my wife when she get's mad.





Edited by - bakedpotato on 24-11-2003 10:40:08

@bakedpotato, good 1

---

a theory already put forward some time ago, but congrats for original thinking WB! if black holes "grow" due to their consumption of matter, eventually all matter could end up moshed in a black hole.

---

a black hole has also good things... it made also matter and anti-matter in a ring around the black hole, in the gravital well.

As anti-matter and matter r maded they will go by a little bang from eachother and then go mostly goes back to eachother deu to the gravital mass off eachother and disapear again from where it comes from...

by the gravital well from black holes will 1 off the 2 particles (matter or anti-matter) disapear in the black hole and the other partical (anti-matter or matter) disapear in space... so we have 1 food for the black hole and 2 a new patricle in space.

i know that this had nothing to do with traveling faster then light... but well, it has something to doe with the reality off the black hole, with is also in here...

now back to this off-topic topic...
is it possible to use a mass to accelerate to a speed with is beyond the speed off light... maybe it is, maybe not...

and how does i mean that... firs u need a heavy small mass, like a black hole or pulsar (neutron star), then somthing else for testing with is big enough to get some1 inside, and small enough to can travel fast trou matter (air... or what u can call air of that "rock with a large gravital force".
first u need already a speed for going around in the heavy gravital force of that "rock" and accelerate by the gravital force to get whipped out the other about that place where u come from for maximum effect of that gravital accelaration... but will it be enough to get faster then light...

my real oppinion is no ...
y, if u travel in a speed faster then light, it will disapear in spacetime... gravital is a force, with is set up by mass, mass of a black hole gravital force isn't faster then light... i track light in... yup... deu to the heavy mass what changed spacetime that mutch that light cann't escape... look at a neutron star (pulsars mostly, some smaller black holes) with do the same, but from that stars can some light escape...

and for escaping from the gravital force of a black hole u need to go faster then light, app. 300.000km/s, with is impossible, co'z that thing what is abble to do that will disapear in spacetime (just like what the crono-legionaire in red alert did with it weap).

@Nickless, wass this long enough


If u c some1 in a dagger make fireballs from hunters it can be me

Off-topic: first of all I would like to regret that I wasn't able to react any sooner then this, MSN plus got me trouble

On-topic:
@Taw,

---

a theory already put forward some time ago, but congrats for original thinking WB! if black holes "grow" due to their consumption of matter, eventually all matter could end up moshed in a black hole.

---

If this might be true I think this would actually prove the multiverse theory partially, Bang me if this gets farfetched, but if a super redgiant goes into supernova state, and it will collapse under itself, wouldn't that compress matter enough to be released on another plain in a kind of a Big-Bang explosion
and thereby creating another parallel universe


second on the warp speed, I recently found that warp 1 actually is far faster then the speed of light but on another plain of spacial reality, it excells the actual speed but itisn't shown in that way

but Taw is right, the speed of light cannot be broken but the theory stated in the original posting, is likely the same as Dragonbreath's theory of bending the constant that is time

ur suggesting the creation of exotic particles/new types of matter via extreme-high energy events? exactly what the people @ CERN are doing/trying to do.

---

and how does i mean that... firs u need a heavy small mass, like a black hole or pulsar (neutron star), then somthing else for testing with is big enough to get some1 inside, and small enough to can travel fast trou matter (air... or what u can call air of that "rock with a large gravital force".

---

o...k.....
This sounds like the theroy of a black hole toroid. Spin a black hole fast enough (really frigin fast mind u) and it becomes a disc, and than even faster and you have a hoop! Imagine falling toward this hole... should you survive the acceleration how fast do you supose you'd be going

@Taw - I'm gona reead those, really! Right now my head is trying to explode. Read my post in "why me" (i'm writin it now...)

Edited by - Warlord Bob on 25-11-2003 01:16:39