tom
New Member
Posts: 12
|
Post by tom on Nov 1, 2004 16:14:58 GMT -5
Can i plaese remind u that einsteins theory has been disprooven in the instances of black holes so there is no reason that the same cannot be said in the instance of wormholes, therefore light speed is theoreticaly possible
|
|
|
Post by Madridarko on Nov 1, 2004 20:28:23 GMT -5
I do not get you Tom, can you be abit more specific about which Einstein theory and what messege or by who are you replying please? I think it would help us in understand better what is it that you are talking about. Thanks.
|
|
tom
New Member
Posts: 12
|
Post by tom on Nov 2, 2004 16:59:01 GMT -5
Yer, i was replyin to the message first that is saying that to travel at the speed of light you need infinate energy hence it must be impossible, but, at least in theory a black hole emits infinate energy as no higher energy emmision exists in a sustained form, therefore if we take fundermental balck hole theorium and impliment it on a theoreticaly similar occurance like a worm hole, light speed is theoreticaly possible.
ps. sorry about lack of clarity as im new to this all so im still learnin the ropes so to speak.
pps. i was referring of coarse to einsteins third theory, that of relativity
|
|
|
Post by Madridarko on Nov 2, 2004 20:05:26 GMT -5
Thats Ok nothing to apoligize of. I had not even noticed you were new. You just posted this messege that did just blurted out things out of nowhere, so it was kinda confusing to what were you reffering to. I guess I had never thought of it that way. Specially in long threads be sure to put like well So and so, in your coment you sadi that that happened and I think of this and this, so on and so forth.
So you are saying that because black holes emit an can we say infinete force, that speed of light would be achived if amplied in a wormhole? And that infinete force a black hole realeses is in form of gravity? at least this is the messege I am understanding.
P.S. Welcome!
|
|
tom
New Member
Posts: 12
|
Post by tom on Nov 3, 2004 14:46:51 GMT -5
the emmitance is a from a black hole is gravity put in a sense wot can only be described as to beams of pure energy, its basicly the many forms of energy left in wot it attreacts but put into a purer from, like boiling salt water and being left with salt crystels and water, you can energy plus lifeless atoms
|
|
|
Post by Madridarko on Nov 20, 2004 19:45:36 GMT -5
But wouldn't the attractions or interactions between atoms be continously be producing and deteriorating energy? I also or at least to my understanding, sometimes black holes are know to produce small amounts of anti-matter that when in contact with what we know as regular matter, annihiliate each other causing bursts of energy, I am not sure if this would be pure energy. I am not sure exactly what effect would this have on the "lifeless atoms".
|
|
tom
New Member
Posts: 12
|
Post by tom on Nov 28, 2004 13:56:06 GMT -5
U say that these interactions would be constantly producing or deteriorating energy, but if im not mistaken energy cannot be created or destroyed just changed from one form to another
|
|
|
Post by Madridarko on Nov 28, 2004 14:23:21 GMT -5
I am trieng to ask what do you mean by "lifeless atoms" if there will always be attratction etc... between them. By deteroirating, I do not mean destroying, I mean like breaking down the energy and transforming between the types of energy's and dividing it etc... They will not be creating energy they will be producing as in getting energy intially available and ending up with other type of energys. In conclusion I am questioning your whole notion of "lifeless atoms" because I doubt such things exist. for if I am not mistaken energy and matter are closely intertwined and where there is one there is probably in most cases the other.
|
|
|
Post by greedy on Nov 28, 2004 14:46:42 GMT -5
he obviously dose not know what he is talking about just like the fool who told me N B C had nothing to do with chemistry
|
|
|
Post by Madridarko on Nov 28, 2004 14:50:48 GMT -5
By he you mean tom right, the first time I read you messege greedy I found it insulting then I realized you are probably reffering to tom. right?
|
|
|
Post by greedy on Nov 28, 2004 15:00:49 GMT -5
yes i do mean tom for a freshman you seem very well aversed in higher studys of science so you are a he i thought you might have been a she
|
|
|
Post by Madridarko on Nov 28, 2004 22:19:43 GMT -5
aoh? Umm, ok, I mean not ok, I mean it would be kinda hard to distinguish I guess if you don't actually have any visual contact. Umm, I don't know how to react I think this would be the first incident in which that has ever happened. I hope I am not over-reacting and this will just pass, I think I should maybe change my screen name to machodarko or something. I wouldn't. Actually that is my last name Madrid I mean. So I add Darko. Even I still think that my screename is kinda a somewhat masculine sorta word. Umm thanks for the compliment though, I mean the science/freshmen compliment.
|
|
|
Post by gretchen on Nov 30, 2004 23:48:42 GMT -5
hahahha.................... ;D
|
|
|
Post by greedy on Dec 1, 2004 9:43:29 GMT -5
i apologize for thinking you a woman but any way you do seem very intellagent but i thought it was madi darko
|
|
|
Post by Madridarko on Dec 1, 2004 19:44:31 GMT -5
um not really its more like Madrid but ok. I don't think that Madi is much of a girls name either, wait, it might kinda I guess.
|
|