Reverse Black Holes... My Theory

Discussion in 'Science and Nature' started by Boat Shredder, Mar 12, 2012.


  1. Well, its kind of deceptive, black holes have enough gravitational pull to absorb that which has no superior speed competition lol, the acceleration of gravity in a black hole is greater than the speed of light per second squared..... once within a certain distance of the singularity that is....

    So one might begin to wonder what happens to objects once they are affected by that same gravity... it wouldnt be infinite, as black holes arent infinite in mass.... but... its a weird concept
     
  2. Anyone curious about black holes should definitely check out Susskind's The Black Hole War. It's a good read, it's designed for the lay reader, but also does get detailed on the formulas involved with black holes and the physical implications that are/were created by the stance a lot of relativists (most notably Hawking) were taking pertaining to information loss at the time.
     
  3. if you can slow it down, there is a possibility to speed it up....you know?

    what are you talking about?...you came at me with a crude "try n keep up" as if the speed of light was constant, and i rebuked you in the second point...
     

  4. But the thing about slowing it down is forcing it to pass through more dense of a field

    there is nothing less dense than a vacuum... hence it travels at its fastest constant speed within one
     
  5. #25 since93, Mar 12, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 12, 2012
    i understand that sirsog....i was trying to explain that the speed of light is not constant as was taught until very recently....lots of people still think its constant

    edit: sirsog man, we need a sticky in here titled speed of light is not constant...:smoke:
     
  6. The constant, is not the speed light travels, but the fastest speed in which it can travel

    There is nothing we have ever discovered that goes faster than light. Which makes either, a theoretical constant capacity for speed, or, an illusion presented in which we are unable to perceive things which can surpass that speed

    I agree, the speed in which it travels is not a solid number, it can be slowed down. But as far as we have discovered, it can not be sped up due to the nature of how it is slowed down
     
  7. yes but up until now was the speed of light not fixed?...because why would harvard come out with a big article on "hey, you can slow down light"?
     
  8. "But as far as we have discovered, it can not be sped up due to the nature of how it is slowed down"

    and this...i just theorized "if you sitck a laser thru cold ass atoms and it slows down, then maybe if you stick a laser thru a really hot place, it could speed up".....idk

    i need to roll one :smoke:
     
  9. Like i just said, i agree, the SPEED LIGHT TRAVELS, is not constant.... when something more dense than a vacuum is introduced, it can slow down

    But, with that logic, a vacuum is the least dense medium in the universe, for what we know. Therefore, light can not go faster than C, which is a representation of its FASTEST speed, which is coincidentally also the speed in which nothing has ever gone faster....

    To argue we can slow it down by increasing the density of the medium (when atoms cool the make a medium more dense, ice and water for example, can something move through ice, as fast as it can water?), also leaves the reasoning since a vacuum is the least possibly density, light can not travel faster than C in a vacuum, which is where C is measured
     
  10. im rollin...and will reply to this in a few minutes....:smoke:
     
  11. i read and understood your explanation (great explanation btw)

    "light can not travel faster than C in a vacuum, which is where C is measured"

    ^^this made me think: "if it would be possible to increase the heat of a vacuum, would it be possible to increase the speed of light within this heated up vacuum?"

    sirsog or anyone else: does anyone know if we can heat a vacuum?

    ps...and why the fuck is it always men talking about this shit?!..
     
  12. vacuums cant hold heat man... heat requires something to conduct it, and vacuums are a lack of any and all things, pretty much.

    There are particles n shit in space, which i guess could conduct heat.... but in a pure vacuum, there will be no heat, no sound, nothing but nothing and a massive lack of pressure hahahaha
     
  13. got it...and im trading ideas freely here, without fear of sounding weird or being wrong in cretain cases:

    are vacuums a theoretical construct?...id wager they were because a true, "zero matter" vacuum is impossible in the physical world is it not?
     
  14. No you're wrong. Nothing comes out of a black hole? What misinformed idiot told you things come out "the other side"? in fact who in gods name told you a black hold even has sides??!
     

  15. No it's very possible. In between galaxies are huge spaces of zero matter
     
  16. as far as i understand it, "vacuums" are open to discussion....after googling a bit i cam up against terms like "inflationary vacuum", "false vacuum", etc so vacuums, and definitions of them, are wide and varied...

    between galaxies there are true vacuums?...im sure there are such proponents but i would need some walkthru about the logic here...
     

  17. But space is technically not a perfect vacuum i think is what they mean

    Now, how they can assume that, i have NO idea lol, but there are lots of explosions in space and shit that could spend atoms all over the place...

    But still, heating a vacuum isnt really a possibility, even if space isnt a true vacuum
     

  18. well, anywhere in space that isnt inside of an atmosphere with pressure is technically in a form of vacuum

    vacuum just means empty space, not necessarily negative pressure
     

  19. exactly....so in theory, beautiful theory, the speed of light can be sped up in a vacuum because there will be, however miniscule, matter in there...this is what i was getting at....

    edit: "the speed of light could be sped up in a vacuum"
     
  20. pressure within the vacuum framework i know next to nothing on...elaborate some?
     
Loading...

Share This Page