- #36
hubble_bubble
- 135
- 0
phinds said:I'm sure you'll be able to back that up with something other than your opinion, yes?
I'm waiting.
I will post any calculations. Of course.
phinds said:I'm sure you'll be able to back that up with something other than your opinion, yes?
I'm waiting.
CCWilson said:"From the point of view of an external observer, it takes an infinite amount of time for an object to approach the event horizon, at which point the light coming from it is infinitely red-shifted. To the distant observer, the object, falling slower and slower, approaches but never reaches the event horizon."
This is one of those brain-twisters. I agree with Hubble - that the statement above is incorrect.
phinds said:And I'm sure that you, too, will be able to back this up with more than just your opinion.
Since you are both wrong, this is going to be interesting.
hubble_bubble said:Well concerning time dilation there has to be a balance. If you live slower approaching the speed of light what happens when approaching a singularity where light no longer behaves in the normal manner?
hubble_bubble said:Also we must remember that wave frequency should increase as we reach the singularity. This balances the frequency decrease at or near the speed of light. As this frequency increases we should get an energy band around the singularity. And to be even more controversial, this energy should be lost as darlk matter/energy emissions from the black hole at faster than light speeds.
hubble_bubble said:Also it is believed that inside a black hole things would be destroyed quite quickly. Under various gravitational strengths it must be possible for life to survive.
As long as the lifeform has developed under the gravity in question. A lifeform that has developed within the confines of a neutron star, think Robert L Forward's Dragon's Egg, would be quite at home within the confines of a black hole up until reaching the singularity.
If time inside the singularity, instead of slowing, speeds up then it may take an infinitely long time for travelers to reach the singularity. The boundary for this change would be the event horizon itself. This would be a very strange world with little light available as all the waves would be traveling away from the observer in two directions. Visibilty would be restricted to the band of the collapsing spherical wavefront at either side of this observer. Any movement would be restricted due to the effects of the intense gravity. Thus space within this reference fram is effectively static and balanced by a modification of the speed of time.
hubble_bubble said:A way I believe dark matter could be detected would be to lower a mass to as near as absolute zero as possible and detect any energy released. This should be detected BEFORE the event that caused it.
phinds said:I REALLY have no idea what you are talking about here but it sure sounds like utter nonsense. FTL ? Really ?
hubble_bubble said:Why do you think it is so hard to detect.
Drakkith said:Hubble, dark matter is not driving expansion. Expansion is *possibly* being accelerated by dark energy. Although I think I remember some talk about how dark energy isn't necessary since we already have the cosmological constant or something.
Dark matter is also not causing galaxies to rotate. What it does is provide extra gravity to hold the outside areas of the galaxies together and allow the matter there to orbit the galactic center at a speed that would be too quick otherwise. Dark matter forms a spherical "halo" around the galaxy where it spends most of its time.
hubble_bubble said:But surely a stationary halo of dark matter would impede the rotation. As I said before finding things happen before expected, As in the rotation being faster than expected implies a force not yet described.
Take e-mc2. If we have e=m(c+n)2 then we not only have a unit of length that has been stretched but also a gain in energy and speed faster than light, but what is n? It is believed that dark matter is increasing or am I wrong?
Drakkith said:How would it impede the rotation? Dark matter does not interact with normal matter through any force other than gravity. It can pass right through normal matter unimpeded.
hubble_bubble said:I don't know if this has been confirmed .
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/sep/22/faster-than-light-particles-neutrinos
Aren't neutrinos considered a type of dark matter.
hubble_bubble said:Maybe the n in e=m(c+n)2 stands for neutrino
hubble_bubble said:Does the percentage increase found at Gran Sasso tie in in any way with the rate of expansion found for the universe?
hubble_bubble said:How do you know there is no interaction between matter and dark matter?
hubble_bubble said:Aren't neutrinos considered a type of dark matter.
Drakkith said:Neutrinos do not travel FTL. There was an error in the setup of the detectors and clocks. I believe one of the cables was incorrectly installed. And while neutrinos may be a type of dark matter, they are not the type that we normaly talk about if my memory is correct.
Are you making this up or did you get this from somewhere?
No, that was a faulty experiment.
Observations have been made and we have reason to believe that dark matter doesn't interact with normal matter. Look at the Bullet Cluster for example.
hubble_bubble said:Sorry the neutrino thing was a joke too good to miss.
The bullet cluster article raises some issues. As MACS J0025.4-1222 appears to have had its dark matter halo stripped it would be useful to observe effects on rotational velocity if any. Also if this halo reforms over time then the dark matter has to come from somewhere.
Also what about the galaxy rotation problem?
hubble_bubble said:
Drakkith said:I don't see what this has to do with the rest of the thread. Please don't post just to post, it doesn't help the thread at all and will only make for a confusing conversation with multiple topics being discussed at one time.
There is no known link between dark matter and black hole mass [re: Supermassive black holes do not correlate with dark matter halos of galaxies http://arxiv.org/abs/1101.4650] . It is also unlikely dark matter is a significant contributor to black hole mass because, unlike baryonic matter, it is essentially collisionless. Baryonic matter is slowed by collisions with other baryonic matter allowing it to shed angular moment and be captured by local gravitational wells [like black holes]. Ingesting large amounts of dark matter would also interfere with galaxy formation via a process called runaway accretion.hubble_bubble said:Also bear in mind that the halo is proportional to the size of black hole and not the mass of the galaxy it surrounds.