We'll ask the first person that reaches the speed of light.
Nate
But light travels at the speed of light and that has a tiny, tiny amount of mass (the photon)?
If I saw a 13 billion year old explosion now...
- Thread starter Freeman
- Start date
But light travels at the speed of light and that has a tiny, tiny amount of mass (the photon)?
Yes, that's a consequence of General Relativity. Special Relativity doesn't even bother with mavity.
What the **** is going on here, my face is starting to melt
Oh **** they've opened the ark!
ya i was right!
*I don't care about vons qualifications he agrees with me so it;s right!
Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 3,659
- Location
- Dublin, Ireland
Ok, now we are into quantum theory. The photon is both a wave and a particle, depending on how you observe it. Complicated huh?
Nate
But it must have mass as it can't escape the mavity of a black hole?
I can see no ones wants to choose a side when it comes to time so ill just throw another thought out there, black holes... are they holes in space or just seriously dense balls of matter stuff?
I can see no ones wants to choose a side when it comes to time so ill just throw another thought out there, black holes... are they holes in space or just seriously dense balls of matter stuff?
Super dense formations of mass, if it was a hole in space it wouldn't have mavity as there would be nothing there - I think. Anything anyone says in this thread should default have 'I think' at the start
what you get here are the cumulation of every dumbed down documentary from the last 2 decades, despite changes in theory, and a mix of basic degree level physics thrown in.
And even then you're assuming there is 1 answer.
In most of science if it's true or not doesn't really make much difference so long as it makes the right prediction.
If a method you know to be false still predicts the correct answer (to the accuracy you need) and is easier then you use that, doesn't matter if it actually happens slightly or totally differently
.
Even then there are lots of different theories and proofs, the odds of someone being able to chose the right one based on layman's terms explanations is virtually nill because the "correct" way often seems the most twisted and illogical way when described in laymens terms.
And even then you're assuming there is 1 answer.
In most of science if it's true or not doesn't really make much difference so long as it makes the right prediction.
If a method you know to be false still predicts the correct answer (to the accuracy you need) and is easier then you use that, doesn't matter if it actually happens slightly or totally differently
.Even then there are lots of different theories and proofs, the odds of someone being able to chose the right one based on layman's terms explanations is virtually nill because the "correct" way often seems the most twisted and illogical way when described in laymens terms.
Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 3,659
- Location
- Dublin, Ireland
It is space that is distorted by a black hole, not the light.
Nate
Edit:- I agree with Tefals post above. I can barely get to grips with this stuff myself and I'm not doing a great job in explaining it either.
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Jun 2009
- Posts
- 2,566
- Location
- Bucks
The universe is 13 odd billion years old.
So if you were looking at a big explosion, wow, that would be, like, *the* big explosion.
My brain has just been sick. I think it's time for me to leave this thread for a while
Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 3,659
- Location
- Dublin, Ireland
My brain has just been sick. I think it's time for me to leave this thread for a while
Heheh sorry, Here's a very quick read on the Mass of a Photon.
Nate
I disagree, quantum entanglement.