Re: Neutrino Mass and Supernovae
From: Dale Trynor (dalet_at_nbnet.nb.ca)
Date: 09/20/04
- Next message: Pavel Pokorny: "How do clouds get electric charge?"
- Previous message: zigoteau: "Re: Flaming text"
- In reply to: Ken S. Tucker: "Re: Neutrino Mass and Supernovae"
- Next in thread: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: Neutrino Mass and Supernovae"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 08:20:31 GMT
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> Dale Trynor <dalet@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message news:<T7w2d.133472$Np3.5551087@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>...
>
>>Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>>
>>>Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<cici7a$fpl$4@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<ci9qeh$9jc$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
>>>
>>>
>>>[snip]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>However when phi < 0 then C > c. From this we can tabulate,
>>>>>
>>>>> m>0, v<c
>>>>> m=0, v=c
>>>>> m<0, v>c
>>>>
>>>>"m" denotes the central mass here. So we can conclude: in the
>>>>space around a central negative mass, the speed of light is greater
>>>>than c. No quibble about that.
>>>>
>>>>But how do you get from that to " objects with negative mass can travel
>>>>at v > c"??? The object with the negative mass is *resting* in the
>>>>situation here, not travelling at any speed!
>>>
>>>
>>>The negative mass particle does not exceed the local speed of
>>>light, instead it increases the local speed of light to greater
>>>than c (c being our beloved speed of light in a vacuum).
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>Dale Trynor wrote:
>>I had an idea for actually testing something similar to the idea above.
>>
>>To get you started on understanding why I say this, do you remember the
>>generally used explanation for why gravity will slow time and or light.
>>We also know that if you are between two equally gravitating masses you
>>will not experience any effects of gravity. Now
>>ask yourself what would happen if you had what could be described as a
>>gravitational ladder ( it won't work but this is not important here )
>>out of a gravity well by suspending a string of small black holes in
>>such a way that one could climb up to geostationary orbit by staying
>>between the gravity where in such a way that you could leave the planets
>>surface without any expenditure of energy. Note also that if such a
>>thing were possible the very basis for time dilation where light becomes
>>blue shifted and of higher frequency would also not occur and such light
>>could reach the planets surface without the time dilating effects of
>>gravity .If such a thing were possible it would behave very similarly to
>>the descriptions of a worm hole in this way. It results in a situation
>>where time would have the same rate at both ends.
>>
>>Of course such a thing cannot work however something similar to this
>>might. Now ask yourself what might happen for two black holes in free
>>fall towords each other and how would our light photons behave that
>>hitched a ride between the two gravitys. Such a situation could in
>>theory allow our photons to arrive at its surface without any of the
>>doppler shifting one needs to show for the original time dilation effects.
>>
>>Now this gets interesting when trying to model how our astronaut in a
>>free fall orbit around one of the black holes in different locations
>>might view the arriving photons and or how he might view the speed of
>>the arriving light. Most importantly might we have an argument where a
>>brief area of fast time might briefly exist between the two black holes
>>where our astronaut might see what looks very much like a worm hole from
>>his prospective. He would also see light quickly travel
>>from what were originally distant points elsewhere on the same orbit
>>suddenly appear much closer and light from those originally distant
>>points arriving faster.
>>
>>For the above to work its important to examine the idea that black holes
>>will not become trapped in their own time dilating effects in such a way
>>to never coalesce into a single one in our lifetimes. For this to be the
>>case one can also hypothesizes that if one were to assemble a string of
>>black holes into a rod that they would remain stable with infinite
>>rigidity. What I mean is if you had a rod made of black holes that they
>>could not even be bent without exceeding the local speed of light. This
>>needs to be examined more closely from the prospective of our up close
>>astronaut, on if he could detect the changes in gravity or etceteras in
>>such a way as to be considered a local light speed violation from his
>>prospective. If it can be argued that the violation can always be hidden
>>from him then this argument is not really a valid one and I really
>>haven't tried examining this idea as much as I should have as of this
>>time. Its reasonable to argue if this were the case with black holes one
>>can forget about any sort of testable FTL at this time, without even
>>starting to look at using weaker gravitating masses where such effects
>>might still be measurable but small.
>>
>>
>>If they do not become stuck in each others time dilating effects this
>>sort of temporary worm hole could possibly be created from the
>>prospective of our astronaut. This could still be argued by some to be a
>>violation of local light speed, however it also involves increasing the
>>light speed locally in such a way that it may not be a violation in the
>>more strict sense. This might be the sort of thing Ken S. Tucker, might
>>be talking about. If it works this way its not what I suppose you could
>>call a brute force violation.
>>
>>Anyone got any ideas on what I missed or could give me something to
>>think about related to this.
>>Dale
>
>
> Hi Dale, I studied your post, my problem is I don't understand
> ONE BH, never mind a series of them and the interactions.
> I've never been satisfied with the rational of their existance,
> so I can't help.
> Ken
Dale Trynor wrote:
I dont believe black holes exist in the way popularly described myself
and if you have seen my posts on why time dilation can be shown to
expand space, you would know about why. If you have seen my posts you
will also know how it predicts that white holes must exist and how it
might be interesting in relation to this discussion. They would behave
like they had negative gravity and while thats a bit like saying the sky
is gravitationally repellent for reasons I wont get into here, it still
must result in a place where time runs faster than anyplace else in the
universe. That means a faster coordinate speed of light as well.
However the posted idea examined above would still work with much weaker
gravitys than those of black holes, however the effects would also be
much weaker as well and while they would also lead to suggested
experiments they are obviously not as good for illustrating the idea. If
the hypothesis is correct it might be possible to measure the effects
even when using our earths much weaker gravity if ones measurements were
sensitive enough and thats questionable at this time. For example
observing if equal mass neutron stars slow down in the process of coming
together due to the two gravitys time dilating effects not canceling
against one another also means that the time between them both must not
speed up between the two masses and that should also prove the
hypothesis was wrong. That would be unfortunate because at this time I
can't think of any other way to actually suggest anything that would
lead to any sort of an actual experiment where one could actually speed
up the speed of light and or time.
Dale
- Next message: Pavel Pokorny: "How do clouds get electric charge?"
- Previous message: zigoteau: "Re: Flaming text"
- In reply to: Ken S. Tucker: "Re: Neutrino Mass and Supernovae"
- Next in thread: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: Neutrino Mass and Supernovae"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
