Thread: mass and energy

Hey I have thought of a little paradox in my head that I would like some clarity on. Through E=MC^2 we know that mass can be converted into energy and energy into mass. They are "convertable" and energy is in the form of photons which travel at the speed of light, C, because they have no mass. But I have also been told that matter can't reach the speed of light because of general relativity. That as an object approaches the speed of light length contraction occurs and the mass of the object goes up. I was told matter can't reach C because it would need 0 mass but the mass goes up as it goes faster. This is where I am confused. In one case it says mass and energy are interchangable, in the other it says it's impossible. This could easily be a misinterpretation of mine, but could someone please help me out. Thanks

the energy in a photon represent a certain amount of mass.

but youve confused it with RESTMASS. objects with RESTMASS cant reach C particles with no RESTMASS can and allways is at C.
The photon have no restmass so it moves at C
matter have restmass therefor it cant go C

This is another one of those "2+2=4" calculations, snag is dropping units renders it wrong!

Just like you cannot take numbers of different objects and add them [ie two apples + two pears] neither can you associate facts from two different branches of science.

NS Comment

In those nuclear (particle) accelerators, particles like proton, electrons and neutrons are accecerated to light speed and they still act like particles when they collide.

This seems to imply that these particles are still the same at those light speeds.
Therefore, the Einstein hypothesis is wrong.

NS

Originally Posted by Mike NS

NS Comment

In those nuclear (particle) accelerators, particles like proton, electrons and neutrons are accecerated to light speed and they still act like particles when they collide.

This seems to imply that these particles are still the same at those light speeds.
Therefore, the Einstein hypothesis is wrong.

NS

They are accelerated to light speed? Thats news to me - what accelerator can do that?

In those nuclear (particle) accelerators, particles like proton, electrons and neutrons are accecerated to light speed and they still act like particles when they collide.

no you should say "close to light" or CTL

This seems to imply that these particles are still the same at those light speeds.

not really they are just very close to C but not there and never will

Therefore, the Einstein hypothesis is wrong.

no, just another case of you intepritating the data wrong.

Mike i guess youre older than me how come i know things better then?

Then whats the difference between restmass and mass and how do you change between them?

Originally Posted by shawngoldw

Then whats the difference between restmass and mass and how do you change between them?

The clue is in the title there !!

Rest mass is the given mass of a particle when its velocity is "zero". I.E: when the particle is at "rest". When a particle is moving it gains mass, this extra mass that it has gained IS mass but is NOT rest mass.

A photon has NO rest mass because a photon by its very nature is never at rest.

ok... thanks for that clarification leo! In e=mc^2 are we talking about restmass or mass?

Originally Posted by shawngoldw

ok... thanks for that clarification leo! In e=mc^2 are we talking about restmass or mass?

Both. All e=mc^2 means is you can "unravel" a small amount of mass to gain a LARGE amount of energy. And likewise it takes a LARGE amount of energy to create a small amount of mass.

k... that was my original problem. How do you turn non restmass into energy?

i am getting confused again;

energy can create mass??? please tell me something that has been created in total by energy? not changed or altered by, but has come from some energy, away from the source. better yet, name an item that mass is gained from energy alone.

energy doesn't "make" mass. Energy can be converted to mass[/i]

Originally Posted by jackson33

i am getting confused again;

energy can create mass??? please tell me something that has been created in total by energy? not changed or altered by, but has come from some energy, away from the source. better yet, name an item that mass is gained from energy alone.

If you manage to pull a quark away from other quarks, say in a hadron. The strong nuclear force will get stronger the more distance the quark gets away from the others. When the strength of the "pull" is sufficient enough, the strong nuclear force will at that point be that strong enough; i.e...there is so much pure energy within such a small space that it will eventually create new quarks. I.E New particles of matter with charge and rest mass.

To convert mass into energy is simple.

Okay, this is a crude example.....But do this......Tap your hand on the table and hear the sound it has made. Now Slam your hand on the table, the extra mass that your hand had gained from moving faster is instantly converted into pure energy when it strikes the table. Therefore the faster your hand moves, the louder the sound is going to be.

Of course, the best example of mass into energy is the atomic bomb.

Originally Posted by shawngoldw

k... that was my original problem. How do you turn non restmass into energy?

None rest mass IS energy. Mass and energy are exactly the same thing. Mass is just an "orderly" expression of low-entropy energy.

k... that was my original problem. How do you turn non restmass into energy?

the same way wich you transform energy types into each other.

if you want to convert some of the restmass you use fusion and fission.

if you want the entire restmass converted you need anti-matter

E=Mc² is all matter there is
E=M₀c² is the restmass energy

M=M₀c²/sqr(1-v²/c²)

Originally Posted by river_rat

They are accelerated to light speed? Thats news to me - what accelerator can do that?

As far as I know, they used alternating magnetic fields that change or move as the particles move to give them continuous boosts to their velocities.

I will have to admit that that is my opinion from the 'bits and snatches' of information I read about regarding these accelerators.

Maybe some experts in this field could give us an informed answer about these top velocities.

NS

Originally Posted by zelos

no you should say "close to light" or CTL

Well, close to light speed also means 'close to being massless'. Ha ha.

If they shrink 'close to massless' then there cannot be much left for a collision, huh?

NS

As far as I know, they used alternating magnetic fields that change or move as the particles move to give them continuous boosts to their velocities.

they use electric and magnetic field to bost their momentum but they never reach C only CTL

Well, close to light speed also means 'close to being massless'. Ha ha.

no for normal particle it means "close to having infinite mass"

that would result in the entire universe imploding into a gigantic black hole

woho ive finally found how im going to destroy the universe

Originally Posted by Zelos

Well, close to light speed also means 'close to being massless'. Ha ha.

no for normal particle it means "close to having infinite mass"

true, true, i am wondering how you got the two mixed up Mike, after all,they are completely different

Originally Posted by Nevyn

Originally Posted by Zelos

Well, close to light speed also means 'close to being massless'. Ha ha.

no for normal particle it means "close to having infinite mass"

true, true, i am wondering how you got the two mixed up Mike, after all,they are completely different

i think the reason is the same why most of his data is out of date and his conclusion errorous.

Originally Posted by Nevyn

Originally Posted by Zelos

Well, close to light speed also means 'close to being massless'. Ha ha.

no for normal particle it means "close to having infinite mass"

true, true, i am wondering how you got the two mixed up Mike, after all,they are completely different

According to the Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy, if the energy increases, then the mass must decrease, since the energy gains at the expense of the mass.
That is why the particles at light speed, have no mass, while the rest mass is always the greatest.

NS

no mike the law of conservation of mass-energy doesnt say that. it says that mass/energy cant come from nowhere (except in QM where everythign is possible) and since the energy comes from something else the law isnt broken. the kinetic energy is acctually the increased mass in the object

once again mike you show us that you are unable to draw conclutions that has with reallity to do

Originally Posted by Zelos

no mike the law of conservation of mass-energy doesnt say that. it says that mass/energy cant come from nowhere (except in QM where everythign is possible) and since the energy comes from something else the law isnt broken. the kinetic energy is acctually the increased mass in the object

once again mike you show us that you are unable to draw conclutions that has with reallity to do

Except?
Planck's formula showed that 'light is not an analogue (continuous) radiation but instead, a digital (photon) radiation. That is the only Quantum physics I accept.
Schroedingers math has some credibility but when you look at those WEIRD orbitals, that begins to look like science fiction. Ha ha.

His formulas do not have a 'time' element inserted and apply only to molecular contitions where there are a lot of electron interactions.

However, when you insert an 'instant' in time, the electron will reveal itself in only ONE place within that orbital.

I am only interested in the hydrogen atom as that is the main component in the universe and gives credibility to Bohr's quantum math. I am not interested in chemistry.

NS

Originally Posted by Mike NS

Except?
Planck's formula showed that 'light is not an analogue (continuous) radiation but instead, a digital (photon) radiation. That is the only Quantum physics I accept.
Schroedingers math has some credibility but when you look at those WEIRD orbitals, that begins to look like science fiction. Ha ha.

His formulas do not have a 'time' element inserted and apply only to molecular contitions where there are a lot of electron interactions.

However, when you insert an 'instant' in time, the electron will reveal itself in only ONE place within that orbital.

I am only interested in the hydrogen atom as that is the main component in the universe and gives credibility to Bohr's quantum math. I am not interested in chemistry.

Here is your problem, you are too closed minded, science is a very open subjet and you are only looking at it from one point of view.

Planck's formula showed that 'light is not an analogue (continuous) radiation but instead, a digital (photon) radiation. That is the only Quantum physics I accept.

thats is your problem exacly, you only accept some parts of science thats why you reach false conclutions that is flawn.

mike until you decied to read other science and update yourself admit that i am superior in the sence of knowing science. even if you dont thats how it is

Anyone here interested in science? Then you'll gain nothing here. Go join a real science forum, and leave kiddies to fight among themselves.

Originally Posted by redewenur

Anyone here interested in science? Then you'll gain nothing here. Go join a real science forum, and leave kiddies to fight among themselves.

wich one would you recomend then?

Originally Posted by Nevyn

Here is your problem, you are too closed minded, science is a very open subjet and you are only looking at it from one point of view.

Open minded? Well, I am a 'free thinker' and that means 'open minded'.

I welcome criticism and reply in my own way when the criticisms are informative rather than just insulting.

I always cite reasons for what I say.

NS

Open minded? Well, I am a 'free thinker' and that means 'open minded'.

let me correct you
mike: "Im a crackpotm closed to any ideas but my own and those who fit it"

I welcome criticism and reply in my own way when the criticisms are informative rather than just insulting.

"i welcome absolutly no ciritisism and reply with nonesense to any information given"

I always cite reasons for what I say

"i never cite reasons for what i say"

well that seems like a very apt and true retort

whats with all the flaming.. cmon guys if you wanna flame each other do it in person 8)

Originally Posted by shawngoldw

whats with all the flaming.. cmon guys if you wanna flame each other do it in person 8)

you see my friend it all started at the begining of human evolution. Some were what would be known as morrons, others where just regular people in the middle of intelligence scale, but some lucky ones those who came to be the future humans were intelligent. But as you can guess those "morrons" happened to get their genes passed on anyway for some odd reasons. Today its those who are intelligent, we who understand science accept it and learn and conclude in a proper way, got the duty to uderly crush those who are unable to perform what is known as "intelligent thoughts" so that we who are intelligent can spread our genes. People gotta realise we do it for the better good and the easiest civilized way is to simply crush the persons spirit if he refuses assimilations

Originally Posted by Zelos

"Im a crackpotm closed to any ideas but my own and those who fit it"

"i welcome absolutly no ciritisism and reply with nonesense to any information given"

"i never cite reasons for what i say"

Those are your exact words posted by you.

They describe you perfectly.
Nothing but evasive and diversive answers.

NS

Originally Posted by Mike NS

Originally Posted by Zelos

"Im a crackpotm closed to any ideas but my own and those who fit it"

"i welcome absolutly no ciritisism and reply with nonesense to any information given"

"i never cite reasons for what i say"

Those are your exact words posted by you.

They describe you perfectly.
Nothing but evasive and diversive answers.

NS

no no no mike youve gotten it all wrong, that is your jibberish translated into how it really is. I am open to every possible idea. i demand a few things only
1: they shall be needed to be proveble
2: they shall be mathematical, physics that is since thats how physics is
3: it shall not go against observations especially not 100 year of them

as for your ideas, well it doesnt fit any of those points. If you come with a idea that got some math, even not good done but something that works in someway and got like 10^-5% of bieng possible you catch my attention. with maniac ideas based on nothing i dont listen

Zelos

I rely on VISUALIZATION. It precedes math.
I rely on the Laws of physics. Experimental observation precedes math
I rely on experiments. Math is derived from these experiments.
I rely on observations. Math is derived from these observasions.

Instrument observations are 'technical' visualizations.

Math is used to 'predict' the future nature of the studied subjects.
It is a human language and prone to be in error sometimes.
So math is nothing but a 'piggy back' product of the above studies.

My visualizations and interpretations are based on the Laws, experiments and observations of science.

NS

I rely on VISUALIZATION. It precedes math.

thats a problem, it prove nothing and is nothing worth if math contradicts it or that the thing is beyond human understanding in terms of pictures

I rely on the Laws of physics. Experimental observation precedes math

so do i and i agree, but you miss laws and observations cause you decied they are not worth looking

I rely on experiments. Math is derived from these experiments.

I rely on observations. Math is derived from these observasions.

only those who fits you

It is a human language and prone to be in error sometimes.

math is perfect it never gets any errors if done right
the only error that occure is those cause of uncertainty in measurment, obsevations and experiments or if the theory is for some reason not entirely right and need modifications

So math is nothing but a 'piggy back' product of the above studies

you mean vizualisation

My visualizations and interpretations are based on the Laws, experiments and observations of science.

your correct but only in the sense of those laws, experiments and observations that fits you

Originally Posted by Mike NS

Zelos

I rely on VISUALIZATION. It precedes math.
I rely on the Laws of physics. Experimental observation precedes math
I rely on experiments. Math is derived from these experiments.
I rely on observations. Math is derived from these observasions.

generally when we have found something better we move onto it, i guess that's what happened here (though some of them are linked). Admit it Mike, you are stuck in the old ages, with your 20 years of so called 'self study you haven't updated your knowlage

Zelos

Remember that remark Einstein made about his cosmological constant that was supposed to prevent his static universe from collapsing?

like I said, mathematicians make errors.

Nevyn

Are you telling me that Keplers math, Newtons math, Plancks math and Bohrs math are obsolete?
And the Conservation Laws are obsolete or the other experiments and observations are all obsolete?

NS

Remember that remark Einstein made about his cosmological constant that was supposed to prevent his static universe from collapsing?

like I said, mathematicians make errors.

nope, that was the error in the theory, but the math was absolutly perfect

Are you telling me that Keplers math, Newtons math, Plancks math and Bohrs math are obsolete?
And the Conservation Laws are obsolete or the other experiments and observations are all obsolete?

oh oh i know the answer to this one
yes yes yes and YES!
they are working in normal cases and newton works in none-relativistisc situation and plancks have been worked on further and the CoL is also modified, the physics changes and is modified

Originally Posted by Mike NS

Zelos
Nevyn

Are you telling me that Keplers math, Newtons math, Plancks math and Bohrs math are obsolete?
And the Conservation Laws are obsolete or the other experiments and observations are all obsolete?

actually i was on about your supreme vizualization skills and imagination which allows you to see every aspect of the universe.

actually i was on about your supreme vizualization skills and imagination which allows you to see every aspect of the universe.

The fun thing is that he tries to vizualize things that is impossible to visualize XD

Originally Posted by Zelos

nope, that was the error in the theory, but the math was absolutly perfect

If it was perfect, than tell me what the cosmological constant is now?
And do not tell me it is the 'dark energy'.
Those 'distance candles' are not credible. And the BB uiniverse is not collapsing. So it does NOT need 'dark energy' to keep it from collapsing.

oh oh i know the answer to this one
yes yes yes and YES!
they are working in normal cases and newton works in none-relativistisc situation and plancks have been worked on further and the CoL is also modified, the physics changes and is modified

Well, I do not believe in an 'evolving' science like the BB science.
I believe in a stable science and a SSU that is NOT evolving.

NS

`

Originally Posted by Nevyn

actually i was on about your supreme vizualization skills and imagination which allows you to see every aspect of the universe.

Actually, my visualizations are based on the knowledge of the experimentors and the 'technical' visions like the various telescopes.

I do not invent knowledge but just inrepret it in what I think is truth.

NS

Originally Posted by Mike NS

Actually, my visualizations are based on the knowledge of the experimentors and the 'technical' visions like the various telescopes.

I do not invent knowledge but just inrepret it in what I think is truth.

ahhh, this is new, i did not know that telescopes could see black holes or atoms or quarks or back in time to when the universe began as you have said from your VISULIZING ability

Originally Posted by Nevyn

ahhh, this is new, i did not know that telescopes could see black holes or atoms or quarks or back in time to when the universe began as you have said from your VISULIZING ability

Telescopes cannot 'see' black holes, they can however see evidence of gravitational lensing, where there is no visible mass. The intense gravity causing this lensing can only be explained by the presence of super massive objects.

Mass is made of atoms which int turn are made of quarks etc , if you can see mass you are looking at large collections of atoms, that is what telescopes do.

Light takes time to travel, even looking at your hands you are seeing them a couple of nanosecnds ago, when telescopes look at other galaxies we see them as they looked at the time the light left, which varies from a couple of million years (Andromeda) to the most distant galaxies 'seen' by hubble, billions of years.

Originally Posted by Megabrain

Telescopes cannot 'see' black holes, they can however see evidence of gravitational lensing, where there is no visible mass. The intense gravity causing this lensing can only be explained by the presence of super massive objects.

Mass is made of atoms which int turn are made of quarks etc , if you can see mass you are looking at large collections of atoms, that is what telescopes do.

Light takes time to travel, even looking at your hands you are seeing them a couple of nanosecnds ago, when telescopes look at other galaxies we see them as they looked at the time the light left, which varies from a couple of million years (Andromeda) to the most distant galaxies 'seen' by hubble, billions of years.

i appologise megabrain but i was being sarcastic :?

If it was perfect, than tell me what the cosmological constant is now?

an idea of static universe wich was false, notice IDEA.

And do not tell me it is the 'dark energy'.
Those 'distance candles' are not credible. And the BB uiniverse is not collapsing. So it does NOT need 'dark energy' to keep it from collapsing.

no it doesnt need it but its accutally what keep the acceleration on going

Well, I do not believe in an 'evolving' science like the BB science.
I believe in a stable science and a SSU that is NOT evolving.

watch bullshit! creation story
science:
changes as knowledge is collected
it starts with hypothis
goes to observation discussion and repeated again if needed

religion:
its rigged
facts are twisted
brainwashing accure and sometimes even torture

mike your idea dont fall under science

Originally Posted by Nevyn

Originally Posted by Mike NS

Actually, my visualizations are based on the knowledge of the experimentors and the 'technical' visions like the various telescopes.
I do not invent knowledge but just inrepret it in what I think is truth.

ahhh, this is new, i did not know that telescopes could see black holes or atoms or quarks or back in time to when the universe began as you have said from your VISULIZING ability

They do not see them becaise they do NOT exist.
Black holes should be surrounded by 'halo's of light' because the light passing near the 'event horizons' would BEND the light to create halos.

Our galaxy in the past had a much larger number of giant blue stars that would have collapsed to leave their BH behind. So where are these remains that should exist in much greater numbers?
Even though these halos would be much dimmer, their gravity would expose them. So they should not be hard to detect with todays advanced instruments.

Regarding 'back in time' that you imply is the beginning of the BB, you cannot see 'nothing' that is the source of the BB.

NS

Originally Posted by zelos

watch bullshit! creation story
science:
changes as knowledge is collected
it starts with hypothis
goes to observation discussion and repeated again if needed

religion:
its rigged
facts are twisted
brainwashing accure and sometimes even torture

mike your idea dont fall under science

Regarding religion, I agree with you.
I also agree with the evolution of the human species and its mind.

But most of the evolution of the mind is just COPY from other sources like Nature. But the Latin educational system that bans 'free speech' with its 'licensing procedure' (diplomas) does not believe in evolution.

They do not want any more Copernicus's or Galileos. Ha ha.

NS

They do not see them becaise they do NOT exist.
Black holes should be surrounded by 'halo's of light' because the light passing near the 'event horizons' would BEND the light to create halos.

the interesting thing is, they have seen blackholes HAHAHAHA

Even though these halos would be much dimmer, their gravity would expose them. So they should not be hard to detect with todays advanced instruments.

thats right they dont have a problem and have detected many of them mostly in the center of galaxies

But most of the evolution of the mind is just COPY from other sources like Nature. But the Latin educational system that bans 'free speech' with its 'licensing procedure' (diplomas) does not believe in evolution.

They do not want any more Copernicus's or Galileos. Ha ha.

the thing is, they do want them
you just think not cause every sane person is sane and youre insane and not allowed

Originally Posted by Mike NS

They do not see them becaise they do NOT exist.
Black holes should be surrounded by 'halo's of light' because the light passing near the 'event horizons' would BEND the light to create halos.

So according to you a black hole is a two dimensional object in three dimensional environment? and that's it's gravity also has a two dimensionaly effect too creat this halo. your proposal would mean that there would be a 'sphear of light' not a halo and any photon that got affected by the black hole would be sucked up

Originally Posted by Mike NS

[
They do not see them becaise they do NOT exist.
Black holes should be surrounded by 'halo's of light' because the light passing near the 'event horizons' would BEND the light to create halos.

Our galaxy in the past had a much larger number of giant blue stars that would have collapsed to leave their BH behind. So where are these remains that should exist in much greater numbers?
Even though these halos would be much dimmer, their gravity would expose them. So they should not be hard to detect with todays advanced instruments.

Regarding 'back in time' that you imply is the beginning of the BB, you cannot see 'nothing' that is the source of the BB.

NS

Mike I think you need to look up 'gravitational lensing' 'einstein's cross' and then study optics, after that come back and re-write that post.

Originally Posted by Mike NS

Regarding 'back in time' that you imply is the beginning of the BB, you cannot see 'nothing' that is the source of the BB.

I do believe that you just admitted to creation out of nothing and agreed with the Big Bang

Originally Posted by Nevyn

Originally Posted by Mike NS

They do not see them becaise they do NOT exist.
Black holes should be surrounded by 'halo's of light' because the light passing near the 'event horizons' would BEND the light to create halos.

So according to you a black hole is a two dimensional object in three dimensional environment? and that's it's gravity also has a two dimensionaly effect too creat this halo. your proposal would mean that there would be a 'sphear of light' not a halo and any photon that got affected by the black hole would be sucked up

That would be dependant on what you consider the black-hole to be. I consider the black-hole to be the singularity therefore a black-hole is a 0-dimensional object in 3D space. However the black hole's event horizon / gravitational field exisits in 3D space.

just cause it cant be seen doesnt mean it doesnt exist. If a blind man is in a room and cant see the butterfly, does it change the fact that the butterfly do exist?

Originally Posted by Zelos

just cause it cant be seen doesnt mean it doesnt exist. If a blind man is in a room and cant see the butterfly, does it change the fact that the butterfly do exist?

If the blind man inside the room has been told that the butterfly exists inside the room then the butterfly exists in every single space inside the room in a wave of possibility as the blind man has no way of determining the exact location of the butterfly. Only when given sight does the wave of possibility collapse in on itself and the newly sighted man is now able to determine its position.

Originally Posted by Zelos

just cause it cant be seen doesnt mean it doesnt exist. If a blind man is in a room and cant see the butterfly, does it change the fact that the butterfly do exist?

Zelos! I could kiss you!!! you have stumbled across the answer!!

The blind man cannot see the butterfly, to him it does not exist!

Others cannot 'see' black holes, to them, they do not exist!

Originally Posted by Megabrain

Originally Posted by Zelos

just cause it cant be seen doesnt mean it doesnt exist. If a blind man is in a room and cant see the butterfly, does it change the fact that the butterfly do exist?

Zelos! I could kiss you!!! you have stumbled across the answer!!

The blind man cannot see the butterfly, to him it does not exist!

Others cannot 'see' black holes, to them, they do not exist!

I dont think zelos would like that.

I'll let you into a secret, I don't think [in fact I know] that I wouldn't like it either.

what you see or percept is of no relevans to somethings existens

Originally Posted by Zelos

what you see or percept is of no relevans to somethings existens

I think that you should be more specific before making a statement like that.

Originally Posted by Zelos

what you see or percept is of no relevans to somethings existens

Sounds like a policeman talking about 'evidence'.....

Originally Posted by Megabrain

Originally Posted by Zelos

what you see or percept is of no relevans to somethings existens

Sounds like a policeman talking about 'evidence'.....

you have the right to remain silent, everything you can and will be used against you

NS Comment to All

A sphere of light surrounding the 'event horizon' would appear as a halo because the 'edges' of the sphere would be more visible to an observer due to a greater depth of light.

So nevyn, your wrong.

NS

I don't think so Mike, If you mean the light which theoretically orbits the hole then unless it leaves this orbit it cannot be detected.

exacly mega, if the light orbits around the blackhole it wont be seen
if the light comes from something else its no different then any other object or any other FEEDING blackhole, they shine bright and is seen plenty of

In the nicest possible way Mike, I really think you ought to read up on gravitational lensing, it's a fascinating subject, we do not always see the phenomina since it relies on us, the black hole and the viewed object being in almost precise alignment and with fairly tight tolerances on the distance ratios as well. some of the pictures of this lensing determine the difference in distances by the red-shift. The BH distance can be ascertained by the red-shift of it's galaxy. Knowing these two distances and comparing the optical result the calculation of how much gravity is needed to produce the effect seen, by looking at the lensing galaxy we can estimate it's real mass and how much extra mass is missing. THis last bit gives us the info needed to determine a dark matter estimate and a black hole estimate for the galaxy.

mega you got no reason to be in the nicest way

and lets not forget the fact that the speed in wich things rotate in a galaxy dont decreases after a certain distance from the center wich is a indications of additional mass wich we are unable to see

And it's not just additional mass, it needs [by calculation] to be of the order of 12 times the mass of the galaxy. The rotaion of galaxies does not conform to our laws of classical physics, they after all, were derived entirely from local observations. Dark matter may account for this yet so far the amount of dark matter discovered does not completely explain the phenomina, it goes a long way though, before this one is solved the maths is bound to tweaked a few more times...

Megabrain and Zelos

I am sure you are aware of the 'Event Horizon' that surrounds a black hole?
The light inside the EH is kept from escaping but how about the light along the edge of the EH?
Will that be bent or continue on as though it was unaffected?

Common sense will tell you that it will be bent around the EH to form a shpere of light but the light along the edges IN LINE with the observer, will have greater DEPTH!

I rest my case.

NS

That's bollox mike, you only 'see' light if it is headed in your direction, if it's orbiting a black hole then the photons are trapped and NOT coming and hitting your eyes!

As an example look at the night sky, its crammed packed with photons from the sun whizzing past the earth, (this is most obvious when the moon is out), but you cannot 'see' any of them becuase they are not coming in your direction. Now come on man, think about it!

there are many entities, thought to be black holes, w/o an horizon. the erratic movements of stars around them giving the idea alone. currently what make the horizon visible are conjecture and argumentative. it could be the final collapse of the star or the evaporation in progress with enough matter to reflect from other sources.

light energy is just that. energy with in the eye/brain ability to see what it hits. it has to have something to hit, with in our distance or our instruments to see the reflection will stimulate whats called sight. the same happens to be true to create heat. in both cases the closer the matter the larger % of energy from the source. in either case if this energy does not hit anything, no light or heat energy can be reflected for observations be us or our instruments.

this hard to explain; when Hubble over the many lens opening that accrue, from distant objects, i believe are actually from different stars each time from a galaxy. much like a rainbow is the results of a single drop of rain.

The light inside the EH is kept from escaping but how about the light along the edge of the EH?
Will that be bent or continue on as though it was unaffected?

its kept in a oorbit

Common sense will tell you that it will be bent around the EH to form a shpere of light but the light along the edges IN LINE with the observer, will have greater DEPTH!

I rest my case.

mike common sense do not say that and common sense dont have to do with anything here

mike please your brain instead of your ass

Odd this, where did the idea of light trapped in orbit around a black hole come from?

Originally Posted by Megabrain

That's bollox mike, you only 'see' light if it is headed in your direction, if it's orbiting a black hole then the photons are trapped and NOT coming and hitting your eyes!

As an example look at the night sky, its crammed packed with photons from the sun whizzing past the earth, (this is most obvious when the moon is out), but you cannot 'see' any of them becuase they are not coming in your direction. Now come on man, think about it!

These light pulses may behave like electrons in a plasma. Outside the EH, they will be bent but not captured. The closer the approach, the greater the bend. so some will be bent at different angles, but some at the right angle to reach observers in that line of sight.
Since there are a large number of stars within the vicinity of these EH's there will be a lot of light 'scattering.

NS

Zelos

The light that is kept in orbit would be the light just INSIDE the EH.

The light OUTSIDE the EH would be bent at different angles depending on how close is the passage.

NS

And by being bent at lots of different angles it would be diffused, so in order to see this halo your eyes would have to be all around it! - NO halo mike!

I have not understood the matter of your question. Furthermore, the content I have got I do think, but
where was the contradiction.

I don't see where mass and energy where interchangeable, and where not again?

Steve

Originally Posted by Mike NS

Zelos

The light that is kept in orbit would be the light just INSIDE the EH.

The light OUTSIDE the EH would be bent at different angles depending on how close is the passage.

NS

mike, your peeing on your own feet

I don't see where mass and energy where interchangeable, and where not again?

hu?

What's that? 'hu?' (His explanation does not say that. )

Steve,

hu is maths speak for "higher universe", where the square law follows the inverse of it's negative fractal part. Clear now?

Countenance!!!

What no puzzled smileys steve?

no cause i´ll give it
O_o

A very, very, very old ship? A. Spelunke B. Klabache C. Schabracke?

Steve,

WTF are you on about now?

i guess it involves fun where you cant do it alone or substances effecting your synaptic pathways if taken

hehe Steve,

Schabracke ist ein uber fenster ja?

Schabracke is a over (blank), yes?

That's as good as my german gets

It's a pelmet 'over window'