All,
Check out this article:
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=...line-news_rss20
Anyone notice the mention of anti-gravity properties being exhibited by superconducting crystals at a "quantum phase transition." Am I the only person that latched pretty tightly to the anti-gravity effects? I really would like to know more about it. Can anyone here point me to more info about that?
I would really like to see some discussion of the article. If Chapline's theory is true, it would change the way we look at the universe.
Actually, I came here expecting a discussion that would rival “Plane on conveyor… Will it ever take off?” since the implications of this theory being correct would cause huge waves in the physics community.
Actually, I came here expecting a discussion that would rival “Plane on conveyor… Will it ever take off?” since the implications of this theory being correct would cause huge waves in the physics community.
It is my opinion from schooling that I have been blessed with that black holes are simply grounds between the rest of the planetary systems that are in the universe. And that space is not a vacuum,but Im sure that some would see it that way from the movement of the aetheric force and frequencies that they observe.
This article was discussed briefly on this thread:
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=5361&hl=
Little comment was offered except from two members. From the first to promote his own theory without actually explicitly addressing Chapline's ideas. Then from the second member to offer criticism both sharp and deep, on the basis that Chapline first subverts the popularity of Einstein and relativity to support his proposal, and then proceeds to make claims that contradict relativity's foundations.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=5361&hl=
Little comment was offered except from two members. From the first to promote his own theory without actually explicitly addressing Chapline's ideas. Then from the second member to offer criticism both sharp and deep, on the basis that Chapline first subverts the popularity of Einstein and relativity to support his proposal, and then proceeds to make claims that contradict relativity's foundations.
Chapline said"This freezing of time also violates quantum mechanics"
Very interesting
Very interesting
Supposing this article has it right and blackholes can’t exist. And supposing the “quantum critical shells” (QCS) are stable enough to represent the darkmatter in the universe. Would this mean that the CERN LHC collider might create some of these QCSs?
Since the article states that there is no event horizon and implies that they would not simply radiate away (ala Hawking Radiation) is it possible that they might might pose an unforeseen danger, if thusly created?
On the other hand, since this is more in the realm of Q/R versus string theory, would the LHC be powerful enough to do this?
Since the article states that there is no event horizon and implies that they would not simply radiate away (ala Hawking Radiation) is it possible that they might might pose an unforeseen danger, if thusly created?
On the other hand, since this is more in the realm of Q/R versus string theory, would the LHC be powerful enough to do this?
Hello all
The question is how can an object have both gravity and anti-gravity forces acting at the same time.
The question is how can an object have both gravity and anti-gravity forces acting at the same time.
A warp drive could 
QUOTE (Montec+Mar 18 2006, 05:27 PM)
Hello all
The question is how can an object have both gravity and anti-gravity forces acting at the same time.
Montec,
That's a good question! It seems to me that gravity + antigravity must be equal to less gravity (not two distinct properties), right?
Are there any physicists out that that can clarify this?
The question is how can an object have both gravity and anti-gravity forces acting at the same time.
Montec,
That's a good question! It seems to me that gravity + antigravity must be equal to less gravity (not two distinct properties), right?
Are there any physicists out that that can clarify this?
Black holes essentially badly named.
The Russians called them "frozen stars".
The real problem here is that due to the mathematics surrounding general relativity (Riemann <sorry, poor spelling> geometry) predicts the existence of singularities, as shown by the brilliant mathematician Karl Schwarzchield, black holes being such singularities.
I would be curious to ask how this could be disproved.
Remember, in physics, until it is disproved, if theory allows it, it can happen.
black matter
How slow can time go then?
If it stops at an event horizon then light can't go in. And what if light is emitted at the event horizon by something falling in? What would be the energy of that light?
Its energy would be zero because time stops at the event horizon and the gravitational redshift to light for that would be infinity.
If time never completely stops the redshift to light would remain finite. These collapsed stars would always emit light it would just be very red shifted. I call them Dark Holes or Stars.
If it stops at an event horizon then light can't go in. And what if light is emitted at the event horizon by something falling in? What would be the energy of that light?
Its energy would be zero because time stops at the event horizon and the gravitational redshift to light for that would be infinity.
If time never completely stops the redshift to light would remain finite. These collapsed stars would always emit light it would just be very red shifted. I call them Dark Holes or Stars.
So if, 'In the beginning' you had say two stars linked into an overgrown cell; like a proton and an electron. Then the cell is split by a force. The end result would be like two free radicals. The emitters we would easily see, where as, the receptors would be near impossible to see because of the cells/stars individual properties.
Is this an extremely simplified paraphrase of what they're saying in the article? That dark stars or blackholes are not the product of a huge star imploding and compressing it's core into a reaction.
Is this an extremely simplified paraphrase of what they're saying in the article? That dark stars or blackholes are not the product of a huge star imploding and compressing it's core into a reaction.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.