18th March 2006 - 09:12 PM
QUOTE (Montec+Mar 18 2006, 05:27 PM)
The question is how can an object have both gravity and anti-gravity forces acting at the same time.
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?
21st March 2006 - 08:50 AM
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.
21st March 2006 - 12:54 PM
26th March 2006 - 03:48 AM
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.
26th March 2006 - 09:32 PM
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.