Black Holes are in the theory of everything.

I think that the best way to perform the test is to have the sloping wall adjustable, because it probably is a bit of a push to get the photon around the corner. I would also put Kodak paper there just to see where the photon is hitting for the first few tests. Maybe I would make a sliding slit too, to get that right. What should happen is that the first few photons will hit the atoms in the slope. The atoms should then break the bubbles around the slope turning them into a denser material. This should then cushion the next few photons around the bend.

PhotonBend2.jpg
 
I was contemplating a theory on the mathisfunforum...

Could there be antipolar gravitons that eliminates eachother even though both kinds attracts?

I wanna dissclose eventualities...

So basically, given a photonic substance is the only thing in the black hole, wouldn't the gravity be that of the photones contained in it, and wouldn't that be easy to figure out by heating a pendle and weighing it simultaneously?
 
Smellsniffsniff said:
I was contemplating a theory on the mathisfunforum...

Could there be antipolar gravitons that eliminates eachother even though both kinds attracts?

I wanna dissclose eventualities...

So basically, given a photonic substance is the only thing in the black hole, wouldn't the gravity be that of the photones contained in it, and wouldn't that be easy to figure out by heating a pendle and weighing it simultaneously?
Click to expand...

Sort of yeah, but I prefer to use mass, and negative mass.
 
Well, when the experiment is done we shall know if photons have relativistic gravitational mass.
Is there any proof that the gravitational mass of a photon is m(r)-m?
I suppose v would be the sideways vector?
Is it accurate to draw the conclusion that the sideways vector in a black hole with only relativistic mass would at rest be zero?
 
Smellsniffsniff said:
Could there be antipolar gravitons that eliminates eachother even though both kinds attracts?
Click to expand...
I'm wondering, do you actually believe that you are able to describe 'antipolar gravitons' in a valid way? Do you believe that despite having no working model and no knowledge of experiments that your random musings are anything other than pissing in the wind? Do you really believe that you're doing something worthwhile and which can contribute to physics?

It's just I find it hard to believe someone who knows they don't know any physics and hasn't read anything about experiments/observations to do with gravity or black holes really believes they can talk about 'antipolar gravitons' in a way other than pure fiction. Or am I just naive about how irrational and deluded some people are? :shrug:
 
While you can report me for not being as polite as I perhaps could (or should) have been the manner in which I raise my point is ir4relevant to the point itself.

Do you believe that you have some working understanding of 'antipodal gravitons', that what you're thinking about is relevant to physics and logical? If you have no knowledge of the current theories of gravity and no knowledge of the experiments and observations done by physicists which are relevant to the things you talk about then what justification do you have for your ideas being anything other then pure fiction?

I hardly think asking someone "What justification do you have for making claims about physical systems you have no data on?" is worth reporting. It is, after all, basic scientific methodology to ask someone why they claim what they do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top