Object at multiples of light speed = INFINATE mass
= no power in the cosmos can stop it
(the M = mass )
Ok now i have to step in here. If you actually understand that equation you will know that an object does indeed reach infinite mass at light speed, however you also need infinite amounts of energy to hit light speed so impossible. Warp drive is and adaptation of the alcuberie (sp) drive which compresses space in front and expands behind thus allowing ftl travel.
This drive would probably mean that there would be very little interaction with items outside the bubble.
Please do not quote scientific hypothesis and establish theory without understanding the principles.
Please do not try to use "modern" science claims against proven trek science
Um... First of all, the Alcubierre drive is a standard theory of possible FTL flight, made in the REAL world with REAL science by a REAL scientist.
Star Trek technology is "proven" by seeing it done on screen. it is based LOOSELY on actual science, which is why is it call Science Fiction. Part science, part fiction. Once Science has caught up with science fiction, Science always wins. HG wells wrote a book about traveling to the moon and what it would look like. He wrote that as you traveled, would feel Earth Gravity get weaker and weaker until you reach the midway point, where gravity from the Moon would become greater, and then you start to fall and walk on the moon-side of the craft. When we actually got to the moon, we found out that it did not work like that. Both you and the craft are travelling at the same speed, and from your point of reference inside the craft, you are floating the whole way. So, now when we think, talk or reference travel to the moon, we do not mention HG Welles and Cannons, We mention Apollo 11 and Neil Armstrong (May he rest in peace).
Therefore, The actually real world science still very much have a play in how Star Trek technology works.
(an object moving faster than light IS a perfect weapon and a ship EMERGING from or Entering warp is a FTL projectile (see picard manuveer))
As to actually reaching light speed requiring infinate energy not even close
right now objects are being accelerated to this speed
Picard Maneuver Actaully... the Picard Maneuver has nothing to do with ramming the ship at warp speed... Picard shot the Stargazer forward at high warp and stopped, creating a light double of the ship. Since he accelerated past light, and therefore sensor speed, there was a brief moment where, on the targets sensors, there are two ships, one where the Stargazer REALLY is, and the other one from the light lag of where it was before. Picard then used this confusion to make and opening and fire upon the ship.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity and Actually... According to Big E himself, Everything approaches infinite at lightspeed, your Mass, your length contraction, time dilation, the works. Once you attempt to accelerate anything with a rest mass even close to the speed of light, it all goes through the roof. We can see this with Particle accelerators, as it takes a about 10.7589 F***tons of energy to accelerate electrons to merely 98% of the lightspeed. That is just an Electron, and it is still cannot reach the speed of light. Why? because the harder we push it, the more mass it gains. And it will gain kilograms of mass if it goes 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999% of the speed of light.
Particles maybe accelerated to CLOSE to this speed, but not AT lightspeed. And it still takes the aforementioned 10.7589 F***tons of energy to pull it off.
Live on Earth. Work in Space. Play with Dragons. Join the best add on to STO, the Neverwinter holodeck program! Only 14 GPL a month.
Um... First of all, the Alcubierre drive is a standard theory of possible FTL flight, made in the REAL world with REAL science by a REAL scientist.
FTL travel is actually probably impossible (and any theory allowing for it is dubious at best)
Star Trek technology is "proven" by seeing it done on screen. it is based LOOSELY on actual science, which is why is it call Science Fiction
.
actually real science is sometimes loosely based on star trek
(some medical devices are infact now in use that Mc coy used in Trek)
Part science, part fiction. Once Science has caught up with science fiction, Science always wins.
nah
Science fiction still tends to win
remember cold fusion (sci fi can do it so called Real science trys to fake it)
HG wells wrote a book about traveling to the moon and what it would look like.
Jules Verne wrote a better one
He wrote that as you traveled, would feel Earth Gravity get weaker and weaker until you reach the midway point, where gravity from the Moon would become greater, and then you start to fall and walk on the moon-side of the craft.
which is actually True if you move slowly enough
When we actually got to the moon, we found out that it did not work like that.
actually the moons gravity was VITAL to landing the ship on it
Both you and the craft are travelling at the same speed, and from your point of reference inside the craft, you are floating the whole way. So, now when we think, talk or reference travel to the moon, we do not mention HG Welles and Cannons, We mention Apollo 11 and Neil Armstrong (May he rest in peace).
Actually a Cannon Could work
And no we mention Jules Verne
Therefore, The actually real world science still very much have a play in how Star Trek technology works.
and HERE Trek trumps modern
Picard Maneuver Actaully... the Picard Maneuver has nothing to do with ramming the ship at warp speed...
never said it did
Picard shot the Stargazer forward at high warp and stopped, creating a light double of the ship. Since he accelerated past light, and therefore sensor speed, there was a brief moment where, on the targets sensors, there are two ships, one where the Stargazer REALLY is, and the other one from the light lag of where it was before. Picard then used this confusion to make and opening and fire upon the ship.
n
but he moved faster than light
at this point the stargazer had infinate mass
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity and Actually... According to Big E himself, Everything approaches infinite at lightspeed, your Mass, your length contraction, time dilation, the works
.
Big E old chap is actually a DUCK
you mean Little Albert
Onattempt to accelerate anything with a rest mass even close to the speed of light, it all goes through the roof. We can see this with Particle accelerators, as it takes a about 10.7589 F***tons of energy to accelerate electrons to merely 98% of the lightspeed
.
Turn on a pocket torch
you just created a light speed cascade (a very small one)
There are TRILLIONS of tiny particles moving at light speed through your house right now
Speed is a product of acceleration
and acceleration is not hard to generate
A small energy feed over a prolonged period is capable of the needed push
ce you That is just an Electron, and it is still cannot reach the speed of light. Why? because the harder we push it, the more mass it gains. And it will gain kilograms of mass if it goes 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999% of the speed of light.
Photons move at the speed of light as indeed do a several other theoretical items
Particles maybe accelerated to CLOSE to this speed, but not AT lightspeed. And it still takes the aforementioned 10.7589 F***tons of energy to pull it off
or a 9 volt battery
Start accelerating today and keep going
eventually you will hit it
Actually there is some evidence that particles approaching Red holes are moving at crash speed (faster than light)
not that it matters as a Red holes gravity is so great that the light couldn't get out EITHER
(yes Red holes not black holes there is more wierdness in the cosmos than is imagined by even the most drunken student)
Wells and Verne both wrote about the moon (Earth to the moon , first men in the moon and others)
so did mark twain (one of his fictional travel stories the man may never have left the USA AT ALL according to some sources)
But any logical answer in a trek discussion must be trek logic (ie mine is logical)
As to the Red and Black holes (some people claim white ones too)
these MAY exist (if the unverse is of fixed size)
Wells and Verne both wrote about the moon (Earth to the moon , first men in the moon and others)
so did mark twain (one of his fictional travel stories the man may never have left the USA AT ALL according to some sources)
But any logical answer in a trek discussion must be trek logic (ie mine is logical)
As to the Red and Black holes (some people claim white ones too)
these MAY exist (if the unverse is of fixed size)
??? Could you tell me the name of the story Mark Twain wrote about Lunar travel??? His bibliography does not contain any titles suggesting it, and I am not going to read all of them for the sake of this idoticity. So some reference points would be nice.
Star Trek attempts to present itself as science fiction. And as such, tries to follow the laws of physics as best as possible, barring the direct references otherwise. I write science fiction for fun. It is a hobby of mine. I study it. The cool thing is, that with proper writing, you can abolish any and all laws of common sense easily as long as long as you break them consistently You can say that in your universe, you can grow in size by eating a mushroom. Cool, but as soon as you show someone growing in size WITHOUT eating a mushroom, you just broke your own law of reality. So you either have to explain ANOTHER way that you can grow in size, or the entire thing becomes unbelievable.
Star Trek follows real world physics. They have rules they have to follow. The rules of Warp drive have set rules.. Follow those rules, and it made sense. Contradict yourself, and you have a problem. We must assume that every law of physics not directly referenced or explained must follow the same rules as this universe, as it is Science Fiction.
And finally, I never mentioned nor even nodded to Red holes, (Which I looked up, and are merely thought experiments on a weak black hole... not based on actual observations.) But since A.) they are not mentioned on Screen... B.) Are only theorized, and C.) have nothing to do with conversation. Please leave them out of the conversation until further noticed.
The Picard Maneuver was born out of desperation during the battle. The Stargazer, which was damaged, suddenly accelerated into high warp directly towards the Ferengi ship.
correct me if im wrong. but wouldnt that mean when picard did the picard maneuver in the stargazer... did he not jump from directly infront of the ferengi ship to directly behind it? if i connect point a and point b along that path then... it would be going through the ferengi ship. meaning he WARPED THROUGH it like sollvax wanted to to do V'ger and kill it with "infinite mass"....
yet the ferengi ship was completely unharmed by a ship accelerating at high warp right through it.
oooh trek science beats his 'i wish it was trek science'.
Warp-ramming enemy ships: Riker attempted to do that to the Borg Cube in "The Best of Both Worlds, Part II". That would seem to indicate that it works as a weapon, though why it's so rarely used as a last resort is beyond me.
Picard maneuver: Presumably the Stargazer went past the Ferengi ship. So not technically "directly behind", but close enough to make the argument.
Star Trek science vs. real world science: It's clear that there is "science" in Trek (such as black holes being used for time travel) that don't match up with real world science, at least as far as we know. Those fictitious facts are still canon, even if we know they wouldn't really work. Fictitious science = science fiction.
"Critics who say that the optimistic utopia Star Trek depicted is now outmoded forget the cultural context that gave birth to it: Star Trek was not a manifestation of optimism when optimism was easy. Star Trek declared a hope for a future that nobody stuck in the present could believe in. For all our struggles today, we haven’t outgrown the need for stories like Star Trek. We need tales of optimism, of heroes, of courage and goodness now as much as we’ve ever needed them." -Thomas Marrone
This has been known for a long... LONG time. :rolleyes:
And Psycoticvulcan, These extra-scientific facts maybe used and are definitely canon. However, they were also directly mentioned on screen. There have been many other Instances where the laws of physics are shown to work the same as they do in reality
*balls thrown arc and fall at a constant rate.
*Newton's Third applied in zero friction space (Most of the time :rolleyes: )
*Laws of Thermodynamics (i.e. Hot things get cooler over time in a cooler environment.)
and others.
So unless *** can point to a specific canon reference that states that a ship at warp has infinite mass, we have to assume that such an action is both impossible and illogical. Without canon contradicting them directly, we have to assume that the normal laws of physics apply.
Otherwise, who's to say that the ship can't turn into the giant ball of technocolored yarn every time it goes to warp :rolleyes:
Live on Earth. Work in Space. Play with Dragons. Join the best add on to STO, the Neverwinter holodeck program! Only 14 GPL a month.
As kyeti says a ship could turn into a ball of yarn (if it accidentally wandered into the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy)
I object to being called a troll for not kissing the right backsides
Red holes and black holes either BOTH exist or neither does (as there is no directly observed black hole in the known cosmos)
The picard manuveer was a demonstration of Short distance translight speed
And as demonstrated a ship can Ram at warp (in theory it can warp INTO a target if your bent physics are applied)
As to hot things get cold (ice cream doesn't get colder)
the TRUE law of thermodynamics is
"any objects temperature will change in the direction of the ambient unless acted on by an external property"
(not exact wording but close enough for hard science)
Thus put icecream in the kitchen it melts and the chicken sandwich next to it goes cold
THe principle of "warp" travel is that you are actually moving the space around your ship, not your ship around the space (and it is a "real" theorical way of travel faster than light), the warp field is the means you use to "hold" into the space, the nacelles act as "hands", so i am not so sure about warp ramming, i think this needs to be properly debated, however you are not changing its properties, neither the properties of the space around it, that is why you can "travel" faster than light using it.
Sollvax i am sorry but you can not directly observe a black hole as you can not by any means see it, you can only see the effects of its presence, and pal, that has been observed already, please check your sources again.
There is no directly observable black hole in the known cosmos (and there definately isn't one in the middle of each galaxy as was once proposed by a particularly Drunken physics student I know (incidentally these days he and his BS degree work in burger king))
There is no directly observable black hole in the known cosmos (and there definately isn't one in the middle of each galaxy as was once proposed by a particularly Drunken physics student I know (incidentally these days he and his BS degree work in burger king))
So, you'r saying all these Scientists are quacks and you some how know everything?
P.S. Of course black holes cant be observed by the naked eye..... since they absorb light they are nothing but a big black spot in space. we cant see an object unless we are seeing light bounce off it.
As to actually reaching light speed requiring infinate energy not even close
right now objects are being accelerated to this speed
That is categorically false; objects with mass cannot be accelerated to light speed, have not been, and will never be. Science Fiction doesn't even try to claim this anymore, it's so proven. Star Trek doesn't even claim it's possible.
Former moderator of these forums. Lifetime sub since before launch. Been here since before public betas. Foundry author of "Franklin Drake Must Die".
There is no directly observable black hole in the known cosmos (and there definately isn't one in the middle of each galaxy as was once proposed by a particularly Drunken physics student I know (incidentally these days he and his BS degree work in burger king))
Photons have mass sir
Photons are accelerated to light speed all the time
Only relativistic mass; their rest mass would be zero, if they were capable of resting. They are neither accelerated nor decelerated; they travel at light speed, period. Before you come back and say they don't, understand the difference between phase velocity, group velocity, and signal velocity.
Former moderator of these forums. Lifetime sub since before launch. Been here since before public betas. Foundry author of "Franklin Drake Must Die".
anything that has not been OBSERVED by reliable humans is theory
black holes are theory
so are Unicorns (more people can claim to have seen a unicorn than a black hole)
Flying saucers
The Yeti
Bog men from venus etc
Never trust a man whose bread and butter is a theory
its not in his best interest to disprove it
then so is everything in trek. its all science technobabble theory. unless you can travel to a time and space where starfleet exsists and get physical proof thats how stuff works, trek science is just as bogus as real science then.
The law of entropy says they have to decelerate
and anything physical has mass and anything with mass is physical
its all theories and hypotheticals sadly as there is not way to get a jar of photons for testing
Photons... do... not... have.. a rest mass!!!
They travel AT light speed and ONLY light speed.
And the theories of gravity, evolution, and other such things are very much considered real by sciencetist everywhere and are presented in high school science books as being pretty much fact. You cannot dismiss something just because it is a theory.
Live on Earth. Work in Space. Play with Dragons. Join the best add on to STO, the Neverwinter holodeck program! Only 14 GPL a month.
The law of entropy says they have to decelerate
and anything physical has mass and anything with mass is physical
its all theories and hypotheticals sadly as there is not way to get a jar of photons for testing
No, the second law of thermodynamics, which you're calling "the law of entropy", says they have to lose energy. They lose energy by redshifting, not by decelerating.
Getting a jar of photons is trivial (for proper values of "jar"), and they're tested every day around the world.
Former moderator of these forums. Lifetime sub since before launch. Been here since before public betas. Foundry author of "Franklin Drake Must Die".
Evolution is a very young idea
and its not taught in all schools
even the ones who Do teach it do not claim it has all the answers.
Gravity is an observed fact but the causes of it are still theory
its like millers law of toast (Toast will land butter side down in direct proportion to the value of your carpet)
it sounds cool but its only an idea
as to no rest mass they must have otherwise they have no mass at all (mass is a property of matter )
ok it may be too small to detect but it must be there otherwise there would be no particle to carry the charge of light
(again only a theory)
if light is a wave instead then photons would not actually exist
See this is why I stick to the Real universe
A steel bar is a steel bar
Edit Laws of Entropy
"Energy will always run down , everything decays , nothing physical is eternal"
or in the simplest and oldest terms
"everything dies"
If they aren't matter then they can't exist (everything is made of matter energy is a property of matter) this is a law a lot older than the concept of the photon
I think the big problem here is that we all come at the universe as products of our education , culture and training
Some people genuinely believe in Quarks
Some people think its a bar
and some people think its a scam
Comments
Ok now i have to step in here. If you actually understand that equation you will know that an object does indeed reach infinite mass at light speed, however you also need infinite amounts of energy to hit light speed so impossible. Warp drive is and adaptation of the alcuberie (sp) drive which compresses space in front and expands behind thus allowing ftl travel.
This drive would probably mean that there would be very little interaction with items outside the bubble.
Please do not quote scientific hypothesis and establish theory without understanding the principles.
(an object moving faster than light IS a perfect weapon and a ship EMERGING from or Entering warp is a FTL projectile (see picard manuveer))
As to actually reaching light speed requiring infinate energy not even close
right now objects are being accelerated to this speed
Um... First of all, the Alcubierre drive is a standard theory of possible FTL flight, made in the REAL world with REAL science by a REAL scientist.
Star Trek technology is "proven" by seeing it done on screen. it is based LOOSELY on actual science, which is why is it call Science Fiction. Part science, part fiction. Once Science has caught up with science fiction, Science always wins. HG wells wrote a book about traveling to the moon and what it would look like. He wrote that as you traveled, would feel Earth Gravity get weaker and weaker until you reach the midway point, where gravity from the Moon would become greater, and then you start to fall and walk on the moon-side of the craft. When we actually got to the moon, we found out that it did not work like that. Both you and the craft are travelling at the same speed, and from your point of reference inside the craft, you are floating the whole way. So, now when we think, talk or reference travel to the moon, we do not mention HG Welles and Cannons, We mention Apollo 11 and Neil Armstrong (May he rest in peace).
Therefore, The actually real world science still very much have a play in how Star Trek technology works.
Picard Maneuver Actaully... the Picard Maneuver has nothing to do with ramming the ship at warp speed... Picard shot the Stargazer forward at high warp and stopped, creating a light double of the ship. Since he accelerated past light, and therefore sensor speed, there was a brief moment where, on the targets sensors, there are two ships, one where the Stargazer REALLY is, and the other one from the light lag of where it was before. Picard then used this confusion to make and opening and fire upon the ship.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity and Actually... According to Big E himself, Everything approaches infinite at lightspeed, your Mass, your length contraction, time dilation, the works. Once you attempt to accelerate anything with a rest mass even close to the speed of light, it all goes through the roof. We can see this with Particle accelerators, as it takes a about 10.7589 F***tons of energy to accelerate electrons to merely 98% of the lightspeed. That is just an Electron, and it is still cannot reach the speed of light. Why? because the harder we push it, the more mass it gains. And it will gain kilograms of mass if it goes 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999% of the speed of light.
Particles maybe accelerated to CLOSE to this speed, but not AT lightspeed. And it still takes the aforementioned 10.7589 F***tons of energy to pull it off.
FTL travel is actually probably impossible (and any theory allowing for it is dubious at best)
.
actually real science is sometimes loosely based on star trek
(some medical devices are infact now in use that Mc coy used in Trek)
nah
Science fiction still tends to win
remember cold fusion (sci fi can do it so called Real science trys to fake it)
Jules Verne wrote a better one
which is actually True if you move slowly enough
actually the moons gravity was VITAL to landing the ship on it
Actually a Cannon Could work
And no we mention Jules Verne
and HERE Trek trumps modern
never said it did n
but he moved faster than light
at this point the stargazer had infinate mass
.
Big E old chap is actually a DUCK
you mean Little Albert
.
Turn on a pocket torch
you just created a light speed cascade (a very small one)
There are TRILLIONS of tiny particles moving at light speed through your house right now
Speed is a product of acceleration
and acceleration is not hard to generate
A small energy feed over a prolonged period is capable of the needed push
Photons move at the speed of light as indeed do a several other theoretical items
Particles maybe accelerated to CLOSE to this speed, but not AT lightspeed. And it still takes the aforementioned 10.7589 F***tons of energy to pull it off
or a 9 volt battery
Start accelerating today and keep going
eventually you will hit it
Actually there is some evidence that particles approaching Red holes are moving at crash speed (faster than light)
not that it matters as a Red holes gravity is so great that the light couldn't get out EITHER
(yes Red holes not black holes there is more wierdness in the cosmos than is imagined by even the most drunken student)
This is the sum of my Logical Rebuttal...
Also, sorry I reference the wrong author. I should have doubled checked that before referencing it.
so did mark twain (one of his fictional travel stories the man may never have left the USA AT ALL according to some sources)
But any logical answer in a trek discussion must be trek logic (ie mine is logical)
As to the Red and Black holes (some people claim white ones too)
these MAY exist (if the unverse is of fixed size)
??? Could you tell me the name of the story Mark Twain wrote about Lunar travel??? His bibliography does not contain any titles suggesting it, and I am not going to read all of them for the sake of this idoticity. So some reference points would be nice.
Star Trek attempts to present itself as science fiction. And as such, tries to follow the laws of physics as best as possible, barring the direct references otherwise. I write science fiction for fun. It is a hobby of mine. I study it. The cool thing is, that with proper writing, you can abolish any and all laws of common sense easily as long as long as you break them consistently You can say that in your universe, you can grow in size by eating a mushroom. Cool, but as soon as you show someone growing in size WITHOUT eating a mushroom, you just broke your own law of reality. So you either have to explain ANOTHER way that you can grow in size, or the entire thing becomes unbelievable.
Star Trek follows real world physics. They have rules they have to follow. The rules of Warp drive have set rules.. Follow those rules, and it made sense. Contradict yourself, and you have a problem. We must assume that every law of physics not directly referenced or explained must follow the same rules as this universe, as it is Science Fiction.
And finally, I never mentioned nor even nodded to Red holes, (Which I looked up, and are merely thought experiments on a weak black hole... not based on actual observations.) But since A.) they are not mentioned on Screen... B.) Are only theorized, and C.) have nothing to do with conversation. Please leave them out of the conversation until further noticed.
And... until Next time...
Picard would like to have a word with you.
correct me if im wrong. but wouldnt that mean when picard did the picard maneuver in the stargazer... did he not jump from directly infront of the ferengi ship to directly behind it? if i connect point a and point b along that path then... it would be going through the ferengi ship. meaning he WARPED THROUGH it like sollvax wanted to to do V'ger and kill it with "infinite mass"....
yet the ferengi ship was completely unharmed by a ship accelerating at high warp right through it.
oooh trek science beats his 'i wish it was trek science'.
*grabs popcorn*
amaze me...plz!
if we look at this post, you did say it...or atleast imly it
only one time i'd like to see some evidence to those claims you make.
Warp-ramming enemy ships: Riker attempted to do that to the Borg Cube in "The Best of Both Worlds, Part II". That would seem to indicate that it works as a weapon, though why it's so rarely used as a last resort is beyond me.
Picard maneuver: Presumably the Stargazer went past the Ferengi ship. So not technically "directly behind", but close enough to make the argument.
Star Trek science vs. real world science: It's clear that there is "science" in Trek (such as black holes being used for time travel) that don't match up with real world science, at least as far as we know. Those fictitious facts are still canon, even if we know they wouldn't really work. Fictitious science = science fiction.
"Critics who say that the optimistic utopia Star Trek depicted is now outmoded forget the cultural context that gave birth to it: Star Trek was not a manifestation of optimism when optimism was easy. Star Trek declared a hope for a future that nobody stuck in the present could believe in. For all our struggles today, we haven’t outgrown the need for stories like Star Trek. We need tales of optimism, of heroes, of courage and goodness now as much as we’ve ever needed them."
-Thomas Marrone
This has been known for a long... LONG time. :rolleyes:
And Psycoticvulcan, These extra-scientific facts maybe used and are definitely canon. However, they were also directly mentioned on screen. There have been many other Instances where the laws of physics are shown to work the same as they do in reality
*balls thrown arc and fall at a constant rate.
*Newton's Third applied in zero friction space (Most of the time :rolleyes: )
*Laws of Thermodynamics (i.e. Hot things get cooler over time in a cooler environment.)
and others.
This post has been edited to remove content which violates the Perfect World Entertainment Community Rules and Policies . ~syberghost
So unless *** can point to a specific canon reference that states that a ship at warp has infinite mass, we have to assume that such an action is both impossible and illogical. Without canon contradicting them directly, we have to assume that the normal laws of physics apply.
Otherwise, who's to say that the ship can't turn into the giant ball of technocolored yarn every time it goes to warp :rolleyes:
I object to being called a troll for not kissing the right backsides
Red holes and black holes either BOTH exist or neither does (as there is no directly observed black hole in the known cosmos)
The picard manuveer was a demonstration of Short distance translight speed
And as demonstrated a ship can Ram at warp (in theory it can warp INTO a target if your bent physics are applied)
As to hot things get cold (ice cream doesn't get colder)
the TRUE law of thermodynamics is
"any objects temperature will change in the direction of the ambient unless acted on by an external property"
(not exact wording but close enough for hard science)
Thus put icecream in the kitchen it melts and the chicken sandwich next to it goes cold
Sollvax i am sorry but you can not directly observe a black hole as you can not by any means see it, you can only see the effects of its presence, and pal, that has been observed already, please check your sources again.
There is no directly observable black hole in the known cosmos (and there definately isn't one in the middle of each galaxy as was once proposed by a particularly Drunken physics student I know (incidentally these days he and his BS degree work in burger king))
So, you'r saying all these Scientists are quacks and you some how know everything?
http://www.mstarz.com/articles/4407/20120830/supermassive-black-hole-millions-discovered-by-nasa.htm
http://io9.com/5939195/nasa-discovers-25-million-supermassive-black-holes
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/08/millions-of-black-holes/
http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/06/supermassive-black-hole-makes-a-break-for-it-escapes-its-galaxy/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/05/03/black_hole_x_ray_outbursts/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/05/03/galactic_black_hole_flare/
P.S. Of course black holes cant be observed by the naked eye..... since they absorb light they are nothing but a big black spot in space. we cant see an object unless we are seeing light bounce off it.
That is categorically false; objects with mass cannot be accelerated to light speed, have not been, and will never be. Science Fiction doesn't even try to claim this anymore, it's so proven. Star Trek doesn't even claim it's possible.
Photons are accelerated to light speed all the time
Double...
Facepalm...
Fail...
And the fail keeps on coming...
Only relativistic mass; their rest mass would be zero, if they were capable of resting. They are neither accelerated nor decelerated; they travel at light speed, period. Before you come back and say they don't, understand the difference between phase velocity, group velocity, and signal velocity.
black holes are theory
so are Unicorns (more people can claim to have seen a unicorn than a black hole)
Flying saucers
The Yeti
Bog men from venus etc
Never trust a man whose bread and butter is a theory
its not in his best interest to disprove it
then so is everything in trek. its all science technobabble theory. unless you can travel to a time and space where starfleet exsists and get physical proof thats how stuff works, trek science is just as bogus as real science then.
and anything physical has mass and anything with mass is physical
its all theories and hypotheticals sadly as there is not way to get a jar of photons for testing
Photons... do... not... have.. a rest mass!!!
They travel AT light speed and ONLY light speed.
And the theories of gravity, evolution, and other such things are very much considered real by sciencetist everywhere and are presented in high school science books as being pretty much fact. You cannot dismiss something just because it is a theory.
No, the second law of thermodynamics, which you're calling "the law of entropy", says they have to lose energy. They lose energy by redshifting, not by decelerating.
Getting a jar of photons is trivial (for proper values of "jar"), and they're tested every day around the world.
and its not taught in all schools
even the ones who Do teach it do not claim it has all the answers.
Gravity is an observed fact but the causes of it are still theory
its like millers law of toast (Toast will land butter side down in direct proportion to the value of your carpet)
it sounds cool but its only an idea
as to no rest mass they must have otherwise they have no mass at all (mass is a property of matter )
ok it may be too small to detect but it must be there otherwise there would be no particle to carry the charge of light
(again only a theory)
if light is a wave instead then photons would not actually exist
See this is why I stick to the Real universe
A steel bar is a steel bar
Edit Laws of Entropy
"Energy will always run down , everything decays , nothing physical is eternal"
or in the simplest and oldest terms
"everything dies"
Photons aren't matter.
I think the big problem here is that we all come at the universe as products of our education , culture and training
Some people genuinely believe in Quarks
Some people think its a bar
and some people think its a scam
Old Idea, and provides alot more proof than any alternative presented...
Light is both a wave and particles...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality