Current Sasuke vs Juubito and DMS Kakashi

[Rιver]

LMFAO...E = MC^2.



...

You must be registered for see images

You realize that light cannot escape a black hole, right? Why do you think they cannot escape a black hole? BECAUSE THE GRAVITY OF A BLACK HOLE PULLS THEM BACK TO THE HORIZON. Anything that has mass will be effected by gravity.



Too bad I know more than you do. Oh wait, you don't even know anything about what you're talking about. You're worthy to be on my ignore list.

So? Again, mass plays a zero factor. Mass is not energy. Energy is not mass. One can convert to another, but they are not the same.

The fact that you think light has mass proves that you have zero knowledge on physics. Photons, which make up light have no, again, no mass. It's like fire. It's energy and not mass. No, don't bring E=Mc2 because you don't get that either and it's been debunked.

Black hole can pull it not because of it's gravitational pull towards mass, but because it literally bends spacetime.

Your ignorance won't help you here.

 

[Unorthodox]

Dimitri is such a troll trying to make gai seem like a factor solo glance gg for gai

 

[wael reda]

it is funny how some people sasuke wins while he can't even counter successive 2 kamui snipe

his new ps lightening arrows can be countred by kamui shrukens, while ps’s neck can be sniped with kamui

I really can't see how sasuke will win ,obito can even summon the jiubi to nuke sasuke with successive mini ttb

 

[Lana Del Taka]

Lol, Sasuke neg diffs. Can't believe this was even discussed.

 

[Unorthodox]

it is funny how some people sasuke wins while he can't even counter successive 2 kamui snipe

his new ps lightening arrows can be countred by kamui shrukens, while ps’s neck can be sniped with kamui

I really can't see how sasuke will win ,obito can even summon the jiubi to nuke sasuke with successive mini ttb

you think BM Minato is equal to Rinnegan Sasuke & RM Naruto no explanation is needed for you in the fact that your still saying kamui snipe when A. Sasuke miles ahead of Kakashi line of sight dodges with utmost ease and he can warp himself aswell.

 

[Apêx1]

DBZ has different physics mechanics than Naruto. Why are you comparing them?

It was simply an example, I used it to justify why there's 0 chance for Gai to be anywhere near the speed of light, and that's a fact.


On your scientific debate, I will just add that around a black hole, the distortion of space-time is extreme. At the event horizon of a black hole, the space-time curves into itself and thus, light can't escape from the black hole. We know that while photons have no mass, they do possess momentum. We also know that photons are affected by gravitational fields not because of their mass, but because gravitational fields (in particular, strong gravitational fields) change the shape of space-time. The photons are responding to the curvature in space-time, not directly to the gravitational field. Space-time is the four-dimensional "space" we live in -- there are 3 spatial dimensions (think of X,Y, and Z) and one time dimension. This should clear it up, unless there is something unclear, then I can rephrase.

 

[TRE MERCER]

How?


Nope,

You must be registered for see links

Never mind i forget about Sasuke glance genjutsu. So yea he wins. Low-med difficulty.

 

[Rιver]

It was simply an example, I used it to justify why there's 0 chance for Gai to be anywhere near the speed of light, and that's a fact.


On your scientific debate, I will just add that around a black hole, the distortion of space-time is extreme. At the event horizon of a black hole, the space-time curves into itself and thus, light can't escape from the black hole. We know that while photons have no mass, they do possess momentum. We also know that photons are affected by gravitational fields not because of their mass, but because gravitational fields (in particular, strong gravitational fields) change the shape of space-time. The photons are responding to the curvature in space-time, not directly to the gravitational field. Space-time is the four-dimensional "space" we live in -- there are 3 spatial dimensions (think of X,Y, and Z) and one time dimension. This should clear it up, unless there is something unclear, then I can rephrase.

Inb4 he still argues against this fact, lol.

 

[Benjamin King]

It was simply an example, I used it to justify why there's 0 chance for Gai to be anywhere near the speed of light, and that's a fact.


On your scientific debate, I will just add that around a black hole, the distortion of space-time is extreme. At the event horizon of a black hole, the space-time curves into itself and thus, light can't escape from the black hole. We know that while photons have no mass, they do possess momentum. We also know that photons are affected by gravitational fields not because of their mass, but because gravitational fields (in particular, strong gravitational fields) change the shape of space-time. The photons are responding to the curvature in space-time, not directly to the gravitational field. Space-time is the four-dimensional "space" we live in -- there are 3 spatial dimensions (think of X,Y, and Z) and one time dimension. This should clear it up, unless there is something unclear, then I can rephrase.

Examples don't apply if their functioning differs.

No...

A black hole is a region of spacetime from which gravity prevents anything, including light, from escaping.[1] The theory of general relativity predicts that a sufficiently compact mass will deform spacetime to form a black hole.[2] The boundary of the region from which no escape is possible is called the event horizon. Although crossing the event horizon has enormous effect on the fate of the object crossing it, it appears to have no locally detectable features. In many ways a black hole acts like an ideal black body, as it reflects no light.[3][4] Moreover, quantum field theory in curved spacetime predicts that event horizons emit Hawking radiation, with the same spectrum as a black body of a temperature inversely proportional to its mass. This temperature is on the order of billionths of a kelvin for black holes of stellar mass, making it all but impossible to observe

You must be registered for see links

If the force of gravity becomes very powerful, time and space are bended noticeable. That is the reason why light can't escape it. Not because space-time are bended, but because space-time itself are bended by the gravity as well as the light. And light have mass proven by Einstein's equation: E = MC2. Nothing to argue here, all proven by science.

 

[Unorthodox]

Quit using this science nonsense in NarutoManga debates it doesnt apply. Gai didnt even get faster before the Night moth it was the sheer power that disorted space not his speed so its irrelevant gai uses NM sasuke tanks it, Uses his giant chidori susanoo arrow thang, or simply warps out the way. Madara's eye kept up with gai easy

You must be registered for see images

Solo glance Gg not like his susanoo cant tank anything gai dishing out anyways

 

[Conspirator.]

Examples don't apply if their functioning differs.

No...

You must be registered for see links

If the force of gravity becomes very powerful, time and space are bended noticeable. That is the reason why light can't escape it. Not because space-time are bended, but because space-time itself are bended by the gravity as well as the light. And light have mass proven by Einstein's equation: E = MC2. Nothing to argue here, all proven by science.

@bold
If I understand what you are saying, then no. I am pretty sure Einstein's E=MC2 does not prove that light(or the photons that make it up) has "mass", since the equation is only used for "Relativistic Mass", which obviously changes with velocity(and leads to things like time dilation, length contraction etc), . In physics, relativistic mass is not what is called "mass", but the rest mass value is used, which is not applicable to the equation. The "rest mass" of a photon is commonly accepted as zero I believe.

 

[Benjamin King]

@bold
If I understand what you are saying, then no. I am pretty sure Einstein's E=MC2 does not prove that light(or the photons that make it up) has "mass", since the equation is only used for "Relativistic Mass", which obviously changes with velocity(and leads to things like time dilation, length contraction etc), . In physics, relativistic mass is not what is called "mass", but the rest mass value is used, which is not applicable to the equation. The "rest mass" of a photon is commonly accepted as zero I believe.

An interview has already been made and answered by a scientist. The word ''mass'' is interpreted different ways in physics. The fact light is affected by the gravitational force, means it has some form of ''mass''.

The use of words can make a lot of confusion. Unfortunately, the word "mass" has been used in two different ways in physics. One was the way Einstein used it in E=mc2, where mass is really just the same thing as energy (E) but measured in different units. This is the same "m" that you multiply velocity by to find momentum (p), and thus is sometimes called the inertial mass. It's also the mass that provides the source of gravitational effects. Light has this "m" because it has energy. So it is indeed affected by gravity- not just in black holes but in all sorts of less extreme situations too. In fact, the first important confirmation of General Relativity came in 1919, when it was found that light from stars bends as it goes by the Sun.

The other way "mass" is often used, especially in recent years, is to mean "rest mass" or "invariant mass", which is sqrt(E2-p2*c2)/c2. This is invariant because it doesn't change when you describe an object at rest or from the point of view of someone who says it's moving. Obviously that's a good type of "mass" to give when you want to make a list of masses of particles. For a light beam traveling in a single direction, E=pc, so this "m" is zero. There is no point of view from which the light is standing still!

However, once you consider light traveling in a variety of directions, the E's from the different parts just add up to give the total E but the vector p's don't. In fact the total p can be zero if there are beams traveling opposite ways. So for many purposes the older definition of m (the inertial mass) is more convenient than the invariant particle mass, since it's the inertial mass that's just the sum of the inertial masses of the parts. For light moving equally in all directions, like the light bouncing around inside a star, total p is zero, so both definitions just give m=E/c2.

You must be registered for see links

Anything with mass is automatically affected by gravity. Fact. The fact light is effected by black holes, which are gravitational forces implies light has some form of ''mass''.

 

[Apêx1]

An interview has already been made and answered by a scientist. The word ''mass'' is interpreted different ways in physics. The fact light is affected by the gravitational force, means it has some form of ''mass''.

You must be registered for see links

Anything with mass is automatically affected by gravity. Fact. The fact light is effected by black holes, which are gravitational forces implies light has some form of ''mass''.

Incorrect once again.
E2 = m^2c^4+(pc)^2 is the correct equation. Thus m=0 and p is momentum which is non-zero.
E = mc^2 is only valid if the object is still, whereas light isn't still.

 

[Rιver]

Wow - I can't believe it, but called it. This guy actually thinks light has mass.

No need to try convince him anymore.

 

[Conspirator.]

An interview has already been made and answered by a scientist. The word ''mass'' is interpreted different ways in physics. The fact light is affected by the gravitational force, means it has some form of ''mass''.

You must be registered for see links

Anything with mass is automatically affected by gravity. Fact. The fact light is effected by black holes, which are gravitational forces implies light has some form of ''mass''.

@bold
What? I was under the impression that Physicists accept that photons are affected by gravitational fields, but that does not mean they have mass. The reason photons/light are affected by gravitational fields is because the fields change the very shape of space-time itself, so the photons are responding to these changes.(the curvature), not the actual force of gravity itself directly.

 

[Rιver]

No, I bet we are all pressured by the light's mass radiating from the sun. So heavy can't even lift it.

 

[Benjamin King]

Incorrect once again.
E2 = m^2c^4+(pc)^2 is the correct equation. Thus m=0 and p is momentum which is non-zero.
E = mc^2 is only valid if the object is still, whereas light isn't still.

I'm talking about relativistic mass.

@bold
What? I was under the impression that Physicists accept that photons are affected by gravitational fields, but that does not mean they have mass. The reason photons/light are affected by gravitational fields is because the fields change the very shape of space-time itself, so the photons are responding to these changes.(the curvature), not the actual force of gravity itself directly.

The space-time itself is affected by gravity. Or should I say...powerful gravity (black hole).

 

[Apêx1]

I'm talking about relativistic mass.



The space-time itself is affected by gravity. Or should I say...powerful gravity (black hole).

I don't know where you are reading your stuff or if you were taught incorrectly at school, fact remains that you haven't realised the difference between common term mass and invariant mass. E=pc so a photon has 0 invariant mass. Note that a photon can have an invariant mass while also having energy. You are claiming they do have the mass because of the equation E=mc^2, however you fail to realise your own contradiction. School textbooks often denote Einstein's equation E=mc^2 even though it is actually E0=mc^2. E0 is rest mass, thus E0=MC^2 is not about relativistic speed, but rest mass. The correct notation for invariant mass is a completely different equation as denoted here

You must be registered for see images

and as I previously established, E=pc so it is 0.
Edit; this is established with my previous post. Use your equation but m becomes mrel=relativistic speed. Thus you find the relativistic speed with this and then plug and play;

You must be registered for see images

 

[Rιver]

I don't know where you are reading your stuff or if you were taught incorrectly at school, fact remains that you haven't realised the difference between common term mass and invariant mass. E=pc so a photon has 0 invariant mass. Note that a photon can have an invariant mass while also having energy. You are claiming they do have the mass because of the equation E=mc^2, however you fail to realise your own contradiction. School textbooks often denote Einstein's equation E=mc^2 even though it is actually E0=mc^2. E0 is rest mass, thus E0=MC^2 is not about relativistic speed, but rest mass. The correct notation for invariant mass is a completely different equation as denoted here

You must be registered for see images

and as I previously established, E=pc so it is 0.
Edit; this is established with my previous post. Use your equation but m becomes mrel=relativistic speed. Thus you find the relativistic speed with this and then plug and play;

You must be registered for see images

...

You must be registered for see images

 

[Unorthodox]

yall boys really arguing over this using equations Lmao