Author Topic: No Black Holes?  (Read 1006 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11199
  • Darwins +294/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: No Black Holes?
« Reply #29 on: June 19, 2014, 06:21:50 PM »
I believe they've done the calculations using the Schwarzschild equation and showed that it does increase faster.  Or so I understand from reading wiki articles and such.

OK then. I'll trust you have done your research.

Granted, but I don't think we've actually observed a star collapsing into a black hole, so at the moment we don't know for sure what happens to it; all we have is predictions.

I recall hearing about a star that had already become a red super-giant, but I can't seem to find the article, so I guess we'll just agree to disagree here.

I did look up to see how fast pulsars can spin, which is as much as 3000 times per second before the angular momentum should overcome the star's gravity.  So a black hole would have to be spinning faster than that to avoid a collapse.  Since we can't observe a black hole's mass directly, I don't know how we could tell how quickly it was spinning.

Well, technically we can, we just need to find a way to survive the spaghettification (it's a real term; look it up) and look with our eyes.
Personal note: I think a black hole, if we could observe it, would be indescribably beautiful; brighter than a blazar[1] and the space-time distortions would be amazing.

There's also a possibility that it could be spinning rapidly enough to keep from collapsing without actually coming apart.  I don't know how fast it would need to spin to do that, however.  Also, the Schwarzschild metric (how they calculate the radius before it turns into a black hole) apparently doesn't apply to a rotating object, which complicates things.

Why not? I can understand it not applying to, say, a rotating sponge, but a black hole should be very close to a rigid body.

Ah, my mistake.  I was referring to a different article which said that the matter might end up elsewhere in the universe or in another universe entirely.

For a second there I thought that was the same article and that I just had missed it.
White holes, IMO, are stupid. You'd think that with the enormous number of black holes in the Universe, we'd have seen giant holes of light pumping out energy and matter like they're throwing up after drinking too much, seemingly out of nowhere, then disappear. At the very least, we should be able to observe a string of particles appearing out of nowhere, then combining (as particles do, if they can) and emitting radiation. Not once has either situation been observed. EDIT: There is something, however, that has been observed, is unexplained, and could be linked to this: high-energy cosmic rays. Also, black holes gain mass with what they consume. As far as I know, this has been observed, and the mass they gain is the same that they absorb. If black holes could, in fact, dump all their matter elsewhere, they would not gain any mass and evaporate very quickly, seeing as how they spend a lot of energy.

Regarding your follow-up question, I haven't really worked with that level of math before, and thus I'm not sure how well I could work with it.  Also, as I stated before, the problem with plugging an infinity (such as the infinite density that a singularity is believed to have) into an equation is, what do you do then?

Is this related to white holes or the other question that I've quoted twice? I'll assume it's the other question.
There's a way to calculate integrals with singularities, but it's not relevant to this (I think; if you disagree, say so and I'll dig up my old notebooks and try to teach you).
If you ignore the singularity (assume it doesn't exist), and the calculations don't match the observations, you will have disproven the hypothesis. If the calculations do match the hypothesis, it's evidence that the hypothesis is right.

Can I be your second?  I mean, if you're going to eviscerate your intestines, it might help to have someone ready to chop your head off before it gets to be too painful.

Thank you, jaimehlers. Very helpful, as always.
 1. According to what I've read, black holes do emit light, but the light is simply re-absorbed after traveling a certain distance.
« Last Edit: June 19, 2014, 06:27:42 PM by One Above All »
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken/Lucifer/All In One/Orion.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12544
  • Darwins +301/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: No Black Holes?
« Reply #30 on: June 19, 2014, 07:10:58 PM »
Why not? I can understand it not applying to, say, a rotating sponge, but a black hole should be very close to a rigid body.

A rigid body?  What would hold it rigid?  Inter-particle forces are what hold rigid bodies rigid.  But the forces inside of a black hold should easily overcome any such forces.  Matter should be torn apart rather than held rigid.
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11199
  • Darwins +294/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: No Black Holes?
« Reply #31 on: June 19, 2014, 07:25:55 PM »
A rigid body?  What would hold it rigid?  Inter-particle forces are what hold rigid bodies rigid.  But the forces inside of a black hold should easily overcome any such forces.  Matter should be torn apart rather than held rigid.

Interestingly, black holes are not as rigid as I thought. Apparently, the event horizon of the supermassive black hole at the center of our galaxy is crescent-shaped.
http://www.space.com/19324-black-holes-first-images.html
I thought the enormous gravitational pull would keep it from deforming too much.[1]
 1. Yes, I realize gravity doesn't mean crap to particles, but I thought that, taking into account the fact that black holes are so dense, the gravity would be enough to force particles to interact (maybe even fuse into interesting new and/or rare particles) and keep them at a semi-constant distance from each other.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken/Lucifer/All In One/Orion.

Offline Defiance

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 794
  • Darwins +28/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • Can't be mad at something that doesn't exist.
Re: No Black Holes?
« Reply #32 on: June 19, 2014, 08:25:48 PM »
Since we're on black holes, can someone clarify to Luk why black holes do not violate the law of conservation of mass? I tried but I think he just brushed it aside.
"God is just and fair"
*God kills 2.5 million of people he KNEW would turn out like this in the flood*
*Humanity turns bad again, when God knew it would*
We should feel guilty for this.

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11199
  • Darwins +294/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: No Black Holes?
« Reply #33 on: June 19, 2014, 08:27:26 PM »
Since we're on black holes, can someone clarify to Luk why black holes do not violate the law of conservation of mass? I tried but I think he just brushed it aside.

To convince Lukvance of anything, you need hypnosis, brainwashing, and the ability to speak backwards fluently. It's the only way anything will get through his thick skull.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken/Lucifer/All In One/Orion.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5242
  • Darwins +599/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: No Black Holes?
« Reply #34 on: June 19, 2014, 11:32:05 PM »
I was not particularly good at calculus, and I've long since forgotten how to integrate.  It didn't help that I never learned trig in the first place and my calculus teachers simply assumed that I would pick it up as I went through the class.  I still barely understand what sin, cos, and tan are, let alone how to do anything with them.

Offline dloubet

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1409
  • Darwins +83/-1
  • Gender: Male
    • Denisloubet.com
Re: No Black Holes?
« Reply #35 on: June 20, 2014, 05:09:57 AM »
I have a question about black holes that I've never had answered in any way that makes sense.

If, to an outside observer, it takes "forever" due to time dilation for a particle to reach the event horizon of a black hole, how does a black hole "gobble" anything? I'm assuming the time dilation is not some sort of optical illusion or after-image, and that to an outside observer the particle actually never gets to the event horizon.

Is my assumption completely wrong?
Denis Loubet

Offline Defiance

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 794
  • Darwins +28/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • Can't be mad at something that doesn't exist.
Re: No Black Holes?
« Reply #36 on: June 20, 2014, 05:47:04 AM »
No, you're not wrong, completely.
Just that the light that comes off of the black hole is affected in speed. Let me demonstrate.

If I were to jump into the orbit of a black hole, my body would now be in an area of extremely spatial warp, (and time). You, say, we're on a spaceship a safe distance away watching. The light that comes off my body has to travel through te extreme spatial distortion, as the immense gravity of a black hole pulls down even light. Now light CAN escape if it is not yet touching the event horizon. But even if its not, it will be slowed down greatly to the point where it takes literally forever for all the light to get through the heavy distortion, and make it to your eyes. Also, you would never see me getting gobbled up, just that my body would seem to be getting redder and redder, because of the redshift in light caused by the intense gravitational pull on light waves trying to get back out. And after a while, I would just fade away. That "while" is a LONG time, however long it takes for the final free lucky photons to make it out of the death well.

Now for ME, it would go differently. As I approach, the extreme difference in tidal forces would spaghettify (yes it's a real word) me. Meaning it would pull harder on my feet (if I was going in feet first), and less on my head, causing an elongation of my body. After a while, I would simply get ripped to shreds, becoming an addition to the mass of the black hole.

Hope that helps, bud. :)
"God is just and fair"
*God kills 2.5 million of people he KNEW would turn out like this in the flood*
*Humanity turns bad again, when God knew it would*
We should feel guilty for this.

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11199
  • Darwins +294/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: No Black Holes?
« Reply #37 on: June 20, 2014, 05:52:22 AM »
I was not particularly good at calculus, and I've long since forgotten how to integrate.  It didn't help that I never learned trig in the first place and my calculus teachers simply assumed that I would pick it up as I went through the class.  I still barely understand what sin, cos, and tan are, let alone how to do anything with them.

Sin of an angle is the ratio between the side of a right triangle that is farthest away from that angle and the hypotenuse (that is, sin(x) = farthest side/hypotenuse). Cos is the same, only it's the side adjacent to the angle (cos(x) = closest side/hypotenuse). Tan is sin/cos (tan(x) = sin(x)/cos(x) = farthest side/closest side). There are several properties of these functions[1], the most important of which (it's called the "Fundamental equation of Trigonometry" in Portuguese) being that sin2(x) + cos2(x) = 1. This is demonstrable by the Pythagorean theorem. If the sum of squares of the sides of a right triangle are equal to the square of the hypotenuse, then the sum of the squares of cosine and sine will be equal to one. Put simply,
(closest side)2 + (farthest side)2 = hypotenuse2
(closest side)2 + (farthest side)2/hypotenuse2 = 1
Now, because sin = farthest side/hypotenuse and cos = closest side/hypotenuse, when you square them and add them up, you get:
(closest side/hypotenuse)2 + (farthest side/hypotenuse)2
(closest side)2/hypotenuse2 + (farthest side)2/hypotenuse2
(closest side)2 + (farthest side)2/hypotenuse2, which, as I've proven above, is 1.

There are other equations, but I have no clue how to prove them. :P

I have a question about black holes that I've never had answered in any way that makes sense.

If, to an outside observer, it takes "forever" due to time dilation for a particle to reach the event horizon of a black hole, how does a black hole "gobble" anything? I'm assuming the time dilation is not some sort of optical illusion or after-image, and that to an outside observer the particle actually never gets to the event horizon.

Is my assumption completely wrong?

Time dilation is real, but you're not taking into account the particles' perspective. Take the photon, for example. According to relativity, the photon "sees" itself at every point of its trajectory all at once. To it, no time passes from the moment it is emitted to the moment it reaches the "edge" of the Universe. However, we know its speed to be finite. For the particles being sucked into the black hole, everything around them is speeding up very quickly the more they approach the black hole, but they themselves don't really speed up beyond what is to be expected from a high gravitational pull.

No, you're not wrong, completely.
Just that the light that comes off of the black hole is affected in speed.
<snip>

If it were possible to slow down light, General Relativity would fall apart. The speed of light is constant and independent of the frame of reference. I don't care if you're traveling into a sun or into a black hole, the speed of light is constant. Even in a physical medium, it's still constant. We just see it as being slower because it's constantly bouncing around off of particles, but it's bouncing around at the speed of light in a vacuum (c).

Now for ME, it would go differently. As I approach, the extreme difference in tidal forces would spaghettify (yes it's a real word) me. Meaning it would pull harder on my feet (if I was going in feet first), and less on my head, causing an elongation of my body. After a while, I would simply get ripped to shreds, becoming an addition to the mass of the black hole.

I am well aware of what happens in a black hole, and I've already mentioned spaghettification. Seriously.
 1. Which are called transcendental functions, by the way, meaning that they can't be expressed by sums, subtractions, multiplications, or divisions, although there are approximations using other transcendental functions.
« Last Edit: June 20, 2014, 05:55:07 AM by One Above All »
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken/Lucifer/All In One/Orion.

Offline Defiance

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 794
  • Darwins +28/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • Can't be mad at something that doesn't exist.
Re: No Black Holes?
« Reply #38 on: June 20, 2014, 05:57:00 AM »
No, I know what I said. Light is constant but for the sake of simplicity, I just said it would take longer to get to the observer. My mistake.

Yes, from the perspective of the photon you maybe correct. But we're talking about an OUTSIDE ovserver watching the photon. Doesn't matter how the photon "sees" anything, just how the observer sees it flying through space.

And this wasn't for you, One. I wrote a simple little story to help the person above me who wanted to know something. Your and Jaime's aren't exactly "simple and little". :)
"God is just and fair"
*God kills 2.5 million of people he KNEW would turn out like this in the flood*
*Humanity turns bad again, when God knew it would*
We should feel guilty for this.

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11199
  • Darwins +294/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: No Black Holes?
« Reply #39 on: June 20, 2014, 06:19:36 AM »
No, I know what I said. Light is constant but for the sake of simplicity, I just said it would take longer to get to the observer. My mistake.

...What you just said contradicts itself. If the speed of light is constant, then it doesn't take longer to get to the observer. Time dilation does not affect the speed of light. Neither does the speed at which the observer is traveling. We've measured the speed of light on Earth, at various locations and with high precision[1], and there has been no variation whatsoever. If time dilation affected the speed of light, just measuring in a different area would screw up the result entirely.

Yes, from the perspective of the photon you maybe correct. But we're talking about an OUTSIDE ovserver watching the photon. Doesn't matter how the photon "sees" anything, just how the observer sees it flying through space.

Again, the observer sees the photon traveling at the exact same speed all the time (as long as it's in a vacuum; our eyes can't perceive light bouncing off of particles), regardless of the conditions.

And this wasn't for you, One. I wrote a simple little story to help the person above me who wanted to know something.

Now I see my mistake. I had just finished writing a response to dloubet and for some reason thought you were talking to me.

Your and Jaime's aren't exactly "simple and little". :)

???
I wrote one three-line paragraph. You wrote two paragraphs, one consisting of four lines and another consisting of two.
 1. Right down to the last meter per second, in fact.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken/Lucifer/All In One/Orion.

Offline Defiance

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 794
  • Darwins +28/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • Can't be mad at something that doesn't exist.
Re: No Black Holes?
« Reply #40 on: June 20, 2014, 06:34:40 AM »
What?

Use an example:

There's a flashlight 600,000 miles away. There's also a black hole, 600,000 miles in a different direction.

Are you tellin me that the observer at point zero from the two will see light that left the two objects at at the same time, at the same time?

If a photon luckily got flung out from the black hole, it still has to travel through the distortion a of the black hole to get out ( into normal time and space) and reach the observer.

Flashlight would just let the photon go straight through space at the full speed, without the obstacle of distortions which would cause the photon a longer distance to travel, even IF it never loses speed.

That's what I meant by slowing down, that although the speed might be the same, the space is warped and the photon had to travel a larger distance.
« Last Edit: June 20, 2014, 06:47:13 AM by Defiance »
"God is just and fair"
*God kills 2.5 million of people he KNEW would turn out like this in the flood*
*Humanity turns bad again, when God knew it would*
We should feel guilty for this.

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11199
  • Darwins +294/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: No Black Holes?
« Reply #41 on: June 20, 2014, 06:37:55 AM »
What?

Use an example:

There's a flashlight 600,000 miles away. There's also a black hole, 600,000 miles in a different direction.

Are you tellin me that the observer at point zero from there two will see light that left the two o ejects at the same time will reach you at the same time?

If a photon luckily got flung out from the black hole, it still has to travel through the distortion a of the black hole to get out ( into normal time a d space) and reach the observer.

I don't understand what this means. There are too many grammatical and spelling errors.

Flashlight would just let the photon go straight through space at the full speed, without the obstacle of distortions which would cause the photon a longer distance to travel, even IF it never loses speed.

That's what I meant by slowing down, that although te speed might be the same, the space is warped and the photon had to travel a larger distance.

Now there's another problem. Time dilates with high gravity and speed, but space contracts, so there's a smaller distance to travel through.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken/Lucifer/All In One/Orion.

Offline Defiance

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 794
  • Darwins +28/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • Can't be mad at something that doesn't exist.
Re: No Black Holes?
« Reply #42 on: June 20, 2014, 06:45:20 AM »
Fixed literally three things.

Anyways, since I seem to be an idiot, what is the reason for the observer to see me taking forever to fall into the black hole?
"God is just and fair"
*God kills 2.5 million of people he KNEW would turn out like this in the flood*
*Humanity turns bad again, when God knew it would*
We should feel guilty for this.

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11199
  • Darwins +294/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: No Black Holes?
« Reply #43 on: June 20, 2014, 06:47:02 AM »
Fixed literally three things.

Are you saying that's too few? Because it's not.

Anyways, since I seem to be an idiot,

Your words and thoughts; not mine.

what is the reason for the observer to see me taking forever to fall into the black hole?

Because you are not light. While light is still coming off of you at the same rate, you yourself are moving much more slowly. If you were light, you'd just go in a (more or less) straight line and disappear at a time proportional to your speed (which would be constant).
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken/Lucifer/All In One/Orion.

Offline Defiance

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 794
  • Darwins +28/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • Can't be mad at something that doesn't exist.
Re: No Black Holes?
« Reply #44 on: June 20, 2014, 06:48:53 AM »
Fixed literally three things.

Anyways, since I seem to be an idiot, what is the reason for the observer to see me taking forever to fall into the black hole?

Because you are not light. While light is still coming off of you at the same rate, you yourself are moving much more slowly. If you were light, you'd just go in a (more or less) straight line and disappear at a time proportional to your speed.
Ah ok. So why would there still be an "image of me" red shifting even after I have fallen into the black hole?
"God is just and fair"
*God kills 2.5 million of people he KNEW would turn out like this in the flood*
*Humanity turns bad again, when God knew it would*
We should feel guilty for this.

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11199
  • Darwins +294/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: No Black Holes?
« Reply #45 on: June 20, 2014, 06:52:50 AM »
Ah ok. So why would there still be an "image of me" red shifting even after I have fallen into the black hole?

How long after? Because light is not instantaneous.
Also, I edited my post after you quoted it. Please re-read it.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken/Lucifer/All In One/Orion.

Offline Defiance

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 794
  • Darwins +28/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • Can't be mad at something that doesn't exist.
Re: No Black Holes?
« Reply #46 on: June 20, 2014, 06:55:41 AM »
Hmm, lets say until the image disappears.

And I'm not saying the speed of the photon changed. I'm am saying that te distance and time is warped in such a fashion where light takes longer to reach the person.

Please excuse my grammar, I'm on a phone and it has an autocorrect.
« Last Edit: June 20, 2014, 06:57:17 AM by Defiance »
"God is just and fair"
*God kills 2.5 million of people he KNEW would turn out like this in the flood*
*Humanity turns bad again, when God knew it would*
We should feel guilty for this.

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11199
  • Darwins +294/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: No Black Holes?
« Reply #47 on: June 20, 2014, 07:10:18 AM »
Hmm, lets say until the image disappears.

Yes, I understand that. How long does that take?

And I'm not saying the speed of the photon changed. I'm am saying that te distance and time is warped in such a fashion where light takes longer to reach the person.

Yes, time is moving more slowly. However, space has also contracted. See the problem?
Light doesn't take longer to reach the observer; it is simply, as you correctly said, red-shifted. It loses energy, but not speed. Light cannot slow down, in any frame of reference. If it took longer to reach the observer, then it would have, in fact, slowed down. Speed (in SI units) is meters per second (m/s). If the seconds increase, the speed decreases. This is simply impossible with light.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken/Lucifer/All In One/Orion.

Offline Defiance

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 794
  • Darwins +28/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • Can't be mad at something that doesn't exist.
Re: No Black Holes?
« Reply #48 on: June 20, 2014, 07:17:19 AM »
I don't know how long it takes. Guess. But it still hangs around after I've fallen in.

So basically, the time and space distortions cancel out so that light ends up being the same velocity even seen from outside?

By the way, how sure are you about this? What I had originally thought now seems wrong, so I want to make sure I get the right information.

"God is just and fair"
*God kills 2.5 million of people he KNEW would turn out like this in the flood*
*Humanity turns bad again, when God knew it would*
We should feel guilty for this.

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11199
  • Darwins +294/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: No Black Holes?
« Reply #49 on: June 20, 2014, 07:25:05 AM »
I don't know how long it takes. Guess. But it still hangs around after I've fallen in.

I can't guess. It might be just the time it takes for the light to go from your body to the observers, in which case it's expected (in fact, it's normal; nothing in the Universe is instantaneous), or it might be several decades, which can't happen. If it's the latter, I'll need sources.

So basically, the time and space distortions cancel out so that light ends up being the same velocity even seen from outside?

By the way, how sure are you about this? What I had originally thought now seems wrong, so I want to make sure I get the right information.

Well, now that I've thought about this some more, I'm not so sure. The equation for time dilation is relative to the observer outside the time dilation itself, while the equation for spatial contraction is relative to the one experiencing the time dilation. Google isn't helping much either. All I'm getting are websites asking about the effects of speed on time dilation, when what I want is the effect of time dilation on the speed of light.
EDIT: However, I am 100% certain that light cannot slow down, regardless of the frame of reference, so my doubts above may be moot.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken/Lucifer/All In One/Orion.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12682
  • Darwins +709/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: No Black Holes?
« Reply #50 on: June 20, 2014, 08:59:25 AM »
Since we're on black holes, can someone clarify to Luk why black holes do not violate the law of conservation of mass?

No.  No one can clarify for him.  He lacks the background to understand.  It'd be like trying to clarify geopolitics to your cat.

(edit: rephrased it nicer)


If it were possible to slow down light, General Relativity would fall apart. The speed of light is constant and independent of the frame of reference. I don't care if you're traveling into a sun or into a black hole, the speed of light is constant. Even in a physical medium, it's still constant. We just see it as being slower because it's constantly bouncing around off of particles, but it's bouncing around at the speed of light in a vacuum (c).

?

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/1999/02.18/light.html
Quote
Light, which normally travels the 240,000 miles from the Moon to Earth in less than two seconds, has been slowed to the speed of a minivan in rush-hour traffic -- 38 miles an hour.

this was 15 years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slow_light
Quote
Hau later succeeded in stopping light completely, and developed methods by which it can be stopped and later restarted.

« Last Edit: June 20, 2014, 09:05:45 AM by screwtape »
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11199
  • Darwins +294/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: No Black Holes?
« Reply #51 on: June 20, 2014, 09:10:21 AM »
?
<snip>

I see the problem here. My apologies. In Portuguese, the words "velocity" and "speed" are the same: "velocidade". However, the concepts are not. Speed is basically the distance between points A and B, divided by how long it took for you to move from point A to point B (we call this "velocidade m├ędia"). Velocity, on the other hand, is how quickly you're moving at each point in your trajectory. So, to correct my statement, the velocity of light is invariant in any and all frames of reference, including light's own (that is, if you were a photon, you'd "see" other photons whizzing by you at the same velocity than a stationary human would).
« Last Edit: June 20, 2014, 09:11:52 AM by One Above All »
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken/Lucifer/All In One/Orion.

Offline dloubet

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1409
  • Darwins +83/-1
  • Gender: Male
    • Denisloubet.com
Re: No Black Holes?
« Reply #52 on: June 20, 2014, 06:26:44 PM »
I don't know how long it takes. Guess. But it still hangs around after I've fallen in.

I can't guess. It might be just the time it takes for the light to go from your body to the observers, in which case it's expected (in fact, it's normal; nothing in the Universe is instantaneous), or it might be several decades, which can't happen. If it's the latter, I'll need sources.

So basically, the time and space distortions cancel out so that light ends up being the same velocity even seen from outside?

By the way, how sure are you about this? What I had originally thought now seems wrong, so I want to make sure I get the right information.

Well, now that I've thought about this some more, I'm not so sure. The equation for time dilation is relative to the observer outside the time dilation itself, while the equation for spatial contraction is relative to the one experiencing the time dilation. Google isn't helping much either. All I'm getting are websites asking about the effects of speed on time dilation, when what I want is the effect of time dilation on the speed of light.
EDIT: However, I am 100% certain that light cannot slow down, regardless of the frame of reference, so my doubts above may be moot.

My understanding is that space is stretched near the black hole such that the "surface" of the event horizon is infinitely far away. That's why it takes forever for the falling object to get there. In the 2D stretched rubber sheet model, the funnel created by the black hole is bottomless. The end of the funnel is infinitely distant below the surface of the sheet, and the falling object has to travel that infinite distance to get to the bottom. and escaping light has to travel that nearly infinite distance to get to the outside observer. Is this completely wrong?
« Last Edit: June 20, 2014, 06:28:36 PM by dloubet »
Denis Loubet

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11199
  • Darwins +294/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: No Black Holes?
« Reply #53 on: June 20, 2014, 06:32:00 PM »
My understanding is that space is stretched near the black hole such that the "surface" of the event horizon is infinitely far away. That's why it takes forever for the falling object to get there. In the 2D stretched rubber sheet model, the funnel created by the black hole is bottomless. The end of the funnel is infinitely distant below the surface of the sheet, and the falling object has to travel that infinite distance to get to the bottom. and escaping light has to travel that nearly infinite distance to get to the outside observer. Is this completely wrong?

Nah. Assuming a singularity exists (which, as jaimehlers said in the OP and throughout the thread, is what scientists are trying to get away from), only that point has an infinitely deep "well" associated with it. The event horizon itself isn't right on top of the singularity; it's just the area at which the gravity is so intense that not even light can move away quickly enough to escape. In other words, it's the area where the escape velocity is equal to the speed of light in a vacuum.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken/Lucifer/All In One/Orion.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12544
  • Darwins +301/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: No Black Holes?
« Reply #54 on: June 20, 2014, 07:24:32 PM »
One coherent way I've thought of to look at what dloubet is talking about, is that the 2D sheet is depressed not downward, but upward - into the future (directions at right angles to the plane of the sheet representing the 4th dimension, not the 3rd).  So matter falling into a black hole travels into the future somewhat.  This would cause it to be red-shifted more and more as it gets closer to the black hole, as it takes more of our time to catch up with any particular amount of time that the matter experiences.  The event horizon would thus be the point where the object is travelling too quickly into the future for us to observe it at all.
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11199
  • Darwins +294/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: No Black Holes?
« Reply #55 on: June 20, 2014, 07:28:53 PM »
One coherent way I've thought of to look at what dloubet is talking about, is that the 2D sheet is depressed not downward, but upward - into the future (directions at right angles to the plane of the sheet representing the 4th dimension, not the 3rd).  So matter falling into a black hole travels into the future somewhat.  This would cause it to be red-shifted more and more as it gets closer to the black hole, as it takes more of our time to catch up with any particular amount of time that the matter experiences.  The event horizon would thus be the point where the object is travelling too quickly into the future for us to observe it at all.

One of the problems is that, by your logic, depressing the sheet downward sends stuff into the past, which we should have observed by now, as I explained in a post related to white holes (the theoretical end of a black hole). Another problem is that directions (up, down, left, right) are meaningless in space. Even on Earth, the only reason we call up "up" is because of our senses; because we feel a certain change when we go up, another when we go down, and then left and right are just derived from there.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken/Lucifer/All In One/Orion.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12544
  • Darwins +301/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: No Black Holes?
« Reply #56 on: June 20, 2014, 07:34:29 PM »
One of the problems is that, by your logic, depressing the sheet downward sends stuff into the past, which we should have observed by now, as I explained in a post related to white holes (the theoretical end of a black hole).

Except that in the context my my interpretation, there is no white-hold to observe.  Nothing depresses the sheet downwards.

Another problem is that directions (up, down, left, right) are meaningless in space. Even on Earth, the only reason we call up "up" is because of our senses; because we feel a certain change when we go up, another when we go down, and then left and right are just derived from there.

I don't see what this has to do with my idea.  "Up" and "down" just represent forward and backward in time.  Unless you're suggesting that those are arbitrary within our spacetime?
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11199
  • Darwins +294/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: No Black Holes?
« Reply #57 on: June 20, 2014, 07:42:07 PM »
Except that in the context my my interpretation, there is no white-hold to observe.  Nothing depresses the sheet downwards.

A white hole is simply where all the matter that is absorbed by a black hole ends up. It doesn't mean that it has to exist in the same time as the black hole.

I don't see what this has to do with my idea.  "Up" and "down" just represent forward and backward in time.  Unless you're suggesting that those are arbitrary within our spacetime?

In the context of your analogy, I took "up" and "down" as being literal things, like when physicists try to explain the fabric of spacetime using actual fabric and objects heavy enough to deform said fabric. This is because, according to the theory of relativity, spacetime really is flat.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken/Lucifer/All In One/Orion.