Quick question /sci/, where does matter in a black hole go?

File: 37 KB, 480x324, galactic_black_hole.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Fri Dec 30 20:52:49 2011 No.4202375 [Reply] [Original]

Quick question /sci/, where does matter in a black hole go?

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 30 20:54:05 2011 No.4202382 there is no matter in a black hole, air-go it goes nowhere because it doesnt exist

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 30 20:54:05 2011 No.4202384 >>4202382 then why the gravitational effect on surrounding matter?

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 30 20:54:05 2011 No.4202385 >>4202375 into the black hole, thats like asking where food goes after you eat it

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 30 20:54:05 2011 No.4202386 It goes right through the wormhole into OP's huge gaping anus.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 30 21:00:52 2011 No.4202395 >>4202384 im pretty sure even theoretical physicists have trouble with that one

Anonymous Fri Dec 30 21:02:00 2011 No.4202400

>>4202384
A black hole isn't a hole at all, it's just an imploded star. A chunk of matter with almost infinite mass and density which causes a gravitational field around it so strong that not even light can escape it, only hawking radiation can.

When an object hits it, it does exactly that, it hits it. It becomes as (near) infinitely compressed and adds to the black holes mass and density and, in turn, making its gravitational field stronger

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 30 21:03:09 2011 No.4202403 >>4202382 >>4202395 The matter in black holes doesn't disappear dumbnuts. It's not a literal "hole", they're just balls of extremely compressed matter. And the more matter, the bigger the "hole", just like logic should tell you.

Anonymous Fri Dec 30 21:05:16 2011 No.4202406

A black hole is a point of infinite mass concentrated in an infinitely small point.

i.e. It is "smushed" into an inconceivable tight "ball" with everything else the black hole has sucked up.

Black holes do funny things to physics and our perception and are still not fully understood.

Anonymous Fri Dec 30 21:06:33 2011 No.4202412

It does go somewhere you bunch of undergraduates.

In a black hole, the matter is condensed behind its event of horizon, into the black hole isngularity. It's a point without volume where the spacetime curvature is infinite. If the black hole is has an angular momentum, this singularity is ring-shaped, but it still has no volume.

So yeah, you could argue that there is no more matter in the black hole. Or you could see it as matter condensate in an infinitely small volume.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 30 21:09:57 2011 No.4202419 >>4202406 >finite universe >infinite mass Can someone please explain to me how the fuck this works?

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 30 21:10:57 2011 No.4202422 Most of it is just gathered up into the singularity. Some of it is compressed and shot out as a jet of subatomic particles.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 30 21:11:04 2011 No.4202423 >>4202419 doesn't

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 30 21:12:13 2011 No.4202424 >>4202382 doesn't know how to spell "Ergo"

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 30 21:12:13 2011 No.4202425 >>4202400 not bad, but two addendum > it's not near infinite, it is infinite mass. > it's not always an imploded star, some may be from the big bang.

Anonymous Fri Dec 30 21:12:13 2011 No.4202426

>>4202406
A black hole does not have infinite mass. It only has as much mass as the star that collapsed to form it. The reason the gravity is so extreme is because it is the mass of a star condensed to a point the size of the period at the end of this sentence.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 30 21:13:20 2011 No.4202432 inside the hole that's why black holes have different masses

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 30 21:14:20 2011 No.4202434 >>4202424 OP may have been trying to be funny... I don't know.

Anonymous Fri Dec 30 21:17:44 2011 No.4202441

>>4202426

Please take this as I'm intending it, not trying to be rude.

Read up on this stuff more. It is Infinite, Not all black holes are caused by collapsing stars, Its infinitely smaller than the size of a period.

Hard to wrap your head around, but trust me, its both infinite in its smallness and mass.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 30 21:22:17 2011 No.4202453 >>4202412 /thread? This is the best answer yet, I'm not knowledgeable enough to dispute or elaborate on any of that.

Anonymous Fri Dec 30 21:25:41 2011 No.4202466

>>4202412
So theoretically, how close to the event horizon can we get without being sucked in? Like if we send a satellite to take pictures, how close could it get? Or we could send actual video back to earth, depending on whether radio waves or light waves could get out.

Anonymous Fri Dec 30 21:28:05 2011 No.4202473

No, it's mass is not infinite - it's mass is equal only to whatever created it, and has fallen into it, minus whatever hawking radiation has taken off.

it's density is infinite, however, and this is because it's volume is infinitely small.

Though too small to actually become a black hole on it's death, if our sun were to suddenly become a black hole, the earth and everything else in our solar system would happily orbit it in exactly the same orbit it occupied before, because the mass (and therefore gravity) is unchanged. Indeed, if a mad scientest somehow compressed the earth to a black hole, the moon would happily orbit the black hole as it had orbited the earth before, and the black hole would happily orbit the sun as the earth had before.

Gravity is a function of mass - infinite mass would mean infinite gravity, proof that a black hole does not have infinite gravity is that all the matter in the universe it not, in fact, speeding towards a single point at c.

Anonymous Fri Dec 30 21:31:20 2011 No.4202479

Not the guy who your asking
>>4202466

It would be different for each black hole. The safest way would (just guessing) be to launch a sacrificial drone out until it goes to far, that would be the closest.

Not sure how mass of object trying to study black hole would affect distance affected.

Anonymous Fri Dec 30 21:34:44 2011 No.4202484

>>4202473

WAT?

In ultimate layman terms:

Mass is the amount of shit in a given area, the area is infinitely small, therefore the mass is infinite.

If you were somehow able to make a black hole out of a golfball or even a koosh ball, the mass would not be equal to the mass of the original object because its compressed INFINITELY.

Stop trolling me or if not trolling read anything, even wikifuckingpedia.

I understand that infinite is a difficult concept but please try.

Anonymous Fri Dec 30 21:46:13 2011 No.4202500

>>4202484
" In both cases the singular region has zero volume. It can also be shown that the singular region contains all the mass of the black hole solution.[54] The singular region can thus be thought of as having infinite density."

you are wrong. the reason density is infinite is because the mass takes up zero volume regardless of the amount of mass. A black hole made from a golf ball would have the gravitational strength of a golf ball.

What you are implying is that a golf ball compressed to a black hole is suddenly as massive and powerful as the black hole at the center of the galaxy, how does that make sense?

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 30 21:46:13 2011 No.4202502 Black holes are points of technically infinite density, IE a huge mass packed into a miniscule volume. Gravity is a function of mass, you can not have infinite gravity or mass, or else the universe would compress on itself.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 30 21:53:00 2011 No.4202522 >>4202400 >not even light can escape >NOT EVEN LIGHT every fucking time.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 30 21:53:00 2011 No.4202523 >>4202484 Like other people have already said, don't confuse mass with density.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 30 22:29:16 2011 No.4202586 >>4202441 that's physically impossible

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 30 22:37:13 2011 No.4202595 >only hawking radiation can escape wtf am i reading. Nothing can escape from a black hole.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 30 22:49:32 2011 No.4202610 >>4202595 hawking radiation can.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 30 22:53:05 2011 No.4202616 >>4202595 Virtual particles, look it up.

>>	not that guy Fri Dec 30 22:57:36 2011 No.4202621 >>4202610 >>4202616 No, hawking radiation doesn't exit the event horizon, it doesn't escape from inside the black hole. The pair production in hawking radiation happens outside the event horizon.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 30 23:07:10 2011 No.4202634 A black hole is a sphere and the matter is just brought into that sphere. It gets torn apart but it is still there.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 30 23:10:05 2011 No.4202640 >>4202616 >>4202610 Sup retards. Actual physics major here. The pairs are produce in the event horizon, its not from the black hole itself. Jesus, just think for yourself instead of parroting what you are hearing from silly documentaries.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 30 23:11:12 2011 No.4202647 >>4202616 What are you doing in /sci/ casual?

Anonymous Fri Dec 30 23:17:52 2011 No.4202654

>Not even light

Actually its not that light can't escape from the gravity per se, photons are massless, they aren't bound by gravity.
Light just follows straight lines in space and gravity bends space and light follows the bended space.
So saying that gravity "pulls" light is wrong.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 31 01:20:17 2011 No.4202665 >2011 implying black holes are infinitely dense The space/time warped around a black hole is infinitely large and infinitely slow.

Anonymous Sat Dec 31 02:07:00 2011 No.4202672

How is it that a black hole can be X times solar masses?

If it's infinitely dense and small, how can more weight be added?

inb4 pseudo-intellectual condescending douche bags who can't give an answer without acting like a tool.

Some of us are new to this stuff.

Anonymous Sat Dec 31 02:08:00 2011 No.4202673

One thought that some scientists have considered is that on the opposite side of a black hole there is a "white hole", and when matter is taken into a black hole, it causes matter to be spit out of the corresponding white hole (not necessarily the same matter, I don't believe). This white hole exists as a singularity in an entirely different universe with entirely different physical laws, and it could be that our big bang was just matter being spewed out of a white hole in our universe. The white holes could not be seen unless matter is coming out of them.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 31 02:15:48 2011 No.4202685 >>4202672 Infinity in maths is not the same as philosophical infinity.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 31 02:21:31 2011 No.4202699 >>4202672 Density is mass divided volume. It is a singularity, radius of zero, so no matter what the mass is, dividing by a volume of zero gives infinite density.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 31 03:15:52 2011 No.4202701 No one believes me, but I think that the matter that gets consumed by a black hole is turned into dark matter and subsumes the Universe.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 31 03:23:48 2011 No.4202704 >>4202701 Sorry, I said that wrong. It gets subsumed BY the universe.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 31 06:30:36 2011 No.4202877 >>4202701 Yeah, I read those articles too. Personally I think the black holes being fuzzballs is more plausible tham that.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 31 07:11:37 2011 No.4202909 all of the matter that goes into a black hole is used to power the flash light of the little guy in the center looking for the breaker box

Anonymous Sat Dec 31 07:34:16 2011 No.4202935

>>4202466
This is false. The distance between the horizon of events of a black hole and its singularity varies according to its mass (that's what we may call the "size" of a black hole, though the matter in the black hole doesn't take any volume).
But (and to answer >>4202479) the horizon of events is, by definition, the limit from which we can escape, if we have enough velocity. No matter the black hole considered, if you don't cross the horizon, you can escape.
To answer thoroughly, you may also want to consider that because the black hole curves the spacetime continuum, the time you experience as you go closer to the black hole is slower and slower. Now I'm not really educated in relativity, but that means that for an outside observer, if someone approaches from the horizon of events then escapes, and this process took place over, say, 5 years, the person who went there would actually feel the experience lasted only a few months.

TL;DR : you can get 1mm from the horizon and escape and that no matter the size of the black hole, but the horizon (the "sphere" around the singularity) is bigger if the black hole has more mass.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 31 07:42:20 2011 No.4202944 >>4202935 Listen to this man, he teaches the truth.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 31 07:44:36 2011 No.4202949 >>4202935 Sorry I mixed the links. I meant >>4202479 is wrong and answered >>4202466's question.

Anonymous Sat Dec 31 07:54:40 2011 No.4202967

>>4202406
I don't understand the infinite mass bit at all. If a black hole has infinite mass, then why do some have greater mass than others (the "supermassive" ones). And if something had infinite gravity, wouldn't the entire universe be pulled toward it at lightspeed or something?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 31 07:55:49 2011 No.4202970 >retard spouts bullshit on black holes >everyone believes him Business as usual on /sci/. Carry on.

Anonymous Sat Dec 31 08:02:36 2011 No.4202984 [DELETED]

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist,"

How does gravity work ?
How did the first gravity form ?
Fucking gravity how does it work ?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 31 08:03:44 2011 No.4202985 >>4202967 He confused mass with density. The singularity in a black hole is a geometric point(zero width) where all the mass is concentrated, so it's infinitely dense. Not infinitely massive. Even the whole universe isn't infinitely massive.

Anonymous Sat Dec 31 08:09:32 2011 No.4202996

>>4202967
But the infinite mass part is wrong.
Where it all comes from, this infinite-mass-bullshit, is that (and it has already been stated at least 3 times in this thread, you should read) the density g of a black hole is infinite.
 \mathbf{g} = \frac{\mathbf{m}}{\mathbf{V}} -> \infty[/spoiler]
Now to have \mathbf{g} -> \infty [/spoiler], you either have \mathbf{m} -> 0 [/spoiler] or \mathbf{V} -> \infty [/spoiler]. So when you consider a black hole and only one, and isolated from the universe, you could consider its mass to be infinite. But it's not. We can measure the mass of a balck hole by the gravity it creates. The mass of a black hole \mathbf{is finite} [/spoiler] but is \mathbf{condensate in an infinitely small volume}[/spoiler].

But people are too dumb to think for themselves for more than a second.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 31 10:05:08 2011 No.4203221 File: 45 KB, 600x600, 10 dimensions.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] here you go: http://zidbits.com/2011/08/everything-you-wanted-to-know-about-black-holes/

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 31 10:10:48 2011 No.4203231 >>4202996 <span class="math">\rightarrow[/spoiler] <span class="math">This \ is \ how \ you \ should \ type.[/spoiler]

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 31 10:14:12 2011 No.4203241 >>4203231 >\rightarrow >not using \to

Anonymous Sat Dec 31 10:18:36 2011 No.4203244
File: 24 KB, 335x352, 9_funny_fgsfds.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

If eveything in the universe has gravity, shouldn't every single object be slowly moving towards each other? So in the end, everything in the universe will be condensed in a singularity? Because as i understand it, galaxies are pretty much the drains of space, where everything gets sucked into the center where a black hole resides.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 31 10:21:00 2011 No.4203249 >>4203244 >>4203244 no, everything is moving away from each other becasue of space expanding, if space didnt expand so fast, then it would have happend, but space is to fast.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 31 10:25:33 2011 No.4203254 >>4203241 You have just saved my hands a lot of work, may jesus bless your toes

>>	MC !x1aZpVg/mw Sat Dec 31 10:26:40 2011 No.4203256 >>4202484 >mass is the amount of shit in a given area, the area is infinitely small, therefore the mass is infinite. no that makes for infinite density, lrn2highschoolphysics

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 31 11:22:13 2011 No.4203360 >>4203241 <span class="math">\to[/spoiler] <span class="math">\rightarrow[/spoiler] <span class="math">\from[/spoiler]

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 31 11:31:17 2011 No.4203386 No one's mentioned the holographic principle yet. I'm disappointed. Matter and energy can't cross the event horizon, rather they smear out like a fractal upon it.

Anonymous Sat Dec 31 11:54:56 2011 No.4203480 [DELETED]

What is this shittery?! Black holes don't have infinite mass; they have infinite density. As \rho = \frac{m}{V}[/spoiler] and V=0[/spoiler], any finite mass will cause infinite density.

A pretty good hint that they don't have infinite mass: F_{gravitational} \prop m[/spoiler] ∴ if m[/spoiler] were infinite then F_{gravitational}[/spoiler] would also be infinite... and so everything would experience an infinite force in the direction of every black hole.

Anonymous Sat Dec 31 11:55:05 2011 No.4203482

What is this shittery?! Black holes don't have infinite mass; they have infinite density. As \rho = \frac{m}{V}[/spoiler] and V=0[/spoiler], any finite mass will cause infinite density.

A pretty good hint that they don't have infinite mass: F_{gravitational} \propto m[/spoiler] ∴ if m[/spoiler] were infinite then F_{gravitational}[/spoiler] would also be infinite... and so everything would experience an infinite force in the direction of every black hole.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 31 11:57:20 2011 No.4203493 >everyone claims black holes are infinitely dense >implying the density of a black hole doesn't scale down as 1/m² >implying the volume of a black hole is zero instead of the volume of the Schwarzschild sphere

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 31 12:03:00 2011 No.4203525 >>4203493 >implying /sci/ knows physics

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 31 12:10:48 2011 No.4203552 A black hole is a place where the gravitational forces have exceeded the electrical forces that would normally hold matter apart. I can't even begin to think what is actually going on.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 31 12:11:56 2011 No.4203558 >>4203552 >singularity

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 31 12:13:12 2011 No.4203568 >>4203493 The Schwarzschild sphere is not a physical boundary. Also, the space inside that boundary cannot be simply described with a Euclidean sphere.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 31 19:59:04 2011 No.4204695 Its just very compressed mass OP. How gamma rays scape black holes?

Barçauténtic !!HWTvwT+RzYG Sat Dec 31 20:17:11 2011 No.4204739
File: 19 KB, 510x335, come at me angel.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Theoretically speaking, all matter which is "sucked" into a black hole is broken down particle per particle and compacted inside. This will continue on until the density of the black hole grows great enough that it will proceed to explode in a violent fashion. Imagine an area the size of New York City, only within it you have compressed approximately 100,000,000 solar masses. Basically, matter within a black hole just degenerates itself into subatomic particles which stick so close together as to fuse into speculative and unknown dense metals until it pops. But there is actually no way of knowing what is inside a black hole because they are themselves theoretical objects.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 31 20:23:51 2011 No.4204750 >>4204739 >canttelliftrollorverystupid.jpg What is this I don't even

>>	Barçauténtic !!HWTvwT+RzYG Sat Dec 31 20:29:31 2011 No.4204768 File: 21 KB, 465x316, Affester.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4204750

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 31 20:34:11 2011 No.4204782 doesn't it stay at the center of the event horizon but become nearly infinitely dense?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 31 20:38:35 2011 No.4204784 >>4204782 No. It never crosses the event horizon. It smears out upon it in a fractal.

Anonymous Sat Dec 31 20:52:11 2011 No.4204803

>>4204768
Okay, let's assume that that monkey means that you didn't know what you were saying.

When a star collapses into a black hole, the collapse goes on inside the event horizon, until it is compressed into a singularity, a geometrical point, with zero volume and infinite density.

As the black hole gathers more mass, all of it gets drawn into the central singularity and compressed into infinite density.

The only way a black hole gets destroyed is by hawking radiation. The amount of hawking radiation put out by a black hole is inversely dependent on the mass of the black hole, ie. the more massive the black hole, the less i radiates. Extremely small black holes of around small asteroid mass can put out immense quantities of energy in a runaway blaze until they flash out of existence.

Barçauténtic !!HWTvwT+RzYG Sat Dec 31 21:35:23 2011 No.4204938
File: 6 KB, 270x270, aliens guy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>4204803

I would go into a rant about how retarded you are with regards to your post there, but I have better things to do like laugh at it instead of responding to it beyond this point. I'd advise you to re-read your post. Maybe than you will realize your mistake.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 1 01:04:55 2012 No.4205349 Bumping for more black hole /sci/ rage.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 1 02:54:52 2012 No.4205513 TRICK QUESTION If it goes anywhere then it's not in the fucking black hole is it genius?!

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 1 03:13:08 2012 No.4205531 >>4204938 If you come back, do tell me where I'm wrong. Bring quotes from scientific journals with you. Or just stay away and keep your fail away from /sci/.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 1 03:19:47 2012 No.4205540 I learned that black holes didnt have infinite mass but infinite density. Just saiyan. Super saiyan

Anonymous Sun Jan 1 03:52:40 2012 No.4205564

firstly... Zero volume just doesn't make any sense

second, if gravity is only linked to mass, and not density, why can we see suns, but not black-holes (they have the same mass/ hence the same gravity/ but light escapes a sun... albeit slowly)

...One last thing, gravity is always illustrated 'nicely' on a 2D grid, with the third D shown like a depth, but wouldn't that imply that space is directly proportional to (caused by) gravity..?

Potentially there could be many times more space inside a black-hole, than the size of itself when looking from the outside? Like stepping into a 1x1x1 m box, only to find the box is 1km ^3 ..? (purely in theory..)

Anonymous Sun Jan 1 03:59:35 2012 No.4205567

>>4205564
Firstly, singularity means exactly that it has zero volume.
Secondly, read about Cosmic censorship hypothesis.
Thirdly, gravity is dependent on mass, but the gravitational GRADIENT is dependent on the density of that mass.
Fourthly, the rest of your post doesn't really make sense.

Anonymous Sun Jan 1 04:12:03 2012 No.4205571

But if the gradient is different, how is the gravity the same..? It might be the same at one distance, but if you halve the distance, then it's different?

looking at those 'stretchy-cloth' style maps... the cloth/surface is space, correct?

But if you tried to do a proper 3D version (sort of like a golf-ball with indents that go to the center[4D space style]), and the surface is the actual space, then there is more space than a few flat intersections of an empty sphere?

Anonymous Sun Jan 1 04:19:52 2012 No.4205578

>>4205571
>more space
No, you're equating the stretched surface with space. The deeper the surface is stretched, the stronger the gravity, but the space is unchanged in this context.

The gradient is important. Take that stretched-surface analogy again. If you take a ten-kilogram ball that's a meter wide, it's going to make a shallow imprint because the mass is distributed so widely. So in this case the gradient is low.

If you take a ten-kilogram ball that is a centimeter wide, the depression it makes is as wide, but as the ball is a lot smaller, it makes a deeper depression and the walls of the depression get progressively steeper the closer to the ball it gets, this is the gradient getting higher.

Anonymous Sun Jan 1 04:28:56 2012 No.4205590

Kind of like two sides of the same coin... if you climb into a 1m3 box and find it is 1km3, did space get bigger or did you shrink..? [granted that atoms are mostly empty space... but zero volume..? ]

and then, how does light shrink? (ala gravitational lensing..?) or slow down without slowing down?

Anonymous Sun Jan 1 04:42:31 2012 No.4205601
File: 633 KB, 768x576, 1998 duke nukem.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>huge star burns out, grows and shrinks
>eventually colapses into a black hole when the density is so high that the gravitational force is bigger than the electrical forces
>black hole evaporates over time due to virtual particles
>density gets smaller and smaller since its losing mass
>one day the electrical forces overthrow the gavitational force and the black hole pops into a star/neutron star/something else but a black hole

would this work or am i not knowing something?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 1 04:46:03 2012 No.4205604 And then of course, that there is no gravity, just "a change in the geometry of space"... ?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 1 04:52:51 2012 No.4205612 >>4205601 Yes you are, the event horizon will envelop the singularity all the way until it dissipates totally.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 1 05:58:35 2012 No.4205657 Perhaps it could appear to have Zero Volume, due to space being expanded so much that something the size of the sun 'appears' no larger than a pin-head? ...This probably would be a testament to the scale of how much 'gravity' can affect space..?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 1 06:09:48 2012 No.4205678 File: 15 KB, 762x427, grav.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Pretty rough illustration of how stretched space could mimic gravity...

Anonymous Sun Jan 1 06:19:59 2012 No.4205690

This discussion on black holes and the incorrect information being spewed out is disheartening. Go on youtube. Right now. in the search box you will put "neil degrasse tyson black hole". And then you will click on the second result and you will watch that shit. All the way through. Good boy.

captcha: mockery ustitia

Anonymous Sun Jan 1 06:24:32 2012 No.4205698

>>4205612
You are retarded. The event horizon is NOT a physical object. The event horizon is merely the name for the distance from the singularity where the escape velocity exceeds the speed of light. The reason we can see stars, despite their large mass, is because of their volume. Black holes are not necessarily more massive than any other star, in fact, there are some solar systems in which a black hole and a star are orbiting eachother in a binary system. The only reason a black hole is black is it's lack of volume, because the closer you get to the center of a mass, the higher the gravity becomes and the faster you would have to go to escape from its surface.

Neutron stars are more interesting anyways.

Anonymous Sun Jan 1 06:27:56 2012 No.4205702

>>4205657
The real fact of the matter is, (pun totally intended) we don't really know what goes on inside the event horizon, because all the equations we have break down and cease to function when a black hole is formed. Nothing we currently know accounts for a singularity, it is merely the general consensus of scientists that that is indeed what happens. String theory is one of the earliest attempts at explaining and expanding upon Einstein's work to answer for black holes.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 1 06:41:31 2012 No.4205729 now /sci/ you need to remind me why don`t we send people like OP to field experiment with center of black hole

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 1 07:22:19 2012 No.4205785 Stretched out onto the surface of the black hole. It's not a fucking portal, it's literally just a lot of stuff in a small area. God I don't even want to read what's already been typed, I just know it's so stupid.

Anonymous Sun Jan 1 08:15:44 2012 No.4205835

>>4205698
>your retard
Perhaps, but the event horizon will still envelop the singularity of a black hole until it dissipates totally.

Exactly due to the gravitational gradient being so steep.
And like I said, it's not the mass that makes a black hole, it's the density, so your mumbling about it is totally redundant. So yeah, it's better if you go and play with your little neutron stars.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 1 08:20:15 2012 No.4205841 >>4205835 New to this discussion, but why is it the density that is important? The gravitational force has nothing to do with the density; it's proportional only to the mass and distance is it not?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 1 08:21:23 2012 No.4205842 >>4205841 or is my Newtonian understanding just incorrect/too simplistic?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 1 08:25:47 2012 No.4205848 >>4205841 Because the denser the mass, the closer you can get to it's center. Any mass can become a black hole if it's dense enough.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 1 08:30:20 2012 No.4205859 Ah, makes sense! Thanks anon.

Anonymous Sun Jan 1 15:04:51 2012 No.4206392

>>4202701

I have a theory that space-time has mass itself, and that particles are just warped space-time. Everything is moving at the speed of light, but since the medium you're moving through is what you're made off, ie the canvas needs to flow through you in order to move. The more mass you have, the larger your space-time volume is, for you to be able to move, space-time in front of you has to replace the space-time you're currently occupying.

Everything is moving at the speed of light, but space is relative. Everything is actually made of nothing, and dark matter doesn't exist. Universe is not actually expanding, all matter is instead shrinking, from an outside observers perspective it would look the same.
Red shifted light not caused by galaxis moving away, instead the matter which caused that light millions of years ago was larger, causing longer wavelength light than what we have now. Ie matter is decaying.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 1 15:19:36 2012 No.4206427 I always thought that the black hole emits the matter from the other end of the disk as radiation.

H+ Sun Jan 1 15:29:40 2012 No.4206454

The mass is absorbed into the singularity at the black hole's centre (which is infinitely dense, and as massive as all its absorbed mass, plus the mass of the original star).

Then, as the black hole slowly evaporates via hawking radiation, new subatomic particles come into existence within its gravity field, somehow reducing the mass of the black hole itself by converting the potential energy in its gravity field into mass and thrusting it away from the singularity.

Eventually, over trillions of years, this reduces the mass of the black hole to 0, and it completely evaporates into nothingness.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 1 15:38:44 2012 No.4206476 >>4202375 "infinite" is a mathematical term, it doesnt mean what people thing it means. The matter doesnt "go" anywhere.

Anonymous Sun Jan 1 16:18:24 2012 No.4206574

So this must be what is meant by a black hole is a real life "division by zero" error.

The formula for density being D = m/v
If you have 0 volume and any mass at all, even a golf ball, D will be some undefined thing. Unless m is of course 0 in which case D is indeterminate form. I suppose that's what happens to light (0 mass) when it enters a black hole; it becomes D = 0/0 or indeterminate form.

Very interesting.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 1 16:24:11 2012 No.4206592 >>4206392 I think you should revisit the concept of Occam's Razor that you should've been taught on day one of science class.

Anonymous Sun Jan 1 16:27:27 2012 No.4206598

95% of all gravitational effects are currently accounted for by "dark matter."

Therefore saying a black hole must exist because we eyewitness gravitational anomaly is absurd.

Anyway this is assuming we don't know that much about dark matter, which is a big assumption on my part and if I'm wrong I'll soon be corrected.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 1 16:30:51 2012 No.4206613 >>4206598 Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise, even if it was correct.

Anonymous Sun Jan 1 16:49:07 2012 No.4206652

>>4206613
If we don't understand dark matter, and it accounts for 95% of observational gravitational effects, how can we conclude reasonably that black holes must be the cause of that gravitational anomaly?

I'm aware that I don't know, that's why I'm asking, but when you just make a sweeping statement of "You're wrong even if you're right." you generally should provide some actual insight so that I can understand you.

If you can't it implies you are bullshitting and have no idea what you are talking about either.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 1 16:50:15 2012 No.4206656 to me it seems like we developed the black hole equations well before we even knew dark matter existed or was responsible for 95% of gravitational effects. black hole seems like god of the gaps to me.

Anonymous Sun Jan 1 16:52:24 2012 No.4206660

"we don't know what it is that accounts for 95% of all gravitational effects in the universe, we can observe gravitational effects at places we think are "black holes," therefore they are."

That just doesn't make sense to me. We know that there are huge gravitational anomalies that trap light and matter and eject shit, but we don't really know that it's a start that condensed because we really don't understand gravity enough to say that when 95% of its source (dark matter) is not understood.

Anonymous Sun Jan 1 16:55:55 2012 No.4206670

>>4206652
There's no need to become hostile; as you explained it, it was a non sequitur.

Dark Matter is a term to blanket an anomaly of mass that we do not yet understand. We observe it as "padding" the mass of galaxies. We do not observe it as a thing, but just as a padding. Black holes are not actually "black" in the scientific sense like dark matter is. We can observe black holes through gravitational lensing, light bending, supernovae records, and hawking radiation.

As we understand them, these are two different things.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 1 18:35:03 2012 No.4206989 >>4206670 Can you explain how a "padding" is not a thing? I understand that you're using a simplified term, but how is it manipulating gravity without mass?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 1 18:36:03 2012 No.4206995 >>4206670 Also thanks for explaining how we can see the black hole with more than just the anomaly of gravity, didn't know that.

Anonymous Sun Jan 1 19:47:07 2012 No.4207280

>>4206989
So no one can explain how the galaxy padding has no mass and is not a thing but accounts for 95% of all observational gravitational forces?

What is dark matter? Again, if it accounts for a 95% error I don't understand how we can possibly jump to any conclusions about black holes, even if we can observe them emit radiation and whatnot.

What part of the big bang accounts for the creation of dark matter? I know that the big bang theory goes into detail about the creation of all the other elements, how much it created of each of them and at what time period after the big bang etc.

No one knows anything about dark matter?

How is it both a "padding" and not matter at the same time?

Anonymous Sun Jan 1 20:02:50 2012 No.4207379

We don't fully understand black holes, and it'll be a long time before we can test one (if possible).

All we know is one day we saw a star slowly moving across space, then dissapear, then re-appear in a circular patter, then dissapear etc etc. We theorized that either some huge object somehow bigger than the star was blocking its light, or the light was being drawn in as it spun "behind" the object.

It ends up the star was being flung around a black hole like a spider getting sucked down a drain.

It's believed a black hole must have such a huge mass, that it can push around a fucking star. Everything else is speculation. Until we "dissect" a black hole, we'll never know.

That, or it's God. Whatever makes more sense.

>>	cyriak Sun Jan 1 20:03:59 2012 No.4207382 hologramsss holograms holograms

Anonymous Sun Jan 1 20:11:55 2012 No.4207404

Wait, does matter actually ever cross the event horizon? I'm not even theoretically a physicist, but I seem to recall from the snippets of relativity I picked up that as gravity increases, so does the effect of time dilatation and that anything falling towards a black hole would, due to the dilatation, take an infinite amount of time.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 1 20:13:10 2012 No.4207416 >>4202522 CAN YOU IMAGINE THAT!?

>>	cyriak Sun Jan 1 20:15:19 2012 No.4207424 >>4207404 It doesn't. This is what I was implying with "hologramsss holograms holograms". The holographics principle, from a perspective outside the black hole, has matter and energy fall upon the event horizon and smear out in a fractal shape.

Anonymous Sun Jan 1 20:18:42 2012 No.4207436

>>4207424
And how would it look from the reference frame of the object falling in? Because relativity only applies to time, you still can't be on the event horizon and inside it ever. Unless things start to go wonky when extrapolating to infinite time and dilatation?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 1 20:20:59 2012 No.4207443 >>4207424 >it doesn't... ...according to some theories.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 1 20:25:38 2012 No.4207456 a black hole can not have infinite mass If it did, then all black holes would be the same size witch is most certinly not the case anyone who disagrees is retared or a troll

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 1 20:30:02 2012 No.4207471 >>4202673 Why nobody hasn't commented this?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 1 20:30:10 2012 No.4207475 >>4207471 Has*

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 1 20:31:19 2012 No.4207478 it is teleported to a white hole http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_hole

Anonymous Sun Jan 1 23:33:55 2012 No.4207731

>>4207471
>>4207475
>>4207478
Because we haven't observed any good white hole candidates, they are usually seen as belonging to the realm of fiction.

Also, if the matter exited the universe through a black hole, what would account for the increasing mass of the black holes?

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math