[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 955 KB, 4400x2475, Black_Holes_-_Monsters_in_Space.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8294916 No.8294916 [Reply] [Original]

If nothing can escape a blackhole, not even light, then how does gravity escape it?

>> No.8294936

>>8294916
It doesn't.

>> No.8294937

>>8294936
What?

>> No.8294945

>>8294937
Gravity is not something that escapes from blackholes. Gravity is not a "something", it is the result of the curvature of space caused by the mass of the black hole. It doesn't "travel" from the black hole, it is a result of the black hole existing. Understand?

>> No.8294949

>>8294945
Is gravity a force or not? Does it have a force carrier or not? Does it have waves or not?

>> No.8294952

>>8294937
the?

>> No.8294954

>>8294949
It's not a force. Gravitational waves are merely changes in the curvature of spacetime.

>> No.8294957

>>8294916
>lmao
The post

>> No.8294965

>>8294954
Gravity is not a force? Then why is it lumped in with the other three forces. Are any of the other three forces not forces also? How can you unify field forces if one of them isn't even a field?

What is driving the gravity waves if there are no forces involved or are there forces involved here and if so what are they?

>> No.8294986

>>8294965
>Gravity is not a force? Then why is it lumped in with the other three forces.
It's not. There are three forces and gravity. Physicists are attempting to unify the three forces. Then if they unify this theory with a theory of gravity they will have a TOE.

>What is driving the gravity waves if there are no forces involved or are there forces involved here and if so what are they?
Gravity waves are caused by mass moving through spacetime. Gravity is what you get when you have a mass in spacetime. Gravitational waves are what you get when the mass moves. There is nothing "driving" it, it's simply gravity changing according to the mass and curvature changing.

>> No.8294988

>>8294965
These are all very good questions

>> No.8294990

>>8294988
Not really, they could easily be googled.

>> No.8295005

>>8294965
>Gravity is not a force?
No

>Then why is it lumped in with the other three forces
Convenience, and technically it isnt

>Are any of the other three forces not forces also?
No

>How can you unify field forces if one of them isn't even a field?
Because everything has to make sense in the context of everything else

>What is driving the gravity waves if there are no forces involved or are there forces involved here and if so what are they?
Gravity is the specific topology of spacetime, changes to that topology can only propagate at the speed of causality, C. There are no forces involved

>> No.8295016

>>8294986
>There are three forces and gravity.
This is semantics my friend. There are four forces in the world; gravity, electromagnetism, the weak and the strong forces. Unifying the four forces will give us a Grand Unified Field Theory, do you dispute that gravity is a field as well? If so, then you would have to argue that the Einstein field equations were misnamed.

>Gravity waves are caused by mass moving through spacetime.
Yes a mass like a planet, a star, a galaxy or more popularly a black hole. But let me ask you this. What is moving these objects? If you answered Gravity then you would be correct. So basically you are saying that Gravity is driving gravity, which means you are arguing in circles. It also means that gravity must be a force because it does work

>> No.8295050

black holes dont exist

>> No.8295073

>>8294945
How does mass curve spacetime?

>> No.8295081

>>8295016
>What is moving these objects?
nothing, they are not moving from their own POV

>> No.8295085

>>8295016
>This is semantics my friend. There are four forces in the world; gravity, electromagnetism, the weak and the strong forces. Unifying the four forces will give us a Grand Unified Field Theory, do you dispute that gravity is a field as well? If so, then you would have to argue that the Einstein field equations were misnamed.
LOL the only one arguing semantics is you. You just based your point on what the field equations were *named* and not what they actually are. And how does it being a field prove it's a force? Gravity in general relativity is not a force at all. This is not semantics, it's a completely different phenomenon from forces, a curved spacetime.

>Yes a mass like a planet, a star, a galaxy or more popularly a black hole. But let me ask you this. What is moving these objects? If you answered Gravity then you would be correct. So basically you are saying that Gravity is driving gravity, which means you are arguing in circles. It also means that gravity must be a force because it does work
You seem to be ignorant of basic physics. Movement along a "straight line" does not require force, only acceleration or deviation from that line requires a force. What Einstein figured out is that objects follow geodesics, which are analogous to straight lines, along the curve of spacetime. So the reason you fall toward earth is because you are following the geodesic caused by earth's mass. And the reason you stand on the earth is because it is imparting a mechanical force which impedes you from following the geodesic into the earth. Newtonian physics which assumes gravity is a force cannot account for certain phenomena which Einstein's thoery explains perfectly well.

>> No.8295089

>>8295073
It just does.

>> No.8295090

>>8295005
>Gravity is not a force?
>No
If it is not a force then what is it?

Nevermind I see you answered that here;
>Gravity is the specific topology of spacetime

>>8294986 points out that mass creates the topology; the indentation in spacetime. So then mass is the force that is creating the indentation. Why not just do away with the indentation altogether and say that the mass creates the field? The less assumptions we make the better is our science.

>Convenience
Convenience? Convenient for whom? I would have thought that one of the four fundamental forces not being a force would be pretty fricking inconvenient.

>Are any of the other three forces not forces also?
>No
How would we ever know? If something which displays all the hallmarks of a force is not a force then absolutely anything is possible. Your computer might be a ham sandwiche for all you know.

>> No.8295106

>>8295005
>changes to that topology can only propagate at the speed of causality, C.
I have heard that disputed. In fact, I think it is impossible that gravity could respond at such a slow speed. Think of it this way. If I were to drop a rock into a lake the ripples might take a few hours to reach the other shore, but the water level will rise (however imperceptibly all around the lake). This is how gravity operates also, spacetime is a continuous fabric all of it reacts at the same time just like the water in our thought experiment, light is the ripples.

>> No.8295134

>>8295106
>but the water level will rise
but not instantaneously

>> No.8295138

>>8294916
> nothing can escape
> what is hawking radiation?
/thread

>> No.8295142

>>8295106
>If I were to drop a rock into a lake the ripples might take a few hours to reach the other shore, but the water level will rise (however imperceptibly all around the lake).
Huh? You can't really measure the water level if the water is rippling. Nor do I see how this helps your case. The speed of the ripple will be the speed of sound in water.

>> No.8295145

>>8295138
Hawking radiation doesn't escape from the black hole. It is created at the event horizon.

>> No.8295147

>>8295085
Fields are attributed to forces, hence 'force fields'. The concept of fields and forces are interlinked, inseparable as everything must be in a Theory of Everything.

>You seem to be ignorant of basic physics.
Lel. Don't test me m8. I'm about to rip you a new arsehole.

>Movement along a "straight line" does not require force, only acceleration or deviation from that line requires a force.
True.

> What Einstein figured out is that objects follow geodesics, which are analogous to straight lines, along the curve of spacetime.
But don't forget that according to General Relativity any body that travels out and then returns to is point of origin has undergone an acceleration. Therefore, a planet like Earth which goes around the Sun and returns to its origin must also be said to have undergone an acceleration. There's no getting away from it. And that is only the beginning of the contradictions you outlined here; luckily we debunked most of them already. The shortest rebuttal was from this poster >>8295073

>> No.8295152

>>8295145
Where is this supposed Newtonian gravity 'created'? :^)

>> No.8295154

>>8295134
>>8295142
I would like to point out to both of you that what I posted was an analogy. It shows how the gravity might operate at much greater speeds in the bulk of the universe than does the transmission of EM fields in said bulk.

>> No.8295159

>>8295152
Ha ha! I see what's happening now... Relativists are just buttmad anti-science people who somehow managed to get into places of influence and drive the narrative. You are literally arguing against the existence of gravity as a force. You cannot make this shit up.

>> No.8295179

>>8295159
Disprove me then? Show me your 'graviton'? :^)

>> No.8295181

>>8295154
Sure it was an analogy. But since the water level doesnt rise faster than waves can propagate through water, it didnt show anything

>> No.8295184

>>8295106
We have detected gravity waves, they move at the speed of light

>> No.8295190

>>8295179
BTFO

>> No.8295197

>>8295190
Nice shilling. 1 'graviton' has been deposited into your 'gravity'. :^)

>> No.8295201

>>8295179
Lel. I'm not arguing for or against a graviton, I don't think Newton was either. Good b8.

>>8295181
>>8295184
But if gravity can be so strong in a blackhole that it can even overpower light then what is stopping a 'so called' gravity wave from propagating faster than light. You have already shown the two to be independent, the high energies and the elastic nature of space would conspire to produce unimaginable speeds. In fact it would go so fast it would go into the future. This is actually accepted science in the case of matter accretion in supermassive black holes fyi.

>> No.8295205

>>8295201
> so called gravity wave
That's a win in my book. Even Newton's cucks don't quite believe the lies.

>> No.8295213 [DELETED] 

>>8295181
From wiki;
> The weight of the displaced fluid can be found mathematically. The mass of the displaced fluid can be expressed in terms of the density and its volume, m = ρV. The fluid displaced has a weight W = mg, where g is acceleration due to gravity. Therefore, the weight of the displaced fluid can be expressed as W = ρVg.
>acceleration due to gravity
The higher the gravity the faster the wave (read gravity wave). In a black hole the curvature is infinite so gravity is infinite so the speed is infinite. If there was a causality issue the resulting gravity wave would have to propagate into the future (or the past depending on how you look at it), which would mean that we wouldn't have a hope of knowing when they were going to occur as causality would have long been broken.

>> No.8295217

>>8295201
>But if gravity can be so strong in a blackhole that it can even overpower light then what is stopping a 'so called' gravity wave from propagating faster than light
This is a complete non non sequitur. If you are so strong to overpower a duck, what stops you from laying an egg?
Do you want me to explain why c is the "speed limit"?
Or, if you want an explanation as to why gravity can "trap" light, I think this anon summarized it pretty well in the scond part of this post:
>>8295085

And sure, time dilation makes technical time travel into the future possible. This doent mean that causality can be subverted

>> No.8295219

>>8295217
oops, there is "non" too much in there

>> No.8295220

>>8294945
Then why are we looking for gravitons?

>> No.8295222

everything is just folds in space

>> No.8295227

>>8295217
Think about it. If matter and space itself is flowing into a black hole at speeds faster than that of c beyond the event horizon then black holes are capable of generating speeds and forces beyond that of c; obviously. Why should these speeds rapidly drop once they venture beyond the event horizon, as in the case of supposed colliding black holes? What is there to slow them down and by how much?

>> No.8295228

>>8295147
>Fields are attributed to forces, hence 'force fields'. The concept of fields and forces are interlinked, inseparable as everything must be in a Theory of Everything.
Ah I see, shitty bait.

>> No.8295234

>>8295227
>If matter itself is flowing into a black hole at speeds faster than that of c
What do you mean? I dont think it does that. Part of the reason, things get trapped by black holes, is that they cant travel faster than c

>> No.8295243

>>8295228
Amazing.. Are you denying that vector force fields exists and lines of force in fields exist. If so then you relativists are pushing science back by about two hundred years or more.

Are you also denying that a Theory of Everything must be a literally a Theory of Everything with which we can use to describe ever eventuality that has and will ever happen, because that in effect is the goal of a TOE.

>> No.8295253

>>8295234
According to the theory of General Relativity it must. There is no difference between light and spacetime. Light is a wave which propagates through spacetime, so if the spacetime is flat the light is straight if it is curved the light ray is curved, if the region of space is moving faster than the light ray can move, as in the case of a rotating Schwarzchild black hole than it will be dragged in.

tldr: Look up frame dragging.

>> No.8295254

>>8295243
Fields are not synonymous with force. The fields of general relativity are simply tensor fields. A tensor can represent many things, such as curvature, energy, momentum, charge, etc.

Your ranting is indistinguishable from trolling. Either you are pretending to be ignorant of basic physics or you are ignorant of basic physics. Either way, there is no point in continuing the discussion.

>> No.8295266

>>8295254
>Fields are not synonymous with force.
Fields most definitely are synonymous with force. Lets look at the EM field, shall we? The EM field has a field that is made up of its uncertainty principle; it is the wave part of the force. The particle part; i.e. the photon is the force carrier. Together and the effect these two things have on a body make up what we know as 'force fields'.

Similarly with gravity (according to GR) we have the field and then the suspected graviton or force carrier. And so on with the Higgs field and gauge boson. They are intricatley linked just as wave particle duality are also linked.

>> No.8295279

>>8295266
Providing an example of a field which is a force does not prove that all fields are forces.

>Similarly with gravity (according to GR) we have the field and then the suspected graviton or force carrier.
The graviton is not necessary to GR. And it's only a "force carrier" in an analogous sense.

>> No.8295296

>>8295279
No the graviton is just necessary to the standard model as it currently stands.

> And it's only a "force carrier" in an analogous sense.
So let me get this straight, you are saying that gravity is a field, but not a force. That it has waves like a field, but all of its force like attributes are an illusion, even though they basically rule the entire birth and death of the universe and that although every field must have a force carrier in order to conform to the standard model, that in the case of GR it is a special case and doesn't need such a force carrier, even though they are going out of their way to look for one to satisfy the standard model?

If that is right then what makes gravity so special? If it turns out the graviton exists is it a force then or just an analogy? An analogy for what? How can something be real and an analogy at the same time?

>> No.8295305

I am simply amazed at the amount of people on this board who apparently claim to have studied all of quantum physics and the standard model and yet are unable to not argue like autists.

Could it be that one of them just read some wikipedia pages? Or both?
Mhh...

>> No.8295308

>>8295253
>According to the theory of General Relativity it must
no
according to gr it cant

>> No.8295313

>>8295305
make an argument or kindly fuck off
You sound like a total fedora, that just wants to feel superior without making a point

>> No.8295323

>>8295313
No I'm really actually confused as to what's going on.
It seems that you got stuck on the word "field" for some reason.

I am also highly skeptical of the idea that two people who actually studied the topic, i.e. not on wikipedia would fail to understand each other at such a basic level.

>> No.8295325

>>8295305
Thanks retard. Whenever you want to add something useful to the discussion go right ahead.

>>8295308
>according to gr it cant
You have heard the oft repeated phrase that inside the limits of the event horizon of a black hole the laws of physics break down haven't you? Those laws must necessarily include the laws of GR, were we to consider those laws to be real to begin with.

>> No.8295340 [DELETED] 

http://www.thenewcolor.net

So... thoughts?

>> No.8295351
File: 1.24 MB, 1080x1080, 1469102687209.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8295351

A field how things are ascribed to behave mathematically along a continuous vector space within a system of parameters.

GAS THE KIKES, RACE WAR NOW.

>> No.8295354

>>8295296
>No the graviton is just necessary to the standard model as it currently stands.
No it's not. Gravity is not part of the standard model as it currently stands.

>So let me get this straight, you are saying that gravity is a field, but not a force.
Yes.

>That it has waves like a field, but all of its force like attributes are an illusion, even though they basically rule the entire birth and death of the universe and that although every field must have a force carrier in order to conform to the standard model, that in the case of GR it is a special case and doesn't need such a force carrier, even though they are going out of their way to look for one to satisfy the standard model?
General relativity and the standard model are not compatible, yes everyone knows this.

>> No.8295355

>>8294945
Nobody really understands gravity, you faggot.

>> No.8295361
File: 2.15 MB, 3264x1952, FlatSquirrel.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8295361

>>8295355
Gravity is what pulls my dick into your fat mom.

>> No.8295366

>>8295325
>You have heard the oft repeated phrase that inside the limits of the event horizon of a black hole the laws of physics break down haven't you? Those laws must necessarily include the laws of GR, were we to consider those laws to be real to begin with.
Why do you continue to argue according to cliches? GR does not break down inside a black hole. Black holes are a solution to Einstein's field equations. And first you argued that "According to the theory of General Relativity it must [travel faster than c]". Now you are arguing that GR breaks down inside the black hole. Which is it? Do you even know what you're trying to argue anymore?

>> No.8295367

>>8295361
Fucking faggots here arguing about gravity with the biggest faggots being the self-appointed authority on the phenomenon that is gravity.

>> No.8295368

>>8295355
I described what we know about gravity at this point.

>> No.8295373

>>8295368
>Gravity is not something that escapes from blackholes. Gravity is not a "something", it is the result of the curvature of space caused by the mass of the black hole. It doesn't "travel" from the black hole, it is a result of the black hole existing. Understand?

Have you ever considered the possibility of the graviton? A black hole can have a centripetal or centrifugal force so powerful that it actually expels 'gravity' from it's body; hence, its freesbe/ufo shape.

>> No.8295378
File: 115 KB, 1080x720, downs+kronikk.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8295378

>>8295373
> A black hole can have a centripetal or centrifugal force so powerful that it actually expels 'gravity' from it's body; hence, its freesbe/ufo shape.
> its freesbe/ufo shape.

>> No.8295381

>>8295354
The graviton has not yet been discovered, I know but it is predicted to be among the other gauge bosons in the standard model. If it doesn't exist the model as it stands now (with all of its predictions) would have to be scrapped.

>General relativity and the standard model are not compatible, yes everyone knows this.
They are not compatible. However, both are considered to be either true or our best guesses to date. Either GR is true and the Standard model is wrong or vice versa or neither is right. These are possibilities we have to consider which is why we are sitting here trying to annex the GR holyland.

>> No.8295385
File: 435 KB, 722x660, Screenshot_2016-01-11-15-35-11-1.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8295385

>gravity is subject to gravity

>> No.8295391

>>8295366
>GR does not break down inside a black hole. Black holes are a solution to Einstein's field equations.
The solution requires the Schwarzchild radius or circumference to go to 0, and then there is a divide by zero scenario across the board. Divide by zero is mathematically impossible and leads to an undefined result. This is not a limit is a real divide by zero case, hence if we can divide by zero inside a singularity the laws of physics have broken down, which means that things can be in two places at once, both inside and outside the black hole at the same time, both destoryed and not destroyed, both travelling fast than the speed of light and completely stationary. Total chaos, cats and dogs living together.

>> No.8295394

>>8295378
Explain why a spiral galaxy is shaped the way it is.

>Pro Tip: Nobody is certain, faggot.

>> No.8295403

>>8295381

Graviton can not mathematically exist as predicted. This is the whole reason for String Theory.

>> No.8295418

>>8295366
>And first you argued that "According to the theory of General Relativity it must [travel faster than c]". Now you are arguing that GR breaks down inside the black hole. Which is it? Do you even know what you're trying to argue anymore?
I'm having two complex simultaneous arguments with different people. But you are right, I did make a mistake (sort of). The law that forbids faster than light travel is SR, not GR. GR simply states that the light must follow the curvature of its environment, which in the case of a rotating black hole would mean that the frame the light source is operating in would be dragged at superluminal speeds. Perhaps you didn't read my first statement properly.>>8295227
>matter and space itself is flowing into a black hole at speeds faster than that of c
>into a black hole

>> No.8295434

>>8295323
>It seems that you got stuck on the word "field" for some reason
never said anything about fields itt
Just saying, that if you disagree and you think it is so simple to refute, that you should actually tackle the arguments instead of shitposting

>> No.8295435

>>8295367
>Faggots arguing science on a science board
You are the most curious of all faggots.

>>8295403
>Graviton can not mathematically exist as predicted.
Cannot mathematically exist or physically exist? There is nothing precluding it from physically existing, unless you know something the rest of us don't.
>This is the whole reason for String Theory.
Wrong. Did you just pull this out of your ass? String theory upholds the standard model of 24 particles, which includes gauge bosons like the graviton and the higgs. The two models are meant to complement one another. They go hand in hand.

>facepalm.jpg
Is this really the level of fedora tipping scientism? You don't even understand your own discipline?

>> No.8295445

>>8295418
>faster than that of c
again: nope

>> No.8295458

>>8295403
>String Theory
Genuinely and unironically >>>/x/

>> No.8295462

>>8295445
The gravity well of a blackhole has an escape velocity of or greater than c at its event horizon and this increases to many times greater than c as you approach the singularity itself. Anything caught in this gravity well will be sucked in at this superluminal speed. This is the concept behind black holes.

>> No.8295466

>>8295435

>know something the rest of us don't

You don't know the Weinberg-Witten theorem?

The rest of your post doesn't really merit a response.

>> No.8295467

>>8295434
I'm not thinking anything is simple to refute, I'm in no way a fundamental physicist.
That doesn't mean I have to believe the first asshole who claims to be. And the fact that those two niggers couldn't agree on what they meant by field makes me thing at least one is a bullshitter.

When I talk with other people in my field we don't find ourselves unable to communicate.

>> No.8295476

>>8295462
The concept behind black holes, is that space time is folded into itself. You cant just apply simple orbital mechanics to the space beyond the EH. And even if it was so simple, " escape velocity of or greater than c" doesnt mean, that anything actually has that speed "inside" the black hole. If it had, it could escape.
Lastly, all of that is besides the point, since the only information we can possibly get from "inside" the black hole is its mass

>> No.8295487

>>8295467
>we don't find ourselves unable to communicate
Fair enough, mate. In 80% of the discussions here, people just attack the point they imagine the other one is making

>> No.8295495

>>8295476
Actually, the concept of a black hole is that the scharzwild radius is a solution to gr.in this case, the path that light takes is bent by gravity into an "orbit" around the hole. This is what we call the event horizon.
Since nothing with mass can travel faster than c, and since c is the escape velocity, nothing escapes.

>> No.8295509

>>8295495
Yeah, I understand this already. The implication of this, is that spacetime is folded so much, that is basically is folded "into" itself. Once you are beyond the EH, there is no outside direction anymore (at least for all intents and purposes)

>> No.8295533

>>8295466
>>8295466
Don't know much on the theorem. But to be honest I don't care about it either way, since I neither seek to promote the graviton or the standard model. They are all bunk in my opinion, just like this theory.

> doesn't really merit a response.
You should state whether you mean bosonic or superstring theory to avoid confusion in future.

>> No.8295562

>>8295476
>escape velocity of or greater than c" doesnt mean, that anything actually has that speed "inside" the black hole.
This is exactly what that means. You would need a speed higher than c to escape from inside the EV since c is the escape velocity at the EV. But I agree it is all theoretical. I don't even believe black holes exist.

>> No.8295572

>>8294949
Not × 3

>> No.8295573

>>8295562
>You would need a speed higher than c to escape from inside
again. this doesnt mean that anything actually is faster than c. You know, since nothing escapes

>> No.8295578

>>8295090
>If it is not a force then what is it?
It's an acceleration, Sherlock.

>> No.8295584

>>8295562
>I don't even believe black holes exist
Well, they exist indepently of your beliefs

>> No.8295672

>>8295573
No. they are falling towards the singularity at speeds exceeding c. They cannot escape the grasp of the sungularity since it has infinite density.

>>8295572
meme science

>>8295578
acceleration is a force. how the force is applied; whether EM, or gravitational is the question.

>>8295584
Lel. There has been no proof of the existence of black holes, so belief is all you have.

>> No.8295677

>>8295672
>they are falling towards the singularity at speeds exceeding c
You are repeating yourself, without engaging the points I bring up so I'm just gonna have to ask you for a source on that

>> No.8295700

>>8295672
>they are falling towards the singularity at speeds exceeding c
No they arent, because you cant do that

>> No.8295709

>>8295672
>so belief is all you have
OK, so how do (You) explain the observations of the orbits of stars at the centre of our galaxy?
look here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMax0KgyZZU
or read here:
https://www.eso.org/public/germany/news/eso0846/

How are there no stars, that fall victim to gravitational collapse? What is the alternative to gravitational collapse?

>> No.8295727

>>8295677
I think I see what you are saying. Think about it this way. Lets say that you are on a planet with a gravity field and you need 100 km escape velocity. You build your rocket and blast off and after two seconds of flight you achieve the necessary speed, but you rocket tips over and starts flying into a deep gorge. You have escape velocity, but are you going to escape the planet's gravity? No, because you are flying in the wrong direction.
>>8295700
You can if the frames are dragging that the object is in. It is not the object that is moving but the space around it.

>> No.8295732

>>8295709
I've seen this so-called evidence before. But where is the gravitational lensing you would expect with such a direct interaction with a black hole?

>> No.8295748

>>8295732
>this so-called evidence before
Well, please answer my questions.
explain the observations of the orbits of stars at the centre of our galaxy?
How are there no stars, that fall victim to gravitational collapse? What is the alternative to gravitational collapse?

>> No.8295769

>>8295748
>how are there no stars that do that
>none
How does the Earth orbit the sun if there's gravity huh???

>> No.8295798

>>8295073
It comes from general relativity. I'm not a physicist (so if you happen to know better than I, please correct me), but that's not really well understood. I believe that this is why we are trying to find evidence of the graviton (particle in theoretical physics that explains gravity). I know the Higgs boson is involved in this too. The Higgs boson explains how particles have mass (long story short). Effectively, any object with mass distorts space time (read about how the length of a spaceship changes as it approaches relativistic speed or how being 10 feet over the event horizon of a black hole distorts time). This distortion explains how objects gravitate towards the object in question (and vice-a-versa).

>> No.8295804

>>8295769
Ok, since you dont have an alternative explanation for the observations of the gallactic center or the theoretical implications, I just have to assume your "black holes not real" statement is total ass-pull and that you are full of shit

>> No.8295806

>>8295145
Hawking radiation results in energy leaving the black hole and eventually will cause the black hole to dissipate.

>>8295201
That's what Newton suggested: that the effects of gravity are instant. It is a bit problematic because it violates causality, so Einstein stated that gravity propagates as the speed of light (causality).

>> No.8295817

>>8295798
Just a small correction about a very common misconception:
While the higgs-field is indeed responsible for giving particles mass, the vast majority of mass comes from the strong force acting upon protons

>> No.8295829

>>8295817
Interesting, yeah I know that the strong force is responsible for keeping the nucleus of an atom together (despite the fact that the articles would normally be repelled by the electric force). I know it does the same with quarks to form protons/neutrons, but don't quarks already have mass? How is the strong force responsible?

>> No.8295845

>>8295804
Sorry slow connection. This isn't me >>8295769

>>8295748
I'm more concerned with the lack of real data here. There is no sign of gravitational lensing. Why not? Was the data not detailed enough to detect it? If so, what else did it miss? Also how do we know what conditions are like at the centre of the Milky Way? There could be weird gravitational forces at work there, just as there is throughout the galaxy and that are attributed to dark matter.

In answer to your other questions about gravitational collapse, I'm afraid I don't know the answers. Maybe there is a way for stars to grow indefinitely, maybe not. They are interesting things to think about, but we need more evidence to say if they are a certainty. At present the evidence just isn't there.

>> No.8295854
File: 27 KB, 780x825, 1471950013485.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8295854

>>8295385
>light doesn't interfere with itself

>> No.8295860

>>8295829
>I know it does the same with quarks to form protons/neutrons
There you have it. The mass comes from the strong force binding the quarks (and their energy) together.

The Higgs-field on the other hand gives particles an effective rest mass by binding them in space

>> No.8295877

>>8295845
We cant see lensing from Sagittarius A* because its bright as fuck and you only get noticeable lensing if you are really zoomed in

>> No.8295886

>>8295845
>lack of real data here
What do you mean?
Look up how they gathered data here
http://www.galacticcenter.astro.ucla.edu/
or
https://www.eso.org/public/germany/news/eso0846/
or look again at an example of the representation of data here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMax0KgyZZU
There is no denying this. Those stars have orbits that clearly indicate, that they orbit an object with an absurd amont of mass.
As for the grav. lensing, please note that the yt link is just an animation. The gallactic centre is behind a lot clouds and nebulae and not very easy to observe. So to have very detailed information about the lensing there indeed arent enough observations yet.
You can read more about this here:
http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.5607

>that are attributed to dark matter.
I am looking forward to your hypothesis as to how dark matter can cause such a localized effect (that is already satisfactory explained by normal matter btw)

>Maybe there is a way for stars to grow indefinitely
There is. Its called gravitational collapse and results in a black hole. (although there is a limit as to how big they can grow)
Based on our current models, they are a certainty. This combined with the admittedly indirect observations makes them a working model.

Now one could debate about the details and implications endlessly, but there is no scientific/rational reason to doubt the mere existence of something like black holes

>> No.8295894

>>8295860
Ok, I see now. Thanks for explaining, man.

>> No.8295902

>>8295886
>although there is a limit as to how big they can grow
What limit?

>> No.8295916

>>8295902
About 50 billion solar masses. But I guess, I oversimplified the nature of that limit way too much. In theory nothing stops them from potentially growing. It is just, that beyond a certain size the accretion disc becomes unstable/non-luminous and they get almost invisible. It is really more of an detection limit.

>> No.8295919

>>8295916
Okey dokey, definitely sounded like you were suggesting there was a mechanical limit to the size of a black hole

>> No.8295921

>>8295373
>freesbe/ufo shape
what? the "shape" of a black hole you're referring to is the shape of the event horizon around a singularity .. which is a perfect sphere

>> No.8295928

>>8295921
Only if it is not rotating

>> No.8295945

They just discovered a fifth fundamental force the other day.

All of this is just made up shit. In a decade or so they'll invent something else.

Ultimately none of it matters anyway since you'll die.
That's why the only rational thing is to be religious on the off chance there's an afterlife.

Otherwise there might as well be three gravities and 10 more fundamental forces, who cares.

>> No.8295946

rly makes you think huh

>> No.8295957

It is a logical impossibility that our universe is 70% dark energy and we cannot discern it. Therefore the 'rubber-sheet' model of gravity is for bed wetters. Likely is that DE and matter are opposites, the more matter, the more DE pushes against it, thus initial accretion is far more simply explained.

>> No.8295993

>>8295106
You have almost no understanding of the most basic principals of physical interaction, anon. I suggest you read up on c and why it is so ubiquitous (not just light) and think long and hard about what that means for reality as we know it.

>instantaneous change across all of space

This is where you went catastrophically wrong, by the way.

>> No.8296006

>>8294949
Gravity is different

https://youtu.be/IcxptIJS7kQ?t=33m25s

>> No.8296017

>>8295921
>>8295928
I was referring to the shape of a spiral Galaxy due to the properties of a super massive black hole that may be at its center.when spinning very fast, the 'gravity' of the galaxy tends to spread out of the spheric center and into a disk/pancake shape, hence the 'galactic disc.'

>> No.8296031

>>8296017
thats because the galaxy is rotating

>> No.8296041
File: 34 KB, 510x342, Galactic_Plane_1 (1).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8296041

>>8296031
Why are many galaxies 'flat' and why does our solar system (and other mass) oscillate around the galactic plane?

>> No.8296061

>>8296041
>Why are many galaxies 'flat
because they are rotating

>oscillate around the galactic plane?
Isnt really an oscillation and we dont have enough data for a solid explanation. But we are not just "orbiting" the centre of the galaxy as if it was a 2-body relationship, if thats what you are wondering

>> No.8296088

>>8296061
>because they are rotating

Is this because the matter that was not rotating in the 'preferred direction' get eliminated? Similar to the preferred direction of marbles in this video: https://youtu.be/MTY1Kje0yLg?t=2m44s

>But we are not just "orbiting" the centre of the galaxy as if it was a 2-body relationship

Right. Maybe there is a gify around somewhere that illustrates what may be going on in this 'oscillation' (for a lack of a better term).

>> No.8296141

>>8296088
>not rotating in the 'preferred direction' get eliminated?
Cant say if that does or doesnt play a role. There are also single systems or even clusters that "go against the stream". But the rather uniform rotation comes from the fact, that it started out as a huge cloud of matter. It is kind of similar to the origin of starsystems or planet - moon systems respectively.

>> No.8296148

>>8295147
>>8295147
>>8295243
>>8295243
>>8295266
>>8295296
Fields are a mathematical construct, retard, you can use them for whatever the fuck reason you want, for a forces potential field or to specify some other quantity in space. Einstein used them to specify the curvature of space, which doesnt have anything to do with forces, except that when we see a mass following a geodesic we attribute the deviation from a straight line to a 'force'

>> No.8296165

>>8294916
we have no conclusive evidence that black holes even exist

>muuh space time fabric
thats how you spot an uneducated idiot who confuses mathematical models with reality

>> No.8296175

>>8296006
>gravity is unique because there is no energy minimum
no

>> No.8296176

>>8296165
we have no conclusive evidence that you are an autistic blowhard pedant shitposter with all the iq and contributions to humanity of a walmart cashier, but somehow i dont think we are going to argue the point all too much

>> No.8296195
File: 80 KB, 399x614, 1443993820352.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8296195

>>8296176

>> No.8296205
File: 193 KB, 504x504, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8296205

>>8295845
>Also how do we know what conditions are like at the centre of the Milky Way?
???
We use telescopes and extrapolate data based on our observations.

>>8295877
>bright as fuck
¿ bright ?

Pic: Orbits of prominent stars around Sag A* 1995-2010
>A. Ghez, Keck, UCLA, et al

>> No.8296524

>>8295886
> hypothesis as to how dark matter can cause such a localized effect
Yeah you're not going to get that. Obviously if I am sceptical black holes and GR then believing in the existence of dark matter is an impossibility, which means that one of the other forces (EM for example) must be behind the uniform rotation of the galaxies and if it can do that who knows what interactions it couled have at the centre of the rotating vortex.

>there is no scientific/rational reason to doubt the mere existence of something like black holes
Show me gravitational lensing on the order of black holes, show me a star (or anything) being sucked in, show me a consistent signal for all black holes (presently they seem to fluctuate between bright stars, empty patches of space, or infrared spots) and explain to me whether the examples show static, rotating, charged or non charged black holes. Then I will submit and say that it is rational to believe they exist, there are too many contradictions in GR and in black hole mathematics in particular to put any trust in.

>> No.8296527

>>8296148
>Fields are a mathematical construct, retard,
Tell that to Tesla.
> or to specify some other quantity in space
how vague
>y the curvature of space, which doesnt have anything to do with forces, except that when we see a mass following a geodesic we attribute the deviation from a straight line to a 'force'
Is this a joke. 'Fields aren't real, except when they are doing all the work in the universe', this is the sad state of mathematics and physics, you should all have your grants removed be taken out and shot.

>> No.8296535 [DELETED] 

>>8295993
I understand SR and GR up to the point when they stop making sense internally.

>>instantaneous change across all of space is where you went catastrophically wrong, by the way.
I understand that and respect your opinion, but you should be aware that I am stating the superluminal effect of gravity in defiance of SR and GR. I am literally saying that you are wrong to believe in the law of causality as it pertains to gravity, not that I haven't heard of such a law, there is a difference.

>> No.8296538

>>8296006
Good vid. I've seen it before. Unfortunately it has little relevance to the topics being discussed here.

>> No.8296542

>>8295993
I understand SR and GR up to the point when they stop making sense internally.

>>instantaneous change across all of space is where you went catastrophically wrong, by the way.
I understand that and respect your opinion, but you should be aware that I am stating the superluminal effect of gravity in defiance of SR and GR. I am literally saying that you are wrong to trust in the law of causality as it pertains to cosmic speed limit in reference to gravity, not that I haven't heard of such a law, there is a difference.

>> No.8297497

>>8295957
>It is a logical impossibility that our universe is 70% dark energy and we cannot discern it
>logical impossibility

You can't deduce how nature is supposed to behave using pure abstract thought.

>> No.8298398

>>8294916
Because black holes are literally hell.

>> No.8298739

>>8296148
>Fields are a mathematical construct, retard,
I can't get over how stupid this is. Mathematics is used to describe events and objects in the real world, not create them just to satisfy equations. If you think otherwise you are doing it wrong. Fields are detectable measurable entities with real world effects (forces).

>> No.8298842

>>8295138
Weinfurtner says: “It’s a nice and promising experiment - a good step forward. But it leaves some room for doubt and needs more experiments to confirm if the Hawking radiation here is really from a quantum effect.

“I’m not sure if it can be used to study the information paradox as real black holes evaporate and have entropy, but analogue ones don’t. It’s these differences that matter,” she told The Register.

So it's not a definite.

>> No.8298898

>>8294965
Nothing is actually affected by gravity, things just move in straight lines. Although 'straight' means takes the path that minimizes the time between points, and these paths are called geodesics. They are uniquely determined by starting out with a vector and parallel transporting it in your (possibly curved) space. This defines the track that the particle takes and replaces Newton's law of gravitation.

>> No.8298919

>>8295147
>I'm about to rip you a new arsehole.
ooh, big man on the chan
y'all better bring lube, this guy tears arse holes

>> No.8298923

>>8294965
>>8294954
>>8294949
>>8294945
>>8294936
Gravity waves are what you should be asking if they escape blackholes.

Gravity permeates everything just as the electric field permeates everything.It's the disturbances in the fields, like electrons or gravitation that can't escape the blackhole.

>> No.8298925

>>8298923
correction, gravitons*