|
|
|
|
|
| Black holes...help!
Posted: 3/23/2007 12:04:22 PM |
General Relativity (or at least a portion of it) will be kicked to the curb, if not in our lifetime, but soon enough...
And of course something can exceed the speed of light. We just don't know what it is yet... And these two beliefs are based on what?
When I look the other way in that last final milla second I would still see other space objects and stars light years away No you would not. You would see light from those objects that was being pulled into the black hole with you.
something CAN escape the black holes gravitational influence whether it's light or sight As has been pointed out to you allready: your "sight travels" assertion is ignorance of the highest magnitude.
Sight describes the fact that photoreceptors in your eyes are sensitive to electromagnetic radiation (light) and send a signil to your brain which is then interpreted as "vision".
The only thing you actually "see" is radiation hitting your eye. Your brain uses that radiation to form an image of what the radiation came from/bounced off.
something CAN escape the black holes gravitational influence whether it's light or sight Of course, you can't see anything "in the final moments", tidal forces have spegattified you and graavitational lensing has distorted light entering the black hole.
But assuming you could magically stand inside the event horizon of a black hole, and assuming that light wasn't distorted by the gravity (so you could, in fact, see the stars); it STILL has nothing at all to do with your astoundingly wrong assertion regarding sight. Nothing is escapeing... the light from the stars is coming to you. | |
|
| Black holes...help!
Posted: 3/23/2007 1:48:29 PM | And of course something can exceed the speed of light. We just don't know what it is yet...
It is theoretically possible to exceed the speed of light (or c), but let me qualify that first.
In the theory of general relativity the divisor of the eqation approaches zer0 as you approach the speed of light. (The square root of 1 - 1/c squared) This causes the amount of energy and mass to increase greatly as you approach the speed of light. Once you hit the speed of light this divisor is zero. This makes the answer infinity. Something that impossible to reach.
When your speed is over the speed of light the divisor becomes the square root of a negative number which is an imaginary number.
It is therefore theoretically possible to travel faster than the speed of light if you can find the root of a negative number (which does not exist) but you cannot travel at the speed of light itself. | |
|
| Black holes...help!
Posted: 3/23/2007 2:31:40 PM | Here is an interesting article I found regarding a Quasar system consisting of three quasars and their accompaniying Super-Massive Black holes.
A trio of quasars is beginning a gravitational dance that should hasten the merger of two of their supermassive black holes and kick the third out on a high-speed journey through intergalactic space, according to two teams of astronomers.
The three quasars -- supermassive black holes surrounded by disks of hot gas as big as the solar system -- form a system known as QQQ 1432. They are about 10.5 billion light-years away, which means we see them as they existed about three billion years after the Big Bang.
Astronomers discovered two of the quasars in 1989, but only recently found the third, which makes QQQ 1432 the first known triple-quasar system. Two of the three are inside galaxies, while the third also appears to have a host galaxy, said Caltech astronomer George Djorgovski, who led that team that studied the system. The quasars are about 100,000 light-years apart, which is roughly the diameter of the Milky Way galaxy. One of the black holes is several billion times as massive as the Sun while the other two are substantially smaller.
As the galaxies move closer to each other, their gas clouds will smash together, giving birth to new stars. At the same time, though, more gas will be funneled into the quasars, which will slow down or halt further star formation.
The black holes will conduct a complex gravitational dance, said Frederic Rosio of Northwestern University, a member of a team that simulated the interplay of three close supermassive black holes. Two of the black holes will form a tight binary pair. After many wild loops around each other, either the binary system or the single black hole will be ejected from their coalescing galaxies, while the other will settle into the center of the galaxies and eventually merge to form a larger black hole. | |
|
| Black holes...help!
Posted: 3/23/2007 10:31:42 PM | Just to try and clarify the discussion on light and vision again, imagine vision as working like hearing. We don't hear things by sending out something from our ears. Our ears just accept waves (intervals of high and low pressure in this case) coming to us through the air. Our auditory system then tells us , "hey, something is over there making noise". That's how our eyes work, too. Instead of receiving audio waves, they receive light waves (photons). As stated above, we see QQQ 1432 as it existed about three billion years after the Big Bang instead of how it exists now. If there was something going out from us to QQQ 1432 in a fraction of a second, then what we saw would not be so far behind the present. And we would be able to see things that don't emit anything at all, which is not the case. You may ask, "then how do we see black holes?" The answer is "we don't." We see only their surroundings.
Now, to potentially blow some minds. As has been stated, relativity states that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. But, did you know that things can actually move away from you at speeds greater than the speed of light? Sounds like a paradox, right? It's not. Due to the expansion of the universe, it is possible for objects to recede from us a greater than the speed of light. Think about it this way. Consider two regions of space. Our galaxy is in one and Galaxy Z is in the other. The space itself in between them "grows", so to speak, so the two galaxies are then farther away from one another. Now, all that additional space between them is growing then, too, so the rate at which the two galaxies are flying away from one another is constantly increasing. At some point there is enough space (expanding space) between them that light from one can never keep up with the ever-expanding distance between the two. So, no light, no objects, nothing can ever then make its way from our galaxy to Galaxy Z. Still no laws of relativity have been broken because what's essentially happening is that the "regions" themselves are moving while everything in the two regions continues to move at or below the speed of light. | |
|
| Black holes...help!
Posted: 3/23/2007 11:17:23 PM | Here is one to ponder. Since the further we look out into space the further back in time we look (they say). How does that work and how can we look to the future, maybe someplace else is seeing us as our planetary system was billions of years ago. How far does an object have to be from us to be classified as being "in the past" ? and is there anyway we can see into teh future from out there....OR is it, since we pick up the past the farther an object is from us. Can it be that maybe to see the future you have to go down to a microscopic level which a Black holes singularity may do since it is of infinite density and it screws up the space/time around it.?
At some point there is enough space (expanding space) between them that light from one can never keep up with the ever-expanding distance between the two. So, no light, no objects, nothing can ever then make its way from our galaxy to Galaxy Z. Still no laws of relativity have been broken because what's essentially happening is that the "regions" themselves are moving while everything in the two regions continues to move at or below the speed of light.
What do you mean here?
I was able to see another Galaexy , I remember when this was it was in July in 1995 I was up north and in the clear sky there we say what appeared to be spirals far far away and they were very faint, we said to ourselves (my friends and I ) we said that that was another galexy.
Besides astronomers can see different galexies via telescope. So appearantly light CAN travel that fast. | |
|
| Black holes...help!
Posted: 3/24/2007 12:17:19 AM |
How far does an object have to be from us to be classified as being "in the past" ?
Our own sun is far enough away that we're seeing what it looked like in the past. Not too far in the past, only eight minutes ago, but we can never see it as it looks right this moment as long as we're stuck looking at it from Earth.
The moon is much closer, but it's still far enough away that it takes the light about a second to get from it to our eyes. Technically, we're seeing everything we look at as it looked in the past, but because we're so close to most objects and light travels so quickly, we're seeing how they looked only a tiny fraction of a second in the past.
and is there anyway we can see into teh future from out there....OR is it, since we pick up the past the farther an object is from us.
The reason we're seeing things as they were in the past is because the light takes a while to travel the distance from the object to our eyes. If you look at something closer the light travels the distance to your eye almost instantly. You see the closer object as it is right now. You won't be able to see how it will look in the future unless you're psychic. | |
|
| Black holes...help!
Posted: 3/24/2007 12:23:02 AM |
is there anyway we can see into teh future from out there....
No. I can think of no way to see into the future, but then again what do I know.
We're not looking into the past, we're just looking at old light. That light emanated from events that happened before, and they to0k X amount of time to reach you. So when you look up at the stars, you're not watching a live performance.
So if you remain still and look around, you see the present. If you flew ~2000 light years away from earth and maintained light speed away from it, you could look back and watch the crucifixion of Jesus.
If you took the happiest moment of your life and flew away from it at light speed, you could watch that moment forever. You'd need a pretty good telescope of course.
Incidentally, from what I understand nothing moves faster than light. If you are in a train that is moving at light speed, and you then you speed up - you're moving light speed. If you are in the train (still at light speed), and you personally travel from the back of the train to the front of the train, both you and the train are moving at light speed, even though you're moving faster than the train. The speed of light remains the same for all observers.
That's relativity.
I don't understand it either. | |
|
| Black holes...help!
Posted: 3/24/2007 12:28:11 AM | but we can never see it as it looks right this moment as long as we're stuck looking at it from Earth.
yes we can see what the sun looks like this second, just wait 8 minutes and we will see what it looked like when you first said it.
So can one say that there are different dimensions of time? because it sure sounds like it.
So when you look up at the stars, you're not watching a live performance.
Well actually we are looking at the same "performance" ebcause the very fact that we can see something there means that it has not finished it's performance. | |
|
| Black holes...help!
Posted: 3/24/2007 2:08:23 PM |
What do you mean here?
I was able to see another Galaexy , I remember when this was it was in July in 1995 I was up north and in the clear sky there we say what appeared to be spirals far far away and they were very faint, we said to ourselves (my friends and I ) we said that that was another galexy.
Besides astronomers can see different galexies via telescope. So appearantly light CAN travel that fast.
Yes, we can see other galaxies, but those are not far enough away for what I was talking about to come into play. I don't know what the critical distance is, but no matter where you are, you could point in any direction and say, "anything ______ miles in that direction can never be observed by us, and nothing beyond that distance can ever observe us." This assumes no wormholes, etc. | |
|
| Black holes...help!
Posted: 3/24/2007 2:23:47 PM | And about observing a live performance, we cannot really be sure whether what we're looking at is still there. Some star we look at in the sky appears to be fine and doing its thing, but it could've burned out or gone supernova already. We wouldn't see that happen for years. The closest star to us is, I believe, 4 light years away, meaning we see it now as it was in 2003. If I remember correctly, it's not massive enough to collapse and then blow out its surrounding material, but, if it were, we would not suffer any consequences of this happening for 4 years. In fact, we wouldn't even know it'd happened.
Consider this. We don't even see ourselves in the present. We see ourselves as we were very very slightly in the past, but it's close enough to the present that we can work with it as a "current" observation. It'd be interesting to know exactly how far in the past our view of ourselves are. I'd bet it is not exactly the same for everyone and probably varies somewhat even within the same individual. First, the light bouncing off you to the mirror and back again (if that's how you're observing yourself) takes a small amount of time to make that trip, and then there's a larger (but still small) amount of time for the signal from the eye to get to the brain and then be processed into an image. I bet our view of ourselves is multiple hundredths of a second or up to something like of a tenth of a second outdated, not that that presents a real problem to us. | |
|
| Black holes...help!
Posted: 3/26/2007 4:35:22 PM |
Now, to potentially blow some minds. As has been stated, relativity states that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. But, did you know that things can actually move away from you at speeds greater than the speed of light? Sounds like a paradox, right? It's not. Due to the expansion of the universe, it is possible for objects to recede from us a greater than the speed of light. Actually, this is not possible. In fact the reverse is more interesting and appears true. Two trains travel towards each other both moving at the speed of light (relative to me, a stationary observer). I see their distance closing at twice the speed of light, but they both percieve their rate of approach as the speed of light.
That the speed of light is constant relative to an observer is the foundation of relativity.
ago. How far does an object have to be from us to be classified as being "in the past" ? Any positive non-zero distance.
is there anyway we can see into teh future from out there....OR is it, since we pick up the past the farther an object is from us. Can it be that maybe to see the future you have to go down to a microscopic level which a Black holes singularity may do since it is of infinite density and it screws up the space/time around it.? Only if you can see less than nothing at all. | |
|
| Black holes...help!
Posted: 4/5/2007 1:25:32 PM | | The example you give, while true, is not the reverse of the situation I described, which does not violate relativity because it doesn't require anything to exceed the speed of light. | |
|
| Black holes...help!
Posted: 4/5/2007 4:53:59 PM | You said that things can move away from you at faster than the speed of light. They cannot. Nothing can move faster than the speed of light under any circumstances in the universe.
If there was a train travinling east at the spped of light, and one travelling west at the speed of light, and you were on the east-bound train, the west-bound train would move away from you at the speed of light, not at twice the speed of light.
There are no circumstances where someone can observe movement faster than light. | |
|
| Black holes...help!
Posted: 4/5/2007 5:41:16 PM | If there was a train travinling east at the spped of light, and one travelling west at the speed of light, and you were on the east-bound train, the west-bound train would move away from you at the speed of light, not at twice the speed of light.
I think you would be seeing the train go twice as fast in this scenario. How do you know that we would stil be seeing the train travelling at the speed of light and not twice as fast? In this case one may have to assume that there is something , maybe extremely remote to our understanding, that is infact working at a rate faster then light.
Maybe our eyes would not pick it up that fast, but it doesn't mean it would not be going twice the speed of light. | |
|
| Black holes...help!
Posted: 4/5/2007 7:28:55 PM | I am not a scientist but I have to believe that eventually, Einstien's theory will be disproven just like Newton's has been.
From what I understand, when a black hole is formed, it means that at an atomic level, the electrons orbiting the nucleus of atoms get squashed up against the nucleus and their orbit and therefore the energy that they emit in the form of light ceases to exist.
Light I believe is created by the frequency of the electrons circling the atom. To stop the electrons would be to stop the creation of light.
Let us use our solar system as an example. Imagine that it is the same as an atom and the planets represent the valence rings of electrons while ths sun represents the neutrons. If we take pluto's orbit (alright Uranus then) and drew a sphere equating to that orbit we would get a huge amount of empty space. I can only envision electrons and atoms taking the same general form. Now if we squash all the planets up against the sun and then packed the huge empty sphere with more suns and more planets we would have a mass that was millions if not billions of times more mass than the original solar system sphere. all the while occupying the same amount of space.
Now if we assume that atoms work the same way, wouldn't it be possible to get billions of times more mass into the same space that one atom originally occupied?
Once we pack all of these atoms together like this, there would be nowhere for electrons to orbit and hence no way to generate light. I do not believe that this matter can be packed any tighter . Mass cannot dissappear and cannot shrink infinately. There must be a limit of how tightly packed it can get and therefore infinity does not apply.
As well a belive the the event horizon is the point whereby the matter rushing towards the center of the black hole is in fact going faster that the speed of light so that even though it has not been packed down yet and therefore still emits light, the matter's speed exceeds the speed of light and therfore light cannot escape outward because it cannot travel faster the the mass that emits it.
Eventually, I believe that 2 black holes will get trapped by the gravity of each other and so long as their mass is roughly equal to each other , the will both start to accelerate towards each other and eventally as long as BOTH have reached the magical event horizon, and are travelling past the speed of light that they will collide with sufficient force to release enough stored up energy that instead of just making a bigger black hole, in fact a new localized big bag will occur.
Ok now you shoot me down hehehe.
| |
|
| Black holes...help!
Posted: 4/5/2007 7:56:11 PM |
As well a belive the the event horizon is the point whereby the matter rushing towards the center of the black hole is in fact going faster that the speed of light so that even though it has not been packed down yet and therefore still emits light, the matter's speed exceeds the speed of light and therfore light cannot escape outward because it cannot travel faster the the mass that emits it.
Eventually, I believe that 2 black holes will get trapped by the gravity of each other and so long as their mass is roughly equal to each other , the will both start to accelerate towards each other and eventally as long as BOTH have reached the magical event horizon, and are travelling past the speed of light that they will collide with sufficient force to release enough stored up energy that instead of just making a bigger black hole, in fact a new localized big bag will occur.
In this localized "big bang" that you suggested, wouldn't that be probably a "white hole"?, because they say that "white holes" are the time reversals of black holes, in that they emit or spit out energy instead of sucking in it. | |
|
| Black holes...help!
Posted: 4/5/2007 8:35:09 PM | Interesting, I have never heard of that term before.
I am imagining that black holes colliding is an extremely rare event and that in most of these cases one hole is much bigger than the other so that it does not get to accelerate with enough speed.
By the time that two evenly sized holes of sufficient mass find each other, they may have swallowed up a huge amount of universe and contain enough mass to create millions of galaxies. I would venture to say the first bit of the ensuing explosion would toss matter out faster than lightspeed.
Myself I am not convinced that there has only been one big bang. It only goes to reason that if it happened once, it can happen again.
Maybe the one that happened before the last big bang was so long ago that we have no way of ever detecting it.
It is hard to accept that everyting just started all at once out of nothing.
It is just as hard for me to accept the concept of infinity.
No one has ever proven its existence. We simply do not have to capability to find the end.......yet! | |
|
| Black holes...help!
Posted: 4/6/2007 4:01:28 PM |
You said that things can move away from you at faster than the speed of light. They cannot. Nothing can move faster than the speed of light under any circumstances in the universe.
If there was a train travinling east at the spped of light, and one travelling west at the speed of light, and you were on the east-bound train, the west-bound train would move away from you at the speed of light, not at twice the speed of light.
There are no circumstances where someone can observe movement faster than light.
But the rest of my original post on this topic explains that nothing actually IS moving faster than light. | |
|
| Black holes...help!
Posted: 4/6/2007 4:21:39 PM |
I think you would be seeing the train go twice as fast in this scenario. How do you know that we would stil be seeing the train travelling at the speed of light and not twice as fast? I'm not clear on the experimental evidence, but it's pretty foundational to relativity... which derives it's name from the fact that speed is relative to the observer. To have something move >c relative to you would devalidate the theory pretty completely.
In this case one may have to assume that there is something , maybe extremely remote to our understanding, that is infact working at a rate faster then light. I see no need for any such assumption. In fact, I conclude such a thing to be impossible.
Maybe our eyes would not pick it up that fast, but it doesn't mean it would not be going twice the speed of light. Nothing goes faster than light.
I am not a scientist but I have to believe that eventually, Einstien's theory will be disproven just like Newton's has been. Newton hasn't been disproven. He was correct... within a scale. His forumlas have been expanded to be correct in a bigger scale.
From what I understand, when a black hole is formed, it means that at an atomic level, the electrons orbiting the nucleus of atoms get squashed up against the nucleus and their orbit and therefore the energy that they emit in the form of light ceases to exist. That happens long before a black hole. A nutron star, for example, is too dense to contain atoms.
[qoute]Light I believe is created by the frequency of the electrons circling the atom. To stop the electrons would be to stop the creation of light. If that were true, then you would have perpetually light atoms and violate thermodynamics. It is true that an electron changing from a higher orbit to a lower one can give off light in the process (it takes less energy for a lower orbit, and the extra energy must go somewhere).
Once we pack all of these atoms together like this, there would be nowhere for electrons to orbit and hence no way to generate light. This relies of the false premise that light is generated by orbiting electrons.
As well a belive the the event horizon is the point whereby the matter rushing towards the center of the black hole is in fact going faster that the speed of light so that even though it has not been packed down yet and therefore still emits light, the matter's speed exceeds the speed of light and therfore light cannot escape outward because it cannot travel faster the the mass that emits it We don't have data on material within the event horizon. I suspect it still does not exceed the speed of light. Under the "curvature of spacetime" a gravity with a force of c would be "straight down" and steeper curvature could not be had, though broader could.
Eventually, I believe that 2 black holes will get trapped by the gravity of each other and so long as their mass is roughly equal to each other , the will both start to accelerate towards each other and eventally as long as BOTH have reached the magical event horizon, and are travelling past the speed of light that they will collide with sufficient force to release enough stored up energy that instead of just making a bigger black hole, in fact a new localized big bag will occur. You have any number of problems there.
1) Black holes routinelt eat each other.
2) If your hypothesis is true, that accelleration will meet/exceed c, then time will stop and no collision is ever possible.
3) The Big bang was not an explosion of metter-energy within spacetime, it was the expansion of spacetime itself.
In this localized "big bang" that you suggested, wouldn't that be probably a "white hole"?, because they say that "white holes" are the time reversals of black holes, in that they emit or spit out energy instead of sucking in it. The Big Bang didn't emit anything. It was the sudden expansion of timespace.
I am imagining that black holes colliding is an extremely rare event and that in most of these cases one hole is much bigger than the other so that it does not get to accelerate with enough speed. It doens't matter. Any two black-holes will both accellerate to c before colliding.
I would venture to say the first bit of the ensuing explosion would toss matter out faster than lightspeed. Movement faster than light is not possible.
It is just as hard for me to accept the concept of infinity.
No one has ever proven its existence. We simply do not have to capability to find the end.......yet! You ignore that something can be both finite and boundless. | |
|
| Black holes...help!
Posted: 4/6/2007 4:23:40 PM |
But the rest of my original post on this topic explains that nothing actually IS moving faster than light. No. It's not. A beam of light sent towards it will always eventually reach it. In fact, from the perspective of the opbect in question, it will reach it as a direct function of distance.
If you are on a train heading away from me at the speed of light, and when you are 1ly away you shine a flashlight at me, the light will get to me in 1 year. It doesn't even matter which of us is actually moving (as it's all relative). | |
|
| Black holes...help!
Posted: 4/6/2007 4:40:01 PM | | I think you missed the word "nothing" in my previous post. | |
|
| Black holes...help!
Posted: 4/6/2007 6:45:59 PM | | LOL Fair enough ;) What happens when I get distracted. | |
|
| Black holes...help!
Posted: 4/12/2007 9:54:40 PM | | http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070412_blackhole_eclipse.html | |
|
| Black holes...help!
Posted: 4/14/2007 3:21:38 AM | oOoOo good topic! :)
Chances are it's been answered. But meh here is my answer! :)
kk, so a black hole is called a hole because by definition it is. The sheer mass of the object(black hole) in such a small place causes it to burrow a "hole" in space. (possibly beyond?)
This effect is easiest to understand when illustrated on a 2 dimensional plane in a 3 dimensional environment.
Kinda like say having a rubber sheet held taunt at the edges and poked in the center (which causes it to distort into a funnel shape) -Now apply the same concept to a 3 dimensional space. :)
As for distribution of gravity on earth. No, it's not equal. There are places on earth's surface where you will weigh slightly different amounts. Because of the distribution of mass in our planet. The same is true for a neutron star. (Hypothetically such an object isn't likely to be evenly distributed density wise.
As for gravitational attraction on objects of different density. well, the denser the object is. The more focused it's gravitational field is (denser a sphere is the greater the pull is at it's surface.) But no matter the density, 2 objects of equal mass will generate an equal amount of gravitational force.
..and onto the last question:
If a object where to be pulled into a black hole.. It's direction of approach would not matter. A black hole is a 3 dimensional "hole". (Unless (technically) it ran into something orbiting the black hole such as the accretion disk or the "plume/jet thingy" -i forget the name of it) | |
|
| Black holes...help!
Posted: 4/14/2007 1:17:03 PM | Here is my theory on these Black Holes.
I don't think tehre is a singualarity, there is NO EVIDENCE that shows there is a singularity there. I beleive that Black holes just pull or absorb things in them and they come out the other end, and we can see that they do because when you see those jets flying up on BOTh sides of the Black hole, that means when it went into the black hole , it went in there fast due to the black holes immense pull, but when it did and it crossed the actual hole (point of horizan) it just went out the other way. Pictures depict that happening when jets flying OUT of the black hole , and you can see from BOTH sides of the Black hole that there IS matter and material there. So the theory that once something enters a Black hole, it goes to the singularity or gets crushed, well no because there are jets that come out the other side of the hole, so that should explain it. | |
|
|
| Page 3 of 6
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 |
|
Home
login 
