Black hole/time dilation question
Discussion
Gene Vincent said:
Progress so far...
Black Holes are collapsed stars... Black Hole Stars.
Right, let's try the singularity again... a singularity is where there is just a single item, where light is trapped, not by gravity as in a BHS but is captured by the fundamental forces that themselves are combined into a singularity, so are indistinguishable from one another, nothing like that happens un Gravitational collapse, hence the reference to Einsten---Dirac.
FYI, existence is, even your existence is part of that Einstein Dirac, so although you think you don't know what it is, you do... you exist because of it!
No, didn't get any of the bit in bold. It makes no sense to me. Try again?Black Holes are collapsed stars... Black Hole Stars.
Right, let's try the singularity again... a singularity is where there is just a single item, where light is trapped, not by gravity as in a BHS but is captured by the fundamental forces that themselves are combined into a singularity, so are indistinguishable from one another, nothing like that happens un Gravitational collapse, hence the reference to Einsten---Dirac.
FYI, existence is, even your existence is part of that Einstein Dirac, so although you think you don't know what it is, you do... you exist because of it!
It says in the link that you provided that stars of sufficient mass undergo gravitational collapse so complete that they become singularities, and thus sprout an event horizon, becoming a black hole.
So what part of that page is wrong? Do stars really not collapse to black holes?
CommanderJameson said:
It says in the link that you provided that stars of sufficient mass undergo gravitational collapse so complete that they become singularities, and thus sprout an event horizon, becoming a black hole.
So what part of that page is wrong? Do stars really not collapse to black holes?
Confusion over the term "singularity".So what part of that page is wrong? Do stars really not collapse to black holes?
Big bang theory suggests the Universe as we see it now started as a singularity - everything that exists existed at the same point. the entire Universe was hugely compressed, the various fundamental forces were indistinguishable, etc etc
This is evidently not the same as the "divide by zero" error that happens in the conventional maths to describe the collapse of a black hole star. However, this is also commonly described as a singularity.
physprof said:
Efbe said:
it's a part of quantum physics I don't quite agree with. (yes I am probably wrong!)
... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMDTcMD6pOwhave a look at the other clips/snippets in that series.... fantastic.
CommanderJameson said:
Gene Vincent said:
Progress so far...
Black Holes are collapsed stars... Black Hole Stars.
Right, let's try the singularity again... a singularity is where there is just a single item, where light is trapped, not by gravity as in a BHS but is captured by the fundamental forces that themselves are combined into a singularity, so are indistinguishable from one another, nothing like that happens un Gravitational collapse, hence the reference to Einsten---Dirac.
FYI, existence is, even your existence is part of that Einstein Dirac, so although you think you don't know what it is, you do... you exist because of it!
No, didn't get any of the bit in bold. It makes no sense to me. Try again?Black Holes are collapsed stars... Black Hole Stars.
Right, let's try the singularity again... a singularity is where there is just a single item, where light is trapped, not by gravity as in a BHS but is captured by the fundamental forces that themselves are combined into a singularity, so are indistinguishable from one another, nothing like that happens un Gravitational collapse, hence the reference to Einsten---Dirac.
FYI, existence is, even your existence is part of that Einstein Dirac, so although you think you don't know what it is, you do... you exist because of it!
It says in the link that you provided that stars of sufficient mass undergo gravitational collapse so complete that they become singularities, and thus sprout an event horizon, becoming a black hole.
So what part of that page is wrong? Do stars really not collapse to black holes?
I've just made myself a cup tea and it got me thinking as I filled the kettle... if I were to now crush this kettle filled with water under extreme pressure, to the size of a pin head, what would I have?
Wattle?
Ketter?
I wouldn't have either, I have just water and kettle, in small condensed bits, no singularity to be found anywhere.
Now if I made them into a singularity I have to do much more, I'd have to break the atoms, then fundamental particles apart, not crush them and then when apart I'd have to do the same to the fundamental forces, this only needs temperatures of 100,000,000,000C I would also have to conjure up some really neat environments to do this, such as huge magnetic fields that need to disappear without trace once switched off and countless other things that don't, or rather can't happen within the mass of a Black hole Star.
The hackneying of scientific phrases is the cause of much confusion to the Scientist and general public alike.
This particular one leads to various ideas gripping the public imagination of perhaps other 'Universes' (Universe, another word that is mis-used) beyond them, all total rubbish.
We came from a Singularity but it was a real one, a Black Hole Star is is only a singularity in the shorthand of science, its real name I gave you, Gravitational Collapse.
Are we cool on this now?
Edited by Gene Vincent on Wednesday 4th July 19:32
Gene Vincent said:
CommanderJameson said:
Gene Vincent said:
Progress so far...
Black Holes are collapsed stars... Black Hole Stars.
Right, let's try the singularity again... a singularity is where there is just a single item, where light is trapped, not by gravity as in a BHS but is captured by the fundamental forces that themselves are combined into a singularity, so are indistinguishable from one another, nothing like that happens un Gravitational collapse, hence the reference to Einsten---Dirac.
FYI, existence is, even your existence is part of that Einstein Dirac, so although you think you don't know what it is, you do... you exist because of it!
No, didn't get any of the bit in bold. It makes no sense to me. Try again?Black Holes are collapsed stars... Black Hole Stars.
Right, let's try the singularity again... a singularity is where there is just a single item, where light is trapped, not by gravity as in a BHS but is captured by the fundamental forces that themselves are combined into a singularity, so are indistinguishable from one another, nothing like that happens un Gravitational collapse, hence the reference to Einsten---Dirac.
FYI, existence is, even your existence is part of that Einstein Dirac, so although you think you don't know what it is, you do... you exist because of it!
It says in the link that you provided that stars of sufficient mass undergo gravitational collapse so complete that they become singularities, and thus sprout an event horizon, becoming a black hole.
So what part of that page is wrong? Do stars really not collapse to black holes?
I've just made myself a cup tea and it got me thinking as I filled the kettle... if I were to now crush this kettle filled with water under extreme pressure, to the size of a pin head, what would I have?
Wattle?
Ketter?
I wouldn't have either, I have just water and kettle, in small condensed bits, no singularity to be found anywhere.
Now if I made them into a singularity I have to much more, I'd have to break the atoms, then fundamental particles apart, not crush them and then when apart I'd have to do the same to the fundamental forces, this only needs temperatures of 100,000,000,000C I would also have to conjure up some really neat environments to do this, such as huge magnetic fields that need to disappear without trace once switched off and countless other things that don't, or rather can't happen within the mass of a Black hole Star.
The hackneying of scientific phrases is the cause of much confusion to the Scientist and general public alike.
This particular one leads to various ideas gripping the public imagination of perhaps other 'Universes' (Universe, another word that is mis-used) beyond them, all total rubbish.
We can from a Singularity but it was a real one, a Black Hole Star is is only a singularity in the shorthand of science, its real name I gave you, Gravitational Collapse.
Are we cool on this now?
Why isn't there a single hit on Google for the term "Black Hole Star"?
Is it because it's something you made up, or is there a less tinfoilhattery explanation?
Your definitions just don't seem to square with what I read everywhere else, hence my pursuit of clarification.
The people who do the big sums call these things "singularities", and even have different kinds, like naked ones.
Gene Vincent said:
I got 61 million results!
I've shown you that black holes are formed from stars on your belove-d google/wiki, are you saying to me that because it doesn't twinkle it's no longer a f
king star?
No, you didn't. You got 61 million results for one, some or all of the words "black", "hole", and "star".I've shown you that black holes are formed from stars on your belove-d google/wiki, are you saying to me that because it doesn't twinkle it's no longer a f
king star?Show me one single page where it says "Black hole star: a thing wot has these characteristics x, y, z".
You type lots of science-y sounding words, whilst doing a right old Darcy Bussell around the question put to you.
Normally at this point I say 'go off somewhere quiet and read'... but you've been given a fine precis by me and by that Wiki page and assuming you've read both mine and the Wiki page and still not 'got it' I would be wasting my time even offering that simple advice.
Believe what you like, you can be shown something new, something that increases your knowledge and understanding, but it is all your own work to ignore it.
Third strike of the ball and I've had more than the recommended daily dose of stupid for one day.
Cheers
Gene.
Believe what you like, you can be shown something new, something that increases your knowledge and understanding, but it is all your own work to ignore it.
Third strike of the ball and I've had more than the recommended daily dose of stupid for one day.
Cheers
Gene.
Gene Vincent said:
Normally at this point I say 'go off somewhere quiet and read'... but you've been given a fine precis by me and by that Wiki page and assuming you've read both mine and the Wiki page and still not 'got it' I would be wasting my time even offering that simple advice.
Believe what you like, you can be shown something new, something that increases your knowledge and understanding, but it is all your own work to ignore it.
Third strike of the ball and I've had more than the recommended daily dose of stupid for one day.
Cheers
Gene.
So you are full of sBelieve what you like, you can be shown something new, something that increases your knowledge and understanding, but it is all your own work to ignore it.
Third strike of the ball and I've had more than the recommended daily dose of stupid for one day.
Cheers
Gene.
t and you won't answer the question.Got it.
Derek Smith said:
There was an old sceince fiction book, Star Gate (nothing to do with the film otsn) where our hero sees his girlfriend plummet towards a black hole after he abandoned her and is tortured by the 'fact' that she is still alive and hating him.
I was confused by the science. I understood that mass would be infinite if the body (of his wife?) was travelling at the speed of light. But, I was told, the speed would not go at the SOL until after the EH was crossed and therefore no one kne what rules applied there.
Seemed a terrible cop-out to me but that was before I heard of dark matter and dark energy. Now they are big cop-outs.
The book was Gateway, one of Pohl's better ones. I read it years ago but according to Amazon it is now in the Masterworks series.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_0_7?url=s...
There is a very good Stargate SG-1 episode that is about what happens when the wormhole connects to near a black hole.I was confused by the science. I understood that mass would be infinite if the body (of his wife?) was travelling at the speed of light. But, I was told, the speed would not go at the SOL until after the EH was crossed and therefore no one kne what rules applied there.
Seemed a terrible cop-out to me but that was before I heard of dark matter and dark energy. Now they are big cop-outs.
- *
The book was Gateway, one of Pohl's better ones. I read it years ago but according to Amazon it is now in the Masterworks series.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_0_7?url=s...
Edited by Derek Smith on Tuesday 3rd July 22:33
http://www.gateworld.net/sg1/s2/216.shtml
It is a very good episode. Worth downloading and watching.
CommanderJameson said:
So you are full of st and you won't answer the question.
Got it.
The types of compact stars are:t and you won't answer the question.Got it.
White dwarfs, in which gravity is opposed by electron degeneracy pressure;
Neutron stars, in which gravity is opposed by neutron degeneracy pressure and short-range repulsive neutron–neutron interactions mediated by the strong force;
Black holes, in which the physics at the center is unknown.
From that page on Wiki... which part of stars don't you understand?
A black hole is an event horizon, it might be 2 or 3 lyrs across, but at the centre of it is a star, the star is probably about the diameter of Paris or London.
Now think hard... you've been told they are stars, you can even read about them being so... so the question remains Einstein, what the f
k do you think they are?Explain, I'll have the Nobel Committee on standby with a nice big gong for you, when you answer that, I will write a letter of recommendation and get everyone I know to back it up...
Off to the pub quiz... no wonder I win every week!
Efbe said:
physprof said:
Efbe said:
it's a part of quantum physics I don't quite agree with. (yes I am probably wrong!)
... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMDTcMD6pOwhave a look at the other clips/snippets in that series.... fantastic.
Gene Vincent said:
Explain, I'll have the Nobel Committee on standby with a nice big gong for you, when you answer that, I will write a letter of recommendation and get everyone I know to back it up...
Whether you're right or whether you're wrong, there's no need to be a sarcastic prick. 
Relion and science have a fair bit in common, more than you might think. The differences are well known but there are a lot of similarities. It is in the similarities that logic collapses, such as inside a black hole.
People believe. The religious must know that what they purport to believe is rubbish as every scientific advancement proves something in the bible, which they presumably believe, is wrong.
Scientists use the face saving excuse of scientific method but if they study the history of science they will know that every scientific advancement proves that something a scientist believes in is wrong. Most of the science truths I was taught when I went to school have been proved wrong.
Continental drift was fairly new in my days in primary school, or rather plate tectonics was. I remember cutting out bits of continental shelf, at least in diagram, and trying to fit them together. Over the years, whilst the name plate tectonic has remained the same, much has changed.
The other similarity between science and religion is that there is nothing more irritating than those who are certain.
Let's lighten up. The one thing about the science forum is that people tend to come on to learn, not to teach, to wonder at the discoveries, to hero worship those who will be proved wrong in years to come. Let's not have a go at one another.
The only unarguable truth that comes in the sceince forum is when someone says: I don't understand. Because none of us do.
People believe. The religious must know that what they purport to believe is rubbish as every scientific advancement proves something in the bible, which they presumably believe, is wrong.
Scientists use the face saving excuse of scientific method but if they study the history of science they will know that every scientific advancement proves that something a scientist believes in is wrong. Most of the science truths I was taught when I went to school have been proved wrong.
Continental drift was fairly new in my days in primary school, or rather plate tectonics was. I remember cutting out bits of continental shelf, at least in diagram, and trying to fit them together. Over the years, whilst the name plate tectonic has remained the same, much has changed.
The other similarity between science and religion is that there is nothing more irritating than those who are certain.
Let's lighten up. The one thing about the science forum is that people tend to come on to learn, not to teach, to wonder at the discoveries, to hero worship those who will be proved wrong in years to come. Let's not have a go at one another.
The only unarguable truth that comes in the sceince forum is when someone says: I don't understand. Because none of us do.
The only 100% correct answers are in maths.
Some of the scientific theories might as well be in Stargate for all the sense they make to a layman like me.
That's why I like the 'science for everyday folk' type programmes. Like the one about how long is a piece of string. Presented by Alan Davies (who wasn't a tt surprisingly).
Some of the scientific theories might as well be in Stargate for all the sense they make to a layman like me.
That's why I like the 'science for everyday folk' type programmes. Like the one about how long is a piece of string. Presented by Alan Davies (who wasn't a t
t surprisingly).scorp said:
Why are some posters differentiating 'black hole' with 'black hole star' given that a black hole is gravity well that could only be naturally produced by the mass of something very large, like a star ?
Does it change name when there's more than on star 'in it'. These super massive black holes have cannabilised hundreds, perhaps thousands of stars so the name black hole start seems to lack gravitas.physprof said:
Efbe said:
physprof said:
Efbe said:
it's a part of quantum physics I don't quite agree with. (yes I am probably wrong!)
... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMDTcMD6pOwhave a look at the other clips/snippets in that series.... fantastic.
i know, i know, i'm not allowed to disagree.maybe it's just the way I have heard it explained, but to me, time dilation and length contraction of an observed object are relative only as they are seen. The object would see the same occurence, as relatively neither are moving; to each one the other is. so if both perform exactly the same movement inversely, then both will have moved the same amount meaning there will be no time difference. erge the time dilation never actually happened, and was just observed, not real.
Bedazzled said:
Efbe said:
maybe it's just the way I have heard it explained, but to me, time dilation and length contraction of an observed object are relative only as they are seen. The object would see the same occurence, as relatively neither are moving; to each one the other is. so if both perform exactly the same movement inversely, then both will have moved the same amount meaning there will be no time difference. erge the time dilation never actually happened, and was just observed, not real.
Look up the twins' paradox, or I can walk you through it if you're interested.Remember it's not just time and distance that are relative but also simultaneity, the twins have to meet up again in order to re-synchronise their clocks. Therefore one of them has to slow to a stop, turn around and return to the other, and this breaks the symmetry; the twin who experiences the deceleration and acceleration will have aged less than the other.
There's the effect of gravity. Put one down a well and put the other on top of Everest.
The clocks in satelites in 24-hour orbit for GPS have to take into account the difference in time between them and the ground.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff