>>6911738 So does the matter that gets pulled into a blackhole just disappear or turn into escaping energy somehow? How does a blackholes mass stay the same if the matter being pulled in can't be added to the blackhole's mass?
>>6911827 >Within a given supercluster, all galaxy motions will be directed inward, toward the center of mass. In the case of Laniakea, this gravitational focal point is called the Great Attractor Why does this Great Attractor have such mass? Is it necessarily concentrated mass? How does such a region form to be the center of mass for such cosmic objects as superclusters?
What changes from a star becoming a black hole that light can escape one but not the other?
My amateur level knowledge suggests that a black hole curves the fabric of space-time a lot more than a star does because of its infinitely smaller size. Which begs the question; is there a threshold value of curving space-time at which light cannot escape anymore?
>>6912952 >since the pull of gravity goes to infinity as you approach the origin? Goes to infinity away from origin.but pull drops off at a squared amount over distance .>>6912946 >>6912946 Never read any good? >>6912958 >Why does this Great Attractor have such mass? We don't know,can't see,blocked by our galactic center. >>6913101 >how are the gravitational waves transmitted Waves travel through fields.
>>6913173 The light originates from the surface of the object. Now consider how far the surface of a star is from its centre of mass, then consider how far the surface of a blackhole is from its centre of mass. Since the gravitational effect on the light is related to the distance of such light from the centre of mass... You can work it out now.
>>6913245 You don't literally believe I was saying all light originates from the surface do you? I'm making the point that some of the light "originates" from the surface. "Maybe" the light that originates from the centre can't escape the gravity well of the star, that's irrelevant, all he needs to understand is how some of the light can escape the gravity well. Shit, if we're going to be autistic here I may as well make the point that this light originated from the big bang and you're wrong too!
>>6913261 The calculation behind the many-thousands-of-years stat goes like this: -A photon travels, on average, a particular distance, d, before being briefly absorbed and released by an atom, which scatters it in a new random direction. -Given d and the speed of light, c, you can figure out the average time step and space step size (how often the photon “steps” and how far it “steps” each time). -The size of the Sun is figured in terms of step size. Some surprisingly tricky math happens, involving “Brownian motion” and probabilities. Finally, -The average time it would take to get to the surface of the Sun is found. The math behind this is similar (identical) to the math behind things like Plinko, or the gambler’s ruin. The calculation is a little tricky (which is why it’s sometimes used as an example), but the conclusion is that a photon takes between many thousands and many millions of years to drunkenly wander to the surface of the Sun.
>>6913299 I am aware of how the random walk is calculated, I did it myself in undergrad but you're missing the point. Photons propagating outwards are absorbed, scatter and re-emitted, you don't get the same photons out that you put in. Yes you can calculate how long it would take but that's not how it happens. The photons from fusion are in the range of MeV, at the surface most of the energy is carried by eV photons. There are many more photons emitted from the surface, they have to come from somewhere.
An idealised photon would take that long, that's not how it happens in reality.
Also our diagram is wrong, it ignores the convection zone.
>>6913346 Initially refuted on the assumption that the Aether has an absolute reference frame. Initially refuted by emitting light west and east, and assuming that if there is an Aether then that light would take longer to travel to the west because apparently if there is an Aether it would be sitting still relative to the sun and moving relative to the Earth. Apparently opponents to the Aether interpret it as the idea that there is an objective/absolute reference frame that lines up with the sun.
>>6913216 >does a stars huge mass overcome the coulomb repulsion A huge mass is needed to overcome the electron degeneracy pressure, the Chandrasekhar limit. Coulomb repulsion doesn't dominate in these types of objects.
>>6911791 Hawking radiation due to the casimir effect. Pressure causes virtual particles to exist as real particles but since energy isnt created these new particles come from the mass of the black hole.
>>6913415 Einstein did a thought experiment about the idea of sending light in 2 directions
>3 guys on a moving train >1 in the middle of a carriage >2 on each end of the same carriage >Middle guy lights a lighter >As far as everyone on the train can tell, the light reaches the 2 guys at the ends of the carriage at the same time, because they're all motionless to each other and the distance to the light source is the same for both guys. >But to a person viewing this from outside the train, the light takes longer to reach the man at the front of the train, because the motion of the train is increasing the distance the light has to travel to reach him.
I think this means aether is impossible to prove, since it's impossible for people to agree on whether 2 events happened at the same time.
>>6915397 That was just annoying to read. The way I understand it, "space-time" can be imagined has a grid of straight lines which when matter is placed inside of it, these lines will bend (to form pinches, or bulges, depending on the charge). So that a particle by itself is not a point but a straight line (through 'time'), and this straight line will appear to bend given the presence of mass. So if particle A's path bends around B's then you can say that the space around B is bent (well more meaningfully you'd say that B is the bend see observe in A's path) So if we're going to say there's no such thing as a space-time then we may as well say there's no such thing as a particle, just the effect that particle has on the particles we've already found, and those particles we've already found were in turn found by seeing the impact they had on the particles we found before them. Then follow that chain of reasoning all the way back to the neuronal impulses leading up to our brains themselves and just say "well shit nothing exists then" TBH I haven't anything against the "nothing exists" perspective, since it makes equivalent predictions (it's just a perspective).
>>6911674 Need a speed of about 11 km per second (7 mi/s) to escape earth's gravitational pull. Need a speed of 88 km/s (55 mi/s) to escape Andromeda's pull on milky way. Forget about BH.you only have a trillion year's To get away from Andromeda.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.