If a black hole's gravitational pull is infinite why aren't

we are, it's just very far away

Because there's one on the opposite side balancing the resultant.

I expect at least 2 unique keks.

>>6911731
>>6911721
Thank you.

Gravity is relative to mass, the mass stays the same when a star becomes a black hole. Density is the only infinite factor in a black hole.

>>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?

>>6911803
Ahhh gotcha, I kinda misinterpreted
>mass stays the same when star becomes a black hole
For its mass and gravity stays the same always. My bad

File: laniakea_map_2.0.png (599KB, 852x471px) Image search: [Google]

599KB, 852x471px

We are being sucked towards Andromeda.
Many times greater mass than milky way.
Milky way,Andromeda,both towards Virgo.
All above towards Laniakea super cluster.

>>6911827
Kabuaj being sucked by the Xeelees' big ring

Why doesn't all matter collapse, since the pull of gravity goes to infinity as you approach the origin?

>>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?

>>6912958
God

>>6911827
Can you imagine how hard your mom must be sucking.

>>6912963
There's more than one in that case because Laniakea isn't the only supercluster in the universe.

File: 212853_guy_on_question_mark1.jpg (20KB, 346x346px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 346x346px

>>6912963
>god

What is that? And what proof do you have it exists?

>>6911674
If I had infinite bullets, why isn't everyone dead already?

>>6911674
>a black hole's gravitational pull is infinite

[citation needed]

>>6913095
Time is the infinite bullet

how are the gravitational waves transmitted if gravity is carried by virtual particles not faster than light? gravitons, namely

>>6913101
Gravity isn't described in terms of virtual particles. There is no single theory of quantum gravity.

Gravitational waves travel at the speed of light.

>>6913101
Waves pass through each other with no effect.
Gravity doesn't effect gravity.

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?

File: Laniakea.png (716KB, 768x768px) Image search: [Google]

716KB, 768x768px

>>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.

does a stars huge mass overcome the coulomb repulsion and thats why they become so dense and collapse?

File: tttart_007a.jpg (6KB, 250x176px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 250x176px

>>6913199
>The light originates from the surface of the object
Just no.
Photons made in center of sun.
Takes thousands of years ,to travel out to be seen.

>>6913245
Photons are emitted in the centre, and everywhere else. It is not a case of one photon created and then is tracked out.

>>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!

File: photon.jpg (44KB, 511x382px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 511x382px

>>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.

>>6913320
your*

>>6913191
>Waves travel through fields.
don't do this, aether is refuted like 80 years ago

>>6913216
anyone?

>>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.

>>6913561
>>6913572
Thank you.

How come all matter didnt dense into a black hole at the big bang

T' hooft

>>6913934
cuz big bounce

>>6913939
because F \propto \frac{m M}{r^2}

>>6913934
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-the-universe-a-black-hole.506992/

>>6913199
So how much gravity do you need to stop light from escaping?

>>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.

>>6911674
Escape velocity.

>>6911717
Underrated post

What do you mean with "infinite gravitational pull"? Infinite reach? Infinite force?

>>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.

IMO, the force of gravity violates the law of energy conservation, because gravity is a force that costs nothing to create or maintain. Mass produces gravity from nothing.

>>6915008
Yes, this really is mind bending at first.

>>6915008
What exactly is the idea of an "aether" ? How is it different from the idea of a "space-time fabric" ?

>>6915010
But that's wrong, you fucking retard.

>>6911674
We are being pulled, but we are so tiny and insignificant that we cant perceive it

>>6915124
According to St. Albertus there is no difference because neither exists as a physical entity.

>>6915371
Your post did not bring me any new insight to the topic. Thanks for trying though

>>6915383
try this then:
http://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/q909.html

>>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).

>>6915428
We may as well say there's no such thing as particle B, only the bend in A's movement exists, and A in turn doesn't exist, only the bend we see in particle 0 and so on.
It's 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.

>>6913092
prove me it does not
#REKT

File: space_time_s.jpg (6KB, 255x123px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 255x123px

>>6915428
>annoying to read
Good. No pain, no gain.

Descriptive models is all we have.
Waves do not propagate _because_ of Maxwell's equations.

In what sense do field lines exist?
"..only as a structural quality of the field".

>there's no such thing as particle B
or only as a local excitation of the field

The map is not the landscape;
it still can lead you there.