How can something collapse in on itself and still produce an

>>7686275
Okay so the mass equivalence of a photon with a wavelength of 589nm is 3.75*10^(-36) kg.

I imagine that something with the density of a black hole pulls in shittons of those.

Answering the question: BECAUSE IT'S SO FUCKING DENSE.

File: e45.png (1MB, 680x499px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 680x499px

>>7686275

It is called singularity for a reason.
We simply don't know what happens inside a black hole.

>>7686291
>mass equivalence of a photon
Do photons attract each other?
Will this popsci meme ever get phased out?

>>7686275
Because that something is still there, just not visible.

For some reason, the pressure involved in a supernova of a star 5 or more times larger than ours causes most of the anterior and all of the interior mass into one tiny point.

Sometimes it forms a neutron star. They have a few characteristics of black holes, like radiation, super high gravity, super high spin, but we dont really know why black holes form instead of super massive neutron stars.

Its a very exotic object thats still quite mysterious to us.

>>7686329
I also meants the pressure of a super nova AND its own gravity

>>7686275
Mass is form of energy. And any energy creates gravitational pull. And you can't just make energy disappear, you can only move it somewhere else.

A collapsing star do not transfer most of it's mass/energy somewhere else, it just pull it to the inside. So this mass/energy is still there, and can still produce gravitational pull.

>>7686331
Thats one of the aspects that astronomers and physicists cant get past.

A black hole has mass because it may be condensed energy. But its nearly infinitesimally small. But it basically radiates gravity, having more of a pull than the star it came from. As well as emitting hawking radiation until it decomposes to nonexistance.

Its difficult to even describe what science thinks its comprised of.

>>7686336
>having more of a pull than the star it came from
Never heard of it. Any source?
Keep in mind that event horizon is much smaller than a star and gravitational pull near/below the surface of a star is calculated differently. While black hole has all the mass at one point, you might think that it has stronger pull. You know, you might compare gravitional pull 10km above the surface of star and 10km above event horizon, but in fact these measurement would be took at different distance from center. I think mass and so gravitational pull of a black hole should be roughly the same as star.
>Its difficult to even describe what science thinks its comprised of.
I guess without Quantum gravity theory we can't do much.

>>7686355
I need to clarify, the gravitational pull of a black hole is more intense because the object is so incredibly small.

Ive read old 1980s text books describing black holes. I have one that was describing its shape and accretion disk.

They still have a volume and one hypothesis the book lead on is that when super massive black holes spin, they malform. As the volume decreases and surface area increases, the intensity of gravity increases. Its trying to describe why a smbh doesnt consume an entire galaxy, just has space around it. As it slows down and reforms a sphere, it releases radiation and the gravitational pull decreases until it starts shrinking and explodes that last bit of energy it has.

If this thread is alive ill take some pics of the book.

>>7686408
I mean the gravitational pull doesn't change you can just get closer to a black hole.

>>7686408
>>7686507
Ah, right, right, I know about it.
For some reason I thought you mean that this increased gravity pull is something unexpected/unexplained, not just expected effect of changing shape of gravity source from large sphere to one point.

Spinning black holes are pretty interesting. I don't know much about them but couldn't they create naked singularity?
Also do you have explanation for Hawking radiation?

>>7686408
>the gravitational pull of a black hole is more intense because the object is so incredibly small.
Not if you were <radius of a star> away from it, though, right?

>>7686515
>just expected effect of changing shape of gravity source from large sphere to one point.
I'm wrong, ignore that.
http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Shell_theorem

>>7686517
Is probably right why you might think black hole has more gravitational pull than a star.
However let's say that R is a radius of some star.
At distance less than R from the center of a star there will be less gravitational pull than at the same distance from center of black hole formed from that star because 1st part of Shell theorem works only for external objects.

>>7686322
How can something travelling at c = 0 Energy?

E=0(c^2)?

So it has an m value buddy.

>>7686322
Photons have energy so they do attract each other.

>>7686541
It only applies for objects at rest, but photons are always in movement. Here is something you should use:
[math]E^{2}=(mc^{2})^{2}(pc)^{2}[/math]
Where m is rest mass, c is speed of light and p is relativistic momentum.
Photons have 0 rest mass, but they do have momentum so they have energy. And because they have energy they have relativistic mass and create gravitational pull.

>>7686275
Its a whole bunch of shit packed into a very small space.

>>7686558
What is wrong with LaTeX

[eqn]E^{2}=(mc^{2})^{2}(pc)^{2}[/eqn]

>>7686515
The only thing i know about it is that when a black hole spins fast enough, it stretches space time so far new the event horizon that particles with wavelengths shorter than the planck length can punch through like punching through the sound barrier. Once it makes it out, its wave length stretches to xray/gamma length. Then as the black hole loses mass, larger wave lengths can escape until its too small to retain its energy behind a stable event horizon and explodes.

Btw, all of this is STILL theoretical and just a respected hypothesis.

>>7686517
Basically its the gravitational pull of a star as its radius approaches 0. If you went inside the star, its gravitational pull would weaken, with its maximum near the surfacw. But with a black hole, its just intensifies more and more until you hit event horizon.

File: 1282409827305.jpg (18KB, 450x338px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 450x338px

>>7686275

In other words, it's no longer there, but still there in a big way.

This weirded the shit out of Einstein. Long story short, you're peeking into how our universe interacts with another.

>>7686655
In other words, you don't understand the forces behind star formation, star life itself and how gravitational collapse happens. People here already explained a good part about the collapse.

File: 1285205561132.jpg (7KB, 190x251px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 190x251px

>>7686662

So, where's the extra mass, genius?

The collapsing star has already contracted past the point where the electrons and protons cancelled each other and left only neutrons...this is past that stage.

Where it be?

>>7686668
The mass collapses to a point where its in a state of existance we dont fully understand.

>>7686668
They do not "cancel out". Degenerate mass bro, it's what it is.

The star is unable to stop its collapsing core, no longer supported by fusion pressure, to maintain balance and what you get is a typical supernova - most of the material, the starting mass of a star, is blown away first by the strong stellar wind, then by the catastrophic supernova, leaving only a super-dense core behind. That core, if massive enough, collapses till it becomes the neutron star we know; missing energy becomes the centrifugal force that causes the neutron star to spin rapidly and then slow down through millions of years, as the energy is radiated away by the magnetic field. The neutron star can then collapse further if it receives additional matter; neutron-degeneracy pressure no longer able to stop it from collapsing further. We get a typical black hole in this scenario.

I really fail to see what are you not getting.

File: 1342187587388.png (197KB, 410x358px) Image search: [Google]

197KB, 410x358px

>>7686671

Yeah, good shit-tier answer. Kill yourself.

>>7686676
>missing energy becomes the centrifugal force that causes the neutron star to spin rapidly

You stupid asshole...you can't even tell a neutron star/pulsar from a singularity/black hole?

Kill your physics professor, THAN kill yourself.

File: Screenshot_2015-11-21-22-30-03-1.png (2MB, 1440x1300px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1440x1300px

>>7686679
Cool story

>>7686558
>Photons have energy so they do attract each other.
Interesting. So a beam of light is self-focusing? Has this ever been observed?

black holes do not exist. and all the theories of gravity are wrong.

This would mean that gravity doesnt need mass to start or that gravity is very picky and happens randomly.

think about it:
in space you are weightless due to no gravity yet gravity is supposed to happen if you have mass?


if i float in space, do i have a gravitational pull of other objects lesser than me?

>>7686679
>THAN
No comprende Sergeant Autismo.

>>7686698

I thought black holes have been observed indirectly through gravitational lenses.

>>7686698
You do have gravitational pull, just a very small one.

Observe the asteroids, which typically are much, much bigger than a human being. yet, their gravity is very weak. This should give you a picture of what it takes to have a significant gravitational pull.

>>7686698
Are you retarded?
Everything with mass pulls every other objects with mass.
>in space you are weightless due to no gravity
No you are not. You are not weightless because there is no gravity, but because your net force is near zero.

>>7686684
It's insignificant.
You might look up for equation and with simple calculus you should be able to calculate how does it self-focus. It would be pretty interesting desu.

File: 1448465164528.jpg (2MB, 960x1280px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 960x1280px

>>7686679

>THAN

>>7686698
In space you have a gravitational pull on all other objects, not just the ones smaller than you.

According to the current theory, the force of gravity travels at the speed of light, so technically, you feel the effects of the gravity of anything you can see, anywhere. And they all feel the effect of your gravity, no matter how insignificant it is. Gravity currently works on an inverse square rule, so objects that are farther away experience a greatly diminished force compared to close objects.

Also, "black holes do not exist. and all the theories of gravity are wrong." is not an argument, that's just something you're saying to act smart. Even the idiots on this board can smell that bullshit a mile away.

>>7686668
Do you even realize how much of an atom is empty space?

>>7686736
>Everything with mass pulls every other objects with mass.

then how does buoyancy work? BAM into the trash you go.


>>7686755
Theres alot of contradictions in the theories of gravity. It would seem that gravity is entirely separate of mass itself if black holes do exist.
like here:
>so objects that are farther away experience a greatly diminished force compared to close objects.
this would mean that the earths gravity is enough to keep the oceans from flying off and the moon in orbit but allows things lighter to lift off with ease. The moon shouldve already crashed into us by now. The planets should have already crashed into each other and closed in towards the sun since the sun has a greater gravitational pull and reach. Gravity is not constant and is selective on mass according to modern science.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jODyhZVbTM

File: 1448736838062.png (170KB, 410x358px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 410x358px

>>7686679
I could not help but notice your png was not optimized anon.
I have optimized your png.
Your png is now optimized.

File: 20151128_204625-1.jpg (3MB, 2587x1932px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2587x1932px

I hope the guy i was having an actual good discussion is still here or sees this later

Its not a black hole. Its never a hole. I don't why its called a black hole. it should be called a black sphere. The dead star become a giant magnet for all matter in the universe that surround it and the black "hole" disrupts time and space. The "hole" becomes like a ball by pushing further into the fabric of the universe. But it doesn't open a hole per se.

>>7687354
It's black hole because things fall into and and because it's black.

>>7687354
It was a hole in the understanding of astronomy at the time. Even light seemed to "fall in" and not come out. It emitted no visible light, so its "black."

I mean, even popsci fags know better.

>>7687371
>>7687386
Well I'm autistic and the wording pisses me off because I took GR and QM classes. The popsci of black holes is just wrong in so many ways.

What textbook is that?

>>7687447
Although it does read like a well written textbook, its Not a text book. its a special edition of scientific american from 1977 i bought at an estate sale.

Im really surprised at the level of detail it goes into.

>>7686294
If we ever learned how to manipulate dark energy could we use it to stop the reaction on a black hole?

>>7686558
How can they have momentum if light doesn't accelerate?

File: 1446858264128.png (196KB, 370x450px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 370x450px

Side note here, if the gravity weakens in the center could a human that is protected from the atmosphere survive the "stretching" of entering a black hole? Would organs lose the ability to function or would it all be relative to the plane it's being stretched on?

>>7686275
Is there anything on the universe that doesn't interact with gravity?

>>7687628
No

Im not saying you should google it because im being a dick, its too much to explain.

>>7687585
Are you talking about an approach to a star or black hole?

Black hole, no. Just no.

Star, possibly. With FAR better technology, maybe.

>>7686914
you can literally do the math and see that the current model of gravity is very accurate. You can use the estimated masses of planets and the sun and distances between them to calculate the expected time for one orbit (a year).

>>7687354
it should be called dark star but they named it black hole to attract more public curiosity, Hawking wrote that in one of his books.

>>7687628
dark energy maybe?

>>7686914
>how does buoyancy work
You should fuck off from this board, get a book and then come back. Buoyancy works due to a difference in pressure between the top and bottom of a submerged object. p=ρhg. In fact if g= there wont be a buoyancy, maybe only surface tension effects. Fucking morons and their self righteous bullshit.

Can we agree to ignore idiotic threads. This is probably bait or a true moron thinking aloud. Let's not give them a home.

>>7687574
You don't need acceleration to have momentum.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Momentum+of+Photon

>>7687336
That's pretty cool, but there isn't much explained why does this happen.

>>7687880
Dark star? Its not a fucking star and its not "dark," its "black."

You see, in cosmology, dark means "undetectable." Black means "doesnt radiate visible light."

>>7687982
Its just 1/10 pages about black holes shape, spin and what we know. Theres another section of galaxy formation and another on the quantum mechanics of black holes.

File: ogg.png (80KB, 251x315px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 251x315px

>>7686292

Have any of you guys even seen a black hole before?

>See that thing you can't see along with that gravitational pull we can't explain? That's a Black Hole

Thanks Nolan.

>>7687982
Sorry p=mv my bad.

File: 1448615904086.png (8KB, 344x341px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 344x341px

>>7689356
That's classic momentum, not relativistic.

File: 1448872916777.png (3KB, 344x341px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 344x341px

>>7689765
I could not help but notice your png was not optimized anon.
I have optimized your png.
Your png is now optimized.

>>7687329
bruh do you have a link for this book?

File: mayan-calendar.jpg (90KB, 490x368px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 490x368px

>>7687837
but anon, cultures have been doing that for millennia without those jargon equations.

>>7686914
you are a massive failure and a retard

>>7690270
ancient civilizations used observations, not calculations
they knew that something happened, but didnt understand why
>responding to bait