Talk about subjects not related to music or gear. Please keep discussions civil and follow the GGF rules of conduct at all times. Political and religious topics are not allowed.
EndTime wrote:.........But the idea that time, to us, would appear to stop even tho that object crossed over.. I’m still trying to fully comprehend why humans could never observe that and how time essentially stops from our view
That always has me guessing. So theoretically, if something crosses the event horizon, someone witnessing it from the outside would see that certain something just stop... frozen forever. Like a sticker slapped on the event horizon.............it would seem like an eternity to the "thing" being sucked in before it actually got sucked it. Time would slow to an almost halt for that "thing" before the atoms spaghettified, but we'd see, from a safe vantage point... as described above.........
I thought I understood the bolded part - that in the frame of reference of the object being sucked in - time would stretch to infinity, essentially stopping time for that object.
But I would think that from our frame of reference - we would seen the object, with would then 'dissolve' (for lack of a better word) into a emission of radiation, which, once the object was 'completely gone - sucked in' that radiation would stop, and we would see nothing from that object for the rest of eternity.
can you elaborate on the 'sticker' concept?
I wish i could find the explanation for that. I saw it and it made sense, but as time went by i forgot a lot of it. The observer, would not see anything being sucked in. They would see what would appear to be a frozen object stuck just above the event horizon. I honestly do not remember the why and how's of it all, but it definitely has something to do with space/time, light, yadda yadda. Shit... it was just on a recent show on Science Channel. One of the shows that just ended it's season like 2 weeks ago. Mike Rowe was narrator
It more or less boils down to everything beyond the event horizon is an unknown. The math and formulas all break down at that point. They do predict an infinite dense point, but they can’t go beyond that because all known laws of physics break down. Even Einstein never fully embraced Black holes.
Which I guess is the explanation of why we CANT ever see sumthin fall in because as our math predicts space time stops. So perhaps the explanation is simply we can’t see it because we don’t understand what happens after a hole in space time gets punched by the black hole. I guess I was thinking there is a more grand reason but it appears we can’t see it happen, because all our understanding, all our formulas and calculations STOP at that point
That is pretty much my thinking - but with the difference that we WOULD be able to see the radiation released right at the moment the object begins to be pulled apart from the gravitational pull of the black hole. I thought this radiation is what they were actually capturing in the 'picture' of the black hole.
and I agree - once an object is pulled into a black hole - it is removed from our sphere of detection/knowledge - but we can still calculate it is there by the effect of the mass of the black hole on nearby objects.
That is why it’s assumed the object just continues right on down the black hole because we do detect gravity.
A part of what you are seeing is super heated gas that hasn’t yet fallen into a black hole.
Another concept is the “radiation” you see is in fact the “information” of that matter. They theorize it’s almost like hair on your arm but is surrounding the black hole. So even tho the matter has been sucked in the information remains.. crazy stuff
EndTime wrote:That is why it’s assumed the object just continues right on down the black hole because we do detect gravity.
A part of what you are seeing is super heated gas that hasn’t yet fallen into a black hole.
Another concept is the “radiation” you see is in fact the “information” of that matter. They theorize it’s almost like hair on your arm but is surrounding the black hole. So even tho the matter has been sucked in the information remains.. crazy stuff
yes - I think we are on basically the same page. The superheated gas is radiation - the force of the black is causing it to be heated and radiating. But I think there is also radiation from the tearing apart of the atoms that may escape - not only superheated gas.
My theory on the radiation being information is that 'with enough knowledge' - we could deduce exactly what matter that radiation came from - and every physical property about that matter - therefore, it contains all the 'information' of that matter.
this concept also basic to drae's talk of The Matrix, The Allegory of the Cave, and the 'universe is a hologram' from the 'Rate the last movie you saw' thread - interesting stuff.
clipless bumper wrote:I was a physics major - but it was in the early eighties - so might as well have been the dark ages - didn't quite get a 4 year degree.......
Your are old ... Sounds like me. Studied vacuum tubes in college Thank God for popular electronics magazine
'The world is literally vomiting' ~~Carlos Santana
CrunchBerries wrote:Who here has a Phys BSc/MA/PhD ?
Not me, but my Dad was a PhD in Physics and Chemistry (Johns Hopkins) and my brother is a PhD in Physics (University of Rochester and U of Minnesota for grad).
My brother worked at NASA for a bit and now does space shit at a some government defense contractor that i'm literally allowed to know nothing about.
My Dad was more about quantum physics and worked at research at Kodak. He actually is on the team that invented OLED technology. His name is on the patent. This was 15 years before Kodak finally sold the technology (like dumbasses)
Anyway, it's always been part of my life, but i only understand it from a layman point of view. Stephen Hawking's books were great for getting a grasp on a lot of this shit.
Brian, where did you see they also took a pic of Sag A star? I just read an article explaining why we would never be able to. And yes, it was written after the black hole pic was unveiled! For all the reasons we kinda mentioned. It’s simply impossible from our vantage point in the Milky Way
EndTime wrote:Brian, where did you see they also took a pic of Sag A star? I just read an article explaining why we would never be able to. And yes, it was written after the black hole pic was unveiled! For all the reasons we kinda mentioned. It’s simply impossible from our vantage point in the Milky Way
This is confusing. I watched the actual announcement yesterday and they did state that they are imaging it, but it's harder to image and it's not ready to be released yet. They didn't explain how.
Also, i watched this. I time stamped this too to play right where he mentions it. Uggg YouTube changed their timestamped links. Go to 3:52
EndTime wrote:Brian, where did you see they also took a pic of Sag A star? I just read an article explaining why we would never be able to. And yes, it was written after the black hole pic was unveiled! For all the reasons we kinda mentioned. It’s simply impossible from our vantage point in the Milky Way
This is confusing. I watched the actual announcement yesterday and they did state that they are imaging it, but it's harder to image and it's not ready to be released yet. They didn't explain how.
I read that in one of the articles when the picture was first released...
I Love the smell of nitrocellulose in the morning. It smells like........Victory
Guitars: '78 Les Paul Pro / '89 SG Special/ '04 Gibson Les Paul Classic 3 pickup / Jackson Star/ Endres Tele / Fernandes Rhoads/ ''74 Hohner MIJ strat/ 2 Partscasters
Amps: Depends on when you ask. I got tired of constantly updating this section lol
Cabs Marshall 1960A w V30s/ Seismic 2x12 w Redback and V30.
Questions about the forum: please PM here. Can't access the forum? Need a password reset? Please access our Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/GuitarGearForumOfficial and message me through it.
EndTime wrote:Brian, where did you see they also took a pic of Sag A star? I just read an article explaining why we would never be able to. And yes, it was written after the black hole pic was unveiled! For all the reasons we kinda mentioned. It’s simply impossible from our vantage point in the Milky Way
This is confusing. I watched the actual announcement yesterday and they did state that they are imaging it, but it's harder to image and it's not ready to be released yet. They didn't explain how.
Also, i watched this. I time stamped this too to play right where he mentions it. Uggg YouTube changed their timestamped links. Go to 3:52
OK. I got an answer about SGT A* imaging. Oddly, it has nothing to do with our vantage point.
SGT A* is quite a bit smaller than M87, by a lot. The motion in SGT A* in a minute is the same amount of motion that M87 has in an entire day. This makes it extremely hard to accumulate the required data... but not impossible. Will just take longer.
Hmm. I’ve definitely seen it said our vantage point is part of it. Idk. Their story be changing!
Plus the one they imaged they figure is the largest in the Universe.! Cmon now. Even if just theorizing you think they’d stop short of saying it’s the biggest in the fucking Universe!! Cause In the grand scheme of things we still have very little concrete proof of such things
G-Zod wrote:So it's sorta like a black hole....sun?
No. There is only one Sun. Proper Latin name is Sol (Hence our "Solar" system and just to be extra nerdy, but people often get confused... our star system is the only "Solar" system in the universe. The rest are generically star systems).
Anyway... Our Solar system has the only "Sun" and it's not large enough to ever collapse into a black hole.
Soooo... No.
Last edited by atrox on Fri Apr 12, 2019 10:34 am, edited 1 time in total.
G-Zod wrote:So it's sorta like a black hole....sun?
No. There is only one Sun. Proper Latin name is Sol (Hence our "Solar" system and just to be extra nerdy, but people often get confused... our star system is the only "Solar" system in the universe. The rest are generically star systems).
Anyway... Our Solar system has the only "Sun" and it's not large enough to ever collapse into a black hole.
Soooo... No.
OMG!!! WUT?!?
Seems kinda elitist to me, like our star, err I mean sun is more that special than other suns, err stars??
G-Zod wrote:So it's sorta like a black hole....sun?
No. There is only one Sun. Proper Latin name is Sol (Hence our "Solar" system and just to be extra nerdy, but people often get confused... our star system is the only "Solar" system in the universe. The rest are generically star systems).
Anyway... Our Solar system has the only "Sun" and it's not large enough to ever collapse into a black hole.
Soooo... No.
OMG!!! WUT?!?
Seems kinda elitist to me, like our star, err I mean sun is more that special than other suns, err stars??
It's just that we have a name for it, because we love it. Just like us and Earth... it's extremely unimportant in the grand scheme. A relatively small star in the middle of nowhere important.
We have given plenty of stars proper names actually. Most popular is Sirius of course. many are just alpha-numeric names though
Pepi wrote:Is this a real photo of a black hole or was it created with data and a algorithm software program
Both. There are 10000 articles that explain what you're looking at. In simple terms, It's a real photo of the shadow of a black hole and the plasma surrounding it. Some algorithms were used to fill in blank spaces, since we don't have a large enough telescope to get a 100% full visual of it. Google it for full explaination.
I mean.. If you want to get super picky, you can't take a picture of something that emits no light, so... No. It's not a picture of a black hole, but it is a picture that depicts the presence of a black hole. It's a stitched together, real image from telescopes around the world with pieces filled in
Thank God for popular electronics magazine
