it sucks in all forms of electromagnetic radiation.cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
what vub said is true about no2
for black hole... it doesnt suck in every single known type of light, only the light we can see to the naked eye, it doesnt suck in Xrays... and its a form of light
And here's me trying to get him to re-examine his statement subtly
I hate these topics... so mind boggling that it starts to get scary/overwhelming... yet I can't stop reading.
who said nothing with mass can travel at the speed of light? And by the way, some scientists have theorized photons have momentum and not mass (idea behind solar sail). Back to the subject, you may be thinking that we can not travel lights speed, but that is just because our ships and our bodies can't handle it. Ever heard of neutrinos? Those (which have just been proven to have mass, actually) and certain types of electromagnetic radiation are emitted from stars all the time.sagexp wrote:
Heres two questions that should (hopefully) get an interesting discussion going
Its said that nothing with mass can travel the speed of light, now if light can get sucked into a blackhole then it must have mass right ? but how can it travel and the speed of light ?
If the sun dissappeared suddenly, what would happen first, would it go dark or would the earth spin out of orbit ?
no i dont have the answers and apparently most scientists dont either, its all conjecture,,apparently
Also, the great E=mc^2 comes into play here. (Energy=mass x speed of light^2 for those who don't know.) Mass (and sometimes energy, although I'm not sure) gets sucked into the black hole, and is emitted in the opposite form (usually energy) in the jets streaming out of the hole. See picture:
http://lisa.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/images … k-hole.jpg
To the second question!
The answer is both. Although I believe it would go dark first because the Earth still has momentum and will only gradually (gradually in the grand scheme of things that is) spin off.
Now when the sun does go out in 4 some odd billion years, it will grow to a red giant and engulf earth, going almost to mars. Then it will collapse and form a nice little planetary nebula (If we could see it). So if that's what you're asking, then neither, because it will be bright, and the Earth will be gone!
I hope this is a good discussion starter/ender!
Einstein said that. It's the basis for one of his equasions, actually. Relative motion between bodies approaching the speed of light. As an object approaches the speed of light, it's mass increases exponentially to infinity while its length parellel to the direction of travel approaches zero. Not that this fact makes the arguement law, as it can not yet be proven.Daysniper wrote:
who said nothing with mass can travel at the speed of light?
I agree on the bit about the sun's death. Most scientists agree that it isn't massive enough to go black hole anyway. As for it just literally disapearing, light would cease in about 7-8 minutes, and we would just continue on a path tangential to the point of orbit we were at. This path would be slightly affected by surrounding planetary bodies, but not much.
Last edited by puckmercury (2006-07-17 16:44:11)
Not to seem too stubborn, but Einstein was in the 1930s after all. New physicists, with new knowledge that Einstein did not have, are starting to challenge his theories. I don't know if you get Discover magazine, but the front page article is on just that.puckmercury wrote:
Einstein said that. It's the basis for one of his equasions, actually. Relative motion between bodies approaching the speed of light. As an object approaches the speed of light, it's mass increases exponentially to infinity while its length parellel to the direction of travel approaches zero. Not that this fact makes the arguement law, as it can not yet be proven.Daysniper wrote:
who said nothing with mass can travel at the speed of light?
I agree on the bit about the sun's death. Most scientists agree that it isn't massive enough to go black hole anyway. As for it just literally disapearing, light would cease in about 7-8 minutes, and we would just continue on a path tangential to the point of orbit we were at. This path would be slightly affected by surrounding planetary bodies, but not much.
Also, here is a link to answer the original "Its said that nothing with mass can travel the speed of light, now if light can get sucked into a blackhole then it must have mass right ? but how can it travel and the speed of light ?" question once and for all:
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect … khole.html
oh, I entirely agree that his wisdom was a bit dated. I actually tried to allude to the fact that I don't treat his word as law further on in the post. I just found it interesting that you would then use one of his equasions.
I can't know the answer and certainly don't want to try and sway someone to my POV, just enjoy hearing others' POV and bouncing mine off them. You learn nothing by talking.
+1 for prompting me to think
I fully recognize and accept that what we feel as solid truth will be the fodder for future generations to overturn and scrutinize. I fully believe that accepted mathematical constants used in equasions like the gravitational constant for instance merely exist to compensate for a lack of understanding somewhere along the line. I don't mean this with reference to avagadro's number or pi as they are ratios, but to others which must be blindly factored into the equasion.
I can't know the answer and certainly don't want to try and sway someone to my POV, just enjoy hearing others' POV and bouncing mine off them. You learn nothing by talking.
+1 for prompting me to think
I fully recognize and accept that what we feel as solid truth will be the fodder for future generations to overturn and scrutinize. I fully believe that accepted mathematical constants used in equasions like the gravitational constant for instance merely exist to compensate for a lack of understanding somewhere along the line. I don't mean this with reference to avagadro's number or pi as they are ratios, but to others which must be blindly factored into the equasion.
+1 back for the same.puckmercury wrote:
oh, I entirely agree that his wisdom was a bit dated. I actually tried to allude to the fact that I don't treat his word as law further on in the post. I just found it interesting that you would then use one of his equasions.
I can't know the answer and certainly don't want to try and sway someone to my POV, just enjoy hearing others' POV and bouncing mine off them. You learn nothing by talking.
+1 for prompting me to think
I fully recognize and accept that what we feel as solid truth will be the fodder for future generations to overturn and scrutinize. I fully believe that accepted mathematical constants used in equasions like the gravitational constant for instance merely exist to compensate for a lack of understanding somewhere along the line. I don't mean this with reference to avagadro's number or pi as they are ratios, but to others which must be blindly factored into the equasion.
About the using his theories... I was just hit in both eyes by a basketball, so sorry if I was a bit hypocritical !
so I take it your sig is a first person view of what you're seeing? ;-)
yes. wait what did I say? yes. wait what did I say? yes. wait what did I say? yes. wait what did I say? yes. wait what did I say? yes. wait what did I say? yes....
No. It's hard work. And not just footslogging like maths, it actually takes effort. Of the subjects I'm doing, it's my least favourite. Which is to say, of five, it's number five. So, not that bad I guess. But still.............DoctorFruitloop wrote:
Ain't physics great
how can you say that? Physics is intuitive and contributes to a greater world understanding. Although it does ruin the game of pool. Seriously.
The topic developed nicely, there was no flaming and name calling and lots of people had good POV. The answers are all still conjecture which makes life interesting. No body has the answers unlike what some types of people would have us believe. Generally we stayed on topic, generally, though some people addressed me partically, remember i just want see a discussion develop over interesting but strange ideas and something that doesnt involve politics my country is better than your shit.
Perhaps we should have another scientific argument ? how about the million dollar millenium questions ?
Perhaps we should have another scientific argument ? how about the million dollar millenium questions ?
ok i haven't taken physics (i am only 14) i am having a REALLY hard time keeping up with this. first off. if a black hole sucks in all light and changes time and space.. what would happen if we were sucked in one. and i read that someone said if we went around the world in 10 secs going the speed of light 10years would pass? WTF so does that mean that 10 secs of your life would have gone by but your moms life on earth 10 years would have been passed?? i know this can't be explained easily...
edited: wouldn't u like to know...
edited: wouldn't u like to know...
Last edited by AirForceOne1 (2006-07-18 02:31:50)
OK, to your first question, if you're being sucked into a black hole you'll be stretched (the spaghetti effect I think) once you've past the event horizon (the point of no return, meaning how ever much force you put in you cannot escape the black hole) and you'll just continue to be warped and pulled until you're just single atoms, and then those atoms would break down into nucleons and quarks, and when you hit singularity, you implode as gravity is so strong you get squeezed into yourself. Now to an observer, you'll move slower and slower, and to them you'll never ever reach singularity, you'll just be moving slower and slower until apparently your time seems to stand still.AirForceOne1 wrote:
ok i haven't taken physics (i am only 14) i am having a REALLY hard time keeping up with this. first off. if a black hole sucks in all light and changes time and space.. what would happen if we were sucked in one. and i read that someone said if we went around the world in 10 secs going the speed of light 10years would pass? WTF so does that mean that 10 secs of your life would have gone by but your moms life on earth 10 years would have been passed?? i know this can't be explained easily...
edited: wouldn't u like to know...
With the idea of time dilation, if you were travelling close to the speed of light, you won't feel anything. In your perspective, everything will be happening at normal speed. If you look outside everything will be really slow (relative speed is near the speed of light). Now, to an observer looking at you, you'll be moving really slow (not the spacecraft you're in, but your movements inside that spacecraft). Therefore in 10 years time to the observer, you might have only moved in your time 10 seconds.
Last edited by Vub (2006-07-18 03:47:02)
Some of it's intuitive (i.e. orbits) some of it's really hard to get your head around (i.e. electronics). Or, rather, remembering the equations and how they work is hard. For me at least. I love the really physical aspects of it (such as motion), but hate some of the other stuff (electronics). And it contributes to my ENTER! Gah!puckmercury wrote:
how can you say that? Physics is intuitive and contributes to a greater world understanding. Although it does ruin the game of pool. Seriously.
Same here. You just have to like it, then learn about it. Don't worry, it clears up.AirForceOne1 wrote:
ok i haven't taken physics (i am only 14).
Which question are you referring to?sagexp wrote:
The topic developed nicely, there was no flaming and name calling and lots of people had good POV. The answers are all still conjecture which makes life interesting. No body has the answers unlike what some types of people would have us believe. Generally we stayed on topic, generally, though some people addressed me partically, remember i just want see a discussion develop over interesting but strange ideas and something that doesnt involve politics my country is better than your shit.
Perhaps we should have another scientific argument ? how about the million dollar millenium questions ?
Riemanns (sp) ? never was one for numbers but i find the prime numbers problems and reperussions that if its true or not will have on a wide range of subjects, computing and otherwise interesting.
Also from the point of view of an observer the more you slow down the dimmer and more red shifted you'll appear.Vub wrote:
OK, to your first question, if you're being sucked into a black hole you'll be stretched (the spaghetti effect I think) once you've past the event horizon (the point of no return, meaning how ever much force you put in you cannot escape the black hole) and you'll just continue to be warped and pulled until you're just single atoms, and then those atoms would break down into nucleons and quarks, and when you hit singularity, you implode as gravity is so strong you get squeezed into yourself. Now to an observer, you'll move slower and slower, and to them you'll never ever reach singularity, you'll just be moving slower and slower until apparently your time seems to stand still.
I also heard that contrary to what you'd expect, the inside of a black hole wouldn't be black. Actually it'll probably look fairly awesome. Unfortunately you wouldn't be around very long to appreciate it as the free fall time from the event horizon to the singularity is something like 0.0001 seconds
Question one is answered by wave partical duality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave-Particle_duality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave-Particle_duality