Originally posted by BowmannIt's commonly said that black holes can pull in light. Black holes are just points of massive, massive gravity.
Wrong! There we go with the "force" idea again.
Light travels through space in straight lines and has no inertial mass to be 'pulled' by anything.
Edit: Wait... I get it now. almost... No I still don't. You're sure that light can't be "sucked" into a black hole? It just goes there because the space the light is traveling through is so massively warped?
Originally posted by CoconutI think the boy is catching on finally.
It's commonly said that black holes can pull in light. Black holes are just points of massive, massive gravity.
Edit: Wait... I get it now. almost... No I still don't. You're sure that light can't be "sucked" into a black hole? It just goes there because the space the light is traveling through is so massively warped?
Light is a good indicator of how deeply space is bent since light only
follows what it considers to be a straight path so if space is bent,
you get two things going for you. 1) the path the light takes will be
bent by the exact amount of space bending, see, you CAN get the
bends in space! and 2) time slows down in a warped space so the
color of the light changes too. It gets spread out in time so the
wavelength can get longer or shorter depending on the bends of
space! GPS cannot funtion accurately if relativity equations were not
built into the receiver's software because time changes when you are
in orbit because of your velocity but also because you are in a less
deep space bend as you go away from earth. If relativity was not
taken into account every time a measurement was called for,
it would be about as accurate as a roadmap in India.
OK, I like the gravity warping space theory as much as the next guy. Mainly because I can demonstrate the earth's orbit of the sun to myself. But its obviously not so simple.
This warping must be three dimensional, because that's how we understand space. Try wrapping your brain around a three dimensional pinch in space, and explain gravity's affect on orbiting mass, light and other particles.
That may require a degree or two in math and physics, not BSology.
I have read it explained that light and other particles trapped within a black hole's are caught in an infinite orbit. The x-rays emitted by black holes are said to come from matter just before it crosses this threshold. Otherwise the x-rays or anything else would not be emmited.
So why do objects with mass seem to align and orbit on a single plane, like the rings of Saturn, All of our solar systems planets for the most part, with some devotions including retrograde motion/orbits.
I'm sure it has to be that way or else we'd only be a cloud of pulverized dust and gas. But that how this little neighborhood started.
Possibly unrelated, but I don't think an electron's orbit of a nucleus world be on single plain either. And that's not how its illustrated either, but for illustrating concepts in chemistry.
By breaking the bonds of single atoms we can release enormous amounts of energy. What if we disrupted/broke the gravity of a black hole/singularity. A Big Bang?
Sorry, Am I thinking again ?🙄
Also,
If we involve wave forms into a description of the result of a sudden change of a mass's affect on space(as in the very question of this topic), then we must also include time. yes or no?
How can we describe a shift or rebound of space as a wave with out a frequency? That requires time.
So gravity's affect or lack of affect, on space and objects in that space could not be instantaneous, with that model.
There I go again, shooting in the dark.
But I use a full-auto shotgun! What a scatter brain!
OMG I can't see!!!...
Originally posted by CoconutIt's just Mr. "Semantics" Bowmann being an ass again. We all realize that gravity bends, or warps, space-time. We also all realize that by "pulling" the light, you meant bending it towards the gravity source. This is correct, but it's also more correct to say that the gravity source warps space-time so that the *path* the light takes appears bent. This hypothesis of Einstein's was proven correct a year or two after the publication of his theory of Relativity when there was a solar eclipse, and a star was visible at the edge of the sun's disk that was known to be behind the sun at that particular moment. This "bending of light" effect is also seen in what is known as gravitational lenses, where light from a distant galaxy is bent and forms a ring, or a partial ring around a closer galaxy that happens to lie in front of the more distant galaxy.
It's commonly said that black holes can pull in light. Black holes are just points of massive, massive gravity.
Edit: Wait... I get it now. almost... No I still don't. You're sure that light can't be "sucked" into a black hole? It just goes there because the space the light is traveling through is so massively warped?
Originally posted by Raw760The electron path around a nucleus is an interesting one, it is
OK, I like the gravity warping space theory as much as the next guy. Mainly because I can demonstrate the earth's orbit of the sun to myself. But its obviously not so simple.
This warping must be three dimensional, because that's how we understand space. Try wrapping your brain around a three dimensional pinch in space, and explain gravity's affect on o ...[text shortened]... ted/broke the gravity of a black hole/singularity. A Big Bang?
Sorry, Am I thinking again ?🙄
quantum in nature so first it can only be at a certain energy level or
distance from the nucleus and second it does not go round and
round like planets. Its movement is quantum related also, a
probability thing, it has a certain probablity of being in one place and
time but you can't pin the where and when exactly at the same time.
You can say where it is pretty exactly but not when it will be there
either in the past or in the future. That means the orbit is more of
a cloud, all the possible positions around the nucleus that corresponds
to the energy level where it is. It also doen't even have to be a
spherical shape, could be like a football.
In superposition experiments you can actually have them in
two places at once. Freaky stuff, quantum theory.
Originally posted by sonhouseBut footballs are spherical.
The electron path around a nucleus is an interesting one, it is
quantum in nature so first it can only be at a certain energy level or
distance from the nucleus and second it does not go round and
round like planets. Its movement is quantum related also, a
probability thing, it has a certain probablity of being in one place and
time but you can't pi ...[text shortened]... on experiments you can actually have them in
two places at once. Freaky stuff, quantum theory.
Originally posted by Raw760So why do objects with mass seem to align and orbit on a single plane, like the rings of Saturn, All of our solar systems planets for the most part, with some devotions including retrograde motion/orbits.
OK, I like the gravity warping space theory as much as the next guy. Mainly because I can demonstrate the earth's orbit of the sun to myself. But its obviously not so simple.
This warping must be three dimensional, because that's how we understand space. Try wrapping your brain around a three dimensional pinch in space, and explain gravity's affect on o ...[text shortened]... ted/broke the gravity of a black hole/singularity. A Big Bang?
Sorry, Am I thinking again ?🙄
The coplanar orbits of the objects in our solar system are caused by the fact that they all originated from the same spinning cloud of gas. This is known as the nebular hypothesis. Read the section titled Origin and evolution of the solar system on this website for more information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_system#Origin_and_evolution_of_the_solar_system
Or, if you don't like the idea that the universe is more than 10k years old, you can use the old "Goddunnit". That explains anything.
...I don't think an electron's orbit of a nucleus world be on single plain either. And that's not how its illustrated either, but for illustrating concepts in chemistry.
It is not a planar orbit. Electrons orbit in strange shapes - spheres, dumbells, clover shapes...for more information, look here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_orbital
Originally posted by sonhouseIts freaky alright.
The electron path around a nucleus is an interesting one, it is
quantum in nature so first it can only be at a certain energy level or
distance from the nucleus and second it does not go round and
round like planets. Its movement is quantum related also, a
probability thing, it has a certain probablity of being in one place and
time but you can't pi ...[text shortened]... on experiments you can actually have them in
two places at once. Freaky stuff, quantum theory.
Good post too AThousand Young.
Thanks.
Originally posted by SuzianneWell actually gravity doesn't warp space-time, gravity IS warped
It's just Mr. "Semantics" Bowmann being an ass again. We all realize that gravity bends, or warps, space-time. We also all realize that by "pulling" the light, you meant bending it towards the gravity source. This is correct, but it's also more correct to say that the gravity source warps space-time so that the *path* the light takes appears bent. ...[text shortened]... r a partial ring around a closer galaxy that happens to lie in front of the more distant galaxy.
space-time, its an effect not a cause. The cause is a local
concentration of mass, THATS what causes the warping of space and
time we perceive as gravity.
This is all very theoretical stuff, backed by unbelievably complex mathematics, way beyond me, but its sure is fun to think about.
So think about this. Black holes a singularities, the point the Bing Bang came from is also singularity. The difference in these being that we theorized that the Bing Bang came from a singularity containing ALL matter, black Holes contain massive amounts but not all matter.
I have also read the idea time and space began with the Big Bang, and ends with black holes.
Since we can only theorize on these singularities and have never proven there existence, thinking of their nature, how can we think there was only ever one Bing Bang.
What if time and space(as we can understand) does begin with a singularity containing all matter. Then after the initial expansion, smaller singularities form, ending time and space at that point. Eventually multiple singularities form, but do not contain the same matter as the first. Eventually these singularities return to a single point and Bang, all over again. Its all a tiny flash. in the scheme of things.
I do like the idea of multiple universes also. just because.