In a uniformly accelerating frame of reference (relativistic version of uniform acceleration), (going by the Rindler space description of uniformly accelerating frames), there is a special plane on which time is effectively frozen, called the Rindler horizon. It is very analogous to the event horizon of a black hole.
I disagree. I black hole would never be able to form because it would take an infinite amount if time to do so. As the video explains, time stands still on the event horizon, so matter would take longer and longer to pass through an emerging event horizon (looking from the outside).
"Nothing within the event horizon can ever get out again, simply because the escape veolcity at the event horizon is the speed of light, and nothing can reach faster than the speed of light."
While I accept it's true that nothing within the event horizon can escape, explaining this phenomenon must require a deeper understanding of GR than just the above statement. The above statement is extremely flawed, when considering the true definition of escape velocity.
So relative to an observer that remains outside and away from the collapsing mass, does it take a finite or infinite time for the event horizon to form? If infinite, where does Hawking radiation come in then?
@ScalarPhotonZ The event horizon itself forms as soon as the escape velocity of that area of spacetime exeeds the speed of light, it takes finite time. However, if you could see through the event horizon, everything past the event horizon would stand still. At least, from what I know.
@ScalarPhotonZ: Nothing really is overly special about black holes really, event horizons DO NOT take an infinite amount of time to form, they form when the escape velocity of the object becomes faster than the speed of light.
Time can't slow down because it is simply a mesurement. thats like saying an inch can be a foot, no it can't because it woulden't be an inch anymore it would be a foot. Einstein was a delusional man that drifted off reality into the world of fantasy
@9hello123 what you just said makes absolutely no sense. It doesn't matter who is looking at it or how they are looking at it the inch will always be an inch. looking at an object does not change it. maybe in the land of fary dust dreams. not here in reality, an inch will always be an inch weather you like it or not. and if you try and change that it wont be an inch anymore. your trying to say that an optical illusion is reality. an observer doesn't create reality the world was here before you
@EzekielSwapp Basic special relativity. We know it occurs, not just because the math works and predicts objects that have later been proven to exist, but because we can observe and measure it. And most of all GPS would NOT work without taking into account relativity.
Time is a unit of measurement nothing less and nothing more. there is no such thing as the space time continuum.and i can prove it with one simple question. If everything in the universe even light stoped moving completely would there be time? ofcourse not! you wouldent age the world wouldent spin on its axis (no days) the earth wouldent go around the sun (no years) if matter didn't move there would be no need for the mesurement of time.
@EzekielSwapp I like the way you answer it with a question that is meaningless. Absolute zero can not be reached so atomic motion can not be stopped, however even at absolute zero electrons do not stop moving, and the wave function does not stop. Nor does light ever stop. Also time isn't measured by how something moves, its actually measured by radioactive decay.
@9hello123 If everything stopped moving would there be time? my question wasn't. "can you stop everything" it was "if everything stopped." there is a huge diffrence between the two terms. oh and by the way radioactivity is not constant so it is a flawed way to measure time accurately. So your saying that radioactive decay has no movement? Do you even know what radioactive decay means?
@EzekielSwapp Oh okay, then if you stopped the strong nuclear force would a car still be a car? Meaningless question, and even if all movement stopped, wave functions still occur, electrons still orbit, radioactivity still occurs. yes radioactivity is constant don't bother discussing it if you don't know even incredibly basic nuclear physics. Radioactive decay can, or can not, have movement, it doesn't matter. A down quark can turn into an up quark without movement.
@9hello123 why do you keep contradicting your self in the same sentence? this is the essence of what you just said. " even if ALL movement stopped, movement would still occur." WOW Really? sorry but i can not talk reason to somebody that cannot process reason in there own mind, its like trying to talk to a wall. Radioactivity changes with the seasons, go look it up there is alot of new research going on right now concerning it.
@EzekielSwapp "even if ALL movement stopped, movement would still occur." WOW Really?"
Yes, sorry if you don't understand the basic principles involved, but yes it would. There are a lot of things in quantum physics that are contradictory and to our minds our impossible to comprehend, but they are correct.
@9hello123 another contradiction. "Radioactive decay can or cannot have movement?" so what your trying to get me to believe is there can be change without movement. Without movement there would be no change. if you cant understand basic common scense then don't bother talking to me.
@EzekielSwapp "so what your trying to get me to believe is there can be change without movement." Yes. Yes there can, something changes into something else by changing, not by moving. Quarks can change flavour by interacting with the weak force, without any form of movement.
@9hello123 and how do you know for absolute sertain that it doesn't move? If something spins does it move? Yes. If something viberates does it move? Yes. Movement isn't just something going from point A to point B. Lets look at what you just said. so Quarks (Which have never been isolated) can change flavour by interacting with the weak force. now you used the words change and interacting. Give me an example in reality in everyday life where a change or interaction has taken place without
@EzekielSwapp "Give me an example in reality in everyday life where a change or interaction has taken place without"
No where. in every day life, every day life is NOT the quantum world. And even attempting to compare it to everyday life shows you have no idea of the concept.
@EzekielSwapp "so Quarks (Which have never been isolated) " Neither have virtual photons, but I'm sure you believe in magnetism. We know quarks exist through deep inelastic scatter. And quarks are point objects, they do not spin or vibrate.
@9hello123 i believe that magnetism constists of something that we don't understand yet I don't believe that it is "virtual" and the way you just described quarks sounds like they don't even exist. Quarks don't move? so what happens when i move my hand which is suposedly made of quarks do they still not move? or what happens when i heat up my hand and all the molecules viberate do the quarks still not viberate?
@9hello123 you probably think or are going to say that quantum physics isn't like reality that it is not like reality at all. well than you have entered the world of fantasy and anything can go, nothing is right and nothing is wrong and if that is the case then it is pointless to argue that there is absolute truth in a world where it doesn't exist.(according to you)
@EzekielSwapp "if you cant understand basic common scense "
If you think common "scense" applies at all to quantum physics you have no idea what you are talking about. If something in quantum physics makes sense, then you have misunderstood the concept.
@9hello123 If something doesn't make sense it is because it isn't fully understood yet. the reason quantum physics seems messed up is because scientist are trying to explain something that they know very little about. for example: physicist do not know why light has a speed limit. or why its limit is what it is. there are so very many things we do not know concerning physics. and i believe if we did know everything about physics than it would all make perfect sense.
@EzekielSwapp "If something doesn't make sense it is because it isn't fully understood yet."
There's your problem. That is not the case, at all. There is an incredible amount of things that are correct, that are impossible to comprehend any other way than mathematically. Our minds can not comprehend them, yet we know they occur as we can observe them very well.
@EzekielSwapp I'm not going to argue past this point as it is pointless as you will either continue to believe that you are correct when you have no knowledge of the subject, or the much less likely option, you would accept you are very wrong and research things such as matter waves, Schroedinger's wave equation, Young's double slit, p branes, and other impossible to comprehend ideas that we know are correct. Nearly all of physics does not in any way make sense outside of mathematics.
@9hello123 the reason scientists cannot comprehend experiments like the double slit experiment is because there theory of it is wrong. If you could think out side of your little box that the scientific community has put you in you would be able to understand the double slit experiment with absolute clarity. and there would be no contradictions or "quantum weirdness" which is just another term for "we don't know what the heck we are observing"
if you were the person falling in then everyone else would seem to move quicker wouldnt they? you could see millions of years into the future ... right before you get crushed to death by the gravity
I would have to agree, many people are dead. It doesn't invalidate what they have to say though. If you honestly disagree well then put forth an alternative. minds are not expanded without discussion and discourse. Don't just exclaim "Bullshit", give us another theory. If you can't then please don't troll, it's not big and it's not clever.
I don't think someone thrown outside of a rocket to free fall into a blackhole would be conscious much less alive. We know so little about blackholes....we can deduce by watching the stars that orbit a blackhole...that light can not escape. I don't think matter can either. Not sure I agree with everything he suggests...... Black holes might just be the vaccum cleaners of the cosmos!
I don't think someone thrown outside of a rocket to free fall into a blackhole would be conscious much less alive. We know so little about blackholes....we can deduce by watching the stars that orbit a blackhole...that light can not escape. I don't think matter can either. Not sure I agree with everything he suggests......
i think, the black hole doesn't have any saturation point, because according to Einstein's theory of general relativity, the black hole has aggregated enough mass to reach Singularity where curvature of space and time get so inter-wined that it forms a worm-hole. according to M-theory, it is impossible to aggregate infinite amount of mass at finite point of finite space in finite amount of time. so the bottom-line is the concept of 'infinite' singularity is indeed theoreticaly wrong...
i think, the black hole doesn't have any saturation point, because according to Einstein's theory of general relativity, the black hole has aggregated enough mass to reach Singularity where curvature of space and time get so inter-wined that it forms a worm-hole. according to M-theory, it is impossible to aggregate infinite amount of mass at finite point of finite space in finite amount of time. so the bottom-line is the concept of 'infinite' singularity is indeed theoreticaly wrong...
Couldn't all of the "personal time" thing be possibly based only upon effects of gravity upon electronics or mechanisms? I don't think of either of those as time. Then again time is fairly abstract if anyone thinks about it. The clock and the sun are the only things we have to go off of when it comes to time. Time is needed for calculations, yet how are they able to send anything to a very specific point in the solar system if time slows down the further it gets away from us?
@Thulgore I'm a high school drop out with probably one of the worst GPA records most of you have ever heard of, so my apologies if the answers are common knowledge. The way I think of time when it comes to astronomy is that it's as rain. No matter how fast you move it's still falling upon you. I also hate the name "blackhole" is there a hole? Light and perception I get, time travel seems fucking retarded. (I'm drunk and a self proclaimed idiot) I still disagree with physics. Until I learn more.
i would like to purchase your book. you are as interested in space and the universe, (time, and cosmology ect...) i am a huge fan of your videos and would love to read the book. how might i be able to buy it.
@apocolypse11 Yes and no, if by conscious memory, then no, if by biological (instinctual memory) then yes. Though you wouldn't know to record it. Plants don't have anything we would consider a brain, though they react to seasonal changes. Is that memory? I honestly don't know. Memory is odd as we're one of a select amalgamation of creatures with a long term memory. Instinctual or genetic memory is actually making my me try and rethink this question in to many ways. I feel like I'm spamming lol.
A neutron star is also quite massive... could it actually become a black hole too by swallowing more and more matter or the BH can only come from a Supernova?
Question is: The supernova is the only thing a black hole can be born from?
"Black hole" is fictional and preposterous. We need spend no time speculating on their properties as they are entirely imaginary. The only "black hole" is in astronogers' minds, they use these holes to cover all the inconsistencies and flaws in their philosophy.
the thing is would'nt it take forever for the victim to fall in from the viewpoint of the outside universe? the problem with this is that I have read on some sites that black holes will all dissipate in about ten to the 150th power years which seems like eternity but technically is not so would'nt the black hole dissipate before you hit it?
@MrNitt the velocity needed to escape is higher than the speed of light and since nothing can go faster than light that means its impossible to escape beyond that point
If stopwatch of the guy that is falling in continues to tick as a normal rate, does that mean that he'll age at the normal rate? Or is this question moot because he will eventually get crushed at the center of the black hole?
how can you prove a physical interpretation with experiments? seems like all you can prove is that the numbers come out right every time. there are many possible interpretations for quantities and equations, so isn't it quite possible that bending of space and black hole singularities are complete nonsense?
The video concluded that a black hole can form in a finate amount oftime as seen by an external observer. This incorrect! The event horizon would take an infinate amount of time to form from the point of view of an external observer according to the theory of relativity.
Albert Einstein was correct about the theory of relativity, however the example of hot girl and hot stove proved to be based upon personal perspective not unbiased report.
Man falled at 1,000 MPH, than it is no doubt that his timing would be "off" compared to whoever timing him.
But it doesn't prove that time get slower, but prove that what we think can be different than what other think.
If we were to include the force of gravity that alter stop watch's mechanism that report time which would have no effect on digital watch because it contain no mechanism.
Guranteed that the guy falling from the airplane will still be the same as the guy watching him. This doesn't mean Albert Einstein was wrong as he have a good point in Theory of Relativity but it doesn't reflect that time will "slow" down.
@Bopkasen Haha no, it doesn't matter what type of watch you are using. Time slows down nearer a black hole, because it has been documented that gravity will slow tome down. A perfect example will be the Earth and the GPS satellites. People had found out that timers on GPS satellites are always faster than timers on earth control stations, because earth gravity is stronger on the surface than in orbit.
What may be interesting also is if the friend is, instead of looking at his stopwatch, looking back toward the space vessel. Things would be moving so fast that he may witness the end of the Universe.
The friend falling onto the black hole (assuming he survives during the fall) will never see himself pass the event horizon because it will keep shrinking for him until he reaches the surface of whatever is inside the black hole.
And the question if I will ever see him pass the event horizon as I can see it from my perspective ... well, that's a question. I think the answer is actually yes, but neither this video nor anything I found gives answer.
I get it Nanoclap, your scared in the realization of people wanting real answers as opposed to fictional make believe ones. Nobody is taking , as you so elegantly put "fucking theories as fact", they are taking fact as fact. - Stop listening so much if it scares you so. Or grow up and let the adults talk amongst themselves.
wow your so smart you didnt even know how to reply to what i said cuse you dont know how. all you said was some stupid shit that sounds from a syfy movie. the adults talk amongst themselves?? HAHAHA
this is so stupid how people talk about fucking ''theories'' as fact, science is turning into religion. time is a measurement like centimeters and inches . it dosent exist! and we dont even know 100% if black holes exist as we think they do. WHAT THE FUCK stop talking so much
time is time and cant no black hole slw a stop watch down no matter wut so stop lyin to these poor people lol... if u go to one and have tangible proof then ill change my mind about u
jaquantoao, you didn't pay attention in science class, did you, most of the science we now live by has no tangible proof. And you never learned about the Special Theory of Relativity did you?
"Out Black Spot", CERN's too fucking late mate, Shakespeare already did it = $ = "I shall wrap a girdle (curious) roundabout the Earth", and now CERN's obsessed with the Lay Line Grid, because half brain's that can't read Syn(SINE)aesthesis code's havn't got a God Particle Neutrino Soul of their own, and that's what you call Muncahusen!
when he says that your stopwatch will tick slower and slower would this mean that your brain will slow down too, making it seem that your stopwatch is ticking at the same speed because the time it takes for a message to go from your eyes to your brain will be slower too? I am only 16, so please forgive me if i am wrong. I just really want to know.
remember time is not physical so it cannot have any effect on anything physical, so the watch would be ticking normally not at a different speed. what he is trying to say is that if time was just a big stop watch (physical) it COULD tick at different speeds, these speeds effected by things such as a black hole. your brain doesn't actually SLOW down its still working normally. im only 14 :)
Time will never seem to slow down for the individual falling in to the black hole just as it never seems to slow for individuals attaining high velocities. The watch will seem to tick slower to the individual in the starship watching his friend fall into the black hole. It's all relative to where you are.
yes but surely the watch its self wont slow down, surely the hands will be ticking at the same speed...its mechanical. do you mean if time was represented as a clock it would seem too tick slower.
It's all relative to where you are. The watch is where it is and will tic the same to itself and the people near it, to the people that aren't near it the watch will appear to tic more slowly.
Say you had two people who started two perfect stop watches at the same time. These watches count time perfectly. One person remains 1 million miles from the black hole (BH) the other goes near the BH and then returns to the million mile mark (I know that's not possible, just stay with me). The person's stopwatch who traveled near the BH will have counted less time than the person who remained at the same point one million miles away.
@davidt2468 Yeah, the guy falling towards the black hole doesnt begin to move and think in slow motion, its just relative to the guy in the space ship, time is slowing down around his friend.
@davidt2468 never ever say "forgive me" when your asking a question... thats not a dumb question... I dont know the answer.. just wanted to say that...
@davidt2468 I am 16 too (17 now lol) but anyway,Im on the event horizon, you are progressing to the hole. You would see everything normally, the time taken for the light to get to me increases as you get nearer to the centre as gravity increases, up until u hit the centre, light never escapes, so all i see is u nd ur watch frozen in time.
@davidt2468 the time increases because the mass increases too. that's relativity. the length, breadth and width decrease because of hyper compression. at over the light speed, the length, breadth and width as well as the mass become imaginary (negative). so the time becomes the max possible instant - exactly the time taken for light to travel any distance.
you've very correctly said. if we travel close to light velocity, our body would decrease in size proportionately and hence your expl.
@davidt2468 haha awesome thought.. it's not the correct interpretation though .. your clock and brain will move normal speed but you will see the guy falling into the black holes clock and speed slow right now to nothing essentially.. the guy falling in the black hole will see normal speed and see your clock speed up to infinity. :)))
@davidt2468 That's correct. Time would slow down both for you and the watch. The only way you'd know is if you then returned to 'normal' time and compared your clock to one that wasn't taken into the high gravity.
Though of course, high gravity would likely kill you. So its not exactly an easy thing to prove in a physical sense! Though atomic clocks have been experimented upon and such results have been shown. However, the question remains...does time actually exist in a real sense?
Note: i posted this comment before i watched the whole video.
Comment: He said something like "faster than the speed of light. i heard Nothing in space can travel in space faster than the speed of li- Oh! thats when- OH! maybe not.. anyway, Nothing in space can travel through it faster than the speed of light... but SPACE... will, and can,(maybe is..) travel(ing) at the speed of light. So... traveling through space faster than the speed of light violates einstines theory of realitivity.
"...not only has nobody ever found an event horizon; there is no laboratory evidence that such things exist. All reports of black holes being found are just wishful thinking - patently false ? unless you can provide the coordinates of a verified infinitely dense point-mass singularity and a verified event horizon. But there are of course, as you know, no such coordinates, because no black holes have ever been found." ~ Stephen Crothers
if we ould orbit earth at near light speeds, we could observe earth in fast forward, then slow down, land, and even tho we were at orbit just few months, we could record years of earths history.
unfortunately we couldnt 'go back' in time.
that might however be usefull if we ever migrate to different solar system. 100lightyears travel in 120earth years done in 20ship years. ;)
if the black hole has such strong gravity how would any one be able to see your watch wouldn't the life be sucked out of you from light yeays away from the black hole
You don't deal with anything in within the singularity you simply become part of the black hole so your last existence is completely irrelevant, there you go. There is no GOD!
...because the event horizon has blocked all observation of the singularity from view. Now that we know that NSs are indeed possible, the cat's out of the bag, so to speak, cause we now may have to DEAL with what happens at the singularity. The upside of a NS is that unlike a black hole, which as an infinite escape velocity, theoretically you can stroll right up yo a NS and not be pulled in(unless you make contact). The downside is it's compete invisibility due to no matter going down the drain.
It's interesting. Now we know of naked singularities which mathmatically can exist(although none have been observed). A naked singularity is exactly what the name suggests; a singularity(a point of infinint desnity) that forms WITHOUT the event horizon. The event horizon has always served as a welcome censor for scientists because at the singularity, all laws of physics break down and quantum mechanics take front and center. We don't KNOW what happens to matter when it reaches the singularity...
I wanted to know if a black hole will keep sucking matter for ever and ever... Or if it has a saturation point, where it stops being a black hole? Sorry if this is a stupid question, but i'm just a curious person. =) thanks
Blackholes often shoot out jets of material perpendicular to their accretion discs. If the black hole is taking too much material too fast, this can happen. The most famous occurance of this is when two galaxies collide and the two supermassive black holes at thier centers converge and form an even BIGGER black hole. When matter begins shooting out matter, this event is called a quasar, and they are the brightest objects in the universe, AND the most distant.
(cont'd)...Even while black holes shoot out matter like this, they are still consuming matter. Black holes never relinquish thier appetite, and will not stop feeding until there is matter left in the area.
@skazisatan Haha that's a good idea, but alas no, black holes don't have a saturation point because the matter they contain is infinitely dense, to the point where the electrons that make up the atoms in it are smashed together.
@skazisatan I've heard that it does have a saturation point, and after that even the Black Hole can explode or something. I'm not an astronomer or physicist, I just watch and read a lot about it. Sorry if I wasn't specific enough, but I see no one else has answered you.. :)
@skazisatan seems to be no limit to it's size. I don't know how this mysterious dark energy would influence it if it was as big as half the universe we see now. I just hope whatever black holes are out there stay far away from our solar system until we can fly around like superman and move out of the way :/
The units we use for time are good. Time IS a variable but only in proportion to speed. And our perception of time gets 'whacked out' as speeds approach light speed. It all has to do with the photons because we only see photons (light) but photons are a particle/ energy wave...That should be one of his videos, What is time? I bet he can explain it better. Kind of like the Doppler affect but with our eyes. Could you 'see' sometime taveling faster than light as it approaches you?
Well, even if the light source was coming from behidnd you... I guess you'd not be able to see it until the last instant before it smacks you in the eye...
A primordial black hole is a hypothetical black hole that formed during the very early stages of the Universe. Right after the BB the Univere was extremely dense and local fluctuations in this density could have triggered the formation of a black hole.
A normal black hole forms by the gravitational collapse of a star.
So the only difference is the way they are formed.
im pretty sure the stopwatch would still run at the same timing as usual, like its programmed to do, even while the real timing may be slowed down the stopwatch wouldnt
So if a man falling to a black hole looks back, he sees the evolution of universe in speed motion, and the speed is increasing to infinity so he sees the end of universe?
I think it's an example to show relative relation of time. Nothing can survive it so the point is mute. Great question though. You have me thinking.. Cheers
Wait a second. Relative to falling object isn't it than time flow faster relative to objects that isn't influenced by the gravity of black Hole. And when it reaches the event horizon would time flow infinite fast? And if it is what does it means? May be object even wouldnt able to cross the event horizon because universe dies of old age
Then? then matters from which point of view you're taking the reading. Inside the blackhole you would never touch the event horizon, but outside it the rest would see you reaching it in a zip.
The way you put it is just like the paradox of the turtle racing against hercules, the latter giving the turtle 10 seconds of advantage. When those 10 second pass, hercules run til he reaches the turtle previous position, but then the turtle would have move a bit, then by the time hercules reached that bit, the turtle would have move another tiny bit. You can keep that 'til eternity and yet hercules would do beat the turtle.
I know how the black hole sucks a star. The star will orbit it once, then star will spread out then orbits the black hole half. the star will get faster by the black hole because the black hole is using much of their energy. Poor star is weak, because the star had spread out quickly. Some astronomers believe that the black hole is some kind of timing machine.
he forgot something the black hole will stretch its victim until it exceeds the intermolecular forces that bind your fles this happens until you are just a stream of atoms descending its called spagetification one thing english ppl are good for is having words for ways to die
My problem with Einstein's work is that his measurement is that light is absolute to measure space and time, when there are several theories of particles that have been tested to exceed light, and therefor, debunk the current concept of black holes.
they would not shrink. they would contract due to gravity resulting in a very dense human ball without really preserving our previous bodily structure. Shrinking would imply they actual molecular structure is preserved and the atoms are actually somehow becoming smaller which is not really possible.
He is correct in the way he differentiates shrinking and contracting, but what would actually happen is "spaghettification" because the gravity difference, where your head would weigh...say what it does on earth, but then imagine your feet weighed more like 100,000 lbs (this is only an example)...not only would your knees and ankles be ripped apart, but not even your molecules would hold together. You would basically become a stream of particles.
not intoa black hole cause like.. you wouldn't shirnk as much as you would compress. and the compression would kill you, but i was thinking about if you actually were shrunkified and idk about that.. compressed = death (black hole) shrink = ?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
you said it all " for the math to work out" Problem is, reality doesn't have to conform to math. math has to conform to reality. So by that pov, what if there is no such thing as a black hole? What empirical evidence is there of such a thing? According to plasma Cosmology, black holes are an ad hoc hypothesis, like dark matter and dark energy, things that were NEVER EVER observed, but that we try to hold on to by creating more and more ad hoc entities.
In a uniformly accelerating frame of reference (relativistic version of uniform acceleration), (going by the Rindler space description of uniformly accelerating frames), there is a special plane on which time is effectively frozen, called the Rindler horizon. It is very analogous to the event horizon of a black hole.
ScalarPhotonZ 3 weeks ago
I disagree. I black hole would never be able to form because it would take an infinite amount if time to do so. As the video explains, time stands still on the event horizon, so matter would take longer and longer to pass through an emerging event horizon (looking from the outside).
RobertsMrtn 2 months ago
everything will definitley be fine for "him" lol
markusduff2006 3 months ago
It's a common misconception that:
"Nothing within the event horizon can ever get out again, simply because the escape veolcity at the event horizon is the speed of light, and nothing can reach faster than the speed of light."
While I accept it's true that nothing within the event horizon can escape, explaining this phenomenon must require a deeper understanding of GR than just the above statement. The above statement is extremely flawed, when considering the true definition of escape velocity.
ScalarPhotonZ 5 months ago
So relative to an observer that remains outside and away from the collapsing mass, does it take a finite or infinite time for the event horizon to form? If infinite, where does Hawking radiation come in then?
ScalarPhotonZ 5 months ago
@ScalarPhotonZ The event horizon itself forms as soon as the escape velocity of that area of spacetime exeeds the speed of light, it takes finite time. However, if you could see through the event horizon, everything past the event horizon would stand still. At least, from what I know.
Helge129 5 months ago
@ScalarPhotonZ: Nothing really is overly special about black holes really, event horizons DO NOT take an infinite amount of time to form, they form when the escape velocity of the object becomes faster than the speed of light.
TheCrimsonIdol987 3 weeks ago
"He'll see his clock ticking normally, and everything will be fine for him."
Well, not exactly...
TOSViolator 7 months ago
Time can't slow down because it is simply a mesurement. thats like saying an inch can be a foot, no it can't because it woulden't be an inch anymore it would be a foot. Einstein was a delusional man that drifted off reality into the world of fantasy
EzekielSwapp 7 months ago
Comment removed
9hello123 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@EzekielSwapp An inch CAN be a foot. To you it would be an inch, to someone in an inertial frame of reference it would be a foot.
9hello123 7 months ago
@9hello123 what you just said makes absolutely no sense. It doesn't matter who is looking at it or how they are looking at it the inch will always be an inch. looking at an object does not change it. maybe in the land of fary dust dreams. not here in reality, an inch will always be an inch weather you like it or not. and if you try and change that it wont be an inch anymore. your trying to say that an optical illusion is reality. an observer doesn't create reality the world was here before you
EzekielSwapp 7 months ago
@EzekielSwapp Basic special relativity. We know it occurs, not just because the math works and predicts objects that have later been proven to exist, but because we can observe and measure it. And most of all GPS would NOT work without taking into account relativity.
9hello123 7 months ago
Time is a unit of measurement nothing less and nothing more. there is no such thing as the space time continuum.and i can prove it with one simple question. If everything in the universe even light stoped moving completely would there be time? ofcourse not! you wouldent age the world wouldent spin on its axis (no days) the earth wouldent go around the sun (no years) if matter didn't move there would be no need for the mesurement of time.
EzekielSwapp 7 months ago
@EzekielSwapp I like the way you answer it with a question that is meaningless. Absolute zero can not be reached so atomic motion can not be stopped, however even at absolute zero electrons do not stop moving, and the wave function does not stop. Nor does light ever stop. Also time isn't measured by how something moves, its actually measured by radioactive decay.
9hello123 7 months ago
@9hello123 If everything stopped moving would there be time? my question wasn't. "can you stop everything" it was "if everything stopped." there is a huge diffrence between the two terms. oh and by the way radioactivity is not constant so it is a flawed way to measure time accurately. So your saying that radioactive decay has no movement? Do you even know what radioactive decay means?
EzekielSwapp 7 months ago
@EzekielSwapp Oh okay, then if you stopped the strong nuclear force would a car still be a car? Meaningless question, and even if all movement stopped, wave functions still occur, electrons still orbit, radioactivity still occurs. yes radioactivity is constant don't bother discussing it if you don't know even incredibly basic nuclear physics. Radioactive decay can, or can not, have movement, it doesn't matter. A down quark can turn into an up quark without movement.
9hello123 7 months ago
@9hello123 why do you keep contradicting your self in the same sentence? this is the essence of what you just said. " even if ALL movement stopped, movement would still occur." WOW Really? sorry but i can not talk reason to somebody that cannot process reason in there own mind, its like trying to talk to a wall. Radioactivity changes with the seasons, go look it up there is alot of new research going on right now concerning it.
EzekielSwapp 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@EzekielSwapp "even if ALL movement stopped, movement would still occur." WOW Really?"
Yes, sorry if you don't understand the basic principles involved, but yes it would. There are a lot of things in quantum physics that are contradictory and to our minds our impossible to comprehend, but they are correct.
9hello123 7 months ago
@9hello123 another contradiction. "Radioactive decay can or cannot have movement?" so what your trying to get me to believe is there can be change without movement. Without movement there would be no change. if you cant understand basic common scense then don't bother talking to me.
EzekielSwapp 7 months ago
@EzekielSwapp "so what your trying to get me to believe is there can be change without movement." Yes. Yes there can, something changes into something else by changing, not by moving. Quarks can change flavour by interacting with the weak force, without any form of movement.
9hello123 7 months ago
@9hello123 and how do you know for absolute sertain that it doesn't move? If something spins does it move? Yes. If something viberates does it move? Yes. Movement isn't just something going from point A to point B. Lets look at what you just said. so Quarks (Which have never been isolated) can change flavour by interacting with the weak force. now you used the words change and interacting. Give me an example in reality in everyday life where a change or interaction has taken place without
EzekielSwapp 7 months ago
@EzekielSwapp "Give me an example in reality in everyday life where a change or interaction has taken place without"
No where. in every day life, every day life is NOT the quantum world. And even attempting to compare it to everyday life shows you have no idea of the concept.
9hello123 7 months ago
@9hello123 than the quantum world isn't reality
EzekielSwapp 7 months ago
@EzekielSwapp "so Quarks (Which have never been isolated) " Neither have virtual photons, but I'm sure you believe in magnetism. We know quarks exist through deep inelastic scatter. And quarks are point objects, they do not spin or vibrate.
9hello123 7 months ago
@9hello123 i believe that magnetism constists of something that we don't understand yet I don't believe that it is "virtual" and the way you just described quarks sounds like they don't even exist. Quarks don't move? so what happens when i move my hand which is suposedly made of quarks do they still not move? or what happens when i heat up my hand and all the molecules viberate do the quarks still not viberate?
EzekielSwapp 7 months ago
@9hello123 movement
EzekielSwapp 7 months ago
@9hello123 you probably think or are going to say that quantum physics isn't like reality that it is not like reality at all. well than you have entered the world of fantasy and anything can go, nothing is right and nothing is wrong and if that is the case then it is pointless to argue that there is absolute truth in a world where it doesn't exist.(according to you)
EzekielSwapp 7 months ago
@9hello123 If anything seems weird or strange in quantum physics it is because of our lack of understanding it more.
EzekielSwapp 7 months ago
@EzekielSwapp "if you cant understand basic common scense "
If you think common "scense" applies at all to quantum physics you have no idea what you are talking about. If something in quantum physics makes sense, then you have misunderstood the concept.
9hello123 7 months ago
@9hello123 If something doesn't make sense it is because it isn't fully understood yet. the reason quantum physics seems messed up is because scientist are trying to explain something that they know very little about. for example: physicist do not know why light has a speed limit. or why its limit is what it is. there are so very many things we do not know concerning physics. and i believe if we did know everything about physics than it would all make perfect sense.
EzekielSwapp 7 months ago
@EzekielSwapp "If something doesn't make sense it is because it isn't fully understood yet."
There's your problem. That is not the case, at all. There is an incredible amount of things that are correct, that are impossible to comprehend any other way than mathematically. Our minds can not comprehend them, yet we know they occur as we can observe them very well.
9hello123 7 months ago
@9hello123 How in the world can you say a theory is correct if you can't even understand it or comprehend it?
EzekielSwapp 7 months ago
@EzekielSwapp I'm not going to argue past this point as it is pointless as you will either continue to believe that you are correct when you have no knowledge of the subject, or the much less likely option, you would accept you are very wrong and research things such as matter waves, Schroedinger's wave equation, Young's double slit, p branes, and other impossible to comprehend ideas that we know are correct. Nearly all of physics does not in any way make sense outside of mathematics.
9hello123 7 months ago
@9hello123 the reason scientists cannot comprehend experiments like the double slit experiment is because there theory of it is wrong. If you could think out side of your little box that the scientific community has put you in you would be able to understand the double slit experiment with absolute clarity. and there would be no contradictions or "quantum weirdness" which is just another term for "we don't know what the heck we are observing"
EzekielSwapp 7 months ago
@TheSwedeJohan a black hole is thought to be formed by a hypernova just a really big supernova which are the deaths of really big stars
BLACK420OPS 7 months ago
I am.
zimtran007 8 months ago
I want a black hole :(
GurreMan123 9 months ago
Is this Phil Plait the idiot who is too scared to debate the fake moon landings
in public?
fuckutube74 11 months ago
@fuckutube74 No, this is the Phil Plait who spends a lot of his time debunking crap like the "fake" moon landings.
exscape 9 months ago
@exscape fake moon landings really!!!! prove it
BLACK420OPS 7 months ago
@BLACK420OPS What? Read my post again. Fake is within quotation marks for a reason.
exscape 7 months ago
@exscape well now i feel stupid haha sorry and im glad ur not one of those dumbass ppl who think that shit!!! sorry again...
BLACK420OPS 7 months ago
Lol do you really this thinks halfwit knows anything about black holes?
fuckutube74 11 months ago
MOON HOAX
SPACE AGENCY MOONED AMERICA
NAZI VON BRAUN THE JEW MURDERER
wen790 11 months ago
moon hoax
dont believe in any given reality situation by never a striaght answer
wen790 11 months ago
if you were the person falling in then everyone else would seem to move quicker wouldnt they? you could see millions of years into the future ... right before you get crushed to death by the gravity
NiPpLeSpAzM 11 months ago
@NiPpLeSpAzM Actually, I think he meant this only to explain time, but a person could not survive in a black hole. :)
originofnoise 10 months ago
THIS GUY IS A BLACK HOLE
wen790 11 months ago
@wen790 lmao
fuckutube74 11 months ago
IF YOU CANT MAKE IT FAKE IT
wen790 11 months ago
I would have to agree, many people are dead. It doesn't invalidate what they have to say though. If you honestly disagree well then put forth an alternative. minds are not expanded without discussion and discourse. Don't just exclaim "Bullshit", give us another theory. If you can't then please don't troll, it's not big and it's not clever.
theblondegoth 11 months ago
Comment removed
MichaelFrostChicago 11 months ago
Comment removed
MichaelFrostChicago 11 months ago
Comment removed
MichaelFrostChicago 11 months ago
Electric Universe.
It's nice cuz it doesn't require all this bullshit.
C'mon Phil.
Newton and Einstein are Dead!
And so are your precious bogus mathematical models.
bigbangblackholemicrowaveblowhole,
all bullshit.
And stop lying to the children.
alaric63 11 months ago
@alaric63
you sir, are the worst troll i've ever seen. Unless you're just plain stupid offcourse.
vkeiftw 11 months ago
Wait a minute... once a black hole sucks in a bunch of star matter, where does it all go?
NDF211Gunner 1 year ago
I don't think someone thrown outside of a rocket to free fall into a blackhole would be conscious much less alive. We know so little about blackholes....we can deduce by watching the stars that orbit a blackhole...that light can not escape. I don't think matter can either. Not sure I agree with everything he suggests...... Black holes might just be the vaccum cleaners of the cosmos!
david25luvit 1 year ago
I don't think someone thrown outside of a rocket to free fall into a blackhole would be conscious much less alive. We know so little about blackholes....we can deduce by watching the stars that orbit a blackhole...that light can not escape. I don't think matter can either. Not sure I agree with everything he suggests......
david25luvit 1 year ago
i think, the black hole doesn't have any saturation point, because according to Einstein's theory of general relativity, the black hole has aggregated enough mass to reach Singularity where curvature of space and time get so inter-wined that it forms a worm-hole. according to M-theory, it is impossible to aggregate infinite amount of mass at finite point of finite space in finite amount of time. so the bottom-line is the concept of 'infinite' singularity is indeed theoreticaly wrong...
nazmak14 1 year ago
i think, the black hole doesn't have any saturation point, because according to Einstein's theory of general relativity, the black hole has aggregated enough mass to reach Singularity where curvature of space and time get so inter-wined that it forms a worm-hole. according to M-theory, it is impossible to aggregate infinite amount of mass at finite point of finite space in finite amount of time. so the bottom-line is the concept of 'infinite' singularity is indeed theoreticaly wrong...
nazmak14 1 year ago
Couldn't all of the "personal time" thing be possibly based only upon effects of gravity upon electronics or mechanisms? I don't think of either of those as time. Then again time is fairly abstract if anyone thinks about it. The clock and the sun are the only things we have to go off of when it comes to time. Time is needed for calculations, yet how are they able to send anything to a very specific point in the solar system if time slows down the further it gets away from us?
Thulgore 1 year ago
@Thulgore I'm a high school drop out with probably one of the worst GPA records most of you have ever heard of, so my apologies if the answers are common knowledge. The way I think of time when it comes to astronomy is that it's as rain. No matter how fast you move it's still falling upon you. I also hate the name "blackhole" is there a hole? Light and perception I get, time travel seems fucking retarded. (I'm drunk and a self proclaimed idiot) I still disagree with physics. Until I learn more.
Thulgore 1 year ago
Ummmm, why would matter not be able to fall inside the event horizon? That's just ridiculous to say.
bweazel 1 year ago
i would like to purchase your book. you are as interested in space and the universe, (time, and cosmology ect...) i am a huge fan of your videos and would love to read the book. how might i be able to buy it.
iGotMetal 1 year ago
I wonder if we had no memory we would be able to tell time.
apocolypse11 1 year ago
@apocolypse11 Yes and no, if by conscious memory, then no, if by biological (instinctual memory) then yes. Though you wouldn't know to record it. Plants don't have anything we would consider a brain, though they react to seasonal changes. Is that memory? I honestly don't know. Memory is odd as we're one of a select amalgamation of creatures with a long term memory. Instinctual or genetic memory is actually making my me try and rethink this question in to many ways. I feel like I'm spamming lol.
Thulgore 1 year ago
A neutron star is also quite massive... could it actually become a black hole too by swallowing more and more matter or the BH can only come from a Supernova?
Question is: The supernova is the only thing a black hole can be born from?
GShock112 1 year ago
@GShock112 no i think black holes can be formed by 2 neutron stars colliding, or that might be large gamma ray burts, or both... idk lol
klooger28 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Black hole" is fictional and preposterous. We need spend no time speculating on their properties as they are entirely imaginary. The only "black hole" is in astronogers' minds, they use these holes to cover all the inconsistencies and flaws in their philosophy.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
the thing is would'nt it take forever for the victim to fall in from the viewpoint of the outside universe? the problem with this is that I have read on some sites that black holes will all dissipate in about ten to the 150th power years which seems like eternity but technically is not so would'nt the black hole dissipate before you hit it?
Zurround100 1 year ago
The escape velocity gets "faster" than the speed of light? I thought nothing could go faster than the speed of light....
MrNitt 1 year ago
@MrNitt the velocity needed to escape is higher than the speed of light and since nothing can go faster than light that means its impossible to escape beyond that point
klooger28 1 year ago
If stopwatch of the guy that is falling in continues to tick as a normal rate, does that mean that he'll age at the normal rate? Or is this question moot because he will eventually get crushed at the center of the black hole?
Esialpha 1 year ago
how can you prove a physical interpretation with experiments? seems like all you can prove is that the numbers come out right every time. there are many possible interpretations for quantities and equations, so isn't it quite possible that bending of space and black hole singularities are complete nonsense?
junior00bacon00chee 1 year ago
The video concluded that a black hole can form in a finate amount oftime as seen by an external observer. This incorrect! The event horizon would take an infinate amount of time to form from the point of view of an external observer according to the theory of relativity.
RobertsMrtn 1 year ago
falling into what?
Jondot12345 1 year ago
Albert Einstein was correct about the theory of relativity, however the example of hot girl and hot stove proved to be based upon personal perspective not unbiased report.
Man falled at 1,000 MPH, than it is no doubt that his timing would be "off" compared to whoever timing him.
But it doesn't prove that time get slower, but prove that what we think can be different than what other think.
Unless
Bopkasen 1 year ago
If we were to include the force of gravity that alter stop watch's mechanism that report time which would have no effect on digital watch because it contain no mechanism.
Guranteed that the guy falling from the airplane will still be the same as the guy watching him. This doesn't mean Albert Einstein was wrong as he have a good point in Theory of Relativity but it doesn't reflect that time will "slow" down.
Bopkasen 1 year ago
@Bopkasen Haha no, it doesn't matter what type of watch you are using. Time slows down nearer a black hole, because it has been documented that gravity will slow tome down. A perfect example will be the Earth and the GPS satellites. People had found out that timers on GPS satellites are always faster than timers on earth control stations, because earth gravity is stronger on the surface than in orbit.
Legola87 1 year ago
Albert Einstein was insane!!!!
tryandguesswhoiam 1 year ago
What may be interesting also is if the friend is, instead of looking at his stopwatch, looking back toward the space vessel. Things would be moving so fast that he may witness the end of the Universe.
marasu66 1 year ago
There needs to be an event horizon for the math to work out, until we devise some new math for what we call "black holes".
marasu66 1 year ago
please come to europe, have a beer with me:) oh and get a better mic or cam :s
jathe5th 1 year ago 2
:D.... You're smart :D?...
cool1o1o1 1 year ago
God,i'd love to have a chat with that dude.
machopi 2 years ago 2
3:29
Lol
jabacoco 2 years ago
I only have a problem with the word "seems."
clearlyme2u 2 years ago
I think this explanation is completely wrong.
The friend falling onto the black hole (assuming he survives during the fall) will never see himself pass the event horizon because it will keep shrinking for him until he reaches the surface of whatever is inside the black hole.
And the question if I will ever see him pass the event horizon as I can see it from my perspective ... well, that's a question. I think the answer is actually yes, but neither this video nor anything I found gives answer.
kasuha 2 years ago
More juggling from the medicine show.
Pianoman8 2 years ago
There are no black holes. Credibility of this videos- minus 100 points.
We live in electric universe so I would be cautious with statements about who is making up his own imaginary realities
lucinqua 2 years ago
Yes, black holes are just mathematical theory that grew wings.
ParasiteJR 2 years ago
I get it Nanoclap, your scared in the realization of people wanting real answers as opposed to fictional make believe ones. Nobody is taking , as you so elegantly put "fucking theories as fact", they are taking fact as fact. - Stop listening so much if it scares you so. Or grow up and let the adults talk amongst themselves.
"I reject your reality , and substitute my own"
civilshock 2 years ago
wow your so smart you didnt even know how to reply to what i said cuse you dont know how. all you said was some stupid shit that sounds from a syfy movie. the adults talk amongst themselves?? HAHAHA
nanocalp 2 years ago
this is so stupid how people talk about fucking ''theories'' as fact, science is turning into religion. time is a measurement like centimeters and inches . it dosent exist! and we dont even know 100% if black holes exist as we think they do. WHAT THE FUCK stop talking so much
nanocalp 2 years ago
2:33 "your friend will be fine" Except the crushing into a singularity.
QwertnotQuark 2 years ago
time is time and cant no black hole slw a stop watch down no matter wut so stop lyin to these poor people lol... if u go to one and have tangible proof then ill change my mind about u
jaquantoao 2 years ago
jaquantoao, you didn't pay attention in science class, did you, most of the science we now live by has no tangible proof. And you never learned about the Special Theory of Relativity did you?
Zhokul 2 years ago
@jaquantoao There is proof in time differences due to gravitational fields within our satellites.
NeoNoggie 2 years ago
So glad we're finally working this out of science.
Black Holes, Dark Matter, Curved Space, Perpetual Ice Ejections from comets . . .
ALL FINALLY GONE! They never felt right anyway.
Google plasma cosmology
awksedgreep 2 years ago
"Out Black Spot", CERN's too fucking late mate, Shakespeare already did it = $ = "I shall wrap a girdle (curious) roundabout the Earth", and now CERN's obsessed with the Lay Line Grid, because half brain's that can't read Syn(SINE)aesthesis code's havn't got a God Particle Neutrino Soul of their own, and that's what you call Muncahusen!
KaOssis 2 years ago
when he says that your stopwatch will tick slower and slower would this mean that your brain will slow down too, making it seem that your stopwatch is ticking at the same speed because the time it takes for a message to go from your eyes to your brain will be slower too? I am only 16, so please forgive me if i am wrong. I just really want to know.
davidt2468 2 years ago 23
You're absolutely right. Your brain slows down along with your clock.
Martymer81 2 years ago
remember time is not physical so it cannot have any effect on anything physical, so the watch would be ticking normally not at a different speed. what he is trying to say is that if time was just a big stop watch (physical) it COULD tick at different speeds, these speeds effected by things such as a black hole. your brain doesn't actually SLOW down its still working normally. im only 14 :)
werryoz 2 years ago
Time will never seem to slow down for the individual falling in to the black hole just as it never seems to slow for individuals attaining high velocities. The watch will seem to tick slower to the individual in the starship watching his friend fall into the black hole. It's all relative to where you are.
KevinSaale 2 years ago
yes but surely the watch its self wont slow down, surely the hands will be ticking at the same speed...its mechanical. do you mean if time was represented as a clock it would seem too tick slower.
werryoz 2 years ago
It's all relative to where you are. The watch is where it is and will tic the same to itself and the people near it, to the people that aren't near it the watch will appear to tic more slowly.
KevinSaale 2 years ago
surely black holes would not have any efect on the mechanism of the clock would they?
werryoz 2 years ago
Say you had two people who started two perfect stop watches at the same time. These watches count time perfectly. One person remains 1 million miles from the black hole (BH) the other goes near the BH and then returns to the million mile mark (I know that's not possible, just stay with me). The person's stopwatch who traveled near the BH will have counted less time than the person who remained at the same point one million miles away.
KevinSaale 2 years ago
@davidt2468 Exactly. That's right.
Legola87 1 year ago
@davidt2468 if ur inside yes, but for an external observer it would seem to tick slower
selraith123 1 year ago
@davidt2468 this is a really really really smart comment, man. it's worth a good long thought!
chapeau!
plastikmaiden 1 year ago
@davidt2468 It only slows down from a different perspective. Someone watching you from outside the event horizon will see the affect, you won't.
muscox 1 year ago
@davidt2468 No, just time will slow down..
You can kind of compare it to time zones here on earth, KINDA.
5 minutes in the black hole might only be 1 second on the spaceships, but you cant feel it.
dragefyr 1 year ago
@davidt2468 Don't worry dude, I 24 and I think that was a good question
davemv86 1 year ago
@davidt2468 Yeah, the guy falling towards the black hole doesnt begin to move and think in slow motion, its just relative to the guy in the space ship, time is slowing down around his friend.
Ryandidenow 1 year ago
@davidt2468 never ever say "forgive me" when your asking a question... thats not a dumb question... I dont know the answer.. just wanted to say that...
hejsan119 1 year ago
@davidt2468 I am 16 too (17 now lol) but anyway,Im on the event horizon, you are progressing to the hole. You would see everything normally, the time taken for the light to get to me increases as you get nearer to the centre as gravity increases, up until u hit the centre, light never escapes, so all i see is u nd ur watch frozen in time.
rudebwoi93 1 year ago
@davidt2468 the time increases because the mass increases too. that's relativity. the length, breadth and width decrease because of hyper compression. at over the light speed, the length, breadth and width as well as the mass become imaginary (negative). so the time becomes the max possible instant - exactly the time taken for light to travel any distance.
you've very correctly said. if we travel close to light velocity, our body would decrease in size proportionately and hence your expl.
zambi007i 10 months ago
@davidt2468 haha awesome thought.. it's not the correct interpretation though .. your clock and brain will move normal speed but you will see the guy falling into the black holes clock and speed slow right now to nothing essentially.. the guy falling in the black hole will see normal speed and see your clock speed up to infinity. :)))
HolidayNova 9 months ago
@davidt2468
To much great thinking of you.
Armigo91 7 months ago
@davidt2468 That's correct. Time would slow down both for you and the watch. The only way you'd know is if you then returned to 'normal' time and compared your clock to one that wasn't taken into the high gravity.
Though of course, high gravity would likely kill you. So its not exactly an easy thing to prove in a physical sense! Though atomic clocks have been experimented upon and such results have been shown. However, the question remains...does time actually exist in a real sense?
andromidius 7 months ago
@davidt2468 Your age does not affect your mind from thirteen, And on.
TheEnglishAtheist1 7 months ago
@davidt2468 Everything will go slower. Time is relative, and as such to you everything will seem normal.
9hello123 7 months ago
are you Philip Plait? if so nice book.
figgi0 2 years ago
Sorry for bad spelling... :(
REDHOT1356 2 years ago
Note: i posted this comment before i watched the whole video.
Comment: He said something like "faster than the speed of light. i heard Nothing in space can travel in space faster than the speed of li- Oh! thats when- OH! maybe not.. anyway, Nothing in space can travel through it faster than the speed of light... but SPACE... will, and can,(maybe is..) travel(ing) at the speed of light. So... traveling through space faster than the speed of light violates einstines theory of realitivity.
REDHOT1356 2 years ago
Dr. Who is such a great show :D They did an trippy episode of a planet stationed near a black hole.
Cool info!
dbilleaux 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"...not only has nobody ever found an event horizon; there is no laboratory evidence that such things exist. All reports of black holes being found are just wishful thinking - patently false ? unless you can provide the coordinates of a verified infinitely dense point-mass singularity and a verified event horizon. But there are of course, as you know, no such coordinates, because no black holes have ever been found." ~ Stephen Crothers
SkunkHunt 2 years ago
cont.
if we ould orbit earth at near light speeds, we could observe earth in fast forward, then slow down, land, and even tho we were at orbit just few months, we could record years of earths history.
unfortunately we couldnt 'go back' in time.
that might however be usefull if we ever migrate to different solar system. 100lightyears travel in 120earth years done in 20ship years. ;)
logoth80 2 years ago
its not the best explanation...
for an object entering event horizon (but also just geting very high speed) time slows. in observation that would result in:
if we had life feed from that object, we would get lower fps incoming, and finaly we would recieve 1 last frame.
watching the object from distance, it moves faster and faster and faster.
observing us from the moving object would seem like we move faster.
logoth80 2 years ago
if the black hole has such strong gravity how would any one be able to see your watch wouldn't the life be sucked out of you from light yeays away from the black hole
sarashibley 2 years ago
You don't deal with anything in within the singularity you simply become part of the black hole so your last existence is completely irrelevant, there you go. There is no GOD!
jupiwolf 2 years ago
...because the event horizon has blocked all observation of the singularity from view. Now that we know that NSs are indeed possible, the cat's out of the bag, so to speak, cause we now may have to DEAL with what happens at the singularity. The upside of a NS is that unlike a black hole, which as an infinite escape velocity, theoretically you can stroll right up yo a NS and not be pulled in(unless you make contact). The downside is it's compete invisibility due to no matter going down the drain.
SushiBand 2 years ago
It's interesting. Now we know of naked singularities which mathmatically can exist(although none have been observed). A naked singularity is exactly what the name suggests; a singularity(a point of infinint desnity) that forms WITHOUT the event horizon. The event horizon has always served as a welcome censor for scientists because at the singularity, all laws of physics break down and quantum mechanics take front and center. We don't KNOW what happens to matter when it reaches the singularity...
SushiBand 2 years ago
So, when does a black hole ceases to exist?
skazisatan 2 years ago
I don't understand the question.
SushiBand 2 years ago
I wanted to know if a black hole will keep sucking matter for ever and ever... Or if it has a saturation point, where it stops being a black hole? Sorry if this is a stupid question, but i'm just a curious person. =) thanks
skazisatan 2 years ago 11
Blackholes often shoot out jets of material perpendicular to their accretion discs. If the black hole is taking too much material too fast, this can happen. The most famous occurance of this is when two galaxies collide and the two supermassive black holes at thier centers converge and form an even BIGGER black hole. When matter begins shooting out matter, this event is called a quasar, and they are the brightest objects in the universe, AND the most distant.
SushiBand 2 years ago
(cont'd)...Even while black holes shoot out matter like this, they are still consuming matter. Black holes never relinquish thier appetite, and will not stop feeding until there is matter left in the area.
SushiBand 2 years ago
Comment removed
SushiBand 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Until there is NO matter, is what I ment to say. =/
SushiBand 2 years ago
@skazisatan Haha that's a good idea, but alas no, black holes don't have a saturation point because the matter they contain is infinitely dense, to the point where the electrons that make up the atoms in it are smashed together.
fizaanTech 1 year ago
@skazisatan I've heard that it does have a saturation point, and after that even the Black Hole can explode or something. I'm not an astronomer or physicist, I just watch and read a lot about it. Sorry if I wasn't specific enough, but I see no one else has answered you.. :)
originofnoise 10 months ago
@skazisatan seems to be no limit to it's size. I don't know how this mysterious dark energy would influence it if it was as big as half the universe we see now. I just hope whatever black holes are out there stay far away from our solar system until we can fly around like superman and move out of the way :/
HolidayNova 9 months ago
so what is time? what is a unit of time in the universe?
looking at your watch isnt a fair way to measure time.. how can we unit time in a way that explains why gravity affects it?
lejink 2 years ago
The units we use for time are good. Time IS a variable but only in proportion to speed. And our perception of time gets 'whacked out' as speeds approach light speed. It all has to do with the photons because we only see photons (light) but photons are a particle/ energy wave...That should be one of his videos, What is time? I bet he can explain it better. Kind of like the Doppler affect but with our eyes. Could you 'see' sometime taveling faster than light as it approaches you?
xPHOENIX269x 2 years ago
Well, even if the light source was coming from behidnd you... I guess you'd not be able to see it until the last instant before it smacks you in the eye...
AnimaRaptor 2 years ago
Recently, I've heard the term 'primordial black hole'. What is this and how does it differ from a 'normal' black hole?
absentmindedprof 2 years ago
A primordial black hole is a hypothetical black hole that formed during the very early stages of the Universe. Right after the BB the Univere was extremely dense and local fluctuations in this density could have triggered the formation of a black hole.
A normal black hole forms by the gravitational collapse of a star.
So the only difference is the way they are formed.
didjabringadidjalong 2 years ago
im pretty sure the stopwatch would still run at the same timing as usual, like its programmed to do, even while the real timing may be slowed down the stopwatch wouldnt
ThatGuyAgen 2 years ago
it bend time and space i=the more stuff in it the deeper it bends time and space
LALaGaYGy 2 years ago
So if a man falling to a black hole looks back, he sees the evolution of universe in speed motion, and the speed is increasing to infinity so he sees the end of universe?
ketanovas 2 years ago
I think it's an example to show relative relation of time. Nothing can survive it so the point is mute. Great question though. You have me thinking.. Cheers
robotwookie 2 years ago
"escape velocity becomes faster than the speed of light" which we are told is impossible and presumes "more than" infinite energy/mass...
Yes.. I see.
Kenzofeis 2 years ago
Wait a second. Relative to falling object isn't it than time flow faster relative to objects that isn't influenced by the gravity of black Hole. And when it reaches the event horizon would time flow infinite fast? And if it is what does it means? May be object even wouldnt able to cross the event horizon because universe dies of old age
RamiAtrash 2 years ago
The day we can control gravity, we can control time, if we can control time, then we can travel huge distances in small amount of time, amirite?
btbking 2 years ago 2
Is that a fart at 3:28? lol
InfidelAvenger 2 years ago
Then? then matters from which point of view you're taking the reading. Inside the blackhole you would never touch the event horizon, but outside it the rest would see you reaching it in a zip.
DariusBlackdeer 2 years ago
The way you put it is just like the paradox of the turtle racing against hercules, the latter giving the turtle 10 seconds of advantage. When those 10 second pass, hercules run til he reaches the turtle previous position, but then the turtle would have move a bit, then by the time hercules reached that bit, the turtle would have move another tiny bit. You can keep that 'til eternity and yet hercules would do beat the turtle.
DariusBlackdeer 2 years ago
Comment removed
NexIuguolo 2 years ago
So you answered the question, "Can a black hole really form?", with the answer, "It has to be that way for the math to work out.".
So math is more important than real science--ya know the kind where math is the servant of experimentation?
amzolt 2 years ago
I know how the black hole sucks a star. The star will orbit it once, then star will spread out then orbits the black hole half. the star will get faster by the black hole because the black hole is using much of their energy. Poor star is weak, because the star had spread out quickly. Some astronomers believe that the black hole is some kind of timing machine.
fenaocha 2 years ago
he forgot something the black hole will stretch its victim until it exceeds the intermolecular forces that bind your fles this happens until you are just a stream of atoms descending its called spagetification one thing english ppl are good for is having words for ways to die
killman369547 2 years ago
We also have a word for "ppl." It is "people."
acr08807 2 years ago
ya i know
killman369547 2 years ago
My problem with Einstein's work is that his measurement is that light is absolute to measure space and time, when there are several theories of particles that have been tested to exceed light, and therefor, debunk the current concept of black holes.
LifeinaRaindrop 2 years ago
Read more, those theories and experiments are indeed supraluminic, but can't send information. Ie, doesn't violates Einstein theories.
DariusBlackdeer 2 years ago
do you think a human could survive going into a black hole if their entire body shrinks at the exact same time?
miiwiiman 2 years ago
they would not shrink. they would contract due to gravity resulting in a very dense human ball without really preserving our previous bodily structure. Shrinking would imply they actual molecular structure is preserved and the atoms are actually somehow becoming smaller which is not really possible.
happygoron 2 years ago
He is correct in the way he differentiates shrinking and contracting, but what would actually happen is "spaghettification" because the gravity difference, where your head would weigh...say what it does on earth, but then imagine your feet weighed more like 100,000 lbs (this is only an example)...not only would your knees and ankles be ripped apart, but not even your molecules would hold together. You would basically become a stream of particles.
josephfolkemer 2 years ago 2
not intoa black hole cause like.. you wouldn't shirnk as much as you would compress. and the compression would kill you, but i was thinking about if you actually were shrunkified and idk about that.. compressed = death (black hole) shrink = ?
coondiggity 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
you said it all " for the math to work out" Problem is, reality doesn't have to conform to math. math has to conform to reality. So by that pov, what if there is no such thing as a black hole? What empirical evidence is there of such a thing? According to plasma Cosmology, black holes are an ad hoc hypothesis, like dark matter and dark energy, things that were NEVER EVER observed, but that we try to hold on to by creating more and more ad hoc entities.
dakshinamurti 2 years ago