EVE Search - Black holes capturing light. Hows does that work?

All Channels

Out of Pod Experience

Black holes capturing light. Hows does that work?

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Dr Slaughter Minmatar Rabies Inc.	Posted - 2008.09.01 10:25:00 - [1] Bugged me for years. I was told light has no mass and black holes have huge gravity. I know gravity effects mass. Light doesn't have any.. why does it still get trapped? I'm guessing the gravity is warping space time so the photons gets stuck? Bit weird. Or do photon's really have mass? Anyone have a simple answer?
ThaDollaGenerale The Priory	Posted - 2008.09.01 10:31:00 - [2] Light is considered energy AND matter. i.e. it has particles (matter) that are transmitted in waves. Their weight is extremely negligble, but it's there. Black holes have so much gravity that they managed to pull them in via the warping of space time. ...I think. I studied biology in college.
kor anon Amarr Grail Seekers	Posted - 2008.09.01 10:33:00 - [3] Originally by: ThaDollaGenerale Light is considered energy AND matter. i.e. it has particles (matter) that are transmitted in waves. Their weight is extremely negligble, but it's there. Black holes have so much gravity that they managed to pull them in via the warping of space time. ...I think. I studied biology in college. I dont think this is right. In fact light continues to go in a straight line, but the space around it warps so that the light appears to be caught. Something along those lines, i cant remember exactly
Leonora Webb Gallente CompleXion Industries CompleXion Alliance	Posted - 2008.09.01 10:41:00 - [4] Originally by: kor anon Originally by: ThaDollaGenerale Light is considered energy AND matter. i.e. it has particles (matter) that are transmitted in waves. Their weight is extremely negligble, but it's there. Black holes have so much gravity that they managed to pull them in via the warping of space time. ...I think. I studied biology in college. I dont think this is right. In fact light continues to go in a straight line, but the space around it warps so that the light appears to be caught. Something along those lines, i cant remember exactly Yeah, he's not right, photons have no mass. You're basically right, Einstein's gravitation is a curving of spacetime, not a force. We say light follows a null geodesic. Geodesics generalise the concept of straight lines to curved space, for example a line drawn on the surface of a sphere.
Dan Glebitts Blackhole Militia	Posted - 2008.09.01 10:44:00 - [5] I would imagine it like pulling a plug in a sink. The water being space itself. Gravity warps space so that when the straight beam of light passes by it is pulled in, most probably circling the proverbial plug hole until it is gobbled up. The same effect can be seen around large celestrial bodies. Light is bent around the object as it passes. But there "plug hole" isnt large enough to suck it in. In fact if im correct it is how they found the first planets orbiting other systems. That would be my laymans explanation of my limited knowledge of physics.
Keta Min Pre-nerfed Tactics	Posted - 2008.09.01 10:45:00 - [6] Linkage
Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2008.09.01 10:52:00 - [7] Anything with zero mass travels at infinite velocity. But, from our frame of reference, light doesn't. So you know there's something screwy there from the outset. It's obviously hax.
Leonora Webb Gallente CompleXion Industries CompleXion Alliance	Posted - 2008.09.01 10:56:00 - [8] Originally by: Crumplecorn Anything with zero mass travels at infinite velocity. This is incorrect. Particles with zero mass move at the speed of light.
YouGotRipped Ewigkeit	Posted - 2008.09.01 11:01:00 - [9] Edited by: YouGotRipped on 01/09/2008 11:04:25 Photons have no mass so they're not affected by gravity however a black hole causes an infinite curvature in the fabric of space-time. It is bent in itself and light cannot escape it.
Arvald Caldari Ninjas N Pirates Pirate Coalition	Posted - 2008.09.01 11:04:00 - [10] seeing as how we allready have a black hole thread going i to have question seeing as how black holes are cloapes stars, are they literally a hole in the sence that we think of them, or is it still the star. just collapsed into a very small point and every bit of matter it sucks up gets added to its own mass?
Leonora Webb Gallente CompleXion Industries CompleXion Alliance	Posted - 2008.09.01 11:04:00 - [11] Edited by: Leonora Webb on 01/09/2008 11:04:07 Originally by: YouGotRipped Edited by: YouGotRipped on 01/09/2008 11:03:50 Photons have no mass so they're not affected by gravity however a black hole causes an have infinite curvature in the fabric of space-time. It is bent in itself and light cannot escape it. sigh Read my post above. Light IS affected by gravity, but gravity is not a force. Space doesn't have to be infinitely curved to affect light, all objects with mass will do it.
YouGotRipped Ewigkeit	Posted - 2008.09.01 11:08:00 - [12] Originally by: Leonora Webb Edited by: Leonora Webb on 01/09/2008 11:04:07 Originally by: YouGotRipped Edited by: YouGotRipped on 01/09/2008 11:03:50 Photons have no mass so they're not affected by gravity however a black hole causes an have infinite curvature in the fabric of space-time. It is bent in itself and light cannot escape it. sigh Read my post above. Light IS affected by gravity, but gravity is not a force. Space doesn't have to be infinitely curved to affect light, all objects with mass will do it. And wtf did I say? Jesus
Arvald Caldari Ninjas N Pirates Pirate Coalition	Posted - 2008.09.01 11:11:00 - [13] Edited by: Arvald on 01/09/2008 11:12:06 Originally by: Leonora Webb Edited by: Leonora Webb on 01/09/2008 11:09:18 Edited by: Leonora Webb on 01/09/2008 11:04:07 Originally by: YouGotRipped Edited by: YouGotRipped on 01/09/2008 11:03:50 Photons have no mass so they're not affected by gravity however a black hole causes an have infinite curvature in the fabric of space-time. It is bent in itself and light cannot escape it. sigh Read my post above. Light IS affected by gravity, but gravity is not a force. Space doesn't have to be infinitely curved to affect light, all objects with mass will do it. Originally by: Arvald seeing as how black holes are cloapes stars, are they literally a hole in the sence that we think of them, or is it still the star. just collapsed into a very small point and every bit of matter it sucks up gets added to its own mass? The latter, essentially. All the mass is compacted in to a point of zero volume, and therefore infinite density. This is the spacetime singularity at the centre of the black hole. Of course it's been theorized that black holes can evaporate, though. Bear in mind this is all theory. Many physicists have a lot of trouble with black holes (we hate infinity), some don't believe in them at all. ok thanks for clearing that up for me also this thread made me think of this song
Leonora Webb Gallente CompleXion Industries CompleXion Alliance	Posted - 2008.09.01 11:13:00 - [14] Originally by: YouGotRipped And wtf did I say? Jesus Huh? Well you said some things that were incorrect so I corrected them for you. Firstly that light is not affected by gravity, and secondly the implication that only infinite spacetime curvature can cause light to bend.
YouGotRipped Ewigkeit	Posted - 2008.09.01 11:17:00 - [15] Originally by: Leonora Webb Originally by: YouGotRipped And wtf did I say? Jesus Huh? Well you said some things that were incorrect so I corrected them for you. Firstly that light is not affected by gravity, and secondly the implication that only infinite spacetime curvature can cause light to bend. Hello? Check the OP. I merely adapted to the context, however you Eve playing pet physicists know only one version the one in the books and that's it. So keep pasting.
Leonora Webb Gallente CompleXion Industries CompleXion Alliance	Posted - 2008.09.01 11:29:00 - [16] Edited by: Leonora Webb on 01/09/2008 11:29:14 I have absolutely no idea what you're on about. If you're gonna write a laymans explanation, you should say things that are actually correct. I think you have some misconceptions, is all. There's no need for the aggresive stance, we're all learning here. For future reference, I'm a physics post-graduate student, but I did not specialise in anything relating to gravitation for my degree. I did computational modelling, looking in to magnetic fields in the solar corona. My phd is on non-linear optics. What I write here comes mostly from my head, with some background reference if I'm unsure of something.
YouGotRipped Ewigkeit	Posted - 2008.09.01 11:33:00 - [17] Originally by: Leonora Webb For future reference, I'm a physics post-graduate student, but I did not specialise in anything relating to gravitation for my degree. I assure you this particular info does not require a specialization in gravitation etc etc.
Leonora Webb Gallente CompleXion Industries CompleXion Alliance	Posted - 2008.09.01 11:39:00 - [18] Edited by: Leonora Webb on 01/09/2008 11:40:17 That's why I wrote "for future reference". I wouldn't expect to have to go in to the complexities of Einstein gravitation on a game forum, the subject is immense. I'm merely outlining where my main interests and areas of research are. Anyway this is like arguing with a brick wall, I'm stopping now.
Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2008.09.01 12:17:00 - [19] Originally by: Leonora Webb Originally by: Crumplecorn Anything with zero mass travels at infinite velocity. This is incorrect. Particles with zero mass move at the speed of light. Read past the first sentence before responding. o/
YouGotRipped Ewigkeit	Posted - 2008.09.01 12:23:00 - [20] Edited by: YouGotRipped on 01/09/2008 12:23:45 Originally by: Leonora Webb Anyway this is like arguing with a brick wall, I'm stopping now. But I thought we were doing this for the sake of arguing.
Louis deGuerre Gallente Federation Zone Operations Command	Posted - 2008.09.01 12:33:00 - [21] All objects with mass (so yes, even you !) curve space. Light always follows a straight line in space, always travelling at the same speed of about 300.000 km/sec. It will only appear to deviate from a straight path if it passes close to a very massy object which can curve space significantly. Acutally the light is still going straight, but it follows a straight path in curved space. We've observed our sun during eclipses and stars behind it seem to be in the wrong place if their light passes very near the sun. In fact, the stars are just were they should be, it just appears to us that they've moved as their light has followed a curved path to us due to the sun's gravity curving the space around it. Another example is supermassive galaxies, usually quasars, which curve light around them so a galaxy behind them appear above AND below them and sometimes even to both sides as well. A black hole has such massive gravity that it not just curves space, it actually rips it into a whirlpool. Anything coming too close is doomed as it will get sucked in. When light comes to close a straight line is an infinite spiral down the sink and it can also never escape. We don't really know what happens then as our math fails when dealing with inifinities like singularities. Which is why we can theorize our universe backward to a tiny fraction of a second a second of the beginning of the universe, but not the actual start, when the universe was infinitely small and infinitely dense.
Leonora Webb Gallente CompleXion Industries CompleXion Alliance	Posted - 2008.09.01 12:42:00 - [22] Originally by: Crumplecorn Originally by: Leonora Webb Originally by: Crumplecorn Anything with zero mass travels at infinite velocity. This is incorrect. Particles with zero mass move at the speed of light. Read past the first sentence before responding. o/ Oh, I did. The rest of your post is fine, your first sentence is indeed incorrect, though. Anything with zero mass travels at the speed of light, not infinite speed.
Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2008.09.01 12:43:00 - [23] Originally by: Leonora Webb Originally by: Crumplecorn Originally by: Leonora Webb Originally by: Crumplecorn Anything with zero mass travels at infinite velocity. This is incorrect. Particles with zero mass move at the speed of light. Read past the first sentence before responding. o/ Oh, I did. The rest of your post is fine, your first sentence is indeed incorrect, though. Anything with zero mass travels at the speed of light, not infinite speed. So what speed, pray tell, does light do in its own reference frame?
ReaperOfSly Gallente Lyrus Associates The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.09.01 12:44:00 - [24] Originally by: Leonora Webb Originally by: Crumplecorn Originally by: Leonora Webb Originally by: Crumplecorn Anything with zero mass travels at infinite velocity. This is incorrect. Particles with zero mass move at the speed of light. Read past the first sentence before responding. o/ Oh, I did. The rest of your post is fine, your first sentence is indeed incorrect, though. Anything with zero mass travels at the speed of light, not infinite speed. Well it is infinite speed from its own frame of reference.
Leonora Webb Gallente CompleXion Industries CompleXion Alliance	Posted - 2008.09.01 12:45:00 - [25] Originally by: Crumplecorn So what speed, pray tell, does light do in its own reference frame? I'm not sure what you're getting at. The speed of light is constant in all reference frames.
Karii Ildarian Caldari Eve University Ivy League	Posted - 2008.09.01 12:58:00 - [26] Originally by: Louis deGuerre Which is why we can theorize our universe backward to a tiny fraction of a second a second of the beginning of the universe, but not the actual start, when the universe was infinitely small and infinitely dense. Oh, I got that... The singularity, created within a black hole, begins to expand. Upon reaching a critical mass/density, what are known as "Big Bang" events, occur. These happen fairly continuously, since universes are very adept at producing black holes. As a result, there are an unimaginable number of universes in our local multi-verse, alone.
Karii Ildarian Caldari Eve University Ivy League	Posted - 2008.09.01 13:03:00 - [27] Originally by: Leonora Webb Edited by: Leonora Webb on 01/09/2008 12:57:45 Edited by: Leonora Webb on 01/09/2008 12:55:51 Edited by: Leonora Webb on 01/09/2008 12:55:34 Originally by: Crumplecorn So what speed, pray tell, does light do in its own reference frame? I'm not sure what you're getting at. The speed of light is constant in all reference frames. edit: Oh I think you're referring to time and length dilation then? Where, if a photon could see, it'd arrive at it's destination immediately. I see where you're coming from. another edit: These things are so much easier to talk about in real life :) I think that only objects with mass are subject to time/length dialation as they accelerate towards C. Light has no mass.
ReaperOfSly Gallente Lyrus Associates The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.09.01 13:04:00 - [28] Originally by: Karii Ildarian Originally by: Louis deGuerre Which is why we can theorize our universe backward to a tiny fraction of a second a second of the beginning of the universe, but not the actual start, when the universe was infinitely small and infinitely dense. Oh, I got that... The singularity, created within a black hole, begins to expand. Upon reaching a critical mass/density, what are known as "Big Bang" events, occur. These happen fairly continuously, since universes are very adept at producing black holes. As a result, there are an unimaginable number of universes in our local multi-verse, alone. Citation Needed.
Leonora Webb Gallente CompleXion Industries CompleXion Alliance	Posted - 2008.09.01 13:09:00 - [29] Edited by: Leonora Webb on 01/09/2008 13:10:03 Originally by: Karii Ildarian I think that only objects with mass are subject to time/length dialation as they accelerate towards C. Hmmm, I think distances can contract, at speed. Such as the famous muon experiment, in the muon-frame, the distance the muon has to travel is contracted. At the speed of light, the gamma factor becomes infinite, so lengths are reduced to zero. Difficult to say, therefore, what the photon thinks it is doing, because if you could be in that reference frame, you'd arrive at your destination but you wouldn't have actually travelled any distance. Ahh, life is so much more comfortable sitting still.
Karii Ildarian Caldari Eve University Ivy League	Posted - 2008.09.01 13:11:00 - [30] Originally by: ReaperOfSly Originally by: Karii Ildarian Originally by: Louis deGuerre Which is why we can theorize our universe backward to a tiny fraction of a second a second of the beginning of the universe, but not the actual start, when the universe was infinitely small and infinitely dense. Oh, I got that... The singularity, created within a black hole, begins to expand. Upon reaching a critical mass/density, what are known as "Big Bang" events, occur. These happen fairly continuously, since universes are very adept at producing black holes. As a result, there are an unimaginable number of universes in our local multi-verse, alone. Citation Needed. You got a better explanation?
Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2008.09.01 13:22:00 - [31] Edited by: Crumplecorn on 01/09/2008 13:29:36 Originally by: Leonora Webb Edited by: Leonora Webb on 01/09/2008 12:57:45 Edited by: Leonora Webb on 01/09/2008 12:55:51 Edited by: Leonora Webb on 01/09/2008 12:55:34 Originally by: Crumplecorn So what speed, pray tell, does light do in its own reference frame? I'm not sure what you're getting at. The speed of light is constant in all reference frames. edit: Oh I think you're referring to time and length dilation then? Where, if a photon could see, it'd arrive at it's destination immediately. I see where you're coming from. Yes. And the relevance to the question at hand is that gravity should have no effect on photons because they have no mass, yes this also means they should have infinite speed, but they only do from their own (theoretical) reference frame, not anyone else's, so the "photons are massless and so should behave thusly" line of argument can be shown to not work. Here's a question: Does time go backwards inside the event horizon of a singularity? Beyond the event horizon the light cone is tilted such that all lines lead to the singularity. Is it tilted so far that things can go back in time?
Leonora Webb Gallente CompleXion Industries CompleXion Alliance	Posted - 2008.09.01 13:36:00 - [32] Edited by: Leonora Webb on 01/09/2008 13:38:44 Good question. I don't know the answer, to be honest. I know there's some dreadfully weird things that can happen, but I don't know the detail. I suppose I could visualise such a situation where a light-cone is tilted that far, hard to say what that implies. One of my professors loves this kind of thing, I'll have to ask him when I return. I also know someone personally (one of the top scientists in his field) who refuses to believe in black holes, they're still a contreversial subject. We need an in-game physics channel :) Maybe there is one already...
YouGotRipped Ewigkeit	Posted - 2008.09.01 13:40:00 - [33] Edited by: YouGotRipped on 01/09/2008 13:44:37 Originally by: Leonora Webb Good question. I don't know the answer, to be honest. hahah I do. But you'll have to beg. It's quite a lame question actually.
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2008.09.01 13:59:00 - [34] Edited by: Akita T on 01/09/2008 14:03:01 I can only at most of you. Ok, slowly, basic "what we think we know today about photons", semi-classic interpretation (bit of photon bla bla, mostly newtonian stuff). Photons have no REST mass (or, at least they are assumed to have none, because they don't exist at speeds lower than c). In their own reference frame, photons might have some mass, or they might not... but they have zero speed (in its own reference frame, everything has zero speed for itself, duuh). For all intents and purposes, for a human observer (aided by whatever devices you want), they are pure (kinetic) energy that behaves similar to what a particle would behave when interacting with other particles. The "theoretical" mass of the photon (for impulse/energy calculations when it interacts with other particle and BEHAVES like a particle, to some degree) can be calculated with E=mc^2, where E=hc/wavelength, so mcc=hc/wavelength, therefore m = h/(cwavelength) = h*frequency/c (here h is Planck's constant). If manage to leech enough energy out of the photon (decrease frequency / increase wavelength) so that the photon would have to "dip" below the speed of light, the photon ceases to exist. You can only leech energy in discreete quantities (quanta), so there is such a thing as "the weakest possible photon", and there's a limited number of photon energies between two given frequencies. So... how does all this black hole mumbo jumbo come into this ? Simple as pie, actually. Due to how photons interact with regular particles, for each individual photon, you have a certain (theoretical/interaction) mass, derived from their (kinetic) energy, which depends on frequency... the higher the frequency, the larger the "fake mass". In order to "escape" a gravity well, any particle has to SHED kinetic energy (into potential energy) depending on how much mass it has. A black hole is simply a gravity well so powerful, that the photons would have to shed MORE kinetic energy than they already have in order to escape it... and their frequency doesn't really come into this, because their "fake mass" is larger the more kinetic energy they carry, so all frequencies are affected equally bad. So, there you go, the definition of a black hole (how massive a black hole has to be to be considered a black hole) and the explanation why photons are "trapped". I say "trapped", because they don't just vanish... they keep "spinning" around the black hole, (almost//theoretically) never leaving its gravity well... so, to an outside observer, it's as if they were "sucked" into it.
Great Artista Caldari Veto. Veto Corp	Posted - 2008.09.01 14:00:00 - [35] After a five hour photoshop session, I give the op an explanation... IN PICTURE FORMAT! Clickeh. Basically, the light gets pulled in because the space which it travels in is too much of a up-hill for it to get over it. So it bends and bends further into the sinqularity. I'm not a physicsist, since physics never works anyway (nyah nyah), so feel free to correct any mess ups in the pic.
YouGotRipped Ewigkeit	Posted - 2008.09.01 14:06:00 - [36] Edited by: YouGotRipped on 01/09/2008 14:06:37 Originally by: Akita T Due to how photons interact with regular particles, for each individual photon, you have a certain (theoretical/interaction) mass, derived from their (kinetic) energy, which depends on frequency... the higher the frequency, the larger the "fake mass". In order to "escape" a gravity well, any particle has to SHED kinetic energy (into potential energy) depending on how much mass it has. A black hole is simply a gravity well so powerful, that the photons would have to shed MORE kinetic energy than they already have in order to escape it... and their frequency doesn't really come into this, because their "fake mass" is larger the more kinetic energy they carry, so all frequencies are affected equally bad. So, there you go, the definition of a black hole (how massive a black hole has to be to be considered a black hole) and the explanation why photons are "trapped". I say "trapped", because they don't just vanish... they keep "spinning" around the black hole, (almost//theoretically) never leaving its gravity well... so, to an outside observer, it's as if they were "sucked" into it. A quite long description of the Doppler effect and a faint shot at Hawking radiation.
Leonora Webb Gallente CompleXion Industries CompleXion Alliance	Posted - 2008.09.01 14:07:00 - [37] Edited by: Leonora Webb on 01/09/2008 14:07:20 Originally by: Great Artista I'm not a physicsist, since physics never works anyway (nyah nyah), so feel free to correct any mess ups in the pic. I resemble that remark! Anyhow, that is a rather nice picture :) Akita, also a good post. I've learnt to not feed the troll, now.
YouGotRipped Ewigkeit	Posted - 2008.09.01 14:15:00 - [38] Originally by: Leonora Webb Edited by: Leonora Webb on 01/09/2008 14:07:20 Originally by: Great Artista I'm not a physicsist, since physics never works anyway (nyah nyah), so feel free to correct any mess ups in the pic. I resemble that remark! Anyhow, that is a rather nice picture :) Akita, also a good post. I've learnt to not feed the troll, now. When you go to see your teacher don't forget to start with "I know this sounds lame but". Aside from that you are excused.
Sharupak Minmatar Brutor tribe	Posted - 2008.09.01 14:25:00 - [39] Originally by: Leonora Webb Originally by: Crumplecorn Anything with zero mass travels at infinite velocity. This is incorrect. Particles with zero mass move at the speed of light. Are we so sure of that? If you are observing those same zero mass particles at 99.9999% the speed of light, how fast are they going?
Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2008.09.01 14:30:00 - [40] Originally by: Sharupak Originally by: Leonora Webb Originally by: Crumplecorn Anything with zero mass travels at infinite velocity. This is incorrect. Particles with zero mass move at the speed of light. Are we so sure of that? If you are observing those same zero mass particles at 99.9999% the speed of light, how fast are they going? The speed of light. My point was referencing their own reference frame.
Vek NaVek	Posted - 2008.09.01 14:48:00 - [41] Oh Akita T, is there anything you don't know. Help me Akita T, you're my only hope.
Akiba Penrose The Movement	Posted - 2008.09.01 14:58:00 - [42] Maybe this can help you in understanding the complexity of particles: Double-slit experiment Wikipedia Double slit experiment made easy by Dr.Quantum (youtube) Not a direct answer to your question, but still relevant.
Dr Slaughter Minmatar Rabies Inc.	Posted - 2008.09.01 15:11:00 - [43] Thanks for some very interesting replies. For a moment there I thought it was going to decend into mud slinging but.. it seems to have worked out quite well. I had heard the frequency shift stuff before a long time ago too. The photoshop diagram helped get my head around the curved space issues. I wonder how quantum entanglement is effected when one entangled photon goes in, and the other stays outside.... anyone?
Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2008.09.01 15:20:00 - [44] Originally by: Dr Slaughter I wonder how quantum entanglement is effected when one entangled photon goes in, and the other stays outside.... anyone? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox
Dr Slaughter Minmatar Rabies Inc.	Posted - 2008.09.01 15:29:00 - [45] Edited by: Dr Slaughter on 01/09/2008 15:29:33 Originally by: Crumplecorn http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox Bloody hell.. just when I thought I was starting to 'get it'.
Zalathar Minmatar Stellar Research Incorporated DEFI4NT	Posted - 2008.09.01 15:31:00 - [46] where it gets interesting is that you can theoretically put a photon in orbit of a black hole. I find this facsinating as it is delicioulsy counter intuitive to people without a layman's knowlege in physics, and that it is just incredibly neat. On to the main subject, it is not gravity as a force that affects the photon, its rather the relativististic warping of space time. The drawing is a very good visual explanation fo that. If you want an easy to do metaphore, image a mattress. this will be spacetime. then put a heavy object on your spacetime mattress, it will be surrounded by a dent or depression in the mattress. thats the space time being warped by mass. then role a marble along the mattress, and if it gets to the dip it will roll in, and stay in. thats gravitational attraction. You may consider that an awful bastardisation of science, but its a good way of explaining it, and was used to demonstrate space time distortion by one of the great astophysicists, though i cant remeber who.
Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2008.09.01 15:32:00 - [47] Originally by: Zalathar where it gets interesting is that you can theoretically put a photon in orbit of a black hole. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_sphere
Sikander 2	Posted - 2008.09.01 16:06:00 - [48] Ok, heres MY explanation : The black hole is actually a gingerbread house in a fairytale and light goes in to eat the gingerbread but gets cooked by a wicked witch. Something like that anyway
Dr Slaughter Minmatar Rabies Inc.	Posted - 2008.09.01 16:42:00 - [49] Originally by: Crumplecorn Originally by: Zalathar where it gets interesting is that you can theoretically put a photon in orbit of a black hole. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_sphere I liked you better before you started posting in this thread. Now I've got lots of interesting reading to do... Hey Zalathar, talking about bastardization of science.. so if the black hole was f.. err.. a large hungry person with poor mental control, and the photons were pies.. I don't fancy the chances of them (the pies) orbiting for very long...
Technomagez Gallente	Posted - 2008.09.01 17:23:00 - [50] Originally by: Dr Slaughter Bugged me for years. I was told light has no mass and black holes have huge gravity. I know gravity effects mass. Light doesn't have any.. why does it still get trapped? I'm guessing the gravity is warping space time so the photons gets stuck? Bit weird. Or do photon's really have mass? Anyone have a simple answer? Chuck Norris is sitting inside the black hole, sucking in all the light with a straw...
Sharupak Minmatar Brutor tribe	Posted - 2008.09.01 17:26:00 - [51] Originally by: Technomagez Originally by: Dr Slaughter Bugged me for years. I was told light has no mass and black holes have huge gravity. I know gravity effects mass. Light doesn't have any.. why does it still get trapped? I'm guessing the gravity is warping space time so the photons gets stuck? Bit weird. Or do photon's really have mass? Anyone have a simple answer? Chuck Norris is sitting inside the black hole, sucking in all the light with a straw... Sweet, now someone post up with a rick roll so we can hit that wicket!

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.