the guy Posted August 29, 2009 Share Posted August 29, 2009 can someone please explain to me the theory that black holes can distort time? because to me i doesnt make any sense Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedi just realised this is probably in the wrong section but oh well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted August 29, 2009 Share Posted August 29, 2009 Time runs slower in a gravitational potential, which stems from the effects of having mass and energy nearby. This is part of general relativity, which is advanced physics. It may not make much sense without a decent physics background. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the guy Posted August 29, 2009 Author Share Posted August 29, 2009 but, time cant have mass, its just a measurement, its like saying that centimeters have mass Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedbut, hey, i must be wrong, im just an amateur after all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted August 29, 2009 Share Posted August 29, 2009 he isn't saying time has mass. he is saying that it is the proximity to the large mass(black hole) that is causing the timewarping effect. and time is a dimension, not a measurement. seconds are the measurement of time just like centimeters are the measure of distance. they are not equal though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the guy Posted August 29, 2009 Author Share Posted August 29, 2009 oh, oops, sorry, but still, if it doesnt have mass i dont see how it can be affected Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Janus Posted August 29, 2009 Share Posted August 29, 2009 oh, oops, sorry, but still, if it doesnt have mass i dont see how it can be affected The presence of mass or energy warps space-time. The result of this warping is what we call gravity. Gravity doesn't affect time, it is the warping of space-time by mass and energy that is gravity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the guy Posted August 29, 2009 Author Share Posted August 29, 2009 hmmm, i give in, this is way over my head, ill stick to chemistry and biology haha thanks anyway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sananda Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 What most don't realise is that Einstein never really described what space time, and thus gravity, actually is. I think that the zero point field or rather virtual particles in quantum physics is just this... it is the ether that science spoke of pre 100 years ago. With that in mind you could potentially say that the effect of matter on the ZPF could explain gravity, but what is that effect. For me I have come to the conclusion that perhaps matter absorbs the ZPF in order to become animated... this absorption of energy results in the equal but opposite reaction of gravity. Hawking said black holes tear virtual particles apart, what if the point particles that make up matter absorb them in part or totality? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cosmaximus Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 Hawking said black holes tear virtual particles apart, what if the point particles that make up matter absorb them in part or totality? makes sense to me honestly but also black holes dont expand so how could it absorb particles because black holes slowly die so the particles must be sent somewhere else. its possible that a black hole just organizes particles into groups and confines them... sounds kinda stupid but hell who knows its a possibility Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 also black holes dont expand Yes, they do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Skeptic Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 Any gravitational field distorts time, black holes just have a stronger field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 Yes, they do. Specifically, the event horizon expands. A singularity would not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sananda Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 Time runs slower in a gravitational potential, which stems from the effects of having mass and energy nearby. This is part of general relativity, which is advanced physics. It may not make much sense without a decent physics background. hey swansont, if black holes are absorbing ether which causes gravity and the amount of ether available dictates the speed of time an atom runs at then can you not see the simple relationship between gravity and time? basically objects in close proximity to a black hole will be starved of ether and thus run more slowly... light will also flow towards the hole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 hey swansont, if black holes are absorbing ether which causes gravity and the amount of ether available dictates the speed of time an atom runs at then can you not see the simple relationship between gravity and time? basically objects in close proximity to a black hole will be starved of ether and thus run more slowly... light will also flow towards the hole. Please review the rules. Speculative physics discussion belongs in the Speculations forum. Not here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edtharan Posted August 31, 2009 Share Posted August 31, 2009 can someone please explain to me the theory that black holes can distort time? because to me i doesnt make any sense Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedi just realised this is probably in the wrong section but oh well Basically it is about rotation. In Relativity "Time" is a dimension, and it has a special relationship with space. For the moment, forget about Time. Imagine a big block of Rubber. This block has 3 dimensions: Length, Width and Height. Imagine that it is about 10 metres by 10 metres by 10 metres (I said a big block of rubber ). Now imagine that you ahve a heavy metal disc (about 20 cm in diameter) and about 20 kg. If you place that disc onto the rubber block, you will see that it sinks down a bit into the block. But look at what occurs to the rubber block. Before you put the disk on, the block was flat. But once you put the disk onto it, it became distorted. What was once in the "Width" dimension of the block became partly in the "Height" dimension of the block. You would say that the "Width" dimension was rotated into the "Height" dimension. Now, getting back to Time. As I said, under relativity, Time is a dimension. And it is combined with space (width, height and length) into a Space-Time (Width, Height, Length and Time). When you ahve a mass, like a planet, star, black hole or yes even a feather, it acts like the metal disk from the Rubber Block demonstration. It causes Space-Time to be distorted, and like the Rubber Block demonstration one dimension is rotated into another dimension. What occurs is one of the space dimension is rotated into the Time dimension, and the Time dimension is rotated into the space dimension. This rotation distorts how we see time flowing there and it appears to slow down. If you are within that rotated space-time, you would not see time nearby slowed down, because all time near you would be rotated the same amount so processes would occur at the same rate nearby. However, looking out to non rotated space-time you would see time running faster because you are slowed down relative to it. Direct experiments have been made of this. By placing two identical atomic clocks, one at the bottom of a tower and the other at the top, they have been able to directly measure the difference in rate of Time between them (and on Earth that difference is not all that much so this is a pretty amazing feat to achieve). If you think about it, your head is further from the ground that your feet. This means that your head experiences time faster than your feet do. Your Head is older than your feet (although by such a minuscule amount that it makes no real perceivable difference eve over the course of your entire life - but it would be an interesting science class experiment to work out what that difference would be). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sananda Posted August 31, 2009 Share Posted August 31, 2009 Please review the rules. Speculative physics discussion belongs in the Speculations forum. Not here. oops... so matter just affects the space-time coninuum magically. gotcha! Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedBasically it is about rotation. Imagine a big block of Rubber. This block has 3 dimensions: Length, Width and Height. Imagine that it is about 10 metres by 10 metres by 10 metres (I said a big block of rubber ). Now imagine that you ahve a heavy metal disc (about 20 cm in diameter) and about 20 kg. If you place that disc onto the rubber block, you will see that it sinks down a bit into the block. But look at what occurs to the rubber block. If I had one euro for every time i heard the heavy object on the rubber analogy I'd be rich. Why does matter affect the space-time continuum? The correct answer to this is that nobody knows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Skeptic Posted August 31, 2009 Share Posted August 31, 2009 Why does matter affect the space-time continuum? The correct answer to this is that nobody knows. Probably because so many scientists are busy asking "how" rather than "why". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted August 31, 2009 Share Posted August 31, 2009 its not matter that affects space-time but mass. and science isn't in the business of why, thats philosphy. science is in the business of 'how' it affects space time. at the moment there are several hypothesised ways that mass affects space time but we have been unable to create an experiment to determine the true cause. the LHC will shed some light on it but further testing is required. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sananda Posted August 31, 2009 Share Posted August 31, 2009 Since when is science not interested in the why? When you know the why you become master of whatever the subject is. How is a great question because it details precicely how something works, like in a murder scene the forensic team and detectives first discover the how... why is then added to how to get the full picture so that the case is solved. If you concentrate only on the how, you will never see the full picture. Would we ever had have supersonic flight had we not known the why? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedits not matter that affects space-time but mass. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted August 31, 2009 Share Posted August 31, 2009 why are you laughing at that statement? you can have massless particles. matter without mass and hence no gravitational field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sananda Posted August 31, 2009 Share Posted August 31, 2009 Just laughing at how particular you are... not meaning any offence, you are of course correct... if you believe in massless particles that is. Is it true that the only reason we have photons is because of the photo-electric effect? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted August 31, 2009 Share Posted August 31, 2009 oops... so matter just affects the space-time coninuum magically. gotcha! Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged If I had one euro for every time i heard the heavy object on the rubber analogy I'd be rich. Why does matter affect the space-time continuum? The correct answer to this is that nobody knows. It's not just matter. Anything with energy, which includes massless particles. Why? Ultimately, nobody knows. But we do know that it does affect space-time, and we know quantitatively how much it does. That's what's important from a science standpoint. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedJust laughing at how particular you are... not meaning any offence, you are of course correct... if you believe in massless particles that is. Appeal to ridicule doesn't score any points for you in a scientific argument. As a logical fallacy, though, it does fall afoul of SFN's rules of discussion. I invite you to reread them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sananda Posted August 31, 2009 Share Posted August 31, 2009 sorry about that, wasn't meaning to be offensive honestly. Newton said this: "I have not yet been able to discover the cause of these properties of gravity from phenomena and I feign no hypotheses... It is enough that gravity does really exist and acts according to the laws I have explained, and that it abundantly serves to account for all the motions of celestial bodies." The word here is 'yet' So Newton was interested in the why!!! The father of modern physics!!! Perhaps more people should be interested in the why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Skeptic Posted August 31, 2009 Share Posted August 31, 2009 So Newton was interested in the why!!! The father of modern physics!!! Perhaps more people should be interested in the why? No he was basically saying "I don't know why and I don't care, and neither should you." See the bolded word: "It is enough that gravity does really exist and acts according to the laws I have explained, and that it abundantly serves to account for all the motions of celestial bodies." He was basically saying, it doesn't matter why, here's how. The reason scientists want to know "why" is because it will explain the "how" of something else. For comparison, Aristotle had an explanation of "why" gravity worked, but the predictions it gave were crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sananda Posted August 31, 2009 Share Posted August 31, 2009 If he said he has not yet discovered why it means he was looking at the time of writing. He said it is enough, meaning it is enough to describe the mechanics of it. I cannot believe that you would openly say you're not interested in the why of it. That to me is like saying 'I believe in God but don't have a clue about what he/she is' Oh wait, that's the basis of all religions... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now