# Thread: Help me with science

1. ## Help me with science

I have a few science questions, can a few geniuses here help me?
@Doc @Aborted @Lehsyrus
1- What happens to space-time when entering a black hole?
2- Why can't a charged particle accelerate to the speed of light?
3- Why is the speed of light constant?

Thank you

Off Topic : 1000 posts

2. Originally Posted by HeroicXPharaoh
I have a few science questions, can a few geniuses here help me?
@Doc @Aborted @Lehsyrus
1- What happens to space-time when entering a black hole?
2- Why can't a charged particle accelerate to the speed of light?
3- Why is the speed of light constant?

Thank you

Off Topic : 1000 posts
gratz on your 1k posts [yeah I saw that]
BTW is this homework or?

3. Originally Posted by shaheet
gratz on your 1k posts [yeah I saw that]
BTW is this homework or?
Nah, just want to find out ;P and thanks

4. Gratz.

5. 1- What happens to space-time when entering a black hole?
2- Why can't a charged particle accelerate to the speed of light?
3- Why is the speed of light constant?

Okay I'm gonna answer that with no actual science education
1: I think the answer is B
2: I think the answer is B
3: I think the answer is B

6. 1. The passage of time is slowed and space and matter are compressed.
2. Its mass is much too high to travel that fast.
3. To be honest I have no idea.

7. Originally Posted by Aborted
1. The passage of time is slowed and space and matter are compressed.
2. Its mass is much too high to travel that fast.
3. To be honest I have no idea.
I was gonna say what he said yes

8. 1. I believe the easiest way to describe a black hole, to start off, is an object that is not an object. There are multiple theories about how black holes affect space-time, which all lead back to a bend in space time itself. Think of a piece of paper being stretched with nothing underneath it, with a heavy ball in the middle, and think of how that bends. That's the general consensus of how a black hole affects space-time, it simply bends it. The reason behind this theory, links to how a black hole is formed. A black hole is formed when a massive object exceeds it's own weight by diameter, by at least 500 times the weight of it's core. The collapse is so great, it collapses in on itself faster than the speed of light, causing a mass in the center to become so infinitely dense, that not even light can escape from the gravitational field of the event horizon. The event horizon is the point of no return where an object can not escape a black holes gravity. Because not even light can escape from a black hole, being a weightless wave source, it is generally accepted no object can escape a black holes gravity.

Basically, a black hole is an object so dense that there is no physical object within it. Because of the gravity involved, it creates a gravitational singularity, in which the gravity is measured to be infinite.

2. Light is not a physical particle, but a form of radiation. Charged particles can not reach the speed of light, as they would need an infinite amount of energy to do so (at least with present day technology).

3. The speed of light is not necessarily constant. It is only believed to be constant in a vacuum. The reason behind this, is that all experiments utilizing general relativity in a vacuum for other means came out to be accurate with the idea of light having a universal constant in a vacuum. However, this also can be changed with future research. Honestly, it all depends on whether a photon has mass or not, of which we are not completely certain. If it does, the speed of light would change according to multiple contingencies, but we don't have to get into that at the moment.

9. 1- What happens to space-time when entering a black hole? The massive black hole will warp the space time continuum.
2- Why can't a charged particle accelerate to the speed of light? It’s mass not charge that stops something from accelerating to the speed of light.
3- Why is the speed of light constant? It may or may not be constant.

10. Originally Posted by Lehsyrus
1. I believe the easiest way to describe a black hole, to start off, is an object that is not an object. There are multiple theories about how black holes affect space-time, which all lead back to a bend in space time itself. Think of a piece of paper being stretched with nothing underneath it, with a heavy ball in the middle, and think of how that bends. That's the general consensus of how a black hole affects space-time, it simply bends it. The reason behind this theory, links to how a black hole is formed. A black hole is formed when a massive object exceeds it's own weight by diameter, by at least 500 times the weight of it's core. The collapse is so great, it collapses in on itself faster than the speed of light, causing a mass in the center to become so infinitely dense, that not even light can escape from the gravitational field of the event horizon. The event horizon is the point of no return where an object can not escape a black holes gravity. Because not even light can escape from a black hole, being a weightless wave source, it is generally accepted no object can escape a black holes gravity.

Basically, a black hole is an object so dense that there is no physical object within it. Because of the gravity involved, it creates a gravitational singularity, in which the gravity is measured to be infinite.

2. Light is not a physical particle, but a form of radiation. Charged particles can not reach the speed of light, as they would need an infinite amount of energy to do so (at least with present day technology).

3. The speed of light is not necessarily constant. It is only believed to be constant in a vacuum. The reason behind this, is that all experiments utilizing general relativity in a vacuum for other means came out to be accurate with the idea of light having a universal constant in a vacuum. However, this also can be changed with future research. Honestly, it all depends on whether a photon has mass or not, of which we are not completely certain. If it does, the speed of light would change according to multiple contingencies, but we don't have to get into that at the moment.
i just acquired a higher iQ by reading this post

11. Originally Posted by Lehsyrus
A black hole is formed when a massive object exceeds it's own weight by diameter, by at least 500 times the weight of it's core.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't an object's Swarzchild Radius affected by surrounding gravitation?

12. Originally Posted by Aborted

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't an object's Swarzchild Radius affected by surrounding gravitation?
The Swarzschild Radius is in layman terms is the point of which a mass collapses that no longer allows light to escape. If a stellar mass collapses beyond the predicted radius then inevitably a black hole forms. It's not exactly affected inversely by gravity, but is in correlation with the gravitational mass of the original object in question.

13. Originally Posted by Lehsyrus

The Swarzschild Radius is in layman terms is the point of which a mass collapses that no longer allows light to escape. If a stellar mass collapses beyond the predicted radius then inevitably a black hole forms. It's not exactly affected inversely by gravity, but is in correlation with the gravitational mass of the original object in question.
why the fuck do i comprehend what you say perfectly, but not a single shit my teacher says

14. Originally Posted by Lehsyrus

The Swarzschild Radius is in layman terms is the point of which a mass collapses that no longer allows light to escape. If a stellar mass collapses beyond the predicted radius then inevitably a black hole forms. It's not exactly affected inversely by gravity, but is in correlation with the gravitational mass of the original object in question.
Though if surrounding gravitation negates its inward attraction, would not the object have to be condensed to smaller boundaries to achieve a gravitation strong enough to capture light? For example, let's say we have two celestial bodies with the exact same mass and density in close proximity. Celestial Body 2 would obviously have an attraction force toward and away from Celestial Body 1. If 1 is condensed to the bounds of its proposed Schwarzchild Radius, 2 would still be gravitating outwardly, attempting to pull light with it. Theoretically, 1 would have to have a greater density to achive a gravitational pull sufficient enough escape both 2's gravity and its own.

15. Originally Posted by Frost

why the fuck do i comprehend what you say perfectly, but not a single shit my teacher says
Teachers tend to treat students like they are five.

Originally Posted by Aborted

Though if surrounding gravitation negates its inward attraction, would not the object have to be condensed to smaller boundaries to achieve a gravitation strong enough to capture light? For example, let's say we have two celestial bodies with the exact same mass and density in close proximity. Celestial Body 2 would obviously have an attraction force toward and away from Celestial Body 1. If 1 is condensed to the bounds of its proposed Schwarzchild Radius, 2 would still be gravitating outwardly, attempting to pull light with it. Theoretically, 1 would have to have a greater density to achive a gravitational pull sufficient enough escape both 2's gravity and its own.
Not necessarily. You're forgetting that with the gravitational continuum within the inner density of the existing star, in conjunction with the outer gravitational force, the star would still proceed to collapse and create the initial event horizon. If another star was in close enough proximity to be affected by the gravitational force of the collapsing star, both would end up colliding at the same point the Swarzschild effect became relevant, causing the other star to collapse in on itself as well and to be sucked into the existing black hole the original star created, possibly creating a massive black hole phenomena.

Page 1 of 2 12 Last