Astronomy

If you're near a black hole and your time is slowed down, would a supernova be observable to both you and someone outside of the blackhole's pull?

If you're near a black hole and your time is slowed down, would a supernova be observable to both you and someone outside of the blackhole's pull?


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Let's say that Person A is on a planet orbiting a black hole (like the one from Interstellar) and time is slowed for Person A. Person B is back home on Earth. Now let's say a supernova happens and it's possible for both parties to see it happen at the same time (ignoring the time it would take for the light to get there). Would Person A see the supernova at the same time as Person B? And if so, if Person A is in 1,000 B.C. and Person B is in 2,000 A.D, would the supernova then happen at two different times at the same time?


Time is relative therefore this is a bit of a nonsense question.

But yes, if the gravitational effect near the black hole is strong enough (depends on how close you are) it would affect 'when' the observer would notice it. This is because the light must travel a 'further' distance through the spacetime to get to you since gravity is distorting it.

You may find this interesting: https://web.archive.org/web/20130424041627/http://www.thebigview.com/spacetime/spacetime.html


Astronomers Find Monster Black Hole With 6 Galaxies Trapped in Its Gravitational Web


"The cosmic web filaments are like spider's web threads," said Marco Mignoli, an astronomer at the National Institute for Astrophysics (INAF) in Bologna who led the research, which was published in the journal Astronomy & Astrophysics.

"The galaxies stand and grow where the filaments cross, and streams of gas - available to fuel both the galaxies and the central supermassive black hole - can flow along the filaments."

Mignoli said that until now there had been "no good explanation" for the existence of such huge early black holes.

The structure is believed to be 300 times the size of the Milky Way and it's possible there may be other Galaxies trapped in the web undetected because the Galaxies we see are at the brightness limit we can currently detect.


But it said the galaxies are also some of the faintest that current telescopes can spot, adding the discovery was only possible using the largest optical telescopes available, including ESO's Very Large Telescope in Chile's Atacama Desert.

There is always a yin to yang.

I believe suns get there fuel from black holes. they are the light holes.

if this structure was formed 1BY after big-bang. then any collapse of Galaxies would have long ago generated Gravity Waves in the fabric of time-space

glad we ain't getting space-quaked

Fascinating unimaginably fascinating. I wonder since they are so close to the black hole and time would be extremely slowed down. Does that mean a day here is 10 minutes there? Or something like that. Imagine what you could accomplish if you lived 100 times longer.

There is always a yin to yang.

I believe suns get there fuel from black holes. they are the light holes.

Interesting concept wonder whats happening on the other end when a star goes supernova or what is going on during all of its stages. Does a brown dwarf have a collapsing black hole for instance.

In your localized area you wouldn't notice the difference in time passing.

I know I'm talking in terms of having people here and there. Imagine someone like einstein being sent there to ponder for an eternity here. Or Tesla or that Indian mathematician I am unsure of his name at the moment. If we were able to send our best and brightest to live for 100 of our lifetimes what would be the outcome?

There is no "other end" there's a center. It's like a marble sucking everything in from everywhere down towards a center. Think how gravity works on the Earth.

Well, the eternity would be felt by you and I, but not by them. They'd age normally. Unfortunately, from their perspective we'd have long ago turned to dust. Time dilation has some neat benefits for a traveler at light speed but not if he ever wants to return home.

We'd never benefit from whatever they had discovered while in a time dilation field (gravity) from a supermassive black hole this. Well. massive.

I read a book not too long ago explaining the light cone from the point of view of an observer just inside the event horizon of the black hole. I can't remember which one it was.

They argued that what you would see if you turn to look out of the black hole would be a fast forward movie of the evolution and eventual death of the universe.

The time dilation effects in and around black holes are insane. Hawking radiation is believed to be particle/antiparticle pairs being separated rather than annihilating around the black hole. Essentially evaporating the blackhole over trillions of years through black body radiation. It's that massive gravitational field and the effects of time on these particles that causes them to separate from each other. What ends up happening is that the blackhole's mass is reduced through negative energy. Eventually enough mass is reduced and all that built up energy radiates out in a single burst, destroying the black hole and possibly deleting all of the information contained in the blackholes mass forever.

Gravity and time dilation are bitches.

There is no "other end" there's a center. It's like a marble sucking everything in from everywhere down towards a center. Think how gravity works on the Earth.

Go to brane theory a moment, gravity is the weakest force with electromagnetism being literally millions of times more powerful and this spurred some theorists on to suggest that maybe gravity comes from another membrane in super space in peripheral contact with or partially forming our universe in it's collision with other membranes.

In simple term's mass may LENSE gravity but it is not it's source, if we go to superstring theory everything even empty space and the most dense matter is made up of the same exact stuff.

So what is this relationship with gravity, maybe gravity is actually everywhere, at a one to one ratio with the universe and time/energy is from another membrane in super space, the collision between these two brains and a possible third or more may be what we perceive as our universe or rather it's laws which themselves may be rather more fluid than we may assume though long lasting from our perspective giving us the false impression of them being fixed and immutable.

This material everything is made of may be a membrane verse in super space which is between a collision between the brane were gravity originates and the brain were time/energy originates.

Think of it in terms of volume, if you push more of this brain that is in contact with the brane were gravity comes from but not necessarily in direct contact with the brane from which time/energy comes then you have a rule that says more of this in a space would focus more gravity in that space allowing it to then be more strongly represented in less volume of space as we perceive our three (and more) dimensions of reality.

Imagine a supermassive star collapsing, if mass lenses gravity then somewhere within that mass of the star there must be a LaGrange point were the gravity of the surrounding mass cancel's out, it maybe a tiny uncertain subatomic point held under huge pressure but still as the star collapses into a black hole that gravity PULL's on this point in all directions, perhaps even more forcefully than it does on the surrounding space, the black hole also forms an internal event horizon around this LaGrange point and yet it still pull's, the smaller this point is the more fierce those forces will be and in fact it may INVERT that part of our universe ripping time and energy into it, this is a WHITE hole within the black hole and it forms it's own time space continuum, rules are the same as the parent time space continuum but time relative to the parent continuum outside the black hole is much - much faster.

Ever wonder why galaxy's are not slowing down but speeding up, they are being attracted by the surrounding gravity and our time space continuum is surrounded by an event horizon, a black hole shell and another event horizon and another time space continuum with slower time that itself may be inside another black hole.

Also it is a reciprocal event, a white hole forces out material that initially exceeds the speed of light, this in turn may back up on itself and create a black hole around it creating an onion skin affect no different to the above model, time space continuum, black hole, time space continuum, black hole the difference being that the black hole is then the result of the white hole but it had to begin with a black hole in a time space continuum with our own laws were time is now much, much slower BUT as our time space continuum ages it slows relative to the surrounding TSC time rate and at the moment of total quantum evaporation equals it.

Why then search for dark energy, well everyone has to eat but there is also some astounding discovery's to be made in the search.

Think about that the universe just became a whole lot bigger, infinitely so perhaps and also a whole lot smaller at the same time.

Somewhere out there there may be a large black hole surrounding the white hole that was the Big Bang, this may even be it.

Though that Lagrange point may have moved around quite a bit during the surrounding black holes formation and there could even be several white holes formed and several time space continuum's within that tiny space that may some day merge long before entropic spaghettification does paid to our universe.
OR this is just reciprocal thinking and a pile of utter rubbish.

Note I doubt a Hawking brown hole could invert the trapped bit of empty space at it's LaGrange core so I believe this would require true black hole's and while some doubt they exist I believe they do and can while I also believe Hawking brown holes are less dense and no less real they are simply not black holes at all just an intermediary between a true black hole and a neutron star.

There is some interesting interplay as well between the formation of REAL black holes, the many reality's theory were divergent reality's are constantly coming into being for example meet's a force that may then ZIP them back together when a true black hole forms in the form of a quantum gravity shock wave emanating like a ripple outward from it at the moment of it's formation ZIPPING all parallel reality's were it exists and forms at exactly the same point and time back into a single reality perhaps also creating the Mandela effect that so many believe in, I have experiences my own but it was before the phrase was coined.


The 9 Wildest and Most Wonderful Planets in the Milky Way

For 20 years now, we've been discovering planets far outside our solar system. Here are the ones you need to know.

This month marks the 20th anniversary of the detection of the first planet spotted around a sun-like star. Here are some other wonderful planet extremes out there in our solar system.

Barnard's Star is famous less for the planets it has than for the planets it doesn't have. Let me explain.

The star, the fourth closest to us, has been the subject of a heated back-and-forth in astronomy circles since the 1960s as to whether or not it has planets. The current answer is no. But for at least 10 years, following an official announcement by Peter van de Kamp in 1963, many people believed the answer was a resounding yes, and that Barnard's Star had two gas giants orbiting it. Van de Kamp never gave up on his claims, but Hubble observations showed them to be impossible in the late 1990s.

But here's the thing: Hubble didn't rule out that Barnard's Star could have planets. It ruled out large planets at certain distances from the ancient sun. It's not out of the question that a rocky word or even a Neptune-sized ice giant could be there.

Future exoplanet surveys may answer the question once and for all . or just spur on more controversy.

We've discovered planets around sun-like stars for 20 years. But we've known of planets outside our solar system for a little longer . they just happened to be radically different than any kind of solar system we'd conceived of. Like around the remnant of a supernova.

The first exoplanet discovered still holds the record for being the least massive. PSR B1257+12 A is barely bigger than the moon, orbiting the harsh environment of a pulsar. The planets in the system were discovered in 1992 by the tug they gave on their home star.

Pulsars are known as cosmic timekeepers, sometimes called the "most accurate clocks in the universe." But something was making the beat of PSR B1257+12 just a little off. It was determined that the culprits in question were two planets, including this one. A third was later found, and claims to a third were made and subsequently retracted.

While 51 Pegasi b wasn't the first planet discovered, it was the first confirmed planet around a sun-like star. Even so, it was nothing like any planet we knew. This giant world completes a swift orbit of its star every few days. It kicked off the discovery of many "hot Jupiters," gas giants in orbits even tighter than Mercury's.

In 2015, the atmosphere of 51 Pegasi b was characterized in the visible spectrum, another first. Instead of just observing 51 Pegasi b's silhouette as it passes in front of its home star, we can study things like the planet's actual mass or orbital inclination by looking at the visible light it throws off. This may seem like small potatoes compared to how much we know about most of the planets in our own solar system, but when you're talking about an exoplanet that's 50 lightyears away, this is valuable and fresh information.

The name PSR B1620-26b, like many other exoplanets, doesn't quite roll off the tongue. But this is the oldest planet known, at somewhere around 12.7 billion years old. That's just a little younger than the universe itself.

The ancient planet orbits both a pulsar and an ultra-dense white dwarf, itself another supernova remnant. The two stars orbit each other while the gas giant orbits around the gravitational center of those dense dance partners.

It's only 15 light years away. It's small enough to be rocky, though far, far larger than Earth. But don't pack your bags yet: Gliese 876d is a hell-world. Its day is a shade less than an Earth day in length, but its orbit is just a fraction of Mercury's distance from the sun. It is hot, hot, hot. But the 2005 discovery of the planet is important for showing that there are rocky worlds beyond our solar system.

Four comparatively small planets orbit Gliese-581. Two of them may be habitable. Gliese-581c is on the inner edge of the habitable zone, and may have suffered a fate similar to Venus, turning noxious and harsh. The other, Gliese-581d, is on the outer edge. The pair were the first announced exoplanets to be found in the "Goldilocks zone" of their star.

There's a problem with classifying smaller exoplanets: We've seen a number of planets out in the void that are bigger than Earth but smaller than Neptune. But here in our solar system, we have nothing of the sort. That makes it hard to guess what these world's might be like. At what size something is more likely to be a rocky planet like Earth or Mars? At what size do they become more like the ice giants like Uranus and Neptune?

There's little to no debate with Kepler-11f, a confirmed mini-Neptune. Its density hints at a Saturn-like atmosphere with only a small rocky core. It created a class of "gas dwarves" which are unseen in our home solar system.

Kepler-452b is almost definitely the most Earth-like planet found thus far. Its star is the size of the sun, its year is just a shade longer than ours, and it's a little bit bigger than our planet but firmly in the habitable zone of the star. There are only a few problems: It's more than 1,000 light years away, so we'll never get there. And it's 1.5 billion years older than Earth, meaning that its host star may have grown enough to make the planet currently uninhabitable. Long ago, though, this could have been our twin.

1RXS J160929.1&minus210524 has a very important record: the first directly imaged exoplanet. That is, the picture you see here is not an artist's conception or a graph depicting the dip in light as the planet passes in front of its star. This is an actual image of the planet.

Most exoplanets have to be detected indirectly, such as through radial velocity, or through methods like transit detection, which look for nearly imperceptible dips in light across a planet's surface. It would take incredible optics to find planets by telescope, something that in most cases won't be available until James Webb Space Telescope and giant ground based operations are online. But younger, hotter planets can be detected with the right imagers. That's just what happened to 1RXS J160929.1&minus210524.

It's more massive than Jupiter and relatively young, owing to why it could be spotted directly in the first place. Only one other orbital object, to that date, had been directly imaged&ndasha likely brown dwarf&ndashso this is the first time we'd seen a planet in all our years of discovering them. The picture was released in 2008.


14. Why is the sun’s outer layer ‘too hot’?

For years, scientists have debated over the question of why the sun’s outer layer is much hotter than its surface. In fact, its outer atmosphere is three hundred times hotter than its surface (which is already 10,340 degrees Fahrenheit). There is some evidence that suggests that this is due to regular explosions or bursts of heat (called nanoflares) from the sun which affect the solar atmosphere (known as the corona) as well. But now, scientists are also debating the presence of a hot plasma that isn’t necessarily caused by nanoflares, which would explain the higher temperature of the outer layer.


If you're near a black hole and your time is slowed down, would a supernova be observable to both you and someone outside of the blackhole's pull? - Astronomy

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

I guess that. ( Score: 5, Funny)

Re:I guess that. ( Score: 5, Funny)

Re: ( Score: 2)

"Shut up dingy."
"Kiss my grits!"

(Now we'll find it how old the slashdot readers are.) I'd like to know where this blackhole came from? Was there a previous iteration of stars that predates the Milky Way, and this black hole used to be a star? Was that star part of another galaxy? Where is that galaxy now?

Ya know all of this would be so easy if someone invented a chronoscope to view past time periods (reference Isaac Asimov's "The Dead Past"). Then instead of guessing what happened 10 billion years ago,

Re:I guess that. ( Score: 5, Insightful)

> Ya know all of this would be so easy if someone invented a chronoscope to view past time periods (reference Isaac Asimov's "The Dead Past"). Then instead of guessing what happened 10 billion years ago, we could just look and see with our own eyes.

We have such a thing, but we call it a 'telescope' instead of a chronoscope. Want to know what happened 10 billion years ago? Just look at something 10 billion lightyears away (or at least, something that was 10 billion lightyears away 10 billion years ago).

Re:I guess that. ( Score: 5, Interesting)

I don't doubt that someday we will find a way to travel at faster than light speed, and when we do, we'll be able to travel out to space, faster than light, then take a 90 degree turn, travel a bit longer, and point some telescopes at earth. (or in the direction of where it was). Then we will have at our disposal, a complete chronology of all human history under the sun.

Those that do this, I'd call them Light-Scholars. Because it sounds cool.

And it would be awesome to be there, when they do this.

Re: ( Score: 3, Informative)

You will be there! You'll be the "they" when they do this, the ones they're looking at. if that makes any sense. So hold up a sign.

Re: ( Score: 3, Funny)

Faster than light travel is not possible in this universe, so your idea is bunk.

Furthermore, time travel is a ridiculous concept that belongs only in bad science fiction, not serious discussion.

I'm not even going to bother trying to explain to you WHY these two facts are true, just try THINKING a little bit about what you are saying, inevitably you will come up with a whole host of logical impossibilities that result from your idea.

APPARENTLY YOU HAVE NOT HEARD OF TIME CUBE TECHNOLOGY!! TIME CUBE ALLOWS FASTER THAN LIGHT TRAVEL THROUGH 5TH DIMENSIONAL ROTATION OF TIME CUBE!!

Re: ( Score: 3, Insightful)

Also, magic genies that come out of bottles can probably move you between two points in space faster than light would travel without actually violating any laws of physics.

I am pretty sure that Santa Claus also moves faster than light, in order to travel to all houses in the world in the span of 24 hours, so perhaps scientists can figure out a way to harness Santa Claus technology and solve this problem.

There may be a few other ways to travel faster than light that both you and I have missed. I

Re: ( Score: 3, Insightful)

Why limit your imagination to wormholes and other pseudoscience fantasy constructs?

I think that if we're going to design any such kind of "travel", it will be accomplished by magic spells. Scientists right now ought to be working on coming up with the right incantations, don't you agree?

Re: ( Score: 3, Funny)

What are you, a sixth grade science teacher? I think we all get it, thanks.

Re: ( Score: 2, Funny)

Re:I guess that. ( Score: 5, Funny)

I've seen Black Perl, it was ALL regular expressions. So many that there was a regular expression event horizon, with only preceding elements escaping and at the center was a nondeterministic finite automata. Quite a sight.

Re: ( Score: 2)

I've seen Black Perl, it was ALL regular expressions. So many that there was a regular expression event horizon, with only preceding elements escaping and at the center was a nondeterministic finite automata. Quite a sight.

. and here I thought it was a pirate ship [wikipedia.org].

Re:I guess that. ( Score: 5, Funny)

Re:I guess that. ( Score: 5, Interesting)

When viewed from Europe and Australia, the Milky Way has only nougat at the center. When viewed from the US, it has nougat and caramel. Discuss.

Re: ( Score: 3, Informative)

That's because what American's call Milky Ways are much more similar to what we in Australia and Europe call Mars Bars. Also note that the nougat in the middle of European Milky Ways (at least those I've tried in Norway) is different from that found in Australian Milky Ways. The Australian nougat is brown and chocolaty, European nougat is a lighter creamier colour and tastes more like Vanilla.

Re: ( Score: 3, Insightful)

One of the reasons is the average portion size has increased.

Two "asian sized" people can share one US sized meal and still be rather full at the end.

If you keep finishing double sized portions (or at least attempting to finish), you're more likely to grow bigger.

Bonus growth for snacking and drinking large sugary drinks (huge lattes, smoothies etc) between those huge meals.

I think drinking large sugary drinks to quench your thirst is also a big problem. I doubt it's easy for your body to absorb just the wa

Re: ( Score: 2)

Let me be the first to say ( Score: 5, Funny)

Re:Let me be the first to say ( Score: 5, Funny)

Re:Let me be the first to say ( Score: 5, Funny)

The black hole is four million times heavier than our Sun

Don't worry, I hear black is a very slimming colour.:)

Re: ( Score: 2, Funny)

We're living in an accretion disk ( Score: 5, Interesting)

Re:We're living in an accretion disk ( Score: 4, Funny)

About time! ( Score: 5, Interesting)

Seriously (surely no one missed the bad relativity joke in that title:-p) though, are black holes really still considered theoretical constructs? For example, Wikipedia starts with "A black hole is a theoretical region of space in which the gravitational field is so powerful that. ". And for Wikipedia haters, this is repeated in literature too.

Meanwhile, in this article -- "the best empirical evidence that super-massive black holes do exist". And besides, I thought many scientific articles bring up black holes now and then without questioning, anyway.

Re:About time! ( Score: 5, Informative)

Yes, they are. We still have no proof of their actual existence.

Re: ( Score: 2)

Why can't the same be said about nebulae though?

Empirical evidence and theories seem to work there.

Re: ( Score: 3, Interesting)

We have as much proof of their existence as one would have of, say, an electron. That is, we have theories that make predictions about the effects of such entities, and thus far those predictions have panned out. There's no 100% in any branch of science, that's not how science is played.

Re: ( Score: 2)

We have plenty. I think the problem that a lot of people have is that they are not directly observable, but there is a magnificent amount of indirect observation. I would be surprised to find even an undergraduate astrophysicist who doubted the existence of black holes.

Re:About time! ( Score: 5, Funny)

Re:About time! ( Score: 5, Funny)

We'll have a proof as soon as the CERN guys turn on the LHC.

And if so we will have a remarkably short period of time to write a paper about it.

Re: ( Score: 2, Interesting)

Re:About time! ( Score: 5, Funny)

And if so we will have a remarkably short period of time to write a paper about it.

Academic paper writing. you're doing it wrong!

The way it works is that the paper is written in advance, with blank spots for the data and the graphs that can be plugged in, and then they do the experiments. With mocked-up data and graphs as backup. So don't worry, they should be able to have the paper out very quickly.:)

Re:About time! ( Score: 5, Funny)

Re:About time! ( Score: 5, Funny)

Well. how can we prove black holes exist ?
(I mean. the astrophysics thing)

Good thing you put the 'astrophysics thing' on there. Otherwise we might have seen one of the few instances where a goatse link would be considered ontopic.

Re: ( Score: 3, Funny)

Pirate walks into a bar. Bartender nods hello, then does a doubletake.
"Hey friend," says the bartender, "you know you got a steering wheel attached to your crotch?"

"Aye," says the pirate, "it's drivin' me nuts."

Re:About time! ( Score: 5, Insightful)

Re:About time! ( Score: 5, Insightful)

You mean how it should read "four million times as massive"? Because you know, everything weighs more near a black hole. Even light.

Re: ( Score: 2)

Re: ( Score: 3, Funny)

Re: ( Score: 3, Funny)

Re:About time! ( Score: 5, Funny)

>"four million times heavier than our sun"

Can we please stop with the "yo mama" jokes? Please?:-)

Re:About time! ( Score: 5, Insightful)

are black holes really still considered theoretical constructs. I thought many scientific articles bring up black holes now and then without questioning, anyway.

Black holes do have a solid foundation in theory, and we can observe the gravitational effects they have on their neighbours. However, as far as I know, Hawking radiation [wikipedia.org] is the only way to detect them directly and I don't think that this has been observed.

The authors of this article are showing observational evidence for a supermassive (millions of solar masses) black hole in the centre of our Galaxy - something that was thought to be at the centre of many galaxies but was still in open question. The observations made during this study have shown that our Galaxy has one, using techniques that are not an option for galaxies further away, thus giving us the best evidence that supermassive black holes exist.

Re: ( Score: 3, Interesting)

Re: ( Score: 2)

Re: ( Score: 2)

Re:About time! ( Score: 5, Insightful)

That's the nature of an unobservable object. All you can do is infer its existence through its effects on other objects, in this case through the gravitational effects on stars. But then all you've *proven* is that something is causing those effects. The simplest explanation is a black hole, but it could be something else, and that's why black holes are still considered theoretical.

Dark matter is in the same boat. Same with dark energy and strings. Physics seems to be moving toward explanations involving unobservable objects, whether that's right or not remains to be seen. Question is, can it ever be seen? See?

Re:About time! ( Score: 4, Insightful)

That's the nature of an unobservable object. All you can do is infer its existence through its effects on other objects, in this case through the reflective effects on sunlight. But then all you've *proven* is that something is causing those effects. The simplest explanation is the moon, but it could be something else, and that's why the moon is still considered theoretical.

Re:About time! ( Score: 5, Informative)

That's the nature of an unobservable object.

I wouldn't say a black hole is "unobservable". It emits no light, but has a measurable gravitational field. Conversely consider something like light, which has no mass but can be measured by its electromagnetic interaction (e.g. using a camera).

Different subatomic particles interact in different ways. Four fundamental forces have been identified: electromagnetic, weak nuclear, strong nuclear, and gravitational. A particular particle may interact via 1 or more of these modes. Just because it is "invisible" with respect to a given force does not make it "unobservable": as long as it interacts via at least one force, it can be measured/observed using that force.

All the examples you've given are of things that are observable: black holes and dark matter and dark energy are all observable via the gravitational effects they produce. Just because they are not observable via light doesn't make them unobservable. (Strictly black holes do emit low-levels of measurable radiation (Hawking radiation), and could also be detected in this way.) The "strings" of string theory (if they exist) should in principle be measurable by studying the interactions of particles via the four forces (whether or not we will ever achieve the energy scales required to do so is a separate question). For that matter it is difficult to "see" air, but it is easy to observe/measure it in other ways.

You have falsely equated "interact strongly via the electromagnetic force" to "observable". It's a natural mistake for humans, since our visual sense is so well-developed. However just because it is invisible to our eyes does not make it an "unobservable object". A truly "unobservable object" would be one which doesn't interact via any force. Such an object isn't merely "unobservable", it is simply "nonexistent" by any physical definition (since it cannot interact with anything else in the universe).


Throughout history there have been many views on the origin of the universe. The beliefs range from an eternal universe to a universe that is 6,000 years old—the biblical view. In the last 100 years there have been several naturalistic cosmologic models to explain the existence of the universe. After the description of the theory of relativity by Einstein and calculations showing the vast distance of nebulae (known to be galaxies today) two distinct models were developed. The steady-state model describes an eternal universe in which matter is being continuously created. The big bang model suggests that the universe had a beginning and that it has been expanding since then. The steady-state model held much support in the 1950s and 1960s mainly for philosophical reasons many people preferred a cosmology in which the universe had no beginning. Traditional cosmological models generally hold that the universe had a beginning, so support for an eternal universe could prove that traditional cosmologies were all wrong.

In 1964 the discovery of uniform, low-level radiation called the cosmic microwave background (CMB) was interpreted as strong support for the big bang , and discredited the steady-state model. The big bang model can explain the existence of the CMB while the steady-state model cannot. Since this evidence was published, the big bang model has been the dominant view held by secular scientists. So, what exactly is the big bang and when did it supposedly occur?

Big Bang Model The cosmological model suggesting the universe began as a single point which expanded to produce the known universe.

It is important to start this discussion with the understanding that the big bang model was developed using naturalistic and uniformitarian principles. We defined naturalism in chapter 1 as a belief denying that an event or object has a supernatural significance. So if the big bang is a naturalistic model then there can be no room for intervention by a Creator. The big bang model is supposed to describe the creation and evolution of the universe by natural laws alone.

Uniformitarianism The doctrine that present-day processes acting at similar rates as observed today account for the change evident in the universe.

Starting with uniformitarian and naturalistic assumptions leads to a different conclusion than does starting with the biblical explanation—God created the universe in a supernatural process. Looking at the same facts through different lenses leads to different conclusions.

We can use radiometric dating as an example to describe how uniformitarianism is related to the big bang and the subsequent development of our solar system. It is assumed by secular scientists that radioactive decay has always occurred at a constant rate. The rate can be used to calculate the age of the rocks if several factors are known. These scientists also assume that as the earth formed there was leftover material that would be the same age as the earth. Using these assumptions, secular scientists believe that meteorites that fall to earth give the best age of the earth since they formed at the same time. Consequently, they have concluded that the solar system must be older than those rocks and the universe even older than that. When you add the assumption of naturalism to the origin of the universe as we know it, you are building a model on multiple unprovable assumptions.

In the big bang model of the origin of the universe, all of the matter, space, and time existed in a “cosmic egg” called a singularity. There is one major problem with this from the uniformitarian view—the known laws of physics fail to describe how the singularity could exist. The idea of cause and effect also fails as there is no known explanation for the cause of the singularity or the cause of the “explosion” that allegedly formed the universe. Scientists who accept that the universe was formed from the big bang must believe that their assumptions are true. Therefore, it is a matter of faith to accept that the universe began as an infinitely small point.

Some secular scientists are now suggesting that a quantum fluctuation caused the singularity. If this is the case, then what caused the quantum fluctuation? Parallel universes are imagined to explain this idea, but there is no evidence that such universes exist.

The Bible presents a radically different view of the origin of the universe.

Biblical Creation The supernatural events, occurring over six approximately 24-hour days, described in Genesis 1 and 2, by which God caused the formation of the heaven and earth and everything in them.

Contrary to both naturalistic and uniformitarian assumptions, the Bible clearly teaches a supernatural and rapid origin of the universe. Genesis 1:1 describes the beginning of time, matter, and space with the phrase “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Because this process is supernatural, secular scientists reject that this description of the origin of the universe can be called scientific. Such a claim is unwarranted since there is nothing in science that requires all explanations to be naturalistic.

Biblical Creation Model A scientific model based on the biblical account of three key events—Creation, the curse of nature brought about by Adam’s sin, and the global catastrophe of Noah’s Flood.

Secularists claim that the biblical model is based on faith, not on observable, repeatable, testable claims. However, the big bang is also based on faith. The original conditions of the big bang cannot be observed, tested, or repeated by humans and neither can the creation of the universe by God . However, we do have an eyewitness account of the creation of the universe recorded for us by the Creator.

When we look carefully at the beginning assumptions (presuppositions) of those who believe in the big bang and those who believe that God created the universe, we see that it all comes down to where you place your faith. We have the same facts to look at, but the starting assumptions are different. Because we start with different assumptions, we will arrive at different conclusions. This is true in any field of study as we will see throughout this book.

One of the “evidences” that is claimed to prove the universe must be old is the light travel concept. Again, it is not the evidence that must be understood, but the interpretation of the evidence with the assumptions used. From the uniformitarian perspective, light from an object 5 million light-years away should take five million years to reach the earth (a light-year is actually the distance that light travels in one year). The argument against a young earth says that if we can see light from galaxies that are 5 million light-years away, then the universe must be at least 5 million years old. Based on such arguments a majority of scientists claim that the universe is 13.7 billion years old. This is about 2.3 million times older than the 6,000-year age that the Bible presents.

There are several different ways in which this “problem” can be explained. One possibility is that the speed of light has not always been constant. If light had traveled much faster in the past, then light from distant galaxies would have arrived at the earth much faster and the age of the universe would be much younger than 13.7 billion years old. However, there are still questions about whether this is a valid option, and researchers are currently working on this idea. The problem comes from the relationship between the speed of light and other universal constants. If the speed of light were to be dramatically different, then this would affect the other constants as well.

Another explanation—called time dilation—is related to gravity. Time flows more slowly when something is near a massive object. Time is also affected by velocity. If we could accelerate a clock to near the speed of light, the clock would slow down as time itself is slowed. Time actually flows at different rates in different parts of the universe depending on the amount of gravity present. In fact, this effect can actually be measured on earth. Since a mountain top is farther from the mass of the earth than sea level is, there is less gravitational potential there. Thus, a clock at the top of the mountain will actually run faster than a clock at sea level. The difference on earth is extremely small, but the difference between other areas of the universe can be quite large.

If the earth is near the center of a finite, expanding universe, then the clocks on earth would have been running slowly compared to clocks in deep space. This allows light to travel from distant galaxies while only a few thousand years pass on earth. Many scientists believe that the universe is infinitely large, and they reject the above explanations based on this assumption. There is no reason the universe must be infinite—it is simply a belief. Changing the assumptions changes the conclusions even though the data remain the same.

The third explanation centers on synchronization. On earth there are different ways to synchronize clocks—to set them to read the same time at the same time. One way (called “universal time”) is to synchronize them by radio or some other signal so that all clocks on earth read the same time as in Greenwich. Another method called “local time” sets clocks to noon when the sun reaches its highest point in the sky. An airplane leaving Georgia at 1:00 local time could (in principle) arrive in California at 1:00 local time even though the trip would take three hours as measured in universal time. Likewise, time in space can be measured by “cosmic universal time” or “cosmic local time.” Light traveling toward earth will always reach its destination at the same cosmic local time that it left—just like the plane traveling from Georgia to California. No matter how far away a galaxy is, its light can reach earth on the same day it leaves, as measured by cosmic local time.

Although there is presently no clear answer as to which of these models, or combination of their parts, provides the most satisfactory explanation, Bible –believing Christians can still rest assured that God has revealed truth to us in the Bible . Starting with the Bible as a foundation for thinking about the world leads to a different interpretation of the data than does starting with the assumptions of naturalism and uniformitarianism.

The claim that the biblical creation model has a light time-travel problem is a self refuting argument against the big bang model. The big bang model has a similar difficulty known as the horizon problem.

Most people who believe in the big bang do not realize that it has its own light travel-time problem. This difficulty is known as the horizon problem. In the big bang model the universe starts as a singularity and then expands from there. As mentioned earlier, the CMB shows that the universe has a very uniform temperature of about 2.7 K (-455°F). Some parts of the expanding universe were certainly hotter than others. So, imagine two points A and B in the universe separated by 20 billion light years. If A and B have the same temperature today then they must have exchanged energy to reach a uniform temperature.

The fastest way that these two distant points in space can exchange energy is by exchanging electromagnetic radiation. Electromagnetic radiation comes in the form of X-rays, microwaves, radio waves, and light. If A was slightly hotter than B, as the big bang model predicts, then they would have had to exchange energy until the temperature reached a state of equilibrium. There is not enough time in the alleged 13.7 billion years for the equilibrium temperature to be reached if the universe has been expanding in a uniform way.

To resolve the horizon problem, big bang supporters have suggested that there was a period of inflation, or a burst of expansion, in the first fractions of a second after the universe began to expand. The problem is that there is no evidence or reason to suggest there was an inflationary period other than to avoid the horizon problem. The Glencoe textbook refers to this as a “correction . . . needed to allow for the fact that the expansion was more rapid at the beginning . . .” on page 851. The inflation solution to the horizon problem is nothing more than a story to support a belief about the past. To add to the problem, there is no well-established reason for the inflationary period to have occurred and no explanation of how it slowed itself down in a smooth fashion. Despite these observational shortcomings, most big bang supporters adhere to the fact of the inflationary phase.

According to this graph, the inflationary period occurred before the universe was 1 cm in diameter (about the width of your finger) and in an incomprehensibly small amount of time. This allows for the Cosmic Microwave Background to become uniform, but there is no known mechanism to explain how the inflation began and then ended. Despite this shortcoming, supporters of the big bang must accept the “fact” of inflation.

The biblical creation model of the universe is rejected as unscientific by a majority of scientists on the grounds that it is supernatural or that it is just a story. As described above, the big bang seems to fit this description as well. There is no explanation for the existence of this singularity, and “corrections” must be made to account for what we actually observe. Both of the models are based on faith in the starting conditions. One key difference is that Christians have an eyewitness account of the beginning of the universe in the Bible . There is no similar record for big bang supporters.

In the evolutionary view, the universe will continue to expand, eventually stop expanding, or collapse on itself. This is very different from the biblical view.

Another major difference in the biblical creation and big bang models is the ultimate end of the universe. In the big bang model, there are two possible outcomes. In an open or flat universe the matter and space continue to expand until the temperature becomes uniform. This is often called the heat death as everything in the universe reaches absolute zero temperature. In a closed universe the matter and space will eventually collapse on themselves in a big crunch. All of these outcomes are contrary to the description given in the Bible . God declares that He will make a new heaven and earth and that the original earth will be consumed by fire—the exact opposite of heat death.

There are many other observations that are not explained by the big bang model and a universe that is 13.7 billion years old. A few of those will be discussed here, and a more comprehensive list can be found in the reference articles at the end of this chapter. One major problem is how the most distant visible galaxies appear. Big bang supporters claim that to look at a galaxy that is 12 billion light-years away is to look at the universe as it existed 12 billion years ago. In fact, images from the Hubble Deep Field show fully-formed galaxies in the early universe—an unexpected observation in the big bang model.

Many of the galaxies in the universe, including our own Milky Way, have a spiral shape with long arms extending from a central disc. If these galaxies were truly billions of years old, their arms would have been twisted into uniformity because the center spins faster than the outer edges. Their shape is not a problem if the galaxies are only 6,000 years old.

There are too few supernova remnants to account for many billions of years. Star formation has never been observed, and there are far too many “short-lived” stars for the universe to be billions of years old. Other problems related to the formation of our solar system will be discussed in the next chapter.

As we discuss this topic, it is important to note that many Christians want to believe that God used the big bang to create the universe. In effect, these people are trying to blend the ideas of naturalism with Scripture. There are many problems with this position, which is commonly referred to as old-earth creationism. There are many different variations on this idea, and many of them are related to the day-age interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2. The general argument is that the days described in the Creation account of Genesis are actually long periods of different ages. This view is a recent invention of man and has come about only after naturalistic science proved that the earth and universe must be billions of years old. You can find more information on these different compromise positions by visiting www.answersingenesis.org/go/compromise.

There are many problems to resolve for those Christians who try to blend man’s fallible ideas about the history of the universe with the Creator’s clear explanation of the events. Many may not realize how different the two positions really are. There was a time in my life where I thought that God used the big bang to create the universe. I was never taught this directly it just seemed to make sense from what little I knew about the Bible. As I studied the Bible it became obvious that the two positions cannot be reconciled without twisting Scripture to accommodate the ideas of evolutionary science. The Bible is to be the authority in every aspect of our lives as Scripture commands in 2 Corinthians 10:4–5 :

Every thought is to be brought “into captivity to the obedience of Christ” who is the Word of God . Adding science to Scripture and changing the clear meaning of Scripture makes man and his pseudo-scientific thinking the authority over the Bible . The following table points out some of the direct contradictions between the Bible and the big bang .

Table 2-1: Incompatibility of the Bible and the Big Bang

Bible Big Bang
Earth before the sun Sun before the earth
Light on earth before the sun Sun before light on earth
Earth before the stars Stars before the earth
6,000-year-old universe 13.7-billion-year-old universe
Not subject to change Subject to change and may be
totally rejected for a different model
Inspired by a perfect God Invented by fallible men

This is a condensed list, and more details will be discussed in the next chapter. In order to harmonize the secular order of events with the biblical order, we must put Day Four before Day One to get light on the earth. If we do this, we compromise the authority of Scripture and tell God that He really should have explained things in a different order than He used in Genesis. This low view of Scripture ultimately leads to compromise in other areas. If God got it wrong in Genesis , where else did He get it wrong? We cannot allow naturalistic science—based in human reasoning—to become the authority over Scripture!

The Bible and the big bang present completely different accounts of the origin of the universe. Ultimately, both positions must be based on faith in the starting assumptions. Understanding the assumptions that inform your decisions is the key to understanding the issues involved.


Astronomers have discovered a black hole that may set a new record or two – it seems to be both the smallest black hole ever detected, and the closest one to Earth found so far. It's only 1,500 light-years away and has a mass of just three Suns.

Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are now allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will continue be removed and our normal comment rules still apply to other comments.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

Instead the astronomers noticed the Unicorn through its effects on its companion star. Its light appeared to be changing in intensity at different points in its orbit, suggesting it was being stretched into an odd shape by the gravity of something nearby. Since it didn’t have a visible star buddy, a black hole seemed to be the most likely candidate.

Stupid question: does it cause a visible bulge on the star? Like if we were close by, can we see it getting deformed as it goes around the blackhole?

In the same way that in a binary star system the tidal forces might deform the stars, a black hole can do the same I would think. It might be that this effect is small compared to the bulge due to the rotation of the star however, so it may not be super observationally useful.

Yes and no. Really depends on the distance and mass but if the black hole was large enough, yes, the star could be deformed into an ovoid or oblate spheroid like shape observable to the naked eye (though due to the nature of reality, it tends to be a bit more messy and organic of a shape). Given enough proximity or mass, you can actually see a cascade of superheated plasma and gas flowing from the star into the well of the black hole, though typically only the accretion disk portion would be visible as obviously no light escapes the event horizon. The universe is a strange place.

I watch a lot of PBS Spacetime, and I'll give you an opinion on the quoted text. I think it says that the star is changing brightness regularly, and the timing suggests it is part of a pair of objects of which we can only see one. This deforms it from a sphere, so that if it turns, the surface area we can see changes. So the answer you're looking for is "yes".

Not to nitpick, but "going around" the black hole suggests a situation where the black hole is much larger than the star. "Co-orbit" might be a better way to picture it. We don't believe there are any very large black holes so close to us, and that would look different. Even the sun and earth co-orbit, but the center of gravity is very near the center of the sun.

Gravitationally, a black hole behaves very much like any other object of the same mass. When you picture the "bulge", think of an elongation. On the back side, a slightly smaller bulge will be flung out, similar to the situation with the ocean tides here.


Astronomers Find Monster Black Hole With 6 Galaxies Trapped in Its Gravitational Web


"The cosmic web filaments are like spider's web threads," said Marco Mignoli, an astronomer at the National Institute for Astrophysics (INAF) in Bologna who led the research, which was published in the journal Astronomy & Astrophysics.

"The galaxies stand and grow where the filaments cross, and streams of gas - available to fuel both the galaxies and the central supermassive black hole - can flow along the filaments."

Mignoli said that until now there had been "no good explanation" for the existence of such huge early black holes.

The structure is believed to be 300 times the size of the Milky Way and it's possible there may be other Galaxies trapped in the web undetected because the Galaxies we see are at the brightness limit we can currently detect.


But it said the galaxies are also some of the faintest that current telescopes can spot, adding the discovery was only possible using the largest optical telescopes available, including ESO's Very Large Telescope in Chile's Atacama Desert.

There is always a yin to yang.

I believe suns get there fuel from black holes. they are the light holes.

if this structure was formed 1BY after big-bang. then any collapse of Galaxies would have long ago generated Gravity Waves in the fabric of time-space

glad we ain't getting space-quaked

Fascinating unimaginably fascinating. I wonder since they are so close to the black hole and time would be extremely slowed down. Does that mean a day here is 10 minutes there? Or something like that. Imagine what you could accomplish if you lived 100 times longer.

There is always a yin to yang.

I believe suns get there fuel from black holes. they are the light holes.

Interesting concept wonder whats happening on the other end when a star goes supernova or what is going on during all of its stages. Does a brown dwarf have a collapsing black hole for instance.

In your localized area you wouldn't notice the difference in time passing.

I know I'm talking in terms of having people here and there. Imagine someone like einstein being sent there to ponder for an eternity here. Or Tesla or that Indian mathematician I am unsure of his name at the moment. If we were able to send our best and brightest to live for 100 of our lifetimes what would be the outcome?

There is no "other end" there's a center. It's like a marble sucking everything in from everywhere down towards a center. Think how gravity works on the Earth.

Well, the eternity would be felt by you and I, but not by them. They'd age normally. Unfortunately, from their perspective we'd have long ago turned to dust. Time dilation has some neat benefits for a traveler at light speed but not if he ever wants to return home.

We'd never benefit from whatever they had discovered while in a time dilation field (gravity) from a supermassive black hole this. Well. massive.

I read a book not too long ago explaining the light cone from the point of view of an observer just inside the event horizon of the black hole. I can't remember which one it was.

They argued that what you would see if you turn to look out of the black hole would be a fast forward movie of the evolution and eventual death of the universe.

The time dilation effects in and around black holes are insane. Hawking radiation is believed to be particle/antiparticle pairs being separated rather than annihilating around the black hole. Essentially evaporating the blackhole over trillions of years through black body radiation. It's that massive gravitational field and the effects of time on these particles that causes them to separate from each other. What ends up happening is that the blackhole's mass is reduced through negative energy. Eventually enough mass is reduced and all that built up energy radiates out in a single burst, destroying the black hole and possibly deleting all of the information contained in the blackholes mass forever.

Gravity and time dilation are bitches.

There is no "other end" there's a center. It's like a marble sucking everything in from everywhere down towards a center. Think how gravity works on the Earth.

Go to brane theory a moment, gravity is the weakest force with electromagnetism being literally millions of times more powerful and this spurred some theorists on to suggest that maybe gravity comes from another membrane in super space in peripheral contact with or partially forming our universe in it's collision with other membranes.

In simple term's mass may LENSE gravity but it is not it's source, if we go to superstring theory everything even empty space and the most dense matter is made up of the same exact stuff.

So what is this relationship with gravity, maybe gravity is actually everywhere, at a one to one ratio with the universe and time/energy is from another membrane in super space, the collision between these two brains and a possible third or more may be what we perceive as our universe or rather it's laws which themselves may be rather more fluid than we may assume though long lasting from our perspective giving us the false impression of them being fixed and immutable.

This material everything is made of may be a membrane verse in super space which is between a collision between the brane were gravity originates and the brain were time/energy originates.

Think of it in terms of volume, if you push more of this brain that is in contact with the brane were gravity comes from but not necessarily in direct contact with the brane from which time/energy comes then you have a rule that says more of this in a space would focus more gravity in that space allowing it to then be more strongly represented in less volume of space as we perceive our three (and more) dimensions of reality.

Imagine a supermassive star collapsing, if mass lenses gravity then somewhere within that mass of the star there must be a LaGrange point were the gravity of the surrounding mass cancel's out, it maybe a tiny uncertain subatomic point held under huge pressure but still as the star collapses into a black hole that gravity PULL's on this point in all directions, perhaps even more forcefully than it does on the surrounding space, the black hole also forms an internal event horizon around this LaGrange point and yet it still pull's, the smaller this point is the more fierce those forces will be and in fact it may INVERT that part of our universe ripping time and energy into it, this is a WHITE hole within the black hole and it forms it's own time space continuum, rules are the same as the parent time space continuum but time relative to the parent continuum outside the black hole is much - much faster.

Ever wonder why galaxy's are not slowing down but speeding up, they are being attracted by the surrounding gravity and our time space continuum is surrounded by an event horizon, a black hole shell and another event horizon and another time space continuum with slower time that itself may be inside another black hole.

Also it is a reciprocal event, a white hole forces out material that initially exceeds the speed of light, this in turn may back up on itself and create a black hole around it creating an onion skin affect no different to the above model, time space continuum, black hole, time space continuum, black hole the difference being that the black hole is then the result of the white hole but it had to begin with a black hole in a time space continuum with our own laws were time is now much, much slower BUT as our time space continuum ages it slows relative to the surrounding TSC time rate and at the moment of total quantum evaporation equals it.

Why then search for dark energy, well everyone has to eat but there is also some astounding discovery's to be made in the search.

Think about that the universe just became a whole lot bigger, infinitely so perhaps and also a whole lot smaller at the same time.

Somewhere out there there may be a large black hole surrounding the white hole that was the Big Bang, this may even be it.

Though that Lagrange point may have moved around quite a bit during the surrounding black holes formation and there could even be several white holes formed and several time space continuum's within that tiny space that may some day merge long before entropic spaghettification does paid to our universe.
OR this is just reciprocal thinking and a pile of utter rubbish.

Note I doubt a Hawking brown hole could invert the trapped bit of empty space at it's LaGrange core so I believe this would require true black hole's and while some doubt they exist I believe they do and can while I also believe Hawking brown holes are less dense and no less real they are simply not black holes at all just an intermediary between a true black hole and a neutron star.

There is some interesting interplay as well between the formation of REAL black holes, the many reality's theory were divergent reality's are constantly coming into being for example meet's a force that may then ZIP them back together when a true black hole forms in the form of a quantum gravity shock wave emanating like a ripple outward from it at the moment of it's formation ZIPPING all parallel reality's were it exists and forms at exactly the same point and time back into a single reality perhaps also creating the Mandela effect that so many believe in, I have experiences my own but it was before the phrase was coined.


If you're near a black hole and your time is slowed down, would a supernova be observable to both you and someone outside of the blackhole's pull? - Astronomy

Once you grasp this, you will understand why action is measured in units of Energy x Time.

>>You're wrong. This is no problem. I'm happy to be wrong, I'm happy to be told I'm wrong.

>>What you probably meant is [. ] This is problematic to me. I'm a grown adult, I own what I said, and I said precisely what I meant. When it's wrong, it's wrong, and no, I don't want to retcon that in some feeble attempt to save face, and I certainly don't want others to do that for me.

Obviously, this is not my field. Is movement and motion here the same thing? Motion is relative, so this energy "use" here is relative - in some reference frames where an object would be observed as at rest, is it still "using" energy? You see these quotes? That's because I don't really understand what "use" means here. An object in motion is in motion as a consequence of acceleration, which requires energy, and certainly possesses unrealized kinetic energy, but it isn't consuming energy. So what does "use" mean here?

There are numerous ways to measure relativistic mass (total energy) of a system from outside of it. As long as there is a measured energy, it is still using energy. Observation tricks usually just juggle energy from potential to kinetic, they don't change the total energy, so they don't change the usage.

> I don't really understand what "use" means here.

Energy causes change. The total amount of energy of a system measures the total number of changes happening every second, essentially actions per second. Action = Energy x Time = (Action / Seconds) * Seconds = Action

Energy is really only transformed, it is never created nor destroyed, you probably already know this basic tenet that Einstein espoused. The energy of mass is commonly thought to be "at rest" but in actuality, mass is just the phenomena of localizing the changes that the energy must cause. When this localization is upset, you get a nuclear explosion, a lot of change that once was concealed.

We might want to know how many changes per second a single Joule of energy causes. We can calculate this by taking the inverse of the Planck constant. Since Planck constant, h = Joule / Hz [1], the inverse would give us Hz / Joule. Which yields a value of about 10^34 Hz per Joule of energy.

I wish I knew all of this earlier in my life, as a lot of my _energy_ was spent on trying to do Cellular Automata simulations of our universe. Knowing how fast our universe computes, makes any simulation attempts with our current computers seem quite foolish if magnitude matters at all. Some might still argue the rules are more important, but sometimes, as you see in strength sports, even a 50% difference in strength beats any technique advantage a fighter can muster.

Time dilation is a consequence of energy having to be divvied up between external and internal changes.

Nothing I am saying is controversial. But yes, I am making it much easier for everyone to see that movement is just change of state/information, and that all energy causes a constant change of information per unit time.

The universe is computational, not really a surprise.

Here's a detailed explanation of the hypothesis in a Lex Fridman podcast episode: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-t1_ffaFXao

His proposal does have some unresolved issues. E.g. distance is quantized but the interactions of those quantized variables produce continuous things that affect other things that are quantized. We don't have enough energy to see the limit yet, but it is possible.

Also by defining the inverse square law you can maintain a cohesive interaction model between different objects and regions. Their sphere of influence (which can be described by gravity waves) will now just be superimposed on top of each other without extra work.

Or even crazier, maybe it's a combination of both, maybe there is a hard cutoff after all once you pass the event horizon.

But you do move in space at a great speed if you account for the rotation of the earth around the sun, the movement of the solar system in the galaxy, and the movement of the galaxy relative to other galaxies. It's not like there's a coordinate system with an absolute origin somewhere.

Another good hack is inflation where parts of the universe disconnect and so can be tossed out if you only care about continuing to compute the parts you keep.

You are likely not running the universe on a Von Neumann machine, so compute and storage would be combined and spread out. You can't just have opposite ends of the universe interacting instantly in that case.

It doesn't have to be that way, but you can see why it would be desirable and seems to fit observations.

However, I'm at a loss how you would explain quantum entanglement if it truly is instant over any distance. That's not really known, but it's at least a lot faster than light.

You seem to be applying the rules of our simulated universe to the universe outside the simulation. There's no particular reason to think the speed of light or any other rule applies outside.

There's a chance us humans are simulating our past for some unknown reason - in which case one would expect the laws to be similar.

It's also not unreasonable to think that there will be many similarities between the laws of the simulation and the outside reality because theyɽ have what they know to draw on for inspiration.

I don't see the problem with entanglement at all unless it was so prevalent as to direct the shape of the simulation model. If it's a lesser exceptional quantity, they can be handled as special cases, whenever one is evaluated, the universe could even in the most crude implementation, be briefly stopped, the entangled partners updated, and resumed. Pretty much like running in a VM that's doing gc if your real time clock is arbitrary information provided by the host environment.

In all seriousness, finding such a bug in the software would be the best possible evidence of living in a simulation. The hard part is demonstrating that it is a a bug an not a feature.

The universe has potentially infinite dimensions defined as n-dimensional Lorenz space: a space where every next dimension is perpendicular to all previous dimensions. The number of spatial dimensions depends on the overall energy level of the Universe, as well as local energy topology.

Black holes represent these inflectional shifts of spatial dimensionality. The surface of a black hole encodes a closed (no beginning, no end) space of a 2D universe, and inside that 2D universe, high-energy regions form two-dimensional black holes, circles, on the surface of the 3D blackhole. The surface (circumference) of those circles is just the original 1D string unentangled, and this is where the set of nested black holes end.

Our own universe is the surface of a 4D blackhole.

We mathematically determine black hole is just a point through which structure doesn't survive, and truly there's nothing at the center of a black hole (i.e. the black hole itself as we define it), but hovering just above the Schwarzschild radius is a whole another set of nested universes, nested in one another, and each of those nested universe is rich with emergent structures, just like in ours 3D+time universe.

We simply can't access it, because the building blocks are of a different category. Basically the building blocks for our particles are made up of what is the particles in a 2D universe (refer to string theory and how vibrating 1D strings in N dimensions form our perception of particles).

So maybe black holes aren't just "we give up, nothing happens" here. Maybe they're rather "we give up, let's unravel one spatial dimension here in order to find new energy-stable configuration".

This actually doesn't contradict your simulation theory, but it adds some unexpected twists to it. Because what looks like just spacetime eating holes may in fact be brimming with life, and maybe our entire universe is one, as well.

If the physical stuff of our universe obeys conservation laws, then our universe is finite in resources by definition.

So the "simulation" bit in your statement is not needed and facilitates no understanding, only clouds the discussion with emotional baggage.

This would only make sense if there is some weird arbitrary limitation for matter concentrated in an area. And then the solution would be uncontrollable and happen to fit nicely with the rest of the rules.

Anytime we unlock a new branch of science we potentially refine our knowledge of the physical world. Computer Science was the last branch we unlocked, it might lead us to a better understanding of the universe.

a religion if you want - this is just semantics. That doesn't diminish that in science, we utilize the simplest models that most accurately represent reality. We don't needlessly suggest an alternative wherein we are left with more complications.

This is the case when we suppose for instance, that the Big Bang is not the beginning. Be it god or a computer simulation, we then wonder how those things came to be. Ergo, more complexity that does not resolve our understanding of the world.

Geocentric for instance works, but heliocentric is simpler because then you don't have wild erratic orbits of other planets around Earth. General relativity over newtonian because while more complex, it affords a more accurate depiction of reality.

Not necessarily. It could totally explain or universe but leave us clueless as to what lies beyond. To be fair, I expect we'll never be able to answer what lies beyond - so that's fine.

But be it a god or a computer simulation, it needs to make testable, falsifiable predictions to better or understanding of the natural world. Otherwise, true or false, it's useless to us.

> Not necessarily. It could totally explain or universe but leave us clueless as to what lies beyond. To be fair, I expect we'll never be able to answer what lies beyond - so that's fine.

You're right. It could totally explain or universe but leave us clueless as to what lies beyond. As does science.

An oracle might solve the halting problem, but it has nothing to say about itself: https:/˾n.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_machine#Oracles_and_hal. .

It's turtles all the way down )

So these fields must be produced by matter falling into the black hole, but before it crosses the event horizon?

How does gravity escape from a black hole? It, like light, travels at the speed of light. So if light cannot escape, how does gravity?

Maybe the episode before those two also. I vaguely recall that something from the information paradox episode used something from that (and if I'm misremembering, it was still a neat episode):

I have a question about the episodes you cited. They cover how beyond the event horizon space becomes time and time becomes space. They go over how that means that inside you can't go backwards in space for the same reason that out here in the normal universe you can't go backwards in time. You are doomed to only go forward, which inside means toward the singularity.

(Much better than the ridiculous analogy often given that you can't get out of a black hole because the escape velocity equals or exceeds the speed of light. That's a ridiculous analogy because it only explains why you can't get out ballistically).

But all their explanations used a simplified black hole in a spacetime with just 1 space dimension and 1 time dimension. We've actually got 3 space dimension. Does that mean that in a real block hole past the event horizon, you end up in a spacetime with 3 time dimensions and 1 space dimension?

If so, does anything interesting happen due to having more than one time dimension?

This episode touches on that a bit (but not really), and we're getting into holographic universe theory - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klpDHn8viX8

Quick summary: gravitational field is different from gravitational radiation.

There isn't an object that messes with the warping of spacetime- the black hole IS the warp in spacetime. If changes in spacetime couldn't propagate away from the black hole, it wouldn't exist.

Or is that wrong, and everything just smears out even more finely as the event horizon grows?

The mathematics describing this process are intractable except in very special cases. In most cases, physicists are obliged to use an approximation that produces an answer that they hope has much of the character of the correct answer. At one extreme, they just use Newtonian gravity, which produces almost-exactly correct answers for small-scale systems involving just regular stars and planets. It is only when warpage gets very large compared to the size of the system, or when e.g. galaxy-scale mass is involved, or the differences between Newtonian gravity and reality are what is interesting, that they have to resort to more complicated approximations.

It was recently discovered that calculations of the motion of galaxies were using an insufficiently accurate approximation that made it seem like stuff is orbiting too fast for the visible mass, requiring "dark matter"–extra, invisible mass–to hold the galaxy together. But using a more accurate approximation makes the need for dark matter evaporate. This created a problem because astrophysicists and cosmologists have come up with lots more uses for dark matter, to explain lots of other things. Without dark matter, they have dug themselves into a hole. The response has generally been to ignore the more accurate galactic gravitational model, and double down on dark matter. They can do this because ultimately it is all just a matter of papers being published and careers advanced or blighted there are no other real-world consequences.

The actual answer is that it is energy that can not escape and a static gravitational field (or electromagnetic field) is not energy (in and of itself).

However keep in mind that time is frozen by a black hole, so if you have a black hole with a certain charge, and a new charge falls in, the "change" in charge never escapes (it takes infinite time to escape) so you have no issue of non-static gravity or charge escaping from a black hole.

Black holes and gravity are hard to get a satisfactory grasp on for laymen (like me) because they behave in ways that are unlike anything else in the natural, observable world around us. People try to understand difficult concepts by relating them to familiar things, but gravity and black holes don't relate to anything we're familiar with.

Gravity for example isn't, we think, a "thing". It's a property, or a consequence. [1] Lots of people are looking for some way to relate it to the physics of particles and electromagnetic forces, but that hasn't happened yet. So, gravity doesn't escape, or travel, because it isn't a "thing". There's no particle of gravity. There is a force, in that when we observe large masses, they seem to be acted upon by some kind of invisible action, but that force is actually a consequence of things attempting to travel in straight lines along a curved surface.

Changes in gravity do travel, apparently at the speed of light. So, in that sense, the gravitational effect of a black hole does extend beyond its event horizon. But, that's totally okay, because gravity itself isn't a thing and doesn't travel and therefore doesn't need to escape a black hole.

Rather, a black hole is a consequence of gravity, or relativity. It's a division-by-zero [2] in the equations that describe matter, gravity, and curved spacetime. Thinking of black holes as being somehow similar to really really dense planets is one of the misconceptions that misled me for a long time. They are instead more of a place where physics, as we understand it so far, stops working.

That place has a boundary region where physics still mostly works, and things happen there that we can sort of understand and relate to. We can observe some of the effects of this extreme curvature of spacetime in this boundary region.

But beyond that, the curvature goes to infinity and volume goes to 0 and time stops existing.

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdIjYBtnvZU -- A video with 3 Blue 1 Brown on Feynman's "lost lecture", which describes gravity in geometrical terms. There is also a Feynman lecture on this: https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_42.html

There's an old joke about black holes being where god divided by zero. Since god can do all things, dividing by zero is not impossible. Once we can comprehend how dividing by zero is possible, the mysteries of black holes will be revealed.

So when-and-where does classical gravitational radiation appear?

Spherically symmetric static sources do not generate gravitational waves. However, if we raise a bump on such a source thus breaking both spherical a symmetry and staticity in favour of a dynamical bumpy spheroid -- then with a light-crossing time of the spherical source, the nearby external spacetime will have settled back down to a spherically symmetrical state. The near-region will also return to static (the curvature in the near-region stops varying) while at ever-further removes from the source one can find a perturbation in the curvature there-and-then.

This also works (although it takes much longer than about a light-crossing time) for objects which are slowly-rotating, roughly spherical, but not shrouded in a horizon. Such objects' bumps will eventually flatten, and the flattening is typically faster for more-massive bodies. We see this in the rocky bodies throughout the solar system. Gravitational radiation is shed during the flattening process, but at much lower amplitudes than on a bumpy black hole.

How do black holes get bumps? When something falls onto them. In particular, we study the collision of neutron stars and other black holes onto black holes at LIGO, Virgo, and soon other gravitational wave observatories. The more massive the infaller, the bigger the bump, and the larger the amplitude of the gravitational waves. Indeed, in several observations the black holes are of comparable mass, so they raise bumps on each other, and this can be seen in the multipole wave form.

Back to gravitons. A classical "chirp" of light can be seen as a large number of photons in the theories of quantum electrodynamics or of the Standard Model. A "chirp" of gravitational radiation detected at LIGO can be seen as a large number of gravitons in theories such as perturbative quantum gravity.

The spacetime outside but nearby a spherically symmetrical essentially-non-rotating object is boringly quiet, whether that object is a cold rocky body or a black hole. There won't be gravitational waves of non-negligible amplitude there. But if we induce a large perturbation by breaking that symmetry, the spacetime outside but near the object is much less boring, and filled with gravitational waves. That freshly-dynamical spacetime will eventually settle down, depending on the properties of its sources (the matter configuration), and thus eventually we get the nice quiet spacetime outside (but nearby) the body again. However, that's because the local gravitational perturbations have run away from the local area as gravitational waves.

A rocky body has a solid surface on which a solid bump can rest for very long times (but compare something that can melt or sublimate, deposited onto the surface of such a body). A black hole does not have a solid surface at the horizon: an infalling object passes right through the horizon. Some treatments (putting it very roughly) think about such an object very quickly melting and spreading all over the "surface" of the horizon. This is mathematically convenient sometimes, but conceptually misleading. The horizon cannot support anything -- nothing can rest on it. That's why the time it takes to flatten a bump on a black hole is about the light-crossing time of the black hole.

However, the gravitational radiation comes from the dynamical spacetime outside the horizon at the time the perturbation is raised. Once things settle down, there is just a bigger horizon.

Not covered above: extremely fast black hole rotation, such that we don't have sphericity or staticity in the first place. This doesn't really change the picture much: an infaller raises a bump, the bump is dragged around because of rotation, and settles down. The spacetime outside the rotating black hole with the bump is enormously dynamical, and emits gravitational waves, which fly away from the rotating black hole. In short order, even to observers many galaxies away (e.g. at LIGO), the spacetime around the perturbed rotating black hole will have settled down. Again, if there are gravitons, LIGO-like observers see enormous numbers of them all at once.

Also not covered above: black hole evaporation. We've never detected this, and might not be able to for up to trillions of years (before that weɽ need there to have been small primordial black holes older than even any of the electrons in the universe). There is no full answer for what we should expect to see when the amplitude of gravitational radiation is likely to be high (during final evaporation). This is about the only time when what fell into the black hole over the course of its existence is likely to be relevant -- it likely would determine the spectrum of the gravitational radiation, but that radiation would originate in the near region of highly-dynamical spacetime just outside the shrinking horizon.

Penultimately: there are some really different graviton-containing theories that might describe aspects of our universe (even if they are defined for universes with many more spatial dimensions than the 3 that sufficiently describe all our physical observations to date). However, most really different theories have such different large-scale behaviours that there is no hope of connecting them with e.g. the central black hole of our galaxy.

Finally: one could build a tortured metaphor using a steel ball and blowtorch: heat one spot on the ball until it's glowing red, then switch off the blowtorch. It will have a definite localized hot spot -- a temperature bump -- that is visible from some angles but not others. Eventually the ball will thermalize: it will be essentially the same (cooling) temperature from every angle outside it, with no single glowing hotspot. The glow is the emission of a large number of electromagnetic waves (and those are large numbers of photons) carrying away the energetic perturbation on the sphere.


Facts About the Black Holes

Scientists assume that this sort of black hole could be shaped differently from the stellar black holes created by dying stars. Such black holes may have only evolved over time, or the product of black hole combinations after collisions may be supermassive black holes. Supermassive black holes occur more frequently in the centre of galaxies, and some scientists believe that this type of black hole was formed at the same time as the galaxy was formed.

1. Black holes Can’t be Seen Directly

Because of its colour, a black hole is called a black hole, particularly since light cannot escape. What we can see though, is a black hole’s effects. Analyzing a black hole’s surroundings, we can see the impact on its environment. For example, say a star gets too close to the black hole. The black hole takes the star naturally, then rips it to shreds. When the matter starts bleeding toward the black hole from the start, it gets faster, gets hotter and glows brightly in X-rays.

2. Black holes Don’t Suck

Some people think that black holes are like cosmic vacuums that suck in the space next to them when black holes are, in fact, like any other object in space, though with a very strong gravity field. If you replaced the Sun with an equally massive black hole, Earth would not be sucked in.

In fact, it would continue to orbit the black hole as it orbits the Sun today. Black holes seem like they suck in matter from all over, but that’s a growing misconception. Companion stars in the form of stellar wind shed some of their mass, and the material in that wind then falls into the grip of its hungry neighbour, a black hole.

3. Perhaps our Milky Way has a Black Hole

Another question is, given how dangerous a black hole is for Earth to be swallowed in any imminent danger? The response is no, astronomers say, but a large supermassive black hole lurking in the centre of our galaxy is likely to be present. Fortunately, we are nowhere near this monster.

We are around two-thirds of the way out of the core, compared to the rest of our galaxy, but we can definitely see its impact from afar. For example, The European Space Agency claims that it is four million times as large as our Sun and that it is surrounded by incredibly hot air.

4. The Discovery of Black Hole

No, Einstein did not discover the existence of black holes-although his relativity theory predicts their formation. Instead, Karl Schwarzschild was the first to use the groundbreaking equations of Einstein, and to prove that black holes could indeed form.

Karl achieved this the same year as, in 1915, Einstein published his theory of general relativity. A term called the Schwarzschild radius has come from Schwarzschild ‘s work, a measure of how small you would have to compact any object to create a black hole.

Years before that, British polymath John Michell predicted the presence of so massive or so dense ‘dark stars,’ that they could exhibit gravitational forces so strong that not even light could escape and until 1967, black holes did not get their universal name.

5. Stellar Black Holes are Formed by Dying Stars

The death of big stars leads to black holes, as the gravity of a star will overpower the natural pressure of the star that it retains to preserve its structure. As the strain from the nuclear reactions collapses, gravity overwhelms the core of the star and explodes, and the other layers of the star are pushed out into space, and this phenomenon is also known as a supernova. The rest of the core collapses, a spot conquered by density and without volume- a black hole.

6. Black Hole will Stretch Everything

Black holes have the incredible ability to stretch you literally into a long spaghetti-like string. That phenomenon is appropriately named ‘spaghettification’. How it works has to do with the manner in which gravity behaves over time.

Your feet are closer to the centre of Earth right now and are therefore more attracted than your head. Under extreme gravity, say, in the vicinity of a black hole, that attraction difference will actually start working against you.

As your feet begin to stretch by the pull of gravity, they become increasingly attracted as they approach the centre of the black hole. The closer they get, the quicker they move. But the top half of your body is a little farther down, so you don’t push as quickly to the centre which results in spaghettification.

7. Black Holes are Unconventional

Say someone is falling through a black hole and there is an outsider watching it. The person who has dropped into the time of the black hole slows down, compared to the watching person. This is explained by Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity which states that time is affected by how quickly you ‘re going when you’re close to the light at extreme speeds.

8. Blackholes Could Well Spawn New Universes

It could sound crazy that black holes might spawn new universes especially because we’re not sure that there are other universes but the theory behind that is an active research area today.

A very basic explanation of how this works is that when you look at the numbers today, our Universe has some extremely convenient conditions that have come together to create life. If you tweaked even a minuscule amount of these conditions, then we would not be here.

The singularity at the heart of black holes violates our normal physics laws and could potentially change these conditions and create a new, slightly modified universe.

9. Blackholes are Energy Factories

Black holes are more efficient at generating energy than our Sun. The way this works is related to the material disk which orbits around a black hole. The material on the inner edge of the disk which is closest to the fringe of the event horizon will orbit much faster than the material on the very outer edge of the disc.

This is because closer to the event horizon, the gravitational force is greater. Scientists have also proposed that upcoming black hole starships may be powered with this kind of energy.

10. Blackholes are Dangerous

Like creatures behind a pit, if you stay away from its event horizon, it’s safe to explore a black hole. Think of black hole as a planet’s gravitational field. This zone is the point of no return if you are too close to any hope of survival. But the black hole can be easily viewed from beyond this space. By implication, this means that it is probably impossible for a black hole to swallow everything that is in the Universe.

11. Blackhole Slows Time

Let’s look at the twin experiment which is used to explain how both the time and space work together in Einstein’s theory of general relativity:

One twin stays on Earth, while the other zooms out at the speed of light into space, turns around, and returns home. The twin who moved across space is considerably younger because the quicker you travel the slower time passes for you.

When you pass the event horizon, due to the intense gravitational force from the black hole, you are travelling at such high speeds that time is slowing down.

12. Blackholes Evaporate Overtime

Stephen Hawking first predicted the startling finding in 1974. The phenomenon is called Hawking radiation after Stephen Hawking. Hawking radiation disperses the mass of a black hole into space and over time, and will actually do so until nothing is left, killing the black hole in essence. Hence Hawking radiation is also known as “black hole evaporation”.