I love that Kip makes a Stephen Hawking joke with the first question and is then delighted to discover it's the CORRECT answer for the next two questions! :D
@@Max_Flashheart Hah :). Friends called the book itself "the black hole" (because the cover's black, when you first get inside it's all a mystery and it's _massive_ :).
@@Max_Flashheart "Heavy" is an interesting word choice, yes and no. The book is 1000 pages long, so of course it's hefty. However, the precise arguments, the elegant wordings, the visually appealing analogy made a rigorous topic so crystal-clear that it could be read to a literal child. "Gravitation" combines clarity and content into an educational masterpiece. Compare this book to some inferior and shorter notes like Sean Carroll's "Spacetime and Geometry", Sean's book, (which is ironically costlier on Amazon, for only half the number of pages), felt like a summary leaflet. Sean did not explain anything. Even the formulas for tensors were just thrown around without any rhyme or reason, so the first chapter is a punch to the face. Second chapter on Manifolds is a bit more breathable, but it still lacks the profound wisdom of Kip Thorne and co. Any advisor like "The Science Asylum" (no disrespect to him, cool dude), would tell you not to start with MTW's "Gravitation", but that's a lie. The truth is that this text should be put in a public library that's accessible to both kindergarteners and graduate students alike, provided they have enough strength to carry the phone book around. Sean's pamphlet did not do the topics any justice for me, Kip's book does. Another nonsense you often hear is that undergrads should try Bernard Schultz's "A first course in General Relativity", since it's briefer, but Bernard, who was a student of Thorne, failed miserably in his attempt to sacrifice materials for brevity, and gave an insufficient but boring mess, with two long-winded chapters on dusts and flow mechanics no one asked for. Feynmann's lectures are witty and neat, but they don't have the logical order and sequence, they're not deep enough either. (They also cost a fortune on eBay). So in conclusion, I heavily recommend "Gravitation" to any readers, pop-sci lovers and mathematicians alike, if they want to fully grasp Einstein's theory and embrace the beauty in each equation.
I saw a talk he gave at a university shortly after LIGO announced/published their results, and it was one of the most profound talks I've seen. When he discussed the theoretical prediction of gravitational waves vs. what LIGO measured, I was honestly blown away by how close the two were.
@@the_unrepentant_anarchist. If you say so - I follow a lot of physicists, including Penrose (who's listed in at least two places as more "consequential") and others, simply as a guy who's interested in the topic. He's never hit my radar before, and I'm glad he did.
I think a better explanation of why slow time causes gravity is that you can look at gravity as a field that is analogous to a body of water. If you're on shore running at full speed and your feet hit the water, your feet move slower in the water vs the part of your body that isn't in the water, and the deeper your feet/legs go into the water, the slower they move than parts outside of the body of water. That's probably not the most accurate way to describe gravity, but it's the way I like to think about it when thinking about how slow time can cause it.
After watching this video I have a mutch better understanding of how entwined Gravity and Time are that I didn't before. next time I have to blame some mishap on not enough time, I can now thank gravity instead.
All I want to know is if we could harness a primordial black hole as an energy source if we find one. With speculation of an object in our solar system affecting the orbits being one it may be worth study.
How can we create an artificial wormhole ? And how can we can go past before the moment of creating. I am an electrical engineer and I have read your book blackholes and time wraps. I hope you will reply.
I disagree with one leetle statement made at about 05:21. At the event horizon of a black hole, gravity isn't infinitely strong. THAT characteristic only applies to the singularity inside the event horizon. As unimaginably huge as the curvature is inside the event horizon, it is nonetheless a figure that can be calculated up to a point one Planck length in distance from the singularity.
We classify the strengths of forces based on a "standard" distance. From previous reading I've done, I believe the traditional ordering of forces, which is Strong > Electromagnetic > Weak > Gravity, comes from assuming an interaction distances of 1 femtometer, or 10^-15 meters. However, interaction strengths can greatly vary depending on distance. The weak interaction, for example, is much stronger when we start considering distances roughly 1000 times smaller than a femtometer. And gravity reaches a critical strength at the Planck length, which is ~10^-35 meters. In fact, our current accepted theories (quantum field theory and General Relativity) seem to break down at this distance because we can no longer ignore quantum gravitational effects. Another thing about gravity in particular -- as long as you have enough mass packed in a small space, it starts to not matter anymore how "weak" gravity seems at typical distances. Just shy of a black hole, neutron stars exist, which combat gravitational collapse because of quantum degeneracy pressure from the neutrons, which are fermions. And while light emitted from neutron stars can escape the gravity well, as soon as you have enough mass such that light can't even escape, then even neutron degeneracy pressure isn't enough to stop gravitational collapse. And as far as relativity is concerned, all the mass collects into an infinitely dense region called the singularity within the black hole. If we had a proven theory of quantum gravity, we could understand this singularity better (as this is where quantum gravity effects are most important), but the upshot here is that matter is brought so close together (~ 10^-35 meters) that gravity is far stronger than all the other fundamental forces.
Black Holes: Black holes are cosmic zip folders/files; data within is maximally compressed - but not infinitely. It's why black holes vary in size, rather than all being homogeneous. Eventually when our cosmic tensions ease (heat death), all black holes will express their stored data/information in simultaneity - what humans refer to as 'big bangs'. The infinite cycles of Nature.
@@chrishoward140 Reality Begins With Consciousness - Not Physics: Considering the immeasurable cosmic scales which Nature has presented us with; it would be arrogant to presume Nature is finite. the Alchemist -Ø1
Imagine a region of space that has so much mass that ALL INFINITESIMAL electromagnetic field lines curve back down into, or more specifically never exit, the schwartzchild radius. Literally, but only theoretically, no path for light exists from inside the event horizon out into the universe even though the accretion disk, galactic plane, and polar jets are orders of magnitude more energy and mass than the schwartzchild core. It’s not actually possible for this to occur in such a manner but that’s the claim.
There's trillions of black hole out there and space is infinite it so big that man quakes with the thought he can't count it and find way to tax it. Hey, does anyone have Donald's phone number?
The overall mass of a system doesnt actually change much when directly collapsing into a black hole. BH created by supernova lose significant mass and the overall speed of gravitational acceleration at any given point would be diminished as compared to the field before exploding.
For things sufficiently far away from the black hole, it just looks like a "point mass" that is a source of gravity. The Sun is no different, except light can escape its surface and reach us, so we can receive significant energy from it. In fact, if you were to magically replace the sun with an equally massive black hole, the orbits of the planets of our solar system would be essentially unchanged. The main difference is that we would no longer receive heat from it, so the temperatures across the solar system would decrease drastically. But the gravity of the whole system would be unchanged.
A heavy star was never seen to collapse or implode into a black hole. Purely speculation. Hawking radiation makes no sense what-so-ever. First of all, particles don't contain enough mass to produce angular momentum, so a particle cannot escape the gravity of a black hole nor is it able to orbit a black hole, even if the rapidly spinning black hole was dragging space. Secondly, if frame dragging was occurring to space around a black hole, then there would be no frame dragging occurring at the poles. So gas would be funneling into the poles of every rapidly spinning black hole. The poles of black holes would be extremely bright, like a quasar (AGN), as gas near them reached the speed of light then converting into energy, E=mc². This has never been observed. Thirdly, it's been proven that positively charged particles and negatively charged particles are both attracted equally by gravity. Therefore, the evidence invalidates Hawking's, one particle fall into the black hole while the other escapes it's gravity. The above explanation means the information paradox was never solved. Gravity does not slow down time. Time is relative to the observer. It's a man made concept. According to special relativity time dilation and length contraction occur as an observer effect. Gravity does not slow down time for the observer, but is what appears to occur when the body being measured travels at, or faster than the speed of light. This was supposed to occur to objects pulled into a black hole not because of their gravity but because of their velocity produced by gravity. General relativity applies to bodies moving slow relative to the observer. Example, the light reflecting off of moons orbiting around planets in our solar system take time to reach the telescope or observer. Also, the time it takes radio signals sent to and from a spacecraft takes time to travel because the information travels at the speed of light. Planets and moons in our solar system are moving slow relative to the observer. Special relativity applies to the light information from bodies moving at or faster than the speed of light. Time is not slowing down. The observer simply believes that is what's happening. It's an observer effect. A good example of this would be galaxies measured at at the edge of the observable universe. They are moving away from the telescope faster than the speed of light. So when the telescope measures the light information it experiences time dilation (zero time) and length contraction (zero distance). So distant galaxies moving away from the telescope FTL appear to be old, bright and some larger than our own galaxy. This is an observer effect because of the relativist effects occurring to the light information as outlined in quantum field theory's quantum entanglement of light, special relativity, James Maxwell's equations on EM fields (light), and the Copenhagen Interpretation. Basically general relativity applies to slow moving objects relative to us, and special relativity applies to extremely fast moving objects relative to us. Both are observer effects occurring to light information. Time does not slow down or speed up to the bodies in motion. It's the observer's perception of our perception of time that becomes distorted upon measuring a body in motion relative to us. Kip is mistaken about gravity being woven into time so that the slower time appears to pass, the stronger gravity becomes, or the faster time appears to pass, the weaker gravity becomes. Time is always relative to the observer, not to anything else. Thus it's nothing but a perception of time passing. It's not causing gravity! Something else is clearly responsible. I do not concur with the images of Sgr A star or M87 star produced by the EHTC. The images are artifacts, fakery, pseudoscience, manipulations of data to try and confirm GRs ideals about black holes. When radio, X-ray, and Gamma ray telescopes look at a black hole they find the area to be extremely bright, no photon ring or photon sphere appears them. They find an extremely bright spot that drowns out all other wavelengths of light. The EHTC used radio telescopes to produce the images, and then assigned colors to the wavelengths of light measured. The highest energy was assigned black, where the black holes are located. The rest were assigned shades of orange and yellow to produce the false image of a photon ring around them. The data, was clearly manipulated, explaining why the two black hole images look so much alike. Ask yourself this, if the energy detected by radio telescopes is produced by an accretion disk orbiting rapidly around the black hole then why is it not showing an accretion disk in either of the images and what would be the chances that we were located at the north poles of both black holes when clearly we're not located along the poles of either black hole? We're located in the galactic disk, where all the matter orbits Sagittarius A star. I'm sure to get flack because I questioned the science. But that's how science progresses. We're supposed to question the science. Only an ill informed scientist who can't think for themselves or outside the box doesn't question the science. Either that or they're too scared to question the science. I simply want to find the truth. Besides, if nobody questioned the science like me, then we would still be living in a geocentric universe on a flat Earth. Thank-God there are people like me who still question the science. One of these days you'll thank me.
"the images of Sgr A star or M87 star produced by the EHTC... The highest energy was assigned black, where the black holes are located." I don't think that's correct, I'm looking at their first M87 image paper right now, and the colour scale shows "units of brightness temperature", which depends on the flux density, meaning blacker regions emitted less radiation. All the observations seem to be at 1.3 mm, so there weren't different energies being measured. DOI 10.3847/2041-8213/ab0ec7 page 5
I agree with you that questioning science is essential. However, in order to question it, you need to understand it properly, and your comment contains several misunderstandings and downright mistakes. In response to a few of them: “First of all, particles don't contain enough mass to produce angular momentum, …” That is complete nonsense. Angular momentum is not “produced” by particles: they possess it by virtue of their rotation or their orbital motion. Your statement suggests there is some threshold of mass, above which particles have angular momentum and below which they do not. Is that really what you think? If so, why does it happen, and what is the mass threshold? “When radio, X-ray, and Gamma ray telescopes look at a black hole they find the area to be extremely bright, no photon ring or photon sphere appears them.” The reason X-ray telescopes do not see the central dark feature is that they cannot resolve it. One of the best X-ray telescopes (Chandra) has an angular resolution of 0.5 arc seconds, which is not enough to see such fine details. The EHT has an angular resolution of 25 micro arc seconds which is 20,000 times finer than Chandra, so that features such as the black hole and its accretion disk can be distinguished, even though they are still not fully resolved. “The data, was clearly manipulated, explaining why the two black hole images look so much alike.” What is your evidence that the data was manipulated to make the images alike? Black holes are all very similar objects that differ mainly in their masses and the environment in which they find themselves. Finding two that look similar when observed in the same way is not surprising. When more are observed some of them will likely appear different. Claiming as you do that the images are artefacts, fakery and pseudoscience without providing evidence is disrespectful to the scientists who made the observations. It is not “questioning the science”. That was done in the peer-review process of the published papers.
@@ceejay0137 The first book in the series of 6 is called SECRET UNIVERSE : GRAVITY by RON KEMP. It's all about gravity and how Einstein never completed his equations for good reason. If he had then everything would have been explained, gravity, dark matter, dark energy, high velocity dispersion of matter in galaxies, including old massive galaxies located at the edge of space and time and so much more. You don't have to believe me. That's perfectly fine. Like Carl Sagan once said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. All the evidence is found in the series of 6 books I published in 2021. And according to the laws of motion gas does not have enough mass to produce angular momentum, that's why scientists proposed frame dragging occurs to a rapidly spinning black hole. If nothing is able to escape the gravity of a black hole then gas should make a beeline directly into it. Gas cannot orbit in an accretion disk. A diffuse cloud of gas cannot produce enough angular momentum like a star or planet to escape the gravity of a black hole. That's why frame dragging was suggested a few years ago. Believe what you want. Just remember this, physicists, astrophysicists, astronomers and cosmologists were all in agreement that the JWST was like a time machine, able to look into the past. And they were all wrong. That's a fact. The JWST found old, not young but old galaxies producing heavy elements like iron and nickel at the edge of the observable universe. The galaxies were so massive they became known as the impossible early galaxy problem. And recently they've been called universe breakers because some have yet to be confirmed were estimated to be further than 13.8 billion light years away, defying all the laws and theories up to this point. There is one solution that explains everything, dark matter, gravity, dark energy, high velocity dispersion of matter in galaxies, old massive galaxies at the edge of the observable universe and more. It's covered in the series of 6 books I published before the JWST was launched in 2021.
The questions science answers are "How" questions. "Why" questions are rarely answered by science. Spirituality is what answers "why". Also, i feel like the description of gravity as the relative speed of time in a special field as compared to a genral field completely skipped over the space integral.😅
@@daddust you have a fundamental misunderstanding of science and the difference between "how" and "why". I suggest an online learning program, there are many, as well as an unabridged dictionary.
@@justinpyle3415 I have a fundamental understanding of what how and why means. Science doesn’t explain any hows at the fundamental level. And any scientific theorist is interested in why. Comfort yourself with your sky magic God. Spaghetti Monster is God. That is why:
@@justinpyle3415 a godhead mistakes engineering with science. How does the sun rise is not a scientific question. Why does it rise is a scientific question. Godhead tries an insult, trips on basic insults.
@@daddust never seen a compliment used as an insult. When an event is observed, the question of "how" is answered by studying the mechanisms with which the event occured. The study of these mechanisms is naturally empirical and science is the rigorous study of them in a manner which produces repeatable and verifiable results. "How" describes mechanics. When an event is observed, the question of "why" is answered by causal deduction which can be extrapolated but the conplete extrapolation cannot be observed. Because the complete extrapolation cannot be observed and therefor cannot be studied in a repeatable manner, interpretations of a complete extrapolation therefore cannot be called science.
@@dubiousName let them find their dark matter and dark energy then, as they need it to explain their false black hole solution as well as gravity. I’ll wait, until they figure it all out. If you do t understand what we observe needs no gravity at all, well be heading in the right direction door the first time after uncle Einstein broke all of physics.
Sorry but this is terrible. Hawking radiation isn’t because old radiation needs to get out but because of particles popping in and out of existence at the edge of the black hole, the event horizon. If the particle is really really really lucky it goes out an angle that allows it to escape - the larger the black hole the less likely. This particle subtracts from the black hole’s mass. He didn’t explain why black holes exist either, just explained how they are created. What about primal black holes as well? The time and gravity explanations are really out there. Gravity caused by time? What? Dilation isn’t causation.
The explanation of gravity by time dilation is a matter of interpretation of General Relativity's field euations. That is Kip thorne's interpretation. There are other interpretations like the River model of GR that says space is falling on earth and that causes gravity. No one really knows the correct interpretation. Einstein himself changed his mind about this many times.
@@melontusk7358 And I shifted on two terrible explanations melon. One of which is wrong with the old radiation and sounds like he’s making one of his audience and one of which is not an answer.
The first answer is, stricly speaking just partially explaining how BH can form, not answering the question WHY this happens: describing such a process is not explaining it.
Science is very bad at "why" in the sense you seem to mean. Why do black holes exist ? Ultimately, because that's how nature works - there is no "why" deeper than that.
I love that Kip makes a Stephen Hawking joke with the first question and is then delighted to discover it's the CORRECT answer for the next two questions! :D
My favourite astrophysicist, Kip literally thought me how to imagine black hole. Keep well, Kip.
"But Mom, why do I have to take the trash out?"
"Because Stephen Hawking says you do, child."
His book "Gravitation" changed my student life. Thank you to Professor Kip Thorne, and Sir Christopher Nolan.
The ole phone directory is one the classic go-tos in GR; personally for me, it's Weinberg's textbook and then MTW (both from the Gaudy 70's)
Is it heavy reading?
@@Max_FlashheartIt is a heavy book.
@@Max_Flashheart Hah :). Friends called the book itself "the black hole" (because the cover's black, when you first get inside it's all a mystery and it's _massive_ :).
@@Max_Flashheart "Heavy" is an interesting word choice, yes and no. The book is 1000 pages long, so of course it's hefty. However, the precise arguments, the elegant wordings, the visually appealing analogy made a rigorous topic so crystal-clear that it could be read to a literal child. "Gravitation" combines clarity and content into an educational masterpiece. Compare this book to some inferior and shorter notes like Sean Carroll's "Spacetime and Geometry", Sean's book, (which is ironically costlier on Amazon, for only half the number of pages), felt like a summary leaflet. Sean did not explain anything. Even the formulas for tensors were just thrown around without any rhyme or reason, so the first chapter is a punch to the face. Second chapter on Manifolds is a bit more breathable, but it still lacks the profound wisdom of Kip Thorne and co. Any advisor like "The Science Asylum" (no disrespect to him, cool dude), would tell you not to start with MTW's "Gravitation", but that's a lie. The truth is that this text should be put in a public library that's accessible to both kindergarteners and graduate students alike, provided they have enough strength to carry the phone book around. Sean's pamphlet did not do the topics any justice for me, Kip's book does. Another nonsense you often hear is that undergrads should try Bernard Schultz's "A first course in General Relativity", since it's briefer, but Bernard, who was a student of Thorne, failed miserably in his attempt to sacrifice materials for brevity, and gave an insufficient but boring mess, with two long-winded chapters on dusts and flow mechanics no one asked for. Feynmann's lectures are witty and neat, but they don't have the logical order and sequence, they're not deep enough either. (They also cost a fortune on eBay). So in conclusion, I heavily recommend "Gravitation" to any readers, pop-sci lovers and mathematicians alike, if they want to fully grasp Einstein's theory and embrace the beauty in each equation.
Dear Kip, you sir an absolute gentleman.
I'm mildly embarrassed never to have come across Kip. I wish there had been 20 questions.
I saw a talk he gave at a university shortly after LIGO announced/published their results, and it was one of the most profound talks I've seen. When he discussed the theoretical prediction of gravitational waves vs. what LIGO measured, I was honestly blown away by how close the two were.
He's literally the world's most famous living physicist.
🍄
@@the_unrepentant_anarchist. If you say so - I follow a lot of physicists, including Penrose (who's listed in at least two places as more "consequential") and others, simply as a guy who's interested in the topic. He's never hit my radar before, and I'm glad he did.
Hawking radiation is so profound because it is so obvious after being pointed out, it kind of like, hum... the speed of light appears to be constant
Please do more of these!
I think a better explanation of why slow time causes gravity is that you can look at gravity as a field that is analogous to a body of water. If you're on shore running at full speed and your feet hit the water, your feet move slower in the water vs the part of your body that isn't in the water, and the deeper your feet/legs go into the water, the slower they move than parts outside of the body of water.
That's probably not the most accurate way to describe gravity, but it's the way I like to think about it when thinking about how slow time can cause it.
That makes some sense. This would probably all make sense if I just inhaled before I listened to it.
After watching this video I have a mutch better understanding of how entwined Gravity and Time are that I didn't before. next time I have to blame some mishap on not enough time, I can now thank gravity instead.
I think the anwser is actually pretty simple. Space is a physical entity.
Kip Thorne is such a lovely man...
Why do black holes X? Because Stephen Hawking said they X!
All I want to know is if we could harness a primordial black hole as an energy source if we find one.
With speculation of an object in our solar system affecting the orbits being one it may be worth study.
How can we create an artificial wormhole ?
And how can we can go past before the moment of creating.
I am an electrical engineer and I have read your book blackholes and time wraps.
I hope you will reply.
I disagree with one leetle statement made at about 05:21. At the event horizon of a black hole, gravity isn't infinitely strong. THAT characteristic only applies to the singularity inside the event horizon. As unimaginably huge as the curvature is inside the event horizon, it is nonetheless a figure that can be calculated up to a point one Planck length in distance from the singularity.
❤ legend
Write in google: Singularity sphere in the heart of a black hole
If you threw a white hole into a black hole, then would you get a gray hole?
so radiation is not effected by gravity!, how come no one is asking why
Why do you think that? Light is affected by gravity.
Are all black holes the same density?
Yes. Infinit density.
Black holes exist because... physics.
I Heard Their Alternate Universes . . .
Whose alternate universe?
i tought gravity was classified as a "weak force" ? Now you are saying NOTHING can resist the pull of gravity inside of a black hole ?
It's the weakest of the four known fundamental forces. But when there is enough mass involved, it is exceedingly strong.
We classify the strengths of forces based on a "standard" distance. From previous reading I've done, I believe the traditional ordering of forces, which is Strong > Electromagnetic > Weak > Gravity, comes from assuming an interaction distances of 1 femtometer, or 10^-15 meters. However, interaction strengths can greatly vary depending on distance. The weak interaction, for example, is much stronger when we start considering distances roughly 1000 times smaller than a femtometer. And gravity reaches a critical strength at the Planck length, which is ~10^-35 meters. In fact, our current accepted theories (quantum field theory and General Relativity) seem to break down at this distance because we can no longer ignore quantum gravitational effects. Another thing about gravity in particular -- as long as you have enough mass packed in a small space, it starts to not matter anymore how "weak" gravity seems at typical distances. Just shy of a black hole, neutron stars exist, which combat gravitational collapse because of quantum degeneracy pressure from the neutrons, which are fermions. And while light emitted from neutron stars can escape the gravity well, as soon as you have enough mass such that light can't even escape, then even neutron degeneracy pressure isn't enough to stop gravitational collapse. And as far as relativity is concerned, all the mass collects into an infinitely dense region called the singularity within the black hole. If we had a proven theory of quantum gravity, we could understand this singularity better (as this is where quantum gravity effects are most important), but the upshot here is that matter is brought so close together (~ 10^-35 meters) that gravity is far stronger than all the other fundamental forces.
It's only weak by comparison to the other three fundamental forces.
I read the title wrong 😆
A noble man, Nobel winner
Black Holes:
Black holes are cosmic zip folders/files; data within is maximally compressed - but not infinitely. It's why black holes vary in size, rather than all being homogeneous.
Eventually when our cosmic tensions ease (heat death), all black holes will express their stored data/information in simultaneity - what humans refer to as 'big bangs'. The infinite cycles of Nature.
Thats not what Nobel prize physicists say, but I expect you know better.
@@chrishoward140
Reality Begins With Consciousness - Not Physics:
Considering the immeasurable cosmic scales which Nature has presented us with; it would be arrogant to presume Nature is finite.
the Alchemist
-Ø1
Imagine a region of space that has so much mass that ALL INFINITESIMAL electromagnetic field lines curve back down into, or more specifically never exit, the schwartzchild radius.
Literally, but only theoretically, no path for light exists from inside the event horizon out into the universe even though the accretion disk, galactic plane, and polar jets are orders of magnitude more energy and mass than the schwartzchild core.
It’s not actually possible for this to occur in such a manner but that’s the claim.
Stephen Hawking said that? Well, I guess it's true.
Kip thorn has lost weight
... because Stephen Hawkings said it?
I made it 665 likes....
fusion lost out to gravity, not enough of one to counter the other
That and it has to overcome the exlusion principle, such as in a collapsing neutron star
There's trillions of black hole out there and space is infinite it so big that man quakes with the thought he can't count it and find way to tax it. Hey, does anyone have Donald's phone number?
Big ol . Pulling a big S
How come the gravity is not effected by the creation of a Black Hole?
The overall mass of a system doesnt actually change much when directly collapsing into a black hole.
BH created by supernova lose significant mass and the overall speed of gravitational acceleration at any given point would be diminished as compared to the field before exploding.
For things sufficiently far away from the black hole, it just looks like a "point mass" that is a source of gravity. The Sun is no different, except light can escape its surface and reach us, so we can receive significant energy from it. In fact, if you were to magically replace the sun with an equally massive black hole, the orbits of the planets of our solar system would be essentially unchanged. The main difference is that we would no longer receive heat from it, so the temperatures across the solar system would decrease drastically. But the gravity of the whole system would be unchanged.
Thank you Kip ! Thank you also for the big book with the apple and for "Black holes and time warps".
Aaaaaahhup
A heavy star was never seen to collapse or implode into a black hole. Purely speculation.
Hawking radiation makes no sense what-so-ever. First of all, particles don't contain enough mass to produce angular momentum, so a particle cannot escape the gravity of a black hole nor is it able to orbit a black hole, even if the rapidly spinning black hole was dragging space. Secondly, if frame dragging was occurring to space around a black hole, then there would be no frame dragging occurring at the poles. So gas would be funneling into the poles of every rapidly spinning black hole. The poles of black holes would be extremely bright, like a quasar (AGN), as gas near them reached the speed of light then converting into energy, E=mc². This has never been observed. Thirdly, it's been proven that positively charged particles and negatively charged particles are both attracted equally by gravity. Therefore, the evidence invalidates Hawking's, one particle fall into the black hole while the other escapes it's gravity.
The above explanation means the information paradox was never solved.
Gravity does not slow down time. Time is relative to the observer. It's a man made concept. According to special relativity time dilation and length contraction occur as an observer effect. Gravity does not slow down time for the observer, but is what appears to occur when the body being measured travels at, or faster than the speed of light. This was supposed to occur to objects pulled into a black hole not because of their gravity but because of their velocity produced by gravity.
General relativity applies to bodies moving slow relative to the observer. Example, the light reflecting off of moons orbiting around planets in our solar system take time to reach the telescope or observer. Also, the time it takes radio signals sent to and from a spacecraft takes time to travel because the information travels at the speed of light. Planets and moons in our solar system are moving slow relative to the observer.
Special relativity applies to the light information from bodies moving at or faster than the speed of light. Time is not slowing down. The observer simply believes that is what's happening. It's an observer effect. A good example of this would be galaxies measured at at the edge of the observable universe. They are moving away from the telescope faster than the speed of light. So when the telescope measures the light information it experiences time dilation (zero time) and length contraction (zero distance). So distant galaxies moving away from the telescope FTL appear to be old, bright and some larger than our own galaxy. This is an observer effect because of the relativist effects occurring to the light information as outlined in quantum field theory's quantum entanglement of light, special relativity, James Maxwell's equations on EM fields (light), and the Copenhagen Interpretation.
Basically general relativity applies to slow moving objects relative to us, and special relativity applies to extremely fast moving objects relative to us. Both are observer effects occurring to light information. Time does not slow down or speed up to the bodies in motion. It's the observer's perception of our perception of time that becomes distorted upon measuring a body in motion relative to us.
Kip is mistaken about gravity being woven into time so that the slower time appears to pass, the stronger gravity becomes, or the faster time appears to pass, the weaker gravity becomes. Time is always relative to the observer, not to anything else. Thus it's nothing but a perception of time passing. It's not causing gravity! Something else is clearly responsible.
I do not concur with the images of Sgr A star or M87 star produced by the EHTC. The images are artifacts, fakery, pseudoscience, manipulations of data to try and confirm GRs ideals about black holes. When radio, X-ray, and Gamma ray telescopes look at a black hole they find the area to be extremely bright, no photon ring or photon sphere appears them. They find an extremely bright spot that drowns out all other wavelengths of light. The EHTC used radio telescopes to produce the images, and then assigned colors to the wavelengths of light measured. The highest energy was assigned black, where the black holes are located. The rest were assigned shades of orange and yellow to produce the false image of a photon ring around them. The data, was clearly manipulated, explaining why the two black hole images look so much alike. Ask yourself this, if the energy detected by radio telescopes is produced by an accretion disk orbiting rapidly around the black hole then why is it not showing an accretion disk in either of the images and what would be the chances that we were located at the north poles of both black holes when clearly we're not located along the poles of either black hole? We're located in the galactic disk, where all the matter orbits Sagittarius A star.
I'm sure to get flack because I questioned the science. But that's how science progresses. We're supposed to question the science. Only an ill informed scientist who can't think for themselves or outside the box doesn't question the science. Either that or they're too scared to question the science. I simply want to find the truth. Besides, if nobody questioned the science like me, then we would still be living in a geocentric universe on a flat Earth. Thank-God there are people like me who still question the science. One of these days you'll thank me.
I guess you studied physics? 😂
"the images of Sgr A star or M87 star produced by the EHTC... The highest energy was assigned black, where the black holes are located."
I don't think that's correct, I'm looking at their first M87 image paper right now, and the colour scale shows "units of brightness temperature", which depends on the flux density, meaning blacker regions emitted less radiation. All the observations seem to be at 1.3 mm, so there weren't different energies being measured.
DOI 10.3847/2041-8213/ab0ec7
page 5
I agree with you that questioning science is essential. However, in order to question it, you need to understand it properly, and your comment contains several misunderstandings and downright mistakes. In response to a few of them:
“First of all, particles don't contain enough mass to produce angular momentum, …”
That is complete nonsense. Angular momentum is not “produced” by particles: they possess it by virtue of their rotation or their orbital motion. Your statement suggests there is some threshold of mass, above which particles have angular momentum and below which they do not. Is that really what you think? If so, why does it happen, and what is the mass threshold?
“When radio, X-ray, and Gamma ray telescopes look at a black hole they find the area to be extremely bright, no photon ring or photon sphere appears them.”
The reason X-ray telescopes do not see the central dark feature is that they cannot resolve it. One of the best X-ray telescopes (Chandra) has an angular resolution of 0.5 arc seconds, which is not enough to see such fine details. The EHT has an angular resolution of 25 micro arc seconds which is 20,000 times finer than Chandra, so that features such as the black hole and its accretion disk can be distinguished, even though they are still not fully resolved.
“The data, was clearly manipulated, explaining why the two black hole images look so much alike.”
What is your evidence that the data was manipulated to make the images alike? Black holes are all very similar objects that differ mainly in their masses and the environment in which they find themselves. Finding two that look similar when observed in the same way is not surprising. When more are observed some of them will likely appear different.
Claiming as you do that the images are artefacts, fakery and pseudoscience without providing evidence is disrespectful to the scientists who made the observations. It is not “questioning the science”. That was done in the peer-review process of the published papers.
@@ceejay0137
The first book in the series of 6 is called SECRET UNIVERSE : GRAVITY by RON KEMP. It's all about gravity and how Einstein never completed his equations for good reason.
If he had then everything would have been explained, gravity, dark matter, dark energy, high velocity dispersion of matter in galaxies, including old massive galaxies located at the edge of space and time and so much more.
You don't have to believe me. That's perfectly fine. Like Carl Sagan once said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. All the evidence is found in the series of 6 books I published in 2021.
And according to the laws of motion gas does not have enough mass to produce angular momentum, that's why scientists proposed frame dragging occurs to a rapidly spinning black hole.
If nothing is able to escape the gravity of a black hole then gas should make a beeline directly into it. Gas cannot orbit in an accretion disk. A diffuse cloud of gas cannot produce enough angular momentum like a star or planet to escape the gravity of a black hole. That's why frame dragging was suggested a few years ago.
Believe what you want. Just remember this, physicists, astrophysicists, astronomers and cosmologists were all in agreement that the JWST was like a time machine, able to look into the past. And they were all wrong. That's a fact.
The JWST found old, not young but old galaxies producing heavy elements like iron and nickel at the edge of the observable universe. The galaxies were so massive they became known as the impossible early galaxy problem. And recently they've been called universe breakers because some have yet to be confirmed were estimated to be further than 13.8 billion light years away, defying all the laws and theories up to this point.
There is one solution that explains everything, dark matter, gravity, dark energy, high velocity dispersion of matter in galaxies, old massive galaxies at the edge of the observable universe and more. It's covered in the series of 6 books I published before the JWST was launched in 2021.
@@dubiousName I'm starting to think you're a really terrible guesser :).
The questions science answers are "How" questions.
"Why" questions are rarely answered by science.
Spirituality is what answers "why".
Also, i feel like the description of gravity as the relative speed of time in a special field as compared to a genral field completely skipped over the space integral.😅
@@justinpyle3415 nope, science is about why.
Sky God answers are magic.
@@daddust you have a fundamental misunderstanding of science and the difference between "how" and "why".
I suggest an online learning program, there are many, as well as an unabridged dictionary.
@@justinpyle3415 I have a fundamental understanding of what how and why means. Science doesn’t explain any hows at the fundamental level. And any scientific theorist is interested in why. Comfort yourself with your sky magic God. Spaghetti Monster is God. That is why:
@@justinpyle3415 a godhead mistakes engineering with science. How does the sun rise is not a scientific question. Why does it rise is a scientific question. Godhead tries an insult, trips on basic insults.
@@daddust never seen a compliment used as an insult.
When an event is observed, the question of "how" is answered by studying the mechanisms with which the event occured. The study of these mechanisms is naturally empirical and science is the rigorous study of them in a manner which produces repeatable and verifiable results. "How" describes mechanics.
When an event is observed, the question of "why" is answered by causal deduction which can be extrapolated but the conplete extrapolation cannot be observed.
Because the complete extrapolation cannot be observed and therefor cannot be studied in a repeatable manner, interpretations of a complete extrapolation therefore cannot be called science.
because shadows cast towards earth by a planet in front of a far star is too complicated to come up with, and needs way less high level math?
I guess you studied physics? 😂
@@dubiousName let them find their dark matter and dark energy then, as they need it to explain their false black hole solution as well as gravity. I’ll wait, until they figure it all out. If you do t understand what we observe needs no gravity at all, well be heading in the right direction door the first time after uncle Einstein broke all of physics.
Sorry but this is terrible. Hawking radiation isn’t because old radiation needs to get out but because of particles popping in and out of existence at the edge of the black hole, the event horizon. If the particle is really really really lucky it goes out an angle that allows it to escape - the larger the black hole the less likely. This particle subtracts from the black hole’s mass.
He didn’t explain why black holes exist either, just explained how they are created. What about primal black holes as well?
The time and gravity explanations are really out there. Gravity caused by time? What? Dilation isn’t causation.
The Science Asylum has a video that explains why slowing of time could cause gravity around masses
The explanation of gravity by time dilation is a matter of interpretation of General Relativity's field euations. That is Kip thorne's interpretation. There are other interpretations like the River model of GR that says space is falling on earth and that causes gravity. No one really knows the correct interpretation. Einstein himself changed his mind about this many times.
@@edfs903 thank you for this, I was taught the warping of time causes gravity.
This is the moment a random nobody on the internet claims to know more than a Nobel laureate.
@@melontusk7358 And I shifted on two terrible explanations melon. One of which is wrong with the old radiation and sounds like he’s making one of his audience and one of which is not an answer.
Why do they exist? Because you think general relativity is correct. And Hawking had nothing to do with its prediction.
they dont exist
i saw a video on YT where a black hole walked out of a store with a wide-screen TV without paying. nobody stopped him. so they DO exist
Weeb with an anime profile pic claims NASA lied to us about the existence of black holes.
That’s like your opinion dude 😂
If you have evidence for your statement, please provide it. Otherwise no-one is obliged to take you seriously.
Do too !
The first answer is, stricly speaking just partially explaining how BH can form, not answering the question WHY this happens: describing such a process is not explaining it.
Science is very bad at "why" in the sense you seem to mean. Why do black holes exist ? Ultimately, because that's how nature works - there is no "why" deeper than that.
"But Mum, why do I have to take the trash out?"
"Because Stephen Hawking says you do, child."