If light has no mass, how the fuck are they affected by black holes?
I thought gravity only works if a thing has mass
If light has no mass, how is it affected by black holes?
If light has no mass, how the fuck are they affected by black holes?
I thought gravity only works if a thing has mass
spacetime is curved so much the path of the light curves back on itself
>muh spacetime
do you realize how retarded that sounds
Whats your answer then?
then what instead? are you saying einstein is wrong?
maybe he was
why do you think it's called a theory
That makes sense though.
Space gets bent by black holes and stars, anything with mass, etc.
And light doesn't have mass but it moves along space and so if the space is bent around the black hole, the light will also get bent around the black hole (which is exactly what happens in real life). Light gets bent by planets too, (but less than black hole of course). It gets warped in correlation with the intensity of the gravity (really makes you think).
Although Einstein's theory is really good, it still fails to describe the movement of galaxies (unless there is "dark matter" which is potentially true, but unconfirmed).
Newtonian gravity also predicts lensing without any spacetime curving.
> fails to describe the movement of galaxies
Completely wrong. General Relativity has never been disproved at those scales. It accurately describes the motion of galaxies which is why we know dark matter is there.
>spacetime is curved so much the path of the light curves back on itself
But there is an inbound and an outbound Curve if it passes the black hole. Why did that not nullified the bend?
>I thought
doubt it
Read up on gravitational lensing
Because the light keeps moving in a straight line along a curved spacetime giving
>I thought gravity only works if a thing has mass
Nope. Gravity refers to the field which determines the geometry of space (metric tensor field). The action for the EM field is not a topological one - it depends on this geometry.
Light has no REST mass. How do you think solar sails work?
>How do you think solar sails work?
Methink they work on solar wind.
Wrongo
>Wrongo
Why
The pressure of light pushes them. Solar wind is not light.
This only repeats the claim, is /sci a church?
Why the fuck can't you just google your retarded question instead of shitting up the board?
Gravity doesn't physically exist in our dimension it exists in the 4th dimension, and as an up or down gradient is to 2 dimensional beings, gravity is to our 3 dimensional space.
You can derive black holes even in Newtonian gravity. Escape velocity is sqrt(2GM/r), where M is the mass of the body you are escaping from. It doesn't depend on the mass of the body that is escaping. If M gets so big that the escape velocity exceeds c, then you have a black hole.
Black hole doesn't attract photon. It bend the photon container(aka space-time) therefore the photo got pulled into the black hole.
Photons have no rest mass but since they're moving with light speed, they acquire mass through relativistic mechanics. Since [math]v=0[/math] in equation for relativistic mass, the result is [math]frac{0}{0}[/math]. I think they resolve it by using l'Hopital's rule of something.
no. photon's mass = 0
read a book
No, you're wrong.
What makes gravity different from EM? Why can't I say EM is a feature of spacetime geometry?
Well, any energy or mass as an excitation like a particle in a field will also bend spacetime, of course it would have next to no affect on anything.
this thread is mind numbing to LULZ as 1 kilogram of steel vs 1 kilogram of feathers
i'm not shitting you
explaining that gravity doesn't attract mass, just that anything that moves through space-time follows space-time's curves and gravity is just space-time curvature... is not something we should have to keep doing over and over
people need to learn this one god damn time and not forget
fuck
>gravity doesn't attract mass
Come again?
The space time curvature is proportional to the inverse square of the distance and the MASS of the object
So please enlighten me.
enlighten yourself
teachers get paid
i'm just a guy on the internet, and if you want to believe something aside from what i believe, i don't give a shit, nor do i have a responsibility to inform you
mass distorts space-time, not the other way around
based on your response, what you are considering as gravity, is mass
mass attracts mass is closer to right than gravity attracts mass
gravity describes the bending of space-time that mass commits
gravity is not a force in itself, but a descriptor of an interaction that occurs because mass bends space-time
Show me a gravitational force without mass.
Show me any spacetime curve without mass.
>gravitational force without mass
Exists all over the place, that's why we have "dark matter"
>spacetime curve without mass
Same as above
Seriously, we have far more evidence of space-time curvature occurring without mass, than we know what to do with
For all we REALLY know, redshift could have a root cause in that phenomenon even.
>Exists all over the place, that's why we have "dark matter"
That is pure hypothesis.
Dark matter has not been observed or measured at all. Ever.
So what you got is nothing.
>For all we REALLY know, redshift could have a root cause in that phenomenon even.
Redshift is due to expansion.
So ok, what we can observe and actually measure tells us the following:
Gravitational force requires mass.
Spacetime curves require mass.
Well I'm done talking to you after this reply.
I have no obligation to make you any smarter, if you want to sit there and be a dipshit that wants to "look more correct" on an image board.
I have more important shit to do than talk to you, like stab myself in the eye with a fork, for example.
Gravitational force is just a fucking acceleration force. It can't be described outside of a relative relationship of two objects.
Show me objects without mass, homedawg.
(Spoiler alert, I have something for you here.)
Your point stands on coincidence, not fact.
Your statement isn't finished though.
>Gravitational force requires mass.
Incomplete
>Spacetime curves require mass.
Incomplete
Gravitational force requires mass OR energy.
Spacetime curves require mass OR energy.
If you and I start discussing photon mass limits, I'm going to fucking kill myself.
>I'm going to kill myself
Well don't keep me and the lads waiting.
>Show me a gravitational force without mass.
*sticks two magnets together
Look "Gravity". The magnets are mass after all, so it must be "gravitational forces"
>but hurr durr it's been described different!
Cope
>Show me any spacetime curve without mass.
Show me a spacetime curve period. It's an arbitrary measure for that which has no properties to be "bent".
>Exists all over the place, that's why we have "dark matter"
And yet we have no proof of it.
>Dark matter has not been observed or measured at all. Ever
Like spacetime
Gravity is not a "Force". It's a description. Explain how the mass attracts...if you can't and simply are using the word "gravity" to describe it, allow me to point out the magnet example above. A magnet is a mass after all. Maybe it's loaded with graviolis.
>Gravitational force is just a fucking acceleration force. It can't be described outside of a relative relationship of two objects.
So what is at the "nullpoint" towards where each mass mutually accelerates to? What causes this "gravitational force"?
Oh shit a smart person. Sorry for the eventual "Virtual photon" cope you'll be bombarded with when this thread reaches 100 posts.
>We know dark matter is there because we measured everything else besides it
A fascinating psychosis, this shadow chasing nonsense that is "dark matter". How many more years is it gonna take? And I thought "Space" was bad enough to empirically prove.
We need a better sticky. A link to a pastebin or a cheap website with all the quickest rundowns.
So point me in the right direction:
It's pretty clear that despite what mainstream physics says, photons must be particles with mass.
I derived the mass of a photon in this paper here:
https://vixra.org/abs/2102.0169
It also turns out that if you calculate the distance at which two photons in their minimum energy state escape each other's gravitational attraction, you can use this to calculate the number of cavitation modes in radiating black-bodies. This demonstrates the relationship between gravity and quantum mechanics. (You can find that calculation in the same paper.)
I also discuss the issues with the Michelson-Morley experiment (which led to relativity, and the erroneous belief that photons are massless) in more depth here:
https://vixra.org/abs/2103.0149
>cavitation modes in radiating black-bodies
We're going to need some elaboration here, because this sounds like some shit a DC super villain would say, while developing a weapon to destroy metropolis.
As objects are heated, they emit radiation at certain frequencies, forming a particular distribution. See this link for example:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mod6.html
The blackbody radiation curve was one of the original observations that required quantum mechanics to explain. You can read more about the ultraviolet catastrophe here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet_catastrophe
Generally, the derivation of the number of cavity modes at a particular frequency (which determines the shape of the distribution) requires some complicated and hand-wavy statistical arguments.
However, I show in my paper that you can explain this quantum-mechanical effect by assuming that photons have mass, and calculating how far away from each other they need to be to exist as separate particles.
I just wanted to say its nice to have a man of science here.
Thanks anon 🙂
>Yet what does Hawking Radiation do after it radiates?
Hawking radiation emission time is proportional to the cube of the mass of the black hole.
>Implying is hard to change light path
retard
>If light has no mass, how the fuck are they affected by black holes?
the same way the observable universe is moving away from us, when you stretch space at extremes it becomes impossible for light to ever 'reach' a place. in a black hole space stretches faster than light can traverse across the hole.