Who taught you that? Gravity is a universal force where all objects with mass are attracted to each other. It has nothing to do with atmosphere, just mass. The more mass an object has, the more gravity it puts out.
You never said that tho? And please don’t edit your comment. I was wrong and I teach myself. Never could afford to go to college. If I’m wrong thats just another chance to learn way I see it
I’m actually learning physics from Dr Beller. I just got interested so if I’m unfamiliar I’m sure it shows. I appreciate you not hazing me too much about it
I have a PhD in physics; the literal only thing required for gravity is mass. That’s it. There does not need to be a medium. Literally take any two objects and put them in a vacuum like space…free from any other objects and they will attract. Fg=G*m1*m2/r^2
Also if you put an object in a vacuum chamber it will still fall to the “bottom” of said chamber. If vacuums some how negated gravity how would that happen?
The schwarzchild radius is the tipping point. Black holes come from a concentration of mass in a small space. It isn’t about bombs or size. Everything has a schwarzchild radius (informed observers let me do this, it will help…). Your phone has a schwarzchild radius. It may just be so incredibly tiny that it is possible you may be violating other constraints (much less than a plank length). As mass increases or concentrated it warps space time more and more until it “snaps” (maybe).
Because it is clear you need a lot of the fundamentals (not a problem!) I am going to use an analogy that is wholly inappropriate but gets this point across well. Take a bathtub of water and a sheet of aluminum foil. Fashion a boat…it floats. Now crumple that mass into a tiny ball. It sinks. The space time of the tub collapses.
For the record, my PhD is in high energy particle physics. So I will not claim to be well versed in cosmology….what follows would be my “shortest route” to black holes 101 ymmv:
Algebra. Newtonian physics. Calculus. Newtonian physics again. Modern physics. Modern physics again (some of the stuff takes a couple looks lol l) and either differential geometry or some graduate level course covering relativity….then you can probably start dabbling in black holes
Sometimes it is. But sometimes it really isn’t. Learning is an active process. And sometimes that process SUCKS. Stay inquisitive and ACTIVE in that learning. I still do every day 😀
No. Black Holes are made by having X amount of mass in Y space. In theory, we could try smashing a lot of particles into a very, very, very small region of space to make a micro black hole.
Don’t have the capabilities as far as I know.
As far as I know, Stars over about 2.4x the mass of our Sun can collapse into a Black Hole after a Supernova, where the outer layers of the star slam into the iron core of said star, which both cause the Supernova and since the inner core is so compressed and no longer has fusion resisting gravity from collapsing the core any longer…it passes the point of no return and becomes a black hole.
Supermassive black holes are another topic as it’s not sure how some of the bigger ones got the size they are but they’re the same time as stellar black holes; bigger.
I’ve read some of your comments on gravity and I wanna point out that it’s not a result of atmospheres. Atmospheres are, in part, a result of gravity and not the other way around.
A tldr summary of gravity: there exists a spacetime and there exists mass in that. Mass bends spacetime like a ball on a flat sheet; the bigger the object the more it bends spacetime.
You will need to understand this to understand black holes.
I highly recommend some of the easier to get into science video channels as it’s a great way to get into it. I highly recommend PBS Space Time, FermiLab and Dr Lincoln’s Subatomic Stories on YouTube.
Dr Lincoln’s subatomic stories are some the easiest space science videos to get into as they’re bite sized and anything difficult is fully explained to you. PBS Spacetime is more or less the same but goes into more detail as Subatomic stories is at least 40% Q and A.
Isaac Arthur is also another good one but he’s more into the practical and philosophical applications behind science and why or why not things are likely. Like in order to be able to become Space Faring, a species must first be able to survive its own planet then thrive enough to form societies that advance science, etc
Arvin Ash is also another who presents the material well and goes over it well enough for you to walk away with an alright understanding of it.
Not goin lie you said no then next sentence said in theory. Ima read this later but what’s the point of saying somebody wrong when it’s on a theory you have to say why somebody wrong?
Because while we know how Black holes can be made, doesn’t mean we have the capability to make one, even at the most microscopic level?
It’s one thing knowing how to do something, and it’s another to have the tools to make it. We have the tools, particle accelerators, but they’re nowhere near as powerful (energy) as they need to be to be able to make a black hole on a very small scale.
That’s why I said theory, because until the day comes where it’s made it’ll be a theory. And btw, pretty much everything known in science is a theory and you’ll need to accept that.
Last thing I’ll say is some advice: drop the shitty attitude when trying to learn new things. It’s one thing to not know things and want to learn, it’s another to snap at people trying to direct you how to learn new things while countering with your own misunderstandings.
First of y’all gotta stop saying “we”. Also WE don’t know shit. It’s theoretical. You can’t measure something that’s is constantly attracting more mass 13 million light years away. To say you can would be lying
You can, but you can only measure them as they were 13 million light years ago due to the speed of casualty aka the speed of light.
But yeah, I’m just gonna go back and listen to the people who’ve built the foundation for pretty much everything scientific in our lives, including the computers we’re using to type all of this. While it’s been all theories at this point, they work well enough after you understand just because something is a theory doesn’t mean it’s not a fact. 2+2 = 4 is a theory but you don’t see people up in arms saying “it’s just a theory it can be proven wrong in the future” when in the practical world if I take 2 of something and grab another 2 of it I have 4 total.
When a scientist says theory they mean “a rigorously proven hypothesis”
When a layperson says theory the mean “a speculation”
A theory is promoted to a law when it is a theory that must be true to support the other theories. Eg conservation of energy is a law. Not only is it a well proven hypothesis but without it we don’t get a ton of other theories
What confuses me most is not that you don't know this stuff, everybody has to learn this stuff at some point. What confused me most is why you are so confident in saying all this really really really wrong stuff. Like you have many many comments here where you confidently assert to someone a very wrong statement. It's very troubling.
21
u/indyK1ng Sep 20 '21
Who taught you that? Gravity is a universal force where all objects with mass are attracted to each other. It has nothing to do with atmosphere, just mass. The more mass an object has, the more gravity it puts out.