If nothing can escape a blackhole, not even light, then how does gravity escape it?

These are all very good questions

Not really, they could easily be googled.

>Gravity is not a force?
No

>Then why is it lumped in with the other three forces
Convenience, and technically it isnt

>Are any of the other three forces not forces also?
No

>How can you unify field forces if one of them isn't even a field?
Because everything has to make sense in the context of everything else

>What is driving the gravity waves if there are no forces involved or are there forces involved here and if so what are they?
Gravity is the specific topology of spacetime, changes to that topology can only propagate at the speed of causality, C. There are no forces involved

>There are three forces and gravity.
This is semantics my friend. There are four forces in the world; gravity, electromagnetism, the weak and the strong forces. Unifying the four forces will give us a Grand Unified Field Theory, do you dispute that gravity is a field as well? If so, then you would have to argue that the Einstein field equations were misnamed.

>Gravity waves are caused by mass moving through spacetime.
Yes a mass like a planet, a star, a galaxy or more popularly a black hole. But let me ask you this. What is moving these objects? If you answered Gravity then you would be correct. So basically you are saying that Gravity is driving gravity, which means you are arguing in circles. It also means that gravity must be a force because it does work

black holes dont exist

How does mass curve spacetime?

>What is moving these objects?
nothing, they are not moving from their own POV

>This is semantics my friend. There are four forces in the world; gravity, electromagnetism, the weak and the strong forces. Unifying the four forces will give us a Grand Unified Field Theory, do you dispute that gravity is a field as well? If so, then you would have to argue that the Einstein field equations were misnamed.
LOL the only one arguing semantics is you. You just based your point on what the field equations were *named* and not what they actually are. And how does it being a field prove it's a force? Gravity in general relativity is not a force at all. This is not semantics, it's a completely different phenomenon from forces, a curved spacetime.

>Yes a mass like a planet, a star, a galaxy or more popularly a black hole. But let me ask you this. What is moving these objects? If you answered Gravity then you would be correct. So basically you are saying that Gravity is driving gravity, which means you are arguing in circles. It also means that gravity must be a force because it does work
You seem to be ignorant of basic physics. Movement along a "straight line" does not require force, only acceleration or deviation from that line requires a force. What Einstein figured out is that objects follow geodesics, which are analogous to straight lines, along the curve of spacetime. So the reason you fall toward earth is because you are following the geodesic caused by earth's mass. And the reason you stand on the earth is because it is imparting a mechanical force which impedes you from following the geodesic into the earth. Newtonian physics which assumes gravity is a force cannot account for certain phenomena which Einstein's thoery explains perfectly well.

It just does.

>Gravity is not a force?
>No
If it is not a force then what is it?

Nevermind I see you answered that here;
>Gravity is the specific topology of spacetime

points out that mass creates the topology; the indentation in spacetime. So then mass is the force that is creating the indentation. Why not just do away with the indentation altogether and say that the mass creates the field? The less assumptions we make the better is our science.

>Convenience
Convenience? Convenient for whom? I would have thought that one of the four fundamental forces not being a force would be pretty fricking inconvenient.

>Are any of the other three forces not forces also?
>No
How would we ever know? If something which displays all the hallmarks of a force is not a force then absolutely anything is possible. Your computer might be a ham sandwiche for all you know.

>changes to that topology can only propagate at the speed of causality, C.
I have heard that disputed. In fact, I think it is impossible that gravity could respond at such a slow speed. Think of it this way. If I were to drop a rock into a lake the ripples might take a few hours to reach the other shore, but the water level will rise (however imperceptibly all around the lake). This is how gravity operates also, spacetime is a continuous fabric all of it reacts at the same time just like the water in our thought experiment, light is the ripples.

>but the water level will rise
but not instantaneously

> nothing can escape
> what is hawking radiation?
/thread

>If I were to drop a rock into a lake the ripples might take a few hours to reach the other shore, but the water level will rise (however imperceptibly all around the lake).
Huh? You can't really measure the water level if the water is rippling. Nor do I see how this helps your case. The speed of the ripple will be the speed of sound in water.

Hawking radiation doesn't escape from the black hole. It is created at the event horizon.

Fields are attributed to forces, hence 'force fields'. The concept of fields and forces are interlinked, inseparable as everything must be in a Theory of Everything.

>You seem to be ignorant of basic physics.
Lel. Don't test me m8. I'm about to rip you a new arsehole.

>Movement along a "straight line" does not require force, only acceleration or deviation from that line requires a force.
True.

> What Einstein figured out is that objects follow geodesics, which are analogous to straight lines, along the curve of spacetime.
But don't forget that according to General Relativity any body that travels out and then returns to is point of origin has undergone an acceleration. Therefore, a planet like Earth which goes around the Sun and returns to its origin must also be said to have undergone an acceleration. There's no getting away from it. And that is only the beginning of the contradictions you outlined here; luckily we debunked most of them already. The shortest rebuttal was from this poster

Where is this supposed Newtonian gravity 'created'? :^)

I would like to point out to both of you that what I posted was an analogy. It shows how the gravity might operate at much greater speeds in the bulk of the universe than does the transmission of EM fields in said bulk.

Ha ha! I see what's happening now... Relativists are just buttmad anti-science people who somehow managed to get into places of influence and drive the narrative. You are literally arguing against the existence of gravity as a force. You cannot make this shit up.

Disprove me then? Show me your 'graviton'? :^)

Sure it was an analogy. But since the water level doesnt rise faster than waves can propagate through water, it didnt show anything

We have detected gravity waves, they move at the speed of light

BTFO

Nice shilling. 1 'graviton' has been deposited into your 'gravity'. :^)

Lel. I'm not arguing for or against a graviton, I don't think Newton was either. Good b8.

But if gravity can be so strong in a blackhole that it can even overpower light then what is stopping a 'so called' gravity wave from propagating faster than light. You have already shown the two to be independent, the high energies and the elastic nature of space would conspire to produce unimaginable speeds. In fact it would go so fast it would go into the future. This is actually accepted science in the case of matter accretion in supermassive black holes fyi.

> so called gravity wave
That's a win in my book. Even Newton's cucks don't quite believe the lies.

>But if gravity can be so strong in a blackhole that it can even overpower light then what is stopping a 'so called' gravity wave from propagating faster than light
This is a complete non non sequitur. If you are so strong to overpower a duck, what stops you from laying an egg?
Do you want me to explain why c is the "speed limit"?
Or, if you want an explanation as to why gravity can "trap" light, I think this user summarized it pretty well in the scond part of this post:
And sure, time dilation makes technical time travel into the future possible. This doent mean that causality can be subverted

oops, there is "non" too much in there

Then why are we looking for gravitons?

everything is just folds in space

Think about it. If matter and space itself is flowing into a black hole at speeds faster than that of c beyond the event horizon then black holes are capable of generating speeds and forces beyond that of c; obviously. Why should these speeds rapidly drop once they venture beyond the event horizon, as in the case of supposed colliding black holes? What is there to slow them down and by how much?

>Fields are attributed to forces, hence 'force fields'. The concept of fields and forces are interlinked, inseparable as everything must be in a Theory of Everything.
Ah I see, shitty bait.

>If matter itself is flowing into a black hole at speeds faster than that of c
What do you mean? I dont think it does that. Part of the reason, things get trapped by black holes, is that they cant travel faster than c

Amazing.. Are you denying that vector force fields exists and lines of force in fields exist. If so then you relativists are pushing science back by about two hundred years or more.

Are you also denying that a Theory of Everything must be a literally a Theory of Everything with which we can use to describe ever eventuality that has and will ever happen, because that in effect is the goal of a TOE.

According to the theory of General Relativity it must. There is no difference between light and spacetime. Light is a wave which propagates through spacetime, so if the spacetime is flat the light is straight if it is curved the light ray is curved, if the region of space is moving faster than the light ray can move, as in the case of a rotating Schwarzchild black hole than it will be dragged in.

tldr: Look up frame dragging.

Fields are not synonymous with force. The fields of general relativity are simply tensor fields. A tensor can represent many things, such as curvature, energy, momentum, charge, etc.

Your ranting is indistinguishable from trolling. Either you are pretending to be ignorant of basic physics or you are ignorant of basic physics. Either way, there is no point in continuing the discussion.

>Fields are not synonymous with force.
Fields most definitely are synonymous with force. Lets look at the EM field, shall we? The EM field has a field that is made up of its uncertainty principle; it is the wave part of the force. The particle part; i.e. the photon is the force carrier. Together and the effect these two things have on a body make up what we know as 'force fields'.

Similarly with gravity (according to GR) we have the field and then the suspected graviton or force carrier. And so on with the Higgs field and gauge boson. They are intricatley linked just as wave particle duality are also linked.

Providing an example of a field which is a force does not prove that all fields are forces.

>Similarly with gravity (according to GR) we have the field and then the suspected graviton or force carrier.
The graviton is not necessary to GR. And it's only a "force carrier" in an analogous sense.

No the graviton is just necessary to the standard model as it currently stands.

> And it's only a "force carrier" in an analogous sense.
So let me get this straight, you are saying that gravity is a field, but not a force. That it has waves like a field, but all of its force like attributes are an illusion, even though they basically rule the entire birth and death of the universe and that although every field must have a force carrier in order to conform to the standard model, that in the case of GR it is a special case and doesn't need such a force carrier, even though they are going out of their way to look for one to satisfy the standard model?

If that is right then what makes gravity so special? If it turns out the graviton exists is it a force then or just an analogy? An analogy for what? How can something be real and an analogy at the same time?

I am simply amazed at the amount of people on this board who apparently claim to have studied all of quantum physics and the standard model and yet are unable to not argue like autists.

Could it be that one of them just read some wikipedia pages? Or both?
Mhh...

>According to the theory of General Relativity it must
no
according to gr it cant

make an argument or kindly fuck off
You sound like a total fedora, that just wants to feel superior without making a point

No I'm really actually confused as to what's going on.
It seems that you got stuck on the word "field" for some reason.

I am also highly skeptical of the idea that two people who actually studied the topic, i.e. not on wikipedia would fail to understand each other at such a basic level.

Thanks retard. Whenever you want to add something useful to the discussion go right ahead.

>according to gr it cant
You have heard the oft repeated phrase that inside the limits of the event horizon of a black hole the laws of physics break down haven't you? Those laws must necessarily include the laws of GR, were we to consider those laws to be real to begin with.

thenewcolor.net

So... thoughts?

A field how things are ascribed to behave mathematically along a continuous vector space within a system of parameters.

GAS THE KIKES, RACE WAR NOW.

>No the graviton is just necessary to the standard model as it currently stands.
No it's not. Gravity is not part of the standard model as it currently stands.

>So let me get this straight, you are saying that gravity is a field, but not a force.
Yes.

>That it has waves like a field, but all of its force like attributes are an illusion, even though they basically rule the entire birth and death of the universe and that although every field must have a force carrier in order to conform to the standard model, that in the case of GR it is a special case and doesn't need such a force carrier, even though they are going out of their way to look for one to satisfy the standard model?
General relativity and the standard model are not compatible, yes everyone knows this.

Nobody really understands gravity, you faggot.

Gravity is what pulls my dick into your fat mom.

>You have heard the oft repeated phrase that inside the limits of the event horizon of a black hole the laws of physics break down haven't you? Those laws must necessarily include the laws of GR, were we to consider those laws to be real to begin with.
Why do you continue to argue according to cliches? GR does not break down inside a black hole. Black holes are a solution to Einstein's field equations. And first you argued that "According to the theory of General Relativity it must [travel faster than c]". Now you are arguing that GR breaks down inside the black hole. Which is it? Do you even know what you're trying to argue anymore?

Fucking faggots here arguing about gravity with the biggest faggots being the self-appointed authority on the phenomenon that is gravity.

I described what we know about gravity at this point.

>Gravity is not something that escapes from blackholes. Gravity is not a "something", it is the result of the curvature of space caused by the mass of the black hole. It doesn't "travel" from the black hole, it is a result of the black hole existing. Understand?

Have you ever considered the possibility of the graviton? A black hole can have a centripetal or centrifugal force so powerful that it actually expels 'gravity' from it's body; hence, its freesbe/ufo shape.

> A black hole can have a centripetal or centrifugal force so powerful that it actually expels 'gravity' from it's body; hence, its freesbe/ufo shape.
> its freesbe/ufo shape.

The graviton has not yet been discovered, I know but it is predicted to be among the other gauge bosons in the standard model. If it doesn't exist the model as it stands now (with all of its predictions) would have to be scrapped.

>General relativity and the standard model are not compatible, yes everyone knows this.
They are not compatible. However, both are considered to be either true or our best guesses to date. Either GR is true and the Standard model is wrong or vice versa or neither is right. These are possibilities we have to consider which is why we are sitting here trying to annex the GR holyland.

>gravity is subject to gravity

>GR does not break down inside a black hole. Black holes are a solution to Einstein's field equations.
The solution requires the Schwarzchild radius or circumference to go to 0, and then there is a divide by zero scenario across the board. Divide by zero is mathematically impossible and leads to an undefined result. This is not a limit is a real divide by zero case, hence if we can divide by zero inside a singularity the laws of physics have broken down, which means that things can be in two places at once, both inside and outside the black hole at the same time, both destoryed and not destroyed, both travelling fast than the speed of light and completely stationary. Total chaos, cats and dogs living together.

Explain why a spiral galaxy is shaped the way it is.

>Pro Tip: Nobody is certain, faggot.

Graviton can not mathematically exist as predicted. This is the whole reason for String Theory.

>And first you argued that "According to the theory of General Relativity it must [travel faster than c]". Now you are arguing that GR breaks down inside the black hole. Which is it? Do you even know what you're trying to argue anymore?
I'm having two complex simultaneous arguments with different people. But you are right, I did make a mistake (sort of). The law that forbids faster than light travel is SR, not GR. GR simply states that the light must follow the curvature of its environment, which in the case of a rotating black hole would mean that the frame the light source is operating in would be dragged at superluminal speeds. Perhaps you didn't read my first statement properly.>matter and space itself is flowing into a black hole at speeds faster than that of c
>into a black hole

>It seems that you got stuck on the word "field" for some reason
never said anything about fields itt
Just saying, that if you disagree and you think it is so simple to refute, that you should actually tackle the arguments instead of shitposting

>Faggots arguing science on a science board
You are the most curious of all faggots.

>Graviton can not mathematically exist as predicted.
Cannot mathematically exist or physically exist? There is nothing precluding it from physically existing, unless you know something the rest of us don't.
>This is the whole reason for String Theory.
Wrong. Did you just pull this out of your ass? String theory upholds the standard model of 24 particles, which includes gauge bosons like the graviton and the higgs. The two models are meant to complement one another. They go hand in hand.

>facepalm.jpg
Is this really the level of fedora tipping scientism? You don't even understand your own discipline?

>faster than that of c
again: nope

>String Theory
Genuinely and unironically

The gravity well of a blackhole has an escape velocity of or greater than c at its event horizon and this increases to many times greater than c as you approach the singularity itself. Anything caught in this gravity well will be sucked in at this superluminal speed. This is the concept behind black holes.

>know something the rest of us don't

You don't know the Weinberg-Witten theorem?

The rest of your post doesn't really merit a response.

I'm not thinking anything is simple to refute, I'm in no way a fundamental physicist.
That doesn't mean I have to believe the first asshole who claims to be. And the fact that those two niggers couldn't agree on what they meant by field makes me thing at least one is a bullshitter.

When I talk with other people in my field we don't find ourselves unable to communicate.

The concept behind black holes, is that space time is folded into itself. You cant just apply simple orbital mechanics to the space beyond the EH. And even if it was so simple, " escape velocity of or greater than c" doesnt mean, that anything actually has that speed "inside" the black hole. If it had, it could escape.
Lastly, all of that is besides the point, since the only information we can possibly get from "inside" the black hole is its mass

>we don't find ourselves unable to communicate
Fair enough, mate. In 80% of the discussions here, people just attack the point they imagine the other one is making

Actually, the concept of a black hole is that the scharzwild radius is a solution to gr.in this case, the path that light takes is bent by gravity into an "orbit" around the hole. This is what we call the event horizon.
Since nothing with mass can travel faster than c, and since c is the escape velocity, nothing escapes.

Yeah, I understand this already. The implication of this, is that spacetime is folded so much, that is basically is folded "into" itself. Once you are beyond the EH, there is no outside direction anymore (at least for all intents and purposes)

Don't know much on the theorem. But to be honest I don't care about it either way, since I neither seek to promote the graviton or the standard model. They are all bunk in my opinion, just like this theory.

> doesn't really merit a response.
You should state whether you mean bosonic or superstring theory to avoid confusion in future.

>escape velocity of or greater than c" doesnt mean, that anything actually has that speed "inside" the black hole.
This is exactly what that means. You would need a speed higher than c to escape from inside the EV since c is the escape velocity at the EV. But I agree it is all theoretical. I don't even believe black holes exist.

Not × 3

>You would need a speed higher than c to escape from inside
again. this doesnt mean that anything actually is faster than c. You know, since nothing escapes

>If it is not a force then what is it?
It's an acceleration, Sherlock.

>I don't even believe black holes exist
Well, they exist indepently of your beliefs

No. they are falling towards the singularity at speeds exceeding c. They cannot escape the grasp of the sungularity since it has infinite density.

meme science

acceleration is a force. how the force is applied; whether EM, or gravitational is the question.

Lel. There has been no proof of the existence of black holes, so belief is all you have.

>they are falling towards the singularity at speeds exceeding c
You are repeating yourself, without engaging the points I bring up so I'm just gonna have to ask you for a source on that

>they are falling towards the singularity at speeds exceeding c
No they arent, because you cant do that

>so belief is all you have
OK, so how do (You) explain the observations of the orbits of stars at the centre of our galaxy?
look here:
youtube.com/watch?v=tMax0KgyZZU
or read here:
eso.org/public/germany/news/eso0846/

How are there no stars, that fall victim to gravitational collapse? What is the alternative to gravitational collapse?

I think I see what you are saying. Think about it this way. Lets say that you are on a planet with a gravity field and you need 100 km escape velocity. You build your rocket and blast off and after two seconds of flight you achieve the necessary speed, but you rocket tips over and starts flying into a deep gorge. You have escape velocity, but are you going to escape the planet's gravity? No, because you are flying in the wrong direction.
You can if the frames are dragging that the object is in. It is not the object that is moving but the space around it.

I've seen this so-called evidence before. But where is the gravitational lensing you would expect with such a direct interaction with a black hole?

>this so-called evidence before
Well, please answer my questions.
explain the observations of the orbits of stars at the centre of our galaxy?
How are there no stars, that fall victim to gravitational collapse? What is the alternative to gravitational collapse?

>how are there no stars that do that
>none
How does the Earth orbit the sun if there's gravity huh???

It comes from general relativity. I'm not a physicist (so if you happen to know better than I, please correct me), but that's not really well understood. I believe that this is why we are trying to find evidence of the graviton (particle in theoretical physics that explains gravity). I know the Higgs boson is involved in this too. The Higgs boson explains how particles have mass (long story short). Effectively, any object with mass distorts space time (read about how the length of a spaceship changes as it approaches relativistic speed or how being 10 feet over the event horizon of a black hole distorts time). This distortion explains how objects gravitate towards the object in question (and vice-a-versa).

Ok, since you dont have an alternative explanation for the observations of the gallactic center or the theoretical implications, I just have to assume your "black holes not real" statement is total ass-pull and that you are full of shit

Hawking radiation results in energy leaving the black hole and eventually will cause the black hole to dissipate.

That's what Newton suggested: that the effects of gravity are instant. It is a bit problematic because it violates causality, so Einstein stated that gravity propagates as the speed of light (causality).

Just a small correction about a very common misconception:
While the higgs-field is indeed responsible for giving particles mass, the vast majority of mass comes from the strong force acting upon protons

Interesting, yeah I know that the strong force is responsible for keeping the nucleus of an atom together (despite the fact that the articles would normally be repelled by the electric force). I know it does the same with quarks to form protons/neutrons, but don't quarks already have mass? How is the strong force responsible?