Magnetic Black Hole

Fuck I'm stupid

THIS guy gives a nice short answer about one of the problems

>LE ABSOLUTE STATE
>>>/reddit/

No he doesn't.
He mentions charge, That particles produce magnetic fields and The Kerr metric. And tells us to connect them our self.

What is the point even, Magnetic fields =/= Gravitational fields? No shit. I think even OP figured that out.

> that has the same force of attraction as a black hole but using magnetism rather than gravity?

But OP is somewhat trying to say the he wants to emulate the properties of gravity (And by properties all he mentions is it's "attraction") and by a simple logic operation you can guess that this "=/=" doesn't apply for OP (=/= because he wants some of the properties that gravity has using magnetism which you can't) what was trying to say is that, if you look at one of those Kerr black holes you see extreme magnetism in action and it gives you some hints (I repeat just HINTS) of why it has no sense, like, for example;

> would light be unable to escape due to the sheer magnetic attraction?

Well, light isn't "attracted" by the hole, light bends with the space-time deformation and is eventually lost in the EH and in the complete mayhem (inb4 "So scientific user!") that the Kerr's black hole ergosphere is (In terms of electromagnetism) you can see that for example, this doesn't apply (light doesn't interact in the same way with the effects* of gravity than it does with the magnetism) and that is a point that I have to give, in my opinion to the Kerr guy.

*And I say effects for the sake of shortness gravity doesn't """"carrry"""" dare I say "effects"

And that just for starters but elaborating this hell onwards doesn't make any point, but hey, I repeat, it would be a very long answer

Nope.

Electromagnetic radiation is a wave of oscillating electric and magnetic fields.

Electromagnetic radiation/photons contribute/s to the curvature of spacetime and therefore to gravity.

The first part of your post doesn't answer anyone's question.
>if you look at one of those Kerr black holes you see extreme magnetism in action and it gives you some hints (I repeat just HINTS) of why it has no sense
I'm not even sure what the question is supposed to be at this point.

Good job answering that light isn't attracted to a black hole. Pretty easy google though, not that you did that, because google could answer that question in a much simpler and clearer way.

Still didn't answer the main question:
>would it be possible to make an object that has the same force of attraction as a black hole but using magnetism rather than gravity?

Just because it contributes to spacetime curvature doesn't mean its the same thing.

Common, this is basic logic.

Turns out Veeky Forums is all talk and no brains.

But hey, mocking OP is easy, and makes you feel better about yourself. Win-win

It's almost the same thing. Share your perspective, so people can know.

It's hard to discuss something seriously when you know your discussion partner isn't up to the task.

A lot of times really educated people aren't even trying to be hostile, they're just really critical because their field of study demands it. They literally can't get by with less.

I can only tell that they are highly related each other.

True.

You're not fooling anyone, OP.

Sounds like you are out of explanations to me. Most of the shit you rambled so far barely holds up with a lot of good-will anyway.

If you can't explain something simply, then you don't really understand it.

But you can't explain why, can you? Or is it the people you are explaining it too just not smart enough?

You are all doing a shit job at arguing against the "idiot OP" then, Its all excuses here. But looking earlier in the thread, you'd think it was so simple that any idiot should be able to explain it. Maybe you should stick to discussing IQ.

To elaborate on these other smart fuckers battling the dumb fuckers, FIRSTLY, you should do an electric field, that and gravity fields produce acceleration either away from or towards sources. Magnetic fields operate differently. They dont push and pull in each others direction, they twist each other from a field which a MOVING particle with a charge or current along a conductor(wire) (moving as in relative to each other) SO, electric field is the way to go, who wants to take the next crack at the bigger problem, there's a lot more that must be dealt with. Ill also add is all this will do is as the charged particles (must be charged cuz magnets are working) move relative to each other, theyll make each other spin. the electric field or gravity is what we need yes yes

I already explained it before. But if you insist, maybe we can look over the equations.

>out of explanations
My only other post in this thread was , I'm not even trying to contribute. I was just explaining why nobody's taking this seriously. And you goading people isn't going to change that in any positive way.

You can't make or "have" an object that behaves like gravity, it's imposible, gravity behaves differenatly than everything that we've studied so far and that it's the main problem with this topic, you can't "emulate" gravity

And I have to say that is not googling it's just my expirence

>>would it be possible to make an object that has the same force of attraction as a black hole but using magnetism rather than gravity?
You can't have an object with the same attraction as a black hole because gravicty acts so much differently as anything else, let alone magnetism.

It's not attraction at this point; magnetism is not attraction, it's a field acting on SOME particles (If we are talking in terms on quantic physics at this point) gravity doesn't have anythiing to do with that, even the theory of gravitons falls apart, you are just mixing what everyone is trying to mix nowadays, special relativiy wich quantum mechanics, we will not fix that in this thread AND, OP doesn't even know what he's talking about, I mean, he's missing the basics about how photons works, doesn't even show proper understanding of Planck nor Schrondinger relating to G (in terms of particles)

Magnetars have massive magnetic fields that would attract any magnetic dipole due to their magnetic gradient. This includes electron and nucleus spin. There might be stronger diamagnetic effects that repel for most atoms though, but I've read most of the atoms in space are ionized.

Go ahead, very really curious what kind of equations you would use to explain this. I'm not going to hold my breath though, seeing how little anyone has delivered so far.

My issue with you guys isn't that you aren't taking it seriously. My issue is the hypocrisy of mocking OP while not giving a single good answer to something that is supposedly idiotic to even ask about. Seems by now in this thread that its not as simple as it was first implied. When I first entered the thread i was going to answer him, but after thinking it over I realized that its not an easy thing to answer.

Its a really boring answer to just say they are too different to compare. I can see where you are coming from, but magnetic fields are attractive/repulsive, they just attract stuff too their poles rather than directly.
The most interesting answer to this would go into the theoretical limits of magnetism, as a static object can't just make a powerful field while its just sitting there. My intuition says that there could be some kind of limit to this. Google gave me this:
wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2014/08/21/what-is-the-strongest-magnetic-field-possible-is-there-a-limit/
Where he says:
>There is no firmly-established fundamental limit on magnetic field strength
But he also says:
>At the most extreme end, a magnetic field that is strong enough could form a black hole.
Which sounds like a limit to me.

Finally someone mentions something interesting in this thread. Never knew such extreme fields exited(or is predicted at least from observations).
>The earth's magnetic feild is around: 0,00006 Tesla
>Magnetar's field is predicted to be: 10 000 000 Tesla

Fucking incomprehensible right there.

Oh, and lets laugh at OP some more for asking a stupid question?

>you can't "emulate" gravity
>what is centrifugal force

hahahahah you btfo every brainlet in this thread while answering op's question & teaching me something.

thanks.

how bout sonic black holes

I wonder. Can we use magnetism to propell off world?

black holes are like whirlpools.

they suck you down to the bottom of the energy ocean.

>row row fight the powa

OP what they are saying is that the phenomenon of "no return possible past the event horizon" that black holes exhibit is due to curved space-time. There are no futures for those particles past the event horizon that would let them escape, all space and time bends inwards toward the black hole there to such a degree that it is impossible to escape. If you have no future where you are out of the black hole, then you are trapped, and the black hole past a certain distance bends all futures that would lead away from it, towards it instead by its immense gravity.

Gravity can affect spacetime and change its curvature, affecting the possible futures for particles.

Electromagnetism cannot affect space-time in the same way. If you had such an immense density of energy in one place like say a super magnetic field like you describe, then it would just have normal, non-black hole level gravity because mass is basically just very dense clumps of energy, so a clump of regular energy wouldn't exert much gravitational influence.

tl;dr gravity is the only force that can bend space-time in the way to cause the phenomena of black holes. To get this level of gravity the only way is to gather sufficient mass in one place.