# What would happen if two black holes (of equal mass and density) traveling at...

what would happen if two black holes (of equal mass and density) traveling at light speed collided? would it be an elastic or inelastic collision?

All urls found in this thread:

what would hapen if something impossible happened?
Get the fuck out

look man if you don't know the answer just say so

Don't black hole's basically always collide at light speed due to extreme gravity.

traveling at light speed

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity

thank you for contributing absolutely nothing to this discussion

I'm not talking about their gravitational force, I'm talking about their velocity.

He’s saying you can’t travel at the speed of light

the question is hypothetical. if it makes you feel any better I'll change it to "near light speed" instead.

If you're not aware of widely established common knowledge for 100+ years theres no discussion .

You cant hypothetically travel at the speed of light

it contradicts itself because it's hypothetical.
do you know what hypothetical means?

Hypothetical

Definition:

Adj.) Denoting or containing a proposition of the logical form if p then q.

So explain to me how this contradicts what I said.

what would happen if two black holes (of equal mass and density) traveling at light speed collided? would it be an elastic or inelastic collision?

Please locate the “if... then ...” statement

Travelling at light speed they would release infinite energy

It is an if then statement, just rearranged. If not, then it's not hypothetical as you claimed. Either way, it's a shitpost.

if two black holes (of equal mass and density) traveling at light speed collided?
what would happen IF two black holes (of equal mass and density) were traveling at the speed of light and THEN collided?
relying on semantics to win an argument
not just answering the original question because you're an asshole

it's not a shitpost I'm genuinely curious

Traveling near light speed they would still merge and end up with zero velocity (assuming you are talking about a head on collision). There would probably be a fuck huge energy release in gravitation energy (gravity waves).

You'd do well to stop arguing with people that just want to argue for the hell of it.

You’re still not understanding what a hypothesis is, and what an “If, then” statement is.

IF some initial thing is observed, THEN some secondary state will be observed.

IF I touch my bare hand to a hot stove, THEN I will be burned.

relying on semantics to win an argument

There’s no argument to win, because you have no hypothesis. You’re trying to find an answer to a thought experiment.

Besides that, semantics are extremely important in science generally, but especially when attempting to show something through logic.

not just answering the original question because you're an asshole

what would happen if two black holes (of equal mass and density) traveling at light speed collided? would it be an elastic or inelastic collision?

1a - an object, as per my understanding, cannot travel at the speed of light, as described by special relativity.

1b- we have amended this to “traveling near the speed of light”. All object traveling that close to the speed of light would have an insane amount of energy.

2a- Two black holes of equal density: as far as I know, there isn’t actually a way to determine the density of a black hole

2b- we have amended this to” two black holes with the same mass”

3a- what would happen if they collided: there are many different types of collision, such as glancing blows, or arriving from different axises.

3b- we have amended this to “had a ‘head-on’ collision” which leaves something to be desired, but is closer to the point.

4a- there are some other issues, but we’ll do out best to ignore them

4b- “what would happen if two black holes, with the same mass, were traveling near the speed of light, when they collided head on?”

I would surmise, based on the available evidence, that having so much energy, they would act more like supermassive black holes because of extreme amount of energy they contain, and would similarly bounce off each other, producing lots of nice radiation, rather than merging, like smaller black holes do.

But who knows?

you talked of black holes traveling at c , black holes have rest mass.

no they wouldn't ,if they set their speeds arbitrarily close to the speed of light you can get arbitrarily large amounts of energy but saying they're 'traveling at the speed of light' is a self contradiction since you're implying their speed is lorentz invariant and they have no rest frame .but having no rest frame contradicts the definition of matter .

the sentance
black holes were traveling at the speed of light
is in of itself a self contradiction regardless of everything else you said .

sentance

Thank you.

A hypothesis requires an "if, then" statement, a hypothetical thought experiment does not.

Fair enough, but all thought experiments are hypothetical under that use of the word.

Who got the Einstein Spectral Code on hand? lets do a simulation?

Duh, they become tachyon black holes and move backwards in time until they stop existing as the time zero.

I mean they are. A hypothesis is a special type of hypothetical thought experiment that adds the restriction of a prediction, the "then" part of an "if , then" statement.

consider suicide, brainlet.

Meh, another worthless thread by a retard...

relying on semantics to win an argument
not just answering the original question because you're an asshole
This is how Veeky Forums works you mong, if you wanted an answer, should have gone to stack exchange.

The joke in the pic doesn't work, because it implies the "brainlet" has so much brain mass it has formed a black hole.

You sir are an idiot. Or ignorant, oblivious about your own ignorance and wanting to hit everyone trying to drag you out of the mud.

Might want to ask how much is 1+2 assuming that 1=2, and save everyone the trouble. Also, with our definition of mass, black hole, and speed of light, you cannot have objects with mass traveling at the speed of light. So the answer doesn't exist, or you can invent it and it would be just as valid.

how much is 1+2 assuming that 1=2
Somewhere between 2 and 4. Like three fiddy, I'd say.

there isn’t actually a way to determine the density of a black hole
Literally divide by zero.

1+2 assuming that 1=2

So, 4?

You sir

recommend suicide

1 = 2
2 = (1 + 1)
2 = ((2+2) + (2+2))
1 + 2 = 2 + ((2+2) + (2+2))
2 + ((2+2) + (2+2)) = 10
1 + 2 = 10

They corrected their initial statement by saying near-light speeds instead of light speed. Who's the idiot now?

Veeky Forums BTFO

It would be extremely painful

I'd like to see that happen

tfw it's impossible to see a black hole

you can see the distortion around a black hole

as far as I know, there isn’t actually a way to determine the density of a black hole
you can calculate mass by the gravitational pull, and you can use the event horizon radius to determine its volume

The event horizon isn't the surface a black hole. It's the point beyond which nothing can escape its gravitational pull. Most of the mass of a black hole is in its singularity, which is theoretically microscopic.

Using anything else would get you different measurements based on the locations of the observer.

2 black balls colliding

guess what causes acceleration?

changes in velocity over time?

he didn't say it was. He just said that you can use the event horizon to calculate the volume.

But not the density, which was the point. The mass is concentrated at the singularity. If nothing is being drawn in, there might be 0 mass at that point.

The original point was to show how you can determine density of a black hole. Most black holes are near other objects, and we can tell the mass of the black hole by knowing the velocities of the objects around it.

What would happen if a sun of lava and sun of ice both equal in density and mass were to collide?

Mass isn't density. Mass per volume is density. You can't calculate the density of a black hole because all of the mass is in (effectively) zero volume at the singularity. That's one of the reasons that they say "the laws of physics break down at a singularity." The math stops working there.

It would would both collide inelastically and elastically. Hypothetically of course. Also it wouldnt collide.

If it moves at the speed of light then it would have infinite inertia.

The collision would generate infinite elastic and inelastic forces and also distort space to conform to the infinite inertia. As such it wouldnt collide and collide simultaneously by splitting its velocity to two different paths in space. One where the forces conserve and cancel monenta and where their momenta phase through. In either case the black holes wouldnt even exist in 3d space because theyd lorentz transform into dimensionless points. But again they are already dimensionless singularities. So it leads to the same system.

To conclude this, basically nothing would happen. The black holes would just appear as if they arent even moving.

They would probably go through each other.

Neither has the mass to keep the other inside their relative horizon, so they would just phase through each other.

Except anything in the horison has to move faster than light. Thats the relation. Regardless of mass.

rekt

2 isnt 1 +1 if 1=2 you dumb shit

1+1 = 2 regardless if 1=2 or not

wouldn't they just do the exact same thing as a fucking ball in space hitting another ball in space
they have equal mass and density
am I missing something or is this a boring question

are you dumb?

I would think that, since nothing can escape the event horizon, even another black hole, their collision would be completely inelastic because they have no way to "bounce off" each other. I don't know how any energy would be released either, so maybe the resultant black hole would end up with a larger mass than the sum of the two original black holes.

I'm no psyishian but looking at your pic they make like a dog nose nostrils looking thing??

being in a vacuum the only thing capable of giving velocity is gravitis "acceleration". at event horizon the gravity pulls faster than light. if you mean the moment they hit each other they have the speed of light then it always happens (in fantasy land) when they collide as they just suck each other into incomprehensible shit. object that have mass can never be accelerated to the speed of light as we understand physics.

I predict that it will be an elastic collision in accordance to classical physics. But regarding the singularity, quantum physics should also be concerned with this.
Black holes are themselves very mysterious objects, we haven't studied them properly yet so such hypothetical questions cannot be answered properly.

Fuck off

He's asking what causes it, not how it is caused. Gravitational force itself is responsible for the velocity.

You can't calculate the density of a black hole because all of the mass is in (effectively) zero volume at the singularity.
A black hole's volume extends from the centre also known as the singularity to the event horizon, so your aforementioned statement is wrong.

"Oops, sorry."
"Pardon me."

inelastic because the matter is compressed to the point there is no space and the energy inside the event horizon at collision wouldn't escape.
Butt, that's straight from my ass.

They orbit at near light before colliding I guess.

The black hole isn't touching the brainlet, his brain is low mass because most of it has already been sucked in.