Spacetime and effects of being super close to the Sun

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the effects of gravity on time perception in the context of general relativity, particularly focusing on scenarios involving proximity to massive objects like the Sun and black holes. Participants explore how time dilation might affect observations of distant objects and the implications of being near such gravitational influences.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that being close to the Sun would cause time to appear to move faster for observers on Earth, though the difference is noted to be in the range of milliseconds per day.
  • Others suggest that if one were to hover near a black hole, they would observe the rest of the universe moving faster due to extreme time dilation effects, although the feasibility of such hovering is questioned.
  • A participant speculates that light from the center of the galaxy might appear to move slower compared to light from the outer regions, raising questions about the perception of time and motion in different gravitational fields.
  • Concerns are raised about the clarity of questions posed, with some participants finding them difficult to understand, which leads to discussions about the importance of clear communication in complex topics.
  • There are assertions that the perception of distant objects is influenced by gravitational intensity and time dilation, with some participants expressing uncertainty about how these concepts interrelate.
  • One participant wonders if the inability to see black holes is due to light moving too slowly from our perspective, suggesting a dramatic time difference that is met with skepticism from others.
  • Historical references are made to the evolution of astronomical understanding, with a participant questioning the possibility of a central entity in the universe, which is met with a reminder about the forum's rules on speculation.
  • Technical discussions arise regarding the mechanics of falling into a black hole and the implications for time perception for both the infalling observer and a stationary observer outside the event horizon.
  • Some participants debate the engineering challenges of hovering near a black hole, with differing views on the feasibility of such an endeavor.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the effects of gravity on time perception, with no consensus reached on several speculative ideas. Disagreements arise regarding the clarity of questions and the interpretation of gravitational effects on light and time.

Contextual Notes

Limitations in understanding arise from the complexity of the concepts discussed, with some participants struggling to articulate their thoughts clearly. The discussion also highlights the need for precise definitions and assumptions when addressing topics related to general relativity and time dilation.

Justawildwonder
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
I have been wondering about space time and how it works like satillites putting corrections in there clocks by a few nano seconds a day because of gravity or lack of it! But I have also wondered about the effects of being super close to the sun and time that we observe there looking back at Earth would it look like the Earth was in fastforward?

But then I wondered what would something like a super black hole look like looking back at the rest of the galaxy somethings that's the mass of trillions of stars could a Earth year in the centre of the Galaxy be millions or more on the outer of the Galaxy?
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
Justawildwonder said:
would it look like the Earth was in fastforward?
The difference is tens of milliseconds per day. That is not really "fast forward".

Justawildwonder said:
ut then I wondered what would something like a super black hole look like looking back at the rest of the galaxy somethings that's the mass of trillions of stars could a Earth year in the centre of the Galaxy be millions or more on the outer of the Galaxy?
The black hole doesn't have to be massive. If you find some way to hover (!) close to the event horizon (where our best guess how to do so is "magic"), you would indeed see the rest of the universe running faster.
 
So does that really mean that if you lived
mfb said:
The difference is tens of milliseconds per day. That is not really "fast forward".

The black hole doesn't have to be massive. If you find some way to hover (!) close to the event horizon (where our best guess how to do so is "magic"), you would indeed see the rest of the universe running faster.

So let's say that if we lived in the middle of the Galaxy the light from the centre of the Galaxy would move slower well appear to? And the the light from the outer of the Galaxy would appear to be moving much faster?

And let's say if your saving seconds on the Suns surface per 24 hours spent there that basically mean that your saving years per 24 hours spent at the centre of the Galaxy that being the same gravity of all the stars combined in our Galaxy?!?
 
Justawildwonder said:
So let's say that if we lived in the middle of the Galaxy the light from the centre of the Galaxy would move slower well appear to?
I don't understand that question. Which light where?
Light always moves at the speed of light. The passage of time can happen at different rates for different observers.

Justawildwonder said:
And let's say if your saving seconds on the Suns surface per 24 hours spent there that basically mean that your saving years per 24 hours spent at the centre of the Galaxy that being the same gravity of all the stars combined in our Galaxy?!?
Distance to the object matters. At the center of the galaxy you are far away from the sun, for example. Time dilation "somewhere close to the galactic center" is still tiny - similar to what you have at the surface of sun, maybe a bit more. You really have to get close to neutron stars or black hole to have a notable effect.
 
mfb said:
I don't understand that question. Which light where?
Light always moves at the speed of light. The passage of time can happen at different rates for different observers.

I know light doesn't change speed... I'm being super fair fetched! I'm talking about let's say a tennis ball is moving at the the same speed it can't slow down like light straight towards the gravitational pull something that's makes a massive bend in space time. If you looked from outside the tennis ball would seem to be slower as space time played its bit? But being on centre ok the tennis ball would appear to be coming a lot quicker?

If that makes sense?
 
Now I understand your question even less.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: adly14
@Justawildwonder In English there are punctuation, grammar and syntax rules. If you want anyone to understand you, you have to be clear, otherwise you're wasting everyone's time, including yours.
 
I think @Justawildwonder is wondering about the perception of distant objects depending on the intensity of gravity <-> dilation of space-time.
Not that I really understand how this works, but higher gravity means "denser" space, and consequently slower time. So yes, if an observer very close to a black hole would watch "in real time" a tennis ball moving much farther away, the ball would appear to move faster than it actually is.
Then again, I might be riding my horse completely backwards...
 
adly14 said:
I think @Justawildwonder is wondering about the perception of distant objects depending on the intensity of gravity <-> dilation of space-time.
Not that I really understand how this works, but higher gravity means "denser" space, and consequently slower time. So yes, if an observer very close to a black hole would watch "in real time" a tennis ball moving much farther away, the ball would appear to move faster than it actually is.
Then again, I might be riding my horse completely backwards...


I wonder now that if the reason why we can't see black holes is because that the light is moving to slow at our point of view to see.. but it be crazy if it was true. Be like 9.4 years on Earth to 1 second at the black hole.. if the math is correct?
 
  • #10
Justawildwonder said:
I wonder now that if the reason why we can't see black holes is because that the light is moving to slow at our point of view to see.
No.
Justawildwonder said:
Be like 9.4 years on Earth to 1 second at the black hole.. if the math is correct?
Where did you get this number from? It looks completely arbitrary. It also doesn't make sense.
 
  • #11
Mercury has an orbit that seemed peculiar and inexplicable before GR.
GR was able to account for that being because of Mercury's close proximity to the Sun.
 
  • #12
This is just a thought that popped into my head (these may not be in the correct order). We used to believed the sun rotated around us. We believed the Earth was flat. Then we discovered planets and realized we all rotated around the sun. Then we learned the Earth was round. Then we discovered universes and deep space. Is it possible the universes, themselves, revolve around a central entity? Something we can't see or haven't found yet?
 
  • #13
The round shape of the Earth was known long (~2000 years) before there was clear evidence that the Earth orbits the sun.
Sue Rich said:
Is it possible the universes, themselves, revolve around a central entity?
There is no place for anything "central" in our universe.

Please read our forum rules on speculations.
 
  • #14
Consider an observer falling into a black hole from a stationary position outside the event horizon. Initially time is passing at a normal pace then the observer accelerates toward the singularity [although always at a speed less than c]. Interestingly enough, this causes the external universe to look redshifted. Photons from the external universe struggle to catch up with the infalling observer, so it appears the universe ages more slowly than for a stationary observer! A remote observer also sees the hapless infaller redshift upon approaching the EH, so it turns out neither observer gets to view the others future! The only way to see the distant future of the universe is to hover stationary very near the EH, which is a physical impossibility. Even light cannot maintain a stationary orbit wrt to a non-rotating black hole at a distance less than its photon sphere [1-1/2 times its Swarzschild radius].
 
  • #15
Chronos said:
The only way to see the distant future of the universe is to hover stationary very near the EH, which is a physical impossibility.
It is "only" an engineering problem. With a powerful rocket you can hover close to the event horizon - in theory.
 
  • #16
A rocket capable of light speed? That would be a pretty amazing piece of engineering.
 
  • #17
No. The rocket just needs a strong acceleration. A higher acceleration allows to hover closer to the event horizon. The speed stays zero for reasonable definitions of speed.

Also note that light can escape if it is emitted close to the event horizon (closer than the photon sphere) - if it is directed outwards.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K