Can a neutron star become a black hole?

I think neutron stars are the core of what was a failed giant star. They are very very dense. I have never heard of a neutron star turning into a black hole. Though does that happen?

OH, BTW

Welcome KAZZA!

Glad you are here.

I'm pretty sure it can.

Most stars are part of a binary system - two stars orbiting around a common center of gravity. From memory, what will sometimes happen is that the neutron star will collect mass from the other star, and eventually it will form a black hole.

Or maybe eventually it goes supernova, I can't quite remember. Maybe it goes supernova then leaves a black hole.

There's no reason it couldn't though, as long as something adds more mass to it.

Kazza wrote:I'm pretty sure it can.

Most stars are part of a binary system - two stars orbiting around a common center of gravity. From memory, what will sometimes happen is that the neutron star will collect mass from the other star, and eventually it will form a black hole.

Or maybe eventually it goes supernova, I can't quite remember. Maybe it goes supernova then leaves a black hole.

There's no reason it couldn't though, as long as something adds more mass to it.

That is what I was thinking though I have never heard of it happening.

Thanks to you I now know why the sky is dark. I love learning.

I really like that you take the time out to help further those who want to learn. People who question. You are a great person.

Thanks KAZZA.

No worries mate.

If you keep questioning, before you know it you'll be the one helping people out.

I hope this question is not out of bounds fo this thread but, since black holes draw everything in their path into them and nothing escapes. My question is, has there been an estimate on how long before there is nothing left for the black holes to devour? And wouldn't that be the end to everything.

Old Timer wrote:I hope this question is not out of bounds fo this thread but, since black holes draw everything in their path into them and nothing escapes. My question is, has there been an estimate on how long before there is nothing left for the black holes to devour? And wouldn't that be the end to everything.

Good question, but they wouldn't devour everything.

Let's say the sun suddenly turns into a black hole today. The amount of mass hasn't changed, so as far as we're concerned, it's just gotten a bit darker. The Earth would keep orbiting the sun at the same distance it does now, as would the other planets. The rest of the universe would just see one of the stars go out. Nothing that wasn't already being sucked towards the sun would get swallowed.

Most people get the idea (because of the way it's portrayed on TV and in the movies) that black holes suck things up, but they only attract things with the same force that the object they were created from attracted things.


Also, it wouldn't quite be the end. Black holes slowly evaporate, emitting radiation as they do so. It's called "Hawking radiation" and it occurs due to quantum mechanics. So even if everything got swallowed up by an enormous black hole, eventually that black hole would be reduced to radiation (which I guess is essentially the end of everything anyways.)

Kazza wrote:

Old Timer wrote:I hope this question is not out of bounds fo this thread but, since black holes draw everything in their path into them and nothing escapes. My question is, has there been an estimate on how long before there is nothing left for the black holes to devour? And wouldn't that be the end to everything.

Good question, but they wouldn't devour everything.

Let's say the sun suddenly turns into a black hole today. The amount of mass hasn't changed, so as far as we're concerned, it's just gotten a bit darker. The Earth would keep orbiting the sun at the same distance it does now, as would the other planets. The rest of the universe would just see one of the stars go out. Nothing that wasn't already being sucked towards the sun would get swallowed.

Most people get the idea (because of the way it's portrayed on TV and in the movies) that black holes suck things up, but they only attract things with the same force that the object they were created from attracted things.


Also, it wouldn't quite be the end. Black holes slowly evaporate, emitting radiation as they do so. It's called "Hawking radiation" and it occurs due to quantum mechanics. So even if everything got swallowed up by an enormous black hole, eventually that black hole would be reduced to radiation (which I guess is essentially the end of everything anyways.)

but doesn't the pull of gravity get a lot stronger as you move towards the event horrizon. Kind of like funneling water down into a smaller and smaller space it speeds up.

Independent Harry wrote:

Kazza wrote:

Old Timer wrote:I hope this question is not out of bounds fo this thread but, since black holes draw everything in their path into them and nothing escapes. My question is, has there been an estimate on how long before there is nothing left for the black holes to devour? And wouldn't that be the end to everything.

Good question, but they wouldn't devour everything.

Let's say the sun suddenly turns into a black hole today. The amount of mass hasn't changed, so as far as we're concerned, it's just gotten a bit darker. The Earth would keep orbiting the sun at the same distance it does now, as would the other planets. The rest of the universe would just see one of the stars go out. Nothing that wasn't already being sucked towards the sun would get swallowed.

Most people get the idea (because of the way it's portrayed on TV and in the movies) that black holes suck things up, but they only attract things with the same force that the object they were created from attracted things.


Also, it wouldn't quite be the end. Black holes slowly evaporate, emitting radiation as they do so. It's called "Hawking radiation" and it occurs due to quantum mechanics. So even if everything got swallowed up by an enormous black hole, eventually that black hole would be reduced to radiation (which I guess is essentially the end of everything anyways.)

but doesn't the pull of gravity get a lot stronger as you move towards the event horrizon. Kind of like funneling water down into a smaller and smaller space it speeds up.

No. The volumetric mass and collective velocity remains constant, as does the mutual attraction. The illusion of acceleration is an...illusion. It seems like it is "speeding up", although it does not. Much the same as a river. There are wide/deep, slow areas, and narrow/shallow fast areas (rapids), but the mouth of the river cannot move more water than is contributed into it. The output volume cannot exceed the input volume. The "pull" of gravity is no stronger at a million LY than it is at 10 feet. The area of exposure varies, but the attraction is the same. Only the perception (the illusion) varies.

Independent Harry wrote:

Kazza wrote:

Old Timer wrote:I hope this question is not out of bounds fo this thread but, since black holes draw everything in their path into them and nothing escapes. My question is, has there been an estimate on how long before there is nothing left for the black holes to devour? And wouldn't that be the end to everything.

Good question, but they wouldn't devour everything.

Let's say the sun suddenly turns into a black hole today. The amount of mass hasn't changed, so as far as we're concerned, it's just gotten a bit darker. The Earth would keep orbiting the sun at the same distance it does now, as would the other planets. The rest of the universe would just see one of the stars go out. Nothing that wasn't already being sucked towards the sun would get swallowed.

Most people get the idea (because of the way it's portrayed on TV and in the movies) that black holes suck things up, but they only attract things with the same force that the object they were created from attracted things.


Also, it wouldn't quite be the end. Black holes slowly evaporate, emitting radiation as they do so. It's called "Hawking radiation" and it occurs due to quantum mechanics. So even if everything got swallowed up by an enormous black hole, eventually that black hole would be reduced to radiation (which I guess is essentially the end of everything anyways.)

but doesn't the pull of gravity get a lot stronger as you move towards the event horrizon. Kind of like funneling water down into a smaller and smaller space it speeds up.

As you get closer to the event horizon, the force of gravity on you does increase. So if you're far away from the black hole it's easy to avoid it, but if you're sitting right next to the event horizon your going to need a damn powerful rocket to get you away.

It's not quite the same thing as funneling water down a hole though. It's more like when you take two magnets and bring them close to one another. If they're far away you can hold them apart, but when they get close it's much harder to stop them from touching.

DM007 wrote:

Independent Harry wrote:

Kazza wrote:

Old Timer wrote:I hope this question is not out of bounds fo this thread but, since black holes draw everything in their path into them and nothing escapes. My question is, has there been an estimate on how long before there is nothing left for the black holes to devour? And wouldn't that be the end to everything.

Good question, but they wouldn't devour everything.

Let's say the sun suddenly turns into a black hole today. The amount of mass hasn't changed, so as far as we're concerned, it's just gotten a bit darker. The Earth would keep orbiting the sun at the same distance it does now, as would the other planets. The rest of the universe would just see one of the stars go out. Nothing that wasn't already being sucked towards the sun would get swallowed.

Most people get the idea (because of the way it's portrayed on TV and in the movies) that black holes suck things up, but they only attract things with the same force that the object they were created from attracted things.


Also, it wouldn't quite be the end. Black holes slowly evaporate, emitting radiation as they do so. It's called "Hawking radiation" and it occurs due to quantum mechanics. So even if everything got swallowed up by an enormous black hole, eventually that black hole would be reduced to radiation (which I guess is essentially the end of everything anyways.)

but doesn't the pull of gravity get a lot stronger as you move towards the event horrizon. Kind of like funneling water down into a smaller and smaller space it speeds up.

No. The volumetric mass and collective velocity remains constant, as does the mutual attraction. The illusion of acceleration is an...illusion. It seems like it is "speeding up", although it does not. Much the same as a river. There are wide/deep, slow areas, and narrow/shallow fast areas (rapids), but the mouth of the river cannot move more water than is contributed into it. The output volume cannot exceed the input volume.

With you so far, but I'm not sure what you're saying here

The "pull" of gravity is no stronger at a million LY than it is at 10 feet. The area of exposure varies, but the attraction is the same. Only the perception (the illusion) varies.

The force of gravity is definitely stronger when you're closer. If you were just exposed to a greater area of gravity as you get closer, it wouldn't be a 1/r^2 law. It would be approximately 1/r^2 at large distances, but would have a tan theta term that becomes significant at small distances.

Or maybe I'm completely misunderstanding what you were saying.

Kazza wrote:

DM007 wrote:

Independent Harry wrote:

Kazza wrote:

Old Timer wrote:I hope this question is not out of bounds fo this thread but, since black holes draw everything in their path into them and nothing escapes. My question is, has there been an estimate on how long before there is nothing left for the black holes to devour? And wouldn't that be the end to everything.

Good question, but they wouldn't devour everything.

Let's say the sun suddenly turns into a black hole today. The amount of mass hasn't changed, so as far as we're concerned, it's just gotten a bit darker. The Earth would keep orbiting the sun at the same distance it does now, as would the other planets. The rest of the universe would just see one of the stars go out. Nothing that wasn't already being sucked towards the sun would get swallowed.

Most people get the idea (because of the way it's portrayed on TV and in the movies) that black holes suck things up, but they only attract things with the same force that the object they were created from attracted things.


Also, it wouldn't quite be the end. Black holes slowly evaporate, emitting radiation as they do so. It's called "Hawking radiation" and it occurs due to quantum mechanics. So even if everything got swallowed up by an enormous black hole, eventually that black hole would be reduced to radiation (which I guess is essentially the end of everything anyways.)

but doesn't the pull of gravity get a lot stronger as you move towards the event horrizon. Kind of like funneling water down into a smaller and smaller space it speeds up.

No. The volumetric mass and collective velocity remains constant, as does the mutual attraction. The illusion of acceleration is an...illusion. It seems like it is "speeding up", although it does not. Much the same as a river. There are wide/deep, slow areas, and narrow/shallow fast areas (rapids), but the mouth of the river cannot move more water than is contributed into it. The output volume cannot exceed the input volume.

With you so far, but I'm not sure what you're saying here

The "pull" of gravity is no stronger at a million LY than it is at 10 feet. The area of exposure varies, but the attraction is the same. Only the perception (the illusion) varies.

The force of gravity is definitely stronger when you're closer. If you were just exposed to a greater area of gravity as you get closer, it wouldn't be a 1/r^2 law. It would be approximately 1/r^2 at large distances, but would have a tan theta term that becomes significant at small distances.

Or maybe I'm completely misunderstanding what you were saying.

The "exposure area" is the key. The "pull" is the same, regardless of distance. Distance is irrelevant. Much the same as the flooding of light. Dispersion is greater, at a greater distance, but the exposure area allows for fewer photons to place upon a specific area at the greater distance. The photons are not less effective, there are just less of them upon that same area. This is why light seems dimmer at distance. Even our most powerful lasers have a dispersion rate, but may not be seen/measured at specific distances. Mutual attraction (gravity) is no different. Distance allows it to disperse, but not diminish. The gravity has the same "power" at any distance. Less exposure is less perception. However, the perception is what gets the questions asked (and the grants funded).

DM007 wrote:

Kazza wrote:

DM007 wrote:

Independent Harry wrote:

Kazza wrote:

Old Timer wrote:I hope this question is not out of bounds fo this thread but, since black holes draw everything in their path into them and nothing escapes. My question is, has there been an estimate on how long before there is nothing left for the black holes to devour? And wouldn't that be the end to everything.

Good question, but they wouldn't devour everything.

Let's say the sun suddenly turns into a black hole today. The amount of mass hasn't changed, so as far as we're concerned, it's just gotten a bit darker. The Earth would keep orbiting the sun at the same distance it does now, as would the other planets. The rest of the universe would just see one of the stars go out. Nothing that wasn't already being sucked towards the sun would get swallowed.

Most people get the idea (because of the way it's portrayed on TV and in the movies) that black holes suck things up, but they only attract things with the same force that the object they were created from attracted things.


Also, it wouldn't quite be the end. Black holes slowly evaporate, emitting radiation as they do so. It's called "Hawking radiation" and it occurs due to quantum mechanics. So even if everything got swallowed up by an enormous black hole, eventually that black hole would be reduced to radiation (which I guess is essentially the end of everything anyways.)

but doesn't the pull of gravity get a lot stronger as you move towards the event horrizon. Kind of like funneling water down into a smaller and smaller space it speeds up.

No. The volumetric mass and collective velocity remains constant, as does the mutual attraction. The illusion of acceleration is an...illusion. It seems like it is "speeding up", although it does not. Much the same as a river. There are wide/deep, slow areas, and narrow/shallow fast areas (rapids), but the mouth of the river cannot move more water than is contributed into it. The output volume cannot exceed the input volume.

With you so far, but I'm not sure what you're saying here

The "pull" of gravity is no stronger at a million LY than it is at 10 feet. The area of exposure varies, but the attraction is the same. Only the perception (the illusion) varies.

The force of gravity is definitely stronger when you're closer. If you were just exposed to a greater area of gravity as you get closer, it wouldn't be a 1/r^2 law. It would be approximately 1/r^2 at large distances, but would have a tan theta term that becomes significant at small distances.

Or maybe I'm completely misunderstanding what you were saying.

The "exposure area" is the key. The "pull" is the same, regardless of distance. Distance is irrelevant. Much the same as the flooding of light. Dispersion is greater, at a greater distance, but the exposure area allows for fewer photons to place upon a specific area at the greater distance. The photons are not less effective, there are just less of them upon that same area. This is why light seems dimmer at distance. Even our most powerful lasers have a dispersion rate, but may not be seen/measured at specific distances. Mutual attraction (gravity) is no different. Distance allows it to disperse, but not diminish. The gravity has the same "power" at any distance. Less exposure is less perception. However, the perception is what gets the questions asked (and the grants funded).

Ok, I see what you're saying, but the analogy between gravity and light isn't perfect.

We really need to be careful with words here. If by "pull" you mean force, then what you are saying is not correct. The force on an object definitely increases as distance decreases. If by "pull" you mean force per graviton (assuming they exist) then what you're saying is true, but it's an odd definition of pull.

Same thing with "power", it's not the proper use of the term. The term "power" means "energy per unit time", and all else being equal, that isn't constant with distance.

The thing that is analogous to the light example is that the integral of the gravitational field over the surface of a sphere doesn't depend on the radius of the sphere.

Kazza wrote:

DM007 wrote:

Kazza wrote:

DM007 wrote:

Independent Harry wrote:

Kazza wrote:

Old Timer wrote:I hope this question is not out of bounds fo this thread but, since black holes draw everything in their path into them and nothing escapes. My question is, has there been an estimate on how long before there is nothing left for the black holes to devour? And wouldn't that be the end to everything.

Good question, but they wouldn't devour everything.

Let's say the sun suddenly turns into a black hole today. The amount of mass hasn't changed, so as far as we're concerned, it's just gotten a bit darker. The Earth would keep orbiting the sun at the same distance it does now, as would the other planets. The rest of the universe would just see one of the stars go out. Nothing that wasn't already being sucked towards the sun would get swallowed.

Most people get the idea (because of the way it's portrayed on TV and in the movies) that black holes suck things up, but they only attract things with the same force that the object they were created from attracted things.


Also, it wouldn't quite be the end. Black holes slowly evaporate, emitting radiation as they do so. It's called "Hawking radiation" and it occurs due to quantum mechanics. So even if everything got swallowed up by an enormous black hole, eventually that black hole would be reduced to radiation (which I guess is essentially the end of everything anyways.)

but doesn't the pull of gravity get a lot stronger as you move towards the event horrizon. Kind of like funneling water down into a smaller and smaller space it speeds up.

No. The volumetric mass and collective velocity remains constant, as does the mutual attraction. The illusion of acceleration is an...illusion. It seems like it is "speeding up", although it does not. Much the same as a river. There are wide/deep, slow areas, and narrow/shallow fast areas (rapids), but the mouth of the river cannot move more water than is contributed into it. The output volume cannot exceed the input volume.

With you so far, but I'm not sure what you're saying here

The "pull" of gravity is no stronger at a million LY than it is at 10 feet. The area of exposure varies, but the attraction is the same. Only the perception (the illusion) varies.

The force of gravity is definitely stronger when you're closer. If you were just exposed to a greater area of gravity as you get closer, it wouldn't be a 1/r^2 law. It would be approximately 1/r^2 at large distances, but would have a tan theta term that becomes significant at small distances.

Or maybe I'm completely misunderstanding what you were saying.

The "exposure area" is the key. The "pull" is the same, regardless of distance. Distance is irrelevant. Much the same as the flooding of light. Dispersion is greater, at a greater distance, but the exposure area allows for fewer photons to place upon a specific area at the greater distance. The photons are not less effective, there are just less of them upon that same area. This is why light seems dimmer at distance. Even our most powerful lasers have a dispersion rate, but may not be seen/measured at specific distances. Mutual attraction (gravity) is no different. Distance allows it to disperse, but not diminish. The gravity has the same "power" at any distance. Less exposure is less perception. However, the perception is what gets the questions asked (and the grants funded).

Ok, I see what you're saying, but the analogy between gravity and light isn't perfect.

We really need to be careful with words here. If by "pull" you mean force, then what you are saying is not correct. The force on an object definitely increases as distance decreases. If by "pull" you mean force per graviton (assuming they exist) then what you're saying is true, but it's an odd definition of pull.

Same thing with "power", it's not the proper use of the term. The term "power" means "energy per unit time", and all else being equal, that isn't constant with distance.

The thing that is analogous to the light example is that the integral of the gravitational field over the surface of a sphere doesn't depend on the radius of the sphere.

I know it isn't perfect. If it were, I wouldn't be here now. We're on the same page, though. Just trying to not sound too much like a Poindexter (and leave too many good folks scratching their heads). Hence the quotes. I don't, however, believe the light/gravity comparison is as different as it appears. Density will have a greater attraction /graviton (theoretically), but a photon will "follow" a graviton (theoretically, and vice versa). They both have a mass of their own. This helps explain how light bends (perceived, and observed) around large bodies. By the same logic, a grain of sand will bend light, and the same grain of sand will attract a large body, such as the sun. Problem is, ambient attractions overpower and negate that attraction. But, the attraction exist, nonetheless.

DM007 wrote:

Kazza wrote:

DM007 wrote:

Kazza wrote:

DM007 wrote:

Independent Harry wrote:

Kazza wrote:

Old Timer wrote:I hope this question is not out of bounds fo this thread but, since black holes draw everything in their path into them and nothing escapes. My question is, has there been an estimate on how long before there is nothing left for the black holes to devour? And wouldn't that be the end to everything.

Good question, but they wouldn't devour everything.

Let's say the sun suddenly turns into a black hole today. The amount of mass hasn't changed, so as far as we're concerned, it's just gotten a bit darker. The Earth would keep orbiting the sun at the same distance it does now, as would the other planets. The rest of the universe would just see one of the stars go out. Nothing that wasn't already being sucked towards the sun would get swallowed.

Most people get the idea (because of the way it's portrayed on TV and in the movies) that black holes suck things up, but they only attract things with the same force that the object they were created from attracted things.


Also, it wouldn't quite be the end. Black holes slowly evaporate, emitting radiation as they do so. It's called "Hawking radiation" and it occurs due to quantum mechanics. So even if everything got swallowed up by an enormous black hole, eventually that black hole would be reduced to radiation (which I guess is essentially the end of everything anyways.)

but doesn't the pull of gravity get a lot stronger as you move towards the event horrizon. Kind of like funneling water down into a smaller and smaller space it speeds up.

No. The volumetric mass and collective velocity remains constant, as does the mutual attraction. The illusion of acceleration is an...illusion. It seems like it is "speeding up", although it does not. Much the same as a river. There are wide/deep, slow areas, and narrow/shallow fast areas (rapids), but the mouth of the river cannot move more water than is contributed into it. The output volume cannot exceed the input volume.

With you so far, but I'm not sure what you're saying here

The "pull" of gravity is no stronger at a million LY than it is at 10 feet. The area of exposure varies, but the attraction is the same. Only the perception (the illusion) varies.

The force of gravity is definitely stronger when you're closer. If you were just exposed to a greater area of gravity as you get closer, it wouldn't be a 1/r^2 law. It would be approximately 1/r^2 at large distances, but would have a tan theta term that becomes significant at small distances.

Or maybe I'm completely misunderstanding what you were saying.

The "exposure area" is the key. The "pull" is the same, regardless of distance. Distance is irrelevant. Much the same as the flooding of light. Dispersion is greater, at a greater distance, but the exposure area allows for fewer photons to place upon a specific area at the greater distance. The photons are not less effective, there are just less of them upon that same area. This is why light seems dimmer at distance. Even our most powerful lasers have a dispersion rate, but may not be seen/measured at specific distances. Mutual attraction (gravity) is no different. Distance allows it to disperse, but not diminish. The gravity has the same "power" at any distance. Less exposure is less perception. However, the perception is what gets the questions asked (and the grants funded).

Ok, I see what you're saying, but the analogy between gravity and light isn't perfect.

We really need to be careful with words here. If by "pull" you mean force, then what you are saying is not correct. The force on an object definitely increases as distance decreases. If by "pull" you mean force per graviton (assuming they exist) then what you're saying is true, but it's an odd definition of pull.

Same thing with "power", it's not the proper use of the term. The term "power" means "energy per unit time", and all else being equal, that isn't constant with distance.

The thing that is analogous to the light example is that the integral of the gravitational field over the surface of a sphere doesn't depend on the radius of the sphere.

I know it isn't perfect. If it were, I wouldn't be here now. We're on the same page, though. Just trying to not sound too much like a Poindexter (and leave too many good folks scratching their heads). Hence the quotes. I don't, however, believe the light/gravity comparison is as different as it appears. Density will have a greater attraction /graviton (theoretically), but a photon will "follow" a graviton (theoretically, and vice versa). They both have a mass of their own. This helps explain how light bends (perceived, and observed) around large bodies. By the same logic, a grain of sand will bend light, and the same grain of sand will attract a large body, such as the sun. Problem is, ambient attractions overpower and negate that attraction. But, the attraction exist, nonetheless.

Didn't work.

CarolinaHound wrote:

Didn't work.

Sorry. I try gooder next time......

DM007 wrote:

Kazza wrote:

DM007 wrote:

Kazza wrote:

DM007 wrote:

Independent Harry wrote:

Kazza wrote:

Old Timer wrote:I hope this question is not out of bounds fo this thread but, since black holes draw everything in their path into them and nothing escapes. My question is, has there been an estimate on how long before there is nothing left for the black holes to devour? And wouldn't that be the end to everything.

Good question, but they wouldn't devour everything.

Let's say the sun suddenly turns into a black hole today. The amount of mass hasn't changed, so as far as we're concerned, it's just gotten a bit darker. The Earth would keep orbiting the sun at the same distance it does now, as would the other planets. The rest of the universe would just see one of the stars go out. Nothing that wasn't already being sucked towards the sun would get swallowed.

Most people get the idea (because of the way it's portrayed on TV and in the movies) that black holes suck things up, but they only attract things with the same force that the object they were created from attracted things.


Also, it wouldn't quite be the end. Black holes slowly evaporate, emitting radiation as they do so. It's called "Hawking radiation" and it occurs due to quantum mechanics. So even if everything got swallowed up by an enormous black hole, eventually that black hole would be reduced to radiation (which I guess is essentially the end of everything anyways.)

but doesn't the pull of gravity get a lot stronger as you move towards the event horrizon. Kind of like funneling water down into a smaller and smaller space it speeds up.

No. The volumetric mass and collective velocity remains constant, as does the mutual attraction. The illusion of acceleration is an...illusion. It seems like it is "speeding up", although it does not. Much the same as a river. There are wide/deep, slow areas, and narrow/shallow fast areas (rapids), but the mouth of the river cannot move more water than is contributed into it. The output volume cannot exceed the input volume.

With you so far, but I'm not sure what you're saying here

The "pull" of gravity is no stronger at a million LY than it is at 10 feet. The area of exposure varies, but the attraction is the same. Only the perception (the illusion) varies.

The force of gravity is definitely stronger when you're closer. If you were just exposed to a greater area of gravity as you get closer, it wouldn't be a 1/r^2 law. It would be approximately 1/r^2 at large distances, but would have a tan theta term that becomes significant at small distances.

Or maybe I'm completely misunderstanding what you were saying.

The "exposure area" is the key. The "pull" is the same, regardless of distance. Distance is irrelevant. Much the same as the flooding of light. Dispersion is greater, at a greater distance, but the exposure area allows for fewer photons to place upon a specific area at the greater distance. The photons are not less effective, there are just less of them upon that same area. This is why light seems dimmer at distance. Even our most powerful lasers have a dispersion rate, but may not be seen/measured at specific distances. Mutual attraction (gravity) is no different. Distance allows it to disperse, but not diminish. The gravity has the same "power" at any distance. Less exposure is less perception. However, the perception is what gets the questions asked (and the grants funded).

Ok, I see what you're saying, but the analogy between gravity and light isn't perfect.

We really need to be careful with words here. If by "pull" you mean force, then what you are saying is not correct. The force on an object definitely increases as distance decreases. If by "pull" you mean force per graviton (assuming they exist) then what you're saying is true, but it's an odd definition of pull.

Same thing with "power", it's not the proper use of the term. The term "power" means "energy per unit time", and all else being equal, that isn't constant with distance.

The thing that is analogous to the light example is that the integral of the gravitational field over the surface of a sphere doesn't depend on the radius of the sphere.

I know it isn't perfect. If it were, I wouldn't be here now. We're on the same page, though. Just trying to not sound too much like a Poindexter (and leave too many good folks scratching their heads). Hence the quotes. I don't, however, believe the light/gravity comparison is as different as it appears. Density will have a greater attraction /graviton (theoretically), but a photon will "follow" a graviton (theoretically, and vice versa). They both have a mass of their own. This helps explain how light bends (perceived, and observed) around large bodies. By the same logic, a grain of sand will bend light, and the same grain of sand will attract a large body, such as the sun. Problem is, ambient attractions overpower and negate that attraction. But, the attraction exist, nonetheless.

Ok, cool. I agree, I think we are on the same page here.

What would be the difference between gravity and magnitism as both attract and pull objects to them. or am I off here.

Old Timer wrote:What would be the difference between gravity and magnitism as both attract and pull objects to them. or am I off here.

They're fairly similar. Electromagnetism and gravity are two of the four fundamental forces. Gravity is not quite the same thing depending on how you look at it (it's not a force in general relativity), but as far as they behave they're more or less equivalent.

The big difference is that gravity is always attractive - With electromagnetism, opposite charges attract and like charges repel, with gravity, everything attracts.

Kazza wrote:

Old Timer wrote:What would be the difference between gravity and magnitism as both attract and pull objects to them. or am I off here.

They're fairly similar. Electromagnetism and gravity are two of the four fundamental forces. Gravity is not quite the same thing depending on how you look at it (it's not a force in general relativity), but as far as they behave they're more or less equivalent.

The big difference is that gravity is always attractive - With electromagnetism, opposite charges attract and like charges repel, with gravity, everything attracts.

Also.....
Magnetism (electromagnetism) is normally associated with some metals, such as iron and nickel, and alloys with them. While gravity is an mutual attraction at the atomic level (character of all elements/atoms), magnetism is a molecular level attraction. Polarization (lining up in the same direction) of the individual atoms of an element causes the "poles" of a magnet. Like polarization repels, opposite polarization attracts. All metals are capable of magnetism, but most to a level not openly or easily detectable, or unable to create a net + or - alignment of atoms capable of a magnetic field.