4 ms·

Thanks - this is much better. > it visibly warps spacetime The explanation for this part of the title was completely missing from the original article. They _

Thanks - this is much better. > it visibly warps spacetime The explanation for this part of the title was completely missing from the original article. They _might_ have been talking about the red shift?

soulofmischief 6y ago
> For years, S2 was thought to be the closest star to SgrA, but then S62 was discovered. As a team recently discovered, it's a star about twice as massive as the sun that orbits the black hole every 10 years. By their calculations, at the closest approach, its speed approaches 8% of the speed of light. That's so fast that time dilation comes into play. An hour at S62 would last about 100 Earth minutes.
- Dylan16807 6y ago
  But time dilation at 8% of light speed is less than half a percent. The so-called "blogspam" has that part much more right: "At eight percent lightspeed, the time dilation effect for S62 just barely becomes noticeable" So where did they get '100 minutes'? I'm not sure what affect the black hole itself would have, maybe that makes a difference?
  - soulofmischief 6y ago
    A back of the napkin calculation says 60m should be about 62.5m at that velocity. I'm not sure where that came from either. edit: 60.2, forgot to square the ratio.
    - Dylan16807 6y ago
      If you got a 2.5 minute difference, did you forget to square the .08? My napkin says that 60 / sqrt(1 - .08^2) is 60.2
      - soulofmischief 6y ago
        I sure did forget, thanks for the catch.
  - pdonis 6y ago
    > where did they get '100 minutes'? It's phys.org. Don't expect them to actually check the math. They're way off. > I'm not sure what affect the black hole itself would have, maybe that makes a difference? No, gravitational time dilation due to altitude above the hole is negligible for this case; even the distance of closest approach is still 215 times the horizon radius of the hole.
  - Arnavion 6y ago
    They got 100 minutes by using 80% of the speed of light instead of 8%. Oops. WA for the Lorentz factor math because I'm lazy: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=sqrt%281+-+x%5E2%29+%3D+60+%2F+100%2C+solve+for+x https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=sqrt%281+-+x%5E2%29+%3...
  - qubex 6y ago
    At 8% of c time dilation & length contraction are about 0.3%. That’s definitely measurable, but whoever wrote this article clearly calculated values for 80% of c rather than 8%.

soulofmischief 6y ago

> For years, S2 was thought to be the closest star to SgrA, but then S62 was discovered. As a team recently discovered, it's a star about twice as massive as the sun that orbits the black hole every 10 years. By their calculations, at the closest approach, its speed approaches 8% of the speed of light. That's so fast that time dilation comes into play. An hour at S62 would last about 100 Earth minutes.

Dylan16807 6y ago
But time dilation at 8% of light speed is less than half a percent. The so-called "blogspam" has that part much more right: "At eight percent lightspeed, the time dilation effect for S62 just barely becomes noticeable" So where did they get '100 minutes'? I'm not sure what affect the black hole itself would have, maybe that makes a difference?
- soulofmischief 6y ago
  A back of the napkin calculation says 60m should be about 62.5m at that velocity. I'm not sure where that came from either. edit: 60.2, forgot to square the ratio.
  - Dylan16807 6y ago
    If you got a 2.5 minute difference, did you forget to square the .08? My napkin says that 60 / sqrt(1 - .08^2) is 60.2
    - soulofmischief 6y ago
      I sure did forget, thanks for the catch.
- pdonis 6y ago
  > where did they get '100 minutes'? It's phys.org. Don't expect them to actually check the math. They're way off. > I'm not sure what affect the black hole itself would have, maybe that makes a difference? No, gravitational time dilation due to altitude above the hole is negligible for this case; even the distance of closest approach is still 215 times the horizon radius of the hole.
- Arnavion 6y ago
  They got 100 minutes by using 80% of the speed of light instead of 8%. Oops. WA for the Lorentz factor math because I'm lazy: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=sqrt%281+-+x%5E2%29+%3D+60+%2F+100%2C+solve+for+x https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=sqrt%281+-+x%5E2%29+%3...
- qubex 6y ago
  At 8% of c time dilation & length contraction are about 0.3%. That’s definitely measurable, but whoever wrote this article clearly calculated values for 80% of c rather than 8%.