Ladies and gentleman: This is a black hole

[Fort Fun Indiana]

*crickets*

 

[james bond]

Oh yeah? Then tell us which parts are not convincing and why.

The part where is says "Ladies and gentlemen" and you popped up.

I don't think black holes are always flat and circular. Some appear to be rotating spheres.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I don't think black holes are always flat and circular. Some appear to be rotating spheres.

No. They don't appear to be anything, as they cannot be seen. We can see their "shadows", if there is glowing material near them (or against background objects), as in the image in this thread. And the shadow pretty much appears as a flat disk. And that's an optical illusion anyway, as the shadow isn't anything and merely seems flat in reference to the light coming to us from its edges, as that light appears to be originating from the edge of a disk.

 

[james bond]

I don't think black holes are always flat and circular. Some appear to be rotating spheres.

No. They don't appear to be anything, as they cannot be seen. We can see their "shadows", if there is glowing material near them (or against background objects), as in the image in this thread. And the shadow pretty much appears as a flat disk. And that's an optical illusion anyway, as the shadow isn't anything and merely seems flat in reference to the light coming to us from its edges, as that light appears to be originating from the edge of a disk.

Oh okay. You were referring to the shadow. That tells us things about the object. I was thinking the hole itself is spherical from its shadow.

One scientific explanation is:
"A black hole is a sphere in the sense that everything that goes within its Schwarzschild radius (the distance from the center of the black hole to the event horizon) cannot escape its gravity. Thus, there is a dark sphere around the infinitely dense center, or singularity, from which nothing can escape."

I don't think there is a "singularity" and "infinitely dense center" from which nothing can escape. That sounds like atheist science BS. It may be a pathway leading to a white hole .

"There is a supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way, and we orbit this black hole approximately every 230 million years."

Are black holes spherical? (Intermediate) - Curious About Astronomy? Ask an Astronomer

Here one guideline to follow in regards to black holes as we go into the world of science, cosmology (philiosophy) and science-fiction. It should not violate the laws of physics.

 

[zaangalewa]

I don't think black holes are always flat and circular. Some appear to be rotating spheres.

No. They don't appear to be anything, as they cannot be seen. We can see their "shadows", if there is glowing material near them (or against background objects), as in the image in this thread. And the shadow pretty much appears as a flat disk. And that's an optical illusion anyway, as the shadow isn't anything and merely seems flat in reference to the light coming to us from its edges, as that light appears to be originating from the edge of a disk.

Oh okay. You were referring to the shadow. That tells us things about the object. I was thinking the hole itself is spherical from its shadow.

One scientific explanation is:
"A black hole is a sphere in the sense that everything that goes within its Schwarzschild radius (the distance from the center of the black hole to the event horizon) cannot escape its gravity. Thus, there is a dark sphere around the infinitely dense center, or singularity, from which nothing can escape."

I don't think there is a "singularity" and "infinitely dense center" from which nothing can escape. That sounds like atheist science BS. It may be a pathway leading to a white hole .

"There is a supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way, and we orbit this black hole approximately every 230 million years."

Are black holes spherical? (Intermediate) - Curious About Astronomy? Ask an Astronomer

The spuermassive black hole Sagittarius A* in the center of our Milky Way 26500 lightyears from here has 0.063% of the mass of this supermassive black hole. The theory is that this mass is concentrated in only one point in the center. But "ignoramus, ignorabimus": We don't know - and we never will know (except we will find new natural laws) - what happens beyond the event horizon of a black hole. The following page contains a little film with a travel route to Sgr A*: Galactic Center

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I don't think there is a "singularity" and "infinitely dense center" from which nothing can escape. That sounds like atheist science BS.

That's not a strong argument against general relativity, which is supported by all the evidence. It's not an argument at all, really.

It may be a pathway leading to a white hole

Yea, but both can be true.

Black holes do not violate the laws of physics.

 

[james bond]

That's not a strong argument against general relativity, which is supported by all the evidence. It's not an argument at all, really.

I argued against "singularity" meaning a point with infinite high temperature and infinite density. That does not go against general relativity. It goes against the big bang.

Yea, but both can be true.

Black holes do not violate the laws of physics.

But the infinite dense center does. The center could be a white hole instead of a pathway. Then it would be a very dense center and have a place to go. Where does the stuff go tho?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I argued against "singularity" meaning a point with infinite high temperature and infinite density.

singularities have fallen out of favor with scientists.

Where does the stuff go tho?

It's still there, if it still exerts gravity.

 

[james bond]

singularities have fallen out of favor with scientists.

Do you mean with secular/atheist scientists? Figures since Hawking died. What do they say now? What was the cause of the big bang if they still have faith in it?

It's still there, if it still exerts gravity.

I wonder if it is growing as it pulls everything in it or does it go elsewhere? That is what I was getting at. The white hole could be in the center and it sends the stuff the black hole's gravty pulls in somewhere theoretically speaking.

 

[james bond]

The spuermassive black hole Sagittarius A* in the center of our Milky Way 26500 lightyears from here has 0.063% of the mass of this supermassive black hole. The theory is that this mass is concentrated in only one point in the center. But "ignoramus, ignorabimus": We don't know - and we never will know (except we will find new natural laws) - what happens beyond the event horizon of a black hole. The following page contains a little film with a travel route to Sgr A*: Galactic Center

One theory you won't get from evos is there is a white hole in the center. That would explain the density in the center. I think what we know is the black hole is spherical and out galaxy revolves around it. That follows the laws of physics, general relativity and the math works out. However, the white hole dense center is hypothesis. I suppose there is some math to explain it, but I can't explain it. It's complex. The distances are ginormous for the Sagittarius A* so we won't get close anytime soon. Maybe it's like our sun. We do not want to get too close.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Do you mean with secular/atheist scientists?

No, I mean with scientists. Please quit trying to inject your magical incantations into the science thread.

wonder if it is growing as it pulls everything in it or does it go elsewhere?

Yes, black holes grow, as they pull in more matter.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

One theory you won't get from evos is there is a white hole in the center.

Well, not that this gibberish makes any sense to anyone, but, as anyone versed inthis topic knows, "white hole" is a hypothesis proposed by cosmologists and physicists. Some 96% of the elite ones happen to be atheists, but it matters not to science.

 

[james bond]

Yes, black holes grow, as they pull in more matter.

You got one wrong unless you can show the shadow is growing. Not according to physicist Leonard Susskind. He debunked Stephen Hawking.

"Leonard Susskind, a pioneer of string theory, the holographic principle and other big physics ideas spanning the past half century, has proposed a solution to an important puzzle about black holes. The problem is that even though these mysterious, invisible spheres appear to stay a constant size as viewed from the outside, their interiors keep growing in volume essentially forever. How is this possible?

In a series of recent papers and talks, the 78-year-old Stanford University professor and his collaborators conjecture that black holes grow in volume because they are steadily increasing in complexity—an idea that, while unproven, is fueling new thinking about the quantum nature of gravity inside black holes."

What Keeps Black Holes From Expanding Everywhere?

I think he means that matter becomes quantum particles again.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Yes, black holes grow, as they pull in more matter.

You got one wrong unless you can show the shadow is growing. Not according to physicist Leonard Susskind. He debunked Stephen Hawking.

"Leonard Susskind, a pioneer of string theory, the holographic principle and other big physics ideas spanning the past half century, has proposed a solution to an important puzzle about black holes. The problem is that even though these mysterious, invisible spheres appear to stay a constant size as viewed from the outside, their interiors keep growing in volume essentially forever. How is this possible?

In a series of recent papers and talks, the 78-year-old Stanford University professor and his collaborators conjecture that black holes grow in volume because they are steadily increasing in complexity—an idea that, while unproven, is fueling new thinking about the quantum nature of gravity inside black holes."

What Keeps Black Holes From Expanding Everywhere?

I think he means that matter becomes quantum particles again.

No,you don't understand that article. That is a scenario in the absence of inflowing material which would add mass to the black hole. When mass is added to a black hole, its event horizon grows in volume.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Yes, as it turns out, the "artists' renderings" of black holes that we often see - which depict a "black ball" sitting, embedded in a disk of swirling, glowing material -- are all wrong. These systems will always look like a shadow with a ring, like the image in this thread.

 

[james bond]

No,you don't understand that article. That is a scenario in the absence of inflowing material which would add mass to the black hole. When mass is added to a black hole, its event horizon grows in volume.

I think my expert Hawking whom I learned about singularity from said two quantum particles in one quantum particle out. I think part of it is quantum entanglement and one is the Hawking radiation (?). This is theory. It sounds like what secular scientists have been saying, but what evidence do you have? Any hard evidence like larger shadow?

Yes, as it turns out, the "artists' renderings" of black holes that we often see - which depict a "black ball" sitting, embedded in a disk of swirling, glowing material -- are all wrong. These systems will always look like a shadow with a ring, like the image in this thread.

Artists' rendering is all we had since we could not see it. We still cannot see it except for it's shadow. It's invisible to the nekkid eye. The black hole turning everything from the event horizon in into quantum particles could explain why it cannot be seen.

Now the question that came to me is do we now know more about the black hole? Before, all we knew about it was that matter checks in, but do not check out until Stephen Hawking found out that when matter checks in, something else pops out. And what about information lost and information gained? What do you make of that?

Here's a recent article on it -- Scientists Are Using Quantum Particles to Peek Inside Black Holes

Maybe you have a valid argument, but before it was one myth versus another. That's why I ask if you have any evidence to back yours up?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

but what evidence do you have?

Of what? That, the higher the mass of the black hole, the larger the event horizon? General relativity. The laws of physics. Your question is a bit nonsensical...it's like asking what evidence do we have that a higher mass object will exert a stronger force of gravity on another object. The size of the event horizon is defined by the mass of the black hole.

Artists' rendering is all we had since we could not see it.

No, we already knew the artists' renderings were often fanciful and incorrect and at odds with physics, long before this image was captured.

Now the question that came to me is do we now know more about the black hole?

No, not really. The image in this thread is a confirmation of what we expected to see.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Incorrect:

Correct:

 

[james bond]

These systems will always look like a shadow with a ring, like the image in this thread.

Haha. Your pics are wrong if they are shadows. What I learned was the network of telescopes used to form the super Event Horizon telescope captured a silhouette. Thus, we see it with a background of light. A silhouette shows us what we are actually looking at straight on. Are you still going to claim those images are shadows?

 

[james bond]

We don't know - and we never will know (except we will find new natural laws) - what happens beyond the event horizon of a black hole. The following page contains a little film with a travel route to Sgr A*: Galactic Center

You also mentioned what happens beyond the event horizon. I think you meant at the event horizon. Once reaching it, any matter is pulled inside the black hole by its ginormous gravity. I'm not sure if it's like Hotel California where you check in, but never check out. There are photons or quatum particles that escape in a 2-to-1 ratio, but I cannot explain how it happens. It's still a mystery to me.