Ladies and gentleman: This is a black hole

[zaangalewa]

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.

No. But I heard mathematically it looks like someone falls into the past and comes from the future who falls behind the event horizon. No idea whether this is true or not. And mathematically it seems to be the whole energy of the mass of 6.5 billion suns is able to be concentrated in only one point. This was the rason why Karl Schwarzschild thought the first time in history of all mankind about this possibility of an event horzion (=Schwarzschild radius).

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.

Sure it is. Only allknowing atheists never wonder. The most irritating point: It needs all this nearly endless natural powers for our existence. Only a little movement in some natural constants - and life would be impossible. Even if life at all would only be a kind of totally random principle (how?) we could watch every second a parallel universe for billions of years and we never would be able to find life. And what do we do with god's living creation here on our own planet? ...

It's by the way in this context also funny that people don't have any problem to believe an endless amount of universes came out from nothing - but have a big problem with the rise from death of Jesus. Perhaps this is only because three women - all of them had the name "Mary" - were the first, who reported about the empty grave. Who trusted in this time of history in thsi area of the world in the testimony of women? Peter did. Sure he did. Truth is always true. Who trusts today in emancipated women? Everyone, isn't it? ... Except perhaps they say:

Oremus. Deus, qui per resurrectionem Filii tui
Domini nostri Iesu Christi mundum laetificare dignatus es:
praesta, quaesumus, ut per eius Genetricem Virginem Mariam
perpetuae capiamus gaudia vitae. Per eundem Christum, Dominum nostrum. Amen.

Translation in modern English: The Christian idiots still believe he's risen.
And yes we do: He's risen.

Happy Easter.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Your pics are wrong if they are shadows.

They arent "my pics". They are images created by physicists. And yes, they are shadows, or silhouettes. And yes, they are accurate, as defined by laws and theories. And we took a picture of one, and saw exactly what we expected to see.

What I learned was the network of telescopes used to form the super Event Horizon telescope captured a silhouette.

Scientists are using both terms. This is because the black disk we see is a unique type of "silhouette", and is larger in radius than its black hole. 2.6 times bigger, precisely. We are not just seeing the outline of the black hole. We are also seeing the side of the event horizon directly opposite us, in the "shadow". In fact, we are seeing an infinite number of representations of the entire 'surface' of the event horizon, each one progressively thinner, as you approach the edge of the "shadow".

This type of image is quite foreign to us, in our everyday experience. Our usual terms fail us. So you will see scientists use both "silhouette" and "shadow" to describe it.

There are photons or quatum particles that escape in a 2-to-1 ratio, but I cannot explain how it happens.

Hawking radiation. Hawking radiation is why we can create tiny black holes on earth without fear of destroying our planet.

Hawking radiation - Wikipedia

 

[zaangalewa]

... Hawking radiation. Hawking radiation is why we can create tiny black holes on earth without fear of destroying our planet.

Hawking radiation - Wikipedia

I don't know whether the Hawking radiation explains this really - but extremely little black holes are anyway produced from the sun in the upper atmosphere and we are still alive.

Scientists from Japan found by the way some weeks ago out: the hypothese of Stephen Hawking is wrong a very big amount of little black holes could explain the dark matter.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I don't know whether the Hawking radiaion explains thsi relaly

Well, i assure you, it does. But you don't have to take my word for it. You can read up on it yourself.

the hypothese of Stephen Hawking is wrong

Which hypothesis?

 

[zaangalewa]

I don't know whether the Hawking radiaion explains thsi relaly

Well, i assure you, it does.

"I assure you" is not anything what has to do with natural science.

But you dont have to take my word for it. You can read up on it yourself.

Even this is totally unimportant - I had to understand the basic idea and had to be able to weigh this with the risk of the total destruction of planet Earth, which contains in a worst case scenario all life, which exists in the whole universe.

the hypothese of Stephen Hawking is wrong

Which hypothesis?

Read what I wrote, ideologist. I don't have any idea why you try to use a totally stupid propagandistíc political strategy in case of questions of natural science.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Even this is totally unimportant

Learning about both the science and why you are wrong is unimportant?

Go read up on it before commenting again. Go read up on why scientists are not concerned with creating tiny black holes. Or, I can spoonfeed it to you, i suppose.

Read what I wrote,

I did, and you did not state the hypothesis. So, state it. Should be an easy task for you, given that you feel you understand it enough to critique it.

So, state it. I ask honestly which hypothesis you mean. He had many,you know. And a few have, indeed, been ruled out.

Your attempt to talk about me instead of the science discredits you and makes you look like a quack. Stop that.

 

[james bond]

I heard mathematically it looks like someone falls into the past and comes from the future who falls behind the event horizon.

Usually, it's the opposite due to gravitational time dilation. As we get further out into space the more into the future we are going. Time starts to slow down compared to a clock on the Earth. At the event horizon, time is theorized to stop.

I should have added that the object would have continue past the event horizon to be pulled into the black hole. The gravitational effects of the hole doesn't take place until passing the event horizon.

 

[zaangalewa]

Even this is totally unimportant

Learning about both the science and why you are wrong is unimportant?

Go read up on it before commenting again. Go read up on why scientists are not concerned with creating tiny black holes. Or, I can spoonfeed it to you, i suppose.

Read what I wrote,

I did, and you did not state the hypothesis. So, state it. Should be an easy task for you, given that you feel you understand it enough to critique it.

So, state it. I ask honestly which hypothesis you mean. He had many,you know. And a few have, indeed, been ruled out.

Your attempt to talk about me instead of the science discredits you and makes you look like a quack. Stop that.

I'm tired about your idiocies.

 

[zaangalewa]

I heard mathematically it looks like someone falls into the past and comes from the future who falls behind the event horizon.

Usually, it's the opposite due to gravitational time dilation. As we get further out into space the more into the future we are going. Time starts to slow down compared to a clock on the Earth. At the event horizon, time is theorized to stop.

I should have added that the object would have continue past the event horizon to be pulled into the black hole. The gravitational effects of the hole doesn't take place until passing the event horizon.

no comment

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

At the event horizon, time is theorized to stop.

To an outside observer watching something fall into the black hole, that something appears to slow and redden and fade forever, but it never quite stops or disappears. It's asymptotic.

The gravitational effects of the hole doesn't take place until passing the event horizon.

In the absence of any other accelerating force, the "event horizon" (not proper use of the term, but an analogue in some ways) for objects with mass is larger than the proper event horizon. All futures within the event horizon end up in the black hole., even for massless "objects". However, barring some sort of accelerating force, objects with mass near the event horizon will also always end up in the black hole. But its not a true event horizon, as we can still see light reflected off of these objects, and possible futures for these objects do exist that don't end up in the black hole (such as , a future where the object fires a thruster pushing it away from the black hole).

This is why we expect there to be a relatively empty gap between the inner 'ring' of material orbiting a black hole and the event horizon.

The black hole exerts a force of gravity on other objects just as any other massive object would. Yes, planets can orbit black holes, just like they would any other star with the same mass.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I'm tired about your idiocies.

Well that's a sissy copout. Enjoy your nap.

 

[zaangalewa]

I'm tired about your idiocies.

Well that's a sissy copout. Enjoy your nap.

Idiot.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I'm tired about your idiocies.

Well that's a sissy copout. Enjoy your nap.

Idiot.

Just stop whining and read for a bit. You might learn something.

 

[zaangalewa]

I'm tired about your idiocies.

Well that's a sissy copout. Enjoy your nap.

Idiot.

Just stop whining and read for a bit. You might learn something.

no comment

 

[james bond]

They arent "my pics". They are images created by physicists. And yes, they are shadows, or silhouettes. And yes, they are accurate, as defined by laws and theories. And we took a picture of one, and saw exactly what we expected to see.

Silhouette

Shadow

You are still wrong because you stated they were shadows. Silhouettes are formed from lighted area directly behind an object while shadows are cast from light coming at an angle to the object. In the picture, we are actually seeing the invisible black hole (?) and its silhouette.

Do you have an explanation of why the black hole is invisible? It's made up of quantum particles? Anything to back that up? I think both sides agree on the quantum particles and that it is invisible, but I cannot find any definitive explanation why it is invisible. It's till theory.

Hawking radiation. Hawking radiation is why we can create tiny black holes on earth without fear of destroying our planet.

Hawking radiation - Wikipedia

Hawking radiation is theoretical. It wasn't demonstrated by Hawking before he died. Regular physics got in the way. This is the part I can't explain. Hawking claims 2-for-1 exchange with one photon leaking out and 2 particles go into the black hole. How does he know that?

Wikipedia is a biased source. It will believe and write up anything atheist scientists come up with. I can't explain creation science either as they have different ideas about gravity at the black hole. Suffice it to say, we just do not know enough about what happens once an object goes past the event horizon and is being pulled into the black hole.

 

[Rigby5]

I heard mathematically it looks like someone falls into the past and comes from the future who falls behind the event horizon.

Usually, it's the opposite due to gravitational time dilation. As we get further out into space the more into the future we are going. Time starts to slow down compared to a clock on the Earth. At the event horizon, time is theorized to stop.

I should have added that the object would have continue past the event horizon to be pulled into the black hole. The gravitational effects of the hole doesn't take place until passing the event horizon.

Not sure I buy that.
When we are looking out into space, we are actually seeing the past, because what we see took so long to get to us.
Time dilation does exist, but that from gravity seems to be so small as to be insignificant, especially when compared to time dilation caused by velocity.

{...
Gravitational time dilation is a form of time dilation, an actual difference of elapsed time between two events as measured by observers situated at varying distances from a gravitating mass. The higher the gravitational potential (the farther the clock is from the source of gravitation), the faster time passes. Albert Einstein originally predicted this effect in his theory of relativity and it has since been confirmed by tests of general relativity.[1]

This has been demonstrated by noting that atomic clocks at differing altitudes (and thus different gravitational potential) will eventually show different times. The effects detected in such Earth-bound experiments are extremely small, with differences being measured in nanoseconds. Relative to Earth's age in billions of years, Earth's core is effectively 2.5 years younger than its surface.[2] Demonstrating larger effects would require greater distances from the Earth or a larger gravitational source.

Gravitational time dilation was first described by Albert Einstein in 1907[3] as a consequence of special relativity in accelerated frames of reference. In general relativity, it is considered to be a difference in the passage of proper time at different positions as described by a metric tensor of space-time. The existence of gravitational time dilation was first confirmed directly by the Pound–Rebka experiment in 1959.
...}

Gravitational time dilation - Wikipedia

 

[Rigby5]

They arent "my pics". They are images created by physicists. And yes, they are shadows, or silhouettes. And yes, they are accurate, as defined by laws and theories. And we took a picture of one, and saw exactly what we expected to see.

Silhouette

Shadow

You are still wrong because you stated they were shadows. Silhouettes are formed from lighted area directly behind an object while shadows are cast from light coming at an angle to the object. In the picture, we are actually seeing the invisible black hole (?) and its silhouette.

Do you have an explanation of why the black hole is invisible? It's made up of quantum particles? Anything to back that up? I think both sides agree on the quantum particles and that it is invisible, but I cannot find any definitive explanation why it is invisible. It's till theory.

Hawking radiation. Hawking radiation is why we can create tiny black holes on earth without fear of destroying our planet.

Hawking radiation - Wikipedia

Hawking radiation is theoretical. It wasn't demonstrated by Hawking before he died. Regular physics got in the way. This is the part I can't explain. Hawking claims 2-for-1 exchange with one photon leaking out and 2 particles go into the black hole. How does he know that?

Wikipedia is a biased source. It will believe and write up anything atheist scientists come up with. I can't explain creation science either as they have different ideas about gravity at the black hole. Suffice it to say, we just do not know enough about what happens once an object goes past the event horizon and is being pulled into the black hole.

If there was no leakage from black holes, then eventually there would only be black holes, and just one finally.
Apparently black holes disappear eventually.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You are still wrong because you stated they were shadows.

Because, in a way, they are. That is why scientists are also using the word, "shadow". The "shadow" is projected onto our observing instruments. I'm not sure what your desire to dither over this is, but you have said many things that are completely wrong about black holes in this thread, so you should focus more on learning the material than about wringing your hands over something so pedantic.

Hawking radiation is theoretical.

Wrong. It has been experimentally confrimed: Stephen Hawking's radiation theory confirmed as black holes are created in lab | Daily Mail Online

See what I mean? You are shooting from the hip without learning anything first, and you keep revealing that you know very little about this topic.

You complain that wikipedia is biased, but then you don't lift a finger to read about it from other sources. This reveals a bit of dishonesty on your part... you aren't rejecting the information in wikipedia because it is biased. You are rejecting it without reading it because you are lazy and prefer just to make stuff up.

 

[Rigby5]

They arent "my pics". They are images created by physicists. And yes, they are shadows, or silhouettes. And yes, they are accurate, as defined by laws and theories. And we took a picture of one, and saw exactly what we expected to see.

Silhouette

Shadow

You are still wrong because you stated they were shadows. Silhouettes are formed from lighted area directly behind an object while shadows are cast from light coming at an angle to the object. In the picture, we are actually seeing the invisible black hole (?) and its silhouette.

Do you have an explanation of why the black hole is invisible? It's made up of quantum particles? Anything to back that up? I think both sides agree on the quantum particles and that it is invisible, but I cannot find any definitive explanation why it is invisible. It's till theory.

Hawking radiation. Hawking radiation is why we can create tiny black holes on earth without fear of destroying our planet.

Hawking radiation - Wikipedia

Hawking radiation is theoretical. It wasn't demonstrated by Hawking before he died. Regular physics got in the way. This is the part I can't explain. Hawking claims 2-for-1 exchange with one photon leaking out and 2 particles go into the black hole. How does he know that?

Wikipedia is a biased source. It will believe and write up anything atheist scientists come up with. I can't explain creation science either as they have different ideas about gravity at the black hole. Suffice it to say, we just do not know enough about what happens once an object goes past the event horizon and is being pulled into the black hole.

Not sure, but it might be fair to say that a silhouette might be considered a particular type of shadow where the observer is directly inside the casting?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Not sure I buy that.

Nor should you, because he is 100% incorrect. Distance doesn't cause time dilation. Relative velocity and acceleration forces cause time dilation. In the twin experiment, a twin accelerated into outer space to a high speed will age more slowly than his twin on Earth. This is a confirmed fact, and we rely on this fact to operate our orbiting satellites. While this is not intuitive, even less intuitive is why the twin shot into space ages more slowly, despite that, from his frame, it's the earth (and his twin) that appears to accelerate to a high speed away from him, while he remains stationary. The reason for this is that the twin shot into space experiences the forces that accelerate him, while the twin on earth does not experience these forces.