Ladies and gentleman: This is a black hole

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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?

Correct. Something appears "in silhouette" in, for instance, a camera image, because that object projects a shadow onto the 'retina' of the camera.

 

[Osiris-ODS]

... 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?

Easy. Dimensional transcendentalism

 

[Rigby5]

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.

Yes, that is what I leaned in my physics class in relativity.
Physics may have changed since then, like string theory, but that is what I was taught.

 

[Likkmee]

Pretty cool. Something I never looked into at all.
Here's a black ASShole.

 

[james bond]

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.

Okay, I'll buy this as I don't have a better explanation. BTW I understand why the black hole in "invisible" now .

 

[james bond]

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.

Okay, Hawking radiation has been verified. When was that article from? It can't be today even though it has today's date. I suppose Hawking gets his Nobel Prize unless it was after his death.

I still don't buy your "shadows." The correct term is silhouette lol.

 

[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.

Okay, Hawking radiation has been verified. When was that article from? It can't be today even though it has today's date. I suppose Hawking gets his Nobel Prize unless it was after his death.

I still don't buy your "shadows." The correct term is silhouette lol.

3 years ago.

The thing about hawking radiation is that ,the smaller the black hole, the faster it loses its mass to hawking radiation. So, the tiny black holes we create radiate away almost immediately. And the largest black holes in our universe will last virtually forever.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

BTW I understand why the black hole in "invisible" now

Right, because no light paths that reach us will originate from the event horizon. And the image in this thread is a "ring" because all the light paths appear to originate from the edges of the shadow or silhouette of the black hole. If the black hole were just a classical, similarly sized object, the light paths from the material behind the object would terminate in the back side of the object, never reaching our instruments. But black holes warp space so severely that the paths curve (often causing the light to 'orbit' the black hole several times) so that the light escapes the black hole's region at the edges of the shadow or silhouette.

 

[james bond]

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.

That's light reaching us. I am referring to traveling at a high speed away from the Earth and the effects that it has on the space traveler. It's Einstein's special relativity.

 

[james bond]

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.

You're back in my idiot box again as you just repeated what is meant by gravitational time dilation.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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.

You're back in my idiot box again as you just repeated what is meant by gravitational time dilation.

Sorry dude, nobody knows what you are trying to say.

 

[james bond]

No, there is a difference between a silhouette and a shadow. In this case, a shadow is an image of the black hole while the silhouette is the dark side of the actual black hole in a lighted background. It tells us of its shape.

 

[james bond]

Sorry dude, nobody knows what you are trying to say.

You are an idiot. Is that clear enough Einstein haha?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Sorry dude, nobody knows what you are trying to say.

You are an idiot. Is that clear enough Einstein haha?

You are wise to stick to insults. When you try to talk science, you fall on your face.

 

[james bond]

Sorry dude, nobody knows what you are trying to say.

You are an idiot. Is that clear enough Einstein haha?

You are wise to stick to insults. When you try to talk science, you fall on your face.

Better to fall on your face than fall into hell. It seems that black hole pulls you in.

"I have long been struck by the striking similarities between those mysterious objects of our universe called black holes and the place the Bible calls hell. In fact, the more I think about it the more convinced I am that black holes are a sobering reminder from God to us of the terrible reality of hell. For everything that exists in this visible world in some way shows us something about the invisible spiritual world. as Romans chapter one shows us."

https://www.christian-faith.com/black-holes-and-hell-surprising-similarities/

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Better to fall on your face than fall into hell.

Your magical incantations and threats hold no weight here, shaman.

In other, nonmagical, related news:

This image is a triumph for general relativity in that the computer models based on it predicted this perfectly. The signature matches perfectly. This also makes it a triumph for computer modeling.

 

[james bond]

Your magical incantations and threats hold no weight here, shaman.

In other, nonmagical, related news:

This image is a triumph for general relativity in that the computer models based on it predicted this perfectly. The signature matches perfectly. This also makes it a triumph for computer modeling.

I'm science minded. Nothing magical. Just an analogy between a black hole and a final destination.

It is a triumph for humans, but it raised more questions. We now know that our galaxy revolves around this mass and that it doesn't just continue to grow. It dissipates through Hawking radiation. What happens after that? What does the computer model say? Got a link?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Your magical incantations and threats hold no weight here, shaman.

In other, nonmagical, related news:

This image is a triumph for general relativity in that the computer models based on it predicted this perfectly. The signature matches perfectly. This also makes it a triumph for computer modeling.

I'm science minded. Nothing magical. Just an analogy between a black hole and a final destination.

It is a triumph for humans, but it raised more questions. We now know that our galaxy revolves around this mass and that it doesn't just continue to grow. It dissipates through Hawking radiation. What happens after that? What does the computer model say? Got a link?

Well, this black hole we imaged is in a diggerent galaxy. As far as Sag A*, the black hole at the center of our galaxy, it is gaining mass much,much faster than it is evaporating.

 

[xyz]

I haven't read up on the specifics of that picture, but is it an infrared image? I kind of think it's not optical, but I'm not familiar with the subject.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I haven't read up on the specifics of that picture, but is it an infrared image? I kind of think it's not optical, but I'm not familiar with the subject.

Radio waves