Real Photos of Black Holes

IroncladMarshmallow

Active Member
Messages
578
So, according to you, or what you believe to be true, black holes don't exist, or at least they're not what scientists claim they are? And the r3ason scientists believe this is because of extraterrestrials, and/or time travel manipulating theories intofacts for us to believe? And our continued belief that black holes are what scientists and NASA say they are makes us less a threat to extraterrestrials? I'm not saying all this to be a smartass, just trying to understand your point of prespective...
Oooh, such a smartass you are!

He'll get you for that one!

Harte
Like I always say, it's better to be a smartass than a dumbass. :)
 

PoisonApple

Badass ☆。*♡✧*。
Zenith
Messages
2,949
So, according to you, or what you believe to be true, black holes don't exist, or at least they're not what scientists claim they are? And the r3ason scientists believe this is because of extraterrestrials, and/or time travel manipulating theories intofacts for us to believe? And our continued belief that black holes are what scientists and NASA say they are makes us less a threat to extraterrestrials? I'm not saying all this to be a smartass, just trying to understand your point of prespective...
Oooh, such a smartass you are!

He'll get you for that one!

Harte
Like I always say, it's better to be a smartass than a dumbass. :)
lol :D Agreed!
 

Ayasano

Member
Messages
407
I would agree that all the astronomical observations are debatable. Because we can't prove any interpretation is correct. But we could construct those interpretations out of FACTS instead of the ASSUMPTIONS that are prevalent and dominant in our science. So it's merely a matter of preference. Do you want to believe in FACTS? Or ASSUMPTIONS?

I believe in facts and assumptions, like the fact you seem to misunderstand how theories and hypotheses work. Modern science is based on FACTS, not ASSUMPTIONS, unless such FACTS are unnattainable with current technology, in which case ASSUMPTIONS have to be made and treated as true until such time they're either proven false or verified. Everything you currently treat as a FACT started out as an ASSUMPTION until it was proven.

All the info that we know about mass and gravity is conveniently described away with assumptions. We can't produce gravity in a laboratory setting, because of those assumptions about gravity and mass that we are taught.

Actually, we can. You can even do it in your own home right now. Just drop something. It's that easy! Also, we can experience the lack of gravity (or rather, the balancing of gravity with other fictitious forces, using the term in its GR sense) in a lab such as those onboard the ISS, which helps our understanding a lot. If you want to generate (mesurable) gravity without an acompanying massive object, well, that's going to take a lot of energy, a lot more than we currently have, but it can be done. E=mc^2 works both ways.

Incidentally, you might be interested in this paper.

I'm not a subscriber to General Relativity. That theory appears to me to be completely comprised of disinformation.

What about GPS? The engineers that designed GPS say they didn't use General Relativity to design the system. The clocks on the GPS satellites are continuously updated to overcome the positioning errors that develop over time. The accuracy for military positioning is at 2mm. The update frequency is classified. But you could calculate that update frequency using the 2mm error limit as the permissible error allowed. These are the real facts about GPS.

Could you provide me with a source for that claim? Because my source says they did, in fact, design with GR in mind, because when they ran it without the adjustments the accuracy dropped about 10km per day. Read the link I posted, it explains a lot.

What about micro lensing? Well if gravity doesn't bend light, then we are left with using some other mechanism to describe the observation. The presence of gas and plasma could easily replace an assumption based theory. So we are merely just looking at the presence of gas and/or plasma causing the lensing phenomena. The greater the distance, the higher the lensing. Could be a way to gauge different gas densities at different locations throughout the galaxy.

We daily see this phenomena on the horizon with either the sun or the moon. The thing that surprised me was that the sun or the moon could actually be beyond the horizon when close to the horizon because of this lensing effect. Just like the sun does to stars behind it.

Now lets take a look at the galactic center. Remember I previously stated that there may be nothing at the center. But the direction of gravity is backwards due to the weight of the galaxy being outside the center. So the center would technically be a region of space that behaves like anti-gravity. Time would flow faster there. And those x-ray objects moving toward the center may actually be bouncing off.

See my post after the one you replied to for the answers to these questions.
 

PaulaJedi

Survivor
Zenith
Messages
8,711
This could be your new Avatar!

Cute, but see, I am not a scientist nor do I work in the field. ** I ** cannot prove black holes exist. I'm not capable of it. If I could prove it, I'd be awfully famous. I have in interest in science, but I am in learning mode. The knowledge I've collected so far leads my mind to believe black holes exist. The knowledge you've collected leads you to believe they do not. That's part of being human. We are all different and we learn in different ways. So, I'm reading both sides of the story in this thread to learn. I'm happy to see some intelligent conversation going on, but remember, we all don't have to agree to get along. :)

I do like jabbing you once in a while, though -- mind out of the gutter, please!! :) :)
 

TnWatchdog

Senior Member
Messages
7,099
Supermassive Black Hole Discovered Inside Tiny Dwarf Galaxy
The Huffington Post | By David Freeman
Posted: 09/19/2014 10:21 am EDT Updated: 09/19/2014 10:59 am EDT

Talk about big things coming in little packages! Astronomers using data from the Hubble Space Telescope say they've discovered a ginormous black hole within one of the tiniest galaxies known to exist.
The supermassive black hole is about five times more massive than the one at the center of the Milky Way, but the dwarf galaxy in which it was found--known to astronomers as M60-UCD1--is about 500 times smaller than our own galaxy, according to NASA.
o-SUPERMASSIVE-BLACK-HOLE-900.jpg

"It is the smallest and lightest object that we know of that has a supermassive black hole," Dr. Anil C. Seth, a University of Utah astronomer and the lead author of a new paper about the discovery, said in a written statement. "It's also one of the most black hole-dominated galaxies known."
The discovery suggests that supermassive black holes may be twice as numerous in the nearby universe as previously thought, Nature reported.
Adding to the wonder is the fact that the dwarf galaxy is absolutely chockablock with stars. Someone living on a planet within M60-UCD1 would look up to a sky containing at least 1 million stars. The night sky here on Earth shows about 4,000 stars.
The discovery suggests that there are many other small galaxies containing supermassive black holes. What's more, it suggests that dwarf galaxies like M60-UCD1 may actually be the remnants of larger galaxies that were ripped apart by collisions with other galaxies.
"We don't know of any other way you could make a black hole so big in an object this small," Seth said in the statement.
Seth was one of 14 astronomers involved in the research, which was based upon observational data from the Gemini North telescope on Hawaii's Mauna Kea volcano as well as the Hubble data.
The researchers' paper was published online Sept. 17, 2014 in the journal Nature.

Supermassive Black Hole Discovered Inside Tiny Dwarf Galaxy

Edit...FYI, I posted this article here due to the subject matter, realizing that this is an artist's rendering, not an actual photo of an actual black hole. This will save numerous posts regarding the picture included in the article.
 
Last edited:

Einstein

Temporal Engineer
Messages
5,367
@Einstein Curious. If there are no black holes, what makes a galaxy spin?

You asked a question without an answer. Where does all that angular momentum come from? Science says there is a law of conservation of momentum. Perhaps it's one of those basic properties that just is. But I've yet to see an experiment to show the origin of spin.

By the way, angular momentum is not conserved. (bait)
 
Last edited:

PaulaJedi

Survivor
Zenith
Messages
8,711
@Einstein Curious. If there are no black holes, what makes a galaxy spin?

You asked a question without an answer. Where does all that angular momentum come from? Science says their is a law of conservation of momentum. Perhaps it's one of those basic properties that just is. But I've yet to see an experiment to show the origin spin.

By the way, angular momentum is not conserved. (bait)

One explanation could be very simple - the big bang - the universe is still expanding. Everything separated from the point of origin at different angle and perhaps they've been spinning from the start, but personally, I'm still a black hole believer.
 

Harte

Senior Member
Messages
4,562
One explanation could be very simple - the big bang - the universe is still expanding. Everything separated from the point of origin at different angle and perhaps they've been spinning from the start, but personally, I'm still a black hole believer.
Galaxies formed well after the Big Bang. Hundreds of millions of years after, though in comparison with the age of the universe, a hundred million years is just a blip.
Due to gravitational force, simple variations in motion between clumps of mass "soon" after the Big Bang inevitably result in angular motion, since some clumps of mass will orbit other, more massive, clumps of mass.
This is the sort of thing that snowballs as more and more clumps approach larger and larger masses.

Harte
 

Top