I am confused as to the purpose of this clip. It would help if there was some mention as to why this is an uexpected place. You would think anywhere there are star large enough, you could run into a black hole. Or I should say where a star large enough existed and became a black hole.
Our most credible astronauts admit that ufos do in fact exsist and that we are not alone in the universe. How do you debunk that? And don't use the excuse...well a ufo is an unidentified flying object and it could be anything. Because if you do your proper research they will tell you that they are in fact identified and they are beings from somewhere else not of earth origin.
i saw on tv where a stellar blackhole (the smaller kind) would rip you apart before you even got to it where the super massive you could fall into, so you would be just floating in space and then all the sudden just start free falling thats some crazy shit to think about, i had to stop tokin for like 2 weeks to even approach the idea
@kos22us Its because the tidal forces that accompany a black hole increase in smaller amounts in a larger black hole, so you would fall right through the event horizon and not notice, but if it was a smaller black hole, you would be ripped to shreds
@Gameczar beyond the even horizon is the singularity point. where matter is NOTHING. beyond the event horizon u will be ripped to shreds by the force of gravity in either a stellar black hole, or a supermassive black hole. doesnt matter.
They arent. Think of them just like any other star, only so dense that you cant see them or escape from them.
And yes they affect time too, its possible that you'd die from old age before actually entering the black hole due to the massive gravity / time delay :D
ORLY? Well that's so interesting. I thought that black holes where massive areas of extreme gravitational power capable of wrecking the fisical space, so a "hole" leaves from there. And so if space is breaked, then time too, and leaves from the theory of black holes being door to another dimensions.
Almost in to much detail to explain but it rips the time span and dimensions in space. spcae is like a spider web kinda it's so large there are many diffrent timeframes
everything on earth and the surroundings would die, theres probably another sun out there, the universe is unbileavable giant and in what we can gather up theres 1 sun, why not another so far away
Each star you see is either a planet or a sun. Each milky way contains its own sun. I'm sure it's on youtube, but I'm not sure where, but it shows over 3,000 milky ways from the hubble telescope pictures. Sun in each one.
Each star you see is either a planet or a sun? No, i do not agree with that. Each star you see is a sun. In this sol yes, i agree (sun reflecting off the planets) But there are only 9 main bodies in our solar system. The rest are stars. And the other pics of galaxies you see, are all stars, millions of them
Until I see your name published in some famous Astrology journal, I won't believe what you say. You say it like you know it for sure, when you really don't. Quit being a know-it-all.
lol? So, what you are saying, is that you can see a planet (which does not produce light), from several light years away with you'r naked eye? Wish I had you'r eyesight. Our solar system has 9 main planets, and im guessing at least another 100 moons. Look up on a clear night, and you will see at least a thousand stars (sun's) A Sun produces the only light source capable of being seen from earth with the naked eye at that distance. Go back to school.
You have it backwards. Our sun is a star. Go back to school. I know people like you in real life. They're social outcasts with no friends because they refuse to admit that they don't know everything.
lol, it looks like its you thats the social outcast with no friends. And that you'r just here to try and wind people up. you said it yourself, sun=star. Thats exactly what i have been saying. you seem to have reading problems...
"You will see at least a thousand stars (sun's)". No, you have not been saying that a sun=star, you have been saying the opposite. And you have no proof that I'm a social outcast. You're just butthurt that you got called one and feel the need to use my exact words against me, with no proof. I'm not trying to wind you up, I just know a know-it-all douche when I see one.
sun = star, star = sun, same exact thing. 2+4, 4+2, same thing. And you also have no proof that i am a social outcast, and i am not butthurt, as i think conversations like this are funny.
Your attitude is proof enough. I think people like YOU are funny. What with your coming on to Youtube and trying to show how smart you are by trying to prove someone wrong. I lol at that.
I said One simple thing. and you replied "Until I see your name published in some famous Astrology journal, I won't believe what you say. You say it like you know it for sure, when you really don't. Quit being a know-it-all."
they cant say for sure that we would be involved in the explosion. they highly doubt it though. thats what my teacher said. but it would expand, meaning at first the sun would get so hot that it would just burn to a crisp. but after the explasion, if the earth survived the supernova or whatever, itd become a frozen ball of ice.
yea but keep in mind that the sun is very small. and it wouldnt exactly explode. itd expand and IF it didnt hit the earth, wed all still die because of the expansion will cause the earth to get hotter since the suns surface is closer, and then when it dissapeared wed have no orbit, meaning not only would the earth be frozen, but everything orbiting it would float around randomly and alot of those things are probably going to crash into each other. but the sun would probably hit earth first.
Well we are the 3rd planet from the sun and the suns a giant ball of gas aka a start, a big one, starts explode when they die making a black hole or something, so that big ass thing exploding , we'd be in the explosion, no way we could survive.
gabzee without sunlight it would be so cold everyone would die unless there was an underground facility that harnessed geothermal or nuclear energy and in turn used it to grow food... this is already done on many other planets and is not necessary on planets with a stable enternal sun (not a traditional sun at all) (gravity works a little different than you might think) and atmosphere...I cannot go into details of classified info... JK but not really. haha
If the sun right now were to turn into a black hole. The earth would continue to revolve as normal. The perception of a giant vacuum cleaner which sucks everything up is a misconception.
actually the sun could never turn into a black hole it is not nearly large enough because its a medium mass star and would just turn into a dwarf star then super nova....in billions of years
I don't believe that medium mass stars supernova either. I was describing a hypothetical situation. Obviously the sun would expand into a giant and we would be toast long before any other solar event destroys us.
No, were expanding. Also there is this Theory of Membranes also know as "The Universe." They say it's a multiverse of some sort. Like bubbles in a cosmic multiverse sea.
dont black holes destroy everything in a matter of seconds? why is earth still in orbit around the sun and not somewhere inside a black hole? lol, thts just me - im curious
No there is not. ccording to the standard theories of cosmology, the universe started with a "Big Bang" about 14 thousand million years ago and has been expanding ever since. Yet there is no centre to the expansion; it is the same everywhere. The Big Bang should not be visualised as an ordinary explosion. The universe is not expanding out from a centre into space; rather, the whole universe is expanding and it is doing so equally at all places, as far as we can tell.
But what if you visualize the universe as the surface of the bubble. As the bubble expands, you cannot find a point on the surface which is the center point of expansion. Instead, each and every point moves away from each other equally.
Not a singularity, but the original area that was uniform and non expansive. Think of it as a giant sphere. When the explosion is uniform throughout the sphere the sphere still accelerates outward, increasing in size.
@superfakeashell1 One thousand million is a billion {10^9}, so you only argued that I was off by 500 million years {citation needed by the way.} I don't blame you for not understanding common short hand notation I blame your parents. I hope to god they are not as stupid as you. Maybe they should have stopped while they were ahead. At least check the web before bashing someone without reason.
@Darrknox ummmm actually most scientist refute the big bang theory simply stating that there must have been an alternate universe we simply budded off of and will in turn happen again in th distant future
@DoYouKnowJimmy Ummm, actually it's called the multiverse theory, and is not widely accepted. The theory propeses that universes and like bubbles in a frothy mix of ever expanding and shrinking universes and are expansions is just an extension of that. But I highly doubt you could explain that theory in detail yourself, and until you can I'm going to refute your claim that "most scientists refute the big bang theory." I'm not pulling this out of my ass.
id rather suggest that my brain just simply cant wrap my mind around the big bang theory and the multiverse theory sounds more likely to me, although i do not know the math myself
what i do know at some point in science we thought the sun revolved around the earth
science is always 'refuting' itself and that other theories MUST be looked at seriously if we are to know the answer to all questions regarding the universe and our existence
@DoYouKnowJimmy You can be biased irregardless of any facts at all. It's a facet of human nature. Why are you then fighting with me, when you know yourself you don't know anything about either theory. You use ad hominens everywhere and convoluted insults to make up for the fact that you were indeed incorrect. Not only is the ability to weigh opinions in science and society two completely different things, I have them abundance. I'm not persecuting you for your beliefs I'm telling you wait.
@DoYouKnowJimmy You seem to be bouncing around ideas as if you know them like the back of your hand, and I'm trying to inject some sense into you, for your benefit, because you seem so interested. Not mine. You say I'm simple minded, and yet when you argue you don't even find it necessary to capitalize your words, or write in a way that is simple for me to read. You think that convolution is intelligence, and simplicity is ignorance. That's another point altogether though.
@DoYouKnowJimmy Maybe you should take your own advice and read both of the theories. Read contradictions to the theory. But for god sakes make your own opinions. You seem to like the multiverse theory because it's chronologically newer, instead of the big bang theory which is more sound technically, WITH WHAT WE CURRENTLY KNOW. You seem to think I enjoy pointing out your flaws, but trust me, you're not that important or interesting. Don't be courteous to me, you don't have to be.
@DoYouKnowJimmy You call me ignorant for refuting theories, then refute my refutations with ignorance and insults. Moron? Dickhead? Idiot? If you spent as much time reading about the theories as you did thinking of different ways to say "unintelligent" to other youtube members we wouldn't be having this conversation. This is a video of science, and this is a discussion forum of that video, to debate, if need be the topic at hand, not my intellect, or your intellect. Good day sir.
@DoYouKnowJimmy The big bang theory and the multiverse theory are not mutually exclusive, one states a single instance and the other multiple. But the big bang theory actually has dark matter and galaxies going faster than the speed of light and other such instances to allow it to fend for itself as an idea. The multiverse theory however, doesn't have much going for it.
No, we can't see blackholes, but we know of their existence because of the surrounding matter. We can also use techniques like gravitational lensing to help us detect them. Our eyes cannot be sucked into it, since what reaches our eyes are nothing but electromagnetic radiation. Nice joke though ;)
Yeah, it's probably not even likely enough to care about, and if we went into a black hole, we wouldn't really notice, everything would rip apart in about 5 seconds when it got close enough, you wouldn't be able to be scared. (Which I'd probably prefer).
you know im 13 and it absoloutly facinates me that things like this are in our universe and also just how our galaxy is just a trillionth of the universe...amazing.
It's even more fascinating to think that our knowledge of the universe is quite likly to be about a trillionth of what there is to know; and then there's the stuff that we can't even possible start to comprehend. Daunting isn't it =)
yeah u know u should watch george norry unexplained and his radio show sometimes he brings scientists on his show and the topics they talk about space are very amazing it just makes me wanna be a astronaut or a scientist when i grow up.
you may never know if this is true at all. Imagine, a more intellegent humans began branching off into a new race. Then they are just spoon feeding the rest of us these "facts" but they know whats truely out there, and its not universes or stars. You may never know if its true unless you go out to space and see it for yourself.
Makes sense about the Atom on the table. I think, just like a spiraling water spout in a bath tub, there is an ending somewhere. that ending is non visible, because first we are so insignificant in size comparison, 2nd I think that ending is some type of ultra gigantic "cell wall" which sort of spews atomic particles and protons on the other side. the cellular cycle is infinitely large and small. each cell inhabiting another. supermassive black holes amaze me ( millions of suns diameter)
we could be a samll atom on the leg of a table for all we know theres someone on the leg of our tabe saying the same thing or someone with us on the leg of their table saying that but there is a lot of atoms in the universe so there a lot of people saying that same thing LOL
as far as we know u only get turned into spaghetti then no one knows what happens on the other side...they should send a prbe into one its like star trek when they jump to lght speed the turn to spaghetti then when IN lightspeed the stars are spaghetti you would still be live i know that u wouldnt be crushed it doesnt rip u apart its like it just separates ur particals from what i understand that dont kil you so um i think your just a bunch of living peices of spaghetti
More disturbingly you would be ripped apart atom by atom. If there was a way to hold your arm over the event horizon and stay where you were, your arm would shred into a trillion pieces while you watched.
what if the center of each galaxy including our own is a black hole! the huge gravity forms a spiral nebulae where billions of stars exist! that would be hilarious!
Supermassive blackholes seem to hold galaxies together, perhaps a smaller one would cause that gravitational funnel within the globular clusters. Holding them together.
I'm still curious as to how they're detected without gravitational lensing or spectral analysis (which I assume would be impossible anyway). This is in exception to things like pulsars for obvious reasons.
very correct! great to see someone who actually researches the stuff they are commenting ..black holes are the center of every galaxy ..what makes them spin on a flat axis :) an extra fact is that we a nearing the galactic solstice which we have not entered in 3600 years ..alot of scientists expect major earth changes in the year to come :)
Black holes are not portals, they are bodies composed of such compressed mass. So much mass that the gravity field is as large or larger than a stars.
If you go into a black hole, you will be instantly killed and compressed into the center of the black hole, and then shot out at high speed as pure energy.
I know, i dont understand whats so hard to comprehend about black holes. Star dies,collapses on itself, big gravitational pull,light cant escape. THE END
black holes break physics, they have infinite mass with infinite gravity but take up no space. A black hole will occur when a supernova is about to die, it's core sometimes cant handle the extra pressure and it crumples on itself. But you could never actualy enter a black hole as the radiation would kill you before you enter the event hovizon. (the point of no return)
Basically its what is left over when a star explodes. Imagine all the matter of the star disappears, but its gravitational force remains. So look at it as a big ball of gravity and nothing else. It is "Black" because light cant escape its pull (so we cant directly see it), and a "Hole" because it sucks everything into it. Thats as basic as i could possibly make it :D
The only thing that can escape it is sound jks nothing in the muther fucken universe can escape black holes except LIGHT X LIGHT = 3,400,250,000
(183500 X 183500 = 3,400,250,000) which is highly impossible because the only way we can do that if we put a light so power full that it can hold weight so then we would have one on the tip of the first light like this
________-__________?
?= car or ship i dont fucken care
-= strong light
and go like that untill we go faster then the speed of a black.
Dhaval1029----the reason it is so difficult to explain so much of this to some people is that they were sleeping during science class or planning the next rave, so they have no more of a clue of what light is or does in a gravity well, as someone did 100,000 years ago. You would have to use sex and drug examples to explain why photons cannot escape huge gravity wells. Like talking to a little kid about why Grandma is sleeping in that big box in the church! LOL*
Are you talking about black holes? Well, not really. Black holes don't form from dark matter. And while we do not have direct observation of dark matter, it is a widely accepted hypothesis, using mathematics and physics. One of the most important concepts used to prove the existence of dark matter is the virial theorem.
Watch: "Hubblecast 05: Hubble finds ring of dark matter"
An international team of astronomers using the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope has discovered a ghostly ring of dark matter formed long ago during a colossal collision between two An international team of astronomers using the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope has discovered a ghostly ring of dark matter formed long ago during a colossal collision between two galaxy clusters.
The imagery on that is artificial, what they believe to be the dark matter, based on other measurements they take. Basically they are looking for examples of it existing in a variety of ways it can exist. Its a good sign, but by no means proof. As yet there is no one solid theory on what constitutes dark matter, usually its a variety of items even including planets, black holes, dust we can't see, exotic mass particles, etc.
Correct. I took a picture of my slim sister. In my model she must be 150Kg, so I take the picture and put some dark mass to reach the expected 150gk.
Out of example: we see forces we cannot explain within Standard Model. The only force we use is gravitation. So we need to claim that dark matter exists, excerting the force we detect.
So if I build a wrong weighing balance, I can pretend there is some extra mass and claim my balance is good.
No jokes, that's dark matter. The model needs it.
Well also, lets say you write a computer program to simulate something. The simulation isn't accurate, but you can't find the bug/flaw, so you hack in conditional code to compensate for it. And this will hold and work until something more fundamental exposes the bug. The model needs it, but the model is not the universe. The model is good at predicting things, but you can often approach these things differently and also get good predictions, such as treating gravity differently.
Exactely. And please notice that this technique is good for keep alive a wrong model. You say "something more fundamental expose your bug", but we should realize that too many ad-hoc and a posteriori patches were made. As the X-ray emission. The model did not foresee the X-ray, instead the model was patched again supposing an accretion disk etc etc. Please note that it's becoming impossible to falsify wrong theories. Please note that this is the opposite of scientific method. That's dogmatism.
Yes - I like your point. It can be very hard to falsify a theory and its only self evident when a better predictive model comes along. Since we can't harness dark energy or collect dark matter, to me its the only thing I can be certain of is that exist as balancing constants to an imperfect model. What seems sketchy is co-opting a visualization and letting it get passed off as "evidence" of dark matter -which is apparently, blue in color :)
..or black holes do not exist. This is another possibility. Keep it in mind. We did not prove them, we are waiting since decades, lot of candidates, nearer and nearer but not a single confirmation. Not one! Except for the black hole on frankey's pocket lol.
No we know full-well that black holes exist. We can observe several documented black holes that either are or were feeding by signature X-ray emissions.
You should have said "we observed X-ray emission and this is a fact. We then suppose that these emission comes form black holes but nobody ever proved this, maybe the origin is different".
No. X-Ray emissions have predictable behaviors pertaining to specific sources. However, we also know that there is an object in the center of the Milky Way that does not emit electromagnetic radiation, is smaller than our solar system, and is four million times the mass of the Sun. This leads to the unavoidable conclusion that it is a supermassive black hole.
For what we know, it's a black hole. But just because we have no other explanation. It's our guess, we didn't prove it. Another example: when we see big forces, we say it's a black hole, but only because we have no other model. This won't prove we are right, we build a theory avoiding the proof.
Is it clear or you simply don't agree? Make clear this as I'm not interested in persuading about facts.
If there is a supermassive object for which nothing, not even light, can escape, it is by definition a black hole. There is a supermassive object in the center of the galaxy that light cannot escape from, so it is by definition a black hole.
For what we know for now. But a better explanation could be made, offering the same effects, with no need of black hole. This is still to prove and it has to be proved if you want to equally consider the existence of, say supernovae and black holes. They are only our best model, nothing more. And the model has some flaws too.
The only real flaw in the current theory is what occurs at the singularity, since General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics don't mix. However, especially in supermassive black holes, the need for QM does not occur until millions of kilometers radii within the event horizon, and the equations of General Relativity work perfectly. Thus, the actual "black hole", the event horizon boundary, is modeled by physics just fine.
See, you can say a lot of things where I can agree, still we perfectly know that we saw so many ad-hoc patch to keep the model alive. There is no will of investigating other theories. And... did you noticed that nobody ever still dared to reconsider black holes under the presence of black energy. As I said, for what we know (for what it was known when black holes where theorized) they can be acceptable, but for what it is, they might just as well be yet another wrong theory. We urge to prove.
Einstein's theory predicts objects with volumes less than their Schwarzchild radius, thus making everything including light incapable of escaping. Gravity at those density levels becomes stronger than the Strong nuclear force. Thus, nothing can stop the collapse. Thus, it is a black hole. Theory predicts, observation confirms. That's science.
Observations partly supports. That's quite different from what you wrote. You use words to try to claim we proved. We have no observation that formally proved what you claim. But I see we just get back to the starting point, time to stop this conversation
No, you've been missing the point: A "black hole" has a very specific definition within physics. What goes on inside the event horizon is irrelevant. We have found event horizons, thus we have found the predicted black holes.
What? We found the event horizon? Guys please stop making false claim. Even if black holes exist (I don't think so), we are decades far from obtaining the resolution needed so see the event horizon. So the predicted black holes are still missing. Except in the fantasy and desires of too many devotes to this unproved theory. I already said once that I will stop debate as you make false claim (if they are real, please find ask for a Nobel Prize).
Yes, the supermassive black hole in the center of our galaxy which we discovered by tracking the paths of satellite stars around a supermassive yet completely invisible object had been dormant, but recently started "feeding" again (albeit only a small amount). The resultant electromagnetic bursts were the signature of matter being accelerated and supercompressed at the boundary of the event horizon.
It is seeing an event horizon. A supermassive object with spherical symmetry that otherwise has no electromagnetic signature begins feeding and the matter that crosses the boundary is superheated and accelerated close to C, producing an electromagnetic signature. Then, the matter disappears completely. That's an event horizon.
Why do we discuss about that? You speak about what happens around the horizon (when radiation can still escape) and you call it horizon. Don't mess with words.
There's a black hole inside my cat's stomach, judging from the amount of food it eats.
kissapoikanen 6 months ago
@mathas11 It's called light bending or the accretion disc.
Darrknox 10 months ago
@mathas11 thats how we see it.....
think about it
DoYouKnowJimmy 10 months ago
the odds of looking RIGHT there wtf???
Chipmunck1234 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
there is a black hole at the center of our galaxy.
kccasey7601 1 year ago
I am confused as to the purpose of this clip. It would help if there was some mention as to why this is an uexpected place. You would think anywhere there are star large enough, you could run into a black hole. Or I should say where a star large enough existed and became a black hole.
fourtrees44 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Our most credible astronauts admit that ufos do in fact exsist and that we are not alone in the universe. How do you debunk that? And don't use the excuse...well a ufo is an unidentified flying object and it could be anything. Because if you do your proper research they will tell you that they are in fact identified and they are beings from somewhere else not of earth origin.
DanTubeify 1 year ago
i saw on tv where a stellar blackhole (the smaller kind) would rip you apart before you even got to it where the super massive you could fall into, so you would be just floating in space and then all the sudden just start free falling thats some crazy shit to think about, i had to stop tokin for like 2 weeks to even approach the idea
kos22us 1 year ago
@kos22us Its because the tidal forces that accompany a black hole increase in smaller amounts in a larger black hole, so you would fall right through the event horizon and not notice, but if it was a smaller black hole, you would be ripped to shreds
Gameczar 1 year ago
@Gameczar beyond the even horizon is the singularity point. where matter is NOTHING. beyond the event horizon u will be ripped to shreds by the force of gravity in either a stellar black hole, or a supermassive black hole. doesnt matter.
metroid478 1 year ago
@metroid478 Yeah, but you wouldn't notice any difference the moment you actually fell through the event horizon of a supermassive black hole
Gameczar 1 year ago
nothing,so if a huge rock solid went in, it's like a portal, so it disappears.Nobody really knows where it goes.
glitch123heydude 1 year ago
this looks like my screen saver
pimpxgrama 1 year ago
I understand that, black holes are, "holes" in space, but how about time?
Demolitionlinchpin 2 years ago
They arent. Think of them just like any other star, only so dense that you cant see them or escape from them.
And yes they affect time too, its possible that you'd die from old age before actually entering the black hole due to the massive gravity / time delay :D
Baleur 2 years ago
ORLY? Well that's so interesting. I thought that black holes where massive areas of extreme gravitational power capable of wrecking the fisical space, so a "hole" leaves from there. And so if space is breaked, then time too, and leaves from the theory of black holes being door to another dimensions.
Demolitionlinchpin 2 years ago
Almost in to much detail to explain but it rips the time span and dimensions in space. spcae is like a spider web kinda it's so large there are many diffrent timeframes
Jackspadeproductions 2 years ago
with out the sun everything would die, not just from a break in the food chain. There would be no heat, look at Antarctica and that's with a sun.
zendarx2 2 years ago
everything on earth and the surroundings would die, theres probably another sun out there, the universe is unbileavable giant and in what we can gather up theres 1 sun, why not another so far away
Fatalvengence 2 years ago
Each star you see is either a planet or a sun. Each milky way contains its own sun. I'm sure it's on youtube, but I'm not sure where, but it shows over 3,000 milky ways from the hubble telescope pictures. Sun in each one.
bergy305 2 years ago
Each star you see is either a planet or a sun? No, i do not agree with that. Each star you see is a sun. In this sol yes, i agree (sun reflecting off the planets) But there are only 9 main bodies in our solar system. The rest are stars. And the other pics of galaxies you see, are all stars, millions of them
nvstewart 2 years ago 2
@nvstewart
Until I see your name published in some famous Astrology journal, I won't believe what you say. You say it like you know it for sure, when you really don't. Quit being a know-it-all.
Kthxbai.
SAMIAM18 2 years ago
lol? So, what you are saying, is that you can see a planet (which does not produce light), from several light years away with you'r naked eye? Wish I had you'r eyesight. Our solar system has 9 main planets, and im guessing at least another 100 moons. Look up on a clear night, and you will see at least a thousand stars (sun's) A Sun produces the only light source capable of being seen from earth with the naked eye at that distance. Go back to school.
nvstewart 2 years ago 2
You have it backwards. Our sun is a star. Go back to school. I know people like you in real life. They're social outcasts with no friends because they refuse to admit that they don't know everything.
SAMIAM18 2 years ago
lol, it looks like its you thats the social outcast with no friends. And that you'r just here to try and wind people up. you said it yourself, sun=star. Thats exactly what i have been saying. you seem to have reading problems...
nvstewart 2 years ago
"You will see at least a thousand stars (sun's)". No, you have not been saying that a sun=star, you have been saying the opposite. And you have no proof that I'm a social outcast. You're just butthurt that you got called one and feel the need to use my exact words against me, with no proof. I'm not trying to wind you up, I just know a know-it-all douche when I see one.
SAMIAM18 2 years ago
sun = star, star = sun, same exact thing. 2+4, 4+2, same thing. And you also have no proof that i am a social outcast, and i am not butthurt, as i think conversations like this are funny.
nvstewart 2 years ago
Your attitude is proof enough. I think people like YOU are funny. What with your coming on to Youtube and trying to show how smart you are by trying to prove someone wrong. I lol at that.
SAMIAM18 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I said One simple thing. and you replied "Until I see your name published in some famous Astrology journal, I won't believe what you say. You say it like you know it for sure, when you really don't. Quit being a know-it-all."
Looks like your the one with attitude
nvstewart 2 years ago 2
"Fatalvengence has replied to your comment on Black Hole in Unexpected Place:"
So what's your point? If there ever was one.
zendarx2 2 years ago
that is my point. theres has to be more suns :D
Fatalvengence 2 years ago
and the fact that without the suns heat the earth just turns to ice
d3athbRinger 2 years ago
if the sun were to be destroyed, the entire earth would become frozen, meaning wed all die. not just the cold blooded animals.
DecroX01 2 years ago
the only way the sun could b destroyed is if it explodes, if that happened we would die anyway cuz earth would b involved in the explosion too
TAKHAR5000 2 years ago
they cant say for sure that we would be involved in the explosion. they highly doubt it though. thats what my teacher said. but it would expand, meaning at first the sun would get so hot that it would just burn to a crisp. but after the explasion, if the earth survived the supernova or whatever, itd become a frozen ball of ice.
DecroX01 2 years ago
they can, search in utube - star exploding then u will see, it desroys the solar system its in
TAKHAR5000 2 years ago
yea but keep in mind that the sun is very small. and it wouldnt exactly explode. itd expand and IF it didnt hit the earth, wed all still die because of the expansion will cause the earth to get hotter since the suns surface is closer, and then when it dissapeared wed have no orbit, meaning not only would the earth be frozen, but everything orbiting it would float around randomly and alot of those things are probably going to crash into each other. but the sun would probably hit earth first.
DecroX01 2 years ago
Well we are the 3rd planet from the sun and the suns a giant ball of gas aka a start, a big one, starts explode when they die making a black hole or something, so that big ass thing exploding , we'd be in the explosion, no way we could survive.
Fatalvengence 2 years ago
gabzee without sunlight it would be so cold everyone would die unless there was an underground facility that harnessed geothermal or nuclear energy and in turn used it to grow food... this is already done on many other planets and is not necessary on planets with a stable enternal sun (not a traditional sun at all) (gravity works a little different than you might think) and atmosphere...I cannot go into details of classified info... JK but not really. haha
xpaladoshes 2 years ago
Find another place to hide quick! The Empire knows your location and is coming for u!!
nervesint 2 years ago
omega centari
CarbonDioxide1990 2 years ago
If the sun right now were to turn into a black hole. The earth would continue to revolve as normal. The perception of a giant vacuum cleaner which sucks everything up is a misconception.
Mercenary1706 2 years ago 2
actually the sun could never turn into a black hole it is not nearly large enough because its a medium mass star and would just turn into a dwarf star then super nova....in billions of years
TheGameMasta 2 years ago
I don't believe that medium mass stars supernova either. I was describing a hypothetical situation. Obviously the sun would expand into a giant and we would be toast long before any other solar event destroys us.
Mercenary1706 2 years ago
a black hole only sucks in the objects that are close to it like stars
threezy350 2 years ago
Black holes have no more gravity then they did when they were a Star.
Silkfox 2 years ago
A black baby.
kwazi6 2 years ago
come on man..... if i were a dwarf that's where i'd be hiding
crazyjak87 2 years ago
midgets
crazyjak87 2 years ago
No, were expanding. Also there is this Theory of Membranes also know as "The Universe." They say it's a multiverse of some sort. Like bubbles in a cosmic multiverse sea.
FeastedUpon 2 years ago
theres a blackhole at the center of the universe
xenonecromera 2 years ago
dont black holes destroy everything in a matter of seconds? why is earth still in orbit around the sun and not somewhere inside a black hole? lol, thts just me - im curious
AquaPop49 2 years ago
my theory is that the black hole is slowly sucking everything in the universe into it
xenonecromera 2 years ago
Black Holes
FeastedUpon 2 years ago
yeah
xenonecromera 2 years ago
There is no center of the universe.
Andyiron777 2 years ago 3
yeah there is
xenonecromera 2 years ago
No there is not. ccording to the standard theories of cosmology, the universe started with a "Big Bang" about 14 thousand million years ago and has been expanding ever since. Yet there is no centre to the expansion; it is the same everywhere. The Big Bang should not be visualised as an ordinary explosion. The universe is not expanding out from a centre into space; rather, the whole universe is expanding and it is doing so equally at all places, as far as we can tell.
Darrknox 2 years ago 6
the universe is a flat circle and their is a centre of it(just saying:))
xenonecromera 2 years ago
the universe is a bubble. Even if it expands, there is always a center, even if it moves around.
NathanielZhe 2 years ago
But what if you visualize the universe as the surface of the bubble. As the bubble expands, you cannot find a point on the surface which is the center point of expansion. Instead, each and every point moves away from each other equally.
Mercenary1706 2 years ago 4
wow u have a lot of smarticals
NBlunierProductions 2 years ago
very cool visualization.
DiggingMyOwnGrave2 2 years ago
yeah but the expansion is happening at an accelerated rate.....
which means if u reverse the process, eventually you would end up in a singularity....
so i think, yes
there , at least, has been an absolute centre of the universe....the one dimensional point where the big bang was inhibited
hollandbovenaan 2 years ago
Not a singularity, but the original area that was uniform and non expansive. Think of it as a giant sphere. When the explosion is uniform throughout the sphere the sphere still accelerates outward, increasing in size.
Darrknox 2 years ago
@Darrknox it would be easier to say 13 billion years. lol
metroid478 1 year ago
@metroid478 No doubt.
Darrknox 1 year ago
@Darrknox i honestly dont know why ppl think some of the stupidest things.
metroid478 1 year ago
@Darrknox Actually, it's more like 13.5 BILLION years ago... I don't blame you for your ignorance, I blame the public education system.
superfakeashell1 11 months ago
@superfakeashell1 One thousand million is a billion {10^9}, so you only argued that I was off by 500 million years {citation needed by the way.} I don't blame you for not understanding common short hand notation I blame your parents. I hope to god they are not as stupid as you. Maybe they should have stopped while they were ahead. At least check the web before bashing someone without reason.
Darrknox 11 months ago
@Darrknox ummmm actually most scientist refute the big bang theory simply stating that there must have been an alternate universe we simply budded off of and will in turn happen again in th distant future
DoYouKnowJimmy 10 months ago
@DoYouKnowJimmy Ummm, actually it's called the multiverse theory, and is not widely accepted. The theory propeses that universes and like bubbles in a frothy mix of ever expanding and shrinking universes and are expansions is just an extension of that. But I highly doubt you could explain that theory in detail yourself, and until you can I'm going to refute your claim that "most scientists refute the big bang theory." I'm not pulling this out of my ass.
Darrknox 10 months ago
@Darrknox i stand corrected
id rather suggest that my brain just simply cant wrap my mind around the big bang theory and the multiverse theory sounds more likely to me, although i do not know the math myself
what i do know at some point in science we thought the sun revolved around the earth
science is always 'refuting' itself and that other theories MUST be looked at seriously if we are to know the answer to all questions regarding the universe and our existence
multiverse theory is just...
DoYouKnowJimmy 10 months ago
...appealing to me
and i hope we can learn from it as other scientist start to disprove it or unravel it really
DoYouKnowJimmy 10 months ago
@DoYouKnowJimmy Or if they prove it indefinitely. Scientists don't have the bias that is obviously present in your decision making.
Darrknox 10 months ago
@Darrknox how can i be bias when i dont know nearly 1% of the facts from either theory
your bias to being a complete idiot and only give your obvious bias opinion
you cant think past being a moron and a dickhead to weigh out the other options and beliefs in science or social situations
people exactly like you persecuted others for their beliefs just as you persecute me for my opinions now
you are simple minded and it shows in every comment
i could no longer be courteous to your ignorance
DoYouKnowJimmy 10 months ago
@DoYouKnowJimmy You can be biased irregardless of any facts at all. It's a facet of human nature. Why are you then fighting with me, when you know yourself you don't know anything about either theory. You use ad hominens everywhere and convoluted insults to make up for the fact that you were indeed incorrect. Not only is the ability to weigh opinions in science and society two completely different things, I have them abundance. I'm not persecuting you for your beliefs I'm telling you wait.
Darrknox 10 months ago
@DoYouKnowJimmy You seem to be bouncing around ideas as if you know them like the back of your hand, and I'm trying to inject some sense into you, for your benefit, because you seem so interested. Not mine. You say I'm simple minded, and yet when you argue you don't even find it necessary to capitalize your words, or write in a way that is simple for me to read. You think that convolution is intelligence, and simplicity is ignorance. That's another point altogether though.
Darrknox 10 months ago
@DoYouKnowJimmy Maybe you should take your own advice and read both of the theories. Read contradictions to the theory. But for god sakes make your own opinions. You seem to like the multiverse theory because it's chronologically newer, instead of the big bang theory which is more sound technically, WITH WHAT WE CURRENTLY KNOW. You seem to think I enjoy pointing out your flaws, but trust me, you're not that important or interesting. Don't be courteous to me, you don't have to be.
Darrknox 10 months ago
@DoYouKnowJimmy You call me ignorant for refuting theories, then refute my refutations with ignorance and insults. Moron? Dickhead? Idiot? If you spent as much time reading about the theories as you did thinking of different ways to say "unintelligent" to other youtube members we wouldn't be having this conversation. This is a video of science, and this is a discussion forum of that video, to debate, if need be the topic at hand, not my intellect, or your intellect. Good day sir.
Darrknox 10 months ago
@DoYouKnowJimmy The big bang theory and the multiverse theory are not mutually exclusive, one states a single instance and the other multiple. But the big bang theory actually has dark matter and galaxies going faster than the speed of light and other such instances to allow it to fend for itself as an idea. The multiverse theory however, doesn't have much going for it.
Darrknox 10 months ago
@Darrknox You mean 14 billion years ago
123101alex 7 months ago
@123101alex
1,000,000,000 (one billion, short scale; one thousand million, long scale)
So follow me on this, or at least try;
one thousand million = one billion
two thousand million = two billion
three thousand million = three billion
..................................................................
fourteen thousand million years ago = fourteen billion
You are not the first person to point out short hand versus long hand, I doubt you even know the difference. don't be such a smart ass.
Darrknox 7 months ago
@Darrknox Oh i wasn't paying attention to the thousand part i just saw the 14 million i didn't pay attention to the thousand part
123101alex 7 months ago
@xenonecromera
No, there really isn't.
Darrknox 10 months ago
@Darrknoxi i meant galaxy :)
xenonecromera 10 months ago
@xenonecromera Ah, right on then!
Darrknox 10 months ago
God is AWESOME!!
Jetli390 2 years ago
lol wow u must really love astronomy
dancinizzycat 2 years ago
Lol I do!
Jetli390 2 years ago
If we actually are able to "see" a black hole thru a telescope....wont the light from
our eyes be sucked into it and then wont our eyeballs and the rest of our body also follow and be sucked in....Im ascared!!!:(
goofywilly 2 years ago
Nice joke..
fuckelitist9 2 years ago 2
No, we can't see blackholes, but we know of their existence because of the surrounding matter. We can also use techniques like gravitational lensing to help us detect them. Our eyes cannot be sucked into it, since what reaches our eyes are nothing but electromagnetic radiation. Nice joke though ;)
xLostInThoughtx 2 years ago
if it is REALLY strong, it still won't, only if it's close enough, if it was you would be gone before you can even say bye to the world.
glitch123heydude 1 year ago
@glitch123heydude nope, it'd take time. probs 300yrs. but wed all die because of storms and not being close to our solar emitter, the sun.
pwengy50 1 year ago
Yeah, it's probably not even likely enough to care about, and if we went into a black hole, we wouldn't really notice, everything would rip apart in about 5 seconds when it got close enough, you wouldn't be able to be scared. (Which I'd probably prefer).
rot0001 3 years ago
we interrupt this program to BLOW YOUR MIND!!
GTA4masta 3 years ago
wow. that was mind BLASTING
3S88Sat 3 years ago
you know im 13 and it absoloutly facinates me that things like this are in our universe and also just how our galaxy is just a trillionth of the universe...amazing.
jtr10411 3 years ago
did you squeal when you first found out were jupiter was?
rneld90 3 years ago
na lol
jtr10411 3 years ago
It's even more fascinating to think that our knowledge of the universe is quite likly to be about a trillionth of what there is to know; and then there's the stuff that we can't even possible start to comprehend. Daunting isn't it =)
danielj06 3 years ago
yeah u know u should watch george norry unexplained and his radio show sometimes he brings scientists on his show and the topics they talk about space are very amazing it just makes me wanna be a astronaut or a scientist when i grow up.
jtr10411 3 years ago
so, then do that, what else amazes you...
sabersteve 3 years ago
Comment removed
jtr10411 3 years ago
what?..say that again?
spike0804 2 years ago
you may never know if this is true at all. Imagine, a more intellegent humans began branching off into a new race. Then they are just spoon feeding the rest of us these "facts" but they know whats truely out there, and its not universes or stars. You may never know if its true unless you go out to space and see it for yourself.
debit256 3 years ago
very true ..your absoloutly right
jtr10411 3 years ago
i guess you've never looked up at night
spike0804 2 years ago
Makes sense about the Atom on the table. I think, just like a spiraling water spout in a bath tub, there is an ending somewhere. that ending is non visible, because first we are so insignificant in size comparison, 2nd I think that ending is some type of ultra gigantic "cell wall" which sort of spews atomic particles and protons on the other side. the cellular cycle is infinitely large and small. each cell inhabiting another. supermassive black holes amaze me ( millions of suns diameter)
puppetmaster0100 3 years ago
we could be a samll atom on the leg of a table for all we know theres someone on the leg of our tabe saying the same thing or someone with us on the leg of their table saying that but there is a lot of atoms in the universe so there a lot of people saying that same thing LOL
HMGen14 3 years ago
as far as we know u only get turned into spaghetti then no one knows what happens on the other side...they should send a prbe into one its like star trek when they jump to lght speed the turn to spaghetti then when IN lightspeed the stars are spaghetti you would still be live i know that u wouldnt be crushed it doesnt rip u apart its like it just separates ur particals from what i understand that dont kil you so um i think your just a bunch of living peices of spaghetti
HMGen14 3 years ago
Can You Breath in a black hole ?;;
soz im only 11 lol im rele scared now
hunniebunzz 3 years ago
lol no don't worry you'd be crushed to death before you would even notice :D
lanceawatt 3 years ago 3
More disturbingly you would be ripped apart atom by atom. If there was a way to hold your arm over the event horizon and stay where you were, your arm would shred into a trillion pieces while you watched.
Mercenary1706 2 years ago
You would'nt actually see it, your arm would just disapear as it passed the event horizon, as no light can escape :D
toggsuk 2 years ago
its ok im only 12 and thare is no reason to be scared because its not going to happen
people make up scar storys to scar people and trust me, it is not goin to happen
hope i helped
geckoguy1978 3 years ago
Then I guess I made the table
homosarus 3 years ago
What if our galaxy is just a small atom on a leg of a table?
PorkandBeans124 3 years ago
Then... it's gonna be quite a big table?
lanceawatt 3 years ago
what if the center of each galaxy including our own is a black hole! the huge gravity forms a spiral nebulae where billions of stars exist! that would be hilarious!
vendetta007mike 3 years ago
man dont you youngins go believeing this stuff.now these guys are great effects artists but thats about it.
sirnicholson 3 years ago
I Know...
N1NTENDOGAMER1996 3 years ago
Cool animation
bbddbdbd 3 years ago
its amazing how black holes can even suck up light itself
dudecowguy 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
1. no one proved that black holes exist and
2. if they were proven real they would look just like any corner of space exept a little bit more cyclone-ish
randomcomicguy69 3 years ago
my friend black holes exist
DarkOneKmikaze 3 years ago 4
they have been proved
badcommentmr 3 years ago 6
i can make one
chinonononozu 3 years ago 3
Supermassive blackholes seem to hold galaxies together, perhaps a smaller one would cause that gravitational funnel within the globular clusters. Holding them together.
I'm still curious as to how they're detected without gravitational lensing or spectral analysis (which I assume would be impossible anyway). This is in exception to things like pulsars for obvious reasons.
PolarisUSMC 3 years ago
very correct! great to see someone who actually researches the stuff they are commenting ..black holes are the center of every galaxy ..what makes them spin on a flat axis :) an extra fact is that we a nearing the galactic solstice which we have not entered in 3600 years ..alot of scientists expect major earth changes in the year to come :)
xraycatnz 3 years ago
Freaakkyyy :(
Valerietrick 3 years ago
Someone explain this video to me. Where did that black hole come from?
Thanks.
Kurzland 3 years ago 3
star explosion
smirproductions 3 years ago 4
we were all at one point starrs =)
bobbyseatbobs 3 years ago 2
holy!
phillipmuzzall 3 years ago
Black holes are not portals, they are bodies composed of such compressed mass. So much mass that the gravity field is as large or larger than a stars.
If you go into a black hole, you will be instantly killed and compressed into the center of the black hole, and then shot out at high speed as pure energy.
LookAtYrOwnName 3 years ago
what happens if you enter a black hole,what is in the other side?
germankernelpanik 3 years ago 2
I know, i dont understand whats so hard to comprehend about black holes. Star dies,collapses on itself, big gravitational pull,light cant escape. THE END
WhoxxDey11 3 years ago 3
black holes break physics, they have infinite mass with infinite gravity but take up no space. A black hole will occur when a supernova is about to die, it's core sometimes cant handle the extra pressure and it crumples on itself. But you could never actualy enter a black hole as the radiation would kill you before you enter the event hovizon. (the point of no return)
Chocolaterain135 3 years ago
But what about the Dysney movie
loofyggahs 3 years ago
whats a black hole exactly?
turkeybaby2 3 years ago
Basically its what is left over when a star explodes. Imagine all the matter of the star disappears, but its gravitational force remains. So look at it as a big ball of gravity and nothing else. It is "Black" because light cant escape its pull (so we cant directly see it), and a "Hole" because it sucks everything into it. Thats as basic as i could possibly make it :D
jem1985 3 years ago 2
not even light can escape a black hole there so dense its unbeleivable
LinkinParkOwnzAll 3 years ago
where else would you expect a black hole to be?
suril22 3 years ago
In Africa?
cookeladoo 3 years ago 5
lols
sims2youngsters 3 years ago
haha dude thts messed up
datasian123 3 years ago
The only thing that can escape it is sound jks nothing in the muther fucken universe can escape black holes except LIGHT X LIGHT = 3,400,250,000
(183500 X 183500 = 3,400,250,000) which is highly impossible because the only way we can do that if we put a light so power full that it can hold weight so then we would have one on the tip of the first light like this
________-__________?
?= car or ship i dont fucken care
-= strong light
and go like that untill we go faster then the speed of a black.
Dhaval1029 3 years ago
Dhaval1029----the reason it is so difficult to explain so much of this to some people is that they were sleeping during science class or planning the next rave, so they have no more of a clue of what light is or does in a gravity well, as someone did 100,000 years ago. You would have to use sex and drug examples to explain why photons cannot escape huge gravity wells. Like talking to a little kid about why Grandma is sleeping in that big box in the church! LOL*
escueladeleyi 3 years ago
it have to be dark matter 2 form it right and we dint find any dark matter
skulzzhead101 3 years ago
Are you talking about black holes? Well, not really. Black holes don't form from dark matter. And while we do not have direct observation of dark matter, it is a widely accepted hypothesis, using mathematics and physics. One of the most important concepts used to prove the existence of dark matter is the virial theorem.
shippoCY88 3 years ago
Watch: "Hubblecast 05: Hubble finds ring of dark matter"
An international team of astronomers using the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope has discovered a ghostly ring of dark matter formed long ago during a colossal collision between two An international team of astronomers using the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope has discovered a ghostly ring of dark matter formed long ago during a colossal collision between two galaxy clusters.
mouromau 3 years ago
The imagery on that is artificial, what they believe to be the dark matter, based on other measurements they take. Basically they are looking for examples of it existing in a variety of ways it can exist. Its a good sign, but by no means proof. As yet there is no one solid theory on what constitutes dark matter, usually its a variety of items even including planets, black holes, dust we can't see, exotic mass particles, etc.
Arianive 3 years ago
Correct. I took a picture of my slim sister. In my model she must be 150Kg, so I take the picture and put some dark mass to reach the expected 150gk.
Out of example: we see forces we cannot explain within Standard Model. The only force we use is gravitation. So we need to claim that dark matter exists, excerting the force we detect.
So if I build a wrong weighing balance, I can pretend there is some extra mass and claim my balance is good.
No jokes, that's dark matter. The model needs it.
fabbio8888 3 years ago
Well also, lets say you write a computer program to simulate something. The simulation isn't accurate, but you can't find the bug/flaw, so you hack in conditional code to compensate for it. And this will hold and work until something more fundamental exposes the bug. The model needs it, but the model is not the universe. The model is good at predicting things, but you can often approach these things differently and also get good predictions, such as treating gravity differently.
Arianive 3 years ago
Exactely. And please notice that this technique is good for keep alive a wrong model. You say "something more fundamental expose your bug", but we should realize that too many ad-hoc and a posteriori patches were made. As the X-ray emission. The model did not foresee the X-ray, instead the model was patched again supposing an accretion disk etc etc. Please note that it's becoming impossible to falsify wrong theories. Please note that this is the opposite of scientific method. That's dogmatism.
fabbio8888 3 years ago
Yes - I like your point. It can be very hard to falsify a theory and its only self evident when a better predictive model comes along. Since we can't harness dark energy or collect dark matter, to me its the only thing I can be certain of is that exist as balancing constants to an imperfect model. What seems sketchy is co-opting a visualization and letting it get passed off as "evidence" of dark matter -which is apparently, blue in color :)
Arianive 3 years ago
..or black holes do not exist. This is another possibility. Keep it in mind. We did not prove them, we are waiting since decades, lot of candidates, nearer and nearer but not a single confirmation. Not one! Except for the black hole on frankey's pocket lol.
fabbio8888 3 years ago 5
No we know full-well that black holes exist. We can observe several documented black holes that either are or were feeding by signature X-ray emissions.
mtheory85 3 years ago
You should have said "we observed X-ray emission and this is a fact. We then suppose that these emission comes form black holes but nobody ever proved this, maybe the origin is different".
fabbio8888 3 years ago
No. X-Ray emissions have predictable behaviors pertaining to specific sources. However, we also know that there is an object in the center of the Milky Way that does not emit electromagnetic radiation, is smaller than our solar system, and is four million times the mass of the Sun. This leads to the unavoidable conclusion that it is a supermassive black hole.
mtheory85 3 years ago
For what we know, it's a black hole. But just because we have no other explanation. It's our guess, we didn't prove it. Another example: when we see big forces, we say it's a black hole, but only because we have no other model. This won't prove we are right, we build a theory avoiding the proof.
Is it clear or you simply don't agree? Make clear this as I'm not interested in persuading about facts.
fabbio8888 3 years ago
If there is a supermassive object for which nothing, not even light, can escape, it is by definition a black hole. There is a supermassive object in the center of the galaxy that light cannot escape from, so it is by definition a black hole.
mtheory85 3 years ago
For what we know for now. But a better explanation could be made, offering the same effects, with no need of black hole. This is still to prove and it has to be proved if you want to equally consider the existence of, say supernovae and black holes. They are only our best model, nothing more. And the model has some flaws too.
fabbio8888 3 years ago
The only real flaw in the current theory is what occurs at the singularity, since General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics don't mix. However, especially in supermassive black holes, the need for QM does not occur until millions of kilometers radii within the event horizon, and the equations of General Relativity work perfectly. Thus, the actual "black hole", the event horizon boundary, is modeled by physics just fine.
mtheory85 3 years ago
See, you can say a lot of things where I can agree, still we perfectly know that we saw so many ad-hoc patch to keep the model alive. There is no will of investigating other theories. And... did you noticed that nobody ever still dared to reconsider black holes under the presence of black energy. As I said, for what we know (for what it was known when black holes where theorized) they can be acceptable, but for what it is, they might just as well be yet another wrong theory. We urge to prove.
fabbio8888 3 years ago
Einstein's theory predicts objects with volumes less than their Schwarzchild radius, thus making everything including light incapable of escaping. Gravity at those density levels becomes stronger than the Strong nuclear force. Thus, nothing can stop the collapse. Thus, it is a black hole. Theory predicts, observation confirms. That's science.
mtheory85 3 years ago
Observations partly supports. That's quite different from what you wrote. You use words to try to claim we proved. We have no observation that formally proved what you claim. But I see we just get back to the starting point, time to stop this conversation
fabbio8888 3 years ago
No, you've been missing the point: A "black hole" has a very specific definition within physics. What goes on inside the event horizon is irrelevant. We have found event horizons, thus we have found the predicted black holes.
mtheory85 3 years ago
What? We found the event horizon? Guys please stop making false claim. Even if black holes exist (I don't think so), we are decades far from obtaining the resolution needed so see the event horizon. So the predicted black holes are still missing. Except in the fantasy and desires of too many devotes to this unproved theory. I already said once that I will stop debate as you make false claim (if they are real, please find ask for a Nobel Prize).
fabbio8888 3 years ago
Yes, the supermassive black hole in the center of our galaxy which we discovered by tracking the paths of satellite stars around a supermassive yet completely invisible object had been dormant, but recently started "feeding" again (albeit only a small amount). The resultant electromagnetic bursts were the signature of matter being accelerated and supercompressed at the boundary of the event horizon.
mtheory85 3 years ago
And do you think this mean "seeing the horizon event"???
You make false claims.
fabbio8888 3 years ago
It is seeing an event horizon. A supermassive object with spherical symmetry that otherwise has no electromagnetic signature begins feeding and the matter that crosses the boundary is superheated and accelerated close to C, producing an electromagnetic signature. Then, the matter disappears completely. That's an event horizon.
mtheory85 3 years ago
Why do we discuss about that? You speak about what happens around the horizon (when radiation can still escape) and you call it horizon. Don't mess with words.
fabbio8888 3 years ago
how do we know its the center of our galaxy?
turkeybaby2 3 years ago