The Truth and Lies about Black Holes

[Spedster777]

@EcioAssassin Only in theory. The only known exit is through it's jets of ejecta.

[Spedster777]

@gyro5d black holes aren't in stars. Stars collapsing in on themselves form stars.

[Spedster777]

@spartanW43 No, space is already a vacuum. We wouldn't get sucked in because a vacuum is the lowest possible pressure. Because fluids move from high to low pressures, we would not move.

[EcioAssassin]

So Black hole is the entry, and white is the exit?

[gyro5d]

Blackholes create galaxies. Blackholes are inside stars. Planets are ministars.

[spartanW43]

Dosent a black hole work using vacume...?

So if the sun was replaced with a black hole (aka gravitational pull replaced with vacume), then wouldent the earth just be sucked in?

[Typho0n86]

The video lies

[MrAwesomeman444]

@Typho0n86 And I suppose you know EVERYTHING about Black holes >.>

[nickblakely1]

beliveable but i dont think we can prove non of it because no human has ever been inside a black hole

[DrKillaser]

with total respect.. is this video dedicated to young? -12?

[maurpine]

there are too many contradictions about so-called 'black-holes." they are a product of theoretical assumptions where a star collapses to a 'point.' A 'point' is a theoretical entity since points do not exists in nature. People should not talk about 'bing- bang' and 'black holes' as if they are facts because they are not. They are simply stories based on mathematical models and assumptions, nothing empirical about it.

[supergiuovane]

@maurpine Except for the fact that "black holes" and "big bang" words that carry the knowledge of tens of years ago. Stars do no collapse to a "point", for example. And there are proofs and evidence in favor of both black holes and big bang. I mean empirical, not theoretical.

[dynamcuk]

ok so what i wana know is the matter getting spat out of the black hole where does that come from if supposedly nothing can escape a black hole once it goes in. So is it the same matter coming out thats going in?

[GodofCider]

@dynamcuk The matter being thrown out isn't coming from 'within' the black hole, but from around it.

[ilcvmvm]

don't get fooled by this nonsense, watch eleectric universe and learn how the universe holds best with a reliable theory instead of this mathematic illusion.

[GrimmJoke]

Replace the sun with a black hole and everything would remain the same?....Riiiiight...

A sun is a star that expels matter and energy at a tremendous rate which pushes against everything that orbits it i.e. solar wind and as its doing this its slowly shedding mass which would in theory keep anything in a stable orbit more likely to maintain that orbit.

Black holes are NOT stars, how they effect whats orbiting them would not be the same. It may take a long time but any stable orbit would decay.

[BugEyedEarl]

@GrimmJoke You're completely wrong. You think you know more than real scientists who have spent years studying the field- and studying ACTUAL BLACK HOLES? You're an idiot.

[supergiuovane]

@GrimmJoke "A sun is a star that expels matter and energy at a tremendous rate which pushes against everything that orbits it i.e. solar wind and as its doing this its slowly shedding mass which would in theory keep anything in a stable orbit more likely to maintain that orbit." Ahaha!! this is funny!

[dantunes112]

@GrimmJoke they were stars

[MonkeyBallZ214]

What happens to the matter that is spit out? Does it continue in a straight path or does it circle around in the shape of a magnetic field?

Theory, Atoms and Black Holes are the same. If you were shrunk to the size to atoms equivalent to our size in a galaxy, would it look identical to what we see in a galaxy?

In my theory, I see not an expanding universe as much as one that is following a magnetic field and will be pulled back to the center at some point only to go out again. a cycle. THEORY.

[ytuber28341]

It continues in a straight path.

Look at models of the gravitational fields of Earth, & you see why.

Gravity is strong around the Earth, but weak around the axis, so matter escapes.

Same applies to the black hole.

[GrimmJoke]

MonkeyBallZ214....you are closer to the truth than you imagine ....keep it up....remember ....question everything.

[imarchello]

i think black holes aren't really holes, they're spheres... we can see them only from 1 viewpoint, so they look like hole, but they aren't

[annie19645]

aren't assholes the exact same thing?

[supersandor]

"This isn't just for fun"? I never even considered the mere possibility that black holes did ANYTHING for amusement and now I learn that amusement merely isn't their sole objective? Far be it from me to deny the amusement factor of producing jets of gas from holes, but is that all they do for fun then? Or perhaps I could ask one out on a date?

[Snotty87]

Simply put - we know light bends around mass (Einstein rings, solar eclipses). Then what's stopping there from being a mass so dense the light is bent compeltely inwards - can't escape. Theoretically they are possible so why is it such a shock when we 'observe' one.

[fabbio8888]

Theoretically it is disputed. Einstein denied the possibility of black holes (he may be wrong, but this shows you how disputed they are) and the problem of the observations is that relativistic streams and X-ray emission were not predicted but only patched to the theory. Such an object is a wildcard, a jolly for any new discovery as it was for jet-streams and X-ray emission. Black hole may exists, ok. May not exists, also.

[DemonicFireFly117]

It is said that time travels at the speed of light. And if light can't escape the gravity of a Black Hole, then anything in the event horizon will move faster than light. If it all implies, after you go into the event horizon, you will move faster than light and go into the future. Now this could be the future in 10 seconds or the future in a million years. The thing is, you're still not leaving the hole so you're still screwed. Unless going faster than time makes a rip in space-time.

[madoo87]

1. Time does not "travel" and certainly not at the speed of light

2. The fact that light cannot escape the gravity of a black hole does not mean whats inside is moving "faster" than the speed of light

3. There is no physics theory which stats that you will go to the future when you travel faster than light

[DemonicFireFly117]

IF time travels faster than the speed of light. You can't say it doesn't unless you show me proof. IF was the word I used.

[madoo87]

No u got it all wrong...

In physics I definitely CAN say something doesn't as a null hypothesis (null hypothesis does not need proof)

I do not have to show proof for something that DOES NOT behave as what some1 states (e.g. time NOT travelling at the speed of light which is non-sense)

However YOU are the one that has to show proof since YOU HAVE CLAIMED that time "TRAVELS" at the speed of light (LOL)

[DemonicFireFly117]

You may be right about that, but you still outright stated that I was wrong. Now you are saying that by stating I was wrong, you were making a null hypothesis. Usually, when someone makes a hypothesis of any form, they don't flat out state it as if they knew they were correct. It's both offensive and unnecessary.

Also, you said time does not travel at the speed of light while I said it does. Null hypothesis or not, NEITHER of us have proof. So don't go saying I'm wrong here.

[madoo87]

lol ok here it goes... ill do this just for you... although just restating something that is generally understood this way (the reason why null hypothesis does not need proof)

TIME is just a PART of dimension (4th dimension in the space-time hyperspace)

Therefore time is just another way to measure displacement (just like the other 3 dimensions - width, length, depth)

You cannot say depth travels at the speed of light - nonsense

THEREFORE TIME does NOT travel at the speed of light

[DemonicFireFly117]

You call that proof? I'm disappointed. I thought a "just for me" tutor could throw something more convincing at me. Unless you can direct me to an article with PROOF of what your telling me, you'll just have to face that neither of us have any.

[madoo87]

Sorry thats about as far as one can go

Unless you are just too stupid to understand, you should realize that NULL HYPOTHESIS does not need proof

If you want the proof that time is a part of 4 dimentional hyperspace, read the famous article, THE THEORY OF GENERAL RELATIVITY. You can get it pretty much anywhere

General relativity states that time is just another dimention and everything flows through it. It is now something that "travels"

Problem solved? Have a good day failure lolz

[DemonicFireFly117]

First, how can the THEORY of relativity give me proof if it's a theory?

Second, why are you giving me a source of proof if a null hypothesis doesn't need proof? You've been contradicting yourself.

Third, it's obvious that you are trying to make yourself sound smarter by throwing blind insults and laughing at my intelligence. Someone who is truly smart would hold a professional conversation free of insults. I think you're just trolling. This is a waste of my time.

[madoo87]

This is so funny... you have just made yourself look so bad... its at the point where I am actually laughing...

1. THEORY is the best physics can get. In order for it to be a THEOREM then you need a mathematical proof which is impossible for physics THEORY therefore a theory is the best physics explaination for things

2. I only showed proof for my NULL since you wanted it and I made it obvious that it does not need proof already

3. Smart people cannot have the same personality peroid

[madoo87]

You will realize how dumb you are... by the time you read this one

You said how can a THEORY give you proof?

Its the theories (not theorems) that stats that Earth is round... You know for the FACT that earth is round but EVEN THAT does not make it a theorem, just a proven THEORY

[DemonicFireFly117]

You failed to realize that the theory you presented to me earlier has one tiny difference with the theory of Earth being flat. Einstein's theory has yet to be proven.

You can say I've made myself "look so bad" all you want. It just shows me how you've yet to reach a mature enough stage where you no longer have to throw insults to hold a debate.

I bet you're that kind of person that's so smart, they just think everyone is useless and stupid. My uncle Butch was like that and he killed himself.

[madoo87]

1. Einstein's theory has been proven by about at least 50 different means all by different experiments and has thousands of articles uses this idea to prove more complex physics theories

2. It is typical for "unintelligent" people to attack other people's looks or personalities rather than their actual intelligence. I can understand what you are doing here. Just go look at creationist videos and how they make fun of all the admired scientists. You are doing just that

[DemonicFireFly117]

Hold on just one second, I don't make fun of all admired scientists, I am talking about YOU and my uncle. The first comment I made on this video you went right ahead and insulted me about because you thought I was wrong. If there is anyone here doing something wrong, it's you. I don't take kindly to someone just barging in and saying "you're wrong, you're a complete fool because you don't think the way I do." It's not a good way to make friends or prove a point.

[finruinbb]

You can argue semantics all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that your original comment was just plain wrong. If you can't handle people telling you it was wrong, you need to grow thicker skin.

-Time does not 'travel'.

-You cannot go faster than the speed of light.

-You do not need to go faster than the speed of light to 'go into the future', you just need to approach it.

[rubberdown1969]

Black holes exist only in the heads of theoretical physisists, who's tenets are 99% imaginary & so fudged they no longer resemble in any way real science.

[Snotty87]

Except for all the observational phenomenon associated with black holes - like Einstein rings, and AGN radio feedback.

[fabbio8888]

Einsein rings are for any dense mass, no need to be BH. Radio feedback? Can I remind you that X-ray emission was a patch put after the discovery of radio emissions? At least please avoid using it as proof, or yoy will have a circular reasoning.

[Snotty87]

Well Einstein rings indicate mass NOT a black hole. But we can determine a limit on the size of the volume containing that mass. If the event horizon of a black hole with the mass observed is larger than the limit of the volume then it must be a black hole. Also using the Eddington lumuinosity and the observed luminosity we can further constrain the volume.

[fabbio8888]

Well good, sh so I'm right, Einstein rings indicate mass. So why do you reply to me?

[matieman77]

a black hole IS mass!?

[rubberdown1969]

Sorry All observations are very easily explained by the electrical properties of plasma within magnetic fields.

[soupdragon42]

The accretion disk theory contradicts the original theory. Einstein did noy buy into the idea of Black Holes. They remain mathematical abstractions. The actual process in a plasma/EM phenomena

[fabbio8888]

Why we cannot see Jet Streams out of the supermassive Black Hole in the center of our Galaxy? Why we did not see any distorsion in stars spinning around it? Thanks.

[Snotty87]

Because our galaxy isn't an active galaxy (it's old and well developed. Jets are a mechanism for galaxies to lose built up angular momentum from in-falling material, but there isn't a whole lot falling into our galaxy's black hole anymore because its so old, therefore its jet isn't significantly noticeable.

[fabbio8888]

Yes of course I know this ad-hoc explanation, that some black holes feeds, some not. And when? Luckily for the theory, when we need. This is a parametric theory of no use: we have a supermassive BH but the theory wasn't able to save it from decades of "no BH in our Bulge". Ok...

[elsephi]

im glad there are black holes around.

[showermanisgreeeeezy]

black holes are not actuly black its just that they are spinning faster than light and we cant see anything that moves faster than light so that why we think black holes are just big black spots in the middle of space and if we could see them properly they would be a luminous colour i think

[adio90]

they arent black, they are invisable, only the quazar can be seen or the accretion disc

[adio90]

they arent black, they are invisable, only the quazar can be seen or the accretion disc

[matiaszzz]

You don't know anything !, and you believe you do !

Black hole ARE black just because light can not go out and cross the horizon of event. So you can not see it.

And not all black have a spin, a schwarzschild black hole do not spin.

There is no such thing like "...spinning faster than light and we cant see anything that moves faster than light ..."

Learn some more, then you can post!

[leroy1212401]

are black hole like balls or are they actual holes and if there holes shouldent it have another openin where the mater is expelled. Also is it true thay black holes create universes

[stevebd1]

I've added a link in the description to a blog I created regarding a similar question someone asked in a physics forum. You're welcome to take a look.

[KyotoMelody]

Thanks for the video. But, I cant open the link u gave above, Steve.

[homousios]

very instructive!

[superfisto]

I learned.