New simulation shows gas spiralling around black hole

[Bassotronics]

Isn't matter supposed to fall into the black hole from all directions? Scientists always pictures it as having a funnel of which matter falls into only one side.

[piratong]

@Bassotronics yes i wonder about that too..it seems to be always portrayed in 2d

[787310]

cool

but

boring

too

short

[gerardwayfitness]

fuk i blinked and missed it

[metalhed42]

whatatard

[BurningPhoeniX000]

lol

[pauldavidson2006]

WTF was that. That was bloody crap man. 15 seconds, come on. You could have at least repeated it a few times, maybe one in slow motion.

[GavnatronTarasattva]

you know, there's a lot to be said for brevity, but these guys could at least explain a little more. I want 4 minutes at least, 30 seconds is just plain lazy, 5 seconds with some text on either side? What are the implications? How is this news? Or is it news?

[snylekkie]

shiny spinny red thingys ftw

[Maracachucho]

uuuuu shiny o.O

[hyper4lifedude]

LOL

[Nephallux]

UHHHH

yeah

[UncleKennybobs]

Wonderfully pointless video.

[xenniex]

that was interesting ... ... .. .... ...

[JerryRSun]

I didn't see Jesus in there.

[Tripp393]

i can't WAIT to go through a black hole!

[Aqu8Elu8Elon]

Good work!

[look2leap4]

You can take a good look at a collapsed star by sticking your head up a black hole, but wouldn't you rather take the theoretical physicists word for it?

[Valkmir]

lololololololooooooooooooooooo­oooooooooooollzzzzzzzz

[xexkxex]

Ahhhh ...I see what you did there.

[RarewareLover]

....allrightyy

[CurryCurry]

what this video suggests is that black holes not only swallow stuff, but could also play a vital role in the creation of new solar systems.

[supafly377]

I'm not sure about solar systems, but the singularity left from the black hole becomes a new star

[zamestol]

@ Supafly377.

As I understand, the star should build outside the black hole !!

[supafly377]

@ Zamestol

Yes, but I'm talking about after the black hole dies when only the singularity is left.

[A11ex]

A singularity never becomes a star.

[zx1011]

of coursre not - a sinularity erupts as a big bang in a parallell universe - evrybody knows that!! :D

[popisfizzy]

You fail physics forever.

[popecorkyxxiv]

or perhaps the singularity itself is a star elsewhere in infinite space? Maybe acts or events of destruction in one place are acts and events of creation else where, of course assuming the concepts of infinium and quantum entanglement are valid.

[ShawnOlaid]

oh they are

[popecorkyxxiv]

Which are? Infinium and Quantum phenomenon? I hope so, if they are then reality is far more spectacular and grand than anything presented by narrowminded Iron Age mythologies and their plebian supporters.

[scorpius319]

sure man. If I'm understanding you correctly, you misappreciate the value of the symbol making capactity of the human psyche. Mythology underneath it all is simply the collective human psyche describing its own nature.

And we are the mechanism in which the matter us self aware...the self-cognition of the universe.

Which is pretty grand and spectacular in itself, matter able to admire and be awestruck at other matter.

[popecorkyxxiv]

You are making the assumption that we are alone, that we are the sole self-aware entity. Aswell you are applying anthropomorphological values to concepts that have nothing to do with humanity. We are a product of the universe, we exist because of it. The universe is NOT a product of Humanity, it does not rely upon us for anything in anyway. To apply any Human concept of value, purpose, meaning, etc upon reality is an act of fallacy, for there is nothing more inhuman than the real world.

[scorpius319]

I didn't make any assumptions. YOU did. I never said that we were alone, where did this notion of yours come from? I never said that we were the sole self-aware entity. loOol

The projection of components of the psyche in anthropomorphological images is done on 2 reasons, 1- in order to easier relate to the thing projected upon, and 2 - we are a component of the universe, so therfore we do serve some sort of function. You familiar with teleology and ontology?

[scorpius319]

Oh, lost my train of thought, but yes indeed, in many ways the Universe is also a product of us. We have an effect on our environment, however miniscule or large. AND THAT makes the Universe also a product of us. Microcosm and macrocosm.

You really read a lot into what my original comment said, so much so that you're way off base and went into a non-sequitor. You werent arguing against me, you wanted to change the angle of the subject.

Maybe read about the Hindu notion of Maya and reality?

[popecorkyxxiv]

I fear you misunderstood. I was talking about the difference between influence and predication. Yes we exist within the universe and influnce it through that existance to a certain degree. However the existance of the universe itself is not dependant upon us to exist. Scientific dualism, and existentialism is what I was talking about. I personally believe in determinism and causality, everything being based on cause and effect, anything 'beyond' that is just our subjective misinterpretations.

[scorpius319]

So what about entanglement? synchronicity? Bi-lateral influences between two antipodes (ie, a feedback loop)? The uncertainty principle in a vacuum?

But yes, the Universe as it stands today is dependent on us to exist since we're now a component of it. If we weren't here it wouldn't be how it is today & thus not the same.

Not everything is attributable to cause and effect. There's so much more than what one-sided main-stream western science thinks is known about reality.

[popecorkyxxiv]

Entanglement, synchronicity and even bi-lateral systems are all predicated upon variable, variables dependant upon even more variables, that is causation. There are variables we don't know the value of, some we don't even know exist, others that are possibly not even temporaly linear in nature, even things that would classify as probabilistic of uncertain/chaotic are just predicated on factors we are unaware of. There is more than what science and causation can explain? Such as what?

[scorpius319]

It's nice that you lie about your age. Anyway, you fail to understand beyond your simplistic cause/effect duality that the universe is so interconnected that there is not one thing that has a singular cause.

And particle entaglement, uncertrainty principle, bi-lateral systems are more about the dualistic relation than about which cause the other. Unhinge your mind a bit, sensate man.

[popecorkyxxiv]

Who ever said anything about causality being predicated upon singular cause? If you throw a ball into the air is wind resistance the only factor that determines how it travels, or is it a combination of hundreds of seperate variables? Some variables being based upon numerous other variables based upon even more variables. I think you need to go online and actually look up determinism, becuase it's obvious you don't understand it. If your concerned about my age try acting your own age.

[mandalastar]

This statement makes total sence if you replace solar systems with galaxies.

[JohnDeBunkTest]

This 5 second simulation is reminiscent of water going down the drain.

A bit of real science commentary and a longer time sequence (re-run in slower motion) would add greatly to it's usefulness.

[LegendSaber]

I agree, but keep in mind this video is intended as a supplement to an article, not as content in itself.

[JJTHESLAYJ]

wtf is this?