Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Ampersand]

We know there exist objects in the universe with mass great enough to have gravity great enough that light would be unable to escape it's pull. That is the definition of a Black Hole.

[Andir]

We knowguess there exist objects in the universe with mass great enough to have gravity great enough that light would be unable to escape it's pull. That is the definition of a Black Hole.

There you go.

[Grek]

http://nrumiano.free.fr/Estars/int_bh2.html

This link. It is relevent.

And we do know that black holes exist and have a pretty good idea how they work.

[LegoLord]

No.  We know they exist.  A black dot, that planets just disappear passing behind?  No light reflecting off in any way?  The image of the solar system being warped as though the light is being bent a lot (and less randomly than heat would) just before it passes behind said black dot?  We've seen them all over, and from many angles.  Yeah, there are black holes.

[Andir]

I think you are referring to a blind spot.  When I hear black hole, I think of the original estimation that it's a super massive or high gravity tiny object that sucks up all matter and light around it.  That defies many of the laws of conservation.

What you are talking about is light that is bent by stars so that the energy passing by it is bent and/or scattered away from our field of view.

And you keep throwing out that word "Know".  It's a general consensus that this is happening, but there is still a great amount of information we do not know about that phenomena so it's a generally accepted theory, but it's not EVER been proven.

[LegoLord]

What you are talking about is light that is bent by stars so that the energy passing by it is bent and/or scattered away from our field of view.

Stars do not normally bend light.  They produce it.  Light comes from them.

[Andir]

What you are talking about is light that is bent by stars so that the energy passing by it is bent and/or scattered away from our field of view.

Stars do not normally bend light.  They produce it.  Light comes from them.

Our own sun bends light.  It's been proven by doing studies images of the edge of the corona.  There's a moment in time that we can see objects that would normally be blocked by the sun as they are passing by.

I should clarify that.  It's been estimated.  There's another theory that states the radiation from the sun is affecting the light in some ways making it "bend".  This could also be the case for "black holes" in space as well.  If a sun emits enough radiation, it could distort the light that passes through it's radiation (including it's own).

The fact is that we have theories for all this, but there's no gold standard "proof" that any of them are right.

[LegoLord]

And those are really really bright and we can tell what color they are.  We can tell what they are made of, and even what they are made of from a distance of several hundred lightyears.  We cannot do this with black holes.

[MrWiggles]

We know black holes exist.

Theoretically... unless you have pictures of one for me.

We seen them, indirectly though other em bandwidth, and with hawking radiation. We know they exist from the mass they exert with their gravitational affect. We know each active galaxy mass and energy ejection is from a black hole We know that each galaxy has a huge black hole in the center it, and with black holes and dark matter, and dark energy halo is required for galaxy formation. Its theoretical in the sense of gravity. They're proven beyond doubt.

Yes, the singularity at it center escapes us. Our physics is good at super large and heavy things and super light and small things. Not with super small super heavy thing. That however doesn't preclude it from existence.

[Andir]

We know black holes exist.

Theoretically... unless you have pictures of one for me.

We seen them, indirectly though other em bandwidth, and with hawking radiation. We know they exist from the mass they exert with their gravitational affect. We know each active galaxy mass and energy ejection is from a black hole We know that each galaxy has a huge black hole in the center it, and with black holes and dark matter, and dark energy halo is required for galaxy formation. Its theoretical in the sense of gravity. They're proven beyond doubt.

Yes, the singularity at it center escapes us. Our physics is good at super large and heavy things and super light and small things. Not with super small super heavy thing. That however doesn't preclude it from existence.

Ugh, guesses on guesses.  Do you have a little formula on you that states exactly how light is affected by gravity, energy, and other light?  Hell, we could just be matter that interacts with other energy causing it to deflect as if it were matter.  We don't know enough about the situation and everything you read about it is a theory based on the of perceived behaviors of light, gravity, and energy (which could all be the same thing...)

That's why everyone is so interested to find out what's at the middle.  If it's nothing, the black holes you are referring to are cells of energy being deflected or accelerated beyond the speed of light (which is another theorized limitation that we cannot prove and base all our estimations about black holes on.)

For all we know, Einstein was wrong.  He's been proven wrong about parts of his theories.  There could be energy or objects out there capable of super-light speeds.  Just as we have in the past, we are formulating the best answer for the data we know.  The Earth is flat, etc.

[Ampersand]

Ugh, guesses on guesses.  Do you have a little formula on you that states exactly how light is affected by gravity, energy, and other light?

1/r = (1/R0) cos(f) + ((G M/c2)/R02) (2 - cos2(f))

Or better

dfE = 4 (G M/c2)/R0 = 2 dfN

Has greek characters that I can't replicate here.

[Slappy Moose]

DIBS ON ATHEIST POPE!

FFFFFFUUUCK! No... wait...


DIBS ON THE ATHIEST MASCOT!

[MrWiggles]

Eistien theories are the second most supported models outside of evolution. Until Quantum Mechanic resolves gravity, it will be used as if its fact.

[Andir]

Eistien theories are the second most supported models outside of evolution. Until Quantum Mechanic resolves gravity, it will be used as if its fact.

And until we invent ships that could sail for more than a few weeks, we'll still think the world is flat and anything that travels out beyond sight will fall of the edge of the world.  Use whatever tools you like, it's about the amount of data (aka: maps) we have.  We don't have enough yet, but people are making up all the formulas(maps) they can to match what we do have.  I attribute black holes to the edge of the Earth.  Scientists are trying to explain them without actually going out there and looking (building ships that can sail for more than a few weeks.)  They assume that light is being bent, absorbed, or being sucked into an alternate dimension to create another universe.

I could have found a thousand scientists that said the world was flat a thousand years ago, just as you are telling me that there are objects so big and strong that they can absorb light.

[LegoLord]

it is a theory based on . . .

Well, you just said it yourself.  If you have no idea what I'm talking about, you do not understand what is being discussed.

Theory is something accepted by the scientific community as fact.  You are thinking of a hypothesis.  That word has the same root as hypothetical - I see no reason why the theory-hypothesis relationship is such a common misconception.

At this point you are denying the fact of black holes by striking down what is accepted by the most reputable scientists, which explains the phenomenon occurring around the damn thing, not the damn thing itself.  You find a better explanation that is physically acceptable.  I doubt you will, seeing as this one has more than sufficient evidence to be taught.