|
On March 01 2013 01:07 rei wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2013 00:18 Hondelul wrote:On February 28 2013 23:02 rei wrote:
black hole is a singularity in 3 dimensional space, don't think of the event horizon as it had been portrait in movies like a disk with a deep hole in the center, a real black hole's event horizon is like a sphere. and you don't move straight into it in a straight line. it's more of a spiral movement same as planets orbits around a star, but instead of a stable orbit, you accelerates faster toward the singularity the closer you gets.
Few weeks ago there was a presentation at our university from Uni Stuttgart about the Infrared flying telescope SOFIA (Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy). One interesting part were pictures of the blackhole in our galactic center. It shows indeed a ring. In the news you find picture of a poster they presented, PDF of it is downloadable. Link to their news: http://www.sofia.usra.edu/News/news_2013/01_08_13/index.html Poster PDF: http://www.sofia.usra.edu/News/news_2013/01_08_13/CNR_AAS_poster_Lau-et-al_2013.pdf+ Show Spoiler +Edit: To add to the second part Accelerating faster the closer you come is nothing special. It´s with star and even the earth the same. If the Sun would be suddenly a black hole it would be no difference (beside getting quite cold) as it would have the same gravitation. Black hole are nothing special in a way, it´s a normal endstadium of stars when they collaps and fullfil some specifications. very interesting find, it doesn't necessary means the blackhole in our galatic center is a ring. more likely the dust material near the black hole that exists in the plane of our galaxy rotates about the black hole as a ring much like Saturn's ring. If there are more dust material above and below the plane of our galaxy, we should see a sphere instead. But then again, the reason there are not much dust materials outside of the plane is because of it's rotation of the galaxy and gravity forces everything to fall in to the plane. Perhaps that's why most black hole will have dust materials gather around it as a ring.
How do you see then the dust on the other side of the hole if it´s a sphere? Do you see the "hole" in your argumentation?
|
just because we can't see it doesn't mean it's not there, we can't see gravity, but we can feel the effects of gravity in our daily life.
that being said, I am convinced that black holes over time will force near by materials into the same plane and form a ring/spiral like shape. The reason is that all black holes are spinning and the disk will spin in the same direction.
|
What? You see the ring, that´s the point. If it was a sphere you would not see it.
|
As i explained, seeing the ring doesn't mean the event horizon is a ring, if you approach the black hole system (that is including a ring) perpendicular to the plane of the ring toward the center of the black hole(above or below the ring), you would still reach the event horizon without coming near the ring itself.
|
Ok, doesn´t feel good but yes, I messed up.
Your explanation seems correct and there is no reason to expect it to be no sphere.
The normal "aggregation disc" is huge and ofc no part of the black hole and easily visible even "behind" the event horizon.
Doesn´t mean I believe your OP, but at least the point I criticized was wrong. ^^
|
I don't want to believe in my OP neither, I am looking for facts or logical argument that can prove myself wrong, someone with a better understanding will come along and point out the obvious to me sooner or later.
|
I'm not sure if I totally understand your hypothesis yet, but how does it explain why the universe is expanding in all directions? If we look at every direction in the night sky, celestial bodies are moving away from us as seen by the Doppler shift. If we are indeed inside an event horizon falling into the middle of it, if we look towards the outside of the event horizon, we will see celestial bodies moving away from us, but if we look in the opposite direction, we shouldn't be able to see anything. Also, when the earth rotates, celestial bodies maintain the same distance to one another. If we were in an event horizon, then we would see a huge clump of stars instead of stars evenly spread out. This would be fixed if we were in the center of the event horizon, but then we would no longer be moving towards a center, and thus would no longer see celestial bodies moving away from us through Doppler shift.
|
I don't think anything moves in a straight line into the black hole, instead it spirals towards the center. so it's hard to look toward the direction of the black hole if we don't know where it is to begin with.
I do think you are on to something, because even though we can't see the black hole itself, we would see a Einstein ring moving across the sky if my hypothesis is true. Yet I don't think any thing like this is found near us.
|
The significance of the inside of an event horizon is that light can only travel perpendicular or towards the center. Due to this, half the sky will always be pitch black. Also, seeing the sun and the moon would be different as well. We don't see any Doppler shift from the sun's light or the moon's light, at any point in rotation.
|
So, assuming you're talking about plain old regular everyday black holes as we know them...
Have you calculated the Schwarzschild radius your hypothetical black hold would have? And the mass it would have as a result? And the distance between the black hole and us? If you've done all that, I'm pretty sure you can easily come up with gravitational effects caused by the black hole that would be painfully obvious on earth.
|
On March 01 2013 06:05 spinesheath wrote:
So, assuming you're talking about plain old regular everyday black holes as we know them...
Have you calculated the Schwarzschild radius your hypothetical black hold would have? And the mass it would have as a result? And the distance between the black hole and us? If you've done all that, I'm pretty sure you can easily come up with gravitational effects caused by the black hole that would be painfully obvious on earth.
don't know how, teach me please. 
|
On March 01 2013 06:48 rei wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2013 06:05 spinesheath wrote:
So, assuming you're talking about plain old regular everyday black holes as we know them...
Have you calculated the Schwarzschild radius your hypothetical black hold would have? And the mass it would have as a result? And the distance between the black hole and us? If you've done all that, I'm pretty sure you can easily come up with gravitational effects caused by the black hole that would be painfully obvious on earth. don't know how, teach me please.
See, that's what I mean. You do lack experience in the field. Very much so. Physics is basically nothing other than rock solid math applied to results of experiments. If you put up a hypothesis, you first have to verify that the mathematical implications line up with results as shown in experiments. If you don't even have the most basic things like the size of your black hole figured out, it's not a hypothesis. It's an idea at best.
I am not a physicist, I can't teach you. That's what universities and books are there for. But I can tell you that this thread is just random speculation, not scientific testing of a hypothesis.
|
On March 01 2013 07:06 spinesheath wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2013 06:48 rei wrote:On March 01 2013 06:05 spinesheath wrote:
So, assuming you're talking about plain old regular everyday black holes as we know them...
Have you calculated the Schwarzschild radius your hypothetical black hold would have? And the mass it would have as a result? And the distance between the black hole and us? If you've done all that, I'm pretty sure you can easily come up with gravitational effects caused by the black hole that would be painfully obvious on earth. don't know how, teach me please. See, that's what I mean. You do lack experience in the field. Very much so. Physics is basically nothing other than rock solid math applied to results of experiments. If you put up a hypothesis, you first have to verify that the mathematical implications line up with results as shown in experiments. If you don't even have the most basic things like the size of your black hole figured out, it's not a hypothesis. It's an idea at best. I am not a physicist, I can't teach you. That's what universities and books are there for. But I can tell you that this thread is just random speculation, not scientific testing of a hypothesis.
so you are only here to put me down instead of helping me learn. I see how it is. Why do people go through the trouble to tell someone they don't qualify to discuss their curiosity? is it because you think i sound like an attention whoring self proclaim smart ass that needed to be put in placed? but didn't you realize i know i'm wrong the whole time and only wanted to know why and how this idea is wrong? What do you gain? after all you know no more than I do, yet you suggest me to do some calculation you yourself know nothing about and claim "If you've done all that, I'm pretty sure you can easily come up with gravitational effects caused by the black hole that would be painfully obvious on earth" Guess what? in this thread of random speculation I found my answer, and i didn't have to go through the calculation for schwarzschild raidus.
|
On March 01 2013 06:05 spinesheath wrote:
So, assuming you're talking about plain old regular everyday black holes as we know them...
Have you calculated the Schwarzschild radius your hypothetical black hold would have? And the mass it would have as a result? And the distance between the black hole and us? If you've done all that, I'm pretty sure you can easily come up with gravitational effects caused by the black hole that would be painfully obvious on earth.
Gravitation is strong dependent on magnitude. I very much doubt we are inside the horizon 4D space (which btw becomes more of a 3D space since time becomes irrelevant as there is no outside) that being said, there are 4 different types of BH. I never got that far into astrophysics (I was a complex system student) but whereas you are right that such an hypothesis could be verify per calculation, it could be impossible due to our rather static referential - don't forget our own solar system is to the milky way what a rice grain is to its. We can only measure the effect of a phenomenon and I am not aware of any (though it most certainly exists).
Still the discussion has steered away from the original topic which was Dark Energy. Actually it is not a place holder for the expansion of the universe but rather a place holder for the energy that should be there but couldn't be calculated otherwise. It accounts for more around 72% of the currently calculated (extrapolated) total energy of the universe (technically its density but I'll spare you the reasoning why) and it is used to explain a few other galactic including the acceleration of the expansion of the universe (and not the expansion in itself)
|
On March 01 2013 07:37 rei wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2013 07:06 spinesheath wrote:On March 01 2013 06:48 rei wrote:On March 01 2013 06:05 spinesheath wrote:
So, assuming you're talking about plain old regular everyday black holes as we know them...
Have you calculated the Schwarzschild radius your hypothetical black hold would have? And the mass it would have as a result? And the distance between the black hole and us? If you've done all that, I'm pretty sure you can easily come up with gravitational effects caused by the black hole that would be painfully obvious on earth. don't know how, teach me please. See, that's what I mean. You do lack experience in the field. Very much so. Physics is basically nothing other than rock solid math applied to results of experiments. If you put up a hypothesis, you first have to verify that the mathematical implications line up with results as shown in experiments. If you don't even have the most basic things like the size of your black hole figured out, it's not a hypothesis. It's an idea at best. I am not a physicist, I can't teach you. That's what universities and books are there for. But I can tell you that this thread is just random speculation, not scientific testing of a hypothesis. so you are only here to put me down instead of helping me learn. I see how it is. Why do people go through the trouble to tell someone they don't qualify to discuss their curiosity? is it because you think i sound like an attention whoring self proclaim smart ass that needed to be put in placed? but didn't you realize i know i'm wrong the whole time and only wanted to know why and how this idea is wrong? What do you gain? after all you know no more than I do, yet you suggest me to do some calculation you yourself know nothing about and claim "If you've done all that, I'm pretty sure you can easily come up with gravitational effects caused by the black hole that would be painfully obvious on earth" Guess what? in this thread of random speculation I found my answer, and i didn't have to go through the calculation for schwarzschild raidus.
He's not putting you down. He's pointing out that you're wading in to a highly technical subject without investing the time to learn the language used by experts who study it (in this case the mathematics). If you seriously want to investigate an idea you think is novel, at least read what experts have said on the subject and know the language and methodology they use. tldr put some effort into learning first if you want people to take your ideas seriously.
|
I personally doubt the universe is expanding. How do we know light doesn't simply red-shift as it travels through the vast distances in space?
We just happen to be at ground-zero for the expansion of the universe?
Celestial objects which are larger than should exist are out there.
The redshift is proportional to distance? I wonder if that has something to do with the light traveling through space rather than this crazy acceleration.
This idea isn't unique:
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/172ij0/how_do_we_know_redshifting_is_due_to_the_universe/
(Interesting fact: the guy that came up with the expansion of the universe was a roman catholic priest in addition to being a physicist)
Anyway, good thread. If someone makes one about dark matter, I've got something to post there too...
|
On March 01 2013 15:44 Mothra wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2013 07:37 rei wrote:On March 01 2013 07:06 spinesheath wrote:On March 01 2013 06:48 rei wrote:On March 01 2013 06:05 spinesheath wrote:
So, assuming you're talking about plain old regular everyday black holes as we know them...
Have you calculated the Schwarzschild radius your hypothetical black hold would have? And the mass it would have as a result? And the distance between the black hole and us? If you've done all that, I'm pretty sure you can easily come up with gravitational effects caused by the black hole that would be painfully obvious on earth. don't know how, teach me please. See, that's what I mean. You do lack experience in the field. Very much so. Physics is basically nothing other than rock solid math applied to results of experiments. If you put up a hypothesis, you first have to verify that the mathematical implications line up with results as shown in experiments. If you don't even have the most basic things like the size of your black hole figured out, it's not a hypothesis. It's an idea at best. I am not a physicist, I can't teach you. That's what universities and books are there for. But I can tell you that this thread is just random speculation, not scientific testing of a hypothesis. so you are only here to put me down instead of helping me learn. I see how it is. Why do people go through the trouble to tell someone they don't qualify to discuss their curiosity? is it because you think i sound like an attention whoring self proclaim smart ass that needed to be put in placed? but didn't you realize i know i'm wrong the whole time and only wanted to know why and how this idea is wrong? What do you gain? after all you know no more than I do, yet you suggest me to do some calculation you yourself know nothing about and claim "If you've done all that, I'm pretty sure you can easily come up with gravitational effects caused by the black hole that would be painfully obvious on earth" Guess what? in this thread of random speculation I found my answer, and i didn't have to go through the calculation for schwarzschild raidus. He's not putting you down. He's pointing out that you're wading in to a highly technical subject without investing the time to learn the language used by experts who study it (in this case the mathematics). If you seriously want to investigate an idea you think is novel, at least read what experts have said on the subject and know the language and methodology they use. tldr put some effort into learning first if you want people to take your ideas seriously.
Dude, this is not a highly technical subject and didn't require highly technical method to answer, If you read all my post int he blog, you will know I already answered my own question with helps of even day joe from TL community. and even if it were highly technical, by writing this blog to inquire about something i am interested in is putting some effort into learning. What make you think I didn't investigate? I blog about these years ago too, http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?id=117968
For one, you don't need to go get a degree in the field to be scientifically literate about a field of study you are interested in, and certainly don't need a degree to talk about it and ask questions and share ideas about it. second, he suggested I try something highly technical that he himself know nothing about when asked to show it to me. You can't defend him from that.
By the way if i ask a professor or phd in astro physics, they will never tell me to put some effort into learning first before asking this stupid question and not ganna take me seriously. why? because they can easily answer my question in a way even a novice can understand. That's the difference between people who knows what they are talking about and people who have no idea but want to pretend to be smarter than thou. If one can not explain something clearly then they don't know that subject enough in the first place. Do you know why I know this? it's from many personal experience on both end of asking the question and teaching the answers.
|
On March 01 2013 16:57 fight_or_flight wrote:I personally doubt the universe is expanding. How do we know light doesn't simply red-shift as it travels through the vast distances in space? We just happen to be at ground-zero for the expansion of the universe? Celestial objects which are larger than should exist are out there. The redshift is proportional to distance? I wonder if that has something to do with the light traveling through space rather than this crazy acceleration. This idea isn't unique: http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/172ij0/how_do_we_know_redshifting_is_due_to_the_universe/(Interesting fact: the guy that came up with the expansion of the universe was a roman catholic priest in addition to being a physicist) Anyway, good thread. If someone makes one about dark matter, I've got something to post there too...
very interesting questions, I will try to find out more about it after work today, thanks for sharing it.
On March 01 2013 06:03 Chairman Ray wrote:
The significance of the inside of an event horizon is that light can only travel perpendicular or towards the center. Due to this, half the sky will always be pitch black. Also, seeing the sun and the moon would be different as well. We don't see any Doppler shift from the sun's light or the moon's light, at any point in rotation.
I don't think half the sky would be pitch black unless are we very far into the black hole, but if we just fall into the black hole it would be just the size of a marble in the sky that distorts the stars and turns them into Einstein ring on the background as it moves across the sky. We wouldn't notice moon's light's shift, because it's only reflecting the sun light. as for the sun, what you said would be true if we are far into the black hole, but at the time where we just step into the event horizon it is possible that the sun's gravity is still strong enough to hold everything intact.
|
Expanding galaxies.
Black holes, they do not die, as stars do.
One day there will be more black holes then stars. (A species [star] is born and dies at a constant. B species [black hole] is born and never dies.)
Big Crunch.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/dzwCWXy.jpg)
