Notices
Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: black holes

  1. #1 black holes 
    Moderator Moderator AlexP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    1,838
    if black holes are invisible, does that mean they appear absolutely black, or can you actually see what is behind them?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: black holes 
    Forum Ph.D. william's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Wherever I go, there I am
    Posts
    935
    Quote Originally Posted by Chemboy
    if black holes are invisible, does that mean they appear absolutely black, or can you actually see what is behind them?
    Howdy chemboy,
    Well, you can't see them but you can see what's behind them via gravitational lensing (you may even see multiple "copies" of the object behind them). Do a google search on gravitational lensing to see some nice pictures.

    Cheers,
    william


    "... the polhode rolls without slipping on the herpolhode lying in the invariable plane."
    ~Footnote in Goldstein's Mechanics, 3rd ed. p. 202
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Guest
    Might I suggest that if they are invisible in the usual sense of the word, then if one were to move across the front of a scene it would not affect what you saw.

    Since a star moving behind one will infact appear to 'skirt around the outside' of a black disc, they cannot be 'invisible' you will see a black disc which extends to the 'event horizon' this may be bordered by arcs.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4 3D model 
    God
    God is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    USA, Earth
    Posts
    17
    But does anyone know if the current model or standard picture of a black hole (view examples on this website: http://www.celestiamotherlode.net/catalog/fictional.php) is really accurate. Movies and tv shows don't seem to have it right and neither do artists. Does anyone think that the blackhole would be more spherical? I know like 99% of all black holes are spinning or rotating, but they should still appear more like a much larger patterned, wider, taller accretion disked black holes. Does anyone have a model that I am describing?
    Save Stargate SG1 !!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Sophomore DarcgreY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    135
    Couldn't get your link to work, but is this the kind of model you're talkng about.

    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6 Image 
    God
    God is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    USA, Earth
    Posts
    17
    Quote Originally Posted by Darcgrey
    Couldn't get your link to work, but is this the kind of model you're talkng about.


    No it is not unfortunately. The northern and southern poles should be emitting a lot more energy or light than that. The accretion disk is still too concentrated & flat. The black hole itself usually does not have a massive center or diameter because space tries to fold back in on itself.
    Save Stargate SG1 !!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    NS Comment

    IMHO. I think the BH's should be surrounded by a 'halo of light'.

    This halo of light should be bent around the 'event horizon' that contains the light within these BH's.
    If it is among a concentrated star field, these halo's should be brighter than in low star areas.
    Since none have been observed, I come to the conclusion that BH's do not exist.

    Any observations that seem to contain an enormous amount of mass can be equated to the Zwicky gravity or 'dark matter' that appears to be present in the galactic clusters.

    The quantity of 'separated electric charges' involved in this gravitational enhancement would be determined for the strength of these additional gravitational enhancements.

    NS
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    This halo of light should be bent around the 'event horizon' that contains the light within these BH's.
    yes there is light around the eventhorizont but since it cant escape it doesnt get bright

    If it is among a concentrated star field, these halo's should be brighter than in low star areas.
    Since none have been observed, I come to the conclusion that BH's do not exist.
    BHs are very bright when they are bieng feed but when not they are black as hell. But have been observed and confirmed. BH exists Mike ytour once again wrong
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    yes there is light around the eventhorizont but since it cant escape it doesnt get bright
    You do not understand what I am saying. The light within the EH is contained by the BH, but the light that passes outside the EH is not contained by the BH but just 'bent' around the EH. All this bent light around the 'outside' of the EH should create a 'halo of light'.

    BHs are very bright when they are bieng feed but when not they are black as hell. But have been observed and confirmed. BH exists Mike ytour once again wrong
    Well, I choose to think, to come to my own conclusions.

    NS
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike NS
    You do not understand what I am saying. The light within the EH is contained by the BH, but the light that passes outside the EH is not contained by the BH but just 'bent' around the EH. All this bent light around the 'outside' of the EH should create a 'halo of light'.
    Mike, I think you are talking about 'gravitational lensing'. there are some pictures of this on the net. There is also Einstein's cross which is a similar effect. the 'halo of light' as you put it would only be seen if the whole of the space behind the BH was illuminated. Single point stars are not enough to produce this effect, a whole halo that is. Remember you would need to be at the focal point of this lensing to see a whole halo even if the lighting conditions were right.

    Here's a real picture not some artist's impression.

    http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap011007.html
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Sophomore DarcgreY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    135
    Here's a picture of a galaxy passing behind a black hole. Its' intnese gravitational field bends the light from the galaxy producing multiple images.

    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by DarcgreY
    Here's a picture of a galaxy passing behind a black hole. Its' intnese gravitational field bends the light from the galaxy producing multiple images.
    er thats Einstein's cross, one galaxy in front of another, they may have black holes but it's 2 galaxies....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Sophomore DarcgreY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    135
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    Quote Originally Posted by DarcgreY
    Here's a picture of a galaxy passing behind a black hole. Its' intnese gravitational field bends the light from the galaxy producing multiple images.
    er thats Einstein's cross, one galaxy in front of another, they may have black holes but it's 2 galaxies....
    Oh, I had it in the wrong section of my pictures folder then.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    Well, I choose to think, to come to my own conclusions.
    thats one of your problems, you think youre right but guess what? youre almost never right. its nice to think some, but if science say something else its most likly youre wrong since they have proof backing them up. wich you never does
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    Mike, I think you are talking about 'gravitational lensing'. there are some pictures of this on the net. There is also Einstein's cross which is a similar effect. the 'halo of light' as you put it would only be seen if the whole of the space behind the BH was illuminated. Single point stars are not enough to produce this effect, a whole halo that is. Remember you would need to be at the focal point of this lensing to see a whole halo even if the lighting conditions were right.

    Here's a real picture not some artist's impression.

    http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap011007.html
    No, that is just another example of 'gravitational lensing'.

    A black hole in the central regions of galaxies would be virtually impossible to see because of the heavy concentrations of the stars.

    In our Milky Way, the supposed BH is detected by the 'high velocity' of the central gases with, I believe, infrared telescopes.

    Gravitational lensing just flattens any background galaxies like pancakes.

    Considering that there must have been a much larger number of 'blue giant stars' in the Milky Ways past, that are supposed to be the remains for these BH's, I should think there would be more BH's in our galaxy. But the number that currently are observed is not very great.

    I still say that Zwicky gravity or the 'separated electric charges are, no doubt, responsible for all the apparent strong gravitational objects.

    NS
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •