Thread: black holes

if black holes are invisible, does that mean they appear absolutely black, or can you actually see what is behind them?

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

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.

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?

Couldn't get your link to work, but is this the kind of model you're talkng about.

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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....

Originally Posted by Megabrain

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.

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

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