Black Holes

have black holes actually been proven to exist? when i was a kid i was all into astronomy and recently i've been looking into it again, and after reading several articles on the subject im still kinda in the dark. if you say wiki black holes there's tons of inferential information about them existing but no references to actual known black holes. also I just read some random post on /b/ (lol, reliable information) saying "as science has proven a blackhole is impossible (NASA news 2006) " <- anyone know wtf article he's referring to.

so tl;dr, blackholes: definately out there or an interesting theory?

black holes have always been just a theory...majority of modern day physics is theoreticals waiting for evidence.

The fact that we can't get near them is sort of a major hindrance. We can only observe their effects. Even if we could who would want to venture towards a big gaping unknown hole in the sky filled with Fail and Pain?

The 'inferential' evidence you speak of is extremely powerful.  We've seen accretion disks, gravitational lensing, etc.  Really, I don't know what more you need to know that it's a black hole in the sense that it is a gravitational singularity.  What goes on inside it is still completely unknown.  However, there's no serious belief in anything other than a crushing death.

>>2
Figure out the difference between "theory" and "hypothesis", faggot.

since they are invisable, we can only se how univers around it reacts, but it could be anything. I'm not sure what to believe, but black holes sounds kinda like a fishermans story.

>>5

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
from Greek theoria (Jerome), Greek "contemplation, speculation"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis
from the Greek, hypotithenai meaning "to put under" or "to suppose."

There's a difference?

>>7
Etymology != meaning

You fail.

>>5 is right

In fact, I'll use your own Wiki article against you.

"The word theory has a number of distinct meanings in different fields of knowledge, depending on their methodologies and the context of discussion.

In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behaviour are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and general relativity.

In common usage, people often use the word theory to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. This usage of theory leads to the common statement "It's not a fact, it's only a theory." True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements which would be true independently of what people think about them. In this usage, the word is synonymous with hypothesis."


Common definition != scientific definition
Science > you
Now stop trolling this guy's thread.

Black holes are there. lrn2research, everyone

>>4
Truth.  There is no serious reason to doubt the major conclusions of Black Holes.  Accretion disks, gravitational lensing, companion orbital perturbations and radiation bursts, all indicate enough information that Black Holes exist as a gravitational singularity or extreme of some sort.

We might need to decide if Black Holes are actually singularities, or are more like Bose-Einstein Condensates.  But those merely change the core characteristics of the Black Hole, and don't alter how it affects visitors.

Thank you, RedCream.  I do believe I mentioned to you in another topic a week ago that there ARE good discussions here.

As for Bose-Einstein Condensates, we die either way.  I'd like to become a physicist after college is over.  I will look into it.

OP here. I didn't mean to make it sound like black holes were only some vague possibility, I was just wondering if there'd yet been any definative proof on them versus a strongly justified theory. i.e, we've directly observed supernovas, perhaps someday we'll observe the final stages of a supermassive star collapsing into a black hole.

>>12
Look, I had thought that I was quite clear:

1. Invisible steller source.
2. Indications of gravity.
3. Indications of extreme gravity (radiation bursts).
4. Some accompanying gas shells from nova explosion.

All these things are about as close to "definitive proof" as you're going to get for being 6000 LY away.  Not even the Hubble will be able to image a star collapsing to a invisible, point source ... even in real time.  The collapse would produce such a flood of radiation that any actual image of shrinking (including lensing changes) would be wiped out in the glare.

The point is, we observed Supernova 1987A sufficiently:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SN_1987A

... to show that our suppositions so far were largely correct.  The remnant left over from such explosions is a collapsed body ... either a neutron star or an actual collapsar -- a black holes.  In SN1987A's case, there was a massive star, and now there's nothing detectable in the center due to the enshrouding gases still ejecting at high speeds.  Once those clear a bit (decades?  centuries?) we'll be able to see the tiny object (neutron star or black hole) at the center ... but the massive bulk of the star is gone.

If we're actually close enough to a supernova explosion to successfully image the collapse, then it's likely the Earth will be so damaged from the radiation waves that our civilization will end.  The waves will not arrive all at once; largely the light will arrive first, some particles some time later, then the heavy particles years later.  But our ozone will be gone and our atmosphere will be so assaulted by light radiation that we'd have to become Morlocks or something.

When the heavy particles arrive, years to decades later, a lot of death will occur at the surface, as each particle will arrive with the energy of a rifle bullet.  Just imagine a rifle bullet of energy applied to a particle less than an atom.  Each impact would destroy (ionize) a few cells wide and a LOT of cells deep, in our bodies.  You may as well just consider us microwaved on "HIGH", since the arrival densities of these particles will cook us in short order.  All surface creatures will die when the planet rotates to present their area to exposure.  Those small or lucky enough to hide, may survive.  The oceans will provide protection, too, so sea life will definitely survive.  Whales and other air breathers will have to risk lethal exposures when their side of the planet is facing the supernova site.

Anyway.

"we've directly observed supernovas" about as much as we've directly observed black holes.  Case closed.

>>13

Your white folk scientific speculation based on that stuff you call data ain't proof.

Tengo madre muy padre, y padre de poca madre.

>>15
Your ignorance of the structured and cross-supporting knowledge of science is simply staggering.

>>1
yes they exist, and there are super massive black holes at the center of most if not all galaxies.

Yes they exist, but no we haven't proven it yet.  We've observed a number of places in the universe that look like what a place with a black hole in it ought to look like, seen from jillions of gajiggers away.  Some will call that proof.  Keep your hand on your wallet when talking to such people.

I'm that people! Anywho, yes black hole do exist. But here I ask a question nobody is able to answer me, several journals have said that once at a certain point near a black hole time slows down to a crawl. I don't want to get into super gravities affects on time right now. Alright if time stops at a certain point doesn't the compacted object just stop and if so as more matter is gained wouldn't that all stop at somewhat the same point? If so, theoretically should it be possible with tools more advanced than we have be able to see the objects in the blank parts of our universe? This should prove black holes' existence.

>>19
Poisoning the well, begging the question, etc.  They have been proven inasmuch as has been gravity itself.  We can't see gravity; only its effects.

If you want to get into philosophical debates over whether what we see is true, metaphysics and ontology are that way -->.  Science assumes what we see to be proof; skepticism is merely disbelief in the absence of proof.  If a consistent, well formulated argument, with agreeing results is seen, you can damn well count that as proof.

Nihilism != skepticism.

k um this thread was interesting and all, but some people really need to preoccupy themselves with other things lol...

>>22
yea only fucking morons try and help out other people with questions....

>>21
Seriously, if you are aware of an observed effect that could ONLY be caused by a black hole, and not by another object of similar mass but non-infinite density, I'd liek to hear about it.

>>24
Like, black hole is what we got for an explenation. It doesn't rule out that someday someone might think of something better to explain those effects.

>>24
The problem you're not seeing is that what it is there is defined as a black hole based on those properties that we see.  We didn't come up with the complete description for black holes and then apply it to arbitrary objects; those objects are what we're describing in the first place (inb4 Hawking predicted them).
Also, black holes don't have to be of infinite density.  They'd still be called black holes, because they'd still "grab up all the light" (Read to the tune of Rush - The Trees).  Hence the name black hole.

As >>25 said, WELCOME TO THEORIES!

I've written the words 'black hole' too much now.

Will anybody try and help with my questions?

I will not try to help you with your questions.

Judging by the information in this thread, one would never be able to see a black hole with the naked eye. It would suck to just be flying around in space, and then suddenly getting decomposed by something you cannot even see.

>>29
You'd be able to see it as a gap in the starfield, at the very least.
There are other ways of detecting them, too. Hawking radiation and whatnot.

>>27
>>20
No.  Light would stop too in that case.  So we couldn't see motionless objects.  The objects couldn't be frozen in time AND interact with light, anyway.

But time doesn't stop; it just slows down a lot.  The same principles as above apply, however; inside of the event horizon, the light could not escape, so let's say we're discussing an object just outside of the even horizon.  At this point time would be slowed, and as the light beam headed for the aforementioned matter, it would seem to slow.  So, in essence, we'd see a slowly moving object, but even our sight of it would be delayed.

You know what I do when I see verbal exchange or physical confrontation where seven people are bullying one person? I join and help that one person because I have principles and ideals. Most people would probably join the seven because it's easier, they don't care for what's right. I believe in fairness, not bullying. In the outcome of it I probably would lose respect from those seven people and my reputation might get damaged. So what? You know what it's about for most people? Save yourself (or in this case reputation). Why risk it to defend someone who the multitude seems to dislike? I'll tell you why, because it's right.

>>32
The minority opinion is not automatically worth defending just because it is the minority. A person is not automatically worth sticking up for simply because a lot of people dislike him.
Opinions can be plain wrong. People can be plain assholes.

>>24
Yeah, I didn't think so.

>>24,34
Your question relies on retarded assumptions and a middle-school level of understanding of physics. If you want people to take your questions seriously, maybe you should make an effort to not be a dumbass.

From Wikipedia:

A black hole is a region of space in which the gravitational field is so powerful that nothing can escape after having fallen past the event horizon. The name comes from the fact that even electromagnetic radiation (e.g. light) is unable to escape, rendering the interior invisible. However, black holes can be detected if they interact with matter outside the event horizon, for example by drawing in gas from an orbiting star. The gas spirals inward, heating up to very high temperatures and emitting large amounts of radiation in the process.

While the idea of an object with gravity strong enough to prevent light from escaping was proposed in the 18th century, black holes as presently understood are described by Einstein's theory of general relativity, developed in 1916. This theory predicts that when a large enough amount of mass is present within a sufficiently small region of space, all paths through space are warped inwards towards the center of the volume, forcing all matter and radiation to fall inward.

Short Version:

Black holes are created when a massive star dies and collapses into itself.

>>36
No one asked.

>>37
And...

>>38
And you're a worthless faggot who thinks copying shit from Wikipedia qualifies as constructive discussion. Everyone already knows what black holes are. GTFO.

And the black hole is all, "why you think I can't preserve information? is it cuz I is black?"