by Anonymous Coward writes:
on Wednesday April 10, 2019 @10:26AM (#58414898)
People pointed at the sky and said "What's wrong with you? Can't you see that the Sun goes around the Earth? Idiot!"
They've captured a blurry blob of colors from number crunching a vast amount of data. How much easier than geocentrism is it to fuck up the interpretation of that?
Your remark is religious in nature, and not at all scientific.
I think you completely missed my point.... When the subject comes up, I have maintained for at least the past two decades that black holes really do exist. I have gotten into rather heated discussions on this subject with many people, and *BY FAR*, the most frequent objection I have heard from others to their existence is that we supposedly can't know they exist because we can't see them. This is an argument from ignorance, and is one that I absolutely loathe.
Obviously other no less ignorant arguments might exist, but hopefully this particular one can finally be put to bed.
We see things close to the event horizon slow down and come to a complete stop when they reach the horizon.
So just before a black hole forms, stuff as seen by an outside observer slows down. The instant of formation of the hole, everything at the horizon is stopped.
So from the outside view, all we see is an image that is asymptotically approaching the state of being a black hole. It can never get there.
black holes do grow from our frame of reference as things fall in, actually it's wrong to say things slow down as they approach the event horizon, instead the event horizon grows to engulf those things as they are slowing. The simplistic explanations of things falling into black holes in popular press are wrong.
Because it's the last bit of "stuff" that actually CAN manage to escape the black hole. Anything past that does not escape. You realize that to go from being able to do something to not being able to do something, there is an instant in time that is the last instant you can actually do something right?
Did it grow, or did it come into being at the size it is? Are we seeing the cruft around an age 0 core, or is something else going on that I haven't understood?
That popular explanation is actually wrong. Indeed things slow and are red shifted from our point of view as they fall towards event horizon, BUT the event horizon also is growing and eventually engulfs those things. That's the part often left out. Black holes grow, even to outside observers. Things get engulfed and disappear into the event horizon in the case of a growing black hole, even to outside observers if they wait long enough. The event horizon even from our point of view is not frozen in si
There is something even cooler about that, look at the 3D generated models of black holes merging, where the event horizon of each makes a "duck bill" shape that joins the two and then as they join contracting oblong rotating shape exists for a time.
So the event horizon can even assume complex shapes from our point of view.
That was my follow on question - the things are flying around bumping into each other and merging. So intermediate shapes are needed during the merger. I presume they oscillate like anything else would for a while after. At least I feel a little less ignorant than I was two days ago.
We still haven't imaged a black hole. All we've managed to do is image a black hole's accretion disk.
In addition, LIGO has captured a few brief snapshots of black holes getting jiggy. But I'd wait another year on that one, until we're extra sure that the sophisticated LIGO software isn't taking phantom snapshots of it's own software-filter afterimage.
Perhaps you should begin by schooling the Hillbillies in the community hot tub whom you persistently engage what it means for modern science to "image" somethi
First of all, I don't generally waste my time even trying to have a discussion on the matter with people who aren't interested in real science. The objection that we hadn't previously had any photographs of a black hole, even though it is an argument from ignorance, was nonetheless still built on a factual premise. That isn't the case anymore.
And to that end, I'd like to point out that most of the people who have presented the argument of being skeptical about the existence of black holes are not doin
Actually, the heliospheric model of the solar system was adopted early on not because of science but because of.... astrology. You see, the heliospheric model made it easier to do astrological calculations instead of the old crystal sphere within crystal sphere model. Even the scientists couldn't agree but once the astrologers used it as a short cut to their calculations many people began accepting it as fact.
Even worse tho is that we're about 400 years since the heliospheric mod
Learn the skills and you are free to go and double-check their work, if you wish. Until you do that, it's just blather. Then some idiot will come up to you and say you're lying, it's all just religion.
Most of us have never seen Donald Trump in person, so any images we have seen of him are blurry blob of colors from number crunching a vast amount of data. And yet we all know what we are seeing and trust that he's real. Your problem appears to be that you don't trust math. That's your problem, don't hang it on us.
Finally putting an end.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Thank you, science... hopefully I seen the last of this argument from ignorance.
You don't know anything about how it was taken. (Score:-1)
People pointed at the sky and said "What's wrong with you? Can't you see that the Sun goes around the Earth? Idiot!"
They've captured a blurry blob of colors from number crunching a vast amount of data. How much easier than geocentrism is it to fuck up the interpretation of that?
Your remark is religious in nature, and not at all scientific.
Re:You don't know anything about how it was taken. (Score:4, Insightful)
I think you completely missed my point.... When the subject comes up, I have maintained for at least the past two decades that black holes really do exist. I have gotten into rather heated discussions on this subject with many people, and *BY FAR*, the most frequent objection I have heard from others to their existence is that we supposedly can't know they exist because we can't see them. This is an argument from ignorance, and is one that I absolutely loathe.
Obviously other no less ignorant arguments might exist, but hopefully this particular one can finally be put to bed.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's my ignorant argument:
We are outside of the black holes we might see.
We see things close to the event horizon slow down and come to a complete stop when they reach the horizon.
So just before a black hole forms, stuff as seen by an outside observer slows down. The instant of formation of the hole, everything at the horizon is stopped.
So from the outside view, all we see is an image that is asymptotically approaching the state of being a black hole. It can never get there.
Tell me why I'm wrong. I'm no p
Re: (Score:2)
OK, but how did the outside view of the hole ever get to us? How can a stopped thing (in our reference frame) grow?
Re: (Score:3)
the event horizon is not a "stopped thing"
black holes do grow from our frame of reference as things fall in, actually it's wrong to say things slow down as they approach the event horizon, instead the event horizon grows to engulf those things as they are slowing. The simplistic explanations of things falling into black holes in popular press are wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Did it grow, or did it come into being at the size it is? Are we seeing the cruft around an age 0 core, or is something else going on that I haven't understood?
Re: (Score:2)
That popular explanation is actually wrong. Indeed things slow and are red shifted from our point of view as they fall towards event horizon, BUT the event horizon also is growing and eventually engulfs those things. That's the part often left out. Black holes grow, even to outside observers. Things get engulfed and disappear into the event horizon in the case of a growing black hole, even to outside observers if they wait long enough. The event horizon even from our point of view is not frozen in si
Re: (Score:2)
Gotcha. Thank you.
Re: (Score:2)
There is something even cooler about that, look at the 3D generated models of black holes merging, where the event horizon of each makes a "duck bill" shape that joins the two and then as they join contracting oblong rotating shape exists for a time.
So the event horizon can even assume complex shapes from our point of view.
Re: (Score:2)
That was my follow on question - the things are flying around bumping into each other and merging. So intermediate shapes are needed during the merger. I presume they oscillate like anything else would for a while after. At least I feel a little less ignorant than I was two days ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Armed with new google terms to put it, I found this, which is reasonably illuminating.
https://www.quora.com/In-a-bin... [quora.com]
Re: (Score:3)
We still haven't imaged a black hole. All we've managed to do is image a black hole's accretion disk.
In addition, LIGO has captured a few brief snapshots of black holes getting jiggy. But I'd wait another year on that one, until we're extra sure that the sophisticated LIGO software isn't taking phantom snapshots of it's own software-filter afterimage.
Perhaps you should begin by schooling the Hillbillies in the community hot tub whom you persistently engage what it means for modern science to "image" somethi
Re: (Score:2)
First of all, I don't generally waste my time even trying to have a discussion on the matter with people who aren't interested in real science. The objection that we hadn't previously had any photographs of a black hole, even though it is an argument from ignorance, was nonetheless still built on a factual premise. That isn't the case anymore.
And to that end, I'd like to point out that most of the people who have presented the argument of being skeptical about the existence of black holes are not doin
Re: (Score:1)
I hate to be this guy but...
Actually, the heliospheric model of the solar system was adopted early on not because of science but because of.... astrology. You see, the heliospheric model made it easier to do astrological calculations instead of the old crystal sphere within crystal sphere model. Even the scientists couldn't agree but once the astrologers used it as a short cut to their calculations many people began accepting it as fact.
Even worse tho is that we're about 400 years since the heliospheric mod
Re: (Score:3)
Re:You don't know anything about how it was taken. (Score:4, Insightful)
Most of us have never seen Donald Trump in person, so any images we have seen of him are blurry blob of colors from number crunching a vast amount of data. And yet we all know what we are seeing and trust that he's real. Your problem appears to be that you don't trust math. That's your problem, don't hang it on us.