beecee

https://www.theverge.com/2019/4/13/18308652/katie-bouman-black-hole-science-internet "Within a few hours, the gravitational well of darkness that is the internet began to tug on her. Her phone started getting so many messages that she had to shut it off, according to The New York Times. Someone repeatedly set up fake Twitter accounts in her name. The next day, the Times published an article called “How Katie Bouman Accidentally Became the Face of the Black Hole Project”. The Verge reached out to Bouman for comment, but a representative of MIT told The Verge that Bouman was not speaking to the press at the moment. It’s wonderful to be recognized for your work. But it must also be uncomfortable to stand in a spotlight and be asked to take a final bow for your starring role when you were part of an ensemble cast. In response to the attention, Bouman wrote in a Facebook post: “No one algorithm or person made this image, it required the amazing talent of a team of scientists from around the globe and years of hard work to develop the instrument, data processing, imaging methods, and analysis techniques that were necessary to pull off this seemingly impossible feat. It has been truly an honor, and I am so lucky to have had the opportunity to work with you all.” It’s the internet; things got worse. In what can only be described as a sexist scavenger hunt, people began going over her work to see how much she’d really contributed to the project that skyrocketed her to unasked-for fame. The trolls focused in on one of her colleagues, Andrew Chael, who was listed on GitHub as the primary developer for one of the algorithms that revealed the black hole, and started circulating his picture instead. Chael was having none of it." ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

I'll let you do the digging, OK? At this time, I'm happy with what I have said and ignore your pedant and ignorance, but if any of our on line professionals object or find fault in what I have said, then I'll humbly listen as always. And "theory"of course is our best estimation as to what is happening and what we see and interpret at any particular time. Well looking at the whole context of what I said, and ignoring pedantic nonsense, I believe it entirely comprehensible "And even in that scenario, facts may aspire to prevent you seeing anything outside....[1]Surviving tidal gravity effects, [2] Surviving any infalling matter/energy which would probably be in the form of lethal radiation, [3] and simply surviving longe enough, eg: Even our own SMBH, one would only have around 12 seconds or so, from the trip from the EH to the Singularity". Self explanatory I suggest.

I don't want to infest the thread re the first BH image with this disgusting reactions to a young lady Instrumental in a great experiment and its success.......I nearly vomited after reading this material. One wonders why we have such arsholes in this world! https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04-15/black-hole-photo-katie-bouman-trolls/11006820 Colleagues of the computer scientist whose photo went viral after a team of researchers produced the world's first photograph of a supermassive black hole are coming to her defence after she was attacked by social media trolls. more at link.... The photo of her after the success of the experiment, and the realization that she was a part of that success, is amply illustrated with her photo immediately afterwards. A nice note to end this disgusting reaction/s by arseholes.

You fail to recognise that what I have posted aligns with GR predictions, which obviously we all agree has a pretty good track record. You also fail to see that in my statement I also used the word "probably" thus, "In fact any observer inside the BH, as long as tidal gravitational effects have not torn the observer asunder, would actually "probably" see the whole universe in the form of a circle above his head, due to lensing. I dare say he would be ripped apart before he had any inkling he had crossed a point of no return" Plus of course the obvious that you seemed to have missed, in that Strange's statement was referring to the time and space changing places, while my statement was in relation to what anyone inside the EH would see outside the EH. And even in that scenario, facts may aspire to prevent you seeing anything outside....[1]Surviving tidal gravity effects, [2] Surviving any infalling matter/energy which would probably be in the form of lethal radiation, [3] and simply surviving longe enough, eg: Even our own SMBH, one would only have around 12 seconds or so, from the trip from the EH to the Singularity. Couple all that with other contributions of mine and others, that clearly state that "while we certainly can never observe or have direct evidence of anything about what happens inside a BH, we do have the overwhelmingly supportive and incredibly correct predicitive powers of GR, to at least form a reasonable picture of that which will never be seen. Hope that helps.

When I arose at 0500hrs AEST, the news on the TV had it as breaking news. One point raised was that the force of the water on the 850 year old Cathedral's wall, could start them crumbling and collapse. Other then that reports was that 400 fire fighters were on the ground with a number of air appliances to facilitate the fight.

Knowledge of GR. https://jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/ The EH is not any physical barrier, but simply a point/circumference in spacetime around the BH, where escape velocity equals and then exceeds "c". As mentioned before, other the tidal gravitational effects [that depend on the size of the BH] we have no indication of crossing anything. I'll drink to that.

Sorry, I'm not into unsupported conspiracy theories. I've seen the same silly allegation a hundred times from many alternative pushers for a variety of reasons we won't go into now. The BB has much going for it and is why it is overwhelmingly supported. The BB does not in any way point to us being the center of anything, other then our observable universe. Nothing special at all, except on the off chance it is the only body with life. Not sure where or how you fabricated that. Which makes you right [not the center] for the wrong reasons. [misinterpretation of the BB]

The gravity is a fossil field from the star whence the BH formed from, so is already there.. The volume is deduced from the EH and the density is actually meaningless. In fact any observer inside the BH, as long as tidal gravitational effects have not torn the observer asunder, would actually probably see the whole universe in the form of a circle above his head, due to lensing. I dare say he would be ripped apart before he had any inkling he had crossed a point of no return.

Those two points I raised seem to invalidate your hypothesis.

You said that "Infinity is unreachable : in time in distance in spreading in mass by mathematics it is clear So how there should be gravity available at infinity if it is unreachable?" I replied that gravity is spacetime...spacetime geometry in fact. If the universe is infinite, then spacetime is also infinite...if spacetime is infinite, then so to is gravity. Another point just occurred to me...gravity is also said to be non linear, that is gravity makes gravity. http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/gravity_of_gravity.html "One reason why the physics of general relativity is much more difficult than that of Newton's theory of gravity or the theory of electrodynamics is a property called non-linearity. In short, gravity can beget further gravity - where gravitational systems are concerned, the whole is not the sum of its parts'" '

Because gravity is spacetime/universe. whether the universe is finite or infinite, is unknown, but either way, it does not support your hypothetical.

From what little I know, we just can not, and do not possess or make anti matter in sufficient quantities to be put to any use.

Not high enough though to change the mainstream rejection of it, and the facts that "Redshift quantization is a fringe topic with no support from mainstream astronomers in recent times. Although there are a handful of published articles in the last decade in support of quantization, those views are rejected by the rest of the field."as per my previous link.... ps: You havn't answered my question yet.

Hawking Radiation has as yet, never been detected, but it is a reasonable scientific argument based on the quantum nature of EH's and virtual particle pairs.

Once upon a time, there lived a magical spaghetti monster who lived somewhere in the sky............ and they all lived happily ever after. A shame that whatever deity you chose, like all other deities of any persausions, is now mostly superfluous and has been pushed into near oblivion with science.

He thought the terminology of a "gravitationally completely collapsed object"as too much of a mouth full.

Sadly, this appears just as fanatical. I wish I was wrong though.

Wow!!! I mean wow! really wow!!You literally scare me matey.

Time dilation and its variable nature arises from the fact that "c" is a finite number.

A description in your Forbes link under one of the illustrations sums it up in my view..."Over time, gravitational interactions will turn a mostly uniform, equal-density Universe into one with large concentrations of matter and huge voids separating them". Also as per your Wiki link, DM plays an important part best described here...."In the standard model of the evolution of the universe, galactic filaments form along and follow web-like strings of dark matter.[4] It is thought that this dark matter dictates the structure of the Universe on the grandest of scales. Dark matter gravitationally attracts baryonic matter, and it is this "normal" matter that astronomers see forming long, thin walls of super-galactic clusters."

While you obviously get your fairy tales from the bible, you know, that obscure book, written by obscure men in an obscure age, you are probably correct in that Earth will be destroyed by fire. This will happen in around 5 billion years time, when the Sun has swelled into a red giant, engulfing the Earth. Unless of course we are hit with an asteroid or comet before hand. Let me also add to your education and alleviate your ignorance, in telling you that even the Catholic church now accepts the theory of evolution, so great is the evidence for it. That also applies to the BB which again they accept. Any supposed god or magical deity as an explanation for the universe we see, has been pushed into near oblivion. Hope that helps.

From one lay person to another the simple reason why time dilation occurs is due to the fact that the speed of light remains constant always in any frame of reference. The faster you travel through space, the slower you travel through time is the second important concept. The third is that time will always pass, both by mechanical clocks and biologically, at one second per second, in anyone's own frame of reference. In effect that means if you and I were twins, and I set off in a warp drive spaceship at 99.999% "c", time for me would pass as per normal, and time for you would also pass as per normal. But as we both have infinitely powerful telescopes, you would see my time as slowed down, and I would see your time as slowed down. While that may seem paradoxical, if I'm to return home in say 12 months time, I need to decelerate and accelerate again. This is best explained here, far better then I can.....https://www.askamathematician.com/2010/09/q-how-does-the-twin-paradox-work/ With the scenario I have given you, when I do return to Earth 12 months later according to my onboard clocks, I will be returning to an Earth 230 years in the future, with you long dean and buried.

First up, let me say poor attitude. Secondly, the reason why density when speaking of a BH is a meaningless concept, is that all the mass according to GR resides at the singularity, The rest according to GR is nothing but critically curved spacetime, ignoring any in-falling matter/energy. GR tells us that when the Schwarzchild radius of any mass is reached, further collapse is compulsory. So while we will never have any real observational evidence about what is, or what isn't beyond the EH, we do have the overwhelmingly supported theory of GR to guide us to the best explanation. While GR tells us that further collapse is compulsory, it also fails to be of any use or application at the quantum/Planck level. This is why most reputable astronomers and cosmologists, do not accept the singularity of infinite density and infinite spacetime curvature, rather just a singularity defined by the failure of our current laws of physics and GR to describe. Absorbing all that, its a reasonable bet to assume a surface of sorts exist at or below the quantum/Planck level. I see the picture of what is inside a BH, as dictated by GR, as reasonable, despite the fact we will never be able to observe beyond the EH. Much the same way that we have a reasonable assumption of what powers the Sun and other stellar objects with out having to visit them. In answer to the original question as per the thread heading, the effects we observe of matter/energy, and spacetime in the vicinity of what appears to be nothing, or invisible, leads us to theorise BH's. The discovery of gravitational waves as per colliding BH templates and the EHT image has now made their existence a near certainty.

You did. But I being a lay person, have a better lay person's manner in expressing an idea in lay person's fashion!

?? You want to "assume" that the speed of light is infinite? But we know it isn't. Therefor simultaneity is not an absolute relation between frames and what is simultaneous in one frame of reference is not simultaneous in another. That has been evidenced many times.