Posted on 05/07/2024 12:22:44 PM PDT by MtnClimber
Explanation: What happens when a black hole devours a star? Many details remain unknown, but observations are providing new clues. In 2014, a powerful explosion was recorded by the ground-based robotic telescopes of the All Sky Automated Survey for SuperNovae (Project ASAS-SN), with followed-up observations by instruments including NASA's Earth-orbiting Swift satellite. Computer modeling of these emissions fit a star being ripped apart by a distant supermassive black hole. The results of such a collision are portrayed in the featured artistic illustration. The black hole itself is a depicted as a tiny black dot in the center. As matter falls toward the hole, it collides with other matter and heats up. Surrounding the black hole is an accretion disk of hot matter that used to be the star, with a jet emanating from the black hole's spin axis.
For more detail go to the link and click on the image for a high definition image. You can then move the magnifying glass cursor then click to zoom in and click again to zoom out. When zoomed in you can scan by moving the side bars on the bottom and right side of the image.
The rendering is even accredited as follows:
Illustration Credit: NASA, Swift, Aurore Simonnet (Sonoma State U.)
LOL!
Where are all the missing Black Holes?
There should be millions of them all over the place ‘out there’........................
My son and I toured the California Science Center in Los Angeles yesterday and saw the IMAX movie "Deep Sky." It was an amazing movie. It has a short review of the design, construction, launch, and positioning of the James Webb Space Telescope at the L2 Lagrange Point and then shows the team receiving the first images. It then delves into some of the most intriguing and beautiful finds by the JWST. If you get a chance to see this movie anywhere near you, be sure to go. You won't be disappointed. (We also watched Cities of the Future 3D which was pure garbage. Stay away from this one. Far away. Pure drek.)
Here's the link to the official "Deep Sky" trailer on YouTube. Watching the ESA Ariane rocket liftoff in IMAX is incredible.
My dad worked on lots of spacecraft and took me to watch a shake-table test of the Voyager spacecraft while it was being developed. As they swept the vibration frequencies, they'd hit a resonant frequency and the panels on the spacecraft would start moving about wildly. I told my son about that experience of mine when in college many decades ago. Then, of all things, they showed the actual shake test of the JWST on the screen, not long after I told my son I had witnessed that on the Voyager spacecraft. He recognized it immediately. What a coincidence!
This is the "Deep Sky" blurb from the California Science Center site...Deep Sky brings the awe-inspiring images captured by NASA's Webb Telescope to IMAX — taking audiences on a journey to the beginning of time and space, to never-before-seen cosmic landscapes, and to recently discovered exoplanets, planets around other stars. Directed by Oscar-nominated filmmaker Nathaniel Kahn and narrated by Oscar-nominated actress Michelle Williams, Deep Sky follows the high-stakes global mission to build JWST and to launch it into orbit one-million miles from Earth, in an attempt to answer questions that have haunted us since the beginning of time: Where did we come from? How did the universe begin? Are we alone? 13 billion years in the making, Deep Sky reveals the universe as we have never seen it before; immersing audiences in the stunning pictures beamed back to earth by NASA’s new telescope — and capturing their vast beauty at a scale that can only be experienced on the giant IMAX screen.
Well, that’s no longer technically correct.
We have taken “pictures” of two Black Holes. Not artist’s illustrations. M87 and our Milky Way.
https://www.space.com/milky-way-m87-black-holes-compared-eht
I mean really, it's not like "science" hasn't lied many times already, or at best, were wrong with their assertions of certainty.
It still remains a theory currently. At best, it's compelling.
You can choose to believe what you desire.
As can you. Provide me where they state that it is proven that Black Holes exist. It’s a theory, even though there is compelling evidence, as the evidence is being viewed & interpreted. But that doesn’t mean it’s proof that it’s being viewed & interpreted accurately.
Just as this is not proof of Bigfoot's exitance.:
The same applies with this one:
height="408">
Thy even have these on roadways:
Then I’d like to hear your opposing facts/theory that accurately reflects what we observe around those two “Black Holes” that we’ve imaged.
Please share your facts.
I once saw Bigfoot. I could see it in distance on a hill near a road. I had an errand to do, but when I came back by, it was gone. They moved it. Sad that I missed seeing the first monster truck up close.
Many people believe UFOs are real also, and they too present pictures of them as proof. Are you convinced that UFOs are proven to be real? That it is no longer just a theory, but is a proven fact.
Many people believe many things are real. They provide pictures that believe prove that their belief is correct.
I'm not saying that black holes are impossible, I'm just saying that they have not actually been confirmed. The theory is widely acceptance, however, that too is not confirmation.
Do you understand what I am saying with that explanation?
I wrote an essay about Black Holes back in the 70’s. I've no doubt they exist due to both observation and mathematics.
Observing stars orbiting Black Holes. Observing dust clouds being consumed by a Black Hole. Observing Tidal Disruption Events. Observing near light speed ejecta from the “poles” of Black Holes.
There are many things you can't “see” that have been proven to be real and actually effect the world/universe around you. Still, you can't actually “see” it, nor can you take a photograph of it.
What “proof” would suffice?
We can't see atoms either, however, with tools we can see them. One way is using radiation using atomic resolution microscope. It is also with radiation that we are able to say that we see certain things that generates the theory that Black Holes exist. But at this point it is still a working theory. That too is an honest statement.
If you are convinced, that is your right.
However, that was still an illustration, not a picture as it was presented to be. Which is what has sparked this whole useless discussion. The picture you presented is compelling but it still falls short of being proof.
I understand, once a person is convinced of the existence of something, they view compelling information as being that definitive proof. But the truth is that the proof remains just beyond grasp, and will continue to, until it can be proven, or perhaps a new theory is formed & presented that is even more compelling.
Einstein’s theory of relativity, both special relativity and general relativity, has been extensively tested and confirmed by numerous scientific experiments and observations. While no scientific theory can be proven with absolute certainty, the overwhelming evidence and consistency of the results have led the scientific community to accept relativity as a fundamental aspect of our understanding of the universe.
The same holds true will Black Holes. If you are incapable of accepting that as the truth, then that is on you, and nothing I can say can get you to admit the truth because you are a true believer. I certainly can't fault you, and I certainly am incapable of disproving the theory. But it still remains to be a theory. Even if there is compelling evidence, because the evidence is only compelling.
What “proof” would suffice?
Perhaps the deployment of a Hubble like telescope aimed at getting a much closer look at one, or both, of the two promising examples of what are believed to be Black Holes. We would hopefully collect much more evidence to see if the theory holds up, or not.
I might be a contrarian, but that is what science is all about. It's fine to accept a theory, even though it made be widely accepted, to keep pursuing to get to the truth, if possible.
This is even more important, because we have been told to accept the experts, or as they like to say, science, on such things as Covid & Covid "vaccines". I didn't just accept their science on that, and I refuse to accept, as fact, the science of Black Holes. I applaud the advances that have allowed to get to this theory. Very compelling, but still not proof.
Semantics is a waste of time.
There are relatively few absolutes. Almost anything and everything is relative.
Using “Black Hole” in the given context, what is being described is an enormous amount of matter existing in an exceptionally minuscule volume of spacetime (I disagree with the singularity concept attributable to incomplete/imperfect mathematical models). Or, a gravity well with the mass of several to billions of times that of our sun.
Relatively anything in our reality is open to reinterpretation as our knowledge and technology advance, which is always a given from my point of view.
I'm a skeptic as far as dark matter and dark energy is concerned.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.