We cannot see a ‘black hole’."
A black hole, in and of itself, only absorbs radiation. It can be "seen" if it passes in front of a light source like a galaxy or bright nebula.
"We can ‘see’ a ‘black hole’ being kicked out of it’s ‘home’ galaxy by another ‘black hole’ (and it’s really, really ‘bright’)."
This article isn't discussing actually "seeing" the black hole, but instead the radiation emitted from gas excited as it is compressed and heated by gravity near the black hole event horizon. One point made in the article is that black holes in intergalactic space (extremely little gas) would be unobservable except for the point I made first- passing in front of a light source.
"Energy and matter cannot be created nor destroyed."
Correct.
Energy and matter simply ‘disappear’ into a black hole."
Incorrect. The mass of the black hole will increase whenever either energy or mass is absorbed, as determined by E=mc2. There is an interesting issue as to whether or not certain quantum "information" (spin, for instance) is lost when matter enters a black hole. Charge is conserved, as black holes may be charged.
A black hole, in and of itself, only absorbs radiation.
I hear it absorbs planets and stars.
It can be "seen" if it passes in front of a light source like a galaxy or bright nebula.
AND YET... if you look at the photos accompanying this article, the BRIGHT SPOTS in them are claimed to be 'black holes', are they not?
This article isn't discussing actually "seeing" the black hole, but instead the radiation emitted from gas excited as it is compressed and heated by gravity near the black hole event horizon.
So... exactly where is the 'event horizon', and if the center is 'black' and only the 'ring' or horizon gives off radiation, then surely we would see a 'ring' shaped effect instead of a globular emanation. The whole concept of a 'hole' implies a two-dimensional object.
If a black hole has an event horizon, can one see it from the 'side', or from 'behind' it? Would it not have to have an event horizon no matter which direction you approached it from? If true, then the 'horizon' that we 'see' from Earth only exists to those on Earth. To someone from another far away galaxy, the 'horizon' would exist only to them.
One point made in the article is that black holes in intergalactic space (extremely little gas) would be unobservable except for the point I made first- passing in front of a light source.
So... they would be strong enough to suck up the light, but not strong enough to suck up the source of the light?
The mass of the black hole will increase whenever either energy or mass is absorbed, as determined by E=mc2.
I would agree. However, how do we measure the mass of a black hole, since the energy and matter 'disappear' into it?
(Please understand I am not 'arguing' or telling you that you are wrong, or I am right. I am only trying to learn, and the way to learn is to question those with some knowledge. Many times by asking these 'silly' questions, I learn quite a bit. Whether I 'accept' your answers or not, I do extremely appreciate your input)
I do 'believe' that the entity we describe as a 'black hole' is something that is beyond our ability to understand or describe, at this time.