Am i the only one who finds images of blackholes, veeery disturbing

Don"t go near it! God knows what might happen!

LOL

 

I find them quite fascinating. I mean, something so powerful it eliminates even light waves.

 

Personally, I know some folks that could use a free trip there, if that counts for anything.

 

Reminds me of this clip from Luther where Alice talks briefly about why she likes black holes, she sees them as evil at its most pure. Creeeepy and fascinating (much like Alice).

0:48 - 1:10 :

[YOUTUBE]-AB_znetvII[/YOUTUBE]

 

You will be spaghettified. You're welcome

 

They're sort of like mushroom clouds from a nuclear detonation, it's like they have this sort of terrifying beauty about them.

 

I think they're beautiful, and I know I'm not the only one who's curious as to what's inside one. I also hear news saying "black hole spotted outside solar system" and I think: "YES! I'll totally take a spaceship up there and go poke around if nobody else wants to!"

 

Oh, I want to stick my dick in it!~

 

I like 'grimdark hyperbole' in some documentaries about black holes. Especially when I was a child. I wished I could manufacture such events in Redshift computer software.

I was always more fascinated by the end of the universe than the beginning of the universe. I've heard the universe may not have a beginning/end. I feel a little disappointed.

 

"Black Holes" are only a THEORY of what mankind THINKS they are. There is NO PROOF of what they REALLY are, nor will there ever be, in our lifetime.

As much as I like science and all its factions, it is a total advocate of the misleading and misdirection.

Someone in another thread said something like "It's not the science thats faulty, its the other people who are misguided in interpreting what was said". Well, it's difficult to misinterpret something that comes directly from the science community.

Nobody on this planet knows what causes and effects are out there in the universe. They could be different for each part of the universe, nobody knows, because no one from this planet has ever been outside of the earths pull, much less outside this galaxy.

I find astronomy and astrophysics fascinating, but I have yet to see ANY of these professionals/scientists come up with any factual proof to back up their claims.....and this goes for anything and everything coming from the science community.

 

But it is what he have to go on. There may not be any physical proof, but theories being peer reviewed by the best and brightest on the planet is the next best thing. Scientists do not just come up with stuff for shits and giggles, y'know.


Anyways, when they made the movie interstellar, a scientist worked closely with the special effects department to develop a sophisticated program that would render the black hole according to the physics that scientists believe black holes go by. The result was the closest depiction of a black hole ever, but they prettied it up for the movie.

In the movie, it looks like this.

Spoiler

But it actually looked more like this.

Spoiler

 

When I first saw this thread I thought it meant something else and I'm like wow did he seriously post a pic of what I think he did? :lol: but you didn't.

 

Spoiler

At first, I thoight, eh, they just made it more luminous. But they also made it much tidier and made it a lot more symmetrical.

fascinating what needs to get done to make something that's plenty scary "read" as scary.

The avatar of the person who posted above me seems related

 

The one in Interstellar, I assume, was refracting starlight from behind it via a gravitational lens effect. That's what made it brighter than that computer model. If not that, then the principle of "it has to look cool for the movie" like somebody else stated.

MisterSparkles, with all due respect, what the F are you talking about? The "physical proof" they have that black holes are nigh-infinitely dense regions of space is that they behave exactly like extremely massive objects should (confirmed by the multi-spectral observations, the gravitational formula, and other math I don't claim to know about) and we have no reason to believe otherwise. Are there competing hypotheses about what causes black holes other than really big stars which run out of material to keep their fusion reactions going? That's without even getting into surrounding matter falling into decaying orbits around it to cross the event horizon, or mentioning the cause of Hawking radiation (which I know jack squat about lol)

I don't mean to come off as abrasive, but I am passionate about science and have come to trust the discoveries they make. It is not the speculation about what they find, but rather the concrete results themselves which makes research such an important part of society. On the topic of the thread, learning about what we know about black holes and the various ways of picturing what it is they do to space is a large part of what turned me on to science, like this model of 3+1 dimensional spacetime as a 2d plane with weights on it, and gravity is what results from its curved surface:

 

We know how particles and energy behave on our planet and its relatively close surroundings, however, given that 99.99% percent of the known universe contains absolutely nothing (makes you realise what a miracle our existence is!) and that we only understand 'normal' matter which only makes up 4% of the universe makes you question how much we actually know. Black holes for all we know could be localised lumps of antimatter which don't give off or reflect any light or radio transmissions and us seeing light 'disappear' into them could simply be a mirage effect.

 

I won't clog up this thread with any more pedantry after this, but... I doubt it. Antimatter, upon contact with regular matter, does what scientists call "annihilation" meaning nearly every particle involved in the reaction turns to pure energy (to put it extremely simply, as the wiki article is a little ivory tower-ish). So a ball of antimatter the size of a frickin' black hole would still not last very long when exposed to regular matter like stars, nebulae, etc. And if one did exist while we could watch, we would probably very well know something was up because it would be a huge bright spot in space, not a black one.

 

The original black hole was seen as "too confusing" because light in the accretion disc changed color depending on your perspective. When seen in action, parts of the accretion disc would be very bright and other parts would appear dark because it was a different color.

But it's otherwise very accurate. It shows how the light that the black hole consumes gathers in the accretion disc and how the accretion disc warps over and under the hole.

 

I find it really interesting, and disturbing at the same time. Sometimes looking at pictures of space and stuff gives me an existential crisis haha.