Black hole size?

[Anonymous No.15072219]

Phoenix A is probably around 100 b solar masses, maybe larger.
Just how big do you figure these can get in the time they have had? Are these ultra massive BHs the product of galactic mergers alone or is there some other mechanism?

If all of the mass in the visible universe collapsed into a single BH, how large would its Schwartzchild radius be?

> what is it about black holes...
Yes you're very clever.

[Anonymous No.15072254]

what is it about black holes that makes them the number one most popular popsci topic of discussion amongst the brainlet soience fangoys?
is it the comic bookish aspects of the spectacular, unrealistic and completely non disprovable conjectures which go along with the topic that make black holes so popular amongst the scientist posers and wannabes?

[Anonymous No.15072341]

>>15072254
They're the most unusual physical objects we know of, of course there will be singularity people, but that does not change that they're the most curious worldly thing.
There you got me.

[Anonymous No.15072381]

>>15072219
At least upload the full size version so we can read it.

[Anonymous No.15072406]

>>15072341
>they're
presuming the existence of a fundamenally non detectable object is a non disprovable conjecture, what is your fascination with this black hole soience fiction nonsense which is purposefully constructed to seemingly permit grandiose claims which are nondisprovable and fundamentally nonscientific?
there is a whole big massive world of science based on legitimately disprovable conjecture which is obedient to the scientific method. why are you drawn away from all of that and insist on focusing solely on the one field which glaring and stupidly violates the scientific method? is the entirety of the rest of science just not quite grandiose enough to satisfy your desire to participate in a pseudointellectual fantasy life?

[Anonymous No.15072423]

>>15072406
>>15072406
You're right I should have been more clear.
When I say black hole, I mean the extremely small, dark and massive objects that cause things like pic rel and quasars.
I am of course not positive that an EH forms in reality, and am pretty sure no one takes the idea of a physical singularity seriously.
So whatever the thing is that they are describing as a black hole.

[Anonymous No.15072443]

>>15072423
you love them baseless grandiose conjecture until you're shamed by having it publicly pointed out how stupid the beliefs you're expressing are. so how are you so certain that the rest of your beliefs aren't equally grandiose and idiotic? you clearly cannot tell the difference until someone comes along to point it out to you, instead you insist on spouting off on dumb comic bookish ideas you never thought though. only after being publicly shamed do you change your tune and admit the glaring flaws in your sci fi idiocy

[Anonymous No.15072456]

>>15072254
>page 0
sometimes i forget how long i've been on here

[Anonymous No.15072465]

>>15072443

A man is found at a crime scene of a gunshot victim.
He is holding a gun.
The gun has a bullet missing.
The dead body contains a bullet of the exact same brand and caliber of the bullets still in the gun.
The man proclaims his innocence of the incident.

This anon believes the man is innocent.

That's how much evidence we have for the existence of black holes.

We did not witness the murder, but the killer is at the crime scene, under these circumstances.

You're so thick, your skull is paper with 103 folds bud.

[Anonymous No.15072467]

>>15072465
>t. retard who doesn't know about barycenters
Basic orbital dynamics suggests that many objects can and should orbit around a shared center of gravity, and that our ability to calculate where those ought to be with precision is sorely lacking due to the computational difficulty of multi-body physics.

[Anonymous No.15072477]

>>15072465
so what is it exactly that drives you focus all of your "scientific' interest on fundamentally nondisprovable non science when there is a massive massive world of real science out there?
why does the fake flashy shit that lines up with marvel comix movies so important to you to the point that you willfully neglect the entire world of disprovable genuine science?
why does only nondisprovable conjectures catch your interest? attracted by the opportunity to tell lies know that you can't be being disproven? what other attraction could their be to nondisprovable conjectures that would make them more attractive that legitimate science?
whats so fun about telling grandiose lies knowing that you can't be called out anyway?

[Anonymous No.15072487]

>>15072443
I'm sorry that I've upset you. What do you think the physical description of these dense, dark objects actually is, anon? I know we can't say, but just for fun. My gut tells me it's Planck Stars or something being held up by radiation pressure and the idea that time dilation approachs infinity as you near an "EH".

[Anonymous No.15072490]

>>15072487
We don't even know if dense, dark objects exist. There could just be a center of gravity there due to the orbital mechanics of numerous large nearby bodies, or we might just be missing a bright but not-bright-enough object like a large star or nebula that's outshined by nearby objects.

[Anonymous No.15072494]

>>15072467
I was wondering when the center of mass people would show up. So you're saying there is no mass, right? Just something akin to the eye of a hurricane.

[Anonymous No.15072496]

>>15072219
>Are these ultra massive BHs the product of galactic mergers alone or is there some other mechanism?
The reigning theory is that in the early universe you had black hole stars that aren't possible under the current conditions. Normally, when a star is formed it ejects the matter around it as it fuses or novas, but back when the universe was much hotter and denser, there was no where for that extra matter to go, so the star would simply feed back on itself, forming a star some billion times larger than the largest star today with a black hole being force fed at its core, constantly in a state of nova. Eventually things spread out and cooled down enough to leave those gigantic cores behind, which form the largest of the supermassive black holes.

[Anonymous No.15072502]

>three different blackholes have been found that are larger than the theoretical limit
>the latest one discovered is an order of magnitude larger than the limit

[Anonymous No.15072507]

>>15072494
That's a very inexact metaphor, but you can think of it that way if you want.

Instead it might be better to think of what a binary or trinary star system is "orbiting around." You might say nothing, but that's not really true. They're orbiting around the stable position of their gravitational influences, sort of like a cosmic Lagrange Point.

We've seen up to 8 stars arranged in incredibly delicate orbital mechanics within clusters, which implies that stability of orbit around a common center is achievable even when the bodies are very close together.

[Anonymous No.15072515]

>>15072507
>>15072490
I dunno bro, seems too tight an orbit to be what you say. I think there's definitely some mass there. We don't see orbits this abrupt and extreme in multi star systems.
What do you think happens when two neutron stars, both near the tov mass limit, merge?
Just a more degenerate and stable form of matter than neutron degenerate matter and an even more compact star?

[Anonymous No.15072521]

>>15072515

[Anonymous No.15072541]

>>15072515
>I dunno bro, seems too tight an orbit to be what you say. I think there's definitely some mass there. We don't see orbits this abrupt and extreme in multi star systems.
We do actually. And it's not really for me to say what's "too much" when we haven't solved the three body problem even with modern supercomputing.

[Anonymous No.15072644]

>>15072541
Okay but what happens when you collect too much mass in a space small enough that escape velocity exceeds c? Or is there a mechanism to stop it from crossing that line?

[Anonymous No.15073133]

>>15072219
I would assume there is no max size.

[Anonymous No.15073157]

>>15072219
Gravity isn't real
The planets and stars are where they are since creation 7,000 ya

[Anonymous No.15073278]

>>15072423
is this black hole causing several of the other objects in the picture to halve in size in a single frame?

[Anonymous No.15073280]

>>15072219
proof black holes aren't a clump of dark matter?

[Anonymous No.15073290]

>>15072219
blackholes aren't real. Anything with a critical mass of that density is automatically blasted out as a supernova, it's literally impossible for them to form.

[Anonymous No.15073330]

>>15073290
So what are the stars orbiting in OPs pic? And before you say nothing, can you show me any example of stars orbiting an empty central region abruptly and radically changing direction like you see in OPs pic?
The area the stars are orbiting in the OP is far too small, this is easy to see by comparison to multi star systems.

[Anonymous No.15073528]

>>15073278
Camera artefact

[Anonymous No.15073581]

>>15072644
The math just doesn't work out for that. It requires infinitely small volumes or infinitely large masses due to the nature of the energy involved in the speed of light. It only works on blackboards where you can have infinities.

[Anonymous No.15073611]

>>15072467
Your postulation and the common explanation of a black hole are exactly the same. You just choose not to believe in an event horizon or the theorized behaviors within.

Our points are equally provable. There is no discussion. You're a retard if I am.

[Anonymous No.15073615]

>>15072477
too long, didn't read

I'm not reading your schizophrenic paragraph of nothing but questions. Hit me with one at a time, or don't hit me at all. Trying to malleate your knowledge requires effort on my part that I'm not exerting, for lack of gain. The opportunity cost of me wasting brain space on your post isn't even remotely worth it for me. If you can boil all your shit down to one question, I'll entertain it.

[Anonymous No.15073620]

>>15073611
>Our points are equally provable. There is no discussion. You're a retard if I am.
The issue with black holes is basically what >>15073581 and >>15073290 anon said. Orbital mechanical solutions don't require math that approaches infinity or has to be renormalized to remove infinities. It all works in reality, whereas black hole math doesn't work at all.

[Anonymous No.15073633]

>>15073620
Elaborate.
Not enough substance to your post for an argument that changes my thought process on the issue.

Where does the energy go? Why do we not see accretion discs that are at varying stages of internal graduation that would support barycentric non-black hole ideology?
If it's JUST orbital mechanics, you have to apply the implied practical mathematics equally. There should be accretion discs that have succumbed to orbital decay, below expected event horizon limits for "black hole math".

We have only directly observed two, with directed imaging, sure, but where is the light and energy from all the others? Just trapped in a swirl? Then by your logic we need only look at more potential "black hole" orbital centers to try and find accretion discs with orbital decay below expectations.

Why sudden straight x-ray jets? If orbital mechanics were the only mechanism at play, then what is causing vertical x-ray jets? You can tweak simulations to explain how circles make lines I suppose, or you posit that we are getting a side angle view of what is actually x-ray loops.

Again, things that we can look for to falsify one theory or the other.

If you want constructive discussion, please provide evidentiary support, or posit counter questions.

This post was generated by undisclosed AI Project Santa Clause 4.

[Anonymous No.15073639]

>>15073633
too long, didn't read

I'm not reading your schizophrenic paragraph of nothing but questions. Hit me with one at a time, or don't hit me at all. Trying to malleate your knowledge requires effort on my part that I'm not exerting, for lack of gain. The opportunity cost of me wasting brain space on your post isn't even remotely worth it for me. If you can boil all your shit down to one question, I'll entertain it.

[Anonymous No.15073655]

>>15073639
You're only in this for spite.

I am trying to learn.

We are not the same.

I have provided two avenues of falsification that would assist with your efforts.

1. Search for accretion discs below expected event horizon limits based on "black hole math"
2. Search for evidence that observed black hole x-ray jets are actually x-ray loops viewed from a side angle.

Both things that can be looked for with existing tools and would support your argument.

If you would like to be constructive, contribute more falsifiable evidence based research methods to support or discredit either side of the argument.

This post was generated by undisclosed AI Project Santa Clause 4.

[Anonymous No.15073662]

>>15073655
>You're only in this for spite.
>I am trying to learn.
>We are not the same.
You're stonewalling with irrelevancies. The math simply doesn't work for the black hole camp. There must be another explanation, and I don't know what it is, but there is no workable solution for black holes in reality. That's the end o it.

[Anonymous No.15074214]

>>15073615
>>15073662
Not him but the math doesn't work for orbital mechanics accounting for the extreme orbits we see around Sagittarius A in place of a central mass, particularly with stars with orbits like s14.
The abrupt pass of s14 around Sat A is unlike what we would see if what you're proposing is correct, and it's not hard to check.

[Anonymous No.15074216]

>>15072254
why do you ask the same question every single fucking time they're mentioned

[Anonymous No.15074219]

>>15072254
Because the only model we have to explain them is that they regress into infinity, yet because they vary in size the point some are larger than a million galaxies combined, that can't be the answer. It is the elephant in the room in terms of the physical models. We know it exists, yet it can't be explained.

[Anonymous No.15074234]

>>15074214
We have to see S14 at the edges of it's orbit here and here.
We need to compare the light shifts and the acceleration.
This way, we can confirm that we're not just seeing a larger circular orbit, from a side angle.

It may be that the orbital mechanics works out, if this is just an optical illusion.

Mr. Black Hole math doesn't work out, fails to point out arguments like these, even though the might support his idea, because he's full brainlet status, but realistically, we need to falsify it empirically, or show support, based on real observations.

[Anonymous No.15074239]

>>15074219
Our current black hole model theories are far from suggesting infinities. Update your knowledge pool. Currently the most updated black hole models indicate that based on their size, they actually have density differentiation.

That doesn't imply infinity of anything. It's values so large that we generally don't break anything by attributing infinity to it. The event horizon is an analogue of a hydraulic jump. By all means, explain the existence of hydraulic jumps by your ideas. They are a pretty good 2-dimensional view of what we assume is occurring at 3-dimensional event horizons.

>This man doesn't even know about 2D event horizon analogues.

[Anonymous No.15074240]

>>15074214
We have to see S14 at the edges of it's orbit here and here.
We need to compare the light shifts and the acceleration.
This way, we can confirm that we're not just seeing a larger circular orbit, from a side angle.

It may be that the orbital mechanics works out, if this is just an optical illusion.

Mr. "Black Hole math doesn't work out", fails to point out arguments like these, even though they might support his idea, because he's full brainlet status, but realistically, we need to falsify it empirically, or show support, based on real observations.

[Anonymous No.15074252]

>>15074239
>That doesn't imply infinity of anything. It's values so large that we generally don't break anything by attributing infinity to it.
This is the ultimate pseudointellectual semantic argument. It doesn't deal with his criticism, which is that the alleged contents of black holes would consist of so much baryonic matter that it's absurd to assume they really are that dense and massive given the observed distribution of matter in the universe.

[Anonymous No.15074265]

>>15074240

[Anonymous No.15074269]

>>15074252
You have literally only argued in semantics.

You are not providing experiments that falsify either side of the argument.
I have literally been doing all of the intellectual and scientific discussion on your behalf.

Your head is so far up your ass you haven't been paying attention, but feel free to chime in with some of that "false black hole math" that you've referenced 6 times in this thread, without actually providing.

Feel free to provide any evidentiary support at all. I am literally asking for it.

Give me. The fucking. DATA.

Tell me what the fuck we need to look at, to prove you right or wrong.

You have been making a sandwich, with nothing fucking on it, this entire thread.

Back up your statements or I'm done.

[Anonymous No.15074272]

>>15074269
>Back up your statements or I'm done.
No. Stop. Don't.

[Anonymous No.15074288]

>>15074272
You have no argument. Black holes exist and are the correct theory for any reasonable person studying astrophysics.

Feel free to offer legitimate refutation at any time, I'll address your argument again, when you do that.

I knew teenage trolls with ego issues had gotten worse over the past few years, but I didn't realize they had gotten this bad.

[Anonymous No.15074295]

>>15072219
hey I can see this thread devolved into shit-flinging but as an amateur cosmologist I’m gonna do my best to answer OP’s questions since apparently no one itt has even bothered

>Just how big do you figure these can get in the time they have had?
the current understanding of black holes can’t really explain supermassive black holes. current hypotheses about their origin tie the mass of a black hole to the mass of the star that created it, but that can’t be the only way black holes form because there simply isn’t enough time in the universe for them to get as big as we have seen them

>Are these ultra massive BHs the product of galactic mergers alone or is there some other mechanism?
there isn’t a good explanation. though, keep in mind that galactic mergers don’t always lead to black hole mergers. they could fly past each other.

>If all of the mass in the visible universe collapsed into a single BH, how large would its Schwartzchild radius be?
the mass of the observable universe is often given as [math]10^50[/math] (this doesn’t include dark matter or dark energy) so if you plug that into the Schwarzschild radius equation (pic related) you get 150 billion light years. big.

[Anonymous No.15074332]

>>15074240
If we were seeing a less extreme orbit from a side angle, the apparent approach would be much slower than the apparent rapid approach we see with s14, especially when looking at the length of its orbit.

[Anonymous No.15074383]

>>15074288
At first I assumed you were genuine and didn't know anything about the subject, which I was willing to engage with. Now that I know you're a narcissist who's decided what to believe already I find it hard to care what you feel about me. Your arguments in this thread are disingenuous sealioning, and don't represent any serious attempt to understand either what you're talking about or what you oppose.

[Anonymous No.15074419]

>>15072219
>Phoenix A is probably around 100 b solar masses
Not large enough. I want to see a black hole around 10^15 solar masses. This would have a Schwarzschild radius of around 100 light years and the event horizon would basically be flat Minkowski space* and you could comfortably live out your life after crossing the horizon (you wouldn't even notice) without hitting the singularity.

*This is assuming it has no angular momentum. I haven't worked out what the fuck would happen in that case

[Anonymous No.15074615]

>>15072219
>If all of the mass in the visible universe collapsed into a single BH, how large would its Schwartzchild radius be?

about 93 billion light years, the same as the radius of the current observable universe. spooky huh.

[Anonymous No.15074713]

>black holes

[Anonymous No.15075409]

>>15074615
Can anyone verify this?

[Anonymous No.15075867]

>>15075409
Google.

[Anonymous No.15076308]

I'll ask my black hole question here. Just as a photon experiences an entire journey across the universe in an instant, time dilation approaches infinity at the event horizon, assuming muh GPS satellite clocks isn't a farce.
So tell me this, would something crossing the horizon of an enormous black hole, with plenty of time to fall before the center, be able to fall faster than c since c is the escape velocity at the edge of the horizon?

It just feels like the existence of a physical event horizon/an escape velocity beyond c is somehow an analog to traveling faster than light.

[Anonymous No.15076320]

>>15072254
The blackhole autistic hater is back.

[Anonymous No.15076807]

>>15072219
Black holes are wormholes.

[Anonymous No.15078081]

>>15073662
Do you mean objects with singularities? What about non singular black hole solutions like fuzzballs or planck stars?

[Anonymous No.15078094]

>>15075867
>If all of the mass in the visible universe collapsed into a single BH, how large would its Schwartzchild radius be?

2


According to measurements of the cosmic microwave background the universe is geometrically flat - which means that the mass/energy density of the universe is close to the "critical value" of ∼10−26 kg/m3.

The radius of the observable universe is 46.6 billion light years, so the mass/energy contained within it is equivalent to 3.6×1054 kg.

The Schwarzschild radius of a black hole is 2GM/c2. If the mass/energy of the universe is spherically symmetric then its Schwarzschild radius is 560 billion light years and thus larger than the observable universe.

Note though that the Schwarzschild solution in General Relativity is static. The universe is definitely not static.

[Anonymous No.15078131]

>>15078081
Those are more plausible certainly.

[Anonymous No.15079348]

>>15078131
I doubt anyone beyond "that's same weight as 20,000 cheeseburgers!" takes the real physical description of BHs as singularities.

[Anonymous No.15079352]

>>15079348
And yet it's soientific dogma that they are and must be.

[Anonymous No.15079393]

>>15079352
I agree, it's unethical and borderline superstitious.
It's strange to me how so few seem to account for the idea that the BH would be experiencing a much slower clock according to the much touted theory

[Anonymous No.15079394]

>>15079352
"was"

You guys really need to update your knowledge of black hole calculations in regard to mass and density.

There is density and volume differentiation, accepted for blackholes, that discredits the idea that they ALL contain or act as singularities.

Not all black holes are equal. There are many different types, and density calculations for the varying mass ranges of black holes indicate that not only do the event horizons have varying grades of distance, but they may not even be spherical or maintain a flat line of no-return, as has been accepted in the past.

The areas formerly thought to be strict boundaries may actually fluctuate and move, and you could enter an event horizon, and then the black hole could pulsate, rotate, or change structural composition so that you are outside of that range, as it moves inward or away from you.

These are not static points.

Thus, "singularity behavior" is probably not the absolute reality of most blackholes.

This allows for the situations in which we see energy or particles "escape black holes" as we have observationally seen.

This allows for the calculations that are only built on orbital mechanics to work out.

For some black holes though, there is a real possibility of singularity type behavior. This does not confirm the presence of a singularity, but does confirm that what we would expect to observe if there were a singularity is occurring, at least for some masses and some time frames.

There is so much more data that we need to fully classify and understand this information that it's most likely the case that we are ALL wrong in some way.

No need to argue, we just all need more data.

[Anonymous No.15080259]

>>15079394
Good post, I didn't know tg80mthis.

[Anonymous No.15080838]

Imagine a cloud of hydrogen being dropped into a black hole. As the cloud began to encircle the singularity it would turn from a cloud, to an elongated but more narrow cloud, and then more and more narrow until it becomes a single line of hydrogen atoms. Even the atoms would then be compressed until each proton was touching its respective electron, turning the volume of the original cloud into a line of aubatomic particles which can no longer be described as hydrogen atoms.

[Anonymous No.15081430]

>>15080838
Wouldn't it take infinite time for matter to even fully cross the EH, seems like the BH would evaporate first.
Really, from the perspective of the BH, the whole BH "life cycle" would be over almost the instant it began, just an massive implosion followed immediately by an explosion.

[Anonymous No.15081969]

>>15074288
How do you define BH? The the only requirement an event horizon?

[Anonymous No.15082456]

>>15081430

[Anonymous No.15082483]

>>15081430
time... what is time to something that exists for less than a second? We all think that black holes live forever... but what if they are...immaterial? What if black holes last for less than a millisecond in their time?

[Anonymous No.15082495]

>>15082483
2/2 yes, we can observe the accretion disc... but, the singularity? Has islt existed for more than a millisecond?

[Anonymous No.15082958]

>>15072490
>There could just be a center of gravity there due to the orbital mechanics of numerous large nearby bodies
this guy doesn't even understand newtonian physics lol no wonder relativity is warping his brain

[Anonymous No.15083227]

>>15082958
Newtonian physics isn't everything! They've proven with maths that the mass of the supermassive black hole saggitarius A at the center of the Milky Way does not have neatly enough mass, short by a very large amout, to hold the galaxy together. The galaxy should have ripped itself apart a very long time ago, so if its not gravity then what actually os holding the galaxy together?

[Anonymous No.15084200]

>>15083227
I don't think anyone is claiming the central smbh is what's "holding the galaxy together".

[Anonymous No.15084221]

>>15084200
People who believe that galaxies orbit around SMBHs clearly do believe that as well. Otherwise there would be no necessity to have one present at all (especially since none have ever been directly observed). This other force could account for all of the coherence in that case.

[Anonymous No.15084287]

>>15084200
Ah, so you're a proponent of the dark matter theory, then...

>>15084221
dark matter also something which has never been observed

Dark gravity...

>>15083227
Its well known that time slows down as the observer approaches something with mass, and black holes are the most dense things in the known universe, so for a SMBH it would experience time at c/xm where c is the speed of light, x is a constant relating to how much time speeds down when a photon passes by, say, the a one kilogram black hole, and m is the total mass in kilos. What do you think the constant is, Mr. Maths?

[Anonymous No.15084331]

>>15084287
I don't think the only two options are "invisible matter everywhere" and "central BH holds whole galaxy together", but nice reach.
If I was a betting man I'd say gravity behaves differently at galactic scales.

If I was a betting

[Anonymous No.15085858]

Black holes are basically explosions but in super slow mo because they have to climb out of very deep gravity wells.