Who did this?

[Anonymous No.16043325]

>J0529-4351 was discovered in 1980 and for 40 years was thought to be a star. Last week, it was discovered actually to be a black hole with an accretion disk 7 light years across. It consumes 1 solar mass every day and emits energy equivalent to a supernova ever second.

[Anonymous No.16043356]

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.16043364]

>>16043356
Probably, but I will say that if they are correct and we could create one, it could likely lead to near infinite energy.
More likely they try to make a bomb out of it so it’s probably for the best that it’s left to be pondered by morons.
Lightning on the other hand, is infinite free energy. We need to develop some kind of super capacitor network that could harness lightning strikes.
That would be an absolute game changer.

[Anonymous No.16043369]

>>16043325
Black holes don't exist. Just more proof that they are fully delusional.

[Anonymous No.16043421]

>>16043356

[Anonymous No.16043518]

>>16043325
what the fuuuck

[Anonymous No.16043690]

>>16043325
>Who did this?
Who did what?

[Anonymous No.16043959]

>>16043369
then wtf is at the center of the milky way
>pic very related

[Anonymous No.16044251]

>>16043959
Massive object extremely redshifted and stuck forever in time dilation

[Anonymous No.16044262]

>>16043325
i dont believe any professional astronomist can mistake a star for whatever that thing is
First, because its too far away. Dim points of light that far are most often whole galaxies

[Anonymous No.16044266]

>>16043959
could be any kind of large object, one of these neutron stars or whatever they talk about
you will never confirm its a black hole

[Anonymous No.16044268]

>>16044262
It was categorized as a star by a satellite survey and no one bothered looking into it until now

[Anonymous No.16044271]

>>16043356
They're mysterious
They're fucking huge
They're the most powerful thing in the universe normalfags know about
Every theory about them is fascinating and food for thought
They're constantly mentioned in old scifi for all of the above reasons
The idea of something more powerful than a star being invisible and tiny is very weird
Spacetime is crazy to think about
I want to fuck a Nubian woman and feed my mattr into her until she squirts
What else do you want???????????
Why aren't you fascinated with black holes?

[Anonymous No.16044336]

>>16044262
>First, because its too far away. Dim points of light that far are most often whole galaxies
Clearly never heard of spectroscopy.

>>16044266
At Neutron star density the 4 million solar mass object would be inside the Schwarzschild radius, it would collapse to become a black hole.

[Anonymous No.16044356]

>>16044336
>it would collapse to become a black hole
in infinite time

[Anonymous No.16044363]

>>16044356
It would only take an infinite time if it was already a black hole with an event horizon.

[Anonymous No.16044372]

>What if Singularities DO NOT Exist?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRir6-9tsJs

very related video

[Anonymous No.16044401]

>>16044363
It's a common misconception. The star itself would also need to fall beyond the event horizon it creates during the collapse before a black hole would form, so time dilation would kick in and it would get effectively stuck halfways.

[Anonymous No.16044428]

>>16044401
>The star itself would also need to fall beyond the event horizon it creates
The core is already inside. No passing the event horizon needed. So a black hole forms. The fact that there is an event horizon tells a black hole has already formed.
It also doesn't matter if the last stages of collapse appear to go on forever for an external observer, as quickly the surface will be refshifted into nothing and be indistinguishable from any normal black hole.

[Anonymous No.16044455]

>>16043959
>travels ~2 light days in a year
>2 ld = 5.2e13 meters
>31,500,000 seconds in a year
>celestial object travelling at 1.6 million meters per second, or 0.5% the speed of light

[Anonymous No.16044529]

>>16044455
S4714 is estimated to move at 8+-3 % of the speed of light
>https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/ab9c1c

[Anonymous No.16044562]

>>16043959
OP's mom

[Anonymous No.16044573]

>>16044529
jesus fucking christ

[Anonymous No.16044613]

>>16044251
sounds like OP

[Anonymous No.16044689]

>>16043959
whats at the center of the solar system? must be a massive black hole, right?

[Anonymous No.16044721]

>>16044689
Sagitarius A, the object of the gif, its not at the barycenter of the milkyway, just close. It also emits a massive radio signal, wich the empty space barycenter doesnt
good point anyway

[Anonymous No.16044855]

>>16044428
>The fact that there is an event horizon
There's no such fact.
Time dilation is caused by extreme gravity and there's no difference whether it's due to falling close to event horizon (if it already existed) or the collapsing mass getting close to critical density beyond which the EH would be formed. In both cases time dilation would slow things down to the point the actual moment of reaching the horizon or collapsing to critical density and beyond will always be in infinite future.

>the surface will be refshifted into nothing
Not 'nothing', it will still have temperature of micro- or nanokelvins and will still be available for observation, given you have equipment to see it over the radiation of accretion disk or even the CMB which is still multiple orders of magnitude hotter.

[Anonymous No.16044916]

>>16043356
yo didnt you say some shit about you sucking black dicks everyday in another thread

[Anonymous No.16044922]

>OMG BLACK HOLES!!!
>JUST LIKE IN MUH STAR TREK MOOOOOOOVIES!!!!
>I FUCKING LOVE SOIENCE!!!!!!

[Anonymous No.16044963]

>>16044336
>Clearly never heard of spectroscopy.
Non sequitur
An extremely distant source of light that just looks like a star is obviousy a massive object, typically a galaxy but if not something else like a quasar. It doesnt matter what the spectrum is, if its extremely bright to a retarded level its not a star.

[Anonymous No.16044967]

>>16044922
me unironically

[Anonymous No.16044972]

>>16044855
>no difference whether it's due to falling close to event horizon (if it already existed) or the collapsing mass getting close to critical density beyond which the EH would be formed
You specifically said the infall time becomes infinite. That can only happen if there is already an event horizon.
>will still be available for observation
And what does this prove? Black holes can have this after image.

[Anonymous No.16044974]

>>16044963
You only know it's extremely distant after measuring the spectrum.

[Anonymous No.16045033]

>>16044972
>That can only happen if there is already an event horizon.
I see a lot of people struggle with this but during the collapse, the moment when the star reaches critical density where the EH would form is also the moment when time dilation due to gravity would become infinite. So even the formation of the EH itself is in infinite future.
Btw even if this wasn't true, any black hole out there would consist of the original collapsed star inside the event horizon with everything else that fell later layered on top of it, so except for very young or isolated (non-accreting) black holes all you would see from outside would still be not the horizon but actual matter, redshifted and stuck in time.

>And what does this prove?
That it's not "redshifted into nothing"

[Anonymous No.16045045]

>>16045033
>So even the formation of the EH itself is in infinite future.
Nope. The infinite part is only for an external observer. A particle in the star at the time of collapse sees itself fall into the EH in a finite time. Therefore the black hole forms.
And you still have logical contradiction:
>the moment when the star reaches critical density where the EH would form is also the moment when time dilation due to gravity would become infinite
>So even the formation of the EH itself is in infinite future.
You're saying the existence of the event horizon stops the event horizon from forming. Either it doesn't form and there is no infinite time dilation, or it does form and it's now a black hole.
>all you would see from outside would still be not the horizon but actual matter, redshifted and stuck in time.
That is the event horizon. And you would also see its relativistic shadow, as seen by EHT.

>That it's not "redshifted into nothing"
Towards nothing is the trend. Just as you talk about the infinite future.

[Anonymous No.16045063]

>>16044974
>You only know it's extremely distant after measuring the spectrum.
So what?

[Anonymous No.16045082]

>>16045063
You have it backwards. You don't know how far away it is to start with. Quasars got their name for being quasi-stellar objects, they appear as normal stars in images. Pic related is one very distant quasar and a Milky Way star beside it. You cannot tell them apart just by looking, you certainly cannot say which one is very distant.

[Anonymous No.16045091]

>>16044401
That's still a black hole retard, just because the gravity is coming from a spherical volume instead of a point changes nothing

[Anonymous No.16045128]

>>16045045
>A particle in the star at the time of collapse sees itself fall into the EH in a finite time. Therefore the black hole forms.
We are the external observer and the fall/collapse time is infinite for us and no black hole can exist right now. You have to resolve this problem before going to look for them in real world or producing non-physical mathfag garbage trying to deal with singularities and other nonsense which naturally appear when trying to solve the models outside of where they apply.

>Either it doesn't form and there is no infinite time dilation, or it does form and it's now a black hole.
Collapse is not a discrete event, it is a continuous increase in matter density and gravity it produces, accompanied by corresponding increase in time dilation. As the density and gravity approaches critical value, time dilation also approaches infinity. In fact if you look at the gravity alone, turns out it doesn't matter if the object is falling towards the EH or is collapsing itself, in both cases as it approaches the horizon, either in space or in time, gravity and time dilation asymptotically increase, and the moment it reaches the horizon is when TD=infinity and that moment is in (outside observer's, i.e. us and the rest of the universe) infinite future.

>you would also see its relativistic shadow, as seen by EHT.
All of that pivots on baseless axiomatic assumption that EH cannot possibly not exist in a dense object like that because muh proper time (see above). In reality the processes involved occur entirely outside of the (would be) horizon by definition and are absolutely not an indication of the existence of horizon itself, and would produce the same effects even around a dense object stuck in time dilation before the collapse with no EH at all.

[Anonymous No.16045155]

>>16045128
>>16045128
>We are the external observer and the fall/collapse time is infinite for us
Appears infinite. Appears. We also cannot see beyond the horizon of the observable universe for similar reasons, it doesn't mean these regions don't exist.

>Collapse is not a discrete event
You literally said the moment the EH forms. By your definition it is a moment.

>in both cases as it approaches the horizon, either in space or in time, gravity and time dilation asymptotically increase, and the moment it reaches the horizon is when TD=infinity and that moment is in (outside observer's, i.e. us and the rest of the universe) infinite future.
You're still on this strange idea of ignoring all the stuff at the center. If there is a horizon there is a black hole. The core has collapsed, it's not waiting for every particle to fall in.
>, and the moment it reaches the horizon
And once again you revert to talking about something that has already formed.

>All of that pivots on baseless axiomatic assumption that EH cannot possibly not exist in a dense object like that because muh proper time
It doesn't rest on anything. It is an observation. General relativity predicted the radius of the shadow as twice the Schwarzschild radius, and that was confirmed by EHT. This is how actual science works, testing proposals empirically. These objects are consistent with every prediction from GR that they are black holes.

[Anonymous No.16045355]

>>16045155
>Appears infinite.
Anon, I hope you're not one of those brainlets who think that time dilation is just how long it takes for the information to reach us. Just in case, speed of light is constant and when you're 1 light minute away watching a "black hole" you are literally seeing what happened to it exactly 1 minute ago in your frame of reference, and time dilation is literally time inside the gravity well flowing slower than outside. So there's nothing apparent about it and event horizon literally cannot form in finite time for an outside observer, nor anything can reach it if it still somehow came to be.

>You literally said the moment the EH forms. By your definition it is a moment.
Event horizon formation is discrete, collapse and increase of time dilation approaching infinity is not.

>If there is a horizon there is a black hole.
As I have repeatedly explained, there's none. Just a very dense mass stuck in time dilation infinitely close to collapse and formation of the EH, but never reaching it in finite time for an outside observer.

>And once again you revert to talking about something that has already formed
No, it's just you missing the part where I said
>either in space or *in time*
Obviously when a collapsing mass approaches critical density the event horizon is yet to form, but as it gets closer to that moment, the gravity and time dilation progressively increase and cause the short moment in proper time before the collapse is completed and EH would form to infinitely stretch for an outside observer just the same way it would happen for an object falling into an already existing horizon, preventing both from reaching the horizon (or the moment of its creation) either in space or in time.

[Anonymous No.16045357]

>>16045155
>comment too long

>It is an observation
Specifically an observation of optical effects that are caused by a sufficiently dense object such as a black hole as one possibility. The fallacy here is baselessly assuming that no other object can be dense enough (because muh collapse in proper time) and therefore what they found is indeed a black hole. FYI, a collapsing mass stuck in time dilation would be just a tiny fraction larger than the Schwarzschild diameter of the black hole of the same mass with difference completely undetectable by our current instruments (think a few meters for a supermassive BH measured in AU), and create exactly the same effects around it.

[Anonymous No.16045372]

>>16045357
>difference completely undetectable by our current instruments and create exactly the same effects around it.
Because what your describing is just a black hole. If it's apparently frozen then there is an event horizon, this a black hole. There is no difference.

[Anonymous No.16045387]

>>16045082
>You don't know how far away it is to start with.
Of course you can because you can measure the distance
>>16045082
>You cannot tell them apart just by looking,
Not by the naked eye and no one ever claimed this

[Anonymous No.16045406]

>>16045387
>Of course you can because you can measure the distance
You can only measure the distance by taking a spectrum (in the case it's a quasar). So you don't start knowing the distance.
>i dont believe any professional astronomist can mistake a star for whatever that thing is First, because its too far away.
The distance was unknown. It was only measured after it was identified as a quasar and followed up.

[Anonymous No.16045532]

>>16045372
>Because what your describing is just a black hole.
It is not (quite yet - for now and forever).

>If it's apparently frozen then there is an event horizon, this a black hole
It's not completely frozen, just incredibly slowed down, enough to redshift billions of kelvins of temperature inside to look like just a few micro- or nanokelvins from outside, and turn nanoseconds of proper time to billions of years outside.

>There is no difference.
There's a massive difference even if only in that one doesn't make sense (black hole) and the other makes perfect sense (just a massive body with no event horizon).

Btw here's another fun thing to consider: massive bodies interact by distorting their combined gravitational field through emission of gravitational waves which travel at c. Now when a mass falls into a black hole its waves cannot leave the horizon anymore and it has to either:
- stop interacting with the bodies outside and effectively disappear
- interact asymmetrically (from outside to the inside only) and break laws of conservation
- send waves outside by breaking speed of light
Coincidentally there's no such problem for a body stuck in time dilation because it's entirely on "this side" (since the horizon doesn't exist) and can interact with all other bodies normally.

[Anonymous No.16045544]

>>16045532
>just a massive body with no event horizon
Then it must collapse in a finite time from an outside observer. You go round and round with the same glaring contradiction. What you describe can only happen if there is an event horizon, a black hole.

>massive bodies interact by distorting their combined gravitational field through emission of gravitational waves which travel at c.
Nope. That's not how GR works. Gravitational waves are classical, they do not mediate the interaction.

[Anonymous No.16045604]

>>16045544
>Then it must collapse in a finite time from an outside observer.
I have just explained several times why this is not the case.

>Nope
Distortions to gravitational field do propagate at c according to GR so the object inside the black hole would not be able to update its field when accelerated and it would cause the above issues.

[Anonymous No.16045614]

>>16043325
>Start doing this

[Anonymous No.16045629]

>>16043959
How does your image have anything to do with blackholes? Its not even consistent with what people say quasars are.

>See these bright things at the center of galaxies? They are probably black holes, which glow really bright because of accretion!
>See these stars orbiting nothing at the center of the galaxy? Its probably a black hole! Why doesn't it glow like the others...it just doesn't, ok!

[Anonymous No.16045633]

>>16044428
Event horizons are not absolutely not facts.

[Anonymous No.16045642]

>>16044372
What a stupid video.
>We should totally ignore Penrose's and Hawking's extremely formal and dense mathematical papers proving singularities because
>because of this snarky paper published on Arxiv with almost no math in it at all

[Anonymous No.16045644]

>>16045604
>I have just explained several times why this is not the case.
No you haven't. You have insisted it is true but it makes zero sense. I have explained why, all you offer in response is to restate the nonsense claim without addressing the criticism.
This is why mathematics is the language of physics. I would ask me to show me the metric which describes what you claim happens, then we could both see objectively how things behave. But from your statements it's quite clear that would be a waste of time. If you want to actually understand then start learning real physics.

>so the object inside the black hole would not be able to update its field
Nope. Not how GR works, again. You are thinking in Newtonian terms, relativistic BHs are much more complex. Objects inside the event horizon do interact gravitationally with the outside, this is described by the Schwarzschild and Kerr metrics. There is no contradiction.

>>16045629
Sgr A* does have an accretion disk and is detectable. It's not a quasar, not all supermassive black holes are quasar. Accretion depends on what matters is available nearby, not just the black hole.

[Anonymous No.16045652]

>>16045633
Reading is hard.

[Anonymous No.16045683]

>>16043356
They're mysterious.

[Anonymous No.16045742]

>>16045644
>I have explained why
You made incorrect blanket statements based on something you heard or read somewhere without understanding what it means, tried to argue semantics, and failed to grasp several simple explanations how infinite time dilation at the moment the event horizon is formed or crossed would prevent it from happening in real world where the time is finite. The math would only confuse things more for you at this point.

>Schwarzschild and Kerr metrics
Nonsensical mental masturbation and more mental masturbation based on inherently flawed premise that black holes exist by definition (because hurr finite proper time durr). That they result in singularities and break at certain points should give you a hint. Both are static solutions, in a sense that they describe the final equillibrium of a black hole in infinite future after its formation which is obviously not valid in real world due to existence of time dilation and finite age of the universe. A physically valid solution would by necessity include at least the age of a black hole as a variable in one way or another, and that would eliminate all the singularities and event horizons and other non-physical made-up nonsense in one go because time dilation would then prevent it from ever reaching critical density at finite age.

[Anonymous No.16045749]

>>16045742
>The math would only confuse things more for you at this point.
Put up or shut up.

[Anonymous No.16045783]

>>16045749
I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader

[Anonymous No.16045813]

>>16043325
>Last week, it was discovered actually to be a black hole with an accretion disk 7 light years across. It consumes 1 solar mass every day and emits energy equivalent to a supernova ever second.
That's pretty cool. How far away do they estimate it is?

[Anonymous No.16045817]

>>16045783
Well when you do derive the Schizo metric be sure to come back.

[Anonymous No.16045864]

>>16045817
I'm not spoonfeeding you even if you throw a tantrum. Try to understand what was already said first.

[Anonymous No.16045903]

>>16045864
>I'm not spoonfeeding you even if you throw a tantrum
Oh I'm aware, because you have nothing. If you had a real novel solution to GR which did all of this you would wave it in my face. But you haven't, because it doesn't exist. Disproof by deflection.
Without that the rest of this is just baseless supposition.

[Anonymous No.16045957]

>>16045813
12 billion light years

[Anonymous No.16045978]

>>16045813
12 billion light years
Due to its ridiculous brightness it was initially mistaken to be a star / galaxy within 50,000 light years of the Earth

[Anonymous No.16046268]

"Event horizon" = ""Light"" (the dieelectro-magnetic) accelerating towards the ether (the actual "ground" of psychophysicality)

Whether you call it black hole, ether discharge or whatever the frick else, nature don't care and does its thing regardless

This mechanism is ubiquitous at every imaginable scale of existence, and it's the reason actuality "actually" exists (as opposed to pure unconstrained, infinite and omnipervarsive potentiality blotting out the mere possibility of what one may identify as the "present moment")

It's not rocket science, for crying out loud

[Anonymous No.16046344]

>>16043325
Those things eat stars

[Anonymous No.16046587]

>>16045903
>because you have nothing
Not something you can or even tried to understand for sure, as all you did was repeat like a broken record something you heard elsewhere (which you don't really understand either, but took as a gospel because baby duck syndrome).
One thing I had to learn early in my PhD career thanks to my good teachers was that no matter how well the math lines up, if it makes no sense for the physical process it models then it's useless, throw it away. And the math for black holes doesn't even line up, with singularities and stuff.
First you always have to describe the thing you're studying in simple terms and only then proceed to formalize it using the math language while always keeping in mind the physical limitations and the assumptions you made for simplicity and the boundaries where your model is only valid arising from that. You fail right at the step one, and are trying to evade and obscure your lack of comprehension with mathematical abstractions. In fact most of the current black hole wankery is the result of this kind of backwards idiocy, with people taking fancy to a convenient, but overly simplified model and then trying to stretch real world physics to make it fit when it obviously does not and can not work and is a nonsensical thing to even try in the first place.
So no my dude, math will not help you and you don't need it and it will only harm you at this point and you will have to deal with it.

[Anonymous No.16046590]

>>16046587
>overly simplified
and purely theoretical, I must add

[Anonymous No.16046799]

its amazing how gay and stupid astrotrash is
>omg le dot in teh sky is so powerful!!!
>and i am equally powerful because i know about it!!!!

[Anonymous No.16046906]

>>16046587
>my PhD career
Fraud detected. A PhD isn't a "career", no one who actually spent time in academia would say this.

[Anonymous No.16048274]

>>16043325
stop hating on anton

[Anonymous No.16048319]

>>16046906
Why am I entirely unsurprised by a lack of proper responce

[Anonymous No.16048381]

>>16044721
If you pay attention to how those objects orbit the "barycenter" it doesn't really seem to coincide with there being a single dense object there. Even if the other objects have an eccentric orbit, they don't speed up in the right places the other objects do.

[Anonymous No.16048534]

>>16048381
>Even if the other objects have an eccentric orbit, they don't speed up in the right places the other objects do.
We see things in projection, it's not just eccentricity. The orbits are be inclined by two different angles with respect to the line of sight. You are assuming everything is 2D.
The measured orbits are all consistent with the expectations from GR assuming a 4 million solar mass central object.

[Anonymous No.16048567]

>>16048534
That's true. I've been playing a lot of 2D orbit mechanic games recently, I didn't even consider depth.

[Anonymous No.16048583]

>>16048567
It's unintuitive, one expects that the orbits should have the object at one focus. But the projected ellipse we see does not have to. It requires fitting the data, and getting some measurements of the velocities along the line of sight with spectroscopy.

[Anonymous No.16049776]

>>16043356
They are quite erotic, but this is a blue board and I can't post the proof.