I think the hole is empty. I'll bet one could see stars when looking thru it.

 

To make my point clear, the only reason I believe there is, is because other scholars seem to agree.

And other scholars disagree:

Physicists are undecided whether the prediction of singularities means that they actually exist...

We are both in good company.

 

I think the hole is empty. I'll bet one could see stars when looking thru it.

I bet one can't.

Edit: except for the light of stars behind the black hole that gets bent around it.

 

I will put a firm $5 in escrow, if you book passage.

 

I will put a firm $5 in escrow, if you book passage.

I'll ship you a Guiness. Keg.

 

 

It looks like a plasma torus. I wouldn't describe it as a disk, it looks woven.

 

Just a random thought.

Are we sure this is what it looks like unfiltered by our current scientific expectations?

This is not a naked eye visual image. What we see here is a computer generated construction of data points using theories (using EM theory but that theory is fundamentally constructed from the same space-time theory we use to predict black holes properties) of what 'black hole' objects should look like using space-time calculations of mass/energy radiation from the received signals. I'm sure the data construction is solid and consistent with theory using the predictive power of science, but I'm not sure a human would see the exactly same thing if that person was floating in space near the object.

 

I thought it was a strictly DSP data image composition.

 

I thought it was a strictly DSP data image composition.

The radio emissions are at very short microwave radio wavelength, 1.3mm ( frequency ~ 230 GHz) from the object. The source data is a not a visual light image and the colors are totally a arbitrary "False Color Image".

 

The radio emissions are at very short microwave radio wavelength, 1.3mm ( frequency ~ 230 GHz) from the object. The source data is a not a visual light image and the colors are totally a arbitrary "False Color Image".

Naturally, as EM is extreme red-shifted due to the gravitational distortions near the horizon.

This is why they needed an earth-sized telescope to be able to resolve detail so close to the horizon.

 

Naturally, as EM is extreme red-shifted due to the gravitational distortions near the horizon.

This is why they needed an earth-sized telescope to be able to resolve detail so close to the horizon.

Sure, I understand all that and I know the excitement about this image is that EM theory was used to construct this image instead of black hole physics that predicts a similar image. I was just saying, to the naked eye, we might see something a little different. This has absolutely nothing to do with whatever visible light the accretion disk emits. It might be very similar but it's not detected here.
https://www.sciencealert.com/this-2...lped-bring-us-the-first-image-of-a-black-hole

Telescopes around the world collected high-frequency radio waves from the vicinity of Messier 87 (M87), a galaxy with a supermassive black hole 54 million light-years away.

But atmospheric disturbance and the spareness of the measurements meant "an infinite number of possible images" could explain the data, Bouman said. Well-designed algorithms had to crunch through the chaos.

 

I was just saying, to the naked eye, we might see something a little different.

I got that. I was replying for the sake of the peanut gallery.

Although, to use @cmartinez's argument, a traveler's naked eyeballs may be stretched by tidal forces to the extent he may visualize something eerily similar to this blurry image.

 

I got that. I was replying for the sake of the peanut gallery.

Although, to use @cmartinez's argument, a traveler's naked eyeballs may be stretched by tidal forces to the extent he may visualize something eerily similar to this blurry image.

For a massive black hole a person could cross the event horizon without too much of a gravitational gradient across a human sized object. The tidal forces at the event horizon can be negligibly small. At the event horizon of a supermassive black hole with the mass of a million Suns the difference between your head and feet would be only 0.001g and you'd struggle to feel it with all the parts of you falling in almost equally.

 

Although, to use @cmartinez's argument, a traveler's naked eyeballs may be stretched by tidal forces to the extent he may visualize something eerily similar to this blurry image.

That would be right before the "naked eyeballs" froze and exploded while exposed to space's merciless vacuum... on world they first explode and then freeze?

 

That would be right before the "naked eyeballs" froze and exploded while exposed to space's merciless vacuum... on world they first explode and then freeze?

Like how many licks it takes to get to the center of a Tootsie Roll lollipop, the world may never know.

 

For a massive black hole a person could cross the event horizon without too much of a gravitational gradient across a human sized object. The tidal forces at the event horizon can be negligibly small. At the event horizon of a supermassive black hole with the mass of a million Suns the difference between your head and feet would be only 0.001g and you'd struggle to feel it with all the parts of you falling in almost equally.

I'm not familiar with the exact math, but that was the reasoning used to explain how Matthew McConaughey's character survived falling into the black hole in "Interstellar" (great movie, btw)
"Gargantuan" was the right size (very big, but not too much) for that to happen.

 

I'm not familiar with the exact math, but that was the reasoning used to explain how Matthew McConaughey's character survived falling into the black hole in "Interstellar" (great movie, btw)
"Gargantuan" was the right size (very big, but not too much) for that to happen.

https://spacemath.gsfc.nasa.gov/blackh/4Page33.pdf

 

https://spacemath.gsfc.nasa.gov/blackh/4Page33.pdf

Nice! nothing like dry, good old fashioned math, to solve one's doubts about a problem like this one...

 

https://spacemath.gsfc.nasa.gov/blackh/4Page33.pdf

Problem 3 - A stellar-mass black hole has the mass of the sun (1.9 x 1033 grams), and a radius of 2.9 kilometers. A) What would be the tidal acceleration across a human at a distance of 100 kilometers? B) Would a human be spaghettified?

Answer: a = 2 x (6.67 x 10-8 ) x (1.9 x 1033) x 200 / (1.0 x 107 ) 3 = 50,700,000 cm/sec2 Yes, this is equal to 50,700,000/979 = 51,700 times the acceleration of gravity, and a human would be pulled apart and 'spaghettified'

Problem 4 - A supermassive black hole has 100 million times the mass of the sun (1.9 x 1033 grams), and an event horizon radius of 295 million kilometers. What would be the tidal acceleration across a d=2 meter human at a distance of 100 kilometers from the event horizon of the supermassive black hole?

Answer: a = 2 x (6.67 x 10-8 ) x (1.9 x 1041) x 200 / (2.95 x 1013) 3 = 0.00020 cm/sec2 Note that R + 2 meters is essentially R if R = 295 million kilometers.

This disturbs me. One huge assumption is that distance and acceleration (a function of both distance and time) are constant in highly curved space. My spidy-sense tells me there are orders-of-magnitude errors in the answers -- especially in problem 3.