New research shows the first evidence of strong winds around black holes throughout bright outburst events when a black hole rapidly consumes mass. A study using multiple radio telescopes confirms that supermassive black holes found in the centers of galaxies can form gravitationally bound pairs when galaxies merge. We all fear black holes, but how many of them are there out there, really?
Between the stellar mass black holes and the supermassive ones, just how much of our Universe is black holes? An astrophysicist has discovered something even rarer than a double-black hole galaxy: In their paper published in the journal Nature Astronomy, the group describes Several findings from observations of the moon pointed to evidence of a liquid ocean beneath Europa's icy surface.
The remarkable exoplanet discoveries made by the Kepler and K2 missions have enabled astronomers to begin to piece together the history of the Earth and to understand how and why it differs from its diverse exoplanetary cousins. Astronomers have captured one of the most detailed views of a young star taken to date, and revealed an unexpected companion in orbit around it.
On the night of December 13, into the morning of December 14, , tune into the night sky for a dazzling display of fireballs. Thanks to the International Space Station, this sky show — the Geminids meteor shower—will Virgin Galactic's tourism spaceship climbed more than 50 miles high above California's Mojave Desert on Thursday, reaching for the first time what the company considers the boundary of space.
Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Study shows first evidence of winds outside black holes throughout their mealtimes January 22, New research shows the first evidence of strong winds around black holes throughout bright outburst events when a black hole rapidly consumes mass. Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank. Even in X-rays, where we look to find stellar black holes, there is nothing to draw our attention to the supermassive black hole here.
LenniTheLiar posts the same sorry excuse for "evidence" again, which has been repeatedly shown to be evidence of the exact opposite of its claims. Why do you bother, LenniTheLiar? You were already shown on at least 4 threads to be lying about the evidence at the link you are posting, and had it explained carefully and extensively by some nice person. You are completely ignoring the actual claims the link you are posting makes and provides evidence for, by cherry picking from that link. It's not going to work any better on this thread than it did on the last ones. Now, regarding this paper and article, this is an excellent example of the progress from conjecture, to hypothesis and a solid prediction, to verification of the prediction and solid evidence for a theory.
- The Bleeding Glacier of Antarctica: A 15-Minute Strange But True Tale (15-Minute Books Book 505).
- South Riding (Virago Modern Classics Book 273).
- iTunes is the world's easiest way to organize and add to your digital media collection..
- The Hades Factor (Covert-One Book 1)?
- Blanca de Borbón (Spanish Edition)?
These should be detectable by analyzing archived X-ray observatory data that shows the galactic center. That's how science is done. Pictures don't lie Cherry-picking is lying. To paraphrase an old saw, pictures don't lie but liars cherry-pick pictures. The article did mention it was difficult to detect "unmated black holes" that are not giving off radiation. One might suggest the core SMBH is currently not active in anyway, so it would not be giving a signal. Clearly we know it is there. Since stellar density, and therefore presumably "massive star" density increases as you approach the center of the galaxy, it is not unreasonable to suspect that the center would contain a large number of black holes.
That number is clearly debatable. But his logic is not unreasonable as a model for BH density near the core. Did not realize what is going on here. Your posts were rapid fire as I was composing my first. If what you say is true, liars are bad news in most places, and certainly not welcome in science. They should go to Washington, D. Black hole physics seems to be consistently lacking a complete description of the mechanics behind the observable and theorized events they are touted to be responsible for. What stops them from continuing into the event horizon and holds them captive?
The black hole's gravity strongest local force pulls them towards it but a stronger force than the black hole that is closer to it stops the advance and "holds it captive"? Additionally, when they speak of loss of "energy" are they talking about velocity? Or is there another kind of energy that acts as some sort of anti gravity field which, once spent allows the SMBH gravity to cause something it couldn't before said energy loss?
Check wiki on "ergosphere". You might find an answer to black hole energies there. Some of it involves rotation. Probably other ways to lose energy too. We are not dealing with how to make beer here LenniTheLiar, the fact that black holes occur in 17th century duh, maybe you forgot Newton's TUG was published in , 18th century duh, maybe you forgot Mitchell's letter to Cavendish, and Laplace's book, both talking about dark stars, i.
It doesn't appear anyone can make a gravity theory that doesn't have black holes; no one has so far. Maybe you got one. I bet it doesn't have any math. And you're still lying about what the fact that black holes occur in TUG shows, and of course cherry-picking my statements about it to twist them to your lies. It currently is not eating enough matter to create energies which produce such radiation. That is what the companion stars to smaller black holes provide.
This seems so simple to me, do I have something wrong here?! My question is, if all those black holes are there swirling at presumably very high speed around the central SMBH else they would simply fall into it , wouldn't that increase the gravity of the whole system? That is, doesn't the relative motion of an object add to the gravity that it generates by mass alone?
If so, is all that extra gravity accounted for in LCDM, before they turn to dark matter to explain any excess gravity? And if you check http: Text search the page for "mercury. Got challenged on it, too. I can dig up the old threads where this older link was used if you like but I expect you get the idea how deceptive this person is from this evidence alone.
LenniTheLiar you just got caught substituting one link from the same source for another, because you are trying to lie about what the link says. Nice try, but you're lying and cherry-picking again. And how absolutely typical of your usual deceptive tactics. If you're telling the truth, how come you need all these tactics? Oh and BTW I notice you don't seem to have any gravity theory at all, and tried to sweep it under the carpet and pretend I never asked. Your transparent attempts at deceit go on and on, don't they?
Maybe that diffuse galaxy last week that seemed to have no dark matter was diffuse because it lacks an SMBH, and thus has no swarm of orbiting black holes to generate the appearance of dark matter. And the Bullet Cluster: Maybe the apparent dark matter halo separated from the galaxy because the SMBH and its companion BH's had more momentum than the regular stars, so the regular stars were slowed down more by the drag of the collision.
And then you'd have a rational explanation for why "dark matter" is always found around regular matter, even though they necessarily don't interact, except somehow by gravity, sometimes. The lack of which explanation is the biggest problem for LCDM besides the fact that every candidate particle has been not found or outright proven not to exist. It would just arise from the configuration of normal matter.
The deficit here is at least an order of magnitude if not many orders of magnitude. The same applies to the Bullet Cluster. As I often ask, where's the beef? And then you'd have a rational explanation for why "dark matter" is always found around regular matter Sand boxers post little useful information. They are pretty easy to pick out from the crowd. LenniTheLiar, cherry-picked observational evidence, which you have now been shown to be using both by ignoring inconvenient evidence in your previous link, and by changing links to one that doesn't contain the evidence you find inconvenient, is plain simple lying.
And that's both noting your behavior first ignoring the evidence at the link you provided, then switching to a link that doesn't contain that evidence , and noting the real evidence at the link you yourself first provided that you are ignoring by cherry-picking around it. Question for all except the liar: As a Biochemist, I am straying a tad out of my field. Nothing is more revealing than irrational tripe.
See Schneibo, a challenge to you to dump 19th century TUG Math for hypothesizing BHs and moving into 21st century technology that breaks the theory at: You went apoplectic in your rant that there existed no technology that provides the resolution as is clearly in evident at this site The corrections GRT would have added were many orders of magnitude smaller than the corrections for many-body physics under the TUG.
Your inability to understand a gravity theory from the 17th century does not bode well for your pretense of understanding any gravity theory at all, much less GRT. And now you're lying about what evidence was presented to you, and I note that you do not mention the kind individual who explained exactly how you were cherry-picking evidence, and what the evidence you refused to even acknowledge existed and tried to eliminate by switching links really means as opposed to your lies about it.
You really are a disgusting individual, and the more you post the more apparent it becomes that you do not actually believe what you are posting. You're nothing but a troll. It almost certainly does, but nothing much that we have the resolution to see at this time with the available instrumentation approaches it closely enough to be strongly affected by those rotational effects.
To get an idea of these effects, go look up articles on tides, gravitomagnetism, and frame-dragging and geodetic precession. This Wikipedia article discusses some of this, and you'll get more following links from it: Schneibo, you're the one who insisted that pictorial evidence found at http: Hey, changed your mind yet? Or do you still believe "eyes can lie"? Uh, you do know what an accretion disc is? LenniTheLiar, you ignored the parts of the original link at http: Why should anyone ever believe anything you say ever again? You are a liar, and you keep on lying, squirming, lying, cherry-picking, lying, trolling, lying, substituting evidence, lying, whining, lying, pretending you know anything about physics or math, lying, and avoiding questions you have no answers for.
Now go troll someplace else, LenniTheLyingTroll.
Are You an Author?
In order to halt said inward migration if that was the mechanism responsible, the migrating BH would have to "spin back up" in order to stop the inward migration would it not? The question wasn't about "how" the energy is lost so much as the conclusion that it was the loss of energy that initiated the migration Yes, making beer is easier than comprehending this.
Hmmmm, I guess I'm not quite clear on what exact observable and theorized events you are talking about, and the remainder of your post didn't make it clear. Momentum and orbital mechanics. And it's not clear they're stopped; they may just be slowed down. And what holds them captive is gravity. Just like the stars orbiting the SMBH. I'm not clear on what observable you say don't have a complete description here.
Momentum, orbital mechanics, and gravity seem pretty complete to me. In fact you're forgetting that there is a whole galaxy far more massive than the SMBH surrounding the galactic center. The SMBH's gravity is only the "strongest local force" in its immediate vicinity, which is about the size of our inner Solar System, around 10 light seconds. These black holes are light years and tens of light years from the SMBH, which is many orders of magnitude farther than that, and remembering that gravity is an inverse square force this equates to many, many orders of magnitude weaker.
Again, I don't see any support for your claim that there is any lack of a complete description. You're just not aware of the real effects here. Gravitational potential energy is what they're talking about, and it is as always converted into kinetic energy. This is one of the laws of orbital mechanics I spoke of above.
And I'm still not clear on how this supports your claim of a lack of a complete description. As with your unawareness of the strength of gravity and the size of the galactic center, you're unfamiliar with orbital mechanics. These things can indeed be fully explained but you'd do well to study gravity physics, with particular attention to how inverse square laws cause unexpected scaling that you need to take into account, and orbital mechanics with particular attention to Kepler's laws. This forum is probably not a good place to have that all explained to you, since both are pretty complex subjects.
But if, after looking into those things, you still have questions, this is probably a pretty good place to ask them. Never question what I know or don't know. That could be a very big mistake. I forgot more in the last day than you ever knew in your entire miserable life. So quit throwing sand from your box into the community's Vaseline, dude. Except for one of us, we should simply ignore the child and try to move on. As some have postulated, primordial black holes PBHs were the "seeds" from which galaxies grew. Is there any experimental evidence for primordial black holes?
The most evolved galaxies ellipticals have some of the largest SMBHs. Does this suggest that the evolutionary stages of many galaxies relate to the initial size of such potential PBHs. Grand spirals starting with much smaller PBHs, etc. The vast number of variant galaxies, from elliptical to grand spirals indicates a primordial origin to their "current" appearance.
The nearby Virgo Cluster in which we are a back water clearly demonstrates these galactic variants are not just from the distant past.. Blackholes are very rare Stars are on average are 7 Lys apart, require just one orbit of the galaxy for 2 stars to counteract their gravity to keep the stars apart, effectively all stars are in a million year binary orbit, which is why there is no darkmatter in galaxies, when one of stars forms a blackhole its less massive than its star it ejects matter , it is gravitationally weaker and as stars are in a million year binary orbit which is why no star has ever grazed our Sun.
Stars almost never come into contact and the chances of becoming a blackhole is less than 2 stars colliding which such supernova an event will not go unnoticed. Blackholes are very rare and when they do form their nearest star on average is 7Lys away and because its gravity is weaker and it is in 7Lyr radius million year binary obit as all stars are it cannot get near other stars, just as no star has ever grazed our Sun. Have you ever seen a Differential Equation you could solve? Maybe you can explain to the mis-educated what makes you such an authority about your tirade on me?
The evidence is you're not moving that concept from bio-chemistry to outer space. Dunning-Kruger here couldn't even solve the equation for the Schwarzschild radius! Stuffed it up horribly.
The guy is a waste of space, and knows zilch about any scientific subject. Just another Walter Mitty. Well,well, well, finally you show up, the guy who has had so much recall difficulty recalling his math education, telling us he couldn't remember if he had Differential Equations in his high school algebra class or if it was that one year stint at Uni Auckland there in NZ. Let me guess again, your major at Uni was: Even that was too tough? Just FYI, dfj, one of the earliest lies LenniTheLiar told was claiming to be a nuclear engineer and right after that came claims to be able to solve DEs.
Upon being presented with questions a nuke should be able to answer, and with systems of PDEs to solve, this individual proved to be incapable either of answering the questions or solving the systems of equations. Do feel free to test the DE stuff for yourself and not just take my word for it; assuming your handle is honest and I do , I cannot imagine a biochemist with a doctorate not being very familiar with calculus at a level far higher than that. OK, here is our nuclear engineer having to guess at the Schwarzschild radius, because he couln't do a simple equation!
Followed by me having to correct the Dunning-Kruger infected loon. I'm still wondering if Benni has cleaned the crayon off his monitor, after brilliantly proving that the stars at the galactic centre weren't orbiting a central mass! I kid you not people. Maybe I'll try to locate that post as well. Poor old Benni - science really isn't his strong point. I suspect some sort of mental illness, in which case we shouldn't be too hard on him!
So let's just see how your name calling bio-chemist cohort manages neutron decay in the formation of neutron stars if you think he's so damn smart about nuclear physics. Think he'll try that ND model? Because there is no lower energy state to decay into. A neutron star is not built of neutrons alone: And this admixture of electrons is what explains neutron stability. The density of those electrons is so high, that they are degenerate, i.
The maximal energy of an electron created in a neutron decay is 0. If all possible electron states up to this energy are occupied, a neutron can't decay, because there is "no place" for an extra electron. Da Schneib, read enough on this thread to realize that you and some others at this point are just bouncing the rubble on the child. Are you now trying to micronize that rubble? What is the point? At least leave him the sand in his box. He might have a hissy fit if you don't. Hmmmm, perhaps you should keep it up, but it is all becoming redundant.
Look, now he is bringing in some nonsense from Auckland. His posts are so trite that I feel no need to assist in this heavy bombardment. Thanks for that link on the Galactic Center. And empirical data to boot. Regards DEs and other advanced math, most people in life sciences do not require such calculations anymore. Such instruments spit out the data from programs that use lots of calculus, freeing us to dream up and design experiments regarding the nature and interactions of large molecular complexes, like those involved with gene expression and means of controlling it.
I had two semesters of Calc, and use it on very rare occasion. I am an experimentalist, not a theorist. Cosmology cannot be conducted without mathematics as much of it is theoretical, and based frequently on WAGs wild ass guesses. Math offers the most valuable refuge for such research. In this regard, physics and biochemistry have almost nothing in common. I only dabble in cosmology as it suites me and time allows. Purifying large molecular complexes to form crystals for structural analysis by X-ray diffraction is difficult enough.
Ascribing these structures to functionality is where the brain work comes in. And here are thousands of them. None of it can be described even remotely by math. This is strictly about molecular interactions of the highest order. To close, there is no more complex physical phenomena in the universe than the simplest microbe. Defining the complete mechanism of even one life form is an accomplishment one can only dream of.
The abiotic origin of life is a puzzle I will pose to all who read this. If you come up with the answer, you will make even Einstein take a back seat. I was amazed to just recently learn that a free neutron has a half-life of around 15 minutes. That was a real shock. I knew proton decay was postulated, but never imagined a free neutron was so unstable. Anybody want to get into proton decay? Heh, dfj, sometimes I keep Lenni on ignore, but occasionally I get bent enough to take off the ignore and give some 1s and arguments, though there's little that hasn't already been said as you rightly point out.
That's interesting about the math. I guess all the heavy math lifting has been done in more basic papers so you can just reference them and let it go at that.
Working with high level molecular structures and figuring out their functionality as you do, I guess I can see why you wouldn't need the really heavy math. I expect you prolly use some statistics though, am I right? My wife has a Master's in molecular biology from 30 or 40 years ago, and I try to keep up with developments and have read some of her books mostly Crick "The Molecular Biology of the Gene" but I'm certainly no expert.
More in a minute. So one of the downs can decay into an up, fixing up the electric charge and weak hypercharge by emitting a W-, and then the W- decays into an electron antineutrino and an electron. The electron carries off the electric charge, and the antineutrino carries off the weak hypercharge. There is a net energy loss to the electron and antineutrino, and the proton weighs less than the neutron, so all the books are balanced. Now, when we talk about proton decay, there is no lighter quark for an up to decay into, and three ups aren't allowed, so any decay here has to be outside the Standard Model of Particle Physics SM for short.
The most expected path is to a neutral pion and a positron, though there are other possibilities. All experiments to detect this have failed. Hyper-Kamiokande is expected to start up about or so. Current popular speculation now has quantum gravity providing a route for proton decay rather than the earlier SUSY GUT proton decay models. No one knows what this would look like so it's difficult or impossible to propose an experiment to detect it.
I suspect there is a missing ingredient for proton decay to occur, one that was present at the very high energies in the early universe and absent today, but that's pure speculation on my part. Seems we have people that I will not name who do not read the entire article before commenting. I had, God rest her Soul, an ex-mother in law that ran a motel in the dim past when velociraptors roamed the earth who posted a cartoon that never loses its relevance: And finally moving on to primordial BHs, there is neither experimental nor observational evidence for them.
There are some theoretical considerations that make them interesting, but certainly nothing conclusive. Every so often someone comes up with a conjecture, but so far no hypotheses with testable predictions. Galactic evolution, and morphology and dynamics, also are still at the conjectural stage.
Back about 10 or 20 years ago or longer, there was a lot of talk about multiple spirals at different angles combining to form ellipticals, but this never panned out in the dynamics simulations so it's been largely abandoned. Most models now have ellipticals evolving on their own from scratch. I don't know what the state of the current dynamical models in this area is. Models of evolution of spirals are a bit more concrete, with most models now having spirals grow by ingesting small irregulars.
I'll look and see if you got some good answers to all your questions in a bit. Where did you learn that? I've never heard of it As he said, he isn't an astrophysicist. If he was, then he'd have learned about electron degeneracy pressure in the first year of undergrad study. Oh for cryin' out loud, now Lenni is lying about free neutron decay? You gotta be kiddin me, that's from like the s or something like that. And this idiot claims to be a nuclear engineer? Absolutely no friggin way at all evar.
I know, you idiot. If you are going to learn about neutron degeneracy, which you obviously didn't know about, otherwise you wouldn't have been prattling on about this 15 minutes nonsense, then you have to start with electron degeneracy pressure, which is analogous. It's all part of the evolution of stars at the end of their lives, depending on mass. To my mind the life cycle of star starts from luminosity due fusion of Hydrogen to Helium and vice versa to Red giant, to white Dwarf to Neutron star and finally so called Black- Hole. But to my mind the moment neutron star is devoid of proton i.
To my mind the life cycle of star starts from luminosity due fusion of Hydrogen to Helium True enough, but I did qualify it by saying 'evolution of stars at the end of their lives.
ogozoqosolym.tk: Jeannie Meekins: Books, Biography, Blogs, Audiobooks, Kindle
Hey dfj, I think I posted this link on the wrong thread for you. I promised to look this up earlier today: Once you understand this you will see why physicists treat velocity as a rotation in the time axis, which leads directly into an understanding of time that is quite different from what you are used to. This is the Minkowski view of spacetime. Take a look and ask 'em if you got 'em. The child has really exposed himself to more heavy bombardment.
Must have been reading about nuclear weapon design when I stumbled across the half-life of a free neutron. I am really big on nukes. They are some of the most amazing things that the mind of man ever invented. Almost all done by slide-rules and big brains. And N decay almost certainly was determined back in the 40s. I understood the neutron decay with quarks but did not follow up with protons. Another one of my works in waiting. I still love the notion of primordial black holes. Seem like offspring of the Big Bang. And it is gas poor vs gas rich notions of various galactic forms that keeps me thinking about that.
Even with globular clusters, many nearly as old as we think the universe is. Gad zooks DS, don't pile a whole lot more on me right now. Still looking at that other stuff you gave me. Feel like I'm caught in some frame-dragging phase by a massive black hole with a high spin rate. Still am amazed by that aspect too. Frame-dragging, What a concept. Anybody with any ideas about globular cluster formation. They are somewhat enigmatic to the rest of the universe's star formation regions. Why so many is such a small space, and most very ancient. I look at images of Omega Centauri and my mind gets numb at the stellar density.
Any with black holes at their cores? Here, I was taking a break and saw your question about globular clusters. I believe there are some with black holes. Here's a paper I'm about to read: Thanks for the link on GCs. Looking at it now. Lots of speculation, but some good history too. I am surprised they are bringing dark matter so easily into the picture. Speculation on top of speculation is not good for the senses, nor does it make for good science.
Grain of salt or two. At least I work with things that you can see and touch. They are now getting direct imaging at atomic resolution of macromolecular protein binding sites with scanning tunneling microscopes, if I remember that story correctly. The time lines on discovery etc.
You have got to check this out: Nice circle jerk going on here. The only thing dumber then one black hole is ten thousand. Math is worthless as empirical evidence wankers. I am a biotech student so this question might be a bit silly. From my basic understanding of black holes the gravity is so great that even light electromagnetic radiation can escape from them, so i was wondering how there could be any x-rays to detect from these mated blackholes? The x-rays aren't created inside the black hole. They are created by the infalling matter before it hits the event horizon.
Black holes that do not feed don't emanate anything except Hawking radiation, but that is very weak. It should be more precisely framed as "emanating from the region of the black hole". But black holes are, generally, very small so looks the same. Note also that if you want to be super-picky the event horizon isn't, strictly speaking, part of a black hole, either although we mostly use the term that way. The black hole is the mass energy that creates the spacetime curvature i. The event horizon is just a set distance from that entity at which some criterion is fulfilled viz.: Not a silly question.
Basically, the infalling matter heats up due to friction. The collision of the matter produces photons but the extreme temperature - millions of degrees C - of the matter means those photons are released with a frequency we know as x-rays. In short the x-rays are released before the matter is consumed by the blackhole. That's why blackholes that aren't feeding are invisible in the electromagnetic spectrum. I've only heard every one saying light radius stars emanate nothing but Hawking radiation, the observations show light radius stars over snacking regurgitating their lunch through their light radius out of their spin axis out flows.
Thanks for correcting Hawking radiation to only starving light radius stars. Free neutron decay was discovered in by Snell and Miller at Oak Ridge. Every neutron that comes into existence in the free state will within 15 minutes decay into a proton, an electron, and a neutrino, no other condition for a neutron has ever been observed beyond 15 minutes of duration time. It can't exist for the simple reason neutrons do not have a radio-active half life, and if you are not well educated in nuclear physics, as I am, you will NEVER understand why ND cannot exist in the real universe, you will be forever lost in Schneibo's fantasyland of funny farm pseudo-science.
An object has it's orbital path altered by a SMBH and is pulled towards it You mentioned "the galaxy" My questions were simple, inquiring what very specific "force" stops the inward migration once it starts, you also mentioned the inverse square rule The quote didn't say "may be slowed down". It said "held captive". As I read this comment section it's clear that although you know basics, I am asking questions "beyond" the basics which require a response from someone who actually works in this field because "orbital mechanics" isn't the answer to a question about a specific mechanism responsible for a stated event, and I don't want to involve myself in the kind of exchange you have going here with the poster "Benni".
It's clear this isn't the forum to question vagueness regarding statements or point out where something may be lacking a coherent series of events in order to arrive at a conclusion. Actually, reading this comment section it's clear everyone is very polarised in their views and has a problem with anyone who sees things from a different perspective or questions the status quo.
Da Schneib, Though I appreciate your efforts in refuting crackpottery, I strongly recommend fighting ignorance with ignorance and press that "ignore user" button. Worked for me and also you are entitled to enjoy the bliss of ignorance once in a while. Yes there is, idiot. They are called neutron stars.
We just detected the gravitational waves from the merger of two of them. Try to keep up, dumbo. Then might I suggest the forum attached to this website - Physics Forums. Or Cosmoquest forums, or International Skeptics. You will find there are plenty of people with the relevant knowledge, and they aren't limited to characters when explaining it. Oh please, don't do this to Schneibo We need the bitter clingers to 19th century cosmology here so I can have vast quantities of fun.
Typical of Dunning-Kruger sufferers, unfortunately. When Schneibo talks about stuff like this, you need to understand the viewpoint he's coming from, 19th century cosmology. Benni Every neutron that comes into existence in the free state will within 15 minutes decay into a proton, an electron, and a neutrino No. Clearly then, not ALL free neutrons decay in 15 minutes, some take a lot longer. There's a number of things that could stop their fall. OK, in this specific case they still emit gravitational waves like anything that is in orbit about anything else, which will eventually deteriorate that orbit We already see how jets of ionized particles can escape from very close approaches to a black hole.
He still thinks that's a computer game. In takes you east East takes you out Out takes you west West takes you in As you can see, the way that an orbit is affected by various motions is not intuitive. This is why it's necessary to understand orbital mechanics and not make the easy assumptions about how things work. When you are dealing with a force and an object moving at right angles to that force in three dimensions, things become complicated quite quickly.
This is why things like cross products and vector addition were invented. What do we see if a a object falls into a black hole? The light from any such object that we see is exponentially time shifted. Same for the gravity for that matter but lots of luck separating even the gravity of a stellar mass black hole from that of the SMBH.
As an object approaches the event horizon, observers at a safe distance us see the object slow down to a crawl. In practice the light is smeared out over time so the light we see from a black hole that fell in billions of years ago would be faint. Hadn't thought far enough back. What is the Oort Cloud? How big is the Oort Cloud? How long does it take sunlight to reach the Oort Cloud? Find out the answers to these questions and more and amaze your family and friends with these fun facts. Ages 8 and up. All measurements in American and metric. Educational versions have CCSS activities.
Our Minute Books give children lots of fun, exciting choices to read, from classic stories, to mysteries, to books of knowledge. Many books are appropriate for hi-lo readers. Open the world of reading to a child by having them read for 15 minutes a day. Overview Music Video Charts. Opening the iTunes Store. If iTunes doesn't open, click the iTunes application icon in your Dock or on your Windows desktop. If Apple Books doesn't open, click the Books app in your Dock. Click I Have iTunes to open it now. Educational Version Jeannie Meekins. View More by This Author. Description It was once thought that our solar system ended at Saturn.