Blackholes and light, question?

My understanding is nothing can escape a blackhole, not even light.
So when people who study this kind of stuff say they have seen blackholes in their scopes, wouldnt that mean we are already caught in the blackhole?
If light can not escape the blackhole, all of what we see is light. Then what is stopping us from being pulled into the blackhole we are looking at? As the light we see is already being sucked into the blackholes??

I am curious about this.. Is it science fact that we have visually seen a blackhole, or just measured a blackhole somewhere?

If you can see the blackhole then you are already on you're way in?

Hopefully someone can step up and teach me a few things, so I dont seem so ignorant when it comes to blackholes..

Most the things I have looked up really have not helped me much, as I dont know what is updated, and what is out of date, things move so fast, Im glad ATS is around to keep me up to speed!

Thanks for reading!


Edit=debugged post..

[edit on 24-8-2007 by zysin5]

There's actually no evidence for the existence of black holes despite the what popular opinion says, black holes are another invention in a long list of intangible forces to make a gravitational model work.
All the effects of a black hole X-rays, gamma rays, ejections etc.. can be recreated on earth with a plasma gun, seeing that we live in a plasma universe, 99.999% of the visible universe is plasma, so isn't more common sense to think the data they are interpreting is a plasma effect and not something that sounds like science fiction?

Tragically science took a wrong turn and failed to recognize the electromagnetic influence in space.

[edit on 24-8-2007 by squiz]

Astronomers are'nt actually seeing black holes directly, what we are seeing is the
accretion disk around it an the high energy plasma caused by the high-speed
collisions around it.



Oh, and plasma cosmology sounds far more fictional than black holes, which don't
really sound fake in any way.

reply to post by squiz


Hmmm thanks, but now I am even more confused...
They have so many text books, from the 70's threw up till now!
I have tried to make sense of, but never get a straight answer..

In some its like they really know they are there, and they are telling you, this is how it is kids..
Then a few years later new books come out saying this and that.. Im getting lost here on the subject.. The older I get the more I find it, its just other people who write these texts, and are passed off as offical.

Im getting alot wiser to this now, and it seems like what is happening in the science world is this...." Im smarter than you" " Or you are wrong, IM right, and totaly split off from eachother..

That is messing up the learning process of this world..IMO

Yet I understand having many different people working at different angles will bring results, Im not claiming thats bad, its just... We need to work together more, and get our stuff straight before anything else.. But that too is faulty.. heheh I cant win...

So you have many different groups of scienists, each claiming to be right, the other group is wrong??? Are they not working together?

IM very interested in doing my own foot work on this..
I dont need anyone to "hold my hand" presay.. But IM lost on where to get a good start, cutting out the BS...

Maybe someone can just direct me to the links I need to get started...

Thanks agin..

Edit: debugged post.

[edit on 24-8-2007 by zysin5]

reply to post by zysin5


I think you pretty much nailed it, it's ironic that science has brought us so much incredible technology and precise knowledge, where as the theoretical sciences are stuck in the 19th century. I think it's a combination of something akin to religious fundamentalism and that the sciences have become compartmentalized to the extent that the bigger picture is no longer clear.
These theories have stuck around so long they're now publicly regarded as fact, but there's a history to all of them that has no basis in real science only math based on the assumption that gravity is the dominating force.

I've harped on about this before, there's a few good links in the link below that may help you see the mess that cosmology is in, but there are theories that show promise.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by zysin5
My understanding is nothing can escape a blackhole, not even light.

Light cannot escape the event horizon of a black hole.

You see at a black hole's center is a singularity. It's a point smaller than an electron, and yet it contains all of the black hole's mass, which is something like 2 solar masses or more.

The event horizon is an imaginary sphere around the singularity, the radius of which increases as the black hole's mass increases. The event horizon, in reality, is simply the distance from the singularity at which escape would become impossible, even at c (lightspeed). As long as matter is above the event horizon, it can theoretically escape, of course, assuming it could supply ludacris amounts of thrust.

So when people who study this kind of stuff say they have seen blackholes in their scopes, wouldnt that mean we are already caught in the blackhole?

As far as I know, we've never directly obseverd a black hole, because, well, there isn't anything to observe (let's not get into Hawking Radiation). However black holes create massive space-time curvatures that we can observe by the way it bends light, and the way it affects celestial objects that may be near to it. Also, we've observed accretion disks (sp?) accelerating as they approach a black hole. As these disks accelerate they heat up and create all sorts of radiation, I think it's x-ray but I'm not sure.

Also, there are also quasars which are black holes that emit jets of...
well, that's about all I know about quasars. Black hole with hot, multi light year long jets that are emitted from the poles. I got nuthin' else on that one.

If light can not escape the blackhole, all of what we see is light. Then what is stopping us from being pulled into the blackhole we are looking at?

Hold on there tiger. Just because we can observe it doesn't mean that it can get us. Black holes don't get to break rules because they have ominous sounding names. In fact, objects could just as easily orbit a black hole as fall in. Sure, the tidal forces would be brutal if it were too close, but as long as an object is outside of the event horizon, standard gravity models apply.

I am curious about this.. Is it science fact that we have visually seen a blackhole, or just measured a blackhole somewhere?
If you can see the blackhole then you are already on you're way in?

Opps, I answered these already

Hopefully someone can step up and teach me a few things, so I dont seem so ignorant when it comes to blackholes..
Most the things I have looked up really have not helped me much, as I dont know what is updated, and what is out of date, things move so fast, Im glad ATS is around to keep me up to speed!

Thanks for reading!

I've just given you the message board version of the poor man's guide to black holes.
Hope it helped some.

Originally posted by zysin5
reply to post by squiz

 

IM very interested in doing my own foot work on this..
I dont need anyone to "hold my hand" presay.. But IM lost on where to get a good start, cutting out the BS...

College. I'm not saying everything you learn is 100% fact in school, but the tools you learn (like math) will help a lot. You will also learn terminology as well as learning existing theories so that you can get an accurate view of where they help us and where they still have problems.

The most important thing to remember about science is that a theory is only as good as it allows us to make predictions. This is why relativity's prediction of black hole is often considered "right" (as in, it works better than any other for making predictions). Relativity predicted black holes before we observed areas of space that reacted as a black hole is predicted to act. It predicted the time dilation we see in fast objects like rockets and jets, and it predicted frame dragging among other things.

The point of a physical theories is to provide equation that allow us to predict nature. Without the equations and functional predictions, then a theory is more of just a neat idea. Most people don't need QED or Relativity in their daily lives, but that doesn't mean both theories haven't made numerous correct prediction leading to technology for space travel and even computing.

I'm not saying theories like plasma theory aren't true, only that they aren't useful...They may become so when the equations are developed more and can actually make a prediction that can be tested in a falsifiable way.

All that said, scientist are people. They will have different views and biases. Science doesn't offer absolutes...it over useful theories. The translation of those predicting equations into words really just become the same as everything else... a good idea.

Black holes, dark matter, string theory etc are all attempts to explain the gravitational force sufficient to hold a galaxy together and cause the 'swirling' motion in a way similar to the coriolis effect here on earth (water swirls as it goes down the drain). We couldn't 'see' a black hole as it would be a black 'nothing' or 'singularity' in tech jargon with super compressed matter at its centre.

All just theory until we actually go out and find one at the centre of the galaxy or it gets superceded by the electromagnetic model which has its merits too.

reply to post by Quest



Good to know, thank you for the advice Squiz Quest Pilgrum Sunsetspawn! For me at this point, reading what everyone has to say is going to help out so much. You cant get this kind of learning exp from a text book.. Keep the ideas comming ATS wizards

Agin thanks.

[edit on 24-8-2007 by zysin5]

Originally posted by iori_komei
Oh, and plasma cosmology sounds far more fictional than black holes, which don't
really sound fake in any way.

Isn't funny that jets of radiation can now in the recent history of black holes, escape the black holes pull, of course now they decided that there must be different types of black holes.
All matter defying known physics and collapsing down to a singularity makes more sense?
I can give you links that prove plasma effects can account for black holes, where's the proof that they exist as theorized?
You're misinformed regarding plasma cosmology it has a long history, I assume your assumptions come from a Wiki source, please I hope not. Care to tell why? It's a bit of a blanket statement. Do you deny that the universe is mostly plasma?

www.holoscience.com...

PlasmaScience
You'll find some facts and papers here, all the facts and verifiable experiments that can confirm plasma role in space.

Plasma physics is a very real science this is not some lame theology here, plasma is scalable so effects can be recreated in the lab, unlike the current model. If you want math you'll find it as well.
Math is of course needed for the scientific process, but the math for the gravitational universe contradicts observation so instead it is adjusted not re-evaluated.
Magnetic fields exist every where throughout space, vast currents called birkeland currents filtrate the universe. The only thing that causes magnetic fields is electricity, Electro magnetism is A thousand, billion, billion, billion, billion times stronger than gravity and is repulsive as well as attractive. You can see the effects in the bi polar and filamentary structures of nebula and anywhere the charge is great.
It's more likely light is bent in electrical feilds rather than gravity, once again provable in the lab.



[edit on 24-8-2007 by squiz]