By your signature alone, YOU fail at life.

 

 

 

Oh come on, I use the username 'Failed IRL' alot in on the internet. I love that phrase.

 

 

 

What the hell is that.

 

 

 

You would be able to see them that way since they suck in light. They'd show up as, uh, black holes in the universe.

 

 

 

By your signature alone, YOU fail at life.

 

 

 

Why did my last signature fail? It had an owl and a baby screaming a WoW phrase. I see nothing wrong there....

It wouldn't matter if we had more powerful telescopes, since all they do is take in light, and the black hole doesn't reflect light, meaning our telescopes can't see them.

 

 

 

and yeah, time is a dimension, and there are probably infinite dimensions.

 

 

 

3D is made of infinite slices of 2D dimensions, 2D is made of infinite lines of 1D dimensions... so 4D (time) is made of infinite 'stacks' of 3D, atleast that's how I think of it. we can freely move through three dimensions, but our movement through the fourth is not yet possible for us to control.

You can't see a black hole...it gravity is so great it bends light...thus you can't see anything, the picture that the hubble scope tock isn't a picture picture, its a x-ray of it...the only way we can see object in space that are in vast distances.

now what about black holes? what are you talking about?

now what about black holes? what are you talking about?

 

 

 

that was total spam. do not spam to increase your post count, or action will be taken against your poodle.

now what about black holes? what are you talking about?

 

 

 

You are one strange kid....

It wouldn't matter if we had more powerful telescopes, since all they do is take in light, and the black hole doesn't reflect light, meaning our telescopes can't see them.

 

 

 

Sorry, I meant better X-ray telescopes, or even visual light telescopes which might be able to pinpoint the event horizon based on matter falling into them.

I bet half these simple-ton know nothing, the only way you can see a black hole is with x-ray, ONLY WAY. Now if youi want to try to redefine the laws of physics and say theres another way go right for it, but when you fail and go back home in your celler with mommy don't come crying to me....

I bet half these simple-ton know nothing, the only way you can see a black hole is with x-ray, ONLY WAY. Now if youi want to try to redefine the laws of physics and say theres another way go right for it, but when you fail and go back home in your celler with mommy don't come crying to me....

 

 

 

*cough*gravitational-wave-detectors*cough*

I'm sure I'm not a "simple-ton", so allow me to share a point here: If you were close enough, it would be very much possible to "see" a black hole, in the same way you can "see" your shadow. Shadows are caused by a lack of light, yet you can see them. A black hole, seen from a certain distance, would look exactly like the picture in the first post - a circle of absolute nothingness, surrounded by a lensing of light.

 

 

 

Now please, debate here if you wish. But if you're going to tell us we're "simple-tons", or you're going to claim superiority because of your "uni degree", or something like that, please. Please! You deprive yourself of any right to have spelling or grammar errors in any of your posts. Just throwing that out there.

Black holes are supposed to capture even light, so I can't imagine how were supposed to see one...

 

 

 

Except maybe, from the bending of light around the hole itself.

 

you can use x-rays to see them

I bet half these simple-ton know nothing, the only way you can see a black hole is with x-ray, ONLY WAY. Now if youi want to try to redefine the laws of physics and say theres another way go right for it, but when you fail and go back home in your celler with mommy don't come crying to me....

 

 

 

*cough*gravitational-wave-detectors*cough*

Form of X-Ray pl0x?

 

 

 

I'm sure I'm not a "simple-ton", so allow me to share a point here: If you were close enough, it would be very much possible to "see" a black hole, in the same way you can "see" your shadow. Shadows are caused by a lack of light, yet you can see them. A black hole, seen from a certain distance, would look exactly like the picture in the first post - a circle of absolute nothingness, surrounded by a lensing of light.

 

 

 

Now please, debate here if you wish. But if you're going to tell us we're "simple-tons", or you're going to claim superiority because of your "uni degree", or something like that, please. Please! You deprive yourself of any right to have spelling or grammar errors in any of your posts. Just throwing that out there.

Sigh...I will say it again, but with meaning so you "Simple-tons" can understand.

 

 

 

If you were in the range of our telescope being able to look at were a black hole is you wouldn't see anything. One you and every one around you would be split down into atoms, and two if we had telescopes that could reach that far (From here) you still wouldn't see anything. A black hole is has so much mass and gravitional pull that anything in about 5M light years around it is all a stream of atoms going at the black hole.

 

 

 

Lets say you could live though being split apart by atoms and live though 5M years of that...If you were facing the black hole on the earth and you'd see everything around you starting to what looks like viporize, but what really is happening is everything is getting split down into atoms. Lets say a Million light years went by and you are a little atom looking around. You'd see googles of atoms in a line in front and in back of you as far as the eye can see. All the atoms are heading twords the black hole.

 

 

 

Now the only way to see the outline of it would there have to be a HUGE galexy 'in back' of the black hole that isn't getting ripped apart by atoms. Then in theory you'd see the out line of it but a black hole is huge about 3 billion time bigger then our sun...now the sun is 100 times bigger then earth, meaning a black hole is around 100 billion times bigger then earth.

 

 

 

If you don't know what 100 billion time bigger would look like, A base ball would be earth (compaired to black hole) and the earth would be the black hole. Thats about 100 bilion times bigger.

GUESS WHAT?!!!

 

 

 

That picture is from an issue of national geographic magazine...

 

 

 

My grandma always brings us her old ones when she visits...and I open one up...."ohhhhhhhh"

GUESS WHAT?!!!

 

 

 

That picture is from an issue of national geographic magazine...

 

 

 

My grandma always brings us her old ones when she visits...and I open one up...."ohhhhhhhh"

 

 

 

Point?

 

 

 

@ captain

 

 

 

I'm pretty sure the event horizon of black holes is not 5 million light years.

 

 

 

also, things don't just get torn apart as soon as a black hole is within the proximity to start pulling things towards it. First they are pulled just like anything of small mass is pulled towards something of large mass in space, it stays intact. it's only at a close proximity to the black hole that things experience spaghettification: being pulled into long spaghetti like strands of matter, in the direction of the black hole. also, things don't just make a straight path for the black hole. It is fairly certain that our galaxy is revolving around a supermassive black hole, and obviously we aren't just headed straight for that chubster.

 

 

 

Also, you couldn't see a black hole's silhouette even if a galaxy were behind it, or what you're thinking of is something that would emit light from a very far off place, because the light is intercepted by the black hole, or lensed so that it's distorted. You'd only be able to see the outline of where the gravity of the black hole wasn't strong enough to pull the light into it, but it'd still be lensed, hence you'd be seeing things in that outline that weren't really behind the black hole.

 

 

 

also, black holes aren't big, they have a big mass. they're pretty small, but have enough matter crammed into them to cause the extreme effects related to extreme gravity, such as slowing down time, and trapping light.

I bet half these simple-ton know nothing, the only way you can see a black hole is with x-ray, ONLY WAY. Now if youi want to try to redefine the laws of physics and say theres another way go right for it, but when you fail and go back home in your celler with mommy don't come crying to me....

 

 

 

*cough*gravitational-wave-detectors*cough*

Form of X-Ray pl0x?

 

 

 

No, a completely different thing. Nothing to do with the electromagnetic spectrum.

 

 

 

I'm sure I'm not a "simple-ton", so allow me to share a point here: If you were close enough, it would be very much possible to "see" a black hole, in the same way you can "see" your shadow. Shadows are caused by a lack of light, yet you can see them. A black hole, seen from a certain distance, would look exactly like the picture in the first post - a circle of absolute nothingness, surrounded by a lensing of light.

 

 

 

Now please, debate here if you wish. But if you're going to tell us we're "simple-tons", or you're going to claim superiority because of your "uni degree", or something like that, please. Please! You deprive yourself of any right to have spelling or grammar errors in any of your posts. Just throwing that out there.

Sigh...I will say it again, but with meaning so you "Simple-tons" can understand.

 

 

 

If you were in the range of our telescope being able to look at were a black hole is you wouldn't see anything. One you and every one around you would be split down into atoms, and two if we had telescopes that could reach that far (From here) you still wouldn't see anything. A black hole is has so much mass and gravitional pull that anything in about 5M light years around it is all a stream of atoms going at the black hole.

 

 

 

Lets say you could live though being split apart by atoms and live though 5M years of that...If you were facing the black hole on the earth and you'd see everything around you starting to what looks like viporize, but what really is happening is everything is getting split down into atoms. Lets say a Million light years went by and you are a little atom looking around. You'd see googles of atoms in a line in front and in back of you as far as the eye can see. All the atoms are heading twords the black hole.

 

 

 

Now the only way to see the outline of it would there have to be a HUGE galexy 'in back' of the black hole that isn't getting ripped apart by atoms. Then in theory you'd see the out line of it but a black hole is huge about 3 billion time bigger then our sun...now the sun is 100 times bigger then earth, meaning a black hole is around 100 billion times bigger then earth.

 

 

 

If you don't know what 100 billion time bigger would look like, A base ball would be earth (compaired to black hole) and the earth would be the black hole. Thats about 100 bilion times bigger.

 

 

 

You're such an arrogant, patronising, but more importantly incorrect idiot I don't know where to start.

 

 

 

Pretty much all of your information about black holes is incorrect, I don't know where you got it from. In fact, there isn't one correct piece of data in there at all.

I don't see how he could have thought gravitational waves could be detected with Xrays :shame:

 

 

 

but anyways,

 

 

 

first box: what you'd see if there were some 'far off galaxy'

 

 

 

second box: light that you'd normally see is cut off by the black hole. other light is bent around it, because it wasn't close enough to get pulled in, just bent.

 

 

 

third box: the false images we see due to the light path distortion.

 

 

 

Smapla's picture illustrates my point exactly. That's what you'd see, more or less.

 

 

 

However, Captainkidd. A BLACK HOLE IS NOT 100 BILLION TIMES BIGGER THAN THE EARTH. Dude. You utter moron. Just... no. A black hole always has these two properties:

 

 

 

One: Infinitely dense. (Just like you! =O)

 

 

 

Two: Infinitely small.

 

 

 

The black hole's sheer gravitational pull collapses it to its smallest possible size. NOT 100 BILLION TIMES BIGGER THAN EARTH! If anything, it's the other way around.

 

 

 

Also, "Google" is a search engine. You don't see googles of anything. The word you are looking for is googol, as in 1.0ÃÆÃââââ‰â¬

Smapla's picture illustrates my point exactly. That's what you'd see, more or less.

 

 

 

However, Captainkidd. A BLACK HOLE IS NOT 100 BILLION TIMES BIGGER THAN THE EARTH. Dude. You utter moron. Just... no. A black hole always has these two properties:

 

 

 

One: Infinitely dense. (Just like you! =O)

 

 

 

Two: Infinitely small.

 

 

 

The black hole's sheer gravitational pull collapses it to its smallest possible size. NOT 100 BILLION TIMES BIGGER THAN EARTH! If anything, it's the other way around.

 

 

 

Also, "Google" is a search engine. You don't see googles of anything. The word you are looking for is googol, as in 1.0ÃÆÃââââ‰â¬

Also, "Google" is a search engine. You don't see googles of anything. The word you are looking for is googol, as in 1.0ÃÆÃââââ‰â¬

I'm not trying to be cool or prove a point when I go off on people like that. I just get very titchy when people claim to be so knowledgeable, and then spout a bunch of contradictory, unfounded, grammatically incorrect poo. Forgive me.

 

 

 

Question: Why does the spellchecker on FireFox catch "poo" as a mistake? And "FireFox"?

Why did they name it google... :-k

 

 

 

anyways yeah, black holes scare the [cabbage] out of me :(

 

 

 

I still don't understand how they move at all if they slow time down to a near stop.

I'm not trying to be cool or prove a point when I go off on people like that. I just get very titchy when people claim to be so knowledgeable, and then spout a bunch of contradictory, unfounded, grammatically incorrect poo. Forgive me.

 

 

 

Question: Why does the spellchecker on FireFox catch "poo" as a mistake? And "FireFox"?

 

I know, but you already made him look like an idiot. It just seems redundant :| .

Question: Why does the spellchecker on FireFox catch "poo" as a mistake? And "FireFox"?

 

 

 

The built in spell-check in Firefox isn't really complete yet I don't think, it has a lot of words marked as wrong when they are in fact correct. Also checks capitalization, which is why "FireFox" is incorrect, it is just Firefox.

Why did they name it google... :-k

 

 

 

anyways yeah, black holes scare the [cabbage] out of me :(

 

 

 

I still don't understand how they move at all if they slow time down to a near stop.

 

 

 

They named it Google as a play on googol. As in, there are a googol websites listed by Google, sort of thing. Google has googols. ^^

 

 

 

It's very complicated when you go from "warping space" to "warping time". It's easiest to do with a large whiteboard and plenty of coloured markers. The black hole itself doesn't move through time, and space around it moves at slower and slower rates of time. But outside the black hole's effect radius, time moves normally. You'll need to think carefully about this one. Outside the black hole, you see (or rather, would if you could clearly see inside a black hole's event horizon) matter being sucked into the black hole, and eventually being "devoured". However, for an object being pulled in, time moves slower and slower, and eventually stops. Two different perspectives of Time. Here's another way of putting it:

 

 

 

Time is a highway. Any object with gravity (read: anything) warps time in a tiny way. Most planets are only the spaces between the asphalt bits. Large stars are small pockets in the road. Black holes are potholes. With no bottoms. Any object that falls straight in is lost, like being sucked into a black hole. Some objects, however, are traveling fast enough that they're like that annoying basketball rim shot. They come in on an angle, spin around the rim, and shoot back out. That action of going down a little ways slowed their passage along the Highway of Time. Err. Yeah.

 

 

 

Am I making sense?