What's your opinion on black holes? What fascinates you the most about them?
Can I ask under what bases you're stating this on?
Black holes are places where ordinary gravity has become so extreme that it overwhelms all other forces in the Universe. Once inside, nothing can escape a black hole's gravity — not even light. Yet we know that black holes exist. We know how they are born, where they occur, and why they exist in different sizes.
Although, A black hole is a geometrically defined region of spacetime exhibiting such strong gravitational effects that nothing—including particles and electromagnetic radiation such as light—can escape from inside it. The theory of general relativity predicts that a sufficiently compact mass can deform spacetime to form a black hole. The boundary of the region from which no escape is possible is called the event horizon. Although crossing the event horizon has enormous effect on the fate of the object crossing it, it appears to have no locally detectable features. In many ways a black hole acts like an ideal black body, as it reflects no light. Moreover, quantum field theory in curved spacetime predicts that event horizons emit Hawking radiation, with the same spectrum as a black body of a temperature inversely proportional to its mass. This temperature is on the order of billionths of a kelvin for black holes of stellar mass, making it essentially impossible to observe. So, I would understand it if you had it hard to understand what a black hole, was, and/or how it works. But saying that they don't exist is like saying that the Earth is flat, just because you perceive it that way, doesn't mean it is that way.
Fun fact: There is a black hole in the middle of all galaxies, it is what causes them to stay in a shape. Our Sun also, along with the other millions of stars in our galaxy, orbits this black hole, this is known as a Cosmic Year, and our Sun is more than 20 cosmic years old.
>nothing can escape a black hole
Hawking radiation? X-rays?
I don't think you read the whole thing properly, and I don't think you know what Hawking Radiation is, because a black hole slowly dies out, due to Hawking Radiation.
It is named after, physicist Stephen Hawking, who provided a theoretical argument for its existence in 1974, and predicted that black holes should have a finite, non-zero temperature and entropy.
''disk matter can be heated by friction to thousands of degrees which is enough to produceX-rays. Even higher temperatures approaching a million degrees can occurwhich can produce gamma rays.
This disk radiation, being outside the black hole, is what we detect as welook at black holes'' 
From an outsider's perspective, how does infinite event horizon approach time work with finite time evaporation? Seems like the black hole would always evaporate before any objects could cross the event horizon, but how does that work with the perspective of the object falling in?
Time slows down to an incredible crawl, but since any observers inside or outside of a blackhole cannot observe one another, it makes any kind of time dilation observations impossible.
Since the gravity would kill any living thing inside of a blackhole it's hard to say what the perspective of the object might be. It'd be slowing falling in blackness for eons why entrophy erases any character it has..
>What's your opinion on black holes?
I think that they are freaking huge, like galaxies in size or larger and that what's inside them isn't crushed or squished or what not. It's just that that section of space has so much mass, the light cannot escape and it looks like there is nothing there/the volume is small/etc. FWIW, it's been found that the mass of the observable universe and it's radius is the Schwarzchild radius - aka: we exist in a black hole.
bullshit, doesn't work with BBT nor inflation, space expansion, redshift stuff and basically everything
I read about how our universe could be somewhat explained as a 3D event horizon of a 4D black hole, that one was better but not 100% either
I don't get one thing but i know shit about them... but how is it that Dark Matter works wonders with Gravity but Gravity doesn't affect Dark Matter. Black Holes are perfect examples of that, they should be fucking HUGE with that amount of Dark Matter around right?
>Dark Matter works wonders with Gravity but Gravity doesn't affect Dark Matter
Dark matter isn't really well defined. It's mainly just a physical crutch used to explain the observed movement of regular "light" matter on the galactic scale. And I don't really understand why you think black holes should be "fucking HUGE" just because there's dark matter.
gravity does affect dark matter
its just that because dark matter doesnt interact with EM there is no friction between dark matter stuff so they cant form stable blobs of dark matter because they just flung through and go on without losing velocity
>We know how they are born, where they occur, and why they exist in different size
Actually - we don't know for sure that they exist.
We've observed the orbits of some stars orbiting a massive object - which gives us the upper limit of it's size and it's mass. General relativity predicts that such an object would be a black hole, but noone has ever seen an event horizon.
Dark matter is still something that hasn't been proven as a theory or law or anything, so not a lot can be said on it's properties, how it interacts with other forces, objects, dimensions, whatever. But you do pose a very good question. I would recommend you Google up on that a bit.
>Because by definition it's impossible to do so
Not really. You can't observe the horizon directly, but it does leave a shadow of sorts like pic related.
>he heavier the particles are
photons are massless.
>So what kind of particles constitute Hawking radiation?
it is a black-body thermal radiation, so just like from any star it is a spectrum.
>Is Hawking radiation "strong" near a black hole?
No, it is practically unnoticable for black holes bigger than a grain of salt. A black hole with the mass of the Moon would only be like 3 K hot - the same as the microwave background radiation.
push 2 balls towards each other on a table but dont let them touch, watch as they do not stop beside one another.
Without any friction 2 pieces of dark matter would simply oscillate in simple harmonic motion (think pendulums) passing through each other then flying off in opposite directions before their kinetic energy was entirely converted to potential energy and would then begin to move towards each other again.
Rinse and repeat.
>when the blackhole is nearing its death it emits all kinds of particles
>The rate of temperature increase is exponential, with the most likely endpoint being the dissolution of the black hole in a violent burst of gamma rays. A complete description of this dissolution requires a model of quantum gravity, however, as it occurs when the black hole approaches Planck mass and Planck radius.
where did you get these 'all kinds of particles' from?
>but we do not know what happens during these 'last stages', as we don't have quantum gravity.
All of Hawking's black hole theories are quantum gravitational. They are obtained through quantization of GR, which holds for low energies.
Yeah, Interstellar has a interesting theory about black holes; its explication of a tetra-dimensional space with free movement through time, inside a black hole's event horizon was so great.
That isn't supposed to be "inside" the black hole, the "advanced beings" created a little space inside the blackhole and/or moved Cooper outside of it into the generated fifht dimension thing before he could be eaten by the black hole.
they did. It also discusses why the version that ended up in the film is slightly wrong - they decided not to include red-shift and they reduced the distortion of the horizon due to Gargantua's huge angular momentum.
you can read the paper here: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0264-9381/32/6/065001;jsessionid=C233A0680E3FDA6A03106A2D0FA2B4F8.c1.iopscience.cld.iop.org
Apparently, (c) is the real one, then.
I kinda feel terrible for Hawking. He keeps on trying to figure these things out and they just don't work for him. He must be really frustrated.
>what does an object so dense that light cant escape it look like?
No. I'd imagine that it'd be swirly. Like a spiral. Color would have no meaning so you'd need to assign a color to it. Probably whatever color anything past ultraviolet would look like if you had receptors for it. Purple comes to mind. From an outside perspective it would probably take billions of billions of years to go from the event horizon to the main mass of the black hole regardless of your actual speed. Inside you'd probably pass yourself you'd be going so fast and it'd happen so quickly.
If black holes were a real thing that is.
It's still a black hole in the sense that you're dead as fuck because both ends have that pesky event horizon from which nothing not even light can escape. But since it's collapsing at the speed of light you can't enter it any way.
>the frame of reference of someone inside the event horizon
you can never cross the horizon in your own frame of reference. It keeps receeding from you until you hit the singularity.
They are teachings of the kuffar.
It is, all the matter/energy of the black hole is the infinitely small/dense singularity. We just find it suitable to extend its "size" to the event horizon since everything that passes this point can longer be observed and just becomes part of the singularity.
>From an outside perspective nothing even crosses the event horizon to begin with
IIRC the outsider just see the person frozen in time near the even horizon forever (longer than the universe's lifespan). It's why it's called the "event" horizon too, it's the last event of action the outsider sees from their frame of reference with respect to the other person
So this is what the Jews have turned our great accomplishments of physics into; a bunch of people arguing about unempirical speculative entities implied by ideas rooted solely in mathematics.
Philipp Lenard was right, no Jews in science please.
What fascinates me about black holes is the booty included.
Micro black holes, how do they work? If they have tiny masses (in the milli or micro gram range) how can they have gravity so that the escape velocity exceeds the speed of light? Wouldn't there be other forces at that scale that are substantially greater than any sort of gravity from a micro mass?
I believe that black holes are how the universe is destroyed and created eventually all black holes will become one containing all elements of the universe eventually imploding thus releasing all elements contained within and recreating the universe over again
Becoming a singularity is just a matter of enough mass in a sufficiently condensed space. If you took 1 gram of salt and condensed it to an obscenely small space it would become a tiny black hole (which would immediately "evaporate" AKA explode)
i'm pretty sure the event horizon's definition is the point from the center in which the time component of the metric tensor flips signs and the fact that no light can escape is a mere product of that definition
but otherwise, you're correct