Habitable solar systems around black holes?

>>8242074
Doesn't make any sense, stars are to big to orbit a black hole and not get swallowed.
It's like a nigger living near to my mom's house, she will eventually swallow his dick.

>>8242095
has never opened a physics textbook

>>8242074
Yes, the formation you are talking about is called a galaxy and we live in one. There is no currently known method of traveling about the galaxy in convenient human lifetime.

If you really want to know the answers to this, take all of the necessary prerequisite math courses then read a text on General Relativity.

>>8242074
no

>>8242107
How did you know?

>>8242074
Sure. You can have a stable orbit around a black hole. A black hole can easily capture satellites including stars that have their own satellites.

No problem there at all. You could have a normal life orbiting a star that orbits a black hole.

Yes, you can have planets and other things orbiting the black hole. That is not a problem and has been observed.
However, in order for life to be sustained you will need some sort of energy. Black holes do not emit anything.
So no life.

>>8242163
>Black holes do not emit anything.
You don't know much about astrophysics at all, do you?

Hint: massive radiation from the vortex.

instead of having stars there, just have planets orbiting a black hole directly and the accretion disk working as a sun. much cooler setting imo

>>8242074

You are already orbiting a black hole.

There's one at the centre of the Milky Way.

if the sun collapsed into a black hole, absolutely nothing would change about our orbit

i mean yeah we'd all die but the planet would keep going

Could you have a black hole with a mass equivalent to that of 15 times our sun and have other stars in orbit with a radius of at most half a light year?

>>8243798
sure, why not?

File: image.jpg (110KB, 574x573px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 574x573px

>>8242095
>stars are to big to orbit a black hole and not get swallowed
What?
SO-2 orbits SAG A* about every 15 years. The stars orbiting SAG A * is how it's existence was confirmed.

>pic SAG A* system 1995-2008. Keck UCLA, A Ghez et al.

>>8242667
>energy capable of sustaining life

Black holes aint got none. None that any terrestrial life needs

>>8243798
Yes, but Its not going to be confirmed if that system will be stable for any length of time. At least not in this thread. They likely wont be in similar orbital paths like our own solar system. Those suns and their systems would need to be captured by the black hole.

Maybe its a result of a galactic collision.

Maybe I should write this book.

>>8242074
How would the black hole look like in the sky?

BAD SECTOR

>>8245807

Depends on how active it is. A stellar mass black holes is only a handful of kilometres across, so you would be hard pressed to spot the event horizon itself from any distance that it would be safe to orbit the hole. Chances are it would be surrounded by an accretion disc however, so the location of the back hole would be obvious due to the huge disc spewing out radiation from all over the spectrum.

>>8242074
Totally possible, as others have pointed out, but to have separate stable solar systems, they'd have to be so far apart that travel between them would be about as difficult as travel to our nearest star is anyway.

You could have a trinary system with two close binaries orbiting a blackhole from large distance, and a solar system around one of the binaries. That (the binary part at least) has been observed, but I suspect you're trying to set up a situation specifically with multiple linked solar systems.

>>8242074
Already been done faggot. Look up Incandescence.