So Ive heard that if you are an outside observer watching something

>black holes would just look like clumps of all the matter they have ever absorbed
>look like
>look

>>8547606
Thats my point exactly. Why would we see an object falling into a black hole freeze at the event horizon? Anything outside the event horizon is still visible, but it makes no sense that it would be seen as frozen in time just outside the event horizon.

>>8547602
No, from your point of view the monkey falls straight into the hole and disappears.

From the monkeys POV time stretches out and out towards infinity

>>8547602
The farther in the monkey goes, the more the light spectra you'd recieve would shift to outside of the visible range.

>>8547602
when you see a thing, that's just photons emitted by the thing or reflected off the thing reaching your eye
gravitation is a curvature of spacetime, so even light (and therefore the way you see things) is affected by the gravity of massive objects
a black hole is so named because its gravitational field is so strong that light cannot escape

so essentially what's happening is that before the chimp crosses the event horizon, its photons are slowed down by the gravitational field, but still escaping out to your eyes
as it gets closer, the field is strong, so light has to fight against an increasingly strong force and hence takes more and more time to escape
when the chimp actually crosses the event horizon, all the light that will ever escape has been sent out, and it's just taking longer and longer to get out to you

if you crunch the numbers on how long it takes for stuff to escape, you see that it can take arbitrarily long for light to escape
what you end up seeing is an image of the chimp getting closer to the event horizon of the black hole, but decelerating, because the light is taking longer to travel to you
another consequence of this is that the image will get dimmer and dimmer, since the rate of photon escape is decreasing, which occurs because t seconds of light for the chimp is being pulled to increasingly longer intervals of time for an observer

also the light is going to redshift probably
t. not a physicist so don't quote me on this

>>8547602
Accretion planes around black holes are a thing. When they get big enough we call them galaxies.

You're not taking into account the monkey's redshift or dimming as it falls into the black hole, as >>8547775 pointed out.

If you were viewing it with just your eyes then the monkey would get redder and redder (and also dimmer) until it passed out of the range of visible light and "disappeared" - this would appear to happen before it reached the event horizon. However, if you were viewing the event with a telescope that could see all light from the visible to the ultra-long radar range, then the monkey's light would continue to redshift and dim indefinitely, and would only "disappear" once the brightness of the monkey's light fell below the detection threshold of your telescope.

So although the images of everything that's fallen into a black hole never truly disappear in theory, there is a practical limit to how long you can see them before they become too red/dim to observe. Kind of like how gravity has an "infinite" range, but you don't have to consider the gravitational effects of galaxies on the other side of the universe from us because those effects are small enough to not matter at all.

t. also not a physicist (who on this board is?)