What would a singularity inside a black hole look like?

>>8549396
your mother

It would look like a brain fart.

black

>>8549396
They dont actually exist so nothing

>>8549397
I will shove my foot so far up your ass that you will have to shit out your mouth, cock-sucker.

It doesn't exist.

Due to extreme time dilation, the inside of a black hole is in a state of constant collapse until it evaporates. Nothing reaches the "center," everything just falls inward, and not for a particularly long subjective time.

>Spinning black holes have ring shaped singularities

This is wrong when you think about it, since it means that the matter in the singularity is moving fast enough to avoid collapsing into the center of a gravitational field which is supposed to be so strong that no matter can escape it.

I mean one of the definitions of an event horizon is that it's a sphere of space in which all paths lead radially inwards. However, the matter in the ring shaped singularity is obviously not moving inward if it's maintaining a ring like shape.

>>8549396
look like shit

>>8549413
Fuck off, time dilation is not felt by an observer experiencing it. All objects keep their own normal perception of time as they enter black holes.

>>8549417

Of course they do, but in the five seconds that they experience falling fifty meters further into the black hole, five trillion years can pass outside, and in that time, the black hole evaporates.

>>8549396
It doesn't look like anything because inside a black hole the singularity is no longer a spatial distance away but a timelike one. i.e. it's in your future, dude!

>>8549415
A satellite is always falling inward, it just misses each time and therefore maintains motion on an orbit. Same thing here.

Also all paths do not lead radially inward in a black hole, they simply lead inward. The path need not be perpendicular to center

>>8549476
>Also all paths do not lead radially inward in a black hole they simply lead inward

You're literally arguing against PBS Spacetime here. "radially inward" is the correct term.

>>8549415
It's just outside the event horizon dingus lmao what are you a mathematician?

>>8549446
You're obviously confusing your observer positions here. An external observer watching something fall into a black hole will never see it cross the event horizon. They will see the object slow down and eventually stop, then it will gradually becomes more and more redshifted until the light of the object is too faint to detect.

This is merely an optical illusion. The object itself will cross the event horizon and become one with the singularity in real time. It only appears to slow down and freeze at the horizon to outside observers, because the light has to travel through increasingly stretched out space to reach you. An object will not be spat out by a black hole safe and sound when the black hole evaporates. Black holes emit only electromagnetic radiation, even in the final burst of energy as they finish evaporating. Beyond the event horizon is a perfect black-body emitter that converts mass into energy with 100% efficiency, not a time machine.

There is no way for matter to escape an event horizon. Inside an event horizon, space is not flat while time is linear. It's the opposite. Time is flat, and space is linear. You can only move one way, which is inwards. Time becomes flat in that there's no way of telling the difference between past and future in a black hole. There's no constant increase of entropy to give you any information about when external events occurred.

You can't actually see out of a black hole and watch the universe play out in fast motion, because there's no time in a black hole. Your cosmic horizon becomes limited to the event horizon after you cross it, for the same reason that an outside observer can't watch you enter a black hole. Light from the outside universe is too stretched for you to see it. You can only see other objects moving towards the singularity along side you.

>>8549515
What do you mean?

>>8549533
>Time is flat, and space is linear. You can only move one way, which is inwards. Time becomes flat in that there's no way of telling the difference between past and future in a black hole. There's no constant increase of entropy to give you any information about when external events occurred.

Time is flat, and space is linear. You can only move one way, which is inwards. Time becomes flat in that there's no way of telling the difference between past and future in a black hole. There's no constant increase of entropy to give you any information about when external events occurred.

So, what would it be like for a human inside of it? Would they just be very confused until death?

>>8549396
Come on anon... this pic is from an hollywood movie...

Here ya go for a real simulation with GR equations and Vlasov-Poisson systems solved numerically:
https://youtu.be/5Oqop50ltrM

File: BHentropyF1.jpg (130KB, 1058x724px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 1058x724px

>>8549413
This

Even more, the time dilation becomes overwhelming right at the event horizon, which makes matter enter it but not move further. Proven by the fact that the entire entropy content of the Black Hole is measured just by measuring the surface of the sphere it creates. It's actually hollow and completely devoid of energy past it (maybe except for virtual particles).

>>8549396
>black hole
gtfo with this carp

>>8549597
>Time is flat, and space is linear.
said the anime scientist.

lol

>>8549607
You do know that the image of the black hole in Interstellar is from a modern simulation of gravity's effect on light developed by actual academics, right?

They have a paper and everything
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0264-9381/32/6/065001

The only thing off in the film is the colouring, the most realistic simulation was a lot bluer due to doppler shifting, among other effects, but Nolan opted for a more orange hue because he thought the blue looked a bit too weird.

File: 1979-black-hole-luminet.jpg (368KB, 730x385px) Image search: [Google]

368KB, 730x385px

>>8549929
I indeed know very well that this is what has been said before the movie was released, in commercials.
But I hope you know that this simulation was purposedly made an unrealistic. I really hope you do, m8.

Indeed, the doppler effect in this scene was not taken into account, which make the accretion disk very much assymetrical, and this lack of symmetry has been considered "not quite understandable by / suitable for the general audience".
But the commercial was so strong that even distorted the reality of their work by not mentioning it was not an actual simulation describing how things really work.

I also know the french/european team who did the first computation ever of a black hole back in... 1979. (pic related, Luminet et al.)

It should also be mentioned that Kip Thorne who worked with the movie team was not quite happy with the commercial-side of this unscientific simulation. He is a pure mind, like any astrophysicist or scientist. Their publication is more correct than what is shown in the movie.

Commercials are like truth in the USA, that's poor for the people there.

File: TN-CQG2015.jpg (61KB, 970x443px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 970x443px

>>8549929
Here is a quite good review of the science presented in this movie. Basically, it's not good science enough so that it could be used in schools.
http://inference-review.com/article/interstellar-science
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1503.08305.pdf

You'll find many other articles about this in popular papers, but I find this first one interesting and based. It was written by a world specialist, colleague of Kim Thorne's, basically the guy who invented black holes simulation in 1979 : Jean-Pierre Luminet.

And here is the better pic of the simulation published by Thorne's team (not the one from the movie).

http://time.com/3572988/interstellar-science-fact-check/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/03/15/the-science-of-interstellar-fact-or-fiction/
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/what-interstellar-gets-wrong-about-interstellar-travel/

>>8549957
This always baffles me. What kind of braindead suits decide "yeah we're gonna go an accretion disk... but showing a redshift would really throw the audience off man, that's just too far"

I often read in this post that a particle does not enter a black hole for an outside observer. This is only true for a test particle without energy. The energy of the particle perturbs the spherical symmetric spacetime and the horizon grows a tiny bit as the particle approaches which passes the horizon in a finite time (even for an outside observer).

>>8549396

is there a legit proof blackholes exist?
>dont think so

>>8549988
>a legit proof
This isn't math retardo

>>8549988
They are the only possible object consistent with our current understanding of affairs that would exhibit some of the weird ass behaviour we see in space.

>>8549597
It'd be like having all of your thoughts and actions in a lifetime all at once inside of a place that is expanding towards the center of a sphere that never ends. You would be conscious of yourself entering the black hole as a collection of atoms and you would also be conscious of yourself being turned into electromagnetic radiation at the same time... and if you were conscious as yourself as a binary electromagnetic wave system (hyper low chance) then you would be let out just as the universe were about to end... you would probably be greeted by a universal boltzmann brain comprised of decaying protons. Say hello

>>8549896
>>8550030
You'd be killed by extreme gravitational forces before you even reach the event horizon. Then your remains fall in, merge with the singularity and that's the end of you. There's nothing magical about it.