What exactly proves this is a black hole again? Genuinely asking

So questioning science like we'd do for dark matter/energy only leads to being a plot theorist? How fucking fried your braincells can be. Go back to porn.

the chaotic disk of star fart around it

>dark matter/energy
"dark matter" and "dark energy" are cabal code words for white genocide.
So I guess we know where you get your sheke... I mean paycheck from.

feminism

it is actually code word for bad naming

the guy who named it both assumed that there is matter and that it is dark cause he couldn't see it, the actual truth is that no one fully explained it

you're a fucking moron

Scientifically? Nothing.
Everything having to do with this mathematically generated image is based on conjecture.
It is an image of a location in space where a purely theoretical object is assumed to exist. Whatever the image depicts is assumed to be the theoretical object.

I want to be the first to penetrate it, too bad I can’t come back and tell you what fucking a black hole is like.

well its not a fucking bag of skittles now is it?

SO it's not a backhole but it's a black hole?
I got that right?
A hole that is black

Your sort of questioning is useless as it stems from conspiracy theory bullshit, and your own desire to be a contrarian little snowflake. Scientists do a fantastic job of questioning science without your input. Relevant journals are full of papers challenging one, or both ohenomenon, and attempting to put forth alternative models. The difference is that they use science to do it, instead of grunting a bunch of WHRRGARBL and flinging their own shit.

Attached: images(103).jpg (266x190, 12K)

If you were actually curious you'd just google it

Visual evidence of what was mathematically predicted /thread

Do you not see it, the giant black hole in the middle

/thread

Who’s got the spider pics?

m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSiuQ5Sx98U

Mathematics

tbh he'll probably get better information here

Depends on your understanding of the definition of a black hole?

idk maybe the fact that we have an ACTUAL PICTURE of it and that it matches exactly our simulations based on what we know mathematically about it

These?

Attached: 1539132997524.jpg (2560x1920, 500K)

I don't think you know how question marks work.

Attached: 1486210307180.jpg (310x269, 31K)

let me guess...flat earth ?

Well it is only a photo that confirma what we already know, thanks to Einstein

I honestly don’t care, my dude@

>photograph
Wrong.
It is a computer generated image created from a collection of data with huge gaps in it, the gaps being filled in using algorithms designed with the assumption that black holes exist, the assumption of what they would look like, and the assumption that one existed in that specific location.
>look! we're seeing exactly what we designed this system to show us! science!

And yet here you are replying.

Attached: 1486855185003.png (500x500, 204K)

>OMG OMG THEY'RE GOING TO RELEASE A PHOTO OF A BLACK HOLE!!!111
>Get on hype train
>Image is released
>It's blurry and out-of-focus
>My disappointment is immeasurable, and my day is ruined
>How could they fuck up so badly?
>Find out dev team for the image processing algorithm is lead by a woman
... oh

There's no such thing as proof in science, only Data, the data suggests theres a black hole, until we actually go there its still just a probability.
Visiting a black hole will never happen.

What did you expect something that is billions of light years away and that we've never seen before to look like?

And if you say one of the artist renderings just kill yourself now before your stupidity spreads.

come on goy trust us, we are zee scientists, you are the good goycattle

Attached: shlomo-201284418 (36).png (499x583, 342K)

tell me one relevant thing fundamental physics (((research))) has come up with since before ww2
and no, lousy CGI spacehole pictures do not count

Well, I think you care about punctuation a little more than I do is what I’m trying to express there, brotato chip. I’m not posting bc I don”t care, I’m posting in a thread same as you. Do the fact that I am posting is not the issue. Your issue is with punctuation, and I was expressing not caring about your problem. I wasn’t talking to (You) anyway.

btw i said since before ww2 to shoot wide but in truth the kikes neutralized it with einstein the fraud

yup just like global warming
memescience in clownworld
NPCs applauding all over
thank you jews

Attached: a3e54f346943964f0fbf34bcea377cd229189c040d17ef82bc398fe2fcb82d64.jpg (692x849, 445K)

>expressing not caring

Attached: 1484437560247.jpg (277x284, 20K)

>What did you expect
Uhm... A clear, focused picture of a black hole?
You know, the shit you get when you use an algorithm written by competent people who know what they're doing.

archive.org/details/TheManufactureAndSaleOfSaintEinstein-ThePropagandaOfSupremacy

read this you absolute retarded NPC

haha

AOC?

Go away Spagett
>implying I might click that shit

Science! send more money please,

Shut up jew

>implying I might click that shit
Clever girl, archive.org is a known malware site

GPS, which I'm sure is just a Jewish plot to track and spy on you, because you are that goddamn important. Still, it is a direct application of relativistic, which you sem to be alleging is fraudulent. Ah, i see. You're an electric universe wackadoo.

Ah yes, another thread where anons with no understanding in physics try to debate crackhead theories. Sage.

Its size proves it's a black hole. A black hole has to be big enough to accommodate a black dick.

as black holes are strong enough to capture light, to actually see one is impossible;
this was the event horizon of something being pulled into a black hole; thus briefly letting us prove that black holes do in fact, exist

I find this mind-boggling

Attached: M87-Black-Hole-vs-Solar-System.jpg (960x824, 151K)

cuz it's stealing anything in reach

The black hole is the thing with an event horizon. This is a black hole and its accretion disk (stuff going into it). The proof of it being a black hole is that it's black in the middle. If that was a gap in the cloud of gas, there'd be stars/galaxies behind it i.e. it wouldn't be completely black. Also, the ring is brighter on the bottom, which would be explained by the gas being in an very fast orbit around the middle. There might also be observations of nearby stars being affected by its gravity (don't know).

>black holes are strong enough to capture light
The escape velocity of a black hole is supposed to be the speed of light. Light travels at the speed of light yet can't escape?

Attached: 435672637.png (387x398, 44K)

The mathmatical models that aren't a computer generated image.

You can watch a good episode of Ted talks, really insightful.

The gravitational pull of a black hole, makes the photon lose energy and prevents it from escaping.
Not to mention, that the escape velocity of a black hole is greater than that of the speed of light

>Mathematically generated image
It did not form out of a void. It is based in the first instance on readings taken. You do not understand the science behind it and because of this you have decided that it could be a lie. You are not learned enough on the subject to make that judgement with any validity.

Cuz science says so bro

Attached: Deeznuts.jpg (462x528, 81K)

Nuclear fusion, one of the most reliable power sources used today. Effective measuring instruments based on fundamental physics have improved small-scale engineering immensely. Navigation has been VASTLY improved by the invention of the ring laser gyroscope, which would have been impossible without physics research.

The list goes on but I cannot be fucked continuing to debate with a troll.

See this post where I explain exactly what I mean. Fuck off with your ignorant bullshit. I understand exactly how the image was generated.

Why don't we start with why you think it ISNT a picture of a black hole instead?

>assumption of what they would look like, and the assumption that one existed in that specific location.
Yeah, that's not how any of that fucking works faggot.

Science is falsifiable data.
If the data isn't falsifiable, it's bullshit.
This isn't science, this is psuedo science wiping it's ass with your tax dollars.

Attached: 1525654433395-b.jpg (640x555, 63K)

Not completely accurate. Black holes don't actually "Pull" things in, the gravitation well it causes warps space to to the point that particles can't escape because space is bending in such a way the only path turns back into the singularity. Imagine a penny rolling down one of those funnels into a collection jar. The speed and velocity of lets say a photon particle never changes, it's always goes straight, but it will "fall" into the black hole because space around the hole is bent.

looks like a pussy hole 2 me

i would know, i crush puss

>Huge gaps
Not huge, and easily plugged not just with algorithms, but also with data of stellar observations surrounding M87. The data is far reaching and comprehensive and the algorithm exists to aggregate this data into a meaningful set of values to plug the few holes they did have in their direct measurements. The measurements already confirmed that a black hole existed in the location, unequivocally, and black holes have already long been settled science. What the data could NOT do was be used to form an image.

You. Do. Not. Know. What. You. Are. Talking. About.

That's also not how that fucking works.

It's real simple lads. The gravity well around a black hole forms an event horizon, past which nothing can travel fast enough to escape its gravitational pull. It has warped the fabric of space time so completely that anything traveling at the speed of light cannot escape.

>black holes have already long been settled science
No. Black hole theory is conjecture. Learn to speak English you retarded fuck.

itt intellectuals talking about things they don't understand because they read it from a guy who doesn't understand what he wrote because you can't actually go to these places and experience these things because astronomers literally just make this shit up.

Attached: 20billiondollarsayear.jpg (2560x1440, 1.05M)

This. Its still largely theoretical. That's why most discoveries are so exciting. It proves that the theories MIGHT be true but we still can't find conclusive evidence that would be universally accepted as definitive proof that the theories are accurate. Even if we could, we'd need the math to back it up and we're just not there yet.

The escape velocity is greater than the speed of light.

Also, light doesn't always travel at a constant speed. The speed of light in physics generally referes to the speed of light in a vacuum. Through a medium like air, or water it travels slower, because there is resistance to it.

>>That's also not how that fucking works.
>>Describes the same thing.

Yeah. The light cannot escape because the the warping of space time. The particle of light doesn't mid air change direction inside the event horizon, it keeps going straight, it's space that is curving.

>theories MIGHT be true

Theories are true. You have it confused with the word 'hypothesis.'

LOL wut? I think you need go pick up a dictionary.

Because instead of seeing it, you can see it’s own shadow.

>Theories are true.
Theories are simply not disproved. It is literally impossible to prove a theory true. Theories are considered to be such a good explanation for what we see that they can be used for prediction and can be used in application.

I see what you're doing

Attached: birb.jpg (480x618, 28K)

No scientific laws are true. Theories are still open to conjecture.

Attached: 1474334262951.jpg (650x560, 74K)

That is an image of something that was there 26,000 years ago (give or take a century). How do ya know its there still?

>hurr look at me, i'm retarded

Attached: theres-that-fag-talk-we-talked-about.jpg (1274x830, 361K)

>triggered

Attached: 1554785758154-b.png (500x488, 16K)

>purely theoretical

Yeah ok, nigger

soooo... hawking radiation moves faster than light?

I don't think you know how a gravity wells work. There's a difference between gravitation attraction and a gravity well caused by a singularity.

Gravitation attraction from lets say a star, exerts a force on another object and the object effects it return and their mass pulls them together.

Gravitation well bends space so that moving objects are diverted towards it even they are traveling in a straight line at all times.

Objects cannot interact with a block hole to cause gravitation attraction. Partly because black holes also have low density. The interior of a black hole is only the about the density of water. The expanse inside the folded space though is fucking massive (pretty much bigger on the inside)

>create mathematical model of universe to explain what you observe
>play around with the model and find you can get a 'black hole'
>realize model doesn't actually match the observable universe
>invent ad hoc invisible 'dark' matter to fix your broken model
>realize even this doesn't fix model
>claim most of universe is made up of fictional ghost matter
>realize even this doesn't fix model
>invent ad hoc invisible 'dark' energy in moronic attempt to save obviously wrong model
>realize even this doesn't fix model
>b-b-b-but black holes are real

>Open to conjecture
>Nothing but conjecture
These two things are not the same. It is true that black holes are more than simply conjecture, they are modelled and hold true to predictions with due scientific rigour. Evidence exists of event horizons existing in these supermassive bodies, and there is a complete lack of any evidence that contraindicates their existence. We have observed matter falling into the centre of the objects we identified by their mass as black holes, and observed a complete absence of any surface to the entity, and the only model for this behaviour is a black hole.

>The interior of a black hole is only the about the density of water.
nigger do you science?

Attached: light_cantrip.png (678x684, 419K)

Except the model does match the observable reality in the case of black holes.

Except the model requires a "singularity" that is infinitely dense. Observations show there is not infinite mass in the universe, therefore how could anything be infinitely dense?

its just a nigger eye in the dark, they are serpents and demon creatures

density = mass/volume

so infinite density implies zero volume, not infinite mass

Attached: stars.jpg (1193x591, 103K)

A finite number divided by zero is not "infinity." Our mathematical model states you cannot have zero volume, but that is required in the black hole model.

He's kinda right. In black holes, higher mass = lower average density, so what he's saying would only be true for some supermassive black holes. The average black hole would still be ridiculously dense.

>Our mathematical model states you cannot have zero volume
And that's where you're wrong. Mathematical models -do- allow for zero volume, and there is experimental evidence to support the theoretical evidence. For example, the electron is a point-particle with zero volume. That's the theory, and so far, all experimental evidence supports that (collision scattering experiments, for example).

>Mathematical models -do- allow for zero volume
The actual physical universe doesn't.

>The actual physical universe doesn't.
counterargument: the electron

The data gathered, and image generated from said data fits currently accepted theories and predictions on how black holes should work.
Go to jewtube if you want something more indepth.

>the electron
A theoretical particle which has never been observed.

no, you shut up fucking mexican jew

No, every black ho I know does not have a black hole. They're always pink to red in color. But some of them like to do it in the back hole. Hope this clears up the confusion.

It has though.

Yeah pretty, much. Still all conjecture because we don't know for sure, but the math points that way. But there's not really a "size requirement" for the interior to form in this way because the the density is decided upon instantiation of the black hole. Any new mater doesn't cause the density to increase, instead the space inside the black hole just warped further and space grows to match the volume.

Nigga, you know this isn't on the visible spectrum, right? Nobody has actually "seen" a black hole.

Reference?

Ok, stop. The electron is well-established in every day life, not just in a laboratory. It's a foundation particle in chemistry, biology, and physics. It's tracks are seen in bubble chambers. It is not a "theoretical" particle.
>pic related: your opinion

Attached: wroooong.png (408x373, 179K)

Whom are you talking to?

I’ve bet that if I put the lady that discovered this black hole, into doggy style, i’d also discover her black hole.

Honestly because there is no reason to lie, it’s the old holcaust argument of why did It actually happened or is It just a faker daker you just have to believe

Do the research your self. We even had electron microscopes since the 1930s.

journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.073003
Observed.

Well it's a computer model of what one would look like. So I guess you could get a computer model of her black hole.

No actual electron has ever been observed. What is observed is the effect on the surrounding environment. While, I admit, such effects can be explained by physical particle electrons, the effects can also be explained by energy electrons and force electrons. The reason such effects are accepted as proof of physical electrons is because of the experimenters' preexisting belief that they are in fact physical (aka bias).

>No actual electron has ever been observed
Nothing has been observed. Only the electrical impulses inside of our own brain exist. We can't be sure of anything existing outside ourselves. Brain in a Vat, and all that. Is that the philosophical argument you're putting forth? It's valid, but it then has to apply to everything.
>What is observed is the effect on the surrounding environment.
That's what observation is. Thank you for agreeing.
>They can also be explained by energy elecgtrons and force electrons
Or by the angels dancing on the head of a pin. No, the consistent conclusion is that the electron is a point-particle, which gives support to the theoretical model of other objects (black hole singularities) being able to have zero volume.
>pic relatied: your kooky science

Attached: wrooooong.png (509x183, 91K)

No. The attosecond stroboscope directly observed the presence of something that cannot be explained without the presence of a particle. Your assertion that direct 'eyeball' observation is required for evidence to be valid is also logically unsound. We cannot directly observe much at all, but indirect observation through instrumentation is just as valid.

If electrons did not exist as particles that we could confirm, Braun could never have invented the cathode ray tube, which tells on electrons being particles in a field. Force or energy electrons could not behave the way they do in a CRT. The electron is not theoretical, it is experimentally verified.