4 ms·

It ate a star.

ars 3y ago
But that would take infinite time (as we perceive the event) because of time dilation. You would not see it "turn on", you would see a slowly, very slowly, changing signal.
- antonvs 3y ago
  No, infinite time is only an issue exactly at the event horizon. At the radius of the accretion disk, the effect will usually be small enough that we’d need some careful measurements to detect it.
- drojas 3y ago
  I think this is good evidence in favor the plasmoid model from Eric Lerner as a replacement for black holes. Some key differences. * Instead of a black hole eating a star, a plasmoid is having an increased load. * Black holes are "gravitational" machines while plasmoid are "electromagnetic" machines. * With the plasmoid model there is no time dilation * With the plasmoid model, the load is any source of plasma, not necessarily a star https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=eric+lerner+plasmoid&btnG= https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=eric... https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Big_Bang_Never_Happened/IwNVDMOgQRQC?hl=en&gbpv=0 https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Big_Bang_Never_Happ...
  - post-it 3y ago
    > With the plasmoid model there is no time dilation But there is time dilation, so the plasmoid model isn't very good at explaining observations.
  - antonvs 3y ago
    It might be good evidence for something else if it were correct. It’s not correct, though. As I mentioned in another comment, infinite time dilation (from the reference frame of an external observer) is only an issue exactly at the event horizon. But the events that lead to a supermassive black hole “switching on” are happening at the accretion disk, far enough away from the event horizon for time dilation to be an effect we’d have to measure carefully to detect. Also, the idea that you’d want a model that avoids time dilation here makes no sense. We know gravitational time dilation is a real effect because we’ve measured it, it matches the predictions of general relativity, and GPS would be very inaccurate if they didn’t correctly take the effect into account. To say that time dilation doesn’t occur near a black hole is completely inconsistent with well-verified facts. From this, we can conclude that Lerner’s conjecture is wrong. We can’t even call it a theory, because it doesn’t match the evidence.
- willis936 3y ago
  You'd be hard pressed to ever directly observe something that is astronomically tiny and emits extremely low frequency radiation, if any at all. When an accretion disk is actively ripping apart a celestial body the plasma is some of the hottest material in the current universe. It's extremely violent and bright. You're seeing a gravitational well converting a huge quantity of mass to energy.
  - deepspace 3y ago
    Yes, as I understand it, the “turn-on” effect is from the plasma generated while the star is falling into the gravity well. The bit of the star that passes the event horizon would be tiny. Moreover, I believe that the radiation from an object falling into a black hole is redshifted so rapidly, that it effectively disappears from view in a very short time. An outside observer would not see anything “lingering” near the event horizon.
    - ithkuil 3y ago
      Yeah, the redshift and the slowing down due to time dilation are exactly the same phenomenon. If the wavelength is a million longer, any event that would take 1 second to happen, appears to us as it took 12 days.
- dreamcompiler 3y ago
  It didn't actually "eat a star." A star passed close enough to it that the tidal forces ripped the star apart and the star became a ring (accretion disk) around the black hole. Matter in an accretion disk gets very hot because of gravitational acceleration and friction -- so hot it can shine more brightly than the original star. And what probably really happened is that the star was massive enough that it caused the black hole to start emitting jets. There are always two of these pointed opposite one another, and one happened to be pointed toward us. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrophysical_jet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrophysical_jet
slowmovintarget 3y ago
And this is a cosmic burp.
- Obscurity4340 3y ago
  How can an entity that is inescapable eject anything?
  - slowmovintarget 3y ago
    As stellar matter is consumed by a black hole, some of it is ejected through gravitational flinging (think gravity assist maneuvers). It isn't ejected after consumption, but during. In some cases, the acceleration of matter causes energetic radiation (x-rays... etc) in the opposite direction. This is often how we detect black holes in the first place (gravitational lensing, detecting of accelerated matter are others).

It ate a star.

ars 3y ago

But that would take infinite time (as we perceive the event) because of time dilation. You would not see it "turn on", you would see a slowly, very slowly, changing signal.

antonvs 3y ago
No, infinite time is only an issue exactly at the event horizon. At the radius of the accretion disk, the effect will usually be small enough that we’d need some careful measurements to detect it.
drojas 3y ago
I think this is good evidence in favor the plasmoid model from Eric Lerner as a replacement for black holes. Some key differences. * Instead of a black hole eating a star, a plasmoid is having an increased load. * Black holes are "gravitational" machines while plasmoid are "electromagnetic" machines. * With the plasmoid model there is no time dilation * With the plasmoid model, the load is any source of plasma, not necessarily a star https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=eric+lerner+plasmoid&btnG= https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=eric... https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Big_Bang_Never_Happened/IwNVDMOgQRQC?hl=en&gbpv=0 https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Big_Bang_Never_Happ...
- post-it 3y ago
  > With the plasmoid model there is no time dilation But there is time dilation, so the plasmoid model isn't very good at explaining observations.
- antonvs 3y ago
  It might be good evidence for something else if it were correct. It’s not correct, though. As I mentioned in another comment, infinite time dilation (from the reference frame of an external observer) is only an issue exactly at the event horizon. But the events that lead to a supermassive black hole “switching on” are happening at the accretion disk, far enough away from the event horizon for time dilation to be an effect we’d have to measure carefully to detect. Also, the idea that you’d want a model that avoids time dilation here makes no sense. We know gravitational time dilation is a real effect because we’ve measured it, it matches the predictions of general relativity, and GPS would be very inaccurate if they didn’t correctly take the effect into account. To say that time dilation doesn’t occur near a black hole is completely inconsistent with well-verified facts. From this, we can conclude that Lerner’s conjecture is wrong. We can’t even call it a theory, because it doesn’t match the evidence.
willis936 3y ago
You'd be hard pressed to ever directly observe something that is astronomically tiny and emits extremely low frequency radiation, if any at all. When an accretion disk is actively ripping apart a celestial body the plasma is some of the hottest material in the current universe. It's extremely violent and bright. You're seeing a gravitational well converting a huge quantity of mass to energy.
- deepspace 3y ago
  Yes, as I understand it, the “turn-on” effect is from the plasma generated while the star is falling into the gravity well. The bit of the star that passes the event horizon would be tiny. Moreover, I believe that the radiation from an object falling into a black hole is redshifted so rapidly, that it effectively disappears from view in a very short time. An outside observer would not see anything “lingering” near the event horizon.
  - ithkuil 3y ago
    Yeah, the redshift and the slowing down due to time dilation are exactly the same phenomenon. If the wavelength is a million longer, any event that would take 1 second to happen, appears to us as it took 12 days.
dreamcompiler 3y ago
It didn't actually "eat a star." A star passed close enough to it that the tidal forces ripped the star apart and the star became a ring (accretion disk) around the black hole. Matter in an accretion disk gets very hot because of gravitational acceleration and friction -- so hot it can shine more brightly than the original star. And what probably really happened is that the star was massive enough that it caused the black hole to start emitting jets. There are always two of these pointed opposite one another, and one happened to be pointed toward us. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrophysical_jet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrophysical_jet

slowmovintarget 3y ago

And this is a cosmic burp.

Obscurity4340 3y ago
How can an entity that is inescapable eject anything?
- slowmovintarget 3y ago
  As stellar matter is consumed by a black hole, some of it is ejected through gravitational flinging (think gravity assist maneuvers). It isn't ejected after consumption, but during. In some cases, the acceleration of matter causes energetic radiation (x-rays... etc) in the opposite direction. This is often how we detect black holes in the first place (gravitational lensing, detecting of accelerated matter are others).