What Really Happens when You Visit a Super Massive Black Hole

What Really Happens when You Visit a Super Massive Black Hole Scientists Are Wrong , Wrong, Wrong About What Happens when You Visit a Super Massive Black Hole Lex Loeb Contributor Network . You can probably learn more about what black holes are by dreaming of them instead of trying to decipher the complicated mathematics of theoretical physicists and cosmologists. By the time one learns how many arbitrary conditions and assumptions are lumped into cosmological and physics interpretations of blurry astronomical photographs and then modeled into complicated theses that go on to become fun looking super computer animations , one has to begin to think in terms of not asking too many questions. Asking any questions when looking at the complicated models of how black holes may or may not behave is like letting one's mind go along with the plot of a popular movie script like a Harry Potter movie and just accepting that the kind of cinematic magic on display in the movie is "believable". No one who loves a great comic book worries about the physics of Superman flying. No one involved in the stories of the super powers of any super hero character seems to care if any of the explanations in the story of these comic books is plausible. It is all just accepted by the audience. With Superman it is kryptonite that makes his magic possible with black holes it is Gravity but not Newtonian gravity it is gravity that is believed to warp time and space or space-time in amalgamation because light as photon 'particles' are believed to have mass and react attracted to mass because of gravity causing the line of motion curve in toward the source of gravity. Because light in the cosmos usually comes from locations very far away including far far far away in distant galaxies the lines of transmission can be very straight for a very long time before light ever passes close enough to a mass that causes curvature of it's line of forward progression. Gravity acts at a far distance greater or lessor force inverse square of the distance from the origin of gravity as per a central mass. That we actually know for sure it is the same reason we can see objects in our view become smaller and smaller as we get further away from them because of the inverse square law. Here on earth the moon is far enough away that it might seem no bigger than a quarter size coin from your pocket. The inverse square law tells you how big the moon would seem to be in your view if you were half the distance away. That is the same thing that happens with a black hole except that if a black hole was the size of a quarter in diameter and the distance from the earth to the moon away from the earth then it would not even be visible to the naked eye. If it were the size of a quarter and had 300 million times the mass of the earth we would definitely feel it here on earth. The tides here on earth would be churning us around like garments in a washing machine on the spin cycle and the shape of the earth would be like spaghetti extruded into the black hole. Chances are none of this would last long enough to experience any of it because it would all be over for the earth the fraction of a second that the black hole got with in maybe 100 or more diameters of the entire solar system. Assuming that it was possible for such a massive super massive black hole to get that close to the earth and into the vicinity of our solar system we would see something really amazing happen because of the fundamental principle that light has mass. We would see much of the universe of stars in the sky pulled closer to the central location surrounding the tiny super massive black hole. It would look like there was a galaxy of stars there as a tighter and tighter halo around the central area of a black hole's outer space domain. The cosmologists and theoretical physicists call this gravity lensing. For a mass 300 million times the mass of the earth or the sun concentrated in an object that was the diameter of a quarter what would look like an entire galaxy of stars would be the entire sky behind the black hole concentrated as an optical illusion of a galaxy. Do you suppose than that looking out on galaxies in deep space that we might be just looking at optical illusion gravity lensing? Probably not. The reason why is astronomers have managed to clock galaxy rotation over time lapse observations. That is not to say that a lot of what we think we see in the cosmos is not a topological optical illusion. For the study of black holes assuming their existence at the center of each galaxy it is either a paradox that develops or a major problem with the underlying theories involved. When one thinks about seeing the unseeable as per black holes one has to definitely consider the optical illusion topography that would necessarily be apparent from a viewing distance. Somewhere between the event horizon and infinity any indication of existence of a black hole out in space should come with at least a ring of star light for what necessarily would be gravity lensing consistent with the theory. The latest evidence supporting the existence of a central milky way galaxy black hole is in regard to Newtonian physics and not anything to do with relativity. Could it be that the positions of observed massive stars in frantic orbit at the center are just an optical illusion observed from our distant frame of reference viewing? Not likely? Where is the gravity lensing? At some point gravity lensing will allow an observer at a distance to see the star in it's actual location behind the black hole and would also allow the distant viewer to see gravity lensing of it closer to the area where the black hole is thought to exist thanks to no light being visible at that point. So far no image from this central black hole region shows any stars disappearing as one would expect them to do . First possibly in a flash and after that with no remains being visible going black. Bigger better telescopes may give us just that evidence and more in the future but right now the evidence is still highly conjectural. Maybe even just a wishful interpretation of the facts. The first thing I would do as an astronomer with a more precise much higher resolution telescope is look for the gravity lensing evidence not because of the existence of the black hole necessarily but because I believe it is still necessary to test the basic assumption and thesis that light , itself, has mass and is attracted in such away it's line of progression actually curves inward toward the gravity of massive objects. The reason why I have this concern is research suggesting that light , photons , only has theoretical comic book mathematics mass not real mass. I am sort of convinced that light has no mass at all but that is not to say that i cannot imagine topographical optical illusions in the cosmos that might cause light to appear to have long distant curvature. We can all see how light gets "bent" passing though a prism or a lens both of which have physical substance. The evidence that there is a black hole at the center of the cosmos does , however, seem tantalizing and real because of the Newtonian calculations of orbits suggesting that yes something with great mass is at the center of those orbits that have been clocked by astronomical observations. That is not enough without evidence of tidal forces being apparent on those massive stars and in gravity lensing. What happens if the black hole is there and instead of having super massive properties it is really just a sort of hole where big things like stars fall though as if they are falling down a drain where gravity pertains to a much more massive object big enough for an entire galaxy to be floating on top of? Far fetched ? Of course but maybe not more far fetched than the idea of super massive black holes ? It is all the stuff of imagination or dreams until there is more evidence. Evidence for the existence of light bending because of gravity might well be caused by refraction or diffraction when one considers how the sun's corona plasma and gases have atmospheric properties over vast distances. The evidence for light bending because it has mass is far from having proof yet. We do know of objects out in the cosmos where we can calculate mass and then should be able to calculate gravity lensing using inverse square law from the center diameter of these distant objects to have a sort of scale of displacement where we can then re-calculate more accurate positions of stars verses where they seem to be. If light bend according to theory and super massive black holes populate galactic centers everywhere from the deep field to a couple of million light years away then we should be able to re-draw the Andromeda galaxy in a way that the center of it should be much less populated by stars. There is a way to look at a galaxy like Andromeda which is a large visible object in the earth's sky and think of it as a wound of object that is really more of a point or a linear object spiraling because of historic time lapse vision we have seeing at least 100,000 years of light transmission at the same time instead of just seeing one moment of light transmission. We see the front and back sides of the galaxy at the same instant and we do not take time to separate the light into light that takes 1 million light years and 1 million , 100,000 light years at the exact same time. We can see the sides of a mountain here on earth and it's top and the closest part of it to a viewer at the same instant on earth or the sun side to side. Depth of field even at distance should not allow both the closet part of a sphere and the edges to be in focus? Now if light takes added time to get from the farthest visible points as light from the closest point then the observation of a sphere is at best a bit of a construct or even an optical illusion as the object is moving , rotating and it happens to be in motion relative to our observing it. Perspective drawing is a bit of a construct too just as euclidean geometry is. We construct our imaginary figures in geometry and we tend to have representational shapes where we can find them. The Sun is definitely spherical in reality but we might want to take data over a range of time to see the sun as it existed at the edges and center point at the same moment in time. The inverse square law is the way to investigate prospective black holes. If there is gravity lensing the inverse square law will tell you precisely where that behavior of light at a distance from the center of gravitational influence with maximize gravity lensing of background stars. First stars will totally disappear where gravity is strongest and perhaps only a thin film of light as a ring around the black hole will condense background stars to a solid halo of light or point of light in a halo with an abrupt black nothingness inward from there . one might even see background star light super-imposed over the black hole edges if as it is popular to say among physicists that black holes disrupt the cosmic fabric (eg the ordinarily straight transmission lines of light into curvature). Inverse square law will relate to how dynamic the "force of gravity is at a distance and cause gravity lensing that necessarily has to be visible once viewing is possible with a powerful enough telescope. Those telescopes may becoming on line sooner or later. We know that we can do much better than we have in the past making telescopes and that in the future we will see much more than we do now with our very best equipment. If the gravity lensing is not apparent beware there will have to be a major transformation of the theory probably in the direction of optical topography of space. The key to the universe will be to decode the apparent optical illusions that arise because of reflection, diffraction, refraction, inverse square law of light-distance or by dreaming about the cosmos. What we probably will really find with bigger better telescopes is that we can visit black holes if they exist. It won't just be the gravity lensing effect immediately observed it will be an absolute void where no light transmission emerges buy why should we assume just that? With the massive stars in orbit we should see them disappear and displace their objective positions passing behind the black hole or near it according to inverse square law and necessary gravity lensing due to the properties of a black hole. The evidence we already seem to have of a black hole at the center of the milky way may already disprove that light has any mass at all because none of the expected stars flickering into and out of existence as they pass behind the black hole seems to exist. One of those massive orbiting stars only needs to be closest to a the center to exhibit what should look like a distortion of motion or completely disappearing if the black hole does have gravity and it does act at a distance according to inverse square law. What if none of those orbiting massive stars never seems to pass behind the central zone around a black hole that might be there? Then maybe more than one theory needs to be thrown out. It is one thing to eventually see one of those super massive stars in orbit suddenly disappear or to collide with one of the other massive stars , explode and another to see the gravity lensing that one can predict by calculations. Visiting a real black hole one should expect to see billboards adverting a big tourist attraction ahead on the freeway of space. Those billboards occur far out beyond the event horizon because at the event horizon its way too late. Its like driving into Las Vegas and being swallowed up by giant casinos along with your money. You see the signs advertising Las Vegas casinos long before you get close enough to fall into orbit there. With a super massive black hole causing space to contract and roll there is a point where the same background star might be observed in a gravity lens illusion and separately as a free standing star. The same star in two separate places in the blink of an eye? Of course. Why not? With a super massive black hole there should also be an area in the vicinity where stars are missing and out of view and then harvested in the film around the the black hole as a sort of halo or even super imposed over the that region in space. Black holes at galaxy centers might be assumed to be the cause of galaxy rotation which adds yet another set of visual application dynamics to watch for. What happens with centrifugal force when a black hole flattens out as it rotates does it stratify by density and then what becomes of the visuals under those circumstances? That should lead to more advance visuals to look forward to seeing in the future. .