Are black holes just made of/ull of anti-matter? Is that where all of it ended up?

So you just ignore all of the evidence we've gathered for them?

you mean all the observations adhered to the non-falsifiable claim that there exist black holes?

>this is a sun
>YOU CANT PROVE THAT
>this is a table
>YOU CANT PROVE THAT
>electromagnetism exists
>YOU CANT PROVE THAT

user, you're technically right, but you're just biased against black holes. Also it's possible that some observation could discredit the existence of black holes and yet they remain possible and plausible.

astoundingly retarded post

>you're just biased against black holes
Nah, it's just that they don't exist. Spacetime curvature slows them to a stop as they are forming and the never finish. There are no black holes, only black-hole wannabees.

news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/10/gravitational-waves-nobel-prize-physics-ligo-science-space/

>In a highly anticipated announcement today (Feb. 11 2017), researchers affiliated with the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) reported the detection of gravitational waves. The signal picked up by LIGO came from the collision of two black holes and was detected on Sept. 14, 2015 by LIGO's twin detectors in Livingston, Louisiana and Hanford, Washington, scientists said.
>the collision of two black holes
>two black holes
>black holes

I mean spacetime is only curved to 99.99...% of a sphere, that's not a black hole or anything

they were just assumed to be black holes. the data was matched to devised to match any of the hundreds of predictive models that could possibly describe the collision of two black holes. the black holes themselves have never been observed, and lots of the necessary time dilation effects that are characteristic of high gravity fields weren't described or captured in the collision event "for some reason."

Most powerful gamma-ray bursts linked to black holes. The most powerful explosions in the universe are caused by the births of black holes rather than dense neutron stars called magnetars, new evidence confirms. Gamma-ray bursts are blasts of high-energy radiation that arrive at Earth from all directions.Nov 4, 2010

conjecture without confirming observation

phys.org/news/2017-11-star-survived-years.html
>star explodes, survives, and explodes again
some black hole

Serious question: if gravity propogates at the speed of light, then how come the mass inside the event horizon of a black hole can exert a gravitational force on mass outside the event horizon? Isn't it impossible for anything inside an event horizon to affect or interact with anything outside?

The corollary is, if gravity is the only thing that can escape a black hole, then can't we scan the inside of a black hole by precisely measuring the gravitational force exerted by the matter inside it?

I dunno, let's go to the center of the galaxy and find out, we'll throw some nukes at the black hole

What's wrong?

That sounds possible. But what about areas of space that act like black holes? Isn't an almost-black hole nearly the same thing?

Nothing inside can affect what happens outside the event horizon. Correct. Suppose the mass falls one inch inside the horizon and vanishes into nothingness. But now you know something changed inside the horizon, which is a contradiction. The gravity field is "frozen" into the structure of space-time even if the mass, as such, isn't there.

The gravity field of a non-spinning hole has perfect spherical symmetry. Doesn't matter what fell in. A hole with spin flattens somewhat (I mean the event horizon becomes ellipsoidal), just as planets are flattened a bit by their spin. So, in addition to the amount of mass which fell in, you can deduce something about the angular momentum of what went in. Mass and angular momentum (and charge) are the ONLY properties which remain since those are conserved quantities and cannot vanish.

If they existed I'd have my dick in them, impregnating them creating other black holes to fuck for eternity.

From the viewpoint of a distant observer it is true that objects take forever to fall through the event horizon. They also infinitely red-shift and vanish from sight.

From the perspective of the falling object, nothing unusual happens at the event horizon. They just continue dropping towards the singularity (spaghettifying along the way.)

If you don't want to consider an invisible object with a massive gravity field to be a "black hole", that's your prerogative. But that's what the physicists name the state you've described.

Give credit where its due instead of giving it straight to your page boy Einstein. Fritz Zwicky came up with the idea of black holes first.

Why do people like you ask questions without doing ANY preliminary reading on the subject? It just wastes your and everyone elses time.

>From the perspective of the falling object, nothing unusual happens at the event horizon
Aren't you ignoring the fact that relative to the infalling observer the rest of the universe is infinitely sped up?

>pop-sci
The star failed to enter a complete runoff nuclear reaction, and so it’s core never collapsed. How does this discredit the theory of black holes?

Another property that is retained is charge.

I had to think about your question.
A stationary observer, hovering just above the horizon, would be crisped by blue-shifted starlight raining down upon his head.
But imagine a spaceship fleeing Earth at nearly lightspeed. Earth would appear in slow motion. If it traveled 10 LY at 0.9999999 etc. cee, the telescopic view of Earth would show people still packing up and going home from the launching ceremony. And the Earthmen would appear very red-shifted.
I think the two effects would cancel out.
The falling body is plunging into the future (irreparably so as soon as it crosses the horizon) but they can't see ages go by "outside" since the information-carrying light is barely "passing" them. Of course, if they measure the speed of those photons, they get the usual 300,000 km/sec because of their time-dilation.

I confess I hadn't considered that in . I had "hit nothing and feel nothing at the EH" in mind. I guess I think in terms of Einstein's elevator. You can never tell what's happening outside unless you open a window and look.

I said "charge".

>all of the evidence
Which is a total of 0 so far. Black holes are speculative science a.k.a. science fiction.

>The most powerful explosions in the universe are caused by the births of black holes
This is circular reasoning, but you don't know it because you're a pop-sci brainlet who merely regurgitates pop-sci articles.

Schwarzschild predicted black holes, based on Einstein's THEORY. That was in 1915. So is correct.
Einstein himself didn't predict black holes, was amazed that Schwarzschild had actually found a solution to the equations, and I'm not sure if he ever accepted that BHs could actually form from physically realizable conditions.

Yes, you can't observe the outside universe being infinitely sped up while falling into a black hole, but that surely doesn't prevent the universe to do so, right? My argument is that the black hole would simply evaporate before you, or anything for that matter, cross the event horizon, thus making it impossible for black hole to form in the first place.

Or simply put, from our frame of reference nothing ever crosses the event horizon, yet here the black holes are (supposedly).

hubblesite.org/reference_desk/faq/answer.php.id=64&cat=exotic
If your statement is this ignorant and retarded, I’ll only go to the effort of pop-sci for you.

Would you agree that we can "get close enough"? The gravity field is there. Objects falling the final millimeter into the horizon never make it (from a distant observer's viewpoint) and they can't be seen. I accepted that back in Observationally, there's nothing to see except the accretion disc and the dimple in space-time. As I said then, that's what we call a BH. I think you're quibbling over definitions.

An inward falling observer perceives himself passing the point of no return in a finite time and does not see the hole evaporating over 10e500 years. If there are no discontinuities in space-time short of the singularity (I mean some phenomena not predicted by current theory), the time from horizon to annihilation ought to be quite brief -- by the astronaut's watch.

Time dilation only affects the rate of events happening within the frame of reference, not the observed velocity of the frame of reference. You would watch a clock travelling into the black hole tick slower and slower, but you won’t observe the clock’s velocity apparently decrease at the event horizon.
An object falling into a black hole would be observed accelerating at near-c velocities all the way to the event horizon, and the only limitation on the observation of the object is caused by the immense red-shifting, which becomes so intense when it reaches the event horizon that no light is observed.

Correcting myself: I was wrong, and this article explains things very well:
math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/BlackHoles/fall_in.html

At what point does the object falling into the balck holes EH become.. not longer an object? is it broken down to quarks and into charm and spin up and down quarks etc? but at what point is it no longer an 'object'

when its a string

Can we get magnetic monopoles by dropping magnets into a black hole with one pole first?

Thanks for the link, well explained.
>Now, this led early on to an image of a black hole as a strange sort of suspended-animation object, a "frozen star" with immobilized falling debris and gedankenexperiment astronauts hanging above it in eternally slowing precipitation. This is, however, not what you'd see. The reason is that as things get closer to the event horizon, they also get dimmer. Light from them is redshifted and dimmed, and if one considers that light is actually made up of discrete photons, the time of escape of the last photon is actually finite, and not very large. So things would wink out as they got close, including the dying star, and the name "black hole" is justified.
Does this assert that the star is indeed 'frozen in time', but for all matters and purposes appears as a black hole to an outside observer due to infinite redshift?

Still mad there's not a huge accretion disk around saggitarius a in that game.

Very good. I think this says what I was saying, but says it better.

I don't think so. I said earlier on that a hole can have charge as well as mass and angular momentum because those are conserved quantities.
The same would apply to magnetic "charge". The field lines would still stick out of the event horizon (though they'd be frozen in place) and they'd converge on the "free" end of the magnet. Field lines always form closed loops, so there'd be none detectible at a distance from the hole.

This half-in-half-out state of affairs is unlikely to persist very long. If the remaining atoms of the bar magnet fell in, you'd just be left with an "arch" of magnetic flux looking something like the flares on the surface of the Sun. Then the remnants of the field would go "down the drain" too.

>Does this assert that the star is indeed 'frozen in time', but for all matters and purposes appears as a black hole to an outside observer due to infinite redshift?
The opposite way round. The intense gravity causes it to appear frozen because of the extending path for the light rays, and the redshift makes the light eventually fade to background radiation and be undetectable. In the ‘simultaneous’ the black hole time moves normally.
This apparent disparity is corrected when the black hole evaporates and the space-time curve is reduced, as the incredibly redshifted light rays are finally able to reveal the events that occurred after the freezing when they are ‘released’ from the immense gravity.