Fantastic Four reboot

[GasparZizou]

Stellar massive black holes were never observed to have visible accretion disks. They aren't luminous, because visible light travels in arcs beyond the event horizon and doesn't radiate away. That's why they're called "black" holes - you can't see them.

Again, the black holes themselves are not luminous, the material and gases in their disks IS, that is a fact, and yes, anything past the event horizon doesn't come out, but the disks are OUTSIDE the event horizon, it CAN radiate light and heat, you can't see the black holes but you CAN see the disks, how do you think they get satellite images of accretion disks?

Quasars (aka. black holes that are feeding), on the other hand, are visible, because the large amounts of mass being pulled, and the heat and light being generated lies in a region that's outside of the event horizon where the escape velocity is still less than the speed of light.

I'm getting at, is that there was no way the planets in Interstellar could have gotten their light from Gargantua. If it was super massive enough to feed and spiral the matter of a nebula or star well outside of its event horizon, then, possibly yes. But, it was a dormant (non-feeding hole), and it shouldn't have been luminous.

Again, a quasar isn't a black hole, black holes produce quasars and not all accretion disks are quasars.

They are not getting the light from Gargantua, they're getting it from its disk.

Despite its invisible interior, the presence of a black hole can be inferred through its interaction with other matter and with electromagnetic radiation such as visible light. Matter falling onto a black hole can form an accretion disk heated by friction, forming some of the brightest objects in the universe

Just to recap, what exactly are you saying?

That Gargantua can't possibly have an accretion disk? It can.
That said disk can't provide heat and light? It can.

Edit: Just to clarify, I had to check back the image of Gargantua, and it wasn't feeding at all like I previously assumed. At least that would've made some sense as to how the planets were getting light.

They can get light from the disk.

 

[GeneralZodLives]

I would rather watch Fantastic Four than read any more about Interstellar.

 

[Biojex]

Man the blackhole wikipedia pages are getting some hits tonight.

 

[fosing]

wow, BS in astrophysics from interstellar.

BS clearly means bullsheet here.

 

[Irvy]

I would rather watch Fantastic Four than read any more about Interstellar.

[emoji38] [emoji38]

 

[RIDDICK]

I have a question to all the scientists here: what is time?

Popular Hans Zimmer's musical composition.

I have a better question, what is love?

Must resist roxbury gif usage....

To boldly go where no man has gone before!

 

[Snake Plissken]

The movie didn't make sense. If I recall correctly, Gargantua was a quasar (a black hole that's currently feeding), and the diffused matter in the accretion disk would've generated heat at millions of degrees centigrade, from friction and gravitation tidal forces. Mconaugheyheyhey would've been vaporized before even being able to approach the event horizon. And if I recall correctly, he did fall inside of it, before the extra-dimension thing-a-ma-bob took him to the fairy land, where crack addicts go when they have a high.

Now, if Gargantua was not in a feeding state, that would've been possible. But, you're talking about a freakin' quasar that millions of times hotter than the sun. You can't get physically close to something like that.

I think it would've had to have been a qusar to provide visible light and heat to it's neighboring planets. Black holes don't emit radiation in either the visible or infrared (heat) spectrum, unless it's produced indirectly from matter in the accretion disk that they're actively feeding on. Stellar-mass black holes have never been observed to behave in the way that Gargantua did... heck, you can't even see them, unless if it's through gravitational lensing, or some star that's orbiting an invisible object and losing mass.

Black holes can have disks too, hell that's how most black holes are portrayed in didactic images, it isn't the black hole emitting heat and light, it's all the material in the disk.

Sure they have, and that's how you can see Gargantua, due to the gravitational lensing.

It seems to me that when one plot hole is explained you guys are trying to make up others I wonder what you guys think of negative space



Ain't nobody got time for that!

I'm not making up anything...

Explain to me this: If we're talking about actual astronomy, then how could Gargantua provide adequate light and heat to its neighboring planets and have far less luminosity than the sun, or any visible star for that matter? The fact is, that you can't see stellar mass black holes. The ones that were actually observed (and I'm talking about actual black holes, not the ones in Hollywood movie scienczzz), were only observed indirectly though lensing or stars that were orbiting and/or losing matter to an unknown object. Black holes are NOT luminous, and for stellar mass black holes, their accretion disks are nowhere to be seen, from what's been observed so far.

Quasars on the other hand are very luminous. There's a lot of matter going into them, and a lot of friction being generated safely away from the event horizons, where visible light and heat are produced and can be radiated away without being sucked in.

I think Interstellar's problem, was that it was trying to incorporate properties of a quasar and a stellar mass black hole with Gargantua. A lot of physicists praise the movie, but physicists aren't astronomers...

Yeah you kinda were making it up, because Gargantua isn't a quasar, a quasar =/= a black hole.

Where do you get that it has far less luminosity than the sun? That is pure assumption on your behalf, nothing that the movie provides.
I just told you that you can't see black holes unless they bend the light around them like Gargantua does.
And no, their accretion disks have been seen, how can they not be seen if they are luminous?

Again, Gargantua is NOT providing the light or heat, its disk is, seems to me you're assuming some black holes can't have disks, anything that has mass can have stuff orbiting around it, including any kind or size of black hole.


No, it is not trying to incorporate properties of quasars at all, this is honestly the 1st time I've ever heard Gargantua is a quasar, it's not, I don't get why would you even think Gargantua is or has a quasar, it's just a black hole with an accretion disk.

Quasars extend over galaxy level distances, they´re like accretion discs but millions of times bigger.

That is not a problem nor a plot hole.

Stellar massive black holes were never observed to have visible accretion disks. They aren't luminous, because visible light travels in arcs beyond the event horizon and doesn't radiate away. That's why they're called "black" holes - you can't see them. Quasars (aka. black holes that are feeding), on the other hand, are visible, because the large amounts of mass being pulled, and consequently, the heat and light being generated lies in a region that's outside of the event horizon where the escape velocity is still less than the speed of light.

What I'm getting at, is that there was no way the planets in Interstellar could have gotten their light from Gargantua. If it was super massive enough to generate gravitational tides, and spiral the matter of a nebula or star well outside of its event horizon, then, possibly yes. But, it was a dormant (non-feeding hole), and it shouldn't have been luminous at all. Even the visible light arcs that you see around it in the film are pretty absurd - they shouldn't have been visible at all.

Edit: Just to clarify, I had to check back the image of Gargantua, and it wasn't feeding at all like I previously assumed. At least that would've made some sense as to how the planets were getting light.

Again, the black holes themselves are not luminous, the material and gases in their disks IS, that is a fact, and yes, anything past the event horizon doesn't come out, but the disks are OUTSIDE the event horizon, it CAN radiate light and heat, you can't see the black holes but you CAN see the disks, how do you think they get satellite images of accretion disks?


Again, a quasar isn't a black hole, black holes produce quasars and not all accretion disks are quasars.

They are not getting the light from Gargantua, they're getting it from its disk.



Just to recap, what exactly are you saying?

That Gargantua can't possibly have an accretion disk? It can.
That said disk can't provide heat and light? It can.



They can get light from the disk.

 

[Solidus]

 

[RIDDICK]

^

 

[Snake Plissken]

The movie didn't make sense. If I recall correctly, Gargantua was a quasar (a black hole that's currently feeding), and the diffused matter in the accretion disk would've generated heat at millions of degrees centigrade, from friction and gravitation tidal forces. Mconaugheyheyhey would've been vaporized before even being able to approach the event horizon. And if I recall correctly, he did fall inside of it, before the extra-dimension thing-a-ma-bob took him to the fairy land, where crack addicts go when they have a high.

Now, if Gargantua was not in a feeding state, that would've been possible. But, you're talking about a freakin' quasar that millions of times hotter than the sun. You can't get physically close to something like that.

I think it would've had to have been a qusar to provide visible light and heat to it's neighboring planets. Black holes don't emit radiation in either the visible or infrared (heat) spectrum, unless it's produced indirectly from matter in the accretion disk that they're actively feeding on. Stellar-mass black holes have never been observed to behave in the way that Gargantua did... heck, you can't even see them, unless if it's through gravitational lensing, or some star that's orbiting an invisible object and losing mass.

Black holes can have disks too, hell that's how most black holes are portrayed in didactic images, it isn't the black hole emitting heat and light, it's all the material in the disk.

Sure they have, and that's how you can see Gargantua, due to the gravitational lensing.

It seems to me that when one plot hole is explained you guys are trying to make up others I wonder what you guys think of negative space



Ain't nobody got time for that!

I'm not making up anything...

Explain to me this: If we're talking about actual astronomy, then how could Gargantua provide adequate light and heat to its neighboring planets and have far less luminosity than the sun, or any visible star for that matter? The fact is, that you can't see stellar mass black holes. The ones that were actually observed (and I'm talking about actual black holes, not the ones in Hollywood movie scienczzz), were only observed indirectly though lensing or stars that were orbiting and/or losing matter to an unknown object. Black holes are NOT luminous, and for stellar mass black holes, their accretion disks are nowhere to be seen, from what's been observed so far.

Quasars on the other hand are very luminous. There's a lot of matter going into them, and a lot of friction being generated safely away from the event horizons, where visible light and heat are produced and can be radiated away without being sucked in.

I think Interstellar's problem, was that it was trying to incorporate properties of a quasar and a stellar mass black hole with Gargantua. A lot of physicists praise the movie, but physicists aren't astronomers...

Yeah you kinda were making it up, because Gargantua isn't a quasar, a quasar =/= a black hole.

Where do you get that it has far less luminosity than the sun? That is pure assumption on your behalf, nothing that the movie provides.
I just told you that you can't see black holes unless they bend the light around them like Gargantua does.
And no, their accretion disks have been seen, how can they not be seen if they are luminous?

Again, Gargantua is NOT providing the light or heat, its disk is, seems to me you're assuming some black holes can't have disks, anything that has mass can have stuff orbiting around it, including any kind or size of black hole.


No, it is not trying to incorporate properties of quasars at all, this is honestly the 1st time I've ever heard Gargantua is a quasar, it's not, I don't get why would you even think Gargantua is or has a quasar, it's just a black hole with an accretion disk.

Quasars extend over galaxy level distances, they´re like accretion discs but millions of times bigger.

That is not a problem nor a plot hole.

Stellar massive black holes were never observed to have visible accretion disks. They aren't luminous, because visible light travels in arcs beyond the event horizon and doesn't radiate away. That's why they're called "black" holes - you can't see them. Quasars (aka. black holes that are feeding), on the other hand, are visible, because the large amounts of mass being pulled, and consequently, the heat and light being generated lies in a region that's outside of the event horizon where the escape velocity is still less than the speed of light.

What I'm getting at, is that there was no way the planets in Interstellar could have gotten their light from Gargantua. If it was super massive enough to generate gravitational tides, and spiral the matter of a nebula or star well outside of its event horizon, then, possibly yes. But, it was a dormant (non-feeding hole), and it shouldn't have been luminous at all. Even the visible light arcs that you see around it in the film are pretty absurd - they shouldn't have been visible at all.

Edit: Just to clarify, I had to check back the image of Gargantua, and it wasn't feeding at all like I previously assumed. At least that would've made some sense as to how the planets were getting light.

Again, the black holes themselves are not luminous, the material and gases in their disks IS, that is a fact, and yes, anything past the event horizon doesn't come out, but the disks are OUTSIDE the event horizon, it CAN radiate light and heat, you can't see the black holes but you CAN see the disks, how do you think they get satellite images of accretion disks?


Again, a quasar isn't a black hole, black holes produce quasars and not all accretion disks are quasars.

They are not getting the light from Gargantua, they're getting it from its disk.



Just to recap, what exactly are you saying?

That Gargantua can't possibly have an accretion disk? It can.
That said disk can't provide heat and light? It can.



They can get light from the disk.

Thanks, you *******... it's stuck in my head and it's been on a loop for 20 minutes...

 

[Solidus]

Thanks, you *******... it's stuck in my head and it's been on a loop for 20 minutes...

 

[GeneralZodLives]

I would rather watch 10 hours of chest-beating than Fantastic Four.

Chest-beating > Fantastic Four > Talking about Interstellar

 

[Snake Plissken]

I would rather watch 10 hours of chest-beating than Fantastic Four.

Chest-beating > Fantastic Four > Talking about Interstellar

QFT

 

[pturtle]

 

[FSLAR]

Guardians of the Galaxy would have been a better derail, at least you can have fun with it like this and it would be somewhat on topic

Gaspar however, you need to learn respect for your elders I hereby sentence you to more enlightenment.

 

[Devil_666]

You guys seen that movie Inception?

 

[karamazov80]

Didn't watch.

 

[RIDDICK]

You guys seen that movie Inception?

 

[GasparZizou]

Gaspar however, you need to learn respect for your elders I hereby sentence you to more enlightenment.

Moonlight counts? ....

 

[FSLAR]

Moonlight counts? ....

your terrible pun has no power here. Be gone, off with you plebian