Why Are Black Holes Black

[Daniel R]

OK, please bear with me on this one. I noticed on the last post regarding light-speed etc. that there are actually a couple of guys on here that seem to get Relativity. It is to them that I am pitching this one.

If we imagine a bright object (say a star) that is trapped in the orbit of a black hole and slowly falling towards the event horizon and we are distant observers watching all of this... Would we not start to see time slow down for the star as it gets ever so closer to the event horizon? The change in time for us as observers would surely look like the star is approaching an asymptote since the passage of time of the star at the event horizon which we observe from a distance would stop altogether.

The natural conclusion I come to is that a "Black Hole" should in fact have a super-bright ring around it as we would see everything it ever swallowed in its entire existence due to time stopping at the event horizon for a distant observer. The objects being swallowed themselves would notice a stop in time of everything OUTSIDE the event horizon, including us, but we would see time stop for them at the event horizon.

Sorry to be long-winded, but I just don't get why a black hole should not be bright around the edge.

Anyone who sort of understands me, please correct my wrong hypothesis.

[pothole]

If time truly stood still at the event horizon, any light would be stationary, since speed is distance travelled over time. Hence light would not propagate and you wouldn't see it. Indeed you wouldn't 'see' anything at all at the event horizon. Which is indeed what appears to be the case.

[Slate 01]

So you are proposing a designation of Hot Pink Hole instead.

Steven Hawking just came out questioning the whole Black Hole, er, Hot Pink Hole theory

[coreseller]

You guys collectively get into the ganja again? Maybe Stephen Hawking hooked up with Oprah?

[Daniel R]

Originally Posted by pothole

If time truly stood still at the event horizon, any light would be stationary, since speed is distance travelled over time. Hence light would not propagate and you wouldn't see it. Indeed you wouldn't 'see' anything at all at the event horizon. Which is indeed what appears to be the case.

I think you nailed it. Yes, that makes perfect sense.

[golonaus]

Black hole is a star. Star so huge that its gravity traps the light

but shouldn't we discuss such a thing in different part of this forum. This is general 986 info
lets keep this clean
Posts like this are ruining perfectly good forum. No offence tho

[Johnny Danger]

I thought a black hole was a term used to describe Obama's presidency ?

[Timco]

Increase power to maximum......we're going through!!!!

[Johnny Danger]

Originally Posted by coreseller

You guys collectively get into the ganja again? Maybe Stephen Hawking hooked up with Oprah?

That would explain the part about no light getting in.

[Slate 01]

Originally Posted by Johnny Danger

I thought a black hole was a term used to describe Obama's presidency ?

You mean black a-hole

[coreseller]

[coreseller]

[The Radium King]

uh ... light can't stand still - that's the premise of special rel - it goes at c regardless of frame of reference. that's why time slows - to make d= st work. it's the whole "what happens when i'm traveling at the speed of light and turn on my headlights" thing, just rephrased.

[jdlmodelt]

Originally Posted by Daniel R

OK, please bear with me on this one. I noticed on the last post regarding light-speed etc. that there are actually a couple of guys on here that seem to get Relativity. It is to them that I am pitching this one.

If we imagine a bright object (say a star) that is trapped in the orbit of a black hole and slowly falling towards the event horizon and we are distant observers watching all of this... Would we not start to see time slow down for the star as it gets ever so closer to the event horizon? The change in time for us as observers would surely look like the star is approaching an asymptote since the passage of time of the star at the event horizon which we observe from a distance would stop altogether.

The natural conclusion I come to is that a "Black Hole" should in fact have a super-bright ring around it as we would see everything it ever swallowed in its entire existence due to time stopping at the event horizon for a distant observer. The objects being swallowed themselves would notice a stop in time of everything OUTSIDE the event horizon, including us, but we would see time stop for them at the event horizon.

Sorry to be long-winded, but I just don't get why a black hole should not be bright around the edge.

Anyone who sort of understands me, please correct my wrong hypothesis.

Perhaps that event only lasts a fraction of a second when light speed is constant then overcome by the black hole?

[BIGJake111]

Originally Posted by Daniel R

OK, please bear with me on this one. I noticed on the last post regarding light-speed etc. that there are actually a couple of guys on here that seem to get Relativity. It is to them that I am pitching this one.

If we imagine a bright object (say a star) that is trapped in the orbit of a black hole and slowly falling towards the event horizon and we are distant observers watching all of this... Would we not start to see time slow down for the star as it gets ever so closer to the event horizon? The change in time for us as observers would surely look like the star is approaching an asymptote since the passage of time of the star at the event horizon which we observe from a distance would stop altogether.

The natural conclusion I come to is that a "Black Hole" should in fact have a super-bright ring around it as we would see everything it ever swallowed in its entire existence due to time stopping at the event horizon for a distant observer. The objects being swallowed themselves would notice a stop in time of everything OUTSIDE the event horizon, including us, but we would see time stop for them at the event horizon.

Sorry to be long-winded, but I just don't get why a black hole should not be bright around the edge.

Anyone who sort of understands me, please correct my wrong hypothesis.

while i am 16, i follow this and it makes complete sense to me. technically there should be a ring around black holes.

[jb92563]

Originally Posted by coreseller

OMG this hilarious.

I think this is the solution for all the starving Hollywood wanabe's

A people black hole that sucks in all the proto stars.

I guess it will draw in Corvette museums as well

[pothole]

Originally Posted by The Radium King

uh ... light can't stand still - that's the premise of special rel - it goes at c regardless of frame of reference. that's why time slows - to make d= st work. it's the whole "what happens when i'm traveling at the speed of light and turn on my headlights" thing, just rephrased.

Yes, except that breaks down in a hypothetical scenario where time is standing still.

Think the reality is that time doesn't stand still and nor does light. But if time did stand still light simply has no velocity since velocity is distanced travelled over time and in that scenario there is no time.

[The Radium King]

the better argument might be that the process that creates the light (fusion) slows as time slows.

[epapp]

Or we could all just drive our cars before the black holes get us