Now you see your it, now you don’t.

Would be nice to see a neutron star popping out of existence like that. The main problem would be time, money, patience, and the doubtful future of mankind.

We have seen this already. We also have seen stars collapse into black holes. Not sue what you expect to come of this...

We can't observe it directly because objects in space are VERY far away and small. We can however see that there was a supernova and the star is gone and now there appears to be a feeding black hole because there are massive jets coming out of where the star used to be or a blank spot where it used to be.

[removed]

I have issues with the author, yes, but I also genuinely have some issues with the way NAOC (seem to) approach this, however hard that apparently is to believe.

[removed]

Jose Hernandez applied 12 times before he was accepted as an astronaut. Get qualified and be persistent.

But what if you tie the string to a little piece of Hawking radiation? Checkmate, atheists.

"Black holes are where God decides by zero"

>couldn't we just watch the neutron star until it gains enough mass to become a black hole?

Sure. You got a few million years? Patience is a virtue.

Hmm... If my understanding of our best theory to date is correct (and the theory is correct), you probably cannot pull it back, as the direction "back" no longer exists as you pass the event horizon.

In reality the line would snap.

The timeframe, distances.

Also, there have probably been detections of the formation of black holes by LIGO and VIRGO when they have felt the gravitational waves from neutron stars colliding.

Nope. You only appear to be part of the event horizon to a distant observer. You actually travel to the center of the black hole and are crushed and die. It is inevitable because all paths inside a black hole flow to the center. It is actually impossible to not reach the center. Even if you change direction you reach the center. It is as inevitable as time itself. Trying to go out of the black hole is like going back in time and so is impossible.

You are confusing what a distant observer sees to what happens to you.

[removed]

So I'm not sure about all this, but I do have an MS in optics, so I do have a firm grasp on optical communication and dispersion and such things.

The "infinitely blue shifted" light that would be incident on you from everything "outside" would not contain any causal information (a pulse that was originally 101, would now have all of those in superposition - the original message could have been 110, 101, or 011, and you wouldn't be able to tell the difference).

You'd be receiving all of the radiative energy that the black hole ever gobbles up after you instantaneously. So, any temperature calculation you'd do would just yield infinity, including a speculative black body radiation calculation (infinitely blue shifted).

[removed]

No.

Amateur theory here. Happy to be corrected.

You pass the event horizon and the entire rest of the universe occurs blueshifted indefinitely directly over you. Any event horizon, regardless of the mass, is uncrossable in a finite amount of time. The amount of time it takes for a black hole to evaporate is finite.

You become part of the black hole long enough to become its hawking radiation, and disperse your energy among the...well...

Void.

I'm surprised we haven't seen more

“Seconds From Disaster” (a Nat Geo series). There’s an episode on Columbia.

Not sure where you can find it though - try on YouTube or somewhere else on the interwebs.

[removed]

I thought anything entering a black hole would get immediately torn apart like spaghetti.

As objects approach the black hole (event horizon), they speed up to near the speed of light. At which point, their mass is greatly increased.

Basically you would need an impossible amount of energy to pull anything out of a black hole, if it were hypothetically possible.

Thank you! That is really interesting and I'm definitely about to go down a rabbit hole on this. I appreciate that!

? Quote “we already had the MOVIE in 1991” ? Sounds like he was talking about a movie

> Temperature is a measurement of vibrations in particles essentially.

That's the entry-level understanding of it in matter, but the scientists have come up with new better understandings based on entropy - which is how we end up with negative temperatures that are hotter than any positive temperature, and exist in lasers.

> Mathematically time stops in a singularity. If that is so then, in my incredibly layman-style interpretation, Temperature is physically the same as absolute 0 K.

Nope - particles' momentum is related to temperature, and they keep their momentum if you stop time - they can't move anywhere because no time is passing, but their velocity is still non-zero.

This is quite distinct from particles inhabiting the lowest possible energy state (ie being at absolute zero) where they don't move (or do weird stuff) even though time is passing

This video explains it very well.

Your object isn't a unified object. But these are all theories. The part of the object passing the event horizon would either split apart from the atoms not in the event horizon or explode. But no-one can really truly know.