File talk:Black Hole Milkyway.jpg

Material falling into black holes

What kind of mitirial can a back hole not destroy?

Uh, don't you mean "material"? Black Holes destroy everything that comes within a certain range of it. The range depends on the size of the black hole. Plus this picture is completely incorrect. A black hole's center is about the size of the period at the end of this sentence. わwaらraうu Smile! 05:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)moocowsrule

Size of a black hole

(Duplicated comment, to allow separation of threads. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 22:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC))

Uh, don't you mean "material"? Black Holes destroy everything that comes within a certain range of it. The range depends on the size of the black hole. Plus this picture is completely incorrect. A black hole's center is about the size of the period at the end of this sentence. わwaらraうu Smile! 05:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)moocowsrule

Yes, but a lot of light is bent and even completely stopped from reaching your eye at a certain radius, so the picture is indeed accurate. 71.55.248.187 (talk) 17:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Hawking radiation

I believe I read somewhere that because of radiation emanating from the black hole, it would not appear as black or a hole but would be very bright. Now, I don't remember where I read this over the past few months or who said it (source etc.), so I need to go check out all the books I read from the library again. I believe it might have been in a Stephen Hawking book. If anyone here has read this somewhere, or could clarify this if I confused what I read, it would be very helpful. 98.221.38.90 (talk) 11:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)DanMhwk

This is Hawking radiation. It's far too dim to make a visible difference in this particular image. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 22:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Inaccuracies with this picture

The image is displaying two inaccuracies: 1. The image is only looped once, where it should be looping an infinite amount of times before the circle. 2. Towards the circle where light does not escape the light should become dimmer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.203.149.34 (talk) 22:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

This version of the picture is a still JPEG image. If there's an animated image you feel should be modified, by all means comment, but on that image's talk page.

Regarding dimming of light, I agree that this should occur (due to the lensed light being spread over a larger angular area). However, I'm not sure that would improve the picture (it'd make it harder to see the lensing effect that it's trying to depict). Would you be willing to produce altered versions of the picture so that we can see what your proposed modified version would look like? --Christopher Thomas (talk) 22:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

"... as seen from a distance of 600km..."

Really? 600 kilometres? Sounds awfully close, to me... Elio1 (talk) 05:40, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Black holes are actually quite small. Its described by the Schwarzschild Radius. Here's its article. But if you just want a fast answer, a Stellar black hole would be around 30 kilometers. The page I linked was a tad confusing. 74.132.249.206 (talk) 16:40, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

"... as seen from a distance of 600km..."

Really? 600 kilometres? Sounds awfully close, to me... Elio1 (talk) 05:40, 19 April 2012 (UTC) Whoops - sorry - hit "save" twice... How does one delete one's mistakes? Elio1 (talk) 05:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Clarification

There should be a prominent multi-lingual message indicating that this is not an actual photo, but a digital approximation of how a photo of a black-hole phenomena would appear.

It's disingenuous to fail to mention when a photo is manipulated, even when the manipulation is illustrative or scientifically correct. A manipulated photo should be referred to as an illustration, not s photograph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.175.15 (talk) 15:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC)