"Very well scientifically informed image of a black hole." Indeed. Thanks, Kip!

Wow! Your passion and enthusiasm for this subject is wonderful. Thank you for the presentation.

We want more! We want more! 😉 I would love to see a sequel to this video where you dive deeper into the subject of black holes!

Great Subject Thank you so much dear *Ri*

Absolutely amazing lecture ,thank you!!

Awesome. I love your excitement on astrophysics.

I like... /wanted to say astrophysics but it would be an overstatement of my abilities/ the fairytale version of space stuff, and this is more entertaining for me than the sum of all the movies of 2021. I will watch this many times, and can't thank you enough for phrasing it for my level of understanding.

The presentation is very fluid and easy to grasp, well done

Who likes a presentation all about black holes? ... I DO! No matter how many I seem to watch, I always love catching a good black hole presentation! I really enjoyed this video - it's a great basic introduction to black holes and so beautifully presented that it makes it easy to understand and follow. I must compliment Prof. Amélie Saintonge on doing a smashing job here! Royal Institute - you guys are the best! ;)

thanks, it was a great lecture.

Thank you for the video. :)

Great explanation; thanks a lot!

What a great presentation! Your passion for cosmology really comes through and is so inspiring.

Wonderful presentation! Worthy of the Ri!

That explenation how white dwarfs and black holes form is the best so far. So simplistic! Thank you!

Great stuff.

I love the excitement she has for her science. This is how I get when I try to explain the universe to my kids.

🎯Science Rock ! 👊🧐.. .. and Black Hole is a friend of Rock&Roll 🤘😎👍!! Thanks to all scientists and those who made this video possible.

This is incredible!

Thank you Amelie that was great. I have been fascinated by black holes for as long as i can remember. I think it started with the film "Black Hole" that was released in 1979 (which is truly awful!!) but the science behind black holes is incredible. I know when Christopher Nolan released "Interstellar" (which i have to admit is my favourite movie) he worked with Kip Thorne so the images used in the film would be as accurate as possible but i always wondered why it had that odd shape and for some reason never thought of the light lensing over the black hole, absolutely fascinating so thanks for bringing me clarity. I have to agree with you when it comes to the ingenuity of scientists when it comes to the myriad of problems they face and overcome every day using hard work, commitment and grey matter to increase our understanding of science. Keep up the good work!! :)

Wonderful presentation! Love your enthusiasm & knowledge. This is just the sort of thing to spread some astrophysical information out to the world. Kudos! If I might, I would add only a thing or two. At 23 min, you ask whether you want a small (stellar-mass) or a large (supermassive; galactic) BH, if you want to get as close as possible to the central singularity without being stretched & squeezed too much. The answer is actually the stellar BH, because the tidal gravitational stress at a given distance, r, from the center of either one, is proportional to the BH's mass (and to the inverse cube of r). If you want to get as close as possible to the EH (event horizon), then, yes, the answer is the galactic BH, whose EH is, of course, larger. Tidal gravity at the EH, where r = R, the Schwarzschild radius, is proportional to the inverse square of R. BTW, almost never mentioned, but worth noting, is that the "spaghettification" effect of tidal gravitation, acts as a stretching force in the radial direction, yes; but also as a compressive force in the two azimuthal directions, such that the algebraic sum of the three is zero. [The tidal gravitational stress tensor is trace-free.] Fred

Astronomy... Maths, physics, romantics...Still infinite and unrevealed. Delighted by the Ri stuff. Thumbs up!

Wonderful video for young students and those seeking introduction to black holes.

Supermassive black holes at the center of galaxies almost certainly had to have been directly formed in the early universe by some mechanism we are not aware of just yet. Or perhaps they are something else entirely different from stellar black holes. Pretty fascinating.

Nice talk! Vielen Dank!

Wonderful and accessible talk. Thank you Amélie Saintonge. 🌌

*What I found the most inspiring was your spirit... :). Every time I was at a point in the video that made me think to myself, "OMG...That's amazing", you ended up saying the exact same thing... lol. You have an inspiring personality and I hope you tour to speak to other Universities. I can guarantee that in Edmonton, Alberta Canada, the University of Alberta, as well as myself, would LOVE to have you speak.... I've seen many speak there,...*

The event horizon’s inside mystery sends very exciting to me!

Thank you.

What I love about theoretical physic and astronomy in general is that as of this writing the "laws" are not that well defined and seem to be modified when newer insights are peer reviewed.

nice and clear! if you ad an ICM(invisible complex matter) thats what start up the formation of stars so if they end up as an ICM that will rebalance the equation !!!

Great presentation Amélie. I thought it was very interesting that we haven't been able to detect any mid sized black holes!! I wonder why that is... is it because they dont exist? If so, why wouldnt they? Strange that we could only get super small or super big ones. Does this mean the formation methods of each type are fundamentally different processes?

@VeganAncientDragonKnight

2 жыл бұрын

Interestingly, even if we do find black around the intermediate range. The universe is simply not old enough to for the Supermassive Blackhole to even form by taking matter around it based on what we know about cosmology. So it had to form in a different way. One solution is what they call; a Quasi Star. An extremely massive star even far bigger than the biggest stars observed so far. That star being unfathomably massive that it creates a blackhole inside the star's core even while it forming. So these quasi-star have blackholes as their core. Which allows the star to be so massive because the insane radiation pressure created by the falling matter that keeps it from collapsing farther. Unfortunately we still haven't observe such stars yet. That's why I so excited for James Webb telescope. This revolutionary technology will allow us to see and know lots of things about our universe. It might answer our question on why we haven't observe intermediate blackhole.

@ConnoisseurOfExistence

2 жыл бұрын

Firstly, candidates for intermediate black holes have been found, as far as I know. Also, there is a hypothesis that some black holes might have formed in the very early universe, called primordial black holes. These could have great variety of masses, ranging from few grams, to billions, maybe trillions of solar masses. Also, if a black hole has begun very early, when the universe has been much denser than now, it could have gathered a lot of extra material from its surroundings.

So if I were falling into the event horizon of a black hole, and an outside observer would see me slow down to a stop, and never enter, then from my point of view would I see time for the entire universe go by super quickly? What happens after that? This was an amazingly fascinating talk, btw!

Great presentation!! Thank you!! Do we have any idea how matter is transformed as it falls into a black hole? Clearly it must disintegrate in some way due to spaghettification and/or gravity/pressure as it reaches the "surface" but if, as some physicists suggest, it retains information about what it was prior to falling in then it must retain some sort of structure? Or are we saying it retains a form of "metadata" referring back to it's former state? Probably a daft question being from an armchair-physicist but I find the whole area as fascinating as you clearly do! More! More!

@megelizabeth9492

2 жыл бұрын

From what I understand, we don’t know. Conservation of energy says that information can not be created or destroyed, only transformed. However if black holes evaporate through purely thermal Hawking Radiation, that creates a paradox.

This was very interesting. I love her accent. She says (on another site) she is French Canadian.

@22:50 the small one, since perhaps it’s like finding a key in a large messy room vs a small messy room 😅, the smaller one is probably more calm and easier to deal with( Anna less scary?)

Unhappy electrons is so cute phrase! )))

I have a question based on my current understanding of topic. A star lights off generic fusion at what point? The point at which the density of the formative cloud exceeds that required to sustain fusion. Should not every star light off at the same point in the time over density curve? Once it lights off, it pushes the rest of the Bok Globule (or whatever stellar wombs are) away, does it not? How, then, do more massive stars form?

@WildBillCox13

2 жыл бұрын

Are they purely collision artifacts?

@WildBillCox13

2 жыл бұрын

@Betatroll radiation pressure. It's the standard theory.

@BigNewGames

2 жыл бұрын

How can a black hole form if the gas and dust begins to flow away from stars upon them producing a solar wind? How would a star be able to grow to become a black hole?

It's often mentioned that black holes are infinitely dense and all mass is in a singularity, yet there are different "sizes" of black holes. I think generally we would imagine the size of something as the space where matter is located (I know, this definition does not apply to actual holes) which would be a contradiction to the definition. So I imagine the "size" would rather be something like its event horizon - the space surrounding the black hole where gravitiy becomes too high so we cannot observe anything any longer from the outside, which makes it look like a hole. But as the event horizon is a separate sphere (at least in the depictions) - what actually is the size? Another question, maybe related to the first one: Thinking in terms of physics under "normal" conditions again - the ratio of volume and radius/diameter. Assuming the ratio between mass and size of a black hole is the same as the ratio between radius/diameter and volume of a sphere then something seems to be a bit off to me when considering the most extreme instances of black holes. Maybe it's just the fact that those numbers are so big that we cannot intuitively relate them to each other any more, however: As it was stated in the video a black hole with the mass of the sun would just be the size of a part of London. Now I have also heard that the largest black holes are about 11x the size of our solar system! Thinking how vast distances only in our own solar system are and considering that the demand of mass (volume) is even exponential compared to the size (diameter), this makes me doubt my understanding of black holes. When I do a quick calculation based on those values, even when rounding off all of the intermediate results, this just seems way too extreme: Let's assume the Sun would be the size not only of a part of London, but all London - I will use 44 km. As size of our Solar system I took the distance between Pluto and the Sun, not anything further outside - 6.000.000.000 km - that should make the largest black hole about 72.000.000.000 km When I compare the volume of the sphere with one sun mass (44 km) and the one of the largest black hole I get a ratio of 3,375 * 10^27. This really seems a lot. Wouldn't that much matter missing in one place cause the space around it to contain less?

Now I understand about black holes thanks to you

Does the spin of the Galaxy help create the supermassive blackholes at the center of them and maybe they turn into the roaming small blackholes in a rapid sequence of events at the end of the life of the Galaxy & Super massive Blackhole ?

Just what I needed

Are their similar effects on space-time with mass in black holes and mass approaching the speed of light?

@laszu7137

2 жыл бұрын

Yes, vaguely. One is explained by special theory of relativity and the other by general theory of relativity.

Your passion is inspiring! Thank you for this fantastic talk.

we have a model for detecting t-shirts, we have some observations about xxl and s t-shirts behavior, but we have not really seen any t-shirt nor we have any idea how they work - but our model is cool

@5Andysalive

2 жыл бұрын

we have seen one. And the effect of them. Like stars at the galaxy center orbiting around something we can't see but obviously heavier than said stars. If you you have a better explanation for that, plan a trip to Oslo. But you probably need better arguments to convince them.

@gigelchiazna1573

2 жыл бұрын

@@5Andysalive how have we seen one? all we can see is a shadow

Will it be possible to get an ''HD image'' of the black hole in the center of the Milky Way with the James Webb Telescope?

@ffggddss

2 жыл бұрын

No. The optical angular resolution (smallest feature that can be distinguished) is directly proportional to λ/D, where D is the effective aperture of the instrument, and λ is the wavelength of radiation being imaged. For the Event Horizon Telescope, D is almost the diameter of Earth, ≈12,000,000 m, while λ is in the millimeter range (10⁻⁻³ m). For the JWST, D is 5 or 10 m, while λ is in the micron range (10⁻⁻⁶ m). No contest; EHT's resolution is about a thousand times finer. JWST's main strength is in other areas. Fred

@cokiyideolducokdaguzeliyio462

2 жыл бұрын

@@ffggddss Thank you for the answer Sir. I would also love to see a detailed Image of the Vela Pulsar but that seems not possible in the near future :-)

I think there is something about the missing data for the mid-size black holes has to do with other data that’s been staring us in the face for 100 years and is fundamental. Candidate: dark matter black holes 🕳

Could there be some kind of Darwinian selection force which acts upon black holes during galaxy formation, such that black holes are forced by the events to either fall into the super-massive black hole or become smaller ones in orbit? Is it possible that intermediary black holes are like often consumed or destroyed as a result?

Around 8:20, didn't she forget to mention neutron stars, which are in-between white dwarfs and black holes mass-wise? As far as I'm aware, neutron stars contract beyond electron degenerative pressure, but not beyond the "pressure" of atomic nuclei.

yay .. so cool :)

Since dark matter exerts gravity (has mass, interacts with the gravitation force, whatever), and we know gravity curves space and thus changes the path of light as it passes through space, do we have reliable tools to correct for the path-errors of light through space due to dark matter between us and the observed light?

@rylian21

2 жыл бұрын

Yes. Yes, we do. We can't detect Dark Matter directly, but we can see and measure its effects.

Wow! She has it all! Brains, beauty eloquence and above all a great educator 👌👌👍

@nfergistink110

2 жыл бұрын

This isn't a date site 😂 x

How is it that we can observe the effects of matter falling into a black hole when we know that from a distant observer time is frozen at the event horizon (so that basically nothing really falls into it if observed from far away...) ?

@holz_name

2 жыл бұрын

What we see is the matter that is around the black hole. Matter is accelerating while it rotates around the black hole, by doing so it collides with itself creating a lot of heat. That heat radiates away as x-rays. So we don't see the matter that is falling into a black hole, we see the matter around the black hole.

I think you needed to touch upon the Chandrashekhar limit, it's pretty important when talking about the fate of a star.

- "Да тише вы! Это же программист, понимаете? Комсомолец! Ученый!.." - "А ежели он цыкать будет?.."

Interesting presentation- every time I view a video on Black Holes I learn a little bit more about these singularities in space-time. Einstein, even late in his life doubted that Black Holes actually existed in the Universe. Black Holes are neither “black” nor are they “holes”. I prefer to think of Black Holes as pseudo-objects that have collapsed the three dimensions of space into one dimension and lack a dimension of time or time has stopped. The event horizon is a different matter all together

Just try to imagine the implications of a primate mammal on earth, developing the science, mathematics, and technology required to discover, observe and study these invisible astronomical bodies. That this is even possible is itself, an absurd miracle!

Please consider TON 168. This quasar is supposed to have many trillion times the mass and luminosity of our sun. One could get maybe several light-years away from it to have the coziness we have on earth. Probably not, as x-rays from it mess up this wider vicinity.

Thanks for the cool and very nice presentation! Can we stop calling it, black hole and start calling it black star?

The fact that black holes apparently come in different sizes, suggests that they are NOT infinitely small in the middle, and that there is some sort of limit beyond which matter cannot be compressed more. Am I light years off ?

The best size of a black hole would be a super massive black hole if you would like to study and experience what the event horizon would be like. However, getting the information back out would be impossible . Getting across the event horizon would be survivable for a long period of time. That would be a trip I would like to experience but not until late in life as it would probably be the last trip that I would take anywhere, Who knows, the bigger the hole the longer you would survive. But perhaps you could survive a super massive one .

Alrighty 🎉🎉 💖💛🧡💖❤💝

If we can never observe something falling into the black hole because for us, external observers, the crossing of an object by the horizon of events takes an infinite amount of time, how then can we detect actual black holes? Shouldn't we only detect a bunch of matter in the vicinity of the event horizon but not the black hole itself because it's yet to be created? From Wikipedia While most of the energy released during gravitational collapse is emitted very quickly, an outside observer does not actually see the end of this process. Even though the collapse takes a finite amount of time from the reference frame of infalling matter, a distant observer would see the infalling material slow and halt just above the event horizon, due to gravitational time dilation. Light from the collapsing material takes longer and longer to reach the observer, with the light emitted just before the event horizon forms delayed an infinite amount of time. Thus the external observer never sees the formation of the event horizon; instead, the collapsing material seems to become dimmer and increasingly red-shifted, eventually fading away.

@MrAlRats

2 жыл бұрын

Yes, from our perspective a black hole is in principle in a perpetual state of formation but all the infalling material will have faded from our view due to dimming and redshift. What we detect is radiation emitted by the accretion disk surrounding the (still forming) black hole.

@illogicmath

2 жыл бұрын

@@MrAlRats that's makes a lot of sense. There's the German astrophysicist Wolfgang Kundt (he holds a PhD, he's neither a newcomer nor a charlatan, he's emeritus professor at the University of Hamburg) who simply doesn't believe in the existence of black holes. I've read some articles of him, only those that are in English though because I don't speak German but I must say he has pretty solid arguments. Unfortunately who doesn't belong to the mainstream is set aside.

Question: What exactly is 'space' that it can have a hole in it?

@MrAlRats

2 жыл бұрын

It's just called a black hole. Our understanding of space and time is still incomplete. Einstein advanced our understanding a great deal. The presence of energy, momentum, and pressure in a region of space influences the geometry of the surrounding space. It also affects the pace at which time passes. Space and time are likely emergent features of more fundamental aspects of our Universe. There is an excellent book called 'The Shape of Space' by Jeffrey R. Weeks, which will explain what I mean by the geometry of space.

@charlesbrightman4237

2 жыл бұрын

@@MrAlRats Thank you for sharing. I was just wondering how others saw space, time and black holes. See the posts that following this one for my views.

@charlesbrightman4237

2 жыл бұрын

@@MrAlRats (copy and pastes from my files): FOR ME: 'Space' is energy itself. Wherever space is, energy is. Wherever energy is, space is. They are one and the same thing. And for me, the 'gem' photon is the energy unit of this universe that makes up everything in existence in this universe. 'Time' is the flow of energy. 'Time' (flow of energy) cannot exist unless 'space' (energy itself) exists. And 'space' (energy itself) that does not flow (no flow of time / energy) is basically useless. An entity cannot even think a thought without a flow of energy. If all the energy in the universe stopped flowing, wouldn't we say that 'time stood still'? Time itself would still exist, it would just not be flowing, (basically 'time' stopped). But then also, how space and time are linked in what is called 'space time', (energy and it's flow). * And everything in existence currently appears to be eternally existent energy interacting with itself.

@charlesbrightman4237

2 жыл бұрын

@@MrAlRats SPACE IS FINITE AND TIME IS INFINITE: ('Space' being energy itself, 'Time' being the flow of energy): Consider the following, utilizing modern science and logic and reason: a. Modern science claims that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, it's one of the foundations of physics. Hence, energy is either truly a finite amount and eternally existent, or modern science is wrong. b. An 'absolute somethingness' cannot come from 'absolute nothingness', 'absolute nothingness' just being a concept from a conscious entity in 'absolute somethingness'. Hence, an 'absolute somethingness' truly eternally existed throughout all of eternity past, exists today, and will most probably exist throughout all of future eternity. That eternally existent 'absolute somethingness' most probably being energy itself. c. The universe ALWAYS existed in some form, NEVER had a beginning, will most probably ALWAYS exist in some form, and possibly NEVER have an end. Alpha and Omega, beginning and end, have been replaced by actual reality. No Creator needed. d. And for me, 'space' is energy itself. Wherever space is, energy is. Wherever energy is, space is. They are one and the same thing. And 'time' is the flow of energy. Hence 'spacetime' being 'energy and it's flow'. 'Spacetime' had no beginning and will possibly have no end.

@charlesbrightman4237

2 жыл бұрын

@Betatroll Okay oh wise one: "Question: What exactly is 'space' that it can have a hole in it?"

I assume the "lost" information is not lost but like Hawking said, added to the surface of the black hole.

@ffggddss

2 жыл бұрын

Then the problem becomes, what happens to that information when the BH evaporates through Hawking Radiation? Which itself, carries none of the information that went into making the BH. Fred

I think, nice girls who are interested in astrophysics are even more rare than the supermassive blackholes :) Nice lecture, thanks and respect.

I've always assumed blackholes contained all the worlds missing socks. Socks are matter / energy, so it's possible... right?

Actually, if you're going to get anywhere close to the event horizon of a black hole, you're better off if it's a really big one, even one with a mass that is a billion times the mass of the sun. The event horizon would be very, very far from the "singularity", provided that such an entity exists. Of course you would run into matter traveling at enormous speeds, so no structures would survive as you get close to the event horizon.

There is both no evidenve nor any logic which would suggest that a black hole condenses to a point. There is still the mass of nuclear particles and they will not occupy the same space together in a point . A black hole creating star remnant is goin to be HUGE but definatlety a bitvsmaller than its event horizon

Black holes, the ultimate one-way streets! And falling into one is the ultimate immurement!

4:14 😀

It might confuse the intended audience to say all the mass would collapse to a point of infinite density, but also say a solar mass black hole would be a few kilometers in diameter.

@AcornElectron

2 жыл бұрын

Nah, everyone knows physics is as much faith and supposition as God. Works until it doesn’t.

@thechrisgrice

2 жыл бұрын

@@AcornElectron Oh no, here we go.

@leventetanka754

2 жыл бұрын

Brother Mine, because what is actually meant is not the size of the singularity itself, but the diameter of the Event Horizon. You are correct in pointing out that what was said was (strictly speaking) not correct.

@brothermine2292

2 жыл бұрын

@@leventetanka754 : You and I understand the latter size was the size of the event horizon, but the intended audience of beginners wouldn't yet know that.

@leventetanka754

2 жыл бұрын

@@brothermine2292 OK, fair enough.

What is gravity and why is it working the it is?

@dermotmccorkell663

2 жыл бұрын

I guess I think the math suggests! We have no solid ideas on what the anomaly called black holes are. We don't even know what gravity is yet.

@dermotmccorkell663

2 жыл бұрын

Explaining a thing is not understanding it.

I would say that the black hole size doesn't matter because both of them are equally dense so, they should have same effect on spacetime (greatly assuming that spacetime doesn't behave diffrently on larger scales, but ofc it does and it has now nullified my argument so, thanks dark matter). and also your findings become useless at the moment you end up inside the event horizon, so don't.

String Theory's fuzzballs really feel like they open up a little bit more about black holes may work. Of course, string theory remains only a theory right now, which is a pity.

All in this universe are default setting of our great nature. We can understand somewhat not all it's excellence.🌷

Blackholes are just mass punching though to the 'space' between universes. They all lead to the same place...the singularity that birth the next universe. There will never be heat death, just the slow, inevitable pull into the blackholes.

You have never witnessed matter collapsing in any experiment. Never mind baby stars. Kinnell.............

If, then. If gravity is based on size- it is- and a black hole is very small, then it has almost no gravity. Now what!

Completely skipped neutron stars...

Sound quality, 2/10

Bear in mind that observable ‘black holes’ aren’t as big as they appear. We only see ‘not’ the black hole.

Black Hole - A Black Mystery.

I'm thinking I might just keep my distance from any Black Hole... I'm not really into the old "rack torture"...! LoL...

Latest news, moon was bombardier by small mini holes. Proof on the moon surface.

oh dear....no electricity, no clue......but I think you know this......

@bobsmith231

2 жыл бұрын

What is that gibberish meant to mean?

Is the Hole actually black? Antimatter squatters leap forward not negatively So no Impact, just placed on 8th dimensions

Saint-Onge? Is Amélie Québécoise?

Rule one; black holes ain't actually holes. Rule two; see above.

Don.t confuse ‘mass’’ with ‘size’ folks.

@thstroyur

2 жыл бұрын

The Schwarzschild radius (or 'size' of a BH) is proportional to mass - that's what she meant

Unfortunately, these lectures just aren't the same without the lecturer standing on a stage in front of knowledge-hungry people. The whole dynamic changes. Nothing against this channel or this lecturer; there's nothing either one of them can do about it. I just hope it ends soon.

It's became clear that we don't know. It's only what we know now. Wait a minute it will change.

Sorry, I stopped watching after twenty minutes due to me being unable to block off the sound of you smacking your lips every five seconds.

But the problem is, this is all what most scientists want to talk about. And they repeat every other astrologer's message ad nauseam. Turn on a space science program, and you will find they have to fill most of that hour with black hole stuff as if we haven't heard of it...unless one is severely deranged.

Faraday 💘 the swinging bucket is entangled to source Sir Isaac Newton Machine punch 👊 some Stars 🌟 into existence, if not big particles beyond the photon. Which are small 😏

Black hole Sun, won't you come, and spaghettify everyone?

So what is a blackhole its SOMETHING but what? What makes sense we call black hole singularity's? We know our universe came from a singularity. *shrugs*

@jonathanjollimore7156

2 жыл бұрын

@Betatroll Yea I know I am getting a Nobel Prize for that

I liked your sound noises, thanks. It's not that Light can't escape a blackhole. It's Light can't exist in a blackhole. The Universe is Dielectric energy and Dielectric voidence field/Magnetism. Magnetism gives Magnitude to the Universe. Gravity = after magnetism returns to Dielectric energy, there are no longer transverse waves to create nodes that EM waves/Light propagate on. Everything in the Universe has compression ~ rarefaction ~ compression ~ rarefaction ~ ... Light is compression and rarefaction of the Aether field. Between compression and rarefaction is the bouncing off the coaxial circuit of the Inertial plane. FLASH, so called Photon. Hydrogen 74% of Universe. Helium 23% of Universe. Are blackholes:megablackholes, 3:1? Hydrogen before the Grand Expand. Helium after the Grand Expand. Anton Petrov said this. Blackholes created before the Grand Expand. Megablackholes created after the Grand Expand. Neutron = Compression. Proton, Neutrino (oscillating Inertial plane), Electron = Rarefaction.

@thechrisgrice

2 жыл бұрын

Nonconcensusical? More like nonsensical.

@gyro5d

2 жыл бұрын

@@thechrisgrice More like Nonconsensus ical.

@thechrisgrice

2 жыл бұрын

@@gyro5d I'm sorry you don't understand human communication.

@gyro5d

2 жыл бұрын

@@thechrisgrice What?

The history of black holes started 100 years ago? Really?

How can there be a 101 class when we are currently questioning our very understanding of gravity right now? What about the "fuzzy" black hole interpretation? Waste of time.