Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => Arts & Talents => Topic started by: Nobilis Draco on December 14, 2002, 04:10:30 pm
-
Done in Lightwave.
(http://www.jimburton.com/images/blackholeg.jpg)
-
rename to wormhole then it is accurate.
-
Actually, it's a pretty good version. Accretion disc and a pair of high-velocity jets.
-
This is better than the one I found cause the lgiht is not so 'harsh', and it better depicts what I envison as a huge acceleration disk surrounding the event horizon... If it's not to much trouble, do you have an earlier version without the jets? Or a bigger background so it'll fit in game better. (see there is this [Censored] and :blah: :blah: ] That is if you're willing to let it be used in game (for public release).
-
I did one too ( same kind ), and somebody told me it looked bnothing like a real one is supposed to look. I made some searches, and the damn guy was hell... right :blah:
Anyway, it still looks cool that way, I just think the light "cones" are too wide
-
First- Black hole too small make it bigger
Second- Make the dust particles fall into the hole in lines
Third- more color variation.
-
Make the dust fall in in lines? I'm not quite sure what you mean.
-
less swirly more defined streams of matter into the hole
-
Black holes are supposed to be small...they're also not supposed to be visible since light can't escape them, but thats ok ;)
Nice graphics by the way :p
-
Now if only I could so stuff like that in LightWave. Ah well. Looks great if you asked me. :D
-
Originally posted by LtNarol
Black holes are supposed to be small...they're also not supposed to be visible since light can't escape them, but thats ok ;)
Nice graphics by the way :p
hmm, the black hole at the center of our galaxy is supposed to be gigantic. you can't see the blackhole, but you can see the acretion disk, and I've seen simulations of it, t looks weird ( you see the part of the acretion disk suposedly hidden behind the black hole both under and over the black hole itself, it makes some really weird distorsion effect ).
-
thanks and they're supposed to be swirly it has to do with frame dragging and the ergo sphere and a bunch of stuff that's really complicated. mine should be more swirly than it is. and your right you cant see a black hole that whould be the black dot at the center which is the event horizon. what you can see is the accretion disk, the big swirly thing.
-
shameless p1mp:
http://dynamic4.gamespy.com/~freespace/image.php?server=dynamic&url=art/big/gallery21/ottbh.jpg
that's mine :p
same pb as yours, as you can see ( plus mine is daaaaaaaark, but I always make dark renders )
-
Originally posted by LtNarol
Black holes are supposed to be small...they're also not supposed to be visible since light can't escape them, but thats ok ;)
Nice graphics by the way :p
Bad Narol! Back to elementary cosmology for you!
The accretion disc is visible from the outer edge to the event horizon because the matter is swirling in, constantly accellerating. As it gets pulled closer in and moves faster, there's less room for it to move, and collisions start happening. Pretty soon, you're seeing energy being bled off as light.
Singularities are small, but the black hole (as defined by the event horizon can be quite large, because it is defined by the mass of the singularity. As Venom said, the SMBH at the center of the Milky Way is absolutely massive.
-
meh, I was refering to the singularity, not the disc :p
-
I'm sure there are a variety of sizes so who's to say how big the A disk is for any particular hole? Also there is the distance perspective... some might look tiny but have a huge a Disk depending on what type/amount of matter is being sucked in. I loved that movie "The Black Hole"... HAs someone modeled the Cygnus???;7
-
Quick bit. The last time I checked (and I've been behind on my cosmology of late), the black hole at the center of our galaxy likely doesn't have much of an accretian disk. This is due to the fact that everything with range has already been eaten. There's no more fuel. Regular black holes, however, probably look like the picture (well, the disk anyways).
-
Originally posted by Eishtmo
Regular black holes, however, probably look like the picture (well, the disk anyways).
no they don't, the gravitational force deforms even light, which results in important visual aberations. look there:
http://www.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de/staff/hfalcke/bh/sld11.html
not the best exemples I saw, but this one can do.
Btw, the galactic black hole in the center of our galaxy ( the singularity itself I mean ), is supposedly 3 million kilometers wide, which is, after all, really small ( less than 4 times the sun if I'm not mistaken )
-
Originally posted by Star Dragon
I'm sure there are a variety of sizes so who's to say how big the A disk is for any particular hole? Also there is the distance perspective... some might look tiny but have a huge a Disk depending on what type/amount of matter is being sucked in.
The size of the accretion disc is based on only two things: the distribution/density of matter within the "reach" of the singularity and the mass of the singularity.
The larger the singularity mass, the larger the radius of the event horizon. That defines the inner limit of the accretion disc. The outer limit of the accretion disc is the "reach" of the singularity, before its gravity is overwhelmed by other, more local, strong gravity sources.
The density and distribution of matter between these inner and outer limits determines the character of the accretion disc.
-
but how do you know it's wrong? have you ever been to a black hole? are a professional astronomer?
-
Originally posted by venom2506
Btw, the galactic black hole in the center of our galaxy ( the singularity itself I mean ), is supposedly 3 million kilometers wide, which is, after all, really small ( less than 4 times the sun if I'm not mistaken )
Venom's right.
That's pretty damned huge for a singularity, though. When you consider that Sol could only create a singularity slightly smaller than Mercury, a singularity four times the size of the Sol's current size is GIGANTIC. :D
-
Originally posted by Carl
but how do you know it's wrong? have you ever been to a black hole? are a professional astronomer?
how? coz some people can read what real astronomers say about it maybe? And I think they know their job :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by venom2506
Btw, the galactic black hole in the center of our galaxy ( the singularity itself I mean ), is supposedly 3 million kilometers wide, which is, after all, really small ( less than 4 times the sun if I'm not mistaken )
Er, singularities by definition are mere points in spacetime and have absolutely NO size at all, thus making any discussion of them having size is about as meaningless as it gets. :rolleyes:
This pulled from http://www.dictionary.com
A point in space-time at which gravitational forces cause matter to have infinite density and infinitesimal volume, and space and time to become infinitely distorted.
When you're speaking of black holes having size you can only refer to the mass of it or the size of the event horizon which is where nothing can escape from it.
-
Disregarding any comments about scientific accuracy, the pic is pretty damn good! How did you do it?
:)
-
Originally posted by Cannikin
Er, singularities by definition are mere points in spacetime and have absolutely NO size at all, thus making any discussion of them having size is about as meaningless as it gets. :rolleyes:
This pulled from http://www.dictionary.com
A point in space-time at which gravitational forces cause matter to have infinite density and infinitesimal volume, and space and time to become infinitely distorted.
When you're speaking of black holes having size you can only refer to the mass of it or the size of the event horizon which is where nothing can escape from it.
they do have a size, and for informations about space stuff I sure don't look into the dictionary, mostly when datas about the subject change every month, so don't go :rolleyes: at me.
and if you translate "a point" with "no size", well... I can't help you.
-
;7
Anyway while searching for backgrounds I did come across many Astro sites that do say there is a Black Hole Super Cluster (meaning multiple) near the center of teh galaxy and that they range in sizes up to (and including) a solar system... Now I read this like 4 or 5 months ago but I'm sure I could find it again if you really want me to look (better yet look for your self and then tell us) :p
I thought that was incredible, but also a bit scary... So the human race in say 4 billion years has to leave sol cause of our sun going nova, bu then has to find a place that hasn't gotten eaten by the BH's ? The're screwed... (Unless they time travel back and settle other galaxies)... Cuase we're all full chief! :lol:
-
Originally posted by venom2506
and if you translate "a point" with "no size", well... I can't help you.
Wow, you gotta show me how to measure the volume of a point sometime. :wtf:
And no, I wasn't trying to insult you in my last post. That's just what I've always learned about black holes (in many books I've read) and that's what I'm sticking with.
Of course no one can really tell anyone that they're wrong about singularities until they've seen one (which will never happen).
-
Btw, am I the only person having problems seeing the pic? It refuses to show up for some reason. :confused:
-
Originally posted by Cannikin
Btw, am I the only person having problems seeing the pic? It refuses to show up for some reason. :confused:
No, i'm having problems also :(
-
Oh and venom, allow me to point to some references here:
This one pretty much sums up the reason why it has no size:
From: http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/ask/a11334.html
We are guided in our understanding of the interior of black holes by the theory of general relativity developed by Albert Einstein, and in particular, the mathematics of the complete, relativistic equation for gravity and space- time. General relativity predicts that once the surface of a body passes inside its event horizon, the nuclear forces that once held-up its compressed stellar matter as, for instance, a neutron star, are completely overwhelmed by the force of gravity which acts in only one direction..further compression. At the horizon, neutronized matter passes into a pure gas of individual quarks. As the quark gas continues to compress into smaller and smaller sub-horizon volumes, these zero-mass, point-like particles are crushed closer and closer together so that their inter-quark 'strong nuclear force' continues to plummet. Eventually near the singularity, you end up with a body where all of the constituent quarks and gluon fields occupy a vanishing volume, but since their total field energy remains non-zero, you end up with a classical 'infinite energy DENSITY' singularity. There are many complications to this, but thye bottom line is that neutron star matter is only a transition phase with a fleeting lifetime.
From: http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/NumRel/BlackHoleAnat.html
The Singularity: At the center of a black hole lies the singularity, where matter is crushed to infinite density, the pull of gravity is infinitely strong, and spacetime has infinite curvature. Here it's no longer meaningful to speak of space and time, much less spacetime. Jumbled up at the singularity, space and time cease to exist as we know them.
From: http://spaceboy.nasda.go.jp/note/kagaku/e/kag103_tokuiten_e.html
Black holes occur at the point where time and space become indefinable... But having bent space to a certain point it must inevitably reach a singular point (where time and space become indefinable). This is known as the Penrose-Hawking singularity theorem. It explains the destruction of space-time by gravity, and black holes are singular points enclosed by "event horizon"... At a central point, gravity becomes infinite, time and space are bent, and concepts of time and space, as we know them, become irrelevant
From: http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/010912a.html
This is indeed difficult to grasp. Actually at the center of a black hole spacetime has infinite curvature and matter is crushed to infinite density under the pull of infinite gravity. At a singularity, space and time cease to exist as we know them. The laws of physics as we know them break down at a singularity, so it's not really possible to envision something with infinite density and zero volume.
From:http://www.cakes.mcmail.com/StarTrek/singular.htm
1.7 Singularity.
An area of space so dense the degenerate neutronic forces/pressures can not withstand the combined force per unit area of the gravitons from the stellar mass. This creates an implosion whereby the collapse only stops when the body occupies a space of infinitesimal dimension.
From: http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~js/glossary/black_hole.html
The crushing weight of constituent matter falling in from all sides compresses the dying star to a point of zero volume and infinite density called the singularity.
Oh and last but not least:
From: any dictionary or math book
A Point: A dimensionless geometric object having no properties except location.
-
Sorry all for spamming the topic with all this technical stuff. :nervous:
I finally saw the pic itself and it looks good! The accretion disk should appear like a big blurred mass near the event horizon, but towards the outside there should be a distinct stream(s) that indicate that the matter is being pulled in.
-
zll your exemples can be resumed in one little sentence that you find about each time: center of the black hole :p
when you talk about Earth you don't talk only about its center right? I've read many articles about the size of a black hole, and they all agreed to say they ranged from about 3 to 3 000 000 km wide ( guess the "3" part is just a coincidence :p ), and I believe them, so no need to argue furthermore ;)
-
Originally posted by Styxx
Disregarding any comments about scientific accuracy, the pic is pretty damn good! How did you do it?
:)
Thanks! I used spline draw to model the cross-section of the disk then lathed it so the disk would have the proper shape it's hard to see it in that shot. the texture was 85% photoshop. I made a swirly map and applyed it planar. the rest such as color and luminosity where done with procedural gradiants. the X- ray jets where Volumetric Lights.
-
so when you are talking about the "size" of a blak hole you're talking about the event horizon assosiated with it,
and the material just about to get sucked in should be glaringly bright, other than that it looks great
-
YEAH! WHO CARES IF IT LOOKS GOOD, IT'S ONLY GOOD ART IF IT MAKES SCIENTIFIC SENSE!!!!!!!!!!!111111111111111111111111111111111 :rolleyes:
-
Looks cool, nice to see ND on the HLPBB...
-
I think it would look better as well as being more acurate,
what am I a freak or something :wtf:
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
I think it would look better as well as being more acurate,
what am I a freak or something :wtf:
No, you're not, Bob. I feel the same way.
-
Originally posted by Carl
YEAH! WHO CARES IF IT LOOKS GOOD, IT'S ONLY GOOD ART IF IT MAKES SCIENTIFIC SENSE!!!!!!!!!!!111111111111111111111111111111111 :rolleyes:
"remembers about a sentence - That ship makes no sense-"
Oh yeah! You really are one to talk, congrats, at least, you do have some nerves :rolleyes:
-
it looks nice although i doubt you'd be able to see the black speck in the middle before your optic nerves burnt out - and try to make the jets more fiery...imagine that matter getting blasted out of the poles by magnetic fields at a good fraction of the speed of light.
-
yup wevil has a point your chances of seeing the black sped are slim to none its tiny in comparaision to teh acresion disk and very dak asgast and insanely bright disk - flares could use abit more fire too
that said the not seeing the hole helps my black hole cause its an awesome acrection disk but i cant think of anyway to make the hole visable - anyway its animating now maybe psot it tomorrow
-
All the scientific stuff aside... that's the best rendered black hole I've ever seen. (I've seen some hand-painted stuff which is better, but rendering is different altogether!) Kudos! :D
-
Thanks alot Setekh!:)