Here is my issue with saying black holes exist. The definition of what a black hole is/can be has constantly changed So what is being said to exist? If you substitute different terms it becomes much clearer just how ridiculous it is. For instance (and this follows closely with the history of black holes) Unicorns exist! What is a unicorn? A horse with a single horn Ah yes, I have seen one of those! Apparently single horns on horses is impossible, but horns in pairs is possible Oh okay, well the blurry object in the field out there, it is a unicorn How do you know, is it a horn with one horn? Ha, horses with one horn is impossible, it must have 2 horns So you see a horse with two horns? Well... I see something out there in the field, I'll call it a unicorn, it is something Yes it really is that ridiculous. It brings me WAY down to hear shit like black holes being mentioned in the same breath as science. It was a hypothetical entity NOT strictly prohibited by relativity, where so much mass in a given area would produce a gravity well that is inescapable, even to light. Quantum mechanics said this is impossible because information cannot be created or destroyed, yatta yatta battle ensued, the QM objection won, so the black hole was modified, and modified, and modified. No event horizon, but an "apparent horizon". I couls go on and on but really, the point is, we cant say black holes exist because what a black hole is, isnt even decided yet!
How do you know the "terminal velocity" of the speed of light? Also, what makes any supposed scientist believe there are laws of nature? Do those laws come into existence with the big bang or do they transcend it?
You are correct. That is not an image of a black hole. That is an image of a accretion disk surrounding the black hole. You could never have an image of a black hole because there's nothing to photograph being that no light can escape them.
Terminal velocity and the speed of light are two different things. Terminal velocity depends on a lot of factors and can vary a lot. The terminal velocity of a falling leaf is much lower than the terminal velocity of a lead brick. The top speed of light is something I looked up. lol Scientists don't 'believe' in laws of nature. They record data and when they find a common recurring thing that is repeatable and demonstrable they say things like 'Hooray I've discovered Ohm's Law' or 'Through long observation by astronomers across many millennia, it has long been established that the precession of the earth on its axis takes almost 26,000 years.' The laws of physics were defined and evolved through the early Big Bang. Read "The Science of Discworld" for a layman's explanation of the history of science.
Well, kinda. Except I'd say what people believe is influenced by science because science itself isn't about belief, it's about proof. Belief is the bugbear of science, which scientists always have to guard against, and often fall afoul of... like the whole boondoggle with cold fusion back in 1989. Ultimately proofs win out over beliefs because belief varies from individual to individual, but proofs don't care what anyone believes. The boiling point of water at sea level with relative humidity of 50% is the same in India as it is in the United Kingdom. It doesn't change depending on the views of the person boiling the water. It doesn't care whether the person doing the boiling believes in boiling water. And of course, there is no 'it' to care. It's a process, not an entity.
It is an apt analogy, both are hypothetical entities that only exist in imagination and art. I am rarely high, is chances are I wasn't high at the time.