Well, now that you've started trying, I guess I can refute more of your misconceptions.
"So Basically, you don't want to answer my question... and I do have valid arguements, you just got to look past your cockiness to see them."
You're right, if you don't present information with you "talk" then I don't want to answer. Since you are now using information, we can discuss
this. Whether your arguments are valid or not have yet to be seen... let's hope they become more apparent.
I"f you don't want to answer the question just say so, don't bring up some bullsh it excuse about " I choose not to""
"I choose not to" is a good way of saying, "I don't want to answer the question," don't you think? Oh well, on to your arguments.
"I did, just that RobertBurns got to them first and he basically answered those. Whats the point in me repeating what has to be said. He did add his
own twist to the theory, *giving props to RobertBurns*"
Robert Burns did not have a sound argument (true beliefs and right reasons for those who don't know what a sound argument is). His answers were far
from correct and you should have realized that when I disproved his post shortly after. Anyway, we should deal with the stuff at hand.
"YOU bring in Supermassive Black Holes to try to help you in the last moment, its not going to happen."
Last moment? This is not a race. Supermassive Black Holes are becoming an important facet of astronomy. Yes I am going to bring them in, because if
you actually read through my article you'd have read this:
"Exactly how our galaxy was created has mystified astronomers and physicists for years. Although there have been many theories, there's little
evidence to explain how the gas in the early Universe condensed to form the galaxy we see today. Now scientists realise they've been missing a vital
ingredient - a supermassive black hole. The immense gravity of a giant black hole might trigger the gas to collapse in the first place. By churning up
the gas around it, a giant black hole would trigger the birth of stars, planets and life itself. Despite being the most destructive thing in the
Universe, scientists now think our supermassive black hole could be crucial in creating the galaxy as we know it."
I believe you used the argument that we did not have evidence for such things as supermassive objects like stars and planets... I was just showing
simple proof that refutes it... proof you also believe.
"I happen to know that they are still working on that theory itself. I went to your website and saw that its outdated. I'll give you another there
website that shows how much that theory is changing"
It isn't changing. If you read the whole website and have actually been following the research, you'd realize that the supermassive blackholes have
a lot of evidence for what their importance are in a galaxy (and its formation). The medium sized black holes were just further proof that
supermassive black holes were developed using a logical method (black holes consuming other black holes and matter to become larger).
"But astronomers presumed such dynamic black holes were rare in older galaxies, their supplies of gas and dust presumably depleted over the
Well, then those astronomers are idiots. The longer you give them to feed, the longer they will feed. The black hole isn't going to decrease in
size just because their is less for it to gobble on... it just isn't going to get that much bigger.
"This changes our view of galaxy clusters as the retirement homes for old and quiet black holes," astronomer Paul Martini said last week"
Well, before we approach that, let's look at what you didn't post from that article:
"In another cosmic search with unforeseen results, scientists using the Chandra X-ray Observatory in space and the Carnegie telescope in Chile
detected six times more active supermassive black holes than expected in a cluster of aging galaxies. "
Yes, older galaxies have more supermassive black holes because they've had more time to feed. Galaxies have so much matter from birth that even the
old ones still have enough matter to support a number of supermassive black holes. That doesn't seem odd to me, does it to you? If anything, that
comes with the territory of the original idea that they existed.
"Science, ever changing, you basically stated that a theory about black holes is now into play"
Absolutely. This is necessary astronomy for a Big Bang theory.
"I see that after reading your website, the big bang was never mentioned, maybe thats because it was abandoned and a new theory has emerged."
The website presents evidence that refutes your previous argument. I don't care if it says BIG BANG by name, the counterargument just proves the
original argument wrong. There is no new theory, there is only the basic findings of astronomy.
"I don't really remember saying that the Supermassive Black Hole theory was incorrect. Its the big bang that I got a problem with."
Right... we're on the same page... you like supermassive black holes, but not the Big Bang.
"Ill leave you with this, If the Supermassive Black Hole theory is correct ... Then the Big Bang theory is wrong"
"Only one theory can be right, there is no inbetween."
Since when? Theories are often combined to create a better working theory. What do you think the Big Bang theory is? Do you think it is still the
exact same thing it was in 1927? No. I've already explained that. It is a dynamic theory with a lot of information behind it. Today it has more
support than ever.
"ONE AGAINST THE OTHER. Their both HYPOCRITICAL AND CONTRARY to each other"
What is? Supermassive black holes forming galaxies is something that happens after a big bang and still allows for the expansion we see today. Are
you still not seeing that? Have you never seen the timeline for the Big Bang?
"Thank you for proving MY POINT"
Ok, and what point was that?
Well, to give you a bit more proof, here is another website through NASA that does link supermassive black holes with the Big Bang:
Unless you also believe that you are smarter than the High Energy Astronomer at NASA, I suggest you find yet another angle with which to argue your
futile viewpoints from.
"-- Michael Loewenstein and Amy Fredericks for "Ask a High-Energy Astronomer"" ... the astronomer's names, just incase you thought I was kidding.