It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Magnetic mega-star challenges black hole theory

page: 2
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 09:51 AM
link   
Maybe you are right but theres no harm in trying now is there? But with your attitude we will be stuck forever in the cycle we are in now.

One of the biggest mistakes humans have made is thinking that we are above - and sepearate from - all other life on this planet, when this could not be further from the truth. If we lived closer to nature we would understand it better. If we think we are above or beyond it then we can never get close enough to it.

Humans have harnessed the atom, we have microscopic machines in most of our modern devices that are close to operating on the atomic level. We have machines that can convey our thoughts across the entire planet almost instantly - so how the hell can anyone say we are incapable of understanding?

As I said before, there are always individuals with a greater capacity than the rest of us, who innovate, who think and who change things. Without these we would still be living in caves.

Believing in the ability to understand and master the workings of universe is not arrogance at all. It is arrogant to think that we are above, beyond and better than everything else - because we will always be a part of it even if (WHEN) we master its workings.




posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by EnactedEgoTrip
If we lived closer to nature we would understand it better.


I strongly doubt it. The bushmen and other aboriginal people are immersed in nature, however I didn't see it in the news that they sent a robotic mission to the night side of Pluto or landed on an asteroid.



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 10:02 AM
link   
This thread has really derailed... I'm sure there are already several threads arguing the merit of science and I doubt that this thread was intended to be one.

Having said that, this is pretty intriguing. I think I remember hearing about this a few years ago actually. One of the things that first popped into my mind as I read the article was that it was a binary system, but in a different manner.

I'm not sure what resolution the images of this object have been taken in or if this was even put into consideration, but what if the star they have discovered is a binary system of very close neutron stars.

It would explain the star's higher than normal mass. I would also imagine that two counter-rotating objects of such mass would have quite the magnetic field, but more than likely they would be tidally locked.

Regardless, this is a great story. Thanks for bringing it to the board's attention.



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by EnactedEgoTrip
 


Lol, nobody is suggesting that we give up on or shelf scientific study, rather recognize and embrace what may or may not be reality. To understand the concept that we may not be able to understand something, is a breakthrough in of itself. It's just like the notion of a failed scientific theory not being a failure at all, as it enables us to know what doesn't or can't exist. If a dog is able to understand that it can not understand the English language, then that dog is intelligent and understands a concept beyond its level of intelligence. The dog would actually be advancing its intelligence.

Edit to add:

reply to post by cmdrkeenkid
 


Your absolutely right, the philosophy of science is not the topic of this thread, but it may go along way in understanding the phenomenon of observations defying "known" science. Having said that, I think this particular news is far too interesting - and important - to be sidelined because of philisophical debate.

To get back on topic, I wonder if this will bring us back to the drawing board for understanding black holes and/or how they form.

--airspoon

[edit on 20-8-2010 by airspoon]



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 08:54 AM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 


Perhaps you are incapable of understanding the universe.

I, however, am capable of understanding it, given the proper observations about the universe.

It is my specialty. Everything has rules, cycles, principles and underlying mechanics. My mind is often capable of understanding something's function at merely a glance.

Arrogance? Perhaps. But you never learn anything by presuming you can't learn something. That includes when you think you have already learned all there is to know, and presume there is nothing more to learn.

But don't take my word for it. I'll continue to learn and create. You continue to... whatever you'd claim.

As per the topic - I think the problem comes from our model of the lifetime of a star, and our concepts of how stars and galaxies came to exist.

I see no reason why large clumps of gas should spontaneously form into gravitationally dense bodies - electrical and physical properties would keep gravity at bay well enough to prevent any sort of cohesive unit (look at nebulas - supposedly new stars are all over the place in there, but we're missing something with how fusion-capable densities are reached within a system that seeks to disperse equally through the universe).

And, of course, this brings into question the idea of a 'black hole' and even neutron stars. If star formation is completely different than we model - then star death is likely to be even more quirky - if they really 'die.'

I developed an ad-hoc theory at one time that stars are actually evaporating singularities and will go through multiple cycles of 'death' and rebirth. There are plenty of holes in it - but it essentially states that all stars (or, most of them, at least) start as 'black holes' and eventually decay into neutron stars or nothing at all - after going through several nova/super-nova stages (which would develop the heavier elements that make up inner planets in our solar system - something the existing model doesn't really address).

Granted - it's not intended to stand up to scrutiny - it's just a sort of 'idea on the table' sort of theory.



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 11:39 AM
link   
Isn't it impossible for matter to disappear? common sense says it is...evidence is continuously amassed on black holes being a thing of imagination. From what I know so far black holes have never been observed directly.



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 


You have no idea whether you can understand the universe. You only think you understand the universe because you can understand your your perception of it. Whether your perception of the universe is correct or not, you will probably never know.

"Our mind is of three categories: What we know, what we don't know, and what we don't know we don't know. Not knowing is unfortunate; not knowing that we don't know is tragic." --W. Erhart

--airspoon



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 07:48 PM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 


The perception is all we have to go off of.

I fully expect and anticipate to see my view of the world challenged every day - not in the sense of someone else having another idea, but in seeing something that forces me to re-think what I previously held true.

That's all we can ever do, is be aware that we can't see everything in its entirety. Just like I can look at a computer and not be able to figure out how it puts an image on the screen because I have no concept of the atom or electron. Maybe we will later come along and find out "you know... these particle things... not really the best way to describe them or how they behave, better to call them X or Y."

Just like Gravity - I think we got off on the wrong foot when we started thinking about it as a force-field (like EM radiation) instead of a property of entropy (which would make sense as to why Gravity appears to have no opposite).

As for another poster commenting on how black holes violate information equivalence - there are many theories regarding "black holes" that resolve this. One theory revolves around black holes as a function of entropy, by which a black hole would form, but a singularity would not (meaning that the 'event horizon' would not really exist, either). Other theories, such as the Holographic Principle, resolve conflicts with information equivalence and black holes.

And "black holes" have been observed indirectly. Or, rather - masses in excess of a hundred solar masses have been observed to influence the path of stars with there being no directly visible object. That would imply a concentrated amount of mass that does not emit much in the way of radiation to detect - for all intents and purposes, a black hole - even if it doesn't function quite the way we believe it does (which is a bigger problem for physics than it would seem, but the overall idea is supported by observed phenomena).

I mean - we'll have to wait until we can fly out there and have a look, but the pure and simple irony is that, by time we can do that in a reasonable amount of time, we won't need to see a black hole to know the physics behind it.



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by above
The fact that we know very little does not however give permission to come up with absurd ideas such as black holes.


Lack of knowledge in the field of physics does not give anyone permission to come up with absurdly pompous statements.


What is your problem?

Are you trying to say that one can come up with anything, just as long it is possible to imagine such a thing, and then start to teach it as a fact? If you did not read it between the lines, i am against teaching thought experiments as facts. Nothing wrong with having (absurd) ideas, in fact fresh ideas are a necessity for science to go anywhere.

And for the record, the only one here being pompous is you since you cannot possibly know how much i know about physics, yet you claim lack of knowledge.

You are being rude, and accepting things of faith as fact. Ignorance must be bliss


[edit on 8/28/2010 by above]

[edit on 8/28/2010 by above]



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by airspoon

granted those theories are based on observable evidence.

--airspoon


Isn't that kind of like having the subtitle "based on real events"? Rarely is it ever even close.

The problem is, observable evidence is extrapolated to such a degree that it becomes too far detached from its source. Then THESE theories are accepted as well, which makes all other extrapolated theories that rely on them false.

This, and the belief that science has been stifled in the arenas of energy and aerospace, fuel my distrust. I cannot speak for others.

[edit on 28-8-2010 by bigfatfurrytexan]




top topics



 
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join