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.

 

Plasma Ribbon Confirms Electric Sun

page: 30
55
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 09:58 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr
Yes, many complaints I see about black holes relate to the singularity and infinite density math and some people aren't thrilled with the concept of neutronium either, so the idea is to show that escape velocity can be greater than the speed of light without invoking densities unfamiliar to us. However in practice most black holes are far less massive and therefore have higher average density in the event horizon than in that example, so they would need have to have some form of ultra-dense matter to fit within the event horizon.

One problem I had with gravity waves is confusing the terminology with gravitational waves (not the concepts, just the terms), and you might agree since I think you're referring to gravitational waves, and yes those aren't easy for me*. Gravity waves are easier, and I agree with this author that they should be called "buoyancy waves" because it's too easy to confuse the term "gravity waves" with "gravitational waves". (The link is a powerpoint file). So how do we get them to stop calling them gravity waves and start calling them "buoyancy waves"?



I sort of understand how this article is saying gravity waves were detected, but I really haven't studied the science yet and wonder how widely accepted this result in in the scientific community:

detection of gravitational waves by the BICEP2 experiment at the South Pole

If that is widely accepted it seems like a significant milestone in gravitational wave evidence. It would be nice if LIGO could detect them, but I have no idea what their chances are; they are still trying as far as I know. I do know that professor Weber never stood a chance of detecting them with this apparatus in 1965:



edit on 17-4-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification




posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 10:08 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

If the medium of space which is the 'thing' that is affected in a way to cause the phenomenon of gravity, is an energetic medium, does this mean that the gravity field has its own gravity?



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 12:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: dragonridr
Yes, many complaints I see about black holes relate to the singularity and infinite density math and some people aren't thrilled with the concept of neutronium either, so the idea is to show that escape velocity can be greater than the speed of light without invoking densities unfamiliar to us. However in practice most black holes are far less massive and therefore have higher average density in the event horizon than in that example, so they would need have to have some form of ultra-dense matter to fit within the event horizon.

One problem I had with gravity waves is confusing the terminology with gravitational waves (not the concepts, just the terms), and you might agree since I think you're referring to gravitational waves, and yes those aren't easy for me*. Gravity waves are easier, and I agree with this author that they should be called "buoyancy waves" because it's too easy to confuse the term "gravity waves" with "gravitational waves". (The link is a powerpoint file). So how do we get them to stop calling them gravity waves and start calling them "buoyancy waves"?



I sort of understand how this article is saying gravity waves were detected, but I really haven't studied the science yet and wonder how widely accepted this result in in the scientific community:

detection of gravitational waves by the BICEP2 experiment at the South Pole

If that is widely accepted it seems like a significant milestone in gravitational wave evidence. It would be nice if LIGO could detect them, but I have no idea what their chances are; they are still trying as far as I know. I do know that professor Weber never stood a chance of detecting them with this apparatus in 1965:




Well i read something recently i think i mat still have it at work but it was discussing BICEP2 and there discovery of the gravity waves.ill have to find it but it gave details on the setup. Bottom line is well we confirmed they exist but the cool part is it gives us clues into the big bang itself in allows us to go back even further in time past just the visual era.As far as Ligo i dont think theyll ever detect anything. There looking to try to detect earths gravitational waves i dont think its possible. See Being in the gravity well your trying to detect i believe just wont work. I dont think there would be sufficient fluctuations to detect but again just my thoughts.

Ps your right i have a bad habit of saying gravity waves as well probably from when i was straight out of college did alot of work in fluid dynamics and well you get bad habits.
edit on 4/18/14 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 07:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: KrzYma

originally posted by: dragonridr
reply to post by poet1b
 


What is force ok ill play its the push or pull on an object from interaction with another object. Are you playing with definitions again we all know you like to do that?


this is the result of force not what it is !
what is force two electrons exchange with each other ?
(ups... question could be a hint )


You dont even know what definiton your looking for see your looking for exchange force not force the two are different. Well the exchange force is a photon between two electrons which generates a magnetic field. See electromagnetic forces are carried through the photon. I have a feeling you weren't aware of this so im guessing you believe differently. As i told you dont get into particle physics unless you have the background.


yea, I was afraid you will say that... like always, no answer just repeating nonsense is all you are doing.

Question is, how one charge knows the existence of another charge?
You tell me, another construct out of nowhere, the photon is responsible for that behaviour.
So how is the photon carrying the information ??
What is the photon other than a mathematical construct to describe something nobody knows how it works. Speculations over speculations and just adding more unknown to the formula.
Giving it a name does not make it real or explains the true real world.

Physicist simply don't know

Look, you try to explain something you really really don't understand.

Your definition of Force is a result and not cause, therefore completely irrelevant as proof of anything and even the worse explanation of what a force is and how it is transferred from one charge to another.

The same thinking error for gravity.
Mass causes the space-time to bend and this bend in space-time is causing the gravitational effect.
So how exactly is mass responsible for the bending if this bending of space is the Gravity itself ?
This is a circular argument.
What is mass ??
Now, physicist look for another mathematical construct such as the Higgs particle only to find out, and I'm sure it will come like this, Higgs particle need another type of particle to work with, so the search will begin again.

So you are telling me simple said that, electric field is transferring "photons" to carry the forces between particles, for what do you need this particle in the first place ?!?!, there is already a field as transfer medium !
The electric field itself is the driving "force" there is no force carrying photon needed in this.

"Photon" is also a misleading name as it relates to the EM radiation



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 07:23 AM
link   
a reply to: KrzYma

As George Box said: "All models are wrong. Some are useful".

I have yet to see a model that I think is a perfect representation of reality, but there are some very useful models that make accurate predictions used my mainstream scientists, and they are all way better than the crackpottery videos you share here from guys like Rupert Sheldrake, Steven Crothers, and electric universe proponents.

At least scientists are honest about what they don't know, and you're right about one thing: there's a lot we don't know. But the electric universe claims can be rejected with a slight amount of scientific scrutiny. Would you rather believe a claim that can easily be proven wrong than accept that mainstream science doesn't have all the answers yet? The EU folks definitely don't have the answers.



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 07:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: KrzYma

As George Box said: "All models are wrong. Some are useful".

I have yet to see a model that I think is a perfect representation of reality, but there are some very useful models that make accurate predictions used my mainstream scientists, and they are all way better than the crackpottery videos you share here from guys like Rupert Sheldrake, Steven Crothers, and electric universe proponents.

At least scientists are honest about what they don't know, and you're right about one thing: there's a lot we don't know. But the electric universe claims can be rejected with a slight amount of scientific scrutiny. Would you rather believe a claim that can easily be proven wrong than accept that mainstream science doesn't have all the answers yet? The EU folks definitely don't have the answers.


No, I think they should work together to find out what really is.
Unfortunately there is a big big problem with the science right now as presented in one of the videos I've posted.


At least scientists are honest about what they don't know


I can't see it, can't see it looking at space-time or black holes or CERN
the scientists are very sure they are right in what they believe to know.


BTW: I'm processing the EU idea parallel to MS Science

edit on 18-4-2014 by KrzYma because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 07:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: poet1b
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


More accurately you have a model of an elliptical orbit that basically works, and you feel that you can apply that model to the galaxy.

The problem is that you only have a minuscule segment of the orbit of these stars, and science has no idea whether or not it matches their model.



Exactly !!
Science is more assumption then taking everything into account.
The biggest strength of today's science is construction of things mathematically without any relation to the real world.



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 08:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: KrzYma
I can't see it, can't see it looking at space-time or black holes or CERN
the scientists are very sure they are right in what they believe to know.

BTW: I'm processing the EU idea parallel to MS Science
I don't believe you. Why? Because all the videos you post are from cranks, and not mainstream scientists. I also think this is why your head is filled with ideas that scientists dont' admit their own ignorance, because this is the propaganda that EU proponents are feeding you. You should try listening to some real scientists for a change. You mentioned black holes, here's a mainstream admission of ignorance about those.

www.theory.caltech.edu...

Nothing seems to prevent the black hole from radiating away all of its mass and disappearing completely. Thus, all information about the object from which the black hole formed seems to become forever inaccessible. It is not yet firmly established that black holes really destroy information in this way. But if they do, we face the daunting task of finding a new conceptual basis for all of physics.
How much more of admission can you get than saying we aren't sure and we may have to find a new conceptual basis for all of physics?


general relativity predicts that one who enters the black hole is inexorably driven to a “singularity,” a region of infinite spacetime curvature and hence infinitely strong gravitational forces. The singularity signifies the breakdown of classical physics deep inside the black hole. Quantum effects become important there, and classical general relativity cannot predict what will happen.
So they admit that the singularity signifies the breakdown of classical physics. I can find countless examples like these, so for you to make claims that scientists don't admit what they don't know or where their theories break down, you're living in la-la land listening to too many cranks and not enough real scientists.

What's really sad is the way some EU people misrepresent this and say those mainstream science idiots believe in infinite density. No, what most believe is that the appearance of infinite density in the equation signifies the breakdown of the theory.
edit on 18-4-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 09:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Why should I post something from MS science if this is without any logic to me in some points.

Singularity is the best example.


general relativity predicts that one who enters the black hole is inexorably driven to a “singularity,” a region of infinite spacetime curvature and hence infinitely strong gravitational forces. The singularity signifies the breakdown of classical physics deep inside the black hole


infinity in a big bang caused finite universe ??
infinitely strong gravitational forces, do you realize what it says ??

general relativity predicts singularities and contradicts the Big Bang theory
why even bother about those two if this is just nonsense

Why should I listen to someone saying, well I don't really know how it works, but I know something I don't understand and it contradicts my other theory I think must be correct, even if I don't understand it's own parts like mass or its forces...

BTW: what do you think why I bother about EU and other alternate theories ? I think the old ones are incomplete and false in many points.



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 09:59 AM
link   
a reply to: KrzYma
Nobody is expecting you to believe a theory of quantum gravity, because there isn't one. That is the theory that's expected to cover black hole theory where relativity breaks down in a singularity.

But there is certainly plenty of evidence for theories of relativity and quantum mechanics which work pretty well with a couple of exceptions like the black hole singularity, and they work way better than EU "theory" which isn't even a scientific theory.



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 12:25 PM
link   
originally posted by: [post=17812985]Arbitrageur


Nothing seems to prevent the black hole from radiating away all of its mass and disappearing completely. Thus, all information about the object from which the black hole formed seems to become forever inaccessible. It is not yet firmly established that black holes really destroy information in this way. But if they do, we face the daunting task of finding a new conceptual basis for all of physics.


How can mass be 'radiated away completely'? Does this imply that all matter is composed of nothing but radiation? That and electron and quarks (or quadrillions of them) can be transformed into pure radiation?




general relativity predicts that one who enters the black hole is inexorably driven to a “singularity,” a region of infinite spacetime curvature and hence infinitely strong gravitational forces. The singularity signifies the breakdown of classical physics deep inside the black hole. Quantum effects become important there, and classical general relativity cannot predict what will happen.


Infinite space time curvature and infinitely strong gravitational forces is just another way of saying, the values we would take of the curvature and gravitational forces are at a value right now, but over time that value will increase, so the value is not finite?


edit on 18-4-2014 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 12:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi
originally posted by: [post=17812985]Arbitrageur


Nothing seems to prevent the black hole from radiating away all of its mass and disappearing completely. Thus, all information about the object from which the black hole formed seems to become forever inaccessible. It is not yet firmly established that black holes really destroy information in this way. But if they do, we face the daunting task of finding a new conceptual basis for all of physics.


How can mass be 'radiated away completely'? Does this imply that all matter is composed of nothing but radiation? That and electron and quarks (or quadrillions of them) can be transformed into pure radiation?


Composed "of", no. That particles can be transformed into others with Standard Model interactions, yes. The particular behaviors of certain black holes are not fully predicted by physics since there is not a generalized unification of general relativity and Standard Model that is accepted and experimentally justified.







general relativity predicts that one who enters the black hole is inexorably driven to a “singularity,” a region of infinite spacetime curvature and hence infinitely strong gravitational forces. The singularity signifies the breakdown of classical physics deep inside the black hole. Quantum effects become important there, and classical general relativity cannot predict what will happen.


Infinite space time curvature and infinitely strong gravitational forces is just another way of saying, the values we would take of the curvature and gravitational forces are at a value right now, but over time that value will increase, so the value is not finite?



No. "infinite space-time curvature" is a way of saying that the classical physics model isn't going to work in certain limits and there will be some physical property which eliminates the infinity.
edit on 18-4-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 01:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: KrzYma

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: KrzYma

originally posted by: dragonridr
reply to post by poet1b
 


What is force ok ill play its the push or pull on an object from interaction with another object. Are you playing with definitions again we all know you like to do that?


this is the result of force not what it is !
what is force two electrons exchange with each other ?
(ups... question could be a hint )


You dont even know what definiton your looking for see your looking for exchange force not force the two are different. Well the exchange force is a photon between two electrons which generates a magnetic field. See electromagnetic forces are carried through the photon. I have a feeling you weren't aware of this so im guessing you believe differently. As i told you dont get into particle physics unless you have the background.


yea, I was afraid you will say that... like always, no answer just repeating nonsense is all you are doing.


Quantum Field Theory is indeed nonsense to a gorilla.



Question is, how one charge knows the existence of another charge?
You tell me, another construct out of nowhere, the photon is responsible for that behaviour.
So how is the photon carrying the information ??
What is the photon other than a mathematical construct to describe something nobody knows how it works. Speculations over speculations and just adding more unknown to the formula.
Giving it a name does not make it real or explains the true real world.


Again, philosophical naivete. What's the "true real world" and how would you know if it smacked you on the nose? Do leptons count but bosons don't as real? Or is your definition just what you feel like?

Actual humans know how photons work, as in what they do, a heck of a lot better than they know almost anything else in the Universe works. They know very very very very well.



Physicist simply don't know

Look, you try to explain something you really really don't understand.

Your definition of Force is a result and not cause, therefore completely irrelevant as proof of anything and even the worse explanation of what a force is and how it is transferred from one charge to another.

The same thinking error for gravity.
Mass causes the space-time to bend and this bend in space-time is causing the gravitational effect.
So how exactly is mass responsible for the bending if this bending of space is the Gravity itself ?


What do you by 'how"? For a physicists notion of 'how' you can look up the Einstein field equations which tell you exactly how it works, with mass here gives you curvature.

Just like 'how' charges create electric fields and magnetic fields. Is there any deeper "how"? Are you expecting Santa Claus' factory inside an electron?




Now, physicist look for another mathematical construct such as the Higgs particle only to find out, and I'm sure it will come like this, Higgs particle need another type of particle to work with, so the search will begin again.

So you are telling me simple said that, electric field is transferring "photons" to carry the forces between particles, for what do you need this particle in the first place ?!?!, there is already a field as transfer medium !
The electric field itself is the driving "force" there is no force carrying photon needed in this.


That's because you don't understand physics. A 'photon' is a state/configuration of the quantized version of the electromagnetic field---like a 'burp' or a 'wiggle' on the (quantized version of the) electromagnetic field. Now this is a quantum field so just as you go from point Newtonian particles to wavefunctions in beginning quantum mechanics, you go from classical Maxwellian electric+magnetic fields to functionals, functions of functions, in quantum field theory.

You know how in regular quantum mechanics there are different 'representations' or 'bases' for what is physically the same state? It's just changing coordinate systems in the Hilbert space for the wavefunction. Same thing for electromagnetism. (if you don't understand this so far then it's time to learn). For instance, a classical Maxwellian electromagnetic plane wave is, in practice, a large superposition of photon states. In fact it's not an eigenvector of photon number operator so the "number" of photons in the plane wave is not fully determined (remember what's a pure state in one basis is mixed in others), but in practice slightly uncertain though expectation values work just fine to match total energy density.

The exact notion of the photon is not super easy to understand, but there's no question that the theory is consistent and complete, it's called 'quantum optics'.



"Photon" is also a misleading name as it relates to the EM radiation


no it's fine. It's just that in some practical cases, like radio technology, the Maxwell equations are much more useful and the photonic nature a needless complication, but in others, like atomic physics, the photon basis is more useful.
edit on 18-4-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 01:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: ErosA433
a reply to: mbkennel
a reply to: dragonridr

originally posted by: poet1b
It was my opinion decades ago, that if there is such a thing as a black hole, then one was probably at the center of the Milky Way, long before this became a popular idea., but I am still skeptical that there is such a thing as a black hole.


I have a proof of the inevitability of certain types of supermassive black holes that dosn't rely on relativity. Scientists probably don't waste their time writing up proofs for relativity deniers but I came up with this idea for a black hole proof for relativity deniers when reading about NCG1277, more about that in a bit. So here is my proof of the inevitability of black holes without using relativity, just basic gravity theory.

1. We know the Earth exists. Density is maybe 5.513 g/cc which is about 5.5 times as dense as water.
2. We know gravity pulls objects together. We see objects of many different masses and hypothetically the mass of an entire galaxy could be pulled together by gravity
3. Take 611 trillion Earth-like objects, each with same mass and density as Earth, and allow gravity to pull them together into one object.
4. Make a naive assumption that gravity will collapse the spaces between the spheres and create one giant sphere with average density of 5.5 g/cc, same density as Earth (more realistically, gravity would collapse the object into something more dense)
5. The escape velocity of this object will be the speed of light at the surface.

This proves that the concept of a black hole is inescapable if you have enough mass, even without relativity.


If you also assume that light is affected by Newtonian gravity, which it isn't in Maxwellian physics. And without relativity, there isn't any problem going faster than light. And escape velocity only matters if you want to be completely gravitationally unbound, but you could have a bound photon which has a very very long period and orbit.

Of course it's inconsistent nonsense which is why relativity is right.



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 01:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: KrzYma
Nobody is expecting you to believe a theory of quantum gravity, because there isn't one. That is the theory that's expected to cover black hole theory where relativity breaks down in a singularity.

But there is certainly plenty of evidence for theories of relativity and quantum mechanics which work pretty well with a couple of exceptions like the black hole singularity, and they work way better than EU "theory" which isn't even a scientific theory.


yes, but all those theories only mimic the observed and don't explain it.
Einstein's space time for example is nothing but just a description of what we see and not why we see it.
Science is based on known (understood in terms of reaction and not cause) evidences therefore incomplete.

I'm not saying I have the whole answer, NO !

but to the Black Hole in centre of the Galaxies...
I don't know... there is another explanation

Science is seeing gravity as an additional field, I mean, the more masses close to another on smaller space the stronger the gravity field. It is a field for sure, they try to catch a gravitational wave. Looks like a tensor field, right ?
Where is the field the strongest ?? in the centre of all masses. There in the centre, is the gravitational addition of all GF of the galaxy.... actually more, all the surrounding masses to a certain point of no influence.
Do we need any additional mass to this to drive the Stars like they move ?
I see no need for any Black Hole.
The gravitational field is doing it, mimic our illusion of a black hole
So those black holes can variate in size and mass, like the surrounding masses.

What makes a Black Hole ? Gravity, acceleration about 3x10`8/s lets no light escape. I agree with that ! (not the numbers but the idea)
Earth acceleration ( gravity ) is roughly 9.8 m/s^2
Sun's is about 274 m/s^2
Mass of the Milky Way is about 1.0–1.5×10^12 Solar masses
The rest of the Universe until no influence point is adding to this mass as well.
I know the masses are distributed over ( what seams to us ) a large distance, but how large is an galaxy compare to the known universe ? If the horizon is even the no influence point what I don't think.

The funny thing about this is, should any star ever fall into the centre of it's all surrounding masses it would explode due to the acceleration.
So yes, gamma bursts are collapsing stars, the only difference is what they collapse into and not into them self

Following this gravitational dense field do not even require any near surrounding masses to reach a point of acceleration that would define a black hole, is an additional field, remember.

We "see" Black Holes not only in centre of Galaxy's, and also see gravitational lenses, right ??

Do we need dark matter ?

I know you will say, scientists have calculated this and the mass is not enough.



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 01:34 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

no, in definition I'm a human being, so you must speak from experience I think.
and to point someone out, "Everyone who thinks to understand Quantum Mechanics knows nothing about it"

stupid human !



Actual humans know how photons work, as in what they do, a heck of a lot better than they know almost anything else in the Universe works. They know very very very very well.


please tell me what you mean saying photons and humans knowing how photons work.
All I see they can beautiful describe mathematically what they think they observe but not how it works.



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 01:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: KrzYma
please tell me what you mean saying photons and humans knowing how photons work.
All I see they can beautiful describe mathematically what they think they observe but not how it works.


How would you, or anybody else, know the difference?

Please give a definition other than "my gut likes X and not Y".


edit on 18-4-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-4-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 02:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: mbkennel


Composed "of", no. That particles can be transformed into others with Standard Model interactions, yes. The particular behaviors of certain black holes are not fully predicted by physics since there is not a generalized unification of general relativity and Standard Model that is accepted and experimentally justified.


If the mass of a quark and electron can be completely radiated into EM radiation, that is to say, first there exists an electron, and then there does not exist an electron, because what the electron was, is now EM radiation, how can you say that that does not mean, that the electron is EM radiation? I understand it may have to do with 'states' and circumstances, to slightly give your argument semantically justification I could agree that if we took 1 tree and made a table, it would be false to say a tree is composed of tables, or 1 apple and made apple juice, to say apples are composed of apple juice, but am I wrong in feeling that at such fundamental levels, seemingly the most fundamental levels, that if an electron can disappear completely, did it not 'turn into EM radiation'? Would it not then be rational to assume that under the right conditions and states, EM radiation can be compelled to produce an electron?








No. "infinite space-time curvature" is a way of saying that the classical physics model isn't going to work in certain limits and there will be some physical property which eliminates the infinity.


Hm, well lets think of this. Imagine we had a 7 foot deep swimming pool the size of a football field, and a million marbles, that when placed in the water, will travel at 100 miles per hour automatically without stopping, and we place them all in the pool, and they all start heading towards a common center, while they are moving arent they disturbing the water? This is what is meant by space time curvature, what is meant by infinite,is that to relate this to a blackhole, that is consuming materials, there are constantly more marbles added so constantly more disturbances in the water or curves in the gravity field, curves in different directions and marbles being disturbed by this curve and creating their curve that disturbs another marble which was making a curve and is now going this way and so on, this is what is meant by infinite, there are not a finite number of curves, because time exists, if we stopped time there would be a finite number. I am fully confidant that if we stopped time there would be a finite number of everything...lol, in other words everything is finite, only because time is literally the finite everything changing, is time infinite, because it is not stopped, it is changing. So I am confidant even if we didnt stop time there is a finite amount of stuff. This is why a machine cannot be made that can produce more energy then it can consumes, because that would imply a machine being able to create energy from nothing.
edit on 18-4-2014 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 03:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: KrzYma
please tell me what you mean saying photons and humans knowing how photons work.
All I see they can beautiful describe mathematically what they think they observe but not how it works.


How would you, or anybody else, know the difference?

Please give a definition other than "my gut likes X and not Y".


but you can... seems like only you can... a delusion



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 04:51 PM
link   
What you say is quite naive,

There is a difference between empirical equation and theory.

The empirical are things where like you say, you make a mathematical construct which gives rise to a bunch of points to give answers to things that you already have. This is like Swanne's standard model mass.

Theory actually starts from a more fundamental and first principles place.

Relativity does not predict a singularity, when you say this it seems like you don't actually understand the words, the theory or what you are saying, and simply regurgitating something you have been told.

The only assumption you need to make to get a black hole prediction is classical Newtonian physics is that the speed of light is finite, you solve the equation to balance gravitational potential with kinetic energy and pop in the speed of light as the velocity. Done. Relativity doesn't come into it one bit.

If you knew MS science, you would know this and wouldn't be making that statement.

Relativity is a buzz word that many people like to throw around, like quantum, because it sounds like you know what you are talking about.

So a theory will have some kind of physical construct and emanate using understood physics from there. There is a hell of alot of science that can be derived from the inverse square law. Yet no one complains about this? Maybe if you want to up route physics, you need to prove that the inverse square law is wrong. That would be catastrophic.

What you said about the motion of gravitational attraction between all of the stars on the outside of the system, what you are doing is looking at one thing that you don't like or are uncomfortable with, and wishing it away, then picking only half of the problem and presenting that as a solution.

Other evidence for black holes? There are lots.

en.wikipedia.org...

Each page on there will be linked with a journal paper or press release. You will notice the language used tends to call these objects Black Hole 'candidate' Which is an admission that it is only a possibility. Hmmmm again this seems to throw off your statement that MS Science is just so sure of everything to the point of arrogance and ignorance.

Closest known Black hole candidate arxiv.org...



new topics

top topics



 
55
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join