Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, it's not way over my head. The man is not going to come out and tear down his whole body of work in one comment LOL. what would he have to live for after?
Theoretical physicists are a totally polarized group...I'd say fragmented is a better word. And they know very well that they have dragged the context of language kicking and screaming to what is virtually unlimited funding.
And they have absolutely nothing to show for it aside from concepts.
Yes, something you obviously don't understand is clearly just a racket?
lol
Putting men on the moon and bringing them back safely again was once theoretical, and scientists disagreed over how it could be done. Were it up to you, we never would have found out if it was possible.
Nuclear weapons and nuclear energy were theoretical at one time and scientists disagreed over how to proceed. So polarizing were the disagreements that some thought producing nuclear fission itself was impossible. Others thought were it to happen, it would be destructive and uncontrollable. When the first atomic bomb was constructed and ready to be tested, some theoretical physicists thought its detonation could ignite the atmosphere and destroy the entire world, most disagreed. Clearly, we went ahead and found the answers.
The physics of flight (aerodynamics) was very controversial before two bicycle mechanics showed it was possible. For years, the US Patent Office wouldn't even consider patents for aircraft because they believed (as some scientists did at the time) that it was simply impossible.
And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Science sometimes has disagreements, in the case of black holes, it may take years and years and years to resolve those disagreements (because the nearest one is ridiculously far away), but your suggestion that it's not worth resolving is ludicrous, and seems to have much less to do with the greater good and much more to do with the right's, particularly the religious right's beef with those pesky scientists that seek to understand the origin and nature of the universe rather than just accepting what the Bible says.
Yes, something you obviously don't understand is clearly just a racket?
lol
Putting men on the moon and bringing them back safely again was once theoretical, and scientists disagreed over how it could be done. Were it up to you, we never would have found out if it was possible.
Nuclear weapons and nuclear energy were theoretical at one time and scientists disagreed over how to proceed. So polarizing were the disagreements that some thought producing nuclear fission itself was impossible. Others thought were it to happen, it would be destructive and uncontrollable. When the first atomic bomb was constructed and ready to be tested, some theoretical physicists thought its detonation could ignite the atmosphere and destroy the entire world, most disagreed. Clearly, we went ahead and found the answers.
The physics of flight (aerodynamics) was very controversial before two bicycle mechanics showed it was possible. For years, the US Patent Office wouldn't even consider patents for aircraft because they believed (as some scientists did at the time) that it was simply impossible.
And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Science sometimes has disagreements, in the case of black holes, it may take years and years and years to resolve those disagreements (because the nearest one is ridiculously far away), but your suggestion that it's not worth resolving is ludicrous, and seems to have much less to do with the greater good and much more to do with the right's, particularly the religious right's beef with those pesky scientists that seek to understand the origin and nature of the universe rather than just accepting what the Bible says.
Pretty long bump in the road these physicists have had wouldn't you say? How much longer are they going to milk the cow?
It didn't take but a few years for there to be tons of tangible evidence to substantiate Einsteins explanations. We won't even get into "greater good" discussions. That would be loads of fun.
And I have absolutely no use for religion, or spirituality or purpose or defining existence....just consistency.
Pretty long bump in the road these physicists have had wouldn't you say? How much longer are they going to milk the cow?
It didn't take but a few years for there to be tons of tangible evidence to substantiate Einsteins explanations. We won't even get into "greater good" discussions. That would be loads of fun.
And I have absolutely no use for religion, or spirituality or purpose or defining existence....just consistency.
Yeah, what a bunch of jerks not figuring out black holes yet. The closest one is only 1600 light years away That's 5.88 trillion miles, multiplied by 1600.
But according to you, a non-scientist, they should have it all figured out by now or else they just never will I guess.
lol
I'll take the scientists over the uneducated guy who clearly didn't get the gist of a simple science article written in plain English as evidenced by his original post. But in case you forgot:
So, black holes were proven with empirical evidence. But now they actually aren't and if they ARE in fact what we believe them to be...we might learn something from them, or not.
1. The article and the disagreement it describes does not in any way call into question the existence of black holes, which do exist.
2. The article does not say that nothing new won't be learned, the misquote should actually be: "We might learn some new physics, which may have real implications about the non-trivial structure of the universe," says Braunstein. But he also points out that we might not.
Or to help you out, because you appear to be in dire need of it. Braunstein is saying that Hawking's new theory may lead to new physics, or it might not. But better understanding of the nature of black holes will undoubtedly resolve the quantum vs. relatively debate (which would be learning something new, but it wouldn't be new physics). Which is a given because more information about them would resolve several of those disputes mentioned in the article.
Yeah, what a bunch of jerks not figuring out black holes yet. The closest one is only 1600 light years away That's 5.88 trillion miles, multiplied by 1600.
But according to you, a non-scientist, they should have it all figured out by now or else they just never will I guess.
lol
I'll take the scientists over the uneducated guy who clearly didn't get the gist of a simple science article written in plain English as evidenced by his original post. But in case you forgot:
So, black holes were proven with empirical evidence. But now they actually aren't and if they ARE in fact what we believe them to be...we might learn something from them, or not.
1. The article and the disagreement it describes does not in any way call into question the existence of black holes, which do exist.
2. The article does not say that nothing new won't be learned, the misquote should actually be: "We might learn some new physics, which may have real implications about the non-trivial structure of the universe," says Braunstein. But he also points out that we might not.
Or to help you out, because you appear to be in dire need of it. Braunstein is saying that Hawking's new theory may lead to new physics, or it might not. But better understanding of the nature of black holes will undoubtedly resolve the quantum vs. relatively debate (which would be learning something new, but it wouldn't be new physics). Which is a given because more information about them would resolve several of those disputes mentioned in the article.
Black holes exist? How do you know?
Since you're so willing, evidenced by the above post, please help me out.
Since you're so willing, evidenced by the above post, please help me out.
How do I know?
First, what group of astrophysicists say they don't? Their existence is not controversial. Although they aren't directly observable their presence can be spotted by how they interact with things near them and their effect on their surroundings. These observations have been made many times (dozens of them have been identified and named).
But to be more blunt, their existence is a paradigm within the scientific community, and I will defer to them, and once again to break it down into a simple equation:
The consensus opinion of learned scientists > the opinion of a completely uneducated person who has no idea what he's talking about.
So, if you still have any doubts, let me rephrase it. You have no standing to debate with them. You lack both expertise and experience in this area. Therefore, your opinion on this matter is utterly worthless; devoid of any value whatsoever.
I'm glad I could help you out. I hope I made it perfectly clear.
01-28-2014, 04:36 AM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
I reserve judgment on BH theory - frankly don't buy it. Here is a good discussion of the potential problems.
Also, I don't necessarily agree with all of the Thunderbolts Project's ideas but this is an interesting talk.
Yes, something you obviously don't understand is clearly just a racket?
lol
Putting men on the moon and bringing them back safely again was once theoretical, and scientists disagreed over how it could be done. Were it up to you, we never would have found out if it was possible.
Nuclear weapons and nuclear energy were theoretical at one time and scientists disagreed over how to proceed. So polarizing were the disagreements that some thought producing nuclear fission itself was impossible. Others thought were it to happen, it would be destructive and uncontrollable. When the first atomic bomb was constructed and ready to be tested, some theoretical physicists thought its detonation could ignite the atmosphere and destroy the entire world, most disagreed. Clearly, we went ahead and found the answers.
The physics of flight (aerodynamics) was very controversial before two bicycle mechanics showed it was possible. For years, the US Patent Office wouldn't even consider patents for aircraft because they believed (as some scientists did at the time) that it was simply impossible.
And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Science sometimes has disagreements, in the case of black holes, it may take years and years and years to resolve those disagreements (because the nearest one is ridiculously far away), but your suggestion that it's not worth resolving is ludicrous, and seems to have much less to do with the greater good and much more to do with the right's, particularly the religious right's beef with those pesky scientists that seek to understand the origin and nature of the universe rather than just accepting what the Bible says.
Perhaps some people really would feel more at home hiding terrified in a cave wondering how to placate an angry thunder god?
First, what group of astrophysicists say they don't? Their existence is not controversial. Although they aren't directly observable their presence can be spotted by how they interact with things near them and their effect on their surroundings. These observations have been made many times (dozens of them have been identified and named).
But to be more blunt, their existence is a paradigm within the scientific community, and I will defer to them, and once again to break it down into a simple equation:
The consensus opinion of learned scientists > the opinion of a completely uneducated person who has no idea what he's talking about.
So, if you still have any doubts, let me rephrase it. You have no standing to debate with them. You lack both expertise and experience in this area. Therefore, your opinion on this matter is utterly worthless; devoid of any value whatsoever.
I'm glad I could help you out. I hope I made it perfectly clear.
Cool, thanks for professing your faith.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
