Inside Black Hole

you know what a theory in science is? so not just a theory....

(from wikipedia)


Definitions from scientific organizations

The United States National Academy of Sciences defines scientific theories as follows:
The formal scientific definition of "theory" is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics)...One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed.[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#cite_note-16"][16][/URL]
From the American Association for the Advancement of Science:
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#cite_note-AAAS_Evolution_Resources-15"][15][/URL]
Note that the term theory would not be appropriate for describing untested but intricate hypotheses or even scientific models.

As alluded to above...the fun ones where it is both theory and fact such as gravity and evolution. The observable phenomena of gravity and evolution, and the associated theory of the same name to explain it.
 

ClymAngus

C
Ok, I'm done. We could copy and paste till the cows come home. I agree to not agree. In a few years, long after this spat, when another, better theory pops up, I can expect to receive apologies from online entities.

This does raise the annoying question of how you observe something that is technically unobservable and to get close enough to answer some fundimental questions about it renders the information unretreavable and therefore moot.

It's like trying to descover if Jesus picks his nose in heaven. Getting your answer renders the write up impossible. In short I think this one is going to DRAG.

Oh and if your waiting for online apologies, you'll be waiting a long time. You could be the rightiest Mr Right diddly right right in the known universe. Someone is always going to say your wrong for s**ts and giggles. It's a human thing.

I've been waiting for people to apologise to me for years, hasn't happened yet. Just sayin. I could apologise to you if you like, if it would make you feel better :D
 
Ok, I'm done. We could copy and paste till the cows come home. I agree to not agree. In a few years, long after this spat, when another, better theory pops up, I can expect to receive apologies from online entities.

ignoration does hot help your problem ;-)

fact is, the ship could never come close to a black hole.....even a neutron star would tear it apart due to gravitational shear
 
I never understood that ending... the whole 5th element 'them' things seemed very deus ex machina :p

Wouldn't he have been killed by spaghettification long before he ended up in behind-the-bookshelf-land ?

Bookshelf land (From the film Interstellar as we all know but some people are missing the reference and may not have seen the film) was created by humans from the future who know how to manipulate other dimensions. They also are the ones that saved Cooper from the effects of a rapidly spinning black hole... Which, by the way, allows for the fact that gravity would not be evenly dispersed, so theoretically it would be possible to fly through intact.

There are some that believe we did not land on the moon despite the fact that you can point a laser at the experiments left there by Apollo astronauts and get a response - which then tells you that the moon is pulling away from the earth at a rate of 10mm a year or something like that.

Theorists propose what a black hole looks like and what it should appear like in the sky and how it affects it's neighbours. They look in the sky, see the expected radiation signatures and observe how Sag A's neighbours behave. What more you want? To be served a black hole on a plate for dinner? Believe what you want.

Besides, how do you think the spaghetti monster came about if it wasn't for spaghettification from a black hole? Now. Can't answer that can we? :p
 
Is English your second language? I only ask because I think you may be confused on the meaning of "citation."

If you doubt the statements I made, here is some light reading describing something I believe should be common knowledge by this time.

http://www.ibtimes.com/do-black-hol...find-no-evidence-black-hole-formation-1694978

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1409.1837v1.pdf

http://boisestate.newsvine.com/_new...m-equation-predicts-universe-has-no-beginning

I really hate having to provide these couple links since I'm not a teacher and feel as though you should do your own work, but in case you need them, here they are. there are thousands more online if you'd care to learn about how wrong Scientists have been over the years...even, GASP, Stephen Hawking.... I know I know... poor Steven.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

It's just theory anyway! Lighten up. The reason they call it "The Big Bang THEORY" and the "Black Hole THEORY" is...well you get it, right?

None of that has been peer-reviewed, and a lot of scientists are already calling those studies foul. It's another theory, and it doesnt disprove anything. Black holes still exist, as they always have.
 
Oh noes!!!

Gravity is only a theory and I'm floating around the room, up near the middle of the ceiling. Luckily I have a wireless keyboard and mouse.
 
Accretion discs... Hmmm good for funeral barges and hiding from the law. Might be able to find some hot metallics from stars that have been ripped apart???

Radio interference - KWS no longer works and wings communication disrupted...

Shield disruption - making trading more dangerous...

Three head and a floating keyboard arrangement... Mmmm.
 

ClymAngus

C
Oh noes!!!

Gravity is only a theory and I'm floating around the room, up near the middle of the ceiling. Luckily I have a wireless keyboard and mouse.

I have proof of that! In order to defy gravity you simply have to be Christopher Walken, in a hotel and have weapon of choice playing on a cheap radio. With enough volume and jiggling it may indeed be possible to implode a Blackhole using the towering force of sheer coolness.

He waits; on the internet. For all time, for someone, anyone to play that song. And he will rise from his chair and dance...... Press the button; make him dance!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMZwZiU0kKs
 
Last edited:
Can get really close to them these days in ED... go to about the 3min mark in this video
[video=youtube;90XBHm8XCN4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90XBHm8XCN4[/video]
 
Last edited:
Please tell me you came out of a White Hole. PLEASE.

"The Cat: So, what is it? Kryten: I've never seen one before - no one has - but I'm guessing it's a white hole.
Rimmer: A *white* hole?
Kryten: Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. A black hole sucks time and matter out of the Universe; a white hole returns it.
Lister: So, that thing's spewing time...
Lister: [donning his fur-lined hat] ... back into the Universe?
Kryten: Precisely. That's why we're experiencing these curious time phenomena on board.
The Cat: So, what is it?
Kryten: I've never seen one before - no one has - but I'm guessing it's a white hole.
Rimmer: A *white* hole?
Kryten: Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. A black hole sucks time and matter out of the Universe; a white hole returns it.
Lister: [minus the hat] So, that thing's spewing time...
Lister: [donning his fur-lined hat, again] ... back into the Universe?
Kryten: Precisely. That's why we're experiencing these curious time phenomena on board.
Lister: What time phenomena?
Kryten: Like just then, when time repeated itself.
The Cat: So, what is it?
[Kryten, Rimmer, and Lister stare at Cat]
The Cat: Only joking.
 
(I only point out that there is no proof of any of this. Black holes are a nice...theory...but still a theory.)

And since they aren't real, or even possible given the latest findings, then Ed could really just go and make them into anything they wanted without leaping to extremes. After all, black holes themselves don't actually exist.

No, at first you say that BH aren't "even possible", that's why people was asking about evidences and sources. Then, you say that there are no proof that they exists, this is really different. Atm, They just fit in the universe laws, Einstein predicted them, and we can even use gravitational lenses to see distant stars behind the black hole. We have to admit there is something creating huge gravitational forces, or the milky way is rotating around...nothing?

Recently, Hawking published an article about information paradox and "firewall", he try to prove that such a firewall doesn't exist, such a clear line between our universe and outside our universe (what's inside the even horizon) doesn't exist like this, this is more a space between both universes, and in this space, sometimes a pair of virtual particles is created and may exit the event horizon, so information seems not lost as we thought before, but it doesn't prove BH does not exist, it only proves it might be not exactly how we see them atm.

So, we can't see them, but we can see their interactions in our universe. You're right, we can't prove they really exists, but physicists admit this is the best theory atm. They are possible, this is where you make a mistake by saying they aren't possible. I can't prove BH are exactly how we describe them, but i can prove they are possible. You can't prove, atm, they're not possible.

About asking citations, you know, when a scientist writes an article (I did, but not in astrophysics), he has to quote references, and he's not a teacher. When you say something that other scientists disagree, you have to prove your point of view, this is not to other scientists to prove your article isn't true, so they don't have to search for hours. If you don't provide references, then your article is worth some toilet paper....Hawking himself have to quote references.

Hawking published an article last year about information paradox and black holes : http://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.5761v1.pdf I guess he wouldn't work on something "not even possible given the latest findings".

Sorry for my bad english.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom