do black holes exist, or do scientists have it wrong?

[Enoch2021]

 

 

==============================================================

 

I'm on my phone and as so I'm just answering a little of this spiel now. This balooned out faster than I thought it would.

 

 

No Problem

 

 

OK. An analogy. Space time is a large sheet stretched taut over a frame. I take a cricket ball and it creates an impression on the fabric. It pushes down and warps the sheet.

I take a marble and put it on the sheet. It rolls down to meet the cricket ball and the cricket ball rolls, ever so slightly towards it. The masses have been drawn to each other by the force of gravity.

The impression in the fabric is there wether or not the a second mass is there. Gravity is mass acting on the fabric of space time.

 

 

Firstly you said that you can have Gravity without any Matter.

 

Now you're showing that you have 2 bodies "Matter"....my POINT on the subject.

 

Next you have One Body "Acting" on Space-Time.  I just showed you using Gravitational Clocks that Gravity affecting "Time" is a Demonstrable Fairytale...please refute my Illustration.

 

I mispoke: General relativity is one of the most supported theories in the history of the world. It corrects special relativity blah, blah, blah. What I said before with the terms reversed.

 

I just posted 3 Strikes for General Relativity and you just keep a rollin down the tracks...until you refute them, this is a Begging The Question Fallacy.

 

 

And in that: "Blah, blah, blah" lies the answer to your response. It's an exception.

 

Are you joking?  Is it the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd Blah or all the Blah's collectively that I should have recognized as the answer?

 

It's an Exception?  An Exception to what?

 

 

We're replacing reletivity with something that looks just like it ty except that can account for quantum entanglement.

 

You need to Replace Relativity because it's matheMagical Mumbo Jumbo that's absolutely meaningless.  What are you replacing it with? 

 

 

We didn't say that Newtonian mechanics was invalid because it failed to accurately model Mercury's orbit. Because it applies so well in every other case. It's the same thing here.

 

Personally, I haven't looked into the Mercury Orbit Scenario.  But since I've already shown that GR is meaningless, I find it quite hard to believe that it "Modeled" anything other than incoherence.  So when I get some time, I'll check into the "Mercury Orbit" thingy.  How much you wanna bet I'm gonna find some more matheMagics?

 

 

Now we just need to explain why quantum entanglement works the way it does.

 

Is that all? Yea sure, don't hold your breath  They can't even explain what "Energy" is.... and spout fairytale after fairytale: evolution/abiogenesis, big bangs, multi-verses, black holes, ad nauseam.  All in a rather Clumsy Juvenile attempt to explain away GOD....they sure have alot of supporters, I can name their Ring Leader!  He's displayed this very same attribute before.

 

 

Why would Eienstein objecting to Quantum Mechanic's matter more than any other dude?

 

Because this Einstein "dude" new that if his "Spooky action @ a Distance" was Validated (Which it has been, Repeatedly) then the "dudes" theory would take a dirt nap....which it has.

 

 

Science is a self correcting process

 

Yep, you'd sure like to think so.  All I see are the same old Unverified Hypothesis' (in alot of cases Invalidated Hypothesis', SEE: Fairytale list above; and Invalid Scientific Inquiries Masqueraded as "Science"....again, SEE Fairytale list above ) that are "Propped Up" by 18th Century Dogma with Lipstick (Ad Hoc Hypothesis') added over and over again.

 

 

I'm getting my information from 2/3'ds remembered science lessons and agamenting that with the internet when I'm not sure or don't understand something. Why do you ask?

 

Alot of your posts are filled with "Headline" science.

 

 

Edit: I mixed terms again. Reletivity. Not Quantum Mechanics.

 

So you want me to go back through your post and look for every place you wrote Quantum Mechanics and Replace it with "Relativity"? Go ahead and resend your statement corrected so there are no misunderstandings.

[Scintillic_Atom_Marriage]

We can observe gravity We do it by measuring the relative state of matter.

Ok, show us a Pic.....?

Would you also like a picture of speed, eight or temperature?

 

Gravity is an attribute of matter and it's relationship with other matter. I can't show you a picture of if. That's not how that works.

 

And, are you saying Gravity affects Time?

 

 

That's a consequence of special and general relativity

You're gonna need another "Theory".

 

First of all "Time" is Immaterial.  What is Time?  Stephen Hawking writes a 200 page book: "A Brief History of Time"...look in the glossary, what's Missing?  You guessed it...."TIME" (doh!)

Can you put some in a jar and paint it red?

It's a concept and a convention.

Time =  a conceptual relationship between 2 motions.  Can you travel "through" a Conceptual Relationship?  Time can be Dilated? Please show how you can dilate a conceptual relationship?
Time "Moves", We can Travel "Through" Time, Time can be "Dilated".  Hmmm, Concepts are Physical??  The Whole Nightmare is a Logical Fallacy: Reification.  Professionalism in State Government is a Concept...can we "move through" it ?  How about "Dilating" Freedom?

 

Lets conduct a Thought Experiment:

According to General Relativity, "Time" will move slower the the closer and you are to Earth or a Body due to Gravity.  Ok, Lets use a Gravitational Clock... Two Sand Filled Hour Glasses, which function by GRAVITY; apples to apples, as it were.  We'll keep one and set it on the ground @ the base of Mount Everest then take the other to the top.  We then turn them over @ the same "Time"....which one drains faster?

Lets try it again....we move the "Clock" from the top of Mount Everest and take it into Space between the Moon and the Earth...then turn each over again.  Which drains faster? For the person who is turning that "Clock" over in Space....time has stopped!  Because there's no Sand entering the bulb.  Which "Clock" is moving slower? Define Falsified?

Define Rubber Ruler? .... then Compare and Contrast that Measure with a Titanium Ruler then reconcile each into One coherent and objective explanation.

You're extrapolating from an erroneous/arbitrary "convention".  You're conflating 2 different issues...it's one thing for Mickey's Hands/Cesium Atomic "Clocks" to run fast/slow but quite another to then extrapolate from that observation that "TIME" has been affected due to Gravity.

This is not something I'm familiar with I keep getting caught up on it and I'd always thought of it as being axiomatic. You may be right. I don't know enough to say one way or the other. I'm going to do some reading on the subject and come back to the point.

 

Force in formal terms is just momentum. Along with velocity it's a component of how we describe energy in a particle.

So a "Force" is how you "describe" Energy? ....

Of course not. Would you call lettuce a sandwich?

"It is important to realize in physics today, we have no knowledge of what energy is".

Richard P. Feynman PhD (Nobel laureate Physics)

Quote mine. Again. He then elaborates on what he means:

There is a fact, or if you wish, a law governing all natural phenomena that are known to date.  There is no known exception to this law – it is exact so far as we know.  The law is called the conservation of energy. 

 

It states that there is a certain quantity, which we call “energy,” that does not change in the manifold changes that nature undergoes.  That is a most abstract idea, because it is a mathematical principle; it says there is a numerical quantity which does not change when something happens. 

 

It is not a description of a mechanism, or anything concrete; it is a strange fact that when we calculate some number and when we finish watching nature go through her tricks and calculate the number again, it is the same.

 

It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge of what energy “is.”  We do not have a picture that energy comes in little blobs of a definite amount.  It is not that way.  It is an abstract thing in that it does not tell us the mechanism or the reason for the various formulas.

We can model it. We know what it does and how it does it. We don't know what it is. The same is true for all of the fundamental forces. Give us time and then you can say the same thing about Quartle. (Quartle being the mechanism via which energy functions.)

 

And "Physics" isn't about "describing" it's about...... Explaining and Illustrating; And VALIDATING Hypothesis' via the Scientific Method.

And now you're being pedantic. Again.

Illustrating: serve as an example of.

Explain: make (an idea or situation) clear to someone by describing it in more detail or revealing relevant facts.

Describe: give a detailed account in words of. (Will talk about how your wrong about the scientific method when I get to that.)

 

 

[Guest]

Will talk about how your wrong about the scientific method when I get to that.)

 

 

There Is Science

 

The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.

 

Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge.

 

There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard. Psalms 19:1-3

 

And There Is "Science" Fiction

 

Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? Genesis 3:1

 

And Beloved You Are Here To Learn About The Truth

 

And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: Ephesians 3:9

 

And Not To Preach SciFi

 

And they said, There is no hope: but we will walk after our own devices, and we will every one do the imagination of his evil heart. Jeremiah 18:12

 

As Your Religion

 

Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen. 1 John 5:21

 

You Know

 

Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God. 2 Corinthians 5:20

 

The outer Court is an area where we allow anyone who wishes to learn more about our belief to ask quesions and learn.

 

http://www.worthychristianforums.com/index.php?app=forums&module=extras&section=boardrules

 

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16

 

Love, Joe

[Enoch2021]

 

 

 

============================================================================================

 

We can observe gravity We do it by measuring the relative state of matter.

Ok, show us a Pic.....?

Would you also like a picture of speed, eight or temperature?

Gravity is an attribute of matter and it's relationship with other matter. I can't show you a picture of if. That's not how that works.

 

 

You said "we Observe Gravity"  I then asked you, "then show me a picture?".  I'd say that's a quite reasonable request.

 

"Observing" an Entity and Measuring the effects thereof are 2 completely different things.

 

 

First of all "Time" is Immaterial.  What is Time?  Stephen Hawking writes a 200 page book: "A Brief History of Time"...look in the glossary, what's Missing?  You guessed it...."TIME" (doh!)

Can you put some in a jar and paint it red?

It's a concept and a convention.

Time =  a conceptual relationship between 2 motions.  Can you travel "through" a Conceptual Relationship?  Time can be Dilated? Please show how you can dilate a conceptual relationship?

Time "Moves", We can Travel "Through" Time, Time can be "Dilated".  Hmmm, Concepts are Physical??  The Whole Nightmare is a Logical Fallacy: Reification.  Professionalism in State Government is a Concept...can we "move through" it ?  How about "Dilating" Freedom?

Lets conduct a Thought Experiment:

According to General Relativity, "Time" will move slower the the closer and you are to Earth or a Body due to Gravity.  Ok, Lets use a Gravitational Clock... Two Sand Filled Hour Glasses, which function by GRAVITY; apples to apples, as it were.  We'll keep one and set it on the ground @ the base of Mount Everest then take the other to the top.  We then turn them over @ the same "Time"....which one drains faster?

Lets try it again....we move the "Clock" from the top of Mount Everest and take it into Space between the Moon and the Earth...then turn each over again.  Which drains faster? For the person who is turning that "Clock" over in Space....time has stopped!  Because there's no Sand entering the bulb.  Which "Clock" is moving slower? Define Falsified?

Define Rubber Ruler? .... then Compare and Contrast that Measure with a Titanium Ruler then reconcile each into One coherent and objective explanation.

You're extrapolating from an erroneous/arbitrary "convention".  You're conflating 2 different issues...it's one thing for Mickey's Hands/Cesium Atomic "Clocks" to run fast/slow but quite another to then extrapolate from that observation that "TIME" has been affected due to Gravity.

 

This is not something I'm familiar with I keep getting caught up on it and I'd always thought of it as being axiomatic. You may be right. I don't know enough to say one way or the other. I'm going to do some reading on the subject and come back to the point.

 

"Axiomatic"?  Yes, my explanation is quite self evident.

 

 

Of course not. Would you call lettuce a sandwich?

 

Nope.

 

"It is important to realize in physics today, we have no knowledge of what energy is".

Richard P. Feynman PhD (Nobel laureate Physics)

 

Quote mine. Again.

 

So whats the game here, you see a "Quote" and then immediately Claim "Quote Mine" eh?  geez

 

In order for THIS to be a "Quote Mine" he would have to contradict himself either before or after stating what Energy IS.  Go ahead and show Exactly where he states this.....?  So as to support your Baseless Assertion (Fallacy)

 

 

And now you're being pedantic. Again.

Illustrating: serve as an example of.

Explain: make (an idea or situation) clear to someone by describing it in more detail or revealing relevant facts.

Describe: give a detailed account in words of.

 

 

No, just a Stickler for Details.

 

"Science does not explain. Science describes."

Donald Simanek Emeritus Professor Physics Lock Haven University

 

I vehemently disagree with him; however, he juxtaposes the principles.  So if I "describe" my computer desk...that's "science"?  A 5 year old could do that.  

 

 

(Will talk about how your wrong about the scientific method when I get to that.)

 

I suggest having all your ducks in a VERY tight row.  You may want to review this to prepare: 

[alphaparticle]

 

I know I'm late to this party commenting on this, but hopefully it's cool.

 

You don't need 2 masses to have gravity, though you can draw parallels to the case of electromagnetism for how that works formally. In electromagnetism if you have a charge sitting about in space, you can describe the field created by that charge. You then know the force that a charge would experience were it to be place at a particular place in space by that charge. Likewise with gravity you can come up with how an objective distorts the local spacetime. You can then predict how the trajectories of other objects through spacetime are affected by its presence.

 

I want to mention that because quantum mechanics does predict that the gravitational field can be quantized (i.e. gravitons fall out), although certainly that isn't a result of General Relativity.

 

Maybe mentioning that just makes matters more unclear rather than the reverse, but I have a disease...

That is a clearer, more concise version of exactly what I was trying to say. Bro: You're a legend.

 

 

 

Legend nah. I just have professional training in this area. It pains me that the Christian representation on this board for some reason tends toward this sort of anti-scientific view which demonstrates an ignorance about, in this case, the physics involved, so I feel compelled to throw in my views so it isn't always so lopsided seeming. I don't get why the dynamics here are that way, but such as it is, I did want to communicate that we believers aren't all this way about scientific matters.

[alphaparticle]

 

 

 

==================================================================

 

 

You don't need 2 masses to have gravity, though you can draw parallels to the case of electromagnetism

 

First of all "Electromagnetism" and "Gravity" are two different things, one reason is they're two different words.   And "Charges"?  Where'd you get them....Atoms?  That's "Matter"....and there's more than Two. 

 

The point is that the formalism is a formalism of fields. You can define an electric field which is produced by charged particles, which allows you to predict the forces that another charged particle would feel were it to be put at a particular point in the field. Likewise it is certainly not useless to constructive a field equation for a configuration of mass-energy so you know how that configuration affects local spacetime. That is what the field equations are for.

[Enoch2021]

 

 

 

 

You don't need 2 masses to have gravity, though you can draw parallels to the case of electromagnetism

 

First of all "Electromagnetism" and "Gravity" are two different things, one reason is they're two different words.   And "Charges"?  Where'd you get them....Atoms?  That's "Matter"....and there's more than Two. 

 

The point is that the formalism is a formalism of fields. You can define an electric field which is produced by charged particles, which allows you to predict the forces that another charged particle would feel were it to be put at a particular point in the field. Likewise it is certainly not useless to constructive a field equation for a configuration of mass-energy so you know how that configuration affects local spacetime. That is what the field equations are for.

 

 

 

=====================================================================================================================

 

I'm calling "Fields"...."Q's" from now on; it's more "descriptive".

 

Space"Time" is a demonstrable Fairytale as I've simply illustrated.  The substance of which I have posted on many forums for quite some time without a single refutation, you know why...because it's Irrefutable.  I just use the lack of solutions to the Field Equations and the Violation of Bell's Inequality as dressing @ this point----which is quite the statement, I must say.

 

As far as this little attempted back-handed slight....

 

It pains me that the Christian representation on this board for some reason tends toward this sort of anti-scientific view which demonstrates an ignorance about....yada yada yada

 

 

It's not Anti-"Scientific" it's Demonstrable Anti-"Fairytale" ("Just So" Stories/Begging The Question Fallacies) that is dumbfound-ingly taken for science via Equivocation (Fallacy)...most likely directly due to "a priori" adherence's, that just all random like attempt to cast a negative light on THE ALMIGHTY GOD.  

 

And the only reason why it's so "Lopsided" is that I not only say it...."I SUPPORT IT" 6 ways from Sunday.  And as an ancillary benefit, I already know well in advance of any potential refuters target and their next 10-20 subsequent moves because I have run every last one through my own personal crucible of Due Diligence x10 ^{00000000000000000}.  I'm Hard Wired for it; of which, you already know.  

 

Of Course, it doesn't hurt to have The CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE as my ROCK/Fortress, and knowing that whatever comes along that clumsily attempts to cast that negative light is already Inherently Compromised from jump street somewhere in it's Tenets...ERGO, I'll find it eventually, by attrition if nothing less.    

[alphaparticle]

 

 

 

 

 

You don't need 2 masses to have gravity, though you can draw parallels to the case of electromagnetism

 

First of all "Electromagnetism" and "Gravity" are two different things, one reason is they're two different words.   And "Charges"?  Where'd you get them....Atoms?  That's "Matter"....and there's more than Two. 

 

The point is that the formalism is a formalism of fields. You can define an electric field which is produced by charged particles, which allows you to predict the forces that another charged particle would feel were it to be put at a particular point in the field. Likewise it is certainly not useless to constructive a field equation for a configuration of mass-energy so you know how that configuration affects local spacetime. That is what the field equations are for.

 

 

 

=====================================================================================================================

 

I'm calling "Fields"...."Q's" from now on; it's more "descriptive".

 

Space"Time" is a demonstrable Fairytale as I've simply illustrated.  The substance of which I have posted on many forums for quite some time without a single refutation, you know why...because it's Irrefutable.  I just use the lack of solutions to the Field Equations and the Violation of Bell's Inequality as dressing @ this point----which is quite the statement, I must say.

 

As far as this little attempted back-handed slight....

 

It pains me that the Christian representation on this board for some reason tends toward this sort of anti-scientific view which demonstrates an ignorance about....yada yada yada

 

 

It's not Anti-"Scientific" it's Demonstrable Anti-"Fairytale" ("Just So" Stories/Begging The Question Fallacies) that is dumbfound-ingly taken for science via Equivocation (Fallacy)...most likely directly due to "a priori" adherence's, that just all random like attempt to cast a negative light on THE ALMIGHTY GOD.  

 

And the only reason why it's so "Lopsided" is that I not only say it...."I SUPPORT IT" 6 ways from Sunday.  And as an ancillary benefit, I already know well in advance of any potential refuters target and their next 10-20 subsequent moves because I have run every last one through my own personal crucible of Due Diligence x10 ^{00000000000000000}.  I'm Hard Wired for it; of which, you already know.  

 

Of Course, it doesn't hurt to have The CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE as my ROCK/Fortress, and knowing that whatever comes along that clumsily attempts to cast that negative light is already Inherently Compromised from jump street somewhere in it's Tenets...ERGO, I'll find it eventually, by attrition if nothing less.    

 

It's not backhanded. It's straight up. I'm sick of this subsection being dominated by conspiracy theory armchair 'science'. I am sick of it in particular because this could not be a worse witness in a section that is already unfortunately named 'faith VS science'.

 

There a lot of empirical evidence for General Relativity. I have mentioned many items as has scintillic. This isn't in the realm of pure speculation. I have mentioned specifically that GR somehow manages to predict relativistic corrections necessary for GPS, for light redshifting, explains the anomaly in Mercury's orbit, gravitational lensing, and is being rigorously tested right  now with interferometers built to measure the presence of gravitational waves.

 

But all that aside, the main point here is, I cannot begin to imagine where in your mind, or anyone else's mind, this has anything to do with God existing or not! Nothing particular about God's existence, the truth of the gospel, or any other important fundamental truth such as that is even remotely threatened by special or general relativity. This is completely baffling to me.

 

I

[Steve_S]

Locking this for now so we can all remain friends, may reopen after it cools a bit.