Jump to content
IGNORED

Distant black hole holds surprises about the early universe


MorningGlory

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Seeker
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  3
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  21
  • Content Per Day:  0.01
  • Reputation:   20
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  12/12/2017
  • Status:  Offline

8 hours ago, MorningGlory said:

No, thank YOU for the laughs, Enoch.  I've missed your fourteen page diatribes about tipsy biscuits.  :P

Out of respect for your black hole thread, I would prefer to conduct the debate elsewhere. Sorry for my part in derailing your thread. I'll propose to Enoch that we start a new thread so we can debate the issue there. :) I'm just gonna make one more post asking for clarification here.

 

9 hours ago, Enoch2021 said:

Straw Man (Fallacy)- when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

EPIC FAIL! You actually posted a definition of the strawman fallacy, apparently without reading it first, and failed to recognize how it applied to your argument. I think you can do better. Some small part of you has to realize how wrong you are on this.

But forget about your faulty logic for now...

Here's the deal: I want to start a thread for the express purpose of debating THIS with you: Is astronomy a science? 

Are you down for that?

:) Let me know and I will create the thread, or you can create the thread. I don't really care.

I asked you if we could agree that the scientific method does not require manipulation of objects in the experiment/testing phase. You do not agree. FINE. I'll simply have to make that case in my arguments. I ask for one more matter of clarification (all I need is a yes/no answer THEN we can begin the debate).

If I demonstrate that astronomy conforms to the scientific method, will that prove to you that astronomy is a science?

I want to reiterate: all I need is a yes/no answer right now. I know you have plenty more to say on the matter. There will be time for you to make your case once we begin the debate. So which is it, yes or no? If you need to, go back up and read the question again (it's in bold). Keep in mind, you are not conceding your point by answering "yes"--you are merely providing a possible means by which I might refute your argument--IFF I am able to make my case.

Some advice:

1) Listening to the other side of a debate is important. If you really are sure of your own position, you shouldn't be afraid to hear the other side. REAL debate involves listening and response, not just pedantically spouting your own opinions.

2) It demonstrates intellectual cowardice to rely wholly upon ridicule/towering over your opponent. If you want to ridicule me, do it sparingly. Wait for the right moment. :P

3) I'm not afraid of you in the slightest. You have demonstrated little more than bully tactics and a frail grasp of logic. But I'm not going to dismiss you on this account. Cut and paste all the Latin you want... I know what I'm talking about. Do you?

4) I'm coming into this debate with an open mind. Open mindedness means that I'm willing to consider what you say (nothing more, nothing less). It would demonstrate character and integrity on your part if you adopted this posture, but I'm not holding my breath. I'm ready for whatever you dish out.

5) This is most the most important piece of advice I have: Please, for the love of all that is good and holy, take the thirty or so seconds required to READ THE DEFINITIONS OF LOGICAL FALLACIES before accusing another of commiting one, or copy/pasting the definition into your own posts to defend yourself. Please OMG please! I'm begging!

 

OK. Keep in mind, I don't want to continue ANY MORE debate until I get my yes/no answer from you on this question: If I demonstrate that astronomy conforms to the scientific method, will that prove to you that astronomy is a science?  THEN we can debate. (I haven't even presented my argument yet, so there is really nothing for you to respond to). Mock me on other counts, give me a backhanded list of "advice" but DO NOT, continue the debate until we start our new thread.

 

Do you accept my challenge?

Edited by VulcanLogician
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  1,022
  • Topics Per Day:  0.16
  • Content Count:  39,193
  • Content Per Day:  6.14
  • Reputation:   9,977
  • Days Won:  78
  • Joined:  10/01/2006
  • Status:  Offline

13 hours ago, VulcanLogician said:

Out of respect for your black hole thread, I would prefer to conduct the debate elsewhere. Sorry for my part in derailing your thread. I'll propose to Enoch that we start a new thread so we can debate the issue there. :) I'm just gonna make one more post asking for clarification here.

 

EPIC FAIL! You actually posted a definition of the strawman fallacy, apparently without reading it first, and failed to recognize how it applied to your argument. I think you can do better. Some small part of you has to realize how wrong you are on this.

But forget about your faulty logic for now...

Here's the deal: I want to start a thread for the express purpose of debating THIS with you: Is astronomy a science? 

Are you down for that?

:) Let me know and I will create the thread, or you can create the thread. I don't really care.

I asked you if we could agree that the scientific method does not require manipulation of objects in the experiment/testing phase. You do not agree. FINE. I'll simply have to make that case in my arguments. I ask for one more matter of clarification (all I need is a yes/no answer THEN we can begin the debate).

If I demonstrate that astronomy conforms to the scientific method, will that prove to you that astronomy is a science?

I want to reiterate: all I need is a yes/no answer right now. I know you have plenty more to say on the matter. There will be time for you to make your case once we begin the debate. So which is it, yes or no? If you need to, go back up and read the question again (it's in bold). Keep in mind, you are not conceding your point by answering "yes"--you are merely providing a possible means by which I might refute your argument--IFF I am able to make my case.

Some advice:

1) Listening to the other side of a debate is important. If you really are sure of your own position, you shouldn't be afraid to hear the other side. REAL debate involves listening and response, not just pedantically spouting your own opinions.

2) It demonstrates intellectual cowardice to rely wholly upon ridicule/towering over your opponent. If you want to ridicule me, do it sparingly. Wait for the right moment. :P

3) I'm not afraid of you in the slightest. You have demonstrated little more than bully tactics and a frail grasp of logic. But I'm not going to dismiss you on this account. Cut and paste all the Latin you want... I know what I'm talking about. Do you?

4) I'm coming into this debate with an open mind. Open mindedness means that I'm willing to consider what you say (nothing more, nothing less). It would demonstrate character and integrity on your part if you adopted this posture, but I'm not holding my breath. I'm ready for whatever you dish out.

5) This is most the most important piece of advice I have: Please, for the love of all that is good and holy, take the thirty or so seconds required to READ THE DEFINITIONS OF LOGICAL FALLACIES before accusing another of commiting one, or copy/pasting the definition into your own posts to defend yourself. Please OMG please! I'm begging!

 

OK. Keep in mind, I don't want to continue ANY MORE debate until I get my yes/no answer from you on this question: If I demonstrate that astronomy conforms to the scientific method, will that prove to you that astronomy is a science?  THEN we can debate. (I haven't even presented my argument yet, so there is really nothing for you to respond to). Mock me on other counts, give me a backhanded list of "advice" but DO NOT, continue the debate until we start our new thread.

 

Do you accept my challenge?

I really hope he does, VL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  11
  • Topic Count:  19
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  3,396
  • Content Per Day:  0.91
  • Reputation:   730
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  12/21/2013
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  12/26/1963

13 hours ago, VulcanLogician said:

Out of respect for your black hole thread...

What on Earth?? :rolleyes:

For the life of me, I can't understand why you're still posting.

You think you can recover and/or 'Whistle Past the Graveyard' by your Six Million Dollar Man Style Crash & Burn in your last post?

If anyone (that can 'fog a mirror') takes just a cursory look at your Trainwreck, they'll need to be Resuscitated from Tear Jerkin Belly Laugher Syndrome.

I mean, this is tantamount to the Chairman of PETA showing up for work the next day after he was Video-Taped LIVE Clubbing Baby Seals with a Nail-Spiked 44" Louisville Slugger !!!

 

Quote

Do you accept my challenge?

:huh: 

This is tantamount to General Custer exclaiming to Sitting Bull: "Do you accept my challenge?" on Jun 27, 1876.

Read this Carefully:  IT'S O V E R !!  mmm K?

 

My Word

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  11
  • Topic Count:  19
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  3,396
  • Content Per Day:  0.91
  • Reputation:   730
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  12/21/2013
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  12/26/1963

On 1/15/2018 at 3:44 PM, Sojourner414 said:

(from this point on, I recommend ignoring Enoch2021, as he only wants to derail the thread).

Yes let's Ignore him, Mainly Due To: Sojourner 414 Pummeling

 

Quote

Light travels at a specified speed: 186000 miles per second, or 671 million miles per hour.

Factually Incorrect:

According to 'The Narrative', "Light Years" is not a measure of "Time"...it's one of "Distance". 

For you to be able to ascertain the "Time" component, you *MUST KNOW* the...
"One-Way" Speed of Light. 
 
Unfortunately, you can never know that because it's a Begging The Question Fallacy... In TOTO, resulting from the inability to Synchronize 2 'clocks' by some distance. 
 
Watch...
 
How do we determine the "SPEED" or "RATE" of something??
 
Distance = Rate x Time, right??  So...
 
R = D/T
 
It's the "T" that's in focus here. You need 2 Clocks, right? Clock A (Terminus a quo) and Clock B (Terminus ad quem).
 
According to Einstein's 'Relativity', the moment you move Clock B... That Clock is DE-SYNCHRONIZED !!!!
 
What do you Need to KNOW to reconcile and SYNCHRONIZE Clock B to Clock A ??  That's Right Folks...
 
 
The "One-Way" Speed of Light !!!
 
So the ENTIRE Exercise is a TEXTBOOK: Begging The Question Fallacy.  
 
Einstein made the very same conclusions...
 

“It would thus appear as though we were moving here in a logical circle.
A. Einstein, Relativity: The Special and General Theory, authorized translation by R. W. Lawson (New York: Crown Publishers, 1961), pp. 22–23.

Regarding the "One Way" Speed of Light, Einstein concluded....“That light requires THE SAME TIME to traverse the path A-M as for the path B-M is in reality NEITHER A SUPPOSITION NOR A HYPOTHESIS about the physical nature of light, but a stipulation which I can make of *MY OWN FREEWILL* in order to arrive at a definition of simultaneity.” 
A. Einstein, Relativity: The Special and General Theory, authorized translation by R. W. Lawson (New York: Crown Publishers, 1961), p. 23.
 
Ergo...the Speed of Light (average "Two-Way" Speed) is merely a *'CONVENTION'* that we've agreed upon.

 
More strikingly, according to Quantum Mechanics... Independent of Knowledge/Existence of 'which-path' Information, " LIGHT " (Photons) --  have no defined properties or location. Photons exist in a state of a Wave Function which is a series of Potentialities rather than actual objects. That is, Matter/Photons don't exist as a Wave of Energy prior to observation but as a Wave of Potentialities. 
 
“It begins to look as we ourselves, by our last minute decision, have an influence on what a photon will do when it has already accomplished most of its doing… we have to say that we ourselves have an undeniable part in what we have always called the past. The past is not really the past until is has been REGISTERED. Or to put it another way, the past has no meaning or existence unless it exists as a RECORD in the present.”
Prof. John Wheeler "Referenced in"; The Ghost In The Atom; Page 66-68.

Unless you can explicitly identify "A Knower" @ the source of this Light (Photons)....who also "observed" it's entire 'path', AND the "observer" who first identified it here on Earth and RECORDED it (Date and Time stamped) THEN, you're gonna have to provide....
 
 
*The Speed of a Wave of Potentialities !!* 
 
 
Go ahead...I'll get the Popcorn !!! 
 

 

Quote

An example is that the light from the Sun takes roughly 8 minutes to travel from the Sun to Earth. That means what we're observing of the Sun is actually an 8 minute old picture!

1.  Factually Incorrect:  Begging The Question Fallacy (SEE: "Speed of Light" above).

2.  Even granting... for the sake of argument, your Erroneous Speed of Light, you MUST VALIDATE the Distance to the Sun.

Go ahead...?  (Please Rigorously Define ALL Terms)

 

Quote

Now, because of distance affecting what we see, the further we look into the universe that we can observe, the older the picture we see due to the time it takes the light from those parts to reach us.

Hogwash!!  Falsified Above.

 

Quote

Our nearest Solar Neighbor, Alpha Centauri, lies about 4 light-years from Earth. That distance is measured by how long it takes light from that star (to be accurate, three stars named Alpha Centauri A, Alpha Centauri B and Proxima Centauri) to travel. Because of that, the light we see from that system is four years old.

Hogwash!!  Falsified Above.

 

Quote

So, how does this affect astronomy?

Who Cares, astronomy isn't "Science" !! ...

The sine qua non of "Science" is The Scientific Method
The sine qua non of The Scientific Method is "Experiments" (Hypothesis Tests).
The sine qua non of Experiments is "Hypothesis".

Post ONE Formal Scientific Hypothesis in the History of astronomy...?  OR
Show how you can have "Science" without Scientific Hypotheses...?

"If it doesn't agree with EXPERIMENT, it's WRONG. In that simple statement is the KEY to SCIENCE".
Richard Feynman (Nobel Prize, Physics); The Essence Of Science In 60 Seconds.

"The scientific method REQUIRES that an hypothesis be ruled out or modified if its predictions are clearly and repeatedly incompatible with EXPERIMENTAL TESTS. Further, no matter how elegant a theory is, its predictions must agree with EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS if we are to believe that it is a VALID description of nature. In physics, as in every experimental science, "EXPERIMENT is Supreme" and EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATION of hypothetical predictions is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY."
http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html

Uh Ohh...

"Unlike the other sciences, astronomy is ENTIRELY OBSERVATIONAL. You CANNOT run EXPERIMENTS on things. You cannot manipulate the objects to see how they work."
http://www.astronomynotes.com/starprop/s2.htm

Crocheting is more "Scientific" than astronomy. <_<

By the mere fact that I had to explain this to you, is a Screaming Testimony that you wouldn't know what ACTUAL "Science" was if it landed on your head, spun around, and whistled dixie.

 

Quote

Simply put: by looking deeper into the universe, the picture we get becomes older. In a sense, it almost becomes like time travel, as we are viewing light from centuries, then millennia ago that shows us what it had struck before traveling the universe.

Simply put:  FAIRYTALE. (SEE: Falsification Above)

 

Quote

As to the black hole in specific:it is part of a quasar (a contraction of quasi-stellar radio source).

Simply put:  FAIRYTALE.

Black Holes don't EXIST!!

1.  Scientifically Validate Black Holes...

a.  What Phenomenon was Observed...?
b.  Post the Formal Scientific Hypothesis then EXPERIMENT that validates your claim...?
c.  Highlight the "Independent Variable" that was used in the TEST...?
d.  Post the Null Hypothesis that was Rejected/Falsified...?

 

2.  Black Holes were conjured from the "DeBunked" Mytho-matheMagics of Einstein's Field Equations... 


'Black Holes were first discovered as purely mathematical solutions of Einstein's field equations. This solution, the Schwarzschild black hole, is a nonlinear solution of the Einstein equations of general Relativity. It contains no matter, and exists forever in an asymptotically flat space-time."
Dictionary of Geophysics, Astrophysics, and Astronomy, pg 55

"It contains no matter" :huh: oh my, come again?  "and exists forever"... in the Imagination

Translation: Fairytale

Can you show us one?

If you can't show one, can you please at least show ONE Solution to ANY of Einstein's "DeBunked" Mytho-matheMagical Field Equations for 2 or more masses?
I'll save you some time... It Doesn't Exist !

 

Quote

Quasars are super-massive black holes

:rolleyes:  Yes and Orangutans are Facultative Anaerobe Woodpeckers.

 

Listen to this Contradictory Nonsense folks...

Quote

As the gas falls into the black hole, it releases energy in the form of x-rays and radio waves, as well as visible, ultraviolet and infrared light. Since light cannot escape the black holes themselves

LOL.  So the Black Hole (:rolleyes:) takes in gas and releases the energy as EMR (Light); BUT... Light cannot escape Black Holes !!! :huh: 

 

But Alas, Just when we thought the astrophysicists couldn't be any Dumber, they go ahead and do something like this and TOTALLY REDEEM THEMSELVES...

Quote

the escaping energy is actually generated outside the event horizon by gravitational stresses and immense friction on the incoming material.

So the escaping energy (From INSIDE the Black Hole) is generated OUTSIDE the Black Hole, eh?

Makes Perfect Sense!  thumbsup.gif

Stay Tuned Next Week, The World Premier: Reconciling Married Bachelors.

 

ps. gravitational stresses ??

Which 'gravity'... Einstienian or Newtonian ??

a.  Is gravity a Force?
b.  Is 'gravity' a Scientific Law or Scientific Theory?
c.  What is the CAUSE of 'gravity'...?
d.  Scientifically Validate 'gravity'...?  i.e., ...

1.  What Phenomenon was Observed...?
2.  Post the Formal Scientific Hypothesis then EXPERIMENT that validates your claim...?
3.  Highlight the "Independent Variable" that was used in the TEST...?
4.  Post the Null Hypothesis that was Rejected/Falsified...?

 

ps2: (Minor Detail) Black Hole Universes and Big Bang Universes (4 Different Types LOL) are Mutually Exclusive:

Black Holes: No k-curvature.
Big Bangs: k-curvature.

Black Holes: Spatially Infinite.
Big Bangs: Spatially Finite (k=1), or Infinite (k=-1, or k=0).

Black Holes: Eternal (No Age).
Big Bangs: 13.8 Billion Years Old (this week ;)).

Black Holes: Not Expanding.
Big Bangs: Expanding.

Black Holes: Asymptotically Flat.
Big Bangs: Not Asymptotically Anything.

Black Holes: Contains Only 1 Mass.
Big Bangs: Contains Many Masses.

 

Quote

just as the first stars were forming

Please Explain Star Formation in the Context of: the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, Boyle's Gas Law, and Jeans Mass...?

pssst ...

STARS "THEORETICALLY" IMPOSSIBLE, J. C. Brandt:

"Contemporary opinion on star formation holds that the objects called protostars are formed as condensations from interstellar gas. This condensation process is very difficult theoretically and no essential theoretical understanding can be claimed; in fact, some theoretical evidence argues strongly against the possibility of star formation. However, we know that the stars exist, and we must do our best to account for them." 
Sun And Stars, p.111 
 
It's "difficult" theoretically and "theoretical evidence argues STRONGLY against it" --because it takes 2LOT/Boyle's Gas Law/and Jeans Mass to the Woodshed and Bludgeons Them Senseless!!  Scientifically, for the postulate to be true: is logically tantamount to cutting off your legs to prevent athlete's foot.

 

"The process by which an interstellar cloud is concentrated until it is held together gravitationally to become a protostar is not known. In quantitative work, it has simply been assumed that the number of atoms per cm3 has somehow increased about a thousand-fold over that in a dense nebula. The two principal factors inhibiting the formation of a protostar are that the gas has a tendency to disperse [ ERRR...The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (2LOT) !!! ] before the density becomes high enough for self-gravitation [ Which 'gravity' einSHtienian or newtonian, love??] to be effective, and that any initial angular momentum would cause excessively rapid rotation as the material contracts. Some mechanism [ That DIRECTLY VIOLATES 2LOT and Boyle's Gas Law!!! ] must therefore be provided for gathering the material into a sufficiently small volume that self-gravitation [ that doesn't exist ] may become effective, and... the angular momentum must in some way be removed."

24.gif
Novotny, E: Introduction to Stellar Atmospheres and Interiors (1973), Oxford University Press, pp. 279-280.


"If stars did not exist, it would be easy to prove that this is what we expect."
Geoffrey Burbidge; Director, Kitt Peak National Observatory. Science, V.295, p.76, 1/4/2002 


"There is no reasonable astronomical scenario in which mineral grains in space gas clouds can condense." 
Hoyle, F., Wickramasinghe, C: "Where Microbes Boldly Went," in New Scientist (1981), pp. 412-413.

 

Abraham Loeb, of Harvard’s Center for Astrophysics, says:

“The truth is that we don’t understand star formation at a fundamental level.”
Marcus Chown, ‘Let there be light’, New Scientist 157(2120):26-30, 7 February 1998.

Yea, THE TRUTH is Abraham ---  WILLFUL IGNORANCE (!!), you don't understand it ...because it's Directly Violates The Laws of Quantum Mechanics, Boyle's Gas Law, and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics !!!!  
So you've chosen to 'Whistle past the Graveyard' and float a feigned Argument to Ignorance (Fallacy) --- with an 'Implied' Argument to the Future (Fallacy), wrapped around its incoherent ankles to keep your Mind Numbing "Just So" Story Fairytales ALIVE !!!

 

And the 64,000 Dollar Question:

Are Stars, SUNS ??

If so, Book/Chapter/Verse Please...?

 

Quote

Such a picture could reveal a great wealth of information about our universe and how it was made.

We won't know HOW it was made... in this life, but we know WHO made it.  thumbsup.gif

 

regards

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  1,022
  • Topics Per Day:  0.16
  • Content Count:  39,193
  • Content Per Day:  6.14
  • Reputation:   9,977
  • Days Won:  78
  • Joined:  10/01/2006
  • Status:  Offline

42 minutes ago, Sojourner414 said:

Same here, but he seems to enjoy derailing every topic he gets into and insulting everyone, from the quotes I've seen folks here post of his replies.

If he doesn't take VL up on his challenge, then that means he knows he's wrong and is just trolling this thread to be obnoxious.

:thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  1,022
  • Topics Per Day:  0.16
  • Content Count:  39,193
  • Content Per Day:  6.14
  • Reputation:   9,977
  • Days Won:  78
  • Joined:  10/01/2006
  • Status:  Offline

2 hours ago, Enoch2021 said:

Yes let's Ignore him, Mainly Due To: Sojourner 414 Pummeling

 

Factually Incorrect:

According to 'The Narrative', "Light Years" is not a measure of "Time"...it's one of "Distance". 

For you to be able to ascertain the "Time" component, you *MUST KNOW* the...
"One-Way" Speed of Light. 
 
Unfortunately, you can never know that because it's a Begging The Question Fallacy... In TOTO, resulting from the inability to Synchronize 2 'clocks' by some distance. 
 
Watch...
 
How do we determine the "SPEED" or "RATE" of something??
 
Distance = Rate x Time, right??  So...
 
R = D/T
 
It's the "T" that's in focus here. You need 2 Clocks, right? Clock A (Terminus a quo) and Clock B (Terminus ad quem).
 
According to Einstein's 'Relativity', the moment you move Clock B... That Clock is DE-SYNCHRONIZED !!!!
 
What do you Need to KNOW to reconcile and SYNCHRONIZE Clock B to Clock A ??  That's Right Folks...
 
 
The "One-Way" Speed of Light !!!
 
So the ENTIRE Exercise is a TEXTBOOK: Begging The Question Fallacy.  
 
Einstein made the very same conclusions...
 

“It would thus appear as though we were moving here in a logical circle.
A. Einstein, Relativity: The Special and General Theory, authorized translation by R. W. Lawson (New York: Crown Publishers, 1961), pp. 22–23.

Regarding the "One Way" Speed of Light, Einstein concluded....“That light requires THE SAME TIME to traverse the path A-M as for the path B-M is in reality NEITHER A SUPPOSITION NOR A HYPOTHESIS about the physical nature of light, but a stipulation which I can make of *MY OWN FREEWILL* in order to arrive at a definition of simultaneity.” 
A. Einstein, Relativity: The Special and General Theory, authorized translation by R. W. Lawson (New York: Crown Publishers, 1961), p. 23.
 
Ergo...the Speed of Light (average "Two-Way" Speed) is merely a *'CONVENTION'* that we've agreed upon.

 
More strikingly, according to Quantum Mechanics... Independent of Knowledge/Existence of 'which-path' Information, " LIGHT " (Photons) --  have no defined properties or location. Photons exist in a state of a Wave Function which is a series of Potentialities rather than actual objects. That is, Matter/Photons don't exist as a Wave of Energy prior to observation but as a Wave of Potentialities. 
 
“It begins to look as we ourselves, by our last minute decision, have an influence on what a photon will do when it has already accomplished most of its doing… we have to say that we ourselves have an undeniable part in what we have always called the past. The past is not really the past until is has been REGISTERED. Or to put it another way, the past has no meaning or existence unless it exists as a RECORD in the present.”
Prof. John Wheeler "Referenced in"; The Ghost In The Atom; Page 66-68.

Unless you can explicitly identify "A Knower" @ the source of this Light (Photons)....who also "observed" it's entire 'path', AND the "observer" who first identified it here on Earth and RECORDED it (Date and Time stamped) THEN, you're gonna have to provide....
 
 
*The Speed of a Wave of Potentialities !!* 
 
 
Go ahead...I'll get the Popcorn !!! 
 

 

1.  Factually Incorrect:  Begging The Question Fallacy (SEE: "Speed of Light" above).

2.  Even granting... for the sake of argument, your Erroneous Speed of Light, you MUST VALIDATE the Distance to the Sun.

Go ahead...?  (Please Rigorously Define ALL Terms)

 

Hogwash!!  Falsified Above.

 

Hogwash!!  Falsified Above.

 

Who Cares, astronomy isn't "Science" !! ...

The sine qua non of "Science" is The Scientific Method
The sine qua non of The Scientific Method is "Experiments" (Hypothesis Tests).
The sine qua non of Experiments is "Hypothesis".

Post ONE Formal Scientific Hypothesis in the History of astronomy...?  OR
Show how you can have "Science" without Scientific Hypotheses...?

"If it doesn't agree with EXPERIMENT, it's WRONG. In that simple statement is the KEY to SCIENCE".
Richard Feynman (Nobel Prize, Physics); The Essence Of Science In 60 Seconds.

"The scientific method REQUIRES that an hypothesis be ruled out or modified if its predictions are clearly and repeatedly incompatible with EXPERIMENTAL TESTS. Further, no matter how elegant a theory is, its predictions must agree with EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS if we are to believe that it is a VALID description of nature. In physics, as in every experimental science, "EXPERIMENT is Supreme" and EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATION of hypothetical predictions is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY."
http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html

Uh Ohh...

"Unlike the other sciences, astronomy is ENTIRELY OBSERVATIONAL. You CANNOT run EXPERIMENTS on things. You cannot manipulate the objects to see how they work."
http://www.astronomynotes.com/starprop/s2.htm

Crocheting is more "Scientific" than astronomy. <_<

By the mere fact that I had to explain this to you, is a Screaming Testimony that you wouldn't know what ACTUAL "Science" was if it landed on your head, spun around, and whistled dixie.

 

Simply put:  FAIRYTALE. (SEE: Falsification Above)

 

Simply put:  FAIRYTALE.

Black Holes don't EXIST!!

1.  Scientifically Validate Black Holes...

a.  What Phenomenon was Observed...?
b.  Post the Formal Scientific Hypothesis then EXPERIMENT that validates your claim...?
c.  Highlight the "Independent Variable" that was used in the TEST...?
d.  Post the Null Hypothesis that was Rejected/Falsified...?

 

2.  Black Holes were conjured from the "DeBunked" Mytho-matheMagics of Einstein's Field Equations... 


'Black Holes were first discovered as purely mathematical solutions of Einstein's field equations. This solution, the Schwarzschild black hole, is a nonlinear solution of the Einstein equations of general Relativity. It contains no matter, and exists forever in an asymptotically flat space-time."
Dictionary of Geophysics, Astrophysics, and Astronomy, pg 55

"It contains no matter" :huh: oh my, come again?  "and exists forever"... in the Imagination

Translation: Fairytale

Can you show us one?

If you can't show one, can you please at least show ONE Solution to ANY of Einstein's "DeBunked" Mytho-matheMagical Field Equations for 2 or more masses?
I'll save you some time... It Doesn't Exist !

 

:rolleyes:  Yes and Orangutans are Facultative Anaerobe Woodpeckers.

 

Listen to this Contradictory Nonsense folks...

LOL.  So the Black Hole (:rolleyes:) takes in gas and releases the energy as EMR (Light); BUT... Light cannot escape Black Holes !!! :huh: 

 

But Alas, Just when we thought the astrophysicists couldn't be any Dumber, they go ahead and do something like this and TOTALLY REDEEM THEMSELVES...

So the escaping energy (From INSIDE the Black Hole) is generated OUTSIDE the Black Hole, eh?

Makes Perfect Sense!  thumbsup.gif

Stay Tuned Next Week, The World Premier: Reconciling Married Bachelors.

 

ps. gravitational stresses ??

Which 'gravity'... Einstienian or Newtonian ??

a.  Is gravity a Force?
b.  Is 'gravity' a Scientific Law or Scientific Theory?
c.  What is the CAUSE of 'gravity'...?
d.  Scientifically Validate 'gravity'...?  i.e., ...

1.  What Phenomenon was Observed...?
2.  Post the Formal Scientific Hypothesis then EXPERIMENT that validates your claim...?
3.  Highlight the "Independent Variable" that was used in the TEST...?
4.  Post the Null Hypothesis that was Rejected/Falsified...?

 

ps2: (Minor Detail) Black Hole Universes and Big Bang Universes (4 Different Types LOL) are Mutually Exclusive:

Black Holes: No k-curvature.
Big Bangs: k-curvature.

Black Holes: Spatially Infinite.
Big Bangs: Spatially Finite (k=1), or Infinite (k=-1, or k=0).

Black Holes: Eternal (No Age).
Big Bangs: 13.8 Billion Years Old (this week ;)).

Black Holes: Not Expanding.
Big Bangs: Expanding.

Black Holes: Asymptotically Flat.
Big Bangs: Not Asymptotically Anything.

Black Holes: Contains Only 1 Mass.
Big Bangs: Contains Many Masses.

 

Please Explain Star Formation in the Context of: the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, Boyle's Gas Law, and Jeans Mass...?

pssst ...

STARS "THEORETICALLY" IMPOSSIBLE, J. C. Brandt:

"Contemporary opinion on star formation holds that the objects called protostars are formed as condensations from interstellar gas. This condensation process is very difficult theoretically and no essential theoretical understanding can be claimed; in fact, some theoretical evidence argues strongly against the possibility of star formation. However, we know that the stars exist, and we must do our best to account for them." 
Sun And Stars, p.111 
 
It's "difficult" theoretically and "theoretical evidence argues STRONGLY against it" --because it takes 2LOT/Boyle's Gas Law/and Jeans Mass to the Woodshed and Bludgeons Them Senseless!!  Scientifically, for the postulate to be true: is logically tantamount to cutting off your legs to prevent athlete's foot.

 

"The process by which an interstellar cloud is concentrated until it is held together gravitationally to become a protostar is not known. In quantitative work, it has simply been assumed that the number of atoms per cm3 has somehow increased about a thousand-fold over that in a dense nebula. The two principal factors inhibiting the formation of a protostar are that the gas has a tendency to disperse [ ERRR...The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (2LOT) !!! ] before the density becomes high enough for self-gravitation [ Which 'gravity' einSHtienian or newtonian, love??] to be effective, and that any initial angular momentum would cause excessively rapid rotation as the material contracts. Some mechanism [ That DIRECTLY VIOLATES 2LOT and Boyle's Gas Law!!! ] must therefore be provided for gathering the material into a sufficiently small volume that self-gravitation [ that doesn't exist ] may become effective, and... the angular momentum must in some way be removed."

24.gif
Novotny, E: Introduction to Stellar Atmospheres and Interiors (1973), Oxford University Press, pp. 279-280.


"If stars did not exist, it would be easy to prove that this is what we expect."
Geoffrey Burbidge; Director, Kitt Peak National Observatory. Science, V.295, p.76, 1/4/2002 


"There is no reasonable astronomical scenario in which mineral grains in space gas clouds can condense." 
Hoyle, F., Wickramasinghe, C: "Where Microbes Boldly Went," in New Scientist (1981), pp. 412-413.

 

Abraham Loeb, of Harvard’s Center for Astrophysics, says:

“The truth is that we don’t understand star formation at a fundamental level.”
Marcus Chown, ‘Let there be light’, New Scientist 157(2120):26-30, 7 February 1998.

Yea, THE TRUTH is Abraham ---  WILLFUL IGNORANCE (!!), you don't understand it ...because it's Directly Violates The Laws of Quantum Mechanics, Boyle's Gas Law, and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics !!!!  
So you've chosen to 'Whistle past the Graveyard' and float a feigned Argument to Ignorance (Fallacy) --- with an 'Implied' Argument to the Future (Fallacy), wrapped around its incoherent ankles to keep your Mind Numbing "Just So" Story Fairytales ALIVE !!!

 

And the 64,000 Dollar Question:

Are Stars, SUNS ??

If so, Book/Chapter/Verse Please...?

 

We won't know HOW it was made... in this life, but we know WHO made it.  thumbsup.gif

 

regards

Bellicose overpontificating bipsy whiskit.  :D

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Servant
  • Followers:  25
  • Topic Count:  275
  • Topics Per Day:  0.05
  • Content Count:  5,208
  • Content Per Day:  1.00
  • Reputation:   1,893
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  01/02/2010
  • Status:  Offline

This one has ran its course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...