|
|
Post by rmc on Jan 13, 2013 16:16:22 GMT
This argument arises about how what we currently call Black Holes, (true mathematical Singularities) aren't really Singularities, and, therefore don't exist. - Forcing us to re-evaluate just what those massive things are at the center of the Galaxy? And there is some indication that the youtube used to start this point is nothing more than some Creationist's rant. Indication that Stephen Crothers is off the mark is discussed here: dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2009/12/paper-illustrating-more-of-crothers.html |
|
|
|
Post by unavailable on Jan 15, 2013 6:18:35 GMT
I don't think a Black Hole requires a true singularity, i.e. infinitely dense point mass. A BH is often described as an area of space from which nothing can escape because the escape velocity equals the speed of light. This applies to any object whose mass is within it's Schwarzchild radius. Obviously, an infinitely dense object (mathematical singularity) would meet this definition but so would other extremely dense objects that are not singularities.
Whether or not a true mathematical singularity can exist in the form of an infinitely dense point mass is irrelevant when it comes to the existence of Black Holes.
|
|
|
|
Post by privatepaddy on Jan 15, 2013 12:08:08 GMT
I sometimes wish that when some one educated in science and puts forward a contrary than accepted theory view, with proofs that the debate revolved around the science and not whether some one is a creationist or not. It is as if any thing to be said is not only discounted for its scientific standing but discredited for a persons personal beliefs, if it does not agree with main stream science. Talk to a quantum physicist and they will tell you their is something wrong with general relativity, it does not interlock finely with their micro universe. Not that there is something wrong with their own stance or something wrong with both. In my short research on this maverick scientist I can find no evidence of his religious affiliations positive or negative. I can find evidence that he rubbed people the wrong way and doors quickly closed and he spat the dummy. EOR (end of rant)  |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jan 16, 2013 9:21:30 GMT
Revised theory,"Black" because its an area of space in which the gravity is so high Light can not escape....
This after certain people at Cern have found that light is not necessarily the fastest thing ever.
Is this pedantic?... yes.... but in a good way?....
Can objects in motion pass by the event horizon and "Sligshot" out into space?... yes.
This is how they are observing black holes, by the way it "Bends" light and other EMF emissions from nearby objects in space.
Black hole was a name given as its a total absence of light, knowledge has surpassed that description, but pedantry is perhaps furthering knowledge?...
So what happens "Inside"..........
We just dont know.
Creationists.
If they belong to this rather strange set of religious beliefs, it should be made known at the start of their speech...
This was, "Serious" scientific minds can take the opportunity to walk away.
Free Speech, you have the right to say it.
Free Hearing, I have the right to not listen to what you just said.
You do not have any right to force me to listen to your babble?.... so STFU and let me get on with serious science.
Why SHOULD I take anything they say seriously?...
Well, I just shouldn't, if they can argue how the earth was formed, if they said rain, I should stick my hand out the bloody window and see if it comes back wet.
I CAN dismiss them that easily.
After all, they demand that we dismiss science because of their beliefs, why cant we dismiss them?...
Not exactly a rant, more a "Give yer head a wobble" "Dig" at the crazy fools who can dismiss what is known because they say they can?...
And by the way, that video, I wont watch, because you made it clear they are a creationist, and I am a man of my words, I dismiss it as not worth watching... that is NOT in any way a dig at RMC for posting it, its aimed at the twerp making the video...
They are a waste of Internet space.
|
|
|
|
Post by privatepaddy on Jan 16, 2013 12:06:37 GMT
Ladies and gentlemen I hereby present evidence of two incontrovertible facts 1/ I have never heard a creationist talk like this  2/ Good old fashioned Aussie Dummy spit ;D " After MacCallum, the gloves came off. Anyone who was rude or otherwise behaved as a smart-arse I responded to bluntly. And I still do, since I refuse to turn cheeks, having discovered that the majority of people understand only the power of money and the persuasiveness of force. So if it's a fight they want then it's a fight they'll get. Pasty-faced softies however, cloistered away in universities are not much of a challenge; but there are so many of them, like cane toads in the breeding season. And so I now make no bones about how I view blokes who, like K. Thorne and Ned Wright, prance about with long pony tails and matching sandals, or wear earings and otherwise dress and behave like girls (most "male" physicsts nowadays). " www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/PhD.htmlKeep in mind I have a lot of time for Ned Wright, this bloke wonders why no one wants to talk to him, I think they are scared he might bite  |
|
|
|
Post by rmc on Jan 16, 2013 16:23:45 GMT
And, besides, wasn't Lemaître a 'creationist' at heart? Since he was, after all, a Catholic Priest? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtreSeems ironic if George Lemaître wasn't a creationist, and yet he founded the Big Bang Theory, it looks to be. Anyway, I did some more asking around, and this Stephen Crothers is not a creationist. It, apparently, is just something the community attaches to you the instant you go against the grain? |
|
|
|
Post by privatepaddy on Jan 17, 2013 9:44:59 GMT
Going back over history most, not all, scientists had some form of religious beliefs. But it would appear from my viewpoint that he has a point up to a certain degree. MOND was not highly treated, the "MOND pages" were hosted by someone who was not game to show his face. The mere mention of it in the other place brought out the customary negative comments.
Marcus Chown (sp?) in conversation with Fred Watson of the Anglo Australian telescope commented something like
[It falls on the dark matter proponents to explain why MOND accurately explains the motions of galaxies while it requires different amounts of dark matter to achieve the same thing] not a direct quote.
This was not evident in the subsequent discussions. The sticking point as I see it is the mechanism that modifies Newtonian Dynamics, but I am not even a player. I am reasonably sure Black Holes exist there is indirect evidence of stars matter being drawn into something unseen, which would make it darkish in colour.
|
|
