Something I didn't know about black holes that blew my mind!

[Ar Cosc]

An infinite amount of invisible, undetectable dark mater and dark energy can model anything you what it to model. Every hole in the model can be easily patched with some dark fairy dust. Remove all that dark, elusive, undetectable stuff then see what you have left. Nothing.

Your so-called model is a mere hypothetical, nothing more. Even its proponents is embarrassed by it:

“It is an embarrassment that the dominant forms of matter in the universe remain hypothetical.” - Jim Peebles, Princeton University.

No, didn't think so. Have a pleasant day.

 

[Doveaman]

No, didn't think so. Have a pleasant day.

I guess you are embarrassed by all that dark, elusive, undetectable stuff too. That's understandable.

 

[Ar Cosc]

I guess you are embarrassed by all that dark, elusive, undetectable stuff too. That's understandable.

Not embarrassed, just experienced enough to know that trying to talk to the wilfully ignorant is a waste of time. Good night!

 

[Doveaman]

Not embarrassed, just experienced enough to know that trying to talk to the wilfully ignorant is a waste of time. Good night!

Willful ignorance is being 96% in the dark and to ashamed to admit it.

 

[mzungu]

Theories are never the truth, theories are always theories.

Oh dear! Once more we have to clarify on what is meant by the word Theory when used in a scientific context:

Facts are the empirical evidence and Theory explains how the facts work.

Atomic theory.
Theory of Gravity,

See what I mean?

 

[Deleteriousnonsense]

Oh dear! Once more we have to clarify on what is meant by the word Theory when used in a scientific context:

Facts are the empirical evidence and Theory explains how the facts work.

Atomic theory.
Theory of Gravity,

See what I mean?

Would that definition also apply to something like Chaos Theory, or String Theory?

 

[Doveaman]

Oh dear! Once more we have to clarify on what is meant by the word Theory when used in a scientific context:

Facts are the empirical evidence and Theory explains how the facts work.

Atomic theory.
Theory of Gravity,

See what I mean?

Yes. But also irrelevant.

A Scientific Theory is a fallible human interpretation of facts, an interpretation that is provisional being subject to change. This is why Theories are falsified

Truth, on the other hand, is certain and cannot change or be falsified.

Therefore, Theories are never the Truth, Theories are always Theories.

See what I mean?

 

[Doveaman]

Facts are the empirical evidence and Theory explains how the facts work.

Theory of Gravity

Can you explain the Theory of Gravity or how Gravity works?

 

[mzungu]

Yes. But also irrelevant.

A Scientific Theory is a fallible human interpretation of facts, an interpretation that is provisional being subject to change. This is why Theories are falsified

Truth, on the other hand, is certain and cannot change or be falsified.

Therefore, Theories are never the Truth, Theories are always Theories.

See what I mean?

Perhaps I am knocking on a deaf man's door here. It is a waste of time debating with you on matters scientific since you obviously have nothing in common with how science works.

I wish you a good day and call it quits on this thread!

 

[Delphiki]

Yes. But also irrelevant.

A Scientific Theory is a fallible human interpretation of facts, an interpretation that is provisional being subject to change. This is why Theories are falsified

Truth, on the other hand, is certain and cannot change or be falsified.

Therefore, Theories are never the Truth, Theories are always Theories.

See what I mean?

In that case there's no truth in anything, for even what YOU think is truth changes in a matter pages.

Science is based on our observations and things which are demonstrably true -- which, if you really are a believer in God, is creation and a far bigger and more important book than the bible, as your bible is merely a part of it.

I don't think the almighty would be too pleased with your criticism of his universe, do you?

 

[Doveaman]

In that case there's no truth in anything, for even what YOU think is truth changes in a matter pages.

Truth cannot be changed or falsified. Theories do.

Science is based on our observations and things which are demonstrably true

Science is based on the fallible human interpretation of observations which are never proven to be true. This is why they are called theories and are provisional being subject to falsification. Truth cannot be falsified. Truth does not change.

I don't think the almighty would be too pleased with your criticism of his universe, do you?

I am not criticizing the universe. I am criticizing the failed theories that are based on the fallible human interpretation of the universe. There's a difference.

 

[Doveaman]

Perhaps I am knocking on a deaf man's door here.

How can I be deaf when I agreed with your explanation of what a theory is?

What you are forgetting is that those explanations are by fallible human beings like yourself. And what you are ignoring is that those explanations are often falsified. Therefore they were never true.

It is a waste of time debating with you on matters scientific since you obviously have nothing in common with how science works.

This is the typical excuse I often get when people have no answers.

Can you explain the Theory of Gravity or how Gravity works?

I wish you a good day and call it quits on this thread!

Typical.

 

[Ar Cosc]

Truth cannot be changed or falsified. Theories do.
Science is based on the fallible human interpretation of observations which are never proven to be true. This is why they are called theories and are provisional being subject to falsification. Truth cannot be falsified. Truth does not change.
I am not criticizing the universe. I am criticizing the failed theories that are based on the fallible human interpretation of the universe. There's a difference.

As opposed to the infallible Doveaman interpretation of the universe.

 

[Delphiki]

Both science and your bible are falsifiable. Theories have been modified and improved for accuracy, not because science fails, but because science constantly works toward truth. When theories are changed, they aren't done so by a pack of religious zealots, they are done so by other scientists who've made additional discoveries.

Are theories wrong? Sometimes, but very very rarely. The theory of spontaneous generation was wrong, and was proven so when the theory of evolution did so. We started with a lack of understanding and moved toward understanding. Our knowledge got better.

Scientific theories aren't so much proven wrong as they are improved, or revised. Not that they are wrong, more that they need "more numbers after the decimal point", if you will.

The universe as described in the bible is not only falsifiable, but has long since been falsified. Plain and basic observations prove it absurd and inaccurate, and render it nothing more than a work of fiction. We don't sit on pillars, we aren't the center of the universe, and you are a primate. Deal with it and get over yourself.

 

[Delphiki]

As opposed to the infallible Doveaman interpretation of the universe.

One wonders if they've ever considered that their human interpretation of the bible would be equally as fallible.

 

[Doveaman]

Theories have been modified and improved for accuracy, not because science fails, but because science constantly works toward truth.

There you go.

Are theories wrong? Sometimes

I once heard a Big Bang cosmologist say that science is about being wrong.

Scientific theories aren't so much proven wrong as they are improved, or revised. Not that they are wrong, more that they need "more numbers after the decimal point", if you will.

If this explanation gives to comfort, then by all means use it.

The universe as described in the bible is not only falsifiable, but has long since been falsified.

You need to get a new Bible. A Holy one.

 

[Delphiki]

You need to get a new Bible. A Holy one.

I've got three, actually. KJV, NIV study bible, and even a Gideons I snagged from a hotel. They are all "holy"... take your pick. They're all supposed to be infallible, but they also disagree with each other.

 

[Deleteriousnonsense]

I've got three, actually. KJV, NIV study bible, and even a Gideons I snagged from a hotel. They are all "holy"... take your pick. They're all supposed to be infallible, but they also disagree with each other.

I don't think your supposed to take those home with you.

At any rate I would like to ask a question from way back in the thread that was, perhaps justifiably, ignored. What is the prevailing opinion among physicists about the make up of the singularity itself and can it be likened to an actual hole in spacetime? Or if there isn't one prevailing opinion what do you suspect is happening?

 

[KIYX]

One wonders if they've ever considered that their human interpretation of the bible would be equally as fallible.

Of course not, in their arrogance they speak for God.

 

[badtim]

At any rate I would like to ask a question from way back in the thread that was, perhaps justifiably, ignored. What is the prevailing opinion among physicists about the make up of the singularity itself and can it be likened to an actual hole in spacetime? Or if there isn't one prevailing opinion what do you suspect is happening?

Please specify which type of singularity you're talking about. If you're referring to gravitational singularities, black holes, the idea that they are "holes" is not all that accurate in terms of prevailing theory. the word "hole" refers to the massive gravitational forces at work, preventing almost everything from escaping the event horizon -- in effect, once you get that close, you're doomed, as you're about to have all your constituent atoms ripped apart by tidal forces from the singularity.

what does matter look like inside the hole? no way to know directly, except through mathematical modeling and guesses, as the matter inside effectively reaches infinite density (in the case of a non-rotating hole, all the matter is compressed to a point; in the case of a kerr hole, you're looking at a ring with zero thickness and finite diameter), and so your atoms would be added to that.

Charged or rotating holes create all sorts of theoretical fun stuff, including the possibility of wormholes (very unstable) as well as causality violations. This kind of theory is still in very active development.

If you're asking what the properties of the matter in the singularity are, there basically aren't any intrinsic to the matter itself; it is no longer observable. The only things we can tell are mass, charge, and angular momentum.
The gravitation is the big deal in terms of interaction with the outside universe. It's a region of infinite spacetime curvature, zero volume, effectively infinite mass, which taken in terms of GR means zero time once you hit the Schwartzchild radius. Sounds real wacky -- but supported by the data that we have, both theoretical and observational.

And no, we're not going to be scooping matter out of a black hole anytime soon. That's a good way to add your own atoms to it

One thing that is extremely commonly accepted, is that all (or nearly all) galaxies contain a supermassive black hole at the center, including ours. Current best measurements of it is around 4.3 solar masses, in a radius less than .002 lightyears across. Wikipedia has some good introductory articles that review black hole physics alright, with links to the source material.