Atoms

[Agonaces of Susa]

These links do not feature Hawking saying black holes do not exist. And several of your other links have black holes as a central part of a hypothesis.

Do you have any discriminating criteria when selecting great wads of links to support a claim?

Hawking lost the bet. He already conceded black holes do not exist.

 

[LightHorseman]

These links do not feature Hawking saying black holes do not exist. And several of your other links have black holes as a central part of a hypothesis.

Do you have any discriminating criteria when selecting great wads of links to support a claim?

Obviously just dragged and clicked a whole bunch of sites listed on the "crackpot astronomy" website where the claim about black holes being imaginary comes from. Its fairly standard practice. Anytime Creationists list a swathe of citations, on closer inspection, usually >half of them will not say anything relating to the theseis of the post, if not outright contradict it. You know the old saying about what to baffle them with if you can't dazzle them with brilliance? The hope is that people won't bother to verify a bunch of science-y sounding citations, and just take the alleged meaning of them at face value.

 

[LightHorseman]

Hawking lost the bet. He already conceded black holes do not exist.

[citation needed]

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

[citation needed]

Citation already provided. See customarily ignored citations posted above.

http://us.rediff.com/news/2004/aug/03hole.htm

An Indian theoretical physicist who questioned the existence of black holes and thereby challenged Stephen Hawking of Britain at last feels vindicated. But he is sad.

Abhas Mitra, at the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) in Mumbai [ Images ], was perhaps the first and the only scientist who had the guts to openly challenge Hawking of Cambridge University who is regarded by many as the modern-day Einstein.

For over 30 years Hawking and his followers were perpetuating the theory that black holes -- resulting from gravitational collapse of massive stars -- destroy everything that falls into them preventing even light or information to escape.

Mitra, four years ago, in a controversial paper in the reputed journal, Foundations of Physics Letters, showed that Hawking's theory was flawed. He proved black holes couldn't exist because their formation and existence flouted Einstein's general theory of relativity.

Except a handful, the majority of mainstream scientists dismissed Mitra's conclusions even though, till now, no scientist has contradicted him in writing. Mitra invited several notable black hole theorists including Hawking and Jayant Narlikar of India [ Images ] to criticise his work but no one replied.

Naturally, Mitra now feels vindicated following Hawking's own admission two weeks ago at a conference in Dublin, Ireland, that there isn't a black hole "in the absolute sense."

 

[Tenka]

I almost miss the days when it was AV who tried to make every single thread all about himself while adding nothing of value to the original discussion.

 

[tansy]

Methinks this thread is disappearing down a Black Hole....or maybe the Bermuda Triangle

 

[tansy]

Anyhow, so some interesting thoughts from various people. Anyone got anything else to add?
What made me wonder about it was that i watched a TV programme the other day about dark matter, dark flow etc, and there seemed to be all sorts of hypotheses out there. It said (if I remember rightly) that galaxies further out in the universe were moving faster than expected (they thought they ought to be moving more slowly). Anyhow, I kind of thought that maybe there could be another universe out there, which affected this one..and for some reason it got me wondering about the consistency of the number of atoms.
But I haven't really got a clue about anything..I just wonder about things.

 

[LightHorseman]

Citation already provided. See customarily ignored citations posted above.

Meet the Indian who took on Stephen Hawking: Rediff.com India News

Naturally, Mitra now feels vindicated following Hawking's own admission two weeks ago at a conference in Dublin, Ireland, that there isn't a black hole "in the absolute sense."

Does not equal

"Hawking lost the bet. He already conceded black holes do not exist."

Which is pretty much what I figured would happen. Thanks for confirming it.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Naturally, Mitra now feels vindicated following Hawking's own admission two weeks ago at a conference in Dublin, Ireland, that there isn't a black hole "in the absolute sense."

Does not equal

"Hawking lost the bet. He already conceded black holes do not exist."

In fact it does.

However you customarily ignored all the other citations I provided so you wouldn't know it.

About Those Fearsome Black Holes? Never Mind - NYTimes.com

About Those Fearsome Black Holes? Never Mind

By DENNIS OVERBYE
Published: July 22, 2004

Dr. Stephen W. Hawking threw in the towel yesterday, or at least an encyclopedia.

Dr. Hawking, the celebrated Cambridge University cosmologist and best-selling author, declared at a scientific conference in Dublin that he had been wrong in a controversial assertion he made 30 years ago about black holes, the fearsome gravitational abysses that can swallow matter and energy, even light.

 

[Friendly.Atheist]

Anyhow, so some interesting thoughts from various people. Anyone got anything else to add?
What made me wonder about it was that i watched a TV programme the other day about dark matter, dark flow etc, and there seemed to be all sorts of hypotheses out there. It said (if I remember rightly) that galaxies further out in the universe were moving faster than expected (they thought they ought to be moving more slowly). Anyhow, I kind of thought that maybe there could be another universe out there, which affected this one..and for some reason it got me wondering about the consistency of the number of atoms.
But I haven't really got a clue about anything..I just wonder about things.

I've often wondered the exact same thing!

You might really enjoy reading about the many multiverse hypotheses.

 

[tansy]

I've often wondered the exact same thing!

You might really enjoy reading about the many multiverse hypotheses.

Actually, supposing there WERE other universes, do you think they could be universes withIN universes (rather like stacking Russian dolls), or do you think they would be adjacent, all one to another, like a kind of crazy paving? In which case, i should have thought, that would alter hypotheses on all kinds of cosmological puzzlements.
Would other universes necessarilly even be visible?

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

You might really enjoy reading about the many multiverse hypotheses.

I love science fiction too...

 

[tansy]

I love science fiction too...

Mind you, a lot of science fiction has come to be true

 

[Friendly.Atheist]

I love science fiction too...

I can tell! Just finished watching the expanding earth clip you posted in that other thread. A great work of fiction if I've ever seen one.

 

[Friendly.Atheist]

Actually, supposing there WERE other universes, do you think they could be universes withIN universes (rather like stacking Russian dolls), or do you think they would be adjacent, all one to another, like a kind of crazy paving? In which case, i should have thought, that would alter hypotheses on all kinds of cosmological puzzlements.
Would other universes necessarilly even be visible?

I can't even begin to fathom physical universes existing adjacently..

But imagine the Russian dolls thing, but in a loop! Our universe is contained inside another universe which is contained inside another universe etc.etc. until you get to a universe that is contained within our universe!
My mind=blown


It's all just theoretical, of course. But it's fun to speculate.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Mind you, a lot of science fiction has come to be true

Don't I know it.

"How quickly science fact becomes science fiction and science fiction becomes science fact!" -- Me, noob, July 2009

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

I can tell! Just finished watching the expanding earth clip you posted in that other thread. A great work of fiction if I've ever seen one.

LOL.

Here is what the inventor of plate tectonics mythology had to say about your beloved hypothesis after he rejected it:

"Subduction exists only in the minds of its creators." -- S. Warren Carey, geologist, 1976

"People don't want to see it. They believe in subduction like a religion." -- S. Warren Carey, geologist, 1981

"Subduction is a myth." -- S. Warren Carey, geologist, 1988

And here is what contemporary scientists in the field have to say:

"Putting aside the insurmountable mechanical problems of subduction (a solid driven by the force of gravity penetrating into another solid), this is a gross violation of the obvious and of direct observation. Heat cannot be released instantly, because it is known from petrology that the cooling rate of rocks is about 50 degrees Kelvin per billion years!" -- Stavros T. Tassos, seismologist, 2005

"Therefore the thermally controlled conveyor-belt subduction model, as well as any variants or hybrid models, should be discarded because they are in fundamental contradiction with direct observation and deny the obvious." -- Stavros T. Tassos, seismologist, 2005

"In the oral session, except for one presentation that was clearly pro plate tectonics, and another one that did not address the issue of global and large scale geology specifically, there was general consensus that subduction, and therefore plate tectonics, is mechanically impossible." -- Stavros T. Tassos (seismologist) and Karsten M. Storetvedt (geophysicist), November 2007

 

[LightHorseman]

In fact it does.

However you customarily ignored all the other citations I provided so you wouldn't know it.

About Those Fearsome Black Holes? Never Mind - NYTimes.com

How about you show me an actual citation of Hawking stating he no longer believes in black holes as existing, rather than things that tangentially refer to him?

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

How about you show me an actual citation of Hawking stating he no longer believes in black holes as existing, rather than things that tangentially refer to him?

FYI: The New York Times is an actual citation.

 

[YoDude]

Actually, supposing there WERE other universes, do you think they could be universes withIN universes (rather like stacking Russian dolls), or do you think they would be adjacent, all one to another, like a kind of crazy paving? In which case, i should have thought, that would alter hypotheses on all kinds of cosmological puzzlements.
Would other universes necessarilly even be visible?

M-theory has several models for a multi-verse (e.g. parallel, bubbles, brains, etc, watch Sci Channel). Anyway, I enjoy the programs and find them fascinating. I dream of the stars and the mysteries of the universe, I think the cosmos are a gift from God, another way for man to awe at God's power, and also to kill boredom by having it as great field of study.

Maybe there are 'bubble/brain' multi-verses, or 'extra' dimension based parallel universes, all of these things would simply be following a 'law' of nature. I do not find these concepts contrary to the Bible, God has given us enough to know about how to be his subjects, is it required that he have a chapter in the Bible called 'Creation - here is how I did it, in full technical detail', no his answers provided in the Bible are enough. I still laugh when I hear about the Athiest scientists looking for God in a 'petri-dish'. God is in our hearts, you don't have to go far to find him. Everything else is just a muse.