Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Andir]

But there a group of stars that we can see, and there orbit suggest a rotating super massive black hole.

I have two gumballs spinning on my coffee table.  Dust and papers are flying off it at random.  It must be the work of black holes!

Are you some how suggesting that orbital mechanics is same to your coffee table?

They're observed the stars orbits now close to ten years for SagA, and calculated the amount of mass needed to hold the multiple stellar masses in its elliptical. Its quite substantial and large in volume. With this there are also observation of the ejection stream of a mass that absent of light. As in the light which can get through the dust cloud is less then what should be. Therefore there is something else observing the light. There also radiometric observation of a disk of super heated particles, which conforms with what happen to matter that is drawn slowly into the event horizon.  The ejection stream and the disk of super heated particles would suggest its not a collection of dark matter or energy. As the volume would be less if where these two things, and there wouldn't be an ejection stream. The ejection stream would be compliant with singularity that is at the center of a black hole.

It complies with the math, and observed phnomena. It an explanation which requires very few assumption that fit with the current held model of cosmology. 

I'm giving you the same amount of information you gave me (ie: not enough.)  Since you can't examine my coffee table up close, you're just going to have to accept that the mass of my coffee table and the amount of light reflected and created by my coffee table match the amounts in your formulas that were created based on theory.

Oh, and you're going to have to guess the composition of my coffee table based on the color of light it's giving off.  I cannot tell you if that light is being affected in any way by the clouds of dust and particles floating around it.  It's color is blue.

[MrWiggles]

But there a group of stars that we can see, and there orbit suggest a rotating super massive black hole.

I have two gumballs spinning on my coffee table.  Dust and papers are flying off it at random.  It must be the work of black holes!

Are you some how suggesting that orbital mechanics is same to your coffee table?

They're observed the stars orbits now close to ten years for SagA, and calculated the amount of mass needed to hold the multiple stellar masses in its elliptical. Its quite substantial and large in volume. With this there are also observation of the ejection stream of a mass that absent of light. As in the light which can get through the dust cloud is less then what should be. Therefore there is something else observing the light. There also radiometric observation of a disk of super heated particles, which conforms with what happen to matter that is drawn slowly into the event horizon.  The ejection stream and the disk of super heated particles would suggest its not a collection of dark matter or energy. As the volume would be less if where these two things, and there wouldn't be an ejection stream. The ejection stream would be compliant with singularity that is at the center of a black hole.

It complies with the math, and observed phnomena. It an explanation which requires very few assumption that fit with the current held model of cosmology. 

I'm giving you the same amount of information you gave me (ie: not enough.)  Since you can't examine my coffee table up close, you're just going to have to accept that the mass of my coffee table and the amount of light reflected and created by my coffee table match the amounts in your formulas that were created based on theory.

Oh, and you're going to have to guess the composition of my coffee table based on the color of light it's giving off.  I cannot tell you if that light is being affected in any way by the clouds of dust and particles floating around it.  It's color is blue.

So your saying method used for measurement are also flawed?
Are you also implying that inference doesn't work?



There plenty of neat clean, simple video on youtube made to help explain these. If you could give a short list of what you are having trouble understanding, I or someone here could foster links or video that can how it works.

The various tools used for cosmology are quite neat, they do use inference a lot. Though inference works well.
So which tools of cosmology do you have doubt in?

[LegoLord]

I get the feeling that the major problem is spectroscopy.

[Andir]

So which tools of cosmology do you have doubt in?

I have a problem with people claiming that all these postulates are facts.  There could be many factors affecting the color of the light or the amount of "space dust" in a given area.  We are viewing a split second view of the universe and drawing conclusions based on that.  If everyone stops claiming that there is "no other possible explanation for it" then I'd be happy with these conversations.  I don't believe it's a godly entity, but I don't preclude that observatory science is 100% factual.  It's been incorrect before and could be incorrect now.

[LegoLord]

Each element has an emission spectrum; a range of light that will be emitted from it when an "excited" electron goes from one energy level in an atom to a lower energy level.  The wavelengths of light in the spectrum are very specific, and do not fade one into another - indeed, there are large "gaps" in the values for light wavelength in a given element's emission spectrum.

[Ampersand]

Excuse me?  I've made NO statements of skepticism about black holes.  Quite the opposite.  I think you have me confused with someone else...  I'm not Andir.  Correct that?  I'd like my reputation only sullied where appropriate

Fair enough, I'll take that part back and reassign it Andir's way, but the rest still stands, and applies to both you and Andir.

[MrWiggles]

It ability to be wrong is not a reason to doubt it. It ability of revaluation does not weaken it stance. Its inappropriate to ask where it will be in the future. As science moves forward with what it concludes to be correct right now. There are no known other explanations as of right now. It the consensus based on the evidence that Sag.A and for galaxy formation are the effect of black holes is the best explanation. Is it the correct explanation? Probably, but science can never speak in an absolute of that matter.

When you see an absolute statement, its absolute in its what the evidence tells us right now. It however is not absolute in as in it can't change.

[LegoLord]

By your logic Andir, we should deny even our own existence, because even the evidence for it taught in Theory of Knowledge would have to be denied as potentially being misread.

[Andir]

By your logic Andir, we should deny even our own existence, because even the evidence for it taught in Theory of Knowledge would have to be denied as potentially being misread.

Now that you mention it... how can we be sure that we do exist? 

[Sowelu]

I'm willing to accept that there are decent papers on wormholes, but it's outside my field, and I've seen some bad, AWFUL papers in the comp sci field that mostly get ignored because they're so bad.  The papers by the guys cited on the wormhole article on Wikipedia (spent a couple hours pawing through those) had an awful lot of hand-waving and "this breaks physical laws, unless we average these values, in which case it looks like it doesn't".  Mostly, as a non-expert, I try to pick up on the general opinion among astrophysics experts...which I believe is that black holes are pretty solid, and wormholes are very speculative guesses right now.  As a layman who tries to keep up, that's about the best I can do. 

As for rotating black holes implying wormholes, that was something I missed, I guess...so I'm more uninformed than I thought!  I'll work on correcting this, and in the meantime, sorry about that.

Still...I was pretty sure that not many legitimate astrophysicists believed that time travel is remotely possible outside of quantum scales, and that there's an awful lot of other physical laws that specifically say it doesn't work that way.  For me, that's enough to dismiss it out of hand; that might be incorrect judgment on my part.  When more evidence pops up, I'll reconsider, but let's just say that any paper claiming perpetual motion gets filed to the same place in my mind.

[Slappy Moose]

By your logic Andir, we should deny even our own existence, because even the evidence for it taught in Theory of Knowledge would have to be denied as potentially being misread.

Now that you mention it... how can we be sure that we do exist? 

I think, therefore I am.

*raises both hands in front of face*
Here is a hand. Here is another.


You are arguing much less about science and much more about (in my opinion incredibly stupid and obnoxious) ontology.

You can't argue with facts besides "Hey look, I'm right here talking to you and I know that I perceive all this, so I must exist." and the only real response is "OR DO YOU :O!?"

[RAM]

I've only expressed skepticism against people who say "The math proves that wormholes are possible".  "The math" can't prove anything.  I think that's the same point you're making about logic in general, right?  In any case, you can take any logically consistent statement, stick absolute garbage in its variables, and get any result you want.  It's a classic stupid logic trick that you can prove anything, given both A and !A.

If you have garbage variables than you already have garbage variables and logic won't change that. Logic, by itself, is always accurate, mistakes happen due to pilot error or mistakes that existed independently of it. If you agree with the assumed facts, and as far as I am aware we don't currently have any relevant, absolute certainties, so you are going to be assuming something, and you don't find any flaws in the argument, then logic will always result in an accurate extrapolation of your understanding of the world.

I agree, I don't like using absolute terms, there IS always reasonable doubt, but many things are sufficiently well established that operating under any other known assumption will result in apparent mistakes. If you are unwilling to respect someone's ability to argue, then you probably shouldn't argue with them...

I have two gumballs spinning on my coffee table.  Dust and papers are flying off it at random.  It must be the work of black holes!

So... you have a coffee table, there are gumballs on it, paper and dust may also be on it. The gumballs are spinning without apparent cause. Dust and papers are flying off it without known cause. Assuming that you can actually detect physical objects, such as tables, gumballs, papers, and people, machines, or whatever might be spinning things and throwing things around. Then you have a situation that clearly does not conform to the familiar. It may be a practical joke, record it and wait a while, practical jokes will usually become apparent over time. If it isn't, then it could be black holes... There is no apparent cause, but there is no apparent cause for anything involved. It might be a quirk in a magnetic field, it might be a poltergeist, it could be an unknown intelligence, but even if it is gods or aliens or whatever then it is still probably a practical joke, in which case its demise will likely be triggered by the your imminent ability to verify the events. Maybe it is the convergence point of the earths rotation, the moons orbit, and the gravity of a passing black hole, whatever it is, it certainly doesn't conform to my understanding of 'what happens if I leave gumballs and papers on a table'...



How do you know that you think? You perceive thought, but that doesn't prove thought, a perception could perceive anything, that only proves the perception. A perception doesn't need evidence, but to be generous I will give it chaos to perceive, it interprets this chaos in any way it pleases. This perception perceives memories, and activities, and expectations, time doesn't actually exist, nothing changes, but it perceives change in it's static state so there is perceived time. Thus far I haven't been able to justify the pseudo-existence of the question of existence without a perception, but there really isn't any hard evidence to support that you, I, or anything for that matter has any measure of existence as you understand it...

[MrWiggles]

Bleh, exelstenitialism(sp).

Can't we just laugh a creao-tards or something?

Or, when did you peeps figure out there was no god(s)? And when were you open about it or under what circumstances could you be open?

[inaluct]

Does Team Atheism need another player? Or should I keep ignoring this topic?

[MrWiggles]

More the Merrier!
Answer my question or you'll go to hell.