Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Imperator Jora'h
|
Posted - 2007.12.12 04:25:00 -
[31]
Originally by: Ed Anger Edited by: Ed Anger on 12/12/2007 04:24:02
Originally by: Stephen Jones It's size is somewhat cramped for an extended globular cluster, but within order of magnitude.
isn't the center of the galaxy supposed to be denser then where we are on the fringes here?
The center is indeed more dense. If we lived there we would not have much of a night sky as it would be pretty bright day and night.
|
Mecinia Lua
Galactic Express Frontier Trade League
|
Posted - 2007.12.12 04:54:00 -
[32]
Originally by: mill veters the Universe is probable one giant black hole (since it is expanding faster now then it began some 14 billion years ago.
No the Universe is not a black hole, it is possible that it is a white hole though.
It is however expanding faster now than it was in the beginning according to the big bang theory.
Thoughts expressed are mine and mine alone. They do not necessarily reflect my alliances thoughts. |
LUH 3471
|
Posted - 2007.12.12 06:03:00 -
[33]
Edited by: LUH 3471 on 12/12/2007 06:03:13 no its a pink hole
|
Friera
|
Posted - 2007.12.12 17:29:00 -
[34]
Here is the first draft of the chapter:
Scale of the Universe and our Closest Neighbours
As mentioned at the top, it is a draft which will probably be tweaked as errors are reported. Feedback much appreciated (if it's constructive), I would prefer it if you posted comments on the site rather than here, so that non-EVE players can follow up with their remarks. You don't need to register to post.
I think I've made some diameter/radius errors as I was quite tired and need to go through them again; if you spot one, please let me know.
To the poster who mentioned holoscience.com, I certainly agree about arrogance and politics in the scientific community, but the same is also true of the religious community. My comments in chapter 1 were remarks on "pure" science and religion. I did also remark that science can't prove anything as you mention. I can't tell whether DNA exists or climate change is real without repeating the experiments myself, but I would like to think that some scientific circles are genuine enough to present untainted empirical data. Science has generally improved our knowledge incrementally with a few leaps and bounds; fringe theories are always rejected due to close-mindedness but they usually come to be accepted until someone comes up with something better. Such is the nature of research. Learning that the more we discover, the less we know, is a good thing in my opinion. It reminds us that we're not all-knowing and don't have all the answers. I think most responsible scientists understand this.
It was slightly amusing you linked to an article on climate change as I only just added climate change to my site yesterday. As far as I know the solar cycle and such things are included in climate models which have been repeated by independent groups all over the world. My personal opinion is that the evidence for both evolution and manmade climate change is too overwhelming not to believe it. The same cannot be said for religious texts. There is no benefit to anyone to present us with elaborate hoaxes about these things as far as I know. I would recommend reading the recently released IPCC AR4 report if you haven't already, for a quick summary on climate change.
But, again, I don't want to limit these debates to this thread, so please post your opinions on the site; I don't bite when people disagree with me :-)
Katy.
|
Motoko Blackstar
Caldari Blackstar Combat Logistics
|
Posted - 2007.12.12 18:46:00 -
[35]
Originally by: mill veters the Universe is probable one giant black hole (since it is expanding faster now then it began some 14 billion years ago.
This as i recall is mostly due (according to one theory anyway) to Einstein's fudge, the cosmological constant and some funky **** called virtual particles. It doesn't make the universe 'a giant black hole'.
~ Motoko
|
Motoko Blackstar
Caldari Blackstar Combat Logistics
|
Posted - 2007.12.12 18:49:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Stephen Jones Assuming the 121 light years figure from early in this thread is correct, and assuming the numbers of stars in EVE is the number of stars, we can make some assumptions:
1. EVE space is not a universe. With about 5 thousand star systems, EVE space meets the criteria for an extended globular cluster:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_cluster
It's size is somewhat cramped for an extended globular cluster, but within order of magnitude.
2. Given that as of right now, no extended globular clusters have been detected around Milky Way galaxy, EVE cluster is likely either orbiting another galaxy (M31 maybe?) or floating freely somewhere in the void.
Stephen Jones
Remember that the systems we can access in EVE are only a subset of the binary stars in the region and if you were to come up with figures for the proportional distribution of solar systems, you'd be able to guess at how many other stars fall into that space.
EVE begins to fall down as the cluster becomes very crowded one would suspect.
~ Motoko
|
Freya Runestone
Minmatar Brutor tribe
|
Posted - 2007.12.12 18:51:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Marsman37X
Originally by: Freya Runestone It seems to be around 20 cm from corner to corner.
On what size monitor? And did you factor in zoom?
i didn't actually measure it :P It was a rough estimate. i better check now...
|
wictro
|
Posted - 2007.12.12 19:12:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Friera
The first two chapters can be found at www.djkaty.com (click About the Universe in the blogs section on the left, comments welcomed), both were written quite some time ago. The one I'm writing now is almost finished and I will post a link to it probably tomorrow when the first draft is completed.
Dear computer and science aligned lady, You make meh wet ^_^
WTB: one above
|
Imperator Jora'h
|
Posted - 2007.12.12 19:28:00 -
[39]
Edited by: Imperator Jora''h on 12/12/2007 19:36:00
Originally by: Friera My comments in chapter 1 were remarks on "pure" science and religion. I did also remark that science can't prove anything as you mention.
It may be worth your time to include a chapter on what a "theory" really is. Often religious groups latch on to things like Evolution as "only a theory" and not proven to strengthen their case for Creationism (or what have you).
Yes they are theories and not proven. But then you actually cannot "prove" you exist or prove the sun will rise tomorrow. Only some mathematics fall into the category of having actual proofs.
That said theories can be very well founded with ample evidence to support them. When talking about these things to some of my more religious acquaintances I drop a pen and ask them what made the pen fall. If they answer at all they will say "gravity" but guess what...we only have a theory of gravity. But the evidence for its existence seems rather unavoidable. The theory part come to what gravity actually is (we have excellent math for how it works...but what is it exactly is what scientists quibble about).
So too with things like Quantum Mechanics. The stuff there will melt your brain yet it is the most accurate theory ever put forward and has been verified to stunning degrees accuracy (up to the limits if current scientific equipment).
If someone wants to debunk a theory of the age or size of the universe they need to do more than appeal to a deity which is all guesswork and not science. If you have not heard of it I point you to the Invisible Pink Unicorn as a way of answering those folk.
For the Evolution bit you will probably find the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster fun.
EDIT: Also for fun and along your line try: Monty Python Universe Song
|
Friera
|
Posted - 2007.12.12 20:18:00 -
[40]
Edited by: Friera on 12/12/2007 20:20:05 Edited by: Friera on 12/12/2007 20:19:17
Originally by: wictro
Originally by: Friera
The first two chapters can be found at www.djkaty.com (click About the Universe in the blogs section on the left, comments welcomed), both were written quite some time ago. The one I'm writing now is almost finished and I will post a link to it probably tomorrow when the first draft is completed.
Dear computer and science aligned lady, You make meh wet ^_^
WTB: one above
Well I'm single and looking. But I'm also a ******* (oh God wait for the men to reply now, give it a rest guys) - so did you mean wet, or hard? :P
Edit: Wow it bleeped out l3sb1an, funny, I never realised that was an offensive word.
|
|
Lighthugger
|
Posted - 2007.12.12 20:24:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Chelone Writing a science text for the layman is certainly a laudible goal. By the way, there is an updated version of 'A Brief History of Time' called 'A Briefer History of Time', supposedly more accessible, and with some newer info.
You expressed disbelief at how someone regarded a belief in evolution as optional. Quote:
having come from a religeous right background. I suggest you be extremly carefull about how far you let the religiuos right delete your ability to think for yourself.
|
Laird
Imperium Technologies Firmus Ixion
|
Posted - 2007.12.12 21:16:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Ed Anger isn't the center of the galaxy supposed to be denser then where we are on the fringes here?
So that explains Jita........
|
Elhina Novae
Amarr Suns Of Korhal
|
Posted - 2007.12.12 21:54:00 -
[43]
Using the lightyears of a Capital is just wrong :/ Those are incorrect if we are to see to reality... But i guess if he wants the EVE-Universe its correct. And with EVE-Universe maybe its just the Galaxy he wants`? Somebody set up us the bomb |
Reiisha
Splint Eye Probabilities Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.12.12 22:01:00 -
[44]
The prime fiction states that the EVE cluser could not be located from Earth or it's surroundings. The wormhole leading to it could not be tracked.
It was assumed that the EVE cluster is actually in a seperate 'universe' from ours, even further away than what we know as the boundary today.
Another snippet: The EVE universe is cited to be situated about 20,000 years in the future.
Everything is in here.
EVE History Wiki
|
Friera
|
Posted - 2007.12.12 22:02:00 -
[45]
Originally by: Elhina Novae Using the lightyears of a Capital is just wrong :/ Those are incorrect if we are to see to reality... But i guess if he wants the EVE-Universe its correct. And with EVE-Universe maybe its just the Galaxy he wants`?
She :-)
I was looking for the playable area only. I realise the EVE Universe is a small cluster of star systems with different structure to the real Universe. So, as close as possible to an "as the crow flies" line across the widest part of the playable area will suffice as the diameter.
|
Kolmogorow
Freedom Resources
|
Posted - 2007.12.12 22:26:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Friera Scale of the Universe and our Closest Neighbours
Nice to read overview except that all those numbers getting huger and huger made me dead, but I understand that was your intention (Never heard from that "termination shock" but it let me immediately feel that I want a termination shock launcher )
This:
"...a supermassive black hole which is basically the glue which holds the galaxy together..."
and
"...At the centre of the galaxy is a supermassive black hole exerting a huge amount of gravity which keeps all of the stars in the galaxy orbiting around it..."
is not correct, I think. Because (to my knowledge) the glue holding the galaxies together and stabilizing their rotation is not completely known and partially unvisible and therefore called "dark matter". Known is that the visible matter including the black holes in the galaxy centers don't produce enough gravity to explain the rotation curves and stability of galaxies. Something (or better: a lot) is missing (assuming the law of gravity doesn't change significantly on large scales, a theoretical alternative possibility to explain the observations which is out of serious discussion though as far as I know).
|
Ho HsienKo
|
Posted - 2007.12.12 23:53:00 -
[47]
The real question we need to ask is there enough dark matter in the universe to eventually put a stop to the expansion of the matter ejected from the big bang and bring us to the eventual rebirth of everything after the big crunch in the next big bang.... or is there not enough mass in the cosmos to slow the expansion and everything ends for eternity as the spreadding matter disipates and cools in the void of space.
|
Imperator Jora'h
|
Posted - 2007.12.13 00:30:00 -
[48]
Originally by: Ho HsienKo The real question we need to ask is there enough dark matter in the universe to eventually put a stop to the expansion of the matter ejected from the big bang and bring us to the eventual rebirth of everything after the big crunch in the next big bang.... or is there not enough mass in the cosmos to slow the expansion and everything ends for eternity as the spreadding matter disipates and cools in the void of space.
Nope. Well, they do not know for certain but the current best guess is the universe will expand forever. But wait, get's worse. The universe's expansion is actually accelerating. As a result, if things continue as they are, they expect the Milky Way to be alone in the Universe in about 100 billion years (everything else will have moved beyond the horizon of the visible universe).
Not that a Big Crunch is something to look forward to but I find the alternative of this endless expansion more depressing. Eventually the Universe will cool to absolute zero (or near enough) or Heat Death if you prefer. A place where absolutely nothing happens.
At least a Big Crunch allows a notion of some sort of cycle of re-birth, Crunch-Bang-Crunch-Bang and so on in an endless cycle of renewal. Ah well...we won't be around to see it anyway. Although with the Heat Death there is a Membrane Theory (Branes) that might allow for new things to pop in.
|
Imperator Jora'h
|
Posted - 2007.12.13 00:36:00 -
[49]
Originally by: Kolmogorow
Originally by: Friera Scale of the Universe and our Closest Neighbours
Nice to read overview except that all those numbers getting huger and huger made me dead, but I understand that was your intention (Never heard from that "termination shock" but it let me immediately feel that I want a termination shock launcher )
This:
"...a supermassive black hole which is basically the glue which holds the galaxy together..."
and
"...At the centre of the galaxy is a supermassive black hole exerting a huge amount of gravity which keeps all of the stars in the galaxy orbiting around it..."
is not correct, I think. Because (to my knowledge) the glue holding the galaxies together and stabilizing their rotation is not completely known and partially unvisible and therefore called "dark matter".
I agree although likewise not 100% sure. Dark Energy/Matter are expected to comprise 95% of the "stuff" in the Universe. The other 5% is the matter we see.
Additionally while a massive black hole is there you have to remember that black hole's gravity is only dangerous when you get too close. If our sun was magically converted to a black hole the earth would merrily continue orbiting along with the rest of the solar system as if nothing happened. It's just mass albeit a lot of it.
Oddly for such a massive black hole the event horizon may not even be a dangerous place (unless superheated gas is swirling in). If it is not "feeding" a super massive black hole event horizon could be passed without even knowing it (although you are still royally screwed). Small black holes would be the reverse. If our sun became a black hole you would be crushed long before passing the event horizon.
|
Ho HsienKo
|
Posted - 2007.12.13 13:13:00 -
[50]
Originally by: Imperator Jora'h
Nope. Well, they do not know for certain but the current best guess is the universe will expand forever. But wait, get's worse. The universe's expansion is actually accelerating. As a result, if things continue as they are, they expect the Milky Way to be alone in the Universe in about 100 billion years (everything else will have moved beyond the horizon of the visible universe).
Not that a Big Crunch is something to look forward to but I find the alternative of this endless expansion more depressing. Eventually the Universe will cool to absolute zero (or near enough) or Heat Death if you prefer. A place where absolutely nothing happens.
At least a Big Crunch allows a notion of some sort of cycle of re-birth, Crunch-Bang-Crunch-Bang and so on in an endless cycle of renewal. Ah well...we won't be around to see it anyway. Although with the Heat Death there is a Membrane Theory (Branes) that might allow for new things to pop in.
Well I think that unless a civilization reaches the point where it can prevent a signifigant ammount of mass from being eaten up in the big crunch... the next rebirth is a certainty. The question is of critical mass for the event, if it is as I suspect and requires the entire mass... we have the self sacrifice of civilizations who escaped it at the end of each cycle to thank for our chance to explore this reality.
|
|
Friera
|
Posted - 2007.12.13 17:19:00 -
[51]
Thanks to those of you who have provided feedback so far. The 2nd draft can now be found here:
Draft 2
I corrected the diameter of the Milky Way, added a layman's description of dark matter while also noting that its existence is yet to be proven, plus a number of typos.
I have also added more information about the size, quantity and density of globular clusters around the Milky Way and Andromeda, more detail about the supermassive black hole at the centre of our galaxy, a layman's description of the tidal forces at the event horizon there, further size comparisons of the galaxy, information about the orbits of stars around the galaxy, age of the galaxy and Solar System, definition of a galactic year, a brief note about the number of stars in the Large Magellanic Cloud, and re-ordered some of the text.
If you've read the article already, you may like to read it again from the section entitled "Our galaxy and its neighbours."
To the posters who commented on the big crunch and current rate of expansion: the current rate of expansion is accelerating and the current mainstream belief is that it will go on expanding forever - contrary to a few years ago - however this can't be proven. We don't know the real mass of the Universe or how gravity behaves under "extreme" conditions. It does seem that the Universe is gradually cooling and that eventually everything will drift away from everything else and become cold and dead. I don't think we should worry about it too much ;-)
Katy.
|
Imperator Jora'h
|
Posted - 2007.12.13 17:35:00 -
[52]
Edited by: Imperator Jora''h on 13/12/2007 17:42:46
Originally by: Ho HsienKo Well I think that unless a civilization reaches the point where it can prevent a signifigant ammount of mass from being eaten up in the big crunch... the next rebirth is a certainty. The question is of critical mass for the event, if it is as I suspect and requires the entire mass... we have the self sacrifice of civilizations who escaped it at the end of each cycle to thank for our chance to explore this reality.
As I noted the current best guess is there will be no Big Crunch. The universe is looking like it will expand forever resulting in the eventual Heat Death (as in no heat) of the Universe making it a quite boring place.
For the ever expanding Universe there is a Brane (short for Membrane) theory which postulates an "Ekpyrotic Universe" that offers a possible way for new Universes to come into being. (Example)
No way to tell really.
However, if there were a Big Crunch there is no escaping it unless there are other Universes we can access. The Big Crunch is space itself collapsing. There is nowhere to go.
Bartender: So you really think the world is going to end? Ford: Yes Bartender: Should we lie down or put a paper bag over our head or something? Ford: If you like. Bartender: Will that help? Ford: Nope.
|
Imperator Jora'h
|
Posted - 2007.12.13 17:46:00 -
[53]
Edited by: Imperator Jora''h on 13/12/2007 17:46:19 Friera:
Do you prefer comments to your page here or on your web page?
|
Neamus
|
Posted - 2007.12.13 19:23:00 -
[54]
I vote for bose-einstein condensate..
|
Chelone
|
Posted - 2007.12.13 19:57:00 -
[55]
holoscience.com has nothing whatsoever to do with religion. It is a set of alternate explanations/theories based on the electric nature of matter, which has been overlooked by modern science when analyzing behavior on the cosmological scale. Apparently no one here actually went to the site, but simply spouted dogma, which isn't very reassuring. Furthermore, I never said NOTHING can be proven, I said that when talking about things like the size of the universe or existence of black holes, we simply have NO direct observation, and are unlikely to ever have any (unless we break the light barrier.)
As for dark matter and energy - it's astounding how the scientific community scoffs at the religious types (I am not religious, by the way) yet will believe so readily that most of the matter (and now energy) in the universe is something we have never once observed. Like I said, it's the biggest fudge factor in history:
- We learn how gravity works (F = GMm/r^2) and then assume it must be the only important force at work on cosmic scales - We observe that galaxies appear to be rotating too quickly to jibe with our previous assumption that gravity is the only important force at work - We conclude that most matter and energy in the universe MUST be made up of something we have never once observed and can barely conceive of, to save our theory
A century from now, people will look back and be thoroughly amused, just like we look back and can't believe people thought the sun went around the earth. And don't forget the other big one:
- We learn how doppler shift works (f' = f + fv/c) - We observe redshift all around us and conclude that doppler shift is the only explanation - We "prove" the big bang theory as well as the age of the universe, and further conclude the universe must be "accelerating" in expansion, defying even our gravity assumptions, based solely on a new theoretical house of cards
And IIRC, didn't we first think the universe was going to collapse on itself? Then they say "WAIT! It's accelerating outward!", all based on redshift. Color me unconvinced. And isn't it the slightest bit contradictory to state that over 90% of the universe MUST be made up of something you have never observed and don't understand, and yet claim to know how and why it's all behaving as it is? LOL!
Like I said, science has never learned humility. But I guess it's more comforting to have critically flawed theories than none at all.
|
Friera
|
Posted - 2007.12.13 20:10:00 -
[56]
Edited by: Friera on 13/12/2007 20:16:04 Chelone: I read most of the climate change page but I was too tired to study it properly, as mentioned I've just come out of hospital, energy level isn't high enough to sit and play EVE right now f.ex.
Science can't prove anything simply because it is nothing more than a series of models based on observation and experiment. Direct observation isn't enough to constitute proof, only perception. The observed phenomena may also behave differently under different conditions which we may not be aware of.
Science has never learned humility. Neither has religion.
Critically flawed theories - you have to start somewhere. Aren't you glad you know the Earth is round and are a little more informed than your ancestors? Fringe theories are always contraversial. We work with what we've got until we find a better model. It's an incremental process; personally I think that is a bit better than complete ignorance.
Originally by: Chelone holoscience.com has nothing whatsoever to do with religion. It is a set of alternate explanations/theories based on the electric nature of matter, which has been overlooked by modern science when analyzing behavior on the cosmological scale. Apparently no one here actually went to the site, but simply spouted dogma, which isn't very reassuring. Furthermore, I never said NOTHING can be proven, I said that when talking about things like the size of the universe or existence of black holes, we simply have NO direct observation, and are unlikely to ever have any (unless we break the light barrier.)
As for dark matter and energy - it's astounding how the scientific community scoffs at the religious types (I am not religious, by the way) yet will believe so readily that most of the matter (and now energy) in the universe is something we have never once observed. Like I said, it's the biggest fudge factor in history:
- We learn how gravity works (F = GMm/r^2) and then assume it must be the only important force at work on cosmic scales - We observe that galaxies appear to be rotating too quickly to jibe with our previous assumption that gravity is the only important force at work - We conclude that most matter and energy in the universe MUST be made up of something we have never once observed and can barely conceive of, to save our theory
A century from now, people will look back and be thoroughly amused, just like we look back and can't believe people thought the sun went around the earth. And don't forget the other big one:
- We learn how doppler shift works (f' = f + fv/c) - We observe redshift all around us and conclude that doppler shift is the only explanation - We "prove" the big bang theory as well as the age of the universe, and further conclude the universe must be "accelerating" in expansion, defying even our gravity assumptions, based solely on a new theoretical house of cards
And IIRC, didn't we first think the universe was going to collapse on itself? Then they say "WAIT! It's accelerating outward!", all based on redshift. Color me unconvinced. And isn't it the slightest bit contradictory to state that over 90% of the universe MUST be made up of something you have never observed and don't understand, and yet claim to know how and why it's all behaving as it is? LOL!
Like I said, science has never learned humility. But I guess it's more comforting to have critically flawed theories than none at all.
|
Chelone
|
Posted - 2007.12.13 21:04:00 -
[57]
Originally by: Friera Direct observation isn't enough to constitute proof, only perception. The observed phenomena may also behave differently under different conditions which we may not be aware of.
Yep, which is why it's even more ludicrous at how much CERTAINTY is assigned to the theories I mentioned. I mean, I don't know about you, but the fact that most human experiments have been done in a local -9.81 m/s^2 gravitational field, in a local magnetic field, on a rotating planet orbiting a star, and ALL of them being (supposedly) bombarded by about 65 billion solar neutrinos per square centimeter PER SECOND, makes me think maybe we don't have a complete data set to conclude all of the behavior in the universe. Guess it's just me.
Originally by: Friera Science has never learned humility. Neither has religion.
Again I don't see religion as relevant to the discussion, except to point out the similarities between the catholic church groupthink 500 years ago and the modern-scientific groupthink today.
Originally by: Friera Critically flawed theories - you have to start somewhere. Aren't you glad you know the Earth is round and are a little more informed than your ancestors?
Yes we know the Earth is round, and a great lot of other things about it now, since that's where we live and can do experiments. But as I said, Earth (and to a small extent the solar system) is our only source of experimental data. I don't have a problem with putting forth the best theories we can about cosmology, the problem is the unwavering acceptance they receive. The Big Bang is the modern equivalent of a creation myth, and criticizing it or any of its tenets is tantamount to heresy in the scientific community.
Again, not saying I believe all the stuff on holoscience.com, but not all of the conclusions are interdependent. Forget the global warming link, the others are more interesting. I just think it brings up really interesting points about the electric nature of matter / behaviors of plasma, etc as alternate explanations for some cosmological effects, and how they aren't even considered.
|
An Anarchyyt
Gallente Sublime.
|
Posted - 2007.12.13 21:12:00 -
[58]
Originally by: Friera Well I'm single and looking. But I'm also a ******* (oh God wait for the men to reply now, give it a rest guys) - so did you mean wet, or hard? :P
Edit: Wow it bleeped out l3sb1an, funny, I never realised that was an offensive word.
Well, how perfect. I just happen to be a homosexual woman trapped in a male's body!
I apologize, I just needed to get that out. Back to your regularly scheduled science jibber-jabber.
Originally by: CCP Wrangler Second, a gentile is a non jewish person
|
SexehGallente
Gallente Federal Navy Academy
|
Posted - 2007.12.13 21:19:00 -
[59]
Theres trillions of singularities, when one blows up it expands until it feeds the others and they blow up too etc..etc.etc. Theres my theory !!
|
Imperator Jora'h
|
Posted - 2007.12.13 23:32:00 -
[60]
Edited by: Imperator Jora''h on 13/12/2007 23:41:34
Originally by: Chelone But as I said, Earth (and to a small extent the solar system) is our only source of experimental data. I don't have a problem with putting forth the best theories we can about cosmology, the problem is the unwavering acceptance they receive. The Big Bang is the modern equivalent of a creation myth, and criticizing it or any of its tenets is tantamount to heresy in the scientific community.
This is crap. Black Holes have been questioned for ages. The first person to actually postulate a black hole was over 200 years ago (really...name was John Michell and was very smart guy who sadly gets little notice).
After that it wasn't until shortly after Einstein published General Relativity that a guy sitting on the front lines in WWI doing artillery trajectory calculations worked out the Schwarzschild (his name) Radius which stated that enough mass in a small enough area would form a Black Hole. Interestingly Einstein himself did not believe in Black Holes despite them being an outgrowth of his own theory.
Then it was Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar who came up with the Chandrasekhar Limit (how big a star has to be before it might collapse into a black hole) while working on degenerate Fermi gasses. He didn't invent the concept as Holoscience mentions...just showed how big something had to be before it would collapse under its own mass (technically you can be made into a black hole...a small one...it just won't happen of its own accord). If they got that simple part wrong one has to wonder about the rest.
The term "black hole" was coined by John Wheeler in 1967 while he worked on gravitational collapse.
As you can see black holes just did not pop onto the scene and be embraced wholesale by scientists. As noted Einstein himself didn't think they could exist.
I read your holoscience link on black holes and it is crap. Scientists have been working on this for nearly a century now and they constantly go back and refine their theories as new and better data presents itself. Indeed a scientist would love to overthrow the status quo with a new and better explanation as it would make their career and famous.
Black holes are simply a solution to General Relativity. General Relativity has been tested forward and backwards for 90 years. It has never failed except under extremes (e.g. on very small scales such as inside a black hole...can't tell us what happens there). So, when every other test of General Relativity is accurate and a solution for black holes pops out it is worthy of recognition as something that could well be true.
From that they go looking for black holes. Science gives some very specific predictions on how matter will behave when falling in to one so scientists look for the emissions of infalling gas and they find it and it matches perfectly with the predictions.
Your holoscience link brings into question a black hole "flashing" 450 times/second. Well, there are Pulsars out there with periods of 1.5 milliseconds. But the holoscience page just wants you to toss the notion on its ear because it sounds absurd. Well, absurdity seems to be a part of nature. Look into Quantum Mechanics and melt your brain. About as counterintuitive as you could want and even occasionally disturbing. Yet it is the most well verified theory in existence.
If your holoscience folk want respect they need to come up with new and testable theories that do a better job than current theories. Scientists know they do not have all the answers yet (particularly with the incompatibility of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics but String Theory is looking promising).
Oh, and just to show the boat can be rocked by anyone: Surfer Dude Stuns Physicists with Theory of Everything
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |