ScienceInTheBible.Net - From Cal

[The Cysko Kid]

that's what you call observational evidence of gravity. Space is a vast place and we know next to nothing about it in reality. We have a lot of science fiction we think may be right based on math that may or may not be right because we don't actually know what it is we're assigning numbers and variables to. We have no way of knowing the mass of a black hole. We have no way of determining it's size. This scientist said that the black hole has no size. 20x the mass of the sun minimum and no size? prove it.

 

what we DO know is that angels swooped down to listen to this little girl sing in her talent show.

[The Cysko Kid]

 

Obviously a black hole has never been observed since all they are theorized to look like is the absence of light. Not a perfect analogy but bear with me: When you put something that emits no light (like a black hole) against a background that is mostly devoid of light (the universe), you're simply not going to be able to observe it. What we have observed, however, is single stars that exhibit the motion of a binary star system.

 

Binary star system.

 

What's unusual is that we've observed single stars that exhibit this wobble. We can't see anything that could be causing that wobble, but when we do the calculations, we can pinpoint a very large source of gravity close to the observable star. Those sources of gravity are posited to be black holes. Their existence is in agreement with stellar evolution theory, the theory of gravity, the four fundamental forces, and quantum theory. Long story short, there's a ton of evidence that suggests that black holes, that is, VERY large sources of mass/gravity from which light cannot escape, likely do exist.

 

As for what happens at the event horizon? That is science fiction for the time being.

[MLD Woody]

oh god, please be joking Cysko about the angel thing. I just don't even know anymore on this board

[VaporTrail]

In fact there's a lot of utter bullshit in that article being stated as if it were fact. Time slowing down as you approach a black hole? Prove it. You could stand at the event horizon and not be sucked into the black hole? Fucking prove it. Black holes will exist billions of years into the future? Prove that shit. At least this scientist had the decency to say on a number of subjects "their reality has not been confirmed"

 

by the way, Angels have almost certainly been observed too. Right?

 

You're talking about time dilation. For you to understand this, you'll need to go through a crash course in relativity.

 

 

If you don't want to watch that, I'll try to explain.

 

Through our current understanding of physics, the dimension of time is a variable. Time and space, for whatever reason, is experienced differently depending on what is being observed and how it's moving relative to the observer. These ideas have been experimentally verified for general relativity and special relativity. The GPS that the military uses, the GPS that's in your phone, the GPS that's in your car all require relativity to be taken into account, otherwise the measurements would be off by an additional 10 kilometers every day. When you apply these theories to the event horizon of the sun, time dilation will come into play.

[LogicIsForSquares]

oh god, please be joking Cysko about the angel thing. I just don't even know anymore on this board

He has finally gone full Retard.

[MLD Woody]

That video was a pretty good explanation. I think they did a segment about it on that show Stephen Hawking was on, Into The Universe I think

[VaporTrail]

"We have no way of knowing the mass of a black hole."

 

Yes we do.

 

"We have no way of determining it's size."

 

No, but we can measure the radius of its event horizon.

 

What happens as you approach this radius is the subject of many astrophysicists' debates. You're referring to the singularity. Like I said before, when you start theorizing what happens at the event horizon and beyond, you're getting into science fiction. I don't know enough about it to really say anything more.

 

"This scientist said that the black hole has no size. 20x the mass of the sun minimum and no size? prove it."

 

We can't, and so long as you're asking for proof, you're never going to be satisfied unless you become a mathematician.

[The Cysko Kid]

 

Obviously a black hole has never been observed since all they are theorized to look like is the absence of light. Not a perfect analogy but bear with me: When you put something that emits no light (like a black hole) against a background that is mostly devoid of light (the universe), you're simply not going to be able to observe it. What we have observed, however, is single stars that exhibit the motion of a binary star system.

 

Binary star system.

 

What's unusual is that we've observed single stars that exhibit this wobble. We can't see anything that could be causing that wobble, but when we do the calculations, we can pinpoint a very large source of gravity close to the observable star. Those sources of gravity are posited to be black holes. Their existence is in agreement with stellar evolution theory, the theory of gravity, the four fundamental forces, and quantum theory. Long story short, there's a ton of evidence that suggests that black holes, that is, VERY large sources of mass/gravity from which light cannot escape, likely do exist.

 

As for what happens at the event horizon? That is science fiction for the time being.

 

 

 

 

 

They have Mass but no size. according to that transcript I posted from Nasa.gov

 

That means regardless of their mass they're posited to be we can infer the size of them to not exist. So they are a pinprick? Or they're infinite and we all live in one. So god spoke to moses from the burning bush?

 

for all we know there could be a black dwarf planetary core or some shit like that there. A super dense core of radioactive material. We've already proved what I set out to prove true. That there's no realistic evidence that black holes exist. All there is is theoretical science and a couple of bright points of light and some incredibly distant wobbling effect that could have been caused in reality by any number of things.

 

We are horrified by the prospect of children being taught nonsense like religion in school but delighted about them being taught, as fact, unproven theories for which there is no direct evidence. What is the difference? In time we may come to prove some of these things, if our technology advances to the point that makes it possible for us to travel into space or it may turn out that everything we think we know now is bullshit. That certainly has happened plenty of times in human history.

[The Cysko Kid]

See I like to talk science fiction and despite how i might be coming off here I am terribly interested in what's going on out there in the universe. But my ultimate point that I've been rambling around for a while now, is that it's as much a fallacy to place all your faith in science as it is religion. I'm much more of a pragmatist. We don't know, we can't know. We will never know. It's interesting, but it's nothing more than an interesting waste of time.

[The Cysko Kid]

"We have no way of knowing the mass of a black hole."

 

Yes we do.

 

"We have no way of determining it's size."

 

No, but we can measure the radius of its event horizon.

 

What happens as you approach this radius is the subject of many astrophysicists' debates. You're referring to the singularity. Like I said before, when you start theorizing what happens at the event horizon and beyond, you're getting into science fiction. I don't know enough about it to really say anything more.

 

"This scientist said that the black hole has no size. 20x the mass of the sun minimum and no size? prove it."

 

We can't, and so long as you're asking for proof, you're never going to be satisfied unless you become a mathematician.

 

 

The very heart of the the hypocrisy of the religion haters' argument all tidied up for me, thanks.

[VaporTrail]

I noticed that you emboldened "theory of gravity." Tell me, is gravity more or less plausible than angels?

[MLD Woody]

But my ultimate point that I've been rambling around for a while now, is that it's as much a fallacy to place all your faith in science as it is religion. I'm much more of a pragmatist. We don't know, we can't know. We will never know. It's interesting, but it's nothing more than an interesting waste of time.

 

 

Now how many times do you think that has been said in the past, only to be proven wrong?

 

"We'll never be able to fly like the birds. We just can't. It is nice to think about but it will never happen"

"We'll never be able to go to the moon. We just can't. It is interesting to think about but it will never happen"

"We'll never be able to instantly communicated with anyone, anywhere on the globe. We just can't. It is cool to think about but it will never happen"

 

 

How is this science on the same level as religion again?

[VaporTrail]

I noticed that you emboldened "theory of gravity." Tell me, is gravity more or less plausible than angels?

[The Cysko Kid]

I just emboldened theory. To highlight what you're defending.

[gftChris]

I just emboldened theory. To highlight what you're defending.

Do we really need yet another definition of what a scientific theory is compared to a common parlance theory?

 

"I have a theory that Jim's been stealing my chocolate biscuits from my desk at work."

 

"Newton had a theory of gravity."

 

These two are not the same thing.

[The Cysko Kid]

Find some cold hard fact in the wiki I posted for you or the NASA link or gtfo

[gftChris]

Find some cold hard fact in the wiki I posted for you or the NASA link or gtfo

I'm not talking facts or not, I'm talking about your apparent misunderstanding of the word 'theory'.

[The Cysko Kid]

When confronted by the fact thaf something you believe in and think should be taught in school is an unproven phenomena with nothing to back it but circumstantial evidence that's debatable in nature you guys want to stick your fingers in your ears and say la la la I can't hear you, but then you want to lambast cal and them for believing in a god there's no proof of. Hypocrisy.

[Westside Steve]

http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Black_hole

 

 

Of course there is proof!

WSS

[The Cysko Kid]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

 

 

Where exactly am I not understanding it?

[FairHooker11]

When confronted by the fact thaf something you believe in and think should be taught in school is an unproven phenomena with nothing to back it but circumstantial evidence that's debatable in nature you guys want to stick your fingers in your ears and say la la la I can't hear you, but then you want to lambast cal and them for believing in a god there's no proof of. Hypocrisy.

 

that says it all for me too

[gftChris]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

 

 

Where exactly am I not understanding it?

 

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_(disambiguation)

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

 

There?

[calfoxwc]

LOL. Good job, Steve.

 

Anyone who thinks that we can prove that black holes

exist as fact....

 

is a Ferangi brain. LOL

 

Or, redefine the term to be accurate...

 

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12089-do-black-holes-really-exist.html#.UxSXkuNdWSo

[calfoxwc]

IOW's, Scientists can make theories, and substantiate them with facts.

 

Until, they find out, that their theory is actually wrong. Their fact-based

deductive reasoning was in error.

 

Which means, despite all the substantiation, the conclusion was in error,

and the real truth is something else.

[gftChris]

IOW's, Scientists can make theories, and substantiate them with facts.

 

Until, they find out, that their theory is actually wrong. Their fact-based

deductive reasoning was in error.

 

Which means, despite all the substantiation, the conclusion was in error,

and the real truth is something else.

You've missed the point there - colour me shocked. Think of it like this - you fire up the bbq, throw some steaks on there, and they come out burnt. You may need to tweak your method a little - less time, more smoke, different wood, extra seasoning, add oil - but you don't then try to cook your steak on a window. You had it basically right, just not *exactly* right. And that's the premise when it comes to things like gravity, for example.

 

Newton proposed his theory of gravity, which was refined over the years (extra mustard, hold the lettuce etc) and it got to the point where we can now predict with complete accuracy how gravity will affect things in the world. Now, when it comes to the quantum level, we can see that the newtonian understanding of the world doesn't hold - it turns out you can't just extrapolate to infinitely smaller spaces and have the theory holds up. So there's quantum theory, governing how things act on a quantum scale. Everyone's searching for a grand unified theory, holding the two of them together. This leads us to conjecture - there is plenty of conjecture about a grand unified theory, and many theories have been proposed, but until they are rigourously tested and proven beyond doubt and accepted by the scientific community at large, they're not proper theories.

[calfoxwc]

We aren't talking about gravity. We are talking about "fact" that ends up

being "not actually fact".

 

Saying that "black holes" are FACT, and then admitting that you have to

change the definition to keep it as fact...

 

is nonsense. Cya rationalization. You define a term, say it's fact, then you find

out it isn't.......

 

you are dealing with a falsehood. Try again. I'm not surprised you rationalize these things.

 

Your analogy is baloney. The steak getting burnt is an indisputable FACT. Adjusting the process

to NOT burn the steak has nothing to do with the point of the theoretical definition of black holes.

 

"something" is there? sure. But the claim to have accurately and FACTUALLY defined it,

no, not so much.

 

But it's okay, I don't think for a minute that most people think fuzzy like you do on matters. I'm not

surprised that you keep doing, though.

 

A theory is an attempt to establish fact. To the degree that, say, scientists can substantiate

a theory as factual, sure. But, sometimes, they could be wrong. They may simply be misinterpreting

an existing phenomenon. I don't know that there is any other explanation to deny gravity

factual status.

 

But black holes? Read the article I posted a link for.

 

But do go ahead, Chris, and claim a defined term is "factual". Then change the definition

of the term, and say it was correct the first time.

 

Not buyin it, to say the least.

[The Cysko Kid]

http://silverstockreport.com/2010/god.html

 

 

A bit tongue in cheek but food for thought for those that put all their faith in numbers

[calfoxwc]

Here's an analogy for you, Chris.

 

Let's say, you have a kitchen shelf for all your plastic beverage cups.

And every time you try to put them all in there, you don't even have

enough room. You try it and try several times, and you do all sorts of

calculations about the size of the cups, and how much sq ft is able

to be utilized. And you try several more times, and dammit, you scientifically

prove, as a theory that you say is absolute fact, that there is not enough

room on the shelf because you can't get all your cups in there.

 

And then, I suggest, that you stack your cups vertically, according to size,

and yowza ! All the cups fit on your shelf?

 

I'm saying, your "proven" theory was not true, there always was room for your cups.

You keep insisting that no, it was always true that there was no room for the cups,

because the facts are there. I'm saying, despite your facts, you knucklehead, your

conclusion, deduced from observations and facts, was wrong.

You then get all honked off, and your proclaim that no, there was never enough room

for your cups WITHOUT STACKING THEM.

 

Different deal. You won't admit you were wrong the first time. That's all. Have a nice day....

[VaporTrail]

http://silverstockreport.com/2010/god.html

 

 

A bit tongue in cheek but food for thought for those that put all their faith in numbers

 

Sorry Cysko, I tried reading it, but he loses me when he cites literalgenesis.org as one of his sources.

[The Cysko Kid]

Did you read that horseshit I posted from NASA.gov?