09-10-2008, 03:58 PM
| #41 |
| Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,906
| Hi again Coelotra
Well, our readings on black holes, neutron stars, and gravity lead us to differing beliefs or understandings of these phenomena. However, that is just fine as this is a forum so differing opinions just add to the knowledge and experience base. A black hole is the epiphany of gravitational force. As it moves through the universe, generally thought mostly to be at the center of a galaxy, it grows by taking in everything that crosses the event horizon. It stops growing only when it has nothing available to suck in. However, rather than being a weak force the gravitational force of the central black hole defines the galaxy that surrounds it. As to what happens beyond crossing the event horizon, the idea that a black hole can lose that which it has taken in, or even the idea that it might explode at a certain mass is still within the realm of speculation. What seems to happen over and over occurs as a group of scientists and/or theoretical physicists decide among themselves something is right and therefore is presented as fact. This is the very antithesis of scientific research. |
|  |
|
09-10-2008, 04:40 PM
| #42 |
| Senior Member  Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Attica, Ohio
Posts: 924
|
did the world end yet? lol
__________________ energizer bunny arrested, charged with battery |
|
| |
|
09-10-2008, 04:42 PM
| #43 | |
| Senior Member  Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: On top of that rock over there
Posts: 244
| Quote:
 lol
| |
|
| |
|
09-10-2008, 04:44 PM
| #44 | |
| Conservative in Exile   | Quote:
Ya don't know what ya don't know.
__________________ Old fighter pilots never die.....They just wind up in Texas | |
|
| |
|
09-10-2008, 04:45 PM
| #45 |
| Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Attica, Ohio
Posts: 924
|
no i dont think i got that one, hmm well the after life is shockingly familure to the old one lol
__________________ energizer bunny arrested, charged with battery |
|
| |
|
09-10-2008, 05:00 PM
| #46 | |
| Senior Member  Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 2,144
| Quote:
Physicists do not "decide something is right" and present it as fact. You have any idea the sorts of observations and calculations they have to do to get published? You saw the website I posted...you think some guys "just made that up"? That's based on literal lifetimes of work. This why it's peer-reviewed. Nobody has to give it a pass and they can actually gain if they prove someone else wrong. Even people who are friends do it. I mentioned a bet between Hawking and Thorne, they were betting against Hawking's work being proven correct by observations of the gravitational "lensing" effect around black holes. Hawking bet that he himself would be proven wrong so that if he was, at least he'd have the consolation of winning the bet. Part of his work is why we can now detect extra-solar planets. You also do need to read up more on gravity. Yes, it defines and shapes the universe...it's still weak. Remember the fridge magnet? A fridge magnet exerts an electromagnetic force more powerful than the Earth's gravity, just over a shorter distance. Just because it works over vast distances doesn't make it strong. Notice that everything in our galaxy revolves serenely around the core? It isn't being ferociously sucked in? Here. Here's something from the Chandra X-Ray Observatory: Supermassive Black Holes Contribute to Galaxy Growth | Universe Today "Supermassive black holes at their centres are transferring a significant amount of energy into the gas surrounding the galaxies. Astronomers believe that this is just a stage in longer cycle where gas cools to form galaxies, which then merge and create a supermassive black hole. Jets of hot gas blast away from the black hole sweeping away all matter, giving the gas a chance to cool back down ? and then the cycle starts all over again." We have pictures of this. X-Ray pics, but still. The holes fuel star formation and growth in the galaxy. They dump energy back into the system. It has to come from somewhere initially, obviously, and that's from initial formation events. That's still being looked into as regards the details of initial formation of galaxies. Heck, here's more fun: Galaxies and Their Black Holes Grow Together | Universe Today "They say that this probably means that the black hole is growing by swallowing some of the same supply of relatively cold and dense gas from which stars are forming elsewhere in the galaxy. The stellar mass of these galaxies and the masses of their central black holes are clearly growing together. Like chicken and egg, neither black hole nor galaxy can be said to come first; each is necessary for the other." That's from a survey of 120,000 nearby galaxies. This isn't guesswork, the amount of data collected here is stunning. The entire community of high-end physicists polices itself vehemently. Hell, they got together as a group and took shots at Einstein when they were nearly certain he'd made a mistake. NOVA | Einstein's Big Idea | Relativity (Lightman Essay) | PBS "The possibility that stars could collapse to form black holes was first theoretically "discovered" in 1939 by J. Robert Oppenheimer and Hartland Snyder, who were manipulating the equations of Einstein's general relativity. The first black hole believed to be discovered in the physical world, as opposed to the mathematical world of pencil and paper, was Cygnus X-1, about 7,000 light-years from Earth. (A light-year, the distance light travels in a year, is about six trillion miles.) Cygnus X-1 was found in 1970. Since then, a dozen excellent black hole candidates have been identified. Many astronomers and astrophysicists believe that massive black holes, with sizes up to 10 million times that of our sun, inhabit the centers of energetic galaxies and quasars and are responsible for their enormous energy release. Ironically, Einstein himself did not believe in the existence of black holes, even though they were predicted by his theory." Since this article, we've pretty much verified the galactic center black holes. I'm afraid your view of how these people present results is flawed. Their reputations are their lives. Being deliberately wrong is death in the field, you will never be trusted again. If you throw something out without a firm basis, you will be torn apart, happily, by everyone else. Their own reputations can grow from finding flaws in someone else's work. Hawking's notions of how black holes can lose mass comes from our understanding of vacuum energy, which is derived from virtual particles, which come from Heisenberg's work, which draws on Bohr's work with the energy-time uncertainty principle. We know Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle is true insofar as we can define anything at that scale. We know because we've run into it when measuring the positions of atoms using photons. This is a for-real application, out of the textbook and into the world. There's very, very, very little chance he's wrong on this one. But again, he doesn't think we'll get micro black holes anyway in the first tests. Come on TXplt...if that was how it worked we'd never have any technology from this stuff...and we do. It's a lot more defined than you seem to think. If people threw out theories that weren't correct than technology derived from it wouldn't work. The laser beams we've been teleporting seem to indicate we're on the right track with quantum theory so far. - Coeloptera Last edited by Coeloptera; 09-10-2008 at 05:02 PM. | |
|
| |
|
09-10-2008, 05:21 PM
| #47 | |
| Right Wing Nutjob  Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Behind Enemy Lines...Ohio..GO BLUE!
Posts: 542
| Quote:
That's why this is being done.
__________________ "If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace." Tom Paine 1776 | |
|
| |
|
09-10-2008, 05:32 PM
| #48 | |
| Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 2,144
| Quote:
- Coeloptera | |
|
| |
|
09-10-2008, 11:36 PM
| #49 |
| Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: On top of that rock over there
Posts: 244
|
Well Wednesdays almost over and I am still here....so there ya go of course from what I have read the real threat won't come up for a couple of weeks.....so we are not out of the woods yet.........Question: What do you pack in your survival pack for the earth being swallowed by a man made black hole???? lol
__________________ Hey pigpen this heres the rubber duck and i'm bout to put the hammer down |
|
| |
|
09-11-2008, 01:38 AM
| #50 | |
| Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 2,144
| Quote:
 - Coeloptera | |
|
| |
|
09-11-2008, 01:50 AM
| #51 |
| Military Rifle Collector  |
OMG the black hole. We are going to be pulled by time and gravity into strands of spagetti and zipped around space in a huge sprial and then sucked into a black hole which is really an entrance of a worm hole into the other side of space just to be spit out lost and alone in so far from earth we cannot get back in one million lifetimes. Then we can hook up with some green lanky aliens and two headed dudes and visit Milliways the Restraunt at the end of the Universe. Where we all sit around and talk about viable guns.
__________________ Let's light this fuse and see what happens! |
|
| |
|
09-11-2008, 01:50 AM
| #52 |
| Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 2,144
| |
|
| |
|
09-11-2008, 07:12 AM
| #54 | |
| Conservative in Exile | Quote:
Not going to change the subject, but one need look no further than "global warming" to substantiate this. There's zero empirical evidence which shows man's (or recent CO2 concentration increases from all sources) are significantly contributing to the warming of our planet. Thermal inertia studies with typical atmospheric CO2 levels have shown no changes. The IR transfer models show no changes (at least within the ranges measurable with precision to anywhere close to our solar "constant" -- any changes possible are at least 3 orders of magnitude below this precision). We have no atmospheric models whatsoever which can measure thermal transfer with any degree of long term precision (think weather forecasting). Yet "scientists" are quoting "incontrovertable" evidence as a basis for a taxing/trading scam. This agenda decreases scientific credibility everywhere. Again, you don't know what you don't know. Our models of the universe depend on basic assumptions and measurements from tests; these tests detect things they're designed to detect. They're designed to placate the logical portions of our brain. Our models are pretty good and "fit" most situations we've seen or come up with (and we can certainly use these for useful purposes--to build engines, turn the lights on, improve quality of life), but that doesn't mean they're concrete and situations can't exist which fall outside of these. Newtonian physics never allowed for relatavistic considerations (and fails as we get toward the speed of light), but it's certainly a good enough model for ballistics. The electrical models (we still use) for circuits was designed before we "discovered" electrons and is 180 degrees out from what is actually happening for current flow (i.e. they have the current flowing in the opposite direction of what is really happening). It worked before we modeled the atom and still works fine--our radios work great, and our homes, industries, and airplanes have working electricity. We don't need to throw stuff out, and can use it for useful things. We need only realize it might not always fit, and not assume it will. I was an electrical engineer and fairly technical kinda guy; however, I don't for one New York minute assume that I can know a fraction of everything or that totally unexpected things (unexplainable with current and possibly future technology) can't and don't happen. IMHO, "All Scientists Are Blind"  I think this is a good and useful reminder of our limitations as humans, and that we need to keep the big picture.
__________________ Old fighter pilots never die.....They just wind up in Texas Last edited by TXplt; 09-11-2008 at 08:14 AM. | |
|
| |
|
09-11-2008, 07:49 AM
| #55 | |
| MY CAT RUDY ATE SANTA..!!  Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 3,577
| Quote:
__________________ "Most of the troubles in the world is caused by people wanting to be important". T.S.Eliot | |
|
| |
|
09-11-2008, 10:24 AM
| #56 | |
| Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 2,144
| Quote:
That is so not how it works. I did mention the sequence of work from Hawking back to Bohr. Each person built on the work of the last, verifying what they could, discarding what didn't seem to fit new data, and refining the whole thing. That's what they're doing now with the LHC. If they do find a Higgs boson, for instance, that validates the Standard Model, and now we can run from a model that successfully predicted the results we got, meaning that for our purposes, it was right. And as was said in the video, if we don't, we have some rethinking to do. But to get to this point the work had to be consistant and make predictions that were verified by the data. We didn't find black holes by accident, people like Einstein's work made predictions, even if he personally didn't see it. In fact, that argues pretty strongly against the notion of "deciding something is right". If that were the case, we would never have been looking for black holes because Einstein didn't believe such a thing was possible because he had a prejudice against the concept of "hiding" information from the universe (I can explain that in more detail if anyone cares). But his opinion didn't matter. His work laid a foundation that said otherwise, and people like Hawking and Thorne used his work in a way he never would have, and lo and behold, we've "seen" them (like the Chandra X-Ray Observatory images I posted before). That indicates that his research and math were right, since people used it to get a real result. His intentions didn't matter in the end as long as his data was clean. Science, on the whole, has a great tendency to be self-correcting precisely because it's not about "consensus", but about what is correct and what gives results. Just wait, the global warming thing will come. Politicised or not, the truth will out in time as we get more information and develop more sophisticated ways of measuring the effects of what we produce versus all the other environmental factors. Frankly, if more of the general populace was more scientifically literate (even in just the scientific method itself) we wouldn't have these problems. You know as well as I do that the Standard Model must be very close to accurate insofar as we can comprehend it, or typical nuclear reactors and fusion reactors like the TOKAMAK wouldn't function. We wouldn't have developed the neutron bomb without it. We are ultimately limited by the sorts of brains we evolved in regards to how much we can "really" understand some of this (try reading about string theory sometime, it's a trip), but that's why we have math. We can represent things accurately, mathmatically, that we can't picture (like say...a hypercube). Yes, I agree with you that to an extent, "we don't know what we don't know", but sometimes we do know what we don't know. This is a great example. There's a gap in the Standard Model...so we know we don't know it yet. One way or the other, soon, we'll have refined it. By the way, Capt'n Mil Coll, was that "spaghetti" reference on purpose? Hawking used it in A Brief History of Time. - Coeloptera | |
|
| |
|
09-11-2008, 12:30 PM
| #58 |
| Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: near Funk, Ohio
Posts: 510
|
I'm still playing catch-up, so forgive me. Once upon people were postulating that a black hole was the entrance to a worm hole or superstring or something of that sort which might lead to an entirely different universe. What happened to that line of thought? TXplt, regarding the climate change scenario, people are worried about it due to the correlation that has been shown between human activity involving burning fossil fuels and the rate of change. They cannot prove a cause/effect relationship, and there is evidence to support the idea that the human influence is incredibly small. However, their position is based on the idea that we might be the cause, we have only one planet to live on, and it's best to not take a chance on screwing it up. Are you sure you aren't feeling a little defensive because a segment of the global warming folks are wanting to put a large share of the blame on high altitude jet flights? So which explanation of current flow do you accept? Regardless of name, do you figure current is a movement of particles? If so, what kind of charge do they have? I agree completely on "you don't know what you don't know", especially on a deep level. We truly understand so little of what's out there to know that we have no appreciation of how ignorant we are. As I often tell my kids, the more I learn, the more ignorant I feel. Last edited by DaTeacha; 09-11-2008 at 12:34 PM. |
|
| |
|
09-11-2008, 01:27 PM
| #59 | |
| Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 2,144
| Quote:
We also determined that gravity slows down the passage of time, (relative to a fixed observer). That is as proved as something can be. Experiments have been done on Earth that back that up to the hilt. So anything that passes the event horizon can't "continue" to go anywhere. That and nothing will survive getting that close anyway. Tidal forces that close to a black hole can tear atoms apart. So it's several observations and some experiments that put that idea to rest. A black hole can increase its own mass, shed energy, and stops time at its "surface" (an inaccurate term, but close enough for now). Nothing that falls in goes anywhere, or the galactic center holes would dissipate due to dumping energy back into the system around them. Instead they add that mass to the original mass that collapsed to create it in the first place. That's why the big ones won't go away until we have less background radiation in the universe, and why small ones won't last long. - Coeloptera | |
|
| |
|
09-11-2008, 10:31 PM
| #60 | |
| Conservative in Exile | Quote:
Anyway, CO2 is heavier than the atmosphere (44 vs. 29), so gravity would tend to make it settle and the high-altitude jet argument isn't really vaild anayway, so's I got nothing to worry about. We also don't have any specific atmospheric models which work very well in any case (I encounter this all the time in my job !) I ran the numbers one day for all of the factors of increased CO2 concentration, IR absorption spectra of carbon as a total fraction of the IR band (3 peaks; 2 "count"), earth's efficiency at absorbing light and re-radiating as IR, etc. Without convection effects (due, once again, to atmospheric modeling limitations, but which would tend to "cool" the earth), I found that this whole increase over the last 200 years (200-380 ppm) when scaled to a window that opens/closes 2 feet would be equivalent to closing the window nine millionths of one inch. This is why no empirical thermal inertia study has shown atmospheric CO2 change to have any effect on earth's temperature, and the theory is, as it currently exists, false(there have been several TI studies, as well as many dissenting scientists in the global warming debate--these scientists don't support the carbon tax "scam" so aren't as vocal as the ones who bring their respective state sponsored governments $$$$. Before you wave the conspiracy theory flag, consider Canada has just imposed a carbon tax based on this wholly unverified theory, and other governments are attempting to follow suit--guess where this money comes from !). We can't even get the solar "constant" (1.36 kw/m2) to 4 significant figures with confidence, so extrapolations of our plight have been wholly invalid. Although we can measure CO2 concentrations in ice cores with some precision, we can't measure earth's temperature with nearly the same accuracy--I had a black and white TV only 40 years ago; color was a treat; and computers were things that filled rooms weren't on desktops. Only 40 years ago. As far as the "take a chance" -- I'm sure as a teacher you're well versed in the concept of opportunity costs. When we block a coal plant based on a BS theory via a lawsuit, etc., that raises everyone's electrical rates. This costs money--Millions of $ are sucked out of our economy. This literally kills people; this money could be used for medical care to save lives, buy medicine, vaccinate, buy food, or just make ends meet as a family. The stress of trying to deal with jacked up energy rates due to an invalid theory shortens lives and creates health problems as well. Giving bureaucracies a "blank check" to overregulate always hurts people--this is what we're seeing. I'm all for nuclear power (we need be building nuclear breeder reactors like yesterday) and renewables, but it's not OK to lie to get there. I've got some previous posts that go into more detail, but the bottom line hasn't changed. By all means don't take my word for it--look into it on your own and look at qualified scientists who are dissenting with the theory as well. Keep an open mind, and do realize that "pure" science in the material world can unfortunately be skewed when there's money involved--unfortunately, this "science" lends itself to exploitation in the form of governments using it as an excuse to tax. As soon as you hear "tax" or "carbon credits" or "carbon trading" you should be extremely wary about what that person or agency is saying. On the other hand, if someone says "we're going to build 100 nuclear plants to hedge our bets one way or another--we're not completely sure about carbon, but this will give us clean and cheap energy just in case," that person is probably worth listening to.As far as the electrical model, it was developed before the electron was discovered, so it shows the direction a positive charge would flow by convention. There was never a compelling reason to change it and it still works quite well--it's just not scientifically correct (you can see the nodal/mesh analysis in a beginning electrical engineering circuit analysis book which will depict the direction a positive charge goes. Sum of all currents leaving a node must be zero, voltages around the circle zero, I=V/R, etc). A similar thing happened with centrifugal vs. centripetal force (people still say centrifugal force even though most physics books use forces acting on a body and centripetal--center seeking--force. Also, we have centrifuges, not centripuges). Thanks for the interest, and keep the big picture It's always very important to recognize the limtations of our own knowledge. I try to keep this in mind as well ! All of us are always learning.
__________________ Old fighter pilots never die.....They just wind up in Texas Last edited by TXplt; 09-11-2008 at 10:52 PM. | |
|
| |
