The Big Hoax Theory, Black holes and Gravity

[HighGrowMan]

Originally Posted by nushaganazad

i do not agree with this. NOT ALL objects give off light.
stars give off light because of what they are made of. if there were no stars, no suns. nothing. We could never see venus because there is no light to see it bouncing off of it. its not "lit up" so we cant see it in my opinion.

If i go to a completly black area and put some dirt in there, or water whatever it is that earth is compromied off, were not going to get light.

All objects most certainly do give off light; however it's not always in the visible spectrum (to people). However you can see people in both the infrared and other spectrum of light; even in a completely vacuum locked room.

Every electromagnetically charged particle gives off light, just because we don't necessarily have the equipment to measure it, or it isn't in the spectrum that we can measure, doesn't mean that it isn't giving off 'light'.

Now, if you reason with me, wouldn't a planetary body also give off light in various spectrum's... Some of which are in the visible spectrum of light.

The earth and all planets contain a vast amount of static charge. Would it not stand to reason that this static charge; especisally when energized by the charge of the Sun, would give off a vast amount of light; just like a plasma lamp?

[nushaganazad]

i just dont agree, ive never had someone bring plain good evidence to me and show me. all things give off light, do u have any credible sources?

[AlphaQ]

Originally Posted by nushaganazad

i just dont agree, ive never had someone bring plain good evidence to me and show me. all things give off light, do u have any credible sources?

Basically, anything with a temperature greater than absolute zero will radiate. Due to quantum effects, it is not actually possible to get to 0 K.

Light is an ambiguous term. If you consider light to be what is visible to us, then all object most definitely do not give off light. But if you consider the whole electromagnetic spectrum (microwave, x-ray, gamma ray etc.), all objects do radiate.

Black holes have even been shown to radiate, again this is theorized to be due to quantum fluctuations.

[MelT]

HGM: All objects most certainly do give off light; however it's not always in the visible spectrum (to people). However you can see people in both the infrared and other spectrum of light; even in a completely vacuum locked room.END

All objects reflect light, they don't give it off. Radiation, infra-red or any other part of the spectrum that we can't see in is not the visible light that Gopher is talking about. There are certainly no photons of visible light inside a box with no light source. There might be heat, but that's not visible light.

HGM: Every electromagnetically charged particle gives off light, just because we don't necessarily have the equipment to measure it, or it isn't in the spectrum that we can measure, doesn't mean that it isn't giving off 'light'.END

VISIBLE light, as in the OP, causing planets to shine in conjunction with reflected light. Just isn't true.

HGM: Now, if you reason with me, wouldn't a planetary body also give off light in various spectrum's... Some of which are in the visible spectrum of light." END

No, this isn't what the OP was about. Gopher said that all planets shine because they inherently emit light, which is not the case. As above all objects give off radiation, and if something were hot enough on part of planet then yes, of course we'd see it glow, but not shine like stars.

HGM:The earth and all planets contain a vast amount of static charge. Would it not stand to reason that this static charge; especisally when energized by the charge of the Sun, would give off a vast amount of light; just like a plasma lamp?END

No, doesn't happen. If that were the case then we'd actually see this light emanating from the earth at night around us. Turn off the Suns and you'd see bugger all of the planets with the naked eye, no plasma effect. Plenty to see if you want to use a wealth of scientific instruments, but that isn't what Gopher said.

And as you say, the 'medium' that photons are in bends with light, which again proves that Black Holes can prevent light from escaping their surfaces. You've just said it yourself that light/the medium IS affected by gravity - but you're also supporting Gopher, saying that this can't happen around a Black Hole? Gravitational Lensing occurs because of just this mechanism, and we've observed that tens of times in the Universe.

As Zylark says, I'm starting to be at a loss to understand why this thread is here? Black Holes are real, planets don't shine in the visible spectrum unless there's something to make them hot enough to emit visible light. No plasma ball effect has ever been observed.

Also, we still don't have Gopher's reason for being emotive and calling Black Holes a 'hoax'? Not 'wrong' or 'innacurate', but a concerted effort on behalf of science to delude everyone? Argu science by all means, but it's silly to try and turn this into another consiparcy theory.

MelT

[SpartanInjun]

I suppose g0pher wanted to bait me here. His Topic post is just ripped directly from something I wrote on another board, several actually. I know there is a lot of "everything is gravity" google results mainly because I wanted to see how many I could get on there... but I kept getting banned from every single one. I was more or less trolling with my "theory", as it doesn't take a genius to understand this.

Anyhow, I'll defend my explanation of gravity...

Black holes - It's the size of the object and it's ability to wobble/expand/contract that gives something it's magnetic field and it's density. The reason the sun is fuses is because of it's size, and because of it's size it's inner core is so dense that the sun fuses. So if something were any denser than the core of the sun, you'd have a very big star on your hands, not a "black hole". Density only comes with size. This is why we have diamonds.

Light - planets do give off their own light. You just can't see it because the stars are sucking away it's energy. It's like taking a little pocket flash light and flashing it onto a log that's on fire. You're not going to see the flash light's light. So we see the "darkness" because we're seeing something much brighter that dulls out what we can see. Everything gives off light, even your eyes by themselves.

Gravity - i liken it to electromagnetism. Newton thought the same thing about gravity at first, but I've never read anything he's written to come to my own conclusions. It just made sense to me that our planets and solar systems and galaxies all follow some sort of pattern. Jupiter being so huge because it's far enough away from the sun to not have to be "tamed"/torn apart by it. That's why we have 4 huge gas giants out there beyond our asteroid belt. Those planets didn't quite get the chance to form into stars, and so they might have been parts of bigger bodies but the sun's gravitational pull prevented them from doing so. Venus and Earth are extremely close to each other, and so they will be roughly the same size. Mercury is so tiny because it's so close to the sun. And then you take in account how each planet will "fight" with the others and balance everything out. But today people think it's "electromagnetism", well i say that electro-magnetism IS gravity. Better to have an easy word for it.

There's a lot more, but it's really obvious and I'm just trying to get my google results up again... heh.

[vostibackle]

Originally Posted by g0pher

Basically everything modern science teaches about the universe is pretty much bullshit.
...
Black holes are said to 'bend light' and prevent it from escaping it's pull. That's impossible because light is an expression of existence. It is everywhere.

It's hard for me to believe you're not joking.

Originally Posted by g0pher

And what is your arguement against my theory about light?

OK. If you really do have a "theory" about light, it must make some testable predictions about reality, which are then to be corroborated by experimental evidence. Please share these with us.

Note also that current scientific theories of light have been verified by multitudes of testable hypotheses. One example among many: when Einstein formulated his general relativity, he predicted that the apparent positions of stars near the sun in the sky would be shifted slightly in a specific way due to light bending caused by the gravity of the sun. This turned out to be true: the positions deviated in exactly the way he predicted.

Your theory must not only make predictions which turn out to be correct, it must also somehow account for the fact that current theories have made successful predictions—either by making predictions consistent with these theories (in which case your theory must make accurate predictions in cases in which current theories cannot—or just be simpler than current theories—in order to be preferable) or by explaining how invalid assumptions caused scientists to incorrectly interpret experimental data in the past.

[GolgiApparatus]

Logic is man made.

[Zylark]

Originally Posted by GolgiApparatus

Logic is man made.

Logic, more correct, boolean operations, is universal and a function of nature. Besides being a great tool.

So it is more correct to say that we have discovered logic, rather than invented it.

And from doing a fair bit of programming, it is quite amazing what you can do with it.

[vostibackle]

Originally Posted by Zylark

Logic, more correct, boolean operations, is universal and a function of nature. Besides being a great tool.

So it is more correct to say that we have discovered logic, rather than invented it.

And from doing a fair bit of programming, it is quite amazing what you can do with it.

Eh, I sorta agree with GolgiApparatus. It may appear that reality behaves according to logical rules, but how would one ever know? Using induction? And how can you justify induction? And anyway we have the further problem of justifying deduction. Gödel's incompleteness theorem guarantees that we can't ever use logic to prove that logic is consistent. So how can we ever know?

I wouldn't say logic is manmade, though. I think logic has been hardwired into our brains by natural selection.

[SpartanInjun]

Originally Posted by vostibackle

It's hard for me to believe you're not joking.



OK. If you really do have a "theory" about light, it must make some testable predictions about reality, which are then to be corroborated by experimental evidence. Please share these with us.

Note also that current scientific theories of light have been verified by multitudes of testable hypotheses. One example among many: when Einstein formulated his general relativity, he predicted that the apparent positions of stars near the sun in the sky would be shifted slightly in a specific way due to light bending caused by the gravity of the sun. This turned out to be true: the positions deviated in exactly the way he predicted.

Your theory must not only make predictions which turn out to be correct, it must also somehow account for the fact that current theories have made successful predictions—either by making predictions consistent with these theories (in which case your theory must make accurate predictions in cases in which current theories cannot—or just be simpler than current theories—in order to be preferable) or by explaining how invalid assumptions caused scientists to incorrectly interpret experimental data in the past.

You're talking to me actually .G0phers original post is actually exactly what I wrote on another board. He just copied and pasted it here.

Read above.

[vostibackle]

Originally Posted by SpartanInjun

Anyhow, I'll defend my explanation of gravity...

Please provide predictions your theory makes which can be tested against experimental evidence.

[SpartanInjun]

Originally Posted by vostibackle

Please provide predictions your theory makes which can be tested against experimental evidence.

You've already said that "logic" is not 'true' in your last post. Now you want me to prove it is? That's what proof is - inductive logic. What's proof to you, is not proof to me.

No one perceives things exactly the same, and neither do you the next time you think about what you perceive. Nothing is the same as the last.

YOu can't predict anything. There is no 'mechnism'. My theory argues against prediction, so you can't use it to prove it's true, obviously.

[vostibackle]

Originally Posted by SpartanInjun

You've already said that "logic" is not 'true' in your last post. Now you want me to prove it is? That's what proof is - inductive logic. What's proof to you, is not proof to me.

No one perceives things exactly the same, and neither do you the next time you think about what you perceive. Nothing is the same as the last.

YOu can't predict anything. There is no 'mechnism'. My theory argues against prediction, so you can't use it to prove it's true, obviously.

Oh, OK, sorry. I had assumed you were claiming your theory was scientific.

[SpartanInjun]

Originally Posted by vostibackle

Oh, OK, sorry. I had assumed you were claiming your theory was scientific.

Science doesn't predict anything.

[vostibackle]

Originally Posted by SpartanInjun

Science doesn't predict anything.

Sure it does. For example, science predicts that the sun will rise tomorrow. Whether or not the prediction is right is a separate issue.