I Posted the wrong reference man how thefuck, but anyways i'm gonna defend my argument later, time's been short for me the past couple o weeks, but its all good..
The same could be said about the Universe itself, but here it is...and here we are. If a "Universe" can exist, anything can exist.
Gopher is right on the money. It's difficult to explain this concept; it's like telling an institutionalized mind that it's free. The mind get's scared and shuts down. The same thing that happens when you tell a mind that everything is actually one. Most people's minds are devided, and like the proverb says, "No house devided against its self can stand." But now that I've said that Gopher is right on the money, I think there is other ways to explain what he said that are also correct.
its funny, you talk of blackholes defying logic but you forget that astronomy is based on mathematics, not philosophy. Math by definition is logical. We use the same mathematical formulas to send probes and satellites to other planets with precision as we do to predict cosmic bodies. If it works for one application, it works for others. Just the fact that we have the ability to do the things that we can shows that our working understanding of how the universe (within the scale and spectrum we observer it from) is fairly correct. whats even better is that science is an self-repairing process! If the theory is wrong now, using our trusty method will yield the correct theory eventually.
What is the purpose of this? I wonder, I really do. Science leads one towards the answers that nature provides, not the answers we want. Nature tells us this universe had a beginning, it tells us when, and it is summarized as "big bang". With a shitload of evidence confirming the idea. So what exactly do the big-bang-deniers got to offer? What theory do they have that fits the data? Something written in a book by some desert dwellers some couple of thousand years ago?! I'm sorry, but I believe in progress. Part of that, is being open to new ideas. Especially those that can be proven.
Palmer Eldritch, Science is a label for the collection of thoughts of human beings and the different philosophical systems of thinking brought together under one roof and stamped as "the scientific method". If we say science isn't philosophy, we're saying science isn't logic. Since logic is the foundation of science, we must admit that the concept of "science" is really incoherent unless we can find, gather, and point out which distinct systems of logic and methods of thinking, truly belong it. Mathematical Equations are representative and tentative. They are simply estimations, generalizations. They don't predict anything. All of our 'equations' have anomalies. Space ships blow up their crews, computers crash. Software is never perfect and there is always some type of bug to be worked out. Everything we build requires maintenance. So Equations are simply tools, and all tools wear down over time. To Zylark, In some cases, yes, but in most cases scientists believe they are following the correct theory. Its like this, Get them while they are young and institute your dogma.(like religion), and Of course most 15 year-old boys will believe in Christ if they grow up in the church. This is No different than the typical science student. There are certain science groups that are aware of the problems with the Big Bang, etc but do not address them (like a Pastor dealing with bible contradictions). This is because they are making ALOT of money with a theory that offers up more problems for them to get paid to work on. It's a perfect business. Science says, a theory which has never been proven wrong, predicts blackholes. Now, it doesn't claim this theory to be true or false and therefore it doesn't say that blackholes can or can't exist; just the theory has not been proved wrong. I believe, they donot exist. If anyone has studied Einstein's Cambridge writings they would know that Einstein disagreed with most of what is taught today. And thats something to consider about modern science theories. You dont have to believe everything you're taught man. just ponder... To Melt about light, The medium, not light, bends. Much like a penny in a pool. Put your finger over it and you'll see the wavy edges of the penny. This is the result of the medium...NOT a bending penny.
There is truth that physical equations are often estimations or incorrect, but their sole duty IS to predict things experimentally. All theories that currently exist have either never been proven wrong, or we have people working to correct the errors. Look into quantum electrodynamics, an immensely accurate theory. Spaceship explosions and computer errors are not the result of failed equations of physics, they are results of human error. The equations don't build the system, humans do. Being brainwashed by religious dogma is not well correlated to being "brainwashed" by scientific theory. Religious leaders can't exactly say "Let's take a field trip back a few thousands years so you can see exactly what I am talking about for yourself." On the other hand, a physics teacher needs only to take his students into the lab to PROVE what he is saying physically. If the student thinks it was a setup in the lab, go anywhere else that humans have ever been able to travel to, and you will be able to do the experiment as expected. Any scientist that just believes what he is told without trying to question why things occur as they do, is not really a scientist. Even great scientists have been wrong. In fact, most throughout history have been wrong. Even the great Newton, a man that invented calculus, was wrong for not including relativistic effects in his theories. Before Maxwell unified electricity and magnetism, all scientists thought they were unrelated phenomena. Einstein's thoughts on quantum theory were simply WRONG, he just didn't want to believe that "God plays dice with the universe." I will agree that mediums have an index of refraction that bends light, but what about in deep space, where empty vacuums exist? Light is still found to bend, yet there is no medium.
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.