...well, there's a surprise. But no, I'm just being mean by saying that. It will not be long before one of them comes up with a theory to resolve their intellectual dilemma and others jump on board. It's the money, see. Scientists need it to conduct research, and I get that, but what I don't like is how they tend to believe their own hype...and old argument I've had on this site, with some very intelligent people, about the nature of belief in science. It also perturbs me how the information is represented to the public. Yes, they occasionally call it theoretical, but to the general masses it's seen as fact. It isn't. This story provides me with yet another opportunity to make fun of scientist's delusions about the nature of their work. Yep, I'm pickin' a fight. It's not that I don't respect scientists for their efforts, it's just that I don't agree with them on their conclusions occasionally, especially with black holes and the Big Bang. Giant black hole in tiny galaxy confounds astronomers By Jason Palmer Science and technology reporter, BBC News (11-29-12) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20528137 Astronomers have spotted an enormous black hole - the second most massive ever - but it resides in a tiny galaxy. And that baffles them? Really? (shakes head) Alright, lets start this thing: It isn't baffling at all to me, so what's their issue with it? And so? Ahhhh, the dilemma. It doesn't bother my theory, but I'm not a consensus of like-minded individuals looking for work in a field that requires grant money and other investments to operate. In order to receive that funding, and earn a living, you need to convince people to give you it. It should be noted that I'm not saying that scientists are lying in any way, only that results must be provided from time to time in order to warrant further funding. I'm also not trying to imply that this is done maliciously, or for greed, only that it's the system that works. I will say their work is admirable, but I disagree with their mentality that certain aspects of their work is being interpreted correctly. By that I mean, they tend to link one finding, interpreted and confirmed by consensus, to another as further proof that such and such theory is valid or has merit. It very well might, but a leap of faith is there that they can't recognize as being a leap of faith. They will dsagree with me vehemently about that, so I'll say one thing: They are human. Factor that in. Ignoring the wording, the basics of that I can agree with. I can agree with that as well. Our own sun has that effect, as does all mass. If I remember correctly, Einstein predicted this warping of our perceptions (not that he said it that way, but it's a somewhat accurate description of the effect large masses have on light, in particular, as we perceive it) and some years later, during an eclipse, I believe, a scientist produced evidence of it, which has been repeated ever since, confirming that aspect. It's important to note a point here though. Just because we perceive something to be a certain way, that is our perception, and perception is different than the mathematics that govern the event. Einstein predicted the event to occur using math, and scientists were able to confirm it, but be wary of allowing that success to cloud future judgements, space and time are two things scientists tend to allow themselves to be somewhat fictionable about, again, something they would likely disagree with me on, and I get that it can be perturbing to hear it, but you know you do lol Yes, I've viewed the animation of that. Quite interesting. You're talking average. It's not the rule. We are going to continually find things in the universe that challenge previously held beliefs. Yes, it's understandable to narrow the perimeters for what we believe occurs in nature as we gather information, in order to predict other such occurrences elsewhere, but you must also widen them when necessary as new information is discovered. I'll not get into "velocity dispersion", as one of my arguments involves what I consider to be incorrect assumptions of distant galaxies, which is somewhat related to it. That argument is pointless here, as it relates to the Big Bang, a cornerstone of current theory, and I see no reason to argue about it anymore. Unless someone wants to, of course. I'll try not to upset you much if you do, but have tissue on hand, as I ain't budgin' easily from my distaste for the BS. Again, I'm not. I can guess as to why they are having the issue, but for me it's not unexpected. I'd also expect scientists to find black holes with no surrounding galaxy, and I'm pretty sure they already have. It's possible they put too much faith in an aspect of the velocity dispersion theory, which I've already stated is something that is more a tool in predicting other similar events, but not really useful when there isn't a perceivable galaxy surrounding the black hole. I'm also a bit tired of them calling it a black hole, as it's like calling the sun a bright hole, but I guess it's better than saying it's a sphere that we can't see...not very appealing to the general masses, not very memorable, not very marketable. And you'll be somewhat successful, but remember, it's a useful tool for predictions, not an absolute in fact. One thing I never hear about is that, in my theory anyway, each black hole, if it were possible to sample, would have slightly different ratios of decayed elements in them. We CAN measure some of that, IMO, at the poles, as I believe both poles should emit massive amounts of various types of radiations signatures. It's also possible there are some that defy the norm, and could be composed of ratios that we had found in most others. Again, this is theory, not fact, but it's conceivable, from my perspective. Science could eventually prove that wrong, and if they did, then they did. Basically, from my point of view, a black hole is really just an immense super-star, one that has incorporated millions or billions of suns into one giant ball. Different suns have different properties, in part due to their stage of development, but mostly for their elemental properties. A black hole is all of them combined, at a stage where light and most other energy can't escape the massive gravity effects (except at the poles, IMO), generically known as the event horizon. I'd expect every black hole to have some similarities, but each is unique, and as such, predictions should prepare for that as best they can. Not necessarily, in fact, I'm positive the guy is mistaken ...in more than one way...but I forgive him since he's too excited right now. Eh, just consider this light reading.
Sorry, I get cranky about theoretical science occasionally. I just don't like how certain discoveries are explained to the public, or the culture in the science communities. It's rarely made clear to the public that these things are theoretical, for one thing. "Clear" being the word here. To the general public, it sounds more like fact, and that irritates me.
lol...I feel like I haven't been annoying enough to scientists. Had to spread the "love" around a bit. Science fiction certainly sparked people's imagination. Writers come up with some really loopy things, and occasionally inventor's make 'em reality. Couldn't have that without people who imagine the unimagined, or people who figure out how to make it function through science. And I deserve to be slapped way more often than any other non-Republican. But that's 'cause I'm so brutally honest. I sure wouldn't expect Obama to consider me for Secretary of State! ...but it sure would be ...fun... "talking" to (Republicans) on the Hill, in Susan Rice's place. I am prohibited from explaining the words "talking" and (Republicans). Laws are annoying sometimes.
By what I can see is you are basing everything on a Closed System Single Verse Universe. Correct? Do you also believe in Calculus? Lastly, is it possible for an Open System to exist within a Closed System, unless that Closed System is surrounded by an Open System? Ribbit
I know I'm late here, but I like this post, so I will just add my slight reluctance to just blindly accept the claims of pure solids (black holes) and "Big bang" ideas also. The issue I have with pure solids/black holes is that evidence for them is purely based on equations, not scientific study. It is said a neutron star will implode into a pure solid when it's mass exceeds a certain limit, but no neutron star has ever been detected as imploding out of space-time, so we can't do any studies on it from that perspective.
