Re: No black holes? One scientist thinks so...
 

And in our lifetimes, no one will ever fly out and observe one. Pity. We'll never know for sure.

Re: No black holes? One scientist thinks so...
 

No the point is that they are not observable and as pointed out earlier that is a common myth, no one has seen one ever....if they had then there wouldn't even be room for this guy's disputing the theory to begin with.

Re: No black holes? One scientist thinks so...
 

Black holes aren't really holes... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

I've also heard them called "Frozen Stars" because the intense gravity changes time inside, to the extent that - from an outsider's perspective - they never fully collapse, just slow down and stop. They're still in the process of implosion, so the end result of a collapsing star is irrelevant to the known universe, since such a thing cannot occur in a finite (external) timeframe.

If you flew into a black hole, you might see the end result of the collapse, but then the information would never get back out http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif The end result is that there are no singularities in the universe, and the mass component of black holes ends up having finite size as far as outsiders are concerned.

Another result is that you can't kill people by throwing them into black holes, unless you also die (assuming the BH is big enough so that tidal forces at the event horizon are weak). You can throw someone in, visit them 10 years later, and they'll still be alive as though no time has passed. Of course, you won't be able to leave once you visit them, and then you'll both die.

Re: No black holes? One scientist thinks so...
 

Again where does this "time freezes" crap come from, no one knows because no one ever has ever even seen a blackhole muchless measuerd time in there LOL face it scientists LOVE making theories that can never be disproven in their lifetimes

Just like the theory that if your hand should stay on a table for a million years you wouldn't be able to remove your hand because your hand and the table would become the same molecules, yeah they'd be DUST but hey this is a "scientific fact" afterall isn't it ;p.

Re: No black holes? One scientist thinks so...
 

No, it's a theory. A theory that fits the currently observable data. That's science.

Re: No black holes? One scientist thinks so...
 

Hmmm... no. This is an obvious extrapolation of tested phenomenae. Time slows in certain situations, particularly at high (relative) speed and at high (relative) gravity. Synchronized clocks have demonstrate these. Extrapolation is very useful in science - for example, absolute zero has never been reached (nor can it be), but its temperature was discovered a long time ago by extrapolating from the behaviour of thermal expansion in gasses. Do you not believe in absolute zero?

Are you saying that the experiments were in error, or that they should not be used to extrapolate? I don't really understand your claim. It seems to be "Anything is crap unless it was specifically tested, such that dropping a 10 colored balls and watching them accelerate toward the floor gives no indication of what might happen if you drop an 11th ball of an untested color." But such a claim renders all useful knowledge invalid, and science useless, when it has been shown to be very useful... and thus the claim is false.

But that's just my guess of your claim. Could you clarify it?

Re: No black holes? One scientist thinks so...
 

Yeah your way off considering there i a big difference between bouncing a ball and making a blackhole, we've never EVER made a black hole or anything remotely like what we "think" one would be, we can't even make a large enough ammount of gravity or speed to test the theory properly.
Considering the fact that they were using clocks some people may just argue that the clock's mechanisms suffered from the gravity/speed not actual time it's self.
Unless you stick something that ages or spoils rapidly and place it in a high grav/ high speed environment and see if it spoils at a slower rate you'll always have arguments that you can't "prove" time slows down at all.

My point is, theories are just that theories as in "totally unproven" if it was proven in any way or shape it would no longer be a theory but instead be a scientific fact.

And yes temperature wise absolute zero can be reached in deep space from what I've heard but again I don't think we know for sure so aw well heh....

No I don't think it's "crap" unless it's totally proven I just think we shouldn't take it as "a fact" until it is "a fact" considering how rapidly scientific theories are proven wrong, then right, then wrong again a few months afterward.

Edit:
Repaired Mangled Quote Tags.

Re: No black holes? One scientist thinks so...
 

Bumblebees can fly, whether we classify them as "aerodynamically sound" or not. You've probably seen them do it. An arrow shot from a bow does in fact strike something, even though it must first cross half the distance, then half that, and so on.

If the explanation does not agree with observations, then the explanation fails it's primary purpose--to explain.

I've never seen an alien space ship. I can say this is because all alien space ships have cloaking technology, and are therefore undetectable. If I preach this loud and long, sooner or later someone's going to take me into custody.

Re: No black holes? One scientist thinks so...
 

You must be be reading and believing the wrong things. It sounds like you've gotten hooked by the researchers' initial hype, instead of waiting for the process of peer review to work.

You've got to wait to see if the mutant brainchildren survive their own birth.

Re: No black holes? One scientist thinks so...
 

(Bold added by me.)

Are you sure?

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/...mg18524915.400

"The" theory? You mean time changing in accordance with relativity theory? It's been tested to the satisfaction of most scientists.

That's exactly the point - the clock's mechanism is affected, no matter what mechanism you use. Thus, time changed. To quote Einstein, "Time is that which you measure with a clock." Do you have some better definition of time that renders it independant of the rate at which things occur? If so, you're not talking about time anymore.

What if it was a clock based on the rate something ages, like... say... some Cesium atoms? Ooops, that's already what they use in such tests.

No, you'll still have those arguments. As increasingly conclusive evidence is gathered for something, the group of people who argue against it become increasingly stupid and / or psychotic, but they never give up. Talk to people who don't believe in plate tectonics, moon landings, or the "viral theory of AIDS." They love to argue, but they're often stupid, psychotic, illogical, or simply attention-seekers.

I guess you don't understand science. Science is a set of theories and models based on observations. The facts are the observations; the other 99% of science cannot magically leap from "Theory" to "Scientific Fact" no matter how accurate it seems. Science is a method of predicting and explaining. Facts do not predict or explain, but theories and models do.

No, it is fundamental to thermodynamics that absolute zero cannot be reached anywhere through any method. Remember that thermodynamics is spoken of as a set of "Laws," but it is really just a model that fits observations. Nobody has violated it so far.

Can you name a so-called "fact" that has been proven so totally that it cannot be disproven? Like, say, "Paper is made of trees." Do you really know this, or do you just think it's true because you learned it in school and everyone says so? How about, "You are looking at a monitor." Is "I've seen it with my own eyes" undeniable proof? Remember, people claim to have seen aliens and flying saucers, and psychologists have (to the best of their ability) determined that at least some of them believe they are telling the truth.

The only source of "Truth" is in moldy tomes (I love that phrase) like the Bible, Koran, Book of Mormon, "Battlefield Earth" series, and so forth. But none of those have any useful ability to predict or explain, so I tend to go with science.