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

Personally I've found the Bible and the Book of Mormon very good at explaining societal behavor.

Society is in golden age,
Society starts crumbling as people forget about the principles that brought about the golden age,
Society falls apart into bloody violence,
People start building a new society on proven principles that, at the very least, include dedication,
Society is in golden age,

Rinse, repeat. That's the whole of history, from Rome to Assyria, from the aztec's to Canada, a society is built upon principles. Maybe not good principles, but the people beleive in them and work to make them work. Some of them, like the aztec's, would have crashed anyway, because their principle's were unsuportable (At the least, they would have run out people). Other's, like the romans, had good principles and bad principles - and their empire lasted, in one form or another, for a long time.

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

. No better than standard history textbook. Cycle birth-death-rebirth of societies was noticed long before Christianity (or monotheism, in general).

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

Well Rome was never a true "golden age" in the sense of what we would like, because most of us would probobly have hated living in a Roman Empire, because unfortunately for Empires like Rome and Assyria and even in the end Persia they became to conquest bloated that when there was nothing left to conquer they all began to decline, yes in different ways:

Rome Lost their "true" legions with the fully romanized citizens with higher tech then the barbarian hordes they were fighting, and eventually became just a bunch of "barbarians" in service to Rome. The Roman Empire pretty much ate themselves out of existence because the ran out of peoples that they could conquer that were rich enough to fund the next war of conquest.
They stopped developing new weapons and technology and in the Late Western/Eastern roman empires they actually took a drastic backslide in both technology and discipline.

Persia, once they conquered most of their territories, their army's actual fighting skill declined sharply, and they stopped developing good armor and weapons so that they were easily defeated by the more disciplined and skilled soldiers of Greece and Macedon who still had enemies to fight and keep their skills in arms manufacturing and war fighting sharp.



But anywhoo Cherry, you do have a problem with understanding the difference between someone stating "possible" arguments and the irony of modern science which some day will be seen as laughably stupid by our descendents "assuming we don't nuke one another into non-existence beforehand."
What I am saying is that there is no "proof" of science in life, it like Religion is a matter of faith, as is everything we do in modern life, yes there is "proof" in science to an extent but eventually that "proof" is either proven to a "no doubt what so ever" fact like "Why is the sky blue" we know why the sky is blue without a doubt, we know what the speed of light is without a doubt, we know that if you stick a rocket on something you are putting the force of motion against that of inertia, and that an object in motion will stay in motion until it is stopped.

So yes I can point out undeniable "proof" that science has, but until we see a blackhole there is no proof, and thus that theory is no more or less "proven" then many other theories, and we KNOW dark matter exists for a fact.



As far as the rest of that little rant of yours goes with the "Am I really looking at a monitor" and stuff that's not science buddy that's philosophy right up there with "Are any of us really here or is it an illusion in our own mind?" which brings about the question of "How can we have an illusion of being somewhere if we are not in fact somewhere?"
Science and philosophy are two totally different things....

As far as "time" goes by the way you explain if it I just set every clock in my house to run slower then every clock in your house then time is moving slower in my house then in yours when in fact time is moving along steadily at the same pace for both of us, the mechanism of the clock is not what makes time "time".

I am speaking of TIME as in the foward motion of us, clocks can be adversly effected now if you shove a grape in there and see if the grape in the high grav/high speed environment aged slower then that outside THEN you will have "PROVEN" time has aged slower for that grape then the one in normal gravity and environment.

I am not saying this to insult you personally but you are being arrogant to call anyone who disagrees with your way of thinking "stupid" or "psychotic" because for all you know you are just as "stupid" or "psychotic" to someone who is just as sure your way of thinking is wrong as you are that those other people's way of thinking is.

Try and understand what i am saying, SCIENCE can NEVER be fully PROVEN quickly and thus many THEORIES can be adhered to and thought on, just because someone else has a THEORY that is different then yours does not mean you are superior or even correct for that matter.
As I stated before for all you know you me and all the rest of us will be proven totally and unbeleivably WRONG some day in the future.

Understand now?

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

Only after a fashion - stars at the outer rim of the galaxy seem to be moving at the wrong rate for what gravity can account for with the mass we can verify with our telescopes once you get past about halfway from the galactic core. Dark matter - that is, matter we can't account for via our telescopes (of various sorts) - is the most widely accepted option for explaning the phenomina; but it's only one. There might also be a gravity-esq force that we are unaware of having a similar effect; we could just have a random convergence of stars with no force involved to keep them in the galaxy, and the stars we see past that point are really on their way towards escaping the galaxy. We don't know dark matter exists for a fact.

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

Another explanation is that the method used for measuring speed of astronomical objects is affected by the distance.

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

...That's ok. Both books begin well before the birth of Christ...And lot's of people still don't listen. You can't rebuild a society while ignoring it's governing principles, and whatever you tell yourself, you have an influence on society.

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

Clocks are no more or less than devices that measure the passage of time. If you set your clocks to run slow, the difference is a result of you messing with the measuring mechanism, not time slowing down. In all experiments relating to relativity involving clocks, the scientists have very carefully calibrated the clocks to make sure their mechanisms are in good working order and not tampered with, so that isn't an issue.

How is observing the grape's aging process any different than a clock? It's a very unusual kind of clock, and not likely to be very precise and accurate, but it is a clock. So what makes this particular kind of clock any preferable to the most accurate and precise clocks scientists are capable of building today? Would it help if I described things without using the word "clock" at all? Scientists have taken cesium atoms to places with various strengths of gravity and sent them moving around at very different speeds and very carefully observed the rate at which they aged. These rates have consistently differed from the rates predicted by relativity by an amount so small it can reasonably be attributed to inaccuracy in measurement, even though the expected inaccuracy is far less than the expected and observed differences in aging rates. Happy now?

Relativity has been tested very thoroughly and to the satisfaction of the vast majority of the scientific community. It has yet to make a testable prediction that has been proven wrong, and it's made a lot of predictions. Did you know that GPS systems would be off by a few meters if they didn't take relativity into account? With a complete lack of evidence against relativity and a very long and very good track record of its predictions being found true, it seems entirely reasonable to assume that any other predictions it makes are also true until proven otherwise. It is, of course, reasonable to consider other models as well, but until and unless the other model can make better predictions than the current one, there is no reason to prefer it over the current model. Find an experiment where relativity was tested and found wrong, or an alternative theory that accurately predicts the results of all experimental tests of relativity to date but does not predict black holes, and then I'll start considering the idea that black holes don't exist.

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

This totally deserves an award... three awesome statements that turn modern science on its head, in two half sentences! I kinda want to post it on the wall in the Graduate Physics department. Anyway, it made me laugh. No offense! Thanks a lot... I like laughing http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Well, to clarify... all people who differ with me in opinion are stupid AND psychotic. Hah, hah! Just kidding. What I mean is, go talk to people who don't believe in things that have overwhelming supporting evidence: "Aids is caused by the moral decay of society, not by viruses!" ...or things that have overwhelming evidence against them: "Wearing a crystal on a necklace will cure my cancer, so I don't need to go to a doctor." Better yet, "Don't let the UN bring vaccines to our impoverished, disease-ridden country! It's a plot by the West to sterilize African Moslems!" These people tend to be stupid, illogical, or psychotic... and often die young of treatable diseases. Coincidentally, these people also have opinions contrary to my own. I know some very intelligent people whose opinions also differ from mine, but I never call them stupid or psychotic, unless I could phrase it in a funny way to make other people laugh at them, and then later prove how right I was, and hopefully win a bet or two in the process. But that's pretty irrelevant to black holes.

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

If nothing can escape the event horizon of a black hole, then does it exert any gravitational influence on the universe outside itself?

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

Yes, but nobody knows what gravity is, anyway. And "nothing can escape" might be a bit strong. Normal matter and light cannot escape... er... intact. But if black holes eventually dissolve, then they do release their contents... though not in the same form. Sort of like... burping.

If you think of gravity as a distortion of space rather than a particle, then it doesn't "escape" a black hole, it just happens in and around black holes. If you think of gravity as a massless particle (like a tachyon), then there's no rule stating it can't escape from black holes, or exceed the speed of light. So, black holes are not inconsistent with themselves, in those regards...