Nova's judgment day: Intelligent design on trial

[pirana 0]

Quote

>By what means could information be collected from the other side of a
>singularity?

Well, black holes are a sort of singularity, and you can get information out of them.

I think it would be more accurate to say singularities are a type of black hole. Black holes have a singularity at their center, a singularity has no center. Singularities are by their definition black holes, but black holes are not singularities. They may contain one, but they are not one.

The only information that is carried out of a black hole is the temperature of the energy being radiated. (I'm not talking about things that go up to the precipice of the event horizon and turn around). Not like you can look at the energy radiated out and say it was a car or a person or anything in particular before it went in.

So the only information passed out of a black hole, much less a singularity, is temperature. If our Big Bang theory is correct (and it does appear very solid) and everything in our known Universe came from a singularity, there is no way to know what came prior to the singularity.

All you can really know is that the singularity contained X amount of energy. It is the only "memory" there is for a singularity.

There are also the limits of Planck time; but I think they are a moot point when confronted with the hard stop of information, the Great Eraser that is . . .

Singularity

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[Ion01 1]

How is it that a BLACK hole can be observed when it supposedly sucks in everything? The idea of a singularity is nothing more than an abstract mathematical term and does not exist in the real world. Its that simple but if you really want to get into it here is some more indepth information.
http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/index.html
As for the big bang it to is highly flawed when taken in light of current observations. For the most part the idea of the big bang and the expanding universe due to dark energy is "evidenced" by redshift. However redshift due to the doppler effect does fit with current observations. Read "Seeing Red" by Halton Arp. He has documented numerous occurances where redshift due to the doppler effect doesn't fit the observations. Also, one must also realize that TESTS have shown that light traveling through a plasma becomes redshifted. Couple this with the fact that plasma is in a huge abundance in space and you have a huge problem with the idea of redshift being a result of the doppler effect on light.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/060823bigbangscience.htm
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050214bigbang.htm
Why do "scientists" ignore such findings? Is there a big conspirousy? Have they banded together to stamp out such things? No.....its actually quite simple: Their carriers and grants are based upon the ideas that the big bang happened and that dark matter, black holes, and dark energy exist. To say otherwise is not only to admit that they are wrong and that all the grant money they recieved and all the research they did was a waste, but that they are failures in thier feilds and, particularly for those that are older, thier lifes work was a waste. Who is really willing to admit such? Thus they fight any opposition whether through the peer-review system or by banning others from the use of all telescopes in the USA.
Its so simple yet so few want or choose to see the truth.

[philh 0]

"Surely the concepts of ID and evolution should be taught with the conclusion being up to the student regarding his or her belief?"

On that basis one should teach astrology in a physics class, the flat earth theory in geogrpahy and holcaust denialism in histroy.
There is no end to the pseudo sceintifc nonsense that could de discussed in a class room. I suggest only science should be taught in a science class. Perhaps its no wonder the US is falling behind in science education and in economic terms in general.

[JackC 0]

That's not right. It's not even wrong ~ Wolfgang Pauli

[shropshire 0]

Kidz dont lurn nuffink in klass no mor enyway, so it dont matter wots in the sillybus

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[Ion01 1]

"Pseudoscience is defined as a body of knowledge, methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be scientific or made to appear scientific, but does not adhere to the scientific method" as defined by our friend Wiki.
The scientific method as defined by wiki:
Characterizations (observations,[18] definitions, and measurements of the subject of inquiry)
Hypotheses[19][20] (theoretical, hypothetical explanations of observations and measurements of the subject)[21]
Predictions (reasoning including logical deduction[22] from the hypothesis or theory)
Experiments[23] (tests of all of the above)

So what tests have been conducted concerning the big bang, dark matter, dark energy, black holes, singularities, evolution over billions of years, life from none life, ect.?
Sounds like pseudoscience to me.

[shropshire 0]

Just a thought... but have you ever heard of CERN? Pseudoscience my arse.


Just google for Dark Matter experiments - don't be lazy now, faith isn't going to just pop the answer into your head..... SEARCH for the truth instead of relying on superstition.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[jclalor 12]

For a start:

Q: What is the proof of the existence of black holes?

A: A black hole is an object so collapsed and, consequently, with such a large gravity field that its escape velocity exceeds the speed of light. Earth, for example, is not a black hole because our escape velocity--a measly 11 kilometers per second-is far less than light speed (300,000 km/s). Even spacecraft escape Earth. The more compact an object is, the higher its escape velocity. A black hole is so compact that-within a certain distance of it--not even light can escape. Therefore, we can't see it directly. Within that "certain distance" (called the event horizon) no information escapes.



You ask for "proof" of black-hole existence. That's not exactly how it works. Einstein's General Theory of Relativity predicts the existence of black holes-as bizarre as they seem. We've verified Einstein's theory in many ways, which gives us confidence in its predictions. Consequently, we think such objects exist in the real world. His theory also gives us indirect ways--how gravity affects matter--to detect black-hole candidates.

We verify that an object is a black hole by looking at its effects on the environment. Then we compare what we observe against effects of other known phenomena. The entity that can best explain these observations, in the simplest way, is the winner.

Supermassive black holes: A disk that spins too rapidly for the number of stars it contains is a likely candidate. Without a dark and massive object in its middle, the disk would fly apart. That's one clue. Another indication is its size. We can estimate the size of the core from how the energy varies in time. Suppose the object's mass is a billion or better times the mass of our Sun but suppose it's size is only about that of our solar system. Then it is probably compact enough to be a black hole.

More good clues pointing to a black hole: Does the star and gas speeds increase rapidly in the core? Does the matter form a disk?

These observations, taken together, pinpoint an invisible object of colossal mass inside a compact space with an extraordinary gravitational field. Moreover, the object exhibits all the relativistic effects we know how to measure-nothing else fits: it's a black hole.

Stellar-mass black holes: A dark star in a binary system (two stars orbiting each other) lends itself to solid analysis. We determine the mass of both stars from the orbital velocity of the visible star. The visible star's spectrum tells us its luminosity and radius and from that we can calculate its mass.

Knowing the total mass of both stars and the mass of the visible one gives the mass of the dark one. The unseen companion can only be one of three things: a white dwarf (less than 1.4 solar masses), a neutron star (between 1.4 to 3 solar masses) or a black hole. Thus, if the dark star's mass is much greater than 3 solar masses (say, around 5 to 10), then it must be a black hole.

We have great confidence that we have found stellar-mass black holes, even more so than for super massive black holes.

Unconfirmed yet, but: on Jan. 11, 2001 Joseph Dolan of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center announced possible direct evidence of a black hole. He examined photographs taken by the Hubble Space Telescope of the black-hole candidate called Cygnus XR-1. Dolan found two instances where a hot gas blob appeared to be slipping past the event horizon (point of no return) for the black hole. That'sdirect evidence of a black hole.

(Answered by April Holladay, science correspondent, May 22, 2002)

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

So what tests have been conducted concerning the big bang, dark matter, dark energy, black holes, singularities, evolution over billions of years, life from none life, ect.?

einstein.stanford.edu/

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[billvon 2,400]

>I think it would be more accurate to say singularities are a type of black hole.

A singularity is a mathematical concept where a variable goes to infinity or to an undefined number. A mathematical concept is not a "type of black hole."

A gravitational singularity is a region of space where gravitational metrics go to infinity. One sort of gravitational singularity is a black hole, which is a star that is compressed to such a degree that its gravitational force does not allow anything (including light) to escape.

>The only information that is carried out of a black hole is the temperature of
>the energy being radiated.

Not quite. Nothing - not photons, not particles, nothing - can escape from a black hole. Nothing is radiated from it.

However, we can observe certain things about it. We can observe its spin, because a spinning black hole shows periodic changes in the material it ingests and will often demonstrate axial features like jets. We can measure its charge, since it will affect an electric field.

We can also tell the temperature of the space around it, since it will be selectively absorbing half of the particle-antiparticle pairs that are spontaneously generated in free space. The "other half" of the particle is thus preserved and can be detected as radiation. This radiation, called Hawking radiation, can be measured and compared to a blackbody spectrum; this gives the equivalent temperature of the black hole.

>but I think they are a moot point when confronted with the hard stop of
>information, the Great Eraser that is . . .Singularity

I'd tend to agree, but keep in mind that singularities eventually evaporate.

[billvon 2,400]

>How is it that a BLACK hole can be observed when it supposedly sucks in
>everything?

By its effects. You can't see the wind in a tornado, but you can see the stuff it sucks up and the water, rain and cloud that it contains.

>The idea of a singularity is nothing more than an abstract mathematical term
>and does not exist in the real world.

================================
Black Hole Observed

SPACE.COM Staff
06 December 2006

Scientists have captured [image] for the first time the entire process of a black hole eating a stellar meal.

An orbiting telescope called Galaxy Evolution Explorer, detected bright ultraviolet flares emitted from a star that had ventured too close to a black hole and began to plunge into it.

"This type of event is very rare, so we are lucky to study the entire process from beginning to end," said Suvi Gezari of the California Institute of Technology.

For thousands of years, this black hole most likely rested quietly deep inside an unnamed galaxy. Today, the space-based telescope continues to periodically watch this ultraviolet light fade as the black hole finishes the remaining bits of its meal.
===========
Two thousand years ago, Omega Centauri was classified as a single star by Ptolemy. Edmond Halley studied this "star" but thought it looked a bit diffuse and re-classified it as a nebula in 1677. Then, in the 1830s, John Herschel was the first astronomer to realize this "nebula" was actually a galaxy, a globular cluster galaxy. But now, new observations by the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) reveal that this "globular cluster" isn't what it seems… it's actually a dwarf galaxy, stripped of its outer stars, some 17,000 light years away.

. . .

These stunning images were taken by the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope, which continues to do amazing science after 18 years in orbit. Combined with ground-based observations by the Gemini South telescope in Chile, astronomers have been able to deduce that a black hole may be at the root of a lot of the anomalies seen in Omega Centauri.

The research carried out at the Max-Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics (in Garching, Germany), headed by Eva Noyola, shows stars near the center of Omega Centauri orbiting something very fast. In fact, this something is invisible for a reason. Calculating this invisible object's mass, it is most likely that the group are observing an intermediate-size black hole with the mass of 40,000 solar masses.
==============

>Their carriers and grants are based upon the ideas that the big bang
>happened and that dark matter, black holes, and dark energy exist.

Incorrect. Indeed, were a scientist to put forth convincing evidence that black holes cannot exist, he would easily win a Nobel and be able to obtain any grants he desired. That's how science works. You just can't skip the part about doing the work to prove your case. If a religious crackpot came to a grant-review board with his Bible and a few pictures of the sky, he would rightly be booted out of there.

>Thus they fight any opposition whether through the peer-review system or
>by banning others from the use of all telescopes in the USA.

Since you quote scientists who have used telescopes to dispute the above, and since images from telescopes are generally released into the public domain, your statement is inherently false.

[Ion01 1]

Quote

That's not exactly how it works.

Thats my point. The scientific method is not being used, therefore it is pseudoscience. Past prediction were correct so you assume the others to be true so why can this logic not be applied to say the book of daniel in the bible? A book confirmed to be written far earlier than the events it predicted and predictions that are extremely specific. This is just a side point but the reality is that one must have faith in einstein who didn't predict a black hole....it is supposed to have come about through Schwarzschild's solution....which is not only based upon other flawed math but it is only math and is nothing more.
Finally, what little "evidence" there is is ultimately nothing more than a twisting or "interpreting" of the data to fit current models. (Gravity alone is not enough even within our current solarsystem. the pioneer anomalyhttp://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2007/arch07/070912pioneeranomaly.htm Mercury's orbit http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=e511t4z2 just for starters)
Dark matter was conjured up because gravity wasn't sufficient in light of the observations, yet scientist were unwilling to consider any other force which could account for the observations. They continue to do the same with black holes.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/060602plasma-galaxy.htm
"Just as much of modern science has become self-serving in striving for status and funding, the theory of how science should be done is similarly afflicted. An assessment of a theory based on ‘degrees of belief’ might be useful if scientists didn't routinely ignore, minimize or dismiss falsifying evidence and twiddle the countless knobs on their models to fit new data. The most glaring modern example of such behavior is the rejection of stark evidence of intrinsic redshift of quasars. Big bang cosmology is already lifeless by this assessment but ‘belief’ keeps the corpse warm. While we allow the few scientists who judge the data according to their beliefs to control publication, funding and press releases, real science is dead."
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=a57ya4dj

[Belgian_Draft 0]

I don't know who you were responding to/quoting, but it wasn't me.
Gravity Probe B is an experiment, based on known data and physics, to test some of Einstein's ideas about gravity. So far the data collected has shown his ideas to be correct. What about the whole program do you find not to be in accordance with scientific protocol?

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[vortexring 0]

Quote

"Surely the concepts of ID and evolution should be taught with the conclusion being up to the student regarding his or her belief?"

On that basis one should teach astrology in a physics class, the flat earth theory in geogrpahy and holcaust denialism in histroy.
There is no end to the pseudo sceintifc nonsense that could de discussed in a class room. I suggest only science should be taught in a science class. Perhaps its no wonder the US is falling behind in science education and in economic terms in general.

What basis? The one you misunderstood? I didn't mention a science class, or any type of class for that matter. And sure, why not teach that people once thought the earth to be flat - where did you find out?

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[Ion01 1]

Gravity probe B is a great example!

How science is really funded:
"Not only has the program been a huge financial waste – over $300 million more than originally estimated – but it has been many life-times of work wasted for the numerous scientists whose minds could have been put to greater purpose. Of course Dr. Francis Everitt, the chief scientist on the mission feels otherwise. Dr. Everitt has dedicated over 45 years to Gravity Probe B and hopes to finally see his life’s work come to fruition when the results are probably tabulated in 2006 – even though he must by now have realized that he has lost the race.



Once again, as with Dr. Barish’s Caltech LIGO/LISA programs, using the sacred name of Dr. Albert Einstein goes a long way – a lesson certainly not lost on Dr. Everitt, who goes so far as to talk, dress, act and look Dr. Einstein. These lead scientists have evolved into a new breed of sci-politicians. With the slush funds they receive from the NSF (National Science Foundation) they hire lobbyists to represent their program – but more importantly they hire lobbyists to actually train them on how to personally put their programs across to Congress. They become fast studies in the machinations of global media and how to effectively use it to further their personal causes. Politicians love the touchy-feely and sci-politicians such as Stanford’s Dr. Everitt are happy to oblige.



This aging Gravity Probe B program has miraculously survived numerous setbacks, huge cost overruns, technical snags and years of constant delays – not to mention the ongoing congressional scrutiny that tried to have it killed long ago. One anonymous NASA engineer joked that the Stanford boys were either great politicians or were blackmailing Congressmen for their past nefarious deeds – The answer is probably a mixture of both.



During an in-depth interview by the New Scientist (4/2/05), Dr. Everitt stated that the Gravity Probe B program was cancelled a total of ten times over the years. NASA would secretly call him, often in the middle of the night, to tell him that the program was being cancelled and that he better knock on the back doors of Congress to revive the program. That’s what he would immediately do and it always worked. Dr. Everitt says that now he just automatically stalks the Halls of Congress around three times a year just to keep his insider contacts. Touchy-feely."

The actual results:
"...Two important discoveries were made while analyzing the gyroscope data from the spacecraft: one, the "polhode" motion of the gyroscopes dampens over time; two, the spin axes of the gyroscopes were affected by small classical torques. Both of these discoveries are symptoms of a single underlying cause: electrostatic patches on the surface of the rotor and housing. Patch effects in metal surfaces are well known in physics and were carefully studied by the GP-B team during the design of the experiment to limit their effects. Though previously understood to be microscopic surface phenomena that would average to zero, the GP-B rotors show patches of sufficient size to measurably affect the gyroscopes' spins.

The gyroscope's polhode motion is akin to the common "wobble" seen on a poorly thrown American football, though it shows up in a much different form for the ultra-spherical GP-B gyroscopes. While it was expected that this wobble would exhibit a constant pattern over the mission, it was found to slowly change due to minute energy dissipation from interactions of the rotor and housing electrostatic patches. The polhode wobble complicates the measurement of the relativity effects by putting a time-varying wobble signal into the data.

The electrostatic patches also cause small torques on the gyroscopes, particularly when the space vehicle axis of symmetry is not aligned with the gyroscope spin axes. Torques cause the spin axes of the gyroscopes to change orientation, and in certain circumstances, this effect can look like the relativity signal GP-B measures. Fortunately, the drifts due to these torques have a precise geometrical relationship to the misalignment of the gyro spin/vehicle symmetry axis and can be removed from the data without directly affecting the relativity measurement.

Both of these discoveries first had to be investigated, precisely modeled and carefully checked against the experimental data before they could be removed as sources of error. These additional investigations have added more than a year to the data analysis, and this work is still in process..."

So they find anomolies that they didn't account for, yet they still claim success before they have even finished analizing the data that they will will patch through mathematics to get the result they expected. Basically, if they don't get the result they expected they will remove unwanted numbers by claiming them to be results of some other force and such.
I am not claiming gravity does not exist but that it is a miniscule force that cannot account for the observations. Also, to assume that gravity in our local system is the same everywhere is just that, a huge assumptions which, once again, contradicts the observations. Even to attribute gravity to a distortion of "space/time" is making more huge assumptions. Even if the equations work, which they don't, that doesn't mean that the explanation of "space/time" is correct. The point is that mainstream "science" and the standard models do not model the real universe and all this is due to how they conduct "science".

For those interested in a more scientific explanation of gravity within our local system and an explanation of the causes of all the "anomalies" that the standard model can account for (which can be back and is by experimentations):http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=89xdcmfs

[Ion01 1]

The CERN and the LHC:

"Most of the experimenters involved are looking for the ‘God particle’. The Times Online reported on April 8, “The mysterious boson postulated by Professor Higgs, of the University of Edinburgh, has become so fundamental to physics that it is often nicknamed the ‘God particle’. After more than 40 years of research, and billions of pounds, scientists have yet to prove that it is real. But Professor Higgs, 78, now believes the search is nearly over.”

Remember how science is to be conducted....an observation is to be made, a hypothesis, then a test. Hear we have scientist who have already decided something exists and now they just have to find it. That sounds a bit backwards to me.

http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=gzhqr188

[billvon 2,400]

>Remember how science is to be conducted....an observation is to be made, a
>hypothesis, then a test.

Correct. And the LHC is a test. We will likely find the Higgs boson. But it we don't, things will get even MORE interesting.

What is cool about the LHC is not that we will discover the stuff we expect to. If we do, then we sorta wasted our money. It's the things we _don't_ expect that will make it worth all the money we spent on it.

If physics were a religion, of course, they wouldn't have bothered to build the most expensive device ever. They just would have burned all the doubters at the stake.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

You asked what tests had been or were being done. Whether or not there were cost over runs or people discrediting the results is immaterial to what you asked.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[JackC 0]

Quote

What is cool about the LHC is not that we will discover the stuff we expect to. If we do, then we sorta wasted our money. It's the things we _don't_ expect that will make it worth all the money we spent on it.

Yup. Great discoveries in science are not met with the exclaimation "eureka" but with "that's weird".

[maadmax 0]

>the reality that poor soul had created for himself was determined by his
> understanding or misunderstanding of spiritual and physical truths.

Incorrect.

His spiritual outcome might well be determined by what spiritual truths he holds or does not hold. His physical outcome will be determined purely by gravity, air resistance and basic mechanics, and not affected the slightest bit by his absolute, fervent and overwhelming belief that God will save him.

Quote

I am not sure what you disagree with. Physical outcomes and spiritual/metaphysical outcomes combine to form the ultimate reality we create for ourselves. Individuals and groups who structure their reality on false beliefs in either category fail to thrive. Those who base their reality on truth, succeed and survive.

...

• Quote

[billvon 2,400]

>I am not sure what you disagree with. Physical outcomes and
>spiritual/metaphysical outcomes combine to form the ultimate reality we
>create for ourselves.

Correct. However, those physical outcomes are the result purely of the physical world. No amount of "combining with the metaphysical world" will affect what happens to the guy who jumps without a parachute.

>Individuals and groups who structure their reality on false beliefs in either
>category fail to thrive. Those who base their reality on truth, succeed and
>survive.

I agree!

[Coreece 190]

Quote

If physics were a religion, of course, they wouldn't have bothered to build the most expensive device ever. They just would have burned all the doubters at the stake.

Ouch! Now thats what I call a Burn!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTzZpoiEMM0&feature=related

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

"Pseudoscience is defined as a body of knowledge, methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be scientific or made to appear scientific, but does not adhere to the scientific method" as defined by our friend Wiki.
The scientific method as defined by wiki:
Characterizations (observations,[18] definitions, and measurements of the subject of inquiry)
Hypotheses[19][20] (theoretical, hypothetical explanations of observations and measurements of the subject)[21]
Predictions (reasoning including logical deduction[22] from the hypothesis or theory)
Experiments[23] (tests of all of the above)

So what tests have been conducted concerning the big bang, dark matter, dark energy, black holes, singularities, evolution over billions of years, life from none life, ect.?
Sounds like pseudoscience to me.

Have you ever seen an atom or an electron? If not, do you deny their existence? If you've seen one, please tell us how you did it.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[shaark 0]

Short article, with a very cool video.


http://www.eso.org/public/outreach/press-rel/pr-2002/pr-17-02.html

As good as it gets so far for black hole proof.

Or it could be a SMGT* playing with it's toys.

(*SuperMassiveGodThing)

[philh 0]

"What basis? The one you misunderstood? I didn't mention a science class, or any type of class for that matter. "

No I havent misunderstood at all . I was very clear that I objected to ID being taught in science classes. I also said I think it does have a role to be taught in other classes eg religious studies. If you follow the debate on this issue its about Id being taught as science in a science class. So of course that is the issue we should address.