gcthomas
New member
I wish we could see 50/100 years from now some science papers.
Yes!
I wish we could see 50/100 years from now some science papers.
This is one more example of how science turns theory into fact long before ever proving the theory in the first place. Then, eventually the theory crumbles and we all realize what a waste of time the exercise caused.
Black holes have long captured the public imagination and been the subject of popular culture, from Star Trek to Hollywood. They are the ultimate unknown – the blackest and most dense objects in the universe that do not even let light escape. And as if they weren't bizarre enough to begin with, now add this to the mix: they don't exist.
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-09-black-holes.html#jCp
Astronomers, climate scientists, and no doubt all branches of so called science like to hold onto pet theories regardless of the evidence against them.
People tend to fear the unknown, to fear that they may be wrong, they fear for their jobs, they will invent excuses to keep the cash coming in.
The idea of dark matter and dark energy is ludicrous as well.
Especially since there are other viable explanations for the facts that are based on known and measurable facts, thus not requiring the hypothesis of dark matter and dark energy.
No wonder God speaks of "science falsely so called" I Timothy 6:20
Fact is not higher than theory. A theory explains facts. Nor can you you prove a theory, a theory is subject to change because science discovers new facts all the time.
He was referring to scientific law and simply used the term "fact" because it is reasonable and a good layman's term.
Shouldn't we wait until the physicist's findings go through the peer review process and it is studied by other physicists?
Yes, it is.Fact is not higher than theory.
Which makes fact not higher than theory, how?A theory explains facts.
To be fair, you're not much of a philosopher, either.I am no physicist.
Evolutionists. :nono:Scientific law is not higher than theory either, they are simply different things.
Strange. Evolutionists are forever asserting that these two are the same thing.You could for example never replace the theory of evolution with law or fact of evolution.
Scientific law is not higher than theory either, they are simply different things. A scientific law simply expresses an observed A theory attempts to explain laws, why the constant relationships described by laws are what they are. You could for example never replace the theory of evolution with law or fact of evolution. The theory is a set of hypotheses that seeks to explain law(s) and observed facts in a coherent way. For example, Einstein's theory of general relativity explains why things fall according to Newton's law of gravitation.
A scientific law simply expresses an observed A theory attempts to explain laws,
In 1974, Stephen Hawking used quantum mechanics to show that black holes emit radiation. Since then, scientists have detected fingerprints in the cosmos that are consistent with this radiation, identifying an ever-increasing list of the universe's black holes.
But now Mersini-Houghton describes an entirely new scenario. She and Hawking both agree that as a star collapses under its own gravity, it produces Hawking radiation. However, in her new work, Mersini-Houghton shows that by giving off this radiation, the star also sheds mass. So much so that as it shrinks it no longer has the density to become a black hole.
A theory is an attempt to explain an observation.
Three main points stand out in regard to the article.
1.) This is not all black holes. Only the ones thought to have come into existence from the collapse of super large stars. There are still the black holes believed to be at the center of every galaxy we can observe.
2.) We have known for a long while that singularities still emit a form of radiation - per Hawking.
3.) The new research is not saying "there are no black holes", only that there is a limit to how dense an object must be to become a black hole. And that these stars are not within that limit.
I really don't think this is that difficult to understand. Why do so many of you who display a lack of understanding love to trumpet that misunderstanding as if it is something of which to be proud (no one specific, but for whoever this description fits)?
"3.) The new research is not saying "there are no black holes", "
That may be true... but that's not what the title of this thread, or the article says.
They say:
Researcher Shows That Black Holes Do Not Exist.
I suppose one would have to be a scientist to know they don't mean what they say?
(Weren't you banned?)
I think it's obvious the title of the article was intentionally written to be misleading as an attention-grabber. Mission accomplished.The article and the thread, since it based on the article, are both misleading. People are often misled when they do not pay careful attention to detail. One does not have to be a scientist to see that the claims in both the article and the OP of this thread are incongruent with all the evidence as well as even the subject matter I highlighted in the article.
Doesn't surprise me.Yes, I was banned for "calling someone names unnecessarily".
I think it's obvious the title of the article was intentionally written to be misleading as an attention-grabber. Mission accomplished.
If they wanted to accurately title the article all they had to do was insert a single word:
Researcher Shows That Some Black Holes Do Not Exist.
Which makes me question the credibility of the article.
Doesn't surprise me.