User Controls
Space questions.
-
2016-12-13 at 3:42 PM UTCPhotoelectric effect theory won him a Nobel. Later he admit it was bs.
He thinks gravity able to bend space and time, able to slow down light and time. If a star has enough mass, its light will be slow down and make it invisible, so black hole.
In reality, all star lights have same speed C. Real black hole is in every toilet.
He said the sun's gravity able to bend light so at solar eclipse we can see stars behind the sun.
In fact, hot plasma on sun's surface reflect/bend those stars light behind the sun. So those dumb scientists able to took a picture back then to support his theory.
He thought nothing can travel at light speed due to unlimited energy is needed.
BS, he don't even sure what is energy/quantum.
All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?' Nowadays every Tom, D i c k and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken. -Albert Einstein 1953 -
2016-12-13 at 4:33 PM UTC
Originally posted by littleasianlady You can measure temperature just by feeling it with your skin. It's not a theory. Temperature is proven to exist.
But why is indirectly sensing something by one organ different than another (sensing heat through skin vs from observing visual distortions)? Your ability to detect heat is just as fallible as sight.
You mentioned radio telescopes before, do you also relegate radio waves to "merely a theory" because we can not directly experience them?The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2016-12-13 at 8:41 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny But why is indirectly sensing something by one organ different than another (sensing heat through skin vs from observing visual distortions)? Your ability to detect heat is just as fallible as sight.
You mentioned radio telescopes before, do you also relegate radio waves to "merely a theory" because we can not directly experience them?
Radio waves are proven. I have a FM radio and Wi-Fi.
Black holes are not proven. You can't see them with anything.
Radio frequency is detected and some weirdo decides it is a black hole. -
2016-12-13 at 8:46 PM UTCnoob u cont sense temperatur wif ur skin wtf get a pieve of wood and a piece of metal at same temp they feel different BTFO
-
2016-12-13 at 10:52 PM UTC
Originally posted by bling bling noob u cont sense temperatur wif ur skin wtf get a pieve of wood and a piece of metal at same temp they feel different BTFO
No they don't.
They conduct and dissipate heat differently. So at room temperature they will feel different. There are other factors at play too including ability to absorb and reflect heat radiation.
Put aluminum in the oven as high as it goes. Just foil. Take it out and you can touch it with your fingers with no burn after half a second. You can't do that with a pie (or a foil pan with a pie in it) or a baking tray. It's ability to dissipate heat is not the same as the apple pie.
At the same temperature they will feel the same. Wood or metal. -
2016-12-14 at 1:12 AM UTC
An incredibly luminous outburst that astronomers had previously classified as possibly the brightest supernova ever actually might have been caused by the explosive death of a star torn apart by a giant black hole, a new study finds.
http://www.nbcnews.com/mach/space/brightest-supernova-ever-was-actually-monster-black-hole-s-violent-n695071
And they are STILL just guessing. -
2016-12-14 at 1:25 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny Your ability to detect heat is just as fallible as sight.
I call this the Perspective fallacy. One can come up with anecdotal (and maybe even medical) incidences of sensory failure but that failure is part of the broader system. Poor eyesight is not poor perception but distortion at a biomechanical level. Failure to detect heat or cold through touch would be a failure at the level of nerves but this is not a perceptive failure. To say that these things are fallible is extraneous because they are fallible in the same way a camera is able to fail at capturing the desired effect or how a sensor can fail at detecting a closed hatch. There is the simple truth that mechanical systems will fail and the human as a mechanical system is extremely vulnerable to fallibility.
I say this all because to insinuate that temperatures existence is not proven by the fact that we have built in sensory function to detect fluctuation in temperature is as absurd as saying light is not proven to exist by the fact that we have sensory organs specifically designed to capture light and transform it into a function picture of the environment.
Of course there is the possibility that our understanding of temperature or light is fallible at an intellectual and theoretical level. This again does not disprove their existence but is rather proof of the holes in cognitive understanding. -
2016-12-14 at 2:02 AM UTCYou can measure/detect radio waves, temperature and other types of radiation and thermal energy.
You can prove this stuff exists.
Detecting a radio wave and deciding it is a black hole does not mean black holes exist. There is no proof for black holes. -
2016-12-14 at 2:05 AM UTC
Originally posted by littleasianlady There is no proof for black holes.
rekt
-
2016-12-14 at 3:28 AM UTC
Originally posted by littleasianlady Radio waves are proven. I have a FM radio and Wi-Fi.
And I have images of gravitational lensing. Hearing FM radio is not direct perception of radio waves, it's perception of an effect of radio waves.Black holes are not proven. You can't see them with anything.
"heat isn't proven, you can't see it with anything"
Originally posted by thelittlestnigger I call this the Perspective fallacy. One can come up with anecdotal (and maybe even medical) incidences of sensory failure but that failure is part of the broader system. Poor eyesight is not poor perception but distortion at a biomechanical level. Failure to detect heat or cold through touch would be a failure at the level of nerves but this is not a perceptive failure. To say that these things are fallible is extraneous because they are fallible in the same way a camera is able to fail at capturing the desired effect or how a sensor can fail at detecting a closed hatch. There is the simple truth that mechanical systems will fail and the human as a mechanical system is extremely vulnerable to fallibility.
I say this all because to insinuate that temperatures existence is not proven by the fact that we have built in sensory function to detect fluctuation in temperature is as absurd as saying light is not proven to exist by the fact that we have sensory organs specifically designed to capture light and transform it into a function picture of the environment.
Of course there is the possibility that our understanding of temperature or light is fallible at an intellectual and theoretical level. This again does not disprove their existence but is rather proof of the holes in cognitive understanding.
Maybe you didn't understand my argument, it was a reductio. I don't think anyone denies heat or light exist and yet we only have an indirect perception of them, there exists a fallible mechanical system between our experience and the reality we posit to exist, so this doesn't block our ability to assert something as true. Likewise we can't directly see black holes but we can perceive their secondary effects, like emission of energy or bending of light. I think this is sufficient evidence to posit their existence just as indirect evidence for something like heat is considered satisfactory. -
2016-12-14 at 3:31 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny Maybe you didn't understand my argument, it was a reductio. I don't think anyone denies heat or light exist and yet we only have an indirect perception of them, there exists a fallible mechanical system between our experience and the reality we posit to exist, so this doesn't block our ability to assert something as true. Likewise we can't directly see black holes but we can perceive their secondary effects, like emission of energy or bending of light. I think this is sufficient evidence to posit their existence just as indirect evidence for something like heat is considered satisfactory.
Maybe I fucking didnt.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2016-12-14 at 3:32 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny And I have images of gravitational lensing. Hearing FM radio is not direct perception of radio waves, it's perception of an effect of radio waves.
You might be smart, and I don't know if you are, but you are guessing here. You don't know this subject. There are tests and proofs for radio waves being real. By the fact that science can determine FM broadcasts and my ability to receive FM broadcasts. It is highly accurate and proven and not speculative. That is proof of radio waves and the electromagnetic spectrum.Maybe you didn't understand my argument, it was a reductio. I don't think anyone denies heat or light exist and yet we only have an indirect perception of them, there exists a fallible mechanical system between our experience and the reality we posit to exist, so this doesn't block our ability to assert something as true. Likewise we can't directly see black holes but we can perceive their secondary effects, like emission of energy or bending of light. I think this is sufficient evidence to posit their existence just as indirect evidence for something like heat is considered satisfactory.
Yeah I understand philosophy. I also understand that radio waves are proven to exist. If they weren't, an FM radio receiver would be a theory and not something in every car.
I also understand you are using big words.
That doesn't change what is proven, that is, FM radio is real.
Black holes are not, or at least, they are a theory. -
2016-12-14 at 3:33 AM UTCIf I see bent light over the horizon is that a black hole, or is that light doing what it does?
You can't prove black holes exist. You can prove a mathematical formula and then claim that mathematical formula proves a black hole, but at the end of the day, the only part that makes sense is the equation. The rest is guessing. -
2016-12-14 at 3:51 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny Maybe you didn't understand my argument
Maybe he FUCKING DID!!!ðŸ˜
-
2016-12-14 at 4:01 AM UTC
Originally posted by littleasianlady You might be smart, and I don't know if you are, but you are guessing here. You don't know this subject.
Why did you even bother typing this? What is it supposed to accomplish? "hey babe, you might be smart but actually I'm right, QED, haha!". I mean really.There are tests and proofs for radio waves being real. By the fact that science can determine FM broadcasts
What exactly does it mean for "science to determine FM broadcasts"? I don't think that's a well formed sentence.and my ability to receive FM broadcasts
Well I also have the ability to receive bended light and radio waves from things that seem to behave a lot like black holes so...It is highly accurate and proven and not speculative.
Well we happen to be able to make pretty accurate predictions about the perceivable elements of black holes too.I also understand that radio waves are proven to exist. If they weren't, an FM radio receiver would be a theory and not something in every car.
"I also understand that black holes are proven to exist. If they weren't, images of gravitational lensing and radiological signatures emitted by black holes would be a theory and not something detectable by appropriate equipment"I also understand you are using big words.
Thanks I guess?Black holes are not, or at least, they are a theory.
Yes, that is something you keep repeating.
Originally posted by littleasianlady If I see bent light over the horizon is that a black hole, or is that light doing what it does?
It would depend on the degree to which the light is bent and its source relative to us. Positing black holes does not explain light bending over the horizon but it does predict observed behaviors of astronomical objects.You can't prove black holes exist. You can prove a mathematical formula and then claim that mathematical formula proves a black hole, but at the end of the day, the only part that makes sense is the equation. The rest is guessing.
I can't speak to the math but we seem to be able to observe the significant evidence of astronomical bodies that do not emit light and have the mass of stars. Are these bodies Hawking's conception of a black hole? Well so far he's been right on the energy emission front, or so I understand, so that would seem to count in his favor. But even if he wasn't, I think the term "black hole" refers a sufficiently dense mass that that it can trap light crossing its event horizon, not any particular equation. I think the lensing we observe is sufficient to serve as evidence that such bodies exist. -
2016-12-14 at 4:07 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny But why is indirectly sensing something by one organ different than another (sensing heat through skin vs from observing visual distortions)? Your ability to detect heat is just as fallible as sight.
You mentioned radio telescopes before, do you also relegate radio waves to "merely a theory" because we can not directly experience them?
its not an ability
its called a nervous system you fucking mongoloid -
2016-12-14 at 4:09 AM UTC
Originally posted by cerakote its not an ability
its called a nervous system you fucking mongoloid
Are... are you joking? -
2016-12-14 at 4:17 AM UTCUm apparently the theory of light bending over the horizon is due to the speed of light relative to the distance of the sun. Or it could be refraction.
That is also a theory that isn't proven.
Lanny....
You're being a tool so I'll stop being nice.
You're wrong and arguing for no reason.
There is no proof of black holes. There is no photographic evidence of a black hole. There is no proof, only theories, of black holes.
PROOF OF RADIO WAVES:
I CAN MAKE A RADIO TRANSMITTER AND A RADIO RECEIVER AND THE VARIABLES THAT DETERMINE MY ABILITY TO TRANSMIT AND RECEIVE REMAIN THE SAME. THINGS SUCH AS ANTENNA LENGTH AND COILS AND THINGS LIKE WATTS ETC.
THEY WERE THEORIES THAT UNDERWENT RIGOROUS TESTING AND BECAME PROOFS. THE PIECES OF THE PUZZLE THAT MAKE UP ELECTRICITY AND RADIOS ARE SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN AGAIN AND AGAIN. WHETHER THE DESCRIPTION OF THE FOUNDATIONS IS ACCURATE IS NOT 100%, BUT THE FACT IS THEY EXIST AND CAN BE MEASURED WITH CONSISTENT RETURNS IN A GIVEN SITUATION WITH NEGLIGIBLE VARIABLES. FOR FUCKS SAKE WE EVEN HAVE RADAR. THIS STUFF IS PROVEN BEYOND A DOUBT. I AM USING WIFI RIGHT NOW. PROOF OF CONCEPT PROOF OF FEASIBILITY. PROVEN.
NOT LIKE YOUR FAGGOT BLACK HOLE. -
2016-12-14 at 4:27 AM UTC
It's impossible to actually see black holes (after all, they are black) but one way of detecting them is to observe the effect they have on spacetime. Just as a massive object moving around in a pond will create ripples in the water, so a massive object, like a black hole, moving around in spacetime will create ripples too. These gravitationally waves are particularly strong when they come from two black holes that spiral around each other, get closer and closer, and eventually merge. Einstein's theory allows you to calculate exactly what the gravitational waves created by such a black hole merger should look like. And the gravitational waves detected by LIGO exactly match the profile: they look exactly like waves coming from black holes that collided over one billion lightyears away from Earth. The detection therefore counts as further evidence that Einstein's theory is correct, and as the first direct evidence for the existence of black holes.
https://plus.maths.org/content/black-holes-do-exist
I don't have any convincing argument but I'll be damned if someone is gonna fucking tell me black holes don't exist, MOTHERFUCKER. -
2016-12-14 at 4:40 AM UTC
Originally posted by littleasianlady You're wrong and arguing for no reason.
I'm sorry to tell you this but it is in fact you who are wrong and arguing for no reason. I wish it didn't have to be this way.There is no proof of black holes. There is no photographic evidence of a black hole. There is no proof, only theories, of black holes.
On the contrary, there is photographic evidence of massive bodies that do not emit light and which have sufficient mass and density to bend light that approaches them to a degree that we would expect some of the light approaching them can not escape. This, as far as I'm concerned, satisfies all the criteria for a thing being a black hole.THEY WERE THEORIES THAT UNDERWENT RIGOROUS TESTING AND BECAME PROOFS.
Well they didn't become formal proofs. We do seem to have a lot of good evidence for radio waves, yes, but then we also have some good evidence for black holes. There is qualitatively nothing different about anticipating the effects produced by radio waves and black holes, both constitute evidence towards the existence of their respective phenomenon.FOR FUCKS SAKE WE EVEN HAVE RADAR. THIS STUFF IS PROVEN BEYOND A DOUBT. I AM USING WIFI RIGHT NOW. PROOF OF CONCEPT PROOF OF FEASIBILITY. PROVEN.
I mean frankly your notion of "proof" is kind of comically naive but alright. We also have "proof" of black holes, that is we can anticipate their effects and observe them with a degree of accuracy and reliability. You keep yelling about how proved radio waves are but I've yet to see a reason out of you why something like observed gravitational lensing does not constitute a "proof" by the same standards.NOT LIKE YOUR FAGGOT BLACK HOLE.
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
