User Controls
Space questions.
-
2016-12-14 at 4:46 AM UTCYou have no idea of science.
Two posts ago you were asking me to prove radio waves were real, and that they are also theoretical.
THEY ARE NOT. YOU DON'T KNOW SHIT RETARD.
And now you are using google-fu to pretend there is proof for black holes.
You are using information that is explained in simple English for the explanation of a scientific theory that has acceptance but IS NOT PROVEN.
Once again, there is no proof black holes exist.
Go back to asking me to prove radio waves exist, or that because we can't 'see' radio waves, they are as unprovable as black holes.
You're a fucking retard.
-
2016-12-14 at 4:53 AM UTCAh yes the old 'attempt to discredit your opponent by spamming the retard insult' technique. Timeless, timeless classic. Sounds to me like Lanny is making a very good case and you are ruffled and retracting to name calling instead of refuting his claims.
What was wrong in the link I provided? That seems to suggest that there is now in fact direct evidence of a black hole's existence. -
2016-12-14 at 4:59 AM UTCTHERE IS A THEORY THAT BLACK HOLES ARE REAL.
THAT IS ALL.
A THEORY. -
2016-12-14 at 5:01 AM UTCSo in your personal opinion, what percentage would you give the likelihood of the existence of black holes?
-
2016-12-14 at 5:08 AM UTCHow am I supposed to be capable of attributing a percentage of how likely it would be for something like that to exist?
There is so much maths in that it is not funny. NOT EVEN A LITTLE BIT.
Eg, if Einstein's equation was out by 0.001%, then WOAH EVERYTHING WE KNOW ABOUT SPACE IS OFF BY ABOUT A BILLION LIGHT YEARS.
And there is no way it was not off by more than that. So yeah, Einstein had all these formulas, that are sound formulas, but the inputs, things such as the energy equation, the speed of light etc ARE NOT SOUND. THEY ARE GUESTIMATIONS.
The rest of the maths works, but then you have to acknowledge THERE IS NO PROOF FOR HIS DETERMINATIONS ON ENERGY EQUATIONS OR THE SPEED OF LIGHT.
Therefore, everything is out by so much it isn't funny.
And radio waves are just that. The whole spectrum is out there able to be detected. They grab a few bandwidths and decide A HA! THAT IS THE BLACK HOLE. NAME IT AFTER ME. -
2016-12-14 at 5:11 AM UTCSo if you HAD TO, what percentage would you give it? It's not a trick question. Based in the theories and direct or indirect evidence supporting the existence of black holes, how likely is it that you think they exist? Humor me.
-
2016-12-14 at 5:12 AM UTCI couldn't answer that.
I can tell you that based on the evidence presented for black holes, that if that is what you are relying on, that there are no black holes. -
2016-12-14 at 5:15 AM UTCWell yes what else would we be relying upon other than the evidence for their existence? *scratches head*
You CAN answer it you don't want to for some reason. You can't prove which sports team will win a game but you can theorize and come up with evidence to suggest the likelihood, as in odds and probability. -
2016-12-14 at 5:16 AM UTCwhat if its an illusion of matter getting sucked in and theres not a black hole there at all?
-
2016-12-14 at 5:20 AM UTCOkay, according to the current accepted theory for black holes.
There are no black holes.
If they had a different theory to prove the existence of a similar thing, then yeah, maybe there are black holes.
But based on the current concept of what a black hole is, and the evidence they push for black holes, no way do black holes exist. -
2016-12-14 at 5:29 AM UTC
Originally posted by Actor what if its an illusion of matter getting sucked in and theres not a black hole there at all?
What if it's an illusion of an illusion of an illusion of an illusion of an illusionof an illusionof an illusion…
-
2016-12-14 at 6:21 AM UTC
Originally posted by littleasianlady You have no idea of science.
To be honest your rampant abuse of the word "proof" kinda suggests you're the one with a weak grip on the core concepts but whatever, I'm just telling you to apply your own standards for evidence but so far all I've got back is caps rants.Two posts ago you were asking me to prove radio waves were real, and that they are also theoretical.
To repeat, that was a reductio argument, I'm trying to demonstrate how we can have non-direct experience of a thing count as evidence for it. To be perfectly clear, I have at no point denied radio waves exist, I think it's really uncontroversial that they do. My point is you don't experience them directly, there's this proxy of equipment that produces some secondary effect of radio waves (i.e. by translating them into homeomorphic perceptible sound waves), likewise I can't directly see a black hole but I can experience some secondary effect (like gravitational lensing) and in both cases this non-direct experience constitutes evidence for the existence for the proposed explanation (radio waves and black holes, respectively).THEY ARE NOT. YOU DON'T KNOW SHIT RETARD.
You seem upset.And now you are using google-fu to pretend there is proof for black holes.
I haven't actually googled anything related to black holes recently but I don't really see how it would be a problem if I did. Surely your vast knowledge of physics could withstand a layman with an internet connection without resorting to "I just know better".a scientific theory that has acceptance but IS NOT PROVEN.
What exactly do you think it means for a scientific theory to "be proven"?
Originally posted by littleasianlady Okay, according to the current accepted theory for black holes.
There are no black holes.
If they had a different theory to prove the existence of a similar thing, then yeah, maybe there are black holes.
But based on the current concept of what a black hole is, and the evidence they push for black holes, no way do black holes exist.
While we're at it, why don't you give us your definition of a black hole. -
2016-12-14 at 7:52 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny To repeat, that was a reductio argument, I'm trying to demonstrate how we can have non-direct experience of a thing count as evidence for it.
So you admit you are a fuckwit?You seem upset.
You seem like a simpleton who is frustrating me by being unable to grasp a simple concept.I haven't actually googled anything related to black holes recently but I don't really see how it would be a problem if I did. Surely your vast knowledge of physics could withstand a layman with an internet connection without resorting to "I just know better".
I don't know why you are writing I didn't provide proofs.What exactly do you think it means for a scientific theory to "be proven"?
When it stops being theoretical science.While we're at it, why don't you give us your definition of a black hole.
You're an idiot. -
2016-12-14 at 7:53 AM UTClittleasainlady = wan
-
2016-12-14 at 8:36 AM UTC
Originally posted by littleasianlady I don't know why you are writing I didn't provide proofs.
Mostly because I have a better idea of what a proof is than:When it stops being theoretical science.
But enlighten us, what does it take for something to "stop being a theoretical science"? Give me something concrete here. Is it experimental evidence? If so, how much? Is it finding an industrial application?
As an aside, do you not admit things which are purely theoretical, more broadly than the realm of physics, can be proved? Something like say a theorem of number theory? -
2016-12-14 at 8:47 AM UTCLanny you don't deserve this kind of attention from me.
You're too stupid to be educated.
Continue believing whatever is forced down your throat. Even with the evidence right in front of you.
I'm not here to help you anymore Lanny. You're a fool. -
2016-12-14 at 8:48 AM UTCSomething is not theoretical when it has proofs.
I am not wasting any more time with you. -
2016-12-14 at 8:49 AM UTCLol, whatever you gotta say to save face bud.
-
2016-12-14 at 8:51 AM UTCOkay Lanny.
-
2016-12-14 at 11:11 AM UTCthats bcus the heat fukcing comes away wen u take it iout the oven noob if u were inside the oven adn touched it it wud be oven heat noob
