ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 7th August 2012, 05:51 AM   #41
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
 
aggle-rithm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 15,334
Originally Posted by Wolfman View Post
Dude...that's irrelevant. We see light from our sun...in fact, it escapes the sun quite easily. If it were a black hole, we would not see that light.
We would if we were INSIDE THE EVENT HORIZON!!!!!


Ooooooh, I just blew my own mind...
__________________
To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion.

Woo's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by aliens.
aggle-rithm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 05:53 AM   #42
BNRT
Muse
 
BNRT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 713
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
I do my research on the fly so to speak. I now found this:

"the Sun has a Schwarzschild radius of approximately 3.0 km (1.9 mi)" -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_radius

This is how big the black hole inside the sun is. Well, maybe that's too speculative, but anyway the Schwarzschild radius determines the size of a black hole in relation to its mass.
You should have continued reading: "An object whose radius is smaller than its Schwarzschild radius is called a black hole." (From the same Wikipedia page)

As the sun is larger than it's Schwarzschild radius, it is not a black hole.
BNRT is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 06:02 AM   #43
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
 
Foster Zygote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 16,965
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
I do my research on the fly so to speak.
It shows.

Quote:
This is how big the black hole inside the sun is. Well, maybe that's too speculative, but anyway the Schwarzschild radius determines the size of a black hole in relation to its mass.
The intense radiation from some black holes results from the acceleration of material into the black hole. This material has to come from somewhere, such as gas from a companion star. In the case of quasars, they are all highly red shifted. This tells us that quasars are a phenomenon from the early formation of galaxies as the super-massive black holes at their cores sweep up vast quantities of gas and dust. Later, these emissions slow as the material around the galactic core is consumed.

So, if the sun is a black hole, what material is feeding it?

ETA: Also, if all stars are black holes, how do you account for objects like white dwarfs and neutron stars?
__________________
Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone.

Last edited by Foster Zygote; 7th August 2012 at 06:04 AM.
Foster Zygote is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 06:06 AM   #44
Wolfman
Chief Solipsistic
Autosycophant
 
Wolfman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Dongguan, China
Posts: 13,193
I'm gonna' take one more shot at this. Some basic logic:

1) Astronomers and physicists understand all of these principles (black holes, quasars, event horizons, Hawking radiation, etc.) much, much better than you (Anders) do. They've been studying it for years/decades. You've just barely started.

2) Every reasonable definition of a black hole, a star/sun, a quasar, etc., has been drawn up by these same experts -- that is, by people who understand what they are talking about.

3) There is pretty much universal agreement among every single expert on the subject that the sun is not a black hole, quasar, or any other such exotic entity. There is no controversy on this issue, no argument, no doubt.

4) Thus, our conclusion: either those experts (the ones who've studied this for years/decades, and who defined the very terms being discussed) are correct; or you (Anders), a guy who by his own admission doesn't understand much at all, have somehow stumbled on a truth that not a single one of those experts have recognized.

Of those two possibilities, which do you think is more likely?
__________________
Please check out my blog and forum, "Wrest In Peace"
Wolfman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 06:13 AM   #45
Anders Lindman
Penultimate Amazing
 
Anders Lindman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 13,833
Originally Posted by BNRT View Post
You should have continued reading: "An object whose radius is smaller than its Schwarzschild radius is called a black hole." (From the same Wikipedia page)

As the sun is larger than it's Schwarzschild radius, it is not a black hole.
In that post I wrote the black hole inside the sun. It doesn't explain the size of the sun though I admit.
Anders Lindman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 06:15 AM   #46
Anders Lindman
Penultimate Amazing
 
Anders Lindman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 13,833
Originally Posted by Wolfman View Post
I'm gonna' take one more shot at this. Some basic logic:

1) Astronomers and physicists understand all of these principles (black holes, quasars, event horizons, Hawking radiation, etc.) much, much better than you (Anders) do. They've been studying it for years/decades. You've just barely started.

2) Every reasonable definition of a black hole, a star/sun, a quasar, etc., has been drawn up by these same experts -- that is, by people who understand what they are talking about.

3) There is pretty much universal agreement among every single expert on the subject that the sun is not a black hole, quasar, or any other such exotic entity. There is no controversy on this issue, no argument, no doubt.

4) Thus, our conclusion: either those experts (the ones who've studied this for years/decades, and who defined the very terms being discussed) are correct; or you (Anders), a guy who by his own admission doesn't understand much at all, have somehow stumbled on a truth that not a single one of those experts have recognized.

Of those two possibilities, which do you think is more likely?
The experts are very locked into the existing theories. It's much more easier for me to go outside the box so to speak. Plus professional scientists would not dare to speculate in a way that contradicts the current standard theories in physics.
Anders Lindman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 06:19 AM   #47
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
 
aggle-rithm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 15,334
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
In that post I wrote the black hole inside the sun. It doesn't explain the size of the sun though I admit.
There could be a micro-black hole in the sun, one about the size of a proton and the mass of a mountain. We would never know about it because it would be a burp in the wind compared to the energy generated by the sun.

Also the sun would have had to consume it fairly recently, because they evaporate pretty quickly.
__________________
To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion.

Woo's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by aliens.
aggle-rithm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 06:21 AM   #48
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
 
aggle-rithm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 15,334
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
The experts are very locked into the existing theories. It's much more easier for me to go outside the box so to speak. Plus professional scientists would not dare to speculate in a way that contradicts the current standard theories in physics.
Its because the standard model is so successful in describing observations about the natural world that to speculate in any other direction would be to promote a theory that explains reality more poorly. What scientist would want to do that?
__________________
To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion.

Woo's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by aliens.
aggle-rithm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 06:21 AM   #49
Anders Lindman
Penultimate Amazing
 
Anders Lindman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 13,833
Originally Posted by Foster Zygote View Post
The intense radiation from some black holes results from the acceleration of material into the black hole. This material has to come from somewhere ...
Hold it right there. The material can come out of the vacuum of space! Imagine gravity pulling on the virtual particles in space. For objects with relative small mass, such as planets, the pull is not great enough to extract real particles, but above a certain mass, such as that of stars, the gravity is strong enough to pull virtual particles out of the vacuum and then accelerate them to a point where they emit energy.
Anders Lindman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 06:22 AM   #50
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 19,852
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
The experts are very locked into the existing theories. It's much more easier for me to go outside the box so to speak. Plus professional scientists would not dare to speculate in a way that contradicts the current standard theories in physics.
Ah the old "Science is scared of change" bollocks.

Utter anti-intellectual horse piddle.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 06:25 AM   #51
Anders Lindman
Penultimate Amazing
 
Anders Lindman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 13,833
Originally Posted by aggle-rithm View Post
Its because the standard model is so successful in describing observations about the natural world that to speculate in any other direction would be to promote a theory that explains reality more poorly. What scientist would want to do that?
The standard theories today are too messy. I think they are to a large extent like the epicycle theories of the past, which became more and more complex because they were based on a false assumption.

Plus, how the sun works cannot even be explained by the standard theories in physics! See for example:

"Coronal heating problem

Why is the Sun's Corona (atmosphere layer) so much hotter than the Sun's surface? Why is the magnetic reconnection effect many orders of magnitude faster than predicted by standard models?" -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ems_in_physics
Anders Lindman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 06:26 AM   #52
PixyMisa
Persnickety Insect
 
PixyMisa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sunny Munuvia
Posts: 16,346
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
The experts are very locked into the existing theories.
To precisely the extent that the theories work.

Quote:
Plus professional scientists would not dare to speculate in a way that contradicts the current standard theories in physics.
Scientists contradict standard theories all the time. That's the whole point of science. That's how you get the Nobel Prize.

What they don't do is contradict the evidence.
__________________
Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu
What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO
PixyMisa is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 06:28 AM   #53
Anders Lindman
Penultimate Amazing
 
Anders Lindman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 13,833
Originally Posted by JoeBentley View Post
Ah the old "Science is scared of change" bollocks.

Utter anti-intellectual horse piddle.
No, it's more like the paradigms in science take a long time to replace. Someone said that science changes through death by death of the scientists, lol, something like that.
Anders Lindman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 06:28 AM   #54
PixyMisa
Persnickety Insect
 
PixyMisa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sunny Munuvia
Posts: 16,346
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
Hold it right there. The material can come out of the vacuum of space!
Nope. What you get there is the evaporation of the black hole. For a stellar mass black hole, this process is very, very, very slow, and produces so little energy that you wouldn't be able to detect it.

Quote:
Imagine gravity pulling on the virtual particles in space. For objects with relative small mass, such as planets, the pull is not great enough to extract real particles, but above a certain mass, such as that of stars, the gravity is strong enough to pull virtual particles out of the vacuum and then accelerate them to a point where they emit energy.
No.
__________________
Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu
What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO
PixyMisa is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 06:29 AM   #55
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
 
aggle-rithm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 15,334
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
Hold it right there. The material can come out of the vacuum of space! Imagine gravity pulling on the virtual particles in space. For objects with relative small mass, such as planets, the pull is not great enough to extract real particles, but above a certain mass, such as that of stars, the gravity is strong enough to pull virtual particles out of the vacuum and then accelerate them to a point where they emit energy.
This process requires an event horizon...something strong enough and with a sufficiently well-defined boundary so that when a pair of virtual particles appears, one is on either side of the event horizon. The only place this can happen is at a black hole.
__________________
To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion.

Woo's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by aliens.
aggle-rithm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 06:30 AM   #56
PixyMisa
Persnickety Insect
 
PixyMisa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sunny Munuvia
Posts: 16,346
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
The standard theories today are too messy.
Says who?

Quote:
Plus, how the sun works cannot even be explained by the standard theories in physics!
The Relativity of Wrong.
__________________
Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu
What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO
PixyMisa is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 06:31 AM   #57
Wolfman
Chief Solipsistic
Autosycophant
 
Wolfman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Dongguan, China
Posts: 13,193
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
The experts are very locked into the existing theories. It's much more easier for me to go outside the box so to speak. Plus professional scientists would not dare to speculate in a way that contradicts the current standard theories in physics.
It is true that some scientific advances are made by overthrowing previous theories. However, those advances are made by people who are deeply knowledgeable on the subject they are discussing...equally or more so than the people expounding the theories that are currently believed.

I defy you to show me any significant change in scientific theory that was discovered by someone that didn't even understand the theory being discussed. It may be that some current theories and beliefs about stars, black holes, etc., are wrong (in fact, it is certain that some ideas are wrong, or incomplete...we're updating and improving our knowledge every day). But those problems and mistakes aren't going to be discovered by a guy who is almost completely ignorant on the topic.

There are clear definitions of black holes, quasars, etc. Our sun does not in any manner, shape, or form fit any of those definitions...the only way to argue that the sun is a black hole is to create entirely new definitions, and in the process entirely re-write the entire fields of astronomy and physics.

And I'm afraid that you simply do not qualify as someone who's even remotely qualified to do that.

Asking questions is good. Being curious is good. Challenging established theories is good.

But more important than any of those things is knowledge. Lacking knowledge, none of those other things have any value at all...all you are is a bumbling idiot whose ignorance is so terribly vast that you're incapable even of recognizing how ignorant you sound.

The surface of the sun does not resemble a quasar in any manner whatsoever. It is not a quasar. And the surface of the sun would not be visible to us if it was a black hole. It is not a black hole.

Here's the thing -- current theories make predictions that fit entirely with observed reality. Your theory doesn't even come close to fitting with observed reality...in order for your theory to be true, we'd have to re-write the fundamental laws of physics in a manner that would result in a universe completely different from the one we live in.

For people to accept your theory, you must demonstrate that your theory provides a better explanation of observed reality than current theories do.

And I assure you -- your theory will never, ever, ever provide a better explanation of observed reality than the theories currently embraced and taught by people who actually have studied and understood the phenomenon involved.
__________________
Please check out my blog and forum, "Wrest In Peace"
Wolfman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 06:31 AM   #58
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
 
aggle-rithm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 15,334
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
The standard theories today are too messy.
According to...?
__________________
To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion.

Woo's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by aliens.
aggle-rithm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 06:37 AM   #59
Anders Lindman
Penultimate Amazing
 
Anders Lindman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 13,833
Originally Posted by PixyMisa View Post
Nope. What you get there is the evaporation of the black hole. For a stellar mass black hole, this process is very, very, very slow, and produces so little energy that you wouldn't be able to detect it.
Originally Posted by aggle-rithm View Post
This process requires an event horizon...something strong enough and with a sufficiently well-defined boundary so that when a pair of virtual particles appears, one is on either side of the event horizon. The only place this can happen is at a black hole.
There is also electromagnetism to take into account in addition to the effect of of gravity.
Anders Lindman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 06:39 AM   #60
Wolfman
Chief Solipsistic
Autosycophant
 
Wolfman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Dongguan, China
Posts: 13,193
Originally Posted by aggle-rithm View Post
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
The standard theories today are too messy.
According to...?
According to the guy who doesn't understand them.

"I don't understand the standard theory, so rather than educate myself about it, I'll just make up my own theory that seems simpler to me."

You can then apply a bastardized version of Occam's Razor..."My theory is simpler than the standard theory, therefore it is more likely to be the correct one."

Ba-da-bing...Nobel Prize!
__________________
Please check out my blog and forum, "Wrest In Peace"
Wolfman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 06:39 AM   #61
Anders Lindman
Penultimate Amazing
 
Anders Lindman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 13,833
Originally Posted by Wolfman View Post
I defy you to show me any significant change in scientific theory that was discovered by someone that didn't even understand the theory being discussed.
A paradigm shift is not a change in a theory. A paradigm shift is a leap into something entirely new, like when quantum mechanics was discovered.
Anders Lindman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 06:44 AM   #62
Wolfman
Chief Solipsistic
Autosycophant
 
Wolfman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Dongguan, China
Posts: 13,193
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
There is also electromagnetism to take into account in addition to the effect of of gravity.
So what...you're just googling up as many scientific-sounding terms as you can, and then stringing them together? My god...the guy who doesn't even understand what he's talking about nevertheless proposes that his understanding of electromagnetism is enough to demonstrate that all those astronomers and physicists are completely wrong!

Okay, I've got it now.

Anders is gonna' be one of those guys who sells some weird product labelled with terms like "quantum energy" and "electromagnetic power", and claim that it can do everything from make your hair grow faster, to curing cancer, to making you invisible.

And he'll do so in the absolute belief that he's right, and that he doesn't need to actually understand what those things are...cuz his theory sounds good to him, and all those so-called "experts" can just take a back seat.

Okay, seriously...I'm outa' here. Talk about your colossal waste of time...it was amusing for awhile...but seriously, witnessing someone floundering about in such willful ignorance -- and actually thinking it sounds like wisdom -- is just too much for me.

Bye.
__________________
Please check out my blog and forum, "Wrest In Peace"
Wolfman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 06:44 AM   #63
BNRT
Muse
 
BNRT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 713
Originally Posted by Wolfman View Post
According to the guy who doesn't understand them.

"I don't understand the standard theory, so rather than educate myself about it, I'll just make up my own theory that seems simpler to me."

You can then apply a bastardized version of Occam's Razor..."My theory is simpler than the standard theory, therefore it is more likely to be the correct one."

Ba-da-bing...Nobel Prize!
I may be off topic, but during my one year studying physics at university, I was frequently amazed at how beautifully elegant some things worked out mathematically.
BNRT is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 06:47 AM   #64
Wolfman
Chief Solipsistic
Autosycophant
 
Wolfman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Dongguan, China
Posts: 13,193
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
A paradigm shift is not a change in a theory. A paradigm shift is a leap into something entirely new, like when quantum mechanics was discovered.
Okay then. Show me any scientific paradigm shift that was brought about by someone completely ignorant of the topic they were discussing. Quantum mechanics was discovered (and refined) by people who'd spent decades studying it, and who had incredible minds. We're talking Einsteins and Hawkings here.

Not a single one of those scientific paradigm shifts came about through the efforts of some guy who didn't even understand what the hell he was talking about.

And dammit...I promised I'd leave, now I am.

But seriously...this guy's gotta' be a troll. I choose to believe that because it's better than thinking someone could actually be this ignorant.
__________________
Please check out my blog and forum, "Wrest In Peace"
Wolfman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 06:47 AM   #65
MG1962
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,252
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
Yes, I know, but what is the standard calculation of the sun's mass based on?
The mass of the sun is one solar mass. Now I am not trying to be funny, because this unit of measure is used across the board to observe and predict conditions at other stars.

If our basic calculation of the suns mass was wrong, then most of our theories about stellar evolution would be wrong. So far that has not proved the case.
MG1962 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 06:48 AM   #66
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
 
aggle-rithm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 15,334
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
A paradigm shift is not a change in a theory. A paradigm shift is a leap into something entirely new, like when quantum mechanics was discovered.
Well, what you're doing is leaping into something old that is simply wrong.
__________________
To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion.

Woo's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by aliens.
aggle-rithm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 06:49 AM   #67
Anders Lindman
Penultimate Amazing
 
Anders Lindman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 13,833
"The quasars' pedestrian surroundings came as a shock. "It's like finding a Formula One racing car in a suburban garage," said Dr Scott Croom of the Anglo-Australian Observatory in Australia who led the study. Put another way, "On our previous idea that brighter Quasars should inhabit brighter host galaxies, these observations were a bit of an insult to the superb Gemini North telescope!" -- http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=14288

Insult, the article said. Only to false theories. I predict that the massive energy quasars generate comes from extracting particles out of the vacuum.
Anders Lindman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 06:50 AM   #68
Wolfman
Chief Solipsistic
Autosycophant
 
Wolfman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Dongguan, China
Posts: 13,193
Originally Posted by BNRT View Post
I may be off topic, but during my one year studying physics at university, I was frequently amazed at how beautifully elegant some things worked out mathematically.
Exactly. For those who actually understand it, it is incredibly elegant, and remarkably consistent. It doesn't bring confusion...it brings order and understanding.

Of course, one can instead go the route of simply saying, "That's too difficult for me to understand, I'll just make up my own theory because it sounds simpler to me"
__________________
Please check out my blog and forum, "Wrest In Peace"
Wolfman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 06:50 AM   #69
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
 
aggle-rithm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 15,334
Originally Posted by BNRT View Post
I may be off topic, but during my one year studying physics at university, I was frequently amazed at how beautifully elegant some things worked out mathematically.
Originally Posted by MG1962 View Post
The mass of the sun is one solar mass.
See? Perfect example!
__________________
To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion.

Woo's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by aliens.
aggle-rithm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 06:51 AM   #70
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 12,767
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
Hold it right there. The material can come out of the vacuum of space! Imagine gravity pulling on the virtual particles in space. For objects with relative small mass, such as planets, the pull is not great enough to extract real particles, but above a certain mass, such as that of stars, the gravity is strong enough to pull virtual particles out of the vacuum and then accelerate them to a point where they emit energy.
You are describing Hawking radiation again, which (we've been over this) is insignificant for stellar mass black holes.

Maybe you're suggesting "the sun is a black hole and Hawking radiation is much much stronger than theory predicts", but that would be even more ridiculous than the original "the sun is a black hole" idea.

One thing of interest is that we can see the make-up of the sun, and this fits perfectly with the theory that it is powered by the fusion of hydrogen.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 06:53 AM   #71
MG1962
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,252
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
Sun's corona surrounds the sun. Isn't that basically the same thing as a quasar surrounding a black hole?
No - the first missing piece of evidence is an energy stream jetting away from the sun following magnetic lines of force.
MG1962 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 06:57 AM   #72
Wolfman
Chief Solipsistic
Autosycophant
 
Wolfman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Dongguan, China
Posts: 13,193
Originally Posted by MG1962 View Post
No - the first missing piece of evidence is an energy stream jetting away from the sun following magnetic lines of force.
...but if we redefine a quasar to not have an energy stream jetting away from the sun, following magnetic lines of force...and if we further redefine a quasar in such a manner that it would look and act in the same manner as our sun's corona...then could we not make the argument that the sun's corona is, in fact, a quasar?
__________________
Please check out my blog and forum, "Wrest In Peace"
Wolfman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 06:58 AM   #73
GeneMachine
Critical Thinker
 
GeneMachine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 332
Anders, your hypothesis still does not predict any mechanism for the observed solar neutrino flux, which is perfectly compatible with our theory, strike that, with the observable fact that the sun is a ball of hydrogen undergoing fusion.

If your intended paradigm shift includes turning over not one theory, but everything we know about physics and nuclear chemistry, with no exception, then it's time to step back and calmly reevaluate your position. Anything else leaves us at the level of a stoner discussion. "Woah, man, what if, like, the sun was no sun at all? Dude, pass the bong..."
GeneMachine is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 07:00 AM   #74
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
 
aggle-rithm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 15,334
I'm tempted to start a thread entitled, "Is the Earth a Jelly Donut?" After all, the Earth is much more like a jelly donut than the Sun is like a black hole.
__________________
To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion.

Woo's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by aliens.
aggle-rithm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 07:03 AM   #75
Anders Lindman
Penultimate Amazing
 
Anders Lindman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 13,833
Originally Posted by Wolfman View Post
Okay then. Show me any scientific paradigm shift that was brought about by someone completely ignorant of the topic they were discussing.
Difficult to tell. My guess is that those who the history books say were the scientists behind new ideas were in many cases not the real discoverers. Only when an idea is published in scientific journals does it become 'discovered' sort of.
Anders Lindman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 07:06 AM   #76
PiedPiper
Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 148
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
The experts are very locked into the existing theories. It's much more easier for me to go outside the box so to speak. Plus professional scientists would not dare to speculate in a way that contradicts the current standard theories in physics.
I'm surprised you're willing to make a blanket statement on the behalf of all professional scientists. I'm a professional scientist, and you certainly don't speak for me.

You're invoking either a mass conspiracy + coverup or a mass groupthink (a 100% effective one, and do you have any idea how difficult that is to achieve?).

Trust me, many professional scientists (including myself) "go outside the box". Many who have done so have made radical new discoveries that changed the way we view the laws of chemistry and physics. Many of these scientists earned Nobel Prizes.

To say that all professional scientists wouldn't dare to speculate against current theories is a *profoundly* incorrect statement. Many scientists dare to do just such a thing. Not all who do so find anything of interest, but they're responsible for some of the largest leaps forward.

Last edited by PiedPiper; 7th August 2012 at 07:07 AM.
PiedPiper is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 07:07 AM   #77
MG1962
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,252
Originally Posted by Wolfman View Post
...but if we redefine a quasar to not have an energy stream jetting away from the sun, following magnetic lines of force...and if we further redefine a quasar in such a manner that it would look and act in the same manner as our sun's corona...then could we not make the argument that the sun's corona is, in fact, a quasar?
Yes off course, what was I thinking
MG1962 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 07:08 AM   #78
Anders Lindman
Penultimate Amazing
 
Anders Lindman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 13,833
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
You are describing Hawking radiation again, which (we've been over this) is insignificant for stellar mass black holes.

Maybe you're suggesting "the sun is a black hole and Hawking radiation is much much stronger than theory predicts", but that would be even more ridiculous than the original "the sun is a black hole" idea.

One thing of interest is that we can see the make-up of the sun, and this fits perfectly with the theory that it is powered by the fusion of hydrogen.
No, I should perhaps have pointed out that I here mean extracting particles out of the vacuum in some other way. For example scientists have pulled photons out of the vacuum:

"The dynamical Casimir effect the generation of photons out of the quantum vacuum induced by an accelerated body has been experimentally demonstrated using a superconducting circuit that simulates a moving mirror." -- http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...l/479303a.html
Anders Lindman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 07:09 AM   #79
Wolfman
Chief Solipsistic
Autosycophant
 
Wolfman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Dongguan, China
Posts: 13,193
Okay...I can't resist. With his invocation of quantum physics, I'm going to create a whole new field of scientific endeavor, just for Anders.

I call it "Quandumb Physics". It operates on the simple principle that anything which appears too complex or difficult for me to understand is most likely untrue, and that any theory which seems to me to make more sense is the one most likely to be true.

Mass isn't an artifact of the Higgs Boson...it is caused by miniature black holes. Cuz that sounds cooler.

Gravity doesn't have any universal laws, it functions differently in different areas. Cuz that makes it so much easier for me to speculate that other things are more or less dense than those stupid scientists say they are.

Any words that I find mysterious or cool (black hole, electromagnetism, fourth dimension, etc.) are not bound by the definitions provided by others, but rather are subject to my own definitions and interpretations. I therefore don't need to try to understand what others say...others must instead understand what I say.

"Proof" and "evidence" for any Quandumb Physics theory is comprised of how cool I think it sounds.
__________________
Please check out my blog and forum, "Wrest In Peace"
Wolfman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 07:11 AM   #80
Anders Lindman
Penultimate Amazing
 
Anders Lindman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 13,833
Originally Posted by PiedPiper View Post
I'm surprised you're willing to make a blanket statement on the behalf of all professional scientists. I'm a professional scientist, and you certainly don't speak for me.

You're invoking either a mass conspiracy + coverup or a mass groupthink (a 100% effective one, and do you have any idea how difficult that is to achieve?).

Trust me, many professional scientists (including myself) "go outside the box". Many who have done so have made radical new discoveries that changed the way we view the laws of chemistry and physics. Many of these scientists earned Nobel Prizes.

To say that all professional scientists wouldn't dare to speculate against current theories is a *profoundly* incorrect statement. Many scientists dare to do just such a thing. Not all who do so find anything of interest, but they're responsible for some of the largest leaps forward.
I should perhaps have been a bit clearer. How many professional scientists dare assume Einstein's relativity is wrong for example?
Anders Lindman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:52 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.