Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

 International Skeptics Forum Is the Sun a Black Hole?

 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.
 7th August 2012, 05:51 AM #41 aggle-rithm Ardent Formulist     Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 15,334 Originally Posted by Wolfman 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.
 7th August 2012, 05:53 AM #42 BNRT Muse     Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 713 Originally Posted by Anders Lindman 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.
 7th August 2012, 06:02 AM #43 Foster Zygote Dental Floss Tycoon     Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 17,288 Originally Posted by Anders Lindman 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.
 7th August 2012, 06:06 AM #44 Wolfman Chief SolipsisticAutosycophant     Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 13,394 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 business, The Language of Culture
 7th August 2012, 06:13 AM #45 Anders Lindman Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 13,833 Originally Posted by BNRT 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.
 7th August 2012, 06:15 AM #46 Anders Lindman Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 13,833 Originally Posted by Wolfman 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.
 7th August 2012, 06:19 AM #47 aggle-rithm Ardent Formulist     Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 15,334 Originally Posted by Anders Lindman 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.
 7th August 2012, 06:21 AM #48 aggle-rithm Ardent Formulist     Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 15,334 Originally Posted by Anders Lindman 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.
 7th August 2012, 06:21 AM #49 Anders Lindman Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 13,833 Originally Posted by Foster Zygote 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.
 7th August 2012, 06:22 AM #50 JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man     Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 27,226 Originally Posted by Anders Lindman 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. __________________ - I don't know how to convince you that facts exist - I don't know how to convince you that you should care about other people
 7th August 2012, 06:25 AM #51 Anders Lindman Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 13,833 Originally Posted by aggle-rithm 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
 7th August 2012, 06:26 AM #52 PixyMisa Persnickety Insect     Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Sunny Munuvia Posts: 16,346 Originally Posted by Anders Lindman 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
 7th August 2012, 06:28 AM #53 Anders Lindman Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 13,833 Originally Posted by JoeBentley 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.
 7th August 2012, 06:28 AM #54 PixyMisa Persnickety Insect     Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Sunny Munuvia Posts: 16,346 Originally Posted by Anders Lindman 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
 7th August 2012, 06:29 AM #55 aggle-rithm Ardent Formulist     Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 15,334 Originally Posted by Anders Lindman 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.
 7th August 2012, 06:30 AM #56 PixyMisa Persnickety Insect     Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Sunny Munuvia Posts: 16,346 Originally Posted by Anders Lindman 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
 7th August 2012, 06:31 AM #58 aggle-rithm Ardent Formulist     Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 15,334 Originally Posted by Anders Lindman 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.
 7th August 2012, 06:37 AM #59 Anders Lindman Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 13,833 Originally Posted by PixyMisa 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 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.
 7th August 2012, 06:39 AM #60 Wolfman Chief SolipsisticAutosycophant     Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 13,394 Originally Posted by aggle-rithm Originally Posted by Anders Lindman 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 business, The Language of Culture
 7th August 2012, 06:39 AM #61 Anders Lindman Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 13,833 Originally Posted by Wolfman 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.
 7th August 2012, 06:44 AM #62 Wolfman Chief SolipsisticAutosycophant     Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 13,394 Originally Posted by Anders Lindman 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 business, The Language of Culture
 7th August 2012, 06:44 AM #63 BNRT Muse     Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 713 Originally Posted by Wolfman 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.
 7th August 2012, 06:47 AM #65 MG1962 Guest   Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 17,252 Originally Posted by Anders Lindman 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.
 7th August 2012, 06:48 AM #66 aggle-rithm Ardent Formulist     Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 15,334 Originally Posted by Anders Lindman 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.
 7th August 2012, 06:49 AM #67 Anders Lindman Penultimate Amazing     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.
 7th August 2012, 06:50 AM #68 Wolfman Chief SolipsisticAutosycophant     Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 13,394 Originally Posted by BNRT 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 business, The Language of Culture
 7th August 2012, 06:50 AM #69 aggle-rithm Ardent Formulist     Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 15,334 Originally Posted by BNRT 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 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.
 7th August 2012, 06:51 AM #70 Roboramma Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shanghai Posts: 14,034 Originally Posted by Anders Lindman 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
 7th August 2012, 06:53 AM #71 MG1962 Guest   Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 17,252 Originally Posted by Anders Lindman 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.
 7th August 2012, 06:57 AM #72 Wolfman Chief SolipsisticAutosycophant     Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 13,394 Originally Posted by MG1962 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 business, The Language of Culture
 7th August 2012, 06:58 AM #73 GeneMachine Critical Thinker     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..."
 7th August 2012, 07:00 AM #74 aggle-rithm Ardent Formulist     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.
 7th August 2012, 07:03 AM #75 Anders Lindman Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 13,833 Originally Posted by Wolfman 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.
 7th August 2012, 07:06 AM #76 PiedPiper Thinker   Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 148 Originally Posted by Anders Lindman 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.
 7th August 2012, 07:07 AM #77 MG1962 Guest   Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 17,252 Originally Posted by Wolfman ...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
 7th August 2012, 07:08 AM #78 Anders Lindman Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 13,833 Originally Posted by Roboramma 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
 7th August 2012, 07:09 AM #79 Wolfman Chief SolipsisticAutosycophant     Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 13,394 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 business, The Language of Culture
 7th August 2012, 07:11 AM #80 Anders Lindman Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 13,833 Originally Posted by PiedPiper 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?

International Skeptics Forum