Is Time An Illusion?

Finshaggy

Well-Known Member
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/971124b.html

Here's a direct quote from NASA's chosen Astrophysicist:

" Black holes cannot be observed directly and therefore cannot be 'discovered'. "

This is what determined the argument I had before that I mentioned... But there is even more evidence in the posts above than I had that day.


LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL


LMFAO LOL LOL
This is what NASA says.^^^^^^^^^^^^

They can not be "Discovered". They are SPECULATION based on science fiction, and math fiction.
 

Finshaggy

Well-Known Member
...I wonder how works of art are influenced by these types of discussions?
Well, the right "artists" can create whole systems of science proving black holes and such, based on conversations like this. (Where people "Prove" them)

Even the "Big time physicists" only believe in black holes, "Because everyone else does."
When it comes down to it. It's Because : how can "Thousands of physicists be wrong?"...Because they all listened to the guy right before them, and somewhere down the lineage a wrench got thrown in ya'lls math.
 

researchkitty

Well-Known Member
Well, the right "artists" can create whole systems of science proving black holes and such, based on conversations like this. (Where people "Prove" them)

Even the "Big time physicists" only believe in black holes, "Because everyone else does."
When it comes down to it. It's Because : how can "Thousands of physicists be wrong?"...Because they all listened to the guy right before them, and somewhere down the lineage a wrench got thrown in ya'lls math.
What do you define as a big time physicist?

Most scientists look at data, and make conclusions from that data. Until someone has a better explanation for black holes, do you have something better? Perhaps a way to explain their effects with gravitational lensing? Hawking radiation? Something to add to the public Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole that proves them all wrong or improves upon their ideas? Everything with respect to black holes, scientifically, adds up!

Saying because we cant "see" or "touch" a black hole that they dont exist is blasphemy.
 

mindphuk

Well-Known Member
What do you define as a big time physicist?

Most scientists look at data, and make conclusions from that data. Until someone has a better explanation for black holes, do you have something better? Perhaps a way to explain their effects with gravitational lensing? Hawking radiation? Something to add to the public Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole that proves them all wrong or improves upon their ideas? Everything with respect to black holes, scientifically, adds up!

Saying because we cant "see" or "touch" a black hole that they dont exist is blasphemy.
Kitty, let me introduce you to shaggy, our resident whackadoodle that likes to be contrarian for the sake of being contrarian. He doesn't know the difference between speed and acceleration yet continues to laugh at and delude himself into believing he knows and understands more about science than those of us that actually went to university and studied science.
 

Beefbisquit

Well-Known Member
Well, the right "artists" can create whole systems of science proving black holes and such, based on conversations like this. (Where people "Prove" them)

Even the "Big time physicists" only believe in black holes, "Because everyone else does."
When it comes down to it. It's Because : how can "Thousands of physicists be wrong?"...Because they all listened to the guy right before them, and somewhere down the lineage a wrench got thrown in ya'lls math.
You're accusing astrophysicists of argumentum ad populum? You really are an idiot.

Like I said before, just because you can't see something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. If there is substantial evidence to support black holes existence (and there is), regardless of whether we can absolutely 100% verify it, it's more likely they exist. If you care about holding as many true values and beliefs as possible you would be wise to not doubt the existence of black holes, however, it's become quite obvious that you don't care whether or not you actually believe things that are true, or at least likely to be true.

Your quote; (cherry pick actually), was taken from;http://www.odec.ca/projects/2003/chowa3a/public_html/what.htm

" Black holes cannot be observed directly and therefore cannot be 'discovered'. "
The site is offering education on what black holes are. You took PART of an answer, cut the rest of the comments away, removing all context. Then you applied it falsely, (and deceptively) to attempt to make your argument stronger. Well, you failed. Here's the rest of the quote that you so graciously cherry picked.

Question:
Who was the first person to discover a black hole and what was the date?

Answer:
Black holes cannot be observed directly and therefore cannot be 'discovered'. When light is sucked in, the blackhole is outlined by a rim of light however.
I'm not sure what your agenda is, whether you're trolling or just an idiot.
 

researchkitty

Well-Known Member
I cant wait to click "refresh" to see some of the replies. Some funny stuff, and thankfully some good members to put the funny ones in place :) :)
 

Doer

Well-Known Member
...if you'd be so kind as to keep going with this I'd appreciate it. My understanding of it at present is with regard to bubbles, or droplets and primary color. Don't really know if this is, say...scientific of me to write. I'm driven to art from the axis, so-to-speak, so I may be limited. (...and not by choice)

Thanks.
Art to me is the drive for expression, communication, etc. These drives are based in the fact of our physical limitations. To hear color and see sound is reported
from folks that suffer a certain type of brain damage.

Read up on the Quantum Mind. It has to do with the non-locality of consciousness. There be Art.

Hey, and beefbbisquit, let's don't fuss. I totally reject the idea of an Objective Reality. My life theory is Beer Suds.

We are all in the quantum foam and the other bubbles look just like us, more or less. We assume we know the exact gas mix, so to say,
in the other bubbles. But, not true. We don't even know ourselves. In fact the definition of normal only applies to people we don't know yet. :)

The reality as we call is totally Subjective.
 

Finshaggy

Well-Known Member
What do you define as a big time physicist?

Most scientists look at data, and make conclusions from that data. Until someone has a better explanation for black holes, do you have something better? Perhaps a way to explain their effects with gravitational lensing? Hawking radiation? Something to add to the public Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole that proves them all wrong or improves upon their ideas? Everything with respect to black holes, scientifically, adds up!

Saying because we cant "see" or "touch" a black hole that they dont exist is blasphemy.

Start at 2 min or watch from the beginning.
[video=youtube;A4GFAjX62Yg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4GFAjX62Yg[/video]
 

researchkitty

Well-Known Member
Start at 2 min or watch from the beginning.
Are you kidding? Look at the comments on that video, even everyone there calls that guy an idiot. When half of the likes are "dislikes"................... Granted I hear you wanting to call me out on that reasoning not being scientific, but its social science, ya? :)
 

Finshaggy

Well-Known Member
You're accusing astrophysicists of argumentum ad populum? You really are an idiot.

Like I said before, just because you can't see something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. If there is substantial evidence to support black holes existence (and there is), regardless of whether we can absolutely 100% verify it, it's more likely they exist. If you care about holding as many true values and beliefs as possible you would be wise to not doubt the existence of black holes, however, it's become quite obvious that you don't care whether or not you actually believe things that are true, or at least likely to be true.

Your quote; (cherry pick actually), was taken from;http://www.odec.ca/projects/2003/chowa3a/public_html/what.htm



The site is offering education on what black holes are. You took PART of an answer, cut the rest of the comments away, removing all context. Then you applied it falsely, (and deceptively) to attempt to make your argument stronger. Well, you failed. Here's the rest of the quote that you so graciously cherry picked.



I'm not sure what your agenda is, whether you're trolling; or just an idiot.

LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

Does everyone here know what a black hole is????

Like they were in books, magazines. SCIENCE FICTION.
Then one say someone noticed something weird on a telescope. And his nerdy ass WANTED it to be a black hole. So he did the math, and it made sense IN MATH, and SOME theory. But he was just trying to confirm his nerdy ass desire. And you guys are flocking. I don't know who the fuck it was that started all this, but if you can't SEE it, and it was in SCI-FI books for 40 years before being "Discovered" by you, then you're making things up. Just like the guys that WROTE the ORIGINAL books about black holes.
 

Finshaggy

Well-Known Member
Are you kidding? Look at the comments on that video, even everyone there calls that guy an idiot. When half of the likes are "dislikes"................... Granted I hear you wanting to call me out on that reasoning not being scientific, but its social science, ya? :)
Who CARES about the comments. Did you WATCH...Did you SEE how people PUSSY FOOT around black hole shit...It's all speculation, and "he said, she said"
 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
Stephen Crothers is unique in his belief that Special relativity forbids anything at all about density. The video is pure tin-hat stuff, made extra annoying with its blatant propaganda devices aimed at an actual physicist. cn
 
Top