tyler.durden
Well-Known Member
My Meat Rocket has no limitations!Our reality is defined by magnetic repulsion of atomic surfaces. We experience, not reality, but a consensual based construct due to
the limitations of our meat rocket.
My Meat Rocket has no limitations!Our reality is defined by magnetic repulsion of atomic surfaces. We experience, not reality, but a consensual based construct due to
the limitations of our meat rocket.
I know that Mindphuk does...How many of us posting in here actually have a degree in physics or some form of science?
This is what NASA says.^^^^^^^^^^^^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
...I wonder how works of art are influenced by these types of discussions?How many of us posting in here actually have a degree in physics or some form of science?
Well, the right "artists" can create whole systems of science proving black holes and such, based on conversations like this. (Where people "Prove" them)...I wonder how works of art are influenced by these types of discussions?
Maybe you've heard of Fractals...........I wonder how works of art are influenced by these types of discussions?
...oui!Maybe you've heard of Fractals........
What do you define as a big time physicist?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.
...wow, for a second there I thought I was on the flipside of another kind of threadSaying because we cant "see" or "touch" a black hole that they dont exist is blasphemy.
Unfortunately not me, B.A. in Phil, minor in Sociology...How many of us posting in here actually have a degree in physics or some form of science?
Glad I was able to toss you that one!!My Meat Rocket has no limitations!
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.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.
You're accusing astrophysicists of argumentum ad populum? You really are an idiot.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.
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." Black holes cannot be observed directly and therefore cannot be 'discovered'. "
I'm not sure what your agenda is, whether you're trolling or just an idiot.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.
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...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.
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.
[video=youtube;A4GFAjX62Yg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4GFAjX62Yg[/video]
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?Start at 2 min or watch from the beginning.
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.
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"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?