Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > Why the universe isn't a black hole      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 gingerosity
Joined: 12/10/2011
Msg: 26
view profile
History
Why the universe isn't a black holePage 2 of 5    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5)

With all of your knowledge, maybe you can answer a simple question relating to black holes. What is gravity?

You think I dismiss pseudoscience because I think my knowledge is vast? No, I dismiss it because it rejects the only reliable method of obtaining knowledge about reality that we have.

What is gravity? Go read the mountain of peer-reviewed published research into it and let us know the state of current theory.

i take pride in this statement, but you forgot to mention funchesf who is leader of the nonsensical

I almost did, but would have had to change my wording so it was listing those who may be interested in all kinds of nonsense instead of just internet pseudoscience. Funchesf is only interested in movie pseudoscience, so unless there is an episode of Startrek that is about androids dreaming of electric universes... there is no point talking to him about it.
 Yule_liquor
Joined: 12/7/2011
Msg: 27
Why the universe isn't a black hole
Posted: 6/4/2016 8:49:25 PM
^


Go read the mountain of peer-reviewed published research


Man, pull your head outta your arse
Do you think that "peer reviewed" research is the sine-qua-non for what is deemed to be legit in research?
and who was "peer reviewing" Einstein when he came up with relativity?

anybody can do a "peer review" and stick their (respective) 2 cents in the ring in either direction(depending of what the interests of that peer-reviewing body happens to be at a given point in time).

Its very well seen in the field of Medicine, where new "fads" get peer reviewed all the time, and are given the figurative "stamps of approval" by the minions (some of whom fall victim to confirmation biases along the way) ; until such time that someone stumbles onto something serendipitously that blows that certain hypothesis right outta the water; and such is the case that often happens in all disciplines.

Until you can prove (or disprove) something experimentally {if that is even do-able}, any possibility remains "on the table"!
 gingerosity
Joined: 12/10/2011
Msg: 28
view profile
History
Why the universe isn't a black hole
Posted: 6/4/2016 8:58:45 PM

and who was "peer reviewing" Einstein when he came up with relativity?

Relativity was published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Are you helping make my point for a reason? I thought you might prefer to talk about the electric universe with him.
 Yule_liquor
Joined: 12/7/2011
Msg: 29
Why the universe isn't a black hole
Posted: 6/4/2016 9:16:20 PM
^

My point went right over your head!
Who exactly was Einstein's peer at the time he put forth his theory, as most physicists didn't even know WTF he was talking about? The closest perhaps was max Planck (if that!), and how many years did it all take to be reveiwed & published and how many years after did he win the Nobel; and what had to be done in order for that to happen!

The man asked you a question; and that was "what is gravity". You either know the answer or you don't. If you don't know then just say it, instead of flippantly giving your "usual" non-answers and deriding others to make yourself sound intelligent!
 gingerosity
Joined: 12/10/2011
Msg: 30
view profile
History
Why the universe isn't a black hole
Posted: 6/4/2016 9:31:19 PM

The man asked you a question; and that was "what is gravity". You either know the answer or you don't.

Do you know what a false dichotomy is?
 Yule_liquor
Joined: 12/7/2011
Msg: 31
Why the universe isn't a black hole
Posted: 6/4/2016 10:52:34 PM
^ saying this ignores the notion that you can still provide a reply as to why there might not be an answer to the question he posed; instead you diverted him towards reading "peer reviewed" research; as though that is in some way gonna be more informative.
 gingerosity
Joined: 12/10/2011
Msg: 32
view profile
History
Why the universe isn't a black hole
Posted: 6/4/2016 11:00:11 PM

^ saying this ignores the notion that you can still provide a reply as to why there might not be an answer to the question he posed; instead you diverted him towards reading "peer reviewed" research; as though that is in some way gonna be more informative.

Well I'm glad we sorted that out.

In the meantime he has started a thread on gravity and received truly inspired answers from kidreason that I could never hope to surpass.
 kidreason29
Joined: 9/25/2015
Msg: 33
Why the universe isn't a black hole
Posted: 6/5/2016 2:43:37 AM

Well I'm glad we sorted that out.

In the meantime he has started a thread on gravity and received truly inspired answers from kidreason that I could never hope to surpass.


it's ok to be wrong and to know it, and to have your own opinions, etc instead to always go off of what the top mister scientist says, or what everyone else agrees upon, it would seem to be that one couldn't formulate a creative thought on his own, like a robot that follows a algorithm that never changes, which seems to be a religion on its own.
 gingerosity
Joined: 12/10/2011
Msg: 34
view profile
History
Why the universe isn't a black hole
Posted: 6/5/2016 4:03:56 AM
I don't have an issue with honest speculations, and I got a good laugh from your second answer in that thread. It may not have been your intention, but I thought it was a deep answer that spoke to the game being played. If they want to cut off civilization's best method of attaining knowledge and sew it back on I reserve the right to laugh at the absurdity.

Anyway if they want to speculate they should go right ahead. I already suggested they discuss their ideas, but they don't seem too interested in them.
 kidreason29
Joined: 9/25/2015
Msg: 35
Why the universe isn't a black hole
Posted: 6/5/2016 4:22:31 AM
a speculation should always be considered incorrect. the game being played is there is no correct answer but could you come up with one without quoting a scientist or linking to an article
 skinnybarncat2
Joined: 5/24/2016
Msg: 36
Why the universe isn't a black hole
Posted: 6/5/2016 5:36:57 AM
"No, I dismiss it because it rejects the only reliable method of obtaining knowledge about reality that we have."

Well, you side stepped my question about gravity, which I must assume you know about as much as me.

Scientific method? Yes. Ad hoc explanations to a fortify a falsified hypothesis, no.

So, I lean toward "pseudo-science" and you support "nonsense science". I supplied a huge volume of data and information for you to look at when you asked me for it. Guess it was a wasted effort on my part to attempt to communicate a hypothesis that really does have scientific method to support it. Are you really so narrow minded that you can't look outside your current understanding? I used to accept nonsense science before being given arguments to discredit it.

I have an ancient HS education and some military electronics training, plus some things that I have picked up along the way. So, I assume that I should defer to you on many things.

False dichotomy ? No, what is it? Educate me....(:
 kidreason29
Joined: 9/25/2015
Msg: 37
Why the universe isn't a black hole
Posted: 6/5/2016 12:31:39 PM
a black hole is negative area
 Yule_liquor
Joined: 12/7/2011
Msg: 38
Why the universe isn't a black hole
Posted: 6/5/2016 4:41:20 PM
Last year, studies from the LHC revealed that they were finally able to (indirectly) detect the Higgs boson.
The results of the study were "peer reviewed" and all were in agreement. As far as I know; no such experiment was ever repeated at the LHC or anywhere else by a separate team of scientists; yet everyone seems to now be in agreement that the Higgs Boson truly exists.

Unexplained gravitational effects in intergalactic space now are ascribed to the effects of Dark Matter. So far, there hasn't been a shred of evidence that the stuff exists (the Germanium plate experiment still in progress); yet a large cohort of scientists, seem convinced that it is present; presumably because they "feel" it should exist (which is what one usually comes to conclude when starting from the "end" and work backwards to "shoe-horn" it in) But hey, if the studies have been "peer reviewed" then its all okay!

 gingerosity
Joined: 12/10/2011
Msg: 39
view profile
History
Why the universe isn't a black hole
Posted: 6/6/2016 3:59:25 AM

Well, you side stepped my question about gravity

Yes, I did. Do you know why? Becuase you want to argue about it and I don't. I'm not interested in hearing from you that the alternative to dark matter may be that our understanding of gravity is incomplete (or 'wrong' *gasp*), because I already know this as do the physicists working on it and pretty much everyone in the world with a passing interest in science. It is not a problem. General relativity remains the best formulation for the phenomenon unless and until something that better fits the evidence replaces it, just as it replaced Newtonian gravity.

I supplied a huge volume of data and information for you to look at when you asked me for it. Guess it was a wasted effort on my part to attempt to communicate a hypothesis that really does have scientific method to support it. Are you really so narrow minded that you can't look outside your current understanding?

Have you ever heard the phrase 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'? You provided a link to some website with videos and blog posts in order to overturn the black hole proposition that has been analysed for decades with umpteen peer-reviewed research papers. If it is making scientific claims that run counter to the literature and isn't peer-reviewed I'm not interested. That may be an issue for you as it is for Yule, but that's not my problem. Life is short and peer-review helps cut out the crap... which I'm sure you'll agree has grown exponentially since the internet caught on.

False dichotomy ? No, what is it? Educate me....(:

www.google.com
Once you have copied and pasted that into your browser you will get a page with a blank field in which to enter the words 'false dichotomy'. Then you can educate yourself.

In regards to my usage of it, Yule's assertion that you either know something or you don't in black and white terms runs directly counter to the scientific method. No-one who understands it would ever agree to 'knowing' anything in such a way. It implies complete and certain - absolute - truth. All knowledge is a shade of grey in science. Getting someone to agree or respond to that false dichotomy is likely to be followed by an attempt to make out that lack of complete knowledge is complete lack of knowldge, or similar nonsense. Fallacies are the most common way to start manipulating arguments and people - to play games. I find such games tedious and immoral, so I am unapologetically terse when I perceive them.

The question 'what is gravity', in combination with ready access to the internet and declarations of falsified hypotheses without peer-reviewed sources can only mean that you are not simply curious but want to play another game. Hence my direction to the literature, because I am not interested in playing.
 skinnybarncat2
Joined: 5/24/2016
Msg: 40
Why the universe isn't a black hole
Posted: 6/6/2016 6:55:21 AM
If I provided the wrong link, then I am sorry.


Becuase you want to argue about it and I don't.


That is a conclusion of yours that is incorrect. You seem very thin skinned and defensive.

I was under the impression that this is a science forum and those participating would respond in a more scientific way.
You sound more like a "high priest" of all knowledge. Regardless of what nonsense is proposed, one can find others to agree with it; peer reviewed. Remember, the Earth was once considered flat. You tout peer review, many do not.
I understand that you are operating as your indoctrination compels you to. If you were secure in your ideology, why so defensive? Most of what we all think we know is in error, and I agree that the scientific method, if applied honestly, or Natural Philosophy, which stood us in good stead for many centuries, is the way to come closer to what is reality.

There is evidence that standard theory science is corrupt. Would you care to review that evidence?
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/04/fake_peer_review_scientific_journals_publish_fraudulent_plagiarized_or_nonsense.html

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/The_Corruption_of_Science.php

Or do you continue to ignore evidence and learned opinion and remain in the cult of arrogance.

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-folly-of-scientism

Argument is part of science. You provide little valid argument, just smug assertions of being right in your narrow perspective. You have been well indoctrinated!

http://www.zengardner.com/7-things-ridiculed-science-said-true/?print=print

In conclusion: Peer review and citations is a game that is played by those who want to keep their grants or job, and all those outside of that either lose their job and their grants , and are black balled, or they remain ignored by those unwilling to show courage.

The black hole forming mechanism is pure speculation and the math supporting it is flawed!
https://www.libertariannews.org/2011/03/17/epic-black-hole-dispute-between-scientists/

http://vixra.org/author/stephen_j_crothers
 Yule_liquor
Joined: 12/7/2011
Msg: 41
Why the universe isn't a black hole
Posted: 6/6/2016 7:53:33 PM
#49



Yule's assertion that you either know something or you don't in black and white terms runs directly counter to the scientific method. No-one who understands it would ever agree to 'knowing' anything in such a way. It implies complete and certain - absolute - truth


Does it now?
Its funny that when I alluded to the very same notion (about a year ago or so); you repudiated me harshly; and then told me to find "plato's cave" and bang my head against the walls. It must be that you miraculously acquired a great deal of wisdom since that time; or perhaps its just intellectual hypocrisy on your part (I would bet on the latter). Only your bartender knows for sure!

But since you now seem to admit that having full knowledge of "anything" would imply that we'd have fore-knowledge of "absolute truth"; and since we don't, this would compel you to accept that the "axioms" upon which the many theorems & hypotheses currently accepted could be flawed! Yet you maintain that the "peer review" method cuts out "crap" (I'm not sure what interests get served by determining what is crap and what isn't), when the methodology is anchored by the same potentially flawed set of axioms.

Having said this, now let me digress back to the matter of "peer reviews" of Einstein's theory of R; The theory wasn't widely embraced initially on the basis of "peer reviews" but rather on the fact that much of it is subject to empiric verification (even to this day, that is being done..Ie: gravity waves.... which Einstein himself did not believe in) which has allowed for it to have many practical applications.

The issue here is whether something is known or not; and if it isn't known then what are the limitations that prevent us from knowing it. Anything apart from this is indeed crap!
 gingerosity
Joined: 12/10/2011
Msg: 42
view profile
History
Why the universe isn't a black hole
Posted: 6/7/2016 3:51:04 AM

Its funny that when I alluded to the very same notion (about a year ago or so); you repudiated me harshly; and then told me to find "plato's cave" and bang my head against the walls.

That is pretty funny. Although I don't know about the harsh bit - that doesn't sound like me at all, but I admit it is sometimes hard to hear myself with my head up here. Are you sure your internet harshness filter is installed properly? Auto-updates set?

Did you read the next bit where I said that attempting to respond is:
"likely to be followed by an attempt to make out that lack of complete knowledge is complete lack of knowledge, or similar nonsense"?

How do you think the analogy of Plato's cave might relate to that statement?

But since you now seem to admit that having full knowledge of "anything" would imply that we'd have fore-knowledge of "absolute truth"; and since we don't, this would compel you to accept that the "axioms" upon which the many theorems & hypotheses currently accepted could be flawed!

And by "axioms" you mean... the logical construct in which the scientific method operates? So because of newfangled fuzzy-quantum-hippie logic, when I let go of this rock it might not fall, but might instead turn into an invisible pink unicorn? Gee, I guess I never thought of that.

But wait, don't you know that if you want to argue against logic using logic the universe will implode? And that the act of debating entails acceptance of propositional calculus or else colorless green ideas sleep furiously and why did a rock just crush my foot? Do all Popperian positivists hop around and scrunch up their red faces this much when interacting with this thing we call matter?

A scientist might study the records of known and potential risks and conclude that according to the available evidence of the reality we observe, the probability of the world ending overnight is vanishingly small. People banging their heads against the wall of Plato's cave might assert... You Can't Know That - Anything Might Be Possibile! To which the scientist might enquire whether or not the Platonist had any understanding of probability, or failing that whether they wanted to sell any real estate cheaply since the end is potentially nigh.

Yet you maintain that the "peer review" method cuts out "crap" (I'm not sure what interests get served by determining what is crap and what isn't), when the methodology is anchored by the same potentially flawed set of axioms.

It doesn't seem to work at all for forum posts, but otherwise it is quite helpful.

Having said this, now let me digress back to the matter of "peer reviews" of Einstein's theory of R; The theory wasn't widely embraced initially on the basis of "peer reviews" but rather on the fact that much of it is subject to empiric verification (even to this day, that is being done..Ie: gravity waves.... which Einstein himself did not believe in) which has allowed for it to have many practical applications.

And...? You think I think peer-reviewed automatically means widely embraced? I already explained it is a filter - a starting point for beginning to take and examine something seriously. It says 'this is not likely to be complete rubbish because several people who are unconnected with it but who understand the contents have checked it as far as possible and can't find any major flaws'.

The issue here is whether something is known or not; and if it isn't known then what are the limitations that prevent us from knowing it.

What are the limitations that prevent us from knowing the unknown? As far as I can tell, the definition of 'unknown' is our big problem. I suggest we get to work on redefining it immediately so that within a few short minutes there will be no more unknowns. Otherwise we may have to admit that stupid apes do the best we can with the intellectual tools we have.
 skinnybarncat2
Joined: 5/24/2016
Msg: 43
Why the universe isn't a black hole
Posted: 6/7/2016 7:13:40 AM

And...? You think I think peer-reviewed automatically means widely embraced? I already explained it is a filter - a starting point for beginning to take and examine something seriously. It says 'this is not likely to be complete rubbish because several people who are unconnected with it but who understand the contents have checked it as far as possible and can't find any major flaws'.


True...but all too often peer review means the priests of a cult examine, using their beliefs.

I agree with those who say new evidence is not examined honestly. I see that here in a so called science forum. Have seen it in other so called science forums. Quick to call anything outside of their narrow understanding pseudoscience.

I also would call a major flaw in standard model a falsification of the theory!
 OTTO BONN
Joined: 4/20/2006
Msg: 44
Why the Universe Isn't a Black Hole
Posted: 6/7/2016 5:28:49 PM
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/?s=Black+hole

Stephen J. Crothers is just another one of those hacks trying to sell books to those who believe in things like perpetual motion machines, a hollow Earth and Lizard Men piloting the Spaceship Moon transmitting the Moon Matrix into our brains. And just like the wack-jobs on Coast to Coast AM, all he really cares about is making money from book sales and his fifteen minutes of fame.
 Yule_liquor
Joined: 12/7/2011
Msg: 45
Why the universe isn't a black hole
Posted: 6/7/2016 9:16:55 PM
#52


Did you read the next bit where I said that attempting to respond is:
"likely to be followed by an attempt to make out that lack of complete knowledge is complete lack of knowledge, or similar nonsense"?


it depends on how you define "knowledge"! You can have knowledge (within your paradigm of thought) and not have the truth. Thus, having an incomplete knowledge base might not necessarily bring you any closer to the truth, than having no knowledge at all.


And by "axioms" you mean... the logical construct in which the scientific method operates? So because of newfangled fuzzy-quantum-hippie logic, when I let go of this rock it might not fall,


If you ascribe that we do not know absolute truths; then you opened the door for the remote possibility that the rock you are talking about (under the right set of circumstances) might not indeed fall; however far fetched that may sound.


You Can't Know That - Anything Might Be Possibile! To which the scientist might enquire whether or not the Platonist had any understanding of probability,


asserting what is probable can be influenced by many factors. By what axioms does one come to understand what is most probable and what isn't? If you come across an unconscious person laying on the ground in the woods with a bump on the head; there are many ways by which that could have happened:
A tree branch fell and struck the person in the head, knocking him out; OR, He tripped and fell, and then struck his head right where the bump is, and passed out; etc.. etc!
Determining what most probably happened can often be skewed by the examiner's perceptions, outlook, and his past experiences on his thought processes. The same goes for "peer reviewing"!


people who are unconnected with it but who understand the contents have checked it as far as possible


How is it determined whether the reviewer really "understands the contents"or not?
when Newton's principia was getting "peer reviewed" did they all understand the "contents" or was it that the filters were too lax


What are the limitations that prevent us from knowing the unknown?


The uncertain probability by which something hitherto unknowable can be known


As far as I can tell, the definition of 'unknown' is our big problem.


As far as I could tell, the definition of "unknown" is very likely to be YOUR own problem.
 kidreason29
Joined: 9/25/2015
Msg: 46
Why the universe isn't a black hole
Posted: 6/8/2016 1:44:39 AM
There are known unknowns, and then there are unknown unknowns.

Just as a fish in the water doesn't know it is underwater until it is able to differentiate between is and is not water. The first step to knowing something is we must be able to differentiate it as a thing, otherwise it is a unknown unknown.
 skinnybarncat2
Joined: 5/24/2016
Msg: 47
Why the universe isn't a black hole
Posted: 6/8/2016 3:37:50 AM

Stephen J. Crothers is just another one of those hacks trying to sell books to those who believe in things like perpetual motion machines, a hollow Earth and Lizard Men piloting the Spaceship Moon transmitting the Moon Matrix into our brains. And just like the wack-jobs on Coast to Coast AM, all he really cares about is making money from book sales and his fifteen minutes of fame.


Very scientific! So, what kind of hack are you. Your book won't sell?! Jealous?! Your rant indicates a very confused mind.! Care to focus, if you can, on logical argument?!

kid-:

There are known unknowns, and then there are unknown unknowns.

Just as a fish in the water doesn't know it is underwater until it is able to differentiate between is and is not water. The first step to knowing something is we must be able to differentiate it as a thing, otherwise it is a unknown unknown.


Sorry, your attempt at humor or intelligent comment fails again. Or was it like imaginary intelligence?
 skinnybarncat2
Joined: 5/24/2016
Msg: 48
Why the universe isn't a black hole
Posted: 6/8/2016 3:58:36 AM

BLACK HOLES: THE LEGACY OF HILBERT’S ERROR

LEONARD S. ABRAMS

Abstract. The historical postulates for the point mass are shown to
be satisfied by an infinity of space-times, differing as to the limiting
acceleration of a radially approaching test particle. Taking this limit
to be infinite gives Schwarzschild’s result, which for a point mass at
x = y = z = 0 has C(0+) = α2, where α = 2m and C(r) denotes the co-efficient
of the angular terms in the polar form of the metric. Hilbert’s
derivation used the variable r∗ = [C(r)]1/2 , which transforms the co-
ordinate location of the point mass to r∗0 = [C(0+)]1/2.
. For Hilbert, however, C was unknown, and thus could not be used to determine r∗0.
Instead he asserted, in effect, that r∗= (x2+ y2+ z2)1/2, which places
the point mass at r∗= 0. Unfortunately, this differs from the value (α)
obtained by substituting Schwarzschild’s C into the expression for r∗0,
and since C(0+) is a scalar invariant, it follows that Hilbert’s assertion
is invalid. Owing to this error, in each spatial section of Hilbert’s space-
time, the boundary (r∗ = α) corresponding to r = 0 is no longer a point,
but a two-sphere. This renders his space-time analytically extendible,
and as shown by Kruskal and Fronsdal, its maximal extension contains
a black hole. Thus the Kruskal-Fronsdal black hole is merely an artifact
of Hilbert’s error.



Not so difficult to understand! "-black hole is merely an artifact
of Hilbert’s error."

Thus, those who continue to religiously believe in black holes are in error. An error, much like a black hole, difficult to escape from, and unable to see out of. And the swirling imaginary matter into it, appears to disorient and confuse....(;
 kidreason29
Joined: 9/25/2015
Msg: 49
Why the universe isn't a black hole
Posted: 6/8/2016 4:21:57 AM

Sorry, your attempt at humor or intelligent comment fails again. Or was it like imaginary intelligence?


Nothing but null statements again. If you disagree that to understand anything you must recognize it as a thing then you fail to understand basic logic.
 skinnybarncat2
Joined: 5/24/2016
Msg: 50
Why the universe isn't a black hole
Posted: 6/8/2016 6:15:13 AM
Is that what you were trying to communicate?!!!

Why didn't you say so?

Have you found anyone who can understand your obtuse language?
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > Why the universe isn't a black hole