• We are currently experiencing technical difficulties. We sincerely apologize for the inconvenience.

All Things Space

mmartian said:
I may be wrong , but doesnt Hawking state that radiation can be omitted from black holes
Click to expand...

Well yeah, but how does the radiation not get drawn back in? Radiation seems to ignore gravity, space and time? Because the theory is that those three laws are what's broken or warped past the event horizon, which is what that radiation is escaping from.
 
Drytoast said:
If everything started in the same place, and the travelled away from where it used to be, away from everything else...should that leave a very obvious void which would indicated the centre?

If we can predict the path of galaxies mixing forward it should lead us to predict where they were.

I guess I still look at the Big Bang as an explosion, which sent how they say you should look at it as. But that's the rub. It all starts from a singularity, a single point. Where was that point?
Click to expand...

how can we know? how far can we look? is the big bang theory accurate?

if we are going to acknowledge the big bang as fact then we have to understand under said theory we will never be able to look that far ( in both time and space)

maybe as far as we can understand we are just observing or theorizing our little spot in the universe and no further.
 
KOQ24 said:
Then you havent looked hard enough


M87 galaxy in the Virgo cluster (Supermassive Black Hole at its Center)
777px-ESO-M87.jpg


Hubble
750px-Hubble_follows_spiral_flow_of_black-hole-powered_jet.jpg


Hubble
574px-M87_jet.jpg


X-ray
632px-M87_Super-Volcano.jpg
Click to expand...

To say that those links are conclusive observational evidence is frankly, bullshit. Those are images at vast distances that could be interpreted numerous ways. That is a scientist looking for blackholes and applying what they are trying to find to an image.

There is still no observational data of anything ever going into a black hole, so we'll keep waiting together not believe in something that hasn't been observed...unless that is your thing.

and not to be a total dick, but that "hubble" titled image you posted looks more like a lens flare than anything, how did someone derive "black hole" from that?
 
Drytoast said:
Well yeah, but how does the radiation not get drawn back in? Radiation seems to ignore gravity, space and time? Because the theory is that those three laws are what's broken or warped past the event horizon, which is what that radiation is escaping from.
Click to expand...

we really don't know how radiation reacts to space and time only that it is possibly one of the most common factors facilitating the universe.

some models performed at Cern shows radiation is capable of accelerating beyond the speed of light. this changes our whole understanding of space/time and what radioactive particles can achieve.
 
mmartian said:
how can we know? how far can we look? is the big bang theory accurate?

if we are going to acknowledge the big bang as fact then we have to understand under said theory we will never be able to look that far ( in both time and space)

maybe as far as we can understand we are just observing or theorizing our little spot in the universe and no further.
Click to expand...

I've honestly came to the same conclusion. They say that mathematically speaking, the odds of there being an identically you out there is probable. That matter would eventually recreate you. That if you travelled in any direction long enough, you would eventually run into yourself.

Of course the amount of distance you would need to travel, added with the problem of accelerated expansions means you would never get there.

Christ.
 
andnowweknow said:
none of that is conclusive evidence my good man. To say that those links are conclusive observational evidence is frankly, bullshit. Those are images at vast distances that could be interpreted numerous ways.
Click to expand...

while I don't fully contest the Black Hole , this is my idea as well.
 
Drytoast said:
I've honestly came to the same conclusion. They say that mathematically speaking, the odds of there being an identically you out there is probable. That matter would eventually recreate you. That if you travelled in any direction long enough, you would eventually run into yourself.

Of course the amount of distance you would need to travel, added with the problem of accelerated expansions means you would never get there.

Christ.
Click to expand...

lol. the multiverse theory contends that every version of you has already lived or will live in every state imaginable








or some shit
 
mmartian said:
lol. the multiverse theory contends that every version of you has already lived or will live in every state imaginable








or some shit
Click to expand...

Somewhere out there, there is a dry toast who posts on Sherdog by day, yet is batman at night, fighting crime. I'd like to meet that version of myself, buy him a beer.
 
Drytoast said:
Somewhere out there, there is a dry toast who posts on Sherdog by day, yet is batman at night, fighting crime. I'd like to meet that version of myself, buy him a beer.
Click to expand...

he may be a beer, that sherdog posts on and where night turns to batman


?



goodnight
 
andnowweknow said:
To say that those links are conclusive observational evidence is frankly, bullshit. Those are images at vast distances that could be interpreted numerous ways. That is a scientist looking for blackholes and applying what they are trying to find to an image.

There is still no observational data of anything ever going into a black hole, so we'll keep waiting together not believe in something that hasn't been observed...unless that is your thing.

and not to be a total dick, but that "hubble" titled image you posted looks more like a lens flare than anything, how did someone derive "black hole" from that?
Click to expand...

well youre a dick,you do nothing other than spewing bullshit in order to post your faux-science in Ancient Aliens Threads.

werent you also the guy with the "Moon is a giant spacecraft" and "We are living in a bi-solar system" Threads :icon_chee

youre ridiculous
 
Drytoast said:
Somewhere out there, there is a dry toast who posts on Sherdog by day, yet is batman at night, fighting crime. I'd like to meet that version of myself, buy him a beer.
Click to expand...

You know, there may not be another drytoast anywhere in this universe, or in others, if others even exist.
 
Gene Tunney said:
You know, there may not be another drytoast anywhere in this universe, or in others, if others even exist.
Click to expand...
personally, I don't think other universes exist, but what that fuck do i know.

cool thought though.
 
mmartian said:
of course, even Einsteins theory if relativity has been denounced by the scientific community due to neutrino acceleration shown in testable models at in the LHC, and that theory was the basis of astrophysics for the better part of a century.

thats the beauty of science. as it stands almost nothing is absolute
Click to expand...

What? No it hasnt. If youre referring to neutrinos breaking the speed of light, that didnt happen, they screwed up a calculation.
 
KOQ24 said:
Hes not bothered by this shit and if hes confronted with something that doesnt fit his BS,he shoots it down with "well,i cant know til i see it with my own eyes,therefore i believe my BS"


found 1 of his
http://forums.sherdog.com/forums/f48/great-year-we-living-binary-star-system-2530593/
Click to expand...

yeah, hes a bit of an eccentric and he was for sure bullied by jocks, ( jerseys are for real men) but he has an uncanny ability to articulately his point regardless if it makes sense or not
 
KOQ24 said:
well youre a dick,you do nothing other than spewing bullshit in order to post your faux-science in Ancient Aliens Threads.

werent you also the guy with the "Moon is a giant spacecraft" and "We are living in a bi-solar system" Threads :icon_chee

youre ridiculous
Click to expand...

don't project your fat kid aggression on me hoss.

Nothing I said in the Ancient Alien thread was "faux" anything.

No, I never said the moon was a spacecraft.

Yes, since the precession of the equinoxes has never been fully or unequivocally explained, but rather simply attributed clumsily to the sun because it's the most gravitationally relevant object (IE, it's big) in our direct sphere of influence, it's a reasonable theory to think we're locked in a long term orbit with another star...this isn't an irrational theory at all. In fact, if we were in a binary with another star, it would fit our observational data perfectly.

I think you don't think for yourself, that's what I think...not trying to be a dick:) And by the way, just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean you should call them names. It's rude.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,280,203
Messages
58,266,681
Members
175,988
Latest member
coconutwater21

Share this page

Back
Top