All Things Space

[andnowweknow]

a. Take an example thread-Help me drill a hole in my wall. If a guy who had been doing carpentry work for the last 30 years of his life, and was an expert in the field came in and gave instructions on what to do, most would agree and say do what that guy says. But instead its a bunch of amateurs giving their opinion on something with no clear cut expert in the field commenting. You are the one guy with no carpentry experience disagreeing with the expert once he gives his instructions.

b. You dont understand the math. Physics is based on math. If you want to understand physics, you need to understand the math. Talking about physics isnt physics. Physics is in the math. If you dont understand the math, you dont understand the physics, and your opinion on the matter is irrelevant.

c. There is indirect observational data. You dont really understand that data. If you study it, and understand the math behind the theory, and then say this isnt enough data to more than reasonably believe theyre there, then your opinion will be taken seriously.

you totally skipped over all my points, misrepresented them, and commented on things completely ancillary to them.

Points a and b are irrelevant because I never contended against the math...at all. Point c I never disagreed with either, I just said there was no direct observational data, which you've agreed with, there is no reason to explain to me what I don't understand again, I never implied I did understand what you're implying I'm don't.

In order for positive proof or confirmation of something, you need to observe it directly, I never argued anything at all really, I just pointed that out...which seems to bother people for some reason. I don't know why people are so militant towards questions in general that go against the mainstream point of view. It's not very "scientific".

 

[andnowweknow]

i dont think you would witness something enter the black hole.

for instance, the shuttle would look as if it stopped right there because time would appear so slow to an observer.

everything will appear as if it is trapped at the door even though it had passed through.

so technical aspects of what would actually happen aside, we'll have to observe what you say or something along those lines in order to confirm this, correct...and wouldn't observing this be sort of a problem for our current reality?

 

[dirtypablo]

you totally skipped over all my points, misrepresented them, and commented on things completely ancillary to them.

Points a and b are irrelevant because I never contended against the math...at all. Point c I never disagreed with either, I just said there was no direct observational data, which you've agreed with, there is no reason to explain to me what I don't understand again, I never implied I did understand what you're implying I'm don't.

In order for positive proof or confirmation of something, you need to observe it directly, I never argued anything at all really, I just pointed that out...which seems to bother people for some reason. I don't know why people are so militant towards questions in general that go against the mainstream point of view. It's not very "scientific".

There will never be direct observable evidence of a black hole. If you understood black holes, you would know that.

People are against questions when the questions are irrelevant. If you want to question a theory, you should actually understand it first.

 

[random nerd]

so technical aspects of what would actually happen aside, we'll have to observe what you say or something along those lines in order to confirm this, correct...and wouldn't observing this be sort of a problem for our current reality?

for the time being i am sure the distance to our blackhole is too far for us.
if you google black hole in the milky way there is a wiki section on it.

the most easily understood evidence of a black hole is celestial bodies in orbit in a place where the mass doesnt add up.

basically, you have all these bodies in motions that dont make sense with the viewable mass available.

and there is evidence of gases and other shit spewing from a black hole that couldnt swallow the mass of a star in a timely manner.
the gravitational pull is so strong it yanks everything in but it cant consume all of it at once.

lastly - just youtube michio kaku and watch all of his videos 100 times each. some of them are tough to understand but it is all there.

 

[andnowweknow]

There will never be direct observable evidence of a black hole. If you understood black holes, you would know that.

People are against questions when the questions are irrelevant. If you want to question a theory, you should actually understand it first.

oh how convenient you can't ever see observable proof..."TRUST ME" you say. Pfft. Creating rules to suit your physics shattering models.

I'm not stupid, I don't have a low IQ, you can stop telling me how much I don't understand the topic, I have a firm grasp on what I do and don't understand regarding black holes and advanced astrophysics.

Imagine if I were just harping on you being a complete sheep for accepting what you are told with no equivocations...which is what you're doing to a tee...and I was doing that over and over again despite your constant admissions of acting that way. That would be counterproductive, wouldn't it.

You saying my questions are irrelevant is the height of hypocrisy for someone claiming to "trust in science"...EVERY scientist who studies this will tell you that the problem, THE MAIN problem with Black Holes, is that is can't or hasn't been observed (btw, "can't" and "haven't" are not consensus either way)

 

[andnowweknow]

for the time being i am sure the distance to our blackhole is too far for us.
if you google black hole in the milky way there is a wiki section on it.

the most easily understood evidence of a black hole is celestial bodies in orbit in a place where the mass doesnt add up.

basically, you have all these bodies in motions that dont make sense with the viewable mass available.

and there is evidence of gases and other shit spewing from a black hole that couldnt swallow the mass of a star in a timely manner.
the gravitational pull is so strong it yanks everything in but it cant consume all of it at once.

lastly - just youtube michio kaku and watch all of his videos 100 times each. some of them are tough to understand but it is all there.

thanks for the direction, very useful post.

I have a philosophical question someone or yourself might want to tackle:

Do you think science is capable of explaining things, if true, like "The Big Bang", "Dark Matter" and "Black Holes" in their entirety? Clearly not with our current understanding as there is an "Answer" to every question, but the one I pose is, does the answer lie within what we currently call "science", or perhaps another "branch" of science that is deep in scope we haven't got a grasp on?

Tough question, but interesting.

 

[Drytoast]

oh how convenient you can't ever see observable proof..."TRUST ME" you say. Pfft. Creating rules to suit your physics shattering models.

I'm not stupid, I don't have a low IQ, you can stop telling me how much I don't understand the topic, I have a firm grasp on what I do and don't understand regarding black holes and advanced astrophysics.

Imagine if I were just harping on you being a complete sheep for accepting what you are told with no equivocations...which is what you're doing to a tee...and I was doing that over and over again despite your constant admissions of acting that way. That would be counterproductive, wouldn't it.

You saying my questions are irrelevant is the height of hypocrisy for someone claiming to "trust in science"...EVERY scientist who studies this will tell you that the problem, THE MAIN problem with Black Holes, is that is can't or hasn't been observed (btw, "can't" and "haven't" are not consensus either way)

What he's saying by no observable evidence, it means you won't see anything go into the black hole...you will see evidence of everything reacting TO the black hole.

You will never see the black hole. And this is because light escapes it.

Unless by some off chance you had a light source directly behind the black hole, you would then see the reaction of the light bending around it. But then that's still not SEEING the black hole, that's only seeing the void it is creating.

 

[andnowweknow]

What he's saying by now observable evidence, it means you won't see anything go into the black hole...you will see evidence of everything reacting TO the black hole.

You will never see the black hole. And this is because light escapes it.

Unless by some off chance you had a light source directly behind the black hole, you would then see the reaction of the light bending around it. But then that's still not SEEING the black hole, that's only seeing the void it is creating.

Ok, we're getting somewhere. He's just picking apart what I'm saying and dismissing it. Thanks for explaining his point a little.

So, theoretically, what would you see if you were at a safe distance from what you know to be a black hole if an object was being pulled into it or near it...? There has to be some description of what is seen, the matter involved either disappears, changes form, etc...

 

[dirtypablo]

Ok, we're getting somewhere. He's just picking apart what I'm saying and dismissing it. Thanks for explaining his point a little.

So, theoretically, what would you see if you were at a safe distance from what you know to be a black hole if an object was being pulled into it or near it...? There has to be some description of what is seen, the matter involved either disappears, changes form, etc...

Something like this

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/swift/bursts/devoured-star.html

 

[random nerd]

i think the big bang has been mostly answered.

look up cosmic background radiation, penrose and wilson. they won the nobel prize for that.

things like dark matter, dark energy, and blackholes will be understood more completely.
just a few years ago in the 1920's we thought there was only one galaxy.

now a little while later it is all but certain there is life outside of earth. quite the paradigm shift.

 

[Drytoast]

Ok, we're getting somewhere. He's just picking apart what I'm saying and dismissing it. Thanks for explaining his point a little.

So, theoretically, what would you see if you were at a safe distance from what you know to be a black hole if an object was being pulled into it or near it...? There has to be some description of what is seen, the matter involved either disappears, changes form, etc...

This is the same method they use to detect planets orbiting distant starts. Things would wobble slightly like a weight thrower in the Olympics. So when you read an article that proclaims they have found another Earth like planet, it's because they have witnessed the star it is orbiting "wobble". Planets generally do not emit much light that an observer can look at. And even if they did, it would get drown out by the light of that planet's Sun. With the right calculations however, they can determine the size and distance such a planet would be from that star(sun). If it's in the 'Goldilocks zone', it's deemed to be earth like.



So when two large masses enter orbit of each other, they generally "wobble". If the wobble is drastic enough, (so drastic that it cannot be caused by a planet), then the only other explanation is a black hole. Because if it were another star(sun), you would see sun.

Planetary observers noticed near the center of our own galaxy, planets were traveling at insane speeds. And not only that, they were all "whipping" around the center of a dark spot, a void. As in...no light to represent a large star.



Either something very VERY large had to be there to cause such a gravitational force, or it was a black hole. If it was a star of some kind, again...observers would see it. But because they don't see anything there, it's pretty certain that it has to be a black hole causing that insane gravitational force.

As for why you would never see anything "fall" into the black hole, it is because light cannot escape it. Light that would need to be emitted from the black hole that had bounced off the object that would now be past the event horizon to your eyeball, could never make that journey.

Things that go into the black hole, theoretically, would look frozen for a moment and then would suddenly vanish.

All this is information, without ever having the ability to see the black hole...only the effects it has on objects near it.

 

[andnowweknow]

This is the same method they use to detect planets orbiting distant starts. Things would wobble slightly like a weight thrower in the olympics. So when you read an article that procalims they have found another earth like planet, it's because they have whitnessed the star it is orbiting "wobble". Planets generally do not emit much light that an observer can look at. And even if they did, it would get drown out by the light of that planet's Sun. With the right calculations, they can determine the size and distance such a planet would be from that star(sun). If it's in the goldeylock zone, it's deemed to be earth like.



So when two large masses enter orbit of eachother, they generally "wobble". If the wobble is drastic enough, (so drastic that it cannot be caused by a planet), then the only other explanation is a black hole. Because if it was another star(sun), you would see sun.

Planetary observes noticed that the near the center of our own galaxy, planets were traveling at insane speeds. And not only that, they were all "whipping" around the center of a dark spot, a void. As in...no light to represent a large star.



Either something very VERY large had to be there to cause such a gravitational force, or it was a black hole. If it was a star of some kind, again...observers would see it. But because they don't see anything there, it's pretty certain that it has to be a black hole causeing that insane gravitational force.

As for why you would never see anything "fall" into the black hole, is because light cannot escape it. Light that would need to be emitted from the black hole that had bounced off the object that would now be past the event horrizon, then to your eyeball could never make that journey.

Things that go into the black hole, theoretically, would look frozen for a moment, and then would suddenly vanish.

All this is information, without every having the ability to see the black hole...only the effects it has on objects near it.

I have heard of the wobble method of detection as well as the watching for the periodic dimming of the star.

Baller post BTW.

 

[Drytoast]

I have heard of the wobble method of detection as well as the watching for the periodic dimming of the star.

Baller post BTW.

I'm surprised anyone could understand it. I wrote it while drinking scotch, and just noticed the amazing amount of spelling mistakes in it.

 

[andnowweknow]

I'm surprised anyone could understand it. I wrote it while drinking scotch, and just noticed the amazing amount of spelling mistakes in it.

U were cordial so mistakes are allowed.

 

[Fatchops]

 

[Roxxo]

Something I wonder about is just what the hell happened to all this dust:

http://io9.com/5923648/why-did-all-...round-this-star-disappear-in-only-three-years

They find that star surrounded with dust in 1983, look at it again 20 years later and the dust is still there, look again 3 years later and all the dust is gone. The fuck? The theories they came up with are 1.) Planets can form really, really fast. Much faster than they thought possible. 2.) Stellar wind pushed all the dust away really, really quickly. 3.) The star got hungry and ate all the dust, again really, really quickly.

 

[seatea]

My beef with black holes...

They say light can't even escape its gravitational pull. That nothing can. However, multiple photos claimed to be super massive black holes show case two emitters emitting radiation from the black hole.

How does that work?

Light is only trapped if it passes the event horizon. IIRC the emissions come from the accretion disc being heated by the forces generated by the black hole.

 

[seatea]

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.

Wat?

 

[seatea]

Any word on what cause The Bootes Void or what is inside that big emptiness. Is there dark matter there. Can we send a probe there to collect stuff there.

According to wiki--it's not completely empty, it's outside our galaxy (so no sending a probe) and no one is sure what caused it. Apparently there are other voids, but Bootes is the biggest yet seen.

 

[ssdd]

Big news today, an explanation (and discovery?) of wormholes, that also explains gravity. I'm still trying to comprehend this I'm not at all familiar with general relativity or anything beyond basic physics

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131205142218.htm