Black Holes

[caelmap]

Ok, so assuming I have done my research properly, a black hole sucks in matter, pulverizes it, and uses it as energy to expand. It is made up of an event horizon, and a singularity. Since all of the black holes that have been studied have event horizons, which appear to bend time and slow it down, no one (really) has any idea what goes on once matter reaches the singularity. So, theoretically, the purpose of the event horizon could be to slow down matter flow to allow the forces within the black hole to break it down before it reaches the singularity, could it not? Given that wormholes theoretically speed up time within them without altering the matter within them, they could be used as time-travel devices. If a wormhole were placed inside an event horizon, instead of a singularity (though perhaps not possible), could the two items cancel each other as to time change, and then be used for travel of great distances in short amounts of time?
:confused:
Oh, and I know this probably sounds foolish, but I am just trying to learn...

[Epsilon=One]

Oh, and I know this probably sounds foolish, but I am just trying to learn...

I can assure you that black holes only exist in the minds of Pomo theoretical physicists.

They are the result of, primarily Hawking, overextending the limits of GR beyond anything that Einstein ever could have envisioned. Several years ago, while visting Caltech, Hawking disavowed (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3897989.stm) his mathematics that led him to black holes.

The only way that black holes will remain a valid concept is if their definition is changed . . . as was done with neutrinos; just in time for Fred Reines (http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/1995/reines-autobio.html) to become a laureate.

Those that believe in black holes, also, usually, believe in the Big Bang . . . and, probably, the resurrection of a mortal man.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Ok, so assuming I have done my research properly, a black hole sucks in matter, pulverizes it, and uses it as energy to expand. It is made up of an event horizon, and a singularity. Since all of the black holes that have been studied have event horizons, which appear to bend time and slow it down, no one (really) has any idea what goes on once matter reaches the singularity. So, theoretically, the purpose of the event horizon could be to slow down matter flow to allow the forces within the black hole to break it down before it reaches the singularity, could it not? Given that wormholes theoretically speed up time within them without altering the matter within them, they could be used as time-travel devices. If a wormhole were placed inside an event horizon, instead of a singularity (though perhaps not possible), could the two items cancel each other as to time change, and then be used for travel of great distances in short amounts of time?
:confused:
Oh, and I know this probably sounds foolish, but I am just trying to learn...
Sorry for the emboldening of your words, just that, crossing the event horizon of a Black hole, the Speed of any particle doing that would exceed the speed of light, as it is KNOWN that light does NOT escape from the regions of Space where it is (and Has been) Observed that there is an acting "Object" that is Not seen (Visibly) as the space it occupies is Void of Emissions of Light.

They have captured on Video an object (star) falling into one of those regions of space, (recently) as it's prior 'periodicity of Orbit' Vanished.

(Means they had observed the Star Circling a Place in Space where it would disappear, and re-appear, based upon the Timing of it going around whatever {the Black Hole} is causeing the Voiding of Light emissions, in that area/region of space, then they saw it cease to do that, re-appear anymore, so it is Seen/concluded that it must have fallen into the 'Black Hole' in space that is "Known" to be there. How is that known? when looking at that region of space, they know that the stars that should appear behind an area, do not show untill that 'area' moves out from in front of the Direct pathway of those stars' light)

Any other questions? Does that help or do you need a 'Better yet' explanation? :cool:

(P.S. Don't mind the other poster, he has his own opinions, and strong convictions, that don't seem to follow most of what is Current opinion in current Science....nice enough person though, just strongly voiced)

[Epsilon=One]

Oh, and I know this probably sounds foolish, but I am just trying to learn...Nothing could be more noble. However, you must be careful, that while learning, that you are not misled by those that don’t know whereof they speak. Concerning black holes, this would include almost all Pomo theoretical physicists and many elite astrophysicists.

…crossing the event horizon of a Black hole, the Speed of any particle doing that would exceed the speed of light, as it is KNOWN that light does NOT escape from the regions of Space where it is (and Has been) Observed that there is an acting "Object" that is Not seen (Visibly) as the space it occupies is Void of Emissions of Light.

…it must have fallen into the 'Black Hole' in space that is "Known" to be there. How is that known? when looking at that region of space, they know that the stars that should appear behind an area, do not show untill that 'area' moves out from in front of the Direct pathway of those stars' light)

Any other questions? Does that help or do you need a 'Better yet' explanation?The above explanation is both specious and moot; as, black holes, despite the popular media, have not been proven to exist. They are only theoretical. (See my prior post.)

(P.S. Don't mind the other poster, he has his own opinions, and strong convictions, that don't seem to follow most of what is Current opinion in current ScienceThe opinions of “the other poster” are close to those of Stephen Hawking’s opinions, who, for all practical purposes “invented” the “Black Hole” by extending GR and SR beyond their limits, which he is now aware.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

(SNIP) The above explanation is both specious and moot; as, black holes, despite the popular media, have not been proven to exist. They are only theoretical. (See my prior post.) (SNoP)

Apparently Photographic Evidence isn't enough for this poster, neither is Video enough evidence for this poster, apparently the Hubble space telescope shots, the Various and Sundry other Galactic Viewing Devices that have, in recent History, (last twenty Years) Shown as demonstrable evidence the Existence of Places in Space where the theorized Black Holes required Viewing Crtieria Exists Plain as Day.

"caelmap" Just keep going, you will find the answers that You are willing to believe in, best way, only way.

There is more as proof of the Existence of "Something" that causes all space to be emptied of Light, just that, because it can empty space of "All light" (EMR) ingoing and/or outgoing, we cannot 'see' it, (Visually) but we can see it's effects on Space! and on all of the Space around it!

[Epsilon=One]

Apparently Photographic Evidence isn't enough for this poster, neither is Video enough evidence for this poster, apparently the Hubble space telescope shots, the Various and Sundry other Galactic Viewing Devices that have, in recent History, (last twenty Years) Shown as demonstrable evidence the Existence of Places in Space where the theorized Black Holes required Viewing Crtieria Exists Plain as Day.All such "evidence" is misinterpretation of data.

Just as the theory of black holes at the center of galaxies is now known to be false. Central galactic black holes were proposed as a requirement for explaining the force that holds the stars within the galaxiies. After careful data interpretation of the motion of the stars, it is now found that the force must be a "compressive" force from outside the galaxies.

All other presumed observations of black holes can be equally explained with other theories.

Most theoretical physicists and astrophysicists have skewed their data interpretaion by extending theoretical mathematics beyond its limits; or, by misinterpreting forces because of errors that ultimately go back to the fallacious Big Bang.

"caelmap" Just keep going, you will find the answers that You are willing to believe in, best way, only way.Be wary of any theoretical concepts that are promoted by anyone that doesn't understand the internal geometry of a light wave or the fundamental etiology of gravitational phenomena.

There is more as proof of the Existence of "Something" that causes all space to be emptied of Light, just that, because it can empty space of "All light" (EMR) ingoing and/or outgoing, we cannot 'see' it, (Visually) but we can see it's effects on Space! and on all of the Space around it!These comments are ludicrous. Any assertive discussion of this nature requires being able to theoretically unify the fundamental forces.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMV

12:33 PM 11/14/2005

All such "evidence" is misinterpretation of data.
Just as the theory of black holes at the center of galaxies is now known to be false. Central galactic black holes were proposed as a requirement for explaining the force that holds the stars within the galaxiies. After careful data interpretation of the motion of the stars, it is now found that the force must be a "compressive" force from outside the galaxies.
All other presumed observations of black holes can be equally explained with other theories.
Most theoretical physicists and astrophysicists have skewed their data interpretaion by extending theoretical mathematics beyond its limits; or, by misinterpreting forces because of errors that ultimately go back to the fallacious Big Bang.
Be wary of any theoretical concepts that are promoted by anyone that doesn't understand the internal geometry of a light wave or the fundamental etiology of gravitational phenomena.
These comments are ludicrous. Any assertive discussion of this nature requires being able to theoretically unify the fundamental forces.

Why don't you post some evidence (even a reference to some would be nice) rather then just blithering on about how you don't believe it.

You seem to just write off years of work, and evidence as compiled by Many people working at it, in the Field....and you offer Nothing in reurn as to show how what you say has any validity, heck even so little as theoretical viability.

Also no wonder why no one else seems to be willing to post (or Join) much, in these forums, as the very first encounter most have, is You, as the 'Raging Bear' of all Knowledge, forcefully going against all of Mainstream.

What is there that is Discusable (The Purpose of a DICSUSSION forum) when you seem to be the only person whose opinion you respect?

You, by your last statement, miss......widely (& Wildly) and broadly.

(SNIP) If a wormhole were placed inside an event horizon, instead of a singularity (though perhaps not possible), could the two items cancel each other as to time change, and then be used for travel of great distances in short amounts of time? (SNoP)

BTW caelmap, to your actual question, most likely not, because, as you say, "Not possible"

[Epsilon=One]

Why don't you post some evidence (even a reference to some would be nice) rather then just blithering on about how you don't believe it.Note the doubt, disagreement, and use of the term theory at the following reference:

The Galactic Center
http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/Bima/GalCntr.html (http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/Bima/GalCntr.html)

You seem to just write off years of work, and evidence as compiled by Many people working at it, in the Field....and you offer Nothing in reurn as to show how what you say has any validity, heck even so little as theoretical viability.It is not difficult "to just write off years of work, and evidence" when the work proposes nothing but theory; and, those proposing said theory have no explanation for the enigmatic forces that power the Universe. These are the same people who have given us the ludicrous Big Bang theory; except, with black holes, their most persuasive "inventer," Stephen Hawkings has disavowed much of his math that led him to the "discovery" of his phantasmal holes.

Also no wonder why no one else seems to be willing to post (or Join) much, in these forums, as the very first encounter most have, is You, as the 'Raging Bear' of all Knowledge, forcefully going against all of Mainstream.Maybe I would not be so outraged if any one standard model "of Mainstream" was internally reconcilable or reconcilable with any other standard model . . . or just reconcilable with careful scientific observation.

What is there that is Discusable (The Purpose of a DICSUSSION forum) when you seem to be the only person whose opinion you respect?My position has evolved because of my "respect" for many giants of Science, Theology, and Philosophy. Many are found at the beginning of my posts that I dedicate the post to in acknowledgement of their wisdom.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMV

3:51 PM 15/11/2005

So for your evidence, you provide someone else's statement that there could be another possible explaination, nothing to dispute there, except that there is some evidence that that isn't really following the evidence currently available.

This piece directly taken from a Google search page; (Search = 'Black Holes')

Originally Taken from the from the results page of a Google search of the words, Black Holes

Howstuffworks "How Black Holes Work"
Astronomers announced this week that they have solid evidence of a black hole swallowing up a star. Yep -- <i>swallowing a star</i>.
science.howstuffworks.com/black-hole.htm - 33k - 13 Nov 2005 - Cached - Similar pages

but no references to that on the pages that that links to, but as I have admitted to before, I have seen the video (on TV) of that one, impressive! it IS!

Plus these two references #1Cambridge (http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/bh_home.html) and #2 Berkley (http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/BHfaq.html) Both of which admit, in as straight forward a fashion as possible, the realistic nature of the evidence that is available.

You have offered nothing to counter it other then the suggestion that there might be an alternate reason, somehting anyone with a Brain should/could/would have figured out.

Then again, see you reveal yourself, if you truly had wished to help the Original Poster you would have choosen to go after the "Worm Hole" idea/aspect as that one is the truly ONLY theoretical Notion that they posited in thier question.

What you really want is an audience to your asserted opinons that go against what you call "POMO Elitists" which is in no way going to assist that original poster with anything to do with the Question posed.

Take note as well, the manner of the Posters asking of the Question strikes similarily to a "China Shop" inasmuch as it appears as a fragile approach recognizant of it's own un-certainty of the worthyness of it's being posed, in the first place, and you enter, like the proverbial "Bull in the China shop" thrashing/smashin/bashing away at everything in site, as to ensure, what? that that poster may never return? in fear of another thrashing, simply for having asked a reasonbly good question.?

How does any of that help anyone? other then yourself?

P.S. I have noticed that of the few who have ventured to enlist on this site, Most seem to encounter you, as first respondant, and, seemingly few return......don't you wonder why?

PP.SS. if Dr. A. Einstein is one of those Giants you seem to respect, well, on/in one of those two references I have linked it is clearly mentioned that Black Holes were predicted By Dr. A Einstien's Work, Hawkings work thereafter was on pertubation theory at the edges of the Event Horizon, hence it's thereafter gained popularity.

[Epsilon=One]

514 111805You have offered nothing…other then the suggestion that there might be an alternate reason, somehting anyone with a Brain should/could/would have figured out.You have made my point. Such caveats should have been offered with your diatribe and scientific drivel. An open mind to alternate theory, when the original is flawed with metaphysical postulates, is a wonderful thing.

Then again, see you reveal yourself, if you truly had wished to help the Original Poster you would have choosen to go after the "Worm Hole" idea/aspect as that one is the truly ONLY theoretical Notion that they posited in thier question.My intent was to stimulate thought and questions to aid in an open mind arriving at its independent conclusion.

What you really want is an audience to your asserted opinons that go against what you call "POMO Elitists" which is in no way going to assist that original poster with anything to do with the Question posed.I don’t believe that you should be speaking for others. Let them make this argument.

Take note as well, the manner of the Posters asking of the Question strikes similarily to a "China Shop" inasmuch as it appears as a fragile approach recognizant of it's own un-certainty of the worthyness of it's being posed, in the first place, and you enter, like the proverbial "Bull in the China shop" thrashing/smashin/bashing away at everything in site, as to ensure, what? that that poster may never return? in fear of another thrashing, simply for having asked a reasonbly good question.?Again, you cannot assume the attitude of others. Some times a bit of flair is required to attract attention to a countervailing thought. I respect the wisdom of anyone that asks questions. I do not respect those that offer answers without the proper caveats, observations, or philosophic logic.

It must be stated that all theories concerning black holes are based upon models that are internally irreconcilable, irreconcilable with one another, and counter to philosophic logic and much observation.

How does any of that help anyone? other then yourself?This must be answered by others. The question should be: Has anyone been stimulated to think beyond the metaphysics that is offered by the post-modern, elite theoretical physicist?

P.S. I have noticed that of the few who have ventured to enlist on this site, Most seem to encounter you, as first respondant, and, seemingly few return......don't you wonder why?Yes, I do wonder why. I hope that my arguments are clear and persuasive. I do note that those that do somewhat concur, generally, seem to possess open minds, which minds, by their comments, seem to be quite active.

PP.SS. if Dr. A. Einstein is one of those Giants you seem to respect, well, on/in one of those two references I have linked it is clearly mentioned that Black Holes were predicted By Dr. A Einstien's Work, Hawkings work thereafter was on pertubation theory at the edges of the Event Horizon, hence it's thereafter gained popularity.Einstein more than any other person was well aware of the fallacies and hidden errors within his theories. He never indicated otherwise. Hawking has also come to the same conclusions concerning the theories of physics and mathematics that predicted black holes.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMV

(AKA "Where's the Beef?")

You have made my point. Such caveats should have been offered with your diatribe and scientific drivel. An open mind to alternate theory, when the original is flawed with metaphysical postulates, is a wonderful thing.
Again with that "Drivel" comment talk about condescension, and derision.

So please tell me how what you tried to do, in any manner, or form, attempted to repsond to the Posters Obvious Question?

You Claim you wished to 'stimulate a Mind' but as far as the evidence shows, A "No Show" for returning to this thread, all you succeeded at doing was scaring them away....isn't that obvious to you? too?

My intent was to stimulate thought and questions to aid in an open mind arriving at its independent conclusion.
Cleary then it was NOT your intent to attempt to answer the Posters question, but to Forcefully, and forceably, promote your own Point of view at any, and all, opportunity, and cost. Sad.

I don’t believe that you should be speaking for others. Let them make this argument.
How in the world do you arrive at the Conclusion that I am "speaking for another??" I spoke only for myself, based upon observing your style, and manner, towards this thread, and, responding to a Poster, whom we should BOTH notice has Yet to return, or respond. Your Waaaaaay off on that one.

Again, you cannot assume the attitude of others. Some times a bit of flair is required to attract attention to a countervailing thought. I respect the wisdom of anyone that asks questions. I do not respect those that offer answers without the proper caveats, observations, or philosophic logic.
I did not assume anything, what you call "flair" appears more (to me) as "oppresive forcefullness", not "inviting discourse" or "Flair"

It must be stated that all theories concerning black holes are based upon models that are internally irreconcilable, irreconcilable with one another, and counter to philosophic logic and much observation.
Again, lots of words, NO PROOF. Counter to what Observations please, show some proofs/evidence ...please.

This must be answered by others. The question should be: Has anyone been stimulated to think beyond the metaphysics that is offered by the post-modern, elite theoretical physicist?
Hows about I am one of those "others" which is why I had POSED that question, in that first place. Aside from which, you are now arriving at telling others what questions they should ask, Kinda Grossly Assumptive aren't you?

Yes, I do wonder why. I hope that my arguments are clear and persuasive. I do note that those that do somewhat concur, generally, seem to possess open minds, which minds, by their comments, seem to be quite active. Oh one of those, "Everyone who agrees with me, is smart, everyone who does NOT agree with me, is misled" a Fallacy of self agrandisment if I have ever heard one....sad that you would behave in that manner, at your age, and Clear level of Intelligence, and knowledge.

Einstein more than any other person was well aware of the fallacies and hidden errors within his theories. He never indicated otherwise. Hawking has also come to the same conclusions concerning the theories of physics and mathematics that predicted black holes. to quote you; "Again, you cannot assume the attitude of others." follow your own practises of expressed belief, do you? ...apparently not, as you seem to think Dr. Einstien was aware of 'fallicies' and 'errors' in his theories but you offer no Proof of that, no evidence of HIM having Stated that, nothing but your use of his name.

As for Hawking, well got any references, or notes, or proof, of what you assert, without proof?

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

I can assure you that black holes only exist in the minds of Pomo theoretical physicists.
They are the result of, primarily Hawking, overextending the limits of GR beyond anything that Einstein ever could have envisioned. Several years ago, while visting Caltech, Hawking disavowed (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3897989.stm) his mathematics that led him to black holes.
The only way that black holes will remain a valid concept is if their definition is changed . . . as was done with neutrinos; just in time for Fred Reines (http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/1995/reines-autobio.html) to become a laureate.
Those that believe in black holes, also, usually, believe in the Big Bang . . . and, probably, the resurrection of a mortal man.
So I bothered to go to that link you have inserted in this post of yours, this one http: //news.bbc. co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3897989. stm (Spaced to stop 'autocomp use) the one you have linked up under Hawking disavowed

And this is an Excerpt from the bottom of the page which BTW if read tells that Hawking has NOT "disavowed' (The existence of) Black Holes but has disavowed his Conclusion that Black Holes release NO INFORMATION
Originally Linked from BBC News
Professor Hawking's new black holes never completely destroy everything that falls in. Instead, they continue to emit radiation for extended periods, and eventually open up to reveal the information within them.

"I have been thinking about this problem for 30 years, but I now have an answer to it," he explained.

"The black hole only appears to form but later opens up and releases information about what fell in, so we can be sure of the past and we can predict the future."

The U-turn could cost Professor Hawking an encyclopaedia. He and theoretical physicist Kip Thorne, of the California Institute of Technology, made a bet on the subject with an opponent of the idea, John Preskill, also of Caltech.

Hawking and Thorne are expected to present Preskill with an encyclopaedia of his choice.

So your Link PROVES your assertion as Wrong....Go Figure

You are a Very Intelligent Man, Knowledgeable, and you could be of so much more assistance, to this forum, to Many people, and Dr. E too....if Only you would present your opinons as such, and be willing to cover the 'other side' too, (those who think Black Holes are real, for instance, just as I am willing to Admit to the Possibility of there being "another explaination") as this is the Side most 'General Public' 'Science interested' people follow....and you could be helping so many more, if only........

Hope you can/could 'tone it down' just a little, help! before you follow your desire to try to discredit all "POMO Elitists" and 'Current thought' in Mainstream Science.

It would be kinda difficult to swallow that ALL of those people (Mainstream) Are wrong about everything....as you come across (to Me at least) in your 'tellings' (posts).

O.K.? (No derison/condescencion/abuse intended, it is a Q-U-E-S-T-I-O-N!)

[Epsilon=One]

514 111805Hawking has NOT "disavowed' (The existence of) Black Holes but has disavowed his Conclusion that Black Holes release NO INFORMATIONThus, Hawking has entirely changed his definition of a black hole without changing the name. You are discussing two different concepts. (This procedure is much the same as occurred with the “neutrino” that made possible Fred Reines Nobel Prize.) When I refer to black hole, I am referring to the original concept, which is what is connoted to most persons, with the term “black hole.” Notwithstanding your insight, I stand on my statements regarding black holes (along with many other academic elites with similar positions),


So your Link PROVES your assertion as Wrong....Go Figure"figure" I have; and, I politely disagree with your conclusion.

…you could be of so much more assistance, to this forum, to Many people, and Dr. E too....if Only you would present your opinons as such, and be willing to cover the 'other side' too, (those who think Black Holes are real, for instance,I have no doubt that my opinions are recognized as such. My goal is to stimulate alternative thought, because all knowledgeable persons are aware that the current state of pomo theoretical physics is founded, entirely, upon metaphysics, which must be adjusted if progress is to continue toward happiness. The current state of affairs leads to the present miasma of controlling cults. The mind functions best when unimpressed.

… I am willing to Admit to the Possibility of there being "another explaination")It appears that a modicum of success has been achieved. My original purpose has been fulfilled.

…you could be helping so many more, if only........Finish your thought. If it is: I agreed with the “mainstream”; my reply is: To be a fool is one thing; to speak what one does not believe is quite another thing.

Hope you can/could 'tone it down' just a little, help! before you follow your desire to try to discredit all "POMO Elitists" and 'Current thought' in Mainstream Science.It is difficult not to be unemotional when it is realized that all such thought is based upon the “voodoo” of metaphysics. Secular faith is more harmful than religious faith because it is insidious to the unwitting psyche of those that are exposed and unarmed with reason.

It would be kinda difficult to swallow that ALL of those people (Mainstream) Are wrong about everything....as you come across (to Me at least) in your 'tellings' (posts).They are not “wrong about everything”; however, they are wrong concerning all the fundamental postulates . . . which progresses to being wrong concerning most conclusions; but worse, their theories leave standing untold paradoxes and enigmas that opens many minds to the evil of cults.

O.K.? (No derison/condescencion/abuse intended, it is a Q-U-E-S-T-I-O-N!)Call it what you may. A rose is a rose, is a rose . . .

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMV

514 111805Thus, Hawking has entirely changed his definition of a black hole without changing the name. You are discussing two different concepts. (This procedure is much the same as occurred with the “neutrino” that made possible Fred Reines Nobel Prize.) When I refer to black hole, I am referring to the original concept, which is what is connoted to most persons, with the term “black hole.” Notwithstanding your insight, I stand on my statements regarding black holes (along with many other academic elites with similar positions),
HUH??? Ya can't read? Eyesight giving you problems again? He has NOT "changed the definition of a Black Hole" he simply admitted that his math concerning event Horizon Occurances isn't a Viable as He had Originally thought, YIKES you reach new heights in Missing FACTS.


"figure" I have; and, I politely disagree with your conclusion. Disagree all you want, it is as Plain as day.

I have no doubt that my opinions are recognized as such. My goal is to stimulate alternative thought, because all knowledgeable persons are aware that the current state of pomo theoretical physics is founded, entirely, upon metaphysics, which must be adjusted if progress is to continue toward happiness. The current state of affairs leads to the present miasma of controlling cults. The mind functions best when unimpressed.
Well I think that in respect of this, well, whatever you have made here ("weird" springs to mind) as a statement, I should dis-continue this, lest that, whatever seemingly has infested your mind transfers to mine.


It appears that a modicum of success has been achieved. My original purpose has been fulfilled. Lets see, from about the Age of Five, My MOM was teaching me to look at the Other persons point of View, the Other side, the Other alternatives, yet here you are trying to TAKE CREDIT for what MY MOM DID! FOURTY FOUR YEARS AGO!

Do the words ARROGANT, SELF-INFLATED, AND/OR SELF-ASSUMPTIVE ever Fit your Character Beautifully, and by YOUR REVELATION.

HOOOOOWHEEEEEEEEE.......

Finish your thought. If it is: I agreed with the “mainstream”; my reply is: To be a fool is one thing; to speak what one does not believe is quite another thing. AHA! here you are (again!!) doing exactly what you have accused me of doing, "talking for you" as you are, CLEARLY, trying to TALK FOR ME! See yourself yet?

It is difficult not to be unemotional when it is realized that all such thought is based upon the “voodoo” of metaphysics. Secular faith is more harmful than religious faith because it is insidious to the unwitting psyche of those that are exposed and unarmed with reason. Won't even bother because your ranting is becoming obvious to everyone I suspect

They are not “wrong about everything”; however, they are wrong concerning all the fundamental postulates . . . which progresses to being wrong concerning most conclusions; but worse, their theories leave standing untold paradoxes and enigmas that opens many minds to the evil of cults. "Wrong Concerning ALL the Fundamental Postulates" Ya Bud You are saying that they are ALL WRONG


Call it what you may. A rose is a rose, is a rose . . . Yup, and an Old Flatulate still reeks like any other given Newer flatulance.....

BYE!

[Epsilon=One]

546 111905 532 111805(Hawking)…has NOT "changed the definition of a Black Hole" he simply admitted that his math concerning event Horizon Occurances isn't a Viable as He had Originally thought, YIKES you reach new heights in Missing FACTS.I can’t imagine how the concept of the original black hole can be changed more than by changing the effects that it has on escaping/destroying information. This is the concept that is the very meaning of a black hole.

Disagree all you want, it is as Plain as day.On this point we are in agreement.

I should dis-continue this, lest that, whatever seemingly has infested your mind transfers to mine.Not a very likely probability.

Lets see, from about the Age of Five, My MOM was teaching me to look at the Other persons point of View, the Other side, the Other alternatives, yet here you are trying to TAKE CREDIT for what MY MOM DID! FOURTY FOUR YEARS AGO!I much admire your Mom’s effort. Listen to your Mom; she is wise.

Do the words ARROGANT, SELF-INFLATED, AND/OR SELF-ASSUMPTIVE ever Fit your Character Beautifully, and by YOUR REVELATION.By now I should be well aware of these character traits. Your reminding me seems endless.

HOOOOOWHEEEEEEEEE.......
AHA! here you are (again!!) doing exactly what you have accused me of doing, "talking for you" as you are, CLEARLY, trying to TALK FOR ME! See yourself yet?Apparently you didn’t notice the “if.”

"Wrong Concerning ALL the Fundamental Postulates" Ya Bud You are saying that they are ALL WRONGYes!!!; concerning the fundamentals, and, by extension, the derived conclusions,

Yup, and an Old Flatulate still reeks like any other given Newer flatulance.....

BYE!That's one way of stating my position concerning your condescending “O.K.s”; sorta, like the following “BYE!”

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Posted here (http://physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?p=967#post967) MY responce to you

[Epsilon=One]

Posted here (http://physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?p=967#post967) MY responce to youAnd, my reply to you: "Click" here for: "If only one can be true, most likely they are all false." (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=239&page=2&pp=10).

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

.....don't bother responding.....Please.

[ed van der meulen]

We have also our own brain. Don't you have that.

What do you believe? The sciences are in termoil now. Mathematics as well.

Cosmology surely. And what do we know for sure.

Niels Bohr said the whole is more that the sum of the parts.

Albert Einstein didn't believe in the mathematical formula of fields.

Do you know in physical terms what a field is? I know the mathematical formulae. But what is it physical.

The experiment --- I will hit a field with a probing photon. The field stretched out maybe enormously and suddenly a particle shows up. Very located.

Can you explain that to me, please?.

The Heisenberg uncertainty, quite big for a quark and that a statistical field? Statistical? For statistcs we need a "mass" to form it. And that for a quark? Where is that underlying "mass".

Did you hear from Henri Jules Poincaré. Do you know of the tides ebb and flood.

Why isn't this known bij cosmologist. Please telll it them.

Easy to read.

http://nnw.berlios.de/docs.php/poincare0/noflash

Please explain me those things.

Or a photon a particle? With no speed no mass as well. What kind of particle that is.

You have to explain me alot about physics. And I don't stop with putting serious questions.

Have a splendid day

ed van der meulen

[Epsilon=One]

What do you believe? The sciences are in termoil now. Mathematics as well.

Cosmology surely.I agree

Albert Einstein didn't believe in the mathematical formula of fields.

Do you know in physical terms what a field is? I know the mathematical formulae. But what is it physical.Fields are contrived as used in modern physics. See Taisoids (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=102) and Tini Circle Groups (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=159) for a heuristic view of fields.

Can you explain that to me, please?. ...Please explain me those things.

Or a photon a particle? With no speed no mass as well. What kind of particle that is.

You have to explain me alot about physics. And I don't stop with putting serious questions.See Pulsoid Theory (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=63). You should find the answers to your questions. If not, continue to ask questions.

[ed van der meulen]

Great, I thank you, Epsilon. I am Ed.

Modern physics are showing measurements. We INTERPRET them and make theories. The things that aren't striking. that live too short, to notice, those details we leave. And we later can miss them in our model. The measurements are telling more then.


Look when you are boiling oil for frying potato chips for instance.

Then you see first that bubbles are arising. Like noise we could say. Then many chances and then a small light shines on the surface of the oil. And I see white lines running from the center to the edge. The center is not in the middle and the lines hurry and with a lot of irregularities.

Measurement show noise and we can hardly deal with noise. But noise is also realistic.

Measurtements are always with margins. Not indefinitely precise. The Heizenberg uncertainty is first a margin. Where are margins in your theories.

That is my way. Nature has nice surprises and bad accidents. Nature is contingent. You couldn't know what kind of answer I would post now. Can you predict the weather forecast. Are they stupid people. Please help them if you know better. Do you know of the Katrina disaster.

You can't know who you are meeting tomorow. Where does that uncertainty arise from? The quantum level. And we have already margins there.


Do you know Wolfram. Many examples he gave where a mathematician, like me, is fleeing.

Let's see the sea with waves. Order for sure. And a mathematician makes a model of it. Then the wind grows, and we see white heads on the top of the waves. Where? How? How big? And the mathematician says he distinguish types of phenomena. Already a lot of work. That it gets later. And we see the moon reflecting in the waves. It jumps over the waves. A bad thing for the mathematician but after some years he has a result. But in the mean time also all the stars were reflecting in those waves that also change by the wind and shores. Changing over the years. The environment is counting.

And by that time this mathematician has fled.

While we would like to tell him still. How romantic is this view. Could the mathematician also put that in his model?

The researcher is a part of the experiment. A druk or stoned researcher shows less results. A layman no result at all. A theoretical researcher is also a part of his theories. How can you escape that? We are in our time with our knowledge. Do you know everything? Is knowledge not located. You have knowledge and I as well but not the same. We have our own personal histories.

And so we make an orderly model. While we know all leaves are different. So sciences will stay. Some time ago we thought that the earth was flat as well. Not the experiment has lost. But always our theories. We can think everything. Much is thinkable. But the real world can awake us.

This is the famous layer view. Layers everywhere. In your own skin. In the air. The conduction layer in electronics. Layers on Mars. Layers in the population. Please look outside. And don't drown in your own theories. That isn't live. Some scientists have an own technical language, own periodicals, own clubs. And the are also forming layers. The New ERA likes to connect layers.

http://nnw.berlios.de/docs.php/intro-layr


Why is a theory right. Look at Popper who says falsify the theories and that I am doing also the quantum theories. I've started with the mathematical paradoxes. This is unexpected hanging a famous paradox.

http://nnw.berlios.de/docs.php/intro-uh1

I have a very theoretical education. I am a pure mathematician. And I say the positivistic view is form the 19 century and was a reason for the first world war. So a dangerous view as well. No, only the experiment decides. And we can always dream. Theories are only theories. Nothing more. And please don't hide behind certain theories. I neither hide behind mathematical theories. I like to be critical to my own subject as well.

I told about the field and the mathematical expression of then. Also the statistical Schröder equations. Statistical? In mathematics we know of statistics. You can nearly proof everything with it.

This is may statistics paper:

http://nnw.berlios.de/docs.php/intro-ftk5

And those physical theories are using statistics.

I am busy with the single particle and then keeping in touch seeing a group. A movie of a single chemical reaction. So avoiding the risks of statistics.

Don't you know the environment of a particle is important as well. And not only the particle.

What is a hot environment.

In chambers we see (indirectly) traces of particles in high energy experiments. What about the near misses. Not important? That is also environment. And the instrument grow more precise and we can measure more and more.

I am busy with inductive mathematics a tool for the sciences. The simulations. With only shifting. Not a mathematical formula at all.

Please google for - shifting everywhere. And try to deny that.

Have a nice day

ed

[ed van der meulen]

Hi Epsilon and others

Are your sure?

When a mass becomes so heavy that according Einstein's general relativity light can't escape anymore. And a nearby constellation feeds that now really black hole. And cosmolists see that indirectly with bending light from stars far behind that black hole. How can we deny that best Epsilon. Or a visible star spinning around a heavy body not showing any light. Too many scientists are talking about that. They aren't all mistaken.

And a black hole is no singularity as well. With violent spinning there are forces to keep a size. Singularities are coming out my mathematical subject. Please don't mix them up. Mathematics deals with ideal things. Physics is normal.

[J-man]

There has been much evidence that show black holes. One is the chandra observatory it is an x-ray telescope that has seen many objects emmiting xrays, which can only be explained by the fast exitment of particles being sucked in by black holes. Another thing is there are many stars orbiting and emmiting particles to some unknown object. And finaly black holes have to exist because that is the only thing a Supermassive star can become.Once its mass becomes so great that it can overcome the limits of the Paulini repulsion principle. Now on some info. No one can really say what happens inside a blackhole because the physics of gravity which we know (General reativity) is a classical theory(doesnt take into account uncertanty principle) therefore it is unknown how physics works in that space.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMV

"Un-certainty Principal" is only concerned with our ability to measure, the Matter/energy doesn't behave with knowledge, ergo it's behaviour is not uncertain, it is our ability to ascertain it behaviour, that is what is in question.

[Epsilon=One]

There has been much evidence that show black holes.I know of no such evidence that is decisive. Of course this depends upon your definition of a black hole amd your dependence upon General Relativity.

Simple heuristic equations that are far from complete, written when little cosmology was understood are not something to extend to “real world” theories such as black holes. Even Hawking when recent remarks are interpreted, now admits that such is folly.

Light is not affected by gravity. That something else can be contended when neither “force” can be defined other than metaphysically is ludicrous.

Black holes are understood as a “place,” large or small, where light and matter no longer exist. Such is ludicrous, especially if a principle of conservation is to be accepted. As with the origin of the similarly ludicrous Big Bang, What contains a black hole?

One is the chandra observatory it is an x-ray telescope that has seen many objects emmiting xrays, which can only be explained by the fast exitment of particles being sucked in by black holes.There are many other explanations.

Another thing is there are many stars orbiting and emmiting particles to some unknown object.There are many “unknown” objects that are “attracting” that are not black holes. One overwhelming example is “dark” matter; another, is the “Great Attractor” which is attracting clusters of galaxies. Also, what is ultimately, attracting all mass outward at an accelerating rate? And so on.

And finaly black holes have to exist because that is the only thing a Supermassive star can become.Not quite “the only thing.” All stars or their ash or their traumatic remnants can dissipate to the radiant energy that originally formed them in the same manner that all other mass eventually dissipates.

No one can really say what happens inside a blackhole because the physics of gravity which we know (General reativity) is a classical theory(doesnt take into account uncertanty principle) therefore it is unknown how physics works in that space.With this I can agree. And, if it is unknown “what happens inside a blackhole,” logic would seem to indicate that the black hole itself is just as unknown.

To believe in black holes is akin to believing the Big Bang can create acceleration. Sorta like believing that force is a function of mass and acceleration; then stating that light, as a photon, is a force.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMV

Leads in a "Braying ass" Oooooooops No room .....leads it back out again

:p No Doubt the earth is flat, :eek: too :p :eek: :D :rolleyes:

Even "those" have rights to opinons, I hear ......

[socratus]

1.
An absolutely black body is a hypothetical body that
completely absorbs all the radiation falling on it.
Physicists said: “No such body can exist.“
2.
Black hole, is a region of space which no radiation
can be run away from it.
3.
The Absolute Zero: T=0K is a region of space
in which the motion of radiation died.
4.
But Planck said that from absolutely black body
a quantum of light can radiate.
5.
But Hawking showed that black holes can emit radiation.
6.
And the quantum theory said that in Vacuum there is
“ virtual motion of particles” and they can radiate.
7.
Maybe absolutely black body and black holes are
only models of region of Absolute Zero space: T=0K.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

1.An absolutely black body is a hypothetical body that
completely absorbs all the radiation falling on it. Physicists said: “No such body can exist.“
2.Black hole, is a region of space which no radiation
can be run away from it.
3.The Absolute Zero: T=0K is a region of space
in which the motion of radiation died.
4.But Planck said that from absolutely black body
a quantum of light can radiate.
5.But Hawking showed that black holes can emit radiation.
6.And the quantum theory said that in Vacuum there is
“ virtual motion of particles” and they can radiate.
7.Maybe absolutely black body and black holes are
only models of region of Absolute Zero space: T=0K.

#3 The temp of/on the inside of the Black Holes' event Horizon 'is' (should be) - 1 K....

#5 Hawking showed that the Event Horizons interaction with the Fabric of space around it (Ether) Might have Some radient 'effect' occuring there...as a result of (or 'caused by') the very powerfully sliced space that the 'Event Horizon' actually represents...as, inside of that is gravities' activities/actions....and 'something' else....mass/matter/maybe....

Maybe Black Holes simply are not yet fully understood from a Point of View that Includes the Proper understanding of the Functioning of Gravity...

[Cerveny]

Bkack hole is a hole, a cavity in the ether...

[Epsilon=One]

Bkack hole is a hole, a cavity in the ether...You have no concept of what you speak.

Before you can define a black hole, which does not exist, you must prove its existence. Black holes are as mythological as the Big Bang.

They result from over extension of simplistic equations of general relativity; and, poor interpretation of observed data . . . and often just misunderstood "copycat" rationale.

[Cerveny]

Before you can define a black hole, which does not exist, you must prove its existence. Black holes are as mythological as the Big Bang.


Are you able to proof f.e. quarks?

[Epsilon=One]

Are you able to proof f.e. quarks?Quarks, or similar/analogous phenomena, can be rationalzed from many observations that are little disputed by knowlegable researchers and theorists. This is a standard much higher than black hole speculation. Google SUSY and QCD for more info; it is too voluminous to be much more specific.

[Cerveny]

Quarks, or similar/analogous phenomena, can be rationalzed?

Has been ever any quark observed?

[Epsilon=One]

Has been ever any quark observed?See my prior post, above.

There are many non-local phenomena that have been indirectly observed by observing their effects. Direct observation is limited to that which is relativistic; hyper-relativistic phenomena depends upon rationalization.

When was the last time a photon was observed . . . or gravity??? These phenomena differ from black holes and the Big Bang in that they are philosophically logical.

Rationalization with regards to physics phenomena has a stronger foundation than the faith required to rationalize religious figureheads.

The quark theory has many flaws; otherwise, it would not be a theory.

However, there is indisputable evidence that something analogous to what a quark connotes does exist.

[Cerveny]

I do not believe in “classical” black holes (endless singularities, endless falls) too, even because of vacuum granularity (ether). But I am able to imagine some intrinsic defect in such structure...

[Epsilon=One]

I do not believe in “classical” black holes (endless singularities, endless falls) too, even because of vacuum granularity (ether). But I am able to imagine some intrinsic defect in such structure...Good. Unfortunately, many think otherwise.

[Cerveny]

There are many non-local phenomena that have been indirectly observed by observing their effects.


Maybe Quarks problem would be solvable by special quantum numbers only...

[Epsilon=One]

Maybe Quarks problem would be solvable by special quantum numbers only...Quantum numbers are contrivances; not observations.

[Cerveny]

Quantum numbers are contrivances; not observations.
... quarks have been never seen...

[Epsilon=One]

... quarks have been never seen...You're stating the obvious. What's your point???

[Cerveny]

You're stating the obvious. What's your point???
I infirm quarks only, by the same way as you infirm black hole (- the vacuum opposite)

Do not be angry ;-)

[Epsilon=One]

I infirm quarks only, by the same way as you infirm black hole (- the vacuum opposite)

Do not be angry ;-)I am never angry when the argument is moving along.

I can find no rationalization for thinking there is such a physical manifestation as a "vacuum" as the term is usually connoted. This is only one reason that I can not imagine any confluence of physical manifestations that can create a Hawking black hole. Last I noticed, Hawking was in agreement with my position.

To date, I have never seen any data for the existence of a black hole that there hasn't been another explanation that would have more satisfied William of Ockham.

[bpj1138]

I find it funny how the hurd mentality in physics shapes what is and what isn't crackpot. Once the hurd embraces an idea, no matter how ridiculous, it then proceeds to call what was its own conservative view shortly before as crackpot. It is now radical to proclaim that black holes don't exist, which is the more conservative view!

I cannot think of the words to describe how ironic this is! If the tables were turned, and somebody told you there was something out there that sucked matter into oblivion thus violating conservation of energy and just about everything else and was also a point in space with no dimensions in what you know to be a 3D universe, and formed an "event horizon" around it (whatever that means), then you'd be calling them a crackpot! but now that enough people have signed onto this (in fear of not being a part of the hurd), it's the other way around! Now you are the crackpot!

I don't care what TV special you saw. Isn't there a more rational explanation?

If there is a point where matter cannot be compressed any more, (like a neutron star), then fine, it doesn't emit any light because there is no fusion, but it can continue to gather any amount of matter and grow, just like the "event horizon", so why jump to the conclusion that instead of just being a dense substance, it turns into a "singularity"? What possible reason is there to think that?

The reasons for this are always found in the politics of science. Once Einstein was chosen, his "spacetime" was accepted, which could "fold in on itself" (in 4D, I guess), and the math was taken literally to mean a singularity, with the "spacetime" still curved around it enough as to "trap light itself". The reasons are that mainstream science must invent, or perish, so it will invent at all cost, and somebody's inventions will be accepted as "the Truth", and everybody that doesn't believe "the Truth" is a crackpot. It must happen that way, otherwise people don't get paid and the whole circus can't continue, this is why there are "black holes".

--Bart

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVII

(SNIP) I don't care what TV special you saw. Isn't there a more rational explanation? Bart (SNoP)
As (I) can only assume that statement is in reference to me, it is HILARIOUS :D as the HURD (Herd) {as you call them} GO with the EVIDENCE, (know what that is/means?) and what was presented on television is a FORM OF EVIDENCE, AKA PROOF.

Of course you can always 'go with' whatever you would like, but be inventive, O.K.?

[bpj1138]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVII


As (I) can only assume that statement is in reference to me, it is HILARIOUS :D as the HURD (Herd) {as you call them} GO with the EVIDENCE, (know what that is/means?) and what was presented on television is a FORM OF EVIDENCE, AKA PROOF.

Of course you can always 'go with' whatever you would like, but be inventive, O.K.?

Thanks for correcting me.. I'm actually not a native speaker, or a good speller. I still like hurd, makes it more like turd. Sorry, that was too obvious to resist.. :D

[Epsilon=One]

...and what was presented on television is a FORM OF EVIDENCE, AKA PROOF.

Of course you can always 'go with' whatever you would like, but be inventive, O.K.?Such comments do not belong on this or any other serious forum.

There is no reason to appear as a nincompoop just because your rationality and slavishness is being questioned. Have you no respect for honest dialogue???

You could further the debate by fortifying your position or ask for more backup rather than expose your weakness.

[Epsilon=One]

It is always a pleasure to read your thoughtful insights. After more than fifty years of observing theoretical physicists, I still find it difficult to understand what you so clearly note.

Once the hurd embraces an idea, no matter how ridiculous, it then proceeds to call what was its own conservative view shortly before as crackpot.

… how ironic this is! If…there was something out there that sucked matter into oblivion thus violating conservation of energy and just about everything else and was also a point in space with no dimensions in what you know to be a 3D universe, and formed an "event horizon" around it (whatever that means)…now that enough people have signed onto this (in fear of not being a part of the hurd)… Now you are the crackpot!

I don't care what TV special you saw. Isn't there a more rational explanation?

If there is a point where matter cannot be compressed any more, (like a neutron star), then fine, it doesn't emit any light because there is no fusion…so why jump to the conclusion that instead of just being a dense substance, it turns into a "singularity"? What possible reason is there to think that?

The reasons for this are always found in the politics of science. Once Einstein was chosen, his "spacetime" was accepted, which could "fold in on itself" (in 4D, I guess), and the math was taken literally to mean a singularity, with the "spacetime" still curved around it enough as to "trap light itself". The reasons are that mainstream science must invent, or perish, so it will invent at all cost, and somebody's inventions will be accepted as "the Truth", and everybody that doesn't believe "the Truth" is a crackpot.It must happen that way, otherwise people don't get paid and the whole circus can't continue, this is why there are "black holes".You could add that this is, also, why the Standard Models are riddled with metaphysics.

Theoretical Physicists have overextend their faith in unproven mathematics. Hawking admitted as much when he stated he was mistaken about black holes.

Philosophers mended their ways when Gödel demonstrated the problems of mathematics, while physicists never were able to understand . . . with the possible exception of Steven Weinberg; who when last heard from was considering the possibility that a “new” physics might be required.

At least those that believe in religious faith do not profess their faith to be anything more than it is; if only secular faith carried such disclosure there would not be nearly so much close-mindedness among the uninformed. And, then maybe some progress could be made toward the truth that is so difficult to reach through the maze of elitist peer review.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Thanks for correcting me.. I'm actually not a native speaker, or a good speller. I still like hurd, makes it more like turd. Sorry, that was too obvious to resist.. :D
No Problem...but (I) can grasp why you would feel the way you do....some of it requires credulity that isn't always as easy to hold onto as are the beliefs in other more immediately tangible to our own senses 'things'

"As for hte schpelting mistakes wheeel, Seims like nobdie'sescrapable of them" :D

(AKA Me too! :eek: sometimes)

:cool:

[Epsilon=One]

...(I) can grasp why you would feel the way you do....some of it requires credulity that isn't always as easy to hold onto as are the beliefs in other more immediately tangible to our own senses 'things'If you are saying what I believe you are saying, you might consider this wisdom in your own situation.

You might also try thanking a person that takes the time to critique your posts rather than hurling invectives and ad hominems while you convulse in histrionic fits of verbal rage.

"As for hte schpelting mistakes wheeel, Seims like nobdie'sescrapable of them" :D

(AKA Me too! :eek: sometimes)

:cool:Imagine the time the forum members would waste if each word you mispelled were corrected. Instead, others apply their time to commenting on ideas and furthering the thread's topic; which, incidently, is: black holes, not the spelling of "herd."

In that vein, have you changed your position, as has Hawking, concerning the existence of black holes that have only been ascertained mathematically.

[bpj1138]

It is always a pleasure to read your thoughtful insights. After more than fifty years of observing theoretical physicists, I still find it difficult to understand what you so clearly note.


Thanks! And it's always nice to see we're still in agreement! I guess great minds do think alike.


You could add that this is, also, why the Standard Models are riddled with metaphysics.


I'm more of a computer engineer than anything else, and I see this all the time in that field. People need to write code to get paid, so they will write code or lose their job. The effect of this is bloatware. Then the business people feel the pressure to use whatever is cooked up in this process, no matter how mismatched the use of it is, especially since they usually don't understand anything about it in the first place. Then you add prestige to that and you got a whole mess happening. The perfect example of this is how a small business will buy the Oracle database to handle their address book, it's major overkill that costs 100K, but then people feel more important and prestegious, and this also legitimizes their business to others. SQL is in itself bloatware at its finest, as well as slow with a retarded interface, but I digress.


Theoretical Physicists have overextend their faith in unproven mathematics. Hawking admitted as much when he stated he was mistaken about black holes.


When was this? Maybe he should write another book about it.. I'd read it. I remember he had a whole black hole evaporation thing in there too, due to "virtual particles" (LOL) based on the materialization of the uncertainty principle aka aether.. the whole thing is just bizarre at this point.. I gotta admit, all of this has to appeal to some people, probably in need of escape from reality (I won't name names).


Philosophers mended their ways when Gödel demonstrated the problems of mathematics, while physicists never were able to understand . . . with the possible exception of Steven Weinberg; who when last heard from was considering the possibility that a “new” physics might be required.


I'd say some backtracking is required.. back to the time of LaSage vs Newton. I have nothing against calculus.


At least those that believe in religious faith do not profess their faith to be anything more than it is; if only secular faith carried such disclosure there would not be nearly so much close-mindedness among the uninformed. And, then maybe some progress could be made toward the truth that is so difficult to reach through the maze of elitist peer review.

Some of them just don't know any better, most are just playing the game, and in their case it happens to be physics, still others don't know any better yet believe in their own ignorance, religiously. As usual, the fringe is our only hope, it's simply how it works.. go figure..

--Bart