3 ms·

No. Incorrect. Wildly inaccurate. We have made certain observations that are assumed to be the result of matter falling into a "Black Hole". We do not have any

No. Incorrect. Wildly inaccurate. We have made certain observations that are assumed to be the result of matter falling into a "Black Hole". We do not have any observations that show us this as a fact. Read the observational material very carefully. Go back over the last few decades and see how many times it is declared "we have seen x for the first time", where x is the is the same entity each time, in this particlualr case "Black Holes". Men (women, children) want to believe that they have a certain handle on the truth and reality. What is very unpleasant to most is not having that certainty. This applies to all people across the board and even more so to those whose expertise is dependent on their being right. Many scientists are in this category. It is often difficult to sit in the place of recognising that we just don't know. We have some ideas which, on the evidence, give a handle to investigate further, but we should understand that our understanding can be turned on its head. The evidence for the existence of something is there, yes. But, is it a "Black Hole" of the theory presented, hmmm, that is unknown and for the time being, unknowable. As we cannot get out there and actually do the appropriate experiments to test this. We can only do remote observations and these can be easily misinterpreted. >>Nobody except cranks or extreme contrarians seriously disputes the theory these days. The problem here with this view is that it has been "cranks" and "extreme contrarians" who have brought about the biggest changes in science. There are Nobel Prize winners amongst them. All views about the nature of our universe should have those who dispute it. This should spur on our investigations into the nature of the universe. If we are unable to handle someone disputing our models and theories of the universe, then what are we doing? We are not serious about expanding our knowledge, we are serious about our reputations and being right. The biggest problem for science today is that people don't trust it because it keeps getting things wrong, yet all the while saying that it is the only source of truth. Science is one of a group of tools we can and should use to investigate the universe around. It has its limitations as does all the other tools we have and we need to recognise that though this tool is helpful in understanding, it is not the tool that gives us the truth.

InclinedPlane 8y ago
If you're trying to get me to take you seriously you've failed. Do you think that condescension mingled with evidence free assertions are the way to support an argument? Is that science in your eyes?
- oldandtired 8y ago
  Who am I to be taken seriously? The condescension is a part of the attitude of those who consider something "settled". You made the claim that we have observed matter falling into a "black hole". The evidence that you didn't present says we have some observations, but only supposition as to what it means. In your eyes, that evidence may be "beyond a reasonable doubt", but from my perspective, that evidence barely scratches the surface of what we need. Science is not about dogma, it is about investigating the universe about in a systematic way and looking at all sorts of models and theories that can provide a handle on understanding. But none of those models or theories will ever be the "truth". They can be adequate for the purposes needed, but outside of those limited areas, other models will be required. These other models will give a better description and handle within their limits. For all the desire for a "theory of everything", it will not be achieved. There will always be anomalous observations. Whether you agree or disagree, that is simply your choice and anything I say will be seen through your filters and biases. That is what happens to all of us. You can believe that GR is the "bee's knees", I can believe differently. You can believe in little blue fairies living at the bottom of your garden, if you like. I put little blue fairies in the same basket as "black holes". We have lots of very interesting observations of lots of very interesting things out there. I just have problems with the inconsistencies of the models used to describe these things.
ajuc 8y ago
> We have made certain observations that are assumed to be the result of matter falling into a "Black Hole". We do not have any observations that show us this as a fact. Do you believe in gravity? We've never observed it directly, always just its effects.
- oldandtired 8y ago
  I believe in the observational effects of something we call gravity. As to its nature, that is still unknown. GR is one model/theory and it works most of the time. But there are observations that do not fit into this model. That is the sticking point - these observation suggest that, though GR is useful, it is seriously flawed. Can we use it, yes. But to believe that it is true, that is something quite different.
SiempreViernes 8y ago
You had like, a slim case before GW150914. Now you just have to either accept that black holes (in the sense of the external metric predicted by GR) do exist, or go make friends with the climate change deniers. The science discussion about the existence is settled, as evidenced by your complete lack of any concrete objection to the interpretations. (Just saying "measuring is ambiguous, maybe we didn't understand it properly" like it is an objection is typical cranking)
- oldandtired 8y ago
  You really need to read the information provided about GW150914. There is no direct observation of the event, irrespective of what LIGO might say about the matter, LIGO is an indirect methodology. I have no doubt that something was observed, but what that was will take far more research and repeated events that can be backed up by other observational means before we have any real evidence before us. The science is only settled for those who want certainty in their models and theories. For practical uses, one can believe that electrons exist and act in particular ways and we build "technology" based on those "beliefs". Yet, we still do not have any real handle on what these particular entities are. I used to believe in "black holes" and other assorted entities. I had no problems with these things, until I started noticing the discrepancies. It made me take a longer look and I realised that we know far less than we think and we understand far less than we think we do. I live country that experiences climate change, yet, what I find interesting is that if you have questions about whether or not it is anthropogenic, you are immediately classified as a denier. The same goes for many different areas in science. If you don't accept the dogma you have to be a "crank". What science needs is a higher level of scepticism than what it currently has. Too many of the "settled" things are not "settled" at all. We have barely scratched the surface of the universe around us and the major failing we have is this desire to be certain. There are huge amounts of experimental observations that are showing that we really have no clue and an enormous number of new models are being developed as the years go by.
  - SiempreViernes 8y ago
    Look, to do science you have to believe the world outside your head can be observed; and if you are ready to trust the rickety and convoluted stack that encodes pulses from a keyboard into photons from a screen to accurately convey information, then gravity waves have been observed and match predictions for black holes exactly. If you want to stick to reading Gorgias of Leontini that is fine, but please don't bother the rest of us that do accept the world outside as real.

InclinedPlane 8y ago

If you're trying to get me to take you seriously you've failed. Do you think that condescension mingled with evidence free assertions are the way to support an argument? Is that science in your eyes?

oldandtired 8y ago
Who am I to be taken seriously? The condescension is a part of the attitude of those who consider something "settled". You made the claim that we have observed matter falling into a "black hole". The evidence that you didn't present says we have some observations, but only supposition as to what it means. In your eyes, that evidence may be "beyond a reasonable doubt", but from my perspective, that evidence barely scratches the surface of what we need. Science is not about dogma, it is about investigating the universe about in a systematic way and looking at all sorts of models and theories that can provide a handle on understanding. But none of those models or theories will ever be the "truth". They can be adequate for the purposes needed, but outside of those limited areas, other models will be required. These other models will give a better description and handle within their limits. For all the desire for a "theory of everything", it will not be achieved. There will always be anomalous observations. Whether you agree or disagree, that is simply your choice and anything I say will be seen through your filters and biases. That is what happens to all of us. You can believe that GR is the "bee's knees", I can believe differently. You can believe in little blue fairies living at the bottom of your garden, if you like. I put little blue fairies in the same basket as "black holes". We have lots of very interesting observations of lots of very interesting things out there. I just have problems with the inconsistencies of the models used to describe these things.

ajuc 8y ago

> We have made certain observations that are assumed to be the result of matter falling into a "Black Hole". We do not have any observations that show us this as a fact. Do you believe in gravity? We've never observed it directly, always just its effects.

oldandtired 8y ago
I believe in the observational effects of something we call gravity. As to its nature, that is still unknown. GR is one model/theory and it works most of the time. But there are observations that do not fit into this model. That is the sticking point - these observation suggest that, though GR is useful, it is seriously flawed. Can we use it, yes. But to believe that it is true, that is something quite different.

SiempreViernes 8y ago

You had like, a slim case before GW150914. Now you just have to either accept that black holes (in the sense of the external metric predicted by GR) do exist, or go make friends with the climate change deniers. The science discussion about the existence is settled, as evidenced by your complete lack of any concrete objection to the interpretations. (Just saying "measuring is ambiguous, maybe we didn't understand it properly" like it is an objection is typical cranking)

oldandtired 8y ago
You really need to read the information provided about GW150914. There is no direct observation of the event, irrespective of what LIGO might say about the matter, LIGO is an indirect methodology. I have no doubt that something was observed, but what that was will take far more research and repeated events that can be backed up by other observational means before we have any real evidence before us. The science is only settled for those who want certainty in their models and theories. For practical uses, one can believe that electrons exist and act in particular ways and we build "technology" based on those "beliefs". Yet, we still do not have any real handle on what these particular entities are. I used to believe in "black holes" and other assorted entities. I had no problems with these things, until I started noticing the discrepancies. It made me take a longer look and I realised that we know far less than we think and we understand far less than we think we do. I live country that experiences climate change, yet, what I find interesting is that if you have questions about whether or not it is anthropogenic, you are immediately classified as a denier. The same goes for many different areas in science. If you don't accept the dogma you have to be a "crank". What science needs is a higher level of scepticism than what it currently has. Too many of the "settled" things are not "settled" at all. We have barely scratched the surface of the universe around us and the major failing we have is this desire to be certain. There are huge amounts of experimental observations that are showing that we really have no clue and an enormous number of new models are being developed as the years go by.
- SiempreViernes 8y ago
  Look, to do science you have to believe the world outside your head can be observed; and if you are ready to trust the rickety and convoluted stack that encodes pulses from a keyboard into photons from a screen to accurately convey information, then gravity waves have been observed and match predictions for black holes exactly. If you want to stick to reading Gorgias of Leontini that is fine, but please don't bother the rest of us that do accept the world outside as real.