Sagittarius A, the first image of the center of your galaxy

[dsturgeon]

Unfortunately, the ecological effects of sending said rockets into space would more than make up for any good done by getting rid of the waste. Now, if we could get the Cern Large Hadron Collider to create a small black hole, we might have something!

They are about ready to fire that back up right, or did it already happen?

 

[Runwildboys]

Black holes only exist in theory. Just like the big bang only exist in theory. So one could choose not to believe in black holes altogether.

The fabric of space is just a theory.
Dark matter is just a theory.
Dark energy is just a theory.
The expanding universe is just a theory.
An astroid killed the dinosaurs is just a theory.
The sun is pure plasma is just a theory.



None of those theories have been proven and you can dismiss them if you feel like.

Well, Einstein's theory of relativity predicted black holes, which match extremely well with the telescopic evidence put forth in this very thread. The sun's atomic and electromagnetic structure is well established. The expansion of the universe has been carefully measured and documented. The rest is unproven, but very nearly 100% consensus among astrophysicists and quantum physicists.

If you want to be technical, you can say they're all just theoretical, but you can say the same thing about your own existence.

 

[Runwildboys]

They are about ready to fire that back up right, or did it already happen?

The particle accelerator? I believe they run experiments in it frequently, but I could be mistaken.

 

[dsturgeon]

The particle accelerator? I believe they run experiments in it frequently, but I could be mistaken.

I think they had been upgrading for a few years. I could be wrong

 

[Runwildboys]

I think they had been upgrading for a few years. I could be wrong

A quick Google search:

LHC became operational again on 22 April 2022 with a new maximum beam energy of 6.8 TeV, which was first achieved on 25 April. This round is expected to continue until 2026.

 

[dsturgeon]

A quick Google search:

LHC became operational again on 22 April 2022 with a new maximum beam energy of 6.8 TeV, which was first achieved on 25 April. This round is expected to continue until 2026.

yea, same thing I just did

The world’s largest research facility will soon be back in top form. The gigantic particle accelerator at the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) in Geneva will be restarted from the end of March 2022 after a three-year maintenance break.

 

[Oz-of-Cowboy-Country]

Well, Einstein's theory of relativity predicted black holes, which match extremely well with the telescopic evidence put forth in this very thread. The sun's atomic and electromagnetic structure is well established. The expansion of the universe has been carefully measured and documented. The rest is unproven, but very nearly 100% consensus among astrophysicists and quantum physicists.

If you want to be technical, you can say they're all just theoretical, but you can say the same thing about your own existence.

You mean Einstein's guess, hunch, and speculation of relativity. Let's not forget that the word theory has synonyms.

 

[Runwildboys]

You mean Einstein's guess, hunch, and speculation of relativity. Let's not forget that the word theory has synonyms.

Yeah. In science, the word "theory" means more than it does to most people.

scientific theory
[ sahy-uhn-tif-ik theer-ee, thee-uh-ree ]


noun
a coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed through experiment or observation: the scientific theory of evolution.

 

[Oz-of-Cowboy-Country]

Yeah. In science, the word "theory" means more than it does to most people.

scientific theory
[ sahy-uhn-tif-ik theer-ee, thee-uh-ree ]


noun
a coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed through experiment or observation: the scientific theory of evolution.

The word scientific is an adjective. It just describes the type of theory. Conspiracy theory? Working theory?

Evolution is a scientific theory that true in part. There's proof mankind has evolved over the years. There's no proof mankind evolved from a single cell organism. So the word scientific just describes the type of theory.

 

[Runwildboys]

The word scientific is an adjective. It just describes the type of theory. Conspiracy theory? Working theory?

Evolution is a scientific theory that true in part. There's proof mankind has evolved over the years. There's no proof mankind evolved from a single cell organism. So the word scientific just describes the type of theory.

And the type of theory in this case has a completely different meaning. Read the definition.

 

[Oz-of-Cowboy-Country]

And the type of theory in this case has a completely different meaning. Read the definition.

A well reasoned group of statements or opinions put together to explain a group of facts of phenomena that has been repeatedly confirmed through experiments or observation. Meaning... they confirm the facts, but question the cause or it's overall meaning. Two examples...(1) the data is real, but what's causing the data. (2) The data is real, but what does it mean?

Example 1) Stars on the outer edges of our galaxy move faster than they should. The data is real and there is a theory to explain it. The theory to explain this phenomenon is just guess work and speculation...Dark Matter. Dark Matter is the scientific theory that something has to be giving the edge of space more weight, so things can move faster. Dark Matter is a scientific theory.

Example 2) Mankind has evolved over the years. There's no denying that. But when and where did our evolution begin? Did we begin as primates? Or did we begin as a single cell organism? Evolution is real, but what does evolution really mean? Darwinism is a scientific theory.

A scientific theory is something that's based off of confirmed facts and or confirmed data, but stretches into the unknown. Hence the use of the word theory. They take the data then make educated guesses as to what it actually means.

 

[Runwildboys]

A well reasoned group of statements or opinions put together to explain a group of facts of phenomena that has been repeatedly confirmed through experiments or observation. Meaning... they confirm the facts, but question the cause or it's overall meaning. Two examples...(1) the data is real, but what's causing the data. (2) The data is real, but what does it mean?

Example 1) Stars on the outer edges of our galaxy move faster than they should. The data is real and there is a theory to explain it. The theory to explain this phenomenon is just guess work and speculation...Dark Matter. Dark Matter is the scientific theory that something has to be giving the edge of space more weight, so things can move faster. Dark Matter is a scientific theory.

Example 2) Mankind has evolved over the years. There's no denying that. But when and where did our evolution begin? Did we begin as primates? Or did we begin as a single cell organism? Evolution is real, but what does evolution really mean? Darwinism is a scientific theory.

A scientific theory is something that's based off of confirmed facts and or confirmed data, but stretches into the unknown. Hence the use of the word theory. They take the data then make educated guesses as to what it actually means.

No. Again, you're assigning the same definition to the word "theory" as if it wasn't preceded by the word "scientific".
As I stated earlier, your points about dark matter and even evolution are technically valid, but when you consider all the peer review, experimentation, study, and nearly 100% agreement among the science community, the evidence is so strong as to make it nearly undeniable...for anyone who doesn't use the "I don't understand it, so it can't be true" method of debate.

Other things, such as the atomic structure of the sun, and black holes (for which we now have photographic confirmation) are as factual as your existence.

 

[dsturgeon]

No. Again, you're assigning the same definition to the word "theory" as if it wasn't preceded by the word "scientific".
As I stated earlier, your points about dark matter and even evolution are technically valid, but when you consider all the peer review, experimentation, study, and nearly 100% agreement among the science community, the evidence is so strong as to make it nearly undeniable...for anyone who doesn't use the "I don't understand it, so it can't be true" method of debate.

Other things, such as the atomic structure of the sun, and black holes (for which we now have photographic confirmation) are as factual as your existence.

I have not studied black hole theory or the one pictured, but it seems like the theory could be disproven by there being ring like structures of some form of energy. By the picture, the center doesn't look any different than the outside.

 

[Oz-of-Cowboy-Country]

No. Again, you're assigning the same definition to the word "theory" as if it wasn't preceded by the word "scientific".
As I stated earlier, your points about dark matter and even evolution are technically valid, but when you consider all the peer review, experimentation, study, and nearly 100% agreement among the science community, the evidence is so strong as to make it nearly undeniable...for anyone who doesn't use the "I don't understand it, so it can't be true" method of debate.

Other things, such as the atomic structure of the sun, and black holes (for which we now have photographic confirmation) are as factual as your existence.

Have you seen real life photos of the sun's core? That's a simple yes or no question.

The problem with a black hole putting a very large dent in the fabric of space, is that there is no fabric of space. Pictures don't show density or weight. A bunch of small debris spinning around, crashing into one another, creating static electricity is all those pictures show. You can't take a photograph of density or weight. So is it an object that light itself cannot escape or is it just debris spinning in a circle? They can't prove that light can't escape this object. So all we know for a fact is... there is debris spinning in a circle, bumping into one another, creating static electricity as it spins. The theory of light sucking super gravity is unfounded, because they can't prove that light cannot escape.

 

[dsturgeon]

Until they release how they combined all the images from the different telescopes, applied the coloring to the frequencies, and any other photo doctoring, we don't know what we are looking at besides a created image to go with a narrative

 

[CalPolyTechnique]

No. Again, you're assigning the same definition to the word "theory" as if it wasn't preceded by the word "scientific".
As I stated earlier, your points about dark matter and even evolution are technically valid, but when you consider all the peer review, experimentation, study, and nearly 100% agreement among the science community, the evidence is so strong as to make it nearly undeniable...for anyone who doesn't use the "I don't understand it, so it can't be true" method of debate.

Other things, such as the atomic structure of the sun, and black holes (for which we now have photographic confirmation) are as factual as your existence.

Bro, why are you doing this?

 

[dsturgeon]

Bro, why are you doing this?

You mean misusing the word photographic, there by denying the confirmation?

 

[DallasEast]

This thread has certainly regressed into something special.

Question: Is gravity an unquestionable law or an unproven theory?



- signed The Instigator Moderator

 

[Runwildboys]

Have you seen real life photos of the sun's core? That's a simple yes or no question.

The problem with a black hole putting a very large dent in the fabric of space, is that there is no fabric of space. Pictures don't show density or weight. A bunch of small debris spinning around, crashing into one another, creating static electricity is all those pictures show. You can't take a photograph of density or weight. So is it an object that light itself cannot escape or is it just debris spinning in a circle? They can't prove that light can't escape this object. So all we know for a fact is... there is debris spinning in a circle, bumping into one another, creating static electricity as it spins. The theory of light sucking super gravity is unfounded, because they can't prove that light cannot escape.

I'll try to remember to text Neil deGrasse Tyson, Brian Greene, and Lawrence Krause, and let them know they got it wrong. It's just a shame Carl Sagan and Stephen Hawking are dead. I would have loved to hear them admit that some guy who's never studied any type of science is smarter than they are.

 

[Runwildboys]

You mean misusing the word photographic, there by denying the confirmation?

"Photographic" is close enough to use as shorthand in this instance, rather than call it an amalgam of images, using multiple telescopes from around the world, and translating the data into something the human eye can understand.