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

[Runwildboys]

Bro, why are you doing this?

I'm not, anymore.

 

[SlammedZero]

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.

 

[dsturgeon]

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.

In the end, the people who have not studied science may end up being smarter. Sagan and Hawking have already found out

My personal opinion is that the best thing hawking gave us was Jóhann Jóhannsson arrival of the birds on his movie soundtrack.

 

[bud914]

Better to send a few billion people into a black hole, and their waste along with them.

I'm sure finding worthy candidates wouldn't be difficult.

starting with the politicians i hope...and moving on to the eagle fans

 

[nobody]

This thread has certainly regressed into something special.

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



- signed The Instigator Moderator

Gravity simply is. Since they really don't know what it truly is, it's neither a law or theory. They have theories about it, but nothing concrete. However, drop something and it falls. Gravity unquestionably exists. What gravity truly is? That's up for debate.

 

[Runwildboys]

Gravity simply is. Since they really don't know what it truly is, it's neither a law or theory. They have theories about it, but nothing concrete. However, drop something and it falls. Gravity unquestionably exists. What gravity truly is? That's up for debate.

It's also not a force. There's a relatively new hypothesis that it's simply a byproduct of time, since the closer you get to a large mass, the slower time moves. Therefore, the bottom of an object moves slower than the top, causing it to pull toward the mass...or something to that effect. Strange concept that I don't subscribe to, but it's interesting.

 

[CalPolyTechnique]

It's also not a force. There's a relatively new hypothesis that it's simply a byproduct of time, since the closer you get to a large mass, the slower time moves. Therefore, the bottom of an object moves slower than the top, causing it to pull toward the mass...or something to that effect. Strange concept that I don't subscribe to, but it's interesting.

The way that the two (gravity and time) are inextricably linked is mind-bending. An even stranger concept to consider is how light factors into the perception of reality, and how in a universe without light there is no construct of time.

 

[Runwildboys]

The way that the two (gravity and time) are inextricably linked is mind-bending. An even stranger concept to consider is how light factors into the perception of reality, and how in a universe without light there is no construct of time.

Ironic, when you consider that photons don't experience time.

 

[timb2]

 

[Oz-of-Cowboy-Country]

It's also not a force. There's a relatively new hypothesis that it's simply a byproduct of time, since the closer you get to a large mass, the slower time moves. Therefore, the bottom of an object moves slower than the top, causing it to pull toward the mass...or something to that effect. Strange concept that I don't subscribe to, but it's interesting.

The fabric is space. You can't see it. You can't touch it. You can't hear it. You can't smell it. You can't taste it. And there are no electronic devices that can detect it. That means it's a mystical object. It exists in the realm of mythology. They might as well say a three dimensional object puts an indent on the souls of Satan's followers. Or it puts an indent on the hocus pocus juice of space. Bottom line is why don't need scientist explaining things to us using mythological objects. Science is suppose to be dispelling mythology not creating it.
So how does a black hole or a planted put an dent in something that doesn't exist?

Here's a question for you. Suppose there's was nothing at the center of a black hole. Could light illuminate something that's not there? Could light bounce off of something that's not there? The infrared pictures just show a bunch of debris spinning in a circle. There's no way to prove something's at the center. The static electricity produced by the debris could be what's holding it together. Remember the hairs on your arm being pulled towards the TV. Static electricity caused that to happen. Since the fabric of space is a fabrication, there could be absolutely nothing at the center of a black hole.

Einstein's theory of guess work and make believe, oops I'm mean relativity, is completely wrong. Because it hinges on a mythology object. The fabric of space is a mythology object, meaning they'll never be able to prove its existence. Angles are mythology objects that science will never be able to prove exist. A myth is a myth that will always be a myth.

Like I've said, our scholars are fabricators. Mankind has always used their imagination to explain the unexplainable.


P.S. - you can feel gravity when you lift up on an object.

 

[CalPolyTechnique]

The fabric is space. You can't see it. You can't touch it. You can't hear it. You can't smell it. You can't taste it. And there are no electronic devices that can detect it. That means it's a mystical object. It exists in the realm of mythology. They might as well say a three dimensional object puts an indent on the souls of Satan's followers. Or it puts an indent on the hocus pocus juice of space. Bottom line is why don't need scientist explaining things to us using mythological objects. Science is suppose to be dispelling mythology not creating it.
So how does a black hole or a planted put an dent in something that doesn't exist?

Here's a question for you. Suppose there's was nothing at the center of a black hole. Could light illuminate something that's not there? Could light bounce off of something that's not there? The infrared pictures just show a bunch of debris spinning in a circle. There's no way to prove something's at the center. The static electricity produced by the debris could be what's holding it together. Remember the hairs on your arm being pulled towards the TV. Static electricity caused that to happen. Since the fabric of space is a fabrication, there could be absolutely nothing at the center of a black hole.

Einstein's theory of guess work and make believe, oops I'm mean relativity, is completely wrong. Because it hinges on a mythology object. The fabric of space is a mythology object, meaning they'll never be able to prove its existence. Angles are mythology objects that science will never be able to prove exist. A myth is a myth that will always be a myth.

Like I've said, our scholars are fabricators. Mankind has always used their imagination to explain the unexplainable.


P.S. - you can feel gravity when you lift up on an object.

Yeeesh.

 

[CalPolyTechnique]

 

[Oz-of-Cowboy-Country]

Gravity simply is. Since they really don't know what it truly is, it's neither a law or theory. They have theories about it, but nothing concrete. However, drop something and it falls. Gravity unquestionably exists. What gravity truly is? That's up for debate.

Every object that holds a positive and negative charge is magnetised. The magnetism in most objects isn't strong enough to stick to metal, but it still exists.

The sun's core and Earth's core produce electromagnetic wavelengths. These wavelengths create an negative charge within every atom as they pass through them. Every atom has three subatomic particles. A nucleus, a proton and an electron. The proton is the positive charge every atom carries with it naturally. The electron is created by electromagnetic wavelengths passing through the atom. So every atom now holds a positive and negative charge, meaning it's now magnetised. The magnetism in every atom of every object on Earth, is attracted to Earth's magnetic core. Hence we have gravity pulling down on everything on this planet.

That means all of the atoms that make up the moon are magnetised also. But the negative charge in all atoms needs to be recharged. Let's say the moon is absorbing 12% of the sun's electromagnetic wavelength, while absorbing 80% of Earth's electromagnetic wavelength. Then the moon is using the Earth as a battery to recharge it's electrons. The magnetism of the moon, permeates from the moon as electromagnetic static. So the moons electromagnetic static is mostly being recharged by planet Earth. Hence the moon orbiting the Earth.

Now if Mars is absorbing 20% of the sun's electromagnetic wavelength, while absorbing less than 1% of the Earth's wavelength. Then Mars would orbit the sun, because it's getting most of its charged from the sun.

That's my personal explanation of gravity without using the mythology entity known as the fabric of space. Everything in my explanation exist. Which makes my explanation more plausible then NASA's.


NASA sucks. Einstein's theory sucks. Ain't no damn fabric of space. That bowling ball on a trampoline B.S. is garbage. Made up mythology garbage.

 

[Runwildboys]

Just watched that one yesterday. I like her energy, so I'll be checking out more of her videos.

 

[DallasEast]

An excellent video. I liked her lighthouse analogy.

 

[Runwildboys]

An excellent video. I liked her lighthouse analogy.

That part I didn't really care for. Obviously the lighthouse will be brighter when it's facing you, because you can see the bulb...or the reflection of it, however the lighthouse works. But the Doppler Effect still applies.

 

[CalPolyTechnique]

I highly recommend this series Space Time from PBS. The astrophysicist host does not hold back on the technical detail but does a good job of discussing topics in a understandable way (relatively speaking).

 

[Runwildboys]

I highly recommend this series Space Time from PBS. The astrophysicist host does not hold back on the technical detail but does a good job of discussing topics in a understandable way (relatively speaking).

I watch his videos occasionally, but I can only deal with him in small doses. He just seems drunk all the time.

 

[JD_KaPow]

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.

You can dismiss anything you like; the universe doesn't care, and will keep going its merry way regardless.

Also: I don't think you understand what the word "theory" means, in a scientific context.

 

[JD_KaPow]

The fabric is space. You can't see it. You can't touch it. You can't hear it. You can't smell it. You can't taste it. And there are no electronic devices that can detect it. That means it's a mystical object. It exists in the realm of mythology. They might as well say a three dimensional object puts an indent on the souls of Satan's followers. Or it puts an indent on the hocus pocus juice of space. Bottom line is why don't need scientist explaining things to us using mythological objects. Science is suppose to be dispelling mythology not creating it.
So how does a black hole or a planted put an dent in something that doesn't exist?

Wow, you really have no idea about what you're discussing. The "fabric" of space is just a metaphor.

Here's a question for you. Suppose there's was nothing at the center of a black hole. Could light illuminate something that's not there? Could light bounce off of something that's not there? The infrared pictures just show a bunch of debris spinning in a circle. There's no way to prove something's at the center. The static electricity produced by the debris could be what's holding it together. Remember the hairs on your arm being pulled towards the TV. Static electricity caused that to happen. Since the fabric of space is a fabrication, there could be absolutely nothing at the center of a black hole.

Except that your made-up idea doesn't gibe with the data, so it's a hypothesis that can quickly be rejected.

Einstein's theory of guess work and make believe, oops I'm mean relativity, is completely wrong. Because it hinges on a mythology object. The fabric of space is a mythology object, meaning they'll never be able to prove its existence. Angles are mythology objects that science will never be able to prove exist. A myth is a myth that will always be a myth.

In what way do you mean that relativity is wrong? It's a model that describes the observed behavior of the universe. It may be incomplete, but I have no idea what you mean when you say it's "completely wrong." And again, describing space as a fabric is a metaphor, not a physical description.

But your discussion here makes it clear that you don't understand the concepts well enough to even begin debating them. So until you do, not much point in further discussion.