Hell....

[ikester7579 20]

I thought that might get your attention.

 

The subject is: Has science actually found Hell?

 

What is Hell?

 

1) Hell is a place where light cannot exist.

2) Hell is a place where a eternal fire burns but never goes out.

3) Hell is a place where the fire itself produces no light.

4) Hell is supposed to be hotter than anything known to mankind.

 

Now, what is it in space that fits all of these things?

 

A black hole.

 

1) Light cannot escape.

2) There is nothing known that can destroy a black hole, and the heat is never ending because of the gravity.

3) Light cannot travel so light is not produced.

4) A black hole is estimated to produce 1 million degrees of heat.

 

Now for an interesting side note:

 

Mary K Baxter wrote a book called: "The Devine Revelation of Hell" claiming she went to hell. Here is an excerpt:

 

Mary then saw long funnels protruding out of the earth. These funnels were all over the earth and could only been seen with the spiritual eye. Mary asked what these funnels were and Jesus replied that those were gateways to hell and that they are to go into hell through one of them.

 

They soon entered into one of the funnels. Inside the funnel looked like a spinning tunnel, and yet there was deep darkness as well as a horrible smell. Evil spirits, dark grey in color, lined the tunnel. These spirits were embedded in the walls, yet were able to move and cry out. When Mary asked about these forms, Jesus said that they are evil spirits ready to be spat onto the earth, once Satan gives the orders.

 

Near the end of the tunnel, sharp screams can be heard. Jesus prepared Mary to what was to come by saying: We will soon enter the left leg of hell. Ahead you will see great sorrow, pathetic sadness and indescribable horror. Stay close to Me, and I will give you strength and protection as we go through hell. The things you are about to see are a warning. The book you write will save many souls from hell.  

 

Was this a black hole? It sure sounds like that.

 

Here is my theory about something:

 

Large Hadron Collider is fixing to be unveiled for all the world to see. In my opinion this is man trying to be God experimenting with something that he basically knows nothing about. And as man gets more confident in his abilities to be more like God. He will do these types of experiments and then claim: There is no God.

 

Problem though, bringing up a black hole is bringing up the unknown. Who's to say that something won't come through that black hole that will change this planet forever? Whos to say that this one event might be the thing that triggers the tribulation spoke of in the Bible?

 

Now I'm not suggestiing that the first try will do this. But I do believe that once science gets bold in using this thing, they will go beyond a point they should not pass. One that will bring us into a unknown that should have been left alone.

 

Now why would this happen? It a known fact that science would always prefer to not know God. All their theories and ideas are based on naturalism, humanism, etc... So since it is said that all science wants to know is our origins, but they only want it in one direction. And that is one without God. God gets to where He has had enough and decides to let science find their origins but through a way that only those who believe there is no God would end up.

 

And that is through the way of Hell. So upon bringing up a black hole we find out where our origins have been. But because we refuse to acknowledge God. Hell is what we find which will answer our questions through the reality of evil.

 

Now the people that will be running this collider machine will be made up of those who believe:

 

1) That there is no God, and that we are all animals (Creatures).

 

Romans 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

 

2) Believe that there is nothing wrong with h*mos*xuality.

 

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

 

3) Are involved is discrediting creation, which also means the Creator.

 

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

 

4) Believe that morals are up to the individual. Some are anti-God, believe that marraige is not needed, always wanting what other people have, express how they would like to get rid of those whom they disagree with, always searching the web for those they can debate, and spread rumors about those they dislike most.

 

29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

 

etc...

 

30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

 

31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

 

32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

 

Now I'm not trying to stereotype all evolutionsts in this category. But you have to admit that the big names often think just like this. And they will be the ones who will crank up that machine.

 

 

Those who bring up the questions about danger of using this machine are being poo poo away. As if they are all doomsday fanactics. Problem is, because science really does not know much about black holes, they cannot weigh all the variables. In fact I have challenge people on other blogs to list all the things that can happen and all the safegaurds to stop them. And did you know that no one could even list one?

 

So my questions are:

 

1) What if after you turn off the collider the black hole stays for some unknown reason? How do you get it to go away?

2) If the black hole starts growing, and you turn the machine off, but it makes no difference. What then?

3) What if something poisonous to our planet spews from this black hole and starts killing all life. What then?

 

Where are the safegaurds, and can someone list them please? Oops, there are none.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/06/30/doomsda...r.ap/index.html

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/200.../27/823924.aspx

 

You know how much this thing costs? 5.8 billion dollars.

And you know what I hear constantly while debating and this subject comes up? Just wait until we crank this thing up. We will disprove your God once and for all.

[scott 3]

Well, its hard to tell if Mary is lying or not, hopefully not. Also i think its EXTREMELY

funny anytime an evolutionist or atheist bust out with well I KNOW its BILLIONS of years old... then i just bust out laughing uncontrolably.

Atheist get so arrogant some times, because they really think they can date rocks, planets, the universe, and ice cream.

Simply put, atheist will do all they can to get the message out that the universe is obviously billions of years old..... but unfortunately WE ALL KNOW that they do NOT have the power to date by billions of years, some turtles are probably fooled into thinking that they can go back in time and physically date the universe as billions of years old.... Well alls i can do is laugh.

BWAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!

Atheist are trying to create a black hole.... well seeing if these stargate nerds actually THINK they can do this, simply through their pride they will create something from a horror movie and all die doing it, and anyone in the immediate area including innocent kittens who dont believe in evolution anyways.

 

This black hole machine... how atheistically typical...

 

Atheist always try to look, and sound intelligent, but the whole world will see when they lacklusterly get up in the morning, hop into their toyota yaris, go to walmart, get their oil changed, get a bite to eat and drive on over to the black hole machine.

 

They finally turn the machine on and say: " Hey Bob, weve done it, WE have single handedly disproven God"..... ahahahahahahaha huuuuuulllllkkkk cruuuunnnch...... as he is sucked into the black hole, then the lab mice try to get away but are sucked in also... along with anyone in the immediate area (including there beloved toyota yaris')..... and hilariously open the gates of hell....

 

Therefore single handedly proving that these atheist had no common sense whatsoever.... but hay, this is just a possibility.

 

How many times will an atheist continue to say that he absolutely positively KNOWs that the universe is billions of years old, and that God obviously doesnt exist, because people who believe in God are just a little below the cambrian layers if you know what i mean.

[A.Sphere 6]

I thought that might get your attention.

 

The subject is: Has science actually found Hell?

 

What is Hell?

 

1) Hell is a place where light cannot exist.

2) Hell is a place where a eternal fire burns but never goes out.

3) Hell is a place where the fire itself produces no light.

4) Hell is supposed to be hotter than anything known to mankind.

 

Now, what is it in space that fits all of these things?

 

A black hole.

 

1) Light cannot escape.

2) There is nothing known that can destroy a black hole, and the heat is never ending because of the gravity.

3) Light cannot travel so light is not produced.

4) A black hole is estimated to produce 1 million degrees of heat.

 

Now for an interesting side note:

 

Mary K Baxter wrote a book called: "The Devine Revelation of Hell" claiming she went to hell. Here is an excerpt:

Was this a black hole? It sure sounds like that.

 

Here is my theory about something:

 

Large Hadron Collider is fixing to be unveiled for all the world to see. In my opinion this is man trying to be God experimenting with something that he basically knows nothing about. And as man gets more confident in his abilities to be more like God. He will do these types of experiments and then claim: There is no God.

 

Problem though, bringing up a black hole is bringing up the unknown. Who's to say that something won't come through that black hole that will change this planet forever? Whos to say that this one event might be the thing that triggers the tribulation spoke of in the Bible?

 

Now I'm not suggestiing that the first try will do this. But I do believe that once science gets bold in using this thing, they will go beyond a point they should not pass. One that will bring us into a unknown that should have been left alone.

 

Now why would this happen? It a known fact that science would always prefer to not know God. All their theories and ideas are based on naturalism, humanism, etc... So since it is said that all science wants to know is our origins, but they only want it in one direction. And that is one without God. God gets to where He has had enough and decides to let science find their origins but through a way that only those who believe there is no God would end up.

 

And that is through the way of Hell. So upon bringing up a black hole we find out where our origins have been. But because we refuse to acknowledge God. Hell is what we find which will answer our questions through the reality of evil.

 

Now the people that will be running this collider machine will be made up of those who believe:

 

1) That there is no God, and that we are all animals (Creatures).

 

Romans 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

 

2) Believe that there is nothing wrong with h*mos*xuality.

 

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

 

3) Are involved is discrediting creation, which also means the Creator.

 

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

 

4) Believe that morals are up to the individual. Some are anti-God, believe that marraige is not needed, always wanting what other people have, express how they would like to get rid of those whom they disagree with, always searching the web for those they can debate, and spread rumors about those they dislike most.

 

29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

 

etc...

 

30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

 

31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

 

32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

 

Now I'm not trying to stereotype all evolutionsts in this category. But you have to admit that the big names often think just like this. And they will be the ones who will crank up that machine.

Those who bring up the questions about danger of using this machine are being poo poo away. As if they are all doomsday fanactics. Problem is, because science really does not know much about black holes, they cannot weigh all the variables. In fact I have challenge people on other blogs to list all the things that can happen and all the safegaurds to stop them. And did you know that no one could even list one?

 

So my questions are:

 

1) What if after you turn off the collider the black hole stays for some unknown reason? How do you get it to go away?

2) If the black hole starts growing, and you turn the machine off, but it makes no difference. What then?

3) What if something poisonous to our planet spews from this black hole and starts killing all life. What then?

 

Where are the safegaurds, and can someone list them please? Oops, there are none.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/06/30/doomsda...r.ap/index.html

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/200.../27/823924.aspx

 

You know how much this thing costs? 5.8 billion dollars.

And you know what I hear constantly while debating and this subject comes up? Just wait until we crank this thing up. We will disprove your God once and for all.

19609[/snapback]

One more time - black holes produced in particle collisions are not the same as black holes produced by collapsing stars. Say it a few more times.

 

Earth is constantly being bombarded by particles from space. These particles collide with other particles at energies of and exceeding that of the LHC. If the theory of micro black hole production is correct than these showers produce black holes. We hope to test that idea by reproducing the same situation in a collider. If a micro black holes could destroy the Earth - or open a gateway to hell - they already would have.

[TempestTossed 0]

I thought that might get your attention.

 

The subject is: Has science actually found Hell?

 

What is Hell?

 

1) Hell is a place where light cannot exist.

2) Hell is a place where a eternal fire burns but never goes out.

3) Hell is a place where the fire itself produces no light.

4) Hell is supposed to be hotter than anything known to mankind.

 

Now, what is it in space that fits all of these things?

 

A black hole.

 

1) Light cannot escape.

2) There is nothing known that can destroy a black hole, and the heat is never ending because of the gravity.

3) Light cannot travel so light is not produced.

4) A black hole is estimated to produce 1 million degrees of heat.

 

Now for an interesting side note:

 

Mary K Baxter wrote a book called: "The Devine Revelation of Hell" claiming she went to hell. Here is an excerpt:

Was this a black hole? It sure sounds like that.

 

Here is my theory about something:

 

Large Hadron Collider is fixing to be unveiled for all the world to see. In my opinion this is man trying to be God experimenting with something that he basically knows nothing about. And as man gets more confident in his abilities to be more like God. He will do these types of experiments and then claim: There is no God.

 

Problem though, bringing up a black hole is bringing up the unknown. Who's to say that something won't come through that black hole that will change this planet forever? Whos to say that this one event might be the thing that triggers the tribulation spoke of in the Bible?

 

Now I'm not suggestiing that the first try will do this. But I do believe that once science gets bold in using this thing, they will go beyond a point they should not pass. One that will bring us into a unknown that should have been left alone.

 

Now why would this happen? It a known fact that science would always prefer to not know God. All their theories and ideas are based on naturalism, humanism, etc... So since it is said that all science wants to know is our origins, but they only want it in one direction. And that is one without God. God gets to where He has had enough and decides to let science find their origins but through a way that only those who believe there is no God would end up.

 

And that is through the way of Hell. So upon bringing up a black hole we find out where our origins have been. But because we refuse to acknowledge God. Hell is what we find which will answer our questions through the reality of evil.

 

Now the people that will be running this collider machine will be made up of those who believe:

 

1) That there is no God, and that we are all animals (Creatures).

 

Romans 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

 

2) Believe that there is nothing wrong with h*mos*xuality.

 

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

 

3) Are involved is discrediting creation, which also means the Creator.

 

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

 

4) Believe that morals are up to the individual. Some are anti-God, believe that marraige is not needed, always wanting what other people have, express how they would like to get rid of those whom they disagree with, always searching the web for those they can debate, and spread rumors about those they dislike most.

 

29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

 

etc...

 

30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

 

31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

 

32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

 

Now I'm not trying to stereotype all evolutionsts in this category. But you have to admit that the big names often think just like this. And they will be the ones who will crank up that machine.

Those who bring up the questions about danger of using this machine are being poo poo away. As if they are all doomsday fanactics. Problem is, because science really does not know much about black holes, they cannot weigh all the variables. In fact I have challenge people on other blogs to list all the things that can happen and all the safegaurds to stop them. And did you know that no one could even list one?

 

So my questions are:

 

1) What if after you turn off the collider the black hole stays for some unknown reason? How do you get it to go away?

2) If the black hole starts growing, and you turn the machine off, but it makes no difference. What then?

3) What if something poisonous to our planet spews from this black hole and starts killing all life. What then?

 

Where are the safegaurds, and can someone list them please? Oops, there are none.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/06/30/doomsda...r.ap/index.html

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/200.../27/823924.aspx

 

You know how much this thing costs? 5.8 billion dollars.

And you know what I hear constantly while debating and this subject comes up? Just wait until we crank this thing up. We will disprove your God once and for all.

19609[/snapback]

The black holes you have in mind are super-condensed chunks of mass that are many times the mass of our Sun. Unless the scientists feed stars into the LHC, then it doesn't have the gravity or the size to do anything that would endanger your life. You can fantasize about what might happen, but the problem is that your worst-case imaginings are not rooted in evidence, but they are rooted in science fiction, apocalyptic anticipation and urban legends. I think the physicists who think about this stuff for a living have a much better idea of what the true risks are, even if they are atheists or whatever.

[ikester7579 20]

The black holes you have in mind are super-condensed chunks of mass that are many times the mass of our Sun.  Unless the scientists feed stars into the LHC, then it doesn't have the gravity or the size to do anything that would endanger your life.  You can fantasize about what might happen, but the problem is that your worst-case imaginings are not rooted in evidence, but they are rooted in science fiction, apocalyptic anticipation and urban legends.  I think the physicists who think about this stuff for a living have a much better idea of what the true risks are, even if they are atheists or whatever.

19612[/snapback]

In theory, correct?

[ikester7579 20]

One more time - black holes produced in particle collisions are not the same as black holes produced by collapsing stars.  Say it a few more times. 

 

Earth is constantly being bombarded by particles from space.  These particles collide with other particles at energies of and exceeding that of the LHC.  If the theory of micro black hole production is correct than these showers produce black holes.  We hope to test that idea by reproducing the same situation in a collider.  If a micro black holes could destroy the Earth - or open a gateway to hell - they already would have.

19611[/snapback]

Still, this is all in theory, correct?

 

Because until it's actually done, you really don't know now do you? Because if science knew all their was to know about this, what would be the point of the test?

 

So there are unknown variables, correct? Because if all the variables were known someone could list them, but no one has. I actually think they are flying blind in this test. Because how many times has people written things out on paper to only find out later they were wrong? So if we found out that these people are wrong, what then? You don't know what then because you have so much faith in science, what then does not matter, right?

 

We already know how much power is released when an atom is split. What if this has the same result but a much higher magnitude?

 

What's even funnier about this. Is that while everyone is concerned and complaining about what might happen. We really get no information from the people who are going to do this, and what safety precautions have been taken. I guess if you don't know what to expect, how can one prepare?

[A.Sphere 6]

Still, this is all in theory, correct?

 

Because until it's actually done, you really don't know now do you? Because if science knew all their was to know about this, what would be the point of the test?

 

So there are unknown variables, correct? Because if all the variables were known someone could list them, but no one has. I actually think they are flying blind in this test. Because how many times has people written things out on paper to only find out later they were wrong? So if we found out that these people are wrong, what then? You don't know what then because you have so much faith in science, what then does not matter, right?

 

We already know how much power is released when an atom is split. What if this has the same result but a much higher magnitude?

 

What's even funnier about this. Is that while everyone is concerned and complaining about what might happen. We really get no information from the people who are going to do this, and what safety precautions have been taken. I guess if you don't know what to expect, how can one prepare?

19614[/snapback]

 

You are missing the point. We know that particles of enormous energies come jetting through our planet every day. We know that these particles collide with each other. The LHC is taking the same particles and colliding them together in the same way with the same energies but now we can be ready to observe what happens - something that is very hard whenever we can't predict where a particle will enter our atmosphere. So what I am trying to tell you is that particle collisions of the same energy levels that LHC will produce are already smashing together every single second of every single day somewhere on Earth. None of that is theory - it is all observed fact. It is a bit like saying we don't know what will happen if I take a drop of water and let it hit the floor even though we watch millions of drops of water hit the floor every time it rains. We observe that the Earth is not in danger of micro-black holes because in the entire history of the planet not one has destroyed the Earth even though if the theory of micro-black holes is true they are being produced in large quantities all of the time.

 

The LHC is doing nothing new - simply reproducing an extremely common and natural phenomenon. What a micro-black hole is has been blown out of proportion by the media and by doomsday groups. Every time a new accelerator pushes the energy envelope the same two guys make a big deal out of it in such a way that anyone with any knowledge about particle astrophysics laughs at them.

[A.Sphere 6]

In theory, correct?

19613[/snapback]

Science only offers theories. The statement "In theory" is redundant in science.

[scott 3]

Yes A.sphere, theories, very redundant, but ikester, i believe the point he was trying to make, was in theory about what was said about the black hole.

 

Simply because he wanted to make sure, that it was understood that it was theory and NOT PROVEN FACT.

 

Also this brings the question about absolutes, yes indeed there are absolutes in life, in death, and in hamburgers.

 

You see, not everything in the universe is going to be a theory. There is fact, and there is absolute truth. Why? you should already know the answer to this.

Example:

 

I just pet my cat..... this is absolutely positively the truth, for all eternity.

 

I just want to make it clear that no arguements on theory definitions need to be made, just simply state what you believe, bring some evidence, and we will begin from there, but seeing as no one has any hands on evidence of black holes, it will be near impossible to prove ikester wrong, seeing as the standard black hole theory is not very credible or convincing to say the least.

 

Mostly because only pictures are provided, and ANYONE, including a squirrel, could make a theory as to what a black hole is based upon pictures.

 

My theory is that the entire universe is one giant putting arena, the planets and stars are the balls and the black holes... well i dont need to explain any further.... LOL. So discussing what Black holes are really to a point, extremely frivalous.

 

Also, you must realize the current theories are still made the same way the squirrel makes them, because there is NO hands on, touchable, testable, or edible evidence anywhere close to us where we could do these things. Sure we have telescopes and pictures, amazing as that might be, we still severely LACK the above mentioned.

 

So saying my theory is better than your theory really does not matter in this particular case because the evidence is too scarce anyways. So let the philosophy class continue......

[A.Sphere 6]

You see, not everything in the universe is going to be a theory. There is fact, and there is absolute truth. Why? you should already know the answer to this.

Huh? The only things in the universe that are theories are theories. Theories attempt to explain facts. A good theory has a high degree of explanatory power. A black hole itself is not a theory. General Relativity is the theory that predicts black holes - theories attempts to explain why an entity in our universe has certain characteristics. The theory explaining what a black hole is may be wrong but the fact remains that there is an entity in our universe that emits enormous gravitational forces on objects near it.

 

I just pet my cat..... this is absolutely positively the truth, for all eternity.

Okay so? It is a fact that you just pet your cat - it would be a hypothesis for me to devise a reason why you pet your cat - if I asked you why you pet your cat and your answer agreed with my hypothesis my hypothesis becomes a theory - I can then use my theory to predict why you might pet your cat in the future but I can never be absolutely certain that it will always be for the same reason. If I used my theory to predict why you pet your dog and my theory was correct I would have increased the explanatory power of my theory and therefore made my theory stronger.

 

 

 

I just want to make it clear that no arguements on theory definitions need to be made, just simply state what you believe, bring some evidence, and we will begin from there, but seeing as no one has any hands on evidence of black holes, it will be near impossible to prove ikester wrong, seeing as the standard black hole theory is not very credible or convincing to say the least.

No evidence for black holes? Again, black holes are facts. There are entities that are invisible in our universe that emit so much gravitational force that they must have enormous masses - we observe the effect that these objects have on their surroundings. Whether or not these entities are the entities predicted by GR is in the realm of theory.

 

Mostly because only pictures are provided, and ANYONE, including a squirrel, could make a theory as to what a black hole is based upon pictures.

Anyone can come up with a hypothesis as to what a black hole is but it is hard to come up with a theory that is consistent with what we know about physics and the universe and allows us to make predictions that we can test. I could say that black holes are really invisible monkeys but that isn't consistent with physics and I can't make predictions about the invisible monkeys that can be validated using what we know about physics. A theory is not just a random idea. It is a consistent idea based in science that describes and predicts observable facts about our universe - this isn't something easy to come up with or as trivial as you think it is.

 

 

 

My theory is that the entire universe is one giant putting arena, the planets and stars are the balls and the black holes... well i dont need to explain any further.... LOL. So discussing what Black holes are really to a point,  extremely frivalous.

Okay - that is not a theory...yet. It is a hypothesis. What observable facts are you attempting to explain with your hypothesis? What predictions or explanatory power does your hypothesis have? Unless you do explain it further you don't have a theory.

 

 

 

Also, you must realize the current theories are still made the same way the squirrel makes them, because there is NO hands on, touchable, testable, or edible evidence anywhere close to us where we could do these things. Sure we have telescopes and pictures, amazing as that might be, we still severely LACK the above mentioned.

We have more than that. We have an incredibly accurate picture about the nature of space time whose predictions have been verified over and over - and this same picture predicts the existence of black holes! It predicts that if an object has enough mass that it can collapse, overcoming Pauli pressure, baryonic pressure, and keep collapsing until it warps space-time to such a degree that not even light can escape. Then we look out in the universe and we see objects orbiting something invisible and all of the information we gather from our observations of these orbits tells us that there is another object that we can't see that is so massive that it creates an enormous gravitational field - this is consistent with the predictions made by the incredibly consistent theory of General Relativity.

 

So saying my theory is better than your theory really does not matter in this particular case because the evidence is too scarce anyways. So let the philosophy class continue......

The evidence is not scarce - it is in great abundance.

[scott 3]

As of now, alls we really have about black holes are hypothesis because we dont have a black hole close enough to actually be TESTED, and the evidence is SCARCE unless you prove otherwise. Which you will NOT because you dont have much to go on. DUH. Have you personally touched a black hole, tested it, with equipment, close up, to really determine what it is??? NOPE.

 

Noone in the universe as of YET has been close enough to a black hole to even test truly what it is. YES you have pictures, and thats ALL you have. Has this completely passed over your head.

 

And me having a theory about that, was DUH not a theory, it was a joke. And all that youve presented thus far... is a joke.

 

YOU yourself have not provided any testible evidence except pictures, well that goes for every scientist, or squirrel, who decides to merely speak of the pictures.

 

Because quite frankly, you have FAILED to produce this so called EVIDENCE.

 

The same can be said for the so called witnessed billions of years... but that in itself is another topic.

 

Sigh, i never said black holes were imaginary, i know there real, from the pictures, but without actually being close enough to one to test it, YOU cannot accurately tell EXACTLY what its comprised of, or what it truly is, because if you can. id like to ride in that space ship you seem to own.

 

Yes, speaking of something thats NOT testable is trivial, like black holes and the Big Bang.

[A.Sphere 6]

As of now, alls we really have about black holes are hypothesis because we dont have a black hole close enough to actually be TESTED, and the evidence is SCARCE unless you prove otherwise. Which you will NOT because you dont have much to go on. DUH. Have you personally touched a black hole, tested it, with equipment, close up, to really determine what it is??? NOPE.

I've never personally touched the Sun - but that doesn't change the fact of its existence.

 

Noone in the universe as of YET has been close enough to a black hole to even test truly what it is.  YES you have pictures, and thats ALL you have. Has this completely passed over your head.

You still do not understand. The word black hole is used to describe an object in the universe that has certain properties. Those properties are related to the gravitational force that it emits on bodies that pass near it or are in orbit around it. Knowing the gravitational force an object emits tells us about its mass. So we can observe that there is an object in the universe that has a mass (or simulates a mass) that is substantially larger than our Sun. We also observe that the location where this object should be does not emit any electromagnetic radiation. This object does cause X-ray emissions at its poles (simlar to how neutron stars radiate). Now we theorize about what this object is. Current theory tells us that it is a star that was so massive that it is essentially collapsing forever. The theory explains the observed fact of black holes.

 

And me having a theory about that, was DUH not a theory, it was a joke.  And all that youve presented thus far... is a joke.

How so?

 

YOU yourself have not provided any testible evidence except pictures, well that goes for every scientist, or squirrel, who decides to merely speak of the pictures.

I didn't give you any pictures. The evidence for black holes as described by GR is overwhelming. Google is your friend.

 

Because quite frankly, you have FAILED to produce this so called EVIDENCE.

For black holes?

 

The same can be said for the so called witnessed billions of years... but that in itself is another topic.

?

 

Sigh, i never said black holes were imaginary, i know there real, from the pictures, but without actually being close enough to one to test it, YOU cannot accurately tell EXACTLY what its comprised of, or what it truly is, because if you can. id like to ride in that space ship you seem to own.

I never said I could absolutely tell you what a black hole is comprised of. I told you that we could observe the effect it has on its surroundings. I said that I could provide a consistent theory that uses known physics to describe what it is comprised of in attempt to explain to you the difference between theory and wild guess.

 

Yes, speaking of something thats NOT testable is trivial, like black holes and the Big Bang.

The theory of black holes is testable. It has been tested. It was theorized that it should have an intense magnetic field that pulls x-ray emissions from the accretion disk that surrounds the event horizon of the black hole and releases those x-rays as giant jets from above and below the black hole. This has been confirmed. It is constantly being tested - as is the way of science:

 

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v373/...s/373127a0.html

 

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v378/...s/378157a0.html

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0109367

 

If you want to talk about the Big Bang start another topic.

[scott 3]

Offcourse the theory itself can be tested, even though how can you truthfully call it a theory if you havent actually tested a real black hole. You can test what we have on earth, but without actually being up close or near a black hole, you cannot physically test it.

 

On paper, offcourse you can test it, you can test particles you THINK its comprised of, even without KNOWING what the black hole is comprised of.

 

But the black hole itself, remains still to be tested, a space ship is necessary to go and get sucked in, well maybe not that close, but at least send a probe that can test the particles to see exactly what type of particles a black hole is comprised of.

 

You cant possibly know which particles will make up a black hole, well you can GUESS which ones make up a black hole, but without actually testing a REAL black hole itself, you cant say you know absolutely positively without a doubt which particles you should be testing.

 

At the very least i understand what your saying, offcourse you can make a theory of what you think which particles the black hole is made of, then test those particles to see if you get a similar affect as a REAL black hole. But you cant say youve been testing a REAL black hole.

 

Thats like saying youve tested NOAHS ARK simply because you used a down sized scale model, but without actually knowing what shape or what materials were actually used to make it.

[A.Sphere 6]

Offcourse the theory itself can be tested, even though how can you truthfully call it a theory if you havent actually tested a real black hole.  You can test what we have on earth, but without actually being up close or near a black hole, you cannot physically test it.

That is absurd. It can be observed by its affect on its surroundings and hopefully soon its emission of gravitational waves. We can't see germs - but we can test theories about them. If an observation can be made predictions can be confirmed or not confirmed.

 

But the black hole itself, remains still to be tested, a space ship is necessary to go and get sucked in, well maybe not that close, but at least send a probe that can test the particles to see exactly what type of particles a black hole is comprised of.

You can't test a black hole this way. Information goes in but it doesn't come out. If you send a probe in the tidal forces created outside the black hole will tear your probe to bits. Once the probe passes the event horizon it will never be able to leave or relay any sort of message. The only observations that can be made are how it affects its surroundings.

 

You cant possibly know which particles will make up a black hole, well you can GUESS which ones make up a black hole, but without actually testing a REAL black hole itself, you cant say you know absolutely positively without a doubt which particles you should be testing.

But we can observe matter falling on a black hole - thus we know what is going into the black hole. Of course I can't say absolutely anything about anything. But I can use my theory to test observations about REAL black holes and see how they add up - then I can apply degrees of certainty to what I think made the black hole.

 

At the very least i understand what your saying, offcourse you can make a theory of what you think which particles the black hole is made of, then test those particles to see if you get a similar affect as a REAL black hole. But you cant say youve been testing a REAL black hole.

Okay - here is a prediction. I predict that black holes must have spin. I do this because I know that Stars rotate and when they collapse they will continue to rotate faster and faster due to conservation of angular momentum. So if one becomes a black hole it should be rotating. So what would a rotating black hole do to its surroundings? Well, Einstein predicted a phenomenon called frame dragging - which says that a rotating object can drag space-time around with it. What would be the effects of frame dragging with electromagnetic radiation? Well - that has been answered via gravitomagnetism which ties Maxwell's field equations to Einstein's Field equations. Using this model I can predict that the polar jets will form asymmetrically about the black hole's polar axis (among many things). I get out my scope point it at a suspected rotating black hole and low and behold I see asymmetrical polar jets. In fact this is exactly what Reva Williams predicted and this is exactly what was observed. How is that not testing a theory about black holes on a REAL black hole?

 

If you are demanding that I go up to a black hole and slice it open like a surgeon I hate to be the one to tell you but science does not make those demands. Science only demands that my theory stands up to scientific scrutiny and that it has explanatory power. Science also demands that if a theory with more explanatory power comes along then I must discard my previous theory.

[scott 3]

BWHAHAHHAHA!!!!!! Your dead wrong about the germs A. sphere, we can easily see and test germs and viruses. Just pick up a microscope touch, view, and poke the germ. You CANNOT do this with a black hole, which you have FAILED to REALIZE AGAIN. You cant KNOW exactly which particles are going into the black hole.

 

You know whats absurd A.shphere, trying to test a black hole thats OBVIOUSLY millions of miles away... (more actually), then claiming that SOMEHOW you tested the black hole. NOPE you didnt, FAIL.

 

You HAVE to have the black hole on hand, to test it, like what, did you have the black hole locked up in a cage so you could poke it, see how it grunted, and see if it could realize which button was the shocker or which button would give it a banana, so it could give the banana to YOU for testing a black hole thats BILLIONS of miles away.

 

Please understand this, you CANNOT test something if you dont have that something with you to test!!! Earth to A.sphere, Earth to A.sphere, do you copy???

 

Anyways, i think the signal is getting interrupted, oh no.... ive lost all contact...

 

Just remember you can ALWAYS, make a theory about a black hole, but you cant test it, physically.

[A.Sphere 6]

BWHAHAHHAHA!!!!!! Your dead wrong about the germs A. sphere, we can easily see and test germs and viruses. Just pick up a microscope touch, view, and poke the germ. You CANNOT do this with a black hole, which you have FAILED to REALIZE AGAIN.  You cant KNOW exactly which particles are going into the black hole.

Perhaps I should clarify. Germ theory of disease was well established before we had the technology to allow us to measure microorganisms by making theories about them and then testing predictions made by those theories on the affects of germs (because we can't see them and at the time we didn't have the technology to see them with microscopes). You can test Germ theory without a microscope.

 

You know whats absurd A.shphere, trying to test a black hole thats OBVIOUSLY millions of miles away... (more actually), then claiming that SOMEHOW you tested the black hole. NOPE you didnt, FAIL.

What is even more absurd is just typing words like "FAIL" and "you didn't" without actually showing where my analysis went wrong and thinking that black holes are millions of miles away - we would be dead - you do realize that right? I mean the Sun is 93 million miles away from us . The nearest black hole is roughly 9x10^15 miles away from us - that is a 9 followed by 15 zeroes.

 

You HAVE to have the black hole on hand, to test it, like what, did you have the black hole locked up in a cage so you could poke it, see how it grunted, and see if it could realize which button was the shocker or which button would give it a banana, so it could give the banana to YOU for testing a black hole thats BILLIONS of miles away.

According to whom? Not science. That would make Astronomy non-scientific. You can't redefine the method because your position is wrong.

 

Please understand this, you CANNOT test something if you dont have that something with you to test!!! Earth to A.sphere, Earth to A.sphere, do you copy???

You are embarrassing yourself. The phrase that you so often repeat "testing a black hole" is not what is happening in science. We test theories against observational evidence. If I can observe something I can test a theory against that observation - that is how science works.

Just remember you can ALWAYS, make a theory about a black hole, but you cant test it, physically.

nonsense.

 

When I look at the affects that a black hole has on its surroundings how is that not a physical phenomenon? If you are demanding that I touch the black hole then your demands are not scientific - because science is rational. I can't touch the Sun - but I can measure its radiation - am I not measuring a physical phenomenon?

[A.Sphere 6]

Scott

 

I have read a couple of your posts in other topics and I can see that either you don't understand scientific rationalization or you aren't willing to accept it (willful ignorance). Your post are littered with questions like "are you absolutely positive" or "were you there" or "did you hug it" or "can you put it in a cage and poke it". If we were restricted to the kind of demands you make of investigation we would never get anything done nor would we progress our technology (let alone invent any). Nobody to this day is comfortable (let alone sure) about quantum mechanics and yet its theory laid the foundations for the transistor which led to computers. I can't see or isolate quantum objects (they aren't even localized) but I can test theories against them.

[scott 3]

no A.sphere, its you who thinks you can test a black hole billions of miles away, which in and of itself is embarrassing to say the least.

Please, everyone knows the story about how germs were found, but truth is, they could be tested, simply because we had them on hand to test.

 

AGAIN you are totally confused about the situation. You do NOT have a black hole to test, either that, or your just full of bananas that the black hole just gave you.

 

AGAIN i you are NOT understanding what im saying, you cant test what a black hole IS and EXACTLY what its made out of, DUH. without having it on hand.

 

Also with the germs, they had a theory, and yes they tested the germs, because they had germs to test, even if they didnt have a microscope.

 

Also with fossils, you can see the EVIDENCE of a flood, without actually having the flood.

 

You can look at pictures of a black hole, which is absolutely acceptable evidence, that cant be tested. You CAN go into a bunch of philosophy about how you THINK it does this, or that. But in the end, you still dont have the black hole in your presence to test, so NO you FAIL, AGAIN.

 

You absolutely most certainly do have to have the object your testing with you, to say you tested it, otherwise, youd be made out to look like some sort of fraud for not doing what you said you did.

 

The theory of the germ was a good one, we have germs here on earth that we can test, even if we dont have a microscope to look at them, we can still test them, because physically they are there and we can see the effects of what they do, just like a black hole, but what your not getting at is that the...

 

MICROSCOPE = the SPACESHIP that you would need to actually completely and absolutely know about these things. The black hole is also vice versa of the GERM, because first we have Pictures of the black holes, but on germs alls we had was the effects, or the results.

 

Sigh, can i be any clearer, or do you still think that you can test a black hole without having a specimen on hand..... please this is really strange real quick as to why you wouldnt understand this.

 

P.S. understand, ive got no problem with what you think may or may not have happened, because even before i entered this topic, i believed very similarly to what you propose. We just dont have a black hole in our presence to test. That is the ONLY problem. You see if we had the black hole, we could verify what we are proposing, but we dont.

 

Also id have you know that i dont willfully ignore evidence, such as you, because if you didnt ignore the evidence you obviously wouldnt be an evolutionist, bent on ignoring all opposing evidence. Also you wouldnt be IGNORING the FACT that you dont have a black hole on hand to actually test.

[A.Sphere 6]

no A.sphere, its you who thinks you can test a black hole billions of miles away, which in and of itself is embarrassing to say the least.

Please, everyone knows the story about how germs were found, but truth is, they could be tested, simply because we had them on hand to test.

 

AGAIN you are totally confused about the situation. You do NOT have a black hole to test, either that, or your just full of bananas that the black hole just gave you.

 

AGAIN i you are NOT understanding what im saying, you cant test what a black hole IS and EXACTLY what its made out of, DUH. without having it on hand.

 

Also with the germs, they had a theory, and yes they tested the germs, because they had germs to test, even if they didnt have a microscope.

 

Also with fossils, you can see the EVIDENCE of a flood, without actually having the flood.

 

You can look at pictures of a black hole, which is absolutely acceptable evidence, that cant be tested. You CAN go into a bunch of philosophy about how you THINK it does this, or that.  But in the end, you still dont have the black hole in your presence to test, so NO you FAIL, AGAIN.

 

You absolutely most certainly do have to have the object your testing with you, to say you tested it, otherwise, youd be made out to look like some sort of fraud for not doing what you said you did.

 

The theory of the germ was a good one, we have germs here on earth that we can test, even if we dont have a microscope to look at them, we can still test them, because physically they are there and we can see the effects of what they do, just like a black hole, but what your not getting at is that the...

 

MICROSCOPE = the SPACESHIP that you would need to actually completely and absolutely know about these things.  The black hole is also vice versa of the GERM, because first we have Pictures of the black holes,  but on germs alls we had was the effects, or the results.

 

Sigh, can i be any clearer, or do you still think that you can test a black hole without having a specimen on hand..... please this is really strange real quick as to why you wouldnt understand this.

 

P.S. understand, ive got no problem with what you think may or may not have happened, because even before i entered this topic, i believed very similarly to what you propose.  We just dont have a black hole in our presence to test. That is the ONLY problem. You see if we had the black hole, we could verify what we are proposing, but we dont.

19641[/snapback]

And the goal post are screeching all over the place. Lets recap. I started with saying that science only offers theories about facts. I said that it is a fact that black holes exists. I said that we can't say with absolute certainty - anything about the black hole's interior. You said I couldn't test a black hole. I said science tests theories against black holes. You said I couldn't physical test the black hole. I said that any measurement I make of a REAL black hole gives me meaningful physical data that I can test against my theory. I have already stated that the phrase "test a black hole" is scientifically silly. Black holes do not take tests. In science we test our theories against observational evidence. Touching is one way of making an observation. Seeing is another. Seeing affects is another. Hearing is another. There are many mediums for observation.

 

Again - If I can observe something, I can test theories. And Again - in science we TEST THEORIES NOT THINGS!

 

Let me ask you a question: how do I test a germ? Give it a math exam? No - we theorize that there is something that makes you sick. We theorize that the germ is a microorganism - we use microscopes to confirm the existence of microorganisms. We isolate microorganisms and introduce them to a host. We observe if the host becomes sick. We have successfully tested our theory that germs cause disease - but we didn't test germs. The phrase "test germs" is not even meaningful in science. I can run tests on germs -> equivalent to testing theories with observations - but I am not testing germs.

[scott 3]

no A.sphere we test theories to test things, obviously we have started off into a complete misunderstanding of each other.

 

First your right, i did mean physically going out and testing, thats really the only true way to do this, and is the right way to conduct science. You cant have a Theory if its not testable... period.

 

If we as a human race in general tested theories merely to test theories, it would be obviously pointless.

 

You see this is exactly how evolution is, it must be testable. Which to a hands on degree, is not.... so yes you are ABSOLUTELY losed in SPACE.

 

Sigh, there is so much corruption in science simply because of the fatal, NOT TESTING FLAW. You absolutely positively need to have something on hand to be tested.

 

Oh and offcourse germs were tested, you were testing to see if germs caused a specific disease, and you were also testing to see if disease was caused by germs. So yes you were testing germs.

[A.Sphere 6]

Sigh, can i be any clearer, or do you still think that you can test a black hole without having a specimen on hand..... please this is really strange real quick as to why you wouldnt understand this.

I understand what you are getting at and I am trying to explain how wrong you are. We do not test black holes. We test theories about black holes using observational data taken from actual black holes. We do not test germs. We test germ theory against observational data taken on microorganisms. We do not test the Sun - we test solar theory against observational data from the Sun. This is science.

[A.Sphere 6]

no A.sphere we test theories to test things, obviously we have started off into a complete misunderstanding of each other.

19647[/snapback]

Okay. If we say "we test theories to test things" I am happy with that statement sort of. So why can't I test black hole theory to test black holes?

[A.Sphere 6]

You see this is exactly how evolution is, it must be testable. Which to a hands on degree, is not.... so yes you are ABSOLUTELY losed in SPACE.

Hands need not apply! Only logical reasoning and evidence accepted.

 

The Theory of Evolution absolutely makes testable predictions. My favorite: humans have 23 chromosomes - all other apes have 24. If humans and the rest of the great apes share a common ancestor then we should observe a phenomenon called chromosome fusion. Why? If a chromosome were simple deleted it would be fatal - this is well known. The only solution is fusion. If this prediction could not be confirmed then the TOE would be in big trouble. This prediction was made before the Chimpanzee genome project and it was confirmed. Human chromosome #2 is clearly identical to chimpanzee chromosome #'s 2a and 2b. They are identical except that in humans chimp chromosome 2a and 2b are fused at the telomere. Prediction made using the TOE, prediction confirmed.

[ikester7579 20]

Okay scott. Not that I don't agree but you are taunting other members into reacting to how you are presenting something.

 

I realize you are new here. But we try and keep our debates civil. I allow little pokes from bothe sides.

 

Example: BWHAHAHHAHA!!!!!! Your dead wrong about the germs.

 

Now if the other side said: BWHAHAHHAHA!!!!!! Your dead wrong about creation, or what ever subject you were debating. Does that not imply that you are stupid?

 

The way you present your arguement makes a difference. Because if you even slightly go beyond a poke, people put up a wall and won't listen.

[scott 3]

indeed ikester,

 

This has gotten out of hand, ill try and remember this isnt a chat room, and im sorry if i lead myself and other members completely off topic... My bad.