Black Hole

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

dryson

Guest
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/blackhole_milkyway_021016.html

.... have verified with near certainty the existence of a central black hole, a theoretical object that still eludes direct detection
With near certainty the existance - this does not state that a 100% level of accurate proof has been obtained to verify the result at 100% certainty. This drops the results by 30%.

...a theoretical object that still eludes direct detection.
theorectical - not proven to exist with visual confirmation but only on paper- this drops the certainty down by another 20%

...still eludes by direct detection

Still does not provide a 100% level a certainty through direct detection which would mean visual confirmation - this drops the results down even further by 30%.

So based on the results of inconsistent date and assumptions the results are really at only 20%. This is why it is important to understand the English venacular and what words mean.


Like Metoer Wanye stated we are 26,000 ly's away from the Milky Ways galactic center, the variances involved with building information of this sort off of how the results are determined based off of how the interactions with other objects relating to the actual find is the same as saying that you know what the person down the road twenty miles away from you is doing based off of what someone else is telling you that they are doing.

Unless we were within ten light years of the center of the galaxy then this information is just like playing the telephone game. One person starts by saying something and as the exchange of information goes around the circle depending on the number of people within the circle the information may change by one or two or even completely different then what the person starting the exchange said thus making the information unreliable even if the information exhanged was only off by one word.
 
R

ramparts

Guest
Once again, the struggle to teach dryson basic physics continues.

There is never 100% certainty in physics. Never.

Where are you getting these numbers from? Since there's not a "100% level of accurate proof", that automatically means there's a 30% uncertainty? Since something isn't directly detected, our certainty drops 20%? We need to be exactly 10 light years or closer to say something meaningful?

These numbers are completely arbitrary.

Anyway, if you'd like an explanation of why this result is extremely robust and probably at a 95% or greater confidence level (bearing in mind that a confidence level is just an estimate), I'd be more than happy to, but only provided that I have your assurances you'll actually listen this time around...
 
D

dangineer

Guest
There's actually a stastical method for calculating confidence levels as well. It generally applies to cofidence that a particular mean is within a certain distance from the actual mean, though, not to whether a theory is correct.

Just thought I'd point that out...
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
In the meantime, considering the profusion of Black Hole threads (at least a half dozen active ones preceeding this) this will probably be merged into one of the others...
 
R

ramparts

Guest
dangineer":2y39zppr said:
There's actually a stastical method for calculating confidence levels as well. It generally applies to cofidence that a particular mean is within a certain distance from the actual mean, though, not to whether a theory is correct.

Just thought I'd point that out...

Well, exactly, it can't be applied to whether a theory is correct (or, in this case, to whether a theory is the accurate description of certain observations).
 
S

SpeedFreek

Guest
dryson":1a7ffcjg said:
Unless we were within ten light years of the center of the galaxy then this information is just like playing the telephone game. One person starts by saying something and as the exchange of information goes around the circle depending on the number of people within the circle the information may change by one or two or even completely different then what the person starting the exchange said thus making the information unreliable even if the information exhanged was only off by one word.

By that rationale, we might as well give up trying to make any sense of the universe outside of a 10 light-year radius, then. :roll:

We have been watching the stars at the centre of the galaxy for years, tracking their motion. Their motion indicates they are orbiting an incredibly large unseen mass. From their orbital motions we can deduce the mass of the body they are orbiting. It is very massive, but we cannot see it. This is because it is a black hole.

Here are their motions, plotted using software to show their orbits. The + represents the unseen mass.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UM4o9xft1Lw[/youtube]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.