Major Scientific Discovery on Extrasolar Planets

[yevaud]

Hard to say, really. Except it isn't located in or near the Shapely Center, it's (IIRC) 20,000 LY distant.<br /><br />I'll have to go read a few of the articles on it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[centsworth_II]

...woith an orbit of 10 years..."<br /><br />Curly lives!<img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[centsworth_II]

<font color="yellow">"...the actual obsrevations were limitted to a few days to see the planet. They are not repeatable, and not confirmable."</font><br /><br />Gamma ray bursts are similar events. Unique and short-lived with no subsiquent observation possible. Do you hold the study of that phenomenon with similar low regard? <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[chew_on_this]

Steve must do contrary medical opinions.

 

[chriscdc]

IIRC the paper also didn't use the gas collected as energy for a fusion reactor and purely as an exhaust material. Also the exhaust velocity was assumed to be rather slow.<br /><br />Do you have any links to papers on the subject as whenever I google I get loads of useless links?

 

[bonzelite]

you didn't really address the 5 points any more or less conclusively than i did. you're good at elucidating terminology and semantics, but little of what you said stands as proof of anything.<br /><br />singularities are not proven. and are unreplicable in a lab. they are contrivances bearing no resemblance to reality. they can never be tested.<br /><br />the story frames the observations as being evidence for the "dent in spacetime" which is the black hole. and then it says "of course this dent is invisible." so we are back to counting sheep and magic crystals, yet forced to look at all of the observations as unequavocal validity of this black hole because "the dent is the sort of thing predicted by Albert Einstein’s theory of general relativity. It affects the movement of matter falling into the black hole." --what a completely presumptuous and neblulous statement! <br /><br />the news stories that come out, framing black holes and singularities as viable science, should be henceforth taken with a grain of salt. they offer nothing conclusive or even factual <i>whatsoever</i>.<br /><br />about matter. you're expert at putting words in people's mouths.<font color="orange"> It's a mystery to you that we can't directly image 100% of all of the (mostly non-radiating) matter in the entire universe?</font>--the statement right away assumes "dark matter" exists when no such substance has been detected in any fashion by any means <i>whatsoever</i>. <br /><br />i am sure there are lots of things that are not able to be imaged. not everything reflects light or radiates visible light. KBOs are an example of this, some being so distant that the sun cannot reflect much off of them. however, <i>dark matter</i> implies exotic particles that <i>do not exist</i>, or are not known to exist in observable matter. not only is dark matter unobservable, it must be composed of <i>entirely different kinds of particles that cannot be detected!</i> sounds like the same kind of argument fo

 

[jatslo]

... the reviewed paper, which gives an introduction to Heim’s Theory, whereas eight dimensions are necessary for interstellar space propulsion respectfully...<br /><br />... space-time alterations for short ... <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[yevaud]

Ok, look, Bonzelite. I'll explain further.<br /><br /><b>Gravity, Singularities, Relativity, and you</b><br /><br />First, consider various theories, all effectively bound together by what we know of Relativity and Quantum Physics.<br /><br />When I mentioned the experiments conducted by Gravity-B, what <i>do</i> you think it was confirming? It's all within the same sub-speciality of Physics and Astronomy, and so confirmation of one aspect is a great deal of confirmation of the others.<br /><br />Now if we can detect the effects of Frame Dragging and Time Dilation, it is showing <i>exactly</i> the expression of a moderately large mass on spacetime and it's effects therein.<br /><br />When we observe polar jets or accretion discs or what have you, what in the name of Jehu <i>do</i> you think we're looking at? The behavior is exactly what we would expect to see with respect to a Singularity in action.<br /><br />Or how about Gravitational Lensing? Ever heard of the Einstein Cross? It's where there is a quadruplet of stars around a massive stellar object that lenses the single star into 4. Each of the 4 stars in the cross is <i>the same star</i>.<br /><br />All of these are effects of various mechanisms involving gravity. Now if all of these are correct, and frequently observed, why is the concept of a Singularity unbelieveable? <i>It's all part of the same set of theories!</i><br /><br /><b>Dark Matter</b><br /><br />Yeah, Dark Matter <i>could</i> be any one (or several) thing(s). But let's assume for a moment that it's merely good old common matter, and ignore things like WIMPS and so on.<br /><br />When you see an effect without an <i>apparent</i> cause (edit: in this case, the edge versus inner region's rotational velocities within Galaxies), you look for the most plausible reason it's occurring. And frankly, the gravitational effect of a large concentration of non-radiating mass is the best fit (presuming that there's enough of it). I will ask again: <i>why is it such a su</i> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[yevaud]

Addendum: by the way, what I meant in the post in which I first answered you, this morning, what I meant by "one at a time" is <i>one issue at a time</i>. Not all 5 again. Frankly, it's tedious to keep responding to multiplicities each and every time. For one, it's a drag on responding in detail to each issue raised, and in so doing is a disservice to you (and the viewing audience).<br /><br />Choose one issue, please. Define exactly what your objections to current thought on it are. Be detailed. Then I'll respond in equally detailed fashion.<br /><br />Thanks. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[yevaud]

One further point to cover.<br /><br />You said as to Singularities, "unreplicatable in the lab."<br /><br />Well, yes. The relationship between the amount of energy you have to input into a system directly effects what you can achieve. That sounds simplistic, but people tend to forget it.<br /><br />How do we replicate a Singularity on Earth? Just how much energy and mass would we have to input into that aggregation to have it even remotely become a Singularity? They don't even form outside of many multiples of our own primary's mass, and end in a rather largish explosion of energy and blown off matter. As in enough to alert whoever is watching, 10 LY distant. Briefly.<br /><br /><b>!!!!!!!</b> : why in the good 9 Billion names of God would we want to? You understand that we would thus confirm our exact understanding of the reality of Singularities by creating one, which would then consume all of the observers of the event? Not to mention the entire planet.<br /><br />Commit suicide, huh? I really don't think so.<br /><br />Why are indirect effects such an anathema to you? That <b>really</b> seems to be at the nub of all of your problems with conventional Physics and Astronomy. Seriously. Each of those 5 objections boils down to "if we can't <b>see</b> it, it can't possibly be so!" <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

<font color="orange">confirmation of one aspect is a great deal of confirmation of the others. </font><br />be careful, it is not <i>necessarily</i>.<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> if we can detect the effects of Frame Dragging and Time Dilation, it is showing exactly the expression of a moderately large mass on spacetime and it's effects therein. </font><br /><br />agreed. i've never posited to disbelieve or invalidate this, per se. time dilation is fact. but does it lead to a black hole with singularity? --indeterminant.<br /><br />moreover, polar jets --- /> we don't know what we're looking at. polar jets right away contradict an event horizon existing. such a region, then, is <i>only</i> active at the equatorial zone of a black hole and not enshrouding the entire structure? jets of matter would not be able to escape an event horizon. nothing can be seen to escape or even enter this region. polar jets cannot exist to be observed at a black hole. their photons would be infinitely delayed to an observer. <br /><br />the Einstein cross is <i>not</i> proof of gravitational lensing. i was waiting for someone to mention that. this is exactly an example of what i said earlier about the entire school of thought being overly presumptuous and overly enthusiastic as to the validity of gravitational lensing as real science data. over time, the relative luminosities of the 5 stars have all changed in unequal fashion to each other. to account for this anomaly, they then go on to say that gravitational lensing is happening yet <i>again</i> by foreground stars, due to their relative motion with respect to the source and the observer, to create unequal luminosities throughout the visual display of the alleged repeated images. <br /><br />so they must mound layer after layer of this gravitational lensing to avoid pondering seriously that the components of this cross are actually individual stars and not the same image repeated in a pattern. this is another faith-base

 

[jatslo]

+5

 

[bonzelite]

<font color="yellow"><br />Why are indirect effects such an anathema to you? That really seems to be at the nub of all of your problems with conventional Physics and Astronomy. Seriously. Each of those 5 objections boils down to "if we can't see it, it can't possibly be so!"</font><br /><br />again more words in my mouth. you are not speaking for what i think <i>whatsoever</i>. indirect observation is valid. but not for everything. you can look at a decomposed body and arrive later on the scene. and a forenzic scientist can reconstruct what happened indirectly and sometimes directly based upon verifiable evidence that is well within reason. you can look at bullet fragments, trajectories of the bullets, types of maggots and bacteria present, blood spatter evidence, types of gases present in any remaining organs, etc... then educated speculation can even be conducted about the murdered person's last minutes of life and what physical movements they may have made. <br /><br />but the basis for a singularity and all of it's subsequent minions and cronies are nearly all entirely <i>self contradictory</i>, highly <i>unreasonable</i>, and nearly entirely <i>illogical</i>, based upon an abstract mathematical premise that bears no resemblance to physical reality directly or indirectly. too much evidence, much of what i have discussed, is entirely insufficient to base an entire cosmology upon. <i>but it has been.</i>

 

[yevaud]

<font color="orange">confirmation of one aspect is a great deal of confirmation of the others.</font><br /><br />be careful, it is not necessarily.<br /><br />Well, yes it is. It's a <b>continuum</b> of what gravity does to spacetime, as mass increases.<br /><br /><font color="orange">if we can detect the effects of Frame Dragging and Time Dilation, it is showing exactly the expression of a moderately large mass on spacetime and it's effects therein.</font><br /><br /><i>agreed. i've never posited to disbelieve or invalidate this, per se. time dilation is fact. but does it lead to a black hole with singularity? --indeterminant.</i><br /><br />See the above response. But I must add that time dilation is an effect...of gravity. It occurs when you are in either an extreme gravitational field - or when you are moving at a significant velocity of C, and it's <i>the same effect</i>. Again, part of the same body of work: how gravity effects spacetime as mass increases.<br /><br /><i>moreover, polar jets ---> we don't know what we're looking at. polar jets right away contradict an event horizon existing. such a region, then, is only active at the equatorial zone of a black hole and not enshrouding the entire structure? jets of matter would not be able to escape an event horizon. nothing can be seen to escape or even enter this region. polar jets cannot exist to be observed at a black hole. their photons would be infinitely delayed to an observer.</i><br /><br />Polar Jets are associated with several different Stellar ohenomena, sure, but when you see a North/South pair emanating from a tiny, tiny, region of space, which possess huge energy beyond most normal stellar objects, <i>what do you think you're looking at</i>?<br /><br /><i>the Einstein cross is not proof of gravitational lensing. i was waiting for someone to mention that. this is exactly an example of what i said earlier about the entire school of thought being overly presumptuous and overly en</i> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[mlorrey]

Would it be considered a threat to suggest tossing bonzelite into a singularity so he can collect direct obeservations?

 

[yevaud]

<img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /><br /><br />*Ouch* <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[jatslo]

Define *singularity* first: infinite curvature?!?!?! How about we find a finite curvature and call it sing-u-popularity hoooopla.

 

[bonzelite]

<font color="yellow"><br />Indirect particles are a part of your everyday life, as we speak. Quarks, Gluons, W and Z's, Neutrons, Protons, Electrons. <br /><br />Dp you believe in Electrons? Because we can't actually ever image one, due to Heisenberg's. We see a blur, which is the probability-density cloud. So obviously, Electrons can't exist (hey! Another rebuttal to the "Electric Universe" crowd!) either, can they?</font><br /><br />more faith against faith. that is all we are doing. that is what cosmology is. and dark matter is not composed of <i>any</i> indirectly observed or otherwise known particles because they cannot be detected by <i>anything</i>. but it is 90% of everything. in an indirect way, cosmologists are admitting , by proxy via dark matter, that they don't really know anything. or at least, they are admitting by proxy, via dark matter, that they are 90% unsure of themselves. very poetic yet perfectly politically dancing around the subject as they remain the <i>"experts"</i>.<br /><br />and you mention electrons; of course i believe in them. never ever ever have i ever denied their existence <i>ever</i> --but you frame your response as if i just gotta be so crazy as to not believe in them, too? <br /><br />insofar as electrons being actual particles --this is indeterminant. they are probabilities in a quantum field. and by the way, Einstein detested Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. it cramped his style. electrons are <i>apparently</i> both a particle and wave, depending on what context they are in. you add more energy to the system, they take on more mass; E = m, they're more like particles in this way. you take energy away, they're ---who knows what they are. insofar as EU, i'm no shill for that theory. it's far more interesting to find gaping holes in standard theory and leave the question open as to what is "really" the truth --<i>in truth, nobody knows the truth.</i><br /><br />polar jets -- yes, we "know" what we are looking at --they're pol

 

[bonzelite]

mlorrey, it is beyond that. it is about gigantic internal contradictions within the theory. you want your math cake and to eat it, too, without any heed to contradiction. you must not be reading my posts. or if you are, you are conveniently ignoring the parts that cramp your math fantasies <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <br /><br />the entire scenario for big polar jets and accretion disks around the black hole is, according to it's own premise of the event horizon, <i>impossible.</i>

 

[yevaud]

Last response, as I have to go too. Just as well, as I have to begin my work week tomorrow at 7am.<br /><br />Ok. Why is the presence of an electron believeable and that of a Singularity not, when they're both unobservable, yet we can observe their effects, and there's adequate theory to explain both? That's the first spot you lose me at.<br /><br />See, I'm not trying to bust you're hump about the "issue about unobservability" point, but that seriously comes across durng that "5 Rules/ 5 Commandments" part of this thread. To digress:<br /><br /><b>1. Nothing can go faster than the speed of light.</b><br /><br />You disagree. Well, where is the <i>observational</i> evidence for this?<br /><br /><b>2. Gravity is the most important force in the universe at large distances.</b><br /><br />You disagree. Well, where is the <i>observational</i> evidence for this?<br /><br /><b>3. Red shift is an accurate way to measure distances to far away objects.</b><br /><br />You disagree. Well, where is the <i>observational</i> evidence for this?<br /><br /><b>4. Our universe began with the big bang.</b><br /><br />Now here, sure, there is obviously no <i>direct</i> observation. It occurred in the quite distant past. But there's a great deal of leftover, secondary, indirect, observational, and experimental proof. A HUGE amount.<br /><br /><b>5. Black holes exist.</b><br /><br />Repeat portion of above post as to "Leftover, secondary..." Quick answer. Gotta go. Peace.<br /><br />Edit: when I say above "You disagree..." what I mean there is, "where is your evidence of something, anything, that <b>contradicts</b> known and reasonably accepted theory?" <br /><br />To use one isue there as an example, where is your evidence, either observational or experimental that something with mass can exceed C?<br /><br />In short, saying that there is a problem with what I am saying implies you have an alternative hypothesis to compete with a pretty damned well tested and accepted body of science.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

Yev, my biggest problem is the contradictory premises of the whole shebang. <br /><br />i gotta go eat, really. i'm starved. we're going out for sushi <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />this is fun, actually. i'm not hating on you guys. it's biz as usual <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> i'll look at your list a bit later.

 

[mikeemmert]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Would it be considered a threat to suggest tossing bonzelite into a singularity so he can collect direct obeservations?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>OK, we toss bonzelite into that object colloquially known as a black hole. Having volunteered for this, he has also volunteered to report to us on a regular basis. We <i><b><font color="yellow">know</font></b></i><font color="white"> bonzelite is reliable, because he is defined as being so.<br /><br />Since things happen fast at the event horizon, we have endowed bonzelite with Bat Powers so he can file his reports faster. We expect his report tommorow and have enlisted a bat to translate his high pitched squeaks for us.<br /><br />Tomorrow arrives. No report from bonzelite. ??WTF, we know bonzelite's reliable!!<br /><br />The next day the bat shows up again and informs us that bonzelite has not yet reached the event horizon, and that he will report again tommorow. He also informs us that his voice can now be heard by a dog, and that he quits this Mengele-type experiment in disgust.<br /><br />So we get a dog to translate the daily report. But the report doesn't arrive. ??WTF, we know bonzelite is reliable!!<br /><br />The next day, the dog arrives on schedule. Bonzelite's report comes in, a day late, in a high pitched soprano that we can hear! He says he has not yet reached the event horizon and that he will report back tommorow. The dog wanders off, muttering under his breath that not even a homeless bum should be treated this way.<br /><br />The next day, we gather around the radio for bonzelite's report. It doesn't arrive. ??WTF, we know bonzelite is reliable!!<br /><br />The next day, bonzelite reports in a pleasant barritone that he has not yet reached the event horizon and that he will file a report tommorow.<br /><br />The next day, there's no report! ??WTF, we know bonzelite is reliable!!<br /><br />The next day, bonzelite reports in a deep bass voice that he has not yet reach</font>

 

[bonzelite]

1. <i>c --limit or not?</i> at present ---> yes. <b>non-locality of events in spacetime possible?</b> ---> i think yes; there is evidence for this. <i>possible right now as we know it?</i> ---> experimentally <b>yes</b>. <i>viable means of large scale breach of c at will?</i> no. presently unknown/undeveloped.<br /><br />2. gravity <i>most important</i> force? ---> unknown. <b>gravity is a force at all?</b> ---> unknown. g may be endemic geometry; possibly may act non-locally. homogeneous/flat rotational velocity from galactic centers to outer edges entirely violates Kepler's laws of motion due to gravity; cause is unknown. <br /><br />3. <i>redshift as accurate measuring</i> ---> yes, but distances claimed may be grossly over-enthusiastic as to actual distance. <i>prima facie evidence for bb?</i> ---> not necessarily. <i>redshift is doppler measure only</i> ---> no. <br /><br />4. BB is <i>"it"</i> ---> unknown, cannot be known. large stretch to claim as conclusive; too many contradictions.<br /><br />5. <i>BH's exist</i> ---> unknown, but IMHO ---> no. largest set of contradictions in order to have them actually exist, with <i>far too many exceptions and layers of theories upon theoretical unknowns made in their midst to make them viable. infinite density state of singularity is mathematical abstraction. on-paper conditions for black hole contradict observational "evidence."</i><br /><br />6. <i>time dilation exists</i> ---> yes, absolutely. is proven. <br /><br />7. <i>electrons are elusive as to their true essence but are essentially both a particle and a wave, depending on context, as their general essence is directly observable</i> ---> yes, 200% yes. <br /><br />see, i'm not so crazy <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[bonzelite]

<font color="orange">Bonzelite is always going to fall into the black hole tommorow. 1/x goes to infinity as x goes to zero. The square root of zero does not exist. </font><br /><br />thank you, mike, my man. <br />thank you <br />thank you <br />thank you. yes. you get it <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[tap_sa]

<font color="yellow">"the entire scenario for big polar jets and accretion disks around the black hole is, according to it's own premise of the event horizon, impossible."</font><br /><br />Please <i>prove</i> how formation of accretion disk and polar jets are impossible near blackhole but <i>outside</i> event horizon.