Scientist:neutron stars,not black holes, center of galaxies

[chew_on_this]

<font color="yellow">&%$#@!O&%$#@!n&%$#@!e&%$#@! &%$#@!n&%$#@!o&%$#@!t&%$#@!e&%$#@!s&%$#@! &%$#@!y&%$#@!h&%$#@!o&%$#@!u&%$#@!r&%$#@! &%$#@!M&%$#@!O&%$#@!.&%$#@! &%$#@!S&%$#@!i&%$#@!m&%$#@!p&%$#@!l&%$#@!y&%$#@! &%$#@!t&%$#@!o&%$#@! &%$#@!a&%$#@!t&%$#@!t&%$#@!a&%$#@!c&%$#@!k&%$#@! &%$#@!m&%$#@!y&%$#@! &%$#@!p&%$#@!o&%$#@!s&%$#@!t&%$#@!s&%$#@!,&%$#@! &%$#@!w&%$#@!i&%$#@!t&%$#@!h&%$#@!o&%$#@!u&%$#@!t&%$#@! &%$#@!r&%$#@!h&%$#@!y&%$#@!m&%$#@!e&%$#@! &%$#@!o&%$#@!r&%$#@! &%$#@!r&%$#@!e&%$#@!a&%$#@!s&%$#@!o&%$#@!n&%$#@!.&%$#@! &%$#@!O&%$#@!b&%$#@!v&%$#@!i&%$#@!o&%$#@!u&%$#@!s&%$#@! &%$#@!m&%$#@!o&%$#@!d&%$#@!e&%$#@!r&%$#@!a&%$#@!t&%$#@!i&%$#@!o&%$#@!n&%$#@! &%$#@!f&%$#@!a&%$#@!i&%$#@!l&%$#@!u&%$#@!r&%$#@!e&%$#@!.&%$#@! &%$#@! &%$#@!<&%$#@!i&%$#@!m&%$#@!_&%$#@!_&%$#@!r&%$#@!c&%$#@!=&%$#@!"&%$#@!/&%$#@!i&%$#@!m&%$#@!a&%$#@!g&%$#@!e&%$#@!s&%$#@!/&%$#@!i&%$#@!c&%$#@!o&%$#@!n&%$#@!s&%$#@!/&%$#@!s&%$#@!m&%$#@!i&%$#@!l&%$#@!e&%$#@!.&%$#@!g&%$#@!i&%$#@!f&%$#@!"&%$#@!>&%$#@! &%$#@! </font><br /><br />Spoken like a true gentlemen!<br /><br />

 

[yevaud]

Hmmm. I'll raise you majoring in this subject, and see you with the fact that you were the one who said, and I quote, "where's the confirmation?"<br /><br />So I don't follow what your point is. Are you saying that there is no proof for the existance of Singularities, <i>despite</i> both good theory and observation to back it up? <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>

 

[chew_on_this]

Uh, is your name steve? Black holes are theoretical. Until you can show me a handful of black hole, it will always be just that. The confirmation bit is steves gig which he uses to explain away any theoretical basis for an arguement. I use it tongue in cheek. SO, if you're just another blowhard "I majored this, so I'm the authority", I'll refer you to the strawman arguement page.

 

[Saiph]

actually, if you ask for that sort of direct evidence, you've got to throw out basically the entire field of astronomy, and particle physics.<br /><br />for instance, the proof of neutrinos? A pattern of light comming from a tank a mile underground. And we know there are other things that can also make similar patterns.<br /><br />Proof of an objects mass? Merely the speed and distance at which things rotate around it.<br /><br />Proof of a stars composition and temperature? Based purely on the pattern of linies and color distribution of the light.<br /><br />No actual cases where we've been there and taken direct samples. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#c0c0c0"><br /></font></p><p align="center"><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">----</font></em></font><font color="#666699">SaiphMOD@gmail.com </font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">-------------------</font></em></font></p><p><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">"This is my Timey Wimey Detector.  Goes "bing" when there's stuff.  It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually.  I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- </font></em></font><font size="1" color="#999999">The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[yevaud]

Pretty sad day when someone volunteers something they well know on a public message board, and are told "go away - I don't really want to know."<br /><br />Perhaps you're in the wrong place, eh? <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>

 

[chew_on_this]

Facts are facts. Theory is not fact. Steve claimed fact and suffered the rebuttal. <br /><br />Astronomy IS mostly theory. Why do you think there are so many unanswered questions. Theories are works in progress much like black holes. We don't know enough about them to say what is fact. <br /><br />Sad day when you tell me something I don't already know. Perhaps you need to run and hide with steve as he usually does when he doesn't like an answer.

 

[yevaud]

Why what a pithy little reply. How nice.<br /><br />If theory isn't, can't be, viable, why then throw your computer out there, Buddy. Because several of the Quantum processes involved are poorly understood. So, by your reckoning, it can't possibly work!<br /><br />And anyways, going back to the recent points made, the presence of a Neutron Star instead of a Singularity at the Shapely Center is not sufficient to explain the effects we have observed, directly and indirectly. That's based on one of those theories, btw.<br /><br />It's not relevant whether you like it or not. And any problems you may have with Steve are your's, not mine. <br /><br />As I'd said, if you don't like being challenged or contradicted in an arena where others may well know more than you, then leave. You're in the wrong place. You don't want a hot-and-heavy give-and-take, you want a soapbox with a fawning audience. <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]

<i>Uh, is your name steve?</i><br /><br />Oh, and I just really noticed this. You said that to me, and *your* post was a comment to Steve when he was replying to Mikeemmert! In short, you're calling me on interrupting you - when you were barging in on someone else yourself!<br /><br />HAWHAWHAWHAW!!!<br /><br />Now don't you feel like a real bonehead? <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]

Oh, and finally. If you're wondering why I'm being a real pecker-head with you on this, I:<br /><br />1. Resent being told to shove off on a public message board at which I have been a member for pushing 6 years now.<br /><br />2. Being informed that if I might actually have experience or training in something, I can't state it, because it will be considered a "Strawman Argument."<br /><br />3. Having the uninformed state certainties they are neither trained for, nor have experience in. In short, being told that 4 years of a difficult major is crap when compared to someone who's just read an article on a website.<br /><br />Understand? <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>

 

[neutron_star69]

when did this place turn into a place to fight?

 

[yevaud]

Naah, this is just a small matter between me and C_O_T. We'll sort it out presently. <br /><br />This is an ongoing thing here in the science fora, and it's one reason a lot of who *are* scientifically trained don't go here much anymore. Everytime we try to tell people that they're wrong, we get the same damned thing:<br /><br />1. I don't care if you went to school for this, *I* know better.<br />2. Someone's weird and unproven hypothesis *must* be right, so all of science is wrong.<br />3. Any arguments you make to the contrary of what the untrained said *must* be because you're a skeptic, or biased, or out to get the particular person.<br /><br />Etc.<br /><br />A lot of people don't like Steve, because he's an SOB for scientific accuracy. I find it neccessary and a good thing. Science isn't made up of people off the street walking in the door, and stating "I know all." They abrogate all of the work, and just default to the "this is the truth." They can't even prove their point without referring back to someone else - usually the very same person or persons who came up with the wiggy idea in the first place.<br /><br />See?<br /><br />By the way, Chew, the above doesn't neccessarily mean you. Just in general, to explain the truculence you may get here and there. <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]

Tell you what (since I must run to work for the next several hours): I apologize, and let's begin here again.<br /><br />I respectfully disagree as to the statement that it must be a Neutron Star instead of a Singularity at the Shapely Center.<br /><br />Could you please formulate an argument to the contrary so I might analyze it and respond? <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>

 

[chew_on_this]

<font color="yellow">If theory isn't, can't be, viable, why then throw your computer out there, Buddy. Because several of the Quantum processes involved are poorly understood. So, by your reckoning, it can't possibly work! </font><br /><br />Where do I start? Who said anything about my computer? We are talking black holes. Stick to the subject.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">It's not relevant whether you like it or not. And any problems you may have with Steve are your's, not mine. </font><br /><br />When did I say I didn't like "it". The only thing I didn't like is steve stating black holes are fact. My problems are not your concern.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">As I'd said, if you don't like being challenged or contradicted in an arena where others may well know more than you, then leave. You're in the wrong place. You don't want a hot-and-heavy give-and-take, you want a soapbox with a fawning audience. </font><br /><br />Seems you have the pot, kettle, black disease, much like steve. <br /> <br /><br />

 

[chew_on_this]

<font color="yellow"> You said that to me, and *your* post was a comment to Steve when he was replying to Mikeemmert! In short, you're calling me on interrupting you - when you were barging in on someone else yourself! </font><br /><br />Sounds like exactly what you're doing.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Now don't you feel like a real bonehead? </font><br /><br />I guess you have first hand knowledge of this condition.<br />

 

[chew_on_this]

<font color="yellow">1. Resent being told to shove off on a public message board at which I have been a member for pushing 6 years now. </font><br /><br />You're the one that made the suggestion for me to leave before I ever returned the favor. I've been in and out for 5 years. Does that make me any less worthy to be a member?<br /><br /><font color="yellow">2. Being informed that if I might actually have experience or training in something, I can't state it, because it will be considered a "Strawman Argument." </font><br /><br />Steve is quite fond of this arguement. I didn't make the rules. They come in handy in an arguement though.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">3. Having the uninformed state certainties they are neither trained for, nor have experience in. In short, being told that 4 years of a difficult major is crap when compared to someone who's just read an article on a website. </font><br /><br />I never stated 4 years of school is crap. It just cannot be used to state things as a be all end all authority, espescially uncertain things. Just because one goes to school does not make them absolutely right. That is the basis of the strawman. <br /><br /><br /><br /><br />

 

[chew_on_this]

<font color="yellow">I respectfully disagree as to the statement that it must be a Neutron Star instead of a Singularity at the Shapely Center.</font><br /><br />I wasn't really argueing this point. I was concerned with steve stating black holes are the be-all-end-all that-the-facts-jack answer. Fact is, if there are alternate thoeries being batted around, all the facts are not yet known.<br /><br />

 

[robnissen]

"Facts are facts. Theory is not fact. Steve claimed fact and suffered the rebuttal."<br /><br />That statement shows a layman's misunderstanding of the scientific process. In ascending order of proof, the scientific process consists of: speculation, hypothesis, model and theory. There are not "facts." The best science can do is a theory, that is a mistake the creationists make when they say "evolution is just a theory." True enough, but "gravity is just a theory," nuclear fission and fusion are "just a theory." While to a layman, a theory is basically speculation, to a scientist it is much more. Scientists don't refer to "facts" because it takes too much hubris to declare something a fact (no one ever knows what they don't know). The "fact" of Newtonian gravity was proved wrong (or, at least incomplete) by Einstein, the "fact" or relativity may be proven wrong (or incomplete) someday. The "fact" of nuclear fustion by may be proven wrong (or incomplete) someday, that is why, well proven phenomena are "theories" not "facts."<br /><br />One of my pet peeves, is not laymen misusing and misunderstanding what a scientific theory is, its when scientists make the same mistake. "String theory" is not a scientific theory, its probably not even a "Model," its probably best thought of as a hypotheses. Every time a scientist refers to "String theory," he(she) is contributing to the misunderstanding of what a scientific theory is. In Science, the best you get is a theory, to distinguish between theory and "facts," merely shows ignorance of the scientific method.<br />

 

[chew_on_this]

Better pass that on to our oh so learned steve. He's the one spouting fact this, fact that.

 

[yevaud]

Hmm. I'd say there are opposing *hypotheses* myself.<br /><br />Ok, then perhaps I have entirely misinterpreted this. But it did seem to be that you were denying the reality (as much of it we've observed - observation that has conformed with theory, that is) of Singularities, in particular the one we're fairly certain exists at the Shapely Center. My mistake then. <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>

 

[chew_on_this]

No harm, no foul. I agree completely with the existence of the effects just not the certainty of the cause.

 

[yevaud]

I regret this is so, Steve.<br /><br />Unfortunately - call it the cumulative effect of dealing with it for years now - I'm altogether too quick to jump, when presented with it.<br /><br />Have to work on that. <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>

 

[nojocujo]

Stevehw33<br />I am offended!!<br />I thought I came up with some pretty off the wall out of the box stuff and you ignore it! NO attacks No nothing. Certainly the denial of blackhole and neutron stars is way out there and an attack was warranted but my stuff warrants it too. Of course that is not my opinion but I would expect that of you! If I say something stupid I would hope that you or someone will realign my thinking. So go back and read my posts and chew ME out! <br /><br />I can't reference any scientific links! <br />There I got you started!

 

[yevaud]

mmm, your sigline...<br /><br />that would make you an "Idiot Savant," yes?<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <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>

 

[nojocujo]

Nope like I said my mom was just being nice! You got the idiot right!

 

[chew_on_this]

Oh great and wise one, learner of the learned, speaker of the unspoken wisdom of the universe, hold us wee mortals close to your divine bosom so we may bask in your infinitely outflowing ego so that we may at least aspire to acheive the greatness of teachings thou hast acquired.