maverick40 said:
Dr.Grass said:
maverick40 said:
Dr.Grass said:
maverick40 said:
Dr.Grass said:
maverick40 said:
JEMC said:
maverick40 said:
Blackholes actually exist, where as wormholes not so much as I can tell. As an astrophysicist, I spent half a year studying the mechanics, temperature profiles and evolution of blackholes. They are fascinating things and I think is reassuring to know that we have one gigantic black hole at the center of our galaxy. |
Sorry to ask, but, why is it reassuring?
|
ha it isn't really but hey the blackhole is what is keeping the galaxy together so I suppose you could say that is reasuring to know. Although a lot of people don't know what a black hole really is. It is the remnants of collapsed star that has a frozen event horizon. If ye guys are interested I could explain what would happen if someone theoretcially entered a black hole but I understand if ye think it is boring.
|
Question: How can you say that with such certainty if you have no idea what the interaction of the so-called dark-matter is with our galaxy? Even stranger is dark energy - which (the learned tell us) tend to push space apart.
I'm really flumoxed by how cosmologists and astrophycisists can speak in factual terms when there is much more they don't know than they do know...
|
What are you trying to get at?
Do not put down what you do not understand. It is very easy to look up wikipedia and to find general information about cosmology to sound smart. So you trying to sound intelligent to undermine a physicist does not bode well with me. I am sorry, I deal with your type of people at my university the whole time.
I have studied the mathematics and mechanics of black holes, and I have seen the effect black holes have within other galaxies. Dark matter has little to no interaction with galaxies. It only makes up 1% of the universe mass. Dark energy is an unknown quanity but we do know that it makes up 90 % percent of the universe. Physicist do not claim to know information about dark energy, an experiment was sent up to the ISS last month which should hopefully shed some light on this problem.
|
1. I have a degree in Theoretical Physics and I'm doing MSc in Nuclear Physics so please don't try and patronize me with the 'anyone can look it up in Wiki' nonsense.
2. You have coyly avoided my first response to your statements. That was certainly the most important one as far as I am concerned and I would prefer you to comment on that as a future doctorate of science.
3. Comment #2 (quoted above) wasn't made in any accusative way; I assume you took it that way due to my 1st Comment. Note, that first comment isn't directed at you, but at the statements you made. They are in no way unique or out of the ordinary.
4. For a Astrophysicist you seem to not now that (drumroll as quote from wikipedia gets copied and pasted) ''...From these figures, dark matter constitutes 83%, (23/(23+4.6)), of the matter in the universe, whereas ordinary matter makes up only 17%'' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter As everyone can see now you are quite far from the actual accepted fact above.
Q.''What are you trying to get at?''
A. Something very simple really; I observe more and more that the scientific world view is impregnating general society due to the average man being intimitated by complicated terms and guys with PhD's, not because that model that you have built up with your sketchy data is fail-safe.
This is an important topic for me since there are less and less intelligent people willing to stand up to the ego-fuelled Dawkins and co - therefore I must go down this route.
Here's a cosmology question for you (in all seriousness): How are the distances between stars measured?
EDIT: Because anyone following religion these days is considered a lesser mortal by above mentioned scientist and his many followers. So-called disciples of rational thought.
|
For a Astrophysicist you seem to not now that (drumroll as quote from wikipedia gets copied and pasted) ''...From these figures, dark matter constitutes 83%, (23/(23+4.6)), of the matter in the universe, whereas ordinary matter makes up only 17%'' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter As everyone can see now you are quite far from the actual accepted fact above.
you sir are incorrect, relying on wikipedia is a bad idea. I just checked one of my papers there and I can say that the estimated distribution of dark matter and dark energy in the universe is approximately: 74% dark energy, 22% dark matter, 3.6% interstellar gas and 0.4 % stars etc...
EDIT: Because anyone following religion these days is considered a lesser mortal by above mentioned scientist and his many followers. So-called disciples of rational thought.
That is a rather childish school of taught I think. Atheism and religion are just as ignorant as each other, religion cannot prove the existance of god and atheism cannot prove what happened before the big bang.
Here's a cosmology question for you (in all seriousness): How are the distances between stars measured?
Is this some sort of jest? seriously.
|
''you sir are incorrect''
Oh come on. You said Dark Matter == 1% and now you want to make me look bad? And you know veeery well that these numbers changeall the time.
''That is a rather childish school of taught I think. Atheism and religion are just as ignorant as each other, religion cannot prove the existance of god and atheism cannot prove what happened before the big bang''
Well science, per definition, cannot prove anything at all - It can only disprove. That's what the scientists follow. Now since religion is an internal experience, how do you know that God cannot reveal himself to someone elevated? I'm not a big fan of just throwing all the religions into one bucket, because the people that love doing so come from a Judeo-Christian background where the sum total of their religious duties is going to church 1 hour per week. If you spent that much attention on Mathematics you would hardly be able to do anything worthwhile, so why the double standards?
I have repeatedly challenged certain atheists to read certain books, but up to now none of them had any desire to do so. Atheism is as much a religion as anything else. Everyone has belief-systems and we are all subjective.
''Is this some sort of jest? seriously.''
I was serious.
|
I have repeatedly challenged certain atheists to read certain books, but up to now none of them had any desire to do so. Atheism is as much a religion as anything else. Everyone has belief-systems and we are all subjective.
I 100 percent agree with you on this. I cannot stand atheists and their refusal to be open-minded.
Oh come on. You said Dark Matter == 1% and now you want to make me look bad? And you know veeery well that these numbers changeall the time.
Your corrections were completly off so I needed to point that out. You looked up wikipedia to try make a fool out of me and failed. My off hand guesses were incorrect too but at least they were cloes enough to the current percentage.
''Is this some sort of jest? seriously.''
I don't understand why you asked me this question. You can measure the distance between stars in a number of ways: You can measure the intrinsic brightness of the star and then by looking at how bright it appears, it's distance can be measured. Novae tend to have average intrinsic brightness, sp their apparent brightness in say a distant galaxy tells us it's distance. Cepheid variables such as the north star can be used to determine the distances to groups of stars.
Red shift is used for objects outside our galaxy because the amount of red shift within our galaxy would be extremely small if it were not totally overcome by the gravity of the galaxy.
|
Seeing as we're probably the only two physicists on here and (oddly enough) you agree about my sentiment towards atheists, I'd rather apologize for giving you the impression that I'm trying to make a fool out of you, as this was not my intention. I was in the mood for giving you the 3rd degree though 
I think that's partly due to my recent tendancy to discard our observational sciences for the more abstract and elegant mathematical models
Lately all the nuclear selection rules have been a major disappointment to me - It's like studying engineering. After studying the absolute beauty of Hillbert spaces and trying to wrap my mind around the Topological structure of Quantum Field Theory I have become convinced that our fundamental assumption: 'Observable <=> Real Eigenstate' leaves more questions than answers. It's as if the mathematical structure was ripped out of the hands of the Mathematicians and glued together for the sake of being practical. The non-real solutions and the subspace their wave-functions represent must be explored to the fullest, yet all the funding and brain-power has sailed to less elegent waters. At least the string-theorists are allowed their fun - somewhat.
With regards to the intrinsic brightness issue, I wanted to get to (wiki again): '
'Since the sun's luminosity is the standard, comparing these parameters with the sun's apparent magnitude and distance is the easiest way to remember how to convert between them.''
Now this is something I happen to really have a problem with. I'd rather you not go into detail here, we can save it for another day - as I know the actual correlation and propagation of error is not something I can really take in without pen in hand. Also, it'll probably be long and complicated and derail this thread even more. I'd like to go through that model at some point though, so feel free to advise a book on the 'structure of cosmological models' that does the trick.
