Scientists Find First Signs of Dark Matter at LHC [Archive]

The Vegan Marxist

2nd February 2011, 05:35

Okay, I don't know about everyone else, but I find this incredibly exciting! :)

http://images.dailytech.com/nimage/18481_CERN_CMS_Visual.png
A visualization of particles jets in the CMS.
Yellow is the path of the particles, while blue
and red represent energy detected from the
particles. (Source: CERN/Imperial College of
London)

Scientists Find First Signs of Dark Matter at LHC
by Jason Mick
February 1, 2011

Discovery of dark matter's behavior would solve many outstanding mysteries in physics

Dark matter (http://www.dailytech.com/Gaping+Hole+Found+in+Universe/article8598.htm) makes up five times more of the universe's mass than visible matter (~25% vs ~5%), yet scientists have yet to directly observe this ultra-abundant substance. Scientists also have yet to observe dark energy, which may well beat out normal energy in universal abundance. This lack of direct observations means that scientists know precious little about two of the most important physical components of our universe.

That could soon change. CERN's Large Hadron Collider (http://www.dailytech.com/Large+Hadron+Collider+Repairs+are+Complete/article15925.htm), a 17-mile long circular underground track that is chilled to almost zero degrees Kelvin, is recording incredibly violent collisions (http://www.dailytech.com/LHC+Turns+on+Powers+up+to+RecordShattering+7+TeV+C ollision/article18008.htm), the likes of which haven't been seen since billions of years ago. Those collisions will likely produce exotic substances like dark matter, which will be analyzed by the LHC's instruments, unlocking long debated mysteries of physics.

Scientists think they are making progress in the hunt for the SUSY – also known as supersymmetric particle, or 'sparticle'. Scientists believe the sparticle may be the mysterious dark matter, given its theoretical stability.

In order to detect sparticles, scientists must probe the matter resulting from the collision for the absence of energy and momenta signals -- the sign that a sparticle was produced, rather than a standard particle. This lack of energetic emissivity is the reason why dark matter is dark -- it does not transfer energy to photons, like standard particles.

More specifically, the researchers are trying to detect a "jet" of particles traveling in the same direction, post proton-beam collision, that lack a significant amount of detected energy and momentum.

Professor Oliver Buchmueller [profile (http://www.imperial.ac.uk/research/hep/people/buchmueller.htm)], a faculty member at the Department of Physics at Imperial College London who is doing research at CERN, describes the LHC team's findings, stating [press release (http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/newsandeventspggrp/imperialcollege/newssummary/news_26-1-2011-15-32-57#fni-1)], "We need a good understanding of the ordinary collisions so that we can recognise the unusual ones when they happen. Such collisions are rare but can be produced by known physics. We examined some 3-trillion proton-proton collisions and found 13 'SUSY-like' ones, around the number that we expected. Although no evidence for sparticles was found, this measurement narrows down the area for the search for dark matter significantly."

The CMS (compact muon solenoid) detector was co-designed by faculty at the Imperial College, one of Europe's best physics schools.

Professor Geoff Hall [profile (http://www.imperial.ac.uk/research/hep/people/hall.htm)], another Imperial College physics faculty member working at CERN, describes the recent detection of "SUSY-like" streams of particles, stating, "We have made an important step forward in the hunt for dark matter, although no discovery has yet been made. These results have come faster than we expected because the LHC and CMS ran better last year than we dared hope and we are now very optimistic about the prospects of pinning down Supersymmetry in the next few years."

Later this year, physicists will run more trials, which they hope will verify the existence of dark matter in the stream. They also hope that the theory of supersymmetry will be verified as an accurate description of dark matter, allowing the Standard Model of particle physics to be officially extended.

Looking ahead there's also much hope that the higher-energy collisions might yield a legendary Higgs boson, which would offer much more insight into the behavior of the universe. The LHC's other major detector -- ATLAS (A Toroidal LHC ApparatuS) -- was designed to search for the Higgs boson.

http://www.dailytech.com/Scientists+Find+First+Signs+of+Dark+Matter+at+LHC/article20794.htm

Fulanito de Tal

2nd February 2011, 05:41

That shit is trippy as fuck. It's like we are trying to observe something that is almost unobservable.

Michelle: Hey, check this out. I'm going to observe something that no one knows it exists because it cannot be observed.
Carlos: WTF? How?
Michelle: By attempting to make something we think may exist and then observing what happens to the observable stuff around it.
Carlos: Trippy.

The Vegan Marxist

2nd February 2011, 05:44

Across The Street

2nd February 2011, 06:02

The Vegan Marxist

2nd February 2011, 06:10

The risks associated with the LHC and its' operation far outwiegh any potential benefit to science. Honestly, what if dark matter is created and it starts to replicate, consuming the observable matter? All of these collisions for the sake of extending a fucking theory? If any end of the world scenario is plausible, the more I read up on this shit, the more I get the feeling the scientists behind the operation of the CERN LHC, and associated sites around that area could be the most likely culprits behind it. The plain truth of the matter is that we have no idea what we are fucking with. Sometimes, I hate science. My grandfather was an astronomer and scientist, knew the man who discovered Pluto, now it's not even considered a planet, I just wish I had been old enough to discuss his take on dark matter before he passed.

This shit has me extremely worried. There are always going to be mysteries we will never discover the answers to. I definitely need to do more research on this, but seriously, no scientists are even denying whether this thing can produce a black hole or not. Not fucking cool.

Do what? lol This is the same Alex Jones cult b.s. that was trying to end the production of the LHC. MANY scientists have, since the beginning, debunked all these anti-science-led theories against the LHC production:

http://www.universetoday.com/15236/newsflash-the-lhc-wont-punch-a-hole-in-the-earth-after-all/
http://www.livescience.com/technology/090128-lhc-black-holes.html
http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/lhc/safety-en.html
http://gizmodo.com/374066/cern-to-morons-large-hadron-collider-wont-destroy-earth-morons
http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2008-06/large-hadron-collider-probably-wont-destroy-earth
http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2008/09/the-large-hadro/

There's plenty more if you're still not convinced.

Ele'ill

2nd February 2011, 06:20

The Vegan Marxist

2nd February 2011, 06:25

Good morning, and welcome to the Black Mesa transit system. This automated train is provided for the security and convenience of the Black Mesa research facility personnel. The time is- eight forty seven AM...

Seriously, isn't this a bad idea?

Edit- I'll check out those links.

Please do read the articles provided. The LHC is not harmful, and I just think the paranoia that surrounded this production was fueled by so many goddamn "post-apocalypse" movies demonizing science as the evil source of humanity, and thus religion will save them from their own atheist destruction. Puhhhleasee! :rolleyes:

Across The Street

2nd February 2011, 06:44

Contrary to what you've stated, I don't buy into hollywood-induced paranoid theories, i'm checking out the articles. I just have a deep-seated awful feeling about the whole thing.

The Vegan Marxist

2nd February 2011, 06:48

Contrary to what you've stated, I don't buy into hollywood-induced paranoid theories, i'm checking out the articles. I just have a deep-seated awful feeling about the whole thing.

Good thing feelings doesn't constitute evidence. If feelings fueled how we advanced forward, instead of science, then the feelings of pre-18th century religious dogma would possibly still be ruling today.

NGNM85

2nd February 2011, 07:15

Good morning, and welcome to the Black Mesa transit system. This automated train is provided for the security and convenience of the Black Mesa research facility personnel. The time is- eight forty seven AM...

Props for the Half-Life reference. :D

Seriously, isn't this a bad idea?

Edit- I'll check out those links.

No, Dark Matter is not in any way harmful, unless we created it in an amount equal to the mass of a planet, or something. In all likelihood, hundreds of Dark Matter particles have zipped through your skull today. While it sounds spooky and enigmatic, Dark Matter, theoretically, is just a kind of subatomic particle that only interacts with other matter via gravity and the strong nuclear force.

Across The Street

2nd February 2011, 08:26

from article: Search for magical dark matter gets real
on: livescience.com

“The LHC is a tremendous experimental venture because we really don’t know precisely what we’re going to find,” said Howard Gordon, a Brookhaven physicist who also works at LHC. “We don’t know if the Higgs will be there or not. Of course, the unexpected results are the things that might be the most interesting.”

The Higgs Boson is completely theoretical, and so is the supposed Hawking radiation which would supposedly enable it to come into being. The 'unexpected results' might also trigger unexpected consequences. Most of the articles state that cosmic rays from the sun could possibly trigger black hole formation when they interact with the Earth's atmosphere, but it is a fact that they do not. None of the articles I've read so far refute the possibility of artificial black holes being formed, they just try the make the weak argument that they will be too small to absorb matter at a faster rate than they evaporate. This evaporation is itself theoretical, based on the speculative Hawking radiation. We know nothing about artificial black holes because we've never observed them, and on a similar topic we can't even observe naturally-occurring black holes, rather the matter and discharges around them. Again, I still feel that the potential risks, which are numerous as evidenced by the articles you've laid forth, outweigh the benefits to human understanding of the nature of the cosmos. I'm still reading, and these topics can be difficult to grasp, but for now, I'm not convinced it's safe. The most infuriating aspect of this is that we have no effin' clue what could happen and the only way to find out is to just see what happens. These scientists are willing to leave existence itself up to chance, and I guess we'll all find out whether or not this was a huge mistake when the particle accelerator goes back into action in the coming months, or something.

The Vegan Marxist

2nd February 2011, 08:31

brigadista

2nd February 2011, 11:10

i am interested in the CERN stuff but i really don't understand it.

Is there any way someone could post and idiots guide to get me started? I'm not lazy but just don't really understand what i'm reading...:):)

or point me in the direction of an existing idiots guide?

Rosa Lichtenstein

2nd February 2011, 11:23

Across The Street: aren't 'Black Holes' theoretical, too?

GPDP

2nd February 2011, 11:44

Again, I still feel

There's your problem.

Stop feeling and start thinking.

Rss

2nd February 2011, 11:48

Prepare for unforeseen consequenses.

@brigadista: You should check out CERN website or like my parents did, google "large hadron collider for dummies". Many people have difficulties wrapping all that treknobabble around their heads, so you are not alone. :)

Across The Street

2nd February 2011, 22:41

Rosa Lichtenstein: "Across The Street: aren't 'Black Holes' theoretical, too?"

The existence of black holes is understood due to the observable phenomena that takes place around them, and the gravitational effects they exert upon planetary bodies and stars. What is not understood is their actual purpose, and current findings are even changing what we thought we knew about gravity itself. Does gravity act in the same manner in every solar system? This is a question we don't yet have the answer to, and to put it simply, just about everything in modern astrophysics is theoretical. So technically, since we can't observe the core of a black hole, which is most likely made up of the theoretical dark matter, the answer to your question would be yes.

Brigadista, the best way to learn is to just start reading on basic phenomenon that we know exist, try and stay away from the theories on antimatter and dark matter for now. I learn better visually and there are some good videos on youtube that give basic introductions to various phenomena, but there's also a lot of bogus information as well, so it would help to just find a good website like space.com to do some reading first.

The Vegan Marxist

2nd February 2011, 22:52

So technically, since we can't observe the core of a black hole, which is most likely made up of the theoretical dark matter

This has actually been proven incorrect:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110120073654.htm

Across The Street

2nd February 2011, 23:45

I see, well I'm definitely still learning about them, so I apologize for speaking without knowing full well. I'm still in the process of trying to read those articles you posted, so I look forward to some debate, headed to work right now, I'll try n get back to this thread tomorrow possibly.

Rosa Lichtenstein

3rd February 2011, 02:02

Across the Street:

The existence of black holes is understood due to the observable phenomena that takes place around them, and the gravitational effects they exert upon planetary bodies and stars. What is not understood is their actual purpose, and current findings are even changing what we thought we knew about gravity itself. Does gravity act in the same manner in every solar system? This is a question we don't yet have the answer to, and to put it simply, just about everything in modern astrophysics is theoretical. So technically, since we can't observe the core of a black hole, which is most likely made up of the theoretical dark matter, the answer to your question would be yes.

Well, many things in the history of science have had allegedly visible evidence that supported claims they existed, but they turned out no to: Phlogiston (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theory), Caloric (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caloric_theory), the five forms of matter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_element) (aether, hot, cold, wet and fire), N-Rays (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N_ray), the crystalline spheres (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_spheres), the Luminiferous Ether (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether), to name but a few.

And in view of the fact that Black Holes require the existence of singularities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity), it seems that not only are they still merely theoretical, they cannot exist.

revolution inaction

3rd February 2011, 22:31

Rosa is that a parody? i mean i assume you don't really think you are making a argument about black holes, but i cant really see the point of you post?

Rosa Lichtenstein

3rd February 2011, 22:46

No, I'm deadly serious. What on earth made you think otherwise?

revolution inaction

4th February 2011, 14:50

No, I'm deadly serious. What on earth made you think otherwise?

your arguments are so ridiculously stupid i didn't think anyone could make them seriously.

Rosa Lichtenstein

4th February 2011, 14:57

RI:

your arguments are so ridiculously stupid i didn't think anyone could make them seriously.

In fact, they are quite standard in Science Studies.

You need to say where I go wrong, or risk being viewed as a dogmatist.:(

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

4th February 2011, 18:12

There is no danger from the LHC. More energetic collisions happen throughout the universe all the time - cosmic rays (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_ray) hit the Earth's atmosphere with greater energies than the LHC.

Blackscare

4th February 2011, 18:20

I've read that scientists think that if an artificial black hole was formed, that it wouldn't even have the mass to sustain itself for more than maybe a few seconds (or less) before it "dissipated" (for lack of a better word).

revolution inaction

4th February 2011, 19:07

RI:

In fact, they are quite standard in Science Studies.

You need to say where I go wrong, or risk being viewed as a dogmatist.:(

What is "Science Studies" and does it have anything to do with science?

Well, many things in the history of science have had allegedly visible evidence that supported claims they existed, but they turned out no to: Phlogiston (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theory), Caloric (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caloric_theory), the five forms of matter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_element) (aether, hot, cold, wet and fire), N-Rays (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N_ray), the crystalline spheres (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_spheres), the Luminiferous Ether (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether), to name but a few.

And in view of the fact that Black Holes require the existence of singularities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity), it seems that not only are they still merely theoretical, they cannot exist.

you don't seem to understand what a black hole is

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole

The appearance of singularities in general relativity is commonly perceived as signaling the breakdown of the theory.[58] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole#cite_note-57) This breakdown, however, is expected; it occurs in a situation where quantum mechanical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics) effects should describe these actions due to the extremely high density and therefore particle interactions. To date it has not been possible to combine quantum and gravitational effects into a single theory. It is generally expected that a theory of quantum gravity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_gravity) will feature black holes without singularities.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

4th February 2011, 19:19

What is "Science Studies" and does it have anything to do with science?

Something that rides on the coat-tails of actual scientific enquiry. They'd have nothing to work with if scientists working the coalface hadn't ever provided the evidential goods.

Great monuments attract pigeons and, inevitably, their shit.

Rosa Lichtenstein

4th February 2011, 19:45

RI:

What is "Science Studies" and does it have anything to do with science?

It is part of the Philosophy, History and Sociology of Science, can it is largely conducted by scientists, philosophers and historians of science. Here (http://sss.sagepub.com/) is one of the journals invovlved, and here's (http://journal.philsci.org/) two more (http://bjps.oxfordjournals.org/content/current).

you don't seem to understand what a black hole is

And I'm in good company, since no one seems to.

The quotation you added to your post only serves to support my allegations:thumbup1:.

Rosa Lichtenstein

4th February 2011, 19:46

Noxion:

Something that rides on the coat-tails of actual scientific enquiry. They'd have nothing to work with if scientists working the coalface hadn't ever provided the evidential goods.

Now, you really are showing your ignorance.

Great monuments attract pigeons and, inevitably, their shit.

Still anally fixated, I see. :lol:

Rosa Lichtenstein

4th February 2011, 19:58

For those who doubt the qualifications of theorists working in the Philosophy of Science, check these papers out, for example

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/view/subjects/quantum-field-theory.html

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/view/subjects/symmetries-invariances.html

Comrades like Noxion here will soon see that these theorists have forgotten more science than they will probably ever know.

That is, unless these comrades adopt their usual tactic of sticking their fingers in their ears and singing "La, La, La...!"

Broletariat

4th February 2011, 20:24

Rosa, you've piqued my curiosity in proclaiming black holes cannot exist, could you either give me a detailed explanation why or direct me to one? Thanks in advance.

Blackscare

4th February 2011, 20:33

Rosa, you've piqued my curiosity in proclaiming black holes cannot exist, could you either give me a detailed explanation why or direct me to one? Thanks in advance.

It certainly is a valid scientific position to take, and there are those that do just that, but don't be confused with Rosa's habit to choose one side in a debate (invariably the least popular, she's infected with all the worst aspects of the skeptic movement) that is defensible and portray it as fact.

Rosa Lichtenstein

4th February 2011, 20:52

Broletariat:

Rosa, you've piqued my curiosity in proclaiming black holes cannot exist, could you either give me a detailed explanation why or direct me to one? Thanks in advance.

It's a frequently made objection, so I don't know why several comrades here are quite so non-plussed.

Here for exampe is a question (and 'answer') posted at the NASA Goddard Space (http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/010912a.html) Flight Centre website:

At the center of a black hole the singularity point has zero volume and infinite density. I know that the singularity is a point in space rather than an object with specific dimensions, but how is it possible for something to have zero volume and infinite density?

The Answer

This is indeed difficult to grasp. Actually at the center of a black hole spacetime has infinite curvature and matter is crushed to infinite density under the pull of infinite gravity. At a singularity, space and time cease to exist as we know them. The laws of physics as we know them break down at a singularity, so it's not really possible to envision something with infinite density and zero volume. You might check out the web site for further information on black holes and singularities:
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/htmltest/rjn_bht.html.

Bold added.

It is no explanation to say in answer to the question, "How is this possible?" -- "It's difficult to grasp".

So, as I pointed out above, no one understands Black Holes, least of all NASA.

Of course, if, like me, you question whether any physical quantity can take on an infinite value, and be compressed into a zero volume, you will also agree that these strange objects cannot exist. [How, for instance, is a zero volume (i.e., no volume at all!) different from nothing?]

On the other hand, if you think that something can have an infinite mass and a zero volume, you will find the Christian Trinity just as easy to swallow.

No wonder then that the above answer said this idea is "difficult to grasp".

Again, as many others have pointed out, Black Holes violate both General and Special Relativity:

http://blog.askyfullofstars.com/2010/02/quantum-leap-blackholes-dont-exist/

My guess is that 'Black Holes' will one day go the same way as Pholgiston, Caloric and the Crystalline Spheres.

Rosa Lichtenstein

4th February 2011, 21:02

BS:

It certainly is a valid scientific position to take, and there are those that do just that, but don't be confused with Rosa's habit to choose one side in a debate (invariably the least popular, she's infected with all the worst aspects of the skeptic movement) that is defensible and portray it as fact.

Oh dear, heaven forfend that anyone at RevLeft should adopt an opinion on any subject under discussion!

The very idea.:lol:

Except, of course, BS here always adopts only one view of little old me.:)

[Less sympathetic comrades might want to ask BS "What has 'popularity' got to do with science? When has a new scientific idea ever been judged on how 'popular' it is?"]

Blackscare

4th February 2011, 21:04

[Less sympathetic comrades might want to ask BS here what 'popularity' has got to do with science? When has a new scientifc idea ever been judged on how 'popular' it is?]

I was merely pointing out that you pathologically favor 'unpopular' positions, consistently, not that there's anything inherently wrong in opposing norms.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

4th February 2011, 21:05

My guess is that 'Black Holes' will one day go the same way as Pholgiston, Caloric and the Crystalline Spheres.

So what happens when the escape velocity of an object exceeds the speed of light? Just because our current theories predict singularities doesn't mean actual black holes have to have them. The prediction of singularities should be taken as a sign that current theory is incomplete to the task of describing black holes, but that's a big leap from saying that no object could be small and dense enough for its escape velocity to exceed lightspeed, ie, appear completely dark to the rest of the universe.

Rosa Lichtenstein

4th February 2011, 21:06

BS:

I was merely pointing out that you pathologically favor 'unpopular' positions, consistently, not that there's anything inherently wrong in opposing norms.

Not so. Historical Materialism is quite popular with Marxists. I champion it too. :)

Anyway, human knowledge is only ever advanced by those, unlike you, who are prepared to question 'popular' beliefs.

Rosa Lichtenstein

4th February 2011, 21:09

Noxion:

So what happens when the escape velocity of an object exceeds the speed of light? Just because our current theories predict singularities doesn't mean actual black holes have to have them. The prediction of singularities should be taken as a sign that current theory is incomplete to the task of describing black holes, but that's a big leap from saying that no object could be small and dense enough for its escape velocity to exceed lightspeed, ie, appear completely dark to the rest of the universe.

In which case, you are not talking about Black Holes, but 'Black Holes'.

And in answer to your question, I have absolutely no idea what happens to the 'objects' you mention, and given the fact that the standard answers so far given to this conundrum imply an absurd conclusion, I reckon no one knows.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

4th February 2011, 21:16

In which case, you are not talking about Black Holes, but 'Black Holes'.

Apart from the quote marks, what's the difference?

And in answer to your question, I have absolutely no idea what happens to the 'objects' you mention, and given the fact that the standard answers so far given to this conundrum imply an absurd conclusion, I reckon no one knows.

Yes, I know you think spacetime singularities are absurd, and maybe they are - just an artifact of our primitive theories. But that's not the same thing as black holes not existing.

Broletariat

4th February 2011, 21:21

I was merely pointing out that you pathologically favor 'unpopular' positions, consistently, not that there's anything inherently wrong in opposing norms.
I find this to be ironic coming from a revolutionary leftist.

revolution inaction

4th February 2011, 22:23

I find this to be ironic coming from a revolutionary leftist.

there is a difference between holding a position that happens to be unpopular and holding a position because it is unpopular.

The Vegan Marxist

4th February 2011, 22:25

It's a frequently made objection, so I don't know why several comrades here are quite so non-plussed.

Here for exampe is a question (and 'answer') posted at the NASA Goddard Space (http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/010912a.html) Flight Centre website:

The only credible site that you provided was through NASA. So that's where I'll provide my reply.

Take note that the question and answer provided by NASA was taken on 2001. I don't know about you, but I refuse to believe in 9 year old information from NASA, given the fact that they produce results in a year's time that'll contradict earlier observations.

Having said that, here on NASA Science, we have them stating this:

So far, there has been no direct evidence of mid-sized black holes. The question is, why not? Historically, scientists have believed simply that no such black holes exist, but recent observations (http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/chandra/news/10-038.html) have led some astronomers to think otherwise. The question of whether black holes of intermediate mass exist is a subject of much current research.

http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/black-holes/

Clearly, black holes are still very much a reality to NASA. The current problem isn't on trying to find out whether or not black holes exist, but rather trying to figure out how they really work. For our previous understandings of black holes are now in contradiction.

What do the recent observations state?

New evidence from NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory and ESA's XMM-Newton strengthens the case that two mid-sized black holes exist close to the center of a nearby starburst galaxy. These “survivor” black holes avoided falling into the center of the galaxy and could be examples of the seeds required for the growth of supermassive black holes in galaxies, including the one in the Milky Way.

Rosa Lichtenstein

5th February 2011, 00:44

Noxion:

Apart from the quote marks, what's the difference?

Well, with theoretical objects/processes, it's the precise definition that identifies them. So, if you change how you are going to define a Black Hole, then you are no longer talking about a Black Hole but something else -- whose name/title might be typographically the same as that of a Black Hole, but which was nonetheless theoretically different.

So, for example, 'mass' as Descartes or Newton understood the term is not the same as how Eistein understood it. 'Atom' as Dalton understood the term is not the same as how Jean Perrin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Baptiste_Perrin) understood it.

Yes, I know you think spacetime singularities are absurd, and maybe they are - just an artifact of our primitive theories. But that's not the same thing as black holes not existing.

Well, I can just imagine a 19th century Noxion arguing this way about the Luminiferous Ether, a 'substance' that had to be perfectly rigid and perfectly elastic -- otherwise light would lose energy as it moved through space --, but which at the same time would have to offer no resistance at all to the Earth, say, as it passed through it.

Fortunately, scientists saw how absurd this was, and what an impossible medium it must be, and dropped the whole idea.

You'd still be clinging to it...:(

Rosa Lichtenstein

5th February 2011, 00:55

BS:

I was merely pointing out that you pathologically favor 'unpopular' positions, consistently, not that there's anything inherently wrong in opposing norms.

Well, we all know how much credence to put in your superficial opinions, since you were the one who was, a few weeks ago, bemoaning the alleged fact that I posted nothing here but comments about dialectics.:lol:

And what is so 'pathological' about opposing ideas I (and others) think are absurd?

Or is it only in relation to ideas that you agree with, and that I oppose, that you think I am being 'pathological'?

Good job you didn't meet Marx, whose favourite maxim was 'Doubt all things'.

What a pathologial nutter he was...:lol:

Rosa Lichtenstein

5th February 2011, 00:56

RI:

there is a difference between holding a position that happens to be unpopular and holding a position because it is unpopular.

Indeed, and grass is green too.:lol:

Rosa Lichtenstein

5th February 2011, 01:10

TVM:

The only credible site that you provided was through NASA. So that's where I'll provide my reply.

You have already told us that you can't be bothered (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2010582&postcount=18) to follow any links (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2010552&postcount=15) I post (you then tend to flower this up with a handful of technical terms of great sophistication and complexity derived from your, shall we say, troubled toilet habits (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2010634&postcount=22)), so there's no point me posting any others, or any other references, is there?

You have spoken, and we should all remain silent, with bowed heads, in you august presence.

Take note that the question and answer provided by NASA was taken on 2001. I don't know about you, but I refuse to believe in 9 year old information from NASA, given the fact that they produce results in a year's time that'll contradict earlier observations.

Sadly, nine years' of research cannot square a circle, sunshine.

But, you very kindly quote NASA for us:

So far, there has been no direct evidence of mid-sized black holes. The question is, why not? Historically, scientists have believed simply that no such black holes exist, but recent observations have led some astronomers to think otherwise. The question of whether black holes of intermediate mass exist is a subject of much current research.

Alas, I fail to see how that squares this particular circle.:(

Clearly, black holes are still very much a reality to NASA. The current problem isn't on trying to find out whether or not black holes exist, but rather trying to figure out how they really work. For our previous understandings of black holes are now in contradiction.

And the Luminiferous Ether was very much a reality to James Clerk Maxwell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Clerk_Maxwell), and the vast majority of pre-Einsteinan physicists, but who believes in it now?

As I pointed out to Noxcion:

Well, I can just imagine a 19th century Noxion arguing this way about the Luminiferous Ether, a 'substance' that had to be perfectly rigid and perfectly elastic -- otherwise light would lose energy as it moved through space --, but which at the same time would have to offer no resistance at all to the Earth, say, as it passed through it.

Fortunately, scientists saw how absurd this was, and what an impossible medium it must be, and dropped the whole idea.

You'd still be clinging to it...

Then you quote NASA some more:

New evidence from NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory and ESA's XMM-Newton strengthens the case that two mid-sized black holes exist close to the center of a nearby starburst galaxy. These “survivor” black holes avoided falling into the center of the galaxy and could be examples of the seeds required for the growth of supermassive black holes in galaxies, including the one in the Milky Way.

And 1000 years of evidence was used by medieval astronomers to prove the earth was the centre of the universe, and the planets all orbited it attached to crystalline spheres.

Some people will believe anything...:rolleyes:

Blackscare

5th February 2011, 01:17

I find this to be ironic coming from a revolutionary leftist.

As RI said, though I feel I should reinforce it, there is an ocean of difference between being prepared to defend an unpopular position (lets say marxism, since you saw fit to call my leftism into question implicitly), and consistently choosing positions simply because they are unpopular.

Rosa Lichtenstein

5th February 2011, 01:20

BS:

As RI said, though I feel I should reinforce it, there is an ocean of difference between being prepared to defend an unpopular position (lets say marxism, since you saw fit to call my leftism into question implicitly), and consistently choosing positions simply because they are unpopular.

And what about someone who advances an allegation about me (that I do not post on anything other than dialectics), but who, when presented with contrary evidence, refuses to withdraw that lie?

And who then compounds that error by labelling me (without proof, again) a 'pathological' doubter?

ar734

5th February 2011, 01:23

=Rosa Lichtenstein;2009617]Across the Street:

Well, many things in the history of science have had allegedly visible evidence that supported claims they existed, but they turned out no to

That reasoning means that nothing can ever be scientifically proven. I suspect you don't really believe this. Otherwise you would not mind if rats covered in fleas roamed around your house. Or you would agree with the capitalist who says that his profit comes from his own hard work.

Blackscare

5th February 2011, 01:27

Well, you're anti-vaccine, anti-black hole, you post in threads about neat quotes from dawkins just to say "so what", etc etc (this is just recent, I don't feel like digging though all of your tedious posts for more examples), so I think it's pretty safe to say you get your jimmies rustled from playing the contrarian.

This also makes sense when you consider that the one crusade that overwhelmingly makes up what you post about on a consistent basis (I'll concede, you do post about other things, mostly science) is literally the most abstract bit of theory in the marxist world, which is totally divorced from real practice or relevance, amounts to a cyclical, never-ending argument about nothing that cannot be resolved and will not be resolved. I think that if you were really so concerned with actually arguing in order to propagate better concrete solutions you wouldn't be so intently focused on such an utterly vain theoretical battle. I think a lot of people would agree with me, considering you got ran off of marxmail recently.

Rosa Lichtenstein

5th February 2011, 01:29

LouisianaLeftist:

That reasoning means that nothing can ever be scientifically proven.

Not so. We are dealing here with highly abstract theoretical 'objects', and ones that violate fundamental principles of mathematics and Relativity Theory.

There are plenty of other areas of science where proof is to be had.

I suspect you don't really believe this.

As you can see, I don't, and never have. It's a figment of your imagination.

Otherwise you would not mind if rats covered in fleas roamed around your house. Or you would agree with the capitalist who says that his profit comes from his own hard work.

As I hope you can now also see, these two sentences of yours are a waste of irony. :(

Blackscare

5th February 2011, 01:31

I mean, from what I understand, your argument for the harm of DM is that it saps the life out of otherwise level-headed revolutionaries with abstract hogwash and should be disregarded. Why, then, have you dedicated so much time to fighting a useless theory? As far as I can tell among anyone I've encountered, it's pretty much irrelevant to the practice of people who even support it. It seems that the biggest 'victim' of DM, the person who has diverted their (admittedly considerable) mental energy to a meaningless subject, is you.

Rosa Lichtenstein

5th February 2011, 01:40

BS:

Well, you're anti-vaccine,

No I'm not; in fact I have had rather too many myself, as have my children. I'm just not prepared to sell my soul to Big Pharma, like you lot.

anti-black hole,

I'm not anti-black hole, either -- I merely point out that according to well understood and established principles of mathematics and physics, they can't exist. You lot just swallow anything thrown at you by the popular science media.:lol:

you post in threads about neat quotes from dawkins just to say "so what", etc etc

But, as I pointed out (with proof) that this is the majority view on the left, among left-wing scientists and Marxist biologists. So, in fact, I am in agreement with the 'popular' left-wing view in this area. It's the others here who are the doubters.

(this is just recent, I don't feel like digging though all of your tedious posts for more examples), so I think it's pretty safe to say you get your jimmies rustled from playing the contrarian.

Alas, as we can now see, you are not too good at proof.

This also makes sense when you consider that the one crusade that overwhelmingly makes up what you post about on a consistent basis (I'll concede, you do post about other things, mostly science) is literally the most abstract bit of theory in the marxist world, which is totally divorced from real practice or relevance, amounts to a cyclical, never-ending argument about nothing that cannot be resolved and will not be resolved. I think that if you were really so concerned with actually arguing in order to propagate better concrete solutions you wouldn't be so intently focused on such an utterly vain theoretical battle. I think a lot of people would agree with me, considering you got ran off of marxmail recently.

1) There are many here at RevLeft who agree with me. Check out Noxion's views on dialectics, for example.

2) It's not impractical. You just haven't read my demonstration of just how practical my opposition to this mystical theory really is.

Once more, you shoot your mouth off from a postion of almost total ignorance.

Rosa Lichtenstein

5th February 2011, 01:46

BS:

I mean, from what I understand, your argument for the harm of DM is that it saps the life out of otherwise level-headed revolutionaries with abstract hogwash and should be disregarded.

That represents about 0.0001% of my argument.

Why, then, have you dedicated so much time to fighting a useless theory?

As I have pointed out here many times (so it is now highly tedious to have to repeat it), I post here to prevent younger comrades catching this Hermetic Virus. And I have had no little success in that regard.

As far as I can tell among anyone I've encountered, it's pretty much irrelevant to the practice of people who even support it. It seems that the biggest 'victim' of DM, the person who has diverted their (admittedly considerable) mental energy to a meaningless subject, is you.

I agree it's irrelevant, but you'd not be able to guess that from the vehemence with which its supporters attack me, the abuse they post and the lies they fabricate about me and my ideas.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

5th February 2011, 01:47

Well, with theoretical objects/processes, it's the precise definition that identifies them. So, if you change how you are going to define a Black Hole, then you are no longer talking about a Black Hole but something else -- whose name/title might be typographically the same as that of a Black Hole, but which was nonetheless theoretically different.

So, for example, 'mass' as Descartes or Newton understood the term is not the same as how Eistein understood it. 'Atom' as Dalton understood the term is not the same as how Jean Perrin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Baptiste_Perrin) understood it.

Black holes are more than theoretical, at least as far as their being astronomical objects - the physics of stellar collapses and supernovae are well-understood.

Well, I can just imagine a 19th century Noxion arguing this way about the Luminiferous Ether, a 'substance' that had to be perfectly rigid and perfectly elastic -- otherwise light would lose energy as it moved through space --, but which at the same time would have to offer no resistance at all to the Earth, say, as it passed through it.

Fortunately, scientists saw how absurd this was, and what an impossible medium it must be, and dropped the whole idea.

You'd still be clinging to it...:(

Maybe instead of distracting us with your hypothetical speculations about what I may or may not have done in a previous era of history, you could instead present us with your latest paper on black holes?

Amphictyonis

5th February 2011, 01:48

I have to somewhat agree with Rosa on this. Science is always influx and isn't always an exact science when dealing with theory. Heretics can become heros overnight in the scientific community.

Blackscare

5th February 2011, 01:50

2) It's not impractical. You just haven't read my demonstration of just how practical my opposition to this mystical theory really is.

For once, you don't provide a link to your website :lol:

The thing that reinforces my position is, you're asking me to read a piece on the practical implications of anti-dialects to understand your position, which is in and of itself pretty goddamn pointless. What, I'm going to read some tedious essay of yours and that's going to help me in day to day practice?

Here's a challenge; in one paragraph, written out for this thread, not linked, please explain to me the concrete gains that you hope to achieve by "defeating" dm, or whatever. I want to know why you think doing this is productive, and if you can't explain it quickly and clearly (and instead link to some jargon-laden essay that rambles on and on), I'd be inclined to think that there really is no relevant reason at all.

1) There are many here at RevLeft who agree with me. Check out Noxion's views on dialectics, for example.

Also, as I've mentioned and you continue to disregard, I am not a dialectical materialist, I'm not arguing for DM, I'm arguing against your continued wasting of time and mental resources in fighting a useless and largely irrelevant subject.

Blackscare

5th February 2011, 01:53

That represents about 0.0001% of my argument.

Then your argument is even more divorced from practical reality than I had though. :crying:

As I have pointed out here many times (so it is now highly tedious to have to repeat it), I post here to prevent younger comrades catching this Hermetic Virus. And I have had no little success in that regard.

And preventing this virus helps what? In concrete terms, what does that change? Does that effect practice at all? I've yet to meet anyone who was paralyzed by a belief in DM.

I agree it's irrelevant, but you'd not be able to guess that from the vehemence with which its supporters attack me, the abuse they post and the lies they fabricate about me and my ideas.

That's no justification for engaging in a pointless argument. In fact it reinforces what I am saying about you being addicted to opposition; you seek out people you know will revile you because of your opposition to a pointless theory with no real life effect on anything, and then use their vitriol as an excuse to keep doing battle with them.

Amphictyonis

5th February 2011, 02:00

Even some physicists have entertained the idea that all their beautiful mathematical observations of the universe may only exist in their mind.

Rosa Lichtenstein

5th February 2011, 02:01

BS:

For once, you don't provide a link to your website

In fact, there is no link anywhere in this thread to my website, or in any other thread in science I have contributed to recently.

Can't you get anything right?

The thing that reinforces my position is, you're asking me to read a piece on the practical implications of anti-dialects to understand your position, which is in and of itself pretty goddamn pointless. What, I'm going to read some tedious essay of yours and that's going to help me in day to day practice?

Sure, you don't have to read anything I write, in fact I hope you do not. I'd hate to think I had any part to play in reducing your level of ignorance.

But, only an idiot (which I am sure you are not) will pass an opinion about another's beliefs based only on zero knowledge of them.

Here's a challenge; in one paragraph, written out for this thread, not linked, please explain to me the concrete gains that you hope to achieve by "defeating" dm, or whatever. I want to know why you think doing this is productive, and if you can't explain it quickly and clearly (and instead link to some jargon-laden essay that rambles on and on), I'd be inclined to think that there really is no relevant reason at all.

What makes you think I want to communicate any of my ideas to a non-idiot like you?

Also, as I've mentioned and you continue to disregard, I am not a dialectical materialist, I'm not arguing for DM, I'm arguing against your continued wasting of time and mental resources in fighting a useless and largely irrelevant subject.

I'm glad to hear it.

Rosa Lichtenstein

5th February 2011, 02:05

Noxion:

Black holes are more than theoretical, at least as far as their being astronomical objects - the physics of stellar collapses and supernovae are well-understood.

All based on abstruse mathematics and technical definitions. So, it is a theoretical object.

Don't get me wrong: there's nothing wrong with theoretical objects. The point is that their identity is conditioned by their definitions. Change the definition, and the object/process changes with it.

Maybe instead of distracting us with your hypothetical speculations about what I may or may not have done in a previous era of history, you could instead present us with your latest paper on black holes?

I'd rather see yours.:)

Blackscare

5th February 2011, 02:07

In fact, there is no link anywhere in this thread to my website, or in any other thread in science I have contibuted to recently.

Can't you get anything right?

I was refering to your very well known tendency to link to your anti-dialectics sites in almost every DM thread. You do love attacking minutea in order to squirm away from the ultimate futility of your actions when taken as a general, systemic trend, don't you?

Sure, you don't have to read anything I write, in fact I hope you do not. I'd hate to think I had any part to play in reducing your level of ignorance.

And here we see the underlying current of childlike aggression and spite that propels Rosa into endless meaningless sessions of mutual mental masturbation with his equally deluded enemies.

But, only an idiot (which I am sure you are not) will pass an opinion about another's beliefs based only on zero knowledge of them.

And only a troll (which I am sure you are not) will respond to genuine inquiries about their motivations with infantile insults and artless sarcasm. Then again your posts generally tend to be abusive, if in a subtle way so as to skirt around infractions.

What makes you think I want to communicate any of my ideas to a non-idiot like you?

"Yea, well, I didn't want to be in your club anyway! I'm GLAD you won't let me join, I didn't even want to be a member!"

Rosa Lichtenstein

5th February 2011, 02:09

BS:

Then your argument is even more divorced from practical reality than I had though.

Eh?:confused:

How did you work that one out?

And preventing this virus helps what? In concrete terms, what does that change? Does that effect practice at all? I've yet to meet anyone who was paralyzed by a belief in DM.

Ah, well, since I only tell such esoteric secrets to those who are genuinely intertested in my ideas, you will have to get back on topic.

That's no justification for engaging in a pointless argument. In fact it reinforces what I am saying about you being addicted to opposition; you seek out people you know will revile you because of your opposition to a pointless theory with no real life effect on anything, and then use their vitriol as an excuse to keep doing battle with them.

Ah, but it's not pointless, is it?

[Oh, sorry, you are still waiting for my reply. Wait on, then. I prefer to stay on topic.]

Rosa Lichtenstein

5th February 2011, 02:17

BS:

I was refering to your very well known tendency to link to your anti-dialectics sites in almost every DM thread. You do love attacking minutea in order to squirm away from the ultimate futility of your actions when taken as a general, systemic trend, don't you?

Can we see the original data from the survey (I am sure you have carried out) into the 10,000+ threads I have posted in on dialectics that supports this contention of yours?

And here we see the underlying current of childlike aggression and spite that propels Rosa into endless meaningless sessions of mutual mental masturbation with his equally deluded enemies.

Ah, I see: you can abuse me as much as you like (and lie about me, too), but I have to take it lying dowm, and be all sweetness and light.

Seems fair.:)

And only a troll (which I am sure you are not) will respond to genuine inquiries about their motivations with infantile insults and artless sarcasm. Then again your posts generally tend to be abusive, if in a subtle way so as to skirt around infractions

Well, you are the one who refused to respond to my request that you prove I only ever post on dialectics.

That must mean you are, by your own definition (shock, horror), a Troll.

"Yea, well, I didn't want to be in your club anyway! I'm GLAD you won't let me join, I didn't even want to be a member!"

I'm glad you do not want to belong to the non-idiots club; I had thought you were a member.

But, have it your way...

Blackscare

5th February 2011, 02:19

How did you work that one out?

The only value I could hypothetically see in your opposition to DM is that you think it is somehow harmful to practice for leftists. If preventing this from happening is in fact NOT your main priority, I really wonder what other concrete arguments you could possibly have for waging a war on DM.

Ah, well, since I only tell such esoteric secrets to those who are genuinely intertested in my ideas, you will have to get back on topic.

[Oh, sorry, you are still waiting for my reply. Wait on, then. I prefer to stay on topic.]

Pardon me, I forgot about your iron commitment to keeping threads on topic. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/dawkins-smashes-social-t148940/index.html) :laugh:

Rosa Lichtenstein

5th February 2011, 02:21

BS:

The only value I could hypothetically see in your opposition to DM is that you think it is somehow harmful to practice for leftists. If preventing this from happening is in fact NOT your main priority, I really wonder what other concrete arguments you could possibly have for waging a war on DM.

Wonder away, my fine Trollish friend.

Pardon me, I forgot about your iron commitment to keeping threads on topic.

And yours, too.:)

Blackscare

5th February 2011, 02:28

Can we see the original data from the survey (I am sure you have carried out) into the 10,000+ threads I have posted in on dialectics that supports this contention of yours?

I'd say a poll in the CU asking all long-time users if they've notice a self-referential trend in your posts would suffice, we could start with your glorified advertisement known as the "@nti-dialectics made easy" thread.

Ah, I see: you can abuse me as much as you like (and lie about me, too), but I have to take it lying dowm, and be all sweetness and light.

Seems fair.:)

The point is you instigate this all by seeking out people who you know will abuse you to debate them about useless theory. You can make this about me, and continue to dodge my underlying point that you're engaging in a totally futile activity, and continue to avoid clearly stating why, in practical terms, you dedicate so much time to this subject (which should be pretty easy for you, given all this time), but all this is showing is the real bankruptcy of your entire crusade.

Well, you are the one who refused to respond to my request that you prove I only ever post on dialectics.

That must mean you are, by your own definition (shock, horror), a Troll.

You are the one who seemingly willfully disregards the fact that I just conceded that point. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2012267&postcount=51) Either that, or you're ignoring that on purpose to paint me in a negative light and "win" an argument, something that I feel could easily be considered trolling (ironic, eh?).

I'm glad you do not want to belong to the non-idiots club; I had thought you were a member.

But, have it your way...

And another blatantly abusive statement in lieu of a real argument.

Rosa Lichtenstein

5th February 2011, 02:37

BS:

I'd say a poll in the CU asking all long-time users if they've notice a self-referential trend in your posts would suffice, we could start with your glorified advertisement known as the "@nti-dialectics made easy" thread.

Off you go then, smarty pants.

This at least shows you know an impractical task when you see one. :lol:

The point is you instigate this all by seeking out people who you know will abuse you to debate them about useless theory. You can make this about me, and continue to dodge my underlying point that you're engaging in a totally futile activity, and continue to avoid clearly stating why, in practical terms, you dedicate so much time to this subject (which should be pretty easy for you, given all this time), but all this is showing is the real bankruptcy of your entire crusade.

I think we can all take lessons from you in futility, can't we?

Or do you want to persue this some more, with the same result?

You are the one who seemingly willfully disregards the fact that I just conceded that point. Either that, or you're ignoring that on purpose to paint me in a negative light and "win" an argument, something that I feel could easily be considered trolling (ironic, eh?).

Here is your 'concession':

This also makes sense when you consider that the one crusade that overwhelmingly makes up what you post about on a consistent basis (I'll concede, you do post about other things, mostly science) is literally the most abstract bit of theory in the marxist world, which is totally divorced from real practice or relevance, amounts to a cyclical, never-ending argument about nothing that cannot be resolved and will not be resolved. I think that if you were really so concerned with actually arguing in order to propagate better concrete solutions you wouldn't be so intently focused on such an utterly vain theoretical battle. I think a lot of people would agree with me, considering you got ran off of marxmail recently.

In fact, I post mainly in Politics, Learning (and in non-dialectical threads there too) and in Ongoing Struggles, so you still can't get it right, can you!

And another blatantly abusive statement in lieu of a real argument.

Oh dear, I seem to be copying you!:(

Blackscare

5th February 2011, 02:39

Oh dear, I seem to be copying you!

I don't believe I've called you an idiot or a mystic or whatever, in fact in this thread I've complimented your intelligence. If attacking what you do based on it's practicality is abusive, well then I dare say we shut down this entire board!

bcbm

5th February 2011, 04:16

seriously? you guys are ridiculous:rolleyes:

ZeroNowhere

5th February 2011, 04:32

Some people think that the endless bickering at Revleft has to do with sectarianism. As this thread demonstrates, it doesn't; it's pathological.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

5th February 2011, 04:56

All based on abstruse mathematics and technical definitions. So, it is a theoretical object.

No, based on the directly measurable effects of gravity and the known properties of sub-atomic particles.

I'd rather see yours.:)

I'm not the one going against the evidence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole#Observational_evidence).

Rosa Lichtenstein

5th February 2011, 14:04

BS:

I don't believe I've called you an idiot or a mystic or whatever,

Where have I called you either of these in this thread?

Rosa Lichtenstein

5th February 2011, 14:09

Noxion:

No, based on the directly measurable effects of gravity and the known properties of sub-atomic particles.

That assumes these theoretical objects exist, which, if we rely on their definition they can't.

Indirect evidence like this can no more show Black Holes exist than they could show Phlogiston, Caloric, the Luminiferous Ether, or the Crystalline Spheres exist.

And, there are other ways of accounting for such phenomena that do not challenge fundamental mathematical principles, or which challenge the known properties of sub-atomic particles you mention -- nor even which stretch the bounds of reasonable credulity --, such as that provided by MOND (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_Newtonian_dynamics).

Or the following:

Stable gravastars—an alternative to black holes?

The 'gravastar' picture developed by Mazur and Mottola is one of a very small number of serious challenges to our usual conception of a 'black hole'. In the gravastar picture there is effectively a phase transition at/near where the event horizon would have been expected to form, and the interior of what would have been the black hole is replaced by a segment of de Sitter space. While Mazur and Mottola were able to argue for the thermodynamic stability of their configuration, the question of dynamic stability against spherically symmetric perturbations of the matter or gravity fields remains somewhat obscure. In this paper we construct a model that shares the key features of the Mazur–Mottola scenario, and which is sufficiently simple for a full dynamical analysis. We find that there are some physically reasonable equations of state for the transition layer that lead to stability.

http://iopscience.iop.org/0264-9381/21/4/027

As far as I can see, there are no singularities in here, nor any claim that an infinite mass can occupy zero volume.

Nor here, either:

The Concept of the Dark Energy Star

Sep 17, 2010

Everyone wants to know more and more about black holes. A lot is written about black holes, but little is known about a new concept - a dark energy star. The same phenomena that has been attributed to black holes may also be explained by dark energy stars.

Black Hole and Contradictions

The black hole is one of the most baffling phenomena in astronomy due to the difficulty in establishing its physical existence. The death and the subsequent formation of black hole are explained using the General Theory of Relativity. According to that, a massive star in its final stages collapses under the enormous inward pull of gravity. The resulting black hole is characterized by an event horizon, and point of singularity which has infinite space time curvature. Inside the event horizon the phase transition of space and time occurs. But this explanation by the GTR contradicts the proposals of quantum mechanics, according to which the space and time must retain their phases even inside the black holes.

Even though the existence of black holes has been inferred using evidence from different indirect sources, a number of other theories are also proposed about the final stage of a star. The proposed existence of a gravastar and dark energy star are examples. The gravastar incorporates some of the assumptions of String Theory and the current information on black holes. It considers a black hole as a very thick object, which pulls any object moving past it.

Dark Energy Star: Characteristics and Supporting Evidence

The dark energy star is the proposal of an American physicist, George Chapline. In March 2005 he presented his ideas on the possibility of a dark energy star that converts any object falling into it to vacuum or dark energy. In dark energy stars the quantum critical phase transition of space and time occur near to the horizon called quantum critical surface.

According to Chapline, inside this surface the space–time of the object is like ordinary space-time with the exception that it has vacuum energy, which is huge in comparison with the cosmological vacuum energy. The point of singularity, which is the important part in the black hole, no longer exists in the dark energy star. For an object falling into a dark star there is time dilation, but it is positive, and as it moves closer to the event horizon surface this time dilation too nears zero.

He further points out that contrary to the black holes, whose existence can only be deduced using indirect evidence, the quantum critical phase transition can be observed in the laboratories. From the observation of the behaviour of super fluids he proposes that the nucleons entering this quantum critical surface will decay into its constituents, while at the same time will release positrons consistant with Georgi-Glashow’s grand unified model of nucleons. According to this model of nucleons, during the decay of nucleons the release of positrons also occurs. Thus the unusual and unexplained presence of large amount of positrons close to the centre of our galaxy supports the idea of the dark energy star. The similarity between the energy spectrum of positrons and that observed during gamma ray outbursts points out to the possibility that the gamma ray out bursts may be the result of a decay of cosmological object falling into the dark energy star. All these supporting evidences clearly indicate a strong contender for black holes.

Sources

http://www.eurekalert.org/features/doe/2005-05/dlnl-dbh050505.php

http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0503/0503200.pdf

Read more: http://www.brighthub.com/science/space/articles/87438.aspx#ixzz1D61AcMHe

Bold added.

I'm not the one going against the evidence.

When has human progress always been held up by those who go 'against the evidence'?

With your approach to knowledge, we'd still believe the earth was at the centre of the universe.

After all, Galileo was happy to go against the 'evidence' accepted in his day.

Rosa Lichtenstein

5th February 2011, 14:11

Z:

Some people think that the endless bickering at Revleft has to do with sectarianism. As this thread demonstrates, it doesn't; it's pathological.

Tell that to BS; all he does these days is stalk me around RevLeft, making off-topic and baseless allegations about me.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

5th February 2011, 16:00

That assumes these theoretical objects exist, which, if we rely on their definition they can't.

I hardly think the existence of electrons is under question.

Indirect evidence like this can no more show Black Holes exist than they could show Phlogiston, Caloric, the Luminiferous Ether, or the Crystalline Spheres exist.

Evidence is what showed us that such things aren't so. Not the maunderings of those dabblers in "philosophy of science" or "history of science" or whatever bunch of modeish commentariat decides to attach itself, leech-like, to the contemporary state of science.

And, there are other ways of accounting for such phenomena that do not challenge fundamental mathematical principles, or which challenge the known properties of sub-atomic particles you mention -- nor even which stretch the bounds of reasonable credulity --, such as that provided by MOND (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_Newtonian_dynamics)

MOND is called into question by observations such as that of the Bullet cluster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_cluster).

Or the following:

http://iopscience.iop.org/0264-9381/21/4/027

As far as I can see, there are no singularities in here, nor any claim that an infinite mass can occupy zero volume.

Nor here, either:

Bold added.

I think this just proves that you support anything as long as it's not mainstream. For instance, last time I mentioned dark energy you dismissed it (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1344280&postcount=28) as something along the lines of the ether or phlogiston. But now it gives you something to support other than the consensus idea of how black holes work, and hope nobody notices.

When has human progress always been held up by those who go 'against the evidence'?

With your approach to knowledge, we'd still believe the earth was at the centre of the universe.

After all, Galileo was happy to go against the 'evidence' accepted in his day.

History vindicated him because he was right, but for every groundbreaking scientific rebel who's on to something you've got a hundred crackpots who think they have THE TRUTH(TM) just because they're going against the mainstream.

Rosa Lichtenstein

5th February 2011, 19:22

Noxion:

I hardly think the existence of electrons is under question.

Who said they were? Not me.

But, we have direct evidence of their existence, unlike these Black Holes.

Evidence is what showed us that such things aren't so. Not the maunderings of those dabblers in "philosophy of science" or "history of science" or whatever bunch of modeish commentariat decides to attach itself, leech-like, to the contemporary state of science.

As I have pointed out to you several times, the majority of researchers in such areas have degrees in science, and many have advanced research degress in Physics or other sciences.

So, they are no more 'dabblers' than you are.

Moreover, as their work shows, it's closed-minded dogmatists like you who are almost invariably shown to be wrong.

As I have also poined out, had you been around 100 years ago, you'd have been arguing the same about the Luminiferous Ether.

Evidence is what showed us that such things aren't so.

Not so; as almost invariably happens in the History of Science, it takes the older generation to die out before new theories are accepted. The older generation of dogmatists just brushes such evidence aside.

So, you are only able to assert such things since you have not looked at the evidence from the history of science.

Hence, you are living disproof of your own assertion!

MOND is called into question by observations such as that of the Bullet cluster.

Care to explain this in more detail? Or have you only read Wiki up on this?

But, as that Wiki article also points out, it takes only a slight modification of MOND to cope with this.

And yet, that problem palls into insignificance when compared with the singularities that Black Hole theory postulates -- that is, an infinitely dense mass occupying no volume at all.

Care to explain how that is possible?

I think this just proves that you support anything as long as it's not mainstream. For instance, last time I mentioned dark energy you dismissed it as something along the lines of the ether or phlogiston. But now it gives you something to support other than the consensus idea of how black holes work, and hope nobody notices.

Where did I say I supported this? I merely point out that science thrives when there are alternative theories, and you dogmatists don't hold sway.

And, although I personally doubt the existence of Dark Matter, you do not, so this is an alternative theory that does not run against things you already hold true, which is why I mentioned it.

Furthermore, it has the additional advantage of not postulating singularities -- and it can be directly tested in the lab -- unlike Black Holes.

History vindicated him because he was right, but for every groundbreaking scientific rebel who's on to something you've got a hundred crackpots who think they have THE TRUTH(TM) just because they're going against the mainstream.

Except, you are the dogmatist here, and Galileo is living disproof of your claims about 'evidence'.

Galileo ignored dogmatists like you and their 'evidence' -- 'evidence' that had in fact been accepted for nearly 2000 years..

black magick hustla

5th February 2011, 19:37

i wouldn't say so far that black holes "dont exist" but the singularity is problematic and scientists acknowledge this, but unfortunately its a limitation of general relativity.

Rosa Lichtenstein

5th February 2011, 19:42

^^^Which is a far more secure theory than Black Hole Theory is -- especially when the latter implies the actual existence of just such singularities, which are mathematically impossible.

black magick hustla

5th February 2011, 20:00

^^^Which is a far more secure theory than Black Hole Theory is -- especially when the latter implies the actual existence of just such singularities, which are mathematically impossible.

I don't think scientists who work on black holes are content with singularities tho. I think a lot of people are banking on unification of GR and the standard model to deal away with the singularity.

I am familiar with philosophy of science. I took a course on it and I am about to finish my bs in physics and astro (sent some phd applications), but beyond some problems with black holes they seem perfectly sensible objects to me - objects which can be observed and have been observed.

Rosa Lichtenstein

5th February 2011, 20:13

Maldoror:

I don't think scientists who work on black holes are content with singularities tho. I think a lot of people are banking on unification of GR and the standard model to deal away with the singularity.

I agree, but there is no way round this problem, given the structure of the present theory. The point is that there are alternatives that do not imply the existence of singularities.

I am familiar with philosophy of science. I took a course on it and I am about to finish my bs in physics and astro (sent some phd applications), but beyond some problems with black holes they seem perfectly sensible objects to me.

No offence, but so did the Lumiferous Ether 150 years ago.

black magick hustla

5th February 2011, 20:20

Maldoror:

I agree, but there is no way round this problem, given the structure of the present theory. The point is that there are alternatives that do not imply the existence of singularities.

In supersymmetry, a singularity in the moduli space happens usually when there are additional massless degrees of freedom in that certain point. Similarly, it is thought that singularities in spacetime often mean that there are additional degrees of freedom that exist only within the vicinity of the singularity. The same fields related to the whole spacetime, also exist; for example, the electromagnetic field. In known examples of string theory, the latter degrees of freedom are related to closed strings, while the degrees of freedom are "stuck" to the singularity and related either to open strings or to the twisted sector of an orbifold.
Some theories, such as the theory of Loop quantum gravity suggest that singularities may not exist. The idea is that due to quantum gravity effects, there is a minimum distance beyond which the force of gravity no longer continues to increase as the distance between the masses become shorter.

from wikipedia.

Of course this alternatives are not fully worked out and they might be wrong but a singularity does not imply that an object that behaves as a black hole does not exist. Black holes have been observed (granted you cannot directly see a black hole but you can observe its effects on surrounding matter). You can also observe the jets that it sometimes shoots, etcetera. Black holes also seem like good candidates for the engines of galaxies, including ours.

No offence, but so did the Lumiferous Ether 150 years ago.

Well frist, I doubt you have the predictive powers to say that the black hole will become another "ptolemaic epycicle" we do not know.

Second, I doubt the ether ever yielded observable phenomena, it was a theoretical object called into existence as an analogy of other types of waves, like sound waves, water waves, etcetera. so ifsound waves used air molecules to move everybody thought it was perfectly sensible for light to use an ether to travel. black holes are observable and they are necessary for our current theories of certain phenomena that we can observe.

Rosa Lichtenstein

5th February 2011, 20:30

Maldoror:

Of course this alternatives are not fully worked out and they might be wrong but a singularity does not imply that an object that behaves as a black hole does not exist. Black holes have been observed (granted you cannot directly see a black hole but you can observe its effects on surrounding matter). You can also observe the jets that it sometimes shoots, etcetera. Black holes also seem like good candidates for the engines of galaxies, including ours.

I'm sorry but they haven't been observed. Certain phenomena have been observed that are reputed to be consistent with the hgypothesis that they exist, but, as I have pointed out, this evidence is at best indirect.

And, I'm not denying they have an important part to play in modern cosmology, but the crystalline spheres also occupied a similar position 600 years ago, but who now believes in them?

Well frist, I doubt you have the predictive powers to say that the black hole will become another "ptolemaic epycicle" we do not know.

Well, it certainly did have such powers, since it was integral to Maxwell's unification of field theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether#Maxwell.27s_sea_of_molecular_v ortices_and_the_indirect_experimental_determinatio n_of_the_speed_of_light).

Second, I doubt the ether ever yielded observable phenomena, it was a theoretical object called into existence as an analogy of other types of waves, like sound waves, water waves, etcetera. so ifsound waves used air molecules to move everybody thought it was perfectly sensible for light to use an ether to travel. black holes are observable and they are necessary for our current theories of certain phenomena that we can observe.

Depends on what you mean by 'observable phenomena',-- the propagation of radiation through space is observable, and this conformed to ether theory, according to the likes of Maxwell. Yet more indirect evidence.

And, of course, Black Holes aren't observable.

Across The Street

6th February 2011, 09:34

This is a bit off-topic, but I read a theory one time stating that eventually the universe will be made up entirely of black holes. Pretty crazy thought

Rosa Lichtenstein

6th February 2011, 13:10

To my mind, that's as crazy as saying one day it will be made entirely of angels.

revolution inaction

6th February 2011, 21:35

Rosa

A black hole is a region of space from which nothing, not even light (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light), can escape. It is the result of the deformation of spacetime (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime) caused by a very compact mass (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass). Around a black hole there is an undetectable surface called an event horizon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event_horizon) that marks the point of no return. It is called "black" because it absorbs all the light that hits the horizon, reflecting nothing, just like a perfect black body (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body) in thermodynamics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamics).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole#cite_note-0) Quantum mechanics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics) predicts that black holes also emit radiation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation) like a black body with a finite temperature (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature). This temperature is inversely proportional to the mass of the black hole, making it difficult to observe this radiation for black holes of stellar mass.

Please show where a singularity is part of the definition of a black hole?

The Vegan Marxist

6th February 2011, 21:55

Rosa

Please show where a singularity is part of the definition of a black hole?

Not to try and defend Rosa, but this is also shown in wikipedia:

At the center of a black hole as described by general relativity lies a gravitational singularity, a region where the spacetime curvature becomes infinite.[49] For a non-rotating black hole this region takes the shape of a single point and for a rotating black hole it is smeared out to form a ring singularity lying in the plane of rotation.[50] In both cases the singular region has zero volume. It can also be shown that the singular region contains all the mass of the black hole solution.[51] The singular region can thus be thought of as having infinite density.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole#Singularity

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

6th February 2011, 22:46

Not to try and defend Rosa, but this is also shown in wikipedia:

Try reading more carefully:

At the center of a black hole as described by general relativity lies a gravitational singularity,

[bold added]

Only according to general relativity are singularities part of black holes. It's entirely possible, even likely, that relativity is wrong on this or otherwise inadequate to describe black holes within their event horizons.

The Vegan Marxist

6th February 2011, 23:28

Try reading more carefully:

[bold added]

Only according to general relativity are singularities part of black holes. It's entirely possible, even likely, that relativity is wrong on this or otherwise inadequate to describe black holes within their event horizons.

Well argued. A mistake on my part then.

Rosa Lichtenstein

7th February 2011, 00:38

RI:

Please show where a singularity is part of the definition of a black hole?

As others have pointed out, you should perhaps read Wikipedia with more care than you devote to scanning the back of a bus ticket.

Rosa Lichtenstein

7th February 2011, 00:40

TVM:

Not to try and defend Rosa

Indeed, if you were on my defence team, I'd plead guilty and throw myself on the mercy of the court.

Rosa Lichtenstein

7th February 2011, 00:42

Noxion:

Only according to general relativity are singularities part of black holes. It's entirely possible, even likely, that relativity is wrong on this or otherwise inadequate to describe black holes within their event horizons.

So, let me get this straight, you are prepared to consider the possiblity that General Relaivity is wrong rather than admit that Black Holes are in fact impossible?:confused:

[And, we are still waiting for your explanation how an infinite mass can occupy no volume at all.]

In fact, Black Holes are predicatable from Newtonian theory, and were so predicted long before Einstein was heard of.

Perhaps we should now be prepared to scrap Newton, too, in order to salvage your faith in these rather odd objects?

The simplest picture of a black hole is that of a body whose gravity is so strong that nothing, not even light, can escape from it. Bodies of this type are already possible in the familiar Newtonian theory of gravity. The “escape velocity” of a body is the velocity at which an object would have to travel to escape the gravitational pull of the body and continue flying out to infinity. Because the escape velocity is measured from the surface of an object, it becomes higher if a body contracts down and becomes more dense. (Under such contraction, the mass of the body remains the same, but its surface gets closer to its center of mass; thus the gravitational force at the surface increases.) If the object were to become sufficiently dense, the escape velocity could therefore exceed the speed of light, and light itself would be unable to escape.

This much of the argument makes no appeal to relativistic physics, and the possibility of such classical black holes was noted in the late 18th Century by Michel (1784) and Laplace (1796). These Newtonian black holes do not precipitate quite the same sense of crisis as do relativistic black holes. While light hurled ballistically from the surface of the collapsed body cannot escape, a rocket with powerful motors firing could still gently pull itself free.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spacetime-singularities/

Bold added.

Oh, and singularities are also possible in Newtonian theory:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=n0kHI6CVWZUC&pg=PA182&lpg=PA182&dq=Singularities+in+Newtonian+Physics&source=bl&ots=9cNIil2hsJ&sig=lF8WKMwYJwaQw6ntqYDTVKsZlNA&hl=en&ei=ikFPTcWUKI6AhQec3o2NDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&sqi=2&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

Z. Xia, “The Existence of Noncollision Singularities in Newtonian Systems (http://www.jstor.org/pss/2946572),” Annals Math. 135, 411-468, 1992

http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/is/papers/christiereview.pdf

And what do we have here?

Newtonian quantum gravity
Johan Hansson
Department of Physics, Luleå University of Technology, SE-971 87 Luleå, Sweden

Phys. Essays 23, 53 (2010); doi:10.4006/1.3291188

A Newtonian approach to quantum gravity is studied. At least for weak gravitational fields, it should be a valid approximation. Such an approach can be used to point out problems and prospects inherent in a more exact theory of quantum gravity, yet to be discovered. Newtonian quantum gravity, e.g., shows promise for prohibiting black holes altogether (which would eliminate singularities and also solve the black hole information paradox), gives gravitational radiation even in the spherically symmetric case, and supports nonlocality (quantum entanglement). Its predictions should also be testable at length scales well above the “Planck scale” by high-precision experiments feasible with existing technology.

Bold added.

http://physicsessays.org/resource/1/phesem/v23/i1/p53_s1?isAuthorized=no

This can't possibly be right; Black Holes must exist -- according to St Noxion and His Holiness, TVM.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

7th February 2011, 01:39

So, let me get this straight, you are prepared to consider the possiblity that General Relaivity is wrong rather than admit that Black Holes are in fact impossible?:confused:

Not wrong; incomplete. Just like Newtonian mechanics is incomplete - fine for plotting distances and speeds unrelated to light years and C, but useless over cosmological distances and at speeds near that of light. Incomplete also doesn't mean useless; spacecraft journeys are planned using Newtonian mechanics, I understand the sums are simpler but accurate enough for such purposes.

Similarly, when an object collapses to form a black hole, it involves spacetime, the subject of relativity. But it also involves extremely (but not necessarily infinitely) small distances, which is the subject of quantum mechanics, a different and also incomplete field of enquiry.

If we are to ever describe black holes more completely, the answer will come in a new theory that resolves the contradictions of the two present.

[And, we are still waiting for your explanation how an infinite mass can occupy no volume at all.]

Why should I? I'm not defending that claim, since I never made it.

In fact, Black Holes are predicatable from Newtonian theory, and were so predicted long before Einstein was heard of.

Perhaps we should now be prepared to scrap Newton, too, in order to salvage your faith in these rather odd objects?

It's not faith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole#Observational_evidence). Faith would be belief without evidence.

Oh, and singularities are also possible in Newtonian theory:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=n0kHI6CVWZUC&pg=PA182&lpg=PA182&dq=Singularities+in+Newtonian+Physics&source=bl&ots=9cNIil2hsJ&sig=lF8WKMwYJwaQw6ntqYDTVKsZlNA&hl=en&ei=ikFPTcWUKI6AhQec3o2NDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&sqi=2&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

Z. Xia, “The Existence of Noncollision Singularities in Newtonian Systems (http://www.jstor.org/pss/2946572),” Annals Math. 135, 411-468, 1992

http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/is/papers/christiereview.pdf

No surprise, since Newtonian theory is also incomplete.

And what do we have here?

Bold added.

http://physicsessays.org/resource/1/phesem/v23/i1/p53_s1?isAuthorized=no

This can't possibly be right; Black Holes must exist -- according to St Noxion and His Holiness, TVM.

What do reformulations of Newtonian theory have to do with the existence of black holes? Your constant diversions fail to address the evidence.

Rosa Lichtenstein

7th February 2011, 05:44

Noxion:

Not wrong; incomplete. Just like Newtonian mechanics is incomplete - fine for plotting distances and speeds unrelated to light years and C, but useless over cosmological distances and at speeds near that of light. Incomplete also doesn't mean useless; spacecraft journeys are planned using Newtonian mechanics, I understand the sums are simpler but accurate enough for such purposes.

Similarly, when an object collapses to form a black hole, it involves spacetime, the subject of relativity. But it also involves extremely (but not necessarily infinitely) small distances, which is the subject of quantum mechanics, a different and also incomplete field of enquiry.

If we are to ever describe black holes more completely, the answer will come in a new theory that resolves the contradictions of the two present.

So, I was right, you can't even contemplate it being wrong. Despite the fact that the vast majority of scientific theories have been wrong, somehow this one is totally immune.

Why should I? I'm not defending that claim, since I never made it.

Let me get this straight, are you [shock, horror!] actually questioning a scientific theory?

Well, may I remind you that I get dog's abuse here when I do that. How come you can do this when I can't?

Faith would be belief without evidence.

Not so; many a faith depends on evidence. Much of Fundamentalist Christianity, for example, does. Check out Creation Science, for instance:

The 8th Edition of In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood by Dr. Walt Brown is available to order here. It can also be read or printed out at this website; just use the links at the left to navigate through the outline of the entire book.

Bold added.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/

It requires faith to go beyond the evidence, and give credence to impossibilities like the Trinity, the Virgin Birth and other assorted miracles -- oh, and like belief in natural impossibilities like Black Holes (with their singularities).

No surprise, since Newtonian theory is also incomplete.

It could in fact be totally wrong -- like Ptolemaic astronomy was.

What do reformulations of Newtonian theory have to do with the existence of black holes? Your constant diversions fail to address the evidence.

Well, you were the one who connected them with Relativity Theory; I was merely reminding you that Black Holes were dreamt up long before, so they aren't intrinsically connected with Relativity.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

7th February 2011, 06:41

So, I was right, you can't even contemplate it being wrong. Despite the fact that the vast majority of scientific theories have been wrong, somehow this one is totally immune.

Science is more complete now than it was in Ptolemy's time. Your constant allusions to previous theories forget that.

Let me get this straight, are you [shock, horror!] actually questioning a scientific theory?

Well, may I remind you that I get dog's abuse here when I do that. How come you can do this when I can't?

Because I'm not an obnoxious git about it.

Not so; many a faith depends on evidence. Much of Fundamentalist Christianity, for example, does. Check out Creation Science, for instance:

Creationist "evidence" is none of the sort and you should realise that, if you weren't so desperate to make digs at others.

It requires faith to go beyond the evidence, and give credence to impossibilities like the Trinity, the Virgin Birth and other assorted miracles -- oh, and like belief in natural impossibilities like Black Holes (with their singularities).

So you contend that the escape velocity of an object can never exceed C? Because singularities are not a requirement for that to happen.

It could in fact be totally wrong -- like Ptolemaic astronomy was.

If I recall correctly, the Ptolemaic cosmology was originally formulated in a period before the invention of telescopy. Astronomy is a very instrument-driven science, and without them one is severely limited as far as obervational data is concerned. Be fair; these people weren't even aware that we were living in a galaxy!

Well, you were the one who connected them with Relativity Theory; I was merely reminding you that Black Holes were dreamt up long before, so they aren't intrinsically connected with Relativity.

I never claimed they were. In fact I have been arguing that black holes and singularities aren't the same thing.

Rosa Lichtenstein

7th February 2011, 07:28

Noxion:

Science is more complete now than it was in Ptolemy's time.

1) And what is your criterion of 'more complete' here?

2) 'More complete', even if you are right, does not imply a theory is correct/closer to the truth. In order to say it is you would have to have a final theory of everything with which to compare the present state of knowledge. After all, an approximation only makes sense if we know in relation to what it is an approximation. And to do that you'd have to have that final theory to say that modern theory is a closer approximation to it.

Your constant allusions to previous theories forget that

Not at all. The fact that the vast majority of scientific theories have been wrong means that it is vastly more probable that current theory is mistaken than it is otherwise.

That is, after all, what the evidence so far tells us, and you are supposed to be big on evidence.

Because I'm not an obnoxious git about it.

Where have I been 'obnoxious' in science threads?

Creationist "evidence" is none of the sort and you should realise that, if you weren't so desperate to make digs at others.

I fully acknowledge that creationist evidence is a load of rubbish, but the point is that faith still appeals to evidence.

Now there is nothing wrong with appealing to evidence (how could it be otherwise?) but the point is that your attempt to divorce faith from evidence is plainly incorrect. So, despite your appeal to evidence, you still have faith in these rather odd, impossible objects.

So you contend that the escape velocity of an object can never exceed C? Because singularities are not a requirement for that to happen.

I contend nothing of the sort. Whatever gave you that idea?

Once more, the point is that scientists are continually changing their minds (you bury this idea in your claim that this or that theory is 'incomplete'). Who knows what they will be claiming about Black Holes, 'escape velocities' and even 'Dark Matter' in fifty years time? Probably what they now say about Phogiston, Caloric and the belief in immobile continents.

If I recall correctly, the Ptolemaic cosmology was originally formulated in a period before the invention of telescopy. Astronomy is a very instrument-driven science, and without them one is severely limited as far as obervational data is concerned. Be fair; these people weren't even aware that we were living in a galaxy!

Indeed, but then again, Tycho Brahe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tycho_Brahe), was able observe the heavens to an accuracy of one arcminute, before telescopes were invented, and his theory of the universe, based on his observations, was not Copernican.

It's also worth recalling that the idea that the earth moved contradictied all the avaliable evidence of the day. So, if scientists only listened to available evidence, we'd all still be Ptolemaists.

I never claimed they were. In fact I have been arguing that black holes and singularities aren't the same thing.

But you specifically connected singularities with Relativity. So, it was appropriate of me to point out that Newtonian theory also had its singularities.

Yazman

13th February 2011, 08:05

BS:

In fact, there is no link anywhere in this thread to my website, or in any other thread in science I have contributed to recently.

Can't you get anything right?

Sure, you don't have to read anything I write, in fact I hope you do not. I'd hate to think I had any part to play in reducing your level of ignorance.

But, only an idiot (which I am sure you are not) will pass an opinion about another's beliefs based only on zero knowledge of them.

What makes you think I want to communicate any of my ideas to a non-idiot like you?

I'm glad to hear it.

Rosa, you need to quit making accusations and implications of idiocy here. This sort of thinly-veiled abuse of other users isn't going to be tolerated, and I for one am not going to put up with it from any users. I know you can make reasoned arguments without such content, so please do so in future and do not abuse other users again.

This post constitutes a warning to Rosa Lichtenstein.

Rosa Lichtenstein

20th February 2011, 20:22

In fact, I called 'him' an non-idiot.:)

It's Ok for others to abuse me though, isn't it?

Jose Gracchus

22nd February 2011, 07:50

I did not realize we tolerated these levels of kookery around here, and outright substitution for patient discussion with wild Google-fu and appeals to the unknowable future (as if the known and acknowledged by scientists troubles with the best-theories-yet, of General Relativity and the Standard Model, are worse than appeals to the unknowable).

Did Rosa seriously assert the concept of 'escape velocity' and its meaningful relation to observable phenomena will be fundamentally challenged?

Rosa Lichtenstein

22nd February 2011, 14:16

Inform:

Did Rosa seriously assert the concept of 'escape velocity' and its meaningful relation to observable phenomena will be fundamentally challenged?

And we have seen all too much of this blatant invention too.

Where did I even so much as hint at this?

Jose Gracchus

22nd February 2011, 16:33

Once more, the point is that scientists are continually changing their minds (you bury this idea in your claim that this or that theory is 'incomplete'). Who knows what they will be claiming about Black Holes, 'escape velocities' and even 'Dark Matter' in fifty years time? Probably what they now say about Phogiston, Caloric and the belief in immobile continents.

You were saying? I'm pretty sure the idea that any ballistic object must exceed 25,000 mph to escape the pull of Earth's gravity well is not going to be seriously challenged. You're toying with the 'term' 'black hole' throughout this thread. A black hole is simply an object which has an escape velocity greater than c and is hypothesized with strong evidence in support that they generally form from stellar corpses. No physicist runs around clinging to singularities - on the contrary, the extrapolation of General Relativity to models of black holes suggested to all involved that the theory broke down at extreme gravities where quantum effects become non-negligible. The Standard Model and General Relativity are the most valid models of physical science yet discovered - however, everyone in physics knows their incomplete, provisional theories. In fact, the Standard Model and General Relativity are not reconcilable, and rest on different assumptions. The search for a theory which can permit us to model not only gravity, space, time, and large distances (GR), but also the other three fundamental forces and physical matter and the very small and very brief (SM). Literally, all the real work IS going into trying to toss the "Phogiston" of the past to the side and developing a theory of quantum gravity, that, among other things, gives a full physical picture of objects where escape velocity exceeds c.

You seem to have this picture of dogmatic physicists adored of singularities. Physicists hate singularities. You don't know what's really going on! No one seriously disputes that there are hyper-compact objects with extreme gravity that observations suggest must have an escape velocity that exceeds c. No one has a complete model for them yet, is all. "Black hole" does not describe a coherent theory, but is rather a placeholder for an object with well-defined observable characteristics, but with an incomplete model of physical function.

Rosa Lichtenstein

22nd February 2011, 21:08

TIC:

You were saying? I'm pretty sure the idea that any ballistic object must exceed 25,000 mph to escape the pull of Earth's gravity well is not going to be seriously challenged.

Well, I'd be a fool to challenge scientific facts, what I question, and have questioned, is the eternal veracity of scientific theories. And for the reasons I have given, which you have yet to address.

You're toying with the 'term' 'black hole' throughout this thread. A black hole is simply an object which has an escape velocity greater than c and is hypothesized with strong evidence in support that they generally form from stellar corpses.

Yes, I'm a mathematician, I do know the theory.

No physicist runs around clinging to singularities - on the contrary, the extrapolation of General Relativity to models of black holes suggested to all involved that the theory broke down at extreme gravities where quantum effects become non-negligible.

Then, as I have pointed out already, but you seem to have skipped that part, if singularities are ditched, these theoretical objects (i.e., Black Holes) will no longer be the same, and we would in that case be talking about 'Black Holes', or perhaps Black Holes#2.

But even then the entire theory could turn out to be misguided, and we find Black Holes going the same way as the Crystalline Spheres, Caloric, Phlogiston and the Luminiferous Ether.

The Standard Model and General Relativity are the most valid models of physical science yet discovered - however, everyone in physics knows their incomplete, provisional theories.

And now under serious threat (just like all theories have been in the history of science).

In fact, the Standard Model and General Relativity are not reconcilable, and rest on different assumptions.

So, one or both will have to go one day.

The search for a theory which can permit us to model not only gravity, space, time, and large distances (GR), but also the other three fundamental forces and physical matter and the very small and very brief (SM). Literally, all the real work IS going into trying to toss the "Phogiston" of the past to the side and developing a theory of quantum gravity, that, among other things, gives a full physical picture of objects where escape velocity exceeds c.

Well, that just reinforces my point.

Rosa Lichtenstein

8th March 2011, 16:51

From the latest New Scientist:

As a non-believer when it comes to dark matter, I was disappointed by your biased article on the subject (Instant Expert, 5 February). Dan Hooper gave the impression that evidence for dark matter is all around us. The small column "Did we get gravity wrong?" gave a different explanation for the higher-than-expected speeds of stars around galaxies. But this one concession to "modified Newtonian dynamics" (MOND) is not enough to give a balanced view.

Just because MOND does not always provide the right result under all conditions does not mean that the basic idea is wrong. Remember that support for the existence of dark matter is based on discrepancies between visible mass and its gravitational effects, or on cosmological models which are full of assumptions.

One could equally well argue that all the evidence points to the conclusion that dark matter does not exist. After decades of intensive searching, not one dark matter particle has been observed, and even the Large Hadron Collider at CERN in Switzerland has so far provided no indication of its existence. To me, the most plausible conclusion, based on the experimental evidence, is that dark matter does not exist. That many people believe in the stuff does not make it scientific.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20928020.400-dark-matter-belief.html

Bold added.

Perhaps the RevLeft thought police should write to the New Scientist and remind them of their 'scientific' obligation to suppress alternative ideas and to bad mouth anyone who dares to question current dogma -- using their treatment of yours truly in these threads as a shining example of the 'scientific' frame of mind at work?

∞

14th March 2011, 07:25

This is very interesting stuff if scientists are somehow able to observe the effects of dealing with Dark Particles, the Theory of General Relativity would need to be modified.
Since Gen. Relativity edits out the idea of an anti-gravity particle, our entire comprehension of physical phenomena in the universe would be different. The confusing thing would be how to differentiate this particle from a cosmological variable (anti-gravity) and dark matter, considering the fact we all know the universe is expanding.

Black Sheep

16th March 2011, 22:00

Can the mod split the black hole debate to another thread? :glare:

Also Rosa, if you have doubts about black holes' existence why don't you ask an trained physicist on the matter, or, if you have strong reasons to object to it, why don't you publish a paper and win a nobel prize...

Rosa Lichtenstein

17th March 2011, 11:46

BS:

Also Rosa, if you have doubts about black holes' existence why don't you ask an trained physicist on the matter, or, if you have strong reasons to object to it, why don't you publish a paper and win a nobel prize...

There are already physisicts who question their existence, saving me the job.:)

∞

17th March 2011, 22:21

BS:

There are already physisicts who question their existence, saving me the job.:)

For who example? Are you really denying the General Theory of Relativity?

Rosa Lichtenstein

18th March 2011, 00:33

BM:

For who example? Are you really denying the General Theory of Relativity?

I've referenced them earlier in this thread.

And sure, I'm not denying the theory you mention, but there is a very high probability that scientists themselves will do so within the next 100 years.

But, even if they don't, I'm happy to go along with it -- not that my opinion carries any weight.

∞

18th March 2011, 02:20

BM:

I've referenced them earlier in this thread.

And sure, I'm not denying the theory you mention, but there is a very high probability that scientists themselves will do so within the next 100 years.

But, even if they don't, I'm happy to go along with it -- not that my opinion carries any weight.

The only real issues with the GM are singularities when the existence of black holes is discussed, Hawking has attempted to fix this concept with his own "Hawking Radiation". But it assumes that energy causing Black Holes dont have entropy and do not abide by the 2nd law of thermodynamics. However, there would be no denying GM, hopefully there would be steps taken to improve it.

Rosa Lichtenstein

18th March 2011, 02:26

BM:

The only real issues with the GM are singularities when the existence of black holes is discussed, Hawking has attempted to fix this concept with his own "Hawking Radiation". But it assumes that energy causing Black Holes dont have entropy and do not abide by the 2nd law of thermodynamics. However, there would be no denying GM, hopefully there would be steps taken to improve it.

Well, this resembles the way scientists just added more epicycles to Ptolemy's system 500 or so years ago, just before they ditched the entire theory.

∞

18th March 2011, 03:13

No GM is like Newtonian theory, it cannot be replaced but the few errors are addressed.
Physics is not a political tendency.

Rosa Lichtenstein

18th March 2011, 13:16

BM:

No GM is like Newtonian theory, it cannot be replaced but the few errors are addressed.
Physics is not a political tendency.

But, Newtonian theory has already been replaced.

∞

18th March 2011, 18:11

BM:

But, Newtonian theory has already been replaced.

No it hasn't Newtonian theory has been the basis for all modern physics.
Newton's laws are still being taught today, it has not been replaced, but expanded upon.

Amphictyonis

18th March 2011, 18:40

The only real issues with the GM are singularities when the existence of black holes is discussed, Hawking has attempted to fix this concept with his own "Hawking Radiation". But it assumes that energy causing Black Holes dont have entropy and do not abide by the 2nd law of thermodynamics. However, there would be no denying GM, hopefully there would be steps taken to improve it.

Leonard Susskind is supposedly the authority on black holes- he says matter doesn't vanish from the universe (as Hawking once said) it just gets pushed along the event horizon like a projector projecting an image. In either event it's all gotten to the point where now in order to salvage the main theory of everything parallel universes and different dimensions must exist in order for the math to make sense. Things we cannot see or touch so science is flirting with religion these days. Prophets abound speaking the truth? Read below and tell me what you think (as far as black holes go).

http://calitreview.com/790

Rosa Lichtenstein

18th March 2011, 19:33

BM:

No it hasn't Newtonian theory has been the basis for all modern physics.
Newton's laws are still being taught today, it has not been replaced, but expanded upon.

Well, that's what the official brochure says, but when you examine the fine print you soon see how misguided it is.

For example, Newton's universe is governed by the force of gravity, but, Relativity Theory tells us that this force does not exist. Objects move, or change their motion, because they move along geodesics in a gravitational field.

Furthermore, another core idea in Newtonian mechanics is mass, which is unaffected by motion. But in relativity theory, we have to take account of motion (that is, there is a difference between rest mass and inertial mass). Now, this might seem a small, insignificant modification, negligible at low velocities, but that is not so. The term "mass" in Newtonian mechanics does not mean the same as "mass" in Relativity. So the latter is not a more accurate version of the former, the two systems are entirely different, and contain words with different meanings.

Once more it could be insisted that Newtonian mechanics is highly accurate at low velocities, and is still used in much of physics. But the old Ptolemaic system was highly accurate, and in many cases more accurate than the Copernican system that replaced it. Are we now to say that these two systems are the same, or that Ptolemy's system has not been abandoned since physicists could still use it, even if they don't?

Well, before you answer that question, consider this: Relativity Theory tells us that the Ptolemaic system, which saw the earth as the centre of motion, is just as viable a system as the Copernican system -- something Newton's theory does not predict/allow.

Don't believe me? Then check this out:

This is what Professor Mills (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Mills_(physicist)) had to say about Ptolemy's system:

"Another way of stating the principle of equivalence, a way that better reflects its name, is to say that all reference frames, including accelerated reference frames, are equivalent, that the laws of Physics take the same form in any reference frame…. And it is also correct to say that the Copernican view (with the sun at the centre) and the Ptolemaic view (with the earth at the centre) are equally valid and equally consistent!" [Mills (1994), pp.182-83. Spelling altered to conform to UK English.]

Mills, R. (1994), [I]Space, Time And Quanta (W H Freeman).

Here is what Nobel Laureate Max Born (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Born) had to say about it:

"Thus from Einstein's point of view Ptolemy and Copernicus are equally right. What point of view is chosen is a matter of expediency. For the mechanics of the planetary system the view of Copernicus is certainly the more convenient. But it is meaningless to call the gravitational fields that occur when a different system of reference is chosen 'fictitious' in contrast with the 'real' fields produced by near masses: it is just as meaningless as the question of the 'real' length of a rod...in the special theory of relativity. A gravitational field is neither 'real' nor 'fictitious' in itself. It has no meaning at all independent of the choice of coordinates, just as in the case of the length of a rod." [Born (1965), p.345. I owe this reference to Rosser (1967).]

Rosser, W. (1967), Introductory Relativity (Plenum Press).

And here is what Fred Hoyle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle) FRS had to say:

"Instead of adding further support to the heliocentric picture of the planetary motions the Einstein theory goes in the opposite direction, giving increased respectability to the geocentric picture. The relation of the two pictures is reduced to a mere coordinate transformation and it is the main tenet of the Einstein theory that any two ways of looking at the world which are related to each other by a coordinate transformation are entirely equivalent from a physical point of view....

"Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is 'right' and the Ptolemaic theory 'wrong' in any meaningful physical sense...." [Hoyle (1973), pp.78-79.]

"We now know that the difference between a heliocentric theory and a geocentric theory is one of relative motion only, and that such a difference has no physical significance. But such an understanding had to await Einstein's theory of gravitation in order to be fully clarified." [Hoyle (1975), p.416.]

Hoyle, F. (1973), Nicolaus Copernicus. An Essay On His Life And Work (Heinemann).

--------, (1975), Astronomy And Cosmology. A Modern Course (W H Freeman).

Of course, it could always be claimed that Copernican theory is simpler than the Ptolemaic system, but until we receive a clear sign that nature works according to our notion of simplicity (or cares a fig about it), that argument won't wash.

This is quite apart from the fact that 'simplicity' is impossible to define in non-question-begging terms. For example, which is the simpler of these two formulae?

(1) θ = Ae^-kt

(2) θ = At^2 + Bt + C

(2) is algebraically 'simpler', but (1) is 'simpler' if we judge simplicity on the basis of the number of terms used.

On this, see Losee (2001), pp.228-29.

Losee, J. (2001), A Historical Introduction To The Philosophy Of Science (Oxford University Press, 4th ed.).

This principle has also been put to misuse many times (so it is unreliable at best). For example, George Berkeley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Berkeley) used it to argue that matter did not exist. According to him, we need postulate minds and their ideas alone to account for everything. Sure he was selective in his use of this 'principle', but then that is the problem: it is entirely subjective what counts as more 'simple' or 'parsimonious'.

For example, is it 'simpler' or more 'parsimonious' to postulate the existence of 'Dark Matter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter)' and 'Dark Energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy)' to account for the missing mass in the universe, or adjust a few constants and a few equations (as they do in MOND (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_Newtonian_dynamics))?

There are many other significant differences between Newton's System (that scientists today ignore, but which Newton considered central to his theory), which mean that Newton's actual theory has been abandoned -- for example, he considered that space was absolute, and so was time, and that space was the sensorium of 'god'.

So, Newton's actual theory has been abandoned -- who today (in the first case, other than school, students, and TV film directors) believes in the force of gravity, mass that does not change with velocity, absolute space and time, that there are unique frames of reference in the universe, indivisible atoms, light that is only corpuscular, space that is the sensorium of 'god'...?

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

18th March 2011, 22:15

It seems that in addition to misunderstanding evolution, Hoyle misunderstands that there are no privileged frames in relativity. Geocentrism posits the ultimate privileged frame - a universe centred around our planet.

∞

18th March 2011, 23:11

Leonard Susskind is supposedly the authority on black holes- he says matter doesn't vanish from the universe (as Hawking once said) it just gets pushed along the event horizon like a projector projecting an image. In either event it's all gotten to the point where now in order to salvage the main theory of everything parallel universes and different dimensions must exist in order for the math to make sense. Things we cannot see or touch so science is flirting with religion these days. Prophets abound speaking the truth? Read below and tell me what you think (as far as black holes go).

Very interesting but I'm having an extremely tough time imagining this concept.

http://calitreview.com/790
Very interesting but I'm having an extremely tough time imagining this concept.

∞

18th March 2011, 23:34

Well, that's what the official brochure says, but when you examine the fine print you soon see how misguided it is.

For example, Newton's universe is governed by the force of gravity, but, Relativity Theory tells us that this force does not exist. Objects move, or change their motion, because they move along geodesics in a gravitational field.

The force of gravity (which in way was developed in Special Relativity), is more like a force that GR explains. Geodesic and space time curvatures, centripetal force, and the like are explanations of the force of gravity. In Newtonian physics is expressed merely as a variable, not as the solution, to solve for. So Newton may have mystified gravity, but Einstein had better explanation for gravity with space-time.

Furthermore, another core idea in Newtonian mechanics is mass, which is unaffected by motion. But in relativity theory, we have to take account of motion (that is, there is a difference between rest mass and inertial mass). Now, this might seem a small, insignificant modification, negligible at low velocities, but that is not so. The term "mass" in Newtonian mechanics does not mean the same as "mass" in Relativity. So the latter is not a more accurate version of the former, the two systems are entirely different, and contain words with different meanings.

The definition of initial mass isn't different from Newton to Einstein. The difference is how mass affects and changes with time. The core difference between the two is that Einsteins mass involves its relation to time and it's velocity. Whereas Newton only described movement. Concepts like friction are still used in various fields of science.

Once more it could be insisted that Newtonian mechanics is highly accurate at low velocities, and is still used in much of physics.
Correct. Makes perfect sense.

But the old Ptolemaic system was highly accurate, and in many cases more accurate than the Copernican system that replaced it. Are we now to say that these two systems are the same, or that Ptolemy's system has not been abandoned since physicists could still use it, even if they don't?

I would like to know how exactly. I was quite sure the Copernican system was vastly superior .

Well, before you answer that question, consider this: Relativity Theory tells us that the Ptolemaic system, which saw the earth as the centre of motion, is just as viable a system as the Copernican system -- something Newton's theory does not predict/allow.

Which also redefines Euclidean Geometry and abides by Newton's binomial expressions (ironically better than Newton himself).

There are many other significant differences between Newton's System (that scientists today ignore, but which Newton considered central to his theory), which mean that Newton's actual theory has been abandoned -- for example, he considered that space was absolute, and so was time, and that space was the sensorium of 'god'.

His concept of time is a wrong of course. But his interpretation of God, is merely an interpretation of his own theory and not important to the theory itself. Einstein was an Agnostic and believed there might be a God, I however am an atheist, but his view doesn't affect me.

So, Newton's actual theory has been abandoned -- who today (in the first case, other than school, students, and TV film directors) believes in the force of gravity, mass that does not change with velocity, absolute space and time, that there are unique frames of reference in the universe, indivisible atoms, light that is only corpuscular, space that is the sensorium of 'god'...?

Like you have stated school teaches low-velocity physics and basic-projectile motion, concepts such as space-time do not need to be taught so early. In fact it is easier to introduce those basic concepts first, so students can see their relation with modern physics.

Dimentio

18th March 2011, 23:46

One day, an experiment like this would shred the continents to pieces...

Rosa Lichtenstein

19th March 2011, 07:02

Noxion:

It seems that in addition to misunderstanding evolution, Hoyle misunderstands that there are no privileged frames in relativity. Geocentrism posits the ultimate privileged frame - a universe centred around our planet.

In fact, he did not say that.

Rosa Lichtenstein

19th March 2011, 07:37

BM:

The force of gravity (which in way was developed in Special Relativity), is more like a force that GR explains. Geodesic and space time curvatures, centripetal force, and the like are explanations of the force of gravity. In Newtonian physics is expressed merely as a variable, not as the solution, to solve for. So Newton may have mystified gravity, but Einstein had better explanation for gravity with space-time.

Call it what you like, but there is no way Newtonian forces appear in GR -- for Newton the force of gravity was real and was a consequence of the presence of an all pervading ether. No so for Einstein.

Now, Newton's force may appear as a variable, but it's how Newton interpreted that variable physically, not mathematically, that makes his physics different from Einstein's.

The definition of initial mass isn't different from Newton to Einstein. The difference is how mass affects and changes with time. The core difference between the two is that Einstein's mass involves its relation to time and it's velocity. Whereas Newton only described movement. Concepts like friction are still used in various fields of science.

I'm not sure what 'initial mass' is; I was referring to inertial mass. And what you tell us about 'mass' just confirms what I have said. It meant different things to Newton and Einstein.

I was quite sure the Copernican system was vastly superior

If you read up the history, you will see I am right; here is Thomas Kuhn, for example:

“Copernicus’ system was not, for example, a sun-centred system at all. To account for the increased rate at which the sun travels through the signs of the zodiac during the winter, Copernicus made the earth’s circular orbit eccentric, displacing its centre from the sun’s…. The Centre of the earth’s eccentric was placed upon a second circle whose motion continually varied the extent and direction of the earth’s eccentricity….

“…For the moon Copernicus used a total of three circles, the first centred on the moving earth, the second centred on the moving circumference of the first, and the third on the circumference of the second…. Nor do the complexities end here. Still other devices, fully equivalent to Ptolemy’s, were required to account for the north and south deviations of each planet from the ecliptic.

“…Copernicus’ system is neither simpler nor more accurate than Ptolemy’s” [Kuhn (1957), pp. 170-71. Spelling altered to conform to UK English.]

Bold added.

Kuhn, T. (1957), The Copernican Revolution (Harvard University Press).

Moreover, when it was published, there were good reasons to reject Copernicus's system, as I have explained here before:

For instance, Copernican Astronomy predicted stellar parallax, which was not observed until 1838 with the work of Friedrich Bessel, three hundred years after De revolutionibus orbium coelestium was published.

The only way to avoid that conclusion was to argue that the solar system was much larger than had hitherto been assumed, but that looked like a desperate ad hoc excuse to the Ptolemaists.

Moreover, Copernicus's theory contradicted thousands of years of human experience -- the earth does not feel like it is moving, and the sun sets in the west -- so it moves, the earth does not.

Which also redefines Euclidean Geometry and abides by Newton's binomial expressions (ironically better than Newton himself).

Maybe so, but that does not affect the point I was making. Newton and Einstein lived in different worlds, to paraphrase Thomas Kuhn.

His concept of time is a wrong of course.

Maybe so -- but there are theorists who still defend Newton's concept of time and of space -- but that isn't the point again. These core ideas were rejected by Einstein, so Newton's actual theory has been abandoned.

But his interpretation of God, is merely an interpretation of his own theory and not important to the theory itself.

Not so; it was integral to his theory. He not only thought he was the re-incarnation of Galileo (he was born about the same time that Galileo died), he actually thought he was the son of god (in the old calendar he was born on Christmas Day, 1642). Theology was integral to everything he did and thought. 3/4s of his work was devoted to the Bible and other mystical pursuits. If you read the Leibniz-Clarke correspondence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leibniz%E2%80%93Clarke_correspondence), you will soon see how integral to physics 'god' was in those days.

Like you have stated school teaches low-velocity physics and basic-projectile motion, concepts such as space-time do not need to be taught so early. In fact it is easier to introduce those basic concepts first, so students can see their relation with modern physics.

I agree, but when it comes to what [I]physicists do, Newton's actual theory has been abandoned, as I alleged.

∞

19th March 2011, 23:15

I'm not sure what 'initial mass' is; I was referring to inertial mass. And what you tell us about 'mass' just confirms what I have said. It meant different things to Newton and Einstein.

Mass that hasn't changed its Magnitude.

Rosa Lichtenstein

20th March 2011, 10:49

BM:

Mass that hasn't changed its Magnitude.

Well, it has, since there is a difference between rest mass and inertial mass.

Rosa Lichtenstein

20th March 2011, 11:37

This article from the latest New Scientist, shows just how fragile this area of modern physics really is:

What if supersymmetry [SUSY] is wrong?

17:27 15 March 2011 by Amanda Gefter
Magazine issue 2804.

Three decades of theorising and calculating. Entire careers spent constructing ideas. Nine billion dollars invested in an underground ring that spans two nations. Ten thousand dedicated scientists and engineers looking for the particle physics equivalent of a needle in a haystack. It's all been leading to this moment. Small wonder that amid bated breath, you can hear a lot of nervous laughter.

"It's got to be there, damn it!" Nobel prizewinning physicist Frank Wilczek chuckles in his office at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge. He's talking about supersymmetry, endearingly known as SUSY, a theory that most physicists believe will lead them beyond the standard model of particle physics, the tried-and-true model of how particles and forces interact, and one big step closer to understanding how reality works.

Physicists are doggedly searching for it in the debris of particle collisions from ATLAS and CMS, two experiments at CERN's Large Hadron Collider near Geneva, Switzerland. A year into their runs, neither have glimpsed so much as a hint of SUSY particles at masses up to 700 gigaelectronvolts – well within the range theorists expect it to lurk (arxiv.org/abs/1103.1984, arxiv.org/abs/1102.2357, arxiv.org/abs/1102.5290, arxiv.org/abs/1101.1628).

Rumours are spreading of SUSY's demise, and alternative theories are already waiting in the wings (see box below). But for many physicists like Wilczek, SUSY is just too beautiful to be wrong. "It would be really cruel of nature to get us this far, and have the next step in sight, and then it's all just a joke on us."

Supersymmetry suggests that the two basic types of particles that make up our world – fermions, the matter particles such as electrons and quarks, and bosons, the force-carrying particles such as photons and gluons – are merely two aspects of a single particle.

Perplexing problems

It's an elegant idea and if correct, could solve some of the most perplexing problems in physics. It endows the elusive Higgs particle, which is believed to be responsible for giving every other known particle its mass, with just the right mass of its own to keep the whole edifice of particle physics from crumbling around us. Without SUSY, the Higgs mass is heavily influenced by the quantum behaviour of the vacuum.

As it interacts with the vacuum's virtual particles, its mass skyrockets, growing so large that the standard model breaks down. SUSY saves the day – for every virtual interaction that drives up the Higgs mass, there is a svirtual interaction that drives it back down.

Just as importantly, SUSY unifies the three fundamental forces of the standard model, suggesting that electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces merge into a single superforce at high energies (see diagram).

Dark matter

What's more, it provides an ideal candidate for the mysterious dark matter that seems to be holding galaxies together, accounting for approximately 80 per cent of all the matter in the universe. It even appears to be an essential ingredient in string theory, physicists' leading contender for a theory of everything that will finally unite gravity with the other three forces.

No competing theory is able to solve all four problems in one fell swoop. That's what makes SUSY so compelling and explains why many physicists are on tenterhooks.

Not everyone, though. "I never really believed in SUSY anyway," says physicist Jonathan Butterworth of University College London, who works on the LHC's ATLAS experiment. Butterworth admits, though, that the LHC's search has only just begun. "It would have been something of a surprise if it had shown up by now," he says, explaining that the LHC will gather 20 times as much data by the end of the year, and another factor of 10 by the end of 2012. "There's plenty of room for SUSY to show up."

Kenneth Lane of Boston University in Massachusetts agrees. "The suspicions of the death of supersymmetry are premature," he says. "But that's the only nice thing I'll say about it."

Fifth force

Lane prefers an alternative theory. With physicist Estia Eichten of Batavia, Illinois, Lane showed that particles could come by their masses without a Higgs boson if there is a fifth force in addition to the four we know about: technicolour. It is similar to the strong force, which binds quarks together, but operates at much higher energies. "There's already a precedent for it in nature," Lane says, adding that it could also provide a new candidate for dark matter.

The LHC will be able to put the theory to the test. Just as quarks pair up to form mesons, techniquarks pair up to form technimesons with masses ranging from 250 GeV to 700 GeV – well within the LHC's reach. If technimesons exist, the LHC should find them within the next few years.

Lane has already made a bet that this underdog theory will prevail. At a 1994 conference, Lane was out to dinner with Nobel laureates Gerard 't Hooft and David Gross. "We drank a lot of wine and David and I made a bet about whether SUSY would be found at the LHC after they had a certain amount of data," Lane says. "The loser has to take everyone to dinner at a three-star restaurant."

Ultimate theory

For his part, Butterworth is betting on something totally unforeseen. "I think maybe there's a whole new set of forces," he says. "I just think nature is more likely to surprise us than to fit in with our guesses."

But Wilczek is putting his money behind SUSY. "I'll happily give even money, and probably better odds than that if pressed, that we'll see some form of SUSY within 10 years."

That could help shed light on another mystery of supersymmetry – why it's not perfectly symmetric. If it were, "sparticles" would weigh as much as their normal cousins – and would have been seen by now. Instead, physicists believe supersymmetry is broken, with sparticles weighing more than their standard-model partners.

"There's no consensus on how SUSY is broken," says Wilczek. Many models implicate gravity in the process, so if the LHC does find signs of SUSY, it could usher in a way to merge gravity with the other fundamental forces, providing an ultimate theory of everything.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20248-what-if-supersymmetry-is-wrong.html?full=true

And this is how genuine science has always been done -- with a range of competing theories:

If supersymmetry isn't real

SUSY solves four puzzles at once, but other theories can attack them too

Makes the Higgs work

Technicolour

This is a fifth force, similar to the strong force that binds quarks but at higher energies, endowing particles with mass without the need for a Higgs

Holographic technicolour

If the technicolour force has the same strength across a range of energy scales, it is mathematically equivalent to a warped space-time geometry in five dimensions, simplifying the technicolour equations

Little Higgs

This new kind of symmetry gives the standard model's Higgs the right mass. Fermions are partnered with new, heavier fermions and bosons with new, heavier bosons

Unifies electromagnetic, weak and strong forces

Randall-Sundrum model

Our universe exists on a 4D membrane surrounded by five warped dimensions. Inside the warped 5D world, the forces all have the same strength; they seem different to us because of our limited perspective

Multiverse

If there are an infinite number of universes, we might just happen to live in one with forces at the strengths we observe – possibly because it's one of the few universes that could support life. If so, the forces might not be unified at all

Candidates for dark matter

Technicolour Dark matter would be made of a neutron-like particle made of "technifermions"

Axions

Hypothetical particles 500 million times lighter than an electron

Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND)

In this theory, there is no dark matter at all. Instead, Newton's law of gravity is tweaked to explain the observed motions of galaxies

Key ingredient in string theory

Loop quantum gravity

It's not clear that SUSY is required for string theory, but lack of SUSY would bolster alternatives like LQG, which suggests that space is built of discrete units of geometry

From the same page.