Moon Question

Starlord wrote:
Black Holes are NOT theories, they can be found and their effects studied.


--
The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond


Only objects with high gravitational fields have been found, not
necessarily black holes. There are other theories.

Gravastars

http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...rs_020423.html

Dark Energy Stars

http://www.newscientist.com/article....ine-news_rss20

Even Stephen Hawking no longer holds with classical black hole theory,
now stating that whatever goes into a black hole will come out again
someday.

http://pancake.uchicago.edu/~carroll/hawkingdublin.txt

If information can re-emerge from a "black hole" as Hawking now
asserts, then a black hole singularity can never form, because that
singularity would destroy all information.

Double-A

Scott A theory to me is a plan or scheme existing in the mind only(in
the beginning). In time if it fits well with reality it will be proven
by experiment,or observation. We can hopefully hypothesis an explanation
to account for any phenomenon. All my
theories,ideas,hypothesis,and every description of stuff I have given
out to the world through my webtv. They are discussed all over the
world. (the better ones) I love science I love mechanics. I* love to
improve on all machinery,and find out how every thing works. I know I'm
not to smart because that gyroscope I got 70 years ago still holds
mysteries for me. Prescession is tricky Bert

Starlord wrote:
Black Holes are NOT theories, they can be found and their effects studied.



Science is not about making absolute statements. As I point out to my
classes, the best we can say on the subject is that there are objects
that we cannot see because of great distances between us and them that
behave the way our current gravity theories say a black hole should
behave. But since these current gravity theories have their limits, it
has not been demonstrated that the prediction of or properties ascribed
to black holes is not one of those limits.

G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
Scott A theory to me is a plan or scheme existing in the mind only(in
the beginning). In time if it fits well with reality it will be proven
by experiment,or observation. We can hopefully hypothesis an explanation
to account for any phenomenon. All my
theories,ideas,hypothesis,and every description of stuff I have given
out to the world through my webtv. They are discussed all over the
world. (the better ones) I love science I love mechanics. I* love to
improve on all machinery,and find out how every thing works. I know I'm
not to smart because that gyroscope I got 70 years ago still holds
mysteries for me. Prescession is tricky Bert


Then my suggestion is to not use the word theory in any discussion
involving science because it has a precise meaning in science akin to
successes in experimental and observational results, and are no better
than that last set of successful tests. It is a very black and white
definition, unlike your use of the word.

Scott There is nothing black and white about a theory. The super-string
theory must tell you that. Tell me what part is it white and what part
is black. Scott you are 100% wrong. Theories are not precise. Nothing
is precise. The best one word to describe a theory is the word "Scheme"
Bert PS I hate the word "precise" for we know we can only come up
with approximation.

BEERTbrain's prize will be for STUPIDITY!

Saul Levy


On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 23:11:01 -0400, Scott Miller
wrote:

G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
Scott Not all theories can be tested. All theories are open for
discussion. The big bang theory I like but many don't String theory has
never been tested,and I like it. QM theory has meet every test and yet
people go against it.Ask nightbat or Double-A if they like BH
Once a theory has shown to be reality the person that came up with the
theory has a good chance for a Nobel. I have proven my lapse time theory
using my fast photography. I'm waiting for my Nobel Bert PS You
seem to be mellowing(no nasty personal remarks)


I frankly have no concern about nonscience people liking or disliking a
particular theory. String theory is considered by quite a few in the
scientific circles not to be a theory as it does not provide testable
predictions. On the other hand, the big bang model and QM have made
predictions and have been vindicated each time. They are good science
simply because they do provide for testable results. Are they the final
answer? Not likely. But so far, no experiment proposed to disprove
either has been found.

And, as to your own "theory", I assume you have published it in some
recognized peer-reviewed journal. Else you have not even made the first
step toward getting a Nobel (or any other) Prize.

If you'd learn some physics, you understand precession, which you
obviously can't spell either, BEERTbrain!

Saul Levy


On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 08:29:44 -0400, (G=EMC^2
Glazier) wrote:

Scott A theory to me is a plan or scheme existing in the mind only(in
the beginning). In time if it fits well with reality it will be proven
by experiment,or observation. We can hopefully hypothesis an explanation
to account for any phenomenon. All my
theories,ideas,hypothesis,and every description of stuff I have given
out to the world through my webtv. They are discussed all over the
world. (the better ones) I love science I love mechanics. I* love to
improve on all machinery,and find out how every thing works. I know I'm
not to smart because that gyroscope I got 70 years ago still holds
mysteries for me. Prescession is tricky Bert

G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
Scott There is nothing black and white about a theory. The super-string
theory must tell you that. Tell me what part is it white and what part
is black. Scott you are 100% wrong. Theories are not precise. Nothing
is precise. The best one word to describe a theory is the word "Scheme"
Bert PS I hate the word "precise" for we know we can only come up
with approximation.


I never said theories were precise. I said they were a collection of
successfully tested hypotheses. "Tested" in the key word here, and
successfully tested a requirement. If we apply that standard to string
theory, it fails. The onus is on string theorists to contrive testable
hypotheses before they can advance to the level of "theory" in the
scientific parlance of the word. That definition is black and white,
and it is a razor that can be used to cut away poor ideas from those
more likely to be correct, precisely because they can be successfully
tested.