A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Others » Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

No Confirmed UFOs Ever So Far



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old January 16th 20, 09:49 AM posted to alt.astronomy
Daniel[_12_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7
Default No Confirmed UFOs Ever So Far

On 1/13/20 6:38 AM, wrote:


What do you mean by 'theoretical?'


As in, they've never been actually seen , observed, or otherwise demonstrated, in any way whatsoever.


Are you familiar with the scientific process?

--
Daniel

Visit me at:
gopher://gcpp.world
Ads
  #12  
Old January 16th 20, 02:31 PM posted to alt.astronomy
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 473
Default No Confirmed UFOs Ever So Far

=20
=20=20As=20in,=20they've=20never=20been=20actual ly=20seen=20,=20=

observed,=20or=20otherwise=20demonstrated,=20in=20 any=20way=20what=
soever.
=20

=20Are=20you=20familiar=20with=20the=20scientific =20process?


Not=20sure=20what=20you're=20trying=20to=20say.

I=20stand=20by=20my=20assertion=20that=20black=20h oles=20are=20ess=
entially=20theoretical=20because=20none=20have=20e ver=20been=20rel=
iably=20confirmed=20etc.


  #13  
Old January 17th 20, 08:01 AM posted to alt.astronomy
Daniel[_12_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7
Default No Confirmed UFOs Ever So Far

On 1/16/20 6:31 AM, wrote:

As in, they've never been actually seen , observed, or otherwise demonstrated, in any way whatsoever.


Are you familiar with the scientific process?


Not sure what you're trying to say.

I stand by my assertion that black holes are essentially theoretical because none have ever been reliably confirmed etc.


Just trying to get a firm understanding on where you're coming from.

I say that because many people who join a camp of thought tend to have a
fundamental misunderstanding on what the established processes are
defined as.

Joe Rogan was a famous moon landing hoax guy until realizing to do so
required joining a camp. As a free thinker, he realized down the line
that he wasn't thinking rationally and that many ideas driving
conspiracies had relatively simple explanations. I applaud him for that
because he openly admitted where he went wrong and that's rare for a
person of such high fame. He drew some haters of course, from the moon
hoax community, but he didn't care because it was honest.

Back to singularities and event horizons, I find their existence
completely plausible. Having read the early hypothesis of singularities
derived from stellar evolution studies. Or bets between Hawking and
Thorne on radio sources. Or binary systems with an invisible member. The
recent imagery of accretion discs around Sag A* and M87. Gravity waves
originating from colliding black holes.. All of these provide direct
evidence of objects predicted to exist an era ago. So to me, I lend it
strong credence.

Did we move from hypothesis to theory on black holes? Their existence
certainly matches the predictions and pretty close to the predicted
models. Yes, they're not just theory but established fact.

Will we ever have full theories on what goes on within the event
horizons? Oh, I sincerely doubt it. At this point I don't think we could
give any math on that any more than hypothesis.

--
Daniel

Visit me at:
gopher://gcpp.world
  #14  
Old January 17th 20, 03:05 PM posted to alt.astronomy
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 473
Default No Confirmed UFOs Ever So Far

...

Did we move from hypothesis to theory on black holes? Their existence
certainly matches the predictions and pretty close to the predicted
models. Yes, they're not just theory but established fact.

Will we ever have full theories on what goes on within the event
horizons? Oh, I sincerely doubt it. At this point I don't think we could
give any math on that any more than hypothesis.


Appreciate your comments.

I still say black holes ( and event horizons et al ) are essentially theoretical.


  #15  
Old January 18th 20, 01:34 AM posted to alt.astronomy
palsing[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,040
Default No Confirmed UFOs Ever So Far

On Friday, January 17, 2020 at 7:05:11 AM UTC-8, wrote:

I still say black holes ( and event horizons et al ) are essentially theoretical.


Theoretical, sure, but yet, there is plenty of evidence that black holes exist. For example...

https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~narayan...McClintock.pdf

It is up to you to provide evidence to the contrary, if you can.

  #16  
Old January 18th 20, 05:23 AM posted to alt.astronomy
hanson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,934
Default No Confirmed UFOs Ever So Far

"Paul AnalSinger" aka "palsing" wrote:
which means in ancient
Roman lingo: "House of saggy ass cheeks", wrote:

I still say black holes ( and event horizons et al ) are essentially
theoretical.


Theoretical, sure, but yet, there is plenty of evidence that black holes
exist. For example...

https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~narayan...McClintock.pdf

It is up to you to provide evidence to the contrary, if you can.

"Sam Wormley" wrote on 9-Jan-2016:

Raymond Yohros wrote:
i'm surprise that you,Sam, cannot see how a BH can
produce thermonuclear reactions that can give birth to a star

"Sam Wormley" wrote:
Stars are created by the collapse of gas (mostly hydrogen).
Nothing comes out of black holes, Raymond.

hanson wrote:
Sam, "Nothing comes out of black holes", because there is
Nothing there in the first place... Duh!..... ROTFLMAO!

Black holes are Sci-Fi products to excite the Public
and to beguile Einstein Dingleberries in their worship
of Albert's Sphincter.

The term BH was colloquially coined & used to describe
the region of the Barycenter, which is the COMMON
center of rotation, out to the inner orbiting Star(matter).

Such Binary & n-body systems do exist & spin.... but
the BH region itself does not spin.
A BH is a virtual, fictitious, abstract construct of math.

In the "Wormhole" series narrated by actor Morgan Freeman.
http://www.bing.com/search?q=freeman+wormhole&qs=SC&pq
in the segment "Swallowed by a Black hole"
Astronomy Prof. Ghez explains and refers to the
__ Black hole as being the focus of these orbits---,
and "focus" being the afore mentioned "Barycenter".

If the orbiting stars are all in the same plane then
due to their mutual gravitational (n-body) attraction
amongst themselves, their Barycenter, which is their
COMMON center of rotation, appears to be flat
(lots of x & y, litte z only) and is popularly called BH.

If their rotations and orbits, also due to their mutual
gravitational (n-body) attraction amongst themselves
is random in x, y and z, then the perceived but NOT
real BH region appears to be oblate to spherical.

In all cases, these domains INSIDE the orbits of those
orbiting stars have NO mass nor matter.
**** There is nothing in there... Nothing****, ...but

when the orbiting stars reach their "tear-apart" speed
& -curvature, (aka event horizon), due to their mutual
gravitational attraction, then the so-called
"feeding of the black hole" begin and stars or gas cloud
matter gets so hot that enormous amounts of x-ray radiant
energy is released from fusion and pair annilhilation and
every conceivable reaction known to particle physics does
occur.

So, in a sense, Yohors, who bought into the misguided habits
of licking of Albert's sphincter is right in that "thermonuclear
reactions" do occur when the orbiting stars in the binary to
n-body systems are tearing each other apart, and .... make
the resulting central jets trivially explainable by the classic
right hand rule.

Those jet's are also assumed to slam into far way Gas
clouds wherein they produce shock-waves that give rise to
the birth of stars of the "next generation".

There are NO naked BHs floating around, rotating or not.

http://tinyurl.com/ykf356z Barycenters Black Holes / Ghez.
http://tinyurl.com/yjlxhtd Barycenter --- KW
http://tinyurl.com/yjbpwrh |||| d^2(1/rho)/dt^2 - G ||||
http://tinyurl.com/yjmfyxa wife beater Einstein's hush money
http://tinyurl.com/o74vbr Einstein's guilt and confessions
http://tinyurl.com/yfqwm5v Kolker vs Christopher Jon Bjerknes


  #18  
Old January 18th 20, 01:29 PM posted to alt.astronomy
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 473
Default No Confirmed UFOs Ever So Far



It is up to you to provide evidence to the contrary, if you can.


Absolutely NOT !

The onus is CLEARLY to provide concrete evidence of BH's existence, owing to the strange nature of BHs.

Do we need to prove that Santa Claus and the tooth fairy don't exist ? No ? Some things are obvious.


  #19  
Old January 19th 20, 04:21 AM posted to alt.astronomy
palsing[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,040
Default No Confirmed UFOs Ever So Far

On Saturday, January 18, 2020 at 5:29:20 AM UTC-8, wrote:

It is up to you to provide evidence to the contrary, if you can.


Absolutely NOT !

The onus is CLEARLY to provide concrete evidence of BH's existence, owing to the strange nature of BHs.

Do we need to prove that Santa Claus and the tooth fairy don't exist ? No ? Some things are obvious.


I'm afraid that you don't really understand the scientific method. Mainstream science, whether you like it or not, has embraced the existence of black holes, due to overwhelming evidence as to their existence, This evidence is readily available to anyone who wants to look for it, and it is easy to find. If you cannot find it on the internet, I guess you are just not very good at research, for it is really there, The vast majority of scientists accept this evidence, which is why black holes are generally accepted as existing by the scientific community.

If you, on the other hand, wish to dispute the beliefs of these mainstream scientists that black holes exist, well, all you need to do is provide evidence to the contrary, evidence that black holes do not exist. If you cannot do this, then you are invited to go pound sand, for no one in the scientific community will pay the least bit of attention to you at all.

Your call, either you have evidence or you do not. Mainstream science has provided a terrific amount of evidence, whereas you have not.

That is just the way it is. Deal with it.

  #20  
Old January 19th 20, 06:55 PM posted to alt.astronomy
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 473
Default No Confirmed UFOs Ever So Far

I=20am=20quite=20sure=20I=20understand=20"scientif ic=20method"=20f=
ar=20better=20than=20you.

Over=20the=20years,=20I've=20created=20a=20treasur e=20trove=20of=
=20useful=20and=20interesting=20apps.

Certainly=20like=20me=20there=20are=20many=20who=2 0don't=20believe=
=20in=20BHs=20and=20consider=20them=20essentially= 20theoretical.

To=20each=20his=20own=20...


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
There Are UFOs Mark Earnest[_2_] Misc 17 August 21st 18 07:31 PM
UFOs have no right being here !!! nightbat Misc 0 December 19th 05 07:53 AM
And you wonder about UFOs.... Rich Amateur Astronomy 1 October 22nd 05 07:56 PM
Part Two of "Ufos in the DMZ" nightbat Misc 0 August 15th 05 02:15 AM
UFOS HAVE ATMOSPHERES [email protected] Misc 11 March 15th 04 01:16 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:11 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2020 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.