by Deputy Dog 15 Replies latest jw friends
Anyone else see this?
Robert Roy Britt
Senior Science Writer
SPACE.com Thu May 15, 12:01 AM ET
Physicists have come up with a way to explain how information could escape from a black hole , an idea that's been debated since the 1970s.
But the new proposal leaves the long-held concept of a space-time continuum in tatters.
"Information only appears to be lost because we have been looking at a restricted part of the true quantum-mechanical space-time," said Penn State's Abhay Ashtekar, who has come up with the idea. "Once you consider quantum gravity, then space-time becomes much larger and there is room for information to reappear in the distant future on the other side of what was first thought to be the end of space-time."
The graviton has never been detected. And if time itself is quantized, we have not been able to verify it.
If information can escape a singularity like a black hole, then it can escape the Big Bang Singularity. If so, we can know what came before the Big Bang.
Hello oscillating Universe!
BTS
BTT
Thanks for posting this DD
Not a great believer of black holes. Much controversy over the theory. Same as "dark energy".
Theory of gravity has huge holes and seriously needs revision.
Theory of gravity has huge holes and seriously needs revision.
The article in question is a revision of sorts.
As for black holes, I can't see them or touch them. They are unmeasurable. To date, no empirical information can exit the event horizon.
However, I have faith they exist.
Black holes were invented because gravitational models proved erroneous.
Dark energy is a similar invention. The theory of gravity needs a total re-examination.
No need to reinvent the wheel. Re-examination and changes should, and do, occur to all scientific theories as more knowledge is gathered. This is why the Newtonian view of gravity - while still valid as an explanatory model in most cases - was extrapolated on in the last century.
As for black holes, I can't see them or touch them. They are unmeasurable. To date, no empirical information can exit the event horizon.
You make it sound like scientists first dreamed up a fantasy concept out of thin air, then started theorizing around that fantasy concept. I would think it rather started out with observations of interactions in the universe that needed an explanation, like any other scientific discovery.
Despite its interior being invisible, a black hole may reveal its presence through an interaction with matter that lies in orbit outside its event horizon. For example, a black hole may be perceived by tracking the movement of a group of stars that orbit its center. Alternatively, one may observe gas (from a nearby star, for instance) that has been drawn into the black hole. The gas spirals inward, heating up to very high temperatures and emitting large amounts of radiation that can be detected from earthbound and earth-orbiting telescopes. [2] [3] [4] Such observations have resulted in the general scientific consensus that — barring a breakdown of our understanding nature— black holes do exist in our universe. [5]
It seems it needs to be said again and again; science doesn't have all the answers, and that's how it has to be. But we can further our understanding by meticulously following the scientific method as we collect more data about the world. This black and white "science doesn't know everything, so I'll go with whatever hunch I feel is better" thinking doesn't hold water. We have to rely on our current best understanding, based on our current set of data. Sometimes scientists have to put in 'place holders' in areas we don't yet have enough data, like is the case with dark energy and dark matter. But it's not taken completely out of thin air, but are based on observed effects.
It seems it needs to be said again and again; science doesn't have all the answers, and that's how it has to be. But we can further our understanding by meticulously following the scientific method as we collect more data about the world. This black and white "science doesn't know everything, so I'll go with whatever hunch I feel is better" thinking doesn't hold water. We have to rely on our current best understanding, based on our current set of data. Sometimes scientists have to put in 'place holders' in areas we don't yet have enough data, like is the case with dark energy and dark matter. But it's not taken completely out of thin air, but are based on observed effects.
This is true Awakened. But, it always reminds me of "the light getting brighter and brighter" mantra of the JWs. When people hold the current scientific "knowledge" up as the "Truth", I always shudder, because
somewhere down the line, (maybe after we're dead and gone) something newer and brighter will reveal that what we thought was true was just an illusion or a half-truth. Up until the 70's, science was certain the
universe has always existed. Everything up until then "proved" it. Then....BAM!!! New Light: The Big Bang started it all. I trust science up to a point, but don't belittle someone for believing something (God?)
because science hasn't proven it.
I remember the summer evening when as a teen of about 15, I first resolved with my small telescope HDE226868, a star that orbits a powerful X-ray source called Cygnus X-1. Exciting! The X-ray source is supposed to be a black hole. The huge X-ray emissions are supposed to be a result of the matter getting sucked off the star orbiting the hole and swallowed in the deep gravitational well. No one has seen the black hole. You can't see it by definition because light does not escape.
My point is this, our theory posits the existence of that object. We see fingerprints in surrounding objects that indicate the presence of the theoretical object.
To rephrase part of your quote:
Despite Its being invisible, God reveals Its presence through an interaction with matter that lies in orbit outside its event horizon the very presence of matter.
BTS
You make it sound like scientists first dreamed up a fantasy concept out of thin air, then started theorizing around that fantasy concept.
Just going off topic a little, to a degree that statement is true. For example, the ‘electro motive force’ that is generated from an alternator is based on the theory of conductors cutting magnetic ‘lines of force’. From this much of the theory of electrical interaction is based on and held as factual. Trouble is there is no such thing as a ‘line of force’. It was a miss observation that lead to the theory, being that it is indeed fantasy.
The interactions of space are based on gravitational theory. When observations don’t comply with such theory, such things as the theory of ‘dark matter’ and ‘dark energy’ have to be plucked out of thin air to prove the theory and make the models work. Problems happen when those new inventions are contradicted. Then more is added and you now end up with cosmology more of a philosophical debate rather than a scientific.
Too much romanticising and hypothesis and not enough proof. Lets not even talk about Multiversal theory
