Feedback and Notes

 

Imagine No Religion

Latest Activity

Stephen commented on Hope's group Imagine No Religion, Please!
9 hours ago
Mrs.B commented on Adriana's group Freethought and Funny Bones
9 hours ago
Mrs.B commented on A Former Member's group Animal | Vegetable | Mineral | Fungus or Scump
9 hours ago
Stephen commented on Adriana's group Freethought and Funny Bones
10 hours ago
Stephen commented on Doone's group Canada, Mexico most of the World and a Country Governed a Lying Duck Brained Moron
10 hours ago
Mrs.B commented on Adriana's group Freethought and Funny Bones
10 hours ago
Stephen left a comment for Jordan Hill
17 hours ago
Stephen left a comment for D L Dingman
17 hours ago
Stephen commented on A Former Member's group Animal | Vegetable | Mineral | Fungus or Scump
18 hours ago
Stephen commented on Doone's group Canada, Mexico most of the World and a Country Governed a Lying Duck Brained Moron
yesterday
Lutz commented on Adriana's group Science!
yesterday
Lutz commented on Adriana's group Science!
yesterday
Lutz joined Adriana's group
yesterday
Lutz posted a discussion
yesterday
Lutz commented on Julien's group The Music Box
yesterday
Tom Sarbeck replied to Tom Sarbeck's discussion Are Scientists or Pseudoscientists Claiming They Found a Black Hole? in the group Science!
yesterday
Tom Sarbeck replied to Tom Sarbeck's discussion Are Scientists or Pseudoscientists Claiming They Found a Black Hole? in the group Science!
yesterday
Chris commented on Adriana's group Freethought and Funny Bones
Sunday
Stephen commented on Adriana's group Freethought and Funny Bones
Sunday
Chris commented on Adriana's group Freethought and Funny Bones
Sunday

We are a worldwide social network of freethinkers, atheists, agnostics and secular humanists.

Are Scientists or Pseudoscientists Claiming They Found a Black Hole?

A. The scientific method requires confirmation by others. Who will confirm this claim?

B. Scientists tell their peers of achievements in journals and at conferences. Give some thought to reasons why these people are using popular media.

 

Views: 53

Replies to This Discussion

What it took to capture a black hole

Within thie article in the link it meantions doppler effect.

...The image of M87* presented this week is essentially a composite of the four group images, updated with higher-quality data. “Everyone can say, ‘It’s my image,'” says Ramesh Narayan of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge. The final image contains plenty of catnip for black hole devotees: For example, the brighter southern region is the result of the Doppler effect; the plasma there is moving toward us. And deep within the dark central circle, with a radius no larger than 40% that of the visible photon ring, lies the event horizon, the true boundary of no return....

Doppler effect may explain what Joey was saying about the red shift (and gravity hole) that Hubble saw from which Georges Lematre concluded the Big Bang Theory.

Light wavelenghts can be streached  and bent as seen  in the measurment explained in the

How A Solar Eclipse First Proved Einstein Right

link.

Array of simulationsA sampling of the many simulations of M87* performed by the Event Horizon Telescope team. Credit: Event Horizon Telescope collaboration

Stephen and Chris, both of you went way off topic.

A. The scientific method requires confirmation by others. Who will confirm this claim?

B. Scientists tell their peers of achievements in journals and at conferences. Give some thought to reasons why these people are using popular media.

I thought I answered that with a previous post

"

The astrilogical measurements that were done as informed in the following link is a clue for gravity wells.

How A Solar Eclipse First Proved Einstein Right

Information such as the super massive black hole image should be distributed to the general public.  

Perhaps the main problem is it's distributed in the same tone withing the same media conglomerates that tout Kardashians breast, or buttock enlargment surgery.

I also said that media should be used for education rather than entertainment and advertizement.

Peer reviewed journals albet available - especially those funded by government grants should be accessable to the public for the cost of reproducing.  That's wahat Aaron Swartz was about.

As it is now to access many peer reviewed articled funded by the government and produced by Universities require an additional publishers  fee of from $20-$80 to read.

Universities used to self publish papers.

Congress sucking  Eliphant lobyist (cocks)   for donations now don't allow universities to self publish so the average reader can read original papers without paying more than the reproduction and shipping cost - which is nothing over the internet.

Chris, you’ll have to do better than link to Ethan Siegal’s blog. HE IS ONE OF THE PREACHERS IN THE BIG BANG RELIGION.

Like the preachers in other religions he has tens of thousands of words but not a shred  of evidence.

If you want to stay on topic, deal with one or both of the following questions.

1) Who will confirm the claim of a black hole?

2) For what reason or reasons are the claimants using popular media?

To lighten it up,

I heard that some are bleaching the holes.

It would be great if there were some academic 'shows' on TV - however that isn't the case.

It's all about selling makup and pharmicuticals isn't is?

I heard they are painting the holes but the paint keeps getting sucked into the holes.

Stephen, are scientists or pseudoscientists making that claim?

To find out, go to http://www.thunderbolts.info without delay and on its home page you can click on a short video titled Wal Thornhill: Black Hole or Plasmoid?

If you delay you can use the strange little search box on the upper right and search on plasmoid or plasmoids.

Tom, I don't feel that I'm qualified enough to confirm or rebut any of these two theories but neither do I think all scientists are pseudoscientists for coming down on one side or the other. 

Thanks for the link.

Stephen, UK English and USA English appears to differ in small ways, one of which I learned in a course on mathematical logic.

An exclusive ‘or’ (A or B but not A and B) distinguishes scientists from pseudoscientists.

An inclusive ‘or’ (A or B or A and B) does not distinguish the two.

I didn’t know there were two kinds of “or’ until I took that course.

I’m happy to see that you are suspending judgment, a scientist’s option.

RSS

© 2019   Created by Atheist Universe.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Service