PDA

View Full Version : A few theories I'd like to address (flame on)



Cosmonaut3030
2008-Feb-20, 10:16 PM
Lately I've compiled a few problems I have with today's astronomy theories that I would like to share to see if others see the logic in my thoughts. This has to do with black holes, light holes, interstellar travel, dark matter and the big bang (including singularities). Let me know what you all think of this.

1. Black holes and white holes - As an average guy, I was under the impression that matter could not be created nor destroyed. Then I hear about black holes, which consumes matter and does god knows what with it. Then I hear about white holes which contiunously spews new matter forth from it. Going by principles of common sense, this doesnt sound right to me. Either these two things are connected by a worm hole (which isnt often suggested) or scientists are just guessing (colorful colloquialism removed by moderator).

Instead of thinking this "black hole" is actually a hole in the universe that consumes matter, why cant it be an ultra-dense mass instead? If this was such a super dense structure it would have all of the same qualities as a "black hole", only it would be realistic. Yes, the gravity is so immense that not even light can escape it's pull. Yes, it does bend light around it when looking far behind it, and yes it will continue to pull other things into it because of it's massive gravitational pull. This, in my opinion is a much more realistic and simple explaination.

White holes could possibly be black holes, only after becoming so super dense it had some kind of eruption from within, which caused matter to spew from whatever weakest point through the structure could be. This would cause the fountain effect it has.

Now with interstellar travel. I have to say that this seems more and more impossible given the dangerous variables that could occur during any kind of transit over such large distances at such high velocities. Obviously we could never go the speed of light because we have mass. I would also like to point out that we could never go anywhere even 10% at that rate simply because of such high risks of impacting something throughout travelling. I would even go as far to make up the statistic of 99.9999999999999999999% likely that the craft will impact something in it's path, thus destroying it.

Yes, unfortunately that means that interstellar travel is going to be impossible for the human species. That is, unless we find a way to travel through worm holes.

Dark Matter - Yes, heres another thing that scientists make up a variable simply to explain something they cannot explain otherwise. Lets make up new fluffy ideas (another moderator replacement) and say that it's the reason! Yes! Splendid!

For anyone who isnt educated on why scientists say dark matter exists, it is because Mr. Hubble found that after sizing up distant galaxies the amount of matter the galaxy should have for it's speed in rotation does not match up with it's visible matter. In other words, he thinks theres more matter that is not seen to give the sigma of a galaxy the same speed as it's interior.

Heres my theory. It may not be coherent but I think I'll throw it out anyway. Imagine the gravitational pull of each solar system in a galaxy as a loop in a chainmail suit. Each solar system positioned next to another have their overall gravitational pull intertwined. This creates an area of increased gravitational force where they overlap, thus slowly condensing the galaxy (everything gravitates to the middle of course) and keeping the speed constant all the way to the sigma. There. I didnt even have to make up any new variables.

In short: Dark matter does not exist. It is simply the mistaken identity of multi-gravitational fragments within a galaxy giving the illusion of extra mass in a galaxy.

Lastly I'd like to state something about the big bang, assuming singularities are even possible. (let me state that I'll believe in unicorns before I believe in a point of infinite matter) This is more of an observation than a point. If the big bang occurred then that would mean that our universe is a hollow sphere or egg-shaped(due to the doppler effect), depending on whether the singularity was stationary or moving at a high velocity. This is because all of the gas and particals would have been ejected at the same speed outward. Think of when you go to fireworks shows. When you see the shells explode there is a spherical burst of burning material with a hollow core. I'd be willing to say that at the core, material might have gravitated back in to creat something, but it's likely not. All of our visible universe would be the thick spherical outline of matter that was expelled from the explosion. Kind of makes sense when you think about it. Or maybe not.

Sorry if any of this is common or if it has been said before. I didnt bother seeing if anyone has come up with this before as I am just going by whats ebraced as facts.

Feel free to reply. Disagree, agree, I just want some opinions. Thanks!

antoniseb
2008-Feb-20, 10:50 PM
You've written a lot here, and clearly are writing from the 'average guy' position. It will probably help to address these issues one at a time.

For starters:
- black holes don't destroy mass
- white holes aren't described by modern astronomers, who have no reason for thinking that anything matching your description exists at all.
- dark matter probably exists, and unless you'd like to describe reasons that specific observations supporting dark matter are better described by something else, you are just waving your hands.

BTW, most of these topics have threads on this forum if you feel like taking some time to look for previous efforts to answer them.

One more thing, please read the rules of this forum.

Jim
2008-Feb-20, 11:04 PM
Welcome to BAUT, Cosmonaut3030!

Just to add to what Antoniseb said:


Lastly I'd like to state something about the big bang, assuming singularities are even possible. (let me state that I'll believe in unicorns before I believe in a point of infinite matter) ... Think of when you go to fireworks shows. ...

First (and, no offense intended), the universe really doesn't care what you choose to believe. If it "wants" to start from a single point of infinite matter, it will.

Second, BBT doesn't address this at all. BBT addresses what happened after the universe came to be. There are a great many proposals for how that happened, and only a few invoke a singularity.

Third, the BB was nothing like a fireworks show. Here's a good write-up on that (http://www.astronomycafe.net/cosm/bang.html).


Heres my theory. ...

If you want to present a theory that is not mainstream, we have a forum for that... Against the Mainstream. BAUT Rules are very specific about not discussing ATM ideas outside of that forum.

Cosmonaut3030
2008-Feb-20, 11:05 PM
-You're correct, black holes dont destroy matter, but it condenses it into a singularity. That, in my opinion, is destroying matter in a manner of speaking.

-I hate to reference a show on the science channel, but theories for white holes are described on "The Universe".

-I described an alternative factor than dark matter. I believe complex gravitational forces account for the reasons scientists think dark matter exists. So, yes. I am describing specific observations supporting dark matter is better described by something else. If you would like to elaborate I would be interested in what you have to say.

Note: I apologize for the use of colorful colloqiualisms. I didn't realise people could be offended by words that arent even considered "curse words".

Also, I know you're a moderator but that does not mean you should talk down to people who are sharing their opinions and theories, even if you disagree, you should disagree gracefully.

antoniseb
2008-Feb-20, 11:42 PM
...That, in my opinion, is destroying matter in a manner of speaking.
But not the manner of speaking that physicists use


I hate to reference a show on the science channel, but theories for white holes are described on "The Universe".
I like "The Universe", but sometimes they say some far out things to sound amazing.


-...I believe complex gravitational forces account for the reasons scientists think dark matter exists.
I'd be interested in seeing how these complex forces account for "The Bullet Cluster".


Note: I apologize for the use of colorful colloqiualisms. I didn't realise people could be offended by words that arent even considered "curse words".
You are new. If it were serious, we'd have given some official warning. We try to avoid rude language, ad hom attacks, and flame wars.


Also, I know you're a moderator but that does not mean you should talk down to people who are sharing their opinions and theories, even if you disagree, you should disagree gracefully.
Actually, I *do* disagree with you, but this forum is well known for encouraging some level of discussion of alternative views, though this (as Jim says) should happen in the ATM area. But we try to keep such discussions in such a format as to reveal as much as possible about what is really being proposed, and whether it can actually describe known observations. We respect that people seriously proposing alternatives have a tough battle, and often have given a lot of thought and work into creating, and working out their ideas. I think I can speak for all of the moderators and administrators when I say that if a serious alternative really does get found, we will be proud to have been part of unsuccessfully trying to tear it apart before it became well known.

No one is talking down to you.

fotobits
2008-Feb-21, 04:19 AM
Some of your points have been addressed, so I'll poke holes in the others.

Instead of thinking this "black hole" is actually a hole in the universe that consumes matter, why cant it be an ultra-dense mass instead? If this was such a super dense structure it would have all of the same qualities as a "black hole", only it would be realistic. Yes, the gravity is so immense that not even light can escape it's pull. Yes, it does bend light around it when looking far behind it, and yes it will continue to pull other things into it because of it's massive gravitational pull. This, in my opinion is a much more realistic and simple explaination.
You began with a straw man argument. Who believes black holes are holes in the universe? The rest of your paragraph is what I learned about black holes in Astronomy 102 back in 1979. Frederick Pohl's novel "Beyond the Blue Event Horizon," published in 1980, used this as a plot device.

White holes could possibly be black holes, only after becoming so super dense it had some kind of eruption from within, which caused matter to spew from whatever weakest point through the structure could be. This would cause the fountain effect it has.
White holes do not exist. Forget what you heard on "The Universe" and listen to Astronomy Cast instead. White holes are mathematical fantasies that go poof as soon as you introduce mass into the equations.

Dark Matter - Yes, heres another thing that scientists make up a variable simply to explain something they cannot explain otherwise. Lets make up new fluffy ideas (another moderator replacement) and say that it's the reason! Yes! Splendid!
You obviously need to spend some time reading about the history of Dark Matter Theory. This article (http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20080211/sc_space/newcosmictheoryunitesdarkforces) from Space.com shows cosmologists are working hard and not just making stuff up. Is every theory proven true? Of course not. That's how science works, and scientists often learn more from falsifying a theory than from confirming it.

For anyone who isnt educated on why scientists say dark matter exists, it is because Mr. Hubble found that after sizing up distant galaxies the amount of matter the galaxy should have for it's speed in rotation does not match up with it's visible matter. In other words, he thinks theres more matter that is not seen to give the sigma of a galaxy the same speed as it's interior.
Fritz Zwicky, not Edwin Hubble, first proposed Dark Matter and he arrived at the conclusion after studying rotation curves in galactic clusters, not velocity curves of individual galaxies. Vera Rubin was the first to study the latter. Lastly, Edwin Hubble has not had a thought of any sort since he died in 1953.

Heres my theory.
Where's your math?

One need not know Calculus, Relativity or Quantum Mechanics to understand why you do not know what you're talking about, one merely has to look the history of science. Science advances by building on the work of those who came before. Einstein's theories did not blow Newton's theories into the dustbin of history, rather Einstein's theories built on Newton's theories. Newton's work still very concisely explains how the universe works at low speeds and at masses commonly encountered in our lives. Einstein's theories begin where Newton's end.

I give you credit for not comparing yourself to Einstein, or railing against the scientific community for ignoring you. You rate low on the Crackpot Index, but coming into a science forum and arguing against the best current explanations of how our universe works while demonstrating almost total ignorance of science and history makes a bad first impression.

Neverfly
2008-Feb-21, 04:50 AM
(snip)why cant it be an ultra-dense mass instead? If this was such a super dense structure it would have all of the same qualities as a "black hole", only it would be realistic. Yes, the gravity is so immense that not even light can escape it's pull. Yes, it does bend light around it when looking far behind it, and yes it will continue to pull other things into it because of it's massive gravitational pull. This, in my opinion is a much more realistic and simple explaination.

This is exactly what I understand a black hole to be as well.


(snip) but coming into a science forum and arguing against the best current explanations of how our universe works while demonstrating almost total ignorance of science and history makes a bad first impression.

Take it with a grain of salt, Cosmonaut3030. Fotobits is right.

It can be tough to not react when you feel like you may have been insulted- even when you weren't.
One thing about using the net to communicate is that the inefficient means of communication can put defenses up on high.

This can be a great place to learn, to clear up misconceptions and also to learn how to address issues.

Your description of a black hole demonstrates that you are quite smart.

I'm looking forward to more posts from you that demonstrate your ideas and learning ability:)

dgavin
2008-Feb-21, 02:00 PM
Black Holes are real as you mentioned, what is not known is if they are a form of highly collapsed degenerate matter (such as quark stars) or a singularity. It's one of the reasons that they are officialy called Black Holes, and not singularities.

White Holes are a theroretical construct. Mathmatically they are possible, but there has never been any observed. Unlike Black Holes which have been observed. The Big Bang might be the only example of a White Hole effect.

As the others mentioned, the Big Bang focuses on what happened just after the universe formed. What came before that point is all a big unknow. There are two contending hypothisis for that, one is a Big Rip (Were acceleration rips matter and then space time apart) and another is the Big Bounce (where an old universe collapses and forms a new one). Both have some mathmatical evidence to support them, and can read more about both on wikipedia.

Personally I dislike dark-matter myself. However something is causing galaxy rotations to behave as if they had much more mass then is visible. And there is also gravitational light bending that infers the presence of this invisible strange matter. So there is some actual evidence for it.

Cosmonaut3030
2008-Feb-21, 03:46 PM
Fritz Zwicky, not Edwin Hubble, first proposed Dark Matter and he arrived at the conclusion after studying rotation curves in galactic clusters, not velocity curves of individual galaxies. Vera Rubin was the first to study the latter. Lastly, Edwin Hubble has not had a thought of any sort since he died in 1953.


I don't recall saying Hubble proposed Dark Matter, I simply inferred that his discoveries lead to the conclusion of Dark Matter. In fact, Hubble described it as "Missing Matter".

When I said someone was talking down to me it was because the moderator felt it was nessesary to tell me I definitely am an average person.


About the Dark Matter thing, so I guess you're all in agreement that overlapping gravitational pulls between solar systems in a galaxy cant give us a mis-reading of how much mass a galaxy should have? I would imagine there would be twice as much gravity within the area, which would indicate additional mass.

Tobin Dax
2008-Feb-21, 04:46 PM
About the Dark Matter thing, so I guess you're all in agreement that overlapping gravitational pulls between solar systems in a galaxy cant give us a mis-reading of how much mass a galaxy should have? I would imagine there would be twice as much gravity within the area, which would indicate additional mass.
And that additional mass is the additional solar system.

Jim
2008-Feb-21, 05:40 PM
When I said someone was talking down to me it was because the moderator felt it was nessesary to tell me I definitely am an average person.

Well, to paraphrase Abe Lincoln, "God must love the average man because he made so many of them."

loglo
2008-Feb-21, 05:47 PM
I would imagine there would be twice as much gravity within the area, which would indicate additional mass.

Unfortunately this is still too little mass by a factor of ~5 to explain the Milky Way observations and a factor of ~50+ to explain galaxy cluster observations.

Tim Thompson
2008-Feb-21, 06:37 PM
As an average guy, I was under the impression that matter could not be created nor destroyed.
Then you are under the wrong impression, for there is no such law of physics. The idea of conservation of matter arises in chemistry, where it is a fact that all the matter going into a chemical reaction has to come out of it. That's why it is necessary to balance chemical equations to account for this. However, in physics the more general rule is conservation of energy, not matter.


Going by principles of common sense, ...
It would be nice if common sense were useful here, but it is not. The great lesson of 20th century physics is that the universe on scales of time & space that are far removed from our common experience (i.e., quantum mechanics for the very small & general relativity for the very large) does not behave as common sense predicts. This is not a matter of bias it is a cold hard fact of observation, with which scientists have struggled for about a century now. You will, as often as not, be just plain wrong if you try to understand the universe using common sense from common experience. You have to build a new kind of "common sense", built on an intuition gained by dealing with the universe as it really is.


Instead of thinking this "black hole" is actually a hole in the universe that consumes matter, why cant it be an ultra-dense mass instead? If this was such a super dense structure it would have all of the same qualities as a "black hole", ...
Actually, no it would not. Any super dense structure will have a hard surface. A black hole does not have any hard surface, it has an event horizon. The two are not the same, and by observation we can distinguish one from the other. This has in fact already been done, in scientific studies over the last decade or so. See my post #9 (http://www.bautforum.com/1178479-post9.html) in the discussion "How can a black hole have a rotation? (http://www.bautforum.com/questions-answers/70482-how-can-black-hole-have-rotation.html)" for specific references to some of the published papers on this point.


White holes could possibly be black holes, only after becoming so super dense it had some kind of eruption from within, which caused matter to spew from whatever weakest point through the structure could be. This would cause the fountain effect it has.
It could be so, but the evidence thus far indicates that it is not. White holes are easy to talk about in a forum like this, but it is quite another thing to try to objectively demonstrate that theory actually allows white holes to exist. Black holes come out of general relativity very readily, and were amongst the earliest of solutions to Einstein's equations, discovered by Karl Schwarzschild (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Schwarzschild) in 1915, the same year in which Einstein published his founding paper in general relativity. But white holes are not such convenient beasts, and the theoretical fight is still on as to whether or not such solutions can be physically real

As a comment aside, it is worth pointing out that it is not unusual for equations in mathematical physics to have large families of mathematically valid solutions, where only a few (or even just one) are physically valid. So in solving complicated families of simultaneous equations, such as Einstein's, it is not enough just to find a mathematical solution. It is further required to test the physical validity of the solution. That's the white hole problem; there are white hole mathematical solutions, but initial conditions required to get the solutions make them look physically impossible.


Now with interstellar travel. I have to say that this seems more and more impossible given the dangerous variables that could occur during any kind of transit over such large distances at such high velocities. ...
Most of this sounds reasonable. But one must be cautious about using the word "never". The technology of the next century, or the next millenium, might be more impressive than we expect.


Dark Matter - Yes, heres another thing that scientists make up a variable simply to explain something they cannot explain otherwise.
But that's exactly what scientists are supposed to do, make up an explanation for an observed effect, and then test the explanation to see if it works. As it turns out, the dark matter explanation works just fine, and is by far the simplest explanation yet offered.


For anyone who isn't educated on why scientists say dark matter exists, it is because Mr. Hubble found that after sizing up distant galaxies the amount of matter the galaxy should have for it's speed in rotation does not match up with it's visible matter. In other words, he thinks theres more matter that is not seen to give the sigma of a galaxy the same speed as it's interior.
All wrong. Hubble (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Hubble) is the one who discovered the redshift-distance relationship for distant galaxies, thus providing the first observational basis for the idea of an expanding universe (although ironically he himself never believed it). It was the Dutch astronomer Jan Oort (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Oort) who first noticed a problem with the rotation of the Milky Way (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way) implying the existence of mass beyond that we could readily see (Oort, 1932 (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1932BAN.....6..249O); Volders, 1959 (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1959BAN....14..323V); Rubin & Ford, 1970 (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1970ApJ...159..379R)). It was Fritz Zwicky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_Zwicky) who discovered that the visible mass of a galaxy cluster was only about 10% of the gravitational mass needed to keep the cluster gravitationally bound (Zwicky, 1933 (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1933AcHPh...6..110Z); Zwicky, 1937 (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1937ApJ....86..217Z)). These discoveries from the 1930's remain as problems to be solved. Modern telescopes of much greater sensitivity, and multiwavelength capability have greatly restricted the amount of "normal" matter available to provide the gravity needed to explain the observations. Hence the move toward more "exotic" forms of matter is a necessary consequence of our observation that there simply is not enough "normal" matter to do the job.


In short: Dark matter does not exist. It is simply the mistaken identity of multi-gravitational fragments within a galaxy giving the illusion of extra mass in a galaxy.
Your solution does not work because we already know that gravity does not behave in the way you describe your chain mail suit analogy. However, the idea that the idea of dark matter might be replaced by the idea of modified gravity is alive and well, even though it is not the majority opinion. For instance there is the idea of Modified Newtonian Dynamics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_Newtonian_dynamics), or MOND, an idea proposed by Milgrom in 1983 (Milgrom, 1983a (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983ApJ...270..365M); Milgrom, 1983b (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983ApJ...270..371M); Milgrom, 1983c (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983ApJ...270..384M)). So it may well be that dark matter does not exist, and mainstream scientists are indeed studying that possibility. But I suspect the nod will go to dark matter, primarily because it is by far the simpler & more obvious solution.


Lastly I'd like to state something about the big bang, assuming singularities are even possible. (let me state that I'll believe in unicorns before I believe in a point of infinite matter) ...
A singularity is not a point of infinite matter, and should not be interpreted as such. A singularity is a point (or locus of points) where the relevant mathematics becomes undefined. It is common in the popular literature to interpret this as a point of infinite density, or some such but that is wrong. In fact, there is no valid physical interpretation of a singularity, nor should there be one. The singularity is a signal from the theory to the theorist that the theory is broken and needs repair. It is a point, or locus of points, where the theory is no longer able to provide any physical interpretation. A singularity tells us we need to modify the theory, or just get a new theory altogether, whatever it takes to get rid of the singularity. That's the main reason for seeking out a quantum theory of gravity (i.e., loop quantum gravity (http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-1998-1/index.html) or string theory (http://www.superstringtheory.com/)). A quantum theory of gravity will get rid of the singularity of the Big Bang, and opens the door to "pre big bang cosmology", where we can start to talk realistically about what happened "before" the bang (i.e., Bojowald, 2007 (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007PhRvD..75h1301B); Gasperini & Veneziano, 2003 (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003PhR...373....1G)).

Cosmonaut3030
2008-Feb-21, 10:36 PM
Thanks for the information guys. I just recently got into astronomy about two weeks ago and have been learning about it on my own time. I need to read up some more and check certain sources to clear a few things up.

I think the problem I have with astronomy so far is there are too many theories and hardly any cold hard facts to go by for me. I have a difficult time getting my bearings when some state information as a fact while others state another set of information.

By the way.. Just to let you guys know, it's much more fun to jump into science creating your own theories and fleshing things out in your own mind using known facts before reading about who initially came up with(or dismissed) the theories. Take a proactive approach instead of riding the bandwagon.

If I have anything else to bring up I'll be sure to run up with my arms waving again.

BigDon
2008-Feb-21, 11:01 PM
Cosmo, one place to start would be to find out the definition of "Theory" as pertains to science. The commonly used way means guess. And that is not correct in physics where it has a specific meaning.

Hornblower
2008-Feb-21, 11:25 PM
By the way.. Just to let you guys know, it's much more fun to jump into science creating your own theories and fleshing things out in your own mind using known facts before reading about who initially came up with(or dismissed) the theories. Take a proactive approach instead of riding the bandwagon.


If you do that enough you might reinvent the wheel.

Tucson_Tim
2008-Feb-22, 12:31 AM
By the way.. Just to let you guys know, it's much more fun to jump into science creating your own theories and fleshing things out in your own mind using known facts before reading about who initially came up with(or dismissed) the theories. Take a proactive approach instead of riding the bandwagon.


Creating theories, well in your case, conjectures, without studying (knowing) the current theories doesn't sound like a technique that's going to get you anywhere. I doubt if there's a famous scientist that took that path, regardless of how much "fun" it seems to you.

FriedPhoton
2008-Feb-22, 03:20 AM
I think the problem I have with astronomy so far is there are too many theories and hardly any cold hard facts to go by for me. I have a difficult time getting my bearings when some state information as a fact while others state another set of information.

By the way.. Just to let you guys know, it's much more fun to jump into science creating your own theories and fleshing things out in your own mind using known facts before reading about who initially came up with(or dismissed) the theories. Take a proactive approach instead of riding the bandwagon.

If I have anything else to bring up I'll be sure to run up with my arms waving again.

Cosmo, as you dig into astronomy you will find that there are more cold hard facts than you can even imagine. And yes, there are many theories, and that is precisely what keeps the science churning. You need a theory to get a grant, a grant to afford resources, and resources to prove or disprove the theory. All of this takes time from theory to proof, so theory hangs around for a while until someone can do something with it, but most theories, except for those you read about in grocery store tabloids, have some footing in established proven science and seek to look further into the unknown.

On another note, as you have no doubt found, it's wise to wear kevlar around here if you want to dream up stuff. I'm all for dreaming, but there are many people here who have little tolerance for ignorance and even less for personal theories based upon slivers of knowledge. I can easily sympathize with both sides, both the ignorant dreamers (I are one), and the focused scientists. It helps to realize that many of these people have invested a great deal of time learning a tremendous amount of information and after the blood, sweat, and tears its probably a little hard to swallow a "theory" put forth by someone who invested an hour on a television show and tries to pass it off as science. (I'm not saying that's what you did, I'm trying to get you to see it from the other side of the fence).

Anyway, I have my own hair-brained ideas, many of which I won't even bother bringing up on these forums because it isn't worth the grief. Look around for a thread I started on time travel and you'll see what I mean. Ask one question and suddenly you're branded a nut. You can even state you don't believe something and just because you talked about it, you'll be treated like you're a die-hard supporter of the idea.

So, in some cases, with some people, at some times, with some subjects, you can't win and it isn't worth trying. On the other hand, there's a lot of very smart people here who are very well educated and you can learn a ton just reading the boards. This is a rare place. An oasis in a sea of stupidity. I'm sort of out in the water still but I think I've got sand under my feet.

To make a long story short, it's very easy to insult people with claims that are based more upon creative melding of concepts than real knowledge, and I wish there was less offense and more understanding, but in the end the result is pretty much the same, you may get ripped up like a chunk of meat thrown into piranha filled waters, but you'll get some solid explanations for why you are wrong, and from that you can learn.

BigDon
2008-Feb-22, 05:03 AM
you may get ripped up like a chunk of meat thrown into piranha filled waters,

Well, I'm not a piranha but that has got to be offensive to the estimated 19.7 million...SMACK!

FriedPhoton
2008-Feb-22, 01:35 PM
BigDon, you are absolutely right. I should have said...

You may feel as though you've been tossed into a black hole and are being spaghettified as each of your points are torn into a stream of conceptual atomic units that will, one by one, be crushed.

Cosmonaut3030
2008-Feb-25, 03:01 AM
Cosmo, as you dig into astronomy you will find that there are more cold hard facts than you can even imagine. And yes, there are many theories, and that is precisely what keeps the science churning. You need a theory to get a grant, a grant to afford resources, and resources to prove or disprove the theory. All of this takes time from theory to proof, so theory hangs around for a while until someone can do something with it, but most theories, except for those you read about in grocery store tabloids, have some footing in established proven science and seek to look further into the unknown.

On another note, as you have no doubt found, it's wise to wear kevlar around here if you want to dream up stuff. I'm all for dreaming, but there are many people here who have little tolerance for ignorance and even less for personal theories based upon slivers of knowledge. I can easily sympathize with both sides, both the ignorant dreamers (I are one), and the focused scientists. It helps to realize that many of these people have invested a great deal of time learning a tremendous amount of information and after the blood, sweat, and tears its probably a little hard to swallow a "theory" put forth by someone who invested an hour on a television show and tries to pass it off as science. (I'm not saying that's what you did, I'm trying to get you to see it from the other side of the fence).

Anyway, I have my own hair-brained ideas, many of which I won't even bother bringing up on these forums because it isn't worth the grief. Look around for a thread I started on time travel and you'll see what I mean. Ask one question and suddenly you're branded a nut. You can even state you don't believe something and just because you talked about it, you'll be treated like you're a die-hard supporter of the idea.

So, in some cases, with some people, at some times, with some subjects, you can't win and it isn't worth trying. On the other hand, there's a lot of very smart people here who are very well educated and you can learn a ton just reading the boards. This is a rare place. An oasis in a sea of stupidity. I'm sort of out in the water still but I think I've got sand under my feet.

To make a long story short, it's very easy to insult people with claims that are based more upon creative melding of concepts than real knowledge, and I wish there was less offense and more understanding, but in the end the result is pretty much the same, you may get ripped up like a chunk of meat thrown into piranha filled waters, but you'll get some solid explanations for why you are wrong, and from that you can learn.

Haha, thanks man. You seem to be the only nice guy here.

To everyone else: This all started with nothing and I just think it's quite a bit more interesting if you try to actually think about things before you learn about it. In high school/college I aways loved to figure everything out in my own head before we actually went over the material. Sometimes I was wrong but a lot of the time I was right. In that essence, science is a MUCH more interesting subject if you approach it pro actively. Most people here seem like they want to cling to theories that they didn't devise themselves.

Wheres the fun in that? Theres not much of a difference between an atomiton and an educated atomiton.

fotobits
2008-Feb-25, 03:11 AM
Haha, thanks man. You seem to be the only nice guy here.

To everyone else: This all started with nothing and I just think it's quite a bit more interesting if you try to actually think about things before you learn about it. In high school/college I aways loved to figure everything out in my own head before we actually went over the material. Sometimes I was wrong but a lot of the time I was right. In that essence, science is a MUCH more interesting subject if you approach it pro actively. Most people here seem like they want to cling to theories that they didn't devise themselves.

Wheres the fun in that? Theres not much of a difference between an atomiton and an educated atomiton.
Well, try to name one person who has contributed anything to science without first studying and then building upon existing work. Go ahead. Take your time.

Stumped? I thought so.

You cannot contribute to science unless you study and understand the so-called conventional wisdom. Keep thinking about things, but you're going to waste a lot of time chasing dead-ends if you don't study what we already know before trying to come up with new theories.

Cosmonaut3030
2008-Feb-25, 03:26 AM
Well, try to name one person who has contributed anything to science without first studying and then building upon existing work. Go ahead. Take your time.

Stumped? I thought so.

You cannot contribute to science unless you study and understand the so-called conventional wisdom. Keep thinking about things, but you're going to waste a lot of time chasing dead-ends if you don't study what we already know before trying to come up with new theories.

It's perfectly fine to use known facts to compose your own theories than to blindly follow other people's theories.

If you want to knit-pick my posts some more then feel free, but you'll be wasting your breath since I wont be coming back to read your closed minded replies.

Seeya!

Celestial Mechanic
2008-Feb-25, 05:08 AM
It's perfectly fine to use known facts to compose your own theories [rather] than to blindly follow other people's theories. If you want to knit-pick my posts some more then feel free, but you'll be wasting your breath since I won't be coming back to read your closed-minded replies.

Seeya!
Earlier you wrote:

I just recently got into astronomy about two weeks ago and have been learning about it on my own time.
I've been at this for almost fifty years and I'm still learning something new all the time. I hope that the screen-door doesn't hit your butt on the way to the library, for you really need to do a lot more research before you can challenge what has been discovered to date.

Get thee to a library! :)