(March 22, 2016 at 10:37 am)Drich Wrote:

(March 21, 2016 at 3:23 pm)KevinM1 Wrote: I already set you straight months ago regarding the Higgs.  Or do you not remember me pointing out how you misinterpreted what the sigma actually was and what it meant?

Regarding black holes, there's a veritable ton of observation on them.

That you cling to your own misguided notions of science (e.g., science wants to believe, as though it's an anthropomorphic entity with desires) is your problem, not mine.  It's not my fault you didn't pay attention in high school.

EDIT: a 2 second internet search on black holes -

http://www.nasa.gov/content/nasa-led-stu...servations
http://news.discovery.com/space/galaxies...130227.htm
http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/06/o...to-hiding/

But, no, they don't exist.  Idiot.

Did you actually read the articles you posted? completely??

The Nasa 'observation' was based on the: "The study was based on a non-rotating black hole." THEORY!!!

Do you understand what was observed? X-Rays (no visible light) measured across a spanse of space you can not even fathom, supposedly reacted in a predictable way in accordance with the non rotating black hole theory.

And if you take the time to read the crap you post each one of the other 'black hole observations' is also based on somehow measuring non visible light accurately over 100's of thousands of light years away and it supposedly reacting with one black hole theory or another in a predictable way. The problem? the theories do not all compliment each other. Most of them preclude one another. that means for one observation to be correct several 'observations' must be wrong.

So again, if you believe a given black hole THEORY is correct you do so out of FAITH unless you are stupid and simply do not know that the various theories do not support one another meaning you think all black hole theories are just different types of black holes.

LMFAO, you are a Grade A idiot.

They've detected different kinds of black holes - some with spin, some without, but they share characteristics, such as the emission of X-rays.  The NASA article mentions it in passing, and there's more to be found if you're not completely intellectually lazy (here's a start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotating_black_hole).  There's nothing in any of what I linked that contradicts each other, and even if it did?  Great!  New knowledge, new explanations, and a more accurate picture of how the universe works.

(March 22, 2016 at 12:12 pm)KevinM1 Wrote: Gravity is a theory, you moron.  The scientific meaning of the word is not the same as the layperson's.  It doesn't mean guess or hunch or anything else without much substantiation.

CONTESTED THEORY Stupid!!! Black Holes Are a Contested Theory Even in the scientific community! Or can you not Read ??? I posted a link that showed Hawkins says that the 'gravity well' black hole (Gravity abyss in which you'd be crushed and their is no escape) is no longer a viable theory. He has published another theory that contradicts everything the sci-fi community currently thinks a black hole is. (which explains all the contradictory observations concerning black holes grounded in Einstein's theory of relativity, we have supposedly made over the years) or did you miss that when you were so quick to answer with out researching anything past what you think you already know? Your faith in science is strong, to that their is no doubt. It's just Your mind is weak. You are not willing to seek past what it is you think you already know.

http://www.hawking.org.uk/into-a-black-hole.html


The above is transcribed from Hawkins himself.

More accurately, they hypothesized spin, based on observations of stars and accretion discs and were finally able to directly observe it, verifying the hypothesis.

(March 22, 2016 at 12:15 pm)Drich Wrote:

(March 21, 2016 at 8:10 pm)Kitan Wrote: Correction:

For you, it is erroneously thought of as killing a baby.

For those of us who are more rational and intelligent, it is the understanding of removing a bundle of cells that could potentially be a baby if it progressed past the point of legal termination via abortion.  

Seriously, learn to science.

Says who? your god of 'science?'
Don't you get you answer is precisely what it is i am trying to demonstrate?

"Science" has become your God, it help set your pop moral values and it is through science things like putting babies through a meat grinder process becomes justified/moral.

http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/.../index.htm

The pics above are not just a random assortment of 'cells.' Viable babies are being scrambled in the name of 'choice' because 'science' was used to remove these children's humanity.

Respectfully, Drich, I think you have the cart before the horse. The idea of a fetus being a "viable infant" is a REALLY new concept in society. Many societies (both pre- and post-Scientific Method) practiced abortion. It was not invented by science for the purpose of "removing their humanity"; rather, the Pro-Life crowd have decided that they wish to assert a new principle, which is that fetuses are really "the unborn". 

Regardless of that detail, the misuse of scientific data does not have any impact on the practice of science by scientists any more than the Catholic Clergy abuses mean that there's something inherently wrong with Christianity. We can be disgusted at those who misuse their positions, or who cover for those who do, without blaming the underlying group for those abuses, if the overwhelming majority of said group is not misbehaving.

The really radical part to me is that Christians have attached themselves to the PL campaign despite the fact that the Bible makes it very clear that God has no problem slaughtering infants, ordering them to be slaughtered, and that priests conduct "infidelity tests" in Numbers chapter 5 on women suspected of sleeping around while there husbands are gone that (despite the coded language "belly to swell and thigh to rot") clearly is an induced miscarriage. Yes, I know you'll try to claim that it's just to sterilize such women in the future, but that makes little sense in a world where there was no birth control, and one who was unfaithful was probably carrying another man's baby.

Finally, I noticed your response to the chicken-egg thing. The ability to eat unfertilized eggs is also VERY new, as it's a result of the practice of keeping hens 100% isolated from cocks, typically in huge facilities. Most eggs throughout history have been fertilized eggs, and no one would call them a "chicken" (even an unborn one) until they hatched, despite that fact.

(March 22, 2016 at 12:28 pm)Drich Wrote:

(March 22, 2016 at 12:12 pm)KevinM1 Wrote: Gravity is a theory, you moron.  The scientific meaning of the word is not the same as the layperson's.  It doesn't mean guess or hunch or anything else without much substantiation.

CONTESTED THEORY Stupid!!! Black Holes Are a Contested Theory Even in the scientific community! Or can you not Read ??? I posted a link that showed Hawkins says that the 'gravity well' black hole (Gravity abyss in which you'd be crushed and their is no escape) is no longer a viable theory. He has published another theory that contradicts everything the sci-fi community currently thinks a black hole is. (which explains all the contradictory observations concerning black holes grounded in Einstein's theory of relativity, we have supposedly made over the years) or did you miss that when you were so quick to answer with out researching anything past what you think you already know? Your faith in science is strong, to that their is no doubt. It's just Your mind is weak. You are not willing to seek past what it is you think you already know.

http://www.hawking.org.uk/into-a-black-hole.html


The above is transcribed from Hawkins himself.

You do realize that Hawking isn't debating whether or not black holes exist, which was your initial protest (black holes, themselves, were just a 'theory', with your use of the term in the layperson's rather than scientific vernacular)?  He's merely proposing that their characteristics may be somewhat different than initially hypothesized, specifically that information may not be lost forever in a black hole.  The problem is that there isn't a good way to test it.  It stands, right now, as a hypothesis.  Until/unless it can be tested (and peer reviewed, of course), then Hawking's musings are merely that.  They don't add to our understanding because it's all hypothetical.  Moreover, his speech doesn't serve your cause.

Indeed, Hawking himself in the same speech:

Quote:Black holes are stranger than anything dreamt up by science fiction writers, but they are firmly matters of science ~fact

Quick question: when are you going to stop embarrassing yourself?

And, again, you keep saying I have FAITH (dun dun dunnnnn) in science that you're trying to conflate with theistic faith. No. That's not what it is at all. I've explained it several times to you. I believe in the process. Given time and resources, I could repeat their steps. I could self-verify, or, even better, find something new or contradictory. Science works because it's fluid. It's based on inquiry and challenging perceptions. It is wholly unlike religion, and your inability to understand that merely highlights your own ignorance.

You're trying to paint me as a different kind of theist, and that's simply laughable.

(March 22, 2016 at 12:30 pm)KevinM1 Wrote: More accurately, they hypothesized spin, based on observations of stars and accretion discs and were finally able to directly observe it, verifying the hypothesis.

quotation???

(March 22, 2016 at 12:54 pm)KevinM1 Wrote: And, again, you keep saying I have FAITH (dun dun dunnnnn) in science that you're trying to conflate with theistic faith.  No.  That's not what it is at all.  I've explained it several times to you.  I believe in the process.  Given time and resources, I could repeat their steps.  I could self-verify, or, even better, find something new or contradictory.  Science works because it's fluid.  It's based on inquiry and challenging perceptions.  It is wholly unlike religion, and your inability to understand that merely highlights your own ignorance.

You're trying to paint me as a different kind of theist, and that's simply laughable.

what's laughable is that dispite the evidence, (ironically enough) you cant see yourself as a different kind of theist..

If you claim their are two totally different types of faith concerning religion and science then please demonstrate them. That what a 'scientist' would do would he not?

(March 22, 2016 at 12:54 pm)Drich Wrote:

(March 22, 2016 at 12:30 pm)KevinM1 Wrote: More accurately, they hypothesized spin, based on observations of stars and accretion discs and were finally able to directly observe it, verifying the hypothesis.

quotation???

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotating_black_hole

http://news.discovery.com/space/galaxies...130227.htm

Connect the dots, dipshit.

Seriously, how intellectually lazy are you?

I'm done playing with you.  I have better things to do with my time than continually prove you wrong.

(March 22, 2016 at 12:31 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote:

(March 22, 2016 at 12:15 pm)Drich Wrote: Says who? your god of 'science?'
Don't you get you answer is precisely what it is i am trying to demonstrate?

"Science" has become your God, it help set your pop moral values and it is through science things like putting babies through a meat grinder process becomes justified/moral.

http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/.../index.htm

The pics above are not just a random assortment of 'cells.' Viable babies are being scrambled in the name of 'choice' because 'science' was used to remove these children's humanity.

Respectfully, Drich, I think you have the cart before the horse. The idea of a fetus being a "viable infant" is a REALLY new concept in society. Many societies (both pre- and post-Scientific Method) practiced abortion. It was not invented by science for the purpose of "removing their humanity"; rather, the Pro-Life crowd have decided that they wish to assert a new principle, which is that fetuses are really "the unborn". 

Regardless of that detail, the misuse of scientific data does not have any impact on the practice of science by scientists any more than the Catholic Clergy abuses mean that there's something inherently wrong with Christianity. We can be disgusted at those who misuse their positions, or who cover for those who do, without blaming the underlying group for those abuses, if the overwhelming majority of said group is not misbehaving.

The really radical part to me is that Christians have attached themselves to the PL campaign despite the fact that the Bible makes it very clear that God has no problem slaughtering infants, ordering them to be slaughtered, and that priests conduct "infidelity tests" in Numbers chapter 5 on women suspected of sleeping around while there husbands are gone that (despite the coded language "belly to swell and thigh to rot") clearly is an induced miscarriage. Yes, I know you'll try to claim that it's just to sterilize such women in the future, but that makes little sense in a world where there was no birth control, and one who was unfaithful was probably carrying another man's baby.

Finally, I noticed your response to the chicken-egg thing. The ability to eat unfertilized eggs is also VERY new, as it's a result of the practice of keeping hens 100% isolated from cocks, typically in huge facilities. Most eggs throughout history have been fertilized eggs, and no one would call them a "chicken" (even an unborn one) until they hatched, despite that fact.

The term 'viable babies' refers to children aborted in the late second to third tri-mesters.

The 'egg thing' still demonstrates the consumption of a single cell, verses the trillion upon trillions needed to create a viable (able to live outside the womb) Child that gets aborted.