Scientist discover black hole in our galaxie

Just read it on a dutch newssite so pretty uselless to copy that. Anyway scientists did find evidence of a black hole in the centre of our galaxie by comparing pics of 10 years ago with how the situation is right now. Also a huge star (7 times our sun)is circling around it and it takes that star 15.8 years to fully circle it. This hole is situated about 26.000 ly away from earth. If anyone finds the english news of it pls post.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?click_id=118&art_id=ct20021016100433647S1214197&set_id=1

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well, we can see quackery is alive and flourishing among the psuedo religionists. What are they going to come up with next to poison the minds of young people? No one in the hierarchy of science believes anymore in those wishy-washy theories. They're just used to brainwash the lesser thinkers, who are the majority, into blithely following along behind the high priests of corporate/science so that no control over budgets are lost.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

John

Lamenting again ? Or were you dissed by the science community at one time ? Several times ? You sound quite bitter.

 

Okay, John, put the toilet paper away and then YOU explain to us what is occuring right now, explain to us how our galaxy is existing as a galaxy, how the stars are held together by one source of gravity. Since you're on such a higher level than the rest of us it should be absolutely no trouble to you at all.

 

John, you can join too...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Re: John, you can join too...

HAHAHAHAHA... into the grand ol' tradition of Photoshop bastardization comes Q!

:rofl:

- Warren

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Bitter?..Surely, you jest...Q. I'm not bitter at all. I'm amused. If you want to go on believing that a star can collapse into an area the size of a pencil eraser, then you go right ahead. And if you want to believe that another star is whipping around that pencil eraser sized star at a million mile an hour, then you go right ahead and believe that too. If you're so gullible that you will believe that wishy-washy fantasy, then you'll believe anything anyone tells you as long as it comes from the chief propaganda meisters.

All that nonsense about "Big Bang!" and "Black Holes" and "Big Crunch" and "Infinite Density" is nothing more than fairy tales to control the pace of knowledge advancement. Why do you think all those theory have such goofy, childish names and fantastical, incomprehensible descriptions? It's so you'll believe in them like you believed in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. Corporate/science knows none of that crap is true. They're just using it to their advantage to control segments of society and make a lot of money. Did you read any of what I wrote in Mr.G.'s thread in Science & Society about the Human Genome Project? There they have scientifically proven that humans couldn't have evolved from a common ancestor, but they still continue to pay lip service to the Darwinian Theory of Evolution because that is the official stance of corporate/science. Evidence abounds that refutes corporate/science's official stance and they know that, because it is their scientists that are producing the science. The thing is that science is advancing exponentially and they can't stop real science without retarding their power, so they simply have the scientists publish the real results and then throw in an endorsement for their pet theory so that most people will remain confused for longer. That's their idea of control. They're not interested in the betterment of society for it's own sake, they're only interested in maintaining their control over society. If you're blinded by that then you are wasting a lot of your thinking time on their goofy theories that are never going to be resolved and for which they continually add ever more outlandish theories to keep you confused. They work just like religion. Intentionally. They're not stupid. They've seen how religions use propaganda and they emulate it for the same reasons. They just change the idea of "God" with "Big Bang!"

If you want to discuss galactic construction and gravity and those type of phenomena, Pollux V, then go to the "A Strange Ring Galaxy" thread in this forum where such a discussion is already underway.

 

Wow, John -- it's so clear now.

Could you provide some names and phone numbers of those folks in the corporate/science conspiracy? I sure would like to ring 'em up and give 'em a piece of my mind.

- Warren

 

Yeah, john I hate to break it to you but it does just sound like a conspiracy theory.

I will. What's supposed to happen to the gravity of a massive star like the ones that go supernova? Does it just dissipate?

 

It's called data retention, in the jargon, Pollux V. Do you think you're living in an open society where information flows freely? The corporate/government has been doing their thing for a long time. They've got so many secrets that they're beginning to lose their perspective. When they have scientists with the Human Genome Project or HST making so many discoveries that they must publish material that contradicts their official view, then it is evident that they will soon have to change their official view. Therefore Darwinian Theory of Evolution and the "Big Bang!" theory and it's ilk are going to be abandoned. It's just a matter of time, and not much more of it.

All you have to do is think a little about what they are describing and the ludicrousness of it becomes apparent. If a star collapsed down to the size of a pencil eraser, then it's gravity field must have collapsed with it, so there couldn't be anything orbiting around it because, in space terms, it would occupy an insignificant amount of space. If the star collapsed into itself until it became the size of a pencil eraser, how could it's gravity field remain the same size as before the collapse? And how could that field get stronger than it originally was, which would be required for there to be a field to be strong enough that could attract other stars to get them to orbit around it and eventually get sucked down into nothing? It doesn't take a whole lot of thinking about "Black Holes" to realize they're nothing more than wishy-washy fantasy. You can't find anyone who can explain a "black hole" with a logical explanation. You can ask your professor or anyone in science and you'll never get a real answer, because there is none. All there is, is more stupidity piled onto stupidity to keep you confused and to have you quit asking questions. It's the same old song and dance.

 

What evidence do you have that we aren't? Who runs this conspiracy, John? Many of the developments you curse were created in other countries -- many of them -- some of which were enemies of the US. If there's some super-government capable of performing a feat as amazing as the one you propose, please provide some evidence. The fact that you don't understand physics is not evidence.

What? Is the HST part of "corporate/science," or is it one of those props erected to fool the public? Why John, would this super-government WANT to fool the public? What does it buy them?

I won't hold my breath, John.

How do you define the "size" of a "gravity field?"

It doesn't get stronger. This doesn't happen. No scientist ever said it did!

It's readily apparent that you subscribe to a different form of "logic" than the rest of us, John. There are two reasons you won't accept the professor's answer:

1) You've already convinced yourself his answer is wrong, and refuse to accept any evidence, on the grounds that the conspirators are making it up to oppress you.

2) You don't understand physics well enough to even understand what it is the professor is trying to explain.

- Warren

 

Granted I onl ylook into this stuff now and then when the interested takes me, but as far as I am aware there has been no evidnce of black holes as tiny points of ridiculously dense matter from collapsed stars. Although very intense gravity wells have been observed out there, and many situations out there do seem to fit the black hole idea.

 

I really have to agree with chroot here, he said everything that I would have. John, you have no proof--none to back up your statements, and I feel that since you haven't seen astrophysics in action you've developed these outlandish opinions. Can I ask where you've developed these ideas, what inspired them, etc etc? Can we have just one source?

 

I'm not sure I understand your confusion, Pollux V. Are you wondering how the outlandish theory of black holes can be construed as outlandish? Or do you consider it outlandish that I would consider the outlandish theory of black holes outlandish? Or is it just simply outlandish that I would portray the outlandish theory of black holes as outlandish?

One source? Why in the un-collapsed world would you want one source? If you believe in wishy-washy theories, evidence doesn't mean a thing.

 

Anyone got their claws on the journal which was going to be published today? If so anyone wanna scan it an post it or let us download it?

 

*said the hypocrit*

John...I'm not sure you even want to debate the existence of black holes, since you already seem to have made up your mind on the subject. How you came to this conclusion may be a more intriguing mystery than that of the origination of the universe.

 

Here's something outlandish for you John.

The universe is infinite. That's a ridiculous farking idea as well. Have you ever tried to wrap your mind around that concept? I mean really think about it.

It's hard to recreate the feeling when you've become comfortable with an idea. You just tend to accept it. It's hard to get yourself back to that point when you realize that you're standing face to face with the limits of your comprehension and can't do anything about it. But that's where you find yourself when you devote all your mental energy to stretching the boundaries of your mind in order to try and encapsulate the infinite. You simply can't do it. So the fact that the universe is infinite becomes a fact that you have to accept, regardless of whether you can fully appreciate infinite immensity.

This is the universe we are dealing with. But we can understand quite a bit. The human mind has an amazing capacity to jump beyond even that which we do not understand, and ask yet greater questions like "What exists beyond or outside of an infinite universe". This has led to ideas such as the "multiverse" in which many universes exist, which have created thier own infinite space. You'll come across such ideas amongst physicists at the cutting edge of M-Theory, or perhaps when you're sitting out in your backyard staring at the night sky.

I'll stop my rant here or else it will get too long

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You probably don't see it like this John, but you already accept many outlandish ideas. It's just that you've become comfortable with them. And you need to really, because you can't go running around screaming "We shouldn't be here! This is all wrong! This place they call the universe is an outlandish concept! It doesn't make any sense!". Welcome to it. We try to understand as much as we can, but there will always be certain things that we might not be able to wrap our simple little minds around. But just because we can't understand something, doesn't mean it can't exist.

I'm not going to get into a debate about the nature of black holes, or if they really exist or not. But one thing you should do John, is show some respect for the dedication and passion the scientific community has shown in it's search for answers by being humble and open minded enough to listen to and even learn about established ideas. That doesn't mean accept them blindly. One should question EVERYTHING and never stop. But many great people have come before you and contributed greatly to the cause, and to dismiss those ideas out of hand, without understanding them, in favour of your own understanding which hasn't had the benefit of being refined by those ideas, IS, using your favourite word, outlandish.

 

John

I'm willing to discuss this with you in order to identify the disagreement in theory.

If a star collapsed down to the size of a pencil eraser, then it's gravity field must have collapsed with it

Not really. We need to look at a few basics to understand why this would not happen. There's a lot of empty space in an atom. For example, imagine the nucleus of the atom to be the size of a golf ball. The first electron shell therefore, would be one kilometer away from the ball (nucleus), the second shell about four kilometers, the third shell about nine kilometers, and so on. The nucleus, made up of neutrons and protons, is bound to the electrons by electromagnetic forces. The nucleus itself is bound together by nuclear forces.

A star maintains a balance between its fusion process and its own gravity up until its fuel is exhausted, whereupon it begins to collapse. The forces which bind the electrons and nucleus degenerate to the point where the electrons move closer to the nucleus and the space which was inside the atom decreases. In other words, the mass which makes up the atom is still there, but the space inside of it is gone. In essence, the atom has been compacted and now takes up less space then it did before. If the mass is quite large, the gravity will also begin to fuse the nucleus and electrons together. Again, the mass gets compacted further and takes up even less space then before.

Getting back to the analogy of the golf ball. The golf ball and the electron shells took up space which was many kilometers in diameter. After the mass collapses and the forces degenerated, the golf ball and the electron shells have now fused together taking up space equivalent or less than the space originally occupied by only the golf ball. Now there are millions of golf balls which are side-by-side taking up the same space which was once occupied by only one golf ball and its electron shells.

This process explains why a mass can collapse and compact into a very small space yet maintain its mass hence its gravity.

I would like to proceed further but would like your input at this point in order to understand if you agree with this or not, or whether clarification is required.