# Gravity waves detected for the first time ever

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Plazma Inferno!, Jan 12, 2016.

1. ### paddoboyValued Senior Member

Messages:
21,703

to hide all adverts.
3. ### LaymanTotally Internally ReflectedValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,001
Who even cares how far a mile is anyways...

Last edited: Apr 25, 2016

to hide all adverts.
5. ### LaymanTotally Internally ReflectedValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,001
Fine, you are a freaking genius, and I am a complete moron that doesn't know anything. I stated it off the top of my head, and somehow I got confused, because if you convert miles to kilometers you get a bigger number, which I thought translated into a larger distance. Then a larger value translates to a kilometer being smaller. Therefore, you know everything about black holes, white holes, and wormholes; then I know absolutely nothing about them at all. Furthermore, your knowledge would be far superior to mine about the formation of galaxies at their center. Please, explain to me why a spiral dust cloud is exactly the same as an accretion disk.

to hide all adverts.
7. ### paddoboyValued Senior Member

Messages:
21,703
Wow!!! the insults are thick and fast.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Ummm, what you said.....
1 Mile = 1.609344 Kilometers
So you surely can realise that if you travel one mile, you have travelled 1.6 kms, OK? So how does this support your concept of a kilometer being longer than a mile?
Did you say you were a school teacher?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

So you see your support is rather scant to say the least.
Oh, and finally, if you really cannot accept the fact that a mile is bigger than a kilometer, and not the other way around as you suggest, then it is you that needs to step back and have a good look at yourself and any nonsense you could be passing onto the poor children you are purportedly teaching.

8. ### paddoboyValued Senior Member

Messages:
21,703

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Cop out now?

9. ### LaymanTotally Internally ReflectedValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,001
Are you happy now? You correct one meaningless aspect of what I was saying with only and insult and make a complete ass of me. Although, I am a little disappointing that no one caught me when I said that the disk could was thousands of light years across when the article said it was only 60. Then I have my doubts.

10. ### Xelasnave.1947Valued Senior Member

Messages:
4,610
"Kilometer" is a bigger word than "mile".
And detection of gravity waves is a bigger deal than dust.

Alex

11. ### paddoboyValued Senior Member

Messages:
21,703
Dust clouds exist throughout our galaxy and others to.
When we look into the night sky towards the galactic center, our vision is somewhat impaired by these dust clouds.
They would also be a part of the accretion disk, which spirals inwards to the BH EH.
If you read more carefully, and openly admitted to errors [which we all make] and stop trying to dance your way around these errors and so confusing yourself as well as others, as others have noted, and not then resort to adhom attacks, you would be respected far more.
Yes the mile/kilometer argument is superfluous to the question/subject of this thread, and it would have ceased way back when it was first raised if you had taken the time to check and correct the error.
By the way, the subject matter of this thread is the recent confirmation of gravitational waves, as well as subsequently confirmation of BH's.

12. ### LaymanTotally Internally ReflectedValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,001
I could care less about who is right or wrong. I use to play dumb, because I got tired of people making fun of me for being too smart when I was school. All I care about is, what is actually right and wrong, the facts. Frankly, a lot of the stuff you said earlier sounded like a bunch of crank nonsense to me, so I prejudged you. I say the word gravity and you say no curvature, like that is supposed to mean something different. It's a logical fallacy to judge facts based on how well someone admits errors, so I have no idea what assortment of facts you think you know about a lot of things from this point.

I really feel like the writer used the word spiral dust cloud instead of accretion disk to prevent themselves from being in error. It wasn't a clear enough discovery to claim it as a full blown accretion disk. Otherwise, this would be the first picture of a black hole itself. Then a SMBH is not going to be that big, and the dust cloud would hide many stars in it possibly. Basically, what I am going to do is just not mention the fact that we have never directly seen a black hole or accretion disk. That will just be one fact no one will hear out of me, because I am just sick of arguing about it.

13. ### paddoboyValued Senior Member

Messages:
21,703
No, I'm no genius and I never said you were a moron.
We all make mistakes, the difficult part is accepting them.

I do not know everything about BH's, but I have read plenty of reputable books on the subject, and learnt from reputable people whom I have come in contact with including an Astronomer and a GR theorist.
You have made some confused claims re BH's and galaxies and I and others have corrected you. This apparently has upset you.

Schneibster likes this.
14. ### LaymanTotally Internally ReflectedValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,001
The capital "M" is not clear. The abbreviation of mile is mi.

15. ### SchneibsterRegistered Member

Messages:
390
Well said, sir.

16. ### LaymanTotally Internally ReflectedValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,001
It is upsetting for someone to say you are wrong over and over about the same thing, when the evidence they give you that "proves" it isn't even valid. I can almost guarantee you, no one here will be able to find anything on the web that isn't fake that says, "This is a picture of a black hole's accretion disk".

What would make me happy is if someone actually had valid claims and evidence to support their refute to my claims, which results in a better understanding of the subject. That is what I enjoy about science, but there are never any willing participants.

If we are discovering gravitational waves, then there should be Einstein-Rosen Bridges as well. That means there should be white holes, if they exist in nature. It was one of Einsteins most popular theories that just got thrown out of the window. In my mind, they could explain everything that is lacking in physics right now. The only problem with the theory is that none have been discovered in cosmology. When I take a look at any young galaxy, it is like it is just sitting there staring me in the face with its bright radiant center. Then we are just now confirming that there are suppermassive black holes at the center of every galaxy. The pieces seem like they could start all falling into place here.

17. ### SchneibsterRegistered Member

Messages:
390
Unfortunately, I did exactly that already.

Here's another one: let's do it in another spectrum, this time X-rays:

http://chandra.harvard.edu/press/01_releases/press_050701.html

Title: "Chandra Pinpoints Edge Of Accretion Disk Around Black Hole."

Let's have the nice image:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

We done here?

18. ### LaymanTotally Internally ReflectedValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,001

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Very underwhelming photo.

19. ### LaymanTotally Internally ReflectedValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,001
I don't know. Did you have something to say about white holes? Or, the possibility of them existing in the center of galaxies? (what I was talking about)

20. ### paddoboyValued Senior Member

Messages:
21,703
The confirmed discovery of gravitational waves, also confirmed the existence of BH's, specifically binary BH pairs in orbit about each other.
While I also like the speculative scenario of ERB's and even White Holes, as yet they remain speculative because we have no evidence of their existence.
SMBH's have been evidenced for quite a while now and I don't believe anything that GR predicts or allows for has been thrown out the window.....yet.
Again science requires evidence.
https://plus.maths.org/content/time-travel-allowed

http://www.space.com/28000-physicist-kip-thorne-wildest-theories.html

21. ### paddoboyValued Senior Member

Messages:
21,703
If white holes did exist, they certainly would not exist at the center of galaxies: White holes would not attract an accretion disk with any ingoing flow.

Schneibster likes this.
22. ### SchneibsterRegistered Member

Messages:
390
It's not a photo. Should have read the text again, something you're apparently really bad at.

23. ### SchneibsterRegistered Member

Messages:
390
I already said everything I had to say about white holes.