J.C.MacSwell Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 5 minutes ago, Paulsrocket said: So, if you do not accept Hawking radiation and the information paradox, then you are a science denier. However your odds of being correct are still 50/50 Is Hawking radiation confirmed? By using a chain of atoms to simulate a black hole's event horizon, researchers have shown that Hawking radiation may exist just as the late physicist described. Scientists have created a lab-grown black hole analog to test one of Stephen Hawking's most famous theories — and it behaves just how he predicted.Nov 30, 2022 Source Space.com Hawking Radiation radiates from just outside the event horizon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 48 minutes ago, Paulsrocket said: So you accept science without evidence That’s a hell of an interpretation. That it’s 100% wrong shouldn’t be surprising given the data. I accept science because of the evidence. 48 minutes ago, Paulsrocket said: , just like you accepted that nothing could escape a black hole, until this was declared wrong. So which is it, can nothing escape or does everything escapes via radiation. We discussed this and your false dilemma suggests you did not absorb the concepts 48 minutes ago, Paulsrocket said: Then science said that the universe was static, until more science said that it was all in motion. So, it seems that reality in science, as you call it is more determined upon the time frame in which we live than in science itself. 48 minutes ago, Paulsrocket said: LOL, eyewitness testimony is actually evidence, Yes, exactly. So why does the eyewitness testimony not count? 48 minutes ago, Paulsrocket said: unless you are claiming that you measured a thing that happens faster than light. I can’t fathom the confusion that would lead to this observation. 48 minutes ago, Paulsrocket said: LOL again, how many eyewitnesses did the church provide proving that the Earth was the center of everything? Zero, I would say. Who was an “eyewitness” to this? 48 minutes ago, Paulsrocket said: Those who disagreed were banned, canceled and hanged, the only reason that Galileo was spared is because the Pope liked the telescope, probably for peeping. Such is the way of religious zealotry, but I’m not sure what this has to do with science and scientific evidence. 48 minutes ago, Paulsrocket said: PS. You still have provided zero% of the evidence that you claim exist, which means that your belief is based in faith not photos or other real evidence. I’ve read the eyewitness testimony of others. 48 minutes ago, Paulsrocket said: Do tell us, what powers entanglement? Have you ever ask yourself that? No, because I have a degree in physics, so I know that “what powers entanglement?” is a crap question (nothing “powers” it, that phrasing suggests a complete lack of understanding of the underlying physics) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pzkpfw Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 38 minutes ago, Paulsrocket said: .. However your odds of being correct are still 50/50 .. I see we can add probability to the list of things you don't (can't?) understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 1 hour ago, exchemist said: Enough of this tomfoolery. Technically paulfoolery… 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paulsrocket Posted January 16 Author Share Posted January 16 1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said: Hawking Radiation radiates from just outside the event horizon. What is the source of Hawking radiation? Black holes get the energy to radiate Hawking radiation from their rest mass energy. So if a black hole is not accreting mass from outside, it will lose mass by Hawking radiation, and will eventually evaporate. You do I presume know that although tailpipes emit exhaust, that the source of the exhaust is the engine? Likewise the event horizon is the exhaust pipe of the black hole if the theory is correct. 1 hour ago, swansont said: That’s a hell of an interpretation. That it’s 100% wrong shouldn’t be surprising given the data. I accept science because of the evidence. We discussed this and your false dilemma suggests you did not absorb the concepts Yes, exactly. So why does the eyewitness testimony not count? I can’t fathom the confusion that would lead to this observation. Zero, I would say. Who was an “eyewitness” to this? Such is the way of religious zealotry, but I’m not sure what this has to do with science and scientific evidence. I’ve read the eyewitness testimony of others. No, because I have a degree in physics, so I know that “what powers entanglement?” is a crap question (nothing “powers” it, that phrasing suggests a complete lack of understanding of the underlying physics) LOL Einstein had a degree in physics too, and he knew that the universe was not moving but static. 42 minutes ago, pzkpfw said: I see we can add probability to the list of things you don't (can't?) understand. Can you understand that I have some very fine engineers working hard for me as you read this? Market Summary > Apple Inc 185.92 USD+185.79 (142,915.38%)all time 1 hour ago, swansont said: That’s a hell of an interpretation. That it’s 100% wrong shouldn’t be surprising given the data. I accept science because of the evidence. We discussed this and your false dilemma suggests you did not absorb the concepts Yes, exactly. So why does the eyewitness testimony not count? I can’t fathom the confusion that would lead to this observation. Zero, I would say. Who was an “eyewitness” to this? Such is the way of religious zealotry, but I’m not sure what this has to do with science and scientific evidence. I’ve read the eyewitness testimony of others. No, because I have a degree in physics, so I know that “what powers entanglement?” is a crap question (nothing “powers” it, that phrasing suggests a complete lack of understanding of the underlying physics) So many words to argue with me, yet you provided no photo of entanglement. What the lab that you work at has no high speed entanglement cameras? Just provide some real evidence other than your faith -2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 39 minutes ago, Paulsrocket said: So many words to argue with me, yet you provided no photo of entanglement. The notion that you could provide a picture of entanglement is ludicrous if you understand anything about entanglement. It’s not a request one can make in good faith. 43 minutes ago, Paulsrocket said: LOL Einstein had a degree in physics too, and he knew that the universe was not moving but static. He “knew” what the best science at the time knew. Science is driven by data, not clairvoyance. The expansion of the universe wasn’t discovered until 1929 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paulsrocket Posted January 16 Author Share Posted January 16 6 minutes ago, swansont said: The notion that you could provide a picture of entanglement is ludicrous if you understand anything about entanglement. It’s not a request one can make in good faith. He “knew” what the best science at the time knew. Science is driven by data, not clairvoyance. The expansion of the universe wasn’t discovered until 1929 I can and will provide a photo of an atom https://media.indiatimes.in/media/facebook/2018/Dec/single_trapped_atom_photo_of_2018_1545711205_800x420.jpg All you have is your faith in science which changes its collective mind faster than the phases of the moon -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 3 minutes ago, Paulsrocket said: All you have is your faith in science which changes its collective mind faster than the phases of the moon ! Moderator Note Enough! Take your ignorance and go someplace where it's welcome. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts