Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Baby Astronaut

gravity, gravity

Recommended Posts

Well, if one takes into account GR, any orbiting bodies will radiate gravitational waves and the orbits will decay over time. No need for any external perturbation.

 

At last swansont and I agree on something.


Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged
Assuming no cosmic expansion we would have to assume that at the moment of creation these 2 planets simply came into being. In this case, they would not initially affect one another.

 

The instant they appear, each one would send out gravity waves in all directions at the speed of light, so neither one would move at all for the first 100,000,000 years and would then start moving towards one another.

 

The point about 2 objects a septillion light years apart is a bit shaky as it would take a septillion years for gravity waves from these objects to reach each other. This is almost certainly longer than the lifetime of our universe and so no, these hypothetical objects would not interact.

 

Also, Hi, cool forum!

 

Fascinating that you can give the 'universe' a lifespan. Care to support that assertion? How do you 'measure' the lifespan? What criteria are you using? What is YOUR definition of 'lifespan'? And you are incorrect. Those two objects' gravitational waves were in communication from the start. BEFORE they were a septillion light years apart. They didn't just 'pop' into existence. So no matter how far they may have become seperated, they will ALWAYS remain in communication. Unless you would like to disprove GR.

 

So yes. They DO interact.


Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged
So the question is why is there motion in the universe? Because the initial conditions of the universe were not in a stabile configuration. Why not? Because it was not completely uniform. Why not? Good question. Presumably because of random quantum effects.

 

Or ... according to recent findings/observations, the universe was much lumpier at the beginning than we have assumed.

 

If there were UMBHs from the very beginning ... or very CLOSE to the beginning, then the gravitational waves from these BHs would have done a great job of perturbing the plasma ... then the gasses, and dust.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello, Hawkin'sDawkins. Welcome.

 

pywakit, this is a hypothetical situation. We're placing two objects 1 septillion light years apart in an otherwise empty universe where space does not expand or contract. That's the start. So yes, they did just pop into existence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's kind of a screwy scenario to begin with, with three equal bodies. What is the point of having three and not two?

 

Anyway, no, they don't fall into one another. They just have very very very slightly modified orbits. If you take a circular orbit and reduce its velocity at some point, it becomes an elliptical orbit with its apogee at the point where you reduced the velocity.

 

If you think about it, it's equivalent to just using more or less charge in Newton's cannon.

 

Ok. My error. Let's have the BHs run into a hydrogen atom every year. And since ( from the viewpoint of the universe ) either two, or three identical HYPOTHETICAL BHs will be considered a SINGLE object, with a COMMON center of gravity, it doesn't really matter.

 

At some point, far into the future of our hypothetical universe, the orbits will become ellpitical to the point of merging.


Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Moo writes :

 

Yes. It would.

 

The entire point is that we expected the universe to slow down the expansion, and yet it doesn't. That's why there was a need for "dark energy" - the universe continues its expansion away and stronger from the forces of gravity.

 

So, no, two black holes will not swallow the entire universe.

Two massive black holes would exert force on one another even from "septillion" light years away, but - as was pointed out before in this thread and others - that force will be countered, and likely cancelled and overcome, by gravitational pulls from closer (even if smaller) stars and by the acceleration already existing on the object by the expansion of the universe.

 

Sorry to disagree. In the REAL universe, we LOSE those cancelling effects everytime black holes merge. I'm afraid you might not be grasping the relationship between black hole/galaxy merges and the reduced 'cancellation' effect. When the gravititational forces COMBINE, they lose the ability to 'cancel each other out'. Need to think at the correct scale.

 

Anyway, I am not the only one in the scientific community ( so it appears ) to think that our universe DOES crunch down to a black hole. I have to assume that they have a lot of math and physics behind their reasoning. Even if I am illiterate in those fields.

Edited by pywakit
Consecutive posts merged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If at any point you reduce their velocity to zero, then yes, they'll fall directly into one another, because there's nothing else in the universe to influence them.

 

In our universe, of course, they won't, for at least two reasons:

 

1) The universe is the pretty much the same in every direction, so there is no net pull except for nearby objects.

 

2) Space is expanding too fast for objects 1 septillion light years away to ever meet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moo writes :

 

If the universe is empty and there are no other forces on those black holes then you can have twenty three and merge them, and you don't even need the hydrogen atoms; if NO OTHER FORCE exists on those objects their gravities would attract them together.

 

All items with mass attract one another, so you don't need a hydrogen atom; in fact, if there were ONLY three massive black holes and a hydrogen atom in space, then the force exerted by the tiny atom would be overcome a billion-billion-billion times by the force from each of the black holes, which means that for all intents and purposes, you can ignore it.

 

If there were no other items in the universe, that is.

 

But in reality, forces DO exist, and do COUNTER this force. We see it observationally as well as mathematically.

 

Yep. But that wasn't really the point of the hypothetical three black holes. The point was that ... "Objects in motion tend to stay in motion. Objects at rest tend to stay at rest. UNLESS acted upon by an outside force."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if this was posted before,but the latest is that Gravity is not what pulls us down,rather that Gravity is space time pushing us down. to a central point in space.As far as space being a void,well it is to a point ,but space can be manipulated to the point where it bends,and has flexibility

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If at any point you reduce their velocity to zero, then yes, they'll fall directly into one another, because there's nothing else in the universe to influence them.

 

Yes.

 

In our universe, of course, they won't, for at least two reasons:

 

1) The universe is the pretty much the same in every direction, so there is no net pull except for nearby objects.

 

No. Pretty much the same is not 'the same'. Thankfully. Because of CURRENTLY competing gravitational waves, you assertion is generally accurate. However, this will change as black holes consolidate gravitational competition. As they are doing as we speak. Think 'bigger'.

 

2) Space is expanding too fast for objects 1 septillion light years away to ever meet.

 

'Ever' is a rather strong word. Calculate the gravitational attraction of two remaining UBER-MASSIVE ( say 1 quintillion sols each ) black holes, who have been in gravitational communication from the beginning of our universe. Take away ALL other competing gravitational sources .... since they will have been consolidated into the last two black holes. I think you may find that gravitational attraction just might be sufficient to 'reverse' the recession. Even at a septillion light years apart.

 

Also consider the possibility that the 'expansion' ( which may not be an expansion at all ) could stop ... or reverse ... once you have removed all those gravitational sources that 'DE' or whatever force is involved is apparently acting upon.


Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged
I don't know if this was posted before,but the latest is that Gravity is not what pulls us down,rather that Gravity is space time pushing us down. to a central point in space.As far as space being a void,well it is to a point ,but space can be manipulated to the point where it bends,and has flexibility

 

No disagreement there. But we were just doing mind experiments. ( or at least I was ) Not actually discussing space as it really is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moo writes :

 

Yep. But that wasn't really the point of the hypothetical three black holes. The point was that ... "Objects in motion tend to stay in motion. Objects at rest tend to stay at rest. UNLESS acted upon by an outside force."

That wasn't the point of the original poster.

 

We are dealing with classical physics and in a very PARTICULAR context in classical physics. And in classical physics, what I said in post #14 and onwards is true. It was before I was answering YOUR point which takes us out of classical physics and out of the thread's topic.

 

~moo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That wasn't the point of the original poster.

 

We are dealing with classical physics and in a very PARTICULAR context in classical physics. And in classical physics, what I said in post #14 and onwards is true. It was before I was answering YOUR point which takes us out of classical physics and out of the thread's topic.

 

~moo

 

Ok.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fascinating that you can give the 'universe' a lifespan. Care to support that assertion?

Well this becomes a bit more tricky since we're discounting cosmic expansion.

 

However, in the universe we're imagining here which is empty and initially static except for these two objects, we can't rule out the second law of thermodynamics: The level of entropy always increases. The Black Holes evaporate into hawking radiation. If there was enough initial mass in the 2 black holes to be drawn together (just how super-massive can you get?) then it all collapses into a big crunch. Otherwise (more likely given that there are only 2 bodies to begin with) the matter-energy from the black hole spreads out, spreading further and further apart until it approaches absolute zero and infinitesimally low density and you have a big freeze. The 2 possible ends of the universe. How long it would take would depend on the initial conditions of the universe.

 

Of course, long before big crunch or big freeze, the black holes themselves will have evaporated so we need to ask the question, do the initial gravity waves from one BH reach the other before it has completely evaporated. This would depend entirely on how much mass is in each BH to begin with. They would have to be very very very big to last for a septillion years.

 

 

you are incorrect. Those two objects' gravitational waves were in communication from the start. BEFORE they were a septillion light years apart.

 

I thought we were discounting cosmic expansion?

 

Certainly if they had started off closer together they would indeed be interacting, but then if 2 supermasive black holes with their immense gravity fields were so close together, how could they ever have drifted so far apart?

 

Otherwise we could assume a universe without a beginning - they have simply "always" been there. In this case, since they evaporate in a long but finite amount of time, they would have evaporated an infinately long time ago.

 

I think a lot of the problem with this is that we're trying to talk classical physics, but classical physics struggles to describe interactions over such huge distances and timescales.

 

Fun to think about though :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was asking about initial velocity of an orbiting body like Earth or Moon. I don't think the creation of the Moon has anything to do with my question. The material of the accretion disk was orbiting before the Earth was created.

I was just interested to hear someone say that gravity is not enough to make bodies orbit. You need something else, like "initial velocity". And I am still asking, where does this "initial velocity" come from?

For example, the solar system is orbiting the galaxy: where does its initial velocity come from?

 

Sorry Michel. I didn't understand the question. I think you are correct. ( later post ... third body )

 

A nice fat black hole at the center of our galaxy spinning at near c ought to do the trick.

 

As far as our solar system rotating, unless I am incorrect ... per Einstein ... a collapsing star ... like our proto sun, would have a great deal of spin remaining after it transformed into the star we see today. Having thrown off a great deal of gas, dust, and heavier elements, I would have to assume there was a great deal of kinetic angular momentum transferred to the castoff material. Add the 'spinning' gravitational waves of the sun, the matter 'falling back' toward the sun, and you have a recipe for matter ending up in orbit.

 

Fascinating, isn't it, that the velocity of our planet's angular momentum ( relative to the sun ) is well over 100,000 k/h.

 

Equally fascinating is that our galactic 'arm' is travelling at about 900,000? k/h relative to the center of the galaxy.

 

Think the 2 processes were any different? I don't think so.

 

Just a matter of scale.

 

I think we will find that our current galaxy was formed shortly after our SMBH was formed.

 

 

Here is an interesting bit of info from ajb ...

 

Recall that for a Kerr black hole you have two important surfaces. The event horizon and the (boundary of) the ergosphere.

 

The ergosphere is interesting as it is a region that is being dragged around (via the Lense-Thirring effect) the black hole at a speed greater than c. This is not in violation of relativity.

 

I have no reason to doubt this, as it corresponds to other observations of BHs, the universe, and it also agrees with GR's prediction that space itself is not limited to c.

 

There are equally interesting things to realize here. Although matter is limited to < c in relation to space, we know that space can drag matter along at speeds far exceeding c.

 

1. The ergosphere of a BH.

 

2. The intitial expansion from the BB.

 

3. The accelerating recession.

 

So it doesn't seem to crazy to think that our galaxy's rotation is not only regulated by the gravitational 'spin' of our black hole, but it also lends credence to the idea that a black hole might be spinning at a velocity that is far above c.

 

You have to ask yourself .... Why would the ergosphere be rotating beyond c? If space can be dragged along by the gravity of a BH at such velocities .... why couldn't the BH be spinning at many multiples of c? Think space is 'normal' at the BH?

 

Sure isn't looking that way ...

 

Of course ... this only 'makes sense' as GR predicts space is collapsed at the BH.

 

This phenomenum could also explain why we can't seem to detect the gravitational waves of BHs with our detectors.

 

The frequency of the wave could be far beyond our technological capability to detect.


Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Another interesting tidbit.

 

It has been assumed that our SMBH is non-rotating. As there are no jets ( correct me if I am wrong ) it is assumed that it is 'done' feeding.

 

There are many reasons to question these assumptions.

 

1. How BHs form.

 

2. The lack of 'friction' in space.

 

3. The velocities of massive stars in close orbit to the BH.

 

We can look to our own solar system to view the smaller scale version of the galaxy.

 

There is a lot of material in orbit around our sun, and now and then gravitational perturbations will cause material to either 'escape' ( although we don't know if the escape is permanent ) or to fall toward the sun. ( Shoemaker-Levy )

 

I have no doubt the same thing happens at the galactic scale, and if we are lucky, someday we will get to witness some star falling into our SMBH. Perhaps it has already happened, and the light has yet to reach us. Should be quite a show!


Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged
Well this becomes a bit more tricky since we're discounting cosmic expansion.

 

However, in the universe we're imagining here which is empty and initially static except for these two objects, we can't rule out the second law of thermodynamics: The level of entropy always increases. The Black Holes evaporate into hawking radiation. If there was enough initial mass in the 2 black holes to be drawn together (just how super-massive can you get?) then it all collapses into a big crunch. Otherwise (more likely given that there are only 2 bodies to begin with) the matter-energy from the black hole spreads out, spreading further and further apart until it approaches absolute zero and infinitesimally low density and you have a big freeze. The 2 possible ends of the universe. How long it would take would depend on the initial conditions of the universe.

 

Of course, long before big crunch or big freeze, the black holes themselves will have evaporated so we need to ask the question, do the initial gravity waves from one BH reach the other before it has completely evaporated. This would depend entirely on how much mass is in each BH to begin with. They would have to be very very very big to last for a septillion years.

 

 

 

 

I thought we were discounting cosmic expansion?

 

Certainly if they had started off closer together they would indeed be interacting, but then if 2 supermasive black holes with their immense gravity fields were so close together, how could they ever have drifted so far apart?

 

Otherwise we could assume a universe without a beginning - they have simply "always" been there. In this case, since they evaporate in a long but finite amount of time, they would have evaporated an infinately long time ago.

 

I think a lot of the problem with this is that we're trying to talk classical physics, but classical physics struggles to describe interactions over such huge distances and timescales.

 

Fun to think about though :)

 

I don't have time right now to address all the inaccuracies here. Let's just go with the highlighted sections.

 

Hawking radiation was first hypothesized in the mid-70s. It has a strong theoretical basis, it's true. However, it has never been proven.

 

The Fermi Space Telescope was sent up in 08. On it's 'to do' list was find evidence of Hawking radiation.

 

NADA. Nothing. Zip.

 

On the LHC's 'to do' list is to find evidence of Hawking radiation.

 

So far ... NADA. Nothing. Zip.

 

So to use Hawking radiation as an argument is just as valid as using elves.

 

Ok. A small exaggeration.

 

I'll cover your other misconceptions later.

 

(edit)

 

Other problems with BH evaporation :

 

According to my conversations with Dr. Neil DeGrasse Tyson, a 50 million sol BH has been calculated to take 10^140 years to evaporate. And that assumes it never eats another drop in all that time. No CMBR. No gasses. No matter/energy of any kind.

 

Furthermore, Hawking ( or anybody else ) has been unable to come up with the 'end game'.

 

Remnant? Evaporate completely?

 

So HOW long for a 50 BILLION sol BH to evaporate?

 

Do some research on how big BHs could get.

 

Einstein says INFINITELY big.

 

I'm just guessing here, but I think 10^140 years is slightly longer than a septillion years. ( 10^17 ?)


Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Computers! I just finished dealing with the other inaccuracies, then I lost power. And lost the post.

 

I am too tired to repeat it. I will just say there are several errors in it. Also wanted to apologize for coming across the way I did. It was rude.

 

Maybe I will cover the problems tomorrow.

 

Anyway, SFN is an interesting place. Hope you enjoy it.

Edited by pywakit
Consecutive posts merged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i was just glancing over the thread and seen these, come on pywakit, really?

 

The Fermi Space Telescope was sent up in 08. On it's 'to do' list was find evidence of Hawking radiation.

 

NADA. Nothing. Zip.

 

1/ not its primary function

 

2/ its only done about a year of a long long mission. this is like saying an expecting woman is never going to give birth because after only a few weeks the baby still hasn't popped out.

 

On the LHC's 'to do' list is to find evidence of Hawking radiation.

 

So far ... NADA. Nothing. Zip.

 

LHC is still undergoing testing to make sure it works like it's supposed to. do you expect a car to be winning a race when its still in the factory? no. well then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the LHC's 'to do' list is to find evidence of Hawking radiation.

 

So far ... NADA. Nothing. Zip.

 

What? To see them would require making mini black holes, and these are only created if certain hypotheses about extra dimensions is true. It's a heck of a reach to claim that it's on the "to-do" list.

 

 

So to use Hawking radiation as an argument is just as valid as using elves.

 

 

This is flat-out wrong. To equate a phenomenon predicted by established theory with the existence of mythical creatures is an appeal to ridicule. How about sticking to scientific arguments?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i was just glancing over the thread and seen these, come on pywakit, really?

 

 

 

1/ not its primary function

 

Didn't say it was the ONLY thing on the 'to do' list. But it's high on the list. Your comment is pointless.

 

2/ its only done about a year of a long long mission. this is like saying an expecting woman is never going to give birth because after only a few weeks the baby still hasn't popped out.

 

Not exactly. That is as intelligent a comment as Seth Shostad's defending SETI's lack of success by stating "We have carefully examined less than 1000 stars." That was about a year ago. That equates to less than 20 stars a year. At that rate, we might detect a signal in about 3 billion years ( give or take ). Of course, he failed to mention we have casually examined millions, if not billions of stars. His other excuse was "Maybe they have all advanced to technologies 'far beyond our current technological ability to detect'."

 

So they all just went straight from fire to tachyon transmissions. Hmmm.

 

There's a lot of black holes out there. They have had plenty of time to 'discover' them leaking. It was/is part of their 'mission statement'. So this comment was not only pointless, it was disingenuous.

 

LHC is still undergoing testing to make sure it works like it's supposed to. do you expect a car to be winning a race when its still in the factory? no. well then.

 

The 'gun' has been fired repeatedly now. Particles have been smashed. Certainly there is more data, and a lot more smashing to come. But so far, there is nothing in the data to support 'leaking' black holes.

 

But as has been stated many times, even if they do leak, there are other serious problems with black holes simply evaporating away. Perhaps you are still unaware of those problems. And I did say ... "yet".


Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged
What? To see them would require making mini black holes, and these are only created if certain hypotheses about extra dimensions is true. It's a heck of a reach to claim that it's on the "to-do" list.

 

Just going by what Dr. Tyson told me. Shall I dig up the specific email from Tyson? I would prefer not to, since they are private communications.

 

This is flat-out wrong. To equate a phenomenon predicted by established theory with the existence of mythical creatures is an appeal to ridicule. How about sticking to scientific arguments?

 

Py wrote : So to use Hawking radiation as an argument is just as valid as using elves.

 

Ok. A small exaggeration.

 

How about not taking statements out of context? That also is 'an appeal to ridicule'. Clearly it was hyperbole to make a point. Which was lost on you, apparently. As of today's date, Hawking radiation remains experimentally 'untestable'. Not borne out by observation. And unproven after more than 30 years of direct, and indirect research. So it's a little premature to use HR as a 'given', don't you think?

 

Perhaps you are also unaware that HR is still considered 'extremely speculative' by many 'respected' scientists.

 

Exerpt from wiki :

 

The quantum fluctuations at that tiny point, in Hawking's original calculation, contain all the outgoing radiation. The modes that eventually contain the outgoing radiation at long times are redshifted by such a huge amount by their long sojourn next to the event horizon, that they start off as modes with a wavelength much shorter than the Planck length. Since the laws of physics at such short distances are unknown, some find Hawking's original calculation unconvincing.

 

I could post many more ....

 

( Also, please note the 'scientific' comments made by the prior poster.)

Edited by pywakit
Consecutive posts merged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't say it was the ONLY thing on the 'to do' list. But it's high on the list. Your comment is pointless.

 

it wasn't pointless, the mission hasn't been going on for very long, its not the main purpose of the satellite and it can only gather dat on that particular phenomenon if it happens to capture a glimpse of something that resembles a disintegrating black hole with little possibility of it being anything else.

 

So they all just went straight from fire to tachyon transmissions. Hmmm.

 

the point of that(although i don't see its relevance) was that the level of technology rises rapidly once it gets going. there'd be what, maybe a 200 year window of opportunity for detecting recognisable radio transmissions? as our own level of communications technologies gets better, the size of this window will increase.

 

There's a lot of black holes out there. They have had plenty of time to 'discover' them leaking. It was part of their 'mission statement'. So this comment was not only pointless, it was disingenuous.

 

only the little ones leak at an appreciable rate. all known black holes are very very big. its hard to detect a microwatt signal when the noise is over a yottawatt.

 

The 'gun' has been fired repeatedly now. Particles have been smashed. Certainly there is more data, and a lot more smashing to come. But so far, there is nothing in the data to support 'leaking' black holes.

 

thats because they haven't been looking. and as swansont says, the first thing they'd need to do is make a black hole. the ability of the LHC to do this is as yet unknown. quit denouncing stuff before there has even been a test.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
it wasn't pointless, the mission hasn't been going on for very long, its not the main purpose of the satellite and it can only gather dat on that particular phenomenon if it happens to capture a glimpse of something that resembles a disintegrating black hole with little possibility of it being anything else.

 

 

 

the point of that(although i don't see its relevance) was that the level of technology rises rapidly once it gets going. there'd be what, maybe a 200 year window of opportunity for detecting recognisable radio transmissions? as our own level of communications technologies gets better, the size of this window will increase.

 

 

 

only the little ones leak at an appreciable rate. all known black holes are very very big. its hard to detect a microwatt signal when the noise is over a yottawatt.

 

 

 

thats because they haven't been looking. and as swansont says, the first thing they'd need to do is make a black hole. the ability of the LHC to do this is as yet unknown. quit denouncing stuff before there has even been a test.

 

I didn't 'denounce' it. I stated a fact. Something wrong with stating facts? And how do YOU know they haven't been looking? I'll take Tysons word over yours.

 

And maybe I'm missing something here. From what I have read, they ( LHC ) are trying to create mini-black holes.

 

Shall I post 'proof' that the GLAST mission ( now FERMI ) is, among other things, to observe leaking black holes? W/E!

 

Ever occur to you that there might not BE a FTL method of communication? Ever occur to you that the Drake Equation might be off by several orders of magnitude, simply because it ignored a mountain of evidence in it's initial assumptions?

 

Ever occur to you that SETI expected to detect a signal in the first few years? Ever occur to you that the whole premise might be completely flawed?

 

50 years. Think they were just checking a couple of frequencies?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LHC is not trying to create mini black holes. I'm not sure where you got that idea from. Some hypothesize that it might create them as a consequence of its operation, but that's not its goal.

 

In any case, I don't think any of the LHC data has actually been analyzed and published yet. It's far too soon for them to jump to any conclusions.

 

 

Now, shall we get back on topic? SETI and the LHC have nothing to do with gravity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LHC is not trying to create mini black holes. I'm not sure where you got that idea from. Some hypothesize that it might create them as a consequence of its operation, but that's not its goal.

 

In any case, I don't think any of the LHC data has actually been analyzed and published yet. It's far too soon for them to jump to any conclusions.

 

 

Now, shall we get back on topic? SETI and the LHC have nothing to do with gravity.

 

Am I allowed to respond to your statements, Cap'n? According to Dr. Tyson, the mainstream 'scientific community' was hoping HR would be detected with the LHC ... and the only way that was going to happen was if they created mini-black holes.

 

According to Tyson, mainstream was hoping this discovery ( through the use of the LHC ) would garner a Nobel ( long awaited, much deserved ) for Hawking.

 

I don't know where you get your ideas from, either. Again, I am going to take Tyson's word for this over yours. Sorry.

 

Perhaps you failed to notice that HD invoked HR in the discussion of gravity. It needed to be dealt with. Removed from the discussion. The only reasonable way to do that was to point out the fallacy of HR as an argument.

 

 

And yes, I am happy to take the conversation back to gravity.

Edited by pywakit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Go to CERNs site, you can read about all their experiments from themselves not some third party. I'd take their word for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dr Tyson is a very knowledgeable Astrophysicist, but even he would tell you he doesn't know everything, nor is it possible that you got all the details in all accuracy from a brief conversation with him, or from an email exchange.

 

Beyond that, repeating the fact that your data comes from him is an appeal to authority, and when the data is shown to be false, it's not doing Dr Tyson any justice.

 

 

~moo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr Tyson is a very knowledgeable Astrophysicist, but even he would tell you he doesn't know everything, nor is it possible that you got all the details in all accuracy from a brief conversation with him, or from an email exchange.

 

Beyond that, repeating the fact that your data comes from him is an appeal to authority, and when the data is shown to be false, it's not doing Dr Tyson any justice.

 

 

~moo

 

Now you are suggesting I can't read a simple email? What 'false data' do you refer to?

 

And how do you presume my conversations were 'brief'? You have made this same claim many times.

 

You have a lot of gall.

 

I am not 'appealing' to authority. I have cited information given to me by a respected astrophysicist. Information that I did NOT somehow misinterpret to satisfy my 'beliefs'.

 

Any more than I misinterpreted every other referenced peer-reviewed material I have posted.

 

If Dr. Tyson is in error, then that's his problem, not mine.

 

Knock off the attacks, Moo. I have been nice enough to ignore most of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Now you are suggesting I can't read a simple email? What 'false data' do you refer to?

I suggest you used a logical fallacy. It happens.

 

And how do you presume my conversations were 'brief'? You have made this same claim many times.

You said so yourself, and in the context of the astrophysics you pretend to know better than everyone else, anything less than actual studying under him is brief.

 

You have a lot of gall.

Says the one who actually believes he knows better than *everyone*, without exception, always.

If Dr. Tyson is in error, then that's his problem, not mine.

That's why in science we don't go by the people who said something, but by the claims made. When you keep saying "Dr Tyson told me..." it is irrelevant. He could be wrong. You could have misunderstood. He could have thought that the context is different. A billion reasons could result in the assertion to be false.

 

Read a bit about the fallacy "appeal to authority". It's a logical fallacy, a well known one, a very well defined one, and arguing that appealing to Dr Tyson's role as a scientist when you state answers is not an appeal to authority is like arguing a wooden spoon is not a wooden spoon.

 

It's appeal to authority by definition.

 

Knock off the attacks, Moo. I have been nice enough to ignore most of them.

The fact you are shown to be wrong doesn't mean people attack you. Not sure how many more times to say it. Maybe in Chinese?

 

 

 

~moo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I suggest you used a logical fallacy. It happens.

 

 

You said so yourself, and in the context of the astrophysics you pretend to know better than everyone else, anything less than actual studying under him is brief.

 

 

Says the one who actually believes he knows better than *everyone*, without exception, always.

 

That's why in science we don't go by the people who said something, but by the claims made. When you keep saying "Dr Tyson told me..." it is irrelevant. He could be wrong. You could have misunderstood. He could have thought that the context is different. A billion reasons could result in the assertion to be false.

 

Read a bit about the fallacy "appeal to authority". It's a logical fallacy, a well known one, a very well defined one, and arguing that appealing to Dr Tyson's role as a scientist when you state answers is not an appeal to authority is like arguing a wooden spoon is not a wooden spoon.

 

It's appeal to authority by definition.

 

 

The fact you are shown to be wrong doesn't mean people attack you. Not sure how many more times to say it. Maybe in Chinese?

 

 

 

~moo

 

I am not going to respond to anything you say anymore. You clearly have issues that I can no longer deal with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am not going to respond to anything you say anymore. You clearly have issues that I can no longer deal with.

hehehe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.