beecee

Another way of putting this is that the data available or at hand, [including observational data] is the best judge/estimation at that time and consequently must be the basis for a relevant theory/model explaining such data. Of course the scientific method entails that the theory/model relevant, is continually being tested, and retested and retested to verify/test those findings and eliminate any potential error.

Nonsense my friend...Since I have mentioned many times that we can never see a BH directly and simply observe the effects it has on spacetime and matter energy, it reveals nothing other then your own total misconception re BH's and what I have always said. You can though logically and in line with the evidence supporting the existence of BH's, infer that they most probably do exist, until, and if shown otherwise. That is nothing more then speculation, as opposed to the very good evidence pointing to the existence of BH's. We cannot know anything with any certainty about what is inside the EH of a BH, other then that GR tells us that further collapse is compulsory once the Schwarzchild radius is breached, at least up to where GR fails to predict at the quantum/Planck level. Most physicists now accept that the mathematical singularity does not exist, due to the associated infinities of density and spacetime curvature. In essence then, a surface of sorts should exist at this quantum/Planck level, consisting of the mass of the BH, in an unknown state. ps: Nothing wrong with speculation anyway, as long as one accepts that it is still speculatory. That's OK, you enjoy yourself....but remember that forums such as this, open to any Tom, Dick and Harry, do not confirm, or invalidate the scientific theories and continued scientific testing that is being done as we speak/type, in professional circles. And further remember as I keep mentioning to a couple of philosopher friends of mine, that it is this continued testing, reevaluating and researching data as it becomes available, that makes science our most powerful tool for advancement and knowledge and continued correction and updating when needed. Someone mentioned in another thread [probably one of my philosopher mates] about me being a science cheer leader? I find that rather funny and ironic in that if it wasn't for science, the practical kind, we would not as a species be where we are today.

http://hubblesite.org/reference_desk/faq/answer.php.id=64&cat=exotic https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~narayan/Benefunder/Narayan_McClintock.pdf Observational Evidence for Black Holes Ramesh Narayan and Jeffrey E. McClintock Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics 60 Garden Street, Cambridge, MA 02138, U.S.A Abstract Astronomers have discovered two populations of black holes: (i) stellar-mass black holes with masses in the range 5 to 30 solar masses, millions of which are present in each galaxy in the universe, and (ii) supermassive black holes with masses in the range 106 to 1010 solar masses, one each in the nucleus of every galaxy. There is strong circumstantial evidence that all these objects are true black holes with event horizons. The measured masses of supermassive black holes are strongly correlated with properties of their host galaxies, suggesting that these black holes, although extremely small in size, have a strong influence on the formation and evolution of entire galaxies. Spin parameters have recently been measured for a number of black holes. Based on the data, there is an indication that the kinetic power of at least one class of relativistic jet ejected from accreting black holes may be correlated with black hole spin. If verified, it would suggest that these jets are powered by a generalized Penrose process mediated by magnetic fields. 1.5 Conclusion The dawning that black holes are real occurred at the midpoint of this century of General Relativity, at the First Texas Symposium on Relativistic Astrophysics in 1963. There, Roy Kerr announced his solution, Jesse Greenstein described Maarten Schmidt’s discovery of quasars, and Harlan Smith reported on the rapid variability of these objects [69]. Today, black hole astrophysics is advancing at a breathtaking rate. Tomorrow, spurred on by the commissioning of the Event Horizon Telescope and the advent of gravitational wave astronomy, it is reasonable to expect the discovery of many new unimaginable wonders. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41550-018-0493-1 A luminous X-ray outburst from an intermediate-mass black hole in an off-centre star cluster Abstract A unique signature for the presence of massive black holes in very dense stellar regions is occasional giant-amplitude outbursts of multi-wavelength radiation from tidal disruption and subsequent accretion of stars that make a close approach to the black holes1. Previous strong tidal disruption event (TDE) candidates were all associated with the centres of largely isolated galaxies2,3,4,5,6. Here, we report the discovery of a luminous X-ray outburst from a massive star cluster at a projected distance of 12.5 kpc from the centre of a large lenticular galaxy. The luminosity peaked at ~1043 erg s−1 and decayed systematically over 10 years, approximately following a trend that supports the identification of the event as a TDE. The X-ray spectra were all very soft, with emission confined to be ≲3.0 keV, and could be described with a standard thermal disk. The disk cooled significantly as the luminosity decreased—a key thermal-state signature often observed in accreting stellar-mass black holes. This thermal-state signature, coupled with very high luminosities, ultrasoft X-ray spectra and the characteristic power-law evolution of the light curve, provides strong evidence that the source contains an intermediate-mass black hole with a mass tens of thousand times that of the solar mass. This event demonstrates that one of the most effective means of detecting intermediate-mass black holes is through X-ray flares from TDEs in star clusters.

No probs....I may have got my wires crossed.

I have never denied it nor hidden from that fact and have mentioned it many times on this forum...You? What is vulgar and rude is how you seem to inevitable bring your god into everything. Whatever. ho hum Getting back on topic...... The following link gives details and info on the first BH observed, Cygnus X-1 http://blackholes.stardate.org/objects/factsheet-Cygnus-X-1.html

I was answering some of the off topic remarks, misunderstandings, philosophical ramblings and rhetoric by yourself. Oh for goodness sake! What has the fact that you having a computer and someone else not having a computer, have anything to do with science being responsible for the computer. Is this more obtuseness? How many times do you chose to ignore the fact of what science is and how under the auspices of the scientific method, it will always advance? How many times does it need to be explained to you how and why that puts science and the scientific method as superior to anything we have. How many times does it need to be explained to you that science is a practical endeavour? I don't believe I am. I am simply pointing out how you and another, are making silly philosophical statements, that can never be verified, and in the main [as per a couple of my links] and are actually useless in practical science today. What you term as undetermination is nothing more then science being able to change as more and more and further observations are made and in doing so, advancing mankind.

The ultimate answers as you claim, can apply to all scientific theories. No scientific theory is proof. But scientific theories can and do grow in certainty over time. Some [well at least one] is as near certain as one could hope for. GR and BH's at this time are overwhelmingly supported due to the overwhelming evidence, but as in any discipline, there will always be some isolated differences of opinion...Fred Hoyle, as I mentioned before was a "great" astronomer, but he was wrong on a very important specific part of cosmology that we accept today. My qualifications? wait for it...I do not have any...I ama total amateur and lay person, but I have read many reputable books, I have listened to manyreasonable reputable obviously professionals on forums such as this, and I have asked many questions on those matters that I have not understood, without any preconceived opinion or agenda. I could also probably view some of your actions and opinions on this forum the same way. ??? What has that to do with anything? Except possibly reinforcing my opinion of you as having an agenda. The Father of the BB was a Jesuit priest named George LaMaitre. Galileo was religious, as to was Newton. It was the scientific knowledge and learning and reasoning that saw them make notable contributions to science. Religion had nothing to do with it. Again, I stipulate, it will not be some philosophical rhetoric, or some religiously inspired myth that will see science advance and new discoveries made.It will be science, scientists as governed my the scientific method. The example you gave I don't accept as science. Oooopsy daisy! Whinging!!! it should be...My humble apologies.

I answered your example here.... you then said..... As I also noted and observed, you seem to be questioning everything, and while certainly questioning all of science is part and parcel of the scientific method, so to is honesty, and the avoiding of emotional inspired doubt and/or denial. Dark Stars again are a Newtonian description that does not entail any compulsory collapse as per the more accurate model called GR. The success of GR is well known. vector 4 model has most certainly been considered by aLIGO and the other gravitational waves detectors. If I said reopen I was of course wrong. I should have said raised a thread 6 months old.On the rest of your grievances, I'm not prepeared to go into, except to say, it is generally obvious where you are coming from, and that's your business. I though will continue to comment on what I believe to be anti science agenda, as is being perpetrated by philsophical rhetoric and/or any other agenda. There existence is near certain at this time, but as per any scientific theory, not a 100% certain. If, and a big IF, they are shown to be invalid, then in time, science will discover that and a new theoretical model will be presented describing the extraordinary effects on spacetime and matter/energy that we now attribute to what we call BH's.. The rest of your complaints/whinging/ and emotional claims I'll let ride.

Ignoring your whinging [perhaps as the old addage goes, "sometimes the truth hurts] Carver Mead and Svidzinsky are obviously good scientists, and they obviously have come up with an alternative...The fact of the matter is that the alternative/s have been rejected at this time by mainstream, most specifically because the GR inferred BH's match all the data. In the late fifties we had a "great"astronomer named Fred Hoyle who was proposing an alternative to the BB. He called it the "Steady State" That SS is now hardly ever talked about because of the overwhelming evidence supporting the BB and invalidating the SS. The recent 5 discoveries of gravitational waves from colliding BH binary pairs were because the signals generated aligned with the templates that were constructed along with a myriad of other reasons...Those templates were constructed long before the gravitational waves discoveries. They "just happened" to align with the templates, and very good reasons why they concluded the BH collisions. Could they be wrong? Is it possible Mead's, Vector 4 model is better? Yes that's possible, but at this time I believe highly unlikely. If this highly unlikely model/interpretation is actually closer to observation, it will in time be verified and accepted as per the scientific methodology and as has always been the case with science. And you can bet your short n curlies, that if this unlikely model is shown to be closer to the truth, that it will be scientists that will find that out....not philosophers, not some religious adherent and associated miracle...It will be other scientists as they go about their business following what we call the scientific method. You do understand that GR that first proposed the existence of BH's is being put to the test every day?

Your imagination is working overtime. Where did I ask you to prove anything [Proof, that which god botherers are so ignorant about!] Yep I am roughly familiar with that and it is generally not held with much confidence by the experts, which you seem to chose to ignore. Again, you need to explain the effects we see, one being the mass of Cygnus X-1 being 15 times that of the Sun, but packed to within a small volume, as would be the case according to the equations of GR. Are you questioning that also? As I said previously, you seem to be questioning all of science...I wonder why? and what one could logically read into that. http://blackholes.stardate.org/objects/factsheet-Cygnus-X-1.html ps: the Vector 4 gravity has been reviewed by aLIGO and other professionals and found wanting. Because you have copped some deserved wrath and/or corrects? As much as you like to deny it, you have a religious agenda. Rather curious as to why you would reopen a thread 6 months old, with such extraordinary whinging pretentious comments. It appears you are looking for controversy, as well as not being genuine and with no intention of accepting any answers to your questions, as I have previously suggested.

Your problem is with those that control the buttons, but instead of fabricating conspiracies, why not listen. The Newtonian version as I said in the link, fails to consider the Schwarzchild radius, and its validity as given in the equations of GR. Again to deny BH's you must explain the incredible effects we see in their vicinities. You have another alternative? With evidence?

BH's by there very nature can never be seen directly, but their existence is near certain. If we are to deny the existence of BH's we must then explain in some other way the incredible effects on space and matter energy within their vicinity. see also....https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/117001-on-the-existence-of-black-holes/

That is nothing but first year philosophical avoidance of the issue and like the rest of your posts, is irrelevant as far as practical science is concerned. Alternatives of any brand, are alternative for one reason.....because they lack the empirical observational evidence to support that concept and because an incumbent model is supported by the required evidence. In essence its as silly as Zosimus claiming modern day technology is not due to or driven by science. Science works, scientific theories such as GR, stand as totally verified within its zone of applicability, and is further enhanced by the incredible discovery of gravitational radiation 100 years after they were predicted. I found the following and believe it aptly describes a couple of philosophers on this forum... https://againstprofphil.org/2018/09/24/the-self-defeating-silliness-of-professional-philosophy/ extracts: By “real philosophy” I mean authentic, serious philosophy, as opposed to inauthentic, superficial philosophy. Authentic philosophy is committed, wholehearted philosophy pursued as a calling or vocation, and as a way of life; and inauthentic philosophy is professionalized, Scholastic, half-hearted philosophy treated as a mere job or a mere “glass bead game.” Serious philosophy is philosophy with critical, deep, and synoptic or wide-scope content; and superficial philosophy is philosophy with dogmatic, shallow, and narrow or trivial content. Now Wittgenstein was a real philosopher, hence an authentic, serious philosopher–so his inability to laugh at himself was merely a character flaw. But nothing is more self-defeatingly silly than inauthentic, superficial professional academic philosophy that self-deceivingly believes its own bullshit and takes itself too seriously by half".

I don't actually frequent the Philosophy forum, only when I see ignorance in regards to science being perpetrated. And of course I don't believe I'm the first to notice your obtuseness, nor your ignorance in science and the errors you also perpetrate, yet never having the intestinal fortitude to act morally and accept such errors. Thirdly I have nothing really against philosophy, only poor philosophers with obvious agendas. Your use of "WE" is also amusing, as other then yourself, and Reggy, all others have seen through your little crusade. My argument is here for all to see...Your's is hidden behind your philosophical claptrap as an excuse. Rather ironic that you attempt to show even an amateur like myself anything, after the many basic scientific errors you have made here and elsewhere. Are you suggesting it is the result of philosophy? I mean really, how obtuse can you be! Of course your computer and near all technology, if not all, is a result of science. The object of science with regards to theories and models, is not proof, no matter how many times you or any other poor philosopher likes to imagine. Science is in eternal progress, based on the further observations that the technology which it is responsible for, allows....Logically and sensibly, theories change, are modified accordingly. But some theories are near certain.eg: The theory of evolution, other then perhaps modification and understanding on small scales, will probably never be surpassed...as indeed will others also like SR. I Rather ironic since it is you that have made countless, errors of the most basic nature with regards to science...that which you are attempting to disparage. https://webhome.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/Beowulf/axioms/axioms/node4.html "Philosophy is Bullshit: David Hume" "Much of the prose so colorfully presented above is not terribly idea-original. The perceptive reader will observe that I've read and been influenced by many philosophers and thinkers of years past. Yes, I've digested my Plato, barfed up my Aristotle, danced with Descartes, listened to falling trees in the forest with Berkeley and God together, been smacked by Johnson, laughed hysterically at the Germans, nodded thoughtfully at the Vedas and some aspects of Bhuddism, Taoism, and Zen, and wept quietly as Philosophy attempted to pretend that the greatest philopher, the seal of the philosophers as Mohammed is supposedly the seal of the prophets, never wrote the essays that destroyed the fundamental basis of philosophy as it was known up to that time. I refer, of course, to David Hume. Now, if you've studied philosophy, you'll know who Hume is and what he did. If you are a professional philosopher who (like Harlie) relies on having a few fundamentally unanswerable pseudoquestions around to work on for a meager living (in which case, my dear fellow snake-oil salesman, you have my deepest sympathies, based on my own long, pecuniarily impoverished experience working a crowd) then you'll know what he did and you'll be secretly hoping that nobody else does, especially your employers. The rest of you, listen up now. Hmmm, historical context and punch line, or punch line and then historical context. Let's try the latter: David Hume is the philosopher best known for proving, beyond any possible doubt, that Philosophy is Bullshit". Like you hate Hawkins?

Because the author of that thread and many other threads in that section, are posted as "news items", science news items to be exact. So again we have another poor philosopher making another error in judgement, but will we expect any moral aligning retraction? Don't hold your breath people! I see plenty of soapboxing by at least three that have frequented this forum over the last few weeks......all lacking science content...and what limited science is raised, is more than likely incorrect [see claim by Zosimus about Newton] and as usual, intestinal fortitude required in admitting to such errors of judgement is non existant. Yes, soapboxing 100% and 99% preaching.

Amusing perhaps to a poor philosopher....I mean if you really are unable to see any difference, albeit small, then I dare say you are being obtuse. Or do you have some argument re theories gaining in certainty over time? If so the have the intestinal fortitude to open a thread in the sciences, to debate whatever theory you have a problem with. Now that would be amusing! I don't expect you to believe anything with regards to science for reasons mentioned previously, but again, as far as practical scientists and science is concerned, then what you call underdetermination is why science, and the scientific method holds pride of place and always will. It's one of many theories that are held in great esteem and continues to align with new observations every day. They are facts. Oh ain't that the truth!

But it was you who mistakenly said that Newton's theories had been disposed to the dust bin. So instead of preaching philosophy, your first moral task is to admit and accept that you are wrong.

That's pretty well correct....If our theory is 99.99995 certain, then yes, it would not only be wrong to withhold assent, it would be crazy. The practicality of science and scientists, as opposed to the hairy fairy nature of philosophy, logically sees this so called "undetermination" as a quality that sees science in a state of continued progression. Not sure why anyone [including any thinking philosophers] would see it as a point to criticise....well yes I do, but that is pretty obvious anyway.

Are you able to reference anyone saying that science has proved any theory? Strange has answered well and countered your questionable questions and statements. Theories are the top rung of the ladder and describe what we observe at any particular time....if and when we are able to make new further observations, those theories may change or be extended. Theories also grow in certainty over time, such as SR/GR and may well be as close to certain as we could ever want...the theory of evolution for example. That's a very foolish statement to make...

I'm not actually taking part in this debate, and have a busy full day ahead of me today. Let me say though, while asking questions is entirely admirable, and encouraged particularly on a science forum, the bone of contention in my opinion anyway, is that sometimes people ask questions with an agenda afoot, and with absolutely no intention of accepting any answer that may conflict with that agenda.

I urge everyone to watch the "Chasing Ice" documentary.

I'm sure many will be interested in this article and the facts presented supporting GR as the current accepted and evidenced gravitational theory, that has passed all tests and made successful predictions. It appears it will be that way for a long time yet, as we are no closer to be able to formulate any QGT that can be validated.Despite my valuable time taken in presenting the following, I see it as necessary taking into account the many unscientific, unprofessional online criticisms of GR and the great man, by a diverse collection of lay people.https://phys.org/news/2018-01-gravitational-universe.html#jCpGravitational waves measure the universeJanuary 8, 2018, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for AstrophysicsRead more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-01-gravitational-universe.html#jCpThe direct detection of gravitational waves from at least five sources during the past two years offers spectacular confirmation of Einstein's model of gravity and space-time. Modeling of these events has also provided information on massive star formation, gamma-ray bursts, neutron star characteristics, and (for the first time) verification of theoretical ideas about how the very heavy elements, like gold, are produced.Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-01-gravitational-universe.html#jCp:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::Important if obvious excerpts from the article....Knowing how far away it is and how fast the galaxy is moving from us allows scientists to calculate the time since the expansion began – the age of the universe: between about 11.9 and 15.7 billion years given the experimental uncertainties".and......"The age derived from this single event is consistent with estimates from decades of observations relying on statistical methods using two othersources: thecosmic microwave backgroundradiation (CMBR) and the motions ofgalaxies" "With a large statistical sample of gravitational wave events of all types, the current range of values for the age will narrow"."Although both the CMBR and the galaxy measurements are each quite precise, they seem to disagree with each other at roughly the ten percent level. This disagreement could just be observational error, but some astronomers suspect it might be a real difference reflecting something currently missing from our picture of the cosmic expansion process, perhaps connected with the fact that the CMBR arises from a vastly different epoch of cosmic time than does the galaxy data. This third method, gravitational wave events, may help solve the puzzle". :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: the paper: https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v551/n7678/full/nature24471.htmlA gravitational-wave standard siren measurement of the Hubble constant:On 17 August 2017, the Advanced LIGO1and Virgo2detectors observed the gravitational-wave event GW170817—a strong signal from the merger of a binary neutron-star system3. Less than two seconds after the merger, a γ-ray burst (GRB 170817A) was detected within a region of the sky consistent with the LIGO–Virgo-derived location of the gravitational-wave source4,5,6. This sky region was subsequently observed by optical astronomy facilities7, resulting in the identification8,9,10,11,12,13of an optical transient signal within about ten arcseconds of the galaxy NGC 4993. This detection of GW170817 in both gravitational waves and electromagnetic waves represents the first ‘multi-messenger’ astronomical observation. Such observations enable GW170817 to be used as a ‘standard siren’14,15,16,17,18(meaning that the absolute distance to the source can be determined directly from the gravitational-wave measurements) to measure the Hubble constant. This quantity represents the local expansion rate of the Universe, sets the overall scale of the Universe and is of fundamental importance to cosmology. Here we report a measurement of the Hubble constant that combines the distance to the source inferred purely from the gravitational-wave signal with the recession velocity inferred from measurements of the redshift using the electromagnetic data. In contrast to previous measurements, ours does not require the use of a cosmic ‘distance ladder’19: the gravitational-wave analysis can be used to estimate the luminosity distance out to cosmological scales directly, without the use of intermediate astronomical distance measurements. We determine the Hubble constant to be about 70 kilometres per second per megaparsec. This value is consistent with existing measurements20,21, while being completely independent of them. Additional standard siren measurements from future gravitational-wave sources will enable the Hubble constant to be constrained to high precision.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::A review:Einstein proposed three tests of GR:The perihelion precession of Mercury's orbit. VERIFIEDthe deflection of light by the Sun. VERIFIED:The gravitational redshift of light. VERIFIED. Since those heady days, further predictions of GR have been verified..... Lense-Thirring Effect: Gravitational waves: No scientific model of the Universe will ever be "perfect" even a QGT, but GR is as perfect as we have at this time, and should remain so for a long time yet. Of course as per many scientific theories and models, GR is tested every day, even as we speak, and continues to pass with flying colours. As Evolution is a certainty, and Abiogenesis the only scientific answer to the origin of life, GR stands alone at this time. Finally, here is a 2017 rundown paper on GR and how it and the man mostly responsible has changed our whole outlook on the universe of which we are a small insignificant part. https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1705/1705.04397.pdfTests of General Relativity: A Review By Estelle Asmodelle May 4th, 2017 Abstract This report is a literature review of significant and successful tests of general relativity [GR]. The GR predicted value for the perihelion advance of Mercury was ∆f = 43”.03 century-1 and fit well with observation, being the first success of GR. The GR result for the bending of light around the Sun dGR = 1”.75, confirmed by observation, marked the second successful validation of GR. Gravitational Redshift [GvR] was first detected 1925 and is the third successful classical test. The parametrized post-Newtonian [PPN] employs b and g for GR testing. Shapiro delay was also confirmed with g = 1.000021 ± 0.000023, against GR value g = 1, some consider this to be the fourth classical test. So too gravitational time dilation [GvT] was experimentally confirmed in 1971, while GvT for GPS is a daily validation of GR. Frame-dragging and the Geodetic effect have also been confirmed. The strong equivalence principle [SEP] has been confirmed to h = 4.4 × 10-4 , to GR h = 0. Gravitational slip has been constrained to EG = 0.48 ± 0.10 at z = 0.32, against the GR value, EG = 0.30 ± 0.07. The first gravitational wave detection from GW150914, in 2015, has confirmed a long-awaited phenomenon that has taken GR testing to higher precision. Gravitational lensing has also confirmed GR to better than 1%. GR continues to be tested, eliminating competing gravity theories. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Will we ever be able to measure at quantum/Planck levels and thereby possibly validate either one of the present QGT models or a new one? I once had an Astronomer tell me that the likelyhood of the BB being invalidated is tiny and that any potential QGT will most likely maintain it and encompass it. Any other thoughts, errors, alterations and/or corrections?

I suggest you watch the video I linked to. And again, if there is any erorr/s in climate change, we are obliged to err on the side of caution...Our children, and their children demands it.

Some science is fact and law....some science is theory and the best explanation we have based on evidence at any particular time....some science as per a previous link I gave you, is speculative, though speculative based on already evidenced and known science. god or any ID myth is unscientific and without basis, other then a "god of the gaps"attempts. From what I know, Hawking's wife, Jane, actually rejected him. Certainly not critical of her, as she is deserved of much praise for looking after Hawking during difficult times. He did not accept god as far as I know.

Are you claiming you never said this? Again, where has anyone ever said that the BB or science proves there is no god. The truth of the matter is, that science has shown the bible to be a load of codswallop, and has shown any need for any god as unnecessary and superfluous. Science does not deal in proofs. God is simply an unscientific concept despite your personal beliefs.