-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
NASA releases a simulated video of falling into a black hole.
diffusionx
Gold Member
All this stuff is made up. They don't want to admit their theory of the universe is flawed so they just invent bullshit to make the math work. It's really not that far off from what scientists did for a long time with Ptolemy.
donkey_oaty
Member
Yeah, and just like Ptolemy's model that's absolutely fine and contributes to enhancing our understanding of how things actually work as our knowledge and methods are enhanced.
kanjobazooie
Mouse Ball Fetishist
They just had to make the video length 4:20.
Last edited:
Zathalus
Member
Plenty of black holes have been observed in the Universe. You may as well state that stars are invented bullshit.
efyu_lemonardo
May I have a cookie?
It is common knowledge that the theory of the universe we have is incomplete, no one is trying to hide that. Look up dark matter and dark energy.
What we know today is still the most we've ever known. And that includes black holes, among other strange astronomical objects.
Darkmakaimura
Can You Imagine What SureAI Is Going To Do With Garfield?
Where we are going, you won't need eyes to see.
Scotty W
Member
Based and Feyerabend pilled.
Darkmakaimura
Can You Imagine What SureAI Is Going To Do With Garfield?
Pornhub probably has a simulation of falling into it a black ho.
German Hops
GAF's Nicest Lunch Thief
diffusionx
Gold Member
That’s not what I said.
Not really. They’ve observed things that are sort of like it but the math doesn’t work all the way. They want you to think they have the answers but they don’t which is why they came up with laughable BS like string theory.
Zathalus
Member
Excuse me while I continue to believe the overwhelming amount of scientific consensus on this. Including the huge amount of radio evidence of black holes.
IDKFA
I am Become Bilbo Baggins
Sorry, which part are you claiming is made up? What would happen if you fell into a black hole, or black holes themselves?
efyu_lemonardo
May I have a cookie?
No one is claiming to understand the complete workings of black holes or even the full extent to which recently measured objects adhere to the abstract cosmological theories. Black holes are interesting objects of study precisely because they sit at the cutting edge between what we know from QM and GR and what we don't know, like how the two can be unified. I'm pretty sure you understand all this, so why not make your posts more informative to others by explaining the actual discrepancies between models and observations.
Edit: also, most of what the video in the OP demonstrates is a rather standard extrapolation of well understood relativistic optical phenomena which has been observed for decades, independently of black holes.
It's important to note that anything happening inside the event horizon (in so far as that is really a single and easily defined boundary) is essentially unobservable, but far outside the horizon, observations from the last few years seem to agree pretty well with models. Correct me if I'm mistaken.
Last edited:
Werewolf Jones
Gold Member
Looked like one of them proper shit rides you sit in to emulate you going into space in the 90s.
Romulus
Member
70 years ago their interpretation would have looked much different and every 10-15 years later it would change. I don't think they're anywhere remotely close to knowing how it actually looks. I think we're 500 years from even have a decent grasp of the universe, but since we're living in the now it feels good to pretend we have an understanding. We simply don't.
DeafTourette
Perpetually Offended
NASA didn't come up with black holes or string theory. If you know so much about stellar physics, you'd know that.
Dr. Claus
Vincit qui se vincit
Do you have a PhD in physics? What have you contributed to our growing knowledge of mathematics and sciences, specifically relating around space and time?
Days like these...
Have a Blessed Day
Space Time is doomed. I contributed to that discovery.
Raven117
Member
Don’t go here.
Cyberpunkd
Member
efyu_lemonardo
May I have a cookie?
diffusionx
still waiting for you to contribute anything of value to this thread. Let's discuss alternatives to the most well known models, it's a fascinating topic!
Last edited:
diffusionx
Gold Member
I'm not saying I know. I'm just saying that they have to make up all this shit because their models don't work either.
Edit: here's a book anyone who wants to read about the failure of physics researchers and the fundamental problems with it.
Not Even Wrong: The Failure of String Theory and the Se…
At what point does theory depart the realm of testable …
I won't even get into NASA which just puts out junk like this to try to get funding and has been a huge waste of money for decades.
Last edited:
efyu_lemonardo
May I have a cookie?
Care to be more specific? Which parts are supported by extensive evidence and which remain inconsistent?
For example, we can talk about the incomplete physics of accretion disks. Or about the observed distribution of black hole masses in the universe that isn't immediately intuitive. Or about the very real problems with making empirical predictions based on string theory.
Anybody can attack the cutting edge of scientific knowledge. It's not meant to be complete or entirely consist, that's what makes it the cutting edge.
Edit: referring to your edit, I can completely relate with your criticism of string theory, it's failed to create any testable empirical predictions which makes it just pretty math. But the science of black holes also includes large amounts of observed phenomena that require an explanation.
Last edited:
FunkMiller
Gold Member
I'm not saying I know. I'm just saying that they have to make up all this shit because their models don't work either.
Edit: here's a book anyone who wants to read about the failure of physics researchers and the fundamental problems with it.
Not Even Wrong: The Failure of String Theory and the Se…
At what point does theory depart the realm of testable …www.goodreads.com
I won't even get into NASA which just puts out junk like this to try to get funding and has been a huge waste of money for decades.
Give us a quick summary of what the book says in your own words.
cash_longfellow
Member
Right…like actually contribute something of substance to the thread instead of bashing an idea and then sharing a random book to counter argue
cash_longfellow
Member
Please tell us the math, since you are saying it doesn’t work all the way. Also, all theories are “made up”, hence it being a theory. If it was proven, it would no longer be a theory.
efyu_lemonardo
May I have a cookie?
I have no idea how fringe this is, but it's definitely thought provoking!
Just like for string theory, the bigger question is: can it be tested?
Last edited:
Zathalus
Member
Not even sure why it matters, string theory and black holes have very little to do with each other. The former has zero evidence or even wide support in the scientific community (it has never really been relevant) while the latter has actual cosmological evidence and is widely accepted in the scientific community for quite a while. There is the Gravastar theory, but nobody really takes that seriously.
Dr. Claus
Vincit qui se vincit
You don’t know, but you still claim that Scientists around the world are full of shit?I'm not saying I know. I'm just saying that they have to make up all this shit because their models don't work either.
Edit: here's a book anyone who wants to read about the failure of physics researchers and the fundamental problems with it.
Not Even Wrong: The Failure of String Theory and the Se…
At what point does theory depart the realm of testable …
I won't even get into NASA which just puts out junk like this to try to get funding and has been a huge waste of money for decades.
Maybe you should look in the mirror.
diffusionx
Gold Member
Look, I'm a retard. I don't know anything. My degree is in mathematics, and I wasn't smart enough to do physics. But yes, scientists often are full of shit, in every field, and there are massive problems that are openly talked about, like the close-minded nature of academia, replication, the fact that scientists are anchored in certain beliefs just like everyone else, etc.
And yes, there is a lot of BS out there. When I see shit like "oh yea, to make all our models work, we need to invent this NEW type of matter, that nobody can see or observe or measure, and it turns out it's... 95% of matter!" Like, come on. Something's wrong with the model, bro. And maybe this is the best we got. But, it's still wrong. How, if I knew I would be the smartest person ever, which as we established, I'm not. We don't have all the answers and we aren't all automatically on the right track.
Like, do you remember the butthole picture of the black hole came out 5 years ago? The one that had tons of articles written about it? A few years later, some scientists were like "nah, they kind of fucked it up tho" and many, many fewer articles were written about it. So, yea, what's a retard to think?
BlackTron
Member
The problem with just a blanket accusation of scientists being full of shit is that all kinds of stuff we have in the real world like jets and computers exist because they were on to something. For this stuff to work 2+2 had to equal 4 as they expected it to. You can't really make your own arbitrary call on what science is "obviously grounded and sound" and what science is automatically lumped into "a bunch of bullshit" especially if you're a self-proclaimed retard with no basis to discern the difference.
TheInfamousKira
Reseterror Resettler
This isn't like walking into a US college campus at all.
Days like these...
Have a Blessed Day
I hate that movie
abstract alien
Member
The idea of crossing over the event horizon while your dying light gets left at the edge, being red shifted into oblivion and separated from you creeps the hell out.
IDKFA
I am Become Bilbo Baggins
That's a bold statement. Science isn't correct 100% of the time every time, but that doesn't mean that they're full of BS either. Far from it.
I've heard people say that scientists are full of BS and close minded before. A majority of the time it's a claim made by conspiracy theorists. People who believe the earth is flat, space is fake or Finland doesn't exist etc.
There's some truth to this, but to call it all BS isn't correct. String Theory does posit additional dimensions and unseen matter that I know raises a few eyebrows. However, it's not entirely out of the blue.
Our current physics models struggle to reconcile gravity with quantum mechanics. String Theory offers a potential framework to unify these forces, which is a major goal in physics. In regards to "New matter" I assume you're referring to dark matter? While we can't directly observe dark matter, we have strong evidence for its existence through its gravitational effects on visible matter. String Theory could potentially explain what dark matter is.
String Theory is a complex and ambitious theory. While the unseen aspects, such as dark matter and added dimensions, make people believe it's all made up BS, the theory offers a potential path to unify physics and explain dark matter. It's a work in progress, and scientists are still debating its validity and probably will be for many years to come.
The photo of M87 taken by EHT? I've not heard it was "fucked"? Can you elaborate on this.
Lord Panda
The Sea is Always Right
When I glanced over the topic, I thought maybe
diffusionx
was suggesting that the established singularity theorems could be flawed, rather than outright saying black holes don’t exist. After all, there's observable evidence and mathematical proofs that show they're real.
Here's one of my fav gifs of Sagitarius A*:
And of course some juicy images of M87 and Sag A* black holes:
Here's a great article about singularity theorems coming under increasing scrutiny:
bigthink.com
But ... I don't entirely disagree with
diffusionx
's point that modern physics—and the models it relies on—might need some serious rethinking. I'm a big fan of Sabine Hossenfelder, who argues that particle physics is heading towards diminishing returns, in their pursuit to prove or disprove whatever the model of the month is.
Also, there's this great video I revisit from time to time that really digs touches on this topic as well.
diffusionx
was suggesting that the established singularity theorems could be flawed, rather than outright saying black holes don’t exist. After all, there's observable evidence and mathematical proofs that show they're real.Here's one of my fav gifs of Sagitarius A*:
And of course some juicy images of M87 and Sag A* black holes:
Here's a great article about singularity theorems coming under increasing scrutiny:
"Singularities don't exist," claims black hole pioneer Roy Kerr
The brilliant mind who discovered the spacetime solution for rotating black holes claims singularities don't physically exist. Is he right?
bigthink.com
But ... I don't entirely disagree with
diffusionx
's point that modern physics—and the models it relies on—might need some serious rethinking. I'm a big fan of Sabine Hossenfelder, who argues that particle physics is heading towards diminishing returns, in their pursuit to prove or disprove whatever the model of the month is.Also, there's this great video I revisit from time to time that really digs touches on this topic as well.
Last edited:
efyu_lemonardo
May I have a cookie?
When I glanced over the topic, I thought maybe
Here's one of my fav gifs of Sagitarius A*:
And of course some juicy images of M87 and Sag A* black holes:
Here's a great article about singularity theorems coming under increasing scrutiny:
"Singularities don't exist," claims black hole pioneer Roy Kerr
The brilliant mind who discovered the spacetime solution for rotating black holes claims singularities don't physically exist. Is he right?
But ... I don't entirely disagree with
Also, there's this great video I revisit from time to time that really digs touches on this topic as well.
There's plenty of room for critical discussion of scientific models, and certainly no shortage of criticism of scientific institutions or individual scientists on a professional level. But throwing out the baby along with the bath water isn't the way to do it - And that's what makes science hard as well as incredibly valuable! It demands from us greater rigor and greater empirical accountability.
In defense of
diffusionx
, I can understand their frustration with NASA's approach to science outreach. It can occasionally be a bit too "style over substance", as in the video in the OP.
Last edited: