Seeing Black Holes

[Whadyamean]

Please take the body/soul argument to a separate thread.

Back on topic, black holes are, almost by definition, invisible, but there are two ways to “see” them. One is by the radiation emitted by the very hot gasses that surround them and are being sucked into them. The other is by the speeds of objects orbiting them. If stars are observed zipping very fast around a point in space, but nothing can be seen at that point, it’s a black hole.

Good point about "see"ing. We “see” electricity when we look at the computer screen and respond/react to the post here, lol!

 

[dandingo]

My point in starting this thread was not to start a debate about humanity and divinity. I was just using an example and apparently used the wrong one.

My point was to show how many atheists love to use science as reasoning for not believing in God. That science clearly answers most, if not all, of the questions we have about us and the universe. Watching this documentary and seeing how genuinely disconcerted they were that most of the science that we know now may be entirely wrong struck a chord. I find it extremely arrogant to state that science proves, beyond a reasonable doubt, where we came from and how it happened when they’re finding out that now that the science may be wrong. If that’s the case, where else is the science wrong?

Don’t get me wrong, I love science. I find it extremely beneficial and interesting but I know that it doesn’t answer all, or even most, of the important questions in life.

 

[Peggy_in_Burien]

Please take the body/soul argument to a separate thread.

Back on topic, black holes are, almost by definition, invisible, but there are two ways to “see” them. One is by the radiation emitted by the very hot gasses that surround them and are being sucked into them. The other is by the speeds of objects orbiting them. If stars are observed zipping very fast around a point in space, but nothing can be seen at that point, it’s a black hole.

 

[greylorn]

So I watched a documentary on black holes on the Science channels called Seeing Black Holes. It was an extremely interesting documentary into “black holes”. I use quotations because:

1.) All of the scientists stated very candidly that they had never actually seen a black hole.

1. Everything that is known about black holes is based solely on theory, with absolutely no evidence since one has never been seen, so obviously couldn’t be tested.

3.) The host, as well as all of the other scientists that were interviewed seemed genuinely unnerved that in studying black holes, general relativity and quantum mechanics are incompatible. Not only that, but he, as well as the other scientists, stated that they know virtually nothing about the universe and because of this, much, if not all of science may be wrong. Wow. Maybe I misunderstood the documentary but this is what I got from it.

I studied the basic sciences in high school and college so I’m no expert but to see and hear how nervous these prolific scientists were about the incompatibility of Einstein’s theories and quantum mechanics was extremely interesting, to say the least.

I hope that from watching that documentary piece you also saw the core power of good science-- the willingness to question its own best understandings of things.

Religions fail to do this in any meaningful way, which is why their members are dwindling and the power of religion to guide the world is diminishing. Why? Why the insistence upon dogma in religion, instead of the kind of thoughtful conversations about contradictions within religious doctrine of the sort that scientists can engage regarding quantum mechanics and relativity?

IMO the only reason why any system or organization insists that it and it alone has a lock on truth is because it knows, deep within, that the opposite is true, and fears that if its core beliefs were honestly examined they would be shown to be false.

This is clearly the case with one so-called science, the pseudo-science of Darwinian evolution theory. Its practitioners behave exactly like dogmatic religionists, demanding that children’s public school textbooks teach no possible alternative— exactly the way religionists refuse to allow other ideas into their own books and teachings.

Is is possible that religions could learn the real lesson offered by science, the power inherent in questioning long-cherished beliefs?

 

[greylorn]

We have both a body and a divine soul, don’t we?

That is logically impossible.

You can be a body which has a soul, or a soul which has a body. There is no “we” that owns both.

In other words, "What you mean, we, Kemosaby?"/I]
(—Tonto, in response to the Lone Ranger’s observation, “We seem to be surrounded by Indians.”)

 

[Peggy_in_Burien]

That is logically impossible.

You can be a body which has a soul, or a soul which has a body. There is no “we” that owns both.

In other words, “What you mean, we, Kemosaby?”/I]
(—Tonto, in response to the Lone Ranger’s observation, “We seem to be surrounded by Indians.”)

It’s been declared off topic, so I won’t be able to answer you here. Sorry. It would have been a good debate, and so would the use of The Lone Ranger and Tonto.

 

[Whadyamean]

It’s been declared off topic, so I won’t be able to answer you here. Sorry. It would have been a good debate, and so would the use of The Lone Ranger and Tonto.

So, Peggy, start a new thread and invite us!

 

[Peggy_in_Burien]

So, Peggy, start a new thread and invite us!

You are soooo funny! The OP is the one who brought up the whole separate question of human bodies and divine souls, or whatever he said.

Let me think how I would combine that with the Lone Ranger. I think it would have to go on the Back Fence forum…I’ll get back to you.

 

[Peggy_in_Burien]

So, Peggy, start a new thread and invite us!

Go look for it in the Back Fence forum! I’m sure you will recognize the title.

 

[Andre1000]

I hope that from watching that documentary piece you also saw the core power of good science-- the willingness to question its own best understandings of things.

Religions fail to do this in any meaningful way, which is why their members are dwindling and the power of religion to guide the world is diminishing. Why? Why the insistence upon dogma in religion, instead of the kind of thoughtful conversations about contradictions within religious doctrine of the sort that scientists can engage regarding quantum mechanics and relativity?

IMO the only reason why any system or organization insists that it and it alone has a lock on truth is because it knows, deep within, that the opposite is true, and fears that if its core beliefs were honestly examined they would be shown to be false.

This is clearly the case with one so-called science, the pseudo-science of Darwinian evolution theory. Its practitioners behave exactly like dogmatic religionists, demanding that children’s public school textbooks teach no possible alternative— exactly the way religionists refuse to allow other ideas into their own books and teachings.

Is is possible that religions could learn the real lesson offered by science, the power inherent in questioning long-cherished beliefs?

1 I study physics and everyone I know who studies physics or mathematics agrees that physics cannot find the truth nor has any truth, because the principle of falsification and evidence cannot proof a theory true it can only proof that a theory is wrong.

2 No religion is falsifiable so any argumentation that for example Christianity is false is meaningless.

3 No human can find the true for them self so if we want have a truth than we need a revelation by a god or so. And it would be stupid to change anything of this revelation because the likeliness that we hit a truth is zero.

 

[Whadyamean]

1 I study physics and everyone I know who studies physics or mathematics agrees that physics cannot find the truth nor has any truth, because the principle of falsification and evidence cannot proof a theory true it can only proof that a theory is wrong.

2 No religion is falsifiable so any argumentation that for example Christianity is false is meaningless.

3 No human can find the true for them self so if we want have a truth than we need a revelation by a god or so. And it would be stupid to change anything of this revelation because the likeliness that we hit a truth is zero.

I take it that English is your second language? Once that is established, we can go further…

 

[greylorn]

1 I study physics and everyone I know who studies physics or mathematics agrees that physics cannot find the truth nor has any truth, because the principle of falsification and evidence cannot proof a theory true it can only proof that a theory is wrong.

2 No religion is falsifiable so any argumentation that for example Christianity is false is meaningless.

3 No human can find the true for them self so if we want have a truth than we need a revelation by a god or so. And it would be stupid to change anything of this revelation because the likeliness that we hit a truth is zero.

Regrettably, all three of your assertions are as absurd as your English is poor. By way of reply, all I can offer at this point in your learning process is to actually study probability math, and several of the major religions. Keep studying physics too, and if you ever get a true sense of it, and continue in the field, you may meet some people who actually know physics and have minds.

Good luck with your learning process.

 

[WinterLight]

Regrettably, all three of your assertions are as absurd as your English is poor.

That’s a completely uncharitable, if not cruel, reply. But such a reply does have utility insofar that it allows you a shortcut to thinking: you need not address Andre1000’s points since they are “absurd”. (And, by the way, Andre1000, your English isn’t that bad.) Be honest: would you speak like that to someone in person?

By way of reply, all I can offer at this point in your learning process is to actually study probability math, and several of the major religions.

Not much to be gained in studying probability except in learning the real analysis you need to understand it. Indeed, not many “deep” ideas are found in probability, whereas topology and algebra are rife with fundamental insights into mathematics. In fact, mathematicians generally don’t think too highly of their colleagues who work in probability or statistics.

Keep studying physics too, and if you ever get a true sense of it, and continue in the field, you may meet some people who actually know physics and have minds.

How presumptuous! Do you know the “minds” of Andre1000’s associates?

Good luck with your learning process.

And your remarks certainly would encourage him to do just that!

Notice that in all of this, you made not one substantive reply. You didn’t even contest his points. You just acted like a bully, and you should be ashamed.

 

[tonyrey]

That’s a completely uncharitable, if not cruel, reply. But such a reply does have utility insofar that it allows you a shortcut to thinking: you need not address Andre1000’s points since they are “absurd”. (And, by the way, Andre1000, your English isn’t that bad.) Be honest: would you speak like that to someone in person?

Printed words on a website can be far more hurtful and humiliating than those spoken in a private conversation…

 

[dandingo]

I hope that from watching that documentary piece you also saw the core power of good science-- the willingness to question its own best understandings of things.

Religions fail to do this in any meaningful way, which is why their members are dwindling and the power of religion to guide the world is diminishing. Why? Why the insistence upon dogma in religion, instead of the kind of thoughtful conversations about contradictions within religious doctrine of the sort that scientists can engage regarding quantum mechanics and relativity?

IMO the only reason why any system or organization insists that it and it alone has a lock on truth is because it knows, deep within, that the opposite is true, and fears that if its core beliefs were honestly examined they would be shown to be false.

This is clearly the case with one so-called science, the pseudo-science of Darwinian evolution theory. Its practitioners behave exactly like dogmatic religionists, demanding that children’s public school textbooks teach no possible alternative— exactly the way religionists refuse to allow other ideas into their own books and teachings.

Is is possible that religions could learn the real lesson offered by science, the power inherent in questioning long-cherished beliefs?

I absolutely see the good in science. In fact, I posted that point in my second post in this thread just above yours. Medical science saved my life, in fact.

My point was that just as you stated, atheists love to cradle science as though is holds the answers to everything. The show that I watched was extremely honest and I appreciate that. It reiterated that science doesn’t know anything. In fact, it made the point that science virtually knows nothing.

 

[greylorn]

I absolutely see the good in science. In fact, I posted that point in my second post in this thread just above yours. Medical science saved my life, in fact.

My point was that just as you stated, atheists love to cradle science as though is holds the answers to everything. The show that I watched was extremely honest and I appreciate that. It reiterated that science doesn’t know anything. In fact, it made the point that science virtually knows nothing.

I did not see the TV show. My experience with science, as with individual scientists, is entirely a function of the particular science.

If solid experiments can be performed to verify core hypotheses, as in physics and chemistry, the science tends to be dominated by verifiable information, and contains room for a variety of theories.

When this is not the case, as with Darwinism and neurological research, the entire glut of “social sciences,” and to a considerable extent, cosmology, the “science” becomes dominated by opinion, belief, and authority–not much different from any religion. The theories employed are those invented by authority figures, and are incapable of explaining the available data effectively. This seems to be the inevitable fate of all thought systems which do not verify their core beliefs.

I regard these soft sciences as the “know nothing” sciences. Their core beliefs are so far out of sync with reality that they impede understanding, and will all be proven wrong someday. The practitioners of these “sciences” do not even have a clue as to what they do not know. Perhaps these are the sciences referred to in the TV show.

Physics and chemistry do quite a bit better. Their core ideas have been confirmed in the best of all possible ways, not by the scientists themselves (who cannot be trusted), but by engineers who use scientific principles to actually build things that work— the only really good form of verification.

These sciences actually know quite a lot, contrary to what some nitwit on TV might declare. Moreover, they have a good awareness of some of the things that they do not know, such as the QM vs. Relativity conundrum, and the natures of dark matter and dark energy.

To become aware of some very heavy issues about which it is currently ignorant actually requires a lot of complex knowledge. Only a dreadfully ignorant and probably stupid person would declare that physics knows nothing.

 

[WinterLight]

If solid experiments can be performed to verify core hypotheses, as in physics and chemistry, the science tends to be dominated by verifiable information, and contains room for a variety of theories.

When this is not the case, as with Darwinism and neurological research, the entire glut of “social sciences,” and to a considerable extent, cosmology, the “science” becomes dominated by opinion, belief, and authority–not much different from any religion. The theories employed are those invented by authority figures, and are incapable of explaining the available data effectively. This seems to be the inevitable fate of all thought systems which do not verify their core beliefs.

I regard these soft sciences as the “know nothing” sciences. Their core beliefs are so far out of sync with reality that they impede understanding, and will all be proven wrong someday. The practitioners of these “sciences” do not even have a clue as to what they do not know. Perhaps these are the sciences referred to in the TV show.

Physics and chemistry do quite a bit better. Their core ideas have been confirmed in the best of all possible ways, not by the scientists themselves (who cannot be trusted), but by engineers who use scientific principles to actually build things that work— the only really good form of verification.

These sciences actually know quite a lot, contrary to what some nitwit on TV might declare. Moreover, they have a good awareness of some of the things that they do not know, such as the QM vs. Relativity conundrum, and the natures of dark matter and dark energy.

To become aware of some very heavy issues about which it is currently ignorant actually requires a lot of complex knowledge. Only a dreadfully ignorant and probably stupid person would declare that physics knows nothing.

This is almost entirely true. I, however, would qualify the claim that the mathematical sciences “know quite a lot”. Yes, quite a lot relative to the soft sciences. But that knowledge, significant as it is, is still limited in range. Physics, for all its power, can not answer those questions fundamental to human existence (which the social sciences and humanities attempt, albeit unsuccessfully).

 

[greylorn]

That’s a completely uncharitable, if not cruel, reply. But such a reply does have utility insofar that it allows you a shortcut to thinking: you need not address Andre1000’s points since they are “absurd”. (And, by the way, Andre1000, your English isn’t that bad.) Be honest: would you speak like that to someone in person?

Not much to be gained in studying probability except in learning the real analysis you need to understand it. Indeed, not many “deep” ideas are found in probability, whereas topology and algebra are rife with fundamental insights into mathematics. In fact, mathematicians generally don’t think too highly of their colleagues who work in probability or statistics.

How presumptuous! Do you know the “minds” of Andre1000’s associates?

And your remarks certainly would encourage him to do just that!

Notice that in all of this, you made not one substantive reply. You didn’t even contest his points. You just acted like a bully, and you should be ashamed.

Who are you, Andre’s mother? Kindly give both of us a break and MYOB. If he’s a big enough boy to think that he has something worth posting on a public philosophy forum which has known to get fairly intense and impersonal, he’s big enough to defend himself or not. He can learn from that. Free defenses from his mommy are more likely to keep him stuck in naivete.

If he pursues physics and actually gets out in the real world to work in any physics-related field, he will soon find (as I did) that comments like mine are merely gentle reminders to learn what you are talking about before opening mouth or putting words to screen.

Remember, he addressed me first. As I’ve learned and relearned here on CAF, there is never any value in trying to employ logic or data to explain anything to a dogmatist. Such people live entirely within the context of their illogical and unfounded beliefs.

Ideally, this being a philosophy forum, it could be expected to engage more logic than belief. I really don’t care what someone’s beliefs happen to be, but I do hate to see beliefs dragged into any area related to physics.

While probability math was not my favorite subject, it is an absolutely essential tool for anyone expecting to acquire a correct understanding of how the universe works. It does not appear that it is anything you’ll ever need to worry about, but if Andre knew even a bit of it, he’d have known not to use the phrase, “likeliness that we hit a truth is zero.”

Probability zero is reserved for events such as the Chicago Bears winning the upcoming Superbowl, or my bathtub transforming into a rhinoceros when I wave a stick at it.

Given that it would have been a complete waste of time to address Andre’s points, as it is to address any dogmatic and ill-founded opinion, I gave him the best I could offer— strong suggestions to actually learn something. He probably will not take this excellent advice, and that being the case, I give him permission to spend the rest of his life blaming me for his ignorance.

As for his associates and whatever passes in them for minds, I can only guess, from his remarks, that they are all high school level theology students required to take a basic, non-calculus level “physics” course.

 

[greylorn]

This is almost entirely true. I, however, would qualify the claim that the mathematical sciences “know quite a lot”. Yes, quite a lot relative to the soft sciences. But that knowledge, significant as it is, is still limited in range. Physics, for all its power, can not answer those questions fundamental to human existence (which the social sciences and humanities attempt, albeit unsuccessfully).

I thought that “quite a lot” was a legitimate phrase independently of any comparisons to the soft sciences. It could be fairly applied to our physics knowledge of 1900, before Planck and Einstein set to work, or to 1990, which did not include even the knowledge that dark energy existed.

While I understand where you are coming from, your final sentence is based upon your limited knowledge, presumably an expression of physics orthodoxy, and is entirely incorrect.

I have used physics to explain the origin of the human soul, the origin of God, consciousness, behavioral aspects of the “soul”-brain dichotomy, the nature of dark energy, and the mysterious property of “handedness” in human beings. Plus a few other things which seemed interesting to me.

 

[dandingo]

These sciences actually know quite a lot, contrary to what some nitwit on TV might declare. Moreover, they have a good awareness of some of the things that they do not know, such as the QM vs. Relativity conundrum, and the natures of dark matter and dark energy.

To become aware of some very heavy issues about which it is currently ignorant actually requires a lot of complex knowledge. Only a dreadfully ignorant and probably stupid person would declare that physics knows nothing.

The host/scientist never stated that physics ‘knows nothing’. I think his point was that since Quantum Physics and General Relativity are clashing, it’s quite possible that a lot of what we think we know, we don’t. That does not mean that all of what we know now is wrong.

I have used physics to explain the origin of the human soul, the origin of God, consciousness, behavioral aspects of the “soul”-brain dichotomy, the nature of dark energy, and the mysterious property of “handedness” in human beings. Plus a few other things which seemed interesting to me.

This sounds a bit like Antony Flew’s recent conversion to Theism.