 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I cant' find the exact video I wanted to link to, but you know how the sun dwarfs Earth -- massively dwarfs Earth? Well, our sun is actually incredibly small. Smaller than you might even know:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEheh1BH34Q
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Oct 3, 2015 - 4:07 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Jehannum
(Member)
|
What about the gamma rays, x-rays and other emissions? Ask any bench tech who's worked on CRT televisions and other high voltage electronics how easy it is to irradiate yourself if you don't know what you're doing.
What about observed stars in tight orbits around an "invisible" companion? There are mundane explanations for that, too. Sure, there's lots of observational evidence, but none of it exclusively pointing to black holes. Terrestrial lightning puts out x-rays, gamma rays, and even antimatter. Black holes are a mathematical model that is internally inconsistent. (People who understand the math say this.)
Now tell me about neutron stars.
Thanks to various TV programmes from the 1970s we know a lot about the effects of gamma rays on the human body, thank you very much.
You're the first person I've known who doesn't believe in gravity.
Or do you think gravity is some kind of conspiracy theory. Perhaps Isaac Newton didn't exist. No one could be that smart, could they? He's obviously a 20th century invention.
Neutron stars are fine, providing you don't reverse the polarity of their flow.
Black holes are internally inconsistent? How do they know, these people who understand the "math"? They been inside one, have they? These are the guys who say bees can't fly, remember. Especially that Richard Hawkins guy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Oct 3, 2015 - 6:44 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Metryq
(Member)
|
You're the first person I've known who doesn't believe in gravity.
...
Especially that Richard Hawkins guy.
The 17th century admiral? Or perhaps you mean Stephen Hawking? (He's such a hero you couldn't even get his name correct?) The TV comment made me think you were attempting humor, but the rest of the post seems disjointed. And either you have a problem with reading comprehension, or you're actually offended by what I wrote.
I never said I did not "believe" in gravity. I said it was the weakest of the four fundamental forces in nature, then linked a reference to illustrate the point.
As for neutron stars, they can't exist. Free neutrons "evaporate" in under 15 minutes, and any attempt to force neutrons together—outside an atomic nucleus with associated protons—results in the particles flying violently apart. That's not theoretical, that's the result of laboratory tests. It's called nuclear chemistry. Meanwhile, "neutron stars" were an ad hoc invention to explain high frequency pulsars. Without a suitably dense material, such pulsars would blow themselves apart. Too bad some astrophysicist didn't question the fundamental assumption that pulsars spin "like a lighthouse." If one had, he might have found a more plausible answer.
And if you were honestly trying to be funny, forgive me for being too obtuse to see it. The straw man was in my way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
