Re: Will NASA be able to detect a Warp in Space Time?
Posted by DA Morgan on Nov 30, 2003 at 12:40
(216.162.218.178)Re: Will NASA be able to detect a Warp in Space Time? (Pasti)
You wrote:
"You do see now the difference between the black-holes and neutrinos, don't you? There is still evidence to come that what we assume now to be black-holes are indeed as such.For the time being, the evidence, though compelling(very compelling,I might add)is not exactly exhaustive."Response:
No actually I don't. I think your argument as solid as foam rubber. Based on your argument there is no proof of the top or bottom quarks. Based on your argument there is no proof of the existence of many transuranic elements whose existence is so solid they have been named. Your arguments are cogent but I think you'd hesitate to apply the same logic across the board to all aspects of physics. Why single out black holes?You wrote with respect to tachyons:
"They cannot form stable bodies AT REST, hence, they are not exactly good candidates for this phenomenon."Response:
Tachyons as serious science were discredited long ago. I was making a humorous reference to Star Trek. My point being that if you were willing to consider something speculative as an alternative to black holes why not something preposterous?You wrote:
"but if you would check more thoroughly, you will se that aside from fancy and glitzy titles in the magazines, we know about as much about black-holes as we know about dark matter."Response:
I disagree. A review of the work of the greatest physicists to date produces barely a hint of dark matter. And yet the most profound thinkers have time-after-time been able to demonstrate black holes in their theories. Black holes that equate to observations made by astronomers. There is little we have to offer as proof stronger than deducing the properties of an entity in theoretical math and physics and then finding candidates in the real universe.You wrote:
"A theory is a direct correspondence"Response:
I really don't understand the point you are trying to make. Neither a theory nor a map is the actual entity: Both are second-hand descriptions just as a photograph of a bridge is not the bridge, itself. I hope this isn't just a matter of semantics.
Follow Ups:
- Re: Will NASA be able to detect a Warp in Space Time? Pasti 30/11 20:01 (4)
- Re: Will NASA be able to detect a Warp in Space Time? DA Morgan 30/11 22:05 (3)
- Re: Will NASA be able to detect a Warp in Space Time? Pasti 01/12 01:59 (2)
- Re: Will NASA be able to detect a Warp in Space Time? DA Morgan 01/12 08:53 (1)
- Re: Will NASA be able to detect a Warp in Space Time? Pasti 02/12 02:38 (0)