Quote:
Quote by: gallo  No need to explain, really. That you are not a scientist is quite apparent.
I had to look at the web site to find out what you were talking about. Did you actually read your own link? It's old news. By the way, Stephen Hawking (it would be nice if you at least spelled the man's name correctly if you are going to talk about him) doesn't have a theory about "the black hole comsuming everything." You left off an important qualification - "...that falls into it." And, as the link says, Hawking thinks that he has solved his problem that he has had since he developed his theory about black hole radiation (known as Hawking radiation). I think that maybe you didn't understand what you read.
OH!!!! A turtle! Well, your whole analogy was so senseless I just couldn't figure out what you were talking about. Know that I know you were talking about a turtle, it makes even less sense.
But if you had made any effort to learn the basics of what you are trying to discuss, you would know that new theories are extensions of old ones. If you don't understand the basics and the history, then you are liable to spout nonsense. Also, if you actually had read a book or two on cosmology and astrophysics (and understood them - I also see a problem with your reading comprehension) you would be aware that you are babbling nonsense.
Because I think that you are talking nonsense? What does any of that have to do with your misunderstanding of some 6th grade science?
No, I laugh at your idea because it is absolute nonsense.
Your "theoretical explanation" is neither "theoretical" nor an "explaination" [sic]. It is wild fantasy at best and isn't likely to undergo any peer review. Do you even know what peer review is?
So you don't even know enough to understand how scientists have learned what the sun is made of. No surprise there.
I think that you don't understand what that article is saying. It isn't really all that shocking. Moreover, it has no relevance whatsoever to your fantasy.
And you didn't understand that one either, did you? It isn't about any speculation about black holes being gravity forces. They have gravity because they are matter.
Read the definition of pseudoscience. You aren't a scientist, don't even understand simple physics (much less astrophysics and cosmology) and yet you know the answer. You haven't even stated the question.
You don't have a theory since you have no observations, no hypothesis, no prediction and no testing. Your babble is meaningless and an article on optics certainly doesn't support it. It only makes you look foolish.
BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA You're a troll, aren't you? Nobody could be serious about such bilge.
Really, really bad analogy. Pure nonsense, in fact.
The idea sounds more than "a litte [sic] nutty."
Are you really not aware that your question is is pure nonsense? Anyway, what's a "preditor," black hole or otherwise?
Or, it would seem that you don't know what science is or how it works. It would also seem that you have a bit of a reading comprehension problem. Where would you ever get the idea that scientific theories aren't debated among scientists? |
What falls into it? That would suggest that there is gravity under the universe where solar systems can fall into - sort of like falling off the edge of the flat earth theory eh? Or did Hawkings mean that the solar system was pulled towards the hole and sucked into it. That paradox is that things cannot just vanish into nothingness, and so Hawking had to come up with explaination as to solve that paradox - according to the webpage (and later news) he had to change his mind about some details of his theory, If he had to change his mind following a peer review then that means he was partly guessing in the first place and did not have all the facts needed to iron out such difficulties.
So you do not think that a turtle egg hatching a turtle is simular to a tree seed breaking open to grow into another tree. If you cannot comprehend how simular those two examples are then you are unable to grasp the concept related, thusly you will remain uneducated relative to knowing that concept.
You stated that a theory is the extension of older ones, meaning that historic data is evolved upon or alternated from but still founded on older works. As a process of unfoldment so to speak. And yet when I proposed that the process of babies coming forth from the (dark) birthing channel is founded upon older knowledge about the universe coming out of a black hole (knowledge within the universal network - not in human textbooks) you thought I was thinking poorly, when I in fact said about the same thing you are saying about theory creations. But the same principle applies and you have contradicted your own line of thinking.
You failed to proove that my "theory" is not founded on older ideas, they are in fact founded on the observation made about black holes in the universe. That does not contradict my statment. Hawkings would not need to write a new book (which now old news) if someone else had all his information already published in a older book. Now would he? Fact is he was writing about (then) new ideas not found in older books on the same topic.
You keep saying "nonsense" to all my explanations, yet, you failed to give scientific proof for why those explanations are nonsense, which is nonsense in the highest order and non debatable. How can I debate why you think it is nonsense if you do not elaborate your "why and how comes"? Posting a link to a webpage about phoney science has nothing to do with your personal reasoning on the topic. IF you had really followed the outline of what I wrote in my O.P. you would know that a webpage on optics has a lot to do with my theory - it is one of the core or root factors behind my speculation. It seems you are guilty of the same thing you blame me of being guilty of, so I ask "did you really read my O.P.? I doubt it.
You continued with attacks on my ego but failed to debate the data presented with any sort of logical counter-debate. My ego is fine thank-you.
You asked me if I knew what a peer review is. Yep. You have those on the cutting edge of data development and then you also have your "old school scientists". The cutting edge thinkers peer review their self, and the old school foggies peer review their own group, but the old school guys should not attempt to peer review those on the cutting edge because they cannot grasp the concepts needed for alternative thinking (outside the box). That is why you have so much trouble trying to peer review my writings. yo ho?
I do not mind debating a scientific theory but ego attacking is not the correct methodology for that purpose, try agian if you dare.