|
I agree with you about 'dark matter' and particularly 'dark energy' which is just a nicer way of wording 'fudge factor'. (Dark matter is essentially matter that we can't observe, and just being non-luminous and spread thinly would work for that, so it's reasonable as an idea if not in the amounts needed to make the numbers work.)
You're wrong about black holes though, on both counts. There's no reason that a black hole would have an infinite mass – it may have an infinitely dense singularity at the centre but it's infinitesimally small, and the rest of the hole is just matter, albeit in highly stressed forms. And there is good evidence to suggest something very massive at the centre of our galaxy (orbital velocities and gravitational lensing), as well as several others, along with a mechanism for how black holes can form. I'd like to know what you're basing 'there aren't any black holes' on.
|
|
|
|
|
BobJanova wrote: I'd like to know what you're basing 'there aren't any black holes' on.
Hooke's Law.
It doesn't matter how pretty your numerical derivations are, there's always a point at which they stop working.
Neutron stars? No problem.
Black holes? Don't be ridiculous; do some serious work.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
So you're basing your understanding of relativistic cosmology on a piece of classical mechanics?
Hmm.
It's widely acknowledged that we don't understand what happens at a singularity because at that single point the equations break down. That's not relevant to any of the rest of a hole though.
|
|
|
|
|
BobJanova wrote: So you're basing your understanding of relativistic cosmology on a piece of classical mechanics common bloody sense?
Indeed.BobJanova wrote: It's widely acknowledged that we don't understand what happens at a singularity because at that single point the equations break down.
What happens is that the equations break down ( a la Hooke's Law), so a "singularity" cannot form. Something else happens; we have to figure out what, rather than waste our time assuming that the impossible happens and basing everything else on that.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
If you're saying that you don't believe in singularities, that's fair enough. That's entirely different from not believing in black holes at all. The idea of a black hole is not in the region where equations break down, their behaviour is well defined and predictable in the regions where we can observe them (e.g. gravity, behaviour of material falling into them, Hawking radiation).
|
|
|
|
|
You really should look up more sensible formulae, like the functional Schrodinger equation.
This backs up the (far more sensible) idea that the density required to form a black hole can never be reached -- again, Hooke's law applies.
Everythinghas an "elastic limit"; it just so happens that the completely idiotic idea of it being possible for matter to collapse as far as a black hole was too much of a wet dream for too many people, so they did everything they could to make it real.
Bear in mind that no black hole has ever been found, but evidence of other things has been bent to make it look as if there are black holes all over the place, to satisfy the too-childish desires of black-hole aficionados (in pretty much the same way that "inhabitable planets" are being found every three minutes, these days).
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Okay so what do you think is at the centre of the galaxy? Or if there isn't a very massive invisible thing there, why do the orbits act as if there is? Your explanation has to also fit the evidence and be more plausible then the consensus one ...
|
|
|
|
|
BobJanova wrote: Okay so what do you think is at the centre of the galaxy?
A thing or things that cause a lot of gravity to be exerted, the same as there is in the spiral arms, and the same as there is in the centre and arms of all observable galaxies.
Black holes are really not needed as part of the equation. There's just matter, taking up not too much more room (from our observation point) than a black hole would take up.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote: if there is even one black hole in the universe,
Well there is strong evidence that there is at least one bloody big one at the centre of our galaxy.
Mark_Wallace wrote: then the total mass of the universe shoots up to infinite,
Well the one that is postulated has a mass of something like 6,000,000 solar masses - not quite infinite?
Mark_Wallace wrote: there aren't any black holes
?
I'm not saying you're wrong - but what evidence do you have to support that - or what is your refutation of the significant evidence thus far?
MVVM # - I did it My Way
___________________________________________
Man, you're a god. - walterhevedeich 26/05/2011
.\\axxx
(That's an 'M')
|
|
|
|
|
_Maxxx_ wrote: I'm not saying you're wrong - but what evidence do you have to support that
Um, the scientific method is to provide evidence to support claims about what exists, not to provide non-existent evidence to prove that something does not exist.
Try providing evidence that that the Invisible Pink Unicorn, et al[^], do not exist.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Calcio Storico[^]
That is kind of awesome in some weird ways!
I'd rather be phishing!
|
|
|
|
|
I can understand why they only play that "game" once a year.
I did love the bit where one guy sitting on another, presumably having thumped the day lights out of him, then shares his water bottle with his victim.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
Neat stuff. What's weird about it? 
"Real men drive manual transmission" - Rajesh.
|
|
|
|
|
The original game in the UK was pretty much like that (which must be why they call it "calcio storico")
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
There are similar historic games played in the UK[^] - often on Shrove Tuesday
=========================================================
I'm an optoholic - my glass is always half full of vodka.
=========================================================
|
|
|
|
|
I am looking to buy some books to catch up with my friends who got better at programming than me. I know how to handle the basic stuff like threads, but never made any complex programs by myself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bookmarked.  
Politicians are always realistically manoeuvering for the next election. They are obsolete as fundamental problem-solvers.
Buckminster Fuller
|
|
|
|
|
Hey, you're good at this!
Can you find me a copy of The Observer's Book of Earthquakes?
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, well threading can get pretty complex if you don't know what you're doing....
If your neighbours don't listen to The Ramones, turn it up real loud so they can.
“We didn't have a positive song until we wrote 'Now I Wanna Sniff Some Glue!'” ― Dee Dee Ramone
"The Democrats want my guns and the Republicans want my porno mags and I ain't giving up either" - Joey Ramone
|
|
|
|
|
Pshht! 'Basic stuff' is used by those Java guys for everything that's forbidden by their religion. Ask them to do 'basic stuff', like managing memory themselves, and you risk starting a holy war. 
The language is JavaScript. that of Mordor, which I will not utter here
I hold an A-7 computer expert classification, Commodore. I'm well acquainted with Dr. Daystrom's theories and discoveries. The basic design of all our ship's computers are JavaScript.
|
|
|
|
|
|
How do you know you want to do it in Java? Java Swing in particular is a horrible mess and if you're starting a UI application from scratch and have no other reason to use Java I strongly recommend you do it in C# (though I'm not going to start the WinForms/WPF holy war just here).
For databases you want to research JDBC which is the Java connector to ODBC, and possibly an entity mapping framework like Hibernate.
I'm afraid I don't have any book recommendations for you as (i) I'm not really a Java guy and (ii) I just use Google and the Internet to find things these days.
|
|
|
|
|
For new members it's hard to get a display name that's your actual name. Almost impossible. However, we have tons of members who really don't care if their name is the same as someone else's name.
I was thinking that it could be interesting to open up Display Names so that you can choose whatever name you want, even if it's been taken by someone else, with a small cavet: If you haven't contributed a message or article, question or answer, your display name is plain text and it will be displayed in gray.
Each time you contribute, or each time you change your name, your name is checked against the list and if you're account is the only account with that name that has made a contribution then your name is yours and is unlocked to accept HTML, and will (by default) be displayed in a dark font.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: it will be displayed in gray.
Cool, someone could be Gandalf the grey. 
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
