https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/03/black-holes-bab...

Black Holes Caught in the Act of Cosmic Creation
Astronomers have glimpsed the telltale signs of newly formed stars inside the powerful winds of a supermassive black hole.
MARINA KOREN MAR 27, 2017

I don't know anything about the science here, but am wondering if focusing in on creation of stars linked to black holes will change any of the dialogue between some theists and some atheists.  That is, if some of the usual running around in circles involves theists insisting that atheists must be able to explain the "creation" of the universe and of the Earth and of life, and if we were to start to see more clear indication that creation goes on all the time within the universe as we know it, then perhaps it would influence at least one small part of the discussion.  I don't mean to make too much of this, but it ties in a little bit to a discussion we were having in the forums.

Views: 271

Replies to This Discussion

John, I will be about as brief here as I am with theists. Will you differ from them by looking, not for claims of evidence, but for evidence?

NASA is the Vatican City of the Big Bang religion.

NASA gets taxpayers' money; the Vatican gets Catholics' money.

NASA funds people who hypothesize the ex nihilo origin of the universe and much more, including black holes. The Vatican funds people who imagine the ex nihilo origin of the universe and much more.

You accept NASA's claims; you don't accept the Vatican's claims.

Give some thought to that ex nihilo claim, infinitely dense and infinitely hot. Molecules in motion produce heat. In an infinitely dense space, where do all those molecules move?

You are using ex nihilo as a blanket term. Theists claim God created the Universe out of nothing. The Inflationary model does describe a Big Bang but doesn't claim it came from nothing. It claims that our knowledge is limited at the point of a singularity. That s quite different from creationism.

Regarding black holes, there is an abundance of evidence both observed and calculated. How do you explain that ? Obviously there is some gravitational mass.

John, I will debate people who want to think. I won't debate people who want to believe.

Stop accusing me of wanting to believe. You don't know jack about me. I said I would read your pseudo-science that all mainstream physicists apparently reject.

I gave you examples of both observational and computational evidence as to the existence of black holes that every one from Einstein to Hawkings explains. I'm yet to hear an actual rebuttal -  other than that I must want to believe. I don't want to believe anything. I look through the lens of the scientific method that you reject. I don't care whether the universe is expanding or not, but the evidence shows it is, from Einsteins theories to Edwin Hubbles observations.

You are the one that was a diehard theist - were you not? I can just as easily argue that your EU description of the universe is about belief because it doesn't look to be based on sound science.

You haven't debated anything. You have given me a link and accused the whole of the Cosmology and Astronomy community of dogma. Basically you are saying you are right and all else are wrong. LOL

John, you did not give me examples of evidence as to the existence of black holes; you gave me words you have heard or read, and believed.

http://www.eso.org/public/news/eso0846/

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/research/gr/public/bh_obsv.html

http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-news/black-holes/best-evid...

The observed orbit of stars is pretty strong evidence.

EU attempts to debunk blank holes but doesnt offer a suitable alternative. Saying that matter is generated at the center of a galaxy, but not how, is hardly a rebuttal. Nor does it explain how stars are mysteriously gathering electricity. This is great stuff.

There are also interesting theories that dispute germ theory in modern medicine. The Nazis also had interesting alternative Physics. Trump has interesting alternative facts.

John D., I clicked on the three links and at each one found claims for black holes' existence.

The Sky and Telescope website had these words: "...of black holes — those objects so massive and compact that nothing, not even light, can escape ...."

Cosmologists did for decades claim that nothing escapes, but a few years ago I first saw artists' renderings that showed two beams of radiation escaping from black holes. More recently still, I've seen verbal references to more stuff escaping from them.

Similarly, cosmologists' definition of the term "ex nihilo" have changed through the decades since it was first announced. I understand that Hawking, in a recent book, is still changing his views.

Here is Michael Shermer explaining how we use Newtonian and Einstein Physics on a constant, daily basis for such things as satellites and spacecraft trajectories.What do we use EU for ?

The acid test of a scientific claim, I explained, is prediction and falsification. My friends at the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, for example, tell me they use both Newtonian mechanics and Einstein’s relativity theory in computing highly accurate spacecraft trajectories to the planets. If Newton and Einstein are wrong, I inquired of EU proponent Wallace Thornhill, can you generate spacecraft flight paths that are more accurate than those based on gravitational theory? No, he replied. GPS satellites in orbit around Earth are also dependent on relativity theory, so I asked the conference host David Talbott if EU theory offers anything like the practical applications that theoretical physics has given us. No. Then what does EU theory add? A deeper understanding of nature, I was told. Oh.

Einstein did thought-experiments and concluded that nothing travels faster than light.

He said gravity is "spooky action at a distance" and never bothered to ask if its attraction travels faster than light.

Do a thought experiment.

In the time that the sun's light takes to reach earth, about 8.3 seconds, how far does the sun travel in its orbit about the Milky Way's center?

The outer planets are farther from the sun so the sun's light takes longer to reach them. In those increasing times, how far does the sun travel?

So are the earth and the outer planets orbiting the sun? Or are they orbiting where the sun was?

If they are orbiting the sun, gravity's attraction travels many times faster than light.

If they are orbiting where the sun was, ...?

Think on it.

John D., how would we use EU theory if the Bang weren't receiving so much taxpayer money?

With a deeper understanding of nature,
1) taxpayers in America would not have paid billions of dollars for attempts to create controlled fusion (hoping it would replace the carbon-based fuels) or building the LIGO devices (hoping to find gravitational wave evidence for the Bang), and
2) taxpayers in other nations would not have paid for the Large Hadron Collider, history's most expensive scientific experiment, to look for evidence for the Bang. (The US Congress in the 1980s refused to spend taxpayer money for the Super-conducting Super-collider in Texas.)

Not really. Scientists have known for some time that stars give birth to new stars. Our entire solar system was born out of the super nova of a dying, massive star. Most of the elements in the universe are formed from the fusion oven of a star. This doesn't change the religionists fervent belief in genesis. 

John, not really what?

You are repeating what you have read or been told. Your belief seems as fervent as the religionists' belief in Genesis.

I majored in math, minored in physics, and did graduate study in both. Then, in the 1960s I heard of the ex nihilo claim. It did not survive my questions. I set it aside. Thirty years later I retired and read more.

Go to www.newtoeu.com and download the free PDF. It summarizes what I read.

RSS

line

Update Your Membership :

Membership

line

line

Nexus on Social Media:

line

© 2017   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service