Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Technology and Science News › [AB] Some black holes may be older than time
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[AB] Some black holes may be older than time - Page 10

post #91 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoopaScoopa;13476342 
doh.gif Scientific theory is the same as scientific fact. A theory is the highest form of evidence. You're confusing the layman term of theory with the scientific term of a theory. Are you one of those, "Gravity is just a theory" people?

Go check again. wink.gif

Noticed I qualified with "scientific definition".

I am correct that evolution is not a fact. No scientist would every say it was. Theories are backed and supported by evidence but are not evidence in of themselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoopaScoopa;13476342 
That's correct, maybe the Higgs boson doesn't exist. Until someone comes up with a way to prove otherwise, it's the most accurate description of what's going on for now. I got the impression from you earlier that you were saying that dark matter hasn't been detected observationally or predicted in mathematics, which of course it has. I'm glad you read some the evidence to support it.

Our understanding of physics will always be incomplete. smile.gif That's one of the beauties of science.
Yup, that is why when you said dark matter was detected.... I said it was not.

What you probably meant was gravitational and other effects attributed to dark matter have been detected. Dark matter itself has not been detected.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PoopaScoopa;13476342 
No. That's exactly what I was trying to explain to the person I quoted. There is no central point from which the universe expanded from. Space itself in infinite. We keep trying to place 3 dimensional terms on the space-time grid because that's what we as humans can easily relate to but that's not how universe's structure actually is. That's why we can see the afterglow(background radiation) of the big bang uniformly in every direction.
Someone else also made a previous point.... once you go back a few billions years, everything will become murky as the universe would be too hot and chaotic to view.
Once again...
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 920 [4.28GHz, HT] Asus P6T + Broadcom NetXtreme II VisionTek HD5850 [900/1200] + Galaxy GT240 2x4GB G.Skill Ripjaw X [1632 MHz] 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
Intel X25-M 160GB + 3xRAID0 500GB 7200.12 Window 7 Pro 64 Acer H243H + Samsung 226BW XARMOR-U9BL  
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Antec Truepower New 750W Li Lian PC-V2100 [10x120mm fans] Logitech G9 X-Trac Pro 
  hide details  
Reply
Once again...
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 920 [4.28GHz, HT] Asus P6T + Broadcom NetXtreme II VisionTek HD5850 [900/1200] + Galaxy GT240 2x4GB G.Skill Ripjaw X [1632 MHz] 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
Intel X25-M 160GB + 3xRAID0 500GB 7200.12 Window 7 Pro 64 Acer H243H + Samsung 226BW XARMOR-U9BL  
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Antec Truepower New 750W Li Lian PC-V2100 [10x120mm fans] Logitech G9 X-Trac Pro 
  hide details  
Reply
post #92 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by DuckieHo View Post
Go check again.

Noticed I qualified with "scientific definition".
I suggest you look up the steps in the scientific method before stating that theories aren't scientific fact. Just because you make a hypothesis and conduct an experiment based on that, doesn't make it a theory. You're still confusing the layman's term of a theory with the scientific term.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DuckieHo View Post
I am correct that evolution is not a fact. No scientist would every say it was. Theories are backed and supported by evidence but are not evidence in of themselves.
Are you sure you want to be speaking on that subject with such confidence? I realize you may choose to not believe my word on the subject so I'll try to give you information from some of the foremost scientists on the subject:

There is no debate about whether evolution is a fact or not amongst the scientific community. The methods of natural selection are of discussion but not whether the process itself exists or not. You're arguing with yourself on that second sentence. No one but yourself has said theories are evidence in of themselves.


Quote:
Originally Posted by DuckieHo View Post
Yup, that is why when you said dark matter was detected.... I said it was not.

What you probably meant was gravitational and other effects attributed to dark matter have been detected. Dark matter itself has not been detected.
No, what I meant was that just because we haven't detected the particle that we believe is responsible for its effects, just like in gravity, that doesn't mean we can't detect it at all or get any useful scientific data out of it to make predictions about the universe.


Quote:
Originally Posted by DuckieHo View Post
Someone else also made a previous point.... once you go back a few billions years, everything will become murky as the universe would be too hot and chaotic to view.
13.72 billion years in fact. We can see all the way back up until when the universe was only 100,000 years old. That's why there is a "wall" so to speak preventing us from seeing all the way back to the big bang itself. it was too hot for matter itself to form. If you want to discuss this further I suggest we move to a different thread.
Edited by PoopaScoopa - 5/12/11 at 11:08am
post #93 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoopaScoopa View Post
I suggest you look up the steps in the scientific method before stating that theories aren't scientific fact. Just because you make a hypothesis and conduct an experiment based on that, doesn't make it a theory. You're still confusing the layman's term of a theory with the scientific term.
Fact is an something that happens.
Theory is the explanation of the fact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact#Fact_in_science
Quote:
In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts.


Quote:
Originally Posted by PoopaScoopa View Post
Are you sure you want to be speaking on that subject with such confidence? I realize you may choose to not believe my word on the subject so I'll try to give you information from some of the foremost scientists on the subject:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRDsNjhZn34
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bCz2eFTBig

There is no debate about whether evolution is a fact or not amongst the scientific community. The methods of natural selection are of discussion but not whether the process itself exists or not. You're arguing with yourself on that second sentence. No one but yourself has said theories are evidence in of themselves.
You are partially correct though. A theory that is heavily supported can be considered a "fact". I guess I personally dislike the use of the term applied to a theory. In the basic definition of theory and fact, that are NOT the same. I guess biology is a bit looser on this distinction, so are there any cases in physics were a theory is deemed a fact?

However, my point still stands: A scientific fact is not the same as a scientific theory. A scientific theory can sometimes be deemed a scientific fact.


Read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact


Quote:
Originally Posted by PoopaScoopa View Post
No, what I meant was that just because we haven't detected the particle that we believe is responsible for its effects, just like in gravity, that doesn't mean we can't detect it at all or get any useful scientific data out of it to make predictions about the universe.
Of course not, we have to go based on our current best assumptions/observations until proven otherwise. My point was that our current best assumptions/observations may not be the only ones proposed/avaliable.
Edited by DuckieHo - 5/12/11 at 7:24am
Once again...
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 920 [4.28GHz, HT] Asus P6T + Broadcom NetXtreme II VisionTek HD5850 [900/1200] + Galaxy GT240 2x4GB G.Skill Ripjaw X [1632 MHz] 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
Intel X25-M 160GB + 3xRAID0 500GB 7200.12 Window 7 Pro 64 Acer H243H + Samsung 226BW XARMOR-U9BL  
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Antec Truepower New 750W Li Lian PC-V2100 [10x120mm fans] Logitech G9 X-Trac Pro 
  hide details  
Reply
Once again...
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 920 [4.28GHz, HT] Asus P6T + Broadcom NetXtreme II VisionTek HD5850 [900/1200] + Galaxy GT240 2x4GB G.Skill Ripjaw X [1632 MHz] 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
Intel X25-M 160GB + 3xRAID0 500GB 7200.12 Window 7 Pro 64 Acer H243H + Samsung 226BW XARMOR-U9BL  
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Antec Truepower New 750W Li Lian PC-V2100 [10x120mm fans] Logitech G9 X-Trac Pro 
  hide details  
Reply
post #94 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by DuckieHo View Post
Fact is an something that happens.
Theory is the explanation of the fact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact#Fact_in_science





You are partially correct though. A theory that is heavily supported can be considered a "fact". I guess I personally dislike the use of the term applied to a theory. In the basic definition of theory and fact, that are NOT the same. I guess biology is a bit looser on this distinction, so are there any cases in physics were a theory is deemed a fact?

However, my point still stands: A scientific fact is not the same as a scientific theory. A scientific theory can sometimes be deemed a scientific fact.


Read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact
Scientific theories are accepted as fact. You seem to be trying to argue about the wording rather than the meaning. Do you have anything to say other than to simply argue semantics?

Evolution is a fact and whether you choose to realize that or not is not going to change the way the universe works. Your personal feelings on whether it should be considered fact or not don't change anything. The scientific term of theory carries the same meaning throughout all fields of science, whether biology or physics. Don't confuse social(pseudo)-science philosophical theories with scientific theories.


Quote:
Originally Posted by DuckieHo View Post
Of course not, we have to go based on our current best assumptions/observations until proven otherwise. My point was that our current best assumptions/observations may not be the only ones proposed/avaliable.
So you're not really saying anything new. Everyone knows that the scientific understanding of today may be disproven tomorrow. But to assume that just because that can happen to any field therefore what we know today is wrong is not the correct way to go about thinking. There isn't any conclusive evidence to disprove the current understanding of dark energy or dark matter as you're trying to say. People may put forth hypotheses of what they think is happening, but until they're proven correct, accepting them as fact isn't thinking scientifically.
Edited by PoopaScoopa - 5/12/11 at 8:59am
post #95 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoopaScoopa View Post
Scientific theories are accept as fact. You seem to be trying to argue about the wording rather than the meaning. Do you have anything to say other than to simply argue semantics?

Evolution is a fact and whether you choose to realize that or not is not going to change the way the universe works. Your personal feelings on whether it should be considered fact or not don't change anything. The scientific term of theory carries the same meaning throughout all fields of science, whether biology or physics. Don't confuse social(pseudo)-science philosophical theories with scientific theories.




So you're not really saying anything new. Everyone knows that the scientific understanding of today may be disproven tomorrow. But to assume that just because that can happen to any field therefore what we know today is wrong is not the correct way to go about thinking. There isn't any conclusive evidence to disprove the current understanding of dark energy or dark matter as you're trying to say. People may put forth hypotheses of what they think is happening, but until they're proven correct, accepting them as fact isn't thinking scientifically.
Bingo!
New Rig 2/14/08
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
e6400 GIGABYTE GA-P35-DS3L Radeon HD3850 512mb 2x1gig G.Skill 6400 
Hard DriveMonitorPower
WD 160gig Acer 22" Ws Sunbeam 550w 
  hide details  
Reply
New Rig 2/14/08
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
e6400 GIGABYTE GA-P35-DS3L Radeon HD3850 512mb 2x1gig G.Skill 6400 
Hard DriveMonitorPower
WD 160gig Acer 22" Ws Sunbeam 550w 
  hide details  
Reply
post #96 of 132
Wait a second, isn't the title of this thread a contradiction? Potentially a paradox?

How can something be older then time? If time didn't exist when it was created then it has no perception of time so it cannot have an age. To imply that it is older then time implies it must have had an age before time existed, and if it had an age before time existed then that means that time had to have existed before that in order to define it's age...

Ow, I think I just lost a brain cell.
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Haswell I7 4790k Asus Maximus VII Formula 980 Ti 8 gigabytes 
Optical DriveOSPowerCase
Blu Ray Windows 7 Ultimate 64 bit 750 watts HAF-X 
Mouse
Mionix Naos 5000 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Haswell I7 4790k Asus Maximus VII Formula 980 Ti 8 gigabytes 
Optical DriveOSPowerCase
Blu Ray Windows 7 Ultimate 64 bit 750 watts HAF-X 
Mouse
Mionix Naos 5000 
  hide details  
Reply
post #97 of 132
scientific laws are absolute in their respective, but are often wrong when applied outside their set conditions.

scientific theories are usually right in explanation or mechanism of phenomena, but are yet to be proven absolute and are just assumptions.

almost nothing is absolute.
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Q9550 GIGABYTE GA-EP45-UD3R eVGA GTX 560 Ti 4GB Patriot Viper II DDR2 1066 5-5-5-15 2.1V 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Western Digital Caviar Black 2TB 64MB 7200 RPM Lite-On 22X DVD+/-RW XP Pro, Windows 7 Ultimate, Ubuntu Lucid Lynx Samsung UN46B8000 240Hz LED 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Microsoft Natural Elite PC Power & Cooling 750W Silencer Antec Nine Hundred Logitech G9 
Mouse Pad
Razer Mantis Speed 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Q9550 GIGABYTE GA-EP45-UD3R eVGA GTX 560 Ti 4GB Patriot Viper II DDR2 1066 5-5-5-15 2.1V 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Western Digital Caviar Black 2TB 64MB 7200 RPM Lite-On 22X DVD+/-RW XP Pro, Windows 7 Ultimate, Ubuntu Lucid Lynx Samsung UN46B8000 240Hz LED 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Microsoft Natural Elite PC Power & Cooling 750W Silencer Antec Nine Hundred Logitech G9 
Mouse Pad
Razer Mantis Speed 
  hide details  
Reply
post #98 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Singular1ty View Post
Wait a second, isn't the title of this thread a contradiction? Potentially a paradox?

How can something be older then time? If time didn't exist when it was created then it has no perception of time so it cannot have an age. To imply that it is older then time implies it must have had an age before time existed, and if it had an age before time existed then that means that time had to have existed before that in order to define it's age...

Ow, I think I just lost a brain cell.
Nah it's not a contradiction. Did you read the article? They're basing it on the assumption that there was a previous universe before ours that had collapsed in a "big crunch". Our universe then reopened in the big bang, but some black holes before the big crunch apparently remained.
/hwaw
(20 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
Intel Core i7 3770k @ 4.3ghz 1.160v ASRock Z77 Extreme6 Gigabyte R9 290 Windforce Sapphire R9 290 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
2x4gb Samsung RAM @ 2000mhz 9-10-9-28 1.425v OCZ Vertex 4 Hitacho Deskstar Crucial M550 
CoolingCoolingCoolingOS
Corsair H80 (CPU) Thermalright Spitfire (GPU) Gelid Icy Vision (GPU) Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit 
MonitorMonitorKeyboardPower
BENQ GW2450 Asus PB278Q Cooler Master Quickfire Rapid Seasonic 750w  
CaseMouseMouse Pad
Black Interior HAF 932 Roccat Kone  Artisan Hien Hard 
  hide details  
Reply
/hwaw
(20 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
Intel Core i7 3770k @ 4.3ghz 1.160v ASRock Z77 Extreme6 Gigabyte R9 290 Windforce Sapphire R9 290 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
2x4gb Samsung RAM @ 2000mhz 9-10-9-28 1.425v OCZ Vertex 4 Hitacho Deskstar Crucial M550 
CoolingCoolingCoolingOS
Corsair H80 (CPU) Thermalright Spitfire (GPU) Gelid Icy Vision (GPU) Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit 
MonitorMonitorKeyboardPower
BENQ GW2450 Asus PB278Q Cooler Master Quickfire Rapid Seasonic 750w  
CaseMouseMouse Pad
Black Interior HAF 932 Roccat Kone  Artisan Hien Hard 
  hide details  
Reply
post #99 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoopaScoopa View Post
Are they insinuating that the Big Bang was a white hole from another Universe's black hole?
Those black holes are so racist towards white holes.........

I don't see how this is possible if the big bang theory is in fact true, wouldn't everything get compressed into a tiny block of mass and energy?
Project Purity
(18 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5 750 EVGA P55 FTW 200 EVGA GTX 480 Corsair Dominator GT 4Gb x 2 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingCooling
2x500gb Spinpoint F3 (Raid 0)/1tb Spinpoint F3 Asus DRW Heatkiller 3.0 XSPC EX360 
CoolingCoolingOSMonitor
Swiftech MCP655 EK GTX 480 Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit Samsung UN32C6500 32" LED TV 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Steelseries Merc Stealth Corsair HX1000W Corsair Obsidian 800d Razer Mamba 
Mouse PadAudio
Razer Destructor Asus Xonar DX 
  hide details  
Reply
Project Purity
(18 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5 750 EVGA P55 FTW 200 EVGA GTX 480 Corsair Dominator GT 4Gb x 2 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingCooling
2x500gb Spinpoint F3 (Raid 0)/1tb Spinpoint F3 Asus DRW Heatkiller 3.0 XSPC EX360 
CoolingCoolingOSMonitor
Swiftech MCP655 EK GTX 480 Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit Samsung UN32C6500 32" LED TV 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Steelseries Merc Stealth Corsair HX1000W Corsair Obsidian 800d Razer Mamba 
Mouse PadAudio
Razer Destructor Asus Xonar DX 
  hide details  
Reply
post #100 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoopaScoopa View Post
Scientific theories are accepted as fact. You seem to be trying to argue about the wording rather than the meaning. Do you have anything to say other than to simply argue semantics?

Evolution is a fact and whether you choose to realize that or not is not going to change the way the universe works. Your personal feelings on whether it should be considered fact or not don't change anything. The scientific term of theory carries the same meaning throughout all fields of science, whether biology or physics. Don't confuse social(pseudo)-science philosophical theories with scientific theories.

Do you concede that a "scientific theory" is different from a "scientific fact"? Not all scientific facts are scientific theories. i.e. Standard gravity accelerates objects at 9.807 m/s^2 is a fact... but not a theory.

I guess biology application is a special case then. Evolution is a fact due to "personal feelings" though. Is evolution's status as scientific fact arbitary or not? If not, what is the explicit requirements from a theory to fact?

From my experience, physicist generally do not declare scientific theories as fact. It is not just semantics but the difference in the meanings of those two terms.


Quote:
Originally Posted by PoopaScoopa View Post
So you're not really saying anything new. Everyone knows that the scientific understanding of today may be disproven tomorrow. But to assume that just because that can happen to any field therefore what we know today is wrong is not the correct way to go about thinking. There isn't any conclusive evidence to disprove the current understanding of dark energy or dark matter as you're trying to say. People may put forth hypotheses of what they think is happening, but until they're proven correct, accepting them as fact isn't thinking scientifically.
Of course... this is why scientists do not talk/write in the absolute. Nothing "is" but "is likely", "is probable", "is high percentage of certainity", etc.

You had said scientists detected dark matter... they would have said "In most likelyhood, we have detected dark matter".
Once again...
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 920 [4.28GHz, HT] Asus P6T + Broadcom NetXtreme II VisionTek HD5850 [900/1200] + Galaxy GT240 2x4GB G.Skill Ripjaw X [1632 MHz] 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
Intel X25-M 160GB + 3xRAID0 500GB 7200.12 Window 7 Pro 64 Acer H243H + Samsung 226BW XARMOR-U9BL  
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Antec Truepower New 750W Li Lian PC-V2100 [10x120mm fans] Logitech G9 X-Trac Pro 
  hide details  
Reply
Once again...
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 920 [4.28GHz, HT] Asus P6T + Broadcom NetXtreme II VisionTek HD5850 [900/1200] + Galaxy GT240 2x4GB G.Skill Ripjaw X [1632 MHz] 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
Intel X25-M 160GB + 3xRAID0 500GB 7200.12 Window 7 Pro 64 Acer H243H + Samsung 226BW XARMOR-U9BL  
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Antec Truepower New 750W Li Lian PC-V2100 [10x120mm fans] Logitech G9 X-Trac Pro 
  hide details  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Technology and Science News
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Technology and Science News › [AB] Some black holes may be older than time