Science on back holes and quantum physics is sketchy at best. they keep testing as they need to figure out if relativity can be broken as they simply can't agree on string theory etc. It's like this. Were newton's laws "disproven" by einstein? the fundamental 3 rules... not really no but its a whole other level of understand. If we stopped at F=M.A where would we be? einstein's relativity predicts certain things so it directs us down a road of research and how the quantum world works is very difficult to rationalise.
You're mixing two very different areas of research. Every new discovery that's happened since, and facts that were known before general relativity have agreed absolutely with the theory. That includes gravitational waves produced by two supermassive black holes orbiting each other closely. General relativity predicted both, but even Einstein wasn't having black holes
My point is simple, and you've even said there Einstien didn't like certain things including quantum mechanics. My point is that if you are on a road of understanding and there are two forks in front of you... one to the real answer and one not. And potentially that fork is marked by general relativity its vital that you test that you are on the right path. Testing a hypothesis cannot stop merely when the first or second test is passed. It only takes on failure to disprove but it can take many many yes this supports the hypothesis tests beofre something which is a "theory" becomes more of an accepted fact your point is why continue testing it. I suppose my point is while they have tests in their heads they continue and each positive reinforces. but one negative could throw the whole thing into doubt.
Vets accuse ministers of 'barefaced lies' never, don't believe it, ministers tell the truth all the time don't they.
seems not. Hunting with dogs, be it hare coursing or fox hunting is pure sport. As is shooting be it pheasant or grouse. Like ok... some of the shooting ends up in a pot as does fishing but badger baiting is just nasty. dig them out and beat them to death etc etc. fox hunting ban is openly flouted in certain places. Its seen as an industry aorund dogs blah blah and they have hunts with a scent dragged. but the reality is i'd say the scuess rate for a fox hunt is quite low and they all **** off home happy and pissed.
Wombats are the only animals whose poop is a cube. Here’s how they do it. The elasticity of wombats’ intestines helps to shape their distinctive poops BY LAUREL HAMERS 5:00PM, NOVEMBER 18, 2018 please log in to view this image WOMBAT SCAT Wombats are stout marsupials, native to Australia. They use their cubelike droppings to mark their territory. MARCO TOMASINI/SHUTTERSTOCK Email Twitter Facebook Reddit Google+ SPONSOR MESSAGE Of all the poops in the world, only wombats’ are shaped like cubes. The varied elasticity of the wombat’s intestines helps the marsupials to sculpt their scat into cubelike nuggets, instead of the round pellets, messy piles or tubular coils made by other mammals, researchers reported November 18 at the American Physical Society Division of Fluid Dynamics meeting in Atlanta. Wombats mark their territories with small piles of scat. Cuboid poops stack better than rounder ones, and don’t roll away as easily. But cubic shapes in nature are very unusual, says mechanical engineer David Hu of Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta. Making and maintaining flat facets and sharp corners takes energy. So it’s surprising that the wombat’s intestines — which look much like those of any other mammal — would create that shape. When an Australian colleague sent Hu and his colleague Patricia Yang the intestines from two roadkill wombats collecting frost in his freezer, “we opened those intestines up like it was Christmas,” Hu says. The intestines were packed with poop, Yang says. In humans, a poop-filled bit of intestine stretches out slightly. In wombats, the intestine stretches to two to three times its regular width to accommodate all of the feces. please log in to view this image POOP PATROL Wombats use their poop as a territory marker. Their cubelike droppings don't roll off of rocks as easily as more cylindrical scat would. PIXELHEAD/SHUTTERSTOCK Yang used skinny balloons — the type that gets sculpted into animals at carnivals — to inflate the intestines and measure their stretchiness in different places. Some regions were more stretchy; some were stiffer. The stiffer regions probably help create the distinct edges on the wombat poops as the waste moves through the gut, Yang proposes. Sculpting the poop into cuboid nuggets appears to be a finishing touch for the wombat digestive tract. Over a typical 30-meter-long wombat intestine, the poops take on distinct edges only in the last meter or so, Hu says. Up to that point, the waste is gradually solidifying as it moves through the gut. The finished turds are especially dry and fibrous, which may help them retain their signature shape when they’re squeezed out, Yang suggests. They can be stacked or rolled like dice, standing up on any of their faces. (She knows. She tried it.) In the wild, wombats deposit their droppings on top of rocks or logs as territory markers, sometimes forming small piles. They seem to prefer to poop in elevated spots, Hu says, but they’re also limited by their stubby legs. To confirm that the elasticity variation really does form the cubes, Yang and Hu are now trying to model the wombat digestive tract using pantyhose. What a sack of ****e
Music to my ears. That fact is actually starting to become mainstream Quantum physics, sadly, is full of bollocks claims too. The downfall of the double slit experiment, as we now know that we actually interfered with the experiments physically (an electron undergoing inelastic scattering is localized at the covered slit) , smashed the wave particle bollocks that plagued science for years causing so much NONSENSE to get published, they implied "consciousness" played a part in results this junk science has persisted for decades I see no one gives a **** about String theory any more either. I was years ahead of the curve, oh and dark matter is still bollocks. Time to reopen my dark matter black holes thread
One for Sis Scientists’ collection of gravitational waves just got a lot bigger Scientists added 4 new sets of spacetime ripples to their inventory BY EMILY CONOVER 1:19PM, DECEMBER 4, 2018 please log in to view this image COUNT ’EM Physicists have now spotted gravitational waves from 10 black hole collisions (two black holes illustrated) and one neutron star merger. Astronomers have now tallied up more gravitational wave sightings than they can count on their fingers. Scientists with the LIGO and Virgo gravitational wave observatories report four new sets of these ripples in spacetime. Those additions bring the total count to 11, the researchers say in a study published December 3 at arXiv.org, marking major progress since the first gravitational wave detection in 2015 (SN: 3/5/16, p. 6). All but one of the 11 sets of waves were stirred up in violent collisions of two black holes. The one remaining detection, reported in October 2017, instead came from the smashup of two stellar corpses called neutron stars (SN: 11/11/17, p. 6). The observations are beginning to reveal how often such waves jiggle the cosmos, and the properties of the shadowy cosmic figures that unleash the ripples. For example, the data hint that black holes may have merged more frequently earlier in the universe’s history, the researchers report in a second study posted December 3 at arXiv.org. The team also concluded that few mergers involve black holes bigger than about 50 times the sun’s mass. “There’s real strong evidence that those [larger] black holes are missing,” says LIGO member Daniel Holz, an astrophysicist at the University of Chicago. Some theoretical physicists had predicted such a dearth of bulky black holes, based on the physics of stellar explosions that produce the cosmic chasms. Record-breaking black holes produced one of the new sets of spacetime shivers. The combined mass of the colliding behemoths was the largest yet spotted, with one black hole weighing in at about 50 times the mass of the sun, and the other at 34 times the sun’s mass. Those ripples also originated farther away than any previous detection: about 9 billion light-years from Earth, give or take a few billion. “It stands out in every possible way,” says physicist Emanuele Berti of Johns Hopkins University, who was not involved with the research. “It’s super interesting.” LIGO’s two detectors — located in Hanford, Wash., and Livingston, La., — and Virgo, near Pisa in Italy, are shuttered for upgrades until next spring. Improvements to the equipment could triple the number of gravitational wave sightings, Holz says. “We’re going to get a whole bunch more.”
Science media always misreports the actual science, signals detected IMPORTANTLY, are INTERPRETED as gravitational waves. You realise these findings rest on computer code, and algorithms, and those are the two prime elements in how signals are interpreted? This matters because LIGO set out, not to examine if something is true, they set out to prove its true, debunking the waves theory was never an option for them, that's not how science should be done. People who read the above think silly thinks like we actually observed waves BICEP 2 team already made this claim, and turns out their findings were an interpretation (for largely the same reasons) Gravitational waves require space time to be real, but space time defies classical physics, and space time has never been observed to bend shape or warp. If the geometry of spacetime was real, all light has to travel that fabric no matter how small the disturbance in it from any mass, including your own body, relativity does not deal in forces, force is irrelevant to the disturbance of geometric space time. We should be able to observed bending light everywhere, yet we cant and dont. Space = a set of coordinates with coordinates within Time = measurement of procession Neither are real physical things in physics, they are mathematical tools oh and btw when they claim they observe something 100 million light years away, the truth is, we can't tell how far away those objects are, again it's interpretation, and something we cannot validate with any other method.
please log in to view this image Visualisation of course, because no one has ever detected a black hole or observed one. What we have are unknown events and instrument wiggles that are interpreted as being caused by gravitational waves. So to swallow this, you have to believe that there is nothing out there other than what we think there is, or something on earth, that could not cause the instruments to "wiggle" or something in between that we can't observe yet The uncertaintly margins are astronomical, yet are left out of the science reporting I wont even get into how they apparently manage to cut through the overpowering many times stronger noise. We just do not understand even nearly enough to know what we are looking at.
Not at all, in fact Einstein didn't buy into black holes or singularities most likely because they are mathematical dead ends Those two fictions were abuses of the mathematics of others, like Schwarzschild, and not Einstein's equations It's Einstein that coupled mass with the energy of a gravitational field (Newton says gravity is an energy from two or more coupled masses), and gravitational waves go against both Newton and Einstein If you consider again Einstein's geometric space time, as a fabric.. as it is interpreted, then gravitational waves should be everywhere simply because space time is rippling, all masses effect the fabric of space time according to Einstein.. no matter how small, because gravity in Einstein's theory is warping of the fabric of space time. Newton's gravity and Einstein's gravity are opposed each other, Einstein's gravity requires no masses, the field is static, no energy until mass is introduced. Newton's gravity does not warp a space time fabric, its mutual attraction. You did tag me black hole doubt is far more mainstream today than it was when I started my Dark Matter thread. I dont mind theories, have at it, its good to, but when they are pushed as some sort of facts thats when I have issue with it. Black holes are 100% theoretical, were constructed by mathematics, were never real or physical, but you wouldn't know that when you hear a hack like de Grasse Tyson or Larry Kruass talk
‘Beyond Weird’ and ‘What Is Real?’ try to make sense of quantum weirdness Two books have different perspectives on the nature of reality BY TOM SIEGFRIED 8:00AM, JANUARY 6, 2019 please log in to view this image QUANTUM MECHANICS This artist’s conception symbolizes the quantum wave function, the key mathematical expression for describing physical systems with quantum mechanics. Interpreting the meaning of quantum mechanics has a long and contentious history, as discussed in two new books: Beyond Weird by Philip Ball and What is Real? by Adam Becker. Quantum physics has earned a reputation as a realm of science beyond human comprehension. It describes a microworld of perplexing, paradoxical phenomena. Its equations imply a multiplicity of possible realities; an observation seems to select one of those possibilities for accessibility to human perception. The rest either disappear, remain hidden or weren’t really there to begin with. Which of those explanations pertains is debated by competing interpretations of the quantum math, pursued in a field of study known as quantum foundations. Numerous quantum interpretations have been proposed — and an even greater number of books have been written about them. Two of the latest such books offer very different perspectives. Philip Ball, in Beyond Weird, argues that much of the famous quantum weirdness lies in the popular descriptions of it, rather than in the math itself. Adam Becker’s What is Real? insists that the traditional “Copenhagen interpretation” is misguided; he extols the work of several physicists who reject it. Becker writes with exuberance and self-assuredness, often focusing on the personal stories of the scientists he discusses. Ball’s approach is less personal but more conversational, although he does not try to evade the sticky technicalities that illustrate and partially explain the quantum mysteries. please log in to view this image Beyond Weird Philip Ball Univ. of Chicago, $26 please log in to view this image What Is Real? Adam Becker Basic Books, $32 Ball contends that many of the analogies and illustrations used by popularizers (and physicists) to convey the weirdness of quantum theory (like a particle being in two places at once) are actually misleading. With less flamboyant phrasing, in Ball’s view, quantum physics can seem less perplexing, even almost understandable. Without fully endorsing it, Ball gives a fairly sound presentation of the Copenhagen interpretation, based on the ideas of the Danish physicist Niels Bohr. Bohr held that quantum reality cannot be described apart from the experiments designed to probe it. A particle has many possible locations before you experimentally observe it; once observed, the location is established and the other possibilities vanish. And an electron will seem to behave as a particle or wave, depending on what sort of experimental apparatus you use to observe it. Bohr expressed these truths by a principle he called complementarity — mutually exclusive concepts (such as wave or particle) are required to explain reality, but both concepts cannot be observed in any individual experiment. Bohr’s elaborations on this idea are famously convoluted and expressed rather obscurely. (When asked what is complementary to truth, Bohr replied, “clarity.”) Bohr’s lack of clarity has led to many misinterpretations of what he meant, and it is those misinterpretations that Becker criticizes, rather than Bohr’s actual views. Becker’s main argument insists that the Copenhagen interpretation embraces the philosophy known as positivism (roughly, nothing unobservable is real, and sensory perceptions are the realities on which science should be based), and then demonstrates positivism’s fallacies. He does a fine job of demolishing positivism. Unfortunately, the Copenhagen interpretation is not positivistic, as its advocates have often pointed out. Bohr’s colleague Werner Heisenberg said so quite clearly: “The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory is in no way positivistic,” he wrote. And the philosopher Henry Folse’s 1985 book on Bohr’s philosophy thoroughly dispelled the mistaken belief that Bohr’s view was positivistic or opposed to the existence of an underlying reality. Becker’s book commits many other more specific errors. He says Heisenberg found his famous uncertainty principle “buried in the mathematics of [Erwin] Schrödinger’s wave mechanics.” But Heisenberg despised wave mechanics and did his work on uncertainty wholly within his own matrix mechanics. Becker claims that physicists Murray Gell-Mann and James Hartle “had long been convinced that the Copenhagen interpretation had to be wrong.” But Gell-Mann and Hartle are on record stating that the Copenhagen view is not wrong, merely limited to special cases and not general enough to tell the whole quantum story. Becker’s book does offer engaging discussions of the physicists who have questioned Bohr’s ideas and proposed alternate ways of interpreting quantum physics. But he allows the opponents to frame Bohr’s position rather than devoting any effort of his own to examining the subtlety and depth of Bohr’s philosophy and arguments. And Becker fails to address the important point that every quantum experiment’s results, no matter how bizarre, are precisely what Bohr would have expected them to be. Becker does not engage deeply with the more recent body of work on quantum foundations, an area where Ball excels. Ball especially favors the perspective on quantum physics offered by the notion of quantum decoherence. Very roughly, the decoherence process dissipates various possible quantum realities into the environment, and only those versions of reality that are robustly recorded in the environment present themselves to observers. It’s of course much more complicated than that, and Ball admirably conveys those complications even at the occasional expense of clarity. Which puts his account closer to the truth. Buy Beyond Weird or What is Real? from Amazon.com. Science News is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program. Please see our FAQ for more details.
