Off Topic Dark Matter and other Astronomy information.

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Status
Not open for further replies.
Albert Einstein thought that a black hole—a collapsed star
so dense that even light could not escape its thrall—
was too preposterous a notion to be real.
Einstein was wrong.


Our star, the sun, will die a quiet death. The sun’s of only average mass, starwise, and after burning through the last of its hydrogen fuel in about five billion years, its outer layers will drift away, and the core will eventually compact to become what’s known as a white dwarf, an Earth-size ember of the cosmos.

For a star ten times as big as the sun, death is far more dramatic. The outer layers are blasted into space in a supernova explosion that, for a couple of weeks, is one of the brightest objects in the universe. The core, meanwhile, is squeezed by gravity into a neutron star, a spinning ball bearing a dozen miles in diameter. A sugar-cube-size fragment of a neutron star would weigh a billion tons on Earth; a neutron star’s gravitational pull is so severe that if you were to drop a marshmallow on it, the impact would generate as much energy as an atom bomb.

But this is nothing compared with the death throes of a star some 20 times the mass of the sun. Detonate a Hiroshima-like bomb every millisecond for the entire life of the universe, and you would still fall short of the energy released in the final moments of a giant-star collapse. The star’s core plunges inward. Temperatures reach 100 billion degrees. The crushing force of gravity is unstoppable. Hunks of iron bigger than Mount Everest are compacted almost instantly into grains of sand. Atoms are shattered into electrons, protons, neutrons. Those minute pieces are pulped into quarks and leptons and gluons. And so on, tinier and tinier, denser and denser, until...

Until no one knows. When trying to explain such a momentous phenomenon, the two major theories governing the workings of the universe—general relativity and quantum mechanics—both go haywire, like dials on an airplane wildly rotating during a tailspin.

The star has become a black hole.

What makes a black hole the darkest chasm in the universe is the velocity needed to escape its gravitational pull. To overcome Earth’s clutches, you must accelerate to about seven miles a second. This is swift—a half dozen times faster than a bullet—but human-built rockets have been achieving escape velocity since 1959. The universal speed limit is 186,282 miles a second, the speed of light. But even that isn’t enough to defeat the pull of a black hole. Therefore whatever’s inside a black hole, even a beam of light, cannot get out. And due to some very odd effects of extreme gravity, it’s impossible to peer in. A black hole is a place exiled from the rest of the universe. The dividing line between the inside and outside of a black hole is called the event horizon. Anything crossing the horizon—a star, a planet, a person—is lost forever.

Albert Einstein, one of the most imaginative thinkers in the history of physics, never believed black holes were real. His formulas allowed for their existence, but nature, he felt, would not permit such objects. Most unnatural to him was the idea that gravity could overwhelm the supposedly mightier forces—electromagnetic, nuclear—and essentially cause the core of an enormous star to vanish from the universe, a cosmic-scale David Copperfield act.

Einstein was hardly alone. In the first half of the 20th century most physicists dismissed the idea that an object could become dense enough to asphyxiate light. To lend it any more credence than one would give the tooth fairy was to risk career suicide.
Still, scientists had wondered about the possibility as far back as the 18th century. English philosopher John Michell mentioned the idea in a report to the Royal Society of London in 1783. French mathematician Pierre-Simon Laplace predicted their existence in a book published in 1796. No one called these superdense curiosities black holes—they were referred to as frozen stars, dark stars, collapsed stars, or Schwarzschild singularities, after the German astronomer who solved many theoretical equations about them. The name “black hole” was first used in 1967, during a talk by American physicist John Wheeler at Columbia University in New York City.

Around the same time there was a radical shift in black hole thinking, due primarily to the invention of new ways of peering into space. Since the dawn of humanity, we’d been restricted to the visible spectrum of light. But in the 1960s x-ray and radio wave telescopes began to be widely used. These allowed astronomers to collect light in wavelengths that cut through the interstellar dust and let us see, as in a hospital x-ray, the interior bones of galaxies.

What scientists found, startlingly, was that at the center of most galaxies—and there are more than 100 billion galaxies in the universe—is a teeming bulge of stars and gas and dust. At the very hub of this chaotic bulge, in virtually every galaxy looked at, including our own Milky Way, is an object so heavy and so compact, with such ferocious gravitational pull, that no matter how you measure it, there is only one possible explanation: It’s a black hole.

These holes are immense. The one at the center of the Milky Way is 4.3 million times as heavy as the sun. A neighboring galaxy, Andromeda, houses one with as much mass as 100 million suns. Other galaxies are thought to contain billion-sun black holes, and some even ten-billion-sun monsters. The holes didn’t begin life this large. They gained weight, as we all do, with each meal. Black hole experts also believe that small holes roam the galactic suburbs, common as backyard deer.
In the course of a single generation of physicists, black holes morphed from near jokes—the reductio ad absurdum of mathematical tinkering—to widely accepted facts. Black holes, it turns out, are utterly common. There are likely trillions of them in the universe.
No one has ever seen a black hole, and no one ever will. There isn’t anything to see. It’s just a blank spot in space—a whole lot of nothing, as physicists like to say. The presence of a hole is deduced by the effect it has on its surroundings. It’s like looking out a window and seeing every treetop bending in one direction. You’d almost certainly be right in assuming that a strong yet invisible wind was blowing.

When you ask the experts how certain we are that black holes are real, the steady answer is 99.9 percent; if there aren’t black holes in the center of most galaxies, there must be something even crazier. But all doubt may be removed in a matter of months. Astronomers are planning to spy on one while it eats.

The black hole at the center of the Milky Way, 26,000 light-years away, is named Sagittarius A*. Sgr A*—that’s the standard abbreviation; its surname is pronounced A-star—is currently a tranquil black hole, a picky eater. Other galaxies contain star-shredding, planet-devouring Godzillas called quasars.

But Sgr A* is preparing to dine. It’s pulling a gas cloud named G2 toward it at about 1,800 miles a second. Within as little as a year G2 will approach the hole’s event horizon. At this point radio telescopes around the world will focus on Sgr A*, and it’s hoped that by synchronizing them to form a planet-size observatory called the Event Horizon Telescope, we will produce an image of a black hole in action. It’s not the hole itself we will see but likely what’s known as the accretion disk, a ring of debris outlining the edge of the hole, the equivalent of crumbs on a tablecloth after a hearty meal. This should be enough to dispel most doubts that black holes exist.
More than merely exist. They may help determine the fabric of the universe. Matter hurtling toward a black hole produces a lot of frictional heat. Slide down a fire pole; your hands get hot. Same with stuff sliding toward a black hole. Black holes also spin—they’re basically deep whirlpools in space—and the combination of friction and spin results in a significant amount of the matter falling toward a black hole, sometimes more than 90 percent, not passing through the event horizon but rather being flung off, like sparks from a sharpening wheel.

This heated matter is channeled into jet streams that hurtle through space, away from the hole at phenomenal velocities, usually just a tick below the speed of light. The jets can extend for millions of light-years, drilling straight through a galaxy. Black holes, in other words, churn up old stars in the galactic center and pipe scalding gases generated in this process to the galaxy’s outer parts. The gas cools, coalesces, and eventually forms new stars, refreshing the galaxy like a fountain of youth.
It’s important to clarify a couple of things about black holes. First is the idea, popularized in science fiction, that black holes are trying to suck us all in. A black hole has no more vacuuming power than a regular star; it just possesses extraordinary grip for its size. If our sun suddenly were to become a black hole—not going to happen, but let’s pretend—it would retain the same mass, yet its diameter would shrink from 865,000 miles to less than four miles. Earth would be dark and cold, but our orbit around the sun wouldn’t change. This black hole sun would exert the same gravitational tug on our planet as the full-size one. Likewise, if the Earth were to become a black hole, it would retain its current weight of more than six sextillion tons (that’s a six followed by 21 zeros) but be shrunk in size to smaller than an eyeball. The moon, though, wouldn’t move.

So black holes don’t suck. Easy. The next topic, time, is way more of a mind bender. Time and black holes have a very strange relationship. Actually time itself—forgetting about black holes for a moment—is an unusual concept. You probably know the phrase “time is relative.” What this means is that time doesn’t move at the same speed for everybody. Time, as Einstein discovered, is affected by gravity. If you place extremely accurate clocks on every floor of a skyscraper, they will all tick at different rates. The clocks on the lower floors—closer to the center of the Earth, where gravity is stronger—will tick a little slower than the ones on the top floors. You never notice this because the variances are fantastically small, a spare billionth of a second here and there. Clocks on global positioning satellites have to be set to tick slightly slower than those on Earth’s surface. If they didn’t, GPS wouldn’t be accurate.
Black holes, with their incredible gravitational pull, are basically time machines. Get on a rocket, travel to Sgr A*. Ease extremely close to the event horizon, but don’t cross it. For every minute you spend there, a thousand years will pass on Earth. It’s hard to believe, but that’s what happens. Gravity trumps time.

And if you do cross the event horizon, then what? A person watching from the outside will not see you fall in. You will appear frozen at the hole’s edge. Frozen for an infinite amount of time.

Though technically not infinite. Nothing lasts forever, not even black holes. Stephen Hawking, the British physicist, proved that black holes leak—the seepage is called Hawking radiation—and given enough time, will evaporate entirely. But we’re talking trillions upon trillions upon many more trillions of years. Long enough so that in the far future, black holes may be the only objects remaining in our universe.

While an outside observer would never see you slip into a black hole, what would happen to you? Sgr A* is so large that its event horizon is about eight million miles from its center. There’s some debate in the physics community about the moment you cross over. It’s possible there exists what’s called a fire wall, and that upon reaching the event horizon, you promptly burn up.

General relativity theory predicts, however, that something else happens when you cross the event horizon: Nothing. You just pass through, unaware that you’re now lost to the rest of the universe. You’re fine. Your watch on your wrist ticks along as usual. It’s often said that black holes are infinitely deep, but this is not true. There is a bottom. You won’t live to see it. Gravity, as you fall, will grow stronger. The pull on your feet, if you’re falling feet first, will be so much greater than the tug on your head that you’ll be stretched until you’re ripped apart. Physicists call this being “spaghettified.”

But pieces of you will reach the bottom. At the center of a black hole is a conundrum called a singularity. To understand a singularity would be one of the greatest scientific breakthroughs in history. You’d first need to invent a new theory—one that went beyond Einstein’s general relativity, which determines the motion of stars and galaxies. And you’d have to surpass quantum mechanics, which predicts what happens to microscopic particles. Both theories are fine approximations of reality, but in a place of extremes, like the interior of a black hole, neither applies.

Singularities are imagined to be extremely tiny. Beyond tiny: Enlarge a singularity a trillion trillion times, and the world’s most powerful microscope wouldn’t come close to seeing it. But something is there, at least in a mathematical sense. Something not just small but also unimaginably heavy. Don’t bother wondering what. The vast majority of physicists say, yes, black holes exist, but they are the ultimate Fort Knox. They’re impenetrable. We will never know what’s inside a singularity.
But a couple of unorthodox thinkers beg to differ. In recent years it’s become increasingly accepted among theoretical physicists that our universe is not all there is. We live, rather, in what’s known as the multiverse—a vast collection of universes, each a separate bubble in the Swiss cheese of reality. This is all highly speculative, but it’s possible that to give birth to a new universe you first need to take a bunch of matter from an existing universe, crunch it down, and seal it off.
Sound familiar? We do know, after all, what became of at least one singularity. Our universe began, 13.8 billion years ago, in a tremendous big bang. The moment before, everything was packed into an infinitesimally small, massively dense speck—a singularity. Perhaps the multiverse works something like an oak tree. Once in a while an acorn is dropped, falls into the ideal soil, and abruptly sprouts. So too with a singularity, the seed of a new universe. And like a sapling oak, we’ll never send a thank-you note to our mother. For the message to escape our universe, it would have to move faster than the speed of light. Again, sound familiar?

The evidence for what could reside in a black hole is compelling. Look to your left, look to your right. Pinch yourself. A black hole might have originated in another universe. But we may be living in it.

It's an interesting piece but there are even misleading elements to it, no one has proven black holes exist, has ever seen one or detected one. That is the scientific fact. So the line Hawking proved Hawking radiation in black holes when black holes have not been proven, they are entirely theoretical. It lends to the view that Black holes are proven to exist. This is true for so many pieces on line and quite a bit of stuff, even some on the Princeton Astrophysics website is actually incorrect and proven to be wrong in labs yet there it is for people to read.

As for singularities, they are generally accepted not to exist and there is good reason, special relativity does not allow for infinite mass with infinite density.
Another black hole question is why the maths says the escape velocity of a black hole is equal to the speed of light in a vacuum. But black hole theory says not even light can escape so.. wtf.

The sun's model as we currently believe it to be looks to be shot down. Lack of Neutrinos, photosphere 6,000 degrees, yet further out, 10,000 degrees and further out still 1,000,000 degrees. This really does suggest the hat does not come form the core, fusion does not work like that at all. The heat comes from the core.
And the movement within the sun is not enough to transfer that energy to the surface now it seems. 20-100 times less convection.

For me dark matter never made sense. it's too convenient and only backed by math and a lensing affect that could literally be anything we've not thought of yet, funnily enough discovered by the same japanese guy who got a nobel for figuring out only a third of the neutrinos the sun should have been emitting were reaching earth.

New studies suggest redshift which we use to determine distance might actually be detecting age rather than distance which is massive if true, out goes big bang, inflation theory and a lot of other stuff.

"Stephen Hawking, the British physicist, proved that black holes leak—the seepage is called Hawking radiation—and given enough time, will evaporate entirely."
This is misleading, no one has proven black holes exist, never seen one or detected one. That's scientific fact. This gives the impression he has proven black holes exist, of which he certainly has not.
 
Just a little lunchtime read for you all <ok> it makes our lives feel a bit insignificant in the grand scheme of the universe/(s)!

Will all these black holes not bend time and space that much that, eventually, after having hovered up all the matter in universe they'll eventually all join up - perhaps causing the singularity to burst in a, er, big bang? :huh:
 
Don`t worry Sisu, Nibiru is due to pass this way in the near future and then the Nephilim will come down and make all this obvious to us. I Recommend you watch Ancient Aliens, there are some very convincing arguments on there (including photos of cave drawings and carvings depicting helicopters and astronaughts) which prove todays accepted science is totelly wrong and needs a complete rethink.
 
Will all these black holes not bend time and space that much that, eventually, after having hovered up all the matter in universe they'll eventually all join up - perhaps causing the singularity to burst in a, er, big bang? :huh:

I often wonder what caused the big bang in a total void (nothing existed before time) and where did this void exist, or to put it another way what is outside the universe that could have caused it to be borne.
 
I often wonder what caused the big bang in a total void (nothing existed before time) and where did this void exist, or to put it another way what is outside the universe that could have caused it to be borne.

Or is it all really a fable constructed to obscure our misunderstandings? Is astrophysics a conspiracy? Who knows ;)
 
Or is it all really a fable constructed to obscure our misunderstandings? Is astrophysics a conspiracy? Who knows ;)

Dave it's not conspiracy, it's just human nature and astrophysics is a dogma. to question the mainstream view is now heresy.

What happens when those that peer review others are judging their peers by their own beliefs, as in how can a physicists get a paper published on black holes not existing if the career of the peer reviewer is totally based on such assumptions.? Gal-Yam is a perfect example of this at the Weismann institute in Israel. He's in with the Hawking gang they all love each others work, how the **** are new ideas meant to get any traction if it goes against what they believe.

Or take you, anything you don't agree with is crap. Imagine you were peer reviewing stuff <yikes>
 
Dave, we have learnt a lot but know **** all!


This is true. To think that in our wee cameo of a few hundred years have igured out the universe even it's beginnings is insane.

I am of the assumption that science has no ****ing idea what happened 1 second after a big bang that probably never happened.

Red shift shows Universe age not distance goes the new theory. IN that case there was no big bang, such a ****ing stupid idea anyway, something appearing out of nothing, more magic like dark matter if you ask me, infinite density is more magic to make equations work.
 
Sounds right to me......

Yes that's how it currently goes. But..

This is born out of inflation theory which is borne of big bang theory which is born of redshift.

Age is not equal to distance btw even in redshift, red is moving away and the more red the further it is, same with blue, actually has nothing to do with age if the universe is not actually expanding, it's all based on that assumption.

So in a literal sense age is not actually distance, you need to add expansion theory for that to be assumed.

Redshift is being questioned as new quasars are shown to be so much closer than previously thought, born of newer active galaxies, this throws redshift out the window as these quasars were deemed to be the oldest things in the galaxy
 
Halton Arp worked on this, namely quasars being closer to galaxies than thought even though redshift says they were billions of light years distant from each other.

I guess the question is, and it's a a biggie, is redshift actually telling us distance or age, are not the same. Age and Distance have been made synonymous with expansion and big bang theory. But the actual reality could be that the quasar is just a lot older than a nearby galaxy, maybe the quasars have something to do with galaxy evolution or certain galaxy type evolution, no idea tbh

My biggest issue with our predictions is our window of reference, it is a split second in galactic timescales. In that context we should never assume we are correct with theoretical theory. We could be wrong about almost everything and to not think in that way causes something to be lost in science,a critical objectivity.

Those that are objective, like those in Electric Universe theory are almost accused of heresy. Astrophysics still does not account for the work of Plasma cosmology, a science that explains almost everything about the sun we can see, explains quasars even the sifting from x-ray and radio emissions. How stars actually form, not from accretion discs as thought. In millions of years less too and not in hot spots but along filaments of plasma in groups and form with 20% of the mass required by gravitational theory.

The problem for electric Universe is mainly it theorises that black holes Neutron stars big bang inflation dark matter, are all wrong. Given that the careers of all peers reviewers are built upon those very things EU theory says are not real, how can there be effective and objective peer review.
 
Dave it's not conspiracy, it's just human nature and astrophysics is a dogma. to question the mainstream view is now heresy.

What happens when those that peer review others are judging their peers by their own beliefs, as in how can a physicists get a paper published on black holes not existing if the career of the peer reviewer is totally based on such assumptions.? Gal-Yam is a perfect example of this at the Weismann institute in Israel. He's in with the Hawking gang they all love each others work, how the **** are new ideas meant to get any traction if it goes against what they believe.

Or take you, anything you don't agree with is crap. Imagine you were peer reviewing stuff <yikes>

Then you know very little about academic research, publication and the process of peer review.

Academic papers are written at the end or at specific points in the research process. They describe the aims and objectives of the research and most importantly the terms of reference which describes the limits within which the research operates. The paper will then describe the methodology of the research and the analytical processes to which the findings will be subjected. It will then reveal the findings and finally come to some conclusions. Prior to publication the paper will then be subjected to peer review. The reviewers are NOT there to express their own opinions but to comment upon the exactness and appropriateness of the research and how the results are related to the conclusions.

As with all human processes, attitudes can influence how and where new research is recieved - that merely is a fact of life. However, I can assure you that there are many ways to to get the work out there.

As for may own involvement then I can tell you that I have peer reviewed work. Likewise I have had my own work (and that conducted with others) reviewed. I can assure you that the publishing board would not accept such a review that was merely a prejudiced attack without substance. Now you can believe that or not I don't care but it is the truth.
 
Dave it's not conspiracy, it's just human nature and astrophysics is a dogma. to question the mainstream view is now heresy.

What happens when those that peer review others are judging their peers by their own beliefs, as in how can a physicists get a paper published on black holes not existing if the career of the peer reviewer is totally based on such assumptions.? Gal-Yam is a perfect example of this at the Weismann institute in Israel. He's in with the Hawking gang they all love each others work, how the **** are new ideas meant to get any traction if it goes against what they believe.

Or take you, anything you don't agree with is crap. Imagine you were peer reviewing stuff <yikes>

Science has become the new religion? As to your next point, at some stage we must address, even if we're nowhere near to understanding how. that something came out of nothing. If you put this universe inside a box and say that something created this universe (possible) then by that logic - something created the something that created, and so forth. The point that this known universe goes back into a singularity has been established (orthodox?) since Hubble.

My late dad, however, always doubted this and was a follower of Hoyle and his steady state hypothesis, arguing that the same expansion would occur if matter (dark?) was being created throughout the cosmos. Two problems though - we're still talking of something being created from nothing with no explanation, and the mathematics, according to Hawking and Penrose, is bollocks.
 
Science has become the new religion? As to your next point, at some stage we must address, even if we're nowhere near to understanding how. that something came out of nothing. If you put this universe inside a box and say that something created this universe (possible) then by that logic - something created the something that created, and so forth. The point that this known universe goes back into a singularity has been established (orthodox?) since Hubble.

My late dad, however, always doubted this and was a follower of Hoyle and his steady state hypothesis, arguing that the same expansion would occur if matter (dark?) was being created throughout the cosmos. Two problems though - we're still talking of something being created from nothing with no explanation, and the mathematics, according to Hawking and Penrose, is bollocks.

To respond to your first point, what presently passes for science has become a religion in its own right for some. It is interesting to see that as man attempts to rely upon his own understanding to test the boundaries of knowledge, the more he questions the basis of that understanding. The only true difference is that whilst Christians can identify what they put their trust (faith) in non-believers only have themselves to fall back upon.
 
To respond to your first point, what presently passes for science has become a religion in its own right for some. It is interesting to see that as man attempts to rely upon his own understanding to test the boundaries of knowledge, the more he questions the basis of that understanding. The only true difference is that whilst Christians can identify what they put their trust (faith) in non-believers only have themselves to fall back upon.

Do the other religions count as non-believers?
 
Do the other religions count as non-believers?

As those who follow other religions do not believe in the same things as Christians they are by definition non-believers in Christian terms. Now I do not have a comprehensive enough knowledge of other religions to know if they would support my contention. So I can only suggest that you ask them.
 
Science has become the new religion? As to your next point, at some stage we must address, even if we're nowhere near to understanding how. that something came out of nothing. If you put this universe inside a box and say that something created this universe (possible) then by that logic - something created the something that created, and so forth. The point that this known universe goes back into a singularity has been established (orthodox?) since Hubble.

My late dad, however, always doubted this and was a follower of Hoyle and his steady state hypothesis, arguing that the same expansion would occur if matter (dark?) was being created throughout the cosmos. Two problems though - we're still talking of something being created from nothing with no explanation, and the mathematics, according to Hawking and Penrose, is bollocks.

Yet, dogma, current accepted astrophysics theory is a dogma. Also you are not in for much of a career going against this dogma. No Discovery Channel shows and the like<laugh> Papers won't be published and the like.

Something does not come out of nothing you are right there. This is where common sense deviates from theorists imo. It's magical. Someone's ideas and yet so many people just assume the big bang is part of history, a fact. It is nothing of the sort, inflation is not proven.
Singularities in black holes are being dropped, they can't exist according to physics.

What you are not accounting for and that's interpretation of data. In order to make data fit current models the most outlandish stuff is coming out in the media.
Now apparently Bicep 2 has detected gravitational waves traveling through space, ripples in space time from the big bang. <laugh> Hilarious, gravity waves traveling though space, nothing but imagination in the mind of those interpreting the data, alternate theories are much more logical and do not require magical matter creation out of nothing.

What about the speed of light nonsense that has trapped everyone into this Einstein theories. The speed of light is not and never was the limit. Quantum entanglement shows that on a sub atomic level information can travel billions of time faster than light, so here we have more contradictions in two pieces of work accepted as right. Yet another, science is full of them and they are ignored.

Physicists for a long time have been saying Redshift is a measure of a galaxies youthfulness and blueshift is a measure of age of galaxies, this is not one or two, this is picking up traction in physics. Halton Arp raised this quite some years ago, of course no one listened.
If this is the case then inflation and big bang theories just got raped. If those are debunked then we have to question everything from black holes to gravity and everything we think about anything in the universe.

Current solar theory is crumbling fast as they fail to find the answers for the questions the data is asking. Plasma physics has it nailed down but no one seems to be aware.

"If you put this universe inside a box and say that something created this universe (possible) then by that logic - something created the something that created, and so forth"

That's the thing, and I see the logic you put forward but that's besides the point, my position is that is is all completely imaginary, we have no idea what the universe is how big it is how old it is where it came from and anything else you might dream up. none of those have been answered

What grinds my gears is that a lot of this stuff gets put out in the media as proven facts, they are nothing of the sort. Almost all of it is theory. Black holes dark matter bark energy neutron stars pulsars big bang inflation solar fusion, all of that is best guess theory, every last shred. Meanwhile alternate scientific views are ignored and or discarded.
 
Science has become the new religion?.

And, Dogma is a set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true. Dogma has nothing to do with religion lad but religion can be dogmatic<doh> I don't care if Jay and Silent Bob disagree :D

It requires that we adjust the way we look at the cosmos. We tend to overlook the most important features of our stellar environment, without which it makes far less sense. The universe is an all-encompassing electro-magnetic field with some things in it. That&#8217;s a pretty simplistic way of describing the magnificent complexity that surrounds and sustains us, but at least it gets the priorities right.
~Hilton Ratcliffe, The Virtue of Heresy &#8211; Confessions of a Dissident Astronomer

Also a good quote
When presented as fact, theoretical guesswork and assumption can only obstruct scientific progress. Unsupported interpretations then hold the theorist&#8217;s attention to a narrow field of view. A broader horizon of falsifying data and emerging possibilities can then remain hidden for decades.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.