• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

OT: The F*cking Science Thread

Apologies if this was discussed already, but the potential repercussions from this are huge, if the math ends up holding up:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...ry-wrong-claims-scientist-maths-prove-it.html

Black holes do NOT exist and the Big Bang Theory is wrong, claims scientist - and she has the maths to prove it

Scientist claims she has mathematical proof black holes cannot exist
She said it is impossible for stars to collapse and form a singularity
Professor Laura Mersini-Houghton said she is still in 'shock' from the find
Previously, scientists thought stars much larger than the sun collapsed under their own gravity and formed black holes when they died
During this process they release a type of radiation called Hawking radiation
But new research claims the star would lose too much mass and wouldn't be able to form a black hole
If true, the theory that the universe began as a singularity, followed by the Big Bang, could also be wrong

When a huge star many times the mass of the sun comes to the end of its life it collapses in on itself and forms a singularity - creating a black hole where gravity is so strong that not even light itself can escape.

At least, that’s what we thought.

A scientist has sensationally said that it is impossible for black holes to exist - and she even has mathematical proof to back up her claims.

If true, her research could force physicists to scrap their theories of how the universe began.

She claims that as a star dies, it releases a type of radiation known as Hawking radiation - predicted by Professor Stephen Hawking.

However in this process, Professor Mersini-Houghton believes the star also sheds mass, so much so that it no longer has the density to become a black hole.

Before the black hole can form, she said, the dying star swells and explodes.

The singularity as predicted never forms, and neither does the event horizon - the boundary of the black hole where not even light can escape.

‘I’m still not over the shock,’ said Professor Mersini-Houghton.

‘We’ve been studying this problem for a more than 50 years and this solution gives us a lot to think about.’

Experimental evidence may one day provide physical proof as to whether or not black holes exist in the universe.

But for now, Mersini-Houghton says the mathematics are conclusive.

What’s more, the research could apparently even call into question the veracity of the Big Bang theory.

Most physicists think the universe originated from a singularity that began expanding with the Big Bang about 13.8 billion years ago.

If it is impossible for singularities to exist, however, as partially predicted by Professor Mersini-Houghton, then that theory would also be brought into question.
 
I don't know man...I'm obviously not a physicist, but the amount of quality observations made based on current theory is pretty ****ing long. There would need to be some sort of cosmological force that acts more or less identically to how we believe black holes to behave, but not be a singularity caused by the collapse of super massive objects, for her theory to stand up.

So yeah, I'm going to go ahead and guess that someone is going to find her numbers wrong.
 
That's the most likely result. Still, worth keeping an eye on as it gets discussed further throughout the scientific community.
 
I don't think her math will hold up either (or more likely her assumptions). It is already getting hammered pretty severely.
 
Another thing to note, is that the papers aren't really published yet. They've been published online, but have no been peer reviewed. I don't expect them to make it through peer review.
 
That would speed up production of concrete structures considerably....and be the next logical step towards 3-D printed structures.
 
If you really think about it, the theory of the origin of the universe has some pretty big plot holes in it.

You see, there was nothing, then this nothing exploded and became something.

Maybe one day this accepted theory will be proven wrong. Just like when the earth was flat, the sun revolved around the earth, etc...
 
If you really think about it, the theory of the origin of the universe has some pretty big plot holes in it.

You see, there was nothing, then this nothing exploded and became something.

Maybe one day this accepted theory will be proven wrong. Just like when the earth was flat, the sun revolved around the earth, etc...

What does that have to do with observed data which suggests super massive objects collapse into gravitational singularities at the end of their life cycles?

As for the theory on the origin of the universe, there's actually a few elegant theories that explains what the "nothing" actually was.
 
What does that have to do with observed data which suggests super massive objects collapse into gravitational singularities at the end of their life cycles?

As for the theory on the origin of the universe, there's actually a few elegant theories that explains what the "nothing" actually was.

Black holes do NOT exist and the Big Bang Theory is wrong, claims scientist - and she has the maths to prove it.

I think my point stands. Nobody knows what happened or how it happened. Todays beliefs become tomorrow's jokes.
 
Black holes do NOT exist and the Big Bang Theory is wrong, claims scientist - and she has the maths to prove it.
Cool, call me when she's been peer reviewed and it's still standing. Lots of crazy papers get written every year. This is the typically poor standard of science journalism at work yet again. There's absolutely zero reason to write about a paper that hasn't been peer reviewed.

I think my point stands. Nobody knows what happened or how it happened. Todays beliefs become tomorrow's jokes.

And yesterday's legitimate science often remains tomorrow's science as well. NASA used Newton's math to put the first man on the moon.
 
Black holes do NOT exist and the Big Bang Theory is wrong, claims scientist - and she has the maths to prove it.
Cool, call me when she's been peer reviewed and it's still standing. Lots of crazy papers get written every year. This is the typically poor standard of science journalism at work yet again. There's absolutely zero reason to write about a paper that hasn't been peer reviewed.



And yesterday's legitimate science often remains tomorrow's science as well. NASA used Newton's math to put the first man on the moon.

Is P84 giving posting lessons now?

Send me your # man I can't wait to talk about this.
 
I forgot a backslash...that's all you've got man? I mean, grammar nazi is some gay shit, but format nazi is something entirely worse.


But hey, if you want to believe that all of cosmology is dead wrong, have at it. There has been a lot of good observation that has gone into backing up the theory to this point. It's incomplete, so there's more work to do, but the odds of throwing out pretty rigorously tested cosmological phenomena like black holes and some sort of big bang/expansionary event as the starting point for the physical universe at this point is pretty slim.

As for your examples:

"Science" never really considered the world flat. That was silly wives tale shit. The Greek's had calculated the circumference of the planet within 2% of it's actual size by about 200BC.

The Sun circling the earth had far more to do with church doctrine than it did science. A heliocentric model of the universe was first proposed in the 300-400BC (yeah, it was the Greeks...) But lost out to Ptolemy a few hundred years later because geocentrism jived with the religious fundamentalism of the time.

So what you're describing here has nothing to do with good science being made into a joke later on, but instead popular ideas about science that weren't actually science being shown as ridiculous....when they were already known to be incorrect for just shy of 2000 years or so.
 
Black holes do NOT exist and the Big Bang Theory is wrong, claims scientist - and she has the maths to prove it.

Bitch didnt even get her shit pier reviewed....and she played awfully fast and loose with her math to come to the conclusions she did.

.....but yeah, not peer reviewed? You may as well be telling me about The Batboy you read about in the national enquirer. (they even got his picture as evidence!!)
 
Back
Top