[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 83 KB, 640x480, 1257396678920.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4467914 No.4467914 [Reply] [Original]

What happens at the center of a black hole?

Since we can't observe it, it's unscientific to even mention it.

Am I right?

>> No.4467942

>Since we can't observe it, it's unscientific to even mention it.

It's unscientific to claim that we know with absolute certainty, but we can still postulate and try to reason a guess in the absence of direct observation.

>> No.4467944

>>4467942
Why postulate a guess if it isn't falsifiable?

>> No.4467950
File: 74 KB, 432x432, philosoraptor14.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4467950

>>Since we can't observe it, it's unscientific to even mention it.
>>Am I right?
Absolutely. If you can't see it, it isn't there.

>> No.4467954

>>4467950

I guess quantum mechanics is out the window.

>> No.4467955

>>4467950
Yes because the only means of observation we have discovered is sight.

>> No.4467956

>>4467914
>implying a black hole has a center

>> No.4467957

>>4467944
simply in the pursuit of knowledge. in addition problem solving can be fun, to accurate predict a model of what happens past the event horizon that obeys the laws of the universe

>> No.4467960

>>4467956
>implying he didn't mean "past the event horizon" but is too uneducated to say that

>> No.4467963

>>4467955
I don't want to live on this planet anymore.

>> No.4467971

if you cant observe something then...... we simply say it doesnt exist

>> No.4467998
File: 210 KB, 551x380, tree.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4467998

>> No.4468048

>>4467971
>>can't observe our origins
>>we don't exist

>> No.4468049
File: 497 KB, 312x205, 1321759955570.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4468049

>>4467950
observe =/= see

>> No.4468139

>>4468048
Your sarcastic conclusion should have been that we had no origins because we can observe our existence.

>> No.4468151
File: 115 KB, 450x356, whatchugonnadu.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4468151

Don't come to sci much..
How do you guys feel about pic related?

>> No.4468159

>>4468151
I feel like its something a stupid person would post.

>> No.4468176

>>can't observe God
>> God doesnt exist

>> No.4468188
File: 66 KB, 643x495, 1329567143606.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4468188

>>4467914
Its called an indirect argument dumbass. You can physically observe something than you can use information associated with the subject to come up with theories and even conclusions based on math and laws of physics.

>> No.4468191

>>4468188

OK, that doesn't address his post though, because he said specifically said the *center* of a black hole. Though we can observe some things about the surface, nothing is known past that.

>> No.4468195

>>4468188
I meant
>if you can't physically observe something then..

Sorry was typing with all of my rage at these stupid people who think observing something has to do with sight. Considering the fact that humans can only see the spectrum of light waves.. we are blind in comparison to all the other viewable waves

>> No.4468198

>>4468191
but it does answer his question.. He is saying based on observation alone.. that it is unscientific to mention it. Before black holes were considered science fiction rather than fact. Most information about a black hole comes from observing its surroundings rather than directly. So by indirect observation it is still scientific and plausible to mention it in a scientific manner. Correct me if I'm wrong

>> No.4468199

>>4468195
>raging at my inability to detect sarcasm

>> No.4468207

>>4468199
nope.jpg

>> No.4468212

>>4467914
L2 Inductive vs Deductive reasoning

>> No.4468215

>>4468212
Finally someone else who knows how to science

>> No.4468218

>>4468207
yep.avi

>>4467950
>>4467955
were both sarcastic replies meant to highlight how stupid OP's argument was and you were unable to pick up on said sarcasm which caused much hurt in your butt

>> No.4468224

>>4468198

No, you're still missing the point. If there were ways to indirectly observe this, the CENTER of black hole, then it wouldn't be, as the OP said, unobservable. Indirect observation is still observation.

I don't really know what distinction you're trying to make by saying "physical" observation. What other observation is there? He isn't saying "can't see it, therefore it doesn't exist", he's saying that it is completely unobservable both directly and indirectly, and he is correct. The CENTER of a black hole is completely unobservable.

>> No.4468227

>unscientific to discuss
Yes.
>why discuss it
Because it's fun.

Example: scientist-types often argue over God and various spiritual philosophies and propositions in their spare time. It's unscientific, because we have no physical devices by which we can even begin to measure or observe spiritual elements, but it's intriguing and so it is discussed just because it's something to do.

Same thing with discussing what occurs beyond the EH, with the exception that we do have at least a little bit of measurable data related to it.

>> No.4468237

>>4468224

I mean physically as in something that can be viewed in its natural state. We can not observe them directly no.. but based on information that we do have on black holes we can at least come up with theories its just we cant test them until we have hard facts.. That doesnt make it unscientific.. I'm not arguing the fact that its impossible to observe the event horizon or center of the black hole.. But even observing a black hole is difficult and most of the information is built around observing around it.. by speculation you can come up with ideas.. Im just trying to say in short.. Its not unscientific to not talk about it or even come up with theories behind it.

>> No.4468251

correct me if I'm wrong, but black holes are just objects that are very very dense and have a large mass. So we can postulate that nothing magical happens in them and that there isnt a wormhole or some other shit inside them and they just follow the same principles of other massive spherical objects.

The only differences is that black holes trap light with their gravity and expel hawking radiation.

Furthermore, for anything that isnt directly observable you simply postulate a model, investigate said model so you can make a hypothesis that is failsifiable by using related available data and test it. If wrong, correct it. etc.

>> No.4468265

>>4468251

this
>Furthermore, for anything that isnt directly observable you simply postulate a model, investigate said model so you can make a hypothesis that is failsifiable by using related available data and test it. If wrong, correct it. etc.

I doubt that they would be treated like any other body of gravity.. Considering their vast warp on spacetime and the fact all matter, even light is not able to escape. Also the fact that if you were to travel close enough along the black hole it would slow time because of its mass.. Thats pretty significant and if you were to think it as a normal body of mass then there isn't any need for you to be a scientist considering you are fine on the fact that it would be the same as every other high mass object. There isn't enough evidence to claim that and you shouldnt be so easily satisfied with an answer

>> No.4468340

>>4468265
But, all bodies of mass warp spacetime, and attract other bodies of mass, time dilation is always different from when affected by different bodies of mass, so how is it different from other bodies of mass besides the fact that it is supermassive to the extent that it traps light particles rather than simply particles of mass?

>> No.4468607

>>4468340
I know all bodies warp space time. Even some bend light and both of those have been proven. Its the amount that is impressive. The fact that it traps light is very uncommon. The absolute fastest moving object subdued by a body of mass is something to question. The fact that the mass is present and that there is no dimension. Oh yeah not to mention that anything that comes in counter with one is simply ripped a part.. but it does not add mass or volume to the object. If you collide any other form of matter there is a change in mass or volume. Why would you suggest such a basic answer?

>> No.4469248

>>4467914
Not necessarily. With todays theories based on yesterdays measurement devices it seems to be impossible to observe. I guess the old Greeks could say "well I can't observe any atoms, so you could just take that theory and shove it up your ass", when truth is... we were lacking machinery to discover them at the time.

>> No.4469277

Who says we can't observe it, you can observe gravitational radiation and its affects on body's around it and it's event horizon.