Science Assaults The Bible Again: Black Holes and Our Universe

[Procrustes Stretched]

theory.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It's amazing to me that people who run out of ideas in the middle of their own post think they have something significant to say about the Universe.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

It's amazing to me that people who run out of ideas in the middle of their own post think they have something significant to say about the Universe.

It's amazing to me that some people today actually pay attention to what the Bible has to say.

 

[syrenn]

It's amazing to me that people who run out of ideas in the middle of their own post think they have something significant to say about the Universe.

It's amazing to me that some people today actually pay attention to what the Bible has to say.

Some of what it has to say is a good thing. The rest is total shit.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It's amazing to me that people who run out of ideas in the middle of their own post think they have something significant to say about the Universe.

It's amazing to me that some people today actually pay attention to what the Bible has to say.

It amazes me that you think he was talking about the Bible.

 

[marv]

A new theory: beat this one if you can....

The Universe is infinite in both dimension and time. All matter and all energy simply interchange. Stars do it all the time.​

It's only a theory, but so are big bangs, worm holes, black holes, creation, creationism, deities, etc. We're just looking for an explanation that feels warm and fuzzy. In the end, what difference does it make?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

A new theory: beat this one if you can....

The Universe is infinite in both dimension and time. All matter and all energy simply interchange. Stars do it all the time.​

It's only a theory, but so are big bangs, worm holes, black holes, creation, creationism, deities, etc. We're just looking for an explanation that feels warm and fuzzy. In the end, what difference does it make?

Actually, that is not a theory. It is just ignorant spouting, like the OP.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

A new theory: beat this one if you can....

The Universe is infinite in both dimension and time. All matter and all energy simply interchange. Stars do it all the time.​

It's only a theory, but so are big bangs, worm holes, black holes, creation, creationism, deities, etc. We're just looking for an explanation that feels warm and fuzzy. In the end, what difference does it make?

Actually, that is not a theory. It is just ignorant spouting, like the OP.

Nothing ignorant about the OP unless one includes your inability to read and comprehend it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

A new theory: beat this one if you can....

The Universe is infinite in both dimension and time. All matter and all energy simply interchange. Stars do it all the time.​

It's only a theory, but so are big bangs, worm holes, black holes, creation, creationism, deities, etc. We're just looking for an explanation that feels warm and fuzzy. In the end, what difference does it make?

Actually, that is not a theory. It is just ignorant spouting, like the OP.

Nothing ignorant about the OP unless one includes your inability to read and comprehend it.

You insist that just because someone calls something a theory it is a theory? Does that criteria apply to Intelligent Design also, or only to things you think poke holes in other people's beliefs? Supply me with a definition of theory that includes the idea proposed in the OP, but excludes ID, and you might be able to claim I am the one with the problem with reading and comprehension.

 

[syrenn]

You insist that just because someone calls something a theory it is a theory? Does that criteria apply to Intelligent Design also, or only to things you think poke holes in other people's beliefs? Supply me with a definition of theory that includes the idea proposed in the OP, but excludes ID, and you might be able to claim I am the one with the problem with reading and comprehension.

How about the simple answer QW. The very definition of "Theory" is about explaining the unexplained. Both the OP and ID are theory's. Generally it is up the the individual to except or reject whatever theory they believe. A theory is anything anyone wants to think or how they want to explain things. For instance i have many "theory's" about life and death. Are they correct, who knows as they are only theory's.


the·o·ry
 
–noun, plural -ries.
1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3. contemplation or speculation.
4. guess or conjecture.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

When a theory is not a theory: The World According To a Self-Described Windbag

Actually, that is not a theory. It is just ignorant spouting, like the OP.

Nothing ignorant about the OP unless one includes your inability to read and comprehend it.

You insist that just because someone calls something a theory it is a theory? Does that criteria apply to Intelligent Design also, or only to things you think poke holes in other people's beliefs? Supply me with a definition of theory that includes the idea proposed in the OP, but excludes ID, and you might be able to claim I am the one with the problem with reading and comprehension.

National Geographic calls it a "new theory" (According to a mind-bending new theory...) and Windbag screams "not so!"

Every Black Hole Contains Another Universe?

In a recent paper published in the journal Physics Letters B, Indiana University physicist Nikodem Poplawski presents new mathematical models of the spiraling motion of matter falling into a black hole. His equations suggest such wormholes are viable alternatives to the "space-time singularities" that Albert Einstein predicted to be at the centers of black holes.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You insist that just because someone calls something a theory it is a theory? Does that criteria apply to Intelligent Design also, or only to things you think poke holes in other people's beliefs? Supply me with a definition of theory that includes the idea proposed in the OP, but excludes ID, and you might be able to claim I am the one with the problem with reading and comprehension.

How about the simple answer QW. The very definition of "Theory" is about explaining the unexplained. Both the OP and ID are theory's. Generally it is up the the individual to except or reject whatever theory they believe. A theory is anything anyone wants to think or how they want to explain things. For instance i have many "theory's" about life and death. Are they correct, who knows as they are only theory's.


the·o·ry
 
–noun, plural -ries.
1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3. contemplation or speculation.
4. guess or conjecture.

Except that neither of them meet the scientific definition of theory, which is my point. Intelligent design was ruled in court to not meet the definition of theory that science generally uses. I have no problem with anyone calling the idea that balck holes are seperate uinverses a theory, as long as they do not try to claim it assaults the Bible and proves it wrong. If you want to do that, you have to meet the standard that science demands of a theory, not the one you find in a dictionary.

In other words, they meet the 2nd definition, not the first.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

When a theory is not a theory: The World According To a Self-Described Windbag

Nothing ignorant about the OP unless one includes your inability to read and comprehend it.

You insist that just because someone calls something a theory it is a theory? Does that criteria apply to Intelligent Design also, or only to things you think poke holes in other people's beliefs? Supply me with a definition of theory that includes the idea proposed in the OP, but excludes ID, and you might be able to claim I am the one with the problem with reading and comprehension.

National Geographic calls it a "new theory" (According to a mind-bending new theory...) and Windbag screams "not so!"

Every Black Hole Contains Another Universe?

In a recent paper published in the journal Physics Letters B, Indiana University physicist Nikodem Poplawski presents new mathematical models of the spiraling motion of matter falling into a black hole. His equations suggest such wormholes are viable alternatives to the "space-time singularities" that Albert Einstein predicted to be at the centers of black holes.

Actually, the author of this article calls it a theory, not National Geographic.

What do the scientists say?

Nevertheless, the idea is still very speculative, Easson said in an email."Is the idea possible? Yes. Is the scenario likely? I have no idea. But it is certainly an interesting possibility."

What you need to understand is that science uses the word theory to describe a process of learning, and the result of the knowledge gained from that process. This is a possible explanation, and your attempt to use it as proof of anything just makes you look silly.