Black hole maximum size.

[freespace]

Originally Posted by mill

I just came up with an brand new theory.
Lets assume we are in an infinite space an we are just a very small part of it.
And i mean an very small part.
The theory goes like this: We move in this immense space and think our part of space is the only space there is, and expanding within the infinite space.
While we are expanding, somewhere else a blob of space is also expanding (however we just cant see it because it is just too far away to even measure it with anything we have) and there could be billions of spaces as we live in.
I know it is very hard to imagine this and it is just an theory
Some scientist could use this assumption to make an totally different theory and even make it as explainable as the big bang.
But then again who are we to make these theories?
Nobody will ever accept it or even publish it in the fear of beeing ridiculed
If i would try to publish this they would laugh at me because it can never be proven (maybe not even in a billion years).
The earth is flat and the sun goes around us
A lot of scientists have theories that they dont publish because they could loose their job if they do.
Lucky for us we can make theories and assumptions because we wont loose our jobs because of it
Thinking different is not a bad thing and so is asking questions.
Martin.

That is simply not true. That is what crackpots like you to think. For those of us in academia, silly ideas are often the topics of tea room breaks. They are for amusement purposes, and also to stimulate discussion.

Simply put, those who claim such surpression and fear with in the scientific arena are crackpots 9 out of 10. It is how they justify support for their theories, and why real scientists reject their ideas.

[freespace]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

Well Mill you mention the magic word.. theory.

In science it has certain definite requirements.

It requires prediction to be backed up with experiment or prediction.

I say the "theory of inflation" not comply with the requirement.
I say that "string theory"does not comply with the requirement.

String theory is a bit shaky, but the theory of inflation is well supported. It explains the observed distribution of matter, and the background cosmic microwave radiation

Its like if you say "there are too many young people drinking".. all one will notice are the young drunks and seize upon them to say .."there I told you so".

This is why scientific experiments are openly to scrutiny, and why science and academia is big on peer review. You get some one else to examine your conclusions, and decide whether or not they are valid. Scientists are not stupid, nor are they working in secret to uphold some one idea - history has shown this to be simply false. See newton, QM, relativity, etc.

and "string theory" even fails to provide the matters that science itself demands.

No offence, but I do not believe you, or I, or any one here are in a position to criticise string theory. It is simply a subject which would require more mathematical and theoritical training than all of us here put together.

That said, there is a general consensus that string theory is perhaps a dead end. While it doesn't make any predictions yet, because they are still working on explaining existing observations with certain assumptions, doesnt mean its not a worth while investigation. At least it doesn't not try to say its right, unlike intelligent design. String theory is quite aware of its short comings.

Gravity rain predicts that the space craft that have left the solar system will slow (so far they are) stop and speed up to 350 klms approx per second..if they do gravity rain can move from an idea to theory status... but it still will not prove the existence of gravity rain..if you see my drift.

Unless gravity rain theory can prove existing observation as well, its useless. My purple elve theory says there are purple elves who are slowing down the space craft. So if they do, am I right?

NAturally not. My purple elves make no other predictions, nor can does it expain existing observations. It is one thing to contrive a theory to explain a single observation, it is another to set up a theory which explains all existing observations, AND makes predictions for future ones.

I started corresponding with a chap who has come up with an idea almost parallel to the gravity rain idea.. not a fool on any other observation .. clever in math, an engineer, a judge at a science show, and heads a large "Department" .. he wants it kept a secret because he feels that if his employer was to know of his views his job would not be safe.

I am sorry, but bein an engineer, clever at math, a judge at a science show, and heading a large department doesn't make him a scientist. I also don't see why it would lose him his job. We have freedom of speech after all. It seems like a crackpot theory in the making, not offence intended. It is merely a hall makr of crack pots to claim surpression of their ideas. In reality, science surpresses no ideas, it just shows they are wrong.

If working on inflation for example I doubt if opposing views would be welcomed by the folk who gave you the job.

The folks hiring you to invesitgate inflation would welcome contradicting evidence. There is no money to be made on proving inflation. Science loves data which doesn't fit, because its exciting, its progress.

Some say the big bang grew stuff to infinite.. well I say if that is the case explanation at to how many times something must be doubled to reach infinite comes up... well of course something can never be doubled and doubled to reach infinite..something doubled a trillion trillion times will still not approach a fraction of infinite.

The size of the universe is finite. But it can appear to be infinite, in that you never reach "the end". Imagine an ant on a sphere. The ant can travel forever, and never reach the "end" of the sphere. Yet the sphere is definitly finite.

Still most who subscribe to the big bang take the view the Universe is finite.. which then leaves the question ..in what does this finite Universe exist in.. nothing?

No one knows what the universe expands in. It is an unknown, we have not yet found a way to look outside.

I one takes the Universe as approx 14 billion years old what existed for the previous 27 trillion years? the previous 100,000 trillion years...nothing? so although an infinite Universe seems on the face of it unreasonable I say it provides simpler answers than to deal with a finite Universe.

It is meaning to ask what is there before the big bang. Big bang was the birth of space and time. Time didn't exists before the big bang.

Again great minds call for the razor to vet ideas..which is simpler is the problem.
Mind you either proposition is so far beyond human comprehension, we dont , we cant adequately deal with either outcome I feel.

That we don't understand it doesn't mean its not true. How many of you truely understand how your computers work? Yet it still works, and it exists. An intutive understanding is not required for the universe to do what it wants. Just as a fish can not comprehend quantum mechanics, perhaps it is we who can no comprehend the universe.

By the way the focus er is fitted, the worst job of my life, scratches on the focuser and the tube, cut more metal than needed ...nothing followed my perfectionist demands.. however I took some star test shots (static mount just to get a feel) and its brilliant.
So much better.
The old focuser if you moved past the focus and sought to come back it was really starting again because the thing "jumped" ..no such problem now so I can move back and forth with no problem.
Thanks again for that.
alex

Tell me more, I want to eventually get a Crayford for my 102mm ST!

Cheers,
Steve

[mill (Martin)]

Hmm freespace that looks like a personal attack to me and that is not acceptable and against freedom of speech.
Who is the real crackpot here i say?
You or me?
Personal attacks is not very good in this forum, it just shows that you "freespace" believe only one thing and nothing else and that is the only thing you have learned.
I protest about this attack and not respecting other peoples ideas.

[freespace]

Originally Posted by mill

Hmm freespace that looks like a personal attack to me and that is not acceptable and against freedom of speech.
Who is the real crackpot here i say?
You or me?
Personal attacks is not very good in this forum, it just shows that you "freespace" believe only one thing and nothing else and that is the only thing you have learned.
I protest about this attack and not respecting other peoples ideas.

But I didn't say you are a crackpot, or even implied it?

I don't see how I personally attacked you.

By the way, the freedom of speech says I can say what I want. Personal attacks, should they occur, are not against the freedom of speech.

[mill (Martin)]

Originally Posted by freespace

That is simply not true. That is what crackpots like you to think. For those of us in academia, silly ideas are often the topics of tea room breaks. They are for amusement purposes, and also to stimulate discussion.

Simply put, those who claim such surpression and fear with in the scientific arena are crackpots 9 out of 10. It is how they justify support for their theories, and why real scientists reject their ideas.

Freespace the word you is implying it don't you think?

[freespace]

Originally Posted by mill

Freespace the word you is implying it don't you think?

You seem to have misunderstood me. I said

"crackpots like you to think"

not

"crackpot like you think"

As in, crackpots, a 3rd person, would like you, 2nd person, to think there is some sort of conspiracy in academia against "unpopular" ideas.

[mill (Martin)]

I give you an example freespace.

1 Introduction: What is Relativity?

Until the end of the 19th century it was believed that Newton’s three Laws of Motion
and the associated ideas about the properties of space and time provided a basis on
which the motion of matter could be completely understood. However, the formulation
by Maxwell of a unified theory of electromagnetism disrupted this comfortable state of
affairs – the theory was extraordinarily successful, yet at a fundamental level it seemed to
be inconsistent with certain aspects of the Newtonian ideas of space and time. Ultimately,
a radical modification of these latter concepts, and consequently of Newton’s equations
themselves, was found to be necessary. It was Albert Einstein who, by combining the
experimental results and physical arguments of others with his own unique insights, first
formulated the new principles in terms of which space, time, matter and energy were to
be understood. These principles, and their consequences constitute the Special Theory
of Relativity. Later, Einstein was able to further develop this theory, leading to what
is known as the General Theory of Relativity. Amongst other things, this latter theory
is essentially a theory of gravitation. The General Theory will not be dealt with in this
course.

This means that you would call Einstein and Maxwell crackpots because they want to let us believe their "theories"

I gave my own "theory" that nobody had ever written.
Read carefully what theory i have suggested.
Nobody as i know has ever suggested a theory like this.
Btw: this is from
J D Cresser
Department of Physics
Macquarie University

[freespace]

Originally Posted by mill

I give you an example freespace.

1 Introduction: What is Relativity?

Until the end of the 19th century it was believed that Newton’s three Laws of Motion
and the associated ideas about the properties of space and time provided a basis on
which the motion of matter could be completely understood. However, the formulation
by Maxwell of a unified theory of electromagnetism disrupted this comfortable state of
affairs – the theory was extraordinarily successful, yet at a fundamental level it seemed to
be inconsistent with certain aspects of the Newtonian ideas of space and time. Ultimately,
a radical modification of these latter concepts, and consequently of Newton’s equations
themselves, was found to be necessary. It was Albert Einstein who, by combining the
experimental results and physical arguments of others with his own unique insights, first
formulated the new principles in terms of which space, time, matter and energy were to
be understood. These principles, and their consequences constitute the Special Theory
of Relativity. Later, Einstein was able to further develop this theory, leading to what
is known as the General Theory of Relativity. Amongst other things, this latter theory
is essentially a theory of gravitation. The General Theory will not be dealt with in this
course.

This means that you would call Einstein and Maxwell crackpots because they want to let us believe their "theories"

I gave my own "theory" that nobody had ever written.
Read carefully what theory i have suggested.
Nobody as i know has ever suggested a theory like this.
Btw: this is from
J D Cresser
Department of Physics
Macquarie University

They weren't saying they were being surpressed by academia. Newton and Einstein didn't say "Oh I have this great idea, but academia is surpressing me!!! Oh noes!!!"

Academia didn't reject their theories. Academia tested their ideas, and verified them.

If you feel you need to quote some one else, then throw their credentials at me to back up your point of view, I would argue you are arguing from a weak position.

For what its worth, I am from the department of physics, university of sydney, and school of IT, university of sydney. I was on the australian team for informatics, and a former CSIRO scholar.

That is not to say I am right - I would never say I am right simply because of my credentials: arguing from position of authority is not a good strategy. But I do know a few things, I know a crackpot theory when I see one, and I call it as it is.

Please understand, I did not call you a crackpot, or your theory a crackpot theory. I meant to say those who say their theories are surpressed by academia, while promoting their theories are generally crackpots, and their theories crackpot theories. I said nothing about you or your theory.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudos..._pseudoscience for the hallmarks of pseudoscience, some of which are exhibited in this thread.

Cheers,
Steve

[bojan]

Originally Posted by mill

Hi bojan.
First of all i am not saying that Newtons law is not right.
Just saying that that is the only acceptable way to test any sorts of theories is a shortcoming of the human race.
Newtons law could be totally wrong for explaining the universe.
I am not that good in math's but a lot of calculations have been proven wrong and that is why a lot about the universe is just theories.
It is just a challenge to explain the universe in a simple way (not that it is possible to do) and understand it.
This is the reason why people always attack people who question and challenge the reasoning behind some equasions.
For all it is worth i wouldn't be hanging the whole universe on newtons laws.
And take it as gospel, in the end those laws could be proven wrong for explaining the universe.
Ps: Not by me

All I proposed here is to derive the inverse square law from the assumption that the "gravity rain" is the cause of measurable force between the two bodies instead of gravity.
Even relativity equations are identical to inverse square law if the speed of light is postulated as infinite, so Newton's law becomes a special case of the relativistic equations.

I predict that this derivation (inverse square law of force) will not be possible, especially for the case of very high density objects (small black holes, pr example), which will tend to offer very small “screen” for gravity rain, yet the measured force could be very strong.
When I wrote that "this is the only way to prove something", what I meant is the fundamental principle of modern science:
1) you have observation of a certain phenomenon
2) you build the model that describes this phenomenon in mathematical terms. Take the linear movement for example. It is not enough just to say that something is moving. You have to quantify this movement, in terms of traveling certain distance in certain amount of time. There you have the simple model, which describes the movement and exact relationship between time, distance and speed. You can calculate the value of one parameter from the other two.
3) your theory is confirmed as long as your formula gives you the value of one physical quantity within the measurement uncertainties...
4) However, if you find discrepancies which can not be explained with the formula you have, something else is happening here and your theory needs to be either modified or thrown out (say, for example, the resistance of air in the case of rock thrown with the controlled speed towards the other side of the street... in this case the discrepancy between measurement and calculated time of arrival of the rock to the other side will be very small, but measurable.
And you will have to explain this by introducing the air drag... or some other mysterious force :-)
Anybody can agree that the above principles are very much common sense… and that is science, indeed. Only difference between science and our everyday life is that science observes and models phenomena that are in most cases do not pose significant impact on our daily lives so they go unnoticed by most people.

[xelasnave]

Ron perhaps I sound more sceptical than I really am because all that I mean to convey is simply somethings I find difficult to believe, or accept.
I like to think of myself as reasonable and think that I make concessions possibly that go unnoticed because one can focus negatively on the strength of the examples offered.
I think my reply and discussion with Steve must show that I am more looking for answers to things that concern me than to say everything is simply wrong.
When I question the possibility of a black hole I merely traced my knowledge and where I found difficulties in acceptance.
Now Steve offered something new to me..a star passing in front of a black hole.. now although I have not read anything yet about that observation that new piece of information makes me feel more comfortable.
I say I am not easily convinced but really that is perhaps not so.. If someone I respect tells me something I often accept that simply because I think they are not going to let something past that is unreasonable.
I don't think I have said at any point I simply do not believe that a black hole exists but merely questioned if the black hole was born on paper and asks us to accept that there is a point where the laws break down could there not be a proposition that notwithstanding what will happen if that point is reached could in fact that point in fact possibly not be reached.
That was the real question..yet I still await someone to say... no there is no question about that ..the mass we observe in a SN all goes into the collapse so there is no question about the mass present.. from that answer I would say ..fair enough ..just thought I would ask.
I can understand that given my rambling style that key point could go unnoticed.
So I say this in an effort to clarify the position... the theory in the event of the mass required being present in the collapse I see no reason why the black hole would not form.
I don't think my short "Island" example is unreasonable to demonstrate how in a very simple situation the math can be spot on but unknown factors may influence the result.
Calling for DNA would not be an option if one came from a race where they have no idea about reproduction.. If you wanted to tear that example apart you probably could have pointed out that there must be some reproduction process available to our alien group and they would have taken that into account..just because they are mono sexual would not preclude reproduction one would think for their species. So easy to guide people past the obvious I find and I apologize for being so slick guiding the reader past the obvious..
and I would like to think that little demonstration of slickness further supports a proposition that it is so easy not to include all the relevant input in ones calculations.
An advantage of being verbose.. the reader wil get impatient to get to the meat of the paragraph and not see the small subtleties.
alex

[xelasnave]

Sorry I was not near finished that last post went off without me looking at it and certainly not complete so please bear that in mind when reading it..must be full of errors as I was typing very fast.
Anyway where was I.
Hang on more just hit the deck let me catch up.
Anyways Ron I am not as hard on things as I must be coming across...
I simply say this... I had a concern about the alternatives for really the necessary conditions for a black hole creation.. never a problem with the math.. and that the island example was presented to point out a simple case where the math could be right but its application produce an incorrect picture because something vital was left out of the mix.
AND I want to be a good armchair scientist by looking carefully at things.. none of this is an attempt to tear things down but more to get at facts that are probably dumbed down for folk like me.. on the web and in the media generally.
I see myself as basically an honest man and it would be dishonest of me to say I accept something to your face and yet still have doubts in my mind.
Perhaps my approach is too open but what can you do?
alex

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by bojan

Alex,
to shorten the story about "gravity rain", I propose you or your friend show us the derivation of the Newton's law of gravity (inverse square law) from the "Gravity rain" theory.
In other words, if you or your friend manage to show that the Newton's formula follows as a consequence of the the basic assumptions of the "gravity rain" idea, it will be a serious contribution to the discussion.
Otherwise, the theory is simply not correct.
This is the only acceptable way to test any sort of theories today
What do you say? :-)

I absolutely agree.
I would not call him a friend in so far as the correspondence has been really a case of me saying ..hey I think the same as you...and him sending back a lot of stuff about who he is his family and his career, his childhood...well he goes on more than me put it that way.

But the last email I sent I asked him, given he seems to be a maths wizz, I asked him to see if he could come up with a formula, expressing the situation as I / he sees it... specifically limiting the inputs to..mass, leaving out attraction and avoiding the inclusion of time.

I emailed him days ago and a couple of days before that.. he may already given up on me or he may be busy but the way I see it if he is good at math a formula should be a snap.
He did ask me to contribute to his site in an earlier email and review his work .. maybe the fact I did not accept the offer and took time before I replied got him off side, maybe the fact I told him I did not believe in God or go to church got him off side..maybe he is more important than I think and has a busy life..maybe it is only of casual interest and not a priority.
He went to great lenghts to tell me all about himself and I am not sure if he is high on ego or wants to offer credentials as it were..
I did say Ï dont know how good he was at math and maybe that upset him as he had gone to great lenghts to say how it was his first career choice... still trying to work out his motivations etc.

But the point is I have asked for a formula.

Thanks for your interest and suggesting that I ask him to come up with something to take it further.
alex

[xelasnave]

AND the request to leave out time was in the context of its inclusion from the acceleration point of view.
alex

[xelasnave]

Steve I think the effort that went into string theory worthwhile in many respects.. my point was simply to me it seems as the scientific requirements of predictions etc have never been met. AND rightly or wrongly I feel somewhat the same way about inflation but lets put that down to me not understanding it... I was wrong on the trillionth of a second so maybe my views will change.

I do not call gravity rain a theory for the very reason it is not..it is an idea. I learnt early that to call a mere idea a theory brings the reasonable labeling of crackpot. And by the way this chap has made it to the crackpot site..

I have not read the review which I must do.. However I must say if I were to write a book I would approach it from the crack pot line simply as one probably could sell more books than if it were a legitimate scientific publication..which I could never provide.

Many crackpots make millions... take that Japanese Doctor who writes messages of peace on bottles of water..scandalous really but I think you can see the point I make here. But really I cant see my idea going far under my control.
I have similar misgivings about this chap from the USA for various reasons as he did call his idea a theory, which I pointed out was putting him in danger of being called a crack pot.. he changed it to SPUE dynamics.. my outline about him was not to place him on a pedestal but merely to let you all know what I know about him.

And as to the space craft what I said was a little loose but more to offer the sort of step required to take an idea to theory status.

Generally there is nothing I disagree with in your thoughtful reply and thank you for taking the time to post.

I still say I have a problem with the "30 seconds" period of inflation I can not say otherwise..however and hasten to point out my thoughts can never be much more than personal thoughts on the matter which I would like to share as honestly as I can.

Again in respect of the guy in the USA as I replied to Bojan I feel if he is as good at math as the impression he seeks to lead me to a formula should be a simple task.

He may have given up on me for whatever reason but I think I have given him every opportunity to get involved... maybe he thinks I am after his idea..maybe he thinks I want the money and the glory that he feels is rightfully his and is busily writing the book to beat me to the punch I will never deliver... but I assure you Steve I am not carried away by anything he has said.

Generally I don't look up to or down to any one (present company is of course different as I do look up to you guys).

As to the focuser I feel the installation of a good one makes life much better. I have one on the 12 inch and it is great.. it does not matter how good the optics if you have trouble focusing.

I believe it will have a big influence on getting better photos for the reasons I outlined.

Thanks again it is so good to have your input and everyone else's.

AND Ron I think you miss the fine point I try to make re maths and say I am not as sceptical as you must see me.
alex

[freespace]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

Steve I think the effort that went into string theory worthwhile in many respects.. my point was simply to me it seems as the scientific requirements of predictions etc have never been met. AND rightly or wrongly I feel somewhat the same way about inflation but lets put that down to me not understanding it... I was wrong on the trillionth of a second so maybe my views will change.

Inflation predicts our universe is flat - from all evidence, it appears to be the case. Inflation predicts the distribution of matter in space, and again, it appears correct. Predictions don't mean something in the future in the conventional sense. It means if you assume the theory is true, then how would it predict the universe to look? Then you look at the universe you have, and judge how well the theory performed. I would say inflation has pretty good predictive powers.

I do not call gravity rain a theory for the very reason it is not..it is an idea. I learnt early that to call a mere idea a theory brings the reasonable labeling of crackpot. And by the way this chap has made it to the crackpot site..

I have not read the review which I must do.. However I must say if I were to write a book I would approach it from the crack pot line simply as one probably could sell more books than if it were a legitimate scientific publication..which I could never provide.

Many crackpots make millions... take that Japanese Doctor who writes messages of peace on bottles of water..scandalous really but I think you can see the point I make here. But really I cant see my idea going far under my control.
I have similar misgivings about this chap from the USA for various reasons as he did call his idea a theory, which I pointed out was putting him in danger of being called a crack pot.. he changed it to SPUE dynamics.. my outline about him was not to place him on a pedestal but merely to let you all know what I know about him.

And as to the space craft what I said was a little loose but more to offer the sort of step required to take an idea to theory status.

More important than confirmation, is falsification. Any reasonable scientific theory will say "if you do this experiment, then you will see this result, otherwise we are wrong". Now this is important, because a theory is never right, its not-wrong. There is a subtle difference.

I still say I have a problem with the "30 seconds" period of inflation I can not say otherwise..however and hasten to point out my thoughts can never be much more than personal thoughts on the matter which I would like to share as honestly as I can.

Often, it is hard for those of us who study physics too. The universe is larger than most reasonable minds can comprehend. No one can truely appreciate how big space is, how small atoms are, etc. But we can deal with our lack of intutive understanding through mathematics, essentially through logic. In some ways this is why a mathematical background is a good thing for hard physics - otherwise it is very difficult to be sure the results are right

As to the focuser I feel the installation of a good one makes life much better. I have one on the 12 inch and it is great.. it does not matter how good the optics if you have trouble focusing.

I believe it will have a big influence on getting better photos for the reasons I outlined.

Cool, I just find my new scope is a bit sticky focuser wise. Is it hard to fit a crayford, say, to a ST refractor?

Thanks again it is so good to have your input and everyone else's.

My pleasure.

[xelasnave]

"Cool, I just find my new scope is a bit sticky focuser wise. Is it hard to fit a crayford, say, to a ST refractor?"Steve.

I dont know Steve but given the effort I had to fit what was designed for a 10 inch maybe a 12inch reflector to a 6 inch reflector I say anything is possible but I would be more inclined to seek out a specific unit that you could simply swap... there must be units out there that one could swap over without the drama adapting something that was not a simple swap. But Mill provided me with what I saw as a bargain so I had a go.

My curse is no math but a keen interst in science... it means one is working from a very difficult position, as you appreciate.

It is similar to my color blindness and taking a good astro photo.

That is why I appreciate you and others so much for helping me.

As I said earlier someplace my style of comment and sceptical approach is more from my frustration with my inabilities that it is really with the science.

I want to be expert in areas such as General Relativity and of course that will never be possible without the math... but that is my lot.

If I were math capable maybe I could take my ideas re gravity some place or at least satify myself there is simply no merit in the idea.

Thanks again I hope you understand how much I appreciate the time you have taken ...because I really really do.
best wishes
alex

[DobDobDob (Ron)]

Hmnnnnn quite an interesting way to start a Monday morning. Firstly let me say how wonderful it is to have Steve lend a sense of sanity to the thread, I totally and 100% support his views which I must say in my own defence are exactly what I have been saying all along, however Steve said it far more eloquently. My hat's off to you Steve.

Alex, seriously, read your posts again from an outsiders point of view and you would have to agree that you came off looking as a sceptic rather than you seeking answers. I believe of course that you want answers, but the way you sometimes tear down the 'System' is an affront to those people who have dedicated their lives to the pursuit of truth through science.

IMHO anyone who has laboured hard years going through Universities and worked in the field as a professional scientist, gets my unending respect.

Finally: We are all reasonable people here, as Steve stated we look to maths to explain what we as intelligent humans cannot understand. I can tell you that 8 days ago I was privileged to asked the exact same question to one of the worlds leading Scientist alive today Alex Filippenko:
http://www.melitatrips.com/bios/bio_filippenko.html

Quoted here for you:
[16:45] <tailwag> You obviously have a better than usual math ability, can free thinking people make intelligent contributions to cosmology without a basis in mathematics?

[16:45] <Alex> I think it is very difficult to make
[16:46] <Alex> meaningful contributions to cosmology without a
[16:46] <Alex> mathematical background or access to large telescopes; I often
[16:46] <Alex> get letters from people with cosmological theories, but the problem is that
[16:47] <Alex> like special relativity, and the people who write to me have not
[16:47] <Alex> been able to make these sorts of checks themselves. So, I think it is great to
[16:47] <Alex> have cosmology as a hobby or a strong interest, but I regret to say that I've not seen much evidence
[16:48] <Alex> that people without telescopes or a lot of mathematics can contribute.... unlike the case for,
[16:48] <Alex> say, supernovae, or comet hunting, or things like that.

As you can see, without the mathematical background it is hard, but I personally would like to urge everyone to continue to think of the thread matter discussed herein and to marvel at the universe as a whole and everything in it.

Sincerely yours.

[bojan]

Originally Posted by tailwag

As you can see, without the mathematical background it is hard, but I personally would like to urge everyone to continue to think of the thread matter discussed herein and to marvel at the universe as a whole and everything in it.

Sincerely yours.

I would go one step further, and I would say bluntly that it is not only hard, but quite impossible to contribute to the modern theoretical (and practical science as well) science without competent mathematical skills.
Anything less than that is just expressing interest or small talk during the tea break. Of course, we can enjoy it very much , and we do..
Those who think otherwise are just fooling themselves, and nobody else....

[duncan]

If Black Holes are real (my pocket tells me they are!) wouldn't they just continue to grow while there is something for it to feed on?
Just a thought!

[bojan]

Yes they would.. as long as there is stuff to swallow nearby, in unstable orbits around the black hole - because if the orbit is stable, the orbiting object can not fall into a black hole.. IMO.

edit:
The term "stable orbit" means all relativistic effect are taken into account, not just Newtonian mechanics.