Re: Testing the Laws of Intelligence

On Aug 15, 3:08 am, Zoe <muz...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 06:58:25 -0700, Llanzlan Klazmon

<bill.m.tho...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

snip>

zoe wrote:

black holes are a theory proposed by scientists, but the concept
itself is not science since it cannot be tested. I submit that there
is a difference between practical science and theories proposed by
scientists.

Black holes are not a theory. They are a conclusion or prediction of a
theory namely the general theory of relativity. The theory is now
quite well tested in the solar system and some of our technology (the
GPS system) depends on its' predictions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System#Relativity

from what I see here, the predictions are based on general and special
relativity, not on black holes.

Black holes are also a prediction of relativity.. General relativity
is conceptually a very simple theory. It says that G = T (in
appropriate units). ie the moment of curvature G is equal to the
stress-energy T. The stuff you see that has to be taken into account
in the GPS is a direct consequence of this as are black holes.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geodetic_effect

the geodetic effect in relation to relative corrections to the
earth-moon system's motion is a far cry from demonstrating the
existence of black holes

Not at all. They are both direct consequences of G = T.

.....or of galaxies colliding.

These are copious photographs of galaxies in various states of
collision however this is not really anything to do with what is
beging discussed


...or any of
those far-removed areas where we can only speculate that
general/special relativity effects are not affected by quantum
mechanic effects.

Observations of radiation over a wide range of frequencies indicates
that both quantum mechanics and gravity work the same throughout the
observable universe as they do right here on Earth.

The fact that general relativity is not yet
reconcilable with quantum mechanics should be sufficient to cause us
to be more cautious in conclusions about far-flung areas of the
universe.

Far flung has nothing to do with it. The issues with qm versus gravity
occur at extreme energy densities.



Not well confirmed yet:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame-dragging

Study of the orbits of the stars the center of our galaxy shows that
they are orbiting a non luminous object of approximately 3.7 million
times the mass of our Sun. The evidence demonstrates that this mass is
contained within a radius of less than 6.25 light hours.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~ghezgroup/gc/

You don't have to be able to manipulate things in a lab to test a
theory. It is completely reasonable to just observe what is happening
in nature. That is exactly how Kepler and Newton figured out what was
happening in the solar system.

I submit that a theory that cannot be tested in a lab, but that makes
sense on paper, should still be considered speculation until it can be
supported by hard evidence.

Observation is hard evidence.

String theory being one such interesting
speculation.

String theory I would regard as informed speculation but doesn't have
anything to do with what was being discussed. The article I cited
above which I repeat here:

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~ghezgroup/gc/

Is evidence for a non luminous mass of 3.7 million times the mass of
the Sun packed into a volume smaller than the solar system. If it
looks like a duck and quacks like a duck it might be a duck.


What is happening in the solar system is corroborated by observation
of the movement of our planets, whereas black holes and colliding
galaxies are never observed, just calculated as possibilities on
paper.

Nonsense. We have pictures of all sorts of galaxy collisions. Black
holes are harder to detect but as cited the core of our galaxy
contains something that has properties very much like what we would
conclude to be a black hole.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Daily Report #4738
    ... We propose to observe six exoplanetary system host stars and two ... We improve either companion mass or PN ... Filling the Period Gap for Massive Binaries ... AGNs with Intermediate-mass Black Holes: ...
    (sci.astro.hubble)
  • Daily Report #4727
    ... Imaging of Local Lyman Break Galaxy Analogs: ... properties remarkably similar to high-redshift Lyman Break Galaxies ... terms of size, SFR, surface brightness, mass, metallicity, kinematics, ... AGNs with Intermediate-mass Black Holes: ...
    (sci.astro.hubble)
  • Daily Report #4756
    ... among some of the most massive, least massive, and oldest stars in our ... low mass main sequence stars, cool subdwarf stars, and white dwarfs. ... previously observed under proposals GO-09233, -09969, -10989, and ... AGNs with Intermediate-mass Black Holes: ...
    (sci.astro.hubble)
  • Re: What is the " ACTUAL " length ?
    ... rods in the calorimeter and the center of mass of the collision (and ... particle distribution) have relative motion. ... of a system was when he generated his theory of relativity. ... you compare the length of a rod against markings of a ruler in two ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Comparisons between SR and LET.
    ... >> relationship between the effective masses due to forces and inertial mass. ... Noether's theorem is _specifically_ a theorem based on invariance. ... >I agree that in certain directions relativity is more restrictive. ... mechanical interpretation of identical particles is blatantly incompatible ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)