Science & Space :
The Official GrahamHancock.com forums
For all that is Scientifically related to Cosmology and Space. (NB: Please take discussions about UFOs, possible Alien contact, Crop-Circles, Alien Abductions, Planet-X and Niburu to the ‘Paranormal and Supernatural’ Message Board).
laughin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> OCaptain Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > laughin Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > hi bz,
> > >
> > > isn't it odd at the certainty "scientists"
> have
> > > with this event.
> > > both the "sound of two black holes colliding"
> > > originally detected
> > > and now this burst of gamma radiation,
> > especially
> > > when "no radiation
> > > was expected" since nothing can escape a
> black
> > > hole.
> > >
> > > if it doesn't walk like a duck,
> > > or talk like a duck
> > > maybe it's not a duck
> > > so instead of modifying "how black holes
> work"
> > > to fit the new data
> > > admit something is amiss
> > >
> > > they found something, just not "two black
> holes
> > > colliding"
> >
> >
> > Like what? Using your duck theory, what best
> fits
> > the data?
>
> I don't have anything that fits the data
> the thing is.... neither do they
> so why not just say "here's something interesting
> let's put it in the unknown column for now"
Black Holes do best fit the data. The fact that the observation revealed something unexpected is a confirmation that the science is working. It is imperfect, hence they are having to go back and revisit some assumptions. It doesn't upend black holes existing at all.
-------------------------------------------------------
> OCaptain Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > laughin Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > hi bz,
> > >
> > > isn't it odd at the certainty "scientists"
> have
> > > with this event.
> > > both the "sound of two black holes colliding"
> > > originally detected
> > > and now this burst of gamma radiation,
> > especially
> > > when "no radiation
> > > was expected" since nothing can escape a
> black
> > > hole.
> > >
> > > if it doesn't walk like a duck,
> > > or talk like a duck
> > > maybe it's not a duck
> > > so instead of modifying "how black holes
> work"
> > > to fit the new data
> > > admit something is amiss
> > >
> > > they found something, just not "two black
> holes
> > > colliding"
> >
> >
> > Like what? Using your duck theory, what best
> fits
> > the data?
>
> I don't have anything that fits the data
> the thing is.... neither do they
> so why not just say "here's something interesting
> let's put it in the unknown column for now"
Black Holes do best fit the data. The fact that the observation revealed something unexpected is a confirmation that the science is working. It is imperfect, hence they are having to go back and revisit some assumptions. It doesn't upend black holes existing at all.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.