Just a thought

ONE – It’s good to use observable and verifiable facts to prove theories rather than using theories to ‘prove’ facts… It very popular in 2020 in particular to trot out ‘facts’ that are based on theories – such as “we’re all going to die of global warming in 8 years (was 10)”. Facts based on theories are the stock in trade of the progressive left.

TWO – When you hire scientists and pay them a lot of money to come up with theories (that then become progressive facts), it should be no surprise when these scientific whores pop out theories that agree with the people who are paying for them.

It’s not unlike attending university. You have a communist liberal arts professor grading your class there at Yale. You will get much better grades quoting Karl Marx and Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (also known as Lenin) in your papers than you will by quoting Donald Trump. Truth has little to do with it.

 

Do Black Holes Matter?

Telescopes have captured the rare light flash from a dying star as it was ripped apart by a supermassive black hole. …more here.

When an unlucky star wanders too close to a supermassive black hole in the center of a galaxy, the extreme gravitational pull of the black hole shreds the star into thin streams of material.

 

Hawking Radiation (matter and black holes)

Scientists working on understanding how quantum theory and gravity fit together have spent a lot of energy trying to understand both it and its consequences.  The most drastic consequence is that a black hole, left alone and unfed, should radiate away its mass (Hawking Radiation), slowly at first but then faster and faster as it shrinks, finally dying in a blaze of glory like a hydrogen bomb.  But the total lifetime of a black hole of M solar masses works out to be:

                     1071 M3 seconds

That essentially means that you have time to get up, make a sandwich, bring it back to eat it in front of your computer without concerns of the black hole that holds the Milky Way Galaxy together vanishing in the mean time.

 

Roger Penrose and the Big Bang Cycle

Penrose’s theory, dubbed “conformal cyclic cosmology” (CCC) goes against the current Big Bang dogma. He said he discovered six “warm” sky points (called “Hawking Points”) which are all about eight times larger than the diameter of the Moon. The late Professor Stephen Hawking, whose name they bear, proposed that black holes “leak” radiation and would eventually evaporate. As this might take longer than the age of the universe we are currently inhabiting (13.77 billion years old), spotting such holes is very unlikely.

Penrose (89), who collaborated with Hawking, thinks that we are, in fact, able to observe “dead” black holes left by previous universes or “aeons”. If proven correct, this would also validate Hawking’s theories.

The physicist’s 2020 paper, published in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, offers evidence of “anomalous circular spots” in the cosmic microwave background (CMB) that have raised temperatures. The data revealing the spots came from Planck 70 GHz satellite and was confirmed by up to 10,000 simulations.

If the theory interests you, follow the links for more information.

25 COMMENTS

  1. Cosmology is nifty, but I’m not sure about any practical application. As a science goes, it’s a lot like a philosophy.

    -Kle.

    • Yes, the cosmology people comes up with some nifty photos from time to time, but I agree with Kle; your contribution to the betterment of the world as a cosmologist is equal to the contribution of an art history grad.

      • The art history major isn’t a total loss, you do need someone at the other end of the drive-thru speaker. (yeah, old, but still funny)

        • Science is rarely linear. For example, the science that boosts a satellite into orbit and then returns the booster to the very spot on the pad where it took off is a ballet of many disciplines that mankind benefits from.

          I’m not mocking Stephen Hawking or Roger Penrose or anyone else.

          I am saying that there are far too many scientists these days who have whored themselves to ‘anticipated results’. It’s always better to allow the research to take you where it goes and then build on that. But there’s not always money in it and scientists need to eat just like anyone else.

        • Camp: yes, that old gag still has legs. The way I heard it told was “what question do you always get from an art history grad? Answer: ‘do you want fries with that?” Although the drive-through speaker slant is pretty funny too. Apt, but funny.

          And LL: yeah, yeah. Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose get lots of laughs, too.

  2. This stuff is fascinating and the pictures are incredible…God’s hand to keep us interested. Assuming I’m not in “The Basement” once I hop off this spinning world into the next, all will be revealed. Altho, maybe at that point I won’t care.

    Your two axioms point to “not following the science”…most of these science experts can no longer be trusted. Many moons ago I completed a fairly rigorous Engineering Associates program at a branch Penn State campus while working locally in the field…decided to go back to school to expand my degree so drove up to Happy Valley to meet with the Eng. Dean. He left me sit there for an hour past my appointment and the subsequent conversation was all about money from non-residents and their selection preference was bent that direction. Discovered right then and there, as an Alum, Universities were more corporate than corporations. Never looked back. Mike Rowe is correct, despite the real need for STEM students, the Trades are where it’s at these days.

    • I am working on a project at the moment that requires that an attorney be hired to do my bidding in a place in Washington DC. The attorney is simply the face of a small piece of the project but I need a law license. Which means that the attorney (not selected at present) must be cheap and must do precisely what they are told. I’m not hiring the attorney to be erudite, clever, or to do anything but to act as instructed, to file paperwork, etc. I’m hiring a DC law license.

      A lot of scientists are being put in the same position as that (starving) lawyer. PhD’s for hire are not a cliche anymore than lawyers for hire.

      There are many tens of thousands of lawyers graduating every year into an industry that is saturated and a lot of them have great difficulty managing their staggering student debt along with finding work. Many scientists are in the same boat. So they do as they are told by the person who hired them. Thus there are scientists who claim that in 8 years now (was 10) that we will all die from global warming and democrat politicians claim that they are following the science.

      • “For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his soul?”

        For our evening decompression last night my wife – with no prompting from me, honest – picked Gladiator (major bride points). Maximus’ battle cry, “Strength & Honor”, also implies picking truth over lie, integrity over cheat, moral over immoral, humility over self, greater good over unbridled ambition…etc.

        What I am hearing from our elected officials is a massive chasm between the fool vs. the wise, the cheat vs. the honest, and the disrespectful vs the gracious. The lines are clear. This Biden deal (what the informed already knew yet could not fully prove, is now unequivocal) will be the Dem’s undoing, regardless the social media giants censuring free speech and factual truth in their obvious election tampering. Biden is done.

        Let’s see the Dem’s squirm out of this one as they do damage control. They are imploding 2.5 weeks before a Presidential election yet think they are winning. God has them blinded.

        One can only deny truth and facts so long before it comes around to bite you. The simple answer is to be truthful.

  3. I quit being a fan of Hawking many years ago. I don’t remember what he said, but my reactions was, “I don’t think he’s as smart as he, or anyone else, thinks he is.” I’m sure it was probably due to his atheism. I don’t bandy that opinion around in polite company since I know the reaction will be that I am not smart enough to have an opinion of Hawking.

    You may want to acquire a copy of The Devil and Karl Marx: Communism’s Long March of Death, Deception, and Infiltration, newly released by Paul Kengor. It kept my weary bod up reading until 1:00 am last night. Excellent!!! I’m already learned a whole passel of new stuff.
    https://amzn.to/350qUzt
    Just in case amazon is spying – that’s an affiliate link, LL

    • We don’t have a handy black hole to experiment with and neither did Hawking. His THEORIES about black hole decay and Hawking radiation are postulates, with some facts that have been gleaned to support the theory, in this case, of black hole display.

      Even the most strident Christians have different views of the way doctrine is applied. You are a Catholic Christian and would be at odds to different degrees with say, a Coptic Christian in Egypt, A Maronite Christian priest in Lebanon, the Pope in Rome (also a Catholic), the Orthodox Patriarch in Istambul, the Mormon Prophet in Salt Lake City and An eminent Southern Baptist.

      Because of the differences between doctrine and dogma, it falls very much to the individual. Actual science is a lot more concrete because 2+2=4 and that works until we’re at the quantum level where 2+2=4 is a bit fuzzier. So Hawking believed what he believed and now, where he is, he may have revised his theory.

        • What about Bartholomew 1 of Constantinople (born Dimitrios Arhondonis)? Is he Catholic? Or Justin Welby, Archbishop of Canterbury?

          Yes, I know, these questions border on the rhetorical and this is NOT the Sunday Sermonette, where we delve here on the blog. Sometimes it comes down to the age old question of “how many angles can dance on the head of a pin” Bartholomew 1 might say 5, the Pope in Rome might assert that the number is 6 and Welby… well, the former oil executive might say there aren’t any angels and the Dalai Lama might assert that there is no pin (for all I know. I don’t want to put words into his mouth).

          But Hawking knows… Penrose is almost 100 and he will know soon.

          • The current Pope is about as Catholic as Pelosi or Biden. If this was any time before the 16th Century, there’d be a war in Italy and in Rome over the Holy See.

            The religion that Pope Francis worships is progressivism, in the form of Marxism/Socialism with a side order of Social Justice and Islamic Suckupness.

            Unlike the previous 2 popes, who are, living or dead, still Catholic.

        • Hawking was a smart guy, and he had the drive to keep getting work done, even after life decided to turn him into Davros.

          OTOH, by all accounts he was a total jerk to his lady friends, and that coasts him a lot of points with me.
          -Kle.

  4. The top illustration puts me in mind of some of William Blake’s illustrations.
    There’s your English and Art History (plus semi-insane yet brilliant mysticism) rolled into one. There’s nothing wrong with either, and I’d prefer to live in a society where there are people specializing in those disciplines. What we don’t need is thousands of them churned out yearly with nominal degrees supposedly in those areas, but heads empty of everything except political indoctrination. (And the Frankfurt School is hardly German, despite the name.)

    What we don’t need are any departments of “X Studies”.

    As to mercenary scientists, H. Beam Piper wrote at least one short story about modern-day Condottiere scientists who did contract research (and weapons design) for the highest bidder (consistent with the limitation of who the Dr (PhD) Condottiere captain was willing to work for). NOT the same thing as Big Tobacco’s tame scientists. It’s a good read, though the title escapes me at present.

    • If you graduate with a doctorate in grievance studies or the like, I just take the leap that you’re a Marxist. Are there any who aren’t?

      There are true geniuses (not all of them graduates of Satan’s Vatican or Yale’s Bonesmen) who push the boundaries of the possible, and engage in generating novel and revolutionary concepts that have nothing to do with Marx. I’m with you, they become national treasures, despite or perhaps because of their eccentric views. Most of them are emotionally fragile and I’ve met people like that. Some aren’t the least bit fragile. I med Edward Teller in the mid 90’s and despite the wishes of his handlers, he took a liking to me and we ended up having dinner together in Palm Springs. A most interesting man and a most uncommon genius – and not the least big fragile.

  5. One of the Labs I worked in while I was at Hughes built the radiometers for the first COBE satellite. The newer satellites have detectors with vastly improved sensitivity and resolution, but we had to start somewhere.

  6. Ah… the modern (un)scientific method. Even Hawking bordered on confusing ‘Hypothesis’ with ‘Theory.’ Hawking had a lot of hypotheses, some of them became theories.

    Hypothesis – ‘I think x is y.’

    Theory – ‘So far, all examples of x that I have checked using a reproducible method have proven to be y, so I theorize that all other untested xs are ys.’

    Big difference. Like the ‘Drake Theory’ that proposes there are so many intelligent species out there due to so many stars with so many planets and so many of those planets are within the habitable zone, so many that are in the habitable zone are rocky planets, so many rocky planets have water and atmosphere, and so many that have water and atmosphere are similar to Earth and and and and…

    No. The ‘Drake Theory’ should be called the ‘Drake Hypothesis’ at the most because, at this time, there is no way to even check, with any degree of reproducibility, on the basic assumption of ‘Life grows on planets with these conditions.’

    Modern ‘science,’ including the greats like Hawking, is more concerned with calling a hypothesis a theory as hypotheses are expensive to make become theories, and it’s so much easier to support whatever you believe if you don’t have to actually, you know, reproduce in a scientific manner, a reproducible result that actually makes sense.

    It may seem like quibbling over definitions of words, but definitions matter. Precise definitions of words are what makes real science provable, reproducible, and sensible.

    If you want wishy-washy meaning, then call it ‘Art.’

    Science – objective meanings, words, concepts. Science is a ‘hard’ field because X is X.

    Art – subjective meanings, words, concepts. Art is a ‘soft’ field because X is whatever you want X to be.

    As to Hawking… Great mind. Thought up lots of neat stuff. Some of it provable. Some of it potentially a glitch in his matrix caused by smelling his own farts. But his pomposity and self egoism pretty much rivaled that other science-richard, Galileo.

    Prove it. If it can’t be proven, then it isn’t theoretical, it is hypothetical at the most, possibly even just mushy wordings…

    I get a lot of razzing over my (above listed) concepts of science, hypothesis and theory, but I grew up around real scientists and real scientist-engineers, who would jump down my throat with both boots (in a relatively nice way) if I said something stupid as ‘fact’ without being able to back up my mouth with facts. Which is actually a pretty darned neat way of growing up.

    And some of these great minds were, like many of the great minds over the years, highly religious, and did not see any issue of being scientific and being religious.

      • Poul Anderson’s Falstaffian hero/rogue Nicholas Van Rijn says: “I stick with Mozart, by damn. I always hoped I would maybe understand Bach some day, before I die, old Johann Sebastian who talked with God in mathematics. But I have not the brains though, in this old dumb head. So maybe I ask only one more chance to listen at Eine Kleine Nachtmusik.”

  7. I hate to correct anyone bearing the noble name ‘Larry’, but I believe you have a typo above. Instead of “it should be no surprise when these scientific whores pop out theories that agree with the people who are paying for them,” I’m pretty sure you meant “poop“. As in, “2 girls, 1 cup.” Similar scenarios, really.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here