Indestructible Engineer Vessel

Hawking loses black hole bet. http://techie-buzz.com/science/cygnus-black-hole-hawking.html One thing you must understand is that the bet was only in regards to the specific system of Cygnus X-1 having a black hole. It was never a blanket statement on questioning the existence of black holes as a stellar object. Most of hawking most famous work is based on the existence of black holes. His theory of Hawking radiation basically states that over time a black hole will "evaporate".

Between spammers and totally irrelevant discussion here I'm beginning to feel the need to warp to June 8th 2012

just FYI guys several really heavy astronomers have now proven many, and I do mean a heck of a lot of Hawkings logic, reasoning and arguments completely flawed and he is losing a lot of credibility every single day that goes by. and here is just one of many many examples among some other DOOZIES that have been made now into a full length features on "NOVA" and other individual projects based soley on the mistakes of Hawkings. Also, I have been trying to understand his book, "A Brief History Of Time" for 20 years now at least. The illustrated version is supposed to be an easier way for people like me to understand some of the absolutely LOFTY, at best, things he discusses in this world famous book...The problem for me with it, is even this illustrated version is completely un-understandable !!! Those worried about the future of science advancements in the United States should feel rest assured thanks to five Bexley students. As part of a physics project presented to the students last year by Marshall Barnes, director of the SuperScience for High School Physics program, the students detected a mistake that famed physicist Stephen Hawking made that no other scientists had detected. The students recently were honored by the Bexley City Council for their achievement - a feat that was accomplished as part of an experiment conducted by Barnes, who did catch the mistake but was puzzled when physicists were unable to notice it. Barnes caught the mistake in 2003 and later presented it at a number of conferences, but was surprised when he found that although everyone agreed it was in fact a mistake on the part of Hawking, it had to be specifically pointed out to them that way first. "The reasoning behind this," Barnes said, "was that older physicists are locked in their old patterns of analysis and aren't mentally flexible enough to catch the error." Younger minds, he said, might look at the problem from a different perspective. As an experiment to test this theory, he presented a class of about 30 students at Bexley High School last year with his theory. Five of the 30 students were able to detect the mistake, which involved objections over the theoretical model of using wormholes as time machines, a famous model devised by Cal Tech professor Kip Thorne, and cited in books and on such programs as PBS's "NOVA." "We all felt pretty clever," said Margaret McIntosh, who has since graduated and lives in Bexley. "We thought, if we can do it, why hasn't it been figured out?" The findings support concerns about the future of academic science in the United States, unless more students are introduced and motivated to learn about the field. "At this time, when CERN (European Organization for Nuclear Research) is about to reveal new information about the beginnings of the universe, this experiment at Bexley High School is but the first step in a revolution toward a greater understanding of the nature of time and how it may be manipulated in the very, near future," Barnes said. "This is what will put Central Ohio on the world physics map." A video of the experiment can be viewed at www.physicsintrouble.iwarp.com/hawkingsmistake.html. The project received partial funding from the Columbus Jewish Foundation.

Ok, with all due respect here, First of all, how could anyone find "mistakes" in Stephen Hawing or any other physicist's theories, When they are only THEORIES?? Boggles my mind!! Its Theoretical Physics, based on actual observations, based on our latest knowledge. Secondly, I just want to add to Snorkle and others' posts, that Yes, Black Holes do exist. They are observed gravitational centers that to our present knowledge sucks in simply everything after passing its Event Horizon. Period. You can't say something doesnt exist when it has been observed for Giger's sake.

@snorkelbottom, it's more complicated than that, Einstein's theory of relativity- this science WORKS, it is what created the equation E=MC(Squared) and hence atomic energy .. energy associated with mass, and the Time Dilation has been MEASURED with very precise clocks as have other predictions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity speed = distance/time, time itself is slowing for the traveller.. TIME dilation comes into it - the speed of light is unbreathable because space and time destort as you approach the speed, space & time itself doesn't function as you feel it at low speeds. Mass distorts space around it, and as you approach the speed of light you also get heavier so you accelerate slower... you can never reach it now matter how long or hard you accelerate. In a black whole (singularity) it is true we don't know what happens - because it is large scale physics compressed into a small scale i.e. quantum - but nothing can escape from it :) & the event horizon is the important part

Time dilation has not been proved and was added to the theory to maintain the principle that "allegedly" nothing can travel at the speed of light. Sparky (ironically) put it plain and simple in his post that scientists of old and of tradition stick to their ancient principles and theories, whereas the younger generation are willing to view things from a fresh perspective and question so-called established theories. Although I am not a scientist, I am very scientifically and open minded with a high enough IQ to understand the principles, logic and (with enough time) the equations. All the arguments in this thread have been a mirror of what happens in the scientific community whenever someone proposes a new theory or presents revolutionary evidence, the established "older" scientists call foul, whether the theory be sound/the evidence be unrefutable or not. But whatever, ignore the possibility that they could be wrong, or in the least half right, and stall our development as a supposedly intelligent race.

Snorkelbottom, you are on another planet I think, where scientific fact relies on some social hierarchy and time dilations doesn’t exist!! Are you serious? Global satellite navigation, which you and I use every day relies on the foundations of Special Relativity and time dilation in particular. It wouldn’t work without it!! But it hasn’t been proven? I can’t believe I’m having this conversation

Satellites don't use time dilation... A satellite in a geosynchronised orbit has a farther distance to travel than point it is synchronised with, thus it has to move at a faster speed than that of which the land below is moving (earths axial rotation). This is not time dilation this time differential, the same principality that is used in LSD (limited slip differential) in automobiles. An example of time dilation would be a light train... Imagine a passenger train running on a frictionless track (ignoring the point of g-force for this example), circumventing the world along the equatorial line. Now imagine that this train is travelling fractionally short of the speed of light. Now imagine someone gets up and runs to the front of the train. Technically, that person would be moving at a speed faster than that of the train, and thus travelling faster than the speed of light. Thus scientists implemented (theoretically) time dilation - the faster an object moves and the closer they approach the speed of light the slower time moves, thus the saying that time and space are relative to each other (relativity). This is an example physicists use to explain time dilation and it is flawed, by one key principle...

Satellites do adjust their clocks for gravitational time dilation.

Time differential - let me explain what it is... Take a compass and a piece of paper. In the middle of the paper make a dot. Using that dot as the center draw two circles, one small and one large. Now, the smaller circle obviously has a smaller circumference than the larger circle. Now if you wanted something travelling along the larger circles circumference (satellites orbit) to remain in synch with something travelling along the smaller circles circumference (satellite dish) then the object travelling along the larger circles circumference would have to be moving at a greater velocity than the object on the smaller circles circumference. That's the easy part. But, objects such as a satellite are exposed to less gravity than that of things on the ground, and this adds variables into the equation meaning that extra (usually nano or milliseconds) time has to be added to remain in synch with the object on the ground. Time cannot be dilated as freely as some scientists would like it to (to fit their theories), for one plane and simple reason...

Snorks less copy and pasting and more checking of facts please. The time dilation effect has been measured and verified using GPS.

Well Snorkel you may have to do more than some paper craft experiments for your theories to compete with this: [url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1314656/Scientists-prove-time-really-does-pass-quicker-higher-altitude.html]Gravitational Time Dilation[/url]

@ Ender, where am I copying and pasting from. Checking theories not facts. GPS verifies time differential (extra time) not time dilation (slowing of time).

Come on BM that was a very simplified example.

Snork what the hell is the difference between time differential and "slowing of time"? If there is a time differential then then one clock is moving faster/slower then another...... jeeeeeez Now just admit you were wrong about time dilation and we'll forget this silly little conversation ever happened :-) And then we can get back to talking about Prometheus.

I will close the argument with fact The so called "time dilation" that has supposedly been "proved" is a result of varying gravitational effects on the mechanisms of a machine, in this case a clock. A clock is the means by which we measure time, a clock IS NOT time. Weaker gravitational forces equals less friction and the increased likelihood of higher velocities, therefore time differential. For example - If you put the same clock on the surface of mars it would run quicker than on earth because of the weaker gravitational forces acting upon the mechanism. Yet time itself does not run faster on the surface of Mars than it does on earth. Also, can space be dilated? No it cannot because it is a collection of dimensions (3 of which we perceive). Thus by that fact and that fact alone neither can time be dilated because it too is a dimension (the 4th one of which we perceive).

Snorks Im gonna close with some facts also (but not ones I made up myself) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_analysis_for_the_Global_Positioning_System#Special_and_general_relativity

LMFAOROFL... Thats your facts, Wikipedia, (I feel sick again guys). Yeah no wonder this debate has gone round in circles, because you have been using facts from from a site FAMED for its bullshit, instead of actually looking at the undisputable facts in my last post. Like I said... You have the test using atomic clocks that made scientists pat themselves on the back claiming they had proven time dilation. Put that same clock on the surface of Mars (which has lower gravity than Earth) and it would run faster than it would on Earth. Does this mean that time is faster on Mars than on Earth, no it does not, it proves that lesser gravity equals less friction and increased velocity acting upon the mechanisms of the clock allowing it to run faster. The scientists proved gravitational effects upon mechanisms of an atomic clock not time dilation. A child could understand that.

Eh.... then NASA maybe? http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/438289main_BH_Time_Dilation_Earth.pdf Maybe you could forward some references supporting your theory that time dilation doesn’t exist? Please dont make any more claims regarding physics without supporting evidence and I'll do the same.

Ender that page doesn't even exist. Maybe instead of posting various links to prove ur right you could actually write out some examples that would prove u are correct. You know what snorkel bottom has been doing throughout this entire thread.

Page 100% exists - its a PDF document from NASA. I have it open in my browser at the moment

Enderwiggin, you can't debate someone who won't recognize any sources but their own . I suggest you give up. Snorkel, I suggest you use that big IQ of yours to publish your thesis in a scientific journal and then use it to show the world you are right. Can we end the debate now? P.S The page exists I opened it also. You may need to upgrade your acrobat reader or just wait for the page to load jeez.

Yes debate ended - I hope no offense was taken. I respect your opinion Snork - I'll see you in another thread.

Not taking sides here - just wanted to ask Snorkel if he has a specific link detailing the specific affects of gravity on the mechanism of an atomic clock. Having trouble finding articles that shed doubt on the viability of using atomic clocks in space for gravity experiments (well, they're making newer and better ones for upcoming experiments, but still.) Just curious.

@ Ta2punk - I had noticed that, yet every time I put the effort in to explain the errors and mistakes of whatever was thrown at me, I would either get a link to another "theory" or accused of "copy and paste". @ Biomechanic - Hows things, I am very much in the process of doing exactly that, having recently registered with Nature and collecting all information available from many sources. @ enderwiggin - This all started when I pointed out the mistake in the original post were you stated "FTL, which means time travel", which is a theory, and impossible to prove. Then disputing Black Holes, then Time Dilation. I argued my case (as i argue all my cases) with my brain, not my ability to use google and wi, wik, wiki (I can't bring myself to say it). like I said before Logic and Observation always beat Theory. The last post I made clearly shows that what the scientists proved is different to what they think they've proved. If no offense was intended, then none is taken. @ Manndroid - Hows things, strangely enough the proof that time dilation doesn't exist is in the very link enderwiggin posted. Read the evidence the scientists say proves their theory, apply logic and the laws of physics (gravity, velocity, friction etc.) and you can see plain as day they have proved what I said in my last post, not time dilation.

@Snorkel - I understand where you are getting the idea - lack of gravitational pull affects the mechanisms of the clock - but in this case, the clock is an atomic clock - using the oscillation of sub-atomic particles, which is why they are deemed so accurate. Not immune to gravity, but more accurate than a more massive mechanism. However, I do not know the specific effects on the atomic clock due to gravity - the actual data. Mostly because I am pretty sure someone would have thought of this already, and looked for an equation to compensate. I'd like to read information that supports your side, but without knowing the mathematics involved with the intricacies of the clock itself, I can't speculate in favor - or at least, know the degree of error as it pertains to time dilation.

That's it Manndroid.... You stated "Mostly because I am pretty sure someone would have thought of this already, and looked for an equation to compensate." They have no equation to compensate for the gravitational effects on atomic clocks, too many variables. So they take the easier but more labourish method and instead adjust the clocks when the difference becomes a problem. Atomic clocks are accurate, but only when the gravity is at 1.0. Reduce/Increase the gravity and the accuracy is affected. The strength of the gravity is the key factor here.

Right. I wanted to see what that adjustment [i]is,[/i] not just know that there is one. S'why I asked if you had any readily available online sources. Still not taking any sides, just being academically responsible.

The adjustment varies depending upon the height in which a satellite orbits the Earth. in most cases it just a case of synchronising it with a clock on the ground at the press of a button - a simplified example/analogy would behow you would make sure your watch and alarm clock are the same time.

@ Manndroid if you are looking for an academic perspective, let me give you a quick description of time dilation and its effects on satellites. The closer you get to the speed of light the slower clocks tick. Now important note! - the particular clock doesn't matter a damn, the clock is there to describe "The passage of time" it can be an atomic clock, an alarm clock or a egg timer!! It has nothing to do with gravity affecting friction of the mechanics of a clock! Thats hilarious! The satellite that is orbiting the Earth is moving at great speed RELATIVE to stationary clocks on the surface. This causes time to pass slower then the stationary clocks and results in a delay of about 7 μs/day. If you have twins and you send one off on the Prometheus @ 99% C this person will age much slower then the person left on Earth. When the ship returns say 50 Earth years later with the astronaut twin, he will hardly have aged at all while the Earth twin will be an old man - no clocks need be mentioned. Snork this is not directed at you - we have already agreed to disagree. I am merely describing my understanding of time dilation as a courtesy to Manndroid.

Fair enough Enderwiggin but the statements you make are flawed... "It has nothing to do with gravity affecting friction of the mechanics of a clock!" - so reduced gravity, thus reduced weight, reduced drag, reduced resistance allowing higher velocity is incorrect, not the last time I checked. "The satellite that is orbiting the Earth is moving at great speed RELATIVE to stationary clocks on the surface. This causes time to pass slower" - so why in the test that supposedly proves time dilation were the clocks going faster, not slower. "If you have twins and you send one off on the Prometheus @ 99% C this person will age much slower then the person left on Earth." - According to what exactly, near-light speed travel across long distances supposedly slowing down time? show me proof, a working equation. I do love your loyalty to the establishment Enderwiggin but you are overlooking one important thing, the scientific community itself its turning on these old theories and ideas, because they break logic and observations.