they are both the samething more or less

heh, a poetry slam just turned into a disscussion about astrophysics. 

If only I could remember to just shut up sometimes... 

I think this is a white theory.
But hell. we always have belief.


marcus

no, they are not the same, but under the theories they are closely connected. the biggest difference off the bat is that we've got some pretty good evidence that black holes exist, but none whatsoever for white holes.



this isn't pseudo science in the same way UFOlogy is. it's scientific speculation. it's a result of experts looking at their solid, empirical work and trying to fill in conceptual gaps. the difference is that some pimpley guy with a video camera calling himself a UFOlogist typically doesn't have the slightest bit of training in scientific method or philosophy.

also, any theoretical physicist working today will awknowledge white holes. they will acknowledge them as something that exists in math, but probably doesn't exist in reality (source).

of course, i think if only i could live for the next 10,000 years, i'd be gleeful at seeing how often our "best science" was proven wrong and incomplete. so who knows, maybe it's just the case that white holes aren't possible in our universe.

Despite the differences, there is always the possibility of anyone making a new discovery, no matter who you are.

In history, it is often the most unlikely people who make the biggest discoveries, yet still we refuse to learn from this and tend to rely on the people with the biggest scientific resume's.

if only i could cure cancer and run, far far away

If only

I think you got it backwards. A black hole pulls in, while a white hole shoots out.

Its not a question of a 'man' giving an order. There's always board meetings (point 4 on the agenda - do we kill MarcusCardiff before he releases his cancer cure?) or those dastardly shareholders demanding higher profits...

i do try my best: if you want to avoid being misintrepreted, you shouldn't write ironically.



ah, the myth of the heroic scientist. unfortunately, many historians of science consider it a myth. most discoveries occur as the result of an accumulation of knowledge reaching a kind of critical mass. the individual isn't too important to the equation (the reason calculus was developed twice and why quantum field theory doesn't have a single founder the way relativity does). don't get me wrong. Einstein, Curie, Darwin, Newton, Copernicus, Galileo (I'd even include Marx, Smith and Locke): they were certainly geniuses. and some discoveries are definately a matter of luck. but the development of radical new theories in the sciences usually occurs as the result of an accumulation of evidence that conflicts the existing models. ref: wikipedia article on the work of Thomas Kuhn.

oh, you're certainly correct there. your previous message left me with the impression that you suggested most discoveries are complete accident (as if Newton was just some average joe until his famous encounter with the apple - he was a thinker as a youth and a scientist throughout his life).

indeed, credentials don't necessarily mean a lot (for discovery anyway, they still mean plent to the scientist in question). if anything, younger scientists lacking in credentials can make major discoveries because their thought habits haven't been entrenched in one specific model for their entire careers - though, i might modify this by saying young scinetists gain insights, rather than make discoveries, which they subsequently spend half a lifetime fleshing out into a full-blown theory and discovery (it did take Newton 20 years after the apple to come up with gravity, IIRC).

But the way the apple is use is considered myth...