So what will happen when Betelgeuse explodes?

[notepad09]

This makes me wonder if there's not some undiscovered, inhabited and panic-stricken planet within Betelgeuse's blast radius, yet we're all here (myself included) hoping the star explodes so we can see some lights in the sky.

Not that it's the case, but it's an interesting notion I think.

[Zakalwe]

Could it be a black hole is not actually a hole but darkness speeding through the universe faster than light speed and creating some kind of gravitational pull which light can be sucked along?? am I being a day dreamer again ? I understand there are passionate people out there who have devoted a great deal of time and energy in to building a substantial case for their "theories" but should we not keep an open mind about things we truly cannot explain? During a history lesson I was told our ancestors had a "theory" that the earth was square.

THE FANATIC

Sure, it could be. It could also be a bunch of light-eating goblins riding through space on the back of an invisible cheese-powered turtle. However the evidence that we have collected so far indicates that it is a massive chunk of matter that has collapsed under the force of gravity to the point where the exit-velocity exceeds c. As we gather more knowledge about these (and other phenomena), people waaaay smarter than me will refine the theories. If the evidence contradicts the theories, then they chuck the old theory in the bin and start again.

I really don't understand why you keep saying that we should keep an "open mind". Scientists, by their nature, are the most sceptical people around. They are constantly looking for holes in their theories and methodologies. You imply that they stick rigidly to theories as is they are immutable laws (and indeed there are immutable laws out there). However, whatever they publish is evidentially-backed, and peer-reviewed. So if a scientist published a paper stating that a BH was indeed a bunch light-eating goblins riding through space on the back of an invisible cheese-powered turtle, without supplying huge amounts of evidence*, then that scientist would be laughed out of court. Witness the cold-fusion debacle caused by Fleischmann and Pons in the late eighties.

The history of science is littered with, and built upon theories that were disproved, rejected, improved upon or completely swept away. Newton's theory of gravity worked for about 200 years (and still does on a certain scale). Indeed, under the Newtonian theory of gravity, light would not be affected by gravity, time was universal and space was "flat". Einstein's SR and GR theories proported a new model for gravity and space-time that was hugely revolutionary. That was tested over and over again, both mathematically and practically, and it holds up better than the Newtonian model, especially over the macro size scale, and at high energies and speeds. The body of evidence is so strong that you would need a huge amount of rock-solid evidence if your theory was in direct contradiction of GR or SR. However, the theory is being tested on a daily basis.

Where GR and SR doesn't work so well is at the micro scale. hence the rise of quantum mechanics and quantum electrodynamics.

Have a read of the Sagan book I mentioned in a previous post. Its an excellent book, not only because it was written by the ever-eloquent Sagan, but also because it reinforces just how sceptical the science world is, and just how open it has to be about new theories. Also, "Unweaving the Rainbow" and "Climbing Mount Improbable" both by Richard Dawkins.

*Because an extraordinary claim (especially one that contradicts a tested theory that is supported by loads of evidence) must be supported by extraordinary evidence.

[E621Keith]

... Scientists, by their nature, are the most sceptical people around. They are constantly looking for holes in their theories and methodologies...

*Because an extraordinary claim (especially one that contradicts a tested theory that is supported by loads of evidence) must be supported by extraordinary evidence.

Totally agree. If a scientist managed to prove general relativity is 'wrong', that scientist will instantly become the most famous scientist around. Every year, millions of pounds and dollars are spent on trying to find fault in that theory, but only ended up showing it's correct.

Finely worded argument and theories will not go far in science if it is not back by strong evidence showing the theory is correct.

[spaceboy]

.ExternalClass .ecxhmmessage P{padding:0px;}.ExternalClass body.ecxhmmessage{font-size:10pt;font-family:Tahoma;}

Hi

Empty space (i.e. space that is not made up of stars, planets etc.) is a vacuum, and so by definition is empty. As it's empty, there is nothing to emit light, and nothing to reflect light, which is why it appears dark. Darkness is not a tangible 'thing' that is moving through space, it is simply an absence of any light-reflecting matter (note it's an absence of light-reflecting matter. It may be filled with a currently misunderstood form of matter that does not reflect light, such as 'dark-matter')

Welcome to the forum Godders84

Thank you for the very well put explanation and a good point overlooked by us all was that seeing in itself is a phenomenon and accounts for how we as humans perceive the way things are but not necessarily how they are in the whole jest of things. I will have to agree to disagree on the darkness thing. Zakalwe was almost right about one thing, I'm not a fanatic as such but strongly believe we should look beyond familiarity. Forgive my poor examples. Say you have a box, within this box you have content be it thin air/ vacuum (I understand for us this shouldn't work) a marble etc. Whether the box is to us empty or not the box will contain a content of some kind. We see space as infinite but it is impossible to assume this as we see every day that every thing are born of some thing and everything passes away this is also true of space with deaths of stars like Betelgeuse. Death so far is the only consistent truth of all phenomena. The universe no matter how vast had to be born of some thing and that something exists beyond that. This would mean that inside the "BOX" we are contained and so everything with in the box is content even darkness. Although I say box I'm thinking more like a hamster ball with holes that allow for expansion or maybe escape ???? Darkness is the balance to light and no-one questions light as not being finite. I keep hearing empty space so we are agreed it IS a space, so is darkness the containment of that space and able to travel?? I think it is tangible in that it exists but just not how we could ever understand. ("tangible" was the closet description I could think off. There is probably a better word but I don't know it) Everything I have observed in life so far appears to have a common denominator: balance between...... good-bad, life-death, heavy-light, matter-anti-matter, hot-cold etc. Granted it can be seen as daydreaming and worthless chatter as at present it is impossible for us to supply evidence of my theory but the same could be said at one time when it was suggested to splitting an atom or to travel beyond the horizon.

It probably is pointless wasting time trying to answer these questions. Our own existence will perish at some point as everything is imperminate, 2004 MN4 may well prove this.

I doubt anyone can see method in my madness as there are some solid theories out there that support good argument but I hear they didn't always get 100% right all the time and they are after all only human calculations and not that of some all seeing oracle.

Notepad09, Our own sun may well be willed on to explode by a distant civilization out for a supernova show:D

SPACEBOY

[spaceboy]

Forgive me Zakalwe I was already typing my last post not realizing you had posted. I do seem to be going on don't I ?? Never mind I have said now what I wanted to say. You can make a mockery all you please of it now. Sorry for boring everyone to tears!!!

I understand that you are only trying to help and that I am blinded by the delusion of my own beliefs not seeing the evidence being put forth. I will see if they have the books you recommend at my local library although I doubt TBH I will have the intellectual capacity to make scenes of any of it.

SPACEBOY

[Zakalwe]

Forgive me Zakalwe I was already typing my last post not realizing you had posted. I do seem to be going on don't I ?? Never mind I have said now what I wanted to say. You can make a mockery all you please of it now. Sorry for boring everyone to tears!!!

I understand that you are only trying to help and that I am blinded by the delusion of my own beliefs not seeing the evidence being put forth. I will see if they have the books you recommend at my local library although I doubt TBH I will have the intellectual capacity to make scenes of any of it.

SPACEBOY

Spaceboy....I am not trying to mock, or make a mockery of your words at all. If that was the impression, then I apologise.

Have a read of those books....they are really well written.

I will sign off with a quote from Sagan. "Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep thoughts can be winnowed from deep nonsense. "

[sbooder]

Spaceboy, as said it is not a matter of mocking and I too recommend those books. Just picking up on a point in your previous post on belief. In science, belief dose not come into it, you can only go where the evidence takes you. A good point was once made by Richard Feynman, once said that a good scientist is one who is constantly trying to disprove his own theories.

Richard Feynman was considered the free thinking Physicist of his generation and maybe even today, and watching the Horizon programme from 1981 which can be found here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7cjqclYfV8 there are 5 parts.

[spaceboy]

Zakalwe thank you for an apology although one was not really needed. I dispute theories even though my own believes have no back bone to stand scrutiny which may get under some peoples skin with better knowledge. I think it's more frustration than anything that neither me nor the best scientists and physicists can conspire to investigate my claims. I just feel all the theories in existence cannot provide the all important answer to what encapsulates our universe and to suggest one thing is finite and another is infinite is just a substitute for don't really know. I know you are saying they are trying their best and I commend them for that even though I probably don't give them enough credit for just how hard they do try.

I have found your replies very inspiring and helped me to a better understanding. Maybe I took the cheese-powered turtle the wrong way because I was thinking more like the USS Enterprise going boldly where no man has gone before

I will definitely give those books a look in if they are in my library. Thanks

Apologies again to the OP for my hijack of the thread MY BAD! :o:o I hope if anything others reading of the thread have gained something from the debate your question aroused Claire.

SPACEBOY

[sbooder]

Zakalwe thank you for an apology although one was not really needed. I dispute theories even though my own believes have no back bone to stand scrutiny which may get under some peoples skin with better knowledge. I think it's more frustration than anything that neither me nor the best scientists and physicists can conspire to investigate my claims. I just feel all the theories in existence cannot provide the all important answer to what encapsulates our universe and to suggest one thing is finite and another is infinite is just a substitute for don't really know. I know you are saying they are trying their best and I commend them for that even though I probably don't give them enough credit for just how hard they do try.

I have found your replies very inspiring and helped me to a better understanding. Maybe I took the cheese-powered turtle the wrong way because I was thinking more like the USS Enterprise going boldly where no man has gone before

I will definitely give those books a look in if they are in my library. Thanks

Apologies again to the OP for my hijack of the thread MY BAD! :o:o I hope if anything others reading of the thread have gained something from the debate your question aroused Claire.

SPACEBOY

Wait a minute, in one of your early posts you say and I quote “my youth was wasted on sex, drugs and rock and roll not science”, and now you are saying you have an in-depth knowledge of all scientific theories, which is why I presume you feel they are inadequate.

[spaceboy]

Where did I say have an in-depth knowledge of all scientific theories ?? I must have been on drugs

[Mr Spock]

Won't black holes eventually suck up the entire universe? That's one huge vacuum cleaner ;p