What science fact/theory do you think is most unbelievable?

[SingularPoint]

Well in the world of Physics, which goes hand in hand with quite a lot of these theory's; nothing's really changed. Almost all of the ideas out right now can't be truly tested, only backed by indirect evidence.

 

[metro]

That the law of conservation of mass is invalid for closed systems.

 

[JunK]

That the law of conservation of mass is invalid for closed systems.

you mean for opens systems...but the universe is a closed system so its still valid

Quasars

that still is no proof of black holes, they just see a very bright galaxy thing and say a black hole is in the middle of it...i fail to comprehend.

So there's giant pits of swirling debris that we can't see through out in space that have multitudes higher gravitational pull than a solid object of the same mass would have. What is it, then?

The only thing that bugs me (as per the topic of the thread) about black holes is that they prove that light/energy has mass.

giant pits of swirling debris that we can't see through out in space that have multitudes higher gravitational pull than a solid object of the same mass would have....so it has to be this mythical black hole?
First off show me these giant pits of swirling debris (galaxies?), because we can't see through them doesn't mean anything, you can't see through the sun...it isn't a black hole. Maybe we can see through it theres just something behind it as well, we have no idea. Also how do we know how strong its gravitational pull is?? We don't, we assume. We also assume its size, mass, density and weight.
Gravity is directly proportional to mass, so black holes (if they did exist) would have to be giant mega dense things with a gravitational force so great light can't even escape it (if thats even possible), meaning there is something inside the black hole like some sort of planet.

 

[c-whit?]

i don't know if this will make sense to some of you, but i always enjoyed it.

to simplify it as much as possible, it basically states that although electrons and protons and neutrons have their place [physically designated areas in which they roam], they can be molded into shapes/crevices/areas. Thus, basically, the theory states that if a person was to walk into a wall constantly, eventually, there would be a time when all the particles would line up in a way that would be adjacent to the particles of the wall and would allow the person to go through the wall.

Obviously, not feasible to test, but a funny theory in itself.

Also, the terms electrons, protons, and neutrons are misnomers for those that took Organic Chemistry and up. As you should all know, we technically do not know which of those are "true" electrons/protons/neutrons. All we really know is that they have different charges and someone, sometime, stated that it would be called an electron. However, they do have different properties that we use to differentiate each other.

 

[Sexy Beast]

that still is no proof of black holes, they just see a very bright galaxy thing and say a black hole is in the middle of it...i fail to comprehend.

Oh, I was just hoping for an alternative explanation.

 

[The Yeti]

but umm let me just throw out a silly little question for everybody - what created time, how did it come into existence?
there is a beginning and end to everything

What is peculiar about such interpositions of media is that their role in directing what we will see or know is so rarely noticed. A person who reads a book or who watches television or who glances at his watch is not usually interested in how his mind is organized and controlled by these events, still less in what idea of the world is suggested by a book, television, or a watch. But there are men and women who have noticed these things, especially in or own times. Lewis Mumford, for example, has been one of our great noticers. He is not the sort of a man who looks at a clock merely to see what time it is. Not that he lacks interest in the content of clocks, which is of concern to everyone from moment to moment, but he is far more interested in how a clock creates the idea of "moment to moment." He attends to the philosophy of clocks, to clocks as metaphor, about which our education has had little to say and clock makers nothing at all. "The clock," Mumford has concluded, "is a piece of power machinery whose 'product' is seconds and minutes." In manufacturing such a product, the clock has the effect of disassociating time from hman events and thus nourishes the belief in an independent world of mathematically measurable sequences. Moment to moment, it turns out, is not God's conception, or nature's. It is man conversing with himself about and through a piece of machinery he created.

In Mumford's great book Technics and Civilization, he shows how, beginning in the fourteenth century, the clock made s into time-keepers, and then time-savers, and now time-servers. In the process, we have learned irreverence toward the sun and the seasons, for in a world made up of seconds and minutes, the authority of nature is superseded. Indeed, as Mumford points out, with the invention of the clock, Eternity ceased to serve as the measure and focus of human events. And thus, though few would have imagined the connection, the inexorable ticking of the clock may have has more to do with the weakening of God's supremacy than all the treaties produced by the philosophers of the Enlightenment; that is to say, the clock introduced a new form of conversation between man and God, in which God appears to have been the loser. Perhaps Moses should have included another Commandment: Thou shalt not make mechanical representations of time.

-Neil Postman

This quote isn't directly related to your post, but time, is a figment of our imagination.

 

[Simon]

The fact that our galaxy could be one that was sucked into a black hole trillions of years ago.

 

[Cupcake]

Also how do we know how strong its gravitational pull is??

...Deep-space photo comparisons of objects adjacent to it at different time periods to gauge how fast they're moving toward it.

 

[JunK]

...Deep-space photo comparisons of objects adjacent to it at different time periods to gauge how fast they're moving toward it.

do you believe what you just said? there are so many ridiculous heresay factors involved with that statement its unreal

 

[Countess]

Global Warming does have some merit, but people aren't really well educated on it. They hear "warming" and think that everything should be heating up, when in reality, it will actually get colder first. There are a few other things too, but I feel like people focus on the wrong part of it as well.

The EARTH isn't getting destroyed. It used to be covered in lava, then covered in ice, used to be hit by meteors... Earth has gone through a lot and it is not getting hurt one bit.

I think we should be more concerned about saving our own asses. Global warming could potentially wipe us out... forget the earth.

 

[IngeniusDodo]

do you believe what you just said? there are so many ridiculous heresay factors involved with that statement its unreal

As I mentioned before, gravity warps space-time, and the presence of that warping can be inferred by the bending of light around it. I'm too tired to give an explanation, so here's a link to the Wiki article on Gravitational Lensing.

Think of it like rolling a ball up an incline of a certain length. If you were to roll a ball up the incline when it was flat (no change in gravitational potential energy relative to the lowest point on the incline), it would reach the end. As you keep increasing the slope, the speed with which the ball escapes your incline decreases. Eventually, it's going to get so steep that the ball stops before reaching the end, then falls down the incline.

Anyway, The thing about black holes is that they aren't gigantic (well, not gigantic in astronomical terms). That's what allows them to be super-dense. If the mass of a body were compacted to within its Schwarzchild radius, then it'd form a black hole. So yes, something like a planet would be inside, although it's more likely to be the remains of a supermassive star and anything that it has sucked in. Don't think you'd find that star/planet in there, though. It's called a black hole for a reason: it "sucks" the light in (oversimplification, oh well). If you were to go beyond the event horizon, I suspect all the light it has ever absorbed would be there.

I may have made an error or two. I'm sleepy. Good night.

 

[JunK]

As I mentioned before, gravity warps space-time

see this is what i find hilarious. the fact that everybody talks about space and time as something that can be altered, bend, shifted, broken, ripped, warped, and tampered with. How can anybody say that outside of the space channels 8 oclock lineup?
maybe its just my understanding of what space/time/matter are, but i find it funny that even scientists think we can time travel through black holes and all this crippity crap that is totally unscientific and just imaginary. time/space/matter are a dependent trinity that we're locked inside, including the entire universe etc.
how can gravity warp space-time, what is so magical about gravity....and how much does it take? what is the breaking point for it not warping space-time to when it starts to?

 

[Drambar]

evolution

 

[Sexy Beast]

what is so magical about gravity....and how much does it take? what is the breaking point for it not warping space-time to when it starts to?

Not very much actually.

I have a question for you though:

Are you playing Devils advocate here or are you playing the role of the contrarian? Or is it something else?

 

[IngeniusDodo]

and how much does it take? what is the breaking point for it not warping space-time to when it starts to?

I don't think I know enough on the subject off hand to answer the rest of your post sufficiently, but I can assure you that the breaking points are the extremes - zero gravity and infinite. If any anti-/matter has mass, it warps the space-time continuum. Even sub-atomic particles. It's just a matter of how much.

If you really want to learn more (and from a much better source), I recommend reading some of Michio Kaku's books. They go over some really complex subjects in a way that's supposed to be able to allow a motivated middle-/high-school student learn it. Unmotivated students wouldn't learn anything, anyway.

 

[NCA]

 

[JunK]

im just trying to understand why some people believe in some things because i do not understand. maybe its because its taught in school, maybe its because they talk about it like its so complicated that it has to be true? i don't know

 

[Sexy Beast]

im just trying to understand why some people believe in some things because i do not understand. maybe its because its taught in school, maybe its because they talk about it like its so complicated that it has to be true? i don't know

Ahh...a skeptic. I can respect that.

Personally I don't particularly care if Relative or Quantum physics is true or not. The validity of those do not directly effect me in anyway. Though it is kind of fun to argue on their behalf.

 

[IngeniusDodo]

im just trying to understand why some people believe in some things because i do not understand. maybe its because its taught in school, maybe its because they talk about it like its so complicated that it has to be true? i don't know

True is a harsh word. Any scientist who says that a belief is true is either lying, or just plain old silly. The ideas we taut are not true, but, rather, accurate in describing the universe around us. If A describes B perfectly (as far as we can distinguish), then A is accepted. However, A is not necessarily the truth. It's just a way to describe (and, by effect, predict) our surroundings.

 

[Liliana]

see this is what i find hilarious. the fact that everybody talks about space and time as something that can be altered, bend, shifted, broken, ripped, warped, and tampered with. How can anybody say that outside of the space channels 8 oclock lineup?
maybe its just my understanding of what space/time/matter are, but i find it funny that even scientists think we can time travel through black holes and all this crippity crap that is totally unscientific and just imaginary. time/space/matter are a dependent trinity that we're locked inside, including the entire universe etc.
how can gravity warp space-time, what is so magical about gravity....and how much does it take? what is the breaking point for it not warping space-time to when it starts to?

Um...the definition of gravity is the force that attracts objects, which also bends space-time. Very scientific, actually. Although, time travel through black holes is ridiculous. Time slow down, proved. Time move backwards, bad idea.