Do you believe in black holes?

[Neanderthal]

Right, that's it. I'm gonna report you to Mordid.

Please don't.

[Leliana]

Yes, I believe in black holes, and most of them are located in the heads of blithering leftists, cultural marxists, liberals and muslims.

Some black holes are in the center of the galaxies as well.

[Cato]

Yes, I believe in black holes, and most of them are located in the heads of blithering leftists, cultural marxists, liberals and muslims.
Some black holes are in the center of the galaxies as well.

Your typical progressivist:



And the black holes at the center of galaxies are quantified as being supermassive black holes. When I first started to study them, I didn't think that black holes had size per se (how can they as they have no real physicality? Black holes are essentially rips or tears in three-dimensional reality.) but the supermassive ones are vastly larger in the radius of normal space that they influence than the tiniest black hole (micro black holes, microscopic size).

[Drawing-slim]

Yes, I believe in black holes, and most of them are located in the heads of blithering leftists, cultural marxists, liberals and muslims.

Some black holes are in the center of the galaxies as well.

you're a funny girl leliana.
These these motherfucker muslim liberals destroying everything

[Sarmatian]

We are able to mathematically predict the life cycles of stars and observe stars within respective periods in their life cycles...

You have very good point. But look 300-400 years back. Conclusions made by researchers of the time are quite amusing even for modern high school students. At the same time they were confirmed by numerous experiments and were used in everyday life just like modern technologies. Can you be sure it wouldn't be the same with modern theories after another 300-400 years?

I'm not saying modern theories are all wrong. I would call them imperfect. Even the most proven of them have to be criticized and reviewed. That is were I have the biggest concern - attitude towards modern theories.

In the old times all scientific research was undertaken by independent individuals. Sure they had access to works of older researchers and often were influenced by them but they had a luxury of possibility to build their own theoretical models from scratch.

Today to become a successful scientist one have to stick to already developed theories and more importantly follow the rules established by previous masterminds. The entire science is in the hands of old minds who dedicated their lives to one specific model. Very few of these old farts are ready to review the work in which they invested so much. There are little to no room for a work without limitations of imagination for younger and often brighter minds.

Another concern of my is financial dependance of modern science. I've seen a few very promising experiments with potential to give humanity access to nearly unlimited energy supply. To figure out whether they worth anything they need some work to be done on them but they all get shut for obvious reasons.

So every time I see anyone saying 'this is proven fact' I'm very skeptic about it.

[Stefan]

Oh yes! It is very important that one is critical when pursuing science. The first thing that comes to my mind when I learn a new concept is, "How do they know?" Luckily, a lot of the things "proven" seem to have a suitable amount of credible evidence. While other things, suppose, say Superstirng Theory are entirely models with very little to no evidence, yet many physicists(or should we call them mathematicians? ) believe it is correct because of the 'mathematical beauty'. Some things have tangible and intangible aspects. With Black Holes, we know something as big as the black holes Einstein delineated exist in that region of space. We assume that they are the black holes Einstein delineated due to our acceptance of General Relativity. Does that necessarily mean they have to be? Could they be a phenomena we don't have a model for? Of course! It is our job to detect properties of these black holes and verify the true nature of their existence and whether or not they fit the theory. However, the existence of these objects isn't an argument at this point, just the 'nature of their existence.'

Another thing that is interesting about today's scientist opposed to the 19th century, for example, is that we separate scientists into theorists,experimentalists, and in astronomy -- observers. Back then, it seemed as if scientists tended to do both aspects of the job, although some were better at one than the other. However, while today's method has its flaws, one who is critical can maintain their creative ideas and pursue them. Furthermore, the method is very efficient, despite its disadvantages. I hope to be a physicist, but I worry sometimes that there will be too much focus on the credence and hierarchy of an individual with a lot of experience behind them opposed to everybody listening to what everybody else has to say. Many famous scientists created their best work in their youth; I don't see why there is such a focus on the experienced for producing the creativity.

In one of Richard Feynman's autobiographies, he mentioned a book he read by Dirac. Apparently it was over his head at the time, but one part of the book mentioned something about wanting young scientists who can bring new ideas. This was an inspiration for him, seemingly from how he describes it, and it indirectly led to some great work in developing Quantum Electrodynamics on Feynman's part. I think we need more of that within the scientific community. There is no place for hierarchy; just results.