• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

JEROME - Black holes do not exist

JEROME DA GNOME said:
Not even much of an effort attempting to evidence black holes. :(
Click to expand...
Hmm ...

May one enquire about the evidence of the effort JEROME DA GNOME has expended attempting to find efforts which have attempted and are continuing to attempt, to "evidence black holes"?

But first, how about an answer to the question of what, in the personal, private world of JEROME DA GNOME, constitutes "evidence"?

JEROME DA GNOME, what, to you, are the criteria for assessing "evidence", with direct respect to "black holes"?
 
Thanks to Jerome, I have found another probable location of an infinitely dense point.
 
Last edited:
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Yep, no extraordinary evidence of the existence of black holes. Not even much of an effort attempting to evidence black holes. :(
Click to expand...

1.Gravity bends the path of light.

2. There are objects whose mass is so large that it would bend light's path so much that light can't leave the gravitational field. (2 is from the measurements of 1)

So what are you disagreeing with?
 
sol invictus said:
Well, we have a set of laws of physics which do NOT break down inside the horizon. Nothing funny happens there (the time/space thing is purely a coordinate artifact, and very well understood). They do break down at the singularity, but for a large black hole that's very far from the horizon. So if we trust those laws, we know quite well what happens inside the hole, down until you get very close to the singularity.

Moreover, there are very good reasons to think that those laws must remail valid - essentially because precisely where the horizon is cannot be determined by any local measurement, and so for anything unusual to happen there would require a truly bizarre and new effect.
Click to expand...

I stand corrected.
 
JEROME: What do you think is going on at the center of our galaxy? They have imaged stars orbiting something with 3 million solar masses at the center of our galaxy, which appears to be invisible. Please enlighten us with your deep understanding of astrophysics. Also, don't forget to write up an article for Nature magazine detailing the evidence you have gathered that the whole astrophysics community is trodding down the wrong path here, and win yourself a Nobel Prize.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fytriKJ8xhE&NR=1
 
Last edited:
arthwollipot said:
It is more intellectually honest to admit to learning something new than it is to stick to your guns despite everything thrown at you.
Click to expand...

We have not learned of the existence of Black Holes in this thread. :confused:


Did I miss something?



Accepting speculation as evidence is the antithesis of skeptical.
 
wollery said:
I'm sorry, but that question makes no sense in respect of DD's statement.
Click to expand...

DD's statement was about mass so my reference to the universe was a reference to the mass within the universe. If you add up all the mass in the observable universe, isn't it enough to create a gravitational field that traps light. Wouldn't this imply that the observable universe is within a black hole. And if the math is correct and black holes have a singularity, shouldn't there be a singularity within the observable universe.
 
Dancing David said:
1.Gravity bends the path of light.

2. There are objects whose mass is so large that it would bend light's path so much that light can't leave the gravitational field. (2 is from the measurements of 1)

So what are you disagreeing with?
Click to expand...

I am not disagreeing with anything you have stated above.

Where are you presenting evidence of Black Holes?
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Neat video! :cool:


I do not presume to speculate and define my speculation as fact. I also do not accept as fact the speculation of "experts".

Speculation is just that, no matter who is speculating. :)
Click to expand...
Those stars are clearly orbiting something. We can calculate the mass of the thing they are orbiting. We can plainly see that there does not appear to be anything there. And the laws of physics dictate that an object of that mass would be so massive that not even light would be able to escape its gravity well. It's not just speculation. It's real science.
 
Dan O. said:
DD's statement was about mass so my reference to the universe was a reference to the mass within the universe. If you add up all the mass in the observable universe, isn't it enough to create a gravitational field that traps light. Wouldn't this imply that the observable universe is within a black hole. And if the math is correct and black holes have a singularity, shouldn't there be a singularity within the observable universe.
Click to expand...
Density is the key here. The lower limit for the mass of a black hole is 1.44 Solar masses (the Chandrasekhar limit), but there are plenty of stars with masses much higher than that. To form a black hole the mass must be extremely densely packed to form a deep enough gravity well.

The mass density of the Universe is nowhere near high enough to make it a singularity.

JEROME DA GNOME said:
Common response from the statists. Your question does not compute, therefore it is invalid and we continue to BELIEVE!!!
Click to expand...
See, he clarified the question. Once I understood what he was asking it was easy for me to answer.
 
Dancing David said:
1.Gravity bends the path of light.

2. There are objects whose mass is so large that it would bend light's path so much that light can't leave the gravitational field. (2 is from the measurements of 1)

So what are you disagreeing with?
Click to expand...

JEROME DA GNOME said:
I am not disagreeing with anything you have stated above.

Where are you presenting evidence of Black Holes?
Click to expand...
Given that number 2 is the definition of a Black Hole, you've just agreed that Black Holes exist. :rolleyes:
 
Dan O. said:
DD's statement was about mass so my reference to the universe was a reference to the mass within the universe. If you add up all the mass in the observable universe, isn't it enough to create a gravitational field that traps light. Wouldn't this imply that the observable universe is within a black hole. And if the math is correct and black holes have a singularity, shouldn't there be a singularity within the observable universe.
Click to expand...

The standard black hole calculation is for a concentrated mass in a static, asymptotically flat spacetime. That is not the relevant situation for a cosmology, where the mass is distributed throughout the entire space, and the space is not static and usually not flat either. If you really want to stretch the definition of "black hole" to fit the universe, it's possible to do so for a closed universe (in which case the singularity is the big crunch - when you're inside a black hole, the singularity is time-like separated from you, and it's your future), but that's not a very useful way to think about things.
 
Last edited:
JEROME DA GNOME said:
There is nothing in the universe that "bends" light outside of a Black Hole?
Click to expand...

Wow, did you miss the point. Of course other things bend light via gravity - that's part of the experimental support for general relativity. And what happens when you add more mass? Why, it bends the light even more. And at some point, when you add enough mass, it bends the light so much that the light cannot escape. That's a black hole. The only way to avoid having black holes is for general relativity to be wrong. Where and how, pray tell, do you think general relativity is wrong?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom