JEROME - Black holes do not exist

[JEROME DA GNOME]

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 have failed again. I doubt you understand why.

 

[Corsair 115]

You have failed again. I doubt you understand why.

Ah, yes, the standard retort you offer when you've been caught out. I recognize it from the threads where Architect demolished a couple of positions you took in the Politics forum.

 

[wollery]

You have failed again. I doubt you understand why.

Then explain it.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Then explain it.

Don't hold your breath...

 

[arthwollipot]

Did I miss something?

Oh yes.

You have failed again. I doubt you understand why.

Try again, in short words.

1. General relativity demonstrates that gravity bends light.
2. More gravity bends light more.
3. In fact, there is a point at which there is enough gravity that light is bent all the way around, and cannot escape. We therefore cannot see it.
4. We call that a black hole.

Furthermore:

1. Stars near the centre of our galaxy are orbiting something we can't see.
2. Analysis of their motion indicates that they are orbiting a point that has a LOT of gravity.
3. Black holes are a automatic prediction of general relativity. If general relativity is correct, black holes must exist.
4. General relativity has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt to be correct.
5. Therefore, black holes exist.

 

[Dancing David]

Is the universe so large? If so, where is the singularity?

I don't know the answer to that one, I could not give an explanation for the closure of the universe other than, it looks closed.

 

[Dancing David]

ETA: I removed an obnoxious post I made in assumptive error.

 

[Dancing David]

I am not disagreeing with anything you have stated above.

Where are you presenting evidence of Black Holes?

That there are objects which exist which would have enough mass to keep light from leaving their vincinity. That would be a 'black' thing. So you are cool with one alleged and theoretical property of black holes.

So...
How do you feel about the possibility of neutron stars? IE an object so massive that lacking a heat source to expand the material it's gravity overcomes the force that keeps electron vibrating around nuclei and the star becomes mostly nuetrons?

I think I should also ask, are black holes a possibility but not demonstrated?

 

[GreyICE]

Okay, Jerome. Lets approach this a different way. Escape velocity - easy concept. For anything it must have a certain velocity to escape a certain gravity field. Otherwise the gravity field 'wins' and it falls back down.

That's simple enough. I think we can all agree on that.

Now as the mass of the object increases, the escape velocity increases. As distance decreases, the escape velocity increases (the closer you are to a large object, the harder you have to work to get away, the larger the object is, the heavier you have to work).

Agreed?

Now mathematically, eventually if you keep getting closer and upping mass, you will have an ever-increasing escape velocity.

Eventually it is greater than c.

Black hole.

Observational evidence is spotty, because they defy observation. M15 has a large number of stars orbiting something that is defying observation. Black hole? Most likely. It could be a cluster of neutron stars (although that forms its own problems, such as why do neutron stars cluster, etc.). It's reasonably hard to prove that any given gravitational anomaly isn't a cluster of neutron stars (though now we seem to be asking ourselves to believe something far odder than a black hole - that neutron stars have a preference to where they form, and that none of them are pulsars).

 

[Dancing David]

Double

 

[Blue Mountain]

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 have failed again. I doubt you understand why.

Translation for those unfamiliar with Jerome's "debating" style: "LALALA! I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"

We see that a lot over in R&P.

 

[Foster Zygote]

You have failed again. I doubt you understand why.

You have been given evidence of the existence of black holes. You have been shown stars at the galactic center orbiting an unseen, extremely massive object at high velocity. You have been shown gravitational lensing effects created by unseen, extremely massive objects. You have been shown X-ray emissions that are easily explained by gas from companion stars being accelerated to astounding velocity by an intense gravitational field.

What evidence can you present that black holes do not exist?

 

[Fitter]

Neat video!


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.

So when a medical doctor says "I think you need further tests to determine for sure if you havwe condition X" and the local new age healer says " I think you need your chakras realigned" you give them equal weight?

 

[arthwollipot]

What evidence can you present that black holes do not exist?

No. That kind of thing won't wash with Jerome (I think I know his style pretty well by now ). Say rather "what evidence do you have which contradicts the evidence presented, and why do you find that evidence more compelling?"

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I think I should also ask, are black holes a possibility but not demonstrated?

Exactly.

 

[arthwollipot]

Exactly.

So clearly you feel that the evidence thus far presented is insufficient to convince you that black holes exist. Can you please elaborate on exactly which part of the following sequence you have an objection to?

Oh yes.

Try again, in short words.

1. General relativity demonstrates that gravity bends light.
2. More gravity bends light more.
3. In fact, there is a point at which there is enough gravity that light is bent all the way around, and cannot escape. We therefore cannot see it.
4. We call that a black hole.

Furthermore:

1. Stars near the centre of our galaxy are orbiting something we can't see.
2. Analysis of their motion indicates that they are orbiting a point that has a LOT of gravity.
3. Black holes are a automatic prediction of general relativity. If general relativity is correct, black holes must exist.
4. General relativity has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt to be correct.
5. Therefore, black holes exist.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

I think I should also ask, are black holes a possibility but not demonstrated?

Exactly.

I've asked this of you JdG several times, and not once have you answered.

I'll try again.

What are the criteria you use, when assessing astronomical observations, to determine if they are 'evidence' for some interpretation or other?

What, for you, constitutes a 'demonstration', in respect of a conclusion derived from astronomical observations?

 

[Upchurch]

I would like to recommend this episode of Science Talk: Plasma Physics: From Black Holes to Radio Reception

Although the main focus is on plasma, it high lights some evidence for black holes as well as describing how theoretical predictions work (which was a Jerome misunderstanding from earlier).

 

[Diagoras]

Exactly.

But did I not demonstrate to you the existence of black holes when I sent you that video of the stars orbiting the supermassive black hole at the center of the galaxy? You still did not respond to my refutation of your claim that it is merely "speculation".

Those stars are orbiting some object with a calculated mass of 3 million solar masses. Any object that massive will suck all light into its gravity well, rendering it invisible. If you want to maintain that there is a possibility black holes do not exist, you need to explain to me and to the astrophysics community some other possibility that could account for that data. Or you could just admit that you don't understand astrophysics as well as astrophysicists.

 

[Horatius]

I think I should also ask, are black holes a possibility but not demonstrated?

Exactly.

You have been given evidence of the existence of black holes. You have been shown stars at the galactic center orbiting an unseen, extremely massive object at high velocity. You have been shown gravitational lensing effects created by unseen, extremely massive objects. You have been shown X-ray emissions that are easily explained by gas from companion stars being accelerated to astounding velocity by an intense gravitational field.

What evidence can you present that black holes do not exist?

So, Jerome is open to the possibility of Black holes, but doesn't think that they have been demonstrated. Fine.

In light of this, the correct questions for Foster Zygote would be, "Why is this evidence insufficient?", and "What would you consider to be sufficient evidence?"