JEROME - Black holes do not exist

[Dancing David]

Exactly.

So while there is data which might support the theoretical im,plications of gravitation, you disagree.

Okay, hmm... until we have space ships I doubt there would be anything that would convince you.

Okay

 

[Fordama]

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?"

That won't work as he has, to this point in history, been unable to present any actual information on scientific subjects. You are asking for information.

Fordama

 

[Upchurch]

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?"

Quite right.

Here are two examples of indirect evidence of black holes as well as explanations of why what we can observe about the situation indicates the presence of a black hole.

Straight from NASA, here is possibly the first direct evidence of a black hole's event horizon. Here is the more detailed press release from HubbleSite.org.

So, in the first one, we have evidence of something that acts like a black hole. In the second one, we have something that acts and looks like a black hole. Remembering that in space, no one can hear something quack like a black hole, I'd say hearing/feeling/tasting a black hole is unreasonable to ask for.

According to theory, we should expect to find objects that have certain properties. We have labeled these objects "black holes". The above sources quantitatively measure objects that have these properties. It is concluded that these objects are of the type that we label "black holes".

So, to re-ask Horatius's question: Jerome, why is this evidence insufficient?


Prediction:

"This evidence only proves the existence of a black hole if you first assume the existence of black holes."

 

[Upchurch]

While we're waiting for Jerome to either accept or rationalize away the three examples above, here's some more:

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap041226.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/01/050111114024.htm
http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=111487
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2334357.stm

 

[elbe]

[*]Black holes are a automatic prediction of general relativity. If general relativity is correct, black holes must exist.

Does general relativity say they must exist, or just that they can exist. Saying that with enough mass and density you will, at one point, get a black hole doesn't actually say whether or not the situation has actually arisen in the universe.

Of course the universe being as incredibly vast as it is it would be hard to imagine it wouldn't happen somewhere, I'm just unsure, with the way it's been written, that it says it has had to have happened.

For the record I quite enjoy cosmology and fully accept that existance of black holes (they are rather cool and mysterious). It just sounds like the logic is off. Of course I could be wrong.

 

[Hindmost]

I admire the attempt here...

This applies a bit too much:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Haven't seen much like this since extremeskeptic discussed tweaking his stereo.

I would call this evidence...plus I have a bit of understanding of GR...

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/roboticexplorers/black_holes_ripple.html

http://hubblesite.org/gallery/album/entire_collection/pr2000020a/web_print


glenn

 

[Hindmost]

Does general relativity say they must exist, or just that they can exist. Saying that with enough mass and density you will, at one point, get a black hole doesn't actually say whether or not the situation has actually arisen in the universe.

Of course the universe being as incredibly vast as it is it would be hard to imagine it wouldn't happen somewhere, I'm just unsure, with the way it's been written, that it says it has had to have happened.

For the record I quite enjoy cosmology and fully accept that existance of black holes (they are rather cool and mysterious). It just sounds like the logic is off. Of course I could be wrong.

Essentially, GR indicates if a star of sufficient mass implodes, it must form a black hole.

glenn

 

[elbe]

Essentially, GR indicates if a star of sufficient mass implodes, it must form a black hole.

glenn

Yes, but does it say anything that a star of that much mass must exist and must implode?

I know I'm arguing semantics, but I do so like clarity.

 

[robinson]

The more interesting questions revolve (hisss) around stars that are on the verge of being so massive they compress everything down into a little tiny point.

Or how the super massive black holes at the center of Galaxies formed.

 

[Hindmost]

Yes, but does it say anything that a star of that much mass must exist and must implode?

I know I'm arguing semantics, but I do so like clarity.

It would depend on how it implodes...some stars may be massive enough, however, if they explode and blow a bunch of stuff into space, then they might just collapse to a neutron star. If the mass left over is enough, then it must collapse to a black hole. So, I would say GR doesn't say a black hole must exist--just if a certain mass implodes, then a black hole must form.

glenn

 

[elbe]

It would depend on how it implodes...some stars may be massive enough, however, if they explode and blow a bunch of stuff into space, then they might just collapse to a neutron star. If the mass left over is enough, then it must collapse to a black hole. So, I would say GR doesn't say a black hole must exist--just if a certain mass implodes, then a black hole must form.

glenn

Oh, I understand all that, I just wanted confirmation on whether GR says they must exist or just should exist. Obviously when the conditions are right a black hole will form and, due to the size of the universe, the conditions were bound to be right sooner or later.

I wonder if there are any rough statistics on the population of the universe and how common black holes are on average.

 

[Hindmost]

Oh, I understand all that, I just wanted confirmation on whether GR says they must exist or just should exist. Obviously when the conditions are right a black hole will form and, due to the size of the universe, the conditions were bound to be right sooner or later.

I wonder if there are any rough statistics on the population of the universe and how common black holes are on average.

Definitely a semantic problem...there is no way GR indicates black holes must exist...if there were no stars in the universe massive enough, then there would be no black holes, but GR would still make the same prediction.

I would expect there are estimates of the numbers of black holes around the cosmos, but it would be a difficult to estimate since they are fairly tough to find. There seems to be reasonable evidence of massive black holes at the center of galaxies similar to the milky way.

glenn

 

[wollery]

Black holes are another made-up thought with no evidence. This idea seems to fit well with the BBT thus it is kept. Gravity is not strong enough and as such we need make-believe things to account for certain observations.

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

Exactly.

Ummm, JEROME, could you elaborate please. This thread was started because you originally said black holes were made up and gravity isn't strong enough. Yet now you say that black holes are a possibility, and agreed earlier that there are objects that exist that have so much gravity that light cannot escape them.

Please make up your mind and let us know.

 

[MattusMaximus]

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?

I applaud your efforts, but based upon this and other threads it seems that trying to pin down Jerome on providing any kind of specifics (like his definition of "redshift anomaly") is like trying to grasp free-flowing mercury in your hands.

 

[Gate2501]

After seeing JdG behave the way he did in that *other* thread about fission/fusion, and seeing the things he has said about biology and evolution, I have figured out what his definition of proof involves.

In order to *prove* in a satisfactory manner, that black holes exist, you will need to get a camcorder and find a black hole with a worm hole inside of it! You must then enter the black hole, video taping the event, and use the wormhole inside of the event horizon to exit the black hole. You must then put the video on youtube (preferably with a prank phone call to planned parenthood for audio).

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I applaud your efforts, but based upon this and other threads it seems that trying to pin down Jerome on providing any kind of specifics (like his definition of "redshift anomaly") is like trying to grasp free-flowing mercury in your hands.

Ii is not my fault that you do not know what redshift is and why it is important to understand what it means if it is not an accurate measurement.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Ummm, JEROME, could you elaborate please. This thread was started because you originally said black holes were made up and gravity isn't strong enough. Yet now you say that black holes are a possibility, and agreed earlier that there are objects that exist that have so much gravity that light cannot escape them.

Please make up your mind and let us know.

I am sorry that you have not the ability to understand that those quotes are not in conflict.


Interesting that much of the thread is attempting to attack me personally and little to do with evidencing your beliefs.

Ohh, thats right, you have the truth and as such evidence is not needed.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

While we're waiting for Jerome to either accept or rationalize away the three examples above, here's some more:

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap041226.html

Drawing Credit: A. Hobart




Art now qualifies as evidence for the existence of black-holes!!!

 

[Mashuna]

While we're waiting for Jerome to either accept or rationalize away the three examples above, here's some more:

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap041226.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/01/050111114024.htm
http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=111487
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2334357.stm

Ha! You forgot the obvious third option. Accept, rationalise away or ignore completely.

 

[bonavada]

Art now qualifies as evidence for the existence of black-holes!!!

Spend 50 minutes or so and educate yourself HERE

(Prof Andrea M. Ghez. Video Presentation. "Unveiling a Black Hole at the Centre of the Milky Way" UCLA Faculty Lecture)

Perhaps you could list, one by one, your refutations of the evidence presented there?

BV