JEROME - Black holes do not exist

[wollery]

Oh I see what's going on now. Jerome, tired of denying physics, cosmology, evolution and abiogenesis, has now decided to start denying quantum mechanics. In three questions he has just handwaved away Planck, Schroedinger, Heisenberg and Feynman in one fell swoop!

His next question will be "can a cat be both dead and alive at the same time?"

Clever.

Not really. When presented with any statement about science he just asks if there's any evidence, but never actually states what he thinks, or offers anything constructive to the debate, and then ignores the evidence that's presented.

Kind of like a poor man's CFLarsen.

 

[arthwollipot]

Ahh, the old argument from self proclaimed authority!

Hubris defined within a logical fallacy!

Let me clarify. I'm not the one who spent ten years at university. But I have some respect for those that do, and I tend to accept what they say when there appears to be no reason not to. You don't - you're a denier. It doesn't matter how many Nobel Prizes someone has, you won't believe them when what they say doesn't make sense to you.

But that says more about you than it does about them. Or about me for that matter.

You believe that Feynman was merely making suppositions when he developed quantum electrodynamics. But that would be ignoring the huge amounts of rigorous work that went into that theory. It would be ignoring the fact that theoretical calculations agree with experimental measurements to a stunning degree of accuracy. And it would be ignoring the fact that Jerome would not be sitting here chatting on the internet if quantum electrodynamics were mere supposition.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Not really. When presented with any statement about science he just asks if there's any evidence, but never actually states what he thinks, or offers anything constructive to the debate, and then ignores the evidence that's presented.

Nope, when I explain why the evidence presented is not in fact evidence of the assertion the thread receives a deluge of posts such as yours.

 

[arthwollipot]

Not really. When presented with any statement about science he just asks if there's any evidence, but never actually states what he thinks, or offers anything constructive to the debate, and then ignores the evidence that's presented.

Kind of like a poor man's CFLarsen.

Don't forget that when presented with evidence he handwaves it away, saying that it's mere supposition.

 

[Third Eye Open]

I think Jerome is one of those people that thinks that we can't ever KNOW anything. Our knowledge can never be absolute (in the literal sense of the word) and if we can never know anything absolutely, whats the point of trying to explain anything?

This type of attitude tends to come from religious people, who are used to thinking in absolutes. When you show them evidence they say 'well how do you KNOW that really happened, it COULD be wrong, how do you KNOW that person isn't lying? How do you KNOW that test was accurate?' You can get them to regress back enough with the 'how do you knows' until they are questioning ridiculous things (like gravity)

Well Jerome, if you are reading this post, how do you KNOW that this is even what I typed? You're eyes could be showing you incorrect information! All communication is pointless because we can never really KNOW what someone is trying to say! You're just SUPPOSING that this says what you think is says, you have no real evidence.

 

[arthwollipot]

Nope, when I explain why the evidence presented is not in fact evidence of the assertion the thread receives a deluge of posts such as yours.

But you haven't.

Take the pictures of stars orbiting at the centre of the galaxy (bringing the discussion back on topic). You never said why the orbits of stars is not evidence of something being orbited. You just said that it wasn't. You never said why general relativity's prediction of black holes is not evidence that they could exist. You just said that it wasn't.

More information, please.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

You believe that Feynman was merely making suppositions when he developed quantum electrodynamics. But that would be ignoring the huge amounts of rigorous work that went into that theory. It would be ignoring the fact that theoretical calculations agree with experimental measurements to a stunning degree of accuracy. And it would be ignoring the fact that Jerome would not be sitting here chatting on the internet if quantum electrodynamics were mere supposition.

Ahh, the internet is made possible because ... why now? That electrons are waves or particles? This was the original question by the way.

 

[Upchurch]

Nope, when I explain why the evidence presented is not in fact evidence of the assertion....

Fantastic. How's about this:

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."

 

[wollery]

Nope, when I explain why the evidence presented is not in fact evidence of the assertion the thread receives a deluge of posts such as yours.

Given that the vast majority of your explanations take the form of, "that's just supposition, not evidence", or, "I don't have to address the evidence since it's based on a faulty initial premise" - no.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I think Jerome is one of those people that thinks that we can't ever KNOW anything. Our knowledge can never be absolute (in the literal sense of the word) and if we can never know anything absolutely, whats the point of trying to explain anything?

Incorrect.

This type of attitude tends to come from religious people, who are used to thinking in absolutes. When you show them evidence they say 'well how do you KNOW that really happened, it COULD be wrong, how do you KNOW that person isn't lying? How do you KNOW that test was accurate?' You can get them to regress back enough with the 'how do you knows' until they are questioning ridiculous things (like gravity)

You have created a contradiction in your statement above.



FYI: I am intensely anti-religion.

 

[wollery]

Ahh, the internet is made possible because ... why now? That electrons are waves or particles? This was the original question by the way.

Actually, they're neither, those are just mathematical models we use to describe their behaviour under different circumstances.

I would give you a reference, but since you would dismiss it without reading it, frankly, why should I bother?

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Given that the vast majority of your explanations take the form of, "that's just supposition, not evidence", or, "I don't have to address the evidence since it's based on a faulty initial premise" - no.

What do you want? A lesson in reading comprehension?

I would suggest that you look up the word supposition and read the evidence presented with that definition in mind. Do not rely upon your faith in the conclusions drawn and focus on from whence the conclusion came.

 

[skepHick]

Nope, when I explain why the evidence presented is not in fact evidence of the assertion the thread receives a deluge of posts such as yours.

You know, I don't think it's so much that you disagree. I think much of the problem lies in that many of the posters are taking the time to respond with well thought out and detailed explanations, only to have you reply with a cryptic non-sequitor or dismiss it outright with a sentence or two, at most. You might as well just reply "Eff you for trying" to everything. But hey, whatever works for you.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I would give you a reference, but since you would dismiss it without reading it, frankly, why should I bother?

No, you will not present a reference because you know that your reference will be used by me to make my point and this will leave you deficient.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Nope, when I explain why the evidence presented is not in fact evidence of the assertion the thread receives a deluge of posts such as yours.

Sure ...

But wait!

When someone asks "what, to you, are the criteria you use when assessing whether something presented is 'evidence' or not?" and you never answer ... how is an unbiased, objective reader to know whether your explanation is consistent or not?

Oh wait ... silly me ... you care so little about consistency that there's simply no need to answer such patently irrelevant questions, is there?

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

You know, I don't think it's so much that you disagree. I think much of the problem lies in that many of the posters are taking the time to respond with well thought out and detailed explanations, only to have you reply with a cryptic non-sequitor or dismiss it outright with a sentence or two, at most. You might as well just reply "Eff you for trying" to everything. But hey, whatever works for you.

Dude, all you are seeing is a chorus of posters stating that I do not respond to evidence.

Can you not perceive the game being played?

They do not have to present evidence if they just contentiously state that I do not respond to evidence.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Sure ...

But wait!

When someone asks "what, to you, are the criteria you use when assessing whether something presented is 'evidence' or not?" and you never answer ... how is an unbiased, objective reader to know whether your explanation is consistent or not?

Oh wait ... silly me ... you care so little about consistency that there's simply no need to answer such patently irrelevant questions, is there?

SkepHick, see?

I am required to define the evidence that will force me to believe as the True Believers do!

 

[The Man]

Ahh, the internet is made possible because ... why now? That electrons are waves or particles? This was the original question by the way.

It is made possible because they demonstrate both wave a particle aspects, which I am sure you are aware of otherwise you would not be asking it as an either/or question.

My question was.

What makes you believe that that your answer is not make-believe?

And let’s not forget Upchurch’s

So, you have seen no evidence of black holes or gravity, but you accept electromagnetic forces?

What evidence was presented to you for electromagnetic forces that you found sufficent?

Or do you just want to make-believe they were not asked?

 

[Third Eye Open]

Dude, all you are seeing is a chorus of posters stating that I do not respond to evidence.

Can you not perceive the game being played?

They do not have to present evidence if they just contentiously state that I do not respond to evidence.

Ive read through this whole thread and have seen evidence posted by plenty of people, you not being one of them. And yes, you dismiss it with out even explaining why.

 

[wollery]

Dude, all you are seeing is a chorus of posters stating that I do not respond to evidence.

Can you not perceive the game being played?

They do not have to present evidence if they just contentiously state that I do not respond to evidence.

So, are you going to address Upchurch's evidence? You know, that stuff that he keeps posting and you keep ignoring.