• 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

I have to agree with Jerome's statement in the OP. Science cannot prove anything, it can only describe a model that fits our observations of reality. Science has created an extensive model of reality and though black holes were made up, they are a part of that model. Since black holes are now an integral part of the scientific model of the universe, in order to exclude black holes it is necessary to either find observations that are inconsistent with black holes or find an alternate model that is simpler, equally fits existing observations and is as useful as the current model.
 
Actually, what Jerome was saying was that black holes are theoretical, with no direct evidence. What evidence there is can only be counted as evidence of black holes existing if one assumes that no force other than gravity can produce the effects we observe.

This is actually entirely correct.

The fact that there is no known force which could produce these effects without producing other observable effects (which we don't see) is irrelevant to his argument, but rather apposite to astrophysics.

Of course, Jerome could have essentially killed this thread by clarifying that point on page one, instead of making hand-waving dismissals of the evidence and sidetracking by jumping on every little derail. But that wouldn't have given him the opportunity to seem knowledgeable and superior. Sadly, what he's actually done is make himself look like an obstinate fool.
 
Dan O. said:
I have to agree with Jerome's statement in the OP. Science cannot prove anything, it can only describe a model that fits our observations of reality. Science has created an extensive model of reality and though black holes were made up, they are a part of that model. Since black holes are now an integral part of the scientific model of the universe, in order to exclude black holes it is necessary to either find observations that are inconsistent with black holes or find an alternate model that is simpler, equally fits existing observations and is as useful as the current model.
Click to expand...
What!?? How dare you question the orthodoxy! Heretic! Someone moderate this man! :D
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Nothing, I was asked for an alternative. I was not asked what was the correct answer.


You do understand the difference, yes?



ETA: Unchurch's questions were Straw-men.
Click to expand...


I do not recall anyone asking you what was the correct answer, just what you would consider might be a possible answer and why you might believe that possibility (since you do not believe in make-believe)

So you make believe that you do not understand the difference?
 
JEROME DA GNOME:

Lets make it really, really, really simple for you.
  1. The UCLA Galactic Center Group has taken a series of pictures of the center of the Milky Way from 1995 to 2006.
  2. In these pictures there are stars.
  3. The stars in these pictures move.
  4. There are 7 of these stars that move enough to show significant curvature in their movements.
  5. An object that moves in a curved path is under the influence of a force (Newton's First Law).
  6. Thus these 7 stars are under the influence of a force. The electromagnetic force does not move stars around. The stars must be under the influence of gravity.
  7. An average annual position of each star is calculated. These are entered into a computer.
  8. The computer calculates the the orbits of the stars. This is standard orbital mechanics, e,g, the same calculations that tell us that the planets orbit the Sun or that satellites orbit the Earth.
  9. All of the orbits are around the same object.
  10. The parameters calcuated for the orbits give the mass for the object that the stars are orbiting and a maximum size for the object.
  11. We can summarize the results by piloting the average annual position of each star on top of an image of the galactic center taken in 2006. THIS IS NOT AN "ARTIST'S RENDERING".
The result is a plot of 7 stars orbiting an object with a mass of 3.7 million solar masses within a radius of 45 AU.
 
Jumping into the middle of the thread...forgive me:

1) Mass causes gravity.

2) Gravity bends light. (See: Eclipse of 1919)

3) If light is bent enough, it can crash into very large masses. These masses would be appear true black.

4) Gravitational effects have been observed that match the effects of black holes.

5) Ergo, it is safe to tenatively acknowledge the existence of black holes even though they cannot (by definition) be directly observed.
 
Last edited:
Corsair 115 said:
Translation: You have caught me in a complete contradiction. But nevertheless I will still never, ever, admit that I made a mistake.
Click to expand...

Nope, he was caught creating straw-men and when that was pointed out he reversed the terms and presented the same straw-man.
 
Upchurch said:
Acts like gravity, moves like gravity, quacks like gravity, etc.
Click to expand...

Your assumption that gravity is the major force in the universe does not evidence that gravity is the major force in the universe.

Can you really not see the fallacy here?

o_logic.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom