JEROME - Black holes do not exist

[arthwollipot]

For Jerome's sake:

Link to methods.

When we use these different methods on the same object...they agree. Weird, that's just what you would expect if...I don't know...SCIENCE WAS USEFUL!

Thanks Merv. I knew that there had to be a list, but I couldn't be bothered going and getting the link.

 

[Third Eye Open]

Only if you assume that gravity is the only force which can create such an observation.

So me looking at you is evidence that you are there ONLY if I ASSUME that light is the only medium that could create such an observation.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Thanks Merv. I knew that there had to be a list, but I couldn't be bothered going and getting the link.

JdG spammed another thread on his misunderstanding of the Hubble relationship and his ignorance of how distances are estimated.

In response I created a new thread (What is the observational evidence for the Hubble relationship?).

If you read it, you'll see that I have already addressed JdG's so-called objections (questions?) to how the distance to a lensed quasar can be estimated, without using the Hubble relationship (a.k.a. 'redshift', to JdG) ... and then the thread took a most odd turn (well, it's not odd for those who've been following JdG's posts in this part of the JREF forum ...).

By the way, JEROME, I'm still waiting for you to clarify what you really meant in two of your last three posts in that thread ....

 

[The Man]

Sigh...

Excellent post, Mark, I enjoyed those images, even though they were not “artist representations”, but art none the less.

 

[Belz...]

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.

 

[Belz...]

Only if you assume that gravity is the only force which can create such an observation.

Absolutely ridiculous. All that does is change what the "something" has to be.

 

[Belz...]

So it wobbles in perfect sync with the planets as predicted by gravity but isn't gravity?

What evidence would you accept?

No sweat, Merv. Jerome doesn't understand the first thing about rational discourse, logic or science. He's just using neat-sounding words to sound smart and appear to shoot down other people's arguments.

If it looks good to him, he can go to his buddies and claim to pwn all those brainy sk3ptikz.

 

[Belz...]

Are not those distances determined by redshift?

If redshift as a measure of distance and time is inaccurate, would not the interpretation also be inaccurate?

And pray tell, what are those four dots ?

 

[aggle-rithm]

Correlation does not equal causation.

You're cracked the case! There is, in fact, no such thing as gravity!

With a sigh of relief, we can finally dispense with that tautological canard and replace it with an entirely new physical force, which behaves exactly like gravity and is indistinguishable from it in every way.

Since gravity is not real, the word "gravity" is up for grabs, so I will use that term for our new force.

"Gravity", it is!

 

[aggle-rithm]

Except I have never stated any of those things.

If all you're interested in is "winning" arguments, then declining to state anything of consequence is the way to go.

If, however, you are more interested in understanding things better, or in helping others do the same, then you will at some point have to go out on a limb and make an actual claim about something so we can all discuss it.

 

[aggle-rithm]

I have a feeling that Jerome thinks the universe is held together by static cling.

Perhaps, instead of the Big Bang, he believes in the Big Fabric Cycle.

Perhaps. We pretty much have to speculate at this point.

 

[JCL]

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.

What he was saying may have been correct but I see no evidence that this is anything more than coincidental.

He could not clear up a point that he did not know he made.

 

[Upchurch]

Nope, he was caught creating straw-men and when that was pointed out he reversed the terms and presented the same straw-man.

okay, let's review.

My question:

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?

Your response:

ETA: Unchurch's questions were Straw-men.

I asked for clarification:

Which part? The part where you reject gravity or accept electromagnetism?

Your response:

Yep.

Note: When presented with an "or" question and you respond simply with "Yep." I take that to mean that you consider both parts are straw man arguments.


Since they are both simple arguments and you consider them both straw man arguments, I asked if the null hypothesis for each were true:

So....you accept gravity and reject electromagnetism?

You now say that these null hypotheses are also straw man arguments as was my original hypotheses. I'm asking for clarification of what, exactly, the straw man was and what is your actual position.

Do you accept that gravity exists? If so, based on what evidence?

Do you accept that electromagnetism exists? If so, based on what evidence?


Moving on:

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?

Well, the fallacy is that you think my argument is that the assumption of gravity is my evidence of gravity. That is not my argument at all. (Technically, that is a straw man argument as opposed to the questions of clarification I've been asking you.) You've never even addressed my argument, which I have posted numerous times with no response from you.

My evidence of gravity as a major force in the universe is based on the understanding that if the universe behaves in a certain way, then it is due to a phenomenon we have labeled "gravity". We look and, lo and behold, the universe behaves in that certain way. That is the evidence.

 

[Dan O.]

Jerome has offered neither evidence of observations in conflict with the current model nor an alternate model consistent with current observations. He is simply questioning everything like a child asking "WHY?". There can be no explanation that Jerome must accept so attempts to argue with him will be futile.

Of course there could be an alternate model of the universe. The flat earthers present a model starting with the premise that the earth is flat and contort everything else to fit. The flat earth model is valid in that it agrees with observations but the math is horrendously complicated except when dealing with small areas where the difference between the flat earth and round earth can be ignored. At least the flat earthers present a model and back it up so for that they are respected.

 

[Marcus]

I should visit this section more often, I didn't know there was such a thing as a science troll. It would be more interesting if Jerome had at least a little bit of education, though. If he took high school physics, he flunked.

 

[Shalamar]

Except I have never stated any of those things.

This is the game played when a religion is challenged.

Can you not see the similarities?

Ahh.. But the evidence of your words, you certainly do imply that you mean those things.

And as many have said, Science is not Faith or Religion. Science is examining the evidence placed before us, carefully studying it, and making the best conclusions we can find. If new evidence comes to light that calls for new conclusions, then it changes. Science marches on, happily changing to meet the evidence.

Religion and faith do not. Faith says 'I believe this to be true, because it is what I believe!' Science says 'I have the following conclusions, based on the best evidence we have today.'

You, Jerome, are free to challenge whatever science you feel fit. But you have to do all the work. Gather the evidence, do the experiments, and show the work that point to the conclusions you have discovered. But you do not. All you scream into the night is 'It is not True! It is all Faith!'

 

[SeanDamnit]

Well I don't know about you all, but Jerome has certainly convinced me of....whatever it is that he is trying to say....

 

[Upchurch]

Well I don't know about you all, but Jerome has certainly convinced me of....whatever it is that he is trying to say....

(Aside: Love the avatar. Dirtiest math problem ever!)

 

[Dan O.]

You can't win Shalamar. If you strike him down you will become more powerful than he can possibly imagine... oh, I guess that would be winning... never mind.

 

[Shalamar]

You can't win Shalamar. If you strike him down you will become more powerful than he can possibly imagine... oh, I guess that would be winning... never mind.

Nah..If I struck him down.. The ignorance quotient in the world would go down slightly.