• 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

Upchurch said:
(Aside: Love the avatar. Dirtiest math problem ever!)
Click to expand...

(aside: Is that a yes then?)

But as for Jerome, I think we are asking him the wrong questions. It is obvious that he doesn't agree with much of the conventional understandings of how the universe works. And thats fine - this is science afterall, and if Jerome has enough peer-reviewed evidence to support his unconventional understanding of how-stuff-works, then it would be very helpful to his cause.

And that was what I was trying to say in first post. I see Jerome picking apart bits and pieces of things, but I haven't seen him present his alternate theory and evidence to back it up. So I don't know really what point Jerome is trying to make.

So Jerome, would you help me understand this alternate theory a bit more by offering some links to resources and evidence that supports what you are saying?

Thank yo
 
SeanDamnit said:
(aside: Is that a yes then?)

But as for Jerome, I think we are asking him the wrong questions. It is obvious that he doesn't agree with much of the conventional understandings of how the universe works. And thats fine - this is science afterall, and if Jerome has enough peer-reviewed evidence to support his unconventional understanding of how-stuff-works, then it would be very helpful to his cause.

And that was what I was trying to say in first post. I see Jerome picking apart bits and pieces of things, but I haven't seen him present his alternate theory and evidence to back it up. So I don't know really what point Jerome is trying to make.

So Jerome, would you help me understand this alternate theory a bit more by offering some links to resources and evidence that supports what you are saying?

Thank yo
Click to expand...

Actually, Jeromes entire argument is simple: Evidence is Faith, therefor Science is Religion. He doesn't seem to care about alternative theories, or different evidence. He just wants to scream into the night 'Science is just another religion!'
 
SeanDamnit said:
(aside: Is that a yes then?)
Click to expand...
(No, but thanks.)



SeanDamnit said:
But as for Jerome, I think we are asking him the wrong questions. It is obvious that he doesn't agree with much of the conventional understandings of how the universe works. And thats fine - this is science afterall, and if Jerome has enough peer-reviewed evidence to support his unconventional understanding of how-stuff-works, then it would be very helpful to his cause.
Click to expand...
I think it's a tad more complicated than that. I don't think he agrees that the conventional understanding is, itself, supported with peer-reviewed evidence. Not that it isn't, it's that he just doesn't accept the peer-reviewed evidence as evidence.

To me, it seems to boil down to that Jerome, for whatever reason, does not accept the scientific process. Whether that is from a lack of understanding of it or some other factor, I do not know. It could just be that his standards of evidence are too high to accept anything as evidence, but there seems to be some inconsistency on his part if that is true.


SeanDamnit said:
And that was what I was trying to say in first post. I see Jerome picking apart bits and pieces of things, but I haven't seen him present his alternate theory and evidence to back it up.
Click to expand...
He did mention electromagnetism at one point, but as you say, he didn't back it up with anything.
 
Upchurch said:
... snip ...

To me, it seems to boil down to that Jerome, for whatever reason, does not accept the scientific process. Whether that is from a lack of understanding of it or some other factor, I do not know. It could just be that his standards of evidence are too high to accept anything as evidence, but there seems to be some inconsistency on his part if that is true.

... snip ...
Click to expand...
(emphasis added) Perhaps ...

... but JdG has never once said what he considers "evidence" to be, nor answered any of the numerous questions put to him on what his criteria are for deciding what constitutes "evidence", nor ...

That extreme reluctance is, itself, evidence which can be used to test hypotheses about JdG's motives, intentions, and so on ...
 
I guess I'm not as concerned with why he doesn't accept evidence for the conventional understandings as much as I'm curious to know what he beleives is the alternate explanation and why he beleives it to be a stronger understanding.

I'm a pretty open minded individual and love reading alternate theories of our understanding of just about everything. I don't beleive everything I read of course, but I will read it anyway. So I am interested to know what Jerome beleives - Jerome if you can provide a concise overview of your theory and link to further reading, I would appreciate it.
 
DeiRenDopa said:
(emphasis added) Perhaps ...

... but JdG has never once said what he considers "evidence" to be, nor answered any of the numerous questions put to him on what his criteria are for deciding what constitutes "evidence", nor ...

That extreme reluctance is, itself, evidence which can be used to test hypotheses about JdG's motives, intentions, and so on ...
Click to expand...

No it's just a supposition, you have no real evidence that he is not a troll.
 
Third Eye Open said:
No it's just a supposition, you have no real evidence that he is not a troll.
Click to expand...
Maybe ...

... or maybe it's "sophistry", or "off-topic BS", or "obfuscation", or ...

Though I do concede that, triangulating from JdG's posts, it is not "real evidence" ...
 
SeanDamnit said:
I guess I'm not as concerned with why he doesn't accept evidence for the conventional understandings as much as I'm curious to know what he beleives is the alternate explanation and why he beleives it to be a stronger understanding.

I'm a pretty open minded individual and love reading alternate theories of our understanding of just about everything. I don't beleive everything I read of course, but I will read it anyway. So I am interested to know what Jerome beleives - Jerome if you can provide a concise overview of your theory and link to further reading, I would appreciate it.
Click to expand...

He believes in nothing, and accepts nothing as true because all observations of any kind can only be approximations of what is REALLY real. That really real real that we can never observe.
 
Third Eye Open said:
No it's just a supposition, you have no real evidence that he is not a troll.
Click to expand...

Well, for what its worth, he posts on quite a few other skeptic forums. Just google his name and look at the content of the posts, its the same guy. I do not know if that makes him more/less probable to be a troll.

Personally I think that Jerome simply fancies himself a skeptic, and feels that his brand of skepticism is the *correct* way to go about it. He seems to be skeptical of all reality unless he himself can physically experience it. A twisted sort of solipsism.

As I said earlier, you guys aren't going to convince him that black holes are real until space tourism can fly him over to one and he can toss a few pennies in. Thats my two cents (LOLPUN).
 
Gate2501 said:
Well, for what its worth, he posts on quite a few other skeptic forums. Just google his name and look at the content of the posts, its the same guy. I do not know if that makes him more/less probable to be a troll.

Personally I think that Jerome simply fancies himself a skeptic, and feels that his brand of skepticism is the *correct* way to go about it. He seems to be skeptical of all reality unless he himself can physically experience it. A twisted sort of solipsism.

As I said earlier, you guys aren't going to convince him that black holes are real until space tourism can fly him over to one and he can toss a few pennies in. Thats my two cents (LOLPUN).
Click to expand...
I prefer to be skeptical that a large group of people have conspired to screw up science and perform bad experiments and calculations in the name of expanding knowledge. That theory (which is the only tenable explanation for all of this science being wrong) seems far more improbable than simply accepting that the experiments was more or less done correctly when they have a high degree of repeatability in separate papers.

That being said, I am much more skeptical about theories with no observations, like String Theory. They really seem borderline woo to me.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Nope, he was caught creating straw-men and when that was pointed out he reversed the terms and presented the same straw-man.
Click to expand...
Your denial of being caught in a contradiction is noted (and entirely expected). Do you think you're fooling anyone?

Anyone who's read enough of your posts is fully aware of your modus operandi of never, ever admitting error no matter how much evidence is presented to you. Lest any other readers in this thread have any doubt of this, I offer the following threads from the Social Issues & Current Events forum as evidence*:

Question for Jerome: Colonial Wealth
Another Question for Jerome: US Defence of Europe

Both of these threads exhibit an expert dismantling of Jerome's claims and yet in spite of the evidence presented, he never admits to being in error and continues to maintain his positions are correct. Given his argumentative style, engaging in debate with Jerome would seem to be a fruitless endeavour.

*Note: I incorrectly stated earlier in this thread that the threads mentioned above were in the Politics forum. They are, in fact, in the Social Issues & Current Events forum.
 
GreyICE said:
That being said, I am much more skeptical about theories with no observations, like String Theory. They really seem borderline woo to me.
Click to expand...

I agree, I am skeptical about string theory as well. I am a layman however and have only read a few books on it like "The Elegant Universe".

It seemed a bit to me like he/they just realized that you could solve compatibility problems in GR/QM by tacking on unobservable(with our current technology) dimensions.

Could this just be an act of mathematical ninjitsu that has nothing to do with reality?

I have no idea :boggled:
 
Dancing David said:
Electrons do not orbit, they are wave functions in a probability distribution around the nucleus.
Click to expand...

JEROME DA GNOME said:
Is that correct?

Is a photon a wave or a particle?

Is an electron a wave or a particle?
Click to expand...


How timely... I just got done teaching my students about wave-particle duality.

BTW, I'm posting for the benefit of lurkers, since it has become obvious by now that Jerome refuses to learn anything about physics. He prefers to live in his own made-up world :rolleyes:

Both photons and matter (protons, neutrons, electrons, etc) exhibit particle-like and wave-like properties. We know this from a wide variety of experimental evidence. For example, we know that light acts as a wave due to diffraction but it also acts like a particle due to the photoelectric effect.


Through the hypothesis of Louis de Broglie, it has been discovered that matter particles (such as electrons) do indeed exhibit wave-like properties. Again, this has been confirmed through experiment, such as with the diffraction of electrons. In addition, technology such as the electron microscope is based upon this fact.

Often I have students who are, with good reason, very confused about how light (or an electron) can act both like a particle and like a wave simultaneously. Here's an analogy which I hope can clear this up a bit...

Imagine that you are an astronaut exploring the depths of space and you land on a planet with intelligent alien lifeforms. The conditions on this planet are such that matter can exist in only two forms - solid and gas. When comparing knowledge with the aliens, you attempt to tell them about the concept of a "liquid", which confuses them terribly.

To help them understand, you tell them that a "liquid" exhibits the properties of a solid and a gas at the same time. It is solid-like because the molecules of the "liquid" are cohesive, bound to each other through chemical bonds. At the same time, these same molecules are gas-like in the sense that they are fluid and the entire "liquid" flows to fill whatever container holds it.

I hope that helps. I cannot claim credit for the analogy, as I learned it from one of my undergraduate professors many years ago. And I've never forgotten it :)

ETA: And just in case Jerome pops in with his "suppositions are not evidence" blather, it should be noted that I have personally performed all of the experiments which I mentioned in my post, plus a whole bunch more that confirm wave-particle duality. I even had my high school students conduct the photoelectric effect experiment just within the last few days. Just so ya know, Jerome...
 
Last edited:
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Photons have mass?

:boxedin:
Click to expand...


Again, more physics which Jerome will likely ignore, but something lurkers can benefit from learning...

Actually, photons do have mass - in a manner of speaking. Due to mass-energy equivalence (expressed through the famous E = mc2 equation), a photon with a certain energy can be thought to have an equivalent or invariant mass of m = E/c2
When we say that a "photon is massless", what physicists really mean is that a photon has a rest mass of zero. A photon is either moving at c = 3x108 m/sec or it doesn't exist - there is no in between.

We know this works due to the fact that photon-photon collisions can create massive particles. It also goes the other way, with (for example) electron-positron interactions creating photons.
 
Last edited:
MattusMaximus said:
Here is a list of terms that Jerome uses regularly in his arguments yet refuses to even define:

1. redshift anomaly
2. supposition
3. evidence

Does anyone on the thread have any others to add to the list?
Click to expand...


Okay, I'd like to add the following to this growing list:

4. gnome :D
5. fusion
6. fission

There was a lot of discussion that I missed, and I must confess that I haven't read all of it, so is there more?
 
DeiRenDopa said:
(emphasis added) Perhaps ...

... but JdG has never once said what he considers "evidence" to be, nor answered any of the numerous questions put to him on what his criteria are for deciding what constitutes "evidence", nor ...

That extreme reluctance is, itself, evidence which can be used to test hypotheses about JdG's motives, intentions, and so on ...
Click to expand...

Why do I get the feeling Jerome would have no trouble coming up with evidence for Sky Daddy...

I thought he was a troll because he is participating in a subject in which he seems to have no interest in learning about. Based on the other posts since then, however, perhaps I was wrong and he is just a woo rather than a troll.
 
Diagoras said:
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.
Click to expand...

Any object that heavy would not be a star, it would not be a dwarf, it would not be a neutron star, and it would be a singularity, and therefore a black-hole, end of story, done with it.

All the rest is just BS and we JEROME (I for sure) have grown.....


Tired of:
Your deliberate ignorance,
Your lack of intelligence,
Your lack of knowledge,
Your lack of trying to learn a f-ing thing.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom