JEROME - Black holes do not exist

Reality Check said:
You seem to have a very short memory. Luckily the forum does not. Here is your post. And if you are too lazy to look at it:
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

The above is not equal to: Black Holes do not exist.


The fact that so many here seem to think that these words have the same meaning explains a great deal about the faith of the Woo believers.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
The above is not equal to: Black Holes do not exist.


The fact that so many here seem to think that these words have the same meaning explains a great deal about the faith of the Woo believers.
Click to expand...
Then let us put it another way:
Why do you believe that there is no evidence for black holes?
Why do you believe that gravity is not strong enough to form black holes?

P.S. Just what is that thing with a mass of 3.7 million solar masses and a radius of less than 45 AU in the center of our galaxy?
 
tsig said:
Go look at the sun.
Click to expand...


I don't recommend doing that. Might hurt your eyes.


And am I to understand that stating that "Black holes are another made-up thought with no evidence" along with "Gravity is not strong enough" (obviously referring to the first sentence) and "make-believe things to account for certain observations." is not, in fact, a denial of the existence of black holes?
So it seems that Jerome admits black holes do exist.

Thread over, everyone can go home now.




And don't look at the sun.
 
[X] said:
And am I to understand that stating that "Black holes are another made-up thought with no evidence" along with "Gravity is not strong enough" (obviously referring to the first sentence) and "make-believe things to account for certain observations." is not, in fact, a denial of the existence of black holes?
So it seems that Jerome admits black holes do exist.
Click to expand...
No, you underestimate the slipperiness of his answer:

Jerome doesn't claim black holes don't exist.
Jerome also doesn't claim black holes exist.

This particular passive-aggressive troll in fact can't be pinned down to actually hold any position. The BB theory isn't proven, but it's not disproven either. Gravity is just a figment of our imagination, but that doesn't mean that it's false. Or true.

Don't waste your time - he's not interested in learning anything. He just wants to yank your chains.
 
Reality Check said:
Then let us put it another way:
Why do you believe that there is no evidence for black holes?
Why do you believe that gravity is not strong enough to form black holes?
Click to expand...
[/lurk]

That is most likely a reference to dark matter, not black holes.

[lurk
P.S. Just what is that thing with a mass of 3.7 million solar masses and a radius of less than 45 AU in the center of our galaxy?
Click to expand...
 
Dancing David said:
That is most likely a reference to dark matter, not black holes.
Click to expand...


You may be right. The entire post is:
Originally Posted by Dancing David
Just for conversations sake, and that is my goal. Let us start with black holes. How do you feel about them. As an implied part of general relativity and then as a candidate for a large massive object in a very small area (as hypothesized from say the orbits of stars at the center of our galaxy).
Click to expand...

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.

Jerome, it is fine to doubt dark matter and that is cool, yet there are some things that might need an explanation. Such as why star cluster orbit the galaxy faster than they should. Now currently MOND might explain that but it has some other problems and the PC/PU stuff just doesn't cut it for the outer stars clusters. So which one do you prefer, the dark matter or modified gravity? Or do you have an alternate like Perrat's model that you prefer?
Click to expand...
Please define your acronyms.
Click to expand...

There is a chance that the "Gravity is not strong enough and as such we need make-believe things to account for certain observations." sentence is refering to the second quote. In that case Jerome needs to learn about paragraphs.
On the other hand "certain observations" could be for example the massive object in the center of the galaxy and the "make-believe things" black holes.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
We have been over this already.

Man makes up lots of things, sometimes these ideas are true.

You do understand a hypothesis is "made-up"?
Click to expand...
You are correct: a hypothesis is "made-up".

A scientific hypothesis is made-up to account for a set of observations.
A scientific theory is a scientific hypothesis that makes falsifiable predictions.
A confirmed scientific theory is a scientific theory that has had falsifiable predictions tested and found to be true.
An accepted scientific theory is a confirmed scientific theory that has stood the test of many predictions over time and has not been disproved by new observations.

Black holes are a confirmed (and maybe even accepted) scientific theory not a hypothesis.
 
Last edited:
JEROME DA GNOME said:
I write posts in a particular manner intentionally.
Click to expand...
Interestingly, it's the posts that you don't write that speak the loudest.

You asked what evidence there was for black holes. You were shown both direct and indirect evidence for black holes and remained silent.

You stated that gravity could neither be measured nor controlled. You were shown to be incorrect and remained silent.

You asked what the gravity of an orange was. You were answered and remained silent.

Tell me, Jerome. What do you call someone who clings to a belief in spite of the evidence provided?
 
Upchurch said:
Interestingly, it's the posts that you don't write that speak the loudest.

You asked what evidence there was for black holes. You were shown both direct and indirect evidence for black holes and remained silent.

You stated that gravity could neither be measured nor controlled. You were shown to be incorrect and remained silent.

You asked what the gravity of an orange was. You were answered and remained silent.

Tell me, Jerome. What do you call someone who clings to a belief in spite of the evidence provided?
Click to expand...
Religious.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Man makes up lots of things, sometimes these ideas are true.

You do understand a hypothesis is "made-up"?
Click to expand...
Hmm.... no. You're playing very fast and loose with your definitions.

made-up
1 : fully manufactured
2 : marked by the use of makeup
3 : fancifully conceived or falsely devised
Click to expand...


made-up
1. concocted; falsely fabricated or invented: a made-up story.
2. being in makeup; wearing facial cosmetics.
3. put together; finished.
Click to expand...

With due respect to Reality Check, a hypothesis is not "made-up" in any sense of the word. A hypothesis is "a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences" usally based on known facts or givens.

Your use of the term "made-up" is simply spin.
 
...and don't forget "make-believe":

make-be·lieve
–noun 1. pretense, esp. of an innocent or playful kind; feigning; sham: the make-believe of children playing.
2. a pretender; a person who pretends.
–adjective 3. pretended; feigned; imaginary; made-up; unreal: a make-believe world of fantasy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom