• 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

[X] said:
So what is it scientists have been observing, measuring, calculating, and relying upon for hundreds of years, and which we mistakenly labelled "gravity"?
Click to expand...

Something else.

Many things in science have been "labeled" incorrectly. What makes you so certain this this phenomenon is correctly "labeled"?


:gnome:
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Something else.

Many things in science have been "labeled" incorrectly. What makes you so certain this this phenomenon is correctly "labeled"?


:gnome:
Click to expand...




I see.

What you are saying, in effect, is that all the observations and analysis made of the effect masses have on other masses, to wit an attraction causing them to accelerate toward one another, is not gravity. The effect that has been well defined tested and is relied upon for physics, astronomy, engineering, etc is not gravity. The effect that has been accurately measured, and used to make predictions later confirmed, is not gravity.

You realize that is what you are insinuating, don't you?


I find it an odd statement. Especially considering that gravity is what scientists chose to name the observed effect.
They did not sit around a lab and conjure up a name and definition, then try to cram observations ito fit.
Instead, they conducted science. They made observations, studied them, tested them, and came up with an explanation that worked for everything they observed.


What you are arguing is the same as trying to say fish don't swim, because they were incorectly labelled and are therefore not fish.

ETA: Honsetly, your whole argument right now depends on the definition of the term not being its definition.
 
Last edited:
[X] said:
Do you fall back down to the Earth when you jump, Jerome?

If you throw a ball into the air, does it come down?

What do you think causes this?

Since an acceleration is involved (measured and confirmed repeatedly and easily), there must be a force acting on the object cast into the sky.

This force causes an acceleration.

Scientists choose to call this force gravity.


The ISS follows the exact same path predicted (and counted upon) if it were to be acted on by this thing scientist call gravity.

But, plainly, you don't think gravity is strong enough.

So there must be some other force, that acts in the exact same way gravity does, has the exact same effects as gravity, but is stronger. Since it is stringer, it will overwhelm small-scale applications such as jumping and throwing a ball.

So what is it scientists have been observing, measuring, calculating, and relying upon for hundreds of years, and which we mistakenly labelled "gravity"?


To give you a chance to answer, Jerome, I'm taking you off ignore. Please don't make me regret it.
Click to expand...

JEROME DA GNOME said:
Something else.

Many things in science have been "labeled" incorrectly. What makes you so certain this this phenomenon is correctly "labeled"?


:gnome:
Click to expand...


What do you think it should be labeled?

This reminds me of something my father would say in jest. "The Iliad was not written by Homer, but by another man of the same name."

Sheesh.
 
So not only is gravity not strong enough to form black holes, it's not strong enough to cause objects to orbit planetary bodies, and in fact is not responsible for mutual attraction between bodies?

Good grief!
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
So, an orbit is both a free fall and... what?

If the object is sometimes getting closer to the Earth, it is at times moving away from the Earth, yes?

:gnome:
Click to expand...

At this point, there are two possibilities. Either you are genuinely, positively, willfully ignorant of everything pertaining to physics, or you are simply trolling.

So, which is it ?
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Because that is what the data shows.

This is just evidence that the force of gravity did not and does not hold thing together.

The universe was not built with gravity and is not held together with gravity.

:gnome:
Click to expand...

So, gravity does not exist, right ?

Explain orbits, please.

ETA: And please realise that what you are saying is that all of today's physics is WRONG and that you, Jerome, are right. I'd like to know if that's what you WANT to say.
 
Last edited:
You guys are still on about JEROME, he just sits on his chair laughing at you.

Paul

:) :) :)

No, he floats, no gravity you know.
 
Worm said:
So not only is gravity not strong enough to form black holes, it's not strong enough to cause objects to orbit planetary bodies, and in fact is not responsible for mutual attraction between bodies?

Good grief!
Click to expand...
To be fair, he is saying that there is something which causes attraction between bodies, but it's not gravity. It acts exactly like we believe gravity does, but it's not the force that we call gravity. I think that's what he's saying. Seems to me Jerome's problem is merely one of nomenclature.

Belz... said:
So, gravity does not exist, right ?

Explain orbits, please.

ETA: And please realise that what you are saying is that all of today's physics is WRONG and that you, Jerome, are right. I'd like to know if that's what you WANT to say.
Click to expand...
Actually, what he is saying is that he is smarter than Newton, Einstein and Hawking. They were wrong and he is right. I think that's what he's saying.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
I am not certain. Electromagnetism would be the most likely candidate at this point.
Click to expand...

Electromagnetism is the force that keeps solid objects from passing through one another. It keeps us from falling through the ground into the center of the Earth.

But you are saying that it is ALSO the force that HOLDS us to the ground?

I see a conflict of interest here.

Perhaps it completely changes properties with distance?

In this case, why couldn't electromagnetism acting at a distance be called "gravity"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom