• 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

arthwollipot said:
Yes, Jerome. Gravity bends light. This has been directly observed. If the light is close enough to a large enough mass, then the light will "crash" into the mass.
Click to expand...

Except that is not the question I asked, now was it?


This reframing what I write is becoming very tedious and says a great deal about the fact that the believers are just the religious without a God.

Same tactics. Same faith.
 
KingMerv00 said:
I said "light bends" not "photons".

If you like, I can rephrase: The movement of photons (ie light) can be altered by gravity.

Again, Eclipse of 1919.
Click to expand...

...and when bent the light (made up of photons) crashes into planets and stars?

This is what you stated.
 
I'm starting to like Jerome.. In annoying way.

He really really seems to hate Science. He's like a fundamentalist anti-scientist. Evolution is False. Gravity is False. Black Holes do not Exist.


Whats next? Light is fake? Oxygen is a scientific Hoax?

Evidence is something to be ignored, to be replaced with 'faith'.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
...and when bent the light (made up of photons) crashes into planets and stars?
Click to expand...

Light may be emitted again? At different wavelengths perhaps?

The movement of photons under weak gravity is easy to observe in more ways than I could name. Reflections, color, photochemistry, lasers, gravitational lensing, the Tyndall effect, mirages, and the process of sight.

On the other hand, light is NOT emitted by black holes. A photon that crosses the event horizon of a black holes will never escape.

Why does the sun's wobble match up with the movement of mass around it?
 
Last edited:
Shalamar said:
He really really seems to hate Science. He's like a fundamentalist anti-scientist. Evolution is False. Gravity is False. Black Holes do not Exist.
Click to expand...

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?
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Photons have mass?

:boxedin:
Click to expand...

Sigh...

No, but the gravity generated by bodies with mass does bend space-time, which in turn would affect light if strong enough.

Look here:
http://www.skyhound.com/sh/archive/sep/ec.jpg

This is Einstein's Cross. (No, it's not an "artist representation.") That large fuzzy blob in the center is a galaxy about 400 million light years away, the four dots around the galaxy is actually a quasar 8 billion light years away. The object appears as four because the gravity of the galaxy is bending into four separate images.

Now, look here:

http://www.stsci.edu/~inr/thisweek1/thisweek/Einstring.jpg

These are images of Einstein Rings taken from the Hubble. (Again, no art work. Unless you want to make the claim that JPL is whipping these pictures out on Photoshop.) The same principle applies here: These rings are light from other, more distant, objects that have been distorted by the gravity of a galaxy. Amazingly enough, although gravity is the weakest of the four fundamental forces, it can do some rather incredible things.

Or do you now wish to deny Special Relativity as well?

Speaking of which. You've claimed that "electromagnetic forces" was a possible explanation for the orbits of stars around the center of our galaxy rather than gravity caused by a supermassive black hole. Could you can explain how this is possible? Why can't the source for the orbit be gravity? After all, the planets in our solar system are kept in their orbits by our sun's gravity... or is this more of your electromagnetism as well? If so, what is the evidence?

And no, "I don't have to give you an alternate explanation," doesn't count as an answer.

Do not hotlink images.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mark A. Siefert said:
No, but the gravity generated by bodies with mass does bend space-time, which in turn would affect light if strong enough.

Look here:
[qimg]http://www.skyhound.com/sh/archive/sep/ec.jpg[/qimg]

This is Einstein's Cross. (No, it's not an "artist representation.") That large fuzzy blob in the center is a galaxy about 400 million light years away, the four dots around the galaxy is actually a quasar 8 billion light years away. The object appears as four because the gravity of the galaxy is bending into four separate images.
Click to expand...


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?
 
Mark A. Siefert said:
Speaking of which. You've claimed that "electromagnetic forces" was a possible explanation for the orbits of stars around the center of our galaxy rather than gravity caused by a supermassive black hole. Could you can explain how this is possible? Why can't the source for the orbit be gravity? After all, the planets in our solar system are kept in their orbits by our sun's gravity... or is this more of your electromagnetism as well? If so, what is the evidence?
Click to expand...

Does Jerome think that the earth has a net charge?
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
If redshift as a measure of distance and time is inaccurate, would not the interpretation also be inaccurate?
Click to expand...

First of all who ever said that redshift "as a measure of distance and time is inaccurate?" Do you now deny the Doppler effect as well?

Secondly, if gravity lensing is not the cause of those images, then what is?
 
BTW, your friend and mine Phil Plait did something on the charge of the Earth.

The important bit starts around 3 minutes or so.

 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom