JEROME - Black holes do not exist

[JEROME DA GNOME]

If gravity is wrong, and by wrong I mean so wrong that it completely isn't the cause of the orbits of those stars, then all of our ideas about gravity are wrong. If that's the case then something else is responsible for the orbits of stars and planets.

Agreed.

That something else has to account for these orbits, and it can't be electricity or magnetism, or electromagnetic effects, or the strong or weak nuclear forces (unless what we think we know about them is utterly wrong) because we'd see other effects if they were responsible.

What other effects would we see if this were so?

That leaves some other totally unknown force, which we have absolutely no knowledge of.

Are you denying this as a possibility?

The conclusion of the above is very simple. If gravity isn't what's causing those stars to orbit the centre of the Galaxy then everything we think we know about physics is wrong.

Incorrect. The fact that we do not understand something does not deny what we do understand.

 

[wollery]

Is that so?

You observed a phenomenon, yes.

Please, what force caused your cat to move towards the Earth?

Gravity.

Gravity is the name we give to the force that pulls things down to Earth.

If you want to call it something else then that's your prerogative. It's silly in the extreme, but what the heck, feel free to do it anyway.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Gravity.

That immeasurable, uncontrollable, magical force?


Let me know when you have some facts. All you have done is named a phenomenon.

 

[Reality Check]

Jerome: The problem with proposing a new force of nature to explain only the orbits of stars in the center of galaxies is that it has not been detected. A force that acts on stars in the center of the galaxy will also act on stars everywhere. Thus we would detect this force when we look at the motion of stars in other places. Astronomers know a lot about the motion of stars and have a lot of observations. For example the orbit of binary stars around each other is completely explained by gravity.

There are also terrestrial experiments that look at the force of gravity. They mostly are looking for deviations from the inverse square law at small distances so I would not expect them to detect your new force of nature.

P.S. Have you ever heard of Occam's razor?

Of course the other option is that this is another force of nature that happens to act exactly the same as gravity. In fact it acts so exactly the same that there is no way to tell it apart from gravity. So why bother!



I guess the your answer to the first question below is: None since there may be another force of nature that only happens in the center of our galaxy. Or you will never accept that gravity is making the stars orbit for some religious or philosophical reason.

• There is plenty of evidence for black holes. What other evidence would you need in order for them to exist?
• Does "Gravity is not strong enough and as such we need make-believe things to account for certain observations" refer to black holes?
• What is your evidence for "Gravity is not strong enough and as such we need make-believe things to account for certain observations" or is it just supposition?

What about the other 2 questions?

 

[Reality Check]

That immeasurable, uncontrollable, magical force?


Let me know when you have some facts. All you have done is named a phenomenon.

That quite ordinary, controllable and measurable force.

That reminds me of previous posts on this topic from you - have you decided on your definition of a force yet?

 

[wollery]

What other effects would we see if this were so?

If it were electromagnetism we'd see massive amounts of synchrotron radiation, not to mention magnetic flux heating of interstellar gas and dust and flares due to magnetic field shearing. If it were the strong or weak nuclear force we'd see evidence of huge amounts of weird nuclear particle interactions. We don't see any of this.

Are you denying this as a possibility?

No, but it would be a force that does exactly what gravity does, in exactly the way gravity does it.

Draw your own conclusions about that.

Incorrect. The fact that we do not understand something does not deny what we do understand.

Never said it didn't. But there's enough evidence for what gravity, EM and the nuclear forces do that we can say, with a high degree of confidence, that if we're more than just a little wrong about them then we're completely in the dark about physics.

 

[wollery]

That immeasurable, uncontrollable, magical force?


Let me know when you have some facts. All you have done is named a phenomenon.

I note with amusement that you completely ignored the rest of my post.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

That quite ordinary, controllable and measurable force.

Could you please demonstrate control over the force of gravity.


Could you please demonstrate the measure of the force of gravity.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Never said it didn't.

You did too. The entire premise of your argument is that if not gravity than ALL physics is incorrect.

 

[Reality Check]

Could you please demonstrate control over the force of gravity.


Could you please demonstrate the measure of the force of gravity.

Could you please demonstrate your knowledge of the definition of a force?

Could you please demonstrate your evidence of "Gravity is not strong enough and as such we need make-believe things to account for certain observations" or is it just supposition?

See the previous posts for the answers to both of your questions.

 

[robinson]

In freefall, it is quite difficult to prove gravity exists. Theoretically gravity can be explained, but in freefall, it is quite impossible to demonstrate it exists. Small objects don't exhibit enough gravitational effect, so for a theoretical race of people born and raised in a spaceship, travelling through space, with no acceleration, they would be correct in questioning gravity.

They might know what acceleration is, and they could turn that on and off, exhibiting some control over they only thing close to gravity in their world, but gravity, as we know it, would seem a myth.

Maybe. That could be an entire new thread.

 

[Ziggurat]

In freefall, it is quite difficult to prove gravity exists. Theoretically gravity can be explained, but in freefall, it is quite impossible to demonstrate it exists.

Local experiments cannot prove it exists. But experiments need not be local (meaning they can be spread out over some finite area). Once you allow for that, then even in freefall you can detect gravity of large distant bodies.

Small objects don't exhibit enough gravitational effect,

Definte "small" and "enough". Because a spaceship would have measurable gravity. How do you think we are able to measure the gravitational constant G? It's not because we know the mass of the earth (since we derive the mass of the earth from G), it's because we can measure the gravitational field of objects MUCH smaller than the earth whose mass we do know.

 

[Belz...]

Nope, just theories, no facts. Now facts are attributed to the theory, but is this not in reverse?

Gee, JEROME, why don't you save yourself some humiliation and learn a bit about grade-school level science ?

Your number one would be the best option

And how come YOU get to decide that gravity is wrong ? A cozy feeling in your stomach ? Angels on your shoulders ?

 

[Belz...]

Could you please demonstrate control over the force of gravity.


Could you please demonstrate the measure of the force of gravity.

Again, how do you explain falling objects ? And please don't say it's an "interaction between two bodies" because that's EXACTLY what a force is.

But I predict you'll ignore this, again.

 

[Acleron]

Could you please demonstrate control over the force of gravity.


Could you please demonstrate the measure of the force of gravity.

Don't need to, it's already been measured from Cavendish's results.

 

[Paulhoff]

First off scientific theories are testable, and an idea does not become a scientific theory until it has be tested many times and by many different people, many of which may like to shoot holes in the theory, scientific theries are open to change and/or replacement. But the misunderstanding of a theory (a JEROME) does not make invalid.

The scientific theory of gravity has gone thru a change since Newton. Newton’s scientific theory could not explain Mercury’s orbit in full, his scientific theory had a problem that was know and many and many tried to correct it. Einstein came along with his scientific general theory of relativity which can be used to explain the problem with Newton’s scientific theory of gravity. One of the big problems with Newton’s theory is that it treated gravity as if it was instantaneous, which it is not and is in fact bond to the same speed as light. And Einstein’s scientific theory also shows how gravity works by bending space-time etc.

Now in being a JEROME, anyone can take a stick of dynamite and blow up a building, it takes no skill in just lighting a stick and throwing out BS about something, no skill in having nothing to add, it takes no skill in not adding new information on how something may work, any child can do a JEROME. It takes skill in finding a problem and then fixing it, JEROME has no skill in this, and in fact he is not good in throwing sticks of dynamite either, he throws all duds.

Paul

 

[robinson]

Local experiments cannot prove it exists. But experiments need not be local (meaning they can be spread out over some finite area). Once you allow for that, then even in freefall you can detect gravity of large distant bodies.

How?

Definte[sic] "small" and "enough". Because a spaceship would have measurable gravity.

If it had enough mass, of course. But how would anyone inside the ship know this?

How do you think we are able to measure the gravitational constant G? It's not because we know the mass of the earth (since we derive the mass of the earth from G), it's because we can measure the gravitational field of objects MUCH smaller than the earth whose mass we do know.

How? How do we measure gravity? I know we can measure a change, but what device measures the gravitational field?

 

[Olowkow]

How? How do we measure gravity? I know we can measure a change, but what device measures the gravitational field?

A spring scale or an accelerometer.

 

[wollery]

You did too. The entire premise of your argument is that if not gravity than ALL physics is incorrect.

So are you saying the we absolutely do understand quantum mechanics, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces?

 

[Reality Check]

Actually the existence of a fifth force may not affect some areas of physics. But the only example that I can think of is thermodynamics.

Nuclear physics is one area that will be severely broken by the existence of a fifth force. All forces are mediated by particles, e.g. electromagnetic forces by photons. A fifth force means a new particle or set of particles. However the Standard Model or particle physics (this does not include gravity) has no room for new force mediating particles. It would need a complete rewrite. The questions then become: Why does the existing Standard Model give predictions that are match experimental values so closely? Why have the particles not been seen in the thousands of experiments that have been conducted?