JEROME - Black holes do not exist

[JEROME DA GNOME]

To what end? To show your utter ignorance and disdain of Science?

Let us all know when a repeatable test evidencing Black-holes is created.

That is science.

You are arguing for a belief in Black-holes.

:13:

 

[Ziggurat]

Let us all know when a repeatable test evidencing Black-holes is created.

That is science.

Repeatable tests represent only part of science. Observations constitute quite a bit of it too. How do we know smoking causes lung cancer? It's not because we took a control group and an experiment group and made the experiment group smoke, and then repeated the whole thing to be sure. And yet, we still have confidence in that assessment. Why? Because even though we can't perform that test, we can still observe what happens to smokers. We cannot control stellar evolution, but we can observe its effects. We cannot make black holes, but we can still observe them.

I don't believe you've ever answered the question of what you think is wrong with general relativity.

 

[Paulhoff]

Let us all know when a repeatable test evidencing Black-holes is created.

That is science.

You are arguing for a belief in Black-holes.

Show us a repeatable test showing how the Sun was created.

Paul

 

[robinson]

This is getting silly.

 

[robinson]

Well, even more silly than it was.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Repeatable tests represent only part of science. Observations constitute quite a bit of it too. How do we know smoking causes lung cancer? It's not because we took a control group and an experiment group and made the experiment group smoke, and then repeated the whole thing to be sure. And yet, we still have confidence in that assessment. Why? Because even though we can't perform that test, we can still observe what happens to smokers. We cannot control stellar evolution, but we can observe its effects. We cannot make black holes, but we can still observe them.

I don't believe you've ever answered the question of what you think is wrong with general relativity.

You need a lesson is what science is. Check the below link and get back to us.

Scientific method



:13:

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Show us a repeatable test showing how the Sun was created.

Paul

We have little clue as to how the sun was created.

In fact, we have never even observed the creation of a star.

:13:

 

[Shalamar]

We have little clue as to how the sun was created.

In fact, we have never even observed the creation of a star.

Therefor, stars have always existed, or maybe, according to Jerome, stars do not exist.

That said, Scientists have a great deal of information on how stars are created, how they exist, and how they die. All by watching different stars in different stages of formation.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Therefor, stars have always existed, or maybe, according to Jerome, stars do not exist.

That said, Scientists have a great deal of information on how stars are created, how they exist, and how they die. All by watching different stars in different stages of formation.

This is the most silly attempt at logic I have seen since the 5th grade.

:13:

 

[X]

This is the most silly attempt at logic I have seen since the 5th grade.

:13:

Does this mean you've given up on your claim that gravity is not strong enough to do anything because the scientists who labelled it gave it a name you do not like in favour of denying the existence of stars?

 

[Reality Check]

Let us all know when a repeatable test evidencing Black-holes is created.

That is science.

You are arguing for a belief in Black-holes.

Can you read? Or is your Alzheimer's playing up again?
Read the thread for the evidence for black holes.
The repeatable test is that every time we look at the galactic center we see a black hole.
The repeatable test is that we see black holes at the center of most (if not all) galaxies.
The repeatable test is the many energetic things that need a big power source concentrated in a small area (jets and quasars).
That is science.

Still waiting...................
What is the evidence for your claim that gravity is not strong enough?

 

[wollery]

Let us all know when a repeatable test evidencing Black-holes is created.

That is science.

You are arguing for a belief in Black-holes.

Repeatable tests represent only part of science. Observations constitute quite a bit of it too. How do we know smoking causes lung cancer? It's not because we took a control group and an experiment group and made the experiment group smoke, and then repeated the whole thing to be sure. And yet, we still have confidence in that assessment. Why? Because even though we can't perform that test, we can still observe what happens to smokers. We cannot control stellar evolution, but we can observe its effects. We cannot make black holes, but we can still observe them.

I don't believe you've ever answered the question of what you think is wrong with general relativity.

You need a lesson is what science is. Check the below link and get back to us.

Scientific method

The word used was test.

Perhaps you're slipping JDG, because you're usually better at choosing your weasel words.

A test does not need to be an experiment, it can simply be observation. For instance, I see an apple fall from a tree, and hypothesize that apples always fall downwards from trees, never upwards. I test this hypothesis by sitting in front of apple trees, watching to see if any fall in a direction other than down. None ever do, they always fall down. After watching a million apples fall I feel reasonably satisfied that my hypothesis is correct. Of course, I can never prove that no apple in history has ever fallen upwards, but it seems unlikely. Next I reason that if apples fall downwards then pears probably do as well, and take to sitting in front of pear trees. They also all fall downwards, as do acorns, peaches, plums......

In the above example I made an observation, came up with an hypothesis, tested it, extended it to other classes of object, tested that idea, and all in a repeatable scientific fashion. I described the test, and anyone can repeat it to see for themselves if my observations are accurate. If anyone ever observes an apple falling upwards they will have falsified my hypothesis.

So what about all that isn't scientific?

 

[robinson]

A test does not need to be an experiment, it can simply be observation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasi-experiments

 

[arthwollipot]

I do share these threads ITRW.

With whom?

 

[Belz...]

You need a lesson is what science is.

Coming from you... that's one of the most trutheresque ironies yet.

 

[aggle-rithm]

You need a lesson is what science is.

I think you left out a comma.

You need a lesson, is what science is.

There! That makes a bit more sense.

Of course, it's still grammatically incorrect.

It's also conceptually warped in such a way that boggles the mind. But who's keeping track?