• 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

It certainly seems so. Y'know, I'd respect the guy a heck of a lot more if he'd just say "Ok, I was wrong, I didn't think of X. Or even if he said "I still think I am right, and here is why."

Ignoring a debate you were losing in never helps. Losing a debate isn't the end of the world, just take the new information, and adjust your worldview accordingly. Learn from it.
 
Whoa, there's your problem. You're part of the system, man. It's your job to keep free-thinkers like Jerome down, man, with all your facts and actual knowledge on the subject.

What happened to you? You used to be cool.


Well, there you have it. You got me. Shucks, I guess I'll just head off to my ivory tower where I and my soul-less brethren shall plot the next stage of the Great Conspiracy to Conceal the Truth... :rolleyes:
 
Okay, many theories induce violations. String theory doesn't, but string theory is also a load of horse byproduct. If it's true, then absolutely everything we though we knew about science is wrong, starting with "Theories need to be empirically testable, and designing a theory that cannot be tested and then hypothesizing with it is bad science" and moving on from there.
:) As string theory's resident shill, I have to object to your characterisation.
 
I'm all for giving people time to respond. None of us are online 24/7 ...yet.

However, it has been four days, including a weekend, since Jerome has posted in the thread. That seems to me to be outside his normal posting habits. And the last time he did post, he ignored the questions posed to him entirely.

Are we to take that as a concession of the point (that, indeed, there is evidence that Black Holes exist) and that, therefore, the original topic of the thread is now dead or what?


Maybe a black hole got Jerome. (a little bitty one)

glenn:D
 
Last edited:
It certainly seems so. Y'know, I'd respect the guy a heck of a lot more if he'd just say "Ok, I was wrong, I didn't think of X. Or even if he said "I still think I am right, and here is why."

Ignoring a debate you were losing in never helps. Losing a debate isn't the end of the world, just take the new information, and adjust your worldview accordingly. Learn from it.

Nope, I am just tried of pointing out the evidence presented consists of little more than suppositions and artists renderings.
 
Well, there you have it. You got me. Shucks, I guess I'll just head off to my ivory tower where I and my soul-less brethren shall plot the next stage of the Great Conspiracy to Conceal the Truth... :rolleyes:

Do not feel bad. The lower classes in a caste tend to follow without thought. This is common in the human condition.
 
Nope, I am just tried of pointing out the evidence presented consists of little more than suppositions and artists renderings.
You haven't convinced anyone, Jerome. You are in disagreement with a vast majority of working scientists. What's more likely - that they are all wrong about black holes, or that you are?
 
Nope, I am just tried of pointing out the evidence presented consists of little more than suppositions and artists renderings.

And Newtonian physics.

Would you mind explaining to us specifically where Newtonian physics has got it wrong, since it was used to predict what are essentially black holes back in the 1700's?
 
You haven't convinced anyone, Jerome. You are in disagreement with a vast majority of working scientists. What's more likely - that they are all wrong about black holes, or that you are?
Based on what I've seen of his posts in the Politics forum, Jerome will never, ever, admit to making a mistake or being in error about something.
 
Nope, I am just tried of pointing out the evidence presented consists of little more than suppositions and artists renderings.
So you know what the massive object in the center of the Milky Way is? You know - the one that we can see stars orbiting around?
We can know it has a mass of about 3.7 million solar masses within a volume with radius no larger than 6.25 light-hours (45 AU) or about 4.2 billion miles. For comparison, Pluto orbits our Sun at a distance of 5.51 light-hours or 3.7 billion miles.

What about the 1300 galaxies with similar objects that we see in the Chandra survey? How many of them are suppositions or artists renderings?
 
So you know what the massive object in the center of the Milky Way is? You know - the one that we can see stars orbiting around?
We can know it has a mass of about 3.7 million solar masses within a volume with radius no larger than 6.25 light-hours (45 AU) or about 4.2 billion miles. For comparison, Pluto orbits our Sun at a distance of 5.51 light-hours or 3.7 billion miles.

What about the 1300 galaxies with similar objects that we see in the Chandra survey? How many of them are suppositions or artists renderings?

Nice pictures in your link. :cool:

Too bad there was no evidence presented.
 
Pictures of the center of our Milky Way. Did you think they where pictures of a Black Hole?
Lets make it really simple for you:

If you read the text that is with the pictures then you will see that they are pictures taken since 1995 of stars orbiting around an object in the center of the Milky Way. Astronomers know a lot about orbits. These stars have been observed long enough that their orbits can be established. The orbits of the stars are used to determine the mass and size of the object being orbited. This is 3.7 million solar masses within a radius of 45 AU.
Note that the image at the lower left of the page is not an actual photo from a telescope. It is a plot of the orbits derived from the photos. According to your criteria this probably supposition yet again.

Since you do not seem to be able to read web pages, here is the UCLA Galactic Center Group's Research page:

The proximity of our Galaxy's center (only 8 kpc) presents a unique opportunity to study the environment of a supermassive black hole with much higher spatial resolution than can be brought to bear on any other galaxy. In 1995, we initiated a diffraction-limited study on the W. M. Keck 10-meter telescope, of the Galaxy's central cluster. During this program, we have measured the motions of stars on the plane of the sky and have dramatically improved the case for a supermassive black hole at the Galactic Center, which has evolved through 3 distinct stages of confidence:
  1. beginning as a possibility, when the earlier, low angular resolution, dynamical measurements of the gas and stars at the center of the Milky Way suggested the presence of 10 million solar masses (10^6) of dark matter and confined it to within a radius of ~0.1 pc
  2. becoming a strong probability, when proper motion measurements increased the inferred dark mass density by 3 orders of magnitude to 10^12 M_sun/pc^3, thereby eliminating a cluster of dark objects as a possible explanation of the Galaxy's central dark mass concentration, and finally
  3. crystalizing to a certainty when individual stellar orbits confined the central dark mass to within 0.0004 pc (90 AU), thus increasing the dark mass density by another four orders of magnitude, and eliminating the fermion ball hypothesis as an alternative to a single supermassive black hole.
The unusual radio source SgrA* -- the first known observational manifestation of the black hole -- coincides precisely with the location we infer for the dark mass concentration, as does the X-ray counterpart recently found with Chandra. Many attempts have thus been made to understand the overall spectrum of SgrA* in terms of accretion and/or outflow models, but it has been difficult to apply critical tests of these models in the absence of a detection at near-, mid- or far-infrared wavelengths. This situation has recently evolved quite dramatically. The advent of Adaptive Optics (AO) and a new facility class instrument (NIRC2) at Keck in 2002 led to a number of exciting new results, including the first infrared detection of Sgr A*. This, plus the short-term variability of the emission at several of the observed wavelengths brings us to a promising new era when observations can strongly constrain the wide array of extant models.
 
So you don't know. Fair enough.

Please, point out why the maths behind black holes is erroneous, I can't find it by skimming through the thread.

I did not state that the math was erroneous. The math states that it is possible, not that is is or that it must be.
 
Lets make it really simple for you:

If you read the text that is with the pictures then you will see that they are pictures taken since 1995 of stars orbiting around an object in the center of the Milky Way.

See, here is your problem. Your are assuming an object.

Please evidence an object and then you can move on with your post. See, if you build upon a supposition than the entirety is a supposition.
 

Back
Top Bottom