• 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

JEROME DA GNOME said:
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.
Click to expand...

How could they be orbiting without an object to orbit?
 
MarkCorrigan said:
How could they be orbiting without an object to orbit?
Click to expand...

Orbit describes a circular motion. There is no need for an object to be there. The only reason we want an object to be there is because we are looking to evidence gravity as the force which binds the universe.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
There is no evidence at this point.
Click to expand...
If the maths fits, and there are areas where the maths can be seen, why are these not black holes?

From what I understand, the evidence is that blck holes are there because SOMETHING has been seen doing X Y and Z, and this fits in with the maths which predicts for black holes.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Orbit describes a circular motion. There is no need for an object to be there. The only reason we want an object to be there is because we are looking to evidence gravity as the force which binds the universe.
Click to expand...

Errr....most orbits aren't circular, and every orbit so far noted within our experience has been due to gravitational forces. They react in the way that one would expect if gravity caused orbits, therefore it is reasonably assumed, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that gravity causes orbits.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
If the maths fits, and there are areas where the maths can be seen, why are these not black holes?

From what I understand, the evidence is that blck holes are there because SOMETHING has been seen doing X Y and Z, and this fits in with the maths which predicts for black holes.
Click to expand...

... and the magi predicts the eclipse cycles and as such he is correct that the sky snake is eating the moon?
 
MarkCorrigan said:
Errr....most orbits aren't circular, and every orbit so far noted within our experience has been due to gravitational forces. They react in the way that one would expect if gravity caused orbits, therefore it is reasonably assumed, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that gravity causes orbits.
Click to expand...

Is is gravity that binds the electron to the atom?
 
Jerome, it seems that rather than engage in any sort of serious discussion, such as providing a definition of the very terms you insist upon throwing around (remember "redshift anomaly"?) you have instead chosen to simply ignore anything and everything contrary to your preconceived view.

In short, you are no longer worth conversing with in these matters...


JEROME DA GNOME said:
Orbit describes a circular motion. There is no need for an object to be there. The only reason we want an object to be there is because we are looking to evidence gravity as the force which binds the universe.
Click to expand...


 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
... and the magi predicts the eclipse cycles and as such he is correct that the sky snake is eating the moon?
Click to expand...

Well done, that's completely removed from what I was saying. Congrats.

The magi "example" is useless because thee is no definate procedure by which his action could e placed upon. Gravity is kept for orbits because it not only describes what should happen, but provides a mechanism. The magi does not provide this, and therefore it cannot be argued that the magi predicted it with his "power". It could just be coincidence, because no mechanism has been provided which could be tested against.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Is is gravity that binds the electron to the atom?
Click to expand...

This supposes the orbiting pattern is the correct one. I believe, although I could be very, very wrong, that there is still much debate on this, and there is actually no real consensus as to how atoms are arranged.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
Well done, that's completely removed from what I was saying. Congrats.

The magi "example" is useless because thee is no definate procedure by which his action could e placed upon. Gravity is kept for orbits because it not only describes what should happen, but provides a mechanism. The magi does not provide this, and therefore it cannot be argued that the magi predicted it with his "power". It could just be coincidence, because no mechanism has been provided which could be tested against.
Click to expand...


The making of a prediction by the magi has nothing to do with his powers outside of his ability to predict. Does his correct prediction about the eclipse necessitate that his explanation of the eclipse is correct?
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
This is the response from a self proclaimed college professor.
Click to expand...


I am merely responding in kind - funny, isn't it? :D

You have shown no interest in learning anything or engaging in any kind of serious discussion, nor are you interested in admitting that you have any limitations on your supposed "knowledge". You are right and everyone else is wrong, the evidence be damned, and that's the end of it. Such an attitude is not worth serious discussion.

So in the face of such brash ignorance and egocentrism on your part, I decided to poke a little fun at you. A little humor at your expense is surely something that a big, tough guy like you should be able to handle, isn't it?

Or are you going to run away and cry again?


Is this how you act towards your students when you can not answer such simple inquiries?
Click to expand...


Not at all, because my students are actually interested in learning something new. They pose questions and challenges to me all the time, as they should, and every now and then there is a question which I cannot answer. In those cases I admit it up front and do my best to learn more. For this, both my students and colleagues respect me a great deal - I am known in my science department as the "go to" guy on many issues (though certainly not all, as I do acknowledge the limits on my own knowledge) :D

But my students also know how to look at evidence objectively and not stick their fingers in their ears like a little kid when their own views are challenged... that door swings both ways Jerome. You'd be wise to learn that lesson.

If you talked a little bit less (an improbability I'm sure) and listened a little bit more (likely just as improbable), you might just learn something.

As it stands, because of your unconstructive and belligerent attitude, I'm not interested in trying to teach you anything. I shall now treat you as you wish and deserve to be treated - like an annoying troll.

With that, I bid you adieu.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Orbit describes a circular motion. There is no need for an object to be there. The only reason we want an object to be there is because we are looking to evidence gravity as the force which binds the universe.
Click to expand...
Are you stating that the sun does not exist :D ?
After all there that planets orbiting a thing in the center of the solar system.

Seriously: There is a need for an object there - otherwise the stars would not be orbiting it. Just like there is a need for an object in the middle of the solar system so that the planets can orbit it (can you guess what is is called?).
 
Reality Check said:
Seriously: There is a need for an object there - otherwise the stars would not be orbiting it. Just like there is a need for an object in the middle of the solar system so that the planets can orbit it (can you guess what is is called?).
Click to expand...

... because you need gravity to be the binder of the universe is the only reason you need something with gravity to be in the center of the Milky Way.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
As such...


...is incorrect, is it not?
Click to expand...

Well done, once again you completely fail to understand what I'm saying.

It is unknown how the electrons, protons and, if there are any, neutrons fit together. We do not even know if electrons DO orbit the proton/neutron nucleus. We don't even know if there IS a nucleus.
 
Jerome, make sure to plug your ears - otherwise you might learn something!

MarkCorrigan said:
This supposes the orbiting pattern is the correct one. I believe, although I could be very, very wrong, that there is still much debate on this, and there is actually no real consensus as to how atoms are arranged.
Click to expand...


Another physics nitpick...

Electrons don't actually "orbit" the nucleus of an atom. This view, also known as the Bohr or planetary model, was popular among early quantum physicists in the 1910s and 20s, and it worked reasonably well for predicting the energy levels of hydrogen. But it was quickly replaced with a more accurate model as quantum physics developed further through the work of Schrodinger and Heisenberg, etc.

This newer model expresses the position of the electrons around the nucleus in terms of a probability distribution, also known as an electron "cloud", as opposed to looking at the electrons as well-defined points in space zipping around the nucleus.

Here's more info on this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_cloud
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom