JEROME - Black holes do not exist

JEROME DA GNOME said:
... 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.
Click to expand...
It does not have to be in the center of the galaxy. Whenever we see objects in space orbiting anything anywhere it is gravity,

If you have an alternative then please present it (maybe leprechauns holding hands?).
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
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?
Click to expand...

What?

There is no mechanism by which the magi could be seen to be correct, so no.

Your analogy still fails, however, precisely BECAUSE there is no mechanism. The magi might well be able to predict eclipses, for the reasons (s)he claims. However, since it cannot be tested, it cannot be said to be anything but conjecture. The maths behind gravitational orbits CAN be tested, and therefore it can be stated with some confidence that yes, orbits are caused by gravitational forces acting upon objects.
 
MattusMaximus said:
Jerome, make sure to plug your ears - otherwise you might learn something!




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
Click to expand...
Yes, that's EXACTLY what I was saying. Thanks Maximus, you've chucked in all the sciencey bits.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
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.
Click to expand...


The theory which explains the structure of protons and neutrons via quarks and gluon interactions, as well as the general structure of atomic nuclei, is called Quantum Chromodynamics.


We don't even know if there IS a nucleus.
Click to expand...


Ahem... :D


 
Last edited:
MattusMaximus said:
The theory which explains the structure of protons and neutrons via quarks and gluon interactions, as well as the general structure of atomic nuclei, is called Quantum Chromodynamics.





Ahem... :D


[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_7747482915cf00ff4.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

I meant in the sense of the Bohr system. There is A nucleus, but, correct me if I'm wrong, it may not be THAT nucleus.

Kind of like saying there was a car, but we don't know if it was a fiat.

Of course I could be adding various layers of nonsense onto my cogent point about the layout of atoms being essentially not set in stone.:D
 
Last edited:
Jerome, plug your ears again...


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


The Four Fundamental Forces

[snip]Gravitation is by far the weakest interaction, but at long distances is the most important force. There are two reasons why gravity's strength relative to other forces becomes important at long distances. The first is that gravity has an infinite range, like that of electromagnetism. The second reason why gravity is important at long distances is because all masses are positive and therefore gravity's interaction can not be screened like in electromagnetism. Thus large celestial bodies such as planets, stars and galaxies dominantly feel gravitational forces. In comparison, the total electric charge of these bodies is zero because half of all charges are negative. In addition, unlike the other interactions, gravity acts universally on all matter. There are no objects that lack a gravitational "charge".[/snip]
 
MarkCorrigan said:
I meant in the sense of the Bohr system. There is A nucleus, but, correct me if I'm wrong, it may not be THAT nucleus.

Kind of like saying there was a car, but we don't know if it was a fiat.
Click to expand...


Ah yes, I see your point now. I concede your point - thanks for the clarification.
 
MattusMaximus said:
Jerome, plug your ears again...





The Four Fundamental Forces

[snip]Gravitation is by far the weakest interaction, but at long distances is the most important force. There are two reasons why gravity's strength relative to other forces becomes important at long distances. The first is that gravity has an infinite range, like that of electromagnetism. The second reason why gravity is important at long distances is because all masses are positive and therefore gravity's interaction can not be screened like in electromagnetism. Thus large celestial bodies such as planets, stars and galaxies dominantly feel gravitational forces. In comparison, the total electric charge of these bodies is zero because half of all charges are negative. In addition, unlike the other interactions, gravity acts universally on all matter. There are no objects that lack a gravitational "charge".[/snip]
Click to expand...



Suppositions are not evidence. Particularly suppositions from an anonymously edited source.

Do you allow your students to reference Wiki?
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Suppositions are not evidence. Particularly suppositions from an anonymously edited source.

Do you allow your students to reference Wiki?
Click to expand...
That was predictable.

Jerome, would you prefer we referenced "Feynman, Richard P. (1967). The Character of Physical Law. MIT Press. ISBN 0-262-56003-8 "? It will say exactly the same thing, if you'd like to check.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Suppositions are not evidence. Particularly suppositions from an anonymously edited source.
Click to expand...


Actually, I have my students perform the very calculations outlined by this snippet from Wikipedia. And the calculations confirm what Wiki said, so yes this is a reliable source in this case and therefore perfectly relevant.

And what do you care about whether or not the source is edited anonymously or not? You've already shown numerous times that you'll just dismiss it without reading it regardless.


Do you allow your students to reference Wiki?
Click to expand...


When relevant, yes. Duh. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
arthwollipot said:
Jerome, would you prefer we referenced "Feynman, Richard P. (1967). The Character of Physical Law. MIT Press. ISBN 0-262-56003-8 "? It will say exactly the same thing, if you'd like to check.
Click to expand...

JEROME DA GNOME said:
I does not matter who or how many make a supposition, a supposition is still not evidence.
Click to expand...

MattusMaximus said:
And what do you care about whether or not the source is edited anonymously or not? You've already shown numerous times that you'll just dismiss it without reading it regardless.
Click to expand...


Zing! :D
 
MattusMaximus said:
And what do you care about whether or not the source is edited anonymously or not? You've already shown numerous times that you'll just dismiss it without reading it regardless.
Click to expand...

I dismissed it after reading it because suppositions are not evidence.


The Wiki thing was just a dig.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom