JEROME - Black holes do not exist

Terry said:
What else would explain Rutherford's alpha-backscatter experiments?
Click to expand...

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...

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.

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
Click to expand...

MattusMaximus said:
Ah yes, I see your point now. I concede your point - thanks for the clarification.
Click to expand...

Unless this doesn't answer you. I'm no physicist, I just mentioned stuff I had heard about and sort of understood.
 
arthwollipot said:
Okay, so now it's Richard Feynman making the supposition.
Click to expand...


It seems to me that anyone referencing anything that could possibly contradict Jerome's preconceived views would be guilty of putting forth a "supposition" which doesn't constitute "evidence" and should therefore be ignored. At least, according to Jerome.

What an interesting world you live in Jerome... what exactly do the words "supposition" and "evidence" mean to you?

Are you going to run away from defining these terms as well?
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
I dismissed it after reading it because suppositions are not evidence.
Click to expand...
Maybe you need a dictionary:
sup·po·si·tion
Pronunciation: \ˌsə-pə-ˈzi-shən\ Function: noun Etymology: Middle English supposicioun, from Anglo-French supposicion, from Late Latin supposition-, suppositio, from Latin, act of placing beneath, from supponere Date: 15th century 1 : something that is supposed : hypothesis
2 : the act of supposing
​
Gravity is a scientific theory. In case you don't know that that is: A scientific theory is a hypothesis supported by evidence that makes falsifiable predictions that have been tested.
All you need for the existence of black holes is gravity and matter.

But maybe you have some sort of education and can list the suppositions in the article?
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
I dismissed it after reading it because suppositions are not evidence.
Click to expand...
Back full circle then?

JdG, quite some time ago, and more than once, I asked you what criteria you use to decide if something is "evidence" or not.

You did not answer me, despite my asking several times.

May I ask why you continue to ignore me?

May I ask you to answer this critical question?

Its seems that much of the discussion in this thread comes down to you having rather different views on what "evidence" is, in astronomy and astrophysics and cosmology, than those who observe the sky (or heavens, if you prefer).
 
I don't think a black hole could swallow Jerome's logical fallicies...

glenn:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Nope, I am just tried of pointing out the evidence presented consists of little more than suppositions and artists renderings.
Click to expand...

You know what I find most funny about people like you, Jerome ? It's the fact that you can believe, without bursting into laughter, that every person who has dedicated their lives at studying these things is wrong and you, from your comfy home, is right.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Pictures of the center of our Milky Way. Did you think they where pictures of a Black Hole?
Click to expand...

I do not have to have the answer to not believe in make-believe.
Click to expand...

In other words, you don't WANT to accept it, and no matter of evidence will convince you, mostly because you don't have the necessary knowledge to recognise evidence when you see it.
 
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...

Gravity is ONE of the forces which binds the universe. At that scale... bah, why should I bother. You've covered with woo and won't clean yourself up.

Is is gravity that binds the electron to the atom?
Click to expand...

How big is an atom ? Have you EVER seen or heard of anything else than electrons that orbit because of something other than gravity ? Moons, perhaps ? Please, Jerome.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Do not feel bad. The lower classes in a caste tend to follow without thought. This is common in the human condition.
Click to expand...

That just shows you don't know squat about the US working class mentatlity and that you are an elitist wonk. The lower SES distrusts all science and postmodern thought, they cling to the bible and traditions from the 1800s.

What is even more amazing Jerome is that youy don't even ghave a possible conclusion to draw from the evidence, you haven't got data, you haven't got a theory all you have is your cynicism.

Which is why you resort to pithy insults rather than present critical arguments.
 
Bump:
Upchurch said:
Jerome, the graphic is not the evidence in that link. The graphic is just a nifty visual representation of stuff that is difficult to take a visual picture of.

The evidence in that particular link is contained in the text below the graphic.

In the future, please consider reading a cited source before jumping to conclusions about it. Your response is just sloppy.

Mashuna has a point, Jerome. You have been asking for evidence that black holes exist and yet, with all the examples of evidence I have provided, you jumped to an incorrect conclusion on one link in an addendum post and ignored the main body of my argument.

If you are going to argue that no one has presented evidence for black holes, surely you need to actually address why the evidence we do provide is insufficient to the task.

I'll even repost my argument for you so you don't have to do all that scrolling:

Here are two examples of indirect evidence of black holes as well as explanations of why what we can observe about the situation indicates the presence of a black hole.

Straight from NASA, here is possibly the first direct evidence of a black hole's event horizon. Here is the more detailed press release from HubbleSite.org.

So, in the first one, we have evidence of something that acts like a black hole. In the second one, we have something that acts and looks like a black hole. Remembering that in space, no one can hear something quack like a black hole, I'd say hearing/feeling/tasting a black hole is unreasonable to ask for.

According to theory, we should expect to find objects that have certain properties. We have labeled these objects "black holes". The above sources quantitatively measure objects that have these properties. It is concluded that these objects are of the type that we label "black holes".

So, to re-ask Horatius's question: Jerome, why is this evidence insufficient?


Prediction:

"This evidence only proves the existence of a black hole if you first assume the existence of black holes."
Click to expand...

Good to see you back, Jerome. This one has been waiting for you for quite a few pages now and I know you wouldn't want to miss evidence when it is presented.
 
Last edited:
Here is a list of terms that Jerome uses regularly in his arguments yet refuses to even define:

1. redshift anomaly
2. supposition
3. evidence

Does anyone on the thread have any others to add to the list?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom