• 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

Upchurch said:
So, you have seen no evidence of black holes or gravity, but you accept electromagnetic forces?

What evidence was presented to you for electromagnetic forces that you found sufficent?
Click to expand...


This is a most excellent point - I'm damned jealous that I didn't think of it! :)
 
Gerome,

What have you accepted as evidence that electromagnetic forces exist?
 
Here, lets do "Create your own thread."

For this game to work, we need an envelope, some paper, and a commonly acknowledged phenomena.

Now take the commonly acknowledged thing. Post that you don't believe in it. Now write the following on a pieces of paper, and every time someone posts, pull a paper out of the envelope:

A) That's supposition, not evidence

B) That's just commonly held theory, its not actually evidence

C) [Choose some random point in the post, derail the thread]

D) [Select some supporting point that someone used, that is also commonly held to be true. Claim that that is unproven as well]

Rinse, repeat.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
So what was causing the stars to orbit the centre? What is there?
Click to expand...

JEROME DA GNOME said:
I do not have to have the answer to not believe in make-believe.
Click to expand...


Yes, but not proposing any answer does not demonstrate that you do not believe in make-believe. Proposing answers and then successfully testing them against the observations is how one demonstrates that they do not believe in make-believe


Reality Check said:
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?).
Click to expand...


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

Oh, so you do propose an answer. What makes you believe that that your answer is not make-believe?
 
So, I took a walk down memory lane and found the following:
Dancing David said:
1.Gravity bends the path of light.

2. There are objects whose mass is so large that it would bend light's path so much that light can't leave the gravitational field. (2 is from the measurements of 1)

So what are you disagreeing with?
Click to expand...
JEROME DA GNOME said:
I am not disagreeing with anything you have stated above.

Where are you presenting evidence of Black Holes?
Click to expand...

Jerome, you do not seem to have any problem with the "supposition" of gravity before, but now:
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Suppositions [of gravity] are not evidence. Particularly suppositions from an anonymously edited source.

Do you allow your students to reference Wiki?
Click to expand...
What changed your mind about gravity? Were you presented with evidence that made you doubt gravity's existence?
 
While you're at it, perhaps you could address this statement you made in another thread (referenced in the OP):

JEROME DA GNOME said:
Gravity is not strong enough and as such we need make-believe things to account for certain observations.
Click to expand...
Since suppositions are not evidence, as you say, could you please provide evidence that you used to determine that gravity is not strong enough to account for certain observations that are otherwise attributed to gravity?
 
aggle-rithm said:
MattusMaximus said:
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?
Click to expand...
"Gnome"?
Click to expand...
Hmm...

How about "fusion"? Or is it "fission", I can never remember which is which and which JdG refused to even define (perhaps both)!
 
MattusMaximus said:
Upchurch said:
So, you have seen no evidence of black holes or gravity, but you accept electromagnetic forces?

What evidence was presented to you for electromagnetic forces that you found sufficent?
Click to expand...
This is a most excellent point - I'm damned jealous that I didn't think of it! :)
Click to expand...
No need ...

It's a completely senseless supposition you are making (or is it a suppository?)!

I mean, can you quote any post by JEROME where he said he regards logical consistency as having any significance, when it come to "evidence"?

As far as I can tell, from reading his posts, JdG regards logical consistency as "sophistry" and "obfuscation", perhaps even "off-topic BS".
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Is is gravity that binds the electron to the atom?
Click to expand...


No that is silly stuff, electrons do not orbit, they more hop, jump or vibrtate the traditional three ellipse atom of lithium is wrong. The electrons exist in an area around the nucleus, they do not orbit at all.

QM and probable distribution, not Keplerian orbits.
 
Last edited:
JEROME DA GNOME said:
As such...


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

Um, the orbits of bodies are determined by masses (of all bodies) the vector (velocity and direction of motion) and then the things that might change vectors such as rockets and atom bombs.

However the motion of a body which has a fixed momentum and vector is going to be determined mainly by the gravity of the system, unless of course it is moving through jello or some other viscous fluid.


Electrons do not orbit, they are wave functions in a probability distribution around the nucleus.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Electromagnetic forces.
Click to expand...


Um, Jerome, you do know that the EM forces can be determined in many places, what size magnetic field is it going to take to move a star.

(There is a problem in that most galactic fields are measured in micro gauss) So while we don't knowe the electric field at the center of the galaxy, we do know what fields exist in other parts of the galaxy.

So it would take a charge in millions or billion of Coloumbs in you want to move a star.

Interesting idea. How does it avoid gravitational collapse.
 
Dancing David said:
No that is silly stuff, electrons do not orbit, they more hop, jump or vibrtate the traditional three ellipse atom of lithium is wrong. The electrons exist in an area around the nucleus, they do not orbit at all.

QM and probable distribution, not Keplerian orbits.
Click to expand...

Is that so?

Do you have a scientific study which represents the movement of electrons in relation to the atom?
 
Dancing David said:
Um, Jerome, you do know that the EM forces can be determined in many places, what size magnetic field is it going to take to move a star.

(There is a problem in that most galactic fields are measured in micro gauss) So while we don't knowe the electric field at the center of the galaxy, we do know what fields exist in other parts of the galaxy.

So it would take a charge in millions or billion of Coloumbs in you want to move a star.

Interesting idea. How does it avoid gravitational collapse.
Click to expand...

Edited by chillzero: 
Edit for civility and hotlinking
 
Last edited by a moderator:
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Is that correct?

Is a photon a wave or a particle?

Is an electron a wave or a particle?
Click to expand...
Oh I see what's going on now. Jerome, tired of denying physics, cosmology, evolution and abiogenesis, has now decided to start denying quantum mechanics. In three questions he has just handwaved away Planck, Schroedinger, Heisenberg and Feynman in one fell swoop!

His next question will be "can a cat be both dead and alive at the same time?"

Clever.
 
Last edited:
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Is that correct?

Is a photon a wave or a particle?

Is an electron a wave or a particle?
Click to expand...
Is JEROME DA GNOME a wave or a particle?

Does JEROME DA GNOME consider logical consistency important?

Does what JEROME DA GNOME considers to be a wave the same as Feynman's view?

How can anyone - other than JEROME DA GNOME - work out what JEROME DA GNOME means, by any of the posts he writes?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom