JEROME - Black holes do not exist

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Black holes are a solution of General Relativity.

They are a possibility of General Relativity, they are not a solution of.



They are not even demanded by General Relativity.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Sorry Jerome, I think you missed a bit:

I have already answered.

 

[Paulhoff]

The trouble is, if you take into account that words have meanings, your second sentence contradicts your first. If you want to ignore definitions that people use, then never mind.

Jerome is arguing from ignorance, and in his case, great ignorance.

Paul

 

[Reality Check]

I have already answered.

I must have missed it. Can you state again your answer to:
"Just what is that thing with a mass of 3.7 million solar masses and a radius of less than 45 AU in the center of our galaxy?"

 

[Shalamar]

I must have missed it. Can you state again your answer to:
"Just what is that thing with a mass of 3.7 million solar masses and a radius of less than 45 AU in the center of our galaxy?"

'The Sky Daddy'.

 

[Reality Check]

They are a possibility of General Relativity, they are not a solution of.



They are not even demanded by General Relativity.

They are a solution to the equations of General Relativity. They have then been confirmed by observation.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I must have missed it. Can you state again your answer to:
"Just what is that thing with a mass of 3.7 million solar masses and a radius of less than 45 AU in the center of our galaxy?"

I do not know.

 

[Reality Check]

I do not know.

Astronomers do know - it is a black hole.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

They are a solution to the equations of General Relativity. They have then been confirmed by observation.

All you have done here is post the Wiki article on General Relativity.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Astronomers do know - it is a black hole.

Do not.


Please, find some astronomers that state that the phenomenon IS a Black Hole.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Wrong.

Do you find it is much easier to presume an avatar as this allows one not to have to think?

'The Sky Daddy'.

 

[Shalamar]

Do not.


Please, find some astronomers that state that the phenomenon IS a Black Hole.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole

According to the American Astronomical Society, every large galaxy has a supermassive black hole at its center. The black hole’s mass is proportional to the mass of the host galaxy, suggesting that the two are linked very closely. The Hubble and ground-based telescopes in Hawaii were used in a large survey of galaxies.

There you go.

 

[Reality Check]

All you have done here is post the Wiki article on General Relativity.

Solutions to General relativity that apply to black holes:
Schwarzschild (spherical, non-rotating mass).
Kerr-Newman (charged, rotating mass).
Reissner-Nordström (charged, non-rotating, spherically symmetric body of mass M).

Refer to any standard text book on General Relativity.

 

[Reality Check]

Do not.


Please, find some astronomers that state that the phenomenon IS a Black Hole.

All the astronomers actually studying the galactic center: UCLA Galactic Center Group.

 

[Mashuna]

The trouble is, if you take into account that words have meanings, your second sentence contradicts your first. If you want to ignore definitions that people use, then never mind.

You are not also playing the game where the reader gets to define the words the writer uses, are you?


The forum will become very messy if that is a moderator established game.

If you want to ignore definitions that people use, that's fine. If you want to ignore definitions that people use, and refuse to supply your own definitions, that's meaningless.

You're not also playing the game where the writer gets to define his own words, but refuses to share the definitions with anyone else, are you?

 

[Paul]

I did claim that they are at this point made-up.

OK, let's check the Oxford English Dictionary:

made-up, adj.

1. Of a person: consummate, accomplished. Obs.
2. Of a thing.
a. Put together; composed of parts from various sources.
b. Ready-made, not made to measure; manufactured in a finished state; spec. (of a tie, esp. a bow tie) with a fixed bow or knot.

c. Of stakes: arranged after the original programme of races is drawn up. Obs. rare.
d. Of a book: made good by the insertion of a leaf, etc., from another copy.
e. Of a bed: prepared or ready to be slept in.
3. a. Artificially contrived or prepared, esp. for the purpose of deception or producing a favourable impression; invented, fabricated.
b. Of a person, face, features, etc.: wearing make-up (see MAKE-UP n. 4d).
4. Of a mind: that has formed an opinion; decided.
5. a. Irish English and Brit. regional (esp. Liverpool). Surprised and delighted; very pleased, thrilled. b. Irish English (regional). Of a person: assured of success or happiness; lucky, set-up (cf. MADE adj. 6a).

Which definition are you using? That way we are saved any further semantic argument on this point at least.

 

[Upchurch]

You are not also playing the game where the reader gets to define the words the writer uses, are you?

No, no. Not at all.

The problem is, based on your statements, one of the following must be true:

1. You are using your own definitions of words rather than the commonly accepted definition, or
2. You don't understand the implications of what you are saying, or
3. You hold two mutually exclusive ideas simultaneously.

If number 1 is true, that's fine, but you must explain what you mean. You can call an apple an "orange" all day long but you can't expect people to understand that you mean an apple. Likewise, you can say that black holes are "made-up" and "make-believe", but you can't expect people to understand that you somehow mean that they may possible be real. In both cases, the words you are using contradict the meaning you are trying to relate.

If number 2 is true, you are arguing from a position of ignorance. Not arguing from ignorance (i.e. "it's not known so it must not be true.") but arguing a position in which you lack basic knowledge on the issue at hand.

If number 3 is true, you've had a break from reality.

 

[wollery]

Do not.


Please, find some astronomers that state that the phenomenon IS a Black Hole.

Me.

 

[SeanDamnit]

I'm still back to wanting to know what Jerome's point is. I simply can't tell from his posts what he is getting at, as most of the arguments we are going back and forth on are semantics it seems.

So, Jerome, if (blackholes, gravity, etc) isn't what current science accepts them to be, then what best explains the phenomena we are observing? Do you have any research to back that claim? If what you say is true, it will revolutionize the way we understand how the universe works - that is a very big deal if you didn't know - and you would be the next Einstein.

If you don't know, then why bother to argue if you have nothing to bring to the table?

You can't go to professionals in this field who have dedicated their life to studying and understanding the universe and say "I think everything you know is wrong, but I can't coherently piece together why I think that, nor can I provide evidence supporting why I think that" and expect to be taken seriously.

 

[Upchurch]

So, Jerome, if (blackholes, gravity, etc) isn't what current science accepts them to be, then what best explains the phenomena we are observing?

You don't even have to go that far. The first question should be: Why doesn't (black holes, gravity, etc) explain the phenomena we are observing? What point of data invalidates these theories?

You can't go to professionals in this field who have dedicated their life to studying and understanding the universe and say "I think everything you know is wrong, but I can't coherently piece together why I think that, nor can I provide evidence supporting why I think that" and expect to be taken seriously.

And, "I don't accept your evidence for (black holes, gravity, etc) but I won't explain why" is not an acceptable answer.