JEROME - Black holes do not exist
- Thread starter Reality Check
- Start date
-
- Tags
- black holes
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
I can remember all sorts of answers and a quick scroll gives things such as: there is no evidence at this point, Electromagnetic forces may? make the stars orbit in the center of the galaxy, etc. Then the thread goes into various musings about the nature of gravity starting with his statement: Gravity is the term we use to explain a supposed force which we can not measure or control and ending up with the realization that Jerome has no idea what a force is, i.e. that all forces act between 2 objects. That took up a few hundred postings. Then there was the semantic discussion of whether "made-up thought with no evidence" means "does not exist" starting with this posting.
I tried to make it simple for him:
I found his "I don't know" answer.
My response was "Astronomers do know - it is a black hole".
It looks like Jerome does not accept the evidence for black holes nor the opinions of experts in the field (e.g. the UCLA Galactic Center Group).
It might be interesting to find out what evidence he would accept for the existence of black holes. I suspect none.
JEROME DA GNOME
In your original post you stated "Gravity is not strong enough and as such we need make-believe things to account for certain observations."
Was this in reference to black holes? If so what is the evidence that convinced you that this is the case?
I tried to make it simple for him:
(actually 1 AU according to the variation of radio waves from Sag A* - my previous post was wrong.)
I found his "I don't know" answer.
My response was "Astronomers do know - it is a black hole".
It looks like Jerome does not accept the evidence for black holes nor the opinions of experts in the field (e.g. the UCLA Galactic Center Group).
It might be interesting to find out what evidence he would accept for the existence of black holes. I suspect none.
JEROME DA GNOME
In your original post you stated "Gravity is not strong enough and as such we need make-believe things to account for certain observations."
Was this in reference to black holes? If so what is the evidence that convinced you that this is the case?
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
A couple of interesting press releases about Sagittarius A* that I found today (ignore the hyperbole in the titles):
Milky Way Monster Stars in Cosmic Reality Show
Sagittarius A*: Stars Surprisingly Form in Extreme Environment Around Milky Way's Black Hole
Milky Way Monster Stars in Cosmic Reality Show
Sagittarius A*: Stars Surprisingly Form in Extreme Environment Around Milky Way's Black Hole
I'm never quite sure what you are talking about, but if you insist, the first definition of avatar isWe are currently talking about the word avatar.
see what happens when you try to put your mouth into gear without engaging your brain?
I don't think anyone here is particularly bothered about your confused use of avatar, your use of made-up however...
Indeed I did.
For someone determined to avoid misunderstanding you do have a lot of trouble with simple requests.
Let's see shall we, what is the first listed definition of made-up, ahh, it appears to be
If you are going to insist on playing semantic games, you should, at the very least, be aware that different dictionaries (compare the OED vs Merriam-Webster definitions of made-up for example) give their definitions in different orders and may not include some at all.1. Of a person: consummate, accomplished. Obs.
I'm not doing all this merely to be pedantic; if your positions are genuine, and not simply pythonesque gainsaying, what people understand you to mean is as important as what you actually mean by a statement. Thus, if we all believe you state something in the context of your argument, that is, in effect, what you have stated. Claiming that we just don't know the common usage of a word is obviously not a helpful strategy.
I less than three logic
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2005
- Messages
- 1,463
Seems like an interesting way to define "made-up", especially when you've used the term to describe a concept. I doubt you meant that the phenomena themselves, like the one at the center of our galaxy that scientists believe is a black hole, are manufactured somehow, so I assume you meant the concept of black holes was manufactured to fit observed phenomena. However, using this definition of "made-up", are there any concepts, ideas, words, etc. that do not fit this definition? If not, what is the point of using "made-up" to specifically describe anything when it actually describes everything?We are currently talking about the word avatar.
But since you asked.
Made-up: fully manufactured
So as to not further the misunderstanding.
Manufactured: to make into a product suitable for use
Are there any more common, first listed definitions of words that I use that you do not understand?
volatile
Scholar and a Gentleman
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2006
- Messages
- 6,729
Moot point, considering he also used the words "make-believe", a synonym for the very definition of "made-up" he's trying to distance himself from.
He cannot, with a straight face, really expect us to believe me meant "made-up" in the sense he is now trying to subscribe to, because the meaning of his statements and intentions is made manifestly clear by posts such as the one I've quoted, which use the synonym "make-believe". It is abundantly clear that Jerome does not believe black holes exist, despite the overwhelming evidence in their favour.
He's squirming because he will never, ever admit he's wrong. On anything, including the most ludicrous of statements.
He cannot, with a straight face, really expect us to believe me meant "made-up" in the sense he is now trying to subscribe to, because the meaning of his statements and intentions is made manifestly clear by posts such as the one I've quoted, which use the synonym "make-believe". It is abundantly clear that Jerome does not believe black holes exist, despite the overwhelming evidence in their favour.
He's squirming because he will never, ever admit he's wrong. On anything, including the most ludicrous of statements.
Last edited:
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
A nice return to the beginning, volatile, for this thread and precisely the quote that Reality Check cited in starting this thread and titling it “JEROME-Black holes do not exist”. A title Jerome claims is out of context (simply because he did not use that exact wording). So Jerome in what context should we apply your assertion that “Gravity is not strong enough” in reference to black holes if you are not saying that black holes do not exist and in fact can not exist, since gravity is not strong enough. Do you have any evidence to support you claim about the strength of gravity? Oh, by the way if we can not measure the supposed force of gravity (as you claimed) then you really can’t make any valid assertions about the strength of something you believe can not be measured. Or is gravity itself also something you consider to be “made up” or “make-believe”?
JEROME DA GNOME
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2007
- Messages
- 8,837
This thread is akin to stating that Barrack Obama is a pedophile because he wants to teach sex ed to 5 year-old children.
Why are you all so desperate to misrepresent what I state?
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
By all means, Jerome, please, represent what you state, that is all we are asking for.
ETA: Or is the problem that what you state does not represent what you would like it to mean?
Also ETA: In case you are wondering I am using the dictionary.com unabridged (v 1.1) #10 definition of the word “represent” in this post.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/represent
ETA: Or is the problem that what you state does not represent what you would like it to mean?
Also ETA: In case you are wondering I am using the dictionary.com unabridged (v 1.1) #10 definition of the word “represent” in this post.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/represent
Last edited:
Hindmost
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2006
- Messages
- 3,307
the term "black hole" was termed by John Wheeler in the 60s.
http://library.thinkquest.org/25715/discovery/conceiving.htm#darkstars
Einstein actually never believed in black holes and just thought they were a quirky solution to his GR equations.
glenn
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
I would like to know what the source of the PBS statement is.
The basis of the scientific method is that nothing can ever be completely confirmed. All predictions are as good as the current observations and science never rules out the possibility of a future observation invalidating a prediction.
No cosmological theory can be "completely confirmed" mainly because we do not have universes to experiment on. Evidence can be gathered by observing our universe and this can be used to confirm (but not completely) cosmological theories such as the Lambda-CDM model.
Can we ever "completely confirm" the existence of black holes? Yes we can. Someday we will travel to one and have a look. The center of the galaxy is just 26,000 light years away and there are closer stellar-sized black hole candidates. There is also the possibility of the production of micro-black holes in high energy experiments. This is one thing that may come out of the Large Hadron Collider or its upgrade after about 10 years.
Utter nonsense. But please, give a source, a reputable real source that states such patent nonsense. It would be interesting to know where you get such an idea.
I've seen others put forth such foolishness, but when challenged, they never can back up such folly with any real facts, papers or even a good philosopher or two.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...can+ever+be+completely+confirmed"&btnG=Search
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q="nothing+can+ever+be+completely+confirmed"&btnG=Search
Right now, Google can't find anyone who has ever said such a thing online, but cheer up, in a few hours your post will show up, as well as my quote of it, as the only place online such a statement occurs.
Back to reality, the precession of the orbit of Mercury, as well as the "bending" of light near the sun, both have been confirmed.
The obvious reason a black hole can never be confirmed, is the nature of an object that emits no radiation. We can't know if it is a singularity, a neutron star, or something else, beyond the event horizon.
But observing an event horizon, that would be a pretty cool confirmation that something is sucking really hard.
The obvious reason a black hole can never be confirmed, is the nature of an object that emits no radiation. We can't know if it is a singularity, a neutron star, or something else, beyond the event horizon.
But observing an event horizon, that would be a pretty cool confirmation that something is sucking really hard.
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
You are right. I an wrong. Bit this has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
Neutron stars do not have an event horizon.
However a black hole is not the thing that is inside an event horizon. A black hole is the event horizon and the thing inside it. It is black because it has an event horizon. The only thing that we know that can cause an event horizon is curvature of space. General Relativity tells us that curvature of space is caused by mass and energy. Solutions of General Relativity tell us how much mass/energy will cause an event horizon. So when we see an event horizon it is a reasonable assumption that there is some mass/energy inside causing the event horizon.
Of course GR may be wrong. Maybe there is a "something else" that causes event horizons. Thus even observing an event horizon may not be complete confirmation of the existence of a black hole. Of course we can extend this to other areas and say that because there can be a "something else" explanation for any phenomena than nothing can be complete confirmed.
Paulhoff
You can't expect perfection.
- Joined
- May 1, 2005
- Messages
- 12,512
A dead star with a weight of less then 1.4 solar masses will be a white-dwarf star (and as it cools it becomes a black-dwarf star) about the size of the earth, anything above that in weight is too much for the electron force to stop and will collapse into a neutron star with is about 10 to 20 miles in size, anything above about 3 to 3.2 solar masses is to much for the nuclear force to stop and it will then collapse into a black-hole.
Paul
Paul
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
According to theories like gravity and nuclear physics that have been verified to work by many experiments and observations. We have things that act like neutron stars and so we call them neutron stars. We have things that act like black holes and so we call them black holes. There is little to imagine and a lot to observe.
Verification of black holes in the sense of producing micro-black holes at will is probable in the next few decades (if we are lucky in the new few years).
The evidence for black holes is almost as good as that for other astronomical objects, e.g. stars and galaxies. We just do not see them directly but indirectly through their effect on stars, the radiation given off by their accretion disk and other effects such as jets.
Of course the existence of other stars is yet to be verified since we only see them through indirect effects (the light that is supposed to be emitted by them)
. It might be "something else"!
Verification of black holes in the sense of producing micro-black holes at will is probable in the next few decades (if we are lucky in the new few years).
The evidence for black holes is almost as good as that for other astronomical objects, e.g. stars and galaxies. We just do not see them directly but indirectly through their effect on stars, the radiation given off by their accretion disk and other effects such as jets.
Of course the existence of other stars is yet to be verified since we only see them through indirect effects (the light that is supposed to be emitted by them)
. It might be "something else"!