• 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

robinson said:
According to theory. None of that has been verified yet. Probably won't be in our lifetimes. Oh well. It is still cool to imagine.
Click to expand...

With the constraints you set up it is impossible to observe. We might have spaceships floating around blackholes, taking pictures, sending probes into black holes. And you could still say that it hasn't been verified because no one has gone inside to see what is causing it. The whole point of a black hole is that it emits no radiation, so it has no direct observables. It is only an indirectly observable object.

Your interpretation leaves no room for scientific inference. Unless I'm missing some experiment you have in mind that would verify the existence of one.
 
robinson said:
According to theory. None of that has been verified yet. Probably won't be in our lifetimes. Oh well. It is still cool to imagine.
Click to expand...
OH, and the things I loaded onto B52's, the things that where to be used against Russia if we where attacked, weren’t nukes. Nukes that completely depend on our understanding of nuclear physics in order to work. White dwarfs have been observed, neutron stars have been observed (they are called pulsars and have to be the size predicted to spin as fast has they do, and black holes have been indirectly observed by the emissions that only they can make, intense one-time gamma ray bursts.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
Paulhoff said:
White dwarfs have been observed, neutron stars have been observed (they are called pulsars and have to be the size predicted to spin as fast has they do...
Click to expand...

The have to be the size predicted because of the prediction as to how fast they spin.


Suppositions built upon suppositions are not a valid confirmation of either supposition.
 
Last edited:
JEROME DA GNOME said:
The have to be the size predicted because of the prediction as to how fast they spin.


Suppositions built upon suppositions are not a valid confirmation of either supposition.
Click to expand...
No they have to be the size that they are because we measure their spin. A measurement is evidence not supposition.

Back to black holes: What evidence would you accept for their existence?

We have evidence of a 3.7 million solar mass in a radius of 1 AU (or a maximum 45 AU from orbital movements of stars around it) at the center of our galaxy. This mass happens to have the same position as Sagittarius A* which is a strong radio source.
What more evidence would you want?
 
Jerome, is there anything that isn't "made-up"?
 
Last edited:
One wonders what Jerome's reaction would be to a statement like:
"Stars are another made-up thought with no evidence. This idea seems to fit well with the BBT thus it is kept. Gravity is not strong enough and as such we need make-believe things to account for certain observations."
But that is off the point.

JEROME DA GNOME did you see this question?
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?
 
Gee a Neutron star can spin hundreds of times a second, simple math (but not for JEROME) will show that it has to be small so that the gravity will be high enough to keep it from flying apart.

Paul

:) :) :)

Has Jerome shown why this will not happen,


The envolope please......

And the answer is…..

NO
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
I used the first and common definition of the word. I am sorry that many here seem to lack the ability to understand that it is not proper to redefine words that others write.
Click to expand...

Again, JEROME, nobody's a mind reader, here. YOU think it's obvious because YOU picked a definition and expected everybody to think like you did. That's a beginner's mistake.

Please, JEROME, no more wiggling.
 
Don't feed the trolls guys. Seems like a lot of energy is being put in just to get Jerry here to actually make a point and back it up with something. He will continue this thread indefinately giving 1 or 2 line responses that don't answer anything for as long as we are feeding him.

I say have this thread closed, and have Jerome make his own thread if he can ever come up with a point.
 
Personally I found the Monty Python “argument” skit rendition the most entertaining part of this thread so far.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom