• 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

SeanDamnit said:
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.
Click to expand...


I do not start this thread, nor did I ever state what is purported in the title.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
I do not start this thread, nor did I ever state what is purported in the title.
Click to expand...
The title is just a title. What you stated was:
Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Black holes 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.
Click to expand...

It took a large number of posts for you to get around to saying that your meaning of "made-up thought with no evidence" is "may exist" (I think that is your current position).




Did you see the questions in the previous posts. If not:
  • There is plenty of evidence for black holes. What other evidence would you need in order for them to exist?
  • Does "Gravity is not strong enough and as such we need make-believe things to account for certain observations" refer to black holes?
  • What is your evidence for "Gravity is not strong enough and as such we need make-believe things to account for certain observations" or is it just supposition?
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
Did you see the questions in the previous posts. If not:
  • There is plenty of evidence for black holes. What other evidence would you need in order for them to exist?
  • Does "Gravity is not strong enough and as such we need make-believe things to account for certain observations" refer to black holes?
  • What is your evidence for "Gravity is not strong enough and as such we need make-believe things to account for certain observations" or is it just supposition?
Click to expand...


Theories are not evidence.
 
Oh, and E=MC2 is a theroy and boom goes the H-bombs that I loaded if they where needed.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Agreed!

:)
Click to expand...
And facts about black holes are evidence for black holes.

Did you see the questions in the previous posts. If not:
  • There is plenty of evidence for black holes. What other evidence would you need in order for them to exist?
  • Does "Gravity is not strong enough and as such we need make-believe things to account for certain observations" refer to black holes?
  • What is your evidence for "Gravity is not strong enough and as such we need make-believe things to account for certain observations" or is it just supposition?
 
Jerome, there are three possibilities.

1. Gravity is wrong. Something else is making those stars orbit. If this is the case then everything we think we know about physics is wrong, and I do mean everything.

2. What we think we know about physics is right, but only for the Earth and Solar system. The laws of physics are different in different parts of the Universe. If this is true then we may as well give up on astrophysics now. Of course, observations give pretty good evidence that the laws of physics are the same throughout the Universe.

3. The object at the centre of the Galaxy is a supermassive black hole.

Which of these do you ascribe to?
 
wollery said:
Jerome, there are three possibilities.

1. Gravity is wrong. Something else is making those stars orbit. If this is the case then everything we think we know about physics is wrong, and I do mean everything.

2. What we think we know about physics is right, but only for the Earth and Solar system. The laws of physics are different in different parts of the Universe. If this is true then we may as well give up on astrophysics now. Of course, observations give pretty good evidence that the laws of physics are the same throughout the Universe.

3. The object at the centre of the Galaxy is a supermassive black hole.

Which of these do you ascribe to?
Click to expand...


Your number one would be the best option if you had not pissed in the milk with your BS conclusion.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Your number one would be the best option if you had not pissed in the milk with your BS conclusion.
Click to expand...
If gravity is wrong, and by wrong I mean so wrong that it completely isn't the cause of the orbits of those stars, then all of our ideas about gravity are wrong. If that's the case then something else is responsible for the orbits of stars and planets. That something else has to account for these orbits, and it can't be electricity or magnetism, or electromagnetic effects, or the strong or weak nuclear forces (unless what we think we know about them is utterly wrong) because we'd see other effects if they were responsible. That leaves some other totally unknown force, which we have absolutely no knowledge of.

The conclusion of the above is very simple. If gravity isn't what's causing those stars to orbit the centre of the Galaxy then everything we think we know about physics is wrong. Either because one of the other forces can do things we think it can't, or there's a force that we don't understand doing things that we don't know.

Or do you think that it's possible to remove one of the central tenets of current physics and not affect the other tenets?

There's a possibility that gravity is a little wrong (google MOND if you want to learn more), but if it's that wrong then pretty much everything else is almost certainly wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom