• 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:
How? How do we measure gravity? I know we can measure a change, but what device measures the gravitational field?
Click to expand...


We measure a charge by placing another charge of known value within the electromagnetic field of the unknown charge and measuring the resulting force, similarly we can measure the gravitational field of an unknown mass by placing an object of known mass (the gravitation equivalent of charge) within that gravitational field and measuring the force (or observing the motion in curved spacetime).
 
Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Could you please demonstrate control over the force of gravity.
Click to expand...
Can we control the Earth, control the Sun, control the universe, so I quess since we can't control them, they don't exist.

Paul

:) :) :)

JEROME I still have you on Ignore, but other people still post you, they have no shame.
 
Last edited:
I've never quite understood this obsession with 'control'

What exactly do you mean by 'control gravity'.

Can we turn it on and off? - no
Can we increase of decrease it according to our needs? - not really
Can we use it? - absolutely.
 
Worm said:
I've never quite understood this obsession with 'control'

What exactly do you mean by 'control gravity'.

Can we turn it on and off? - no
Can we increase of decrease it according to our needs? - not really
Can we use it? - absolutely.
Click to expand...
It is called a troll's Straw-man.

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

The Reasoning
Carefully presenting and refuting a weakened form of an opponent's argument is not always itself a fallacy. It can refocus the scope of an argument or be a legitimate step of a proof by exhaustion. In contrast the straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern:

1. Person A has position X.

2. Person B ignores X and instead presents position Y. Y is a distorted version of X and can be set up in several ways, including:Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position and then refuting it, thus giving the appearance that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.
Click to expand...



Paul

:) :) :)
 
This thread is like a black hole. No matter how much energy goes into it, it emits nothing.
 
On the contrary - I have learned a lot. Many thanks to Wollery, Upchurch, et al for cool science. Thanks to others for their lessons on calm in the face of trolls.

CT
 
A plea to the other posters, please do not quote JEROME, that way the ignore function that I have on him will work, else I will see more straw-men from him in you posts. Also I have watched many times "THE WIZARD OF OZ" and own the latest copy that was digitally cleaned up, and I do not have the need to see anymore straw-men.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
A plea to Paulhoff. If you want to ignore Jerome then stop coming into threads in which he is one of the main posters and complaining that other posters quote him. :rolleyes:
 
Hello, I put him on ignore after I already started to read the threads and I didn't know that he started this thread.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
Last edited:
Paulhoff said:
Hello, I put him on ignore after I already started to read the threads and I didn't know that he started this thread.

Paul

:) :) :)
Click to expand...


I did not start this thread.

This thread is a straw-man of my position as you so aptly pointed out with your description of a straw-man argument.

:gnome:
 
He didn't start it, but it was started as a question directed at him, about a belief he appears to hold. Why would you participate in a thread that is about someone you have on ignore, and should realistically be expected to have numerous contributions from him?
 
wollery said:
He didn't start it, but it was started as a question directed at him, about a belief he appears to hold. Why would you participate in a thread that is about someone you have on ignore, and should realistically be expected to have numerous contributions from him?
Click to expand...
You don't know a joke do you.

And there lies the problem with the written word, you can't see the hand jesters and facial expressions.

People are going to quote him no matter what I say.

Geeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Paul

:) :) :)
 
Paulhoff said:
Hello, I put him on ignore after I already started to read the threads and I didn't know that he started this thread.

Paul

:) :) :)
Click to expand...
Actually he did not start this thread. I did to see if he had any sensible evidence for his statement in the OT (stated in another thread). As you have seen he does not and has been frantically backpedaling, reinterpreting his statement, going off on tangents and ignoring questions.

I began by thinking that he merely had strange gaps in his knowledge of science. Lately I have seen some trollish behavior from him but the posts don't seem intelligent for a real troll. He has though started some threads lately that smack of trolling.

But in case he is not just an ignorant troll, I ask for the umpteenth time:
JEROME DA GNOME:
Could you please demonstrate your evidence of your statement "Gravity is not strong enough and as such we need make-believe things to account for certain observations" or is it just supposition?
 
Reality Check said:
JEROME DA GNOME:
Could you please demonstrate your evidence of your statement "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...

Try quoting in context.




ETA: You did nothing other than name call and then quote out of context in the same straw-man manner which is the title of the thread.
 
Last edited:
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Try quoting in context.

ETA: You did nothing other than name call and then quote out of context in the same straw-man manner which is the title of the thread.
Click to expand...


Since you are too lazy to look at the OT and your posting that it quotes then here is it one more time:
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Originally Posted by Dancing David
Just for conversations sake, and that is my goal. Let us start with black holes. How do you feel about them. As an implied part of general relativity and then as a candidate for a large massive object in a very small area (as hypothesized from say the orbits of stars at the center of our galaxy).
Click to expand...
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.

Jerome, it is fine to doubt dark matter and that is cool, yet there are some things that might need an explanation. Such as why star cluster orbit the galaxy faster than they should. Now currently MOND might explain that but it has some other problems and the PC/PU stuff just doesn't cut it for the outer stars clusters. So which one do you prefer, the dark matter or modified gravity? Or do you have an alternate like Perrat's model that you prefer?
Click to expand...
Please define your acronyms.
Click to expand...

Personally I was hoping that you are were just ignorant of the evidence for black holes. But it looks like you have some philosophical reason for doubting evidence for anything.

Maybe your "Gravity is not strong enough and as such we need make-believe things to account for certain observations" statement quoted above is just an off the cuff or hasty remark.
If it is not an off the cuff remark then you should present evidence for it.
If it is then admit it as an honest mistake.

P.S. If you act like a troll then people are going to think that you are one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom