• 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

This thread (and its title) are my fault, and my responsibility. I fully accept that by titling the thread "black holes do not exist" I misrepresented Jerome's position. I had foolishly assumed that Jerome used words the same way that everyone else does, and that "black holes are a made-up thought with no evidence" and "black holes do not exist" were equivalent statements. They are (apparently) not. Thus, the title of this thread is indeed a strawman.

But I believe that I can now, after such a long thread, give an accurate summary of Jerome's opinion on the matter of whether black holes exist or not. And I'm sure that if I'm wrong he'll tell me I'm wrong but not outline exactly how I'm wrong or what his opinion really is.

He doesn't know.

That's the strongest statement of his opinion about the possible existence of black holes that we've been able to wheedle out of him. He doesn't know. There's a poster somewhere around here who has "Militant agnostic: I don't know and neither do you" as a sig line. I think that pretty much characterises Jerome's stance.

I think Jerome is trying to say that we can never really know anything for certain. There is always going to be some uncertainty in anything we can possibly claim that we know. The orbits of stars near the centre of the galaxy may be explained by the existence of a black hole, but there may also be another explanation. But even if there is, we can't know that, either.

But anyway, it has been quite a long time since Jerome posted the statement that prompted me to start this thread, and people can change their minds. So I now have another question for Jerome:

Jerome, is it still your opinion that black holes are a made-up thought with no evidence?
 
arthwollipot said:
This thread (and its title) are my fault, and my responsibility. I fully accept that by titling the thread "black holes do not exist" I misrepresented Jerome's position. I had foolishly assumed that Jerome used words the same way that everyone else does, and that "black holes are a made-up thought with no evidence" and "black holes do not exist" were equivalent statements. They are (apparently) not. Thus, the title of this thread is indeed a strawman.

But I believe that I can now, after such a long thread, give an accurate summary of Jerome's opinion on the matter of whether black holes exist or not. And I'm sure that if I'm wrong he'll tell me I'm wrong but not outline exactly how I'm wrong or what his opinion really is.

He doesn't know.

That's the strongest statement of his opinion about the possible existence of black holes that we've been able to wheedle out of him. He doesn't know. There's a poster somewhere around here who has "Militant agnostic: I don't know and neither do you" as a sig line. I think that pretty much characterises Jerome's stance.

I think Jerome is trying to say that we can never really know anything for certain. There is always going to be some uncertainty in anything we can possibly claim that we know. The orbits of stars near the centre of the galaxy may be explained by the existence of a black hole, but there may also be another explanation. But even if there is, we can't know that, either.

But anyway, it has been quite a long time since Jerome posted the statement that prompted me to start this thread, and people can change their minds. So I now have another question for Jerome:

Jerome, is it still your opinion that black holes are a made-up thought with no evidence?
Click to expand...

Actually this thread (and its title) are my fault. But I totally agree with your comments.

Jerome's answer will of course be on the lines of: Yes but not as you understand it - a "made-up thought with no evidence" is a theory.
He will totally ignore the definition of a scientific theory.

Jerome seems to only accept evidence for the existence of things so I am now interested in his evidence for his statement
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Gravity is not strong enough and as such we need make-believe things to account for certain observations.
Click to expand...
 
Arth - you're forgetting that along with "made-up" he also said black holes were "make-believe", which most certainly is an equivalent statement to "black holes do not exist".

All his flapping on what he now says he meant by "made-up" is utterly irrelevant (and mendacious), given that he also used the term "make-believe".

Jerome - are black holes "make-believe"? Why?
 
This is very weird. I'm still convinced that I started this thread. I remember capitalising JEROME both because his nick is capitalised and to draw attention to it so that he'd notice and respond.

This is the most bizarre kind of cognitive dissonance. It's fortunate that the real thread starter is recorded by the forum software, or otherwise I'd be convinced of the reliability of my memory.

I'm freaking out here! Someone help me!!!
 
News Flash

Paulhoff today shot Reality Check in the head with a very slow bullet for starting this thread, it fortunately bounced off. He also took a shot at arthwollipot which missed. When Paulhoff was asked why he didn't just shoot JEROME in the first place he said and we quote "He has a super super black-hole in his head and the added mass of a bullet would push it over into being a super super super black-hole and the universe would have been sucked out of existence".
Click to expand...

Paul


:) :) :)
 
Last edited:
arthwollipot said:
I'm freaking out here! Someone help me!!!
Click to expand...
New slogan for the thread? ;)

Athwollipot, are you sure you didn't dream starting the thread? My dreams are often difficult to distinguish from reality, especially when they're about relatively inconsequential actions such as writing on a forum, making many conversations go weird! "What? I never told you I bought a new cat, I still hate cats!" being one example.
 
rats said:
New slogan for the thread? ;)

Athwollipot, are you sure you didn't dream starting the thread? My dreams are often difficult to distinguish from reality, especially when they're about relatively inconsequential actions such as writing on a forum, making many conversations go weird! "What? I never told you I bought a new cat, I still hate cats!" being one example.
Click to expand...
It's quite possible that I dreamed it, or it was a vivid case of deja vu. It's just that the memory (clearly false) is so strong...

It's very weird. Very very weird.

Wibble.
 
CriticalThanking said:
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
Click to expand...
This thread has been quite educational and entertaining. I agree with paulhoff that the best way to read it is with jerome on ignore, I have read enough of him on other threads to doubt that he will ever have anything useful to contribute.
 
I found out where JEROME learned his logic............... and math




Paul

:) :) :)

It all make sense now...........
 
Last edited:
Jerome,let say I have a nice space ship and took you near one.Since you do not believe in the BH,you do not think the evidence we have is enough,would you be willing to jump off the ship towards "made-up" object?(Jerome says/said,there are no black holes and any evidence so far can be explained by other objects)
You cannot be harmed by it(It has not been proven by your standard),I would monitor your position to pick you up again(Since you will fly through the point where was said to be black hole, but there is nothing),so what is the risk?

You have only my word,that there is black hole.You cannot see it.Would you do final experiment or not?(Final -meant it will definitly show whether theory is correct or not/whether scientist or Jerome are right)

Obviously with spacesuit.Adding to be covered... :(
 
Last edited:
Please forgive my relative noobiness to the physics here. I have a question about the structure of the Universe. To put it simply, addressing the Big Bang theory, once, the singularity existed along with nothing else. The singularity, by whatever mechanism, "exploded". Along with the "explosion", matter, energy, space, time, everything we know to exist in the Universe was created. So then the everything expanded into the void (the nothing). My question is about space, what is it about space that is it expanding? Is there a "fabric" to space? If anyone could point me to a source ie a book that might explain this element of theory to me, thanks.

BV
 
bonavada said:
Please forgive my relative noobiness to the physics here. I have a question about the structure of the Universe. To put it simply, addressing the Big Bang theory, once, the singularity existed along with nothing else. The singularity, by whatever mechanism, "exploded". Along with the "explosion", matter, energy, space, time, everything we know to exist in the Universe was created. So then the everything expanded into the void (the nothing). My question is about space, what is it about space that is it expanding? Is there a "fabric" to space? If anyone could point me to a source ie a book that might explain this element of theory to me, thanks.

BV
Click to expand...

It is space that is expanding.
 
Reality Check said:
It is space that is expanding.
Click to expand...

Sorry error there on my post

Me said:
So then the everything expanded into the void (the nothing)
Click to expand...

I should have written that "space expanded into the void".
What is it intrinsically about space that gives it the ability to expand? This "exapansionability" (if I can call it that) surely implies there is a fabric, some sort of structure to space.

BV
 
arthwollipot said:
This is very weird. I'm still convinced that I started this thread. I remember capitalising JEROME both because his nick is capitalised and to draw attention to it so that he'd notice and respond.

This is the most bizarre kind of cognitive dissonance. It's fortunate that the real thread starter is recorded by the forum software, or otherwise I'd be convinced of the reliability of my memory.

I'm freaking out here! Someone help me!!!
Click to expand...

It's all Lisa's fault!!:D
 
Space did not expand into the void. Only the distance between objects within the space increased.
 
Dan O. said:
Space did not expand into the void. Only the distance between objects within the space increased.
Click to expand...

Again my question (or rather the pre-amble to it) is obviously worded wrong, sorry.
Of course, the void must exactly be just that,I mean it is a concept of no-thing (nothing) existing.
Anyway space, as something, expanded. My question still stands, what is it about space that is expanding? It seems to me that space, as an entity in itself, to expand thus, must have some sort of structure or fabric. What is the fabric and the mechanism that allows or enables space to expand? Please could anyone point out a good source that I might learn more about this. I haven't had much luck googling or my local library. Thanks

BV
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom