JEROME - Black holes do not exist

Reality Check

Penultimate Amazing
R
Joined
Mar 2, 2008
Messages
28,521
Location
New Zealand
In another thread, JEROME DA GNOME
JEROME DA GNOME said:
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...

This thread is here for JEROME DA GNOME to present arguments that black holes do not exist, to show that they are "another made-up thought with no evidence" or that gravity is not strong enough to form black holes.
 
Ok, I'm one for the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" argument, but what is more extraordinary, that such things as black holes exist or that they don't? Black holes are by any measure extraordinary, so what is the overwhelming proof?

I am not siding with Jerome here, but should be be challenged to prove that black holes do not exist?
 
Last edited:
Lionking, black holes have enough evidence that they do exist. Look it up in a book or on the net. The proof has been there for decades. The claim that there are no black holes is the extraordinary claim. Whoever says they do not exist need to dispute the huge amount of evidence which show that they do exist.
 
lionking said:
Ok, I'm one for the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" argument, but what is more extraordinary, that such things as black holes exist or that they don't? Black holes are by any measure extraordinary, so what is the overwhelming proof?

I am not siding with Jerome here, but should be be challenged to prove that black holes do not exist?
Click to expand...

I agree that Jerome will not be able to prove that black holes do not exist but there is still
  • show that they are "another made-up thought with no evidence"
  • that gravity is not strong enough to form black holes.
So a list debunking the evidence for black holes would be nice.
I assume that Jerome can cite many papers showing that gravity is not strong enough to form black holes.
 
lionking said:
Ok, I'm one for the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" argument, but what is more extraordinary, that such things as black holes exist or that they don't? Black holes are by any measure extraordinary, so what is the overwhelming proof?

I am not siding with Jerome here, but should be be challenged to prove that black holes do not exist?
Click to expand...
I agree that black holes are pretty extraordinary. But I also contend that extraordinary proof has been given.

Firstly, the prediction given by Einstein's General Relativity. One of the most successful physical theories of the modern era says that they must exist. All other of general relativity's predictions have been borne out.

Secondly, black holes have been observed. Or rather - phenomena have been observed that agree with the physical calculations of phenomena that should be produced if a black hole exists. There could be another explanation for these observations, but they fit so well with the black hole theory that to doubt it would be at the very least, perverse.

So yes - extraordinary claims do require extraordinary evidence, and black holes are indeed extraordinary. But so is the evidence.
 
Fair enough. I will go back and look at Einstein's work (did he use the term "black hole"?).
 
lionking said:
Ok, I'm one for the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" argument, but what is more extraordinary, that such things as black holes exist or that they don't? Black holes are by any measure extraordinary, so what is the overwhelming proof?
Click to expand...

It's just a nitpick, but the phrase extraordinary evidence, not proof. Proof is proof.

lionking said:
Fair enough. I will go back and look at Einstein's work (did he use the term "black hole"?).
Click to expand...

Einstein is not the one to read on the topic. The implications of his theory in that regard were not well understood until near the end of his life (and are still being studied today).

I think the best way to think about black holes - and realize that they are not so extraordinary after all - is to recall that light propagates at a finite speed in relativistic theories. Once you know that, you're almost guaranteed that there will be black holes. Gravity gets stronger as the mass and density of the source increase. For any object, there is an escape velocity (the speed you must be traveling to escape the gravitational pull). So you just need an object with a gravitational pull strong enough so that the would-be escape velocity is faster than light. For that not to be possible would require something extraordinary.
 
Last edited:
I recently completed an introductory Astronomy course and one of the final exam questions was about the component controlling the orbital motion of stars at the centre of the Milky Way. Best if Jerome started on our own cosmic doorstep and give an alternate explanation to what SgrA* is?
I'd hate to think that my correct markings were based on "make-believe" after all.


BV
 
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."
-- Carl Sagan

http://www.quotedb.com/quotes/2789

Extraordinary Claims versus Extraordinary Proof.

In his famous 1748 essay Of Miracles, the great skeptic David Hume asserted that "A wise man...proportions his belief to the evidence,"and he said of testimony for extraordinary claims that "the evidence, resulting from the testimony, admits of a diminution, greater or less, in proportion as the fact is more unusual." A similar statement was made by Laplace, and many other later writers. I turned it into the now popular phrase "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" (which Carl Sagan popularized into what is almost the war cry of some scoffers).
Click to expand...
http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/anomalistics/practices.htm
 
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." –By Carl Sagan’s own mouth here.

That’s the phrase he also used in Cosmos (from Wiki):

Cosmos: Episode 12: Encyclopedia Galactica said:
What counts is not what sounds plausible, not what we would like to believe, not what one or two witnesses claim, but only what is supported by hard evidence rigorously and skeptically examined. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Click to expand...
 
Reality Check said:
This thread is here for JEROME DA GNOME to present arguments that black holes do not exist, to show that they are "another made-up thought with no evidence" or that gravity is not strong enough to form black holes.
Click to expand...
I recall how Architect, in the Politics forum, challenged Jerome on a couple of his statements by starting new threads for them.

Jerome didn't provide much in the way of evidence to support those claims. I expect the same here.

But who knows, maybe there'll be some genuine substance for once...
 
Do black holes actually rip a hole in space, or was that a cool-but-untrue story I learned back in school?

I seem to understand they are just really, really heavy yet not actually a 'hole'. That closer to the mark?
 
arthwollipot said:
I agree that black holes are pretty extraordinary. But I also contend that extraordinary proof has been given.

Firstly, the prediction given by Einstein's General Relativity. One of the most successful physical theories of the modern era says that they must exist. All other of general relativity's predictions have been borne out.
Click to expand...

The nub of the matter. Black holes aren't made up, they drop out of the mathematics. The initial reaction was to try sticking them back, by finding some get-out, but no such luck.

Secondly, black holes have been observed. Or rather - phenomena have been observed that agree with the physical calculations of phenomena that should be produced if a black hole exists.
Click to expand...

Predicated, looked for, found. Let's face it, black holes are something we're going to have to live with. Like the cosmological constant :). Even when Einstein was wrong it was because he changed his mind from being right.

There could be another explanation for these observations, but they fit so well with the black hole theory that to doubt it would be at the very least, perverse.
Click to expand...

Quite. And even if they were otherwise explained that wouldn't alter the fact that black holes drop out of the mathematics.

So yes - extraordinary claims do require extraordinary evidence, and black holes are indeed extraordinary. But so is the evidence.
Click to expand...

The claim that black holes don't exist is the new extraordinary :).
 
Undesired Walrus said:
Do black holes actually rip a hole in space, or was that a cool-but-untrue story I learned back in school?

I seem to understand they are just really, really heavy yet not actually a 'hole'. That closer to the mark?
Click to expand...

The "hole" part of black hole refers to the fact that anything that passes through the event horizon cannot escape the black hole. The "black" part of black hole comes from the fact that this includes light.
 
Undesired Walrus said:
Do black holes actually rip a hole in space, or was that a cool-but-untrue story I learned back in school?

I seem to understand they are just really, really heavy yet not actually a 'hole'. That closer to the mark?
Click to expand...

The laws of physics as we know them break down inside a black hole (which is why the instinctive revulsion). There's not even an understanding of what space means inside a black hole.

Which provides rich fodder for wild speculation and sophisticated sci-fi :cool:.
 
Reality Check said:
The "hole" part of black hole refers to the fact that anything that passes through the event horizon cannot escape the black hole. The "black" part of black hole comes from the fact that this includes light.
Click to expand...

An admirably concise summation of what we know about black holes. Which is, essentially, knowing where the name comes from.
 
CapelDodger said:
The laws of physics as we know them break down inside a black hole (which is why the instinctive revulsion). There's not even an understanding of what space means inside a black hole.

Which provides rich fodder for wild speculation and sophisticated sci-fi :cool:.
Click to expand...
The laws of physics as we know them do not break down inside a black hole. We currently do not have the mathematics to describe the laws of physics at the singularity at the very center of a black hole. Everything outside the singularity obeys the known laws of physics. So we know how a black hole behaves up to about a Planck length (1.6 × 10−35 metres) of its center.
 
CapelDodger said:
The laws of physics as we know them break down inside a black hole (which is why the instinctive revulsion). There's not even an understanding of what space means inside a black hole.
Click to expand...

This is wrong. It's quite clear what space means inside a black hole. There's nothing particularly different about it, and there's no reason to think the laws of physics don't work. The real question is what happens at or near the singularity. But whatever strangeness might be going on, there's no reason to think that this strangeness has much bearing on the overall structure of the black hole.
 
CapelDodger said:
We know a lot about black holes from out here, and what they'd look like (from out here), but as to in there we know squat. Not even how "out here" would appear to an observer "in there" ...
Click to expand...

Wrong. We know quite well what "in there" is like, down to within about a Planck length from the singularity. And aside from the singularity itself, the only things "in there" are falling towards that singularity. And "out here" doesn't look special to them, though they have a limited time to enjoy the view.
 
Looks like the claimant has not checked in to the thread on his honor. While he's at it, he can prove his contentions in the "Ben Stein ... hates America" thead, in which he dismisses the op as "all falsehoods". As his claim there also goes against the present best understanding, he needs some more extraordinary evidence there.
 
Ziggurat said:
This is wrong. It's quite clear what space means inside a black hole. There's nothing particularly different about it, and there's no reason to think the laws of physics don't work. The real question is what happens at or near the singularity. But whatever strangeness might be going on, there's no reason to think that this strangeness has much bearing on the overall structure of the black hole.
Click to expand...

The "overall structure" is how a black hole appears from out here. Event horizon, singularity, black hole, it's all the same problem. At some point there's a disjunction between "out here" and "in there".

How can you know what space means inside a black hole? You could go and observe it, obviously, but you'd never get your observations back to us out here.
 
If JDM was to reply, it would be something along the lines of "your evidences are built on the premise that black holes exist." That's his basic retort.

Fordama
 
CapelDodger said:
How can you know what space means inside a black hole? You could go and observe it, obviously, but you'd never get your observations back to us out here.
Click to expand...

Well, we have a set of laws of physics which do NOT break down inside the horizon. Nothing funny happens there (the time/space thing is purely a coordinate artifact, and very well understood). They do break down at the singularity, but for a large black hole that's very far from the horizon. So if we trust those laws, we know quite well what happens inside the hole, down until you get very close to the singularity.

Moreover, there are very good reasons to think that those laws must remail valid - essentially because precisely where the horizon is cannot be determined by any local measurement, and so for anything unusual to happen there would require a truly bizarre and new effect.

All that said, you are correct that we will never know - or if we find out, we will be doomed.
 
Last edited:
Corsair 115 said:
I recall how Architect, in the Politics forum, challenged Jerome on a couple of his statements by starting new threads for them.
Click to expand...


This is a really slick tactic for calling out woosters on their b.s. I am very impressed :D
 
CapelDodger said:
The "overall structure" is how a black hole appears from out here. Event horizon, singularity, black hole, it's all the same problem. At some point there's a disjunction between "out here" and "in there".

How can you know what space means inside a black hole? You could go and observe it, obviously, but you'd never get your observations back to us out here.
Click to expand...

Spacetime varies smoothly across the event horizon. We know what it's like inside because it's actually NOT fundamentally different spacetime - unless the equations of general relativity are wrong (and every experimental test of them has only confirmed them), then there's no question about it.
 
Yep, no extraordinary evidence of the existence of black holes. Not even much of an effort attempting to evidence black holes. :(
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Yep, no extraordinary evidence of the existence of black holes. Not even much of an effort attempting to evidence black holes. :(
Click to expand...

Okay... how would you explain the observations that make astronomers stipulate there must be black holes? What is your interpretation of the data?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom