Black Holes Exist
Debate Rounds (4)
We have finally agreed upon a debate topic and time.
Black holes exist.
Black Holes: "...a place in space where gravity pulls so much that even light can not get out."
Exist: "To have actual being; be real."
1. The first round is for acceptance.
2. A forfeit or concession is not allowed.
3. No semantics, trolling, or lawyering.
4. All arguments and sources must be visible inside this debate.
5. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument.
Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate.Voters, in the case of the breaking of any of these rules by either debater, all seven points in voting should be given to the other person.
Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Presenting all arguments (no rebuttals by con)
Round 3: Refutation of opponent's arguments (no new arguments)
Round 4: Defending your original arguments and conclusion (no new arguments)
I am glad we can finally do this.
I would like to thank RainbowDash52 for accepting this debate.
The Death of Stars
Stars are balls of fusing hydrogen. The hydrogen is fused into helium, and the resulting energy keeps the star from collapsing due to gravity. When a star exhausts its hydrogen, there's no fuel for fusion, and gravity takes over. What happens next depends on the mass of the star. The star collapses until the outward pressure of the remaining material of the star counterbalances the force of gravity. The final product is what depends on the mass of the star.
If the star is normal sized, it will turn into a white dwarf. A white dwarf is a small body that is white because of the radiation of the remnant heat of the star. Eventually, it will turn into a black dwarf, when all the heat has been radiated away. "The outward pressure comes from by tightly packed 'degenerate electrons' which behave like waves that keep them from getting close." White dwarfs are very dense. Sirius B, Procyon B, and 40 Eridani B are just a few examples of white dwarfs. These are known because of measurements of these bodies.
If the star's mass breaks the Chandrasekhar limit (about 1.3 solar masses), the force of gravity becomes so strong that protons and electrons fuse into neutrons. Thus, the remnant is almost all neutrons, hence the name neutron star. The outward pressure comes from degenerate neutrons. Neutron stars have strong magnetic fields, and the ultra-fast rotation (due to the conservation of angular momentum) causes pulses of radiation to be emitted. PSR J0108-1431, LGM-1, and PSR B1257+12 are just a few examples of neutron stars, identified by the distinctive radiation emissions.
The Formation of Black Holes
The next step in the process is the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff limit, which is the mass after which not even the force of degenerate neutrons can withstand the force of gravity. Nothing can stop gravity from collapsing the star. After a certain point, the escape velocity (the velocity which an object must have to escape an object's gravitational pull) exceeds the speed of light, and an event horizon forms around the star (hence the popular perception of a "black" hole).
Black holes are nothing extraordinary. Gravity is the force that attracts all matter. Matter has a natural tendency to collapse, but it can only do so when the force is large enough, which only applies for TOV limit and above stars. It has to break all other outward forces to collapse forever. This is indeed accomplished with black holes, where the enormous mass of the star makes a force so strong that not even the nuclear forces can stop gravity from collapsing the star.
The Theoretical Formulation of Black Holes
Black holes were first theoretically formulated with Einstein's general relativity. The equations showed the exact conclusion I made in the last point - that a massive enough star collapses into a black hole. Schwarzchild's radius showed that the equations of general relativity put forth the same required mass for a black hole as had been done over 100 years before with Newton's law of universal gravitation. The Schwarzchild radius of a black hole is the radius of a black hole - the distance from a black hole that light cannot escape. Mathematically, the remnants of the star have zero volume, infinite density, but finite mass, becoming, in essence, a singularity.
Except for the mathematical ideal of the singularity, black holes behave just like normal objects. If the sun was compressed into a black hole, the orbits of the planets would not change at all. The strange effects that are commonly associated with black holes come from a deficiency in general relativity - it is not united with quantum mechanics. Black holes are all the more real, but new science is going to have to be come up with to explain some of the apparent paradoxes and unexplained consequences.
The Experimental Verification of Black Holes
While a black hole can obviously not be observed, there are many ways to show that an object in space must be a black hole. All of the methods are indirect and involve processes of elimination.
One method involves analyzing accretion disks. "Due to conservation of angular momentum, gas falling into the gravitational well created by massive object will typically form a disc-like structure around the object. Friction within the disc causes angular momentum to be transported outward, allowing matter to fall further inward, releasing potential energy and increasing the temperature of the gas." For objects such as white dwarfs, neutrons stars, and black holes, the accretion disks of gas around such objects can get very hot. Thus, radiation is emitted from the accretion disks. The type of radiation emitted depends on the temperature of the disk, which depends on the mass of the object it is orbiting. "For an accreting white dwarf, the temperature of the gas when it crashes to the surface is such that these are UV radiators. For accreting Neutron stars, the temperature is high enough for 'soft' x-rays. In Cyg[nus] X-1 we see 'hard' x-rays indicative of a much deeper gravitational potential well, consistent with a Black Hole." The hard x-rays cannot be explained by white dwarfs or neutron stars, so they should be coming from black holes.
Another method involves analyzing the way a visible object interacts with another body. "Cygnus X-1 is one of the brightest X-ray sources in the sky. It was identified as a hot, blue main-sequence star with mass of around 30M [solar masses]. These stars are not usually x-ray sources but, it was soon discovered that it was a Spectroscopic Binary with a relatively short period of 5.6 days. The companion was determined to be someplace between 5 and 10. What is the companion? It is completely invisible at all wavelengths (although remember the x-rays). If it was a Red Giant, it would be easily seen. If it was a main-sequence star, it would be seen with some difficulty. It can't be a WD because M > 1.4M [solar masses]. It can't be a Neutron star because M > 3.0M [solar masses]. Not much left except Black Hole." Specifically if the other body is unseen is a black hole likely.
Finally, analyzing the center of black holes (often thought to contain a black hole) provides more evidence. Unusual spectral line emission and very strong radio wave emission from this region are indicative of black holes. In fact, "The close observational correlation between the mass of this hole and the velocity dispersion of the host galaxy's bulge, known as the M-sigma relation, strongly suggests a connection between the formation of the black hole and the galaxy itself." The region Sagittarius A*, in the center of the Milky Way, is thought to have a black hole. By analyzing the behavior of stars inside the region, it was found that there is a spherical mass of 4.3 million solar masses inside a radius of 0.002 light years, which can only be explained by a black hole, as no cluster of stars or anything similar of that magnitude would be confined to such a small radius.
Black holes are not as ridiculous as they sound. They follow from what happens to a star as it dies if the star has a mass greater than the required mass for a white dwarf or neutron star. They behave the same as other stars (except near the black hole). They follow from the equations of general relativity, which produce the same conclusion as an analysis of the process through Newton's law of universal gravitation. There is a lot of indirect experimental evidence for black holes, with the analysis of accretion disks, X-ray binaries (and similar systems), and the centers of galaxies. Black holes are incorporated well into almost all of the current theories describing the universe. While there is much that is not understood about them, this does, in no way, mean that they don't exist.
Ever since Newton discovered gravity, gravity has been considered the dominant force in the universe. But we observe events that don"t match the gravity dominated view of the universe, or at least until we start assuming the existence of large quantities of unobserved invisible matter in the forms of black holes and dark matter.
But what if there was another force that could explain these observations instead of the gravity of invisible objects such as black holes? Perhaps a force that is observed here on Earth and well understood? How about the force of electricity!
P1: Over 99% of the visible universe is plasma 
P2: Plasma is highly ionized gas 
C1: Over 99% of the visible universe is ionized gas
P3: Ions are electrically charged 
C2: Over 99% of the visible universe is electrically charged
P4: gravity is 10^40 times weaker than electromagnetism 
C3:Electricity is a much more dominant force in the visible universe than gravity
Since electricity is the dominant force in the universe, that means we can use electrical force to explain observations of intense energy instead of gravity from invisible black holes.
Galaxies without Supermassive Black Holes
In the standard model of the universe, each galaxy contains a supermassive black hole whose gravity prevents the arms of the spiral galaxy from spinning off the galaxy. But can galaxy formation be better explained by electric forces than gravity? The answer is yes.
These images were made by a supercomputer simulating two interacting plasma blobs over a billion years by using an electrical process instead of a gravitational one.  As you can see the result is identical to spiral galaxies, and no black holes or dark matter were needed to achieve this. In fact we are unable to simulate the formation of spiral galaxies using the standard model. Since the electric universe explanation of galaxy formation is superior and doesn"t require a supermassive black hole, then there is no reason to suspect that there is a super massive black hole in the center of galaxies.
Failed Prediction by Black Holes
""We didn't find what we were looking for, but instead found something very surprising -- two smaller black holes," said Laura Chomiuk, of Michigan State University and the National Radio Astronomy Observatory. "That's surprising because most theorists said there should be at most one black hole in the cluster," she added." 
"Finding two black holes, instead of one, in this globular cluster definitely changes the picture," 
As a reminder, these are just what they interpret as black holes. Since the standard model predicted that there would be no more than one black hole but they found what they believed to be two, this is a failed prediction. With this failed prediction and the fact that black holes lacked evidence to begin with, it is time to start considering alternative explanations instead of adding convoluted explanations to the previous theory.
Black Hole Information Paradox
"It[Black hole information paradox] suggests that physical information could permanently disappear in a black hole, allowing many physical states to devolve into the same state. This is controversial because it violates a commonly assumed tenet of science"that in principle complete information about a physical system at one point in time should determine its state at any other time." 
Although multiple explanations have been given in attempt to resolve this paradox, but none are commonly agreed upon. One common explanation for this paradox is black hole evaporation, but if black holes evaporate their content then that means light that entered could later escape through evaporation which contradicts how black holes are defined for this debate.
Black holes have never been directly observed. Their existence has only inferred by unexplained energy within the gravity dominant model of the universe. Modern theories of black holes keep getting more convoluted with things like accretion disks and hawking radiation, which goes further against Occam"s razor. And since electrical forces can better explain the universe than black holes, it can logically be concluded that black holes don"t exist.
I would like to thank RainbowDash52 for presenting his arguments.
My opponent's argument is predicated on the idea that the electromagnetic force is more important than gravity for explaining astronomical phenomena. This is the main idea of the plasma cosmology, an alternative cosmology theory. I'm not going to talk much about the inaccuracies of the theory, as that would detract from the resolution, but the plasma cosmology makes errors in explaining redshift, the cosmic microwave background radiation, and elemental abundance, among other things. Overall, any argument predicated on the theory is at a distinct disadvantage.
To get to the actual argument that the electromagnetic force is more important than gravity, there are two problems with my opponent's argument. One, the interstellar plasma that makes up space is very spread out (the density is, at a maximum, one million ions per square centimeter; for comparison, the density of the average object is around 10^23 atoms per square meter), and produces a negligable force and massive objects like planets and stars. And two, bodies such as planets and stars are electrically neutral (as they're made of electrically neutral atoms), so the electrical force between them is also negligable. However, because of the sheer mass of the objects, they experience a strong gravitational force. This is why gravity is much more important than electromagnetism in space.
Galaxies Without Supermassive Black Holes
The process my opponent explains seems a bit mysterious. The source my opponent cites comes from a book that's purpose is to provide evidence for the plasma cosmology theory, so it's a little suspicious at best. What causes the plasma blobs to form spiral galaxies? And considering that planets and stars aren't made of plasma, how did these objects from in this shape as well? Again, like I said earlier, the interstellar plasma is way too sparse to be able to form something like it.
Further, if there's no supermassive black hole at the center, then how can the high velocities near the center of galaxies be explained? Take galaxy M87. "This high velocity suggests a huge gravitational field at the center of M87, far larger than could be accounted for by the visible stars there. This is what would be expected for matter swirling around the supermassive black hole, with part of it falling forever into the black hole and part of it being ejected in the high-speed jet seen coming from the nucleus of M87."
And we do actually have an explanation for how spiral galaxies form. "Bertil Lindbald proposed that the arms represent regions of enhanced density (density waves) that rotate more slowly than the galaxy’s stars and gas. As gas enters a density wave, it gets squeezed and makes new stars, some of which are short-lived blue stars that light the arms." This eventually became the density wave theory for spiral galaxies. Spiral galaxies don't require a black hole at their center to keep them together, so I'm not sure why my opponent brings this up.
Failed Prediction by Black Holes
This argument is weak for the simple reason that unexplained phenomena surrounding an object does not mean that object does not exist, but only that we don't have a complete theory for that object. This "failed" prediction about a black hole, by no means means that black hples don't exist. It doesn't really help your case that the prediction that one black hole would be found was wrong because two were found.
Indeed, astronomers have come up with a couple of reasons for why this prediction was wrong. "The astronomers suggest some possible explanations. First, the black holes themselves may gradually work to puff up the central parts of the cluster, reducing the density and thus the rate at which black holes eject each other through their gravitational dance. Alternatively, the cluster may not be as far along in the process of contracting as previously thought, again reducing the density of the core."
Black Hole Information Paradox
This is another example of a problem that doesn't prove that black holes don't exist, but only shows us that we need to make a more complete theory. One problem is that we don't have a quantum mechanical explanation of black holes.
One interesting hypothesis put forth is that there is another degenerate force that stops a black hole from becoming a singularity (but is still dense enough that it can be defined as a black hole), and evaporation would eventually make it become visible again. "Researchers say that quantum effects - similar to those that prevent an electron falling into the nucleus of an atom - would stop the collapse of a star before it could shrink to a single point, or singularity. The star would then become a super-compact object, bounce back during the evaporation process of the black hole and finally explode. Eventually, everything that would have fallen into the black hole would be released." Again, this is just a hypothesis, and we are far from truly explaining the paradox, but it goes to show that the paradox does not show that black hole's don't exist.
Black hole evaporation isn't an explanation for the paradox, but is what brings the paradox about. If a black hole eventually evaporates, what happens to the information that went inside the black hole, since information cannot be destroyed? Evaporation is not a problem for black holes the black hole eventually disappears after it is all evaporated away. The light (and information) doesn't seem to escape, and this is the paradox.
And yes, while black holes have never been directly observed, their existence can be inferred from the fact that certain phenomena are seen that can't be explained by anything besides a black hole. And Occam's razor does not prevent a complicated object at all. Some theories are inevitably complicated.
My opponent's arguments rest on the fallacious plasma cosmology and the fallacious idea that the electromagnetic force is more important in space than gravity. He also explains two "problems" with the black hole theory that he says shows that black holes don't exist. However, not only two the two problems have potential explanations still incorporating black holes, even if we didn't have an explanation at all, they still don't show that black holes don't exist - only that the theory on black holes needs to be expanded.
My opponent sites these [op 1] [op 2] for much of his round 2 argument, and they makes a bunch of assertions but gives zero explanation as to why we know these assertions are true. Each of these are required for my opponent"s description of stars becoming black holes.
1.Are stars really balls of fusing hydrogen?
We can"t observe star fusion. It is only a guess that stars consist of hydrogen fusion. A viable alternative explanation in which stars are powered externally through electric currents instead of being fusion powered which has evidence for it here: 
"The stars receive their power from outside, not inside. Any nuclear reactions are taking place on the surface of the Sun and not in its core. The solar wind is an electric current connecting the Sun with its family of planets and with its galactic clan, so the 90-year-old theory of fusion firing the solar furnace needs to be reexamined." 
My opponent used the term "degenerate electrons". Descriptions for degenerate particles very convoluted and I doubt most judges understand what degenerate electrons are, how we know they exist, how we know about their properties. If my opponent wishes to use these "degenerate electrons" as evidence for star deaths needed for black holes, then my opponent must explain what they are in an understandable way, and give evidence for their these degenerate electrons existing with the properties described to them.
3.How do we know the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff limit?
If my opponent wants to use the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff limit in his argument, he must explain how we know that it exists and how we know its correct value
Explanation for X-Rays without Black Holes
My opponent attempt to use x-rays as evidence for black holes and states:
"The hard x-rays cannot be explained by white dwarfs or neutron stars, so they should be coming from black holes."
But x-rays can be explained with electricity.
This is a picture of lightning taken by an x-ray camera.  In fact even gamma ray bursts (which are even more energetic than hard x-rays) have been observed in thunderstorms on Earth.  This demonstrates that electricity can generate hard x-rays so there is no reason to assume that the x-rays come from black holes. In fact gravity without electricity has not been shown to produce x-rays. Cygnus X-1 is could easily just be electrical and not a black hole as my opponent claims, which could account for the x-rays.
"X-rays and gamma rays in space are not created in gravity fields. Laboratory experiments most easily produce them by accelerating charged particles through an electric field. No gigantic masses compressed into tiny volumes are necessary and they are easily generated with the proper experimental models." 
Sagittarius A & Cygnus X-1
My opponent argues for the existence of the black hole Sagittarius A in the center of the Milky Way. As usual, there are problems with this idea.
"According to the standard model for star formation, gas clouds from which stars form should have been ripped apart by tidal forces from the supermassive black hole".Finding such big star clusters so near the gravitational pull of the galactic center is surprising; tidal forces should rip them apart. - Angelle Tanner, Sky & Telescope" 
So this goes against the idea of there being a black hole in the center of the Milky Way like my opponent claims.
The article my opponent gave that support the existence of Sagittarius A was Wikipedia and it cites sources in which I can only view the abstract. Since my opponent made it difficult to review the original source of his evidence, I will review this video of what is supposed to be the black hole in the center of the Milky Way:
What this looked like to me was just some stars wiggling. It looks like very weak evidence for a black hole. The video also says they plotted the stars in 3d; how could they know the stars depth with that much precision? The model based on the actual video looks misleading. So the conclusion is that the evidence for the black hole in the center is weak.
Also the Birkeland current going through the galaxy can explain the strong force that was believed to be from the gravity of the black hole Sagittarius A.  The measurements used for measuring the mass of objects in space are flawed since they ignore electric forces which includes the mass of the Cygnus X-1 star my opponent gives.
[op 1] http://stars.astro.illinois.edu...
[op 2] http://www.astro.cornell.edu...
I would like to thank RainbowDash52 for this debate.
I don't see how those sites are making assertions. They are all using valid theories that have been shown to be correct numerous times. It is known that white dwarfs and neutron stars exist, so the next step in the progression is black holes. There's nothing that appears to stop it. I'm not sure why my opponent is asking me to elaborate on simple science.
We know that stars are made of hydrogen and helium by the analysis of the light that stars emit. "Each element on the periodic table gives off a unique pattern of colors - like a hidden fingerprint. Astronomers read the color patterns in starlight to determine the elements present in the star." The colors that stars emit match up with the spectral lines of hydrogen and helium, so we know that stars are made up mostly of hydrogen and helium. "In it, she showed that the wide variation in stellar spectra is due mainly to the different ionization states of the atoms and hence different surface temperatures of the stars, not to different amounts of the elements... She discovered, surprisingly, that the Sun and the other stars are composed almost entirely of hydrogen and helium, the two lightest elements." Because of the sheer mass of the gas, the gravitational forces force the gas in, which causes the temperature to increase, until the temperatures for nuclear fusion are achieved.
Here is a short, easy-to-understand description of electron degeneracy: "...Electron degeneracy is a stellar application of the Pauli Exclusion Principle, as is neutron degeneracy. No two electrons can occupy identical states, even under the pressure of a collapsing star of several solar masses. As the star contracts, all the lowest electron energy levels are filled and the electrons are forced into higher and higher energy levels, filling the lowest unoccupied energy levels. This creates an effective pressure which prevents further gravitational collapse." A similar story occurs for neutron degeneracy.
The Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff limit arises when the neutron degeneracy cannot hold back the gravitational forces because the star is too massive. The value for the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff limit is not known with exactness. Here's a paper that argues, through a mathematical argument, that the value if 2.122 solar masses. It could be as large as 3 solar masses.
Gravity does not create light - gravity causes the gas accreting around a black hole to accelerate, and through friction, the temperature increases, and then radiation is emitted in the form of hard x-rays. My opponent is misrepresenting my argument here. The electromagnetic force still creates the x-rays, but the radiation comes from the effects of gravity.
If my opponent wants to invoke the plasma cosmology, he needs to explain why hard x-rays are emitted near the center of galaxies, but not gamma rays (for example). The explanation from black holes is simple - the effects of gravity. However, plasma cosmology does not have an explanation for the phenomena at all. All he shows is that electricity creates x-rays, which I'm not disagreeing with.
Sagittarius A* and Cygnus X-1
The stars would not be tidally torn apart, because they're too far away. "3 Schwarzschild radii marks the radius of the innermost stable orbit. Outside this radius circular orbits are stable, whereas within it circular orbits are unstable." All of the stars are beyond this radius, so there's no problem here. In fact, "If the Sun were somehow compressed enough to become a black hole, it would be less than 6 kilometers (well under 4 miles) across. It would exert no more gravitational force on Earth or the other planets in the solar system than it does now. Why? Because it would contain no more matter than it does now and it would be no closer to the planets than it is now."
Wikipedia is reliable enough, especially on something as un-political as black holes, to be taken as credible when it includes reliable sources. These sources do not cease to exist simply because you can't view the whole of them. The most important parts are cited and quoted in the Wikipedia article. And the video model is just that - a model. It doesn't even appear to be peer-reviewed, or anything. All the evidence needed is in my round 2 argument and the Wiki article.
Finally, I think I've covered enough how gravitational forces are more important in space than electromagnetic forces. I don't know why my opponent keeps committing this error after I have already called him out on it.
The theoretical formulation of black holes, considering why white dwarfs and neutron stars form, along with what the equations of general relativity say after the TOV limit is reached, is sound. The experimental verification, which uses a number of pieces of indirect evidence that can only be explained by the existence of black holes is also sound. My opponent's arguments rest on the fallacious plasma cosmology, along with the incorrect assumption that the electromagnetic force is more important in space than the gravitational force. Overall, this shows that black holes do exist.
My opponent argues that plasma cosmology has made failed predictions which makes them not credible. He cites this source: [op 2] claiming that it demonstrates error in a book that supports plasma cosmology. When looking at the "Is there dark matter?" section of that source, it is clear that it does not accurately understand plasma cosmology.
"When one looks at cluster of galaxies, the gravitational effects of the cluster can be measured three ways. One is by the orbital motions of the galaxies in the cluster." [op 2]
This section is only taking gravity into consideration. It is attacking plasma cosmology conclusions by stating gravity dominant universe assumption makes different conclusions, which is fallacious. This section in no way demonstrates any flaws with plasma cosmology. This source looks like a hate article design to dismiss plasma cosmology by any means necessary.
Electric universe cosmology (aka plasma cosmology) has made several correct predictions: 
Electricity is Still More Powerful than Gravity
According to my opponent:
" One, the interstellar plasma that makes up space is very spread out (the density is, at a maximum, one million ions per square centimeter; for comparison, the density of the average object is around 10^23 atoms per square meter)"
1 million ions is equal to 10^6 ions.
100 centimeters are in 1 meter, so 100^2 square centimeters are in 1 square meter
100^2 = 10^4
So 10^4 square centimeters to square meters ratio times the 10^6 ions equals 10^10 ions per square meter.
And since 10^23 atoms per square meter is only 10^13 times more than 10^10 ions per square meter.
And when you compare the 10^13 times more density of normal objects to the 10^40 times more power electricity has than gravity: 10^40 / 10^13 = 10^27 times more powerful. So even with my opponent"s numbers taken into consideration, electricity is still 10^27 times more powerful than gravity in the universe. Thank you Subutai for helping me make my case.
Opponent's Electrically Neutral Claims
My opponent claims "And two, bodies such as planets and stars are electrically neutral (as they're made of electrically neutral atoms)"
First of all stars are made of plasma. "A star is a massive, luminous sphere of plasma"  And since I already explained that plasmas are ionized and therefore electric, my opponent"s claim that stars are electrically neutral is completely falsified.
As for planets being electrically neutral, planets do have plenty of electrical activity with their magnetic fields and thunderstorms in their atmospheres. But this is unimportant since the mass of planets is negligible when compared to the mass of stars, so even if they were completely electrically neutral, the force of electricity would still greatly outweigh the force of gravity in the universe.
Galaxies without Supermassive Black Holes
"The process my opponent explains seems a bit mysterious."
The explanation of black holes also seems mysterious.
"The source my opponent cites comes from a book that's purpose is to provide evidence for the plasma cosmology theory, so it's a little suspicious at best."
With this reasoning, books whose purpose is to provide evidence for a theory such as the Big Bang theory would be considered suspicious at best. Every source tries to give evidence to prove its own theory, and it is illogical to dismiss all of these sources because of this.
My opponent uses this source [op 1] to demonstrate fast movement at the centers of galaxies. This sources attempts to use red shift to measure the speed of the galaxy just to the left and right of its center to demonstrate fast spinning. The problem with using red shift to measure speed is that it does not take intrinsic red shift into account. For example, if you see a red balloon in the sky, you would assume it is just a balloon that is intrinsically red as opposed to a white balloon traveling at high speeds away from you. This source could have easily cherry picked a few galaxies in which one side of its center happened to be intrinsically redder than the other side of its center. So this is not sufficient reason to believe that galaxies rotate at intense speeds near its center and is another reason that the universe can be explained without black holes.
And finally my opponent admitted that we do not need super massive black holes in the center of spiral galaxies to explain the formation of spiral galaxies.
I demonstrated that the universe can be explained without black holes when taking electricity into consideration. My opponent tried to refute this but completely failed. My opponent also tried to attack the credibility of plasma cosmology, but failed. All this in addition to the fact that black holes have never been directly observed leads to the logical conclusion that black holes simply don"t exist.
[op 1] http://csep10.phys.utk.edu...
[op 2] http://www.astro.ucla.edu...
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by n7 1 year ago
|Who won the debate:||-|
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 1 year ago
|Who won the debate:||-|
Reasons for voting decision: This debate was far more interesting than the resolution lead me to believe it would be. To start, the BOP was on Pro to show, beyond reasonable doubt, that Black Holes do exist, not just theoretically, but actually do. He started well by providing how black holes are mathematically sound, and then went on to provide some cases where black holes are the best explanation. Con countered by saying that Electricity could be a better explanation. Pro missed the easiest refutation, in that if the primary force EM, then we would be able to see just as strong repulsion effects as attraction. But the point that most bodies are EM neutral, effectively refuted. Con tried to counter the refutation by pointing out that Plasma is ionized. This is not an accurate counter because it only refers to the charge of the particle, not the whole body (which would still be neutral by the laws of conservation of charge).
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.