The Instigator
Edlvsjd
Pro (for)
The Contender
Ramshutu2
Con (against)

Black holes are sci-fi pseudoscience

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
Edlvsjd has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/14/2018 Category: Science
Updated: 1 month ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 194 times Debate No: 106699
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

Edlvsjd

Pro

I'm more or less taking the negative position of the existence of black holes, and my opponent should try to convince me that black holes are a reality. He should do so using the scientific method and our objective reality.
Ramshutu2

Con

Scientific Basis of black holes:

Einsteins theory of general relativity indicates that massive bodies curve light around them.[1] This theory was developed as a continuation of special relativity, which was developed to explain the uniform speed of light in any direction.

Both these theories were ground breaking, and predicted curious effects, such as time dilation, frame dragging, mass/energy equivalence and light being bent by massive bodies; not only did it predict these things, but it do so mathematically, allowing exact predictions.[2][3]

Despite the strange nature of these predictions, all of them have been demonstrated with multiple experiments in multiple ways, including: time dilation, mass energy equivalence, light bending around objects, frame dragging, and most recently gravitational waves.[2][3]

If this was merely a false theory, one has no reason to presume any of these experiments would have shown anything. Indicating a positive result, leave alone matching the expected values predicted by Einstein.

The accuracy of these predictions give us great confidence in the accuracy of Einsteins theory. Meaning that it is scientifically valid, and observably true.

As Einsteins theory demonstrated that mass bends light (and this was demonstrated by experiment), one of the interesting calculations it was possible to make, is how much mass is required in a small area to bend light so much that any light would always be bent so much it would return to the center of mass. This theoretical scenario was coined a "black hole". [4]

In addition, our understanding of atomic physics, and forces that can be measured place an upper limit of how much force protons and neutrons can exert outwards to keep protons and neutrons apart and therefore allows us to determine that if a star is so large there could be nothing stopping it from collapsing in on itself into a theoretical black hole [5]. Indeed, a name has been given to name the size a star has to be in order for this to be its end.[6]

This establishes the scientific and theoretical basis of black holes: the basis for their existence based on a "proven" theory, and the physical basis of how it could form.

Scientific Observations of black holes:

Now, we can determine the evidence and observations.

1.) Sagitarius A, at the center of galaxy has a number of other stars in eccentric orbits around a location where there appears to be nothing. The observed speed and orbit of these star show the object they are orbiting around is at least 4 million solar masses (4 million suns), and is 1-Au wide. [7]

This is above the limit described earlier, with a radius requiring it to be a black hole[7]

2.) The existence Neutron stars, indicate that massive gravitational collapse of stars is possible. [8]

3.) Gravitational waves: gravitational waves of two colliding black holes were predicted to exist, with a very specific pattern, called "ringdown", that such waves can be observationally detected confirms a key prediction of black holes based upon them having a "photon sphere" within the even horizon, and confirms their existence.[9][10]

4.) Accretion on black holes is predicted to be massively energetic; massive amounts of incoming material is heated by friction as it gets closer to the black hole, leading to massive relativistic particles and generation of super energetic x rays. No other known physical event can generate such vast amounts of energy other than accretion round a black hole. Such massive accretion energies have been observed multiple times.[11][12].

Conclusion:

This demonstrates the scientific basis, and the scientific observations that allows the existence of black-holes to be confirmed using all my opponents specific criteria.

Sources

[1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://math.ucr.edu...
[3]https://en.m.wikipedia.org...
[4]http://astronomy.swin.edu.au...
[5]https://science.nasa.gov...
[6]https://journals.aps.org...
[7]http://www.astro.ucla.edu...
[8]http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...
[9] http://www.phy.olemiss.edu...
[10] https://www.ligo.caltech.edu...
[11]http://www.skyandtelescope.com...
[12]https://www.spacetelescope.org...
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Ramshutu2 1 month ago
Ramshutu2
NM, if I have BoP (which I do), then it doesn't make sense for you to go first!
Posted by Ramshutu2 1 month ago
Ramshutu2
Please let me know if you would like me to start my argument, or whether round 1 should be for acceptance.
This debate has 6 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.