Black Holes Exist

Plasma CosmologyMy 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. [1]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. [2]Galaxies Without Supermassive Black HolesThe 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. "[3]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 HolesThis 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. "[4]Black Hole Information ParadoxThis 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. [5]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. [6]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. ConclusionMy 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. Sources[1]: . http://www.astro.ucla.edu...[2]: . http://en.wikipedia.org...[3]: . http://csep10.phys.utk.edu...[4]: . http://www.nrao.edu...[5]: . http://www.space.com...[6]: . http://profmattstrassler.com...