Black Holes Exist

My AssertionsI 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. [1][2]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. [3]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. [4]X-RaysGravity 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-1The 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. "[5][6]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. ConclusionThe 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. Sources [1]: . http://www.mnh.si.edu...[2]: . http://www.amnh.org...[3]: . http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...[4]: . http://www.as.utexas.edu...[5]: . http://jila.colorado.edu...[6]: . http://spaceplace.nasa.gov...