Black Holes Exist

Opponent's Assertions 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: [1] "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." [1] 2.Degenerate electrons? 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. [3] In fact even gamma ray bursts (which are even more energetic than hard x-rays) have been observed in thunderstorms on Earth. [4] 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." [2] 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" [5] 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. [5] 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. Sources [1] https://www.thunderbolts.info... [2] http://www.thunderbolts.info... [3] http://news.nationalgeographic.com... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org... [5] http://www.thunderbolts.info... [op 1] http://stars.astro.illinois.edu... [op 2] http://www.astro.cornell.edu...