Black Holes Exist

Plasma Cosmology Credibility 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: [2] 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" [1] 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. Conclusion 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. Sources [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.thunderbolts.info... [op 1] http://csep10.phys.utk.edu... [op 2] http://www.astro.ucla.edu...