Are black holes bullshit

>>8597851
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Stephen_J._Crothers

File: 5fb52364930411695b15096f6ef2b6b4.jpg (7KB, 236x123px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 236x123px

BLACK HOLES GOT ME FEELING EMOOOTIOOOONNNSS

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4GFAjX62Yg&t=5m55s


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrJEFrth27Q&t=25

File: EvenTheAmazingAtheistCanSmellIrRationalWikisBullshit.jpg (85KB, 1200x450px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 1200x450px

>>8597875
It would have been more credible if you picked Encyclopedia Dramatica. Rationalwiki is just the leftwing version of conservapedia.

5:55 in original video kek

HIGHER THAN THE HEAVENS ABOVE

>>8597851
>http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Stephen_J._Crothers

This guy reminds me of Steve Brule.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8zOlpPUDCg

File: MolyneuxANewHopeThatsNotAnArgument.png (901KB, 939x1195px) Image search: [Google]

901KB, 939x1195px

>>8597885
>http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Stephen_J._Crothers
>"Stephen J. Crothers (born 1957) is a handyman/gardener and part-time amateur scientist who claims that black holes do not exist, and are neither predicted by nor compatible with General Relativity."

Just remember, relativity is the brainchild of a patent clerk.

>>8597885
There's nothing leftwing about the article I posted and everything in it relevant to Crother's quackery is sourced. Just because it's biased doesn't mean it's automatically wrong.

>>8597914
Just remember to read the various real scientists who have wholly debunked this crank's nonsense multiple times instead of creating a strawman from one line of the article.

>>8597851

Yeah, they're actually:

>dark planets

>>8598427
You didn't link to those scientists. You linked to rationalwiki, the site that attacked Crothers for being a gardener (poisoning the well) even though, by that idiotic standard, there is something wrong with relativity because it was "invented" by a patent clerk. Also, Rationalwiki engaged in "OMG he said that!" cheap attacks and not addressed the actual argument that black holes doesn't exist. And rationalwiki seemed less concerned with scientific arguments and observations for the existence of black holes than getting a list of scientists to say "these totally awesome guys hate this fucker so you should hate this fucker to" (appeal to authority). Rationalwiki treats science like its some sort of high school in-group clique and not the objective methodology that it is.

Next time, just link evidence that addresses the argument and not a rationalwiki hit piece. Something showing errors in Crothers' arguments or evidence proving the existence of black holes would have gotten you further.

>>8597885
>BAWWWW RATIONALWIKI SAID SOMETHING MEAN ABOUT DADDY TRUMP THEY ARE LEFTWING DON'T LINK THEM PLEASE IT TRIGGERS ME ;_;
holy shit /pol/ needs to leave, rationalwiki is a good source to debunk woo and pseudoscience

>>8597914
>>8598590
Rationalwiki can't even avoid engaging in ad hominems with people and ideas they disagree with

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Objectivist

There's plenty of good avenues to criticize Objectivism, they just prefer to circlejerk over how obviously wrong it is and how obviously superior they are. The actual criticisms behind all the ad hominems are appeals to authority.

>>8598590

Fuck you. I never said anything about Trump.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Microaggression
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Privilege
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Mansplaining

These are links to pseudo-(social)science that rationalwiki promotes. Even left-leaning (but not so left-leaning that they're to the right of Chairman Mao) individuals like Amazing Atheist find rationalwiki to be rational in name only.

>>8597885
>the amazing atheist
>2017
>people still describe themselves as atheists
kek or something

>>8598588
The article links to several scientists debunking Crothers. But instead of responding to their arguments you focus on rationalwiki saying mean things. No one cares, look at where you're posting. Ironically, the video posted by OP is full of immature insults yet I don't see you complaining about that. Hypocrite.

Your idiotic analogy to Einstein fails completely since Einstein also happened to be a working physicist at the time he was a patent clerk. The point is that Crothers has no expertise in what he's talking about, not that he's a gardener.

>>8598602
>Rationalwiki can't even avoid engaging in ad hominems with people and ideas they disagree with
So? I don't think rationalwiki is attempting to present itself as an unbiased neutral source. That would be wikipedia. I think it's trying to debunk frauds while laughing at them. Your demand for civility is irrelevant.

>>8598628
They should re-brand themselves as Progressivewiki, in that case.

There is nothing rational about engaging in logical fallacies.

>>8598638
An insult is not a logical fallacy, moron.

>>8598623
>The article links to several scientists debunking Crothers. But instead of responding to their arguments you focus on rationalwiki saying mean things.

Post the link to the arguments instead of telling people to go digging for it in a regressive septic tank like (ir)rationalwiki.

>>8599497
No. There's a list right there with citations. Now fuck off, crank.

>>8597851
>all these counters to some overhyped comclusion

it doesnt surprise me at all that the "tasmanian devil" isnt involved in academia in any way. Professors (and students) shove that sensationalist bullshit into every paper they publish so they can get/maintain funding. thats how it works. drum up excitement. if you're going to sperg out over that and claim to be le rebellious intellectual then you are every bit as ignorant.

>>8597851
Reminds me of this guy.

https://youtu.be/_ihDYUiPZcI