Block, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, Check users, delete, edit, Moderators, move, oversight, protect, rollback
19,323
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1:
Line 1: + + Line 5:
Line 7: − − Black holes are assumed to come into existence from extremely large stars that collapse into a state of high density when they run out of fusion fuel. An object becomes a black hole when it lies entirely inside the Schwarzschild radius (see below) determined by its mass. For most objects, the Schwarzschild radius is very tiny compared with its size (for Earth it is about 1 centimeter), so the object does not lie inside that radius.
Might be a good idea to introduce it before debunking it
[[Image:Iu8969hu.jpg|right|thumb|300px|Artist's conception of a binary system consisting of a black hole (upper left) and a main sequence star (lower right). The black hole is drawing matter from the star via an ''accretion disk'' (blue) around it, and some of this matter forms a gas jet (also blue).]]
[[Image:Iu8969hu.jpg|right|thumb|300px|Artist's conception of a binary system consisting of a black hole (upper left) and a main sequence star (lower right). The black hole is drawing matter from the star via an ''accretion disk'' (blue) around it, and some of this matter forms a gas jet (also blue).]]
A '''black hole''' is a theoretical formation in space which has such an incredible density it draws all nearby matter into it. The word "black" is in the name because these formations also theoretically draw in photons and prevent them from escaping, thus making a black hole appear completely dark. They are assumed to come into existence from extremely large stars that collapse into a state of high density when they run out of fusion fuel. An object becomes a black hole when it lies entirely inside the Schwarzschild radius (see below) determined by its mass. For most objects, the Schwarzschild radius is very tiny compared with its size (for Earth it is about 1 centimeter), so the object could not lie inside that radius.
Black holes are increasingly promoted by [[liberal]] publications, such as the science page of the ''[[New York Times]]'', glossy magazines, and the movies the ''Event Horizon'' (1997), ''The Black Hole'' (TV, 2006), and ''Interstellar'' (2014). As with the related theoretical concept of a "[[wormhole]]",<ref>The prediction of the existence of wormholes, and its naming in 1957, predates the prediction and naming (1967) of a black hole.[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/14/science/14wheeler.html?pagewanted=print]</ref> it is impossible to prove that no black hole exists anywhere, and thus they fail the [[falsifiability]] requirement of science.
Black holes are increasingly promoted by [[liberal]] publications, such as the science page of the ''[[New York Times]]'', glossy magazines, and the movies the ''Event Horizon'' (1997), ''The Black Hole'' (TV, 2006), and ''Interstellar'' (2014). As with the related theoretical concept of a "[[wormhole]]",<ref>The prediction of the existence of wormholes, and its naming in 1957, predates the prediction and naming (1967) of a black hole.[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/14/science/14wheeler.html?pagewanted=print]</ref> it is impossible to prove that no black hole exists anywhere, and thus they fail the [[falsifiability]] requirement of science.
Black holes have never been directly observed, and there is no direct evidence for their existence. Even believers in black holes should admit that there are far fewer than predicted by theory, and they lose credibility when they fail to address that undisputed truth. They will cite evidence of observations of radiation from accretion disks, motion of stars near the center of the galaxy, and "gravitational lensing", around places where there are no visible objects. But at most the evidence for the existence of black holes is circumstantial, with heavy reliance on speculation.
Black holes have never been directly observed, and there is no direct evidence for their existence. Even believers in black holes should admit that there are far fewer than predicted by theory, and they lose credibility when they fail to address that undisputed truth. They will cite evidence of observations of radiation from accretion disks, motion of stars near the center of the galaxy, and "gravitational lensing", around places where there are no visible objects. But at most the evidence for the existence of black holes is circumstantial, with heavy reliance on speculation.
Black holes are conceptually associated with "[[wormhole]]s",<ref>The prediction of the existence of wormholes, and its naming in 1957, predates the prediction and naming (1967) of a black hole.[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/14/science/14wheeler.html?pagewanted=print]</ref> which never caught on with the public, perhaps due to its unattractive terminology.
Black holes are conceptually associated with "[[wormhole]]s",<ref>The prediction of the existence of wormholes, and its naming in 1957, predates the prediction and naming (1967) of a black hole.[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/14/science/14wheeler.html?pagewanted=print]</ref> which never caught on with the public, perhaps due to its unattractive terminology.