SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
3,266
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 4:
Line 4: − + − + + +
If there are fewer than predicted by theory, say (with a reference) what that theory is, what factors would cause the anomaly, and whether that would affect the existence of black holes.
Black holes are increasingly promoted by [[liberal]] publications, such as the science page of the ''[[New York Times]]'', glossy magazines, and movies including ''Event Horizon'' (1997), ''The Black Hole'' (TV, 2006), and ''Interstellar'' (2014). Black holes fail the [[falsifiability]] requirement of science, because it is impossible to prove that they do not exist anywhere in the universe.
Black holes are increasingly promoted by [[liberal]] publications, such as the science page of the ''[[New York Times]]'', glossy magazines, and movies including ''Event Horizon'' (1997), ''The Black Hole'' (TV, 2006), and ''Interstellar'' (2014). Black holes fail the [[falsifiability]] requirement of science, because it is impossible to prove that they do not exist anywhere in the universe.
Before 2019, black holes had never been directly observed, and there was no direct evidence for their existence. In early 2019 astronomers released the first ever image of a super-massive black hole located in the galaxy Messier 878 - some 55 million light-years away<ref>https://www.washingtonpost.com/science/2019/04/10/see-black-hole-first-time-images-event-horizon-telescope/</ref>. 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. Evidence for their existence relied on the 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. Most the evidence for the existence of black holes relied on circumstantial evidence, with heavy reliance on theoretical equations.
Before 2019, black holes had never been directly observed, and there was no direct evidence for their existence. In early 2019 astronomers released the first ever image of a super-massive black hole located in the galaxy Messier 87 - some 55 million light-years away<ref>https://www.washingtonpost.com/science/2019/04/10/see-black-hole-first-time-images-event-horizon-telescope/</ref>. That black hole has since been informally named "Powehi".<ref>http://time.com/5569262/black-hole-hawaii-powehi/</ref>
Because of [[quantum mechanics|quantum-mechanical]] phenomena involving Hawking Radiation, discussed later in the article, black holes must emit radiation and thus are a logical contradiction at the microscopic level.
Evidence for the existence of black holes relies on the 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. Most the evidence for the existence of black holes relies on circumstantial evidence, with heavy reliance on theoretical equations.
Because of [[quantum mechanics|quantum-mechanical]] phenomena involving Hawking Radiation, discussed later in the article, black holes must emit radiation and thus are not ''perfectly'' black. Nevertheless, they are called "black holes". Quibbling about this is similar to quibbling about the statement "The Earth is round".
Black holes are conceptually associated with "[[wormhole]]s",<ref name="nytimes.com">The prediction of the existence of wormholes, and its naming in 1957, predates the prediction and naming (1967) of a black hole.[https://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 name="nytimes.com">The prediction of the existence of wormholes, and its naming in 1957, predates the prediction and naming (1967) of a black hole.[https://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.