1,792
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 108:
Line 108: + +
→Impossible?: black hole theory does have a lot of observable consequences
:::: RSchlafly is absolutely right, as far as anything a graduate student could say might "validate" the statements of an actual PhD. But an additional argument: it wouldn't even be necessary to use astronomical observations to invalidate the theory of black holes. A large enough super collider - perhaps the LHC, perhaps a more powerful device - could discover a quark degeneracy pressure, or some other currently-unknown mechanism, which might offer a potentially infinite resistance to collapse, or, pressure so great at certain densities that an impossibly large amount of matter would be necessary to form a black hole.
:::: RSchlafly is absolutely right, as far as anything a graduate student could say might "validate" the statements of an actual PhD. But an additional argument: it wouldn't even be necessary to use astronomical observations to invalidate the theory of black holes. A large enough super collider - perhaps the LHC, perhaps a more powerful device - could discover a quark degeneracy pressure, or some other currently-unknown mechanism, which might offer a potentially infinite resistance to collapse, or, pressure so great at certain densities that an impossibly large amount of matter would be necessary to form a black hole.
:::: I'm not going to remove this material yet, since I see Andy put it there, but I hope Mr. Schlafly will read this page and reconsider. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 14:46, 8 August 2009 (EDT)
:::: I'm not going to remove this material yet, since I see Andy put it there, but I hope Mr. Schlafly will read this page and reconsider. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 14:46, 8 August 2009 (EDT)
::::: There are some untestable statements that are commonly made about black holes. One might even argue that statements about the interior of a black hole are unfalsifiable, because we cannot see the inside. But black hole theory does have a lot of observable consequences, so I think that the article is misleading. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 10:12, 9 August 2009 (EDT)