10
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 79:
Line 79: + + + + + + + + + + +
no edit summary
:Your point about "mathematical proof" doesn't provide physical proof of anything.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:40, 12 December 2009 (EST)
:Your point about "mathematical proof" doesn't provide physical proof of anything.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:40, 12 December 2009 (EST)
this formula
rs=2gm/c^2
where:
rs is the Schwarzschild radius;
G is the gravitational constant;
m is the mass of the gravitating object;
c is the speed of light in vacuum.
gives clear mathimatical proof of the idea for black holes. if this were not the case and the mathematics did not back it up, the concept of a black hole would be fallsified. There for it is scientific because it is fallsifiable--[[User:BenO|BenO]] 19:03, 12 December 2009 (EST)
Actually in science we cannot prove with 100% certainty that ''anything'' does not exist, you cannot prove a negative. This opening sentence needs to be rewritten first for that reason, also for the fact that black holes have been indirectly observed via Accretion disks, gas jets, gravity lensing, radiation emissions, and other orbits of other stellar bodies. Also there is no other valid explanation in science for the aforementioned effects of a black hole that we observe. --[[User:BMcP|BMcP]] 17:00, 1 July 2009 (EST)
Actually in science we cannot prove with 100% certainty that ''anything'' does not exist, you cannot prove a negative. This opening sentence needs to be rewritten first for that reason, also for the fact that black holes have been indirectly observed via Accretion disks, gas jets, gravity lensing, radiation emissions, and other orbits of other stellar bodies. Also there is no other valid explanation in science for the aforementioned effects of a black hole that we observe. --[[User:BMcP|BMcP]] 17:00, 1 July 2009 (EST)