Changes

:::::::::Let me say this one last time: I'm not arguing with you. This off-topic nonsense on talk pages has been a waste of everyone's time, and I'm choosing not to participate in it any more. Please continue if you like, but understand that that's my final word on the subject. I hope we can see eye to eye on this, and treat each other respectfully from here on out. Let me know if I can be of any assistance if you guys want to further improve the article. --[[User:KSorenson|KSorenson]] 13:01, 13 November 2009 (EST)

:::::::::Let me say this one last time: I'm not arguing with you. This off-topic nonsense on talk pages has been a waste of everyone's time, and I'm choosing not to participate in it any more. Please continue if you like, but understand that that's my final word on the subject. I hope we can see eye to eye on this, and treat each other respectfully from here on out. Let me know if I can be of any assistance if you guys want to further improve the article. --[[User:KSorenson|KSorenson]] 13:01, 13 November 2009 (EST)

== Reversion Anticipated ==

== More on falsability ==

The point about [[wormholes]] and lack of [[falsifiability]] should remain in the introduction.  We don't fall for Wikipedia-style [[placement bias]] here, as in having to read through thousands of words and page screen pages before realizing that [[Bertrand Russell]] was a communist sympathizer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:04, 30 November 2009 (EST)

The point about [[wormholes]] and lack of [[falsifiability]] should remain in the introduction.  We don't fall for Wikipedia-style [[placement bias]] here, as in having to read through thousands of words and page screen pages before realizing that [[Bertrand Russell]] was a communist sympathizer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:04, 30 November 2009 (EST)

::::::::: Well, first off, saying something might exist is really a scientific hypothesis versus an actual theory of science.  Extraterrestrial life might exist based on what we know of the universe, that doesn't mean they do (or do not).  One may believe they do (I believe they do) but that is simple speculation. Can a black hole be falsified?  Sure, find a stellar object that according to the theories of physics that should be a black hole but isn't (such as reflecting light, or thermodynamically not a perfect black body).  The claim black holes exist is through their interaction interaction with other matter, of course show that those interactions are caused by another stellar phenomenon and again you has falsified the theory. Of course black hole's may not be exactly what we believe they are either.  They may not contain a true singularity of infinite mass, gravity and yet no dimensions.  They simply may be degenerate matter with a measurable mass that happens to have enough gravitational force at the event horizon to pull any light back onto itself, yet not infinite.  That would also force the current theories to be reevaluated. --[[User:BMcP|BMcP]] 12:13, 1 December 2009 (EST)

::::::::: Well, first off, saying something might exist is really a scientific hypothesis versus an actual theory of science.  Extraterrestrial life might exist based on what we know of the universe, that doesn't mean they do (or do not).  One may believe they do (I believe they do) but that is simple speculation. Can a black hole be falsified?  Sure, find a stellar object that according to the theories of physics that should be a black hole but isn't (such as reflecting light, or thermodynamically not a perfect black body).  The claim black holes exist is through their interaction interaction with other matter, of course show that those interactions are caused by another stellar phenomenon and again you has falsified the theory. Of course black hole's may not be exactly what we believe they are either.  They may not contain a true singularity of infinite mass, gravity and yet no dimensions.  They simply may be degenerate matter with a measurable mass that happens to have enough gravitational force at the event horizon to pull any light back onto itself, yet not infinite.  That would also force the current theories to be reevaluated. --[[User:BMcP|BMcP]] 12:13, 1 December 2009 (EST)

The mathematics back it up. If they didn't the theory would be proven false, thus, the concept of a black hole is indeed falsifiable. However, i realize that is not the general opinion here, but i feel it was neccesary to state this--[[User:BenO|BenO]] 21:48, 12 December 2009 (EST)

The mathematics back it up. If they didn't the theory would be proven false, thus, the concept of a black hole is indeed falsifiable. However, i realize that is not the general opinion here, but i feel it was neccesary to state this--[[User:BenO|BenO]] 21:48, 12 December 2009 (EST)

: The concept of [[falsifiability]] is very effective in dealing with atheistic and liberal claims that are designed to distract people from the Bible and God.  For decades atheists and liberals insisted that there is intelligent life in outer space.  That suggestion pulls people away from the Bible, which of course includes no such possibility.  But the claim should be immediately rejected as non-scientific because it is not falsifiable.  That saves countless hours of distraction and billions of dollars in fruitless projects.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:35, 12 December 2009 (EST)

: The concept of [[falsifiability]] is very effective in dealing with atheistic and liberal claims that are designed to distract people from the Bible and God.  For decades atheists and liberals insisted that there is intelligent life in outer space.  That suggestion pulls people away from the Bible, which of course includes no such possibility.  But the claim should be immediately rejected as non-scientific because it is not falsifiable.  That saves countless hours of distraction and billions of dollars in fruitless projects.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:35, 12 December 2009 (EST)