Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Young mass murderers

2009-12-15T00:00:54Z

BenO:

Recent increases in tragic mass-murders perpetrated by young individuals have prompted questions about their rationale for doing so. Below is collected evidence that their motives have been overwhelmingly [[atheism|atheistic]] or driven by hatred of God.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Year
!Name(s)
!Education
!Killed
!Wounded
!Beliefs
![[Liberal]] response
|-
|2009
|Tim Kretschmer
|[[Germany]] [[public school]]
|15 + himself<ref>Reports were that the police did not mortally wound him. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1161139/Are-dead-Police-gun-ex-student-17-targeted-women-German-school-massacre.html</ref>
|several others
|wore all black, indicative of anti-Christianity
|denial of significance of all-black clothing by a teenager; Europe calls for more [[gun control]]; [[liberal]] media promotes falsehood: "We'll never know why they kill."[http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/03/12/greene.shootings/]
|-
|2008
|Stephen Kazmierczak
|[[Northern Illinois University]]
|5 + himself
|16
|Fan of [[Nietzsche]]'s "The Antichrist," obsessed with self-injury, was a "cutter" in [[public high school]], wore all black to carry out his massacre, and was still a [[public school]] student at age 27
|Feigned shock at the fact that the gunman didn't "fit" the typical mold of a killer, when in fact the gunman wore all black and was taught at a [[public school]].
|-
|2007
|Robert Hawkins
|Papillion-La Vista public high school
|8 + himself
|5
|Targeted [[Christmas]] shoppers; wore black; "I can't take this meaningless existence anymore"<ref>[http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation/bal-te.omaha08dec08,0,6053469.story Baltimore Sun]</ref> Told a therapist that "he is not sure if there is a [[God]] or life after death and that when he dies, he'll probably go to hell." Told social workers he was [[Satan|satanic]] and acknowledged that he often acted before thinking of the consequences. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,318506,00.html Mall Gunman Admitted He was Satanic, Attempted Suicide], [[Associated Press]], [[Fox News Channel]], December 27, 2007</ref>
|Avoided suggesting [[gun control]] lest [[Democrats]] lose [[West Virginia]] and [[Wisconsin]] in [[2008 presidential election]]
|-
|2007
|Pekka-Eric Auvinen
|Jokela High School public high school (Finland)
|8 + himself
|About 12
|[[Atheist]], "I, as a natural selector, will eliminate all who I see unfit."
|[[Finland]] already had [[gun control]]
|-
|2007
|[[Seung-Hui Cho]]
|Westfield public high school (VA), then Virgina Tech public university
|32 + himself
|25
|"Ismail Ax" suggested [[Muslim]] beliefs, felt "[[Jesus]] was crucifying me."
|Poem comparing it to environmental harm<ref>Virginia Tech, ''Transcript of Nikki Giovanni's Convocation address'', Delivered April 17, 2007[http://www.vt.edu/remember/archive/giovanni_transcript.html] ''We are Virginia Tech./We are sad today, and we will be sad for quite a while. We are not moving on, we are embracing our mourning./We are Virginia Tech./We are strong enough to stand tall tearlessly, we are brave enough to bend to cry, and we are sad enough to know that we must laugh again./We are Virginia Tech./We do not understand this tragedy. We know we did nothing to deserve it, but neither does a child in Africa dying of AIDS, neither do the invisible children walking the night away to avoid being captured by the rogue army, neither does the baby elephant watching his community being devastated for ivory, neither does the Mexican child looking for fresh water, neither does the Appalachian infant killed in the middle of the night in his crib in the home his father built with his own hands being run over by a boulder because the land was destabilized. No one deserves a tragedy./We are Virginia Tech./The Hokie Nation embraces our own and reaches out with open heart and hands to those who offer their hearts and minds. We are strong, and brave, and innocent, and unafraid. We are better than we think and not quite what we want to be. We are alive to the imaginations and the possibilities. We will continue to invent the future through our blood and tears and through all our sadness./We are the Hokies./We will prevail./We will prevail./We will prevail./We are Virginia Tech.''</ref><ref>[http://americaabroad.tpmcafe.com/blog/oldengoldendecoy/2007/apr/17/nikki_giovanni_we_are_virginia_tech]</ref>
|-
|
|-
|2006

|-
|2002
|Robert Steinhäuser
|Erfurt public school (Germany)
|16 + himself
|
|Wore black entirely, literally from head to toe; stopped only when a teacher pulled off his black mask
|[[German]] [[gun control]] already strict, demands for limitations on computer games
|-
|1999
|Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold
|[[Columbine public high school]] (CO)
|13 + themselves
|23
|[[Atheistic]], singled out a victim who believed in [[God]].
|Demand [[gun control]], causing [[Al Gore]] to lose [[West Virginia]], [[Tennessee]] and [[Arkansas]] in 2000 presidential election
|-
|1998
|Mitchell Johnson and Andrew Golden
|Westside Middle School
|5
|10
|Mitchell Johnson, the older of the two, was obsessed with rap lyrics like "coming to school and killing all the kids."<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/1998/06/16/entertainment/main11983.shtml</ref>
|Liberals blame the guns rather than the killer's obsession with rap music. Johnson is released at age 21 but is later arrested for new crimes.
|-
|1997
|Michael Carneal
|Heath public high school (KY)
|3
|5
|Murdered girls as they prayed in a [[prayer]] group
|Under-publicized due to anti-[[Christian]] nature
|-
|1989
|Marc Lépine, at the École Polytechnique de Montréal
||Collège d'enseignement général et professionnel, (''College of General and Vocational Education'')
|14 + himself
|14<ref>Montreal Coroners Report of the École Polytechnique de Montréal massacre [http://www.diarmani.com/Montreal_Coroners_Report.pdf]</ref>
|His religious views were unpublicized but he was raised in a home with an immigrant Muslim father who was allegedly highly critical of the [[feminist]] view of women's role in society; Marc's mother was an ex-nun; and his sister had allegedly committed suicide<ref>http://www.volokh.com/posts/1142399687.shtml</ref>
His suicide note reflected anger towards feminists: ''"For I have decided to send Ad Patres the feminists who have ruined my life...the feminists always have a talent for enraging me...They want to retain the advantages of being women...while trying to grab those of the men...They are so opportunistic that they neglect to profit from the knowledge accumulated by men throughout the ages. They always try to misrepresent them every time they can."''<ref>CityNews Rewind: The Montreal Massacre, December 6, 2006 [http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_5897.aspx]</ref>
|Ignore the personal background of the killer and instead use the massacre to push for stricter [[gun control]] and more laws concerning violence against women, and establish in [[Canada]] a National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women.
|-
|}

== References ==
{{reflist}}
[[category:crime]]

Talk:Cain

2009-12-14T03:47:19Z

BenO:

{{Wikiproject Religion}}
Whom did Cain marry?[[User:Oldoligarch|Oldoligarch]] 17:51, 20 June 2007 (EDT)
:(Depending upon how reliable you believe the source - in this case ''Leptogenesis'') he married Awan [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 18:07, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

::Any son of Adam and Eve would have to have married his sister, unless there were other human families around. What's your point? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:02, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

Um Incest is forbidden by the bible--[[User:BenO|BenO]] 22:47, 13 December 2009 (EST)

George Obama

2009-12-13T15:46:52Z

BenO:

[[Image:Obama brother Guy Calaf Vanity Fair.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Photo: Guy Calaf, Vanity Fair, Italy.]]
'''George Hussein Onyango Obama''' (b. 1982) is the youngest of [[Barack Obama]]'s half-brothers. Born to Barack Obama, Sr. and his partner, mother Jael. [[Jael]] resides in the United States. <ref name="timesonline">[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article4583353.ece Life is good in my Nairobi slum] Times Online, August 22, 2008</ref> They have five other half brothers (Roy (now known as Abong'o), Bernard, Abo, Mark and David) and a half sister (Auma). George never knew his father Barack Hussein Obama Sr., who died in a 1982 car accident six months after he was born.

<blockquote>
"No-one knows who I am," he told the magazine (Italy's Vanity Fair), before claiming: "I live here (Huruma on the outskirts of Nairobi, [[Kenya]]) on less than a dollar a month." In a Times of the UK article, George says "They say I live on a dollar a month, but this is all lies by people who don’t want my brother to win.” The article purposely fails to disclose his yearly wage. <ref name="timesonline" />
</blockquote>
During his 1987 visit to Kenya, Barack Obama met with him:

<blockquote>
"I took comfort in the fact that perhaps one day, when he was older, George, too, might want to know who his father had been, and who his brothers and sisters were, and that if he ever came to me I would be there for him, to tell him the story I knew," Obama wrote in Dreams From My Father. <ref>[http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/familytree/545447,BSX-News-wotreecc09.stng HALF-BROTHER GEORGE]</ref>
</blockquote>

In September of 2008, [[National Review]] featured an article by [[Dinesh D'Souza]] which declared:
{{cquote|George Obama’s shack measures six feet by ten feet, and yet he says that Barack Obama has done nothing to reach out to him or to help him. “I live like a recluse. If anyone says something about my surname, I say we are not related. I am ashamed.”<ref>http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTk1OTc2ZGVlNjg2NmU1YTlkMGJjZjk5OGEzMzIxYjA=</ref>}}

A critic of Barack Obama's uncharitableness towards his brother George Obama wrote:
{{cquote|Well, they say charity begins at home, but it hasn't apparently in this case. Hearing about what George is going through, you can't help but wonder why his brother Barack won't send the guy $20? I mean it would double his annual income.<ref>http://www.zimbio.com/George+Hussein+Onyango+Obama/articles/3/George+Obama+Barack+Obama+Brother+Fights+Life</ref>}}

George later refuted these claims in an issue of ''The Times'' claiming they are unsubstantiated rumors made up by people who did not want his brother to win. Indeed he said, in a demonstartion of conservative values that he "expects no charity from his brother"[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article4583353.ece]

==Family quote==
Asked by Harry Smith from CBS about Obama leaving the campaign to visit his ailing grandmother, Obama replied, "Yeah, well, the -- I think most people understand that if you're not caring for your family, then you're probably not the kind of person who's going to be caring for other people." <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kyle-drennen/2008/10/23/cbs-s-smith-compares-obama-lincoln-obama-attacks-hannity CBS’s Smith Compares Obama to Lincoln; Obama Attacks Hannity] NewsBusters.org, October 23, 2008</ref> No mention of his younger brother George.
== External links ==

*[http://sharprightturn.wordpress.com/2008/08/20/is-obama-practicing-what-he-preaches/ Is Obama practicing what he preaches?]
*[http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/972840/the_plight_of_george_obama.html The Plight of George Obama]

==References==
<references />
{{DEFAULTSORT:Obama, George Hussein Onyango}}
[[Category:Political Figures]]

Talk:Placement bias

2009-12-13T02:53:50Z

BenO:

Hmm... I noticed there was something like that going on at Wikipedia. I always gave them the benefit of the doubt, but I didn't realize this happened so often... Anyway, I'm going to add some further examples of placement bias from the "Examples of Bias in Wikipedia" page, ok? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 21:27, 6 October 2007 (EDT)

== Bias ==

FTA: "Wikpedia's entry on former liberal Vice President Al Gore contains no mention of the drug charges against his son. But Wikipedia's entry on conservative Vice President Dick Cheney prominently mentions his adult daughter's sexuality."
:Al Gore is part of a pro-drug movement and his son uses drugs. Dick Cheney is part of an anti-homosexual movement and his daughter is homosexual. They're not really equal. (Okay, the Democratic party isn't exactly ''pro-drug'' but it's definitely ''much less anti-drug'', if you see what I mean.) Imagine if the Pope had an illegitimate child and so did Mick Jagger; the Pope's child would get a lot more coverage in a 100% neutral encyclopedia, because it's more relevant to his life and position. Am I making any sense? [[User:MrGrieves|MrGrieves]] 05:44, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

I fail to see how Russell's support of the communist revolution has any bearing on his work, esspecially since much of his work involved logic, mathematics, and set theory, things that are unaffected by any political bias. This seems like ad hominim to me--[[User:BenO|BenO]] 21:53, 12 December 2009 (EST)

Talk:Black hole

2009-12-13T02:48:07Z

BenO:

==Extremely high density==

Technically, it's undefined, no? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 07:52, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

did you know the 'Black Holes FAQ', which there is a link to, was written in 1995? -stevenM

== Existence confirmed? ==

Perhaps I was hasty. I will reconsider. Any other sources I might find enlightening, perhaps from a YEC perspective? [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 15:16, 7 January 2009 (EST)

[[Talk:Atheistic Style#Black Holes]] covers it quite well. I don't know of any evidence from a '''reliable''' source that shows the existence of Black holes. This "can't be directly observed" thing reminds me a bit too much of evolution. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 12:16, 9 January 2009 (EST)
:Even wikipedia's article notes that all of the different pieces of evidence of a black hole are problematic and can be explained by other sources. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 12:21, 9 January 2009 (EST)

::This is why the article starts by stating "A black hole is a '''theoretical''' mass with an escape velocity greater than the speed of light. They cannot be observed directly, but several have been identified via indirect observation" I also don't see how NASA or UCLA Berkely are unreliable sources for astronomy. As for "can't be directly observed",there are numerous articles on CP related to Intelligent Design that don't rely on direct observations of a designer to discuss the apparent presence of design in nature.

::The beauty of science that it's always open to review and reassessment as new discoveries come to light. In time man's understanding of Black Holes may be different from this article, but we owe the readers the best current explanations available. I'm not suggesting censorship - all credible alternate theories should be listed, but stating that there have been no observations of one is false - by definition they are not directly observable, so proving they exist relies on indirect observation and physics. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 12:38, 9 January 2009 (EST)

:::There is no place called "UCLA Berkely".
:::ID is bolstered by the direct observation available from Genesis.
:::The best explanation is not always the explanation espoused by Californians.
:::We know how our universe began. If NASA & discovery.com deny it, they lose credibility, and their other statements come under greater scrutiny. If you met someone today who insisted that the sky is red and that Sears closes at 10, you would be wise to check the store hours yourself. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 13:58, 9 January 2009 (EST)

::::Okay, my mistake regarding Berkely notwithstanding, my last reversion is based on two simple things. The word "is" should not be replaced by "would be" - it ''is'' a characteristic of black holes within the theory that describes them. Second, the use of [[Big Science]] as a term on CP was started by an admitted parodist, and equating NASA with it, frankly comes across as parody as well. Instead of diluting references to good science, spend more time supporting alternate explanations constructively. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 14:07, 9 January 2009 (EST)

:::::"Would be" is appropriate for hypothetical things. We say "Dole would have been a better President than Clinton," not "Dole was a better President than Clinton," even "within a theory that describes" Dole as being elected.
:::::"Big Science" was used in ''[[Expelled]]''. You don't think that was parody, do you?
:::::"Berkely" isn't a place, either.
:::::It seems like I'm the only one trying to make constructive edits towards a compromise. I guess this is not surprising, given the content on [[User:DinsdaleP]]. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 14:26, 9 January 2009 (EST)

::::::BHarlan, I believe that you do not understand a small but important bit of information, most astronomical discoveries are collaborative efforts usually initiated by small independent astronomers. When you say big science you could classify biosciences like that, but astronomy is totally different.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 14:19, 9 January 2009 (EST)

::::::The so-called "evidence" for Black holes does not fit a pattern like the one you describe. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 14:26, 9 January 2009 (EST)

(unindent)

I'm not making any other changes to the revision just posted by Aschlafly. To BHarlan, I make no apologies for my User Page content. If the CP leadership wishes to block me over my [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/DinsdaleP contributions] they have the right to do so at any time, but I feel that my efforts here are constructive even when I disagree with others. Feel free to have the last word on this, I'm moving on to other topics. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 14:45, 9 January 2009 (EST)

Black holes have been spotted by a number of well-respected astronomical institutes for decades, with those discoveries tested and confirmed repeatedly. Your edits are unsupported by either fact or citation Andy, so under the rules youelf created I have no choice but to revert your edits, whereas the edits saying that black holes have been spotted are fully cited with references from reputable sources including NASA, an organisation fully backed by all US Governments, including conservative governments, since its inception.-[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 15:47, 9 January 2009 (EST)

:Your sarcastic edit comments are not welcome here. You might want to check "youelf", else you might end up wrecking youelf.
:Also, you always have a choice! Do you deny this choice? That is a typical sentiment of materialists. If you do not believe in your soul, you will receive a nasty surprise pretty soon, and it won't just be the non-existence of black holes!
:Also, that is not how "whereas" is used in standard English.
:Also, NASA has taken a sad left turn as of late. This is one of the reasons the U.S.A.F. has its own space program. Do you see?
:Also, may God bless you. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 16:10, 9 January 2009 (EST)

::My my, I miss a 's' in a typo and you decide to launch an ad hominem attack… Very 'christian' of you, or then again; not.
::''"Also, that is not how "whereas" is used in standard English".'' That might not be how you use it with your standard of English, but as anyone who has been taught the correct way to use the English language knows, it's perfectly correct. Oh, and a little, free, friendly lesson regarding the use of written English : You never start consecutive paragraphs with the same word unless it is absolutely necessary, which, in your above post it wasn't. If you are having trouble with your synonyms I heartily recommend using a thesaurus.
::The military space research programmes exist solely to explore the possible military applications of space. All civilian space programmes, including government projects run through the relevant Space Agencies (NASA, ESA, etc.). This is common knowledge amongst those who know anything about this subject.
::Stating that black holes don't exist is akin to believing the moon landing was faked. The existence of black holes and the fact that they have been spotted is undisputed by anyone who has the knowledge and experience to know what they are looking at. I have had the privilege of seeing two of these black holes myself. They are out there and have been spotted, and that is a direct, firsthand witness statement.
::May you be touched by his noodly appendage, or if that isn't your cup of tea, may you be blessed by the goat Heidrún. RAmen.-[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 17:06, 10 January 2009 (EST)

:::* It's "an 's'", not "a 's'".
:::* If you missed just one 's', then that part of the sentence would read "under the rules youself created", which is ''still'' wrong.
:::* If you missed an 'r' and an 's', then that part of the sentence would read "under the rules yourself created", which is '''still''' wrong.
:::* An [[ad hominem]] attack means to reply to the logic in your arguments by attacking your character. I did no such thing. I didn't attack your character in any way. I asked if you were a materialist, then pointed out that materialists are Hell-bound. If you have a problem with your final resting place, I suggest you reconsider your path in life. I do not suggest that the Hell-bound are never able to make logical arguments.
:::* "Christian" is capitalized. Did you leave it uncapitalized on purpose? If so, I suggest you blaspheme somewhere else.
:::* That is not how semicolons are used in standard English.
:::* You need a comma after "but" for the aside.
:::* You do not need commas around "friendly", just like you don't need commas around "red" in "big red inflatable ball"
:::* I will not discuss the friendly lesson here, except to note that stylistic choices are different than maintaining correctness. Comma placement and word choice are different beasts.
:::* The sentence starting "All civilian" has no main verb, so I can't respond to it.
:::* Hyperbole about the moon landing is simply rhetoric. If there is no argument, there can be no response.
:::* Wikipedia may accept your anonymous evidence, but we are more careful here.
:::* Black holes can't be seen. What I suppose you mean is that you infer their existence. Your inference is not particularly convincing.
:::* Please take your graven goat pasta idols elsewhere. Here we show some simple respect for God.
:::* I am done with this pointless, blasphemous discussion. It is not encyclopedic. I suggest you contribute to this encyclopedia. It is a good way to improve your writing skills. I have been contributing partially for that reason. Maybe you could join me in adding articles and value, rather than taking the name of my Lord in vain?
:::* If you decide not to, you may have the last word here, as I will no longer reply to this silliness. I hope you will decide to contribute instead. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 18:33, 10 January 2009 (EST)
:::: *Sigh* ''"a wit, an arrow, across the head it passed, an apple not pierced today"'', an 'r' and an 's', my apologies, how can such typos be left to pass, expecially when they are nothing to do with the argument at hand, well done for picking up such niggling detail, and yet avoiding the point of the argument. Admittedly I missed the n in an, but again, a typo, they happen. ''"Wikipedia may accept your anonymous evidence, but we are more careful here"'', how does evidence from NASA count as anonymous evidence?…at all?…in any way?…whatsoever? As for an ad hominen attack, your argument provided no evidence against the existence of black holes, merely an attack on myself, the purest definition of ad hominen (a course in Latin will help you there). Christian or christian, depends on how you want to write it and on your own beliefs. Me, not my belief, and as I don't believe I cannot blaspheme, after all, how can you blaspheme against something that does not exist to be blasphemed? Use of semicolons in standard English? Again, I refer you to the fact the your standard of English might not be sufficient to use them in such regard. I recommend increasing your quality of English by beginning with Chaucer and reading your way up. At some point you will realise that the use of English in any form is an art, not a science, and that language is to be used in such a way as to provoke delight, wonder and thought with its writing, and beyond the obvious rules of form, there are no hard and fast rules, merely that of metre, pace and illumination. ''"The sentence starting "All civilian" has no main verb, so I can't respond to it"'', '''run''', it's a verb, hard to miss, I'll admit to missing a comma (the sentence should read ''"All civilian space programmes, including government projects, run through the relevant Space Agencies (NASA, ESA, etc.)"'', but missing the word '''run''' *shakes head in disbelief*: if you insist on a purer form for that sentence, how about "All civilian space programmes, including government projects, are run through the relevant Space Agencies (NASA, ESA, etc.)", but all things being equal, both sentences say the same thing. Moon landing = the sum of evidence gathered concerning the existence of black holes, and that they have been spotted, is greater than the evidence that the moon landing occurred in 1969, hence the corollary. ''"Please take your graven goat pasta idols elsewhere. Here we show some simple respect for God"'', I found it offensive that you forced your beliefs on me, now you have found it offensive when I have forced my beliefs on you, with luck you will have learnt a lesson there, don't force your beliefs and prayers on me and I will return the favour by not blessing you with a little sarcastic FSM (oh, and a little FYI, the word graven means carved and I'm sure that the old FSM hasn't been carved yet and, in addition, I doubt that there are any extant carvings of Thor's goats, although I'm willing to admit that I might be wrong in that regard.)--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 22:13, 13 January 2009 (EST)

I have researched an extensive amount about black holes, and am about to add more information to the article that I hope will prove to be interesting and useful (I will, of course, cite my sources). I am also adding a couple of updates, as some of the information in the article is dated. As a topic about which scientists are still learning, that happens a lot. I hope the updates will improve the quality of the article and its use for educational purposes. [[User:BlueMoon|BlueMoon]] 15:26, 24 June 2009 (EDT)

== Impossible? ==

"A black hole is a theoretical prediction of the theory of relativity. It is impossible to prove that a black hole does not exist, and thus it fails the falsifiability requirement of science."

Actually this is not true. first off, the simplest explination of a black hole is an object so dense its escape velocity exceeds the speed of light. This density is known as the schrawtzshield radius (the spelling may be a bit off)This means there is mathematical proof. If this was not the case there would be no black holes Also, if black holes didnt exist we would never see objects being pulled into nothingness, or massive event horizons, which we do in fact see. --[[User:BenO|BenO]] 18:05, 12 December 2009 (EST)

:Have you really seen these events that you describe? Don't believe everything that liberals tell you, as we've just seen with [[climategate]].

: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)

:Ben, maybe you could insert this equation in the article when we're talking about the Schwarzchild solution to Einstein's equations? I think your explanation of the math could significantly help the article there.
:Yes, the math proves that black holes are possible, if you accept general relativity (which I do, but Andy doesn't; let's please not talk about that here...). Whether they actually do exist is another question: I think they do; Andy thinks they don't; neither of us has actual proof of one. (Even a recent SciAm article said the observations could be explained otherwise.) I think you're talking about their being mathematically possible, Andy's talking about how we don't have proof one actually exists, and we actually agree on much more than we seem to. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 19:10, 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)

:No, that's the point- to be scientific, something has to be able to be proven wrong. That is a major part of the scientific method. For example, God is not a scientific concept, because you cannot disprove God. But to be science, one of the criterion is that the idea be able to be disproven.

:Falsifiability is not the ''only'' criterion for whether something is scientific, so perhaps black holes are not ''unscientific.'' But that opening is pretty much accurate. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 17:50, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

:: Black holes are falsifiable as a theory, because the observations generally accepted as caused by black holes ''could'' be causes something else, however there is no alternative theory ''at present'' to explain the phenomenon. However you cannot prove that a black hole ''could never'' exist just as you cannot prove atoms, or anything, could never exist. God is not a scientific theory not because it is impossible to absolutely disprove God (impossible to prove that God could never possibly exist) but because the supernatural cannot be shown to exist through science, which deals only with the natural universe, if you could present a theory God existed in science, that god would no longer be supernatural by definition.

:: Honestly I don't understand the objection to black holes, there is no conservative reason for it. --[[User:BMcP|BMcP]] 19:04, 1 July 2009 (EST)

:::The existence of black holes is ''not'' falsifiable. Surely you agree with that. Black holes cannot be observed either. Addison explained the flaw well above, but you seem intent on sticking with your beliefs. Believe what you like, but black holes do not satisfy any sensible definition of science.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:37, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

:::: The possible existence of anything is not falsifiable, black holes, quarks, gods, even godzilla, only theories are falsifiable, such as the theory that explain what black holes are and how they work. The present theories of black holes are falsifiable, but so far no one has successfully debunked them, or offer an alternate scientific theory for the phenomenon attributed to the effects and properties of black holes. We cannot observe an isolated quark directly, but we accept that theory.

:::: However I cannot change one's mind, that is fine, I made my objections known, I am not going to step on people's toes by attempting to change the page, I just believe it is scientifically incorrect in it's proclamation and could stand to be improved for a better article. I have said what I believe needed to be said and will end my part here, anyone feel free to respond with the last word or contact me privately. --[[User:BMcP|BMcP]] 21:07, 1 July 2009 (EST)

:::::Thank you for your interest. Note that atoms have actually been observed (in refutation of what you said above, "you cannot prove atoms, or anything, could never exist". I don't think the article will be changed though. Black holes are sort of on the fence between observable, testable physics, and "theoretical" physics, e.g. string theory. There are a million sources where you can get the standard overview of black holes. Why not have a different view here? Wikipedia does not even ''mention'' the issue of falsifiability, so we are doing a service to the scientific method by at least bringing it up- even if you think the article's conclusion is wrong. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 21:23, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

:::::In addition to Addison's comments, note that some theories ''are'' [[falsifiable]] (such as Newton's theory of gravity), while other theories are ''not'' falsifiable, such as the theory that black holes must exist or [[string theory]]. And when a theory is not falsifiable, it is not science. If BMcP proposes an alternative definition of science, then let's hear it, but I doubt he'll do better than [[Karl Popper]] in making [[falsifiability]] part of the definition.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:45, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

Guys, this is becoming quite the argument; however, it is unnecessary because the idea that black holes exist ''is'' falsifiable. If NASA sends probes out to nearby black holes (which would take a long time, but it's possible), and they all turn out to be ancient Spartans in spaceships or whatever, then scientists will conclude that black holes don't exist and start working on how Spartans came to be in space and why they have accretion disks, etc. So black holes are falsifiable, and this argument is a source of unnecessary tension. [[User:BlueMoon|BlueMoon]] 12:55, 8 July 2009 (EDT)

I don't get this non-falsifiable argument. If we see light from a star, then it is not a black hole. Any claim that it is a black hole is then falsified. Black hole theory says that a star becomes a black hole whenever its mass goes inside its Schwarzschild radius, it becomes a black hole. So if we ever find a star that emits light and has its mass inside its Schwarzschild radius, then the theory is falsified. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 10:32, 28 July 2009 (EDT)
:The problem with that argument is that we live light years away, so what we could be seeing at one moment could be just the beginning before the light is swallowed into the black hole. --[[User:ChrisZ|ChrisZ]] 11:01, 28 July 2009 (EDT)

:: No, we can observe the radius, mass, and light all at the same time. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:07, 28 July 2009 (EDT)

::: Should we change the article then, seeing how there's no rebuttal to [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]]'s post regarding the falsifiability of the black hole theory? [[User:ATang|ATang]] 11:03, 6 August 2009 (EDT)

:::: 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)

::::: 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)

:::::: How might one falsify the basic assertion about black holes: that black holes exist such that light cannot escape? Every time one observes light escaping, he simply concludes that it is not a black hole.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:31, 9 August 2009 (EDT)

:::::::Mr. Schlafly, you're absolutely right that the general claim, "There are mysterious regions of space from which light cannot escape" is an unverifiable claim. Black holes don't refer to this statement - they refer to the specific statement, "It is possible to concentrate a certain amount of mass, so that the gravity of that mass prevents light from escaping." This could be falsified by experiments in particle accelerators (possibly the LHC, I'm not familiar enough with it to know) which could demonstrate that such concentration of matter is impossible - that degeneracy pressures, currently unknown, prevent such it. This would falsify the claim that black holes exist. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 11:52, 9 August 2009 (EDT)

:::::::: I have an open mind about this, but fail to see how an inability to generate a black hole using a generator would falsify the existence of black holes in outer space. Most likely those who believe in black holes would simply say that higher and higher energies or densities are needed to generate it in particle accelerators.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:16, 9 August 2009 (EDT)

::::::::: You're right that failure to create a microscopic black hole in a lab wouldn't falsify the idea that they can form. What I'm claiming is that research which aims, not to create microscopic black holes, but to gain more insight into the forces that govern the behavior of sub atomic particles, might unearth evidence that would refute black holes.
::::::::: Here's how: right now, the theory on black hole formation states that as matter accumulates, first electron degeneracy pressure is overcome (that is, the structure of the matter in question would be not atoms side by side, but atomic nuclei side by side with no electrons in between), then the nuclear degeneracy pressure is overcome, that is, one would not longer have nuclei side by side, but neutrons and protons side by side (a neutron star), and then finally, this neutron degeneracy pressure is overcome and the matter becomes so dense it is contained by its own Schwarzchild radius and becomes a black hole.
::::::::: It is entirely plausible that a particle accelerator of sufficient power could concentrate matter to overcome the neutron degeneracy pressure only to discover a quark degeneracy pressure, or some other force. It is also possible that this new force would require SO MUCH matter to be overcome, as to be unphysical (for example, it might take more matter than is currently believed to exist to overcome the pressure). If this pressure was to prevent matter from being denser than the Schwarzschild limit, then the claim that black holes exist would be forever disproven and falsified. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 12:43, 9 August 2009 (EDT)

::::::::: Additional note: As RSchlafly points out, there are many claims about black holes which ARE unfalsifiable, currently - as he points out, claims about the interior of the event horizon are not falsifiable. Similarly, predictions regarding their presence in certain locations are not falsifiable by any means we yet possess. The same criticism could be leveled at my above description of an experiment in nuclear-density matter. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 12:56, 9 August 2009 (EDT)

:::::::::: We cannot determine what is happening in the "interior" (inside the event horizon) but that doesn't make a black hole itself not falsifiable. We are not sure what the interior of a neutron star is at all, but I think everyone here agrees they do exist. Also just because you cannot visually see something (such as a black hole, where light cannot escape from inside the event horizon) doesn't mean it isn't there or falsifiable. Most astronomical study of space is not in the visual spectrum, and there are many ways to determine the existence of a black hole. I also must point out, there has been no alternative hypotheses to explain the gravitational effects we presently attribute to black holes. Also, as pointed out before, if we are able to find an object of sufficient mass within the Schwarzschild radius, which normally would continue to collapse into a gravitational singularity (Black Hole) ''but has not'', that would disprove the theory of Black holes right there, or in other words falsify them. For example, if we found an object the same mass of our Sun, and was smaller then its Schwarzschild radius of around 3 km (the Schwarzschild radius for an object of that mass) and it '''did not''' collapse into a black hole, then the theory of Black Holes ''would be proven false''. --[[User:BMcP|BMcP]] 08:14, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

::::::::::: I hate to disagree with BMcP, because we share the same goal here (getting the non-falsifiability statement removed from the article), but there was a lot of bad science in that response and we should have an argument based in facts and truth.

::::::::::: '''I also must point out, there has been no alternative hypotheses to explain the gravitational effects we presently attribute to black holes.'''
:::::::::::: That's not entirely true. In my previous posts, I mentioned that discovering a sufficiently powerful quark degeneracy pressure could disprove the existence of "black holes." Objects which are prevent from gravitational collapse by quark degeneracy pressure, "quark stars," could explain a good deal of phenomenon currently attributed to black holes could be very adequately explained by such phenomenon - extraordinary x-ray sources, quasars, all these rely on on the affects of a large amount of mass concentrated in a small space, not necessarily a Schwarschild radius. Which brings me to
::::::::::: '''if we are able to find an object of sufficient mass within the Schwarzschild radius, which normally would continue to collapse into a gravitational singularity (Black Hole) ''but has not'', that would disprove the theory of Black holes right there, or in other words falsify them."
:::::::::::: Any object which is completely contained in a Schwarzschild radius is automatically a black hole, regardless of whether or not it has collapsed into a singularity or not. Furthermore, since the gravitation field exterior to the schwarzschild radius would be the same regardless of where the mass inside was a singularity or not, so there would be no way to tell.
::::::::::: I still think the best argument for falsifiability is the experiment I presented earlier into quark degeneracy pressure. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 12:18, 12 August 2009 (EDT)
:::::::::::: I was not aware of a hypothesis that offers a possibility of quark degeneracy pressure that would be powerful enough to resist the effects of gravity even if the mass would normally be large enough to collapse into a black hole. I agree if such pressure existed it would disprove our current theories of black hole formation.
:::::::::::: You are right, it doesn't have to be a singularity, although that is what current theories suggest happens, that gravity continues to collapse the matter inside the event horizon to the point of a singularity.[http://archive.ncsa.illinois.edu/Cyberia/NumRel/BlackHoleAnat.html] However that does not have to be true for the mass to collapse within the Schwarzschild radius to be a black hole, just that their is sufficient gravity to force particles within the horizon to be deformed in their path so they cannot leave. It is just theorized at the center of a black hole is the singularity[http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/singularity.html]. That being said, it expected that a theory of quantum gravity will feature black holes without singularities.[http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/bh_hawk.html] [http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/980420b.html]. It isn't important either way, what is important is the question, are black holes falsifiable? I think you and others have already offered examples of yes. --[[User:BMcP|BMcP]] 13:23, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

== [[Falsifiability]] ==
(no text was inserted here, but the edit summary was "the falsifiability is undeniable and should not be censored, Physicists should be taught about falsifiability as part of their curriculum")

:Based on KSorenson's remarks and what I know about the curricula at schools I've attended, physicists are indeed taught about it. It seems a stretch to say that the falsifiability is "undeniable" when in fact every editor except you has denied it. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 23:15, 12 November 2009 (EST)

::Sorry, somehow my text above was misplaced. Thanks for substituting in what I meant!

::Those who have denied that black holes lack [[falsifiability]] really seem to be denying that falsifiability should be a limit on physics.

::KSorenson cited a laundry list of philosophy-type requirements of physics majors, but conspicuously absent was emphasis on falsifiability.

::Like most college majors, physics students repeat what they're taught. If they received good grades, then it becomes even harder for them to question it. But keep in mind that the people doing the teaching are the most liberal group in the world, and they almost never encourage the student to open his mind and think critically for himself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:23, 12 November 2009 (EST)

:::Please read again, Aschlafly. I specifically cited Karl Popper as part of the curriculum in undergraduate courses on the philosophy of science. In case it's slipped your mind, Popper basically invented falsifiability as the criterion for distinguishing science from non-science.

:::Incidentally, Popper cited Einstein's theories as exemplars of rigorously falsifiable science when he constructed his criterion. He wrote about it in contrast to the quote-unquote "scientific" theories of Marx. By a happy coincidence, the very same theories of Einstein's that Popper found so admirable are the ones we're talking about here. So can you ''please,'' and I'm asking for the third time now, clarify just exactly what your gripe is?--[[User:KSorenson|KSorenson]] 00:36, 13 November 2009 (EST)

:::::Hello; I'm the user who edited this article after KSorenson. If I may jump in to this heated discussion going on at at least [[User_Talk:KSorenson|two places]] : I think what Andy's saying is that black holes themselves can never be proven to not exist, because (by definition) no one can see them or visit them and return. I think what KSorenson's saying is that [[general relativity]] states black holes are possible, and that general relativity can be falsified (e.g. by sending probes to probe the earth's gravitational field).

:::::Of course, just because general relativity hasn't been ''disproven'' doesn't mean that it's been proven. There could be a better theory which accounts for all the gravity-probe data and states that black holes don't exist. We don't know yet; that's the wonder of science: God's always put more out there for us to discover! So, we don't know that black holes do exist - that claim isn't falsifiable; we'd need to survey every square millimeter of space and say "there isn't a black hole ''here''!". But, the theory that states they ''can'' exist is falsifiable. I tried to reflect this dichotomy in my edits to this article. -- [[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 00:46, 13 November 2009 (EST)

::::::You make excellent points, particularly in your last paragraph above. The introductory paragraph to [[black hole]] would benefit from this, and please feel free to edit it again (I apologize if others deleted your work). Note, however, that it is not very practical to devise a test that could falsify General Relativity, and falsifying General Relativity would not falsify the claim that [[black holes]] exist. Black holes are far too popular in science magazines and liberal publications like the New York Times to "go away" that easily.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:52, 13 November 2009 (EST)

:::::::On Popper and relativity, Christoph von Mettenheim (http://elm.eeng.dcu.ie/~tkpw/tcr/volume-01/number-03/node3.html) writes: "Most of you will know of Popper's admiration for Einstein, and how he was inspired by the theory of relativity (and by its high refutability in contrast to the irrefutability of psychoanalysis) more than by anything else to develop the criterion of falsifiability as a demarcation between science and metaphysics (Popper 1976, pp. 37-38)." As KSorenson has already noted, relativity was the theory that inspired the notion of falsifiability in the first place. The claim that "it is not very practical to devise a test that could falsify General Relativity" is absurd on the face of it. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 10:02, 13 November 2009 (EST)

::::::::Popper's personal views are irrelevant; no one here says that Popper was a genius who was always right. It's [[falsifiability]] that is at issue, and the resistance to that simple, logical concept is astounding. People can teach Popper all they like, but it's clear that physics majors are not learning fully about falsifiability. String theory wouldn't exist in physics departments if they were.

::::::::If tests existed that might falsify General Relativity, then in the nearly 100 years since its proposal we would have seen many of them. Instead, as the latest discussion (and the famous 1919 solar eclipse) illustrate, margins of error in the experiments are typically greater than the deviations predicted by the theory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:13, 13 November 2009 (EST)

: (unindent)
: Andy raises an interesting point. In theory, it's easy to test general relativity - take KSorenson's gravity probe, for example. This wouldn't absolutely prove it; there might always be a better theory out there. But nothing can ''ever'' be absolutely proven in science - the point is that this test could disprove it. So, in theory, it's falsifiable. "[falsifiable|A proposition or theory is falsifiable if it is hypothetically possible for a test or observation to prove it false]." Of course, a hypothetical future theory might still include black holes (there's an infinite number of possible theories), but the possibility of black holes according to general relativity (how's that for a mouthful?) is falsifiable, because general relativity is falsifiable. Or, to try to say it more simply: the possibility of the particular sort of black hole predicted by general relativity (with exactly these properties, et cetera) is falsifiable. I hope I made my verbiage understandable enough for you all to agree or disagree?

:But as you point out, the solar eclipse experiment didn't test general relativity in practice: the margins of error were too big. (I don't know if that's still true with modern experiments; could someone who knows more about that fill me in?) So, while it's theoretically falsifiable, it's possible that general relativity hasn't actually been tested yet... -- [[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 10:36, 13 November 2009 (EST)

::[http://www.ias.ac.in/pramana/v63/p731/fulltext.pdf Here] is a nice review of a variety of experimental tests of general relativity, along with discussion of other experiments that may be undertaken in the future. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 10:43, 13 November 2009 (EST)

:::That all sounds basically right to me, EvanW. (Can I call you EvanW?) But from where I sit, it's even simpler.

:::*General relativity has been and is being tested, and so far the tests have confirmed the theory. That might change any minute, but it's still true so far.

:::*General relativity says that black holes are possible, and that if they exist they'll have certain properties.

:::*We've seen objects in the sky that have those properties, and that aren't predicted by any other existing theory. We're studying those objects as hard as we can given the limits of distance, to see if they really do walk and quack like ducks. Until we see something un-ducky, we say "Yeah, those look like ducks to us."

:::This really isn't complicated as far as I can tell, and I'm really baffled as to why we're still yaking about it amongst ourselves.

:::Aschlafly, if you want to expand the living daylights out of the "Controversy" section, I'll be right there by your side, cheering you on and helping in any way I can. As long as your contributions aren't misleading or incorrect. I don't want to speak for anyone else, but my gut tells me that EvanW and MarkGall would make the same promise. So why are we still bickering? Can't we improve the article instead? I know having to respond here is taking away from the time I set aside today to add to the [[general theory of relativity]] article. --[[User:KSorenson|KSorenson]] 10:54, 13 November 2009 (EST)

:::: Mark cited Clifford Will's government-funded 2004 article on proof for General Relativity, but that paper is very "thin" and in a mere 15-minute review several weaknesses are apparent. But thanks for the citation, Mark.

:::: This is a site where logic prevails. If you want to say that black holes are consistent with General Relativity (though rejected by Einstein), and General Relativity might be falsifiable (though tests will sufficient accuracy are difficult and expensive), that's fine. But black holes themselves, like life in outer space, are not falsifiable. It's basic logic, and that doesn't change whether all accept the logic or not.

:::: There's a broader point here. Why the big push for black holes by liberals, and big protests against any objection to them? If it turned out empirically that promoting black holes tends to cause people to read the Bible less, would you still push this so much? Certainly there is no practical justification to pushing black holes; no one will ever be helped by them in any way.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:03, 13 November 2009 (EST)

::::: I haven't had time to read the Clifford Will paper yet, and I don't think I've got the expertise to judge it well. But, I think we've come to an agreement here:
:::::# Black holes themselves can't be falsified (except by surveying every cubic millimeter of space)
:::::# General relativity says they are possible.
:::::# General relativity is falsifiable (theoretically), but it's hard to falsify.
:::::# Therefore, the possibility of black-holes-as-specified-by-general-relativity is falsifiable.
::::: As for why the media's pushing black holes - hey, they're interesting to read about! Myself, by Occam's razor, I don't think any more explanation is needed. As for why KSorenson and I are pushing them - I can't speak for KSorenson, but I'm trying to defend falsifiability and the concept of a scientific theory, just like (I think) you are: general relativity is a legitimate scientific theory, because it can theoretically be falsified. -- [[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 12:15, 13 November 2009 (EST)

:::::: Evan, I appreciate your comments and have learned from them. My question was directed at KSorenson and Mark, not to you. But using your answer, it doesn't explain the insistence by liberals on downplaying or even censoring criticism of black holes. And one key question is unanswered: if promoting black holes caused people to read the Bible less, would you want to promote them? They certainly won't ever help anyone, while the Bible might.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:22, 13 November 2009 (EST)

:::::::Aschlafly, you seem to be more interested in arguing (now apparently about politics and religion of all things) than you are in improving the article. This is fine. If you want to contribute to the article in any way at all, I'll be here to help however I can. I would ask you to please think carefully before adding a misleading assertion like "Einstein rejected black holes" (which doesn't tell the whole truth) or "black hole theory is unfalsifiable," because doing so would just hurt the article, misinform anyone who reads it and waste the time of any editor who feels like trying to fix it.

:::::::Meanwhile, I'm going to finish filling out the [[general theory of relativity]] article. If you find some aspect of ''that'' one that you want to argue about in the same way you've argued about this article … well, don't bother. I've grown weary of the endless, pointless, going-nowhere talk, and I'm going to focus on making constructive contributions until I get bored of it, or I run out of useful things to add. You're obviously free to take those contributions and use them as you will, or throw them in the trash. It really doesn't matter to me one way or the other.

:::::::And finally, as to whether "this is a site where logic prevails," I've always been an actions-speak-louder-than-words sort of girl. The article is here; I have made my contribution to it. Whether logic (or for that matter, intellectual honesty) prevails is something I look forward to finding out. --[[User:KSorenson|KSorenson]] 12:29, 13 November 2009 (EST)

::::::::KSorenson, I've responded to your concerns and answered your questions and Evan has proposed a logical, clear solution. You find no fault with it, but ignore it. I asked you a simple question, "if promoting black holes cause people to read the Bible less, would you want to promote them?" Not only do you refuse to answer, you rant on and on. Please, please open your mind, for your sake.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:39, 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 ==

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)

:Agreed, and I tried to explain in the introduction how black holes "can never be conclusively proved or disproved," because of how no light escapes them. If you think it can be phrased better, please change the conclusion. But, I don't think we need to mention in the intro to this '''black hole''' article how '''[[wormholes]]''' are also unfalsifiable. It should be in the intro to the [[wormhole]] article, but I don't think it needs to be here. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 21:12, 30 November 2009 (EST)

::Black holes and wormholes were predicted by relativity in a similar way, and both are not falsifiable and thus arguably not science. The term "[[falsifiable]]" has a real meaning and your replacement isn't quite the same. The point is that if black holes are false and non-existent, then there is no way to show that. Ditto for wormholes, and in that information should be in the introduction, not buried thousands of words later.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:36, 30 November 2009 (EST)

:::I don't really understand wormholes myself. It seems to me that they're a different subject and that mentioning them actually detracts from our points about black holes; however, I'll defer to you on keeping them there. And thanks for your point about the meaning in the specific word "[[falsifiable]]". My main point is that we should explain why "you can't prove there isn't a black hole somewhere in the universe" is different from "you can't prove there isn't Jack Smith somewhere in the world": because "black holes cannot be observed from outside, since not even light escapes." So, I tried to restore the chain of reasoning; I tacked wormholes on the end because I can't see a better place to put them. If you disagree with how I phrased the non-falsifiability sentence, I'd appreciate if you could try to fix that rather than revert the whole paragraph. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 23:30, 30 November 2009 (EST)

:::: Well skipping the question of why light is needed to prove something's existence, I find this sentence most disturbing: "What actually exists inside the event horizon of a black hole is a question physics '''is''' unable to answer. " Over the original "What actually exists inside the event horizon of a black hole is a question physics '''has thus far been''' unable to answer." The original sentence is much more accurate. You cannot say with absolute certainty that physics will never be able to answer what is beyond the event horizon, because there is always the possibility that question will be answered someday. Really that should be reverted. --[[User:BMcP|BMcP]] 09:49, 1 December 2009 (EST)

::::: I only changed the intro, which does not contain your phrase, but there are structural (intended?) theoretical barriers to testing claims about what is inside a black hole. It's speculation ''ad nauseum''.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:00, 1 December 2009 (EST)

::::::Andy, would you mind explaining why it's "excuses" to explain why black holes are non-falsifiable? If you have a better explanation, I'd appreciate if you could add it. Right now, the article just states it without proof, leaving any readers wondering. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 10:02, 1 December 2009 (EST)

:::::::Black holes are non-falsifiable for reasons beyond the inability of light to escape. In many ways this is the science magazines' replacement for the UFO craze of the 50s through 80s, which culminated in the record-breaking movie "E.T." The alleged existence of "E.T." is also non-falsifiable, and hence not science.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:28, 1 December 2009 (EST)

:::::::To be fair EvanW, some of us do accept the idea they are falsifiable (and certainly detectable) and an actual scientific theory. Just a personal FYI. --[[User:BMcP|BMcP]] 10:37, 1 December 2009 (EST)

::::::::Point. Are you talking about the old debate with KSorenson here, where I pointed out, "So, we don't know that black holes do exist - that claim isn't falsifiable; we'd need to survey every <s>square</s>'''cubic''' millimeter of space and say 'there isn't a black hole here!'"? It seems that's a somewhat academic point: you could just as well say, "The existence of Jack Smith isn't falsifiable; you'd need to survey every square millimeter of the earth and say 'he isn't here'". If you want to say their existence isn't falsifiable because of that, be my guest but please explain the reason in the article. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 10:49, 1 December 2009 (EST)

:::::::::No, in the idea that we claim black hole's exist because we have positive evidence for their existence, in other words, we can detect their presence in the universe. They can be falsified through showing with evidence that what we believer are black holes are actually something else, or find a stellar phenomenon that should according to present theories be a black hole, but isn't. --[[User:BMcP|BMcP]] 13:19, 1 December 2009 (EST)

::::::::The theory that extraterrestials might exist is a special case of scientific theory, with the burden of proof being on the proponents. They must produce one, or concede that they are just hoping. There's a longstanding battle between materialists and religious people about a number of scientific issues, and the [[burden of proof]] is often inconsistent. Is [[evolution]] falsifiable? What sort of evidence would make its proponents give up? (Note: if there is no way they would ever concede being wrong, then they are not engaged in [[science]] but in [[propaganda]]. This is a very serious point.) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:01, 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)

Black hole

2009-12-13T02:45:58Z

BenO:

[[Image:Iu8969hu.jpg|right|thumb|300px|Artist's conception of a binary system consisting of a black hole and a main sequence star. The black hole is drawing matter from the main sequence star via an [[accretion disk]] around it, and some of this matter forms a gas jet.]]
A '''black hole''' is a collapsed object, usually a [[star]], which has become so [[dense]] that within a certain radius its [[escape velocity]] exceeds the [[speed of light]]. Thus, it absorbs all matter and energy within that radius. Light and matter can enter, but nothing can ever escape.

Black holes were first predicted by the [[theory of relativity]]. They have become an increasingly popular topic for magazines, the science page of the [[New York Times]], and science fiction, but whether they really exist remains uncertain. 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>

==History of the idea==
The theoretical model of what we now call a black hole has evolved considerably over the centuries. The [[corpuscular theory of light]] held that light was made up of invisibly small particles, and that these particles moved along ballistic trajectories, like tiny bullets. In this framework, it was believed possible that a distant star could be so massive that light emitted from its surface would be dragged back down again. This theory was first advanced by John Michell, who wrote in 1783, "If the semi-diameter of a sphere of the same density as the Sun in the proportion of five hundred to one, and by supposing light to be attracted by the same force in proportion to its [mass] with other bodies, all light emitted from such a body would be made to return towards it, by its own proper gravity."<ref name="r1">http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200911/physicshistory.cfm</ref>

Suggesting the same possibility independently, Pierre-Simon Laplace wrote in 1796, "It is therefore possible that the greatest luminous bodies in the universe are on this account invisible."<ref name="r1" />

As the corpuscular theory gave way to the [[wave theory of light]] in the early 1800s, the idea of "dark" or "invisible" stars fell from favor. At that time, it was believed that light was a wave which had no mass and therefore was unaffected by gravity.

Research into the [[photoelectric effect]], however, reignited interest in the light-as-particles view, ultimately resulting in the modern notion of [[wave-particle duality]]. Under this theory, light could be affected by gravity, so the question of whether light could be emitted from extraordinarily massive bodies was once again open.

===General Relativity===
As it happened, the question became unavoidable shortly after the publication in 1915 of Einstein's [[general theory of relativity]]. [[Schwarzschild]] solved the Einstein field equations in a way that describes the geometry of spacetime outside a spherically symmetric, uncharged, non-rotating distribution of mass. Well away from the center of this distribution of mass, the Schwarzschild solution closely matches the Newtonian model of a gravitational field; only close to the mass, where the curvature of spacetime is large, do significant differences between the two models appear. But if the diameter of the mass distribution is taken to be arbitrarily small, then the region of spacetime immediately surrounding the mass appears to take on extremely curious properties, properties so curious that many questioned whether they had any physical interpretation at all. Therefore, Schwarzschild showed that black holes were possible under the theory of [[general relativity]].

[[File:Cygnusx1.jpg|right|200px|thumb|Jet-powered nebula formed from the accretion disk of the binary star Cygnus-X1]]
However, neither Schwarzschild himself nor [[Albert Einstein]], who developed the theory of relativity, believed that black holes actually existed<ref>http://amazing-space.stsci.edu/resources/explorations/blackholes/lesson/whatisit/history.html</ref>. Einstein even tried to re-work general relativity to render these singularities impossible. However, Roger Penrose and Stephen Hawking proved the first of many Singularity Theorems, which states that singularities must form if certain conditions are present. This demonstrated that, rather than mathematical oddities, singularities are a fairly generic consequence of realistic solutions to relativity: any mass with radius less than its Schwarzschild Radius is a black hole. Since then, support for black holes among the scientific community has grown.

==Nature of a Black Hole==
===Math===

The mathematics backing up the theory of black holes is referred to as the schwartzchild radius. The equation considers a black hole an object so dense its escape velocity exceeds the speed of light. the equation is
:<math>r_s=\frac{2*G*m}{C^2}</math>
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.

If the mathematics did not back up the concept, it would be proven false, thus the black hole is indeed falsifiable

===Time and Distance===
Within a certain distance from an arbitrarily small distribution of mass — a distance now known as the [[Schwarzschild radius]] — the curvature of spacetime becomes so great that no paths leading away from the mass exist. That is to say, a test particle released inside the Schwarzschild radius will inevitably move in toward the mass, not because the force of gravity is great as in the Newtonian approximation, but because spacetime is curved to such an extent that ''no other directions exist.'' A particle within the Schwarzschild radius can no more move further from the central mass than it can go backwards in time. In fact, from the frame of reference of an infalling observer beyond the Schwarzschild radius, all directions that once pointed away from the central mass now point backwards in time. Once inside the Schwarzschild radius, further motion toward the central mass is as inevitable as further motion through time is for any other observer.

For some time after the publication of the Schwarzschild solution, the validity of these results was hotly debated. In the solution's original coordinate frame, some terms in the equations ''diverged,'' or became infinite, at the Schwarzschild radius, leading physicists to wonder whether the results of the equations in that region had any valid physical interpretation. One proposed interpretation was that at the Schwarzschild radius, all time for the infalling observer would stop. This led to the use of the term "frozen stars;" it wasn't believed frozen stars were cold, but rather that they were literally frozen in time.

Later refinement of the Schwarzschild solution demonstrated that the apparent infinities were merely an artifact of the coordinate frame chosen, and that an infalling observer in fact can pass beyond the Schwarzchild radius. In fact, the equations predicted he would notice no effects when doing so. But any attempt on the part of that infalling observer to communicate with the outside universe, say by sending a radio message, would be doomed to failure, as the radio waves would traverse geodesics through the severely curved spacetime and end up bent toward the central mass. From this, we can say that nothing that occurs within the Schwarzschild radius can ever affect events outside the Schwarzschild radius. This gives the Schwarzschild radius of a non-rotating black hole its other name: the [[event horizon]].

===Inside the Event Horizon===
What actually exists inside the event horizon of a black hole is a question physics is unable to answer. Some postulate that within the event horizon exists a point of zero (or nearly zero) volume but infinite energy density, a point sometimes referred to as a ''gravitational singularity,'' after the notion of a mathematical singularity (a term equaling infinity) in a field equation. Others suspect that infinite energy density is a physical impossibility, and that a black hole contains actual finitely-dense matter compressed into a [[degenerate matter|degenerate]] form, such as quark-degenerate matter. Since all black holes are surrounded by an event horizon which prevents any information or messages from leaving, all these theories are non-[[falsifiable]]; we can never be sure what the interior structure of a black hole is like.

===Properties of Black Holes===

Black holes only have three properties by which one differs from another: mass, electric charge, and angular momentum. Mass describes the amount of matter inside the event horizon. It increases when matter falls into the black hole, and decreases as the hole emits Hawking radiation and shrinks. Angular momentum refers to whether the black hole is stationary or rotating around an axis. While the singularity of a non-rotating black hole may be an infinitely small point, the singularity of a rotating black hole would be in the shape of an infinitely thin ring. Matter entering a spinning black hole is first swirled around by the black hole’s gravity, causing it to heat up and emit x-rays, which can be used to detect the black hole. In the supermassive black holes at the centers of galaxies, some of the matter does not fall into the black hole. Instead it is blasted into space in twin jets of hot gas perpendicular to the accretion disc, in a phenomenon known as an Active Galactic Nucleus.

==Origins of Black Holes==
[[Image:Hs-2005-02-e-web.jpg|right|thumb|300px|The [[red supergiant]] star V838 Monocerotis, an example of one type of star which may become a black hole.]]
Stellar-mass black holes are said to form when stars more than ten times the mass of the Sun run out of fuel and die. The process of death occurs when stars that have fused the products of their own fusion into larger and larger elements, up to iron. The star then tries to fuse the iron core that forms as a result, but this does not produce enough energy to hold the outer layers of the star apart against the pull of gravity. When this happens, the iron core at the center of the star implodes in a supernova, and the outer layers of the star are blasted into space in one of the most energetic events in the universe—one star going out in a supernova can give off as much light as an entire galaxy. Not all supernovae result in black holes, but if the mass of the core is large enough, about 1.5-3.0 times the mass of the Sun (this value is termed the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff limit, and its value is not yet known to great precision), the leftover gravity of the shrinking core stalls the outward rush of the initial blast, and crushes the core into a point of infinite density: a black hole.

Extremely small black holes, with masses of around 1015 grams, have been theorized to have formed in the early universe. Any sufficiently small primordial black hole would be expected to evaporate within the lifetime of the universe, but the rate of evaporation is not currently known with any certainty.

At the opposite end of the spectrum, objects with the characteristics of supermassive black holes, millions or billions of times more massive than the sun, have been detected at the centers of many [[galaxies]], including our own [[Milky Way]]. In our galaxy, the hypothesized supermassive black hole is in the constellation Sagittarius, and is known as Sagittarius A* (pronounced "A star"). Based on the extraordinary angular velocity of stars near the galactic center, Sagittarius A* is believed to be on the order of two to three million solar masses. It is unknown how supermassive black holes form, though several models have been proposed. One hypothesis simply begins with a black hole of stellar mass which grows over the lifetime of the galaxy that surrounds it. Another proposal describes supermassive black holes as a natural, in fact nearly unavoidable, consequence of galactic formation. To date, no one theory of supermassive black hole formation is favored over all others.

==Observation and Controversy==

Since black holes are literally invisible by traditional means of observation and so cannot be directly observed, it can never be conclusively demonstrated whether or not they exist. However, scientists have attempted to find black holes through indirect means, such as the effect of their gravitational pull on nearby stars. Stars that are near black holes, e.g. by being part of a binary star system that contains one, show wobbles in their orbits similar to the tidal effects of the moon on Earth’s oceans. <ref>http://library.thinkquest.org/C007571/english/advance/english.htm</ref><ref>''Black Holes'' by Heather Cooper and Nigel Henbest (book)</ref> Scientists have also observed stellar objects which have density consistent with black holes <ref>http://amazing-space.stsci.edu/resources/explorations/blackholes/lesson/whatisit/history.html</ref>.

While matter and energy, even light, may not escape a black hole, Stephen Hawking has shown that they should emit [[Hawking radiation]], which absent of an influx of mass-energy would lead to the evaporation of the black hole in a burst of gamma rays. Scientists are currently working to pick up one of these bursts, or the radiation itself, with any of several land- and space-based telescopes. However, the matter falling into black holes as well as the [[cosmic microwave background]] obscures the radiation and makes detection extremely difficult.

==Speculative Future Exploration==

Scientists have speculated that if a rotating black hole is large enough, a person could pass through the center of the ring-shaped singularity and possibly enter a wormhole. However, it would have to be a very large hole, for if it were not, the hypothetical astronaut would never survive to reach the event horizon due to tidal forces.

Matter coming close to the event horizon of a small black hole undergoes a process called spaghettification, a term coined by Stephen Hawking in his book ''A Brief History of Time'' to describe extraordinarily strong tidal forces. Because the mass at the center of the black hole is so dense, the gravitational pull on the near end of an object is much greater than the pull on the object’s far end. This causes the object to be stretched out in a way resembling a piece of spaghetti, and generally torn in two.

==White Holes==
Because the [[Quantitative Introduction to General Relativity|general relativity equations]] are symmetric with respect to time, one can take a negative square root instead of positive to yield an equation describing a hypothetical object which expels, rather than attracts, matter and energy.<ref>http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/BHfaq.html#q10</ref> As this is the exact opposite of a black hole, it is called a '''white hole'''.

However, there is no evidence white holes actually exist. If they generate new matter and energy, this would violate the [[Law of the conservation of mass]]. Therefore, some scientists have proposed that matter falling into black holes goes through a [[wormhole]] to emerge at a white hole. While such wormholes are allowed by general relativity, they would be extremely unstable<ref>http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/schww.html</ref>, and there is no evidence that they exist.

Dr. [[Russell Humphreys]] used a white hole in his model of the universe during [[Creation week]] to allow millions of years to pass in outer space while only three days passed on Earth.

==In Popular Culture==

Black holes have been a device in science fiction ever since their discovery. Many sci-fi books, movies, and television shows use black holes as a method of travel (see the Potential Future Exploration section above) or as a threat to a space-going vessel. In at least one season of the show ''Star Trek: the Next Generation'' by Gene Roddenberry, artificially created miniature black holes are used as power sources for spaceships and natural ones as incubators for the young of an alien race. Neither of these uses has much of a basis in reality, of course.

Contrary to popular myth, a black hole is not a cosmic vacuum cleaner. In other words, a one-solar-mass black hole is no better than any other one-solar-mass object (such as, for example, the Sun) at "sucking in" distant objects. However, a one-solar-mass black hole has the same amount of matter as any other one-solar-mass object but compressed into a much smaller space, making it impossible to move fast enough to leave a black hole once there. If a spaceship could land on a black hole, it would never be able to take off again.

The term "black hole" is also used as a metaphor for a place that it is hard to get out of, generally containing a high concentration of something unpleasant. Ex: "The inner city is a black hole of crime and drug use." Note that the Black Hole of Calcutta is ''not'' a reference to the celestial object; the name of the place predates the discovery of black holes in space and the Black Hole of Calcutta was a horrible underground prison in [[Calcutta]], India.

{{Relativity}}

==References==
{{reflist}}

*[http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/science/know_l2/black_holes.html Black Holes]
*[http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/BHfaq.html Black Holes (Frequently Asked Questions)]

[[category: physics]]
[[Category:Relativity]]

Black hole

2009-12-13T00:14:49Z

BenO:

[[Image:Iu8969hu.jpg|right|thumb|300px|Artist's conception of a binary system consisting of a black hole and a main sequence star. The black hole is drawing matter from the main sequence star via an [[accretion disk]] around it, and some of this matter forms a gas jet.]]
A '''black hole''' is a collapsed object, usually a [[star]], which has become so [[dense]] that within a certain radius its [[escape velocity]] exceeds the [[speed of light]]. Thus, it absorbs all matter and energy within that radius. Light and matter can enter, but nothing can ever escape.

Black holes were first predicted by the [[theory of relativity]]. They have become an increasingly popular topic for magazines, the science page of the [[New York Times]], and science fiction, but whether they really exist remains uncertain. 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.

The mathematics backing up the theory of black holes is referred to as the schwartzchild radius. The equation considers a black hole an object so dense its escape velocity exceeds the speed of light. the equation is
<math>rs=2Gm/C^2</math> 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.

==Nature of a Black Hole==
The theoretical model of what we now call a black hole has evolved considerably over the centuries. The [[corpuscular theory of light]] held that light was made up of invisibly small particles, and that these particles moved along ballistic trajectories, like tiny bullets. In this framework, it was believed possible that a distant star could be so massive that light emitted from its surface would be dragged back down again. This theory was first advanced by John Michell, who wrote in 1783, "If the semi-diameter of a sphere of the same density as the Sun in the proportion of five hundred to one, and by supposing light to be attracted by the same force in proportion to its [mass] with other bodies, all light emitted from such a body would be made to return towards it, by its own proper gravity."<ref name="r1">http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200911/physicshistory.cfm</ref>

Suggesting the same possibility independently, Pierre-Simon Laplace wrote in 1796, "It is therefore possible that the greatest luminous bodies in the universe are on this account invisible."<ref name="r1" />

As the corpuscular theory gave way to the [[wave theory of light]] in the early 1800s, the idea of "dark" or "invisible" stars fell from favor. At that time, it was believed that light was a wave which had no mass and therefore was unaffected by gravity.

Research into the [[photoelectric effect]], however, reignited interest in the light-as-particles view, ultimately resulting in the modern notion of [[wave-particle duality]]. Under this theory, light could be affected by gravity, so the question of whether light could be emitted from extraordinarily massive bodies was once again open.

===General Relativity===
As it happened, the question became unavoidable shortly after the publication in 1915 of Einstein's [[general theory of relativity]]. [[Schwarzschild]] solved the Einstein field equations in a way that describes the geometry of spacetime outside a spherically symmetric, uncharged, non-rotating distribution of mass. Well away from the center of this distribution of mass, the Schwarzschild solution closely matches the Newtonian model of a gravitational field; only close to the mass, where the curvature of spacetime is large, do significant differences between the two models appear. But if the diameter of the mass distribution is taken to be arbitrarily small, then the region of spacetime immediately surrounding the mass appears to take on extremely curious properties, properties so curious that many questioned whether they had any physical interpretation at all. Therefore, Schwarzschild showed that black holes were possible under the theory of [[general relativity]].

[[File:Cygnusx1.jpg|right|200px|thumb|Jet-powered nebula formed from the accretion disk of the binary star Cygnus-X1]]
However, neither Schwarzschild himself nor [[Albert Einstein]], who developed the theory of relativity, believed that black holes actually existed<ref>http://amazing-space.stsci.edu/resources/explorations/blackholes/lesson/whatisit/history.html</ref>. Einstein even tried to re-work general relativity to render these singularities impossible. However, Roger Penrose and Stephen Hawking proved the first of many Singularity Theorems, which states that singularities must form if certain conditions are present. This demonstrated that, rather than mathematical oddities, singularities are a fairly generic consequence of realistic solutions to relativity: any mass with radius less than its Schwarzschild Radius is a black hole. Since then, support for black holes among the scientific community has grown.

==Nature of a Black Hole==

Within a certain distance from an arbitrarily small distribution of mass — a distance now known as the [[Schwarzschild radius]] — the curvature of spacetime becomes so great that no paths leading away from the mass exist. That is to say, a test particle released inside the Schwarzschild radius will inevitably move in toward the mass, not because the force of gravity is great as in the Newtonian approximation, but because spacetime is curved to such an extent that ''no other directions exist.'' A particle within the Schwarzschild radius can no more move further from the central mass than it can go backwards in time. In fact, from the frame of reference of an infalling observer beyond the Schwarzschild radius, all directions that once pointed away from the central mass now point backwards in time. Once inside the Schwarzschild radius, further motion toward the central mass is as inevitable as further motion through time is for any other observer.

For some time after the publication of the Schwarzschild solution, the validity of these results was hotly debated. In the solution's original coordinate frame, some terms in the equations ''diverged,'' or became infinite, at the Schwarzschild radius, leading physicists to wonder whether the results of the equations in that region had any valid physical interpretation. One proposed interpretation was that at the Schwarzschild radius, all time for the infalling observer would stop. This led to the use of the term "frozen stars;" it wasn't believed frozen stars were cold, but rather that they were literally frozen in time.

Later refinement of the Schwarzschild solution demonstrated that the apparent infinities were merely an artifact of the coordinate frame chosen, and that an infalling observer in fact can pass beyond the Schwarzchild radius. In fact, the equations predicted he would notice no effects when doing so. But any attempt on the part of that infalling observer to communicate with the outside universe, say by sending a radio message, would be doomed to failure, as the radio waves would traverse geodesics through the severely curved spacetime and end up bent toward the central mass. From this, we can say that nothing that occurs within the Schwarzschild radius can ever affect events outside the Schwarzschild radius. This gives the Schwarzschild radius of a non-rotating black hole its other name: the [[event horizon]].

===Inside the Event Horizon===
What actually exists inside the event horizon of a black hole is a question physics is unable to answer. Some postulate that within the event horizon exists a point of zero (or nearly zero) volume but infinite energy density, a point sometimes referred to as a ''gravitational singularity,'' after the notion of a mathematical singularity (a term equaling infinity) in a field equation. Others suspect that infinite energy density is a physical impossibility, and that a black hole contains actual finitely-dense matter compressed into a [[degenerate matter|degenerate]] form, such as quark-degenerate matter. Since all black holes are surrounded by an event horizon which prevents any information or messages from leaving, all these theories are non-[[falsifiable]]; we can never be sure what the interior structure of a black hole is like.

===Properties of Black Holes===

Black holes only have three properties by which one differs from another: mass, electric charge, and angular momentum. Mass describes the amount of matter inside the event horizon. It increases when matter falls into the black hole, and decreases as the hole emits Hawking radiation and shrinks. Angular momentum refers to whether the black hole is stationary or rotating around an axis. While the singularity of a non-rotating black hole may be an infinitely small point, the singularity of a rotating black hole would be in the shape of an infinitely thin ring. Matter entering a spinning black hole is first swirled around by the black hole’s gravity, causing it to heat up and emit x-rays, which can be used to detect the black hole. In the supermassive black holes at the centers of galaxies, some of the matter does not fall into the black hole. Instead it is blasted into space in twin jets of hot gas perpendicular to the accretion disc, in a phenomenon known as an Active Galactic Nucleus.

==Origins of Black Holes==
[[Image:Hs-2005-02-e-web.jpg|right|thumb|300px|The [[red supergiant]] star V838 Monocerotis, an example of one type of star which may become a black hole.]]
Stellar-mass black holes are said to form when stars more than ten times the mass of the Sun run out of fuel and die. The process of death occurs when stars that have fused the products of their own fusion into larger and larger elements, up to iron. The star then tries to fuse the iron core that forms as a result, but this does not produce enough energy to hold the outer layers of the star apart against the pull of gravity. When this happens, the iron core at the center of the star implodes in a supernova, and the outer layers of the star are blasted into space in one of the most energetic events in the universe—one star going out in a supernova can give off as much light as an entire galaxy. Not all supernovae result in black holes, but if the mass of the core is large enough, about 1.5-3.0 times the mass of the Sun (this value is termed the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff limit, and its value is not yet known to great precision), the leftover gravity of the shrinking core stalls the outward rush of the initial blast, and crushes the core into a point of infinite density: a black hole.

Extremely small black holes, with masses of around 1015 grams, have been theorized to have formed in the early universe. Any sufficiently small primordial black hole would be expected to evaporate within the lifetime of the universe, but the rate of evaporation is not currently known with any certainty.

At the opposite end of the spectrum, objects with the characteristics of supermassive black holes, millions or billions of times more massive than the sun, have been detected at the centers of many [[galaxies]], including our own [[Milky Way]]. In our galaxy, the hypothesized supermassive black hole is in the constellation Sagittarius, and is known as Sagittarius A* (pronounced "A star"). Based on the extraordinary angular velocity of stars near the galactic center, Sagittarius A* is believed to be on the order of two to three million solar masses. It is unknown how supermassive black holes form, though several models have been proposed. One hypothesis simply begins with a black hole of stellar mass which grows over the lifetime of the galaxy that surrounds it. Another proposal describes supermassive black holes as a natural, in fact nearly unavoidable, consequence of galactic formation. To date, no one theory of supermassive black hole formation is favored over all others.

==Observation and Controversy==

Since black holes are literally invisible by traditional means of observation and so cannot be directly observed, it can never be conclusively demonstrated whether or not they exist. However, scientists have attempted to find black holes through indirect means, such as the effect of their gravitational pull on nearby stars. Stars that are near black holes, e.g. by being part of a binary star system that contains one, show wobbles in their orbits similar to the tidal effects of the moon on Earth’s oceans. <ref>http://library.thinkquest.org/C007571/english/advance/english.htm</ref><ref>''Black Holes'' by Heather Cooper and Nigel Henbest (book)</ref> Scientists have also observed stellar objects which have density consistent with black holes <ref>http://amazing-space.stsci.edu/resources/explorations/blackholes/lesson/whatisit/history.html</ref>.

While matter and energy, even light, may not escape a black hole, Stephen Hawking has shown that they should emit [[Hawking radiation]], which absent of an influx of mass-energy would lead to the evaporation of the black hole in a burst of gamma rays. Scientists are currently working to pick up one of these bursts, or the radiation itself, with any of several land- and space-based telescopes. However, the matter falling into black holes as well as the [[cosmic microwave background]] obscures the radiation and makes detection extremely difficult.

==Speculative Future Exploration==

Scientists have speculated that if a rotating black hole is large enough, a person could pass through the center of the ring-shaped singularity and possibly enter a wormhole. However, it would have to be a very large hole, for if it were not, the hypothetical astronaut would never survive to reach the event horizon due to tidal forces.

Matter coming close to the event horizon of a small black hole undergoes a process called spaghettification, a term coined by Stephen Hawking in his book ''A Brief History of Time'' to describe extraordinarily strong tidal forces. Because the mass at the center of the black hole is so dense, the gravitational pull on the near end of an object is much greater than the pull on the object’s far end. This causes the object to be stretched out in a way resembling a piece of spaghetti, and generally torn in two.

==White Holes==
Because the [[Quantitative Introduction to General Relativity|general relativity equations]] are symmetric with respect to time, one can take a negative square root instead of positive to yield an equation describing a hypothetical object which expels, rather than attracts, matter and energy.<ref>http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/BHfaq.html#q10</ref> As this is the exact opposite of a black hole, it is called a '''white hole'''.

However, there is no evidence white holes actually exist. If they generate new matter and energy, this would violate the [[Law of the conservation of mass]]. Therefore, some scientists have proposed that matter falling into black holes goes through a [[wormhole]] to emerge at a white hole. While such wormholes are allowed by general relativity, they would be extremely unstable<ref>http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/schww.html</ref>, and there is no evidence that they exist.

Dr. [[Russell Humphreys]] used a white hole in his model of the universe during [[Creation week]] to allow millions of years to pass in outer space while only three days passed on Earth.

==In Popular Culture==

Black holes have been a device in science fiction ever since their discovery. Many sci-fi books, movies, and television shows use black holes as a method of travel (see the Potential Future Exploration section above) or as a threat to a space-going vessel. In at least one season of the show ''Star Trek: the Next Generation'' by Gene Roddenberry, artificially created miniature black holes are used as power sources for spaceships and natural ones as incubators for the young of an alien race. Neither of these uses has much of a basis in reality, of course.

Contrary to popular myth, a black hole is not a cosmic vacuum cleaner. In other words, a one-solar-mass black hole is no better than any other one-solar-mass object (such as, for example, the Sun) at "sucking in" distant objects. However, a one-solar-mass black hole has the same amount of matter as any other one-solar-mass object but compressed into a much smaller space, making it impossible to move fast enough to leave a black hole once there. If a spaceship could land on a black hole, it would never be able to take off again.

The term "black hole" is also used as a metaphor for a place that it is hard to get out of, generally containing a high concentration of something unpleasant. Ex: "The inner city is a black hole of crime and drug use." Note that the Black Hole of Calcutta is ''not'' a reference to the celestial object; the name of the place predates the discovery of black holes in space and the Black Hole of Calcutta was a horrible underground prison in [[Calcutta]], India.

{{Relativity}}

==References==
{{reflist}}

*[http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/science/know_l2/black_holes.html Black Holes]
*[http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/BHfaq.html Black Holes (Frequently Asked Questions)]

[[category: physics]]
[[Category:Relativity]]

Talk:Black hole

2009-12-13T00:03:09Z

BenO:

==Extremely high density==

Technically, it's undefined, no? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 07:52, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

did you know the 'Black Holes FAQ', which there is a link to, was written in 1995? -stevenM

== Existence confirmed? ==

Perhaps I was hasty. I will reconsider. Any other sources I might find enlightening, perhaps from a YEC perspective? [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 15:16, 7 January 2009 (EST)

[[Talk:Atheistic Style#Black Holes]] covers it quite well. I don't know of any evidence from a '''reliable''' source that shows the existence of Black holes. This "can't be directly observed" thing reminds me a bit too much of evolution. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 12:16, 9 January 2009 (EST)
:Even wikipedia's article notes that all of the different pieces of evidence of a black hole are problematic and can be explained by other sources. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 12:21, 9 January 2009 (EST)

::This is why the article starts by stating "A black hole is a '''theoretical''' mass with an escape velocity greater than the speed of light. They cannot be observed directly, but several have been identified via indirect observation" I also don't see how NASA or UCLA Berkely are unreliable sources for astronomy. As for "can't be directly observed",there are numerous articles on CP related to Intelligent Design that don't rely on direct observations of a designer to discuss the apparent presence of design in nature.

::The beauty of science that it's always open to review and reassessment as new discoveries come to light. In time man's understanding of Black Holes may be different from this article, but we owe the readers the best current explanations available. I'm not suggesting censorship - all credible alternate theories should be listed, but stating that there have been no observations of one is false - by definition they are not directly observable, so proving they exist relies on indirect observation and physics. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 12:38, 9 January 2009 (EST)

:::There is no place called "UCLA Berkely".
:::ID is bolstered by the direct observation available from Genesis.
:::The best explanation is not always the explanation espoused by Californians.
:::We know how our universe began. If NASA & discovery.com deny it, they lose credibility, and their other statements come under greater scrutiny. If you met someone today who insisted that the sky is red and that Sears closes at 10, you would be wise to check the store hours yourself. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 13:58, 9 January 2009 (EST)

::::Okay, my mistake regarding Berkely notwithstanding, my last reversion is based on two simple things. The word "is" should not be replaced by "would be" - it ''is'' a characteristic of black holes within the theory that describes them. Second, the use of [[Big Science]] as a term on CP was started by an admitted parodist, and equating NASA with it, frankly comes across as parody as well. Instead of diluting references to good science, spend more time supporting alternate explanations constructively. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 14:07, 9 January 2009 (EST)

:::::"Would be" is appropriate for hypothetical things. We say "Dole would have been a better President than Clinton," not "Dole was a better President than Clinton," even "within a theory that describes" Dole as being elected.
:::::"Big Science" was used in ''[[Expelled]]''. You don't think that was parody, do you?
:::::"Berkely" isn't a place, either.
:::::It seems like I'm the only one trying to make constructive edits towards a compromise. I guess this is not surprising, given the content on [[User:DinsdaleP]]. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 14:26, 9 January 2009 (EST)

::::::BHarlan, I believe that you do not understand a small but important bit of information, most astronomical discoveries are collaborative efforts usually initiated by small independent astronomers. When you say big science you could classify biosciences like that, but astronomy is totally different.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 14:19, 9 January 2009 (EST)

::::::The so-called "evidence" for Black holes does not fit a pattern like the one you describe. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 14:26, 9 January 2009 (EST)

(unindent)

I'm not making any other changes to the revision just posted by Aschlafly. To BHarlan, I make no apologies for my User Page content. If the CP leadership wishes to block me over my [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/DinsdaleP contributions] they have the right to do so at any time, but I feel that my efforts here are constructive even when I disagree with others. Feel free to have the last word on this, I'm moving on to other topics. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 14:45, 9 January 2009 (EST)

Black holes have been spotted by a number of well-respected astronomical institutes for decades, with those discoveries tested and confirmed repeatedly. Your edits are unsupported by either fact or citation Andy, so under the rules youelf created I have no choice but to revert your edits, whereas the edits saying that black holes have been spotted are fully cited with references from reputable sources including NASA, an organisation fully backed by all US Governments, including conservative governments, since its inception.-[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 15:47, 9 January 2009 (EST)

:Your sarcastic edit comments are not welcome here. You might want to check "youelf", else you might end up wrecking youelf.
:Also, you always have a choice! Do you deny this choice? That is a typical sentiment of materialists. If you do not believe in your soul, you will receive a nasty surprise pretty soon, and it won't just be the non-existence of black holes!
:Also, that is not how "whereas" is used in standard English.
:Also, NASA has taken a sad left turn as of late. This is one of the reasons the U.S.A.F. has its own space program. Do you see?
:Also, may God bless you. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 16:10, 9 January 2009 (EST)

::My my, I miss a 's' in a typo and you decide to launch an ad hominem attack… Very 'christian' of you, or then again; not.
::''"Also, that is not how "whereas" is used in standard English".'' That might not be how you use it with your standard of English, but as anyone who has been taught the correct way to use the English language knows, it's perfectly correct. Oh, and a little, free, friendly lesson regarding the use of written English : You never start consecutive paragraphs with the same word unless it is absolutely necessary, which, in your above post it wasn't. If you are having trouble with your synonyms I heartily recommend using a thesaurus.
::The military space research programmes exist solely to explore the possible military applications of space. All civilian space programmes, including government projects run through the relevant Space Agencies (NASA, ESA, etc.). This is common knowledge amongst those who know anything about this subject.
::Stating that black holes don't exist is akin to believing the moon landing was faked. The existence of black holes and the fact that they have been spotted is undisputed by anyone who has the knowledge and experience to know what they are looking at. I have had the privilege of seeing two of these black holes myself. They are out there and have been spotted, and that is a direct, firsthand witness statement.
::May you be touched by his noodly appendage, or if that isn't your cup of tea, may you be blessed by the goat Heidrún. RAmen.-[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 17:06, 10 January 2009 (EST)

:::* It's "an 's'", not "a 's'".
:::* If you missed just one 's', then that part of the sentence would read "under the rules youself created", which is ''still'' wrong.
:::* If you missed an 'r' and an 's', then that part of the sentence would read "under the rules yourself created", which is '''still''' wrong.
:::* An [[ad hominem]] attack means to reply to the logic in your arguments by attacking your character. I did no such thing. I didn't attack your character in any way. I asked if you were a materialist, then pointed out that materialists are Hell-bound. If you have a problem with your final resting place, I suggest you reconsider your path in life. I do not suggest that the Hell-bound are never able to make logical arguments.
:::* "Christian" is capitalized. Did you leave it uncapitalized on purpose? If so, I suggest you blaspheme somewhere else.
:::* That is not how semicolons are used in standard English.
:::* You need a comma after "but" for the aside.
:::* You do not need commas around "friendly", just like you don't need commas around "red" in "big red inflatable ball"
:::* I will not discuss the friendly lesson here, except to note that stylistic choices are different than maintaining correctness. Comma placement and word choice are different beasts.
:::* The sentence starting "All civilian" has no main verb, so I can't respond to it.
:::* Hyperbole about the moon landing is simply rhetoric. If there is no argument, there can be no response.
:::* Wikipedia may accept your anonymous evidence, but we are more careful here.
:::* Black holes can't be seen. What I suppose you mean is that you infer their existence. Your inference is not particularly convincing.
:::* Please take your graven goat pasta idols elsewhere. Here we show some simple respect for God.
:::* I am done with this pointless, blasphemous discussion. It is not encyclopedic. I suggest you contribute to this encyclopedia. It is a good way to improve your writing skills. I have been contributing partially for that reason. Maybe you could join me in adding articles and value, rather than taking the name of my Lord in vain?
:::* If you decide not to, you may have the last word here, as I will no longer reply to this silliness. I hope you will decide to contribute instead. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 18:33, 10 January 2009 (EST)
:::: *Sigh* ''"a wit, an arrow, across the head it passed, an apple not pierced today"'', an 'r' and an 's', my apologies, how can such typos be left to pass, expecially when they are nothing to do with the argument at hand, well done for picking up such niggling detail, and yet avoiding the point of the argument. Admittedly I missed the n in an, but again, a typo, they happen. ''"Wikipedia may accept your anonymous evidence, but we are more careful here"'', how does evidence from NASA count as anonymous evidence?…at all?…in any way?…whatsoever? As for an ad hominen attack, your argument provided no evidence against the existence of black holes, merely an attack on myself, the purest definition of ad hominen (a course in Latin will help you there). Christian or christian, depends on how you want to write it and on your own beliefs. Me, not my belief, and as I don't believe I cannot blaspheme, after all, how can you blaspheme against something that does not exist to be blasphemed? Use of semicolons in standard English? Again, I refer you to the fact the your standard of English might not be sufficient to use them in such regard. I recommend increasing your quality of English by beginning with Chaucer and reading your way up. At some point you will realise that the use of English in any form is an art, not a science, and that language is to be used in such a way as to provoke delight, wonder and thought with its writing, and beyond the obvious rules of form, there are no hard and fast rules, merely that of metre, pace and illumination. ''"The sentence starting "All civilian" has no main verb, so I can't respond to it"'', '''run''', it's a verb, hard to miss, I'll admit to missing a comma (the sentence should read ''"All civilian space programmes, including government projects, run through the relevant Space Agencies (NASA, ESA, etc.)"'', but missing the word '''run''' *shakes head in disbelief*: if you insist on a purer form for that sentence, how about "All civilian space programmes, including government projects, are run through the relevant Space Agencies (NASA, ESA, etc.)", but all things being equal, both sentences say the same thing. Moon landing = the sum of evidence gathered concerning the existence of black holes, and that they have been spotted, is greater than the evidence that the moon landing occurred in 1969, hence the corollary. ''"Please take your graven goat pasta idols elsewhere. Here we show some simple respect for God"'', I found it offensive that you forced your beliefs on me, now you have found it offensive when I have forced my beliefs on you, with luck you will have learnt a lesson there, don't force your beliefs and prayers on me and I will return the favour by not blessing you with a little sarcastic FSM (oh, and a little FYI, the word graven means carved and I'm sure that the old FSM hasn't been carved yet and, in addition, I doubt that there are any extant carvings of Thor's goats, although I'm willing to admit that I might be wrong in that regard.)--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 22:13, 13 January 2009 (EST)

I have researched an extensive amount about black holes, and am about to add more information to the article that I hope will prove to be interesting and useful (I will, of course, cite my sources). I am also adding a couple of updates, as some of the information in the article is dated. As a topic about which scientists are still learning, that happens a lot. I hope the updates will improve the quality of the article and its use for educational purposes. [[User:BlueMoon|BlueMoon]] 15:26, 24 June 2009 (EDT)

== Impossible? ==

"A black hole is a theoretical prediction of the theory of relativity. It is impossible to prove that a black hole does not exist, and thus it fails the falsifiability requirement of science."

Actually this is not true. first off, the simplest explination of a black hole is an object so dense its escape velocity exceeds the speed of light. This density is known as the schrawtzshield radius (the spelling may be a bit off)This means there is mathematical proof. If this was not the case there would be no black holes Also, if black holes didnt exist we would never see objects being pulled into nothingness, or massive event horizons, which we do in fact see. --[[User:BenO|BenO]] 18:05, 12 December 2009 (EST)

:Have you really seen these events that you describe? Don't believe everything that liberals tell you, as we've just seen with [[climategate]].

: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)

:No, that's the point- to be scientific, something has to be able to be proven wrong. That is a major part of the scientific method. For example, God is not a scientific concept, because you cannot disprove God. But to be science, one of the criterion is that the idea be able to be disproven.

:Falsifiability is not the ''only'' criterion for whether something is scientific, so perhaps black holes are not ''unscientific.'' But that opening is pretty much accurate. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 17:50, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

:: Black holes are falsifiable as a theory, because the observations generally accepted as caused by black holes ''could'' be causes something else, however there is no alternative theory ''at present'' to explain the phenomenon. However you cannot prove that a black hole ''could never'' exist just as you cannot prove atoms, or anything, could never exist. God is not a scientific theory not because it is impossible to absolutely disprove God (impossible to prove that God could never possibly exist) but because the supernatural cannot be shown to exist through science, which deals only with the natural universe, if you could present a theory God existed in science, that god would no longer be supernatural by definition.

:: Honestly I don't understand the objection to black holes, there is no conservative reason for it. --[[User:BMcP|BMcP]] 19:04, 1 July 2009 (EST)

:::The existence of black holes is ''not'' falsifiable. Surely you agree with that. Black holes cannot be observed either. Addison explained the flaw well above, but you seem intent on sticking with your beliefs. Believe what you like, but black holes do not satisfy any sensible definition of science.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:37, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

:::: The possible existence of anything is not falsifiable, black holes, quarks, gods, even godzilla, only theories are falsifiable, such as the theory that explain what black holes are and how they work. The present theories of black holes are falsifiable, but so far no one has successfully debunked them, or offer an alternate scientific theory for the phenomenon attributed to the effects and properties of black holes. We cannot observe an isolated quark directly, but we accept that theory.

:::: However I cannot change one's mind, that is fine, I made my objections known, I am not going to step on people's toes by attempting to change the page, I just believe it is scientifically incorrect in it's proclamation and could stand to be improved for a better article. I have said what I believe needed to be said and will end my part here, anyone feel free to respond with the last word or contact me privately. --[[User:BMcP|BMcP]] 21:07, 1 July 2009 (EST)

:::::Thank you for your interest. Note that atoms have actually been observed (in refutation of what you said above, "you cannot prove atoms, or anything, could never exist". I don't think the article will be changed though. Black holes are sort of on the fence between observable, testable physics, and "theoretical" physics, e.g. string theory. There are a million sources where you can get the standard overview of black holes. Why not have a different view here? Wikipedia does not even ''mention'' the issue of falsifiability, so we are doing a service to the scientific method by at least bringing it up- even if you think the article's conclusion is wrong. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 21:23, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

:::::In addition to Addison's comments, note that some theories ''are'' [[falsifiable]] (such as Newton's theory of gravity), while other theories are ''not'' falsifiable, such as the theory that black holes must exist or [[string theory]]. And when a theory is not falsifiable, it is not science. If BMcP proposes an alternative definition of science, then let's hear it, but I doubt he'll do better than [[Karl Popper]] in making [[falsifiability]] part of the definition.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:45, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

Guys, this is becoming quite the argument; however, it is unnecessary because the idea that black holes exist ''is'' falsifiable. If NASA sends probes out to nearby black holes (which would take a long time, but it's possible), and they all turn out to be ancient Spartans in spaceships or whatever, then scientists will conclude that black holes don't exist and start working on how Spartans came to be in space and why they have accretion disks, etc. So black holes are falsifiable, and this argument is a source of unnecessary tension. [[User:BlueMoon|BlueMoon]] 12:55, 8 July 2009 (EDT)

I don't get this non-falsifiable argument. If we see light from a star, then it is not a black hole. Any claim that it is a black hole is then falsified. Black hole theory says that a star becomes a black hole whenever its mass goes inside its Schwarzschild radius, it becomes a black hole. So if we ever find a star that emits light and has its mass inside its Schwarzschild radius, then the theory is falsified. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 10:32, 28 July 2009 (EDT)
:The problem with that argument is that we live light years away, so what we could be seeing at one moment could be just the beginning before the light is swallowed into the black hole. --[[User:ChrisZ|ChrisZ]] 11:01, 28 July 2009 (EDT)

:: No, we can observe the radius, mass, and light all at the same time. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:07, 28 July 2009 (EDT)

::: Should we change the article then, seeing how there's no rebuttal to [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]]'s post regarding the falsifiability of the black hole theory? [[User:ATang|ATang]] 11:03, 6 August 2009 (EDT)

:::: 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)

::::: 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)

:::::: How might one falsify the basic assertion about black holes: that black holes exist such that light cannot escape? Every time one observes light escaping, he simply concludes that it is not a black hole.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:31, 9 August 2009 (EDT)

:::::::Mr. Schlafly, you're absolutely right that the general claim, "There are mysterious regions of space from which light cannot escape" is an unverifiable claim. Black holes don't refer to this statement - they refer to the specific statement, "It is possible to concentrate a certain amount of mass, so that the gravity of that mass prevents light from escaping." This could be falsified by experiments in particle accelerators (possibly the LHC, I'm not familiar enough with it to know) which could demonstrate that such concentration of matter is impossible - that degeneracy pressures, currently unknown, prevent such it. This would falsify the claim that black holes exist. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 11:52, 9 August 2009 (EDT)

:::::::: I have an open mind about this, but fail to see how an inability to generate a black hole using a generator would falsify the existence of black holes in outer space. Most likely those who believe in black holes would simply say that higher and higher energies or densities are needed to generate it in particle accelerators.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:16, 9 August 2009 (EDT)

::::::::: You're right that failure to create a microscopic black hole in a lab wouldn't falsify the idea that they can form. What I'm claiming is that research which aims, not to create microscopic black holes, but to gain more insight into the forces that govern the behavior of sub atomic particles, might unearth evidence that would refute black holes.
::::::::: Here's how: right now, the theory on black hole formation states that as matter accumulates, first electron degeneracy pressure is overcome (that is, the structure of the matter in question would be not atoms side by side, but atomic nuclei side by side with no electrons in between), then the nuclear degeneracy pressure is overcome, that is, one would not longer have nuclei side by side, but neutrons and protons side by side (a neutron star), and then finally, this neutron degeneracy pressure is overcome and the matter becomes so dense it is contained by its own Schwarzchild radius and becomes a black hole.
::::::::: It is entirely plausible that a particle accelerator of sufficient power could concentrate matter to overcome the neutron degeneracy pressure only to discover a quark degeneracy pressure, or some other force. It is also possible that this new force would require SO MUCH matter to be overcome, as to be unphysical (for example, it might take more matter than is currently believed to exist to overcome the pressure). If this pressure was to prevent matter from being denser than the Schwarzschild limit, then the claim that black holes exist would be forever disproven and falsified. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 12:43, 9 August 2009 (EDT)

::::::::: Additional note: As RSchlafly points out, there are many claims about black holes which ARE unfalsifiable, currently - as he points out, claims about the interior of the event horizon are not falsifiable. Similarly, predictions regarding their presence in certain locations are not falsifiable by any means we yet possess. The same criticism could be leveled at my above description of an experiment in nuclear-density matter. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 12:56, 9 August 2009 (EDT)

:::::::::: We cannot determine what is happening in the "interior" (inside the event horizon) but that doesn't make a black hole itself not falsifiable. We are not sure what the interior of a neutron star is at all, but I think everyone here agrees they do exist. Also just because you cannot visually see something (such as a black hole, where light cannot escape from inside the event horizon) doesn't mean it isn't there or falsifiable. Most astronomical study of space is not in the visual spectrum, and there are many ways to determine the existence of a black hole. I also must point out, there has been no alternative hypotheses to explain the gravitational effects we presently attribute to black holes. Also, as pointed out before, if we are able to find an object of sufficient mass within the Schwarzschild radius, which normally would continue to collapse into a gravitational singularity (Black Hole) ''but has not'', that would disprove the theory of Black holes right there, or in other words falsify them. For example, if we found an object the same mass of our Sun, and was smaller then its Schwarzschild radius of around 3 km (the Schwarzschild radius for an object of that mass) and it '''did not''' collapse into a black hole, then the theory of Black Holes ''would be proven false''. --[[User:BMcP|BMcP]] 08:14, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

::::::::::: I hate to disagree with BMcP, because we share the same goal here (getting the non-falsifiability statement removed from the article), but there was a lot of bad science in that response and we should have an argument based in facts and truth.

::::::::::: '''I also must point out, there has been no alternative hypotheses to explain the gravitational effects we presently attribute to black holes.'''
:::::::::::: That's not entirely true. In my previous posts, I mentioned that discovering a sufficiently powerful quark degeneracy pressure could disprove the existence of "black holes." Objects which are prevent from gravitational collapse by quark degeneracy pressure, "quark stars," could explain a good deal of phenomenon currently attributed to black holes could be very adequately explained by such phenomenon - extraordinary x-ray sources, quasars, all these rely on on the affects of a large amount of mass concentrated in a small space, not necessarily a Schwarschild radius. Which brings me to
::::::::::: '''if we are able to find an object of sufficient mass within the Schwarzschild radius, which normally would continue to collapse into a gravitational singularity (Black Hole) ''but has not'', that would disprove the theory of Black holes right there, or in other words falsify them."
:::::::::::: Any object which is completely contained in a Schwarzschild radius is automatically a black hole, regardless of whether or not it has collapsed into a singularity or not. Furthermore, since the gravitation field exterior to the schwarzschild radius would be the same regardless of where the mass inside was a singularity or not, so there would be no way to tell.
::::::::::: I still think the best argument for falsifiability is the experiment I presented earlier into quark degeneracy pressure. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 12:18, 12 August 2009 (EDT)
:::::::::::: I was not aware of a hypothesis that offers a possibility of quark degeneracy pressure that would be powerful enough to resist the effects of gravity even if the mass would normally be large enough to collapse into a black hole. I agree if such pressure existed it would disprove our current theories of black hole formation.
:::::::::::: You are right, it doesn't have to be a singularity, although that is what current theories suggest happens, that gravity continues to collapse the matter inside the event horizon to the point of a singularity.[http://archive.ncsa.illinois.edu/Cyberia/NumRel/BlackHoleAnat.html] However that does not have to be true for the mass to collapse within the Schwarzschild radius to be a black hole, just that their is sufficient gravity to force particles within the horizon to be deformed in their path so they cannot leave. It is just theorized at the center of a black hole is the singularity[http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/singularity.html]. That being said, it expected that a theory of quantum gravity will feature black holes without singularities.[http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/bh_hawk.html] [http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/980420b.html]. It isn't important either way, what is important is the question, are black holes falsifiable? I think you and others have already offered examples of yes. --[[User:BMcP|BMcP]] 13:23, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

== [[Falsifiability]] ==
(no text was inserted here, but the edit summary was "the falsifiability is undeniable and should not be censored, Physicists should be taught about falsifiability as part of their curriculum")

:Based on KSorenson's remarks and what I know about the curricula at schools I've attended, physicists are indeed taught about it. It seems a stretch to say that the falsifiability is "undeniable" when in fact every editor except you has denied it. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 23:15, 12 November 2009 (EST)

::Sorry, somehow my text above was misplaced. Thanks for substituting in what I meant!

::Those who have denied that black holes lack [[falsifiability]] really seem to be denying that falsifiability should be a limit on physics.

::KSorenson cited a laundry list of philosophy-type requirements of physics majors, but conspicuously absent was emphasis on falsifiability.

::Like most college majors, physics students repeat what they're taught. If they received good grades, then it becomes even harder for them to question it. But keep in mind that the people doing the teaching are the most liberal group in the world, and they almost never encourage the student to open his mind and think critically for himself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:23, 12 November 2009 (EST)

:::Please read again, Aschlafly. I specifically cited Karl Popper as part of the curriculum in undergraduate courses on the philosophy of science. In case it's slipped your mind, Popper basically invented falsifiability as the criterion for distinguishing science from non-science.

:::Incidentally, Popper cited Einstein's theories as exemplars of rigorously falsifiable science when he constructed his criterion. He wrote about it in contrast to the quote-unquote "scientific" theories of Marx. By a happy coincidence, the very same theories of Einstein's that Popper found so admirable are the ones we're talking about here. So can you ''please,'' and I'm asking for the third time now, clarify just exactly what your gripe is?--[[User:KSorenson|KSorenson]] 00:36, 13 November 2009 (EST)

:::::Hello; I'm the user who edited this article after KSorenson. If I may jump in to this heated discussion going on at at least [[User_Talk:KSorenson|two places]] : I think what Andy's saying is that black holes themselves can never be proven to not exist, because (by definition) no one can see them or visit them and return. I think what KSorenson's saying is that [[general relativity]] states black holes are possible, and that general relativity can be falsified (e.g. by sending probes to probe the earth's gravitational field).

:::::Of course, just because general relativity hasn't been ''disproven'' doesn't mean that it's been proven. There could be a better theory which accounts for all the gravity-probe data and states that black holes don't exist. We don't know yet; that's the wonder of science: God's always put more out there for us to discover! So, we don't know that black holes do exist - that claim isn't falsifiable; we'd need to survey every square millimeter of space and say "there isn't a black hole ''here''!". But, the theory that states they ''can'' exist is falsifiable. I tried to reflect this dichotomy in my edits to this article. -- [[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 00:46, 13 November 2009 (EST)

::::::You make excellent points, particularly in your last paragraph above. The introductory paragraph to [[black hole]] would benefit from this, and please feel free to edit it again (I apologize if others deleted your work). Note, however, that it is not very practical to devise a test that could falsify General Relativity, and falsifying General Relativity would not falsify the claim that [[black holes]] exist. Black holes are far too popular in science magazines and liberal publications like the New York Times to "go away" that easily.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:52, 13 November 2009 (EST)

:::::::On Popper and relativity, Christoph von Mettenheim (http://elm.eeng.dcu.ie/~tkpw/tcr/volume-01/number-03/node3.html) writes: "Most of you will know of Popper's admiration for Einstein, and how he was inspired by the theory of relativity (and by its high refutability in contrast to the irrefutability of psychoanalysis) more than by anything else to develop the criterion of falsifiability as a demarcation between science and metaphysics (Popper 1976, pp. 37-38)." As KSorenson has already noted, relativity was the theory that inspired the notion of falsifiability in the first place. The claim that "it is not very practical to devise a test that could falsify General Relativity" is absurd on the face of it. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 10:02, 13 November 2009 (EST)

::::::::Popper's personal views are irrelevant; no one here says that Popper was a genius who was always right. It's [[falsifiability]] that is at issue, and the resistance to that simple, logical concept is astounding. People can teach Popper all they like, but it's clear that physics majors are not learning fully about falsifiability. String theory wouldn't exist in physics departments if they were.

::::::::If tests existed that might falsify General Relativity, then in the nearly 100 years since its proposal we would have seen many of them. Instead, as the latest discussion (and the famous 1919 solar eclipse) illustrate, margins of error in the experiments are typically greater than the deviations predicted by the theory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:13, 13 November 2009 (EST)

: (unindent)
: Andy raises an interesting point. In theory, it's easy to test general relativity - take KSorenson's gravity probe, for example. This wouldn't absolutely prove it; there might always be a better theory out there. But nothing can ''ever'' be absolutely proven in science - the point is that this test could disprove it. So, in theory, it's falsifiable. "[falsifiable|A proposition or theory is falsifiable if it is hypothetically possible for a test or observation to prove it false]." Of course, a hypothetical future theory might still include black holes (there's an infinite number of possible theories), but the possibility of black holes according to general relativity (how's that for a mouthful?) is falsifiable, because general relativity is falsifiable. Or, to try to say it more simply: the possibility of the particular sort of black hole predicted by general relativity (with exactly these properties, et cetera) is falsifiable. I hope I made my verbiage understandable enough for you all to agree or disagree?

:But as you point out, the solar eclipse experiment didn't test general relativity in practice: the margins of error were too big. (I don't know if that's still true with modern experiments; could someone who knows more about that fill me in?) So, while it's theoretically falsifiable, it's possible that general relativity hasn't actually been tested yet... -- [[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 10:36, 13 November 2009 (EST)

::[http://www.ias.ac.in/pramana/v63/p731/fulltext.pdf Here] is a nice review of a variety of experimental tests of general relativity, along with discussion of other experiments that may be undertaken in the future. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 10:43, 13 November 2009 (EST)

:::That all sounds basically right to me, EvanW. (Can I call you EvanW?) But from where I sit, it's even simpler.

:::*General relativity has been and is being tested, and so far the tests have confirmed the theory. That might change any minute, but it's still true so far.

:::*General relativity says that black holes are possible, and that if they exist they'll have certain properties.

:::*We've seen objects in the sky that have those properties, and that aren't predicted by any other existing theory. We're studying those objects as hard as we can given the limits of distance, to see if they really do walk and quack like ducks. Until we see something un-ducky, we say "Yeah, those look like ducks to us."

:::This really isn't complicated as far as I can tell, and I'm really baffled as to why we're still yaking about it amongst ourselves.

:::Aschlafly, if you want to expand the living daylights out of the "Controversy" section, I'll be right there by your side, cheering you on and helping in any way I can. As long as your contributions aren't misleading or incorrect. I don't want to speak for anyone else, but my gut tells me that EvanW and MarkGall would make the same promise. So why are we still bickering? Can't we improve the article instead? I know having to respond here is taking away from the time I set aside today to add to the [[general theory of relativity]] article. --[[User:KSorenson|KSorenson]] 10:54, 13 November 2009 (EST)

:::: Mark cited Clifford Will's government-funded 2004 article on proof for General Relativity, but that paper is very "thin" and in a mere 15-minute review several weaknesses are apparent. But thanks for the citation, Mark.

:::: This is a site where logic prevails. If you want to say that black holes are consistent with General Relativity (though rejected by Einstein), and General Relativity might be falsifiable (though tests will sufficient accuracy are difficult and expensive), that's fine. But black holes themselves, like life in outer space, are not falsifiable. It's basic logic, and that doesn't change whether all accept the logic or not.

:::: There's a broader point here. Why the big push for black holes by liberals, and big protests against any objection to them? If it turned out empirically that promoting black holes tends to cause people to read the Bible less, would you still push this so much? Certainly there is no practical justification to pushing black holes; no one will ever be helped by them in any way.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:03, 13 November 2009 (EST)

::::: I haven't had time to read the Clifford Will paper yet, and I don't think I've got the expertise to judge it well. But, I think we've come to an agreement here:
:::::# Black holes themselves can't be falsified (except by surveying every cubic millimeter of space)
:::::# General relativity says they are possible.
:::::# General relativity is falsifiable (theoretically), but it's hard to falsify.
:::::# Therefore, the possibility of black-holes-as-specified-by-general-relativity is falsifiable.
::::: As for why the media's pushing black holes - hey, they're interesting to read about! Myself, by Occam's razor, I don't think any more explanation is needed. As for why KSorenson and I are pushing them - I can't speak for KSorenson, but I'm trying to defend falsifiability and the concept of a scientific theory, just like (I think) you are: general relativity is a legitimate scientific theory, because it can theoretically be falsified. -- [[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 12:15, 13 November 2009 (EST)

:::::: Evan, I appreciate your comments and have learned from them. My question was directed at KSorenson and Mark, not to you. But using your answer, it doesn't explain the insistence by liberals on downplaying or even censoring criticism of black holes. And one key question is unanswered: if promoting black holes caused people to read the Bible less, would you want to promote them? They certainly won't ever help anyone, while the Bible might.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:22, 13 November 2009 (EST)

:::::::Aschlafly, you seem to be more interested in arguing (now apparently about politics and religion of all things) than you are in improving the article. This is fine. If you want to contribute to the article in any way at all, I'll be here to help however I can. I would ask you to please think carefully before adding a misleading assertion like "Einstein rejected black holes" (which doesn't tell the whole truth) or "black hole theory is unfalsifiable," because doing so would just hurt the article, misinform anyone who reads it and waste the time of any editor who feels like trying to fix it.

:::::::Meanwhile, I'm going to finish filling out the [[general theory of relativity]] article. If you find some aspect of ''that'' one that you want to argue about in the same way you've argued about this article … well, don't bother. I've grown weary of the endless, pointless, going-nowhere talk, and I'm going to focus on making constructive contributions until I get bored of it, or I run out of useful things to add. You're obviously free to take those contributions and use them as you will, or throw them in the trash. It really doesn't matter to me one way or the other.

:::::::And finally, as to whether "this is a site where logic prevails," I've always been an actions-speak-louder-than-words sort of girl. The article is here; I have made my contribution to it. Whether logic (or for that matter, intellectual honesty) prevails is something I look forward to finding out. --[[User:KSorenson|KSorenson]] 12:29, 13 November 2009 (EST)

::::::::KSorenson, I've responded to your concerns and answered your questions and Evan has proposed a logical, clear solution. You find no fault with it, but ignore it. I asked you a simple question, "if promoting black holes cause people to read the Bible less, would you want to promote them?" Not only do you refuse to answer, you rant on and on. Please, please open your mind, for your sake.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:39, 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 ==

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)

:Agreed, and I tried to explain in the introduction how black holes "can never be conclusively proved or disproved," because of how no light escapes them. If you think it can be phrased better, please change the conclusion. But, I don't think we need to mention in the intro to this '''black hole''' article how '''[[wormholes]]''' are also unfalsifiable. It should be in the intro to the [[wormhole]] article, but I don't think it needs to be here. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 21:12, 30 November 2009 (EST)

::Black holes and wormholes were predicted by relativity in a similar way, and both are not falsifiable and thus arguably not science. The term "[[falsifiable]]" has a real meaning and your replacement isn't quite the same. The point is that if black holes are false and non-existent, then there is no way to show that. Ditto for wormholes, and in that information should be in the introduction, not buried thousands of words later.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:36, 30 November 2009 (EST)

:::I don't really understand wormholes myself. It seems to me that they're a different subject and that mentioning them actually detracts from our points about black holes; however, I'll defer to you on keeping them there. And thanks for your point about the meaning in the specific word "[[falsifiable]]". My main point is that we should explain why "you can't prove there isn't a black hole somewhere in the universe" is different from "you can't prove there isn't Jack Smith somewhere in the world": because "black holes cannot be observed from outside, since not even light escapes." So, I tried to restore the chain of reasoning; I tacked wormholes on the end because I can't see a better place to put them. If you disagree with how I phrased the non-falsifiability sentence, I'd appreciate if you could try to fix that rather than revert the whole paragraph. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 23:30, 30 November 2009 (EST)

:::: Well skipping the question of why light is needed to prove something's existence, I find this sentence most disturbing: "What actually exists inside the event horizon of a black hole is a question physics '''is''' unable to answer. " Over the original "What actually exists inside the event horizon of a black hole is a question physics '''has thus far been''' unable to answer." The original sentence is much more accurate. You cannot say with absolute certainty that physics will never be able to answer what is beyond the event horizon, because there is always the possibility that question will be answered someday. Really that should be reverted. --[[User:BMcP|BMcP]] 09:49, 1 December 2009 (EST)

::::: I only changed the intro, which does not contain your phrase, but there are structural (intended?) theoretical barriers to testing claims about what is inside a black hole. It's speculation ''ad nauseum''.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:00, 1 December 2009 (EST)

::::::Andy, would you mind explaining why it's "excuses" to explain why black holes are non-falsifiable? If you have a better explanation, I'd appreciate if you could add it. Right now, the article just states it without proof, leaving any readers wondering. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 10:02, 1 December 2009 (EST)

:::::::Black holes are non-falsifiable for reasons beyond the inability of light to escape. In many ways this is the science magazines' replacement for the UFO craze of the 50s through 80s, which culminated in the record-breaking movie "E.T." The alleged existence of "E.T." is also non-falsifiable, and hence not science.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:28, 1 December 2009 (EST)

:::::::To be fair EvanW, some of us do accept the idea they are falsifiable (and certainly detectable) and an actual scientific theory. Just a personal FYI. --[[User:BMcP|BMcP]] 10:37, 1 December 2009 (EST)

::::::::Point. Are you talking about the old debate with KSorenson here, where I pointed out, "So, we don't know that black holes do exist - that claim isn't falsifiable; we'd need to survey every <s>square</s>'''cubic''' millimeter of space and say 'there isn't a black hole here!'"? It seems that's a somewhat academic point: you could just as well say, "The existence of Jack Smith isn't falsifiable; you'd need to survey every square millimeter of the earth and say 'he isn't here'". If you want to say their existence isn't falsifiable because of that, be my guest but please explain the reason in the article. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 10:49, 1 December 2009 (EST)

:::::::::No, in the idea that we claim black hole's exist because we have positive evidence for their existence, in other words, we can detect their presence in the universe. They can be falsified through showing with evidence that what we believer are black holes are actually something else, or find a stellar phenomenon that should according to present theories be a black hole, but isn't. --[[User:BMcP|BMcP]] 13:19, 1 December 2009 (EST)

::::::::The theory that extraterrestials might exist is a special case of scientific theory, with the burden of proof being on the proponents. They must produce one, or concede that they are just hoping. There's a longstanding battle between materialists and religious people about a number of scientific issues, and the [[burden of proof]] is often inconsistent. Is [[evolution]] falsifiable? What sort of evidence would make its proponents give up? (Note: if there is no way they would ever concede being wrong, then they are not engaged in [[science]] but in [[propaganda]]. This is a very serious point.) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:01, 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)

Sociology

2009-12-12T23:08:35Z

BenO:

{{Template:Sociology}}
'''Sociology''' is a branch of Social Sciences concerned with the study of human behaviour, specifically in social relations, using the scientific method of observation. Sociology, with psychology, is at the crux of the long standing Nature vs. Nurture debate. Sociology, for the most part represents nurture and psychology partially represents nature. There are exceptions to this however. Trait theory and biochemistry theory in criminology represent nature, while behaviouralism represents nurture



==History==
The term sociology was coined by [[Auguste Comte]] in 1839. Comte is also the father of [[positivism]]. <ref> Pickering, M. (2007). Auguste Comte. In J. Scott (Ed.), ''Fifty key sociologists: the formative theorists'' (pp. 21-26). New York: Routledge.</ref> Comte's theory of positivism limits knowledge to the observable, and is crucial in approaching sociology as a science. The study of society dates back to Greek philosophers, however it was not distinguished as its own field of study until Comte.

==Key Theories==
There are a number of formative theorists who laid the groundwork for sociology, who have had a great deal of influence in Sociology through the following key theories:

===Conflict Theory===
[[Conflict theory]] strives to explain social facts in terms of different groups competing for control of resources, or advantages. This process occurs on macro levels, such as class groups, and tries to explain stability and change in terms of the conflict between these macro level structures. Two central premises to this theory are that privileged groups are working to maintain their privileges, while the disadvantaged are constantly trying to attain more. [[Karl Marx]] is regarded as the father of conflict theory, and the idea of human society. Communism is the modern day incarnation of Marx ideal human society. Central to the ideas of conflict theory are that by eliminating privilege, the overall welfare of the society can be increased. That is, a true equality amongst members of a society. Through class consciousness, Marx believed that the workers would eventually recognize they were being exploited, and put an end to privilege. <ref>Brym, R.J. (2001). Introducing sociology. In R.J. Brym (Ed.), New society: sociology for the 21st century (pp. 2-25). Toronto: Harcourt.</ref>

'''Key Figures:''' Karl Marx, [[Frederich Engels]]

;Notable works include
:''Das Kapital'' by Karl Marx
:''The Communist Manifesto'' by Karl Marx and Frederich Engels
:''The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism'' by Max Weber

===Functionalism===
[[Functionalism]] is a theory which examines society through interdependent elements, using a somewhat biological approach. In essence, social institutions have a specific function for the welfare of the entire society, in much the same way that the body's organs have specific functions that contribute to the overall welfare of the body. Functionalists believe that it is stable social relations or structures that influence human behaviour; these structures arise from shared values, and can either contribute to, or detract from the social stability. Functionalists believe that restoring equilibrium and increasing social cohesion can solve most social problems. In the late 40s, Robert Merton made a significant contribution to functionalist thought with his theories of manifest and latent functions. That is, a social structure can have both intentional functions, and unintentional functions respectively. Merton also believed that social structures can have a varying impact on different groups.<ref>Brym, R.J. (2001). Introducing sociology. In R.J. Brym (Ed.), New society:sociology for the 21st century (pp. 2-25). Toronto: Harcourt.</ref><ref>Abercrombie, N., Hill, S. & Turner, B.S. (2000). The penguin dictionary of sociology (4th ed.). Toronto:Penguin.</ref><ref>Gomme, I.M. (2002). The shadow line: deviance and crime in Canada (3rd ed.). Toronto:Nelson.</ref>

Example: The functionalist approach to deviant behaviour takes the position that a certain amount of deviance or crime is necessary in society. At the correct balance, deviance has latent functions that contribute to the health of society. When the balance is disrupted, social cohesion deteriorates. More specifically, latent functions of deviance include providing an example of unacceptable conduct to other members of society. Criminals and ''others'' demonstrate unacceptable conduct by incurring sanctions from other formal structures, such as the courts, or mental health institutions.

'''Key Figures:''' Auguste Comte, [[Emile Durkheim]], [[Talcott Parsons]], [[Robert Merton]]

;Notable works include
:''Cours de philosophie positive'' by Auguste Compte
:''Suicide: A study in sociology'' by Emile Durkheim
:''Social Theory and Social Structure'' by Robert Merton

===Symbolic Interactionism===
As one of the key theories in Sociology, [[Symbolic Interactionism|symbolic interactionism]] concerns itself with social interaction in microlevel settings, unlike conflict theory and functionalism. Symbolic interactionism assumes that person's social behaviour occurs only in the context of the subjective meanings he or she attach to his or her social position. It is important to note however, that the social position of the individual is influenced by his or her own actions; one does not simply ''react'' to one's position in society. <ref>Brym, R.J. (2001). Introducing sociology. In R.J. Brym (Ed.), New society:sociology for the 21st century (pp. 2-25). Toronto: Harcourt.</ref><ref>Abercrombie, N., Hill, S. & Turner, B.S. (2000). The penguin dictionary of sociology (4th ed.). Toronto:Penguin.</ref>

Example: Weber's work ''The Protestant Ethic'' is a prime example of symbolic interactionism. Weber looked at the roots of modern capitalism in Protestant asceticism. Weber argues that the first capitalists were Calvanists, though not all Calvanists becamecapitalists. These Calvanists believed in working hard, and not wasting any money on unnecessary material possessions was the way to gain eternal salvation in the Kingdom of Heaven. The actions taken by the Calvanists who became capitalists cannot be separated from the definition they applied to their actions, otherwise meaning is lost. The idea is, that even a good thing done for the wrong reasons can be wrong. Consider the difference between an ascetic Calvanist, and Ebeneezer Scrooge; both have essentially the same idea, however one is more likely to reach eternal salvation.

'''Key Figures:''' George Herbert Mead

;Notable works include
:''Mind, Self, and Society'' by George Herbert Mead
:''The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism'' by Max Weber

===Feminist Theory===
The science of sociology would not be complete without the [[Feminist Sociology|feminist]] perspective. While feminism continues today to be a point of contention, it nevertheless has an important contribution to the science. At the time when sociology was born, and throughout its early years, women were not regarded as full citizens in the same way as men. The best evidence to support that position, is the role women played in the home and their limited participation outside the home. Feminist theory focuses on "the system of male domination in society" (Brym, 2001:15). This theory maintains that the relative positions of men and women in society is a social construct, which can and should be changed for the benefit of all members of society. Feminist theory examines structures on both a macrolevel and microlevel setting. The theory holds that the inequalities are institutionalized, even in the field of sociology. The most notable figure is Harriet Martineau, regarded as the first woman sociologist.

Example: Early theories on social inequality examined the paid work done by men, but ignored completely the unpaid work done by women in the home. To answer the question of why unpaid labour in the home would be of sociological consequence, one must consider the remuneration earned by professional house cleaning services. It is undeniable in light of this evidence, that a spouse's (or parent's) work in the home, is of economic consequence, regardless of the sex of the partner.<ref>Brym, R.J. (2001). Introducing sociology. In R.J. Brym (Ed.), New society:sociology for the 21st century (pp. 2-25). Toronto: Harcourt.</ref><ref>Abercrombie, N., Hill, S. & Turner, B.S. (2000). The penguin dictionary of sociology (4th ed.). Toronto:Penguin.</ref>

'''Key Figures:''' Harriet Martineau, Charlotte Perkins Gilman

;Notable works include
:''Women and Economics: A Study of the Economic Relation Between Men and Women as a Factor in Social Evolution.'' by Charlotte Perkins Gilman
:''Illustrations of Political Economy'' by Harriet Martineau

==Top Ten Most Influential Books==

# Max Weber, Economy and Society
# C. Wright Mills, The Sociological Imagination
# Robert Merton, Social Theory and Social Structure
# Max Weber, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism
# P.L. Berger and T. Luckmann, The Social Construction of Reality
# Pierre Bourdieu, Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste
# Norbert Elias, The Civilizing Process
# Jürgen Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action
# Talcott Parsons, The Structure of Social Action
# Erving Goffman, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life

Source: [http://www.isa-sociology.org/books/books10.htm Books of the Century]

==External Links==

===Professional Organizations===
* [http://www.asanet.org/ American Sociological Association]
* [http://www.csaa.ca Canadian Sociology and Anthropology Association]
* [http://www.isa-sociology.org International Sociological Association]

===Resources===
* [http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Main_Page Project Gutenburg]
* [http://muse.jhu.edu/ Project Muse]
* [http://www.jstor.org/ Journal Storage]

==References==
<references/>



[[Category:Life Sciences]]

Talk:Black hole

2009-12-12T23:05:49Z

BenO:

==Extremely high density==

Technically, it's undefined, no? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 07:52, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

did you know the 'Black Holes FAQ', which there is a link to, was written in 1995? -stevenM

== Existence confirmed? ==

Perhaps I was hasty. I will reconsider. Any other sources I might find enlightening, perhaps from a YEC perspective? [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 15:16, 7 January 2009 (EST)

[[Talk:Atheistic Style#Black Holes]] covers it quite well. I don't know of any evidence from a '''reliable''' source that shows the existence of Black holes. This "can't be directly observed" thing reminds me a bit too much of evolution. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 12:16, 9 January 2009 (EST)
:Even wikipedia's article notes that all of the different pieces of evidence of a black hole are problematic and can be explained by other sources. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 12:21, 9 January 2009 (EST)

::This is why the article starts by stating "A black hole is a '''theoretical''' mass with an escape velocity greater than the speed of light. They cannot be observed directly, but several have been identified via indirect observation" I also don't see how NASA or UCLA Berkely are unreliable sources for astronomy. As for "can't be directly observed",there are numerous articles on CP related to Intelligent Design that don't rely on direct observations of a designer to discuss the apparent presence of design in nature.

::The beauty of science that it's always open to review and reassessment as new discoveries come to light. In time man's understanding of Black Holes may be different from this article, but we owe the readers the best current explanations available. I'm not suggesting censorship - all credible alternate theories should be listed, but stating that there have been no observations of one is false - by definition they are not directly observable, so proving they exist relies on indirect observation and physics. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 12:38, 9 January 2009 (EST)

:::There is no place called "UCLA Berkely".
:::ID is bolstered by the direct observation available from Genesis.
:::The best explanation is not always the explanation espoused by Californians.
:::We know how our universe began. If NASA & discovery.com deny it, they lose credibility, and their other statements come under greater scrutiny. If you met someone today who insisted that the sky is red and that Sears closes at 10, you would be wise to check the store hours yourself. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 13:58, 9 January 2009 (EST)

::::Okay, my mistake regarding Berkely notwithstanding, my last reversion is based on two simple things. The word "is" should not be replaced by "would be" - it ''is'' a characteristic of black holes within the theory that describes them. Second, the use of [[Big Science]] as a term on CP was started by an admitted parodist, and equating NASA with it, frankly comes across as parody as well. Instead of diluting references to good science, spend more time supporting alternate explanations constructively. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 14:07, 9 January 2009 (EST)

:::::"Would be" is appropriate for hypothetical things. We say "Dole would have been a better President than Clinton," not "Dole was a better President than Clinton," even "within a theory that describes" Dole as being elected.
:::::"Big Science" was used in ''[[Expelled]]''. You don't think that was parody, do you?
:::::"Berkely" isn't a place, either.
:::::It seems like I'm the only one trying to make constructive edits towards a compromise. I guess this is not surprising, given the content on [[User:DinsdaleP]]. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 14:26, 9 January 2009 (EST)

::::::BHarlan, I believe that you do not understand a small but important bit of information, most astronomical discoveries are collaborative efforts usually initiated by small independent astronomers. When you say big science you could classify biosciences like that, but astronomy is totally different.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 14:19, 9 January 2009 (EST)

::::::The so-called "evidence" for Black holes does not fit a pattern like the one you describe. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 14:26, 9 January 2009 (EST)

(unindent)

I'm not making any other changes to the revision just posted by Aschlafly. To BHarlan, I make no apologies for my User Page content. If the CP leadership wishes to block me over my [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/DinsdaleP contributions] they have the right to do so at any time, but I feel that my efforts here are constructive even when I disagree with others. Feel free to have the last word on this, I'm moving on to other topics. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 14:45, 9 January 2009 (EST)

Black holes have been spotted by a number of well-respected astronomical institutes for decades, with those discoveries tested and confirmed repeatedly. Your edits are unsupported by either fact or citation Andy, so under the rules youelf created I have no choice but to revert your edits, whereas the edits saying that black holes have been spotted are fully cited with references from reputable sources including NASA, an organisation fully backed by all US Governments, including conservative governments, since its inception.-[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 15:47, 9 January 2009 (EST)

:Your sarcastic edit comments are not welcome here. You might want to check "youelf", else you might end up wrecking youelf.
:Also, you always have a choice! Do you deny this choice? That is a typical sentiment of materialists. If you do not believe in your soul, you will receive a nasty surprise pretty soon, and it won't just be the non-existence of black holes!
:Also, that is not how "whereas" is used in standard English.
:Also, NASA has taken a sad left turn as of late. This is one of the reasons the U.S.A.F. has its own space program. Do you see?
:Also, may God bless you. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 16:10, 9 January 2009 (EST)

::My my, I miss a 's' in a typo and you decide to launch an ad hominem attack… Very 'christian' of you, or then again; not.
::''"Also, that is not how "whereas" is used in standard English".'' That might not be how you use it with your standard of English, but as anyone who has been taught the correct way to use the English language knows, it's perfectly correct. Oh, and a little, free, friendly lesson regarding the use of written English : You never start consecutive paragraphs with the same word unless it is absolutely necessary, which, in your above post it wasn't. If you are having trouble with your synonyms I heartily recommend using a thesaurus.
::The military space research programmes exist solely to explore the possible military applications of space. All civilian space programmes, including government projects run through the relevant Space Agencies (NASA, ESA, etc.). This is common knowledge amongst those who know anything about this subject.
::Stating that black holes don't exist is akin to believing the moon landing was faked. The existence of black holes and the fact that they have been spotted is undisputed by anyone who has the knowledge and experience to know what they are looking at. I have had the privilege of seeing two of these black holes myself. They are out there and have been spotted, and that is a direct, firsthand witness statement.
::May you be touched by his noodly appendage, or if that isn't your cup of tea, may you be blessed by the goat Heidrún. RAmen.-[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 17:06, 10 January 2009 (EST)

:::* It's "an 's'", not "a 's'".
:::* If you missed just one 's', then that part of the sentence would read "under the rules youself created", which is ''still'' wrong.
:::* If you missed an 'r' and an 's', then that part of the sentence would read "under the rules yourself created", which is '''still''' wrong.
:::* An [[ad hominem]] attack means to reply to the logic in your arguments by attacking your character. I did no such thing. I didn't attack your character in any way. I asked if you were a materialist, then pointed out that materialists are Hell-bound. If you have a problem with your final resting place, I suggest you reconsider your path in life. I do not suggest that the Hell-bound are never able to make logical arguments.
:::* "Christian" is capitalized. Did you leave it uncapitalized on purpose? If so, I suggest you blaspheme somewhere else.
:::* That is not how semicolons are used in standard English.
:::* You need a comma after "but" for the aside.
:::* You do not need commas around "friendly", just like you don't need commas around "red" in "big red inflatable ball"
:::* I will not discuss the friendly lesson here, except to note that stylistic choices are different than maintaining correctness. Comma placement and word choice are different beasts.
:::* The sentence starting "All civilian" has no main verb, so I can't respond to it.
:::* Hyperbole about the moon landing is simply rhetoric. If there is no argument, there can be no response.
:::* Wikipedia may accept your anonymous evidence, but we are more careful here.
:::* Black holes can't be seen. What I suppose you mean is that you infer their existence. Your inference is not particularly convincing.
:::* Please take your graven goat pasta idols elsewhere. Here we show some simple respect for God.
:::* I am done with this pointless, blasphemous discussion. It is not encyclopedic. I suggest you contribute to this encyclopedia. It is a good way to improve your writing skills. I have been contributing partially for that reason. Maybe you could join me in adding articles and value, rather than taking the name of my Lord in vain?
:::* If you decide not to, you may have the last word here, as I will no longer reply to this silliness. I hope you will decide to contribute instead. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 18:33, 10 January 2009 (EST)
:::: *Sigh* ''"a wit, an arrow, across the head it passed, an apple not pierced today"'', an 'r' and an 's', my apologies, how can such typos be left to pass, expecially when they are nothing to do with the argument at hand, well done for picking up such niggling detail, and yet avoiding the point of the argument. Admittedly I missed the n in an, but again, a typo, they happen. ''"Wikipedia may accept your anonymous evidence, but we are more careful here"'', how does evidence from NASA count as anonymous evidence?…at all?…in any way?…whatsoever? As for an ad hominen attack, your argument provided no evidence against the existence of black holes, merely an attack on myself, the purest definition of ad hominen (a course in Latin will help you there). Christian or christian, depends on how you want to write it and on your own beliefs. Me, not my belief, and as I don't believe I cannot blaspheme, after all, how can you blaspheme against something that does not exist to be blasphemed? Use of semicolons in standard English? Again, I refer you to the fact the your standard of English might not be sufficient to use them in such regard. I recommend increasing your quality of English by beginning with Chaucer and reading your way up. At some point you will realise that the use of English in any form is an art, not a science, and that language is to be used in such a way as to provoke delight, wonder and thought with its writing, and beyond the obvious rules of form, there are no hard and fast rules, merely that of metre, pace and illumination. ''"The sentence starting "All civilian" has no main verb, so I can't respond to it"'', '''run''', it's a verb, hard to miss, I'll admit to missing a comma (the sentence should read ''"All civilian space programmes, including government projects, run through the relevant Space Agencies (NASA, ESA, etc.)"'', but missing the word '''run''' *shakes head in disbelief*: if you insist on a purer form for that sentence, how about "All civilian space programmes, including government projects, are run through the relevant Space Agencies (NASA, ESA, etc.)", but all things being equal, both sentences say the same thing. Moon landing = the sum of evidence gathered concerning the existence of black holes, and that they have been spotted, is greater than the evidence that the moon landing occurred in 1969, hence the corollary. ''"Please take your graven goat pasta idols elsewhere. Here we show some simple respect for God"'', I found it offensive that you forced your beliefs on me, now you have found it offensive when I have forced my beliefs on you, with luck you will have learnt a lesson there, don't force your beliefs and prayers on me and I will return the favour by not blessing you with a little sarcastic FSM (oh, and a little FYI, the word graven means carved and I'm sure that the old FSM hasn't been carved yet and, in addition, I doubt that there are any extant carvings of Thor's goats, although I'm willing to admit that I might be wrong in that regard.)--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 22:13, 13 January 2009 (EST)

I have researched an extensive amount about black holes, and am about to add more information to the article that I hope will prove to be interesting and useful (I will, of course, cite my sources). I am also adding a couple of updates, as some of the information in the article is dated. As a topic about which scientists are still learning, that happens a lot. I hope the updates will improve the quality of the article and its use for educational purposes. [[User:BlueMoon|BlueMoon]] 15:26, 24 June 2009 (EDT)

== Impossible? ==

"A black hole is a theoretical prediction of the theory of relativity. It is impossible to prove that a black hole does not exist, and thus it fails the falsifiability requirement of science."

Actually this is not true. first off, the simplest explination of a black hole is an object so dense its escape velocity exceeds the speed of light. This density is known as the schrawtzshield radius (the spelling may be a bit off)This means there is mathematical proof. If this was not the case there would be no black holes Also, if black holes didnt exist we would never see objects being pulled into nothingness, or massive event horizons, which we do in fact see. --[[User:BenO|BenO]] 18:05, 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)

:No, that's the point- to be scientific, something has to be able to be proven wrong. That is a major part of the scientific method. For example, God is not a scientific concept, because you cannot disprove God. But to be science, one of the criterion is that the idea be able to be disproven.

:Falsifiability is not the ''only'' criterion for whether something is scientific, so perhaps black holes are not ''unscientific.'' But that opening is pretty much accurate. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 17:50, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

:: Black holes are falsifiable as a theory, because the observations generally accepted as caused by black holes ''could'' be causes something else, however there is no alternative theory ''at present'' to explain the phenomenon. However you cannot prove that a black hole ''could never'' exist just as you cannot prove atoms, or anything, could never exist. God is not a scientific theory not because it is impossible to absolutely disprove God (impossible to prove that God could never possibly exist) but because the supernatural cannot be shown to exist through science, which deals only with the natural universe, if you could present a theory God existed in science, that god would no longer be supernatural by definition.

:: Honestly I don't understand the objection to black holes, there is no conservative reason for it. --[[User:BMcP|BMcP]] 19:04, 1 July 2009 (EST)

:::The existence of black holes is ''not'' falsifiable. Surely you agree with that. Black holes cannot be observed either. Addison explained the flaw well above, but you seem intent on sticking with your beliefs. Believe what you like, but black holes do not satisfy any sensible definition of science.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:37, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

:::: The possible existence of anything is not falsifiable, black holes, quarks, gods, even godzilla, only theories are falsifiable, such as the theory that explain what black holes are and how they work. The present theories of black holes are falsifiable, but so far no one has successfully debunked them, or offer an alternate scientific theory for the phenomenon attributed to the effects and properties of black holes. We cannot observe an isolated quark directly, but we accept that theory.

:::: However I cannot change one's mind, that is fine, I made my objections known, I am not going to step on people's toes by attempting to change the page, I just believe it is scientifically incorrect in it's proclamation and could stand to be improved for a better article. I have said what I believe needed to be said and will end my part here, anyone feel free to respond with the last word or contact me privately. --[[User:BMcP|BMcP]] 21:07, 1 July 2009 (EST)

:::::Thank you for your interest. Note that atoms have actually been observed (in refutation of what you said above, "you cannot prove atoms, or anything, could never exist". I don't think the article will be changed though. Black holes are sort of on the fence between observable, testable physics, and "theoretical" physics, e.g. string theory. There are a million sources where you can get the standard overview of black holes. Why not have a different view here? Wikipedia does not even ''mention'' the issue of falsifiability, so we are doing a service to the scientific method by at least bringing it up- even if you think the article's conclusion is wrong. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 21:23, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

:::::In addition to Addison's comments, note that some theories ''are'' [[falsifiable]] (such as Newton's theory of gravity), while other theories are ''not'' falsifiable, such as the theory that black holes must exist or [[string theory]]. And when a theory is not falsifiable, it is not science. If BMcP proposes an alternative definition of science, then let's hear it, but I doubt he'll do better than [[Karl Popper]] in making [[falsifiability]] part of the definition.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:45, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

Guys, this is becoming quite the argument; however, it is unnecessary because the idea that black holes exist ''is'' falsifiable. If NASA sends probes out to nearby black holes (which would take a long time, but it's possible), and they all turn out to be ancient Spartans in spaceships or whatever, then scientists will conclude that black holes don't exist and start working on how Spartans came to be in space and why they have accretion disks, etc. So black holes are falsifiable, and this argument is a source of unnecessary tension. [[User:BlueMoon|BlueMoon]] 12:55, 8 July 2009 (EDT)

I don't get this non-falsifiable argument. If we see light from a star, then it is not a black hole. Any claim that it is a black hole is then falsified. Black hole theory says that a star becomes a black hole whenever its mass goes inside its Schwarzschild radius, it becomes a black hole. So if we ever find a star that emits light and has its mass inside its Schwarzschild radius, then the theory is falsified. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 10:32, 28 July 2009 (EDT)
:The problem with that argument is that we live light years away, so what we could be seeing at one moment could be just the beginning before the light is swallowed into the black hole. --[[User:ChrisZ|ChrisZ]] 11:01, 28 July 2009 (EDT)

:: No, we can observe the radius, mass, and light all at the same time. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:07, 28 July 2009 (EDT)

::: Should we change the article then, seeing how there's no rebuttal to [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]]'s post regarding the falsifiability of the black hole theory? [[User:ATang|ATang]] 11:03, 6 August 2009 (EDT)

:::: 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)

::::: 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)

:::::: How might one falsify the basic assertion about black holes: that black holes exist such that light cannot escape? Every time one observes light escaping, he simply concludes that it is not a black hole.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:31, 9 August 2009 (EDT)

:::::::Mr. Schlafly, you're absolutely right that the general claim, "There are mysterious regions of space from which light cannot escape" is an unverifiable claim. Black holes don't refer to this statement - they refer to the specific statement, "It is possible to concentrate a certain amount of mass, so that the gravity of that mass prevents light from escaping." This could be falsified by experiments in particle accelerators (possibly the LHC, I'm not familiar enough with it to know) which could demonstrate that such concentration of matter is impossible - that degeneracy pressures, currently unknown, prevent such it. This would falsify the claim that black holes exist. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 11:52, 9 August 2009 (EDT)

:::::::: I have an open mind about this, but fail to see how an inability to generate a black hole using a generator would falsify the existence of black holes in outer space. Most likely those who believe in black holes would simply say that higher and higher energies or densities are needed to generate it in particle accelerators.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:16, 9 August 2009 (EDT)

::::::::: You're right that failure to create a microscopic black hole in a lab wouldn't falsify the idea that they can form. What I'm claiming is that research which aims, not to create microscopic black holes, but to gain more insight into the forces that govern the behavior of sub atomic particles, might unearth evidence that would refute black holes.
::::::::: Here's how: right now, the theory on black hole formation states that as matter accumulates, first electron degeneracy pressure is overcome (that is, the structure of the matter in question would be not atoms side by side, but atomic nuclei side by side with no electrons in between), then the nuclear degeneracy pressure is overcome, that is, one would not longer have nuclei side by side, but neutrons and protons side by side (a neutron star), and then finally, this neutron degeneracy pressure is overcome and the matter becomes so dense it is contained by its own Schwarzchild radius and becomes a black hole.
::::::::: It is entirely plausible that a particle accelerator of sufficient power could concentrate matter to overcome the neutron degeneracy pressure only to discover a quark degeneracy pressure, or some other force. It is also possible that this new force would require SO MUCH matter to be overcome, as to be unphysical (for example, it might take more matter than is currently believed to exist to overcome the pressure). If this pressure was to prevent matter from being denser than the Schwarzschild limit, then the claim that black holes exist would be forever disproven and falsified. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 12:43, 9 August 2009 (EDT)

::::::::: Additional note: As RSchlafly points out, there are many claims about black holes which ARE unfalsifiable, currently - as he points out, claims about the interior of the event horizon are not falsifiable. Similarly, predictions regarding their presence in certain locations are not falsifiable by any means we yet possess. The same criticism could be leveled at my above description of an experiment in nuclear-density matter. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 12:56, 9 August 2009 (EDT)

:::::::::: We cannot determine what is happening in the "interior" (inside the event horizon) but that doesn't make a black hole itself not falsifiable. We are not sure what the interior of a neutron star is at all, but I think everyone here agrees they do exist. Also just because you cannot visually see something (such as a black hole, where light cannot escape from inside the event horizon) doesn't mean it isn't there or falsifiable. Most astronomical study of space is not in the visual spectrum, and there are many ways to determine the existence of a black hole. I also must point out, there has been no alternative hypotheses to explain the gravitational effects we presently attribute to black holes. Also, as pointed out before, if we are able to find an object of sufficient mass within the Schwarzschild radius, which normally would continue to collapse into a gravitational singularity (Black Hole) ''but has not'', that would disprove the theory of Black holes right there, or in other words falsify them. For example, if we found an object the same mass of our Sun, and was smaller then its Schwarzschild radius of around 3 km (the Schwarzschild radius for an object of that mass) and it '''did not''' collapse into a black hole, then the theory of Black Holes ''would be proven false''. --[[User:BMcP|BMcP]] 08:14, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

::::::::::: I hate to disagree with BMcP, because we share the same goal here (getting the non-falsifiability statement removed from the article), but there was a lot of bad science in that response and we should have an argument based in facts and truth.

::::::::::: '''I also must point out, there has been no alternative hypotheses to explain the gravitational effects we presently attribute to black holes.'''
:::::::::::: That's not entirely true. In my previous posts, I mentioned that discovering a sufficiently powerful quark degeneracy pressure could disprove the existence of "black holes." Objects which are prevent from gravitational collapse by quark degeneracy pressure, "quark stars," could explain a good deal of phenomenon currently attributed to black holes could be very adequately explained by such phenomenon - extraordinary x-ray sources, quasars, all these rely on on the affects of a large amount of mass concentrated in a small space, not necessarily a Schwarschild radius. Which brings me to
::::::::::: '''if we are able to find an object of sufficient mass within the Schwarzschild radius, which normally would continue to collapse into a gravitational singularity (Black Hole) ''but has not'', that would disprove the theory of Black holes right there, or in other words falsify them."
:::::::::::: Any object which is completely contained in a Schwarzschild radius is automatically a black hole, regardless of whether or not it has collapsed into a singularity or not. Furthermore, since the gravitation field exterior to the schwarzschild radius would be the same regardless of where the mass inside was a singularity or not, so there would be no way to tell.
::::::::::: I still think the best argument for falsifiability is the experiment I presented earlier into quark degeneracy pressure. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 12:18, 12 August 2009 (EDT)
:::::::::::: I was not aware of a hypothesis that offers a possibility of quark degeneracy pressure that would be powerful enough to resist the effects of gravity even if the mass would normally be large enough to collapse into a black hole. I agree if such pressure existed it would disprove our current theories of black hole formation.
:::::::::::: You are right, it doesn't have to be a singularity, although that is what current theories suggest happens, that gravity continues to collapse the matter inside the event horizon to the point of a singularity.[http://archive.ncsa.illinois.edu/Cyberia/NumRel/BlackHoleAnat.html] However that does not have to be true for the mass to collapse within the Schwarzschild radius to be a black hole, just that their is sufficient gravity to force particles within the horizon to be deformed in their path so they cannot leave. It is just theorized at the center of a black hole is the singularity[http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/singularity.html]. That being said, it expected that a theory of quantum gravity will feature black holes without singularities.[http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/bh_hawk.html] [http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/980420b.html]. It isn't important either way, what is important is the question, are black holes falsifiable? I think you and others have already offered examples of yes. --[[User:BMcP|BMcP]] 13:23, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

== [[Falsifiability]] ==
(no text was inserted here, but the edit summary was "the falsifiability is undeniable and should not be censored, Physicists should be taught about falsifiability as part of their curriculum")

:Based on KSorenson's remarks and what I know about the curricula at schools I've attended, physicists are indeed taught about it. It seems a stretch to say that the falsifiability is "undeniable" when in fact every editor except you has denied it. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 23:15, 12 November 2009 (EST)

::Sorry, somehow my text above was misplaced. Thanks for substituting in what I meant!

::Those who have denied that black holes lack [[falsifiability]] really seem to be denying that falsifiability should be a limit on physics.

::KSorenson cited a laundry list of philosophy-type requirements of physics majors, but conspicuously absent was emphasis on falsifiability.

::Like most college majors, physics students repeat what they're taught. If they received good grades, then it becomes even harder for them to question it. But keep in mind that the people doing the teaching are the most liberal group in the world, and they almost never encourage the student to open his mind and think critically for himself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:23, 12 November 2009 (EST)

:::Please read again, Aschlafly. I specifically cited Karl Popper as part of the curriculum in undergraduate courses on the philosophy of science. In case it's slipped your mind, Popper basically invented falsifiability as the criterion for distinguishing science from non-science.

:::Incidentally, Popper cited Einstein's theories as exemplars of rigorously falsifiable science when he constructed his criterion. He wrote about it in contrast to the quote-unquote "scientific" theories of Marx. By a happy coincidence, the very same theories of Einstein's that Popper found so admirable are the ones we're talking about here. So can you ''please,'' and I'm asking for the third time now, clarify just exactly what your gripe is?--[[User:KSorenson|KSorenson]] 00:36, 13 November 2009 (EST)

:::::Hello; I'm the user who edited this article after KSorenson. If I may jump in to this heated discussion going on at at least [[User_Talk:KSorenson|two places]] : I think what Andy's saying is that black holes themselves can never be proven to not exist, because (by definition) no one can see them or visit them and return. I think what KSorenson's saying is that [[general relativity]] states black holes are possible, and that general relativity can be falsified (e.g. by sending probes to probe the earth's gravitational field).

:::::Of course, just because general relativity hasn't been ''disproven'' doesn't mean that it's been proven. There could be a better theory which accounts for all the gravity-probe data and states that black holes don't exist. We don't know yet; that's the wonder of science: God's always put more out there for us to discover! So, we don't know that black holes do exist - that claim isn't falsifiable; we'd need to survey every square millimeter of space and say "there isn't a black hole ''here''!". But, the theory that states they ''can'' exist is falsifiable. I tried to reflect this dichotomy in my edits to this article. -- [[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 00:46, 13 November 2009 (EST)

::::::You make excellent points, particularly in your last paragraph above. The introductory paragraph to [[black hole]] would benefit from this, and please feel free to edit it again (I apologize if others deleted your work). Note, however, that it is not very practical to devise a test that could falsify General Relativity, and falsifying General Relativity would not falsify the claim that [[black holes]] exist. Black holes are far too popular in science magazines and liberal publications like the New York Times to "go away" that easily.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:52, 13 November 2009 (EST)

:::::::On Popper and relativity, Christoph von Mettenheim (http://elm.eeng.dcu.ie/~tkpw/tcr/volume-01/number-03/node3.html) writes: "Most of you will know of Popper's admiration for Einstein, and how he was inspired by the theory of relativity (and by its high refutability in contrast to the irrefutability of psychoanalysis) more than by anything else to develop the criterion of falsifiability as a demarcation between science and metaphysics (Popper 1976, pp. 37-38)." As KSorenson has already noted, relativity was the theory that inspired the notion of falsifiability in the first place. The claim that "it is not very practical to devise a test that could falsify General Relativity" is absurd on the face of it. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 10:02, 13 November 2009 (EST)

::::::::Popper's personal views are irrelevant; no one here says that Popper was a genius who was always right. It's [[falsifiability]] that is at issue, and the resistance to that simple, logical concept is astounding. People can teach Popper all they like, but it's clear that physics majors are not learning fully about falsifiability. String theory wouldn't exist in physics departments if they were.

::::::::If tests existed that might falsify General Relativity, then in the nearly 100 years since its proposal we would have seen many of them. Instead, as the latest discussion (and the famous 1919 solar eclipse) illustrate, margins of error in the experiments are typically greater than the deviations predicted by the theory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:13, 13 November 2009 (EST)

: (unindent)
: Andy raises an interesting point. In theory, it's easy to test general relativity - take KSorenson's gravity probe, for example. This wouldn't absolutely prove it; there might always be a better theory out there. But nothing can ''ever'' be absolutely proven in science - the point is that this test could disprove it. So, in theory, it's falsifiable. "[falsifiable|A proposition or theory is falsifiable if it is hypothetically possible for a test or observation to prove it false]." Of course, a hypothetical future theory might still include black holes (there's an infinite number of possible theories), but the possibility of black holes according to general relativity (how's that for a mouthful?) is falsifiable, because general relativity is falsifiable. Or, to try to say it more simply: the possibility of the particular sort of black hole predicted by general relativity (with exactly these properties, et cetera) is falsifiable. I hope I made my verbiage understandable enough for you all to agree or disagree?

:But as you point out, the solar eclipse experiment didn't test general relativity in practice: the margins of error were too big. (I don't know if that's still true with modern experiments; could someone who knows more about that fill me in?) So, while it's theoretically falsifiable, it's possible that general relativity hasn't actually been tested yet... -- [[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 10:36, 13 November 2009 (EST)

::[http://www.ias.ac.in/pramana/v63/p731/fulltext.pdf Here] is a nice review of a variety of experimental tests of general relativity, along with discussion of other experiments that may be undertaken in the future. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 10:43, 13 November 2009 (EST)

:::That all sounds basically right to me, EvanW. (Can I call you EvanW?) But from where I sit, it's even simpler.

:::*General relativity has been and is being tested, and so far the tests have confirmed the theory. That might change any minute, but it's still true so far.

:::*General relativity says that black holes are possible, and that if they exist they'll have certain properties.

:::*We've seen objects in the sky that have those properties, and that aren't predicted by any other existing theory. We're studying those objects as hard as we can given the limits of distance, to see if they really do walk and quack like ducks. Until we see something un-ducky, we say "Yeah, those look like ducks to us."

:::This really isn't complicated as far as I can tell, and I'm really baffled as to why we're still yaking about it amongst ourselves.

:::Aschlafly, if you want to expand the living daylights out of the "Controversy" section, I'll be right there by your side, cheering you on and helping in any way I can. As long as your contributions aren't misleading or incorrect. I don't want to speak for anyone else, but my gut tells me that EvanW and MarkGall would make the same promise. So why are we still bickering? Can't we improve the article instead? I know having to respond here is taking away from the time I set aside today to add to the [[general theory of relativity]] article. --[[User:KSorenson|KSorenson]] 10:54, 13 November 2009 (EST)

:::: Mark cited Clifford Will's government-funded 2004 article on proof for General Relativity, but that paper is very "thin" and in a mere 15-minute review several weaknesses are apparent. But thanks for the citation, Mark.

:::: This is a site where logic prevails. If you want to say that black holes are consistent with General Relativity (though rejected by Einstein), and General Relativity might be falsifiable (though tests will sufficient accuracy are difficult and expensive), that's fine. But black holes themselves, like life in outer space, are not falsifiable. It's basic logic, and that doesn't change whether all accept the logic or not.

:::: There's a broader point here. Why the big push for black holes by liberals, and big protests against any objection to them? If it turned out empirically that promoting black holes tends to cause people to read the Bible less, would you still push this so much? Certainly there is no practical justification to pushing black holes; no one will ever be helped by them in any way.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:03, 13 November 2009 (EST)

::::: I haven't had time to read the Clifford Will paper yet, and I don't think I've got the expertise to judge it well. But, I think we've come to an agreement here:
:::::# Black holes themselves can't be falsified (except by surveying every cubic millimeter of space)
:::::# General relativity says they are possible.
:::::# General relativity is falsifiable (theoretically), but it's hard to falsify.
:::::# Therefore, the possibility of black-holes-as-specified-by-general-relativity is falsifiable.
::::: As for why the media's pushing black holes - hey, they're interesting to read about! Myself, by Occam's razor, I don't think any more explanation is needed. As for why KSorenson and I are pushing them - I can't speak for KSorenson, but I'm trying to defend falsifiability and the concept of a scientific theory, just like (I think) you are: general relativity is a legitimate scientific theory, because it can theoretically be falsified. -- [[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 12:15, 13 November 2009 (EST)

:::::: Evan, I appreciate your comments and have learned from them. My question was directed at KSorenson and Mark, not to you. But using your answer, it doesn't explain the insistence by liberals on downplaying or even censoring criticism of black holes. And one key question is unanswered: if promoting black holes caused people to read the Bible less, would you want to promote them? They certainly won't ever help anyone, while the Bible might.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:22, 13 November 2009 (EST)

:::::::Aschlafly, you seem to be more interested in arguing (now apparently about politics and religion of all things) than you are in improving the article. This is fine. If you want to contribute to the article in any way at all, I'll be here to help however I can. I would ask you to please think carefully before adding a misleading assertion like "Einstein rejected black holes" (which doesn't tell the whole truth) or "black hole theory is unfalsifiable," because doing so would just hurt the article, misinform anyone who reads it and waste the time of any editor who feels like trying to fix it.

:::::::Meanwhile, I'm going to finish filling out the [[general theory of relativity]] article. If you find some aspect of ''that'' one that you want to argue about in the same way you've argued about this article … well, don't bother. I've grown weary of the endless, pointless, going-nowhere talk, and I'm going to focus on making constructive contributions until I get bored of it, or I run out of useful things to add. You're obviously free to take those contributions and use them as you will, or throw them in the trash. It really doesn't matter to me one way or the other.

:::::::And finally, as to whether "this is a site where logic prevails," I've always been an actions-speak-louder-than-words sort of girl. The article is here; I have made my contribution to it. Whether logic (or for that matter, intellectual honesty) prevails is something I look forward to finding out. --[[User:KSorenson|KSorenson]] 12:29, 13 November 2009 (EST)

::::::::KSorenson, I've responded to your concerns and answered your questions and Evan has proposed a logical, clear solution. You find no fault with it, but ignore it. I asked you a simple question, "if promoting black holes cause people to read the Bible less, would you want to promote them?" Not only do you refuse to answer, you rant on and on. Please, please open your mind, for your sake.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:39, 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 ==

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)

:Agreed, and I tried to explain in the introduction how black holes "can never be conclusively proved or disproved," because of how no light escapes them. If you think it can be phrased better, please change the conclusion. But, I don't think we need to mention in the intro to this '''black hole''' article how '''[[wormholes]]''' are also unfalsifiable. It should be in the intro to the [[wormhole]] article, but I don't think it needs to be here. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 21:12, 30 November 2009 (EST)

::Black holes and wormholes were predicted by relativity in a similar way, and both are not falsifiable and thus arguably not science. The term "[[falsifiable]]" has a real meaning and your replacement isn't quite the same. The point is that if black holes are false and non-existent, then there is no way to show that. Ditto for wormholes, and in that information should be in the introduction, not buried thousands of words later.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:36, 30 November 2009 (EST)

:::I don't really understand wormholes myself. It seems to me that they're a different subject and that mentioning them actually detracts from our points about black holes; however, I'll defer to you on keeping them there. And thanks for your point about the meaning in the specific word "[[falsifiable]]". My main point is that we should explain why "you can't prove there isn't a black hole somewhere in the universe" is different from "you can't prove there isn't Jack Smith somewhere in the world": because "black holes cannot be observed from outside, since not even light escapes." So, I tried to restore the chain of reasoning; I tacked wormholes on the end because I can't see a better place to put them. If you disagree with how I phrased the non-falsifiability sentence, I'd appreciate if you could try to fix that rather than revert the whole paragraph. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 23:30, 30 November 2009 (EST)

:::: Well skipping the question of why light is needed to prove something's existence, I find this sentence most disturbing: "What actually exists inside the event horizon of a black hole is a question physics '''is''' unable to answer. " Over the original "What actually exists inside the event horizon of a black hole is a question physics '''has thus far been''' unable to answer." The original sentence is much more accurate. You cannot say with absolute certainty that physics will never be able to answer what is beyond the event horizon, because there is always the possibility that question will be answered someday. Really that should be reverted. --[[User:BMcP|BMcP]] 09:49, 1 December 2009 (EST)

::::: I only changed the intro, which does not contain your phrase, but there are structural (intended?) theoretical barriers to testing claims about what is inside a black hole. It's speculation ''ad nauseum''.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:00, 1 December 2009 (EST)

::::::Andy, would you mind explaining why it's "excuses" to explain why black holes are non-falsifiable? If you have a better explanation, I'd appreciate if you could add it. Right now, the article just states it without proof, leaving any readers wondering. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 10:02, 1 December 2009 (EST)

:::::::Black holes are non-falsifiable for reasons beyond the inability of light to escape. In many ways this is the science magazines' replacement for the UFO craze of the 50s through 80s, which culminated in the record-breaking movie "E.T." The alleged existence of "E.T." is also non-falsifiable, and hence not science.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:28, 1 December 2009 (EST)

:::::::To be fair EvanW, some of us do accept the idea they are falsifiable (and certainly detectable) and an actual scientific theory. Just a personal FYI. --[[User:BMcP|BMcP]] 10:37, 1 December 2009 (EST)

::::::::Point. Are you talking about the old debate with KSorenson here, where I pointed out, "So, we don't know that black holes do exist - that claim isn't falsifiable; we'd need to survey every <s>square</s>'''cubic''' millimeter of space and say 'there isn't a black hole here!'"? It seems that's a somewhat academic point: you could just as well say, "The existence of Jack Smith isn't falsifiable; you'd need to survey every square millimeter of the earth and say 'he isn't here'". If you want to say their existence isn't falsifiable because of that, be my guest but please explain the reason in the article. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 10:49, 1 December 2009 (EST)

:::::::::No, in the idea that we claim black hole's exist because we have positive evidence for their existence, in other words, we can detect their presence in the universe. They can be falsified through showing with evidence that what we believer are black holes are actually something else, or find a stellar phenomenon that should according to present theories be a black hole, but isn't. --[[User:BMcP|BMcP]] 13:19, 1 December 2009 (EST)

::::::::The theory that extraterrestials might exist is a special case of scientific theory, with the burden of proof being on the proponents. They must produce one, or concede that they are just hoping. There's a longstanding battle between materialists and religious people about a number of scientific issues, and the [[burden of proof]] is often inconsistent. Is [[evolution]] falsifiable? What sort of evidence would make its proponents give up? (Note: if there is no way they would ever concede being wrong, then they are not engaged in [[science]] but in [[propaganda]]. This is a very serious point.) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:01, 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)