Difference between revisions of "Talk:Black hole"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(→Existence confirmed?: discussed elsewhere) |
RodWeathers (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
[[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) | [[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) | ||
Revision as of 17:21, January 9, 2009
Extremely high density
Technically, it's undefined, no? 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? 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. 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. - Rod Weathers 12:21, 9 January 2009 (EST)