Changes

#''Computer simulations based on the theory of relativity predict far more black holes than are observed''.

#''Computer simulations based on the theory of relativity predict far more black holes than are observed''.

#:The first cited article says absolutely nothing about the ''number'' of black holes, modeled or observed.  It is about a discrepancy between computer models predicting the ''masses'' of black holes at the centers of galaxies and the observed masses.  The article suggests a heretofore-unmodeled mechanism whereby galaxy evolution would cause less mass to go into the black holes.  The article in no way suggests that black holes don't exist.  The second cited article, from National Geographic, November 6, 2014, is about whether an object speeding past Sagittarius A* is a star or merely a gas cloud, concluding that it is a star.  No scientist doubts that the thing that this object is speeding past, Sagittarius A*, is a black hole.

#:The first cited article says absolutely nothing about the ''number'' of black holes, modeled or observed.  It is about a discrepancy between computer models predicting the ''masses'' of black holes at the centers of galaxies and the observed masses.  The article suggests a heretofore-unmodeled mechanism whereby galaxy evolution would cause less mass to go into the black holes.  The article in no way suggests that black holes don't exist.

::::Are you denying that the theory of relativity predicts far more black holes than are observed?

#:::The issue of computer simulations' prediction of the expected number of black holes is a matter of cosmology and galactic evolution, not relativity itself.  Kepler's laws of motion would be true even if there happened to be no planets in the universe.  Relativity makes no predictions about the number of black holes we should expect to find. (When Einstein formulated the theory, he expected that number to be zero.) The Einstein field equations simply show that such things are theoretically possible.

#:The second cited article, from National Geographic, November 6, 2014, is about whether a certain object speeding past Sagittarius A* is a star or merely a gas cloud, concluding that it is a star.  No scientist doubts that the thing that this object is speeding past, Sagittarius A*, is a black hole. The assertion "it is doubtful whether black holes even exist" is totally unsupported by the cited article, or any other article that we know of.

#''Quasars are disappearing, contrary to the theory of relativity''.

#''Quasars are disappearing, contrary to the theory of relativity''.

#:Relativity does not predict quasars; relativity was formulated in 1905, and quasars weren't discovered until the 1950s.  The word "relativity" does not occur anywhere in the cited article.

#:Relativity does not predict quasars; relativity was formulated in 1905, and quasars weren't discovered until the 1950s.  The word "relativity" does not occur anywhere in the cited article.

#:

#:

#:::It's one thing to speculate on science; it's quite another to speculate on the motives of scientists, particularly the idea that scientists are embarrassed by their knowledge that relativity is wrong, and that they are covering up this embarrassment as part of some political agenda.

#:::It's one thing to speculate on science; it's quite another to speculate on the motives of scientists, particularly the idea that scientists are embarrassed by their knowledge that relativity is wrong, and that they are covering up this embarrassment as part of some political agenda.

#::::REPLY: The relativists' silence in the journals about increasingly precise measurements of the advance of the perihelion of Mercury is akin to the famous story of the dog that didn't bark, which is itself compelling proof.

#::::'''REPLY''': The relativists' silence in the journals about increasingly precise measurements of the advance of the perihelion of Mercury is akin to the famous story of the dog that didn't bark, which is itself compelling proof.

#:::::You can't just invoke the Sherlock Holmes ''Silver Blaze'' story to support any claim you wish to make.  In that story, Holmes knew that the guilty person had to have been in a certain house at a certain time.  The dog would have barked if that person had been a stranger, because dogs bark at strangers.  Therefore, the villain was in his own house.  There was a specific and credible chain of logic from the non-barking dog to the identification of the guilty party.

#:::::You can't just invoke the Sherlock Holmes ''Silver Blaze'' story to support any claim you wish to make.  In that story, Holmes knew that the guilty person had to have been in a certain house at a certain time.  The dog would have barked if that person had been a stranger, because dogs bark at strangers.  Therefore, the villain was in his own house.  There was a specific and credible chain of logic from the non-barking dog to the identification of the guilty party.

#:

#: