98
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 97:
Line 97: + +
→Black Holes
:: "persay" isn't a word, and nobody said they "'discovered' the big bang theory". I said they "'discovered' the Big Bang". Do you see the difference? If you open your eyes, you will see. You will see.
:: "persay" isn't a word, and nobody said they "'discovered' the big bang theory". I said they "'discovered' the Big Bang". Do you see the difference? If you open your eyes, you will see. You will see.
:: Also, may God bless you. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 16:21, 9 January 2009 (EST)
:: Also, may God bless you. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 16:21, 9 January 2009 (EST)
:Yay, black holes in an argument. But back onto topic...BHarlan, if you mean by 'discovered' that they have actually seen a sigularity, or watched a mass become spaghettified as it reaches the hole, then no. Science has only inferred that they exist by pinpointing areas that are completely dark, surrounded by a 'ring' of light [The edge of the Event Horizon]. Thus, they have theorized that something, most likely a star collapsed upon itself, is producing enough gravity in the area to pull in even particles [or waves, depending on your slant] of light. That is how science works. A true scientist never says 'I know for certain that...', but 'I have observed and believe that...' in their hypotheses. Which means that even though the theory is sound, it could be wrong, and therefor corrected. [[User:CodyH|CodyH]] 11:43 28 March 2009 (CST)