astroengine.com — All the evidence suggests there is a supermassive black hole lurking in the center of our galaxy. We?ve known as much for quite some time, but it wasn?t until recently that we?ve been able to confirm it. As it turns out, most galactic nuclei are predicted to contain supermassive black holes in their cores.
Jun 24, 2009 View in Crawl 4
brendansheehanJun 25, 2009
We've been years imagining them.
kyloeJun 25, 2009
A black hole will not logically exist in any reputable, fundamental, and scientifically created field.But the ideals are certainly there to create a new script.Hey, I've got a good name for one too...How about:'GenY's theory of absolutelyeverythingthatonlywefindfantasticlycool-andnottoohard.'
criticolJun 25, 2009
A black hole is just that! Its nothingness, in all its absolute gloryness of absolute vacuum, absolute coldness, and believe it or not,below absolute zero.i.e.-273C-(minus)its component parts? are so finely disseminated that the only colour? that it can display is black.
hpmnickJun 26, 2009
Again, this is just bad logic. "We don't have any better ideas, so it must be true". NO! That is not a supporting argument. It just means you can't think of anything else. It doesn't actually add any credence or logical support to the hypothesis. I made the same argument in the thread about dark matter. We see an area of high gravitation.. We then explain it with something theoretical... Then we use the extra gravitation as "evidence" for the theoretical object. This is circular reasoning at its best. We can't use gravity as evidence of the black hole - we are using the concept of a black hole to explain the gravity. You need something else to support the hypothesis, other than what caused you to form the hypothesis in the first place.I don't need any alternative theories to tell you that we don't have any real evidence of black holes. Black holes are very specific theoretical entities with very specific properties. It isn't JUST a really massive object that causes a lot of gravity... it entails a lot more than that.Instead of asking if I have any better alternatives, why don't you simply ask what supporting evidence there is for the existing hypothesis? If you don't come up with any, it could very well be wrong...
pln2bzJun 27, 2009
Also, I forgot to mention it probably because it's so obvious and has been discussed ad nauseum in countless articles, but people should know better than to consult wikipedia for obviously controversial issues. Wikipedia's stated purpose and rules are designed to favor consensus. Anybody even remotely familiar with wikipedia editing "wars" knows full well that wikipedia always sides with conventional wisdom. And yet, a cursory review of the history of science -- especially within astrophysics -- reveals that scientific consensus has frequently been wrong.
punkcatJul 25, 2009
true, all we really know is it's black.