On 1/16/20 6:31 AM, wrote:

As in, they've never been actually seen , observed, or otherwise demonstrated, in any way whatsoever.


Are you familiar with the scientific process?


Not sure what you're trying to say.

I stand by my assertion that black holes are essentially theoretical because none have ever been reliably confirmed etc.


Just trying to get a firm understanding on where you're coming from.

I say that because many people who join a camp of thought tend to have a
fundamental misunderstanding on what the established processes are
defined as.

Joe Rogan was a famous moon landing hoax guy until realizing to do so
required joining a camp. As a free thinker, he realized down the line
that he wasn't thinking rationally and that many ideas driving
conspiracies had relatively simple explanations. I applaud him for that
because he openly admitted where he went wrong and that's rare for a
person of such high fame. He drew some haters of course, from the moon
hoax community, but he didn't care because it was honest.

Back to singularities and event horizons, I find their existence
completely plausible. Having read the early hypothesis of singularities
derived from stellar evolution studies. Or bets between Hawking and
Thorne on radio sources. Or binary systems with an invisible member. The
recent imagery of accretion discs around Sag A* and M87. Gravity waves
originating from colliding black holes.. All of these provide direct
evidence of objects predicted to exist an era ago. So to me, I lend it
strong credence.

Did we move from hypothesis to theory on black holes? Their existence
certainly matches the predictions and pretty close to the predicted
models. Yes, they're not just theory but established fact.

Will we ever have full theories on what goes on within the event
horizons? Oh, I sincerely doubt it. At this point I don't think we could
give any math on that any more than hypothesis.

--
Daniel

Visit me at: gopher://gcpp.world