Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
> > "We start with effects actually seen in the lab, which I think gives it
> > more credibility than black holes"
> >
> > evidence.
>
> The effects of what appear to be black holes are seen in astronomy. Just not
> in the lab as such.
>
> > If we assume blackholes exist, without much evidence so far,
>
> A fair amount of evidence, actually.

Yes, but according to the article you linked, QM physicists are giving another
explanation for the same effects without the paradoxes blackholes carry, the
same ones we were avidly discussing about previously:  the "lost information"
and the "after-image" effect of something crossing the EH as seen from an
external observer.  Of course, they are trying to explain it by relying on a
supposed dark matter star that has never been detected before either. :P

Surely the Dark side is very sneaky!

OTOH, will we ever witness such object, blackhole or dark matter star?  Such
humongous gravitational force surely has many objects orbiting it,
"overcrowded" as clipka mentioned, and most of it being gas and stars, so what
is the chance of seeing what isn't supposed to be seen except against a clear
starry background?

Post a reply to this message