laughin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> OCaptain Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > laughin Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > hi bz,
> > >
> > > isn't it odd at the certainty "scientists"
> have
> > > with this event.
> > > both the "sound of two black holes colliding"
> > > originally detected
> > > and now this burst of gamma radiation,
> > especially
> > > when "no radiation
> > > was expected" since nothing can escape a
> black
> > > hole.
> > >
> > > if it doesn't walk like a duck,
> > > or talk like a duck
> > > maybe it's not a duck
> > > so instead of modifying "how black holes
> work"
> > > to fit the new data
> > > admit something is amiss
> > >
> > > they found something, just not "two black
> holes
> > > colliding"
> >
> >
> > Like what? Using your duck theory, what best
> fits
> > the data?
>
> I don't have anything that fits the data
> the thing is.... neither do they
> so why not just say "here's something interesting
> let's put it in the unknown column for now"


Black Holes do best fit the data. The fact that the observation revealed something unexpected is a confirmation that the science is working. It is imperfect, hence they are having to go back and revisit some assumptions. It doesn't upend black holes existing at all.