OCaptain Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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.


In real science
one does not keep "revisiting some assumptions"
for each new discovery
and then say "black holes do best fit the data"

of course they would
when you modify your theory
to fit every new thingy that comes along

every one of the black hole theories
from the beginning until now
have been WRONG
or else they wouldn't have needed to be modified

how many times can a theory be wrong
before someone says "maybe we're going down the wrong road"
and stops and asks for new directions?

theories are suppose to PREDICT discoveries
and not constantly require modifications to the assumptions
making changes to your theory AFTERWARD to make things fit
means you don't know jack about what is really going on. PERIOD