> In real science
> one does not keep "revisiting some assumptions"
> for each new discovery
> and then say "black holes do best fit the data"
Then it should be quite easy for you to find real published, peer-reviewed science that backs your statement. You're asking me to defend the science behind black holes, when you haven't even shown exactly where black hole theory (or whatever you want to call it) falls short. Further, I'm not responsible for that science, but unlike you, I give specialists the benefit of the doubt - in their specialty. I defer to them until I have reason not to.
> 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
Can you explain every one of the black hole theories from the beginning until now? And can you explain how they have each been wrong? Specifically?
> 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?
Let's work our way through your claim above first, shall we? Because, as of right now, you haven't shown that only one of those "theories" is wrong.
> theories are suppose to PREDICT discoveries
> and not constantly require modifications to the
> making changes to your theory AFTERWARD to make
> things fit
> means you don't know jack about what is really
> going on. PERIOD
Well, we'll see after you explain the specific shortcomings of all of the black hole theories.
Go on, we're waiting.