Why is the existence of black holes so widely accepted? From what I have seen, there exists no conclusive evidence

Religions don't have multiple competing mathematical models and an underlying assumption that without evidence nothing is proven.

Black holes fall out of General Relativity, which is right about most everything else and (as I'm sure you're aware) was recently proven right again with the detection of gravitational waves - the source of which must have been two black holes (or black-hole-like objects) spiralling into one another. There would in fact be telltale signs in the waves' form that could distinguish whether they really were from vanilla GR black holes or something else, but the detector's resolution is not yet enough to have been able to see them.

There may indeed not be any such thing as a black hole, at least not as envisioned in pop culture, and indeed there are a whole shitload of people investigating that possibility. Just because you lack an up-to-date knowledge on the cutting edge of astrophysics does not mean there isn't one.

Because nothing else explains the huge gravitational pull we observe coming from the middle of nowhere.

not an argument

I am well aware of pic related but I am sceptical about that too. when was a sample size of lmao 1 ever enough to prove anything. where is the evidence that it was indeed two black holes colliding (there is none, it's just a baseless claim)

give me a break with this nonsense

people like you damage science because you do not understand the meaning of science

sounds like a perfect example of god of the gaps. in this case the gods are the black holes

BEHEAD THOSE WHO INSULT STRING THEORY

except all the observations and our understanding of gravity

...

Show me the empirical evidence for 11 dimensions or whatever fuckery string theory is spewing these days?

why is this post allowed to shit up /sci

Does the black hole theory predict the exact characteristics of the waves? If so I will believe it was black holes. If not then it's just a fudge explanation.

You remind me of those nuts who spout ""Scientism"" just because they dont understand the reasoning behind things

Did you get your reject letters from the editors yet?

I'm not big on string theory but please stop embarrassing yourself with juvenile arguments.

>god of the gaps
don't use phrases you don't understand
there is far more evidence in the scientific community to support the existence of black holes than there is to support alternate theories
in science, every statement or theory is in a perpetual state of "waiting to be disproved". until that can happen, we accept black holes. there is no such thing, really, as "conclusive evidence"
if you aren't being asinine due to some flawed understanding of science, and you are actually looking to Veeky Forums to provide you with evidence, i must ask: why? google it you retard. one of the core foundations of Veeky Forums is for a browser to lurk and figure things out for themselves so that they can contribute a well-formed opinion.

>when was a sample size of lmao 1 ever enough to prove anything

>Hey guys I saw a black swan once
>Faggot, when was a sample size of one enough to prove black swans exist

I keep wondering why I come back to Veeky Forums

he is right though
Sample size of 1 is pretty shitty. Could be an anamoly, could be a failure in measurement,...

You know, maybe someone just painted that swan black or you saw a fat raven.

>Could be an anamoly
You're trying to answer the question "does x exist?" You only need to find one example of x to show that it exists.

>could be a failure in measurement
I guess, but that's why peer review exists. I mean we saw this problem with BICEP but peer review caught it. Also I'm pretty certain that LIGO has already found a second wave.

Xray evidence, gravitational effects, gravitational waves

>in science, every statement or theory is in a perpetual state of "waiting to be disproved"
that is wrong

one central element of the scientific method is that you have to PROVE something, not wait for it to be disproven

>don't use phrases you don't understand
clearly you don't understand it because god of the gaps is very fitting. you literally make an argument from ignorance, which is exactly what god of the gaps is

>you are actually looking to Veeky Forums to provide you with evidence
no, I am not asking for evidence. read my OP. of course when someone claims conclusive evidence exists then it is their burden to prove so

>Hey guys I saw a magenta swan once
what do you do now faggot

>I keep wondering why I come back to Veeky Forums
you are not alone because clearly you are scientifically illiterate and fail to understand the very basics of the scientific method if you think that a sample size of lmao 1 of such a kind is enough for anything at all

what you idiots dont realize is that this thread isn't about whether or not gravitational waves and black holes exist but why the entire fields have no scientific integrity whatsoever

>You only need to find one example of x to show that it exists.
but thats the thing. You cant be really certain. Peer review doesnt really help with measurement failures in this case since they have nothing to base their critique on but the very same result they are dealing with.
There is a reason why things like the "Wow-signal" are just an interesting side note at best.

>sample size of lmao 1

I don't think you understand sampling size. Sampling size is about taking lots of measurements to estimate what is going on. Because we found an event where two black holes are apparently spiraling in on each other is not a random event subject to statistics. The measurements of the data point surrounding the event are subject to random noise. That is where sampling size becomes meaningful (i.e. number of measurements).

An analogy. Two cars enter and intersection perpendicular to each other. They interact (i.e. collide). There is no random sample that the collision happened. The random sample would correspond to measurements of each vehicles position, velocity and acceleration throughout the event.

Lastly, gravity "waves" is a layman's explanation of what has been observed. The important finding is that gravity propagates at the speed of light. Meaning if an object moves relative to another object, the effect of that change has a delay and travels at the speed of light before it is felt by the other object.

>The important finding is that gravity propagates at the speed of light
that's new? I thought we already knew that long ago, based on the movement of planets and stars

anyway, your post is good, thank you

>>The important finding is that gravity propagates at the speed of lightthat's new? I thought we already knew that long ago, based on the movement of planets and stars

That was theory. They had no empirical evidence to support the idea that gravity propagates at the speed of light until no. That is why this is so important.

Most observed movements where of entities in in low gravity wells where this could not truly be validated. They needed high gravity entities to substantiate theory. Paired black holes proved the win.

>that is wrong
books.google.com/books?id=xzPSCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA141&lpg=PA141&dq=science waiting to be disproved&source=bl&ots=L-YmmzWCRK&sig=JLoc5jG2K122oFr2Y66T58tCfJs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjIs_ek3tPNAhXE7iYKHXCgAPAQ6AEIHjAA#v=onepage&q=science waiting to be disproved&f=false
books.google.com/books?id=JhxTBAAAQBAJ&pg=PT97&lpg=PT97&dq=science waiting to be disproved&source=bl&ots=m0libPvmXB&sig=ky7ASgmyGpOwpTpSuxhfIzsM3Q8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjIs_ek3tPNAhXE7iYKHXCgAPAQ6AEIIjAB#v=onepage&q=science waiting to be disproved&f=false
no it's not
you cannot prove anything in science, you can only have a bunch of supporting evidence for a popular theory
stuff can only be proved in math you asshat

>clearly you don't understand it ... is very fitting
>you literally make an argument from ignorance
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps
speak for yourself faggot
god of the gaps refers to how the religious will use god(s) to explain phenomena observed at the edge of current science. it is not merely making an argument from ignorance, nor is it a good description of your opinions about black hole theory. we're not invoking some pre-existing deity to explain something, we're trying to figure out (via the scientific method) how to explain certain phenomena

>this thread is about why entired scientific fields have no scientific integrity whatsoever
you keep throwing that "science" word around but you don't know what it means

>one central element of the scientific method is that you have to PROVE something, not wait for it to be disproven
This is completely wrong.
You cannot prove anything in science, only provide evidence for.

>one central element of the scientific method is that you have to PROVE something, not wait for it to be disproven
you got that pretty much exactly backwards

>no evidence
Clearly didn't look hard: en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Black_hole&mobileaction=toggle_view_desktop#Observational_evidence

>wikipedia

>has loads of citation
>bots monitor for vandals
>popular page, constant upkeep
>part of several projects, even more upkeep
>still thinking its early days of wikipedia

>evidence
please tell me what is an evidence

...

what if god just made it look like there was a supermassive object in the galactic center to test our faith?

Is that testable? No.

So whate else is supposed to happen when a star collapses`?

He is, more or less.
Remember that whole Heim theory debacle?

I dont how that relates to this. It is not like everybody blindly believed in his theory. he was pretty much a lolcow in the scientific community