He still thinks black holes are a real thing

>what is the x-ray radiation probably coming from black holes

> the massive stars orbiting what appears to be empty space
When has this ever been shown to be the case?

arstechnica.com/science/2012/10/fast-moving-star-is-the-closest-yet-to-the-milky-ways-black-hole/

Literally the first link on google when ive searched for it. Its been independently verified and its not just one star orbiting it, its a shitload of them.

>probably

OP got BTFO. Abandon thread!

How do you know black holes exists if you can't see them?

>absolute statements in science

You're lucky I haven't been fallen far enough down the rabbit hole to start collecting smug animé girls

You literally sound as retarded as those WOW trolls that say "If Arthas's horse is invincible how come you can see it?"

It's dangerous to go alone, take this.

but he's right.

That. End of discussion. If you trolls can think of something that explains away these key points i will concede and believe that black holes dont exist.

Why do they call it the xbox 360? Because you turn 360 degrees and walk away

So there's no proof for black holes.

No one has ever seen an atom either.

Something is either consistent with observations or it isn't there.

Systems with known black holes
chandra.harvard.edu/photo/category/blackholes.html

Empirical evidence isn't proof.

Then have fun finding proof for anything other than statements within a defined set of rules.

Why would I have fun trying to find something I can't find?

My statement was that there is no proof for black holes.
This post makes it seem like you agree with me.

Nigger then what the fuck do you consider proof in the physical world? We have mathematical models born out of the Schwarzchild (and other, more complicated) metrics that are matched by the empirical evidence we gather extremely well. What more do you want? You better be trolling me

>Nigger then what the fuck do you consider proof in the physical world?
Nothing, hence there's no proof for black holes.

Empirical evidence isn't proof.

It works well enough but it isn't proof.

Then this is a pointless discussion

Why did you even reply at all?
You agreed with me, so why did you even try to discuss?

>Nothing, hence there's no proof for black holes

Okay, I see where you are coming from but I'm not trying to get into a philosophical debate that has no place in this discussion. You can argue all you want with others about what "proof" and "existence" means but in the scientific world, if there is a massive amount of empirical evidence that wholeheartedly supports a model/theory with little counter-examples, then that model/theory is considered to be "proven" until evidence is found to contradict that otherwise. In our case, we have an entity in space that shares almost all of the characteristics of what we call a "black hole". And it is not only just one that we have found but multiple entities that fit our description of a black hole. Hence, we deem them black holes. You may as well try to tell me that trees do not exist, despite there being objects on this Earth that fit the description of a tree, on the grounds that empirical evidence (i.e. sensory evidence and book keeping of known trees) isn't enough to prove their existence.

Nice get

>pop-sci trash site for plebs

ArsTechnica is probably one of the most in depth science publications outside of the actual academic community.

It's not exactly ifuckinglovescience

So it seems like you agree with me that there's no proof for it like you can have a mathematical proof.

And the rest is something I never even denied.

Why are you trying to discuss when you don't disagree with what I said?

Have fun, kids.

This is an anonymous image board. There is no way for us to tell you apart from the morons saying black holes dont exist. Quit being pedantic.

I am always pedantic.

Why

But I am not agreeing with you, I merely stated that I recognized where your argument seems to be coming from. A mathematical proof relies on axioms and lemmas to work, which are considered to be true by definition. When you prove a mathematical statement, all you are doing is confirming that it fits certain criteria based off of axioms that are already in place. If your proof does not fit all of the criteria, then it is not proven. We claim that black holes exist because the object that we are labeling as a black hole fits all of the criteria that is required of a black hole: strong gravitational presence, long-reaching orbital influence, Hawking radiation, stellar light not passing through areas of known black holes, orbiting satellites such as stars following accurately the equations of motion which could be derived depending on the type of black hole it is going around, the list goes on. In fact, black holes were predicted to exist from the mathematical workings of Einstein's general relativity, it's not like they came out of nowhere. We found objects that fit the GR model for black holes to a tee.

Probably got something to do with my autism.
But correlation isn't proof, so I can't really tell you for sure, maybe.

Lots of empirical evidence is enough to just accept it as true, even if it's just consistent with the models.
But it's never going to be true like a math proof where you're dealing with definitions.

me
>But it's never going to be true like a math proof
I worded this really, really wrong.

Meant like it's never going to be true by definition like you can have it with math

But by definition, a black hole is a massive object with a gravitational potential many orders of magnitude high and has very specific equations of motion coming from very specific metrics. There exists an object that fits this description and, for all intents and purposes, IS what is defined to be a black hole. We don't say "maybe that object is a black hole", we know it to be one because it fits the definition of a black hole.

But what if there's nothing and every little movement and whatnot in the universe is 100% random chance.

I would have to say there doesn't really exist a "nothing" in the real world. There is no "true" vacuum due to matter-antimatter annihilation and some other stuff, so there must be something there. There also has to be enough of something there to elicit the gravitational potential we see from black holes

You don't know what that "evidence" is for. It could be for something completely unrelated.

What is this and why are many real things on it?

Let's assume there are no black holes
Empirical data disproves the above statement
Therefore there are black holes
;)

"see" is too specific.

If you can express something as a relationship between quantities than it is observable. It has an effect on things, it can be "seen".

That's exactly the point. All we can say is what seems. We can't know that the laws work for certain, but they seem accurate to describe what we observe.

So evidence is usually good enough.

half of those things arent even /x/

>computer science jobs
Got me

>there are no proof
Lrn2proof, then werk on teh inglés

>Empirical evidence isn't proof.

Natural science = empirical evidence

"Natural science is a branch of science concerned with the description, prediction, and understanding of natural phenomena, based on observational and empirical evidence. Mechanisms such as peer review and repeatability of findings are used to try to ensure the validity of scientific advances.

Natural science can be divided into two main branches: life science (or biological science) and physical science. Physical science is subdivided into branches, including physics, astronomy, chemistry, and Earth science. These branches of natural science may be further divided into more specialized branches (also known as fields)."

(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_science)

like ?

kys

This bait is so massive it's gonna collapse into a singularity.

HOLY FUCK IT'S COLLAPSING!

Event horizon below this line:
======================

Like everything on it save "Hollow Earth" and "Flat Earth"... maybe the misnomer leading to, "Reality is a Hologram", and the fact that /x/ also happens to like aliens (but only the humanoid visiting variety). Everything else on there is either real or potentially so, or, like "Computer Science Jobs", isn't /x/ material.

I've already accepted that I'm here forever.

>But it's never going to be true like a math proof where you're dealing with definitions.
You could say the same of the existence of the Sun and Earth, or anything.

Most of those are easily found on /x/, are they paranormal? By definition nothing is paranormal if it happens, so nope.
It still is /x/ material

doesn't mean shit