pop morality

[Drich]

Then please oh great Learn-ed one, demonstrate my lack of knowledge by setting me straight. Turn turning that AdHom into a real rebuttal with a little verifiable substance.

I already set you straight months ago regarding the Higgs.  Or do you not remember me pointing out how you misinterpreted what the sigma actually was and what it meant?

Regarding black holes, there's a veritable ton of observation on them.

That you cling to your own misguided notions of science (e.g., science wants to believe, as though it's an anthropomorphic entity with desires) is your problem, not mine.  It's not my fault you didn't pay attention in high school.

EDIT: a 2 second internet search on black holes -

http://www.nasa.gov/content/nasa-led-stu...servations
http://news.discovery.com/space/galaxies...130227.htm
http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/06/o...to-hiding/

But, no, they don't exist.  Idiot.

Did you actually read the articles you posted? completely??

The Nasa 'observation' was based on the: "The study was based on a non-rotating black hole." THEORY!!!

Do you understand what was observed? X-Rays (no visible light) measured across a spanse of space you can not even fathom, supposedly reacted in a predictable way in accordance with the non rotating black hole theory.

And if you take the time to read the crap you post each one of the other 'black hole observations' is also based on somehow measuring non visible light accurately over 100's of thousands of light years away and it supposedly reacting with one black hole theory or another in a predictable way. The problem? the theories do not all compliment each other. Most of them preclude one another. that means for one observation to be correct several 'observations' must be wrong.

So again, if you believe a given black hole THEORY is correct you do so out of FAITH unless you are stupid and simply do not know that the various theories do not support one another meaning you think all black hole theories are just different types of black holes.