Dear
tusenfem,
no hidden goal in my question; I asked to learn only.
As you said (my bold)
Quote:
|
"Up to now, there have been no discoveries of white holes, I think we can safely say that they do not exist."
|
my question aimed to know on what basis (research project, theoretical studies and/or assumptions, etc.) the existence of white holes may be "safely" excluded, since the simple lack of discoveries is obviously untenable, because one may exclude the existence of something only when he previously searched for it, at least.
You answered that you were
"not up to date with that stuff" (i.e. you didn't know of any research or other results about the question), so I wondered if, when you stated that white holes don't exixst, you based your certainty on something: an article of faith (e.g.: according to my (scientific) creed they cannot exist, so they don't exixst), or whatever else (to your choice).
In other words, when we affirm that a thing doesn't exist, are we bound to explain on what basis we exclude its existence, or can we pass over?
I seemed that here, in this forum, the former is due, not the latter.
Regards.