View Single Post
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 26-October-2007, 11:44 AM
tusenfem's Avatar
tusenfem tusenfem is online now
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Graz, Austria
Posts: 1,987
Send a message via Yahoo to tusenfem
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bancor View Post

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.
I base my meaning on the fact that, although I am not up to date with the theoretical work etc. on white holes, there would have been a tremendous scientific uproar when one of these objects would have been found. Up to now, there has been no such thing, and a white hole would be a rather peculiar highly intense object, which would be much easier to find then a black hole.

Naturally we cannot 100% exclude its existence, but the probability is low.
__________________

Any comments in orange are to be considered in ModeratorMode, when not already specifically mentioned.

Optimism does not change the laws of physics. (T'Pol)
A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is. (Dao De Jing 27)
Martin ( http://www.geocities.com/DrMartinV )
Reply With Quote