Thread: Science vs Pseudoscience

Originally Posted by Seraphim

The common understanding of what a black hole is (a super dense gravitational well) would fit the observable evidence.

But wouldn't also a physical hole in space? Not a collapsed star, but a big gaping hole in the barrier of our universe? Like when you pull the plug on a tub of water, everything swirls down the drain, it even has the same swirl that galaxies have, which is further indirect evidence of my newly hatched theory. So, I am launching my new thesis: NO black holes, they are hole holes...and we're all going down the drain.

See how easy psuedo-science is?

I did state quite clearly that I myself was not convinced that back holes exist, so I don't disagree that there may be more than one explanation for indirect evidence. I'm simply saying that I don't think indirect evidence should be discounted or given less consideration simply because it is indirect.

Also, just because a theory seems wild or outlandish does not mean that it is not scientific. If you had solid evidence to support your hole in space statement, a theory describing holes and space and how they should behave, and testable predictions that were found to be correct, you would have a scientific theory (as we've defined science here thus far).