|
Great post Steve thank you for contributing.
An esential duty of a scientific model is to make testable predictions but I often wonder if such may introduce an aspect of "seeing" what we expect to see.
As I understand the proposition re gravity wave detection templates are used which it seems coming from a position of complete ignorance of what they are doing sounds dangerous☺ and I jump to an uninformed conclusion that the signals are made to fit in a preconstructed box☺.
What is needed is a quantum theory of gravity which I expect would determine the physicality of what should be found under the event horizon ... I cant imagine it to be a small dot but perhaps something just large and dense.
I think extrapolation may lead to incorrect conclusions.
If we observed the growth rate of a human up to the age of ten we would not extrapolate to conclude at age 50 a human will be sixty feet tall...it seems that extrapolating to conclude a black hole reaches a singularity may be done in ignorance of some factor that prevents collapse three feet below the event horizon..uet folk become so emphatic what must happen which stickes me as odd if you have no observation that supports where the equations leads us..also on that note extrapolating that an expanding universe in reverse may reach a point where it does not reduce to a very small point...
All so interesting.
Alex
Alex
|