That is, if they exist in the first place...
Discussion
Oh, they definitely exist. We've seen quite a few of them.
Of course this is a definitional issue. What we see out there cannot be anything other than black holes by our current understanding of physics. Are they really black holes? They are if we define them to be; but that doesn't mean they obey all the physical attirbutes we currently think a black hole should.
From what I have seen, the evidence of them existing (as in points in space with extreme gravity pull) is pretty tangential, mostly relying on theories and suppositions.
Yes, entirely tangential. As you say they are points in space around which material behaves as though there is an extremely compact massive object. The limits on the mass and radius leave us to the conclusion that these must be black holes because our current theories allow for no other conclusion.
Our current theories are pretty good at predicting the vast majority of the phenomina that we see out there; so we sort of have to trust them on this. But that doesn't rule out that something else may be going on.
And this is always the way it is with Science. Science is a negative discipline, i.e. no theory can ever be proven correct. All a scientist can ever do is disprove a theory -- but never prove one.
>From: TheGuyThatLookedI... at 02/20/23 14:10:19 on wss://relay.damus.io
>---------------
>From what I have seen, the evidence of them existing (as in points in space with extreme gravity pull) is pretty tangential, mostly relying on theories and suppositions.
I prefer trusting observable facts, rather than someones pure hypotheses. If something can’t be provably explained, I would rather admit that it is an unknown, then try to fit it in any of the existing theories.
Not sure that I agree with the last paragraph. In my mind, anything that can’t be properly proven is not science, but rather someone’s fantasies which have a high probability of having nothing in common with reality. But that is semantics, I guess…