Evolution? How?

RexRed wrote:

Farmerman does it really seem scientifically logical to believe in all of these black holes when we see the light from stars so unobstructed coming to the earth over billions of light years travel?

It would almost prove likewise that space is so perfectly free of obstruction and distortion...

Throwing quotes out to attain a cachet of wisdom for oneself is really a lame and a rather easy way to proceed . . . it is so easily done . . .

There is none so blind as he who will not see.

See how easy it is?

You don't seem to understand the nature of the distortions. It's not as though one expects an image resembling an out-of-focus camera. The light is "bent," but resumes its straight-line travel upon leaving the field of the mass which has distorted its path.

Well because they do not diffuse light they consume it...

Quote:

Well because they do not diffuse light they consume it...

For this to occur, a photon has to enter the event horizon, and it doesn't come to us. But so what? Light from a distant galaxy doesn't pass through an intervening star to reach us, either.

As you said stars do not block off the pictures they are only a few pixels but a black hole would have to be a "perfect" total mirror in every direction

You may see that some of these "scientific" theories are even a taller tales than burning bushes...

RexRed wrote:

You may see that some of these "scientific" theories are even a taller tales than burning bushes...

Inasmuch as you continue to make statements from authority, which demonstrate that you haven't understood what has been explained here, or are willfully ignoring what is told you, and continue to restate what others have stated, in contradictory or simply fanatasy terms bearing no real relationship to the explanations which were offered, it is small wonder that you fail to understand what a theory is, and equate a therory with the superstitious nonsense written thousands of years ago by a nomadic tribe only newly emerged from illiteracy.

Why does light have to pass through anything?

There is an individual who thinks that when neutron stars reach critical density they become, instead of a black hole, a "dark energy star." ( http://uplink.space.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=freespace&Number=185601&page=4&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=0&fpart= ) The direct link to nature.com would be shorter, but I'm not sure if you can get it without a subscription (I've got one by proxy ) I hesitate to think what you might read into this...

It's got nothing to do with the night sky not looking like it should though.

It certainly looks like this X-ray sensitive observatory (Chandra) is finding a lot of expected black hole stuff, though: http://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/news/news/releases/2004/04-212.html

Again, not anything I know anything about.

rex red, As patiodog stated ,... IN THE VAST EMPTINESS OF SPACE...A black hole (there are a few kinds, none of which have been seen yet) that exist. We measure their effects by the proximity to their cores that light isw bent (and we can see) . I am aware from my own reading that black holes are temporary features that complete the life of star.
Yourthinking way too linearly.
Youve gotta invest some time studying about this , youre not going to get quick e-bytes to give you an understanding that may take much more investment than merely placing your opinions on a PBB.

Your mind seems quick , but youre wont to make some rather bizarre connections between science disciplines and among disciplines and scriptural references.Most of them i feel that, while I support your journey, I think you need to take some major driving lessons.You seem to be adept at autocorrelation which simply stated means that because A happens alot and B happens a lot A and B are not necessarily related in any fashion.

The problem is where does science leave off?

Guys, this is a hopeless case . . . there are better threads to visit . . .