Neither is there "hard" evidence of black holes. The existence of black holes are inferred from observing other evidence. It's true that one cannot put "reincarnation" under a microscope, but just as with black holes, it's existence can be inferred from examining other evidence. What "other evidence"?
Quoting: **ZetaMax** That's true. As of yet there is no direct observation of black-holes (to be changed later this year, because we soon WILL HAVE a direct "photograph"). But yeah, bottomline you're right, we have no way of getting past the event horizon and take samples, but what we can say for certain is:
- these objects cause gravitational lensing, which has been proven by observing the same stars or galaxy multiple times through lensing
- these objects must have an incredible density because they produce a photon-sphere and ultimatively an event-horizon (which we can calculate by r=(2*G*Mass/c²)^0.5 btw) making them "black"
- these objects have large gravitational effects on surrounding objects, which correlate to the assumed high density (our Milky-Way is circling one supermassive black hole)
- we are able to observe other extremly dense objects (neutron-stars, quasars, pulsars etc.) where a sugar-cube has the equivalent weight of Mt.Everest (roughly)
Just to name a few.
So unlike "reincarnation" we actually have plenty of tangible data that no-doubtly prove there are objects that we describe as "black holes" (which is rather misleading and should be "black spheres").
Well for starters, the testimony of children who display detailed knowledge of past events they have no rational means for obtaining.
[
link to www.today.com]
Which has been debunked several times: [
link to skeptico.blogs.com]
