black holes are a part of this fabrication and are scientifically untestable due to their physical characteristics (they can't be seen, give off no radiation,etc) which makes black hole theory just another religion.
Not giving off radiation? What? 'Black hole theory'? It's called general relativity.
Just because we can't see something doesn't mean we can't confirm that it's there. The confirmation of the Higgs Boson was done by looking at its predicted decay products. That is to say that we never even had a Higgs particle hit a detector, we are able to find it because the standard model tells us what traces it leaves behind.
We do similar things with black holes. We don't try to directly observe black holes because we can't. And to suggest that looking directly at one is the only way to confirm their existence is incredibly stupid. Instead, as with the Higgs Boson, we look for traces of their presence. In this case these traces are how they interact with matter.
What we know about gravity and electromagnitism tells us that black holes are messy eaters:
image
And we see quasars, which are evidence of this.
Black holes should have an enormous amount of mass in a compact volume:
image
The amount of energy released by the event that ended up being the first detection of gravitational waves is evidence of this. The amplitude of the wave tells us there was an immense amount of energy in the event, which correlates to a lot of mass. And the frequency increase towards the end of the detected wave tells us that the objects that merged were able to get very close before colliding in the finale of their death spiral (so they had very small radii for their masses).
Objects with high masses and low radii is exactly what we'd expect to see with black holes, so it's excellent evidence that they exist.
And this would be an example of black holes giving off radiation, they give off gravitational radiation that we can detect!
Observation of Sagittarius A* is convincing enough:
image
Seriously, it's swinging stars around like child's play. There are stars in orbits around it larger than the radius of Pluto's orbit and we can watch them go full circle in just a few years.
Since this guy is a general relativity denialist it's worth mentioning that we do have evidence that can be seen with our own eyes:
image
Einstein's Cross.
And with space based telescopes like Hubble we can get even more stunning images of gravitational lensing:
image
Abel 1689.
It's also worth mentioning that black holes are theorized to emit Hawking radiation, anyone that's actually listened to or read anything about black holes should know what Hawking radiation is, or have at least heard the term. Unfortunately it's so weak that we'd probably never be able to detect it directly. It would also be hard to detect because many of the particles generated would decay before they reach us. However, we could be able to confirm that they give off this radiation by observing one losing mass through the process; but my guess is that it would take a very long time of patiently observing a black hole (that isn't gobbling up any matter for the period of observation) using technology that is far out of our current reach.
In conclusion, the evidence for the existence of black holes is quite strong. The evidence for the existence of Red Baron's brain is not so strong. Also this guy needs to find another hobby. Getting your panties in a knot over successful theories made by a theoretical physicist of Jewish heritage is not a healthy hobby.
@Crenickator
That was the first thing that went through my mind.
