OT: No black holes? One scientist thinks so...

[Aiken]

Tipical humaniform approach to science. It proved to be wrong. The fact you cannot see or touch an object doesn't mean that there's no object. Else all our cosmology would be nothing but idle fancy. BH are "observable" in X-rays and gamma rays emmited by falling gas (in binary systems or BH inside the nebulas).

Some nonsensical quotes:
"Instead, gravity makes clocks run at different rates in different places. But quantum mechanics, which describes physical phenomena at infinitesimally small scales, is meaningful only if time is universal; if not, its equations make no sense."
QM neglect gravity in equations due to vanishingly small influence it has in typical QM scale. It only makes sense beyond the Plank scale. For a particle falling into blackhole there's no time deceleration. Only for outer observer.

""General relativity predicts that nothing happens at the event horizon," says Chapline."
An object will be quickly destroyed by tidal forces, actually.

"Dark matter blah-blah-blah".
Funniest part. Dark matter is no more directly observable than BH and less described in terms of sane theory. So why dark matter? Because it's a fashionable theme and author wanted to have one more publication.

Cheap stuff.

[Iron Giant]

And in our lifetimes, no one will ever fly out and observe one. Pity. We'll never know for sure.

[Starhawk]

No the point is that they are not observable and as pointed out earlier that is a common myth, no one has seen one ever....if they had then there wouldn't even be room for this guy's disputing the theory to begin with.