From: Jason Gammon <boyinthemachine.nul> Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 22:32:55 -0400 (EDT) Archived: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 05:25:29 -0400 Subject: Black Holes Don't Exist [was: Re: Kathleen Marden >From: Ray Dickenson <r.dickenson.nul> >To: <post.nul> >Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 15:49:44 +0100 >Subject: Re: Kathleen Marden On Coast To Coast <snip> >Hello William, >The usual claim of black-hole apologists - that "they're very >difficult to spot by direct means, therefore we must infer their >presence" is just rubbish. I.e if even one black hole existed in >the observable universe its presence would be obvious - as a big >circular 'target' of bent and re-focussed light, with a tiny >dark centre (event horizon), surrounded by an unnaturally wide >ring of darkness (no background starlight around it - that >would've all been bent inwards by the "infinite" gravity of the >'black hole', to form that target of light). >For anyone's peace-of-mind would recommend, whenever reading >'black hole', just substitute neutron star or massy body (or >galactic core - which might well have either). >There's several reasons to say there's no such thing as a 'black >hole': defined as an infinitely dense mass surrounded by an >'event horizon' (for light). >To see some of those reasons, put forward by sensible >physicists, try googling "Black Holes Don't Exist". >The original 'theory' was actually just speculative chat by a >fairly accomplished mathematician physicist (not a 'real' >physicist - Feynman quote), and was only talking about about the >stages of density of star-like bodies, like "neutron stars" and >possibly beyond. A real physicist would have been thinking in >terms of physical limiting factors, like accretion and spin, way >before the fanciful idea of a 'singularity' occurred to anybody. >But mathematicians don't think much about reality. In fact >decades later, when Hawking grabbed the idea as a 'sexy/scary' >money-spinner he _still_ didn't initially realize that any >putative 'black hole' would have to have gained huge spin - a >prohibitive amount of spin, way past the point where >'conservation of angular momentum' allows the breakdown of the >axis line, forcing plasma and radiation 'jets' of enormous >energy to emerge from the poles, so re-distributing the matter >of _any_ super-dense body well before a magic (and impossible) >'singularity' could happen. [His early mathematical 'design' was >of a stationary, non-spinning object - if you can believe that!] >If you think about it, a putative 'black hole' (an infinitely >dense mass surrounded by an 'event horizon') breaks the 'laws of >physics', notably the conservation laws, as does the Big Bang >(another sexy/scary gimmick designed to keep tax-payers funding >rolling in). Good post. I think this material is new to many people because black holes have been pushed down our throats for many years now. In reality the very concept of the black hole, it's definition, is extremely problematic. A black hole is basically nothing other than an event horizon and a singularity. Well, an event horizon is only and imaginary boundary. Its nothing physical, no real boundary. The singularity is even more strange. Its supposed to be zero volume but possess infinite density. Infinities do not exist in reality, only in math. We aren't allowed to divide by zero but for some reason black hole scientists are given a free pass to do so. To be blunt, the singularity only exists in mathematics and the human imagination. Its mythology. You could replace the singularity with unicorn or even Santa Clause, as its just as magical. Now, the key thing to realize is that when people like me or Ray, or others say that black holes do not exist we are not saying there isn't something incredibly massive and possibly even 'dark' at locations where a black hole is supposed to be found. We are only saying the current definition or understanding of a black hole is wrong. Going further, we need to get rid of the term black hole as well. I know it sounds so cool but it has to go because it's wrong. It would be sort of like the old Brontosaurus. When it was discovered it was wrong, as in had the wrong skull on the skeleton, they didn't just replace the skull but had to give it a new name, that of Apatosaurus. So the definition of a black hole is wrong, thus we have to start over from scratch to try to determine what it is and thus it will need a new name. Here's a good video to start off on. Unfortunately it's created by a Creationist. However, it is still good material: http://youtu.be/0iPvcEaSxx8 Here's a good link to start your journey: http://www.noblackholes.com/ As Ray indicated above, for more information google, "black holes do not exist", or a similar phrase. Good luck and feel free to shoot me a private email if anyone wants to discuss this further offlist. -Jason Gammon Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast At: http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/ These contents above are copyright of the author and UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced without the express permission of both parties and are intended for educational use only.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp