Black Holes Are A Myth!! A Fraud Being Perpetuated By A Coterie Of Scientists?, page 1
Pages: <<  1    2    3  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 19 times
Topic started on 2-3-2008 @ 04:15 AM by mikesingh
The majority of people nowadays neither know nor care what Theoretical Physics is or what it does. Nothing less than a whole new philosophical approach - a new paradigm, in effect - is now long overdue.
- science-philosopher Viv Pope, 2002.


Sombrero Galaxy with a purported ‘super massive black hole’ at its centre.
Courtesy: Hubble Heritage Project


I was reading the other day a very interesting paper by Stephen J. Crothers on Black Holes that he claims has been conjured up by combination of confusion, superstition and ineptitude, and is sustained by widespread suppression of facts, both physical and theoretical.

News reports about the discovery of black holes seem to arrive at regular intervals. It seems the claims are usually as outrageous as the concept of a black hole itself. But astronomers believe that super massive black holes exist at the center of every galaxy in the universe!! Why do you and I take this for granted when there is absolutely no proof, but are nothing more than pure conjectures/hypothetical deductions?

After reading through numerous papers, it does seem that black holes and even the Big Bang are myths perpetuated by a disingenuous coterie. According to him, it has been recently proved that the black hole and the expanding Universe are not predicted by General Relativity at all!

Neither the layman nor the specialist, in general, have any knowledge of the historical circumstances underlying the genesis of the idea of the Black Hole. Essentially, almost all and sundry simply take for granted the unsubstantiated allegations of some ostentatious minority of the relativists. Unfortunately, that minority has been rather careless with the truth and is quite averse to having its claims corrected, notwithstanding the documentary evidence on the historical record.

Furthermore, not a few of that vainglorious and, particularly amongst those of some notoriety, attempt to dismiss the testimony of the literature with contempt, and even deliberate falsehoods, claiming that history is of no importance. The historical record clearly demonstrates that the Black Hole has been conjured up by a combination of confusion, superstition and ineptitude, and is sustained by widespread suppression of facts, both physical and theoretical.


It must not be forgotten that all the arguments for the black hole are theoretical, based solely upon the erroneous Hilbert solution and the meaningless Kruskal-Szekeres extension on it. One is therefore lead to wonder what it is that astronomers actually “see” when they claim that they have found yet another black hole here or there.

Besides the purely mathematical errors that mitigate the black hole, there are also considerable physical arguments against it, in addition to the fact that no event horizon has ever been detected.


There can be no meaningful theoretical discussion of black hole binaries or colliding black holes, unless it can be shown that Einstein’s field equations contain, hidden within them, solutions for such configurations of matter. Without at least an existence theorem for multi-body configurations, all talk of black hole binaries and black hole collisions is twaddle. The theoreticians have never provided an existence theorem.

A Brief History of Black Holes, By Stephen J. Crothers


As per
Nikias Stavroulakis:

* The given distribution of matter cannot be reduced to a point.

* Black holes never appear in solutions of the Einstein equations.

Here’s some more gen, this time from New Scientist.....

A controversial alternative to black hole theory has been bolstered by observations of an object in the distant universe, researchers say. If their interpretation is correct, it might mean black holes do not exist and are in fact bizarre and compact balls of plasma called MECOs (Magnetospheric Eternally Collapsing Object).

According to the MECO theory, objects in our universe can never actually collapse to form black holes. When an object gets very dense and hot, subatomic particles start popping in and out of existence inside it in huge numbers, producing copious amounts of radiation. Outward pressure from this radiation halts the collapse so the object remains a hot ball of plasma rather than becoming a black hole.

"I believe this is the first evidence that the whole black hole paradigm is incorrect," says Darryl Leiter of the Marwood Astrophysics Research Center in Charottesville, Virginia, US, who co-authored the study. He says that where astronomers think they see black holes, they are actually looking at MECOs.


And here's an interesting vid...Check out the the new mantra - Plasma Cosmology!



And to conclude….

Stephen Hawking has now put forward a new theory that changes the way scientists view black holes, saying he was wrong about them in the past!
Dr David Whitehouse
BBC News Online science editor.



The current theory on black holes seems to be heading into one!! What about the Big Bang theory? Well, that's later!

Cheers!

Refs:

www.ptep-online.com...
www.geocities.com...
www.ptep-online.com...
www.ptep-online.com...
www.holoscience.com...
space.newscientist.com...
news.bbc.co.uk...


reply posted on 2-3-2008 @ 07:30 PM by lonemaverick
reply to post by Toadmund


When scientists use the doppler effect to tell if something is moving towards or away from us, they don't look at the color of the star but at the spectrograph they get from the light. All elements give off a certain set of wavelengths when excited, so they compare the patterns to determine how red or blue shifted the light is.



reply posted on 3-3-2008 @ 06:10 AM by Valorian
Hi Mike

I may follow your thread as all images that depict a black hole look ike this:
Image 1
Image 2

You do not see this in our Galaxy - why not if there is this massive black hole at it's centre



reply posted on 3-3-2008 @ 07:14 AM by GUNSINWAR
This is a really hard topic to discussed about! nice one Mike!


Astrophysicists generally agree that black holes exist. There is good observational evidence from X-ray observations and from the Hubble Space Telescope that there are massive black holes (with masses more than a million times that of the Sun) exist in the centers of some galaxies.



Even back in Isaac Newton's time, scientists speculated that such objects could exist, even though we now know
they are more accurately described using Einstein's General Theory of Relativity


The geometric theory of gravitation developed by Albert Einstein incorporating and extending the theory of special relativity to accelerate frames of reference and introducing the princible that gravitational and inerial forces are equivalent. The Theory has consequences for bending of light by massive objects, the nature of black holes and the fabric of space and time.

The theory of stars would claim that massive stars (much more massive than the Sun) will eventually blow up as supernovae, and if there remains a core in excess of around 3 times the Sun's mass, that will collapse under gravity to become a black hole. If this happens in a binary star system, in which one star makes a black hole and the other star manages to survive so that the two continue orbiting one another, then the normal star can in some cases transfer gaseous matter to the black hole (see figure below). As this gas fall toward the black hole, it makes a disk of orbiting gas that slowly dribbles into the black hole. In this process the gas is heated and manages to glow in X-rays. So we cannot see the black hole, but we do see intensely bright X-rays. We also see the one star and can infer the presence of an unseen companion. All of this seems to add up to a black hole.



An especially famous case is the system Cygnus-X1, a binary that has a "missing" companion (we do not see it) but glows brightly in X-rays. The neat thing is that the Hubble Space Telescope has been able to watch as matter dribbles into the black hole. For any normal body, the infalling of gas would cause it to glow more brightly. But because of the odd properties of black holes, such gas as it approaches the event horizon will inevitably grow fainter, and this is what is observed (see figure below).




Another place to find black holes - supermassive ones - seems to be in the heart of galaxies. These monsters are can have anywhere from millions to billions of times the mass of the Sun. The event horizons can be about as large as our solar system. Below are some Hubble images pertaining to a suspected black hole in the heart of the giant galaxy M87. The first image shows the center of the galaxy, and that a jet leads back to its center. The inset of that figure indicates a swirling disk of orbiting gas near the center. The figure below shows how the Hubble can measure the speed of orbiting gas in this disk. It turns out that as these distances from the center (light years), the speeds are so high (hundreds of kilometers per second), that a tremendous amount of mass must exist interior to the disk, a mass of about 100 million Suns, but in a volume that is like the distance from the Sun to the nearest star. The implication of a black hole is based on the idea that it is gravity which makes the gas orbit, and stronger gravity leads to higher speeds. Except for a black hole, no one knows how to cram so much matter into so little volume.

img249.imageshack.us...


img223.imageshack.us...

(image tags)






[edit on 14-3-2008 by Jbird]


reply posted on 3-3-2008 @ 08:25 AM by Hal9000
reply to post by Valorian


Those artistic renderings are of Active Galaxies, which most galaxies including our Milky Way are not. It is considered active because it is in the process of accretion or eating matter. I think the current theory is that black holes achieve an equilibrium at some point and become in-active. That's why our galactic center does not have jets coming out. Once in a while something still falls in and can be detected by Hawking radiation.


reply posted on 3-3-2008 @ 09:04 AM by mikesingh
reply to post by GUNSINWAR


Thanks for the reply GUNSINWAR! Well, the question is, why are these cosmologists (I mean mathematicians!) refusing to see the universe in a different light?

To see just how little regard standard cosmologists now seem to have for empirical reality, one need look no further than the recent NY Times "science" headline, " Big Brain Theory: Have Cosmologists Lost Theirs?" The most ironic observation in the article is that "Nature tends to do what is easiest, from the standpoint of energy and probability."

If standard cosmologists actually believed this, would they not have abandoned their chalkboards in favor of the laboratory years ago? The easiest way to produce radio jets, X-ray jets and synchrotron radiation emissions is not through collisions of gas particles, or theoretical "black holes" swallowing matter.

Logically, these are the effects of large-scale plasma discharge phenomena, well-documented in the laboratory. And the laws of physics observed in the lab do not cease in the vast reaches of space!
www.thunderbolts.info...


Physics was the attempt to explain things that we had seen or discovered. We discovered them first and then tried to explain them. But now, starting with the black hole, the 'experts' are explaining things first and then trying to discover them!! Don't you think?

Cheers!


reply posted on 3-3-2008 @ 10:18 AM by Valorian
Originally posted by Hal9000
reply to
post by Valorian


Those artistic renderings are of Active Galaxies, which most galaxies including our Milky Way are not. It is considered active because it is in the process of accretion or eating matter. I think the current theory is that black holes achieve an equilibrium at some point and become in-active. That's why our galactic center does not have jets coming out. Once in a while something still falls in and can be detected by Hawking radiation.



Hey Hal9000
I thought you may enjoy this show, it is on tonight in the UK
Stephen Hawking


reply posted on 3-3-2008 @ 11:11 AM by Ionized
reply to post by Hal9000



That is the view from standard mainstream cosmology.

However, in plasma cosmology, there is evidence that AGN (Active Galactic Nuclei) are excreting matter rather than consuming it. Halton Arp has promoted this view since the 1960s when AGN and Quasars were first discovered and termed. In this model quasars are ejected from AGN. AGN are a release point for the intergalactic currents that feed them. No need for a black hole at the center, instead it would be some process involving double layers, pinch effects, and instabilities.
Pages: <<  1    2    3  >>    ^^TOP^^



Did Carl Sagan know something?
  Posted 17 days ago with 276 member flags
Earthly coincidences...or not.
  Posted 13 days ago with 122 member flags
STOP....Take a STEP BACK....and look at the BIG PICTURE!!
  Posted 19 days ago with 115 member flags
Was this the real reason why Megaupload was closed down?
  Posted 17 days ago with 96 member flags
The Mysterious Death of Marilyn Monroe
  Posted 15 days ago with 85 member flags