It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Black Holes Don’t Exist

page: 1
14

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 09:47 PM
link   
In my previous thread I presented overwhelming evidence that our notions of a big bang and cosmic expansion are wrong.

In this thread I will highlight the overwhelming evidence that black holes are bunch of hogwash.

Let’s begin with a history lesson.

Black holes were made possible to be conjured up by a man named David Hilbert. The equations responsible for their invention were not created by Einstein. In fact Einstein flatly rejected the idea of black holes. He knew that if such an object were to exist, it would INVALIDATE his own theories (ie. general and special relativity). Einstein even published a paper showing black holes to be a bunch of nonsense.

Black holes currently rely on a solution to Einstein’s field equations called the “Schwarzschild solution”. Anyone who’s big into black holes has probably heard this term before. The Schwarzschild solution that physicists use today in their mathematical fantasies of black holes wasn’t even created by Schwarzschild. In fact Schwarzschild ALSO wrote a paper that refutes black holes. That paper can be found here.

Continuing on with Hilbert’s role in this sham, I quote Crothers:


Neither Newton's theory nor Einstein's theory predict it. In fact, both theories preclude it, contrary to what the orthodox relativists claim.


The so-called "Schwarzschild" solution is not due to Karl Schwarzschild at all. The experts have either not read Schwarzschild's 1916 memoir or have otherwise ignored it. Go here to get Schwarzschild's original paper, in English. The so-called "Schwarzschild" solution is due to David Hilbert, itself a corruption of a solution first derived by Johannes Droste in May 1916, whose paper has also been buried or ignored at the convenience of the experts. It appears that the experts have not read Hilbert either. Go here to get a copy of Hilbert's erroneous derivation, in English. Hilbert's mistake spawned the black hole and the community of theoretical physicists continues to elaborate on this falsehood, with a hostile shouting down of any and all voices challenging them. Schwarzschild's solution has no black hole, and neither does Droste's solution. Schwarzschild's paper is a piece of flawless mathematical physics, but Hilbert's is a poor show. And while you're at it you might as well go here to get a copy of Marcel Brillouin's 1923 paper, in English, in which he gives another valid solution and also simply and dramatically demonstrates that the black hole is nonsense. Brillouin's paper has also been ignored.


I take Einstein at face value considering he’s the one who drafted up the theories of general and special relativity. If he says they can’t exist according to his theories and so does Schwarzschild, I believe them. But I know many of you have been brainwashed by decades of fantasy fiction written by astrophysicists claiming god like knowledge of the universe to believe black holes do exist. So I will continue on with observational falsification.

More to follow:



[edit on 6-7-2009 by mnemeth1]




posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 09:48 PM
link   
There is a problem in the center of the Milky Way galaxy. We see stars at the heart of our galaxy that, according to standard theory, are in impossible locations.

This obtuse article written in Space.com gives us the general details.


”Theory holds that these stars could not have formed in their present location, because the gravity of the nearby supermassive black hole wouldn't have allowed a gas cloud to contract into a star”, says study leader Jean-Pierre Maillard of the Institute of Astrophysics in Paris.

On the other hand, Maillard told SPACE.com, the stars could not have formed too far from their present location. Why? Because there wasn't time. Massive stars die young. The seven examined in the study can't be more than 10 million years old, or they would have exploded already. So the seven stars, along with the middleweight black hole, all had to migrate inward within the past 10 million years -- an eyeblink in the 13 billion years of the galaxy's lifetime.


So if there is a supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way, there’s no way these stars could have formed where they have. This leaves us with only INSANE theories as to how these stars got to their present location. One of which is that several little black holes played ping pong with them and they all just happened to land in their little cluster without getting ripped apart into a billion pieces. Keep in mind that black holes are supposed to suck everything in, including light, which makes theories of ping pong a bunch of nonsense in my book.

Of course, there are alternative explanations that can explain the presence of these stars without the use of black holes, strange matter, or stellar ping pong that rely solely on classical physics and known laws of electrodynamics, but I don’t want to get too far ahead of myself.

So let’s continue on, that’s one blatantly falsifying observation, how about another major whopper.



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 09:49 PM
link   
There’s a problem with the M87 galaxy.

As some of you astronomy buffs may know, the M87 galaxy is famous for its huge jet that spans galactic distances. Supposedly this jet is made out of matter getting blasted out of a supermassive black hole at the heart of a galaxy (how black holes can shoot out jets when they are supposed to suck everything in is anyone’s guess, but I digress).

The jet however doesn’t seem to want to cooperate with theorists. The “knots” of the jet have been observed to brighten and dim dramatically over brief time spans. In order for this wild feat to happen, the matter shooting out of the jet supposedly must be moving at 6 times the speed of light. An article on the subject. Obviously the changes in the jet are not due to matter shooting out of a black hole.

In fact while this article only focuses on a tiny portion of the jet, we have actually seen entire segments of the jet brighten and dim. Here’s another recent article pointing out the same thing.

The Chandra telescope recently saw a massive portion of the jet flare up unexpectedly.




To quote Juan Madrid of McMaster University:


"I did not expect the jet in M87 or any other jet powered by accretion onto a black hole to increase in brightness in the way that this jet does," says astronomer Juan Madrid of McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, who conducted the Hubble study. "It grew 90 times brighter than normal. But the question is, does this happen to every single jet or active nucleus, or are we seeing some odd behavior from M87?"


If these jets are from matter blasting out of the center of a black hole, then how is it possible that individual segments of the jet are observed to brighten and dim? If the end of the jet flares up, but we don’t see anything eject from the heart of the galaxy, then the idea that this jet is somehow created by a black hole spewing out matter is total hogwash.

This is a blatant observational falsification of standing theory. It can’t happen the way they say its happening. The jet is not matter spewing out of a black hole.

I could go on and on pointing out blatant observational falsification of black holes but I think you get the drift.

Now for the coup de grâce.


[edit on 6-7-2009 by mnemeth1]



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 09:52 PM
link   
Plasma physicist Anthony Peratt has taken the theories put forth by Hannes Alfven and given us a plausible explanation for the M87 galaxy’s jet, along with a working model of galaxy formation that does not rely on black holes at all.

Pure classical physics and known laws of electrodynamics can explain ALL observed phenomena in space. There is no need for dark matter, black holes, strange matter, dark energy, gravitational waves, etc... ect… ect…

Here’s the papers

Evolution of the Plasma Universe: I. Double Radio Galaxies, Quasars, and Extragalactic Jets
A. L. Peratt, IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. Vol. PS-14, N.6, pp.639-660, December 1986

Evolution of the Plasma Universe: II. The Formation of Systems of Galaxies
A. L. Peratt, IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. Vol. PS-14, N.6, pp.763-778, December 1986

Advances in Numerical Modeling of Astrophysical and Space Plasma, Part II Astrophysical Force Laws on the Large Scale
A. L. Peratt, APSS 256, 1998

To summarize, space contains free electric charge that coalesces into currents of plasma. That flowing plasma pinches down on itself to produce every discharging object we see in space. The M87, the Milky Way, and every other galaxy observed can be explained in this fashion.

Here’s an image of two galactic plasma filaments interacting in a super computer simulation. Hmmm. Looks familiar no? This simulation did not add any dark matter, black holes, or other nonsensical physics. It relies totally on known electrodynamic laws and gravity. No hocus pocus.




The rotational velocity observed in this simulation matches the observed rotational velocity of galaxies we see in space. Coincidence? I think not.

Plasma scales indefinitely. Formations of plasma that scientists produce in a lab can be extrapolated up to galactic scales and the results will be the same. Scientists such as Peratt have actually produced the M87 “jet” in a lab by sending huge currents through a thin wire. The lab observations match the M87’s jet perfectly. If one assumes the “jet” is not a jet, but a current of plasma, the explanation for the M87 becomes readily apparent.

Dr. Donald Scott gives us an hour long presentation at a NASA space conference on the topic and explains the theories put forth by Peratt and Alfven.

NASA Video




[edit on 6-7-2009 by mnemeth1]



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 10:01 PM
link   
In September, the mad scientists at CERN will fire up the LHC. If theory of black holes turns out to be correct, we should be gone rather quickly. If however we do not get sucked away into a black hole, well... I'll be relieved.

I do not believe in black holes, I believe in dark matter stars. They are stars of a sort but do not shine as stars we understand do. They are gravitationally strong yes, but they are not holes. That is my opinion on the matter.



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


fantastic thread

your research and knowledge of the subject is fantastic and enviable

s/f




posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 10:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Fromabove
 



well black holes arent holes either.

im not exactly sure why people think the LHC will cause a massive world destroying black hole



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 10:21 PM
link   
Impressive work.

To be frank, I'm going to have to do my homework before commenting.

Well researched and documented though.



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 10:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Fromabove
 


If Cern do in fact make a stable micro blackhole we won't even know it's a danger or even on Earth till decades or even centurys later. Of course at that point it's to late and the Earth's fate is sealed the only important question at that point becomes the timeframe.

On the main topic though Black Holes have a lot of supporting evidence and in many ways are logical unless you don't believe in gravity the only issue I have regarding them is I don't believe it's possible for anything to escape.

If you think about what happens past the event horizon as far as time and gravity goes then everything entering is basicly frozen in time with that plus the insane gravity I personally find the idea of anything escaping impossible.



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Teknikal
If you think about what happens past the event horizon as far as time and gravity goes then everything entering is basicly frozen in time with that plus the insane gravity I personally find the idea of anything escaping impossible.


Hawking radiation is the only thing that escapes.



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 11:49 PM
link   
Hawking Radiation is pure speculation and even has a competing theory where it works in reverse causing the black hole to grow faster.

Reverse Hawking Radiation tends to predict that the smaller the black hole the faster the growth, which appears to match astronomical observation.

There is no scientific proof it exists and if it does in what form.



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 06:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Teknikal
Hawking Radiation is pure speculation and even has a competing theory where it works in reverse causing the black hole to grow faster.

Reverse Hawking Radiation tends to predict that the smaller the black hole the faster the growth, which appears to match astronomical observation.

There is no scientific proof it exists and if it does in what form.


I think Hawking Radiation a bunch of nonsense cooked up to cover their butts.

These guys are fantasy fiction writers, not scientists.

If given the choice between an untestable, unprovable, hypothetical, unfalsifiable theory or classical physics that can be proven in a lab, I choose classical physics.

Deny Ignorance.



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 07:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
If given the choice between an untestable, unprovable, hypothetical, unfalsifiable theory or classical physics that can be proven in a lab, I choose classical physics.





posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 12:44 PM
link   
I find your theries preety cool. I cant sy if your right or wrong but I cant say is the pros sre either. Just remember this:
At one time KNEW the earth was flat,
we KNEW the earth was the center of the galaxy,
we KNEW man could travel no faster then a horse could run,
we KNEW that man could not survive going faster then sound,
Just think what we will know tomorrow.



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by jmotley
I find your theries preety cool. I cant sy if your right or wrong but I cant say is the pros sre either. Just remember this:
At one time KNEW the earth was flat,
we KNEW the earth was the center of the galaxy,
we KNEW man could travel no faster then a horse could run,
we KNEW that man could not survive going faster then sound,
Just think what we will know tomorrow.


Well, I think it will be fun to revisit this thread now that CERN had some time ago tested the LHC.


Did anyone else expect anything other than what happened? A 'missing' black hole followed by saftey concerns? Did they ever create a black hole to begin with? Probably not, the so called safety concerns are likely because now we KNOW black holes don't exist.



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 04:35 PM
link   
It may be that the massive stars in the galactic center are in symbiotic relation with the black hole in the center: the black hole attracts material that is caught by these stars, fueling them and enabling them to live on despite their size. The stars' gravities and are in balance with the black hole's gravity.
Initially, the area attracted large quantities of matter. Some of that fell into the center and created the black hole, and some matter did not fell into the center due to momentum and created the stars.



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 08:39 PM
link   
mnemeth, I've read most of the threads you've posted on ATS due to my interest in plasma cosmology. If i could just offer an observation for you.

This thread is well structured and argues its point very clearly. It sticks to the science, which you present in a very clear manner. The arguments around the existence of black holes that are put forward by Crothers are some of the most compelling offered against the current accepted theory.

If I could contrast it with some of your more recent threads, this thread avoids much of the arguments and ad homs that populate other threads. It may not have as many replies, but it presents a very clear and strong argument.

I think that you would be better served by presenting the case for other areas of plasma cosmology alongs the lines of this thread, rather than (for example) your 'All of science is a lie' which is just too sensationalist and dilutes the point you were trying to make. Threads which concentrate on a single topic and present it well make more of an impact IMO.

Once again, just a helpful suggestion and thanks for this thread.



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 09:34 PM
link   
reply to post by zvezdar
 


I agree the other threads could do without the "all science is a lie" hyperbole, that hurts the cause for aternate theories more than helps it.

What's interesting about this thread too versus the others, is that the other threads claim everything Einstein said was a lie.

The OP of this thread says Einstein said there's no such thing as black holes, so if that's a lie then isn't it proof that black holes exist?


I know that sounds a but silly but it just illustrates why it's counterproductive to make overly broad characterizations like that. Instead stick to the facts of each individual claim.

I have to admit I find it hard to reconcile the black hole math myself. But I see evidence of stars orbiting a point in space that emanates no light. Maybe it's some kind of neutron star that emits no radiation instead of a black hole. The truth is, we will never be able to get data back from inside the event horizon of a black hole to prove if the math is right or not. The best we might be able to do, is calculate the mass of the object from the stars orbiting it, and define an outer limit for what may be the event horizon. But exactly what's inside the event horizon, I can't imagine how we will ever find out.

[edit on 30-5-2010 by Arbitrageur]



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 11:40 PM
link   
What's the opposite of a sun?

Black holes exist.

There are two forces in the universe, gravity and radiation.

Black holes are gravity. Suns are radiation.

Matter is radiation. Inside? Countering the radiation to create equilibrium? A black hole.


Watch this



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by zvezdar
 


...The best we might be able to do, is calculate the mass of the object from the stars orbiting it, and define an outer limit for what may be the event horizon. But exactly what's inside the event horizon, I can't imagine how we will ever find out.

[edit on 30-5-2010 by Arbitrageur]


This is exactly the problem with the current model. It was assumed that the only force holding galaxies together is gravity and then calculated what mass was needed. Why does it have to be gravity that holds the galaxies together? Gravity is the weakest force, why not an electric force?



new topics

top topics



 
14

log in

join