Black Holes Are A Myth!! A Fraud Being Perpetuated By A Coterie Of Scientists?

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...

I don't know about that man. I mean. They can prove black holes exist. They trap light because the gravity is so dense at the singularity that its not fast enough to escape it. Which is why its called a black hole. Sure, it may not lead anywhere except to a single particle singluarity made of superheated plasma or whatever. But they can't prove that now anyways. Nor do they claim to be able to. They bieng phsyicists I guess... Anyways, it may be a step further into understanding what a black hole is at least.

WOW this is interesting, someone is actually talking of black holes not existing? I'll have to have a little chat with my old astronomy teacher about this

I'm wonder what made him decide that they don't exist. I mean Scientist find stars or planets that are being warped and twisted after a stars death. Showing that something with heavier gravity is tugging or rather pulling on the object (Whether its sun or planet). Unless he has a hypothesis on another force in the universe that is similar to but different than a black hole?

Only time will tell, but great read!
Star + Flag.

If black holes are ingesting matter and light, wouldn't there come a time when they would be attempting to swallow each other?

When - and if - black holes collide or even get close, wouldn't there be a cataclysmic explosion?

Or would there simply be a new Universe on the other side?

One never knows, perhaps everything we think of the Universe is mostly wrong, theories built upon a foundation of other theories which may be wrong, or not quite 100% right.
Just waiting for someone with a new theory to topple the weak foundations of our 'knowledge'.
We can't see black holes because they are surrounded by light.

All kinds of things, like the red shifting of stars that determine their distance, me asks: "What if the stars in question merely have different luminosities, therefore 'look' more red or not, and have nothing to do with distance. That would throw questions up about the Big Bang, a theory that I don't buy 100%.

Theories are theories, that's all, and people can become 'theory bound' IMO.

New ideas are a good thing.
(The Electric Universe theory comes to mind)

well i don't know if they do exist or not but from what i have read and heard of physics and that's like over 4 years on it , black holes actually do make sense and it's not hard to imagine how one would work and be formed. but who know's maybe they really are something other then a black hole

toadmund, I have always wondered that myself about the red shift's and blu shifts, lol

[edit on 2-3-2008 by nemesiswes]

i'm not sure that we can rule out the existence of black holes. lets face it, without the means of actually going and looking, we will never really know. you say that stephen j cothers 'claims' that balck holes have been conjured up. can he validate this without possible refute? if not, then surely we are just accepting another mans word. many say that they do exist, and there may be growing number who say they dont! does either side have definitive evidence? it doesnt sound like it. our current understanding of the physical universe is extremely limited.

another point is that astronomers have witnessed what they believe to be the presence of black holes. they may just have witnessed a meco or nothing at all. but i believe that the evidence of the existence of black holes is quite strong. many reputable physicits have spent years investigating them, and to turn round and say that their life work was a waste of time, with no solid evidence is a major slap in the face.

physics is still growing, and we have much to learn about the universe we inhabit. we simply cannot write off what we have because someone says so. we must investigate and ammend where required. if black holes do exist and we fully undersand them we may be able to utilise them to our advantage.

if this is of interest then check out www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/K/Kerr_black_hole.html

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.

The best evidence I've seen that black holes do exist is the video of stars orbiting an object at the center of our Milky Way Galaxy. It was brought up in this thread a while back.

Video Evidence of Super Massive Black Hole at the Center of the Milky Way

They estimate the object to be 3 million times the mass of our own sun and can't be observed directly. Whether it is a black hole or made of plasma, who cares? It's big what ever it is.

All the 'evidence' which points to black holes could also be viewed as evidence of plasma driven process.

Evidence is found of effects which are attributed to a cause. The cause does not necessarily have to be the standard cop-out of 'black holes'.

Black holes are yet another piece of the gravitationally centered paradigm which has run amok for far too long.

Similar effects of black holes are recreated right here on earth every time a plasma gun (dense plasma focus) is fired.

Black holes are nothing but a mathematical fabrication, another ad hoc to force a gravity only theory to err... make sense, Ironically with nonsensical ideas.

OMG!!

I was thinking a few month or so ago and came to a theory that super plasma's exist at the centre of black holes!,and that these superplasmas are spinning at an incredible speed and create the extreme gravitational forces we assosciate with them!
then i read this,and my interest was perked
www.space.com...

what are the odds of it coinciding with your and these theories!?!?,it was completly independant and of my own thought processes!!

This is very interesting. Does not mention anything of the plasma theory but goes on about something called a blackstar.

space.newscientist.com... y-exist.html

I still don't understand why people veer away from anything to do with Plasma and Plasma Cosmology. 99.99999% of all matter in the Universe exist in their Plasma state, but that bit of information goes largely unnoticed.

I wonder why they teach you about only THREE states of matter in school

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

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 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 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!

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 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.