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

Awsome thread. now to disprove dark matter and dark energy and im happy

Originally posted by Ogre14t
Awsome thread. now to disprove dark matter and dark energy and im happy

Yeah! That's next! And the Big Bang theory as well!! And later Pulsars, quasars and much else!!

Cheers!

reply to post by Aether


Go here for an essentially non-mathematical demonstration of the falsity of black holes:

www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/Unicorns.pdf

One of the main fallacies of black hole theory (and I know just enough about this to look like a fool, but here goes), to my simple layman's way of thinking, is the imagining of an infinitely small area, namely the point or singularity.

According to Lee Smolin, on page 135 - 145 of my copy of his book Three Roads to Quantum Gravity, the spin networks of Roger Penrose can be used to calculate the smallest possible volume in the universe and it has a finite value. It is a very small volume, existing in the Planck scale, but Smolin(working with Penrose) has nevertheless concluded that there is a finite division of space beyond which one cannot go. Note that we are not speaking of particles, but the very nature of spacetime itself. According to Smolin, the stuff of space itself is not infinitely small. In this picture, space itself is very like a foam in its texture, with every point on the spin network connected to the next. Zeno's Paradox resolved!

I would think this limit would put some stress on black hole theory, though, since black hole theory requires an infinitely small unit of volume in order to form a singularity. Am I wrong on this?

Plasma cosmology seems to work well though, even with this limitation.

Other excellent books I have read on related subjects:

Yuval Ne'eman and Yoram Kirsh: The Particle Hunters
John D. Barrow: The Book of Nothing
Gordon Kane: Supersymmetry
J. Richard Gott: Time Travel in Einstein's Universe
And of course, Stephen Hawking: The Nature of Space and Time and The Universe in a Nutshell

These books give the usual party line about gravity, but also provoke some interesting contradictions.

[edited for typo's, always typo's!]

[edit on 21-11-2008 by OuttaHere]

I had sometime ago asked this question of the existence of black holes to the famous scientist Dr Michio Kaku. His reply? The universe is full of black holes! He claims that the evidence comes from optical and radio observations which show a sharp rise in the velocities of stars or gas clouds orbiting the centers of galaxies. He even gives the example of NGC 6240 that has two SM black holes, based on observations with radio, infrared and optical telescopes.

Now, where do we go from here?

reply to post by mikesingh


Don't worry Mike, Michio's a likable guy but his evidence isn't evidence at all, it's true what we see is highly energetic forces at work, the leap to a assume there is an invisible and impossible singularity driving it is just that, a leap.
He also is a strong advocate of string theory, another speculative dead end.

Originally posted by Ogre14t
Awsome thread. now to disprove dark matter and dark energy and im happy

The dark matter/energy theory is very perturbing to me. From a discipline that requires proof (or, at least, evidence) and so strongly derides others who promote theories that seemingly lack either, to see them cling to dark matter/energy is very disappointing.

There's no need to disprove dark matter and dark energy, it's never been proven in the first place.
Not only is it disappointing and embarrassing scientifically, billions of taxpayer dollars have been squandered chasing a mathematical fairy tale.
Big bang science is pseudo science, someone needs to say it.

Here is a movie that gives more of an in depth look into the plasma/electric universe theory. It is made by the same people as the OP is quoting.

It actually does make a bit of sense.

It talks about comets, the sun and why the black part is the hottest part, where temperature colors would suggest the black part to be the coolest, the corona. It also addresses the pulsar stuff and all other things.

Very interesting.

Thunderbolts of the Gods:

Google Video Link

I DARE YOU to say that to Stephen Hawking.

TRIPLE DOG DARE YOU to say that to him.

He might just hop out of that chair and slap you in the face!

We're talking about the guy who can actually do the math to tell you the precise amount of gravitational pull and amazing physics such as this. I seriously dare you.

What if space was a fluid. A superfluid to be exact. Gravastars explain this concept, at least conceptually.

what if...

reply to post by mikesingh


I have to say that this claim does not seem to hold much value at first sight.

Black holes can be measured and their activities observed rather well.

Of course we do not know the whole story behind them, that much is clear. But the existence of black holes in the sense of super dense areas that attract matter does not seem to be questionable at all.

Originally posted by Toadmund

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%.

I understand where you are coming from but before making such a statement, I suggest you review Doppler principles. We are not stating a star is "red" because of its luminosity. It is "red" because of a period of time, the spectrum we are observing it in is "red"; indicating a star that is moving away from us.

I will admit, that our understanding here on earth is earthly; meaning, it applies here in a known fashion. As we apply it to the cosmos, we can assume the physics are the same but should be open to new defining matters that may change that equations.

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)