 |
In 2019, astronomers using the Event Horizon Telescope system announced that they had captured what they described as the first ever image of Black Hole |
Black Hole discovered in far-off galaxy?
“A Black Hole has been photographed at the centre of the galaxy M87, 55 million light-years from us. It's now been named Powehi, a Hawaiian phrase referring to an "embellished dark source of unending creation.”
Steve Crothers* begs to disagree...
It is not a discovery at all.
Rather, this is how astronomers and cosmologists do science: fraud by means of mass-media induced mass-hysteria. It beggars belief. Think about it: according to the astronomers and cosmologists the finite mass of their black hole is concentrated in a 'physical singularity' of zero volume, infinite density, and infinite gravity. But no finite mass has zero volume, infinite density, and infinite gravity, anywhere!
Similarly, the astronomers and cosmologists assign to their black hole two different escape speeds: one of zero metres per second and one corresponding to the speed of light of 300,000,000 metres per second, and this in the same equation! At the same time there is no capacity for an escape speed (since nothing can even leave), simultaneously, at the same place (at the 'event horizon' meaning the boundary of a black hole beyond which nothing can escape from within it.). But nothing can have two different escape speeds and no capacity for an escape speed, simultaneously, at the same place! Furthermore, the astronomers and cosmologists assert that the escape speed at the event horizon is the speed of light, yet light cannot either leave or escape; indeed, nothing, they say, can even leave the event horizon. But since light travels at the speed of light, which is the escape speed at the event horizon, light must both leave it and escape! And, moreover, anything else can leave.
On the mathematical level, the black hole is conjured by violations of geometry. Geometrically speaking, the theory of black holes moves a sphere originally centred at the origin of a coordinate system to some other place in that same coordinate system but leaves its centre behind. By this means the two 'singularities' of the black hole are produced, the centre of the moved sphere, now thought to be an event horizon, and the left behind centre at the origin of coordinates, thought to be the 'physical singularity'. According to Black Hole theory, In the centre of a black hole is a gravitational singularity, a one-dimensional point which contains a huge mass in an infinitely small space, where density and gravity become infinite and space-time curves infinitely, and where the laws of physics as we know them cease to operate.
Analytically speaking, the violation of geometry manifests in black hole theory as the requirement that the absolute value of a real number must take on negative values – which is impossible as I’ve argued in detail elsewhere. (For example, in a paper for Hadronic Journal called ‘On Corda’s “Clarification” of Schwarzschild’s Solution’).
The laws of thermodynamics require that temperature must always be an intensive thermodynamic property. (The first law, also known as Law of Conservation of Energy, states that energy cannot be created or destroyed in an isolated system. The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of any isolated system always increases. ) To argue otherwise is a violation of both the 0th and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. The Hawking temperature of a black hole is however non-intensive, in violation of the laws of thermodynamics. (Stephen Hawking argued that quantum effects allow black holes to emit exact black-body radiation and that the electromagnetic radiation would be produced as if emitted by a black body with a temperature inversely proportional to the mass of the black hole.) So black hole thermodynamics is entirely nonsense as this video on the subject of Gravitational Thermodynamics demonstrates.
The conclusion must be that the black hole does not exist; proven with common sense and high-school science. Yet the astronomers and physicists have managed to image that which does not exist. To which we might say, of course they did - they have to justify their lucrative jobs and their vast grants of unaccountable public money.
Read more:
Stephen Crothers is a mathematician who has written and lectured on many of the problems with the standard model of cosmology. During his PHd thesis, at the School of Physics in the University of South Wales he studied General Relativity and Black Holes and found the concept to be inconsistent with General Relativity.
Crothers, S.J., A Critical Analysis of LIGO's Recent Detection of Gravitational Waves Caused by Merging Black Holes, Hadronic Journal, n.3, Vol. 39, 2016, pp.271-302,
http://vixra.org/pdf/1603.0127v5.pdf
Crothers, S.J., LIGO -- Its Claims for Black Holes and Gravitational Waves | EU2017, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ev10ywLFq6E&t=496s
Crothers, S.J., Gravitational Waves: Propagation Speed is Co-ordinate Dependent, Poster Presentation, 2018 April APS Meeting, Columbus, Ohio, presented on 14th April 2018. http://vixra.org/pdf/1804.0399v1.pdf
14 comments:
The essay offers an interesting hypothesis:
“[T]his is how astronomers and cosmologists do science: fraud by mass-media induced mass-hysteria…. The conclusion must be that the black hole does not exist; proven with common sense and high-school science.”
But does it have legs? What’s a reasonable testbed?
Personally, I found context helpful for assessing the hypothesis. In case other readers of “Philosophical Investigations” welcome context, too, here’s a short checklist to help independent judgment.
First, a public-affairs release, by the National Science Foundation, of the recently announced “first image of a black hole”: the supermassive black hole at the center of the distant Messier 87 galaxy…
https://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=298276
One of the takeaways by scientists is this quote: “The size and shape of the shadow [black hole] matches the precise predictions of Einstein’s general theory of relativity.” Others concur.
Second, for readers curious about how the 200-plus scientists, from more than 20 nations, imaged the black hole, following is a set of six complementary papers from “Astrophysical Journal Letters” that delve deeper.
See what you think:
“The Shadow of the Supermassive Black Hole”…
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/ab0ec7/meta
“Array and Instrumentation”…
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/ab0c96/meta
“Data Processing and Calibration”…
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/ab0c57/meta
“Imaging the Central Massive Black Hole”…
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/ab0e85/meta
“Physical Origin of the Asymmetric Ring”…
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/ab0f43/meta
“The Shadow and Mass of the Central Black Hole”…
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/ab1141/meta
Relatedly, in 2017 three scientists won the Nobel Prize in Physics for detecting gravitational waves. As the Academy announced, “the waves, which were predicted by Albert Einstein a hundred years ago, came from a collision of two black holes” (https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018/06/press-40.pdf).
My hope is that the background material will prove informative to advance, in some small way, the conversation.
Mmm.. I really think we should be wary of following the herd, which is where talk of scientific consensus can end up. Rather, we should look open-mindedly at specific points which can be evaluated. So, for example, Steve complains: "the astronomers and cosmologists assign to their black hole two different escape speeds: one of zero metres per second and one corresponding to the speed of light of 300,000,000 metres per second, and this in the same equation!" I've seen his objections to other elements of 'black hole theory' - often he claims to have found fairly straightforward contradictions. They are expressed in mathematical language, but when 'unpacked' as ordinary English they run foul of the philosophical need for consistency.
Steve goes on to highlight the EXTRAORDINARY requirements of Black Hole theory. INdeed, to beleive in Black Holes seems to require us to disbelieve in precisely that 'scientific consensus' that you appeal to, Keith.
"According to Black Hole theory, In the centre of a black hole is a gravitational singularity, a one-dimensional point which contains a huge mass in an infinitely small space, where density and gravity become infinite and space-time curves infinitely, and where the laws of physics as we know them cease to operate. Analytically speaking, the violation of geometry manifests in black hole theory as the requirement that the absolute value of a real number must take on negative values "
Actually, in the case of the so-called 'Schwarzschild black hole' the finite mass of the black hole is concentrated in a point, which is 0-dimensional. In the case of a Kerr black hole, the finite mass is concentrated in the circumference of a circle, not a circle, only the circumference of a circle. The circumference of a circle is a line, and thus it is 1-dimensional. In both cases, according to the astronomers and cosmologists, the density of the 'physical singularity' is infinite and the gravity is infinite. But no finite mass has zero volume, infinite density, and infinite gravity.
The six papers published by the EHT Team carry no scientific justification for the claim of a black hole imaged in M87 because the black hole's character phantasmagorial proves that it does not exist. The M87 radio point source in the ETH papers is certainly not a black hole. Furthermore, the LHC teams, the LIGO-Virgo Collaboration teams, and the EHT team, have all announced their alleged 'discoveries' by means of international mass-media inducing mass-hysteria.
I suspect, Martin, everyone acknowledges that iconoclastic thinking has historically led to great innovation — resulting in bold strides in human knowledge, a nod to the crucible of curiosity, rigorous thinking, and inquisitiveness. Both conventional wisdom — as well as, I would offer, unorthodoxy itself — should indeed be tested in every which way. (Perhaps Stephen has already put his own misgivings about recent events before the scientific and mathematical community.)
All that said, I believe the international Event Horizon Telescope team is an example of the force-multiplying effects of many bright scientific minds playing off one another, as an energetic intellectual collective, for best outcomes. Further, I would offer, in the case of black holes, it’s one thing to challenge conventional scientific wisdom around issues like escape velocities, singularities, and the mathematics. After all, no one claims that all the science of black holes is settled; far from it.
(Black holes are not alone in this patient peeling away of the layers to get ever closer to truth: look at how long it has taken to confirm some of Einstein’s predictions. And look at how much remains enigmatic about “spooky” quantum physics.)
However, it’s an entirely other thing to take the giant leap from concerns about escape velocity, singularities, and the like to, perhaps, denying the existence of this or other black holes — contrary to prodigious confirmatory evidence. Might the collective be humbly right in this case, insofar as where the new baseline of knowledge is? That aside, and no matter how one slices and dices the recent milestone, the Event Horizon Telescope’s imaging of the supermassive black hole within the belly of the Messier 87 galaxy doesn’t end the science of black-hole modeling. Science is relentless.
"However, it’s an entirely other thing to take the giant leap from concerns about escape velocity, singularities, and the like to, perhaps, denying the existence of this or other black holes — contrary to prodigious confirmatory evidence. Might the collective be humbly right in this case, insofar as where the new baseline of knowledge is?" Keith
This is not reasonable. The properties that the astronomers and cosmologists assign to their black holes are impossible. They are violations of the laws of physics and the rules of logic. There is no observational evidence for black holes since the black hole does not exist.
"I believe the international Event Horizon Telescope team is an example of the force-multiplying effects of many bright scientific minds playing off one another, as an energetic intellectual collective, for best outcomes. "Keith
Bright scientific minds don't believe in things that don't exist. The people at the EHT believe in things that don't exist, and claim they detected and imaged something that doesn't exist. Just think about the points I have made above. Violations of the laws of physics and the rules of logic nullify all claims to have found something that doesn't exist.
Many thanks for contributing the ideas in your post, Steve. Isee your role in physics and cosmology as akin to the boy accusing the Emperor of wearing no clothes - whereas Keith here seems to be appealing to the pomp and ceremony of their procession! Be that as it may, I am intrigued by the mathematical distinction you make in your comment above between a zero dimensional point and the 1-dimensional circumfrence of an infintely small circle. Truly, such distinctions are mind-blowing!
According to the theory of black holes the time it takes for a distant observer to see a 'falling' mass reach a black hole event horizon is infinite. We on Earth are distant observers of LIGO's alleged merging black holes. For their black holes to merge the masses of each must reach and cross the event horizon of the other. But according to us on Earth this must take an infinite time. LIGO did not observe their black holes for an infinite time to be sure they merged. Their own theory tells them that they did not and cannot ever detect black holes merging. The same goes for the alleged black hole merger with a neutron star.
While I am not qualified to speak about the science, there does seem to be a dangerous hubris in science as a whole. But is it better to romp ahead with hubristic ideas, or to suffer the tedium of relative un-knowing? Thank you Stephen for bringing 'pause for thought' to the field.
What do we amke of these comments from Prof Alberto Vecchio, director of the Institute of Gravitational Wave Astronomy, University of Birmingham, UK, reported today in the Guardian? I thought the idea of the edge of a Black Hole was that it was the point at which gravity was so intense light could not escape. So the claim here that the 'edge' of a small black hole could have a greater effect than that of a 'large black hole' seems, on the face of it, nonsensical.
"Counterintuitively, the biggest black holes are the least dense and the gravitational pull at the edge of these objects is least fierce, so a neutron star colliding with a very large black hole might simply vanish from view. “The neutron star would just dive in and nothing happens, that’s it,” said Vecchio. By contrast, for a smaller black hole, the gravity close to the event horizon would be so fierce that it could shred the neutron star, gobbling it up in several chunks.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/may/03/astronomers-may-have-spotted-black-hole-swallowing-star
Reading the article in the Guardian, 'Black hole may have swallowed neutron star, say astronomers', the language is tentative throughout, beginning with the title. Like schoolboys at a pond: What was that? A fish? A toad? Maybe somebody threw a stone? What then is the nature and status of tentative language?
Note in the article, "The location of the possible neutron star and black hole merger, which is estimated to have taken place 1.2bn light years away, has been narrowed down to about 3% of the total sky – but that is still a vast region.
“All the astronomers are now chasing an unfortunately enormous patch of the sky to see whether there’s some light that has switched on at that time,” said Prof Alberto Vecchio, director of the Institute of Gravitational Wave Astronomy, University of Birmingham."
As I remarked already above, we on Earth are distant observers. According to black hole theory it takes an infinite time for a distant observer to observe a mass reach and cross the 'event horizon' of a black hole. The neutron star reported in the Guardian, to which Vecchio refers, has a mass, and must take an infinite time according to the LIGO-Virgo detectors, to merge with a black hole. So how does the LIGO-Virgo Team manage to detect that which, by their own theory, requires an infinite time to occur? They didn't because they can't.
Re the Guardian article: I suggest that the purportedly ‘counterintuitive’ nature of the observation regarding the relative density and gravitational pull of large and small black holes logically matters (has meaning) only if one presupposes that black holes actually exist.
That aside, I admire the astronomers’ humility and curiosity in granting that the complex science of black holes is still evolving, all the while in assiduous pursuit of reality — arguably noble qualities of physics and metaphysics alike.
"I admire the astronomers’ humility and curiosity in granting that the complex science of black holes is still evolving, all the while in assiduous pursuit of reality — arguably noble qualities of physics and metaphysics alike." Keith
What's to admire? They all stand in violation of the experimentally determined laws of physics and the rules of pure mathematics with their black holes, gravitational waves, and big bangs. What they do is not science, not physics, not even metaphysics on the assumption that the latter involves reason. The stories they peddle are hoaxes. There is no 'science' of black holes, so it the black hole can't evolve scientifically. The proofs are so simple that any reasonable person should be able to understand them and dismiss the phantasmagoria of the astronomers and cosmologists as ludicrous. Try addressing the points I have made, instead of blindly praising the perpetrators of these hoaxes.
Post a Comment