“Black Hole” B.S.
They are theorized as being the remains of giant burned out stars and are an area where the force of gravity is so strong that even light cannot escape. Hence the name “black hole” but the support of this theory is negative evidence.
Since nothing can be seen there, the theory must be right. In science you cannot prove anything but only disprove a claim and the attempt to support a hypothesis with negative observation carries with it the assumption that you know and have disproved all other possible explanations.
The beauty of these unsupported theories is that they can be altered as needed and be used as answers for multiple mysterious occurrences. Black holes can range in size from hundreds of thousands of light years to micro black holes thus providing an answer to multiple phenomena, just as quantum physics, which was created to solve the problems in the subatomic realm, is now used to explain cosmic events.
These are magic spells created by physicists that have no evidential or logical support and are completely divorced from reality. They provide a means to give answers using such complicated and confusing concepts that the answers appear to be knowledge instead of a mask for ignorance. An answer without understanding is still ignorance, but they do stop the questioning.
By sounding scientificish, support is achieved by intimidation, just as an argument can be won by using obscure jargon to confuse the issue. This is known as a B.S. argument where the object is to avoid a discussion.
The theory of black holes begins with a star much larger than the sun igniting. (Since it is gravity that causes a sun to ignite we will ignore the question of why the sun didn’t ignite when it was smaller.) The sun burns, converting hydrogen and helium into energy using fusion. It continues to radiate energy into space through the conversion of matter into energy until the supply of hydrogen and helium fuel is exhausted.
It then produces energy by combining the protons and electrons in atom into neutrons and radiates this energy as a white dwarf star, later becoming a neutron star. When this fuel source is exhausted the immense gravitational force collapses the star into a singularity, producing the black hole where even light cannot escape the pull of gravity.
By converting mass into energy a star one hundred times the size of our sun will become a neutron star about seven miles in diameter before collapsing into a singularity. One
would expect that since the neutron star was able to radiate energy/mass into space that the size of the event horizon, where no energy can be radiated, would be less than seven miles, since the singularity has less mass than the neutron star.
Light or matter entering this event horizon would add energy/mass to the singularity increasing the strength of the gravitational field. Objects that enter the gravitational field of the black hole but not the event horizon would remove energy/mass from the singularity.
This happens because the gravity from the singularity accelerates the object increasing its velocity. An increase in velocity means an increase in energy and some of that energy is converted into an increase in mass, following Einstein’s formula for specialrelativity, E=mc^2. Since energy and mass cannot be created or destroyed any increase in energy and mass of the object in the gravitational field must be coming from the singularity.
This is the method used by the Voyager satellites to gain enough energy to escape the solar system. They entered the gravitational fields of planets and accelerated, taking energy from the planets enabling them to overcome the gravity coming from the sun and leave the solar system.
You need to wonder how the little matter and light entering the event horizon and adding to it, could be greater than the matter not entering it but taking energy/matter from it. How could this exchange allow the event horizon to grow from less than seven miles in diameter to over one hundred thousand light years?
Another contradiction in this scenario is was this spent star able to collapse into a singularity due to the force of gravity. Gravity is produced by mass (according to theory) so as the mass was converted into energy and radiated into space, the strength of the gravitational field of the star would continually decrease.
It wouldn’t matter if the star started out one hundred or a thousand times more massive than the sun, when it lost enough mass to be equal to the mass of the sun, it would produce the same force of gravity.
The idea that even though the mass creating the gravity could decrease, but the strength of the gravity would remain the same is ridiculous and could only happen if the gravity was not a function of mass.
Gravity is not a function of mass but caused by energy (not another form of mass). Energy produces motion while mass produce inertia. Energy is attracted to mass (positive matter) and creates an energy field around the mass. Any object within this field will try to equalize with it. When an object equalizes with the field it will go into orbit around the source of energy in a band of energy, where it does not gain or lose energy.
Objects do not go in straight lines, like Newton thought, but equalize with the energy field they are in. They will remain in this field unless they gain or lose energy, which will cause them to re-equalize in another band at a different distance from the object.
Matter produces electric fields, which it radiates, so objects are surrounded by both energy and electric fields. These fields interact so that any disturbance in one of the fields will produce a disturbance in the other field.
These disturbances are electromagnetic waves that travel through the fields produced by the one object, slowing as the fields grow weaker, to the equilibrium point with the fields of a neighboring object.
At his point the disturbance is transferred to the fields of the neighboring object, where it speed will increase as the strength of those fields increase.
This changing of speed causes light to bend, not go in a straight line, and where these fields are concentrated (at the center of galaxies) this bending will create black holes where light is bent enough that it does not pass straight through the area.
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Brian James
| #
Government employees must be laughing all the way to their he bank.
October 21, 2022 The Webb Space Telescope’s New Look at a “Star Factory” on This Week @NASA
A new look at a “star factory,” practicing Moonwalks here on Earth, and an Earthly assist for a NASA spacecraft … a few of the stories to tell you about – This Week at NASA!
https://youtu.be/eeuNZTpMdWAC
Reply
T. C. Clark
| #
Gravity is not a force…space-time tells mass how to move and mass tells space-time how to bend. TON 618 is the largest Ultra-massive BH known….luminosity of 140 trillion of our sun. The quasar at the heart of H1821_+343 has an unusual cooling effect on the surrounding star cluster and it is speculated that it’s entropy might be locked in a Compton cooled feedback cycle that allows the black hole to exist.
Reply
Robert Beatty
| #
Hi Herb,
I like the title to your paper “Black Hole BS” it explains much of what is wrong with the current theory. I refer you to PSI figure 3 in the paper https://principia-scientific.com/discover-connected-gravispheres/
Here you can see the basic inputs to a BH are electrons, protons and neutrons. The equally important observation is the gravity field output. If an significant gravity field already exists, the BH cannot form, because it will get absorbed into the existing field. So we can conclude that a BH can only form and grow, to the large sizes postulated, in those parts of the universe where gravity is at an extremely low ebb.
This mechanism provides a theory for how space can keep expanding without any more complicated inputs than three elementary components – but also in a gravity poor environment.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Robert,
The title refers to those who are willing to ignore their own beliefs to come up with explanations they can use to support their beliefs. With “black holes” they ignore the premise that gravity is produced by mass and, fusion, or the conversion of mass to energy, is what powers the sun. They claim that the ashes of a sun (“singularity”), after it has converted most of its mass to energy, will result in a gravitational field stronger than the field it had when to had more mass.
I am of the opinion that gravity is the non-directional force radiated (magnetism is the directional force) by energy while the electric forces are radiated by matter (energy is not another form of matter). Energy is attracted to positive matter (strong nuclear force) and, being stronger that the matter electrical force, is able to displace negative matter (beta decay) which is why a neutron (proton electron molecule) quickly decays to a proton, electron, and gamma ray when not in a nucleus
Energy flows to the positive matter and decreases (becomes less dense) with distance from the positive matter. What we call mass is just how strongly matter (proton and electron) are held in in these force fields. Light is a disturbance moving in the fields energy and electric) and its speed varies with the strength of the fields. This change of speed causes the red, blue, and purple shifts, not an expanding universe.
When an energy field moves on to a new matter source it is not a subtle thing but a quasar.
Herb
Reply
Robert Beatty
| #
Hi Herb,
I note “I am of the opinion that gravity is the non-directional force radiated (magnetism is the directional force) by energy while the electric forces are radiated by matter (energy is not another form of matter).”
If gravity is non-directional how come it follows the inverse square law?
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Robert,
The strength of the force decreases as an area but the force decreases by distance. Kepler’s law of orbits (distance times velocity squared gives the same value for all orbiting objects (mass irrelevant)) is that energy decreases linearly from the source.
I did an experiment with magnets that showed the correct formula is M3 = (M1 + M2)/d where the distance is not the distance from center to center but from one magnet to the magnetic field of the other magnet. This gives the same result as F = M1M2/d^2 but makes a lot more sense and you don’t have the strength of a magnet decreasing by approximately the cube of the distance but linearly.
Herb
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
The force between magnets should be M3 = M1/d1 + M2/d2. I used two equal magnets so the distance for each magnet was half the distance between them and the formula became M3 = 2M/d. It is difficult to determine the strength of a magnet using a non magnetized piece of magnetic metal since the magnetic field of the magnets creates an induced magnet in the metal and you are measuring the force of two magnets, one permanent and one variable. This causes the distance between the magnet and the magnetic field of the induced magnet to vary. Hence the apparent decline of the strength of a magnet by the approximate cube of distance. Two variables distance and induced strength.
Reply
Robert Beatty
| #
Hi Herb,
If “The strength of the force decreases as an area but the force decreases by distance” then it is directional – as observed by telescopic evidence. Keplers law can be derived from Newton as well.
Your magnetic experiment was robustly discussed previously on PSI.
Good luck with your new cosmology theory, but I will need a lot more convincing.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Robert,
Newton used Kepler’s law to create his law of gravity.
A light from a bulb will go in all directions, deceasing in strength as the area expands. When you put that bulb in a spot light and make it directional it decreases with distance.
When gathering light with a telescope, since light bends you gather more light from a larger area than arc of the telescope. thats why you see far more stars the more powerful and smaller arc of the telescope.
Herb
Reply
Robert Beatty
| #
Hi Herb,
Have you read PROM paper https://principia-scientific.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/central-field-motion.pdf
The latter pages promote similar ideas to your comments.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Robert,
Thanks for the reference.
The problem I had with the article is that retains the premise of photons and a constant speed of light while I believe that light is a disturbance (wave) whose velocity changes with the strength of the fields.
The wave theory of light was not accepted even after interference patterns (a phenomena of waves) were discovered because of the immediacy of a current in the photoelectric effect. It was reasoned that it would take time for a wave to transfer enough energy to dislodge an electron and create a current but there was no such delay. I consider this objection invalid because in crystals and metals, where the photoelectric effect occurs, electrons are already disassociated from atoms and held in place by ionic or metallic bonds. All that is necessary to dislodge these electrons is enough energy to distort these bonds. The photoelectric effect and the piezo electric effect are where these bonds are distorted, one by a change in strength of the electric/magnetic field, the other by physical pressure.
Light’s speed constantly changes as the fields it travels in weaken or strengthen with distance from the source of the fields. The measuring of speed is based on measuring the distance at two points and dividing by the time necessary for traveling this distance. The assumption that the speed is constant throughout the journey is constant is unwarranted. You can make a trip averaging 30 mph and still get a ticket for doing 80 mph.
The changes in time a distance are based on a constant speed of light. The contention that both an increase in gravity and an increase in velocity will result in similar changes is not possible, since velocity is a function of distance while gravity is an inverse function of distance. The closer you get to a gravitational source the greater the distance to it.
The fallacy of Einstein (and Newton) does not lie in their reasoning but it their premises.
Herb
Reply