The Black Hole Image – Data Fabrication Masterclass!
In his latest video Professor Pierre-Marie Robitaille, Ph.D deftly exposes the recent fake science claims about an ‘image’ of a black hole. Calling out what is clearly data manipulation, any reasonable viewer can agree this “photo” is NOT the greatest achievement of 2019.
While it may be true that university cosmologists, heavily reliant on grant funds, have worked very hard on the project and were under the pressure of great expectation, the descent into fakery and false claims brings a stain on the good name of science.
While government-funded researchers remain religiously devoted to the standard solar model any attempt to engage in discussion about the physics invariably reveals we are dealing with a junk science cult.
About the presenter:
Pierre-Marie Robitaille, Ph.D., was a professor of Radiology at The Ohio State University from 1989-2019, and also held an appointment in the Chemical Physics Program. In 1998, he led the design and assembly of the world’s first Ultra High Field MRI System. Readings from this equipment brought into question fundamental aspects of modern thermal physics, such as Kirchhoff’s Law of thermal emission.
Link to Professor Robitaille’s papers on Vixra: http://vixra.org/author/pierre-marie_…
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
Raymond H Gallucci
| #
I totally agree with Dr. Robitaille, as well as Steve Crothers (who has cited Schwarzschild’s original work itself), that black holes (and possibly even neutron stars) are fiction. I have examined this on a much simpler basis in PSI, cited below, to reach similar conclusions. Kudos to both for continuing the fight against this “science fiction” (where it belongs, e.g., movie Interstellar).
Gallucci, R. 2017. “’Neutron’ vs. ‘Strobe’ Stars?’” submitted to Galilean Electrodynamics, https://home.comcast.net/~adring/; presented at EU2017 – The Electric Universe: Future Science, August 17-20, 2017, Phoenix, AZ (also http://vixra.org/pdf/1703.0209.pdf; https://principia-scientific.com/neutron-or-strobe-stars/ [December 29, 2017]).
Gallucci, R. 2017. “The Black Hole – Can the ‘Irresistible Force’ Overcome the ‘Immovable Object?’” submitted to Galilean Electrodynamics, https://home.comcast.net/~adring/ (also http://vixra.org/pdf/1701.0575.pdf; https://principia-scientific.com/the-black-hole-can-the-irresistible-force-overcome-the-immovable-object/ [March 26, 2018]).
Reply
NecktopPC
| #
“The scrapping of all observed weather data from 1850 to 1949 was necessary” – ENVIRONMENT CANADA.
Computer simulations is what suffices for ‘climate science’ for former Environment Minister Catherine McKenna.
So “Climate Barbie’s” Carbon Tax on Canadians, as a measure of dealing with the UNFCCC/IPCC/AGENDA, which has her screaming “Climate Emergency,” is not based on historical hard data collected through out Canada, from 1850 to 1949 (99 years) but is based on fabricate models, or computer simulation software.
Surely its still freash in the minds of many people just how well some computer software simulations, and even training, worked out for BOEING and their 737MAX, not to mention the many souls lost, from their two terrible crashes.
Reply
NecktopPC
| #
GOLDSTEIN: Feds scrapped 100 years of data on climate change
https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/goldstein-feds-scrapped-100-years-of-data-on-climate-change
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Necktop,
People really need to remember what has happened to BOEING and their 737MAX if they read: https://principia-scientific.com/four-converging-technologies-giving-us-the-spatial-web/.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
NecktopPC
| #
Just read another interesting bit of news about 737MAX
New snags add to uncertainty over Boeing 737 MAX’s return to service
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/new-snags-add-to-uncertainty-over-boeing-737-maxs-return-to-service/
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Necktop,
Thank you for giving me an excuse to ‘explain’ what I see and to do this we need to go back to the Wright Bros. and what they saw. For they studied the soaring birds–eagles and turkey buzzards. What they saw was the very subtle, barely observable movement of a few feathers. So they know that the air foil of any flying machine needed a very subtle change of the air foils (the wings).
And until one (I do not remember which and am to lazy to check) saw how the subtle twisting of a rectangular box produced a subtle change, they could not figure out how to produce the needed subtle change that allowed the soaring birds to soar.
So, before the 737MAX all ‘large’ airliners had a large, fixed surface, wings (both the major wing which supported the plane and the tail wings which controlled the direction of the plane had large area fixed surfaces and tiny trailing surfaces (feathers) to subtly change the air foil’s surface.
But the 737MAX had only a large area movable tail wing (without feathers). So while it seemed the movement of the large area tail wing could be subtle controlled by a sensitive computer, the observed fact is that this didn’t work in all cases. And it doesn’t matter why it didn’t work beyond the fact that the designers of the 737MAX had ignored what the Wright Bros. had observed.
And my point in my previous comment is there not an artificial intelligence which is the match of the human intelligence of some individuals.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
tom0mason
| #
The ways of modern science… Down The Black Hole …
First imagine your theory, ensuring it fits with the consensus of scientific views. Next design an experiment or observation to reinforce this consensus. Gather some raw data. Filter the raw data removing what is perceived and assumed to be unacceptable data, statistically manipulate what is left (preferably in some strange or ‘original’ manner), then make some nice graphics (preferably an animation) of your theory using the manipulated data product results. When writing up the ‘research’ always leave out some vital step from the process so validation by others is very difficult.
Never question why the raw data falls outside what is expected — just disregard it — do not test your ideas to see if they make sense, and never reassess your results to see if they are reasonable within known measurement errors. Always vehemently dispute the logic/character of others who question your results and theory.
~~~~~~~~~
Science should be a test for the truth of our understanding of the universe about us, and not a test of any scientific consensus.
Reply
tom0mason
| #
Also see https://youtu.be/Bl4fVY2d5ok to understand where I am coming from — consensus science we ask the wrong questions and assume the wrong answers.
Only those who can look will see.
Reply
Robert Beatty
| #
An interesting, but incomplete analysis of the available data for galaxy M87. “Messier 87 (also known as Virgo A or NGC 4486, generally abbreviated to M87) is a super giant elliptical galaxy in the constellation Virgo. One of the most massive galaxies in the local universe.”
IMO a Black Hole is a place in space where material transforms because the inverse square law approaches zero distance, as further defined by the Kruskal-Szekeres diagram. This shows in hyperbolic geometrical form, how a BH can be interpreted.
My illustrative interpretation of this is shown in Figure 2 at https://principia-scientific.com/publications/PROM/PROM-Beatty-Gravispheres.pdf which shows cosmic rays being ejected along the BH axis. The M87 library of information also includes the Hubble cosmic ray image apparent in Figure 2, described as “This Hubble Space Telescope photograph shows the jet of matter ejected from M87 at nearly the speed of light, as it stretches 1.5 kpc (5 kly) from the galactic core.”
The Hubble image is above pixel limitation criticism, but what does it represent? My view is that it occurs because the positrons residing at the surface of the BH provide a positive repelling force to the protons which were liberated from the incoming mass. The positrons also provide a stabilising charge to the neutrons which otherwise have a half life of only 10 minutes.
My calculations show that the charge from 27,000 positrons will eject 2,700 protons at a speed of 95{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} c, if we assume the distance between the charges is 0.5m and the acceleration path extends over 100km.
Figure 2 illustration shows a young BH arrangement which can be compared to an apple with a single core axis. However, as a BH ages, it emits the proton charges, but builds up and retains the positrons on its surface. This effectively establishes a high positive charge on the skin of the BH which then changes from a smooth apple surface to a wrinkled custard apple surface. The crenelated skin means that cosmic rays can emerge from points all over its surface.
I note Raymond H Gallucci raises this query in one of his papers where he compares the speed of rotation of a neutron star to a dentist’s drill. I suspect the neutron star has a crenelated positive surface charge and many points of exit for the cosmic rays, which are otherwise interpreted as coming from the one axial emission source. This also explains why we on earth always seem to be in the right position to see an “axial” view of a neutron star.
Reply
Robert Beatty
| #
Interesting topical web information at https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pierre-Marie_Robitaille
Reply