Jump to content

Black Holes Do Not Exist!


Recommended Posts

We got black holes from Relativity; it was Carl Schwarzschild’s solutions of Relativity that gave us black holes.


Let’s step back from what Relativity says for a moment to recognize what Relativity is. Einstein’s Relativity was born of Galileo’s Relativity (better articulated by Newton… -that there are no privileged inertial frames of reference) mixed with the “constancy of light speed” (-that all observers measure light to move at the same speed irrespective of relative motion); Lorentz transformations already existed at the time, the real innovation of Relativity was taking all observations seriously, making time and space malleable whereas in Newtonian Physics light speed would have to be… It’s not wrong! -The universe behaves just as Relativity says, to a reasonable extent.  It remains a profound and cherished innovation.  Still, we have a very pertinent point to contend with: Relativity is an outline of circumstances…the circumstance of no privileged reference frames mixed with the circumstance of light moving at the same speed for all irrespective of how fast they move relative to each other. These are very real circumstances that exist in our universe, and subsequently we can, shall, and do experience the implications of such circumstances much as Relativity says we should. However, our universe is composed of more than circumstances. Relativity is not talking about particles; Relativity does not consider what we’re actually made of (all the neutrinos, photons, ions, molecules, solar systems…). The extent of Relativity’s scope is circumstance; and yes, Relativity is an astute assessment of what happens in those circumstances, but it is by no means any type of authority on all macro circumstances.


For instance, the notion that nothing can escape Schwarzschild radius after it’s been created, not even light because of escape velocity…   It would mean black holes exist.   The problem with that is electromagnetism is an afterthought.     The theory considers only gravity; within the mathematics Schwarzschild Radius is formed out an idealized ball of gravitation.  The universe isn’t made of idealizations, however.    The particles of our universe bear both gravitational and electromagnetic traits.   Properly and fully understanding the universe necessarily requires incorporating all known traits into our models.   It is known gravity is the weakest of all forces, by far.   Electromagnetism is 10^36 times stronger than gravity.  It follows Schwarzschild radius is 10^36 times more a ball of electromagnetism than it is a ball of gravity.    It is a ball of energy!   It is the implications of e=mc^2 fully and efficiently realized.    As soon as real particles (rather than mathematical gravitation idealisms) are caught within Schwarzschild radius the particles lose cohesion and the radiative energy they’re comprised of is set free; it’s going to produce gamma ray bursts, not singularity.     

Interesting to note that not only a more robust approach to physics leads that way; observation is likewise very clear about that.   You see, modern astrophysics, particle physics, and cosmology is confident about a lot of their knowledge for a lot of good, solidly justified, purely scientific reasons.   And there are parts of their story that are pure “fudge factor”, conjecture, even wishful thinking.    Unfortunately, those iffy parts are seldom properly identified and explained, giving the general public the impression that all claims made by academia have equal value.    That is not the case.


For instance, modern theory relies on the angular momentum of accretion disks to generate the cosmic jets that exist at the axis of rotation of some galaxies.  At best, using accretion disks to power the jets is a hypothesis; it has no mathematical support.   Worse yet, there is no trait within any arena of physics that can explain how those structures manage to focus the energy of accretion discs into a perpendicular jet. Not to mention the fact the total energy contained within accretion discs is regularly dwarfed by the energy emanating out of the jets. Ultimately, if we were really honest about the situation, we would have to acknowledge that constrained by the physics of prevailing theory, cosmic jets don’t add up, no matter what.

Another problem is supernova, hypernovae, and the whole story behind one star outshining its own galaxy is likewise not mathematically supported.   Even worse, the collapse/rebound approach and neutrino pressure often cited is likewise conjecture that also fails when scrutinized.   It was mentioned above “As soon as real particles (rather than mathematical gravitation idealisms) are caught within Schwarzschild radius the particles lose cohesion and the radiative energy they’re comprised of is set free; it’s going to produce gamma ray bursts, not singularity.”    First of all, “singularity” may be taken to read whatever quantum information fluctuation interpretation is being preferred at this moment.  Planck length hasn’t permitted singularity to exist within black holes for a while now.   But more importantly, observation supports that claim.   Consider what if E=mc^2 is the answer to what happens when the universe achieves neutron degeneracy/Schwartzschild radius? I suppose we should start by clarifying what we mean by that. In contrast to the singularity notion that sequesters the mass, we are now going to experiment with releasing the mass. We are going to hypothesize when neutrons get crushed beyond their breaking point their energy gets released from particle state and is freed to roam as radiative energy. How much energy is released is simple: all of it! -as per E=mc^2. We are essentially experimenting with a new definition of “nova”. The idea we are toying with says nova is the energy released by neutrons that get crushed beyond their breaking point. Nova isn’t related to shockwave, it’s a change in the state of matter/energy. It’s exactly what we should expect from mixing matter and antimatter: poof! -complete conversion of mass into radiative energy. If we break a neutron, it literally becomes a nova; that outburst of energy is nova.


Okay, we have a different definition of “nova” to test out; one where we think neutron degeneracy means the mass of the particle gets released as radiative energy. What is a supernova then? Say we have a supermassive star that’s collapsing. We know it’s going to achieve Schwarzschild radius in the core. Within our current thought experiment, that means all the mass in the core will be converted into radiative energy, as per E=mc^2. That is a huge amount of radiative energy. Stars shine thanks to nucleosynthesis, or fusion, by turning lighter elements into heavier elements. They manage to scrape off a minute portion of the mass in the process and use that energy to shine. But in our supernova here, it is utilizing all of the mass of those particles. That is seriously a huge amount of energy. Complete conversion of mass into energy within Schwarzschild Radius would produce enough energy for one star to outshine an entire galaxy. That’s how supernova can be so intense: they got a better energy source.  [Incidentally, Gamma Ray Bursts are the signature of “nova”. Maximum intensity in visible wavelengths is not as directly related to the collapse as the GRBs are.]


Quasars/active galactic nuclei are the most energetic objects in the universe. Prevailing theory cannot explain this intensity but our new found definition of nova can. Gravitational acceleration of accretion disks is a wholly insufficient explanation of the origin of cosmic jets, it fails by magnitudes; if cosmic jets were an ocean, accretion disks could barely power a puddle. Conversion of mass into pure energy as per E=mc^2 can explain their intensity, however. If we dug deep enough we would find that’s the only way it can be explained. No other mechanism known to science could produce the amount of energy we observe emanating from those structures.


The cores of quasars [“active” galaxies, like our own] are neutron stars.   They are insanely massive, far bigger than any star we’ve discussed above. And because of that, they have a much more stable structure. A supernova is a firecracker by comparison. These celestial bodies largely maintain their structure while burning incredible amounts of neutrons in the core. These things don’t thrive on nucleosynthesis like most stars do, these guys are powered by nova; they maintain Schwarzschild radius for a while.   Supernovae only get to experience that highly energetic state for a brief period of time, quasars live there. Active quasars are able to maintain their jets because they are being continuously being fed by the rest of their Galaxy. If we give it some thought, we might see the core of a quasar is bound to be the craziest place in the universe. It is somewhat like a laser in there, only made of the most unusual medium you can imagine: pure energy! In its simplest terms, a laser is a mirrored box that you pump some energy into until whatever is trapped inside resonates. Lasers can be made of various different states of matter, including pure energy. Everything caught within Schwarzschild radius is pure energy, and being stuck in the center of a quasar means that energy’s chances of escape are severely compromised. We have a case of full-spectrum resonance occurring in a medium of pure energy. That is, without a doubt, some craziness! Most of the energy that does manages to escape does so at the weakest points in the system, along the magnetic poles, contributing to the cosmic jets.


That treatment of quasars was excessively short and sweet, and probably needs to be elaborated on, but it made a significant achievement! It could be purely circumstantial, but our thought experiment just wrote out the most clear, concise, and comprehensive description of quasars known to humanity. And while brief, the story it tells matches the story observation tells us better than any other theory. Actually, that’s the only viable model of quasars humanity has ever produced; before this, humanity didn’t have a plausible explanation. I’m beginning to suspect our thought experiment is turning up something valid. Wait a second, we have a new observation coming in!!! That will certainly help us sort out what’s going on here.


“Just about a year ago, astronomers from Ohio State University using an optical telescope in Hawaii discovered a star that was being pulled from its normal path and heading for a supermassive black hole. Because of that exciting find, scientists have now for the first time witnessed a black hole swallow a star and then, well, belch! When a black hole burps, it quickly ejects a flare of stellar debris moving at nearly light speed, a very rare and dazzling event.


Astrophysicists tracked the star—about the size of our sun—as it shifted from its customary path, slipped into the gravitational pull of a supermassive black hole, and was sucked in, says Sjoert van Velzen, a Hubble fellow at Johns Hopkins University.


“These events are extremely rare,” says van Velzen, lead author of the study published in the journal Science. “It’s the first time we see everything from the stellar destruction followed by the launch of a conical outflow, also called a jet, and we watched it unfold over several months.”
-Courtesy of Science Rocks My World


What is Mother Nature telling us here? Is that observation (and subsequent similar ones) consistent with black hole theory? Um no, it isn’t. The event horizon is not a structure, there is nothing to hit there. And it’s a one way street once you’re inside. The notion that hitting a black hole with something would result in significant signal is ridiculous. What we’re left with is a star passing through a thin and diffuse plasma structure in orbit. That would not produce a cosmic jet. That would be more like trying to submerge a piece of ice in a warm stream. Sure, the plasma in orbit would mess with the star a bit, but a galactic jet is magnitudes more energetic than anything could ever expect from that type of interaction.
This observation provides further support to the validity of the notions within our thought experiment. A massive neutron star on the verge of neutron degeneracy pressures that gets another star dumped on top of it will behave exactly as we see here. The added mass will force particles into Schwarzschild radius, convert those particles into pure radiative energy, create plasma jets, and blow chunks of star at relativistic speeds into the cosmos.


Personally, I trust the universe more than I trust the opinion of humans. Modern theory is telling me one thing, but I can see the universe trying to tell me something else. I’m going to go with the universe on this one. The E=mc^2 approach to redefining nova elegantly explains all known properties of the discussed structures. Not only does the singularity approach fail to provide a clear and concise description of the physics it champions, that approach also undermines the tools needed to explain the physics behind the most energetic objects in the universe. The only physics known to humanity that can explain the intensity of these objects is E=mc^2, nothing else comes close.
And with that we have a mathematically consistent explanation of observation; a feat prevailing theory has yet to achieve.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Rift Zone said:

We got black holes from Relativity; it was Carl Schwarzschild’s solutions of Relativity that gave us black holes.

The first step one would need to do to show BH's may not exist, is to explain the effects seen on matter and spacetime with another scenario. I don't believe that can or has been done.

Edited by beecee
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rift Zone said:

Still, we have a very pertinent point to contend with: Relativity is an outline of circumstances…the circumstance of no privileged reference frames mixed with the circumstance of light moving at the same speed for all irrespective of how fast they move relative to each other. These are very real circumstances that exist in our universe, and subsequently we can, shall, and do experience the implications of such circumstances much as Relativity says we should.

“Circumstances” that have an impact that we can model and test. As with other “circumstances” that occur in other parts of physics (e.g. symmetries that give rise to conservation laws, circumstances of a lack of acceleration of a frame that gives rise to Newton’s laws, etc.)

Quote

Relativity is not talking about particles; Relativity does not consider what we’re actually made of (all the neutrinos, photons, ions, molecules, solar systems…). The extent of Relativity’s scope is circumstance; and yes, Relativity is an astute assessment of what happens in those circumstances, but it is by no means any type of authority on all macro circumstances.

Relativity doesn’t care.

We’ve tested it on macro “circumstances” and it keeps passing the tests.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, beecee said:

Your first error is indicated by the title you have chosen. Have you read the rules? BH's and there existence is something that is now overwhelmingly accepted by mainstream science, particularly and mostly from the latest rounds of evidence with the discovery of gravitational radiation. You are in the wrong section. Posting in the sciences instead of speculations, does not give your claims any more validity.

And of course simply on the matter of BH's, to deny their existence, one would need to explain the observational data that we have on the effects of spacetime, in another accepted manner. I don't think anyone can or has done that. 

There are some other errors in your very very lengthy post that others may comment on. 

Theories are comprised of roughly 2 elements: observation, and interpretation; the theory that is more comprehensive and aligns with observation better is the more accurate theory.period.

I don't see any speculation there.   I see a theory.  "Mother nature" alone determines its accuracy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Rift Zone said:

I don't see any speculation there.   I see a theory. 

Any non-mainstream proposal is speculation here. And someone with your claimed background should know what science means by “a theory”

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
36 minutes ago, swansont said:

“Circumstances” that have an impact that we can model and test. As with other “circumstances” that occur in other parts of physics (e.g. symmetries thst give rise to conservation laws, circumstances of a lack of acceleration of a frame that gives rise to Newton’s laws, etc.)

Relativity doesn’t care.

We’ve tested it on macro “circumstances” and it keeps passing the tests.

I'm not sure exactly what assumptions you making there.   Seems worth saying that the dynamics of gravity don't change in this model, though.

Speculation amounts to unsubstantiated notions.    OP is has more support than current theory does.

***You have reached the maximum number of posts you can make per day!!!!****

I'll check in tomorrow to see how you guys are doing.  Yea, sure, I can share more of the model with yaz.

Edited by Rift Zone
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Rift Zone said:

Speculation amounts to unsubstantiated notions.   

SFN defines it a particular way.

14 minutes ago, Rift Zone said:

OP is has more support than current theory does.

Then let’s see the model and the support.

Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Rift Zone said:

I don't see any speculation there.   I see a theory.  "Mother nature" alone determines its accuracy.

It doesn't agree with mainstream theories so its speculation.

44 minutes ago, Rift Zone said:


Speculation amounts to unsubstantiated notions.   

That's what you have.

45 minutes ago, Rift Zone said:

    OP is has more support than current theory does.

If that was/is the case, then it would displace the incumbent theory...it isn't and doesn't.

The effects on spacetime and matter in the vicinity of BH's cannot be explained any other way....We see matter disappearing into oblivion [Cygnus X-1]

56 minutes ago, Rift Zone said:

 "Mother nature" alone determines its accuracy.

Obseravtional and experimental data actually. That of course may or may not change depending on further new observational and experimental data as it comes to light.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Rift Zone said:

Relativity is not talking about particles Relativity does not consider what we’re actually made of (all the neutrinos, photons, ions, molecules, solar systems…).

SR/GR, the BB and the particle zoo model, all seem to fit together like a hand in a glove. One does not contradict the other, while all being validated theories of their particular domain. All though [particles and energy] warp and curve spacetime in line with GR.

4 hours ago, Rift Zone said:

For instance, the notion that nothing can escape Schwarzschild radius after it’s been created, not even light because of escape velocity…   It would mean black holes exist.   The problem with that is electromagnetism is an afterthought.     The theory considers only gravity; within the mathematics Schwarzschild Radius is formed out an idealized ball of gravitation.  The universe isn’t made of idealizations, however.    The particles of our universe bear both gravitational and electromagnetic traits.   Properly and fully understanding the universe necessarily requires incorporating all known traits into our models.   It is known gravity is the weakest of all forces, by far.   Electromagnetism is 10^36 times stronger than gravity.  It follows Schwarzschild radius is 10^36 times more a ball of electromagnetism than it is a ball of gravity.    It is a ball of energy!   It is the implications of e=mc^2 fully and efficiently realized.    As soon as real particles (rather than mathematical gravitation idealisms) are caught within Schwarzschild radius the particles lose cohesion and the radiative energy they’re comprised of is set free; it’s going to produce gamma ray bursts, not singularity.  

No EMR is not an after thought. That is actually what the Schwarzchild radius is all about...'the mathematical boundary where it exists, has an escape velocity of "c " caused by the buildup of density of matter below it. That is even supported by Newtonian mechanics and first proposed by a bloke in the 1770's named John Michell. EMF's follow geodesics in curved spacetime [gravity] caused by mass/energy density, including the minute curving of that same spacetime by the EMR itself. Your claim of gravity being an idealism, is in itself  a false idealism.

4 hours ago, Rift Zone said:

Interesting to note that not only a more robust approach to physics leads that way; observation is likewise very clear about that.   You see, modern astrophysics, particle physics, and cosmology is confident about a lot of their knowledge for a lot of good, solidly justified, purely scientific reasons.   And there are parts of their story that are pure “fudge factor”, conjecture, even wishful thinking.    Unfortunately, those iffy parts are seldom properly identified and explained, giving the general public the impression that all claims made by academia have equal value.    That is not the case.

It's even more interesting to note that SR/GR, the BB/infaltionary model and our particle zoo model all seem to go together like a hand in a glove without any contradictions, while each aptly describing their own applicability of physics. The only fudge factor I know is the CC which Einstein gave a particular value to, to maintain a static universe...or his greatest blunder. Some theories also are more certain then others. Theories do grow in certainty over the course of time, and as they align with further new and extended observational and experimental data. eg; SR/GR with the discovery of gravitational radiation.

4 hours ago, Rift Zone said:

For instance, modern theory relies on the angular momentum of accretion disks to generate the cosmic jets that exist at the axis of rotation of some galaxies.  At best, using accretion disks to power the jets is a hypothesis; it has no mathematical support.  

Certainly science does not know everything, but its worth noting at this time, that you have not offered any evidence supporting any of your claims, other then your own thoughts. Our best estimate of what these cosmic jets are, are that as matter falls into the BH, it is also heated up to extreme temperatures and twisted around by the BH and the Lense Thirring effect [also verified and validated by GP-B] and any existing EMF outside the BH's EH...this causes some of the twisitng, heated matter to be flung up to, and out at the polar regions of the BH, before ever crossing the EH.

Also in relation to accretion disks, only something like 1% of all observed SMBH's have these jets.  https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/11/what-powers-black-holes-mighty-jets

The rest of your lengthy story is far too long for myself [a amateur at this game actually a retired maintenance Fitter/machinist/welder]to comment on, other then a couple of observations to make and questions to ask yourself...[1] why did you first put this in the sciences instead of the speculation thread? and [2] why the obvious provocative headline, "BH's do not exist" why not [considering you have not offered any evidence to show that claim to be true] have put a more reasonable heading, like, "Do BH's really exist" or "Are we sure BH's exist" That to me would have been a far more sensible, reasonable approach to a mainstream science forum. 

And a final comment...my experience on science forums such as this, have shown me that new members that come along, claiming such non mainstream scenarios, with such certainty, and yet without any evidence, in many cases aalso have an agenda of sorts.

 

 

Edited by beecee
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Rift Zone said:

The problem with that is electromagnetism is an afterthought.     The theory considers only gravity

Light bending around a massive object is predicted by the theory, as is the frequency shift of light as it climbs up or drops down a gravitational well. It doesn't have to "consider" EM, since the effects are, in a sense, orthogonal.

i.e. the nature of the interaction doesn't matter. For E=mc^2, the mass of a system decreases when its energy is reduced, regardless of whether the interaction is electromagnetic or nuclear. Much like how F=ma doesn't have to specify what kind of force is involved.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Rift Zone said:

  It follows Schwarzschild radius is 10^36 times more a ball of electromagnetism than it is a ball of gravity. 

Does it really ?
That is the reason that the exact opposite is true.
All Black Holes conserve mass, charge and angular momentum in the Event Horizon, so that when a BH acquires any charge, more of the same charge in the accretion disk is 'repulsed by 36 orders of magnitude than would be attracted by equivalent gravity. 
Dissimilar charges, however, are attracted, and tend to neutralize any pre-existing charge.
I would think a charged BH would be almost impossible to find.

( similarly I would expect to find few, if any, non-rotating BHs, as the collapse would increase even the slightest rotation immensely )

You make a lot of statements about how an accretion disk around massive BHs is not capable of generating the intense radiation seen from Quasars, yet you provide no numbers or reasoning for your assertions, Incidentally, spiral galaxies, like ours are generally NOT active; much younger types usually are, and that is why Quasars are seen at considerable distances ( and far back in time ).

As for the rest of your post, maybe you could cut it down, and present a few items at a time, so that we can discuss each, and present counter-arguments, without having to write a 'book'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.