Sonntag, 6. Juni 2021

Chocolate Fuzzy Balls

The Cloud That Didn't Care

Black Holes have been a running theme in this blog the last few years, and I have given many examples of observations which have contradicted the understanding of how they are supposed to work. Funny enough, I have have never mentioned perhaps the most striking instance of a BH behaving badly: namely, the G2 debacle. 

In 2006 astronomers discovered a huge dusty cloud in the vicinity of Sagittarius A*, also known as Milky Way's galactic center, which as we all know is assumed to be a super massive BH. As the years went by, the gas cloud, named G2, was seen drifting closer and closer to the center; and this naturally got the scientific world very excited. 

Because according to the theories the cloud would get ripped a part and sucked into the hole, or something like that. But lo and behold, when it finally arrived at its destination in mid 2014, the scientists found themselves rather dumbstruck as they watched it cruise through the abyss completely intact. 

G2 giving zero fucks.

Some tried to explain it away by suggesting that it was a case of false identification, that the cloud was in reality something else, or at least contained one (or two!) huge stars that held it together with their gravity. However, realizing that they thereby confessed to - in one way or another - being incompetent, the incident was largely ignored, and very soon business continued as usual. 

Enter, the Fuzzy Ball

However, earlier this week a bunch of articles popped up on several science news-sites, proposing a radically different explanation to the old mystery. Here's a couple of screenshots taken from, and 



Apparently, an Italian research team recently published a paper in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, claiming that they have gathered proof that Sagittarius A* maybe isn't what we think, but instead a "fuzzy ball of dark matter" (I kid you not, that is exactly how they put it). 

The team put together a computer simulation of our galactic center. In one of them they simulated the traditional singularity and in another one they replaced it with a fluffy ball of dark matter. 

Of course, nobody knows what dark matter is, so the team took the liberty of constructing it out of so called "darkinos". A particle that so far resides in a purely hypothetical realm and therefore has the very practical advantage of having whatever properties one ascribes to it. Here's a quote from the livescience article:

[...] The team of astrophysicists, led by Eduar Antonio Becerra-Vergara of the International Center for Relativistic Astrophysics in Italy, found that if they replaced the supermassive black hole with a ball of darkinos, and those darkino particles had the right mass and velocity, they could replicate all the observed motion of the S-stars. In some cases, their model could do even better than the vanilla black hole calculations at matching the observed orbits. 
But that result doesn't mean much. The black hole model is exceedingly simple: You just need to plug in two numbers, the black hole mass and spin, to predict how the S-stars should behave. But the darkino model has many more parameters, allowing for more fine-tuning, and the researchers found the best possible combination of darkino properties. [...] (My bold)

In short: they use a computer simulation, throw in object X including a few extra parameters. Then continue to tweak its properties as they see fit until they have more harmonious results. 

That's some serious science for ya'll. 

Shots fired

Although I welcome the fact that someone in the scientism establishment finally entertains the idea that the object in the the middle of our galaxy might not be a black hole after all, I have to say that it's a little disappointing to see that they want to replace it with more Standard model woo woo. 

But be that as it may, there is good reason to see this as positive news. Not only does G2 get some well deserved spotlight again, but apparently some people in the astrophysics departments have a hard time letting it go as well. 

The fact that they try to use the deeply problematic dark matter as a band-aid in this case could be interpreted as a sign of desperation. In doing so, they unintentionally call into question some fundamental aspects of the very same model they try to save; and as icing on the cake, they are directly poo-pooing the last years Nobel Prize in Physics. How, you might ask. Well let me end with a quote from the 2020 Nobel committee's press release.

Using the world’s largest telescopes, Genzel and Ghez developed methods to see through the huge clouds of interstellar gas and dust to the centre of the Milky Way. Stretching the limits of technology, they refined new techniques to compensate for distortions caused by the Earth’s atmosphere, building unique instruments and committing themselves to long-term research. Their pioneering work has given us the most convincing evidence yet of a supermassive black hole at the centre of the Milky Way. [Source] (My bold)





Montag, 24. Mai 2021

The Sudden UFO Threat

Since roughly 2017, a group going under the name TTSA (starring Tom DeLonge, Christopher Mellon and Robert Bigelow among others), has been pushing the idea of the reality of UFO's and Pentagons involvement with them, through different major news outlets. 

It started with the New York Times, in which whistle blowers both disclosed that Pentagon had a secret program with the purpose of monitoring these flying objects, and later, in the summer of 2020, that they even possessed crash debris of “off-world vehicles not made on this earth.”. [LINK]

Since then it has been somewhat quiet, but last week things started cooking again. In a period of a few days some serious spotlight was put on the topic again. Here's the most noteworthy ones

60 Minutes



Fox News

Even ex-president Obama came out of the woodworks to give his take on the phenomenon

Now with the exception of Obama's statement, the rest of the clips emphasize the potential threat of these unknown vehicles, or UAP's (Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon), as they prefer to call them. In one segment they're even thought of as Chinese or Russian technology. 

They also have in common that they treat the subject as if it is something relatively new, even though that it is painstakingly clear for anyone who has done the slightest bit of research*, that the UFO phenomenon has been with us for at least the beginning of the 20th century, and likely far longer than so - if not since the very beginning. 

Anyway, if they were at threat to us, they sure are taking their sweet time to make a move. 

What also bothers me is the quality of these leaked videos. I mean amateurs have captured way better footage with hand held cameras as far back as the 90's. In fact they don't look more impressive than the grainy UFO videos from the NASA missions in the 80's. [LINK]

The question therefore remains: what the hell is this sudden push to get us wary about UFO's all about? There's no reason to feel threatened, but nevertheless this is how they choose the frame it. 

As I mentioned in the beginning, the group that got the ball rolling, TTSA (To The Stars Academy) is practically run by the Bigelow group. [LINK] Yes, the multi-billionaire Robert Bigelow. 

As a spokesperson for this group we see Christopher Mellon, who's quite experienced, according to Wikipedia he was.

"former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Intelligence in the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations and later for Security and Information Operations. He formerly served as the Staff Director of the United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence."

Perhaps one should also mention that the Mellon family is one of the wealthiest families in American history, only rivaled by the likes of Rockefeller, DuPont, Ford etc..[LINK]

In other words, there is Big Money behind this apparent disclosure. Looking at history and using common sense, Big Money has seldom (read: never) had the common mans best interest at heart. 

Of course the general public doesn't really care about UFO's, and the question is when they really will.

They would probably have to start threatening us for real, or seemingly so. 

[*]I recommend reading a book by any of following authors: Stanton Friedman, Jacques Vallee, Timothy Good, Donald Keyhoe or Richard Dolan, to name a few. 

Donnerstag, 15. April 2021

Time Captives


Back in 2016, I wrote a Swedish blog post in which I addressed the severe lack of philosophical competence in modern science, and as the Nobel Prize in physics 2020 demonstrated, the situation, unfortunately, hasn't improved much in the last five years. 

Out of curiosity I read through the 21 page background paper, by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. As I have already invested a lot of time* digging into the chicanery going on in particle physics and cosmology, it didn't come as a surprise that the powers that be continues to re-enforce the model which has been promoted for almost a hundred years. 

The prize was split: one part going to two astronomers for cosmological observations, and one part going to Roger Penrose, for, as the Nobel Prize committee put it: "the discovery that black hole formation is a robust prediction of the general theory of relativity"

In this post I'm going to focus on the philosophical aspects of Mr. Penrose's theoretical discoveries. The so called Penrose diagrams, together with certain paragraphs from the committees paper, will serve as the objects of interest. 

My conclusions will also serve as fodder for a deeper critique concerning the intellectual and existential prison brought upon us by the old world of classic European imperialism. 

Diving into Darkness

I will now quote text and pictures from the paper followed by my own comments. 

Comment: I mentioned in my post The Hole Story, that the concept of time as well as space are both abstract ideas, which to this date have no physical definition. One can ascribe them a number and put them into an equation, but as they are not physically understood, one has to wonder how meaningful a term like [fabric of space-time] is, and how one can be sure that they (time, space) can exist independently of each other, as depicted in above diagram. The term [singularity] is also not clearly defined in any tangible sense. 

Please note the description "Inside [...] the radial direction is time-like". 
Q: Exactly what is time-like

"To visualize space-time, Penrose introduced a technique using conformal transformations (Penrose 1963). Such transformations can change the scale but they always retain angles. This means that points infinitely far away in space, and events in the infinite past or future, can be brought in from infinity to fit inside a diagram of finite size. [...] Such diagrams are called Penrose diagrams, and they are indispensable tools in the study of curved space-times"

 "The study of curved space-times" ... One has to wonder as to the nature of this research. Not only do they study the bendable aspects of an abstract, but they're also certain that there are many of these space-time-fabrics; which by the way, the diagram/figure above fails to consider, as it clearly shows space and time as existing separate from each other. 

Worth noting is the spear-like form of the singularity, and of course the intriguing phenomenon referred to as [trapped surface]**

Comment: My favorite for last. Now take a good look at this diagram and contemplate just for a minute the definition of the term [past] and [future]. The simplest way to explain them is: set of events happening before or after a certain point in time. This means that both of them have an end and/or starting point. 

Q: How can one in any meaningful way talk about an infinite finite set of events? 

One could just as well make the case for sweet salt or dry rain. The absurdity of it all only gets underlined by the illustration, showing both infinites as finite lines. 

Q: How do you distinguish two infinite measures of time from each other and where does infinite present fit into the diagram?

Also, please note the description "time runs upwards". 

Before moving on, here's the last sentence of the paper in question. I urge you to read it slowly and think about it for a moment.

If you feel the first sentence is opaque, here it is, in plain English: 

How much A actually match the predictions of B is unknown. 

This implies that the predictions of B are murky and that even though they award a Nobel Prize for A matches B, they admit that, in the end, it could be of insignificant importance, further accentuating the limited practical aspects of the discovery. 

In regards to the last sentence: Very humble indeed.

Widening the Scope

So how come there's no reaction from philosophers and physicists alike? How come they get away with murder? I would speculate that the problem is a deeply rooted cultural one, in which we (mainly modern western society) have been conditioned to think of time in a very specific way, mainly: that it can exist as a separate object and that it is linear with pre-, now and post-qualities - perhaps that it even has a direction.

Because we are so used to think of time in this way, we accept the ideas above, as we think we grasp the gist of them. Or so we fool ourselves to think. Because if one's understanding is fundamentally flawed, everything that follows will inevitably be contaminated. 

In reality, this way of thinking about time is very new. Following the enlightenment and the deconstruction of the grand Cosmos as nothing more than a gigantic clockwork. In the spirit of that era, the British empire invented Greenwich Mean Time in 1675, which still serves as the standard reference time globally.   

Time Zones, in their brilliant splendor. 

Imagine Sumerian or Aboriginal culture concocting something similar ...  To give some extra food for thought I'm going to give a last example of a completely unrelated field that has been compromised because of  this messed up notion.

Our current environmental narrative tells us that we are (almost) out of time if we want to preserve some fuzzy ideal state of being for our planet as we head into the coming ages.

Hardly do many realize that by stipulating it in this way, we apply our artificial time concept on nature itself, which in turn becomes, in our confused understanding, an object of far lesser eminence than what is due. 

Regardless of the man-made mechanisms actual effect on our heavenly sphere - the framework in which we view the problem, obfuscates most if not all positive potential to the outcome. Climate doesn't have an ultimate way of being; in fact, we can safely deduce from looking at the Earths history, that climate is ever changing and cyclical in nature. In every moment unique. 

There is no secret that not only the ancients, but many humans of today, has viewed and continues to view time in a very similar fashion. In this light our present time conception looks more and more - to paraphrase the author and thinker Gordon White - like a bad spell. 

With this in mind - not to mention being obsessed by what we have done and what we should do - there's no wonder we are stuck in a state of junk science, reckless solutionism and, ultimately, spiritual inertia. 


Sonntag, 5. Juli 2020



With the exception of the Sun, our Moon is probably the object of our skies that we take for granted the most. But in comparison to the Sun, which is a fairly common type of star in the observable universe, our Moon is not only unique, but perplexingly unique.

This article will first and foremost focus on the factual aspects of our heavenly neighbor, as they alone quite clearly demonstrate the anomalous nature of it. Because it further adds to the mystery, and because it's fun, a couple of images of intriguing objects will be featured at the end.


In spite of the many manned and unmanned space expeditions, we still don't understand how it originated. The main hypothesis is, that it is a piece of Earth that broke off in an ancient collision with another heavenly body.

Artist rendering of how the giant impact hypothesis might have looked like.
Image credit: Joe Tucciarone

Rest assured, this is merely a hypothesis which despite its many problems - the main one being the different composition of volatile elements in the planetary crusts [LINK1] [LINK2] - it still is the most favored idea in mainstream astronomy.

Of course the scientific establishment would never ever consider an artificial origin, even though there exist compelling evidence which might suggest the possibility of our Moon being a construct. Without jumping to conclusions, let us examine the facts as they are being presented to us by our space agencies.

Odd ball out

Our Moon is very different from the rest of the moons in our solar system, which in Mars' case either tend to be small, uneven rocks, or, looking at Jupiter and Saturn, the size of small planets.

The Moon, being bigger than Pluto, is the fifth biggest satellite in our solar system. As bodies of this magnitude are only seen around gas giants, and with Earth as the one exception, it is by far the biggest moon compared to the size of the planet.

It's 27% the size (circumference) of the Earth, thus making the ratio 1:4. As a comparison the ratio between Io and Jupiter is roughly 1:5000.

Earth, Moon and Ceres, scale comparison.
Image credit: wikipedia

By the way: its size in percentage, ~27.3% (of Earth's circumference) [LINK], matches its revolution period around the planet of 27.3 days very neatly.

Because of its big nature, it's sometimes referred to as our "secondary planet"; however, as big as it may be, it only holds a meek 1.2% percent of the Earths mass. That means that one would need roughly 81 of them to reach the same weight.

This suggests that our Moon either is extremely porous or hollow. To better understand the physical make-up, Apollo astronauts set up seismometers on the surface during their missions. Over 12 000 so called 'Moonquakes' were recorded up until 1977.

Apollo 11 astronauts conducting seismic experiments.
Image credit: NASA

A part from the expected vibrations caused by meteorites, the data surprisingly revealed that most of the moonquakes occurred very deep underground, much deeper than on Earth. More striking, however, was the fact that they occurred every 27 days, like clockwork.

In fact, the dean of science journalism, Walter Sullivan of the New York Times, described it as being as unlikely as having the stock market rise/fall on the same date every month.*

The only explanation so far is to ascribe the regularity to the monthly tidal stresses, though we have never detected anything similar on Earth - A definite consensus as to the nature of this remarkable phenomenon remains to be reached.

Different types of moonquakes registered on seismometers.
Image credit: NASA

Even stranger, the seismic data also recorded 28 shallow quakes. Reaching up to 5.5 on the Richter scale they would've definitively been felt by any astronaut standing on the surface. This type of activity is usually explained by the friction created by tectonic plates, but the Moon doesn't have them, so their nature are still unclear.

To top it all off Apollo 12 deliberately smashed a lunar probe into the surface to study the seismic effect it would have. To their astonishment, the Moon kept reverberating for nearly an hour. As Clive R. Neal, associate professor of civil engineering and geological sciences, describes it on "it was ringing like a bell." [LINK]

Impact site of the Saturn rocket booster - deliberately
smashed into the Moon by the Apollo 13 mission.
Image credit: NASA

A similar experiment was done by Apollo 13 with the Saturn rocket booster, this time creating a much bigger collision resulting in a 7 minute build up to a peak with a reverberation lasting 3 hours and 20 minutes. [LINK] It is worth mentioning that even the biggest quakes on Earth stops shaking after a couple of minutes.

About a year ago, an article on made a big splash proclaiming to have detected a gigantic "metallic anomaly" residing under the surface of the biggest moon crater. In some instances it was even referred to as a "deep structure". Whether it's just remnants from a meteorite, as they speculate, or something else, is still up for debate.

Artist rendering of Earth's magnetosphere shielding us from solar winds.
Image credit: NASA

On another note: generally speaking only planets and suns have a strong enough magnetic field to shield them from solar and cosmic radiation; but in 1999 NASA's Lunar Prospector satellite forced us to rethink this idea.

Diagram showing the magnetic anomaly.
Image credit: NASA

It was on a mission to map the magnetosphere of our neighbor, when it strangely enough found a small area (10 km) capable of generating a local magnetic field with enough power to shield radiation, thus making it the smallest magnetosphere ever to be found.

Except for these "magnetic rocks" (NASA's explanation), only cosmic bodies the size of planets have been recorded to generate such type of fields. [LINK] Do note that Mars, Venus and Pluto all lack them.

Against all odds

Perhaps the most astonishing characteristics of our heavenly neighbor are the ones we observe with our naked eyes from the surface of the Earth.

Most people don't realize it, but the Moon actualy mimics the movements of our Sun very closely, and would one just take the time to observe the heavens from the same spot on a regular basis, one would find that the full Moon is at its highest and brightest in midwinter, when the Sun is at its lowest and dimmest, and the reverse is true for midsummer.

One would also find that at each spring and autumn equinox, the Sun and the Moon rise and set at the same proximity in our sky. To demonstrate this remarkable coincidence, have a look at these pictures I've borrowed from the book Who built the Moon?**:

The Moon and Sun set at the opposite lanes in the sky at midwinter, whereas the process is reversed in midsummer.

At the autumn and spring equinox, they "sync up" and set at the same place.

The Moon mimics the Sun.
Image credit: J.C. Casado

In my opinion  the most striking of all the Moon peculiarities is the fact that it is 400 times smaller than the Sun, but by some inconceivably unlikely randomness, is placed exactly 400 times closer.

This of course means that it is the exact same size as the Sun from our point of view, which results in the occasional total solar eclipse.

The wondrous unlikelihood that allows for this event to take place often gets overshadowed (no pun intended) by the sheer awesomeness of the happening itself. But if one simply takes a couple of minutes to ponder what it really implies, perhaps one would also realize that this probably doesn't take place on any other planet in the whole galaxy, nor anywhere nearby.

Ultra HD photo of the solar eclipse. The Sun's corona looking like it belongs to the Moon.
Image credit:

One i a zillion coincidence, or a signature by ancient architects? To use a quote from Deep Space Nine: I believe in coincidences. Coincidences happen everyday. But I don't trust coincidences.

Anomalies, Structures, Photos

Trust me when I say that there exist a plethora of footage featuring anomalous objects on and in the vicinity of the Moon. Although I am almost perversely fascinated by whistle blower accounts mentioning NASA airbrushing out alien buildings/domes from the photos taken by their satellites [LINK, LINK2], or by astronauts allegedly spilling the beans in regards to what they saw on the surface [LINKLINK2]. I will here stick to a handful of the, in my opinion, best photographs.

The Moon Rocket

In this picture, take by either Armstrong/Aldrin on the Apollo 11 mission, we see a close up of what looks like a rocket shaped object with an exhaust flame.

As usually is the case with NASA, images featuring anomalies of this kind either gets the silent treatment or at best, are explained away as being smudge on the camera lens, problems with image processing etc.

I can only encourage the reader to take a closer look at the original picture on NASA's homepage (the "missile" can be found to the upper left) and contemplate if for yourself.

III-84M "The Shard"

Richard C. Hoagland is mostly known for his ground breaking book The Monuments on Mars, in which he analyzes Mars anomalies in meticulous detail. But he also gets credit for discovering some pretty amazing objects on the the Moon.

The best one is to be found on a picture taken in 1967 by Lunar Orbiter 3 called called "III-84M". Zoomed in, a tower of some kind, dubbed "The Shard", seems to be casting a long shadow in an otherwise barren landscape.

So far the only "debunking" I've come over stems from rationalwiki, where they say: "Lunar Orbiter used a wet film development process, and there are splatters all over its imagery as a consequence (fluids + zero-g = random messes).".

Of course it can't be entirely ruled out that we are seeing "a random mess of splatter", but in light of the similar findings captured on other parts, by other missions, it smells of a cop-out. The original photo can be viewed here.

ZOND-3, the Soviet Moon probe (1965)

In one of the first pictures ever of the backside of the Moon, taken by the Russian space probe ZOND-3, a most peculiar towering structure can be seen.

If this indeed is some kind of tower, it has to be several miles high. I've really tried to find any explanations as to the nature of it, alas to no avail.

Air brushed Department of Defense images

In 2004, a researcher named J.P. Skipper made some astonishing findings when scrutinizing the pictures taken during the US military (BMDO) project called Clementine. The picture above is just one of several in which one clearly can see tall objects blurred out.

No official comment has ever been given as to why these images have been edited, perhaps because it's too hard to explain them away as mere random processing artifacts. Though it is hard to imagine that these ones simply fell through the cracks. A deliberate soft-leak seems more likely.

The Department of Defense has since then taken down the website with the originals. However, the homepage has been archived by J.P. Skipper; you'll find it, a long with many other findings of high interest, here.


In 2000 NASA sent a probe on a mission to crash into the Moon's surface. The results were somewhat unexpected and maybe it was because they didn't disclose the whole truth on why they chose the spot they did.

The public video feed of the event was a travesty in so far that you can't really see anything but blurry pixels. But in one of the pictures taken from NASA controls, an interesting observation can be made.

Does it look natural to you?

If one looks closer at this image of two NASA employees, we see that the area in which the probe crashed seemingly features a non-natural structure. Perhaps it's just pareidolia, but one has to wonder if this picture isn't in fact another soft disclosure of some sorts. The original full size image can be found on NASA's homepage right here.

The Aristarchus Crater

Aristarchus crater.
Image credit: Mike's Astroimagery UK

Ever since man began pointing telescopes at our Moon, the Aristarchus crater has been a source of an inexplicable glow. For 350+ years now, we have descriptions of a blue fluorescent light at times surrounding the crater.

Transient lunar phenomena i.e. random changing of light/color of a certain lunar area is well known albeit not fully understood. And the Aristarchus crater is the spot which have the most activity.

Notice that it seem to have a geometric structure?
Image credit: Credit: USGS/US Navy/Clementine Spacecraft

So far, the only suggestion that has been seriously proposed is that the coloration might have something to do with radon 222 outgassing. A colorless nuclear gas. If that's the case, there sure seems to be a lot of it, in many colors, as this list of observations, from John Lear's great website, evidently suggests:

1650  Aristarchus  "Red Hill." Mons Porphyrites  Hevelius  B.A.A. Lunar Sec. Circa. 1967, 2, No 8
1784  Aristarchus  Nebulous bright spot of light  Schroter  Schroter 1791
1785  Aristarchus  Nebulous bright spot of light  Schroter  Schroter 1791
1786 Dec 24  Aristarchus  Extraordinarily bright  Schroter  Schroter 1791
1787 May 19-20  Aristarchus  Extraordinarily bright  von Bruhl  Bode 1790; Schroter 1791; Herschel 1912
1788 Apr 9  Aristarchus; 1 hr  Extraordinarily bright  Bode  Bode 1792b
1788 Apr 9-11  Aristarchus  Bright spot 26" N of crater rim  Schroter, Bode  Schroter 1789, 1791, 1792a, 1792b
1788 Sep 26  Near Aristarchus; 30 min  Bright spot 26" N of main crater  Schroter  Rozier 1788, 1792; Schroter 1791
1788 Dec 2, 5:35 am  Aristarchus  Extraordinarily bright, like star  Schroter  Schroter 1791
1824 May 1  Near Aristarchus  Blinking light, 9th to 10th mag.. on dark side  Gobel  Gobel 1826
1824 Oct 18  Aristarchus, vicinity  Mingling of all kinds of colors in small spots in the W and NW of Aristarchus  Gruithuisen  Gruithuisen 1824; Fauth 1899
1825 Apr 22  Aristarchus and vicinity  Periodic illumination  Argelander, Gobel  Argelander 1826, Gobel 1826
1866 Jun 10  Aristarchus  Star like light  Tempel  Denning, Tel.Work p.121
1866 Jun 14-16  Aristarchus, vicinity  Reddish yellow  Tempel  Tempel 1867
1866  Dark side  Bright spots  Hodgson  Hodgson 1866
1867 Apr 9, 19h30m - 21h00m  Aristarchus, vicinity; 1 hr 30 min  Bright spot on dark side, 7th mag., becoming fainter after 20h15m UT  Elger  Elger 1868
1867 Apr 12, 07h30m - 08h30m  Aristarchus, vicinity; 1 hr  Bright spot on dark side, 7th mag..  Elger  Webb 1962
1867 May 6-7  Aristarchus; at least several hours each night  Left side of crater, very bright luminous point, appearing like a volcano  Flammarion  Flammarion 1884
1867 May 7  Aristarchus, vicinity  Reddish yellow, beacon like light  Tempel  Tempel 1867; Astr. Reg. 1868
1884 Nov 29, 19h00m - 21h00m  Aristarchus; 2 hr  Nebulous at center; elsewhere features well defined  Hislop  Sirius 1885
1889 Jul 12, ~20h52m  Aristarchus  During lunar eclipse, brilliance in surrounding gloom was striking  Krueger  Krueger 1889; Fisher 1924
1891 May 23, ~18h20m  Aristarchus region  Lunar eclipse, half hour before end of totality, Aristarchus and region immediately N of it became conspicuous and increased in brightness from that time on  W.E. Jackson  Jackson 1890-91; Fisher 1924
1931  Aristarchus  Bluish glare  Goodacre, Molesworth  Goodacre 1931
1949 Oct 7, ~02h54m  Aristarchus  Abnormally bright during lunar eclipse  G.Brown, Hare  Contrib. by Moore
1949 Nov 3, 01h06m  Aristarchus  Blue glare, base inner W wall  Bartlett  Bartlett 1967
1950 Jun 27, 02h30m  Aristarchus  Blue glare, base inner W wall  Bartlett  Bartlett 1967
1950 Jun 27  Herodotus  Bright point in crater  Bartlett  Strol. Astr. 1962
1950 Jun 28, 03h27m  Aristarchus  Blue glare, rim of W wall  Bartlett  Bartlett 1967
1950 Jun 29, 05h30m  Aristarchus  Strong bluish glare; E, SE wall  Bartlett  Bartlett 1967
1950 Jul 26, 02h52m  Aristarchus  Blue glare, base inner W wall  Bartlett  Bartlett 1967
1950 Jul 31, 04h50m  Aristarchus  Violet glare, E, NE rim  Bartlett  Bartlett 1967
1950 Aug 28, 04h25m  Aristarchus  Intense blue violet glare; E wall bright spot, E, NE rim  Bartlett  Bartlett 1967

Luna 13, anomalous objects

In December 1966, Luna 13, an unmanned Russian space probe, became the third space craft to successfully land on the Moon. The first pictures it took features two objects that to this day no one has been able to explain.

This is part of the original photo that the Luna 13 took shortly after touch down. In it one can see two peculiar objects. Here they are isolated and magnified:

The most logical explanation, that they are parts of either the Luna 13 lander or some other man made probe hasn't been proven. In fact, the thorough research that has been done has had no success in matching them to anything of ours.

So, what are they doing there? Experts are still asking this very question.
The original photo can be found here.


Now, with most of the facts on the table, wouldn't it at least be fair to entertain the idea that our Moon might not entirely be the natural object our space agencies wants us to believe? I think so, and I also think that, without making any definitive conclusions, it's safe to say that it is a very anomalous object in and of itself.

What really lurks on its surface remains a secret for now, but amidst the rocks and lunar dust, surely there's something out of the ordinary there, wouldn't you think? Perhaps we will get some answers in a few years when SpaceX begins to go there.

Until then, let's at least keep an open mind.

Lights out.


Pictures (when not directly linked):
1st image:
Gif-animation from:

* p.46, Das UFO Dossier, Jim Marrs, 1998

** Who Built the Moon?, Adam Butler, Christopher Knight, 2005

Donnerstag, 2. Mai 2019

The Hole Story

Recently astrophysicists around the world declared tremendous success as our most powerful radio telescopes managed to, as they claim, take the first photo of a black hole (from now on: BH).

Curiously, the gravitational pull within the BH's outer edge, i.e. event horizon, is so strong, that even light can't escape from it. Which means the picture in question is more exactly portraying obscured light around a black dot.

The centre of M87, making headlines around the world.

Case closed? Actually, some tantalizing arguments can and has been made against the existence of BHs. The Thunderbolts Project, proponents of the Electric Universe theory, have systematically collected and evaluated much of the scientific progress of the mainstream cosmology during the last decades. They have pointed out several severe shortcomings in the established cosmological model with regards to predictability and actual observations.

This post will highlight some of the content featured in their clip Black Holes Behaving Badly. Ranging from contradicting data to a possible alternative explanation. The purpose of this article is to provide perspective on a topic most people take for granted without having giving it much thought, and which perhaps isn't as cut and dry as it often is portrayed as.

A brief introduction

There are four types of black holes: stellar, intermediate, supermassive, and miniature. The most commonly known way a black hole forms is by stellar death. [...]

If its [star] mass collapses into an infinitely small point, a black hole is born. Packing all of that bulk—many times the mass of our own sun—into such a tiny point gives black holes their powerful gravitational pull. [...]
Supermassive black holes, predicted by Einstein's general theory of relativity, can have masses equal to billions of suns; these cosmic monsters likely hide at the centers of most galaxies. [...] [LINK]
According to the general consensus, Schwarzschild and Einstein* (indirectly) pioneered the theory of black holes in the 1910s, but it was first in the 50-60's physicists would give the idea a name and some attention. Some years later, Stephen Hawking took it to the next level when he applied a complex mathematical model to the concept and thus provided (theoretical) proof of the first singularity theory. [LINK]

A singularity is a one dimensional point residing in every black hole with an extreme amount of mass (possibly multibillion times our sun) and infinitely small volume[LINK], "where density and gravity become infinite and space-time curves infinitely, and where the laws of physics as we know them cease to operate." [LINK].

Of course one could dwell upon the purely theoretical problems considering:
I. Finite mass existing in zero volume, with infinite density and infinite gravity as one object.
II. The rationale of assuming space-time - the combination of two abstract concepts - as something physical.

But rather than doing that, the following segment will focus on observational data published on the most respected platforms in the field. [Please note that the words that appear in bold in the quotes, are edited by me.]

Conflicting data

Nothing can escape from a black hole, but Hawking radiation and so called galactic jets supposedly do.

Jets generated by the centre of Centaurs A.

Magnetic fields have been thought to account for the energy needed for the particle jets to be beamed away from the singularity rather than being sucked in. In this article from 2017 a study of a black hole called V404 Cygni showed that it's surrounding magnetic field was in fact 400 times weaker than predicted. Study co-author Stephen Eikenberry, professor in astronomy in UF's College of Liberal Arts and Sciences admits:
"Our surprisingly low measurements will force new constraints on theoretical models that previously focused on strong magnetic fields accelerating and directing the jet flows. We weren't expecting this, so it changes much of what we thought we knew."
Sophisticated computer models have also tried to explain how, but as Kyle Parfrey, postdoctoral at Berkley Labs explains, they still have a long way to go:
"The results of the new simulations are not radically different from the those of the old … simulations, which is, in some sense, reassuring," [LINK]
Reassuring that they really don't know(?). Magnetic fields outside the event horizon is apparently off the table, so gravity centered cosmology, i.e. the Standard model, has no explanation as to what causes the jets.

Moving on.

The black hole theory supposes that the region close to the BH is extremely harsh, with unimaginable tidal forces, x-ray radiation and ultraviolet light. A milieu completely unfavourable for star formation - a process believed to begin with gas clouds slowly gaining density.

Eleven young stars forming in close vicinity of a super massive BH.

A couple of years ago some observations by the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA) showed 11(!) young protostars within three light years of Sagittarius A. In the words of Farhad Yusef-Zadeh, astronomer at Northwestern University of Evanston, Illionois and lead author of the paper.
“Despite all odds, we see the best evidence yet that low-mass stars are forming startlingly close to the supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way, this is a genuinely surprising result and one that demonstrates just how robust star formation can be, even in the most unlikely of places.”
Conveniently star formation theory seems to be the problem in this instance. 

Two black holes instead of the predicted one.

In 2012 astronomers using the National Science Foundation’s Karl G. Jansky Very Large Array (VLA) discovered not one, but two intermediate size black holes close to another in the star cluster M22. To quote Laura Chomiuk, of Michigan State University and the National Radio Astronomy Observatory:
“We didn’t find what we were looking for, but instead found something very surprising — two smaller black holes. That’s surprising because most theorists said there should be at most one black hole in the cluster,” [LINK]
Again, two instead of one.

A year later, in 2013, a similar observation was made in the star cluster M62. Contradicting most theorists once more. Though instead of reconsidering, Chomiuk says
“I think it’s safe to say that we have discovered a whole new hunting ground for black holes,” [LINK]
As it happens, it's also safe to say that most theorists were mistaken.

In this picture published in 2016 we see several super massive black holes spinning out radio jets in the same direction; a finding of utter astonishment to mainstream cosmologists as it doesn't conform to any Standard model predictions. The accidental discovery was made with deep radio imaging by researchers University of Cape Town (UCT) and University of the Western Cape (UWC) in South Africa. A quote from the article sums it up:
Romeel Dave from UWC, who leads a team developing plans for universe simulations that could explore the growth of large-scale structure from a theoretical perspective, agrees: "This is not obviously expected based on our current understanding of cosmology. It's a bizarre finding." [LINK]
Completely unrelated to galaxy alignment I will close with a quote from an article published on, earlier this year, when predictions not only failed to deliver, but:
The new study finds that massive black holes form in dense starless regions that are growing rapidly, turning upside down the long-accepted belief that massive black hole formation was limited to regions bombarded by the powerful radiation of nearby galaxies. [LINK]

Presented above are six cases (and let me assure you, there are more) of studies made by mainstream cosmologists that contradicts predictions made by BH theorists. Perhaps now would be a good time to remind ourselves that when empirical data fails to correspond with a theory, the theory is by definition, falsified.

An alternative theory

Plasma cosmology offers an alternative to the Standard model. I will refrain from too much extrapolation and instead refer anyone curious to the following two websites, where in-depth presentations of plasma cosmology are accessible: Plasma-Universe, The Big Bang Never Happened

Even though plasma cosmology differs from the electric universe theory, they both share the idea of how matter is apportioned in the universe. To give you a very simple understanding of how they differ from the current paradigm, here's an explanatory picture.

Plasma is a state of matter where the atoms and molecules, which are normally neutral, 
have lost or gained an electron thus becoming becoming +/- charged as an ion.[LINK]

They also share the idea of what might lurk in the middle of galaxies: A plasmoid.

Winston H. Bostick was the pioneering plasma physicist who in 1956 would create a plasmoid in a laboratory in 1956. The term refers to a toroidal structure of plasma and magnetic fields.

Above: An actual plasmoid. Notice the similarities between this and the picture of M87.
Under: As the plasmoid breaks down it emits beams very much in line with the so called 'galactic jets'.

He later proposed the idea that plasmoids could very well account for many astrophysical phenomena, not the least galaxy formation [LINK].

"not only the morphology [shape] but the controlling dynamic elements, electric and magnetic fields, are the same in the laboratory as in the galactic phenomena". [LINK]
-Walter H. Bostick 

Having two plasmoids interact with another in a laboratory experiments, he as well as Anthony L. Peratt, who made similar simulations in supercomputer facilities at Maxwell Laboratories and later at Los Alamos National Laboratory, came up with the following results:

"As above, so below."
Both laboratory simulations (Pic 1) and computer simulations (Pic 2 & 3) correspond with cosmological observations.

Thus proposing an alternative explanation as to how galaxies are formed based on observational data in laboratories rather than numbers on a chalk board. Even if the theory so far lurks in the fringes, it should at least be taken into consideration as it has no need for "dark matter" and "dark energy". Not to mention an object with several infinitesimal properties, occupying a finite Big bang universe.

Similar articles on Psydonia: 
The Big Sham
Cause for Con[CERN]

*It's almost impossible to find an article about black holes not mentioning them being predicted by Einstein's theory of General Relativity. In this presentation by Stephen Crothers, a strong case against this possible predicament is made. 


Pictures (in order):

Black Holes Behaving Badly: