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 msutoday.msu.edu, 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. 

Sources:
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/04/harvard-scientists-lead-team-revealing-black-hole/
http://hubblesite.org/reference_desk/faq/answer.php.id=62&cat=exotic
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/space/universe/black-holes/
https://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_blackholes_theory.html
http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/s/supermassive+black+hole
https://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-resources/how-big-is-a-black-hole/
https://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_blackholes_singularities.html
https://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_blackholes_theory.html
http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/G/Galactic+Jets
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature11490
https://phys.org/news/2017-12-black-holes-magnetism-surprisingly-wimpy.html
https://phys.org/tags/strong+magnetic+fields/
https://www.space.com/43151-how-particles-escape-black-holes.html
https://www.spacetelescope.org/science/formation_of_stars/
https://arxiv.org/abs/1701.05939
https://public.nrao.edu/telescopes/vla
https://public.nrao.edu/news/surprising-black-hole-discovery-changes-picture-of-globular-star-clusters/
https://msutoday.msu.edu/news/2013/msu-led-research-finds-another-black-hole-in-a-star-cluster/
http://www.astronomy.com/news/2016/04/black-holes-mysteriously-align
https://msutoday.msu.edu/news/2019/birth-of-massive-black-holes-in-the-early-universe-revealed/
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/falsification
https://resonance.is/toroidal-plasmoid-generation-via-extreme-hydrodynamic-shear/
https://www.plasma-universe.com/
https://www.thunderbolts.info
https://www.electricuniverse.info/
http://www.bigbangneverhappened.org/

Pictures (in order):

i. https://news.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/eso1907a.jpg?resize=1350,759

ii. https://phys.org/news/2018-03-strange-physics-jets-supermassive-black.html
iii.https://mk0astronomynow9oh6g.kinstacdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/nrao17cb32a-768x768.jpg
iv. http://cdn.sci-news.com/images/2012/10/image_630_2.jpg
v. https://msutoday.msu.edu/_/img/assets/2013/black-hole-2_lg.jpg
vi. http://www.astronomy.com/-/media/Images/News%20and%20Observing/News/2016/04/GalaxyAlignment.jpg?mw=600
vii. http://www.everythingselectric.com/wp-content/uploads/plasma-cosmology-debunked-2.jpg
viii. https://resonance.is/wp-content/uploads/MGharib-Fig1B-NEWS-WEB.jpg
ix. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/H_Yousefi/publication/228929203/figure/fig3/AS:300825663557650@1448733835455/Image-shows-the-form-of-the-plasmoid-and-the-particle-jets-created-when-the-magnetic.png
x. https://www.plasma-universe.com/wp-content/uploads/Plasmoids-bostick.jpg

Video: 
Black Holes Behaving Badly: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FdWTH08u30

The Big Sham (I)

There was a time in my high school years when I considered the idea of a dead and empty universe, sprung from a shady miracle called Big Bang, to be the most rational of stances.

But as I made clear in my last post I find the notion of a happenstance cosmos to be neither probable or logic anymore - a position I've reached through profound personal experience and years of research into the mystical aspects of this world.

However, a relationship with the inexplicable isn't necessary in order to question the world view which the scientific establishment is trying to sell us - Big Bang cosmologists and particle physicists in particular - common sense is sufficient.

In this article, part 1, I will take you on a journey that begins before the existence of the Universe, makes a stop at Big Bang and continues on to cosmic microwave background radiation and quasars.

In part 2 I will examine CERN's Large Hadron Collider and the sad state of affairs that particle physics has reached.

Together they make up the current, ruling theorem of the origin and function of the Universe - and as we shall see, a most doubtful attitude should be maintained towards these ideas.

Before the Beginning

When dealing with the most fundamental question of them all, the origin of the Universe, I believe you only have two options to consider: either something eternal existed before it, or nothing at all.

Rationally the former makes more sense, but for some reason the latter has become the prevalent assumption in the world of physics.

It is however, very difficult to explain how a universe can come into existence from nothing. The famous atheist and astrophysicist Lawrence Krauss tried to do it in his book A Universe from Nothing and failed miserably.

Two prominent theoretical physicists who also have tried are Stephen Hawking and Ulf Danielsson, Sweden's most famous theoretical physicist. Here's what they had to say:

 

"At the big bang itself, the universe is thought to have had zero size, and so to have been infinitely hot. But as the universe expanded, the temperature of the radiation decreased. One second after the big bang, it would have fallen to about ten thousand million degrees." - Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time, 1988

 

"13.7 billion years ago, an expanding emptiness started to have some troubles. Nobody knows how big or old it was, perhaps it had existed for an eternity. It's also unclear whether it was the only one. [...] Anyway, it was completely empty except for dark energy boosting the expansion... Complete emptiness, dark energy ... and small vibrations. Nothing else existed." - Ulf Danielsson, talk at Gyldene Freden 2012

We can easily see how the two statements contradicts each other, one of them talking about no size whereas the other one talks about expansion.

But let's dissect both statements on their own. Stephen Crothers deals directly with the Hawking quote in this lecture, to paraphrase him: temperature is defined by how fast molecules are moving, the faster the hotter. Now, how can the molecules exist in something of zero size? How fast do they have to move in order to be infinitely hot? And exactly how many degrees is it between infinitely hot and ten thousand million?

Ulf Danielssons scenario is just as nonsensical: an expansion, vibrations and dark energy, i.e. two abstract nouns and a factor x. Couldn't one just as easily say: an amplification, beats and a blue force? Or a multiplication, throbbings and shimmering moxie?

Apparently a reputation and a nice degree are enough to keep one's drivel to remain unquestioned.

If it isn't clear yet let me remind you that we're not talking about science here, but rather purely theoretical fantasies, beyond any method of provability.

Seeing red

It has since long been established that the Universe is approximately 13.7 billion years old. This conclusion has been reached through observing distant heavenly bodies. The oldest ones we've seen seem to have a redshift (wave length of emitted light) that indicates that they're situated almost 14 billion years away from us. As we haven't observed anything further away, they must stem from the beginning of time.

That's the logic.

There are problems with this method of dating the cosmos, first of all one has to assume that both the speed of light and time as we know it are constants, and has been so everywhere during the entire evolution of space, but even if they are, another bigger problem is already at hand.

In my very first post on this blog I dealt with this troublesome area, here's what I wrote:

The recently deceased astronomer Halton Arp was one of few in this field who maintained a critical stance against the Big Bang-theory. He based his critique on observations he'd made when gathering pictures of galaxies. Many [...] showed seemingly connecting "bridges" between them [galaxies] and nearby quasars. Considering that the most distant galaxies he detected were approximately 200-300 million years away, they couldn't have any connection with each other what so ever - at least according to the Big Bang-enthusiasts.

Arp suggested that quasars derive from galaxies, thus implying a vastly younger age for those objects, and more importantly, that the mechanisms causing redshift aren't fully understood.

Of course you could argue about this and that, but the pictures doesn't lie.

 The NGC 7603 galaxy clearly shows a bridge between itself and a quasar.

The NGC 7319 galaxy even has a quasar in front of it.

Wave Race

Moving on to the next problem, much of what we "know" about cosmos today is based on this map supposedly portraying the cosmic background radiation (CMB). Under it you'll find a brief explanation of what it is:

 

The CMB is a snapshot of the oldest light in our Universe, imprinted on the sky when the Universe was just 380,000 years old. (source)

It's easy too see how valuable this information is for astrophysicists who, since it's discovery in the 60's, have been using it as a confirmation of the Big Bang theory. Today even better measurements continue to feed fuel into the fire, so to speak.

The clincher is, the CMB data might very well turn out to be complete junk.

As the methods of obtaining this type of data are very complicated it's not easy for anyone except experts to interpret them. Therefore, when professor Pierre-Marie Robitaille questions the data it's impossible for myself to validate or discard what he has to say, but it's not hard to see where he's coming from.

What he is proposing is that earlier measurements, made by a satellite (COBE) orbiting close to earth, did not take into consideration the microwave radiation emitting from our own oceans. It had nothing to shield off this type of radiation and therefore obtained a map of Earth instead of the Universe.

Looking familiar?

Later experiments with new satellites have been profoundly lacking due to using the previously obtained data as a basis for their own mapping.

In the latest case (called Planck/WMAP) the satellite was unable to distinguish any appropriate signals from background noise (from our own galaxy), which apparently was 1000 times stronger than what they wanted to measure.

Not only did they re-use the questionable COBE data, but they also claim to have removed the contamination signal (red color) even though it's ~1000 stronger than the signal underneath - without having an a priori knowledge or control over the unwanted signal.

I've been trying to find any serious critique against his bold yet reasonable claims, but unfortunately it's mostly the typical skepticist agenda being played out, like "he's a crank", "he doesn't know what he's talking about", "this has been established innumerable times already", "he has other crank ideas, (therefore all his ideas must be wrong)" etc.., instead of any substantial rebuttals.

Which of course gives us all the more reason to believe that he's on to something.

---

Man's appetite for knowledge easily leads him astray. We fear the (intellectual) unknowing so much, that we've actually managed to figure out the entire evolution of the Universe - even without being close to understand the nature of the tool we've used to reach those conclusions with, namely consciousness.

Talk about hubris.

In part 2 we'll have a look at the other ingredients that have contributed to the decline of science: fame and fortune.

Stay put for a visit to CERN and their multi billion dollar search for horsefeathers.

Sources:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1ios-n7Zks&feature=youtu.be&t=2m8s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhYsOQTfYEc
http://www.psydonia.com/2014/09/ancient-universe.html
http://www.generationterrorists.com/quotes/abhotswh.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background
http://thewatchers.adorraeli.com/2014/04/26/pierre-marie-robitaille-the-cosmic-microwave-background-eu-2014/

Ancient Universe

The mainstream cosmological model, widely referred to as the Big Bang-theory, tells us that the Universe is roughly 14 billion years old. A number that doesn't exactly make sense both according to science, as well as from a philosophical point of view, as we shall see. 

The datings are, among other things, based upon our understanding of the properties of light. Mainly the concept of redshift, which means that the distance of a stellar object, can be estimated by the wave length of the light it emits. 

Some of the most remote objects in the visible Universe are called quasars. These objects have redshifts which put them 10 billion light years away from us. On top of that they are extraordinary bright, which suggests that they are several hundred (even thousand) times more energy containing than the Milky Way galaxy. Go figure.

A quasar.

The recently deceased astronomer Halton Arp was one of few in this field who maintained a critical stance against the Big Bang-theory. He based his critique on observations he'd made when gathering pictures of galaxies. Many of the galaxies he observed showed seemingly connecting "bridges" between them and nearby quasars. Considering that the most distant galaxies he detected were approximately 200-300 million years away, they couldn't have any connection with each other what so ever - at least according to the Big Bang-enthusiasts.

 The NGC 7603 galaxy clearly shows a bridge between itself and a quasar.

The NGC 7319 galaxy even has a quasar in front of it.

Arp suggested that quasars derive from galaxies, thus implying a vastly younger age for these objects, and more importantly, that the mechanisms causing redshift aren't fully understood. He proposed that inherent characteristics could be responsible, although unsure of what exactly.

Furthermore, independent observations indeed support a new take on the nature of quasars. Early last year a large quasar group was detected in a rather concentrated area of the night sky; and if we are to believe that these objects are as massive as mainstream cosmology suggests, they constitute 5% of the visible Universe. A fact that directly contradicts the Cosmological Principle which states that matter should be evenly distributed throughout space.

...

Regardless of what's true, I'm intuitively inclined to favor an ancient Universe. The whole notion of dating the Universe through our puny Earth-perspective is not only naïve, but also absurd when we obviously haven't a clue about the nature of time in the first place.

Besides, it's only fair to assume that Existence foregoes Time.  

∞