1.15.2010

Black Hole malarkey (Science Rant)



Many of you know that I don't believe in mainstream physics and astronomy. But I still get a lot of weird faces and comments from people as they hear me stomp all over the idea of black holes and other nonsense. A lot of todays science is broken and in trouble. Mathematicians/Astronomers have taken a very bad turn and I think they know it.

Hows that for an opener?  Got your attention?  Or are you shaking your heads and getting fidgety already?  Lets try to explain mathematical documents published more than 90 years ago and then explain what went wrong and why a lot of information has continually been ignored.  First let it be said that black holes have no ground to stand on.  Both Newton's and Einstein's theories have no place for black holes.  Black holes do not comprise some integral backbone of either theory, in fact the opposite is true.  So what happened?

** Before I delve into this story I want to put out a quick disclaimer.  The point of this post is not to dispute nor acknowledge the veracity of Einstein's theories of relativity.  My personal beliefs on what governs the universe will be an entirely different post at a later time.  For now I'm only telling the story of how the fictional black hole was born and disproving it in a mainstream context. **

This story begins with a paper Karl Schwarzschild published in 1916 called "On the Gravitational Field of a Mass Point according to Einstein’s Theory" you can read it in english here if you like.  To horribly summarize whats going on in this document ill say its trying to explain general relativity's relation to the eccentricity of the perihelion of the planet mercury.  All you need to grasp is that the math here is completely sound.  And also that no where in here is there a window or framework for a black hole to exist.  its black hole free.

Then comes a guy named David Hilbert.  He writes a big review on Schwarzschild's paper and effectively convinces everyone of its fatal errors.  However the atrocity that actually occurs is that he is the one to blame for those same errors.  What that means is HE erroneously rewrote the exact parts of equations he was condemning!  I know what you guys are thinking.  "Unbelievable!" right?  Well thats what happened.  The defects in his paper are thus: First the manifold Hilbert used was unable to draw a consistent arrow of time.  Fortunately for him this problem was later overcome by 3 dudes by the name of Synge, Kruskal and Szekeres.  And what they did was essentially build a structure to change the topology as it were which allowed the arrow do be drawn without contradiction.  The 2nd defect still remains.  Which is an invariant, local, intrinsic singularity on the inner border of Hilbert's manifold.  This is where the idea for a black hole was invented.  By an ugly error on the part of David Hilbert.

The idea as you can imagine quickly became widely loved and accepted.  Schwarzschild died before he could really say anything about it.  Now we get to the ugly part.  Schwarzschild's original document was quickly suppressed and ignored and over time a host of others who likewise proved black holes to be utter nonsense, were also suppressed and largely ignored.  I will list a few of these:

  • Johannes Droste also wrote a solution the same year as Schwarzschild in which there were no black holes.
  • Marcel Brillouin wrote a paper in 1923 with a valid solution and smashed the idea of black holes.
  • G. C. McVittie 1974 published this thoroughly smashing black holes.
  • Leonard S. Abrams wrote "Black holes: the legacy of Hilbert's Error" in 1989
  • In 1996 he wrote 2 more papers effectively destroying the Reissner-Nordstrom black hole and the Aforesaid black hole.
And there are many many more.  But they have all been suppressed and ignored.  Why?  Like so many other things I think its because of greed and pride.  If you put yourself into the shoes of anyone who has put their life into these theories and have been given prestigious awards for their work not to mention a paycheck.. It starts to make a lot more sense.

Anyway I have tons more papers and data if anyone is interested.  Which I doubt.  I cant think of anyone who cares about this stuff as much as I do.  I think that's all I have to say for now.  Oh one more side note.  A lot of these papers also destroy the idea of the "big bang" theory and "expanding universe" and others.  But I didnt get into it.

(source credit: stephen crothers is an absolute boss)

1 comment:

Thanks for the comments.