Wal Thornhill: On the Black Hole's Non-existence - Black Holes tear logic apart

sidharthabahadur · December 9, 2019, 6:58am

List members , here is an excellent interview of Wal Thornhill , a leading Electric Universe Theorist . He is taking the fight right to the enemy camp in science :))

He is daring to strike at the "dark heart" of mainstream science where , a "Black Hole" of ignorance exists :)) He is attempting to unravel the whole "Dark science" method , wherein cosmic fudge factors like Dark Energy , Dark Matter and Black Hole , are created to explain anything that Einstein's Relativistic framework can NOT explain !

Supermassive Problems with Black Holes

Jun 02, 2009

A gravitational point source more than 70 million times the mass of the Sun is theorized to inhabit this galactic core. Are scientists misinterpreting their own observations?

In a recent press release from the Chandra X-ray Observatory astronomers announced that black holes exhibit similar behavior regardless of their mass. Whether they are ten times the mass of a typical star or many millions of times more massive, they tear matter apart and forcefully draw it into unknown regions where the so-called physical laws of our universe no longer apply.

Black holes are said to cause space and time itself to twist and warp so that the past becomes the future and velocity calculations yield impossible solutions. Matter inside of a black hole occupies no volume at all, yet retains gravitational acceleration so great that not even light can escape its attraction – thus they are "black" holes because they cannot be detected with optical telescopes. Although they are impossible to observe directly over 90% of galaxies in the universe are said to harbor these perilous maws.

In several previous Picture of the Day discussions about black holes and their influence on the universe we determined that the descriptive terminology used by researchers is itself problematic, relying on highly speculative explanations derived from loose interpretations. Ambiguous lexical labels such as space/time, multiple universes, singularities, infinite density and other ideas that are not quantifiable have introduced irony into what should be a realistic investigation into the nature of the universe.

Scientists working with Chandra have also concluded that black holes can form with an intense electric field as they collapse into infinite darkness. It is thought that gamma ray bursts are generated when the e-field in a dying star is converted into electron and positron (anti-matter electrons) pairs in less than a trillionth of a nanosecond.

Copious groups of anti-particles interact and annihilate each other, releasing electromagnetic radiation that propagates outward at the speed of light. The extremely high light frequencies are seen as a gamma ray burst on Earth along with an "afterglow" of ultraviolet and x-ray emissions.

Since explosions of such magnitude are impossible under conventional models of matter and energy the Chandra team has concluded that something new must be added to the mix; that "something" is electric charge, although it is electric charge in a bizarre disguise. Gamma ray observations imply matter and anti-matter annihilation but the formation of electron-positron pairs due to gravitational compaction is a theoretical fantasy.

Another fictional source for the energetic phenomena we see in space is gravitational tides. Some flares and x-ray jets spewing from galaxies are thought to be caused by stars traveling too close to their central supermassive black holes where they are torn apart by tidal forces. Most of the star's gas escapes the black hole, but a small quantity is captured by the immense gravity and forms a rotating disk. Closer to the black hole, heat generated by molecular collisions tears the atoms apart and the disk of gas glows in x-rays. When matter eventually falls into the black hole gamma rays explosively burst out.

It must be asked whether there is a consistent way to explain what we see in space along with a way to demonstrate those explanations in the laboratory?

X-rays and gamma rays in space are not created in gravity fields. Laboratory experiments most easily produce them by accelerating charged particles through an electric field. No gigantic masses compressed into tiny volumes are necessary and they are easily generated with the proper experimental models. There are other factors that should be considered when analyzing data from space before resorting to super-dense objects and anti-matter explosions as their cause.

There is no experimental evidence that matter can be compressed to “infinite density”. How stars form supernovae is not clear. Supernovae do not form spherical shells when they explode; they form glowing bipolar plasma formations like an hourglass. No one knows what triggers a black hole to suddenly gobble-up matter in its "accretion disk" within a few months.

As we have noted in the past, Hannes Alfvén identified the "exploding double layer" as a new class of celestial object. It is double layers in space plasmas that form most of the unusual structures we see. Stellar explosions, jets, rings, and glowing clouds – these are all examples of electricity flowing through dusty plasma confined within Birkeland currents that stretch across the light years.

Compression zones (z-pinches) in the plasma filaments form plasmoids that become the stars and galaxies. Electricity is responsible for the birth of stars, and when the current density gets too high the double layers in the circuit catastrophically release their excess energy and appear as gamma ray bursts or x-rays or flares of ultraviolet light.

By Stephen Smith

**SPECIAL NOTE - New Volumes Available:
We are pleased to announce a new e-book series THE UNIVERSE ELECTRIC. Available now, the first volume of this series, titled Big Bang , summarizes the failure of modern cosmology and offers a new electrical perspective on the cosmos. At over 200 pages, and designed for broadest public appeal, it combines spectacular full-color graphics with lean and readily understandable text.

**Then second and third volumes in the series are now available, respectively titled Sun and Comet , they offer the reader easy to understand explanations of how and why these bodies exist within an Electric Universe.

High school and college students--and teachers in numerous fields--will love these books. So will a large audience of general readers.

Visitors to the Thunderbolts.info site have often wondered whether they could fully appreciate the Electric Universe without further formal education. The answer is given by these exquisitely designed books. Readers from virtually all backgrounds and education levels will find them easy to comprehend, from start to finish.

For the Thunderbolts Project, this series is a milestone. Please see for yourself by checking out the new Thunderbolts Project website, our leading edge in reaching new markets globally.

Please visit our Forum SITE SEARCH

This free site search script provided by JavaScript Kit

SUBSCRIBE

FREE update -

Weekly digest of Picture of the Day, Thunderblog, Forum, Multimedia and more.

*** NEW DVD ***

Symbols of an Alien Sky
Selections Playlist
180x135

E-BOOKS

180x119
An e-book series for teachers, general readers and specialists alike.

VIDEO
(FREE viewing)

Thunderbolts of the Gods

PREDICTIONS

Follow the stunning success of the Electric Universe in predicting the 'surprises' of the space age.

MULTIMEDIA

Our multimedia page explores many diverse topics, including a few not covered by the Thunderbolts Project.

OUR VISITORS:

Authors David Talbott and Wallace Thornhill introduce the reader to an age of planetary instability and earthshaking electrical events in ancient times. If their hypothesis is correct, it could not fail to alter many paths of scientific investigation.
More info Professor of engineering Donald Scott systematically unravels the myths of the "Big Bang" cosmology, and he does so without resorting to black holes, dark matter, dark energy, neutron stars, magnetic "reconnection", or any other fictions needed to prop up a failed theory.
More info In language designed for scientists and non-scientists alike, authors Wallace Thornhill and David Talbott show that even the greatest surprises of the space age are predictable patterns in an electric universe.

Black holes tear logic apart

March 7th, 2004 Wal Thornhill EU Views

“It seems that every practitioner of physics has had to wonder at some point why mathematics and physics have come to be so closely entwined. Opinions vary on the answer. ..Bertrand Russell acknowledged..”Physics is mathematical not because we know so much about the physical world, but because we know so little.” ..Mathematics may be indispensable to physics, but it obviously does not constitute physics.”
– Etienne Klein & Marc Lachièze-Rey, THE QUEST FOR UNITY – The Adventure of Physics.

News reports about black holes seem to arrive about one per week. The claims are usually as outrageous as the concept of a black hole itself. Yet astronomers believe that a supermassive black hole exists at the center of every galaxy in the universe. In the BBC news report below it is headlined that a “huge black hole tears apart star.” Another report just out claims that black holes are “stringy fuzzballs.”

It is not a star but common sense that is being torn apart. Black holes are not ‘stringy’ or ‘fuzzy.’ They are a mathematical figment. They don’t exist. There was no need to invent them if the electrical nature of matter and the universe had been considered. The ‘black hole’ concept is a classic example of the malaise afflicting modern physics. Mathematicians dominate the discipline. And it is a common mistake to assume that to be very clever at mathematics is to somehow be a genius across the board. One past expert on Special Relativity took a very different view:

“It is usually taken for granted that the processes of mathematics are identical with the processes of reasoning, whereas they are quite different. The mathematician is more akin to a spider than to a civil engineer, to a chess player than to one endowed with exceptional critical power. The faculty by which a chess expert intuitively sees the possibilities that lie in a particular configuration of pieces on the board is paralleled by that which shows the mathematician the much more general possibilities latent in an array of symbols. He proceeds automatically and faultlessly to bring them to light, but his subsequent correlation of his symbols with facts of experience, which has nothing to do with his special gift, is anything but faultless, and is only too often of the same nature as Lewis Carroll’s correlation of his pieces with the Red Knight and the White Queen – with the difference whereas Dodgson recognised the products of his imagination to be wholly fanciful, the modern mathematician imagines, and persuades others, that he is discovering the secrets of nature.”
– Professor Herbert Dingle, Science at the Crossroads (1972).

The astrophysicist, Dingle, knew what he was talking about. He wrote the entry on Special Relativity for the Encyclopaedia Britannica for some years before he realized the logic was flawed. His many attempts to find an expert who could answer his simple question without resorting to metaphysics or answering some other less awkward question convinced him of the danger we face if we continue to allow mathematical theorists to dominate physics – hence the title of his book. But the juggernaut of science sped through the crossroads, unheedful of the red lights.

There are fundamental problems facing physicists. First, the real world is a complicated place so simplifying assumptions have to be made in choosing a mathematical model. The choice is crucial for the following steps. Second, mathematical rules are applied to the symbols as a tool that may provide insights into the physical phenomenon under investigation. Third, the results must be translated back into ordinary language.

In steps one and three physicists are generally far from perfect. In the first step, the “when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail” tendency is a trap. For example, Eddington applied an inappropriate model of gas behavior inside stars that allowed him to dismiss electrical effects. In the second step there is a tendency in astrophysics for the mathematics to run into infinities. A process euphemistically called “renormalization” is used to deal with this problem. But as any high school student knows, there is nothing normal about infinity. Introducing infinity into an equation, effectively dividing by zero, allows you to “prove” that 1 = 2.

Running into infinities in mathematical models should result in questioning the appropriateness of the model and the limits of its applicability. However, astrophysicists simply plug in a measured result and carry on. But it is the last step that exposes physicists at their worst. Here, they use words or phrases, which have real meaning, in a whimsical or sloppy way when they mean something more mathematically abstruse. For example, using the word “dimension” when referring to more than the three spatial dimensions, as if a ruler can also be used to measure the extra dimensions. It gives rise to terms like four-dimensional “warped space” and “space-time,” or sometimes that weird cloth, the “fabric of space-time.” We also have the logically indefensible “parallel universe.” None make physical or logical sense.

The black hole is a choice example where all three steps have failed. In the first step, gravity is the only tool considered. For example, from a graduate textbook on astrophysics*: “No known physical force can stop the self-swallowing of mass that makes a black hole.” That is a model-dependent declaration. The force of gravity is effectively zero when compared to the electric force. If you allow for the electrical structure of matter, the almost 2,000 fold difference in mass of the electron and proton will ensure that in a strong gravitational field charge separation will operate to prevent compression. Charge separation prevents the collapse of stars. Exotic theoretical objects like neutron stars and black holes are impossible. Even internal nuclear fires are unnecessary to sustain a star. The standard model of stars fails if the wrong tool, gravity, is used exclusively.

In the second step, one infinity is used to counter another. Infinities abound in the literature on black holes. The infinitely weak force of gravity is balanced by postulating an almost infinitely dense object – the black hole. Playing with infinities like this can give you any result you desire. It sidesteps the fact that we do not understand the real nature of gravity, or the relationship between mass and matter, or the electrical response of matter to gravity, or the electrical nature of the universe. That’s a great deal of ignorance to be swallowed up, even by a hypothetical black hole!

The third step involves the language describing black holes. All four of the examples given earlier are used when referring to black holes. For example, the textbook goes on: “A black hole is a region of spacetime in which gravity is so strong that nothing, not even light, can escape it.” The phrase, “region of spacetime” is physically meaningless and results from a confused use of the word “time” and a nonsensical notion that gravity is a property of empty space instead of matter.

But most damning is that the narrow training of astrophysicists does not allow them to “see” the powerful electric discharge effects at the centers of galaxies. The x-rays, gamma rays, jets and radio lobes cry out for an electrical model. By simply invoking the electrical force, which is a thousand trillion trillion trillion times stronger than gravity, we can return to the realm of normal objects, normal physics, and common sense electrical engineering. The gravitational black hole model is fictional and worthless.

Without the checks and balances of experiment and direct observation of black holes, astrophysicists long ago slipped their leash. As exhibit, this recent story from BBC News:

Huge black hole tears apart star

Published: 2004/02/18
Astronomers claim they have observed a super-massive black hole ripping apart a star and consuming part of it.

Black hole and accretion disk283×212 11.7 KB

The findings are the best evidence yet of the theory, say astronomers

Comment: There is no way that astronomers can claim to “have observed a super-massive black hole,” far less “ripping apart a star and consuming part of it.” As we shall see, all they have observed is a burst of x-rays from the center of a galaxy.

Scientists think the doomed star drifted too close to the giant hole and gradually fell under the influence of its enormous gravity. The tidal forces of the black hole pulled on the star, stretching it until it broke up. The black hole then swallowed some of the matter left behind, causing a flare of X-rays that was detected on Earth.

Comment: This fabricated account relies on the model astronomers have chosen initially. If that choice is wrong all conjectures based on that model will be worthless. If something else is causing the X-ray burst, the whole theoretical edifice comes crashing down.

The phenomenon has long been predicted by theory and similar X-ray spikes have been seen before.

Comment: In this case, prior prediction does not help prove whether this particular theoretical model is correct because alternatives have not been considered and a means of falsifying the theory established. Many astrophysical models are practically unfalsifiable, and therefore worthless, because they are capable of being adapted to fit each ‘surprising’ new discovery.

‘Brilliant flare’

But astronomers claim the new data, from the European Space Agency’s XMM-Newton observatory and Nasa’s Chandra X-ray observatory, is the best evidence yet that these events do happen.

Comment: Such evidence would not stand up in a court because no limits are placed on the black hole model as a source of gravitational energy. It is like a theoretical spring that can be stretched to infinity without breaking. A theory that can ignore practical limits is fundamentally flawed.

The X-ray outburst is one of the most extreme ever detected and was caused by gas from the destroyed star being heated to millions of degrees.

Comment: Here is a bold statement of fact that is entirely model dependent. Using gravity to heat gas is the most unlikely method imaginable to produce X-rays. We use almost infinitely more efficient electric power to do it. And Nature is not known for being inefficient.

The black hole is at the centre of a galaxy known as RX J1242-11 and is estimated to have a mass about 100 million times that of the Sun. RX J1242-11 is an estimated 700 million light-years away from Earth. “This unlucky star just wandered into the wrong neighbourhood,” said Dr Stefanie Komossa, of the Max Planck Institute in Germany.

Comment: This is where the theorists overstep the mark by translating their theoretical model into real objects (one of them 100 million times more massive than the Sun!! That’s really stretching that spring!!) and discussing imagined events as if they actually took place.

“The centre of the galaxy flared up in a brilliant burst of X-rays thousands of times brighter than all of the billions of stars of this galaxy taken together.”

Comment: This is the only factual statement in the entire news release.

Dr Komossa said the emission’s wide spread of energy was characteristic of matter very close to a black hole.

Comment: This language is misleading. It gives the impression that “matter very close to a black hole” has been observed directly or there is no other way that the spread of X-ray energy could be achieved. A “characteristic” of something is the “aggregate of qualities that distinguish it from others.” But no “others” have been considered. More important information would be other qualities of the emission that don’t quite fit the model. Scientists are prone to ignore disconfirming evidence or, if the evidence cannot be ignored, to continually fiddle with the model rather than re-examine all of the assumptions underpinning their model.

“The gravity of that black hole is strong enough to swing around the stars in the centre and in the vicinity up to speeds of several thousands of kilometres per second,” Professor Guenther Hasinger, also of the Max Planck Institute, told a news conference in Washington DC, US. It is estimated that about one-hundredth of the mass of the star was ultimately consumed by the black hole.

Comment: These descriptions of the extreme behavior expected in the gravitational model should be viewed in the context of the inability of theorists to explain the motion of stars in a spiral galaxy using Newtonian theory without conjuring up invisible matter placed where needed in order to save the model. Modern astronomy has the reek of Ptolemaic epicycles about it.

Tidal force of a black hole283×212 18.3 KB

The black hole's tidal forces stretched the star to breaking point.

This small amount is consistent with predictions that the momentum and energy of the process by which the star is consumed would fling most of the star’s gas away from the black hole.

Comment: A major adjustment of the black hole model was required to explain how matter could be flung out in polar jets at near light speed from an object from which there was supposed to be no escape. As usual, magnetism was called upon to rescue the gravitational model. No mention was made about the electric currents required to produce the magnetic fields.

One puzzle was how the jets can maintain their narrow trajectory over a million light years. The Chandra x-ray astronomy website offers this: “The best bet at this point is that a tightly coiled magnetic field is spun out with the particles. One team of scientists exploring this line of reasoning has concluded that black holes may be the primary source of magnetic energy in the universe. This could be highly significant because, as is known from observations of solar flares, magnetic energy can readily change into other forms of energy.” It is quite strange to witness this blind-spot that does not allow astrophysicists to see that magnetism is a secondary effect of electric current, and not a primary cause. The most simple method of creating a filamentary, glowing jet in plasma is to cause an electric discharge through it. Novelty store plasma balls show the effect clearly. Plasma physicists note that plasma filamentation is known to occur over at least 14 orders of magnitude of current, from microamperes to multi-megaamperes.

“Every galaxy contains a black hole, and there are millions or billions of galaxies. In principle, we are expecting these events to happen all the time,” said Professor Hasinger.

Comment: A final confident statement with no qualifications: “Every galaxy contains a black hole.” A fanciful model is made fact by fiat.

The PLASMA GUN at Galactic Centers

While astrophysicists have left the real universe for metaphysics, we must turn to practical engineers for some answers. The prestigious Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) has recognized the subject of plasma cosmology for some years. Plasma cosmology has no problem explaining the ubiquitous spiral shape of galaxies and reproducing it in the plasma laboratory. All that is required to produce the phenomenon is electrical power. Galaxies are threaded like pinwheels on invisible cosmic threads of electric current. Those cosmic threads are fundamental to the web-like appearance of the visible universe.

Survey of the nearby universe maps the distribution of about 75,000 galaxies (small orange dots). The Earth is located at the intersection of the two wedges. The galaxies clearly trace a network of filamentary structures. Image courtesy of the 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey team.

Although operating in “dark current” mode in deep space, the presence of cosmic (Birkeland) currents is demonstrated by their magnetic fields. A galaxy like ours is effectively a giant homopolar motor, with current flowing along the spiral arms toward the galactic center and then out along the polar axis.

There is a simple device known as a dense plasma focus, or “plasma gun,” that mimics what is going on in active galactic nuclei, or AGN’s. It shows what happens when converging current streams along the galactic arms are focussed into a very small volume at the galactic center.

The dense plasma focus, first invented in 1954, consists of two coaxial cylindrical electrodes usually less than 30 cm in all dimensions in a gas-filled vacuum chamber connected to a capacitor bank. It is capable of producing high-energy X-ray and gamma-ray radiation and intense beams of electrons and ions, as well as abundant fusion reactions. In operation, the capacitors discharge in a several-microsecond pulse, the gas is ionized and a current sheath, consisting of pinched current filaments, forms and runs down the electrodes.

The radial, pinched current filaments can be seen here as we look down the barrel of the dense plasma focus.

When the sheath reaches the end of the inner electrode (the anode), the filaments pinch together, forming a dense, magnetically-confined, hot spot or plasmoid. The plasmoid emits soft X-rays with energy in the range of several kiloelectron volts. X-ray pinhole images have demonstrated that the plasmoids are tiny, with radii of a few microns to tens of microns. These plasmoids emit intense beams of accelerated ions and electrons. Fusion neutrons are emitted from the device in large quantities. Simple plasma scaling laws allow us to see why it is that the source of the prodigious outpouring of energy from an active galactic center is so small.**

Radio emissions from the center of the galaxy, showing the bright radio source SagA* and the filamentary “power lines” feeding the plasmoid at the core of the Milky Way. Credit: Farhad Yusef-Zadeh

No peculiar physics, strange matter or singularities (infinities) are involved in the plasma focus model of galactic centers. Black holes are not required. Matter in the vicinity of the galactic center is under the control of powerful electromagnetic forces. Gravitational calculations of stellar masses and motions in the galactic center are inappropriate and misleading. During the time that energy is being efficiently stored in the tiny central plasmoid, the galactic center is quiescent. Jets are only produced when the plasmoid becomes unstable. The periodic outbursts from a galactic plasmoid can briefly release more energy than all of the stars in the galaxy. Precisely the same effect is achieved in the high-energy plasma lab, like that at Los Alamos, where more instantaneous power than is available from all of the power stations on Earth can be released in a volume the size of a baked bean can. Who, in their right mind, would try to achieve a similar effect by (in effect) dropping a great mass from a great height?

The fact that the center of a galaxy is the “anode” in a galactic discharge supports the ELECTRIC UNIVERSE® model of stars as tiny secondary anodes formed and sustained in a galactic discharge. Stars cannot simply attract all of the electrons they need to achieve electrical neutrality and then “wink out” because the entire galaxy is a part of a far greater circuit. A galaxy and its stars are continually playing “catch up” with an unknown universal power source. And just as our power stations are usually out of sight of the cities that they light up, so the universal power source seems to be beyond the visible universe.

The situation with modern cosmology raises disturbing questions about physics training and the way science is conducted today. In physics, mathematical methods are emphasized and students are almost exclusively tested on their mathematical ability. For many the subject has become sterile and abstract. Mathematical cleverness counts for more than common sense, empirical observation and historical research. The inevitable result is that we now have a cosmology that is an oxymoron – scientific creationism, and a universe that has been called “the ultimate free lunch.” Tens of billions of dollars are being spent to satisfy the search for imaginary particles, objects and energies dreamt up by mathematicians. It seems the more preposterous the claim, the more chance of being heard when it comes to funding. We have unsuitably trained scientists foisting upon us the most super-expensive experiments: particle colliders to try to reproduce an imagined big bang; gravity wave telescopes, when we don’t understand the first thing about gravity; and seriously misguided space experiments. A flood of data returning from space probes is being analysed by a generation of researchers who do not comprehend what they are looking at.

The astronomer Halton Arp summed up the situation:

“After all, to get the whole universe totally wrong in the face of clear evidence for over 75 years merits monumental embarrassment and should induce a modicum of humility.”
– What has Science Come to? – Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 14, No. 3.

The last word, from half a century ago, goes to Professor Herbert Dingle. In his Presidential Address to the Royal Astronomical Society in 1953 he said:

“No great scientific work, it is true, has been done without the free and bold use of imagination, but let its products be properly assessed before they are announced as discoveries of the order of nature. Even idle speculation may not be quite valueless if it is recognized for what it is. If the new cosmologists would observe this proviso, calling a spade a spade and not a perfect agricultural principle, one’s only cause for regret would be that such great talents were spent for so little profit.

But I am not yet convinced that facility in performing mathematical operations must inevitably deprive its possessor of the power of elementary reasoning, though the evidence against me is strong. Let our younger cosmologists forget cosmology for the space of three years – the universe is patient – it can wait, and instead read the history of science – I mean, the work of the great scientists themselves. After asking themselves what meaning it has for the work of today, let them return to cosmology and give their attention again to the great problems into which they have prematurely rushed.

I do not enjoy the task of arraigning those whose mathematical facility greatly exceeds their judgement of scientific authenticity, and who have in consequence exercised this facility on any premises that will give it scope. But one who, however unworthy, accepts the honor of presiding over one of the foremost scientific societies of the world, accepts a responsibility. The ideas to which we give publicity are accepted as genuine scientific pronouncements and as such influence the thinking of philosophers, theologians, and all who realize that in no intellectual problem, however fundamental, can scientific research now be ignored. And so when it happens we have published, in the name of science, so-called ‘principles’ that in origin and character are identical with the ‘principles’ that all celestial movements are circular and all celestial bodies immutable, it becomes my duty to point out that this is precisely the kind of celebration that science was created to displace.”
– Observatory, 73, 42.

Wal Thornhill

Zeilik & Smith, Introductory Astronomy & Astrophysics, p. 303.

** Acknowledgement to Eric J. Lerner of Lawrenceville Plasma Physics for detailed information on the dense plasma focus in his paper, “Towards Advanced-fuel Fusion: Electron, Ion Energy >100 keV in a Dense Plasma”.

Print this page

Search

The Black Hole at the Heart of Astronomy

March 28th, 2009 Wal Thornhill EU Views

“Astronomical fads have always involved miracle working to some degree, and their discussion in so-called workshops and in the streams of papers that pour into the journals have affinities to the incantations of Macbeth’s witches on the blasted heath.”
—Fred Hoyle, Home is where the wind blows.

The so-called “queen” of the sciences, cosmology, is founded upon the myth that the weakest force in the universe—gravity—is responsible for forming and shaping galaxies, stars and planets. But even if this were true, gravity remains unexplained. How it works is a mystery.

Newton gave us a mathematical description of what gravity does. Einstein invoked an unreal geometry to do the same thing. Newton had the sense to “frame no hypotheses” about how gravity worked. Einstein made it impossible to relate cause and effect—which means that the theory of general relativity is not physics! How, precisely, does matter warp empty space? The language is meaningless. But this hasn’t stopped scientists declaring a law of gravitation with a ‘universal’ physical constant—‘G.’

For many years now, astronomers have been reporting that supermassive black holes — several million times the mass of the Sun — exist in nearly every galaxy.

This image, taken by the Very Large Array of ground based telescopes at radio wavelengths, shows a bright source at the centre of the Milky Way that is thought to surround a black hole. From observations of stars in orbit around the Galactic Center it is concluded that there is indeed a supermassive black hole in this region, approximately 4,000,000 times the mass of the Sun. The structure known as the Galactic Centre Radio Arc (upper left) is described as “hot plasma flowing along lines of magnetic field.”

The thoughtless followers of Einstein have fashioned God in their own image as a mathematician but “He” is much smarter and avoids high school howlers like the gravitational “black hole.” Yes, a theoretical “black hole” exists—and it sucks the very heart out of astronomy and astrophysics. The astronomer Halton Arp articulated the math howler of dividing by zero to give a near infinite concentration of mass in a hypothetical black hole:

“Since the force of gravity varies as the square of the inverse distance between objects why not make the ultimate extrapolation and let the distance go to zero? You get a LOT of density. Maybe it goes BOOM! But wait a minute, maybe it goes in the opposite direction and goes MOOB! Whatever. Most astronomers decided anyway that this was the only source that could explain the observed jets and explosions in galaxies.”

Precisely! And when the gravitational force is as close to zero as doesn’t matter, in comparison to the electric force, you must be very careful (as any high school student knows) to not divide by zero, otherwise you introduce infinities. What does it mean for the radius of a physical object to tend to zero?

In the face of discordant data, a scientist is required to check the original works and assumptions that lead to the theory under test. But there are very few such scientists in this modern age. As Sir Fred Hoyle put it, today the pressure is on to “do what aging gurus tell them to do, which is nothing” and simply build on the consensus those gurus have established. A fellow Australian, Stephen Crothers, has shown mathematical theorists to be remarkably unintelligent and sloppy in the application of their talent to physical problems. It seems that most of them don’t really follow the mathematical arguments anyway (which is not surprising) but are happy to extol the results of others, based on reputation, regardless of the principles of physics or commonsense. Crothers has done his historical and mathematical homework and delivered a paper, The Schwarzschild solution and its implications for gravitational waves, at the Conference of the German Physical Society, Munich, March 9-13, 2009. He concludes, inter alia, that:

• “Schwarzschild’s solution” is not Schwarzschild’s solution. Schwarzschild’s actual solution does not predict black holes. The quantity ‘r’ appearing in the so-called “Schwarzschild solution” is not a distance of any kind. This simple fact completely subverts all claims for black holes.

• Despite claims for discovery of black holes, nobody has ever found a black hole; no infinitely dense point-mass singularity and no event horizon have ever been found. There is no physical evidence for the existence of infinitely dense point-masses.

• It takes an infinite amount of observer time to verify the presence of an event horizon, but nobody has been and nobody will be around for an infinite amount of time. No observer, no observing instruments, no photons, no matter can be present in a spacetime that by construction contains no matter.

• The black hole is fictitious and so there are no black hole generated gravitational waves. The international search for black holes and their gravitational waves is ill-fated.

• The Michell-Laplace dark body is not a black hole. Newton’s theory of gravitation does not predict black holes. General Relativity does not predict black holes. Black holes were spawned by (incorrect) theory, not by observation. The search for black holes is destined to find none.

• No celestial body has ever been observed to undergo irresistible gravitational collapse. There is no laboratory evidence for irresistible gravitational collapse. Infinitely dense point-mass singularities howsoever formed cannot be reconciled with Special Relativity, i.e. they violate Special Relativity, and therefore violate General Relativity.

• General Relativity cannot account for the simple experimental fact that two fixed bodies will approach one another upon release. There are no known solutions to Einstein’s field equations for two or more masses and there is no existence theorem by which it can even be asserted that his field equations contain latent solutions for such configurations of matter. All claims for black hole interactions are invalid.

• Einstein’s gravitational waves are fictitious; Einstein’s gravitational energy cannot be localised; so the international search for Einstein’s gravitational waves is destined to detect nothing. No gravitational waves have been detected.

• Einstein’s field equations violate the experimentally well-established usual conservation of energy and momentum, and therefore violate the experimental evidence.

In an audience of theoretical physicists there was stunned silence—and not a single question.

A final official word on black holes from the Astronomer Royal who follows an unenviable tradition of holders of that office being completely wrong and retarding progress:

“Black holes, the most remarkable consequences of Einstein’s theory, are not just theoretical constructs. There are huge numbers of them in our Galaxy and in every other galaxy, each being the remnant of a star and weighing several times as much as the Sun. There are much larger ones, too, in the centers of galaxies. Near our own galactic center, stars are orbiting ten times faster than their normal speeds within a galaxy.”
—Martin Rees, Our Cosmic Habitat (2001).

Electric Galaxies have Electromagnetic Hearts

The question for the ELECTRIC UNIVERSE® is therefore: If black holes don’t exist, how do we explain recent observations at the center of our own Milky Way?

The well-established study of plasma cosmology shows that galaxies are an electrical phenomenon. It has been found that filaments, arcs, and shells characterize the small-scale structure of molecular gas in the Galactic Center. They are all well-documented electrodynamic plasma configurations. A single charged particle in 10,000 neutral gas molecules is sufficient to have the gas behave as plasma, where electromagnetic forces dominate. Conventional theorists admit to “no plausible explanations either for the origin of the complex kinematics or for most of the peculiar features.” In May last year I described the plasma focus phenomenon generated at the Galactic Center by filamentary helical “Birkeland” currents flowing in along the spiral arms and out along the galactic spin axis.

This image shows the form of the plasmoid at the center of the galaxy (and the particle jets created when the magnetic field begins to collapse). Image credit: E. Lerner.

A letter to Nature provides supporting evidence for that model in the form of the infrared “double helix” nebula. The nebula is located about 100 parsecs from the Galactic Center. Its axis is oriented perpendicular to the Galactic plane and is apparently connected to the circum-nuclear disk (CND), which is conventionally thought to be an accretion disk harboring a “supermassive” black hole.

The 80 light-year long Double Helix Nebula (DHN) observed in infrared with the MIPS camera on the Spitzer Space Telescope. The spatial resolution is 6 arcsec. On the right we see the context of the DHN with respect to the Galactic plane taken with the MSX satellite. The spatial resolution is 20 arcsec. The relative locations and sizes of the nebula, the circumnuclear disk (CND), and the proposed channel linking them, are all shown. Credit: M. Morris et al., UCLA.

The double helix is the characteristic form of a Birkeland current filament. Like the filaments in the Galactic Center Radio Arc in the first image, it is a glowing section of the electric circuit connecting the central plasmoid to the galaxy and beyond. The CND is typical of a dusty plasma ring current circulating around a magnetized celestial object. There is no gravitational or dynamical explanation for the twin helical filaments. It has no place in black hole theory. The metaphors and language used in the scientific report are wrong and misleading. The title of the report alone highlights the problem— “A magnetic torsional wave near the Galactic Centre traced by a ‘double helix’ nebula.” As usual, there is no explanation for the presence of the magnetic field (which requires an electric current and circuit) or the source of the imagined “torsional wave.” The authors admit: “The absence of a negative-latitude counterpart is another potential weakness of the torsional wave hypothesis, inasmuch as such waves should propagate equally in both directions away from the driving disk, if that disk is symmetric about its midplane” and “One question that our hypothesis leaves unanswered is why the helical structure has two strands.”

Researchers also report that “the magnetic field in the central few hundred parsecs of the Milky Way has a dipolar geometry and is substantially stronger than elsewhere in the Galaxy.” Birkeland filaments align with the ambient magnetic field which is, in turn, generated by electric currents flowing into the central plasmoid.

The energy of the jets seen issuing from active galactic nuclei (AGNs) is attributed to conversion of gravitational energy of accreting matter into radiation. But that does not explain the character of the jets, or the puzzling “quietness” of our own hypothetical black hole. As recently as 26 March in Nature it was admitted “the mechanisms that trigger and suppress jet formation in [black holes] remain a mystery.” Meanwhile, the plasmoid is well known in the plasma laboratory as a high-density energy storage phenomenon that produces well-collimated jets after a time that depends upon particle collisions within the plasmoid.

X-ray emission is a signature of electrical activity. There is a persistent high-energy flux from the heart of the Milky Way. The spectral characteristics of the X-ray emission from this region suggests that the source is most likely not point-like but, rather, that it is a compact, yet diffuse, non-thermal emission region, which we should expect from an electromagnetic plasmoid. There is an overabundance of X-ray transients in the inner parsec of the Galactic Center compared to the overall distribution of X-ray sources. Recent observations show that X-ray flares fire roughly every 20 minutes – a regularity that is hard to explain in terms of erratic infall of matter into a black hole. But clockwork regularity of plasma discharges already explains the pulsations from other bodies in deep space. Scientists were also startled when they discovered in 2004 that the center of our galaxy is emitting gamma rays with energies in the tens of trillions of electron volts. The plasma focus is the most copious source of high-energy particles and radiation known to plasma experimenters.

The orbits of stars in the center of the Milky Way. Credit: S. Gillesen et al., Max-Planck-Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics.

The confidence of astrophysicists in their diagnosis of a “supermassive black hole” at the center of the galaxy has been boosted greatly by some brilliant observational work that has allowed the orbits of stars close to galactic center to be determined. Their motion has been used to better estimate the size and massiveness of the assumed “black hole” dwelling there. However, this brings us back to the question of what astrophysicists understand about gravity and mass.

In Electric Gravity in an ELECTRIC UNIVERSE® I argue for the origin of mass and gravity in the electrical nature of matter. Mass is not a measure of the quantity of matter. The ‘universal constant of gravitation,’ G, is neither universal nor constant since it includes the mathematical dimension of mass, which is an electromagnetic variable. In the powerful magnetic field of a plasmoid, charged particles are constrained to accelerate continuously in the complex pattern of the plasmoid. Like electrons and protons in particle accelerators on Earth, the apparent masses of those particles become enormous as they approach the speed of light. So to report that the object at the center of the galaxy has the mass of 4 million Suns is meaningless in terms of the amount of matter trapped there electromagnetically. The matter there is not constrained by gravity, nor is it there as a result of gravitational accretion. Maxwell’s laws apply at the Galactic Center, not Newton’s.

The plasmoid is “quiet” while storing electromagnetic energy. The persistent high-energy flux comes from synchrotron radiation from the circulating charged particles in the plasmoid. Experiments indicate that as soon as the particle densities in the plasmoid filaments reach some critical value, collisions begin to dominate and the plasmoid begins to decay. The density is greatest in the bundle of axial filaments, so that is where the stored energy is released in the form of thin axial jets of neutrons, charged particles and radiation. In the process the axial current is “pinched off,” which could focus upon the plasmoid some of the prodigious electromagnetic energy stored in the intergalactic circuit. The plasmoid becomes an Active Galactic Nucleus.

A couple of serious problems have been found with the black hole scenario. One is called “the paradox of youth.” It is a:

“mystery surrounding the existence of massive young stars in the inner few hundredths of a parsec around the central black hole of the Galaxy. The problem is that according to standard scenarios of star formation and stellar dynamics the stars cannot be born in such an extreme environment because of the strong tidal shear, but are also too short-lived to have migrated there from farther out. None of the solutions proposed so far for the puzzle of the young stars are entirely satisfactory. Their spectral properties are identical to normal, main sequence B0-B9 stars with moderate (≤150 km/s) rotation.” “The stellar orbits appear overall random, in marked contrast to the ordered planar rotation observed for the much more luminous emission line stars farther out. In addition the stars in the central 0.02 parsec appear to have higher than random eccentricity.”

These recent discoveries demonstrate the bankruptcy of gravitational theory.

Stars are an electrical phenomenon. Stars are not formed by gravitational accretion but in the incomparably more powerful plasma z-pinch. The galactic plasmoid is a concentrated z-pinch with the complex morphology shown earlier. As a z-pinch subsides, experiment shows that a number of consolidated objects that formed along the pinch scatter like buckshot. So stars born in the plasmoid will initially have random eccentric orbits. Stellar rotation is imparted by the pinch vortex and should be similar in the group. The stars beyond 0.02 parsec from the Galactic Center show different kinematics and stellar properties from those stars inside that limit. It indicates a discontinuity in the properties of the plasma environment rather than something intrinsic to the stars.

Infrared image of the mini-spiral at the Galactic Center obtained with the Kuiper Widefield Infrared Camera on the Kuiper Airborne Observatory. Credit: H M Latkavoski et al., Cornell U.

The hallmark of plasma phenomena is their scalability over an enormous size range, from microscopic to galactic. The natural form of the largest visible plasma discharge in the universe, the spiral galaxy, is seen repeated here at the heart of our own spiral electric galaxy .

Scientists hope that future very high resolution imaging of the Galactic Center will enable them to detect the features expected of a black hole with a “Schwarzschild radius” of 10 million miles. It is supposed to “open up a new window for probing the structure of space and time near a black hole and testing Einstein’s theory of gravity.” Given that the Schwarzschild radius “is not a distance of any kind,” I confidently predict continuing surprises, puzzlement and theoretical legerdemain in attempts to make the facts fit the unscientific black hole theory. It seems impossible for the courtiers to perceive that the emperors of science have no clothes. Reality is a shared illusion.

I suggest we stop wasting tens of billions of dollars searching for new particles and forces invented by mathematicians chasing fame and a Nobel Prize and spend one percent of that sum investigating the dense plasma focus. Science used to be about simplification. It is the way of the ELECTRIC UNIVERSE®. It is the way out of science’s black hole.

Messages from some Dissident Witnesses at the Emperor’s Court

“Modern astronomers busy themselves applying accepted theories to new observations in deliberate disregard for the unexpected. They may as well reprint previous papers, close the telescopes, and save the taxpayers’ pennies. They’ve ceased looking for new ideas and have become technicians of the rote.

Astronomy has become a science of answers, of ‘secure knowledge,’ of ritual. It can be contained on a hard drive. It’s a science for robots or parrots. Answers are victories that soon become dead leaves of reminiscence, dry pages of textbooks and scriptures.

A science for humans is a science of questions, of learning, of possibilities and opportunities. Its aim is not to fold the unquestioned into the envelope of the given but to learn new words and to write new narratives.”
—Mel Acheson

“It’s all about attitude, really. There are scientists who think they may be able to derive a set of equations they boldly term “The Theory of Everything”. Then there are those, like me, who admit to themselves and others that what we don’t know will always significantly exceed what we do. So it comes down to this: Do we believe the evidence of our eyes, to the extent that it should form the basis of theories in cosmology, or do we rather depend upon our imaginations, expressed in convoluted mathematical dialects, to express our eternal optimism that some day, some how, we might persuade ordinary folk that this is how they should be seeing it.”
—Hilton Ratcliffe, Declaration of Intent: Swimming with the salmon, dining with the bears.

“The worse things get, the more scientists meet together internationally in the interest (supposedly) of progress. But, as Tommy Gold points out, perpetually meeting together locks people’s beliefs together into a fixed pattern, and, if the pattern is not yielding progress, the situation soon becomes moribund. These considerations provide ample motivation for attempts to preserve the status quo in cosmology: religion, the reputations of the aging, and money. Always in such situations in the past, however, the crack has eventually come. The Universe eventually has its way over the prejudices of men, and I optimistically predict it will be so again.”
—Sir Fred Hoyle, Home is where the wind blows (1994).

Wal Thornhill

Print this page

Search

Stephen Hawking: 'There are no black holes'

Notion of an 'event horizon', from which nothing can escape, is incompatible with quantum theory, physicist claims.

Zeeya Merali

24 January 2014

Article tools

Rights & Permissions

Artist's impression VICTOR HABBICK VISIONS/SPL/Getty

The defining characteristic of a black hole may have to give, if the two pillars of modern physics — general relativity and quantum theory — are both correct.

[Expand](javascript:

Most physicists foolhardy enough to write a paper claiming that “there are no black holes” — at least not in the sense we usually imagine — would probably be dismissed as cranks. But when the call to redefine these cosmic crunchers comes from Stephen Hawking, it’s worth taking notice. In a paper posted online, the physicist, based at the University of Cambridge, UK, and one of the creators of modern black-hole theory, does away with the notion of an event horizon, the invisible boundary thought to shroud every black hole, beyond which nothing, not even light, can escape.

Peter van den Berg/Photoshot

“There is no escape from a black hole in classical theory, but quantum theory enables energy and information to escape.”

In its stead, Hawking’s radical proposal is a much more benign “apparent horizon”, which only temporarily holds matter and energy prisoner before eventually releasing them, albeit in a more garbled form.

“There is no escape from a black hole in classical theory,” Hawking told Nature . Quantum theory, however, “enables energy and information to escape from a black hole”. A full explanation of the process, the physicist admits, would require a theory that successfully merges gravity with the other fundamental forces of nature. But that is a goal that has eluded physicists for nearly a century. “The correct treatment,” Hawking says, “remains a mystery.”

Hawking posted his paper on the arXiv preprint server on 22 January1. He titled it, whimsically, 'Information preservation and weather forecasting for black holes', and it has yet to pass peer review. The paper was based on a talk he gave via Skype at a meeting at the Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics in Santa Barbara, California, in August 2013 (watch video of the talk).

Fire fighting

Hawking's new work is an attempt to solve what is known as the black-hole firewall paradox, which has been vexing physicists for almost two years, after it was discovered by theoretical physicist Joseph Polchinski of the Kavli Institute and his colleagues (see 'Astrophysics: Fire in the hole!').

In a thought experiment, the researchers asked what would happen to an astronaut unlucky enough to fall into a black hole. Event horizons are mathematically simple consequences of Einstein's general theory of relativity that were first pointed out by the German astronomer Karl Schwarzschild in a letter he wrote to Einstein in late 1915, less than a month after the publication of the theory. In that picture, physicists had long assumed, the astronaut would happily pass through the event horizon, unaware of his or her impending doom, before gradually being pulled inwards — stretched out along the way, like spaghetti — and eventually crushed at the 'singularity', the black hole’s hypothetical infinitely dense core.

Physicist Claims to Have Proven Mathematically That Black Holes Do Not Exist

There has been a great deal of study and debate surrounding the mysteries of black holes. The University of North Carolina’s Laura Mersini-Houghton believes that the reason there is so much uncertainty is because black holes don’t exist. Her paper has been submitted to ArXiv , but has not been subjected to peer review. Earlier this year, she published a paper with approximate solutions in the journal Physics Letters B .

Astrophysicists have been studying black holes for decades. It is widely believed that when a star 20 times more massive than our Sun or larger dies and collapses, it can condense into an incredibly small area known as the singularity that is extremely dense. It is surrounded by an event horizon, which is a region where the gravitational pull is so strong, not even light can escape. It is essentially the "point of no return."

Stephen Hawking first theorized in 1974 that due to quantum effects at the event horizon, it releases radiation now known as Hawking radiation. Over time, shedding this radiation can pull mass away, in a process known as evaporation. However, Mersini-Houghton states that so much radiation is shed from the star when it collapses, it is simply not possible for it to form a black hole.

Mersini-Houghton claims that she has clearly and effectively reconciled Einstein’s Theory of Relativity with quantum mechanics. Though the two have never necessarily been at odds on a large scale, physicists have previously been unable to merge the two cohesively. In terms of relativity, the formation of the black hole can be predicted. However, in quantum mechanics, the uncertainty principle doesn’t really permit one to know exactly where something is located. It’s possible to get pretty close, but not exactly. This is just one of many ways in which quantum theory and Einstein’s classical field theory fail to align when it comes to black holes.

“Physicists have been trying to merge these two theories – Einstein’s theory of gravity and quantum mechanics – for decades, but this scenario brings these two theories together, into harmony,” Mersini-Houghton stated in a press release. “And that’s a big deal.”

However, not everyone is on board with Mersini-Houghton’s conclusions. William Unruh, a theoretical physicist from the University of British Columbia, pointed out some fatal flaws in the paper's argument.

“The [paper] is nonsense,” Unruh said in an email to IFLS. “Attempts like this to show that black holes never form have a very long history, and this is only the latest. They all misunderstand Hawking radiation, and assume that matter behaves in ways that are completely implausible.”

According to Unruh, black holes don’t emit enough Hawking radiation to shrink the mass of the black hole down to where Mersini-Houghton claims in a timely manner. Instead, “it would take 10^53 (1 followed by 53 zeros) times the age of the universe to evaporate,” he explains.

“The standard behaviour by such people [who don’t understand Hawking radiation] is to project that outgoing energy back closer and closer to the horizon of the black hole, where its energy density gets larger and larger,” he continued. “Unfortunately explicit calculations of the energy density near the horizon show it is really, really small instead of being large-- Those calculations were already done in the 1970s. To call bad speculation "has been proven mathematically" is, shall we say, and overstatement.”

Regards

sidharthabahadur · December 15, 2019, 5:22pm

Here's one more explanation by Eric Lerner of how Plasmoid Quasars operate , as opposed to the Black Hole concept :-

Regards

sidharthabahadur · December 16, 2019, 5:30am

Folks , one area where mainstream science has been "unusually quiet" in last few years is the state of particle physics , having spent 10 billion Euros on the Large Hadron Collider experiment at CERN .

To put it bluntly , the LHC has been a COLLOSSAL waste of public money , that could have been used to fund hundreds of smaller experiments with greater merit for science - such as plasma physics . There is always an opportunity cost when such large sums of money are sunk into one single project .
Despite this debacle , it seems CERN has been able to convince authorities for funding a next generation collider that will be 4 times bigger than the current one - that just opened up another "Black Hole" , for sucking up public funds and sustaining the careers of senior scientists at CERN :)) On that point though , one of the major failures of LHC has been it's inability to spot "microscopic" Black Holes , which had been touted as one of the important discoveries that the LHC would be able to make . There are many other claims which have now been shattered , such as proof of "Super symmetry"...the list of such false claims by CERN is actually very long !

Even the "indecent haste" with which a Nobel Prize was (questionably) awarded for discovery of the Higgs Boson , has greatly lowered the credibility of CERN . There are many who have comprehensively debunked that award , which was done more for the optics , necessary to secure continued MEGA-funding for CERN , that feeds thousands of scientists .

Even more disturbing , is the fact that the management at CERN decided to retain only 0.003 % of ALL the date LHC has generated over last 10 years of it's operation - one may ask why ??? Because those wise people at the top of CERN , deemed that 99.997 % of the data generated by the LHC machine is of no use to science....REALLY , SERIOUSLY ??? What did they want to hide - what were they worried that JUNK data would reveal , about their most cherished theories & Einstein's relativistic framework ?

The Uncertain Future of Particle Physics

Ten years in, the Large Hadron Collider has failed to deliver the exciting discoveries that scientists promised.

By Sabine Hossenfelder

Dr. Hossenfelder is a research fellow at the Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies.

Jan. 23, 2019

The Large Hadron Collider is the world’s largest particle accelerator. It’s a 16-mile-long underground ring, located at CERN in Geneva, in which protons collide at almost the speed of light.Credit...Leslye Davis/The New York Times

The Large Hadron Collider is the world’s largest particle accelerator. It’s a 16-mile-long underground ring, located at CERN in Geneva, in which protons collide at almost the speed of light. With a $5 billion price tag and a $1 billion annual operation cost, the L.H.C. is the most expensive instrument ever built — and that’s even though it reuses the tunnel of an earlier collider.

The L.H.C. has collected data since September 2008. Last month, the second experimental run completed, and the collider will be shut down for the next two years for scheduled upgrades. With the L.H.C. on hiatus, particle physicists are already making plans to build an even larger collider. Last week, CERN unveiled plans to build an accelerator that is larger and far more powerful than the L.H.C. — and would cost over $10 billion.

I used to be a particle physicist. For my Ph.D. thesis, I did L.H.C. predictions, and while I have stopped working in the field, I still believe that slamming particles into one another is the most promising route to understanding what matter is made of and how it holds together. But $10 billion is a hefty price tag. And I’m not sure it’s worth it.

In 2012, experiments at the L.H.C. confirmed the discovery of the Higgs boson — a prediction that dates back to the 1960s — and it remains the only discovery made at the L.H.C. Particle physicists are quick to emphasize that they have learned other things: For example, they now have better knowledge about the structure of the proton, and they’ve seen new (albeit unstable) composite particles. But let’s be honest: It’s disappointing.

Sign up for David Leonhardt's newsletter

David Leonhardt helps you make sense of the news — and offers reading suggestions from around the web — with commentary every weekday morning.

Continue reading the main story

Before the L.H.C. started operation, particle physicists had more exciting predictions than that. They thought that other new particles would also appear near the energy at which the Higgs boson could be produced. They also thought that the L.H.C. would see evidence for new dimensions of space. They further hoped that this mammoth collider would deliver clues about the nature of dark matter (which astrophysicists think constitutes 85 percent of the matter in the universe) or about a unified force.

The stories about new particles, dark matter and additional dimensions were repeated in countless media outlets from before the launch of the L.H.C. until a few years ago. What happened to those predictions? The simple answer is this: Those predictions were wrong — that much is now clear.

Unlock more free articles.

Create an account or log in

The trouble is, a “prediction” in particle physics is today little more than guesswork. (In case you were wondering, yes, that’s exactly why I left the field.) In the past 30 years, particle physicists have produced thousands of theories whose mathematics they can design to “predict” pretty much anything. For example, in 2015 when a statistical fluctuation in the L.H.C. data looked like it might be a new particle, physicists produced more than 500 papers in eight months to explain what later turned out to be merely noise. The same has happened many other times for similar fluctuations, demonstrating how worthless those predictions are.

To date, particle physicists have no reliable prediction that there should be anything new to find until about 15 orders of magnitude above the currently accessible energies. And the only reliable prediction they had for the L.H.C. was that of the Higgs boson. Unfortunately, particle physicists have not been very forthcoming with this information. Last year, Nigel Lockyer, the director of Fermilab, told the BBC, “From a simple calculation of the Higgs’ mass, there has to be new science.” This “simple calculation” is what predicted that the L.H.C. should already have seen new science.

I recently came across a promotional video for the Future Circular Collider that physicists have proposed to build at CERN. This video, which is hosted on the CERN website, advertises the planned machine as a test for dark matter and as a probe for the origin of the universe. It is extremely misleading: Yes, it is possible that a new collider finds a particle that makes up dark matter, but there is no particular reason to think it will. And such a machine will not tell us anything about the origin of the universe. Paola Catapano, head of audiovisual productions at CERN, informed me that this video “is obviously addressed to politicians and not fellow physicists and uses the same arguments as those used to promote the L.H.C. in the ’90s.”

Editors’ Picks

[

‘S.N.L.’ Presents Kellyanne Conway’s ‘Marriage Story,’ Plus Baby Yoda

](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/15/arts/television/saturday-night-live-scarlett-johansson.html?algo=top_conversion&fellback=true&imp_id=490976644&imp_id=223163799&action=click&module=editorContent&pgtype=Article&region=CompanionColumn&contentCollection=Trending)

[

The ‘S.N.L.’ Stars Who Lasted, and the Ones Who Flamed Out

](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/12/14/arts/television/SNL-history.html?algo=top_conversion&fellback=true&imp_id=185289421&imp_id=119332338&action=click&module=editorContent&pgtype=Article&region=CompanionColumn&contentCollection=Trending)

[

The Decade in Retirement: Wealthy Americans Moved Further Ahead

](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/14/business/retirement-social-security-recession.html?algo=top_conversion&fellback=true&imp_id=905317392&imp_id=16463714&action=click&module=editorContent&pgtype=Article&region=CompanionColumn&contentCollection=Trending)

Continue reading the main story

But big science experiments are investments in our future. Decisions about what to fund should be based on facts, not on shiny advertising. For this, we need to know when a prediction is just a guess. And if particle physicists have only guesses, maybe we should wait until they have better reasons for why a larger collider might find something new.

It is correct that some technological developments, like strong magnets, benefit from these particle colliders and that particle physics positively contributes to scientific education in general. These are worthy investments, but if that’s what you want to spend money on, you don’t also need to dig a tunnel.

Does the Universe Still Need Einstein?
Nov. 19, 2018

And there are other avenues to pursue. For example, the astrophysical observations pointing toward dark matter should be explored further; better understanding those observations would help us make more reliable predictions about whether a larger collider can produce the dark matter particle — if it even is a particle.

There are also medium-scale experiments that tend to fall off the table because giant projects eat up money. One important medium-scale project is the interface between the quantum realm and gravity, which is now accessible to experimental testing. Another place where discoveries could be waiting is in the foundations of quantum mechanics. These could have major technological impacts.

Now that the L.H.C. is being upgraded and particle physics experiments at the detector are taking a break, it’s time for particle physicists to step back and reflect on the state of the field. It’s time for them to ask why none of the exciting predictions they promised have resulted in discoveries. Money will not solve this problem. And neither will a larger particle collider.

Sabine Hossenfelder is a research fellow at the Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies and the author of “Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray.”

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram .

Correction: Jan. 24, 2019

An earlier version of this article misstated Nigel Lockyer's title at Fermilab. He is its director, not acting director.

A version of this article appears in print on Jan. 24, 2019, Section A, Page 27 of the New York edition with the headline: Physicists and Their Toys. Order Reprints | Today’s Paper | Subscribe

55,356 viewsSep 13, 2018, 10:00am

Has The Large Hadron Collider Accidentally Thrown Away The Evidence For New Physics?

Ethan Siegel Senior Contributor

Starts With A Bang Contributor Group

Science

The Universe is out there, waiting for you to discover it.

The ATLAS particle detector of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at the European Nuclear Research... [+]

Over at the Large Hadron Collider, protons simultaneously circle clockwise and counterclockwise, smashing into one another while moving at 99.9999991% the speed of light apiece. At two specific points designed to have the greatest numbers of collisions, enormous particle detectors were constructed and installed: the CMS and ATLAS detectors. After billions upon billions of collisions at these enormous energies, the LHC has brought us further in our hunt for the fundamental nature of the Universe and our understanding of the elementary building blocks of matter.

Earlier this month, the LHC celebrated 10 years of operation, with the discovery of the Higgs boson marking its crowning achievement. Yet despite these successes, no new particles, interactions, decays, or fundamental physics has been found. Worst of all is this: most of CERN's data from the LHC has been discarded forever.

The CMS Collaboration, whose detector is shown prior to final assembly here, has released their... [+]

CERN/Maximlien Brice

Today In: Innovation

This is one of the least well-understood pieces of the high-energy physics puzzle, at least among the general public. The LHC hasn't just lost most of its data: it's lost a whopping 99.997% of it. That's right; out of every one million collisions that occurs at the LHC, only about 30 of them have all of their data written down and recorded.

It's something that happened out of necessity, due to the limitations imposed by the laws of nature themselves, as well as what technology can presently do. But in making that decision, there's a tremendous fear made all the more palpable by the fact that, other than the much-anticipated Higgs, nothing new has been discovered. The fear is this: that there is new physics waiting to be discovered, but we've missed it by throwing this data away.

PROMOTED

A four-muon candidate event in the ATLAS detector at the Large Hadron Collider. The muon/anti-muon... [+] tracks are highlighted in red, as the long-lived muons travel farther than any other unstable particle. This is an interesting event, but for every event we record, a million others get discarded.

A four-muon candidate event in the ATLAS detector at the Large Hadron Collider. The muon/anti-muon... [+]

ATLAS Collaboration/CERN

We didn't have a choice in the matter, really. Something had to be thrown away. The way the LHC works is by accelerating protons as close to the speed of light as possible in opposite directions and smashing them together. This is how particle accelerators have worked best for generations. According to Einstein, a particle's energy is a combination of its rest mass (which you may recognize as E = mc2 ) and the energy of its motion, also known as its kinetic energy. The faster you go — or more accurately, the closer you get to the speed of light — the higher energy-per-particle you can achieve.

At the LHC, we collide protons together at 299,792,455 m/s, just 3 m/s shy of the speed of light itself. By smashing them together at such high speeds, moving in opposite directions, we make it possible for otherwise impossible particles to exist.

The inside of the LHC, where protons pass each other at 299,792,455 m/s, just 3 m/s shy of the speed... [+] of light.

The inside of the LHC, where protons pass each other at 299,792,455 m/s, just 3 m/s shy of the speed... [+]

Julian Herzog / c.c.a-by-3.0

The reason is this: all particle (and antiparticles) that we can create have a certain amount of energy inherent to them, in the form of their mass-at-rest. When you smash two particles together, some of that energy has to go into the individual components of those particles, both their rest energy and their kinetic energy (i.e., their energy-of-motion).

But if you have enough energy, some of that energy can also go into the production of new particles! This is where E = mc2 gets really interesting: not only do all particles with a mass ( m ) have an energy ( E ) inherent to their existence, but if you have enough available energy, you can create new particles. At the LHC, humanity has achieved collisions with more available energy for the creation of new particles than in any other laboratory in history.

There were a huge variety of potential new physics signatures that physicists have been seeking at... [+] the LHC, from extra dimensions to dark matter to supersymmetric particles to micro-black holes. Despite all the data we've collected from these high-energy collisions, none of these scenarios have shown evidence supporting their existence.

There were a huge variety of potential new physics signatures that physicists have been seeking at... [+]

CERN / ATLAS experiment

The energy-per-particle is around 7 TeV, meaning each proton achieves approximately 7,000 times its rest-mass energy in the form of kinetic energy. But collisions are rare and protons aren't just tiny, they're mostly empty space. In order to get a large probability of a collision, you need to put more than one proton in at a time; you inject your protons in bunches instead.

At full intensity, this means that there are many tiny bunches of protons going clockwise and counterclockwise inside the LHC whenever it's running. The LHC tunnels are approximately 26 kilometers long, with only 7.5 meters (or around 25 feet) separating each bunch. As these bunches of beams go around, they get squeezed as they interact at the mid-point of each detector. Every 25 nanoseconds, there's a chance of a collision.

The CMS detector at CERN, one of the two most powerful particle detectors ever assembled. Every 25... [+] nanosecond, on average, a new particle bunch collides at the center-point of this detector.

The CMS detector at CERN, one of the two most powerful particle detectors ever assembled. Every 25... [+]

CERN

So what do you do? Do you have a small number of collisions and record every one? That's a waste of energy and potential data.

Instead, you pump in enough protons in each bunch to ensure you have a good collision every time two bunches pass through. And every time you have a collision, particles rip through the detector in all directions, triggering the complex electronics and circuitry that allow us to reconstruct what was created, when, and where in the detector. It's like a giant explosion, and only by measuring all the pieces of shrapnel that come out can we reconstruct what happened (and what new things were created) at the point of ignition.

A Higgs boson event as seen in the Compact Muon Solenoid detector at the Large Hadron Collider. This... [+] spectacular collision is 15 orders of magnitude below the Planck energy, but it's the precision measurements of the detector that allow us to reconstruct what happened back at (and near) the collision point.

A Higgs boson event as seen in the Compact Muon Solenoid detector at the Large Hadron Collider. This... [+]

CERN / CMS Collaboration

The problem that then arises, however, is in taking all of that data and recording it. The detectors themselves are big: 22 meters for CMS and 46 meters long for ATLAS. At any given time, there are particles arising from three different collisions in CMS and six separate collisions in ATLAS. In order to record data, there are two steps that must occur:

The data has to be moved into the detector's memory, which is limited by the speed of your electronics. Even though the electrical signals travel at nearly the speed of light, we can only "remember" about 1-in-500 collisions.
The data in memory has to be written to disk (or some other permanent device), and that's a much slower process than storing data in memory; decisions need to be made as to what's kept and what's discarded.

A schematic diagram of how data comes in, gets triggered and analyzed, and then eventually sent into... [+] permanent storage. This diagram is for the ATLAS collaboration; data for CMS is slightly different.

A schematic diagram of how data comes in, gets triggered and analyzed, and then eventually sent into... [+]

CERN / ATLAS; acknowledgement: Kyle Cranmer

Now, there are some tricks we use to ensure that we choose our events wisely. We look at a variety of factors about the collision immediately to determine if it's worth a closer look or not: what we call a trigger. If you pass the trigger, you make it to the next level. (A tiny fraction of untriggered data is saved as well, just in case there's an interesting signal we didn't think to trigger on.) Then a second layer of filters and triggers is applied; if an event is interesting enough to get saved, it goes into a buffer to ensure it gets written to storage. We can make sure that every event that gets flagged as "interesting" is saved, along with a small fraction of uninteresting events as well.

That's why, with the necessity of taking both of these steps, only 0.003% of the total data can be saved for analysis.

A candidate Higgs event in the ATLAS detector. Note how even with the clear signatures and... [+] transverse tracks, there is a shower of other particles; this is due to the fact that protons are composite particles. This is only the case because the Higgs gives mass to the fundamental constituents that compose these particles.

A candidate Higgs event in the ATLAS detector. Note how even with the clear signatures and... [+]

The ATLAS collaboration / CERN

How do we know we're saving the right pieces of data? The ones where it's most likely we're creating new particles, seeing the importance of new interactions, or observing new physics?

When you have proton-proton collisions, most of what comes out are normal particles, in the sense that they're made up almost exclusively of up-and-down quarks. (This means particles like protons, neutrons, and pions.) And most collisions are glancing collisions, meaning that most of the particles wind up hitting the detector in the forwards or backwards direction.

Particle accelerators on Earth, like the LHC at CERN, can accelerate particles very close to -- but... [+] not quite up to -- the speed of light. Because protons are composite particles and they're moving so close to the speed of light, most of the particle collisions result in forward or backward scattering of particles, not transverse events.

Particle accelerators on Earth, like the LHC at CERN, can accelerate particles very close to -- but... [+]

LHC / CERN

So, to take that first step, we try and look for particle tracks of relatively high-energies that go in the transverse direction, rather than forwards or backwards. We try and put into the detector's memory the events that we think had the most available energy ( E ) for creating new particles, of the highest mass ( m ) possible. Then, we quickly perform a computational scan of what's in the detector's memory to see if it's worth writing to disk or not. If we choose to do so, it can be queued to go into permanent storage.

The overall result is that about 1000 events, every second, can be saved. That might seem like a lot, but remember: approximately 40,000,000 bunches collide every second.

The particle tracks emanating from a high energy collision at the LHC in 2014. Only 1-in-1,000,000... [+] such collisions have been written down and saved; the majority have been lost.

The particle tracks emanating from a high energy collision at the LHC in 2014. Only 1-in-1,000,000... [+]

We think we're doing the smart thing by choosing to save what we're saving, but we can't be sure. In 2010, the CERN Data Centre passed an enormous data milestone: 10 Petabytes of data. By the end of 2013, they had passed 100 Petabytes of data; in 2017, they passed the 200 Petabyte milestone. Yet for all of it, we know that we've thrown away — or failed to record — about 30,000 times that amount. We may have collected hundreds of Petabytes, but we've discarded, and lost forever, many Zettabytes of data: more than the total amount of internet data created in a year.

The total amount of data that's been collected by the LHC far outstrips the total amount of data... [+] sent-and-received over the internet over the last 10 years. But only 0.003% of that data has been written down and saved; the rest is gone for good.

The total amount of data that's been collected by the LHC far outstrips the total amount of data... [+]

It's eminently possible that the LHC created new particles, saw evidence of new interactions, and observed and recorded all the signs of new physics. And it's also possible, due to our ignorance of what we were looking for, we've thrown it all away, and will continue to do so. The nightmare scenario — of no new physics beyond the Standard Model — appears to be coming true. But the real nightmare is the very real possibility that the new physics is there, we've built the perfect machine to find it, we've found it, and we'll never realize it because of the decisions and assumptions we've made. The real nightmare is that we've fooled ourselves into believing the Standard Model is right, because we only looked at 0.003% of the data that's out there. We think we've made the smart decision in keeping what we've kept, but we can't be sure. It's possible that the nightmare is one we've unknowingly brought upon ourselves.

This piece has been updated thanks to input from Kyle Cranmer, Don Lincoln, and Daniel Whiteson.

Follow me on Twitter. Check out my website or some of my other work here.

Ethan Siegel

I am a Ph.D. astrophysicist, author, and science communicator, who professes physics and astronomy at various colleges. I have won numerous awards for science writing s...

Print
Site Feedback
Tips
Corrections
Reprints & Permissions
Terms
Privacy
AdChoices

alysdexia · December 17, 2019, 10:56pm

Learn proper punctuation, how to spell its, and the meaning of theory. Who is a "folk"?

You don't need QM to distinguish real and apparent horizon. A body's final radial velocity depends on its initial position and velocity. Thus Schwarzschild radius assumes only gravity is at work and a body starts from infinity at rest. But of course a body could start with a hyperbolic velocity, and somehow by maghic if the body moves into the Schwarzschild radius the path no longer becomes hyperbolic. If only gravity is at work then a body could start at arbitrary ranges, move into the Schwarzschild radius, then leave and return to its initial position.

My takedown of Eric Verlinde's entropic gravity includes my proof of how Unruh-Hawking radiation doesn't exist [and so how Unruh is another hack]: https://www.quora.com/How-valid-is-Verlindes-theory-of-gravity-as-an-entropic-force-Professor-Verlinde’s-theory-is-that-an-object-moving-around-other-small-objects-will-change-the-disorder-surrounding-the-objects-and-gravity-will-be-felt/answer/Autymn-Castleton.

You'll need to link to LaPoint's videos. I doubt they'll be better than Wal's.

I copied my first comment under the Black Hole or Plasmoid? YT video thread, but wrote these rebuttals first:
alysdexia 3 days ago
@Ea Jordan STFU. Vis and mass no more interconvert than V=abc mean volume and width interconvert. Rather they are proportional and potential and motional vis and real and virtval mass each interconvert. There are three fundamental fortiæ, each with modelled immassive quanta that gain mass by Goldstone effect when they interact to become pressuròns, polaritòns, and piòns. The so-called weak force is a compound of color and charge, not fundamental, which is why it has no immassive free quanta.

alysdexia 3 days ago
@Izzy PlusPlusPlus dark matter has been proven; it has shapes, trajectories, and densities. Neutrinos already exist as semidark matter. Dark matter needs no new premises to predict but is a result of hadronic fusion by gravity at the Planck scale where the attraction of two like charges counteract their repulsion. No singularity as there are arbitrarily many orbits smaller.

My comments under Orville Wiki's Quantum drive:

not travel (< travail < trepale), dolts; one only travels by limb whereas goes, fares, or wends by motorcraft.

not fast[:free::slow:swift::qualm:quick::laggy:hasty::idle:speedy::laden:fleet], retards; fast is not moving.

Celerity varies by the medium's refractive index or permittivity and permeability; for negative matter c > c_0.

March 6 by Alysdexia

Bormanis's update suggests he reads this comment section but didn't understand my diction corrections.

pure := clean -> sheer := absolute; travel -> fare; would (desiderative) -> should (expective).

The stupid GRists think that room-time moves when it's matter that does everything. Thus when VEV < 0 the ground state size grows, by Casimir-Scharnhorst, de Broglie, and Debye contributions. Proof of negative matter:
Dipole repeller - Wikipedia
Void (astronomy) - Wikipedia
On Usenet and Quora I came up with the idea that Scharnhorst effect predicts/provides for a negative source in nuclear potential minima like iron and nickel nuclei. A factory could be set-up in white dwarfs.

Lorentz effect already contracts a body ahead and expands a body behind [and skews a body beside by Terrell rotation]. Rather than deposit so much momentum in the body its mass is dýnamicly ballasted and dumped into the background. Yes, that makes hazardose waste.

That c != c_0 in Snell's and Heaviside's laws proves that black holes and event horizontes don't exist.

8 days ago by Alysdexia

sidharthabahadur · December 18, 2019, 8:00am

@alysdexia , I believe my English is reasonably good :)) Anyhow , rather than debate punctuation & vocabulary on this forum , I wish to get straight to the meat of the issue -

Surprisingly , we both agree on one crucial point here - Hollow Earth theory can NOT coexist in a Universe that has Black Holes :))

You see , as per the mainstream science paradigm , the Einstein worshippers insist on a gravity-centric view of the universe , with gravity being the chief "mover & shaker" in our cosmos as per the following :

Our Universe began with a "Big Bang" , because the "red shift" proves it (I have debunked this wrong understanding and misinterpretation of the so called red shift , at the end of this post)
All star , planet & moon formation gets triggered due to gravitational collapse inside a galactic nebula of gas (actually electrically charged plasma by their own admission)
Whenever , there is a "runaway gravitational collapse" , at any point in the galaxies , a black hole forms :))
Internal structure of stars , planets & moons , gets defined as a "solid sphere" at their formative stage itself (really !)
A universe that is gravity dominated , must have "invisible" dark matter and "undetectable" dark energy to fill up the enormous GAPS in mainstream theory :))
A gravity dominated universe must emit tell tale signs such as gravity wave ,which again emerge out from Black Holes - a good example of circular logic :))
The speed of light is a constant - Oh yeah !!
There is NO ETHER :))

**They say , the best way to read a story is to start from the beginning . So , let us do the same , to determine which is the correct concept here :-

It is very easy to spot the logical flaw in the mainstream science thought process . At the outset , why would gravity even prevail over electromagnetic forces in a highly diffused nebula of electrical plasma ?? This goes against basic common sense !

That is not to say , gravity is irrelevant in a nebula of electrical plasma . The point we are debating is , which phenomena would dominate or prevail in a highly diffused electrical plasma constituting galactic nebula , from which all stars , planets & moons are born ?? No prizes for guessing the right answer !

Black Holes v Plasma Focus

Is there anything more to Black Holes than mathematical mumbo-jumbo? Does the simple plasma focus device explain the alleged phenomena in more simple and verifiable terms?

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/20...06starring.htm
Plasma Cosmology .net

"The existence of Black Holes is no longer questioned in conventional astronomy, despite the fact that they are based entirely on theoretical assumptions. When Stephen Hawking recently dared to question them, his scoffing peers very quickly pressured him into a retraction. This is because Black Holes at the centre of galaxies are necessary to balance the equations in a gravity dominated universe, much like Dark Matter and Dark Energy.

However, astronomers using NASAs Hubble Space Telescope have identified the source of a mysterious blue light surrounding a 'super-massive black hole' in our neighboring Galaxy, Andromeda M31. It originates from a disk of hot, young stars that whip around the 'black hole' in much the same way that planets in our solar system revolve around the Sun. Astronomers are perplexed about how this disk of stars could form so close to a giant black hole. They should, of course, be sucked into oblivion, but this isn't happening.

Similar stars close to the core of our Milky Way galaxy have also been observed.

None of this perplexes astronomers who are familiar with plasma. They can generate similar effects in a plasma lab with the plasma focus device: It is the plasmoid that forms and stores energy at the focus of the discharge. When the plasmoid reaches a critical energy level, it discharges its energy in a collimated jet along its axis in the form of electromagnetic radiation and neutrons. Being unstable outside a nucleus, the neutrons soon decay into protons and electrons. The electrons are held back by the electromagnetic field, and the high-speed protons are beamed away.

On a galactic scale this is probably the mechanism that produces the collimated jets streaming away from the cores of active galaxies. The masses of ejected protons may make up the quasars that are associated with these galaxies and could be the basis for their intrinsic redshift."

How does the non-doppler redshift work?

The Doppler redshift theory seems the main reason people hold on to the idea of the expansion and a big-bang.
I wonder what alternative theories there are, about how what causes the redshift.
What are the hypothesis in the Electric Universe?

I have found 6 theories already:

photons tend to lose energy along the way
a) They interact with the particles and fields in space
b) They have a spontaneous interaction and create particles.
Just like the zero-point energy spontaneous creates particles.
c) tired light - Tired light - Wikipedia
A description of what may be wrong with it is shown here:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm
Space compensation
a) Space expands according to the big-bang theory, but it may expand in compensation
with the contraction that gravity creates. The expansion is more a compensation for
the contraction.
This one is closest to the big-bang version, but assumes that gravity is the
counteraction of expansion. They are one and the same.
b) there is energy loss in gravity, if the force of gravity is transmitted at non-infinite speed.
To compensate the loss of energy there is a compensation for it. It works just like
magnetism that can compensate the energy loss of electric force.
This new "force" may cause clustering and the illusion of expansion.
Spectrum shift
a) The spectrum of the light from a star is dependent on the elements involved. This spectrum
is exactly the bands of the elements. The material of some stars can be in such a state that
these elements have different bands. Very hot stars may have that effect.
b) Material that is close to the speed of light appear to have different bands.
Variable physical constants
a) Variable speed of light
Quantum physical processes over very long distances
Filtering of higher frequency bands over long distances
Not really a shift, but it looks like a shift.

Regards

sidharthabahadur · December 18, 2019, 8:37am

I'd like to rephrase point no. 7 of the mainstream theory as follows :-

"Velocity of light is a constant & is also the speed limit for anything in our universe"

Both parts of the above statement are actually suspect in the light of emerging new evidence .

Regards

Wal Thornhill: On the Black Hole's Non-existence - Black Holes tear logic apart

Supermassive Problems with Black Holes

Black holes tear logic apart

Huge black hole tears apart star

The PLASMA GUN at Galactic Centers

Search

Recent Posts

Archives

The Black Hole at the Heart of Astronomy

Electric Galaxies have Electromagnetic Hearts

Messages from some Dissident Witnesses at the Emperor’s Court

Search

Recent Posts

Archives

Stephen Hawking: 'There are no black holes'

Article tools

Fire fighting

Related stories

Beyond the horizon

Physicist Claims to Have Proven Mathematically That Black Holes Do Not Exist

The Uncertain Future of Particle Physics

Sign up for David Leonhardt's newsletter

Editors’ Picks

‘S.N.L.’ Presents Kellyanne Conway’s ‘Marriage Story,’ Plus Baby Yoda

The ‘S.N.L.’ Stars Who Lasted, and the Ones Who Flamed Out

The Decade in Retirement: Wealthy Americans Moved Further Ahead

Has The Large Hadron Collider Accidentally Thrown Away The Evidence For New Physics?

Black Holes v Plasma Focus

How does the non-doppler redshift work?