A Black Hole In Reason

One of the joyfully idiotic science stories of late is the "imaging" of a black hole in the center of a distant galaxy.  The authors breathlessly note the equatorial "dust" ring and the stunning nothingness in the middle.  Furthermore, follow-on articles note the polar jets soaring in opposite directions from the center of the object.

There are so many things wrong with this article, it is difficult to select a starting point.  But let's give it a shot, shall we?

First off, it is not a photograph of a "black hole".  It is a computer-generated image using algorithms to interpret terabytes of data, almost none of which are photographs in visible light.

Algorithms are mathematical formulae that process data according to a set of proscribed rules.  As such, they reflect the biases of the individuals who create them.  Thus, the image is created by math formulae that manipulate the available data to give the result the researcher is looking for, and ignores the rest.  In other words, scientidiots have preconceived notions of what a black hole should look like, and they assume that a black hole exists in the center of the imaged galaxy, thus the algorithms search for data that conforms to their a priori assumptions.

To put it country simple, we are looking at a picture of some people's imagination, using cherry-picked real data.

Look again at the above image, and note the box on the top right.  This purports to show a plasma jet shooting out of one of the poles of the "black hole".

According to Official Scientidiot Mythology, black holes are regions of infinitely dense matter with gravitational fields so mighty that not even light can escape - even though the escape velocity of an "event horizon" is noted to be the speed of light.

Here on Earth, we have two poles - north and south.  Those poles are designated both by the spin axis of the planet, and by the Earth's magnetic field.  Nowhere in any of the literature I have ever found does anyone claim that gravity is weaker - nay, repulsive - at Earth's poles.  The theory of gravity holds that gravity should be equal and relative to the mass of the central object.  If the object is round, gravity should be equal at all points around it, and that is what we find, with minor variations due to "mascons".

If gravity does not have poles, but magnetism does, then the black hole jets are magnetic phenomena.  The Laws of Physics state that one cannot have magnetism without electricity, nor visa versa.  Therefore, the jets are created by amazingly strong magnetic fields, not gravity, which is many orders of magnitude weaker than electro-magnetism (something like 20 quintillion times weaker).

There is no known mechanism that allows for gravity, even produced by "infinitely dense" objects, to create polar jets moving at relativistic speeds.  We will ignore, for now, the issue of infinity not being a number, and therefore unable to exist in a physical universe.

Particle accelerators, such as the one at CERN, use powerful electro-magnets to push plasma to incredible speeds.  Rail guns use electro-magnets to accelerate metal projectiles.  Electro-magnets are used to levitate and accelerate maglev trains.  None of these technologies uses concentrated gravity.

Yet, we are told that gravity alone concentrates plasma and ejects it preferentially at the poles of an imaginary object.  I suppose if you are creating imaginary objects, though, you can make up any rules you want, and the scientidiots apparently do.

We then move to the lower right box, which purports to show a "dust ring" around the equator of the black hole.

First off, it is not a "ring" like Saturn's rings - nearly two-dimensional.  Instead, it shows a three-dimensional torus at a great distance from the dark center.  This is identical, though vastly larger, to the plasma streams created in any particle accelerator using electro-magnets.  But that's not the only problem.

Back to the issue of gravity not having poles: if gravity does not have poles, then it does not have an equator.  An equator is an artifact of polarized fields, which is why the Earth has Van Allen belts or a particle accelerator creates a cohesive plasma stream.

If the black hole were dreated by gravity, there would be no "ring".  The dust and gas would be pulled equally towards the center of mass in all directions.  There is no mechanism that could create a ring.

What we actually have in the above image is an imaginary object created by algorithms that selectively edit data according to the preconceived ideas of a select group of individuals who all believe the same myth.  This image shows a dark area we are told is an infinitely dense object that doesn't exist in our universe, which is creating polar jets and an equatorial torus using gravity, even though gravity has no mechanism that allows it to do either of those things.

In fact, despite the bias of the researchers, every thing in the image matches known electro-magnetic effects that are regularly produced in laboratories and particle accelerators every day right here on Earth - something no one seems able to do with black holes, thank Einstein.

It is a crying shame that our educational systems cannot produce rational human beings either in the general public, who so gullibely believe and fund this nonsense, nor among the exaulted lab-coat brigades whose lives and careers are funded by the hard-earned money of the gullible public.

For more than a century, we have compounded error with error until we have created a system that produces imaginary pictures from computer algorithms and pawns them off on an unsuspecting audience as plausible reality.

I won't even go into the fact that decades of studies of SigA* at the center of our own galaxy have proved beyond all doubt that a black hole does not exist there, despite the insistence of over-paid labcoaters to the contrary.

It's high time to #StopTheFunding.

Death By Rote

The list of mass extinctions on Earth is sobering if not fascinating.  Many laypeople are not aware of how often and how drastic the global die-offs have been.  Nor are people generally aware that mass extinctions occur in a rough pattern of 26-27 million years.  Lest you get overly concerned, the last event was about 13 million years ago, so we are about mid-way until the next postulated event.

When I was studying Astrophysics at the University of Houston back in the mid-1980s, the favored theory to account for these periodic extinctions was a proposed brown dwarf or rogue star called Nemesis.  Other competing theories proposed a Planet X (ten - before Pluto was slimed by the bumbleheads at the IAU.  The Planet X theory is currently being subsumed into the proposed Planet IX (nine).

In any case, the theories propose a large body in the far reaches of the (non-existent) Oort Cloud that swings in towards the Sun every 26 million years or so, dragging a bunch of comets with it that pummel the inner Solar System - including Earth - and surround the Sun with a cloud of dust that temporarily dims the light.  Thus, a one-two punch of heavy bombardment and reduced sunlight causes nearly every living thing on Earth to die off every once in a while.

Despite the fact that any number of probes, such as WISE, MASS-2, IBEX, and many others, have failed to find this killer star/planet, astronomers desperately cling to this idea, because for it to fail would drag down the entire framework of solar system formation, comet theory and even gravitation.

The Thunderbolts Project recently released a new video that explains this all quite well.  The video does a good job of showing why the current sweetheart theories would collapse, but it glosses over some of the most interesting research - that of Thomas van Flandern.

Van Flandern was no lightweight in the heavenly realm.  He was employed at the US Naval Observatory and is considered one of the greats in the field of orbital dynamics.  The reason he is often top-shelved where no one can find his work is that he challenged almost everything held dear by the mainstream Einsteinian beanie caps.

Van Flandern calculated the orbits of thousands of short-term comets and asteroids and ran them back in time.  What he found is that the vast majority of them converged at a single point between Mars and Jupiter at 3.2 million years ago and 65 million years ago.  He theorized that the comets and asteroids were the result of one, maybe two, planets exploding (called Planet V/five and Planet K/Krypton).

Several things should be apparent at this point: 1) the location of these exploded planets is the current asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter, and 2) the proposed explosions roughly correspond with the Pliocene and Cretaceous extinction events, respectively.

That these two points should just fall out of the data pushes the definition of coincidence, but it's not all the data available.

Van Flandern then took his data and began looking for other correlations across the Solar System.  What he noticed was that a great number of planets and moons showed evidence of heavy bombardment and/or ash/dust/smoke.  Earth's Moon has one hemisphere (Far Side - ahem) that is far more cratered than the other.  Mars has one hemisphere that is more than 2km higher than the other, and the higher one is much more heavily cratered.  The Saturnian moon Iapetus is coal black on one side and snow white on the other.  The list goes on, but these are the most obvious and well-known observations.  The one failing of Van Flandern's theory was that he could not propose a mechanism that would cause a planet to explode, though all the pieces fit quite well.  This theory has come to be known as the Exploded Planet Hypothesis, or EPH.

Combined with the work of Immanuel Velikovsky, and researchers like Joseph Farrell and Richard C. Hoagland, the EPH has been fleshed out with anthropological and astrophysical evidence for such events.  A thorough reading of these sources along with Van Flandern form a solid, multidisciplinary framework for the EPH.

The primary reason the EPH has been discounted and basically hidden is that the theory replaces the favored theory of planet formation, which sees comets as dirty snowballs/icy dirtballs left over from the formation of the Solar System.  The idea is that when the Sun ignited, water was blown into the outer reaches of the Solar System, meaning that water should become increasingly prevalent as one moves away from the Sun.  This collapses one of the major fairy tales in current "science," and starts a domino effect taking down many of the sacred cows in physics.

Even without all of the preceding, the search for Planet X has been a rather clouded one.  It was first proposed to explain errors in the orbit of Neptune.  When Pluto was discovered as part of the search for Planet X, it was quickly realized that the mass was not enough to cause the noted effects.  It was later discovered that the errors were observational, and not real, and Planet X died out for a while.  It was resurrected by Zecharia Sitchin in his somewhat questionable translations of Sumerian texts, and most recently was given a big shot in the arm by Mike Brown and his team, though now called Planet IX, which the Thunderbolts Project video linked above does a fine job of handling.

Astronomy and cosmology are rich grounds for personal education.  The history of astronomy alone, what with Newton's occult practices and Tycho Brahe's silver nose, make for some great character studies.

More importantly, real science, based on observation and experimentation and not formulae and computer models, is far more interesting and challenging.  It is also the part most closely guarded and hidden from public view, which makes any inquisitive mind perk up.  It is usually the things that are denigrated, ridiculed and dismissed that hold the inconvenient truths.

How many more school kids would wake up and dive in if science was presented as something wide open to new ideas and discoveries, rather than rote required to be pounded in and regurgitated on command?

How many minds have we stifled with antiquated theories presented as stale facts?