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.

Einstein Is A Senile Old Fart

Ugh!  I get so tired of Corporate Science ramming complete fiction down our throats.  Even worse is the way we "lay people" just swallow it and move along.  No one ever stops to say, "Hey!  Wait a minute..."

The thing is we are all conned into thinking we can't handle such lofty thoughts as General and Special Relativity, and that we can't rise to the Olympian heights of Einstein and Hawking.

The fact of the matter is, these guys are just making this shit up in order to sound like they know what they are talking about.  Honestly!  They have no more idea than you or me how the Universe works, so they cover their ignorance in meaningless symbols and sell it to us as Life, the Universe and Everything, so they can pocket the grant money and Nobel Prizes for...well, nothing.  Literally.

Bear with me for a few minutes, and I will prove that you are smarter than Einstein and Hawking combined!  I'll even throw in Neil deGrasse Tyson just to up the ante a bit.  This will require a tiny bit of thinking, but I promise it won't hurt, and that crashing sound will be all the rubbish you learned in school collapsing to the ground.  When we are done, you can read this article and laugh out loud at the ignorance behind it, just like I did.

1. Time
OK, this is the hardest part of the whole thing.  Right now, without thinking about it, point in the direction of Time.  Got it?

Now, which way did you point?  Ah, see the problem?  Time isn't a dimension.  It's a concept.  It has not existence in reality.  We just made it up by dividing all the various cycles in our world into small pieces so that we could all be late for our appointments.  A second is the average length of a human heart beat.  An hour is 1/24th of the Earth's rotation.  A month is one orbit of the Moon around the Earth.  A year is one orbit around the Sun.  A Great Year is one precession of the Earth's poles (~24,000 years).  The only thing important to the Universe is that effect always follows cause.  That's not Time, the way we think of it, because there is no standard amount of waiting between cause and effect without some reference system, such as the human heart beat.

2. Space
Space is nothing more than a set of coordinates.  It is not tangible, can not be rippled, and it has no relation to time other than we measure how many heart beats it takes to get from one point to another.  Space is defined as six discrete points on 3 axes: x, y and z.  Why five points?  Well, in order to define the location of an object, we need six references: we need an object, an observer, two x points left and right of the object, and two y points above and below the object.  Since there are only three spacial dimensions, why do we need six points?  Good question.

You need an object to measure (point one).  You need an observer (point two).  Together, these two points give us the z axis.  Then, you need reference points in order to define x and y.  These points define an imaginary surface, or plane, on which to project a scale (inches, feet, meters, kilometers, etc.).  Notice that none of this involves time, since time has nothing to do with locating something in space.

Since space is nothing more than a set of coordinates used to local objects in reference to an observer, it has no physical existence.  It is not a plasma, liquid, gas or solid.  It can not be rippled, waved or bent.  It is just a set of numbers so I can find, or tell you how to find, an object.

3. Gravity
The best way to think of gravity is static electricity.  Objects stick to the face of the Earth because, like dipole magnets, opposites attract.  The positive Earth attracts out negative body to it's center.  We stop because the the bonds between the atoms of the Earth's surface repel the bonds between the atoms of our bodies.  So we are stuck to the surface like socks are to your shirt in the dryer.  If we could change the polarity of the Earth, everything would fly off of it, rather than stick to it.

Most importantly, there is no gravitational constant.  Sure, on Earth gravity always works at 32 feet/second squared, but it changed when you go into orbit, or the Moon, or Mars, or the Sun.  To force Earth normal on the entire Universe is...well, ridiculous.

Finally, gravity is 20 billion times weaker than the Weak Nuclear Force (see below), so it has little or no effect on the structure and function of the Universe.

4. Forces of Nature
Everything in the Universe is some manifestation of electricity.  All objects interact using one of more of the Four Natural Forces: 1) Electro-Magnetic, 2) Strong Nuclear, 3) Weak Nuclear, and 4) Gravitation.  Given what we already know about gravity, we can probably eliminate this one and put all the effects of it under #1.  Of the remaining three, they guide the way all particles in the Universe interact, from the atomic level to the super-galactic level.  They are observable at every scale, and can be reproduced in any laboratory with the right tools.

No need for CERN, LIGO or any of these other multi-billion dollar BOHICA machines whose results can never be verified because there are no other machines to duplicate the results (e.g. it ain't science).  From the quantum to the macro, everything works on the same principles.  The only difference between an atom and a galaxy is scale.

So, now we come to Black Holes.  These are conceptual things that do not exist, but were created to correct some of the many problems with Einstein's Relativity.  See, Einstein simplified a lot of things to make his formulas easier to solve.  In doing so, he made it impossible for his results to be scaled up to the Universe at large, and thus a lot of chewing gun and bailing wire had to be used to make it work.  Black Holes are a huge piece of chewing gum.

One of the biggest problems with Black Holes is one of the easiest and most obvious to see.  Hawking, Tyson and all their drinking buddies will tell you that the Universal speed limit is the speed of light, and the escape velocity from the surface/even horizon of a black hole is the speed of light.  But black holes are black because light can't escape.

Immedicately, they are in a bind.  Either light can escape because it is travelling the speed of light, or the speed of light is not constant in the Universe.  Either way, the entire foundation of General Relativity comes crashing down.  See the problem?

Instead of admitting this inherent contradiction, they cover it up with lots of mathematical mumbo-jumbo and a few $64 words and keep going, knowing that the educational system is so bad, no one will ever question this slight-of-hand.  Rather, what we get is a menagerie of black holes, from micro to super-massive, and folks like NASA claiming to have "found" 2.5 million of them.  For us smart folks, every time you read about a new black hole, just think to yourself, "Ah, another mystery they can't explain."  That's the purpose of black holes, really.  They just cover up mysteries with them so they don't have to do real work and can get billions in free money to investigate their own slight-of-hand.

All modern cosmology is little more than a bunch of magicians telling us they don't do "tricks."  It's "real magic" and by the way, we don't understand how it's done, so could you slip up a few billion to try and figure this out?

And by the way, you can prove the speed of light is not constant AND explain "gravitational lensing" with a very simple experiment in your kitchen.  Take a clear glass.  Fill it with water.  Take a spoon and put it in the glass.  Now look at it from the side.  See how the spoon looks bent?  You've just proved Einstein, Hawking, Tyson, and a whole bunch of other numbnuts wrong.

Don't you feel smart now?

Hogwash And Fodder

Oh boy, here we go again.

Yes!  For the second time ever, a bunch of amorphous "scientists" have discovered something that doesn't exist, caused by something else that doesn't exist.  And the information is presented as a fait accompli, there can be no question.

According to the article, this "discovery" is confirmed, without having published a single paper, passed peer review, or even having confirmed the underlying assumptions that gave birth to the idea.  Even worse, older articles crow that this "discovery" proves Einstein's Theory of Relativity, even though Einstein never explained gravity, didn't like the idea of gravitational waves and rejected the whole thing as "spooky."

Here's the problem: no one has ever seen a black hole; they only exist in mathematical constructs.  Furthermore, no one has a clue how or why gravity works, much less that it is a function of some mysterious substance called "space-time."  Thus, without proof of the existence of black holes and without understanding even the most basic aspects of gravity, we can "discover" waves in "space-time" created by imaginary objects merging with each other.  And the articles even come with nifty animations, as if someone has actually seen these things.

If you are a product on 20th century education, as I am, you were taught that space is swarming with black holes.  Movies like Interstellar, The Black Hole and Event Horizon feed this myth, to the point that nearly all of us believe these things exist, because when was the last time you read the theories and proofs for black holes?  That's what I thought.

There are four theories concerning the creation and existence of black holes.  All four of them state that the Universe contains only one mass - the black hole.  In other words, a black hole universe can only contain one black hole and nothing else.  Yes, that's right, if a black hole exists, then all four theories state that nothing else - including us - exists.

Since we obviously exist, then black holes cannot.  Simple reasoning.

Now, if black holes do not exist, then gravity waves propagated by two of them colliding cannot exist.  First, there cannot be two black holes, according to theory.  Second, they cannot collide.  Third, gravity waves cannot propagate from them colliding.

We haven't even gotten to the part about gravity.  Thing is, no one understands gravity.  You know the picture of a ball sitting on a rubber sheet?  That is a circular argument, because it needs gravity to pull the ball down to make a dent in the rubber sheet.  Gravity creates gravity.  HUH?

Go watch this video and see if you can make sense out of gravitational theory when you are done.  Hell, even Newton couldn't do it, or wouldn't, take your pick.

So, now we've shot some big holes in black holes and gravity.  How about these gravity waves?

The devices used to "detect" these waves are called LIGO.  There is one in Washington State and one in Louisiana.  That's roughly 2,000 miles apart (x1.6...you do the math for kilometers).  Now these waves supposedly travel at the "speed of light" (another BS thing).  However, the waves arrived at the two LIGO machines a couple of microseconds apart.  So, waves travelling a billion light years (and spreading out the whole way) and travelling at the "speed of light" arrive at Washington and Louisiana at different times?  Sorry, that blows the whole argument right there.

Go watch this video to destroy the whole argument.

There are some heavy hitters on the side of skepticism, and these guys have names, unlike the "scientists" who report the "discovery."  This is not a bunch of cranks (like me) pointing out that this is all bullshit to justify the ungodly sums of money being spent on these massive toys, like LIGO.

So, no black holes, no gravity waves, no "space-time" medium, and something that no one understand (gravity).  Does it sound to you like gravity waves have been "discovered?"

These toys may have found something, but it is not what is being reported, and in fact, I suspect no one really understands what was found, if anything.

What is certain is that these reports of definitive "discoveries" are open to wildly different interpretations and that the assumptions underlying the conclusions are completely vacuous.  Not only is the quality of science reporting a load of manure, but the whole underpinnings of modern physics are based on mathematical constructs being presented as facts with no supporting proof.

That's right, folks, it's time to go back to the chalk board.