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.

The Dream Merchant

READER NOTE: to see posts sooner, be sure to check out our new blogsite at Steemit.

There once was a man with incredible insight into fools. Douglas Adams noted in his book, "Mostly Harmless," that "[a] common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools."

Someone else, whose name is quite difficult to find said, "Who is the greater fool? The fool or the fool who follows him?"

I have stated on several occasions that Albert Einstein was a complete idiot, but by the common wisdom, we must admit that Stephen Hawking was an even greater idiot for blindly following Einstein. The incredible hero worship surrounding Hawking's death is, or would be amusing if it weren't so foolish.

Imagine, if you will, that once upon a time, there was nothing. No, not empty space, just...um, Nothing. In the center of Nothing was an infinitely tiny, infinitely hot, inifinitely dense balloon that just all the sudden blew itself up. Keep in mind that despite having all these "infinite" PHYSICAL characteristics, it was as much Nothing as the Nothing it didn't inhabit, and like all balloons I've ever seen, it blew itself up with Nothing to become Something (i.e. - the Universe).

This balloon blew itself up between 13 and 14 billion years ago, and we have spent an astronomical amount of money trying to see the light from this event, even though no one seems to know how we got in front of the light so we could be in position to see it. And since we don't seem to be able to see it, then there must have been a celestial Dark Ages where no light existed, even though it existed when the balloon blew itself up, and it existed after the Dark Ages.

Now, this Balloon is floating somewhere in the middle of Nothing, and there are possibly many other balloons around it, though the only proof of that is some numerical wizardry performed by Einstein and Hawking. There are three possibilities for this Balloon: k=1; k=0, and k=-1. In human speak, this translates to a balloon that will expand forever, one that remain exactly as it is forever, and one that is/will contract back to Nothing and presumably blow itself back up again. Inside this balloon, there are things we can't explain without resorting to electricity and magnetism, so the scientidiots invented Dark Matter and Dark Energy: Dark Matter because galaxies don't spin the way Hawking's numbers do, and Dark Energy because scientidiots think the balloon is expanding faster the further away it gets from Earth.

Never mind that both of these things have been completely debunked by their own tools in the past three years.

Now, since the Universe doesn't use electricity and magnetism, unlike every piece of technology humankind has devised, we apparently need Black Holes. Now, you may not know this, but there are four kinds of Black Holes, two of which are named after Stephen Hawking, not because he found them, but because he manipulated magical symbols, glyphs and ciphers in a way no one else had thought to do.

These Black Holes are "Settled Science," even though there is no such thing, and despite the fact that the "evidence" we have for them is the radiation they give off, even though their gravity is infinite and they absorb everything around them, including all radiation of every kind. Also, ignore the fact that Black Hole calculations require assuming only ONE MASS in the entire Universe. I don't know about you, but I do know I exist and I am standing on a rock, so that is at least two masses I am fairly sure about.

These scientidiots didn't like the fact that you can't divide something by nothing, so they called it infinity, which is not a number. No problem, since the square-root of -1 is "i", right? If you get the impression that Cosmology is inventing the rules of the game as you go along to ensure that you win, you're getting the right idea.

Yes, this Hawking feller was a genius, I tell ya. He could explain gravity using gravity. He could conjure infinity out of nothing. He could create Black Holes where none existed.

Don't get me wrong. Hawking managed to survive 50 years longer than other scientidiots ever though he would with his disease, and he managed to befuddle so many people with his wizarding skills that he finagled a fairly comfortable lifestyle for himself and breathless sainthood upon his death. I can respect a good scam, while condemning the desire and ability to scam so many gullible people.

Hawking managed to turn Dark Ages, Dark Matter, Dark Energy and Black Holes into money, and that's no small feat. He was able to take circular arguments and make them look like they led somewhere. He was able to conjure Universes out of Nothing and make it seem plausible. Plausible, that is, until you start picking at the scabs and looking at the festering assumptions underneath.

Yes, Stephen Hawking was a genius, all right, but not in the way most people think of him. He was a Master Scientidiot, and we can concede a certain amount of congratulations for his skill at bamboozling. As someone put it to me years ago, there are bullshitters and bullshit artists. Hawking was most certainly in the latter category.

And he did it by overcoming a fairly significant handicap, but one has to wonder how much leeway he was given for that one fact.

Mathematical wizardry has its place in telling us what is possible, but at some point you have to look up from the ciphering and see what is probable. I will grant that looking up was not an easy task for Hawking, but at some point in his 50-year career as a scientidiot, one imagines that he should have tried.

It is not enough to say you follow a greater fool. Reality, no matter how much we try, is an immutable fact that cannot be ciphered away, nor can facts be created by books full of dancing symbols.

Maps are useful tools, when they are correct, but they can also lead you off a cliff if you don't look up to check reality once in a while.

Hawking, like Einstein before him, was a map-maker who got carried away with his fanciful designs. He forgot to check the lay of the land once in a while, and for that he can be faulted without diminishing the artistry of his skills. After all, Picasso never called himself a portrait artist, and to their credit, neither did the glitterati.

Let's give Hawking credit for what he achieved, but let's be a little less breathless and gullible about what his achievements actually were.