Perceptions updateIndex of PerceptionsPerceptions site mapsearch Perceptions
UEF Theory
comment + criticism welcome
`Perceptions' ITEM
Copyright © 2009 Ray Dickenson
Welcome - Chinese Peace - Arabic
Dream - Russian Soul Duty - Sanskrit

Black Holes Don't Exist

At least one web commentator is saying this page is "aggressive"
Well - Sorry about that
!





ESTABLISHMENT CLAIMS

Academics, N.A.S.A, Oxbridge et al, defined a "black hole" as a body which:

i) has "infinite" density, due to its mass

ii) captures light at an "event horizon" due to "infinite" gravity - from that "infinite" mass/density

iii) is a "singularity" - a breakpoint in space-time




19 Jun. 2001- After years of denial:  `Jets should mean: "No Black holes"
21 Jun. 2007 - Partial climbdown:  "Black holes do not form"
21 Jan. 2014 - Full climbdown:  "Absence of event horizons means that there are no black holes" - Hawking






If "black holes" could exist, how should they appear?

Well, a "black hole" should increasingly bend light from the backdrop of stars - as their light neared the "event horizon".


light from more distant stars would have been bent by an intervening `black hole'


And, what would results have looked like?


distant starlight would have been wrapped-around an intervening `black hole'



seen from any direction, they would be

HUGE BRIGHT TARGETS IN THE SKY ... SURROUNDED BY BLACKNESS

(the tiny dark `bulls-eye' would've been that putative "event horizon")

WHICH WE DON'T EVER SEE!




due to theoretical `dragging' of background starlight,
the sky further out would've been
BLANK, BLACK & EMPTY!

WHICH DOESN'T HAPPEN!




Let's take this slowly - for some scientists' sake



FACTS RE "SINGULARITIES"

i) a singularity could only originate in a universe that was perfectly symmetrical around that point;

ii) our Universe is not symmetrical - no living Universe can be symmetrical - around any point;
[a symmetrical universe couldn't contain matter, movement, or life!]

iii) infinite symmetry would be necessary to let any mass accrete or collapse without rotation;

iv) to deny that a large collapsing or accreting mass spins faster and faster (inevitably leading to jets redistributing its core-matter *ref), is to deny or ignore a basic fact of physics: "conservation of angular momentum" - and is stupid!






FACTS RE MATTER

i) a body accreting matter spins at accelerating rate;

ii) at a limit the body's matter breaks down along its axis: the line of least angular momentum and therefore of least `resistance' to UEF;

iii) breakdown produces `jets', first of radiation then of plasma - emitted along axial line - i.e. from the poles.






FACTS RE "LIGHT"

i) as a body's density increases, ability of photons to form / travel towards or away from that body is proportionally impeded;

ii) these important and basic facts are shown by these experiments;

iii) a body of infinite density (anyhow impossible - viz. text and jets), would not let photons travel away, but, more importantly, neither would photons be able to travel towards the body;

iv) this is almost exactly the opposite of what ignorant scientists claim for their fanciful `black holes'.






So, maybe you'll excuse my impatience?  Agressive?   Ha!





Establishment science was getting desperate - check U_choose

NEWS `scientists' looking for a way out? - check Los Alamos

Hope to update here with more news of backtracking by elite science

LATER UPDATE - Jan. 2003 "preparing for climb-down"





Recap:-

Mathematical physicists - initially of USA and Cambridge, England - saw something in the equations they thought meant that a huge mass could drop out of our universe.

note: physicists are always looking for "sexy" new theories - for prestige and funding!
[ to them, "sexy" = scary ]

So they claimed the equations meant that an 'inevitable collapse' in the state of that matter would create a "singularity" with an "event horizon" where light was inevitably doomed to fall back into what they called a "black hole".

What they forgot, until much later (too late to cover-up), was the simple fact of rotation of collapsing masses!
See above & below






Note : We say that light cannot travel directly toward or away from "infinite density of mass" (or any complete UEF shield).

If no UEF is available from a direction then "photons" cannot form - or, in conventional terms, photons cannot take that route.  Check the facts shown by experiment.

The reason that we don't normally 'see' electromagnetic radiation coming from masses much denser than a neutron star : there is very little UEF passing through that object in any direction, therefore radiating 'photons' cannot follow such a path.






They also thought that matter within a 'black hole' exists out of our universe's normal space-time

Hence the resulting speculations defining "wormholes", by virtue of which intergalactic travel - or even 'time travel' could be achieved





The false definitions / concepts ?

a) singularity, b) event horizon, c) black hole, d) wormhole,

( and therefore 'wormhole travel' & 'wormhole time-travel' )





for the benefit of mainstream scientists

First: simple terms only,

The rule is, when a mass collapses, it spins.  The more mass, or faster the collapse - the faster it spins.  That's basic physics

UEF Theory says a fast enough spin leads to an axial breakdown of UEF shielding.  And that means: axial "jets" ref01, ref02

And that means redistribution of matter

And that means - no 'Black Holes'.





Q.  Why do all bodies of mass tend to rotate - at a rate directly proportional to their density ? See note 1

A.  Mainstream science [MnSc] has no idea.  (Although MnSc will always try to cobble together a 'special case' reason, or indulge in some circular reasoning based on an assumption - 'conservation of angular momentum' - that itself cannot be explained by MnSc.)






Q.  Why do rotating bodies of mass possess, in the equatorial plane, increased 'gravitational attraction'? See note 2

A.  MnSc does not wish to discuss the matter (See footnotes2.html) Although NASA has quietly accepted our advice and found it to be true, NASA will not be able to publicly admit the fact ; MnSc is still trying to justify its textbooks full of false concepts ( 'Black Holes' - 'Relativity' - 'Quantum jumps' etc. )






Q.  Why do rotating bodies possess decreased 'gravitational attraction' along the axis of rotation? See note 3

A.  MnSc definitely does not wish to discuss the matter - their textbooks say it can't happen.  But the NASA comment above applies here also.






note 1 UEF Theory answers all the above questions (and many more).  See footnotes3.html#rotation

note 2 Hence 'accretion discs' of dust, rocks etc. which all rotating bodies have to a greater or lesser extent.  Stars have accretion discs which may become Solar Systems.  Even the Earth has an accretion disc, although most of it has been captured by the Moon.  See also footnotes2

note 3 Hence 'polar jets' which, if the body is dense enough and therefore rotating very fast, will actively repel matter visibly and dramatically.  See footnotes3.html#jets and jets.html






The UEF Theory spells out the manner of compression or accretion of matter, from the micro scale where UEF intensity defines the parameters of the proton - and subsequently the neutron or shielded proton - onwards and upwards through the gases, liquids and solids - to stars, neutron stars, and galaxies.

Is there an upper limit?






It seems so.

Accreting mass tends to rotate.

[A theoretical exception would require absolute physical symmetry of both the mass and its surrounding conditions - all the way to infinity - which is just not possible in a universe containing any matter.]

Example:-



sphere (or lens) formation


This rotation increases the interaction of that matter with the UEF field - also from basic UEF theory.

See:-


dphycbgr.html#Rotation

similar at /earlieruef.html#Rotation and footnotes3.html#rotation)





An aspect of this interaction - of rotating matter with the UEF field - is an increase in the 'shielding' effect.  That consequently means a increase or decrease in various other effects:- "nuclear forces", "electromagnetic radiation" and "gravity" [see footnotes3.html#mass]





Towards an upper limit, of mass × rotation, we find that one of the shielding effects - that which we call "gravity" - noticeably extends further and further in plane of equator





UEF 'shielding effect' of a unit volume of mass is proportional to density and rate of spin.  Therefore greatest UEF interaction, and 'gravitational effect' happens in plane of the equator where there is largest volume of mass (w/ angular momentum) - see diagram below




multiplying effect


As you see transmission or reception of information through the sphere, say for 1 sec, involves passage through 10 atoms - (in the plane of the equator, less elsewhere)

But if the sphere rotates at 1 rev / sec the information has to pass through 320 atoms.  At 10 revs / sec.  the maximum impedance is 3200 atoms - in the plane of the equator

[ `Perceptions' note: Ratios are real, numbers might not be.  Some readers will remember the ratio of circumference to diameter is pi.  So the calculation = diameter × pi × rotation rate]





This extension of "gravity" is maximum at right angles to the axis of rotation.  At angles to that plane the "gravity" effect decreases, passing through zero somewhere above 45º (closer to the axis)

Therefore the corollary or product, of the 'shielding' in the plane of the equator, is an axial (along the line through the poles) beam of "repulsion" capable of producing electromagnetic radiation up to and including the hardest gamma-rays






UEF's equal and opposite reaction to that thrust causes the effect called Precession

you won't find this elsewhere - establishment physicists can't explain - so they avoid it

Even though

N.A.S.A. is using it / world Readers support it / Facts prove it





check out :-

uef/jets.html

blinded.html#9

footnotes2.html#2

uef/footnotes3.html#mass

astro.phast.umass.edu/

astro.iag.usp.br/






The axial 'jets' pull away internal matter - projecting it outwards from the North and South poles of the body.

uef/dphycbgr.html#C

and at /earlieruef.html#Attributes





The ones we cite are: atmospheric jets, stellar jets and galactic jets.

check out :-


footnotes2.html#UEF





The largest known example of this is 'galactic jets', galaxies which have grown too large, by accretion or cannibalism, and whose cores have become `too dense and too fast-rotating'.

Search for "Gamma-Ray Bursts" on NASA or other sites, which must cling to "conventional" science ideas, for example :-

aas.org/publications/

But don't blame that site - you'll find all science-professionals' sites have to be like that






Now we've arrived at galactic jets,

Looking at galactic jets,

here's a classic example of `experts' misreading data because of preconceived ideas



The `experts' claim that Seyfert galaxies have "black holes" within so-called `egg-yolk' centers

a so-called Seyfert galaxy's `impossible' but dangerous core antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/

QUOTE "Explanation: This might resemble a fried egg you've had for breakfast, but it's actually much larger.  In fact, ringed by blue-tinted star forming regions and faintly visible spiral arms, the yolk-yellow center of this face-on spiral galaxy, NGC 7742, is about 3,000 light-years across.  About 72 million light-years away in the constellation Pegasus, NGC 7742 is known to be a Seyfert galaxy - a type of active spiral galaxy with a center or nucleus which is very bright at visible wavelengths.  Across the spectrum, the tremendous brightness of Seyferts can change over periods of just days to months and galaxies like NGC 7742 are suspected of harboring massive black holes at their cores.  This beautiful color picture is courtesy of the Hubble Space Telescope Heritage Project" UNQUOTE

Rubbish! - And you read that here first!

Those `experts' are wrong - apparent core is only our view of an axial jet 72 million light-years long
It looks to have that diameter "3,000 light-years across" only because NGC 7742 and all classic `head-on' "Seyferts" are `jetting' galaxies that happen to have their N-S poles aligned with Earth, creating optical illusion of huge "core"
`Experts' dazzled by a searchlight are overlooking pointer to possible danger


Although,
as `Seyferts' are probably going to swing past us before firing a harder jet
we should be looking out for nearer, and critical `pre-Seyferts'


UPDATE - NOWTHEYCALLIT ! 16 Dec. 2002
(scroll down to "Other Worries")




Similar faulty preconceptions are causing stupid errors in calculations of diameter of "quasars" / "pulsars" & suchlike.

Reason:  In addition to periodicity, many have fast variations in brightness - so the `experts' presume brightness variations are across the entire surface of the body - meaning that the `quasar' / `pulsar' would have to be small - for a "one-hour flicker" to travel across they think the source-body has to be less than one "light-hour" wide, likewise for a one-second flicker.


What the `experts' don't realize - both periodicity and "flickers" are in the JETS - from the central (polar) axis.  So all current assumptions of `diameters' and even `masses' are plain wrong!

What they should be extracting from the data are the angular momenta (mass and rotation speed) and accretion rates of the `jetting' solar or galactic centers.

31 Mar '03 - update? - `Bursts Coming From Beachball-sized Structures?'
Wrong!  That's the width of the JET, not of its parent BODY!





Hey! Somebody's thinking about something at last!

CHECK OUT

www.space.com/gammaray

but it's OLDNEWS to you (& us)






You are now unique, you now know some real trail-blazing science that the conventional scientists cannot approve or claim - just yet

But you may think the most challenging aspect of UEF 'jets' is yet to come:






by UEF Theory the prime cause - UEF - is an f.t.l. phenomenon.  Therefore there is no reason to suppose that large jets, which could perhaps be made artificially, are limited to way below `light speed', at least in their initial effect.  See radiation.html#near

and see again:-


uef/repatent.html#This

and at repatent.html





BUT the science establishment clings to the "black hole" hypothesis, now saying a "black hole" ejects matter.  See chandra.harvard.edu/ 25 Oct 99

Also see the contradictions in the latest foolishness "Black Hole Found Near Earth"

04:58 PM ET 01/14/00 (from MIT).

But although someone said it was a "black hole," now the scientists involved:-


Donald Smith, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology astronomer

Robert M. Hjellming of the National Radio Astronomy Observatory

would only say that it was a fast, bright x-ray source,

so maybe some scientists are getting more realistic.






From a growing body of confirming examples:-

here on earth, both from thunderclouds - atmospheric jets and mini gamma ray 'bursts';

at medium and galactic range - neutron stars and badly-behaved soft Gamma -ray sources;

at long extra-galactic range - galactic cores' increased accretion and spin rates, plus actual giant jets emerging from galactic cores at relativistic speeds

See footnotes3.html#rotation

From this accretion / spin / acceleration / redistribution (by way of 'jets') - we can extrapolate a universal trend for matter

And, because accumulating matter always redistributes in this way -

there are no "black holes"






But there can be minor 'implosions' of matter - of a sort.

(referring back to the Recap at beginning of this screed)

We've shown that collapsing matter will always rotate, and therefore redistribute when matter/rotation speed threshold is reached.

But there are times when matter accretes suddenly, faster than the jet process can step in.  Say, when a large galactic center-region passes a threshold of density, or when already large masses - neutron stars or galactic cores - collide and suddenly merge.





At this point something does happen to the structure of the central matter which the mathematicians (bound by an almost superstitious belief in 'Forces' - electromagnetic, gravitational, nuclear etc) badly misread.

What really happens then :- matter is then even more shielded from the compressive effects of UEF.  Well below the point at which the UEF can bind it into 'proton' / 'neutron' form, matter will revert to its free primordial state - UEF particles.  This can / will result in an explosion blowing the star or galactic center apart

You can now begin to see how the mathematical physicists made their other errors.  For high UEF density - compared to normal space-time - is read as 'the Past' by the math, just as low UEF density reads as 'the Future'

But the enclosure of UEF particles remains within our universe's space-time.


a UEF 'core'


It is enclosed and isolated within a layer of neutron-state material.

[ The reason that we don't normally 'see' electromagnetic radiation coming from masses much denser than a neutron star : there is very little UEF passing through that object in any direction, therefore radiating 'photons' tend not to form ]





And, with time, the complex body will rotate and 'jet' away its matter, until dropping below its 'jet' threshold of mass/rotation.

(Bodies hovering around that threshold are 'soft', intermittent, or irregular sources).





Note: at present physicists are in error when calculating mass / density of large bodies; they are unaware that 'shielding' decreases the so-called 'nuclear' force - actually another UEF 'effect' - from jets, radiation, footnotes3





The false definitions / concepts ?

a) singularity, b) event horizon, c) black hole, d) wormholes,

( and therefore 'wormhole travel' & 'wormhole time-travel' )






To summarize - from UEF theory

Accumulating matter inevitably tends to rotation.

The theoretical exception would require absolute symmetry of the mass and its surrounding space / matter all the way to infinity - which is not possible in a universe containing any matter.

Therefore when accumulating matter reaches a sufficient density and rotation speed it will disperse itself in 'jets'


CONDITIONS needed before a putative "black hole" could be formed (theoretically) :-

1 - infinite symmetry of mass in a conglomeration of accumulating matter:

2 - infinite symmetry of mass for the entire surrounding universe;

3 - infinite symmetry of Space-time (unvarying sequential UEF intensity)

NOT ONE of these conditions is possible in the lifetime of this universe


1 - CONFIRMED IMPOSSIBLE

2 - CONFIRMED IMPOSSIBLE

3 - FORECAST IMPOSSIBLE - by UEF Theory






A galactic center spewing itself out in opposed jets is an awesome sight.  There are quite a lot of them visible, even to our primitive telescopes - around the universe

And a neutron star, reaching the spin / 'gravity' barrier created by UEF's parameters and thus being ripped apart by jets, is also a terrifying event

But these are 'events' - with a cause, a build-up, a crisis (or intermittent crises), a decline and an end.

By UEF theory these events are to be expected in the life of the Universe.

But a "black hole" is not expected.  Indeed it is not allowed - by UEF Theory






Let us take this slowly for the sake of conservative physicists who can't get their heads around it.

The only way a putative black hole could create itself would be if there was absolute physical symmetry both within the mass of the "black hole" and around it all the way to infinity - to the edge of the universe

That (imaginary) absolute symmetry would have to include 'gravitational' symmetry - out to infinity.

[We do not know of any physicist who suggests that 'absolute symmetry' could be provided anywhere in our universe.]

DON'T WORRY IF IT'S NOT CLEAR WHY SYMMETRY IS NEEDED

all will be explained below.

In our real - non-symmetrical - universe, when mass accumulates this is what happens :-

a cloud of dust (or stars) forms and contracts

(as is happening in our Galaxy and its neighbours even now)







REAL FACTS

Cause:- UEF pressure

- the contracting cloud rotates on an axis, which points from least UEF pressure to most UEF pressure

cause:- decreasing UEF interaction (gives 'moment') and therefore proportionately increasing rotation

the cloud accumulates and accelerates its rotation - to a limit of mass v. rotation

when a limit of mass v. rotation is reached the mass will 'jet' as minimum interaction along axis breaks down, overwhelmed by high equatorial interaction




OLD (conventional) WAFFLE

Cause:- "Gravity"

- the contracting cloud rotates on an axis, which points from most gravitational pull to least gravitational pull

cause:- "conservation of angular momentum"
- no conventional explanation

the cloud accumulates and accelerates its rotation - no conventional explanation

a mass will 'jet' due to : - NO CONVENTIONAL EXPLANATION




Examples of JETS : -

i) of high rotation / low mass : atmospheric jets at upper discharge point of lightning strike - [electron/ion vortex at upper end of strike gives a jet; mostly of radiation.  [WEBSEARCH FOR "ATMOSPHERIC JETS" / "JETS"]

ii) of high mass / low rotation : galactic jets either physically active - here, or incipient - here

(No, NASA either doesn't know - or isn't admitting - that this is what they are)

iii) of intermediate mass / rotation :- see neutron stars - quasars - magnetars



Any Forecasts?

We should be finding traces of large & old galaxies which have lost their cores - those have `jetted' and, finding unbalanced resistances to those jets, have departed the scene at high speed (pushed by the jet finding most resistance).

Each event will be more or less unique in the damage done, therefore it's impossible to describe a typical galactic disc remnant after its core has departed.




Points of Interest for Cosmology


The original uniform Jets.

The earliest jets would have been generated by collapsing `stars' - accumulations of pure hydrogen that reached `jetting threshold' of size and spin.  It's difficult to estimate that size except to say it was uniform, being decided only by the `jetting threshold'.

This means that their jets - and the first `gamma-ray bursts' (GRBs) - would have been, to a high degree of precision, at a uniform gamma-ray frequency (`power'), and therefore, over time would have left a record of that early radiation, at an even temperature, coming from all around the universe.

Do we see such a record?  Yes - it is the Cosmic Microwave Backgound (CMB), a cooled-down reminder of all those identical GRBs happening around the universe.


But doesn't mainstream science say that the universe is relatively young (10 - 20 bn yrs) - with only two or three (main) generations of stars? And that the CMB is a remnant of the relatively recent `Big Bang' (which is itself only implied by mainstream theories of high `redshift' recession)? And that the universe is relatively small - only 20 - 40 bn light years across? And that it is doomed to expand (at an accelerated rate) until it `freezes'? [so-called heat death of the universe *1]

Rubbish!
1 - even now neutron stars and galactic cores at their own `jetting thresholds' are returning matter to the universe in the form of very high temperature / high density plasma jets. *2  notice - from that reference - that these are beyond mainstream science's ability to calculate.  This implies that the jets' plasma will break down atomic identities - allowing simple recombination in the form of hydrogen (and maybe a smidgin of helium);

2 - if mainstream scientists had thought about it:-  there will always be only two or three (main) generations of stars visible, at any stage in the life of the universe - even if that has lasted for hundreds of billions of years (or forever);

3 - there is evidence *3  that the expansion / recession of galaxies is very much less than `redshift' theories had been thought to indicate.  It is possible that any expansion is only nominal - that driven by regenerated hydrogen / helium from jets;

4 - we can see very large structures *4  that demand a much greater age than the `standard model' allows.  The universe is probably therefore much older than now thought.  And, as we see ever further with each more sensitive telescopic survey, the universe is probably much larger than now thought.





Late news - Jan. 2003
see preparation for climb-down.

29 January 2003 - Looks like N.A.S.A. & the A.A.A.S. are getting on-board UEF Theory without quite admitting it - now hinting that "black holes" aren't "black" and aren't "holes"
Later - July. 2004
see `starting climb-down'

Later - June. 2007
`scientists' now finding excuses for `no black holes'


But some old fogies seem still in denial of fact that :-
UEF Theory says "Spiral Galaxies are created by jets redistributing matter."
UEF Theory also says "There are no `black holes'!"






A "black hole" would be an awful thing - a singularity [see above]

A singularity is theorized as being what might happen to start a universe expanding - which we now know our Universe will continue to do for ever.

A singularity can only happen when all of space-time is entirely and absolutely symmetrical.

And although that sounds a pleasant idea at first - an unchanging universe perhaps - it also means that such a universe would be completely empty!

A universe containing matter must be 'gravitationally' unsymmetrical and also have continuing non-symmetry of space-time.






Within our universe "black holes" cannot exist

The UEF Theory says so




19 Jun. 2001- After years of denial:  `Jets should mean: "No Black holes"
21 Jun. 2007 - Partial climbdown:  "Black holes do not form"
21 Jan. 2014 - Full climbdown:  "Absence of event horizons means that there are no black holes" - Hawking




 Maybe check jets page? 



[ Google ]


Perceptions MAIL

can we

take off the blindfolds?


WEB-MASTERS
Visit W3Schools
NEW PAGE TIPS
Help build the largest human-edited directory on the web.
Submit a Site - Open Directory Project - Become an Editor



happy?

struggling editor ?

`Perceptions'

HOME


broken link? - please tell
mail Perceptions

Copyright © 2009 Ray Dickenson

this page
http://www.perceptions.couk.com/uef/nblckhls.html



PRIVACY POLICY

Map IP Address



Share This

FACEBOOK TWITTER GOOGLE+ TUMBLR PINTEREST REDDIT EMAIL