Adapted for the Internet from:

Why God Doesn't Exist
Is there proof
for the existence of
black holes?

    1.0   Before we can prove, we must conceptualize

    Relativists are so anxious to prove that they haven't wasted  their valuable time all these years chasing after
    black holes that they go out of their way to tell you that black holes have been spotted, confirmed, and
    documented. Black holes are now an irreversible part of 'science.' The concept started with John Michell
    in 1783, was resuscitated by Karl Schwartzschild in 1916, reinforced by Chandrasekhar in 1931, and
    popularized by Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose in the 60s and 70s. With so much authority behind it,
    it's impossible to imagine how the black hole will ever disappear.

    Such assertions should really make you wonder what those idiots who have the privilege to look at the
    cosmos every night through expensive telescopes and claim to have seen black holes really spend their time
    on.  How is it possible to have confirmed the existence of black holes when the mathematicians can't tell you
    what a black hole is? How do the astronomers plan confirm that they finally located an abstract concept in
    space? Would it make any difference if they claimed that they have seen love or justice through their scopes?

    It turns out that the alleged confirmations of black holes are nothing of the kind. The confirmations of black
    holes are more like the confirmations of the architecture of the atom, the large-scale structure of the Universe,
    and the corpuscular nature of the electron. The 'confirmations' and 'proofs' that the idiots of relativity talk
    about are all without exception 'inferences.' Mathematics is exclusively an abstract language of symbols with
    no relation to reality. The mathematicians are painfully aware of this and decided to fudge with the scientific
    language. Therefore, it was in their best interest to convert inferences and speculation into confirmations and
    proofs.


    2.0   How relativists detected the first black hole

    Relativists periodically proclaim that they have ‘finally’ detected the first black hole:

    “ In June 2004 astronomers found a super-massive black hole, Q0906+6930, at the centre
       of a distant galaxy about 12.7 billion light years away…” [1]

    “ As if black holes weren’t menacing enough, astronomers now have observational evidence
       that at least some of them spin about like whirlpools, wrapping up the fabric of space with
       them.” [2]

    “ The first black hole to be positively detected was named Cygnus X-1.” [3]

    Or a bunch of them:

    “ Active, supermassive black holes were everywhere in the early universe...We had seen
       the tip of the iceberg before in our search for these objects. Now, we can see the iceberg
       itself.” [4]

    It is difficult to believe that any of these claims have merit if relativists cannot first tell us what they are talking
    about. Are they searching for a concept? Are they trying to find a ‘surface-less’ mathematical object? If so,
    you have a long wait.

    The mathematicians tell us that there are two ways to detect a black hole, suspiciously both indirectly. An
    astronomer can infer the presence of a black hole by observing x-rays from particles falling into one:

    “ Invisible to the naked eye, black holes can only be detected by the radiation they spew
       and their gravitational influence on their stellar neighbors.” [5]

    “ As the matter falls or is pulled towards the black hole, it gains kinetic energy, heats up and
       is squeezed by tidal forces. The heating ionizes the atoms, and when the atoms reach a
       few million degrees Kelvin, they emit X-rays. The X-rays are sent off into space before the
       matter crosses the Schwarzschild radius and crashes into the singularity. Thus we can
       see this X-ray emission.” [6]

    In the alternative, the astronomer can infer that the invisible ‘object’ is a black hole by observing its effects on
    a neighbor:

    “ One way of calculating the mass of an object we cannot see… is to follow the orbit around
       it of a companion star. If this star is found to be part of a binary system, with an invisible
       partner, then the mass of the companion can be calculated via spectral and visual analysis.
       If this mass is found to be in excess of 3 solar masses, then a black hole is presumed to
       have been found.” [7]

    So let’s make it plain. Never has a human being ever seen a black hole just like no one has ever seen an atom
    or any particle in the Standard Model of Quantum Mechanics! The mathematicians infer black holes from
    indirect observations. The astronomers simply have no other explanation for what they see.

    “ The only mechanism that people could think of that produce such large quantities of
       energy seemed to be the gravitational collapse not just of a star but of a whole central
       region of a galaxy… A black hole seems to be the only natural explanation of the obser-
       vations.” (p. 92-94) [8]

    In fact, when you go back and check the fine print, you find a water-downed version of this irrefutable proof:

    “ Using NASA's Chandra X-ray and Spitzer Space Telescopes, the team detected
       unusually high levels of infrared light emitted by 200 galaxies in the distant universe.
       They think the infrared light was created by material falling into "quasars"—
       supermassive black holes surrounded by doughnut-shaped clouds of gas and dust—
       at the center of the galaxies.” [9]

    “ Cygnus X-1 is a binary star that contains an O9-B0 supergiant... and a compact object.
       The mass of the supergiant is approximately 20–40 solar masses. The compact object
       has a mass of 8.7 solar masses; as the largest possible mass of a neutron star cannot
       exceed three solar masses, it is thought to be a black hole.” [10]

    The stupid fools who spend their time running Chandra are just a little too eager to prove their foregone
    conclusions. Their professors in college and the Nobel Prize winners they look up to have told them that
    there is no other explanation. If an entire generation of scholars says that there are black holes, who is an
    insignificant nobody, ripe out of college, who looks through a telescope to question such wisdom.
    Nevertheless, any team will have a very tough time publishing a paper that argues that the results of its
    observations show that relativity, quantum, and string theories are flawed. No. I'll be more precise. They
    won't be able to publish such a paper irrespective of the merits of their arguments. In the best of cases, the
    paper will be scrutinized by so many people that we will all be dead before the last reviewer gives the final
    okay. It dies by pocket veto. So a question such as whether black holes are even conceptually possible
    doesn't  even cross the minds of the idiots who use telescopes today. Relativity and quantum are done deals.
    There is nothing to argue. Yet all physicists tell us that one of the two necessarily has to be wrong. Either
    gravity is caused by warped space or is mediated by a graviton ball. It can't be both!

    So now you know how black holes are 'proven.' A black hole is not and cannot be a reality. It is 100%
    speculation. It is an absurd speculation because the proponent cannot even imagine what he is talking about.
    He cannot imagine what he is talking about because he is talking a bout an abstract concept. Certainly, the
    theorist cannot draw a picture of one because whatever he draws will be more than 0-D. If a black hole is just
    a useful mathematical concept -- great to talk in circles at the pub -- it has nothing to do with science. Abstract
    concepts have no shape to visualize. Before an astronomer can detect a black hole through his telescope, he
    has to draw it on a piece of paper. What will he draw? A '0-D singularity' encircled by ‘a region’ with 'nothing'
    in between? If an astronomer cannot even conceptualize a black hole, much less can he hope to see one
    floating around in space. In fact, if ever a magazine or journal shows a picture or a drawing of a black hole,
    you can safely conclude that the authors, the peer reviewers, and the editors are gang of idiots. It is irrational
    to attempt to illustrate a 0-D object or a non-dimensional concept!

    In fact, I liked the following statement so much that I decided to borrow it as a closing argument. It synthesizes
    quite accurately my feelings about those who believe in black holes:

    " The 'black hole' is an experiential term which has recently become frequently mentioned
       by patients suffering from primitive mental disturbances" [11]

    Right on, doc! He should be given a Noble Prize for his accurate characterization of this terrible mental
    disorder that afflicts so much of mankind!


    ________________________________________________________________________________________


                                  Home                    Books                    Glossary            




        Copyright © by Nila Gaede 2008