Perhaps going against the entire scientific community's idea about a Black Hole, I am proposing the inverse perspective with my paper On The Scientific Black Eye.
The point to make, together with the request to read the article and comment on it, is that an inverted model makes use of the exact same scientific data, but shows a different perspective in one very important spot.
The famous example to point out quickly how there can be two outcomes when all data is the same is Rubin's Vase. If ten million people declare the visual a Vase, and a single person declares it Two Faces, then either perspective is nevertheless available. This is not a popularity contest.
When the ten million Vase people declare that the curvature of the lines proves the existence of the Vase, however, and use this against the Two Faces, then that may be a valid position all by itself, but it fails to recognize how data can get inverted in a model. The alternative perspective is then ignored. A scientific rejection is then applied incorrectly. Instead, it should be investigated on its own merits.
--
By inverting the actual data we have about a Black Hole, one can end up seeing a Black Eye instead.
The claim is that the Black Hole model got established exactly because it was proposed first through making calculations and predictions on paper. Paper can make us establish one important mistake: One can end up inverting a model. I'll try to make that point here in the next four paragraphs.
First, having two options does not mean both are correct. Only one will be correct. Yet it is incorrect to use one option to undermine the other option. Let's investigate and make the point come across quickly in an analogy that is actually quite appropriate: A Cyclops drawn on paper, which may be beautiful to see but which is of course an unnatural outcome.
We can draw a Cyclops on a piece of paper with everything about the Cyclops scientifically correct, except for the lack of a pair of eyes. Having just one eye, correct as the eye otherwise can be, is unnatural. The next step shows what is going on with inversion.
Close an eye and you can see what a Cyclops sees. Naturally, you are still not a Cyclops. The one open eye did not miraculously shift to the center of your face. Yet the perspective of a Cyclops can be captured by a human being indeed.
That is the point to understand. Even when on paper we must acknowledge that an important physical function is zero, we cannot remove the position altogether and adjust the model with the remainder then placed around a center. We cannot move an open eye to the center of a face when the other eye is closed. In the Black Hole model, an eye got closed and the model was presented as a Cyclops. The closed eye was called out as not present and therefore unimportant. And that would be a simple mistake to make.
Naturally, the ten million agreeing that this was a Cyclops for certain meant that no one was paying attention to modeling itself when the calculations erased the zero position from the paper and shifted all around a center.
Looking forward to your comments.
Preprint On The Scientific Black Eye
- Badges
- Science topic