A black hole can be considered an exception to the universe as it does not fully adhere to the fundamental properties that govern the universe. When analyzing the formation, behavior, and reactions associated with a black hole, the singularity at its core—the so-called "black center"—does not satisfy the laws of thermodynamics. In contrast, the processes of the universe operate in accordance with key properties such as pressure, temperature, work, energy, and magnetic characteristics. This makes black holes distinct anomalies within the framework of universal laws.
This is purely for discussion and should not be compared to anything or anyone else. In my opinion, a black hole can be viewed as an exception within the universe. Its formation, behavior, and the conditions under which it exists challenge our understanding of universal laws. Specifically, the singularity at its core does not align with thermodynamic properties such as pressure, temperature, work, energy, and magnetic characteristics. While the universe as a whole operates according to these principles, a black hole seems to defy them, making it a fascinating anomaly worthy of deeper exploration.
The really dark part of the Black Hole is the naive belief in its existence !
Do you know what the surface orbit velocity {vo} of a single mass means ? It is given by
vo=Sqr.(G*m/r) -> r=m*G/(vo)2 -> rmin=m*G/c2
The existence of a Black Hole demands for a surface orbit velocity {vo} that exceeds the speed of light {c}... since radius {r} is collapsing to zero (so they say) vo -> ∞ ...smart !
Don't you think there is a little too much black magic in mainstream physics ? They say that Einstein's gravity reduces to Newtons gravity... when dealing with small masses like Earth, and what is allowed under Einstein is suddenly forbidden under Newton ? Strange isn't it ? (sarcasm off)
@ ALL MEMBERS OF RESARCHGATE
The evidence of none existence of Black hole is hereunder.
Submitted to Nature on 4th November 2016 for the purpose of publication.
4
th November 2016: [email protected]
Black hole X-ray sources
Stephen J. Crothers
Irwin et al1
recently reported on ultraluminous X-ray bursts in two ultracompact
companions to nearby elliptical galaxies NGC 4697 and NGC 5128 (sources 1 and 2
respectively). Although they discuss a number of possibilities, they favour neutron stars and
black holes as the likely sources: “the sources appear to be normal accreting neutron-
star or black-hole X-ray binaries”. However, there is no possibility for black holes to
be associated with these X-ray sources because the mathematical theory of black
holes contains a latent violation of the rules of pure mathematics.
The Authors have suggested that at least one of the black holes they have invoked is
rotating. According to the mathematical theory there are four types of black hole: (a)
charge neutral, non-rotating; (b) charged, non-rotating; (c) charge neutral, rotating; (d)
charged, rotating. Since the theory of black holes is a mathematical theory it must
comply with the rules of pure mathematics. That it does not do so renders it invalid.
The ramifications of this fact are significant.
There exists an infinite equivalence class (i.e. an infinite set of equivalent solutions)
for all theoretical black hole types. This equivalence class reduces to simpler forms
according to the absence of charge (q = 0) or of rotation (a = 0), or of both (q = a = 0).
The overall mathematical form is,
( )
( )
( )
( ) ( ) ( ) ' ,
, , , ,
4
,
2
4 4 cos
, cos , ,
sin ,
sin
sin 2 sin
2
0
2
0
2
0
2
0
2
0
2
0
0
2
2 2
2 2 2 2
1
0
2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2 2 2
2
2 2
2
2 2
2 2 2
2
2 2 2 2
2
2
2 2
2
r x x y y z z x y z r r
a q rr n
q a
R R a q R a R r r
d dR d
R a a
dt d
a R a
dt a
ds
n n n
c c c c
c
c
c
= − + − + − + + + = +
+ < ∈ℜ ∈ℜ
+ − −
=
∆ = − + + = + = − +
+
∆
+
+ − ∆
+
+
+ − ∆
−
− ∆
=
α α θ α +
ξ
α ρ θ ξ
ρ θ
ρ
θ ϕ
ρ
θ
ϕ
ρ
θ
ρ
θ
constituting all admissible ‘transformations of coordinates’. This is a complicated set
of mathematical expressions but the crucial issue is easily discerned. If any element of
this infinite equivalence class cannot be extended to produce a black hole then none
can be extended, owing to equivalence. The black hole requires that Rc be extended to
0 ≤ Rc. To amplify, consider the case r0 = 0, n = 2; then ( )
2
1
2 2 Rc = r + ξ . Extension to
produce a black hole therefore requires r
2 to take on negative values. However, r and ξ
are real numbers and so neither r
2
nor ξ
2
can ever become negative. Thus, this
particular case cannot be extended to produce a black hole. Hence no element of the
infinite class can be extended, due to equivalence. Consequently it is impossible for
black holes to be the sources of the X-ray bursts reported by the Authors.
REFERENCES
1. Irwin, J.A. et al., Ultraluminous X-ray bursts in two ultracompact companions to
nearby elliptical galaxies. Nature 538, 356–358, doi:10.1038/nature19822 (2016)
Stephen Crother's "proof" that Black Holes do not exist is based on Einstein's wrong equations and is the same as driving out the devil with Beelzebub... the proof that Black Holes don't exist is very simple and given by me !!! ...not to forget Isaac Newton !!
@ Berndt Barklolz
I wonder why should they deceive and cheat the world and spend so much public money for insanity and wasteful endeavours.
For me they are worst dacoits as they pursue this research to keep the flag of non-existence of the Creator & Sustainer raised and people have the reasons to deny the existence of a Creator because they trust science more than rationality and divinity consequently there is loss of morality and moral values and a social structure emerges wherein neither any morality is there nor there is any need of morality and ultimate result is the loss of purpose of human life which is the worst Crime Against Humanity.
Neeraj Meena,
the black holes are the result of a quantum mechanical process whereby the elementary particles are created. No singularity.
See my first book.
Berndt Barkholz ,
"...exceeds the speed of light {c}... since radius {r} is collapsing to zero (so they say) vo -> ∞"
I think you are aware, that diving ever deeper into a black hole let you "see" an ever smaller black hole, until you meet the smallest possible black hole, the so-called "photon sphere", a Planck-sphere. Each of these ever decreasing spheres are black holes and thus, their orbit velocity is c.
This is, because diving into a sphere with shell-wise evenly distributed mass density, only that sphere is gravitationally active to you, which is below you. All masses above you and in the complete shell above cancel out mutually, thus, you do not feel any force from them.
If you look at the way, how a black hole is constructed, you see that it is built onion-like, shell-by-shell, each with thickness Planck-length, each such shell is adding one Planck-mass. Thus, any orbit velocity at any radius within this sphere is c.
I would not see the smallest possible black hole as a singularity. Instead, it is just an oscillator, the fastest ever, thus, the heaviest ever, but not infinity, it is just Planck-energy.
Andreas Schwarz
There are no Black Holes in the universe !! Not in your universe, not in mine, only in nobodies universe you may find those intellectual atrocities ! Unfortunately there are lots of nobodies. And please, don't try to start a discussion with me about that. If you think there are black holes it's OK... and may the force be with you, but keep it for yourself and leave me out !
Berndt Barkholz ,
"...keep it for yourself and leave me out !"
"...don't try to start a discussion with me about that."
Why are you here and answered to this thread, i.e., you wanted to discuss about this subject?
What is your intention to post just a statement like "does not exist, basta, finito!" and at the same time stop any discussion?
----
Black holes are not magic things. They are just the most extreme form of matter due to the gravity of all its particles.
Please, at least, try to understand matter as it is, and then let it compress together under its own gravitation.
----
"Unfortunately there are lots of nobodies."
Please stop tagging other posters here in RG with attributes like "nobody"...
Thanks a lot - and "may the force be with you"!
Andreas Schwarz,
you say that black holes are build layer by layer. I do not know from where you got that.
However, in my first book I wrote that a blakc hole is build like a pearl, layer by layer. The difference is that a layer is about 2 fm thick, the thickness of a bound particle-antiparticle pair.
Lastly, there are no holes, only massive dark objects. They accrete material and form the galaxies as I have described.
Hans Gennow ,
the thickness per layer comes from the smallest possible length, the Planck- length, which makes a physically sensefull difference in measuring thickness. And, starting with the Planck-sphere "photon-sphere", per Planck-length radius increase, the added mass is Planck-mass, which fulfills the gravitational escape-velocity equation to keep v_esc=c.
A thickness of 2 fm seems too much to me.
----
"...there are no holes, only massive dark objects."
Correct, but the way of speaking (nicknaming) is unfortunately "Black Hole", because from the outside, there seem to be nothing, visually... ;-)
----
By-the-way, it is interesting, whether falling particles at the event horizon need to have been accelerated to c before "swallowed", or can they keep their current slower speeds, further accelerated within the strongest gravitational field?
To my idea, all particles accelerate gravitationally as much as possible, until they reach escape velocity c, thus, radiating into pure energy. Following this, the "black" hole even would be a "bright" object, but only behind the event horizon...
----
The next interesting question is: How does the gravitation of all the energy and particles inside the "black hole" nevertheless can escape?
Andreas Schwarz,
from where did your Planck particle come? You just state they are there without any proof.
2fm is the size of two nucleons, i.e. the size of a bound pair. I have at least explained how they are created.
I just mention when something falls into a black hole it may break the binding of a pair. A proton that is spit out will get en energy of about 1Gev.
If you have a massive object of say 10^37 kg and a radius of 10^10 m the potential energy at the surface will in fact be 1Gev. Thus the proton can escape.
Hans Gennow ,
the Planck-sphere is the smallest resonance of the medium, i.e., its "eigenvalue". A dirac impulse would generate the sphere oscillator, propagating its wavelength 4πℓₚₗ. The medium does not allow smaller wave periods.
The medium is described by the parameter G, the gravitational constant, which defines, how the escape and orbit velocity of waves around a center can be.
----
"A proton that is spit out will get en energy of about 1Gev."
Do you really think that a proton can escape thus near to the event horizon?
What happens to an oscillator (a particle) when its environment distort its oscillation-path in a way that it does no longer close? To my opinion, any particle near the event horizon cannot keep its previous structure, thus also not its previous charge. It is on a way to pure energy, which needs to propagate with c. Thus, it is well-conditioned to enter the event-horizon.
The accretion disk has a velocity profile of about sqrt(1/r). If not, the particles would fall more rapidly into the BH.
----
(please give me time to check calculation related to proton escape on my own...)
Hans Gennow ,
"If you have a massive object of say 10^37 kg and a radius of 10^10 m the potential energy at the surface will in fact be 1Gev. Thus the proton can escape."
This is my equation to this subject:
E = GMm/r = G * 10^37kg * 1.67*10^-27kg / 10^10m ≈ 1.1*10^-10Nm ≈ 0.7GeV
Could you please present a short derivation of your own here?
By-the-way, I'm not sure that there is a relationship between the particle's rest energy and the possibility to escape the gravitational potential well.
I think, it must be enough kinetic energy to let it escape, if ever possible and not exceeding the capabilities of the environment, like at the event horizon of a BH...
Andreas Schwarz,
I just made an approximate calculation in my head. It will escape in any case.
The question is how far it will come. You will have to do an integral.
Forget any horizons.
Hans Gennow ,
following
E_kin_esc = ½m∙v_esc² = E_orb = G∙M∙m/r
if we solve that, we get
v_esc² = 2G∙M/r
and this is independent from any test mass m, which we want to check for escaping M.
And for the given numbers 10^34kg and 10^10m this escape velocity v is less than c by a factor of ~1/26!
Thus, the testmass can escape from this radius, if this mass is active there.
According to my idea, a black hole can be considered an exception in the universe, but this does not mean that it does not exist. Its applications may vary in everyone's perspective, but it is indeed a part of the universe that influences the rate of the universe's expansion, either slowing it down or speeding it up. Black holes also create small-scale "big bangs" and contribute to the formation of time dimensions and time variations. In the same way, they can create variations in the speed of light.
Please take a moment to look at this picture painted on my room's wall. I have the complete details depicted on my wall.
Neeraj Meena ,
could you please explain the images? The hand-written texts are hardly recognizable...
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Filing