The Black Hole on trial: the prosecution sums up its case. Your Honor, Ladies and Gentleman of the jury, people of the court, the prosecution alleges that Black Hole is a fraud concocted by priests, promoted by the Rock Stars of physics, and perniciously perpetuated against science and society. The prosecution has shown that Black Hole fails at every level. Singularities fail conceptually, as zero volume means no length, width, or height- an irrational proposal with no corollary in reality. Infinite density fails even the most basic math as one cannot divide by zero as required by the simple math formula of density, mass, and volume, and infinities cannot exist in reality regardless of what mathematicians do with higher math. Black Hole also fails at the higher level of Newtonian and Einsteinian theory and corresponding maths. Black Hole can only be seen due to so-called gravitational lensing which is circumstantial at best, and then only as an ad hoc presentation in lieu of observation of an event horizon or Black Hole itself. Lets review the case. Defense Exhibits: Exhibit A: They can be predicted by theory. Exhibit B: They can be indirectly observed. Exhibit C: There are no alternatives. The defense alleges that Black Hole is predicted by theory. Their Exhibit A states: Karl Schwarzschild created the first modern resolution of relativity that would characterize a black hole in 1916, and later work from many physicists showed black holes are a standard prediction of Einstein’s theory of general relativity. This is clearly not so, as attested to by Karl Schwarzschild himself in Mr. Schwarzschilds paper entitled ‘On the Gravitational Field of A Mass Point According to Einsteins Theory’, and confirmed by Leonard Abrams paper ‘Black Holes: The Legacy of Error.’ Einsteins Special Theory of Relativity clearly prohibits infinite densities. Karl Schwarzschild attests to this fact, proving it in his paper on point mass. Not only this, Einstein denied the possibility of black holes multiple times before his death in 1955. Both Einstein Relativity and Schwarzschilds solution theories forbid infinite densities. So does common sense and rationality. Although math can postulate infinite densities in abstraction, reality is having none of it. While Hilbert can build hotels in thought space with an infinite number of rooms, the world of reality does not comply. Though Zeno in his Dichotomy Paradox can halve a distance infinitely in abstract mathematical equation space, one cannot walk half way to a brick wall indefinitely and certainly cannot halve their distance an infinite number of times. All who have tried end up smacking their foreheads on the wall. Furthermore, later work in the 40s conveniently ignored relativity and erroneously posited an infinity of spacetimes differing as to the limiting acceleration of a radially approaching test particle. In other words, Hilbert substituted a variable with a scalar invariant transforming the coordinate location of a point mass. Because of the error, the point r=0 becomes a two-sphere invalidating Hilberts assumption. Owing to the extreme difficulty of calculus and other maths involved, our expert witnesses have reduced the equations to simpler language for the layperson. There are no known solutions for Einsteins field equations for two or more bodies, and yet proponents of Black Hole allege multiple masses interacting with each other and with matter. The principle of superposition applies to Newtonian masses but not to General Relativity, so Newtons escape velocity cannot be used in an expression relating to a universe containing only one mass. Einsteins theory, as Schwarzschild shows, pertains to one mass. In other words, Newtons theory contains two masses and superposition. However, r=0 contains no bodies, and so therefore cannot accommodate superposition. The defense exhibit A, predicted by theory, fails on multiple counts. The defense states that Black Hole can be indirectly observed. The so-called evidence cited is that because light can escape Black Holes event horizon, one must look for gravitational lensing. Of course as the prosecution has already shown, Newtons escape velocity has no relevance in a universe of only one mass as required by Einstein and Schwarzschilds theories. The idea of an escape velocity of light also fails logically as previously stated. If the escape velocity from an event horizon is the speed of light, then light can escape an event horizon. Although eyewitness accounts can be effective in swaying a juror unknowledgeable in these matters, it is well known that eyewitnesses are among the least reliable sources. This is worse than that because we have witnesses claiming they saw where alleged black holes are circumstantially. Furthermore, no one has ever found or photographed an event horizon or a black hole, instead they have provided artist renditions of a black hole or telescopic images of unidentified objects ad hoc in an attempt to save their failed theories. Therefore the defense exhibit B, they can be indirectly observed, fails on multiple counts. The defense presents Exhibit C: there are no alternatives. We are told Very few physicists would tell you there are no black holes in the universe. The defense admits there are alternative theories to Black Hole when council states, Certain interpretations of supersymmetry and some extensions of the standard model allow for alternatives to black holes. And yet we are reminded, But few physicists support the theories of possible replacements. At one time very few scientists would tell you that the earth was round, but that does not make the earth flat. The burden of proof falls on the one making a claim, not on another person who forms a different conclusion. Since the prosecution has shown the premises to be false, it follows that the conclusion is false. Furthermore it is a fallacy, a non sequitur, it does not follow that because we dont have an alternative, a theory - let alone an invalid theory - is correct. Regardless, in science when the hypothesis or theory fails, one erases the whiteboard and starts over. Gravitational lensing is supposedly caused by dark matter, itself an unproven and irrational proposition at the hypothesis level. Its not even a theory yet! Lastly, there are multiple theories of gravity. Therefore gravitational lensing is not a ‘settled’ issue to begin with. Not only that, but no satellite including the gravitational wave observatory LIGO has ever detected a gravitational wave. Additionally, Gravity Probe B did not confirm frame dragging, distortion of spacetime around a large body. The folks there used a hypothetical model to show why they didnt find anything, and then years later altered the data to claim they proved frame dragging. Therefore the defense Exhibit C fails on multiple levels. Exhibits for the prosecution: Exhibit A: Fails conceptually. Exhibit B: Fails at basic math. Exhibit C: Fails at higher math. Now for the prosecutions summary. Not only does the council for the defense fail to prove Black Hole is possible, the prosecution has presented evidence that Black Hole is founded on failed hypotheses and is in opposition to accepted theories. Black Hole fails on many levels. It fails at the conceptual level: it is illogical and irrational. Infinities are impossible and so is zero volume. Black Hole fails at simple math: one cannot divide by zero. Black Hole fails at higher math: it is in violation of Einsteins relativity, Schwarchilds solution and classical Newtonian physics, and both superposition and escape velocity equations. All this is confirmed by Einstein and Schwazschild and born out by other physicists which have provided expert testimony in their stead. In conclusion, the defense having not made a case and the prosecution having shown beyond a reasonable doubt that Black Hole is impossible, the jury must find the Defendant Black Hole guilty as charged, and must find that Black Hole is non-existent!
Posted on: Sun, 03 Aug 2014 18:34:40 +0000
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015