• Cosmology

  • Black Holes Do Not Exist, claims Mersini-Houghton

As for the evidence..

While people in the Astrophysics community appear content to keep calling them black holes, there is a growing consensus as the evidence shows magnetism sufficient to levitate the accretion disk well above the event horizon. When inferred magnetic strengths from observational evidence are projected toward where a horizon would be, it is seen that the matter and energy disk is suspended above it, rather than being swallowed in. See the following.

Astrophysicists Closer to Figuring Out the Mysteries of the Milky Way

Is matter falling into the massive black hole at the center of the Milky Way or being ejected from it?

DISCOVERY OF SUBSTRUCTURE IN THE SCATTER-BROADENED IMAGE OF SGR A*

A strong magnetic field around the supermassive black hole at the centre of the Galaxy

Dynamically important magnetic fields near accreting supermassive black holes

There are arXiv versions for most of the journal references, which will show up if you do a Google search by title.

Regards,

Jonathan

    Of course,

    This latest evidence appears to agree perfectly with what Dr. Mitra has told us, with what Steven Kauffmann has been telling us, along with Corda, Leiter, et al, and others who have been telling the world that the picture of a black hole as a void that swallows everything is misleading. And so is the 'no-drama' picture of crossing an event horizon.

    Steven Hawking's paper on black holes and weather forecasting has made it more reasonable to discuss how and why things stop short of an event horizon formation. The debate over what happens when one crosses the boundary (and how much information is lost) has shifted, or morphed into a debate over whether a given entity could actually get there - to cross that boundary.

    I think this is healthy progress. But as always; we must continue to look to the evidence, so we can see how well our models of reality reflect what is actually there.

    Regards,

    Jonathan

    For the record,

    It would appear that Sgr A* is a classic example of a MECO.

    Regards,

    Jonathan

    The relevance of the above..

    Terrence Barrett's paper on 'Topology and Electromagnetism' introduces some concepts through foundational assumptions, that Peter asserted are essential to understanding Active Galactic Nuclei and the objects heretofore assumed to be Black Holes. I'm assuming that these objects are some form of ECO, likely a MECO in acknowledgement of the evidence presented below. But this makes Peter's assertion of the appearance of non-Maxwellian terms in the plasma dynamics absolutely germane to this discussion.

    The paper he cited is:

    Intrinsic rotation driven by non-Maxwellian equilibria in tokamak plasmas

    And in the modified Maxwell equations suggested by Barrett and others, there are terms for the magnetic circulation currents that Maxwell does not include. This is why I made mention of the book on those equations earlier, and stated that a search for additional references by the author(s) would be helpful. If we want to model the real behavior of plasma ejection, the actual Physics, we need an expanded vocabulary.

    All the Best,

    Jonathan

    Jonathan,

    I suppose a pertinent issue is when does the popular science media decide this is a serious topic and starts to really draw attention to it. I don't suppose you have any contacts you could send that list? Zeeya does seem to have been developing a position in the field and might find it interesting.

    One naturally wonders if there isn't some sense of commitment to the current extravagances in cosmology, in the science media, along with the crop of preferred go to physicists, that might be resisting questioning such an important component.

    As the old saying goes, change happens one funeral at a time.

    Regards,

    John M

    Jonathan,

    "we must continue to look to the evidence, so we can see how well our models of reality reflect what is actually there."

    From the astronomers view where that method is de-rigour it would be great to see it penetrating further into theoretical physics. Our ability to see 'what is actually there' has increased exponentially in recent years.

    On the name 'black hole', in Astronomical terms for those of us who study active galactic nuclei (AGN's) 'black hole' now largely out of use except often to differentiate between scales, i.e. stellar mass, Intermediate and SMBH. In more general astrophysics it's remained, but as much in deference to theorists understanding as anything else.

    We know what AGN's are in some detail now, but astrophysics is as disparate as the rest of physics so much poor understanding continues. The dynamic is toroidal, with counter helical windings around the tubular 'body', which is the same dynamic as a nuclear tokamac, the heart of a fusion reactor. The accreted matter is accelerated around the helical path, heated up and broken down (re-ionized) until it reaches the 'z-pinch' venturi from which the bi-polar collimated jets flow. The flow helicity is added to be precession of the jet origins around each other at the centre point.

    Trying to get from doctrinal theory to there is tricky. I found it better to try to see which analogies can be re-interpreted to have some validity. I also discuss the jet structure and collimation dynamics in my own published paper on the subject, which I'd assumed you'd read? It's stuffed full of excellent references to each part of the complex process. But it does seem most are still far happier to cling on to old concepts and beliefs than objectively analyse physical evidence and face up to more coherent interpretations!

    HJ/VOL36/HJ-36-6.pdf 2014.

    Best wishes

    Peter

      Peter,

      That link doesn't seem to work. Might just be the server I'm channeled through.

      "The requested URL /issues/HJ/VOL36/HJ-36-6.pdf was not found on this server."

      Regards,

      John M

      I think general relativity is perfectly adequate to explain black hole thermodynamics, without ad hoc assumptions. Hawking's ADS-CFT extension is normal spacetime -- chaotic collapse is deterministic.

      This chaotic collapse -- which is also a theme taken up by Pankaj Joshi in a recent cosmology course I was privileged to attend -- may be the missing capstone in Einstein's theory, for the reason:

      Inevitable singularities in Einstein cosmology bound the relativistic model at diffeomorphism; chaotic collapse avoids the singuarity. I think most miss the point of Hawking's analogy with weather forecasting -- that accurate prediction of imminent conditions perfectly capture the local state, implies the unitarity of the global state. The chaotic collapse model supports the premise of general relativity (all physics is local) at the small scale.

      Let's get the basic physics right before we go aimlessly into speculative exotic territory. I am reminded of Einstein: "I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element; I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details."

      Interesting, John, though off topic here. And the author's premise that complex systems are not infinitely adaptive is belied by Bar-Yam's research in multi-scale variety.

      Thanks for the link. Good discussion for another time.

      John,

      Is 'recent posts' shrinking like Dr Who's Tardis in the last 2D 'Flatworld creatures' episode? Or is it Steve's shrinking universe? Clara's solution was brilliant; You can't turn something 2D into 3D if it never was 3D in the first place! She clearly knew a wave isn't 'real', just a simplistic 2D representation of a helical path!

      Sorry about the link. The a pdf is also webarchived here; https://www.academia.edu/6655261

      You too may have seen it, but of course I hope it and the citations are worth almost infinite reads! Have you ever wondered how we could find evidence of what came before the BB? ('Big Blast')

      Best wishes

      Peter

      Tom,

      His point is not that infinitely complex systems are not adaptive, as nature has been proving they are for a very long time. His point is that systems pushed to the breaking point, for any number of reasons, are fragile and prone to break.

      Regards,

      John M

      You've misquoted him, John. There was no mention of "infinitely complex systems," just a claim that complex systems are not infinitely adaptive. In fact, though, there is no reason to believe that complex systems of sufficient variety at multiple scales are not infinitely adaptive -- therefore, no breaking point.

      Tom,

      One of the main ways they have of being adaptive is to overproduce, on those multiple scales and to sacrifice eventually all forms, but keep producing new ones. While this interpretation of the paper is somewhat off topic for this thread, the reason I found the essay topical is that it describes what amounts to a social and ultimately civilizational maelstrom.

      In essence it is a form of black hole. What drives this mad rush is a global population which can only operate cooperatively with the contractual function of a monetary system. Which has succeeded in throwing off most legal restraints and being used to siphon value out of the larger economy into what amounts to vast waste on increasingly fewer people, as well as unpayable gambling debts. This being the black hole at the center. Meanwhile the society increasingly swirling around it has to further drain value out of the earth's environment in order to both survive and create the illusion they too can win that lottery. Meanwhile any attempts to resist it, such as the Occupy movement, have their intended friction simply turned to heat and feed it as well, as it mostly empowers the police and security functions, which otherwise keep the larger population in line and working. Negative feedback for those fighting it.

      Though I have to say, being in the horse business, in the Baltimore Washington area, the income for my livelihood is probably due to the glow from this particular beast.

      I also have to say that while I probably attribute devious motives and serious character flaws to you, when you habitually disagree with everything I say, these debates do provide an outlet for me. I long ago grew used to people thinking I'm somewhat wacked, so it doesn't bother me anymore, but that makes it difficult to sustain interesting conversations.

      I mention this because of those two links you posted, of why time is slowed and the path of least action. While I mentioned the connection that occurred to me in passing, I thought I'd clarify it;

      That if you consider the wavy lines of the paths of not least action and the excess energy that would be required to make them work, compared to the light being bounced back and forth between the mirrors and how this is an analogy for what happens in atomic structure, with less bouncing representing slower time, they represent different descriptions on the same effect;

      Now a beam of light would be the most efficient path of least action, as no energy is lost and no time passes. Then you get to the frame traveling near the speed of light and so little bouncing around and little energy lost. Then you get to the ones where it is bouncing around a lot and lots of energy is lost and time moves much faster.

      Now I know you are not going to agree with anything I say, but if you just hurumph and tell me what a idiot I am, I'l know I'm onto something. Otherwise, if you clearly and concisely explain the flaw in my logic, then I will have learned something.

      Regards,

      John M

      Peter,

      Still having issues. It asked for a social media address and my somewhat ignored facebook account didn't seem to go through.

      Not a big fan of BBT, if that's what you mean, though we have been through that before.

      Regards,

      John M

      Basically then, time is resistance. What slows light down and gives it form.

      Ohh, this is really great stuff!

      What about boson stars? There has got to be a link between the MECOs of GR and quantum boson stars...come on...where are the links?

      The SaggA* data is getting better and better and soon we will have a matter spectrum of SaggA*. To prepare for that, we need to differentiate among the various event horizon models and get a testable hypothesis for whatever will actually occur.

      Just like with the CMB, the noise spectrum of SaggA* will be the determination of which model holds water....this will be fun...