Why black holes don't exist
The Rope Hypothesis - An alternative to waves, particles and wave-packets
(Comments have been disabled in all my hubs. If you wish to leave a comment go to Rational Scientific Method.)
The term 'black hole' has yet to be defined rigorously and unambiguously. The scholars confess that they have no idea what a black hole is, what it is made of, or whether they even exist.
The elusive black hole
Many articles are written weekly about black holes. Authors talk about their seemingly magical properties, about having discovered one in the night sky, about what it would be like to travel inside one. Yet, not a single scholar at any university in the world has defined the term 'black hole'. NASA claims that a black hole is an enormous star that collapsed to a ball the size of Manhattan. However, the Max Planck Institute in Germany states that a black hole has no structure or size whatsoever. Celebrities such as Michio Kaku, Max Tegmark and Lawrence Krauss confess that they have never seen one and that they have no idea what a black hole could be made of. We are left wondering whether it is better for proponents to remove the black hole from the literature until they at least know what they are talking about.
However, the question remains. How is it that the black hole came to be a fact in the first place if the experts cannot agree on a definition, confess that they have never seen one, and readily admit that not even light can escape from such an unimaginable entity?
The only true fact is that the mathematicians inferred the black hole. The theoreticians came up with the idea of a star so massive that it would collapse on itself due to its own gravitation and the astronomers observed visible stars affected by an unknown process. The powers that be deduced that the object that was causing the visible star to wobble or to lose matter was an unseen companion: a black hole. They raised their champagne glasses, gave each other an attaboy, and since then claim to have proven the existence of black holes. Then, they sold the fib to the masses.
Let's try to infer the black hole
Perhaps we can figure out what a black hole is by following the official specifications. According to the Mathematical Establishment a black hole is comprised of two components:
1. a zero-dimensional (0D) singularity which is located exactly at its center
2. an event horizon, a spherical shell that encapsulates the singularity
For its part a singularity is defined as:
Mathematical singularity: a point at which a given mathematical object is not defined or not "well-behaved", for example infinite or not differentiable
Gravitational singularity: a region in spacetime in which tidal gravitational forces become infinite
Therefore, whether we're talking about a 'point' or a 'region', in either case it is an abstract concept. This concept is specified to be surrounded by another concept, yet another region known as the event horizon. We have a region encapsulating a region. These two abstract mathematical concepts are said to cause physical effects on visible stars. Sounds reasonable? Imagine if someone claimed that love was surrounded by justice and that this 'entity' could lift stones. That's what the mathematicians are in effect saying. They are morphing this unknown region into a physical body.
You might ask, "What else could be producing the wobbling and the loss of matter of visible stars?"
The first answer is that the black hole is a magical entity. It is invisible and has infinite mass, it has no body or structure, and yet it swallows light, gases, astronauts and clocks. We did not need to introduce witchcraft and sorcery into the sciences. We already had spirits and supernatural explanations from traditional religions. Anyone can solve problems like that!
The second answer is that there is an alternative. There is another mechanism at work that the scholars missed over the years. Of course, this physical interpretation does require a new set of assumptions. If you are hardwired and have sworn never to abandon Einstein and Hawking no matter what, you might as well stop reading now.
The invisible, magical black hole of Mathemagix
The Rope Hypothesis
The Rope Model of Light and Gravity proposes that all atoms are interconnected. This differentiates it from Quantum Mechanics which holds that all particles are independent islands. Under the Rope Hypothesis, light consists of a torsion of a DNA-like entity which binds any two atoms. During the phenomenon known as 'Quantum Jump' the atom expands and contracts and torques the electromagnetic rope. It is this torsion which we identify as light. Light is so fast because it is neither a transverse nor a longitudinal wave, but a torsion wave propagating along a twined physical medium.
When a row of aligned atoms spins, one of the threads comprising the rope swings around the atoms in the same direction, either clockwise or counterclockwise. When these walls of threads swing in opposite directions, they push each other away and we have magnetic repulsion. When they spin in the same direction, we have magnetic attraction. (For an introduction it is recommended that you watch the video of how a magnet works.)
On a cosmic scale, stars and galaxies also have magnetic fields. These fields are comprised of countless swinging threads that sweep around the source. In the case of a macro structure such as a galaxy, the magnetic field has the power to move a comparatively tiny star in circles at great speeds... much like a tiny ball stuck in a magnetic field here on Earth swings around nothing. We've seen this many times in the labs. Likewise, a magnetic field has the power to absorb smoke like a vacuum cleaner would. This is what we propose the galactic magnetic field does to a star that is seemingly losing matter to an invisible neighbor. We illustrate these mechanisms in the following video.
More by this Author
Einstein's 4D universe cannot even be imagined. Therefore, however accurate the equations are is irrelevant. Spacetime is a mathematical concept. It has nothing at all to do with reality.
General Relativity sweeps the troublesome Mach's Principle under the rug and has no explanation for the complex units of the gravitational constant G. On the other hand, the rope hypothesis justifies Mach's Principle...
Roly betrayed. It cost him 20 years.