Why Black Holes do not Exist

A Stephen Goodfellow perspective

Why Black Holes do not exist

Here is a brief video overview of the paper

It is without question that extraordinary unexplained phenomena exist throughout the vast distances of space.

That much of this can be attributed to the presently accepted "Black Hole" explanation completely ignores known basic observational universal behaviour that can be attributed to high energy plasmas - the Fourth State of Matter.

History

Before we proceed, it is important to understand the roots of Black Hole theory. Physicists and Cosmologists have two major tools with which they can unlock the secrets of the Universe.

One method is to derive an explanation from an observed phenomenon, attempting to match the object to the best known data we presently have to derive an explanation.

The other method is to create a theoretical construct based on the best data available, then look outwards in search of objects that fit the proposed model.

Black Hole theory has its roots in the second method.

The Black Hole concept has its origins as a gravitational mathematical construct in the 18th century, its modern interpretation hearkens back to Schwarzschild in 1916 and matured when David Finkelstein published in 1958.

The theory was conceived at a time then the Universe was considered to consist of three states of matter:

Solid, liquid and gas.

Plasma was first identified in a Crookes tube, and so described by Sir William Crookes in 1879. The nature of this "cathode ray" matter was subsequently identified by British physicist Sir J.J. Thomson in 1897. The term "plasma" was coined by Irving Langmuir in 1928. So now there are four states of matter: Solid, liquid, gas - and plasma. It was not until 1952 that scientists began to realize the magnitude and implications of just how different plasma was from the other three states of matter, but these papers went largely unnoticed by cosmologists. The frustrated Nobel Prize winning Plasma physicist Hannes Alfvén recalled,

"When I describe the [plasma phenomena] according to this formulism most referees do not understand what I say and turn down my papers. With the referee system which rules US science today, this means that my papers are rarely accepted by the leading US journals."

Try this experiment. Go to Google Scholar and type: ["black hole" and "plasma"]* into the query box. You will receive about 47,400 results. These are publications that mention plasma.

Now type: ["black hole" -plasma]* You will receive 1,010,000 results. These are black hole publications that do not mention plasma.1,010,000 divided by 47,000= 21.3080 *the numbers fluctuate daily, but not to any significant degree.So, for every black hole paper that mentions plasma, 21 black hole papers do not.

What's wrong with that? Because of the purported violence surrounding a Black Hole, every exterior trace of that matter would have to be in a plasma state. So writing a paper about Black Holes without mentioning plasma, is like writing a paper on Water Management without mentioning water. For evidence and more detail, click here.

*******

In the proceeding decades, frustrated plasma scientists have echoed Alfvén's experience; the lack of plasma science coverage meant that from the very start of Black Hole theoretical output, cosmologists have been largely ignorant of plasma science and consequently, the very foundation of cosmology became almost exclusively based on gravitational formulae, a powerful tool that was well known and seemingly produced reliable results. Why mess with a good thing?

As black hole journal publications piled up, the physically messy science of plasma behaviour went largely unknown, and so this aspect of science rarely, if ever, became a factor in the evolution cosmological world.

So when David Finkelstein published his Black Hole theory in 1958 it was purely a gravitational model. Seemingly unrelated, but in the same timeline, researchers were running into a serious problem. It was gradually was realized that attempts to produce controlled fusion were unsuccessful because rouge plasma configurations arose and escaped the magnetic confinement, and soon became obvious that this largely unexplored state of matter could not be treated as a 'hot gas'.

To this day, the unpredictability of plasma configurations have remained the foremost headache for the scientists involved in the quest for controlled nuclear fusion.

Plasma is the very substance of controlled fusion, but its fundamental behaviour continues to elude our understanding, telling us in no uncertain terms that our knowledge of plasma behaviour is woefully incomplete.

How do these events impact Black Hole theory?

So why is Plasma so important?

Black Hole theory is a mathematical construct which revolves exclusively around the force of gravity, embracing Einstinian relativistic equations.

The plasma state of matter is an unwelcome intrusion into the world of Black Hole theorists. It is the elephant in the room. Plasma behaviour seems to have gone entirely unnoticed or outright ignored, as if this state matter was of absolutely no consequence. To this day, Black Hole theorists largely continue to exist in their gravitational world as if nothing has changed.

A plasma consists of disassociated electrons and protons, atoms that are stripped apart by intense heat.

Under certain circumstances, these have a nasty habit of producing immensely powerful, unpredictable electromagnetic configurations.

Here is an example of what happens when scientists ignore plasma configurations; in 2014 it was boldly announced to the media: "A gas cloud collides with the black hole at the center of our galaxy, and we get to watch"

Well, OK. We watched. This is what happened:

"Black Hole Fails to Destroy Mystery Cosmic Cloud" Before the event, it was a 'gas cloud'. After the event, it was a 'Mystery Cosmic Cloud'.

( Click here for the article conclusion.)

Notice with what great pains the article goes out of its way to never mention the fourth element, "Plasma". This phenomenon not a 'gas cloud' at all. The 'cloud' (which one may assume still exists,) is in a plasma state; a super hot plasma entangled in an inscrutable electromagnetic dance, in this case with another electromagnetic phenomenon.

When a plasma 'cloud' is in motion and interacting with other highly structured, unified plasma phenomenon, it is a plasma party, and poor Mr. Gravity is a wallflower at this party.

The gravitational prediction failed miserably, and it did so, because it is a gravitational prediction, that does not take plasma behaviour into consideration, perhaps because plasma predictions are as yet difficult to impossible, simply because there is not enough data - which is absolutely NO excuse to default to formulas (gravitational,) that simply ignore the elephant in the room.

Another purely gravitational prediction is now claimed:

Astrophysicists claim, "Two Stars Will Collide In Massive Supernova Visible From Earth" This is supposed to happen in 2022.

Again, these are predictions based on purely gravitational considerations.

I confidently predict this collision will not happen as they expect, if it happens at all, because the interplay of these two immensely powerfully charged electromagnetic stars will be close enough that they will not be playing by the rules of gravity. This outcome will be dominated by electromagnetic forces.

Why? Because when electrons are stripped from their proton pairing the electromagnetic potential of a plasma in this plasma state has a 1 x 10 to the 39th times greater imposition of force than that of the gravitational potential when atoms are stripped apart by intense heat.

Under certain circumstances, these produce immensely powerful, unpredictable magnetic configurations.

Hydrogen Atom diagram. The gravitational attraction is 1 x 10 to the 39th times weaker than the electromagnetic force.

Black hole theorists base their gravitational calculations on the well known behaviour of the three states of matter, solid, liquid and gas, but become very uncomfortable with the massive electromagnetic potential that occurs when electrons are stripped from protons, because in such a case they cannot treat matter in this condition behaving exclusively as a gravitational mass that typically overwhelms individual atoms.

Gravitational Laws work perfectly well when dealing with the elements of gas, liquids, solids and neutral plasmas - but not so with plasmas imbued with coherent electromagnetic potential.

A neutral plasma is a disorganized 'soup' of electrons and protons that behave very much like a gas, and in this the Black Hole theorists can quite comfortably allow the Laws of Gravitation to rule.

However, if the plasma as a whole is rotating or in differential motion in relation to other nearby plasma phenomenon, the electrons and protons contribute their magnetic potential in unison, and powerful, complex magnetic fields arise that can overwhelm whatever gravitational activity might otherwise be taking place.

The above image illustrates activity in the solar atmosphere, and is a simple observational example of an organized plasma phenomenon; one only has to look at plasma solar loops on the Sun to understand that plasma configurations can dwarf the attractive force of the Sun's gravity. Here, giant plasma solar loops, consisting of untold millions of tons of matter display themselves, the loop structures paying no heed to the crushing force of the Sun's gravitational attraction.

Two papers have simultaneously discovered missing links between galaxies have finally been found. It is the first detection of the roughly half of the normal matter in our universe, consisting of protons, neutrons and electrons.

And as we have recently learned, the fabric of the Universe holds galaxies together with filaments of plasma, so we can see that plasma interaction is a scalable force that cannot be ignored. Armed with the knowledge of the 4th state of matter, let us run a would-be Black Hole scenario and see what happens:

The accretion plasma barrier

1. A heavy object (NOT a Black Hole at this point in its supposed point of development,) gravitationally attracts matter and creates an accretion disk.

As the disk compresses, continual collisions within the disk heat up the matter until it becomes a very hot plasma.

Artist rendition of a accretion disk

2. The accretion disk surrounding this heavy central object has a electromagnetic potential of a plasma in a dynamo state. That potential is 1 x 10 to the 39th times greater force than the gravitational potential.

3. The rapid rotation of the plasma creates a dynamo effect, unifying the electromagnetic potential of the plasma disk.

4. Hence, at this point, any central gravitational mass that precipitated the disk accretion becomes an exceedingly minor player, and may even be consumed and combined with the plasma disk configuration.

This overwhelming force of a swirling, unified plasma is held in place by the above-mentioned dynamo effect, which overwhelms and extinguishes any realistic chance of a hypothesized gravitationally based Black Hole phenomenon. In the story of "Little Black Sambo" the tigers rushing around the tree are suddenly not tigers anymore, instead they have turned into butter, an entirely different 'state of matter'.

So too with the accretion disk around a heavy object; the accretion disk is no longer gas, liquid or solid, it is a plasma and is subject to overwhelming powerful electromagnetic forces that relegate gravity to the trivial.

By the the very existence of stars and planets, we know that matter comes together to form them; of this there can be little doubt.

But recent images from the SPHERE Observatory reveal that proto-star accretion to be much more complex than previously thought.

SPHERE Observatory images of MY Lup, GSC 07396-00759 and IM Lup do not conform to present gravitational concepts of accretion.

The new images infer polarization, and make it very hard to place the phenomenon within a purely gravitational framework. If these rather fundamental processes do not conform to something as basic as proto-star and planetary accretion, how then can we possibly rely on more complex, exclusively gravitational reasoning that is subscribed to the creation on Black Holes when plasma behaviour is clearly a major factor?

There is no question that large, extraordinary high energy events occur in our universe, but to consider gravity as being the overwhelming player in such instances is a surefire formula for erroneous results.

Plasma Jets from Radio Galaxy Hercules A can hardly be described as a Black Hole consuming matter; rather, the opposite seems to be occurring.

*********

Some notes on sciency Black Hole hyperbole

If is a FACT that NO image exists of a environment that surrounds a purported Black Hole. Here are some photos of such suspect phenomenon:

Go to Google images and type in "actual image of black hole" and almost every image in the query will give you an artist rendition.

Actual images of purported Black Holes are fuzzy, indistinguishable blobs with no structural detail. Almost all explanations are gravitational without any consideration to plasma influence, and consequently rest on shaky theoretical ground.

The poorly researched and misunderstood 4th state of matter

Searching for a means to produce controlled Atomic Fusion, helps us to understand just how thin our knowledge of plasma phenomenon behaviour is, for in order to create controlled nuclear fusion, we have to understand the nature of high energy, magnetically producing plasmas.

How are we doing?

A search on "Fusion reactors" in Google Images produces a graveyard of controlled fusion reactor failures spanning five decades.

The fusion community has been going at it from the wrong end for close on sixty years. Why?

Because of a complete lack of scientific method. Since the primary concern of controlled fusion is plasma containment, wouldn't it make sense to do extensive plasma research, THEN apply that knowledge towards creating controlled nuclear fusion?

This did not happen. Like the blind trying to build a cage for an animal they had never seen, the controlled fusion community have spent six decades on nothing better than alchemy disguised as science. Is it any wonder we are no closer to controlled fusion than when the concept was first conceived of?

For Black Hole theory, the implications are obvious:

If we don't have a basic understanding of how plasma configurations behave, how can any theory of Black Holes be realistically applied to observations in our universe?

LIGO and the Escalating Certitude trap

Certitude: Absolute certainty or conviction that something is the case.

The Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) is a large-scale physics experiment and observatory to detect cosmic gravitational waves and to develop gravitational-wave observations as an astronomical tool.

Recently, LIGO observed a violent event consisting of two 'black holes' merging.

This is the certitude trap; a circumstance where a phenomenon occurres and it is applied to the data available, no matter how inconsistent or erroneous it may be. We really don't know what these distant objects are, what they look like, how they behave, and in are likely to be erroneously associated and labeled with a theoretical construct which is at best highly questionable.

This is dangerous to science, because it compounds errors so that, when a particular inconsistency gets pointed out, rather than explore the entire supposition, scientists are more likely to attempt explaining away the inconsistency.

We've been caught in the certitude trap before.

For generations, the best minds unquestioningly subscribed to the very workable Ptolemaic Earth-centered geocentric model of the then-known universe, a trap which strangled further scientific inquiry for almost a thousand years.

It is for this reason that our most basic beliefs must continuously be challenged by science heretics, no matter how much is upsets our sensibilities.

A final thought

It has long been the dream of scientists that all the forces of the Universe may be understood as a whole:

I conclude this with a personal thought.

One area of science that is thoroughly worth investigating is the element of matter we call a plasma. Considering the magnitude of this state of matter, it amazes me how little actual research is to be found in the journals of science.

We can be fairly confident that the state of gravitational component withing the three states of matter (solid, liquid and gas,) are inviolate and stable. We have experimented with these states for hundreds of years, and we have no reason to believe otherwise.

However, considering the magnitude of importance, absolutely NO research has ever been done to determine if organized plasmas have a gravitational component, that plasmas may induce gravity without a corresponding quantity of mass.

Wouldn't that be worth investigating?

********

Notes:

A footnote here; I bemoan the schism between conventional gravity-dominated cosmology and scientists who insist on a plasma-based inclusion.

The schism is a direct result of willful exclusion on behalf of the gravitationally dominated cosmologists, who's motives I suspect stem chiefly from a fear of plasma behaviour, because is so poorly understood and would wreck havoc with the neat computations that can be made with purely gravitational models.

This power vacuum was mostly filled and dominated by the organization referred to as the 'Electrical Universe'.

Although the majority of their lectures are lucid, logical and adhere to the rigor one would demand from scientific method, there is a component that links mythological observations to plasma events claimed to have been observed by ancient peoples and civilizations.

This might or might not be accurate, but since there is no way I can conceive of that will prove or disprove such claims, they tend to detract and discredit the actual contemporary scientific components in the eyes of many scientists who might otherwise be more receptive to plasma cosmology.

Using mythological components to build a scientific arguments as an approach that has proved to be disastrously counter-productive, as witnessed by the case of Immanuel Velikovsky, who pursued this course in the 50's and was largely discredited in a cloud of controversy. Whether scientifically valid or not, it has left a historical red flag in the minds of contemporary scientists, a negative association concerning interjection of mythology into hard science.

Scientists are human, and are susceptible to human sensibilities. Imagine if new observations made all your publications suddenly became erroneous and irrelevant. How would you react?

Consequently, any plasma-themed papers that come before peer review are largely treated with hostility and are rarely, if ever, published in cosmological journals. Instead, they are forced to publish in journals such as the IEEE, which most cosmologists are unfamiliar with and are unlikely to read.

*********

Links to Peer reviewed scientific papers:

Two simultaneous independent papers (2017) confirm beyond reasonable doubt the overarching importance of plasma behaviour in the cosmos:

1. Missing baryons in the cosmic web revealed by the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect.

2. A Search for Warm/Hot Gas Filaments Between Pairs of SDSS Luminous Red Galaxies

Heretic warning: The two papers are lucidly discussed by Eugene Bagashov in this video. I would be remiss if I didn't mention that the Electric Universe have their own ax to grind with present cosmological assumptions, some conclusions that I don't necessarily agree with, but where it pertains to the subject at hand, the reasoning is sound and pertinent.

The Late Stephen Hawking leaves us with this rather unnecessarily convoluted reason to review the existence of Black Holes.

(Video version and comments below)

Back-reaction of the Hawking radiation flux on a gravitationally collapsing star II:

Fireworks instead of firewalls by Laura Mersini-Houghton

Videos:

There are other alternative objections to Black Holes, although I find this one by Laura Mersini-Houghton

rather esoteric and unnecessarily complicated. In the true contemporary cosmological mold, the word 'plasma' doesn't ever occur in the paper, and so is made 'safe' for peer review by fellow gravitational cosmologists.