Black Holes, Plasma and Peer Review

Here is a study on Black Hole published journal papers that DO and DO NOT mention “Plasma”.

Writing a paper about Black Holes without mentioning Plasma is like writing a paper about Water Management without mentioning water.

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 the problem with that?

The purported violence that is supposed to surround Black Holes is reasonably assumed to be in the form of a rapidly spinning accretion disk.

This disk would almost certainly to be in a high energy plasma state, and the only observable, hard data that can be derived from a surrounded Black Hole phenomenon would have to be emissions from the radiative plasma.

It is these emissions that scientists must rely on to tell them anything about the purported Black Hole phenomenon, so not mentioning this aspect of Black Holes in any published paper on the subject is positively ludicrous.

Let's take this a step further.

What are the ratios of Black Hole Journal papers that DO refer to plasma, in relation to those that DO NOT - on an annual basis from 1958 to 2016?

Using a Google Scholar* search of journal paper publication output, a comparison of those Black Hole papers that DO NOT include the word “plasma” ["black hole" -plasma] (graph line in red,) to those Black Hole papers that Do include the word “plasma” ["black hole" and "plasma"] (graph line blue.)

(*The Google Scholar data was gathered April 21st, 2018)

In light of this data, it does not seem unreasonable to assume that the peer review system is largely made up of cosmologists who have little or no understanding on what plasma configuration imposition must have on a hypothesized Black Hole system.

In order to get a paper published in a relevant journal, it must pass a peer review process.

If only one in 21 published papers mention the plasma phenomenon, either there simply too few papers addressing the plasma phenomenon, or such papers are consistently rejected. Either way, if the data graph below is correct, the evidence is disturbing.

Draw your own conclusions:

| Back to "Why Black Holes Don't Exist" |