| Adapted for the Internet from: Why God Doesn't Exist |
| How can a black hole exist if it is an abstract concept? |
1.0 The definition of the term 'black hole'
Relativists are so fond of black holes that since the mid 60s the volume of literature dedicated to
analyzing these intriguing structures has overwhelmed the ability of one person to absorb it all. The
Nature website easily lists over 100 papers analyzing this ‘object’ and Science lists at least as many.
Popularity, however, is not a good barometer of the correctness of a theory, so if you are really interested
in getting to the bottom of it, you should begin by asking yourself whether such things as black holes
even exist. And even before you can answer this question, you must know what it is that you’re looking
for. What do relativists mean when they say black hole? What is all the fuss about?
As usual, the mathematicians, so fond of dualities, have two conflicting definitions of this nebulous term.
This makes for exciting circular discussions because it allows them to cover all the bases. Co-founders of
black hole theory, Hawking and Penrose, define a black hole as ‘a region’ (…from which light can’t escape).
(p. 183) [1] (p. 332) [2] This is a bit troubling because other sources define a black hole as ‘an object’ [3] [4]
or as ‘a small celestial body.’ [5] Indeed, Hawking and Penrose later explain in their respective books that a
star collapses and becomes a physical object known as a black hole:
- “ a star’s collapse would mean that the gravitational waves it gave off would make it ever
more spherical, and by the time it had settled down to a stationary state, it would be
precisely spherical. According to this view, any non-rotating star…would end up after
gravitational collapse as a perfectly spherical black hole…Further calculations supported
this view, and it soon came to be adopted generally.” (p. 91) [6]
“ The (3-)surface in space-time traced out, at the Schwarzschild radius, by this hovering
light…is referred to as the …event horizon of the black hole.” (p. 332) [7]
One would think that by invoking adjectives such as ‘spherical’ and ‘3-surface’ these experts are referring
to a physical object.
- So where is the contradiction?
We have a contradiction in that relativists treat a black hole as an abstract region (a concept) in one
dissertation and as a physical object in another.
- “ The concept of a Black Hole is complex, and can be counter-intuitive.” [8]
[If a black hole is both an object and a concept, then yes, this is quite counter-intuitive!]
- Is there no difference between a region and an object? It makes you wonder whether these alleged experts
have any idea of what they’re talking about.
- Module main page: Why black holes don't exist
Pages in this module:
- 1. This page: How can a black hole exist if it is an abstract concept?
2. What is the hole into?
3. How black holes form: escape velocity vs. spiraling photons?
4. A black hole behaves inconsistently
5. Is there proof of the existence of black holes?
6. Since they couldn't explain it with black holes, they invented dark matter
Fig. 2 Feeling the heat: The event horizon of fire |
| An event horizon of a black hole can be likened to heat emanating from a fire. The mathematicians are saying that there is an invisible aura or halo that induces measurable, physical effects. However, the differences between the concept 'heat' and the concept 'event horizon' are irreconcilable. Whereas heat originates in a physical entity (e.g., burning of wood), the event horizon has its source in the mathematical abstraction known as a 'singularity.' And whereas heat ultimately consists of a vibration of atoms and molecules, the event horizon is made of absolutely nothing (i.e., mass). In case you happen to disagree with this last statement, perhaps because you've been told that an event horizon is made of photons, just remember that for the purposes of Mathematics a photon is also nothing (i.e., point particle, packet of energy, etc.). A mathematical physicist is an idiot who never gives you anything you can sink your teeth into! |
| Make no bones about it, Al! Black holes do in fact exist, hic! They exist like love exists,or like bears and dogs with human faces exist, hic. Mmmmh! I don't know what's come over me suddenly, hic. Did you grow paws and long ears, or is it just my impression? You're starting to look a little weird! |
| Perhaps you're right Steve! And then again, hic, we may have indul... indul... indul..., hic, drank too much beer! By the way, do you know by chance where I can find the nearest fire hydrant? |
2.0 A black hole simultaneously has and doesn't have form
So is a black hole an object or is it a region? An object is that which has shape. A region is that which
doesn’t. The Sahara Desert is a region. The planet where this region is located is an object. No normal
human being confuses your right index finger with a region in your hand. Does a black hole have shape
or not? Is a black hole like a bucket? Is it like an ice-cream cone? Does it have a surface and length, width,
and height? Or is a black hole non-dimensional, like love, justice, or beauty?
These questions are relevant because, for the purposes of Science, concepts do not exist. Only objects
may be said to exist. Physics is the science of existence. It is ultimately concerned only with objects that
exist. If a black hole is a concept, it doesn't exist and thus does not concern Physics.
If you were to try to answer these questions objectively, judging simply by looking at the cover of the July
2002 edition of Discover Magazine, you would conclude that the proponents of black holes are referring to
a physical object. [9] The artist clearly depicts a shape that is contoured by an unspecified medium and
which resembles the inside of a toilet that has just been flushed. (See comparable versions in other
sources. [10] [11] Indeed, the mere fact that relativists attempt to illustrate their beloved black hole indicate
that they believe it to be a physical object.
Just in case, there are numerous representations and descriptions that reinforce the structural view:
- “ A black hole is a simple object that has only a ‘center’ and a ‘surface.’ ” (p. 469) [12]
“ A black hole in general is surrounded by a spherical surface” [13]
“ we know that the only physically realistic object that can have that mass is a black hole” [14]
“ The ‘event horizon’ is a surface” [15]
“ This black hole would have a circumference of about 55 kilometers.” [16]
“ It is convenient to define the ‘black hole radius’ of an object as Rh = 2 GM/c2 ” [17]
And then again – as always in Mathematical Physics – you have fine print, disclaimers, and those who
take exactly the opposite view and say that a black hole has neither surface nor size:
- “ The key difference between neutron stars and black holes is the presence/absence of a
solid surface... The observed differences in colour evolution can be explained by the
additional emission from a boundary layer/surface in the neutron stars, while the lack of
this component in the black hole systems implies the presence of an event horizon…
neutron stars have a surface, while black holes don’t” [18]
“ There was a ‘singularity’ at the center… Surrounding that was a region… This region was
isolated from the rest of the universe by a place” [19] … “a singularity is in general a point
at which a given mathematical object is not defined” [20]
“ The boundary of this region is a surface called the event horizon. This surface is not a
physically tangible one, but merely a figurative concept of an imaginary boundary.” [21]
“ Black holes have no material surface” [22]
“ They are holes because they have no surface, only a sphere of influence” [23]
[So, Bill! Why is it that you say that relativists are a bunch of idiots?]
Of course, if a black hole can both have and not have a surface, and have and not have size, and be
something as well as nothing, this makes it difficult for a rational person to challenge black hole
‘theory’. Meanwhile, the mathematicians ask you to set aside your common sense and intuition and
trust in the authority of their equations.
- Therefore, if relativists can’t tell us unambiguously what a black hole is or whether it is a physical
object or an abstract concept, we have nothing more to discuss. So far, there is absolutely nothing
in front of us:
- “ [Penrose] showed that a star collapsing under its own gravity is trapped in a region
whose surface eventually shrinks to zero size. And, since the surface of the region
shrinks to zero, so too must its volume. All the matter in the star will be compressed
into a region of zero volume…In other words, one has a singularity contained within
a region of space-time known as a black hole.” (p. 49) [24]
- [I guess this statement finally debunks the notion that mass is a measure of the
‘quantity of matter’ an object has. Here all the matter has vanished and what remains
is pure ‘mass’ (whatever that is). We have the abstract mathematical concept mass,
but no physical object.]
The attempt to pass off a non-entity for a physical object offends the sentient mind and raises
suspicions. The prosecutor is wasting the jury's time. The presentation is now over. The
mathematician has failed to make his case. The meeting is adjourned for when the relativist can
get his act together.
- 3.0 Black hole is like heat
In my humble opinion, a good analogy for what the mathematicians are proposing is heat. When
all is said and done, relativists are more or less describing something like a campfire (Fig. 2). The
mathematicians are saying that the campfire is two feet away from you, yet you still feel its heat.
Invisible heat can burn you even though you stand at a short distance from the fire and can't see
it. The black hole singularity is to fire what heat is to the event horizon. The event horizon is not a
surface you can stand on, but conceptually an invisible ‘region of influence’ of a theoretical
singularity located at its center.
However, the difference between the campfire and a singularity is that to keep the fire burning you
need to throw in more matter. A black hole sustains itself by feeding on a concept called mass! Heat
differs from the event horizon in that it consists of vibrating air molecules and is surrounded at all
times by air. The event horizon is made of absolutely nothing and is surrounded by nothing. An
event horizon is indistinguishable from the empty space that allegedly contours it. If ever the
mathematicians went out of their way to define and describe nothingness it was with the collective
effort they spent on the infamous black hole!
|
| For the purposes of Physics, an object is that which has shape. Either a black hole has shape or it does not. Relativists cannot have it both ways. Yet Einstein's disciples insist on having it both ways! They treat a black hole simultaneously as an object AND as a concept. This is the reason they can explain everything with their beloved hypothesis. In Science, love, beauty, and black hole (singularity + event horizon) are abstract concepts. Heart, man, and anything else which has shape is considered to be an object. Which group does the infamous black hole belong to? Relativists answer: to both! |
3.0 The shapely singularity
If relativists have an insurmountable problem in their brains, it is in trying to understand what a dimension
is. At issue is the infamous singularity which allegedly occupies the center of a black hole. The
mathematically inclined begins his presentation by telling you that a singularity is a zero-dimensional or
non-dimensional point:
- " a star collapsing under its own gravity is trapped in a region whose surface
eventually shrinks to zero size... In other words, one has a singularity" (p. 49) [25]
" See how the bottom of the gravity well is so pointy? That point is the singularity." [26]
The first problem with these characterizations is that they are grossly misconceived. It shows that the
proponents did not learn the basics of Physics while they warmed a seat at school.
- a. In the first claim, how does a physical object lose length, width, and height? By
- what process? Where did the idiots of Mathematics ever get the idea that something
can spontaneously disintegrate and convert into nothing? Certainly, not a single
relativist on this planet can perform such a miracle in a controlled experiment. This
stuff belongs exclusively to religion. It has nothing at all to do with science.
- Some people with weak brains answer that particle physicists routinely 'annihilate'
particles in their accelerators.
- Again, these gullible morons should read the fine print. Officially, annihilation is not
the conversion of a particle into nothing. Annihilation is the conversion of a particle
into more particles:
- " the word is used to denote the process that occurs when a subatomic particle
collides with its respective antiparticle. Since energy and momentum must be
conserved, the particles are not actually made into nothing, but rather into new
particles." [27]
- The numskulls who work at Fermilab, SLAC, KEK, and CERN spend all day
smashing particles to make more particles. Great! Your taxes are funding these
'research' centers!
Another version has it that the bean-brains manning the accelerators convert particles
into energy. Unfortunately, the unscientific word energy is an abstract concept and not
a physical object. If you don't believe me, try drawing a picture of energy for me. Or
maybe you can tell me what particles this 'thing' called energy is made of. Therefore,
the claim made by the Mathematicians at CERN and SLAC and Cambridge that they
have converted 3-D objects such as subatomic particles into dimensionless, abstract
concepts is just too suspicious.
b. The second claim, that a singularity is a zero-dimensional or non-dimensional vertex
- of a cone, pyramid, or gravity well shows that the birdbrains know a lot of Math and
very little Physics. Take any solid! For instance, Take a sphere, a cube, a cylinder, or
a pyramid. Or take any irregular 3-D, physical object of your choice. Cut it and slice it
any way you wish. You should end up with a 3-D chunk irrespective of how small it is
(Fig. 3)!
Relativists confuse abstract Math with real Physics. Perhaps in the ridiculous
religion known as Mathematical Physics the points are 0-D. In Physics, all dots are
3-D. No exceptions!
But assuming that a singularity is 0-D, we must use this proposal consistently. Relativists are famous for
glossing over definitions or tailoring them retroactively to suit their theories. The 0-D singularity suddenly
acquires dimensions out of the blue:
Perhaps the mathematicians who came up with this nonsense reasoned that if they jiggle the non-dimensional
singularity of a static black hole they would end up with a 3-D singularity in a dynamic black hole. This is again
a case of too much Math and a total disregard for the basics of Physics. In the real world, as opposed to the
fantasy world of Mathematics, you can shake your 0-D love as much as you want. You will never end up with a
3-D heart!
4.0 Mathematical Physics needs a healthy dose of meritocracy
Where did the mathematicians come up with such ridiculous nonsense? Was it something they smoked?
I say that it has more to do with the school system. The freshmen that enter monasteries like Harvard and
Cambridge are privileged mommy’s boys who never had to work or produce anything useful in their worthless
lives. They never had to run a production line or start at the bottom. They bring no street-smartness with them;
they have no capacity to distinguish between the real world and the fantasy world in which they were raised.
The blue bloods doing ‘research’ in universities around the world never had to tackle and solve a real problem.
After the mathematical physicist graduates, he never has to produce the goose that lays the golden eggs. He
doesn’t have to report to a boss that writes a yearly review and grades him on the basis of results and merits.
I can’t even imagine a government, a business, or a Mafia run by theoretical physicists.Such a hypothetical
organization would border on surrealism. The modern theoretical ‘physicist’ is nothing like Galileo or Faraday
and more like Plato and Augustine. The mathematical physicist has done a 360º turn and become the ‘Greek
philosopher’ of the 21st Century. He relies exclusively on thought experiments. More amusing is that all other
professionals just follow his lead, presuming that the mathematical ‘physicists’ are the crème de la crème of
the intellectual world.
- 5.0 Conclusions
Unfortunately, everybody and his mother now believes in black holes. Certainly, more people believe in the
black hole than in God. So what is a black hole?
A black hole is a non-entity from any perspective that you wish to analyze it. A black hole is comprised of a
0-D singularity surrounded by a 'region.' Both singularity and region are abstract concepts. You cannot draw
a picture of either one. The mathematicians claim that these abstract concepts have the ability to swallow
photons, clocks, and astronauts. The gullible astronomers are busy looking for them in the night sky. That's
where some of your tax dollars end up going. I believe that the astronomers who swallowed this whopping
Emperor's Clothes tale should commit harakiri. Nothing less will clean their honors for being such stupid fools!
|
| The fanatics of the religion of Mathematical Physics routinely talk about zero-dimensional 'entities.' One of these is the infamous singularity, usually defined as the number of beers it takes for a mathematician to say that the laws of Physics break down or are undefined or something stupid like that. In Physics, there are no objects that are 0-D. We're done! |
| If relativists don't like my definition of the word 'object' (since it destroys their religion), they are welcome to propose an alternative that we can use consistently in a dissertation. |
- ________________________________________________________________________________________
- Copyright © by Nila Gaede 2008