Adapted for the Internet from:

Why God Doesn't Exist
How can a black
hole exist if it is
an abstract

    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.

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
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

    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!

    Fig. 1
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
AND as a concept. This is the reason they
can explain everything with their beloved

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:

    "Calculations using Kerr geometry describe the singularity as ring-shaped." [28]

    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!

    Fig. 3
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.

What is a black hole?


                                  Home                    Books                    Glossary            

        Copyright © by Nila Gaede 2008