| Adapted for the Internet from: Why God Doesn't Exist |
| A black hole has contradicting properties |
1.0 A black hole has scary properties and behaviors
The irrational black hole dualities are not limited to structure and architecture. Indeed, it is in the behavior of
these mathematical objects where black hole fever really burns. Hawking explains that nothing can come out
of a black hole:
- “ the star would shrink below the critical radius at which the gravitational field
becomes so strong nothing can escape” (p. 87) [1]
Then, he turns around and tells us that something can in fact come out of a black hole:
- “ the Uncertainty Principle, allows particles to travel faster than light, for a small
distance. This enables particles and radiation, to get out through the event hori-
zon, and escape from the black hole. Thus, it is possible for things to get out of
a black hole.” [2]
Other experts tell us that a black hole is invisible:
- “ They are black because light can’t escape once drawn inside.” [3]
“ a dark star, an invisible nothing, a prison of light. Its boundary is marked by the
so-called Event Horizon, a sphere of darkness that shrouds the inside” [4]
“ we obviously cannot see black holes” [5]
And then again other experts swear on Einstein’s body that black holes are visible:
- “ In reality, from a distance they wouldn’t look black, because their powerful
gravitational energy heats up the infalling matter so that it radiates intense
light.” [6]
“ black holes are the most radiant objects in the universe, outshining even the
brightest galaxies”[7]
Some relativists hold that a black hole implodes and sucks matter only inwards towards the singularity.
- “ the matter collapses… and so incredibly dense matter forms, and then even
this cannot maintain its structure and collapses into itself further.” [8]
Others allege that a black hole explodes outwards:
- “ the big bang is an explosion that happens within a black hole… a miniature
universe is created at the core of the black hole, which expands into extra
dimensions outside of this universe” [9]
Some relativists claim that the laws of Physics prevent the formation of naked singularities:
- “ the cosmic censorship hypothesis, which might be paraphrased as 'God
abhors a naked singularity.' ” (p. 88) [10]
- Others claim that naked singularities are indeed possible:
- “ When the spheroids are sufficiently compact, the singularities are hidden
inside black holes. However, when the spheroids are large enough, there are
no apparent horizons. These nonrotating spheroids are strong candidates for
naked singularities.” [11]
- Some claim that black holes crush matter and turns it into smithereens:
- “ matter emits radiation in the form of x-rays as it enters the black hole and is
crushed out of existence” [12]
Others assert that matter survives unscathed inside a black hole:
- “ Mathur’s conjecture suggests that strings continue to exist inside the black
hole” [13]
“ If you jump into a black hole, your mass energy will be returned to our universe,
but in a mangled form” [14]
[So what 'form' did your 'mass energy' have before going in? Please draw this energy
for me.]
Indeed, if matter from a nearby star is constantly falling into a black hole companion, there should be a gradient
of matter extending from the event horizon all the way to the singularity at all times! A black hole should always
have something in its interior!
Some claim that a star several times more massive than the Sun invariably converts into a black hole:
- “ Any non-rotating and non-charged mass that is smaller than the Schwarzschild
radius forms a black hole.”[15]
Others claim that a super-massive star explodes in what is called a supernova and leaves nothing behind:
- “ The explosion blows the star completely apart without leaving a black hole
remnant behind. Unlike the usual mechanism for producing type II supernova,
there is no collapse phase of the star.” [16]
And still others claim that there are mini black holes running around, purportedly made of 'masses' smaller than
the Sun:
- " The smallest mass it is believed a black hole could have, for the classical black
hole description to still make any sense at all, is probably of the order of the Planck
mass, which is about 2 × 10−8 kg or 1.1 × 1019 GeV... Physicist Brian Greene has
suggested that the electron may be a micro black hole" [17]
- [The smallest mass? I wonder if this concept is tinier than an ant! Perhaps he meant
the less massive.]
- The contradictions go on and on (Fig. 1).
- [So, Bill! Why is it that you say that Einstein's followers are a bunch of idiots?]
On the one hand, Special Relativity has settled that nothing can travel faster than light. On the other, Penrose
testifies that a singularity has the ability to pull a photon ball at a speed faster than light. (p. 332) [18] Some say a
black hole is black. [19] Others say that it is white. [20] Some say a black hole rotates. [21] Others say it is
completely static. [22] What sense can you make of relativity if diametric conclusions are embodied within the
theory? The infamous black hole is another of those unfalsifiable mathematical objects because of the ‘infinite’
dualities relativists have built into it. In retrospect, we can only smile at the shadows and supernatural gods
proposed by Plato and Augustine. These naïve philosophers came up with kid’s stuff compared to the fantasies
concocted by the mathematicians of the 21st Century!
- Module main page: Why black holes don't exist
Pages in this module:
- 1. 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. This page: A black hole has contradicting properties
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. 1 Black hole contradictions |
| Get this asshole off my back! NOW! I can't stand him any longer! He doesn't take anything we relativists say seriously! He doesn't even believe in black holes! |
| Ha, Ha, Ha! A black hole is an abstract concept that swallows clocks and astronauts! You're killing me, Steve! You've got a million of 'em! |
| Amused Bill |
| not realizing that the behavior of a black hole is no laughing matter for relativists |
2.0 Rotating black holes
Perhaps the most amusing property of a black hole is that it spins, and here again relativists confirm that they
perceive their beloved proposal to be simultaneously an object and a concept:
- [You what? This guy is saying that a black hole, which has the ability to absorb
astronauts and clocks, is just a numerical solution to a mathematical problem!!!
What in the world do the idiots of Mathematics smoke or drink?]
A spinning black hole has a turbulent region known as the ergosphere. This dynamic region lies between its
'outer' event horizon and what is known as the static limit (Fig. 2). Clearly, the numskulls of Mathematical
Physics are alluding to a physical object and not to an abstract mathematical concept useful to explain a theory.
A black hole also has an inner event horizon. The inner horizon is a magical borderline that separates a
photograph from a movie. On the one side you have motion and on the other everything is suspended in time.
Unfortunately, no one can tell you whether you travel any faster when you cross this boundary. What we do
know for sure is that the perimeter of the black hole does not move:
- " The event horizon doesn't rotate -- it's just a boundary-line. I suppose it's more
descriptive (and unfortunately more confusing) to say that everything else revolves
around the black hole." [24]
[Yeah! It is more confusing! Why don't you come back next week when you have
your act together? Where did you take Physics anyways? At Cambridge?]
This gullible writer says that a top spins, but not its surface (Fig 3). That's just its skin! Yet the air around the top
swirls like a tornado around your house. That's what people go to college for! It is really frightening to realize
the type of garbage that college professors teach their students and believe themselves.
| You see, Bill? At Cambridge, we have already established that a top spins and the air around it swirls. However, the surface of the top stays put! A surface is just a static boundary anyways! |
Fig. 3 The event horizon of a top |
|
| A spinning black hole allegedly has an inner and an outer (static surface) event horizon. The inner one separates time-like from space-like events. The idiots of relativity are saying that on one side things move and on the other they don't. Yet more perplexing, the mathematicians claim that matter swirls on the outside of the outer event horizon in a region known as the ergosphere. This tornado is caused by the spinning black hole. The perplexing part is that the event horizon doesn't spin. So what is it that spins? The singularity? The reality is that relativists have invented so much idiocy at the asylum that it's hard to keep up with them. You need to study 6 years at the Cambridge Lunacy Faculty just to understand what these guys are taking about. |
The spinning black hole supposedly drags around itself a concept known as the 'Kerr vacuum,' which is nothing
but yet another name that relativists have invented for space-time. In the religion of relativity, space-time is
conveniently treated as both a physical object and as an abstract concept. As a concept, space-time is just a
mathematical abstraction made of abstract events. As an object, you are told that you live within space-time and
that a black hole has the power to drag this thing around like air by a ceiling fan.
So let's recap to reinforce the nature of the whopper relativists are trying to sell you:
- a. A black hole is comprised of a concept called a singularity that allegedly lies at its
massive, but structureless center.
b. The only other 'entity' that makes up a black hole is a concept known as the event
horizon, a region of influence exerted by the 'mass' concentrated at the singularity.
c. Like between the ear of a relativist, there is absolutely nothing, no physical object
(i.e., matter) between a singularity and an event horizon.
d. The numskull of relativity tells you that the event horizon doesn't spin.
e. And certainly a 0-D singularity cannot be conceived of spinning.
- So what part of a black hole is it that rotates? What physical entity in the interior of a black hole is it that compels
the matter immediately on the outside of the event horizon to swirl? Is it the abstract concept mass? The
singularity? The event horizon? Does the inner event horizon shear with respect to the outer event horizon?
How are they 'physically' different?
3.0 You'd better believe it!
The idiot of relativity has been brainwashed to brush aside your skepticism about the existence of black holes or
about the origin of the Universe with catch phrases. He will repeat like a zombie something stupid he was taught
by rote in college, something like: 'the laws of physics break down at the singularity.'
Take such statements for what they are: euphemisms. The relativist doesn't even have a clue what 'the laws
break down' means. It means that the theorist has no rational explanation for the nonsense he is trying to sell
you. He's saying the he cannot even imagine his theory. He is saying that the black hole functions in the realm
of magic and mysticism, an Alice-in-Wonderland world he cannot even illustrate for you or visualize himself. So
when he even remotely suspects that you are doubting (or smirking), he quickly moves to wipe the smile off your
face. He belittles your intuition and common sense and tells you that his mathematical model has the backing of
the entire scientific community. His version of what happens to a massive star has been published countless
times by peer-reviewed journals such as Science and Nature. Where has your skepticism of black holes ever
been published? So it is not him but YOU who has to fall in line. All you have is an unfounded opinion. Not once
does a moron of Mathematics ever question whether the idiotic explanation of relativity is even conceivable, let
alone whether it has anything to do with reality. Relativists are brainwashed on this issue as well. That's not a
topic for mathematical physicists! Whether something violates logic is an issue that only concerns philosophers!
- ________________________________________________________________________________________
- Copyright © by Nila Gaede 2008