Deep Anal-ysis of Black Holes

^To a place where real science does not shine

It is easy to debunk the theory of Black Holes, because by definition we can not see them. Ever.
It is like the ghosts of the universe. Invisible and haunting.
Note: Because I think that the evidence is very bad, I made the title of this article offensive.

Well, let’s look at the actual evidence, wont we?

Is it real or made up?

The Real world: Matter escapes from black holes

This is in contrary what a black hole is supposed to be.
Where-ever there are supposed to be “black holes” we see either nothing. Or we see matter escape into 2 directions. These “Black hole jets” are beams of electric active plasma. These beams extend very far and can be at the center of galaxies. Probably these beams are even responsible for forming those galaxies. And when there is nothing, there is never any reaction from it. Maybe it is just empty space?

Or maybe it is just a big solid object. Being big is natural in the universe.
Just as your mother always told you.

Something escapes a black hole at almost the speed of light
Escaping from black holes… happens all the time

Black hole jets. One of the greatest mysteries in the Universe
Something very energetic is happening in certain places.
Sending beams of matter into 2 directions.
Note: Wheelchair guy did not really proof anything.

Nobel prize for observing objects rotate around a “black hole”
https://keckobservatory.org/nobel-prize-ghez/
Guess what: All objects escaped.

Theory of black holes: Mix up of conflicting theories

Because we officially can not see them it only has a basis in theory.
The basis of black holes is a combination of Einstein’s gravitational theory, and the Netwon’s theory of gravity.

Newton’s gravity defines an “escape speed”. Escape speed is the speed at which an object can just escape the gravitational pull of an object. On earth this is the speed at which a bullet must go to escape earth and fly into space. Not counting the air resistance, and not counting the magnetic resistance.

If a gravitational object is so massive that the “escape speed” is equal to the speed of light, there is the theory that even light can no longer escape the object. The distances at which this occurs is called the “Schwarzschild radius”
Because physics goes both ways, an object falling into a black hole will even go faster than light. Because its falling speed would be equal (or more) to the escape speed.

This concept breaks theory of Einstein. According to Einstein, light always goes with the speed of light. It will never slow down. And nothing can go faster than the speed of light. It would be impossible, a singularity.

So this would be an impossible concept, and was disregarded. Until people claimed to have found evidence for black holes. But was there really evidence?

Evidence based on energy

The first “evidence” for a black hole, was based on very high energetic outbursts.
Like Super Novas. And these energetic events did not have the signatures of atomic bombs.
So instead they assumed that all energy came from gravity.

There is clearly a lot wrong. Because if light can not escape, why would it give off huge amount of energy?

Maybe we can see it by studying the sun better.
Solar Flare X2 (2023-03-03)
Solar Flare X class (2023-02-11)
In both cases we see huge outbursts of X-rays, from our nearest star.
It seems like a natural phenomenon of stars to produce very energetic outbursts.
Note: I am now also working on an article to explain these better.

I think it is far more likely that there are objects that are far more active than our star, and will produce far stronger flares.

Like those very active objects that send out huge beams of plasma..

Center of Galaxy M87 sending out a plasma-jet.
It does not really look black, doesn’t it?
Looks a bit like a constant flare. I think there is some similar physics going on.

Evidence based on Gravitational Lensing

According to Einstein’s Gravity, heavy objects can cause effects similar to a lens.
That is because the time for light to go through an area of higher gravity is different from a area with low gravity. This would create a diffraction.
Diffraction of stars during a solar eclipse are important evidence for the gravitational theory of Einstein.

We might get a similar diffraction with different plasma densities.

Above image is a composition of different images. We can clearly see that the sun has different densities of plasma. How much is the plasma really responsible for diffraction?

Now let’s look at the lensing evidence.

Gravitational lensing evidence - Einstein’s Cross

These are objects that are similar, positioned in a cross.

Are they really the same object?
Or are they similar, because they have a similar origin?

Explanation 1: They are from the same origin

Stephan's Quintet: Halton Arp Vindicated Again | Space News
Stars are often connected and have similarities due to their connection.
According to Halton Arp, galaxies grow from nearby galaxies via different stages.

Here we can see how 4 galaxies are pretty similar, because they are connected.
And the small number of "Einstein crosses” that we find may just be similar stars or galaxies.

Explanation 2: They are like a Fata Morgana / Mirage

Wikipedia on Fata Morgana / Mirage

Fata Morgana is a phenomenon that is pretty common on earth.
Different layers of air cause reflections and/or diffraction.

Several types of plasma layers in space can be responsible for a shift in the direction of light. And this can cause double or more stellar objects.

There are far more types of reflections possible if we include crystals.
Here is a video about ice-crystals causing all kinds of halos and additional lights.
At far distances, we will not see any diffraction phenomena. Only the reflections and projections can seen from far.

Gravitational lensing evidence - Einstein Rings

If we study them closely, we can see that there are also REFLECTIONS in of galaxies in these images.

Gravitationally lensed image reveals a secret about the structure of the universe

Second image studied

The only reason for reflections is that we are looking in the direction of smooth mirroring surfaces. Mirror surfaces have free electrons. So there is some kind of circular or tube of plasma.

And tubes of plasma are called Birkeland currents.
The FIRST Ever FLOWING Intergalactic BIRKELAND Current DISCOVERED!

So instead of “Black Holes” were are looking at inter-galactic Birkeland currents.
Or maybe they are plasma jets from “black holes”.

According to Plasma Cosmology, Birkeland Currents are responsible for forming the Web of the Universe.
Astronomers spotted shock waves shaking the web of the universe for the first time

Circular structures are actually very common. And after they become dark, their reflections will show rings or lights in cross. And since most “einstein rings” contain mirror images, we can be certain that this is the result of a reflection and not “bending of space/time”.

Evidence: The black hole image

Here is the black hole image as generated by the algorithm.

Yes there were 4 different ones. Didn’t they tell you?
They just merged them all together in the end.

Each one was generated with AI from a slightly different training-sets.
The AI was to pick the images that were most likely to be valid, matching with their training-set.

There were no real images, they had to generate them by combining the very noisy data from different telescopes. And by letting the AI select the “good” ones, they tried to generate an image.
Official Lecture about how the images were generated

This is what they were looking at:

The dark spot was added. It far smaller than a pixel in reality.
You can see how there is a plasma jet coming out.

There was a huge problem though. The radio-telescopes are not capable of reaching the resolution, nor the required signal to noise level. They did not overcome that problem.

The professor in real-world imaging using radio-signals explains below why the black hole image is data-fabrication.

Robitaille is supported by several astronomy experts:

But if it is all noise, how is it possible that these images were so similar?

Possibility 1 Bias in Training-set - The AI training set was preferring noise that resembled rings. So they all got ring-like images from the noisy data.

Possibility 2 Bokeh - The radio-telescopes together create a huge lens. This is by using a mathematical process that combines phases of the radio-waves in such a way that they interfere with each other. Creating diffraction via a mathematical calculated lens.

Problem 1: In the lecture the team-leader states the problem that the data was not even accurate enough to be in phase. And the phase-data was used anyway without the focus.
Problem 2: The radio-telescopes are placed on continents around the earth. This means that the Oceans are dark parts of the combined lens.
Problem 3: Explained in the video above, the data is missing essential focus data.

And if you do not have good focus, your lens will create Bokeh. Which means that you will see the dark places in your lens in your image.

A lens with a blacked-out center will create rings from bright objects that are not in focus. Or are we seeing black holes everywhere?
So, if most your dataset is out-of-focus it will have a lot of ring-like images. And other images that are similar to the placing of your radio-telescopes.
The algorithm will think that these ring-images are the real ones, over images that show a single star. And so a black hole image was born.

Possibility 3: Plasma ring? We are seeing a bigger plasma ring caused by plasma interactions. Somehow this is what the algorithm is choosing. It is not the black hole, but a product of the plasma-jets.

For fun: You can make your own plasma ring

Evidence: LIGO detects Gravitational waves from merging Black Holes

As shown above, we don’t know any valid evidence of Black Holes.
Nor do we know of any Black Hole “mergers”, which is a Black Hole object falling into another Black Hole. We don’t know of any object even falling into a black hole to begin with.

And we do not know of any gravitational waves. We have never seen any evidence that they may exist. And the theory behind it is also based a mixture of assumptions, which are likely to be false.

But LIGO found “proof” for all different things at the same time

A lot of astronomers were eager to accept LIGO’s extremely wild claim. I found almost no skeptical astronomers. Probably because scientists like to look at new theories and do not like to verify older theories.

Here is LIGO’s first “detection” of a black hole (2015)

You can see it, right?

Maybe you can see the 2017 version?

Well, what do you see?
1- A signal that resonates continuously. So the system has some continuous resonance going on. Likely a resonance between the mirrors.
2- A signal that is reaching its maximum amplitude. Should give some non-linear effects. The movement of the mirrors is reaching its maximum effect.

They must have filtered those signals out? Right?

I chatted with some LIGO PhDs about this. They explained that they just applied the standard frequency filters using discrete Fourier transform (DFT). This adds a repeating signal, but they claimed to have magically moved it away using normalization. But that only works under limited circumstances.
If you do not use the DFT, but use a standard digital filter (high-pass and low-pass), you do not see any signal. And that is a clear indication that there is no signal.

A laser goes through a mirror and a beam splitter. The splitter goes through 2 very long arms (2km?) of the big LIGO pipes. The mirrors at the end of the pipes are reflecting the laser back. They use a Fresnel lens in each arm to sharpen the phase of the laser-waves. The interference between the two beams is measured via the push-force on a mirror.

Can you already see how many possible resonances this can introduce? And what about non-linear interactions, like the movement of the mirror? And what about sound generated by heat as demonstrated in this video.
The system is not shielded from magnetism. So any magnetic field can influence the polarization of the mirrors (Kerr-effect). Most electromagnetic signals are similar to what the LIGO tries to detect. So it is very likely to be seen as a false signal.

The LIGO has 2 different facilities. And they combine the signal of both facilities to determine the location of a signal. But the huge problem is that the noise is so huge that they also use it to determine the validity of a signal. So if the noise matches with both facilities, they claim to have found black hole merger. And that happens almost every month.
With the addition of another facility at the other side of earth, they do not find matching noise patterns at all 3 facilities. Should be once in a few years if it was just noise, right? Yet when they find a signal at 2 facilities, they still claim to have found a black hole merger. This all smells more and more like a scam than genuine science.

What Evidence for Black Holes is left?

There may be very heavy objects in the center of galaxies and that is it.

But it may also be an illusion.

Additional force due to relativity:

With relativity I mean that movement of objects adds magnetic force to the electric force. This means that two objects with the same polarity are attracted to each other if they move in the same direction, depending on their speed.

So if we have fast moving objects near the galaxy center, they may exchange similar forces that pushes them into the same direction.

Additional force due to electromagnetism:

We can observe on the sun that there are a lot of electromagnetic interactions going on. The electric fields appear to cause electrical currents visible as plasma ropes and solar flares. And the electrical currents themselves cause magnetic fields, which we can measure via the Zeeman effect.

Galaxies and Plasma-jets show a lot of Zeeman effect. And this means that there is a lot of electromagnetic forces active.

If the stellar objects have electric polarity, these electromagnetic forces can be far stronger than gravity. And this can also create an effect that looks similar to gravity.

Now the Black Holes are finished

I can start wiping

I hope you found this a fun read.
And let this inspire new astronomers to look at the actual evidence,
instead of swallow possible bullshit. Think critically about old theories.
Especially when new findings are breaking with what was expected.