Black holes do NOT exist and the Big Bang Theory is wrong

Written by Jonathan O'Callaghan. Mailonline

Scientist claims she has mathematical proof black holes cannot exist and it is impossible for stars to collapse and form a singularity. Professor Laura Mersini-Houghton said she is still in ‘shock’ from the find. black hole

Previously, scientists thought stars much larger than the sun collapsed under their own gravity and formed black holes when they died. During this process they release a type of radiation called Hawking radiation. But new research claims the star would lose too much mass and wouldn’t be able to form a black hole. If true, the theory that the universe began as a singularity, followed by the Big Bang, could also be wrong. [Editor’s note: finding confirms studies by Stephen J. Crothers]

When a huge star many times the mass of the sun comes to the end of its life it collapses in on itself and forms a singularity – creating a black hole where gravity is so strong that not even light itself can escape.

At least, that’s what we thought.

A scientist has sensationally said that it is impossible for black holes to exist – and she even has mathematical proof to back up her claims. If true, her research could force physicists to scrap their theories of how the universe began.

The research was conducted by Professor Laura Mersini-Houghton from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in the College of Arts and Scientists.She claims that as a star dies, it releases a type of radiation known as Hawking radiation – predicted by Professor Stephen Hawking.

However in this process, Professor Mersini-Houghton believes the star also sheds mass, so much so that it no longer has the density to become a black hole. Before the black hole can form, she said, the dying star swells and explodes.

The singularity as predicted never forms, and neither does the event horizon – the boundary of the black hole where not even light can escape.

‘I’m still not over the shock,’ said Professor Mersini-Houghton.

‘We’ve been studying this problem for a more than 50 years and this solution gives us a lot to think about.’

Experimental evidence may one day provide physical proof as to whether or not black holes exist in the universe. But for now, Mersini-Houghton says the mathematics are conclusive. What’s more, the research could apparently even call into question the veracity of the Big Bang theory. 

Most physicists think the universe originated from a singularity that began expanding with the Big Bang about 13.8 billion years ago. If it is impossible for singularities to exist, however, as partially predicted by Professor Mersini-Houghton, then that theory would also be brought into question.

One of the reasons black holes are so bizarre is that they pit two fundamental theories of the universe against each other.

Namely, Einstein’s theory of gravity predicts the formation of black holes. But a fundamental law of quantum theory states that no information from the universe can ever disappear.

Efforts to combine these two theories proved problematic, and has become known as the black hole information paradox – how can matter permanently disappear in a black hole as predicted?

Professor Mersini-Houghton’s new theory does manage to mathematically combine the two fundamental theories, but with unwanted effects for people expecting black holes to exist.

‘Physicists have been trying to merge these two theories – Einstein’s theory of gravity and quantum mechanics – for decades, but this scenario brings these two theories together, into harmony,’ said Professor Mersini-Houghton.

‘And that’s a big deal.’

Further reading:

BLACK HOLE AND BIG BANG A SIMPLIFIED REFUTATION

THE END OF BIG BANG, BLACK HOLES AND THE SCIENCE OF STEPHEN HAWKING?

STEPHEN CROTHERS PRESENTS THE CASE AGAINST BLACK HOLES AND RELATIVITY

ON THE ‘STUPID’ PAPER BY FROMHOLZ, POISSON AND WILL

THE TEMPERATURE OF THE UNIVERSE BEFORE THE JURY

HAWKING’S LATEST INCANTATIONS ON BLACK HOLES

THE RISE AND FALL OF BLACK HOLES AND BIG BANGS

BIG BANGS, BLACK HOLES AND GREENHOUSE GAS SCIENCE IN RETREAT

Tags: , , , , , ,

Comments (11)

  • Avatar

    Yeldir Retep

    |

    Hi Sunsettommy (PSI web-page administrator Thomas Richard for those who don’t know),

    Isn’t it time that the misleading entry at the bottomn of the PSI web-pages that “Principia Scientific International (PSI) is a not-for-profit community interest subsidiary of PSI Acumen Ltd. Registered Office: Penhurst House, 352-356 Battersea Park Road, London, England, SW11 3BY” was removed.

    It has been sitting there since PSIA was formed by out=of=work high=school art teacher John O’Sullivan in March 2013.
    As I understand company law, PSI was never a “subsidiary” of PSIA.

    Now that Companies House has posted the GAZ2 notice and declared PSIA to be “dissolved” PSI certainly isn’t a “subsidiary” of any company and has never been registered as a community interest company (CIC), despite John O’Sullivan’s claim (since 17th January 2011 until very recently) that “Once obtaining the necessary start up funds PSI will become ..chartered to operate as a ‘not for profit’ under the rules of the UK’s Community Interest Company (CIC) initiative .. “.

    BTW, USA investigative journalist Andrew Skolnick kindly made a copy of that 17th January appeal for funds by John O’Sullivan (www.aaskolnick.com/global_deniers/psi2.htm).

    Pete

  • Avatar

    GoFigure

    |

    The new findings seem to be more in line with the claims of some plasma physicists (and others, like Halton Arp). Those big blobs out there mostly surrounding galaxies are plasma, and the electromagnetic forces dwarf gravity. The big bang theory depends on red shift indicating motion away, or towards, but that same indicator across space may be measuring something else. Some other references follow:

    “The Big Bang Never Happened”
    “Electric Universe”
    “The Electric Sky”

  • Avatar

    FauxScienceSlayer

    |

    errata….it is HUBBERT ‘peak’ oil….[and early morning blog error]

  • Avatar

    FauxScienceSlayer

    |

    For more on the suppressed “Rotational Universe Model”, proposed in 1949, and the shocking axiomatic conditions from such a Universe, see the Cosmology tab at FauxScienceSlayer. In a Time magazine interview, Dec 14, 1936, the father of big bang said it was a fraud. However, this astronomer needed funding for the 200 inch Mt Palomar telescope and a Nobel prize for his Astronomy, which was not then recognized as eligible.

    This suppressed science then became the elitist model for the Hubble ‘peak’ oil and Carbon climate forcing FRAUDS.

  • Avatar

    tom0mason

    |

    The research that is missing is on time itself. Without a real grasp of what time is and how it works we have very little. Are not all of our perceived universal constants linked to our understanding of time?
    Consider for a moment that the passage of time, (since the beginning) has not been constant but constantly varying. A hour yesterday was fractionally different from an hour now. How can we possibly prove it so? We can’t. Can our observations of the Universe show us the way – I believe so, but that would take a paradigm shift in how we view our universe.
    Maybe the passage of time started slow in the beginning and slowly accelerates as we look away to the farthest reaches, thus giving the illusion of an expanding universe. Or maybe vice-versa. Is the rate of change in the passage of time the dimension missing from our view of the universe.

  • Avatar

    D o u g  C o t t o n 

    |

    Oh well, I guess that in the 22nd century (when 500 years of global cooling kicks in) the next big political scare will be that the Earth is collapsing into a black hole – well it could be according to some outdated science from the previous century or two about green (oops, sorry) black holes. We’ll all need to stop recycling and help to build up the Earth’s surface with our valuable rubbish as land fill and ocean fill too I guess.

    Well at least we’ll help the nearly developed countries with our rubbish, knowledge, wisdom, power and might and, errr .. rubbish.

  • Avatar

    D o u g  C o t t o n 

    |

    Val Martin:

    So what exactly is your light that is “reversed” supposed to be? Sure, the electro-magnetic (EM) energy in radiation can raise the energy level of an electron in an atom and, if the frequency of the incident radiation is above the modal (peak) frequency for the target, some of the EM energy will be converted to thermal energy.

    So I guess if we had a collapsed former star, now with a solid core and some liquid (maybe water) forming “oceans” all pver its surface, then, just like on Earth, high frequency radiation would penetrate the ocean by a few metres, experience some photosynthesis, but end up with its energy converted to thermal energy. Meanwhile only low frequency radiation is sent back to space (because this magical liquid surface reflects nothing) and so, guess what? It looks black. So too would a black meteorite out in space. But it’s still there and it’s not a hole.

  • Avatar

    D o u g  C o t t o n 

    |

    There is an analogy between the false physics of the black hole and that of the “carbon pollutant.” Each has been postulated by those who became famous for their ability to promote garbage, confuse the public and retain their fame.

    The errors in the black hole conjecture are, firstly that there is no reason for matter to compact more than in any ordinary solid. Once a star has cooled down and solidified, how does that solid matter “know” that it was once a star and so must act differently from an ordinary (subordinate, pehaps) planet?

    You might as well say that Earth will compact for the same spurious reasons. Why give stars the only “right” to compact – why not planets – why not the whole universe?

    Yes gravity will act in one direction between the nucleus of any given atom and the centre of mass of the planet, but it is only in one direction, so why would it reduce the radius of an electron’s orbit? For more on this see my first comment above.

    The other main error is effectively equating light with an object escaping at the required velocity to break free from a gravitational field. If a satellite has been in orbit but then speeds up (like when the outboard rocket is started) it will escape to space. But this escape velocity is calculated using a given gravitational force that is related to the masses of each object involved, namely the Earth and the satellite. But light is a totally different entity and the speed of light cannot be compared with an escape velocity.

  • Avatar

    Val Martin

    |

    Remember that there is no such thing as matter, just a collection of atoms clinging together. Atoms are mainly empty space with about .0000000001% being the proton/neutron and electron. It is the forces which hold the atom together (electronic magnetic) which warp space-time and they have no mass. light is produced from the disruption of atomic stability and a black hole is where the disruption of compaction is greater than the energy that causes light to travel through space. The real question is what happens to the light which is captured in a black hole. I believe it is reversed back into the atom from where it came. A black hole is the reversal of the process by which light leaves the atom.

  • Avatar

    Val Martin

    |

    I will hazard a guess that there is no scientific measure for the size of an atom. Clearly it is close to its largest in open space where gravity is at its least and it’s size reduces to a point at the centre of the largest mass of atoms in the Universe. In nature there is no such thing as extreme. Extreme is only there in the observations of evolved creatures of nature. The fact that light can be bent by gravity means that it can be captured by gravity strong enough to overcome lights propagation.

  • Avatar

    D o u g 

    |

    Yes, it does seem to be a mistaken concept to think that the force of gravity approaches some almost infinite value as the matter in a star collapses. Whilst the star is “alive” with an internal energy source its matter is mostly gaseous. If it “dies” there would be liquefaction and then solidification of the matter, but the total mass of the matter does not increase. What makes the force of gravity increase for an object close to the newly solidified surface is mainly just the difference in mean distance between the object and the centre of the dead star. But I see no reason why this now solidified matter should be any different from a cold solid planet having the same mass.

    I can’t say that I can see a reason for it to explode when its internal energy source is dying. It’s more likely to lose some mass that escapes its gravitationally pull whilst the star was still gaseous. Obviously Earth loses some molecules from its atmosphere this way.

Comments are closed