‘First Black Hole Image’ Claim Challenged
As the world’s press rush to share news of the world’s ‘First Black Hole Image‘ some skeptics are challenging the claim.
Australian researcher, Stephen J Crothers has issued a dissenting open letter to the author of the original assertion, Dear Sabine Hossenfelder. The open letter is posted below in full and we invite readers to draw their own conclusions:
Dear Sabine Hossenfelder,
I note your article on the alleged imaging of a black hole: First Black-Hole Image: It’s Not Looks That Count – Facts So Romantic – Nautilus
Your past reports have never been honest and this is no exception. It is not a discovery at all.
This is how astronomers and cosmologists do science: fraud by means of mass-media induced mass-hysteria. It beggars belief. Think about it: according to the astronomers and cosmologists the finite mass of their black hole is concentrated in a ‘physical singularity’ of zero volume, infinite density, and infinite gravity. But no finite mass has zero volume, infinite density, and infinite gravity, anywhere!
Similarly, the astronomers and cosmologists assign to their black hole two different escape speeds (v_esc = 0 metres per second and v_esc = c = 300,000,000 metres per second, and in the same equation) and no capacity for an escape speed (since nothing can even leave), simultaneously, at the same place (at the ‘event horizon’). But nothing can have two different escape speeds and no capacity for an escape speed, simultaneously, at the same place! (See [1]).
On the mathematical level, the black hole is conjured by violations of geometry. Geometrically speaking, the theory of black holes moves a sphere originally centred at the origin of a coordinate system to some other place in that same coordinate system but leaves its centre behind. By this means the two ‘singularities’ of the black hole are produced, the centre of the moved sphere, now thought to be an event horizon, and the left behind centre at the origin of coordinates, thought to be the ‘physical singularity’. (See [2]). Analytically speaking, the violation of geometry manifests in black hole theory as the requirement that the absolute value of a real number must take on negative values – which is also impossible. (See [3]).
The laws of thermodynamics require that temperature must always be an intensive thermodynamic property. To argue otherwise is a violation of both the 0th and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. The Hawking temperature of a black hole is however non-intensive, in violation of the laws of thermodynamics. So black hole thermodynamics is entirely nonsense. (See [4])
So their black hole does not exist; proven with common sense and high-school science. Yet they have managed to image that which does not exist. Of course they did – they have to justify their lucrative jobs and their vast grants of unaccountable public money.
For a comprehensive coverage of the frauds see [5], [6], and [7] below.
Yours faithfully,
Steve Crothers
[1] Crothers, S.J., Black Hole Escape Velocity, Sky Scholar, 2018,
[2] Crothers, S.J., Black Hole Geometry Analyzed, Sky Scholar, 2018,[3] Crothers, S.J., On Corda’s ‘Clarification’ of Schwarzschild’s Solution, Hadronic Journal, Vol. 39, 2016, http://vixra.org/pdf/1602.
0221v4.pdf
[4] Robitaille, P.-M., Gravitational Thermodynamics – Is it Science?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZ2F2Kw5-nQ[3] Crothers, S.J., On Corda’s ‘Clarification’ of Schwarzschild’s Solution, Hadronic Journal, Vol. 39, 2016, http://vixra.org/pdf/1602.0221v4.pdf
[5] Crothers, S.J., A Critical Analysis of LIGO’s Recent Detection of Gravitational Waves Caused by Merging Black Holes, Hadronic Journal, n.3, Vol. 39, 2016, pp.271-302, http://vixra.org/pdf/1603.0127v5.pdf
[6] Crothers, S.J., LIGO — Its Claims for Black Holes and Gravitational Waves | EU2017, Stephen Crothers: LIGO — Its Claims for Black Holes and Gravitational Waves | EU2017
[7] Crothers, S.J., Gravitational Waves: Propagation Speed is Co-ordinate Dependent, Poster Presentation, 2018 April APS Meeting, Columbus, Ohio, presented on 14th April 2018. http://vixra.org/pdf/1804.0399v1.pdf
****
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. Telephone:
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
jerry krause
| #
Hi,
If you doubt the validity of what John O’ shared with us, ponder: “But no finite mass has zero volume, infinite density, and infinite gravity, anywhere!”
The publisher of Galileo’s book, Elfevirii (untranslated), wrote (translated) in a preface to the reader: “For, according to the common saying, sight can teach more and with greater certainity in a single day than precept even though repeated a thousand times; or, as another says, intuitive knowledge keeps paces with accurate definition.”
Stephen J Crothers has accurately defined matter with the only English words, of which I am aware, that have been used to define the word–MATTER.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi,
Maybe I should have written: Matter has a volume and a mass. And explained: The issue is matter has a volume.
And suggested that one read Newton’s preface to his book (as translated to English). I summarize what I understand and you must read to summarize what you consider that Newton was bringing to the attention of his readers about the difference between geometry and mechanics. Geometry only existed in the mind and had no practical utility. For a point without a volume did not exist and a line without width did not exist. Just as matter without a volume does not exist.
In science we deal with ‘real’ things even if we have to imagine the really small things which really exist that we (people) cannot directly sense except by its odor or its taste. So, when I wrote we cannot directly sense, I had to quickly modify because I was only focusing on our sense of sight.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Robert Beatty
| #
I previously commented on one of Stephen’s posts to PSI “I am having difficulty understanding why a comparison between euclidian and none euclidian geometry should result in the conclusion that black holes cannot exist. This is similar to saying flat earther’s are wrong so the earth cannot exist?
Science will only develop if new ideas can climb off the shoulders of older ideas.
IMO the relevant maths to model a black hole is hyperbolic geometry. It is just a case of horses for courses. In a similar vein using the solar system value for G in the swartzchild radius formula is not appropriate, when the gravitational value at a black hole is observationally so much” Stephen chose not to respond to this comment.
My PROM paper at https://principia-scientific.com/publications/PROM/PROM-Beatty-Gravispheres.pdf shows the hyperbolic geometry referred to, which appears consistent with this significant astronomical discovery. I now await with interest to hear astronomers’ conclusion on how far the heightened gravitational influence extends out from the identified Black Hole?
Reply
Steve Crothers
| #
Dear Mr. Beatty,
Your appeal to your hyperbolic geometry is to no avail. The simple physical facts I have adduced concerning the impossibility of a finite mass to be concentrated in zero volume, infinite density, and infinite gravity, and the impossibility of anything possessing two different escape speeds and no capacity for an escape speed, simultaneously, at the same place, are sufficient to prove the black hole a fantasy. Moreover, according to the astronomers and cosmologists, with an escape speed of c = 300,000,000 m/s at the ‘event horizon’, nothing can leave the event horizon, including light. But light travelling at the escape speed c = 300,000,000 m/s, must escape! Yet the astronomers and cosmologists insist that even though light travels at the escape speed, it cannot escape. Indeed, it cannot even leave the event horizon, let alone escape. And with the escape speed v = 0 m/s everything can leave and escape. Yet again, according to the astronomers and cosmologists, nothing can even leave the event horizon let alone escape from it. Now you should understand why I didn’t bother to respond to your previous illogical arguments involving your hyperbolic geometry.
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Robert,
What I would like you, or others, to explain: what the ‘donuts’ of color [I find that donut as a singular of donuts does not work according to my spell checker], which it seems must be due to some matter, actually is?
If I adjust the angle of my screen I can see faint colored ‘flares’ which irregularly extend out beyond the well defined donuts. Which seems similar to the white flares, which irregularly extend out beyond the moon, in my photo of the recent total solar eclipse.
So, i can imagine a ‘huge’ star, with a planet with an atmosphere in front of it, which does not totally eclipse the star. A planet with an atmosphere because what this image lacks is the ‘sharp’ edge of the moon, which does not have an atmosphere.
Robert, I want you to be clear that just because I can imagine the image is of something other than a black hole, I do not imply the image is not of a black hole. I only make this comment because I can imagine something other than a black hole to explain what is seen in the image.
However, given astronomical images, made by telescopes of very distant galaxies, I find it curious that there is no description of the size of this well defined black hole or of the well defined, much larger, donuts of color. Which I, maybe not you, have to conclude might be due to a somewhat uniform ‘cloud’ of matter termed a star. For, there is nothing in this image which is like the other images of distant galaxies I have viewed.
Have a good day, Jerry
.
Reply
Tom Gardner
| #
Jerry,
I submit to you the following link for other possible ideas for what they may be seeing in this image. I think you are right to doubt the image. And on the pressing issue of donuts, i am guessing that there is a presumption that one never has just a singular donut, unless of course it’s a black hole singularity!
Cheers,
Tom
https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2019/04/10/black-heart/
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Consider the origin of a singularity. A star converts mass into energy and distributes that mass/energy into the universe. It does this for billions of years converting most of its mass into energy. At the end of its life it collapses into a singularity and by some form of magic, that defies the basis of physics that mass and energy cannot be created or destroyed, now has more mass than the star that created it.Gravity is measured from the center of a mass and the volume that mass occupies has no bearing on the strength the gravitational field. Gravitational black holes only exist between the ears of physicists.
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Robert,
I now can imagine the planet with an atmosphere to be a comet instead of a planet with an atmosphere. There is so much we have not been told, if it is known.
Have a good day, Jerry
.
Reply
K. Kaiser
| #
I had been wondering already: Is this (black hole) a TWO-dimensional object?
If not, how come there is no orange-red corona visible IN FRONT of it?
KK
Reply
Robert Beatty
| #
Stephen,
“Now you should understand why I didn’t bother to respond to your previous illogical arguments involving your hyperbolic geometry.”
This is a very ordinary excuse for not engaging with someone who has taken the time and effort to follow the convoluted logic offered in one of your many video offerings.
“The simple physical facts I have adduced concerning the impossibility of a finite mass to be concentrated in zero volume, infinite density, and infinite gravity,”
I think your main point of logic error is in the use of the phrase ‘finite mass’. Here you go one to (accurately in my opinion) give reasons why this is impossible. The error occurs because at a black hole we are no longer talking about ‘finite mass’, we are most probably talking about electron, protons and neutrons to name only the most simple components. At this stage the ‘finite mass’ no longer exists, so your various mathematical interpretations of the situation cannot be correct, as is the case with the various other physical properties you have referred to and which can only apply to a ‘finite mass’. Cosmic rays have been identified leaving a black hole region, so things can escape – just not in the form they used to exist in.
Jerry,
“What I would like you, or others, to explain: what the ‘donuts’ of color.”
Good question. I see two possibilities: a) we are fortunate to be looking directly down one of two axis present at a black hole. b) we are looking at a three dimensional ball structure, but only see a donut shape because the direct image is diffuse and appears translucent, but the edge image looks thicker because it presents a more concentrated viewing angle.
Not sure about your flare comment. Maybe a function of you video screen?
“I find it curious that there is no description of the size of this well defined black hole” the BBC site reports “It measures 40 billion km across – three million times the size of the Earth – and has been described by scientists as “a monster”.”
“I now can imagine the planet with an atmosphere to be a comet instead of a planet with an atmosphere.” We can rest assured that the money spent on this research has not been wasted. These astronomers know what they are looking for and at. We are fortunate to have a ring side seat at such an important event.
Herb,
“Gravitational black holes only exist between the ears of physicists.” Now it appears black holes have come of age, because we have a direct image – other than between the ears of true skeptics.
“Consider the origin of a singularity.” You go on to postulate the steps which you say leads to a singularity, or black hole with only emanations and no incomings. If we accept the expanding earth proposal incomings are in the forms of asteroids, radiation and quite possibly through gravity causing mass transfer. In the case of black holes LIGO concludes black holes also grow by amalgomation.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Robert,
When a star 100 times the size of our sun burns down to a neutron star it has a diameter of about 20 km. At this size the star emits its last mass/energy/light and collapses into a singularity. Since the neutron star has more mass/gravity than the singularity and was able to radiate light the event horizon for the singularity must be smaller than 20 km. This is a very small target for anything to hit. When an object encounters the gravitational field of the singularity it accelerates towards it. Since the singularity is moving the object will not hit it, just as a comet does to hit the sun. (Gravity pulls an object towards its current position not towards where it will be.) Since the object is increasing in velocity/energy it is also increasing in mass (E=mc^2). Energy and mass cannot be created or destroyed so the singularity must be transferring mass/energy to any object that does not strike the 20 km event horizon and not gaining mass /energy from them.(By looping planets the Voyager satellites were able to gain enough energy in this manner to escape our solar system.) So while a singularity might be gaining a minuscule amount of mass from light striking the 20km target everything else encountering its gravitational field will remove mass from it.
As to the circle of light surrounding the singularity. You can only see light coming towards you. All light moving through the same space in other directions is undetectable so the light from the halo is directed towards the observer, not away from the black hole.
Have a good day,
Herb
Reply
Robert Beatty
| #
Herb,
This object is estimated to be 40 billion kilometres across, not 20 kilometres.
“You can only see light coming towards you.” Correct. Cosmic radiation observed through Chandra show Cygnus X3 is a close and visible source.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Robert,
What I was trying to show by reason was that the black hole didn’t start out at 40 billion km but less than 20 km and according to E=mc^2 could not have grown but must shrink.
Have a good day,
Herb
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Robert,
Did a little more reading and it seems obvious that I can never understand anything concerning a black hole. And I will not waste any more of my time considering it.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Robert,
After pondering what has been written about the black hole, I will not go away. As a chemist I am well aware of the arrogance of some physicists who ignore the contributions that us (chemists), generally mathematically Illiterate, have contributed to physical science. Namely, the atom. But Newton was an alchemist and he independently invented calculus. And he saw that stars were ‘widely’ spaced so their gravity would have a minimum influence upon each other.
Richard Feynman (Surely You’re Joking Mr. Feynman!”) described the first seminar he gave at Princeton. “But then the end of came, and it was time for questions. First off, Pauli, who was sitting next to Einstein, gets up and says, “I do not sink dis teory can be right, because of dis, and dis, and dis,” and he turns to Einstein and says, “Don’t you agree, Professor Einstein?” Einstein says, “Noooooooooo,” a nice German-sounding, “No,”–very polite. “I find only that it would be very difficult to make a corresponding theory for gravitational interaction.” He meant for the general theory of relativity, which was his baby. He continued: “Since we have at this time not a great deal of experimental evidence, I am not absolutely sure of the correct gravitational theory.” Einstein appreciated that things might be different from what his theory stated; he was very tolerant of other ideas.”
Einstein was not arrogant. I ask (request): Explain how it took multiple telescopes to see this image which is so ‘big’. Explain how the concentration of matter proposed does not refute either the idea of a critical mass of nuclear fission or the result of the nuclear reaction termed nuclear fusion. Both now observed facts but not at the time of Feynman’s lecture.
It took a war to do the experiments which supported the ideas of those theorists who designed the experiments.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Robert Beatty
| #
Jerry,
“Did a little more reading and it seems obvious that I can never understand anything concerning a black hole. And I will not waste any more of my time considering it.”
I thought there for a moment you were going to spare a thought for your long suffering readership, but no.
Then I checked the weather in Fargo ND and found the temperature is a crisp 4 oC, while here in Brisbane it is a balmy 26 oC, so I am going to turn off my computer and go and have FUN in the SUN.
Reply
Squidly
| #
Robert,
That is why I no longer live in Fargo, North Dakota .. It is a nice 75°F (24°C) where I live now (Tennessee). Fargo is presently 22°F (-5.5°C) .. I think I will go play some golf today while they try to stay warm in Fargo.
Steve Crothers
| #
Mr. Beatty,
Your argument is invalid. The astronomers and cosmologists have always asserted that the mass of their black hole is finite, that it is concentrated in zero volume, infinite density, and infinite gravity. All this is nonsense. Then there are their absurdities on black hole escape velocity, as I have explained, their violations of the rules of pure mathematics, as I have explained, and their violations of the laws of thermodynamics, as I have explained. Your hyperbolic geometry will not make these fantasies become real. They are forever nothing but phantasmagoria. I therefore see no reason to engage you in discussion of your hyperbolic geometry for things that do not exist; reason dictates that it is pointless.
Reply
Robert Beatty
| #
Stephen,
“The astronomers and cosmologists have always asserted that the mass of their black hole is finite, that it is concentrated in zero volume, infinite density, and infinite gravity. All this is nonsense.” I agree, but would not used such self confident language.
“Then there are their absurdities on black hole escape velocity, as I have explained, their violations of the rules of pure mathematics, as I have explained, and their violations of the laws of thermodynamics, as I have explained.” All true, but with more ‘look at me’ language.
“Your hyperbolic geometry will not make these fantasies become real.” Really? So what is your explanation of these well evidenced natural occurrences? A positive attitude would help your argument – assuming you have one.
I do not attempt to ‘make these fantasies become real’ I propose an alternative explanation of the observed information based on my engineering knowledge.
“I therefore see no reason to engage you in discussion”. Your choice.
Reply