Figure 1. M87*
and Chandra X-ray image of M87 galaxy. (EHT Collaboration; NASA/CXC/Villanova
University/J. Neilsen)
Biggest
news this week was the first confirmation of a black “hole” in a galaxy (Figure
1). The press was hysterical about this being another proof that Einstein was
always right. Curved empty space-time was said to have done its incredulous job
once again. We might even have a replacement for the disgraced deGrasse. And,
judging by the press, it’s a woman! It’s about time. Late night TV awaits a
good apologist for cosmogony. We wish Katie Bouman the best of luck with that! (Wouldn’t it be something if she actually read “Infinite
Universe Theory” first?)
Now
to the question at hand: Does the black hole in M87 falsify the Big Bang Theory?
According to the Big Bang Theory, the universe exploded out of nothing 13.8
billion years ago. Since then, matter has been accumulating in the form of
about 2 trillion galaxies, with the youngest being spiralic and oldest being
elliptical.
Our
Milky Way is a spiral with a supposed age of 13.51 billion years. The
elliptical, M87, is the galaxy in which the recent radio-wave “siting” confirmed
the presence of a black hole. M87 supposedly is 13.24 billion years old. We
have reason to believe M87* (the black hole) is much older than that.
Readers
know the whole conversion of aether particles into baryonic matter simply
requires their reduction in velocity and/or redirection of their motion to form
vortices. Like the water drops on your cold bathroom mirror, this process
involves condensation or accretion. Fundamentally, and cosmologically, the
formation of matter from electron to black hole amounts to the pushing together
of those wily aether particles. Early on, this involves the formation of
electrons, positrons, and neutrons, etc., of which ordinary matter consists. In
the Sun, hydrogen is pushed together to form helium and elements as heavy as iron.
This takes a long time—the Sun is over 4.5 billion years old, and is only in
the early stages of this process.
The
slowing of aether particles via gravitation,[1]
complexification, and vortex formation produces solar systems that, once
started, tend to accumulate increasing amounts of matter. High velocity aether
particles from the intergalactic regions collide with baryonic matter,
providing the acceleration of gravitation. For each acceleration there must be
a deceleration. That is why baryonic matter tends to be surrounded by
relatively low-velocity entrained aether particles otherwise known by
regressives as the mysterious “dark matter.” Within the aether medium, the
change from high velocity to low velocity amounts to a reduction in pressure. Distal
aetherial pressure is high, while proximal aetherial pressure is low. This
produces the “force” of gravitation that tends to push all things toward other
things. The upshot is that gravitation is neither caused by the “attraction” of
Newton nor by the equally magical “space-time curvature” of Einstein. Despite
all the relativity pandering in the press, those popular notions are not
physics. Contrary to the immaterialism proclaimed by Einstein, physics always
involves the collision of one thing with another.
The
nuclei of vortices tend to accumulate increasing amounts of matter over time. Almost
all the mass of atoms is in the nuclei. The density of Earth’s core is 12.8 g/cm3, while the upper mantle
is 3.4 g/cm3. The Sun
contains 99% of the mass of the solar system. The complexification and slowing
of aether complexes proceeds apace as overburden pressures increase and motion
is lost through emission as heat and light.
The
nuclei of galaxies are misnamed “black holes”—they are anything but. The aether
complexes of which they are composed have slowed so much and have emitted so
much motion that they are extremely dense. Most of the “aether complexes” that
feed black holes are stars that are pushed therein as they inevitably lose momentum.
Surprisingly, SagittariusA*, the black hole in the center of the Milky Way,
contains only about 0.001% of the mass of the galaxy. On the other hand, the
black hole in M87 is about 0.24% of the galaxy. As seen in the photo above M87*
is only a tiny fraction of the M87 galaxy.
Now,
there are no doubt many variables affecting the rate at which black holes form,
but there is no denying accretion and complexification takes a long time. The
rate probably speeds up as the mass increases. Nonetheless, this difference—240
times, seems significant to me. I speculate that the huge black hole in M87 is
much older than the one in the Milky Way—possibly 240 times as old. This would
make the black hole in M87 up to 3.24 trillion years old! Even if it turns out
to be only a fraction of that, it seems to me it is yet another challenge to the
Big Bang Theory. Forcing every object in the observed universe into that 13.8 billion
year-old bag is suspect. The M87* discovery is akin to the discovery of the elderly
galaxies previously observed to be 13.2 billion light years away. Some of them look
much like our own 13.5 billion-year old Milky Way:
Figure 2. Close-up of a few of the elderly galaxies near the edge of the observed universe. Light from some of these 13-billion year old objects took 13 billion years to reach the Hubble telescope.
[2] Borchardt, Glenn,
2017, Infinite Universe Theory: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science
Institute, Figure 9. [http://go.glennborchardt.com/IUTebook].
2 comments:
Update:
I just became aware of Stephen Crothers recent Blog on the dubious math claims for the existence of black holes. Regressives, of course, are not happy with him or his view that Einstein had nothing to do with predicting their existence. But Crothers seems to have reviewed most of the relevant papers:
Crothers, Stephen J., 2019, The Black Hole, The Big Bang, And Modern Physics: London, Principia Scientific International, Accessed 20190513 [https://go.glennborchardt.com/Crothers-no-BB-no-BH].
He has gotten a lot of mainstream pushback. Anyone want to check the math and let us know who is right?
From what I read about Crothers on the Rational wiki website he is not someone I would take seriously.
Post a Comment