Does the black hole in M87 falsify the Big Bang Theory?

PSI Blog 20190417 Does the black hole in M87 falsify the Big Bang Theory?

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.

[1] Borchardt, Glenn, 2018, The Physical Cause of Gravitation: viXra:1806.0165.
[2] Borchardt, Glenn, 2017, Infinite Universe Theory: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, Figure 9. [http://go.glennborchardt.com/IUTebook].

1 comment:

Glenn Borchardt said...


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?