# Physicists keep trying to break the rules of gravity but this supermassive black hole just said 'no'

#### Xinhang Shen

Dear Rafi Letzter, please be aware that Einstein's relativity has already been disproved for more than four years both experimentally and theoretically. There is no such thing called spacetime in nature, not to mention the existence of its singularities because our physical time measured with physical clocks is absolute and independent of the 3D space.

The most reliable and well-known experimental evidence for the absolute time is that the atomic clocks on the GPS satellites, after corrections, are synchronized to show the same absolute time relative to all reference frames (the ground frame, the satellite frames, etc), while special relativity claims that time is relative and thus clocks can never be synchronized relative to more than one inertial reference frame no matter how you correct them.

Einstein made a fatal mistake in his special relativity. He postulates that the speed of light should be the same relative to all inertial reference frames, which forces the change of the definition of space and time. But he never verified that the newly defined time was still the time measured with physical clocks. Please be aware that our physical time i.e. clock time won't change with the change of the definition of the space and time. Actually, the newly defined relativistic time is indeed not the time measured with physical clocks any longer. It is just a mathematical variable without physical meaning, which can be easily verified as follows:

We know physical time T has a relationship with the relativistic time t in Einstein's special relativity: T = tf/k where f is the relativistic frequency of the clock and k is a calibration constant, that is, a clock uses the change of the status of a physical process to indirectly measure time. Now We would like to use the behavior of our physical time in Lorentz Transformation to demonstrate that the relativistic time t defined by Lorentz Transformation is no longer our physical time T.

If you have a clock (clock 1) with you and watch my clock (clock 2) in motion and both clocks are set to be synchronized to show the same physical time T relative to your inertial reference frame at relativistic time t, you will see your clock time: T1 = tf1/k1 = T and my clock time: T2 = tf2/k2 = T, where t is the relativistic time of your reference frame, f1 and f2 are the relativistic frequencies of clock 1 and clock 2 respectively, k1 and k2 are calibration constants of the clocks. The two events (Clock1, T1=T, x1=0, y1=0, z1=0, t1=t) and (Clock2, T2=T, x2=vt, y2=0, z2=0, t2=t) are simultaneous measured with both relativistic time t and clock time T in your reference frame. When these two clocks are observed by me in the moving inertial reference frame, according to special relativity, we can use Lorentz Transformation to get the events in my frame (x', y', z', t'): (clock1, T1', x1'=-vt1', y1'=0, z1'=0, t1'=t/γ) and (clock2, T2', x2'=0, y2'=0, z2'=0, t2'=γt), where T1' = t1'f1'/k1 = (t/γ)(γf1)/k1 = tf1/k1 = T1 = T and T2' = t2'f2'/k2 = (γt)(f2/γ)/k2 = tf2/k2 = T2 = T, where γ = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2). That is, no matter observed from which inertial reference frame, the events are still simultaneous measured with physical time T i.e. the two clocks are always synchronized measured with physical time T, but not synchronized measured with relativistic time t'. Therefore, our physical time and the relativistic time behave differently in Lorentz Transformation and thus they are not the same thing. The change of the reference frame only makes changes of the relativistic time from t to t' and the relativistic frequency from f to f', which cancel each other in the formula: T = tf/k to make the physical time T unchanged i.e. our physical time is still absolute in special relativity. Based on the artificial relativistic time, special relativity is wrong, so is general relativity. There is no such thing called spacetime in nature, not to mention the expansion, singularities, ripples of spacetime. For more details, please check:

Dan Hilbert

#### Bob Mogy

Einstein made a fatal mistake in his special relativity. He postulates that the speed of light should be the same relative to all inertial reference frames
Dude, constant speed of light is a consequence of Maxwell's equations and was known before Einstein. Before arguing with fundamentals you probably should learn them first.

Chem721

#### Xinhang Shen

Dude, constant speed of light is a consequence of Maxwell's equations and was known before Einstein. Before arguing with fundamentals you probably should learn them first.
Don't assume that people don't know such simple thing. Actually I would remind you that you should not make any irresponsible comment before understanding what I presented here. Please read it carefully. If you find any error in my reasoning, please refute it and let's have a rational debate.

The disproof of special relativity means the existence of aether - a fluid medium for all electromagnetic phenomena. Regarding Maxwell's equations, please be aware that there is no electric field and no magnetic field in nature. These are just direct modelings of the forces on a charged particle exerted by aether, which are similar to the forces on an airplane exerted by air where you can't find resistance field and lift field but just air flow field. The speed of light can be isotropic only relative to aether, the same as the speed of sound can be isotropic only relative to air.

#### Bob Mogy

Don't ... you should not ... read ... let's have ...
You should not put so many imperatives in one paragraph when you address me. I will do whatever I want that is within the rules of this forum. In order to have a rational debate with me you must possess the fundamental knowledge equal to mine. You don't. If you are going to be modest and humble, and ask the right question instead of making claims that the science is wrong, I might be able to explain to you how the things really are, though I am not sure, the prognosis is bad.

Synchronization of GPS clocks works only for Earth surface. You can't do it for any reference frame. If you breath when you sleep, it doesn't mean you sleep when you breath. (C) Lewis Carroll. It's simple logic. I suggest for you to practice in using it.

#### Xinhang Shen

Synchronization of GPS clocks works only for Earth surface. You can't do it for any reference frame.
Please see GPS on Wikipedia: "The GPS concept is based on time and the known position of GPS specialized satellites. The satellites carry very stable atomic clocks that are synchronized with one another and with the ground clocks. " you can't deny the fact.

#### efarina96

BANNED
General Relativity is an understanding on of our finite perception of our universe, which in reality is part of a chain of singularities with observable finite properties "culminating" in eternity. What is observed from beyond as a singularity with finite properties such as mass, spin, charge, and observable boundary, is observed from within as the physics of an infinite universe. This is because every existence, while appearing to be finite, is actually just a finite experience of an infinite singularity constrained by the limited speed of light. Simple.

Wave-particle duality is a reflection of the possibilities intiated by observation relative to infinity and constrained by choice. There is nothing "before" the Big Bang, but rather an infinite singularity "beyond" the Big Bang that cannot be described in finite terms of time. Again, simple.

To clarify, I take a panpsychic view of the word "choice" here, and mean to imply that experiential choice is woven into the fabric of the Universe.

Last edited by a moderator:

#### Prof. Tom

I have one question. As a black hole sucks in new matter, does the surface (volume) of the condensed matter expand faster or slower than the gravity field that causes the event horizon?

<<remembering that distance, volume and surface areas are referenced to the center of gravity of the singularity of the black hole>>

Option 1: If the surface of the mass that makes up the singularity is expanding faster (even by a small amount) than the event horizon, then eventually the mass surface (diameter) will exceed the diameter of the event horizon and the black hole will burst back into existence and be visible. The event horizon will be below the surface or may disappear.

If this occurred, it is likely that this reemergence of the surface of the black hole above the Schwarzschild radius would happen over a relatively short period of time making it difficult to capture the event or even recognize it for what it is.

Option 2: If the gravity strength and the total diameter of the event horizon increases faster than the surface of the mass that causes that gravity, then there is no limit to the size of the black hole. This would imply that every black hole has the potential to suck in an entire galaxy or cluster and become a super black hole. The only known potential candidate for such an event or body might be related to the Shapley Attractor/Supercluster.

Within 1 to 2 billion light-years, the lack of observed candidates of such super black holes may point to the likelihood that Option 1 above is a more likely scenario.

Which is it?

There is nothing "before" the Big Bang, but rather an infinite singularity "beyond" the Big Bang that cannot be described in finite terms of time. Again, simple.
This is a "simple" answer approaching dismissive religious dogma. Is there a term of time that is not finite? Words like "beyond", and "infinite singularity" sound important but have no scientific value.

Infinite Singularity, like Infinite density and infinite temperature, are terms that science cannot relate to and are used when we don't know what or how to explain some event.

If space is infinite and any given singularity is finite, then there must be a "before" to what we call the Big Bang.

If space is not infinite, then we run afoul of several fundamental principles like the Cosmological Principle and the Copernican Principle and the second law of thermodynamics.

Last edited by a moderator:

#### efarina96

BANNED
Infinite spacetime cannot be described by finite terms. This is not debateable, not that you actually adressed my point other than to dismiss it. Simplicity is not a basis for discrediting my point.

We have a finite experience of an infinite singularity. You missed the point quite clearly.

This is "simplicity" to the extent of dismissive religious dogma. Words like "beyond", and "infinite singularity" sound important but have not scientific value. If space is infinite and any given singularity is finite, then there must be a "before" to what we call the Big Bang.
The universe will expand forever because general relativity governs our finite observation of infinity. The expansion of spacetime accelerates relative to an externally observed property of radius.
r=(2GM/c^2)^∞
Relative infinity described in terms of Schwarzchild's radius. I understand this is so simple it is hard to believe it has gone overlooked, but I am right.

This is "simplicity" to the extent of dismissive religious dogma. Words like "beyond", and "infinite singularity" sound important but have not scientific value. If space is infinite and any given singularity is finite, then there must be a "before" to what we call the Big Bang.
6*∞=6,12,18,24...∞
6^∞=6,36,216,1296...∞
r=(2GM/c^2)*∞ therefore represents a static universe wherein all mass/energy is distributed equally relative to infinity, which is essentially meaningless to us.
r=(2GM/c^2)^∞ represents a static universe that expands exponentially relative to initially observed properties.
So you see, the accelerating expansion of spacetime can be explained quite simply as a necessary physical property of our universe.

This is "simplicity" to the extent of dismissive religious dogma. Words like "beyond", and "infinite singularity" sound important but have not scientific value. If space is infinite and any given singularity is finite, then there must be a "before" to what we call the Big Bang.
I need to refine the terninology, you are right. I am a layman after all. But the point is, all along the solution was simple. The implications are endless. A singularity is infinite, but its observed finite properties of mass, charge, spin, and boundary give it context. Infinity relative to finite observation. Do you get it now?

This is a "simple" answer approaching dismissive religious dogma. Is there a term of time that is not finite? Words like "beyond", and "infinite singularity" sound important but have no scientific value.

Infinite Singularity, like Infinite density and infinite temperature, are terms that science cannot relate to and are used when we don't know what or how to explain some event.

If space is infinite and any given singularity is finite, then there must be a "before" to what we call the Big Bang.

If space is not infinite, then we run afoul of several fundamental principles like the Cosmological Principle and the Copernican Principle and the second law of thermodynamics.
I am explaining how to relate to infinity. We need to establish context, and we do so using definite observable properties. There is no better explanation.

I have one question. As a black hole sucks in new matter, does the surface (volume) of the condensed matter expand faster or slower than the gravity field that causes the event horizon?

<<remembering that distance, volume and surface areas are referenced to the center of gravity of the singularity of the black hole>>

Option 1: If the surface of the mass that makes up the singularity is expanding faster (even by a small amount) than the event horizon, then eventually the mass surface (diameter) will exceed the diameter of the event horizon and the black hole will burst back into existence and be visible. The event horizon will be below the surface or may disappear.

If this occurred, it is likely that this reemergence of the surface of the black hole above the Schwarzschild radius would happen over a relatively short period of time making it difficult to capture the event or even recognize it for what it is.

Option 2: If the gravity strength and the total diameter of the event horizon increases faster than the surface of the mass that causes that gravity, then there is no limit to the size of the black hole. This would imply that every black hole has the potential to suck in an entire galaxy or cluster and become a super black hole. The only known potential candidate for such an event or body might be related to the Shapley Attractor/Supercluster.

Within 1 to 2 billion light-years, the lack of observed candidates of such super black holes may point to the likelihood that Option 1 above is a more likely scenario.

Which is it?
B, if I understand you correctly, excepting your assumption that entire galaxies will get sucked in. Because a singularity has definite mass, the force of gravity acting on any body with mass around it remains finite in proportion to the mass of the singularity. Any mass that crosses the event horizon gets stretched to infinity according to the path prescribed by observed finite properties, adding to the force of gravity exerted by the singularity.

This is a "simple" answer approaching dismissive religious dogma. Is there a term of time that is not finite? Words like "beyond", and "infinite singularity" sound important but have no scientific value.

Infinite Singularity, like Infinite density and infinite temperature, are terms that science cannot relate to and are used when we don't know what or how to explain some event.

If space is infinite and any given singularity is finite, then there must be a "before" to what we call the Big Bang.

If space is not infinite, then we run afoul of several fundamental principles like the Cosmological Principle and the Copernican Principle and the second law of thermodynamics.
No singularity is finite, it is infinite relative to observed finite properties. I mean no disrespect when I say, is that really so difficult to understand? And I know I may offend some when I adamantly insist I am right, but either you are capable of evaluating my words on their merit or not. It shouldn't have anything to do with my level of confidence. Clarifying questions are always welcome.

Last edited by a moderator:

#### Prof. Tom

No singularity is finite, it is infinite relative to observed finite properties. I mean no disrespect when I say, is that really so difficult to understand? And I know I may offend some when I adamantly insist I am right, but either you are capable of evaluating my words on their merit or not. It shouldn't have anything to do with my level of confidence. Clarifying questions are always welcome.
I think I see our problem. Before I got my physics degree, I had an engineering degree. A scientist will defend a theory because the math says so. An engineer will defend a theory because he observed it happen. The difference often comes down to semantics. I avoid using the word infinity or infinite as much as you do because it more often than not indicated a flaw or a gap in the theory. Here is one quote that expresses this idea:

"Singularities are predicted to exist in black holes by Einstein's theory of general relativity, which is a theory that has done remarkably well at matching experimental results. The problem is that infinities never exist in the real world. Whenever an infinity pops out of a theory, it is simply a sign that your theory is too simple to handle extreme cases."

"A black hole forms when a massive star runs out of the fuel needed to balance out gravity and collapses under its own gravity to a very small size. General relativity predicts that the star collapses to an infinitely small point with infinite density. But, as should now be clear, such a beast does not really exist in the real world. The appearance of a black hole singularity in general relativity simply indicates that general relativity is inaccurate at very small sizes, which we already knew. You need quantum field theory to describe objects of small sizes. But, quantum field theory does not include gravitational effects, which is the main feature of a black hole. This fact means that we will not know exactly what is going on in a black hole until scientists can successfully create a new theory that accurately describes small sizes and strong gravitational effects at the same time. Whatever the new theory ends up telling us, it will most certainly not say that there are singularities in black holes. If it did, that outcome would simply indicate that the new theory is just as bad as the old theory. In fact, one of the requirements for the future theory of everything is that it not predict singularities in black holes. :"

I am somewhat of a critic of my own profession in that I over-react to hardcore scientists that make statements that express the "generally accepted theory" but are, in fact, wrong.

For instance: Dark Matter is NOT a response to excess mass in the universe. Dark Matter is a response to excess gravity in the universe. We have no evidence that Dark Matter is matter. It is only speculation that DM is the result of some, as yet, undetected particles - (WIMPs?).

This over-reaction extends to descriptions of zero-volume singularities that also appear to have very large mass and gravity.

Pointing to an equation in which you divide by zero is not sufficient proof of infinity.

Call it a pet peeve.

#### efarina96

BANNED
I think I see our problem. Before I got my physics degree, I had an engineering degree. A scientist will defend a theory because the math says so. An engineer will defend a theory because he observed it happen. The difference often comes down to semantics. I avoid using the word infinity or infinite as much as you do because it more often than not indicated a flaw or a gap in the theory. Here is one quote that expresses this idea:

"Singularities are predicted to exist in black holes by Einstein's theory of general relativity, which is a theory that has done remarkably well at matching experimental results. The problem is that infinities never exist in the real world. Whenever an infinity pops out of a theory, it is simply a sign that your theory is too simple to handle extreme cases."

"A black hole forms when a massive star runs out of the fuel needed to balance out gravity and collapses under its own gravity to a very small size. General relativity predicts that the star collapses to an infinitely small point with infinite density. But, as should now be clear, such a beast does not really exist in the real world. The appearance of a black hole singularity in general relativity simply indicates that general relativity is inaccurate at very small sizes, which we already knew. You need quantum field theory to describe objects of small sizes. But, quantum field theory does not include gravitational effects, which is the main feature of a black hole. This fact means that we will not know exactly what is going on in a black hole until scientists can successfully create a new theory that accurately describes small sizes and strong gravitational effects at the same time. Whatever the new theory ends up telling us, it will most certainly not say that there are singularities in black holes. If it did, that outcome would simply indicate that the new theory is just as bad as the old theory. In fact, one of the requirements for the future theory of everything is that it not predict singularities in black holes. :"

I am somewhat of a critic of my own profession in that I over-react to hardcore scientists that make statements that express the "generally accepted theory" but are, in fact, wrong.

For instance: Dark Matter is NOT a response to excess mass in the universe. Dark Matter is a response to excess gravity in the universe. We have no evidence that Dark Matter is matter. It is only speculation that DM is the result of some, as yet, undetected particles - (WIMPs?).

This over-reaction extends to descriptions of zero-volume singularities that also appear to have very large mass and gravity.

Pointing to an equation in which you divide by zero is not sufficient proof of infinity.

Call it a pet peeve.
"Singularities are predicted to exist in black holes by Einstein's theory of general relativity, which is a theory that has done remarkably well at matching experimental results. The problem is that infinities never exist in the real world. Whenever an infinity pops out of a theory, it is simply a sign that your theory is too simple to handle extreme cases."
My point, is that I believe this is exactly the wrong way of looking at it. Infinity cannot be viewed as a barrier to a theory of everything, because "everything" implies infinity. My point, is that general relativity establishes rules governing finite observation of infinity, therefore nothing is actually finite, it only appears to be. Singularities emerge because of the limited capacity to make observations based on interactions of light with our environment, these limitations being a direct result of light's speed limit. Fundamentally, spacetime is infinite, and every particle exists infinitely but is observed via finite rules of observation and contextualized by choice.

I think I see our problem. Before I got my physics degree, I had an engineering degree. A scientist will defend a theory because the math says so. An engineer will defend a theory because he observed it happen. The difference often comes down to semantics. I avoid using the word infinity or infinite as much as you do because it more often than not indicated a flaw or a gap in the theory. Here is one quote that expresses this idea:

"Singularities are predicted to exist in black holes by Einstein's theory of general relativity, which is a theory that has done remarkably well at matching experimental results. The problem is that infinities never exist in the real world. Whenever an infinity pops out of a theory, it is simply a sign that your theory is too simple to handle extreme cases."

"A black hole forms when a massive star runs out of the fuel needed to balance out gravity and collapses under its own gravity to a very small size. General relativity predicts that the star collapses to an infinitely small point with infinite density. But, as should now be clear, such a beast does not really exist in the real world. The appearance of a black hole singularity in general relativity simply indicates that general relativity is inaccurate at very small sizes, which we already knew. You need quantum field theory to describe objects of small sizes. But, quantum field theory does not include gravitational effects, which is the main feature of a black hole. This fact means that we will not know exactly what is going on in a black hole until scientists can successfully create a new theory that accurately describes small sizes and strong gravitational effects at the same time. Whatever the new theory ends up telling us, it will most certainly not say that there are singularities in black holes. If it did, that outcome would simply indicate that the new theory is just as bad as the old theory. In fact, one of the requirements for the future theory of everything is that it not predict singularities in black holes. :"

I am somewhat of a critic of my own profession in that I over-react to hardcore scientists that make statements that express the "generally accepted theory" but are, in fact, wrong.

For instance: Dark Matter is NOT a response to excess mass in the universe. Dark Matter is a response to excess gravity in the universe. We have no evidence that Dark Matter is matter. It is only speculation that DM is the result of some, as yet, undetected particles - (WIMPs?).

This over-reaction extends to descriptions of zero-volume singularities that also appear to have very large mass and gravity.

Pointing to an equation in which you divide by zero is not sufficient proof of infinity.

Call it a pet peeve.
Wave-particle duality could also be described as infinite-finite duality, where the particle is essentially a constrained version of the wave accounting for past choices, i.e. the passage of time. Hopefully I am making sense here...

I think I see our problem. Before I got my physics degree, I had an engineering degree. A scientist will defend a theory because the math says so. An engineer will defend a theory because he observed it happen. The difference often comes down to semantics. I avoid using the word infinity or infinite as much as you do because it more often than not indicated a flaw or a gap in the theory. Here is one quote that expresses this idea:

"Singularities are predicted to exist in black holes by Einstein's theory of general relativity, which is a theory that has done remarkably well at matching experimental results. The problem is that infinities never exist in the real world. Whenever an infinity pops out of a theory, it is simply a sign that your theory is too simple to handle extreme cases."

"A black hole forms when a massive star runs out of the fuel needed to balance out gravity and collapses under its own gravity to a very small size. General relativity predicts that the star collapses to an infinitely small point with infinite density. But, as should now be clear, such a beast does not really exist in the real world. The appearance of a black hole singularity in general relativity simply indicates that general relativity is inaccurate at very small sizes, which we already knew. You need quantum field theory to describe objects of small sizes. But, quantum field theory does not include gravitational effects, which is the main feature of a black hole. This fact means that we will not know exactly what is going on in a black hole until scientists can successfully create a new theory that accurately describes small sizes and strong gravitational effects at the same time. Whatever the new theory ends up telling us, it will most certainly not say that there are singularities in black holes. If it did, that outcome would simply indicate that the new theory is just as bad as the old theory. In fact, one of the requirements for the future theory of everything is that it not predict singularities in black holes. :"

I am somewhat of a critic of my own profession in that I over-react to hardcore scientists that make statements that express the "generally accepted theory" but are, in fact, wrong.

For instance: Dark Matter is NOT a response to excess mass in the universe. Dark Matter is a response to excess gravity in the universe. We have no evidence that Dark Matter is matter. It is only speculation that DM is the result of some, as yet, undetected particles - (WIMPs?).

This over-reaction extends to descriptions of zero-volume singularities that also appear to have very large mass and gravity.

Pointing to an equation in which you divide by zero is not sufficient proof of infinity.

Call it a pet peeve.
Basically, what I am suggesting is that we need to move forward utilizing infinity as a critical concept by establishing the context of infinity in any given situation. Remember that the earliest human math, if I am correct, did not incorporate a concept of zero. I am suggesting, that in like fashion we have inadequately dealt with concepts of infinity across the board.

I think I see our problem. Before I got my physics degree, I had an engineering degree. A scientist will defend a theory because the math says so. An engineer will defend a theory because he observed it happen. The difference often comes down to semantics. I avoid using the word infinity or infinite as much as you do because it more often than not indicated a flaw or a gap in the theory. Here is one quote that expresses this idea:

"Singularities are predicted to exist in black holes by Einstein's theory of general relativity, which is a theory that has done remarkably well at matching experimental results. The problem is that infinities never exist in the real world. Whenever an infinity pops out of a theory, it is simply a sign that your theory is too simple to handle extreme cases."

"A black hole forms when a massive star runs out of the fuel needed to balance out gravity and collapses under its own gravity to a very small size. General relativity predicts that the star collapses to an infinitely small point with infinite density. But, as should now be clear, such a beast does not really exist in the real world. The appearance of a black hole singularity in general relativity simply indicates that general relativity is inaccurate at very small sizes, which we already knew. You need quantum field theory to describe objects of small sizes. But, quantum field theory does not include gravitational effects, which is the main feature of a black hole. This fact means that we will not know exactly what is going on in a black hole until scientists can successfully create a new theory that accurately describes small sizes and strong gravitational effects at the same time. Whatever the new theory ends up telling us, it will most certainly not say that there are singularities in black holes. If it did, that outcome would simply indicate that the new theory is just as bad as the old theory. In fact, one of the requirements for the future theory of everything is that it not predict singularities in black holes. :"

I am somewhat of a critic of my own profession in that I over-react to hardcore scientists that make statements that express the "generally accepted theory" but are, in fact, wrong.

For instance: Dark Matter is NOT a response to excess mass in the universe. Dark Matter is a response to excess gravity in the universe. We have no evidence that Dark Matter is matter. It is only speculation that DM is the result of some, as yet, undetected particles - (WIMPs?).

This over-reaction extends to descriptions of zero-volume singularities that also appear to have very large mass and gravity.

Pointing to an equation in which you divide by zero is not sufficient proof of infinity.

Call it a pet peeve.
It is not a coincidence that General Relativity tells us a singularity exists "before" the big bang and also at the heart of a black hole. Think of it as two ends of the same candle.

I think I see our problem. Before I got my physics degree, I had an engineering degree. A scientist will defend a theory because the math says so. An engineer will defend a theory because he observed it happen. The difference often comes down to semantics. I avoid using the word infinity or infinite as much as you do because it more often than not indicated a flaw or a gap in the theory. Here is one quote that expresses this idea:

"Singularities are predicted to exist in black holes by Einstein's theory of general relativity, which is a theory that has done remarkably well at matching experimental results. The problem is that infinities never exist in the real world. Whenever an infinity pops out of a theory, it is simply a sign that your theory is too simple to handle extreme cases."

"A black hole forms when a massive star runs out of the fuel needed to balance out gravity and collapses under its own gravity to a very small size. General relativity predicts that the star collapses to an infinitely small point with infinite density. But, as should now be clear, such a beast does not really exist in the real world. The appearance of a black hole singularity in general relativity simply indicates that general relativity is inaccurate at very small sizes, which we already knew. You need quantum field theory to describe objects of small sizes. But, quantum field theory does not include gravitational effects, which is the main feature of a black hole. This fact means that we will not know exactly what is going on in a black hole until scientists can successfully create a new theory that accurately describes small sizes and strong gravitational effects at the same time. Whatever the new theory ends up telling us, it will most certainly not say that there are singularities in black holes. If it did, that outcome would simply indicate that the new theory is just as bad as the old theory. In fact, one of the requirements for the future theory of everything is that it not predict singularities in black holes. :"

I am somewhat of a critic of my own profession in that I over-react to hardcore scientists that make statements that express the "generally accepted theory" but are, in fact, wrong.

For instance: Dark Matter is NOT a response to excess mass in the universe. Dark Matter is a response to excess gravity in the universe. We have no evidence that Dark Matter is matter. It is only speculation that DM is the result of some, as yet, undetected particles - (WIMPs?).

This over-reaction extends to descriptions of zero-volume singularities that also appear to have very large mass and gravity.

Pointing to an equation in which you divide by zero is not sufficient proof of infinity.

Call it a pet peeve.
Nothing is truly finite, which is why matter cannot be created or destroyed. The mass of our universe relative to infinity must remain constant or our physics break down, which is 100% consistent with my idea.

I think I see our problem. Before I got my physics degree, I had an engineering degree. A scientist will defend a theory because the math says so. An engineer will defend a theory because he observed it happen. The difference often comes down to semantics. I avoid using the word infinity or infinite as much as you do because it more often than not indicated a flaw or a gap in the theory. Here is one quote that expresses this idea:

"Singularities are predicted to exist in black holes by Einstein's theory of general relativity, which is a theory that has done remarkably well at matching experimental results. The problem is that infinities never exist in the real world. Whenever an infinity pops out of a theory, it is simply a sign that your theory is too simple to handle extreme cases."

"A black hole forms when a massive star runs out of the fuel needed to balance out gravity and collapses under its own gravity to a very small size. General relativity predicts that the star collapses to an infinitely small point with infinite density. But, as should now be clear, such a beast does not really exist in the real world. The appearance of a black hole singularity in general relativity simply indicates that general relativity is inaccurate at very small sizes, which we already knew. You need quantum field theory to describe objects of small sizes. But, quantum field theory does not include gravitational effects, which is the main feature of a black hole. This fact means that we will not know exactly what is going on in a black hole until scientists can successfully create a new theory that accurately describes small sizes and strong gravitational effects at the same time. Whatever the new theory ends up telling us, it will most certainly not say that there are singularities in black holes. If it did, that outcome would simply indicate that the new theory is just as bad as the old theory. In fact, one of the requirements for the future theory of everything is that it not predict singularities in black holes. :"

I am somewhat of a critic of my own profession in that I over-react to hardcore scientists that make statements that express the "generally accepted theory" but are, in fact, wrong.

For instance: Dark Matter is NOT a response to excess mass in the universe. Dark Matter is a response to excess gravity in the universe. We have no evidence that Dark Matter is matter. It is only speculation that DM is the result of some, as yet, undetected particles - (WIMPs?).

This over-reaction extends to descriptions of zero-volume singularities that also appear to have very large mass and gravity.

Pointing to an equation in which you divide by zero is not sufficient proof of infinity.

Call it a pet peeve.
Dark matter and dark energy are the result of a principle of math. That is why it's invisible, it is a property of relative infinity

Am I making sense here?

This is a "simple" answer approaching dismissive religious dogma. Is there a term of time that is not finite? Words like "beyond", and "infinite singularity" sound important but have no scientific value.

Infinite Singularity, like Infinite density and infinite temperature, are terms that science cannot relate to and are used when we don't know what or how to explain some event.

If space is infinite and any given singularity is finite, then there must be a "before" to what we call the Big Bang.

If space is not infinite, then we run afoul of several fundamental principles like the Cosmological Principle and the Copernican Principle and the second law of thermodynamics.
Okay so everybody who addresses what I am saying, wants to say I am wrong but can't give any reason except that "infinity isn't real". That is not a legitimate argument. The finite could not exist without the infinite. Dark Matter and Dark Energy are invisible because, as stated, they are properties of relative infinity. you are all barking up the wrong tree and you can't even justify yourselves. Facts are facts, logic is logic. Infinity is and must be real, if it wasn't we wouldn't exist. Join me in reality any time you like.

Okay so everybody who addresses what I am saying, wants to say I am wrong but can't give any reason except that "infinity isn't real". That is not a legitimate argument. The finite could not exist without the infinite. Dark Matter and Dark Energy are invisible because, as stated, they are properties of relative infinity. you are all barking up the wrong tree and you can't even justify yourselves. Facts are facts, logic is logic. Infinity is and must be real, if it wasn't we wouldn't exist. Join me in reality any time you like.
Observation is finite, reality is infinite. Once again, not complicated.

I think I see our problem. Before I got my physics degree, I had an engineering degree. A scientist will defend a theory because the math says so. An engineer will defend a theory because he observed it happen. The difference often comes down to semantics. I avoid using the word infinity or infinite as much as you do because it more often than not indicated a flaw or a gap in the theory. Here is one quote that expresses this idea:

"Singularities are predicted to exist in black holes by Einstein's theory of general relativity, which is a theory that has done remarkably well at matching experimental results. The problem is that infinities never exist in the real world. Whenever an infinity pops out of a theory, it is simply a sign that your theory is too simple to handle extreme cases."

"A black hole forms when a massive star runs out of the fuel needed to balance out gravity and collapses under its own gravity to a very small size. General relativity predicts that the star collapses to an infinitely small point with infinite density. But, as should now be clear, such a beast does not really exist in the real world. The appearance of a black hole singularity in general relativity simply indicates that general relativity is inaccurate at very small sizes, which we already knew. You need quantum field theory to describe objects of small sizes. But, quantum field theory does not include gravitational effects, which is the main feature of a black hole. This fact means that we will not know exactly what is going on in a black hole until scientists can successfully create a new theory that accurately describes small sizes and strong gravitational effects at the same time. Whatever the new theory ends up telling us, it will most certainly not say that there are singularities in black holes. If it did, that outcome would simply indicate that the new theory is just as bad as the old theory. In fact, one of the requirements for the future theory of everything is that it not predict singularities in black holes. :"

I am somewhat of a critic of my own profession in that I over-react to hardcore scientists that make statements that express the "generally accepted theory" but are, in fact, wrong.

For instance: Dark Matter is NOT a response to excess mass in the universe. Dark Matter is a response to excess gravity in the universe. We have no evidence that Dark Matter is matter. It is only speculation that DM is the result of some, as yet, undetected particles - (WIMPs?).

This over-reaction extends to descriptions of zero-volume singularities that also appear to have very large mass and gravity.

Pointing to an equation in which you divide by zero is not sufficient proof of infinity.

Call it a pet peeve.
I explain the excess gravity in the universe as well as the expansion of spacetime as a principle of math relating to the finite characteristics of infinity. If Earth spontaneously collapsed into a black hole and the sun spontaneously collapsed into a black hole, each would contain a singularity with finite properties of mass. In other words, the mas of the Earth and the mass of the Sun respectively would each be stretched to infinity, and any physics that emerge within would be rules governing finite observation of these singularities with defined mass and therefore defined complexity relative to infinity. I am frustrated because this seems pretty straightforward and I am stumped as to the basis for everybody pretending infinity can't be real or that it is somehow a concept that is impossible to work with (perhaps I need to make a clear distinction between infinity and eternity?) But all the same thanks for taking the time to respond.

Last edited by a moderator:

#### Dan Hilbert

For a long time, I've been skeptical of the existence of black holes. After taking some college courses in astronomy, I became even more leery as to the veracity of "black holes", Are they real?

Of course they are. But they are not there because of a so-called super massive point in time that swallows anything that comes within its gaping vortex or what astronomers and astrophysicists like to call them; the "event horizon" and the "singularity". Let's be honest. There might be a logical explanation. Two hundred years ago, the eye of a hurricane was not well understood. Today, we should concede that black holes are merely the space which is void of material, similar to the eye of a hurricane.

The term "black hole" was first authored by Ann Ewing, a journalist who penned an article entitled, Black Holes in Space. Then in 1967, a scientist, Fred Wheeler mentioned it in a lecture and the term has stuck like superglue on the minds of millions. However, it is a myth.

All galaxies that have a recognizable swirling vortex, such as the spiral Whirlpool galaxy in the constellation Canes Venatici may indeed have what appears to be a black hole. This is due to the angular momentum and the circular velocity of the vortex. If a galaxy has no vortex, there would be no black hole. It would be similar to the Magellanic Cloud, which may or may not be a galaxy. Nevertheless, it has no black hole because it is just a large cloud of stars, similar to a large tropical weather pattern that has not yet developed into a hurricane or typhoon.

Because of the laws of conservation of angular momentum, a vortex or event horizon requires a beginning. That birth began when stars were born. More stars began sharing their gravity with other neighboring stars and in time it became a rotational galaxy. There is no air or other material to slow it down and so it maintains its rotational speed.

If black holes are at the center of most galaxies, then they must also be a part of that galaxy and are traveling at the same speed as the galaxy itself. Isn't it a bit ironic that black holes must be at the center of galaxies just as the eye of a hurricane is also at the center? Does the black hole follow the galaxy or is it the other way around? Puzzling isn't it? I , for one, will not be preserving the hoax of "black holes". It is futile and a reductio ad absurdum argument.

Last edited:

#### efarina96

BANNED
For a long time, I've been skeptical of the existence of black holes. After taking some college courses in astronomy, I became even more leery as to the veracity of "black holes", Are they real?

Of course they are. But they are not there because of a so-called super massive point in time that swallows anything that comes within its gaping vortex or what astronomers and astrophysicists like to call them; the "event horizon" and the "singularity". Let's be honest. There might be a logical explanation. Two hundred years ago, the eye of a hurricane was not well understood. Today, we should concede that black holes are merely the space which is void of material, similar to the eye of a hurricane.

The term "black hole" was first authored by Ann Ewing, a journalist who penned an article entitled, Black Holes in Space. Then in 1967, a scientist, Fred Wheeler mentioned it in a lecture and the term has stuck like superglue on the minds of millions. However, it is a myth.

All galaxies that have a recognizable swirling vortex, such as the spiral Whirlpool galaxy in the constellation Canes Venatici may indeed have what appears to be a black hole. This is due to the angular momentum and the circular velocity of the vortex. If a galaxy has no vortex, there would be no black hole. It would be similar to the Magellanic Cloud, which may or may not be a galaxy. Nevertheless, it has no black hole because it is just a large cloud of stars, similar to a large tropical weather pattern that has not yet developed into a hurricane or typhoon.

Because of the laws of conservation of angular momentum, a vortex or event horizon requires a beginning. That birth began when stars were born. More stars began sharing their gravity with other neighboring stars and in time it became a rotational galaxy. There is no air or other material to slow it down and so it maintains its rotational speed.

If black holes are at the center of most galaxies, then they must also be a part of that galaxy and are traveling at the same speed as the galaxy itself. Isn't it a bit ironic that black holes must be at the center of galaxies just as the eye of a hurricane is also at the center? Does the black hole follow the galaxy or is it the other way around? Puzzling isn't it? I , for one, will not be preserving the hoax of "black holes". It is futile and a reductio ad absurdum argument.
Do you know why the math of general relativity indicates a singularity both at the heart of a black hole and "preceding" the big bang (preceding is in quotes once again to highlight the very simple yet apparently impossible to understand fact, that infinite space and time can not be described in finite terms of space and time, i.e. "before" and "after")? It is not a coincidence. It is because the singularity is reality, and our perceived finite reality is actually just finite observation of an infinite reality, constrained by the rules of observation (general relativity) and contextualized by choice (quantum mechanics). This is not complicated. Your argument that we should ignore what the math is telling us simply because you say so, because you don't believe in singularities, doesn't work for me. If you have a legitimate argument other than "because I said so" I would be happy to hear it. And before you choose not to read my theory and then claim I am simply saying "because I say so" please understand I have explained a number of previously unexplained phenomena in relation to my theory and made multiple predictions regarding planned future experiments.

Last edited:

#### Chem721

you can't deny the fact.
Why not? It happens all the time, in all aspects of human activities. Indeed, denying so-called "facts" is much more common than accepting them. Just make sure that the "facts" you push are really the TRUTH.

Many people will use such terms as "you can't deny the fact" to support an erroneous argument by simply insisting their facts are absolute truth. It can get truly insidious when a "theory" is based on a modicum of facts mixed in with nonsensical notions to support erroneous conclusions.

Indeed, suppositions etc. disguised as fact are the basis of countless non sequiturs. Such false facts and their related non sequiturs are used extensively in politics and science, whenever the real facts muck things up (for those pushing nonsense). Always beware of concepts disguised as facts, and their ubiquitous, highly misleading non sequiturs.

A scientist will defend a theory because the math says so. An engineer will defend a theory because he observed it happen.
Actually the observation is infinitely more valuable than the theory. The theory is a postulate based on various concepts and often suggestive observations.

Working observations in science and engineering are known as "empirical facts". There is no need for a "defense" since the observation is proof of an obvious reality. There is nothing more powerful in science or engineering than empirical observations.

They are things that work.

Last edited:

#### efarina96

BANNED
Why not? It happens all the time, in all aspects of human activities. Indeed, denying so-called "facts" is much more common than accepting them. Just make sure that the "facts" you push are really the TRUTH.

Many people will use such terms as "you can't deny the fact" to support an erroneous argument by simply insisting their facts are absolute truth. It can get truly insidious when a "theory" is based on a modicum of facts mixed in with nonsensical notions to support erroneous conclusions.

Indeed, suppositions etc. disguised as fact are the basis of countless non sequiturs. Such false facts and their related non sequiturs are used extensively in politics and science, whenever the real facts muck things up (for those pushing nonsense). Always beware of concepts disguised as facts, and their ubiquitous, highly misleading non sequiturs.

Actually the observation is infinitely more valuable than the theory. The theory is a postulate based on various concepts and often suggestive observations.

Working observations in science and engineering are known as "empirical facts". There is no need for a "defense" since the observation is proof of an obvious reality. There is nothing more powerful in science or engineering than empirical observations.
The opposite is also true. Instead of explaining to someone why they are wrong in a civilized way or initiating a discussion, people simply insist you are wrong, throw in a couple of personal insults for good measure, and that is often when arguments ensue. People love to act superior when they think they know better than someone else, but almost nobody knows how to substantiate an argument. I always say The Republic is my favorite tutorial for how to have a conversation... The way Socrates always explicitly outlines his logic, and holds people accountable for their concessions and contradictions is fascinating to me. A lot of people see me the way you describe, mixing facts with suppositions and "nonsensical notions" but if people are incapable of constructing a logical argument and react emotionally every time somebody states a strong opinion, what do you expect?

#### efarina96

BANNED
Chem721, if you have the time I have a simple request: read the first post in this thread. When you encounter a "nonsense idea" feel free to stop reading. If you can explain logically to me why the idea is nonsense, I will respond in one of three ways: I will ask for a clarification, refute your point, or concede your point. I am not claiming to be absolutely correct, but I am stating the my idea is consistent with enough experimental and observational evidence to be classified as a theory, not a hypothesis or a proof. The central principle is that General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are not incompatible, but follow logically from the existence of infinite space and time. If you would rather ignore me as most everyone else is doing, by all means suit yourself.

#### Chem721

Chem721, if you have the time I have a simple request: read the first post in this thread. When you encounter a "nonsense idea" feel free to stop reading.
It is your conclusion that I have impugned the integrity of anyone's post. To be sure, I have done nothing of the kind. I have merely used a simple statement about "fact" on which to build a meaningful comment regarding the concept of "facts" and how they are employed in various applications. I made no mention of the nature of ideas upon which you are surmising.

#### Xinhang Shen

Why not? It happens all the time, in all aspects of human activities. Indeed, denying so-called "facts" is much more common than accepting them. Just make sure that the "facts" you push are really the TRUTH.

Many people will use such terms as "you can't deny the fact" to support an erroneous argument by simply insisting their facts are absolute truth. It can get truly insidious when a "theory" is based on a modicum of facts mixed in with nonsensical notions to support erroneous conclusions.

Indeed, suppositions etc. disguised as fact are the basis of countless non sequiturs. Such false facts and their related non sequiturs are used extensively in politics and science, whenever the real facts muck things up (for those pushing nonsense). Always beware of concepts disguised as facts, and their ubiquitous, highly misleading non sequiturs.
Please understand what I presented first before making your comment. That all clocks on the GPS satellites are synchronized relative to all reference frames (the ground frame, all satellite frames, etc) is a fact presented on "GPS" of Wikipedia, not something I made up.

#### efarina96

BANNED
It is your conclusion that I have impugned the integrity of anyone's post. To be sure, I have done nothing of the kind. I have merely used a simple statement about "fact" on which to build a meaningful comment regarding the concept of "facts" and how they are employed in various applications. I made no mention of the nature of ideas upon which you are surmising.
I can understand why you would perceive what I said that way. What I said, is that a lot of people seem to think of my ideas in the manner in which you described. Your inference, while understandable, is not what I meant to imply. I did not take your post personally, it simply inspired me to lament the deteriorating state of discourse in the world and ask if you would consider some of my ideas and offer feedback, because you seem to have a critical mind and critical feedback is the best way to refine one's ideas. Again, I understand why you made the inference, but that was not what I meant.