Light Ejected from Black Hole is Easily Explained

Overview

For many years, scientists have observed streams of light being emitted from black holes. This concept is easily explained - though you wouldn’t think so from reading traditional science articles.

When I first heard of the phenomenon, I could easily explain it. Within a mere second I knew exactly the process.

Yet over the years I have read articles and watched documentaries which attempt to describe the process. Their words are convoluted. Their use of scientific language is fuzzy and vague. And those words are from the famous scientists…the ones respected in the field of black hole studies.

Alas…I guess it is up to me to offer the simple explanation.

The short version is this: There are regions of the dark star (black hole) which have less gravitational energy. Therefore, many objects can leave the dark star at that location. Thus: any photons which migrate to that region will be able to break free, and fly straight up and out. It is as simple as that.

 

Now we will expand on the process to understand more in depth.

Observations

The main observation is this: the black hole is primarily a very large black sphere. No light is observed coming from the region.

However, there are often regions where strong streams of light are ejected from the black sphere. These streams are generally “thin”, as compared to the diameter of the black sphere. These streams will then eject far into space - first beyond the event horizon, and then much further.

Notice also that these streams of light are generally emitted from the same region of the dark star…all the time. The region of emission usually does not change.

Furthermore, in many cases, the emissions occur at polar opposites. That is, there are often two streams, emitted exactly 180 degrees apart.

There are other emissions of electromagnetic energy observed. Most of these are much smaller, and less easy to detect, yet are emitted from various regions of the black sphere.

And of course when a star is pulled into the black hole, beyond the event horizon, some of the star will become part of the black hole, while part of the star ejects in its own fuzzy emissions into space.

We will stay with the first case: the long, thin, streams of light (of various frequencies) observed being emitted from the black hole.

Reviewing the Operation of Black Holes

Remember how a black hole operates: the mass of the star has become so compacted that the gravitational energy density is extremely great. Therefore, passing objects will be pulled into the star due to the strong gravitational energy.

More specifically: the gravity strings in that region of the dark star become extremely dense. Therefore, when any object passes by, all the gravity strings of the passing object will be hooked to the gravity strings of the dark star. The two objects (passing object and dark star) are pulled closer together.

The only way for an object to break free is if it has enough internal energy to overcome the gravitational energy. And this will be the case for each object, to varying distances from the dark star.

Light and the Black Hole/Dark Star

Let is now focus just on the photons (the “light”) in the black hole.

The internal energy of photons is constant. This value is the same for all photons. Therefore, the only difference in the situation will be the gravitational energy.

Where the gravitational energy density is great enough, the photon will not be able to break free. This is because the gravitational energy between the photon and the dark star is much greater than the internal energy of the photon. Therefore, the photon will not be able to fly away, the photon will not be able to fly through space as it normally does.

Thus: all photons which reach a certain distance close to the dark star will encounter so much gravitational energy that even the great energy within the photon is not enough to break free.

Similarly, any photons which are emitted from the star will be immediately pulled back. The effect is similar to a passenger in a car moving forward when the car stops…and yet the passenger is pulled back by seat belt. (The physical process is a bit different, but the effect of moving forward then pulled back is similar).

This is what causes the star to appear “dark”. No photons from that region ever reach our eyes. The star continuously emits photons - just like our own sun - yet the photons are immediately pulled back, and recycled into the system of the star.

For us, from this distance, we see no light being emitted (though photons are constantly being emitted). Thus, the region appears “dark”.

However...photons are being emitted…and if the region of the dark star has a region where the gravitational energy density is much less, then the emitted photons can indeed escape.

Why Light is Ejected from Black Holes

Now that we have reviewed the main processes of black holes, and the main observations of emitted streams of light from some black holes, we can proceed to offer the simple explanations.

The process is simple: There are regions of the dark star which have less gravitational energy density. Therefore, the particles above that region will not be pulled to the dark star with as much energy. The photons now are in a situation where their internal energy exceeds the gravitational energy. Thus, the photons are able to break free, and launch straight up into the space above. Very simple!

Additional Correlations and Details

You will notice how this correlates with the “stream”. The stream of light is somewhat thin, when compared to the diameter of the black hole. This is because the gravitational energy density is less only at that small region.

If the gravitational energy density was this lesser amount all over the star, then photons would be emitted from all directions (as we see from any traditional star). Yet for the dark star, there are only a few regions where the gravitational energy density is decreased enough for photons to leave. Thus: most of the black hole is “dark”; while only a thin stream of light is emitted...from the relatively small region of the dark star.

This is also why the stream is continuously emitted from that region. Because the gravitational energy density is less at that region, and continues to be less at that region, all photons which migrate to that area will immediately fly into the space beyond.

We can also note that the variation in gravitational energy density is normal for stars and planets. The gravitational energy density of any planet varies from area to area. Above the Earth, at the same distance, the gravitational energy varies from region to region. We take an approximate value, but the value actually varies from place to place - even at the same height.

Furthermore, the gravitational energy of any fluid object will vary from place to place. This is the case with objects like stars and gas planets (such as Jupiter). The gravitational energy density of our sun and planets such as Jupiter are known to vary from location to location.

Therefore, it is no surprise that there are some regions of the dark star in the black hole which have less gravitational energy than other regions. There is a process of fluid dynamics within the dark star which causes the gravitational energy density to vary somewhat from location to location.

The net result is that some regions have less gravitational energy. These are the regions from which the photons emit. In some cases, the gravitational energy is weak enough for protons, neutrons, and hydrogen atoms to emit as well - just like from our own sun.

 

Speculation: Solids with Some Fluid Dynamics 

This leads me to a speculation, which I will place here for now. I speculate that much of the dark star is a combination of solid, liquid, and gas.

The dark star, the black hole, is known to be very dense…which results in dense gravitational energy. Think about it: what is most dense? A solid. Therefore I speculate that much of the dark star is actually a solid. Or more likely, a collection of solids.

The second most dense entity is a liquid. Therefore, I speculate that much of the dark star is also liquid. Finally, of course much of the dark star is made of gas.

Therefore, I speculate that the dark star - the center object of the “black hole” - is actually a combination of solids, liquids and gasses.

I envision the system to look like ice cubes in a glass of tea. Or we can visualize several icebergs slowly floating in the cold ocean. I envision the system to be made of many dense solids, suspended in the liquid or sometimes gently floating in the liquid.

There might also be another phase - a type of gel. This would be somewhere between solid and liquid phases. Many of the solids would therefore be suspended in this gel.

The solids provide much of the gravitational energy density; while the liquids provide much of the fluid dynamics (and some gravitational energy density). The gasses provide both fluid dynamics and emission of photons.

These ideas are all of course speculation, and I will develop in the future.

Regarding the emission of light streams, we can incorporate these ideas as follows: The dense icebergs would provide most of the gravitational density; thus the gravitational pull of the “black hole”.

However, the fluid dynamics of the liquid and gas would allow the gravitational energy density to fluctuate. The various molecules can be stirred around, and will move to different locations. This will allow the gravitational energy density (based on those molecules) to change across the dark star (slowly, but can change).

Furthermore - and this applies to our light streams specifically - consider the dense objects being suspended in liquid. Where these icebergs are grouped together, the gravitational energy density will be extremely dense. Conversely, where there are fewer of these icebergs - and in some areas no icebergs at all - the gravitational energy will be much less.

Therefore: I speculate that these regions of the dark star which emit streams of light are regions which have fewer (or none) of these solid rocks, none of these icebergs.

The fluid dynamics of the dark star, for whatever reason, put more of these solid chunks in some regions than in others. Where there are more solid chunks in a region, the gravitational energy density will be greater. Where there are fewer of these solid chunks in a region, the gravitational energy will be less.

And where there are no solids, there are none of these icebergs, the gravitational energy will be very much less. It is these regions where the photons and small atoms will leave the dark star system. It is above these regions where we see the long streams of light extending from the black hole.

MF

12/1/2015

 

 

Challenging Einstein's Relativity is like Challenging Catholic Church

Introduction

I am challenging Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity. Actually, I have already challenged in many months ago. Now I am at the stage of disproving it. And replacing it.

I am currently in the process of writing documents which show that Einstein’s theory was NOT proven to be true. And more importantly, I am showing a better way, a much simpler and more accurate set of mechanisms.

Disproving Einstein’s Relativity is pretty simple, once you understand everything surrounding the theory. (This includes his faulty arguments, the untrue “facts” he based it on, and the observed facts which do not in any way prove his ideas).

Also, demonstrating that my new mechanisms are correct is fairly simple. In fact, it is much easier to explain these new mechanisms than any aspect of Einstein’s Relativity. (This fact alone increases the credibility of what I offer).

Challenging Relativity is Almost Heresy

Yet…the very act of challenging Einstein’s Relativity is a big deal. It is considered a form of heresy.

Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity has been accepted by many people as the New Truth. It is a religious belief. It has become as firmly entrenched as any views of the Catholic Church in the 1200s.

Therefore, to challenge Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity will likely be viewed with the same religious emotional response as any scientists of the Renaissance making a proposal that is contradictory to the views of the Catholic Church.

There is an emotional attachment to Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity which is unlike the scientist's more reasoned relationship to other theories or to other scientists. Einstein’s Relativity is considered as Gospel. It is considered as the absolute truth. And yet it is not the absolute truth.

General Relativity is More Religion than Science

In fact, there is much about the General Theory of Relativity itself which is more of a religious belief than proven science.

Note that I have studied the theory itself in depth, from Einstein’s own words. I have also looked at many of the arguments, and many of the supposed proof. I can tell you that there are many things wrong with the theory, many flawed arguments, and there is no proof.

Let’s start with the fact that very few people understand it, even scientists. They only get part of the understanding. Therefore, when they try to support it, or base further ideas on it, the scientists are on very unstable ground. This makes it much like a religion, and less like science.

Then there is the lack of proof. When you look at the experiments which supposedly “prove” Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity is correct, you find that there was proof of something, but it was not proof of Einstein’s Theory.

Even on a surface level understanding of the Theory, it sounds more like a religion than a science: clocks moving backwards, objects stretching, and other odd effects. Science is always logical, and yet this Theory lacks logic many areas. This makes it more of a “belief system” than a science.

But more than that, there is a type of religious fervor associated with Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity. There is a type of religious devotion to this view of the universe.

General Relativity is NOT the Only Mechanism

I am here to show you that his view of the universe is not the only one which works. I have mechanisms which work just as well. In fact, they work better.

Even Einstein himself has stated that theories which are simple and logical tend be what is real. Well, my mechanisms are very simple, very logical. They are so simple that I have been able to explain them to high school students and they understood right away. (You can’t say this about Relativity, where even graduate school scientists have difficulty with it).

Admire and Respect Einstein, Yet Relativity is Not Correct

I love Einstein. I really do. I believe that 95% of every theory he proposed is correct. I also identify 100% with everything he has ever said about the way scientists think, and the pleasures of spending your time solving these puzzles.

Personally, I identify with him quite a lot. He is one of the few people who thinks like I do. Scientifically, he is correct about a majority of things. This includes the photon, and the hope that someday there will be hidden variables which better explains quantum mechanics. (I have found these hidden variables, thus proving Einstein’s instincts correct).

However, in this one area, Einstein’s Theory is not absolute. I will admit that it has helped us make progress. For example, his theory helped us come to the gravitational bending of light, and the existence of black holes. Yet, the mechanisms are incorrect.

Stated another way: he came upon some right answers, but for the wrong reasons. I have the true reasons.

In addition, much of his logic is flawed. Also, some of the “facts” he used as the basis for why we need such a theory at all are not true facts, and therefore the theory cannot rest upon those facts.  

FYI, Einstein was also wrong about his ideas on the electron. Bohr and Heisenberg had more correct understanding of the electron. The contrasting ideas of Einstein and Schrodinger regarding the electron are wrong. Thus, even the greatest geniuses are not perfect all the time.

Again: I admire Einstein a lot, I personally identify with Einstein quite a bit. The way he thinks and the way he views his personal life in general is similar to me. However, Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity is not correct.

Replacing Relativity with a New Set of Mechanisms

I know that to challenge Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity, and to replace it with another set of mechanisms, will be responded to by many with a religious fervor. It will be akin to Galileo or Copernicus challenging the views of the Catholic Church. But it must be done.

In my latest book “Photons in Motion” I provide a new model of gravity. This model is simple, sensible, and provides the mechanisms for all observations related to gravity.

This model works from the smallest scale of photons and electrons, to the largest scales of stars and galaxies. (My model of gravitation is the only model which can do this. General Relativity only works for large massive objects; and “quantum gravity” mechanisms are proposed for the smaller scales).
Throughout several chapters of this book you will see the new model of gravity, particularly in relation to photon motion. You will see that “General Relativity” is not required.

Furthermore, in the last two chapters of this book I provide the true, more accurate mechanisms for the following: Black Holes, Gravitational Bending of Light, the Event Horizon, and the Formation of Galaxies.

All of these can be explained very simply, without General Relativity, without curvature of space, and without resorting to “space-time”.

The mechanisms for each of these can actually be explained in few short paragraphs. However, I have spent a full 60 pages describing all aspects in great detail. I did this in order to convert the believers of General Relativity to accepting this new set of mechanisms.

It is precisely because Einstein’s General Relativity is considered so much a “truth”, in an almost religious sense, that I knew I needed details. Therefore I present the full case for Gravity, Black Holes, Bending of Light, and related processes, using my new model of gravity, and at the same time showing space-time or General Relativity is not needed.

I will probably never write a book which disproves Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity entirely. It has never been my interest. However, what is important to me is to a) show the true mechanism of gravity, and b) to show everything related to photon motion.

And as a side product of this effort, I have shown that Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity is not the true mechanism for many processes which were once thought to be. We must be willing to accept this as a reality.

There may be aspects of Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity which are still true. If so, then my work will clear out the excess junk from the theory, and make Einstein’s Theory tighter and more robust.

And if the entirety of Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity is ever replaced by a set of other mechanisms, then my work will have been the first on the new path in that direction.

I want to conclude with this reminder: Always remember that as scientists we must be open to new concepts and new mechanisms. This is the way of scientific development. This is the way we as humans better understand our universe.

Mark Fennell

July 25, 2014