From the original article at Exo-Science.com
NOTE (from Exo-Science): I did not write this, this is from a PDF that has been floating around the internet for a while, the author of which is anonymous. If you know who wrote this, please let me know.
Rather than get an adrenaline rush from a fantastic headline... let’s go over some visuals and logic.
The alleged “black hole” image is suspiciously similar to a supernova remnant like 1987A (in a particular wavelength and then zoomed in and cropped):
Here is the full image of M87 they zoomed in on and cropped:
This looks nothing like a black hole they have in textbooks or what they model or any of the images they have ever shared or graphics or artist interpretations, etc. This looks everything like plasma and electricity. Notice the near 50 light year span of Birkeland Current?
Occam's Razor, Please.
Dark Matter? No.
Birkeland Currents? Yes!
Video: Donald Scott: Dark Matter? No. Birkeland Currents? Yes! | Space News
They literally show plasma and electricity but say it supports their model. The same electricity they say doesn't exist in space.
A black hole is modeled to have an accretion disk/ event horizon. An even/ homogenous ring of light compressed around the alleged "hole"/ condensed body.
Types of alleged Black Holes
But with similar observations, we don’t jump to “black hole”. We use logic and science. An eclipse during totality LOOKS similar. Therefore it must be a black hole in the sky? Or could Occam’s Razor offer a more reasonable explanation?
And in the image being labeled the first “black hole” ever… we clearly see an Uneven ring of plasma (electricity). Just like The SAFIRE Project electrode:
Producing energy equal to the sun from 1800 watts. The surface of the electrode is 1000˚K. Outside the plasma shells is 500˚K… But trapped in the layers of plasma are temperatures equal to about 3,000,000˚K.
(Like creating stable energy equal to a nuclear bomb but without the radiation) Each concentric shell independently rotates and also alternates in polarity.
SAFIRE Project Report.pdf
Noteworthy pages: 3, 4, 8, 16, 18- 24, 33 – 42, 45 – 61, 66, 67
Video: The SAFIRE Project - 2017 - 2018 / www.safireproject.com
And similar to the original setup by Kristian Birkeland decades ago.
From Jaim Harlow (a fellow researcher and true “peer”):
In my library, because I am older, I possess books. In one of these books are old facsimile photos of the plates from Mt Wilson -Palomar Observatory. Here is photo of M87 Sagittarius A* taken in late 1980’s at Mt Wilson-Palomar Observatory. It’s an x-ray image showing a Birkeland Current emitting plasma from its tip. That Birkeland Current is 5,000 light years long, while M87 Sagittarius A* is 50 light years across. Notice the plasma cloud emerging from the tip....that tells us that, since late 1980’s, astrophysicists have known M87 Sagittarius A* is not a black hole. The law of conservation of mass & energy tells us that such an emission is a violation of black hole theory. I suspect Halton Arp took this photo.
This also tells us that the object in the alleged black hole “photo” has a magnetic pole tilted roughly 15 degrees on the Y axis and roughly 30 degrees on the x axis away from us - this explains the elliptical shape of the central “blackness” in the photo as well as giving us insight into the algorithm used to create their image. The red-shift of a toroid closer to us will appear more luminously shifted blue, while the far-side will be less luminous red-shifted to the infrared. In other words, EHT is exaggerating the red-shift calcs while “photoshopping-out” the presence of a plasma-emitting Birkeland Current, while also claiming the “toroid (they insist is what we see) is perpendicular to our frame of reference. This press release yesterday was ghastly for its mendacious claims.
Here is another photo from Halton Arp’s book.
This picture of Haro-Herbig 34 by Bo Reipurth shows a young star forming system in our own galaxy (HH34) in the combined light of sulfur and hydrogen emission. (From ESO Messenger No. 88, June 1997, p20). Note the resemblance to the jet in M87 in the preceding picture. Also, the outer ejections show similarities.
Seeing a ring of light/ plasma and attributing it to a “black hole” is like observing Casimir plates coming together. No one is denying that the neutral plates indeed move toward each other.
But then attributing that observation to nonexistent dark matter accumulating between the plates which is curving space causing them to PULL together. When really it is a cancellation of frequencies which results in the plates being PUSHED together from the outside.
In reality, there is no dark matter pulling the plates together. But they OBSERVE the plates coming together and automatically assume it validates their predetermined conclusions and delusions.
An observation is not an explanation unto itself. Sometimes people see what they want to see. Same thing with people who see a face in the clouds. That is not proof of God because the clouds resemble a profile with a brow, nose and lips. But some people will take that same image and attribute it to their own bias.
Seeing a ring of plasma discharge from a supernova remnant is not proof of black holes. There are other more logical explanations.
This is like seeing a straw bend in water.
No one is denying the observation.
Yes. There it is.. A picture plain as day. We can obviously see the bending. (Therefore it validates our speculation WHY it bends though?? No way..)
Imagine denying the existence of water.
Saying there is no boundary and no surface there. No meniscus whatsoever. No liquids at all. Just like they teach about the Sun and stars being “gas giants”. I mean c’mon.. look at the shadow in the image.. therefore it validates there’s no liquid media. Must not exist...
So they come up with fantastic crap to try to explain the observation. And they say it's because the fabric of space itself is curving and light is following the curvature of space which is the reason why you are seeing the straw bend!
But the picture is of the straw bending in WATER… which DISPROVES the idea that nonsense about curved space is bending the light. It’s not space bending light. Space isn’t a thing that curves. (As Nikola Tesla, Charles Steinmetz, Dayton Miller and others tried telling Einstein.)
But you must believe the “experts” because they have a picture to prove their stance. And a hoard of people pressuring you into agreeing or else you’re a social outcast and crackpot.
But science is not a consensus and that same picture can be explained using reality and deflection of light and refraction, etc. Through the meniscus of a real liquid surface and boundary.
That would be like claiming the white light entering a prism bends progressively more and more as it gets closer to the surface of the prism itself. But light does not bend above the surface at all. ONLY at the boundary of the prism itself. (Pink Floyd’s album cover was scientifically inaccurate despite its popularity.)
Johann Goethe lived 125 years after Newton and developed a better model:
Clay Taylor has recently taken this work even further which you can read in this article.
Light propagates through a thicker medium which gives the illusion of a bend. (BUT ONLY AT THE POINT OF THE MENISCUS ITSELF.)
Video: Can Stars BEND LIGHT? General Relativity and Gravity with Dr. Edward Dowdye!
Not progressively bending less and less further from the glass like relativity teaches in regards to celestial bodies and “gravity.”
This is the classic bowling ball and mattress analogy used in relativity. Remember that relativity says that Gravity IS the curvature of space. Gravity IS the divot. Gravity is NOT a force according to Einstein.
No weak force, no attraction or pull. Just the curvature of space itself = gravity. But in this model, Light progressively curves around the so called meniscus of the fabric of space. Progressively bending more as it gets closer to the body itself.
But as described in this brilliant explanation by Dr. Edward Dowdye... we can plainly see that light does Not bend around a star or body, but rather ONLY at the plasma limb.
Even Eddington himself.... the guy who took the May 29th 1919, solar eclipse picture that the entire scientific community bases relativity on.... he couldn’t explain why light does not bend in the corona and does Not bend anywhere other than the plasma limb.
Video: Can Stars BEND LIGHT? General Relativity and Gravity with Dr. Edward Dowdye!
Plasma Theory of Gravitational Lensing
Plasma Theory of Hubble Redshift
We don’t see light progressively curve towards the surface of a prism, glass of water or a star. Which means the sun has an actual surface and boundary and a meniscus unlike what mainstream science teaches. But science teaches that the Sun is 100% ionized gas… and gas does not have a boundary/ meniscus.
So, the same observations attributed to black holes can be explained by other electric phenomenon and processes.
The mechanism by which black holes are claimed to form is impossible. Stars do not collapse. That outdated idea comes from the false notion that stars are 100% balls of hot gas. An ideal gas is permitted to collapse… but liquid is not.
Video: What are Black Holes? Science or Science Fiction?
Video: Space Experiments - Electric Universe - See the Information in the Video Description
Video: ScienceCasts: Strange Flames on the International Space Station
Physics Myths vs Facts
They accept refraction through water and thicker media to make a straw bend… they accept high pressure states condense gases into liquids… they accept the existence of liquid metallic hydrogen... but they cannot make the leap to saying light refracts off/through the liquid metallic hydrogen and condensed matter on a real surface of a star? Why the cognitive dissonance and denial?
So, by acknowledging the existence of liquid metallic hydrogen… Being upwelled from the photosphere into the Corona… It means the corona is not a vacuum but rather contains condensed matter… Which means gravitational lensing is misconceived and things like deflection, diffraction and refraction cannot be ignored.
Light bending Only in the plasma limb is a violation of relativity.
Occam’s Razor please..
Time resolved images from center of the Galaxy counter General Relativity
Not to mention the transverse waves propagating across the real liquid surface of the sun after a CME as seen here:
Transverse waves can only be sustained by liquids. Not gases. You can shake a cloud of smoke with a subwoofer. You can have convection in gases. But you cannot have ripples expanding in a gas like dropping a pebble in a pond. Ripples mean liquid media at the meniscus/ boundary/ surface. Only longitudinal shockwaves can propagate through a gas. Or spirals. But not expanding ripples. Gases have no boundary or meniscus.
That one image alone disproves the entire mainstream solar theory that the Sun is 100% gaseous plasma.
Everything wrong with the Standard Solar Model (Dr. Pierre Robitaille)
This is like scientists observing stars in 1919 that are normally blocked by the Sun... but they can see them during the solar eclipse… And they attribute their observation to nonexistent gravitational lensing... when it should be attributed to refraction and other like factors.
So they come up with a bunch of crap about gravity bending light to explain the same observations.
But really… The light is propagating around the real liquid surface of a star. Which is assumed to be a gaseous plasma and vacuum and contain no liquid whatsoever.
You can film a streak of light in the sky and SAY it’s Santa Claus. You deny seeing the streak? Well then if you saw it, you must believe in Santa.. so.. HAA! Santa has obviously been proven since they have a video and pictures of a light streak. But there are other more reasonable explanations for the same observation. Like.. a meteor.
Black holes and Santa are not real. Even if you see a ring or streak of light. They actually say the following image is proof of relativity… Gee… wow. That proves all their assumptions and we can all rest easy huh? Your tax dollars are justified. See! A ring of light clearly shows Santa… I mean.. the Black Hole.
You could look at that same picture from May 29th, 1919, and claim it validates black holes too. There it plainly is, right? See the ring of light with a black center? Therefore it validates our models! …. No. It does not validate. Same observation can be used to Invalidate the claims.
They zoomed in to an image to observe a plasma ring at M87 which literally disapproves their entire model… But they use those same observations to attribute them to validate their own predetermined and contradictory delusions. On Your Tax Dollar! And people are wow’d by fantastic headlines. So they share BS article after BS article. Pointing to the image and saying…
Hear ye... hear ye... It's the Emperor's New Clothes!
All Hail the Golden BH Rim.
Can't you see the robes of credibility and veils of prestige?
No.. I see a naked emperor. And the rest of the village idiots parroting the same nonsense to follow the herd. Hammering the misconceptions over and over until Idiocracy is achieved.
Some people are too brainwashed by their own “peers” to see past their own contradictions.
Many people don’t think for themselves. They have “scientists” interpret the pictures and data and math for them. Like how the Mayans had priests interpret solar eclipses (rings of light) for them.
So these brainwashed professionals spend decades reinforcing the fallacies of regurgitated and “accepted” ad hoc models. They give/get pats on the back and awards from each other while they point and laugh at those who actually see the world as it exists in nature. Sometimes, if you are too trained, you forget what nature looks like.
They can’t even recognize the Newtonian model of the prism has been incorrect for hundreds of years. Light and color right in front of their face with the ability to handle real prisms and experiment for themselves. So if they can’t see the light on the wall in their own lab for what it is.... how can we take their perspective as credible regarding a ring of plasma in 1 wavelength 53 Million light years away?!?
Both Black holes and Flat Earth are the same type of denial of science that relies solely on faith while purposely ignoring blatant errors.
What do you call it when you encounter pseudo-skeptics exuding Dunning-Kruger like confidence within the scientific community even with the contradictions in their models?
(While they continually refuse to even look at the opposing side and acknowledge alternative perspectives.)
It’s called dogma and a cult. No different than the church who oppressed Giordano Bruno and Galileo. Now they oppress Halton Arp, Hanes Alfven, Kristian Birkeland and seriously brilliant minds who had truth and science to offer the world.
If you don’t agree with Einstein or Hawking, you are automatically dismissed as a crack pot or told to “read a physics book”…. By many uneducated people who don’t read ANY books. And then derided while excluded from participating in “peer” reviews, journals and the rest of “the club” and accepted elite who were hoisted onto infallible pedestals.
This is where Science turns into Psyence. Because it’s just playing with your mind at that point. Faith, not Science.
Want to learn more about why the claimed image of a black hole is misconceived and taken out of context by comparing some fascinating and genuine science?
Video: Dr. Pierre-Marie Robitaille: Sun on Trial | EU2014
40 Lines of Evidence the Sun is Condensed Matter and not “hollow with no surface”
Dr. Pierre Robitaille Papers
Suspiscious0bservers Channel (Sun’s Effect on Weather and Earthquakes)
Space Weather News
Video: Dr. Pierre-Marie Robitaille: On the Validity of Kirchhoff's Law | EU2014
Electric Universe Channel
The Rise and Fall of Black Holes and Big Bangs
Stephen Crothers Site
Video: Stephen J. Crothers on Non-existence of Black Holes & The Failure of General Relativity.
Video: Stephen Crothers Eradicates Nonsense - 2nd Rational Physics Conference
Regarding the So Called Fast Radio Bursts (FRBs)
Video: Donald Scott: How Many "Impossible" Neutron Stars? | Space News
Common Misconceptions About the Electric Universe Model
Halton Arp Articles
Peer Review or Poor Review
Perhaps you've already heard that GPS, by the very fact that it WORKS, confirms Einstein's relativity; also that Black Holes must be real. But these are little more than popular fictions, according to the distinguished GPS expert Ron Hatch. Here Ron describes GPS data that refute fundamental tenets of both the Special and General Relativity theories. The same experimental data, he notes, suggests an absolute frame with only an appearance of relativity. Ron has worked with satellite navigation and positioning for 50 years, having demonstrated the Navy's TRANSIT System at the 1962 Seattle World's Fair. He is well known for innovations in high-accuracy applications of the GPS system including the development of the "Hatch Filter" which is used in most GPS receivers. He has obtained over two dozen patents related to GPS positioning and is currently a member of the U.S National PNT (Positioning Navigation and Timing) Advisory Board. He is employed in advanced engineering at John Deere's Intelligent Systems Group.
Video: RON HATCH: Relativity in the Light of GPS | EU 2013
Video: Halton Arp Intrinsic Red Shift
The Manufacture and Sale of Saint Einstein
Einstein Doesn’t Work Here Anymore
Albert Einstein, The Incorrigible Plagiarist
Trouble with Relativity
Flaws in Black Hole Theory and General Relativity
‘Incompleteness’ of General Relativity
Video: The Reality of Quasars and a Break Down of Einstein's Flaws by Michael Suede from Fascist Soup
History of Mainstream Fallacies
Black Hole Theory Implodes on Itself
Dayton Miller Challenges Relativity
My opinion about Miller's experiments is the following. ... Should the positive result be confirmed, then the special theory of relativity and with it the general theory of relativity, in its current form, would be invalid.
— Albert Einstein, 1925
I believe that I have really found the relationship between gravitation and electricity, assuming that the Miller experiments are based on a fundamental error. Otherwise, the whole relativity theory collapses like a house of cards.
— Albert Einstein, 1921
You imagine that I look back on my life's work with calm satisfaction. But from nearby it looks quite different. There is not a single concept of which I am convinced that it will stand firm, and I feel uncertain whether I am in general on the right track.
— Albert Einstein, on his 70th birthday, 1949
On a body as large as the sun, it would be impossible to project a disturbance of this kind [e.g., radio broadcasts] to any considerable distance except along the surface. It might be inferred that I am alluding to the curvature of space supposed to exist according to the teachings of relativity, but nothing could be further from my mind. I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties. It might as well be said that God has properties. He has not, but only attributes and these are of our own making. Of properties we can only speak when dealing with matter filling the space. To say that in the presence of large bodies space becomes curved, is equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing. I for one, refuse to subscribe to such a view.
— Nikola Tesla
By 1916, Einstein had replaced the old ether in his theory of General Relativity with "curved space-time" itself. Only, this new ‘ether’ is no longer a medium in three-dimensional Euclidean space, but in "four-dimensional non-Euclidean (curved) space-time." It was this idea that was completely unacceptable to Tesla, and he criticized Einstein in the 1930s because of it.
The Theory of Relativity is just a mass of error and deceptive ideas violently opposed to the teachings of great men of science of the past and even to common sense. The theory wraps all these errors and fallacies and clothes them in magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying error. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king. Its exponents are very brilliant men, but they are meta-physicists rather than scientists.
Writing a decade before the explosion of the atom bomb, and ignoring the space curvature data from the 1919 eclipse which supported Einstein’s idea that space was curved around large bodies such as stars, Tesla suggested that the existence of a force field would account for the same mathematical results. Thus, Tesla brazenly concluded,
Not a single one of the relativity propositions has been proved.
My second discovery was of a physical truth of the greatest importance. As I have searched the entire scientific records in more than a half dozen languages for a long time without finding the least anticipation, I consider myself the original discoverer of this truth, which can be expressed by the statement: There is no energy in matter other than that received from the environment.
— Nikola Tesla
Today’s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.
— Nikola Tesla
And if you STILL believe the standard model of the sun and the Black Hole nonsense...
Video: SUCKS TO BE YOU, NERD!