ANALYSIS 2 DIRECTORY
COPYRIGHT © 2018, By Jonathan P. Volkel
The content of this analysis assumes that you have already read "The Unified Force and the Laws of Everything". It also assumes that you have read all the previous Analysis topics. Reading them helps greatly in understanding what's going on here.
The topic of Black Holes contains an immense amount of information. The subject was only briefly touched upon in "The Unified Force and the Laws of Everything". The topic needs and demands much more attention than that. It will be addressed much more thoroughly here, yet in as short a space as possible. Even so, this could take several pages. Somehow, this huge amount of information will have to be condensed into a "singularity" of space. (That was a Black Hole joke).
If you were to research this subject on your own, your journey would carry you through history back to Einstein's time. Prior to 1960, most of the thoughts on black holes were purely theoretical, being based upon mathematical calculations which were extensions of Einstein's Theory of Relativity. After the 60's, the capabilities of astronomy began to increase dramatically. New telescopes, armed with new technologies, allowed scientists to see more and more. The Hubble telescope added even more information, and there are plans for new devices and satellites that are hoped will improve our knowledge even more.
Rather than try to explain any of the details of that here, there is a more efficient way of learning about it. Someone else has already gone to the trouble of gathering all of that information and presenting it in a sophisticated, easy to understand and entertaining television show which stars many of the "Who's who" of science "royalty" and is smothered with state of the art special effects that helps the viewer to visualize what it is they are talking about.
The show was presented on PBS. It is a NOVA program entitled "Black Hole Apocalypse." You can watch it on-line at your convenience for free. You should visit the bathroom first, grab your popcorn, and make yourself comfortable, because the show is 2 hours long.
If you are interested in black holes enough to bother and read this analysis, then you've probably already seen the show. If you haven't already seen it, then you really should watch it. You may very well enjoy it and also learn a great deal from it. If the prospect of watching the show bores you, then so will this analysis. You might as well forget about reading this and go do something else.
Just about all of the topics discussed here will refer to what that show discussed. The information presented in "Black Hole Apocalypse" seems to be very authoritative and comprehensive. It serves as an excellent, thorough, firm and confident viewpoint to support the existence of black holes.
After watching that show, there is definitely one conclusion that can be made that is pretty much a certainty. That is, that ALL of the people who appeared on that show absolutely believe in what they are telling you and are convinced that black holes do exist. There's just one little problem. There is no such thing as a black hole.
How can such a statement be correct? You must think that anyone who would say such a thing is actually delusional, blind or an idiot. However, if you keep reading, you will find that by the time you are finished, you will need to re-think that opinion. First, it will be explained why there is no such thing as a black hole by addressing some of the theories. Then, the so-called evidence will be addressed. In fact, after watching the show and seeing the evidence for yourself, you will start to see for yourself that something is drastically wrong with what the scientists are saying. You will see that black holes do not exist, and the scientists are, yet again, misinterpreting the data.
If you read "The Unified Force and the Laws of Everything", then you already know how the universe really works. You know that the ether exists. You know that the Bohr model of the atom is incorrect. You know what the correct model is and exactly how it generates the force of gravity. You know that gravity is not a field. You know what the force of gravity is and how and why it is capable of doing what it does. The Analysis topic "Sub-Atomic Motion" reveals the process of its creation, why it moves, how it moves, how it transfers into another atom, and how that atom behaves when it receives gravity inertia.
Knowing all of that, then you should also remember that the ether is not compressible. Furthermore, the vortexes created within the ether by the spinning atoms prevents the atoms from getting too close to one another. Even if they could and did move so close to one another that they invaded the other atoms orbital spinning radius, it would result in the two atoms crashing into one another in such a way as to disrupt each other's ability to spin. Once they stopped spinning, gravity would cease to be generated. Once gravity ceased to generate, all inward motion would stop. Atoms can not function properly and create gravity if they are too close to one another. In other words, black holes are impossible!
Based upon what was learned from the NOVA show, it is obvious that science still does not know what gravity really is. You can tell that this is true by the way in which they define gravity. At one point (starting at about 13 minutes into the show), they discussed the nature of gravity. They seemed to criticize Isaac Newton regarding his laws of gravitation. They stated that Newton's laws only explained what gravity did, not what it was. The implication here is that Newton's observations were incomplete.
Then they started talking about Einstein's theory on gravity. They told how it explained that gravity bent space. That's essentially the only explanation they offered regarding the properties of gravity. Somehow, they seem to think that saying "Gravity bends space" is some sort of an explanation of what gravity is. They think that this explanation fills in the gaps that Newton left behind. It absolutely does not. "Bending space" is just another way of saying what gravity does. Their explanation is no more thorough than Newton's.
The narrator explained Einstein's observations on gravity. An apple was used as an example. It was noted that it was impossible to get the apple to move without touching it. However, if you dropped the apple, it would fall. Einstein wondered why this happened. How could it move without touching it? One scientist stated that Einstein came up with a "supremely simple concept". That is, that gravity bends space-time. Thus, gravity isn't a force, but is instead just the bending of space-time.
Bending space is a "supremely simple" concept? It is an absurd and irrational concept that defies the basics of reality. To suddenly decide that space has a substance which can then be bent by the non-force of gravity is NOT a simple concept. It is an unimaginable leap from living in reality to living in fantasy land. In the entire history of man, no one has ever thought that space was a "thing" whose substance could be altered. Even if someone had suggested such an idea, they were ignored. As yet, no one has ever even tried to explain what space is made out of, much less that its substance could be altered. No one has ever demonstrated how that could work. All they can say as proof of this is "Gravity bends space".
Einstein's error lied in his assumptions about falling objects. Consider this. The apple can't move unless you touch it. However, the apple will fall if you drop it. Why then, does it move downward without being touched? There is only one possible explanation. It is being touched! Every observation of the causes for motion unanimously comes to only one conclusion. In order to move, one object MUST come into contact with the other object. This is exactly what Newton's first law of motion means.
Then what is the object (or objects) that come into contact with the apple which causes it to fall? The objects are sub atomic particles of matter, known as photons. Those particles make up the ether. The huge amount of atoms that make up the Earth lies below our feet. Their energy is causing those photons to travel upward at a continuous and steady rate. When those photons collide with the apple, they cause it to move downward. Obviously, you might think that such a collision should also cause the apple to move upward. However, the corresponding motion created by an object colliding with photons is a reverse motion. The exact details of how this works is explained throughout "The Unified Force and the Laws of Everything". The general topic of how gravity works is covered in Chapter 8: "The Neutron and Gravity". The explanation of how all motion works is covered in Chapter 12: "The Smallest Picture". The precise details of how gravity works is shown in the Analysis topic “Sub-Atomic Motion”.
If you haven't read the paper, or forgot those chapters, then go read it. The explanation is simple. It relies solely on the concepts of Newton's third law of motion; "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction", and upon Newton's first law of motion; "An object moves with constant velocity and direction unless acted upon by an external force." These concepts are known and proven laws of science. "Gravity bends space" is not. The fact that scientists have so readily accepted Einstein's explanation of gravity is mind boggling.
Einstein also noticed that an object moving horizontally experienced an arc in its trajectory as it fell downward. By expanding this concept further, he decided that gravity bends space into a curvature of space-time. He completely ignored Newton's first law of motion. That is, an object will continue in its velocity AND direction unless an external force acts upon it. The velocity of an object only changes because another object touched it. Likewise, the direction of an object only changes because another object with a different direction touched it.
Einstein's definition of gravity tells us that it is not a force. It is a field which bends space. Look again at Newton's first law of motion. It tells us that an object can not change speed or direction unless acted upon by an external force. That law is obviously true for anything traveling in a horizontal direction. Why is it suddenly untrue if it travels vertically? Scientists should have immediately known that Einstein's definition, which told us that gravity is not a force, was completely wrong. It defied the known laws of science. How could anyone, no matter how open minded, even agree to such a concept without some sort of an explanation as to how it could work?
Einstein repeatedly made similar types of mistakes. For example, he realized that, the faster he traveled away from a clock, the slower it would appear to move. He disconnected from reality and thought that this meant that time was slowing down. It wasn't (see the previous analysis on Time Dilation). Here he is doing the same type of thing again with the concept of gravity. He knew that he had to touch an object in order to get it to move horizontally. He then watched it fall and decided that gravity bent space.
He failed to apply Newton's law which told him that the only way the horizontally moving apple could change direction downward was if it was touched from a different direction. He failed to realize that the constant horizontal velocity that was created by the initial touch was combined with a constant downward vertical velocity caused by an additional series of ongoing touches which had an additive effect. The downward velocity was caused by the small but continuous stream of touches by photons, thereby creating the arc. It is because the quantity of downward touches are continuously increasing which causes the increase in motion known as the acceleration of gravity. He disconnected from reality, forgot Newton's laws, and decided that space was being bent.
Scientists do seem to realize that gravity comes from matter. It is possible that they also understand that atoms are made of matter (although it's not actually sure that they understand that, based upon their acceptance of Einstein's theory). So then, from exactly what part of the atom does the "field" of gravity come from? What is the process within the atom that generates it? If it is not a force, then does that mean that it is not energy? What is it "made of"? How can gravity originate from within matter, but, according to Einstein, have no effect on matter? Why does it only affect space? Why does gravity exit the atom and not remain in it? When gravity exits the atom, is the total energy of the atom thereby reduced? How and why, or why not? How does it travel from one place to another? Supposedly it is not actually a force (according to Einstein), but is instead a field. What is the exact difference between a "force" and a "field"? How does this field interact with space in order to bend it? What is space "made of" that its substance can be bent? By what mechanism does the "substance" of space interact with the "non-force" of gravity?
These are but some of the questions that must be answered in order to properly explain the gravitational bending of space. You may have noticed that they did not explain or even mention any of this on the show. Theoretical mathematical formulas only attempt to describe the extent of what gravity can do. We have yet to hear an explanation of what gravity IS. Science avoids the questions of "Why" and "How" gravity manages to bend space. That is because they do not have the answers. That is why these things were never talked about on the show.
You can search as much as you like. You will not find any definitive and acceptable answer to these questions anywhere (except in "The Unified Force and the Laws of Everything"). It answered all of those questions precisely. Science seems to answer those same questions by saying: "How does gravity work? It bends space." or, "What is gravity? It is a field generated from within the atom that bends space". They seem to think that this explains how gravity works. No it doesn't. Those types of answers are insufficient double talk.
Newton noticed that gravity makes things fall (what gravity does). All Einstein did is to create a new definition of falling (what gravity does). According to him, you're not actually falling. You're just traveling on a path of bent space. Why can't science see that this is not an explanation of "how"? Can you see the lack of understanding that is revealed by their explanation? If so, then you are beginning to see the blinders that exist upon the eyes of science.
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Gravity supposedly bends space. That is an action. What is the reaction? Matter traveling along the path of bent space is not a reaction. A reaction would involve space exerting some kind of reciprocal force upon the field of gravity. Just as electricity creates magnetism, and magnetism simultaneously opposes the motion of electricity, so too must the bending of space simultaneously oppose the forces of gravity. And yet, it doesn't. Gravity seems to be completely unaffected by the space that it bends. Doesn't this defy the laws of motion and conservation of energy? Yes it does. This is another proof that the entire theory is nonsense.
It should also be noted that the method by which gravity gets from point A to point B is never explained. All they will tell you is that gravity travels at the speed of light. Isn't it strange that the gravity field generated by a black hole is so powerful that not even electromagnetic radiation, such as light, can escape it? And why can't light escape? Because space is so drastically bent that the light curves right into the gravity well and has no other pathway out.
Well then... doesn't gravity need to travel through that very same bent space in order to reach out and affect other objects? Doesn't gravity travel at the same speed as light does? Why is gravity immune to bent space even though it needs to travel through that space even after it has been bent? The powerful gravity of a black hole is theoretically needed in order to reach out and hold a galaxy together. And yet, not only does the gravity remain in the black hole to such an extent as to create a singularity, but it also travels outward, to affect the entire galaxy. Obviously then, it does not get drawn back in by the bent space. It seems that the bending of space is a very selective effect.
Black holes also emit "powerful x-rays". These apparently come from particles trapped around the "event horizon", or, outer perimeter of the black hole. The matter trapped at the outer edge is referred to as the "accretion disk". However, X-rays are just another form of light. They too are just electromagnetic waves of a higher frequency than visible light that travel at the speed of light. The outer layer (accretion disk) is supposedly spinning very fast. This makes the energy of the x-rays very powerful.
Being "powerful" does not enable x-rays to travel any faster than visible light. "Power" does not increase the speed of a wave. It increases the amplitude of the wave. It affects the brightness, not the speed. Then why can x-rays escape this extremely bent space when visible light, which travels at the exact same speed, can not? Does this mean that if you had a really "powerful" laser beam of visible light that it too would be unaffected by the black hole, just like the x-rays are? It should not matter how powerful, or even how fast the object is. Black holes bend space so drastically that the only pathway of space leads right into the black hole. What difference does power make when the only pathway available for x-rays is the same pathway that visible light uses? Even gravity must traverse this same pathway.
The entire theory of black holes depends upon having an accurate understanding of gravity. Not just simply what it does, but also how and why it does it. How can anyone create a theory without fully and completely understanding the forces that are used to make the theory work? How can the conclusions that are made about black holes be correct when the understanding of the source of the black holes, gravity, is so vague?
Hopefully, you are beginning to see some of the problems with this theory. The logic of the theory seems to contradict the basic properties of science. This stems from a lack of understanding what gravity really is, and how and why it works. The data is rationalized in order to make the theory work. They think that calling x-rays "powerful" resolves the discrepancy and enables x-rays to avoid the bent space. It doesn't. They seem to think that calling gravity a field negates the paradox of how gravity avoids its own bent space. It doesn't. Let's press on to a different topic, because there's much more to discuss.
Space gets so very bent by the massive amounts of gravity, that a "singularity" is created. The bent space created by gravity converges on one, infinitesimally small, single point. All matter is left with no other choice but to travel to that single "point". In fact, the singularity is described in the show as "Not an object. It is a hole in the fabric of space. A place where there is nothing but gravity." It seems like they do not understand the words coming out of their own mouths.
Explain this concept again...where does gravity come from? It comes from matter. And yet, it is claimed that a singularity is a place where nothing exists except gravity. Um... if there's "...nothing but gravity" there, then there is no matter there. Since gravity comes from matter, then how can gravity exist there? The gravity is not coming from outside of the singularity. The singularity swallowed everything. It absorbed all matter and light and compressed it into the singularity.
They describe a singularity as a hole in the "fabric of space". It sounds as if space is made of the same thing as the Emperor's new clothes. Actually, in reality, it is. Space isn't made of anything, and neither were the Emperor's new clothes. Space is not a thing whose "fabric" can be torn. Space is already "nothing" to start with. How can you put a hole in "nothing"?
They describe a singularity as a hole in space, and "NOT AN OBJECT". Then, by default, that means that they seem to think that space itself is an object. After all, how could one put a hole in something unless that something was an object? Of course, space itself is not an object. Space actually is what they seem to think the singularity hole is. That is, it is not an object. It is nothing. Since it is impossible to put a hole in nothing (space), then it is impossible for something like a singularity to exist within space. All of space actually is what scientists think a singularity is: not an object. The topic of how science transformed space into an object is covered in the Analysis topic "Objects and Quantum Illusions".
Although the singularity is small on the outside, they told us that on the inside it is as large as a universe. Perhaps this "universe" is the source of all the gravity within the singularity? It sounds like a concept from the "Men in Black" movie. Our universe is just a marble in a gigantic alien's bag of marbles. Why would they think that inside the "point" of the singularity, there exists a universe of space? Perhaps it's because the math says so. Well then, doesn't that reveal that there is something drastically wrong with the math and the entire theory responsible for that math? Isn't that proof enough that the theory is incorrect?
Consider this. Take a bag of marbles. Pour them into a funnel whose small end is narrower than any of the marbles. Think of the funnel as "bent space". Its curvature and shape will force the marbles to travel in a converging path. Think of that narrow end as a "singularity". What happens? The marbles pile up upon one another, filling the funnel with marbles. Why do they stop moving? Why don't they all just keep moving and squeeze together into the tiny opening at the bottom?
They don't keep moving because there is no room for them to move. The space in front of them is occupied. Their motion ceases because their pathway is blocked by the object in front of them. Somehow, something in a black hole keeps forcing all the matter to move right into the singularity. How is this possible? Science will explain that this happens because the gravity of a black hole is so "powerful". There's that magic word again. But wait. Gravity supposedly isn't a force that grabs hold of things and forcibly drags them somewhere. Einstein's theory tells us that it is not a force at all. It simply bends space. The more powerful the gravity, the more space gets bent (the narrower the funnel).
If a singularity is occupied by an object of matter (the narrow end of the funnel), other objects of matter would be unable to travel there because their pathway would be blocked. Their theory tells us that gravity can't force things into the opening. Gravity just bends space, thereby narrowing the opening. The concept of a singularity absorbing all matter into it is a violation of their definition of gravity. A singularity should logically have the opposite effect upon matter. The narrower the opening, the less and less matter would be able to fit into that space. As such, a singularity should be an area of space that no matter would be able to travel to, despite how dense that matter may be.
The application of the theory defies science, logic, basic common sense, and even their definitions of what gravity does. In order to make the theory work, they first explain to us that gravity simply bends space. Now we learn that it somehow simultaneously compels matter to travel closer to other matter than would otherwise normally be possible. Wouldn't gravity need to be some sort of a "force" in order to accomplish that? Yes it would. Gravity is whatever they need it to be in order to make the theory work. Somehow, the "supremely simple" concept of gravity bending space isn't turning out to be that simple at all.
Rather than debate the issue, think about it for yourself. It only seems to be a paradox because it actually is a paradox. The whole situation is completely and utterly impossible. It is so hard to believe that someone could be a scientist, say these things, and yet not realize how self-contradictory it was. They are telling you it is a reality and that the "fabric" of bent space and the existence of singularities are both real. The atmosphere of the situation is: "Perhaps the only reason that you can't comprehend it is because you're just not smart enough to see it. If you're not smart enough, you can't join the club." How many scientists, fearing that very accusation and the ensuing condemnation then begin to "ooh" and "ah" over just how wonderful the "fabric" is? Students agree with it because they have to. If they don't, they fail the class. The average public believes in it because we put our trust in those who tell us about it. It seems that such a trust is misplaced.
After Einstein created his Theory of Relativity, other scientists "picked up the ball" and ran with it. They realized that the inevitable direction that the theory leads to was the existence of black holes. The entire math needed to satisfy relativity also pointed to the resultant existence of black holes. They even wrote to Einstein and showed this to him.
Einstein realized the truth of what they were saying, but he also did not accept that black holes could be a reality. He felt that nature would not allow it. To his credit, he was correct. Sadly, he was not wise enough to realize that, because his theory required black holes to be true, this meant that his theory was wrong. Maybe he just didn't want to return his Nobel Prize. His theory also required time dilation and length contraction to be true. They are also as false and just as impossible as black holes.
It's not just Einstein who thinks black holes are impossible. Even the scientists on the show who said they believe in them also seem to simultaneously have their doubts. If you listened to the show closely, you heard it for yourself out of their own mouths. Here are some of their quotes:
Black holes are a "mathematical enigma". "We don't have the physics to describe them". They "shatter our understanding of physics". Black holes "defy our understanding of nature". The concept "seems like such a radical idea, we shouldn't accept it". It's not the scientist's understanding of the known and provable laws of physics that is the problem. It is their stubborn belief in black holes and the Theory of Relativity that is the real problem! It causes their ears to be deaf to the words that come out of their own mouths.
The previous analysis, "Time Dilation", demonstrated how and why time dilation and length contraction are untrue. Both of these play an integral part in the theory of black holes. Even without knowing a thing about black holes, you should be aware that any and all theories derived from Relativity are untrue. Black hole theory is derived from General Relativity. Its assumptions are incorrect, and its conclusions, such as black holes, are also incorrect.
In an effort to speed things along, the topic will change at this point from the theoretical aspects to a closer look at the "proof". When you consider a piece of data that science claims is proof of black holes, try a little experiment of your own. Instead of looking at that data with the same mentality that they do (black holes are real), look at that data with the knowledge that there is no such thing as a black hole. Armed with that perspective, do your own interpretation of the data. See if you can think of an alternate explanation for the observed phenomenon. Whatever explanation you can come up with will be far better than "it's caused by a black hole." It's amazing what you can see without blinders on.
During the black hole show, many images and videos of space, the stars and the galaxies were shown. Before you begin your mental analysis of the observed facts, answer this question. What percentage of those images do you think are real and what percentage do you think were just computer animations? Realize that about 99% of the outer space images that they showed you were not real. The great majority of it was just an artist's rendition of outer space. The black hole theory was made to "come to life", thanks to movie magic. The black holes seen in that show were just as real as space ships flying at warp speed. That is, not at all.
Understand that, according to the theory, black holes would be utterly and completely invisible. There is absolutely no way to see them. That is because visible light can never escape from them (no matter how powerful). Isn't that a convenient characteristic? Point a camera in a certain direction, take a picture of nothing and then say "See...this proves that black holes are real." Don't worry. They won't get away with that here.
Of course, they do tell us that black holes must be, and always are, completely invisible. They acknowledge that the only way to detect them is to see the effects that they have on their surroundings. That is indeed the only way that remains to detect them. After all, the ether is real and it is invisible. One of the ways that we can detect it is to do the same thing (observe its effects).
The difference here is all evidence points to the ether without the existence of any paradoxes. Everything about the ether complies with the known laws of science and does not rely upon any theory. In addition to that, the ether can, under certain conditions, be seen with the naked eye. The Analysis topic "Magnetic Fields" shows exactly how and why. However, the black hole explanations require paradoxes, huge stretches of the imagination, selective obedience to the laws of nature, and rely totally on the Theory of Relativity for validation. The evidence that science thinks points to black holes can also be attributed to other things, and they simply don't bother to tell you that.
The first real non-theoretical, tangible "proof" that black holes were real came with the discovery of the star Cygnus x-1. Here are the facts about that star.
One astronomer noticed that a star in the constellation of Cygnus was changing color in a patterned way. The pattern repeated every 5.6 days. It was also noticed that x-rays were emitting from the same star. Those are the facts. That's it. That was all that was seen. Keep in mind that the star is so very far away, that at no time has anyone ever seen it actually move. Through a telescope, it appears only as a bright little spot, sitting motionless in the sky that repeatedly changes color. Any other images that were shown of Cygnus x-1 were artist renditions created by someone with a wonderful imagination.
What conclusions can be drawn from this observation of Cygnus' behavior? Here is where a truckload of assumptions comes into play. One theory (apparently the only theory) is that the star is orbiting around something. As it moves on its circular orbiting journey, half the time it is moving towards us, and the other half of the time it is moving away from us. And so, thanks to the Doppler shift, half the time, the light that we see coming from it will be blue shifted, and the other half of the time it will be red shifted. This would mean that the time that it takes for this star to complete one orbit is 5.6 days, and it is this orbital motion which causes it to appear to cycle its colors every 5.6 days.
That is a plausible and acceptable assumption. But carrying this assumption to its inevitable destination causes two more questions to arise. What could it possibly be orbiting around? How can it also simultaneously emit x-rays? The answer that they came to was that it was orbiting around another star. Since the other star can not be seen, then the only "logical" conclusion is that the star had collapsed and turned into a black hole, and it is the black hole that is emitting the x-rays. The great distance is why the two objects appear as only one star in the telescope. Since black holes are invisible, and since Cygnus x-1 is so far away that we can't even see it move, then there is nothing to discredit these assumptions. Eureka! We have found a black hole!
There's just one little problem. There's no such thing as a black hole. That means that there must be another explanation.
Does the star have to be orbiting around something else in order to make those patterned light changes? No it doesn't. Can a single star not only emit that changing pattern of light, but also simultaneously emit higher frequency x-rays? Of course it can. Here's how.
Imagine a star sitting in a fixed position in space. Now imagine that it is spinning on its axis at an extremely high rate of speed. That speed inputs such a high level of surplus energy into the star's electrons, that their frequency goes way above the normal range. In order to stabilize itself with the surrounding ether, the electrons continually shed this excess high frequency energy as x-rays. Remember that the black hole theory acknowledges that black holes emit x-rays. How? The accretion disk is spinning so fast, that it creates the energy to cause x-rays. So then, can a star rotate on its axis at that same speed and emit x-rays on its own? Of course it can!
Well then, what about the patterned visible light? Imagine that, not only is this star spinning at a very high rate of speed, but that it is also imbalanced. As a result, it wobbles. It completes one rotation of the wobble at the incredible rate of once every 5.6 days. The wobble causes the entire atoms, to which the electrons belong, to oscillate. This oscillation has the potential to completely disrupt the stars stability. It certainly would if it were wobbling at that high rate!
The wobble speed would increase significantly with each rotation of the wobble. The star would break apart pretty quickly unless it can shed the ever increasing wobble inertia. Thus, the atoms of that star are continually shedding that wobble inertia in order to try and keep it balanced. Normally, wobble inertia manifests as magnetism (low frequency inertia). However, this star is wobbling at such an unusually high rate of speed, that the frequency of the wobble inertia is correspondingly increased, up into the visible light range. And, because the direction of the wobble is just like an orbital movement that goes both towards and away from us, Doppler shift causes the emitted light to change colors as previously described.
If you've read "The Unified Force...", then you understand what oscillation is (Chapter 13: "Oscillation"). You know what causes it, how it manifests in the atom, why the atom sheds it and how the atom sheds it. You should also have gained an understanding of how different frequencies of motion manifest as various effects. Considering that it was demonstrated that Relativity is incorrect, and that the existence of black holes is impossible, which explanation is more plausible to you? Science thinks that Cygnus x-1 is absolute proof that black holes exist. Rest assured that it is not!
You may recall that the show explained how black holes absorb everything that is near them. They even showed an animation of the visible star which orbits around Cygnus x-1 having its atmosphere drawn into the black hole. How long has this been going on? Considering how powerful the black hole is, why has the visible star not been completely absorbed? Perhaps the explanation is that the black hole is actually brand new and just hasn't had enough time to absorb it yet. Even so, how long would it take?
In the show, they said that it could take thousands, or even millions of years. Wow. That's quite a prediction. Imagine a weather man telling you that "Snow accumulation will be anywhere from one foot to thousands of feet". Clearly such a weather man needs to seek out a different profession. And yet scientists say "thousands or millions of years" in such a convincing way, they almost get you to think that they are being accurate and that they know what they're talking about. They should just come right out and admit the truth. They should just say "How long would it take? We have absolutely no idea." Of course, if they said that, you might begin to suspect that something is seriously wrong. And so, they rephrase it into a form that admits that they have no idea, while simultaneously making it sound like they know what they're talking about.
Doesn't a star have to go nova (it explodes) in order for it to become a black hole? Although super massive black holes are theorized to form in a different manner, Cygnus x-1 is not considered to be a super massive black hole. It must have formed via the more conventional way (a star going nova). Are there stellar gases (a nebula) in the vicinity that indicate a nova had occurred? If all the gases from the resultant nebula were already absorbed by the black hole, then why wasn't the orbiting star also already absorbed? Does recorded history document anyone observing that stellar explosion? Did this happen before recorded human history? The visible star is so very close to the black hole. How long would it take to be absorbed at that close range? Some of these questions were not even addressed in the show. The others were addressed vaguely. The entire topic was only addressed in a context which made the theory fit the data.
Also, the current theories tell us that when a star burns out all of its fuel, it becomes a nova. That is, it explodes. An explosion is an outward release of energy. Nebulae (enormous gas clouds in space) are the remnants of those explosions. They are visible proof that an explosion results in a perpetual outward movement of stellar matter. However, the theory tells us that it is also these explosions that can create black holes. How could this wide dispersion of stellar matter collapse back into a black hole? Strong gravity comes from dense concentrations of matter. Once exploded, the concentration of a star's matter is no longer dense. It is spread out across space.
The explanation is that the explosion happened because the inward pressure of gravity suddenly exceeded the outward pressure of the core. This happened because the star's fuel supply ran out. The resultant explosion did not release enough of the gravity potential contained in the core, and so it collapses into a black hole.
This theory relies heavily upon misunderstanding gravity, stars, explosions, and the causes for explosions. No matter the nova, much of the star's mass is ejected into space. Once that mass is gone, the supposed excess "gravity potential" situation that theoretically caused the explosion should, logically, be eliminated, carried away with the ejected mass. After all, isn't mass the source of gravity? As the mass travels away from the core, so does the excess gravity. Yet, somehow, even though the bulk of the star's mass was ejected into space by the explosion, the excess gravity remains at the core and causes the collapse into a black hole. Ultimately, when explained in the simplest terms, the explosion simply reverses direction!
Have you ever heard anything more nonscientific in your life? This behavior defies every known law of science. However, it seems to satisfy the Theory of Relativity and enables black hole theory to work. If this theory of how black holes are created isn't enough to convince you that something is drastically wrong here, there are plenty more examples that should help. Wait until you see how their big brothers, the super massive black holes, are created!
Somehow, a singularity is made up of nothing but gravity. Likewise, an exploded star, with most of its mass gone, also still contains all of its gravity at the core. It should be painfully obvious that science has no idea of what gravity really is. Their understanding and explanations of its behavior make gravity to be a very magical thing. It behaves in whatever way they need it to in order to make a theory work.
The next piece of "proof" that black holes exist is the discovery of quasars. This is a very bright light emitted from the center of another galaxy. The light that they emit is severely Doppler shifted towards the red spectrum. It is believed that this is because the entire galaxy is moving away from us at high speed. That conclusion is, more or less, an acceptable one. However, what if, instead, it was sitting still and we were moving away from it? Would the Doppler shift be the same? Yes. What if we were both moving away from each other? Would the Doppler shift be the same? Yes. However, for now, let's just go with the idea that it is moving away from us.
They believe that the quasar is 2 billion light years away from us. Scientists used the principle of parallax to measure the distance to Cygnus x-1. They had to measure an angle significantly less than one degree to do it. They arrived at a distance of 6,000 light years. Obviously, that number is rounded off, and they don't tell us the margin of error. Measuring things much further than that would not be possible. So, how do they know that this particular quasar was two billion light years away?
They decided that its high speed was the result of the Big Bang. Somehow, their ideas of when and where the bang happened lead them to the conclusion that the quasar was 2 billion light years away. The interesting thing about the quasar was that it was so very bright in the sky, despite the huge distance between it and us.
In order to still appear that bright from so great a distance, would require a tremendous amount of energy. They decided that the only thing that could be responsible for that amount of energy was gravity. That huge amount of gravity would have to be concentrated into a tremendous black hole. The theory is that, because of the black hole's great size, the event horizon and its surrounding accretion disk would be very large. The particles spinning around it would be highly energized, causing this brightness.
Gravity was then described as "the engine" which caused this. Apparently, it causes the spinning motion of the accretion disk, which then generates the bright light. To quote one of the scientists on the show: "The only thing that could put out that energy is gravity."
Um... say that again? Gravity puts out energy? I thought gravity wasn't energy (a force). It was a field that bends space. Isn't that why it is able to ignore the very bent space that it creates? If it is energy, then why doesn't it get drawn into its own black hole? Isn’t the immense power of a black hole the whole reason why it can never be seen directly? Are the particles trapped in the accretion disk moving faster than the speed of light? If not, then why can all of its light escape and appear to us as a very bright light from so far away and yet the black hole itself cannot be seen?
Rather than go back into this big round and round debate, think about it for yourself. Is the problem that the cited quote is a slip of the tongue, or is science playing fast and loose with the theory in order to make it work? Did he intend to say "The only thing that could cause something else to put out that kind of energy is gravity"? This may not have been a slip of the tongue. The scientists are perhaps extremely confused. Once all of the pieces of the puzzle are in place, you will see that science is using paradoxes to fuel the existence of black holes. They did it with time dilation, and they're doing it again here.
It is strange how, on the one hand, they rely on General Relativity to create their theories, while at the same time they ignore the inconvenient parts of it. In the previous posting "Relativity", postulate #2 of General Relativity was discussed. It was stated that it was correct and that it held a great secret. It was stated that not only did Einstein not see the secret, but he completely misunderstood gravity and applied the postulate incorrectly. The postulate states: "A gravitational field is equivalent to an accelerated frame of reference without a gravitational field." This means that an acceleration that is caused by gravity is exactly the same as an acceleration that is caused solely by inertia. As a result, there is no scientific test or experiment that you can do to tell the difference between the two.
Look again at the quote from the show: "The only thing that could put out that energy is gravity." The person who said this is either purposefully lying to us, or is confused or he doesn't know what postulate #2 means. It is curious. Which scientific test did the scientists perform in order to determine that this massive output of energy from the quasar could ONLY be caused by gravity?
Their reason for saying this is motivated by the claim that they know of no other force capable of producing that amount of energy. Therefore, the source MUST be gravity. But, what if that extremely bright object was not a black hole, but was simply something that is also moving at a very high rate of speed; similar to the speed of the accretion disk of Cygnus x-1, and the excessive speed is the cause of the huge energy output? Is that possible? Consider this. They think the excessive speed of the entire galaxy had caused the observed huge Doppler shift. That excessive speed was not caused by any gravitational reason. They acknowledge that fact by attributing the excessive speed to the Big Bang.
So then, couldn't the excessive speeds that are causing the bright light from the center of that galaxy be attributed to similar reasons? Is there any way to tell the difference between that situation and excessive gravity? Not according to General Relativity postulate #2 there isn't. And, in this case, postulate #2 is correct. The "Relativity" analysis acknowledged that it was, although incorrectly worded, essentially correct. It's just that scientists don't seem to understand how to apply it correctly. Or perhaps, they only apply it in ways that suit their needs.
There are a few other interesting things to note about this. They keep talking about the quasar as if they were talking about a single star. Cygnus x-1 was close to 6,000 light years away from us. It resides in our own galaxy. It is a star. The observed quasar is, perhaps, 2 billion light years away. It appeared as a bright star in the telescope. And yet, it is not a star. It is an entire galaxy. Using special filters to block out the bright light, a telescope can then discern the rest of the galaxy that the bright light comes from. The result is a small, faint, clustered glow with a large dark spot in the center.
Now, let's put two and two together. As will be discussed next, the Keck observatory documented that all the stars near the center of our own galaxy were orbiting around some central point at a very high rate of speed. Could stars near the center of other galaxies be orbiting even faster? There is no reason why not. Could that excessive speed of all those stars combined be responsible for that bright light, and not some accretion disk around a super massive black hole? Of course it could. Did the telescope filter just block out those stars, instead of blocking out an accretion disk? It is quite possible. At such a great distance, there's no way to tell. Neither is there any way to tell if this excessive speed was caused by a gravitational source or not.
Wait a minute. Remember Cygnus x-1? It was explained that Cygnus x-1 was emitting huge amounts of non-visible light (x-rays), and that this is because the light was so "powerful" from having the accretion disk particles accelerated to such a huge extent around a black hole. Now, when we look at a quasar, we see extremely bright visible light. This is supposedly because a super massive black hole is causing even greater speed and an incredible increase in the power of the accretion disk.
What happened to the x-rays? Why didn't the "huge power" instead heighten the frequency of the emitted light up into the non-visible gamma ray spectrum? Not only did the extra energy of this super massive black hole diminish the light's frequency into the visible light spectrum, but it also gave this visible light enough "power" to escape the black hole. After all, the only reason that we can see the light in the first place is because it escaped the black holes "grasp" and traveled here. And, if the power of the accretion disk is so great that even visible light can escape it, then why wouldn't such powerful visible light be able to escape from the black hole itself? In other words, if we can see the accretion disk with the naked eye, then shouldn't we be able to also see the black hole?
Whether an electromagnetic wave manifests as a very bright light (high amplitude), or very dim light (low amplitude), or x-rays (high frequency) or visible light (lower frequency), then according to Einstein, the speed of light is constant and so it would still travel at the exact same speed in each and every case. Does this mean that curved space is selectively ignored by different amplitudes or frequencies? How and why? Is there another double standard at work here? Of course there is. That's how they get the theory to seem to be plausible. If you blink, you'll miss the "old switcheroo". And thanks to the great distance from here to there, there's no way to prove that you were conned.
And speaking of the "great distance"; what if the galaxy in question was actually half as bright as they predict, but twice as close to us than they think? Wouldn't the perceived brightness appear the same in the telescope? Yes it would. This would mean that the energy was only half as much as they think it is. Apparently, the accuracy of the theory about the immense power of quasars relies entirely upon the validity of the Big Bang theory (it is not valid at all). If the distance is wrong, then so is the estimation of the power of the quasar. In other words, there is a HUGE amount of room for error here.
Excess energy is caused by excess speed. The scientists claim that the only way to achieve that speed is via the gravity of a black hole. Postulate #2 of General Relativity tells us that there is no way to tell the difference between acceleration caused by gravity, and acceleration caused by inertia. We know for a fact, thanks to the Doppler shift, that the galaxy in question is, relative to us, moving away at a very high rate of speed. They attribute this to the Big Bang, which has nothing to do with gravity. And yet, they are certain that "The only thing that could put out that energy is gravity." It doesn't seem definitive at all.
The conclusions drawn by scientists about quasars prove that science is being dishonest. That is, they just don't really understand General Relativity. Or perhaps, maybe they do get it, and are applying it to suit their needs. They are hoping that you don't get it, and so you won't notice the fact that what they are saying is inconsistent.
THE CENTER OF OUR GALAXY
The next piece of "proof" that will be examined is, perhaps, the most important definitive proof of them all. It involves the observations made from a powerful telescope in Hawaii located at the Keck observatory.
Scientists used this telescope to take photographs of the center of our galaxy. It is believed that a black hole must reside there. Their theories on galactic motion and black holes tell them so. They photographed the stars near the center of our galaxy over a period of almost 20 years in the hope of finding evidence of the predicted black hole. They plotted the position of those stars into a computer, and analyzed the movement of those stars over that 20 year period.
It could be seen that the stars were orbiting around a certain spot in space. Their speeds were incredibly fast. It was calculated that some of those stars were moving at nearly 10 million miles per hour! Based upon their speed and orbits, it was calculated that the amount of mass needed to hold such fast moving stars in their orbits was approximately 4 million times greater than that of our Sun. However, that mass was completely invisible. No traces of it could be seen, and so, it is believed that the mass must be an invisible black hole. Lacking any way to actually "see" it, or even detect any other traces of it, the search goes on.
The story about this experiment starts at 57 minutes into the show. If you fast forward to that spot, you can watch the orbits of the stars that they plotted. You can even see some of the pictures that were taken. You can verify for yourself that there was indeed, no trace of a black hole seen there.
Do the observations of this experiment prove that a black hole exists in the center of our galaxy? For some reason, scientists think that, technically, although not actually proven, the data does support the theory. Furthermore, they feel they need to spend many millions of more dollars to continue the search.
They should save their money. Based upon the information that was provided, the data achieved from this experiment proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no black hole in the center of our galaxy. The fact that the calculations show that a mass of over 4 million times that of our Sun is needed to support the theory of how a galaxy holds together and how stars could orbit at such high speeds should prove to them that the theory is wrong. Furthermore, because there is no black hole there, it also means that our galaxy can indeed spin and hold together without a huge gravitational source at the center. And, if ours can do it, so can every other galaxy in the universe. But, why doesn't the galaxy then fly apart? Without a huge gravitational mass at the center, what could possibly be holding it together?
How that is possible will be explained after discussing LIGO. But, before that, it will be explained why the Keck observatory results prove conclusively that there is no black hole at the center of our galaxy.
Have you ever heard of gravitational lensing? It is the phenomenon wherein if one object passes behind a huge gravitational mass, the effects of gravity cause the light that passes by it to bend. This causes an observer on the other side of the gravity source to see mirages and illusions of the object behind the gravity source. Several examples of this have been observed through telescopes. One particular example of this phenomenon has been documented and named "Einstein's cross". The following image is an actual photo and not an artist's rendition.
An object located behind the central mass (a galaxy) has its image bent in such a way as to create the appearance that there are four of them. Science thinks that this is happening because space is being bent by gravity. Space can't be bent. What's actually happening is that the central mass has an ether whirlpool spinning around it. Light that gets caught in that whirlpool experiences deviations in the trajectory of the propagating wave of light.
Here are some artist conceptualizations of some of the lensing affects you should see around a black hole.
If you view the NOVA show, and fast forward to the spot 26 minutes, and also 1 hr. 11 minutes into the show, you can see beautiful animations showing lensing in action.
Watch the footage again of the Keck observatory experiment. Look again at the image of the center of our galaxy. At no time, and in no way, and at no place, was there ever even the slightest hint of gravitational lensing occurring in the vicinity. They photographed the stars orbiting around the center. At least one, if not more of them, should have passed behind the black hole. When a star finally did, distortions of it should have appeared in the telescope. Twins, multiple images, stretched shapes, arcs, circles and the like. But there wasn't even the slightest hint of anything like that.
Where, in any of those photos, was the accretion disk? Where were there any traces of the remnants of a nebula? Do accretion disks emit x-rays or not? Quasars supposedly emit bright visible light from their accretion disks. Is there any trace of that happening at the center of our galaxy? Where are those photos? It seems that there is a great deal of visible evidence that could have been detected had a black hole been there, and yet there was none.
You might think that perhaps there is some sort of a mistake, and that perhaps it is there, but that it is being overlooked somehow. Think again. What do you suppose would have happened if even the vaguest hint of lensing, or any of the other effects, had been detected? The scientists would have rejoiced that absolute, undeniable proof positive evidence of a black hole had been found. It would have been the top story in all the news agencies the next day. Instead, we heard not a peep. Their only conclusion: "We need to keep looking."
They think the answer lies in using telescopes capable of seeing different (lower) infrared frequencies of light. They think that spending millions of dollars towards this will reveal the black hole in the center of our galaxy. They believe that black holes emit x-rays, and they think so because they could see it at Cygnus x-1. They think quasars emit bright visible light, because they saw that at the center of a distant galaxy. And yet, they see none of that at the center of our own galaxy. Instead of this fact revealing to them that their conclusions about Cygnus x-1 and quasars are completely wrong, they conclude "We need to keep looking." Apparently, denial isn't just a river in Egypt.
One of the other "proofs" that black holes exist lies in the observations of distant galaxies. Individual stars can't be easily discerned in other galaxies because they are so far away. However, clusters of stars within those distant galaxies can be seen as blobs, or clouds, of light. By examining the red shift or blue shift of these groups of stars, a general direction of motions within those distant galaxies can be estimated.
It is difficult to make gravitational calculations about other galaxies unless you have a pretty good idea of precisely where the stars within them are located. So, scientists developed computer algorithms that work on a trial and error basis. Based upon the Doppler shift data, the computer then "guesses" where the stars within that galaxy are actually located. Then gravitational calculations are made, and the motion of the galaxy is plotted. If the ensuing computer model matches the visual evidence found by the telescope, then you've got it. If the model doesn't match, then the computer re-plots the stars in a new configuration and tries again.
By using this trial and error model method, the computer simulations determined that galactic motion wouldn't work out properly unless a massive black hole was placed at the center of every galaxy. Once that gravity source was inserted into the model, the simulation describing the galaxy's spinning motion worked.
One of the celebrities on the show said the most deceptive thing stated in the whole program. He either did this intentionally, or doesn't realize what the experiment was really about, or had some other reason for saying what he said. He said "In every galaxy we've looked for one, we have found a super massive black hole in its center."
Actually, the fact is, they have not actually "found" a single black hole! Why would he say such a thing? If he had said; "In every galaxy we've looked for one, a black hole in the center fits all of our predictive models.", then he would have been telling the truth. Was this statement a slip of the tongue, a little white lie, or something else?
In fact, based upon their calculations, they determined that every galaxy must have a super massive black hole at its center. However, even they acknowledge that there is a huge problem with the concept of a super massive black hole. They are much larger than ordinary black holes. The calculations of the rate at which a black hole can "feed" and grow in size indicate that there just wasn't enough time in the universe for them to become super massive in the first place. This caused a major conflict. Their computer models told them that a super massive black hole must exist in the center of all the galaxies. However, their existing theory on black holes made the existence of such a thing impossible. Scientists realized that there was something drastically wrong with their black hole theory.
DIRECT COLLAPSE THEORY
Of course something is wrong with the black hole theory. The need for the existence of super massive black holes proves it. This is yet another proof that there is no such thing as black holes. However, thanks to their stubbornness, they refused to see the truth. Instead, they decided that the answer lied in yet another new theory. Yet again, a theory is created, bent and twisted in order to try and make the data fit. And so was born the theory of "Direct Collapse". Normally, their theory is that black holes are born as the result of a nova. But, that could only create a small black hole, like Cygnus x-1 is supposed to be. Super massive black holes could never be created that way. The new theory tells us how super massive black holes came into being.
This theory takes us back to the primordial universe. Back before there were any stars. Back to when the universe consisted of the clouds of dust that were the remnants of the Big Bang. Based upon the theory, these dust particles were sub-atomic particles. Either this means that they were electrons, protons and neutrons, all floating around independently, or that they were even smaller than that and eventually became those components.
Over time, the dust converged to become Hydrogen. Then the Hydrogen converged to become Helium, and so on. Eventually, these masses began to spin and were sucked down a vortex and forced to suddenly converge into one huge mass: a super massive black hole. The show explained this as a phenomenon we see every day. They showed us images of tornadoes and whirlpools to demonstrate that a vortex draws everything into the bottom of the cone shaped vortex. The high speed of the spinning vortex, and the narrow end of its coned shape, caused the converging of the matter. Ta DA! Super massive black holes explained.
It sounds like the people who came up with this theory are not actually scientists. Not only do they not understand gravity, atoms, or Newton's laws, but they don't even understand whirlpools and tornadoes. Their explanation clearly indicates that they have no idea as to why tornadoes and whirlpools spin, and why one end is narrower than the other.
Let's look at this theory step by step. First of all, imagine all of this primordial dust floating around. Somehow, the particles come together to form Hydrogen. How does that work? The dust "becomes" neutrons, protons and electrons? Why? Perhaps scientists feel that gravity drew the particles together. It couldn't have been because anything was spinning, because if the whole cloud of dust was spinning, then all the particles would be moving in the same direction at the same speed and they would never be able to catch up to one another in order to merge. That means that gravity drew the particles together and that the gravity responsible for this emanated from within these dust particles. That would mean that, according to Newton's law of gravitation, electrons, protons and neutrons all must emit gravity. Good to know.
Now, this would mean that, according to the Bohr model of the atom, gravity draws a neutron, a proton and an electron together to create a Hydrogen atom. Somehow, the formation of these particles into the atomic components resulted in the electron obtaining a "negative charge". The proton obtained a "positive charge", and the neutron obtained no charge at all. This resultant condition would have resulted in the electron keeping its distance from the proton. Since the neutron had no charge, then the only thing that would have caused it to bond to the proton would have been gravity. Voila! Now you have a Bohr model Hydrogen atom.
Oh...wait. The current model of the atom requires there to be a strong and weak atomic force located only in the nucleus of the atom. This is what holds the proton in place and prevents multiple protons from flying apart due to their similar charges. How did that force get there? When the dust particles converged, why didn't that force also occur in the electron? Why did the neutron not gain a charge and the other two did? Why was the electron's charge opposite the proton's charge? If those forces and charges existed originally within the primordial dust, then they would have to exist in all of the atomic components. Even so, what is the source of those energies? How did they come into being within the dust in the first place? If not, then what external source transferred that energy into the atomic components? Why was this transference so selective?
Well...don't think about that. Just press on. So then, electrons, protons and neutrons were drawn together...by gravity...and became Hydrogen. Then, two Hydrogen atoms were drawn together...by gravity...to become Helium. Eureka! The secret to cold fusion has just been discovered. Apparently a fusion reaction is as simple as just sitting back and letting gravity do the work. And the only amount of energy needed to cause a fusion reaction is the gravitational force exerted between two Hydrogen atoms.
Now all we need to do is spin these masses into a high vortex speed. But, what force is going to cause that? The primordial dust was just moving about randomly. In fact, if the dust existed because of a Big Bang, then it is all moving outward from a central point. If you recall, the huge Doppler shift of a quasar was attributed to high speed caused by the Big Bang. It stands to reason that this primordial dust, and all matter which was formed by the Big Bang explosion, would have that exact same high speed. How could such a powerful linear motion be transformed into a spinning vortex? Was gravity the cause? Was the source of that gravity from within the dust itself? Doesn't this defy Newton's first law of motion?
If you examine the way in which they create theories to explain more theories, they begin to blatantly defy the laws of science and nature. It is almost as if they perceive that the way things work would be something like this:
If you pour a pot of hot water and a pot of cold water into a single pail, the temperature differences will cause a reaction with one another. Because the hot water is hot, it will continue to absorb heat. It will absorb whatever remaining heat the cold water has. Thus, the hot water will begin to boil and the cold water will transform into ice.
Of course, it doesn't work that way at all. The temperature differences equalize, creating a pail full of uniformly warm water. However, the universe would have to behave in the sort of way which causes the hot water to boil and the cold water to turn into ice in order to say things like "The dust cloud started to spin like a vortex." Where is the energy that creates this vortex coming from? Energies blend together in order to equalize. That's the way the universe works. Energies don't move from one place to another in order to create even greater imbalances. A vortex spins in order to take energy away from an area that has a surplus of energy, and redistribute it to a place that has a shortage. Once balance is achieved, the vortex stops spinning!
In order to explain the origin of the spinning vortex, and its ability and purpose of creating an extreme surplus and imbalance of energy, and then locating that imbalance into a singularity point of space resulting in a super massive black hole, we'll need another theory. Let's not bother with that right now. Suffice to say, the spinning created a vortex, similar to a tornado or a whirlpool which we commonly see here on Earth all the time.
Hold on! If you look to the center, or the "eye", of a tornado or whirlpool, you will see that there is nothing there. In other words, all the particles that make up the substance of a vortex that we see, here on Earth, are orbiting around a central point which has zero mass in the center. This means that there is zero gravity coming from the center. Why doesn't the vortex fall apart, flying away from itself in every direction? Why and how do tornadoes and whirlpools work? Why do they take on a cone shape which is narrow at the bottom, and never at the top? The scientists are telling us that the only way to explain the shape of spinning galaxies was to put a massive gravitational source at the center. Now they are telling us about a dust cloud with mass of sufficient quantity to create a super massive black hole, and that mass of dust is spinning around nothing, similar to the spinning of tornadoes and whirlpools.
Which is it? Do you need a gravitational mass at the center of a spinning system or don't you? It seems that, in order for the direct collapse theory to work, a spinning system made of matter can exist without the need of a large gravitational mass at the center. And yet, the whole reason they needed this theory in the first place is because the computer models told them that they can't have a spinning system made of matter unless you have a large gravitational mass at the center. And here we have yet another paradox!
Can you see it? Can you see how ridiculous all of their theories are? Can you see the double standards that they are using? Can you see how they are using the rules created by their theories to override the proven laws of the universe? The really relevant question is: How can they not see it? How is it that they are trying to explain how the universe works, when they don't even understand how or why a whirlpool works? Nevertheless, they look confidently towards the camera and publicly declare that they believe that this theory is true. They also declare that black holes are real. Both the black hole and the direct collapse theories are as equally valid as the other. In other words, they are not valid at all.
It is a fact that the computer models that calculate galactic motion tell them that there must be a black hole in the center of galaxies in order to satisfy the requirements to maintain the shape and motion of a galaxy. They think that this means that this is a non-negotiable requirement and proves that black holes must exist. However, that requirement is not correct. It can't possibly be correct, because there is no such thing as a black hole.
The computer models told them that, because the scientists programmed the computers to tell them that, and only that! They allowed the computers to use only one method to determine galactic motion! After LIGO is discussed, it will be shown how a galaxy's motion really works. It does not require a large gravitational mass at the center to account for its motion. It will also be shown exactly how a tornado and a whirlpool work and why they are narrower at the bottom. If you can understand their motion, you can understand the motion of a galaxy. The scientists on the show were sort of right about one thing. The universe does work the same way as things here on Earth work. They just applied that concept incorrectly. Once you see and understand how and why tornadoes and whirlpools actually work, you will better understand how the universe works and that there is no such thing as a black hole.
LIGO stands for Laser Interferometer Gravitational wave Observatory. They have a website where you can learn all about the device. It is essentially two huge interferometers, one in Washington State and the other in Louisiana. They are capable of detecting minuscule vibrations arriving here from space.
Their proof of the existence of black holes lies in the detection of low frequency vibrations that arrived here from space. They believe that the only possible source of those vibrations is from objects with lots of gravity colliding with one another. They think the collision releases huge amounts of gravity waves and that this is what they are detecting.
Einstein predicted that objects moving through space would create ripples in space-time. That is, waves of low frequency gravity energy. Apparently scientists think that only higher frequency electromagnetic waves can travel through the vacuum of space. Therefore, any disturbance in the very low frequency bandwidth must be the ripples in the fabric of space caused by gravity. They think it is the only other force that is capable of traversing the vacuum of space.
Einstein insisted that gravity wasn't a force; it was a field. And yet, it travels in waves, just as light does? Also scientists tell us that nothing can escape the pull of a black hole. If two black holes collided, then the low frequency waves that were detected were the result of an explosion of some sort? Wouldn't the two colliding black holes just get sucked into one another, causing the two singularities within to merge into one larger singularity? If the gravity of black holes was released into space by the collision, then wouldn't they cease to be black holes? Doesn't the explosion of a nova that creates a black hole happen because all of the gravity remains within the core, despite the explosion? Why then, would the collision of two black holes result in the release of gravity through space? Wouldn't the ability to explosively release gravity into space prevent the creation of black holes in the first place? How does all of this work? Science has the explanation for exactly how it works, and it is this. Gravity bends space! Wait. What? You've got to be kidding! Oops. Here is yet another paradox.
The scientists believe that the waves that LIGO detected were caused by the collision of two black holes, which happened over a billion years ago. That's over one billion light years away from us. How do they know the waves were caused by two black holes colliding? Black holes are invisible. Is the "proof" based on more assumptions? Are those assumptions based upon the idea that only gravity can create low frequency waves? Is this data being interpreted by the power of wishful thinking? Doesn't the entire logic of this seem somewhat contradictory with the precepts of the theory? It seems as if they are applying inconsistent characteristic traits of black holes to suit their needs so as to make the data fit the theory. They also seem to be selectively and incorrectly applying the laws of nature to make them fit the black hole theory. They did these same things with time dilation.
If they knew about the existence of the ether, then they would realize that waves of ANY frequency can travel through space just as easily as light can. The ether is the medium. Any and all patterned vibrations of matter create a disturbance which propagates through the medium of the ether as a wave of any and all possible frequencies.
Then why doesn't LIGO detect all those other waves too? It did. It just wasn't reported because they told it not to! The device was so sensitive, that any vibrations would trigger it. Traffic, wind, falling rain, footsteps, voices, etc. Even the microscopic vibrations within the atoms that make up the mirrors of LIGO disrupt its detection abilities. ALL vibrations had to be filtered out, except for the ones they wanted to see. Somehow, they knew exactly what they wanted to see before anyone had ever seen it. Black hole theory predicted what they would see, and they made sure that was all that they would see. They went to great pains and expense making absolutely sure that the data would fit the theory.
Since the LIGO detectors went on line, there have been several more detections of low frequency vibrations coming from space. That's a lot of stars crashing into one another. One of those detections was even associated with an ensuing flash of light. They suppose it was two stars of much more commonplace mass than that of a black hole.
Apparently, LIGO first detected a vibration signal. Then they alerted astronomers to look into the sky. How long did it take for them to look? What was the delay between the time the signal was detected by LIGO to the time when the flash of light was observed through the telescope? Both gravity and light traveled at the same speed. Wouldn't the flash of light and the detection of the signal occur at the exact same time?
How can you tell how far away the gravity waves, detected by the first supposed black hole collision, originated from? They told us it was about one billion light years away. Perhaps the amplitude of the incoming waves was so low, and the original magnitude of black hole waves is supposed to be so very high. Maybe they calculated the dissipation rate of those waves and thereby calculated the distance of one billion light years. However, determining the distance in this way would require the need to make an initial assumption of the magnitude of the wave when it was formed. How could they possibly know that? If not this method, then how was the distance determined?
Of course, if two little asteroids smashed together in the asteroid field, they would create the same kind of waves. Those waves would start off much smaller than a supposed black hole's waves. Their total distance traveled would also be much shorter, but the starting strength would have been proportionately much smaller. By the time they reached here, those waves would be equivalently weakened as well.
Imagine two billiard balls colliding. When they hit each other, we can hear the sound of that collision. The associated sound has nothing to do with the balls releasing waves of gravity. It is because the collision creates a vibration. The vibrating balls created patterned collisions with the air molecules surrounding them. The propagation of that motion through air is a sound wave.
Two objects colliding in space do the exact same thing. The vibrations created by the collision create patterned collisions with the photons surrounding them. The propagation of that motion through the ether appears as if it were a gravity wave. Sound travels through air at about 720 mph. and manifests to us as sound. The same frequencies travel through the ether at the speed of light and manifest to us as linear motion. They think that this motion is gravity waves.
All waves of all frequencies travel through space. They travel through the medium of the ether. Waves are the result of a patterned vibration (motion) that creates a disturbance which moves through a medium (the ether) by propagation. Any low frequency (slow speed) motion can travel through the ether in space just as easily as a high frequency wave can. The only problem is, outer space is full of high frequency vibrations. This is because light is everywhere and constantly travels through space. Low frequency vibrations and linear motion, such as is caused by gravity or the collision of objects, do not travel as far as light waves do. This is because the low frequency waves blend their frequencies with that of light. As such, by the time the low frequency waves which originated from very far away arrive here, they have been transformed into higher frequencies that no longer resemble the initial wave. The waves that LIGO detected the first time DID NOT originate from one billion light years away. The source would have had to be much closer, despite what the scientists claim. Those waves had to originate from within our own galaxy, much closer to Earth than they think.
Obviously, there are an awful lot of assumptions going on about the source and nature of those black hole gravity waves. Apparently assumptions are good enough. Those assumptions eventually earned them a Nobel prize. Imagine that. Winning a Nobel Prize for "discovering" something that doesn't even exist! Not surprising. They've awarded many such prizes for the same reason, over and over again. Just ask Einstein.
If there are indeed no such things as black holes, and therefore there is no black hole in the center of our galaxy, then what holds it together? How can a galaxy spin around and around and not fly apart? There absolutely has to be a gravitational source at the center of a spinning system in order to keep it intact!
Don't be so sure about that. If that idea were indeed correct, then it stands to reason that one must find a gravitational force emanating from the center of every hurricane, tornado and whirlpool that exists. However, if you go to the center of a hurricane, what will you find there? You will find nothing! Even the winds are calm there. So then, what holds a hurricane together and prevents it from just flying apart?
Things on this Earth happen the way that they do because that is exactly the way it happens in the rest of the universe. The ether causes the air to spin very fast in order to transfer excess heat energy from the ocean into the upper atmosphere more quickly. This spinning manifests as hurricanes. The ether executes a frequency change (an increase in spinning motion) in order to hasten the transfer of excess energies and balance the systems. The ether does a similar type of thing with the galaxies.
It is important to remember that whenever analyzing motion, the laws of motion can never be violated. The first law of motion tells us that an object will continue in its velocity and direction unless acted upon by an external force. This means that an object will only travel in a straight line. The only way to alter that is if the object collides with a different object. In other words, nothing can attain a spinning motion unless something else makes it spin.
There are several things that cause changes in direction. Temperature differences can cause a relocation of motion that result in a spinning motion. However, the greatest cause for spinning weather patterns on Earth comes from the Earth itself. It is a sphere that is rotating on its axis. Because it spins, everything in contact with it is forced to spin as well. And, because it a sphere that is spinning from west to east, its circumference is greatest at the equator. The further north or south you are from the equator, the less the circumference of the sphere from west to east. No matter where you are, it takes twenty four hours to complete one rotation. That means that the further you travel from the equator, the slower your spinning motion will be.
If you are north of the equator, then the north end of a storm system will be moving slower than its south end. This causes the storm to acquire a counterclockwise spin. South of the equator, the south end of a storm moves slower. This causes it to acquire a clockwise spin.
On Earth, everything spins because the Earth is a sphere that is spinning. The greater object imposes its motion upon the lesser components that it makes contact with. Thus, hurricanes, whirlpools and tornadoes spin because the Earth spins. The Earth and the solar system spin because the Sun spins. The Sun spins because the galaxy spins. The galaxy spins because it is a part of the entire spinning universe.
When you see comments like “The ether executes a frequency change…” realize that this does not mean that the ether just “decides” to start spinning. It cannot simply change direction for no reason. It spins because other spinning motions are compelling it to do so. However, rather than continually going through the step by step chain reaction of motions necessary to explain how the ether spins, it will just be stated that “It starts to spin”. By strictly adhering to the laws of motion, it can be understood that smaller spinning systems must happen within a larger system that is already spinning.
The spinning action of a huge cluster of atoms (planets and stars) behaves like a small vortex within the vast ether ocean. The ether detects these localized pockets of energy imbalance within itself. To remedy the situation and counteract the drain of energy caused by the spinning atoms, the ether will spin itself "in retaliation". This allows more photons to come into contact with the atoms in a fixed amount of time. The larger area of the spinning ether takes back the energy that the spinning atoms took from it. The ether keeps draining it away and redistributing it. The cycle goes round and round. It is like a perpetual motion machine with just one goal: the balance of energy. Energy always moves in such a way as to equalize potentials. The more the quantity of spinning atoms that make up a mass, the larger the area of the ether that must spin in order to re-distribute that concentration of inertia into an area that has a deficiency of energy that was drained by the atoms.
Galaxies represent huge concentrations of energy hungry, spinning masses. The ether counteracts that imbalance by spinning the entire galaxy like a huge vortex in order to get that energy back and redistribute it to the rest of the universe quicker. It transmits that energy throughout the ether via the propagation of energy through photons. Without the ether, balance would be impossible. In fact, without the ether, energy would not be able to move at all.
Hurricane winds display an interesting property. That is, the winds closest to the eye are the fastest. The winds at the outer edge of the hurricane are the slowest. This is because the inner and outer parts of the hurricane are not directly connected. They are indirectly connected to one another through the air molecules. The spinning force of the hurricane transmits from inside to outside via propagation through the medium of air. As such, not only does the transmission of energy from the inside to the outside take some extra time, but it also allows for the energy to spread out and dissipate as it travels outward. The more the energy travels outward, the larger the area that it must occupy. This results in the energy "spreading out", resulting in slower and slower winds further and further from the center.
The excess energy that accumulates within galaxies is also transmitted from the galaxies to the ether by propagation through the ether via photons. The propagation rate is at the speed of light. Even so, the energy dissipates as it travels outward because, just as air molecules are not directly connected to one another, photons are not directly connected to one another. The ether executes a frequency change (spins faster) in order to speed up the process of relocating the energy, thereby preventing massive imbalances from perpetuating.
Think back to the data from the Keck observatory experiment. The scientists looked at the center of our galaxy for evidence of a black hole, and what did they find? They found that the stars orbiting around the center were moving incredibly fast. Not only did their data prove that there is no black hole at the center of our galaxy (because there was no gravitational lensing), but it also proved that our galaxy is spinning for the exact same reasons that a hurricane does (because of the extremely high speeds at the center). And, the only way that the galaxy can do that is if there is a medium that the energy can propagate through in order to re-distribute the energy. Thus, this is just another proof that the ether must exist.
Maybe you think that the high speed of those central stars is just a coincidence. Well then, here's another piece of coincidental evidence to consider. Below is a list of all the planets in our solar system. They are listed in the order of their distance from the Sun, from the closest to the farthest. Next to the name of each planet is its orbital speed. See if you can observe a pattern.
Mercury = 47.8 km/s
Venus = 35 km/s
Earth = 29.8 km/s
Mars = 24.2 km/s
Jupiter = 13.1 km/s
Saturn = 9.69 km/s
Uranus = 6.6 km/s
Neptune = 5.4 km/s
The same pattern also exists within all of the galaxies. The orbital speeds of the all the stars nearest the center of our galaxy approach speeds of 10 million miles per hour. Meanwhile our Sun, further out from the center, orbits the galaxy at less than 500 thousand miles per hour. Isn't that quite a coincidence how orbital speeds decrease the further you get from the "eye of the hurricane"? In addition to that, in every galaxy that they look at, they see bright illumination at the center. They think it is caused by gravitation induced acceleration of particles trapped in an accretion disk of a super massive black hole. However, gravity acceleration and inertia acceleration are identical forces, and there is no way to tell the difference between the two. They fail to realize that a galaxy, spinning as a hurricane does, would have its fastest speeds at the center. This would cause the greatest amplitudes of light at the center. Einstein would probably say "What a coincidence!"
In the fall of 2017, the Atlantic Ocean developed a large hurricane. It was named Irma, and it was a category 5 storm for over 3 days. Satellite images were taken of the storm, hour by hour. Those images were played back, in sequence, on television. It was sort of a stop motion movie. Even so, you could see the spinning energies of the storm as it moved across the surface of the ocean. If you watched closely, you could see some amazing things happening within the winds of the storm. Smaller hurricanes within the larger hurricane were appearing here and there. The huge vortex had smaller vortexes spinning within its spinning "arms".
Galaxies spin like huge hurricanes. Solar systems spin like smaller vortexes within the big one. The logical extension of this is that all of them are actually smaller vortexes spinning in the biggest vortex of all: the universe.
TORNADOES AND WHIRLPOOLS
How does a tornado work? Why is the bottom narrower than the top? Meteorologists always look for tornadoes when thunderstorms appear. Thunderstorms happen when a cold air mass hits a warm air mass. The ether tries to hurry the re-balancing of energies by creating a spinning motion. And so, a horizontal tunnel of spinning air forms in the sky. The warm air rises over the colder air, resulting in a horizontal cylindrical wind tunnel that spins top over bottom.
As the temperatures between the air masses begins to equalize, the path of the horizontal spinning tunnel of air moves. It follows the temperature imbalance. If that temperature differential leads downwards, one end of that spinning tunnel of air will follow that imbalance downward. As soon as that tunnel gets close enough to the ground, it "discovers" an even larger imbalance. That is, the difference between the ground temperature and the upper air temperature.
It "locks" onto the ground and feeds on its heat, transferring it into the cooler air above. The greater the difference in temperatures, the larger the tornado will become and the faster it will spin. Doing this allows it to transfer the imbalance quicker. The tornado will travel across the land, following the heat, and transferring it up into the colder air. Once the air is warmed up enough, the temperature imbalance is reduced to a point that no longer requires a vortex to maintain an acceptable difference in energy potentials. The energy can now go back to its normal rate of relocating and balancing energy differences. And so, just like that, the tornado vanishes.
Why is a tornado narrow at the bottom? The reason is indirectly related to gravity. That is, gravity is stronger near the surface of the Earth than it is higher up in the atmosphere. Gravity affects air density. Thus, air density (pressure) is greater at the bottom of a tornado than it is at the top. And so, the air pressure outside of a tornado squeezes it from all sides. Since the air pressure is greater at the bottom of a tornado, it gets squeezed more at the bottom. This causes it to take on its characteristic cone shape.
Remember that warm air rises. In a tornado, the spinning winds are taking heat from the Earth and sending it higher at a very fast rate. The flow of energy is upward. This flow is more powerful than the downward motion of gravity. Anything caught in a tornado gets lifted up, away from the narrow end.
The principles at work within a water whirlpool are similar, but there are some differences too. If the whirlpool is in a shallow container, like a sink, the whirlpool narrows at the bottom for the simple reason that it is flowing into a narrow drain opening. If the whirlpool is in a deep body of water, the bottom of the whirlpool narrows because the water pressure is greater the deeper down you go. This causes the whirlpool to be squeezed together more at the bottom than at the top, causing a cone shape similar to that of a tornado. The direction that the whirlpool spins is tied directly to the spinning of the Earth. Whirlpools above the equator spin in the opposite direction than those below the equator. The strength of the whirlpool depends upon the magnitude of the energy imbalance that created it.
The imbalance that creates a whirlpool is due to the flow of currents. This is a horizontal motion. The landscape at the sea bottom directly affects and restricts the whirlpools ability to spin, so it is forced to spin with a horizontal motion similar to that of a hurricane, or of a tornado that touched ground. The force that maintains a whirlpool's speed is a horizontal one (horizontally moving currents). Those currents can be caused by temperature differences or, more commonly, by tidal action. The only vertical force that affects the whirlpool is gravity. Thus, anything caught in a whirlpool eventually gets pulled down by gravity, towards the narrow end.
Now, compare the above analysis of whirlpools and tornadoes to the theory of "direct collapse". A key element of that theory was that, after the Big Bang explosion (straight line motion travelling outward from a central point) the cloud of gas particles began to spin. The spinning created a vortex, and they told us that the ensuing vortex was just like those that we are all familiar with (whirlpools and tornadoes). The theory of direct collapse tells us that it is the coned shape of the vortex that forced the dust particles and newly formed atoms to come together at the narrow end of the cone. The power of the spinning vortex increased the force being applied at the narrow end of the vortex. This force squeezed all of the matter together and, voila, a super massive black hole is born.
Really? It seems obvious that they are completely unaware of the laws of motion or the forces necessary to cause something to acquire a spinning motion. It is also obvious that they have no idea as to why a tornado or whirlpool is narrow at one end. There is no air pressure in space because there is no air. What is the source of the inward pressure that compelled one end of the vortex to be narrower than the other end? Even so, didn't any of them see the movie "Twister"? What happens to a truck or a cow caught in a tornado? Which direction does it go? Up towards the wide end or down towards the narrow end?
Objects within a water whirlpool are drawn down by the force of gravity emanating from the Earth below the water. How could gravity draw the primordial dust to the bottom of the cone? All of the matter in question is being used to make up the structure of this supposed vortex. There is nothing at the bottom to cause the dust to move down.
Without a source of gravity beneath the vortex to draw everything down, or an energy imbalance between the top and bottom to draw everything up, the vortex has no reason to move energy either up or down. In fact, it doesn't even have a reason to exist and no explanation is provided for the forces that cause it to spin. And, without a gravitational mass at the center to hold it together, all the possible forces available for holding a spinning object in an orbit are gone. The vortex would obey the first law of motion and simply fly apart.
The people who presented the "direct collapse" theory are supposed to be scientists. They are telling us that a space vortex happens, which starts to spin for no apparent reason, and gets narrow at one end for no apparent reason, and that everything caught in this vortex gets sucked down to the narrow end, for no apparent reason other than that it is somehow magically shaped like a cone. Then they have the nerve to say that we are all familiar with this because that's how it happens on Earth too, as seen in tornadoes and whirlpools. And yet, tornadoes and whirlpools cause vertical motion in opposite directions (either towards or away from the narrow end) for different reasons.
They don't seem to realize that the method that they described IS NOT how it happens here on Earth. Apparently they think that the cone shape of the space vortex exists for no apparent reason other than tornadoes and whirlpools here on Earth are also cone shaped. Don't they realize that these phenomenon form because there are several different external forces at work that cause it to happen in that way? Don't they realize that those forces cause the observed effect and shape to occur? Even though these two vortex effects that were cited are formed by different processes and do opposite things, they don't bother to tell us which process is responsible for the space vortex. Is this because they don't know or understand the laws of motion, or is it because they are simply hoping that you don't know? Did you fall for it?
Even if you could convince them of how bad this theory is, can you guess how they would respond? Do you think they'll finally admit that the entire black hole theory is invalid? Nope. They'll just create a new theory to cover their tracks. But, don't worry. The new theory will probably be even worse than the "Direct Collapse" theory.
In the next analysis topic, Earth's magnetic field will be discussed. It will be explained exactly how and why it is created, and why it takes the shape that it does. Some of the principles you will see there, which occur in the Earth, also apply to much larger systems, such as stars and even entire galaxies. What happens here happens there, and vice versa. If it doesn't work the same here as it does in space, then something is very wrong with the explanation. The principles that will be explained to you will serve to replace explanations like "That phenomenon is caused by a black hole."
The contents of this analysis should make it abundantly clear that the case for black holes is far from definite. Even if you refuse to accept this, you must still have realized that there are many questions that either haven't been answered at all by the scientists, or have been answered rather poorly. Hopefully, by now, you have at least changed your opinion that these conclusions are derived by someone who must be delusional, blind, or an idiot.
Scientists have been going public with their proud boasting of their black hole discoveries for decades. They have smiled and held out their hands and eagerly accepted their Nobel prizes and the associated honors. You have watched them go on camera in "Black Hole Apocalypse" and other broadcasts, and publicly declare their faith and assurance in black holes. So then, what do you think are the odds that one of them might read this and say: "Oops. I guess I was wrong. I'll just have to go public and admit my error."? The odds are: ZERO.
No matter how convincing this explanation may be, they will NEVER admit the truth. The personal cost is too high for them. The uncertainty of how an unforgiving public might respond is too risky. They would rather go down with a sinking ship than remove their blinders, swallow their pride, admit their error, and risk their careers by going against the viewpoint of their colleagues. They will stick to their guns instead of taking the side of the true goal of science. And that goal is not the quest for fame, fortune and Nobel Prizes. That goal is the search for truth.
Every alternate explanation that was provided relies upon the application of the data to the simplest and most basic provable laws of science. Those basic laws can be applied to commonplace things seen every day, and aid in arriving at logical and working conclusions. The key to the simplicity of applying those basic laws is in the ability to apply them through the medium of the ether. With the application of the ether, it becomes evident that everything in the universe works exactly the same as it does right here, on Earth, right in front of our eyes.
Every explanation for the data that the scientists have relies upon applying that data to unproven theories. Not only do they apply that data to the theories incorrectly, but they do so in inconsistent and self-contradictory ways. They bend the application of the laws of nature in order to make them fit the theories. They also bend the theories in order to make them fit the data. And when those theories are carried out to their full extent, the result is an immense distortion of reality that requires insane leaps of imagination to comprehend.
One could confront them right now and ask: "How can you say this is a fact? It is all based upon and derived from the Theory of Relativity. That means that all of this is just a THEORY."
And they will reply: "Well, technically, we still have to call it a theory because we can't actually prove it yet, but we KNOW it is actually a fact."
And then you could ask: "Well, if you know it is a fact, and you have indeed actually found black holes, then isn't that enough? Can't you now officially remove the word "Theory" from Relativity and change it to "The Law of Relativity"?
And they will say: "Um...well...um...what was the question again? Oh my! Look at the time! Got to go!"
Eventually, when the day comes when Relativity is finally accepted as being false, they will all say: "Well, we knew it all the time. That is why we always called it a theory."
You decide for yourself. Are you really and truly convinced that black holes are real?
COPYRIGHT © 2018, By Jonathan P. Volkel
In "The Unified Force and the Laws of Everything", the topic of how magnetism works was discussed in Chapter 6: "The Electron and Magnetism" and again in Chapter 13: "Oscillation". Chapter 6 showed the step by step method of how magnetism was created, how and why it moves, and how and why an atom that receives magnetism behaves as it does. Chapter 13 showed a step by step explanation of how and why magnets behave as they do, in that opposite polarities attract and like polarities repel.
Both of those explanations provided a viewpoint from a "starting up" condition. They showed how the ether currents associated with magnetism get going in the first place, photon by photon and atom by atom. Now it will be shown to you what happens when those currents are fully established and flowing at maximum speed. Once you see how it works, you might very well be all the more convinced the ether does indeed truly exist.
First, ether currents will be demonstrated by using Earth's magnetic field as an example.
The above is a typical depiction of Earth's magnetic field. It shows the magnetism looping around from top to bottom. Why does it do that? What is the nature of a magnetic field that causes it to behave that way? Is a magnetic "field" the same theoretical type of thing as a gravitational "field"? Are all those lines depicting some sort of invisible lines of force? Why does it take on that shape and that size? How does all of this work? After reading this, you will know exactly how and why all of this works.
First of all, realize that the present theories are all wrong. There is no such thing as a "field", at least, as far as it might coincide with the concept of a gravitational "field". Science uses the term "field" to describe something that they can't provide a law abiding explanation for. Actually, a "field" is not some sort of particular kind of energy or phenomenon which behaves in a way contrary to the known laws of science. Here, the term is used solely in the context of "The area in which magnetism is occurring". What the picture actually reveals is the pathway of ether currents around and through the Earth, and not some sort of invisible lines of force that scientists imagine them to be. Here you will see exactly why and how those currents take on that shape. In fact, it would be possible to build a relatively inexpensive model that could exactly duplicate the movement of those currents in a way that you could watch and observe in motion.
Here's how you could build the model. Start with a solid ball. Perhaps one that is about the size of a bowling ball should do the trick. Next drill a hole, approximately one inch in diameter, right through the ball. Make sure that the hole goes from top to bottom, and that it passes right through the center of the ball. Finally, put a small exhaust fan right in the center of the ball. Make sure that the fan blows downward. That's all there is to it.
Air is compressible, and the changes in air pressure that will occur when air moves from outside the ball to inside the hole will cause the model to not properly represent the true results. The ether behaves like a liquid and is not compressible, and we need to recreate that condition as best as possible. In order to do that, the model must therefore be submerged under water. The model needs to be suspended in the middle of the water, with perhaps at least three feet of water above it and below it. Once it is submerged and situated correctly, turn on the fan.
See if you can picture in your mind the sequence of events that will occur. When the fan turns on, it pushes water out the bottom. Because the water is not compressible, and a vacuum is not possible in this environment, water will simultaneously flow in at the top in order to take the place of the water that was pushed out of the bottom. But then, where is the water that comes out of the bottom going to go? The area all around the outside of the bottom of the ball is already occupied by water. That water has to move out of the way in order to make room for the water emerging from the bottom. Well, it just so happens, that room was just created at the top by the water that entered the ball there. And so, the water all around the outer surface of the ball moves up towards the vacancy in order to make room for the water that is emerging from the bottom of the ball.
Once the exhaust fan has been running for a few minutes, the water currents should finally be up to speed. The water will emerge from the bottom, spread out and flow up all around the sides of the ball, and then re-enter the top. It is exactly this type of action that causes Earth's magnetic field to take the shape that it does. The ball represents the Earth. The water represents the ether. The hole that was drilled through the ball represents Earth's axis of rotation. The fan represents Iron in the core of the planet. Our planet's magnetic field is actually ether currents that flow downward through the center, and then up and around the outside of the Earth, which is submerged in the ether ocean. There are a few differences between the model and our Earth. That is because our model only used one force to shape the currents (the exhaust fan). The Earth has a few more things going on within it.
You may be wondering: "Why do the Earth's currents flow in at the top and out the bottom? Why doesn't it flow out the sides? What makes it travel in such a way that it only creates a north and south polarity?" That will be explained in a step by step manner. But first, some ground rules must be understood.
It is absolutely important to always remember that photons within the ether transmit motion by propagation. That is, an atom causes the first photon to move. That first photon does not get very far because it bumps into another photon. The first photon ceases its directional motion, and the second photon then moves in the same direction as the first. It moves, bumps, and so on, and so on. And so, when describing a motion that traveled from point "A" to point "B", one single photon does not make that entire journey. The first photon only took one step in that "relay race". The last step was taken by a completely different photon which happens to be an identical twin of the first photon. And, because that last photon is identical to the first, and because the journey happens at the speed of light, from our perspective it seems as if the first single photon made the entire trip instantly and all by itself.
When the processes within the ether that are responsible for Earth's magnetic field are described, it will be done from the context of the illusion. That is, it will be spoken about as if a single photon made that entire journey all by itself. It's a lot easier to explain when done that way. Please don't let it confuse you. Remember, photons in the ether always transmit motion by propagation which occurs through countless photons.
The big question here is: "Why do the photons travel from top to bottom through the center of the Earth? Why don't they travel out the sides?" The model that we built using the ball required drilling a hole from top to bottom. The Earth doesn't have a hole drilled through it. What does the hole represent?
The picture above shows the Earth with the magnetic field (ether currents) drawn in blue. The red circles show the direction of the Earth's rotational spin. If you are on the surface of the Earth, at the equator, then you are about 4,000 miles from the center of the Earth. One complete rotation of the Earth takes 24 hours. That rotation would carry you about 24,000 miles in a circular path during that 24 hour period. This means that your speed was 1,000 miles per hour. Remember that the ether currents that exist within any spinning mass travel at the same speed as that mass. Thus the ether current within the Earth at the equator is also moving at 1,000 miles per hour.
If you were deeper within the Earth, closer to the center, your rotational speed would be different. Let's say that you were inside the Earth, and only 400 miles from the center. It still would take 24 hours to complete one rotation. However, the total distance that you would travel around that smaller circle would only be about 2,400 miles. That means your speed would only be 100 miles per hour.
As you can see, the closer you get to the center of the Earth, the slower your rotational speed will be. As a result, the ether winds within the Earth are sort of like a reverse hurricane. That is, the winds get faster and faster the further away you get from the "eye". That "eye" runs up and down the center of the Earth. That "eye" is the Earth's axis of rotation. And so, near the center of the Earth, from top to bottom, the ether winds are almost non-existent. At the surface, near the equator, the ether winds are a horizontal vortex, moving from east to west at 1,000 miles per hour.
Now imagine that you are right in the center of Earth's core. It is full of Iron. The Iron there is flooded with low frequency gravity inertia. This influx of inertia overfills the Iron with energy. In order to maintain an energy balance with the ether, the Iron must shed this excess energy. The low frequency gravity inertia can't be shed, because the great quantity of high amplitude gravity inertia in the surrounding environment keeps forcing itself right back into the Iron. And so, since the Iron can't get rid of the excess gravity inertia, it sheds the other types of energy that it produces. Those energies are of a frequency that is scarce in that environment, and so they are easily released without opposition into the surrounding environment. Those frequencies are that of heat and light. And so, the Iron emits heat and glows with low frequency light.
That release of energy is still not enough to balance the Iron with the ether. It is still overfull of incoming gravity energy. Normally, the Iron needed to bond with other Iron molecules in order to gain inertia and stabilize itself. Now, at Earth's core, it has more than enough inertia to stabilize. So, it breaks some of those bonds with other Iron atoms. It becomes liquid (molten).
This is still not enough to stabilize the Iron. It is still overfull of energy and is "running too fast". This extra energy is causing the Iron to spin so fast, that it imbalances the entire atom. The Iron atoms oscillate. The oscillation is a slow, very low frequency, up and down bounce of the entire atomic line of components. The Iron still needs to shed surplus energy and, simultaneously, it needs to stabilize itself. It accomplishes both those tasks by shedding the oscillation.
Oscillation is a very low frequency. Even so, it is still inertia. That is, it is still the energy of motion. Shedding this inertia reduces the total inertia within the Iron. The very long wavelength of oscillation causes it to travel further in a single direction. It is what we refer to as "Magnetism". When magnetism encounters other atoms that are also oscillating, it increases the amplitude of their oscillations. The receiving atom also sheds those oscillations in order to stabilize itself. The process goes back and forth between the two atoms and results in both atoms gaining linear inertia, which causes them to move towards one another.
Now the stage is set. All the players are in place to create a magnetic ether current. This next description is going to be from a "starting up" perspective. That is, assume that the horizontal ether vortex created by the spinning of the Earth is the only ether current that exists right now, and no magnetic current exists yet.
The oscillations within the Iron cause photons to move away from it in a straight path in EVERY direction. Those photons that happen to head in a horizontal direction (sideways) run head on into the vortex that exists because of the spinning Earth. They get caught up in the vortex and their energies get transformed to match the vortex. Thus, the vortex acts like a barrier or wall that prevents photons from escaping in that direction. It absorbs and traps anything that tries to get past it. The vortex absorbs the magnetic inertia, transforms it into a higher frequency, and then feeds it back to the atoms. The atoms then transform this energy back into gravity inertia, and send it right back to the Iron. The Iron is fighting a losing battle unless it can dispel the oscillation inertia into the ether once and for all.
Photons that happen to move vertically, either up towards the top or down towards the bottom, encounter little resistance. They are traveling within the "eye of the storm". They are able to keep heading in the same direction without experiencing external forces that might cause them to change direction. Eventually, one photon makes it all the way through the Earth and out the bottom. This causes an ether current to start to form.
Once one photon makes it out the bottom, another must move in to take its place. The ether vortex that prevented photons from escaping to the outside also prevents photons outside the Earth from moving in. That is, except for one place. There is no vortex at the top. The winds are calm there. And so, a photon from the ether ocean which surrounds the Earth, moves into the Earth at the top in order to take the place of the one that exited from the Earth at the bottom. This causes a current to begin. Once this current begins to form, it starts to encourage all the other photons that are moving because of the Iron's oscillations, to move in that same direction. The ether current slowly builds in strength.
Eventually, the current will reach its full speed potential. The Iron atoms in the core are forced by this current that is now flowing through the Earth to align themselves with that current (they point downwards). In doing so, they can now quickly and easily shed their surplus oscillation inertia into that current without having it shoved back into them by the vortex. Once the magnetic inertia exits from the bottom to emerge on the outside of the Earth, it encounters radiation from outer space. These cosmic rays merge with the magnetic ether current and blend with it. The blending changes (increases) the frequency of the magnetic current and, in the end, transforms the oscillation into a higher frequency that is harmless to the Iron. By the time the current re-enters the Earth at the top, the oscillation frequency has been "scrubbed clean". The ether current that enters at the top will thus not add to the oscillation of the Iron. The Iron now functions just like the exhaust fan in the model, and with an added feature of a built in "cooling" system. The Iron will now continually emit its oscillation inertia downward. The ether currents within and around the Earth now resemble the water currents created by the model that we built using the ball and the exhaust fan.
The magnetic ether currents around the outside of the Earth are "fatter" (more inflated) than the currents that would be created around the model. They bulge out more around the planet. This is because magnetism is not the only force at work within the Earth. At the same time that the mass of the Earth is pouring gravity inertia into the core, it is also sending gravity inertia outward in every direction. The frequencies of gravity and magnetism are different. They are also traveling in paths perpendicular to one another. The wavelengths don't line up. Most of the time, the gravity waves and magnetic waves pass right by and between one another without making contact. Sometimes they do make contact. When they do, the gravity waves push the magnetic waves outward, away from the surface of the Earth. This is why the Earth's magnetic field bulges out so much.
Once the magnetic ether current is fully established, it becomes somewhat rigid. It "wants" to keep flowing in the path of least resistance. It does not "want" to change course. In order for it to change course, it would have to collide with parts of the ether that are not part of the magnetic current. It will not alter its course to do so unless something forces it to. The only thing that can do that is the Earth itself. The spin of the Earth is not exactly perfectly vertical. It is tilted to one side. In addition to that, the Earth wobbles as it spins. With enough of a wobble, the east to west ether vortex within the Earth can come into contact with the north to south magnetic ether current that is running straight and smooth through the axis of rotation. This could end up completely disrupting the flow of the magnetic current. Although the magnetic ether current running through the center of the Earth could break up and cease to flow because of this, gravity still maintains its stranglehold on the Iron in the core. The magnetic ether current will re-establish itself. However, depending upon the conditions that exist when the current reforms, it could just as easily flow out the top instead of the bottom. The current could completely reverse direction. It doesn't matter though. Whether it flows down or up, it will still work the same.
This pattern of the ether flowing inside the Earth through a narrow passageway, and then spreading out all along the surface of the Earth on its return trip to the top, creates an interesting effect. The principle works exactly the same as a large volume of flowing water, like a river. When looked at as a whole, a certain volume of water moves for a certain distance in a fixed amount of time. If the passageway narrows, the water must speed up through that narrow passageway in order to make sure that the same volume of water can move in the same fixed amount of time. That's because the water coming up from behind keeps pushing forward at the same rate of volume. It forces the water in front to move faster in order to keep up the pace and not "block traffic".
As the ether currents move north on the outside of the planet, they start to bunch up once they get above the equator and nearer to the top. A "traffic jam" would occur unless everyone in front speeds up. And so, the closer and closer the ether currents get to the narrow eye of the vortex at the top of the Earth, the faster and faster they go. Once they enter the eye, they are moving at maximum speed. The ether current that runs down the center of the Earth moves a lot faster than the current that flows up on the outside of the Earth. The current emerges from the bottom of the Earth, still moving at maximum speed, and then quickly slows down again as it spreads out across the whole outer surface of the Earth.
In "The Unified Force and the Laws of Everything" Chapter 6: "The Electron and Magnetism", it was mentioned that the ether becomes visible and can be seen with the naked eye at two locations. That is, either the North or South poles. We call it the "Aurora Borealis", or "northern lights". It was said that this happened because the frequency conditions there were perfect. This situation wherein the magnetic ether current changes speed is what was referred to.
At all other places on the Earth, the speed of the ether current is too slow to create the correct frequencies needed to make the ether visible. But near the North Pole, the ether currents speed up gradually from minimum to maximum speed. Near the South Pole, it slows down from maximum to minimum speed. Somewhere in between the maximum ether current speed and the minimum ether current speed is the perfect speed which allows this phenomenon to come to life. It is that speed that causes incoming high frequency cosmic rays to blend with the low frequency magnetic ether current in such a way as to create visible light. And so, it is only near the North and South poles that the ether can be seen with the naked eye.
In Chapter 14 "Throw out the Trash", particle accelerators were mentioned, like the one in Switzerland. Realize that what they do with the accelerators is simply the act of creating a magnetic ether current. They pulse the magnetic field on and off at a very fast rate in order to get the magnetic ether current to move much faster than it would under natural conditions. When this high speed magnetic current is caused to collide with another current moving in the opposite direction, the currents slow down again to minimum speed. When the magnetic field is turned off, the ether blends back into a vibration state that matches the surrounding environment. Essentially, all that the particle accelerator is doing is creating a magnetic ether current that changes speed from very fast to very slow. At one point in that process, it hits the perfect speed which enables the photons to blend their low magnetic frequency with the surrounding higher frequencies in such a way as to create visible light. They momentarily create the same conditions that also cause the Aurora Borealis to light up.
They are spending millions of dollars to create a brief flash of light that they could go and see for free, either at the poles or on internet videos. They don't understand that it is this effect which is causing what they are seeing. The scientists think that the flashes of light are atomic particles being smashed into oblivion. They think that matter is being transformed into pure energy. They think that the energy is "bosons" (mass-less particles) and that these mass-less particles are the building blocks of the universe. They think that one of these flashes of light is identical to the "god particle" that created our universe and that its "discovery" was worthy of a Nobel Prize.
Their theories also had them concerned that the particle accelerator might accidentally create a black hole and destroy the Earth. They went ahead and fired it up anyway. Of course, their worries were unnecessary. Their theories are wrong. There is no such thing as a black hole (Read the previous Analysis topic "Black Holes"). That's why one wasn't created. Neither is there such thing as a boson (a mass-less particle). That's why, even though they "created" the "god particle", it didn't explode right then and there and create the universe all over again from scratch. Isn't the lack of an ensuing big bang explosion proof enough that they did not discover this theoretical particle? It just simply faded away and vanished into thin air without even a whimper. Doesn't that fact prove that the Big Bang Theory is incorrect? Of course it does. Even so, the flashes of light that they did manage to create were recorded by them. The flashes of light were replayed for other scientists to see, and they "ooh-ed" and "aah-ed" with vigor. There seemed to be enough enthusiasm to be worth the millions of dollars that was spent for the brief and tiny little light show.
Now the topic of magnetic polarity will be addressed. That is, why does a compass point north? Why do opposites attract? What does "south" and "north" polarity mean? Are they "charges" similar to electrical "positive" and "negative"? In Chapter 13 "Oscillation", there is a step by step description of why opposite polarities attract and like polarities repel. Here, it will be looked at in a larger sense. Here, it will be examined in terms of the ether currents already being fully formed and functioning at maximum potential. That viewpoint will help to make the understanding of it much simpler. To help visualize what's really going on, bar magnets will be used to illustrate it. The concepts and behaviors seen in them apply to the Earth as well.
The above picture shows a bar magnet covered with Iron filings. The ether currents circulating around and through the magnet force the Iron filings to align themselves with those currents. Thus, we are able to see the pathway of the ether currents created by the magnet. Try to imagine standing the bar magnet on end, with N at the top and S at the bottom. Can you see how the shape resembles Earth's magnetic field?
The principles that make the bar magnet work are the same that make the model and Earth's magnetic field work. The Iron within the bar magnet is aligned in such a way as to create an ether current that runs through the middle of the bar magnet from the south end to the north end. The Iron serves the same purpose as the exhaust fan in the model. The ether surrounds and fills the Iron. It is like the water in the model that surrounded the ball and filled the hole in the ball. The forces that caused the water to flow through and around the ball work exactly the same in the bar magnet. There is no vortex here that would equate to the vortex created by the spinning Earth. There doesn't need to be one. It is Earth's vortex that forced the magnetic ether current to flow from top to bottom right through its center. Here, it was the process of magnetizing the Iron that accomplished that and established the bar magnet's ether current.
Three pairs of bar magnets will be aligned end to end. They will be aligned so that the opposite polarities are in contact with one another, and also so that the same polarities are in contact with one another. The direction of the ether currents in each case is illustrated by using red lines and ovals with arrows that indicate the direction of the current. Now, instead of looking at the motion of individual photons, we can see the motion created by swarms of photons moving within ether currents that are flowing at their full potential and capacity. These currents flow through the bar magnet (the straight lines) and then circulate around the outside of the bar magnet and re-enter the other end (the ovals).
First, take a good look at the top images wherein the opposite polarity poles are aligned (S + N). Only S + N is shown here because the other configuration, N + S, works exactly the same. Both magnets have their currents flowing in the exact same direction. In each magnet, three currents can be seen. One current flows through the center, one loops around the top, and the third loops around the bottom. At least, that is how it appears when looking at a flat two dimensional layer of iron filings. Realize that what seems to look like three currents is actually just one large current. The current within these magnets is just like the one in the Earth. That is, it flows through the center of the magnet, emerges out one end, loops around in all directions (completely surrounding the outside of the magnet) as it heads back towards the other end, and then re-enters the magnet there. And so, although the Iron filings make it look like there are three separate currents, they are all just one big current that flows around and around in a continuous loop.
When the two magnets come together, their ether currents easily and instantly merge with one another, forming one larger ether current. That is because their currents were already flowing in the same direction. The resultant merging of the two separate currents is illustrated by the picture on the far right of the S + N magnets. It is the merging of these separate currents that assists in the two magnets being drawn together. Magnetism creates the attraction, and the ether itself helps to establish, maintain and strengthen the contact between the two magnets. And so, opposite polarities attract.
The next two sets of magnets in the above image involve matching like polarities (N + N and S + S). Notice how, no matter which combination you choose, the currents are flowing in opposite directions. If you attempt to move the magnets close to one another, the opposite flowing currents come into contact with one another. They can't merge because they are moving right at one another. With the S + S matching, the center currents that flow within the magnet are moving away from one another. It doesn't matter. The circular currents outside the magnet still oppose the direction of the currents of the other magnet. And so, identical polarities repel. Well...sort of.
Technically, they don't really repel at all. They just aren't able to get too close to one another. When we try to force them to move closer together, the force of the ether currents pushes them back apart. Magnetism only causes atoms to move towards one another and does not cause them to move away from one another. However, established ether currents are a force unto themselves. When we try to disrupt their currents, we can feel the effects. The strength of the magnetism gives the ether current its motion. The "pressure" from the rest of the ether that surrounds that current encourages it to maintain its speed and course. When we try and break a magnetic ether current, we must overcome both the strength of the magnet and the pressure of the surrounding ether. And so, in order to forcibly push two like polarities together, we end up pushing against the ether. It is a noticeably strong force.
There is one particular observation of interest to point out. It concerns what happens when you try to match two identical polarities. They only resist one another if you align them exactly end to end. As you try to forcibly move the two magnets together, you can feel a force that tries to push them off to the sides of one another. As soon as that force succeeds, the two like polarity magnets will stick together, with both the like polarities attached together at the sides near the ends of the matching polarities. Why does this happen? The following illustration will demonstrate this.
In the above image, there are two magnets facing each other, south end to south end. In the top image, we see again the opposing flow of currents that causes the magnets to be unable to get too close to one another. This opposition causes the magnets to get pushed off to the side of each other. Once they get pushed off to the side of one another, they are able to move closer together. The result of this is the alignment of magnets as seen in the lower image. The flow direction of the current in the upper oval of the right magnet now matches the flow direction of the current in both the lower oval of the left magnet and the current that runs straight through the center of the left magnet. Likewise, the flow direction of the lower oval in the left magnet now matches the flow direction of both the upper oval in the right magnet and the current that flows straight through the center of the right magnet. Those currents quickly and easily merge as seen in the lower image.
This is why two magnet ends of identical polarity will stick together when their matching ends are placed side to side. Even though the currents flowing through the center of each separate magnet were moving in opposite directions and created two separate looping currents, this alignment allows the two separate and independent currents to merge into one larger current. Keep in mind that, even though the lower image looks like three currents (three loops), it is just a two dimensional representation of one big continuous current that loops in and around the magnets. It sort of resembles a fancy racetrack, or an elaborate fan belt. This demonstrates why two like polarities will attract if they are aligned off center to each other.
The above illustration shows what would happen if you align the magnets as S + S. You can try for yourself aligning N + N. In that configuration, the currents running through the center of the two magnets are heading towards each other. And yet, when offset, they will still merge. The end result will be identical to the one above, with just one difference. The resulting single merged current will be flowing in the opposite direction.
Once you can "see" the flow of ether currents in your mind, your understanding of how magnetism works is simple and easy. In fact, with the knowledge of the ether comes the understanding that the concept of "polarity" has absolutely nothing to do with some sort of invisible field emanating from either end of the magnets. It is not some sort of "charge" that radiates from some sort of a particle. It is merely inertia at work within moving currents of sub atomic particles of matter, that are either flowing in the same direction or not.
The same principle holds true for electrical charges. There is no such thing as a "positive" energy charge that supposedly inhabits a proton, or a "negative" energy charge that supposedly inhabits an electron. Instead they are merely indicators of the direction in which inertia flows. Scientists mistakenly think that positive and negative refers to some sort of innate energy charge. It doesn't. It merely refers to an inertia surplus or an inertia deficiency. An atom with a surplus of inertia has a positive energy potential. An atom with a deficit of inertia has a negative energy potential. When the two come into contact, inertia will flow from the positive potential into the negative potential in order to make both of equal potential. In order for that energy to travel from one atom into the other, the electrons of the two atoms must touch. When they do, the energy flows through the proton, then the electron of the atom with the extra energy. It then enters the energy deficient atom through its electron, and then travels through its proton. It continues to flow until all the components of both atoms have equal potential.
A comparison of ether currents in magnets can be made to electrical properties. What happens to the magnetic ether current when you connect two magnets end to end? What happens when you connect them side to side over their full length? How do these arrangements affect the total flow of the currents? By connecting them end to end, you would increase the size (length) of the entire current, and therefore the total pressure of the current. The volume of photons that pass by in a fixed amount of time is the same, but the total time that it takes for all the photons in this larger current to pass by is doubled. By connecting them side to side, you would double the flow (width) of the ether current. That is, you double the volume of photons that pass by in a fixed amount of time.
Does this sound familiar? Wasn't this also a description of what happens if electrical batteries are connected in series or in parallel? Connecting batteries end to end (in series) increases the voltage (pressure). Connecting batteries side to side (in parallel) increases the amperage (the total amount of current). Does this comparison help you to see what the unified force is? Does it help you to realize that the unified force is just simply the energy of motion? Can you see that magnetism and electricity are both basically the same thing? Inertia causes photons and atoms to move in the ether at various speeds and frequencies. It is the difference in frequencies that causes the inertia in motion to manifest as either magnetism in moving photons or electricity in moving atoms. The ether is the key to what makes the unified force work. Science could never figure out what the unified force was because they refused to believe that the ether exists.
When blacksmiths created magnets, they would take an Iron bar and align it so that its length ran north and south. Then they would heat it and hammer it. This would magnetize it. Why did that work? Because heating and hammering add inertia to the Iron, similar (but to a far lesser extent) to what the excess gravity does to the Iron at the core of the planet. Aligning the Iron bar to the north caused it to be parallel to the magnetic currents that are flowing up and around the Earth from the south to the north. Doing this while the Iron was hammered and hot allowed the Iron atoms within the bar to realign themselves with the magnetic ether current that is flowing north all the time. Once cooled, the Iron would be "locked" into this configuration. This enables the Iron to establish and maintain an ether current that then runs through it continuously.
As a result, a magnetized needle within a compass always aligns the direction of the current flow within itself to match the direction of the current flow in its surroundings. It will turn in the direction of the current flow in the vicinity so that its small current can merge with the larger current that surrounds it. It will align itself to the north. At first, this may seem that it creates a paradox. How can the north end of a magnet be attracted to north? Shouldn't they repel? In fact, the bar magnets in the previous images showed the current within them running from south to north. Isn't that the opposite of how the Earth's magnetic current flows? Isn't this a paradox? No, it isn't. In order to understand why, you need to take a step back and look at the bigger picture.
The north polarity of the Earth is actually an ether current that enters at the top and travels down, right through the center of the Earth. As such, its ether current is headed south. Your magnet was not magnetized at the center and is not within the center. It is on the outside surface of the planet, and was magnetized by that very same current on its return journey to the top along the outside of the planet. Thus the current within a hand held magnet is flowing north, opposite the direction of Earth's central current that runs through its core. And, because that current flows around in one big loop, the currents align in the direction of the flow. Thus, a compass needle points in the direction that the current around it is flowing. Your magnet is just one part of that big loop, and will always try and align itself with the flow of that current. At every place on the surface of the Earth, that current is flowing north on its return trip to the top, where it will again enter the Earth at the "eye of the storm". If you were to take that same magnet inside of the Earth, within the area of the rotational axis, it would still point in the direction of the current. Since the current inside the Earth is flowing south, it would now point south (down).
And so, technically, a compass needle does not really point "north" or "south". Those are just arbitrary terms that we use so that we can agree upon direction. The needle simply aligns itself with the flow of the magnetic ether current that surrounds it. If you magnetized a compass needle while within the Earth, the direction of the ether current there would compel the Iron in the needle to create a current within itself that flowed in the same direction. It would flow down (south), and so the needle would point south. As soon as you brought that compass needle back to the surface, it would still align itself with the flow of the ether current in that environment. All of the magnetic currents outside the Earth flow north on their return trip to the top, and so the needle will now point north. The only difference that you might notice is the strength of the magnetism. The ether current that runs downward through the center of the Earth flows a lot faster than the current that flows upward along the outside surface of the Earth. As a result, magnetizing something within the Earth will result in creating a much stronger magnet. That is because the stronger current will compel more of the Iron atoms in the magnet to align in a single direction.
The present scientific theories on magnetism are too complex and convoluted to understand. They are built upon Einstein's ideas on how energy can be disembodied from matter and then travel through the vacuum of space. Using that theory, the only way to explain what magnetism is and why it behaves as it does requires the use of quantum mathematics. As you can see, there is no mathematics needed here to explain how magnetism works. Once you are able to see how the ether works and moves, the entire universe becomes much easier to understand.
If you look up magnets in a textbook or encyclopedia, you will see pictures showing you "magnetic field lines". Science has done an excellent job of measuring and documenting what magnets can do. The data is fine. They even seem to be aware that the magnetic field lines move. But, when you try to consider how a mass-less particle or wave manages to circulate, the workings of that concept seems to defy nature. The concept of a circulating "field" is even more mind-boggling.
If a magnet emitted mass-less magnetic energy from one end of the magnet, then logically, the energy should keep traveling in that direction in a straight line away from the magnet. Newton's first law of motion tells us that. What could possibly cause it to change direction, loop around and return to the other end? Perhaps it is thoughts like these that lead to the concept of opposite "charges", which somehow have the ability to attract one another. What that other energy, which possesses an opposite charge, could possibly be made of is something beyond understanding. It just makes no sense. Just call it a "field" and let it go at that. And all of those elaborate and convoluted theories are created and embraced for one simple reason. Science does not believe that the ether exists.
Science’s current understandings of magnetism and energy are so extremely incorrect, that those beliefs inevitably led to another theory that is laughable. It is the belief in something called a “Magnetic monopole”. A magnetic monopole is a theoretical particle that possesses either only a north or only a south polarity without the presence of the other accompanying polarity. Einstein’s theory inevitable leads to the conclusion that such a particle must exist, and scientists believe that when they discover a magnetic monopole they will also prove string theory to be true.
Now that you know that magnetism is actually a flowing ether current, and that “south” is actually the end of the magnet where current flows in and “north” is the end where it flows out, then you can easily see that it is impossible to have one without the other. If you cut a bar magnet in half, both halves will still possess a north and a south. That is, one end will have current that flows in and the other end has current that flows out. It’s sort of like a garden hose with water flowing through it. If you close off either end, the water cannot flow. Water cannot exit from one end of the hose unless it can also flow in at the other end. Likewise, magnetism cannot exit a magnet unless it is also flowing into the magnet. There can be no “north” without there also being a “south”.
Scientists do not understand that magnetism is the result of a flowing ether current, because they do not believe that the ether exists. As a result, their theories on energy, which are built upon Einstein’s theory, cause them to believe in the existence of a particle that can radiate a “north” or a “south” magnetic field all by itself. Of course, they still haven’t found proof that such a particle exists and they never will. Their continued belief in the existence of a magnetic monopole is additional proof of their stubborn blindness. The theory itself should be all the proof they need to convince them that something is drastically wrong with Einstein’s theory. Their ongoing search for a magnetic monopole is the equivalent of them confessing “We have absolutely no idea of what magnetism really is.”
Hopefully, this demonstration of how Earth's magnetic "field" works has helped to convince you that the ether most definitely does exist. Once you realize that the ether exists and behaves like a fluid, the entire process becomes simple to understand. It's as simple as building the model using the ball, turning it on, and watching it work. No theories needed!
COPYRIGHT © 2018, By Jonathan P. Volkel
Modern theories on what magnetism is and how it behaves are based upon experimental evidence. A few early experiments with electricity paved the way for all of the present theories, and so the focus here will be on those early experiments.
In 1819, a Danish scientist named Hans Oersted performed an experiment that involved running an electric current through a straight wire. He noticed that the direction in which the needle of a compass was pointing would be affected if the compass was close enough to the electrified wire. The obvious conclusion was that the electrified wire was radiating a magnetic field. This was the first time that an electric current was noticed to be associated with a magnetic field. This was the beginning of modern science’s theories of the origin of magnetic fields and became the foundation which all future theories would be built upon.
Further experiments revealed that if several compasses were placed around the straight wire, and an electrical current was passed through the wire, then all of the compass needles would deflect in the same direction in a circular pattern around the wire. It would look something like this:
The red arrow indicates the direction of the electric current. If you point the thumb of your right hand straight up, and then grab the wire so that your thumb is pointing in the same direction as the electric current, then your fingers will wrap around the wire in the same direction that the compass needles point towards. This is called “the right hand rule”.
Further experiments involved taking a flat surface (like a sheet of paper), and poking the wire through the center of it so that the wire was perpendicular to the flat surface. Then, Iron filings were sprinkled on the flat surface and an electric current was passed through the wire. When the current was initiated, the Iron filings would arrange themselves in circular patterns radiating outwards from the wire. Their pattern was something like this:
Those are the facts of the experiments. Scientists then took the results of these experiments and tried to come up with explanations as to why these things happened. The first thing that they decided was that electricity was, ultimately, the source of all magnetism. Actually, that was a rather poor and hasty decision for them to make. What if they had grabbed the wire and noticed that it was also getting hot? Would they have then decided that electricity was the source of all heat? Of course, it isn’t. And neither is electricity the source of magnetism. The details of what magnetism is and how it is created is explained throughout this paper. The previous topic, “Magnetic Fields”, shows how Earth’s magnetic field is created, and it has absolutely nothing to do with electricity.
Even so, science has, to this day, maintained the belief that electricity is, ultimately, responsible for the origin of magnetism. In fact, their belief has left them confused as to the true nature of Earth’s magnetic field. They believe that the core of our planet is too hot to support magnetism within the Iron at the core. And so, they believe that some sort of electrical current is perpetually circulating around in Earth’s core which is generating our magnetic field. The entire concept is very uncertain for them and they still have not been able to create a plausible working theory to satisfactorily explain Earth’s magnetic field. This is because their theories on magnetism are founded upon the theories they created as a result of the above experiments. The whole idea that all magnetism originates from electricity is incorrect.
The next thing they did was to combine the results of the compass needle observations with the Iron filings observations. What they concluded is that magnetism circulates around the wire in the direction that the compass needles point towards, and that it radiates outwards from the wire in ringed layers.
Of course, this doesn’t explain what magnetism is “made of”, or how and why it is able to exist as rings in varying distances from the wire. That also does not explain how something is able to move in a circular path and not just fly off into space in a straight line. Neither does it explain how these rings manage to travel outward from the wire and then stop moving outward upon reaching a certain distance from the wire, and then just exist at that position as a mass-less force. Their resultant conclusions as to what magnetism was and how it was behaving gave it abilities that defy the laws of motion. To resolve this, they simply call it a “field” and let it go at that. Nevertheless, to this day, that is the general belief and understanding of what magnetism is, where it comes from, and how and why it works.
Now how it really works will be shown. In previous chapters it was explained how magnetism is created. It is caused by oscillations in the atomic line of components and it travels outward from the atom through the ether in waves. The following explanation will demonstrate how that translates into circulating ring patterns around a current carrying wire. There are a few concepts about how things work that need to be combined together in order to understand what’s really going on here.
The first concept to keep in mind is that of how oscillation works. A suitable example of that which will apply here involves observing the motion of a rope. Stretch out a length of rope and grab one end. Quickly shake your hand up and down. The motion of your hand will transfer to the rope and travels down the length of the rope. The up and down vertical motion of your hand combines with the horizontal motion of the energy traveling outward through the rope to create an up and down snake like pattern in the rope which resembles a wave. Recall the definition of a wave: A patterned vibration which creates a disturbance that travels through a medium. The patterned vibration is your moving hand. The medium of propagation of the energy of motion is the rope. The snake like shape that the rope acquires is the wave. Now, “put a pin” in that mental image and hold onto it for later. It will be recalled in just a bit.
The next concept to keep in mind is the configuration of the atomic components that make up an atom. Some of those components are stretched out in a line. All of the components orbit around the center of their combined mass. Below is a basic, rudimentary, partial image of one possible configuration of those components. It shows just the neutrons. It is not intended to represent a specific atom. Its purpose is just to give you a simplified general idea of atomic motion.
The colors that are used here are to aid in visualizing and explaining the diagram. The three red neutrons are stacked up along the central axis of rotation, depicted as the green vertical bar. The blue neutrons are stretched out in a line on either side and are spinning around that central axis. That is, they are spinning towards and away from you.
The next concept that comes into play is that of what happens when many of these atoms are combined together. The next image is a simplified view of this concept, but will convey the general idea.
This represents how individual atoms would be combined together to form a larger object. This is one way to depict how the atoms are arranged in the wire that carries the electric current. The green arrow indicates the direction of the electric current.
Perhaps think of the above image like a “tree”, with its “branches” sticking out to the sides. If you could grab the trunk of that tree and shake it up and down, the branches would bounce down and up in the pattern of the shaking. However, tree branches are rigid. These atomic components are separate objects held together and connected only by gravity. When an electric current moves through these atoms, it is like shaking the tree. Now, recall the wave motion of the rope that was explained earlier. The “branches” will move up and down in a way that more resembles the motion of the rope when it was shaken. These “branches” will oscillate up and down.
The oscillation of the “branches” is a patterned vibration. It creates a disturbance in the surrounding collection of sub atomic particles known as “photons” which comprise the medium known as “the ether”. The pattern of that vibration propagates through the particles of the ether as a wave which we call “magnetism”.
Now there is just one more piece of the puzzle that needs to be factored in so that the data from the electrical experiments can be understood. We must take into consideration that, while the “branches” are oscillating up and down, they are also orbiting around the central axis of rotation. Perhaps think of them as you would think about a lighthouse with a rotating light. The light shines in only one direction at any given moment of time. However, imagine what you would see if the rotating light spun faster and faster. Eventually, it will be spinning so fast, that it would appear that the light is shining in all directions simultaneously.
The oscillations in an atom create a wave in the ether that travels straight out the end of the line of atomic components. Compare it to the motion in the rope. The energy of motion that is the wave travels in only one direction down the length of the rope and straight out of the end. It happens the same way in the atom. At the same time that happens, the components also spin around in a circle. As a result, the wave will tend to have a spiral pattern to it as it travels outward and away from the wire. This spiral pattern does not affect the shape of the wave. It only affects the direction in which the energy of the wave will be applied when it comes into contact with another object.
It is important to remember the incredible speeds that are at work here. Not only is the atom spinning at a very fast speed, but also, as soon as the energy of motion of the oscillating wave transfers from the heavier atoms into the tiny mass of the photons, the wave speed instantly increases and shoots away from the atom and through the ether at light speeds. The end result is that all of this combined motion creates ripples in the ether similar to the ripples that are created if you drop a pebble into water. The ripples radiate in all directions outward from the center, moving at light speed.
If one could stop time and look at a single frozen moment of action, one would see the wave travelling in one direction only (for example, just to the left). However, our human senses and limited technology are so comparatively slow, that we perceive it all as completely surrounding the wire and happening instantaneously in all directions at once. Also keep in mind that the previous diagram of the atomic “tree” shows two branches per atom (one branch sticking out to the left and one to the right). Both of those branches are oscillating with the exact same motion and both are simultaneously emitting the exact same wave in opposite directions. All of these multiple actions, combined with their incredible speeds, create the effect of it all happening everywhere simultaneously.
It is the spinning action of the atom that explains why the compass needles all point in the same circular direction. If you drew a line from any of the compasses to the atom, so that the line was perpendicular to the center of the atom in the wire, then the compass will turn so that it points in the same direction of motion that the atom is spinning towards as indicated at the point where the perpendicular line meets the atom. That is because the wave is not striking the compass needle all at one time. The spiral motion causes the wave to strike the compass needle at one end and sweep across it to the opposite end. This sweeping motion is a direction of travel of energy, and the compass needle turns to align itself with that direction of motion.
The previous topic, “Magnetic Fields”, explained how a magnet has an ether current running through it in one direction. A compass needle is really just a small magnet. It has an ether current running through it. It will align itself so that its current flows in the same direction as the surrounding current. The electric current in the wire is creating its own surrounding magnetic ether current that is stronger than the Earth’s magnetic current. However, this is true only at distances very close to the wire. When positioned close enough to the wire, the compass needle aligns with the ether current that surrounds the wire. In this case, that current was created by the electric current in the wire. As the compass is moved away from the wire, the strength of the wire’s ether current diminishes and the compass needle will resume aligning itself with Earth’s magnetic ether current. This is why the compass needles all point in the same circular direction. They are pointing in the same direction as the atom’s spin.
In order to understand why the Iron filings were arranged as fixed rings around the wire, a closer look at one single magnetic wave radiating outward from the wire is needed. The following image will show two sideways, profile views of the wire, the Iron filings, and the flat surface that they rest upon.
The vertical green bar is the wire. The red arrow indicates the direction of the electric current. The flat horizontal black line is the flat surface that the Iron filings sit upon. The lower green wave is the magnetic wave which moves at light speed from right to left. The upper blue wave is the natural oscillations in the Iron. The brown flecks on the line are clusters of Iron filings.
Remember that the wave is travelling outward from the wire in the same way as a wave travels down the length of a rope or as waves on water travel outward from where a pebble was dropped into it. That is, the crest of that wave rolls along from inside to outside. As such, the crest of that wave is coming into contact with all of the Iron in its path. Why then doesn’t all of the Iron react to the wave? Why does the Iron only react at specific intervals of distance from the wire and then create the ringed patterns?
As discussed in earlier chapters, the reason Iron responds to magnetism is because it too is oscillating. Its atomic configuration is such that it rotates around a center of mass that creates an imbalance in its spinning motion. It has a natural, built in oscillation. When Iron’s natural oscillations are in phase with an incoming magnetic wave, its oscillations are enhanced and it responds with linear motion. When its natural oscillations are out of phase with a magnetic wave, the oscillating effects cancel out (destructive interference) resulting in no reaction (linear motion) of the Iron.
Oscillation is a relatively slow up and down motion. That is why magnetism has such a long wavelength. Even so, when that pattern of motion is transferred into the photons of the ether by the electrified wire, that wave will travel at light speeds. And so, the up and down pattern of that wave will change slowly at the same rate as the oscillation does, but the wave itself moves outward at the speed of light.
The Iron is sitting in one place on the flat surface. It is oscillating slowly up and down. The wave from the wire sweeps across the flat surface at light speed. The outward moving magnetic wave is so fast when compared to the up and down speed of the Iron’s oscillations that, by the time the wave has passed by the Iron, the oscillating motion in the Iron has barely had enough time to have moved any significant distance at all. For purposes of analysis, when comparing the slow up and down motion of the Iron’s oscillations to the lateral super-fast light speed of the wave, the Iron can be considered as “sitting still”.
As a result of all of this, the Iron will only respond with linear motion at the places where the magnetic wave is in phase with its own oscillations. This only occurs at specific distances from the wire. The spacing between the reaction points is a function of the wavelength of an oscillating magnetic wave.
Now realize that the wave is travelling outward in every direction. All of those waves have the same frequency, pattern and phase. They are all identical. Imagine taking that single wave image from above and swinging it all the way around the central wire. The following image will convey the general idea.
The green circle in the center represents the wire as seen if looking straight down at it from above. The red dot in the center represents the electric current coming up at you. The wavy green lines represent the magnetic waves radiating outward. The brown rings represent where all those waves caused a magnetic reaction with the Iron filings that were resting on the flat surface. Only four waves were illustrated here in order to avoid cluttering the image. Realize that those waves travel outward in every direction, filling the entire area around the wire.
This is why Iron filings accumulate in rings around a current carrying wire. Magnetism does not circulate around an electrified wire. It travels outward from it and applies its force to other objects in an outward moving spiral pattern. Magnetism does not exist as rings of magnetic “fields” that establish themselves and then sit at varying fixed distances around the wire. Such a configuration of energy is impossible and defies the laws of motion. The rings only indicate the places where the outward moving wave is in phase with the natural oscillations within the Iron.
One very interesting observation can be made here. The wavelength of visible light falls into the range of approximately 400 to 700 nano-meters. And so, the longest wavelength for visible light is about 700 billionths of a meter long (when measuring from the peak of one wave to the peak of the next wave). That translates into .000028 inches. That is, 28 millionths of an inch. Compare that to the distance between the Iron filings rings. The separation between those rings is visible to the naked eye and could be measured with a ruler. That distance is an indicator of the wavelength of magnetism. It is considerably longer than the wavelength of visible light. That is because the oscillation responsible for magnetism is a much slower up and down motion than the fast orbital speed that creates a wave of light. That is, the speed of a spinning atom.
Here is shown how and why a wire carrying an electric current causes compass needles to deflect and ringed patterns to be formed around the conductor. Not one single theoretical force, field or concept was required. Everything followed the known and provable laws of motion. Everything behaved in common and easily understandable ways that we can also see in action around us all the time.
One of the most obvious problems that underlie science’s present understanding of magnetism is the original theories that they created from the above experiments. Another major problem is the model of the atom that science uses to try and decipher the data. The Bohr model of the atom is completely wrong. That model could never create oscillating motion. As such, science will never be able to understand the true source of magnetism as long as they use that model.
There have been innumerable electrical and magnetic experiments performed in the last two centuries. The corrected model of the atom that is provided here, combined with the knowledge of the existence of the ether, can simply and easily explain all of that data. However, there is no point in addressing the rest of the existing bad theories that try to explain the data of those ensuing experiments. That is because ALL of science’s present theories on magnetism are horribly flawed. They are flawed because all of the present theories are built upon the foundation of the Bohr model of the atom and upon the original bad theories that were created to explain the data of the experiments shown at the start of this topic. Those theories are the foundation upon which all ensuing theories were built. When the foundation is flawed, the entire structure built upon it is also flawed.
Every theory that science presently maintains as to how and why electricity and magnetism work is wrong. Science has an excellent idea of what those forces can do and how they behave, but they have a completely incorrect understanding of how and why they do it. Hopefully, someday, science will realize their mistake. When they do, they can go back and re-evaluate the data from all of those other experiments. Only then can they finally begin to understand how and why our universe really functions.