Saturday, December 13, 2008

Black Holes And Other Cosmic Mirages

"They are looking through the wrong end of the telescope and telling us what they imagine they see." -- Mel Acheson

According to relativity, photons have zero mass. Since they have zero mass, it is impossible for gravity to have any effect on them. However this is all denied by the fanatic relativists: Supermassive Black Hole Dissected With Natural Magnifying Glasses: 1,000 Times Clearer Than Best Telescopes Can Do.

The team of astronomers from Europe and the US studied the "Einstein Cross", a famous cosmic mirage. This cross-shaped configuration consists of four images of a single very distant source. The multiple images are a result of gravitational lensing by a foreground galaxy, an effect that was predicted by Albert Einstein as a consequence of his theory of general relativity. The light source in the Einstein Cross is a quasar approximately ten billion light-years away, whereas the foreground lensing galaxy is ten times closer. The light from the quasar is bent in its path and magnified by the gravitational field of the lensing galaxy.
So let me get this straight. Prior to Einstein's hypothesis of General Relativity, magnetic fields couldn't bend light? Ever heard of magneto-optic effects? And how can something that has zero mass be affected by gravity? If gravity bends light, why don't astronauts and cosmonauts observe this effect when they look at the Earth? Why don't we see the Earth as blurry? And why don't we observe this effect around Sagittarius A*?

Dowdye, Jr., E.H., Astrophysical observations at the galactic center appear to counter General Relativity, suggesting that the conventional understanding of gravitational lensing is seriously flawed, 2007

Intense astrophysical observations at the galactic center of the Milky Way appear to counter General Relativity, suggesting that the conventional understanding of gravitational lensing is seriously flawed. The lack of evidence for any gravitational light bending effects on the emissions from the orbiting stellar objects about the galactic core clearly shows that fundamental principles of Mathematical Physics may have been seriously misapplied to the problem at the galactic core. This has apparently resulted in flawed concepts on the interaction of gravity and light, also resulting in the conventional understanding of gravitational lensing.

Observed emissions from the rapidly moving stars, especially the star known as S2, observed to move on an well defined eliptical path about the galactic center known as Sagittarius A*, appear to contradict General Relativity. Time resolved images of the Keplerian motion of these stars have exhibited to date no evidence of gravitational distortions in the images due to gravitational
light bending effects, as predicted by General Relativity. Moreover, the findings clearly show that fundamental principles of Mathematical Physics may have been seriously misapplied to the conventional understanding of gravitational lensing.

Details have been published in the highly esteemed and renowned refereed journal, the Astronomische Nachrichten (English title: Astronomical Notes). The title of the article is: "Time resolved images from the center of the Galaxy appear to counter General Relativity", Dowdye, Jr., E.H., Astronomische Nachrichten, Volume 328, Issue 2, Date: February 2007, Pages 186-191.
Scott, D., Gravitational Lensing or Death of a Theory?, Jul 2006

Dowdye, Jr., E.H., Profound Fundamentals of Mathematical Physics Seriously Misapplied to Gravitational Lensing, Dec 2008


Quantum_Flux said...

Yes, good post. The math for relativity assumes that all wave particles, including photons, have a relativistic mass which gravity can bend. No rest mass is assumed though, since it is assumed impossible to move at the speed of light in order for a photon to be at rest relative to the observer.

As for the idea that light can't be bent by a magnetic field, mathematically speaking, the photon is assumed to be an oscillating wave-particle of orthoganal electric and magnetic fields (the change in B flux through an arbitrary loop per unit time induces a change in E around that loop...I guess the dynamic photon must exhibit different properties than a static field virtual photon). It has also been observed that photons don't carry a charge but can impart a momentum/angular momentum/energy on a resonant charge. I think that magnetic fields can have a shifting effect on the polarity of a photon, but that photons can have a cancelling/adding effect of wave diffraction on each other.

But, don't take my word for it, I make mistakes and perhaps relativity is mistaken on it's own right, but so far I see no mistakes in my reasoning. Although, I wish I had an experimental video to demonstrate the truthfulness or falsity of these statements.

Quantum_Flux said...

I just realized how retarded everybody really is. This light wave is drawn all wrong:

Retardipedia on Light Waves.... the magnetic field should actually be 90 degrees out of phase from the electric field lines since it is a simple basic derivative (the maximum E-Field should be the minimum of the B-field). And yet some moron posted something he saw in a Physics 101 class and everybody else is doing it.

OilIsMastery said...

"I just realized how retarded everybody really is."

Glad we're on the same team...=)

Anaconda said...


I'll admit a lot of this stuff is a reach for me to understand, but I suspect I'm not the only one.

One thing I do note is the timing of this announcement. From what I've been able to pick up, a number of observations have been reported recently that "surprised" astronomers and cast doubt on "black holes" and the whole gravitational model.

So, I guess it's not too surprising then to see the "big bang, black hole" community come back with a vengence.

Rather, than attempt to refute the observations and measurements that "surprise" the gravitational model or even outright contradict the model, it seems to be the strategy to "load up" on observations that supposedly support the "black hole" hypothesis.

Although, as the post lays out, there is high quality observations and measurements that do contradict "gravitational lensing" and therefore the entire gravitational model.

Do these scientific papers get play in the mainstream science media (ScienceDaily)?

Yes, occasionally, see Oil Is Mastery posts: Cosmic Ray Hot Spots Identified, November 25, 2008 (ScienceDaily), and Cosmic Ray Hot Spots Puzzle Researchers, November 28, 2008 (Nature).

But it appears the direct contradiction of the "black hole" hypothesis is is not drawn out.

Rather, ScienceDaily reports: New Detector Will Aid Dark Matter Search, December 12, 2008 (ScienceDaily) — "Several research projects are underway to try to detect particles that may make up the mysterious "dark matter" believed to dominate the universe's mass. But the existing detectors have a problem: They also pick up particles of ordinary matter -- hurtling neutrons that masquerade as the elusive dark-matter particles the instruments are designed to find."

So, instead of engaging the observed contradictions, the push is to say, "We're really trying to find dark matter," and, of course, the unstated implication is, "We wouldn't be looking so hard for "dark matter" if it wasn't really there (it's there and we'll find it)."

And if one engages the search engine on the ScienceDaily website for Plasma Cosmology theory or Electric Universe theory, the closest one gets are articles that point out observational anomalies to the gravitational model, rather than a full lay out of the plasma model.

What does this mean?

It could mean nothing, but it also suggests ScienceDaily doesn't want its readers to know there is a full fledged alternative theory to the gravitational model.

It's one thing to have anomalies or paradoxes to a theory when it's the only theory out there; its another thing to have those same anomalies and paradoxes when an alternative theory explains the anomalies and paradoxes better, or in fact, they aren't anomalies or paradoxes at all when considered in the light of the alternative theory.

Shouldn't alternative theories be explored and considered when the conventional theory fails to explain the observations and measurements recorded?

Just a thought.

But apparently, ScienceDaily doesn't think so.

Anaconda said...


Hey, is it just me or does the picture in the post look fuzzy?

I know the ScienceDaily article brags about new images being sharper than ever, but for my money the picture still looks fuzzy. Einstein's Cross is nothing new, and even the article refers to it as a "mirage".

Somehow, it seems to be a bit presumptuous to call it a "mirage" and at the same time say it helps prove "black holes".

Of course, if it is a mirage, then maybe "black holes" are also a mirage...

Quantum_Flux said...

Real Photons (or so I think)

Louis Hissink said...


Wikipedia is not a good source of information, as you seem to have discovered.

"Banned for decades from publication in peer-reviewed, evidence-based scholastic journals guided by scientific editorial boards, the Internet offers a far-reaching tool by those without credentials to ‘distribute’ their non-physics or non-science, problematic material. Universally, they usually lack any real expertise or peer-reviewed journal documentation for the topic at hand. Their intent is to target like-minded in the general public through outlets with ‘sensationalism’ agendas; such as appear in popular newspaper articles, on television, or on talk-radio. When this material does appear, scientists cringe. [The same also applies to the ever-more-popular pseudo-dictionaries whose ‘editors’ (often college students) mold the content according to their own politically oriented, dogmatic approaches. In the process, the non-professional defamation of accredited researchers with whom they disagree is rampant].

Anaconda said...

Louis Hissink:

The quote you present is true enough, but then again those same peer-reviewed journals are also guilty of banning quality ideas supported by observation and measurement.

I'd rather have to sort through some bunk than never read, see, or hear about exciting ideas that the establishment won't tolerate...

Every powerful tool can be misused.

Also, Louis, I'd roger your link, but add that because human reason is always part of the scientific equation, there will always be a proper and dignified place for persuasion because as the article points out, "everything is a theory" and there is almost always some ambiguity to a scientific question.

In the final analysis human reason will always make the decision on what to believe. There is human conception and the thing, itself.

Science's job to make human conception as accurate as possible about the thing, itself.

To that end, observation and measurement and the ability to falsify are indispensable, but so is human reason.

Persuasion is indepensable to human reason.