Wallace Thornhill on the myth of gravitation and the myth of black holes: The Black Hole at the Heart of Astronomy.
"Astronomical fads have always involved miracle working to some degree, and their discussion in so-called workshops and in the streams of papers that pour into the journals have affinities to the incantations of Macbeth's witches on the blasted heath." -- Fred Hoyle, Home is where the wind blows
The so-called "queen" of the sciences, cosmology, is founded upon the myth that the weakest force in the universe - gravity - is responsible for forming and shaping galaxies, stars and planets. But even if this were true, gravity remains unexplained. How it works is a mystery.
Newton gave us a mathematical description of what gravity does. Einstein invoked an unreal geometry to do the same thing. Newton had the sense to "frame no hypotheses" about how gravity worked. Einstein made it impossible to relate cause and effect - which means that the theory of general relativity is not physics! How, precisely, does matter warp empty space? The language is meaningless. But this hasn't stopped scientists declaring a law of gravitation with a 'universal' physical constant—'G.'
For many years now, astronomers have been reporting that supermassive black holes - several million times the mass of the Sun - exist in nearly every galaxy.
The thoughtless followers of Einstein have fashioned God in their own image as a mathematician but "He" is much smarter and avoids high school howlers like the gravitational "black hole." Yes, a theoretical "black hole" exists - and it sucks the very heart out of astronomy and astrophysics. The astronomer Halton Arp articulated the math howler of dividing by zero to give a near infinite concentration of mass in a hypothetical black hole: “Since the force of gravity varies as the square of the inverse distance between objects why not make the ultimate extrapolation and let the distance go to zero? You get a LOT of density. Maybe it goes BOOM! But wait a minute, maybe it goes in the opposite direction and goes MOOB! Whatever. Most astronomers decided anyway that this was the only source that could explain the observed jets and explosions in galaxies.”
Precisely! And when the gravitational force is as close to zero as doesn't matter, in comparison to the electric force, you must be very careful (as any high school student knows) to not divide by zero, otherwise you introduce infinities. What does it mean for the radius of a physical object to tend to zero?
In the face of discordant data, a scientist is required to check the original works and assumptions that lead to the theory under test. But there are very few such scientists in this modern age. As Sir Fred Hoyle put it, today the pressure is on to “do what aging gurus tell them to do, which is nothing” and simply build on the consensus those gurus have established. A fellow Australian, Stephen Crothers, has shown mathematical theorists to be remarkably unintelligent and sloppy in the application of their talent to physical problems. It seems that most of them don't really follow the mathematical arguments anyway (which is not surprising) but are happy to extol the results of others, based on reputation, regardless of the principles of physics or commonsense.