Thank you for your reply, Swcman,
I am trying to understand your observation.
A/ If you are saying there are shadows somehow cast where a Black Hole is involved, I would like to see the pictures. I may be mistaken, but I don’t think you meant to say this option A.
B/ More likely is that you view the Black Hole as a shadow itself. If so, then we disagree. A shadow and the lack of photons capable of passing through the gravitational center are not one and the same thing.
Note that I am making a claim that differs in just a single spot compared to the proposed Black Hole model supported by scientists. It is one single distinction in modeling and everything else is the same. All data is completely the same.
Recognize though that many angles are involved and they must all be understood to establish the proposed model correctly.
— -
Let’s first tackle the shadow.
Light (and therefore shadows) are only visible in our line of sight. A light source can create a shadow if there is an object between light source and ourselves (or our instruments). Assuming there is no light source at night, there are then also no shadows.
My claim is that there is no mass in that center. Yet photons do not make it through the gravitational center because they are thrown into different directions. Not a single photon makes it through the center. Our cameras do not capture photons in the center, because there are none. Therefore, it is dark in the center. There is no shadow involved because there is no light source. Nothing can pass.
We can see a ring of light around the gravitational center, because all photons still continue in whichever direction they were thrown into. The light we see in that ring arrived therefore from many different directions and at the gravitational center they were thrown into our direction.
— -
What may be complicated to understand is that I propose there are two levels of gravity. First is the usual gravity we associate with mass. The second level occurs at the collective setting, like with the barycenter of a binary star system. The barycenter is itself not a material entity but the result of the gravitational forces of the two stars. It is placed in the center of both masses, based on their masses. Both stars ‘twirl’ around the barycenter.
Where two stars and their barycenter may not create a location strong enough to bend the pathways of photons, the claim I make is that the strength of the barycenter of a galaxy is much much stronger and it can bend the pathway of a photon.
— -
Binary star system: 2 masses, 3 gravitational centers (each star themselves plus the barycenter). Everyone agrees on this.
Scientists’ galaxy example: 6 trillion and one masses, 6 trillion and one gravitational centers.
My claim galaxy example: 6 trillion masses, 6 trillion and one gravitational centers.
All I am doing is using the model that all agree on for the binary star system and apply it to a galaxy. There should always be an additional gravitational center in the middle. We can state the same about what we observe without needing a mass in the center.
— -
My claim is that at the galactic center an Eye exists that functions much like a hurricane. A photon arriving at that ‘hurricane’ is swept up by the force and thrown in a different direction.
At the heart of the hurricane we have an eye. Here on earth an almost wind-still location of the Hurricane Eye sits right next to the most ferocious winds ever measured on our planet. Right in the center, the winds are in a balance and they are therefore subdued; right next to this calm center ferocious forces of wind are moving sideways.
I make that same claim for the Eye of the gravitational center of the Black Hole, too, and call it a Black Eye therefore. Right smack in the middle there is no gravity (because all gravity of the galaxy is in a balance here), and yet immediately next to it, the strongest gravity of that galaxy is measured.
Please note that a hurricane on earth does not have any matter in it, other than air particles and water vapor. No scientist would make the claim that an invisible material entity sits at the center of a hurricane, commanding the hurricane. However, that is exactly what scientists are claiming about Black Holes (Black Eyes).
Scientists are using a model in which singularity is incorporated. Let me explain it in another simple example. If I close one eye, the other open eye did not move to the center of my face all of a sudden. You will recognize this as true. Yet scientists are doing exactly that with their model for Black Holes; while not all forces at in play, they place the remaining forces in a center; in reality the forces do not move to the center. Like a hurricane, the essence of what makes a hurricane a hurricane is not found in the center. The strong winds never make it to the center because they cancel each other out at that spot.
What scientists are doing is taking the gravitational model of a galaxy and place a gravitational mass in the center that is so massive it collapsed onto itself. They got to this conclusion using calculations based on known information. It was an assumption made first on paper and then when everything seemed to fit, they congratulated themselves on a job well done. Yet they forgot that a different level exists. I call it the synergistic level where the outcome is more than the parts. The forgot the collective level and kept focusing on the individual level, extrapolating data of the individual level.
My claim is that therefore rater simple: the gravitational force is indeed there, all data is correct, but there is no mass.
— -
Thank you, Swcman, for writing me because you are telling me I need to make my article more obvious. I need to rewrite it some, so my claim is more obvious. I am glad you gave me your feedback. If you have any other remarks, I’d appreciate it if you replied, so I can understand how my words come across.
All the best,
Fred-Rick
