Will the Black Hole theory end up delivering scientists a black eye?
The claim is that astronomers and other physicists turned Einstein’s Spacetime inside out, ending up seeing something as real that is not real.
Not to worry though: The gravitational phenomenon in the center of galaxies is definitively real. Yet instead of seeing the gravitational phenomenon as part of a natural condition, physicists conjured a material reality existing beyond a horizon. These professionals calculated on paper how matter can both be extremely dense and invisible at the same time.
Naturally, something material yet outside the observable realm cannot be verified other than through circumstantial evidence. Therefore, the scientific data is fully circumstantial and does not declare the actual material object itself. It is suspected to exist, and many physicists are pretty sure about it being there.
Contrast this with a Black Eye that occurs within in one and the same material reality (no horizon required) and that is based on a special condition of the gravitational force itself. Nothing special. The phenomenon is explained by a collective condition.
- A Black Hole is an invisible mass of enormous proportions.
- A Black Eye is a major gravitational depression.
The scientific question is therefore:
Is the gravitational phenomenon a Black Hole or is it a Black Eye?
—
All physicists agree that the gravitational monster is real. We have scientific evidence for it.
Yet the interpretation of that scientific evidence, that is where the problems start. To explain the scientific data, there can be at least two models, each claiming that the gravitational phenomenon points to something else:
- An invisible mass beyond a material horizon in the center of a galaxy (Black Hole theory)
- A strong collective depression for gravity in the center of a galaxy (Black Eye theory)
Let’s also declare the opposite positions right away:
- No strong collective depression for gravity in the center of a galaxy (Black Hole)
- No invisible mass beyond a material horizon in the center of a galaxy (Black Eye)
Both theories are based on the same gravitational phenomenon, and they declare the other theory as an incorrect interpretation of the scientific data.
It is easy to recognize a serious distinction between both models because a Black Hole requires a secondary reality for matter — something material that exists beyond a scientific horizon.
This is a very (in)convenient aspect, because anything beyond that horizon cannot be shown in specifics. Our scientific hands are truly empty, except for the known gravitational phenomenon itself. We just see the effects, not the invisible mass itself.
Meanwhile, the Black Eye theory remains within the ordinary and well-known material setting. The gravitational phenomenon is explained as coming forth from the collective field of gravity and considered a depression unrivaled in a galaxy.
- Like a Hurricane establishing a major but strictly localized depression known as an Eye (blue skies above), the gravitational collective force of all masses in a galaxy establishes an extremely depressed gravitational Eye.
The interesting part is that in the center of the storm we find a spot without any wind. The windiest spot on our planet has no wind in its center, while the Wall of the Eye delivers us the strongest wind force on our planet.
Similarly, the Black Eye itself lacks the presence of the force that created it (the Eye is a net-zero condition without any gravity), yet the Wall of the Black Eye delivers a maximized gravitational condition unlike any other location in the galaxy.
- The Eye of the Storm and the Wall of the Eye of the Storm are like the minimum and maximum expression of a force sitting right next to one another.
To put this in perspective: no Eye ever caused any damaged on planet Earth — it was all the Wall of the Eye doing the damage. Same for the Black Eye environment: No force in the exact center, but right around it the force is at maximum strength.
— — —
The claim is that the Black Eye model is better than the Black Hole model.
Three points favor the Black Eye model.
- Occam’s Razor favors the Black Eye model because there is no secondary reality required in which matter exists beyond a material horizon. All is explained simply by what we interpret based on the scientific data; no complicated reality beyond any horizon needed.
- Einstein’s reaction to the proposal of a Black Hole was one of rejection. His position was on some level diametrical to that proposal. Having a material reality existing beyond a material horizon fits with our knowledge that Einstein rejected the Black Hole proposal as too outlandish (saillant detail: physicists were using Einstein’s Spacetime theory on paper to conjure the existence of Black Holes).
- Thirdly, the Heron Galaxy:
In this image, we have two galaxies colliding. The reason to investigate this particular image is that one galaxy is much larger than the other. When picking two galaxies of the same size colliding instead, the point to make is visible but not as obvious.
For these two galaxies, identified together as NGC 5395, astronomers have concluded that both were involved in a first encounter already, part of a process that will ultimately lead to their colliding, becoming one galaxy.
- This image is important because the Black Hole model denies that there is a strong collective force possible for gravity in a galaxy. In other words, the claim is that there is not enough cohesion among masses in a galaxy for a major depression to occur in the center of a galaxy.
What is special about this outcome is that the effect of that first encounter had major effects on the smaller galaxy and apparently lesser effects on the larger galaxy. Look closely, though, and one can see that the larger galaxy is affected as well. Yet from an overall perspective, it is far more intact than the smaller galaxy. Here is the image once more:
Based on this image, one can see that a collective gravitational field of galaxies is indeed present.
The point to make is that the collective field of the larger galaxy is capable of remaining intact more so than the smaller field. As such, there is visual evidence that a gravitational field does have a collective aspect.
Individual masses react to the collective setting (of the other galaxy). Emphasis here is on collective. There is a collective setting to a galaxy.
In plain words, clearly visible for both the small and the large galaxy, the inside of a galaxy is not first but last to adjust to what is happening. The unraveling is therefore not galaxy-wide, but occurring in particular along the edges of a galaxy.
This is visual evidence that supports the Black Eye model. The ‘remaining’ cohesion of each galaxy is clearly visible. There will be a collective effect such as an Eye.
— — —
The image is not dissimilar to two hurricanes found in each other’s vicinity, even though wind force and gravitational force occur in completely different settings. For two hurricanes colliding this is called the Fujiwara effect. The outer regions of the hurricanes are affected, but the smaller of two hurricanes will be affected more. Because this is a wind condition in which the material mass (planet Earth) is found next to it, and the specific conditions therefore different indeed, we see that the smaller hurricane ends up swirling around the bigger one, not colliding and becoming one hurricane (unless truly close by).
There is a collective reality and, as the Eye of the Storm shows us, a collective of forces can establish a center position in which there is actually no force present (the Eye), while immediately next to it the Wall of the Eye produces the most extreme situation for that force. The strongest winds on planet Earth are measured with the Wall of the Eye of the Storm.
— — —
Is it a Black Hole or a Black Eye?
There is more evidence that the gravitational phenomenon is a Black Eye than a Black Hole.
