Access
This article is part of Nature's premium content.
Please note this is News in Brief, and so will be a short article.
Published online 27 August 2008 | Nature 454, 1038 (2008) | doi:10.1038/4541038b
News in Brief: Snapshot
New window on the gamma-ray Universe
GLAST provides first sky map – and gets a new name.
To read this story in full you will need to login or make a payment (see right).
Please note this is News in Brief, and so will be a short article.
Comments
Reader comments are usually moderated after posting. If you find something offensive or inappropriate, you can speed this process by clicking 'Report this comment' (or, if that doesn't work for you, email redesign@nature.com). For more controversial topics, we reserve the right to moderate before comments are published.
That's great news! Of much greater value would be measurements of anti-neutrinos coming from the Sun and from other stars. The number of anti-neutrinos produced in the Sun are expected to be about twice (~2 times) the number of neutrinos produced there. See: "The Sun is a plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass," Physics of Atomic Nuclei 69 (2006) pp. 1847-1856. http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0609509v3 Oliver K. Manuel, http://www.omatumr.com/index.html http://myprofile.cos.com/manuelo09
By what action can a black hole interact with "outside bodies"? First, the fundamental black hole is obtained as a solution for Ric = 0, which is a spacetime that is, by definition, empty - there is no matter present. So the alleged black hole can interact with nothing because its associated spacetime is empty - it precludes the presence of any matter. So there are no "outside bodies" present, by hypothesis. Furthermore, Einstein's theory of gravitation is non-linear and so the 'Principle of Superposition' does not apply. It does apply in Newton's theory. These are fundamentally different theories, and so one cannot simply insert lumps of matter into any spacetime of Einstein by an analogy with Newton's theory. So the notion of black holes at the centres of galaxies is nonsense. This is why the alleged black hole collisions, mergers and binaries are also nonsense. Each black hole is obtained separately as a solution to Ric = 0. The one black hole cannot therefore be in the spacetime of another black hole and mutually interact in a mutual spacetime that by definition contains no matter; yet the black holers would have us all believe that black holes can interact. On another simple level the black hole is inconsistent with the Theory of Relativity. The alleged singularity of the black hole is infinitely dense. Now Special Relativity forbids infinite density because infinite density implies that a material body can acquire the speed of light in vacuum (or equivalently that there is infinite energy), which violates the fundamental premise of Special Relativity. General Relativity, by definition, cannot violate Special Relativity, and so it too forbids infinite density. Thus, the Theory of Relativity forbids infinitely dense point-mass singularities and hence forbids black holes. Consequently, discussion of lensing by black holes, medium sized black holes, supermassive black holes, and all alleged black hole phenomena, are meaningless. Black holes are not predicted by any theory. The hypothetical Michell-Laplace dark body of Newton's theory is not a black hole because it possesses an escape velocity, whereas the black hole has no escape velocity; it does not require irresistible gravitational collapse, whereas the black hole does; it has no infinitely dense point-mass singularity, whereas the black hole does; it has no event horizon, whereas the black hole does; there is always a class of observers that can see the dark body, but there is no class of observers that can see the black hole. Thus the Michell-Laplace dark body does not possess the signatures of the alleged black hole and so it is not a black hole. Nobody has ever found a black hole because nobody has ever found an infinitely dense point-mass singularity and nobody has ever found an event horizon. Moreover, it takes an infinite amount of time for an observer to establish the presence of an event horizon, but nobody has been and nobody will be around for an infinite amount of time. All claims for the discovery of black holes are patently false. Bear in mind that billions of taxpayer dollars have been wasted and continue to be wasted on the search for black holes and gravitational waves produced by them. Such projects are destined to detect nothing. The funding of them is just a gravy train for the participants, who are never short of excuses to get more out of the taxpayer.
Stephen Crothers is right. There are no black holes in the cosmos. Repulsion between neutrons stops the collapse of neutron stars ["Neutron repulsion confirmed as energy source", J. Fusion Energy 20 (2002) 197-201]. NAS is well aware of the danger of open discussions and expressions of dissent. To insure that there are only consensus opinions, research funds are increasingly limited to large research collaborations like this one: http://www.star.bnl.gov/central/collaboration/authors/authorList.php Oliver K. Manuel, http://myprofile.cos.com/manuelo09
As a retired astrophysicist concentrating primarily on pulsars, e.g., my model for Her X-1, pulsar emission theories, and pulsar multipole radiation, I have been trying to tell other astrophysicists that black holes cannot form in the Universe, as viewed from our space-time frame, because time there in our frame slows to zero as the event horizon comes close to being created. But my clarifications have almost always fallen on deaf ears or considered to be some kind of semantics. I agree with most of what Crothers says, but as an expert on neutron stars, not with Manuel.
i would like to start with a theory is a theory , no fact to dispute , . but i find all these comments quite fascinating. it seems to me we are disputing that which is detected, by observatorys, and satalites alike, yet there they are. i have a theory of interaction that these phenomena, black holes , massive and super massive, are simply blips on the scope, and become clearer as time will show. and as they seem to swallow everything, could it not be , as with the search for dark matter, our spectrum of detection is simply not up to a proper job. and would we see somthing of a star we have not yet found in such as our spectrum of detection as yet. but going with comman theory, i understand it as they eat both time space and matter. so an interaction, if accuring , would be somthing of the same , to another as yet misunderstood, or as yet unequeled by our abilitys. a dark matter star? hmm implausable surely
In relation to this topic I might as well make the following additional remarks. According to Einstein, in his gravitational field, gravitational mass and inertial mass are equivalent, and also, in a sufficiently small region of his gravitational field his laws of Special Relativity must hold. Einstein?s field equations for the static vacuum gravitational field, i.e. Ric = 0,violate his ?Principle of Equivalence? because the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass, and the laws of Special Relativity, cannot manifest in a spacetime which is by definition empty; that by definition contains no matter! QED. Consequently, if his energy-momentum tensor is zero there is no Einstein gravitational field. Hence his field equations must take the following form: Gij/k + Tij = 0, (subscripts) i,j = 0,1,2,3, k = constant, wherein the Gij/k are the components of a gravitational energy tensor. Thus the total energy of the gravitational field is always zero; the Gij/k and Tij must vanish identically; there is no possibility for the localisation of gravitational energy (i.e. there is no possibility for Einstein?s gravitational waves). Moreover, this means that Einstein?s General Theory of Relativity violates the experimentally well established conservation of energy and momentum, so if the usual conservation of energy and momentum is valid (bearing in mind that there is no experimental evidence to refute it) then Einstein?s General Theory of Relativity is invalid. Also, Einstein invented his pseudo-tensor by which he and subsequent big bangers and LIGOers claim that his gravitational energy can be localized. However, Einstein?s pseudo-tensor is a meaningless concoction of mathematical symbols for the following reason ? it implies the existence of a 1st-order intrinsic differential invariant which depends only upon the components of the metric tensor and their 1st-derivatives (to see this just contract his pseudo-tensor and apply Euler?s theorem). But the pure mathematicians G. Ricci-Curbastro and T. Levi-Civita proved in 1900 that such invariants do not exist! In addition, Einstein and the subsequent big bangers and LIGOers resort to linearisation of Einstein?s field equations to localize his gravitational energy. This too is nonsense, because linearisation implies the existence of a tensor which, except for the particular case of being precisely zero, does not otherwise exist, as proven by H. Weyl in 1944. So the big bangers and the LIGOers and their international counterparts such as the AIGO in Australia and VIRGO in Europe, are all destined to detect nothing. For those who want the mathematical proofs, go here: http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2008/PP-12-11.PDF And here: http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2007/PP-09-14.PDF