The Black Hole in the Heart of Stephen Hawking

John 1:5 – And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

For me, there is something about the night sky with its countless brilliant stars that evokes feelings of wonder, delight, astonishment, humility and worship. I cannot explain these feelings to anyone who does not have a sense of the numinous, as C.S. Lewis put it, to someone who is convinced there is nothing sacred and that there is no God; perhaps it would be like explaining music to someone who was born deaf or color to one who was born blind, someone too stubborn to believe that things he hasn’t experienced truly exist.

The recent death of a secular saint, the much praised physicist Stephen Hawking, has convinced me that perhaps now is an appropriate time to talk about the life and work of this much lauded man and to make people who have “ears to hear” aware that so much that he promulgated was false. For I understand the saying is not that it’s wrong to speak ill of the dead but instead to speak lies. And both as a scientist and as a human being Hawking was seriously flawed. More troubling than his personal failings is the unanswered question why the so-called elites promote his agenda driven science, a science that observation and reason proves to be fundamentally unsound. Just as the economics of Keynes have been refuted by Austrian theory, Big Bang cosmology and black holes are truly deceptions.

If he’s famous for anything, Hawking is admired and beloved for his work on black holes. I must say on a rational level, before the Internet existed, I didn’t have faith in their concept. We are to believe that stars collapse into a point of infinite density, and within the core of each galaxy, its foundation, what somehow binds hundreds of billions of stars is a supermassive, all-devouring abyss into infinity, a place where everything is destroyed and nothing exists and nothing can escape, “not even light”, perfect all-devouring darkness—in short, something dreadful and terrible, a cosmic Charybdis or the gate to Hades. So at the very center of each galaxy there is a monstrous thing born from a dead star that somehow can consume everything, cannot be observed, and yet also from time to time spews forth incredible amounts of energy. The contradictions abound. Yet I refused to accept that eternal star and world devouring darkness is central to the nature of our universe. I rebelled.

Music to Move the Stars Jane Hawking Best Price: $37.94 Buy New $160.71 (as of 04:15 UTC - Details)

Perhaps by providence I found this book in a Barnes and Noble catalog: The Big Bang Never Happened: A Startling Refutation of the Dominant Theory of the Origin of the Universe, which introduced me to the theories of plasma cosmology. (This is a link to the author’s archived page that was once the entry on Wikipedia and later heavily censored; Lerner although an expert was banned from the site.) I found that Eric Lerner’s work was based on the discipline of plasma cosmology whose father was Nobel laureate Hannes Alfvén. And there is now a parallel discipline called the Electric Universe whose proponents have also refuted the existence of black holes, both mathematically and by astronomical observation. In fact, there is an excellent overview on the Electric Universe posted years ago on, titled Electricity Powers the Universe by the late science fiction author James P. Hogan. One of the physicist theorists of the Electric Universe who has written extensively on alternatives to the black hole is Australian Wal Thornhill.  He writes here on The Black Hole at the Heart of Astronomy:

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. Crothers has done his historical and mathematical homework and delivered a paper, “The Schwarzschild solution and its implications for gravitational waves,” at the Conference of the German Physical Society, Munich, March 9-13, 2009. He concludes, inter alia, that:

  • “Schwarzschild’s solution” is not Schwarzschild’s solution. Schwarzschild’s actual solution does not predict black holes. The quantity ‘r’ appearing in the so-called “Schwarzschild solution” is not a distance of any kind. This simple fact completely subverts all claims for black holes.
  • Despite claims for discovery of black holes, nobody has ever found a black hole; no infinitely dense point-mass singularity and no event horizon have ever been found. There is no physical evidence for the existence of infinitely dense point-masses.
  • It takes an infinite amount of observer time to verify the presence of an event horizon, but nobody has been and nobody will be around for an infinite amount of time. No observer, no observing instruments, no photons, no matter can be present in a spacetime that by construction contains no matter.
  • The black hole is fictitious and so there are no black hole generated gravitational waves. The international search for black holes and their gravitational waves is ill-fated.
  • The Michell-Laplace dark body is not a black hole. Newton’s theory of gravitation does not predict black holes. General Relativity does not predict black holes. Black holes were spawned by (incorrect) theory, not by observation. The search for black holes is destined to find none.
  • No celestial body has ever been observed to undergo irresistible gravitational collapse. There is no laboratory evidence for irresistible gravitational collapse. Infinitely dense point-mass singularities howsoever formed cannot be reconciled with Special Relativity, i.e. they violate Special Relativity, and therefore violate General Relativity.
  • General Relativity cannot account for the simple experimental fact that two fixed bodies will approach one another upon release. There are no known solutions to Einstein’s field equations for two or more masses and there is no existence theorem by which it can even be asserted that his field equations contain latent solutions for such configurations of matter. All claims for black hole interactions are invalid.
  • Einstein’s gravitational waves are fictitious; Einstein’s gravitational energy cannot be localised; so the international search for Einstein’s gravitational waves is destined to detect nothing. No gravitational waves have been detected.
  • Einstein’s field equations violate the experimentally well-established usual conservation of energy and momentum, and therefore violate the experimental evidence.

In an audience of theoretical physicists there was stunned silence—and not a single question.

Now, I can imagine many readers exploding in emotional fury:

“No, that’s certainly false! Hawking was a genius! All of our experts and scientists know that black holes exist. There’s proof! You’re citing flat earth cranks and lunatics. Einstein has been proven to be right time and time again. Hawking was a great man.”

The Big Bang Never Hap... Eric Lerner Best Price: $5.85 Buy New $13.07 (as of 04:25 UTC - Details)

Not responding with emotion, but reason, I suggest the reader take the time to read Crothers’ paper and visit his website. Thornhill has another post refuting the current dogma here,  The Madness of Black Holes and also here, Electric Galaxies, where he writes:

The gravitational ‘explanation’ of the galactic jet can be summarized in one word—“garbage.” The confident assertion that the galactic nucleus is hiding a supermassive black hole is nonsense. Black holes are a ‘school-kid howler’ perpetrated by top scientists. It involves taking Newton’s gravitational equation to an absurd limit by dividing by zero to achieve an almost infinitely powerful gravitational source. This is done by impossibly squeezing the matter of millions of stars into effectively a point source. And then mysteriously available magnetic fields are pressed into performing miracles to create something that approximates a relativistic jet of matter from an object that is supposed to gobble up anything that comes near.

It is very disturbing that the public accepts this blatant baloney without question. If scientists were forced to defend their statements in a court of law under the rules of evidence, most of the misbegotten ideas that make up modern science would never have survived. Physics would have remained in the classical hands of the experimentalists and the engineers who have to make things work. Countless billions of dollars could have been saved in misdirected and pointless experiments.

The experimental evidence for the electrical nature of galaxies has been available for many decades now. But who has heard anything about it? The lack of debate demonstrates the power of institutionalized science to maintain the “uncanny inertia” of the “erroneous theories” they have introduced into our culture. We have given scientists that power by trusting them more than our commonsense.

In fact, for those who are disinclined to read such technical details, there are videos such as these two that highlight recent findings and observations that support the thesis that there is no black hole at the core of our Milky Way galaxy:

So what is at the heart of our galaxy, if not a black hole? Something that is called a plasmoid. From Thornhill:

This image shows the form of the plasmoid at the center of the galaxy (and the particle jets created when the magnetic field begins to collapse). Image credit: E. Lerner.

The well-established study of plasma cosmology shows that galaxies are an electrical phenomenon. It has been found that filaments, arcs, and shells characterize the small-scale structure of molecular gas in the Galactic Center. They are all well-documented electrodynamic plasma configurations. A single charged particle in 10,000 neutral gas molecules is sufficient to have the gas behave as plasma, where electromagnetic forces dominate. Conventional theorists admit to “no plausible explanations either for the origin of the complex kinematics or for most of the peculiar features.” In May [of 2008] I described the plasma focus phenomenon generated at the Galactic Center by filamentary helical “Birkeland” currents flowing in along the spiral arms and out along the galactic spin axis.

So, instead of an all-devouring, all-destroying darkness, in the heart of our galaxy, in the heart of all galaxies, there is light.

Discourses & Mathemati... Edward Henry Dowdye Best Price: $22.55 Buy New $14.95 (as of 06:05 UTC - Details)

Perhaps Hawking had great personal courage to survive such a debilitating illness for so long. (Or being a member of the so-called British elite putting forth so many of their agendas such as climate change he had access to special treatment; I don’t know, I just suspect.) However, as his ex-wife has written, as a human being—and I don’t think we can cite his illness as cause for his flawed character—he left much to be desired. In fact, in her book Music to Move the Stars, Jane Hawking wrote about her ordeal as a Christian married to a militant atheist with delusions of grandeur. She described the nihilism behind his science in her book, discussed in this book review by Jerry Bergman.

Her major concern is that she perceives—and discusses extensively why, based on discussions with her husband and the leading physicists of the world—that the result of the goals of science would eventually result in the situation where ‘Human reactions in all their complexities, emotional and psychological, would one day … be reduced to scientific formulae because, in effect, these reactions were no more than the microscopic chemical interactions of molecules’ (p. 156).

The result was that ‘in the face of such dogmatically rational arguments, there was no point in raising questions of spirituality and religious faith, of the soul and of a God who was prepared to suffer for the sake of humanity—questions which ran completely counter to the selfish reality of genetic theory’, evidently referring to the work of Richard Dawkins and others (p. 156).

Jane notes, ‘at the end of the twentieth century, religion finds its revelationary truths threatened by scientific theory and discovery, and retreats into a defensive corner, while scientists go into the attack insisting that rational argument is the only valid criterion for an understanding of the workings of the universe’ (p. 200).

She concludes that the complexity of the cosmologist’s calculations and the admiration their discoveries have caused some people ‘to fall into the trap of believing that science has become a substitute for religion and that, as its great high priests, they can claim to have all the answers to all the questions. However, because of their reluctance to admit spiritual and philosophical values, some of them do not appear to be aware of the nature of some of the questions’ (p. 200).

She is especially disheartened with attempts to extrapolate animal-behaviour rules to human behaviour, as illustrated by the evolutionary psychology field. After noting that evolutionary psychologists ascribe altruism solely as a result of natural selection, she adds that ‘scientists still cannot satisfactorily explain why some human beings are prepared to give their lives for others. The complexity of such anomaly lies far outside the scope of their purely mechanical grasp. Nor can they explain why so much human activity operates at a subliminal level. The spiritual sophistication of musical, artistic, politic, and scientific creativity far exceeds that of any primitive function programmed into the brain as a basic survival mechanism’ (p. 200).

She also described her ex-husband’s dogmatic atheism and its consequences:

When asked if he believed in God, ‘Always the answer was the same. No, Stephen did not believe in God and there was no room for God in his universe’ (p. 494). When Stephen gave his usual atheistic answers in Jerusalem, this struck Jane as especially ironic, and she quipped:

‘My life with Stephen had been built on faith—faith in his courage and genius, faith in our joint efforts and ultimately religious faith—and yet here we were in the very cradle of the world’s three great religions, preaching some sort of ill-defined atheism founded on impersonal scientific values with little reference to human experience’ (pp. 494–495).

Son of Thunder: The Sp... Yvonne Lorenzo Buy New $12.00 (as of 04:45 UTC - Details)

She concludes by saying that the blunt denial by Stephen ‘of all that I believed in was bitter indeed’. Jane was also stuck at the insensitivity of the press to matters of religious faith—they often treated it as something that, if one possesses it, should be kept well hidden (p. 525).

As he got older, Stephen became more and more hardened in his atheism. As a result, Jane notes that although in the early days their arguments on religion ‘were playful and fairly light-hearted’, in later years they increasingly ‘became more personal, divisive and hurtful. It was then apparent that the damaging schism between religion and science had insidiously extended its reach into our very lives: Stephen would adamantly assert the blunt positivist stance which I found too depressing and too limiting to my view of the world because I fervently needed to believe that there was more to life than the bald facts of the laws of physics and the day-to-day struggle for survival. Compromise was anathema to Stephen, however, because it admitted an unacceptable degree of uncertainty when he dealt only with the certainties of mathematics’ (p. 201).

Let me say I am not evangelical about scientific theories; it is just as in what we are told by those in authority about economics, government, Lincoln, Churchill, for example, should never be taken without questioning because as the readers of this site know, there are facts and truths that have been deliberately obscured. To state that the scientific “theory” of black holes is contradicted by evidence, that it is simply a nihilistic belief serving some unknown elitist agenda certainly will cause hostility and cognitive dissonance.

Yet sometimes common sense and humility help us find the truth if we are willing and have the courage to seek it.

I would like to nominate another scientist who should be treated with the respect and admiration given to Stephen Hawking, a man most people probably have never heard of: Dr. Edward Dowdye Jr. From the biography on his website:

Dr. Dowdye is an electrical engineer (retired) at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, where he worked with the development of satellite born laser systems, precision laser optics and the life-time performance of various non-linear crystals used for the generation of specific harmonics of a high energy Neodymium YAG infrared Laser. The non-linear crystals were used on board spacecrafts and satellites to provide harmonics of the infrared laser emissions for altimeter functions as well as for probes designed to map the surface of the moon and to map terrestrial and extraterrestrial surfaces. The laser emissions are also used to provide the excitations for probing various particulates of terrestrial and extraterrestrial atmospheres as well as to provide precision altimeter measurements to monitor changes in the levels of the polar ice caps due to environmental warming effects. Dr. Dowdye is an experimental Physicist with a long career and experience in lasers and the laboratory testing of precision optics to be used on space born satellite systems.

The Cloak of Freya: Th... Yvonne Lorenzo Buy New $14.00 (as of 04:45 UTC - Details)

Dr. Dowdye is an independent researcher and Founder of Pure Classical Physics Research. He is a leading expert on fundamental theories pertaining to both Electromagnetism and Gravitation and their direct and indirect interactions…Dr. Dowdye is active and involved in the spiritual as well as in the physical realm and is a member of Reid Temple A. M. E. Church in Glenn Dale, Maryland and is formerly a member of Florida Avenue Baptist Church located in Washington, DC, his city of birth.

Dr. Dowdye is both a scientist and a Christian; his faith doesn’t contradict the findings of his research. And he challenges Einstein based on sound reasoning and observation bolstered by his expertise:

“I believe if Einstein were alive today, he would take advantage of the modern techniques and the modern instruments we have and he would wind up disproving his own theory,” said Dr. Dowdye, a physicist and laser optics engineer who retired from NASA Goddard Space Flight Center. He is an independent researcher and founder of Pure Classical Physics Research and he is a member of The American Physics Society.

Dowdye said he is part of a community of scientists who are questioning the relativity theory. He said he has gained the respect of a number of renowned physicists who agree with his stance. To name a few, Dr. Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri, professor of physics at the University of Connecticut; Dr. Charles W. Lucas Jr., theoretical physicist and founder of Common Sense Science; and Dr. Edgar Kaucher, former member of the Institute for Applied Mathematics at the Karlsruher Institute for Technology, Germany.

Many observations made by astronomers show that a phenomenon known as gravitational lensing does not take place as described by relativity theory, according to Dowdye. If relativity theory fails here, its legs are essentially knocked out from under it.

First, here’s a simple explanation of how relativity theory describes gravitational lensing:

A diagram depicting gravitational lensing, a phenomenon by which light bends around some objects in space. (NASA, ESA; J. Richard, CRAL; and J.-P. Kneib, LAM)

-The gravitational field of massive objects, such as stars and planets, bend rays of light that pass by them.

-Relativity theory includes the idea of space-time, a theory that states that time and space are interconnected.

-The object’s gravitational field is said to alter space-time, causing the light we observe near the object to bend.

That’s not what actually happens, said Dowdye.

Instead, it works kind of like a mirage in the desert. When people have an illusion and think that they see water that isn’t actually there on the desert, it’s because of the way light is being bent, or refracted, in the hot desert air.

A temperature gradient exists, meaning over a given distance the air temperature varies. The hottest air is less dense, the coolest air is most dense. The photons (light particles) take a curved path between the sun and the viewer’s eye, because they take the clearest path through the air.

We assume light travels in a straight line, but it actually takes whatever path will take the least amount of time. This is why the air seems to wave or ripple like water in the desert.

So how does this work in terms of gravitational lensing?

A gravitational gradient exists, more intense near the surface of a massive object, such as our sun, where light bending is seen to occur. This means the gravitational field varies in strength over a given distance causing a gradient profile to act on the plasma atmosphere of the sun.

Whereas the temperature gradient on Earth affects air density to create mirages, the gravitational gradient affects the plasma found around the surface of the sun, explained Dowdye. The light bends through the plasma, following its ideal path along the gravitational gradient.

The Electric Sky Scott, Donald E. Buy New $9.99 (as of 11:45 UTC - Details)

Dowdye said the gravitational gradient is too often overlooked when gravitational lensing is taught to physics students. Another important point is that lensing only appears to happen in plasma.

This substance, plasma, was virtually unknown in Einstein’s day. We have not seen evidence of light bending around massive objects in deep space that do not have plasma around them.

Gravitational lensing isn’t about the gravitational field bending space-time, as relativity describes it, said Dowdye. It’s about the gravitational field affecting plasma along a gradient; the plasma in turn affects the path light takes.

“The scientists who support relativity are either unaware of this phenomenon or they don’t want you to know about this. This is bad news for them,” said Dowdye. “According to relativity, light bending should be everywhere you have gravitation.” If gravitation exists around an object that doesn’t have plasma around it, the light should still bend, according to relativity theory. This doesn’t happen, said Dowdye.

Alternative Framework

In his book, “Extinction Shift Principle,” he gives an alternative framework. He uses physics principles formulated using Galilean transformations. Galilean transformations were formulated using pre-relativity physics.

Dowdye has published his alternative theory of gravitation in his book and he has also previewed it on his website.

Here is a video of a presentation that he made, and from the description:

Dr. Dowdye tackled one of the most widely touted predictions of General Relativity (GRT), namely the bending of light paths by massive objects. He presented compelling empirical evidence that the direct relationship between light and gravitation in vacuum space does not exist. Crucially, he pointed out that when GRT was conceived, plasma was unknown, and the limb of the Sun was considered to be a boundary between the photosphere and the vacuum of space. Dr. Dowdye takes account of what is now known to be a plasma atmosphere surrounding the Sun to considerable altitude and applies Gauss’s law of gravitation and conventional optics to the problem.

So perhaps Stephen Hawking was fundamentally wrong about everything he promulgated in his life, especially his militant atheism. And I ask a rhetorical question: which man is closer to finding the truth of the mysteries of our cosmos, the arrogant atheist Stephen Hawking or the humble Christian, Edward Dowdye, Jr.?