© Miles Mathis

Please note that this paper is a simplification by me of a paper or papers written and copyrighted by Miles Mathis on his site. I have replaced "I" and "my" with "MM" to show that he is talking. All links within the papers, not yet simplified, are linked directly to the Miles Mathis site and will appear in another tab. (It will be clear which of these are Miles Mathis originals because they will be still contain "I" and "my".) The original papers on his site are the ultimate and correct source. All contributions to his papers and ordering of his books should be made on his site. (This paper incorporates Miles Mathis' black paper and black2 paper.) |

*First posted May 24, 2007*

Having shown the mathematical errors contained in both Special and General Relativity (See An Algebraic Correction to Special Relativity
and Refutation of Gamma and Problems with General Relativity; Curved Space is Unnecessary), Miles Mathis in a position to comment on the theoretical work done on the cosmological beast now termed the "black hole". By titling this paper *The Myth of the Black Hole*, MM is not suggesting that the idea of a black hole is a myth *in toto*, but he is suggesting, and will show, that the current theory of black holes is in large part either false, experimentally unsupported, or scientifically suspect. MM leaves open the possibility that black holes do exist in some form, and that a part of the astronomical data has been read correctly. But the greater part of current speculation could be called wild, and a significant part is demonstrably illogical.

The central error in the current theory of black holes concerns the singularity that is supposed to inhabit the center of the hole. This singularity is a mathematical outcome of the math of General Relativity, but MM has attacked this math from many different angles in an array of papers. Firstly, MM has shown that the singularity is a zero, and that the zero cannot exist in any differential math. A mathematical field led to the prediction of the black hole, and mathematical fields have led to all the current speculation about the properties of black holes. In A Physical Point has No Dimensions and A Revaluation of Calculus, MM shows that an axiomatic muddle, going all the way back to Euclid, is to blame for this misunderstanding and precisely how this muddle had affected and been extended by Descartes, Newton, and many others. Put in a nutshell, the point can exist in a real field only, but never in a mathematical field. The zero-dimension point cannot enter any equations defined by cardinal or counting numbers. This mistake infected calculus from the beginning and it still infects all of contemporary math and science, since all higher math is founded on differential equations. This mistake is at the root of both renormalization in QED and of the inconsistencies within General Relativity.

MM has shown precisely where it impacts the math of GR, going back to Einstein’s original paper to do so. Einstein had tried to express GR in terms of the motion of mass points in four dimensional space, but since mass points cannot exist physically, his math imploded at the foundational level (just as the math of QED did soon after). Points cannot exist in equations, and "mass points" can't exist in either equations or the real world. The term "mass point" is an oxymoron, since "mass" requires extension and "point" requires none. GR requires a sort of renormalization, although no one has ever stated it that way. In GR, the renormalizing is hidden in the idea of "field strength", and the lack of precision is usually not even noticed. But the lack of complete field strength is caused by trying to force equations to contain entities they cannot logically contain: points.

This problem does in fact come up within the math of black holes, since this math starts coughing up zeroes and infinities that can be contained only by a sort of renormalizing. As with QED, an extraordinary amount of time and energy has been spent trying to make the equations that express the actions of black holes continue to make some sense. But MM has shown that this is all wasted effort, since it is after-the-fact fudging of equations that were not sound to begin with. The axioms that grounded the math were contradictory. To solve this, you must correct the axioms. No amount of pushing and pulling can make faulty assumptions into correct assumptions. Only by basing your math on correct assumptions or axioms can you create equations that do not need any later fixing or renormalizing.

Once the point is jettisoned from higher math, all these esoteric problems simply evaporate. We begin by basing the calculus on the constant differential—a differential which is not and cannot be zero. We then redefine the math of General Relativity, and seek the motion of some given mass or volume. This mass or volume may be as small as we like, but it cannot be zero. This causes several fundamental and far-reaching changes to the math of GR, but the first of these changes is of course the loss of the singularity from all solutions. Equations that do not contain zeroes or points cannot give us solutions that are zeroes or points or instants or singularities. Therefore the central “fact” of the black hole must be given up. Whatever may be at the center of a black hole, it cannot be a singularity.

And there are many other specific problems with the math of the black hole, problems that concern not the axioms but the functions and terms themselves. In the 1930’s Chandrasekhar used Einstein’s field equations to calculate densities and accelerations inside a collapsing superstar. John Mitchell had first suggested the idea of a dark star in 1783, but Chandrasekhar was the first to do the actual math. This math suggested the singularity at the center, as well as other characteristics that are still accepted as defining the black hole. Einstein himself contradicted Chandrasekhar’s conclusions (though this is just one more instance where Einstein was ignored). Einstein’s argument against Chandrasekhar was more theoretical than mathematical, but historically it doesn’t matter one way or the other—except as a sample of politics within physics. It doesn’t matter because the math of both Einstein and Chandrasekhar was wrong. Beyond the matter of using mass points in GR, Einstein made several other basic errors—errors that Chandrasekhar did not correct—errors that had not been corrected until MM uncovered them. Primary among these errors is the term *gamma*. (See An Algebraic Correction to Special Relativity and Refutation of Gamma.) Because Einstein had mis-assigned several length and time variables in SR—giving them to the wrong coordinate systems or to no specific coordinate systems—his equations began misfiring early on. He skipped an entire coordinate system, achieving two degrees of relativity when he thought he had only achieved one. Because his x and t transforms were compromised, his velocity transform was also compromised. He carried this error into the mass transforms, which infected them as well. This problem then infected the tensor calculus and GR.

In some experimental situations *gamma* is nearly correct, which explains why it has stood for a century. But in a majority of situations, *gamma* fails, sometimes very badly. This explains the various anomalies and variations and so-called violations within Relativity. *Gamma* is a central term in GR as well as SR, and its falsification has far-reaching mathematical consequences. Especially in extreme situations like the black hole, a small change in this term can radically alter the field. This effect is doubled and trebled once you realize that *gamma* is also the main term in the mass increase equation. To calculate volumes or densities in a field you must calculate both length and mass, and the term comes into play in both. MM has shown that it is wrong in both places.

Newtonian mechanics is used in black hole field equations as well, and my corrections to Newton also come into play. MM has shown how the Schwarzschild radius uses a=v^{2}/r which contains many disclarities, to say the least. (See A Correction to Newton's Equation a=v^{2}/r & Refutation of Lemmae 6-8.) Other proof that orbital mechanics is poorly understood may be found in that same paper where MM shows the historical conflation of tangential velocity and orbital velocity. This is just to show that Chandrasekhar’s “black hole” equations fail in a multitude of ways, and that a new solution requires starting over from scratch.* Even with my hatful of corrections it is probable that there are other mistakes no one has yet teased out of the field equations.

[Added, August 2012: MM just became aware of an analysis of the original Schwarzchild and Droste solutions, and his harsh criticism of Hilbert's solution—and all solutions after that. In this author's paper, he uses equations and explanations, which tear apart the tensor math as MM has torn apart the algebraic and calculus underpinnings. In MM's opinion, it is best to jettison the tensors in their entirety from GR, for reasons contained in MM's paper Solving and Arguing General Relativity Problems without the Tensor Calculus (In about 1/100th the time)

For this reason, MM believes that all the subsequent work on black holes has been wasted time. Since Einstein’s field equations are not correct, Schwarzschild’s solution of 1917 is not correct, Israel’s non-rotating solution is not correct, Kerr’s rotating solution is not correct, the no-hair solution of Penrose, Wheeler, Hawking, Carter, and Robinson is not correct, and all the twiddling since is also not correct. All these guys would have better spent their time combing the field equations more closely, rather than running off pell-mell on a century-long wild goose chase. Hawking has since claimed title to this wild goose chase and all the other similarly composed wild goose chases, which have taken all of them to the very brink of physical omniscience. This hubristic claim is revolting!

Closely tied to this mathematical mistake is the mistaken assumption that matter that enters a black hole escapes from our universe. This is the way it is stated in almost all popular books, articles, and encyclopedic entries (including Wikipedia). But there is and can be no evidence that this is true. This statement is simply a rather bald effort to create mystery. Science fiction is now seen as much more sexy than science, and the theory of black holes crossed long ago into science fiction. Most of the theory is no better than story-telling, and this idea of matter escaping into another realm is the first chapter of a long book of tall tales. It is doubtful that we know anything at all about real black holes, but if any of our astronomical data has been read correctly, the one thing we know is that all matter, including light, cannot escape from the gravitational well of the hole. If this is true, it only means that we cannot see or measure any of this matter or light; but it does not mean that the matter and light have exited our universe. When I turn out the lights at night, I can no longer see the TV, but that does not mean that the TV has exited the universe, or even the room. All it means is that the light rays can no longer reach me. The same is true with the black hole. The matter and light are still in the gravitational well, just as the TV is still in the room. Or this is the logical assumption. If we want to make any other less logical assumption, we should have some reason for making it. We cannot make a sexier assumption just because it is sexier.

It would appear that this make-believe story is based mainly on the word "hole". A sloppy title has misled not only a generation of credulous and lazy readers, it has misled a generation of poorly educated physicists. This is doubly surprising, in that the bad math that created the singularity should have disallowed any talk of actual holes—whether leading to other dimensions or universes or not. This is because a singularity is the definitional opposite of a hole. Even if the black hole contained a singularity, there would be no reason to propose it as a link to a parallel or alternate universe. A singularity is a singularity, not a hole. By definition, a hole must have volume, and by definition a singularity has no volume. You cannot logically enter a parallel universe through a singularity. If anything, a singularity would be precisely that thing that prevented you from entering a parallel universe, supposing one existed. Nothing closes a hole like a singularity.

But readers and theorists and popularizers all tend to ignore logic like that. They follow the hole and not the singularity, preferring to base their story-reading upon an imprecise title instead of a false mathematics. They prefer to believe that a black hole is really a hole, despite the fact that the name was chosen for PR purposes and not for scientific ones. The astronomers** who coined the term and popularized it had no intention of solidifying a misconception, but somehow the misconception has taken on a life of its own, and now even the astronomers are misconceiving the theory. It is as if the name had more power than the theory; and this is not entirely surprising, since the theory never had a lot of content from the beginning. The cart quickly out-sprinted the horse, and the readers’ desire for a colorful yarn led the theorist to supply the most interesting story, rather than the most likely.

Any rational analysis of the black hole must show that the collapsing star that creates it simply becomes denser. At a given density, no light or matter can escape. Density may increase in an infinite progression, but this progression cannot reach infinity. This statement is logical, and relies only upon the definition of "infinite." An infinite progression is infinite precisely because it is endless. If it ended it would not be infinite. A progression of density that ended in a singularity would not be infinite. It would be a finite progression that ended in a singularity. Likewise, a black hole may get smaller as it gets denser, but size and density both can continue to change forever, never mathematically nor physically reaching zero nor infinity. Zero and infinity cannot be reached, by definition. Infinite density cannot be reached, by definition, and in precisely the same way zero size cannot be reached. As a matter of logic and physics and mathematics, a thing can get smaller or denser or both, but it cannot be infinitely small or infinitely dense. You cannot reach the end of infinity, since infinity is endless. The combination of words “infinitely small” is like the combination “blackly white” or “sharply dull.” It is an error and nothing more.

What this means is that even if black holes are created roughly in the way we think they are, they cannot contain singularities and cannot be pathways to other dimensions, universes, or fields. They cannot even be said to contain mysterious subfields that somehow diverge from the known universe. Once the math and axioms are corrected, the only thing that can be said for sure is that the inside of a black hole is a field of very high accelerations, accelerations that must equal or exceed the speed of light. This in itself is strange enough, given the postulates of Relativity. In fact, this is the major contradiction that is never addressed: the black hole equations come directly out of GR—a theory grounded in the postulate that nothing can equal or exceed the speed of light—and yet the centripetal acceleration of the black hole must equal or exceed the speed of light in order to negate it or overcome it. And if this is the case, then all matter falling into a black hole would immediately achieve infinite mass. It is not clear how bits of infinite mass can be collected into a finite volume or increase in density, much less disappear into a singularity. It is not the universe as we know it that breaks down inside a black hole, it is the math and postulates of Relativity that break down. In other words, the assumptions that led to the math that led to the theory of the black hole do not work inside the created field. That is not a mystery, it is a failed progression of logic. It is not a paradox, it is a meltdown.

If recent astronomical data is truly visible proof of black holes, and is not to be read in other ways, then the first order of business of theorists is to resolve the contradiction above. So far this contradiction has been buried by other contradictions. By a sort of sleight of hand the reader’s attention has been focused elsewhere, on sexier but less fundamental problems. The astronomer leads his tour group through wormholes and has them ride on tachyons and bump through virtual particle pairs and arrive—via spooky quantum leaps and non-linear *i*-trajectories—at 11-dimensional boson-massed fields in parallel universes, all in avoidance of this central contradiction. Is GR correct or not? Does the limiting aspect of c determine Relativity or does it not? If not, how is it possible to base the mathematics of the black hole on the mathematics of GR? If the postulates of GR are false inside the black hole, and the math of GR breaks down, too, then what sense does it make to claim that the theory of the black hole derives from Einstein’s equations? It may be possible to save GR and the black hole, but not by so extravagantly ignoring the axioms and outcomes of both.

Which brings me to my final critique of the myth of the black hole. From the beginning, research has been topsy-turvy regarding the black hole. The black hole is among the first cosmological entities—and is certainly the most famous entity—predicted before it was seen. Since that time, this progression has become standard practice, and we are now seeking many entities, cosmological and quantum, that simply fill theoretical holes. But until fairly recently, physics was the attempt to explain things that we had seen or discovered. In other words, we discovered them first and then tried to explain them. Starting with the black hole, we explained things and then tried to discover them.

It is clear that this method must skew research. When you have a nail, everything starts to look like a hammer. When you have a famous theory sitting in your observatory, everything in the telescope starts to look like confirmation. Every new emission becomes a telltale sign of an event horizon, every dark patch is a yawning mouth, every mysterious attraction or motion is a hole in the universe. The black hole is now being used to fill every gap and answer every question. We may have one at the center of the earth, to explain terrestrial gravity. Baby black holes are proposed as the source of sunspots, of the Tunguska Event, of the Bermuda Triangle. Next it will be of hair loss and erectile disfunction.

This is the predictable effect of theory that has outstripped observation. It is the predictable effect of glorifying theories and theorists beyond their merit. It is the predictable effect of the popularization of science, and its now total Bowdlerization. It is the predictable effect of trying to impress an audience, rather than trying to remain within the confines of your knowledge. The audience of popular science is like a tar baby, and physicists and astronomers have got caught in its sticky vulgarity. The entire field has become tarred by its own marketing success. Science has ricocheted off the slanted expectations of the milieu, and is now on a strange truth-exiting trajectory. Science has become infected by non-science, and the virus has already achieved a near-total destruction.

Science spends a good part of its off-time attacking religion and paranormal claims and other pseudo-science, ignoring the fact that both the foundation and top-end of contemporary science is itself pseudo-science. MM has shown precisely how this is so in many subfields, including Relativity, QED, string theory, calculus, and other higher maths, but it is very transparently true in the theory of black holes. Some of these other fields contain large sections of usable information, but very little in the field of black holes is confirmed or confirmable. It is non-confirmable not because we can’t see beyond the event horizon, but because it is impossible to confirm illogic.

No amount of data can either confirm or disprove a contradictory sentence. Like much of contemporary physics, black hole theory is an irrational muddle. Famous books by respected leading physicists like Stephen Hawking are mostly nonsense. They are not just metaphysical, in the positivist sense; they are irrational. They are full of sentences that have no possible physical meaning. These books are just story-telling with a physical flavor. Hawking gives them a mathematical and esoteric frosting, sprinkling his asides with equations that few can penetrate, and his readers think he has said something profound. But he has not said something profound. He has only made himself look smart. But those who know what all the words and symbols mean in the sentences and equations recognize that he is a fake.

Here is one example from Hawking's most famous book, *A Brief History of Time*: "There are some solutions of the equations of GR in which it is possible for our astronaut to see a naked singularity: he may be able to avoid hitting the singularity and instead fall through a wormhole and come out in another region of the universe." Hawking does not lead us into or out of this statement. It comes up near the beginning of his chapter on black holes, and he does not clarify or support this statement at all. His next sentence is just a passing admission that "these solutions may be unstable." Of course he spends no time explaining how it is possible to see a naked singularity—which is a nothing; how an astronaut could avoid hitting this nothing (or how he would know if he had avoided nothing—it seems to me you could hit plenty of nothing on any possible trajectory); or why the wormhole would be hanging out near, but not in, the singularity. Like most of the rest of the book, this is just bald speculation; and it is not even good speculation, since it follows no logical or rational progression. There is no argument or explanation, just naked assertions.

Some have said that this book is difficult for lay people, because Hawking argues quickly and assumes familiarity with the subject. But this is false. This assumes that the argument is fuller in some other place, but it isn’t. The theory has no fuller expression: it is just as airy and speculative in professional journals, and none of these gaps has ever been filled in (or ever will be). Neither Hawking nor anyone else can answer any rigorous critiques or serious questions, since these contemporary theories are just floating words—words that aren’t grounded in anything and usually don’t even refer to anything demonstrable or real or mathematical. They are ideas that are the children of an idle brain, begot of nothing but a very vain fantasy.

Here is another example from Hawking's famous book, an example with which MM can snare both Hawking and Feynman. In it, Hawking avoids saying something meaningless only by saying something shockingly negligent. He is talking of the necessities within any unified theory and he begins with the use of Feynman's sum-over histories. He believes any future UFT will use these sum-over histories, although he gives no reason for this. Again, he just asserts it. But this is not the most negligent aspect of the example. He tells us that Feynman’s renormalization trick in sum-over histories is to sum the particle's histories in imaginary time rather than real time. This gets the correct answer and avoids the greater technical difficulties of trying to sum in real time. These greater technical difficulties are also considered a form of renormalization, but they require infinite renormalization, which is very sticky indeed. The problem is that neither Feynman nor Hawking seem to understand why their tricks work; in fact they admit as much. Renormalization of any kind is generally considered to be heuristic, which means the logic of the mathematical manipulations is not understood. But Feynman and Hawking seem to have a short memory. The reason the sums have to be done in imaginary time is that Minkowski assigned time to the imaginary axis to begin with. That is what the four vector field is in GR. So it is not that Feynman is using imaginary time; he is using real time which has been assigned to the imaginary axis. Minkowski assigned time to that axis for purely mathematical reasons: to make the field symmetrical. This is a mathematical convenience, not a physical necessity or fact. But once it is done, it cannot be undone. Which is to say that if you are using Einstein’s field equations as your basic mathematical background, you automatically inherit all the assumptions and assignments of that field.

Feynman and Hawking should know that, and it is possible that they do know it. But they seem to prefer to pretend that they don’t know it. They prefer to treat each manipulation as some mysterious trick, since that makes them seem like necromancers instead of physicists or mathematicians. A true physicist would downplay the mysterious aspects of his field, since he is trying to turn all mystery into science. But the contemporary physicist brags about the mystery, since it is the mystery that sells. Just look at the subtitle of Feynman’s most famous book: *QED, the strange theory of light and matter.* Feynman is not trying to make the strange into the unstrange, to turn the paranormal into the normal, or to turn nescience into science. He is trying to sell science as magic. He spends an inordinate amount of time trying to convince the reader that Nature does not make sense. And Hawking does the same thing. It is how he inherited Feynman’s mantle as the best-selling physicist. Hawking has spent the bulk of his career pursuing the details of the Big Bang and Black Hole precisely because they contained the most mystery. They are the sexiest fields.

Unfortunately, the details were all dependent on the foundations, and the foundations were all wrong. Which means that except for the money and fame, all his work was in vain. It was a glittering palace built on a sandpit.

The contemporary theoretical physicist is no longer a scientist, he is a very clever and very technical conman, one who knows how to make money in his field. Like a used car salesman, he is mainly a master of PR. He doesn’t know how the universe works or how logic works or how mathematics works or how mechanics works, but he knows the politics of his own field. He is the most central insider, the hub of a wheel of other wheeler-dealers. Physicists are certainly better at memorizing long lists of fake equations and big words—and using these equations and words to deflect any criticism—but beyond that their superiority over car salesmen is not so clear.

As a closer MM gives a clue to the solution of the central contradiction of the black hole. Those who have read his other papers will know that MM has not dismissed SR or GR, neither the postulates nor the bulk of the math. MM has corrected Relativity but not jettisoned it. MM has fine-tuned both the math and the postulates, making Relativity more consistent and more secure. Therefore, this paper is not to be read as an oblique attack upon Einstein or Relativity. MM believes that Relativity is true on both sides of the event horizon.

The central contradiction is solved by recognizing that Relativity is a theory of observation and measurement, not a theory of existence. That is, Relativity is operational, not existential. What this means, specifically, is that mass and velocity transforms are performed on data, not upon particles. A given mass may look like it is increasing, from a distance, but locally there is no mass increase. A given velocity may look like it is decreasing, from a distance, but locally there is no change. **Relativity does not apply locally.** Einstein himself stated this explicitly and implicitly in a number of places, but he was not always consistent in his interpretation. And subsequent interpretations have not kept this distinction.

The standard model now interprets Relativity in existential ways, claiming that Relative changes are in fact Absolute changes. Meaning that mass and velocity change not only in measurement, but locally—for the particles themselves; but, if they were absolute and existential changes, Einstein would not have called Relativity “Relativity”. A relative change requires a relationship—a distance, a viewpoint. Local measurements are self-measurements where there is no distance, no relationship, and no relativity. Locally, there are no transforms, no mass increases, and no velocity changes.***

This changes everything in regard to the theory of black holes. We can no longer ask how something looks or seems or is measured by an outside observer, since there is no possible data. The event horizon is a total operational wall. Transforms cannot take place across this horizon, and all equations and transforms and thought problems must take place between particles inside the hole. If this method is scrupulously followed, then logic can be maintained and contradictions avoided. The hole remains a strange place, but it is no longer a place where Relativity or logic or universal rules break down.

Given this, most readers can create their own new story inside the hole, a story that is logical and interesting at the same time. In MM's opinion, the conundrums of the black hole are mostly manufactured, or come out of bad math. Most likely the black hole is just a very dense star, and the only real question is when and why it later explodes. In this way it is a variation of the supernova question, differing only in that we are dealing with much greater masses, and dark masses at that. It seems probable that black holes, having a greater vacuum effect, lie dormant longer and collect during that dormancy far greater amounts of energy. This would make them candidates for quasars. Beyond that, the whole issue of black holes is not nearly as compelling as it has been made out to be. Once you peel away the possibility of time travel, wormholes, superluminal velocity, parallel universes, and so on, the black hole is just a glorified superstar. Much richer veins of thought exist in physics and astronomy, and it is time we returned to them.

*Abstract: MM will show that once again, as with everything else, theory of exotics is upside down. Once we apply the unified field to black holes and quasars, we find a fundamentally different explanation from the standard model for their blackness and whiteness. *

MM's paper In Newton's law is a Unified Field of Gravity and E/M is a good starting point to theorize about exotics like black holes and quasars.In this paper it is shown that the foundational E/M field or charge field already exists within Newton's gravitational equation, and therefore within Einstein's field equations. MM shows there how to scale the two fields (gravity and E/M) to one another at various sizes, thus size matters. The two fields scale differently to one another depending on the size of your object, and the area you are considering.

Critics say “You have claimed to show that the charge field exists at the macrolevel at an appreciable size. And you have claimed that this charge field is a straight function of density. Shouldn't that mean that a black hole—if it has the density we think it does—would be emitting rather than attracting? And shouldn't it be repelling all other matter, rather than sucking it in? And if black holes are fairly limited in radius, shouldn't this limit their gravitational pull, according to you?”

These critics consider this a bold stroke against MM, but he can turn the tables on them and make it a bold stroke against the standard model. But, yes, that is precisely what MM's theory implies, and, conveniently, that is precisely what the data shows. An astrophysicist friend has pointed out to me that in every astrophysical situation where we expect gravitational collapse or collapsed objects we always see huge streams of matter coming *out*. It doesn't matter if it's a protostar, a supernova, a neutron star, a quasar, or the center of a galaxy. We see jets and winds. Nobody has ever seen anything go in.

Astronomers and mathematicians have spent 50 years trying to make stuff fall into a black hole with an accretion disk (without success) yet nobody has ever seen something fall in. He says that in conferences, these scientists admit they have no idea what the jets are made of or how they are produced. They don't even know whether it's electrons or protons or photons. If you ask why they are trying to model matter moving in when the data shows matter moving out, they say something like, “there has to be accretion, since we are modeling a gravitationally collapsed star. The object is black, so the matter must be moving in. The jets are probably produced by magnetic fields. And the reason we have no direct data for the accretion is that it is underneath all the other stuff.”

So the real reason they are modelling accretion is that they are trying to match the objects to old models that have come down to us from Einstein and Chandrasekhar and so on. They are trying to force data to fit decades-old models that were put forward before any of this data began to come in. This is the foremost danger of having theories before you have data. Even Sherlock Holmes knew that, decades before Einstein. Conan Doyle told us, via Holmes, that it is always a mistake to begin theorizing before you have the facts, and Einstein simply did not have all the facts.

Regarding black holes, he had none of the facts, so building black hole theory on field theory is absurd. He not only had none of the facts, he had a incomplete field. Like Newton and Laplace, Einstein still thought he was dealing with a solo field. But since the field is unified, and dual, it cannot be expressed with his math. His math is correct as far as it goes, but it is very incomplete. In its current form, it can't even express the field around the Sun, much less the field around these exotics we are discovering. In The Perihelion Precession of Mercury and the Saturn Anomaly MM shows that Einstein's field equations are 4% wrong in the field of the Sun. Imagine how much we must multiply this error in more exotic fields.

The logical thing to do, obviously, is to build a theory on the data you have, not the data you assume is there. Modern physics preens itself on a strict empiricism, but then builds these models from previous math, instead of from current and conspicuous data. That is just bad science.

To begin with, blackness just means that the visible light is not being produced, for some reason. But we know that X-rays are produced by black holes, so we know that all photons are not being attracted or accreted. Current theory has an illogical explanation for this X-ray production, but a much more logical explanation is that the black hole isn't a hole at all. For instance, we are told in one sentence that nothing, not even light, can escape from a black hole. In the very next sentence, we are told that “gas” from a companion star or object heats up as it spirals into the hole, emitting X-rays we can detect on the Earth. Well, if we can detect them, then they escaped, did they not? An X-ray is a light ray, so apparently light CAN escape from a black hole.

One might say that the first sentence only applied to light beneath the event horizon, but if light can escape from so near a black hole, then the beast loses much of its terror, doesn't it More distant light, and even more distant matter, appears to be in no great danger either. Notice that we are never told why the “companion” star exists without being sucked into this gravitational beast. According to the field equations, any large slow moving object should be immediately gobbled up. Two massive objects anywhere near each other should quickly fuse, even if one is not black, unless they are orbiting at incredible speeds.

Let us take Cygnus X-1 as just one example. Hawking has paid his bet, which means it is now accepted that this binary includes a black hole. So we have a black hole and a supergiant .2 AU separated, non-eclipsing, orbiting a dual center of mass every 5.6 days. Anyone see a problem there? What keeps them from immediately fusing? The attractive force between them must be incredible. What counteracts it? Given current theory, the only thing that could counteract such a centripetal force would be an orbital velocity. And, yes, given these parameters, the supergiant in this binary would have an orbital velocity of around 400 km/s, 14 times that of the Earth, which could be described as fairly incredible. The problem is, this supergiant is proposed to have originally had a mass of 40 suns or more, which means it would have a very low density. If you give a high-mass, low-density object an orbital velocity that high, you are going to get incredible deformation radially, according to the current equations. In other words, the supergiant should be nowhere near round. As in the Roche limit illustrations, it should be a long oval pointed at the black hole. Not only do we have no evidence of that, the current theory takes no account of it in the mechanics.

Also a big problem is the cause of this very fast orbit. According to Newton's theory, the tangential part of an orbital velocity was something the orbiter brought into the orbit itself. He called it “innate.” And according to current theory, the sideways motion still cannot be caused by the relationship between orbiter and orbited—it cannot be caused by the field. Einstein said explicitly that there was no force at the tangent, that is to say no force perpendicular to the centripetal force. Given that, it is not clear how a supergiant could ever be captured by a black hole, or how the orbit could maintain stability. Given its size, and the fact that its size is changing pretty drastically over time, it should either escape or fall in. Gravity by itself doesn't have a mechanism for correcting such things. And with solo gravity, the capture is also impossible to explain. A point particle would be hard enough to capture, since it would have to intercept the field at just the right distance and angle for its incoming speed. But a supergiant is not a point particle. Real objects are never perfect, and therefore there is no perfect distance and angle for capture. Logically, capture and stability can only be explained with a balancing of two fields. But of course if we have two fields, we have to monitor both fields in any field theory, and current theory doesn't do that.

Furthermore, again according to current equations and theory, this supergiant should be dissolving completely into the black hole. If it originally weighed 40 suns and now weighs 10, then the black hole should have gained 30. This is because the supergiant should dissolve along that radial line: the material dissolving toward the inside of the orbit should move directly toward the black hole; material ejected out from the orbit in the other direction, due to centrifugal forces, should also arc back into the black hole. Unless it is all ejected as photons, it should not be able to escape the dual gravity of these two objects; and it is ridiculous to propose that 30 solar masses are lost completely as photons, which are said to be massless. This creates further problems, since the black hole in this binary is given 10-20 solar masses, the smaller number being the current favorite. But even if we use the higher number of 20 solar masses, we have a black hole swallowing 30 solar masses to achieve a final mass of 20 solar masses, which gives it an initial mass of -10 solar masses. The basic numbers don't add up, and they have to be covered over with pages of half-baked new theories. This despite the fact that Cygnus has benefited from by far the most study and the most theory. If Cygnus is a mess, you can be sure that other examples are even bigger messes.

Yes, MM is proposing that current theory is once again inside-out and upside-down. You can't explain jets and winds and all the emissions from the vicinity of black holes with gravity alone, which is why the current theories are so ridiculous. To explain emissions you require an emission field, which is what the charge field is. Once you admit the existence of a unified field, where one of the two main constituents is an emission field, you are able to explain the behavior of exotics without resorting to a string of mathematical and theoretical finesses. It is amazing that the charge field has remained such a small player in current mechanics, considering that astrophysics has all but been taken over by particle physics in the last half century. Particle physicists refuse to incorporate QED, which is based on the charge field, until they get inside the event horizon and start finessing the no-data equations. In the main field, like the field that exists between the black hole and the super giant, they completely ignore the unified field. They try to solve all possible motions with Einstein's field equations, where all is thought to be controlled by gravity alone.

Some will say, “Well, if Einstein's field equations already contain the charge field, as you say, then this should work for them, even if they don't understand how the two fields combine.” The problem is, Newton's and Einstein's fields and equation do contain the charge field, but they don't contain it with the proper degree of freedom. In other words, the equations are partial and incomplete, since they don't allow for the proper scaling of the fields in varying circumstances. The field equations are mostly correct, as book equations, but they aren't fine-tunable as engineering equations or as mechanical equations. They are like engines that lack a couple of important gears. They look good in museums, but can't be made to run on the track.

In the case of Cygnus, the theory may be quite close to correct, in its main lines. In other words, it is probably the second object that is creating the strange data, and it is probably the uncommon density of that object that is causing the strange mechanics. But beyond that, the current theory is all garbage, since it hasn't monitored the charge field emitted by that object, and how the density affects that emission. Charge fields aren't normally visible, so the fact that we can't see the mechanics here, with visible data, is not surprising.

Perhaps the charge field is being accelerated right past the visible, taking it from infrared directly to X-ray or above. Either that, or the charge field is hiding somewhere else in the spectrum we haven't yet thought to monitor. To be more specific, MM has shown that electrons may be stripped of spins in accelerators, ending up as photons. We may have the opposite phenomenon here with exotics, where charge photons are given extra spins, ending up as electrons or mesons or even protons. Since this possibility hasn't even been explored, to my knowledge, the theory of exotics hasn't even begun in earnest.

Let me get more specific now and apply some simple equations, to show how far off the current equations really are. The current equations are flawed because they all come from Einstein's field equations, where the field is considered to be a field created by a single cause: gravity. Just like Newton's gravitational equations, Einstein's field equations only supply us with the final result. In other words, both Einstein and Newton give us the total field. Yes, this total field will include E/M if E/M is present, but if the equations don't monitor the E/M field in the right way, the total field will not be represented properly. In fairly simple situations, the field equations can be pushed or interpreted in a way to match data fairly closely, and that is what has happened in the field of the Sun. We have lots of good data, it is all unified field data (without anyone knowing that), so it usually yields pretty good unified field solutions. In textbook situations, all the minor problems can be ignored or swept under the rug, and it is not until we start launching satellites that we see 4% errors in the actual mechanics.

But with exotics, the cause of our data is not so easy to pin down. We have good data, but we aren't sure how it got here or why. The only thing we can do is plug it into Einstein's field equations, using assumptions that previous physicists have handed down to us. For instance, the John Michell solution is based on the assumption that a particle coming from infinity will accelerate into a star following Newton's equations precisely. But if the charge field is denser nearer a star than far away, this assumption is false. Schwarzschild solutions are based on a similar assumption, substituting Einstein for Newton. The charge field and its shape are utterly ignored, so that, again, if the charge field is denser near a spherical object, Einstein's equations cannot represent that. In fact, the entire math of collapse ignores the mechanics of a spherical charge field. If you read MM's paper The Secrets of the E/M field are revealed at the Moon's surface you can see this very quickly. If you collapsed the Earth down to the size of the Moon, keeping the original mass, you would not only increase the density of the molecular structure, you would increase the density of the emitted charge field. This would increase the repulsion felt per unit area in the field around the object. The new object would have a smaller unified field, not a larger. It would have *less* attraction.

If we took this to an extreme, the charge field would overwhelm the gravity field. The object would become anti-gravitational, repelling all matter and bouncing all light that came near it. This could happen with any size object, as long as the density overwhelmed the radius. This may be what we are seeing with quasars. But with black holes, we may be witnessing a different extreme. The black hole hasn't overwhelmed gravity with E/M, it has only reached a size and density where its recycling of the charge field has become an odd sort of machine. The object still takes in charge photons and light photons, like normal objects, but the density of the object squeezes all captured photons, giving them extra spins. The photons aren't reflected or refracted, instead they are absorbed, pushed through dense matter, and energized by these extra collisions. The photons only need to be given eight extra spins to emerge as electrons. This would explain the blackness, since we see photons as white or color, but we do not see electrons as white or color. And it might explain X-rays, because these electrons emerging from the black hole would emit X-rays under certain conditions.

You will say, “But that makes the black hole a box of creation, with more energy out than in.” Yes, in the short term, it does. But this would not break any rules of energy conservation, as long as the black hole loses the energy it gives to the electrons. Perhaps black holes have shorter lifespans, and their quick loss of energy may be explained in just this way. In this way, they are just a sort of black supernova, exploding somewhat more slowly, but still in the main *releasing* energy. Yes, they pull in light. But they re-emit this light as larger particles like electrons, making the total energy positive. As regards light, they are a sort of hole. As regards total energy, they are a source of emission.

This might also explain one of the sources of electrons. If you want to explain the universe as the outcome of only one initial particle, you can explain the creation of other particles in this way. Larger particles are created by passing smaller particles through denser media, thereby giving them more spins.

One might accuse this concept to be circular, since it would then require dense matter to create matter. But perhaps the dense media need not be matter, in that sense. Perhaps a field of photons can be made dense enough, as in some sort of photon plasma, to start this sequence. Admittedly, it is not clear where the initial containment or pressure comes from, since gravity seems ill-prepared to overcome c, but this problem comes up in any initiation sequence, whether it is photonic or not. For example, it is not clear why all matter was brought together in a Big Bang. An initial pressure, infinite or not, is just assumed.

What this means in the short term is that all the exact solutions of Einstein's field equations are meaningless. Since the field equations are flawed and very incomplete, finding exact solutions to them is like finding how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. This applies to all the various solutions, including the Schwarzschild solutions, the Kerr solutions, the Penrose solutions and so on. The singularities in the equations are of no mechanical or physical import, since the equations are wrong. The singularities found are really nothing but signs pointing to where the field equations are weakest. Good equations would have *no* singularities, since Nature can contain no singularities. Zeros and infinities in solutions should not be read as event horizons or unidirectional membranes, they should be read as places where the equations fail most obviously and spectacularly. It is amazing to me that decades of physicists and mathematicians have ignored this elementary truth. Clearly they have ignored it because it was most efficient to ignore it. They were in love with their own equations, regardless of any data, and like any good lover they refused to look at the glaring faults of their beloved. Seeing no way to correct these obvious faults, they simply built the marriage around them. And anyone who noticed the faults was an interloper, a boor, and probably a misogynist. Only a hater of women would dare to look closely at them, right? Only a hater of math and physics would dare to criticize it. Only an enemy of science would point out its fat ankles and bad skin, its missing teeth and its chewed fingernails.

But now for the math, finally. Let us assume that a quasar is just a big mirror, reflecting all light, charge, and matter that comes to it. And let us assume that my unified field numbers for the Earth are correct. MM has, after all, confirmed them in at least three papers that have nothing to do with the paper that predicted them. MM developed the numbers in MM's paper The Secrets of the E/M field are revealed at the Moon's surface then confirmed them in "Bohr's Three Mistakes" Why doesn't Atmospheric Pressure squash me? and "Gravity at the Quantum Level."

MM's Cavendish paper on his site might also be said to confirm them. So the question is, what density would the Earth have to have, keeping its current radius, to begin bouncing all light and energy? At what density would the charge field of the Earth equal its solo gravity? Well, solo gravity is 9.81, charge is .009545, and we want to bring the second number up to the first.

Since the second number is a function of density, we just raise the density until that number is 9.81. So we increase the density by 1028x. What would the new mass be? M = DV, so 5670g/cm^{3} x 1.08 x 10^{27}cm^{3} = 6.12 x 10^{27} kg. So if we compressed about three Jupiters down to the size of the Earth, we would create a zero gravity planet. Would this planet then act like a small quasar? No. To actually bounce all incoming energy and matter and light would require the charge field to exceed gravity by some amount, not just balance it. The energy at any point on the surface of the object would need to exceed the energy of the incoming matter or light, to bounce it. Our zero-gravity planet would have no energy on the surface, and would neither attract nor repel any incoming energy.

How dense would our planet have to be to bounce all light up to the energy of an X-ray, say? If a hard X-ray has an energy of 100keV and a diameter of 1 x 10^{-19}m, the planet would require a total energy of 5 x 10^{38}eV or 8 x 10^{19} J to exclude the rays from any given point. If we took the charge field up to 10, that would give us 50 J/m^{2}, over 5.1 x 10^{14}m^{2}, which is 2.55 x 10^{16} J. Still not enough. We actually need to take the charge field up to about 560 to get the right total energy, which means we have to increase the density by about 58,700x. Which gives us a mass of 3.5 x 10^{29} kg. So if we took a planet about 1/5 the mass of the Sun and compressed it to the size of the Earth, we could bounce everything up to the energy of an X-ray.

This phenomenon is not to be confused with albedo, which is really a measure of the ability of a surface to scatter light, turning it white. The prime example of this is clouds, which scatter light very effectively both here and on Venus (Venus has a bond albedo of .75, which is quite high, due to clouds). But clouds can hardly bounce light like MM is proposing here. They simply aren't dense enough to bounce all incoming radiation. Even a dense, very white solid surface can't possibly turn 100% of radiation, as is claimed. Albedo is given a top number of 1, which the moon of Saturn, Enceladus,is said to approach at .99. But Enceladus has a density of only 1.6, so it can hardly be expected to bounce all incident radiation. All incident radiation won't even impact a molecule at that density. An albedo of 1 doesn't mean that a photon is guaranteed to hit a molecule on the surface, it means that if a photon hits a molecule on the surface, it will be reflected rather than absorbed, but in the calculations above, MM is calculating a density that will turn *all* photons.

You will say, “No, albedo actually is a reflection of all radiation. First we measure the energy of the radiation, then we bounce *known* radiation off various things, to compare them.” Sounds great until you remember that to measure the energy of radiation, you have to bounce it off some measuring device, which device has a density and a unified field of its own. We do not happen to have an infinite density device or even a zero-gravity device to measure the energy of radiation, so albedo is only a measure of various surfaces *relative to* our device. Since everything known to man and used by man is very porous to photons, we cannot possibly say that an albedo of 1 is bouncing all E/M radiation.

For this reason, my very dense planet above will have an “albedo” so high it will appear to be radiating energy, like a star. The albedo will be so much higher than anything we are used to in the Solar System that we will try to assign the brightness to other mechanisms. Beyond that, we can make this object much much brighter just by making it bigger. We start with an object with 50 solar masses, say, and compress it by some mechanism down to the size of Jupiter. We will then have a fantastically bright object, with all the brightness coming from reflection and none coming from fusion.

This may be an explanation for super-brightness, but what about darkness? To explain darkness, we simply require a very great density, to squeeze photons into electrons, but also a very great gravity, so that the density does not overwhelm the radius and cause the charge field to overwhelm the gravity field. Let us play with Cygnus X-1 to make it fit this hypothesis. What if we give the “black hole” the full radius of the separation between the objects, .2AU? The super giant will then be just rolling along the surface of the black object. It will not fuse with the black object, because the force between them is not enough to overcome the surface tensions of the two objects. The black object has a near-zero force on its surface, and the super giant's's gravity is offset by its own tangential motion. Is that impossible to propose? No. Well then, what is the maximum density this black object could have, given its radius? Remember, we want to keep the charge field *less* than the gravity field, but only a little less. This is to be sure the black object stays black (does not bounce the light). If gravity is a straight function of radius, as MM has proposed, then with a radius of .2AU the gravity of this black object will be 46,000m/s^{2}. If we want the charge field to be 45,990m/s^{2}, then we can let the density be 480,000 times that of the Earth, and still not create a white object. The unified or attractive field of this black object will be 10m/s^{2}, but it will have a density easily great enough to squeeze photons into electrons, by giving them more outer spins. Photons moving through this dense material will be forced into more collisions, and these collisions will generate more spins. More spins cause the particle to change forms.

You will say we have no evidence particles can change form like this, either in accelerators or in exotics, but that is not true. We have lots of evidence of mesons decaying into lower particles, so if you can have decomposition you should be able to have composition, under the right circumstances. We also have plenty of evidence of composition, since we have “seen” many particles in accelerators over the proton mass. These particles must be composed of smaller, more elementary particles, and if smaller particles can form particles over the proton mass, why should electrons not be composed by photons? According to my theory, *all* particles are spin multiples of the photon, and no one has yet shown any reason that cannot be so. The only argument against me is that massed particles cannot be composed of massless particles, but it has not been shown that photons are indeed massless. That is a hypothesis much balder than any hypothesis of mine, and it has not been given one meaningful hair in all the decades it has persisted.

It is probable that we don't need a density that high to explain the black object. We can therefore shrink both the radius and the density, to fit other requirements. The math was preformed to show clearly that great density won't necessarily push the charge repulsion beyond the gravitational attraction, creating a super-white object. Depending on the radius, a great density can either cause blackness or super-whiteness.

*The new theory of the gravastar also does not correct any of these errors, so it may be considered useless.

**Led by John Wheeler in 1969.

***Some physicists like Feynman have understood this (at times).