On Black Holes
Sven Gelbhaar
10/16/2018
Black holes have been a thorn in humanity’s understanding of the cosmos since
their inception. They follow as a result of General Relativity which purports
that gravity bends time and space, and therefore light, as it travels close by a
massive object. When this bending reaches maximum (infinity in the case of
General Relativity) then light cannot escape and is therefore pulled into
it for all of eternity. Naturally infinities are not easily conjectured to
exist within our finite senses and reasoning (sans Einstein, et al), so when
black holes were discovered to exist in nature, naturally everyone was at a
loss. Surely there must be a way to liberate the mass from an infinitely heavy
object, so that the whole of existence can’t (hypothetically) be gobbled up from
these predators of science: black holes.
This led physicist to postulate that there is a fundamental force or mechanism
at work that obliterates black holes, called Hawking Radiation, named after the
physicist to come up with this idea. It was thought in otherwise empty space
that little particles of matter and anti-matter spring into existence in pairs.
One proton and one anti-proton (to make the math work). The two were then said
to attract one another and explode, leaving behind only gamma radiation.
Stephen Hawking then speculated that, at the event-horizon of a black hole, that
anti-matter would be sucked in (to use the colloquial) to the black hole and
then annihilate the same. As we’ve already covered, probability theory mandates
that an equal measure of matter and anti-matter would fall victim to this force,
and that thereby black holes are conserved under General Relativity.
This is a problem for me, as I postulate that matter — and its sister
anti-matter — has/have always existed, and that they shall continue to
forevermore. Obviously the current conception of Hawking Radiation and General
Relativity would have black holes dominating all of existence within a rather
long, but inevitable, period of time.
Now to the solution. Let’s assume that we are correct about fission and fusion
occuring in stars, and that photons and electrons are one and the same as
suggested by Faraday Rotation, and that therefore the scene is set for our
Revised Theory of Relativity and Revised Steady State Theory. Infinite gravity
is nonsense, as it’s quantized along with mass, and you can’t have infinite
gravity without infinite mass under this paradigm. Yet we have observed these
ominous bodies of mass which suck in pretty much anything else if it’s close
enough. We’re going to have to revisualize what black holes are.
Stars release more than just charged photons. They also eject protons and beta
particles which are for all intents and purposes helium atoms. Great. So
that’s how planets form. When matter, comprised of star’s exhaust, comes into
close vicinity with the requisite agreement on vectors, a planet is formed.
Slowly but surely these bodies of mass would form around stars, and even in the
dead of space where the exhaust from numerous stars collide planets could form.
Thereby matter is conserved, and we haven’t invoked a singularity yet;
everything functions as advertised and within human comprehension.
Now let us suppose that a set of matter comes together with a minimum of
connecting electrons/photons. This object would naturally be positively
ionized, so that when light (/electrons) are shot into a converging path with
them, the light would not bounce off but rather merge with the object instead.
This object would appear dark until eventually it forms a mundane planet and
then star. Everything is conserved, and black holes are accounted for.