Social Icons

10 Agustus 2015


The defining characteristic of a black hole may have to give, if the two pillars of modern physics — general relativity and quantum theory — are both correct.

Einstein ignored light refraction: astronomical refraction and terrestrial refraction, when he proposed the proving method for general relativity.Click to read more Kindle Edition

Di dalam buku ' A Brief history of time.pdf ' Stephen Hawking menulis yang intinya menyatakan bahwa teori Black Holes yang dicetuskannya keliru jika nantinya terbukti teori relativitas umum (general relativity) itu salah. Teori relativitas umum yang bertahan selama hampir satu abad sejak dicetuskan oleh Einstein pada tahun 1916, dan selalu menimbulkan kontroversi, sekarang semakin jelas kelirunya.

Einstein mengabaikan adanya refraksi cahaya ( light refraction ). Pembelokan cahaya bintang yang melewati medan gravitasi matahari bukan disebabkan karena pengaruh medan gravitasi matahari sesuai hipothesisnya dalam teori relativitas umum, melainkan disebabkan karena refraksi cahaya.  Jika cahaya tidak dipengaruhi oleh gravitasi, maka black hole adalah sesuatu yang tidak mungkin terjadi. Dengan kata lain, singularitas yang diprediksi oleh Einstein tidak akan pernah terjadi ...................

Light deflection is not caused by gravity, but by refraction.

In astronomy, the deflection of light is something very common, and not caused by gravity field of a massive object, but it occurs due to  the light refraction: astronomical refraction and terrestrial refraction . astrobasik )

Notion of an 'event horizon', from which nothing can escape, is incompatible with quantum theory, physicist claims.

Zeeya Merali
24 January 2014

Most physicists foolhardy enough to write a paper claiming that “there are no black holes” — at least not in the sense we usually imagine — would probably be dismissed as cranks. But when the call to redefine these cosmic crunchers comes from Stephen Hawking, it’s worth taking notice. In a paper posted online, the physicist, based at the University of Cambridge, UK, and one of the creators of modern black-hole theory, does away with the notion of an event horizon, the invisible boundary thought to shroud every black hole, beyond which nothing, not even light, can escape.
In its stead, Hawking’s radical proposal is a much more benign “apparent horizon”, which only temporarily holds matter and energy prisoner before eventually releasing them, albeit in a more garbled form.
“There is no escape from a black hole in classical theory,” Hawking told Nature. Quantum theory, however, “enables energy and information to escape from a black hole”. A full explanation of the process, the physicist admits, would require a theory that successfully merges gravity with the other fundamental forces of nature. But that is a goal that has eluded physicists for nearly a century. “The correct treatment,” Hawking says, “remains a mystery.”
Hawking posted his paper on the arXiv preprint server on 22 January1. He titled it, whimsically, 'Information preservation and weather forecasting for black holes', and it has yet to pass peer review. The paper was based on a talk he gave via Skype at a meeting at the Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics in Santa Barbara, California, in August 2013 (watch video of the talk).

Fire fighting

Hawking's new work is an attempt to solve what is known as the black-hole firewall paradox, which has been vexing physicists for almost two years, after it was discovered by theoretical physicist Joseph Polchinski of the Kavli Institute and his colleagues (see 'Astrophysics: Fire in the hole!').
In a thought experiment, the researchers asked what would happen to an astronaut unlucky enough to fall into a black hole. Event horizons are mathematically simple consequences of Einstein's general theory of relativity that were first pointed out by the German astronomer Karl Schwarzschild in a letter he wrote to Einstein in late 1915, less than a month after the publication of the theory. In that picture, physicists had long assumed, the astronaut would happily pass through the event horizon, unaware of his or her impending doom, before gradually being pulled inwards — stretched out along the way, like spaghetti — and eventually crushed at the 'singularity', the black hole’s hypothetical infinitely dense core.
But on analysing the situation in detail, Polchinski’s team came to the startling realization that the laws of quantum mechanics, which govern particles on small scales, change the situation completely. Quantum theory, they said, dictates that the event horizon must actually be transformed into a highly energetic region, or 'firewall', that would burn the astronaut to a crisp.
This was alarming because, although the firewall obeyed quantum rules, it flouted Einstein’s general theory of relativity. According to that theory, someone in free fall should perceive the laws of physics as being identical everywhere in the Universe — whether they are falling into a black hole or floating in empty intergalactic space. As far as Einstein is concerned, the event horizon should be an unremarkable place.

Beyond the horizon

Now Hawking proposes a third, tantalizingly simple, option. Quantum mechanics and general relativity remain intact, but black holes simply do not have an event horizon to catch fire. The key to his claim is that quantum effects around the black hole cause space-time to fluctuate too wildly for a sharp boundary surface to exist.
In place of the event horizon, Hawking invokes an “apparent horizon”, a surface along which light rays attempting to rush away from the black hole’s core will be suspended. In general relativity, for an unchanging black hole, these two horizons are identical, because light trying to escape from inside a black hole can reach only as far as the event horizon and will be held there, as though stuck on a treadmill. However, the two horizons can, in principle, be distinguished. If more matter gets swallowed by the black hole, its event horizon will swell and grow larger than the apparent horizon.
Conversely, in the 1970s, Hawking also showed that black holes can slowly shrink, spewing out 'Hawking radiation'. In that case, the event horizon would, in theory, become smaller than the apparent horizon. Hawking’s new suggestion is that the apparent horizon is the real boundary. “The absence of event horizons means that there are no black holes — in the sense of regimes from which light can't escape to infinity,” Hawking writes.
“The picture Hawking gives sounds reasonable,” says Don Page, a physicist and expert on black holes at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada, who collaborated with Hawking in the 1970s. “You could say that it is radical to propose there’s no event horizon. But these are highly quantum conditions, and there’s ambiguity about what space-time even is, let alone whether there is a definite region that can be marked as an event horizon.”
Although Page accepts Hawking’s proposal that a black hole could exist without an event horizon, he questions whether that alone is enough to get past the firewall paradox. The presence of even an ephemeral apparent horizon, he cautions, could well cause the same problems as does an event horizon.
Unlike the event horizon, the apparent horizon can eventually dissolve. Page notes that Hawking is opening the door to a scenario so extreme “that anything in principle can get out of a black hole”. Although Hawking does not specify in his paper exactly how an apparent horizon would disappear, Page speculates that when it has shrunk to a certain size, at which the effects of both quantum mechanics and gravity combine, it is plausible that it could vanish. At that point, whatever was once trapped within the black hole would be released (although not in good shape).
If Hawking is correct, there could even be no singularity at the core of the black hole. Instead, matter would be only temporarily held behind the apparent horizon, which would gradually move inward owing to the pull of the black hole, but would never quite crunch down to the centre. Information about this matter would not destroyed, but would be highly scrambled so that, as it is released through Hawking radiation, it would be in a vastly different form, making it almost impossible to work out what the swallowed objects once were.
“It would be worse than trying to reconstruct a book that you burned from its ashes,” says Page. In his paper, Hawking compares it to trying to forecast the weather ahead of time: in theory it is possible, but in practice it is too difficult to do with much accuracy.
Polchinski, however, is sceptical that black holes without an event horizon could exist in nature. The kind of violent fluctuations needed to erase it are too rare in the Universe, he says. “In Einstein’s gravity, the black-hole horizon is not so different from any other part of space,” says Polchinski. “We never see space-time fluctuate in our own neighbourhood: it is just too rare on large scales.”
Raphael Bousso, a theoretical physicist at the University of California, Berkeley, and a former student of Hawking's, says that this latest contribution highlights how “abhorrent” physicists find the potential existence of firewalls. However, he is also cautious about Hawking’s solution. “The idea that there are no points from which you cannot escape a black hole is in some ways an even more radical and problematic suggestion than the existence of firewalls,” he says. "But the fact that we’re still discussing such questions 40 years after Hawking’s first papers on black holes and information is testament to their enormous significance."

Black holes don't exist

Black Holes Do Not Exist and Big Bang Theory Wrong

Roger Penrose and I showed that Einstein’s general theory of relativity implied that the universe must have a beginning and, possibly, an end. ( Stephen Hawking )

Roger Penrose says physics is wrong

When a genius such as Einstein makes a mistake, it tends to be a “good mistake.”
Einstein with Edwin Hubble, in 1931, at the Mount Wilson Observatory in California, looking through the lens of the 100-inch telescope through which Hubble discovered the expansion of the universe in 1929. Courtesy of the Archives, Calif Inst of Technology.

“From these purely theoretical considerations Einstein concluded that light, like 
any material object, travels in a curve when passing through the gravitational field 
of a massive body. He suggested that his theory could be put to test by observing 
the path of starlight in the ravitational field of the sun. Since the stars are invisible 
by day, there is only one occasion when sun and stars can be seen together in the 
sky, and that is during an eclipse. Einstein proposed, therefore, that photographs 
be taken of the stars immediately bordering the darkened face of the sun during an 
eclipse and compared with photographs of those same stars made at another 
time.*) According to his theory, the light from the stars surrounding the sun should 
be bent inward, toward the sun, in traversing the sun's gravitational field; hence the 
images of those stars should appear to observers on earth to be shifted outward 
from their usual positions in the sky. Einstein calculated the degree of deflection 
that should be observed and predicted that for the stars closest to the 
sun the deviation would be about 1 -75 seconds of an arc. “ 

*) at another time .......
Usulan yang disarankan oleh Einstein sama sekali tidak ilmiah, alasannya dijelaskan dengan dua gambar berikut ini.
Gambar 1
 Gambar 2

Gambar 1 adalah potret dua bintang yang diambil oleh seorang pengamat dari kota A pada suatu saat, dan Gambar 2 adalah potret dua bintang yang sama, yang diambil oleh pengamat yang sama dari kota B pada saat yang lain misalnya dua bulan kemudian.  Kota A terletak di kawasan benua Eropa sedangkan kota B terletak di kawasan benua Afrika, ke dua kota itu berbeda jauh Lintang dan Bujurnya. Penampakan ke dua bintang yang sama itu akan selalu berbeda karena masing-masing tempat - kota A dan kota B - memiliki Bulatan Angkasa sendiri, oleh sebab itu ke dua potret itu tidak bisa dibandingkan. Dan lagi dua potret itu adalah penampakan Posisi Semu ( Apparent Position ) dari ke dua bintang, bukan Posisi Sejati ( True Position ).  Oleh karenanya dari ke dua potret itu tidak bisa - dan tidak mungkin bisa - menghitung perbedaan sudut antara Posisi Sejati dengan Posisi Semu bintang yang menjadi obyek pengamatan.

Pembuktian teori relativitas umum sesuai yang diminta oleh Einstein dan dilaksanakan oleh Arthur Eddington dan timnya pada tahun 1919 : memotret bintang Hyade dari kota Oxford, Inggris, ketika bintang tersebut tampak pada malam hari. Memotret dilakukan pada malam hari karena cahaya bintang tidak melewati medan gravitasi matahari - misalnya hasil pemotretan kita sebut Potret 1.

Sekitar dua bulan kemudian Eddington dan timnya memotret bintang yang sama, Hyade, dari pulau Principe yang terletak di sebelah Barat Afrika. Pemotretan dilakukan bertepatan dengan saat Gerhana Matahari total, sesuai dengan hipotesis Einstein cahaya bintang yang melewati medan gravitasi akan disimpangkan mendekati matahari - misalnya hasil pemotretan kita sebut Potret 2.

Kemudian Potret 1 dibandingkan dengan Potret 2,  potret 1 'dianggap' sebagai potret bintang pada Posisi Sejati, sedangkan Potret 2 'dianggap' sebagai potret bintang pada Posisi Semu ketika cahayanya telah disimpangkan, dan mereka mendapatkan hasil perhitungan sudut penyimpangan mendekati hasil yang diprediksi Einstein.  Tentu saja cara pembuktian itu tidak ilmiah dan tidak bisa dibenarkan, karena baik Potret 1 maupun Potret 2 memberikan gambaran Posisi Semu bintang. 

Dengan ke dua potret itu, tidak mungkin bisa mengetahui Posisi Sejati bintang. Posisi Sejati suatu benda anggkasa hanya bisa didapatkan dengan mengukur ketinggian bintang menggunakan Sextan ............dan banyak argumen-argumen koreksi yang harus diperhitungkan dengan hasil pengukuran menggunakan Sextan tersebut.

Kesimpulan : 

Cara pembuktian teori yang diminta oleh pencetus teorinya, dalam hal ini Einstein, sama sekali tidak ilmiah.

1.How Can Black Holes Exist and Big Bang Theory Correct IF General Relativity Theory was Wrong ?

2.How Can The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) and Higgs Boson Exist IF Big Bang Theory was Wrong?

The LHC isn't going to produce anything period.

The LHC is the Bernie Madoff of scientific looting schemes.

It was constructed to waste money. It was constructed to bloat the paychecks of the scientific elite. It was constructed to bloat the bottom lines of government contract workers. It is a sham. It is a rip off. It is a joke.

The particle physics model the LHC research is based on is a joke. The scientists participating in it know full well its a joke. Its a billion dollar boondoggle that will continue to "break down" and have catastrophic errors throughout its lifetime. This is mainly because the scientists know that if it were to work correctly for any long period of time, they would eventually have to acknowledge that it has discovered nothing new and was a huge waste of scientific resources and tax payer dollars.

You don't have to worry about black holes or anti-matter blowing up the Earth because of the LHC. Black holes and anti-matter aren't real. Their are no such things. Observations of space show that explanations of black holes do not provide an adequate explanation for the effects of the M87 galactic jet. If gravity is causing the jet, it must be accelerating matter beyond the speed of light to account for observations. This is not possible even by the standard theory. Only the electric force can account for the observations, not gravity.

Cosmology is a joke. The same scientific suppression we saw in the Climategate scandal is alive and well in the field of theoretical physics. The physicists are milking us like cattle for our tax dollars. Scientists can replicate the formation of galaxies and stars using standard Newtonian physics by simply adding the electric force into the models.

Space does not expand, bend, warp, twist, or in anyway do anything other than exist as a place that matter occupies. Matter itself does not bend space, warp space, or cause holes in space. Matter is stable and obeys coherent laws of provable physics that range from the level of the electron all the way up to the level of galaxies. There are no multiple dimensions, multiple realities, or time traveling particles.

Gravity is an electromagnetic function of matter. It arises from matter. It varies and is not constant. When scientists try to measure it they find gravity changes and varies from place to place. There are no consistent measurements of gravity. All methods of measuring gravity produce the same inconsistent results.

The Earth was not formed out of dust circling the Sun. The provable physics of dust in space absolutely prevent dust from forming into planets. This is most obvious in the rings of Saturn. Planets don't form from dust circling bodies. Even the standard theory’s own models fail to show how this is possible. Also, all other planets discovered to-date around other stars have turned out to be closely orbiting gas giants. This is impossible to explain if gravity formed the planets around the stars.

Space is not expanding, there was no big bang. The red shift of light coming from distant sources arrives in discrete steps meaning the Earth must be the center of the universe if the big bang theory is true, thus its not. We see high and low red shifted objects interacting with each other in space, impossible if red shift is a function of velocity. We have laboratory proven effects of light acting in a vacuum that can account for all observations in space without the need for a big bang or expanding space.


Einstein ignored light refraction through the Earth's atmosphere when he desires used a method for validating his General Theory of Relativity in 1919.

Kelly Clarkson 

New Release
Menyongsong Hari Kemerdekaan RI ke-70 tanggal 17 Agustus 2015 

Buku Berbahasa Indonesia - Amazon


Blogger Templates