Weak Black Holes

8 Dec 2017

It seems like black holes are not living up to the hype surrounding them as the magnetic field of one is much less powerful than envisioned in the various mainstream models of the phenomenon - see https://phys.org/print431844145.html ... we are told reality is catching up with black holes. In a paper in Science journal we learn they have significantly weaker magnetic fields than previously thought - code for, oh dear, measurement doesn't match theory. In fact the actual energy around a black hole is 400 times lower than entrenched in mainstream thinking. That is an enormous figure of difference. The piece goes on to say this new finding will form constraints on theoretical models as they were working on the assumption they had strong magnetic fields which orchestrated and directed the jets of particles seen to burst out of the black holes.

At https://phys.org/print431767328.html ... the ALMA array has found massive star filled galaxies in the early universe - on what are said to be the early universe arena, close to the Big Bang event. Whether or not the region is really early universe depends on how much faith you have in Big Bang I suppose but if cosmologists and astrophysicists are right this contradicts the mainstream theories once again as early galaxies should have similarities with dwarf galaxies - the building blocks of bigger galaxies. Seems like the models have got it wrong again - or they have yet to  get close to the singularity that kick started Big Bang. Giant galaxies do not fit the models - that much is obvious. ALMA also revealed they were nestled inside an even more massive cosmic star nursery, a halo of dark matter. Yes, you read that right. Dark matter. However, reading further, the dark matter is 'inferred' from observation but not actually seen by eyeball.

To top it all off at www.space.com/38982-no-big-bang-bouncing-cosmology-theory.html ... we are told a new paper, inspired by alternative explanations of the physics of black holes, explores the possibility Big Bang expands and contracts endlessly - for all of eternity (a sort of steady state expansion and contraction if you get the drift). The Creationist like view of the universe is that it emerged from a singularity - a point of infinite density and gravity. Before the singularity space and time did not exist. We are then told there is ample evidence to show the universe did undergo a period of rapid expansion - in a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second, God blinked his eye and hey presto, a universe was born. The evidence is said to consist of the cosmic microwave background = heat left over from Big Bang, and the fact the universe is still expanding (or appears to be expanding). In contrast, there is no evidence to date of an original singularity. However, collecting information from the first moments of expansion is impossible - in spite of Higgs Boson(and quantum excitation of the Higgs Field). Brazilian physicist Cear Silva Neves argues the singularity did not take place (because he can argue that as no evidence of its existence has come to light). Neves claims the singularity is only speculation. Isn't it all?