Critical Thought on the Black Hole Image

A video of this entire article on my YouTube channel Dissident Science.

The hype for the latest “great scientific achievement” follows other recent “great scientific achievements” such as the detection of “gravity waves” and the confirmation of the Higgs Boson known as the “god particle”. These announcements are usually publicized weeks in advance in order to create maximum hype and peek interest in what quickly becomes irrelevant to society as a whole.

Big Science is constantly trying to stay relevant in today’s world of instant entertainment and human intrigue. In the last few years, the human population has become “woke” and the idea of these millions of woke humans across the planet becoming science woke is ripe.

The problem is that Big Science and especially Big Physics and Cosmology have become irrelevant to the average person. Nothing practical comes out of these recent “great scientific achievements” and those who look deeper into the details, find deep-rooted problems in theory and models that today have become nothing more than Harry Potter worlds where critical thinkers say “wake me up when you find something real.”

The doughnut shaped shadow revealed in April 2019 might as well have been real hole in a real doughnut when it comes to the public and critical thinkers alike. With the same magical and vacuous vocabulary of space-time, singularities, and event horizons, the public has become numb to meaningless words and concepts that have no basis in the physical world.

Suspect Methodologies

If you think Big Science and the millions of dollars spent each year on experimental research is in good hands, think again. In the book “The Higgs Fake“, German physicist and author Dr. Alexander Unzicker outlines the suspect procedures and methodologies that particle physicists use to find ghostly “signals” in order to find the next irrelevant particle in physics. The procedures they use would make any engineer cringe and would get most scientists fired for creating such “biased” and often non-nonsensical methods in order to prove what they set out to find.

The truth be told, there is never any intention by these physicists to allow for complete failure or for letting the data and universe dictate their conclusions. Conclusions are predetermined and the methodology is simply tailored to the desired outcome: total success.

This phenomena is known in psychology as “confirmation bias” which is defined as

the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one’s preexisting beliefs or hypotheses


Scientists who were part of the first ever image of a black hole publish their technical paper for all to see and impart to science journalists and evangelists easy sound bytes and clever analogies that seem to piece together a compelling story that at first glance seems to make sense.

But take a look under the hood, one quickly finds problems and mathematical complexities not in the details, but in the broader conclusions and assumptions. And in the case of the black hole image, the entirety of the concept of the black hole as described by the sacred Einstein is in fact, sitting on quicksand with only an impression left on the surface where it sank years ago.

From Complicated Scientific Paper to the Magic of Genius

I have looked through the entirety of the technical paper, read articles of physicists explaining the black hole image to layman, and have watched the announcement of this “great scientific achievement”. What I found was the same pattern all we dissidents see when such great achievements are launched into the world: a progression from a theory rooted in quicksand, and sold to the public with fanciful words and analogies that make among other things, the public very aware of the self importance these scientists place upon themselves and their supposed findings

The Original Paper

When first reading the technical paper, you are struck by the importance scientists place on the work by the number of authors. In the case of the first image of a black hole, there are 200 authors. This is nothing new. Back in 1995 when the top-quark was supposedly verified by particle physicists, the number of authors took up the first 4 pages of the article.

Why so many authors? One word: fame. Each person listed on the paper want to be part of scientific history and reap the rewards in their local scientific communities whether it be in a laboratory, classroom, or university. To those who are close to the author, the title and prestige is what is important along with raises in salaries, the bestowing of important titles, and the recognition dinners and plaques that will come – all overshadowing the fact that almost no one back home will understand or even care about the scientific discovery itself.

For those who actually read the original scientific paper, things pop out of the page that never get mentioned or discussed in the popular press. One small example of this from the technical paper which is entitled “First M87 Event Horizon Telescope Results. IV. Imaging the Central Supermassive Black Hole“, the word “relativistic” appears three times. Yet, you find in the introduction, a seemingly innocent sentence:

Material moves down the approaching jet with a maximum apparent speed of ~6c

First M87 Event Horizon Telescope Results. IV. Imaging the Central Supermassive Black Hole

Relativity clearly states that nothing can go faster than the speed of light. The paper mentions “relativistic” phenomena three times. Yet, they talk about the jets that the supposed black hole ejects has the “apparent” speed of six times the speed of light. Something is not right and it is not a quibble about some detail.

Jets leaving the supposed black hole are traveling at an apparent speed that violates Einstein’s theory of relativity.

The actual calculations used in creating this image are explained in great detail in the paper and for someone who is not part of the project, the brain power to go through the math would require quite a bit of time. Even though it is still very early, some other scientists in the mainstream will go through the math and calculations and will certainly find problems.

During the last “great scientific achievement” of detecting gravity waves, two scientists from Denmark went through the scientific paper examining the math and methodologies and immediately disputed the “signals” claimed to be waves as simply noise. Instead of investigating the claims and trying to figure out if this was true, with Nobel Prize already in hand, the now “famous” scientists spent two years and numerous trips to explain their work to the critics, never ever thinking that they could be wrong.

Two scientists from Denmark dispute the gravity wave data.

That is the attitude of Big Science today: we are right and all critics simply do not understand the calculations and methods of the great discovery.

General Relativity Under Attack

The biggest problem we dissidents have with the concept of a black hole is general relativity. Space-time, infinite points with infinite mass, gravity bending light, all are suspect to most and completely wrong to many of we critical thinkers.

The idea of a “hole” in black holes comes from the infamous “singularity” where all physics is said to break down. I have news for all of you: physics doesn’t break down at the center of a supposed black hole, Einstein’s theory breaks down.

First, general relativity is completely mathematical in nature. There is no physicality ever given to space-time. Space-time is a fabric, a rubber sheet, a quantum foam – but in reality, Big Science has no idea what it is and they seem to not care about that fact. Yet space-time is not the only problem.

Einstein became the first scientific superstar in 1919 when an experiment supposedly showed that starlight was bent by the gravity around the sun. Fast forward to today, and you have scientists like Dr. Edward Dowdye who is retired from NASA saying that in fact, gravity does not bend light, the corona of the sun bends light and outside the corona, light does not bend even though Einstein says it should.

Retired NASA scientist Dr. Edward Dowdye discusses supporting evidence that light is not bent by gravity

Gravity and Light and Atomic Structure

Yet Einstein’s relativity is not the only problem. Critical thinkers who see the problem of space-time having no physicality also realize that Big Science has no physical model for light or gravity. If Einstein’s theory was correct and that gravity bent light, Big Science still has no physical model to explain why this happens. It just “is”.

Going even further, extremely dense objects like black holes are most likely composed of something. Simply saying it is space-time is no longer satisfactory. We must look to new models other than the failed standard model to have any chance of explaining these very dense objects.

Physical Models

In the end, we dissidents see this announcement and come back to where we dissidents currently spend most of our time: in creating better physical models for the universe. And most of these new models include physical mechanisms for gravity, light, magnetic fields, electricity and subatomic structure. We instinctively know that the last three “great scientific achievements” including the black hole image, gravity waves, and the Higgs Boson suffer from a standard model that is has no physicality.

As Dr. Sabine Hossenfelder, a particle physicist who recently left her job at the Large Hadron Collider confirms in her subsequent book, Big Physics is “Lost in Math” plainly demonstrating the need new models to replace the standard one.

The Real Name of the Object in the Image

Even if we assume that the image of the supposed black hole was correctly obtained and that the image is a true representation of something real, the name of the object is not a black hole. That is a name based on pure mathematics and has no basis in physical reality. After all, the hole is infinite in mass and has no dimensions. We know this is impossible. So the name Black Hole is out.

We do know from studying the center of our own galaxy that these objects are massive, dark and that we still have no idea what they are made of.

Therefore, the current name of these objects are “Dark Dense Objects”. Until we all agree on a better model and they become an “Aether Two”, or “G2”, or a “Plasmiod” “star” or “orb” or “sync” or “object” – the name of these things should be “Dark Dense Objects”, not black holes.

Until then, we must be content to know that the image of the hole we see is in fact, not a black hole, but a very dark and very dense object waiting for its proper name.

One hundred years from now, the history books will say that in April 2019, the first image of a Dark Dense Object was constructed from radio telescopes which we now call, in 2119, “X”. And that “X” will certainly not be called a “black hole”.

About the Author

David de Hilster
Social Media:
Mind Blown: Working on a 100% Newtonian model of the entire universe with his dad
Profession: Supercomputers & Human Language
Interest: Finish Universe Hack 3.0 book with father